Joe Bastardi also predicted an over active season. And he bit the bullet and admitted he was wrong and how. It was an excellent read. I will try to find it for you.
Yes funny, but everyone deserves a break now and then, even the people in the US. There's nothing wrong with that.
This is also interesting, when I was looking about permafrost.
Of course it's alarmist, but the underlying study is interesting. It shows that the last time a certain stalactite grew, was 400K years ago during an era when the earth was 1,5 degrees celcius warmer on average. It tells about what we can expect for permafrost.
Of course permafrost won't thaw overnight, after all it's ground that's frozen solid up to a hundred meters depth. It will take a very long time to thaw all the way down. This scientist gets it right (I think):
Sometimes I think that alarmists also need to get a reality check...
I've also thought about temperature/CO2 correlation during ice ages.
Some people seem to think that if temperature rises, CO2 is released from the oceans, which leads to a self-sustaining rise in temperature and CO2. I do not think this is possible, because partial pressure in the atmosphere rises as well, which will mitigate the rise in CO2. I think (I'm not sure) that it is a process which, once initiated by a certain rise in temperature, will reach an equilibrium without a runaway feedback effect.
After all, we see in practice how very good oceans actually are at absorbing CO2. The oceans tend to mitigate rises in CO2 (and hence, temperature), this is not a system that seems unstable to me.
This is a serious research:
This is just more denialist crap:
which plots different curves on top of each other WITH DIFFERENT SCALES which can go both ways really.
It's really funny how serious science claims that carbon controls temperature (more or less) and how denialists claim how temperature control carbon... with the SAME data sets ??!!
The problem with the denialists is, that they exaggerate the carbon-release from the oceans, in order to fit their assumptions. And even though that's not wrong per-se, it is wrong if you don't have a solid theory or observations to support your point. Then it's not science anymore, it's just fantasy.
(And they cannot explain the continuous heating of the oceans, nor the cooling of the stratosphere... they're only concentrating on the short-term variations in temperature plots. When the short-term variations in temperature die away and the rise in temperature continous, then their stupid theories will be invalidated. But in the meantime, they'll have bought an extra 10 years for delaying measures to reduce carbon emission. For them, that'll be a major success. For the future generations, it leaves just more garbage to clean up.)
Actually in the article above, a key assumption is made that "The sea surface CO2 partial pressure is always very close to the CO2 partial pressure in the atmosphere above it." And then they ignore it completely. Naturally this is a completely wrong assumption to make when you're discussing a system that is NOT in equilibrium. If a temperature increase releases CO2 from oceanic waters, then the partial pressure pCO2 will increase. As a result a NEW equilibrium will occur that tries to balance increased pCO2 and reduced solubility of CO2 and a simple calculation based on CO2 solubility alone will not suffice. Actually partial pressure is very important, it's responsible for much of the CO2 that's disappearing into the oceans despite rising temperatures.
And also ... the boldness ... to write that oceans are releasing CO2 while in actual fact they're absorbing CO2 in enormous quantities resulting in a decrease in pH... I mean... it's just baffling what kind of ridiculous pseudo-science people sometimes write.