New Record Low Tornado Count as of October 3

October 4th, 2018 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

NOAA’s Storm Prediction Center keeps a daily count of cumulative number of tornadoes in the U.S. each year, and recent years have had an unusually low number of tornadoes.

As of October 3, the cumulative total for 2018 is 759; the previous lowest number of tornadoes for this date was 761. The SPC has records extending back 65 years.

This lack of tornadic storms in recent years should also correlate with lesser severe thunderstorm activity in general in the U.S., since the conditions which produce large hail and damaging winds are generally the same as are required for tornadoes (strong instability, plentiful moisture, and wind shear).


298 Responses to “New Record Low Tornado Count as of October 3”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Stephen Richards says:

    The one thing that fascinates me bout your site, which is excellent, is the number of argumentative comments on subjects about which there can be no argument.

    • An Inquirer says:

      never underestimate the stubbornness of those who do not want to be convinced!

    • Lowndes says:

      How dare you say “there can be no argument.” That’s a very argumentative statement.

      • Drew says:

        You might want to read his comment again. I believe you may have mis-read what he posted!

        • Kerry Mark Chase says:

          Getting rid of all the “whites” will get rid of all the tornados, you dumb dufess. Didn’t your science teacher tell you that?

      • Kyle Tingle says:

        You can have your own opinion, you cannot have your own facts. Since these facts are not skewed by statistics, they are facts.

        • AverageJoe says:

          Of course you can have your own facts. There are whole industries built up to present people and businesses with their own custom crafted facts, so long as they can pay

      • Mark Giles says:

        How dare you use irony! Don’t you know that that is a British convention which no American has ever attended?

    • H. L. says:

      in 1971 when the previous record was held there were fewer people, cameras etc. many tornadoes were missed.(still are by the way) hell I saw some back then in West TExas that were not even reported back then.. yes this can be argued! many small tornadoes are often called straight line winds or not even reported at all back then but now are reported as more and more cameras and people see them! hell everyone has a camera now!

      • H. L. says:

        well not sure where I got 1971 from but that was not my point.. point is made in my previous comments. more people,more cameras more tech.. etc.

      • Jim Curtis says:

        Weather radar was invented in 1950. In the 1970’s, they were standardized and linked into networks.
        “The number of scanned angles was increased to get a three-dimensional view of the precipitation, so that horizontal cross-sections (CAPPI) and vertical cross-sections could be performed.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_radar

      • R Elliot says:

        I believe they use radar data to confirm tornadoes today. Nobody has to report them.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Stephen…”The one thing that fascinates me bout your site, which is excellent, is the number of argumentative comments on subjects about which there can be no argument”.

      In science, there is no such things as a fact against which there can be no argument. What passes for science today in many areas are paradigms promoted by obstinate scientists who carefully guard those paradigms.

      For example in my field, engineering, universities are still teaching the 1925 view that electrons in a circuit are not the primary carriers of charge, moving from negative to positive. Rather, the view pushed is the conventional view that somehow positive charges flow positive to negative.

      No one has ever identified this positive charge, in fact the only positively charged particles in a conductor are the protons in the nucleus, and they are fixed in place.

      Modern science is full of this nonsense and there are many questions to be asked provided someone has the courage to ask them.

      • Anthony says:

        There can be no argument when there is a counted number of something!

        For example, let’s say that 700 tornadoes happened in the year 1980, and then 1000 tornadoes happened in the year 1985. That means that in 1993 there were 300 more tornadoes than in the year 1985! THERE CAN BE NO ARGUMENT! 1000-700=300! It’s simple Math!

        • Anthony says:

          I meant 1985 to 1993, not 1980.

        • S Kim Milk says:

          Dear Anthony,

          You are so naive! There are no more facts or truths today.

          If I have some goal that might be advanced depending on how many tornadoes happen, then I can simply start to question the count in any year.

          * You say that there were 300 more tornadoes in 1985, but the people responsible for counting tornadoes get their government funding for every tornado they count. So of course they fudge the numbers so that there are more tornadoes.

          * Academics studying tornadoes won’t be able to publish their papers unless the papers show an increase in tornadoes. Hence they show an increase in tornadoes

          * The deep state trying to turn over the US government authority to the UN and rigging the tornado count is part of the scare tactic.

          Sound familiar?
          SK

      • Mr Perry says:

        As re the flow you commented on, I am in aviation, and the FAA material is based upon the negative to positive premise. just a tidbit of trivia.

      • Hominid says:

        No serious scientists has subscribed to the conception you describe for over a century.

        Engineers are NOT scientists – not by a long shot – and, I suspect you erroneously count pseudoscientists as well among scientists.

        You commit the very errors of misinformation you decry.

    • Steven Lamb says:

      i do nowt want to be judged by the color of my skin but by the content of my character, sorry i meant to say content of my website.

  2. 2ndprotectsall says:

    Darn that pesky global normal!

    • David in Ardmore says:

      But but but climate change is all about the records, both lows and highs 😉 Don’t you get it?

      If it’s warm, it’s all your fault!

      If it’s cold, it’s all your fault!

      If it’s normal, it’s because of something negative _you_ did!

      If it feels great outside, just know that its actually awful and it’s all your fault!

      Now, pay for those carbon credits and redeem yourself you heathen! Praise Al Gore!

      };^P

  3. Lowndes says:

    Trump’s fault, no doubt about it.

  4. This is a crisis that simply must be addressed immediately! The current paucity of tornadoes has caused advertising revenues throughout Tornado Alley to decline sharply, resulting in the abrupt dismissal of several forecast personalities.

    Should this spread throughout our nation’s Warning Industry, our nation’s foremost revenue generation enterprise, the final results could be dire indeed.

  5. Joseph L Lumia says:

    Is this due to Global Warming or Global Cooling?

    is this a good sign or bad sign?

    • Drew says:

      All of the Above!

      • phleble says:

        It is always a sign, a sign for anything you like if you are a far leftist liberal totalitarian because the answer is always going to b the same: the government must take over every aspect of your life, control what you see, hear, learn and of course think so there will be “an uneducated and compliant populace. We have achieved the first part but we have serious work to do on the second part,” ( Hillary Clinton just weeks before she lost the presidential election)

        • David Appell says:

          What if you are an extreme right wing, alt-right mercenary who chooses to attack any and all opponents with violence?

          Why should we believe any of them, when science it not on their side?

  6. Alex says:

    Looks like natural variability.

  7. The Saint says:

    Al Gore must be rolling over in his grave. Oh….wait…

  8. Patricia Whitty says:

    IT’S GLOBAL WARMING!

  9. Phred says:

    We never had tornadoes when Obama was President.

  10. Hugh Gorgan says:

    That dang Trump is working again with Putin to stop all our tornadoes. Next he’ll want to stop China from spying on us through malicious components installed in our information technology devices. The nerve of this guys, geeez!

  11. IP Freely says:

    To go along with the incredibly calm hurricane season. How’s that ‘global climate disruption and extreme weather events’ (formally known as global warming) going for you al gore and all the other brain dead, pseudo-scientists?

  12. Harry Ballsonya says:

    Global gaping did it. Its cuz of the cow farts they are the leading contributer of demonrat gaping. One time in the 80s dont know the year Brett Kavanaugh started groping a stove pipe EF-3 SINCE THEN TORNADOES HAVE BEEN SCARED TO SHOW THEMESLVES THEY NEED 2 FRONT DOORS AND THEY DONT KNOW ANYTHING OTHER THAN ITS KAVANAUGHS FAULT

  13. ========
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    ========

    Is Tamino dishonest?

    Tamino doesn’t want me to participate in the discussion about slowdowns.

    He won’t publish my comment on his website.

    Luckily I have my own website, where I can say whatever I like.

    Here is the comment which Tamino didn’t want people to see.

    https://agree-to-disagree.com/is-tamino-dishonest

  14. Jack says:

    Weather is as weather does😄

  15. RW says:

    So ‘climate change’ causes decreased Tornados. I see.

    • Steve Kasian says:

      Actually, you are precisely correct – It does! Earth’s climate is ever-changing, which means that Earth’s weather patterns are ever-changing… which means “climate change” is redundant. 😉

  16. Steve Kasian says:

    One acronym: HAARP. (And it’s all Bush’s fault!)
    hehe

  17. Norman says:

    Is there a reason for fewer severe thunderstorms lately?

    • Lewis guignard says:

      I’m sure David will find a reason less tornadoes is a bad thing, since it would be associated with “that which shall not be named”.

  18. lord garth says:

    1. yes the past 5 years have been below average but 2011 was actually a big year for US tornadoes

    2. also, this is about US tornadoes; the numbers might be different if one included all tornadoes world wide, however, that would be a difficult number to get accurately as the data collection is widely varied from country to country

    • Martha says:

      3. Tornado worldwide data must not support the anti-human climate alarmist agenda when it is not being screamed from every TV network and on every newspaper.

  19. Milton Hathaway says:

    “Inflation Adjusted Annual Tornado Trend”?

    Yeah, so I misinterpreted the meaning, but it made me laugh anyway. Maybe there should be an inflation adjusted global surface temperature trend?

  20. Rob Mitchell says:

    Hey, how about the idea of natural climate cycles? Maybe we don’t need a carbon tax after all to stop those “terrible tornadoes” in Oklahoma per Barbara Boxer.

    • David Appell says:

      Which “natural cycles,” and why?

      • Rob Harris says:

        The ones that have been here long before humans evolved. Simply put, humans are just a pimple on a gnat’s ass concerning global climate.

        • DavidAppell says:

          Again, what natural cycles?

          Describe them.

          What are their periods?

          What causes them?

          • Rob Mitchell says:

            Kind of like how we see short-term phasing with long-wave trofs and ridges with day to day wx, I am certain that similar things happen on a longer time scale, which we call climate. Climate changes. Always has, always will.

  21. Human says:

    [ Does “global warming” cause tornadoes? No. Thunderstorms do. The harder question may be, “How will climate change influence tornado occurrence?” The best answer is: We don’t know. According to the National Science and Technology Council’s Scientific Assessment on Climate Change, “Trends in other extreme weather events that occur at small spatial scales–such as tornadoes, hail, lightning, and dust storms–cannot be determined at the present time due to insufficient evidence.” This is because tornadoes are short-fused weather, on the time scale of seconds and minutes, and a space scale of fractions of a mile across. In contrast, climate trends take many years, decades, or millennia, spanning vast areas of the globe. The numerous unknowns dwell in the vast gap between those time and space scales. Climate models cannot resolve tornadoes or individual thunderstorms. ]

    This is from the NOAA too…

  22. Human says:

    [ Does “global warming” cause tornadoes? No. Thunderstorms do. The harder question may be, “How will climate change influence tornado occurrence?” The best answer is: We don’t know. According to the National Science and Technology Council’s Scientific Assessment on Climate Change, “Trends in other extreme weather events that occur at small spatial scales-such as tornadoes, hail, lightning, and dust storms-cannot be determined at the present time due to insufficient evidence.” This is because tornadoes are short-fused weather, on the time scale of seconds and minutes, and a space scale of fractions of a mile across. In contrast, climate trends take many years, decades, or millennia, spanning vast areas of the globe. The numerous unknowns dwell in the vast gap between those time and space scales. Climate models cannot resolve tornadoes or individual thunderstorms. ]

    This is from the NOAA website too…

  23. barret Arq says:

    Global Warming is a conspiracy theory, only with the exception that if there is (global warming) it is caused by the ones that are trying to make us think there is
    “Global Warming” these are the same ones funding additives to jet fuel to make chem trails that covers the sky like a transparent blanket so when the sun shines through it causes a green house effect and that = man made global warming….

    • Adam Gallon says:

      Twat

    • David Appell says:

      You can always tell when this site gets invaded via a link from some wacky denialist site. Always.

      • barretarq says:

        Came here from Huff Post link… it is a little wacky sometimes i agree, Although you Dave Appell have been brainwashed by “Universities” so sorry you are trained in this wasted way and are mentally defaulted to think systematically by their forced made up talking points, that do not exist… With the exception of what I stated in my previous comment.

        • David Appell says:

          Instead of insulting me, prove the science I cite is wrong.

          I dare you.

          • BarretArq says:

            Not so fast to spin your B.S. as if I questioned you….
            You should 1st explain your replied comment (insult) that you referred in your words “Wacky” from your reply to my original comment….

            A side from your opinion please give me evidence that Geoengineering is false, since you were triggered as if i hit a nerve…

  24. Kyle Stoos says:

    I argue that you can’t argue that this post wasn’t definitely argumentative.

  25. Offthewall says:

    At the risk of major ridicule…..

    Three recent weather trends appear to be happening:
    1) fewer tornadoes
    2) hurricanes that tend to stall and move aimlessly due to weak wind steering currents (Harvey & Flo)
    3) winter cold air that tends to creep to the south over a very broad area for an extended period of time (they came up a name for this which I cannot recall at the moment) and fewer and less intense traditional cold fronts that push air rapidly deep to the south and then are replaced rather rapidly by warm air from the GOM. Im a Floridian and this change has been quite noticable over the last 5 to 10 years.

    So my ridiculous question is:

    Could it be possible that all three of these different than normal weather patterns are being caused in some small part by a weakening in the force and volume of usual southwest to northeast airflows in the center of the continent and could this weakening be due to the building of tens of thousands of windmills now in operation along this wind corridor that are converting wind energy into electricity?

    In other words, are wind mills serving to tame the violence of weather by reducing the intensity of traditional wind mixing patterns? Perhaps the energy they extract out of these air flows is an insignificant drop in the bucket. But am curious if this has ever been looked at. Now if wind mills were on the progressives evil list, Im certain there would be a thousand academic studies to show a direct correlation (says I cynically). But that also works in the converse. Wind mills are on the progressives do-gooder list so to examine for potential weather altering consequences would be heretical.

    Im done now. You all can chuckle are carry on with real climate discussions…..

  26. pseudo-intellectual says:

    Record low for tornadoes is good news for most folks, but not alarmists.

    Hate to be in the position of rooting for bad news, especially when it’s destructive / deadly.

  27. Ival Toepke says:

    The neighbors may have heard my cheering at your appearance on Tucker Carlson.

    The earth temperature depends upon the net balance of energy in vs energy out. It seems to me the greatest variable is the energy caused by the sun. I seem to recall that the solar constant (the relative amount of energy vs average) varies quite a bit from year to year. I was wondering if the solar constant varies with sun spot activity. One could argue that as the sun spot activity goes down, the solar constant goes down, and the earth cools. Could that influence the number of tornadoes or hurricanes because of the difference in cooling.

    On the other hand, some believe that hurricanes arise from dust from Africa that blows westward to the United states. That could be related to changes in local heat and dryness because of changes in a increase or decrease in solar input. Probably this has all been covered before, and I am just late to the party.

  28. Mike Flynn says:

    Not enough butterflies, perhaps?

    “Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil Set off a Tornado in Texas?” Edward Lorenz 1972

    Lorenz indicated he was speaking literally.

    Cheers.

    • David Appell says:

      Hey, who can describe the GHE???

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Certainly not you, David.

        Do you think the GHE is just climatological pseudoscientific doublespeak for “butterflies” instead of your other favourite “insulation”?

        As that enthusiastic GHE believer Will Steffens said recently “I think the dominant linear, deterministic framework for assessing climate change is flawed, especially at higher levels of temperature rise.” Gee, who’da thought it?

        Climate is just the average of weather – and therefore unpredictable. Even the IPCC accepts this, and the IPCC is not known as a denialist hotbed, is it?

        Keep sawing away at that limb you’ve gone out on. With any luck, you’ll fall onto that dead horse you keep flogging. Saved! Smelly, but safe.

        Cheers.

        • Davida says:

          What a shame that not a single person ever in this whole wide world can describe the greenhouse effect, ever, not even once, right cowboy?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            You’re right. It’s a terrible shame, isn’t it? Kinda makes a mockery of climatological pseudoscientific GHE worshippers, eh? Yeehah!

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            “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
            https://www.nature.com/articles/342758a0
            https://www.nature.com/articles/342758a0.pdf

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            Complete nonsense. Energy cannot be “trapped” in the atmosphere. Temperatures fall at night, in case you haven’t noticed.

            You might also not have noticed that the Earth’s surface has cooled significantly over the last four and a half billion years or so.

            The authorities to whom you appeal, are even more deluded than you. There is no “energy trapped in the atmosphere”. Gas warms when heated, cools otherwise. No magic. No GHE. No CO2 heating.

            Carry on dreaming. Luckily, the influence of the demented climate cultists seems to be waning. A jolly good thing, too!

            Cheers.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Just for anyone who might think I’m a little harsh. From one link –

            “Satellite measurements are used to quantify the atmospheric greenhouse effect, defined here as the infrared radiation energy trapped by atmospheric gases and clouds.”

            There is no “infrared radiation energy trapped”. More climatological pseudoscientific jargon – sounds sciency, but is illusory. Nothing heated by the Sun fails to cool during the night, to a temperature lower than that experienced in sunlight. No heat trapping or accumulation.

            Invoking the magic of “averaging” does not make the highest surface temperatures – some +90 C – or the lowest – around -90 C – any higher or lower. Still no GHE. No AGW theory. No CO2 heating. Just delusional cultist predictions of imminent doom. Always just around the corner, rapidly approaching a “tipping point”! What lunacy!

            Cheers.

  29. AGAMEMNON69 says:

    Low tornado count so far because of GLOBAL COOLING.

  30. Todd P. says:

    Thanks, President Trump! You’re environmental policies must be working…

  31. Vince says:

    Wait a minute. Wait a minute. The global warming gurus told us that tornadic activity would INCREASE as a result of global warming. What happened?

    • Tell It Right says:

      My fault, Vince. I haven’t been driving my old pickup enough to create global worming lately. I’ll get out soon and try to fix the problem and create more global warming so it’ll create terrorism in the middle east or sumthin’. 🙂

    • David Appell says:

      Vince says:
      Wait a minute. Wait a minute. The global warming gurus told us that tornadic activity would INCREASE as a result of global warming.

      Where did anyone say that, Vince?

  32. William Ripskull says:

    We all know that Global Warming can cause more tornadoes or less tornadoes, so this is further proof of Global Warming.

  33. William Ripskull says:

    Please tell me more, Mr. Science.

  34. MotherRedDog says:

    You just made my day LMAO!

  35. Craig says:

    Couldnt possibly have anything to do with governments all over the world altering the weather… lets just keep blaming American citizens for the worlds problems.

  36. Steve BSME MBA says:

    really people……. So no one here can see that ability to count or measure a thing has an influence on how many things are counted or measured????? Useless fricking statistics because our ability to predict, discover, track, and record the existence of tornadoes has DRASTICALLY increased in the past couple of decades. Any scientist worth his PhD would know you have to use the same measuring tools and methods to compare quantities. If the number of tornados is about the same but we’re twice as good at finding them, there are probably way fewer now than when we were bad at finding them???? I am so stating the obvious here folks!

    • David Appell says:

      “Evidence for changes in the number or intensity of tornadoes relies entirely on local reports. In the USA, databases for tornado reporting are well established, although changes in procedures for evaluating the intensity of tornadoes introduced significant discontinuities in the record. In particular, the apparent decrease in strong tornadoes in the USA from the early period of the official record (1950s1970s) to the more recent period is, in large part, a result of the way damage from the earlier events was evaluated. Trapp et al. (2005) also questioned the completeness of the tornado record and argued that about 12% of squall-line tornadoes remain unreported.”

      IPCC 5AR WG1 Ch3.8.4.2
      https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-8-4-2.html

  37. Tab Numlock says:

    Another extreme weather situation caused by man-emitted CO2. Records falling everywhere. Climate disruption is here. Bill Nye explained all this if you had only cared to listen.

  38. Tom Waeghe says:

    But less tornados means lower viewership for the Weather Cannel, NBC, and Comcast, which hurts capitalism…

    • ren says:

      “The bottom line here is I would be looking closely at the winter of 2002-03 and 2009-10 as that is where it could go, but the blended four analogs are where we are now.”

      • David Appell says:

        Oh please, ren, you can’t guess this winter anymore than the Farmer’s Almanac can.

        ren, how about you tell us in April ’19 how well your prediction has done? OK?

        I won’t hold my breathe.

  39. M. D. Rossi says:

    Roy,

    I love your site. Keep up the good work.

    M.D. Rossi
    Author – Knightlight – Prelude to the Dark Messiah

  40. The Storm says:

    The Storm is coming… and most don’t even realize it. Who is Q? Military Intelligence (NSA)? Likely.

    The corruption in our government and around the world is coming to an end! Rebirth of a nation.

    If you don’t follow Q it’s easy to pass it off as “conspiracy theory” without even doing any research. Then you will also be blindsided when it comes. Or you can look into it yourself and know what’s coming.

    There will be pain! Military tribunals already in place. The criminals are going to Gitmo. 50K+ sealed indictments coming. Huber and Sessions will be unchained. “Goodbye Rosenstein, goodbye Comey”

    “Those who know, cannot sleep.” Q

    Now comes the pain, the storm is here! QMAP.PUB The Great Awakening.

  41. Snape says:

    Steve

    “really people. So no one here can see that ability to count or measure a thing has an influence on how many things are counted or measured?????”

    Click on the link at the top of Roy’s comment.

  42. RL Keck says:

    At the risk of sounding indifferent to much of the kerfuffle generated by social media responses to real issues–never mind! I am indifferent to the mindless meanderings of social media responses. I wonder, though, has anyone, such as Dr. Spencer, published a textbook about the real science of climate change?

  43. Sam Banks says:

    There may be fewer tornadoes. Soon there may only be one or two a year however the tornadoes we do encounter will be Super Tornadoes as depicted on the best movie ever made – The Core.

  44. Richard Amble says:

    Number of tornadoes doesn’t seem as important to me as intensity of storm. Many tornadoes are of low intensity.

    • David Appell says:

      Good point. Like you, I think both are important, but, as Roy did on the Tucker Carlson show, he only seems to care about counts, not intensites.

      Can’t tell yet if he’s doing this on purpose.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        David,

        And you imagine people might be concerned what you “think”, because . . . ?

        Do you have extremely powerful “thoughts”, perhaps? Or special insights into Nature not available to “ordinary” people?

        Oh well, keep on “thinking”. Let us know what you conclude about what you “think” Dr Spencer “cares” about. Follow up by providing some reason why anyone’s care factor about your opinion should move from zero. Your choice, of course.

        Have you worked out the difference between butterflies and insulation, or do you define the GHE as being both?

        Cheers.

  45. Mark Giles says:

    The fake measurements are a direct result of state-backed Russian hackers.

  46. David Appell says:

    Here’s a long-term time series of EF1+ tornadoes in the US, from N.O.A.A.:

    https://tinyurl.com/y88loaum

    It’s a slightly declining trend if anything.

  47. David Appell says:

    Roy, Where is your post saying California is back in drought?

    https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap.aspx

    Nowhere at all, that’s where.

    This is why people don’t look to you for honesty.

  48. David Appell says:

    I don’t see why Roy won’t post that the California drought is back, to correct his earlier assertion:

    “Satellite Reveals End of Unending N. California Drought”
    January 14th, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/01/satellite-reveals-end-of-n-california-drought/

    Here are the current data (this link is valid for only a week or so):

    https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap.aspx

    • Mike Flynn says:

      David,

      From Wikipedia –

      “Throughout history, California has experienced many droughts, such as 1841, 1864, 1924, 19281935, 19471950, 19591960, 19761977, 20062010, and 20122017.”

      Why is it so important that Dr Spencer dances to your tune? Can’t you find out things for yourself? Droughts start, droughts finish – unpredictably, it seems.

      You could always make an announcement on your blog – “California drought is back!!! Woe! Woe! Thrice woe!” There. You don’t need to thank me for my sage advice. I take comfort from being able to help those less fortunate than myself.

      Cheers.

      • DavidAppell says:

        Roy said the CA drought was over.
        Clearly it was not.
        But he will never admit he was wrong.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          “With the end of the statewide hydrologic drought from 2011 to 2017, the Pacific Institute Drought Response Team is no longer providing monthly drought updates. We will continue to work toward sustainable water solutions in California and beyond. Continue to follow our work on http://www.pacinst.org.”

          Dang. Best tell Peter Gleick just how wrong he is, David.

          Cheers.

          • DavidAppell says:

            Satellite Reveals End of Unending N. California Drought
            January 14th, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/01/satellite-reveals-end-of-n-california-drought/

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            Are you trying to say that both Dr Spencer and Peter Gleick’s Pacific Institute agree that the “unending” drought is ended?

            Is this another example of climatological pseudoscience redefining “unending” to mean “ending”?

            All droughts can end. You could always choose to believe that the power of GHE worship could create a never ending drought, if you wish. I can’t really see any point, but belief in climatological pseudoscience seems to be pointless anyway.

            Just more of the same pointless nonsense. Droughts come, droughts go. Always have – and I’m guessing here – always will. No GHE, no magical CO2 heating required.

            Cheers,

          • RAH says:

            An all time record low for the tornado count which now consists primarily of EF 0s and 1s is real news. Another drought in a portion that has suffered many going back 1,000s of years in a state that has overpopulated that arid area and has poor water management practices to boot, is not of the same caliber.

          • David Appell says:

            What’s the evidence for this “all-time record low?”

          • David Appell says:

            RAH says:
            Another drought in a portion that has suffered many going back 1,000s of years in a state that has overpopulated that arid area and has poor water management practices to boot

            California has one of the most extensive water management systems in the world, bringing water to many places it would not go naturally.

            You can critique my question, but not with absurdities like this.

  49. DavidAppell says:

    Not allowed to reply here.

  50. DavidAppell says:

    Meaningful reply not allowed.
    Have to hide name

  51. DavidAppell says:

    Above all, capitalism cannot be treatened!

    What kind of (thinking) American are you????

  52. DavidAppell says:

    Your quote is wrong — nobody wrote what you quoted.

    Liar.

  53. DavidAppell says:

    Again, I’m blocked from commenting under my name and address.

    I blame this directly on Roy.

    It’s oh so easy to avoid, right Roy?

    • David Appell says:

      Norman, there was a good back-and-forth on Twitter between David Keith and Mark Jacobsen from Stanford, who researches renewable energies. Worth checking out — just look for Keith’s Twitter feed from Friday.

      Jacobsen thinks wind power leads to a slight cooling, and wasn’t convinced by Keith’s paper. One point is that Keith et al’s model isn’t global. I haven’t read the paper yet.

      If true, the paper reinforces the reality that ALL energy sources have, or will have, undesirable effects. It comes down to choices about how to minimize their total.

    • David Appell says:

      Also, we have to consider that coal emissions kill people from small particle pollution:

      “Tens of thousands of Americans die every year from old-fashioned air pollution, generated by electric power plants that burn fossil fuels. Estimates vary, but between 7,500 and 52,000 people in the United States meet early deaths because of small particles resulting from power plant emissions.”

      http://theconversation.com/the-other-reason-to-shift-away-from-coal-air-pollution-that-kills-thousands-every-year-78874

  54. Mykey says:

    Salvatore !

    Global average SST is on the rise again.
    The SOI is falling again.
    NINO3.4 is rising again.

    Salvatore ! Please tell us again that it ain’t true and that cooling is just around the corner !

  55. DavidAppell says:

    Salvatore Del Prete says:
    “I am as confident as ever that the warming is over.”

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2018-0-32-deg-c/#comment-315085

  56. DavidAppell says:

    Roy, what’s the global trend? — which is, of course, what counts.

    Don’t worry, Roy, I don’t expect you to care.

    • Harry Cummings says:

      David Dr Spencer doesnt care what you think he like many others on this site feel sorry for you your life seems so pointless

      Dont be so jealous of Dr Spencers success

      Regards
      Harry

    • JDHuffman says:

      DA, seek counseling.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “whats the global trend? which is, of course, what counts”

      No, it is meaningless over the piddlingly short time we have even half reasonable data.

      We are now back to basically NO WARMING this century.

      All we have is a meaningless mathematical linear trend cause by an El Nino transient.

      Only a FOOL thinks climate is linear. !!

  57. ren says:

    This is a 3D animation of the 2009 sudden stratospheric warming event (SSW), where the stratospheric polar vortex was split (classic wave2 split SSW) and almost completely disintegrated. at the bottom is the 150mb geopotential height, and above is the core of the polar vortex in 3D. The data is from ECMWF ERA-Interim reanalysis dataset.
    The animation was produced by our supporter and co-admin Andrej Flis ( https://twitter.com/Recretos )
    https://youtu.be/bminxfVGa5w
    https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif

  58. Frederick J Schreyer says:

    “Should…correlate?” Is there data?

  59. ren says:

    The stratospheric polar vortex in the middle of winter has nothing to do with global warming. The polar vortex in 2009 was broken into two parts consistent with the arctic magnetic field. You can not pretend to see something else on the animation.
    http://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/mag_fld/arctics-en.php

  60. .
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    .

    Was the recent Slowdown caused by the super El Nino of 1998?

    If you take the GISTEMP temperature series, and replace the 1998 temperature anomaly with a new value, that is spot on the trend line, does the Slowdown disappear.

    Warning – the results of this article will be shocking, for some people.

    https://agree-to-disagree.com/was-the-slowdown-caused-by-1998

    • David Appell says:

      What are all the weird dingbats atop all your comments supposed to mean?

      • David,

        they are a pattern made up of graphical unicode characters. I use them so that people can recognise my posts. A bit like having a picture, or an icon, or an avatar.

        Unfortunately they don’t always appear correctly. On most web sites they work, but on drroyspencer.com, they only work about half of the time.

        When they don’t work properly, they appear as odd looking characters. I don’t know why it works sometimes, but not other times. Maybe drroyspencer.com runs on more than one server, and one server recognises unicode, but the other doesn’t.

        Somebody reading this might be able to explain it.

        • DavidAppell says:

          Have you ever thought of letting your name identify you, and just leaving out the strange characters? Your name isn’t that common, after all….

  61. ren says:

    “Just an hour after the severe storms rumbled through western Colorado, snow was seen coating the ground on the Grand Mesa late Thursday morning, the first snow of the season for this mesa located east of Grand Junction.

    Snow also fell at Loveland Pass in the Colorado high country Thursday afternoon.

    Trail Ridge Road in Rocky Mountain National Park was blanketed in snow on Thursday as well.

    Many of these areas could see more snow this weekend and into next week, as the first widespread winter storm of the fall is expected in parts of the Rockies and High Plains.”

  62. David Appell says:

    ren, what’s the average date of first snowfall at Loveland Pass?

    I used to live in Colorado. I saw snowfall EVERY month of the year, even in Colorado Springs.

    And Loveland Pass is at 12,000 ft. Big deal, blah blah blah.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      David,

      This was supposed to happen in the UK –

      “According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia ,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just arent going to know what snow is,” he said.”

      Has it happened in Colorado perhaps? Maybe the senior research scientist confused United Kingdom with United Colorado – who knows?

      Cheers.

      • DavidAppell says:

        Just one man speaks for the entire science community on the future prospects of the UK??

        Of course not. Deniers like you just claim he does because you don’t want to read or have to think about the science actually does say.

        • JDHuffman says:

          DA, YOU don’t want to study physics and learn why your pseudoscience is bogus.

        • David Appel says:

          Does just one man speaks for the entire science community on the future prospects of the UK??

        • Mike Flynn says:

          David,

          How many more do you want?

          “David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes – or eventually “feel” virtual cold.”

          What “science community” are you talking about? What have I claimed?

          If you think climatological pseudoscientific cultists have any connection with the scientific method, maybe you could provide a useful scientific description of the mythical GHE, a testable GHE hypothesis, an AGW theory, or anything relevant.

          Are you now saying that future climate states are unpredictable – as the IPCC says? Or do you claim to be a latter day climatological Nostradamus?

          “Science” says nothing at all. Pseudoscientists of the climatological variety, on the other hand . . .

          Cheers.

          • DavidAppell says:

            If you think climatological pseudoscientific cultists have any connection with the scientific method, maybe you could provide a useful scientific description of the mythical GHE

            “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
            https://www.nature.com/articles/342758a0
            https://www.nature.com/articles/342758a0.pdf

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            Is this your latest attempt to define the mythical GHE?

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

            A couple of points.

            Energy cannot be trapped in the atmosphere. So sad, too bad. The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so.

            Adding energy to something may make it colder. Add ice to your water. Total energy has increased, but the water temperature drops!

            Maybe your authority depended on climatological pseudophysics, do you think?

            Cheers.

          • DavidApp says:

            You asked for a definition of the GHE. I gave you one.

            (This is your cue to whine about a gotcha.)

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            Gee. And I thought you were talking about actual science.

            ” . . . popularly referred as the greenhouse effect, G.” Is about as persuasive as ” . . . everybody knows . . . “.

            Describing a unicorn does not make it real. Try again, if you wish. Maybe you could try pointing out that bananas and CO2 both absorb and emit IR?

            What has caused the Earth to cool for four and a half billion years, do you think?

            Cheers.

  63. Neville says:

    If John McLean is correct this could be the most important development since Climategate.
    And Datagate has a nice sound to it. Time will tell.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-global-temperature-data-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/#more-60676

    • DavidAppell says:

      Peer reviewed?
      Published in a quality journal?
      Defended at conferences?

      Of course not. Just the usual junk.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        David,

        Have you reason to doubt his facts? Have you taken the trouble to check?

        If he’s wrong, he’s wrong. Providing some evidence to support your opinion might work better than incessant gotchas and dubious appeals to climatological pseudoscientific authority.

        Peer reviewed nonsense is still nonsense. Quality journals are driven by profit – and have been shown to publish the most godawful rubbish. Even computer generated gibberish is acceptable.

        “The publishers Springer and IEEE are removing more than 120 papers from their subscription services after a French researcher discovered that the works were computer-generated nonsense.”

        Oh, what fun!

        Cheers.

        • DavidAppell says:

          What facts?

          He’s selling his claims.

          That’s suspicious right there.

        • DavidApp says:

          No scientist will pay any attention to this guy, because he is afraid to put his work through peer review.

          But he might sell a few hundred copies of his manuscript. $2-3 K profit. Not bad for bullsh!t.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            And who would care? Endlessly reanalysing historical temperature records is a completely pointless waste of time. Only climatological pseudoscientific types are stupid and ignorant enough to believe that the past predicts the future!

            And if it doesn’t, what’s the point? No point at all.

            More CO2 than now is better. Less is worse. No GHE. No AGW theory. Just a bunch of delusional second raters sitting around sharing a common fantasy that they are important and respected. Sad.

            Maybe you could try writing a book – how hard could it be? Sell it to GHE worshippers, for a start. If you sell as many as other holy books, you’ll get rich. You’ll definitely have the last laugh.

            I’ll settle for the present, and laugh now.

            Cheers.

  64. Aaron S says:

    I have a hypothesis that the PDO just started flipping negative because this global cooling past the La Nina is hard to explain otherwise. If true there is some “a paper” suggesting tornado activity could decrease if Pacific temperatures decrease. So it is plausible that if the PDO becomes negative then long term tornados will decrease. The other possibility is cosmic rays, but I have not seen any cloud data indicating more albedo.

    https://phys.org/news/2013-10-pacific-ocean-temperature-tornado.html

  65. Aaron S says:

    Ooops ☆some evidence (a paper).

  66. DavidAppell says:

    Edward Teller, at a November 1959 conference on the centennial of the American oil industry at Columbia University in New York City, via The Guardian, 1/1/2018:

    “Carbon dioxide has a strange property. It transmits visible light but it absorbs the infrared radiation which is emitted from the earth. Its presence in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect [….] It has been calculated that a temperature rise corresponding to a 10 per cent increase in carbon dioxide will be sufficient to melt the icecap and submerge New York. All the coastal cities would be covered, and since a considerable percentage of the human race lives in coastal regions, I think that this chemical contamination is more serious than most people tend to believe.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/01/on-its-hundredth-birthday-in-1959-edward-teller-warned-the-oil-industry-about-global-warming

    • JDHuffman says:

      Teller later figured it out, and was one of the signers of the Oregon Petition.

      • DavidAppell says:

        Was he really?

        “Spurious names on the list included fictional characters from the television show M*A*S*H,[22] the movie Star Wars,[21] Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and prank names such as “I. C. Ewe”.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#Credentials_and_authenticity

        • Mike Flynn says:

          David,

          I believe there is an undistinguished mathematician named Gavin Schmidt, claiming to be a climate scientist. A geologist, Michael Mann as well as purporting to be a climate scientist, claimed to be a Nobel Laureate in court documents, as well as claiming he could obtain temperatures from slabs of wood!

          Anybody who believes that the scientific method is subordinate to a bunch of nutters agreeing with each other’s delusions about how smart they are, is just as nutty.

          No GHE. No CO2 heating. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so.

          Cheers.

          • DavidAppell says:

            Do you care that Fred Singer said he and John Christy were also Nobel Laureates?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            Not at all. Are you providing some facts to dispute something I wrote, or are you just trying to deny, divert and confuse?

            Would you really try to defend yourself against charges of stupidity and ignorance by claiming that Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann are also stupid and ignorant?

            Good luck with that.

            Cheers.

          • DavidAppell says:

            So you don’t care that Fred Singer said he and John Christy were Nobel Laureates.

            Double standard. Lousy hypocrite.

          • DavidAppell says:

            Fred Singer:

            “John Christy, my fellow skeptic and fellow co-recipient of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize (by virtue of having our names listed in IPCC reports) in the WSJ [ITEM #4]….”
            http://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2007/November%203.htm

          • DavidA says:

            Look at you try to change the subject with the same old moronic claims.

            You can’t do any better.

          • DavidApp says:

            Flynn doesn’t care that Fred Singer said he and John Christy were Nobel Laureates.

            He completely ignores this.

            Dishonest.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            As I said, I don’t care. Why should I? You may care twice as much on my behalf, if you wish.

            It still won’t make Gavin Schmidt any more of a climate scientist, or Michael Mann a Nobel Laureate, will it?

            Maybe someone else cares what you think. I wish both of you all the best.

            Cheers.

          • JDHuffman says:

            “Lousy hypocrite.”

            DA resorts to personal attacks quite often. He feels justified, because he is defending his false religion, AKA “cult”.

            Facts, logic, and relevant physics are swept aside, as he tries to hold on to his failing belief system.

      • DavidAppell says:

        “The Seattle Times reported that it [the Oregon Petition] includes names such as: “Perry S. Mason” (the fictitious lawyer), “Michael J. Fox” (the actor), “Robert C. Byrd” (the Senator), “John C. Grisham” (the lawyer-author), not to mention a Spice Girl, aka. Geraldine Halliwell: the petition listed “Dr. Geri Halliwell” and “Dr. Halliwell.”[3] The petition also contains duplicate signatures, signatures of a last name only with not even a first initial, and even “signatures” attributed to corporations.[4] (Although as Mitt Romney taught us, corporations are people too.) In an interview, Robinson said, “When we’re getting thousands of signatures there’s no way of filtering out a fake.” Scientific American examined the list and came to the conclusion that a large percentage of the alleged Ph.D. signatures probably are fake.[5]”

        https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#Verifiability.3F_Eh.3F_What.27s_that.3F

        • JDHuffman says:

          DA, it would be unlikely that you could get over 30,000 signatures without some clowns sneaking in. Just look at how many different names you and Ms Snape use here, for example.

          No fair-minded person denies that Edward Teller signed the petition.

          Now back to your continuing effort to spin reality to fit your false religion.

  67. Neville says:

    More delusional nonsense from their IPCC , we must hold temp increase to no more than 1.5 C.
    So how do they suggest we accomplish this and what new source of energy should we use? We know that S&W is just BS and fr-ud (Dr hansen’s opinion) and can they tell us how much of the warming since the I. Rev is due to humans?

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/07/the-new-ipcc-sr15-report-is-out/

  68. Bobdesbond says:

    Mr Spencer

    “This lack of tornadic storms in recent years should also correlate with lesser severe thunderstorm activity in general in the U.S.”

    “SHOULD”?? Have you actually researched this? “Should” is opinion, not science.

    • Norman says:

      Boddesbond

      Dr. Spencer is a meteorologist that is what he has his PhD in.

      It is an expert opinion at this point but all the science of tornado formation would agree with his statement.

      https://people.uwec.edu/jolhm/eh/barnier/tornado.htm

      and

      http://www.silverliningtours.com/resources/types-of-storms/

      Most tornadoes form in Supercell storms which are the most severe. Fewer recorded tornadoes would mean fewer of these destructive storms being produced. I would agree with Roy Spencer’s statement

      • Bobdesbond says:

        You are making a conditional probability statement with your conditioning back to front. Just because a tornado typically forms in a supercell storm does not mean a supercell storm must lead to a tornado. Meteorologists do not know why some supercells produce tornadoes and others don’t Until they know that, how are they to know that climate change is not doing something strange which weakens the link between supercells and tornadoes?

        • Norman says:

          Boddesbond

          You make a fair point. The best way to determine the trend for severe thunderstorms is to start counting them.

          The counters could have metrics like size, endurance, both top wind gusts and sustained winds, rainfall produced by storm, hail size and area affected, maybe others. You then could establish actual trends of severe storms. The reason it is not done is probably a financial reality. The information is available but it would require people to log and tract all this information and that does take money.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            Indeed – I’m not expecting that to have been done. But what I am expecting is that someone who calls himself a scientist would not choose guesswork over data, while deceptively indicating near certainty with the use of “should”.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            B,

            If a scientist thinks that an experiment “should” show that the luminiferous ether has certain properties, but finds that it doesn’t, he might ask himself why.

            It’s all part of the scientific method – something which is apparently anathema to climatological pseudoscientists.

            An example of real deception, (or incompetence), is Gavin Schmidt’s breathless announcement of “Hottest Year EVAH!”, based on his 38% probability calculations – indicating “near certainty”, in his opinion, I suppose.

            Richard Feynman said –

            “It is not unscientific to take a guess, although many people who are not in science believe that it is.”

            Obviously, climatological pseudoscientific cultists choose to go their own foolish and ignorant way.

            Cheers.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            “Should” does not indicate that the speaker believes he has made a guess. It indicates a near certain conviction.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            B,

            Dr Spencer wrote –

            “This lack of tornadic storms in recent years should also correlate with lesser severe thunderstorm activity in general in the U.S., since the conditions which produce large hail and damaging winds are generally the same as are required for tornadoes (strong instability, plentiful moisture, and wind shear).”

            Do you disagree? Do you think that the lack “shouldn’t” also correlate? What reasons can you advance to support any disagreement? None?

            No surprise there. Just trolling, perhaps? Maybe you could come up with a testable GHE hypothesis, in between composing some more pointless whinges. Still no GHE, though. No AGW theory. No CO2 heating, either.

            Carry on whining.

            Cheers.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            “Do you think that the lack shouldnt also correlate?

            English please.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            B,

            What part of my statement do you not understand?

            When you quote, it helps if you include punctuation marks. If you wish to pick nits, you need to be properly picky. Otherwise, you might just wind up looking like a nitwit.

            You’re looking like a stupid and ignorant troll at the moment.

            You still can’t provide a testable GHE hypothesis, because you can’t even properly describe the mythical GHE.

            Press on. Maybe the tactics of deny, divert, and confuse might suddenly start turning the climatological pseudoscientific fantasy into fact, but I doubt it.

            Others will no doubt make up their own minds.

            Cheers.

    • Carbon500 says:

      Bobdesbond: you berate Roy Spencer (it’s Dr, not Mr, by the way) when you say:
      ‘SHOULD? Have you actually researched this? “Should” is opinion, not science.’
      Tell it to the IPCC as well – ‘could’ ‘might’ and related words abound in their outpourings – and why not?
      Speculation is a normal part of scientific discourse – have you ever been to a scientific meeting? That’s where ideas are exchanged, papers presented, views aired, and (sometimes heated!) discussions take place. In laboratories everywhere, future possibilities and other matters are freely discussed.

      • Bobdesbond says:

        If only MR Spencer were stating this as speculation rather than his version of fact.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          B,

          Why does it concern you? “If only . . .”? If only . . . what?

          You really have no clue, have you? You could always try to deliver some gratuitous offense – that might annoy someone, eh?

          Ah, the pointless peregrinations of the climatological pseudoscientific cultists. Endless amusement for the masses.

          Cheers.

  69. ren says:

    Tropical storm can get to the warm Gulf of Mexico.

  70. ren says:

    In two days the trumpet of the northern elephant will reach New Mexico.
    https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00972/f5zclizal4f2.png

    • Bobdesbond says:

      Elephants have trumpets??

      • Mike Flynn says:

        B,

        How would an elephant trumpet like a trumpet if it didn’t have a trumpet?

        “Does the elephant trumpet like a trumpet?
        Jol Gilbert (1), Jean-Pierre Dalmont (1) and Romain Potier (2)
        (1) Laboratoire dAcoustique de lUniversit du Maine UMR CNRS 6613, Le Mans, France (2) Zoo de Beauval, Saint-Aignan, France”

        Just apply a touch of climatological wizardry – redefine a trunk as a trumpet where appropriate, and all is tickety-boo!

        No problem.

        Cheers.

        • Bobdesbond says:

          I see you’re bringing the Flynn sock puppet out of the closet JD.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            A miracle!

            The blind man claims to be able to see – due to the amazing power of CO2, no doubt!

            Unfortunately, just more climatological delusion. The blind man remains as blind as ever. His perception of reality is based on fanatical beliefs passed to him by other cultists.

            He would be able to see reality, if only he would choose to open his eyes. Fat chance, I know.

            Cheers.

          • JDHuffman says:

            “The blind man claims to be able to see — due to the amazing power of CO2, no doubt!”

            That scored a laughter explosion Mike! Thanks.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            JD – it’s a sad person who laughs at his own ‘jokes’.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            JDH,

            You’re welcome. I suppose it’s bad form to take advantage of the less fortunate, but what the heck! Not only is B clueless and blind, he also believes he can read minds.

            Fairly typical for witless wayward Warmists. To each his own, but expecting normal people to pay for their delusional fantasies seems a bit rich to me.

            Cheers.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            JD – try to resist that evil Flynn personality so that you can focus on your own evil personality.

  71. Slipstick says:

    I wonder if any study has been made of the correlation between the global Accumulated Cyclone Energy and tornadic activity in the U.S. (which is less than 2% of the Earth’s surface, for those who believe that conditions in the U.S. over a year or two are representative of the global climate state [they ain’t]). It occurs to me that it is possible that the atmospheric energy expended elsewhere may make tornadoes in the U.S. less likely over the short term. For example, the global ACE this year is already a record, second highest on record in the eastern Pacific so far and normal, likely above normal for the year since there are two months left in the hurricane season, in the Atlantic.

  72. Neville says:

    The so called mitigation of their so called CAGW is probably the greatest fra-d and con ever attempted over the last 100 years.( Dr Hansen calls it BS and fra-d)
    So come on all you religious fanatics tell us how to mitigate your CAGW?
    And how much will it cost and by how much will it reduce temps by 2040 or by 2100?
    Just to give you a hint, China’s use of coal is booming and today they generate 66.7% of TOTAL energy from coal while the US generates just 17.1%. See the EU based IEA who audit every country every year.
    And please no idiot electricity data, we need TOTAL energy generation by all countries.
    OH and please no delusional S&W nonsense, even Dr Hansen wouldn’t buy their Paris COP 21 BS and fra-d.

  73. Neville says:

    Another accurate post from Chris Booker, exposing more of the mitigation BS and fra-d.
    In 2010 China stated that they would double co2 emissions by 2030 and India stated they would treble them.
    Trump is the only leader who has had the brains to leave this cesspool of lies, fra-d and deception. Evidently no other leader can add up simple first grade sums.
    Unbelievable but true. Here’s Booker’s column.

    Christopher Booker: The Truth About Chinas & Indias Coal Boom
    Date: 07/10/18

    Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph

    “China and India have never had any intention of reducing their dependence on coal, as they had both made abundantly clear in documents each country submitted before the Paris agreement, where China said it planned to double its CO2 emissions by 2030, and India that it would treble them

    The BBC and The Guardian recently reported on new satellite pictures revealing that China, as easily the worlds largest emitter of CO2, is now busily building so many new coal-fired stations that they will add 259 gigawatts or 25 per cent to its coal-fired output, more than that of all US coal-fired power stations combined.

    This approaching tsunami of new coal plants is wildly out of line with the 2015 Paris climate agreement, reports The Guardian, quoting a report from the research group Coalswarm. But in no way should this be a surprise. It is just what China announced it intended to do at the time of Paris, when it said it would be doubling its CO2 emissions by 2030. Official Chinese figures confirm that the country is well on target, having increased its emissions by 6.9 per cent in the first quarter of 2018 alone.

    What makes this much odder, however, is that The Guardian itself was already reporting as long ago as 2010 that China planned a massive expansion of its coal-fired power generation. Odder still is that The Guardian also revealed that the UN was planning to pour billions of pounds of public money in subsidies to China and India, to enable them to build 20 heavily-polluting coal plants.

    This was to be done under the UNs Clean Development Mechanism scheme, designed to subsidise developing countries like China and India to rely only on sustainable development as their economies caught up with the West.

    The idea was that these countries would be given carbon credits, which could then be sold to organisations in the West, to allow them to offset their own CO2 emissions. To earn these credits, the developing countries had to show that on specific projects they were curbing their emissions: as when they replaced a dirty old coal plant with a new one using less polluting clean coal technology.

    By 2010 this system had thrown up so many scandals, including wholesale fraud, that it came under heavy fire, and in some more blatant respects it was modified. But the UN ruled that China and India could still earn carbon credits for closing dirty power plants to replace them with more efficient new ones.

    In fact the real message was that China and India never had any intention of reducing their dependence on coal, as they had both made abundantly clear in documents each country submitted before the Paris agreement, where China said it planned to double its CO2 emissions by 2030, and India that it would treble them.

    This was precisely the reason given by President Trump in 2017 for pulling the US out of the Paris accord, which he regarded as no more than a cynical charade. But The Guardianand the BBC never mentioned any of this. If they had followed the story properly, they would have no reason for now expressing shock at what China and India are up to because they would have known it all along”.

  74. David Archibald says:

    Dr Spencer, Please email me as I would like to send you a link to something.

    Yours sincerely,
    David Archibald

  75. Colin Dormuth says:

    I appreciate the information Roy Spencer provides on this site, but there is an appalling lack of civility on these comment threads.

  76. Snape says:

    Neville

    “So come on all you religious fanatics tell us how to mitigate your CAGW?
    And how much will it cost…….?”

    Clean energy does not have to be a burden to the economy. It can be a boon!

    ******

    “We reported earlier this year that Tesla contributed approximately $5.1 billion to the California economy in 2017. It supported 51,000 jobs – direct and indirect – last year.

    Also, that’s just California. Move east a bit to Nevada…….

    The audit found that Tesla spent a mind-boggling $459 million in capital at the Gigafactory in the fourth quarter, bringing cumulative capital spending up to $3.7 billion by the end of Q4 2017, Kyle Field wrote for CleanTechnica.

    If you add in the $402 million in spending for the first half of 2018, Tesla has already exceeded $4 billion in capital spending at the Gigafactory.
    On the employment front, Tesla added more than 34% more employees, with 832 new hires being added in Q4. The surge brought total enrollment at the Gigafactory up to 3,249. On top of the new Tesla employees, the Gigafactory employed 1,332 new construction workers, bringing the total number of construction workers to 13,743 – or more people than the town I grew up in.”

    https://cleantechnica.com/2018/10/08/tesla-model-3-is-1-top-selling-american-car-in-usa/

    *****

    Worth noting: Tesla outsold Mercedes-Benz in the US in the last quarter, and sold more cars in the US than any other American automaker in September.

    https://electrek.co/2018/10/09/tesla-outsold-mercedes-benz-us/amp/

    • Mike Flynn says:

      S,

      How does building expensive, inefficient electrical personal transport vehicles relate to the mythical CAGW?

      Such vehicles do not run on unicorn farts. Electricity has to be generated, distributed, and stored in a heavy vehicle borne battery. Losses at every stage. Insurance and maintenance are comparatively expensive.

      Niche vehicles, for those who can afford them, and who are prepared to pay extra for the status of owning a “pollution free” car. Government subsidies are a nice bonus for the wealthy, as well.

      No doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. Good luck with predicting the future.

      Cheers.

  77. Snape says:

    Flynnstone asks,

    “How does building expensive, inefficient electrical personal transport vehicles relate to the mythical CAGW?

    Such vehicles do not run on unicorn farts. Electricity has to be generated, distributed, and stored in a heavy vehicle borne battery. Losses at every stage.”

    *******

    “One of the other common assertions we hear all the time from the anti-EV crowd is that electric cars are no more efficient than cars powered by internal combustion engines. Let’s take a closer look at that claim. According to the US Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EV’s convert about 59%62% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 17%21% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels.”

    An electric motor typically is between 85% and 90% efficient. That means it converts that percentage of the electricity provided to it into useful work. The difference between the efficiency of the motor and the overall efficiency of an electric car is accounted for losses attributed to charging and discharging the battery and, for some charging (for some cars), converting AC to D* current and back again.

    In a recent post for Quora, Brian Feldman, a robotics expert and entrepreneur, offered this explanation: “Consider the Tesla Model S, which has an available 85 kWh battery and a 265 mile range. Consider a similar gas-powered car, which gets 35 mpg. Gasoline contains about 33 kWh of energy per gallon. The Tesla uses 320 Wh/mile of energy (85 kWh/265 miles). The gas powered car uses 940 Wh/mile of energy (33 kWh/35 miles). Once the energy is on board (not counting the efficiency of the power generation, oil refining, or charging), the Tesla is using only about a third as much energy as the comparable gasoline-powered car.”

    https://cleantechnica.com/2018/03/10/electric-car-myth-buster-efficiency/

    • Mike Flynn says:

      S,

      You might have fared better, had you not included ” . . . not counting the efficiency of the power generation, oil refining, or charging)”.

      Providing you are using electricity generated by farting unicorns, you might well be right. Taking the real world into account, you might come to a different conclusion. Up to you, of course, but while a replacement battery costs more than $40,000, even replacing every 10 years adds yet more costs.

      From Singapore’s Land Transport Authority –

      “The LTA also noted that “EVs are not truly emissions-free, as the power they consume produces emissions at the power stations”.” In spite of Elon Musk’s grumbling, Singapore sticks by its test results, resulting in no subsidies for Teslas.

      If you want to drag around 500 kg of battery everywhere you go, feel free. I intend to continue to use my personal CO2 plant fertiliser generator (ICE motor car) for a few more years. More CO2 good, less CO2 – very, very bad. I do my bit.

      Cheers.

  78. Snape says:

    Where does the US get its electricity?

    32% natural gas
    30 % coal
    20 % nuclear
    7 % hydro
    6 % wind
    1 % solar
    .5 % oil

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plants/?utm_term=.68060e317831&noredirect=on

  79. Snape says:

    Just for fun
    ******

    Tesla Roadster: 0 – 60 / 1.9 seconds

    “in terms of performance, the new electric Roadster beats the Chiron on most all fronts.”

    Roadster: $200,000
    Chiron: $3,000,000

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/insideevs.com/supercars-beware-new-tesla-roadster-compared-to-bugatti-chiron/amp/

    • Mike Flynn says:

      S,

      Minor problem –

      “While the production Model S is a great track car for about a lap before it needs to cool off, . . . ”

      I know it’s not a Roadster, but the Roadster doesn’t actually exist for sale – still vapourware.

      Or you buy a Caterham 620R for 50,000 GBP. A bit slow, 2.8 sec to 60 mph, but will keep going quite quickly for quite a few laps.

      All irrelevant for me. Local suburban speed limits are about 32 mph (50 kph).

      Number of Tesla’s competing in the Le Mans 24 hour race – nil. NASCAR is apparently considering electric car races, but is worried about the spectators walking out if the cars can only complete a couple of laps at full power before bursting into flames from overheating, or needing recharging for a few hours.

      Tell me again how buying a non-existent Tesla cures non-existent CO2 heating.

      Cheers.

      • Svante says:

        While the production Model S is a great track car for about a lap before it needs to cool off, . . .

        Bummer, they will have to invent a cooling system or something. It will never work, they should ban new technology altogether and revert to coal fired steam engines.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          S,

          You’re right. Bummer. Some Tesla owners overcome the battery cooling system activating while parked in a garage during hot weather by providing AC to the garage.

          Who are the “they” who “will have to invent a cooling system or something”? Maybe you could try? One problem might be that the power to operate the cooling system might have to come from the thing you are trying to cool. The laws of thermodynamics might interfere with any cunning idea you come up with.

          It’s a niche vehicle.

          As to coal fired steam engines, these are what your BEV generally needs to run.

          Hydrocarbons are burnt in a fossil fuelled power station, producing those plant life essentials CO2 and H2O, at a minimum. Heat is also produced, which turns water into steam, which is used to drive a turbine engine to spin an alternator to produce electricity which goes into lossy power lines and produces a chemical action inside the battery as well as a lot of lost heat.

          In many cases, a BEV is actually powered by a coal fired steam engine. I suppose you could try using solar or wind power, but you probably coukdn’t afford it. Maybe you could quickly invent something to get away from BEV dependence on fossil fuel?

          Have fun.

          Cheers.

  80. ren says:

    The cold front will cause rainstorms in the eastern part of the US.
    https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00972/gh4vj7h6jzuc.png

  81. ren says:

    Reports from an Air Force Reserve Hurricane Hunter aircraft indicate
    that maximum sustained winds have increased to near 140 mph (220
    km/h) with higher gusts. Michael is an extremely dangerous category
    4 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale. Some
    additional strengthening is possible before landfall. After
    landfall, Michael should weaken as it crosses the southeastern
    United States.

  82. Snape says:

    Flynnstone

    As usual, Mike, you make lots of claims, but provide no links to your sources, if you even have any.

    I found an article from 2012 (the technology has come a long way since then) suggesting the battery replacement cost you mentioned. No sources there, either.

    *******

    “….You still hear this from fossil fuel advocates trying to scare people out of buying electric cars, but a survey of 350 Tesla drivers by a European con Actual Tesla owners report about a 5% drop in battery capacity by the 50,000 mile mark but after than, the rate of degradation drops considerably. On average, cars with 160,000 miles on them still have 90% of their battery capacity remaining.

    Projecting forward from the real world data available, a Tesla battery should still have 80% battery capacity after 500,000 miles of driving, the group claims. The vast majority of internal combustion engines would have stopped functioning long before then.”

    https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/16/tesla-batteries-have-90-capacity-after-160000-miles-may-last-for-500000-miles/

    • Mike Flynn says:

      S,

      Maybe you could quote the statements with which you disagree, and say why.

      This might serve to allow others to see whether you are genuine, or just making vague unsubstantiated accusations to avoid having to acknowledge you are just complaining on principle.

      Carry on with “should”, “would”, “claims” by the “group”, and, of course “projections” (beloved of climatological pseudoscience).

      You could throw in a relevant fact or two, if you feel like it. Just a suggestion, of course.

      Cheers.

      • Harry Cummings says:

        Snaps
        European cars run in kilometres not miles ,dont think the writerknows what he/she is talking about

        160000 = around 250000 kilometres do you really believe the owners have run up this sort of figure in the short time they have had the cars….sounds a bit make believe

        Also 160,000 goes out to 500,000…… love those models

        Re the Bugatti there is a lot more to a car than the drive train but I assume you being car car buff would know that. Would love to know who brought it as these are generally speced up by the owners to an unbelievable standard

        Earlier this year Honda (I think) had battery packs falling over after 18 month in there new long range electric cars

        I will be sticking to my petrol merc for a few more years yet

        Regards
        Harry

        • Harry Cummings says:

          Actually thinking about it maybe it was the Nissan Leaf

          Regards
          Regard
          Harry

          • Lewis guignard says:

            My expectation would be that battery packs have a limited life span. This can be extended, but in general as they cycle, they slowly lose capacity. So, like all parts, sooner or later you’ll need a new battery.

            So far as self driving cars. That will be very interesting. The changeover in itself will be problematic, then there is the used car market. Today, buying a used old car will cause some expense in maintenance, but the expense of keeping electronic systems up will be more than poor people can handle.

            IMO the price of used self driving cars will be a lot lower relative to used gas cars.

  83. ren says:

    The front is far enough away that the hurricane can move north.
    https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00972/45a8d7065r3g.png

  84. ren says:

    Eye of the hurricane will come ashore in the area of Panama City, Florida.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=nwatl&product=wv-mid

  85. Snape says:

    Harry

    “160000 = around 250000 kilometres do you really believe the owners have run up this sort of figure in the short time they have had the cars.sounds a bit make believe”

    You could be right, the claims might be false or exaggerated. This is from the best article I could find:

    “Now, a statistician would tell you that none of this amounts to a true scientific survey. Participants in the Steinbuch and Plug In America projects are self-selected, so they may or may not represent average Tesla owners, and there’s no way to check the accuracy of the data they report. Furthermore, Model S has only been around since 2012, so we have no idea how a 10-year-old battery will hold up.”

    https://evannex.com/blogs/news/how-long-will-my-tesla-battery-last

  86. Dan Pangburn says:

    MODTRAN6 plots show growth vs altitude of CO2 and O3 notches in std atmosphere radiation profiles. Plots below about 10 km must be for total energy flux. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dku9fr1V4AUVdU_.jpg

    • JDHuffman says:

      What specifically confuses you about those plots?

      Maybe stating your specific point will allow us to help.

      Or maybe you’re just having fun….

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        The plots show the same radiation flux all the way to the ground which ignores the energy flux from water evaporation at the surface and also the incoming solar energy which is absorbed by the clouds and atmosphere. If you had clicked my name and understood the blog/analysis which appeared, you might have known better.

Leave a Reply