If it is Hot, it is Climate, if it is Cold, its Climate

Snow-Israel-Massive-Storm-Jerusalem-2-DM[1]

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Remember all the recent press about the mild winter, how the bears were waking up early, flowers blooming in December, all a sign of the coming global warming apocalypse?

Now that winter has turned cold and snowy, this is also being seen in some quarters, as irrefutable proof of our unnatural tampering with the balance of nature.

Sorry! Winter Storm Jonas doesn’t make climate change a liberal hoax

Good news, folks! It turns out that climate change is a big ol’ liberal hoax after all. Need proof? Just look out your window: If you’re anywhere east of Tupelo, you’re probably seeing a bunch of white stuff falling from the sky, compliments of Winter Storm Jonas. We call that “snow,” and it proves once and for all that “global warming” is a conspiracy dreamed up by known communist Al Gore to bring down the world economy. Guess we can just pack up our desks and go home.

But what is the connection between climate change and snow storms? First, it’s important to remember that weather and climate are two different things: Weather is the rain falling on your head as you walk to work; climate is the very long-term forecast. NASA puts it this way: “An easy way to remember the difference is that climate is what you expect, like a very hot summer, and weather is what you get, like a hot day with pop-up thunderstorms.”

And, according to actual scientists and not conspiracy-addled politicians, climate change could actually make snow storms worse. ThinkProgress spoke to Michael Mann, the nation’s preeminent climatologist, about Winter Storm Jonas, which is currently blanketing the eastern seaboard in feet of snow. He said this is not a fluke. “There is peer-reviewed science that now suggests that climate change will lead to more of these intense, blizzard-producing nor’easter,” according to Mann. This is because a warming climate means increased moisture in the atmosphere, and when cold air meets moisture — surprise! — it snows. Sometimes a lot, like we’re seeing right now.

Read more: http://grist.org/article/sorry-winter-storm-jonas-doesnt-make-climate-change-a-liberal-hoax/

When you have a theory which covers anything from 1.5c to 4.5c (or more!) temperature rise per doubling of CO2, and when you can claim with a straight face, that the utter failure of your theory, on terms which you yourself defined, doesn’t invalidate it, when you have to massively adjust the data to get the result you want, your faith in the climate religion is not going to be troubled by the odd flurry of snow.

262 thoughts on “If it is Hot, it is Climate, if it is Cold, its Climate

      • Global Warming is where you establish the conditions and assumptions after you have “proved” them. Karl Popper summed up this fallacy as applied to science with “A theory that explains everything, explains nothing”.

        Regards
        Climate Heretic

      • “Grist.org?” Seriously? Maybe we should consider the source once in awhile. This one makes “Rolling Stone” look like serious journalism by comparison.

      • “WarmColdDroughtFlood”
        This is THE singular weather event that can be blamed on the magical-yet-evil gas.
        (I learned that here.)

    • Winter storm Judas is the betrayer of ENSO, the heat pump that helps to keep us from plummeting into the next cryospheric crisis for Homo Sapiens of all makes and models…

    • Gunga Din,

      So Winter Storm Judas is proof of CAGWarming/Cooling?

      No. It’s not inconsistent with global warming irrespective of cause.

      • It was inconsistent., now that snow is not a thing of the past” it is part of the al inclusive cabal. “Weather is the rain falling on your head as you walk to work; climate is the very long-term forecast” (See, now climate is an IPCC long range model projection, not what actually happens.

        During the previous two heavy snow winters in the NE, CAGW scientist talked about how additional W/V caused more snow. The problem was that there was not additional precipitation. The snow was actually very dry, but in the very cold weather (noticed I said weather) the dry puffy stuff accumulated deeper, but precipitation did not increase. You do not get record great lakes ice with more precipitation, but with more snow.

      • Even Hansen knew CO2 is not causing more extreme weather…
        Was the weather better below 350 ppm? Absolutely not.
        ================================================================================

        “Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath.”

        James Hansen – the world’s #1 climate alarmist

        http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

      • It’s “not inconsistent” with the moon being made of bleu cheese. So, what’s your point?

        wetterdryerfreezinghotflooddroughtwinterstormhurricane-nohurricane is “not inconsistent with global warming.” THAT’s the problem. if the hypothesis includes everything and everything is “not inconsistent” with it, then the hypothesis, and your statement, is meaningless and irrelevant

      • Brandon Gates

        January 24, 2016 at 10:53 pm

        Gunga Din,

        So Winter Storm Judas is proof of CAGWarming/Cooling?

        No. It’s not inconsistent with global warming irrespective of cause.

        OF COURSE NOT…
        Brandon…and this very simple fact is proven in the fact that …
        NOTHING is inconsistent with the Global Warming/Climate Change hypothesis irrespective of cause.
        If I am incorrect that nothing will disprove Climate Change, simply list any weather or climate related event which would disprove the hypothesis.
        just one
        Any at all
        You have the mic.

      • Brandon Gates

        January 24, 2016 at 10:53 pm

        Gunga Din,

        So Winter Storm Judas is proof of CAGWarming/Cooling?

        No. It’s not inconsistent with global warming irrespective of cause.

        Brandon
        There doesn’t appear to be anything that IS inconsistent with Global Warming
        Can you name or list any weather related event that cannot be used to bolster the Climate Change theology?
        Just one
        Any at all
        But, keep in mind, if it does occur then you must admit the theory to be invalid

      • David A,

        It was inconsistent., now that snow is not a thing of the past” it is part of the al inclusive cabal.

        I don’t know of any prior global predictions for no snow by the middle of this decade. Perhaps you can provide one? I do know of one fellow who was quoted in popular press invoking the concept of snow in the UK soon being a thing of the past.

        During the previous two heavy snow winters in the NE, CAGW scientist talked about how additional W/V caused more snow. The problem was that there was not additional precipitation.

        No citations of course. But for sake of argument I’ll trust you. Two seasons of highly-variable weather in a relatively small geographical area do not a long-term global trend make. Now let’s review what’s been said in this subthread:

        Gunga Din: So Winter Storm Judas is proof of CAGWarming/Cooling?

        Me: No. It’s not inconsistent with global warming irrespective of cause.

        Do you think you can pry yourself out of “proving” your conspiracy theories long enough to address my actual argument?

        You do not get record great lakes ice with more precipitation, but with more COLD.

        Which we’re not seeing this boreal winter, perhaps because of the relative warmth due to El Nino. Or it could simply be weather:

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/22/great-lakes-ice-coverage-in-striking-distance-of-a-record/

        The globe is a bigger place than your backyard. The reality almost certainly is that today’s weather is the net combination of long- and short-term natural variability on top of long-term, upwardly-trending anthropogenic influences. However, one or two seasons of localized weather phenomena don’t “prove” or “disprove” arguments for or against global warming or cooling be they mainly due to natural or anthropogenic causes.

      • Bryan A,

        Can you name or list any weather related event that cannot be used to bolster the Climate Change theology?

        Are you still beating your wife? I can’t answer that question in the positive as phrased without admitting that AGW is a theology.

        I can say as I have previously that no single weather event, or even a single season of weather events “proves” or “disproves” global warming or cooling.

        Little reminder from two days ago: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/23/2015-global-temp-or-how-some-scientists-deliberately-mistook-weather-for-climate

        One wonders if David Whitehouse was mistaken about who’s making deliberate mistakes here.

        But, keep in mind, if it does occur then you must admit the theory to be invalid

        That doesn’t follow. The prediction of increased specific humidity due to oceanic warming, and thereby possibly global increases in precipitation, is agnostic to the cause of warming, which is exactly what I alluded in my original comment:

        Gunga Din: So Winter Storm Judas is proof of CAGWarming/Cooling?

        Me: No. It’s not inconsistent with global warming irrespective of cause.

      • It’s not inconsistent with global warming irrespective of cause.

        By that argument, neither is flying a kite. The problem is testability and the null hypothesis. Storms are storms. There’s nothing unusual or unprecedented about this one, no matter what the talking heads on TV say.

      • Phil R,

        It’s “not inconsistent” with the moon being made of bleu cheese.

        I agree, for it would be a stretch to presume that Earth’s climate affects the Moon’s composition.

        So, what’s your point?

        Was I not clear enough?

        Gunga Din: So Winter Storm Judas is proof of CAGWarming/Cooling?

        Me: No.

        wetterdryerfreezinghotflooddroughtwinterstormhurricane-nohurricane is “not inconsistent with global warming.” THAT’s the problem.

        Naw. The problem being addressed in the Grist article Worrall is writing about in his OP are people who point to regional weather events like Winter Storm Jonas and say, “it’s snowing like crazy in the Eastern US, which ‘proves’ AGW is false,” e.g., Inhofe’s snowball stunt on the Senate floor last winter:

        http://grist.org/climate-energy/inhofe-threw-a-snowball-on-the-senate-floor-and-therefore-climate-change-isnt-real/

        Inhofe, who wrote the book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, took to the floor to decry the “hysteria on global warming.”

        “In case we have forgotten, because we keep hearing that 2014 has been the warmest year on record, I ask the chair, ‘You know what this is?’” he said, holding up a snowball. “It’s a snowball, from outside here. So it’s very, very cold out. Very unseasonable.”

        “Catch this,” he said to the presiding officer, tossing the blob of snow.

        Inhofe went on to list the recent cold temperatures across parts of the United States, which included 67 new record lows earlier this week according to the National Weather Service, as evidence that global warming claims are overhyped. “We hear the perpetual headline that 2014 has been the warmest year on record. But now the script has flipped.”

        … or Donald Trump on Twitter with similar rhetoric:

        if the hypothesis includes everything and everything is “not inconsistent” with it, then the hypothesis, and your statement, is meaningless and irrelevant.

        That’s a lot of ifs. If one includes a lot of ifs in a statement, one can make pretty much any argument one wants, especially if one doesn’t want to deal with the actual arguments being made and if they just want to believe whatever it they want to believe about reality.

        Strictly hypothetically speaking of course.

      • Brandon Gates
        January 24, 2016 at 10:53 pm

        Gunga Din,

        So Winter Storm Judas is proof of CAGWarming/Cooling?

        No. It’s not inconsistent with global warming irrespective of cause.

        My comment has been quoted a lot.
        If, and only if, politics was just “weathering the weather”, no problem. (Better if they prepare for it.) But they’ve latched onto Man being the cause. The “spin cycle” keeps changing the name of the supposed result of Man’s existence on the weather (and the need to regulate/control/profit from it) as Ma’ Gaia has stubbornly refused to cooperate.
        The actually “cause” of the weather is the crux of the issue.
        The spin has made any event or (adjusted) record a justification for profit and control.

      • dbstealey,

        It’s not inconsistent with global warming irrespective of cause.

        By that argument, neither is flying a kite.

        I agree, because so far as I’m aware climatologists haven’t been saying anything about there being no wind as a result of warming due to any cause.

        The problem is testability and the null hypothesis.

        I agree, consistent with what I said in my very first comment of this thread:

        Gunga Din: So Winter Storm Judas is proof of CAGWarming/Cooling?

        Me: No. It’s not inconsistent with global warming irrespective of cause.

        Why are you challenging me about something upon which we apparently already agree?

        Storms are storms. There’s nothing unusual or unprecedented about this one, no matter what the talking heads on TV say.

        I wasn’t aware of anyone arguing on Tee Vee that this was an unprecedented storm, but that’s because I don’t watch much of it.

      • BruceC,

        I prefer this cartoon.

        It would be funnier if there were more an element of truth to it, like this one:

        Which I think is hysterically funny.

        OTOH, if I look at the cartoon you posted as a parody of your position, well yes, that would be quite amusing. As I’m reading it though, not so much — I don’t think advocating perpetual ignorance is very funny at all.

      • Gunga Din,

        The actually “cause” of the weather is the crux of the issue.

        I agree.

        The spin has made any event or (adjusted) record a justification for profit and control.

        Your personal suppositions aren’t any better evidence of whether the planet is warming or cooling for whatever cause than Winter Storm Judas. Worse in fact, if that’s possible, because at least the storm exhibits some of the relevant physical phenomena whereas Ma’ Gaia could give two squats about our political views. Try being a little more consistent in your skepticism.

      • Response to Brandon Gates;
        Brandon quotes, David A, says ”
        It was inconsistent., now that snow is not a thing of the past” it is part of the all inclusive cabal.

        Brandon presents straw-man, “I don’t know of any prior global predictions for no snow by the middle of this decade. Perhaps you can provide one? I do know of one fellow who was quoted in popular press invoking the concept of snow in the UK soon being a thing of the past.”
        ======================================================================
        Now now Brandon, your old straw-man tricks, questioning me on things I never stated. Here is another study, other than Dr.David Viner’s UK reference, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/18/climate-change-tourism-industry_n_5503881.html?utm_hp_ref=green (Oh BTW Brandon, your “some guy” is a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, and these folk often base their studies on the “wrong to the observations” IPCC modeled mean of overheated models.)

        There are of course many more such academic alarmist stories. Shall I look those up for you? “15 years after Dr Viner embarrassed the British Climate Research Unit, Griffith University in Australia has just joined the growing list of academic institutions which have predicted the “end of snow”. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/19/another-end-of-snow-prediction/

        Brandon, shall I look up more for you? This is one of your typical tactics; make a generalized statement / straw-man, and then force someone to begin to document what everyone who has studied the subject knows; there were many predictions of less snow, industries having to close down, etc. Next time simply say, “ I am ignorant of the subject, please point to examples of climate scientists predicting a decline in snow cover causing harm to humans.” However, being an astute chap, capable of your own research, do it yourself before pontificating. I suggest begin at WUWT search box, and expand your limited horizons from there.

        Now Brandon, as you have been told before, CAGW is not solely a scientific process, but clearly a political one as well. Many alarmist articles reference quotes from scientists. If they do not agree, why do they not publically say so? Before I go, one more aid to your research… https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/04/baked-alaska-propaganda-film-suggests-children-in-alaska-have-no-snow/ In about 15 hours of research you will be familiar with the subject.
        ==========================================================================

        Brandn nexts quotes me…

        ” During the previous two heavy snow winters in the NE, CAGW scientist talked about how additional W/V caused more snow. The problem was that there was not additional precipitation.”

        Brandon says, “No citations of course. But for sake of argument I’ll trust you. (Thanks Brandon, I cannot do all your research but I am correct.) Two seasons of highly-variable weather in a relatively small geographical area do not a long-term global trend make.”

        =============================================================
        Brandon, Brandon, there you go again. When did I say, “Two seasons of highly-variable weather in a relatively small geographical area do not a long-term global trend make”? That’s right I did not. Instead I linked to charts showing no change in NH trends. (the very “long-term global trends” you asked for !!!)
        =============================================================
        Brandons continues…
        Now let’s review what’s been said in this subthread:
        Gunga Din: So Winter Storm Judas is proof of CAGWarming/Cooling?
        Me: No. It’s not inconsistent with global warming irrespective of cause.
        Do you think you can pry yourself out of “proving” your conspiracy theories long enough to address my actual argument?

        =================================================
        Brandon, as others have pointed out to you, nothing is inconsistent with more/less of anything in constantly changing weather. But global and hemispheric trends do not bear out the alarmist claims of scientists and media. Once again, CAGW fails on simple basic science.
        ==================================================

        Brandon quotes me, “You do not get record great lakes ice with more precipitation, but with more COLD.”

        Brandon says, “Which we’re not seeing this boreal winter, perhaps because of the relative warmth due to El Nino. Or it could simply be weather:”
        ================================================
        Well yes Brandon, now get your alarmist scientist and media friends to admit the same, for they were the ones to claim that the last two heavy snow NE winters were consistent with CAGW increasing W/V causing more snow in warmer T, when in fact we were having very cold winters in the NE region.
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/22/great-lakes-ice-coverage-in-striking-distance-of-a-record/

        Brandon, a quote may be informative for you…
        … it is always possible to find some way of evading falsification, for example by introducing ad hoc an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing ad hoc a definition. It is even possible without logical inconsistency to adopt the position of simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever. Admittedly, scientists do not usually proceed in this way, but logically such procedure is possible.” ( Who said it Brandon?)
        Brandon, does fifty excuses for the pause, followed by “simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever, ring any bells for you?

    • Any weather at all is proof of global warming.

      It’s just like any religion. Something weird happens? ‘Its GodSwill’ they cry. Nothing much happens at all? How weird is THAT? ‘Its GodSwill’…

      • True.
        It’s also and equally “not inconsistent with” divine wrath!

        But that doesn’t mean you should throw a virgin into Pele’s volcano in Hawaii.
        Although that’s better than raising energy process and killing a lot more people.

      • I’ve started to think lately that secular beliefs, like AGW, are taking the place of religious belief in public life. Certainly people have the kind of glassy-eyed, fervent clutching not open to discussion when it comes to many of these largely media-created memes. Suspect identifiers include the same apocalyptic thinking, the same collective guilt, the same “you can never be GOOD enough” happy horseshit. Among the over-educated, you’re “stupid” and unfashionable now if you believe in religion, but they think this makes you look “smart.” Plain case of transference if you ask me!

      • Well, as the saying goes: “Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.” Now that we have decided that every noticeable weather event, or the absence thereof, is indeed due to man-made climate change, we finally ARE doing something about it! I think that’s progress.

    • It should be remembered that for over 70 per cent of the time since 1940 as CO2 has
      Increased constantly global temperatures have either decreased or remained steady.
      That fact alone disproves the UN unfounded supposition that man made CO2 CAUSES
      Global warming.

    • So they say. But they can’t reconcile their predictions of ever increasing “extreme” weather with the raw weather data.

      Here in Harrisburg, PA we received a record 30.2 inches. Now according to Global Bullshit Theory, we should have been seeing constant heavy snowstorms leading up to this one over the last 20 years. Did we? No. The last record snowday was in 1984 with 24 inches and it has only reached over 10 inches four times in the last 16 years, twice in 2010, once in 2003 and now this one in 2016. Of the first three mentioned, the maximum was only 12.6 inches in 2003. Where’s the more frequent and increasing snowstorms, Mr Mann?

      I looked up our local data and compiled a chart of the hottest years by determining which had the most days over 90F. Turns out that 1983 was the hottest year with 51 days over 90F and the 1950’s was the hottest decade with 6 years with 29 or more 90F days on record here in central Pennsylvania. 2010, the only one of this century on the list, came in tied for 12th with 1993, both with 29 days over 90F and no days over 100F! So much for increasing heat waves of lasting duration.

      Of the years with the most record highs, 1941, 1990 and 1991 topped the list with 13. Only year of the century was 2002, was tied in 4th place with 1945,1950,1970, and 1974 with 7 record breaking highs per year. Hottest day recorded? 1966, 107F. It has only hit 100F or more only three times in the last 16 years, highest 102F in 2011. So where’s the unprecedented warming?

      Now how can that be? Global Bullshit Theory says that this is the hottest year on record. Where? Certainly not here. We should be seeing a steady rise in temperatures, more days over 90F, more days over 100F, more records broken…. but we’re not.

      Raw unadjusted local weather data. Our best weapon against the bullshit. I’ve already shut up some twit claiming it rarely snows in the Hudson Valley by feeding him the weather data for his own region. 71 inches of snow last year alone. When they hear their local weather records, it hits home.. literally.. and makes them think twice about making bullshit blanket claims of planet wide warming and “extreme” weather. When you pull their minds out of the sensationalist headlines and the abstract, and shove them face first into their local reality, it breaks through to them.

      I will be slamming them with their own records from now on. It works on their doomsday addicted brains. Damn the Adjustments! Full reality ahead!

      • Very good Andyj. Surely someone will say yes but it was only in your area. The rest of the world was hotter, colder, snowerier, wetter, drier, stormier, less stormy, bug infested, less bug infested. I think it is just amazing that the rest of the world could be warming and the US not much at all.

    • While the Met Office and others try to spin their way out of their current 16~19 year flatlining of warming, it is important to remember a few points made in the past.

      In the much ballyhooed 2008 NOAA “State of the Climate” report on climate change they state, concerning the climate models, something quite relevant to the issues raised by the new story in the UK Daily Mail:

      Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

      Source: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

      Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. said in 2009:


      Kudos to NOAA for being among the first to explicitly state what sort of observation would be inconsistent with model predictions — 15 years of no warming.”

      (h/t to Tom Harris)

      (highlighting/editing mine)

      (Quote is from link in above post attached to phrase: “you yourself defined;” that link is repeated here for your convenience: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/15/noaas-15-year-statement-from-2008-puts-a-kibosh-on-the-current-met-office-insignificance-claims-that-global-warming-flatlined-for-16-years/ )

      • TY Janice….and that seems to be the desperation to adjust/homogenize the land station temps and the Karl butchery of the ocean temps to eliminate the ‘pause’ (at least on their books).

      • I’d say, Mr. K., that your deduction about the operational motive for NOAA’s outlier new dataset (where virtually ALL of the adjustments, HEY WADDAYA KNOW, make for a higher warming trend) is correct. The underlying motivation appears to be two-fold: 1) Enviroprofiteers such as windmill sc@mmers need human CO2 to be bad to keep tax and rate surcharge money headed their way (or they will have a negative ROI); and 2) Envirostalinists of several stripes want to cripple the U.S. — a weak enough giant is a defeated giant.

      • And then, of course, they moved the goalposts so that it is 20 or 30 years of no warming as they clutched a bunch of straws.

      • So they set up their own null hypotheses and ended up showing there is no difference between natural climate change and CO2 driven climate change, so added CO2 cannot be driving significant climate change at 95% confidence.

  1. And, according to actual scientists and not conspiracy-addled politicians, climate change could actually make snow storms worse.

    So it was conspiracy-addled politicians that sent that letter about bringing RICO charges against skeptics? I thought they claimed to be scientist.
    (To which group do thin-skinned, sue-happy egotist belong?)

  2. By what mechanism could CO2 possibly cause global cooling? The only mechanism they have define is to cause warming.

    • Try this on:

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full
      AGU Research Letter
      How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative greenhouse effect in Antarctica

      Abstract

      CO2 is the strongest anthropogenic forcing agent for climate change since pre-industrial times. Like other greenhouse gases, CO2 absorbs terrestrial surface radiation and causes emission from the atmosphere to space. As the surface is generally warmer than the atmosphere, the total long-wave emission to space is commonly less than the surface emission. However, this does not hold true for the high elevated areas of central Antarctica. For this region, the emission to space is higher than the surface emission; and the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative, which has not been discussed so far. We investigated this in detail and show that for central Antarctica an increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space, which cools the Earth-atmosphere system. These findings for central Antarctica are in contrast to the general warming effect of increasing CO2.

      ==================

      • That is for Antarctica. I suppose it does answer the question, though the answer isn’t generally relevant to everybody on the planet because we don’t live in the Antarctica.

      • From the AGU paper linked by JoelOBryan above:

        In our paper we first present two different model studies which show that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in the LW cooling in central Antarctica. Satellite observations presented demonstrate that over central Antarctica a negative greenhouse effect (see next chapter) occurs frequently and that Antarctica is the only place on Earth where the greenhouse effect is below zero on yearly average. Calculations with the ECMWF forecast model demonstrate …

        IOW: junk science.

        NO data. Just models based on pure speculation with not one quantitative measurement proving causation by CO2 of climate change. Just unsupported assertions.

        *************************
        Data from ice core proxies strongly indicates that: CO2 lags temperature by a quarter cycle.

      • So Janice,
        are not satellite observations data?

        “Satellite observations presented demonstrate that over central Antarctica a negative greenhouse effect (see next chapter) occurs frequently and that Antarctica is the only place on Earth where the greenhouse effect is below zero on yearly average.”

      • From the AGU link, “As the surface is generally warmer than the atmosphere, the total long-wave emission to space is commonly less than the surface emission.”
        ===================================

        Un no, I think not. The overall LWIR emission to space must equal the surface emission. Any change in the residence time of said emission will either warm or cool until a balance is restored.

    • Why is Man made CO2 the cause of GW. Man made CO2 is only 3 per cent of the total
      amount of CO2. Does the other 97 percent Which is naturally produced play no role at all??

      • Nope. Not a bit of it. It’s all the fault of those evil fossil fuel companies and their horrible emissions.

        So the Global Bullshit Theory states.

    • Yes, that’s why the term ‘climate change’ was chosen to replace the original warming propaganda. It must remain ‘our fault’ no matter what the current ‘anomalous’ conditions are at any given moment somewhere on the planet. The fantasy is that a green world order can offer a world free of weather anomalies.

    • Yeah, my co conspirators and paid for friends all agree with me. We’re all of the same consensus. 97% agree with me because we are all on the same free money for BS, govm’t sponsored bandwagon. That’s why I’m voting for Hillary. She knows the game… Swank, I mean. For best actress in a horror pic.

      C’mon . S**c

  3. Michael Mann may want to read up on his weather history. Or maybe the massive blizzard of 1978 doesn’t count because it occurred before 1979, you know the year when modern record keeping started. One might note that it was 38 years ago which is prior to the current global warming/climate change scare.

    I know Wikipedia is not a valid reference but this link does contain general information about the storm for those who weren’t alive then.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeastern_United_States_blizzard_of_1978

      • I have been trying to find an estimate of maximum possible warming due to water vapor. It seems that once vapor becomes cloud cover, that would be the max since clouds reflect light and/or produce cooling rain.

        Anybody have any estimates?

      • There is surprisingly little on the web about the midwest blizzard. I recently updated my addendum to my main page about the northeast storm and was disappointed to have to drop off a couple of good links. One went to a NWS page, I was very sorry to see they took that down. Perhaps I’ll check the Wikipedia page for some links I don’t know about.

        See http://wermenh.com/blizz78a.html “for the rest of the story.” New Englanders who remember Don Kent (deceased) and Bob Copeland (still active, see http://www.bobcopelandart.com/ ) will definitely want to read my page.

      • @ Ric Werme 2.05 pm, “There is surprisingly little on the web about the midwest blizzard.”, Don’t you know the real name for the mid west? They call it “Fly over Country”. None of the snobs from the West or East coast likely even know the name of the States that are there!

      • The matriarch of a Boston Brahmin family was introduced to a visitor from out west.

        “I’m pleased to meet you,” she said. “Where do you live?”

        “I’m from Ohio,” the visitor replied.

        “That’s nice,” the lady said, adding “here we pronounce it Iowa.”

        I grew up in Ohio, my wife has a lot of family in Michigan, her nephew works for Google, first in Chicago, now in Detroit. Another nephew has received some significant recognition for the UX (User experience) work he’s done for Sear’s mobile commerce web site.

        Heck, I think I installed the first FTP client program when I was at CMU (Pittsburgh, not midwest) and was the only site ready to run the new Telnet protocol on the date the ARPAnet was supposed to switch to it.

        You may fly over it, but there’s a lot of people in the area, and a lot who were impacted by their blizzard in 1978.

        I think it’s more likely that the northeast has more weather nuts than the midwest. Weather is one reason I’m in New England and not California. It was quite a treat in 1974 discovering that all of Boston’s TV stations had top notch meteorologists on duty. (Second rate TV mets don’t survive here long especially when they discover all the things Mark Twain said about New England weather were accurate!)

    • 1978 storm…..CT and Mass shut down highways for 3 full days; forgot what NY did. The 1978 blizzard was the worst in my lifetime – the only one that was ‘historic’ after 1938.

    • Wikipedia is fine for noncontroversial subjects, like the atomic weight of Xenon, or how much it snowed in Poughkeepsie in 1978.

      • Odd — on that weather.gov list, “Great Blizzard of 1978” does not appear at all; instead, it says that the “Presidents’ Day” blizzard of 1979 was the worst DC storm in 57 years. ??

        And I remember a DC snowstorm a full week earlier than the “Great Blizzard” because my best friend’s kid was born in the middle of it. True, I don’t remember how bad the “birthday blizzard” was; once I got off the Beltway (not long before they shut it down for the storm), I hunkered down and stayed there. But I sure remember the date.

      • None of the 77/78 storms impacted DC to a great degree. The northeast blizzard was primarily a New England event.

        The recent storm brought me (near Concord NH) no snow whatsoever. None, nada. And I’m not very happy about it! (The big storms for me are often rain producers for Boston, as we need a somewhat inland track to bring enough moisture to us.)

    • There were three major storms in early 1978. Follow along at http://wermenh.com/blizz78.html written about Marlboro, Massachusetts.

      1) On Jan. 20, 1978 a coastal storm set a new 24 hour record for snow in Boston, 25.1″.
      This was not a windy storm, hence it was not a blizzard. If Michael Mann wants to water vapor and precip, then this is an important storm to count. However, it was quickly forgotten due to what was to come.

      2) On Jan 26, another storm came through well to our west and was the midwest blizzard of 1978.
      It set the record low pressure in the US for a non-tropical storm and brought 100 mph winds to Cleveland. From snow maps in Weatherwise Magazine it looks like the rain reduced our snow to about a foot, and to a few inches at the coast. NY Times articles talked about flooding in NYC.

      3) On Feb 6, snow started around 1100, the worst possible time, and the northeast blizzard of 1978 was underway.
      By nightfall, most roads were impassable and I had my all time best drive in the snow, one that cannot be improved upon.

      These three storms produced a huge amount of precip, I should dig up some NOAA records and tell Michael Mann about them. And I should tell him about the flooding in 1927. And the Hurricane of 1938 that clobbered New England after a previous storm had saturated the ground. If you look at New England forests, expect to find a lot of trees that started growing in 1939.

  4. So if global warming causes more snow, doesn’t snow have a high albedo and thus cause cooling, or did I miss a class along the way?

    • Global Warming causes Global Cooling which causes Climate Disruption which causes Global Warming.

      All caught up on the science of this argument?

      • ….. most unfortunately though, it also causes climate policy that requires climate justice to pay for climate resilience, for climate liars and climate profiteers to skim a percentage of the climate wealth transfer

    • @trebla.. You missed this class also: How do you explain the following:
      Atmospheric CO2 has risen by 100 parts per million (one part per ten thousand) over the past century.
      Experts claim that this one molecule has heated the other 10,000 molecules up by more than one degree centigrade.

      In order for one molecule to heat up 10,000 other molecules by 1°C, the effective temperature of that one
      molecule would have to be 10,000°C – about twice the temperature of the surface of the Sun.
      How is this possible???

      • Aw, c’mon . . . Math is Hard, especially for politicians. Though they seem able to cook the books.

      • Oh, come on!
        I have a little tiny heater that warms my whole living room by more than ten degrees, and it never gets too hot to touch, even though the room is hundreds of times more massive than the heating element.

      • Besides, where do you get 10,000 from?
        Four hundred parts per million is how many, expressed as a unit ratio?

  5. Mikey Mann a preeminent climatologist ?? Really? They said all that with a straight face? More like a preeminent thin-skinned litigant.

    • There was a claim with even greater gravity. The article asserted that Mann was a scientist.

      Surely such extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, including for starters that he has an understanding of the scientific method.

      Bueller? Anybody?

      • Bueller seems to have left the building, but we might get an answer out of Wayne Spicoli.
        I hear he is done with his interview down in Mexico.

    • I have suicidal thoughts when I read things like this:

      “Michael Mann, the nation’s preeminent climatologist”

      Actually, now I’ve given it more thought, I’m very happy and have very positive thoughts for the future ;-)

      /sarc (Obviously!!)

  6. … climate change is a big ol’ liberal hoax after all. Need proof? …

    (quote is quoted within above-posted article)

    Answer: No.

    The proof needed is: AGWers still need to present evidence that makes a prima facie case for their conjecture about human CO2.

    The burden of proof still lies firmly with the AGWers. Here we are, over 25 years into their wild speculations and frantic conjecture about a “planetary emergency,” and as of today, AGWers have not presented one single piece of data proving that human CO2 emissions can change the climate of the earth, up or down, around, or inside out.

    The burden of proving AGW is a valid hypothesis, that your speculation about human CO2 is even likely, much less certain, and not mere speculation, is still on you, O Climate Clowns.

    FYI: the non-falsifiable conjecture that you have presented so far is NOT even a scientifically valid, falsifiable, “hypothesis” as so many gratuitously describe your feeble flaylings. That is, the phrase “AGW hypothesis” is nonsense.

    Oh, and the Precautionary Fallacy — (i.e., “Well, soldier, ….. JUST IN CASE,….. we’re going to cut off your legs…. so you won’t have to have an amputation if you step on a land mine.”) — can be used to justify doing or not doing ANY-thing. It is not “proof.” Such verbal fluff is not a rational reason for limiting human CO2 emissions. ESPECIALLY when it is even less likely (so far, not one piece of evidence) that human CO2 causes any climate change than something as ridiculous as the landmine-amputation scenario which has a tiny bit of evidence for it; AGW has not one atom.

      • Thank — you — Marcus… Canadian Navy Attack Squadron (or whatever they call it) Pilot of the Year!!!

        And we’ll raise a glass on St. Patrick’s day to our favorite Irish Verbal Thunderfist!!!!!!!!
        (you (eye roll))

        One quip of iron,
        the othern’ of steel,
        if the sarcasm don’t getcha,
        then, the hard facts will.

        “Sixteen Tons” (sort of — lol)

        (please do not misunderstand me, O Marcus, WUWT warrior-for-truth, that song only applies so far…. for instance, the phrase, “with a mind that’s weak” is NOT you!)

    • It’s over 40 years Janice, and more than a half doubling of the purported effect of atmospheric CO2

      • @ philincal, @ 8.01 pm Jan 24: That is one scary read, I am stunned at the length of time these criminals have been around and the influence they have at the highest levels. Looking at the overall situation on our plane it is no wonder China, Russia and others are taking full advantage over Western Nations the past 15-20 years. I grew up in the 50’s and firmly believed in the nuclear power industry and have always wondered why things like the ship like the Savannah did not have sister ships build It was a beautiful vessel, can you imagine if large cargo vessel would have to use bunker fuel to get around?
        http://atomicinsights.com/cover-story-why-did-savannah-fail/

    • I believe that we should hold to a “precautionary principle”.
      There should be some measures in place that are a precaution against allowing a small class of liberal elite academics, self-styled “scientists”, journalists and politicians from talking themselves into an apocalyptic panic and then aiming to destroy the normal function of once effective economies.
      We should apply the “precautionary principle” and – not let idiots derail the greatest thing that man has ever created, a.k.a. the modern industrial world.

      • We should apply the “precautionary principle”
        ==================
        unfortunately, the “precautionary principle” can be misused to justify anything.

        for example. the most dangerous thing in the house is the bathtub. more people are killed and injured each year by the bathtub than any other device in the home. As such, it is only a matter of time before some government official will ban bathtubs for safety reasons, according to the “precautionary principle”

        At that point, when the bathtub is banned, some other device in the home will become the most dangerous item. And eventually this will be banned as well. And this process will continue until the most dangerous thing in the house is people. At which time some well meaning official will ban people from houses, which will end all household injuries.

        Now apply this logic to things outside the home and eventually we end up banning people from the planet. CO2 is simply the household bathtub on a planetary scale.

      • And this is why the concept of cost/benefit analysis is so strongly resisted by the eco-loons.
        They will often resort to a response such as, “but, you cannot put a price on our children’s future”.
        And then, the entire debate about policy becomes totally absurd and reality and reason are abandoned.
        Personally I weigh up the cost/benefit in all cases.
        And I factor in the likelihood of the event occuring.
        Such an approach to decision making is a wicked crime in the minds of most “activists for change”.
        Mainly for the simple reason that the change that they are advocating cannot, on such a basis, be rationally justified.

      • As a note of explanation – my claim that we should apply the precautionary principle was a satire on such claims.
        I should have condensed my comment to “We should apply the precautionary principle by preventing people from applying the precautionary principle”.
        Which in summation is what my comment was intended to imply.

    • “The proof needed is: AGWers still need to present evidence that makes a prima facie case for their conjecture about human CO2.”

      Or what? What will happen if AGW is not proven to the satisfaction of AGW skeptics?

      • AGW will die from a cold death, if it is not proven. And the tipping point may already be in the works. First is the global average temperature record from 1997 till now, the results are consistent with satellite data. ( it was warmer in 1997 than now) And second is the incoming and outgoing energy budget. The math dedicated to proving the 0.5 C is entirely based on the retained w/m^2.

        Nobody after this will be able to say that co2 is the cause of climate change. AGW will be dead. In fact with the current reported energy budget, there is no math that can substantiate AGW at all.

      • Action is already underway. Not just government agreements like those coming out of COP21, but private sector commitments from the Fortune 1000. So, once again, I respectfully disagree. If AGW skeptics want these actions to stop, they need to convince those who believe AGW is real that they are wrong.

    • Oops, posted on the wrong subthread. I’ll try again.

      “The proof needed is: AGWers still need to present evidence that makes a prima facie case for their conjecture about human CO2.”

      Or what? What will happen if AGW is not proven to the satisfaction of AGW skeptics?

  7. Michael Mann says he can make “global warming” fit any weather scenario you can come up with. Global warming causes *everything*!

    The Earth is *not* experiencing unprecedented heat in the atmosphere. That is what Michael Mann and global warming advocates are claiming. We are not as hot as 1998, or 1934, so this can’t be correct.

    At one time, Michael Mann voted for the year 1934, being the hottest year ever, before he voted against it.

    Before we get into unprecedented atmospheric temperature territory, we are going to have to get hotter than it was in 1934, are we not?

    TA

  8. Hey, this is my storm, not theirs. Its purpose is to disprove the theory that “Children Aren’t Going to Know What Snow Is“. I apologise for all the disruption that people are facing, but please recognise that this is for your children and grandchildren.

  9. Atmospheric Physicist….your ‘time’ is the most precious function of your life; you are completely wasting time by dealing with D. Appell. His intelligence ends with “I’ll believe 97% of climate scientists”.

  10. “An easy way to remember the difference is that climate is what you expect, like a very hot summer

    So climate modeling is expectations modeling.

    And since the expectations of people doing modeling are based on models, climate is based on modeling so climate modeling is models modeling, that is, models predicting the output of models.

    I think we are done now.

    Next week, I will explain you why astrology isn’t actually a real science.

    • More people would listen to me if I was an astrologer. And I wouldn’t have to be bothered with ” yeah but your not a climate scientist”. If proof is the gold standard of science, as an astrologer, I would have had at least one prediction correct. Which would make me 100% more accurate than a climate scientist.
      Of course the reliability of breaking bones to see which way they crack is also well known. And require no adjustment of data or even recording data. Totally irrelevant, much like current climate science. It is what we say it is.

    • Next week, I will explain you why astrology isn’t actually a real science.
      ==============
      Long before humans understood the cause of the seasons they learned to successfully predict then using astrology. Astrology does a very good job of predicting the tides.

      In point of fact, to this day we cannot predict the tides from first principles, due to the chaotic nature of the tides. However, astrology allows us to successfully predict a chaotic system with great accuracy.

      Folks make fun of Astrology because of how it has been misused, which has given it a bad name. That should serve as a warning to Science, which is currently being misused. A good name is hard to get, but easy to lose.

      By allowing science to be used for purposes it cannot serve, Science risks the fate of Astrology. Something people laugh at and don’t take seriously.

      • “to this day we cannot predict the tides from first principles”

        source?

        I was under the belief that tides were correctly modeled based on simple mecanics!

  11. Suggest that, if an electric bar radiator is raising the temperature of an object to 350K, then, if there were sixteen such radiators and we add all the flux, Stefan Boltzmann calculations would give a temperature of 700K. Ask if they think that would happen. Assuming “no”

    You’ve defined the scenario in a vague manner, but if your intent is that the object receives 16 times the energy flux due to there being 16 radiators, then the answer is “yes”.

    • then the answer is “yes”.
      =================
      1 million radiators at 350K cannot on their own raise the temperature of an object to 700k. the very best they could hope for is to bring the object to 350k.

      which suggests that there is a huge problem with energy budgets that simply add watts/m^2 without taking into account the temperature of each object.

      so why have there been no papers from physicists showing the obvious problem in assuming that you can simply add watts/m^2 between objects of different temperature?

    • ferd berple
      1 million radiators at 350K

      That is not how he defined the thought experiment. He posited a flux sufficient to raise temperature to 350K, and then posited the existence of 16 such energy fluxes. Do the SB Law calc and you get pretty much exactly 700 degrees.

      so why have there been no papers from physicists showing the obvious problem in assuming that you can simply add watts/m^2 between objects of different temperature?

      Because you can. The photons do not know what temperature they were emitted at. I suggest starting with these:

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/07/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-light-and-heat/
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/29/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-molecules-and-photons/
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/28/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-atmospheric-windows/

    • The photons do not know what temperature they were emitted at
      ========================
      that is a nonsense argument. their “knowledge” has no effect on temperature.

      photon wavelength is a function of the temperature of the radiating body. the energy of each photon is a function of its wavelength. the colder the radiating body, the less energetic the maximum photon emitted.

      if you place an object within a sphere, and the walls of the sphere are radiating at 350k, the object within the sphere will be 350k. because the max energy of each photon emitted is limited by 350k.

      all photons are not identical, which is why you cannot blindly add watts/m^2. a flux of UV photons is not the same as a flux of IR photons, even though the average energy of the flux is identical. thus you cannot blindly add the energy from either flux and expect the same result.

    • Atmospheric physicist. I am having a bit of trouble understanding what it is you are claiming.

      1) Is it your contention that a planet will have the same surface temperature with and without an atmosphere?

      2) Assuming no, then is it your contention that it makes no difference what the composition of that atmosphere is?

      It has been calculated that a body with the same reflectivity and the same distance from the sun would have a surface temperature of -18°C. Even a thermally conductive black body would have a temperature of 5.3°C. Do you disagree with these figures? How do you account for the actual temperature of around 15°C

    • a surface temperature of -18°C. … How do you account for the actual temperature of around 15°C
      ==================
      the difference is a result of the lapse rate. -18C is for a planet without an atmosphere. the center of mass of the troposphere is about 5k, and the effective lapse rate about 6.5C. multiply these and you get 32.5C. The difference between -18C and 15C is 33C. Thus, the so called GHG effect is due to tropospheric convection, not radiation.

    • Ferdberple, please bear with me on this as I am having difficulty understanding the mechanism you propose. Without an atmosphere the surface would be -18°C (assuming black body). We now add an atmosphere that does not absorb any radiation. At the bottom the atmosphere would warm to -18°C and would get colder as we raise the altidude. I do not see how we end up with a temperature above -18°C. Can you explain?

    • an atmosphere that does not absorb any radiation
      ================
      there is no such atmosphere, but in any case. what is different about radiation? is it not equivalent to conduction at a distance? we understand that a 0C object cannot heat an object beyond 0C by conduction, but we cannot fathom the same restriction for radiation.

      as a result of conduction, in the absence of convection, the atmosphere will be at the same temperature as the surface. it will be isothermal.

      but consider this. your -18C planet is not -18C everywhere. It is colder at the poles than the equator. This sets in motion a convection on a planetary scale, not simply vertically as we see in our minds.

      and this convection create a thermal gradient due to gravity and the conversion between KE and PE. this gradient makes the atmosphere warmer lower down that it would be otherwise, and cooler at altitude than it would be otherwise.

      and it is this gradient that warms the surface above what it would be otherwise. however, this warming is not uniform. it takes place towards the poles when the air is descending, which increases the average temperature of the planet above what it would be otherwise. the energy for this warming comes from the upper atmosphere, which is cooling than it would be in the absence of convection.

    • but in any case. what is different about radiation? is it not equivalent to conduction at a distance?

      No! is is absolutely NOT equivalent to conduction at a distance. Your entire treatment of this problem seems to be predicated on that fundamental misunderstanding

    • NOT equivalent to conduction at a distance
      =====================
      how can you tell?

      for example, take two objects suspended in a vacuum, such as parallel flat plates. the objects have different temperatures. place a thermometer on each object. place a barrier between you and the objects such that you cannot see if they are touching, but you can see both thermometers.

      There will be an energy flow between the objects, either due to conduction or radiation. This will be evidenced by the reading of the thermometers. Except for the speed at which both objects reach the same temperature, what difference will you see in the value of the thermometers that will tell you if this flow is due to conduction or radiation?

    • NOT equivalent to conduction at a distance
      =====================
      another way of thinking of this is that radiation is simply conduction at a distance using photons as the force carrier. When CO2 absorbs radiation for example, it might reradiate this as a photon, but it might also lose this energy by conduction to an N2 or O2 molecule, warming the surrounding air.

      Similarly, an N2 or O2 molecule may conduct energy to a CO2 molecule, and that CO2 molecule may radiate this to space, cooling the surrounding air. so the problem remains, in what way is the warming or cooling of a molecule by the abortion or emission of radiation different than the warming or cooling of a molecule by conduction?

      As was advanced earlier, the molecule has no memory of how it was warmed or cooled. So the effects must be identical.

      note: by warming/cooling of a molecule I’m referring to KE. Assuming PE changes to be negligible.

    • ferd,

      You’re defining experiments in which the end state is the same, and so concluding that since the end states are the same, there’s no difference between the mechanisms that got them there. You are confusing the destination with the road.

    • ferd berple
      the difference is a result of the lapse rate.

      Increasing GHG concentration raises the MRL. Now, from this new higher altitude MRL, follow the lapse rate back down to the surface, and presto, higher surface temperature.

    • Menicholas January 25, 2016 at 2:00 pm
      That’s it, I am buying 16 radiators and renting a gymnasium!
      Where is my grant?

      Why bother? And why only 16? Let’s go with a few hundred radiated energy sources, each lower than the boiling point of water, and see if they can add together to heat up a huge tank of water to boiling. Here’s my apparatus, each mirror supplying a beam of radiated energy:

      http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140212006613/en/World%E2%80%99s-Largest-Solar-Thermal-Power-Project-Ivanpah

      Darn thing works too. Not very cost effective, but that isn’t the point.

  12. Looking at major US blizzards like those of 1889, 1899, 1922, 1978, 1993, it’s pretty clear that none of them had a common first name like “Jonas”. (“Knickerbocker” is not a proper first name!)

    I’d also add that none of them had dates which started with the digit “2”. And while 1888 occurred after unseasonably warm weather, Jonas has come after unseasonably warm climate.

    Get it?

    • I would be neat if other weather forecasting organizations assigned a different name to the storms, than the Weather Channel has. Here in Colorado Springs, we had a light dusting of snow this evening, If the Weather Channel got hold of it, they would have a news release, “‘Colorado Springs’ is being slammed with a dangerous dusting of snow from Winter Storm Powderpuff.”

    • none of them had dates which started with the digit “2”.
      ===================
      Benford’s Law states that 1 will be the most common leading digit in a natural series. If your tax returns don’t follow this rule, expect an audit.

  13. The article is written by a sharp tongued young woman named Katie Herzog.
    Did I mention that she is sharp tongued and her first name is Katie?
    You don’t suppose….

    • What the heck happened to Caitiecaitie…did she get banned? Discovered to be already banned?
      Wondering.
      I only came across those threads she comment bombed after everyone had left the conversation.
      Mods.?

      • She (?) wasn’t banned. But she was surely an obnoxious site pest and maybe should have been.

        Would prefer that she not be banned, engaging with people like her is an important test to determine if our convictions stand up to scrutiny and open debate.

        The problem with a thread bomber like her is that before the advent of nesting, debating people like here was easily done. With content appearing all over the thread, it takes considerably more effort to keep track of new content and respond effectively. Makes it impossible in fact, something she/he/it/them seemed to know and be taking advantage of.

  14. I get the climate v weather idea but I’m still struggling with global v local temperature thingy. In the “hottest year ever” we had the coldest winter in 20 years here in Tasmania! Its difficult to keep the global faith while the southern ocean is cooling, sea ice and ice shelves are increasing! Shouldn’t this average out or is it really, really hot* everywhere else? ;-) /sarc (50%)

    *And hence warming on average.

    • Scott, in order to understand it, you must understand words like “adjustments”, “homogenization”, and “canvas buckets”, plus have no idea what satellite temperature data is, no idea of Earth history, have forgotten you ever saw an ice core graph you used to love but found out you really hate, have mixed up the effect of what is known as the “urban heat island” (UHI) by exactly 180 degrees, think you can measure temps to one one hundredths of a degree with a thermometer marked with one degree graduations, and a whole bunch of other smart sciency stuff like that there.

    • It’s too complicated for anybody who is not a peer reviewed climate scientist to understand. If they have to explain it to you, you won’t understand it. So just believe that I can return you 10% year over year on your money… I mean climate… climate…

    • Hang on!! I just stumbled across the Bureau of Meteorology report and I was in error! The “hottest year ever” – 2015 – was the coldest winter in 50 years here!! I happily stand corrected!

      And it was also DRIER:

      “It’s been below average temperature and rainfall for Tasmania during this winter”

      Q. E. F-ing, D. ;-)

    • They take a lot of numbers from all over the place, average, adjust, and just plain make some up…. then put out a press release.

      It’s about as scientific as declaring the Martians are about to land on the Moon.

      • @ AndyJ, 6:15 am Jan 25,”It’s about as scientific as declaring the Martians are about to land on the Moon.”
        Andy sorry but you are sooo behind the times, they have had a base on the “backside” for at least a thousand years, They had to move it there after somebody on earth invented a telescope.

  15. Doug, is that you?
    Good to see you are still sneaking past the censors. Keep changing them E Mail addresses and keep hammering home the truth!
    I still believe I am correct on KE being equal or greater at the top of the atmosphere than at the bottom of it.

    • Ah, ha! I thought so, but wasn’t sure enough… . He kept himself from mentioning his book! GO AWAY, DOUG C0TT0N!

    • KE being equal or greater at the top of the atmosphere than at the bottom of it
      ====================
      Average KE is the same at the top and bottom of a non-convecting atmosphere, resulting in an isothermal atmosphere. In a convecting atmosphere KE is greater at the surface and less at altitude, resulting in a lapse rate. The change in KE is balanced by the change in PE.

      Overall the convecting atmosphere has the same average temperature as the non-convecting atmosphere. What is different is the variance.

  16. In the perfect pre-industrial world temperatures never varied from the pre-determined norm by more than 2C. It never snowed early or late. It always rained at night just to keep the plants happy. Any variance from that MUST be caused by nasty humans burning fossil fuels.

      • I have yet to see them show any concrete proof of sea level rise. You would think they could show all kinds of examples at shorelines and ports by now.

    • Humans were not burning many ‘fossil fuels’ in the pre-industrial world Stuart, so it can’t be blamed on that. It was in/after the Industrial Revolution that humans used ff’s as the primary source. Post, not pre industrial.

  17. This is a clear example of the likes of D. Appell who do not recognise there ARE trained, experienced and qualified people in this world who can disprove aCO2 driven climate change. Well done!

  18. “There is peer-reviewed science that now suggests</b . . ." ???

    Note we don’t get a list of this ‘suggestive’ coulda’ woulda’ might-be science.

    “This is because a warming climate means increased moisture in the atmosphere, and when cold air meets moisture — surprise! — it snows.”

    So this ‘warming climate’ refuses to warm the ‘cold air’. No, it ignores that, and only generates ‘increased moisture’?

    • That’s right. The heat is hiding in the snow. And as soon as it melts, the heat will come roaring back with a vengeance. ( I should put a sarc here… )

  19. Interesting sentence:

    This is because a warming climate means increased moisture in the atmosphere, and when cold air meets moisture — surprise! — it snows. Sometimes a lot, like we’re seeing right now.

    At first read, it seems like Dr Mann’s words. But the sentence isn’t in quotes. So what did he actually say? Well the Grist article actually refers to a Think Progress article and appears to be a paraphrase of what Dr Mann actually said. Here is the Think Progress version, bold mine:

    Mann, Director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, explained: “There is peer-reviewed science that now suggests that climate change will lead to more of these intense, blizzard-producing nor’easters, for precisely the reason we’re seeing this massive storm — unusually warm Atlantic ocean surface temperatures (temperatures are in the 70s off the coast of Virginia).”
    When you mix extra moisture with “a cold Arctic outbreak (something we’ll continue to get even as global warming proceeds),” as Mann points out, “you get huge amounts of energy and moisture, and monster snowfalls, like we’re about to see here.”

    Well Dr Mann, what happened to arctic amplification? The claim was, and continues to be, that the arctic will warm much faster than the rest of the earth. So, does it not follow that although we’ll still get arctic blasts, they’ll not be as cold as they once were? And, those blasts being driven by temperature gradients that have been reduced, will they not be weaker and less frequent, just like we have seen with hurricanes and tornadoes? Further, since both the cold air mass and the warm air mass are expected to be warmer than before, does that not result in precipitation that would otherwise have fallen as snow showing up as rain instead? Meaning less snow storms but more rain?

    C’mon Dr Mann, we know you read this blog. Just jump in and explain it to me please.

    • Dr. Mann will probably say that when the Arctic warms, it forms colder arctic blasts.

      Now, when I say that, it makes absolutely no sense, but when Mann says it, it will rapidly circulate around the “Alarmist-sphere” driven MSM as the truth.

      And so it goes…

      • This is the problem with the useful idiots of the MSM . You could totally explain it like that and they’d believe it. Try this: Michael Mann said that what happens is the warm air from global warming flows up north (remember that heat rises). The warm air then melts the ice. This causes the sea levels to rise and the polar bears to die (just look at the pictures on the internet). BUT, all that warm air that rises to the north then forces the cold air down to the south. Since the cold air comes south it makes it snow. So remember that if the temperature in the USA ever starts to get colder, it’s because the North Pole is getting warmer from Global Warming and forcing the cold air south. But if the temperature in the USA gets warmer, it’s because of Global Warming because the warm air is everywhere. And remember that warm is bad because you can only live on the surface of the sun for a few seconds.

    • davidmhoffer:

      “Well Dr Mann, what happened to arctic amplification? The claim was, and continues to be, that the arctic will warm much faster than the rest of the earth. So, does it not follow that although we’ll still get arctic blasts, they’ll not be as cold as they once were? And, those blasts being driven by temperature gradients that have been reduced, will they not be weaker and less frequent, just like we have seen with hurricanes and tornadoes? Further, since both the cold air mass and the warm air mass are expected to be warmer than before, does that not result in precipitation that would otherwise have fallen as snow showing up as rain instead? Meaning less snow storms but more rain?

      C’mon Dr Mann, we know you read this blog. Just jump in and explain it to me please.”

      If Dr Mann doesn’t mind – I’ll explain it in his absence.

      Yes indeed the Arctic is warming faster – however you need to understand at what levels in the troposphere this is primarily happening via radiative means alone.
      In the winter it is the lowermost part – by that I mean 10’s of feet or metres.
      Why?
      Because of lapse rates (LR). In winter it is stable air (cooled from below), with often a marked invertion.
      It is, well, f**ng cold – CO2 or not – and always will be (unless we go Venus’s way).
      Yes, GHG’s may raise the surface temp (spacially averaged, say 3C as compared to the globes 1C) … but that hardly impacts on the average temp of the winter-time arctic airmass of ~-40C/F (-37C is still f***ng cold).

      No, it does not follow – as a result of both the above and also the fact that when winter-time arctic air travels south over Canada it most is often over snowfields that continue to radiate to space. Arctic air actually cools further at the surface (if that can be separated from mixing to measure it).

      The reduced temperature gradients that you mention are there BUT at jet-stream levels (pressure levels of 300-200mb generally).
      The deltaT that creates this Polar jet is impacted during the NH summer, when Arctic warming can mix vertically to thos levels – unstable air, warmed from below (Vis open waters and lower albedo/greater LH release aloft).
      This indeed does then weaken the JS, make it “wavier” and results in greater meridional flow (Arctic outbreaks).
      So the cold air-mass is relatively unaffected in winter (at the present stage of AGW) BUT the warm airmass *may* have had more precipitable WV available to fall as snow.
      The Polar air (denser) digs under the warm and, aloft, at the frontal zone boundary between the 2 air-masses it never falls below 0C. In that zone – furthest to the south – that may happen, but could result in freezing rain instead, which is arguably worse.

      • When Dr Mann is prepared to answer questions posed to him, I will wake up and pay attention. You answering for him doesn’t cut it, particularly when you get several rather complex issues wrong.

      • davidmhoffer:
        “particularly when you get several rather complex issues wrong.”.

        Would you care to elucidate?
        And then I can correct your misconceptions more clearly.

      • Would you care to elucidate?
        And then I can correct your misconceptions more clearly.

        My questions were directed to Dr Mann. If you can bring him to the table, by all means. I’m not interested what you think his responses would be.

      • Geez Hoffer, when we mere mortals want to know what a scientist thinks, we read his or her published literature.

      • Jeez Brandon, when someone makes an assertion to the public media, we should not be asking what he meant by that? We should read his papers instead? If that were the case, he should never had made the statement in the first place, he should have referred the reporter to his papers.

      • Do you really think one guy has time to answer everyone in the world’s questions on demand? Contrary to unpopular belief, Michael Mann is not the only person in the world doing climatology. Read some papers. Then post a reasonable note to realclimate. If he doesn’t pick it up, Stefan, Gavin or one of the other crew might give you a reasonable answer. Sheesh.

        [Sheesh yourself, RealClimate does not allow dissenting views, period. Pull your head out of your posterior -mod]

      • davidmhoffer;

        Assuming that you were not expecting a reply from Dr Mann to your question, I gave the the exact same explanation that Dr Mann would do.
        It is quite basic meteorology radiative/thermodynamical physics when it comes down to it and you will find my/his answer in the text books or in papers that are viewable online.

      • Brandon Gates
        Seriously? You want me to read some papers? Who was it that got poleward energy transport via air and ocean current completely bass ackwards just recently? And who pointed it out to you and even told you what author to look for to find it? Then you have the arrogance to come here a few days later and lecture ME on reading papers? As for RealClimate, those bozos committed the sin of altering one of my questions so as to change the meaning of it and then ridiculed me for it. I haven’t been back since as they confirmed what I was already suspicious of is that the site was constructed for political not science purposes.

        ToneB
        You are anonymous. When you post under your own name and provide links to the papers that you claim support you, I might pay more attention. But the point is that Dr Mann is happy to make all sorts of prognostications to MSM, but he doesn’t have the balls to enter into a public debate forum.

      • davidmhoffer,

        Seriously? You want me to read some papers?

        When I want to understand something better, that’s what I do.

        Who was it that got poleward energy transport via air and ocean current completely bass ackwards just recently?

        Ding ding ding, survey says: what I got wrong was ignorantly stating that the oceans transported more heat poleward than the atmosphere.

        And who pointed it out to you and even told you what author to look for to find it?

        You did, for which I thanked you and apologized for getting it wrong, and wrongly assuming I knew what I was talking about. Harsh lesson for me, quite embarrassing, but lesson nonetheless.

        Then you have the arrogance to come here a few days later and lecture ME on reading papers?

        I think it’s curious that reading papers is something I should be doing more of, whereas you are somehow entitled to a one-on-one audience with Dr. Mann about a question any number of his colleagues could answer in literature, and failing that, by asking a reasonably well-informed question at RealClimate.

        And sure, I’ll cop to being an arrogant SOB when my blood’s up. You?

        As for RealClimate, those bozos committed the sin of altering one of my questions so as to change the meaning of it and then ridiculed me for it. I haven’t been back since as they confirmed what I was already suspicious of is that the site was constructed for political not science purposes.

        Cool story bro., I’m so happy for you that the conspiracy is still alive and well inside your head. I’m getting the feeling you don’t really want an answer to what I think is actually a perfectly good and valid question. Pity. But you know, that’s just because I’m a fraud and liar like all the rest, amirite? I’m right.

      • Both of you, Brandon and David Hoffer, take a time out for 12 hours. When you return, do not resume this personal squabble.

      • dbstealey:

        “David Hoffer is right, for all we know you’re Pee Wee Herman.”

        Can I ask you to count the number of posters on this thread that are also “anonymous”?
        (no surnames)
        It was easier for me to count the ones who are not.
        I make it ~31 – out of 256 posts.
        Yes, I know there are several posts from some people …. but.

        I therefore rather think you talk to anonymous posters all the time.

        This goes back a bit to mcourtney’s objection to catiecatie in a recent thread – where he/she became “objectionable” and earned a “warning” just because he/she was sticking to his/her guns.

        You obviously do not agree with either his/hers, Brandon’s or my opinion but as I said back in that instance
        you could have a pure echo-chamber here …. but what is the point?

        To me it (anonymity) smacks of an excuse to end the “discussion”.

        And so no, I’m not going to be anything but anonymous on here unless and until you and or Anthony ask it of “sceptics” posting here.

        I think that’s quite fair and equitable.

        Oh, BTW: Who’s Pee Wee Herman?

      • I agree with a lot of what you wrote here. And I’m not saying you or anyone else has to show their identity. But the ones who use their real name have more credibility. That’s just how I see it.

        As for Pee Wee, there’s an easy way to find out…

  20. subscription required:

    24 Jan: WSJ: Patrick J. Michaels: The Climate Snow Job
    A blizzard! The hottest year ever! More signs that global warming and its extreme effects are beyond debate, right? Not even close.
    An East Coast blizzard howling, global temperatures peaking, the desert Southwest flooding, drought-stricken California drying up—surely there’s a common thread tying together this “extreme” weather. There is. But it has little to do with what recent headlines have been saying about the hottest year ever. It is called business as usual…
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate-snow-job-1453664732

    found more of the article at junkscience:

    24 Jan: Junkscience: The Climate Snow Job
    http://junkscience.com/2016/01/the-climate-snow-job/

  21. ThinkProgress spoke to Michael Mann, the nation’s preeminent climatologist….

    ROFL! The savior has spoken! Hallelujah!

    And the snow storms gathered. Repent! For it is a sign that the earth is warming….

  22. “Thou shalt not increase carbon dioxide, methane, water vapour or anything that is considered by thy neighbour to be an IR-active gas in the atmosphere. emission that could be profitably taxed and lead to a competitive advantage for me, if it was.”

    Green is not the end. Corporate lazioness & greed, and political power is the end. Green is just the means…

  23. So this storm which was and is widely reported as record breaking and extreme event had the second highest Central Park snowfall on record, since….wait for it…Feb 2006.

    “Officials say the total of 26.8 inches that fell in Central Park during the storm is the second-most since officials began keeping snowfall records in 1869. That narrowly misses tying the previous record of 26.9 inches from February 2006.”

    http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/blizzard-2016-new-york-city-single-day-record-of-26-6-inches-of-snow-set-nws-says-1.11377452

    So because it didn’t break the total accumulation record then as only the USA can and does, they make it the single one day record.

    Having lived in Philadelphia for 2 years from 2002 -2004 I thought all this hype about this storm sounded all too familiar to the Presidents day storm in Feb 2003.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_blizzard_of_2003

    We were snowed in for 4 days.

    Also note when most of these big snow fall events occur…..in the second half of winter. As a Meteorologist, this is not unusual or unexpected at this time of year and the fact it was close to record snowfalls is also not surprising as there are only a limited number of these types of storms in history so in other words records are almost expected to be broken given the lack of events.

    • It broke the one day record in Harrisburg, but the past record was back in in 1983. Funny how this “extreme” weather isn’t as frequent as the Global Bullshitters claim it to be.

    • @ pbweather, 12: 57 am Jan 25: “Also note when most of these big snow fall events occur…..in the second half of winter. As a Meteorologist, this is not unusual or unexpected at this time of year ”
      As some one that has worked outside for decades that is a well know fact. I presume it is natural sequence as the planet cools of in the early part of winter ( but still has latent heat in soil and water) in the last half of the season it is only normal for winter precip. to be in the form of snow. A lot of ski resorts promote the Feb through April as the best time to enjoy fresh new snow.

  24. Rare cold and snow in Asia.
    ” Taipei, Jan. 24 (CNA) Snow, which is rarely seen in Taiwan, an Asia-Pacific island crossed by the Tropic of Cancer, wowed people around the island Sunday with the appearance of the white stuff, from the capital Taipei in the north to Pingtung County in the south.

    Under the influence of a strong cold air mass, many places around Taiwan — even those located at an altitude of only 400 to 500 meters — received a covering of snow or soft hail overnight, exciting the locals, who likely have never seen a silver world in real life since they were born. ”
    http://focustaiwan.tw/news/afav/201601240014.aspx

    ” Japan’s Meteorological Agency confirmed that Nago city on the tropical island of Okinawa saw snow for the first time in recorded history since 1966, while the island of Amami Ohshima had its first snowfall in 115 years. ”
    http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/25/asia/asia-cold-weather-travel-disruption/

    Global Warming, climate change, global cooling or just weather ?

  25. kokoda,

    He’s not wasting his time with me . . and I wish he’d spend a bit more to make it less vague in my ignorant head ; )

  26. Reblogged this on 4timesayear's Blog and commented:
    I told them they’d get “payback”. :)

    For those that were complaining about the warm December weather: “Are you happy now?”

    Btw, someone should check to see if Al Gore was on the East coast recently.

  27. Solar observations continue to support the assertion that the solar cycle has been interrupted as opposed to a slowdown in the solar cycle.

    The cult of CAGW are and can continue to ignore the signs of an imminent significant drop in planetary climate. The entire scientific basis of CAGW and even AGW was incorrect. The warming in the last 150 years was due to solar cycle changes, not due to the increase in atmospheric CO2. If that assertion is correct global warming is reversible.

    The cult of CAGW will not be able to spin away a significant year by year drop in planetary temperature. The public will demand an explain as to why planetary temperature is dropping year after year and will need reassurance as to when the drop in planetary temperature will end.

    A guide as what to expect is in the paleo record. The North Atlantic ocean was as much as 10C colder in regions than current in the last 150 years. The planetary cooling will be caused by increase low level cloud cover 40 to 60 degrees due to reduce solar wind bursts and increased GCR, colder tropical ocean temperature due to an increase in cloud cover due to reduce coronal hole wind bursts, and increased wind speed 40 to 60 degrees, and a reduction in cirrus cloud cover (the high altitude wispy cirrus clouds warm the planet by the greenhouse affect particularly in the winter in high latitude regions) – all ultimately due to the solar cycle interruption.

    There will in the very near future be tens of feet of snow every winter in the UK and along the US east coast when planetary temperature drops.

    This year.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35397763

    In South Korea, more than 500 domestic and international flights have been cancelled in Jeju as the island, known for balmy weather and beaches, saw -6C weather. The airport is due to reopen on Monday night.
    Thousands of tourists were left stranded over the weekend. Yonhap news agency reported that local officials were scrambling to find transport and accommodation.

    In Hong Kong, residents shivered in 3C, the lowest temperature there in nearly 60 years.
    Parts of Guangzhou and Shenzhen in southern China have also seen the rare appearance of snow, while the southern Japanese island of Okinawa has seen sleet for the first time ever, report Chinese and Japanese media.

    Unusually low temperatures
    Many of those who died in Taiwan were elderly people living in northern regions such as Taipei and Taoyuan, as well as some living in the southern city of Kaohsiung.

    The north saw an unusually low temperature of 4C (39F) on Sunday, and many homes in Taiwan lack central heating

    Last year.
    http://globalnews.ca/news/1856489/coldest-february-on-record-in-quebec/

    Coldest February on record in Quebec and Ontario
    MONTREAL – If you thought this month was the most brutal you’ve ever experienced, it wasn’t just your imagination.

    Between Ontario and Quebec deep freezes, the Maritime snowpocalypse, and British Columbia’s early spring, February was a month of extreme weather.

    In fact, Environment Canada calls it the coldest February in Quebec history, with an average temperature of -15.3 C, while the daytime normal is actually -7.7 C.

    Making it the coldest February since at least 1889. Other parts of the province fared even worse, with Quebec City reporting a temperature of -17.8 C.

  28. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35397763

    “A cold snap sweeping across East Asia has killed at least 85 people in Taiwan and stranded 60,000 tourists in South Korea. Taiwanese media reported deaths from hypothermia and cardiac disease following a sudden drop in temperature over the weekend. Meanwhile heavy snow forced the closure of the airport on the Korean holiday island of Jeju, cancelling flights.
    The cold spell has also hit Hong Kong, southern China and Japan.”

    I bet this is global warming as well

  29. Looks like 1888 still takes the cake for worst brute of a US blizzard, but winter is still young and some real shockers have occurred much later than Jan.

    One other candidate would have to the 1717 Great Snow. Even the Indians said neither they nor their remembered forebears had seen the like. I suppose all this stuff would be of great interest in times of interest in actual climate. But these are the days of dogma, so it’s down the memory hole with 1717 and 1888. Pity.

    This is the 120th anniversary of what may well be settled Australia’s worst month for heat. When I look through the records of different parts of NSW, and take into account the official death rate from heat alone, Jan 1896 was staggering in its severity and persistence. A reading taken from three very carefully placed and observed “glasses” on a western station came in at 130C! It may seem like an aberration or error, but other readings and the average max for Jan in places as far apart as Bourke, Dubbo and Sydney (highest in all three to this day) indicate that it was a hell of summer. Contemporary news reports are hair-raising, what with all the deaths and evacuations.

    Of course, in the Age of Dogma this sort of information and reflection is about as welcome as a belch in a crowded lift.

      • Sorry, force of decimal habit. It was 130F, of course. The reason to believe is that the month was so extreme in so many parts and that the Mara readings were tripled up and done with care. Not saying it was so, of course, but…
        http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/44153166

        If the three readings were accurate, you’d have to think that the heat was very localised. I’d call it possible but not likely.

        Death Valley’s world record from 1913 is 134 while Australia’s official highest is the 123.3 from 1960 at Oodnadatta. Cloncurry still stands by its long accepted 127.58 reading from 1859. I think we need to accept that the chances of the hottest max occurring where there happens to be an official or even unofficial weather station are pretty slim. On the other hand, what you can’t prove you can’t prove. The main thing about 1896 is that there were so many extreme temps, not on the same day or in the same cluster of days, all over the large state of NSW in Jan of 1896. It was also the beginning of the Federation Drought, which I guess is more important than an individual max reading on a remote station. It’s the ensemble of bad conditions that needs emphasis.

        1896 was the year of NY’s lethal Big Heat, by the way.

  30. And so what happened to the man made part of this story and everyone’s comments. As I keep drumming into everyone I discus this topic with “man made” is the qualifying statement, without it you may as well simply be pushing the proverbial up hill trying to change peoples thinking.

    Man made, man made, man made, never forget that that is what this whole garbage is about.

  31. Thinkstupid spoke the Michael Moron the world’s preeminent die expert.
    “Well, you see dice have six sides, and we can show that historically dice were averaging a consistent result of 3.5 per roll. And that average trend appears to have been flat since the invention of dice.
    But that doesn’t happen any more.
    We were initially expecting to find that the modern dice were throwing out high results.
    But, now we can see that we are getting those expected highs like 4, 5 or 6. But also extreme lows like 3, 2 or 1. In fact, we never see that historical average of 3.5 anymore.
    Those extremes above and below 3.5 seem to be the new normal, as predicted by people such as myself, Hansen, Suzuki, Gore and that newcomer Oreskes.
    That’s why we have renamed the phenomenon – dice change.
    And yet the skeptics still refuse to see this and tell me that the entire phenomenon is an artifact generated by the statistical effect of averaging out the past and comparing it with specific events in the present.”
    (warning spoof quotation.)

      • Russell: When I lived in Montreal we would see temperatures as low as -40 (F or C) in the winter (with wind chill factor) and as high as 36C (or 99F) in the summer (with 99% humidity sometimes!
        It is hard to relate to catastrophic temperature increases in the hundredths of a degree.

      • I am so disappointed at this mere +100.
        I admit – there was a glaringly obvious “the” in the first sentence which should have been “to”.
        So I didn’t really deserve much more.
        I was really depending on at least a +500.
        I’m assuming that I can exchange these gifted credits at one-to-one in bitcoin!! :)

    • @ frog, + 1100, +100 = 1200/2 = + 600 (and then JohnWho had to bugger it up with only one + ) now I have to recalculate the whole thing! so I’ll give you + 10,000 :).

  32. “your faith in the climate religion ”

    Forgive me my scepticism, incredulity, belief in rationality and the strange notion that words actually mean something but isn’t it sort of basic to a religion that its adherents believe in some sort of deity? Where’s the belief in a deity in the idea of CAGW? I think that the word that you might be struggling to discover is ideology. But that word is maybe less attractive than ‘religion’ because while some people like making sweeping criticisms of ‘religion’ they are a bit wary of doing the same for ‘ideology’ precisely because they have one and don’t wish all ideologies to be given sweeping condemnations. For the present I can’t see any other explanation for the constant, inappropriate use of the term ‘religion’. However, some people seem to enjoy wallowing in the Humpty Dumpty syndrome. “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’” Lewis Carroll had a marvellous ability to prick people’s pompousness.

  33. The true horror of it all is quite impossible to describe with words. If January for the eastern US was balmy, with little snow, that would also be evidence for AGW. There is indeed no evidence, no scientific reasoning, measurement or argument that can even make a small dent in the ironclad global warming/climate change “it’s-just-a-fact” belief.

    The facts are simply the last thing that will matter.

  34. IPCC Working Group II in 2001 on North American impacts

    Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point. It is difficult to predict where ice storms will occur and identify vulnerable populations. The ice storm of January 1998 (see Section 15.3.2.6) left 45 people dead and nearly 5 million people without heat or electricity in Ontario, Quebec, and New York (CDC, 1998; Francis and Hengeveld, 1998; Kerry et al., 1999).
    http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=569#1524122

    Never forget, guys, this science is settled.

  35. I’m hesitant to jump in with a comment, but Joelobryan posted a comment that included this link: “How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative GHE in Antarctica.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full
    In this article the authors claim that their TOA data is from the TES instrument on the AURA satellite. What caught my eye were the Figure 2 graphs. In both graphs the amount of energy emitted by CO2 at TOA was the same for the standard atmosphere and over Antarctica. On the standard graph the CO2 emissions at 15 microns is shown as a depression in outgoing LWIR profile. Since the surface of Antarctica is so cold -60ºC, the amount of outgoing radiation from the surface is greatly reduced at all wavelengths except for 15 microns, where CO2 emits energy and it appears as a peak. But the energy emitted is the same.
    A post from 2011 at http://cosmoscon.com/2011/12/27/a-graph-on-co2-absorption/?blogsub=confirming#blog_subscription-3, “A Graph of CO2 Emissions,” very clearly explains that at the current levels of CO2 all the LW radiation at 15 microns is being 100% absorbed. Any increase in CO2 will have little or no effect. Their graph is self explanatory showing the LW radiation distribution from earth. In the last paragraph of their article they state:
    “If the Earth were to get warmer then the upgoing radiation distribution would shift to the LEFT (per Wein’s displacement law). That would mean the intensity of the upgoing radiation wavelengths that CO2 thoroughly absorbs would be LESS so the greenhouse warming contribution of CO2 for a warmer Earth would be less than a cooler Earth. Conversely if the Earth were to get cooler (i.e. a little ice age) then CO2 would be a stabilizing factor since the upgoing radiation curve would shift RIGHT and there would be more photons for this molecule to absorb and help bring Earth back into a warmer climate.”
    CO2’s contributing factor to the greenhouse effect is saturated and even if the Earth warms, CO2’s role in the greenhouse effect will only diminish.”
    I think the first article about Antarctica clearly supports the conclusions in the second article. Hopefully, I’ve not misinterpreted things.

  36. Dr. Mann needs to brush up on his weather. The blizzard of 2016 was not a nor’easter. A nor’easter is a colloquial name for a tropical cyclone or near hurricane starting down south and heading up the coast. It dumps snow on land against a cold high pressure area to the west. If he doesn’t know the weather he can’t study climate.

    The latest blizzard blew in over California courtesy of El ‘Nino winds, traveled across the southwest, pulled more moisture in from the Gulf and turned northeast, dumping snow as it went. Then it drifted off into the Atlantic to harass shipping.

    Totally different types of storms and definitely different weather! The blizzard of 1978 was definitely a nor’easter with winds to match, peaking at over 110mph.

    • The latest blizzard blew in over California courtesy of El ‘Nino winds, traveled across the southwest, pulled more moisture in from the Gulf and turned northeast, dumping snow as it went. Then it drifted off into the Atlantic to harass shipping.

      If Dr. Mann bothered to watch Joe Bastardi’s Saturday weekly summary, he would know this. Bastardi called this months ago, and tweaked it in late November.

    • IIRC, the NWS doesn’t define nor’easter. (They do define bombogenesis, a feature of many nor’easters. Sigh.)

      From all the reading and writing I’ve done, I’ve never seen a nor’easter include a tropical cyclone. If it has an eye, its described as a tropical system. Of course, most tropical cyclones have turned extratropical by the time the reach New England, but even those are generally acknowledged as tropical systems.

      Nor’easters don’t have to generate snow! (Tropical systems rarely generate snow – yes, Sandy is a major exception!) They generally are referred to by their marine impacts on shipping over the last couple hundred years. These days nor’easters are generally storms that form along the southeast seaboard, often triggered by another storm coming in, and develop quickly as they come up the coast to New England.

  37. Blizzard of 66-67 (can’t remember the month) 30+ inches snow shut down Chicago. Poor weather forecasting back then. Almost could not get home from high school that afternoon. Took my uncle 2 days to get home out to a suburb.
    Blizzards are a fact of life in the northern hemisphere.

  38. A couple above have picked up on Asia’s cold snap. This one is pretty historic, not just another snowstorm. Some all time records are dropping, and many “coldest in 50 years” kind of records.

    • “Researchers at the University of St Andrews have previously said that the noise made by offshore wind farms can interfere with a whale’s sonar, and can in tragic cases see them driven onto beaches where they often die. “

  39. Weather manifests the path fro one equilibrium state to another while climate quantifies what the equilibrium states were, are now and will be in the future.

  40. Flux is additive and will increase temperature at the surface. Consider a one-way mirror surrounding the earth such that solar radiation can get in but not out. The surface will warm.

  41. Janice wrote “FYI: the non-falsifiable conjecture that you have presented so far is NOT even a scientifically valid, falsifiable, “hypothesis” as so many gratuitously describe your feeble flaylings. That is, the phrase “AGW hypothesis” is nonsense.”

    This unfalsifiability is, for my money, the most bizarre feature of alarmism as espoused by supposed physical scientists. Looking back a way we find ‘gobal warming’ hypotheses about the effects of anthro co2 encoded into models which made predictions about climatic evolution. All fine enough and we watched with due fascination as those predictions were shown to be resoundingly wrong. In the full knowledge that the scam was finished if they continued to make falsifable predictions they executed the quite staggeringly fraudulent branding switch to ‘climate change’. Now that of course simply claims that any change whatsoever is caused by anthro co2 and each and every weather event is attributable to co2. That is a claim at a monstrously and eternally unfalsifiable level which makes poor Russell’s teapot look like something you could get reasonable odds on from a reputable bookmaker.

    Whenever I raise this most fundamental of scientific issues with any scientist in my acquaintance who belongs to the church of carbon dioxide they generally just go all coy on me and want to talk about polar bears or something. The most honest response I ever get is “well we know it isn’t perfect but it’s the best that the best of science can currently do and we’re therefore obliged to go with it”. When I respond that if the best we currently had was astrology would you go with that also, once again I get the ‘oh look, is that a mighty ice cliff tumbling into the ocean?’ treatment. It isn’t science any more than a claim that Shangri-La lies just outside of our light cone is science because it cannot ever even in principle be falsified.

  42. The real headline might read If it is Hot, It needs a Carbon Tax and If it is Cold, It needs a Carbon Tax. It is revenue greed that drives the mania and it is more powerful than any short term storm event.

  43. When trying to sell AGW to the public, the warmers have to deal in perceptions. If a weather event is perceived to be bad by the public, then it’s due to GW, and if the weather is perceived to be good, it’s not even talked about.

  44. Some people find comfort and assurance in having an instant explanation for anything. Today, global warming provides this certainty, and deceitfully addresses the uncertainties by claiming no harm done if it’s wrong.

  45. Well since “climate change” seems to cover everything in the way of weather or climate that looks bad and it is then all blamed on human fossil fuel emissions, we might as well start calling it Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Accounting or CACA for short, instead of CAGW.

  46. “CO2 is the strongest anthropogenic forcing agent for climate change since pre-industrial times”

    I would place my bet on it being Aerosols. We have witnessed with a great deal of certainty how one volcanic eruption can notably reduce the readings. Back to work guys

  47. Cold and snowy? In Rockford it is going to be a high of 38 F today. It is not usually that warm here in the middle of winter. Forecast is for at least 10 more days of unseasonable warmth.

  48. Climate change is taking place according to the laws that affect the mutual relations of the planets and the sun. It’s very complicated to explain and can not be proven to those who do not know how the planets to each other, “communicate” with each other and with the sun, forming the various cycles of change and the sun and the planets. These changes have cycles of various duration and intensity of activity. Basic indicators of these changes are the sunspot cycle of about 11.2 years, which is multiplied by the time and intensity, depending on the relationship of the planet.
    It is very interesting that science is so incompetent that this phenomenon can not be connected with logical cause. Even worse fact, it is today impossible to prove anything if that evidence, the author himself does not pay. But so ignorant in this area manipulate billions of dollars, and since then no one benefits except themselves, which are as much as 97% of scientists “rolled up” with politics or some other magical means to destroy truth and logic.

  49. Michael Mann a “preeminent climatologist? ROTLFLMAO . Grist isn’t fit to be digital bird-cage liner.

  50. Lordy. I woke up with lint in my belly button. Anthropogenic climate change MUST BE THE CAUSE! Ignore the flannel sheets behind the current.

  51. Atmospheric Physicist,

    Very convincing. Even though skeptics of a conjecture have nothing to prove, your comments and plenty of others have demolished what I call the “dangerous AGW” conjecture (DAGW).

    It amazes me that this issue has become an ‘us versus them’ battle — which tells us that it’s not science, it’s politics. In science, ideas are proposed and disposed of. Only those ideas that remain standing after the smoke clears are considered to be the curent state of science.

    Nothing credible remains of the DAGW conjecture. It has been repeatedly falsified. If any non-Physicist is still worried about ‘man-made global warming’, it might be helpful to point out a fact or two.

    Rather than the scary sounding “CO2 has ramped up from 280 ppm, to FOUR HUNDRED ppm!!”, they could have said “…from 280,000 ppb, to 400,000 ppb!!”
    They mised their chance. Now I remind them that CO2 has risen by just one (1) part in 10,000, over a century. And human CO2 emissions are only about 3% of the annual total.

    Another thing that amazes me is the fact that the alarmist crowd has started to lie outright. Before, they would leave a little wiggle room by being vague. Now they falsely assert things like, “Global warming is accelerating! Every year is the hottest EVAH!! And satellite data is wrong, surface stations are more accurate.” Appell has always been less than truthful, but now prevarication has gone mainstream.

    Anyway, good comment. I’ll bet you either don’t hear from Appell, or he obfuscates, deflects, and changes the subject. He’s that kinda guy.

  52. I would like to add that in the science is settled category about the math used to prove AGW based on retained heat w/m^2 that when they first presented it that the retained heat was 240 w/m^2. I’ve inquired often but CAGW doesn’t answer what the retained heat is now. However, it is strange that if with all the additional co2, that doing the formula with 260 w/m^2 results in in a lower number in K and a lower number like 220 w/m^2 results in a higher K in increased temperature. In any math it should be a higher retained w/m^2 should result in a higher temperature not a lower one.

    A website Earth Radiation Budget has the outgoing and incoming as nearly equal.

    There are too many inconsistencies in CAGW.

  53. Actually, the AGW crowd has us.They control the media. They change the meaning of words that we are all so familiar with. They twist the language to their political benefit with no shame. You know the white stuff that we are never going to see again and which did us the great favor of briefly saving us from the bureaucracy in Washington. I have it from a reliable source that in the mountains at the ski resorts they are starting to call the white stuff cottage cheese. If they get their way we will just stop calling it the familiar word and by their logic their prediction which failed requires simply applying AGW convoluted double think. No one will ever see “snow” again ……..because……..poof……..it is now ………cottage cheese. Perfect!

Comments are closed.