The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change
From the July 14, 2022 episode of Ingraham Angle.
What’s wrong with the energy secretary?
Shows difficulty in stringing a sentence together
That’s a necessary trait in this administration – follow the boss’s lead. Remember, a fish rots from the head down.
Are you suggesting that she is a ‘fish out of water?’
So do snakes!
She a former beauty queen who became a do nothing AG then a failed Governor. Even
Obama thought she was unfit for Energy Sec or an ambassador post. The Biden administration consists of Obama’s rejected leftovers.
She’s a lawyer, and scientifically illiterate. She has no idea what she’s talking about, hence the stammering.
She isn’t a good attorney. If she were, she would at least appear to know what she was talking about. 🤨
Mr. slider: I suspect the brandon admin instructs all cabinet level officers not to seem smarter than the VP. For J. Graholm, it’s easy.
Air quotes for air heads? Trudeau talks about climate better than this, and he’s not believable.
We citizens of Michigan were so glad to get rid of Granholm …
but our current Governor Witless is even worse.
Yep, watch what you wish for.
People deserve the politicians they elect.
Patent lies are hard to justify.
It has been reported that 80% of the Biden cabinet, staffing and agency hires have zero experience in the areas they are to precide over. But, that 80% ticks all the boxes for diversity, equity and inclusion hires. You know, you cant have everything. It’s all about priorities. 😏
She’s low energy. In just about every conceivable interpretation of the phrase.
Hanging around with Brandon and the cackly one drive you to functional incoherence
She took speech therapy classes from Kamala Harris.
With the current U.K. heat hysteria I detect a growing public scepticism about the whole climate panic.
A summers day declared a National Emergency now.
Coming to you from the same government department that brought you Covid hysteria.
The worry is the lack of critical analysis by the MSM. The billionaire lackeys do as they are told and amplify the panic, any panic. The politicians knee jerk the panic. We pay for it and the money flows to… guess who?
The Big Guy?
Latest advice…. Don’t put the oven on during the day and don’t send children to school in woolly jumpers or coats…
People were also advised to turn their heating off. 🙄
Who can afford it?!!
Certainly not the elderly relying on the State Pension in the UK.
Very roughly, £10,000 a year. Difficult enough for anyone to survive on, but when energy bills jump from, roughly £500 a year in Jan 2022 to £3,500 a year by January 2023, what chance do these people have?
There are going to be many avoidable Excess Winter Deaths in the UK this year.
Politicians now consider lives cheap enough to sacrifice at the alter of green policies.
Unlike covid, this affects every single life in the UK to a greater or lesser degree, discriminating on the basis of wealth alone.
Boris Johnson will be invited to jet around the world giving speeches for hundreds of thousands of pound a time and Joe Biden will step down after the mid-terms on the grounds of ‘health’.
Neither will be held responsible for the absolute sh*t show the rest of us are now facing.
But with LOTS of excess deaths of the old and infirm, the UK national health system will save a bundle! AND they won’t need to pay the pensions anymore either.
Sounds like a planned result to me.
Johnson is the best leader the Labour party ever had. He is everything he promised not to be like most puppet ‘leaders’ around the world.
I agree with you, HotScot (I usually do) but trying to pass this off as just another nice summer day doesn’t make sense because it obviously isn’t.
I have kept a weekly max/min figure (or rather Mrs N has — credit where it’s due!) since we moved here, latitude 43N – south Burgundy, 12 years ago and the highest figure I’ve recorded is 38° in the first week of August 2020. That’s the shade temperature; the suntrap by the garage is at this moment (1816 BST) 51° and that is not unusual.
An honest 41° anywhere in the UK is a freak and there is a climatological reason for it.What we are not getting from the UK media (and France is no better) is only a sketchy idea of what that reason might be because the ‘go to’ for anything out of the ordinary is “climate change no other reason needed net-zero now blah-blah-blah”.
If we don’t fight that mindset with hard science we might as well give up!
When people call the Tories right wing, I’m thinking you have no idea what that word means. Actual conservatives don’t flip out about summer weather.
‘The left’ attacks ‘The right’ calling Conservatives Nazi’s, and Fascist’s, both of which are far left concepts.
Sadly, even Conservatives now casually use the term ‘Far Right’ as some sort of bizarre reference to street violence, and skinhead gangs with Swastika’s tattooed on their foreheads.
Forgive my naïvety but I thought the progression from left to right was: Communism – Socialism – Conservatism – Libertarianism (roughly speaking).
Libertarianism being ‘Far Right’ – simply calling for small government, personal responsibility, low taxes, the rule of law and the defence of our shores. I’m all for helping those incapable of working or our elderly who can no longer work, but I think teaching a man to fish is a better solution than just handing him the fish you worked hard to catch.
I just don’t get the association of the ‘Far Right’ with communism/socialism which has slaughtered and enslaved hundreds of millions of people, and in China, continues to persecute and enslave sections of its society.
What is it the left doesn’t understand about this? It’s not difficult, is it?
Anarchy is to the right of libertarianism.
The progression from left to right can be labeled “government power over the individual”.
When has government ever stopped anarchy? Whilst global butchery might be labelled ‘conflicts’ or romanticised as ‘the war on terror’ etc. they are simply government sponsored, global anarchy.
Western streets are awash with violent crime. Why isn’t that considered anarchy?
More than 1,000 children are believed to have been trafficked, raped and enslaved in a small part of the UK. Why isn’t this called anarchy?
Search for Tommy Robinson who has been telling the world about this for 20 years. The UK government persecuted him, the media labelled him a fascist and a nazi, and the police arrested and jailed him. But that’s not anarchic.
Frankly, I don’t think we could do much worse by trying the alternative.
Anarchy and crime are not the same things. Even government crime is not anarchy.
Tell that to a victim.
in the minds of the left, they are all things good and therefore anything bad is of the right. Nazi’s are bad, therefore they must be rightwingers.
Well written HotScot .
One of our news papers stated that the government that has just been ousted in Sri Lanka was far right .
As you have written right wing governments are not socialist or
As you state right wing or conservatives believe in small government , private ownership of land and businesses with a free market economy with the minimum of government regulations
Woke reporters and journalists don’t know what they are writing about .
Its all a lie; Nice to see Fox finally telling the truth about Climate, and Russia.
Fact Check: Germany won’t survive winter without Russian gas – official
The president of the national energy regulator has warned that Germany doesn’t have sufficient gas reserves
Very good of Laura to have Dr. Christy on for a little Reality Check. Considering the demeanor of Dr. Christy, citing reality, versus the lying hysteria of Jennifer Granholm, citing the United Nations as the place to get your facts, is quite the contrast.
That’s the Long and the short of it.
Dr. Christy was extremely disappointing. To simply say that similar climatic events occurred in the paat gives no comfort. WHY did they occur in the past, and WHY are they occurring now?
If they occurred without CO2 in the past, there is no evidence that only CO2 can cause them in the present.
“. . . climatic events . . . WHY did they occur in the past, and WHY are they occurring now?”
Those questions were being asked at least 5,000 years ago:
“The elemental concept of climate change probably evolved in documentary form in ancient Egypt (Nile Valley), Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley and in China, where exceptional river floods or extended droughts were experienced. Decadal to century-long variations in the amplitudes of the Nile floods were more or less paralleled by the fortunes of successive dynasties. Times of drought and famine were socially more serious than episodic experiences of excessive (summer) floods. Early chapters of the Judeo-Christian Bible, notably Genesis, recounted the tale of the forty-day rain, resulting in the “flood of Noah,” and the subsequent recovery.”
—Fairbridge R.W. (2009) History of Paleoclimatology. In: Gornitz V. (eds) Encyclopedia of Paleoclimatology and Ancient Environments. Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series.
The fact that modern day science is still unable to provide satisfactory, unambiguous answers to both questions reflects both the poorly-understood complexity of Earth’s climate system (as Dr. Christy pointed out) and the underlying stochastic (random) nature of many of the involved processes.
My reply has been moved to the bottom of this thread
It was first the flood followed by the 40 days of rain.
Must have been a flood caused by an earthquake/tsunami, then.
It’s a wonder Noah had the time necessary to load all those animals into the ark before “the waters rose”.
The flood came from the breach of the dam at the end of the Bosporus. With the end of the Ice Age ocean levels rose. and about one or two metres above current sea levels, the Mediterranean overtopped the dam. First a small stream then as the waters gouged out a deeper channel, a larger and larger flow.
Eventually a flow about 100 Niagaras and rising water levels in the Black Sea. Noah noticed the water rising and prepared a ‘raft’ enlarged by legend into the Ark.
The noise would have been terrifying, and there must have been massive clouds of spray and mist thrown up by the torrent at the falls. No wonder he had 40 days of rain, and he and his family ended up on the southern shores of the Black Sea. Had to carve out a new life for themselves.
Thanks for the story.
Now, back to my unanswered question: How much time did Noah actually have to build and “populate” his Ark “raft”?
120 years, the number of years God gave to humans to live after the flood. 120 years, no more. God brought the animals to the Ark and closed the doors. See Genesis.
No comfort? We know the “unprecedented” claims are lies. We know there was no tipping point. We know the world didn’t end. We know there is no reason to believe it’s different this time.
We don’t know why because we haven’t tried to learn. Like a corrupt police investigation, we already decided who is guilty.
That’s the whole point. No one knows exactly WHY a chaotic system like weather, which integrated over time gives climate, behaves the way it does on any given day. The folly is in selectively interpreting the data after the fact to claim you can say why something was bound to happen according to your pet theory.
<i>”No one knows exactly WHY a chaotic system like weather…behaves the way it does on any given day.”</i>
‘Cos it’s chaotic, of course!
No one knows why, Burl. Christy’s point is that ignorance of the climate reigns supreme.
No one knows why the climate warms, no one knows why it cools.
The solar influence on the ice ages is partly understood. But the why of ice ages doesn’t go past noticing the isthmus of Panama closed a million years prior.
Even though the UN doesn’t do any original research and relies on the likes of Christy.
That this was shown on Fox will be a reason for many people to discredit it, despite the factual correctness of what Christy has to say. Shame that everything is so politicised these days. Imagine this being shown without negative comment on CNN. That would be the day!
That would be the day, because Hell would have frozen over, which would be the only proof CNN would accept.
Imagine this also being shown on the partly public-funded PBS NewsHour. The zero I have in my ongoing count of their bias on AGW is for the number of skeptic climate scientists who have appeared on their program – from the present day back to 1996 – to offer viewers rebuttal to anything about AGW.
“NewsHour Global Warming Bias Tally, Updated 7/6/22: 99 to 0“
FIX News lol
When I first glanced at it, I thought it said Chimps model. Well, it probably was created by chimpanzees.
Chimps are generally better at data interpretation than the IPCC.
Give enough chimps enough typewriters, and sufficient time, and they will eventually produce the collective works of Shakespeare. (paraphrasing someone who said it).
With the best will in the world, I can’t imagine scientists achieving the same.
They have enough climate scientists to replicate the chimps capability, but I fear they will come up with works of Shakespeare before they get climate right.
What’s the betting that the first coherent sentence produced by those chimps will be; “We’re not Shakespeare!”
Chimps model- Mata Hairi
John Christy and Roy Spencer at UAH are my source for global temperature in my analyses – their work IS the gold standard.
Their data shows that global atmospheric temperatures started to cool – choose Feb2016 or Feb 2020, as we predicted in 2002.
The global warming crisis is cancelled!
See Electroverse.net for hundreds of extreme-cold events all over the world.
The elitist wolves had to find something else to stampede the sheep: How about a fake pandemic, a global full lockdown and forced toxic, ineffective vaccines? Follow the money.
Aliens from outer space will be the next existential threat that the UN tries to corral the sheep with.
Climate catastrophe is becoming so passe . . .
Aliens from space could indeed be the next great fraud – the average person is so incredibly gullible and fearful (and half of them are stupider than that – Carlin).
How many people are so stupid that they were told there was a very-scary pandemic (which did not exist in reality – there was NO 12-month “death bump” in Alberta or Canada to 1July2020), and yet they agreed to believe their typically-deceitful politicians and stop work, stay home, wear a mask, and take a toxic and ineffective vaccine? Answer: Apparently, lots of them were that stupid.,, and they still are!
I want us all to recognize John Christy and Roy Spencer for their competence, their dedication and their integrity over so many decades. They developed the technology to measure atmospheric temperatures using satellites, have maintained since 1979 the UAH data series as the Gold Standard, and have steadfastly spoken the scientific truth despite scurrilous attempts at intimidation by scoundrels and imbeciles. They represent the best of science and the very best of citizens. Thank you gentlemen!
Dr Christy could’ve added that the drop in Human deaths of 95% is remarkable because there are 6 billion more people at risk today than 100 years ago. THINK about it.
Of course the 7.9 billion people today have a global life expectancy of 73 years and the 1.8 billion in 1920 had a life expectancy of about 45 years. Look it up for yourselves and THINK.
So we’re now having 28 more years of life than our forebears had in 1920.
I observe that the one thing we don’t do with those extra 28 years is THINK.
We have never before had such easy and powerful means of communication and travel, and open access to so much knowledge, and yet it pains me to observe we seem to now be dumber, stupider and more predatory than we’ve ever been.
The problem with open access to powerful communication is that we are now subject to hearing all the idiots too. I believe he percentages of idiots to common sense people is probably close to the same as it always was, we just are able to hear them.
Unfortunately, many of the idiots have gone into politics since they have no useful skills. The governmental offices are filled with people that have little life skills and a distorted view of reality, having little experience with day to day activities that most of the human populace is subject to.
The idiots are emboldened because, now, they have the ability to hear themselves, mirrored & parroted by other idiots.
They have also been ‘educated’ in a manner intended to put self-esteem & confidence above actual knowledge.
(That last part also leads to (in the extreme) little Johnny finally realizing that after 10 years of being told he can be anything he wants, that he can’t, that he is a loser; and realizes that he will be stuck in the lower margins of social & financial strata for the rest of his life. That’s when he starts thinking about buying a gun with lots of ammunition.)
Speaking of thinking, those apparent increases are almost exclusively the result of reducing infant and child mortality. Better medical procedures have also resulted in fewer women dying in childbirth. Also, the number of Americans killed in the Vietnam War over a 20-year period was less than 60,000, while the Union Deaths alone during the US Civil War was over 300,000 during the 4-year hostilities. Clearly, fewer young men are dying in battle than formerly.
To get a better appreciation for how longevity has changed for those who make it past 30, look up actuarial tables for the life expectancy of those who make it to 45.
Instead of Ingraham using five minutes having Christy debunk a couple of climate alarmist talking points. I would have liked to hear more about his work and more focus on the charts displayed during the short talk. I feel she ought to have allotted Christy more time. As they say. Beggars can’t be choosers.
Well Tony may have some of what your asking for here:
Thank you for that link. Enjoyed that.
Ummm . . . the above video clip is only 3 minutes 19 seconds long. I assume it was not edited down, but this might not be true.
This in agreement with claims that average adult attention span is now somewhere in the range of three minutes (ref: https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/guest-commentary/os-op-attention-span-dwindling-20210706-rwv2owqhezbp5hkmyqqtpmiq4u-story.html , and please read the entire article!).
I’m an old adult from a different era. Our attention span is fine. Perhaps the benchmark for attention spans everywhere. 😁
The standard for news writing, radio reporting and elevator speeches used to be 3-30-3.
3 seconds to capture interest,
30 seconds to peak interest,
if effective, you will get 3 minutes of attention from the reader/listener.
I don’t find this to be ‘news’, and I don’t find red meat battles informative. Exchanging talking points isn’t going to educate those who have only gotten your 3 minutes of attention at most. Leave that 3-30-3 metric to the alphabet infotainment media. That has been what has ‘educated’ the masses up to this point.
I think it would have been more beneficial had Ingraham simply allowed Mr. Christy to explain his “new findings” in the alotted time and not try to have him defeat an entire list of CAGW tropes. My only point.
One thing that has been shown lately, is that many Democrats are tuning into FOXNews for information. Explaining alternative data sets and outcomes, or at least having the chance to, would be an advantage to FOX and their new viewership. Maybe Tucker carlson will pick it up and do a more complete job of it. Maybe laura’s show was just the teaser it was. IDK.
Ryan Maue- “Nah, there is no global trend in the number of tropical storms or hurricanes
during the past 50+ years”.
That’s awesome. I wish he had added “the Yosemite fire was arson, and a once in 500 year flood can also still happen once in 500 years.”
Can also happen twice in in 2 years
Alan, sorry I didn’t read down to your comment and I repeated it below! I did some simple calcs a few years ago on new records assuming ‘random climate’ for which I used Ln N years.
If you have 500 locations that you are monitoring, you can expect a once in 500 year event in one of them every year.
There’s an axiom in Medicine that the only healthy normal people are those who haven’t had enough imagining and lab tests…..yet. Same argument.
And meds. I get a lot of imagining and blood labs – cancer last year. But no meds as I don’t have any compelling reasons. Many of my friends (we are older) take the usual meds for hypertension etc. I think if they just got (way) more active they wouldn’t need to.
If you come to expect something like that, you will be disappointed.
Was it arson – do you have a source for that?
“There was no lightning on that day, so it’s a human-start fire and it’s under investigation,” Yosemite Superintendent Cicely Muldoon said at a community meeting Monday evening. “That’s all I can really say about that right now. We’re looking at that real, real hard.”
There are many ways (mostly through boneheadedness) a human may have started this fire. I’ve not seen arson mentioned, just indirectly implied,,,,
Actually a once in 500 year flood can occur more than once in couple of years, though the probability is low.
There is 24-hr storm intensity (total inches precip)
There is 48-hr storm event intensity (total inches).
There is ‘measured’ volume flow (compared to previous modeling).
There is measured depth (compared to previous modeling).
There is measured depth (based on previous measured & defined storm)
There is ‘measured’ volume flow (based on previous ….)
There is 500 yr rainfall intensity event (in/hr).
If you ask the people that are saying it is a 500 yr flood to define their terms, they most likely won’t be able to.
Also, if seasonal variability is sending through a regional weather system that is capable of a 500 yr event in November, I would assume that December/January of the same year might be a little more likely to also experience something a little out of the ordinary.
Without doing the time and effort to research magnitudes, I can say that the likelihood of a 500 year flood the year after another 500 year flood is greater than the likelihood of a 500 year flood after a worst in 500 years dry spell. (rainy and dry seasons tend to auto-correlate)
I think it would be really nice if Fox News took an entire hour-long segment out of its broadcasting day to cover all the climate issues including hurricanes, droughts, floods, temperatures, wildfires, everything. They could invite Dr Christy onto the show with a large display screen that shows all the data in graph form that is easy for the viewers to see and understand.
They could add Dr Happer to the segment to explain his study showing how CO2 and other GHG’s in the atmosphere are saturated (or nearly so) rendering them incapable of making a significant difference to temperatures, even as GHG’s continue to rise.
When it’s done, Fox News should put the hour-long video of it on its website, on YouTube, here on WUWT — everywhere so it can be widely viewed. Something like this is long overdue, and seeing it would give the climate alarmists absolute fits.
Call Fox, CD.
I went to Fox News’ website and sent them an email with a programming suggestion involving what I talked about in my comment above.
I however am not terribly optimistic that they will embrace my suggestion and use it in their programming. I may not even get a reply. They seem to be so infatuated with politics that they probably can’t and won’t take the time to go into detail about a subject that is basically scientific.
Any time taken away from political programming is probably too much.
FOX News is a business so they need to “entertain” their audience and I don’t think the majority of the viewing audience is going to listen to an hour of informative data.
I think we are better served with them pointing out the realities of the data compared to what the alarmists are pushing and do it in a brief, entertaining way to get a wider viewer appreciation.
If they were to have a portion of their website devoted to documentaries, that would be helpful. They could use it to give more depth to their brief description.
“FOX News is a business so they need to “entertain” their audience and I don’t think the majority of the viewing audience is going to listen to an hour of informative data.”
Unfortunately Brad, you are probably right. When FOX’s primary purpose is political entertainment, something like what I am suggesting probably won’t fly. But I emailed them with the suggestion anyway. I await their reply.
If they were to start doing documentaries (Fox Nation?), going after the climate scare would be a good starting point. We’ll just have to wait and see.
There are multiple areas they could explore with documentaries.
The climate scare.
The 2020 election irregularities.
The causes of inflation.
The corruption of the current administration (previous ones too).
The incompetence of government agencies.
The difference between legal and illegal immigration and the effects it has on the country.
I could go on but I’m sure FOX is aware of them and many more. They just don’t have the willingness to explore the subjects with documentaries.
I think they have their niche of hovering around the edges of going against the legacy media narrative without going all out. All their affiliates at the local level are just as leftist as the other local stations so they are just going with the flow. I guess that pays the bills.
Agreed Brad. It would be nice to see such documentaries.
Tell ’em to get Naomi Seibt over from Germany – she’s young, intelligent and communicates well. She could make serious subjects like climate change interesting and entertaining.
Hope he and Dr. Spencer have put up Kevlar blinds and bullet proof glass at the offices in Huntsville.
I don’t expect Christy to comment on politics since he is a scientist.
But there is an obvious conclusion from his comparison of climate models with reality: The climate computer games are intended to scare people — accuracy is not a goal. There are two obvious clues:
The models have not become more accurate over the past 40 years. In fact they are probably less accurate with the latest CMIP6 models predicting faster global warming than CMIP5 models, that already over predicted the rate of global warming, and
The Russian IMN model, that least over predicts the rate of global warming, should get 99% of the attention, but gets no attention. Who does that?
Only people who DO NOT WANT accurate predictions.
They want predictions to scare people.
That’s what the government pays them for.
So that’s what we get.
Yes, the whole point of models, like using Excel spreadsheets, is to see what bottom lines are produced when you plug in various combinations of assumptions.
Models are “Alice’s Restaurant” –
“You can get anything you want
At Alice’s Restaurant”
(was that Woody or Arlo?)
In any other field if I did research and drew conclusions the way it is done in “climate science” I would not be able to publish papers, I would lose my tenured chair and I would be hooted out of the room.
Don’t kid yourself about the state of modern science. A few decades ago, what you wrote was true. Corruption abounds. Political correctness has infected everything. Most experiments cannot be independently duplicated.
Unfortunately Danley, it was stated by The Lancet a while ago that ~ 70% of published medical research could not be replicated.
The shambles that has resulted from the rush to publish in academia is a tragedy.
But government-funded CliSciFi pays all of the salaries, labs, institutional overhead, journals, globe-trotting, NGOs, crony capitalists, political donations & etc. Its a huge freaking industry and its inertia will carry it into the indefinite future. Also, along the lines of what the great Ronald Reagan said, a government program cannot be terminated, it can only grow larger.
More fields have been corrupted over the past few decades as the leftists have inundated all branches of academia so don’t be so sure of that statement.
I don’t know what field you are in but, if you are in a learning institution, you are surrounded by leftists that would probably try to get you cancelled for just making a comment on this blog.
Be careful and carry on the best you can.
Not if you were an academic psychologist, a sociologist or in any of the culture studies. There, inflammatory narratives make one famous.
Yet another disgraceful trotting out of the same tired old wildly disingenuous John Christy Cherry Pick.
The graph that Christy showed in this Fox Noise clip, of observed temperatures versus models, was not global in scope.
Christy disingenuously cherry picked one particular parcel, that represents only a tiny percent of the total troposphere, that just happens to display the largest negative divergence between models and observations. This crucial detail, was, of course, entirely omitted from the graph and no mention was made of it in the interview.
No mention was made either that there are other regions of the world that are warming faster than models projected, or that on an overall global scale, the warming projections made decades ago have been observed thus far to have been accurate. See references below.
And so-called “skeptics” still wonder why their “objections” are not taken seriously by the worldwide scientific community? Really?
Climate models reliably project future conditions
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine
Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model ProjectionsGeophysical Research Letters Oct 2019
We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model-projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account.
Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right
“Christy disingenuously cherry picked one particular parcel, that represents only a tiny percent of the total troposphere”
If it doesn’t match part of the troposphere correctly then why do you think it matches the rest correctly?
“No mention was made either that there are other regions of the world that are warming faster than models projected,”
Which also means there are other regions of the world that are warming slower than the models projected.
(“faster than the models projected”) also means the models are unskilled and their results are anti-information.
And so-called “skeptics” still wonder why their “objections” are not taken seriously by the worldwide scientific community
No, MGC, we don’t wonder about this at all. Not since 1934.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”― Upton Sinclair
Other observations about the reluctance of “experts” to consider alternative observations –
Climate(s) change continuously.
But human nature – not so much.
Climate change is redundant (previous WUWT comment).
Human nature -> follow the money. It’s a fair cop.
This is nonsense. Just look at the incredible divergence of predictions of the many climate models sanctioned by the IPCC.
The divergent predictions demonstrates that even among the believers the science is not settled.
No mention was made either that there are other regions of the world that are warming faster than models projected, …
That is really a non sequitur. It goes without saying that if you are talking about an average, approximately half the observations will be greater and half smaller than the average. Me thinks you doth protest too much!
One look at a spaghetti graph of various climate model outputs puts the “skillful” claim into the laugh-out-loud category.
The U.S. balloon data sets are reliable considering that the surface record is contaminated by urbanization effects, GHCN especially. Even the USHCN suffers from contamination (more suburban sites than rural). Higher + trend in TMIN is evidence of urbanization effects. The USCRN is a step in the correct direction. Balloon data (and USCRN) represent the best available observational evidence. The surface record is questionable.
Model predictions suffer a consistent warm bias because conclusions are assumed in the premise (low solar, high climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling et al.) ensuring a predetermined outcome. Academy of Sciences? AGU? NASA? The scientific community is hopelessly corrupt regarding atmospheric physics. It is difficult to predict that which we don’t understand. A review of recent history (SARS-CoV-2) demonstrates that belief in the experts is nothing more than dogmatic acceptance, an argument from authority.
Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts (Cargo Cult Science), still true.
re: “Model predictions suffer a consistent warm bias”
It’s so sad to see so many folks blindly parrot the same tired old false “skeptical” talking point that routinely bounces around the pseudo-science echo chamber.
The references at the top of this thread demonstrate that this claim is false.
It’s so sad to see so many folks blindly parrot the same tired old false “alarmist” talking point that routinely bounces around the pseudo-science echo chamber.
You are Gavin and I claim my two fifty.
You’re livin in the past man. Even folks with the last remnants of their brain dripping – hot wax-like – from their ears knows you can’t model the climate and any suggestion that they accurately represent what is happening in the atmosphere is to be regarded as everyone here regards the rest of your childish doodlings.
re: “you can’t model the climate”
And yet the models have accurately projected temperature trends, ice loss, sea level rise, etc. for several decades.
See the references at the top of this thread. You’re the one here “living in the past”.
Actually, they haven’t accurately projected *anything*. Even the IPCC has admitted the models are running too hot with their predicted temperatures. Since ice loss, sea level rise, etc projections are based on temperature projections they have been wrong too.
It was the climate models that were the basis of Gore’s prediction of an ice-free Arctic. Something that hasn’t happened. It was the climate models that were the basis of the prediction of failing grain harvests causing widespread global starvation by 2020. Something that hasn’t happened. It was the climate models that were the basis of predicting that hurricanes and tornadoes would become much more numerous and kill more people every year. Something that hasn’t happened.
The climate models do not differentiate between minimum and maximum temperature profiles. That knowledge is IMPORTANT. If the CAGW advocates, like you, were out there trumpeting that CO2 is causing minimum temps to go up leading to longer growing seasons, higher food harvests, fewer deaths, etc then just how many people would heed their call that we must decrease CO2 emissions?
Gorman once again sadly parrots more of the same tired old talking point misrepresentations that routinely bounce around the “skeptical” pseudo-science echo chamber. Some examples:
re: “It was the climate models that were the basis of Gore’s prediction of an ice-free Arctic. Something that hasn’t happened”
Such a tragic distortion of reality. Here’s the real story:
A single research study noted the possibility that we might soon see an ice free arctic. It was never “predicted” by any climate model that this would happen so soon … yet it nearly did. Gorman’s “information” sources never bothered to clue him in on the fact that, actually, climate models have consistently predicted that the onset of an ice free arctic is likely still a couple of decades away.
re: “Since ice loss, sea level rise, etc projections are based on temperature projections they have been wrong.”
Scientifically published sea level rise and ice loss mean model projections have been “wrong” only from the standpoint that they’ve generally underestimated what’s actually occurred. Check the data.
re: “It was the climate models that were the basis of predicting that hurricanes and tornadoes would become much more numerous”
Another woeful misrepresentation. Climate models projected more intense hurricane activity, not “more” of them. And we have been seeing more intense hurricane precipitation events.
Gorman has once again demonstrated why so-called “skeptics” cannot be taken seriously by the worldwide scientific community. Practically everything he has stated is easily shown to be some kind of distortion or misrepresentation.
tg: ““It was the climate models that were the basis of Gore’s prediction of an ice-free Arctic. Something that hasn’t happened””
mgc: “Such a tragic distortion of reality. Here’s the real story:
A single research study noted the possibility that we might soon see an ice free arctic. ”
The “study” you speak of *was* a climate model. A simplified one for sure but still a climate model used to predict the future. You can rationalize this all you want in your own mind but the truth wins out!
“yet it nearly did.”
Really? What year was that?
Pure malarky! Sea level rise was predicted to flood NYC and Miami before 2020 based on the climate models. Hasn’t happened. And *you* think the climate models *underestimated*?
” Climate models projected more intense hurricane activity, not “more” of them.”
That’s not what MIT thinks. Go here: https://news.mit.edu/2021/hurricane-climate-modeling-1202
“A new MIT study published today in Nature Communications has used climate modeling, rather than storm records, to reconstruct the history of hurricanes and tropical cyclones around the world. The study finds that North Atlantic hurricanes have indeed increased in frequency over the last 150 years, similar to what historical records have shown.
In particular, major hurricanes, and hurricanes in general, are more frequent today than in the past.
Don’t you ever get tired of being shown how wrong you are?
[over limit – mod]
mod: why limit one of the few voices of reason found here?
Oh, never mind. We both know why.
Gorman bleats: “The “study” you speak of *was* a climate model”
Of course it was a climate model. Duh. That’s not and never was the issue. The issue here is that you falsely claimed that it “predicted” an ice free Arctic.
But of course that model “predicted” no such thing. It was stated that a near ice free Arctic was a possibility. A possibility only. And it nearly happened in 2012. Almost 80% of the Arctic sea ice melted away that summer.
re: “Sea level rise was predicted to flood NYC and Miami before 2020 based on the climate models.”
Utter nonsense. Pure don’t-know-what-you’re-talking-about nonsense. Blindly regurgitated, totally false “skeptical” propaganda. There’s not a single piece of evidence you can deliver to back this ludicrous falsehood, because such evidence simply doesn’t exist.
And oh, by the way, NYC did flood during Superstorm Sandy in 2012.
re: “In particular, major hurricanes, and hurricanes in general, are more frequent today than in the past.”
Wait a minute. Weren’t you just claiming the exact opposite last post? Let’s look. Oh yes, here it is:
“It was the climate models that were the basis of predicting that hurricanes … would become much more numerous … Something that hasn’t happened.”
“Don’t you ever get tired of being shown how wrong you are?”
“Of course it was a climate model. Duh. That’s not and never was the issue. The issue here is that you falsely claimed that it “predicted” an ice free Arctic.”
Where then was all the rebuttals from the climate alarmists that the model did *NOT* predict an ice free Arctic after Gore publicized that it did predict that?
I gave you the exact quote out of an interview. Guess you still haven’t learned to read.
“Wait a minute. Weren’t you just claiming the exact opposite last post? Let’s look. Oh yes, here it is:”
ROFL!!! *YOU* said the models do not predict more hurricanes. I gave you a quote that showed that *is* what the climate alarmists said the models *do* show.
You are *still* having problems with your reading skills!
Again, don’t you *ever* get tired of being wrong?
re: “Where then was all the rebuttals blah blah blah”
They were so obviously there for anyone who actually bothered to look … including a rebuttal by the very author of the study in question. But your so-called “skeptical” sources of “information” never filled you in on any of that, now, did they. No of course they didn’t. Doesn’t fit the anti-science agenda.
re: “I gave you the exact quote out of an interview”
Seriously? You now want to pretend that the mere claim that some unnamed somebody supposedly said something in some unknown interview somewhere is “evidence” ?? Please.
I’ll clue you in again: you are not going to be able to find any genuine evidence of any kind demonstrating that “climate models said NYC and Miami would be flooded before 2020”, because it simply isn’t so. You’re still just blindly regurgitating another “skeptical” propaganda misrepresentation. As usual.
“re: “I gave you the exact quote out of an interview””
Hansen, 2016, Guardian interview
“Consequences include sea level rise of several metres, which we estimate could occur this century or at the latest next century if fossil fuel emissions continue at a high level.”
This isn’t a mere claim by some unamed somebody. This is a direct quote of Hansen.
Your reading comprehension is showing again.
Wow. Truly unreal.
Gorman now tries to pretend that “this century or at the latest next century” somehow means “before 2020”.
How can any rational person possibly take a so-called “skeptic” like Gorman seriously? His every “argument” is a total joke. Pure garbage. Zero integrity.
Such a disgrace.
Your growing use of ad hominem arguments only shows your desperation as you realize you are wrong and are trying to see if you can make some crap stick to the wall.
Keep it up. You only continue to ruin that very small reputation you already have.
It was not “ad hominem” to point out how utterly ridiculous and downright disgraceful your prior post was. It was just a simple statement of fact.
You’ve been claiming all along “models said flooding before 2020”, but then you reference a quote about flooding at the end of this century, or even occurring in the next century, as supposedly “backing up” your laughably false “before 2020” claim.
That’s beyond ludicrous and demonstrates either gross incompetence on your part or a clear lack of integrity. Or both. Anyone who posts such an obvious misrepresentation fully deserves to be chastised.
And sadly, this kind of wildly ridiculous misrepresentation is just business-as-usual for so-called “skeptics” like Gorman. They routinely have no rational argument nor any genuine evidence to back their position, and are thus forced to rely on these kinds of deceitful distortions and misrepresentations.
So Hansens’ prediction was for 2028 instead of 2020 for NYC to be underwater!
Big deal. If you think NYC is going to be underwater in the next six years then you are a bigger religious nut than you’ve already shown yourself to be!
What the bleep is the matter with you, Gorman? How can any rational person possibly conclude that the end of “this century or at the latest next century” really means “2028” ? Talk about delusional.
Thanks for once again so clearly demonstrating that you have zero intention of making any reasonable comment. You know that you have no genuine “argument”, so you just post utterly inane nonsense instead.
You apparently can’t add and subtract. Your research capabilities are nil. And you claim to be a professional engineer?
Hansen’s prediction was for 2028, not for the end of the century, He his estimated 15feet of sea level rise in 20 years in 2006/2007. 2007 + 20 = 2027. I actually gave him the benefit of the doubt by a year!
Hansen actually started predicting catastrophic sea level rise clear back in 1988. It’s now *40* years later and no catastrophic sea level rise. Where do you think Gore got his belief in catastrophic sea level rise?
Get a library assistant if you must but do *something* actually learn some history!
That single off-the-cuff statement Hansen once made was merely an offhand speculation. It was also based on the assumption that CO2 levels had doubled, which they still have not, a crucial detail that you so-called “skeptics” always deliberately omit.
Using that single offhand speculation to try to “back” your false claim that “models predicted flooding before 2020″ represents yet another shameful addition to the seemingly never ending stream of Gormanian misrepresentations.
What is the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling? You are a Gavin and I claim my two fifty.
I’d love for the apologists to actually look at the data for themselves — temperature, sea level rise, and then explain why the models all predict different behavior than what we’re seeing, and always 10+ years in the future. If I were dishonest and wanted people to act, that’s what I’d do to avoid accountability.
re: “why the models all predict different behavior than what we’re seeing”
Another blind parroting of this totally false “skeptical” talking point. See the references posted at the top of this thread, which prove this claim wrong.
I have several studies here predicting that based on climate models grain harvests would decrease over the past two decades because of higher temps stunting their growth.
Here are just some:
Each and every one of these assume that higher GAT means higher max temps which will hurt grain harvests. Each and every one of them has been proven wrong over the past twenty years since we keep seeing global grain harvests going up, not down.
Yet not a single instance that I can find on the internet from the CAGW crowd saying that all these studies have use the wrong assumption – that max temps going up are what is causing the GAT to go up.
Here’s a quote from one:
“Global warming in the range of moderately high temperatures (15–32°C) is projected for temperate environments such as that of central-southern Chile, where grain crops such as wheat are widely grown. The present study assessed the impact of moderately high temperatures on both yield and quality traits of wheat during key stages for grain number and grain weight determination. ”
“Some of the most important U.S. crops, from wheat to soybeans, are at risk of substantial damage from climate change.
Higher temperatures may cut the wheat harvest by 20 percent by the end of the century without efficient carbon reductions, according to a study by researchers including the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and the University of Chicago. Yield reduction could reach 40 percent for soybeans and almost 50 percent for corn, relative to non-elevated temperatures, the group said in a report released Thursday.”
When the current CAGW advocates like John Kerry admit publicly that the climate models do *not* support predictions for global starvation due to higher max temps then perhaps people will start to listen to you. Till then you are just another deluded prophet standing on the corner with a sign saying “The End is Near!”.
re: “I have several studies here predicting that based on climate models grain harvests would decrease over the past two decades because of higher temps stunting their growth.”
Yet another typical Gormanian misrepresentation. Each of those referenced studies examines changes in grain yields due to temperature increases far beyond what occurred over the past two decades.
The first of Gorman’s references, for example, looked at changes in grain yields for a 4 degree C temperature increase. The temperature increase over the past two decades was a full order of magnitude smaller than this.
Yet another woeful example demonstrating why so-called “skeptics” are not taken seriously by the worldwide scientific community. Their “arguments” (like this one) seem almost always to be based on wild distortions, gross misrepresentations, or even outright falsehoods.
“ Each of those referenced studies examines changes in grain yields due to temperature increases far beyond what occurred over the past two decades.”
No, they took the RCP 8.5 climate model predictions and assumed the entire increase in the average would be from higher max temps. They used the high max temps necessary to reach the 8.5 averages.
“The first of Gorman’s references, for example, looked at changes in grain yields for a 4 degree C temperature increase.”
go here: https://www.climate.gov/media/12886
You’ll find the attached graph. It shows a 4C increase IN THE AVERAGE by the turn of the century even under the 4.5 scenario. Under the 8.5 scenario it hits +4C by 2050. How high do max temps have to go to raise the AVERAGE by 4C?
“Yet another woeful example demonstrating why so-called “skeptics” are not taken seriously by the worldwide scientific community.”
And yet the climate alarmists like you can’t even differentiate between *average* temps and max temps. And yet you expect people to believe what you say?
This “response” from Gorman is a total non-sequitur. A completely laughable joke.
The point of discussion is about what temperature treatments were used in the quinoa grain yield study. So why is Gorman talking about projected RCP 8.5 global temperatures in the year 2100? And why is he now disingenuously moving the goalposts to the end of this century? His prior (of course false) claims were about “the past two decades”, not the year 2100.
And now here’s a really comical howler for ya: the graph that Gorman posted to try to “back” his laughably wrong claim of “4C increase IN THE AVERAGE by the turn of the century even under the 4.5 scenario” is in DEGREES FAHRENHEIT, not Celsius!
Oh My God. Talk about rank incompetence.
Gorman is also dead wrong with this totally false claim:
“No, they took the RCP 8.5 climate model predictions and assumed the entire increase in the average would be from higher max temps”
Gorman doesn’t even know what’s in the study that HE referenced. Direct quote from the first study he referenced:
“Temperature was increased at night, by approximately 4°C above the ambient.” Apparently, Gorman must think that maximum temperatures occur at night?
Heck, even the TITLE of that study is this:
Increased Night Temperature Negatively Affects Grain Yield, Biomass and Grain Number in Chilean Quinoa
No, they didn’t “assume the entire increase in the average would be from higher max temps”. It is exactly the opposite.
Wow. Unbelievable wow. It almost seems as if Gorman is actually some kind of bot that has been programmed to post deliberately ridiculous nonsense and laughably incorrect goof ball non-sequiturs.
And yet these so-called “skeptics” like Gorman still wonder why they are not taken seriously by the worldwide scientific community. Unbelievable.
The average diurnal temperature is 20F to 30F. Let’s assume a typical set of temps would be 75F and 55F, an average of 65F. To raise the average by 4F would require the max temp to go from 75F to 83F, a difference of 8F.
This would be a difference from 24C to 28C, a difference of 4C.
Perhaps you should learn some basic arithimetic?
“No, they didn’t “assume the entire increase in the average would be from higher max temps”. It is exactly the opposite.”
Then why are they studying the difference in yield from higher max temps?
re: “To raise the average by 4F would require the max temp to go from 75F to 83F”
And the truly tragic Gormanian innumeracy sadly continues.
If in the grain study the nighttime temperature is increased by 4C but the maximum temperature during the day is not increased (and the authors of the quinoa grain study state that they made sure the maximum temperatures did not increase relative to their control), then the daily average still increases. DUH.
Gorman is the one here who needs to learn some basic arithmetic.
re: “Then why are they studying the difference in yield from higher max temps?”
DUH. They’re NOT. Once again, Gorman so woefully demonstrates that he doesn’t even know what’s in the study that he referenced himself.
It appears ever more likely, with each and every Gormanian post, that Gorman is in reality some kind of bot that has been programmed to deliberately post utterly ridiculous nonsense and laughably incorrect goof ball non-sequiturs.
If climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling was as high as you claim, the earth would have suffered from a run away greenhouse effect a long time ago. The fact that we are still here bears witness to the long-term stability of our climate system (see anthropic principle).
CO2 is plant food and a trace gas, necessary for life; not a pollutant. To suggest otherwise is arrogant presumption. Since when did model predictions become more important than observations?
If it [theory] disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it. Richard Feynman
The liar returns…
Hysteria: A group of psychiatric symptoms, including heightened emotionality, attention-seeking behavior, and physical symptoms in the absence of organic pathology. The symptoms of hysteria are currently attributed to any of several psychiatric conditions, including somatization disorder, multiple personality disorder, and histrionic personality disorder.
The word Hysteria comes from Hyster- from the Greek hystéra, meaning “womb,” “uterus.” The ancient Greeks believed that this behavior was particular to women and caused by disturbances in the uterus.
Yes, historically this has been a recurrent question
However, it is one that can be answered
The presence or absence. Of volcanic eruptions, and their SO2 aerosol emissions has driven our climate for Ages..
Since the start of the Industrial Revolution in 1850; SO2 aerosols from the burning of fossil fuels has become another source of atmospheric cooling.
and warming, when their level in that atmosphere is reduced , as during an industrial recession.
Climate is far simpler than most of you learned professors will admit!
Unfortunately it’s a bit more complicated than that. If there’s one thing that most people here will agree on it’s that there isn’t one thing alone that causes changes to the weather – there are many, many factors interacting in a complex system. Pointing at one thing and stating that this is the culprit may work on tv detective shows but not in real life.
Unfortunately, you and most others are WRONG. Since 1850 EVERY Temp change can be correlated with changing levels of So2 aerosols in the atmosphere..These temp. Changes lead to La Niña and El Niño conditions, with La Nina’s causing wet, stormy weather, and El Niño’s with hot., dry weather, and fires and droughts.
Temperature plots show no evidence of additional temp.
What more do you wantChanges due to greenhouse gases, or sunspot activity.
Really? Burl is still out peddling his totally refuted, pseudo-scientific SO2 fantasy land fairy tales? This cacophony of crackpot clap trap would be comical were it not so tragic.
[that’s 9. -mod]
CO2 pot, meet SO2 kettle.
Burl seems to be more congenial, and we do know:
that SO2 has a measurable cooling effect and
it is not currently present in large quantities.
(<20ppb vs CO2 >400000ppb)
CO2 is the 5th/4th most prevalent gas
SO2 and NOX were a real problem in the U.S. during the ’70s (acid rain). These pollutants have been reduced significantly in the U.S. it would interesting to measure sulfates and nitrates over Beijing. I would wager that the levels there would rival that of Los Angeles during the ’60s. China, India and Indonesia have a real pollution problem. Here in the U.S., not so much because CO2 is not a pollutant.
Just a side note: O3 levels can be a problem in the U.S. during summer (>76 ppb), especially in the L.A. Basin. Warm dry air coming down off of the mountains (adiabatic compression) with a marine layer below from the Pacific ocean provide the perfect environment for fumigation.
Unfortunately I cannot see a correlation in the temperature and sulphur dioxide concentrations. Whilst I acknowledge that aerosols such as SO2 may have an important part to play I cannot overlook other factors such as changes in solar output – greenhouse gases are somewhat overrated as to their influence to my mind. All I can suggest is that you leave the door open to other ideas rather than closing it and focussing on just one – that’s something that the climatista’s have done, no need to repeat their mistakes.
John Christy is the man.
I’d like to have such videos on youtube in order to be able to post them when I am discussing with people about (A)GW.
When people lie they always get so animated and so angry or so sad .Political theatre is in full display with the CC crowd. The heck with facts when you can be NWO mendacious .
Have you seen the tools in bidens shed who are the heads of the different departments of our govt.
I’m trying to find a simple equation about Climate/Weather that makes sense to the most climate ill-informed or obsessed group of people. I would like it to represent how ridiculous our unstated logic-leaps have become in the conversations of crisis. Would something like this be useful and simple enough?
Climate = Average Weather over 30 years (Temperature, Moisture, Wind, Pressure)
Climate Change = Change in one component of Average Weather
Change in Average Weather (Temperate) = Change in specific temperature readings (daily weather)
To stop Climate Change, we have to control the weather. Do we control the weather?
I’m open to comments about how to make this more obvious.
Just *some* things to think about. Not comprehensive at all. Think about the differences in climate between San Diego, CA and Romana, CA. Pretty close geographically but big difference in climate.
It’s a shame that the comparison between the models and actual temperatures stopped in 2015–it would have been interesting to see whether actual temperatures increased as much as model predictions in more recent years.
Laura Ingraham did well to point out that there was a much hotter and longer-lasting heat wave in 2003 in western Europe.
I was living in Connecticut at that time, and heard reports of the extreme heat from friends living in France, with reports of high temperatures over 40 C (104 F) for weeks on end. At the same time, New England was having a cool, wet summer, with frequent rain, and only three days in July with high temperatures over 80 F. Long-term averages show that the average daily maximum temperature in Hartford in July is 83 F.
Global-warming activists are quick to seize upon heat waves in order to predict catastrophes and pursue their agenda, but summer heat waves in mid-latitudes are usually a result of the jet stream pushing far to the north, with very little clouds to block the sun, which is high in the sky during summer.
But these “ridges” in the jet stream, which bring winds out of the south, are compensated by “troughs” elsewhere, where polar air streams in from the north. If air is brought poleward by a ridge, the air does not accumulate over the Arctic–it must flow southward along another meridian, and if it passes over a large body of water, it accumulates humidity and causes cloudy weather and storms, which block out the sun and result in cooler summer weather.
Anyone complaining about a heat wave should remember that somewhere else at the same latitude, people are wondering when it will stop raining and they can soak up just a little summer sun. People may be baking this July in Europe, but just last month there were record cold, snow, and floods in Montana and Wyoming. A long-term average temperature at a given location can include a few heat waves and cold snaps, as well as a lot in between.