Florida Major Hurricane Strikes: Still No Trend

October 11th, 2018 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Note: The first plot had Michael’s wind speed plotted incorrectly, which has been fixed.

I’ve updated a plot of Florida major hurricane strikes since 1900 with Hurricane Michael, and the result is that there is still no trend in either intensity or frequency of strikes over the last 118 years:

This is based upon National Hurricane Center data. The trend line in intensity is flat, and the trend line in number of storms (not shown) is insignificantly downward.

Nevertheless, the usual fearmongers are claiming Hurricane Michael is somehow tied to climate change.

After all, the Gulf of Mexico is unusually warm, right?

Yes, but if you look at the history of Jul-Aug-Sept average sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies over the eastern Gulf (available here, 25N-30N, 80W-90W), you will see that since 1860, this summer is only the 9th warmest in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

Even more astounding is that out of the top 10 warmest Gulf years since 1860, 7 occurred before 1970, which is before we experienced any significant warming.

So, all the “experts” can do is make vague claims about how major hurricanes like Michael are what we can expect more of in a warming world, but the data show that – so far at least – the data do not support the theory.

Major hurricanes are part of nature. As evidence of this, I will also remind people of the study of lake bottom sediments in Western Lake in the Florida panhandle, not far from where Michael made landfall, that showed the last 1,000 years have been relatively quiet for Category 4 to 5 hurricanes, but the period from 1,000 to 3,400 years ago was a “hyperactive” period for intense landfalls at that location.

Hurricane strikes in the U.S. are notoriously variable, as evidenced by the recent (and unprecedented) 11+ year “drought” in major hurricane landfalls, which was finally broken in 2017.

Where were the claims that the hurricane drought was due to global warming?


Attributing the latest hurricane in any way to global warming is the ultimate in cherry-picking the data. In fact, they don’t even show the data.

Which brings us back to those vague claims by the experts.


I also included Michael in the count of ALL U.S. landfalling major hurricanes, again from NHC data. The marked downward trend since the 1930s, 40s, and 50s is quite evident:

Where is the news story about THAT?

More crickets.

266 Responses to “Florida Major Hurricane Strikes: Still No Trend”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Nate says:

    “So, all the experts can do is make vague claims about how major hurricanes like Michael are what we can expect more of in a warming world, but the data show that so far at least the data do not support the theory.”

    Are you saying that hurricanes passing over warmer water, all else being equal, do not become stronger?

    In the case of Michael, its rapid strengthening occurred over water that was ~ 2 C above normal.

    Clearly the amount of warming of the gulf we have had so far due to climate change has not been so large, 0.6 C or so?, that it overwhelms natural variations. But if warming continues then at some point it would matter.

    • Bart says:

      “Are you saying that hurricanes passing over warmer water, all else being equal, do not become stronger?”

      Sure. In a physically impossible fantasy scenario, you can make hurricanes do whatever you like.

      Storms are driven by temperature differentials, not absolute temperatures. The notion that CO2 will heat the water, but not the air, is completely bass-ackwards.

      • Nate says:

        See below. Also with Michael, it probably passed over the Loop Current which has deep warm water.

        • Bart says:

          Ignaratio elenchi. The hypothesized impact of GHGs is to reduce temperature gradients. Reduce the gradients, and you reduce storm activity.

        • Nate says:

          I see the strategy. Ignore my rebuttal and repeat the claim.

          • Bart says:

            Your rebuttal was irrelevant. That is what ignoratio elenchi means.

          • Nate says:

            You make vague claims about gradients. I talk about which gradients actually matter for hurricanes. Irrelevant? That’s willful ignorance.

          • Bart says:

            “I talk about which gradients actually matter for hurricanes.”

            There are no increasing gradients that can reasonably be linked to the increase in CO2 concentration as the causative agent. Increasing CO2 necessarily decreases the gradients.

            The “extreme weather” meme is a marketing ploy, not science.

      • David Appell says:

        Bart says:
        The notion that CO2 will heat the water, but not the air, is completely bass-ackwards.

        No one claims that.

        CO2 heats the air. The air is in contact with the water. The water warms.

        I don’t know how much direct IR warms the ocean, but the above holds in any case.

        • Mike Flynn says:


          You wrote –

          “CO2 heats the air.” Are you sure? It doesn’t seem to apply in the absence of a heat source, does it?

          Air cools at night. Does this mean that CO2 cools the air as well? Marvellous stuff, this CO2!

          All seems a bit delusional. Heats and cools simultaneously – the average would seem to be zero. No effect at all. Gee, maybe you’re right, after all! Only joking. Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer colder, not hotter. Not as much energy reaches the thermometer.

          Press on believing in the magical heating abilities of CO2.


        • Bart says:

          You are missing the point. Storm power is driven by the temperature gradient. Even if what you say were true, it wouldn’t result in greater storm power. It would result in less.

          • Nate says:

            Does the engine of Hummer have a bigger temperature gradient than the engine of a Civic? Is that what makes the Hummer more powerful?

            No. The difference is the rate of fuel pumped in and burned.

          • Bart says:

            Inappropriate analogy. The engine and fuel source is the same here. The one that runs with a smaller gradient between internal and external temperature will be less powerful than the other.

          • nate says:

            “Inappropriate analogy”

            Why inappropriate?

            ” The engine and fuel source is the same here.”

            Never said otherwise.

            “The one that runs with a smaller gradient between internal and external temperature will be less powerful than the other.”

            As usual, you are just making declarative statements, not backed up by real facts about the specifics of hurricanes. Pointless.

  2. Nate says:

    If I start your plot at 1900, the trend is flat.

    The plot is essentially looking at a series of Craps rolls. Not meaningful.

    • Nate says:

      I’m referring to the 2nd plot.

    • Nate says:

      To reinforce the point, if I start the plot in 1960, the trend is also flat.

      • Steve S. says:

        And if I start the plot in 1970 it’s uphill.*

        It is a bit disingenuous to start that 2nd plot in 1930, in that the 1940s were the highest count of major hurricane landfalls since the 1850s.
        (See page 15, table 6)
        Anything commencing from there is going to be downhill.

        The plot over the entire 160 years since the 1850s is flat, though. And from the dearth of landfalls over the past years, the decade of 2011-2020 is shaping up to be in a 4-way tie with the 2nd lowest landfall count since then.

        * The 1970s were the lowest count of major hurricane landfalls over that 160 year period.

  3. ren says:

    The north front can very quickly lower the surface temperature of the Gulf of Mexico.

  4. The climate is stuck in neutral.

  5. Bobdesbond says:

    Would you please do a GLOBAL analysis.
    Who cares about this sh**hole backwater of hick Trumpturds.

    • argus says:

      Hey, that hurts a little, especially if your people fought for equality in the War of Northern Aggression 🙂

      • Lewis guignard says:

        Actually it doesn’t hurt a bit. It only reminds me of the unjustified arrogance of the Soros sycophants.

        • David Appell says:

          So anyone who thinks differently than you is sponsored by George Soros?

          What a huge confirmation bias. And a cop-out, enabling you (you think) to have have to consider or respond to comments you immediately dismiss.

          Bob’s question is a good one — I’d also like to see the global data.

          • Norman says:

            David Appell

            I would agree that Bobdesbond question was a good one. I do not think his comment is good or valuable: “Who cares about this sh**hole backwater of hick Trumpturds.”

            It is the one thing I hate about the climate science issue. It is being destroyed by politics and tribal thought process. I want to stick only to the science of the issue.

            On this blog we have the irrational tribal thoughts of sides.

            We have a tribe labeled “denier” by the opposing tribe and “alarmist” by the other. Just stupid labels that do not address the science.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Norman claims: “I want to stick only to the science of the issue.”

            Norman, I salute your new reform!

            Too bad you can’t go back and delete all of your accusatory and insulting comments, huh?

          • Norman says:


            I have always stuck to the science, your torture and perversion of sound science prompt harsh reactions. Also you taunt posters constantly with nearly all your comments.

            You have two strikes against you. You torture science until it screams for someone to come to its defense and then you mock and taunt people who correct your tortured version of physics. What are you expecting when you behave in this fashion? Flowers and candy?

          • JDHuffman says:

            Norman, your new reform sure didn’t last long, did it?

            Like someone once said, “Reality is a bitch”.

          • David Appell says:

            Thanks Norman, for your comment. You’re right, and I agree with you.

          • Svante says:

            More tribalism:

            Only five exceptions on the right side of the aisle:
            Brian Fitzpatrick, R, PA-08, 100
            John Faso, R, NY-19, 100
            Brian Mast, R, FL-18, 83
            Carlos Curbelo, R, FL-26, 75
            Elise Stefanik, R, NY-21, 50

          • JDHuffman says:

            Svante, there’s a list of your tribe, now out.

            There’s about 14 of you, unless you and “Mark Mannion” count as 2?

          • Svante says:

            A political party informing you on physics, that’s one up on communism.

    • Mike Flynn says:


      The Earth’s surface is no longer molten.

      Over the long term, the average temperature seems to have dropped – globally.

      Are you stupid and ignorant enough to deny this? Have you got anything except your delusional fantasies to support your mad claims that the Earth has warmed since its creation?

      Maybe you think that increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and a thermometer, somehow makes the thermometer hotter! Complete climatological pseudoscientific madness!

      You need more practice at being gratuitously offensive, if that is what you are attempting.

      Carry on.


    • Norman says:


      I am sad you feel such animosity for people who have lost lives, homes and possessions. You are the type of person that makes me really hope that the Republicans sweep the Mid-Term elections.

      I am a middle of the road political person. I used to like the left when it was Christian based and not full of hate, just slowly working to improve things and change hateful people with love not throwing bricks at them. I see the ANTIFA crowd in Portland and it really makes me dislike the direction the left has taken (on the wrong road!). Your post shows this very cold and calloused value system of a tribal caveman ready to club any who might have different thought process than you.

      Anyway I will supply your cold heart with the data you request. Jeff Masters has a graph of Global Cat 5 storms since 1990.


  6. Fritz Kraut says:

    Dr. Spencer says:
    “So, all the “experts” can do is make vague claims about how major hurricanes like Michael are what we can expect more of in a warming world, but the data show that – so far at least – the data do not support the theory. ”

    I realy dont understand.
    Have we different data?
    My data show clearly an increase of major hurricanes:

    Can anyone find a fault in this data? Please tell me, I will corrrect it and calculate again.

    • David Appell says:

      What’s the source of your data?

    • bilybob says:

      Fritz Kraut,

      It would be difficult to draw a comparison between satellite, pre-satellite and pre-flight periods (different data collection methods). Since it would be expected that as you go back in time, some major storms would have been missed, especially if they do not make landfall.

      Perhaps a better analysis would be to look at all major hurricanes that do make landfall, but include all of North America not just a particular country or state. One would think these should have been recorded except in rare situations. Though some could argue the older records do not have an accurate category rating.

      For what it is worth, looking just at the satellite period and all major storms, the maximum 5-year and 10-year trailing average occurred in 2005 at 4.4 and 4.0 major storms per year. Those averages are now 2.9 and 3.2. A reduction of 1 hurricane on average. But are higher than the 70’s and 80’s 5/10 year averages.

      • Fritz Kraut says:

        satellite observations began 1966?
        Here is calculation since 1967: https://tinyurl.com/major-hurricanes-NA
        Increase is even stronger than for the whole period since 1850.

        • bilybob says:

          Yes, there is an increase from the 60’s (3.6 peak 5-year average) to a 1999 – 2008 (4.4 peak 5-year average). The most recent 5-year average is 3.2, but the season is not over. However, even with an additional major storm the average only goes to 3.4, still below the mid 60’s average.

          As far as comparing to the 1850’s, in my opinion, it is a waste of time. Many hurricanes would not have been counted. Even those major hurricanes that did make landfall and are counted may have weakened and recorded as a non-major hurricane.

          As such, focusing on the satellite data era would probably be your best bet in seeing if there is a strong relationship to global temperatures. However, given the averages in the early 60’s is higher than present would suggest the relationship is either very weak or Salvatore is correct and it has been a decade of cooling. Good luck though, the project seems interesting. Perhaps comparing amount of time at certain cat levels may reveal a better relationship.

        • bilybob says:

          One additional thought. There has been discussion on hurricanes as a function of the difference between ocean temperature and atmospheric temperature. This may explain both the early 60’s and 2005 – 2008 averages. Perhaps a more interesting analysis.

      • barry says:


        One could easily miss a lot of information by using US-landfalling data, as opposed to total Atlantic (and indeed, global) hurricanes.

        US land-falling:


        Total Atlantic:


        • bilybob says:

          Thanks Barry,

          The landfall reference was only for comparing long term trends back to 1850 (apples to apples). So yes, one would miss a lot of information.

          Shorter term though, I agree, using all events would be better. And if possible, duration at each category level of the storm. Though going back to 1950, data may not be detailed enough, so a less robust analysis may have to be performed.

          The averages I posted above is from the data provided by Fritz, all major storms regardless if they make landfall. It shows early 60’s averages higher than current averages, so the relationship of global temp – hurricane intensity may be weak. I looked at both 5 and 10 year averages with similar results.

          I would think a better analysis would be to look at regional ocean temperature/lower troposphere temperature for the hurricane areas. There may be a higher R in the regression analysis. There may also be a relationship to the temperature differential. But I would leave that analysis to the research climate scientist. Maybe some post doc work for one of Roy’s students.

    • barry says:


      Not so much fault as a questions.

      How do you account for better weather monitoring later in the record? Hurricanes in the past could easily have been undercounted with fewer eyes on the sky (eg, satllite).

      Would you construct the same analysis using only the satellite data (on the same source page)? From 1967.


  7. Fritz Kraut says:

    Here is the dataset as csv-file: https://tinyurl.com/major-hurricanes-dataset

  8. Nate says:

    Fritz, yours is all hurricanes, not just us 48 hits. Your’s makes more sense.

  9. Nate says:


    We’ve discussed this at length before. Go back and look.
    a. The cold side of the hurricane heat engine is at the top of the troposphere.

    b. The rate of flow of water vapor into the hurricane engine is the gas pedal. Hotter ocean provides more water vapor.

    • Bart says:

      AGW says the top of the troposphere is supposed to warm the fastest, and your internal combustion engine analogy is thoroughly flawed. The bottom line is, you will not get more powerful storms with lower temperature gradients. The “extreme weather” meme is a flailing attempt to sell the product by fear.

      • Nate says:

        Vague assertions with nothing about the specifics of how hurricanes work. Willful ignorance.

        We discussed it before. You never think critically about your posts or learn.

        The temperature of this region is cold -60 C. Suppose it warmed by 1 C to 59C and the ocean warmed from 29C to 29.6 C.

        Then the Carnot efficiency of the engine (TH-TC)/TH, has increased from 89/302 to 88.6/302.6.

        Whoop de doo!

        Meanwhile it is well known that hurricanes are not stable over water < 26 C.

        They have highly nonlinear behavior with temperature of the water.

        • Nate says:

          warmed by 1 C to -59 C.

          Carnot efficiency of the engine (TH-TC)/TH, has decreased

        • Mike Flynn says:


          You wrote –

          “Meanwhile it is well known that hurricanes are not stable over water < 26 C."

          Tell that to people who die in cyclones (hurricanes) which originate in the tropics, and maintain stability below 40 S, where New Zealand sea temperatures are definitely below 26 C. Maybe you have been wrongly advised by GHE climatological pseudoscientific cultists.

          I wouldn't be surprised. Those fools can believe in anything!


          • Nate says:

            MF. You pretty much constantly make sh*t up. Shows us the data.

          • Nate says:

            As you can see in the map, the vast majority of cyclones poop-out above latitude 30 degrees S.


          • Bart says:

            Not worth responding here, as Nate provided his own refutation.

          • Nate says:

            Bart, Unable to process maps, I see.

          • Nate says:

            Let me interpret the map. The vast majority of cyclone tracks end above 30S degrees latitude. A handful reach 40S. Hurricane stability is a strong function of SST.

          • Nate says:

            Here’s tracks for the whole world.


            Tracks that make it to 40 S are tropical storms.

            Notice differences between ocean basins. Warm Western Pacific has more high latitude hurricanes, compared to Eastern pacific. Same in Atlantic.

          • Bart says:

            “Hurricane stability is a strong function of SST.”

            Not of CO2-induced SST. CO2 induced warming reduces gradients.

            You are trying to pull a bait and switch, arguing that one alleged fact proves another wholly unrelated one.

          • Mike Flynn says:


            Do you suffer from a severe intellectual defect, perhaps? I will do my best to overcome your inability to find facts for yourself.

            You wrote –

            “Whoop de doo!

            Meanwhile it is well known that hurricanes are not stable over water < 26 C."

            A moment's searching finds –

            "Several memorable ET events have occurred in the New Zealand region. In April 1968, Tropical Cyclone Gisele re-intensified as it moved south over New Zealand, producing winds gusting to 75 m/s (270 kph) in Wellington, and sinking the interisland ferry Wahine with the loss of 51 lives. Cyclone Bola dumped over 900 mm of rain and produced hurricane-force winds in regions of northern New Zealand in March 1988. More recently, Cyclones Fergus and Drena brought torrential rain and storm-force winds to the North Island in December 1996, triggering an exodus of summer tourists from coastal resorts."

            You will find all the "data" you want, if you can be bothered looking for it.

            Have fun.


          • Nate says:


            “More recently, Cyclones Fergus and Drena brought torrential rain and storm-force winds to the North Island in December 1996, triggering an exodus of summer tourists from coastal resorts.”

            These events a real and rare. And the North Island is above 40S degrees latitude, isn’t it?

            Though hurricanes are only stable over 26C or more ocean, we know very well that their dissipation is not immediate.

            E.G. Michael traveled 200 mi inland before losing its hurricane status.

            And “You will find all the “data” you want, if you can be bothered looking for it.”

            I already showed you the data, that you must have missed:


            A miniscule fraction of cyclone tracks make it as far south as New Zealand, and those that do are mostly tropical storms.

            These tracks are, globally, quite consistent with the 26C cutoff. In fact, there are no hurricanes forming in South-Eastern Pacific because the water never exceeds 26C there.

          • Mike Flynn says:


            Your statement was –

            “Whoop de doo!

            Meanwhile it is well known that hurricanes are not stable over water < 26 C."

            No mention of "usually", "mostly", "generally", or similar qualifiers

            I have pointed out that your assertion is wrong. There is no point blaming me because are unable to clearly communicate what you are thinking. Trying to get away with ". . . it is well known . . . " just makes you look stupid and ignorant.

            The exception does not "prove the rule". The exception shows that the rule is wrong.

            "As Albert Einstein famously said: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

            Wriggle, wriggle, Warmist worm. Others may enjoy your discomforture. I don't care – you have the perfect right to appear as ridiculous as you wish.

            Carry on.


          • Nate says:

            “No mention of “usually”, “mostly”, “generally”, or similar qualifiers”

            Well, Mike, how stupid are you?

            You go on and on that weather is chaotic. All weather events are described in terms of probabilities.

            The probability of a hurricane-strength storm making it to 40 S latitude is teeny tiny. Thats the best anyone can do for you.

            BTW, you mentioned “More recently, Cyclones Fergus and Drena brought torrential rain and storm-force winds to the North Island in December 1996”

            Both of these were BELOW hurricane strength (tropical storms) when they struck North Island of New Zealand.



        • Nate says:

          N “Hurricane stability is a strong function of SST.”

          Bart “Not of CO2-induced SST. CO2 induced warming reduces gradients.”

          More made-up declarative statements. Why do you think each new one will fly when none of the others have?

          Like playing whack-a-mole.

          The statement ‘Hurricane stability is a strong function of SST’ is proven by the global map I showed.


          • Bart says:

            This is idiotic. You’re either not arguing in good faith, or you’re just clueless. Either way, I have no time for it.

          • Nate says:

            A continuous stream of argument-by-assertion, while ignoring fact-based rebuttals is “not arguing in good faith”.

  10. pochas94 says:

    We may have a lull in hurricanes now, but with increased solar activity, they’ll be Baaaack!

  11. Mike Flynn says:

    Neither heat nor water vapour are necessary for high wind speeds. Antarctica is the driest continent, and the coldest.

    “The highest wind speeds recorded in Antarctica were at Dumont d’Urville station in July 1972: 327km/h (199 mph).”

    Maybe you might be worried more about deaths from atmospheric perturbations –

    “The 1972 Iran Blizzard, which caused 4,000 reported deaths, was the deadliest blizzard in recorded history. Dropping as much as 26 feet (7.9 m) of snow, it completely covered 200 villages. After a snowfall lasting nearly a week, an area the size of Wisconsin was entirely buried in snow.”

    If anyone can prove, (as in the mathematical sense, rather than the David Appell climatological pseudoscientific cultist sense), that any changes in frequency or intensity of weather events is not the result of the atmosphere behaving in a chaotic fashion, I would be interested in examining such a proof.

    As the IPCC wrote “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: . . . “. I agree.

    Endlessly analysing the outputs of a chaotic system is of no help. It won’t even tell you whether the system is behaving chaotically at any particular time, or even over any particular period. Sad but true.

    No GHE. No AGW theory. Just shared delusion.


  12. Fritz Kraut says:

    Mike Flynn says:
    Neither heat nor water vapour are necessary for high wind speeds.

    We are talking about hurricanes.

  13. David Appell says:

    Roy, what’s the Pearson coefficient (R) of your first graph? Hard to see how a linear trend with time is justified there.

    • Mike Flynn says:


      I think you left out a word.

      You wrote “Hard to see how a linear trend with time is justified there.”

      You really meant to say “Hard to see how a linear trend with time is not justified there.”

      Oh well, you can’t always get it right the first time, can you?

      Better luck next time.


  14. Mike Flynn says:


    I’m fairly sure you don’t like the following hurricane definition –

    “a wind of force 12 on the Beaufort scale (equal to or exceeding 64 knots or 118 km/h).”

    Maybe you prefer the definition provided by the National Hurricane Center, whose data is used by Dr Spencer. You will note the definition is subject to various conditions and caveats.

    Maybe you could provide a rigorous scientific definition of your own, for the “hurricanes” of which you speak, or is your definition the usual climatological pseudoscientific definition – which is subject to instantaneous change, on the whim of the author?

    In any case, you haven’t given any reason, (let alone proof), for believing that any atmospheric activity is not chaotic and unpredictable in nature. How hard can it be?

    Carry on analysing your datasets. Maybe someone, somewhere, actually cares enough about your opinion to take notice of it. Good luck.


  15. Bob Tisdale says:

    Roy wrote, “Where were the claims that the hurricane drought was due to global warming?


    Perfect, Roy. I’m still smiling.


  16. John says:

    Thanks for the dataset, Fritz!

    I have played with it and here -> https://workupload.com/file/mvJs7KDb <- is the Bayesian model that considers the data as coming from a negative binomial distribution with an AR1 error structure.

    According to this model the posterior mean increase in Atlantic hurricanes is about 209%

    • Nate says:

      Binomial, I get. Why negative? And what’s AR1?

      • David Appell says:

        “AR” is “autoregressive.” In such a model, one month’s temperature (say) doesn’t depend only on CO2 (say), but also on the temperature of the month before. That is, a warm month is more like to happen after a warm month, and the same for cold. The “1” means one’s calculation only includes the effect of the earlier month, but not the month before that, or that one, etc, and is referred to as “lag-1.”

        This assumption about “autocorrelation” affects the calculation of trend uncertainties. It’s a huge subject, but just considering lag-1 autocorrelation is relatively simple — the number of points N is in essence reduced to an effective number Neff < N.

        Appendix A in this 2006 document, by Tom Wigley, gives the easiest treatment of the basics that I've found:


  17. ren says:

    When I wrote that the growing season in North Dakota would be shorter, I was criticized.

  18. ren says:

    Pay attention to the influx of cold air over the Great Lakes in a few days.
    Even better to observe in the autumn-spring period the circulation in the lower stratosphere.

  19. Carbon500 says:

    Dr. Spencer: I live in the UK, and I’m reasonably up to date with American English – but can you please tell me what is meant by ‘crickets’? It’s a new one on me! Thank you.

  20. Nate says:

    ‘Crickets’ is the sound you hear at night when no one is speaking. The sounds when people have no response.

  21. Mark B says:

    “Even more astounding is that out of the top 10 warmest Gulf years since 1860, 7 occurred before 1970, which is before we experienced any significant warming.”

    Most of those are before 1890 which would suggest that the data that far back is more than a bit sketchy. Excluding data prior to 1900 the warmest annual SST in that area occurred in the last three years and there’s a clear warming trend.

    • David Appell says:

      Roy’s own data shows the lower troposphere over the northern hampshire ocean is warming at +0.13 C/decade — the same rate as the global LT.

      Yet this has no impact on hurricanes?

      • Mike Flynn says:


        You wrote –

        “Yet this has no impact on hurricanes?”.

        Are you sure? Why do you say this? I assume you are trying to divert attention away from the fact that there is no GHE, and that reducing the amount of sunlight reaching a thermometer makes it cooler, rather than hotter.

        Keep at it. Keep denying that the IPCC wrote that the prediction of future climate states is not possible!

        Some years have more hurricanes, some less. Some hurricanes are more intense than others. It’s called weather. Good luck with predicting weather any better than a twelve year old child with 30 minutes of training.


  22. Mike Flynn says:

    From that bastion of objective scientific reporting, (only joking, of course), the New York Times –

    “”This is really an amazing event,” said Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University. “It came out of nowhere and really intensified rapidly.”

    Michael, he said, did not follow the common behavior of storms, which tend to weaken as they reach the shore because of interaction with the land. “It had the pedal to the metal all the way until it hit the coast,” he said.”

    Unfortunately, Andrew forgot to read the lead in to his remarks, which stated –

    “Little wonder that modern weather modeling got its start in chaos theory, which acknowledges that small changes can lead to enormous effects so that, as one founder of the field put it, the flap of a butterflys wing in Brazil might set off a tornado in Texas.”

    It appears that weather modelling is based on chaos theory, but professors like Andrew profess amazement at the results! Oh dear, Mother Nature remains unconvinced by the firmly held delusional fantasies of people like Andrew Dessler. The hurricane was not particularly “amazing”. Using stupid analogies – “It had the pedal to the metal all the way . . . “. Yeah. Right. No pedal, no metal – just another example of the unpredictably chaotic perturbations of the atmosphere.

    Ignorance is no excuse at law. It seems to be handsomely rewarded in climatological pseudoscience.


      • Mike Flynn says:


        Proclaiming your ignorance won’t make it any more acceptable.

        Try proving your pointless graphic does not show chaos in action!

        Foolish person. Keep flapping your “evidence”. Even the IPCC accepts that chaos rules. Stupidity and ignorance won’t turn your delusional fantasies into facts.

        Keep trying – maybe a pointless and irrelevant gotcha might help, do you think?

        So sad, too bad. No GHE, no CAGW theory – just a second rate mob of fumbling bumblers incessantly preaching doom. The Earth’s surface has cooled for four and a half billion years, it seems. The interior is still molten, and still slowly cooling.

        Look at your “data” and calculate the theoretical surface temperature without input from the Sun, if you wish. Surprise, surprise – the nonsensical “GHE difference” has mysteriously vanished!

        Don’t forget to show your workings, if you disagree.


        • David Appell says:

          You wanted to talk about chaos.

          OK. So where is the chaos in these climate data?


          • Mike Flynn says:


            Ignoring things won’t make them vanish. What part of “Try proving your pointless graphic does not show chaos in action!” did you miss?

            Go your hardest. Devise a function or two that reproduces your “data” precisely. No “nearly”, “almost”, or “more or less”.

            According to the IPCC –

            “The climate system is particularly challenging since it is known that components in the system are inherently chaotic; . . . ”

            Lovely stuff, eh? You claim to know differently, but you can’t actually say why, can you? Carry on, David. Believe as you wish – it makes no difference. Chaos rules, until proven otherwise.


        • David Appell says:

          PS: Do you still want to talk about the description of the GHE? You’ve suddenly dropped asking for it….

          • Mike Flynn says:


            Are you deranged? Why would you think I wish to talk with you about something that doesn’t exist?

            I do what I want. What you think is of little concern to me, in general.

            Is there a point to your irrelevant statement, or are you just trolling?


          • David Appell says:

            You’re constantly asking for a definition of the GHE, for a couple of years now at least.

          • Mike Flynn says:


            Not so much asking, as pointing out the GHE doesn’t actually exist.

            If it did, I’m sure someone could describe it. People manage to describe other mythical concepts, such as unicorns, but the GHE is so mysterious it defies description!

            What a shame. Maybe you could flap a description into existence, with one of your irrelevant brightly coloured bits of paper? Say, one from an undistinguished mathematician called Gavin Schmidt?

            Give it a try.


          • David Appell says:

            Description of the greenhouse effect:

            “IN its normal state, the Earth-atmosphere system absorbs solar radiation and maintains global energy balance by re-radiating this energy to space as infrared or longwave radiation. The intervening atmosphere absorbs and emits the longwave radiation, but as the atmosphere is colder than the surface, it absorbs more energy than it emits upward to space. The energy that escapes to space is significantly smaller than that emitted by the surface. The difference, the energy trapped in the atmosphere, is popularly referred as the greenhouse effect, G.”

            – A. Raval and V. Ramanathan, Observational determination of the greenhouse effect, Nature v342 14 Dec 1989, pp 758-761

          • Mike Flynn says:


            “The difference, the energy trapped in the atmosphere, is popularly referred as the greenhouse effect, G.”

            You foolish person. The atmosphere “traps” no energy at all, particularly each night. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years! Maybe your “authority” is referring to climatological pseudoscientific “heat” – the sort that doesn’t actually exist, which is no doubt why Kevin Trenberth can’t find it!

            Oh, what a travesty!

            Go out and trap some energy. Maybe you can sell it, if you can trap enough, and put it in a bottle. Let me know how you go.

            Carry on with your nonsense.


      • Lewis guignard says:

        Now you’re quoting Wikipedia; an avowed purveyor of pseudo science.

        Please, stick to reliable sources. Even public schools don’t allow the use of wiki as it is so widely known to be inaccurate and politically biased.


        • David Appell says:

          Lewis, see the words “EPICA” and “Vostok” on that graph?

          Wikipedia cites all their data and claims in the scientific literature. Look for the labels and superscripted numbers….

    • Rob Mitchell says:

      After working a round of shifts of forecasting wx and sea states in the Gulf of Mexico, the so-called “pedal to the metal” was a 200mb ridge that set up along a line from the Yucatan Channel to the Florida Panhandle last Tuesday. This produced a near ideal upper-air condition for rapid intensification. Hurricane Michael DID NOT come out of nowhere. It was a tropical disturbance that stalled along the east side of the Yucatan Peninsula. When the wind shear diminished last weekend, the disturbance developed into Tropical Storm Michael. The upper level ridge led to its strengthening to a strong CAT 4 before landfall. I seriously doubt Dr. Chris Landsea will find some AGW fingerprint on Hurricane Michael. But leave it up to good ‘ol Dr. Andrew Dessler from my alma mater, he will pin it on human-caused global warming!

      • Nate says:

        Thanks Rob, interesting.

        What’s your take on Michael passing over the Gulf Stream Loop Current, with its deep source of warm water?

  23. ren says:

    A new wave of freezing air from the north is now fall above the north-central US.

  24. ren says:

    Currently the pressure over Tahiti are increased.

    • Bobdesbond says:

      Dont tell me you believe that single-day contributions to the SOI are in any way significant regarding ENSO..

      • ren says:

        They show the current wind direction, from high to low.
        High pressure over Tahiti.
        Tahiti (hPa) Darwin (hPa)
        14 Oct 2018 1017.61 1010.50
        13 Oct 2018 1017.48 1010.85
        12 Oct 2018 1015.70 1011.35
        11 Oct 2018 1014.51 1011.40

  25. Andrew stout says:

    @Nate to paraphrase: ‘ so, the experienced .6c due to climate change hasn’t effected much… ‘. I wanted to nitt pick your charicterization in friendly fashion, assuming by climate change you mean AGW : By my *estimation, looking at UHA , it seems like we’ve been increasing an average of +/- .5c over the past 40 years. Also by my estimation, looking at ( any ) NON Mann proxy records, global temps routinely increase or decrease about 1c over 100 years. So, if we’ve experienced about .6c over 50 years ( the ‘start’ of AGW) we’re not changing at an alarmingly different rate or magnitude from natural variation. So you can suppose some warming is due to AGW, but you can’t attribute most of it to AGW… Its more plausible, imo, to attribute NO warming to AGW , than to attribute ‘alot’ if warming. Call it .1c , If I had to guess, although the reality is also that we’ve changed at a faster rate than 1c/100years in the past, too. Nobody really knows, but based on ledgitimate proxies, and ledgitimate contemporary temp records , nothing seems amiss…imo.

    • David Appell says:

      UAH LT shows warming of 0.5 C in 40 years, but RSS, measuring the same thing, shows 0.75 C of warming over the same time period.

      Surface measurements from several different groups show 0.9-1.0 C of warming since the last 19th century, 80% of which has happened since 1970.

  26. Nate says:

    Some things you say make sense. Others not.

    The 0.6C comes from Roy’s link to temp of gulf water. Take a look.

    “Its more plausible, imo, to attribute NO warming to AGW , than to attribute alot if warming. Call it .1c , If I had to guess”

    Where do you get this? Seems to be just assertion.

    Also surface temps have risen at higher rate than at any time in the record. Show us your record.

  27. Nate says:

    Andrew. Let me add that prior to ~1975, the record showed up or down 0.2 C for previous century. In 1980, it was predicted that the next decades would be warming. This has proven true. The amount, 0.7C, and pattern of warming was close to the predicted.

  28. Andrew stout says:

    @Nate No assertions, but (Admittantly) non ‘authoratative’ analysis ( I’m an Architect, not a professional Scientist). But follow me on this, because I’ve sent several thousand hours as an obsession looking into it: Im looking at the UHA sat records which is why I’m only going back 40 or so years, instead of longer, for a contemporary record to compare against the proxy record. You could throw in Radiosondes, my understanding is that they more closely reflect the findings of the Sattelites than NOAA.Im disregarding NOAA land measurements because by my ( and alot of other Authority’s) estimation, it’s been buggered beyond usefullness , when you look at it’s corrections, smoothed , selected, or fictionalized ‘measurements’. I’ve spent a lot of time validating the existence of the criticisms vs NOAA, and NOAA in my eyes, is left wanting. So I use UHA as a valid Contemporary Record. I’m figuring +/- .5c over the past 40 years as an AVG temp increase, not as a high or a low. Now that we have a couple temporary record of magnitude & rate if change, if you want something to compare that contemporary record against, I choose NOT to use MANN work or work Derrivitive of MANN. I’ve read several books detailing how fraudulent his data is. I’ve read the NAS report detailing how fraudulent it is ( although they try their best to candy coat the posin pill, forgiving him for ‘troubles indicative of new techniques’) Alarmists have flooded the Internet with misdirection, but Mann and the hockey stick has been Utterly discredited. I’ve also read every single IPCC report and it’s clear that ever since AR III (TAR), they’ve been desperate to walk back Mann’s ludicrus assertions. IE, in AR V, the IPCC has rediscovered the Little Ice Age, and Rediscovered the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), although they don’t have the hutzpah to call it that, they call it the ‘Medieval Climate Anomolie’ (MCA). I don’t think they’ve gone so far as to admit to the Roman Warm Period yet, because I suspect, the MCA would look a lot less anolomous if they admit to multiple climate cycles every 1000yrs or so. SO If you jettison Mann-Derrivitive work to suppress climate change in the past, you need another record. I use what Dr Spencer uses, the “Lungvist”(so?) proxy reconstruction. I like it because it provides a certain amount of resolution: it hasn’t been over-smoothed like Mann graphs into non-usefullness. If you simply draw a line at 2 arbitrary points and measure the delta of magnitude over time, you can find easily half a dozen periods or more, over the past 2000 years, where the rate is 1c/100 yrs. In some instances it’s quite greater – about 1c/ 75 yrs I think in one period out of the LIA. That’s not my assertion, that my amateurish analysis of other people’s data, but it isn’t rocket science, it’s an 8th grade Science graphing exercise. Ive done the same exercise with the AR1 (FAR) IPCC proxy reconstruction, and even though it has a low resolution, you can observe the same magnitude of change. It’s obvious why the IPCC erased that geological record from their Reports when they transferred the boogyman from Areosols to Global Warming: a comparison of modern climate change vs the proxy record was nothing remarkable. Hence why Mann had to torture the data to get his discredited Hockey Stick. So, If you use a Non-Mann Proxy, and compare it to a Non-NOAA/GISS contemporary record, you’ll see we’re barely deviated from normal, routine temperature change, in rate it in magnitude. In terms of Absolute temperature, yet again, even in recent history ( say the last 2000 years), we still haven’t matched past highs. I can verify that not just by proxy record but by Anthropological evidence: We’re starting to be able to grow a variety of crops in Greenland we haven’t been able to grow for a thousand years. When we can grow Barley commercially in Greenland, as dug up fossils have demstrated was happening ( and contextually written records reference), then you’ll know we’ve started to match the temperatures of the MWP.

    Very honored you read & Responded , I hope this explaination helps . – A

  29. Andrew stout says:

    Apologies for typos… on my phone…tiny keyboard. If something didn’t make sense I’ll try to correct for you.

  30. Andrew stout says:

    @Nate Oh and just to close the loop on your Q, I’m assuming the difference between past climate change and today’s climate change is all AGW, by my figures, about .5c observed in 40 years, when I figure it should have been more like .4c in 40 years without industry, per my Lungvist anslysis. But there’s no proof to that. Because of natural varibility It could be more, or a lot less- That’s what I don’t think anybody really knows.

    • Bobdesbond says:

      Given that solar intensity has been gradually falling for about the past 40 years, what natural process are you proposing for warming?

      • Mike Flynn says:


        Stupid gotcha.

        The natural process which results in hotter thermometers is called “increased heat”.

        CO2 provides none, of course. Have you considered using your mental abilities to find out where this “heat” might come from? No?

        Why am I not surprised? Are you a delusional GHE cultist, perhaps?

        Questions, questions!


        • David Appell says:

          Do you think that CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared radiation, or do you think the Earth doesn’t emit any?

          • Mike Flynn says:


            Your delusional fantasies show no signs of ameliorating.

            Do you think that bananas don’t absorb infrared radiation, or are you just stupid and ignorant?

            Still no GHE. No AGW theory. No science at all. What a surprise!

            Keep those gotchas coming. You obviously need the practice.


          • Nate says:

            David, try my MF-noise cancelling headphones. They work.

  31. ren says:

    Another wave of cold air reaches out to Nebraska.

  32. Andrew stout says:

    @Nate, I was double checking Ng my numbers last night & I’m partially talking nonsense, I’ve done too many all nighters , I was finding multiple.4c, .5c over 50 years looking at ljunvist, & somewhere in my head that meant .8 or +/- 1c per/100, although usually there’s a pause before another leg up or down. I’m not sure what Dr Spencer Calculates as the 40 (39?) year avg. Unless I’ve also got my numbers confused there as well, I guess it’s still about .1c difference , between UAH & Ljunvist 50 yr periods in the past. apologies for mistakes!

  33. CO2isLife says:

    There is real science backing the Green House Gas Effect, and the IPCC covers none of it. The question needs to be asked, “why are the models so wrong?” If I was going to model Weightloss and the variables I included in the model were # of Pens in home, area of driveway, distance one lives from Florida, I would expect my model to produce results like the IPCC Models. If you don’t include and weight the correct factor, you will never develop an accurate model. Everything regarding CO2 and its impact on global climate must revert back to CO2’s one and only mechanism by which to affect climate change, that being the thermalization of LWIR between 13 and 18 microns. That is the only defined mechanism for CO2, and therefore every observation must be explained in that context. LWIR between 13 and 18 won’t melt ice or warm water, in fact ice emits LWIR of around 10 microns, and very cold ice will emit LWIR between 13 and 18 microns. There is also only a limited amount of LWIR between 13 and 18 microns emitted by the earth and 100% of it is “trapped” by CO2 and H2O by the altitude of 5 feet. More CO2 would simply lower that level slightly towards the surface, but with the convection of the lower atmosphere, that becomes meaningless. Simply use MODTRAN, double CO2 in the atmosphere and measure the impact on the lowest 0.1km of the atmosphere. It has no impact.None, Nada, Zip. Focus on the significant factors. The oceans clearly dominate the climate, the oceans are warming, the oceans aren’t warmed by LWIR between 13 and 18 micron. What is warming the oceans is warming the climate, and what is warming the oceans is more incoming visible light, especially on the blue end of the spectrum. To warm the oceans you need fewer clouds over the oceans or a hotter sun, or both. The IPCC doesn’t focus on those factors so they will never have an accurate model.

    • Bobdesbond says:

      Your qualifications?

      • Mike Flynn says:


        Ooooo! Zinger – in your fantasy, of course.

        What is the point of your witless gotcha? Are you disputing fact, or just trolling because you are unable to support your mad GHE delusion?

        Off you go now. Try an appeal to the authority of the undistinguished mathematician Gavin Schmidt, who seems to be accepted by some as a “climate scientist “. What are his scientific qualifications? None? What a surprise!


        • David Appell says:

          Gavin Schmidt has a PhD in applied mathematics, and 20 years of doing important work in climate modeling.

          What are your qualifications?

          • Mike Flynn says:


            Gavin Schmidt’s work is completely pointless – expensive computer games from a supposed mathematician who said, in 2012 or so, that he saw nothing to convince him that the atmosphere behaved chaotically. I pointed out that the IPCC had expressed a somewhat different view.

            It seems Gavin got a little huffy,

            Gavin also claimed that 2014 was the hottest year ever, based on his calculation of a 38% probability!

            A coin toss gives 50%. 38% means less likely than that.

            This is your authority? On matters of science? More like climatological pseudoscience!

            What have my qualifications got to do with your delusional fantasies? I’m happy to let others decide for themselves whether I’m providing facts or not. I will state that I have never claimed to be a Nobel Laureate, unlike your other presumed authority, the geologist Michael Mann.

            Still no GHE, is there? No AGW theory, either. Just fanatical cultist belief in the non-existent.


    • David Appell says:

      CO2isLife says:
      There is also only a limited amount of LWIR between 13 and 18 microns emitted by the earth and 100% of it is trapped by CO2 and H2O by the altitude of 5 feet. More CO2 would simply lower that level slightly towards the surface….

      This is a common talking point from deniers, known as the saturation fallacy. They’re wrong.

      It’s easy to see why it’s wrong by noting that the molecules in the atmosphere themselves radiate, up and down and every direction. So, in this case, molecules 5 ft above the surface absorb and then can radiate, in any direction, including upward.

      CO2 isn’t close to being saturated on Earth. It’s not even saturated on Venus.

      • Mike Flynn says:


        Who cares? You can’t even define the mythical GHE, can you?

        Make sure your description includes the GHE mechanism responsible for the cooling of the Earth over the last four and a half billion years.

        Complete rubbish – no GHE. No AGW theory. Just an ever diminishing ragtag mob of shrieking GHE cultists.

        Keep that delusion going. Maybe the funds will start to flow again.


    • David Appell says:

      CO2isAGW wrote:
      The oceans clearly dominate the climate, the oceans are warming, the oceans arent warmed by LWIR between 13 and 18 micron.

      Says what?

      What is warming the oceans is warming the climate,

      Says what?

      Far more likely that what is warming the atmosphere is warming the ocean.

      what is warming the oceans is more incoming visible light, especially on the blue end of the spectrum.

      Do you have data showing this increase in visible light?

      • Mike Flynn says:


        What a stupid gotcha!

        Neither you nor anybody else can even describe this mythical GHE, can you?

        Your continuing attempts to deny, divert, and confuse, can’t obscure the obvious facts that the IPCC states that future climate states are unpredictable, that climate is merely the average of weather, and that you appear exceptionally stupid and ignorant (to me, anyway).

        Maybe you could just come out and say that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter! Or do you think that CO2 provides heat by some magical pseudoscientific climatological means?

        Ah, the rich tapestry of life, eh?


        • David Appell says:

          Mike Flynn says:
          Maybe you could just come out and say that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!

          Is the CO2 in a planetary atmosphere?

          • Mike Flynn says:


            How about just answering the question? What difference does it make?

            Just for the sake of discussion, if you wish, assume a planetary atmosphere of 100% CO2. Or none at all. Or anything in between. Wriggle all you like.

            Now tell me you believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, if you like.

            Try involving climatological pseudoscientific magic, if ordinary physics won’t help. Good for a laugh, at least.


  34. PhilJ says:

    “The IPCC doesnt focus on those factors so they will never have an accurate model.”

    As long as they use a cold black body warmed only by the sun their model will remain broken..

    They need to use a hot ball of magma and gases with a sun that slows its cooling if they ever want to find a model that might work…

    • David Appell says:

      Why does any of that matter? What matters beyond total solar irradiance (TSI) at the Earth’s TOA?

      • Mike Flynn says:


        Maybe you could explain why the Earth’s surface is no longer molten? Or even why surface temperatures vary from some +90 C to -90 C currently.

        Are you really, really, sure that TSI at TOA (meaningless sciency mumbo jumbo, of course), is the only thing that matters?

        Have you considered that a large ball of molten rock might have a surface temperature regardless of TSI at TOA?

        Nah. Of course not. Delusional GHE cultists never let facts intrude into their fantasies.

        Go David! Keep those gotchas coming!


        • Lewis guignard says:

          Interesting thought. What would the surface temperature be without the sun and with or without an atmosphere.

          We can expect something along the lines of Antarctica I would expect. Where the surface, which continually radiates heat away, would cover something which is warmer as it gets closer to the molten center. I wouldn’t be conducive to life as we know it, but…

          As things are, where I live, piedmont of NC, the ambient temperature about 6 feet underground is around 55 degrees F.

          Warm enough to grow plants and animals.

          • Svante says:

            Mike Flynn’s heating effect would give us about -396 deg. F, isn’t that right Mike?

          • David Appell says:

            Lewis guignard says:
            Interesting thought. What would the surface temperature be without the sun and with or without an atmosphere.

            It’s not interesting at all.

            Without the Sun, there would not be an Earth. QED.

          • Mike Flynn says:


            Oh dear, gotcha time again is it?

            Before anyone starts thinking you might be less stupid and ignorant than you appear, consider this – does it take more energy to raise the temperature of a gram of water from 99 C to 100 C, or from 0 C to 100 C?

            Now apply the same physics to the Earth. Surprise, surprise!

            No need for a mystical GHE to explain the current surface temperature, any more than it is needed to explain the average temperature of more than 100 C before the first liquid water appeared.

            Now what was the point of your statement, again? Just more irrelevant stupid and ignorant trolling, isn’t that right?


          • Svante says:

            Liquid water, yes.
            Appeared about 4.3 billion years ago, right?
            Earth cooled quickly thanks to T^4, didn’t it?

          • Mike Flynn says:


            What is your point?

            Are you practising the mysterious cultist method of disagreeing by not disagreeing? You don’t appear to be disagreeing with anything I said. Diversionary tactics are losing their effectiveness – what is it you are trying to say?

            Are you claiming that the Earth’s surface would be absolute zero in the absence of sunlight? Even you wouldn’t be stupid enough to make that claim, I assume.

            Likewise if you are claiming it takes the same amount of energy to heat a body to a certain temperature regardless of initial temperature.

            These are the sorts of things that would be believed by climatological pseudoscientific cultists – delusional fantasies, unconnected with reality.

            Off you go. Try posting some more diversionary (yet strangely stupid and ignorant) gotchas. Maybe you need more trolling instruction. You are not doing all that well.


          • Svante says:

            Air cools at night. Does this mean that the earth cools the air as well? Marvellous stuff, this magma of the earth!

            All seems a bit delusional. Heats and cools simultaneously – the average would seem to be zero. No effect at all. Gee, maybe you’re right, after all! Only joking. Increasing the amount of magma between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer colder, not hotter. Not as much energy reaches the thermometer.

            Press on believing in the magical heating abilities of magma.


          • Mike Flynn says:


            You wrote –

            “Air cools at night. Does this mean that the earth cools the air as well?”

            A particularly stupid and ignorant gotcha. Can’t you do any better?

            There are no “cooling” rays. No sources of “negative heating”. Matter loses energy, cooling as it goes, all by itself – in the absence of an external energy source.

            Don’t blame me if your fantasy is not supported by physics – you created it all by yourself. I understand you might wish to stick with climatological pseudo-physics – where cooling is warming, heating is cooling, thermometers get hotter by reducing the amount of energy they absorb, a testable GHE hypothesis exists, and so on.

            So sad, too bad. No GHE, no CO2 heating, and the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so.


    • Gordon Robertson says:

      PhilJ…”They need to use a hot ball of magma and gases with a sun that slows its cooling if they ever want to find a model that might work”

      According to Gerlich and Tscheuschner, two experts in thermodynamics, there is not enough computer power to support such a realistic model.

  35. .

    How Tamino proved himself wrong.

    Tamino has made it clear, that he is a slowdown, pause, and hiatus, denier.

    But in a recent post, Tamino has made a stupid mistake.

    In his eagerness to show how bad global warming is, Tamino has accidentally acknowledged that the recent slowdown exists.


    • David Appell says:

      ren specializes in posting a map taken at a single point in time and implying it says something about trends or the future.

      ren won’t learn.

      • Mike Flynn says:


        Climatological pseudoscientific cultists apparently believe that they can predict the future from “trends”. The IPCC disagrees, of course.

        Which type of foolishness do you subscribe to?


      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”ren specializes in posting a map taken at a single point in time and implying it says something about trends or the future”.

        ren agrees with the IPCC, that future climate states cannot be predicted.

    • Scott says:

      Headline: “Snow falls at Kansas City International Airport, breaking 120-year-old record”

      “The last time it snowed this early in Kansas City was on Oct. 17, 1898, when 3.3 inches of snow fell, according to the National Weather Service in Pleasant Hill.”

      “Kansas City has dropped to 31 this morning braking (sic) the record low of 32 which was set in 1943 and 1891!”


  36. ren says:

    You can see that the wind in the South Pacific does not react to changes in surface temperature.

    • David Appell says:

      Another snapshot in time that ren somehow thinks proves causality.

      • Mike Flynn says:


        How did you get on with the mind reading course refund?

        Or have you another reason to believe you can read minds?

        Your logic also appears faulty. How does somebody saying that something is apparently not influenced by another, “prove causality” (in your mind)? Climatological pseudoscientific cultists claim that correlation proves causality, in general.

        Or have the cultists abandoned their mad insistence that CO2 somehow provides energy to make thermometers hotter?

        Keep trolling. You might eventually get good at it.


      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Another snapshot in time that ren somehow thinks proves causality”.

        Coming from someone who thinks a century-old proclamation by Arrhenius, that CO2 warms the atmosphere, proves causality.

        Neither he nor anyone since has proved it.

      • Mykey says:

        I am back from holidays and can see dumb and dumber are still at it.

  37. ren says:

    Where will ozone bring frost to now?
    This is the pattern of winter circulation in North America this year.

  38. Mykey says:

    Wonderful news !

    “Scottish Power has become the first of the UKs major energy firms to completely drop fossil fuels in favour of wind power. This is a pivotal shift for Scottish Power as we realise a long-term ambition. We are leaving carbon generation behind for a renewable future powered by cheaper green energy, said the companys chief executive Keith Anderson.”


    • ren says:

      There were 23,137 deaths between December 2017 and March 2018, according to the National Records of Scotland – the highest figure since 1999/2000.

      It also revealed that the seasonal increase in mortality – the number of “additional” deaths in winter – was 75% greater than in 2016/17.

      The main underlying causes of the deaths were influenza and pneumonia.

      • JDHuffman says:

        Very interesting….

        • Mykey says:

          Very irrelevant ..

          • Mike Flynn says:


            From your link –

            “While customers will still get some electricity from non-green sources that the company has purchased from other operators, . . . ”

            Oh dear. “Some?” 1%? 99%?

            Seems like a possibility for a scam here. Enormous Govt. subsidies, supported by cleverly buying electricity from non-green sources, and onselling at a considerable profit – all in the name of “green energy.”

            Some people (like yourself) have a large “bump of gullibility” in phrenological terms. Pseudoscience on top of pseudoscience. Go on, tell me how much of your own money you are investing. What could possibly go wrong with such a paragon of green moral rectitude? Good luck.


  39. Mykey says:

    Well, I have tried to warn you. You can keep investing in fossil fuel stocks if you like. Me? I am making a fortune investing in renewable energy stocks.

    • Mike Flynn says:


      Good for you. I wish you every success. Just keep following the trend – predicting is only difficult if the future is involved.

      I’m not making anything at all, investing in anything. Why should I? Enough is enough, and there don’t seem to be any adverse consequences from being content.

      Thanks for the warning – I’ll ignore it, as usual. Completely useless, pointless, and irrelevant.


      • Mykey says:

        “Im not making anything at all, investing in anything. Why should I? Enough is enough, and there dont seem to be any adverse consequences from being content.”
        Spoken like a true troglodyte.
        Except your are not content – judging by the quantity and content of your posts you seem awfully agitated.

        • Mike Flynn says:


          Your attempt to adorn your stupid and ignorant psycho-babble with any authority at all, has failed abysmally.

          I understand that a climatological pseudoscific cultist might redefine “contentment” to be “agitation”, but it won’t make it so, any more than redefining “cooling” to mean “warming” does.

          Do you think if you devoted more time to making an even greater fortune, it might bring you more contentment (or agitation, if you prefer)? On the other hand, you could waste your time failing to read my mind. Your choice, of course.

          By the way, how big is that fortune you are making? You must be enriching yourself at someone else’s expense – do they mind getting poorer, or don’t you give a damn? Keep at it.


          • Mykey says:

            Please calm down.
            You are so agitated.
            Take my investment advice – I feel very contented.
            “Money can’t buy happiness, but it’s much more comfortable crying in a Mercedes”

          • Mike Flynn says:


            Are you trying to adopt the mantle of the previous psycho-babbler?

            I don’t intend to take your advice – I don’t need it.

            I never feel the need to cry, but if you feel the desire, by all means do so in the Mercedes of your choice. I presume you mean an electric Mercedes, of course. No doubt better than the Tesla?

            Choices, choices, eh? Best buy one of each from the fortune you are making – unless it’s a fantasy fortune. Then you might need to buy fantasy cars to cry in. Have fun anyway.


          • Mike Flynn says:


            Hold on to your Mercedes!

            This chap had one, and bought a Tesla Model S –

            “I have decided to give up my Tesla when the buy-back agreement allows me to sell the car back to the company next August,” he said. “I will go and buy a conventional, gasoline-powered car, which is easier to refill and have much more reasonable insurance cover.”

            He owned a Mercedes E class previously.

            So you are right. Better to have a Mercedes, for some, at least!


          • Mykey says:

            FYI, I am looking at both Tesla and Daimler (Mercedes Benz) share prices at the moment but am not interested.

            BTW, I tried reading your mind but the pages were blank.

          • Mike Flynn says:


            You appear a liittle odd. You wrote –

            “FYI, I am looking at both Tesla and Daimler (Mercedes Benz) share prices at the moment but am not interested.”

            Why are you wasting your time looking at things you profess no interest in? Is the fortune you are currently making not large enough, perhaps?

            I am pleased you now admit you cannot read my mind, for whatever specious reason you propose. Maybe you could try convincing people that you can actually describe the mythical GHE, rather than trying to impress people with your delusional claims of your fortune generating ability.

            You could always try applying part of this supposed fortune to establishing a testable GHE hypothesis, or funding some experiments to demonstrate the heat generating properties of CO2. Nobody has yet managed to do either, but maybe they did not have access to the funds which you claim to possess.

            Until then, of course, not even a useful GHE description. No testable GHE hypothesis. No magical CO2 heating properties. Nothing.


          • Mykey says:

            I mean: I am not interested in buying those shares. I also hope you are not tempted to buy them.
            As to what I spend my fortune on, I am looking at a KOENIGSEGG CCXR TREVITA

            If I were you, I would spend some money getting a life and give up shouting at the clouds.

          • Mike Flynn says:


            I’m sure you are good at looking at things you can never own.

            Your hopes regarding what you wish me to do are likely to be dashed. I do as I wish – so far so good. I remain content.

            I don’t bother looking at stocks or other so-called “investments”. No need. I’m not greedy – I seem to be doing OK. Thanks for the interest you show in telling me how to spend my money, but I am rejecting your foolish advice as usual.

            I have a perfectly adequate life. I hope you enjoy yours.


    • Dan Pangburn says:

      Eventually even non-engineers might realize that renewables (wind turbines and commercial solar) are not sustainable. Renewables do not produce as much energy in their lifetime as is consumed in their manufacture, installation and maintenance. Renewables can exist now only because of the energy provided by fossil fuels. The necessity for fossil fueled backup and/ or storage makes it worse.

  40. More people should be talking about David Dilley. He correctly predicted the 2017 hurricane season in April 2017, when no other hurricane forecaster was predicting a harsh season, amd then a month later in May, 2017, correctly predicted the 2018 season would be just as bad. That’s a gutsy forecast, and he nailed it!

  41. Rob Mitchell says:

    I’ve always noticed that in public forums, liberals brag about their “wealth” more than anybody. And they don’t stop there. Then, they try to tell everybody else what kind of vehicle they should buy, and what kind of electricity to buy to power their homes. They have no respect for “freedom of choice.” Liberals want to use government force to make those decisions for you.

    How do I know this? Well, I happen to be a Tesla owner myself. And I communicate with fellow Tesla owners in the Tesla Forum. It is stunning to me to see how elitist and snobby many Tesla owners are, especially the ones from California. The Tesla leftists want to ban all gasoline powered motor vehicles, and shut down all coal/natural gas power plants. They actually believe solar and wind can replace fossil fueled power plants and meet world-wide energy demand with it.

    Of course this is fantasy world stuff. When I point this out to them, they just cover up their eyes and ears and go “lalalalalalalalalalalala.” Never mind the fact that not everywhere in the world has a lot of wind, or a lot of sun. Facts and the real world mean nothing to them. I have been advocating the growth of Tesla and Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) through the free market. Allow the individual to make the decision for him or herself about buying a BEV without any pressure from a government law or regulation. But that’s just not good enough for these liberals. “We don’t have enough time for that,” they say. The earth is heating up, and worldwide catastrophe will result.

    Many of the Tesla liberals are claiming the sea level will rise by 20 feet during this century if we don’t act on climate change. I challenged them about the Arctic sea ice. I told them the Arctic sea ice extent minimum in 2012 was 3,387,000 km2. For the 6 subsequent years in a row, the Arctic sea ice minimum has closed higher than the 2012 minimum. I told them it will close higher for an additional 5 years. I tried to get one of those liberals to challenge me. None of them would. Instead, they ran off with their tails in between their legs, yelping at me by calling me a climate change denier!

  42. barry says:

    I’m not sure I understand the point of the top post.

    Did someone somewhere say that there would be more US-landfalling hurricanes at +Cat3 over time?

    Did someone somewhere say that the number of Cat3 hurricanes anywhere would increase over time?

    As far as I’m aware the projection is not about more hurricanes but about hurricane intensity increasing in a warming world.

    And the US coastline is a small part of the Atlantic, so why is that particular metric supposed to be indicative of hurricanes generally?

    If there a scientific point being made here, or something else?

    • Norman says:


      My opinion of Dr. Spencer’s weather related posts is as a counter weight to MSM accounts of weather events.

      If some in the climate change community want to attribute hurricane Michael to global warming then they need to look at a long term trend of hurricanes in this area to determine if there is any noticeable difference.

      Here is one example:


      If one group can use one hurricane to bolster emotional manipulation of the faithful, it is a valuable counter weight for Roy Spencer to show that such manipulation of not valid.

    • barry says:

      My opinion of Dr. Spencer’s weather related posts is as a counter weight to MSM accounts of weather events.

      The news sensationalizes things. I agree that Roy is posting in a similar vein with articles like these. It’s NOT a scientific point he’s making.

      If some in the climate change community want to attribute hurricane Michael to global warming…

      But that’s an inaccurate – and very typically inaccurate – statement. Neither article attributes the formation of hurricane Michael to global warming.

      See what happened when I specified? Of course that’s not strictly what you meant, but someone else reading your words won’t get it.

      The MSM muddies the waters. So does Roy with articles like the top post.

      In the game of perception management truth is lost.

      • Norman says:


        You sound like one of the few not bitten by the tribal bug of politics where you must choose a side and support that side rejecting truth in the process.

        You have a point with your post.

        Even if Roy Spencer acts like a counter weight it may still smear a complex picture. Always better to try and stick with the science.

        However, the more terrible the storm, fire or flood, there is a subtle but steady push to link these to climate change to attempt to create an emotional state in the common people (fear and panic) to evoke a change.

        The goal does not seem to use the logical and rational parts of the brain to convince the truth of a matter but more the emotional centers.

        Wouldn’t Roy’s counter weight release his/her readers from this state of emotional fear and panic and move the mind back to the rational logic centers for more intelligent debate over the issue?

      • barry says:

        What’s wrong with just coolly telling the whole truth?

        The “Story of the Week mentioned at skepticalscience is about the recent IPCC announcement and hurricane Michael, and includes this line early in the piece:

        “The fact that both events occurred within a few days of each other is pure coincidence, of course. But it does leave the feeling that Nature just put one or more planetary-scale exclamation marks on the main takeaway from the IPCC report…”

        The nuance in even the sensationalism is obscured with yet more sensationalism. The truth is lost.

        Creating confusion is a tactic that would suit one side of the debate only. That’s the result of infowars.

  43. Mike Roberts says:

    An AP fact check on this said,

    But looking at just major hurricanes that hit the United States is not the right way to gauge their activity. That’s because the U.S. coastline is such a small fraction of the overall Atlantic, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, where hurricanes brew and at times hit other countries, scientists said. Looking at just those hurricanes “is like using how much it rained in your region on a given week as a measure of how much it rained across the entire country,” said Texas Tech climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe.

    An Associated Press examination in 2017 of how many major hurricanes formed found that the past 30 years had 90 major hurricanes, an average of three a year from 1988 to 2017. That’s 48 percent more than during the previous 30 years. Scientists use 30-year time periods to take natural cycles into account.

    Read more here: https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/business/article220171985.html#storylink=cpy

  44. Mike Flynn says:


    “But looking at just major hurricanes that hit the United States is not the right way to gauge their activity.

    Well, yes, it is. Otherwise, you would look at something else, wouldn’t you?

    Typical stupidity from the likes of Borenstein and Hayhoe (amongst others). Journalistic and climatological pseudoscientific claptrap.The AP examination is nonsense. Try looking for the world wide objective data to back up the AP claim. I hesitate (not really) to point out that 95% of the worlds population lives in the 95% of the land mass that is not the USA.

    What about the other 95% of the world? Doesn’t matter? Did the rest of the world have a similar 12 year hurricane hiatus to the US? Does CO2 only work its magic in a completely unpredictable fashion in the US, but is predictable in the rest of the world?

    Complete nonsense.

    No GHE hypothesis. No AGW theory. Nothing. Borenstein and Hayhoe are suffering from some form of mental derangement – similar to that exhibited by Schmidt, Mann, Hansen and the rest of the climatological pseudoscientific cultists.

    All part of the rich tapestry of life, I guess.


  45. barry says:

    Looking at US-landfalling hurricanes will tell you nothing about the connection between global warming and hurricanes, if any. It’s a small proportion of all hurricanes.

    I’m sure that if some other coastline showed a marked increase in landfalling hurricanes over time, “skeptics” would be making exactly the same point.

  46. Snape says:


    I cant even tell why Roys opinion is. Does he believe a warmer ocean wont necessarily produce stronger hurricanes, or is he saying the water off the US coast hasnt been getting warmer?

    Even more astounding is that out of the top 10 warmest Gulf years since 1860, 7 occurred before 1970,……

    I wonder if those years produced strong, landfalling hurricanes? After all, one of the top 10 occurred this year, and produced Michael.

    • Mike Flynn says:


      His opinion seems to be that this sort of thing –

      “Prof. Michael E. Mann of Penn State told me that Hurricane Michael should be a wake-up call. As should have Katrina, Irene, Sandy, Harvey, Irma, Florence,” he added wryly. “In each of these storms we can see the impact of climate change: Warmer seas means more energy to intensify these storms, more wind damage, bigger storm surge and more coastal flooding.”

      – is just climatological pseudoscientific cultist fearmongering. As are similar comments from similarly delusional persons.

      Dr Spencer might even accept that the atmosphere behaves chaotically, for all I know. Chaos theory might explain the unpredictability of weather, and hence climate. Fools, fanatics, and charlatans claim to be able to foresee the outcomes of chaotic deterministic systems, like the atmosphere.

      My view is that such people are deluded – quite mad. No testable GHE hypothesis, no AGW theory, and the Earth has been cooling for four and a half billion years.

      Seems pretty clear to me. You are free to believe what you like – just don’t expect me to pay for your fantasy.


    • barry says:

      I think one can get Roy’s general opinion fairly easily.

      He agrees that the world will get a bit warmer with more GHGs in the atmosphere.

      He thinks it very unlikely that this ‘forcing’ will produce change significant enough to warrant making it part of any policy plan at government level, because it would be a waste of govt/taxpayer money, which he sees as a very bad idea.

      He feels strongly enough about this to go to Washington and speak to Congress. Like James Hansen, but with an opposing view, he feels passionately enough to agree to enter the political arena and deliver his view on the science.

      It’s possible his faith plays a role. Apart from a signature on a faith-invested document on climate change, I have no further evidence to fashion a convinced opinion on that.

      And he is not shy about playing the perception game. Whatever drives him, and I don’t believe it is a dispassionate interest in truth, it leads him to create this blog and post a few times a month. Once on a technical update, and several times on various issues, from cautioning skeptics on bad arguments, to countering ‘perception’ issues with more rhetorical argument that duscursive science.

      He is a player, not a neutral party. Plenty of those around the debate.

      • Mike Flynn says:


        I am the bearer of sad tidings.

        Science doesn’t care whether you are a player, a neutral party, or a climatological pseudoscientific cultist.

        Newton’s Law of universal gravitation, which describes gravity as a force which causes any two bodies to be attracted to each other, with the force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, doesn’t respond to debate.

        Nor do the Laws of Thermodynamics, Avogadro’s Law, Ohm’s Law or any number of physical laws which totally ignore opinion.

        Perceptify away, Maybe you could come up with a testable GHE hypothesis (unfortunately you would have to describe the GHE in useful terms, first). That would be a great start.

        Just making a lot of noise about the evils of CO2 is not science. So sad, too bad.


  47. Snape says:

    Darn it. When I use my wifes phone, quotation marks disappear (the sentence in the middle belongs to Roy, not me). Go figure.

  48. ren says:

    The surface temperature in region Nino 1 + 2 is important for circulation in winter in North America.
    Tonight the wave of frost will attack in the northeast.

  49. ren says:

    The Beaufort Sea and the Canadian Archipelago quickly freeze.

  50. Ric says:

    So its interesting to see that the extent of ice coverage in the Beaufort Sea is the highest in five years. Is this correct, ren?

    • barry says:

      Interesting? I guess, if you’re interested in weather.

      It’s rained 2 weeks straight in my home town in a month where that doesn’t usually happen. I can’t remember it ever happening.

      Is it meaningful? If I want to know that there’s a bunch of questions to ask.

      The first is – what’s the long-term record say?

      That’s just the first question.

      If I’m interested in something more meaningful that random weather fluctuations.

      • Mike Flynn says:


        You wrote –

        ” . . . whats the long-term record say?”

        Over the last four and a half billion years, the record shouts “It’s a lot, lot colder!!”

        Feel free to pick a shorter period if you don’t accept inconvenient fact.


        • Fritz Kraut says:

          Mike Flynn says:
          October 18, 2018 at 4:42 PM

          Feel free to pick a shorter period if you don’t accept inconvenient fact.

          Why picking at all? Picking is always suspisious.
          Why dont you just use a COMPLETE data-serie with unique quality from the same source?
          One data-serie, for example, with very high quality is available since 1979.
          Didnt you know it, or dont you like it for some reason?

          • Mike Flynn says:


            Original average temperature of molten surface – more than now.

            If you disagree, please let me know why.

            Why would I prefer 40 years of data to four and a half billion years?

            The GHE experiment, performed by Mother Nature over a four and a half billion years, with a molten ball of rock, surrounded by an atmosphere varying from nearly 100% CO2, to dangerously low levels recently, shows that the mythical GHE has no heating effect whatsoever!

            The result of this experiment has resulted in thousands of degrees of cooling. Cooling. Look down between your feet if you doubt me. No longer molten.

            Away with ye, climatological pseudoscientific cultist! Try science, if you can cope with fact over fantasy.


          • Fritz Kraut says:

            Mike Flynn says:
            October 18, 2018 at 6:13 PM
            Why would I prefer 40 years of data to four and a half billion years?

            Four and half a billion years??
            May I remember you what you just said:

            “…the extent of ice coverage in the Beaufort Sea is the highest in five years.”

            What do you want to tell us with this weatherevent?

          • Mike Flynn says:


            You are confused.

            You might be referring to Ric, who wrote –

            “So its interesting to see that the extent of ice coverage in the Beaufort Sea is the highest in five years. Is this correct, ren?”

            You also seem to be confused about climate. Climate is the average of weather events taken over an arbitrary period. This is quite meaningless – the weather has already occurred. Averaging does not change the past, nor predict the future. A complete waste of time, but worshipped by climatological pseudoscientific cultists – who knows why?

            You cannot even describe the GHE, let alone proposed a testable GHE hypothesis. You just keep shouting that CO2 is evil, like every other stupid and ignorant cultist predicting the end of the world!

            Still no GHE. No AGW theory. Just an endless procession of nutters – some well meaning, but nutters nevertheless.


    • Fritz Kraut says:

      Ric says:
      October 18, 2018 at 2:02 AM

      …extent of ice coverage in the Beaufort Sea is the highest in five years.

      Isnt the development of whole arctis for a 39 years much much more interesting than cherrypicking just a few datas?

      • Mike Flynn says:


        Why should anyone care? Does it make a difference? Past happenings do not predict the future.

        Carry on worrying if you like. You can worry on my behalf, if it makes you feel better.


  51. ren says:

    Below are time series plots comparing sea ice extent over the last four weeks for this year compared to the last four weeks of the previous four years for the MASIE regions. Click on the image for a larger view.
    MASIE Time Series Plots

  52. barry says:

    Here’s the link for ren’s comment:


    That’s for the Arctic regions. Only. Top graph is all-Arctic, the one’s below are sub-regions.

    This is for the last month. No long-term records on that page, just this past 30 days and the same 30 calendar days for the previous 4 years. So we are looking at weather fluctuation for the same month for the last 5 years – nothing else. This is not a look at long-term climate change (or not).

    Long-term records are available for anyone interested in something more than weather variety.

  53. Rob Mitchell says:

    Global Warming alarmists are always pointing to single weather events as evidence of human-caused global warming. ren is good at countering that game with a series of events that tells a different story.

  54. Rob Mitchell says:

    Here is an example how the global warming advocates are trying to show that tornadoes are shifting east because of climate change.


    In the previous post by Dr. Spencer, he showed how the overall tornado count is way down for 2018. Some folks are trying to show that tornadoes are doing a climate change shift to the east. Hey, has anybody ever thought that the cold month of April might of had something to do with the lack of tornadoes in the usual places?

Leave a Reply