Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: Climate Change is ‘not a clear and present danger’

My latest podcast – this one has some eye-opening discussion.

Dr. Judith Curry is a climatologist, former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and president of Climate Forecast Applications Network. She is in the forefront of the climate skeptic movement, often drawing fire from others in the scientific community. Dr. Curry and Anthony Watts discuss her experience within the scientific community, changes in sea-level and how climate change is not a clear and present danger.

Press PLAY to listen.
4.2 5 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Danley Wolfe
July 16, 2019 12:41 pm

Climate propaganda has reached stages far beyond the well known propaganda of Nazi Germany, trying to censure and destroy people’s lives and careers, is something Herr Doctor Paul Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945, would greatly envy and value highly.

Reply to  Danley Wolfe
July 16, 2019 9:01 pm

Herr Goebbels was a piker. A pioneer, yes, but a piker in comparison to today’s climate propagandists.

Reply to  H.R.
July 17, 2019 12:46 pm


“Herr Goebbels was a piker. A pioneer, yes, but a piker in comparison to today’s climate propagandists.”

The idiom piker was unknown to me up to now. Google translator proposed: “a gambler who makes only small bets”.

Aha. You seem to be a tiny bit ‘underinformed’ about this nice guy.

Let me tell you that Joseph Goebbels was not only the main responsible person for propaganda in the III. Reich.

Most know him as being just no more than that, shouting in sport arenas filled with 100,000 people:

“Wollt Ihr den totalen Krieg?” -> “Do you want the total war

He was above all, together with Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler, one of the top three persons responsible for the elimination of
– over 6 million European Jewish people
– probably 1 million Germans who publicly expressed their rejection of the Nazi regime (communists, socialists, social democrats, Christians, Muslims, etc.)
– half a million Sinti, Roma and other ‘colored’ minorities
– hundreds of thousands of physically and / or mentally handicapped people.

Oh yes! Josef Goebbels was such a nice guy! He was such an exemplary father who loved wife and children so much…

Climate propagandists aren’t very intelligent people, but they didn’t kill anybody.
Please stop such insane comparisons.

Regards, J.-P. D. (since over 50 years in Germany)

Reply to  Bindidon
July 17, 2019 7:15 pm

A very good rejoinder but climate alarmism is killing people for example by taking corn out of the food chain to put in petrol tanks.

Many other examples where resources wasted in climate lunacy could save millions of lives in developing countries.

In fact taking numbers of third world deaths from lung diseases into account caused by cooking indoors with crop residues and animal dung the toll is very alarming.

Reply to  Rafe Champion
July 17, 2019 10:42 pm

Do not forget mining for Rare Earth Metals in many poor countries (since the greens won’t let the USA mine it’s own, safely and responsibly). It is creating and environmental and health disaster, not to mention, all of the poor people being killed in the mines working for 2 or 3 bucks a day with no benefits, no health care etc.

This is where your smartphone battery begins
Also batteries for renewables, EV cars, computers etc/
Amazing how the Virtue-signaling, wealthy tech co.’s and other corps don’t care about these black ppl.
Without Mining There Is No ‘Green Revolution’
Tuesday, June 18, 2019

Pollution is poisoning the farms and villages of the region that processes the precious minerals

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Danley Wolfe
July 16, 2019 11:07 pm

Oh how so true!

July 16, 2019 1:03 pm

Are the oceans measurably warmer now than they were, let’s say, a century ago? If so, how much sea level rise has that resulted in?
My instinct, as a layman, is that the oceans are not warmer and there has been no measurable sea level rise caused by thermal expansion. I am willing to be educated.

Reply to  Dave
July 16, 2019 4:14 pm

“Scientists” using sensors on about hundred probes, each with a sensitivity of about 0.1C have determined that the oceans have warmed by 0.01C.

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  Dave
July 16, 2019 4:31 pm

If you give me the temperature/depth profile for a dense sampling of ocean locations for 100 years ago and then for today, the math is difficult, but not impossible.

However, we don’t have good sampling of the temp/depth profile for today, much less 100 years ago.

The shouts of, “the science is settled” ring hollow.

Reply to  Dave
July 16, 2019 4:38 pm

I am willing to be educated.

But not in same way that Cool Hand Luke was I hope Dave.

Reply to  Mr.
July 16, 2019 9:13 pm

Oh, Cool Hand Luke was educated enough. What was evident in that film was a “failure to communicate,” a problem whose solution is still being sought by today’s climarati.

Lessee… how do I sell a lie? Not a lot is working. WUWT has posts here and there on Establishment Cli-Svi-Fi ‘scientists’ or YSM scribes who are trying to crack the ‘failure to communicate’ nut.

The answer in comments is always, “Stop lying and maybe you’ll get somewhere.”

Reply to  Dave
July 16, 2019 5:07 pm

My humble layman knowledge tells this for example:

1. Ocean Heat Contents

2. Sea Surface temperatures

Don’t confound the Japanese Meteorology Agency with some Warmunistas…
Their global temperature average is one of the lowest worldwide, with 0.14 °C / decade nearer to UAH’s lower troposphere measurements than to other surface series from GISS or HadCRUT.

Sea levels increase slowly by 3 mm/yr, and I think (!) it’s difficult to get the ratio thermal expansion vs. ice melt.

Reply to  Bindidon
July 17, 2019 9:41 am

It is more like 2 mm/yr. At least if measured at actual coast lines. Of course it is possible that the sea-level is rising more quickly out in the parts of the oceans where there are no tidal gauges (yes, that is physically possible, thermosteric rise is very variable geographically)

Reply to  tty
July 17, 2019 1:01 pm


“It is more like 2 mm/yr. ”

No. That number namely is true only if you consider the entire tide gauge time series, e.g. since 1880.

It does not take into consideration that the trends themselves mostly increased during the period. This is visible when you compute consecutive trends distant by e.g. 5 years (from 1883-2018, 1888-2018 etc till 2008-2018).

I thus preferred to give a more actual trend (for 1993-2018). Not because it is higher; rather because it allows for a comparison between the data provided by PMSL with data provided by the satellite altimetry:

Reply to  tty
July 17, 2019 1:04 pm

tty (cntnd)

“… thermosteric rise is very variable geographically”

Oh yes! It is not everywhere like around Furuögrund.

Randy Wester
Reply to  Dave
July 17, 2019 7:02 am

Much of the confusion and error comes from thinking of the Earth as solid. The earth is constantly changing shape – subsidence and uplift related to stresses from the last ice age. So there isn’t one ‘sea level’ change. Because coastline land is moving as well. The thing I find most interesting that almost every mountain glacier on Earth is obviously melting, seldom heard about over the noise about a few mm of ocean level. I guess it depends on where you live, which one is problematic.

Reply to  Randy Wester
July 18, 2019 12:14 am

Climate shock: 90 percent of the world’s glaciers are GROWING 

Multiple NASA Studies Confirm Bedrock Heat Flow Behind Melting Polar Ice, Not Global Warming
How Major Oceanic and Continental Fault Boundaries Act to Control Much of Earth’s Climate

It’s getting COLD!


Don’t Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling

Randy Wester
Reply to  KcTaz
July 19, 2019 10:40 am

I don’t see where an increase in ice mass in Antarctica is ’90 percent of the world’s glaciers’, unless you mean that 90 percent of the freshwater ice mass is on top of the Antarctic land mass referred to in the NASA report or in your own reports.

By ‘Mountain Glacier’ I meant glaciers at higher elevations, particularly those outside of the polar regions that generally deliver meltwater through the summer.

While it’s not clear whether increased snowfall in the polar regions will start to win against increased melting, between the two polar regions where almost all humans live, the glaciers are shrinking.

Not that I don’t care about the coast as a place to visit, but sea level rise won’t really affect me unless it’s going to be more than 670 meters, and I live north of 50 degrees latitude, so it doesn’t get over 40 c here unless something upwind is on fire – today’s forecast high for July 19 is 14.

But the glacier-fed rivers drying up every summer would become problematic.

And if, as you suggest, all these changes are caused solely by variations in orbit and solar output, it would still seem prudent to me, to ‘burn less and insulate more’ between now and whenever the gas, oil, and coal will become increasingly expensive to extract and harder to reach, right about the time they are most in demand.

Reply to  Dave
July 17, 2019 10:44 pm

UN IPCC Scientist Debunks UN IPCC Lies

July 16, 2019 1:19 pm

…and not your next crisis-as-opportunity tax revenue source in the tradition of Rahm Emanuel and others.

July 16, 2019 1:19 pm

I agree with Judith and Danley Wolfe.
Willem de Lange who is a New Zealand scientist specializing in sea level rise told our open Rotary meeting exactly the same story .
Sea level is rising at 1.5 mm per year and weather is not becoming worse and the world has been warmer in the climate optimums .
The western worlds news media is dominated by people who push climate change and if the same lies are told repeatedly people start to accept them as facts .
Propaganda to enable socialism to take over from capitalism and destroy countries economy’s in the name of saving the world .

R Shearer
Reply to  Gwan
July 16, 2019 4:12 pm

This paper says that the flooding around Boulder, CO in September 2013 was made 30% worse due to human caused climate change. I find it a little ridiculous because the worst flood in recorded history for Boulder was in 1894 and the creek was running with 4 times the volume back then. Of course there are many variable to take into account.

Reply to  Gwan
July 16, 2019 5:55 pm

They push it for two reasons
1.) They have a socialist agenda this dovetails into
2.) Some politician has sold it to them as a way to impose a new tax

July 16, 2019 1:36 pm

Due to the ingrained American trait of sales resistance we have not suffered terminal damage yet, but qualified skeptics still have had to suffer. Thank you Judith for your courage and commitment. You too, Anthony.

July 16, 2019 1:42 pm

I love Judith! She’s great and she’s taken a lot of hits in the past but there’s a new sheriff in town and the truth is finally being heard.

To Judith, Anthony, Lindzen, Ball, Spencer, Christy, Happer, “Willie”, H. Ratcliff and many more who fought against all odds to speak the truth and for scientific ethics, thank you for your sacrifices. This is your time now. Time to get your voices heard! Get as much publicity as possible!

July 16, 2019 1:45 pm

India running out of water. Pakistan birthing 20,000 babies PER DAY. Mid-70s every day in central Alaska. etc., etc., etc.

and I live in the National Capitol Area and the predicted “cooler than normal summer” is presently 2.6F above 30 year average for the year (ok, that’s now the New Normal :-\).

This denialism has reached the Marx Bros. level: “who you gonna believe, me our your own eyes” – Chico Marx

I thought the “world as we know it ends in 2050” was a likely exaggeration, but now I realize that “money talks.” Luckily for me, I’ll be dead in 2050 (I’m 67). But my grandchildren will be about 30, and I morn for them.


the world is gon

Chris Wells
Reply to  chris
July 16, 2019 2:20 pm

CHRIS: While you have been warmer than normal, the west has been equally unusual, but on the cool side. Weather is not climate change. The nine warmer periods following the glacial retreat 10,000 years ago and the little ice age, 300 yrs ago, are proof that CO2 has nothing to do with climate.

Reply to  Chris Wells
July 17, 2019 11:57 pm

Chris, I can’t help you with the “Pakistanis having babies” thing except to say as a nation becomes more prosperous and increases their GDP, the birth rates drop. The AGW crowd would keep them without reliable, 24/7 electricity and that will keep them poor and with a high birth rate. Recall, they also have a shorter life span and a higher infant mortality rate.

I can help you with your India drought thing, though.

Explained: Taking stock of monsoon rain

How long will it take before it covers the entire country? Why is annual monsoon rainfall often below average? India’s Earth Sciences Secretary weighs in on monsoon forecasts and climate technology.
As per the rainfall data available for the last 150 years, there is no large variation in the total rainfall (all India), though there may be some higher variations observed at subdivisional levels…

As one who lives in an area where we are dependent on monsoons, I can assure you they are variable and drought is cyclical operating on 10, 20, 150 and even 1000 year cycles. A problem for Calif., for instance, is they have been in a wet cycle for 150 years which ended. Unfortunately, that coincided with their growth and they didn’t know that for most of their growth and, even after they did or should have, they did nothing. It was predictable and if you followed Joe Bastardi, you would learn a lot.
Due to the cyclical nature of drought and monsoons, the aquifers must be recharged with waste water and water use must be curtailed. Where I live, we must ensure we have a 100 yr. water supply available for new construction. We do. None of this happens without management and careful use of water. Third world nations don’t do this but some, like India, are learning. At least, now they recognize their problems and why they must change how they use and manage water and to limit population growth in low water areas.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. AGW is a hammer but not everything or, even most things, are nails.

Reply to  chris
July 16, 2019 2:23 pm

You can find all the facts you want to support any particular viewpoint. However …

There is plenty of reason to believe that the world is becoming much much better over the long term. Life used to be nasty brutish and short. You have now lived longer and more comfortably than most of the English monarchs before modern times.

The number of people living in dire poverty in the world has drastically decreased. Globally, violence is way down. We are living in something like an Earthly Paradise. link

Count your blessings and be grateful.

Reply to  commieBob
July 16, 2019 3:24 pm

I sit here in my air conditioned den, about to go out for a meal in my auto (gasoline powered) and expect to watch a baseball game on tv that is to be played over a thousand miles away. Air transportation is available that can take me to destinations all around the world at speeds that would have been magical a hundred years ago. I live better than kings of yore. We are so lucky to be living in the here and now.

Reply to  commieBob
July 16, 2019 4:22 pm

“We are living in something like an Earthly Paradise.”

Not for the 100s of millions of Indians, Africans and others in the tropics subsistance farming for whom extra heat is on top of an already marginal climate. They are going to drop like flies. For them it is a living hell.

comment image?quality=70&strip=all&w=720

Billions will suffer from the effects of AGW, millions already are.

Reply to  Loydo
July 16, 2019 5:34 pm


Global poverty has dropped to an all time low. link That means billions of people are much more resilient against natural disasters. Your statement is just garbage.

We are not going to have Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. At most we will have another degree or so and it will be beneficial.

R Shearer
Reply to  commieBob
July 16, 2019 6:24 pm

I saw something the other day about hundreds of millions of Indians joining their middle class. Why that’s on par with the number of people killed by leftist governments.

Reply to  commieBob
July 17, 2019 8:26 am

Loydo is negative creature who can´t read good news, even if they are a real life proof of better world.
India is good example of a system where somebody is loser by birth (caste divisions) without hope for better life.
Hunger in Africa is a product which communist dictators create. There´s no hope for better life.
Living hell is often homemade, and Loydo can´t understand that. All he see is climate this and climate that. Like all narrowminded idiots.

Reply to  Loydo
July 16, 2019 5:43 pm

Warming hasn’t been happening in the tropics and isn’t expected to in the future. Almost all the warming over the last 50 years has been in the Arctic and at night (higher diurnal low temperatures, not higher daytime highs).

Reply to  Loydo
July 16, 2019 5:57 pm

Sure we believe you Loydo and we really care deeply 🙂

Reply to  Loydo
July 16, 2019 6:06 pm

comment image

comment image

comment image

comment image

comment image

I think heat waves are nothing new for India or anywhere else

Reply to  cerescokid
July 16, 2019 7:39 pm

“I think heat waves are nothing new for India or anywhere else”

No, just hotter.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  cerescokid
July 17, 2019 1:07 am

Heat waves are like a glass of water, come and done.

The Indians are like the illegal, mafia-sponsored fruit farmers on Mount Vesuvius: they benefit from the magma soil.

/ magma is fresh soil from Earth’s crust – everything in it, mineral, trace elements, nitrates, phosphorus … /

The Indian people would be very offended if loydo wanted to relocate them to another planet.

The only Indian people working in the sun unprotected are the road workers and road workers are needed, = paid very well.

Was du fuer ein Trottel bist, loydo.

Quel imbécile tu es, loydo.

Reply to  cerescokid
July 17, 2019 6:42 am

The actual data doesn’t support your religious decrees.

Reply to  cerescokid
July 18, 2019 12:40 am


You should watch this and count your blessings and quit whining.

Also, how much of the claimed “hotter now” thing is due to thermometer placement? Anthony has covered that extensively and did so very recently.

Was the Anchorage all-time temperature record aided by airport growth?
July 5, 2019

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
Reply to  Loydo
July 16, 2019 7:13 pm


What “additional heat” are you speaking of in the tropics? Have you ever been to the tropics? It is much hotter outside the tropics than in them. Look it up. Look for peak temperatures. The tropics are not very hot at all. It is hotter in Waterloo, Ontario than in Johor, Malaysia. Several degrees C hotter. Do you have any idea at all why?

Why do you think the subsistence farming in the tropics is “marginal” in terms of the climate? Have you ever grown something in the tropics? Have you ever tried to stop something growing in the tropics?

I just spent a month in “the tropics” – Malaysia to be specific. Nothing meaningful has changed in Malaysia in millennia. That is why there are so many species running around.

Why do you characterise “100’s of millions” of people as “subsistence” farmers? Many farmers in the tropics are doing well thank you very much and do not appreciate your condescension. There is nothing inherently “marginal” about farming in the tropics. The tropical climate is heaven on earth for plants, animals and skins with melanin. Me, not so much because I sunburn easily.

The “billions” who will suffer from the AGW scam of the climate-industrial –political complex are those who cannot stop the lemmings taking all the wealth generated by humanity and spending it on boondoggles that benefit their friends and empower the oppressors.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
July 17, 2019 1:28 am

Have you ever been to the tropics?

Yes, I’ve lived in the tropics. I am referring the dry tropics and sub-tropics where much of the rain comes in a seasonal burst and a couple of failed monsoons means you starve. There are many millions of people living in marginal areas surviving hand to mouth by way of subsistance agriculture. In the west wealth insulates us from climate change. Elswhere, in already searing hot places like parts of India, its life and death on a knife edge. So it really pisses me of when I read the opinions of those in temperate and colder climates saying “a little bit more warming would be nice.” Tell that to the farmers of Maharashtra.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
July 17, 2019 1:30 am

Mod, why am I under moderation? Wrong opinions?

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
July 17, 2019 6:43 am

The paranoia is strong with this one.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
July 17, 2019 7:41 am

No Loydo, not wrong opinions, it´s just that your hatepropaganda is idiotic. And you are a total idiot. Nobody needs your fake “news”.

Phil R
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
July 17, 2019 8:13 am


Falling groundwater levels and poor irrigation techniques mean farmers are overly reliant on India’s June-to-September southwest monsoon, which provides the country with most of its annual rainfall.

Three of the last five monsoons have been deficient and, while the Indian Meteorological Department is predicting a normal monsoon this year, it is already nearly two weeks late and that worries the farmers.

Experts blame the severe drought on the lack of rain, along with rising demand for water, mismanaged resources and climate change.

Environmentalist Vandana Shiva, who has been warning about India’s water crisis for decades, says bad policy decisions are to blame.

“The water famine we are facing is a result of over 30 to 40 years of ill advice by financial institutions, and that ill advice, on the one hand, mined the ground water, diverted river waters, destroyed the soil moisture, but is also the single biggest reason for climate change,” she told Al Jazeera.

Mismanagement of groundwater resources, poor farming practices, and increased demand along with, yes, weather variations are responsible for the water crisis, not “climate change,” but had to be thrown in anyway.

Did it ever occur to you that if they took the resources (i.e., money) wasted on “climate change” and actually used it to address real issues, they might do more to alleviate these problems?

Also, interesting to note in the last paragraph that she doesn’t say “climate change” is the reason for the water famine, but that “climate change” was caused by ill advice from financial institutions.

The water famine we are facing is a result of over 30 to 40 years of ill advice by financial institutions, and that ill advice…is also the single biggest reason for climate change…”

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
July 17, 2019 12:36 pm

“climate change” was caused by ill advice from financial institutions.

That sounds like a miss-quote to me because it doen’t make sense. Here is the temperature related part I was talking about: “unsurvivable”

India’s hot season has been particularly harsh this year, with temperatures rising above 50 degrees Celsius in the western state of Rajasthan.
Most deaths occurred in three districts of Bihar – Aurangabad, Gaya and Nawada – where temperatures hovered around 45 degrees Celsius as India entered the third week of searing heat.
A heatwave in 2015 left more than 3,500 dead in India and Pakistan.

In 2017, researchers said South Asia, home to one-fifth of the world’s population, could see heat levels rise to unsurvivable levels by the end of the century if no action is taken on global warming.

Phil R
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
July 17, 2019 5:29 pm


Your response says.

“climate change” was caused by ill advice from financial institutions.

That sounds like a miss-quote to me because it doen’t make sense.

That’s funny but telling about the way people like you think. You have everything bass ackwards. My quote came directly from the reference you posted and I repeated part of it a second time. but you say it’s a misquote because is doesn’t make sense. So if you’re stupid enough not to understand something that someone else says, then they’re wrong because…stupid.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Loydo
July 16, 2019 9:02 pm

Loydo, don’t be the proof that lies repeated over and over become facts. With population doubled since the Club of Rome 1972 issue of this continuing Malthusian nonsense, there is a much smaller percentage of people living in poverty. Note also, that a large part of the population expansion was in those very poverty stricken countries. Bangladesh, one of the critically poor countries then, now has a 6% GDP growth rate!

When I was a boy, India was clinging to life from one deep famine to the next and now they are feeding themselves fairly well with over 1 Billion people.

Turn to different sources than the the corrupted/outdated ones you are using. Re climate, even the bought and paid for science agrees that the tropics don’t change. I’ve spent a lot of working time in Africa. Lagos Nigeria has the same climate it had when i first was there in the mid 1960s. Ditto Tanzania, Kenya, Benin … The Artic warms the most, night times warm more than day in temperate zones. Tropics steady. This shouldn’t be new to someone who argues so volubly on the topic.

Reply to  Loydo
July 16, 2019 11:34 pm

Utter cobblers. Limit the population and the resources available become more than adequate. Too many people, not a lack of resources.

Richard Patton
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
July 17, 2019 5:55 pm

@Chaswarnetoo That is what doomsayers have been saying since Malthus, when the world population was less than a billion people. If your hypothesis were true gasoline would be upwards of $100/gal. (at the beginning of the 20th century it was an adjusted for inflation $10/Gal). Nearly every resource has, in constant dollar terms, dropped over the last century, meaning they have become more plentiful per capita.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Loydo
July 17, 2019 12:47 am

If “Billions will suffer from the effects of AGW, millions already are” – we’re on the right track.

God said to Abraham “deine Nachfahren werden sein wie die Sterne am Himmel – waehrend seine Hand die Milchstrasse andeutete” “your descendants will be like the stars in the sky – while his hand indicated the Milky Way”.

Billions from Millions by tropics subsistance farming is an overwhelming success.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Loydo
July 17, 2019 2:18 am

Yeah, you’ve never been to Africa and seen real poverty, and people like you want to make them energy poorer? Many people in Africa barely make ends meet, many don’t have enough money to buy one meal per day let alone two or three.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
July 17, 2019 8:36 pm

I’ve been to Africa, including Ethiopia, I recall you have too. I have seen real poverty.

Reply to  Loydo
July 17, 2019 4:16 am

It’s weather Loydo, just weather!
It is not anymore an indication of the climate than North America’s and Rusia/Siberia’s recent anomalous cool months.

Weather variation Loydo, has always happened and what is happening now is still well within the bounds of NATURAL variation. Maybe Loydo you should look at past events and realize that the weather/climate we have now is very benign …
See more here , a 1.3MB pdf file.

IMO (and in the long term view) it is just as probable that we are currently drifting towards a cool period, and not fully escaping the effects of the LIA, as much as the planet should be NATURALLY warming out of the LIA.

Reply to  tom0mason
July 17, 2019 7:09 pm

tom0mason July 17, 2019 at 4:16 am
It’s weather Loydo, just weather!
It is not anymore an indication of the climate than North America’s and Rusia/Siberia’s recent anomalous cool months.
tom0 – just how many deaths does it take before weather becomes climate?

More than 150 killed as monsoon floods sweep away homes and people

Reply to  tom0mason
July 18, 2019 1:16 am

Not to pick nits, Tom, but I read this and it makes a lot of sense to me. It is very interesting, anyway.

“That phrase, “recovery from the Little Ice Age”, never made sense to me. Recovery to *what*? The phrase assumes that there’s a “normal” climate state to recover to, and aberrations are the unusual bit.

Which, for any given set of orbital, solar, volcanic, and GHG forcings, there probably is a normal climate state. But the problem is that at least solar and volcanic are constantly changing.

Better to see it as: the climate follows the forcings. If solar and/or volcanic change, and cause a “little ice age”, then they can change back. And they did. That’s not a “recovery”; that’s a change in the conditions which simply set the climate.”

Reply to  tom0mason
July 18, 2019 1:36 am


In this Comment section, Chris was claiming AGW is causing a horrible drought in India. Now AGW is causing flooding? It’s weather! It’s also poor water management, groundwater management and poor construction and flood control.

QMumbai: Drought Biggest Challenge For State In 2019 & More
THE QUINT01.01.19

More than 150 killed as monsoon floods sweep away homes and people
* J
ULY 16, 2019
…In the jam-packed industrial hub of Mumbai, the rains caused a four-storey residential building to collapse — a regular occurrence in the country where loosely-enforced building regulations leave many edifices standing on weak foundations. 

Good grief. If the monsoons hadn’t come, you’d still be claiming the World is ending due to AGW. They do come and you say the world is ending because it’s flooding and it’s Climate Change. Do you realize how stupid you sound? Also how you sound like every scammer, rain dancer, high priest and witch doctor who claimed they could control the weather if only the people gave them money or goats or, something.

Reply to  Loydo
July 17, 2019 5:10 am

Not for the 100s of millions of Indians, Africans and others in the tropics . . .

You mean these “100s of millions of Indians . . . “?

Report: India Lifted 271 Million People Out Of Poverty In A Decade [Infographic]

Reply to  Loydo
July 17, 2019 5:34 am

Why was the hurricane in Mozambique so dreadful for the millions living in poverty there?

Because their communist government did nothing to warn them of the approaching hurricane, did little to help them in it’s aftermath, and virtually ensured they had lived in poverty for 20 years preceding the hurricane.

We have stronger hurricanes annually on the Gulf Coast and people hang out and drink through them and then go out and rake the yard.

Reply to  Loydo
July 17, 2019 6:41 am

According to the IPCC, the tropics are the one place with the least global warming because the IR bands are already saturated by water vapor. I’m not surprised that you didn’t know that.
Beyond that, more CO2 in the air makes plants grow bigger and faster.

Reply to  Loydo
July 17, 2019 7:39 am

Loydo, did you bother looking at the links from cerescokid? India 120 degrees in 1934 and 1966, 123 degrees in 1953. I clicked on your link, and it had no information, just a closely cropped photo of a dry lakebed. I could take a picture like that 15 miles from here; it happens every summer.
Humans in hot climates need air conditioners and shorter workdays. That higher standard of living requires power, lots and lots of power. CAGW alarmists are the ones killing billions of people because they are actively depriving the Third World countries of nuclear, coal, gas and oil for energy. It’s already happening; the World Bank will not lend a dime for anything but the lamest, least reliable forms of energy for these suffering people. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Reply to  Loydo
July 17, 2019 7:46 am


You are the only loser on this planet. Fact.

Reply to  F1nn
July 17, 2019 12:27 pm

Mod, I’m under moderation and this numbskull isn’t?

Reply to  F1nn
July 17, 2019 2:30 pm

Ever heard of the pot calling the kettle black?

Reply to  F1nn
July 17, 2019 8:46 pm

I am not being personally abusive. Disagree with me as hard as you like – persuade me with evidence. Abuse is against the policy of this site.

Reply to  Loydo
July 17, 2019 9:50 am

Doesn’t it strike you as odd that so many people live in areas with “marginal climate”? One might almost think that those areas are actually the best for subsistence agriculture.

One might even reflect on the remarkable fact that the just-about-hottest area on the whole planet, southern Iraq and Khuzistan was the cradle of civilization.

Reply to  Loydo
July 18, 2019 12:07 am

Well, Lloyd, that makes the US who grows half of the world’s food supply, corn, and using it for a very inefficient, engine damaging fuel really dumb, doesn’t it?

You are, perhaps, unaware that our burning corn for fuel for no good reason caused the world-wide price of corn to skyrocket and that led to the fellow setting himself on fire and starting the mostly disastrous Arab Spring?
We have world wide trade in many products, including food stuffs. Whereas before, people half way across the world starved, food can be shipped to them now, unless, of course, you have idiots burning the food supplies over the mythical AGW.
If you cared about starving people in India and Africa, you would fight ethanal and taking land out of food production for windmills.

David Guy-Johnson
Reply to  chris
July 16, 2019 2:30 pm

Chris. And none of it unprecedented. So what’s the new problem then?

Paul Penrose
Reply to  chris
July 16, 2019 2:38 pm

Then you should be old enough to remember all the doomsday predictions (population bombs, etc.) over the last 50 years. I sure do, and none of them came to pass. They were all BS. What makes you think this one is real? Listen, if a con-man fools you with slight of hand, then yes, you should believe me over your eyes. Just because your summer is running a little warm this year doesn’t mean anything for the world.

Reply to  Paul Penrose
July 16, 2019 5:48 pm

Study from Berkeley Earth shows the 4 of the top 5 warmest global temperatures occurred during period 2014 thru 2017 ( didn’t include beyond that as data only compiled before 2018 in this report ). The 5th highest global temperature was recorded in 2010. This result was similar to other studies and data analysis by NASA, ECMWF, UK MET, NOAA, and C&W. The trajectory has been been on a relatively strong upward swing since 1980. Ref:

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Jimbo
July 17, 2019 5:32 am


Paul Penrose
Reply to  Jimbo
July 17, 2019 9:30 am

And 2016 was a big El Nino year, so not expected. Besides that, I’m not the concerned when the new record only beats the previous by a few tenths of a degree. BTW, the claimed +/- 0.1C accuracy in the “global temperature” value is not supportable, so many of these reported new record highs are likely invalid anyway. In fact, there’s so much wrong with what you are saying that I don’t have time to go over it all.

Reply to  Jimbo
July 17, 2019 10:17 pm

It is all in the nighttime lows – raised by urbanization. I don’t care which data base you use. They all see the same. Tmax plots are not increasing as NCEI admitted to several years ago and is evidenced by the fact the number of 90, 95, 100, 105 degree days peaked in the 1930s when 23 of the 50 all-time state record highs occurred with 38 before 1960. All the continental record highs were set 50 years or more ago. The rankings and trajectory plots mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Tom Karl when the first USHCN was compiled and released in 1989 noted they adjusted for UHI. NOAA National Climate Data Center Director Tom Karl’s paper in 1988 defined the UHI adjustment for the first version of USHCN in 1989:

“…. trends of surface air temperature computed predominantly from urban station data are likely to have a serious warm bias… The average difference between trends [urban siting vs. rural] amounts to an warming rate of 0.34°C/decade (about 6F/century). … The rate may have increased after the 1950s, commensurate with the large growth in and around airports. …(up from 20% to over 70%) “Our results and those of others show that this ‘urban growth’… is serious and must be taken into account … assessing temperature…” The NYT reported in 1989, that NWS data showed snot warming since 1985.

Inexplicably, the UHI adjustment Karl argued for was removed in USHCNv2 a dozen years ago because of political pressure.

Reply to  Jimbo
July 18, 2019 1:52 am

It is a shame that NASA, NOAA, East Anglia and so very many others have tampered with and manipulated the temperature data, isn’t it, because now, none of it can be believed. This is especially true as they have been caught in their own words plotting to and actually manipulating the data as described here.

“HE who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” – George Orwell

NOW it’s time to see how NASA GISS (Gavin Schmidt) and NOAA (Tom Karl) have created the ‘hockey-stick’ temperature rise over recent years in order to drive the Mann-made global warming agenda.
MIND-blowing adjustments to raw data that without exception – cool the past and warm the present – despite UHI (Urban Heat Island effect) undoubtedly compromising the latter parts of the modern temp record…

Tom Abbott
Reply to  KcTaz
July 18, 2019 6:18 am

“It is a shame that NASA, NOAA, East Anglia and so very many others have tampered with and manipulated the temperature data, isn’t it, because now, none of it can be believed.”

It is a shame on those who have manipulated the temperature record for political purposes, and imo, it is also a crime against humanity because this manipulation has put the world very much off course by committing to actions that harm the Earth’s people, not help them, and all in the name of reducing artificially inflated temperatures.

I guess life in prison would be suitable for a person who deliberately caused the misspending of Trillions of dollars on unworkable solutions to a false reality. It wouldn’t get the money back but at least the perp would have to pay a price personally. Not that I think that will happen, but it’s pleasant to fantasize about it. 🙂

Reply to  chris
July 16, 2019 2:40 pm

Hi Chris–not sure what you are saying. I am in Tok Alaska right now. We had a week of hot weather in the 80s–but it gets cold often here. The nights too. Lots of rain and cold and such–it is certainly not in the 80s daily as you say. i lived here in the 80s and it was in the 70s and 80s daily for several years. Not now despite the claim that the arctic is warming so much.

Jack Roth
Reply to  Shelly
July 27, 2019 5:51 pm

Hi Shelly, fellow Alaskan, from a bit further south. I have been in Fairbanks several times in Summer with high 80s and some 90s, not particularly unusual for the Tenana valley in summer. The ridge that sat over SouthCentral Alaska for almost 5 weeks was anomalous, but not unprecedented, it had happened more than once in the last 100 years, including most recently in 1969, at a time of highest arctic high extent. The one record high set in Anchorage stood for literally less than 5 minutes. Around the 9th of July the ridge started breaking down, and in a few days the temp went down to the usual 50s, with some excursion into the high 60s, or even 70s depending how far away from the coast one is. One advantage of the otherwise highly unpleasant June is the gorgeous display of fireweed, now covering entire hillsides and meadows, making for a spectacular foreground to our mountains and glaciers.

Eric Brownson
Reply to  chris
July 16, 2019 2:45 pm

The predicted high temp in Fairbanks, AK today is 72. The average temp on this date is 74.


Reply to  chris
July 16, 2019 2:47 pm

>Pakistan birthing 20,000 babies PER DAY.
because of global warming.
that is a new one.
but probably you are one of the ‘the world is coming to an end ….soon’ believers.
it’s a believe system…there have always always been believers in this…just a lot now.
(does not mean the is no global warming….just pointing out what you WANT to see).
kind regards henk-jan

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  chris
July 16, 2019 2:52 pm

Fresh water depletion, over-population, over fishing the world’s oceans are all indeed immense problems and have dire consequences. But a slightly warmer world as in a mid-70’s in Alaska during peak summer, is a benefit or of no real concern. The resources being wasted on trying alter :climate change” that via a trace gas increase are resources wasted that should be spent on addressing the bigger problems. That is the real crime of the climate alarmists pushing their renewable energy schemes to which no measurable change in global temperature trajectory will be realized.

Climate change is non-problem that must be ignored so more important issues can be addressed. It is just that Tom Steyer won’t get richer if India builds nuclear powered de-salination plants or poverty reduction in Pakistan results in lower birth rates, but he will get richer if he can destroy the US’s reliable electricity with his renewable energy scams. Hence the propaganda you’ve been fed and now believe.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 16, 2019 3:18 pm

my friends in Alaska are all hysterical right now……all of their gardens are growing like weeds
…they are having to buy extra jars to put it all up

Reply to  chris
July 16, 2019 2:54 pm

The world as we know it ends everyday yet we are still here.
The Mat-Su valley was in the 80s every day when I lived there 30 years ago.
Let’s throw another body in the Ganges river and let the people downstream worry about the water quality.

Martin Mason
Reply to  chris
July 16, 2019 2:57 pm

Chris, these things show the amazing state the world is in at the moment.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  chris
July 16, 2019 2:59 pm

Now that’s what I call optimism! Have you see your therapist recently?
Did you know that 2018 was the second lowest US tornado year on record?
Do you know the Pacific is presently experiencing and anomalously quiet cyclone year?
Did you know that for every “fried French” during the recent “record” heat there, there was an abnormally chilly Russian?
I only hope you can get eve to morn with you

John Tillman
Reply to  chris
July 16, 2019 3:27 pm


Some 15,000 babies are born daily in Pakistan, not 20K.

The world’s crude birth rate has fallen drastically from 37.2 per 1000 total population in 1950-55 to an estimated 18.2 in 2015-20. It will keep falling.

My doomsday prof’s 1968 “Population Bomb” was known overblown by his students even the next year.

Pakistan’s annual birth-rate, while gradually declining, is indeed still alarmingly high. At 22 births per 1000 people, it’s on a par with Bolivia and Haiti, and among the highest outside Africa. That could be a problem for Pakistan, parts of Africa and isolated countries like Haiti, but “popullution” is no longer a global problem.

Earth can feed, water, house, clothe, warm and cool ten or eleven billion people, and eventually, thanks to capitalism, all nations will undergo the demographic transition which has transformed the developed world.

Richard Patton
Reply to  John Tillman
July 17, 2019 6:23 pm

In fact a US News and World report article about fifteen years ago pointed out if we could get rid of all the waste and corruption in the food chain just what was produced annually then could support over 11 billion people at the level of the first world. I am sure if we got rid of all the waste and corruption (I count ethanol as part of that corruption) we could easily feed every person on the planet a diet that would have them working to keep the weight off.

Randy Wester
Reply to  Richard Patton
July 17, 2019 11:24 pm

Yes, there’s easily enough food now, on average. The problem is often distribution and political instability.

And for the future there are massive reserves – more acres of lawn in the U.S. than of any field crop, so enough land and resources (soil, water, fertilizer) to grow and store a great deal more food.

Reply to  chris
July 16, 2019 3:31 pm


If you spend your time mourning for grandchildren that you assume will be born a few years from now, you will be in a sad mental state when they look in your direction trying to find the fun grandparent that every toddler deserves.

I assume my grandchildren will be about 25 years old in 2050. I am hoping that by that time the world will be culled of people like you that … the ones that are expecting & striving for a less attractive future.

Reply to  chris
July 16, 2019 3:46 pm

“Pakistan birthing 20,000 babies PER DAY.”

– how many of them are still dying before reaching adulthood? High child mortality rate give high birth rate. Thanks to industrialization birth rate in India did drop from 6 children per family to nearly a Western ideal of 2. Thank God China is building more coal power plants in the developing world as the West refuses to give loans.

You are right – population control has much higher priority than these 2 of a hundreds degree warmer (or could be cooler, don’t know) competition every year.

Reply to  chris
July 16, 2019 4:16 pm

Once again, every time there’s a heat wave, that’s proof positive of global warming. On the other hand, no matter how could winter gets, that’s just weather.

I really find it fascinating how liberals get so upset whenever they find out that people with brown skin are still permitted to have babies.

Richard Patton
Reply to  MarkW
July 17, 2019 6:29 pm

Our ‘elites’, despite their protestations, are really quite bigoted and racist. Read “Merchants of Despair” by Robert Zubrin You will be shocked.

Reply to  MarkW
July 18, 2019 2:33 am

Yes, I find that most interesting, too. Just as in the US, Sanger founded the forerunner of Planned Parenthood which led to Eugenics in order to rid the US of the Black Race and now, PP is aborting every baby they can but focuses,still, on blacks and are primarily located in black and, now, hispanic neighborhoods aborting babies at a far higher rate than whites.
Eugenics is still the Law of the Land, see Buck v Bell, 1927. The vast majority of the “unfit to breed or disabled” turned out to be black.
Hitler so loved the idea of the Progressives (they called themselves that back then) new “science of the American Progressives, he even thanked them for it and, as they say, the rest is History.

Hitler, Genocide, & the California Connection
The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics

The Nazis even used that American Progs came up with the “science” which he was only following as a defense at Nuremberg.
Prog/Dems changed to Liberal after the world discovered what their new “science” led to. Now, they’ve gone back to Progressive since they made sure not to let that part of their history get taught.

John Loop
Reply to  chris
July 16, 2019 4:25 pm

There are only 4 points I make to my friends to think about. None is debatable!
The Climate models are unable to predict the past. And we make predictions based on these? Nobody understands climate well enough. They may never!
The US has reduced its CO2 over the past decades. So that is not commitment on our part?
The Chinese/Third World CO2 emissions are increasing and running off the charts, and will not peak till 2030 at least, and are building fossil fuel plants in increasing incredible numbers.
[don’t you just love Obama’s agreement with China to cap their stuff in 2030]
NOTHING the US can do makes any difference in light of this one last simple fact.
So go tell/convince the Chinese/third world.
I think they know something we don’t. OR they are suicidal.

George Daddis
Reply to  chris
July 16, 2019 4:33 pm

My lay person’s opinion for you to consider, Chris:

You of course are aware that “climate” is not the same as “weather”.
What many of us don’t appreciate, is that climate temperature differences are very small compared to temperature swings that occur as a result of “weather”.

To wit, if you accept the data of both skeptics and alarmists, the climate temperature has increased .8 degrees C in 100 years. (OK, double that if you like.) Alarmists talk about tenths of a degree in their “records”, a change not discernible to a normal person without sophisticated monitoring equipment.

In comparison, normal weather produces temperature changes within an afternoon, day to day, or even between to localities just a few miles apart, that are an order of magnitude greater.

The bottom line: – if you can feel the temperature getting noticeably warmer, that’s weather, not climate.

John Tillman
Reply to  chris
July 16, 2019 6:02 pm

India’s water problems are hardly insurmountable, and have nothing to do with man-made “climate change”.

One solution to water shortages is nuclear-powered desalination.

But, of course, vegetation is reclaiming the world’s deserts thanks to man-made beneficial increase in CO2, which has greened the planet.

Reply to  chris
July 16, 2019 6:13 pm

What can we say Chris .. unlucky but if it makes you feel better we will feign guilt.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  chris
July 16, 2019 7:01 pm

20,000 babies a day, huh.

That’s… interesting…

So, out of curiosity I had a bit of a look and found the quoted ‘Crude Birth Rate’ for Pakistan in 2017 21.9 per 1000. Interestingly the rate in 2000 was 32.11 births/1000.

(also the infant mortality rate is listed at 52.1/1000. ie, out of every thousand born, 52.1 will die before their first birthday. So with Chris’s figures we can extend to say that 380330 children under 1 die each year in Pakistan.)

(also, what do these numbers mean in context? Let us quickly compare to Germany – 8.6 births/1000 and infant mortality rate 3.4/1000. So just under 3 times more babies per pop when we compare Germany to Pakistan but 15 times the infant mortality rate. We shall come back to those numbers later.)

So…21.9 annual per 1000. Population is listed as 212.74 million, which on my fingers and toes means that 21.9/1000 per year converts to 12764 a day… Fair enough. Only a rough 7200 odd off. No big deal.

However, even if we accept Chris is using different sources for his figures, we are still left with some questions.

First is how do we explain the massive differences in infant morality? Could we suggest that people in the West with their long tradition of things like, well, cheap and readily available electricity simply live better and ‘safer’ lives? We could I guess.

The second is that in context to the rest of Chris’s post, just why are talking about Pakistan in the first place? People are born in Pakistan? Why? Because people like having babies? Or because evil Western Countries are burning fossil fuels and Heating The Planet to Gosh? Exactly how, in context, does CO2 – which from Chris’s post we are all in denial about – relate to Pakistan?

Having looked briefly into the issue, the only suggestion I can offer is that if Pakistan had more and cheaper electricity – ie became more like the ‘West’ – then maybe their children wouldn’t be dying at a rate 15 times higher than Europe. Not sure this is the argument Chris was attempting to put forward. Maybe he is gon. Maybe he is just in denial that a ‘modern’ society like we enjoy in the ‘West’ is better at reducing human tragedy?

Maybe, Chris, you need to back off on your argument. To also uses some Marx – “Here’s $10. Keep it under your hat. Better still, here’s $20. I’ll keep it under mine.”

Reply to  chris
July 17, 2019 7:19 am

Chris, get a grip. The world is not “gon.” D.C. has a warmer than usual July — so what? I see nothing alarming. The media is exaggerating, as always. Stop being so gloomy, you’re just upsetting yourself over nothing. You may very well be alive in 2050, given the modern miracles of medicine. Do you want to be kicking yourself that you wasted your sunset years in depression and dread over nothing? Mourning over your grandchildren? That’s just unhealthy. For you and for them. Good grief, Charlie Brown, when they reach your age, cancer and most other diseases will be cured. 100% safe, reliable and cheap 4th generation reactors will be providing energy to what are now the most impoverished areas of the globe. Sea water will be desalinated and pumped where needed, and the deserts will bloom.
What the MSM has done to your brain just makes me sick at heart.

Here is a Virginia weather archive. This summer so far is a major “so what.” Where I live it’s been unusually cool, and CO2 is getting blamed for that, too. Big shocker there — not.

Reply to  chris
July 17, 2019 11:16 pm

I can’t help you with the birthing of babies in Pakistan but, I suspect, you “India running out of water” thing came from this recently popular headline.
The problem in this area is not lack of water, it’s lack of planning and management which is prevalent in most if not all of India.

Why Chennai, India’s Sixth Biggest City, Has Run Out of Water
Indeed, the city has seen its population grow by double digit percentages every decade since the 1940s. The huge growth coupled with weak planning has led to a water system that’s both overtaxed and widely inefficient. The rapid urbanization has also paved over once permeable surfaces, reducing groundwater recharge rates. Chennai’s reservoir capacity also remains well below what’s needed to serve the population and there’s no water metering program in place, meaning already scarce water resources aren’t being monitored for overuse…
I live in the US SW and the saying goes here, Whiskey is for drinking, water’s for fighting over.” That saying is true and is over 140 yrs old. We intensely manage our water, refill the aquifers and have strict limits on use, time of day watering, types of plants that can be put in new home construction etc.
We are in good shape. Oh, yes, our water is expensive and is metered, unlike India. You value what you pay for and do not value that which is free. Human nature.

Sweet Old Bob
July 16, 2019 1:59 pm

Alarmists are getting more and more desperate ….

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
July 16, 2019 2:43 pm

They seem to be eating their own more and more. She still talks like CO2 has something more than an indiscernible effect on the global temperature. IMHO she hasn’t fully awakened to water and its role. I guess I don’t qualify as a lukewarmer anymore.

Reply to  Pop Piasa
July 16, 2019 4:27 pm

I think you just ate some curry.

Erast Van Doren
Reply to  Pop Piasa
July 16, 2019 5:02 pm

Curry called skeptics deniers. Page 11. Multiple times here
And now she says her former alarmists views were not alarmist at all and overall acceptable!

“We’re looking at a much worse [Hurricane] risk than people were thinking about a year ago …some places are going to become uninsurable.” J. Curry
“Gore’s statement in the movie is that we can expect more storms like Katrina in a greenhouse-warmed world. I would agree with this” J. Curry

And even today she refuses to see all the data that contradict the alarmist views. Can’t really stand her.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Pop Piasa
July 16, 2019 9:31 pm

I also think J Curry is a bit up and down on CO2 and Climate. She was pretty much all-in pre Climategate but she did criticize the Team after that, which was pretty brave for a careerist in climate. She seemed a bit embarrassed by some of Anthony’s leading questions and defensive of her earlier positions.

I was sure the game was over for the Team after people got a look at the seediness, dishonesty and dirty tricks revealed in climategate. But, man, a couple of clumsy whitewashes did the trick. That’s when I realized that the vast unthinking majority want to believe this drek. I harken back to Bertrand Russell’s tiny orbiting teapot when I think of the highschool science fair competency of most of the science.

Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
July 17, 2019 5:39 am

One thing I have noticed they like to do in the weather headlines and elsewhere is talk about the “heat index” rather than the actual temperature. No one used to talk about the heat index, which is a sort of imaginary number based on a combo of heat + humidity + wind and how hot they think it makes it feel outside, vs. how hot it really is. For instance right now accuweather is talking about a “blistering” heatwave in the Northeast with “heat indices possibly reaching 100!” Which means it will actually be 85-90 degrees, the same temperature summer was when I lived there 15-20 years ago.

Reply to  js
July 18, 2019 2:09 am

Yes, I have noticed them doing that more and more, too. It’s silly but it aids Alarmism so, I presume, that’s why they do it. It has become like, “if it bleeds, it leads” to sell newspapers, get viewers and clicks.

July 16, 2019 2:04 pm

Climate Change is ‘not a clear and present danger’”
Indeed so.
But those who claim it is such a danger are, through their actions, a clear and present danger to ‘Western Civilisation’ – open discussion in science [and universities]; free enterprise; rule of law [not the Best DA your billions can buy]; democracy; and even the present human population’s freedoms, rather than becoming slaves – or concubines – or dead.


Walt D.
July 16, 2019 2:05 pm

Sea level rise is an easy problem to solve, assuming that it is, in fact, a problem.
Just put socialist governments in charge of the oceans, and very soon, there will be a shortage of salt water. Problem solved. /Sarc

July 16, 2019 2:10 pm

Dr. Curry accepts the mainstream science. She accepts the scientific part of the IPCC reports. Based on that, she sees no reason to think that CAGW is a clear and present danger. She points out that the scientists who are really foaming at the mouth have a weak understanding of the climate.

Curry’s position is somewhat similar to that of Bjorn Lomborg. Even if you accept the science, and even if you accept that human caused CO2 emissions cause warming, there is no reason to freak out and try to do the impossible with regard to renewable energy.

What a wonderful sane voice of reason in a very noisy political environment.

Pat Frank
Reply to  commieBob
July 16, 2019 4:20 pm

Except there isn’t any science in AGW.

Reply to  Pat Frank
July 16, 2019 5:10 pm

“Except there isn’t any science in AGW.”
Joseph Fourier, Eunice Newton Foote, Joseph Henry, John Tyndall, Samuel Pierpoint Langley and Svante Arrhenius are all laughing at you Pat Frank.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
July 16, 2019 7:00 pm

Except they are all dead, Donald, so not laughing. Experiments with jam jars in the distant past is not evidence of the planet surface warming powers of CO2 from back radiation.

Pat Frank is perfectly correct. Produce one science paper or even standard text book that shows the AGW hypothesis has any reason to be taken seriously.

I will save you time and effort; there isn’t one.

Reply to  leitmotif
July 16, 2019 7:24 pm

Enjoy leitmotif:
The above mentioned scientists are also laughing at you

Reply to  leitmotif
July 16, 2019 7:26 pm

PS leitmotif, you obviously don’t know what the above mention scientists used for their observations. Hint: it wasn’t jam jars.

Reply to  leitmotif
July 16, 2019 8:27 pm

Wow that is the best paper you could find?
97 citations and half of them circular self citations 🙂

You must be a star at science but we know your some layman hack and that was the first link that came up in your google search.

If you want some prespective a couple of James Hansens have over 3000 and one over 7000 citations.

I might add we are laughing at you but it would probably go right over your head.

Richard M
Reply to  leitmotif
July 16, 2019 11:01 pm

Donald L. Klipstein, it seems the Feldman et al 2015 paper is the go to example for many climate true believers. Unfortunately, it tells you nothing of the trend to TOTAL downwelling IR. For that you need to look at Gero/Turner 2011.

What did they find? Oh yeah, if anything the TOTAL IR is going down. This is also supported in a couple of other spots where TOTAL IR has been measured. So, what this tells anyone with a true scientific mind is that the feedback to increasing CO2 is negative and completely wipes out the effect of CO2.

Reply to  leitmotif
July 17, 2019 6:42 am

Richard M….going to TOTAL downwelling IR is a goal post move. Stick with the effects of CO2 only and remove the confounding variable of water vapor.

Pat Frank
Reply to  leitmotif
July 17, 2019 9:39 am

Feldman is about clear sky forcing, Donald. It says nothing about the response of the climate itself.

One also has to look askance at the blithe discussion in Feldman of forcing changes of 0.2 W/m^2 or 0.05 W/m^2, when the surface radiation budget (pdf) is not known to better than ±17 W/m^2, and the TOA budget is not known to better than about ±4 W/m^2.

Like everyone else involved in that saga of incompetence, you’re jumping from radiation physics to global warming, without any falsifiable and valid physical theory of climate to connect the two positions.

Reply to  leitmotif
July 17, 2019 9:56 am

It is, however, the total downwelling LWIR that is climatically significant.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
July 16, 2019 10:17 pm

Only thing Donald, is the science engraved on the tablets in the 19th Century hasn’t been changed! Same little control knob formula and a hundred thousand climate science papers genuflecting.

I guess you wanted to believe the undisguised whitewashes of climategate felons and fiddlers. Curry disappointed in the interview when, after having published an alarming paper about doubling up of Cat 4 and 5 huricanes in 2005, she didnt comment on the surprising 12yr hurricane landfalling drought that immediately followed, or the almost 2 decade Pause that was already underway (and even money says could resume).

The only unequivocal climate change from increasing CO2 has been an 18% increase in leafing out, forest cover and bumper crops – a fact that few catastrophists care to comment on – even a partly reborn Curry.

That humankind is living in the very best times of our history is lost on the guilt ridden left. Its pathological.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Gary Pearse
July 17, 2019 11:33 pm

“Umbrellas are not clouds”.
I threw away my umbrella because there was so much heat radiating down from it after the sun came out from behind the clouds.
Some say there are versions of umbrellas that send downwelling radiation upwards, while others say that much claimed understanding of the radiation physics is misguided and no more than a bravado claim to know all the answers.
As a spectroscopic many years ago, I can only say that I await a clear definition of the problem, properly framed in conventional scientific terms, so that all who wish to debate are talking about the same matters. Geoff S

Pat Frank
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
July 17, 2019 9:23 am

None of the work of those people supports AGW, Donald. Not one of them was operating from a successful theory of climate.

No matter that their work was correct, it was not sufficient to resolve the effect of CO2 on the terrestrial climate.

So laugh away, Donald. Just like everyone else in that comedy of betrayal and incompetence, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Reply to  Pat Frank
July 17, 2019 10:12 am

Frank, why do you discount observational evidence for AGW? The “theory” predicts increased downwelling IR from CO2, and the study confirms it. Good theories provide avenues for observational experiments of which this was one.

How about you provide experimental evidence that increased CO2 does not increase downwelling IR… know the old scientific thing about falsifying a hypothesis?

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 17, 2019 12:17 pm

You miss the point, Donald. No one is denying radiation physics.

But neither you nor anyone else knows how the climate responds to the additional forcing.

You, and those who think like you, are jumping to a warming conclusion without any intervening analytical logic derived from a quantitative physical theory of climate.

Your behavior is entirely unscientific. Likewise the alarm-touting climate modelers and the IPCC.

Apart from that, long wave cloud forcing isn’t simulated to better than ±4 W/m^2/year. The average annual change in forcing since 1979 is about 0.035 W/m^2.

That means a lower limit of uncertainty in global climate simulation is ±114 times larger than the perturbation they (and you) claim to resolve. How clever is that?

Reply to  Pat Frank
July 17, 2019 12:44 pm

Frank, one does not need to analytically derive the fact from a quantitative physical theory that more forcing increased temperatures. Basic day to day experience is enough to show this. For example, in the NH in winter the shorter intervals of daylight, and decreased angle of the sun results in colder temps. In fact, if you feel the need to understand this simple concept, take an umbrella out on a sunny warm day, and stand in the sunshine for five minutes. Next, raise the umbrella so that you stand in it’s shadow. You’ll note that is is cooler in the shade than in the sun. So, from this basic experience you can see how forcing increases temperatures. This is the basis for the fact that it is cooler at night than during the day.

So much for your “quantitative physical theory”

Reply to  Pat Frank
July 17, 2019 12:51 pm

Frank says: “long wave cloud forcing isn’t simulated…..”

My link to the observational evidence isn’t modeling Frank…’s direct confirmation that the original AGW hypothesis is correct. Confirming the predictions of a the AGW hypothesis is how science is done. You know, like how Eddington observationally confirmed Einstein’s work.

Reply to  Pat Frank
July 17, 2019 1:24 pm

Frank, if you seek a “quantitative physical theory” regarding the effects of forcing on the climate, use your Google skills and investigate Milankovitch.

Reply to  Pat Frank
July 17, 2019 2:39 pm

“Next, raise the umbrella so that you stand in it’s shadow. You’ll note that is is cooler in the shade than in the sun.”

Now you are touting heretical views. Remember that clouds are supposed to warm the climate.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 17, 2019 4:48 pm

Donald L. Klipstein, “Frank, one does not need to analytically derive the fact from a quantitative physical theory that more forcing increased temperatures.

Yes, one does.

Science — objective knowledge — does not proceed from qualitative inferences. Even when they’re yours, Donald.

Reply to  Pat Frank
July 17, 2019 4:54 pm

tty, umbrellas are not clouds

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 17, 2019 4:55 pm

Donald L. Klipstein, “My link to the observational evidence isn’t modeling Frank

But the meaning of the evidence is, Donald.

The question is not whether CO2 emissions cause extra forcing. The question is how the climate responds.

The only way to resolve the response question is through a falsifiable physical theory of the terrestrial climate.

That theory is not in hand.

You can go ahead and infer all the conclusions you like, Donald, but they’re all physically meaningless.

The climate has several rapid response channels, including evaporation/condensation, convection, cloud formation, and cloud cover. Climate models do a poor job with all of them.

No one knows how the climate is responding to 2.5 W/m^2 of extra GHG forcing. Not even you.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 17, 2019 5:01 pm

Show us all where the Milankovtich theory includes a valid physical description of the workings of the terrestrial climate, Donald.

tty, clouds are net cooling by about -25 W/m^2

Reply to  Pat Frank
July 17, 2019 5:43 pm

Gee Frank, you don’t know about Milankovitch cycles?……..the part where they can calculate the change in TSI/forcing due to orbital changes?…..and the end result of the changes in forcing is clearly visible in the ice core data: comment image
Come on Frank, are you playing a game? The relationship between forcing and climate is in the data, or are you ignoring the observational data?

Reply to  Pat Frank
July 17, 2019 5:53 pm

Frank posts: “But the meaning of the evidence is”

No Frank, the evidence is the evidence period. We know the relationship between forcing and temperature. When the forcing changes, we know what happens, clearly shown in Milankovitch cycles. I’m sure you will not claim that increased forcing causes cooling right there Mr. Frank? Pretty simple “theory” namely that increased forcing increases temperature. It’s not a question of the sign, but of the magnitude.
Don’t need a theory there Mr. Frank, just look at the evidence. The magnitude can be determined by the evidence.
Now Frank, if you dispute this theory, please show evidence that increased forcing causes cooling.
Thank you in advance.

Reply to  Pat Frank
July 17, 2019 6:00 pm

Frank, you need more evidence that increased forcing causes increased temperatures? Tung 2008 showed a 0.2C rise in global temps due to high solar activity where the TSI changes 0.1% during said cycle.

It’s all in the evidence Frank

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 17, 2019 6:50 pm

Donald L. Klipstein, “No Frank, the evidence is the evidence period.

How do you know what the evidence means without an explanatory physical theory, Donald?

You wrote, “We know the relationship between forcing and temperature.

By what quantitative physical theory of climate?

What’s the relationship between forcing and cloud cover, Donald?

What’s the relationship between forcing and precipitation?

What’s the relationship between forcing and convection?

What’s the relationship between forcing and cloud type?

No one knows the answer to any of those questions, including that between forcing and air temperature.

But you need to know those answers to those questions, to know how the climate responds to CO2 forcing.

As to Milankovitch cycles, the orbital forcing changes range from 40 W/m^2 to 100 W/m^2; orders of magnitude larger than any possible effect of CO2.

Annual CO2 forcing is two orders of magnitude below the lower limit resolution of climate models. No one can know how the climate responds to it.

But all we need to do is ask you, right Donald? You know all the answers, just by intuition.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 17, 2019 6:58 pm

Global air temperature is uncertain to ±0.5 C, Donald. No one can measure a 0.2 C rise in global average temperature. See here.

Published here (900 kB pdf).

See also, “Negligence, Non-Science, and Consensus Climatology,” here.

The entire field of AGW studies ranks as a sociological critical theory; a subjectivist narrative that assumes what it should prove, that gives its assumptions the weight of evidence and for which every study is confirmatory.

None of it ranks as science.

Reply to  Pat Frank
July 17, 2019 7:26 pm

1) Frank, the “explanatory physical theory” of forcing is contained in radiative physics
2) One does not need a quantitative physical theory of climate to measure the effect forcing has on temperature
3) What’s the relationship between forcing and cloud cover?………diversion, not talking about clouds.

4)Ditto for precipitation

5) Ditto for connection

6) See number 3 above for cloud type

It’s pretty simple there Mr. Pat Frank, you are skirting the main issue here trying your best to build straw men. We can measure the relationship between forcing and temperature. All of your attempts at diversion don’t matter. Once you know how temperature responds to forcing, the observational measured increase in downwelling IR from the increase in CO2 is known. Simple evidence Frank.
Funny how you “know” the forcing from Milankovitch cycles, yet question the change in forcing with the change in CO2 concentration.
Frank, I don’t know all the answers, but I do know that all your questions are mere diversions, as yo seem to be ignoring the evidence plainly put in front of you by me.

The end result is kinda simple there Mr. Pat Frank……the evidence shows that increased CO2 is increasing the forcing. We know increased forcing increases temperature. The only remaining question isn’t the validity of the AGW hypothesis, it’s the magnitude of the effect.

Stop your diversions and stick to arguing the evidence.

Reply to  Pat Frank
July 17, 2019 7:33 pm

Pat Frank posts: ” No one can measure a 0.2 C rise in global average temperature.”
Global average temperature is a statistical estimator and you can get 0.2C or better by increasing the number of observations used to calculate that average.

Do I need to school you on the ins and outs of “standard error?”

Reply to  Pat Frank
July 17, 2019 7:57 pm

Blog post, not a peer reviewed study

Not a scientific journal

Title gives it away…..”Negligence, Non-Science, and Consensus Climatology ” OPINION Your mention of “consensus” is 97% bogus

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 17, 2019 10:53 pm

Donald L Klipstein: “One does not need a quantitative physical theory of climate to measure the effect forcing has on temperature..”

How do you know the forcing doesn’t cause a change in cloud cover Donald?

How do you distinguish between natural variation in air temperature and a change due to CO2? How do you distinguish between causality and coincidence?

Back in 1963 Fritz Moller pointed out that a small change in cloud cover could completely remove any effect of CO2 on air temperature. His insight has been ignored ever since.

Your dismissal of cloud cover is a true sign of your ignorance about things climate, Donald. Clouds have a large impact on air temperature.

Rate of precipitation has a large impact on air temperature. Guess what heat of condensation means. And when water vapor condenses to clouds, where does half that heat go?

Clouds, precipitation, condensation, convection — they all impact air temperature Donald. If you want to know what CO2 is doing to air temperature (if anything), you have to account for all the other influences and impacts on air temperature first.

You apparently don’t understand any of that. You’re talking about CO2 and air temperature as though they were alone together in a little box. They’re not.

They’re part of a large coupled system that swaps energy around on all sorts of time scales. If you can’t account for all that, you can’t resolve the effect of CO2.

You wrote: “We know increased forcing increases temperature.

No, we don’t. And “we” includes you.

You wrote, “The only remaining question [is] the magnitude of the effect.

You’ve given away the store, Donald. You don’t know the magnitude. Neither does anyone else. What if it’s so tiny that no one can measure it?

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 17, 2019 11:03 pm

Donald L. Klipstein: “Global average temperature is a statistical estimator and you can get 0.2C or better by increasing the number of observations used to calculate that average.

You obviously didn’t even read the abstract of my paper (900 kB pdf).

Air temperature sensors suffer from large systematic measurement errors, Donald. Systematic errors do not average away as 1/sqrtN, the way random errors do.

Additional measurements can even increase systematic error.

Field-tested platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) that have a calibration accuracy of ±0.1 C, produce systematic errors of ±0.4 C when perfectly sited and maintained and housed in a standard Stevenson Screen.

That measurement error is due to irradiance and wind-speed effects and none of it averages away.

Liquid in glass thermometers are probably more prone to error.

Once again, you’re going on about something you don’t understand.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 17, 2019 11:13 pm

Donald L. Klipstein at July 17, 2019 at 7:57 pm.

All mere vacuous dismissals, Donald.

The blog post described a peer-reviewed analysis. The meteo site provided a free pdf download of that paper.

The Negligence paper showed the utter lack of scientific rigor in climate modeling (that doesn’t model the climate), in proxy air-temperature reconstructions (that do not reconstruct air temperature), and in the global air temperature record (that’s so riven with measurement error as to be climatologically useless).

But go ahead and dismiss it all, Donald.

We already know from your own testimony that you know all the climate truth by way of your intuition.

Reply to  Pat Frank
July 18, 2019 5:45 am

WRONG Frank, ” Systematic errors do not average away as 1/sqrtN, the way random errors do.”

Systematic errors are contained within the “s” term in the numerator of the expression for standard error. Additionally systematic errors are eliminated by using anomalies. No wonder you can’t get your work published.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 18, 2019 9:58 am

Donald L. Klipstein at July 18, 2019 at 5:45 am

Not correct, Donald. Systematic error from uncontrolled variables is not constant. It does not subtract away in anomalies.

The only way to account for variable systematic errors is through careful calibration experiments. The error is quantified and expressed as a ±uncertainty.

When taking anomalies, the uncertainties from systematic error combine in quadrature. That means the uncertainty in the anomaly is always greater than the uncertainty in the measurement; an inconvenience ignored in the field.

You can read about the problem in the paper of Hubbard and Lin describing the need for real-time filtering to lower (but not eliminate) the systematic measurement error in air temperature measurements.

My papers have been published by the way. They’ve merely been ignored by the workers in the field.

One sees why they ignore the problem when one notes their self-serving assumptions that all measurement error is random. They look at the systematic error and then burn incense on the altar of the Central Limit Theorem. It’s the incompetence of the willfully blind.

And yet once again, Donald, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Reply to  Pat Frank
July 18, 2019 11:24 am

“When taking anomalies, the uncertainties from systematic error combine in quadrature. ” and they cancel out.

Assuming systemic error exists is not enough, you have to show it. Why don’t you actually do the work, gather the data and demonstrate it truly exists. Now that would be a better route than just bellyaching about it.
Again, your holy grail of systemic error is contained in the “s” term in the numerator of the equation for Standard Error.
“My papers have been published by the way.” Yup, you’ve correctly used the word “published”….and they are ignored because workers in the field don’t pay much attention to the blogs you “publish” on. If you’d do
better work, more reputable journals might consider publishing you. Hey, you could always get your work published in a vanity journal.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 18, 2019 12:23 pm

Donald L. Klipstein at July 18, 2019 at 11:24 am

You wrote that on combining uncertainties in quadrature “they cancel out

That’s extraordinarily ignorant even for you, Donald. Combination of the uncertanties for an anomaly is ±u_total = sqrt[(u_meas)^2 +(u_mean)^2].

How does addition of two positives cancel anything out?

You wrote, “Assuming systemic error exists is not enough, you have to show it.

I provided you the link to the paper of Hubbard and Lin demonstrating the large systematic errors in air temperature measurements, Donald. But you ignored it, just as you’ve ignored or casually dismissed every fact that negates your premise of human-caused global warming.

The paper of Hubbard and Lin is not the only calibration experiment showing systematic error in air temperature measurements. There are others. They are all ignored by the workers who compose the global record.

Those same people also ignore the limits of resolution of the historical instruments. They invariably demonstrate their utter incompetence.

I provided links to my papers published in journals following peer-review, Donald. Your dismissals are no more than ignorant. The same ignorance you’ve demonstrated throughout the conversation.

Reply to  Pat Frank
July 18, 2019 1:49 pm

Thank you very much Mr. Pat Frank. The more of your insignificant and pointless drivel you post, the more it become clear why “They’ve merely been ignored by the workers in the field. ”
They, like me, ignore drivel.

Reply to  Pat Frank
July 18, 2019 2:07 pm

Example of drivel: the values in an anomaly are not uncorrelated, so your quadrature combination is invalid. Furthermore, if you claim they are random (which they must be to be combined in quadrature) then you have shot yourself in the foot with regards to any/all claim that they are systemic.

Reply to  Pat Frank
July 18, 2019 2:33 pm

Consider the following time series of data:
15, 18, 29, 11, 22
The baseline average is 95/5 = 19
on the sixth time interval we have a reading of 23, which give an anomaly of +4
But we find that our measuring instrument has systematic error, and is off by 3 units, so in fact the data is
18, 21, 32, 14, 25
The revised baseline average 110/5 = 22
The sixth time interval measurement is now 26, which gives the anomaly of +4
This is how/why using anomalies removes systematic error.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 18, 2019 5:17 pm

Systematic air temperature measurement error is due to uncontrolled environmental variables, Donald. Got that? Variables. Not constants.

Variable systematic errors do not subtract away.

Due to their source in uncontrolled environmental variables, one does not know the magnitude of the error in any given measurement.

Calibration experiments show non-normal error distributions.

The error in the mean is unknown. The error in any given measurement is unknown. Taking an anomaly is not, and cannot be, known to remove unknown errors.

The only way forward is to record the uncertainty derived from a calibration experiment.

The error varies from time to time, but is deterministic, not random. Your examples are utterly irrelevant.

You have yet to come to grips with the argument. You give no evidence of looking at the paper of Hubbard and Lin that describes the problem of systematic measurement error.

Nor have you given any evidence of looking at any of my papers, or of even reading the abstracts.

You show no knowledge of their content, or of their analysis, or of any of the problems besetting air temperature measurement. And yet you’re dismissive.

Your dismissals are lazy, self-serving, ignorant, and empty of any relevant substance.

Reply to  Pat Frank
July 18, 2019 8:02 pm

My example shows exactly how systematic errors are removed by using anomalies. You are dead wrong saying they are caused by variables, they are instrumental errors, namely zero or scaling. You don’t need to know the magnitude of the error, as in my example it could be any number.

This statement by you is totally false: “The error in any given measurement is unknown. ” The uncertainty of any given instrument is known, and you can most likely find these error bounds in the published specification of said instrument. As in the example I cited, using anomalies cancels the systematic instrumental error.

Go back to chemistry and leave the statistics to actuaries, you’ll see the results of their work in your next insurance bill. Your ignorance of reality is exactly why your work is ignored by workers in the field.

Reply to  Pat Frank
July 18, 2019 8:12 pm

Pat Frank says: “The error varies from time to time, but is deterministic”
Pat Frank also says: “due to uncontrolled environmental variables”


Now, since they are deterministic, you can control them, so how can you call them “uncontrolled?”

Reply to  Pat Frank
July 18, 2019 8:30 pm

There’s another thing about your bellyaching about “systematic error” that I find absolutely hilarious. When the workers in the field (the ones ignoring your papers) actually find errors in the data, they correct the data and provide the rational for such corrections. Then, after they’ve done the work in improving the quality of the data, people on this site complain that the data is “adjusted.” Can’t have it both ways there Franky

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 20, 2019 7:04 pm

Donald L. Klipstein at July 18, 2019 at 8:02 pm

You wrote, “You are dead wrong saying they are caused by variables, they are instrumental errors, namely zero or scaling.

Once again you assert without knowing what you’re talking about. The Hubbard and Lin paper, among others, shows that systematic measurement error is caused by irradiance and wind speed effects.

You didn’t even look at it, did you. A perfect demonstration of your lazy ways. Or is it just opportunistic ignorance? Whichever your trait, it appears refractory.

Had you read their paper, you’d know how utterly nonsensical is your argument.

Here, let me help you:

From the paper: “Air temperature measurement biases caused by solar radiation and ambient wind speed are well‐known. … Figure 2 shows the frequency distribution of air temperature biases calculated from data in June 2000. In general, both daytime and nighttime air temperature biases illustrated positive average biases for all radiation shields; however, the daytime air temperature biases and standard deviations were quite large compared to the nighttime air temperature biases due to the solar radiation effects.

The systematic measurement error is due to uncontrolled environmental variables, Donald. The systematic error varies deterministically hour-by-hour, day-by-day, season-by-season, and year-by-year.

Go on as you like in your ignorance, Donald. You were wrong from the start, and you’re still wrong.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 20, 2019 8:06 pm

Donald L. Klipstein at July 18, 2019 at 8:12 pm: “Now, since they are deterministic, you can control them, so how can you call them “uncontrolled?”

Deterministic just means caused by some coherent physical process, Donald.

Solar irradiance and wind-speed represent such processes, and they are out of anyone’s control.

You never fail to get it wrong.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 20, 2019 8:11 pm

Donald L. Klipstein at July 18, 2019 at 8:30 pm : “… the workers in the field … correct the data and provide the rational for such corrections”

Wrong again, Donald. The workers in the field ignore systematic measurement error. They assume all measurement error is random.

That’s assume, not know.

It’s as though those people never made a measurement themselves or ever struggled with an instrument.

I expect that could well turn out to be the case, were those people ever questioned.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
July 17, 2019 2:25 pm

“Enjoy leitmotif”

Feldman spent 11 years on this study in two locations and no surface warming was measured as in Anthropogenic Global WARMING. – AGW. Where is the observational data for the warming? Pat Frank is correct.

You list all those laughing scientists but Berkeley Lab which led the research on Feldman et al (2015) says, “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface”

So Berkeley Lab is admitting that there was no previous observational evidence.

No warming and no laughing scientists (scientists that were not measuring surface warming from back radiation).

This is the sort of rubbish that they put out at the Guardian that they all lap up.

Reply to  leitmotif
July 17, 2019 4:57 pm

There was previous indirect observational evidence with the light/spectrum of moonlight.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
July 18, 2019 2:19 am

…In the real physics of thermodynamics, the measurable thermodynamic properties of common atmospheric gases predict little if any influence on temperature by carbon dioxide concentration and this prediction is confirmed by the inconsistency of temperature and carbon dioxide concentrations in the geological record. Moreover, when the backradiation “Greenhouse Effect” hypothesis of Arrhenius is put to a real, physical, material test, such as the Wood Experiment, there is no sign of it because the “Greenhouse Effect” simply does not exist. This is why the “Greenhouse Effect” is excluded from modern physics textbooks and why Arrhenius’ theory of ice ages was so politely forgotten. It is exclusively the “Greenhouse Effect” due to carbon dioxide produced by industry that is used to underpin the claim that humans are changing the climate and causing global warming. However, without the “Greenhouse Effect”, how can anyone honestly describe global warming as “anthropogenic”?
Moreover, when the backradiation “Greenhouse Effect” hypothesis of Arrhenius is put to a real, physical, material test, such as the Wood Experiment, there is no sign of it because the “Greenhouse Effect” simply does not exist. 

Reply to  commieBob
July 16, 2019 4:25 pm

“Even if you accept the science, and even if you accept that human caused CO2 emissions cause warming, there is no reason to”…

…do anything?

You are insane.

Reply to  Loydo
July 16, 2019 5:36 pm

Yes Loydo.
If we could be sure that human activities can cause warming, I reckon we should turn human activities up to 11.

Reply to  Loydo
July 16, 2019 6:00 pm

No Loydo you are the one pushing a religion of panic based around the totally beneficial increase of 100 ppmv of Co2 so I would say you are the insane one here.

Reply to  Loydo
July 16, 2019 6:04 pm

Hmm lets see I do nothing and even if every bogey man story is true nothing happens in my lifetime and I might save some person somewhere on the planet in 50-100 years time. Alternative is I act immediately and my countries economy goes down the toilet and looks like Venezuela, I have no job can’t support myself or my family and spend the rest of my life in poverty. Hmm wonder which I would choose?

And you call me crazy 🙂

Reply to  Loydo
July 17, 2019 6:49 am

Insanity is spending trillions to prevent the world from warming up a few tenths of a degree.

Reply to  Loydo
July 17, 2019 7:04 pm

Loydo July 16, 2019 at 4:25 pm
… there is no reason to”… …do anything?
You are insane.
I agree with most (all?) of your comments. However, no matter your feelings of desperation, you need to cool your comments. Fight back with facts. Insults will lead to bans – despite the responses being much worse

Reply to  ghalfrunt
July 17, 2019 11:18 pm


Pop Piasa
July 16, 2019 2:17 pm

How nice for any scientist to be able to say things on a podcast without having to provide any citations.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Pop Piasa
July 16, 2019 3:36 pm

To clarify, I think she still talks as if she wants the believers to think she still is one herself. Several of her talking points struck me as not being empirical and leaning towards a CO2 dominated system. Her defense of a Hurricane paper (IMHO) she should be starting again from scratch on was an eyebrow raiser, I’d like to hear her debate Joe Bastardi on it.

Reply to  Pop Piasa
July 16, 2019 3:55 pm

“How nice for any scientist to be able to say things on a podcast without having to provide any citations.”
Not yet having listened to the pod cast, browse the past posts on her blog for cites:

Or you might try DebunkingClimate for many cites on the general subject.

Don’t miss the NASA, IPCC , AMS statements:
1. Earth only warmed 0.78 degree C to 2012.
“Using Had-CRUT4 and its uncertainty estimates, the warming from 1850–1900 to 1986–2005 (reference period for the modelling chapters and Annex I) is 0.61 [0.55 to 0.67] C (90% confidence interval), and the warming from 1850–1900 to 2003–2012 (the most recent decade) is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] C (Supplementary Material 2.SM.4.3.3).”
Pg. 209 of

2. Man emits about 6% of total emissions.
Add the numbers on this NASA diagram:

3. CO2 causes only about 26-32% of the greenhouse effect. H2O causes 60-75%.
Wikipedia’s source:
Table 3 of: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Vol. 78, No. 2, February 1997 –

4. We do not have enough data to say that hurricanes have increased.
“Confidence remains low for long-term (centennial) changes in tropical cyclone activity, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities.”
pg 178 of

5. We do not have enough data to say that storms have increased.
“Confidence in large-scale trends in storminess or storminess proxies over the last century is low owing to inconsistencies between studies or lack of long-term data in some parts of the world (particularly in the SH). {2.6.4}”
pg 178 of

6. No evidence that normal sea level increase has accelerated.
(Note that sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age – the issue is whether it is increasing.)
“When a 60-year oscillation is modeled along with an acceleration term, the estimated acceleration in GMSL since 1900 ranges from: 0.000 [–0.002 to 0.002] mm yr–2 in the Ray and Douglas (2011) record, 0.013 [0.007 to 0.019] mm yr–2 in the Jevrejeva et al. (2008) record, and 0.012 [0.009 to 0.015] mm yr–2 in the Church and White (2011) record. Thus, while there is more disagreement on the value of a 20th century acceleration in GMSL when accounting for multi-decadal fluctuations, two out of three records still indicate a significant positive value. The trend in GMSL observed since 1993, however, is not significantly larger than the estimate of 18-year trends in previous decades (e.g., 1920–1950). “
Page 306 of

7. No evidence that floods have increased (per IPCC)
“AR4 WGI Chapter 3 (Trenberth et al., 2007) did not assess changes in floods but AR4 WGII concluded that there was not a general global trend in the incidence of floods (Kundzewicz et al., 2007). SREX went further to suggest that there was low agreement and thus low confidence at the global scale regarding changes in the magnitude or frequency of floods or even the sign of changes.”
pg 230 of

8. No evidence that droughts have increased
“Confidence is low for a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, owing to lack of direct observations, methodological uncertainties and geographical inconsistencies in the trends.”
pg 178 of

9. Prediction of future climate is not possible.
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. “ (IPCC third Assessment Report (2001) Section, page 774)

July 16, 2019 2:37 pm

I like Dr. Curry’s approach, temperament, and scientific spirit. She isn’t willing to throw out anthropogenic climate change as a real thing yet; she’s careful to point out that there are vast unknowns in the data. And vast assumptions made about the character of the outcome. That caution, unfortunately, costs her, because when charlatans make unequivocal forecasts of doom, her quiet disagreement tends to to be interpreted as insecurity and people like Michael Mann are treated as confident and secure. Thus emboldening the political extremists to the point that theirs are the only voices now heard. If only the general public and politicians apprecieated the sagacious leadership of scientists who reject the role of activist!

Reply to  Psion
July 16, 2019 10:36 pm

… people like Michael Mann are treated as confident and secure.

I was going to say something about hedgehogs and foxes but then I stumbled on the overconfidence effect.

The overconfidence effect is a well-established bias in which a person’s subjective confidence in his or her judgements is reliably greater than the objective accuracy of those judgements, especially when confidence is relatively high.

I don’t know if it’s still a ‘thing’ but a few years ago the fashion was to teach media literacy to high school students. One of the things that should be covered is the nature of experts.

Experts like airline pilots can be relied on to repeat practiced performances. You can literally bet your life on their expertise.

Experts like Dr. Mann are deemed to be experts because of their education. Betting your life on their expertise is akin to Russian Roulette. Their prognostications are no more accurate than those that would be generated by a dart-throwing monkey.

Literate people should know which kind of expert to trust and which to ignore.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Psion
July 17, 2019 5:55 am

“I like Dr. Curry’s approach, temperament, and scientific spirit. She isn’t willing to throw out anthropogenic climate change as a real thing yet; she’s careful to point out that there are vast unknowns in the data. And vast assumptions made about the character of the outcome.”

I think this is a good summation of her approach, and I don’t have any problem with her taking this position. It’s a reasonable position given our level of knowledge.

July 16, 2019 2:43 pm

Chris, it was actually Groucho Marx who said, “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?” As usual, many alarmists get their facts slightly to largely wrong. Why do you, and other alarmists, believe that the warming that has been seen in the past 150 years is dominated by, or even SLIGHTLY due to, human causes, when natural warming is the reasonable explanation? Since natural causes were responsible for the modest warming we’ve seen globally through the late 20th century, why should man-made causes be ascribed to warming since then? Computer models cannot possibly replicate the climate system, at least insofar as what we have to use for input now. I told my supervisor in NOAA this years ago, Garbage In, Garbage Out, and he had no reply, other than to parrot the material coming from GFDL and NOAA / NWS HQ. You seem to have a Chicken Little persona, but that seems to be the norm these days due the endless hyping and exaggeration of normal and natural weather and climate by the agenda-driven (and ratings-driven) mainstream news media. I feel sorry for your grandchildren, too, as they are receiving more needless angst from adults who should know better. It appears that an investment in pharmaceutical companies will provide for a comfortable retirement, as sales of anti-depressants should continue to soar.

July 16, 2019 3:50 pm

Climate change is a crisis? If anyone believes this:
a) Why are you still driving an SUV?
b) Have you stopped flying?
c) Is your air conditioning set lower than 85 deg F?

John Tillman
Reply to  joe
July 16, 2019 4:15 pm

d) Do you consume dairy products?
e) Do you eat vertebrates, or is your only source of animal protein from invertebrates? Termites excepted, of course, given their enormous contribution to atmospheric methane.

Reply to  joe
July 16, 2019 4:27 pm

Joe’s comment is exactly right, but I would go even further. If climate change is a crisis?
a) Why are you still driving a car or any fossil fuel powered vehicle?
b) Have you stopped flying or traveling by any fossil fuel powered transportation?
c) Is you A/C set lower than 85 degrees F (29 degrees C), and is your heat set above 50 degrees F (10 degrees C)?
If you are driving a car, flying, or cooling/heating your living spaces you either don’t believe that climate change is an issue or you believe it is a serious issue but don’t care enough about it to personally do anything about it. Change starts at home. Walk, bike, unplug and turn off electrical appliances when not in use, turn down the A/C and heating to reasonable levels (or don’t use it at all).

Reply to  Roy
July 18, 2019 2:50 am

Roy, above all, Alarmists should stop using electricity for their computers and stop posting all day about the dangers of AGW/CC. Their waste of electricity in this manner is shameful.

July 16, 2019 4:11 pm

The tiny bit of warming that we have seen so far has been 100% beneficial.
Not all of the warming we have seen so far was caused by CO2.
More CO2 in the atmosphere is beneficial for plants, which the rest of the biosphere relies on.

In other words, not only is it not a danger, it’s a tremendous benefit.

J Mac
July 16, 2019 4:58 pm

Chris exhibits a clear case of Climate Derangement Syndrome (CDS). For chris, belief that “The End Is Nigh!” drives his depression and his unhealthy negative perspectives of the future. The first step to resolving his CDS is acknowledging he has problem and seeking professional mental health help. Failing to do so is just living in denial. Do it for your grandchildren, chris. Do it for yourself!

July 16, 2019 5:09 pm

Hello Judith, many thanks for your most interesting and informative articles, but I would suggest that you are largely preaching to the converted.

I think that most of us agree that the whole of the Global warming come CC is just a smoke screen for the top people, but not the “Useful idiots”, to use as a means long term to have a world government which will be at the very least Socialist, but far more likely will be Communist. The UN in its present form is their blueprint. As is the IPCC the Greens model.

Now the persons who would be most financially affected by a move to the left would be businesses, both big and small, and they are the ones that you and others should be concentrating on.

Perhaps wrongly I am under the impression that the business world, for their own self interest sometimes support Green ideas. A example would be for example coal production versus natural gas via fracking.

Short term the gas interest, both the CEO’s and the shareholders s would think that reducing the production of coal would improve their own industry, and short term it may well do so.

We should concentrate on getting the message over to big businesses that they must all work together against the Green Blob, both politically and by putting some money into publication of “Facts” about the dangers of the Greens long term.

I recall a story about the US Founding Fathers, when one said something on the lines of “Gentleman we must all hang together, or surly we will all hang separately “”

Another saying is to “”Divide and conquer”, which is the Green way.

We are dealing with a very dangerous long term enemy. The Western
politicians think in terms of every election, which in the case of the USA can be every two years, Australia every 3 years.

We need to think in terms of 20 or more years in such matters, and to put aside our petty differences. This is a WAR situation, nothing less.

Finally the people of the USA should be informed with big business money, that the US Democrats are presently clearly a Socialist orientated party, and certainly nothing like the original Liberal party of the UK pre 1776 upon which they were based . A study of World history regarding the way political parties are formed or taken over, will show how they change theiroriginal meanings or ideology over time.


July 17, 2019 7:46 am

Propaganda is interesting. Telling a lie often enough to make it the truth is only half of the story. The other half is keeping the truth a secret by not giving it air time. In the USA fascism is still considered by the great unwashed masses as the greatest evil of recent history. And though there was plenty of evil within fascism of the WWII century, if one measures evil by the number of people murdered by fascism compared to communism there is a clear evil champion, communism. Though both were/are a form of socialist dictatorship, one of the main differences was/is the the degree of government planning and control vs free enterprise within each and the degree of “success” experienced by each in accomplishing goals relative to available resources.
Note that the mass media speaks virtually not at all of President Trump’s successes, while extolling any negatives they can find or invent. This is my point for what is required to turn the corner on the AGW argument. More air time of the truth keeping in mind the level of scientific and mathematical skills, or lack there of, of the audience. The KISS principle needs to be applied here, keep it simple, stupid!

Thank you, Judith Curry, you are a great asset in the battle!

Matthew K
July 18, 2019 2:18 am

Seriously Anthony, global warming shills are just tools. I have had it with people trying to shove GW in my face. I had a sickening voice call in an art related chat room some time back while discussing tips and tricks to improve my art and drawing skills and some moron comes blabbering about the so called irreversible melting Arctic. One of the other callers told him to back off and we all started trying to get him to calm the heck down. He kept ranting about a coming “blue ocean event” (IIRC an Arctic Ice Free Earth) and that some “plethora gun something I couldn’t really give a toss what its called” is eventually going to fire in the next decade and that there is no hope for us, even going as far as linking a YouTube documentary about the blue ocean event. He eventually shut up and left the call, and one of the other callers told me to pay no attention to him as he was most likely in a foul mood or something.

But still, his conversation made me feel sick, like really really sick, and me suffering from the Autism spectrum makes things worse. I didn’t sleep a wink that night, as the thought kept running through my head; “I’m 23 years old. What future do I have if this sort of thing is inevitable!?” The next day I scoured the internet for some sort of closure to try and wipe that gut-retching discussion out of my head. I somehow managed to stumble upon Watt’s Up With That, and after reading decent number of articles, I began to feel better, knowing I had found a place where all the Normal People could go and call out the GW rubbish everyone seems to be spewing.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Matthew K
July 20, 2019 8:20 pm

You’ve got it figured out, Matthew.

None of those people know what they’re talking about. And that’s right up through the climate modelers and the IPCC.

The whole AGW thing represents the worst betrayal of science, ever.

So, go ahead and live your life as you see fit. Drive your car, eat meat if you like, heat your house in the winter, cool it in the summer, and vote against anyone going on about carbon taxes and green deals.

The climate will do as it likes, as it always has done. Good and bad weather days are in your future, but none of it will be humanity’s fault — unless you buy a house near the Atlantic where hurricanes often come ashore. Then the bad day will be your fault. 🙂

Richard Patton
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 20, 2019 9:00 pm

The whole AGW thing represents the worst betrayal of science, ever.

I’d say a worse corruption of science is this insanity that you can be whatever gender you want. It’s on the level of saying that you can be any animal you want.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 21, 2019 4:21 am

Pat Frank,
Stick to your guns, you are correct about the lack of proper error analysis.
One has to reach a certain depth of scientific research before the importance of error analysis crystallises. Those who argue against your correct points simply might not yet have reached that minimal scientific maturity. Geoff S

Pat Frank
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
July 21, 2019 7:32 pm

Thanks Geoff. Your point is dead on.

The really scary part is that I have yet to encounter a climate modeler who understands the first thing about physical error analysis.

They find no reason to not believe climate models that have resolution limits hundreds of times larger than the effect they think they’re seeing.

July 19, 2019 1:31 pm

The climate changes regardless of human activity . Enjoy the current ride
because extra cow farts and volvos are not going to stop the next ice age .
It’s an overblown con job that has almost run its course and the easy money has been made .
Time for a new scare .

A Pollo
July 26, 2019 1:44 pm

Dr Curry is now in the 1% of scientists that are still denying man-made climate change. It must be a lonely job continuing to find ways to deny the obvious.

Pat Frank
Reply to  A Pollo
July 27, 2019 10:25 am

It’s obvious that there’s no science at all to back up the claim of “man-made climate change.” All one need do is study to know that truth.

Air temperature projections are physically meaningless, here.

Climate modelers are not scientists, here.

The global air temperature record is an error-riven mess, here.

Proxy paleo-temperature reconstructions are pure pseudo-science, here.

The Nature paper touted in your Guardian article uses proxy reconstructions (pseudo-science) and climate models (physically meaningless) to construct a work that looks like science, but isn’t science.

The worst part of it is that the authors of that paper are clearly not well-enough trained to know they’re talking subjectivist nonsense.

In their Figure 2, they claim to know air temperatures of the past to within 0.1 C. The display of such deep ignorance would be remarkable were it not so common among consensus climatologists.

Pat Frank
Reply to  A Pollo
July 27, 2019 10:41 am

Guardian environmental reporter Jonathan Watts is educated thusly (from his LinkedIn page):

School of Oriental and African Studies, U. of London
Master of Arts (M.A.), Japan Area Studies
2003 – 2004

The University of Manchester
Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), English Language and Literature
1987 – 1990

Mr. J. Watts couldn’t discern real science from an artful fake if his life depended on it.

But he has a righteous inner certainty and that’s enough to prove the case, isn’t it.

The Greta Thunberg syndrome: it’s a global pandemic.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights