Reality-based climate forecasting

Continuing to focus on carbon dioxide as the driving force will just bring more bogus predictions


Guest essay by Paul Driessen

These days, even shipwreck museums showcase evidence of climate change.

After diving recently among Key West’s fabled ship-destroying barrier reefs, I immersed myself in exhibits from the Nuestra Senora de Atocha, the fabled Spanish galleon that foundered during a ferocious hurricane in 1622. The Mel Fisher Maritime Museum now houses many of the gold, silver, emeralds and artifacts that Mel and Deo Fisher’s archeological team recovered after finding the wreck in 1985.

Also featured prominently in the museum is the wreck of a British slave ship, the Henrietta Marie. It sank in a hurricane off Key West in 1700, after leaving 190 Africans in Jamaica, to be sold as slaves.

As Fisher divers excavated the Henrietta wreck, at 40 feet below the sea surface they found – not just leg shackles and other grim artifacts from that horrific era – but charred tree branches, pine cones and other remnants from a forest fire 8,400 years ago! The still resinous smelling fragments demonstrate that this area (like all other coastal regions worldwide) was well above sea level, before the last ice age ended and melting glaciers slowly raised oceans to their current level: 400 feet higher than during the frigid Pleistocene, when an enormous portion of Earth’s seawater was locked up in glaciers.

Climate change has clearly been “real” throughout earth and human history. The question is, exactly how and how much do today’s human activities affect local, regional or global climate and weather?

Unfortunately, politicized climate change researchers continue to advance claims that complex, powerful, interconnected natural forces have been replaced by manmade fossil fuel emissions, especially carbon dioxide; that any future changes will be catastrophic; and that humanity can control climate and weather by controlling its appetite for oil, gas, coal and modern living standards.

If you like your climate, you can keep it, they suggest. If you don’t, we can make you a better one.

Not surprisingly, climate chaos scientists who’ve relied on the multi-billion-dollar government gravy train are distraught over the prospect that President Donald Trump will slash their budgets or terminate their CO2-centric research. Desperate to survive, they are replacing the term “climate change” with “global change” or “weather” in grant proposals, and going on offense with op-ed articles and media interviews.

“This is what the coming attack on science could look like,” Penn State modeler and hockey stick creator Michael Mann lamented in a Washington Post column. “I fear what may happen under Trump. The fate of the planet hangs in the balance.” (Actually, it’s his million-dollar grants that hang in the balance.)

A “skeptic” scientist has warmed to the idea that a major Greenland ice shelf may be shrinking because of climate change, a front-page piece in the Post claimed. Perhaps so. But is it manmade warming? Does it portend planetary cataclysm, even as Greenland’s interior and Antarctica show record ice growth? Or are warm ocean currents weakening an ice shelf that is fragile because it rests on ocean water, not land?

The fundamental problem remains. If it was substandard science and modeling under Obama era terminology, it will be substandard under survivalist jargon. The notion that manmade carbon dioxide now drives climate and weather – and we can predict climate and weather by looking only at plant-fertilizing CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” – is just as absurd now as before.

Their predictions will be as invalid and unscientific as divining future Super Bowl winners by modeling who plays left guard for each team – or World Cup victors by looking at center backs.

As climate realists take the reins at EPA and other federal and state agencies, the Trump Administration should ensure that tax dollars are not squandered on more alarmist science that is employed to justify locking up more fossil fuels, expanding renewable energy and “carbon capture” schemes, reducing US living standards, and telling poor countries what living standards they will be “permitted” to have.

Reliable forecasts, as far in advance as possible, would clearly benefit humanity. For that to happen, however, research must examine all natural and manmade factors, and not merely toe the pretend-consensus line that carbon dioxide now governs climate change.

That means government grants must not go preferentially to researchers who seek to further CO2-centrism, but rather to those who are committed to a broader scope of solid, dispassionate research that examines both natural and manmade factors. Grant recipients must also agree to engage in robust discussion and debate, to post, explain and defend their data, methodologies, analyses and conclusions.

They must devote far more attention to improving our understanding of all the forces that drive climate fluctuations, the roles they play, and the complex interactions among them. Important factors include cyclical variations in the sun’s energy and cosmic ray output, winds high in Earth’s atmosphere, and decadal and century-scale circulation changes in the deep oceans, which are very difficult to measure and are not yet well enough understood to predict or be realistically included in climate models.

Another is the anomalous warm water areas that develop from time to time in the Pacific Ocean and then are driven by winds and currents northward into the Arctic, affecting US, Canadian, European and Asian temperatures and precipitation. The process of cloud formation is also important, because clouds help retain planetary warmth, reflect the sun’s heat, and provide cooling precipitation.

Many scientists have tried to inject these factors into climate discussions. However, the highly politicized nature of US, IPCC and global climate change funding, research, regulatory and treaty-making activities has caused CO2-focused factions to discount, dismiss or ignore the roles these natural forces play.

The political situation has also meant that most research and models have focused on carbon dioxide and other assumed human contributions to climate change. Politics, insufficient data and inadequate knowledge also cause models to reflect unrealistic physics theories, use overly simplified and inadequate numerical techniques, and fail to account adequately for deep-ocean circulation cycles and the enormity and complexity of natural forces and their constant, intricate interplay in driving climate fluctuations.

Speedier, more powerful computers simply make any “garbage in-garbage out” calculations, analyses and predictions occur much more quickly – facilitating faster faulty forecasts … and policy recommendations.

The desire to secure research funding from Obama grantor agencies also perpetuated a tendency to use El Niño warming spikes, and cherry-pick the end of cooling cycles as the starting point for trend lines that allegedly “prove” fossil fuels are causing “unprecedented” temperature spikes and planetary calamity.

Finally, the tens of billions of dollars given annually in recent years to “keep it in the ground” anti-fossil fuel campaigners, national and international regulators, and renewable energy companies have given these vested interests enormous incentives to support IPCC/EPA pseudo-science – and vilify and silence climate realists who do not accept “catastrophic manmade climate change” precepts.

The Trump Administration and 115th Congress have a unique opportunity to change these dynamics, and ensure that future research generates useful information, improved understanding of Earth’s complex climate system, and forecasts that are increasingly accurate. In addition to the above, they should:

* Reexamine and reduce (or even eliminate) the role that climate model “projections” (predictions) play in influencing federal policies, laws and regulations – until modeling capabilities are vastly and demonstrably improved, in line with the preceding observations.

* Revise the Clean Air Act to remove EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide – or compel EPA to reexamine its “endangerment” finding, to reflect the previous bullet, information and commentary.

* Significantly reduce funding for climate research, the IPCC and EPA, and science in general. Funding should be more broadly based, not monopolistic, especially when the monopoly is inevitably politicized.

This is not an “attack on science.” It is a reaffirmation of what real science is supposed to be and do.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death and other books on environmental issues.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 9, 2017 12:15 am

really great post
thank you paul

Reply to  chaamjamal
January 9, 2017 5:35 am

Outstanding post, Paul. I hope it’s read by Mr Trump – it should be.
Although, from his proclaimed upcoming changes, it seems he is on the same page already. Let us hope so.

george e. smith
Reply to  Luc Ozade (@Luc_Ozade)
January 9, 2017 8:42 am

Well when it comes to “reality based ” forecasting, one need only mention the weekend prediction of a “River of Water” that was to inundate California in a once every ten years storm forecast. See WUWT last week.
So what happened? According to the Palo Alto Daily Post; a liberal Silicon Valley real estate ad mag, their front page for Jan nine, which is today reported that Storm batters mid-Peninsula.
Translation: They said it would rain on the weekend and it did. I was in and out of here and there all weekend, and I never had to put up an umbrella, nor did my warm fuzzy CERN overcoat get damp. there was some wind moving the tree leaves; but my warm fuzzy put the kibosh on that too.
Palo Alto did get 1.10 inches of rain in 24 hours, so they have 158% of “normal”
for the season.
Remember this is California, and “normal” is no rain at all, most of the time.
Redwood city has 135% of normal and San Mateo has 126% of normal. These are just next door to Palo A lot towns, proving that H2O is ” not well mixed ” in the atmosphere; just like CO2.
The PA DP “journalist” said the forecasters “exaggerated” the coming river of water.
No they just plain lied in their teeth and hoped for the best; which in this case would be massive mud slides and inundation.
No it turned out to be The Storm of January 2017; never to be repeated.
Well they also announced that an old dying Cork Oak tree in Palo Alto was scheduled for removal. Well that won’t have any effect on the climate either.
The media just can’t seem to find any NEWS to report, now that Donald Trump has been confirmed as President elect for the seventh time.

Reply to  Luc Ozade (@Luc_Ozade)
January 9, 2017 11:51 am

I’m confused, George. The prediction that a 1-in-10-year storm would hit northern California was wrong? Apparently the rest of California disagrees. It’s happening.
Precipitation totals from National Weather Service
That looks like a lot of rain. The storm arrived Sunday night, not Saturday and Sunday during the day when you were presumably “in and out of here and there all weekend.” Sunday night is still considered part of the weekend.

george e. smith
Reply to  Luc Ozade (@Luc_Ozade)
January 9, 2017 5:28 pm

Yes stinkerp, you are confused.
The Bay Area Main Stream TV NEWS media in their official weather forecasts predicted a river of water to hit California. And yes we were out and about day and night. Plus we live in a house with windows and a roof so we can hear rain falling on the roof, and see it outside even at night since we have outside lights.
We have had several storms of the decade since the Winter clock started ticking, and more before then.
And yes the Palo Alto Daily Post DID SAY the predictions were exaggerated.
In the Si Valley bay area we ALWAYS have drivers slip sliding all over the place every time it rains. We have many local drivers who come from far off places who don’t even have any cars; but they can get a license to drive here. We cater to the lowest information users.
People even drive through puddles and stall their engines. Then they want you to help them push their detroitosaurus maximus out of the puddle.
Hint to stalled automobile drivers: The PUDDLE is ALWAYS at the BOTTOM of the DIP.. It is always UPHILL any direction out of the puddle.
Corollary: Automobiles are heavy and hard to push uphill.

January 9, 2017 12:42 am

“Maybe “climate science” has simply been steered into a deep ditch for the past several decades.”
RE “the impossibility to predicting chaotic weather and climate systems””:
Bill Illis developed a three-month predictor of Tropical Lower Tropospheric temperature that works quite well, based on Nino3.4 SST’s and other inputs. The Nino3.4 area is only about 1% of global land surface area. As I recall, Bill’s formula also included the impact of major volcanoes, the (lesser?) impact of the AMO, and the almost insignificant impact of CO2.
I later independently developed a simpler four-month predictor of Global Lower Tropospheric temperature based only on Nino3.4 temperatures. The cooling impact of major volcanoes is clear in this simpler model.
I also demonstrated in 2008 that dCO2/dt changes ~contemporaneously with temperature and therefore CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record.
Others have developed longer-term models that correlate global temperature with solar activity. I have not personally verified them but they look credible.
Others such as WeatherBell have a good track record of weather prediction, based on historic analog models of weather systems
My general observation is that perhaps this “chaotic, unpredictable climate system” is not all that unpredictable after all.
Maybe “climate science” has simply been steered into a deep ditch for the past several decades.
Regards, Allan

Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
January 9, 2017 5:47 am

Ladies and Germs,
Have you looked at the model-hindcasting/fabricated-aerosol issue, as described below?
The climate models do not honestly hindcast the global cooling period from ~1940 to ~1975, because their authors fabricated false aerosol data to force hindcasting.
Therefore, the models cannot forecast anything, because they cannot hindcast. except through fraudulent inputs.
The climate models cited by the IPCC typically use values of climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 (ECS) values that are significantly greater than 1C, which must assume strong positive feedbacks for which there is NO evidence. If anything, feedbacks are negative and ECS is less than 1C. This is one key reason why the climate models cited by the IPCC greatly over-predict global warming.
I reject as false the climate modellers’ claims that manmade aerosols caused the global cooling that occurred from ~1940 to ~1975. This aerosol data was apparently fabricated to force the climate models to hindcast the global cooling that occurred from ~1940 to ~1975, and is used to allow a greatly inflated model input value for ECS.
Some history on this fabricated aerosol data follows:
More from Douglas Hoyt in 2006:
Regards, Allan

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
January 9, 2017 6:38 am

Alan, I think you may have a temporal formula. ENSO alone may not be enough with the broader development of large cold patches where we had hot blobs before. I’m expecting your forecast to be too warm.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 9, 2017 7:14 am
You may be correct Gary – my calcs extend only to 1982;
BUT note that Bill Illis’s model extends back to 1958, which includes almost 2 decades of the last global cooling period that ended circa 1975.
It would be great if Bill would post his model, including his sources of data.
I (actually we) predicted global cooling starting by 2020-2030 in an article I wrote, published on Sept 1. 2002.
Pray God, I hope to be wrong, Warm is good; Cold is bad; Cold kills.*
Best, Allan
* Reference:

January 9, 2017 1:13 am

Here’s a forecast – the arctic sea ice next year will see another record low extent.
I have a little plan to have a wager on that sad fact with the good readers of this column … will get back to you. Have dose of flu or at least man flu and am retiring back to bed.

Reply to  Griff
January 9, 2017 2:58 am

Still the same ol Griff,who ignores the fact that the warm spot in the Arctic,was actually in a small area and now mostly cooled down. It is clear that despite being shown actual science research of long periods of time of little to no summer arctic ,that lasted for around 4,000 years,yet Polar Bears survived,so did the planet.
You have been shown this repeatedly,you ignore it,go on banging endless STUPID, woe is the Arctic ice extent crap.
Get well kid.

Bryan A
Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 9, 2017 5:34 am

Bad case of Man-flu? Probably Mann-flu over the coo coo’s nest. If he is wrong about next year’s minimum will be go away?

M Courtney
Reply to  Griff
January 9, 2017 3:04 am

You may be right. But the Arctic is not Global.
There is far more evidence that the MWP was a global event than that the current warming period is.
I predict that Antarctica won’t have a minimum ice extent next Summer.

Reply to  M Courtney
January 9, 2017 7:13 am

Hey M Courtney, I’ll take up that bet. You can just send me whatever you think is fair. Antarctica will have a minimum ice extent during its next summer. Absolutely guaranteed!

M Courtney
Reply to  M Courtney
January 10, 2017 1:54 pm

And taken seriously.

Reply to  Griff
January 9, 2017 3:10 am

Why is that “sad”, and if it hasn’t happened yet it isn’t a “fact” yet.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Griff
January 9, 2017 3:26 am

I am glad you have driven a stake in the ground, and the wager if you are wrong, goes to AW? Another RECORD low extent? Lower than this year? We wont have long to wait…
Gore was wrong.
Will Griff and Tony Mcleod be wrong?
My prediction, they will both be wrong. I will stand by my words as you Griff and make a donation of, US$50 to AW tip jar if the sea ice extent is another record low,lower than this year.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 9, 2017 5:26 am

I will match that, if the numbers are from an agreed objective source.

Reply to  Griff
January 9, 2017 3:31 am

Did it snow in India where it is rare? Did it snow on the Greek islands ? I saw snow on palm trees in Italy. I saw snow in Saudi Arabia. It’s summer in the southern hemisphere, did they get snow in New Zealand?
Which only points out that when it’s cold, that’s just weather. When it’s warm somewhere, climate change. Let’s dig up all the articles proclaiming the end of winter in January…… ( have any idea how many people were praying that was so ? Do you know what that would have done to the utility bill ? )……. Do you remember ” Winter’s Last Hurrah “. How quickly CAGW forgets. When Arctic ice returns, will this be another forgotten talking point ? Will the snow pack in California be a distant memory in the minds of climate change ? Oh, are the snow packs in that feed the rivers in India and Asia gone ? Why is all the focus on the Arctic?

Reply to  rishrac
January 9, 2017 5:29 am

Because Arctic sea ice in the middle of Summer is so critical for the survival of humanity, of course!
*rolls the eyes*

Reply to  rishrac
January 9, 2017 5:30 am

Antarctic sea ice…not so much.

Reply to  rishrac
January 9, 2017 7:18 am

Kids in India and Ecuador won’t know what snow is anymore…

Reply to  rishrac
January 10, 2017 10:50 am

Did it snow in New Zealand? Well, sometimes we do get summer snow.
We had snow again last November and I heard it had happened again since then but cannot find a link. Where I live we’ve had so many cold wet days that we’ve been joking “nice winter we’re having”.

Reply to  Griff
January 9, 2017 3:48 am

You could be right. The current sea ice extent is lower than 2011-2012. The temperature north of 80° has been quite a bit warmer than usual for the whole season. That means the ice that does form will be thinner.
Having said the above, we still have more than a hundred days during which the temperature could become abnormally cold and bolster the sea ice … we’ll see.

Reply to  commieBob
January 9, 2017 6:40 am

On the other hand, less winter ice means lots more heat being lost to space up there.

David Dirkse
Reply to  commieBob
January 9, 2017 7:12 am

It may be true that lots more heat being lost to space, but not enough. The net flow of heat is melting the ice.

Reply to  commieBob
January 9, 2017 8:30 am

And if more ice is lost, more heat will also be lost. At some point the two balance out.
Beyond that, more open water means more snow falling on the lands surrounding the arctic ocean.

Reply to  commieBob
January 9, 2017 8:36 am

It won’t “balance out” if all the ice melts. At that point we’ve reached the maximum heat loss effect of open water.

Reply to  commieBob
January 9, 2017 1:20 pm

If we ever reach the point where there is zero ice in the arctic ocean, even in the dead of winter, then we got bigger problems to worry about.

Reply to  commieBob
January 9, 2017 1:48 pm

Take a look at the surface wind change east of Greenland. This is the 3rd time in the last 3 months where the north flowing Atlantic winds have been cut off. If this pattern stays in place long enough, then I would think that the sea ice will expand in that direction, rapidly. The sea ice trend could jump up quickly on the daily graphs. …,78.47,819/loc=10.504,72.552

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Griff
January 9, 2017 5:05 am

Sorry to hear you’re under the weather, er. I mean under the climate, Griff. Throw another flaming wind turbine or dung patty on the fire, have a nice cuppa, stay warm, and get well, soon.

Darrell Demick
Reply to  Griff
January 9, 2017 6:06 am

Griff, I am sorry to hear that you are under the weather and hope for a speedy return. However you have got to wake up and smelt the roses, that being that your brand of cult religion is simply not worth following any more. I agree 100% with M Courtney’s statement that the Arctic is not the entire system. Not sure where you reside but there is a glacier that exists in Washington state that is growing – called Mt. St. Helens. Been growing for the past 20 years or so and such is the way with glaciers all over the world, they expand and contract, and have been doing so for the past few billion years. This is a fact, just like the Arctic has been under the influence of warm sea water for quite some time and is therefore losing ice, whereas the mainland of Greenland and the Antarctic have been growing for quite some time. Polar bears have survived in the historical record when there was zero ice in the Arctic, and I am sure that they will survive again.
To blame all of the changes in the climate – a process that has been under continual change for over 4 billion years – entirely on human activities is so insanely arrogant that it belies what should be taught in Grade 10 science classes, or earlier. Of course children across North America are brainwashed in elementary school and onwards that CO2 is poison and has to be eliminated.
Go for it, sterilize the Earth of all life, be my guest!

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Darrell Demick
January 9, 2017 6:58 am

Couldn’t have said it better. Natural forces haven’t gone on vacation, but that is what today’s laughingly touted “climate science” would have us believe. Climate has been changing for over 4 BILLION years and now it can suddenly all be laid at the feet of human CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning, a paltry few percentage points of total CO2 emissions which aren’t even being measured. “Insanely arrogant” puts it quite nicely.

Reply to  Griff
January 9, 2017 6:38 am

Even if true, you are focusing on only one very minor aspect of climate.

Reply to  Griff
January 9, 2017 8:51 am

I offered a wager here over a year ago based on claims that arctic sea ice extent was growing or “recovering”. It was that the average minimum extent of the then previous 3 years would not be larger than the then next 3 years. Nobody took me up on it, despite me offering 3 to 1 odds. At those odds anyone who thought the extent was growing or even remaining static should have jumped at the chance. I concluded that nobody here really thought the arctic sea ice extent was growing.
I would be cautious about betting on a single year.

Reply to  seaice1
January 9, 2017 9:06 am

*”would be larger” rather than would not be larger

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Griff
January 9, 2017 9:39 am

I’d wait before wagering. Look where the ice
extEnt graphs are heading now!

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Griff
January 9, 2017 9:58 am

You should probably do some reading on the Julian Simon/Paul Ehrlich wager.
I’ll spare you the details: the alarmist had to pay.
And I doubt any CAWG will want to take your hard-earned lawn mowing money.

Major Meteor
Reply to  Griff
January 9, 2017 12:08 pm

Get well Griff. The flu isn’t a whole lot of fun to have. You are a brave soul to post on a climate realist site. I actually enjoy reading your antagonistic posts. Good luck proving CO2 is the main driver of global warming, er, climate change, er global change, uhhhhh weather.

Dale S
Reply to  Griff
January 9, 2017 1:23 pm

Here’s a wager I’ll be willing to make:
If there’s a record low extent in 2018, I will post all the terrible things I can think of that result from a record low extent.
If there’s not a record low extent in 2018, you will post all the terrific things you can think of that result from not having a record low extent.

Reply to  Griff
January 9, 2017 3:06 pm

Have you apologised to Dr. Crockford about attempting to damage her scientific credentials yet, you poisonous little chancre?
Or Willie Soon of course, you lied about him too, didn’t you?

Coeur de Lion
January 9, 2017 1:22 am

Curiously I have a bet on my professional website blogosphere that next September will see more wadhams than last. Only a hundred quid. No-one has taken me up ( one wadhams =1 million sq km and is named after the strange British professor who predicted in 2012 that the North Pole would be ice-free this year. Our BBC gave him a soft ride, of course.)

Michael Palmer
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
January 9, 2017 4:55 am

Nice, succinct new unit 😉 shouldn’t the scale be inverted though? One wadhams = -1 million km ² of sea ice.

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
January 9, 2017 5:38 am

Is he the one who declared that one million square kilometers of ice is what is meant by “ice free”?
Or was it two million?
Who can keep all their shuckin’ and jivin’ straight, year after year?
It is very tiresome.
And as for year to year comparisons, did they not change the standard they are using to calculate exactly what constitutes an ice free grid square, a year or so back?
I seem to recall this was when the old method of measurement they had been using began to show increases.
And how come we do not hear much about the area of multi-year ice, or of total ice volume, as we used to?
Could it be that this is because these measures no longer show a decreasing trend?
Just wondering…like I said, hard to keep the shenanigans straight from year to year, when they have so many of them to pick and choose from.

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
January 9, 2017 7:35 am

Coeur de Lion:
I recall a popular refrain that went “let’s all go and p*ss against Wadham” when emerging from the local hostelry… any connection to the unit of Arctic Ice area or the ‘strange British professor’??

January 9, 2017 1:36 am

“man-made global warming” is dead, deceased, popped its clogs, passed on, expired, ceased to be, gone to meet its maker, joined the choir invisible. It is no more. RIP.

Gard R. Rise
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
January 9, 2017 2:36 am

…pushing up the daisies…

Reply to  Gard R. Rise
January 9, 2017 5:31 am

…kicked the bucket…

Reply to  Gard R. Rise
January 9, 2017 5:49 am

…gave up the ghost, six feet under, wearing concrete galoshes, gone to hell, done for, bought the farm, bereft of life, liquidated, departed, resting in peace, defenestrated, checked out, mortified, offed, defunct, perished, withered away, out of it’s misery, and gone cold!

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Gard R. Rise
January 9, 2017 7:00 am

Dare I say “terminated,” even though sadly the Governator believes the AGW crap for some reason.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Gard R. Rise
January 9, 2017 7:37 am

This is like a scene in Patch Adams

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
January 9, 2017 4:33 am

Norwegian Blue squire, beautiful plumage!

Darrell Demick
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
January 9, 2017 6:10 am

Mr. Bratby, I certainly hope that you are correct AND that the ridiculous funding that is being allocated towards renewable energy is reigned-in. My primary concern is that irrespective of the demise of CAGW (rest in Hell, by the way), that this trillion dollar plus boulder continues to roll downhill and will continue to take numerous jurisdictions with it along the way – spending will continue, on all of the wrong projects.
I hope I am wrong, but I remain very concerned.

Reply to  Darrell Demick
January 10, 2017 8:44 am

“that this trillion dollar plus boulder continues to roll downhill and will continue to take numerous jurisdictions with it along the way – spending will continue, on all of the wrong projects.”
You are correct, it is putting the rural population under the rolling wheel now.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
January 9, 2017 1:12 pm

I never wanted to be a climate scientist in the first place…I wanted to be a lumberjack.

January 9, 2017 1:47 am

Two years ago, we were told that in California, we had to tighten out taps and cut back, being in a 200 year megadrought of unprecedented proportion to those who never lived here in 1935. Times were getting tough with climate change. Then the rains came and nailed northern California. That was last year. Then the rains moved south and hit central and now southern California is a series of Pineapple Express events, which are rains tracked in concert with the jet stream, pumping it in from Hawaii. Another bout of that is hitting now. More in a couple of days is forecast. This has been going on for two weeks. Welcome to the unprecedented 200 year megadrought forecast, courtesy of CO2 and climate change. Another Climategeddon prediction gone bad.

Darrell Demick
Reply to  Donald Kasper
January 9, 2017 7:18 am

Mr. Kasper, I truly feel for you. Instead of foolishly spending money on renewable energy project, in an attempt to “save the planet”, your State government should have been spending money on major improvements to water collection and retention projects, so that when the rains came back, the water could be better collected for proper usage.
However as I have stated to the wonderful socialist government in Alberta, Canada, boring stuff like increased snowfall in the Antarctic (was increasing in mass by 82 billion tonnes/year in the early 2000’s) does not make for sensational news, but iceberg calving certainly does.
I would be a whole lot more concerned if there were NO iceberg calving in the Antarctic ……

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Donald Kasper
January 9, 2017 8:23 am

Is everybody’s “desert style” landscaping job washing away?

Reply to  Donald Kasper
January 9, 2017 11:19 am

Droughts always end on floods.
And when the warmistas declare a drought “permanent”, break out the hop waders, because a long period of record rainfall is surely a-comin’.
Wait unit the flood that ends the drought in SoCal…THAT one will be epic!

Reply to  Menicholas
January 9, 2017 1:22 pm

Is that a variation of the Gore effect?

January 9, 2017 2:07 am

As Fisher divers excavated the Henrietta wreck, at 40 feet below the sea surface they found – not just leg shackles and other grim artifacts from that horrific era – but charred tree branches, pine cones and other remnants from a forest fire 8,400 years ago!

12 meters in 8400 years is 1.45 mm/yr. So basically 1.5 mm/yr is a pretty natural business as usual, also known as RCP 8.5 : -)

Reply to  Hugs
January 9, 2017 2:10 am

dah, /

January 9, 2017 2:20 am

Judging by the cartoon, the author still confuses weather with climate.
Well done.
I see nothing changes here.

Gard R. Rise
Reply to  Toneb
January 9, 2017 2:48 am

I rather thought that the cartoon was supposed to be, you know, a joke? And a rather amusing one, I might add. Furthermore, I am sure these illustrations made to accompany the guest essays are not necessarily chosen by the author of the essay itself.

Reply to  Toneb
January 9, 2017 3:00 am

Zoooooom !!!!!!!!!
it flew right over your head. You didn’t understand the obvious?

Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 9, 2017 6:43 am

You can’t get someone to understand, when his paycheck requires him to not understand.

Keith J
Reply to  Toneb
January 9, 2017 3:13 am

No, weather is chaos with generally understood trends. Predicting out 3 days is pretty solid, 10 days iffy and three weeks meh.
Climate changes? Make the predictions based on whatever you want but stick to them. Then revisit in ten years and stand fast to criticism. If you claim to be scientific, prove your claims experimentally. And when the hypothesis fails, have the humility to own the facts. Hiding the decline is not scientific. Giving a congressional presentation in the summer in DC and shutting off the air conditioning while keeping the windows shut is torture of science.
Michael Mann should have kept producing hit TV shows and stayed out of politics.. I miss the original Miami Vice ;*)

Reply to  Toneb
January 9, 2017 3:13 am

The draftsman could also have asked for the next 10 to 20 years, or the period since 1980, since Hansen the first model predictions into the world. Nothing has changed. The climate scientists still trust their model predictions, although only a few represent reality. This is like a blind chicken, which goes to war for the first time with a machine gun. Some shot, if I only on 100 meters wide goals, will probably meet.

Reply to  Toneb
January 9, 2017 3:45 am

Which climate change prediction from 15 years ago was correct ? Oh, there aren’t any.
” Our children just won’t know what snow is… ” that one?
” There will be stronger, more frequent hurricanes. This is the new normal. Get use to it. ” that one ?
” California is in a 200 year mega drought ” that one ?
” The great American Drought, worse than the dust bowl ” that one?
” we can expect to see the end of winter by January ” that one ?
The list is endless of failed … projections.

Reply to  Toneb
January 9, 2017 5:29 am

“it flew right over your head. You didn’t understand the obvious?”
A “joke”?
The “obvious”?
Err, well …. obviously.
However it makes it by poking fun at computer modellers/climate scientists, by insinuating that because a 24 hr forecast may be wrong then it is no surprise that a long-term climate forecast will as well.
Climate models seek to project future temperatures globally some years in advance.
Not whether it will snow in NY on Jan 9th 2117.
No Point attempting to project to 100 years – we do not know what RCP mankind will follow.
But the science is settled regarding what non-condensing GHG’s do in an atmosphere.

Reply to  Toneb
January 9, 2017 6:44 am

That CO2 traps heat is well understood.
How that impacts the climate is not even close to being understood.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Toneb
January 9, 2017 8:35 am

“But the science is settled regarding what non-condensing GHG’s do in an atmosphere.”
Here, read beyond the cartoon as Mr Driessen writes:

Their predictions will be as invalid and unscientific as divining future Super Bowl winners by modeling who plays left guard for each team – or World Cup victors by looking at center backs.

He’s referring to GHGs vs the other “players” in the game.

Reply to  Toneb
January 9, 2017 9:00 am

I will make a very bold prediction, not 2 days, not 2 weeks, not even two months ahead! I predict that temperatures in the Northern hemisphere will be much warmer in 6 (yes six!) months time. Anyone who thinks that because we cannot predict weather 2 weeks (or even 2 days) ahead with any great accuracy must feel that I am sticking my neck out a lot here, but I am prepared to back this staggering prediction with a wager! I will offer good odds to anyone wishing to take me up on it.

Reply to  Toneb
January 9, 2017 1:23 pm

Predicting that summer will be warmer than winter does not mean that predictions that it will rain 5 days from now are also correct.

Reply to  Toneb
January 9, 2017 3:12 pm

“But the science is settled regarding what non-condensing GHG’s do in an atmosphere.”
No it isn’t. Not even close.
Stop making stuff up.

Reply to  Toneb
January 9, 2017 6:15 pm

Here’s a very simple model: a long trough of water with a refrigerator on one end and a heater on the other. On the refrigerator end, let’s call it the Arctic, the water is cold enough to form ice. On the heated side, let’s call it the tropics, the water is warm and ice free.
What is the average temperature?
If warm water is moved from the tropic side to the Arctic side, some ice melts, but the temperature stays the same. On the other hand if Arctic water is moved to the tropic side, the temperature is significantly affected. How does this affect the “average temperature”. If one of the thermometers dies, how do you “infill” to recreate the correct average temperature. Thermometers on the Arctic side respond far differently to energy changes than thermometers on the tropic side.
For a real life demonstration of this affect look at average summer Arctic temperatures, in spite of 24 hours of sunshine pouring down lots of energy, the temperature stays in a very narrow range around the freezing point of water. See where this is clearly demonstrated every year. It’s only after the ice freezes that large temperature variations are possible.
In the tropics the same affect is seen when a large pool of water doesn’t move to the Arctic to cool down, an El Nino occurs and the “average temperature” goes up even though the total energy flow in the system is the same.
Even worse, with this simple model which can easily be built, climate scientists with all their vast computing powers would have a hard time predicting temperatures anywhere along the trough even without external effects such as the trough spinning or barriers to water movement.

Reply to  Toneb
January 10, 2017 1:53 am

Mark W. “Predicting that summer will be warmer than winter does not mean that predictions that it will rain 5 days from now are also correct.”
You are grasping towards understanding. It is very different to predict general changes in average global temperatures than it is to predict local effects of the weather systems. The failure to predict rain in 5 days time at a particular location says absolutely nothing about my ability to predict that summer will be warmer than winter. In exactly the same way failure to predict rain in 5 days time in a particular location says nothing about the ability to predict global temperatures in years to come.

Reply to  Toneb
January 9, 2017 6:13 am

R. McKee didn’t pen this piece. Still confused i see.

Reply to  Toneb
January 9, 2017 6:33 am

Climate is the average of weather. Therefore, weather must have an effect on climate as it is the basis for the statistic we call “climate”. Climate is just a statistic—an average value that correlates to actual weather only occasionally. Weather is far more important to know in day to day life than climate. Weather is a direct effect.

Reply to  Toneb
January 9, 2017 6:42 am

As always Toneb, you don’t get it.
The author is conflating weather and climate MODELS.
Are you so eager to be contrarian that you can’t pause a moment to get your basic facts right?

Reply to  Toneb
January 9, 2017 8:52 am

Toneb, you really ought to read the words and not just look at the pictures, you might find that there is a lot of information hidden in books.

January 9, 2017 2:58 am

Great article. Thanks.

M Courtney
January 9, 2017 3:01 am

Research Funding will always be targeted proportionally to the expected impact of the work. In many cases that is unknown.
But if a field has many aspects and only one aspect has big implications (like the end of the world) then that aspect will get most of the Research Funding.
•Research is proportional to the Research Funding. It has to be as it’s not free.
•Therefore, in a field with only one aspect that has big implications the vast majority of researchers will be interested in that big implication. A consensus is formed.
•Further Research Funding will be targeted according to the best understanding of the field, which is clearly the consensus. This re-enforces the consensus . The consensus is even more ‘certain’.
•Eventually, the field is so bloated in the one aspect that there is no other research going on in that field at all. And, if that one aspect is no longer deemed to have a big impact, the field could not sustain enough Research Funding to employ the researchers. This polices the consensus.
How to break this up? Just stopping funding won’t work as there are loads of “experts” who will denounce any politician who tries it. The people will always trust an “expert” over a politician.
What is required is another gravy train to leach the “experts” away. Maybe try to mine the asteroids or build cities under sea. Farming the oceans could be useful. But a big Apollo programme will kill AGW more effectively than a hack-and-slash approach.

Michael Palmer
Reply to  M Courtney
January 9, 2017 5:01 am

What I always find puzzling is that the law of diminishing returns is constantly ignored when funding is allocated. Governments just looove to make a big splash and show “vision” and “foresight” by stuffing all their eggs in one basket (or two). And greedy academics are happy to oblige, forming rival gangs trying to attract such big splashes to their own field.
Climate science is just the most egregious example, but there are many others.

Reply to  Michael Palmer
January 9, 2017 6:46 am

Obama has assured me that he has repealed the law of diminishing returns.

January 9, 2017 3:08 am
January 9, 2017 6:38 am

Absolutely. I get the emails all the time (Yes, I signed up for them so I would know what Obama was up to.) on this and many other subjects from OFA. Note that Obama is NOT in any way giving up. These emails will continue into the Trump administration as the global warming crowd tries to hold on to its influence and funding.

Reply to  Sheri
January 9, 2017 8:44 am

-thanks Sheri for clearing the doubt!

January 9, 2017 3:23 am

UK Met Office not the one to watch if you want a forecast as they have low confidence in their predictions despite their new £97m supercomputer:
Updated at: 1219 on Sun 8 Jan 2017
UK Outlook for Monday 23 Jan 2017 to Monday 6 Feb 2017:
Confidence is very low in details as we head towards the end of the month and beginning of February. However, bands of rain and possibly some snow are likely to affect the north and northwest at first, whilst periods of more settled weather are expected in the south, bringing a risk of frost and freezing fog. Temperatures are uncertain although slow changes between milder and colder conditions seem likely. Later, there is an increased preference for drier and colder weather to become established across the British Isles.

Reply to  Adrian Kerton
January 9, 2017 3:29 am

I also read from time to time the predictions of the met. Office. They are about as arbitrary as my horoscope in the television magazine. Something for everyone.

Andrew Harding
Reply to  Adrian Kerton
January 9, 2017 3:46 am

Adrian, I gave up paying attention to what the Met Office forecast many years ago. I remember a few years ago being stuck in Spain because Newcastle Airport was closed due to snow. The Met Office (and other forecasters) were saying that the temperature would range from -2 to +2. My colleagues were telling me that at 14:00 it was -8. We ended up getting a flight to Leeds and hiring a car to get home. I have a £25 weather station and two eyes which provide a better forecast than the £97 million MetOffice supercomputer. It says it all when the warmunist BBC did not renew their contract with the MO following failed predictions of BBQ summers and warm winters.

Reply to  Andrew Harding
January 9, 2017 9:10 am

” I have a £25 weather station and two eyes which provide a better forecast than the £97 million MetOffice supercomputer. ”
Yes of course it does … you have a clairvoyant weather station.
Do you happen to have one for sale?
Oh, and is your glass still half-empty?
No one said Wx forecasting is a precise science.
And the unfortunate thing is (as I met many, many, times in my career), that give that type of personality it would only take 1 out of 100 forecasts to go wrong and the other 99 are worthless for evermore.

January 9, 2017 3:34 am

Hi Paul
You wrote “400 feet higher than during the frigid Pleistocene, when an enormous portion of Earth’s seawater was locked up in glaciers”
I just wondered, was the seawater much saltyer then or was the salt elsewhere? And if saltyer, what effects would that have made?
Regards, Lorenz

Reply to  lb
January 9, 2017 6:48 am

The sea is on average about 2 miles deep. 400 feet is a pretty small percentage.
Also, it wasn’t just sea water that was being locked up in the glaciers. Lots of fresh water sources were reduced in size as well.
The sea was probably saltier, but not much.

January 9, 2017 3:54 am

Central banking policies are the greatest cause — by far — of increases in CO2 emissions in the past century. Yet, they’re the elephant in the room that nobody talks about, and that very few people even recognize, because of false propaganda from leftist groups who support this hoax.
Where is the environmental economic research that quantified the MASSIVE impact that fractional banking systems have had on the environment, and the suggested measures to fix this problem?comment image

Reply to  LarryFine
January 9, 2017 6:06 am

A few economics/finance courses would help with your confusion. There are several areas of physics and the natural sciences that might be useful to you in understanding CO2’s relation to global warming. (I know it is global warming that you are really concerned with.)

Reply to  Flyoverbob
January 9, 2017 7:58 am

Confusion? I studied natural sciences, including weather, climate and environmental economics from leaders in the fields.
They taught physics, and about natural capital and man-made capital, but they didn’t teach fractional-reserve banking, which is the actual engine of the global economy. That wasn’t on my professor’s radar because they were left-wingers who believed in ever-expanding central control of society, and that requires synthetic wealth created by central banks by default.
Let’s be clear. This is all driven by politics and arrogance.
Central banking is a hoax in which some men who pretend to have vast amounts of financial capital allow politicians to print as much currency as they dare to concentrate and sustain their shared power over everyone else. Thus, they’ve created unnaturally high population growth, over-exploitation of natural resources, vast amounts of waste pollution that otherwise wouldn’t have existed, and continual wars.
Likewise, Climate Change is a hoax in which some men who pretend to understand the atmosphere (and to see into the past and future) allow politicians to pass laws that diminish our rights and liberties to concentrate and sustain their shared power over everyone else.
Do you see the commonalities there? FALSE PRETENSES ARE USED TO CONCENTRATE POWER IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH CONTROL. And they use false pretenses because their philosophies and arguments fail in the free marketplace of ideas.
Perhaps if you researched the federal reserve corporation, scientism and Communism, then you would understand where all of this is leading. But you should do so soon because your they’re trying to close an iron curtain on free thought.

Scottish Sceptic
January 9, 2017 4:44 am

The argument for their ability to predict long term climate goes thus: because the climate is isolated from space, it can only be the sum of what comes in and goes out.
Thus it follows that because the atmosphere is sealed, the weather can only be affected by the different between what goes in and out. And to a large extent that is actually true! It’s cold and night and warm during the day.
It therefore follows, that if they can’t predict short term weather, they can’t predict long term climate (as they are basically the same atmospheric physics).
“But hang on” – some might say – isn’t it obvious that the weather systems will affect the weather. “But hang on” say I – isn’t it obvious that the distribution nof heat in the ocean will cause long term “climate” effects. Apparently not! Or at least the alarmists still believe in the “sealed earth” concept whereby climate is not affected by anything other than atmospheric composition.

Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
January 9, 2017 9:03 am

“It therefore follows, that if they can’t predict short term weather, they can’t predict long term climate (as they are basically the same atmospheric physics).”
No, doesn’t “follow” at all.
Look at a a graph of temp data …..comment image
Now tell me which is more difficult to predict.
The individual spikes/dips – or the long-term trend?
The first is the chaotic nature of climate as it acts out it’s distribution of heat on a yearly basis (in this case).
Analogous to daily weather over a month say.
But we know the average temp for, say January in the UK and it is likely to be close to that.
SO we can predict that with much more confidence that an indiviual day’s temp.
A long-term trend (climate) is MUCH easier to predict that short term variation (weather).
““But hang on” – some might say – isn’t it obvious that the weather systems will affect the weather. “But hang on” say I – isn’t it obvious that the distribution nof heat in the ocean will cause long term “climate” effects. Apparently not! Or at least the alarmists still believe in the “sealed earth” concept whereby climate is not affected by anything other than atmospheric composition.”
And no again.
Climate scientists call that “feed-backs”, created by the energy in vs energy out imbalance.

Reply to  Toneb
January 9, 2017 1:29 pm

I love it when trolls try to pretend that they are intelligent.
Long term predictions are way more difficult than short term ones. The reason for this is the hundreds of things that short term models are able to ignore.
Short term models don’t care that an increase in rainfall can change the amount and type of vegetation in a region. That’s because the amount and type of vegetation isn’t going to change much over 5 days.
On the other hand, several decades of increased rain is going to have a huge impact on vegetation.
Unless you can accurately model how the vegation changes due to temperature and precipitation changes, then your climate model will be worthless.
This is just one example. You climate model has to completely and accurately model how changes in the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, cryosphere and lithosphere react to each other as each changes.

Reply to  Toneb
January 9, 2017 1:36 pm

As always, the troll tries to pretend that there is only one explanation for whatever long term trend it claims to have spotted.

Reply to  Toneb
January 9, 2017 3:18 pm

Now plot the same graph with the atmospheric CO2 concentration superimposed over it toneb.
What do you think that would tell us?

Reply to  Toneb
January 10, 2017 2:08 am

“Long term predictions are way more difficult than short term ones.” Absolute rubbish. Long term predictions of the same thing are more difficult, but if are are looking at different things short term than long term that is not true. See my seasonal prediction above. I can predict that summer will be warmer than winter with very near certainty. I can predict it will be warmer than today where I live 6 months from now. That is a 6 month from now prediction with virtual certainty. I cannot predict with any great certainty if it will be warmer where I live than it is now in two weeks time. That contradicts your statement that “long term predictions are way more difficult than short term ones”
Why is this the case? Because I am looking at different things long term to short term. Think of a ball or rock bouncing down a steep slope. I cannot predict its exact location a couple of bounces from now, but I can predict the general trajectory pretty accurately. I do this not by trying to model every bounce, but by modelling the overall movement using the forces applied. Weather is like each bounce, climate is like the general direction of travel. You are arguing that you have to get every bounce correct to predict the rock will end up lower down the slope.

Reply to  seaice1
January 11, 2017 4:48 pm

““Long term predictions are way more difficult than short term ones.” Absolute rubbish.”
No sealice, the absolute rubbish is your speciality, your every post drips with it.
You have no understanding of science, of the scientific method and especially not of climate science.
Going by your posts I very much doubt you have even reached GCSE level.

Reply to  catweazle666
January 11, 2017 6:49 pm

You are right about long term predictions being more difficult. You are wrong about predictions and science. Today’s climate models make no predictions and climate “science” is a pseudoscience.

Rob Bradley
Reply to  Toneb
January 11, 2017 7:17 pm

Terry, over 100 years ago a Swedish scientist used a very simple model to predict that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere would increase surface temperatures. Guess what? His prediction came true. So I suggest you stop calling climate science ” pseudoscience” because predictions made a century ago have come true.

Reply to  Rob Bradley
January 11, 2017 8:32 pm

Rob Bradley:
Thank you for taking the time to reply. That Arrhenius used a model to “predict” is a common misconception. Actually he used a model to “project.” Prediction and projection are distinguishable concepts. Underlying a model that “predicts” is a statistical population. Underlying a model that “projects” is not a statistical population.
A model that “projects” is suitable for some purposes but not for the purpose of creating knowledge. To create knowledge is the purpose of scientific research. Lacking a statistical population, global warming climatology is incapable of creating knowledge. Thus, rather than being a science global warming climatology is a pseudoscience.
If you read IPCC AR4 carefully you will find an admission that the IPCC climate models models are not falsifiable. That they are not falsifiable proves the absence of the underlying statistical population for when this population is present the associated model is falsifiable.

Ross King
Reply to  Rob Bradley
January 12, 2017 8:32 am

Attribution/reference please?

Reply to  Rob Bradley
January 14, 2017 1:22 pm

“Terry, over 100 years ago a Swedish scientist used a very simple model to predict that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere would increase surface temperatures”
And shortly afterwards, another scientist – Knut Ångström – proved him wrong.

Jerry Howard
January 9, 2017 5:11 am

The worst aspect of the alarmist AGW scam may be the wholesale brainwashing of the nation’s youth.
I have seen some of it in the homework of my grandkids. Even in Texas, where the federal Department of Education probably has less clout than most states, the textbooks (9th grade) are filled with AGW propaganda. From Biology to Geography it is pervasive. Even the Algebra text sneaks it into the text by using AGW “data” as a subject of many problem examples.
Adults can (if they don’t depend on a federal grant) see through the silliness of the CO2 scam, but 14 year students should be able to trust their teachers. Sadly they can’t.

Reply to  Jerry Howard
January 9, 2017 6:48 am

Children should not be sent to brainwashing places. Yet, in spite of all the complaints of people about indoctrination, every morning they send little Marty and Lisa to the indoctrination center while cheerfully waving goodbye to them.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Jerry Howard
January 9, 2017 7:20 am

Yes unfortunately it will take years to overcome the damage done by the AGW propaganda machine, since there is much de-programming to do to our younger generation.

Reply to  AGW is not Science
January 9, 2017 11:32 am

No jobs and a lower standard of living will speed-up the de-programming.

Reply to  Jerry Howard
January 9, 2017 8:11 am

I haven’t seen too much of this in my kids homework (Switzerland). But still, George Orwell must be spinning in his grave.

Reply to  Jerry Howard
January 9, 2017 11:22 am

Wait a second…Larry Fine, then Jerry Howard?
Well, where are Moe and Shemp?

Jerry Howard
Reply to  Menicholas
January 9, 2017 2:40 pm

I worded that poorly. I should have made clear, it is not the teachers – it is the texts – at least as far as I know. Reviewing my post, it sounds like a complaint against the teachers. The intent was a condemnation of a federal mandate, effectively extending the administration mandate to sneak AGW into every agency and every department for political, not environmental, reasons.

Reply to  Jerry Howard
January 10, 2017 7:58 pm

“Even in Texas, where the federal Department of Education probably has less clout than most states, the textbooks (9th grade) are filled with AGW propaganda. From Biology to Geography it is pervasive. Even the Algebra text sneaks it into the text by using AGW “data” as a subject of many problem examples.”
I can vouch for this. My 8th grader son came home and was announcing about the loss of arctic ice and harm to polar bears. I asked where he learned about this. He says it was in his *math* textbook. Yup, AGW propaganda about polar ice caps melting made it into algebra books. Reminds me of stories of ‘rainforest math’. This is pervasive, he’s being ‘taught’ lots of ‘global warming is a crisis’ stuff in science too.

January 9, 2017 5:16 am

Rather than cancelling all governmental funding for climate/weather research, it would be nice to see funding to identify the mechanisms that affect weather/climate: solar cycles, AMO and other ocean cycles, earths orbit and wobble, cosmic radiation, particulate etch. etch. It is not likely that private industry will fund basic research. I think that is an acceptable purpose of scientific funding from government.

Reply to  Paul Stevens
January 9, 2017 6:13 am

A man was walking down a road and saw a farmer pushing, yelling and whipping his mule.
The man said, “That’s no way to get the mule to work. You have to show some kindness.”
The man walk over to the cart, grabbed a 2X4, looked the animal in the eyes then smacked the mule across the head with the 2X4.
The farmer said, “What the hell are you doing. You said to show some kindness?”
“Yeah.” the man said. “But, first you have to get his attention.”
So, First, you have to get the alarmist’s attention.
My point?
Our government spends too much.
Reduce funding by 70% – 80% and allow the citizen/scientists to join the unemployment line.
That’ll get their attention.

Reply to  Paul Stevens
January 9, 2017 8:14 am

Yes or research into how we really can change the climate whenever it might be *needed*

Rhoda R
Reply to  lb
January 9, 2017 5:03 pm

NO! God No. We don’t know how climate works so we don’t want activist ‘scientists’ to fiddle around with things they don’t understand. It would be a little late to say “Oops!” when the glacier comes bearing down on Montreal or New York.

Stephanie Bond
Reply to  Paul Stevens
January 9, 2017 11:40 am

Paul, if you think that some research is useful, get involved in helping to set it up. It is NOT government’s proper job to organize research funding. The whole tax based “economy” is a giant Ponzi scheme at best, and legalized theft and extortion at worst. The sooner we wean ourselves off it entirely, and move everything to voluntary-based funding, the better.

January 9, 2017 7:18 am

I could be “converted to ACC if a good explanation of 3 things were forthcoming:
1. Explain why it is necessary to “adjust data” from 75 years ago.
2.Explain how tree stumps are revealed when glaciers retreat.
3. Why warmists begin their argument with a lie ” You deny that climate changes!!!”.

Reply to  richard
January 11, 2017 9:22 am

1. Because more accurate information is found.
2. Because the glacier knocked down the tree.
3. Because they don’t understand you guys.

Reply to  Alex
January 22, 2017 4:12 pm

Sigh! Where to start?
1. If more accurate information is found, you Discard
The inaccurate data, you don’t “adjust” it.
2. You just don’t understand how trees grow, do you?
3. They don’t have to understand US, just the DATA.
It’s not about US.

January 9, 2017 7:57 am

Excellent post by Paul Driessen.
Clear and concise.

Ross King
January 9, 2017 8:45 am

1. Trump shd enact the foundation on an academic institution(s), Chartered with the study of Paleo-Climatic Changes, stopping at the advent of anthropogenically produced CO2 (Industrial Revolution?)
2. Further enact that 50% all gov’t funds allocated to Climate Research be dedicated to these new institutions.
This will free-up the many climate Scientists (65% +/- according to Forbes report) who do not wholeheartedly subscribe to Global Warming being Anthropogenically induced: they will no longer have to toe the “party-line” in order to keep their jobs and avoid criticism.
The playing-field will be levelled.

January 9, 2017 9:52 am

The ONLY hope to model long term climate AT PRESENT is to adopt a methodology similar to how we predict earth’s tides.
Both the tides and climate are chaotic. They cannot be reliably predicted from first principles. Yet we reliably predict the tides for decades into the future, using technology called “Astrology”.
Thousands of years ago humans learned to predict the seasons, long before they had any clue what caused the seasons. Yet modern science claims that we cannot predict climate without knowing what causes climate. This is nonsense.
You only need to know the cause to predict climate from first principles. Which we know to be a waste of time, because IPCC 1 established that climate was chaotic and COULD NOT BE PREDICTED. This is why the IPCC say climate models are PROJECTIONS.
To predict climate we need the following:
1. Throw away all attempts to model climate from first principles.
2. Recognize that climate is cyclical – it follows patterns.
3. Create a long term record of climate, going back 1+ million years at least.
4. Look at local events we can predict in the physical universe
5. Look for correlations between climate cycles and the local events we can predict
6. Use these correlations to predict future climate based on local events we can predict.
This is how we learned to predict the tides. Unless we get a breakthrough in mathematics, ocean tidal prediction is the only working example we have of how to predict climate.

Ross King
Reply to  ferdberple
January 9, 2017 12:07 pm

Ferdberple…… well said!

Reply to  ferdberple
January 11, 2017 9:24 pm

The topic that you have introduced into discussion of the tidal models illuminates an important issue. The tidal tables that I consulted when I owned a sailboat were not the result of prediction but rather were the result of projection. After a model of the tides that was of satisfactory accuracy for most navigational purposes was created, the basis for this model was overlooked by most users of the the resulting tide tables. This basis was a statistical population. Absent this population the tidal tables that I consulted could not have been created.
For global warming models the statistical populations underlying the models have never existed. Replacing these populations has been the notion called “radiative forcing.”

Caligula Jones
January 9, 2017 10:02 am

The sense of shame for warmunists is off the scale.
They honestly believe they are the Ann Franks of their era, which would be amusing if it didn’t lessen the memory of millions actually harmed by real fascism.

Reply to  Caligula Jones
January 9, 2017 1:42 pm

The difference between modern warmists and historical fascists is not as great as you seem to think.
They both believe that government should run everyone’s lives and they are both willing to sacrifice as many people as necessary to make their dream worlds possible.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  MarkW
January 10, 2017 12:05 pm

Perhaps, but my point is that the scale is off, vis a vis history.
Of course, we live in a world where “hero” is a word for firefighters AND actors.

January 9, 2017 10:14 am

Regarding the cartoon about a short term weather forecast vs. a long term climate forecast: An analog to this is a class D amplifier. Its analog to a weather forecast is a microsecond-by-microsecond forecast through milliseconds for the states of its output transistors. Its analog to a climate change forecast is a prediction of the duty cycles of its output transistors as a result of changing the input signal or component values in the amplifier. The latter is much easier than the former.
The main problem with climate change forecasts, for example the CMIP5 ones, is that they were tuned to hindcast the past, especially 1975 through 2005, without considering multidecadal oscillations, which were on an upswing from around 1973 to around 2004-2005 and then started swinging back down. 2006 was the first year of the CMIP5 models being forecasts. About .2 degree C of the warming that was successfully hindcast for 1975-2005 was considered to be manmade when it was not. This is the explanation for the CMIP5 climate change forecasts overpredicting warming.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
January 9, 2017 1:44 pm

The tuning period is a big problem, but I don’t know that it’s the main one.
The biggest problem in my opinion is that they have way to many assumptions built in to them, rather than deriving everything from first principles.

January 9, 2017 11:04 am

They can tell me what will be happening in 20 years, but they can’t report correctly when it is raining outside.
For two days in a row, NOAA was reporting that north of Tucson was clear. It was actually completely overcast all morning with occasional showers. Come on, guys, even your Doppler radar should have showed THAT.
Next, I go to Mendenhall Glacier and, while waiting to go in the gift shop/movie theater, I get to listen to a pre-recorded “global warming” government-approved propaganda talk.
You go in and you learn that the “original” settlers didn’t even HAVE a glacier to worry about, it was up the ravine/mountain/fjord/whatever. Then the glacier started growing over hundreds of years during the Little Ica Age and pushed them out. Now, they are claiming it is receding due to human pollution, and NOT the general warming for the last few hundred years.
The Earth survived without the glacier where it is and I suspect it will survive fine without any glacier there at all.

Ross King
Reply to  noylj2014noylj
January 9, 2017 12:14 pm

The Alarmist propaganda consistently trots-out spliced vid-clips of vast glacial cliffs crashing spectacularly into the sea in places like Alaska, all — we are meant to believe — caused by AGW. What they omit, of course, is that rivers (including ice-rivers) flow and that this is a natural, continuing event.
Major paleo-climatic events come and they go, and trends continue until they stop!
The Alarmists are the TRUE DENIERS.

Stevan Reddish
Reply to  noylj2014noylj
January 10, 2017 1:06 am

From the Wikipedia article:
“Given that average yearly temperatures are currently increasing, and the outlook is for this trend to continue, it is actually possible that the glacier might experience a period of stabilization or slight advance during its retreating march. This is because increasing amounts of warm, moist air will be carried up to the head of the icefield, where colder ambient temperatures will cause it to precipitate as snow. The increased amount of snow will feed the icefield, possibly enough to offset the continually increasing melting experienced at the glacier’s terminus. However, this interesting phenomenon will fade away if temperatures continue to climb, since the head of the glacier will no longer have cold enough ambient temperatures to cause snow to precipitate.”
This is followed by:
“Negative consequences
The retreat of the Mendenhall Glacier and other glaciers in the area is believed by some to be a result of broader retreat and breakup of the Juneau Icefield. The Juneau Icefield is the fifth largest icefield in North America.[9] For many populations near glacial areas these glaciers are a source of fresh drinking water. Once these glaciers are gone the people relying on this fresh water will be out of their familiar fresh water source”
So, a warming world produces more precipitation, but that precipitation only feeds rivers if it falls as snow??
Despite “there are many negative effects of the recession of the Mendenhall Glacier”, this was the one chosen for mention???

Stephanie Bond
January 9, 2017 11:07 am

About those government grants… they should all be cancelled immediately, regardless of recipient. It’s really not government’s job to finance such research. And given the current debt situation, the cupboard is utterly bare. It is probably too much to hope for, but it would be nice to see Mr. Trump slashing the regulatory b.s. as well as the line-up for hand-outs, all paid for by the beleaguered private sector.

J Mac
January 9, 2017 1:38 pm

Paul Driessen,
Thank You (!) for the cogent synopsis of progressive changes needed to the blighted US policy.
I sincerely hope the new administration heeds your words!

January 9, 2017 3:00 pm

Hmmm — (400 ft. / 8400 yr.) * 12 in/ft = .57 in/yr average sea-level rise — Sea-level rise was probably concentrated during the warming period.

January 9, 2017 3:16 pm

Our federal government is deep in debt and posting huge annual deficits. We cannot afford to waste money on “settled science”. Our federal government has to borrow the money to waste on this. I estimate that the money the federal government is borrowing today will end up costing the tax payers more than 12 times the amount borrowed to repay over the next 180 years. We have to stop waisting money before the federal government becomes insolvant.
The reality is that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific reasoning to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero.
So far Mankind has been unable to change one weather event let alone change global climate. Even if we could hault climate change dead in its tracks we would still have extreme weather events and sea level rise because they are part of our current climate. If we could reverse global warming with global cooling we would still have to deal with extreme weather events plus the possibility of new ice sheets and smaller areas available for agriculture. Decreaseing sea levels will leave current sea ports high and dry. An optimum climate for everyone all the time is impossible.

January 9, 2017 8:06 pm

The grimiest thing about failing to recognize that CO2 (or any other non-condensing ghg) has no significant effect on climate is also failing to notice that the rising water vapor trend is countering the average global temperature decline that would otherwise be occurring. Biggest driver by far of the rising water vapor (about 100 times that from fossil fuels) is increase in surface, particularly spray, irrigation. On the bright side, this might mitigate the disaster of global cooling.

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
January 10, 2017 2:14 am

Wonderful hypothesis, Dan. That is one to cut out and keep. In a globe that is 2/3 ocean it is irrigation sprays that are controlling the climate by increasing evaporation.

Reply to  seaice1
January 10, 2017 10:53 am

(Sarcasm is ignored) Some more of the story . . .
The world’s oceans and natural lakes have pretty much always been there (although about 6% less ocean area at the end of the last glaciation when the continental shelves were dry land) and contribute the water vapor (the only significant greenhouse gas) and nearly all of the huge effective thermal capacitance that has made the planet suitable for life.
The dramatic increase in spray irrigation is relatively recent (started about 1950) and is responsible for the rise in atmospheric water vapor quantified by rise in observed Total Precipitable Water (TPW) as reported by NASA/RSS each month since 1988, The numerical data is available in a link from
The numerical data is graphed in Fig 3 at
NASA/RSS measurements show WV increase trend of about 2.3E13 kg/yr which is the approximately 2% that stays in the atmosphere of the 110E13 kg/yr used for world irrigation. The other 98% apparently rains out. The data on irrigation was calculated using information mostly from here:
WV from energy production (fuel & cooling) is tiny (about 1E13kg/yr) compared to WV from irrigation. (‘Renewable energy’ won’t help significantly)
Any addition of WV will raise average global temperature but the effect is self-limiting because of increased clouds. My calculations show the temperature is about 0.26 K warmer now than it would be with no increased WV. (Table 1, file #E)

Jaakko Kateenkorva
January 9, 2017 9:22 pm

“These days, even shipwreck museums showcase evidence of climate change.”
Oh yeah, thanks for reminding us – it’s Akademik shokalskiy anniversarycomment image

January 10, 2017 1:03 pm

Project to protect from Sea Level Rise, Hurricanes and Tsunami in the Caribbean and Florida

January 10, 2017 6:54 pm

To “project” is not to “predict.” Today’s climate models project. They do not predict.

Johann Wundersamer
January 11, 2017 6:52 pm


%d bloggers like this: