Record Breaking Winter Cold? Don’t Worry, the Climate Explainers Have it Covered

Graph from p3768 of J. Hansen et al.: Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms.
Graph from p3768 of J. Hansen et al.: Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms.

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Does record breaking winter cold cast doubt on climate predictions of milder winters? Could ANY weather or climate shift cast doubt on the dominance of that wicked little trace molecule? Apparently not, according to leading climate explainers.

It’s cold outside, but that doesn’t mean climate change isn’t real

Sammy Roth, USA TODAY Published 5:13 p.m. ET Dec. 28, 2017

This week’s cold snap has brought record-low temperatures, freezing rain and heavy snow to much of the United States. But 2017 is still on track to be the second- or third-hottest year ever recorded globally — and scientists say climate change is to blame.

Even this week’s cold weather is probably being caused at least in part by global warming, said Jonathan Overpeck, a climate scientist at the University of Michigan.

The Arctic is warming much faster than most of the planet, leading to a dramatic decline in the amount of sea ice that covers the region each winter. That loss of ice has allowed more heat to transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere, causing a weakening of the polar vortex winds over the Arctic. Those winds usually “insulate the rest of the Northern Hemisphere” from freezing Arctic temperatures, Overpeck said. But as the winds have weakened, it’s gotten easier for freezing Arctic air to swoop further south, he said.

“That is due to the warming of the Arctic, which in turn is due to human emissions of greenhouse gases and primarily burning of fossil fuels,” Overpeck said in an interview.

Arctic warming may also be contributing to the long-term drying of the U.S. Southwest, although the science on that front is less certain, Overpeck said. Unlike most of the rest of North America, the Southwest is warmer than usual right now, and 2017 will “without a doubt” go down as one of the region’s hottest years ever measured, Overpeck said.

“This is contributing to our record wildfires in California, and the drying out of vegetation that’s leading to those wildfires, and the drying out of the Southwest’s water,” he said.

Read more:

So what happens if global temperatures take a real plunge for a sustained period? Don’t worry, the explainers have that one covered as well – James Hansen, former NASA GISS Director, published a paper which suggests global warming will trigger a short ice age in the near future (see the graph at the top of the page).

Global temperature becomes an unreliable diagnostic of planetary condition as the ice melt rate increases. Global energy imbalance (Fig. 15b) is a more meaningful measure of planetary status as well as an estimate of the climate forcing change required to stabilize climate. Our calculated present energy imbalance of ∼ 0.8 W m−2 (Fig. 15b) is larger than the observed 0.58 ± 0.15 W m−2 during 2005–2010 (Hansen et al., 2011). The discrepancy is likely accounted for by excessive ocean heat uptake at low latitudes in our model, a problem related to the model’s slow surface response time (Fig. 4) that may be caused by excessive small-scale ocean mixing.

Large scale regional cooling occurs in the North Atlantic and Southern oceans by mid-century (Fig. 16) for 10-year doubling of freshwater injection. A 20-year doubling places similar cooling near the end of this century, 40 years ear- lier than in our prior simulations (Fig. 7), as the factor of 4 increase in current freshwater from Antarctica is a 40-year advance.

Cumulative North Atlantic freshwater forcing in sverdrup years (Sv years) is 0.2 Sv years in 2014, 2.4 Sv years in 2050, and 3.4Sv years (its maximum) prior to 2060 (Fig. S14). The critical issue is whether human-spurred ice sheet mass loss can be approximated as an exponential process during the next few decades. Such nonlinear behavior depends upon amplifying feedbacks, which, indeed, our climate simulations reveal in the Southern Ocean. …

Read more:

Global warming is an infinitely flexible, unscientific, unfalsifiable theory which can be stretched to accommodate any observation. Some Climate Scientists even shamelessly reject the very concept of scientific falsification with regard to the conduct of climate science.

1. Methods aren’t always necessarily falsifiable

Falsifiability is the idea that an assertion can be shown to be false by an experiment or an observation, and is critical to distinctions between “true science” and “pseudoscience”.

Climate models are important and complex tools for understanding the climate system. Are climate models falsifiable? Are they science? A test of falsifiability requires a model test or climate observation that shows global warming caused by increased human-produced greenhouse gases is untrue. It is difficult to propose a test of climate models in advance that is falsifiable.

Science is complicated – and doesn’t always fit the simplified version we learn as children.

This difficulty doesn’t mean that climate models or climate science are invalid or untrustworthy. Climate models are carefully developed and evaluatedbased on their ability to accurately reproduce observed climate trends and processes. This is why climatologists have confidence in them as scientific tools, not because of ideas around falsifiability.

The Conversation: Climate change has changed the way I think about science. Here’s why

No matter what happens to the weather, the climate explainers shamelessly cobble together an explanation which blames bad weather on your sinful lifestyle.

Whatever the observation, the climate explainers have their theory – their infinitely adaptable theory, which they claim is science. Warm weather confirms their worst fears. Cold weather is waved away. Whatever the observation, the explainers shamelessly adapt their theory to provide an explanation, based on their “scientific” theory which cannot be falsified by any conceivable observations, event an abrupt plunge into a new ice age.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Curious George(@moudryj)
December 28, 2017 5:21 pm

A record cold is just weather. A record heat is climate.

Reply to  Curious George
December 28, 2017 5:37 pm

or more frequently of late, record cold is proof of global warming.

michael david hambuchen sr
Reply to  Todd
December 29, 2017 5:57 am

Or it could be the falsification of temperatures recorded and even manipulated by zealous global warming enthusiasts which has been documented.

Reply to  Todd
December 29, 2017 7:34 am

Exactly. The part that is never explained in detail is the “what, when, where and how” temperature data is gathered to make the determination that the “Climate” is indeed changing substantially enough to warrant the hysteria.. or the lack of indisputable proof that “warming” is caused by human actions… or the acknowledgement that IF there is actual “warming”, that it may be caused by some much larger unknown cyclical planetary phenomenon that would take a millennia to track and research.

In other words, they are just so certain that they are right that any reasonable questioning of their so-called findings is ridiculed.

Reply to  Todd
December 29, 2017 8:55 am

It’s proof of climate change. Climate change is observed by more extreme weather over a period of time in different regions. Cold weather becomes colder, heat becomes more extreme, hurricanes become more common & extreme. For example, the mid west has become increasingly warmer since the industrial revolution, experiencing more extreme heat and drought. While in the east, cold weather has become even colder.

Don’t let a misrepresentation of the facts fool you, this is fake news at it’s best. Pointing to one trend of climate change that is global warming, as the whole phenomenon that is Climate Change. Global warming is an effect of Climate change, as is more extreme weather during each season.

Reply to  Todd
December 29, 2017 9:10 am

Food for thought : Climate advocates cite temperature change of three hundreds of a degree as proof of upcoming catastrophe but no one ever mentions how accurate were measuring devices 50, 100, 200 years ago ?

Reply to  Todd
December 29, 2017 9:39 am

There is no context in which “hide the decline” can be construed to mean anything except “falsify the data.”

Reply to  Todd
December 29, 2017 10:43 am

Wrong, Matthew Cools. In fact, observational data shows no change whatsoever in the number or intensity of tropical storm activity, period. Same for wildfires, etc., etc. The extreme weather events of which your ilk constantly fear-monger in fact is not occurring. That recent fire in California was due to a weather anomaly and nothing more. In fact, the Global Warming alarmists largely have been debunked. You just aren’t educated enough to know it. There is a lot of garbage science behind the global warming scare. You aren’t educated enough to know better, period.

Reply to  Todd
December 29, 2017 11:18 am

I’ll just take it as yet more proof that many climate scientists, like Overpeck, simply aren’t that intelligent or are purposely misleading people. Either way, when one side of the argument keeps preaching falsehoods while ignoring that it is well known that the polar vortex often breaks down during La Nina conditions, you don’t need all the answers to know which side is more likely to be correct.

Pilot Dave
Reply to  Todd
December 29, 2017 1:27 pm

Global warming (Al Gore – “Miami will be underwater by 2014”) – Climate Change caused by burning fossil fuels – Either concept is not scientific – here is why this “settled science” is political, not science – They only cite the supply side, not the demand side of CO2 (Plant food), They only talk about the affects on temperature from CO2 raise, never the affects on agriculture (Every greenhouse operator knows increased CO2 = increased crop yield.) Most importantly, the Earth can only sustain 2 billion people without burning fossil fuel, so what are they going to do with the 5 – 6 billion corps ? John Deer doesn’t run on batteries. Now, they have discovered 91 NEW volcanos under the ice in Antartica melting the ice. Sorry, when you ignore the scientific method, get caught manipulating data, jump up and down about the tax structure of the Paris Accord, we see this is all political wealth redistribution.

Reply to  Todd
December 29, 2017 3:07 pm

Mike Heuer I live in California and there wasn’t “that one wildfire” but multiple large fires north of LA & in southern California, Apparently you’re not paying attention. This wasn’t a “weather anomaly” but a result of increasingly hot weather. You must live elsewhere to be so ignorant.

Reply to  Todd
December 29, 2017 4:02 pm

Its ‘Climate Change’ in the winter and ‘Global Warming’ in the summer. Very convenient that way.

Reply to  Todd
December 29, 2017 5:30 pm

Not to worry a devastating ice age will come back and de-populate the human race like you wish !

Reply to  Todd
December 29, 2017 8:19 pm

Indeed the East Anglia University email dump proved that there is a conspiracy to falsify data and named all the players behind it and why. The names Micheal Mann and Barack Obama figure prominently. A smear campaign was funded by Obama to attack scientists who disagreed…..academic administrators like Man arranged to pull funding, peer review and academic publishing from dissenting scientists. They tried to destroy the careers of any dissenting voice. Obamas funding approved the work of the worst manipulators at universities and EPA, NOAA. Why? Obama is the front man for green carpet baggers who bled billions from taxpayers in subsidies. Billions more went to buy votes in the UN as those small countries profit from the sustainable development funding misnamed as climate funding…..ergo….scam and hush money. What is the inconvieniant truth Bout Al Gore? He’s a hedge fund speculator who bet on companies that were going to receive government subsidies. Belief in the current climate science only proves you have been duped and brainwashed by a massive fraud.

Reply to  Todd
December 30, 2017 2:58 am

Matthew Cools – how exactly do you distinguish cold weather that is cold weather from cold weather that is part of a trend of weather getting colder? Scientists in every discipline would like to know how identical data and observations can be so easily distinguished from each other.

Fake news indeed.

yiddish lion
Reply to  Todd
December 30, 2017 3:43 am

@Matthew Cools……..You are in error. California’s record wildfires can be blamed 100% on environmental wackos! You had a deadly combination of a long drought which dried everything to a perfect kind of kindling, coupled with the abject stupidity of not allowing any preventative measures like controlled burns to rid the underbrush, or other various clearing measures.

Reply to  Todd
December 30, 2017 7:08 am

Warming is caused by humans because Hansen himself changed the temperature records, and he is a human. Or is he?

Anyone can claim to be a prophet, if I understand the Bible correctly, but then his or her prophesy must be “tested.” If it turns out they were incorrect they are not allowed to make a revised prophesy. Instead they are taken to the edge of town and stoned.

As I said elsewhere, the Bible is not clear what to do if the false prophet was stoned to begin with. However I do think Climate Scientists should be grateful they are not living 3000 years ago.

Reply to  Todd
December 30, 2017 8:00 am

All the words in all the comments can simply be replaced with…
“Climate change/global warming is FAKE science.”

Reply to  Curious George
December 28, 2017 6:53 pm

Also, three days of warm weather is a heat wave while three weeks of extreme cold is a “cold snap”.

Reply to  rh
December 28, 2017 8:57 pm

cold kills. Arctic cold kills Big Time.

Homeless man freezes to death after being turned away from housing center

Many more to come as the 30-year cooling cometh.

Reply to  rh
December 28, 2017 10:53 pm

Turning away a person, who has no where else to go, in deadly cold conditions, by a person or persons in charge of a shelter specifically set up to protect such people, and which resulted in the unsurprising death of that individual, sounds a lot like homicide to me.
Like rowing your life boat right past someone floating in mid-sea.

Reply to  Curious George
December 28, 2017 7:48 pm

‘Trump Pokes Fun At Global Warming Critics, Tells People To Bundle Up’
“IN the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against. Bundle up!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 29, 2017”

Reply to  Wally
December 28, 2017 9:14 pm

I simply love President Trump.

Never in the history of mankind has a US president been so scathingly honest (and politically incorrect, I might add).

Reply to  Wally
December 29, 2017 3:52 am

Rocky road

I was a scoffer. I had been sold the lie that the man is a fool, predator, buffoon, dangerous etc.

Then I watched in slack jawed amazement as he actually began to fulfill his manifesto promises within days of taking office, or at least, is trying to. In my 60 years, I can’t recall a political leader of a Western democracy get on with business like he has.

I have since learned of the American Democrats historic, and I suspect lingering racism, and the Republicans reason for existence, to free everyone, not just African Americans.

I’m now a strident British (Scottish actually) fan of DT and suspect he will go down in history with Lincoln as one of the greatest presidents of the USA and campaigner for a better, more honest world. And I believe Lincoln was also elected with only 40% of the vote but won because of the College system.

Go on America. Show the world what fighting spirit is like again!

Reply to  Wally
December 29, 2017 5:08 am

Well said. I remember when the lead scientist was interviewed years ago about fudging the figures. Him and his 3 confreres. He cried as he walked away and said, “I am not a spin doctor”. He committed suicide shortly after. The other 2 scientists have never been interviewed.

Tanis Macinsky
Reply to  Wally
December 29, 2017 5:28 am

HotScot Call me. I think I love you:)

Reply to  Wally
December 29, 2017 6:52 am

I have learned that you never trust what a politician says but you watch what they do. Donald Trump if you do the same ignore what he says, you will love what he does. Sometimes he deliberately throws verbal bombs at the press to keep them busy while he gets done Making America Great Again!

Reply to  Wally
December 29, 2017 7:13 am

I’m still not a fan of his over all, but I do love the way he’s driving liberals crazy.

Reply to  Wally
December 29, 2017 7:33 am

“I simply love President Trump.

Never in the history of mankind has a US president been so scathingly honest (and politically incorrect, I might add).”

Yes, you have to love Trump! I do, especially, because he takes the lying Leftwing MSM head on, and he does so by speaking the truth. For all the distortion of his words by the MSM, if you actually listen to what Trump says, you will see that he speaks the truth. Sometimes, especially those on the Left, don’t like to hear the truth (that’s why it is not politically correct, because it doesn’t agree with the Left’s viewpoint). They prefer to live in their insulated self-created bubbles, and they hate it when someone like Trump comes along and bursts their bubble with the truth. They lash out violently when this happens. It must be really exhausting for them now that Trump is on the scene.

I heard about a Rasmussen poll this morning which showed Trump with a 46 percent approval rating after his first year in Office. That compares with a 47 percent approval rating for Barrack Obama after his first year.

So after about two years of relentless lying attacks by the Leftwing MSM on Trump, he is only one point lower than Obama at the same time in Office. Trump would be at 90 percent if the MSM told people the truth about him.

The Leftwing MSM fawned over Obama and attack Trump at every opportunity, yet they are practically tied in the approval ratings. That must be pretty frustrating for the members of the Leftwing MSM.

The Democrats are thinking they are going to do every well in the 2018 midterm elections, but I think that is just wishful thinking on their part. I think the House Republicans will hold onto enough seats to be the majority, and I think there is a possibility that the Republicans will have 60 seats in the U.S. Senate after the 2018 elections.

You can bet Trump is going to be out promoting every Republican Senate candidate, especially those in Democrat States that he carried in the election. These campaign rallies are going to be fun!

Trump’s election has upset the New World Order, and we are delighted about that! 🙂

Chris Riley
Reply to  Wally
December 29, 2017 11:03 am

The information in President Trump’s tweet clearly has a greater social value than the entire output of the U.S. CAGW industry over the last thirty years. Since we pay the POTUS $1/year, and he probably spent one minute writing it, (.017 hours) the cost to the taxpayer (at a standard 2000 hour work year) is less than .001 cents. In contrast, the U.S. CAGW industry has consumed hundreds of billions of dollars in the past thirty years. These sorts of savings are the reason the American people elected DJT last November.

Reply to  Wally
December 29, 2017 12:31 pm

“and I suspect lingering racism”..libs have overplayed the racism thing…to the point they have about run out of things to call racist
I can’t wait until they figure out that evolution is racist

Reply to  Wally
December 29, 2017 12:49 pm

Winter is coming.

Maybe fimbulwinter.

Reply to  Wally
December 30, 2017 5:08 am

He is right to ridicule these climate change fanatics. How preposterous it is that we mere humans think that we can change weather patterns on this earth, given that it has been around for some 3.5 billion years, a span which has seen innumerable weather extremes come and go, yet the old girl is still here. The arrogance and stupidity are astounding and quite sad. How many ice ages have come and gone and how many ‘extinctions’ have occurred?
The truth is that no one knows what tomorrow will bring and the know it alls know nothing more than the rest of us do.

Scott West
Reply to  Wally
December 30, 2017 6:15 am

Let’s first judge the source here—like professional journalists used to do. A quick Google of Johnathan Overpeck shows that he and a fellow “scientist” were caught, one might say, cooking the global warming books when at the University of Arizona. I guess you can also say that things got so hot in Arizona that he “overpecked” his professor bags for a quick getaway one-way trip to freezing Michigan to escape what has been called Climategate.

The story goes that The University of Arizona has been, “…ordered (by the Arizona Supreme Court no less) to surrender emails by two UA scientists that a group claims will help prove that theories about human-caused climate change are false and part of a conspiracy.” (Arizona Daily Star) The professors involved are Malcolm Hughes and one Jonathan Overpeck. (

If Overpeck is a real scientist, then why is he and the UA working so hard to hide his real scientific data/findings? And, why is he literally running away from some major “Inconvenient Truths”? Looks like the only proven global warming data Overpeck has today is in his pants! Read more here:

By the way, can anyone find Overpeck’s detailed academic credentials online?

Reply to  Curious George
December 29, 2017 3:15 am

What’s really needed is to have an objective definition of what is “weather” and what is a “climate”. Too often it’s claimed that “weather isn’t climate” without any clarity about what either mean in practice.

Reply to  mpe8691
December 29, 2017 5:13 am

Exactly, it does not change the facts. The average temperatures globally have been steadily increasing. The ice caps are melting. I’m not sure why this is even an issue, please explain. Everyone should be concerned with rising sea levels as you will pay one way or another.

Reply to  mpe8691
December 29, 2017 5:41 am
Reply to  mpe8691
December 29, 2017 5:56 am

Hotscot, would you consider emigrating to the U.S. ? We need more like you.

Reply to  mpe8691
December 29, 2017 6:38 am

It’s a distinction without a difference.

Reply to  mpe8691
December 29, 2017 6:38 am

Jeff, not the antarctic ice cap, that one is growing in size and thickness. Average global temperature is a controversial metric. But even if the world is warming (which may or may not be attributable to human activity), that is not necessarily catastrophic by any means. That opens up more land for agriculture, reduces the economic impacts of long winters, etc. Global cooling would be a disaster, on the other hand.

Reply to  mpe8691
December 29, 2017 6:52 am

This is a fallacy that has been proposed and repeated, kind of like the 98% consensus. You will be told that weather and climate are two different things because the climate system evolves and changes over hundreds or thousands of years and weather changes every minute/hour/day. An example to explain why this is a fallacy: if one were able to measure the temperature at a single point on the Earth’s surface (say sea level) for a million years consecutively you would have a time series data set. The short term (daily/weekly) variations are what the climate scientists would call weather and the repeating long term (months/year/decades/millennia) would be climate. They are both examinations of the same system at different time steps and therefore they are in fact the same thing. The misstatement that they are not is evidence that somebody did not pay attention in the time series analysis cours they should have taken prior to being called an expert in climate science

A C Osborn
Reply to  mpe8691
December 29, 2017 6:58 am

Jeff, we are coming out of the Little Ice Age (LIA), of course the temperatures have increased and the Sea level is rising, you should be very glad that is so.
Just to put your mind at rest the Arctic ice has not melted any faster for the last 10 years and the Antarctic during those years was at some of it’s highest levels ever seen.
As to rising sea levels, the current sea level rise is not acceleratingand is nothing compared to the sea level rise after the last Ice Age. See this chart

Reply to  mpe8691
December 29, 2017 7:14 am

Jeff, the Arctic still hasn’t reached the ice level lows that were seen in the 70’s.

Reply to  mpe8691
December 29, 2017 7:34 am

DR, Hotscot doesn’t need to immigrate to America, he can simply “Identify” himself as an American Dreamer who is 1/32 part Cherokee and meet some sort of quota and he will be all set. Hey, it worked with sex “genetics”. Then, he can just claim “Sanctuary” status and get to ignore the American laws he wishes not to comply with. Isn’t that the Progressive way of doing things? You just have to know how to game, er, work within the system!

Reply to  mpe8691
December 29, 2017 7:42 am

Perhaps weather is what you see; climate is the result in seconds, minutes, days, years, decades,centuries, or milliniums.

Reply to  mpe8691
December 29, 2017 7:50 am

One has to laugh out loud at these “warmers”…….17,000 years ago, Seattle was covered by 3000 feet of ice! Then…… melted! Where was the “man caused global warming” then?

Reply to  mpe8691
December 29, 2017 7:51 am

@Jeff – No the global temperatures are not rising, you little chicken little lamb. Your beloved “climate scientists” have been caught putting their thermometers next to air conditioner exhaust vents, on black tar rooves and in other locations that give skewed readings. How is it that you alarmists never seem to read stories of Big Corporate Climate Science fudging data in order to keep those Big Corporate Government “grants” rolling in?

Reply to  mpe8691
December 29, 2017 8:07 am

I love when old records get tied especially when there a hundred years old when there was less of e everything that the moonbemer scientist claim..

Reply to  mpe8691
December 29, 2017 8:50 am

Since is it mostly controlled by the sun they will never agree.

John Smith
Reply to  mpe8691
December 29, 2017 10:33 am

Jeff, the problem with your question is that it doesn’t exist. The icecaps are NOT melting as we are told, but actually melt and expand naturally over time and that has been happening. Also, the sea rising nonsense is just exactly that. New York was predicted to be underwater by 2015 has that happened?
As for the temperatures rising every year? Not just nonsense but outright lies. The land based stations have had their temps ‘adjusted’ to make it appear so, yet weather balloon and satelitte data show there has been no rise in temperatures for approximately the last 20 years.
Sorry dude, but ANYONE who would totally destroy their economy based on false and rigged data would be eligible for fool of the decade award.
Last questioh to you, IF your side is so correct, why are they afraid of debating it? Science has NEVER, EVER been decided on consensus and is ALWAYS to be questioned. My guess is that your nonsense would never stand up under scrutiny.

Reply to  mpe8691
December 29, 2017 12:03 pm

To Jeff who seems to be one of those who have been taken in by the climate theory and I apologize in advance if you are not actually one of them…You say that it’s a fact that average global temperatures are steadily increasing, that ice caps are melting. You ask why this is even an issue, that everyone should be concerned with rising sea levels. The answer is simple…the Climate theorists seem to have forgotten that as a species we adapt and evolve. If we don’t we will become extinct. Climate change is the least of our worries for we can no more change the climate than we can stop continental drift. Climate and the way we live cannot be separated and controlled. Both are dynamic and intertwined in our very essence of being. Change cannot happen quickly if at all. This IS who we are along with this planet and every living organism that walks, crawls or swims and if we don’t learn to live with and adapt to our environment then we don’t belong here. So to answer you regarding your concern for rising sea levels, you will not ease your concerns by throwing money at this perceived problem, nor will brainwashing and propagandizing change the intellectually stalwart who understand the futility and politics involved. And don’t let the ad hominin attacks against those who will not be coerced into this lie deflect your concern. No Jeff the answer is very simple…when the water rises above your ankles, maybe it’s time to head to higher ground.

Reply to  mpe8691
December 29, 2017 12:37 pm

Climate is any short or long term trends that supports the agw hypothesis.
Weather is any short or long term trends that doesn’t support the agw hypothesis.

Reply to  mpe8691
December 29, 2017 1:18 pm

Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get. Defined.

Reply to  mpe8691
December 29, 2017 4:39 pm

Climate is the average of (or the sum of) weather at a given location for a stated time period. Change any one of the three and you get a different climate result.
Global climate is therefore impossible to determine to any degree of accuracy or agreement.
The location is not specific enough, a slight change in the time period can give a large variation in the result and weather is so varied that compiling data is extremely difficult over any but an extremely short time period and a small locality.
What do you think of the chances for an accurate global prediction for one day, much less for decades or more?

Hot under the collar
Reply to  Curious George
December 29, 2017 5:02 am

Yep, ‘Climate Change’ means anything bad in climate religion circles. If an alarmist burnt the Christmas dinner they’d probably blame ‘Climate Change’!

Reply to  Curious George
December 29, 2017 5:04 am


Reply to  Curious George
December 29, 2017 5:20 am

A record cold is just climate. A record heat is weather.

You have to have weather change starting today and last 30 years before its called a climate change. When the forests return to the Sahara, Montreal has weather like Miami and Los Angeles looks like Blade Runner, that’s climate change. Average temp of Arctic in winter is -27 F, ice melts at 32 F. So no ice in Arctic would mean a 59 degree temp change in winter ?

Reply to  marblemonster
December 29, 2017 6:49 am

actually sea ice (salt water) freezes @28 deg F

Reply to  Curious George
December 29, 2017 5:46 am

All this from some imaginary, un-named climate scientist ??? You folks may want to contact Joe Bastardi. The only issue with him is, he knows what he’s talking about and tells the truth. Your mortal enemy, Knowledge and Truth…

Reply to  Curious George
December 29, 2017 5:47 am

All this from some imaginary, un-named climate scientist ??? You folks may want to contact Joe Bastardi. The only issue with him is, he knows what he’s talking about and tells the truth. Your mortal enemy, Knowledge and Truth…

Reply to  Curious George
December 29, 2017 6:21 am

Funny, after reading the bible it also says that in the end times there will be wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes, famines. However when you ask what will fix it from Liberals, the money usually has to come from the United States tax payers and usually goes to some liberal cause like the UN another Liberal or global government. They will try anything to bypass the US constitution. Most carbon comes from the Sun and Volcanoes. Unless they say we need to block the Sun or fill up all the Volcanoes then its just another money grab for liberal causes.

Reply to  Lar Jam
December 29, 2017 8:12 am

Hell the Carbon Tax is already raising the cost to everything and the political of both parties lie about it .

Reply to  Lar Jam
December 29, 2017 9:16 am

Lar, you are so right on! The Libs want CONTROL AND TO USE OUR MONEY TO DO IT!

Reply to  Lar Jam
December 29, 2017 10:31 am

At this point, can james hansen and this gang of charlatans be taken seriously?

Dale Greengo
Reply to  Curious George
December 29, 2017 6:38 am

Anthropogenic global warming….if only it were so. Global warming would move the limit of the grain belt way up into Canada and Siberia. Greater CO2 would dramatically increase crop yields. Hunger would cease globally. CO2 levels were many times greater in ancient times, yet no Armageddon occurred. Read the scientific papers of Dr. Heinz Hug to understand how CO2 functions in the atmosphere. It has very narrow bands of absorption, 1, 2.7, 4.3, 15 micrometers are the generalized spectral peaks. These are ALL absorbed to extinction within 30 feet of the ground. ADDING MORE CO2 DOES NOT INCREASE ENERGY ABSORPTION, but only reduces the distance needed for full absorption by a foot or two. In fact, high CO2 levels caused higher O2 levels (photosynthesis) that allowed the dinosaurs to exist (Commercial green houses inject CO2 to increase plant yields). As an example, during the Cretaceous period, there was NO ice at all at the poles, much higher CO2, and the Earth was full of vegetation and dinosaurs. They could not live today as the O2 levels are too low for such large animals. The oceans are rising today because the Wisconsinin ice age has not yet finished, there is still ice at the poles. The ice age ends when all the ice has melted, so technically were are still in the last ice age, but the next ice age will begin before the last has ended. The climate changes we have seen in the geologic record are entirely disconnected from the CO2 levels. CO2 is a VERY minor gas in the atmosphere of Earth (.04%). Note that water vapor is a vastly greater greenhouse gas than CO2. The reason for climate change is entirely due to the output of the sun and the amount of cosmic rays striking the atmosphere. Watch the You Tube video “Svensmark: the cloud mystery” and maybe read his book “The chilling stars” to understand the reasons for climate change, it has NOTHING to do with CO2. After doing these things, look on the US Geologic Survey website and find the graphs of Earth temperatures over the last 2 million years. This time period includes all the recent ice ages. You will see that this data proves we are leaving the current interglacial warm period and are entering the next ice age. In our lifetimes we will be within the next ice age. The fraud of anthropogenic global warming exists because the globalists are subsidizing it to convince us to accept a global carbon tax, that is to get western nations to accept it. There is no call for China, the greatest producer of CO2 in history, to pay such a tax. ONLY the west. This tax will in effect take money from poor people in rich countries and give it to rich people in poor countries. These globalists know of the coming ice age. Who is paying to build their subterranean survival cities so they and their families and allies can re populate the Earth after the coming ice age ends? Why, YOU and ME are of course! If the climate could be changed with just the control of the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, we could easily control the climate at will to get the temperatures we want. If only we could. Don’t fall for this fraud. AGW is the greatest fraud ever thrust upon the people of the world in all of history. Don’t buy it, educate yourself instead. As a final note, read about the Vladivostok ice core samples, and other following sample sets to see that ice ages are preceded by a brief warming period. We are in that stage now.

Reply to  Dale Greengo
December 29, 2017 10:22 am

Absolutely correct! The ice cores show that periods of atmospheric cooling and warming correspond to declines and increases in solar activity. Since it is hard to imagine how humans can control solar activity, nothing that we do will change the cooling and warming cycles, even if it was desirable to do so. The “global warming” fraud was concocted with the collaboration of grant-seeking phony “scientists” in order to cause a massive transfer of wealth from productive nations to countries enslaved by corrupt dictators. We have it and they want it!

Reply to  Dale Greengo
December 29, 2017 11:27 am

Good points. Just a friendly tip, though… Hit the ENTER key once in awhile. Paragraphs make your writing so much easier to follow.

Reply to  Dale Greengo
December 29, 2017 12:07 pm

Enjoyed reading the breakdown of info from your comments

Reply to  Dale Greengo
December 30, 2017 12:16 am

The “Vladivostok” should be the “Vostok” in the Antarctic.

Ralph Knapp
Reply to  Dale Greengo
December 30, 2017 8:05 am

Dale, Amen to your comment.

Paula Cohen
Reply to  Dale Greengo
January 1, 2018 4:45 pm

Dale Greengo, your explanation is easily the clearest, most concise and most rational rebuttal I have ever read regarding AGW. Thanks so much; you’ve given me information I can use when debunking the hysterical charges of climate change/global warming. Really good stuff, and greatly appreciated!!

Reply to  Curious George
December 29, 2017 7:08 am

The future wrought by Klimate Krishna will be warmer, or perhaps colder, except if it stays the same, unless we say so…

Reply to  Curious George
December 29, 2017 7:30 am

Hot and cold is climate for the right price and the tap into taxpayer funds at the trough.

Reply to  Curious George
December 29, 2017 7:54 am

So true, on the other side of the science equation which has been politically quashed is the data that show that the temperatures peaked about 5-7 thousand years ago and that we are now seeing the associated spike in CO2 that has followed these historically documented temperature variations that the climate change prophets have completely blocked from our eyes. The climate changers have set science back to the middle ages!

Reply to  Curious George
December 29, 2017 8:07 am

And “fair” means, “I win, you lose”. Same idea.

Reply to  Curious George
December 29, 2017 8:21 am

The lies the democrats spread is unbelievable, the climate is made up of millions of weather events put in a same d-base and they are un-dividable. The problem began when the phony scientists were paid not to put the low temperatures in the d-base, only the high temps were inputed. If you do not believe that, ask the Australian BOM what they did with the reporting of the low temps, your head will spin endlessly.

Furthermore, the climate is controlled by the sun and not the humans, we are just mere observers of the temps changes and not contributors. Wake up and learn for yourselves people and stop allowing to be brainwashed endlessly by the democrats. Question anything you are served via the media, their objective is to make you dumb.

michael yaros
Reply to  Curious George
December 29, 2017 8:32 am

If one looks as carefully as possible at the history of our planet, one sees that there is a continuous change in climate. There was no one epoch which represents the climate as a state of perfection or that represents a static climate without change. Climate changes gradually most of the time, but suddenly and drastically during periods of extraterrestrial impacts and dust clouds. There is a REAL climate scientist, most haven’t heard of. His name is Randall Carlson. He teaches lectures on the internet and one of his best on climate change, causes, and effects, is at this link:

But he has many other videos, and to hear him speak is like a revelation. I encourage everyone to learn about what is really going on with climate over the millenia.

R. Shearer
Reply to  michael yaros
December 29, 2017 1:42 pm

Extremely interesting!

Reply to  michael yaros
December 29, 2017 4:00 pm

Thanks for that! His 4 Part post on the carbon cycle is incredibly well documented and well balanced.
Here’s Part 4:

Reply to  Curious George
December 29, 2017 9:03 am

why are the referring to “GLOBAL WARMING” as “CLIMATE CHANGE”??

Greg Tyre
Reply to  Curious George
December 29, 2017 10:00 am

Its Algore’s plane that causes it.

Reply to  Curious George
December 29, 2017 10:02 am

And let’s not mention the sun. And sun activity! Nope. It’s all about us.

Reply to  Curious George
December 29, 2017 10:39 am

Fake websites. Who is paying for this Koch brothers?

Reply to  Jim Martel
December 29, 2017 11:09 am


Jim Smith
Reply to  Jim Martel
December 29, 2017 1:14 pm

Clinton foundation?

Reply to  Jim Martel
December 29, 2017 2:54 pm


Reply to  Jim Martel
December 29, 2017 2:54 pm

a vast right-wing conspiracy

Reply to  Curious George
December 29, 2017 11:03 am

Evidently climate changers have never been in a greenhouse. It’s pretty nice in there and the plants love it. Plenty of co2 plant food.

Reply to  Curious George
December 29, 2017 11:05 am

Liberals must just hate the winter.

Reply to  Curious George
December 29, 2017 11:32 am

Even when they are full of crap, they have it covered.

Reply to  Curious George
December 29, 2017 1:40 pm

I’m enjoying the cold weather as we make a living getting ice off roofs. Generally we need record cold weather to mobilize and travel the country. The record cold and snow fall in Erie Pe has got us working shoveling snow off roofs. Might as well get one more season of snow removal in, before Global warning drives us out of business.

Old Sailor
Reply to  Curious George
December 29, 2017 7:33 pm

The Artic was once warm we know because of fossils and peat moss.
Is the Artic going to warm as it once was?
No one knows and most of us will not live long enough to find out.
My take is the Warmers are worried that the weather will become an inconvenience.
We would never want to cause the liberal Warmers any inconvenience.
You are right, cold is weather.
But heat is an inconvenience that must be made a political issue.

Reply to  Curious George
December 29, 2017 9:13 pm

Look you STUPID PEOPLE…WE know what is going on and you don’t. We have plugged in OUR FALSE data into the weather program and it came out ‘The World is Heating up’. So shut up and sit down….WE ARE IN CONTROL…….and do what we tell you to do and believe what we tell you to believe or we will make you. GOT IT !

Reply to  Curious George
December 29, 2017 11:55 pm

When I was in school they taught global cooling and the coming ice age. Now I guess all the global cooling experts taught the global warming experts. So I have a simple question; which group warming or cooling are the geniuses and which group are the morons?

Reply to  Curious George
December 30, 2017 1:34 am

True. Energy moves.

Reply to  Curious George
December 30, 2017 3:40 am

True Science admits when a theory has been disproven. Pseudo Religions counter the falseness of their prophecies with even more dire prophecies.

Robert Smith
Reply to  Curious George
December 30, 2017 6:12 am

Check out this very thorough compilation of historical weather data, the data was pulled from historical accounts going back thousands of years. We haven’t seen anything yet! The data shows long before fossil fuels there were – you guessed it – Extreme Weather Events.

Robert Smith
Reply to  Curious George
December 30, 2017 6:28 am

Check out this compilation of historical weather data going back thousands of years. You really get a feel for the cyclical patterns and extreme weather events that happened long before fossil fuels.

Reply to  Curious George
December 30, 2017 6:34 am

Spring,Summer,Autumn,Winter sums up the climate change,always has always will.

Mike Jefferson
Reply to  Curious George
December 30, 2017 7:16 am

We’re entering a Maunder Minimum and as such are likely to see declining temperatures for at least 20-40 years. The religious zealot global warming folks don’t understand that the climate is always changing and that government control and taxation makes no differences. Perhaps they should all take their carbon footprints to zero?

Ralph Knapp
Reply to  Mike Jefferson
December 30, 2017 8:16 am

Mike, You are spot on with your comment. I made the same observation a year ago. So, to the “Warmists” I say, it’s -20c here right now and will be for the next week or so. I was planning to go down to our beach for a swim, but, “Global Warming” caused the Bay to freeze over. This will be our norm up here for a long while yet. Cheers! 🙂

Reply to  Curious George
December 30, 2017 7:24 am

Anything that makes climate change theory look bad is called weather….. anything they can use to promote it is called climate change……

We are told a large snow storm is ‘just weather’, but any hurricane they use to sell climate change, well that is not ‘just weather’…… that’s climate change!

Reply to  Curious George
December 30, 2017 7:34 am

More gibberish from PROVEN frauds that count on the people being far too lazy to invest an hour or two to see what a fraud AGW is. Some of the same people who claim the end is near, relative to AGW are part of this group that will invest no time. Sad.

December 28, 2017 5:21 pm

Two words explain this post: Bull Crap!

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Earthling2
December 28, 2017 5:26 pm

.Truth hurts ?

Alan Ranger
Reply to  Earthling2
December 28, 2017 7:09 pm

Yes, the quoted text in the boxes certainly fits the description. The complete “bull crap” can be found at:

Reply to  Alan Ranger
December 28, 2017 7:41 pm

Except there is no truth in this post or the USA Today article. Hansen, Mann, Gore et al, all see the writing on the wall now, and are trying in vain to cover their behinds as northern North America (and previously this fall such as Siberia) experiences one of the coldest outbreaks across the northern hemisphere since the 1960’s and 1970’s. The warming records that article talks about are one offs, and beat by a slim temporary margin, whereas things like the California droughts are historical and mostly in a desert area already, which was charged up by heavy rainfall this spring, which led to so many ladder fuels to burn when it inevitably dries out by mid summer to late fall. Nothing new there, except a bunch of nut job arsonists with Bic lighters now. Or very poor power line maintenance by PG&E.

The current natural 40 year warming trend we have have been having the last 40 years is just ending and turning over into a new 40 year cooling trend, which explains the long pause as things plateau the last 18-19 years and go south for a spell. Warming does not cause long term cooling. Doesn’t even make any sense. I repeat: Their explanation does not even make any sense if the Arctic has been warming the last 40 years, that this somehow leads to near record low temps now in 2017/18 in the northern hemisphere. I had no idea what they were talking about or what they were trying to explain, except maybe a movie plot out of The Day After Tomorrow. Total fiction.

The real interesting part now is that we should be able to partially test the sensitivity of CO2 to long term radiative forcing that is presently baked into the background temps over the next 40 years. UHI and the minimal 1/3 – 1/2 degree C CO2 forcing the last 150 years since the LIA will hopefully make the cooling trend that less severe than it would have been. Of course, there is no way to definitively test this now compared to a natural Earth that would have perhaps gone in a slightly different direction 150 years ago had we humans not developed the planet with significant land use change and fossil fuel use. Most skeptics don’t deny the radiative properties of the GHG’s, only that they are fairly minimal compared to the elephant in the room; water vapour, which is the largest GHG. The argument now, is what are the long term feedbacks, which only time will tell. Stay tuned, and pray that the cold trend does not coincide with severe vulcanism which cools the earth catastrophically for 1-3 years, and we lose a significant part of the global harvest when we will soon have 8 billion people to feed. That is the only possible Catastrophic scenario that is remotely possible.

Reply to  Alan Ranger
December 28, 2017 7:52 pm


Regional wars (possibly even nuclear exchanges) and intense localized conflicts are the more likely Black Swans. A black swan like that induces global economic-trade freezes.
The outcome of that is likely indistinguishable in effect from any hypothesized global harvest collapse.

Reply to  Alan Ranger
December 28, 2017 8:30 pm

I agree Joel, and as Murphy’s Law generally goes, one Black Swan event is usually coincident, or even more precise, a synchronicity of events that lead to a pitfall. Like WW1 when all the seeds were planted from generations previous, but took some event to trigger it all and unleash a global conflict, that leads to another global conflict. History is ripe with examples of both natural and man made environmental collapse, as well as outright devastating total war that is not forgotten.

The most immediate of catastrophes would indeed be a ‘hot’ war that spirals out of control within days or weeks which would indeed be quicker than a partial global crop failure that would take a year or more to unfold, but would also lead to further conflict and collapse on so many levels. Which would only exacerbate the difficulty with the harvest and the distribution of the resources and food while we recovered from the consequences of such but were also embroiled in all out total war. We can only hope these times are short and we can return to normal, whatever that may look like. Nobody wins in either scenario.

It is probably the oldest story in the book(s), since it seems to be ingrained into our collective (un)conscious in most of the worlds ancient religions, literature and art. We are no different now, and in fact much more fragile in many ways, that many of us now neither farm, or hunt and gather and are reliant on everything working to perfection, everyday.

Reply to  Alan Ranger
December 29, 2017 6:57 am

The central postulation in that article is that North America is warmer than usual. I ask this question: how was usual defined? 150 years of data out of 4.5 billion does not allow for one to make definitive statements about what is and is not usual. Therefore the USAToday artIcle and the ‘scientists’ that provided the material are suspect st best and purposely lying at worst.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Alan Ranger
December 29, 2017 12:05 pm

Earthling2, prior to the event who would have imagined that the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand would precipitate two world wars? World politics was then (and is now) insane.

Going back a couple of decades, continuing to the present, who would think that a nuclear North Korea with ICBMs would precipitate WWIII? Who among you will predict reactions by China, Russia, India, Pakistan, etc. to a nuclear exchange anywhere on the planet?

The feckless historical world reaction to North Korea’s militarization has led us to the brink of war.

Given Chinese and Russian intransigence, President Trump is left with no options other than the military removal of the Kim regime. Our non-nuclear military might and acumen, hopefully, will minimize the human fallout.

Reply to  Earthling2
December 28, 2017 8:36 pm

But its true! Read this explanation very carefully! 😉

“Climate models are carefully developed and evaluatedbased on their ability to accurately reproduce observed climate trends and processes”.



Reply to  rogerthesurf
December 28, 2017 8:49 pm

Obviously they don’t see the point of a model that make predictions before it happens. Why bother with that silliness when they are so good at “explaining” events after it happens!

Chris Wright
Reply to  rogerthesurf
December 29, 2017 3:44 am

Yes, I love that quote. It shows what depths these people have descended to.
The linked article shows a graph comparing past climate and the climate model prediction. Miraculously, there is an almost perfect fit.
So, what does this prove? It proves that climate models are amazingly good at predicting what has already happened. And nothing else.

As I understand it, the models are full of arbitrary constants that they can tweak as much as they like. As Willis pointed out some time ago, very likely after each hindcast, parameter changes that make the match better are kept, changes that make the match worse are rejected. So you end up with perfect Darwinian evolution – the models evolve to make the match with historical data better and better.
Of course, this is just a sophisticated version of curve matching. It has absolutely nothing to do with any understanding of how the climate works.

If this is the case, then it’s possible to make a prediction: climate models will do well at predicting the past but will fail completely when it comes to predicting the climate 30 years in the future (the standard period that defines cllimate). We can now compare 30 year predictions with what actually happened. Of course, they weren’t even close, they predicted far more warming than actually happened. The models are worthless for climate forecasting. Even the IPCC has admitted that it’s impossible because of the chaotic nature of weather and climate.
In my opinion, the claim that the models have been proven and that they can predict the climate up to the end of the century is not just absurd, it’s fraudulent. Bearing in mind the trillions of dollars that will be wasted on the basis of these models, it’s also financial fraud.

Don B-W
Reply to  rogerthesurf
December 29, 2017 6:29 am

In my studies of Naval Architecture, I often needed to make equations that would map the hull lines. I got really good at it as long as I kept the line between certain constraints (such as bulkhead 3 and 9). Outside of those parameters my lines would do the exact same things that the climate models do, which is move away from the actual line at an obscene pace in either direction. I believe that’s why the temperature proxies are often used far into times that actual data exists.

Simply put, after the model is created and “fits” the known data, a time period must follow where it continues to follow the data. If it doesn’t, or rather a decent percent confidence level doesn’t, then the model is garbage, and the “theories” remain suspect. At least that’s the way the scientific method used to work.

Reply to  rogerthesurf
December 29, 2017 6:31 am

They have already exceeded science with their minds. Now, science needs to catch up..

Reply to  rogerthesurf
December 29, 2017 7:16 am

Joe, the point of a model is to look good.

Reply to  rogerthesurf
December 29, 2017 1:47 pm

“It is hard to make predictions, especially about the future”

— Yogi Berra

Reply to  rogerthesurf
December 29, 2017 3:40 pm

Try that model with the stock market and you will be broke

Jimmy Haigh
Reply to  Earthling2
December 28, 2017 11:05 pm

My favourite is: “climate bollocks”.

December 28, 2017 5:25 pm

I watched “The Day After Tomorrow’ last night on cable. Had a laugh at a couple of bits. Apparently the massive storms and cold air was being caused by fresh water from melting poles draining into the ocean, thus cooling the ocean rapidly. Another comment by a character in the movie – “I thought the Sun was responsible for climate change?” Hollywood just can’t help themselves. Full of liberal progressives (aka socialists) global warming believers.

Reply to  gbees
December 28, 2017 8:38 pm

AKA Communists!



Reply to  gbees
December 29, 2017 5:09 am

When and how does dogma get dogmatized to become a part of the belief system of the true believers of the dogma? Is there a subset of human beings for whom dogma is necessary if they are to have the ability for “independent” “thinking?” (Memorize, recall and recite?)

DK Kang
Reply to  thomasjk
December 29, 2017 9:13 am

There will always be people like that. They were a lot less dangerous when they’d just send money to televangelists or play with their rosary beads. Now their Pope demands that First World countries take in limitless numbers of Third Worlders who have already fouled their own nest in addition to supporting the AGW fraud.

James Beaver
Reply to  thomasjk
December 29, 2017 10:06 am


NW sage
December 28, 2017 5:27 pm

“…this week’s cold weather is probably being caused at least in part by global warming…”
NOW I get it – the cold part is caused by the cold part of global warming! The warm part of global warming goes somewhere else. It is so obvious now, I don’t know why I didn’t see that all along!

Extreme Hiatus
Reply to  NW sage
December 29, 2017 1:22 am

The heat is hiding deep in the oceans again. That’s its safe space.

Daniel S
Reply to  Extreme Hiatus
December 29, 2017 7:58 am

That was freaking hilarious

Reply to  Extreme Hiatus
December 29, 2017 8:42 am

I was a career US Navy Submariner. Even though there are temperature layers in the ocean, which we used to hide from sonar, the deeper we went, the colder the water got. At no time did we EVER get so deep that the water temperature was warmer than the surface.

Reply to  NW sage
December 29, 2017 9:49 am

Not long ago the eco climate nazis were calling it ‘ Global Warming’ . after far too many record low temps across the northern hemisphere they looked foolish and went with ‘ climate change’ .

December 28, 2017 5:38 pm

Shorter version: Our new God works in mysterious ways.

Reply to  MLCross
December 28, 2017 7:46 pm

so the IPCC scripture tells us so…

Extreme Hiatus
Reply to  MLCross
December 29, 2017 1:24 am

That analogy truly fits. These ‘explanations’ reveal that this has fully morphed into a religion.

Reply to  MLCross
December 29, 2017 6:21 am

2 Chronicles 18:19 And the LORD said, Who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one spake saying after this manner, and another saying after that manner.
20 Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will entice him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith?
21 And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the LORD said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so.
22 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee.

Those lying prophets are to fool the modern Empire into ending itself, and dragging down with them the unrepentant enablers (gullibles) who let it happen, while feeding on Swamp Entertainment.


The ones that make war are these who cover themselves with the madness. Those who make war, build the war machines, the ones that destroyed the Aral Sea and now want to use the environment to control the economy until they consolidate power. Then, they will quit worrying about the environment or Global Warming or any of that….

Joel O'Bryan(@joelobryan)
December 28, 2017 5:42 pm
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 28, 2017 6:37 pm

note the date. which is based on GMT.
So…. Hot off the Press!!
That popping noise you hear outside your house/apt/flat is NOT fireworks.
It is your Liberal nieghbor’s heads exploding as they read DJT’s latest tweet on the Climate scam.

Don B-W
Reply to  joelobryan
December 29, 2017 6:32 am

In my neck of the woods (the northeast, just past the middle of nowhere) that sound is the popping of frozen trees.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 28, 2017 7:58 pm

Trump’s tweet is up to almost 31K retweets and almost 100K “Likes” as of 11 pm EST (US East coast).

Those with Twitter accts, go retweet and Like to help make more Lib heads explode.

Reply to  joelobryan
December 28, 2017 8:05 pm

Suuuuperb innit?…

Reply to  joelobryan
December 28, 2017 8:06 pm

The left and their press just hates his tweets. And when the left hates something, 9 times out of 10 I’m for it.
The Presidents most often tweets to make a point or news that he knows will not be presented in the media which hates him. Other times it’s just to needle his opposition and by doing so change the direction of the lefts talking points. And other times his tweets are meant as a diversion. The pattern of his tweets reveal there really is a lot more going on between his ears than the press will ever give him credit for. He is playing them like a fiddle and they don’t realize it.

Reply to  joelobryan
December 28, 2017 8:40 pm

11:30 pm EST update:
The Twitter-verse, even by Twitter-verse standards, is now going bat-shit crazy trying to respond and digest this President of the US Trump tweet swipe at the Left’s climate religion.

Popcorn Futures exploding! Gonna be a fun 2018.

DK Kang
Reply to  joelobryan
December 29, 2017 9:17 am

It forces the media to talk about it; they can’t help themselves. But even attacking the president’s tweets still forces them to address topics they’d rather ignore.

December 28, 2017 5:45 pm

“Some Climate Scientists even shamelessly reject the very concept of scientific falsification with regard to the conduct of climate science.” Best I can figure out because the end results of climate change is still 100 years out there, you can suggest in the near term things can happen that appear to be a falsification. But that supposedly do not negate the theory that mankind will be reponsible for the warming of the earth a 100 years from now. How convenient. Only our kds or grandkids will be around to know how that works out. And don[t you know by then some new potential disaster will come along that will make climate change look like a cake walk.

Reply to  JohninRedding
December 28, 2017 6:57 pm

The only public policy relevant question is what is climate sensitivity to increasing CO2. A CO2 amount which is largely due to man’s burning fossil fuels for economic development. The convenient number/acronym adopted is Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS).

For the better part of 25 years, the climate science community used ECS > +2 deg C as the threshold for alarm that required policy action by humanity to avert catastrophe. Over the years now, the data is rolling that clearly shows ECS is likely < 2 deg C. Probably closer to 1.5 deg C, and maybe even 1 deg or less. +2 C is becoming more unlikely each year.

So what have the Alarmist majority of climate scientists done? Did they declare "no Problem.? No, they move the alarm threshold now down to 1.5 deg C to keep the Alarmist rhetoric going.

But there is aclear cost-benefit analysis that must be done. Climate change may be costly, but De-carbonization is likely even more costly. IOW, the "fix" kills the patient (humanity). De-carbonization makes us less able to handle future natural disasters as man continues to build civilizations into harm's way.

Poor countries degrade their environment because they do not have the energy resources to lessen impacts, to keep water and ecosystems clean. To provide infrastructure to lessen weather disasters. Imagine if they were wealthy enough to provide pre-disaster infrastructure hardening, during disaster evacuations, and after disaster recoveries just like the West rich countries. Then the impacts to their ecosystems would be much less.
Invoking the Precautionary Principle is self-contradictory where climate change is concerned. There is always going to be natural disaster that mankind must deal with. Population is growing, and unless you are an Ehrlich-Holdren doomsday-Malthusian who relishes a population calamity, then Billions of people must be cared for. And economic wealth and development are intimately tied to fossil fuel use until something better comes along.

Stephen Duval
Reply to  joelobryan
December 29, 2017 7:10 am

“Population is growing, and unless you are an Ehrlich-Holdren doomsday-Malthusian who relishes a population calamity, then Billions of people must be cared for. And economic wealth and development are intimately tied to fossil fuel use until something better comes along. “

The replacement for fossil fuels is available, nuclear energy. And it produces no CO2. Naturally the Greens are opposed to it.

Reply to  joelobryan
December 29, 2017 2:29 pm

The fires in CA have added more carbon to the atmosphere than every car in the country combined. No solar panel or wind turbine will offset the wild fires.

Thank you President Trump for not spending billions on this hoax .

Reply to  JohninRedding
December 28, 2017 7:26 pm

Yea but they our right LIE now. For example Arctic Sea Ice volume and extent has not dramatically declined this year as compared to the last few more recent years.

And as I have said elsewhere, this winter is reminding me of the 1970’s. You know that time when many scientists were blaming the cold weather on Global Cooling! Exact same pattern happening now as occurred in 1977.

They make their claims above without a bit of real science to back them up.

Reply to  RAH
December 28, 2017 8:35 pm

Precisely! This Strong La Nina event almost perfectly matches the one that produced the Winter of 1977-1978. Even the unusual snowfalls so far match the Winter of 1977 events. Better bundle up from the Canadian Border down to North Florida! Climate Cycles repeat, but Climate Alarmists barely remember their claims of yesterday in the slippery slope of CAGW Imbecility.

Dave Fair
Reply to  RAH
December 29, 2017 12:16 pm

Show me the old “Arctic Ice Death Spiral” graph!

Ice extent bottomed out years ago. Is it actually recovering?

Reply to  JohninRedding
December 28, 2017 11:17 pm

Can’t cut off those grants, special guest lecturer fees and acclaim, endowed chairs, fawning undergrads,… hummm…… life is good!,.. let’s not let a few little facts get in the way of my tenure and prestige.

Reply to  JohninRedding
December 29, 2017 5:20 am

…..Something such as the depletion of economically accessible fossil fuels, perhaps? They are finite, you know? And the end of fossil fuel usage will be dictated by their lack of availability, you know? And their depletion to a level where they are no longer available will bring on hell-to-pay, don’t you know?

Will institutionalized slavery remain a historical fact without being revived and reinstated when fossil fuels are depleted? Hah! Not a chance.

Stephen Duval
Reply to  thomasjk
December 29, 2017 7:16 am

We all remember how the Stone Age ended when we ran out of rocks.

Nuclear energy will replace fossil fuels long before fossil fuels are exhausted, if they are ever exhausted.

As for the return of slavery, that is more related to the trajectory of Islam than the depletion of fossil fuels.

Johannes Herbst
December 28, 2017 5:45 pm

0.8 degree warming in 168 years (According to Hadcrut) shows that we are heading towards a burning future. Each year it will be hotter by nearly 0.005 °C!

Reply to  Johannes Herbst
December 29, 2017 3:44 am


Dave Fair
Reply to  MSimon
December 29, 2017 12:19 pm

An accuracy only a climate “scientist” could admire.

Reply to  MSimon
January 1, 2018 9:41 pm

Your calculation of the “growing’ atmospheric “warming” reminds me of when I was 10 years old, and read in one of my astronomy books about how our planet might end one day. Distraught, I ran to my father, sobbing about the end of the world taking place in about 2 billion years, as the earth was consumed by a super-nova sun.

My dad said, “how many years?”, and I replied “2 billion!”

He wiped his forehead and said, “Oh, thank God! I thought you said 2 million!”

I’ve never been overly upset with predictions that stretch out longer than 10 digits since that day…

Reply to  Johannes Herbst
December 29, 2017 5:25 am

Any idea what the margin of error may be for the temperature readings that were recorded 150 years ago? And does it really matter as long as the temperatures that were recorded provide support for the global warming dogma?

Duke Cola
Reply to  thomasjk
December 29, 2017 5:44 am

Never mind margin of error back then, our current ground network is abysmal. In the US, only like 10% of the stations are accurate to less than 1 degree. I wont even get into the stations that are sighted on airport tarmacs or next to air conditioner vents, etc. Imagine also if ours are this bad how accurate the third world’s stations are.

Reply to  thomasjk
December 29, 2017 5:52 am

Because of homogenization and other “secret sauce” processing tricks, we don’t even know what the error bars are on the current numbers!!!!

Reply to  thomasjk
December 29, 2017 9:23 am

It is far worse than that. Most (not some, but most) of the Southern Hemisphere during the 19th Century no records exist. But that doesn’t stop climate scientists from making up global temp values back to 1855.

Ernest Bush
Reply to  Johannes Herbst
December 29, 2017 8:37 am

There are way too many events we don’t know the effect of, both in our local system and in our galaxy, to say that our planet will continue warming ad infinitum.

Reply to  Johannes Herbst
December 29, 2017 11:35 am


December 28, 2017 5:46 pm

“Arctic warming may also be contributing to the long-term drying of the U.S. Southwest, although the science on that front is less certain, Overpeck said.”

… although the science on that front is LESS CERTAIN …

less certain than what? his very very uncertain & unlikely rationalization led guess about the current cold?

When does Vegas start giving odds on specific climate(weather) guesses?

Reply to  DonM
December 28, 2017 5:57 pm

“science on that front is less certain” = I pulled this out of my arse, here enjoy.

Reply to  joelobryan
December 28, 2017 7:35 pm

Oh and that smell you smell, it is NOT what you might think. (despite just coming out of Overpeck’s arse.)

It is that special IPCC-approved fragrance, directly from Paris called, “Eau de Climate Science.”

Daniel S
Reply to  DonM
December 29, 2017 8:07 am

Vegas only deals with real science not pseudoscience so no odds on climate change

Yogi Bear
December 28, 2017 5:47 pm

“Arctic warming may also be contributing to the long-term drying of the U.S. Southwest”

What long term drying in the Southwest? The warm AMO phase drives Arctic warming and drying of the Great Plains, which is where U.S. drought is now shifting to, but a warm AMO phase has nothing to do with AGW.

Reply to  Yogi Bear
December 28, 2017 6:18 pm

SW US boom-bust cycles of drought-wet years are driven by ENSO and PDO phasing.

Blaming the Arctic (or the Arctic Oscillation) for something the Pacific Ocean and solar activity are doing is like a flea on a dog’s tail watching the dog wag back and forth.

Reply to  Yogi Bear
December 29, 2017 7:21 am

Most of that “long term drying” was caused by the decrease in hurricanes.

December 28, 2017 5:53 pm

So if it was record-breaking warmth occurring, the Alarmists would of course be blaming Climate Change.
Now with near (or actual) record-breaking cold it is of course being blamed on Climate Change.

As I told Grif in an different thread earlier today, when a hypothesis explains all possible outcomes/observations, it is not science, it is pseudoscience.

Take home message:
– When a “hypothesis” explains all possible observations, then from a science standpoint, it explains nothing. It is worthless.

– From a broader, epistemological view, any hypothesis that explains everything is what we call a religion.

The only logical conclusion (based on climate “experts” own assertions):
Climate Change is a religion. A pagan religion to be more precise, but a religion in every sense none the less.

Reply to  joelobryan
December 28, 2017 6:16 pm

In my opinion, a religious belief is a belief in something that isn’t true. Climate change meets this need very well, in that it claims that CO2 causes global warming, but the evidence shows that CO2 hasn’t caused global warming, either for the last 17 years, nor the 4.3 billion years before that.

However, a true religion requires more:
– a system of doctrine, or orthodoxy which directs what followers must believe
– an organisation (usually led as a heirarchy) to disseminate that doctrine and administer rewards and punishments.

I think climate change meets these requirements perfectly.

Reply to  Hivemind
December 28, 2017 6:27 pm

You have an agnostic position or an outright atheist view on whether religious beliefs are true or merely inventions of the human mind. But to many people on this planet (4 Billion of at least 7+ Billion and counting) to them there is more truth in their religion and anything right in front of their eyes. They have opinions just like you Hivemind.

I agree with you though (for a different reason) that today’s Climate Change belief fits every definition of a religion.

Reply to  Hivemind
December 28, 2017 6:37 pm

They certainly have one thing in common, they will not know for certain until after they are dead.

Louis Hooffstetter
Reply to  joelobryan
December 28, 2017 7:29 pm

Dr. Richard Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, MIT Professor Emeritus said it best:
“Believing that CO2 controls the climate is like believing in magic.”

Reply to  Louis Hooffstetter
December 28, 2017 7:40 pm

To be precise (and fair) when quoting, I think Lindzen used the words “close to believing…” or something similar. Quoting should be precise. Paraphrasing without quotes can be a bit sloppier.

Reply to  Louis Hooffstetter
December 29, 2017 3:48 am

Magick is the art and science of causing change in conformity with will.

Reply to  joelobryan
December 28, 2017 8:44 pm

thats briliant ,can i borrow it for another blog with attribution?

Reply to  ivan
December 28, 2017 9:25 pm

borrower, change, post…. I don’t care. No attribution needed.

None of my thoughts are original on this subject. My thoughts here are merely a re-distillation and re-packaging of what others have already recognized about the hustle called “Climate Science.”

Reply to  joelobryan
December 29, 2017 9:21 am


Yes, CAGW climatology is the Leftists’ religion for those who are “too smart & enlightened” to believe in God…

CAGW has all the trappings of a formalized religion: a Pope, high priests, penance, utopian “heaven”, sinners, heretics, purgatory, devine punishment, prophesy, Hell, an ecclesiastical hierarchy, a bible, misssionaries, fanatical acolytes, religious dogma, etc…

Too bad the religion of CAGW never adhered to the whole separation of church and state thing….

It’s also sad the CAGW god is dead…

December 28, 2017 5:55 pm

Yikes please define “Climate Change” when ever it is used. It has become a term of Rhetorical Art that has no clarity.

Reply to  halftiderock
December 28, 2017 6:01 pm

Climate Change per IPCC def is changing climate (> 30 years averages) due to effects of anthropogneic CO2 and other human influences/activities such as land use changes.

Of course the Watermelons adopted Climate Change to obfuscate the issue for the ignorant. They switch between ontological meanings of Climate Change, climate change, and changing climate with ease to disguise their deceptions.

Reply to  joelobryan
December 28, 2017 6:18 pm

Don’t forget Global Warming, which they had to abandon when the globe didn’t warm for 17 years.

Reply to  joelobryan
December 28, 2017 6:54 pm

As long as they define policy goals by using 1.5C and 2.0C increase in temperature it remains global warming.

Reply to  joelobryan
December 28, 2017 8:10 pm

R2Dtoo: Agreed. Plus, the theory is based on CO2 reradiating energy and causing warming. The “energy budget” is to the warm side. It IS about warming, no matter what they call it. It’s their problem that snow and cold increased and they had to scramble to somehow try and convince people that warming causes snow and cold.

Eve Stevens
December 28, 2017 5:58 pm

Every time I hear that explanation that less sea ice means arctic air can move south I think “Damn, it must have been cold in the Medieval Warm Period”.

December 28, 2017 6:02 pm

JohninRedding. “But that supposedly do not negate the theory that mankind will be responsible for the warming of the earth a 100 years from now.” John, it is just a theory, not backed up my scientific evidence. Climate change happens, but it’s natural and overshadows anything man does. Here’s the history of climate change last 420,000 years. I hardly think your kids & grandkids will need to worry about what humans do. Don’t fall for the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming fraud/con.

December 28, 2017 6:08 pm

This is interesting….I’ve read that declining ice levels in the Arctic means more dark surface area so more heat energy is absorbed resulting in warmer temps….now it also results less ice coverage which means greater heat loss and cooler temperatures….

Reply to  Steve
December 28, 2017 7:56 pm

Which should also mean that the oceans are now slowly cooling, with their heat slowly escaping to space, and having less heat to pump out El Nino’s in the future. Takes a long time to build a trend (minimum 30 years) but it is usually going one way or the other, and it sits still, or pauses for a period of time before heading the other direction. Not by much, as evidenced by .8 degrees C the last 150 years, but now maybe a net cooling for 40 years of maybe a 1/2 degree C. Maybe erases most of the gains we just made the last 150 years, and by the middle of this century, we are back in LIA territory.

Reply to  Steve
December 29, 2017 7:24 am

When the sun is shining at low angles, like it does in the arctic, the difference in reflectance between water and ice is small.

December 28, 2017 6:12 pm

Morality is complicated – and it doesn’t always fit the simplified version we learn as children. If we say morality is good, it’s good, if we say morality is bad, it’s bad!

December 28, 2017 6:24 pm

It is difficult to propose a test of climate models in advance that is falsifiable. … Science is complicated – and doesn’t always fit the simplified version we learn as children.

She hasn’t understood Popper’s principle of falsifiability even as an adult (and probably never tried to). We are not required to come up with a test that will definitely show the model or hypothesis in question to be wrong. If we were certain of such a test, this would make our hypothesis not only falsifiable, but already patently false. Instead, we must state a logically possible observation that our hypothesis rules out, and which therefore, should it indeed occur, would prove our hypothesis wrong.

The hypothesis “All swans are white” is falsifiable, because a single black swan, if indeed found in the wild, will disprove it. It is sufficient that this black swan is logically possible, even if we don’t know exactly where and when it might be observed in reality.

Robert Austin
December 28, 2017 6:32 pm


Reply to  Robert Austin
December 29, 2017 9:27 am

Good one, Robert-san!

December 28, 2017 6:44 pm

OK I don’t get it. So cold weather disproves global warming?

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  scraft1
December 28, 2017 7:37 pm

There is irony and sarcasm being involved with this story. That must be what you don’t get.

Cold weather only proves it is not warm today or this week. Nothing more.
This cold in North America is not a new phenomenon.
Regarding POTUS: Folks ought not to take his statements literally. They should take him seriously.

Reply to  scraft1
December 28, 2017 7:53 pm

Ok, I don’t get it:
Hot weather proves global warming but cold weather does not?

Atlantic Hurricanes proves global warming but a Global ACE well below average does not does not?

Bleached corals prove “ocean acidification” but corals regenerating does not disprove “ocean acidification”?

A lack of snow proves global warming but increasing snow cover in the northern hemisphere does not disprove it?

“Permanent” droughts in Texas and California prove global warming but the drought busting rains which ended each does not disprove it?”


Reply to  RAH
December 29, 2017 3:09 pm

RAH No, No, No…

Hot weather proves global warming and so does cold weather.
Atlantic hurricanes prove global warming and global ACE above and below average proves global warming.
Bleached corals prove ocean acidification and global warming and, regenerating corals prove ocean acidification and global warming.
A lack of snow proves global warming and increasing snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere proves global warming.
Permanent droughts in Texas and California prove global warming and drought busting rains prove global warming.

There, fixed it for you. 🙂

John Robertson
December 28, 2017 6:55 pm

Sounds like Overpeck should be singing ;”Oh Sussanna”.
I love this speculation that it is colder because of less arctic sea ice, so that is why the medieval warm period was not?
Not much thought went into that excuse.
Better one would have been walrus farts.
The desperation of Team IPCC is delicious.

R.S. Brown
Reply to  John Robertson
December 29, 2017 2:37 am

Overpeck may be finding the American Southwest a bit warmer now that
a court has ruled his Climategate emails can come out of cold storage
for public viewing:

From chilly Northeast Ohio, have a safe and Happy New Year!

Dave Fair
Reply to  R.S. Brown
December 29, 2017 12:30 pm

Look for Overpeck’s emails to be unrecoverable, lost, etc. by the university.

December 28, 2017 6:56 pm

Why do drones like Overpeck remain cluelessly ignorant of the fact that Arctic sea ice is still way above the extent of the MWP and basically all of the first 8000+ years of the Holocene ?

Or are they actually aware of the fact and are LYING their a***s off. !!

Reply to  AndyG55
December 28, 2017 7:00 pm

forgot the graph
comment image

Reply to  AndyG55
December 29, 2017 3:48 am

What methods are used to determine the Arctic ice extent as far back as the Bronze Age? How accurate are they in practice? It’s not like there’s any record of someone travelling North to check…

Reply to  AndyG55
December 29, 2017 3:54 am

You need to do some research, don’t you. 🙂
comment image

Perhaps look at the match with GISP temperature data .

Start to learn by yourself. 🙂

Reply to  AndyG55
December 28, 2017 9:16 pm

Overpeck if anything, he is NOT clueless. He is a willing participant in the hustle. Overpeck is a key player from the earliest days (see the Climate Gate emails for instance) of the Climate Hustle.

His recent move to UMich is as things always are dictated by money. UMich must have made a lucrative offer on stat-up funding, resource allocation for his first few years. Expecting the grants to come down the Pike. Ann Arbor is a very Liberal city.

I live in Tucson, where Overpeck emigrated from. It is a backwater to some degree (not astronomy). Tucosn is Not very eclectic or trend setting here though for a Liberal who wants to be someone. Ann Arbor is closer to the East Coast where the climate hustle has political muscle and money. Overpeck if anything is a true follow the money kinda guy. His participation in past IPCCs and now his clandestine association with an anti-Trump Resist movement is how he is positioning himself to (what he hpes) is bigger things in post-2020 WH regime with D POTUS.

Reply to  AndyG55
December 30, 2017 3:54 am

Thank you Andy, your graph led me to interesting reading about that ice proxy with 25 carbon atoms, a sesterterpene I would call it.

michael hart
December 28, 2017 6:59 pm

I sometimes wonder how it works: Does Sammy Roth at USA TODAY phone up the University of Michigan press office asking for a global-warming comment on this week’s weather, and get put through to Jonathan Overpeck’s extension number? Presumably he could record a voicemail greeting says “You have reached the voicemail of Jonathan Overpeck. He is not available right now, but he can let you know that this week’s weather is due to man-made global warming.”

Or does Jonathan Overpeck maybe announce a weekly global-warming press release somewhere on social media and Sammy Roth at USA TODAY follows Overpeck on Twitter or something. Whatever, it must be boring for all sides knowing that the same thing is going to said every time.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  michael hart
December 28, 2017 7:44 pm

Jonathan Overpeck is lying in his bed, sleeping soundly. We see by the dim, pre-dawn light, a nightstand bedside the bed, on which is seen a clock radio with a large, digital display that reads 05:59. Suddenly, the clock display rolls over to 6:00, at which point the sound of Sonny and Cher loudly singing I’ve got you Babe can be heard. Transition: Overpeck is now up and out of bed, dressed for the day. The phone rings, and we hear “Hey Jon, it’s Sam from USA Today. Damn it’s cold out there, and did you see the snowfall totals from Erie? INSANE, right? Anyway, you know what I’m going to ask. I’m sure you’re hearing as muchclimate apathy as I’ve been hearing. Can you give me a little pick-me-up for attribution?

michael hart
Reply to  Mickey Reno
December 29, 2017 12:27 am

Just like in “Groundhog Day”, right?

Reply to  Mickey Reno
December 29, 2017 7:51 am

And Overpeck responds: “Even this week’s cold weather is probably being caused at least in part by global warming…”

probably, at least, in part

That’s one of those “climate scientist”, highly definitive, 95% accuracy, 97% consensus, in a way, maybe, just possible, sometimes responses.

Reply to  michael hart
December 28, 2017 9:06 pm

[Mods- the bit bucket ate my post here (I don’t think there was anything spam-worthy in it)]

December 28, 2017 7:05 pm

“based on their ability to accurately reproduce observed climate trends and processes”

So UTTER FAILURE gives them Confidence in their models..

OK. !!

December 28, 2017 7:05 pm

As always, nothing says warming like cooling.

December 28, 2017 7:16 pm

Fake “scientists” living in their own world. The models that construct predicted that this winters months would look like this:

Dennis Sandberg
December 28, 2017 7:22 pm

NSIDC: ice extent Dec.28, 2000 = 13.065 km2, Dec. 28, 2017 = 12.421 km2, about 5% < ice extent, this is supposed to be a big climate changing condition?

Reply to  Dennis Sandberg
December 28, 2017 10:21 pm

“The more it Melts, the more it Freezes”. Must be some significant cause and effect to saltier brine water melting and re-freezing every year and sinking into the thermocline that affects ocean currents over long term time scales.

December 28, 2017 7:32 pm

Say what you will but I’m completely sure that Global Warming is increasing the number of hairballs my cat hacks up!

Jacob Frank
December 28, 2017 7:40 pm

Consider me Warmsplained lol

December 28, 2017 7:52 pm

A test of falsifiability requires a model test or climate observation that shows global warming caused by increased human-produced greenhouse gases is untrue.

This is the perfect lie. Nothing can possibly or impossibly disprove what has been deemed absolute truth.

As a degreed man of science, I have both used and ascribe to the scientific method on a frequent if not daily basis. Knowing what I know about climate “science” and this sort of assertion by the gatekeepers of the discipline, it churns my stomach to think that actual science—and the importance of falsifiability—is seen with such disregard as to be prevented from even being discussed.

Reply to  AZ1971
December 28, 2017 8:21 pm

Religious dogma is not falsifiable. Which is where the climateers are now.

Climate Change – The new religion of the Left.

Reply to  joelobryan
December 29, 2017 8:47 am


J Mac
Reply to  AZ1971
December 28, 2017 9:33 pm

Exactly the way I feel about this anti-science deceit.

December 28, 2017 8:08 pm

I am terribly confused here. They say that the Arctic is warming at an unprecedented rate, but the cold now being experienced by the Northern US is from freezing Arctic winds. Warm or Cold, which is it?? Are they suggesting there are warm parts of the Arctic and cold parts. Where are they, specifically?


Reply to  AussieBear
December 28, 2017 11:34 pm

They are at the part where they have to change their lies.
Same place they have always been.

Reply to  AussieBear
December 29, 2017 8:31 am

There are warmer and colder areas in the arctic. At present, there is a large cold air mass covering parts of eastern Canada and the U.S., with warmer areas to the west.

This whole conglomeration will slowly rotate from west to east around the Northern Hemisphere. A big glob of cold air moves slowly.

James Harlock
Reply to  AussieBear
December 29, 2017 6:58 pm

Well, you see, all of the heat hiding in the ocean forces the cold to pool in the water around the North Pole. If there were more Arctic ice, that would trap the cold under it and the Northern Hemisphere would have mild, Spring-like Winters, thanks to AGW-er-AGCCC. However, since the ice isn’t there, all that cold jumps out of the ocean and rushes Southward, cackling and crackling, finally free of the oppressive heat that’s hiding in the oceans.

Or, something.

December 28, 2017 8:24 pm

CAGW is falsifiable only by complete denial of research funding.

Reply to  texasjimbrock
December 28, 2017 9:33 pm

It really is like a Hydra beast… a many-headed beast. Cut-off one head, another pops-up somewhere else. The funding cut-off must happen at the source. The NSF. Our tax dollars being thrown away for bad science.

Climate is however (IMO) worthy of scientific study, and thus some public funding. But much, much less than current. The current state encourages alarmists claims to garner ever more funding. This must stop.

Reply to  joelobryan
December 29, 2017 8:49 am

We aren’t getting climate studies. We’re getting rationalization masquerading as science as an excuse to keep the money train rolling.

James Harlock
Reply to  joelobryan
December 29, 2017 7:01 pm

Sadly, like Marvel’s Hydra, they have agents, infiltrators and True Believers in every organiztion that should be opposing and stopping them. I’m beginning to think that the only way to stop the Climastrologists is with US DOJ RICO charges.

December 28, 2017 8:59 pm

The Santa Ana winds are caused by cold dry high pressure / very dense air in the interior of the US getting funnelled out the valleys in California as it loses elevation and like a chinook it warms up and gets insanely dry that dries out everything very very fast causing the wildfire problems, it’s air that travels from the interior to the ocean. So the wildfire problem is because of the cold dense air in the interior.

It’s hard to think this person shouldn’t understand this.

James Harlock
Reply to  Mydrrin
December 29, 2017 7:03 pm

It seems to me as if the author is applying Temperate logic to an Arid/Desert region.

December 28, 2017 8:59 pm

The presumed sensitivity of 0.8C +/- 0.4C per W/m^2 is indeed falsifiable as both data and theory tell us that the last average W/m^2 of forcing from the Sun increased the average temperature by no more than 0.3C. The presumed linearity between temperature and forcing gets in the way of seeing why this falsifies the consensus sensitivity as it obscures the theoretical and measured linear relationship between forcing and incremental W/m^2 of surface emissions.

Given that all Joules are equivalent and all 240 W/m^2 of accumulated forcing from the Sun must on average contribute equally to the emissions of the surface, each W/m^2 contributes about 1.6 W/m^2 to the surface emissions where the next 1.6 W/m^2 of emissions from another W/m^2 of forcing would arise from a surface temperature increase from 288K to 288.3K. The prediction of the IPCC sensitivity that the last W/m^2 of forcing from the Sun increased the surface temperature by 0.8C +/- 0.4C is clearly falsified. Moreover; a sensitivity metric expressed as degrees per W/m^2 has a non linear 1/T^3 dependence as T (the temperature) increases.

If as the IPCC suggests, the last W/m^2 of forcing increased the average temperature from 287.2K to 288K, the average surface emissions must have increased by about 4.3 W/m^2. If all Joules contribute equally, then each of the 240 W/m^2 of accumulated forcing must also contributes 4.3 W/m^2 to surface emissions adding up to over 1000 W/m^2 corresponding to an average surface temperature close to the boiling point of water. The prediction of the IPCC sensitivity that the surface temperature should be close to the boiling point of water is clearly falsified by the causal observer.

December 28, 2017 9:11 pm

Interestingly enough, I had a discussion tonight with someone on ECS. Their counter question was on EBCS. Equilibrium Biological Climate Sensitivity. Quite the question in the end.

Where is Mosher on this item anyhow? Steven?

Jimmy Haigh
December 28, 2017 9:26 pm

Of course, by this logic, the warmest period of the last 1000 years was The Little ice Age.

Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
December 28, 2017 9:42 pm

Humanity’s greatest advancements have largely come from the times of necessity for adaptation and invention to counter extreme adversity and change.

We will make advances on nuclear power (and other energy sources not envisioned) and energy efficiencies when the pressing need comes again.

Currently we are in the Age of Abundance. The pressing needs of necessity are not here right now. So we squabble rather than invent.

Dave Fair
Reply to  joelobryan
December 29, 2017 12:40 pm

The “Age of Abundance” applies only to a small percentage of the world’s population. There is always and everywhere “pressing needs of necessity” in the human experience, Joel.

Reply to  joelobryan
December 29, 2017 4:13 pm

@Dave Fair

The “Age of Abundance” applies only to a small percentage of the world’s population

And why is that Dave? Couldn’t be due to greed and corruption now, could it?
Inventing goes hand in hand with revolution.
Think about it.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Yirgach
December 29, 2017 8:56 pm

Greed and corruption are facts of human existence, Yirgach. It is only where individual freedoms and the rule of law prevail that they are minimized.

Massive society-wide corruption is a hallmark of socialist systems. Name me any exceptions.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Yirgach
December 29, 2017 9:02 pm

Additionally, over time invention goes hand in hand with individual possession of property, not some undefined “revolution.”

December 28, 2017 10:24 pm

A down home person might reasonably ask, “If the Arctic has warmed so much, where is the cold air coming from?”

Of course, it is just small anomaly justifying all that red coloring up there, and it is still bloody cold. That doesn’t play well down home either. If you are going to make like palm trees will be growing in the Yukon soon, don’t tell country folks climate change is why they are freezing their butts.

Nobody really knows why the amplitude of the Rossby waves sloshing out of the Arctic changes. The Russians have kept an Arctic Oscillation Index since the fifties. It gauges zonal vs meridional flow. Zonal flow (the kind the missionaries would have you believe keeps the cold corralled) actually corresponds with warmer arctic temperatures.

Reply to  gymnosperm
December 29, 2017 3:41 am

“Nobody really knows why the amplitude of the Rossby waves sloshing out of the Arctic changes. The Russians have kept an Arctic Oscillation Index since the fifties. It gauges zonal vs meridional flow. Zonal flow (the kind the missionaries would have you believe keeps the cold corralled) actually corresponds with warmer arctic temperatures.”

They do know but the causes/effects are complex with chaos coming to play.
ENSO state (even where coldest waters are exactly re the current LaNina).
QBO: an easterly quasi-tropical oscillation, as now, favours more reflction of Planetary (Rossby) waves into the Arctic in the first part of winter. An El Nino, the second half.
Low solar – yes reduced UV does reduce the strengnth of the Stratospheric PV, and can tip the balance re formation of a -ve AO.
The speed of formation of the Eurasian snowfield is correlated with a stronger winter Siberian high and migration into the Arctic.

Sorry but your – zonal flow “actually corresponds with warmer arctic temperatures.” is an oxymoron as by definition if cold air moves south then warm air must move north replace it. Basic meteorology has it that easterly winds surrounding an area of HP (a -ve AO) develop if wamer air is at it’s core (in the NH the thermal flow aloft is from warm to cold and deflected to the right) and thus decends/warms as a result of convergence aloft and subsidence (leading to divergence at the surface).

Cold plunges into the USA are neither unusual, nor are they likely to become so any decade soon.
It is simply a meander that the PJS takes as to meteorology of the N Pacific and the Rockies favours. Look at where the last ice sheet limit was FI.

Meanwhile the 96% of the NH that is not the good ol’ US of A (excluding the west) is overwhelmingly warmer than average.

Reply to  Toneb
December 29, 2017 4:12 am

Isn’t it nice for NE Russia to get a nice warm -30ºC instead of -45ºC 🙂

Reply to  Toneb
December 29, 2017 4:14 am

Should have, of course , included Canada in the cold plunge.

Donald penman
Reply to  Toneb
December 29, 2017 7:00 am

Ah “good ol temperature anomalies ” and climate nationalism which makes meteorology more of a social science than a pure science.

Russ R.
Reply to  Toneb
December 29, 2017 8:33 am

“Climate Change Institute”? At least they are honest about their bias.

Reply to  Toneb
December 29, 2017 9:07 am

comment image

Klyastorin and Lyubushin (2007)

Further from the above:
comment image

As goes the Arctic, so goes the globe.

High pressure is “warm core” in both hemispheres, and I’m glad you brought that up. Go to nullschool, set it to air, surface, with an overlay of MSLP (surface pressure). Spin it to the Antarctic and you can see it is totally hogging the planetary surface low pressure right now. Zoom up to the stratosphere at 10hpa. You see hemispheric ANTIcyclonic flow.
Do the same exercise in the Arctic. You see predominantly CYCLONIC flow aiding and abetting the “dipole”.
Tightening a screw in the northern hemisphere is an apt analogy for anticyclonic high pressure at the surface. The southern hemisphere has left hand threads.

Robert Austin
Reply to  Toneb
December 30, 2017 12:48 pm

Ever notice how curiously hot it is where there are no thermometers?

December 28, 2017 10:51 pm

It’s no wonder proper scientists are worried about the damage that so-called “climate scientists” are doing to the field of science. These charlatans should all be put to work shoveling snow.

December 28, 2017 10:58 pm

This global warming scam has to last at least for another 15 to 20 years until the last “climate scientist” has retired. Until then there has at least enough money for the salary. So if temperature rises or falls, nothing can be a sign of cooling – its only a temporary event.

December 28, 2017 11:25 pm

The North Pole is really hot now……:

/sarc (as if needed).

December 28, 2017 11:30 pm

Arctic warming seems to be causing massive ice mass growth in Greenland.

December 29, 2017 1:17 am

This ‘heads you lose, tails I win approach’ is a sign of many things. One of which is how climate ‘science’ offers a happy and comfortable home to third rate academics that otherwise would find it hard to get work in an high school.
For has you can never be ‘wrong’ you never have to worry about being right beyond keeping to the dogma.

December 29, 2017 1:52 am

I would love to be able to ask these guys some follow-up questions. Global warming induced cooling would be a negative feedback. Then the “settled science” theory of runaway global warming is no longer considered valid? If temperatures cooled back to the 1970s (or whatever the ‘golden age of climate’ was), wouldn’t all effects of warming end, since there would no longer be any warming, and everyone be happy? And if that is the case, is there any reason to keep funding climate research? You are implying that global warming is a self-correcting problem.

December 29, 2017 2:07 am

#1 A pseudo linear progression statistical analysis is NOT a model

Reply to  prjindigo
December 29, 2017 10:18 am

Wow, it is as if they make this shit up as needed. Notice how their model did not predict deeper, longer and more frequent blasts of arctic air? But a model must be able to predict events and not merely “explain” them away when they occur. This is exactly what intelligent skeptics point out. These models HAVE NO PREDICTION VALUE. Ad hoc jargon-choked SCIENCEY speculations replace predictability.

December 29, 2017 2:16 am

Since you are all going to be driving electric vehicles soon , I wondered what effect these temperatures would have on such a vehicle which is charging outside on the street at night.
I doubt if just a quick Google will provide the complete answer , but this might give some indication:

Battery type Charge temperature Discharge temperature Charge advisory

Lead acid –20°C to 50°C –20°C to 50°C Charge at 0.3C or lessbelow freezing.

NiCd, NiMH 0°C to 45°C –20°C to 65°C Charge at 0.1C between –18°C and 0°C.

Li-ion 0°C to 45°C –20°C to 60°C No charge permitted below freezing.

Table 1: Permissible temperature limits for various batteries. Batteries can be discharged over a large temperature range, but the charge temperature is limited. For best results, charge between 10°C and 30°C (50°F and 86°F). Lower the charge current when cold.
I have left out the F temperatures and simplified the text format slightly in the (probably forlorn ) hope that the posted comment does not mangle it up.
“no charge permitted below freezing” for Li ion batteries ? Is that correct ? Surely not . For what then is the future for the multitude of rapid charging TESLA outlets being installed along all the motorways in the UK in conditions such as we are currently experiencing?
Reply to  mikewaite
January 1, 2018 8:49 pm

Entirely true. Lithium-ion batteries cannot be charged below freezing. For applications where the battery is required to be charged in below-freezing temperatures, a battery heater is employed.

December 29, 2017 2:42 am

Climate science is based on hypothetical data aets hence why it is a hypothetical exercise. Pure science. It is not actionable. Hence all arguments are valid and invalid as they are all hypothetical. This is logic 101.

Hypothesis is only consistent within its argument frame. Climate science is only consistent if you ignore reality.

December 29, 2017 3:13 am

“The Arctic is warming much faster than most of the planet, leading to a dramatic decline in the amount of sea ice that covers the region each winter. ”

Here is data from the only actual measurements (as opposed to models) of the amount of sea ice (from Cryosat):

Do you see any “dramatic decline”? Note that measurements are not possible during the melting season since there is no way to distinguish melt pools on the ice from open sea.

December 29, 2017 3:45 am

I just looked at the NSIDC page and there’s an historical graph for the extent of arctic ice but not one for Antarctica ice extent? I’m sure they used to show both on the same page. Apologies if I’ve missed something.
To Anthony et al Merry Christmas and a Happy and Prosperous New Year.

December 29, 2017 3:58 am

Is it too hot, asks Goldilocks? Global Warming (GW). Is it too cold? GW. Is it just right? GW. The answer to any weather related question is: GW. The sheer nonsense of it escapes the AGW adherents.

December 29, 2017 4:25 am

What the real big news is , is the overall cooling of the oceanic surface waters now down to +.155c from summer readings around +.34c.

If the oceans continue to cool so will the global temperatures and this should put an end to the global warming hype.

One of my big plays is very low solar would cause oceanic temperatures to cool. So far so good.

December 29, 2017 4:33 am

comment image

oceanic temperatures in the summer were as high as +.37c (often) above normal on this graph which does not go back that far.

Oceanic temperature changes are a big climatic deal.

December 29, 2017 5:02 am

The winner of the 2017 Double Speak Award goes to ‘climate scientist’ Jonathan Overpeck. My guess is Ol’ john is in line for an IPCC fellowship grant…

December 29, 2017 5:11 am

I thought I would dust off this little chestnut from WUWT. It was posted a few days over 7 years ago. Enjoy! (P.S. I still enjoy reading my mockery over the zealots. I hope you do too.)

December 29, 2017 5:15 am

To see every blip and snip as proof of one theory or another is the opposite of science. Glib sayings and personal attacks are not science either. There is no unifying theory. Man does effect the climate. Think of the billions of trees that have been cut down and replaced with sprawling cities. Think of the 2 billion people who heat and cook with wood, , coal, dung and peat. The world’s climate would be better off if they used natural gas and oil, even electricity from clean burning coal. Think of the sun. Scientists now say it is quiet with few sunspots. They think it is dimming. You don’t think that has a great effect?
I was recently in Gallop, NM. It was 70 degrees (F) during the day and 15 degrees (F) the next morning. The reason is that there is little in the way of the most significant greenhouse gas, water vapor. Very low humidity.
Not much we can do about water vapor or should.

December 29, 2017 5:15 am

It’s the sun. We are going into a Maunder Minimum. Ask any amateur radio operator how propagation has been for the last several years.

Bruce Krame, M.D.
December 29, 2017 5:18 am

Time Magazine…1979…climate experts predict ice age doom for earth by 2003…
Flash forward….climate experts and Al Gore predict global warming for earth by 3377…4477…6677…
Flash forward…climate experts predict…

December 29, 2017 5:18 am

20 degrees above average is catastrophic warming. 20 degrees below average is winter weather.

Most read book of 2050: The Man-Made Global Warming Hoax: “The remarkable story of how a run-of-the-mill 30-year warm spell led to mass hysteria.”

Bruce Kramer
December 29, 2017 5:19 am

Time Magazine…1979…climate experts predict ice age doom for earth by 2003…
Flash forward….climate experts and Al Gore predict global warming for earth by 3377…4477…6677…
Flash forward…climate experts predict…

December 29, 2017 5:21 am

Trump. Exactly the antidote for the last 8 miserable Liberal years. MAGA!

December 29, 2017 5:26 am

Of course, you climate deniers (including myself), why are we so stupid as to know that the exception proves the rule. The colder it gets just proves that it is going to get hotter to make up for it. However, this thermodynamic effect of the interactions of the sun’s rays, our oceans, our land masses and our atmosphere can be moderated simply by raising taxes on our fossil fuel consumption and on American citizens.

December 29, 2017 5:29 am

Climate phobia and leftism go hand in hand.
In the words of Ram Emanuel ” Never let a crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is during a crisis ,you can get away with things that can’t under normal circumstances “.

The left needs a manufactured crisis to be able have government take away more freedom. The left backed away from global warming and replaced it with the more general climate change to try to cope with the 18 year period of no warming and steady temps.

Just curious, what temp should the earth be?

December 29, 2017 5:40 am

“This is contributing to our record wildfires in California, and the drying out of vegetation that’s leading to those wildfires, and the drying out of the Southwest’s water,”

Or those fires could have been exacerbated by vegetation, that grew much more than normal, due to healthy amounts of rainfall last Spring and was never mitigated, due to lax fire mitigation strategies or kooky “environmental concerns.”

December 29, 2017 5:43 am

Just goes to prove how full of hot air Al-Buffoon really is