Trump trolls the warmists

And we thought deadly wind chill would be a “thing of the past”. A bit of humor here from the President, and while any one weather event doesn’t prove or disprove anything (except when it’s a heat wave, because we are told that ALWAYS proves global warming) we can surely laugh at Trump’s having fun winding those folks up.

Advertisements

183 thoughts on “Trump trolls the warmists

      • Missed the ‘h’ & another ‘m’

        Dictionary result for wham /(h)wam/
        INFORMAL verb
        gerund or present participle: whamming
        strike something forcefully. “trucks whammed into each other”

    • Sometimes he does that intentionally, because libs share his tweets like crazy to show how stupid Trump is. But in fact he’s just multiplying his reach tremendously.

      • Wildfires in California are proof of Global Warming. Record cold in the Midwest is proof of Global Warming. And you would have voted for Hillary to sort that out….snort snort!

        • The snort is doubly apt, for both Killary and her obvious muppet troll that’s been spewing third grade comebacks lately.

          Hey, if they are going to say hot days = global warming then I’m using these episodes to ask them where the hell it went

        • You won’t vote for Shillary, eh..Say you?
          How about,
          Kristine Shillibrand?
          Shill Nye?

          Have you watched
          Shill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure?
          House on Haunted Shill?
          Or maybe The Shills have eyes… My favorite too! Besties!!!!
          🤗

          Are you familiar with Shilliam Shakespeare or do you prefer a more droll entertainment of the likes of Shilliam Shatner?

          Do you keep tabs on the political landscape at The Shill?
          Or do you prefer The Washillington Post?

          Are you suffering from the Shillstreet blues?

          If I were a betting man, I’d wager you shave with Shillette, the best a fem(iNazi) can get.

          Where there is a shill there is a way 😊

        • If Hillary were schmesident, the weather would be much more nicer, here, in China, Brazil, in France, and in Kenya. If Big Al’d been schmesident starting in 2001, it woulda never been this cold in Minnesota, nor as blistering in Texas in summer, nor rained too much anywhere, nor been too dry, nor been too mediocre anywhere at all.

          Only Demos can save the world if Repubs don’t ruin it first. Nothing else matters: not the sun, nor ocean currents, nor other natural forces, nor the 96% of the world’s people who live outside the U.S.

    • Sure, he missed few a’s in Global Waaaaaaming. There’s a limit on how many characters you can put in a Twit. Well there used to be…

  1. Could he be more uninformed? Having fun? The only fun is laughing at the mans willingness to open his mouth once again while all the time showing the world he is clueless.

    • But Simon, this is what you alarmists want isn’t it? A colder planet.

      I mean, what’s the problem with a few miles of ice covering London and New York?

      I guess it saves a bit of sea level rise to boot.

      You should be rejoicing.

      It seems you can’t please any of the alarmists any of the time.

    • Yeah, he gets to you doesn’t he! Simon, that testiness your showing is what’s known as a ‘tell’ in poker parlance. Your self doubts are niggling you as they should – you didn’t invent this dang global warming.. You’re one who has been “informed” and your asking the same questions

    • Simon. My Sister lives in Ontario and a few days ago it was minus 40c. UAH data shows no statistically significant warming for 38 years. Dr Dan Easterbrook “atmospheric Co2 has increased by 8 1000ths of 1% in 200 years” this miniscule amount has not a snowballs chance in hell to cause warming let alone catastrophic warming.

      Prof Feynman “if your hypothesis is contradicted by observations then question your hypothesis not observations”. UAH data is backed up by data from radio sonde balloons. Trump is right you are completely wrong.

      The planet emitted 100 trillion tons of Co2 between 2000 and 2010 result? From 1998 temperature plateaued for 18 years and 9 months even the IPCC had to acknowledge what it call the hiatus of pause.

      If 100 trillion tons of Co2 nearly one third of all Co2 ever emitted failed to cause an apocalypse maybe you can tell me how much we need to emit to make it happen?

      • David Wells,

        UAH data shows no statistically significant warming for 38 years.

        No, UAH data shows statistically significant warming for the last 38 years.

        Specifically it shows 1.28 ±0.60 °C/century (2σ) since 1980.

        Trump is right you are completely wrong.

        I thought the claim was that Trump was joking. You seem to have falling for the joke.

          • 🙂
            N.B. that David Wells is talking about Ontario and bellman goes for the global average, a false strawman.

            bellman ignores that most of that alleged global warming is courtesy UHI, slight increases to nighttime minimum temps and Arctic/Antarctic temperatures. Arctic/Antarctic temperature increases caused by water vapor, not CO₂.

          • Slight increases in the areas least accessible to humans, and for all practical matters inaccessible by regular civilians.

            This sounds sound the alarm bell,man?

          • ATheoK

            N.B. that David Wells is talking about Ontario and bellman goes for the global average, a false strawman.

            He said UAH. I assumed he meant their global product, not that for Ontario.
            UAH’s graph suggests that much of Ontario is warming at a faster rate than global temperatures, between 1.5 and 2.5°C / century.

            bellman ignores that most of that alleged global warming is courtesy UHI

            It’s satellite data. The claimed advantage is that it isn’t affected by UHI.

            Arctic/Antarctic temperature increases caused by water vapor, not CO₂.

            So, why is the water vapor increasing?

            https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2018/december2018/Trend_to_201812.PNG

          • Matthew Drobnick,

            Slight increases in the areas least accessible to humans, and for all practical matters inaccessible by regular civilians.

            We’ll yes, the lower troposphere is not mostly accessible to humans, but it was David Wells who insisted on using UAH to claim no statistically significant warming in 38 years.

          • No Mark, I misunderstood the comment thread and I was responding to atheok comment:

            “bellman ignores that most of that alleged global warming is courtesy UHI, slight increases to nighttime minimum temps and Arctic/Antarctic temperatures. Arctic/Antarctic temperature increases caused by water vapor, not CO”

            My mistake was assuming it was the land based measurements in which he was referring. From my recollection those are consistently showing more warming compared to other land based temperature measurements, and hence my comment about limited access.

            Additionally, lower in the thread, Richard M made an argument debating the veracity of the UAH with regards to noise. Bellman doesn’t agree. I’m not sure what is correct.

            I don’t think it was as knee jerk as you’ve interpreted but there was some degree, I admit.

          • @Bellman January 29, 2019 at 8:26 am
            The link you provide is for temperature, not water vapor. Was that your intent?

          • D. J. Hawkins,

            Yes, my mistake. The link was meant to go after my first point, illustrating the warming in Ontario.

          • MarkW,
            I was responding to Bellman, I should have made that clear.

            Sorry, missed that. What was your question?

        • Bellman, as usual when talking about temperature the trend is mainly due to noise. When you correct for noise in the data you only see .26 of total warming since 1980 and that doesn’t completely account for the AMO and PDO.

          The real trend is more like .06 C / century which fits in almost exactly with Akasofu’s findings for the recovery from the LIA.

          • Bellman, as usual when talking about temperature the trend is mainly due to noise.

            That’s the whole point of significance testing, to see if the trend could have been caused by noise. The fact that UAH shows significant warming is strong evidence that the trend is not caused by noise.

            The real trend is more like .06 C / century …

            Citation required.

          • Citation Required?

            Bellman, all you have to do is look at the ice-core temperature proxies to see it’s obvious the modern warming is consistent and fits quite nicely with the reconstructions.

          • all you have to do is look at the ice-core temperature proxies…

            The claim was that if you removed all the noise from UAH data the trend of the last 38 years drops to 0.06°C / century. Ice core proxies are irrelevant to that claim.

          • Agreed, ice-core proxies are irrelevant to the claim as they lack the decadal resolution required for a valid comparison with the instrumental record.

            Still, the observations we have indicate the 20th century was slightly warmer than the 19th. In the last 150 years the instrumental record indicates an increase in mean temperature a little over 1 degree C. which has climbed fractionally and sporadically from the depths of the Little Ice Age 370 years ago and continues to do so.

            So, in attributing some of this warming to man, it needs to be pointed out the warming has been small, barely registers on a thermometer and is not indicative of alarm.

            Moreover, the 0.5 degree C. attribution of the late 20th century warming to Anthro CO2 is nowhere near affirmed. The emphasis on CO2 has played down the other arguments……Cloud cover variance, ENSO in combination with the PDO and the AMO, solar activity (not solar irradiance, which is a constant), libration’s impact on the Sun/planet magnetic fields and Earth’s orbital mechanics, the subtle changes of insolation in response to the Precession nutations….to name a few.

          • “That’s the whole point of significance testing, to see if the trend could have been caused by noise.”

            Based on what error model? Independent Gaussian noise about the least squares fit of a trend? Ridiculous.

            A linear trend is clearly not what is going on with this data. If you apply an arbitrary least squares fit to a linear model, you’re just going to get a result heavily influenced by the transient 2016 El Nino. It’s not indicative of anything long term.

            I really hate it when people toss around least squares linear regressions as holy writ. They have no clue what they are doing.

          • Bellman, sorry about the typo. That should be .06 C / decade. Here’s the data removing the noise.

            April-August 1980-81 -.06C
            April-August 1990….. .02C
            April-August 1995-96 .06C
            April-August 2001-02 .19C
            April-August 2007….. .17C
            April-August 2014….. .17C
            April-August.2018….. .20C

          • Bartemis

            I really hate it when people toss around least squares linear regressions as holy writ. They have no clue what they are doing.

            Agreed. See all the posts using arbitrary linear regressions to prove pauses , slow downs etc. But in this case I was responding initially to David Wells’ claim that there was no significant warming in the UAH data over a 38 year period.

            A linear trend is clearly not what is going on with this data. If you apply an arbitrary least squares fit to a linear model, you’re just going to get a result heavily influenced by the transient 2016 El Nino. It’s not indicative of anything long term.

            I’m not sure why it’s “clearly” not linear. Quadratic and cubic fits give similar results. The trend up to 2015 still shows a significant linear trend. Do you have a better model that doesn’t show significant warming over the last 38 years?

          • You mean that doesn’t show significant anomalous warming. Sure. I can do that.

            The past 120 years of temperature anomaly can be fit very closely with a long term linear trend plus an approximately 60 year sinusoid. We are near the latest peak of the sinusoid, and the last 38 years show the acceleration of the upswing and then deceleration to the peak leading into the “pause”. This pattern was laid in well before massive industrialization could have been the impetus.

            Now that we are past the 2016 El Nino transient event, temperatures have reverted to the pre-El Nino levels, and are likely to stay there, or gradually decrease, for the next 20-30 years.

          • Bartemis,

            You mean that doesn’t show significant anomalous warming. Sure. I can do that.

            No the claim was that there was no statistically significant warming over the last 38 years.
            Then the claim was that half the warming was caused by noise.
            Now you are saying that a proportion of the warming was caused by a sinusoid 60 year pattern.
            But none of this disproves the contention that the warming over the last 38 years has been statistically significant.

            The past 120 years of temperature anomaly can be fit very closely with a long term linear trend plus an approximately 60 year sinusoid.

            Can it? Using HadCRUT as a source, the trend over the first 60 years (1899 – 1959) was 0.8°C / century, for the next 60 years (1959 – 2019) the trend is 1.4°C / century.

            We are near the latest peak of the sinusoid, and the last 38 years show the acceleration of the upswing and then deceleration to the peak leading into the “pause”. This pattern was laid in well before massive industrialization could have been the impetus.

            How approximate are these 60 year cycles meant to be? The last peak was around 1940. With an exact 60 year cycle temperatures should have been dropping since 2000.

            Now that we are past the 2016 El Nino transient event, temperatures have reverted to the pre-El Nino levels, and are likely to stay there, or gradually decrease, for the next 20-30 years.

            We shall see, but people have been predicting imminent cooling for at least the last 20 years, and so far there is no sign of it.

          • Bellman claims … “people have been predicting imminent cooling for at least the last 20 years, and so far there is no sign of it.”

            Nonsense. By removing the noise as I did you can see there’s been no warming for the past couple of decades. That may not be cooling but it sure isn’t warming.

            During this hiatus 40% of the total human CO2 emissions occurred. Keep in mind, many skeptics do predict some degree of warming. It looks to me like they are doing far better than the catastrophists.

            If you look at the AMO cycle you will see it is still positive. So, no reason anyone should expect any cooling yet.

          • Richard M

            By removing the noise as I did you can see there’s been no warming for the past couple of decades. That may not be cooling but it sure isn’t warming.

            I should have asked before, how exactly are you deciding what is noise. Your list of non noisy months only includes about 10% of all the UAH data. If 90% of the data is noise how can you be so sure that you’ve found the correct 10%.

          • You have to define what you mean by “statistical significance”. If you mean some confidence interval based upon an inapplicable statistical model, which you do, then that’s just so much mathturbation.

            The question is whether you can rule out a natural driver, in part or in whole, for the observed warming. You cannot.

            “Using HadCRUT as a source, the trend over the first 60 years (1899 – 1959) was 0.8°C / century, for the next 60 years (1959 – 2019) the trend is 1.4°C / century… With an exact 60 year cycle temperatures should have been dropping since 2000.”

            You are triggering off a massive El Nino near the end of the latter record. It has largely dissipated, and its residual likely will continue to fade. A plot of detrended temperature anomaly since 1900 clearly shows nearly two whole periods of the cyclic phenomenon:

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/detrend:0.75

            As you can see, temperature anomaly was decreasing in relative terms after about 2005. The 2016 El Nino was an aberration to the pattern. Whether it signals a regime change, or will fade to reestablish the pre-existing pattern, remains to be seen.

          • Bartemis,

            You have to define what you mean by “statistical significance”.

            By statistical significance I mean the standard definition of statistical significance. See for example the Wikipedia article – “In statistical hypothesis testing, a result has statistical significance when it is very unlikely to have occurred given the null hypothesis.”

            In this I assume the null-hypothesis is no warming and used a 2-sigma rejection value.

            I used the Skeptical Science Trend Calculator to determine the confidence, as I don’t trust myself to correct for autocorrelation correctly.

            The question is whether you can rule out a natural driver, in part or in whole, for the observed warming. You cannot.

            No, that’s nothing to do with the question of significance. To say that UAH shows significant warming over the last 38 years mearly says that it’s highly unlikely that if there had been no warming it would show the trend it does. It says nothing about the cause of that warming, just that there probably was warming.

            You are triggering off a massive El Nino…

            Don’t blame me, I didn’t touch it.

            Seriously though, the issue that the last 60 years has seen more warming than the previous 60 years does not depend just on a single El Niño. Lets move back 5 years to avoid the El Niño.

            From 1895 to 1955 the trend was 0.78°C / century.
            From 1955 to 2015 the trend was 1.25°C / century.
            (Note by the way that the second period now starts with a strong El Niño)

            A plot of detrended temperature anomaly since 1900 clearly shows nearly two whole periods of the cyclic phenomenon

            You ask for significance testing, but then just say it “clearly” shows. But your detrended data clearly doesn’t show two equal cycles, the current warming has gone on for longer and is warmer than the previous one. This is clearer if you don’t use noisy monthly data. Here’s the same data using a ten year average.

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/detrend:0.75/mean:120

            As you can see, temperature anomaly was decreasing in relative terms after about 2005.

            I disagree. The first peak is around 1940 with an anomaly of around -0.25°C. (I think there is some debate as to how real this peak is. It certainly doesn’t look like part of sine wave. But I’ll accept it for the sake of argument.)

            60 years on, around 2000 temperatures are similar, but after 1940 there was a sharp decline with temperatures by 1960 dropping to about -0.4°C. If there was a 60 year cycle this is where we should now be. In contrast after 2000 the detrended temperatures at best leveled of for a bit, but at a level still somewhat warmer than the 1940 peak. They then started rising again and are currently over 0.1°C warmer than in 1940 and around 0.25°C warmer than they should be if you assume a 60 year cycle and your linear warming trend. You could say that the last few years were caused by the El Niño, but I see no evidence of a decline in temperatures before that. This would also require the El Niño to be exceptional, creating record breaking temperatures at a point where temperatures should have been falling.

          • “…I don’t trust myself to correct for autocorrelation correctly.”

            Don’t trust them either. They are just pulling an autocorrelation function out of a hat.

            “But your detrended data clearly doesn’t show two equal cycles…”

            They don’t have to be precisely equal. These data are from a stochastic process. It’s variable. But, both periods show roughly the same 0.8C peak-to-peak.

            “Here’s the same data using a ten year average.”

            Here they are using a 5 year average. Now, the local peak in about 2005 isn’t smoothed away.

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/detrend:0.75/mean:60

            Here’s the data with a trend + approximately 60 year sinusoid taken out (I do not recall the precise period used). The residual is quite small.

            http://oi68.tinypic.com/wasioj.jpg

            “…creating record breaking temperatures at a point where temperatures should have been falling.”

            El Nino is a recurring random event. This one just happened to be a really big one. That’s not some fantastically unlikely event. The timing is quite ordinary.

          • Bart

            Don’t trust them either. They are just pulling an autocorrelation function out of a hat.

            You still haven’t shown your workings. What analysis have you done to establish the warming in UAH is not significant.

            They don’t have to be precisely equal. These data are from a stochastic process. It’s variable.

            The interval is only approximately 60 years, the cycles have random intensities, there are only two or three cycles. How exactly do you establish that an irregular sine wave pattern is the best fit?

            But, both periods show roughly the same 0.8C peak-to-peak.

            Not sure what you mean there. Your de-trended WFT graphs don’t go above 0°C and show the second peak at around 0.07°C warmer.

            Here they are using a 5 year average. Now, the local peak in about 2005 isn’t smoothed away.

            Which just makes the two cycles look all the more different. Your peak in 2005 doesn’t seem substantially different to the two drops between 1980 and 2000. It’s only your assumption that this must be the start of a cooling phase.

            You don’t want to include the sudden rise in temperatures after that because it’s only due to an El Niño, yet the short post 2005 cooling period includes two strong La Niñas. There were also strong El Niños during the 1940s peak period.

          • The interval is 120 years. About two whole cycles are evident within it.

            It is not my purpose here to establish beyond any doubt that these are natural cycles, and the Earth’s climate evolution is entirely natural. It is sufficient merely to demonstrate that it could be.

            If one cannot dismiss other possibilities, then one cannot proceed on the assumption that one has nailed down the problem. As of this moment in time, the AGW hypothesis is still just an hypothesis.

          • But it would help your claims if you could establish there was a natural cycle.

            I’m not sure why you are only looking at data since 1900, but as it only gives you two cycles it’s difficult to distinguish a sinusoidal wave from some ups and downs. Temperatures rose a bit in the early 20th century, stayed level or declined very slightly over the next 40 years, then started rising fore the last 40 years, with no obvious sign of another slow down.
            This is more obvious if you don’t remove the warming from the graph.

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/mean:60

            I’m not saying you can rule out some cycles, but if you are going to claim that the warming of the last 40 years is only caused by natural cycles which can be as big or as small as you like to fit the data and a “natural” linear warming since the start of the 20th century, then I think you have to explain what your model is, and why it’s a better fit than a linear rise of 40 years.

            I’t would also help if you could explain what causes these natural cycles and especially why you think theres has been a warming trend since 1900.

          • “This is more obvious if you don’t remove the warming from the graph.”

            You cannot take anything before about 1910 as gospel. The measuring network is exceedingly sparse, and genuine error bars would be enormous. There is no chance whatsoever that global temperature anomaly was known to 10ths of a degree in the 19th century.

            You are also over-smoothing. In the un-smoothed chart, it is readily apparent that the rise from 1910-1940 is about the same as the rise from 1975-2005. Yet, these intervals cannot be collectively explained by the level of CO2 at the time, as the log of the CO2 ratio is very different. Appeals are made to unmeasureable aerosols as a fudge factor to explain away the discrepancy. But, this is just an effort to shove a square peg into a round hole.

            The Earth’s climate is moderated by an enormous network of heat reservoirs. Charge, dissipation, and recharge cycles are inherent, as heat moves between them. What we are seeing is likely simply a long term charging cycle, supplemented by various shorter term cycles, one of which happens to resonate at about 60 years period.

            This is the nature of complicated, nonlinear systems operating within bounded domains. The effects are not necessarily or even generally smooth functions. These are resonate networks driven by effectively random inputs. They can display regular behavior for a time, and then turn on a dime, and adopt a new regime.

            What we see in the big picture, though, is a regular pattern that was laid in well before CO2 concentration could have been the initiating impetus. If you remove that pattern, there is not much left that could be CO2 driven.

          • You are also over-smoothing

            I was using the same 5 year rolling average you used when you said the cooling since 2005 was clear. If something that is readily apparent using noisy monthly data disappears when smoothed, maybe it wasn’t as clear as you thought.

            … the rise from 1910-1940 is about the same as the rise from 1975-2005.

            Not according to linear regression –

            1910-1940 1.27°C / century
            1975-2005 1.96°C / century

            I know you’re not going to accept this as a valid way of determining the rise, but you need to show how you determine they are about the same.

            Yet, these intervals cannot be collectively explained by the level of CO2 at the time, as the log of the CO2 ratio is very different.

            You’re assuming that these intervals have to have the same cause, but as you don’t say what caused the earlier warming, we cannot tell if the factors that caused it were still in effect since the mid 70s.

            The aerosol fudge factors are to do with the slight post-1940 cooling, not the pre-1940 warming.

            This is the nature of complicated, nonlinear systems operating within bounded domains. The effects are not necessarily or even generally smooth functions. These are resonate networks driven by effectively random inputs. They can display regular behavior for a time, and then turn on a dime, and adopt a new regime.

            In other words your hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

            What we see in the big picture, though, is a regular pattern …

            What we see is a rise a slight fall and then a bigger rise. Maybe it’s caused by some random pseudo-sinusoidal wave, but I don’t see evidence that this is the only explanation. It’s difficult to determine a regular cycle with less than two complete cycles.

    • Simon January 29, 2019 at 12:26 am
      “Could he be more uninformed? Having fun? The only fun is laughing at the mans willingness to open his mouth once again while all the time showing the world he is clueless.”

      I was thinking the very same thing when Obama visited Australia and talked his deeply ignorant and bizarre guff about the Great Barrier Reef being doomed and how it needed to be ‘saved’ by politicians. The ignorance of Obama was beyond appalling and his remarks were just insulting to human intelligence.

      And it was of course just part of his delusional Catastophic-Anthrophobic-Global-Warming complex.

    • The only fun is laughing at the mans willingness to open his mouth once again while all the time showing the world he is clueless.

      Yes, but enough about you Simon, what did you think of the president’s tweet? 😉

      • Interesting… Here types a man on the interwebs, amidst all us other proles, remarking about the cluelessness of a man who:
        -outwitted the queen of corrupt
        -defied all the polls
        -played the game according to the electoral college
        -Is responsible for record employment participation amongst blacks (can’t say that for Democrats can we? Seeing as they’ve been the party responsible for all actions that have ushered in the demise of that culture)
        -Hasn’t engaged America in another war
        -So far bested China in trade dealings
        -Oversaw record arrests in the pedophile network
        -changed economic course after 8 abysmal quasi socialist years under Obama
        -Oversaw the removal of the mandate penalty for not participating in the ACA scam (which directly affects the less wealthy they most since they can’t afford to get insurance, but then are the ones who have to pay fines for not affording it….riiiight)

        Somehow, it appears that Simon doth protest too much and doesn’t pry enough into the evidence. Although I enjoyed playing the game Simon Says, when it comes to what this Simon says, I’ll make sure to do and think the opposite

        • I said he was clueless about climate change and he is. Proved that over and over again. It began with him saying it was started by the Chinese.

          Seriously though, it is no coincidence that the only president to support the skeptic side is one who has no interest in, or idea about the science. If he is fool enough to look out the window and think snow means the world is not warming, and announce it to the world, then I rest my case. A five year old does that not someone trying to convince the world he has the level of understanding a president “should” have.

          • Simon, are you being purposefully deceitful or do you not recall what you typed?

            Simon January 29, 2019 at 12:26 am
            Could he be more uninformed? Having fun? The only fun is laughing at the mans willingness to open his mouth once again while all the time showing the world he is clueless.

            Where did you specifically mention clueless about climate change?
            How has he proved himself clueless on the matter?

          • Once again, Simon makes the mistake of actually listing specifics.
            Trump never said that it started with the Chinese, just that the Chinese are taking advantage of it.

            As to being clueless, that would be you again.

          • MarkW
            “Trump never said that it started with the Chinese”

            I’ll let others decide. Here is the exact tweet….

            “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

          • Matthew Drobnic
            “Where did you specifically mention clueless about climate change?
            How has he proved himself clueless on the matter?”

            Sorry I assumed that because this article was about this quote from comrade Trump…

            “In the beautiful Midwest, windchill temperatures are reaching minus 60 degrees, the coldest ever recorded. In coming days, expected to get even colder. People can’t last outside even for minutes. What the hell is going on with Global Waming? Please come back fast, we need you!”

            …. that you would be sharp enough to realise that my comment was about the topic contained in the quote, which was global waming. I’ll know better next time.

          • Trump has many times the understanding of climate change than you have.

            He has some of the foremost atmospheric physicists advising him.

            It is YOU that have shown basically zero understanding of the reality of climate.

            All you have is CLUELESS anti-science brain-washed regurgitation.

          • Simon, really there is no need to take it to this level and insult my intelligence. It’s laughable that you see fit to attempt to match wits, but it won’t bode well for you..

            “Sorry I assumed that because this article was about this quote from comrade Trump…

            – this suggests you legitimately believe there is Trump/Russia collusion, yes? Am I correct in making this assumption?
            If that’s the case I suggest investigating the repeated lies told by just about every main stream media outlet. It’s a fools game and if you don’t know you are a player that means you are the fool.
            Uranium one. Now there’s legitimate cause concern for the Russian play.

            “…. that you would be sharp enough to realise that my comment was about the topic contained in the quote, which was global waming. I’ll know better next time.”

            You made a general statement with zero indication you specifically meant his knowledge of climate issues, zero. It was a blanket ad hominem with no substance, on a website focused primarily on climate. Everyone is remarking to some degree about climate or like myself, the politics behind it, which is why sharp people speak in explicit terms rather than leaving themselves open to be misinterpreted.

            However, this will likely drag on and in the interest of not needing the last word, I’ll throw this back to you. We’ve made our points and we disagree. The audience may be the judge

        • fred250
          Nice to hear from you. Tell me who are these “some of the foremost atmospheric physicists advising him?” Because if he has any decent ones, he’s not listening. Mind you he is famous for not listening to his advisors, which is why they leave.

    • Simon, would I be correct in presuming you believe liberals to be smarter than conservatives?

      I ask this because I keep finding these studies that claim as much, yet they don’t hold up under scrutiny. This is a similar pattern I have noticed in modern LINO’s (liberal in name only), or leftists/socialists.. Whatever you folks are considered. Your positions when pressed, nearly always fall back to ad hominem and your arguments rarely if ever hold up to scrutiny under the data. This is a hubris that needs reckoning.

      Now here is the rub. I too held the arrogant position, just like you, that man is destroying the world. I was absolutely certain. But then a funny thing happened…I kept getting exposed to logic. I was put in my place about a dozen times and finally I accepted I might be wrong, just might…

      I’ve lost track of the actual time frame but let’s call it three years of continuous research I concluded my hubris was such that it prevented me from fairly assessing the data, history, corruption, and fraud within climate science and it’s pusher, the MSM. Even up to 18 months after that I phoned a buddy in PA during a summer heat wave (I worked irrigation so I was in the sun 6 days a week, you could say my brain was getting fried) to double check on my possible error after three years. He said, “dude, you know better but just keep reading. You’ll figure it out.”

      What’s my point in this? If one is not genuinely introspective, and unwilling to question the veracity of one’s conclusions, one inevitably devolves into religiosity. It is dangerous not only to oneself but to the overall health of society.

      Think of it as a stone arch bridge, and each stone represents an individual. Now imagine you want to make the strongest, safest bridge. Would you use brittle, cracking rocks or would you find the most solid, consistent rocks you could find?
      It is much that way with individuals. We are the foundation of society, and the bridge can’t exist and work as intended if all the individuals are broken or divided.

      This it is a worthy endeavor to genuinely question yourself. Ask yourself… Could I be wrong? Take the time. Challenge yourself. See where you have inconsistencies and then determine what it takes to eliminate them.

      • I remember a study that claimed that liberals had more advanced degrees than do conservatives.
        The problem was that most of those “advanced” degrees were in things like “women’s studies”, while conservatives got the Bachelor’s in hard sciences, then got jobs.

          • That result, if true, probably is because there are more conservatives than liberals in most rural areas, and more liberals in heavily populated regions.

          • People who are dependent on liberal tax payer handouts don’t bother to go to high school…or just take up space.

          • David, with regards to modern “education” it would be prudent to investigate the transition from the classical liberal arts (or logic based education concentrated on critical thinking) to the current Prussian system founded on memorization and obedience.
            There is very damning evidence about this and it was covered in some great depth by the likes of John Taylor Gatto and Brett Veinotte, the later who compiled the following 4 part, ~10 hour series:
            https://schoolsucksproject.com/224-how-the-truth-becomes-illegal-part-1-the-spirit-of-76/
            I highly recommend it.

            I say this because modern education had devolved into schooling. Obedience to authoritary and consensus building, or groupthink training.
            Those who remain for the full 16+ years are more likely to repeat the official dogma, and therefore rewarded with accolades they deserveth not.

            They will be lauded with praise for their “intelligence” because they paid for paper that says they are trainable, and therefore considered “smart” enough to remain in the system.

            Meanwhile, my redneck family members can fix their own cars and ATVs
            Hunt for their own food
            grow their own vegetables
            grow their own dope, etc..

            I make my own spirits, wine, beer, Mead…
            I can cleanly hit a deer reliably and consistently at 500 yards… All day.
            I make my own soap and have done so out of Aspen Ash, water, deer fat from a buck I shot and pine sap… It’s anti microbial
            I can build and remodel my own cabin and home
            I can calculate, design, and install residential and light commercial irrigation
            I can fashion a makeshift shelter and make a stealth Dakota fire pit to stay warm without drawing visible attention
            I can make a solar still with trash I find throughout the city
            How much of that do you think I picked up in the formal education?
            I’m not alone in these skills

            My formal education and the lack of my relative’s formal education is no indication of practical intelligence.

            Question:
            What do you do when tragedy befalls us and the grocer is empty? When your electricity is off?

            Do you think these anti-gun collectivists stand a chance with their fancy diplomas against people like me with thousands of rounds, multiple firearms that serve multiple purposes all of which are sighted in and ready, with multiple friends who all also know how to use them and themselves have the same?

            Do you think all those book smarts are going to keep them safe from violent criminals who wish them harm and will ruthlessly charge through the docile masses? Or do you think they’ll rely on people like me to save them from their own ineptitude? I fear it is the latter.

            This discussion is all a matter of perspective, and as far as I’m concerned, the educated collectivists consistently fail to understand that book smarts don’t equal success when it really matters.

          • Well that’s a bummer my response to you regarding education and intelligence was lost to space. Maybe because I mentioned having guns and being able to protect collectivists should the world go to crap, in light of them being opposed unless it’s in the hands of authorities doing their bidding

          • Once again, David cites a source that doesn’t support his initial claim.

            Regardless, you are making the assumption that having a college degree means you are smart. You are perfect evidence to refute such a belief.

          • David Dirkse

            A poll.

            If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain. – Winston Churchill

            The intelligent liberals eventually change to Conservatism.

        • https://docsmith.co/2010/04/are-liberals-more-intelligent-than-conservatives-another-broken-study-says-it-is-so/

          I read through most of this. Didn’t surprise me.

          It’s quite simple:
          Those who are left of center, are mainly collectivists (but you can label them progressives, liberals, leftists, socialists, Communists…) Doesn’t matter, it is a secondary expression to the core idealism: collectivism. They value the group of individuals as superior to the individual, therefore the policy for which they vote and their worldview will align with subjugating the individual to the will of the masses.

          I’m not even sure if it’s really related to intelligence but rather the development of a worldview, which is often shaped early hence the trouble with modern schooling and collectivists curriculum- releasing the lie over and over.

          It could also be related to emotional maturity, which makes sense to me. My father is still very emotionally immature and I see where I get it from, which takes monumental effort for me to overcome that disadvantage.

          Groupthink provides the facade of safe spaces but without the actual social safety net, should one defect. Just look how they treat Kanye West, or Dave Rubin, or any other “marginalized” person who dare claim to move right of center after researching and employing logic. Believing in CAGW is the Catholic Church of the collectivists, and I should know I was once both:

          1. It requires blind obedience
          2. It has illogical dogma
          3. It has a priest class.
          4. It’s always begging for more money
          5. It claims to be the only true path to good
          6. It will excommunicate disbelievers
          7. It will morph standards to attract the lowest common denominator

          Funny thing is that many of the true believers are non spiritual or atheistic, yet cannot recognize their religiosity.

      • Matthew Drobnick
        “Simon, would I be correct in presuming you believe liberals to be smarter than conservatives?”

        No you wouldn’t. Unlike many here who think integrity and intellect are somehow the domain of left or right, I don’t think that way and frankly only a bigot or fool would be so narrow. There have been brilliant presidents on both sides. You have probably worked out I think Trump is not clever or possessing even a small amount of integrity. In short he is a bully and a fraud and with every day this is shown to be more true.

        ” I too held the arrogant position, just like you, that man is destroying the world. ”
        Wrong again. I think the world will be just fine.

        “This it is a worthy endeavor to genuinely question yourself. Ask yourself… Could I be wrong? Take the time. Challenge yourself. See where you have inconsistencies and then determine what it takes to eliminate them.”
        Ummm shouldn’t we all do this on a daily basis? I certainly do. that’s why I accept good people exist on both sides of the political spectrum.

        • Poor Simon,

          your deep-seated TDS has numbed your mental facilities, to the point of near zero cognitive functionality.

        • fred250
          OK Fred that is just words thrown at the page. In the interest of helping those reading your lollie scramble, what part of what I wrote do you not agree with?

          • Simon

            OK Fred that is just words thrown at the page

            Whereas calling Trump a bully is the result of great scientific study and philosophical collaborative though.

            As a Brit who fell for the ‘Trump is bad’ label I am roundly impressed at the guy. As has been said earlier, he’s started no war, indeed he’s withdrawing troops from Syria; employment is up; the stock market and Dow Jones are all positive (dramatically I understand); he’s actually attempting to fulfil his manifesto promises most of which get kicked into the long grass by most politicians minutes after they are elected; he has been harassed by various agencies like no president I can think of; the media have sought to systematically undermine him and he is faced with the likes of Pelosi (now there’s a bully); he doesn’t drink or smoke; he has a devoted family unlike some Presidents I can think of with dysfunctional offspring; I believe his business operates with a large number of women as senior execs.; his business employs thousands of people; he faced down Kim without a shot being fired (I guess that could be described as bullying though); he sacks people because that’s what good Presidents should be doing until they get the people they think can do the job. But you make no mention of Pruitt, harassed out his job by death treats to his family form the liberal community.

            I now wish Trump had been a UK Prime Ministerial candidate and won, we wouldn’t be in this intractable Brexit mess we find ourselves in now, we would be out and probably 2 years into trading freely, internationally instead of interminably treading water.

            You should consider yourself damn lucky to have the man.

        • Simon January 29, 2019 at 4:27 pm
          Matthew Drobnick
          “Simon, would I be correct in presuming you believe liberals to be smarter than conservatives?”

          [No you wouldn’t. Unlike many here who think integrity and intellect are somehow the domain of left or right, I don’t think that way and frankly only a bigot or fool would be so narrow. ]

          – I would wager very few here would assert integrity is in the domain of the left, I’m willing to say intelligence isn’t their strong suit either. Collectivism is a race to mediocrity; anyone advocating for such displays their own lack of personal power and intelligence.

          Integrity?
          -approving Abortion up to the day of birth but pushing no capital punishment for murders and rapists?
          -Chuck Shumer 5 years ago supporting the wall.
          -Clinton in the 80s- anti immigration. also anti civil union.
          -Democrats are consistently opposed to Trump mainly because he calls them out on their constant BS, not because he is a good dude.
          -Maxine calling for harrassment of conservatives.
          -Hillary calling half the population deplorables.
          -OBama – you can keep your insurance and the famous “you didn’t build that”
          -tech firms censoring conservative speech
          -Democrats now calling for war when they have been supposedly the party claiming to be against it
          -constantly pushing for wealth redistribution schemes to steal from makers and give to takers? how is that working out in the ghettos?
          – how about the way Democrats claim to be for minorities but lambaste them the moment they actually express a diverse opinion?

          You want to discuss integrity with me? Save it. There can be no such thing as integrity with a moral relativist.

          [ I too held the arrogant position, just like you, that man is destroying the world. ”
          Wrong again. I think the world will be just fine.]

          -then why do you frequent this site in support of the official dogma if you think everything is fine? Your posts seem to only support the official narrative. You are being intellectually dishonest and I’m calling you out for it. If you thought everything was fine then why even concern yourself with the topic, and then on top of it, seek out one of the few sites that actively pushes against the fraud by propping up the official narrative? It doesn’t follow logically.

          P.S. – Hotscot took care of your other responses below so I won’t bother

          • “-approving Abortion up to the day of birth but pushing no capital punishment for murders and rapists?”

            Better that allowing abortion at any time in a pregnancy without penalty, yet also having laws that allow for 2 murders to be charged when a pregnant woman is murdered or killed.

    • OK. We need to deny people affordable and reliable energy to avoid dangerous global warming. We also need to deny people the ability to heat their homes and buy food when it gets really cold. So, the magic gas can cause both extreme heat and extreme cold. We don;t know whether on balance it will get colder or warmer. In the mean time, excess winter deaths will continue to rise.

      • To be fair, I would argue those who agree with Simon are uninformed with regards to reality. They are certainly well versed in propaganda.

        I wouldn’t, however, just dismiss them as Shills unlike some other folks hanging around these dates

    • Simon,
      Are you denying that the earth has not experienced at least four significant Ice Ages??? Obviously the Climate Changed, right?

  2. He’s the only one who dares to call it Global Warming still. Over here, in Norway and Scandinavia, we have also got our share of cold and heavy snow. The ones who love going on skis, are saying that it’s enough now….
    In Lofoten islands, they got so much snow (1,5 – 2 m), that there is need for evacuation of people to safer places. There are places where the roads are closed due to avalanches, and the only way out is by boat and helicopter.

  3. Oh but if you laugh at a Trump joke you must be one of his supporters. Oh, but if you make a joke about CAGW, you must be a denier. Some folk have their heads much to far up their own fundaments!

  4. Now we all know that Global warming causes more evaporation. That water vapour then turns to snow, so yes they are right, it all starts with more warmth. sarc.

    MJE

  5. Weather and climate news provided by the best informed man on the planet.

    Alarmists heads exploding even as we speak.

    Including Simon (above).

    HeHeHeHe……………

    • +8C

      One of the stupid numbers they blahblah about when trying to scare people into complying with their nonsense! The church of Climate Change……what a ridiculous bunch of shysters!

      • Phil Rae

        I’m thinking of changing sides. They’re all getting rich, I’m not.

        No money is this sceptic game. 🙂

        • Steady on!
          Robert Burns :
          …..
          I’ll mak this declaration;
          We’re bought and sold for English gold-
          Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

        • You should ask the oil companies to send you bigger checks (You are a skeptic so you must be in the pay of big oil, right? that’s what the alarmists keep telling me.)

        • Sure there is money for sceptics. Oil stock prices are low because of this nonsense, but they keep making lots of money because it is nonsense. Oil and NG sales continue to be strong with no end in sight. As a result, they pay very good dividend returns.
          I own some COP, PSX, and BP. Thinking about getting XOM.

  6. Proving yet again that alarmists and eco-loons are humourless stooges who revel in human misery and hate the progress of the last two centuries.
    Good for Trump, laughing at these liars and fools hurts them more than the deflation of the utter claptrap of their falsified claims.
    Here in “children won’t know what what snow is” UK we have snow warnings for the next couple of days.

    • God I hope it’s enough to build a snowman with my 3 year old granddaughter, it might be our last chance. And when we experience problems on our roads let’s remember how the rest of Europe never has any problems with heavy snow, right?

    • Had a good laugh yesterday on a visit to Blackwells bookshop in Oxford, they had about 20 (i.e. unsold) copies of a book by Wadhams, with a title something like “farewell to ice”.

      Less amusing was the evidence of a tipping point in science, the climatology section has books about climate change and indigenous communities, and similar emotional tripe.

      • My wife, who despairs at my scepticism in these matters, bought me a copy in an attempt to , well I’m not quite sure what.
        I have tried to read it and so far failed. It just reeked of the ‘sky is falling’.
        (I’ve instead been reading Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago. )
        I know of one UK -based physical geographer/glaciology prof who criticised Wadham’s book for being too alarmist.
        Of course, the predictions made in it turned out to be way off beam.
        I’ll try again out of a sense of duty, but no promises.

        She doesn’t like the fact that I oppose the mainstream assumptions, so we have a pact.
        I won’t raise the subject, but if someone does, I’m allowed to respond.

        • This excerpt from Gulag Archipelago goes out to British readers who are left with axes, hemmers, and pokers to fend off the ultimate goal of the warmists:

          “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

  7. Bit of a panic here in France, we’re expecting quite a lot of Globsl Warming, aka neige, here over night. Film of gritters being loaded with salt on TV news.

    • Same in Belgium. Plenty of snow in the Ardennes.

      Strangely enough, there is a big “Marche pour le Climat” in Brussels at the moment. I fervently hope it gets cancelled for snow.

      • Please, Please, Please tell me Big Al is one of the speakers booked it would be just such fun hearing him going on about out of control Gorebal warming as the snow falls!

        James Bull

        PS actually hearing his voice does rather induce the wretch reflex in me.

      • Meanwhile, on the RTL website Belgium’s stuffed-shirt Prime Minister Charles Michel proclaims that the Climate is “the Battle of the Century”. Right next to the article, warnings of chaos from the snow.

  8. Just imagine if there was a sudden and rapid move to an ice age – and this week’s polar vortex cold is just a sample of whats to come every fall -winter-spring. So cold that the snow doesnt melt through summer. There would be an almost instant global economic collapse, let alone the injury to millions. USA Today estimate 55 million people in the USA face dangerously cold conditions over the next few days.

    Instead, we are only supposed to worry about the possibility of average temperatures maybe moving up 1 degree over the next 100-500 years – maybe, although it cant be separated from natural climate variation.

    • Typically more like 1C in 50 years, depending of course on two unknowns: sensitivity and atmospheric portion. The latter depends on uncertainties like emission and sink development. We don’t have a ±50% consensus on the result, but we have had lots of ppl declaring the end is coming in a few years. Not cool.

      Who’d bother this? I see very little damage compared to the obvious good sides. Note we got already about a degree since the LIA, and it was all good.

      I”d like to underline that I spent today about 45 min shovelling global warming (-4°C / about 25 cm) that landed here, pushing it away with a 100cm x 60cm bladed anti-climate-change device. After that, I put a fire in the fireplace to reach more local warming as the background trend of 0.018C/a is not quite keeping the family in the normal body temperature. Thank God for polyurethane that the house keeps warm.

      Trump, you could lend some good old Global Wahming here as well.

  9. Weather events predicted not to occur and records predicted impossible to achieve, certainly do disprove global warming because the weather events are called data, and they are not just any data, but outliers that invalidate the predictions. Winters are supposed to be warmer and shorter with less snow acreage and amount, and so when no such trend occurs over time after the prediction is made, invalidates not only the prediction, but the science underpinning it. In addition to that climate is a pronoun that modifies weather. Weather is the noun. So when I say “red car” I am not talking about two things, just one, in the same way. Weather is an event in the atmosphere as measured by a particular instrument or observation, and climate is the probability of that weather event occurring. So there is only weather.

    • For Donald Kasper: Errors in English usage render your post incomprehensible in spots. “In addition to that climate is a pronoun that modifies weather.” Pronouns don’t modify anything (except possessive pronouns like “your car” in which “your” does modify “car”). “Climate” is a noun, modifying nothing, except when used as an adjective, as in “climate science,” which nowadays seems a contradiction in terms. “In addition to that” needs to be set off from the rest of the sentence by a comma, lest the reader think “that climate” is an adjective-noun expression, to be distinguished from “this climate” or “the other climate.” Despite all my effort with your sentence, I still have no idea what you mean. Proofread!

      • John M Ware January 29, 2019 at 3:54 am

        Everything you wrote is technically correct, grammatically. Nevertheless, if you actually have no idea what DK meant, you should consider feeding his sentences into an internet search engine. They all come back with “Did you mean…” when a query isn’t quite correct. They are almost human that way. You could benefit from help of that kind.

  10. .
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
    ❶①❶①
    ❶①❶① . . . A climate fairy tale – (but it might be true) . . .
    ❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
    .

    Once upon a time, a long long time ago, in a distant galaxy, there lived 2 twins. There were originally 3 twins, but the 3rd twin was a contradiction in terms, and had to be “put down”. The twins’ names were Sheldon Sky-Walker, and Leia Sky-Walker. Leia was often referred to by her nickname, “Princess”.

    [ please insert a $1 coin to continue reading … ]

    Sheldon sighed. “I wish that I knew what snow was”, said Sheldon. [ Ironically, when Sheldon was older, and he was trapped on Hoth the ice planet, he would wish that he DIDN’T know what snow was. ]

    A smile suddenly appeared on Sheldon’s face. “I know what to do”, he said. “I am going to use the dark side of the force, to prove that there was a recent slowdown.

    “No, Sheldon”, cried Leia, “don’t do it. It is too dangerous. What if the Empire finds out?”

    Sheldon’s smile disappeared, but a look of determination took its place. “I don’t care if the IPCC does find out. Dad (Darth) will protect me. I know that there is still some good, deep down inside him.”

    [ please insert another $1 coin to continue reading … ]

    https://agree-to-disagree.com/a-climate-fairy-tale

    • “… I know that you have a lot of questions about this graph. Is it reliable? Can it be trusted? Which temperature series is it based on? Who designed the colour scheme? Which horse will win the Melbourne cup? Did “Steven Mosher” really get “put down”? …”

      lol … good read … tah

  11. Hey, you folk in the US are getting the warm end of this global warming deep freeze! I see the devoted are in an ugly mood – as they should be! Pushing back on unbidden (forbidden?) logical thoughts can be bad for your health (viz, The “Climate Blues” that ended a number of CAGW science careers, brought on by the “Dreaded Pause”). BTW, NOAA’s developing el Nino seems to be toast. It’s dropping down steeply.

  12. You can warm all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can’t warm all of the people all of the time.

    Well, in models you can…

  13. Just to let our American friends know, we are expecting some of that white Global Warming to accumulate here in the UK over the next few days.
    We used to call it winter, but now we know better. It’s really just cold warming…
    Wrap up warm if you live in the central states bordering Canada. From what we are told it will be a difficult week over there.

    • Indeed Rod, snow is a thing of the past in the UK, so that white stuff is obviously not snow, therefore it must be cold warming 😉

    • Hey Rod: is just a bit chilly here in southern Manitoba this morning. Windchill is -50F. Had to put on my long pants to go out “moosin” this morning.

      • Its a good job you Canadians know how to survive chilly weather. Is there any ice on that ice free Hudson Bay? I seem to recall some political guy who came second, tell us there won’t be any ice in the Arctic by now. Maybe Hudson Bay doesn’t count in his prediction, it’s too far south so ice can form there without breaking the ice free Arctic rule…

    • Hi Rod, when I was in London 1965(?) I read that an instant mashed potato plant at Folkestone had blown up in the night and everyone woke up to a carpeting of mashed potatoes on the streets and roof tops. Apparently you make this stuff by atomizing potatoes and spraying the slurry into the top of a tall gas heated tower cylinder where it cooks, dries and settles as flakes at the bottom. You have to get up close before you can tell it isnt snow!

  14. Brilliant – in a few presidential words, Trump captures the arrogance of those who point to individual weather events and say we are all doomed. But the plant food haters will screech with rage about this tweet and continue their good works in trying to fix the global temperature at 59F. Of course miracles only happen in the Bible but it will not stop them trying to destroy the world as we know it and cause millions to die of starvation and disease.

    But they are good people and you are not.

  15. President Trump clearly does not understand sophisticated logic behind the global warming that says: cooler means warmer.

  16. Ah, the smell of hot de-icing fluid in the early dark morning, tell ya, snow sure is a think of the past…

      • It usually slides off the rather smooth airframe, it is the lift surface icing that always scare me. No lift means you’re riding a very fast automobile that is too wide for the road.

        • It’s much worse OweninGA.

          Optimized for minimal fuel consumption airframes are notoriously intolerant to even moderate icing. A few millimeters of clear ice can take down a modern aircraft.

          Stringent fuel saving pressure takes a toll on extra quantities and hinders the freedom of weather avoidance.

          The risk increases every day as pressured crews try to punch thru systems that should be avoided.

          Some go as far lull the unconditional instinctive cumulonimbus fear.

          We sure could use global warming as a naturally supplied safety factor. Alas not happening.

          The slightest low frequency buffet, smallest wing drop, winter ops are a now a permanent nerve wrecking exercice.

      • Want a confidence Joe ? Icing scares the s**t out of everybody with a serviceable brain.

        At ungodly early morning hours we had Type I de-icing, Type IV anti-icing and inspection. And even then, well with the 15 minutes hold-on, no one cracked a joke.

        That’s how global “snow is a thing of the past” is on the continent.

  17. Per Australian Robert Holmes’ Ideal Molar Mass equation (qv), T = PM/Rp definitively refutes “carbon” as a “greenhouse-gas” temperature determinant throughout our solar system (peer-reviewed paper pub. December 2017).

    By 14,400 years-before-present, YBP (BC 12,400), disappearing continental glaciations ended the Wȕrmian Ice Age to begin Earth’s median 12,250-year Holocene Interglacial Epoch. On this basis, skewed 1,500 years by the cometary-meteorite Younger Dryas “cold shock” from BC 10,950 – 9,450, the Holocene ended 12,250 + 3,500 – 14,400 = AD 1350, coincident with Kamchatcha’s strato-volcano Kambalny Eruption which precipitated a 500-year Little Ice Age (LIA) through AD 1850/1890.

    Now entering a 70+ year Grand Solar Minimum similar to that of 1645 – 1715, after a 140-year LIA “amplitude compression” rebound through c. AD 2030 Earth faces a cyclically recurring 102-kiloyear Pleistocene Ice Age due to cover 80% of habitable landmasses with 2.5 mile deep glaciations for some 102,000 years.

    Deviant AGW Catastrophists have a lot to answer for.

  18. Oh, look; Brer Trump has put out another Climate tarbaby for the cluelesss Warmunists to pummel. Fun.

  19. I know that a single weather event is not the climate, but I have observed one thing: the number of references to climate change by the media is directly proportional to the difference between the temperature on that day and the average temperature for that day.

  20. we’ve had quite a few “record cold” events in the upper midwest these past couple years. most recent one was called “october”

  21. I went drove to visit my grandfather in Manitowoc, WI around xmas of 1983. The carburetor on my Dodge Power Wagon froze up several times on the way from Ft Riley, KS. Mostly around Chicago due to the wet snow from ice melt on the roads.

    There was 3 feet of snow on the ground when I got there. I was told the wind chill was around 80 below, but I guess that wasn’t official. I had to buy a block heater to keep my truck’s engine block from freezing and cracking. The truck wouldn’t fit in my granddad’s old garage, truck was too high. So I could only get the front end up to the windshield in there. It was just enough to help the block heater.

    So, in other words, been there, done that.

  22. ” the coldest ever recorded”

    – but it was still 33C warmer than it would’ve been without Earth’s mystical ‘greenhouse gases’?

    • Thomas

      To cite their misconception more closely, we could say that it is 33C warmer than it would have been without any atmosphere at all. They make that comparison, not between an atmosphere without GHG’s and one with. Strange as it seems (not to mention in-apropos), to them it is all or nothing.

      The con is to get you to think that having no GHG’s is the same as having no atmosphere. They are literally that wrong.

  23. This site at the top of the page.
    Click on “Reference Pages” then “ENSO”.
    The chart shows that last year’s attempt at another El Nino was successful into December.
    Then the temp of that “El Nino” part of the Pacific has been plunging.
    Also into December the DMI chart of the temp North of 90 was rising.
    Then it dropped to the mean.
    That DMI chart can move up and down during the winter as a “Polar Vortex” comes down and “warmer”, but still winter air comes up from elsewhere.
    And the average temp goes from, say, -40 to -30.
    If one looks at the chart in the 1960s the volatility was there, but sometimes below the mean.
    I wonder if this is returning?
    The Danish Met Institute reported late in last year, that the two recent melt seasons lost less ice than hitherto.
    I wonder if this is a developing trend change?

  24. I told you.
    Click on my name to read
    that dryer summers and cooler winters are ahead….
    mkae sure you know exactly about what is about to come././.
    Most recently I heard somewhere on your blog [something abt Thomas Jefferson] of a 1755 drought in the USA which is ca. 90 years ahead of the 1845 drought…

    no alarm?

  25. How about continuous replays of the John Holdren explanation of polar vortex caused by global warming and the mild disclaimer after the fact by the Obama WH.

  26. Honestly, Trump’s presidency was worth it just for him offending people who LIVE to offend others, but sure as hell can’t take it.

    And Lord have they been needing it.

  27. ABC News had a report tonight on the Evening News about NOAA posting a graphic supposdely refuting Trump’s making fun of Global Warming by noting how cold it was in a tweet.

    The graphic showed what looked like a big teapot hovering over the atlantic ocean with water vapor coming out the spout that was situated over the northeast U.S. It was implying that Global Warming was causing more water vapor to evaporate from the ocean which then caused increased snowfall in the northeast U.S. I think they said the spokesperson at NOAA said the NOAA graphic was not meant to be a rebutal of Trump’s tweet. But that didn’t stop ABC News from saying it was.

    The ABC commentator gave the impression that “Trump’s own NOAA” was refuting Trump’s tweet, implying that Trump is so off-base that even his own government experts are refuting Trump.

    The Leftwing News Media also tried to make the same kind of case today on Trump and national security matters, making it appear that Trump is completely out of touch with his own cabinet.

    The propaganda and misinformation never ends from the Leftwing News Media.

    Just remember that before you go get all worked up about what the Leftwing News Media is reporting about Trump, you need to let the story age for a day or two, and eventually, the real truth of the matter will come out. Don’t take anything the Leftwing News Media says at face value. They have an agenda and it doesn’t include reporting the truth.

Comments are closed.