‘Cooling Is Warming’: Climate Hoaxters Panic As US Freezes, Media Provides Cover

From the “War is Peace” department…
WRITTEN BY JOHN NOLTE
America enjoys a winter filled with tons of snow and frigid cold weather and out pops the Climate Hoaxsters to assure this kind of weather only further proves our planet is getting, um… warmer.

This current Climate Hoaxster freak-out is largely in reaction to President Trump’s tweet earlier this week mocking the Climate Hoaxsters.

“In the beautiful Midwest, windchill temperatures are reaching minus 60 degrees, the coldest ever recorded,” he tweeted. “What the hell is going on with Global Waming? [Sic] Please come back fast, we need you!”

Naturally, this launched a million reactionary headlines from our oh-so objective, unbiased, not-at-all left-wing media.

“Look at This Embarrassing F*cking Moron,” screamed Esquire.

“Debunking the utter idiocy of Donald Trump’s global warming tweet,” pouted CNN.

“Here’s Why the Crazy Cold Temperatures Prove Global Warming is Real,” Forbes says reassuringly.

“What Trump keeps getting wrong about Global Warming,” the Washington Post helpfully reports.

But here is my personal favorite headline from, where else?, NBC News…. “Yes, it can be this cold outside in a time of global warming.”

There are three Party slogans in George Orwell’s 1984, his masterpiece about an all-controlling centralized government that runs on lies, terror, and propaganda. See if you can pick out which Party slogan I invented among the four:

  • War is Peace
  • Freedom is Slavery
  • Ignorance is Strength
  • Frigid Weather Means Our Planet is Getting Warmer

The Climate Hoaxsters say that this run of cold weather does not mean the planet will not warm over the course of years, which would sound reasonable if these were not the same Climate Hoaxters who told us Global Warming meant the “end of snow,” or that this winter would be “warmer-than-average,” or that a run of warm weather last winter proved the planet is warming.

That last example is interesting, no?

You see, last year our Climate Hucksters told us a run of warm weather proved the planet is warming, which means we all have to give up our freedoms to a centralized government in order to save the planet.

BUT… a run of frigid weather this year also proves the planet is warming and we all have to give up our freedoms to a centralized government in order to save the planet.

So no matter what happens, no matter how cold or warm or temperate it is, everything proves Global Warming is fer real.

Hey, remember when the Climate Grifters told us Global Warming would make hurricanes worse?

Remember how, when that scientific prediction was humiliated in the face of record low hurricane activity, these same Climate Grifters told us this lack of hurricane activity proved Global Warming was really fer real?

Remember in 2005 when the establishment media told us that by 2015 Global Warming would drive gas up to $9 a gallon (it’s $2.08 here today), milk up to $12 a gallon ($2.99), and New York City would be underwater?

Remember how during that crucial time between 2005 and 2015, that decade before the imminent flooding of Manhattan, the establishment media did not remove any of its personnel from a New York City that was about to be drowned?

In fact, while CNN was telling us the seas were certain to rise, CNN shifted much of its base of operations from the inland safety of Atlanta to Manhattan; while CNN’s then-parent company, Time Warner, spent billions relocating its headquarters just two blocks from the water’s edge in New York.

And, soon enough, I’ll be asking if you remember how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — a sitting member of Congress — went on TV and said the world would end in 12 years because of Global Warming.

You see, no matter what happens, no matter what the weather looks like, no matter how false their predictions turn out to be, no matter often they act as though they don’t believe in Global Warming, the Climate Swindlers still scream See! See! Toldjaso! — and almost always do it from a wildly expensive base of operations on the same coast they claim will soon be underwater.

Any student of history can look back and discover that all of history’s mass-murdering socialists — from Hitler to Stalin to Mao — have manufactured audacious lies and scapegoats as a means to consolidate power into a malevolent Central Authority.

  • Freedom is Slavery.
  • War is Peace.
  • Ignorance is Strength.
  • Cooling is Warming.

Read more at Breitbart

0 0 votes
Article Rating
168 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
M__ S__
February 3, 2019 9:15 pm

Another, similar lie:

“Arbeit Macht Frei”

Flight Level
Reply to  M__ S__
February 4, 2019 12:22 am

Sadly, spot on !

Coined by those who incorporated “ecology” in their political baseline separation between the right to live and the privilege to exist.

Bill
Reply to  Flight Level
February 4, 2019 2:01 am

NBC is the absolute worst. That network has been rotting for at least two decades now or about the same time Will and Grace premiered. They ought to get back to humor.

Tweak
Reply to  Bill
February 4, 2019 10:07 am

They ARE humor. They just don’t know it.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Bill
February 4, 2019 4:03 pm

They are satire.

Jim
Reply to  Gary Ashe
February 5, 2019 3:42 am

We have seen a lot of controversial claims on global warming, but here is rock solid proof or global warming, indisputable proof.
British chips shrink by an inch as climate change slashes potato yields
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/chips-potatoes-shrink-climate-change-global-warming-fruit-vegetables-heatwaves-a8762506.html

POTATO CHIPS ARE SMALLER! We need to act now, smaller potato chips could mean the end to humanity. Seas rising, drought, pestilence, who cares? But smaller potato chips, central governments please save us all.
That kind of satire?

Sara
Reply to  M__ S__
February 4, 2019 3:54 am

If you tell yourself a lie often enough and long enough, you will believe your own lie.

old white guy
Reply to  Sara
February 4, 2019 4:54 am

I think they should be staked out naked in MN and see if they change their tiny minds.

ATheoK
Reply to  old white guy
February 4, 2019 3:31 pm

Nighttime polar bear swimming in Lake Superior or Lake Michigan should be sufficient.
At least a couple of hours dipping, swimming and no hot tubs.

Ask them about all of the hidden heat they feel from CO₂.

Sara
Reply to  Sara
February 4, 2019 5:56 am

I’d agree, except that they can’t change something they don’t have, OWG. Frankly, I think lemmings are considerably more intelligent than that bunch of shnooks.

william matlack
Reply to  Sara
February 4, 2019 7:55 am

Al Gore the chief loud mouth always screaming about sea level rise bought his new place in Sanfrancisco Bay. Odd for a guy that claims sea level rise will drown us all.

Sam Capricci
Reply to  Sara
February 4, 2019 8:07 am

Agree, I’m pretty sure O.J. is back on the case looking for Nicole’s and Ron’s murderers.

Reply to  M__ S__
February 4, 2019 10:05 am

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/31/elizabeth-warren-uses-coldest-polar-vortex-in-decades-to-call-for-green-new-deal-to-fight-global-warming/#comment-2611774

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation wrote this gem:
“The fact is, it’s climate change, or global warming, that’s behind this extreme cold.”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-polar-vortex-1.4998820

NOAA is saying something similar. Yes, really! I did not believe it either until I read it – twice.

This is what happens when certain types of people get their predictions all wrong – they make up more nonsense to say they really were correct – but note that none of them actually came up with this excuse BEFORE the unexpected event happened – it always surfaces afterwards, as a rationalization of their failed prediction, like “This cold is really hot!”.

Maybe I can use this tactic if my 2002 prediction of “natural global cooling starting by 2020-2030” fails to materialize – this is quite new to me so I have to practice – if global warming resumes and even if it accelerates in the 2020’s, how about this trick: “You see, I was right all along! This warming is really cooling!”

[I suppose I must say “sarc/off] 🙂

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
February 4, 2019 10:06 am

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/31/elizabeth-warren-uses-coldest-polar-vortex-in-decades-to-call-for-green-new-deal-to-fight-global-warming/#comment-2611758

I (we) predicted natural global cooling would recommence by 2020-2030 in a Calgary Herald article published 1Sept2002. I stand by this prediction. One of my cynical friends said: “Allan, even if you are correct, the global warming extremists will just say that cooling is a sign of warming!” I looked at him with scorn and replied “C’mon, NOBODY IS THAT STUPID!”

Apparently, I was wrong. 🙂

Mike Roberts
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
February 4, 2019 2:15 pm

It’s incredible that you think a changing climate could not be behind odd freak weather events. However, even during the extreme cold event in one part of the world, there have been far more heat records than cold records. But I guess contrarians will see any cold records at all as evidence of no warming.

Parma John
Reply to  Mike Roberts
February 5, 2019 4:23 am

You seem to have missed the point altogether. Most thinking people would look outside, feel the cold and throw a log in the fire. That’s all.

It’s the bed wetter side that has an all out panic attack twisting itself out of shape to use uncomfortable weather—any weather—as “proof” of catastrophe just over the horizon.

Of course, Trump trolling them is always a fun spectacle, too. I suppose they can’t help themselves.

beng135
Reply to  Mike Roberts
February 5, 2019 9:42 am

But I guess contrarians will see any cold records at all as evidence of no warming.

No, rational people just don’t think driving their cars is causing the world’s climate to change. They think the climate is always changing by looking at the history. Trying to appease the climate gods by throwing people to their death on the pyramid steps or blaming it on driving cars is barbarism.

jtom
Reply to  Mike Roberts
February 5, 2019 10:37 am

No one says a changing climate could not be behind odd freak weather event, but what freak event are you referring to? A polar vortex was first described in 1853, and there have been many, since. What evidence do you have that a recent climate change is responsible for this latest one? I have seen no weather event that has not happened previously, and data say the frequency of extreme weather is not increasing. Perhaps the problem is your mistaken belief that something ‘freaky’ is happening.

If you knew anything about weather history, you would realize that we are experiencing nothing new, just repeats of past cycles. ‘Weather’ did not start in the 1970s.

Matt
Reply to  Mike Roberts
February 7, 2019 4:36 am

Mike, please explain to us how the planet was warmer in periods before the Industrial Revolution.
Then, please, do yourself a favor and turn off the establishment Mockingbird media, find some intelligent folks to read up on who actually know climate science and aren’t being paid to lie, and try forming some independent thoughts instead of regurgitating what your authorities have told you. Absolutely NOTHING you said can be backed with facts. It’s embarrassing.

Don Penim
February 3, 2019 9:16 pm

The media have also been telling us that because of the “lack of snow”, ski seasons are getting shorter and the ski industry is dying. This is despite RECORD long ski seasons and snow depths.

https://twitter.com/JunkScience/status/1092090654866460673?s=20

Rob
Reply to  Don Penim
February 3, 2019 9:43 pm

In this area around Edmonton AB the winters are definitely getting longer. This past year was away out of the normal with the snow coming in September. Just to the west of us in the mountains they’ve had all kinds of snow, and been skiing since last fall some time. All that cold air they had in the east last week has now pushed it way west and we’re now in the deep freeze as well. The global warming crap is all propaganda.

Russell Klier
February 3, 2019 9:18 pm

Global warming caused a disastrous cold snap… It’s called “Having your cake and eating it too”….. If it’s a dry spell, that’s evidence of Climate Change, a wet spell…Climate Change……Big hurricane…Climate Change…Period of few hurricanes…Climate Change… Big tornado outbreak… Climate Change ..Dearth of Tornados… You get the picture……
Big oil, and that other public savior Big Coal, kept tens of millions of Americans from freezing to death over the past two weeks…. and this was just a good old fashioned cold snap with a scary new name. Crank up the furnace and give me some Global Warming.

Tom Halla
February 3, 2019 9:20 pm

Eric Blair had fanatics pegged. It is interesting that the other British writer who’s writing applies, Charles Dodgson, also had reasons to write with a pseudonym.

Taphonomic
Reply to  Tom Halla
February 4, 2019 9:17 am

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

MattS
February 3, 2019 9:59 pm

Not to mention “Velocity equals temperature”, Sherwood’s paper, ‘If we measure wind speed instead of temperature, we can say the troposphere is warming’.

And it got published. n Dear oh god, the sorry state of science. It doesnt even object when the wrong SI units are used.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  MattS
February 4, 2019 1:52 am
Alan D. McIntire
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
February 4, 2019 5:31 am

I appreciated the terms “pseudo work” and “real work” Considering the effects of the recent PARTIAL government shutdown, I suspect MANY, if not MOST, government employees are performing “pseudo work”

Tweak
Reply to  Alan D. McIntire
February 4, 2019 10:10 am

If they kept taking money out of your check, the government did not shut down.

Chris Hanley
February 3, 2019 10:13 pm

Climate-wise, neither a run of extra warm weather nor a run of extra cold weather mean anything.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Chris Hanley
February 3, 2019 10:25 pm

The problem is the Alarmists want to destroy reliable, affordable electricity and replace it with renewable unreliable, expensive electricity.
So Tom Steyer, the Rockefellers, and all the Green hedge funds that went long on wind and solar could profit from the re-orientation of electrical production.
Then when the cold weather hits as it always has and will, people really will die due to “man-made” climate change taking away affordable, reliable energy.

TeaPartyGeezer
February 3, 2019 10:16 pm

John Nolte hits it out of the park. Again.
Love his writing.

Paul
Reply to  TeaPartyGeezer
February 4, 2019 9:12 am

agreed. I read everything of Nolte’s that I come across.
very very few writers cause me to do that

Joel O’Bryan
February 3, 2019 10:17 pm

The Pacific Northwest down to California and into the inter-mountain west US is about to get its turn of “cold is the new hot” treatment come Thursday this next week.
The US east will thaw out this next week, then they’ll get vortexed in 2nd half of February.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
February 4, 2019 12:16 am

Sunday Feb 4, snow all over Puget Sound – Seattle area.
Not a lot but in the lowlands.
Snow in the Mountain Passes.
Cold east of the Cascades. Ouch!

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
February 4, 2019 6:27 am

Yep, we got a lot of big wet flakes yesterday out on Whidbey Island, but it wasn’t sticking much. Until the temp dropped closer to freezing in the afternoon and the flakes got smaller.

This morning it’s 19F here just outside of Oak Harbor at about 220′ elevation. About 2 inches on the ground, but ice underneath. So it’s unusually cold here this morning. It’s pretty rare that we get even in the 20s for any length of time.

alexei
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
February 4, 2019 9:23 am

6 inches at least here in Seattle this morning, snow still falling, with icicles hanging from the eaves and steep hills already full of kids with their sledges. Below zero forecasts for at least the next week.

John Robertson
February 3, 2019 10:19 pm

Catastrophic Doom via climate or Climate Catastrophe is a wonderful intelligence test.
Those who demonstrate their greed or gullibility are telling us all how unfit for command they be.
Just as the conmen argued in The Emperor’s New Clothes, if you cannot see the wonderful colours,feel the fabulous weave..Why you are unfit to command.
Gang Green are a joyless,mindless bloc.
I think they took Monty Python as a training manual.

However these maniacs have always been amongst us,they give society colour.
That old tune “Oh Susanna” Covers the Climate Catastrophe Cult pretty well.

And what the success of this hysteria shows us about “People educated beyond their intelligence”
is alarming.
The passion and emoting is amazing,the resistance toward using the scientific method and rational thought is frightening.

Hopefully we will survive to laugh at this period of human history..

Just reread “Fallen Angels ” by Niven,Pournelle&Flynn..I forgot how well they nailed the true nature of Gang Green.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  John Robertson
February 4, 2019 2:01 am
February 3, 2019 10:23 pm

.
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
❶①❶①
❶①❶① . . . Who are the real Deniers? . . .
❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
.

Consider the contributions that the following 3 people have made, to our understanding of global warming.
.

1) Sou from HotWhopper
======================

Sou does a lot of bitching and moaning.

And she waves her arms around a lot.

And she insults people like me, by calling me a Denier.
.

2) Tamino from Open(?) Mind
===========================

Tamino considers himself an “expert”.

Tamino does “biased” statistical analyses. If you only look for warming, then you are likely to find it.

Tamino deletes any post that I make on his website. He never replies.

Tamino tried to prove that a graph that I developed (called a “Global Warming Contour Map”), was “defective”.

I have over 35 years of experience in the computer industry. And my job is to test computer systems, and computer programs. My job title is “software tester”.

I can tell you, that Tamino botched the test of my graph. His work was incompetent.

I was so annoyed at what he did, that I wrote an article about it.

Tamino calls me a Denier.
.

3) Sheldon Walker from agree-to-disagree.com
============================================

To read the rest of this article, click the following link:
https://agree-to-disagree.com/who-are-the-real-deniers

steve case
Reply to  Sheldon Walker
February 3, 2019 11:40 pm

Sheldon Walker… Tamino deletes any post that I make on his website. He never replies.

Same here. He didn’t like my graph
http://oi67.tinypic.com/2mdpchd.jpg
and devoted a page to it
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/09/20/misleading-trends-sea-level-version/
and when I posted my rebuttal, it disappeared and any post I tried after that failed to upload. I assume I am banned.

He’s not a very nice fellow.

Huge
Reply to  steve case
February 4, 2019 2:33 am

There’s nothing wrong with the Tamino’s example as such.

The problem is in the hidden background assumptions. Tamino assumed 2nd degree polynomial. You did not. Neither assumption is so well grounded.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  steve case
February 4, 2019 8:18 am

Tamino and Unrealclimate are a waste of time. They both delete your posts. The hilarious part is how many people quote them as references then tell you WUWT is conspiracy.

Ubique
February 3, 2019 10:52 pm

One for the true believers:

What evidence would convince you that the theory of AGW is incorrect? Or, what evidence would give you cause for doubt the AGW theory?

These two questions always stump them, for they can think of no physical circumstances whatsover which might give cause to question their belief.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Ubique
February 3, 2019 11:01 pm

You would have exactly the same reaction if you asked a religious person what would convince them God did not actually exist. The question for any believer, anyone with blind faith is beyond their ability to even consider it. As for providing an answer that is impossible because it would imply there was a rational dimension to the concept when clearly, there isn’t.
AGW is the modern day new religion. At least we have moved beyond throwing virgins down volcanoes now we just throw wealth and future prosperity down the drain….a similar pointless gesture to the purest Green advocates/movement.

Ken Irwin
Reply to  Rod Evans
February 3, 2019 11:41 pm

Karl Poppers’s falsifiability question always stumps believers (any “believer” – global warming, sky fairies, GM foods etc. etc.) because in order to respond, they first have to question their belief to determine a response.
Believers are just simply incapable of such thought processes – it’s what makes them believers.
Like a computer being given an unsolvable math problem they freeze and glaze over – the human equivalent of the blue screen of death (BSOD).

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Rod Evans
February 4, 2019 3:19 am

Rod E

I find that, generally speaking, theists are capable of questioning their world views and that atheists are not. Having once closed their eyes to all evidences of the Divine they are lost in a world of cause-less effects: magical thinking.

And if you want to see a really good fight, watch two atheists arguing about exactly how one should express their canonical disbeliefs. Faithlessness becomes a religion of irreligion with ossified declarations and catechistic answers (formalized standard answers to standard questions).

Humility is a virtue that is eroded by secular materialism.

John Bell
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
February 4, 2019 5:56 am

But also recall that Faith is NOT a way of knowing anything, and that the invisible and the non-existent look a lot alike.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  John Bell
February 4, 2019 9:46 pm

I think the point is that believers know the difference between faith and knowledge whereas non-believers by rejecting faith have also rejected the ability to recognize it. Believers also understand what they believe and don’t accept beliefs outside of that.

ripshin
Editor
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
February 4, 2019 6:08 am

Thanks Crispin. This was well put, and certainly conforms to my observations as well.

I would say, regardless of which side of the fence you sit (on topics of both science or religion), it’s useful to ask yourself what evidence might cause you to change your current belief. One should ask the theist what might cause him/her to doubt their belief in a creator, as well as the atheist, what evidence would cause them to believe in the existence of a creator.

Regarding CAGW, and for most of us here, what would evidence would convince us that CO2 forced climate change is real and it’s spectacular…uh…I mean, catastrophic?

Note: I’m mostly just posing this as a rhetorical question for consideration.

rip

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Ubique
February 3, 2019 11:09 pm

Yup, that first is my immediate response to alarmist rhetoric since I have up arguing with people about this. I’ve never had a real answer yet.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
February 4, 2019 8:20 am

The other question to ask the AGW is to show us MEASUREMENTS of how much CO2 changes temperature. they cannot do it either.

michel
Reply to  Ubique
February 4, 2019 12:16 am

The other question you can ask is this: how much is it safe for China to be emitting in 2030?

Any answer above 2 or 3 billion (down from 10+) and you know they don’t believe it either.

Or you can also ask, world now emits 37 billion tons. What do you think a safe level is in 2030?

Any answer over 10 billion, and you know they are not serious.

DWR54
Reply to  Ubique
February 4, 2019 12:33 am

Ubique

What evidence would convince you that the theory of AGW is incorrect? Or, what evidence would give you cause for doubt the AGW theory?

Wouldn’t quite classify myself as a ‘true believer’, but I would answer this by saying that if the decadal warming trend in global average surface temperatures over a running 30-year period fell below +0.10 C per decade at some point, then I would consider the threat from global warming to have been exaggerated.

I would base this on the WMO metric, which is the average of GISS, HadCRUT and NOAA. I think there is too big a discrepancy between the trends in the different satellite TLT producer’s data for it to be considered usable for this purpose yet (30-year trend in RSS TLT is currently +0.22 C/dec, whereas in UAH it’s +0.14 C/dec).

Historically the last 30-year period during which the warming trend in surface temperatures fell below +0.10 C per decade was 1959-1988. It hasn’t fallen below +0.15 C/dec since the period 1965-94 and it hasn’t fallen below +0.16 C/dec from 1968-1998 to the present (+0.18 C/dec for the most recent 30-year period, which incorporates the ‘pause’).

Ken Irwin
Reply to  DWR54
February 4, 2019 2:49 am

You have taken your fist step.

Question everything and continue towards enlightenment.

Start by extracting the influence of solar variance from the data you quoted / isolate the anthropomorphic component / compute certainty of your hypothesis.

DWR54
Reply to  Ken Irwin
February 4, 2019 11:51 pm

Ken Irwin

The running 30 year period of climatology already accounts for solar variance, volcanic activity and the main ocean cycles. The +0.10 C/dec trend I refer to is the ‘best estimate’ based on the average of the 3 surface data sets. It could be plus or minus ~ 0.02C or so, but I would judge it on the best estimate.

Hugs
Reply to  DWR54
February 4, 2019 2:52 am

We have seen this acceleration argument before.

It is still sensitive to how you hold the ruler, so it is about as good as the pause argument was. Was. Yes, wake up, the pause is gone for now, the temperatures go down and up, but the long term trend is there. In my opinion, the long-term trend is very stable and non-alarming, but upwards nevertheless.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Hugs
February 4, 2019 4:20 pm

No they are not, they arr rebounding back to pre-LA norms.

DWR54
Reply to  Hugs
February 4, 2019 11:57 pm

Hugs

We have seen this acceleration argument before.

Mine isn’t an acceleration argument. I don’t expect the decadal warming rate over a rolling 30-year period to continuously rise, never mind accelerate. I would expect it to stay within the range of +0.15 – 0.25 C/dec except in the event of a large volcanic eruption, when it might fall as low as around 0.10 C/dec for a brief period. If it fell below that, even with a big volcanic eruption, but especially in the absence of one, then I would agree that the extent of global warming has been exaggerated.

David Chappell
Reply to  DWR54
February 4, 2019 3:55 am

But first ask yourself, why are periods of 30 years used to define climate?

lee
Reply to  DWR54
February 4, 2019 5:30 am

Just had reason to look at Hadcrut 4. Apparently Hobart Airport –

“949750 HOBART AIRPORT AUSTRALIA -42.8 -147.5 4 1841 2013”

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

has been operating since 1841. Before the Wright Brothers were born. Smart people Tasmanians.

Tweak
Reply to  lee
February 4, 2019 11:35 am

Quite an accomplishment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Aerodrome “served as Hobart’s main airport until the International Airport opened in 1956.” And according to Wackipedia, started operations in the 1920’s.

lee
Reply to  Tweak
February 4, 2019 8:46 pm

Yep. Asked about that as it was near Hobart Airport. Their response –

“There was a Cambridge Aerodrome station open from 1944 to 1958, and the current Hobart Airport site from 1958 onwards.”

lee
Reply to  Tweak
February 4, 2019 8:48 pm

Asked BoM.

knr
Reply to  DWR54
February 4, 2019 5:59 am

All of which depends on you having thr ability to known the worlds temperature, not model , in an scientifically meaningful way to two decimal places. Do we have that ?

Science 101 of you going to make claims based on measurements makes sure those measurements and the process for collecting them are able to support those claims first.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  knr
February 4, 2019 9:49 pm

“makes sure those measurements and the process for collecting them are able to support those claims first.”

I’ll go a step further and say that you must specifically define what those measurements and the processes are beforehand. Otherwise you are tossing the ball in the air and claim you were aiming at whatever it hits.

DWR54
Reply to  knr
February 5, 2019 12:02 am

knr

All of which depends on you having thr ability to known the worlds temperature…

You just need a relatively small number of sufficiently dispersed long term representative samples. Like anything else, really, from river pollution levels to air quality in a city.

Reply to  DWR54
February 4, 2019 8:10 am

No one has shown me conclusively that warming of even 3 degrees in a century would have devastating effects or could not be easily adapted to.
Most evidence to date seems to suggest that the warm parts of the planet would stay about the same and the cold parts would get a little warmer.
It does not even seem to be a given that sea levels would rise substantially. If they did about all that changes is real estate values. Population densities would still remain the highest near the coasts.
As has been said many times “it has all happened before.”
What has also happened many times before (and is almost certain to happen again) is that the earth has suffered major glaciations. Now that could be really frightening

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Rick
February 4, 2019 8:22 am

**No one has shown me conclusively that warming of even 3 degrees in a century would have devastating effects or could not be easily adapted to.**
They just “tell” us that but never PROVE it.

Brooks Hurd
Reply to  DWR54
February 5, 2019 7:54 am

Please remember to calculate the total error in the temperature data. The impact of some errors are reduced by taking large numbers of measurements, but some errors remain. Believers have been tossing out temperature comparisons with apparent precision of 0.01°C or even 0.001°C (Argo buoys) while totally ignoring measurement error, instrument drift, and other instrument system errors.

Hugs
Reply to  Ubique
February 4, 2019 2:39 am

the theory of AGW is incorrect

Nothing much, because ‘the theory of AGW’ is not incorrect.

What is incorrect is the assumption that mitigating using the suggested methods has any positive effect. We should prepare to adapt, and use methods that don’t make the results worse, like move production into China which is raising its emission intensity.

Nuclear, hydro, gas, fracking. Research. These are tools in our toolpack.

Bellman
Reply to  Ubique
February 4, 2019 6:04 am

Ubique

What evidence would convince you that the theory of AGW is incorrect? Or, what evidence would give you cause for doubt the AGW theory?

Not a true believer, whatever that means, but of the top of my head:

1. If we pumped a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, but global temperatures remained flat or cooled, assuming there was no alternative cooling factor in operation.

2. A better explanation for earth’s temperature that falsified the greenhouse effect.

3. A more convincing natural explanation for the observed warming which also explained why increasing CO2 would not increase temperatures.

So, putting the question back to you, assuming you are not a “true believer”, what evidence would convince you that human caused warming is correct?

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Bellman
February 4, 2019 8:25 am

Re Bellman
**So, putting the question back to you, assuming you are not a “true believer”, what evidence would convince you that human caused warming is correct?**
Show me one study that MEASURES the temperature change caused by human produced CO2 or any CO2.
NOBODY has given that to me. They either do not reply or go off on a tangent that “we should be doing something”. So that is a total waste of money but they do not see it as they are “believers”. I call it FOLLOWES.

MarkW
Reply to  Bellman
February 4, 2019 10:11 am

Check out the historical record. There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.
Beyond that, temperatures fell during the 70’s. Temperatures held steady for 20 years ending recently.

Bellman
Reply to  MarkW
February 4, 2019 3:55 pm

There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.

Yes there is. Not that it proves anything of course, just that CO2 and temperatures have been increasing at the same time.

Beyond that, temperatures fell during the 70’s.

No they didn’t.

I think you mean fell before the 70s – hence my qualification about other cooling effects.

Temperatures held steady for 20 years ending recently.

And of course statistically meaningless cherry-picks are not going to convince me.

Steve O
Reply to  Ubique
February 4, 2019 8:25 am

Climate is a chaotic system, with many interacting variable, some of which are difficult to measure. All we will ever have are models. If the models have good predictive value, and are validated with different time periods then we can rely on them to the extent they seem to be reliable. Insisting on any other kind of evidence is unfair because it won’t ever exist.

That said, I am not convinced that the models are at a level of reliability that they justify radical, expensive actions.

Bill Lee
Reply to  Ubique
February 5, 2019 6:15 am

Evidence!

Donald Kasper
February 3, 2019 11:03 pm

Diversity is strength. I love that globalist meme more than the others. This was hustled by Bush a lot, who loved mass immigration for foreign cultures.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Donald Kasper
February 3, 2019 11:15 pm

Donald, Diversity is most definitely a positive feature of success. The human species would not have become dominant without diversity. The ability to adapt and change, is what allows people to live in permanently frozen arctic lands and in baking hot desert regions.
The difficulties associated with diversity only arises, if the incoming diversity refuses to allow other diverse, possibly native cultures, from continuing their normal successful way of life.
Pandering to minorities and banning freedom of cultural tradition, because of the minorities sensitivities, usually new members in a settled society, is the exact opposite of diversity.
That is called repression.

Matthew Drobnick
Reply to  Rod Evans
February 4, 2019 9:07 am

Rod, invading another territory because you stand to benefit without needing to work:
SIPP self survey, 70% of non natives are on at least one form of welfare. How? Who knows, but they are- is not strength. It is parasitic.

Forcing ones way into a peaceful society that respects individual rights, while refusing to assimilate and hold steadfast to the failed worldview that created the shit hold you left… That’s parasitic.

Attacking the host culture as racist, bigoted, evil… All the while creating more violent crime than the host culture that made said territory great and safe for women, homosexuals, minorites… That’s parasitic.

None of the wishy washy wishful fantasy land you espouse is accurate with regards to the reality of human diversity. Strength is in homogeneity, most specifically with culture.

Look at the most basic level. The home.
If you and your wife hold drastically different values about how to spend your money… Your doomed to fail. That’s value diversity and the numbers reflect that as the number one reason for divorce.

I appreciate your emotional femininity, but it’s not rooted in reality. Logic is strength, feelings are not

Reply to  Rod Evans
February 4, 2019 9:38 am

Hear, hear. It is reverse racism.

Matthew Drobnick
Reply to  Rick
February 4, 2019 10:08 am

Or just racism. No need for special pretensions, racism is racism.

Unfortunately, the word salad socialists have injected power into the definition but it won’t hold up to scrutiny.

Life has a pesky way of constantly sorting out propaganda, it usually takes millions of innocent lives, unfortunately. 🤐

Josie
February 3, 2019 11:10 pm

It seems common sense is being banned to Neverland

Hokey Schtick
February 3, 2019 11:39 pm

Michael Mann says global warming is not a thing.

Meanwhile in other news, global warming days that Michael Mann is not a thing.

Susan
Reply to  Hokey Schtick
February 4, 2019 12:51 am

Did you read Mann in the Guardian last week? He was explaining how the polar vortex was caused by global warming and that climate skeptics were just too, too silly in believing otherwise. I would like to link to the article but can’t make these things work on my iPad: I will just say that the whole tone of the article is in accord with that smug little goatee!

Alfred Alexander
February 3, 2019 11:53 pm

Jawohl Mein Herr

DWR54
February 3, 2019 11:55 pm

America enjoys a winter filled with tons of snow and frigid cold weather…

According to Roy Spencer’s UAH TLT data set the lower 48 US states have had a warmer than average winter so far compared to the 1981-2010 average. December was +0.20C warmer than average and January was +0.48C warmer than average: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2019-0-37-deg-c/

Certainly there was snow and record cold temperatures in many regions, but overall the US was warmer than the long term average in both December and January, if UAH TLT is anything to go by. Globally the January 2019 temperature anomaly was a tenth of a deg. C up on the December 2019 anomaly and was the 6th warmest January on record; again, that’s according to UAH.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  DWR54
February 4, 2019 12:22 am

the December 2019 anomaly

Sure.

DWR54
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
February 4, 2019 12:34 am

Take it up with Dr Spencer. It’s his data.

Hugs
Reply to  DWR54
February 4, 2019 2:28 am

You lost the irony. 🙂

DWR54
Reply to  Hugs
February 5, 2019 12:12 am

Sorry, missed that!

Okay, but the point is clear enough. The US was warmer than average this winter to date. If you believe UAH that is.

John Endicott
Reply to  DWR54
February 4, 2019 7:05 am

DWR54 Dr. Spencer does not talk about “the December 2019 anomaly”. I copied that exact phrase and searched for it at link you provided, it does not exist on that site. “the December 2018 anomaly” on the other hand….

or, in other words “Whoosh” 😉

DWR54
Reply to  John Endicott
February 5, 2019 12:12 am

You got me.

HotScot
Reply to  DWR54
February 4, 2019 12:45 am

DWR54

Which rather proves the point being made. A single cold winter or a single hot summer demonstrates nothing about climate change/global warming.

Trump was taking the p*ss and the climate faithful fell for it hook line and sinker.

The whole thing really does become more like a religion with every passing year. Trump now achieves the status of apostate and is condemned in the same way the Muslim faith condemns infidel Christians.

Trumps Twitter post simple demonstrates alarmists have no sense of humour, no insight and will brook no criticism of their religion. It is the equivalent of presenting a picture of Allah picking his nose. (With apologies to the great many moderate Muslims out there for the comparison).

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  HotScot
February 4, 2019 2:17 am

Trump is said to be “lying”. They sorrowful counted some 7.000 times.

How come one single person able to lying 7.000 times – because language is fit for.

Contrary it’s wearisome to weigh every your words.

https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-samsung&biw=360&bih=288&ei=zA5YXLWsC8jLsAHCwISQDw&q=wehe+dem+der+l%C3%BCgt&oq=wehe+dem+der+&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
February 4, 2019 8:13 am

“Trump is said to be “lying”. They sorrowful counted some 7.000 times.”

You have to know how these things work. The Leftwing Media take what Trump says out of context, which does not represent Trump’s original words exactly. They misconstrue his meanings and then when they ask him about that particular subject and he repeats what he said originally, then the Leftwing Media claims Trump is lying because he said something different from the Leftwing Media interpretation of his words.

You won’t get the truth out fo the MSM when it comes to Trump. If you want to know what Trump really said, you have to listen to his words, not a biased, partisan political interpretation meant to show Trump in the worst light possible, which is the MSM’s aim. Politics trumps the Truth.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 4, 2019 1:46 pm

Most of what are called ‘Trump’s lies’, are really quibbles, from progressive activists who filter everything he says through seventeen degrees of rationalization to be declared ‘wrong’, and then call it a ‘lie’.

You can always tell – the longer they talk, the more they’re trying to muddy the water.

There’s really a lot of effort that goes into progressive dishonesty.

Brooks Hurd
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 5, 2019 7:56 am

The basic problem is that the MSM no longer even makes the pretense of separating factual reporting from opinion.

Steve O
Reply to  HotScot
February 4, 2019 8:31 am

That’s about as well said as it can be said.

DWR54
Reply to  HotScot
February 5, 2019 12:19 am

HotScot

A single cold winter or a single hot summer demonstrates nothing about climate change/global warming.

Agreed. Statistically significant trends over a period of 30 years or more however…? Even UAH shows strongly significant warming over its period of measurement (0.128 ±0.057 °C/decade (2σ)).

Flight Level
Reply to  DWR54
February 4, 2019 12:52 am

“+0.20C warmer than average and January was +0.48C warmer ”

Do you have an idea on how meaningless those numbers are ?

There’s more variation of temperature along a CAT 3 runaway, picture 12’000+ feet of flat uniform highway with nothing even remotely high, not even trees around.

Hit the panic switch, shall we ?

Ian W
Reply to  Flight Level
February 4, 2019 8:50 am

If you think that they are bad at meteorology wait till you see their metrology.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  DWR54
February 4, 2019 7:46 am

” if UAH TLT is anything to go by. Globally the January 2019 temperature anomaly was a tenth of a deg. C up on the December 2019 anomaly and was the 6th warmest January on record; again, that’s according to UAH.”

My anecdotal evidence backs up the UAH readings:
.
My home thermometer agrees with UAH. During this recent excursion of polar air into the lower 48 States, I can usually expect the low temperature to be close to zero F around here. This year, the lowest my temperature got was about 15 F. Definitely a little warmer here in Oklahoma. Although warmer is “relative”.

As for that sixth warmest January on record, we should be careful to point out that this particular record only goes back to 1979, one of the coolest periods in the 20th century. So it would not be unexpected that tempertures would increase when starting from that low point.

Hugs
February 3, 2019 11:58 pm

What Trump got right?

Daily, weekly, monthly and even yearly variation at any given place totally dominates over the greenhouse effect related mild warming trend.

When the weather is cold, you really needed some warming, but there is so little available it won’t make a freaking difference. When the weather is too warm, similar reasoning applies. The warming is so small it doesn’t make a difference. Only by averages of means over several decades and very large areas one can show warming. You can’t notice it by looking out. And even in the case of warming, some places have not been warming, and some places have warmed more for other reasons.

Time will show if the greenhouse effect actually does /anything/ that is really adverse. Sadly the development of the GHE scare has taken 30-40 years, and it will taken decades before everybody sees the fears were grossly exaggerated.

Carteret is still there, it would be not neat if it disappeared, but it appears it is not going anywhere soon. Snow comes every year. The Arctic remains frozen even during ‘the extreme heat waves’ it suffers in the winter. Greenland keeps not collapsing, and the Antarctic is not really very near to becoming the new corn belt. But no, tons of papers tell us what ‘could’ happen, if we ended up in RCP8.5, and if my mom had balls, he weren’t my mom.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Hugs
February 4, 2019 2:31 am

the Antarctic is not really very near to becoming the new corn belt – will come at times with cheap and light serial production greenhouse installations Antarctica will get the new fruits and vegetables ‘belt’.

michel
February 4, 2019 12:00 am

Here is a classic case:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/03/david-wallace-wells-on-climate-people-should-be-scared-im-scared

This is a guy who claims to think the planet is going to become uninhabitable shortly, based on the fact that we emitted more CO2 in the last 25 years than in previous human history.

His reaction is to carry on living as normal, publishing his well-selling book prophesying doom, not lower his personal carbon footprint, not engage in any activism.

The solution, he thinks, is for China and the US to get together and work on carbon capture.

You notice the great thing about carbon capture? Life carries on exactly as now, we live in Scarsdale, we drive in to work, we have a 4x 4 in the drive, we never talk about China cutting its emissions, and we blame the woes of the world on Trump. All we have to do is hope the US and China get together on carbon capture. Wonderful how easy it is!

Any rational observer would say, looking at what he says and what he does, that there is a complete disconnect. People who really believe what he claims to believe do not act like this.

Show me someone who is actively urging the whole world to implement policies which will (eg) cut global emissions in half in the next ten years. Then we are looking at someone who may be right or wrong, but who does demonstrably believe what he claims to believe.

Wallace-Wells is just another huckster whose main aim is to sell books. Its click-bait, in print. He shows not the slightest sign of believing any of it. You see this stuff every Sunday morning, TV evangelists preaching hell-fire and then going off to their all too human lifestyles before lunch.

John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia
February 4, 2019 12:45 am

Trump is, in our vernacular, ‘taking the piss,’ or, in your country, ‘jerking the dog.’
And the stupid media fall for it and makes fools of themselves.
Just gotta love him, he knows how to ‘put the cat among the pigeons.’
🙂

Flight Level
Reply to  John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia
February 4, 2019 12:58 am

Pokes them right where it hurts, damage control mode panic ensues.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia
February 4, 2019 2:27 am

Indeed and they just don’t get it!

HotScot
February 4, 2019 12:54 am

BREAKING NEWS

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall was published in The Guardian on Sun 22 Feb 2004 01.33 GMT.

Once again proving Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is wrong. We only have a year left until climate Armageddon not 12.

I can’t find a sarc key on my keyboard so you’ll just have to assume the foregoing is grilled, boiled and fried in it.

Bellman
Reply to  HotScot
February 4, 2019 6:31 am

Wasn’t that just the Pentagon pushing the envelope? It isn’t that anybody thought this was likely to happen, just that it’s their job to be prepared for any eventuality.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  HotScot
February 4, 2019 9:56 pm

“I can’t find a sarc key on my keyboard ”

I like ” which is a sort of HTML/XML “end of sarcasm” tag. Theoretically there is supposed to be a ” “begin sarcasm” tag but that spoils the effect.

ZenitFan
Reply to  Jim Whelan
February 7, 2019 2:28 pm

The “pseudo-HTML” tags — [sarc] and [/sarc] work great. As you note, the “begin” tag is optional.

Now we need separate tags for various degrees of sarcasm. How about:

[/hsarc] (heavy sarcasm)
[/vhsarc] (very heavy sarcasm)
[/xhsarc] (extreme heavy sarcasm)

a happy little debunker
February 4, 2019 1:12 am

Has not stopped the plethora of daily news articles (in Australia) about our ‘extreme’™ summer….

ozspeaksup
Reply to  a happy little debunker
February 4, 2019 4:21 am

yeah from 41 yesterday down to 25 or so today
and im in a warm dressing gown n ugg boots as i write cos its rather nippy outside
dunno how theyre claiming acg temps rising when the averages have more cooler days over a month than hot ones(for my area anyway)
and the wonderful rains up nth will drop the average anything to hell;-)
if we can get water into menindee and trickledown to sa Eyre than a decent wet winter n cool next summer will follow.

E J Zuiderwijk
February 4, 2019 2:07 am

The problem with the true believers is that nothing will convince them they are wrong. You could, for instance, ask them what the ‘right’ temperature of the planet is but they wouldn’t recognize it as a valid question of which the answer: ‘nobody knows’, completely nullifies their position that ‘warming’ is bad.

The absence of rationality with such people is best ilustrated with the example of the psychic surgeons. This was a group of charlatans in India who claimed they could operate on people without cutting the skin. Obviously they had a great following of gullible believers. James Randi, the magician debunked this nonsense by repeating the ‘operations’ with standard magician trickery and by demostrating that whatever these psychic surgeons produced from the patients was in fact chicken meat. The true believers were not impressed because not only had the psychics performed their miraclulous operation, they also had turned the debris into chicken meat; a double miracle.

Hugs
Reply to  E J Zuiderwijk
February 4, 2019 2:27 am

“ask them what the ‘right’ temperature of the planet”

Well that’s not a good question. The good question is rather “is 2-4″ degrees warmer having disastrous impacts that can’t be adapted to without loss of life that would not happen if we mitigated instead, and what those mitigation actions are”.

Alan McIntire
Reply to  Hugs
February 4, 2019 5:45 am

AS Roger Pielke Sr, and Lubos Motl pointed out at various times, delta temperature alone does NOT describe whether the system is warming or cooling.

For instance:
Situation I, with Temp A 303 K, Temp B 273 K
is dissipating heat more rapidly than

Situation II, with Temp A = 299 K, Temp B = 277 K.

In BOTH cases, AVERAGE temperature is 1/2(303+273= 288 K= 1/2(299 K + 277K),

But situation I is radiating away heat at a faster rate that situation II, since radiation is proportional to the FOURTH power of temperature. Depending on INCOMING wattage, a world in situation I could be cooling while one in Situation II could be warming.

Likewise, as Pielke Sr pointed out, depending on convection and conduction, total wattage for a dry area at 290 K could be less than for an area at 287 K with plenty of evaporation and convection .

Hugs
Reply to  Alan McIntire
February 4, 2019 11:25 am

Good point, was it related to mine??

What you explained btw is that rising forcing may lead to more extreme temperatures – which surely is not what I wanted to pound on.

shoehorn
February 4, 2019 2:09 am

Climate Seance is a decades-old record of failed predictions , e.g. Arctic ice-free by 2013, rain that falls won’t fill dams and rivers in SE Australia … it goes on and on.
I wouldn’t believe their (retrospective) Superbowl tip without checking the result.

H.R.
Reply to  shoehorn
February 4, 2019 5:12 am

According to their model’s hindcast, the Rams won.

John Endicott
Reply to  H.R.
February 4, 2019 7:12 am

H.R., you give them too much credit. Their model’s hindcast has the Baltimore Colts winning this most recent Superbowl. 😉

ren
February 4, 2019 2:10 am

The Arctic air reaches Nebraska. The temperature in northern California will also fall strongly.
comment image

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
February 4, 2019 3:12 am

Wasn’t the last ice age proof enough of global warming for all of you? For heavens sake get with the programme and give up thinking. Then you will be happier as well as one of the approved! And you can get badge.

Hmmm…what could possibly be wrong with that…

leitmotif
February 4, 2019 4:12 am

As a last desperate attempt to scare the pants off us, the Guardian features a question and answer article with arch-alarmist David Wallace-Wells about his book “The Uninhabitable Earth”.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/03/david-wallace-wells-on-climate-people-should-be-scared-im-scared

One of the questions fed to him is:”The sense of speed comes across very strongly. It is as if people have got used to seeing the climate crisis as an old horror film with slow-lurching zombies but, in your version, the zombies are the much faster, scarier ones you see in modern horror films. You address the risks of heat death, hunger, drowning, wildfire, dying oceans, economic collapse and conflict, and suggest the climate problem driving them has super-accelerated beyond what many people think.”

Those zombies can be pretty mean dudes. Tell me when I can come out from behind the settee.

troe
February 4, 2019 5:01 am

Like a possessed hammer we keep hitting the nail that climate catastrophe is a jumbled mess. Which it is. Enough of the public is or becomes skeptical enough of the boys and girls crying wolf to stop the public policy agenda from moving forward. First we limit the damage then comes the roll back. 2020 may see a resurgence of climate and energy as a meaningful issue during the campaign if we tie it closely to jobs.

An observation while watching yesterday’s somewhat boring Super Bowl. A Bud Light commercial ran touting the beer as being brewed with wind power. Won’t improve the taste of that watery swill.

E J Zuiderwijk
Reply to  troe
February 4, 2019 5:50 am

I found that that commercial explained it all to me. The makers of the original Budovar real pilsener must be turning in their grave. On their own account that is, not driven by windmills.

George Daddis
Reply to  troe
February 4, 2019 10:14 am

Someone needs to call Budweiser on that very misleading attempt to market to the young gullibles.

Something along the lines of “So you can guarantee that none of the electricity your brewery consumes came from a fossil fuel plant?”

I saw a comment yesterday from a true believer who was ridiculing a skeptic of “no fossil fuel use in 10 years”; he said he knows it is possible because he goes to a University that is now run 100% on wind and solar. For society’s sake, I hope he is not a science student.

Murph
Reply to  troe
February 4, 2019 10:59 pm

And there I was thinking that all I had to do was add yeast to the wort to get my beer to ferment. I’ve been making my home brew wrong for nigh on 40 years and now I’ll have to build a wind mill in the back yard to remedy the situation.

Bellman
February 4, 2019 5:49 am

You see, last year our Climate Hucksters told us a run of warm weather proved the planet is warming, which means we all have to give up our freedoms to a centralized government in order to save the planet.

The problem is we don’t need a run of warm weather to “prove” the planet is warming. Every global temperature set shows the planet is warming. Almost everybody accepts the planet is warming.

I don’t know who these “Hucksters” are who told you that a run of warm weather proved the planet is warming. I’d say they were wrong to do so as it doesn’t. But it is consistent to say that as the world warms, runs of warm weather will become more frequent.

Matthew Drobnick
Reply to  Bellman
February 4, 2019 9:37 am

I’ve wondered though, how long we have had the precision of thermometers to get to the hundredth degree? Since the late 1800s, that they commonly refer to for tracking temperature?

I’m also confused about the reliability of the land surface data as Anthony has done extensive work demonstrating they are anything but reliable.

Where specifically bellman, do you find accuracy amidst the historical temperature data?beginning when?
With what consistency among thermometers? Have they not been historically adjusted?
With regards satellites, didn’t they begin in 1979? During a cold spell? Don’t they have issues with drift which demands adjustments?

Are you sure this data is fit for examination?

Alan D. McIntire
Reply to  Matthew Drobnick
February 4, 2019 10:19 am

You’re right. 100 readings of one thermometer at one instant in time would theoretically reduce the measurement error, but measuring 100 different thermometers with 100 different temperatures, the measurement error would add up rather than be reduced.

Matthew Drobnick
Reply to  Alan D. McIntire
February 4, 2019 10:42 am

This is what I keep coming back to about temperature
It seems to have warmed mildly some my parents were my age. Sure, I can agree with that. Although they talk about snow blanketing the land from October through March.
They were both born early 1950s.
Well…
I don’t ever remember that type of weather in Harrisburg PA. But when they were my age they would have lived in Windber/Sidmond PA.. An area that gets significantly more snow than Harrisburg, which is where they moved in the late 70s..

Maybe they suffer from inaccurate nostalgic memory. I think it’s early onset TDS, at least the correlation works for them.

Anyway, so the temperature has slightly increased, okay… How is this problematic. All indication suggest otherwise from strength and number of all severe weather at least in the United States.

Seriously, I’m genuinely puzzled. I don’t understand why those who hold strong to the alarmist rhetoric, and actually do the math, believe this is anything to cause worry

Bellman
Reply to  Matthew Drobnick
February 4, 2019 4:26 pm

I’ve wondered though, how long we have had the precision of thermometers to get to the hundredth degree?

Nobody claims average global temperature sets are accurate to a hundredth of a degree. If they were they would all be showing the same temperature.

And yes, all temperature estimates have problems, but they are the best evidence ewe have for temperature changes, and all show temperatures going in the same direction.

If your argument is that it’s impossible to know if the globe is warming or not, then I don’t think looking at individual hot or cold snaps will help you.

John Endicott
Reply to  Bellman
February 4, 2019 11:36 am

The problem is we don’t need a run of warm weather to “prove” the planet is warming

Indeed, it’s been warming ever since the little ice age, long before CO2 from man’s use of fossil fuels was an issue.

And yet, every warm spell the climate hucksters come out saying “see global warming/climate change”. Every cold spell those same climate hucksters either say “it’s just weather” or try to push some ad hoc explanation of why the cold is really proof of global warming/climate change” after all. And jokers like you, Bellman, just eat it up.

Bellman
Reply to  John Endicott
February 4, 2019 4:09 pm

You seem to be agreeing with me if you think the world has been warming since the start of the 20th century.

Hence my point that you don’t need to point to warm weather to prove the warming and cold weather cannot prove a lack of global warming because you admit that the globe is warming.

DWR54
Reply to  John Endicott
February 5, 2019 12:46 am

John Endicott

The problem is we don’t need a run of warm weather to “prove” the planet is warming. Indeed, it’s been warming ever since the little ice age, long before CO2 from man’s use of fossil fuels was an issue.

We hear that all the time, but as has been pointed out here previously, it’s not borne out by the global surface temperature record. HadCRUT4 starts in 1850, so contains nearly 168 full years of data (Dec 2018 not yet published).

Over the first half of the HadCRUT4 series, the 84 years from Jan 1850 – Dec 1933, the trend is dead flat. No trend at all, let alone a statistically significant one. For the second half of the series, from Jan 1934 to the present (Nov 2018), the trend is statistically significant warming at a rate of +0.09 ±0.02 °C/decade (2σ).

That rate might not sound fast, but compared to the first half of the record, the difference in trends between the two equal-lenght periods is stark: http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/to:1934/plot/hadcrut4gl/to:1934/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1934/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1934/trend

It’s clear that the warming currently seen over the HadCRUT4 as a whole is heavily dependent on higher temperatures since the mid 20th century. It is not the result of a progressive ‘recovery from the LIA’ over the course of the record as a whole.

John Endicott
Reply to  John Endicott
February 5, 2019 5:38 am

DWR54 if I had said” Since the end of the little ice age” you’d have a point, I didn’t so you don’t. (never mind that there is no consensus on the exact dates of the start and end, just that it existed). The little ice age was colder than present. since the little ice age the trend is that of warming. Man’s activities doesn’t even factor into it.

Coach Springer
February 4, 2019 6:01 am

When you claim that whatever happens proves you’re right, you’re wrong – and a control freak.

Anthony Banton
February 4, 2019 6:08 am

“The Climate Hoaxsters say that this run of cold weather does not mean the planet will not warm over the course of years, which would sound reasonable if these were not the same Climate Hoaxters who told us Global Warming meant the “end of snow,” or that this winter would be “warmer-than-average,” or that a run of warm weather last winter proved the planet is warming.”

Except that so far the US (48) HAS been warmer than average.
UAH V6 for Dec/Jan has seen an anomaly of +0.2 and +0.48C (1981-2010 base).

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2019-0-37-deg-c/

One seasons weather is just that. Weather.
The media will make any weather sensenational. It sells copy.
However look at the last 15 years or so of NP winter temps (DMI).
I make it every year since 2005 have been above average…..

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

There seems to have been an export of cold from there this last 13 years.

And the IPCC did not tell anyone that low level snowfall would diminish due GW never mind as early as 2018/19.
If you mean Viner – he meant snow in lowland England sometime in the future while “our children” are still alive.
Not the USA.
We often get through an average winter without seeing snow anyhow.
The IPCC does talk of diminishing mountain snowpack as the average freezing levels will continue to rise.
Continental ineriors such as the US/Canada and Eurasia will see still see snow for centuries. Why? The Arctic will always fall below zero in winter and that air will always spill south at times, never mind said landmasses cooling to well below zero of their own accord.

Ian W
Reply to  Anthony Banton
February 4, 2019 10:35 am

Except that so far the US (48) HAS been warmer than average.
UAH V6 for Dec/Jan has seen an anomaly of +0.2 and +0.48C (1981-2010 base).

I wonder what that would be on the 8000 years BPE to 2010 base?

Or even 1200-2010 base?

Is the Earth just returning to more normal temperatures and your ‘anomaly’ is with a cold period?

We are at the cold end of the Holocene after all and for almost all of that there was no anthropogenic production of CO2. So explain the reason for the other ‘climate’ cycles and justify why this one must be different and why returning to a level that is still not equivalent to the Holocene optimum is so dangerous .

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Ian W
February 4, 2019 12:36 pm

“So explain the reason for the other ‘climate’ cycles and justify why this one must be different and why returning to a level that is still not equivalent to the Holocene optimum is so dangerous .”

How about the fact that at the height of the HCO, mankind did not have 7+ bn souls available to be disrupted in a geological blink of an eye.
The Earth will survive – as it did in previous glacial/inter-glacial cycles.
The issue here is the trouble human civilisation will have to endure/overcome by the end of the century and beyond.
It’s not US per see.
It’s the generations that will follow.

The “reason for the other ‘climate’ cycles”?
How about orbital eccentricity.
AKA: Milankovitch cycles.
It is obviously different as the natural carbon cycle cannot increase by an extra 40+% out of nothing naturally during the time of mankind’s industrial period.
It is in quasi-balance between natural sinks and sources.
In ‘normal’ circumstances CO2 comes AFTER an increase in temp (ocean out-gassing FI).
This one has come first.
CO2 is a GHG (absorbs/emits in the LWIR – yes, and outside of the WV bands).
It therefore MUST reduce Earth’s ability to lose it’s absorbed solar SW energy.
We cannot alter the Earth’s orbit but we can alter it’s atmosphere’s GHG concentration.
We are doing.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Anthony Banton
February 4, 2019 1:42 pm

So – I guess the 97% of ‘natural’ C02 is irrelevant – as are the rest of the greenhouse gases.

Bottom line – there is no predictability to the effect of any of this – call it ‘mitigation’ or ‘regulation’ – there are no ‘facts’ in this debate except that we are – like every other species – contributing to C02, which – all else remaining the same (!!??) – and assuming we’re taking into account all natural forces – should cause a slight increase in water vapor and a possible expansion of tropical areas and associated weather.

The disaster scenarios are speculative alarmist fiction – but you’re still trying to sell the idea that we can get the results you want by micro-managing a single-species’ contribution to a single greenhouse gas. Naturally, there is no concern for cost-returns in this effort.

And of course, you appear here for damage control when the national weather seems to be contradicting the warming narrative.

Brooks Hurd
Reply to  Anthony Banton
February 5, 2019 8:10 am

Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is neither the largest GHC by concentration in the atmosphere nor does it have the broadest IR absorption range of any of the GHC. There is another GHC which is higher in concentration than CO2 in the atmosphere and has a much broader range of absorption in the IR spectrum. That gas is H2O vapor and the IPCC has excluded H2O from their list.

Matthew Drobnick
Reply to  Anthony Banton
February 4, 2019 12:37 pm

Look at your base. Does that matter to you in the slightest?
You start your baseline during a noted downturn in global temperatures and then claim this to be an accurate appraisal of modern climate.
How is that intellectually honest?

Have you ever considered the implication?

February 4, 2019 7:39 am

Yes …

The climate is changing!
The climate is changing!
The climate is changing!

And its all YOUR FAULT!!!

Say the Chicken Littles of today.

I posted some additional thoughts about today’s sad state of political climate chaos here:
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/2019/02/02/the-climate-is-changing/

Joel Snider
February 4, 2019 8:12 am

Controlling the message.

Just think how much damage this dishonest press has done.

Steve O
February 4, 2019 8:15 am

Remember, this freezing cold weather is just due to a redistribution of warm and cold air. The planet isn’t getting colder — this is just cold air from the Arctic.

Now, regarding the cold regions where the warm air was redistributed to — THAT will be due to global warming.

ResourceGuy
February 4, 2019 8:34 am

The decline of agenda media is on display more than any other story here.

Dr. Jimmy Vigo
February 4, 2019 8:59 am

It’s clear that climate change predictions are not scientifically justified, as that issue belongs to chaos theory, where the atmosphere is considered a quantum object indeterministic, that is, “impossible” to predict behavior. Intriguing the apparent connection between global warming and polar vortex cooling, however, some have tried to make a connection in the past. The conclusion is the same as always, no one really knows how exactly the atmosphere works: https://www.google.com/amp/s/insideclimatenews.org/news/27092017/polar-vortex-cold-snap-arctic-ice-loss-global-warming-climate-change%3famp

Ouluman
February 4, 2019 9:36 am

The MJO is one of the main factors in stratospheric warming over the Arctic which displaces the so called “polar vortex” and this can be proven by Bastardi and Co.very nicely via their analogy years on Weatherbell. Or you can believe those that say CO2 is causing it but have no scientific evidence to prove it. In a court of law there would be no contest but in in the media and glorified ignorance of the public, CO2 is the culprit, period. This will never change until the media is prosecuted for its role in propagating the fallacy.

Ian W
Reply to  Ouluman
February 4, 2019 10:38 am

Money can only be made out of CO2 as the culprit. There’s no profit in being truthful about the MJO even if the politicians could understand what you were explaining.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Ouluman
February 4, 2019 4:33 pm

“Or you can believe those that say CO2 is causing it but have no scientific evidence to prove it. ”

No one is saying that…. at least with any clear evidence.
SSW’s are entirely natural events.
And yes, the MJO, but also the QBO state and the ENSO state come into it re global wind momentum and mountain/frictional torques leading to Rossby wave formation and wave breaking into the stratosphere.
Where there MAY be a connection is the more open late autumn Arctic waters leading to more WV transport to build the Eurasian snowfield during October.
This is apparently correlated with a stronger early winter Siberian High … which in turn aids Rossby wave lift after passage over the Himalayas (cold, dense air aiding a ‘push’ upwards).
To many casual relationships to disentangle.

ursel doran
February 4, 2019 11:01 am

Here is one of the most factual, using documented verifiable, science to debunk NASA, and the HUCKSTERS of the global warming HOAX. URGE spread his work around!! Some of his miscellaneous videos and photos may be entertaining, or ignored.
https://www.youtube.com/user/TonyHeller1/videos

Highflight56433
February 4, 2019 12:24 pm

The left media are champions at projection; projection of the aspersions they cast. Those exhibiting this mental disease are predominately located in the urban heat islands that they themselves created. lol

Gunga Din
February 4, 2019 1:17 pm

I’m sure that under all the snow there must be some “Green Jobs”.
Snow shoveling?

Editor
February 4, 2019 2:41 pm

Climate Scientists are not Hoaxters — and Climate Science is not an Hoax. The IPCC Climate consensus may be wrong — it may be a misunderstanding — it may even be intentionally exaggerated for political purposes. But one thing it is not is a Hoax.

Giving screen time to those saying that it is (a hoax) makes this non-concensus site look like a looney bin — which it isn’t.

John Nolte probably doesn’t think it is a hoax either — he’s just playing to the crowd, for laughs and applause — taking cheap shots devoid of scientific understanding — the print version of Late Night TV. Effective but basically worthless.

(I have strong opinions about what passes for climate science too.)

John Robertson
Reply to  Kip Hansen
February 4, 2019 8:49 pm

“Climate Scientists are not Hoaxters — and Climate Science is not an Hoax.”

Kip, prior to the CRU emails I might have agreed with you.
Now I seriously wonder just what a “Climate Scientist” is.
Something akin to a Political Scientist I suspect.

But the UN IPCC is definitely a group of Hoaxters.
2500 of the worlds experts ring any bells?
They make no secret of their desire to create evidence supporting their predetermined policies.
Donna Laframboise does a fine job of demonstrating what the IPCC is.

phillip Rosen
February 5, 2019 12:24 am

What gets me is the complete ignoring that a warming climate is such a positive thing for over 75% of the USA ans all of Canada. More growing days for agriculture and more land in Canada for agriculture. Today only the 1st 100 miles of Canada on the prairie provinces can manage a crop. That leaves a tremendous amount of land probably double or triple to produce crops. At – 48*C right now with wind chill in Winnipeg , please bring on warmer weather. The braying of climate change dangers about a 3.2 mm rise in the last century , and the fact that 20,000 years ago water level was 120 meters lower, and 125,000 years ago water level was 4-6 meters higher, tells me to just stop wasting resources on these scientists and spend the money on better infrastructure, housing, safe water, affordable health care, education and the list goes on.

John Endicott
Reply to  phillip Rosen
February 5, 2019 7:23 am

Indeed. Historically, periods of warmer climate have always been prosperous times for humanity and life on earth in general and periods of cooler climate have not been. A warmer climate is a *good* thing, do anyone really want to go back to the frigid depths of the little ice age (or colder)?

Burl Henry
Reply to  John Endicott
February 5, 2019 6:14 pm

John Endicott:

In the book El Nino in History” by Cesar N. Caviedes, it is pointed out that the higher temperatures associated with El Ninos can have multiple adverse climatic effects, such as excessive rain (floods, storms), drought, severe winters (cold waves, heavy snowfalls), and evidence of the effects of these can be used to identify historical El Nino occurrences.

These would be “blips” on the eras of warmer temperatures, resulting in periods of climatic havoc, as noted above.

The current problem is that the normal temperatures of today exceed those of the El Ninos of the past, so that we are now living in a” permanent” El Nino situation, and, as a result, are experiencing multiple examples of severe weather, a direct result of man-made climate change.

However, warming that has occurred has NOTHING to do with CO2. Instead, it is being caused by the reduction in the amount of dimming SO2 aerosol emissions from the atmosphere due to global clean air efforts.

Thus, Climate Change is being CAUSED by the environmentalists.

John Endicott
Reply to  Burl Henry
February 6, 2019 5:28 am

Burl, you are buying in to some non-science there buddy.

First, when you look at the actual scientific data, severe weather is not getting more frequent (it’s frequency is actually trending down) or more severe. It only appears that way because
1) every weather event gets hyped to no end by the mainstream media. Events that you’d never hear about 30 or more years ago get headline coverage today.
2) man has built up areas prone to such weather events. where in the past such events would strike unpopulated wilderness (and thus do little economic damage) they now strike over built (and sometimes poorly built) areas doing damage with a larger price tag.

2) modern temperatures have not yet reached the heights of the medieval or roman warm periods (both of those “permanent el nino times”, as you describe such periods of higher temps, were times of great prosperity and great advancement for humanity). Colder periods were times of much hardship for humanity. A warmer world, in general, is much better than a colder one.

Tripper
Reply to  John Endicott
February 6, 2019 10:30 pm

This^^^^^, Being the crux of the argument/belief. People are happier when they’re warm.

Charlie
February 7, 2019 10:25 am

It is really sad that a large portion of people will never overcome the training which causes them to “believe their betters rather than trust their lying eyes.”

%d bloggers like this: