An0maly on Twitter

A thread from a few days ago.

HT/Willie Soon

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 26, 2019 10:15 pm

“Yet, they scramble to act like this doesn’t make a difference.”

Uh huh. Next.

Reply to  Loydo
September 27, 2019 6:09 am

How dare you?

Reply to  Loydo
September 27, 2019 7:00 am

Thank you for proving the point.

Reply to  Loydo
September 27, 2019 10:33 am

Hello Loydo, it is clear YOU can’t come up with anything of substance against the article…..

Reply to  Sunsettommy
September 27, 2019 2:31 pm

Its fake tommy.

Reply to  Loydo
September 27, 2019 4:13 pm

Why expose yourself now? The rest of us figured out you are fake a long time ago.

Reply to  Loydo
September 27, 2019 4:23 pm

Un huh. Next.

Reply to  Alx
September 27, 2019 4:43 pm

That’s the sleptical spirit Alx.

Reply to  Loydo
September 27, 2019 8:18 pm

Hello Loydo, it is clear YOU can’t come up with anything of substance against the article…..

Bryan A
Reply to  Loydo
September 27, 2019 12:33 pm

It would appear that the term “Climate Change” really applies to “Any action that alters the stability of the ‘Current’ climate” though if anything, geologic history has proven again and again that the climate has no “Stable” regime.
Hot House
Ice House
Inter Glacial
What exactly is the Perfect Climate and the Perfect average temperature AND when did that particular climate state ever exist?

Reply to  Bryan A
September 27, 2019 1:56 pm

Here in London, and south of the Thames, we had a lovely day, back in 1998; beautiful clear sky, lovely sunrise, warming up to about 22C; then clouds after lunch – stopping it getting too warm [this is London, England, remember!]; then rain after dark.
Perfect weather. Seventy days like that a year – with the others seasonally adjusted, I guess – for thirty years, and – Ta-Da – the Perfect Climate.
For here.
In m y opinion. YMMV.


Bill Powers
Reply to  Bryan A
September 28, 2019 8:09 am

They keep the answer in a secret sacred vault buried deep under the UN Bryan. Only the High Priests of the Church of Global Warm…ahhh Climate Change know the answer to your question as provided by ALGORE.

They intend to safeguard the answer until civilization expires or the sun expands taking us with it in is last dying death throws. Unless of course a massive chunk of space rock and ice puts us out of our climate misery before then.

Of course there is always Jeopardy. Keep an eye out. “I’ll take Global Climate Trickery for 1000 Alex” “It’s the daily double. What is the Perfect Climate” “I will bet zero dollars Alex. That is above our paid grade and even Barack Obama doesn’t know” “too bad Bryan A because that would have been the correct answer and you wagered zero dollars you fool.”

Reply to  Bill Powers
September 29, 2019 12:06 pm

It wouldn’t have been the correct answer. You didn’t phrase it in the form of a question.

Reply to  Loydo
September 28, 2019 1:06 am

Something is wrong ‘Loydo’. You should be in school. Also, eat some meat and you might actually hit puberty.

Reply to  Loydo
September 28, 2019 4:32 am

Let’s see
-nonresponsive ✔️
– non substantial✔️
Likelihood of troll = 100%
Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Loydo
September 28, 2019 7:52 am

When you assumed your pseudonym you misspelled Troll.

September 26, 2019 10:26 pm

I’m sceptical that the anonymous An0maly really did undergo the conversion that he claims, but he has picked up a weak collection of tired old talking points here, which he seems to think will promote his video. So “Here is them admitting that not only is it (Antarctidc ice) not melting as fast as they said”? Well, guess what – there isn’t just one “they”. Different scientists make different estimates, and even sometimes amend them as the facts come in. It’s very well understood that the future of ice mass on Antarctica is a balance between melting and gain from extra precipitation, with considerable uncertainty.

And then he’s surprised to find that John Coleman is a climate sceptic? Who knew?

And of course, the old volcanoes under the ice story. Even though the source emphasises that the actual melting they might cause is very small. An0maly isn’t going toi try to work that out.

And coming toward the end, those old Time covers. He lists two. Neither was about climate change; in fact, both were about fuel shortages in the US. The first was the winter of the OPEC boycott 1973/4.

Seems like a poor man’s Tony Heller to me.

meteorologist in research
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 26, 2019 10:49 pm

More precip due to warming in those temperature ranges.

Bryan A
Reply to  meteorologist in research
September 27, 2019 12:25 pm

More precip??? In Antarctica??? But Antarctica is a Desert (per levels of annual precip)…
Perhaps Antarctica is reversing the desertification it underwent Millions of years ago.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 26, 2019 11:06 pm

Those that struggle desperately to be on the right side of history will be most disappointed when they find out they were not.

“Ain’t it hard when you discover that
They really were not where it’s at
After they took from you everything
That they could steal?”

Reply to  Leo Smith
September 27, 2019 6:51 am

Bob Dylan was a master poet.

Reply to  Leo Smith
September 28, 2019 10:23 am

good Dylan verse. + 100

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 26, 2019 11:07 pm

And of course, the old volcanoes under the ice story. Even though the source emphasises that the actual melting they might cause is very small. An0maly isn’t going toi try to work that out.

How ‘small’, exactly?

Reply to  HotScot
September 26, 2019 11:31 pm

The linked source quotes:
“Dr Robert Bingham, a glaciologist at the University of Edinburgh who has discovered dozens of Antarctic volcanoes, said the melting was probably not a major contributor.”

The volcanoes are not erupting. The geothermal heat is not new, and there is no reason to think it has increased. It is of order 100 mW/m2, which will melt 10 mm ice a year.

Old England
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 27, 2019 12:18 am

And is there any evidence to think that the geothermal has Not increased very significantly ?

Thought not.

In IPCC speak I have “Medium Confidence” that the Geothermal Heat from that volcano has increased by 400% in the last 5 years.

Reply to  Old England
September 27, 2019 12:49 am

“that the Geothermal Heat from that volcano has increased by 400% in the last 5 years”
The IPCC gives reasons. But 400 mW/m2 will melt just 4 cm of ice per year.

Reply to  Old England
September 27, 2019 1:18 am

You’re assuming that that 400 W/m^2 is uniform over a large area. It would only take a small area with very high heat flux to melt a lot of ice. I doubt the technology used to detect magnetic flux had the resolution to be that granular.

Old England
Reply to  Old England
September 27, 2019 2:19 am

Btw – “Medium Confidence” in IPCC Speak is defined by them as 50-50 , or “it might or it might not” , or in Plain English “We Don’t Know”.

Quite different to the understanding that phrase gives to the average person in the real world.

It was recently reported that the IPCC had explained that using that phrase rather than “Don’t know ” was because they didn’t want to reduce people’s confidence in them by saying “we don’t know”.

High Confidence means, we’re not really sure but on balance we think it might …. worth reading the IPCC Glossary to see what such misleading phrases are intended to mean…….

Reply to  Old England
September 27, 2019 6:19 am

Also. Not all heat is equal… I know that sounds oxymoronic. But heat applied to the bottom of a glacier will provide more lubrication tha heat applied from the top. So there would be a disprortional effect. Also, as mentioned by others, herself it’s being applied or concentrated will also have a disproportionate effect on how and when the ice moves. It’s certainly not trivial enough in effects that it can be ignored.

B d Clark
Reply to  Blunderbunny
September 27, 2019 10:07 am

Is that you bunny it’s me from the BBC!

Reply to  Old England
September 27, 2019 6:36 am


You miss what are the real issues. It means there are more uncertainties, with another unknown about glacier movement dynamics. Don’t fool yourself into believing they understand it all. Papers admit there is still more to learn. Besides increased uncertainty the other issue is that warmer bedrock MIGHT mean acceleration of glacier movement. This is discussed in studies about the Greenland Ice Sheet, except there they point out how Supra glacial melting is finding its way down to affecting sub glacial movement and acceleration of glaciers toward the sea.
The question is not how much melting adds to SLR. It’s what is affecting movement of the glaciers.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 27, 2019 12:52 am

10mm ice per year per m2 ? Over what area?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 27, 2019 12:54 am

Probably signifies someone’s opinion, not science. We have no idea what the geothermal flux is at any point in time. The flux maps that we have are decades old; one of them took 50 years to complete. Even with those old maps the upper end is 200 W/m^2, not 100 W/m^2. And that is modeled from measuring magnetic flux over broad areas. Realistically, a very hot spot of small area would melt a lot of ice as the melt water flows to sea, the heat flux of which would likely get washed out due to the resolution of the gravity measurement technology used to peer through kilometers of ice. No studies have been done to determine geothermal effect on melting; just guessing and opinions from people like Bingham, who really should be pushing for studies on the matter.

Reply to  icisil
September 27, 2019 1:45 am

I meant mW, not watts.

Reply to  icisil
September 27, 2019 4:48 am

Man, I can tell it was way to early in the morning for the brain to work right. I used the word gravity above; should be magnetism.

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 27, 2019 4:00 am

Where does the figure of 100 mW/m^2 come from? The heat flux from the Yellowstone caldera (which one can actually measure) is 1,500 mW/m^2, and that isn’t considered an active volcano. 100 mW/m^2 sounds more like the regular heat flux from the mantle to the crust surface.

Reply to  Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
September 27, 2019 5:17 am

Don’t know where Griff gets his number. A magnetic survey was done (via satellite, aerial, land-based) to create this map that shows hot spots of over 150 mW/m^2. A more recent analysis used satellites to measure top of ice height fluctuations and came up with 150 mW/m^2.

Non-volcanic surfaces are in the 40-60 mW/m^2 range. Yellowstone is 200 mW/m^2 averaged over the whole park, with individual geothermal features being much hotter. The same thing is likely happening under western Antarctica, i.e., small hot spots causing a lot of melting.

comment image

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
September 27, 2019 2:58 pm

icisil<===== Here's a link to a paper entitled Preliminary Assessment of Volcanic and Hydrothermal Hazards in Yellowstone National Park and Vicinity

It gives the figure for the average of 1,500 mW/m^2 for the Yellowstone Caldera. My wife and I did a lot of hiking there this summer, and I can believe that figure.

Reply to  Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
September 27, 2019 5:05 pm

OK. I got 200 mW/m^2 from the link above.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 27, 2019 4:37 am


you make a fair point that even though we now know there are many thousands more underwater volcanoes than we realised ten or twenty years ago, they would have to be more active than previously if they were to make a difference to ice melt.

However, we don’t know whether they are or aren’t more active do we? These things go in phases. The LIA – whatever its causes-took place because some things happened in that intermittent 300 year long period that hadn’t occurred in the same manner before. Similarly with the 400 year long MWP.

Dr Bingham says ‘the melting was probably not a major contributor. in other words he doesn’t know for certain and nor does you or me.

incidentally this 10mm of ice melt of year, is that just some tiny patch directly around the volcano or a bigger area?

I do appreciate your comments here, although you do get more than your fair share of flak!


Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  tonyb
September 27, 2019 11:39 am

People who do more than their “fair share” of BSing are gonna get more than an average amount of pushback.
Try this: Go to SKS or any of the warmista blogs and present even the most mild skeptical arguments and information, and see if you get “more than your fair share of flak”.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 27, 2019 11:44 am

If you want to know what the left is up to, simply look at what they are accusing the right of doing.

Reply to  tonyb
September 27, 2019 11:46 am

“incidentally this 10mm of ice melt of year, is that just some tiny patch directly around the volcano or a bigger area?”
Here is a WUWT article saying that that total heat going into Pine Island glacier from the volcanoes is 2500±1700 MW. Equivalent of a couple of power stations. That would melt about 0.2 Gt ice a year. Total mass loss of the glacier is estimated at 46 Gt/year.

Bryan A
Reply to  tonyb
September 27, 2019 12:41 pm

Considering that melt is at the bottom of the glacier, wouldn’t it also cause the glacier to speed up and calve more ice from it’s margin?

Reply to  tonyb
September 27, 2019 11:32 pm

@Nick Stokes
“… total heat going into Pine Island glacier from the volcanoes is 2500±1700 MW. … That would melt about 0.2 Gt ice a year.”

I was wondering how the 2500MW figure was obtained and if it is consistent with that amount of ice melting, so I did the latent heat calculation on those figures and, yes, I agree that much power would “only” melt 0.2Gt of ice per year.

I was also curious about the heat flux from that 2.5GW flowing out of the Pine Island glacier? To answer that question needed the effective area for calculation which produced the 2.5GW, which came from the paper that Nick indirectly referenced (“Here is a WUWT article…”):
Brice Loose et al. “Evidence of an active volcanic heat source beneath
the Pine Island Glacier” [2018]

So I see Figure 1 in that paper the authors drew a blue box around Pine Island denoting this area, which I estimated (using Google Maps) to be a rectangle approximately 75km x 100km, i.e. 175,000 km2. Dividing the 2.5GW by that area yields about 130mw/km2 as the heat flux flowing out of that total area, which is consistent with the numbers Nick has been asserting.

But putting the Pine Island energy rate in context with other large active volcanoes, this is not a very minor activity as Nick asserts. The authors note that it is almost half of the rate of Grimsvotn, Iceland’s most active volcano, at 4.25GW.

Implications of a volcanic heat source. The impact of the inferred volcanic heat flux on the flow characteristics of Pine Island Glacier depends upon the intensity of the volcanic heat flux (heat flux per unit area) at the base of the ice sheet and possibly upon the temporal variations in this heat source, because transients in the subglacial melt supply have the greatest impact on the ice sheet sliding rate. We lack the information needed to estimate the heat flux intensity with present data sources, but we can compare it with other natural systems.

In the paper the authors revealed that the 2.5GW rate was modeled from measurements of the 3He helium isotope concentration in the circumpolar deep water (CDW) found in the glacier cavity. The idea being that the presence of 3He is leakage from the mantle magma below. So it is not a direct observation, but just a measurement of a parameter (3He) to be used to model the heat flow, which is done by estimating the ‘excess 3He’ due to geothermal activity carried by vertical sea currents which also need to be accurately measured. So there is a fair amount of uncertainty in the modeled heat flow.

I believe that energy rate is underestimated. Even the authors of that statistic caution that it may be underestimated:

It is worth noting that the volcanic heat flux reflected by excess 3He only captures convective heat transfer via hydrothermal fluids. The 3He tracer does not capture sensible and conductive heat transfer, which can also be elevated as a consequence of thin crust and a proximal magma heat source57. Consequently, 2500 MW may be an underestimate of the total volcanic heat supply.

Why use a flimsy model like 3He when you can model the heat flow directly with the Fourier heat transfer equation! For a simple first order estimate I used the online heat transfer calculator at using the equation

q = (k / s) A dT, where q is the heat flux to be calculated k is the thermal conductivity, s is the thickness of the mantle, A is the transfer area and dT is the change in temperature from the mantle to ice surface interface.

So I plugged in k=3, s=8km, A=19200km2, and dT= 1300C and got 9.4GW as the heat flux, which is significantly larger than using 3He model.

The 8km thickness of the mantle came from this paper, where the authors used a geomagnetic survey to estimate mantle thickness, also using Fourier’s Law to produce a heat map that is consistent with areas of suspected volcanism. (The heat map has been published several times on WUWT already)

Yasmina Martos et al., “Heat Flux Distribution of Antarctica Unveiled”, [2017]

How can magnetism determine mantle thickness? Well, it works on the principle that magnetite loses its magnetism at a temperature of 580C (“Curie temperature”), so the depth of the mantle can be discerned from aerial magnetometer surveys. In East Antartical the mantle is 22km-63km thick. West Antarctica (where Pine Island is) is much thinner, 8km-32km.

I suspect the mantle around Pine Island has hot spots where the mantle is thinner than 8km, which would increase the heat flux even more. The reason for my suspicion is the presence of sulfur dioxide fumes (SiO2) in the that region, which is an indicator that molten lava is relatively near surface. You can see the SiO2 fumes in real time using the nifty interface. (I have place a ‘picker flag’ on the Pine Island glacier, where the SiO2 concentration is currently 0.02μg/m3),-77.323,-112.559,3,m:zsadl0

When the concentration reaches 0.1 and above, Windy colorizes the intensity in shades of brown, as you can on the right in the Bransfield Strait, where there are several active volcanoes pumping out SiO2 (Orca Seamount, Deception Island and others).

The heat flux from magma, if it penetrates through the magma is almost a megawatt per square meter. Needless to say, that would melt a lot of glacial ice. Here’s an interesting paper describing the effects of such direct-contact lava flows under ice and water in Iceland.

Björn Oddsson et al., “Experimental studies of heat transfer at the dynamic magma ice/water interface: Application to subglacially emplaced lava”, [2016]

Richard M
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 27, 2019 8:51 am

Nick, the geothermal heat does not stop at the coastline. It also is warming the ocean water where the glacial grounding ice is located. How much effect does that have? Oh right, you have no idea. In addition, the melted ice flows into the ocean adding even more heat. How does that affect the grounded ice? Oh right, you have no idea.

In other words, your entire comment is nothing but denial.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 26, 2019 11:10 pm

I’m sceptical that the anonymous An0maly really did undergo the conversion

Well, I’ve been a bit sceptical on the global warming scare a long time if not from the 80’s, but I recognize the general tendency. As young, hearty and intelligent, you go and believe stuff, until you grow up. I’m a bit dimmer now, but I see the hidden agendas much easier and understand that ‘doing something’ is not a solution. Young people always want to ‘do something’.

The thing is not so much about if the world will warm (most authors at this site appear believe in benign warming), not even how much it warms (even the IPCC has not been able to figure that out), but what should be done, and what should that cost to me. People who sell snake oil are always telling me the end is near; even just recognizing the snake oil salespersonship helps a lot. And not all people literally sell stuff. They might also sell their ideology, usually on the leftist utopia side, sometimes even totalitarian ideas such as ‘we should get rid of democracy’.

By all means, believe in science. That is good. But don’t believe in advocates, the screaming headlines of main stream media and yellow press, nor believe people who are young, hearty and intelligent. They’re just wrong.

Old England
Reply to  Hugs
September 27, 2019 2:02 am


It’s fine to believe in science but when it is polluted by political activism that becomes ‘very dangerous.

The temperature data from GISS, HADCRUT etc is so heavily processed (homogenised) as to be meaningless. They show slight warming over the last 30 years, claiming the hottest years on record are there.

But those “temperatures” are not what was actually recorded, they are what comes out from processing the raw, actual recorded temperature using some magic formulae. If you look at the Raw Data, as recorded at weather stations, which is published by the Japanese and the Danish Meteorological agencies you see a very different picture showing around 1C COOLING over the last 30 years. ( you can find data on this over at )

Global temperatures only show as getting warmer After the recorded temperatures have been “processed” by the likes of HADCRUT and GISS.

Similarly the Hottest years, from originally recorded temperatures, were back in the early decades of the 20th century. How they were measured didn’t change until the introduction of electronic thermometers near the end of the 20th century. But recorded temperatures in the 80s and since could not beat or equal those earlier temperature records !

I’ve lost track of just how many times now the temperature “record keepers” have adjusted and revised those earlier temperatures, it may be 4 or 5, but seems to happen when global temperatures haven’t risen as predicted – and each time the records are revised the earlier years end up cooler than the previous revision and the recent ones a little warmer.

Looked at dispassionately it is very easy to be led into concluding that the data is being made to fit the theory. Something that is far from unknown in climate “science”.

The IPCC report published last year claimed that a 2C rise in temperature above 1850 would be the most earth could stand without catastrophe. 1850 was the tail end of the Little Ice Age, accepted as being at least 2C COLDER than normal, although it may have been much worse than that based on contemporary records of ships trapped in sea ice a mile and more off the East coast of England in some years.

In prophesying doom, the IPCC appear to have ignored the empirical and historical evidence of the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, respectively circa 3, 2 and 1-1.5 degrees C WARMER than today. Periods that were so benign for mankind, earth and the environment that they saw some of civilisations great advances.

There were no major “species extinctions” during those hotter periods, so current scare-mongering from IPCC and the likes of Extinction Rebellion about this happening soon are nonsense. Recently published research has shown that earth had More Species than today in hotter times – 6c warmer! Extinction events, other than catastrophes such as asteroid strike, occur during Cooling events.

If you count species from a pole to the tropical rainforest you find the warmer the environment the greater the number and diversity of species there are.

The only worrying thing to bear in mind is that these warm periods appear as roughly 1000 year cycles, each one around 1C COLDER than the previous, giving an overall cooling trend over the last 3000 years of -1C per millennium.

Currently we are 1000 years since the last warm period, and given the raw temperature data from JMA and DMA zhowing cooling over the last 30 years it is perfectly feasible to suggest that our current warm period may have plateaued or be about to end. Increased CO2 doesn’t seem to have managed to create much if any warming !

Suspicion of that could explain the hysteria about “Climate emergency”, because once people see there is no real climate the plans to politically change and deindustrialise the developed nations fall apart.

A recent study by James Cook University calculated the amount of CO2 now being removed by the 20% Increase in global vegetation (NASA data) over the last 25 years or so. An Increase because of the higher levels of plant food (CO2) in the atmosphere. Compare that amount with mankind’s emissions and it seems that plants and trees are now removing as much or more CO2 from the atmosphere each year as man puts into it ! That doesn’t seem like much of a crisis .

Global communism was largely defeated and discredited in the 45 years after the end of WW2, but it didn’t disappear it morphed into the “Solutions” demanded to stop climate change. Those solutions would change western democracies into quasi-marxist-socialist states along the lines proposed by amongst others Cortez in the USA, Trudeau in Canada and Corbyn in the UK.

The emergency is not about climate it is all about forcing political change through fear – worth looking into. It is democracy that is under catastrophic threat – not the earth.

Reply to  Old England
September 27, 2019 3:13 am

Agreed. If you notice, not one candidate or promotor of this “green religion” has come forth and provided solutions to reduce pollution, improve infrastructure, and common sense energy conservation measures. All of the above are energy intensive. Proper resource management and energy recovery can reduce dependence on, say fossil fuels while preserving the environment. Until I see any progress in that arena, it is just nonsense and socialist blather.

michael hart
Reply to  Old England
September 27, 2019 4:32 am

There are similar precedents in other fields where the record keepers have a vested interest in numbers changing to fit their desires.

Some years ago I recall reading that the statistical method of calculating UK unemployment figures were revised dozens of times by the Thatcher government during the period of high 1980’s unemployment. Rather conveniently, every new adjustment managed to produce a new unemployment number that was lower than the previous one. Sometimes you don’t to be a scientist or statistician to smell something fishy.

Reply to  Old England
September 27, 2019 5:40 am

Old England

With warming generally comes a population explosion which is no problem as food supplies generally increase in tandem.

We saw that in the MWP in Europe with a huge increase in population coupled with a vast expansion of acreage under crops and a reduction in forests, as wood was used for cooking burning, building and ships.

The MWP starting in around 850 was a very different world to that which existed when it definitely ended around 1307 in increasing cold and a huge famine, as crops, without the warmth, could not supply the food needed.

let us hope the modern warming continues as the numbers today are so much larger. The tweets here about Ethiopia don’t show the increase in population from the time of live aid
to today. Go take a look. you will be shocked.

In essence, numerous countries will need the best climate ever known in order for its rapidly expanding population to continue to have a good life or to aspire to one. Trouble is, that as we see through history as exemplified in the vast amount of records available for England,-great climates do not last for ever


meteorologist in research
Reply to  tonyb
September 29, 2019 7:55 pm

Old England – thanks for the post. Remember that it’s the speed of the change that’s so damaging, not what happens over thousands of years.

Reply to  tonyb
September 30, 2019 1:42 am

What speed of change? We see nothing unusual or unprecedented about our changing climate. It looks perfectly average.

Are you referring to the doomer fantasy models? Models created by doomers?

I had a childhood friend who used to build models of all kinds of scary things. Werewolves, vampires, swamp creatures, and more. Curiously none of these were real.

meteorologist in research
Reply to  Old England
September 27, 2019 7:27 am

Old England, your ideas make us feel better with your history. What about thirty years from now? What’s your outlook? Cooling? What’s the mechanism?

Old England
Reply to  meteorologist in research
September 27, 2019 9:18 am

@Meteorologist in research
Good question, to which I don’t have answers – and you would probably have a better idea than I.

I could probably knock up a short software program as a climate model that could produce whatever result you wanted depending on the assumed (guessed at) variables used in such models …. and if it didn’t produce the result you want straight away I could go back and ‘fine tune’ some of the guessed at variables just like other climate modellers.

I guess that would make me a full-blown and authentic climate scientist – or at least modeller !

Sun and clouds coupled with ocean currents seem to be probably the main drivers of climate. Clouds seem very likely to be partially dependent on solar activity levels; although forests have some ability for forming clouds from the VOCs the trees release, and one reason why rain forests are rain forests. This is why deforestation and the resultant reduced rainfall are often cited as proof of climate change despite being no such thing.

But of all influences, it is solar that has to be the greatest – no sun no heat, weak sun weak heat etc. Shame the IPCC doesn’t think the sun has much effect.

Precession and its 26,000 year cycle , which I have very little knowledge of , clearly influences what solar energy strength we receive from the sun as we move closer to or further away from it .

There are so many different cycles of different lengths which alter and change earth’s temperature – there seems to be a somewhere around ~40 year cycle with warming followed by cooling as 19th and 20th century records (Raw Data) show. Climate scientists don’t seem to adequately address or explain that. El Nino and La Nina, AMO, PDO, etc etc all have their influences as does the Jet Stream although that does appear to be somewhat influenced by solar radiation levels

As for the future, it seems as if we may be in or going into a Grand Solar Minimum, if so hopefully less powerful than either Maunder or Dalton. My understanding is that is likely to engender greater amounts of cloud formation with the attendant cooling that comes from those.

But temperatures 30 years from now, who knows – I suspect they will be pretty close to where they are now or perhaps a little cooler. Overall for more than 3,000 years we have seen progressive, albeit slow cooling and no recent ‘warming’ has even begun to really reverse that – we’re still colder than the ‘average’ and not yet even fully recovered from the LIA let alone reached the wonderful warmth of the MWP, or the blissful heat of the Roman or Minoan.

Also have to consider that the raw data of the last 30 years shows recent cooling despite CO2 levels, but that cooling could reverse. The one thing I am certain of is that none of the IPCC warming predictions will have come true and I believe that well before 30 years time ‘Climate Change’ will be recognised as political manipulation of science.

The tragedy of it all are the vast numbers of young people who have been and are being traumatised by alarmists who have done so purely to advance their political aims. I hope that one day they will be held to account for that. The son of a friend of ours has now twice attempted suicide because he believes the world is about to end and all is hopeless; I have been and continue to try and show him that is not the case.

Reply to  Old England
September 27, 2019 8:45 am

Terrific post , thanks

meteorologist in research
Reply to  Wharfplank
September 30, 2019 5:21 pm

When I want to reply I don’t get the REPLY link.

Reply to  Old England
September 27, 2019 11:18 am

Great summary. Thanks.

Reply to  Old England
September 27, 2019 11:26 am

Agree much. I like the motto, “Happiness is a warm planet!” and think skeptics should adopt it just to piss off the alarmists.

Minor detail: I think the dinosaur-killing asteroid event was in effect a “cooling” event, too. A Mt Pinatubo times a thousand, with massive elevation of particulates high into the atmosphere, darkening the skies, cooling the climate. Some paleo-geologist here may be able to confirm that.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  kwinterkorn
September 29, 2019 11:43 am

There was likely a huge die off immediately after the impact as fire and heat spread around the planet in a matter of hours and possibly minutes, mega tsunamis inundated coastlines, and large amounts of incandescent rock rained down upon a wide area of the hemisphere.
What happened over the ensuing weeks, months and years was very likely an evolving situation in which the survivors of the initial event struggled to survive amid a world that was burned, drowned, and littered with dead and rotting plant and animal matter.

Reply to  Hugs
September 27, 2019 6:26 am

Hugs, yup!!!

B d Clark
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 27, 2019 12:10 am

Another point on these volcanos is there is a uptick of volcanic and seismic activity across the planet,which makes any effects today more relevant to any contributing melting ice in the arctic, and the likely catalyst GSM,which is another climate factor the MSM ignore.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 27, 2019 12:17 am

He also throws in a mention of vaccines which suggests this guy is a born contrarian rather than a convert.

Reply to  Susan
September 27, 2019 3:57 am

Susan so while the fact that science…tells fibs for money on warming you dont think for a weee second that big pharma who blackmailed the FDA to allow no easily accessible lawsuits for proven vaccine damages in a deal for cheaper vaccines might be a tad “iffy?
and the recent admission that Poilio vax IS and has for some time been a source of the few outbreaks OF polio, and theyre hoping…to have a better vaccine sometime.
of course its only??? warmists who lie and minipulate facts n figures?
the 50% or more of dud research on serious issues like cancer treatments dont give you pause?
or that the once perfect gene splicing wasnt perfect at all?
that what you thought was researched and proven(never in humans though) isnt?
and the new CRISPRtech is also NOT precise as claimed and some serious harm to humans occurred already and unintended results are shown..but lets go ahead use it in food animals and people with little oversight and less control, Im so sure that self regulation BY industry is just dandy..are you?
dont you see that throwing big baccy vax skepticism and gmo and climate skeptics in one basket is rather careful manipulation too?

Reply to  Susan
September 27, 2019 6:27 am

I’m used to WUWT being in favor of vaccines and GMOs. What’s up with this?

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
September 27, 2019 7:05 am

We are a pro-science site after all.

Smart Rock
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
September 27, 2019 9:15 am

WUWT is a very open place where anyone who’s not using offensive language can voice an opinion. Unlike those alarmist websites where skeptical comments aren’t allowed. So we do see the odd anti-vaxxer stream-of-consciousness ramblings like the one above. Funny though, whenever I see bold assertions like those made by oz, they never seem to come with references to primary sources. But they always seem to be asserted with bad spelling and lousy grammar.

The internet’s a wonderful thing, oz. You should be able to dig up reliable primary source material for those assertions without too much trouble, then you can cite them in your next comment.

Big Pharma is, without a doubt, guilty of corrupt practices in twisting research to show non-existent benefits from their latest products e.g. but suppressing scandalously negative effects from vaccines is a bit much to swallow. Not with the anti-vaxxer movement scrutinizing every published word for quotes they can take out of context.

Reply to  Smart Rock
September 27, 2019 10:06 am

You can’t see what you refuse to look at.

This isn’t even a partial list of vaccine danger.

* (

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Smart Rock
September 27, 2019 12:47 pm

I clicked on the last one to see what you are talking about, and it is a paper a hypothetical link between aluminum and the amyloid plaques which are only theorized to have some causal relationship with Alzheimer’s.
I see no connection to anything involving vaccines.
Plus, it is now thought by many of not most researchers that amyloid plaques are a response to the underlying pathology, not the cause of it, similar to how arterial plaques are now thought to be a response to underlying vascular damage, most likely originally cause by bacterial infections leading to damage of the vascular lining. IOW, the cholesterol heavy plaques are a part of the immune response, perhaps to inflammation.
If true, this means that cholesterol is not causative in atherosclerosis.
Besides for that, cholesterol in the diet is not presently thought to lead to high bloom serum levels of cholesterol, which is now understood to be a family of substance anyway.
You posted those links claiming each one is some sort of proof that vaccines are harmful, and one comes away with the idea you believe all vaccines are equally bad.
The entire antivax meme is probably one of the most dangerous and damaging misinformation campaigns in the history of modern medicine, and you do not appear to be helpfully informing anyone what you believe or why.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Smart Rock
September 27, 2019 1:11 pm

The majority of researchers do not accept a causal connection with aluminum, which was never more than a weak associative link anyway.
Besides for that, the amounts of aluminum in vaccines must be considered by any rational person making a rational assessment of risk.
The amounts are infinitesimal compared with everyday environmental exposure.
The same sort of unscientific and irrational argumentation concerned the thimerosal which was once upon a time used as a preservative in some vaccines.
Atoms of all 92 elements are present everywhere in our environment and our food and our bodies.
Just because some amount of some substance can be found to be present with modern analytic techniques, is meaningless when assessing risks. Anyone who thinks different simply has no idea what they are talking about.
If a nursing mother has ever eaten a fish, she has more mercury in her breast milk that can be found in the thimerosal preservative in a single dose of a vaccine that used to contain it. Compared to the margin of safety such preservatives provide, the risk is close to or exactly nil.
People are inherently bad at assessing risk proportionality, particularly regarding anything involving subjects in which they are poorly educated and informed.
Worrying about some tiny amount of something which is not even present in a bioavailable form, when far larger amounts of that same thing exist in nearly every food and drink we consume, is simply irrational.
Compared to the risks from diseases, even ones that were for most people relatively benign, like mumps or measles, prior to when vaccines for the diseases were available, the tiny risk from any vaccine amounts to nothing.
Refusing to be vaccinated puts large numbers of people at risk of a very real harm, not a nonexistent or tiny imaginary one.

Condemning all vaccines and urging people not to take them based on some incredibly dubious chain of logic relating to a risk that likely does not exist, is typical of such beliefs.
The same refusal to be logical is the reason entire countries are shutting nuclear plants and refusing to even consider building new ones, even while these same people insist the whole Earth is in grave and immediate peril.
It makes not one bit of actual sense.

Bryan A
Reply to  Smart Rock
September 27, 2019 4:57 pm

Bear in mind Dergy, if a pandemic of some disease that a vaccine is available for should take hold, only those who haven’t been vaccinated will be susceptible

Reply to  Susan
September 27, 2019 7:05 am

As always, the only reason why anyone disagrees with you is because Big Pharma bought them off.
The so called dangers of vaccines are almost entirely imaginary, and have always been.

Reply to  MarkW
September 27, 2019 10:09 am

If approved, you’ll clearly my previous comment refuting “imaginary dangers”. Full links, all accessible.

Not that I think you’ll even look at it.

Reply to  Dergy
September 27, 2019 10:44 am


who doesn’t remember the high death toll and maimed conditions of children before Vaccines came along.

There will always be a small risk from Vaccines, but easily outweighed by the number lives saves and avoidance of physical and mental incapacitation.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Dergy
September 27, 2019 12:00 pm

Anti-vaxxers are about the most irrational people I have ever come across.
They are right in there with the chemtrails people, IMO.
Likewise, just because someone is a global warming skeptic, does not necessarily mean they arrived at their view on the subject by a careful and knowledgeable assessment of the facts.

Reply to  Dergy
September 27, 2019 4:18 pm

More studies with iffy methodology and low to almost non-existent correlations.
Impressive to those who want to believe.

Bryan A
Reply to  Dergy
September 27, 2019 11:19 pm

Hey, if it’s on the internet, it must be true

Reply to  MarkW
September 27, 2019 12:09 pm

The world has gone topsy turvy… markW and I agree on something.

Old England
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 27, 2019 12:28 am

@Nick – nothing to say about the Jakobshavn Glacier? Or why it is claimed by climate alarmists to be melting when it doing the opposite and growing?

Just another inconvenient truth to airbrush out of your narrative?

Not merely unscientific but anti-science, a classic example of the Post Modern Science used to power climate alarmism for political aims.

Reply to  Old England
September 27, 2019 1:23 am

And Iceland’s 4 largest glaciers stopped shrinking last year for the first time in 25 years; one had significant growth. It will be interesting to see what happens in 2019.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 27, 2019 12:54 am
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 27, 2019 12:54 am

I’m sceptical that the anonymous An0maly really did undergo the conversion that he claims …


I used to be a believer and remember being annoyed that not enough windmills were being built. Then someone wrote a cogent argument on BoingBoing that the hockey stick was bogus. The response by the editors of BoingBoing was feeble and stupid. The scales fell from my eyes.

Reply to  commieBob
September 27, 2019 10:08 am

The examples are of too poor quality. He leads with the fact that Antarctica is not that well known. Well, we knew that. “Can’t be sure about Antarctica” is not a reason for deciding that CO2 isn’t warming the world, unless you are really looking for one. Likewise “we haven’t explored all the oceans”. Or “Greenland glacier expands for last three years” (doesn’t fit with the conversion timeline either). And if you were really concerned about the supposed cooling scare, you’d find something better than these obviously irrelevant Time covers.

He’s reaching.

I must say that inadequate response by the editors of BoingBoing is also a strange reason.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 27, 2019 12:05 pm

The reason I gave was somewhat abbreviated. Here’s the first thing I wrote on the subject at WUWT. The BoingBoing article and the response of the editors and the sad article they pointed to are what made me sit up and take notice. If there had been some kind of credible rebuttal, I might have been satisfied with that and not decided to dig deeper.

Anyway, I always credit Dr. Michael Mann with making me a skeptic. Thanks Mike!

p.s. China also had a cool period similar to the LIA in Europe. It had similar nasty consequences. I was aware of that at the time and wouldn’t have bought the excuse that the MWP – LIA was regional to Europe.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 27, 2019 11:55 pm

Nick Stokes

And by the same logic, if one is not sure about Antartica then conclusions about CO2 cannot be drawn.

An even bigger problem is that 100% of scientists agree that no one understands how clouds work. Yet somehow, with that massive, and glaring missing science, alarmists can proclaim with absolute certainty that atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warp, despite the phenomenon never having being demonstrated empirically in mans history.

This is where climate science gets barmy. We all know that scientists are more often wrong than they are right, otherwise, there would be no need for experiments. Yet, despite the enormous amounts of missing data, there are a few vocal, and fraudulent scientists out there, who claim they know there is warming, it’s going to be catastrophic, and man made atmospheric CO2 is the culprit.

The difference between scepics and alarmists like you is that we are perfectly happy to accept CO2 is the culprit, but before spending the entire worlds wealth on altering the earths atmospheric composition, we would like to eliminate the uncertainties first. The few genuine alarmists, on the other hand, remain dogmatically certain, despite the uncertainties, and only accept one theory, their own. Not very scientific in my opinion.

meteorologist in research
Reply to  HotScot
September 29, 2019 8:02 pm

HotScot – Antarctica is a special case because of the Rossby Waves.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 27, 2019 1:44 am

As usual Nick, tackling the man and not the ball. Do you never get tired of defending the indefensible ?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 27, 2019 1:55 am

” Different scientists make different estimates ”

Yeah, and all of them are the absolute truth. When Nature does something different, Nature is in denial.

The conclusion about such a cargo cult science is that it knows shit.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 27, 2019 2:59 am

One day even Greta Thunberg is going to realise she’s been lied too. You, I’m not so sure about.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 27, 2019 6:15 am

“Well, guess what – there isn’t just one “they”. Different scientists make different estimates, and even sometimes amend them as the facts come in.”

That goes for the entirety of “climate science” and is foundational as to why there is no certainty on a changing climate.

So, Nick, you are no longer an “in the closet” skeptic.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 27, 2019 6:24 am

Nick appears to be a hoax and propaganda denier. Many of those who lived through the ice age scare remember it quite clearly. For those younger, a little research will show that it, like climate change, was real propaganda.

We all experience this stuff and these kind of scare messages from the establishment every day. If the killer bees don’t get you, avian flu will. Now shut up and eat your bowl of cereal.

It’s actually refreshing that some young people are thinking for themselves, questioning the narrative. Perhaps skepticism will not die with all the bald white men deniers. But who knows, maybe An0maly is hiding a receding hair line under his ball cap?

My hope is that truth will win out.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Scissor
September 29, 2019 11:37 am

Actually, the geologic record of ice advances and declines provides a very good rationale for supposing that the present interglacial epoch may be about to end, and is presently in the process of actually ending.
There may have been some unwarranted alarmism sprinkled in amongst the reportage, but it was nothing compared to what is going on nowadays with global warming hype and alarmism.
Global warming climate science is based on a false premise.
Worries about a new ice age was not. It was based on observational evidence, logical inference, and legitimate concerns.
As such, it was not propaganda.
There is no comparison.
Few scientists that were heavily involved with climate science at that time were alarmist, and even fewer asserted surety regarding a new ice age being imminent.
It was a relatively small field with very little funding and no huge industry backing it, such as is the case at the present time with the gigantic global warming alarmism based industries and attendant government backed funding.

paul courtney
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 27, 2019 6:30 am

“Seems like a poor man’s Tony Heller to me.”
Fine. Mr. Heller has exposed that the adjustments to records has created a flase warming, and particularly a false story that we are warmer than ever on record. It supports your theory, so you never criticize or question it. He has destroyed your pet project to fool the masses. So a poor man’s Heller is to be preferred to, well, what have you got? and please don’t bring charts that start in ~1960.

Reply to  paul courtney
September 27, 2019 7:14 am

They can’t attack the argument so they attack the person.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  paul courtney
September 27, 2019 8:13 am

“He has destroyed your pet project to fool the masses.”

Yes, Heller has. That’s why they attack this particular messenger because he exposes the lies of the Hockey Stick chart, shows it was just as warm in the past as it is today, and thus destroys the human-caused climate change speculation. The alarmists don’t want anyone listening to Tony Heller. He’s their worst nightmare.

Here’s an example. I have been saving this. Heller shows in the two charts below how the Climate Data Manipulators are even bastardizing the US surface temperature record, in their effort to make it conform to the “hotter and hotter” lie of the Hockey Stick chart:

First the Raw, unmodified, data:

comment image

And then the data after it has been modified:

comment image

Thanks for the charts and the insight, Tony!

As you can see from the two charts, the unmodified chart shows the US has been in a cooling trend since the 1930’s. The modified chart resembles the Hockey Stick chart which show the temperatures of today being hotter than any in the past. It’s a lie. As you can see.

The Data Manipulators have done this type of modification to temperature charts from all over the world trying to make it appear that the “hotter and hotter” scenario is valid, but the unmodified data from all over the world resembles the unmodified US chart above where it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today, which means there is nothing to worry about concerning CO2.

Tony Heller blows up CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) scaremongering on his website every day.

paul courtney
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 27, 2019 12:24 pm

Tom Abbot: Thank you for saving and passing on one of the most incriminating bits of evidence from Mr. Heller. Along with this site, we have ample proof that the CAGW crowd knows exactly what the truth is, and they must be ever vigilant lest it get out.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 27, 2019 6:56 am

Stokes pointing out the window while a gorilla, grizzly bear and tiger loom behind him: “Look at the squirrel!!!!!”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 27, 2019 7:45 am

“I’m sceptical that the anonymous An0maly really did undergo the conversion that he claims”

Well, An0maly, did a segment on Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson show the other day, and An0maly seemed very sincere to me. He appeared as he does in his tweets above, a little bit angry at having been fooled into believing in human-caused climate change, and he is vocal about it.

I think in the future there will be a lot of people like An0maly, and they will also be angry about having been duped by alarmists pushing the human-caused climate change fraud.

People go mad in crowds (with the help of mass media) and they come to their senses one at a time. And in the case of the human-caused climate change hoax, when they come to their senses, they are going to be mad about having been fooled by opportunists.

An0maly has seen the light and is sounding off about it. Gotta love it! 🙂

Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 27, 2019 11:26 am

A landslide always starts with a single pebble rolling. This could well be that pebble.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Graemethecat
September 29, 2019 12:10 pm

Actually, sometimes a whole sheet begins to slide all at once.
Avalanches and landslides in general may in fact rarely result from the “snowball” effect, given the cohesive nature of dirt, rocks, and snow.
I have never seen a video of a large landslide occurring from a distant vantage point that gives the whole picture in a clearly visualized way.
But many videos of avalanches exist, and it can be seen that what happens is a large slab of material detaches from the underlying layers and begins to slide, all-at-once-like.
It may be true that some landslides begin with a single pebble falling, but I have never seen any evidence to that effect.
Just sayin’.
It does not invalidate your larger point about the topic at hand, but I cannot keep myself from correcting what is really not true about a subject I have studied in some depth.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 28, 2019 5:05 am

And by “seeing the light” in my comment above, I mean that An0maly has discovered that what he has been told isn’t necessarily true. Nick Stokes criticized him for not having the science down pat, but what An0maly does have down pat is that he has not been told the truth about human-caused climate change, and now he is questioning everything. Eventually, if An0maly looks long and hard enough, he will have the science down pat, and will become even more of a skeptic, and he now has the frame of mind to find the truth.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 27, 2019 8:21 am

@Nick Stokes

You get grief here I think. I think though that you are sincere. You have some chops that make what you say have weight. Your statement here though causes me to be on the “he needs more grief” side of the discussion.

I have to give An0maly two thumbs up. You may be correct and he wasn’t a believer. I suspect you are wrong. I use to be a believer, then I started looking at the data after I learned about Popper. The lesson I learned from Popper was “always doubt”. The more I like an idea, the more I doubt it. The Dancing Wu Li Masters taught me another thing. It was a stupid thing. Every chapter in the Dancing Wu Li Masters is “Chapter 1”. We are always at the beginning.

But the climate change discussion is a farce. The arguments we have on WUWT are nothing but distractions. The only reason they happen is a mad attempt to try and keep the people at the top from fully committing to making the Powerful more powerful. Whether global climate change is happening in a dire way or not, the best way to spend resources is to make humans more capable of adapting to the changes. The worst way to spend resources is to trade pieces of paper between folks at the top and give them your money to do it.

Roads may damage the environment, but they make it so more vehicles/people can move out of an area than if there weren’t roads. Everything is a tradeoff.

Reply to  brad tittle
September 29, 2019 1:44 pm

This I like.

meteorologist in research
Reply to  brad tittle
September 29, 2019 8:07 pm

Yes, sensible people on the warmist side know that.

And they know that humans won’t change their lives. It’s a frustrating fact.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 27, 2019 10:41 am


who complains about Tony Heller and his blog articles, the same Nick who was too scared to back up his criticisms against Tony Heller, by posting them from other blogs like this one, instead of actually going Tony Heller’s blog itself. The same Nick who made comments attacking Tony Heller’s Software on generating temperature charts, then when Tony was informed about it, made a 4 separate blog posts answering YOUR brave distant criticisms, which YOU avoided answering in person, yet had the GALL to still complain about Tony Heller from the safe environs of WUWT.

You are a coward to go one and one with Tony Heller, that is a fact.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
September 27, 2019 11:26 am

I’ve tried commenting at Tony Heller’s blog, where all my comments go through moderation. Here is one example, where I point out that a dataset that he complains show GISS tampering, because they change between 2017 and 2019, are actually a 2017 version of one dataset, and a 2019 version of something different. No response at all.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 27, 2019 11:39 am

Nick’s “refutation” does nothing of the sort. The data is constantly being altered out of existence by alarmists, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar. Nick’s “nick-picking” and incessant hand waving does nothing to alter this fact.

Need proof?

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Gator
September 27, 2019 12:34 pm


The basic problem is the lack of an agreed definition for global temperature anomaly. So, GISS can and does change the definition it uses to suite whatever is its current purpose.

A clear demonstration of the point is instantly seen following one mouse click by looking at these comparisons provided by Jo Nova

The three GISS graphs at the link each purport to be of the same parameter; viz. global temperature anomaly.

On a previous occasion when I provided the same link on WUWT, Nick Stokes said the graphs showed different things, and he was right because they do (but those different things are all said to be the same thing; GISS global temperature anomaly).


Reply to  Richard S Courtney
September 27, 2019 1:06 pm

Don’t get me started on the fraud that is global temperature anomalies… once again… too late…

Temperature “anomalies” used by climate change frauds are derived from an incredibly insignificant blip of time on Earth, and using this incredibly small and meaningless set of numbers to understand an almost incomprehensible reality, is simply nothing more than nonsense and self delusion.

a·nom·a·ly əˈnäməlē/ noun
1. -something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected.

1- There is no such thing as “normal” in climate or weather.

2- What exactly am I supposed to expect in the future, based upon the range of possibilities we see in the geologic record? Can the changes we see happening now be called “extreme” in any way?

3- No.

Anomalies are created by the definers of “normal”, the grantologists, the deniers of natural climate change and our planet’s climatological history. Anomalies are crap on a stick.

Reply to  Gator
September 27, 2019 5:29 pm

Richard C,
“So, GISS can and does change the definition”
Heller’s claim was that GISS changed a specific dataset between 2017 and 2019. Definition is not an issue. There are two datasets concerned, one a land-only and one a land/ocean, but using met station data. Both have values for 2017 and 2019. Tony Heller picked a 2017 value from one and a 2019 value from the other.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 28, 2019 1:25 am

So your initial Nick-picking isn’t really all that important in the greater scam of things. And your inference that there isn’t manipulation of the data was wrong.

The grantologists alter data to fit the hypothesis. The exact opposite of science.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Gator
September 28, 2019 1:10 am

Nick Stokes,

Thank you for your attempt at clarification which I regret fails.

As I said, there are various things that can be and are called global temperature, and I demonstrated it by showing this link

I added this report,
“On a previous occasion when I provided the same link on WUWT, Nick Stokes said the graphs showed different things, and he was right because they do (but those different things are all said to be the same thing; GISS global temperature anomaly).”

You have replied by saying in full,
“Richard C,
“So, GISS can and does change the definition”
Heller’s claim was that GISS changed a specific dataset between 2017 and 2019. Definition is not an issue. There are two datasets concerned, one a land-only and one a land/ocean, but using met station data. Both have values for 2017 and 2019. Tony Heller picked a 2017 value from one and a 2019 value from the other.”

That CONFIRMS what I said; viz.
“The basic problem is the lack of an agreed definition for global temperature anomaly. So, GISS can and does change the definition it uses to suite whatever is its current purpose.”

As you admit, choosing to define define global temperature as a derivation from a selected data set provides values of global temperature from the values obtained using a different data set: you can get whichever values you want to display by choosing a data set. And you could have added that choices of masking, data selection, and interpolation methods help to ‘improve’ the definition used to obtain a desired result.

A true definition would specify the data and its statistical processing.

More on these matters is in Appendix C of this item


Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Gator
September 28, 2019 1:19 am

I wrote
As you admit, choosing to define define global temperature as a derivation from a selected data set provides values of global temperature from the values obtained using a different data set:

I intended to write
As you admit, choosing to define global temperature as a derivation from a selected data set provides values of global temperature that are different from the values obtained using a different data set:

Sincere apologies for the error which may have caused confusion.

Reply to  Gator
September 28, 2019 2:12 am

“As you admit, choosing to define define global temperature as a derivation”
Actually, I didn’t use the term global temperature at all. Heller called it global land temperature (but only one was). GISS in fact calls one the temperature over land areas, the other the global station temperature index. Their widely published index they are careful to call GISS land/ocean. There is no reason why they should not calculate three specific and defined indices for three different regions.

In your 3-plot graph, you are comparing plots from three very different times. The first was just from a 1981 paper by Hansen et al; GISS did not claim to be producing a global index at the time. Hansen simply averaged the readings of the few hundred stations he had available. That was the data situation in 1980. Someone has extensively modified the graph, which originally showed four regions. A lot has been erased, axes redrawn, labels rearranged.

By 1987, they had enough digitised data that they could draw up a grid and populate it with enough land stations data that it was reasonably representative of the globe, although they also showed maps indicating parts of the globe that were not covered. It was only by about 1996 that enough ocean data became available that they could publish a true land/ocean global index, with proper coverage of the whole surface. By then HADCRUT and NOAA were publishing similar indices, and since then this has been the accepted meaning of global surface index, but still usually qualified where necessary as land/ocean.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Gator
September 28, 2019 3:13 am

Nick Stokes,

Thanks for your further attempt at clarification and I again apologise for my typographical error which does seem to have provided confusion.

You now say,
“Actually, I didn’t use the term global temperature at all. Heller called it global land temperature (but only one was). GISS in fact calls one the temperature over land areas, the other the global station temperature index. Their widely published index they are careful to call GISS land/ocean. There is no reason why they should not calculate three specific and defined indices for three different regions.”

Nick, they (and you) provide no stated reason why they “calculate three specific and defined indices for three different regions”. This lack of a stated reason is very, very important especially when these different “indices” are called by the same name as the parameter ‘global temperature anomaly’.

This matter is discussed in Appendix C of the link I provided, i.e.

We there say of global temperature anomaly therein referred to a MGT,

“3. Consideration of MGT as a statistic with a variety of possible useful values

The issues raised in Section 2 (above) might be resolved by considering MGT as a statistic (as described in Section 1 above) which does not have a unique value. According to this consideration MGT is not measured—it is calculated from measurements—and, therefore, it is not correct to use measurement theory when considering MGT. Thereby, the arguments advanced in Section 2 (above) become invalid because they are based on measurement theory.

However, if MGT is considered to be a statistic then it can be computed in several ways to provide a variety of results, each of different use to climatologists. In such a way, the MGT is similar in nature to a Retail Price Index, which is a statistic that can be computed in different ways to provide a variety of results, each of which has proved useful to economists. If MGT is considered to be a statistic of this type, then MGT is a form of average. In which case, the word “mean” in “mean global temperature” is a misnomer, because although there are many types of average, a set of measurements can only have one mean.

Importantly, if MGT is considered to be an indicative statistic then the differences between the values and trends of the data sets from different teams indicate that the teams are monitoring different climate effects. In this case, there is no reason why the data sets should agree with each other, and the 95% confidence limits applied to the MGT data sets by their compilers may be correct for each data set. Similarly, the different trends indicated by the MGT data sets and the MSU and radiosonde data sets could indicate that they are also monitoring different climate effects.

To treat the MGT as an indicative statistic has serious implications. The different teams each provide a data set termed mean global temperature, MGT. But if the teams are each monitoring different climate effects then each should provide a unique title for their data set that is indicative of what is being monitored. Also, each team should state explicitly what its data set of MGT purports to be monitoring. The data sets of MGT cannot address the question “Is the average temperature of the Earth’s surface increasing or decreasing, and at what rate?” until the climate effects they are monitoring are explicitly stated and understood. Finally, the application of any of these data sets in attribution studies needs to be revised in the light of knowledge of what each data set is monitoring.”

Please note the final paragraph of the quotation I have provided here. It is important.


Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gator
September 28, 2019 5:29 am

Thanks for that link, Richard. I’m making a copy! 🙂

The first chart in you link, the 1980 chart clearly shows the reason why climate scientists in the 1970’s thought the Earth might be cooling into another Ice Age. By the time we get to the bastardized 2007 version of the chart, the reason for the Ice Age fear seems to have disappeared. People who only have the fraudulent Hockey Stick chart to look at say, “What Cold Period”?

The Data Manipulators erased both the heat of the 1930’s and the cold of the 1970’s in their efforts to sell the CAGW fraud by using a fradulent surface temperature record embodied in the Hockey Stick chart. The fraud has to be obvious to anyone who looks. Doesn’t it?

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Gator
September 28, 2019 8:39 am

Tom Abbot,

The answer to your question is YES.


Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Gator
September 29, 2019 12:50 pm

Why not create graphs of the separate data sets in the same format as Tony did and post them, instead of dancing around the edges of the issue, Nick?

Reply to  Gator
September 29, 2019 2:30 pm

“Why not create graphs of the separate data sets in the same format as Tony did and post them”
I did, it’s all here.

Reply to  Gator
September 29, 2019 8:19 pm

Sorry, link for graphs is here.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 27, 2019 12:11 pm

Published graphs bear no resemblance to anything that was ever measured with a thermometer.
There are no stations with actual measured data that look anything like the graphs presented to the public.
There are none where the recent years are the warmest years ever, with the possible exception of some of the most heavily urbanized ones. But even many of them show nothing like what the global graphs show.
No about of pointing out tiny flaws in the effort to untangle the spiderweb of lies can change the fact that organizations like GISS have massively tampered with historical data sets, and present graphs that have no connection with reality.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 28, 2019 4:45 am

Nick, you’re just frustrated that people see through your bullschitt for what it is and you’re too slow to actually deal with it.

Reply to  hunterson7
September 28, 2019 2:37 pm

” you’re too slow to actually deal with it”
A comment made two days later.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  hunterson7
September 29, 2019 4:53 pm

That link led to a “cannot be found” page.
I did look at your first link to a comment at Tony’s blog site, and I did not see anything like a simple graph to compare with the ones he presents.
Perhaps I did not look hard enough, but I did look.

Reply to  hunterson7
September 29, 2019 8:24 pm

I’ve fixed the link above.

The case is clear cut. He plotted land/ocean data in 2017 and land only data for 2019, and said the difference was GISS tampering. That is simply wrong. If you ploy using the right datasets the differences over 2017-2019 are imperceptible.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 27, 2019 11:35 am

Considering that there are only a few sources in the whole world where anything contrary to the warmista party line is published, it is fair to assume that a large number of people have only ever heard one side of the story, and may have swallowed the whole basket of lies.
I still run into people on Twitter every day who are convinced that oil companies and the Koch brothers are funding literally skeptics.
And there was a guy on here just a few days ago convinced the GBR was 90% destroyed forever in 2016, and the rest of the ocean is an all but dead pool of toxic acid, and that “the isotherms” were advancing polewards by hundreds of miles a year, and all sorts of other malarkey.
IOW…he has it all worked out exactly how it is everyone will be dead in a few years.
Except none of that is true, at all.
How many of the alarmed are aware that there is no detectable increase in storm intensity or frequency, that some types of severe weather like strong tornadoes have become unprecedentedly rare in recent years, that we just had the longest major hurricane drought in US history, that the US is having the mildest and wettest year on record, that there is no decrease in Arctic ice for over 10 years now, that the so-called ocean warming was, when first measured, actually cooling, which was then adjusted to show warming and so what is actually indicated by those so-called ocean temps is really just a measured imbalance in the TOA energy budget?
My guess is zero, because unlike every other field of inquiry in the world, the entire media megalith has decided they will only present one side of a highly disputed and incredibly dubious hypothesis.
Has any major national or international news organization ever printed or broadcast a single story about how the historical data is being massively altered, more and more every year, and now bears no resemblance to what was actually recorded by the people who read the thermometers in real time while on site?
Not once.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 27, 2019 12:51 pm

Omitted word typo:
“…funding literally (all) skeptics.”
I think I make so many mistakes like this because the reading pane while commenting is so small.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 27, 2019 12:38 pm

“Different scientists make different estimates” – NO THEY DON’T…!!!

99.999997% of Scientists who agree, agree…! You obviously didn’t read the latest John Cook “paper” did you…?!?

“… and even sometimes amend them as the facts come in.”


Know what? I’m REPORTING YOU. I’ve had it with equivocation and DENIAL! You’re going on “The List” … sorry, did it to yourself. Harrumph!!!

No offense, eh.

James R Clarke
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 27, 2019 6:57 pm

You are right, Nick. This guy has a lot to learn. I might give him a C for science, but an A for effort.

The mainstream media gets solid F’s on both counts.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 28, 2019 1:13 am

Yeah that pesky data and reality stuff sure are weak talking points for enviro-cultists. You’ve sort of stumbled upon something. Keep digging in that direction.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 28, 2019 4:35 am

Poor Nick, even a poor man’s Tony Heller makes better points than Nick ever will.

Patrick MJD
September 26, 2019 10:49 pm

Ethiopia has bigger problems than planting all those trees (I assume natives). Sometime ago, I don’t recall who it was, brought back with him a Eucalyptus sapling. I think it was from Australia, not sure. He managed to get it out of the country. Planted in Ethiopia it grows tall and straight, perfect for house building (Long straight, slender tree trunks covered in mud). Problem is, it grows like a weed, has an invasive root system and draws as much ground water as it can get. It’s now a pest!

Reply to  Patrick MJD
September 27, 2019 12:58 am

Greater risk for forest fires too.

Reply to  icisil
September 27, 2019 4:55 am

and explodey houses

Reply to  Patrick MJD
September 27, 2019 1:13 am

Well, whatever trees they’re planting in Ethiopia, what’s a bet most of them will eventually be cut down for mud hut building. By that time, they might have figured out their greenie gesture was really myopic trying to reduce the evil and dangerous CO2 molecule that these trees utterly rely on for growth because The Global Warming™©® will have been proven a complete fraud by then, but now they have a secure timber industry again, which will likely be taxed to the hilt by the despotic tin-pot grabbermint at that point too.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
September 27, 2019 2:03 am

Actually, the huts last quite a while believe it or not (Some, even in remote areas, actually have an electricity meter). What happens is the trees are “trimmed”, never cut down because they grow back really quickly, for building and, surprise surprise, they are used too for space heating and cooking! These trees cant be cut down fast enough, they just keep growing even after severe “trimming”!

Reply to  Patrick MJD
September 27, 2019 2:34 am

Sounds like the buggers in me back yard.. 😉

Reply to  Patrick MJD
September 27, 2019 1:26 am

As with Australian acacias and eucalypts in South Africa

Jean Parisot
Reply to  a
September 27, 2019 3:26 am

And in California, until the winds turn them into organic napalm.

Reply to  Jean Parisot
September 28, 2019 11:09 am

lol… organic napalm, gotta remember that

Reply to  Patrick MJD
September 27, 2019 4:02 am

and termites find em tasty too
as an Aussie i really dont like eucy trees anywhere near homes at all
if they dont drop branches on you/the car/the shed etc they go up like a torch in a fire
their only advantage is being non deciduous and a reasonable wind break if the right sort and far enough away

theyre a damned woody weed that just happened to outlive other better tree when our iceage hit

Reply to  Patrick MJD
September 28, 2019 4:40 am

Eucalyptus trees outside of controlled specimen trees should not grow wild outside of Australia.
They are the feral pigs of trees.

JRF in Pensacola
September 26, 2019 10:52 pm

Nick, it’s ok to be a skeptic.

Reply to  JRF in Pensacola
September 27, 2019 1:46 am

Nope…..Nick is all in

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Derg
September 27, 2019 2:07 am

He was paid to be “all in” working for the CSIRO. And now, he is paid, thanks to taxpayers, to continue propagating the “message” in retirement. I bet that is rather comfortable, none of this mandatory 9.5% deduction most other serfs are subjected to!

Reply to  Patrick MJD
September 28, 2019 4:51 am

So Nick, the first to accuse skeptics if being paid schills, is in fact a paid schills.
Not at all surprising actually.
But infuriating.eff you Nick

September 26, 2019 10:55 pm

I wouldn’t call them “weak” talking points, maybe just weak enough to get the conversation going ?
Let them believe they have a fighting chance.

September 26, 2019 11:03 pm

On the other hand Nick, he’s over the target enough for you to come back with some flack.
Initially willing to accept the claims, then discovering a lie, then another, that’s similar to my experience.
With me it was my experience with systems analysis, having a look at the dog’s breakfast GCMs with the compulsory hard-wired climate sensitivity by order of the IPCC. Along with Trenberth’s flat stationary earth diagram with only 25% incoming, but a diffused back-radiation that was higher. Anyone with any experience in CRD could tell that was bunk.
On the other hand, I regularly meet people who have no particular scientific or technical experience who just happen to know they are being lied to.

B d Clark
Reply to  Martin Clark
September 26, 2019 11:53 pm

Yes Martin,plus the relentless pushing of climate alarmism articles people know that theres a agenda that’s trying to scaremonger them, people are suspicious of the motives behind the articles,anyone who does dig a little behind the articles,can read there misleading and do not stand up to scrutiny,

As for you nick stokes you state melting ice due to volcanos is old news,it might be to you but it’s not to the public,this generally unknown snipit of information is ignored on the whole by MSM ,and in any case be it old news or not its relevance is not diminished by its age.

Reply to  Martin Clark
September 27, 2019 6:51 am

Keep an eye on the divergence between the ever-evolving surface temperature records and the satellite and radiosonde records that agree with each other quite well be comparison. And keep a keen eye on the missing tropical mid troposphere hotspot. The divergence between the hotspot region in the models and reality continue expend. The hotspot is the only element that is falsifiable in less that 3 decades.

NOAA and NASA have been altering the surface data records, but apparently (as far as I can tell) without a (scientifically required) detailed description of the adjustment process and the rationale behind the adjustments. Why are not all the Denier scientists demanding an audit on these adjustments to the surface temperature records. Watts Up With That?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  DocSiders
September 27, 2019 8:25 am

“NOAA and NASA have been altering the surface data records, but apparently (as far as I can tell) without a (scientifically required) detailed description of the adjustment process and the rationale behind the adjustments. Why are not all the Denier scientists demanding an audit on these adjustments to the surface temperature records. Watts Up With That?”

That’s a good question. Why is it that no skeptic challenges the adjustments NASA Climate and NOAA are making to the temperature record. Why are not skeptics demanding that the data manipulatores justifiy what they are doing, seeing as how TRILLIONS of dollars of unnecessary spending are at stake?

Why are the data manipulators untouchable, when they are the problem?

September 26, 2019 11:20 pm

This seems a bit lame and lowers the standard of WUWT

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Mike
September 27, 2019 12:11 am


Whatever may or may not “seem” to you, your evidence-free and argument-free comment IS very lame and it lowers the standard of WUWT.

Your comment is so lame that you were not willing to attach your name to it and posted it anonymously under the label of “Mike”.


September 26, 2019 11:42 pm

“while promoting vaccines, GMOs & big government”

He should apply his advice to himself and keep reading on 2/3 counts here.

Joel 0'Bryan
September 26, 2019 11:59 pm

The pr0blem is ch0ice for the Alarmists and their Socialistic motivations.
Free will.
The US electing D0nald Trump wasn’t supposed to happen. But it did.
Brexit wasn’t supposed to happen.
There is still “h0pe” it will finish.
Thus the “an0maly.”

Reply to  Joel 0'Bryan
September 27, 2019 12:31 am

climate science isn’t socialist or socialism…

B d clark
Reply to  griff
September 27, 2019 12:46 am

That’s right griff its advocates at the noisy end of the spectrum are climate terrorists ask Greta ( I dont have any fun) funberg ,do you think she will melt under a cry from socialism or a rumble of shaking heads from all sides of the debate?

Mike Bryant
Reply to  griff
September 27, 2019 1:02 am

You’re right Grif… climate “science” is the tool that is being used to push socialism.
That’s only one article but there are thousands… do you read at all?

Steve B
Reply to  griff
September 27, 2019 1:07 am

No but it is the narrative of the socialists and socialism at his time.

Reply to  griff
September 27, 2019 1:28 am

Real climate science isn’t, that’s correct, but what you’re referring to has been captured by politics.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  griff
September 27, 2019 1:48 am

Griff, if you believe CO2 is “trapping” heat in the atmosphere and causing warming and climate change, how is it we can observe heat LEAVING the atmosphere?

Reply to  griff
September 27, 2019 2:20 am

Climate science has become S0cialism,
the Medieval Warm Period became the Medieval An0maly.

Gee, even some commentators are zeros!

Reply to  griff
September 27, 2019 7:10 am

climate science is pushed by socialists for the sole purpose of scaring the masses into adopting more socialism.
Do we have to drag out the quotes again?

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  griff
September 27, 2019 11:19 am

Climate science says the climates around the world are changing due to human activity.

Is that not the spoon bending but the merely your mind bending the perceived spoon?

Have a cookie griff.
🍪 Baked them myself.

Now. Don’t you feel better already?

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
September 27, 2019 3:05 pm

He’s just one, not the one. Sometimes I think griff is a high level troll but no-ones that good/ bad

Reply to  griff
September 27, 2019 2:58 pm

Hi griff. Even is such a short post you’re still wrong. Impressive.

Reply to  griff
September 27, 2019 5:50 pm

Climate “Science” is exactly like Socialism: only the future is certain, but the past keeps changing all the time.

September 27, 2019 1:56 am

CAN’T WE USE HIM? Sorry for screaming…. But he gets a lot of twitter likes, so instead of saying he is no good, why not direct him to the real science? I was like him just over a month ago, I was scared and anxious to a point that I didn’t leave my house, but then by good luck I found this site.. Somebody should message him and ask him to post factual science and reports from his site, then see what he does. He could be very useful…. The first twitter pic have 50k+ likes then 6-7k on the rest, that is a lot of people…

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Sunny
September 29, 2019 12:48 pm

I was thinking that I seemed to recall that when I first saw you here a while back, you seem to be a global warming believer, or at least not particularly skeptical.
In any case, being able to change one’s mind when new information becomes available, is one of the hallmarks of true intelligence.
Good to have you here.
At some point, you might even decide, like I did, that you can use your real entire name.
I did that once I no longer had to worry about how it might effect my job.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 29, 2019 4:55 pm

BTW, prior to about a year or so ago I used the name “Menicholas”.

old construction worker
September 27, 2019 2:23 am

I’ve always believed our youth would grow up and open their eyes to what is being taught in, so called, “education”.

Reply to  old construction worker
October 8, 2019 10:57 am

Education is personal. You get as much as you want. “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can’t make him think”, and there are more like that. Bums warming seats does not equal education. The person whose bum is warming that seat has to want it, and to want it has to know that there are things he knows, things he doesn’t know and things that he knows that he doesn’t know. Then he has to know how to go from ignorance to knowledge; and from that, get understanding and wisdom.

David Hartley
September 27, 2019 2:33 am

Two points if I may.

This guy is talking to the very group you despair of in language they understand and in a way that fits in with there social interactions. It’s a social interaction and not a paper up for peer review, he’s not aiming his remarks at you degree types on here and he’s carrying important points forward that so many of you could never carry to the audience that, once again, are despaired of by the degree types on here and could be reaching an audience ‘you lot’ if I may could never begin to reach.
You may be fantastic scientists but you would seem to be failing to even begin to address the communication problems of getting ideas across. As an aside do any of you teach?

The second of my if I may points. Why are we shying away from the term Indoctrination? For that’s what it is yet even the opponents of their scams are shying away from, bad memories of the term and it’s consequences?

September 27, 2019 3:30 am

When I was young the school told me our coastline was disappearing and our town would be underwater “in 25 years”. I spent a lot of years with anger and anxiety due to being told this and made a lot of life choices based on this information.
Well it’s been 30 years and the town I grew up in is right where it was and there has been change so incremental only satellites can tell us it even exists. As I caught on that this was all a big con I tried talking to friends who would get mad at me for “joining the deniers” so I learned to keep my mouth shut. My life is so much more peaceful now that I’m not waiting for the end of the world.
When you figure out you are being lied to and you tell others around you who still believe it can be very frustrating and disorienting. He seems disoriented and frustrated.
Imagine when millions of young people begin to realize this is all a crock and their lives have been sold for nothing.

Reply to  JS
September 27, 2019 4:44 am

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.” – Charles MacKay

September 27, 2019 5:43 am

Those of us who came of age in the Viet Nam war era (1965-1975) learned that governments lie. Continually and repeatedly. Recent generations have no such glaring example so they believe the lies.

September 27, 2019 5:46 am

Hey!!! Boys and girls!!!! We’re in the Holocene period right now. During the last 18,000 years, at the end of the Wisconsin glacial maximum, things started warming up. That’s what happens on this planet. There’s no consistent length of time for any of it.

But just to make your weekend a little brighter, I want to drop this in here starting with The Younger Dryas period: here you go, a little bit of info from WUWT: The Younger Dryas was a period of rapid cooling in the late Pleistocene 12,800 to 11,500 calendar years ago. It followed closely on the heels of a dramatically abrupt warming that brought the last Ice Age to a close (17,500 calendar years ago), lasted for about 1,300 years, then ended as abruptly as it started.

Then things warmed up again, just a tad. And then Kilimanjaro erupted around 10,000 years ago, and the Snows of Kilimanjaro, made famous by Hemingway, followed. Yeah, they’re still there.

Then we had another warmup for about 5200 years, and that was followed abruptly by the COLD period (Brrrrrr!) that sent Ootzi the Iceman on a Dreamtime walk to plead with the gods to save his people from the white sky stuff (SNOW) that wouldn’t stop falling. He was dressed for a long trip and carried a very expensive copperheaded axe. There’s no copper ore in the Alps, so where did that come from? The Mediterranean, probably Cyprus. And he wasn’t robbed!

This is also when the Atacama Desert, the driest place on Earth, was formed by quakes that lifted that plateau and turned it into a cold, dry desert. Now it gets regular snowfalls…. Hmmm… I wonder if the Atacama getting snowfalls, and deep powder for ski bums in Chile have any connection….?????

While AnOmaly seems to have found something (not sure what, maybe he realized he’s simply been following a ripoff propaganda scam), I wouldn’t be too hard on him. He’s got the right idea, and – well, let’s just look at the weather over a prolonged period of time and ask ourselves “why do the WEATHER patterns seem to be changing…?”

Well, why ARE they changing? Are we heading toward a prolonged cold snap? I’d say so, since winter seems to want to start early – end of October, fer Pete’s sake!!! How are the kids supposed to do Trick or Treat if they’re bundled up in snowpants??? And three inches of snow on my roof – I have photos, always try to get the first and last snow, even if they’re just flakes – at the END OF APRIL???? How are the kids supposed to gear up for softball and soccer if there’s three inches of snow on the field??? I know that Packers and the Bears will play in ANY weather, but — well, something’s been happening for a while.

The Sun is taking a nap, and that started with that enormous CME burp in 2006 that shut it down, and it really hasn’t been the same since. Ten days of mid-80s weather in July don’t mean globull warming. It means normal summer weather. And frankly, we normally get 80s for longer than that around here. I haven’t run my air conditioner for about FIVE years now. That should tell you something.

I don’t know what the argument is really about, but I’d say it’s based on who can get fat cash grants and who can’t, and if you don’t agree with the political movement of the day, your grants will likely fade to nothing. In case you’ve forgotten, there was that bodacious scam by a university professor (WDC area) during the OBama administration to get grant money. As I recall, he scammed 19 fellow scientists into signing his complaint to prosecute someone about whether or not the “climate” was warming, but he goofed on that, because some of them didn’t realize they’d been snookered and backed out. So the AG prosecuted HIM under the RICO Act.
Anyone still think that it is NOT a scam? Anyone? Bueller?

The whole thing IS a scam, because Big Money is involved. And Big Money represents – what? POWER. You got it!!! Take all that away, and they have nothing.

The climate changes on this little planet of ours on a recurring basis. Any geologist can confirm that and so can other REAL science people who aren’t involved in that scam of “climate change”. BUT – listen carefully, boys and girls – when the climate DOES change, this time it will go toward COOLING, and the entire money-grubbing scam will fall apart at the seams when AlGorebull and Hansen and all those other scammers are snowed in some place where they can’t get out until it melts. And if it’s REALLY a swap from warm to cold, they’ll be stuck there for about 700 to maybe 3,500 years. (Gigglesnrrrtttt!) What? I can dream, can’t I?

It’s supposed to SNOW in Montana before the end of September (this month), in case no one was paying attention to WEATHER forecasting. Blizzard conditions are expected. Should make the ski bums and snow bunnies happy.

meteorologist in research
Reply to  Sara
September 27, 2019 7:37 am

Early snows far south result from more energetic systems not global cooling.

Reply to  Sara
September 27, 2019 1:54 pm

I know. A buckle in the jet stream will do that. It’s weather. If it stays crimped for 50 years or 75, or up to 150 years, and the crimp increases over time, is it weather or is it something else?

But if it snows and never stops… well, that’s something entirely different. Longer winter periods and shorter spring-summer-fall periods are meaningful, especially if they get a little bit longer each time they happen. And you can’t have more snow/rain without increased levels of humidity.

Not arguing with you about it, either. It’s a complex system that has its own operating state. We have no control over that at all.

Malcolm Chapman
September 27, 2019 6:04 am

I agree very strongly with David Hartley (2.33 a.m.) – we should surely welcome voices like AnOmaly; s/he knows how to use Twitter, and speaks its language, which is more than I do. I was surprised at the negativity of the first comments on this post; we should be pleased that the Twitter generation are being encouraged to look at the facts rather than the propaganda.

Malcolm Chapman
September 27, 2019 6:05 am

Sorry – looking again, I see that the photo suggests ‘he’ not ‘she’.

September 27, 2019 6:17 am

Regarding “To add to this thread even more, here is the “Ozone layer” scare then vs. now.”: I’m surprised to see a WUWT article writer posting evidence that the Montreal Protocol worked.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
September 27, 2019 7:15 am

If the Montreal Protocol worked, why is there no change in the size of the “hole” 30 years later?
It was a scam then, it’s a scam now.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
September 27, 2019 7:52 pm

The ozone hole has been on a slight downward trend. It is recovering much less than expected, but it has a slight recovery trend. The shortfall in recovery has been blamed on carbon tetrachloride having a longer atmospheric lifetime than previously thought, and rogue emissions of carbon tetrachloride vapor.

I did a quickie search in for Antarctic ozone graphs, and found these:

comment image

comment image?as=webp

September 27, 2019 6:22 am

“I was a huge believer in Climate Change as a youth. I wanted to save the environment. Then I caught one lie. Then two. Then three. Then I read the current data. Then I realized they’ve been exaggerating & fear-mongering headlines for decades.”

In a nutshell, isn’t that close to the way most have become skeptical of “climate science” as promoted by the Alarmists?

Jeff Alberts
September 27, 2019 6:24 am

All of the text of the article below the hat tip disappears as soon as the page finishes loading. Can’t read any of it.

September 27, 2019 6:41 am

Regarding “Here is them admitting that not only is it not melting as fast as they said, but they can’t actually measure most of the continent. They only measure the coastlines. The map is provided here.”:

I followed the link, read the article there, and watched the video. It doesn’t say they measure only the coastlines. It even states kinds of measurements done in and over the interior of the continent. The map even shows measured snowfall changes hundreds of miles inland. The actual reason that snowfall changes shown on the map are within a few hundred miles of the coast is that most of Antarctica’s snowfall is within a few hundred miles of the coast, although the article doesn’t say that because it doesn’t discuss the snowfall changes being mostly within a few hundred miles of the coast, only shows that in the color coding on a map.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
September 27, 2019 8:25 am

This is what I found at the link provided (

“Snowfall is very difficult to measure over Antarctica. For starters, there are very few weather stations in the frozen continent, and most of them are installed along the coastline. Secondly, satellites have a hard time measuring snow from space – they basically confuse the snow that’s falling down with the snow that’s already on the ground. Climate models struggle to replicate the total amount of snow that falls over Antarctica each year. So scientists often have to rely on ice cores, cylinders of ice drilled from the ice sheet whose layers store a trove of information; amongst it, how much snow fell in a certain year or decade. But drilling ice cores is logistically challenging, so they are sparse and do not cover the entire continent.”

Sounds to me like they are admitting to sparse data.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Barbara
September 27, 2019 11:43 am

Even radar is wildly inaccurate as a means of estimating precipitation.
Nearly every time it rains here in Florida, the radar shows rain over my location when it is not actually raining, and often not a drop falls but when I check weekly or monthly totals of precip, it is very far from what I measure with the rain gages I have on my property.
It is not difficult to “measure” precip from space…it is flat out impossible.

Reply to  Barbara
September 27, 2019 3:22 pm

This happens where I am, also, Nicholas McGinley. What is vergor, or precipitation in the rain cloud, does NOT necessarily fall to the ground unless the droplets get big enough and heavy enough to fall. The green stuff on radar is not what’s falling to the ground. That would be the yellow, orange and red masses on the Doppler return.
For example, rain was forecast for my area, and we did get some hitting the ground, but far less than was forecast based on the Doppler return. If the forecast for my area south to north was one inch, the ACTUAL amount was far less than that: just enough to get the pavement wet and make me put off sealing the boards on the front steps for another week.

Reply to  Barbara
September 27, 2019 8:14 pm

The ice core data is sparse, but not nonexistent. There is a longstanding weather station at the South Pole, and another at Vostok, as well as the many coastal weather stations. And there is the data from the ICESAT and GRACE satellites. Overall it’s a little sketchy. But merely a little sketchy, as opposed to not having anything close to a fairly good idea as to what’s happening in the interior of Antarctica. Meanwhile, Antarctica’s ice sheet still has most of its snow accumulation within a few hundred miles of the coastline, and its ice sheet removal being at and around the coastline.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
September 29, 2019 12:02 pm

And despite being one of if not the very driest desert on the planet, Antarctica has miles thick accumulations of ice that have persisted for millions of years.
And the thickest parts of the ice sheets are not within a few hundred miles of the coast.
The parts near the coast are the only part of the continent that ever get even close to the melting point of water.

John Bell
September 27, 2019 7:31 am

that tree pictured as being planted, it was already growing somewhere, it might be transplanted, but it was planted some time ago.

Al Miller
September 27, 2019 7:47 am

I too was a “True believer in Global warming, oops climate change” way back, but some reading and free thought easily convinced me of the lies and exaggerations being circulated. Then reading outright admissions by UN officials that it is about wealth redistribution. Then reading about the real motivations behind Maurice Strong and his ilk.
Well really there is nothing more to say except why are we still talking about this pathetic sham?

Reply to  Al Miller
September 28, 2019 5:29 am

We are talking about the shabby scam of climate politics because the true believers want to impose huge costs for electricity in us, limit our travel, control our money, ruin our institutions and overthrow our governments and culture.
And censor us for questions they should have asked and honestly addressed.

September 27, 2019 8:03 am

Is it just me or my computer that everything in the above article was posted twice? The article should be only half as long as it was ….
To me it was very annoying, why hasn’t anyone else commented on this ??
(this must have been one of John Coleman’s last interviews – very sad !!!)


Reply to  Jon P Peterson
September 27, 2019 9:47 am

I’m seeing every tweet twice. It is indeed annoying.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Barbara
September 27, 2019 12:15 pm

It looks like this is a complete set of Tweets from the guy who posted them, and each one includes retweets with an added comment as well as the original tweet.
This is just how Twitter works. If you look at the time stamps, you can see that the duplication represents retweets with further commentary.
I agree it is annoying.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Jon P Peterson
September 27, 2019 12:33 pm

What is happening is that he makes comments on a Tweet thread, then retweets his comment tweets with a new comment, which extends the thread but also starts a new one.
It is impossible to read Twitter without constantly clicking on and opening new subthreads as you go.
And then backing up to where you started to make sure you are not skipping over other comments from other people.
Such is the nature of the infinite nesting format that Twitter uses.
Notice that sites like WUWT have a limit to how many such nests a comment thread will include.
Example: Stokes’s first comment has a reply form Hotscot, and then Stokes replies to that reply, and then Old England replies to Stokes’s reply, and then a bunch of people reply to that comment from Old England, including, for example, b d Clark. But after that, if you want to reply to BD Clark, you have to enter it as a reply to Old England. The limit is three iterations of reply nests to any original comment.
If someone replying the BD Clark does not say so at the start of the reply, it looks like a reply to Old England.
To avoid this, Twitter has infinite reply nests, AFAIK, although some versions on some devices may be different than the version any one person is using.
And Twitter also allows retweeting your own Tweets, which many people do when they make a comment on someone else’s thread so it will show up on their own Tweet list.
This is also why Twitter has separate tabs for Tweets and for Tweets and replies.
So retweeting ones own comments is not strictly necessary, although some people may have found that their reply tweets appear more widely on followers tweet streams if they do retweet everything.
So for someone who wants to make sure everything they tweet is available to all of their followers, it is best to retweet.
Actually, I can think of a good reason to do this.
If someone I follow tweets something which is a reply to someone who has me blocked, it may be I will never see that reply tweet unless they retweet it.
Most of the conversations I get notified about from people I follow, are part of threads that I have never been able to scroll to the top of…they are apparently years long strings starting who knows when.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 28, 2019 6:05 am

That sounds like a lot of work!

Twitter’s initial 140 character limit kept me off Twitter. I couldn’t even get warmed up in 140 characters! 🙂

And after reading your description of its operation, I think I will continue to stay off Twitter.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 29, 2019 12:38 pm

Twitter allows a single person to reach and be reached by a large number of people, nearly unlimited.
And I am pretty sure they have upped the number of characters from what was the original limit, and if you have a longer comment, you can number sequential tweets in a row.
Like it or hate it, it is the place where large numbers of people share information in real time with the entire world.
It is a lot of work to read Twitter threads because of the sheer bulk of comments and the huge number of people discussing literally every topic in the world.
I encourage everyone to have a Twitter account and look at it at least occasionally.
It is easy to filter out distracting tweets, block people you do not wish to be bothered by, follow anyone who interests you, or check on breaking stories, and where old discussions are at the present time.
There are problems with any way of organizing large numbers of comments from a large number of people. It is always a tradeoff between various factors.
If you have valuable insights, your voice should be added to Twitter when you have time.
On any given day and at any given moment, many people are engaged in discussions with people from all over the world.
Compared to commenting here, you can reach a far larger number of people on Twitter than any other social media site that I know of.
Donald Trump is likely president because he recognized that he could bypass the media by using Twitter.
Important to note…the only people who read a comment on WUWT, or to an article on a news site, are people who go to these sites.
Not so with Twitter.
People who do not know you and never heard from you can see what you write there, and I am sure at some point Twitter will be very important in overcoming the logjam of information that keeps people in the dark regarding CAGW.
At any given time, someone might write a tweet that goes viral, and hundreds of millions of people see it.
That is the value of the medium.
It has reach.
It empowers every single person with even a cell phone, to send a message that could potentially be seen by the entire world.
Get yourself a Twitter account…you can always just not go very often.
And when you want, you can talk directly to the President and even someone like Mikey Mann…and they might even read your message and respond to you.
At the very least, you can take pride in being blocked by people like Mann.
And I know he read at least one of the comments I made about him, which could not make me happier to have been blocked. I was also blocked by several of his his partners in crime.
Yay me!
Make them block a million of us every day!

September 27, 2019 8:09 am

The quotes show up for me as the page is loading then they disappear. ????

Old Griz
September 27, 2019 10:08 am

The whole thread disappears after three seconds in Chrome. I had to open IE to rad it.

Nicholas McGinley
September 27, 2019 11:49 am

The vast majority of Antarctica never gets anywhere close to the melting point of water, and in fact averages something like -70° C over the course of a year. This then is the max temp of the kilometers thick ice in those locations. The amount of thermal energy needed to bring the ice even to the melting point is far higher than the annual energy received there. IOW, heat is conducted away from the surface into the ice faster than the Sun, when it is even shining, can deliver it.
It is so cold there is close to zero sublimation.
So the only possible way for Antarctica to lose ice from the interior is by sheet flow of the continental glacier to the coasts.

September 27, 2019 11:51 am

Nick should note that some can change their minds.

Reply to  kim
September 28, 2019 5:24 am

Nick is too busy deciding what others should think to bother with thinking himself.

John F. Hultquist
September 27, 2019 12:35 pm

Is there a law that requires these cut and paste tweets to be repetitive?

Nick Stokes says at 10:26
“I’m sceptical that the anonymous An0maly really did undergo the conversion that he claims, but he has picked up a weak collection of tired old talking points” . . .

. . . repeated them along with colorful images . . . repeated them along with colorful images
Want me to do that repeat thing again? Thought not. The post ought to be retracted.

September 27, 2019 1:53 pm

I used to be a Warmist all the way back in the late 80’s, since I was always an environmentalist. Even wrote a paper on public policy related to climate change from ocean pollution in grad school. Then, in the early 2000’s, I was able to learn a few things. First, the Internet allowed me to see so much more Non-Approve Wrongthink from the Skeptic side.

2nd, Michael Crichton’s State of Fear. Sure, it’s fiction, but, it has tons of actual science. Plus, I was already sketchy on so many enviro groups.

3rd, I really noticed the rank hypocrisy of the leading Warmists

And, finally, I noticed that the goals of the Cult of Climastrology matched perfectly with the hard left. More taxation and fees, government controlling our lives, etc.

David Hartley
September 27, 2019 8:19 pm
September 28, 2019 5:37 am

Anonym0ous, welcome to the skeptical revolution.
You gave some great points.
Be prepared for personal attacks, efforts to fix and then threaten you into silence.
Stand strong against the climate thugs.
Skeptics are by definition independent thinkers who look at each issue and claim as something to be investigated. Be prepared to explain yourself.
Being a skeptic means understanding the claims made by the consensus..
Unlike reactionary true believers, skeptics have to be open to learning and changing their minds based on evidence. Beware that Twitter, like all big tech, is treacherous and supports left wing crap and will suppress and censor you even as they make money off of you. The fight is worth it.
Best wishes for great success.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  hunterson7
September 29, 2019 12:41 pm

It is like the lottery when it is a billion dollars…the only people with no chance of winning are the ones who do not play.

%d bloggers like this: