The New York Times Publishes Another Flawed Prediction on Climate

Op-ed says hurricane drought will end at some point, and man-made climate change is to blame either way.

Guest opinion by Steven Capozzola


The New York Times ran an op-ed today by Adam Sobel, an “atmospheric scientist at Columbia.”  The gist of Sobel’s article: Since 2005, the United States has been experiencing a hurricane “drought” (I.e. no major hurricane has made landfall in the time. We are currently at 3918 days, over a decade.)  But don’t worry, Sobel says, there will be more hurricanes soon, and the fact that they will be coming is proof of man-made climate change.

Yes, that’s what he’s saying.

The question is whether Sobel is writing the op-ed to buck himself up, and the rest of the alarmist crowd.  After all, the computer models that have predicted warming have also predicted more hurricanes.  But real-life observations continue to diverge from what computer models have predicted.

It’s somewhat baffling that the New York Times would publish such an essentially meaningless opinion.  But the mainstream media has long since thrown in its lot with the alarmist crowd.

Regardless, there are problems with Sobel’s op-ed…

Sobel says that “significant global warming, over a degree and a half Fahrenheit, has already occurred since preindustrial days.”  That’s accurate.  The earth has warmed by roughly 0.8 degrees Celsius since the late 1800s.  But whether one views it as “significant” depends on context.  Given the accumulating evidence of global climate changes over the past few thousand years, such a net increase over a span of roughly 130 years seems relatively mild—and typical of the climate variations seen during the latter part of the current interglacial epoch.

There’s also the greater issue of cause.  Sobel naturally assumes that this increase in temperatures is driven entirely by increased emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2.)  But many climate skeptics would argue that this mild uptick is the result of a large-scale increase in solar output over the past 130 years.  (While solar irradiance has increased in that time, it is the accompanying variations in solar wind and solar magnetic field that contribute significantly to changes in global climate, thanks to their influence on atmospheric ionization and cloud formation.)

Putting aside the issue of cause, however, it’s important to note that Sobel is basing his views on what he predicts will happen.  Essentially, he is saying “The computer models tell us…”  And that’s the crux of his argument, and his problem.

Since the start of the 21st Century, the computer models predicting large-scale anthropogenic warming have diverged further and further from actual, observed temperature measurements.  Despite this, Sobel and company continue to insist on the validity of their argument.  The problem for them is that they can’t explain why their predictions aren’t matching the net flatlining of temperatures seen since 2000.

Ironically, solar advocates can offer a valid hypothesis— since solar activity is now falling off—with a consequent leveling off of temperatures.  Equally significant is that atmospheric CO2 has reached 400 parts per million (0.04%), and is essentially “saturated.”   Thus, its greenhouse potential is maxed out, making additional heat-trapping less likely.

It’s interesting to note that Sobel couches his statements with a series of disclaimers.  Of hurricanes and climate, he says the “knowledge is far from perfect.”  And he cites the argument of his own opponents in order to make a safe caveat or two—he blames “natural variability” for the current hurricane drought.

Overall, Sobel explains that studies of weather are uncertain: “While there is debate about the drought’s significance, there is little doubt that its primary cause is dumb luck, and that won’t continue forever…The best science doesn’t, in fact, predict that the future will hold more hurricanes; most of our best models predict there may be fewer. But these predictions of changes in the number of hurricanes are quite uncertain…”

Again, it’s somewhat laughable that the New York Times would publish an opinion that basically says ‘We haven’t seen any major hurricanes for 11 years, we don’t really know why that is, climate science is uncertain, our predictive computer models can only tell us so much, but we’re certain to see more hurricanes soon, and man-made CO2 emissions are the cause.’

But this is the face of contemporary climate alarmism.  This is the crowd of environmental elites who willfully disparage anyone who questions the theory of man-made warming, who aim to silence dissent and debate on the issue, and who advocate for massive reductions in fossil fuel use that will hurt millions of low-income Americans, and likely forfeit the lives of millions in the Third World.  All this certitude on their part for an agenda based on question mark after question mark…

Sobel and his ilk should stop basing their predictions on failed computer models and start looking at the real world consequences of their imperfect science.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 15, 2016 9:56 am

It’s not the science that’s imperfect; it’s nature…

Reply to  BallBounces
July 15, 2016 11:12 am

“It’s not nice to fool [with] Mother Nature!”

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  brians356
July 15, 2016 12:04 pm

The climate models aren’t fooling Mother Nature. — Eugene WR Gallun

Greg Woods
Reply to  BallBounces
July 15, 2016 12:10 pm

Scientists have a new tool to work with, when actual data or climate models fail: Legislation – laws to make it so…

James Reddig
July 15, 2016 10:03 am

I was mildly excited to read Sobel’s article this morning. I keep tabs on the NY Times because it is useful to keep track of what the elite wants us to think at any given time. Climate Science has drifted into a sort of religious orthodoxy in which the heretics must be constantly hectored with the evils of their ways. It would be sad if it were not so monstrously harmful to the majority of the citizens of this planet.

Reply to  James Reddig
July 15, 2016 10:50 am

The banality of Sobel and the left takes the breath away. Their conclusions are similar to the belief in the power of witches in Salem those many years ago.

Reply to  pyeatte
July 15, 2016 11:12 am

“Their conclusions are similar to the belief in the power of witches in Salem those many years ago”
I’m a middle aged guy and work with a few young liberals. I just love the way they express disdain when one dares to question the established belief. The gist is, how does one uneducated old guy dare question the knowledge of all the world’s scientist. And I quote; “you think you know better than their super computers?”

Reply to  pyeatte
July 15, 2016 3:59 pm

There was proof of witchcraft in Salem from “multiple independent sources”. Pigs died, crops failed, children had fits, babies were stillborn, slaves dabbled in ‘black magic’, and girls danced in the woods. If it wasn’t witchcraft, what else could it be?
The scientific consensus from the most learned men in society was that it had to be witchcraft. Only witchcraft ‘deniers’ could claim it was natural variability. The precautionary principle dictated that that action had to be taken immediately. If you waited until Satan walked down the street in broad daylight, it was too late.
They had to round-up the witches and witchcraft ‘deniers’; before it was too late! Even if Catastrophic Global Witchcraft turned out to false, wasn’t there a lot of benefits to hanging the riffraff? Think of the children!

Reply to  pyeatte
July 16, 2016 12:23 am

Martin, there was a general witch hunt throughout a good chunk of Europe at that time. And, as I have pointed out before, it worked. We have had very little trouble from witches since then.

July 15, 2016 10:12 am

there is little doubt that its primary cause is dumb luck…
I wonder how my old Chemistry 101 prof would have reacted if I had used this to describe the results of one of my failed lab experiments. (Of course, that was back in the 1970’s… prior to post-modern science, so…)

Mark - Helsinki
July 15, 2016 10:13 am

This lad has been desperate for a while to link extreme weather to AGW. It smacks more of “look at me me me me me”.
Any of these clowns can take a gaze in the crystal ball and get some desperately wanted attention, shot to nothing, if no hurricanes appear then “not yet but they will” and if they do “I told you so”. His prediction is basically spanning the next 20 years. Another Hansen type claim and forget scenario.
This is why they are trying to fool the next generation by going at kids with their false history. By the time 4 year olds reach adulthood the data we have now will look nothing like that in 2036, history will have been revised mostly.
If those who took measurements in 1880 could see their data now 😀

July 15, 2016 10:14 am

it is the accompanying variations in solar wind and solar magnetic field that contribute significantly to changes in global climate, thanks to their influence on atmospheric ionization and cloud formation.)
The solar magnetic field has not varied as the temperature has. Here is the variation of the magnetic field on the surface [given by its effect rY of UV of the ionosphere] and of the magnetic field B in the Heliosphere:
From Figure 17 of

Reply to  lsvalgaard
July 15, 2016 10:35 am

“he solar magnetic field has not varied as the temperature has. ”
except in the summers in one small part of a small island
and during most of the year with one major exceptions, when in an even smaller island a big volcano had a bigger than usual blow-up.
but then the rejectionists think that small places and large events in the even smaller places don’t count as science.

Reply to  vukcevic
July 15, 2016 11:15 am

Obvious failure since ~1990, so not science.

Reply to  vukcevic
July 15, 2016 12:10 pm

I show what the data contains, something unknown to me took place post 1995, non-linear response at the time of the Grand Minimum trough and the Grand Maximum peak, maybe CO2, perhaps the data ‘correction’, or whatever.
1660 to 1995 is 90% + of the time. period considered and since temperature is reflection of the absorbed energy, which is a function of multitude of factors, a serous scientist looks for the reason, why non-linearity etc?
Rejectionist is not interested why the 90%+ is correct or why less than 10% response appear to be excessive, he/she throws away the baby with the bath water, locks the bathroom and never goes back in there again
Scientific dereliction of duty.

Reply to  vukcevic
July 15, 2016 12:45 pm

The data shows a failure of your assertion.

Reply to  vukcevic
July 15, 2016 2:07 pm

If something works in 90%+ of the cases, but it takes off for few % of cases, a good designer of systems doesn’t give up without attempting finding the cause.
It is pointless trying to reignite the blunted scientific curiosity.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  vukcevic
July 15, 2016 2:41 pm

July 15, 2016 at 12:45 pm
The data shows a failure of your assertion.
Discuss the divergence :p

Mike Jonas(@egrey1)
Reply to  vukcevic
July 15, 2016 11:03 pm

lsvalgaard: “Obvious failure since ~1990, so not science.“. Well, the divergence since ~1990 looks pretty similar to an earlier temporary divergence (~1800 or ~1700 depending on which graph Leif is referring to). In the complex non-linear climate system it is obviously absurd to expect there never to be any divergence. I don’t find Vuk’s analyses very convincing as I feel he has to work too hard to make a fit (Elephant’s Trunk syndrome), but let’s keep the discussion reasonable.

Reply to  vukcevic
July 16, 2016 1:19 am

Mr. Jonas
“ I don’t find Vuk’s analyses very convincing as I feel he has to work too hard to make a fit (Elephant’s Trunk syndrome)”
Thank you for the comment.
As I see it, the value of any data analysis is in the reproducibility.
Why don’t you have a go?
If you don’t have access to a LPF, calculate 30 year moving average (it produces similar curve) for both GSN and CET [summer = average (jun+july+august)].
Why 30 years?
The CET has kind of a relationship with its next door close neighbour AMO, which warms for about 30 years following by another 30 years of cooling.
Calculate GSN delta across 11 year as GSN(t) – GSN(t-11).
why 11 years?
11 years = one solar cycle.
Plot the graphs
As simple as that.
‘Elephant’s Trunk syndrome’ is usually used when extra parameters or fudge factors are introduced.
In the above there is noting added to get desired result, as post 1995 deviation shows, so I think the remark may not be entirely appropriate.
p.s. When I come with a ‘controversial graph’ Dr.S always reproduces it, then if he finds even minor error he immediately draws attention to it, just look up under ‘V’ there are numerous examples. On this one he never came back, except to point the post 1995 divergence!
I hope to see what you may come up with with specific objections to the method of analysis outlined as in the above.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
July 15, 2016 11:35 am

If solar variations of various sorts have nothing to do with weather / climate on earth, which appears to be your argument, what would happen on earth – panic and pandemonium aside- if we could completely shield the earth from solar inputs, for a say a week?

Reply to  tetris
July 15, 2016 11:39 am

The tiny variations of the solar output have no influence above the noise. Do your homework.

Reply to  tetris
July 15, 2016 9:17 pm

” Do your homework”.. The classic oh so arrogant put down from an ivory tower academic. It’s just that I no longer buy your engrained “because I say so I’m right” attitude – telling anyone on this blog to fuck off who doesn’t accept your haughty comments as gospel.
You never know who lives behind a blog pen name: It so happens I hold a PhD, understand the scientific method to a tee and over the past 30 years have done due diligence on science and technology queries far more complex than your work on the sun.
And BTW I’m the CEO of a leading bio engineering company that lives or dies by the verifiable hard data it produces. You see, if we get it wrong people might well die – that keeps you honest and breeds humility. Count your blessings you don’t work for us – folks with your attitude, no matter how good, get tossed pronto – far too much at stake.
So, why don’t you take your sun and whatever you think it does or does not do to climate, wrap it up in your Teflon academic arrogance, and shove it wherever it feels good. That should give you a nice warm feeling.

Mike Jonas(@egrey1)
Reply to  tetris
July 15, 2016 11:22 pm

tetris – I understand your frustration, though I can’t endorse some of your suggestions. The problem it seems to me is that we have a complex non-linear system with factors that operate over varying timescales, and many of the arguments use linear thinking over short timescales. To me, the argument that solar activity doesn’t affect climate because the 11-year cycle can’t be detected in the climate does not hold water because of the short solar cycle. I’m mindful of the fact that for a very long time no-one was able to detect a weather/climate effect from a Forbush Decrease, yet it was eventually found in the diurnal range. Henrik Svensmark’s work, including all the experiments that have confirmed his theory, would lead one to expect that solar activity does affect climate more than is allowed for in the climate models, but that it could quite reasonably be difficult to detect it over a short period.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  tetris
July 15, 2016 11:29 pm

Regarding the ‘tetris’ comment at 9;17 pm regarding Leif:
I’m not a CEO of anything, and never played on on TV. However, I do recall a story about Albert Einstein and a bunch (100, I think) of very smart folks that wrote their thoughts about his work, much in the same manner as you have written here.

Mike Jonas(@egrey1)
Reply to  tetris
July 16, 2016 2:38 am

John F. Hultquist – In your Einstein recollection, “100” is key. tetris is 1. How about we just deal with issues on their merits.

Reply to  tetris
July 16, 2016 3:46 am

In mean time there is a growing large SS group facing the Earth.

Reply to  tetris
July 16, 2016 8:57 am

Jonas / Hultquist
Leif Svalgaard operates on the basis of the classic appeal to authority – problem is in his case that authority is none other than himself. Ever noticed how it’s always some graph from his own work that is held up as evidence he’s right? Very scientific that.
Anthony: maybe time for a “resident” solar physicist capable of actually contributing to readers’ understanding without allowing his ivory tower ego to get in the way.

Frederik Michiels
Reply to  tetris
July 16, 2016 12:44 pm

what i think (tough i am not a scientist, but lover of reading scientific work is that a lot of former events are stored in the oceans.
as willis explained so well in his lag articles of the seasonal cycles i do believe the oceans als lag on big cycles on centennial scales. This lag factor is unknown.
In that context i do think that certain effects of this lag explain the 90% of divergence in vukovic’s graphs.
In that sense CO2 lags temperature for around 800 years. so it takes the oceans 800 years roughly to “act” upon a temperature rise.
now what i do see is that the “warming up” also corresponds to the lag years of CO2 response: 1100 – 1200. Isn’t that the episode of the MWP?
the reasoning is deep ocean currents are able to store heat, but they move slowly. the oceans take time to mix the heat they received. So in short that mixing lag time for the MWP is now reached, so a lot of the so called “stored heat may very well be of the MWP if this is correct

Reply to  tetris
July 16, 2016 5:27 pm

“The tiny variations of the solar output have no influence above the noise.”
In non-linear systems, tiny inputs can have disproportionate results.

Reply to  catweazle666
July 16, 2016 6:27 pm

If the energy in not there to begin with, no much can happen.

July 15, 2016 10:15 am

Remember this when you go out in public…
Smile, don’t make eye contact or act threatening, keep moving in a slow steady pace no fast movements

Reply to  Latitude
July 15, 2016 10:34 am


Mark - Helsinki
July 15, 2016 10:16 am

Sobel works towards an end, to find a link. As such any results that are to the contrary will be discarded.
Scientist he is not,no null hypothesis for him noooo

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
July 15, 2016 4:19 pm

Ah! Missing link thinking?

July 15, 2016 10:19 am

Burning oil wiped out the dinosaurs !
Those wicked oil companies have lot to answer for? /sarc
Seriously though :

Reply to  vukcevic
July 15, 2016 11:24 am

Vuk, got curious. Just read the underlying paper from Japan, then did some quick research. The paper is deeply flawed. It looks at soot in the K-Pg (iridium) layer from Haiti (proximal to Chicxulub) and Spain (distal). It used the carbon preference index (developed 1961 as a biomarker) to infer that some of this soot had marine rather than terrestrial origins. It suggests this must have come from proximal burning oil deposits as most oil is of marine origin. All, in that vicinity. (Offshore Norway Haltenbanken oil fields was sourced from whatnare now massive underlying coal deposits). So far, so good.
But then it says terrestrial soot from burning forests would have stayed in the troposphere, been washed out, and not an extinction contributor. True. Residence time is 2-4 weeks depending on latitude. Then it says the burning oil soot would reside in the stratosphere with residence time of years, and this long equivalent of nuclear winter was the main cause of the extinction. False. The only way ‘soot’ could have been injected into the stratosphere is as part of the impact ejecta. We know this happened because the K-Pg layer is found globally. BUT. Oil exploration found Chicxulub– but it did not find either oil reservoirs or source rock in the crater vicinity where ejecta would have originated. I just double checked. So any burning oil soot would have been only in the troposphere, with equivalent residence times to the paper’s terrestrial forest fires. A colossal logic fail. More evidence that peer review isn’t working.

Reply to  ristvan
July 15, 2016 12:21 pm

thanks for the clarification. I thought the paper was worth a look, but none of that stuff is within my narrow field of detailed knowledge.

Reply to  ristvan
July 15, 2016 12:40 pm

Is there possibility that burning oil in huge quantity over very wide area would generate high temperatures creating tornado style vertically uplifting vortex, taking the oil soot cloud to the altitudes above the highest vapour clouds (cirrocumulus?) and so enabling its multi-annual longevity?
Just speculating.

Reply to  ristvan
July 15, 2016 2:26 pm

No. As discussed in essay Blowing Smoke in ebook of same name, it takes at least a VEI 4 eruption to reach the lower stratosphere, and even then most VEI 4 don’t. Pinatubo was a max 6. Fire tornados would dissipate rapidly. The ‘smoke’ is soot, CO2, and lots of H2O. So would behave like mini Tstorms and a lot of the entrained soot would rain out. Nothing of this sort happened when Iraq torched Kuwait oil fields during Gulf war 1. Estimate that 5 million bbl/ day went up for three months. Then took another ~6 months to extinguish them all. That was 732 naturally flowing oil wells in concentrated small portions of northern Kuwait, mainly the Burgan and Ratoa fields. Max altitude of individual well plumes ranged between 3000 meters and 6100 meters according to wiki.

Reply to  ristvan
July 15, 2016 2:38 pm

I never give up on the first attempt, got it, tanks.

July 15, 2016 10:22 am

CO2 GHE does not saturate. It declines logarithmically. 200-400 ppm has same impact as 400-800. Without feedbacks, about +1.2C (which is the value Lindzen now uses). With feedbacks, something between 1.5 and 1.8C (observational sensitivity, the lower value being Lewis newest estimate using Bjorn Stevens new lower aerosol estimate, the upper being Lweis Curry 2014).
Repeating such falsehoods does the skeptic cause no good. Such stuff justifies the flat earth label.

Reply to  ristvan
July 15, 2016 10:32 am

but Rob, no one knows what the feedbacks are..and they are predicting numbers that history does not verify
They are also basing their science on a jiggered temp history.
Yep it’s a log…but the numbers they are putting on it is a guess

Reply to  Latitude
July 15, 2016 11:00 am

Latitude, the various radiation codes can compute the log curve. I published the Modtran version in my essay Sensitive Uncertainty. Yes, we do not know the feedbacks well. But we can approximate their net effect using the observational energy budget approach and the (uncertain, fiddled at the edges) temperature records.

Reply to  Latitude
July 15, 2016 12:02 pm

And you can plot the log curve with feedbacks as a simple ECS/1.2 times CO2 only log curve.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  ristvan
July 15, 2016 11:16 am

ristvan – “CO2 GHE does not saturate. It declines logarithmically”
Would you please publish the science behind your proclamation? Your claim is that the formula that quantifies “CO2 GHE” is a function of density, i.e. ppm. Is that accurate?
So you can answer a few hypothetical questions right?
1. What is the “CO2 GHE” on Mars where CO2 is 950000 ppm? Please publish the chart showing how much heat is trapped and for how long on Mars, or a brief explanation why “CO2 GHE” doesn’t function on Mars.
2. Now show how much heat is trapped and for how long if we were able to hypothetically remove all nitrogen and oxygen from the Earth’s atmosphere. Since those two elements make up 99% of the current atmosphere, CO2 would become 4% of what remains. So, CO2 would be at 40000 ppm, even though it’s exactly the same quantity. How much heat is trapped and for how long in this new atmosphere.

Reply to  Thomas Homer
July 15, 2016 11:45 am

Ever heard of ceteris parebus?

Reply to  Thomas Homer
July 15, 2016 11:52 am

The science you seek has been published many places, many times. Starting with Tyndal in 1859 showing the Royal Society experimentally that CO2 is a GHG. You can research it yourself
My own published summary is in essay Sensitive Uncertainty in my ebook Blowing Smoke. You can read it there. It is illustrated, with footnotes, used Modtrans, and was intended as a layman’s explanation. It also provides Calendar’s 1938 log doubling estimate including all feedbacks, giving effective sensitivity ~1.7. Calendar was remarkably close to the new observational estimates. One method for doing that is also illustrated, with a result of ~1.7. Less sophisticated than Lewis and Curry 2014, because produces only a point estimate rather than a pdf.
Uninterested in your hypotheticals because they reflect ignorance about GHE. Mars’ atmosphere is too thin for any meaningful GHE. The effective radiating level (ERL) is Mars surface because of the atmosphere’s very low density. Being mostly CO2 is immaterial. Earth’s ERL is essentially the upper troposphere (8-10km up) because we have a sufficiently dense atmosphere even though CO2 and water vapor are small components of it. The GHE is BELOW the ERL. The reason CO2 GHE never saturates is because adding CO2 raises the ERL. Surface saturation is irrelevant. All this is explained in the essay, except for the Mars part.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  Thomas Homer
July 15, 2016 11:55 am

Hugs responded below with: “Ever heard of ceteris parebus?”
I had to look it up, but only found “ceteris paribus”. But all else being equal, what point are you trying to make?

Thomas Homer
Reply to  Thomas Homer
July 15, 2016 12:06 pm

ristvan: ” Starting with Tyndal in 1859 showing the Royal Society experimentally that CO2 is a GHG”
Yes, so this was measured in 1859. Why aren’t we measuring this same thing today? I want to see charts, and how altitude changes these readings, I want to see how atmospheric tides change these readings.
Or, are you saying that we could measure these things but choose not to?
If you can’t produce the formula you’re using for your logarithmic claim then I have no interest in reading your summary. Show me your science!
Why can’t you explain Mars using your science? The Mars atmosphere does exist right? And the physical property of “CO2 GGHE” holds true on Mars correct? Then it should resolve to something regardless of how thin the atmosphere is. Is the answer that Mars traps a “microscopic” amount of heat for the same duration as how long a room full of mirrors stays lit after turning out the lights? IOW a negligible amount, just like here on Earth?

Reply to  Thomas Homer
July 15, 2016 2:40 pm

TH, you are good example of the saying, you can lead a mule to water but you cannot make it drink. You asked for a specific publication. I gave you one, mine. You asked for underlying science; I used Modtran and the documentation is public. You want altitude data for ERL, I gave it to you. Did you know those ERL altitudes are experimentally measured by SWR/LWR up/down instruments flown on airplanes or radiosondes? Google Kipp and Zonen for pictures of a readily available such commercial instrument. They are generically called radiation balance instruments; there are several makers. You wanted charts; they are in my publication.
You waste my time since you refuse the freely offered education, which you have demonstrated is sorely needed.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Thomas Homer
July 16, 2016 9:44 am

So sayith: ristvan – July 15, 2016 at 11:52 am

The science you seek has been published many places, many times. Starting with Tyndal in 1859 showing the Royal Society experimentally that CO2 is a GHG.

Ristvan, how bout you performing the following experiment to prove to me and yourself that atmospheric CO2 is in fact a “heat trapping” GHG and is the primary cause of the increase in average near-surface temperatures during the past 130 years.
It wouldn’t take much money, maybe a couple or three hundred dollars, max. And you could surely borrow the needed temperature sensing/recording equipment.
So, to wit, just do it as I have denoted by the following:

Just build two (2) identical size frameworks via use of 1/2″ plastic pipe, …. …. outside in an area where each will receive the same amount of Sunshine, wind, etc., …… their size being 10 feet x 10 feet x 8 feet square, (or 20′ by 20′, who cares)……. place auto-recording temperature sensors (thermocouples) inside of each framework, ……… then cover them “air tight” with 4 mil clear plastic sheeting (top, sides and bottom) so that the air in both structures have the same exact composition of gases …… and when the night time temperatures in both stabilizes and reads the same, …….. then at say 3 AM inject enough CO2 in one (1) of them to increase the 400+- ppm of CO2 to say 700 ppm.
Then record the temperatures in each structure …… and record it again every hour on the hour (or every half hour, or ten minutes) ……. for the next 24 hours (or 48 hours for all I care).
And if CO2 is the GHG or “global warming” gas that you and all the proponents of CAGW claims it is, then when the Sun rises in the morning and starts shining on the structures, …… the temperature in the structure containing 700 ppm CO2 ……. should start increasing sooner and faster and reach a greater temperature than in the other structure ….. and when the Sun starts setting in the afternoon the temperature inside the structure with 700 ppm CO2 should remain higher than it is in the 400 ppm structure ….. up until and past the 3 AM starting point. (DUH, that 300 ppm increase in CO2 has surely “trapped” a greater amount of thermal “heat” energy, …… right?)
And if the temperature in the 700 ppm structure doesn’t reflect what was stated above ….. then the CO2 causing AGW claims are totally FUBAR.

Do it, Ristvan, do it. “Bite-the-bullet” and perform that scientific experiment because the world wants to know the truth about CO2 being a GHG.
And iffen you choose to ignore this post …….. then I will understand your reason for doing so.
Cheers, ….. Sam C

Reply to  Thomas Homer
July 16, 2016 3:07 pm

SC, CO2 is a green house gas. Denying that puts you in flat earth territory. I never said or implied CO2 is the major cause of warming the past century. In fact, I have said in my books and blog comments many times that it cannot be. The simple proof is that the warming from~1920 to 1945 is indistinguishable from that from ~ 1975-2000. The former was unrelated to CO2. IPCC itself said so. So it is utterly impossible to attribute the latter period to CO2 alone, as the UNFCCC and IPCC have done. Logic fail.

Reply to  Thomas Homer
July 16, 2016 3:12 pm

And BTW, SC, your proposed experiment is actually just two greenhouse. Those work by inhibiting convective heat loss. The actual GHG green house effect works by inhibiting radiative cooling. So your proposed experiment proves nothing. The two actual greenhouses will warm up the same independent of CO2 concentration. The atmosphere wont. Your proposed experiment shows the same ignorance of the true GHE mechanism as TH. Learn. I offered resources up comment. Else stop wasting our time here.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Thomas Homer
July 17, 2016 9:08 am

Ristvan, CO2 is also an “outhouse” gas.
And “DUH” any gas that is contained within the confines of a “greenhouse” is technical a GHG (greenhouse gas). Denying that relegates you as being a non-thinking “mimic” of atmospheric “junk science” agitprop.

I never said or implied CO2 is the major cause of warming the past century. In fact, I have said in my books and blog comments many times that it cannot be.

And I never specifically accused you of claiming, asserting, inferring or even suggesting that “CO2 was a major cause of warming”. I told you to “prove that it was” by conducting the experiment.
GMME-A-BREAK, …. Ristvan, …. you not only implied …… but you specifically claimed that CO2 has been experimentally proven to be a “global warming” greenhouse gas, …. to wit:

The science you seek has been published many places, many times. Starting with Tyndal in 1859 showing the Royal Society experimentally that CO2 is a GHG.

DUH, every one everywhere knows that iffen you define CO2 as a GHG ….. then you are also claiming that it is a “global warming atmospheric gas”.
And Ristyan, you did it again in your 2nd posting, to wit:

So your proposed experiment proves nothing. The two actual greenhouses will warm up the same independent of CO2 concentration. The atmosphere wont.

Are you actually claiming that atmospheric “warming” is unaffected by its CO2 quantity …. ot ….. that the physical properties of CO2 that govern/control thermal “heat” energy absorptions/emissions are automatically “modified” if said CO2 is redistributed from within a confined space such as an actual greenhouse structure to an un-confined space such as the earth’s atmosphere? DUH, the Laws of Physics proves your thinking is FUBAR.
And Ristyan, iffen your claim that ….. “actual GHG green house effect works by inhibiting radiative cooling” is true and factual ……. then please tell me just how it is possible for the “warm” gases in the confines of an actual greenhouse to “cool down” after the Sun ceases to shine on said greenhouse?
And don’t be telling me “conduction” through the glass or plastic “enclosure” because that would require several hours before there was a measurable decrease in the internal temperature.
And you shouldn’t be accusing me of being scientifically ignorant when you are incapable of providing proofs or evidence to support your claims …… or to disprove my claims. The touting of “consensus-of-opinions” claims is “junk science”.

Reply to  ristvan
July 15, 2016 11:40 am

+1 Rud

Chad Jessup
Reply to  Hugs
July 16, 2016 4:28 pm

I would say +10 for Rud, as that test in no manner would gauge the LWIR trapping properties of CO2!

July 15, 2016 10:23 am

At some point failed predictions can be relabeled systemic bias.

July 15, 2016 10:25 am

The bogeyman is still gonna getcha! Just you wait and see!

July 15, 2016 10:26 am

In other words: “What didn’t happen, that we predicted would happen, didn’t happen due to dumb luck, but when it happens it won’t be dumb luck any more, it will be Global Warming.”
Hmm. I think Adam Sobal is an embarrassment to meteorologists everywhere. What he basically states is that your forecast can be wrong, day after day, but it doesn’t count on your skill-score, because being wrong is “dumb luck.” Then, when after ten years, you finally get a forecast right, your skill-score is 100%.
I’m going to sit back and watch. There’s a better-than-average chance of an east coast hurricane this year. If and when it happens, I can hardly wait to see the pitiable fool jumping up and down saying, “See? See? It happened! My skill-score is 100%!”

Reply to  Caleb
July 15, 2016 12:54 pm

Probably more correct to say “What we predicted would happen didn’t happen is just dumb luck. But when it does happen it is global warming even though it happened many times in the past when it was not global warming.”
In other words, ‘heads I win, tails you lose’.

Joel O'Bryan(@joelobryan)
July 15, 2016 10:27 am

On any Sunday, one can walk into a place of religious worship and hear a faith-based sermon.
Similarly, the NYT regularly carries a faith-based sermon for its Progressive readers concerning their Climate Change religion.

Hoyt Clagwell
July 15, 2016 10:33 am

All of these alarmists remind me of Linus Van Pelt perpetually waiting in the pumpkin patch for the “Great Pumpkin” to arrive and bestow gifts upon him. He is frapped by his own belief that any utterance of doubt will cause the Great Pumpkin to bypass him and he will lose out on his deserved reward.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
July 15, 2016 10:33 am

Sorry, “trapped”

Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
July 15, 2016 11:24 am

In a 1974 CalTech commencement address Richard Feynman referred to this as “cargo cult science”.
Today’s climate “science” is cargo cult “science” to a tee..

Curious George(@moudryj)
July 15, 2016 10:37 am

“the fact that [more hurricanes] will be coming is proof of man-made climate change” is incorrect both logically and grammatically. A reference to a hypothesized future event does not prove anything, except an author’s immaturity.

Tom Halla
July 15, 2016 10:38 am

The whole issue reminds me of marketing “alternative medicine”. All the explanations are why this product should work, but hasn’t yet. There seem to be as many into alternative medicine as CAGW, and with equal levels of “proof”, but a large number of people are making a lot of money pushing both. Want some herbals to go with your global warming?

July 15, 2016 10:40 am

if this guy is related to an officer from Band of Brothers, well he can’t even read a map. why listen to a jagovv? “there are no facts, only interpretations”–Uncle Albert

July 15, 2016 10:53 am

I never thought I would encounter anyone regretting the absence of hurricanes.

Reply to  jsuther2013
July 15, 2016 11:58 am

Warmunists are in dire need of catastrophes to motivate action. Unfortunately for them, they have been just about 100% wrong so far. Its getting laughable. They hate that.

Larry Hamlin
July 15, 2016 11:03 am

This New York Times editorial reflects the usual distortion, deception, ignorance. arrogance and incompetence that always accompanies and underlies climate alarmism claims.

July 15, 2016 11:07 am

That darn sun has no effect at all unless it’s to prove AGW.

Reply to  harkin1
July 15, 2016 12:43 pm

That darned sun has no effect because the main claimant here has a vested
scientific and professional interest in that being the case.
Contrary indications are waived aside as a horse tail brushes away flies.

July 15, 2016 11:08 am

As for CO2 saturation, and its effect not increasing past 400 ppm: Dr. Roy Spencer is on the skeptical side, but in his blog he has gone along with the IPCC figure of a logarhythmic effect at the rate of 3.7 W/m^2 per 2x change of CO2. Also, MODTRAN does not predict a saturation but a log effect from below 280 ppm to at least 1,000 ppm.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
July 16, 2016 10:50 am

Predict, ….. predict, ….. predict, ….. HUH?
How’s come none of those highly educated, extremely intelligent, study conducting climate scientists, etc., etc., never ever get around to recording or reporting actual measurements of the degree increase in near-surface temperatures resulting from SPECIFIC quantity increases in atmospheric CO2 ppm?
DUH, …. is CO2 saturation in the atmosphere ……. akin to cookie dough saturation in a convection oven? I mean like 400 molecules of CO2 being akin to 400 cookie pats ……. and iffen you increase the number of either …… then their individual temperature will decrease relative to their increase in number, ……. RIGHT?
Therefore, ….. iffen you exceed the cookie dough saturation of your convection oven …. then your pans of cookie dough will not be completely “baked” when removed from the oven, …….. RIGHT? Even iffen you leave those pans of cookies in the oven all day long, …… right?
If not, ….. why not?
A curious mind would like to know more about that “convection oven” saturation thingy.

July 15, 2016 11:10 am

I searched out the NYT opinion piece and it’s worse than this article describes. It’s all arm waving, non sequiturs, and special pleadings.
“climate scientists like me believe”
Oooo, they believe!
“What we have seen recently is consistent with our scientific understanding of hurricanes and climate. That knowledge is far from perfect, but the prediction of stronger future hurricanes is not contradicted by the data thus far.”
Knowledge is far from perfect, but prediction is not contradicted?? I thought they made projections, not predictions.
“There is also large natural variability”
Wait, I thought that natural variability was small and didn’t need to be considered in climate models?
“While there is debate about the drought’s significance, there is little doubt that its primary cause is dumb luck, and that won’t continue forever.”
Dumb luck? As opposed to smart climate science that is consistently incorrect?
“The best science doesn’t, in fact, predict that the future will hold more hurricanes; most of our best models predict there may be fewer. But these predictions of changes in the number of hurricanes are quite uncertain, in part because they are connected to a more basic problem: Why does the number of tropical cyclones average about 90 per year, and not more or fewer?
We don’t really know.”
We don’t really know. That sums it up. Also, how do they know which are the BEST models when more than 96% are wrong?
“The best computer models also predict stronger storms, so we have separate but consistent lines of evidence.”
Computer models are considered a line of evidence? Journal articles by Meehl et al. have indicated that more than 96% of model projections are wrong.
“those results are not consistent across all studies”
That’s reassuring.
“human influence on storm intensity is more complicated than we have thought”
Ya think?
“But it isn’t likely to stay that way”
If only we can get rid of that dumb luck!
“the warming of the future, more than the warming of the recent past, will strengthen the most powerful and destructive storms that the planet can produce”
All of our projections so far have been wrong, but we’ll make more and scarier ones.

July 15, 2016 11:18 am

The NYT will rush to publish anything that might conceivably help Hillary win the election. In their feeble minds “Boo!” just might help She Who Has Your Back.

Gunga Din
Reply to  brians356
July 15, 2016 1:25 pm

Hilly Boo Boo.

Bruce Cobb
July 15, 2016 11:29 am

The NYT used to be a respectable newspaper. Now they print garbage like this. How the mighty have fallen.

July 15, 2016 11:44 am

Anyone who uses the word luck in regard to nature has automatically disqualified himself from speaking about science.

Pat Frank
July 15, 2016 11:45 am

Sobel says that “significant global warming, over a degree and a half Fahrenheit, has already occurred since preindustrial days.” That’s accurate.
Except it’s not accurate.
The scientists at UEA/UKMet, GISS and everywhere else thoroughly ignore systematic sensor measurement error.
When that is included, surface air temperature is not known to better than 1-sigma = (+/-)0.5 C. At 95% confidence, that makes the change 0.8(+/-)1 C. There’s the accuracy in consensus climate science for you.

Steve Oregon
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 15, 2016 11:59 am

Thanks Pat. It cannot be said enough how unreliable the global temperature measurement is.
The left is uninterested in reliability. They are too certain to be bothered with accuracy.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Steve Oregon
July 15, 2016 3:38 pm

You’re right, Steve. Never has there ever been a field so thoroughly and willfully negligent as consensus climate science.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Steve Oregon
July 16, 2016 3:47 pm

It’s not a question of accuracy, it’s a question of intensive properties. You can’t average them together and obtain a physically meaningful result.

July 15, 2016 11:50 am

“prediction of stronger future hurricanes is not contradicted by the data thus far”
No idea of this man’s scientific qualifications (although the evidence is there that they are actually not as high as he believes they are), but I hope he failed English and logic.
So…something that will happen in the future (prediction) has not been contradicted by what has happened in the past (data).
Well….yeah. My prediction of the winner of the 2019 Kentucky Derby has not been contradicted. I’m a genius. Where is my grant?

Reply to  CaligulaJones
July 15, 2016 2:51 pm

A prediction of stronger future hurricanes can never be contradicted, but, given the lack of hurricane records from the past, there’s a good chance there will be a new record some day.
I predict we will never know if there were stronger hurricanes in the past than there will be in the future.

Gunga Din
Reply to  verdeviewer
July 15, 2016 4:56 pm

Climate Science + a Delorean = “We can predict anything we want to further “The Cause”. The sheep won’t remember what we got wrong anyway.”

Robert from oz
Reply to  CaligulaJones
July 16, 2016 1:20 am


Bob Denby
July 15, 2016 11:53 am

Call this what it is — a ploy being used by the anti-capitalists, not science per se. Christiana Figueres executive secretary of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. ( BTW Figueres is running to head up the U.N. at the moment.

Roger Bournival
July 15, 2016 12:04 pm

I just broke wind a few minutes ago – does that make me an ‘atmospheric scientist’?

Reply to  Roger Bournival
July 15, 2016 3:51 pm

Maybe – but it also makes you a significant source of atmospheric climate forcing. The methane warms the climate while the particulates cool it. The dissipative tension between the two could set off nonlinear instabilities which could tip us over into the next ice age.

Gunga Din
Reply to  ptolemy2
July 15, 2016 4:58 pm

Only if a butterfly was in the path of the blast.

Joel Snider
July 15, 2016 12:13 pm

There was a line in ‘Don’t mess with the Zohan’, when Adam Sandler asks his father if the war will ever end.
“Well, they’ve been fighting for 2000 years. Can’t be much longer now.”

NZ Willy
July 15, 2016 12:30 pm

Trend lines are appropriate only when the x-axis is time. Here the x-axis is a count — it’s a standard bar chart. Any standard bar chart with a trend line is a self-parody, any article which features it is a joke, and demeans the hosting site. I’ve commented this before — this bar-chart-with-trend-line keep resurrecting — and this is the last time. I’m disgusted.

July 15, 2016 2:25 pm

The term “pre-industrial” implies climate stasis being the historic norm.
This assumption is so vacuously, imbecilically stupid that it is hard to conclude that anyone entertaining such thoughts can in reality be a member of a species that transitioned from an old world ape to a consciously sentient hominin.

July 15, 2016 2:31 pm

New York Times 23 Jan 2016 had an article entitled- A Lake in Bolivia Evaporates, and With It a Way of Life
This article was updated and on 8 July 2016 the New York Times published another article- “Climate Change Claims a Lake,
and a Way of Life”
“The water receded and the fish died. The stench drifted in the air for weeks. Then “the people of the lake” started to leave.
Photographs and video by JOSH HANER”
This story was also published in the Guardian- Bolivia’s second-largest lake dries up and may be gone forever, lost to climate change – Friday 22 January 2016 13.10 AEDT
The Guardian has many comments attached to the article which picked up that the lake had dried up many times before and that a lot of water had been diverted for mining and agriculture.
There is a scientific study on the lake-
which confirms this and notes that there is a dam upstream which restricts water supply to the wet season. The collapse of the Tiwanaku civilization (c. AD 1100) has been attributed to an extended dry period (Binford et al.,
Would anybody have the interest, skills and time to pull all this together please? I can help.

July 15, 2016 2:32 pm

5 most powerful hurricanes at landfall in U.S. history
1969, Camille, CAT 5 (190 mph)
1992, Andrew, CAT 5 (167 mph)
1935, “Labor Day”, CAT 5 (161 mph)
1886, Indianola, CAT 4 (155 mph)
2004, Charley, CAT 4 (150)
5 deadliest hurricanes in U.S. history, category at landfall
1900, Galveston, CAT 4
1928, Okeechobee, CAT 4
2005, Katrina, CAT 3
1893, Louisiana, CAT 4
1893, S Carolina/Georgia, CAT 3
5 costliest hurricanes/tropical storms in U.S. history, category at landfall
2005, Katrina, CAT 3
2012, Sandy, Tropical Storm
2008, Ike, CAT 2
1992, Andrew, CAT 5
2005, Wilma, CAT 3

Gunga Din
Reply to  verdeviewer
July 15, 2016 5:42 pm

Costliest is a useless metric in the context of “climate change”.
ie. Katrina. Develop a city into a major city at a location that is below sea level on a river delta on the Gulf of Mexico. Keep it from flooding by trying to use levies to contain one the world’s largest rivers. (Throw in some political corruption when it comes to maintaining the levies.) Add a hurricane. Costly.
Deadliest. Two major contributors. Factors for Katrina are mentioned above.
For the rest, poor forecasting (compared to today). No satellites back then. Poor communication systems. Probably no evacuation plans. They add up to little or no warning or time to prepare.
Powerful. How do we currently measure how powerful a hurricane is? How long have those instruments existed? Not as long as the US has existed. Lot’s of events before the US had a history and before there was a means to measure those events.

Reply to  Gunga Din
July 15, 2016 9:56 pm

I opined above that we will never know if there were stronger hurricanes in the past than there will be in the future. I agree that Sobel’s is “an essentially meaningless opinion.”

H. D. Hoese
Reply to  Gunga Din
July 16, 2016 11:29 am

Come to think of it they also did not know about the Loop Current bringing warm water that way and the delta trapping the products of a clockwise circulation. Come to think of it some nowadays don’t know that either.

H. D. Hoese
Reply to  Gunga Din
July 16, 2016 11:30 am

oops, dyslexic anti-clockwise

Chris Hanley
July 15, 2016 2:34 pm

“We know that significant global warming, over a degree and a half Fahrenheit, has already occurred since preindustrial days …”.
That statement no doubt is intended to be portentous.
But even given the false precision of the alleged thermometer record and inherent in proxy reconstructions which have a coarser, usually much coarser, resolution, that statement is unremarkable.
MBH99 must still be lurking deep somewhere in the writer’s mind.

Michael Jankowski
July 15, 2016 4:00 pm

“…there is little doubt that its primary cause is dumb luck…”
There is little doubt that the primary cause of the op-ed was just plain dumb.

July 15, 2016 4:21 pm

I’m a game logic kinda guy, bridge to basketball, and am used to operating/thinking within an environment where opponents are setting up and “selling” deceptions, constantly, knowing that you know they are . . And one potential I have been noticing/keeping an eye on for quite some time now, which is relevant I feel to the subject matter at hand, is weather manipulation.
If we have actual opponents in this climate “game”, and are not just seeing misunderstandings and well intentioned would-be scientifical saviors clumsily trying to save us, then the very fact that weather modification is not openly discussed, becomes strategically significant, to me. That “silence” tells me we are being set up . . (if we have actual opponents…)
If relatively few but extraordinarily intense hurricanes are the “projected” threat, then why are we not hearing from the Navy, for instance, since several years ago some top brass were talking about “owning the weather” by 2025?
Consider please;
A NAVY chemist has proved that carbon black can make or break a cloud. She is Florence W. van Straten, now working with the Navy Weather Service.
What van Straten’s discovery means in terms of scientific weather control is now being measured by Naval Research Laboratory. But she has already demonstrated that carbon black, absorbing heat from the sun, can change atmospheric conditions enough to create clouds or to break them up quickly.
For some time, van Straten believed she could modify clouds by influencing temperatures in parts of the atmosphere. In this manner, she says, cloud masses that exist could be dissipated, and, under some conditions, cloud masses could be created. She reasoned further that carbon black would be the ideal material to induce the temperature variations because of its ability to absorb heat.
Chem. Eng. News, 1958, 36 (40), pp 67–68
DOI: 10.1021/cen-v036n040.p067
Publication Date: October 06, 1958
If you want me to believe that nothing more has come of this since 1958, with talk of owning the weather in less than a decade, from an agency with the kind of interest, and funds available to it all that time . . you’re flying into a mighty strong headwind, bub ; )
I suggest (for the severalith time ; ) that WUWT begin to wonder about this.

Reply to  JohnKnight
July 16, 2016 8:21 pm

‘Hurricanes from Above’
“Joanne Simpson predicted in the 1960s that seeding a cloud would cause it to double in height. She bootlegged aircraft time during Project Stormfury, a weather modification experiment started in 1961 by her future husband, Bob Simpson. She flew above clouds and ejected flares that ignited and created silver iodide smoke. The clouds behaved just as her computer model predicted.”
With the SJW in chief declaring “climate change” our No. 1 National Security threat, it just seems like the potential capability to modify monster himmicanes would be getting some serious attention and funding . . I mean, what with a couple of women on shoestring budgets demonstrating such ability to modify clouds with now ancient technologies . . over half a century ago . .

July 15, 2016 6:53 pm

What does the author mean by “atmospheric CO2 has reached 400 parts per million (0.04%), and is essentially “saturated.” Thus, its greenhouse potential is maxed out.” ??
The atmospheric CO2 content does not saturate.
Further, the greenhouse effect does not depend so much on how many times a CO2 molecule absorbs and emits an IR photon. Rather it depends on the emission height, which is the altitude the last upward IR emission can escape to space without absorption. The higher the emission height, the colder the atmosphere and the slower is the rate of IR emission. As the emission rate slows, the lower atmosphere must warm to increase the IR escape rate.
That is how warming occurs.

Reply to  donb
July 16, 2016 12:41 am

Absolutely correct.
Beer-Lambert law has a parameter for path-length.

Jeff Alberts
July 15, 2016 7:50 pm

Sobel says that “significant global warming, over a degree and a half Fahrenheit, has already occurred since preindustrial days.” That’s accurate.

Not really. Since there is no meaningful global temperature, it’s spurious to say it means anything. Some places have warmed, some have cooled, some have remained relatively constant. Averaging all those different places is nonsense.

M Seward
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
July 15, 2016 8:04 pm

I don’t know if it would be nonsense if we had a truly global and fit for purpose ( i.e. accurate to 0.01 degrees say) instrumentation system but the fact is we don’t have such a system. The sattellites and balloons are about the best we have and the argo buoys probably Ok except for coverage. The land thermometers are a joke as a complete set and so we don’t really have such a system, leaving aside the fiddling with the data by the usual suspects, the result of which is that Jeff is right, its nonsense.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  M Seward
July 16, 2016 3:51 pm

M. Seward, it’s nonsense because you can’t measure temperature in one place, and temperature in another place, average them together, and obtain anything physically meaningful. Sure, you’ll have an average number, but it’s meaningless.

July 15, 2016 8:24 pm

“But don’t worry, Sobel says, there will be more hurricanes soon, and the fact that they will be coming is proof of man-made climate change.
So a prediction that hasn’t even happened yet is “proof” of climate change? Does Sobel realize how ridiculous that is? It’s akin to saying, “The end of the world is nigh, and the fact that it is coming is proof that the Bible is true. Until it actually happens, it’s not proof of anything.

July 15, 2016 10:41 pm

I should interject here that the New York Times, despite its recent descent into Goebbelsesque pseudo-llberal propaganda and Lysenkoist science, is still highly regarded by many. My budgie prefers it over both the LA Times and the WaPoo.

July 16, 2016 12:27 am

Right. We’re doomed again.
But I would like to think that those who write “advocate for” are more doomed than the rest of us.

July 16, 2016 1:11 am

Sobel says that “significant global warming, over
a degree and a half Fahrenheit, has already occurred since
preindustrial days.” That’s accurate.

It’s not accurate. It may be accurate for the Northern Hemisphere. The
Northern Hemisphere is not “The Globe.”
The Southern Hemisphere has warmed by about 0.28C, not 0.7C.
(De Freitas et al).

July 16, 2016 4:46 am

If there were ever anything controlled by Nature…its Atlantic Basin Hurricane variability.

July 16, 2016 7:13 am

The New York Times Publishes Another Flawed Prediction on Climate

If they ever got anything right about climate,now that would be news.

Coach Springer
July 16, 2016 7:59 am

Sooner or later, cyclical phenomena will oscillate and it will be your fault. Hoping to catch the next wave?

July 16, 2016 8:30 am

Come get your copy of THE New York Times. “Tomorrows Headlines Today!”
(The Gray-Area Lady)

Mickey Reno
July 16, 2016 11:16 am

Please try to add links when you post an article like this on WUWT. Here’s the link to this article:\
And here are some of the highlights, all quoted directly, with my comments:

So where, you might ask, are the powerful hurricanes?
They’re coming, if we don’t take more aggressive action to slow climate change.

A BOLD prediction, but not a fact.

…the prediction of stronger future hurricanes is not contradicted by the data thus far.

LOTS of things are not contradicted by the data.

What happens in the Atlantic isn’t generally representative.

Waffling, not a good sign.

There is also large natural variability, in the Atlantic and elsewhere. Some hurricane seasons are active and some aren’t.

Convection-Schmonvection. If it’s all due to CO2, how can the ocean possibly disobey?

While there is debate about the [significance of the absence of US hurricanes] , there is little doubt that its primary cause is dumb luck, and that won’t continue forever.

Little doubt? THE CAUSE IS DUMB LUCK! Well, that settles it, then. Now maybe 100% of Climate Scientologists can finally agree. I think I’ve heard enough from this… this, sorry, I have to say it… ass clown.

July 16, 2016 5:52 pm

He’s whistling past the graveyard of AGW failed predictions. All the AGW predictions are six feet under.

July 17, 2016 8:05 am

At least his anticipation that the so called “hurricane drought” come to an end soon is defensable. It has to end sooner or later. Conditions along Hurricane alley are turning conducive to storm formation. Temps rising and pressures declining and African dust declining also. With warmer than usual water temps hanging off the east coast and in the Gulf it seems the odds are against of our record breaking hiatus from major hurricanes striking the lower 48 continuing this year. Thus this worthless piece of propaganda that ignores the failure of the models and hypes man caused climate change as the cause if any hurricane that may strike. The NYT is so bad these days it isn’t even fit to be used as bird cage liner. These days the “Gray lady” is suffering from advanced stages of Alzheimers and only serves as the Newspaper of record of Government and media delusion and not perceptive or predictive reality.

Judith Bakenhus
July 17, 2016 10:04 am

How much did Exon pay you?
[nothing, how much did Al Gore pay you? /mod]

Reply to  Judith Bakenhus
July 17, 2016 4:35 pm

Judith, when casting aspersions of that nature, your non-existent credibility goes heavily negative when you are unable even to spell the name of your bête noire correctly.
It is Exxon, not Exon.

July 20, 2016 6:54 am

atmospheric CO2 has reached 400 parts per million (0.04%), and is essentially “saturated.” Thus, its greenhouse potential is maxed out, making additional heat-trapping less likely.
New to me, an ignorant economist. Is this true

%d bloggers like this: