Another climate scare story about New York City; climate models say it will 'resemble Oklahoma City today'

Usually we are treated to scare stories about sea level rise inundating NYC, this one says its worse than that, by the 21st century, they’ll be like “Okies”. From the CARNEGIE INSTITUTION, and the department of modeled scare-de-jour, comes this claim:

End-of-century Manhattan climate index to resemble Oklahoma City today


Washington, DC– Climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions will alter the way that Americans heat and cool their homes. By the end of this century, the number of days each year that heating and air conditioning are used will decrease in the Northern states, as winters get warmer, and increase in Southern states, as summers get hotter, according to a new study from a high school student, Yana Petri, working with Carnegie’s Ken Caldeira. It is published by Scientific Reports.

“Changes in outdoor temperatures have a substantial impact on energy use inside,” Caldeira explained. “So as the climate changes due to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the amount of energy we use to keep our homes comfortable will also change.”

Using results from established climate models, Petri, under Caldeira’s supervision, calculated the changes in the number of days over the last 30 years when U.S. temperatures were low enough to require heating or high enough to require air conditioning in order to achieve a comfort level of 65 degrees Fahrenheit. She also calculated projections for future days when heating or air conditioning would be required to maintain the same comfort level if current trends in greenhouse gas emissions continue unchecked.

Looking forward toward the end of this century, her calculations found that Washington state will have the smallest increase in air conditioning-required days and southern Texas will have the largest increase. Likewise, upper North Dakota, Minnesota, and Maine would have the largest decrease in heating-required days and southern Florida would have the smallest decrease.

Petri then took this inquiry one step further and looked at a sum of heating-required days and cooling-required days in different regions both in the past and in future projection, to get a sense of changes in the overall thermal comfort of different areas.

“No previous study has looked at climate model projections and tried to develop an index of overall thermal comfort, which is quite an achievement,” Caldeira said.

Today, the city with the minimum combined number of heating- and cooling-required days, in other words the place with the most-optimal outdoor comfort level, is San Diego. But the model projected that in the same future time frame, 2080-2099, the climate would shift so that San Francisco would take its place as the city with the most-comfortable temperatures.

Other changes predicted by the model are that the amount of heating and cooling required in New York City in the future will be similar to that used in Oklahoma City today. By this same measure, Seattle is projected to resemble present day San Jose, and Denver to become more like Raleigh, NC, is today.


The authors used the Climate Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) simulations under the Representation Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5). For CMIP the US Department of Energy’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison provides coordinating support and led development of software infrastructure in partnership with the Global Organization for Earth System Science Portals.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 4, 2015 5:09 pm

“….achieve a comfort level of 65 degrees Fahrenheit…” Isn’t that a little cold? I thought 72 F – 22 C was the comfort level???

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
August 4, 2015 5:27 pm

Yeah, 65F is downright cold if you ask me. Under such conditions I wear a jacket.

Evan Jones
Reply to  Roy Denio
August 4, 2015 5:42 pm

That’s the idea. Our ex-president J set the example.

Reply to  Roy Denio
August 4, 2015 7:52 pm

So did Fred Rogers.

Reply to  Roy Denio
August 4, 2015 7:56 pm

I’m sure the numbers can be changed to whatever you want without changing the data…[Archie Bunker voice] You see meathead, da numbers are whats the scientists say – not what you see on the thermometer…

David Chappell
Reply to  Roy Denio
August 5, 2015 1:59 am

I’d be wearing thermal underwear. My comfort zone is 27C/81F.

Reply to  Roy Denio
August 5, 2015 9:49 am

Here in Florida you would have to be absolutely downright nuts to cool your house to 65 so that you can wear a jacket around the house.
This is about energy use in the imaginary future when it is much hotter. So I think 65 was chosen so they can say “see much more it is going to cost you in AC in the future.” Here I cool to 77 or so in the day and 74 at night in just my room.

Retired Engineer Jim
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
August 4, 2015 5:34 pm

Agreed. Typically, it is recommended that a home be heated to 65F, and cooled to 78F. Wonder if the press release is less than complete, or her work?
And RCP 8.5 – sheesh, we’re all gonna die before then.

Olaf Koenders
Reply to  Retired Engineer Jim
August 5, 2015 12:18 am

I doubt that study was worth the electrical and heat energy used by her supercomputer, which she should offset now by returning to a Neanderthal lifestyle – BEFORE they discovered fire.

Reply to  Retired Engineer Jim
August 5, 2015 5:02 am

And she should cease exhaling now.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Retired Engineer Jim
August 5, 2015 11:44 am

She seems to had some consultation from the Air Conditioning industry, so my guess is that it’s the press release’s omission of her top range. If not, she’s in high school, so I’ll give her a pass. It’s not a hard calculation. I could do it with some left over A/C calcs I have laying around the house. If they used a supercomputer for anything other than to find an offset to start off with, they are doing it wrong.
However, I welcome this because of it’s realisitic assumptions and results. In short, New York will look like OKC, San Fransisco will look like San Diego. Dallas will look like Houton, etc etc. It’s extremely anti-alarmist if you give it a moment’s thought. While some (lunatics) prefer NYC’s climate to OKC’s, we can all agree that both are easily livable even without A/C, much less with it.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
August 4, 2015 6:34 pm

The study was likely using heating and cooling degree days. If the average temperature for the day is over 65, some people will use some air conditioning, if the average is below 65°F some will use some heating. Note most places that is averaging 65°F the daily high is probably well over 75°F, so the interior of a house or office will be higher than 72°F, and the low below 55°F which might require some heating. Obviously some like it hotter or cooler and some will just open and close windows during the day and night.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
August 4, 2015 7:49 pm

Reply to J P. Petersen ==> Quite right — setting the interior temp desired to 65 F vastly inflates the number of degree cooling days.
The US Department of Energy recommends:

General Thermostat Operation
You can easily save energy in the winter by setting the thermostat to 68°F while you’re awake and setting it lower while you’re asleep or away from home. By turning your thermostat back 10° to 15° for 8 hours, you can save 5% to 15% a year on your heating bill — a savings of as much as 1% for each degree if the setback period is eight hours long. The percentage of savings from setback is greater for buildings in milder climates than for those in more severe climates.
In the summer, you can follow the same strategy with central air conditioning by keeping your house warmer than normal when you are away, and setting the thermostat to 78°F (26°C) only when you are at home and need cooling. Although thermostats can be adjusted manually, programmable thermostats will avoid any discomfort by returning temperatures to normal before you wake or return home.

[[ source: ]]
So the high school student based he whole study on a misunderstanding…setting the spring/summer/fall thermostat to 65 instead of the recommended 78., which is a whole 13 degrees higher!
I have judged many High School Science Fairs, and see this kind of mistake often….it is the adult adviser (in this case, Ken Caldeira) who is at fault for letting the student proceed with an error this large in the original study design. Its a shame that the student has worked so hard and produced a worthless result.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
August 4, 2015 8:31 pm

I am wondering who will be denounced as a problematic, mean-spirited meanyhead for pointing out this minor issue.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
August 5, 2015 7:09 am

Garbage in, garbage out!

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  Kip Hansen
August 5, 2015 2:59 pm

Based on governmental and industry standards, his analysis is spot on. 65F is the proper baseline. Understand, this is the EXTERIOR temperature, not the temperature INSIDE the house. If your HVAC doesn’t include an economizer, you may well find yourself turning on the AC when the exterior temperature is 66F due to heat gain from insolation and interior heat sources (people, electronic equipment, dishwasher, oven, etc).

Richard Petschauer
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
August 4, 2015 8:11 pm

Heating and cooling degree days are supposed to be based on the average daily temperature compared to 65 F. However my paper in Minneapolis that reports each day both the average temperature and cooling degrees seems to be using a base close to 75 F for cooling which makes more sense.
Incidentally, the EPA has reported in the last 100 years for the entire US that the heating degrees days have been dropping but the cooling degrees have not changed. Must be using real temperatures, not those “adjusted” ones.

DD More
Reply to  Richard Petschauer
August 5, 2015 7:16 am

It was NOAA and not EPA that were adjusting.
Bombshell: Comprehensive Analysis Reveals NOAA Wrongfully Applying “Master Algorithm” To Whitewash Temperature History – See more at:
On May 6, 2015, NOAA confirmed in writing that the 151°F of Fudging—the Massive Rewrite of Maine Climate History, [3 ] reported in Black Swan Climate Theory [4] (BSCT) study was no accident. NOAA states the changes were intentional and were justified! NOAA’s written statement included these words [5]: …improvements in the dataset, and brings our value much more in line with what was observed at the time. The new method used stations in neighboring Canada to inform estimates for data-sparse areas within Maine (a great improvement).”

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
August 4, 2015 9:48 pm

New York City – – – someday a real rain will come and wash all the scum off the street…

chris moffatt
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
August 5, 2015 5:19 am

here in rural eastern Virginia in these recent 90-odd degree days we’ve been cooling to 78F. It’s quite comfortable; it isn’t the temperature it’s the humidity that makes one uncomfortable – as any fule kno who’s been to Arizona in summer. Good grief if we cooled to 65F I’d have to crank up the furnace to keep my angina in check.

August 4, 2015 5:14 pm

Using RCP8.5, the Armageddon scenario.

Reply to  TonyL
August 5, 2015 1:44 am

It’s funny how “studies” always seem use the most extreme, and therefore the least likely scenario.

Reply to  TonyL
August 5, 2015 11:54 am

Armageddon scenario? That Northern California will have the climate of Southern California and New York will be like OKC? While it would be horrid if we actually had to move to NYC (I’m with Hank Williams on my opinions about the city), I would hardly call that Armageddon.
If anything, this shows how little the effect even of the worst case scenario is! Even in this absurd overestimation, multiple times what any rational analysis of the data predicts, we still have all of America very much in habitable conditions. Even if Houston feels more like Monterrey, the Mexicans have been living like that for long before there even was a Mexico, so I can too, especially with the benefits of air conditioning.

Greg Woods
August 4, 2015 5:15 pm

‘Using results from established climate models…’ – And just which ones would those be?

Frank Lee MeiDere
Reply to  Greg Woods
August 4, 2015 5:22 pm

Yeah. I was just about to post something similar. It was the first thing to catch my eye.

Reply to  Greg Woods
August 4, 2015 6:01 pm

‘Established’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘accurate’ or ‘proven’, I guess. So much confidence, so many papers and headlines and stories and articles, so much FUD based on failed computer models. It’s truly astonishing and very worrisome.

Reply to  PiperPaul
August 4, 2015 7:59 pm

Apparently the models don’t have to be accurate to have ‘established’ authority. Sagan just somersaulted in his grave…

Reply to  PiperPaul
August 5, 2015 7:10 am

Aw, c’mon now–we’re in the 21st century, where “truth” is whatever anyone says it is!
Didn’t you get the memo? 😉

Reply to  PiperPaul
August 5, 2015 4:10 pm

Dawtgtomis, given the many problems Sagan had with accuracy, why would this upset him?

Reply to  Greg Woods
August 4, 2015 8:25 pm

Exactly my thoughts…they are still doing studies and issuing reports based on something that is not even happening. And, at this point, there has been a longer period of time with no warming than the warming period after that last cooling period.
And at same time CO2 is increasing faster than ever. No. Warming. Is. Happening.
And the cooling period was said to be heralding disaster, which is far more plausible that warming causing disaster. All of my plants grow just fine in hot weather. Except peas. And they die in cold weather, or stop growing. Except peas.
I hate peas!

Reply to  Greg Woods
August 5, 2015 12:45 am

All models. There is also a “no model left behind” policy.

Reply to  Greg Woods
August 5, 2015 4:09 pm

All of them. They were written years ago, therefore they are established. What they aren’t is properly calibrated or verified.

Greg Woods
August 4, 2015 5:18 pm

And not to be terribly cynical about their ‘analysis’, but what happened to sea level rises? Wouldn’t New York more resemble Venice than OK City?

Reply to  Greg Woods
August 4, 2015 8:03 pm

Ooh, good catch, you snagged a big one! Cabbies will have to retrain to be gondoleros!

Joe haberman
Reply to  Greg Woods
August 4, 2015 9:34 pm

Yes, that what I thought. Much of New York will be under water in the next few years. Just ask our favorite NASA scientist James Hanson.

August 4, 2015 5:19 pm

these are the same models that said NYC was supposed to be under water by now

michael hart
August 4, 2015 5:27 pm

So do they tell Okies that global warming will make them end up like New York?
Weirdsville, AZ.

Reply to  michael hart
August 4, 2015 8:30 pm

Oklahoma will be like Seattle.
During a drought.
And Chicago will be like Seattle too.
During normal weather.
Fort Myers will be like…Fort Myers.
And Oklahoma City is right in Tornado Alley.
Does this mean to imply that NYC will need to install tornado sirens and everyone will need an underground root cellar?

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Menicholas
August 5, 2015 8:23 am

It may not be generally known that downtown Seattle is now 12 to 20 feet higher above sea level than it was 120 years ago. It has nothing to do with rising land, it has to do with filling and covering. Seattle used to be about 4 feet above high tide. When the tide came in the sewers ran backwards!
Large parts of NYC were at sea level 200 years ago. There is simply nothing to be alarmed about.

Reply to  michael hart
August 5, 2015 1:26 pm

“So do they tell Okies that global warming will make them end up like New York?”
I live in Oklahoma and saw a map in National Geographic magazine one time that displayed the Earth as it was back during the last era of the dinosaurs, when the Earth’s sea levels were at their highest, and the oceans reached right up through the center of the United States to the Canadian border, and I noted with pleasure that if all the Earth’s ice were to melt today, it looks like the part of Oklahoma I live in would be right near the shore of the new ocean (the dry side). I’m in the Eastern part of the state where the elevation is high enough that I ought to stay high and dry even if the icecaps do melt. I’ll have some new beachfront property.
BTW, you really don’t want to live in Oklahoma without airconditioning. I have actually done that when I was a young child, and it was not too bad most of the time, but some summers were really bad, even for a healthy kid. I can imagine what it was like for older people. We did have a water cooler sometimes, but that’s not much good once it gets over 100 degrees F.

August 4, 2015 5:52 pm

Is this from the JV team?

Reply to  Catcracking
August 4, 2015 8:12 pm

I’m afraid when this kid has a kid in high school, he’ll be helping the kid research the increase in heating degree days at lower latitudes since the solar grand minimum began it’s influence. That model will show New York becoming like Reykjavik…

Reply to  Catcracking
August 4, 2015 8:31 pm

“Is this from the JV team?”
Oh, it is ON now!
Heads are gonna roll!

Evan Jones
August 4, 2015 5:54 pm

This is indulgence. But it is a good example of a student using common sense (unfortunately, in this case, supported by a terrible model) to do a basic statistical study, and would come to reasonable conclusions were the “model-set” reasonable. If one did it using, say, the Lewis/Curry15 model, the results no doubt would be reasonable.
My drift is, really, that science isn’t anything a scientist does. It’s science that anyone does. You can be in high school. You can be a major in a (largely) unrelated field. But if science is what you are doing, then you are doing science. And if your work is published in a peer-review journal (i.e., reviewed by the official ‘skins), you are a part of that community.
Anyone can play. And it’s even a better game than politics. Like the Mosh says: “The data is out there. Go get it.”

Reply to  Evan Jones
August 4, 2015 6:21 pm

Do I understand this correct? Since when is wild computer projections considered data.
I apologize if I miss-interpret your post. I also as an engineer, find it difficult to praise an effort that starts off with the wrong technical assumption/basis.

Reply to  Evan Jones
August 5, 2015 7:13 am

Last I looked, “science” entailed observation, experiment, reproduction of results. Not just grinding assumptions through a machine and excreting “statistics.” Nothing this kid did qualifies as “science.” Neither does anything the IPCC churns out these days, when it completely ignores the mountains of evidence that “greenhouse effect” is a failed hypothesis.

Reply to  Evan Jones
August 5, 2015 12:02 pm

Well, taking a prediction, assuming it’s right, and calculating the effects of the prediction has some value, and is well within the perview and the abilities of a high schooler. Evaluating global circulation models is not.
Given that this is a worst case scenario, it gives us a hard upper limit of what to expect, which is: not much.
Seriously, did y’all read this? This study is a great BOON to our cause. It shows how small and ineffective these changes are. San Fransisco will feel like San Diego! The HORROR! Seriously. Given the “we are all going to die” predictions, this is a breath of fresh air. The same plants and animals live in both cities and both climates. The same people live in both climates. This shows how LITTLE will happen.
We have been saying for YEARS how these temperature changes are so small as to be unimportant, using how they are dwarfed by diurnal and annual swings. This paper, thrown in our lap with full pedigree from the alarmists, shows that even these vast overstimations will merit interesting but clearly non-dangerous changes in temperature.
This can be extensively, if sarcastically, referenced for ages. Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater, y’all.

Mark from the Midwest
August 4, 2015 6:07 pm

I think I’ll go find a high school student, do an analysis, get it published. This is really too far out there to even try and come up with a witty comment…

Evan Jones
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
August 4, 2015 6:32 pm

I have no degree in science. Yet that is what I do. I do it on a peer-review level. It would not matter if I had no degree at all. It is the work that counts. Even if the results and/or the methods are wrong, they can often be improved (or definitely discarded) through independent review and further study.
I think I’ll go find a high school student, do an analysis, get it published. This is really too far out there to even try and come up with a witty comment…
For that matter, Anthony went directly into a 25-year gig as a meteorologist without finishing school. He discovered the microsite problem and we will publish (again). Him and us boys pushing and pulling. So there’s your example.
One of the advantages for me and mine in climatology is that it is such a vast field and so much ground is left (willfully) untouched. In our case, it was microsite. So there is room for a high-schooler with a Good Idea. Or even a moldy history major, and we do love doing statistical studies using past data.
And the “comfort index” idea is not a bad one, after all. Plug it the right model and your results would likely be good.

Reply to  Evan Jones
August 4, 2015 6:51 pm

Plug it in the wrong model and you get garbage. that is what they did and it scores as an F.
The important job is to get the science right in the first place, the math is just routine unless you are working with a taxpayer grant, then any garbage gets published and accepted by believers.

Reply to  Evan Jones
August 4, 2015 8:33 pm

So much left untouched? What, of the grant money gravy train?

Dale R. McIntyre
August 4, 2015 6:08 pm

Funny, I grew up in a little town just a few miles from Oklahoma City. And I’ve been to New York City many times.
If these modelers are correct, which is very much in doubt, New Yorkers will find that their climate is much improved as it approaches that of Oklahoma City as it is today. Winters will be much, much milder while summers won’t be that much worse.

Paul Zrimsek
Reply to  Dale R. McIntyre
August 4, 2015 6:36 pm

The article was a bit cagey on that score: according to their respective NWS sites, NYC (Central Park) averages 4750 heating and 1105 cooling degree days per year, versus 3365 HDD and 2099 CDD for OKC (Will Rogers Airport). It’s even more of an improvement when you take into account that cooling is somewhat cheaper than heating on a degree-day for degree-day basis.

Pat Frank
August 4, 2015 6:10 pm

Scientific Reports is one of the Nature group of journals. The journal scope says it publishes, “original research in all areas of the natural and clinical sciences. We believe that if your research is scientifically valid and technically sound then it deserves to be published and made accessible to the research community.
The IPCC says that climate models are predictively precise only at continental scales and above (pdf download), (a claim disproved by Anagnostopoulos, et al., 2010).
For example from the 2013 IPCC AR5 Chapter 9, “On regional scales (sub-continental and smaller), the confidence in model capability to simulate surface temperature is less than for the larger scales; however, regional biases are near zero on average, with intermodel spread of roughly ±3°C.” Chapter 9 goes on to say that, “biases in cloud simulation lead to regional errors on cloud radiative effect of several tens of watts per square meter.”
Caldeira and Petri used the pessimistic RCP8.5 scenario for their evaluation of future badness, and state that it predicts, “global mean surface temperature is expected to rise by 2.6–4.8 °C by year 2100…” So, on first pass, the projected regional temperature change qualified by its IPCC-canonical uncertainty is (2.4±1.1 C)±3 C. Not different from zero at ±1σ.
Let’s now put this in larger perspective. The RCP8.5 change in forcing, 1750-2100, is 8.5 Watts per square meter. Regional errors due “biases in cloud simulation” amount to “several tens of Watts per square meter.
Assessments of regional temperature changes are impossible when the assessed perturbation is much smaller than the model error. A regional air temperature projection is physically meaningless. So says the IPCC.
Surely the expert reviewers and editors at Scientific Reports understand that a bit of research is “scientifically valid and technically sound” only when it is properly qualified by its limits of error. The Caldeira and Petri study falls well outside the bounds of even the specious science purported by the IPCC (which the Nature group journals invariably support).
So, it appears, with “high confidence” (an IPCC favorite), that the editors of Scientific Reports violated their own professional ethics in publishing Caldeira and Petri.
On the other hand, we can always depend on Ken Caldeira to beat the alarmism drum. The tragedy here is that this time he has thoroughly abused the trust of a student. Aided and abetted by the editors at Scientific Reports.

Reply to  Pat Frank
August 5, 2015 7:43 am

Agreed. Exploiting a child to put a cute face on propaganda.

August 4, 2015 6:12 pm


Michael Jankowski
August 4, 2015 6:23 pm

…“No previous study has looked at climate model projections and tried to develop an index of overall thermal comfort, which is quite an achievement,” Caldeira said…
Forget about “thermal comfort.” How uncomfortable must it be for him to have his head up his arse?

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
August 4, 2015 7:09 pm

You are responsible for a hearty laugh

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
August 4, 2015 8:35 pm

“How uncomfortable must it be for him to have his head up his arse?”
Ooh, I know!
Hard to breathe, very dark, and an awful backache. And DO NOT forget to shave!

Richard Keen
August 4, 2015 6:35 pm

1. “Denver to become more like Raleigh, NC, is today”…. Meaning sea level will rise 5000 feet?
2. If the climate is 5 degrees warmer, New York will be more like some place that’s now 5 degrees warmer? How much did we pay these guys to figure that one out?
3. Are more people moving from New York to Raleigh, or some warmer place, than vice-versa? Would not most New Yorkers prefer, and be better off, with a warmer climate? Their “voting with their feet” would make it seem so.
4. What a travesty that we’re funding a multi-billion $$$ climate industry to do these virtual and meaningless climate studies based on CMIP5 and other fantasies. Would not the money be better spent on a Medicare beer benefit for seniors?

Reply to  Richard Keen
August 4, 2015 8:22 pm

Free beer for seniors? count me in!

August 4, 2015 6:42 pm

Superb work by the author, more modelling analysis so garbage in garbage out. But she is cluey enough to know where her next pay cheque is coming from.

August 4, 2015 6:46 pm

“The authors used the Climate Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) simulations under the Representation Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5). ”
RCP8.5 strikes again! It’s the foundation for most of the scary stories. As usual they neglect to mention the assumptions tin RCP8.5 that make it so unlikely. For some reasons why see “Is our certain fate a coal-burning climate apocalypse? No!

August 4, 2015 6:48 pm

Hmmm, and here I thought the comparison would be with NYC to Venice, with NYC having canals instead of streets. I guess there isn’t much collusion in this climate scientist conspiracy, eh?

Steve Reddish
August 4, 2015 7:04 pm

The purpose of this study was to estimate energy expenditures required to maintain homes in various regions of the U.S. at a comfortable temperature at the end of this century, assuming that some global warming scenario actually comes to pass. Even if their estimations are correct, and the heating and cooling days in each city change as they calculate, what would the net effect be? More cooling degree days with fewer heating degree days does not sound like a problem – unless electricity rates skyrocket (cooling consumes electricity)
So, if they actually care about increasing human comfort, those who believe in global warming ought to be working to make electricity more affordable instead of promoting expensive “renewable” sources of electricity. Perhaps improving human welfare isn’t actually on their minds?

Warren Latham
Reply to  Steve Reddish
August 5, 2015 1:29 am

I suggest that your last sentence ought to read …
“Improving human welfare isn’t actually on their minds”. (There is NO “perhaps” about it).
Excellent post.

August 4, 2015 7:06 pm

” By the end of this century, the number of days each year that heating and air conditioning are used will decrease in the Northern states, as winters get warmer, and increase in Southern states, as summers get hotter, according to a new study from a high school student, Yana Petri, working with Carnegie’s Ken Caldeira. It is published by Scientific Reports.”
High school students publishing papers? Sounds like the norm over the past 30 years. The ‘team’ comes to mind.

August 4, 2015 7:19 pm

Yes, the con artists can stoop lower than anyone could possibly have imagined. Betcha Ken Caldeira can publish another Armageddon ‘study’ with an Elementary School student that has been perverted on Global Warming via Common Crap, (er Core).

Alan Robertson
August 4, 2015 7:57 pm

Dear friend Anthony,
As you probably know, many people were displaced from the states comprising the Southern Central Plains during the disastrous Dust Bowl period of the 1930’s and subsequently migrated to California in search of any sort of work to make ends meet. It was in California that those people were often subjected to the worst sort of exploitation and inhumane treatment and were routinely addressed and referred to by the denigrating term, “Okie”. I know that the term is still commonly used by Californians to describe those people who are deemed to be of lesser social or economic standing, the proof of which is found in any number of movies, where the term is used, or in casual mention to a Californian that one happens to be from Oklahoma, etc.
As there is now a migration out of California to points East, including Oklahoma, it is not unheard of to encounter a Californian, for which the term all too easily rolls from his tongue, but it better not happen twice.
As result of the mistreatment of previously suffering Oklahomans at the hands of Californians, that term is considered by many here in Oklahoma as completely pejorative and the use of which, will immediately earn the user a lesson, often severe, as the people here can and will fight, right quick.
Just so you know… out here, it’s the “O” word, do you get the connection to the “N” word? There is no difference in the the attitudes or purposeful intention of denigration by those who originally coined either of the terms, so just stop using it, please.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Alan Robertson
August 4, 2015 9:07 pm

When you call me that, smile!” the Virginian; 1902
The word was different.
If Merle sings it, the O-word is OK.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
August 4, 2015 9:11 pm

John F. Hultquist commented : “…..If Merle sings it, the O-word is OK….”
LOL and true!

Alan Robertson
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
August 4, 2015 9:23 pm

Let this song I’m singin’ be a warnin’…
You’re walkin’ on the fightin’ side of me.”
– Merle Haggard
“I’ve always believed all those people who moved from Oklahoma to
California raised the average IQ of two states.”- attributed to: Will Rogers

Alan Robertson
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
August 4, 2015 9:44 pm

The illustrious Mr. Haggard wrote his famous “Okie From Muskogee” during the tenure of Oklahoma Governor Dewey F. Bartlett, who tried, among other things, to erase any stigma of denigration which had become attached to the word “Okie” by having a publicized campaign replete with lapel pins called “Okie Pins”, signifying that one was proud to be an Oklahoman, regardless of an negative connotation of the short nickname, as it had been applied by Californians.
While many people don’t know the history, or could care less, one should be aware that usage of the term face- to- face to an Oklahoman who is fully aware of the historical and contemporary derogatory usage (especially by Californians,) is highly likely to result in a swift and adverse reaction.

August 4, 2015 7:57 pm

I thought NYC was going to be underwater? That’s nothing like Oklahoma City.

john robertson
August 4, 2015 9:01 pm

I think the author missed her calling.
If present trends continue New York will most closely resemble Detroit not Oklahoma City.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  john robertson
August 4, 2015 10:04 pm


August 4, 2015 9:01 pm

How many people read this drivel and believe it? I would like to believe that most people understand that politics are controlling the media coverage and that the stories….are well…just stories and we’re not on an apocalyptic journey to doom because of CO2. Obviously there are some that want to believe it. I also think there are many who don’t believe CAGW but wouldn’t say so for fear of being ostracized. The alarmists are trying to outdo religion for shaming but they’re dreaming if they think they are in the same class. My apologies if I offend any believers with my frankness.

Pamela Gray
August 4, 2015 9:40 pm

In the grand scheme of things, the W/m2 of downwelling infrared radiation caused by water vapor is by far the most significant source of this tiny additional heat into the oceans outside of solar insolation. The second greatest source would be that caused by nature sourced CO2. Then we have natural methane, and finally we get to the tiny fraction of 1% of the total ppm of greenhouse gases (water vapor and all the rest) caused by anthropogenic CO2 and anthropogenic methane.
And this will cause us to use our air conditioning more because this tiny little amount of CO2 will create different evil weather around the globe how? I think these people must have been inspired by the 1998 release of The Avengers.

Lee Osburn
August 4, 2015 10:43 pm

What a coincidence. Just checked my electric bill from my Coop and it shows
Cooling Degree Days 386
Heating Degree Days 0
What in the H*11 does that mean?

Lee Osburn
Reply to  Lee Osburn
August 4, 2015 11:07 pm

Let me go on and I quote from the back of my bill.
Heating and Cooling Degree Days
Heating and cooling degree days can be used to relate how much more or less you might spend on heating or air conditioning.
To calculate the heating degree days for a particular day, find the day’s average temperature by adding the day’s high and low temperatures and dividing by two. If the number is above 65, there are no heating degree days that day. If the number is less than 65, subtract it from 65 to find the number of heating degree days.
Cooling degree days are also based on the day’s average minus 65. They relate the day’s temperature to the energy demands of air conditioning. For example, if the day’s high is 90 and the day’s low is 70, the day’s average is 80. 80 minus 65 is 15 cooling degree days.
Come on you math guyes, make a model of it!

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Lee Osburn
August 6, 2015 5:45 am

This is old hat load calculation methodology from the HVAC industry. It burns entire city climate data into a few numbers that can be easily referenced and interchanged into a design calculation. The basic concept is used for deciding how much A/C you are using and how big you need to build your unit. I think this is actually more applicable than many of you think, but it is definitely at a broader and vaguer range than y’all are trying to make it.

August 4, 2015 11:01 pm

Not sure which is more absurd, the fact that intelligent people spent time on this study, or that it made it to publication. . Almost just as interesting/useful as a study that predicts how the average number of goose pimples in a city will change as the climate changes. Which cities goose pimples changes more? Stay tune for the riveting results.
Now they should spend more time calculating the effect on the C02 level and climate by producing such a meaningless study.
Monumental waste of time and energy.

Reply to  Louise Nicholas
August 5, 2015 12:22 am

“Monumental waste of time and energy.”
No 97% of all believers will….believe, it re-enforces the message on the road to Paris

August 4, 2015 11:44 pm

IN eastern Australia you cannot by a electric blanket anywhere all sold out last night -2 in some places around Sydney sooooooooooooooo cold

August 4, 2015 11:47 pm

Another person taking money from tax payers to talk bs.

August 4, 2015 11:59 pm

I have a strange feeling that New York City will be like NYC and Oklahoma City will be like Oklahoma City – weather wise. Who wants to dispute that? Just based on my BS meter…

Non Nomen
August 5, 2015 12:11 am

Is there anything wrong or weird with OK City?

Reply to  Non Nomen
August 5, 2015 12:25 am

Yes….it’s in America (:-))

August 5, 2015 12:49 am

I’ve never been to Oklahoma City. Is it a bad place?

Reply to  RoHa
August 5, 2015 2:21 am

No, its a great place to live. Greater OKC is quite large, spreads at least twenty miles all directions from downtown, much like Dallas but not so dense. Don’t quite understand why they think our climate is so bad to highlight it. Here is July’s report… abnormally cool again:
Quite mild the last couple of summers, feeling more like the cooler 70’s and early 80’s. If you were to judge the globe from OKC’s standpoint… it a cooling people, not warming. Could THAT be what they subliminally mean?

Reply to  RoHa
August 5, 2015 2:26 am

I guess your leftist friend doesn’t like Republicans there. It is still OK.

Coeur de Lion
August 5, 2015 2:11 am

Off thread but I was delighted to hear the UK Met Office getting a hammering this am on the BBC Today programme particularly their climate change forecasts. Most unusual. The ice is beginning to crack.

Non Nomen
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
August 5, 2015 2:34 am

The ice is beginning to crack.

Warmer is better…

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
August 5, 2015 4:54 am

I can’t find that on the Radio 4 ‘Listen Again’ website. Do you know what time it was on?

Reply to  MikeB
August 5, 2015 5:30 am

OK, found it. It is not actually the Today Programme, it’s a separate Quentin Letts programme aired at 10AM. Bishop Hill has links to it.
It’s very good, Amazing to hear that on the BBC. What went wrong? How did it slip through?
Peter Lilley, who sat on the Select Committee on Climate Change, was very good.
“They need even more money for even bigger computers so they can be even more precisely wrong in future”
Roger Harrabin, the BBC climate change reporter (or whatever) had this to say: “Climate Sceptics have demanded ‘their’ programme. They just got it. Radio 4. 10.00”.

Reply to  MikeB
August 5, 2015 6:55 am

Surely it was 9am?
10 am is Woman’s Hour.
Actually it was the first part of a 4 part series entitles “What’s the Point of”.
I assume the second part is next week but probably won’t be about the MO.
The first part is repeated tonight at 9.30 pm.

richard verney
August 5, 2015 2:38 am

This just demonstrates how far off models are from out putting reality.
Given that New York is surrounded by water, how could it possibly resemble Oklahoma City which is about as far away from the oceans that you can get?
Do they not know anything about how oceans mediate, moderate and control the climate?
It is why on the plains of Spain, it is frequently in the mid 40s (degC) in the Summer, and in the Winter frequently close to zero or below, whereas on the Spanish Costa (sitting on the Med and only a couple of hundred miles away ) it is rarely above 35degC in the Summer, and rarely below 12 degC in the Winter.
If a model can out put that garbage, there is only one place for it, in the bin.

Reply to  richard verney
August 5, 2015 7:05 am

Agree, I had the same thought, any idiot knows that being close to the Ocean has a dramatic impact on the weather and climate. That’s another reason people go to the shore in the summer. The onshore breezes in the evening bring in cool air from the ocean and displace the warm air generated during the day. How does that work in Oklahoma? The boardwalks along the Jersey coast are very pleasant even after the warmest of days.

August 5, 2015 3:42 am

wildlife seems to love oklahoma city dwelling-
Oklahoma City, OK
Wildlife Removal
“Many of Oklahoma’s wild animals have learned to adapt and even thrive in our homes. For example some wildlife have found that attics make great places to live. Other animals find refuge under homes or porches. Invariably, these animals cause damage. Rodents, like squirrels and rats, love to chew on electrical wires once in an attic, and this causes a serious fire hazard. Raccoons can cause serious contamination in an attic with their droppings and parasites. Same goes for bat or bird colonies. We specialize in solving Oklahoma’s wildlife problems, from snake removal to large jobs like commercial bat control, we do it all”

Reply to  richard
August 5, 2015 6:47 am

I have a solution for critters in the attic. Squirrels gnawed their way into out attic and did a lot of damage (we had a hard time finding the hole). Mice followed. We sprayed cellulose insulation into the attic. It is treated with boric acid to make it fire resistant*. The boric acid hurts the eyes of the critters so they avoid the stuff. It’s been many years since there has been any trace of critters in the attic in spite of the fact that we found another gnawed hole. It appears that, once the squirrels got in, they decided not to stay.
*The National Research Council of Canada found that cellulose insulation did better in a fire than did fiberglass batts. The cellulose stays in place and prevents flame spread whereas the fiberglass melts.

August 5, 2015 3:58 am

Have these idiots looked out the winow recently? It’s been a really chilly summer. I don’t think we’ve had more than half a dozen days over ninety and none over a hundred. I know, that’s only the weather….

August 5, 2015 4:18 am

The Allinskyite age of science: Deceive, dissemble, distract, scare, isolate, and never allow honest discussion

Reply to  hunter
August 5, 2015 9:43 am

And drive major policy programs based on the list.

August 5, 2015 4:22 am

And the only thing “progressives” find scarier than Oklahoma is possibly Texas (outside of Austin).

Bruce Cobb
August 5, 2015 4:51 am

This reminded me of another high schooler from some 8 years ago, Kristen Byrnes, who did a school paper called “Ponder the Maunder”, which became a website. She, unlike this student had both brains as well as gumption.

Walt D.
August 5, 2015 5:22 am

Sure don’t want to be living inside the virtual reality of a (broken) computer model.

Walt D.
August 5, 2015 5:25 am

… according to this model it is quite acceptable to use temperatures from Salt Lake City, Utah as a proxy for Tucson, Arizona or vice-versa.

Bruce Cobb
August 5, 2015 6:13 am

I suppose next they’ll be publishing “scientific” papers by grade schoolers (under Caldeira’s “supervision”, of course) on the future effects of “climate change” on bunnies.

Gary Pearse
August 5, 2015 6:47 am

The children will lead us.

August 5, 2015 6:59 am

“No previous study has looked at climate model projections and tried to develop an index of overall thermal comfort, which is quite an achievement,” Caldeira said.”
Quite an achievement? I could do this in R in a few hours!! But then again I work in the private sector.

August 5, 2015 8:12 am

Wil the garbage reports and studies never end? I knew it was going to get bad leading up to Paris – but THIS BAD? Never in my wildest dreams.

August 5, 2015 9:45 am

At this rate we will have red state vs. blue state and up/down arrow journalism converted to science research.

August 5, 2015 9:54 am

“Changes in outdoor temperatures have a substantial impact on energy use inside,’ Caldeira explained. ”
Well, thank heavens for scientists, I am sure no lay person could have figured that out.

August 5, 2015 12:22 pm

THIS is the crucial sentence:
“Using results from established climate models, Petri, under Caldeira’s supervision, calculated the changes in the number of days over the last 30 years when U.S. temperatures were low enough to require heating or high enough to require air conditioning in order to achieve a comfort level of 65 degrees Fahrenheit.”
Get it? Their prediction is based on GCMs, a common base assumption for “me too” pro-AGW articles. A series of articles published in WUWT recently have demonstrated how wrong the GCMs are.
In my native language we have a saying that is used to illustrate utter falsehood of a statement: “If THIS is true, then I am the Pope!” Logically correct: if A=.false., then whatever the value of B, the inference (A⇒B)=.true.

David Becker, Ph.D.
August 5, 2015 1:44 pm

Wouldn’t it be nice if a prediction were made for, say, 2020, so we could all see if the model works in our lifetimes. The prediction or projection for “the end of the century” is not falsifiable in the lifetime of scientists who are now living, and is therefore, useless, even dishonest.

Ken L
August 5, 2015 2:44 pm

What gets me is that nothing we can due today with CO2 will make one iota of difference as to whether the temperatures increase. At the current state of our knowledge about long term climate forcers, the proposed alarmist mitigation measures might very well send us into another mini ice age. Then we WILL be screwed! Life has no problem with warm weather, but ice is another story.
By the way,as an Okie for almost my entire life, NYC would be lucky to end up like OKC. I might actually go there to visit!

August 5, 2015 4:05 pm

“Using results from established climate models”
Well there’s your problem, right there.

August 5, 2015 10:25 pm

65 degrees in the summer? High school kids learn early how to skew results.

Dave G
August 6, 2015 12:00 am

So New Yorker’s will be talking with a strange accent? Don’t they already?

%d bloggers like this: