Recent Tornadoes are Due to Unusually Cold Weather

May 29th, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

I had an op-ed published at Foxnews.com yesterday describing the reason why we have had so many tornadoes this year. The answer is the continuing cold weather stretching from Michigan through Colorado to California. A persistent cold air mass situated north and west of the usual placement of warm and humid Gulf air in the East is what is required for rotating thunderstorms to be embedded in a strong wind shear environment.

The temperature departures from normal so far this month show evidence of this cold:

In fact, in terms of departures from normal, so far this year the Northern Plains has been the “coldest place on Earth”, averaging 5-10 deg. F below normal:

The strong wind shear and warm advection provided at the “tightened” boundary between the warm and cold air masses is the usual missing ingredient in tornado formation, unlike Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s claim that a New Jersey tornado warning was somehow tied to global warming.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, a trend line fit to the number of strong to violent U.S. tornadoes has gone down from 60 in 1954 to 30 in 2018. In other words, the number of most damaging tornadoes has, on average, been cut in half since U.S. statistics started to be compiled:

Or, phrased another way, the last half of the 65-year U.S. tornado record had 40% fewer strong to violent tornadoes than the first half.

To claim that global warming is causing more tornadoes is worse than speculative; it is directly opposite to the clear observational evidence.


269 Responses to “Recent Tornadoes are Due to Unusually Cold Weather”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Mac says:

    Thanks Roy, nice to have the facts.

    • E. Swanson says:

      Yeah, nice to have the facts. Too bad that Dr. Spencer forgot to take note of the massive warmup over Alaska seen in his second graphic. The large scale circulation demands that cold air masses must return south as warm air flows toward the south. Could all that cold air he notes in his first graphic be the result of the return flow from the northward warm air which set records in Alaska?

      Inquiring minds want the truth and the whole truth, not just some cherry picked portion to fit into one’s agenda and that’s important for both sides of the discussion…

      • CoRev says:

        E. Swanson, I’m not sure what your point was. I am positive the Dr. Spencer was more than aware of that high pressure system, and I am absolutely positive he knows what it effects.

        So what were you trying to say/imply?

        • E. Swanson says:

          CoRev, The point was that Dr. Spencer pointed to the area of persistent colder average temperatures (not a “high pressure system”) in the US Mid-West without also pointing to the concurrent persistence of warmer than average temperatures over Alaska. That the intense storms tend form along the frontal boundaries between the colder air masses and the warmer air masses to the East is a given, as that is a common occurrence during Spring. If these storm events are in fact unusual and the result of the temperature contrast across the frontal boundaries, the obvious question should be why there’s such a strong contrast and why are the storm tracks locked into a narrow corridor.

          • CoRev says:

            E. Swanson, that’s what I thought. Those temps are caused by that persistent High Pressure system, which causes “…the concurrent persistence of warmer than average temperatures over Alaska. … the colder air masses and the warmer air masses to the East…”, Canada and US.

            https://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/sfc/90fwbg.gif notice the position of the highs.

            I think you probably know the direction of circulation around pressure systems, but are trying to make some arcane point.

          • E. Swanson says:

            CoRev says:

            I think you probably know the direction of circulation around pressure systems, but are trying to make some arcane point.

            Yes, I’ve been led to believe that the “circulation” is the result of the Coriolis Effect, which is the result of momentum as a batch of air moves. No movement implies no circulation. In Winter and Spring seasons, there are large scale movements of air masses in the tropic to pole direction and back. Or, one might focus on the motions of “atmospheric rivers” or “the Jet Stream” to describe various weather patterns. Then too, your link to a weather graph is is just a one day snapshot, not a 5 month average which Dr. Spencer presented.

            Ultimately, the facts are that the Arctic is in thermal deficit while the Tropics are in surplus, meaning that the Arctic emits more energy at TOA than it receives from the Sun, while the Tropics TOA emissions are less that received sunlight, therefore, the atmosphere and oceans transfer the energy between the tropics and the polar regions to balance things out. That warming over Alaska shown in Spencer’s average temperature graph is not the result of Arctic amplification from the snow-sea-ice albedo effect, as there’s little or no sunlight during winter. That warming must be due to changes to avection of energy from lower latitudes.

          • CoRev says:

            E. Swanson, listen to this video: https://youtu.be/ugObc9NW1Lc Pay special attentions to how he describes the effect of the N, Pacific high. I think he calls is the Juneau high.

      • Denny says:

        He has no point. The purpose of the post was to explain why so many tornadoes. That has been explained perfectly.

        • E. Swanson says:

          Denny, The Fujita scale was developed in 1971, so any ranking of earlier tornadoes was done after that date. As the Wiki article notes, the scale is based on damage from the storm, with wind speed inferred from that. The ranking is also subject to changes in construction techniques, which have changed considerably since 1971. Much of the direct damage to a structure is the result of the sudden drop in pressure as the low pressure core of the tornado passes over a structure, causing roofs to be lifted from the underlying support and walls to “blow out”. The other measures include wind damage to vegetation, which can also be subjective.

          As the Wiki article notes:

          Furthermore, the original wind speed numbers have since been found to be higher than the actual wind speeds required to incur the damage described at each category. The error manifests itself to an increasing degree as the category increases, especially in the range of F3 through F5. NOAA notes that “… precise wind speed numbers are actually guesses and have never been scientifically verified. Different wind speeds may cause similar-looking damage from place to place—even from building to building. Without a thorough engineering analysis of tornado damage in any event, the actual wind speeds needed to cause that damage are unknown.”

          I think it’s a considerable stretch to claim, as Dr Spencer wrote, that:

          “In other words, the number of most damaging tornadoes has, on average, been cut in half since U.S. statistics started to be compiled….Or, phrased another way, the last half of the 65-year U.S. tornado record had 40% fewer strong to violent tornadoes than the first half.”

          • CoRev says:

            “Or, phrased another way, the last half of the 65-year U.S. tornado record had 40% fewer strong to violent tornadoes than the first half” That last half starts in mid 1986. The scale hasn’t changed.

            You seem to be hanging your comment on changes in the building codes, which is a point well taken, with the exceptions that vegetation hasn’t changed that much, and the mix of building ages in the path of tornadoes needs another level of analysis probably not done except by insurance companies.

            You are also forgetting the technological changes making the level of detection and reporting of tornadoes’ count and severity much, much better since 1971. The count has still gone down in recent history.

            You seem to be denying historical data with: “I think its a considerable stretch to claim, as Dr Spencer wrote,…” which cited that count.

          • Nate says:

            The jury is out on tornadoes it appears.

            What about flooding, which we are also experiencing an awful lot of lately?

            It would be nice if Dr Roy, would analyze flooding next.

            The recent National Climate Assessment https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/7/

            states:

            Key Finding 2
            Heavy precipitation events in most parts of the United States have increased in both intensity and frequency since 1901 (high confidence). There are important regional differences in trends, with the largest increases occurring in the northeastern United States (high confidence). In particular, mesoscale convective systems (organized clusters of thunderstorms)the main mechanism for warm season precipitation in the central part of the United Stateshave increased in occurrence and precipitation amounts since 1979 (medium confidence).

            ‘Key Finding 3
            The frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events are projected to continue to increase over the 21st century (high confidence). Mesoscale convective systems in the central United States are expected to continue to increase in number and intensity in the future (medium confidence). There are, however, important regional and seasonal differences in projected changes in total precipitation: the northern United States, including Alaska, is projected to receive more precipitation in the winter and spring, and parts of the southwestern United States are projected to receive less precipitation in the winter and spring (medium confidence).

          • Nate says:

            FYI costs of natural disasters. ‘Severe storm and flooding’, not counting hurricanes, is highest cost category.

            https://www.sbcri.info/news/2017/feb/chart-impacts-natural-disasters-2016

          • E. Swanson says:

            CoRev wrote:

            You are also forgetting the technological changes making the level of detection and reporting of tornadoes count and severity much, much better since 1971. The count has still gone down in recent history.

            Dr. Spencer’s graph of intense tornadoes may also be presenting an over count of those intense ones during the earlier period. The data before 1971 back to 1950 was produced by reanalysis of events without actual “feet on the ground”, so to speak. If a storm before 1971 was an F2 but judged in reanalysis to be an F3, that would push the beginning of the trend line upwards. In a similar vein, more recent storms which were deemed to be F2 may have been considered an F3 using the reanalysis standards. Then too, the graph stops in 2018, thus we see no influence on the trend from this year’s batch of events, for better or worse.

            And, as one may see in the graph, there is wide year to year variation in the extreme events, which is common for precipitation data. I still think that Dr. Spencer’s strong conclusion glosses over the facts regarding potential errors in the data.

          • CoRev says:

            E. Swanson, now you are into straight personal conjecture versus a scientist’s analysis of the data. I thin we just must agree to disagree.

          • bdgwx says:

            Swanson is not doing personal speculation. The potential for overrating in the earlier period of SPC’s tornado database is well documented.

            https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/WAF910.1

          • CoRev says:

            BGDX, within Dr. Spencer’s article is a reference which says this: “Tornadoes are becoming less frequent and less severe as our planet modestly warms. Yet global warming alarmists focus attention on the few tornadoes that still do occur and say that global warming is causing these increasingly rare tornadoes.”

            The number has been going down while the temps have been going up. The hypothesis is incorrect. Warming does not cause more and more sever tornadoes. Looking at this year it appear the inverse may be true.

          • bdgwx says:

            CoRev, as has already been pointed out in the comments of this blog the hypothesis that tornadoes will become more frequent and/or more intense as the Earth warms is not one that has support in the scientific community. That makes it a strawman argument. So I don’t know who these “alarmist” you and Dr. Spencer are speaking of, but I know it isn’t a broad consortium of scientists. And despite the documented problems with overrating of tornadoes early in the period scientists overwhelming accept that strong to violent tornadoes have been declining. The obvious question is…is the downward trend a manifestation of a warming planet or is it caused by something else?

      • CoRev says:

        E. Swanson, circulation around high pressure systems is clockwise and low pressure systems is counter clockwise. Now picture a large persistent high in the N. Pacific, and picture the circulation bringing warm up and or over Alaska, and then dragging the cold Alaska air down over Canada and the US. That’s one reason you get Alaskan warm records while getting Canadian and US cold records.

        The key here was a PERSISTENT high system. Persistent doesn’t mean constant, but ebbing and flowing in strength and location, even while disappearing and then re-emerging in the same general strength and general area/location.

        ITS WEATHER.

      • E. Swanson says:

        CoRev said:

        …Now picture a large persistent high in the N. Pacific, and picture the circulation bringing warm up and or over Alaska, and then dragging the cold Alaska air down over Canada and the US.

        Picture the fact that a gas (that would be air) can not exert a tension force, only a pressure or shear force. Your rotating “high” can not “drag..cold Alaska air down over Canada and the US”. Gravity provides the pull in winter as the return flow from the warm air pushed toward the pole is cooled and sinks, forming the large mass of cold, dense air.

        Gravity also provides the “pulling force” to move the warm air from the air at higher elevation in the tropics toward the poles. One must understand that the tropical atmosphere is thicker than that over the poles especially during Winter, therefore the slope in the geopotential height at some pressure level in the troposphere is “down hill” from the tropics to the pole.

        Cold season low pressure areas form along the frontal boundaries between air masses because of the clash between the respective clockwise circulation of warm and cold air masses due to the Coriolis Effect. The velocity of the air on one side of the frontal boundary is opposite that on the other side, resulting in cyclonic rotation in a weather system (aka: a storm). Warm season lows are mostly the result of vertical convection, with less impact from frontal boundaries, a prime example being hurricanes.

  2. RW says:

    Something tells me this won’t make the news.

  3. Steve C says:

    Well, that doesn’t fit the narrative.

    • ghalfrunt says:

      So all your talk of fewer tornadoes is proof of global warming.

      Is this what you intended Roy?

      • David Guy-Johnson says:

        If it’s proof, then it’s proof of yet another benefit of global warming. Unless you’re an idiot, then you’ll realise no one disputes that there has been warming since the mid 19th century. So what is your point?

      • Richard M says:

        ghalfrunt,

        I think it is evidence (not proof) that he US (not the globe) has been warmer during the 2nd half of the period shown. This also appears to correspond to the +PDO.

        Note that the brief period of -PDO conditions from 2006-2014 seemed to have a slight uptick in the strong tornadoes.

  4. JDHuffman says:

    “In fact, in terms of departures from normal, so far this year the Northern Plains has been the “coldest place on Earth”, averaging 5-10 deg. F below normal”

    Interesting…

  5. Entropic man says:

    “To claim that global warming is causing more tornadoes is worse than speculative; it is directly opposite to the clear observational evidence.”

    I dont recall any claims by climate scientists that global warming is causing more tornadoes. Is this another denier straw man?

    • JDHuffman says:

      E-man, your “recall” is very selective.

      Often that is related to reality avoidance.

    • Eben says:

      AOC and Leninardo DiCrapio said tornadoes caused by global warming , Everyone heard it.

    • Eben says:

      Did you take lessons from David Appel shyster on how to play dumb , or is it your low entropy showing ???.

      • Entropic man says:

        Eben

        Low entropy implies greater complexity and greater intelligence. Thank you, I’ll take that as a compliment.

        I’m an Englishman living in Ireland. I don’t pay much attention to American politicians and film stars.

        • Eben says:

          Evidently , Low Entropic man is on our side he just doesn’t know it yet.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          entropic…”Low entropy implies greater complexity and greater intelligence. Thank you, Ill take that as a compliment.”

          It actually means less hot air, which in your case, does not seem apt.

      • Apple is not playing dumb.

    • steve case says:

      Here’s what the IPCC said in their Third Assessment Report TAR:

      2.7.3.4 Tornadoes, hail and other severe local weather
      https://web.archive.org/web/20170428135257/http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/092.htm

      Y’all can draw your own conclusions.

      • Svante says:

        Good link, the IPCC concluded:

        Recent analyses of changes in severe local weather (tornadoes, thunder days, lightning and hail) in a few selected regions provide no compelling evidence for widespread systematic long-term changes.

    • Norman says:

      Entropic man

      Here is one article.

      https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/what-s-fueling-spate-recent-tornadoes-across-u-s-ncna1011036

      From the article: “Climate change is causing ocean temperatures and global surface temperatures to increase, which in turn drives atmospheric instability when warm, moist air moves across the middle of the country, according to Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.

      All of this provides more fuel for thunderstorms and sets the stage for tornadoes to develop, Trenberth said.”

      Dr. Spencer is correct it is the difference in temperature and not warming that produce the severe weather. If Global Temperatures were a few degrees cooler you would still get lots of severe weather as long as the gradient between hot and cold regions is large. There is always plenty of warm moist air in the Gulf of Mexico regardless of how cold the Northern regions are.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…”according to Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.”

        Trenberth?? …Trenberth??? Oh, yes, he’s the guy who claimed in the Climategate email scandal that global warming has stopped and it was a travesty that no one knew why.

        Then, when his private email claiming that was revealed, he denied it, then concocted the story about the missing heat being in the oceans.

        Of course, the gullible, like you, swallowed it.

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        Your dishonest nature no longer surprises me. If you need to find something to distort you will.

        I was NOT supporting Trenberth position with my post, in fact I stated the opposite.

        I was showing Entropic man where climate scientists were linking tornado count to climate change.

        • JDHuffman says:

          Norman, Gordon did not say you were supporting Trenberth. You’re misrepresenting, again.

          But, maybe your guilt frustrates you?

      • One thing I noticed in the above linked article:
        “Scientists have found that since the 1950s, the annual number of tornado outbreaks has remained roughly the same, but the number of tornadoes per outbreak or the number of days with multiple tornadoes is increasing.”

        I suspect this is due to increased detection of F0/EF0 tornadoes, and increased discernment of F0/EF0 tornadoes as separate members of tornado “families” as opposed to a greater tornado with peak strength above F0/EF0 previously having been attributed (longer ago) to have previously/afterwards touched-down (or stayed on the ground) with F0/EF0 strength. I suspect that this increased detection of F0/EF0 tornadoes and increased discernment of some F0/EF0 tornadoes as separate ones increased “official” the tornado count per outbreak, and that this outweighed increased detection/discernment of separate F0/EF0 tornadoes causing more multitornado events to qualify as outbreaks. Meanwhile, storm systems in the continental US are moving slightly slower at any given time of year than before because the Arctic has been and is still warming more than the tropics, so these storm systems can stick around a few percent longer and rack up some more tornadoes each, but fewer large storm systems are doing this per week or month (at any given time of year) than would be the case with a colder Arctic and faster winds in the troposphere around/above the 700-millibar level.

        • Something else: I suspect that the definition of a tornado outbreak, at least as applied in practice, has changed. The storm system that caused the famous great outbreak of early April 1974 has its tornadoes classified into two separate outbreaks in short periods of time less than 24 hours, and one tornado from that storm system being classified as not in either of the two outbreaks. The great outbreak of April 2011 is considered to cover more than 24 hours and all of the tornadoes caused by that storm system, as of the most recent time I went to Wikipedia to compare the 1974 and 2011 events to each other and look at Wikipedia’s article on “tornado outbreak”.

    • An Inquirer says:

      January 15, 2015 issue of the journal Climatic Change. Victor Gensini was the lead author. The media picked up on the article as evidence that humans are causing more and worse tornadoes.

    • Richard M says:

      Entropic Man,

      You must not get out much.

      https://news.yahoo.com/floods-tornadoes-snow-may-severe-214859125.html

      “Climate scientists say this is only the beginning of what will be decades of increasingly dangerous and damaging extreme weather and theres no question that much of its being driven by global warming.

      The scientific data is too clear and too overwhelming to come to any other conclusion, said Richard Rood, a meteorologist and professor of climate research at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.”

      • Greenhouse gas warming should cause the cold, dry poles to warm considerably more than the warm, humid tropics.

        That has not happened in Antarctica.

        However, is has happened in the Arctic.

        The weather depends mainly on temperature DIFFERENTIALS between the Arctic and the tropics.

        The temperature differential has declined in the Northern Hemisphere, a possible explanation for the long term decline of strong tornadoes and strong hurricanes hitting the US 48 contiguous states.
        https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/04/greenhouse-gas-warming-causes-milder.html
        .
        .
        — The US, for the first time on record, had no EF-4 or EF-5 tornadoes recorded in 2018.
        .
        .
        — The Global Accumulated Cyclone Index (ACE) shows no rise in the either the number,
        or power, of tropical cyclones in the world. ( cyclones are called hurricanes in the US. )
        .
        .
        The long-term trend in the number, and intensity, of global hurricane activity, has remained flat.

        This is true despite much better open ocean detection of hurricanes, than before the 1960s, when many short-lived storms at sea would have been missed.

        .
        .
        — Did you realize the US had a long term decline of landfalling hurricanes:
        https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/04/us-landfalling-hurricanes-in-downtrend.html
        .
        .
        — After the very active 2005 US hurricane season, and before two major storms hit the US in 2017, we had 4,324 days ( almost 12 years ) without a major hurricane landfall, exceeding the prior record 8-year lull, back in the 1860s.
        .
        .
        — Hurricanes hitting Florida have been in a steep long term decline:
        https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2018/10/us-hurricanes-hitting-florida-in-long.html
        .
        .
        — Strong US tornadoes have had a decline in frequency since the 1950s.

        Tornado detection has improved with the addition of NEXRAD, the growth of the trained spotter networks, storm chasers armed with cellular data ( the proliferation of cell phone cameras and social media ). This shows up most in the weak EF0 tornado count, but for storms from moderate EF1 to strong EF 3+ intensity, the trend slope has been flat, to down, despite improved detection.
        .
        .
        — Most heat waves in the US happened in the 1930s.
        https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/05/us-epa-heat-wave-index-in-steep-decline.html
        .
        .
        — Thirty-eight US states set their all-time record high temperatures before 1960 ( 23 states in the 1930s ! ).
        .
        .
        — Since 1995, only one US state had a heat record, while six had cold temperature records:
        https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/04/us-state-temperature-records-only-1.html
        .
        .
        — The number of US 100 degrees F., 95F, and 90F days per year, have all been in a declining trend, since the 1930s.
        .
        .
        — James Hansen, while working at NASA in 1999, said this about the U.S. temperature record: In the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934.
        .
        .
        — All the continents on our planet recorded their all-time record high temperatures before 1980.
        https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/04/continent-heat-records.html
        .
        .
        .
        Did global warming cause the milder weather I’ve described above ?

        Well, maybe … the smaller temperature differential between the Arctic and the tropics would be a possible, logical explanation.

  6. Entropic man says:

    This is NOAA’s current position.

    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/noaas-csi-team-investigates-tornado-outbreak

    “Even before the April 2011 outbreak, scientists have been looking for long-term changes in U.S. tornado activity. The research that’s already been done paints an inconclusive picture. The number of smaller tornadoes seems to have increased; the number of large tornadoes has not. Between better technology-radars, satellites, the internet-and greater public awareness, it’s likely that the increase is due to more reports, not more tornadoes.”

  7. Entropic man says:

    The consensus position is that we dont have enough information to say whether tornadoes have changed in intensity or frequency.

    One possibility is that they are clumping. You dont see an increase in overall total, but they tend more to come in groups.

    https://www.nj.com/weather/2016/12/biggest_tornado_outbreaks_are_getting_worse_study.html

    Another possibility is that Tornado Alley is relocating. If New Jersey is getting more tornado damage, is it because tornados are forming further North?

    It would be interesting to plot a frequency distribution of tornado frequency against latitude and compare the 20 year periods before and after the year 2000.

  8. ghalfrunt says:

    well done Roy.
    You have proved AGW as being evident.

    • Entropic man says:

      Ghalfrunt

      Right enough.

      Global warming is warming the Arctic faster than lower latitudes. This reduces the North-South temperature gradient across the US.

      This in turn reduces the intensity of thunderstorms in Tornado Alley, reducing the number of tornadoes.

      Thus global warming should produce fewer tornadoes.

      We see fewer tornadoes therefore global warming is happening.

      QED

      • John E Ford says:

        Then I’m sure you would be the first to admit this is a positive consequence of warming, no?

      • Ed Bo says:

        EM:

        If the AGW camp were a real scientific group, they would indeed be using the decrease in the frequency of (at least severe) tornadoes as evidence that they are correct.

        But that would undermine the fear factor they so obviously seek.

        This is one of the factors that has convinced me that the AGW team is really a political movement at heart.

      • JDHuffman says:

        E-man and Ed Bo (paraphrased, of course): “AGW is happening”.

        Realists: “There is no science, or observations, to support such nonsense.

        E-man and Ed Bo: See, their denial proves it’s happening.

        The comedy continues….

      • bdgwx says:

        However, convective available potential energy (CAPE) may increase. But, yeah, in terms of strong to violent tornadoes storm relative helicity (SRH) is probably more important than CAPE. And it is completely reasonable to believe that SRH will decrease as latitudinal temperatures homogenize. What this could mean, and I believe there is scientific literature to back it up even if it is still tenuous, is that the frequency of stronger tornadoes may continue to decline, but the frequency of hailstorms may increase.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gall…”well done Roy.
      You have proved AGW as being evident.”

      Not really. Roy has always taken a measured approach to the cause of global warming. He has conceded it likely that CO2 is producing an unknown amount of warming but he’s not concerned about it because he doesn’t think it will become catastrophic.

      Roy is obviously a lot smarter and better informed than you.

      • bdgwx says:

        If the warming by CO2 cannot be quantified then how can its effect be quantified? In other words, what justification can be invoked to make a statement that it will not be catastrophic? Also, what does “catastrophic” even mean?

    • Richard M says:

      ghalfrut,

      Where did the “A” come from. Oh yeah, and where did the “G” come from. Nothing Roy showed is global nor does it tie in at all to human emissions.

      I think what you have shown is you are in denial of reality.

  9. Dan Pangburn says:

    As though more evidence that CO2 has no significant effect on climate was needed . . .

    Seven compelling demonstrations that CO2 has little if any effect on climate are listed in http://diyclimateanalysis.blogspot.com . Also included is the apparent reason why CO2, in spite of being a ghg, has no significant effect on temperature. The match between measured average global temperature and calculated (sans CO2) is 98+% 1895-2018.

    The world has been lied to by politicians who seek to control its inhabitants. The irony is that CO2 has no significant effect on warming and has increased crop yield by about 15% or more but the planet is still impoverished for CO2. About 70% of planet warming since 1909 has been from water vapor increase which is accurately measured worldwide via satellite. WV increase correlates with irrigation increase. Warming from the added WV will at least prevent cooling because of the quiet sun.

    • JDHuffman says:

      Dan, when you advertise your blog, don’t forget to mention that you got the Moon issue wrong, along with the “plates” nonsense.

      It’s kinda like you don’t have a clue about the relevant physics, huh?

    • Craig T says:

      “About 70% of planet warming since 1909 has been from water vapor increase which is accurately measured worldwide via satellite. … WV increase correlates with irrigation increase.”

      If that were true the increase in water vapor would only be over irrigated land. The increase in water vapor is global and a predicted feedback of warming.

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        Craig,
        ,, increase in water vapor would only be over irrigated land,, except for wind besides, irrigation is wide spread. Anyway, that is offered as an explanation for the correlation. The measured fact that is used is that TPW has been increasing.

        The TPW increase has been about twice that calculated from temperature increase of the liquid water.

        • Craig T says:

          “The TPW increase has been about twice that calculated from temperature increase of the liquid water.”

          Can you link to those calculations?

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            CT,
            Temperature is UAH trend. Calculated TPW increase uses std vapor pressure vs temperature for water. Measured WV is NASA/RSS trend. The calcs are at Section 8 in http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

          • Craig T says:

            From the link:
            “Planet warming increases the vapor pressure of water (Figure 1.7) contributing to the water vapor increase. At present water vapor appears to be increasing about twice as fast as expected based on AGT increase alone. Global temperature increase since 2002 from the UAH trend is about 0.127 K per decade (this automatically includes feedback effect). At 24 C, (75.2 F) increase in vapor pressure of liquid water is 6.058% per degree (Figure 1.7). Percent increase in water vapor due to temperature increase = 0.127 * 6.058% = 0.769%. Measured % increase from Total Precipitable Water (TPW) in 28 yr = (29.5-28.25)/28.875 = 0.043 = 4.3%. In 10 yr = 10/28*4.3 = 1.54%. Thus measured increase in WV is about 1.54/0.769 = 2+ times that for liquid water temperature increase alone.”

            So the temperature is going up twice what would be caused just by the water vapor and twice what would be expected by AGT alone. Richard Green pointed out what the IPCC said in their report:

            “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together (Figure 1.9).”

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            CT,
            Not only does your comment not say what the calculations say your comment makes no sense at all.

            Apparently it did not help for you to see the calcs.

    • Stephen P Anderson says:

      Pretty compelling.

  10. bdgwx says:

    I have not seen that the scientific community in general believes that global warming has caused or will cause tornadoes to be worse. Based on what I’ve read in the literature there seems to be little if any consensus on this topic yet. If there is a consensus it is tenuous at best and seems to be focused on the fact that discriminating tornado ingredients (colocation of CAPE and SRH) may happen earlier in the calendar. But in regards to frequency and intensity I haven’t seen a lot of evidence either way.

    One obvious question one could ask is how much of the downward trend in strong to violent tornadoes, which seems to be almost universally accepted in the scientific community, is related to global warming?

  11. Very shortly this website will be famous among all blogging and site-building users, due to it’s
    pleasant articles or reviews

  12. Entropic man says:

    I’m enjoying this.

    The climate change deniers are being forced into a choice between two unpleasant alternatives.

    1) Their favourite scientist is correct. Tornado frequency is decreasing, showing that the climate is changing.

    2) Their favourite scientist is wrong. Tornado frequency is not changing, showing that the climate is not changing.

    Meanwhile those representing the climate change consensus remain relatively neutral.

    • JDHuffman says:

      E-man, what you are “enjoying” is spinning, twisting, distorting, and perverting reality.

      No one is being forced into such choices.

      And, a “skeptic” is not a “climate change denier”. That’s just more of your desperate effort to avoid reality.

      By the way, your spelling of “favourite” is approaching archaic. The “consensus” is “favorite”:

      https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=favorite%2Cfavourite&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=5&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cfavorite%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cfavourite%3B%2Cc0

      Try to keep up….

      • Craig T says:

        “And, a ‘skeptic’ is not a ‘climate change denier’.”

        True, but a “skeptic” should be equally skeptical of all studies, not just ones that show the climate warming.

        “By the way, your spelling of ‘favourite’ is approaching archaic. The ‘consensus’ is ‘favorite’:”

        Only on this side of the Atlantic. I think Mike will back me up on that.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          CT,

          You wrote –

          “True, but a skeptic” should be equally skeptical of all studies, not just ones that show the climate warming.”

          So you say. On the other hand, “studies” is a weasel word as far as I am concerned. I am skeptical about assertions made by pseudoscientific climate cultists, which seem to be made without involving anything remotely resembling the scientific method.

          If some climate cultist claims that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, I am skeptical. I don’t believe it. I am unconvinced, without some experimental support.

          On the other hand, if somebody says the opposite, why should I be skeptical? There is experimental support for their view, and that is good enough for me.

          You are just being silly, if you believe that telling others what they should think is likely to bend them to your will.

          Cheers.

        • Carbon500 says:

          Yes, the spelling is ‘favourite’ over here in the UK.
          That’s just one example of American vs. traditional English for you!

    • Richard M says:

      Entropic man,

      No problem for me. 1) is true.

      No skeptic I know has ever claimed the climate does not change. In this case the change is most likely a cyclic one based on the PDO/AMO.

      Why is it you climate cultists like you continue to lie?

    • Carbon500 says:

      The tornado season is a part of annual weather events in the USA, and is quite normal – i.e. it’s all part of the USA’s usual climate patterns.
      Why is an increase or decrease in the number of tornadoes deemed to be ‘climate change’?

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Em,

      You seem to be enjoying a delusion. Good for you.

      You cannot actually name or even describe a “climate change denier”, can you?

      As to the term “favourite scientist”, how have you come to that conclusion? I know climate cultists tend to abhor the scientific method in favour of the cult of personality and consensus. Science is properly based on experiment, not favouritism.

      Appeals to emotion are not science, just silliness. Carry on.

      Cheers.

  13. steve case says:

    Svante says:
    May 29, 2019 at 10:50 PM

    Thanks for the comment.

    A news search on Google for “Extreme Weather” finds this headline first one out of the box:

    Extreme weather has made half of America look like Tornado Alley>/B>
    Climate change may be confounding the jet stream and making trouble for everyone.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2019/05/29/extreme-weather-has-made-half-america-look-like-tornado-alley/?utm_term=.e3edef07a827

    So it really doesn’t matter that the IPCC has never said that “Climate Change” will produce more tornadoes. That’s not what the general public is being told.

    A survey of 1250 people on the street asking, “Do you know what the IPCC is?” probably wouldn’t get very many positive responses.

    A survey of 1250 people on the street asking, “Do you know what the The Washington Post is?” probably wouldn’t get very many negative responses.

    • Craig T says:

      From the link:

      “The immediate driver of the violent weather is the jet stream, the powerful winds at high altitudes that sweep west to east across North America….’The jet stream is the thing that creates and steers individual storms and also sets up large-scale patterns. What we’re seeing now thats so unusual is that the large-scale pattern, all the way from the middle of the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic is stuck,’ said Jennifer Francis, senior scientist at the Woods Hole Research Center.

      Francis believes there’s a climate change signal in the extreme weather, including the tornadoes. Extreme warmth in and around Alaska, along with the reduction of Arctic sea ice, affects the flow of the jet stream, she said. A blob of warm air, and high atmospheric pressure, near Alaska has been fingered by many meteorologists as a flashing red light that something is very different about climate these days.”

      • Richard M says:

        Craig T,

        This data appears to contradict Francis. The tornado count started going down long before the sea ice losses (1980s) and there was a brief increase in the 2000s while the sea ice was low.

        A correlation with the PDO is the most obvious.

        • Craig T says:

          Francis doesn’t directly connect climate change to increased tornadoes. She blames it for the shift in the jet stream.

          • Richard M says:

            Francis work has previously tried to tie jet stream changes to sea ice losses in the Arctic which is claimed to be a result of climate change. That is the “climate change signal” that is mentioned.

            The “including the tornadoes” part of your quote seems to contradict your claim.

          • Norman says:

            Craig T

            Francis hypothesis is not supported by many meteorologists and some question it.

            Here is one on Winter Blocking patterns.

            https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/blocking-atlantic.html

            Look at the graph of numbers of blocks. There may be longer cycles than the 30 year climate view. I think there are factors still to learn and I do not think Francis is on the right track. Before her theory, on the Internet, you could find articles that stated exactly opposite her hypothesis. A lower gradient (summer jet) moved slower than winter jet but it meandered a lot less (less wavy not more). Now she says the jet stream gets more wavy as it slows. Opposite of what was stated before her idea.

            Alaska warm March was caused by a blocking pattern and it has happened before historically (like 1981). Blocks make one area much warmer than normal and another on the other side of the block much colder (like the Russian heat wave a few years back).

            http://akclimate.org/sites/Default/Files/201903_March_summary.pdf

          • Svante says:

            There was no link to the science, I expect newspapers would put a spin on those tornadoes.

            I think she is right about stalled weather systems though.

          • Norman says:

            Svante

            I am not sold on Francis hypothesis. It still seems to be opposite of observational evidence.

            Here:
            https://oxfordre.com/climatescience/abstract/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-611#acrefore-9780190228620-e-611-div1-7

            From the article: “Atmospheric blocking has the tendency to occur more often in winter and in certain longitudinal quadrants, notably the Euro-Atlantic and the Pacific sectors of the Northern Hemisphere.”

            Winter is when the Jetstream is fastest and the temperature gradient is largest. I have been looking for graphs on trends of blocking patterns to see if there is any evidence that blocking patterns have been increasing with a slowing jetstream.

          • Norman says:

            Svante

            Here is another article:

            https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013GL058745

            From the article: “These conclusions support those of Barnes [2013], namely, that the link between recent Arctic warming and increased Northern Hemisphere blocking is currently not supported by observations. While Arctic sea ice experienced unprecedented losses in recent years, blocking frequencies in these years do not appear exceptional, falling well within their historically observed range.”

          • Svante says:

            It’s just a hypothesis but I’m sold on it because of last summer. It was unprecedented for me, so that’s not very scientific.

            I will read your links later, but I think this phenomenon is new so the temperature record can not inform us. It could be over a decade until it happens again.

          • Svante says:

            OK, robust trends in a few regions only.

  14. Gerry Dail says:

    Lower entropy does not imply higher complexity. Ice has a lower entropy than liquid water, yet ice has less complexity than liquid water. The two may at times be correlated, but the two are not functions, one of the other.

  15. Ken N says:

    So when AOC makes inaccurate climate change claimm Roy feels compelled to post. But when the POTUS call it a hoax its..

    • Richard M says:

      The POTUS typical uses the word “hoax” to mean what is more commonly called a scam. It is looking more and more like he is right.

    • (the coming) “Climate Change” (catastrophe) is a hoax.

      But Trump “poisoned the word “hoax”.

      When President Trump started using the word “hoax”, which was correct in general, but tied the hoax to the Chinese, which made no sense, I had to stop using “hoax”, and now I use the even more accurate term: “science fraud”

      The climate change science fraud consists of:

      — Apparently, no claims can ever be falsified.

      — All PAST experience with global warming, for hundreds of years, was 100% good news, but all claims of FUTURE global warming are 100% bad news. Bad news has been predicted since the late 1950s, but the bad news never shows up.

      — False claims of being able to predict the future climate, as if wild guess, always wrong, predictions of the future climate are real science.

      — The water vapor positive feedback theory, completely absent from temperature observations since 1940 … and just plain silly, when you consider that CO2 levels were higher than today for most of the history of our planet — so, with a positive water vapor feedback, none of us would be alive today, to discuss the climate change science fraud.

      — Computer climate games that predict more than double, to quadruple, the global warming that actually happened in the past, as CO2 levels increased (excluding the Russian model that seems accurate, but is obviously colluding with Trump). “Double” is based on UAH satellite temperature observations since 1979, and “Quadruple” is based on observations since 1940.

      — The meaningless IPCC “95%” confidence level claim, pulled out of a hat, or two feet lower.

      — The +/- 0/1 degree C. margin of error claim for the surface global average temperature compilation, also pulled out of a hat, or two feet lower.

      — The claim of a future response to CO2 based on a roughly a +3 degree C. TCS for the average non-Russian climate model (possibly harmful) … after ACTUAL experience with rising CO2, where a worst case estimate from 1979 through 2018, is only a +1 degree C. TCS (harmless) — and that’s assuming ALL the warming since 1979 was caused by CO2, when, in fact, no one knows if ANY of the warming since 1979 was caused by CO2 — that’s just an assumption, not a fact.

      — If you consider the “age of man made CO2” as starting in 1940, the warming trend since then (cause unknown) was less than +0.8 degrees C. per CENTURY = certainly a harmless rate warming.

      — The claim that after 4.5 billion years of natural climate change, suddenly natural climate change became unimportant “noise”, and humans suddenly became responsible for climate change in 1940, or in 1975 (you pick a year), with no explanation of how or why that would have happened.

      — False claims that anything bad has happened from the past 300+ years of global warming since the 1690s — +3 degree C. warming in central England, since the coldest year of the 1690’s, during the Maunder Minimum.

      — False claims that CO2 levels ‘control’ the global average temperature, with no scientific proof of that.

      The IPCC wild guessed that man made CO2 accounted for “over half” the measured warming “after 1950”, which is as little as a few tenths of a degree C. … yet some climate alarmists seem to think CO2 caused ALL the warming since 1880 (+1 degree C. estimate)
      .
      .
      — Climate alarmism is mainly supported by leftists, who repeatedly prove they can not be trusted — consider their complete fabrication of the Trump Russian Collusion Delusion for almost three years — and I predict most Democrats will NEVER change their minds, despite no evidence after four investigations so far — two investigations by very hostile Democrats (The Obama FBI, for at least nine months, and Mueller’s Team of 18 angry Democrats, for 22 months)

      • Richard Greene says:

        The +/- 0/1 degree C. margin of error claim in my long comment should have been typed as
        +/- 0.1 degrees C.

        • myki says:

          Thanks for the correction RG but it should have read:
          Every claim in my long comment should have been typed as
          “complete and utter bovine excrement”

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Begone troll!

          • Carbon500 says:

            So which part of RG’s comments do you disagree with and why, myki? He’s taken the trouble to set out his views at length, and the onus is on you to give your reasons why you disagree. Juvenile remarks belong in the school classroom.

          • Craig T says:

            It’s hard to know where to begin but…

            “All PAST experience with global warming, for hundreds of years, was 100% good news, but all claims of FUTURE global warming are 100% bad news.”

            I wouldn’t consider the Permian extinction “100% good news”.

          • Svante says:

            It’s just another Gish gallop.
            The best I can say is that some of it is not even wrong.

            Starting from the bottom, Robert Mueller is Republican.
            Regarding the FBI, it’s just standard Russian messaging to undermine faith in American institutions.

          • Craig T says:

            “It’s just another Gish gallop.”

            The Creationists and Skeptics have so much in common.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Their pseudoscience is failing then, so Svante and Craig attempt the insults.

            But, that action will also fail.

            Nothing new.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            The Creationists and Skeptics have so much in common.

            I still see you’re believing in them dinosaurs with feathers.

          • myki
            I have read your May 30 12:33pm comment, and shared it with others having a science background. After much debate, we think your comment should be nominated for a Nobel Prize. Of course we were assuming there was a Village Id-iots Division.

          • Craig T says:

            “I still see you’re believing in them dinosaurs with feathers.”

            No, the second law of thermodynamics makes that impossible.

            I think the “consensus” scientists massage the data to make it look like dinosaurs had feathers. It’s the only way they can get grants from the government that wants to use the discredited feathered dinosaur theory to increase control and taxes.

          • Craig T says:

            “The IPCC did say ‘It is extremely likely’ concerning their wild guess that over half the surface temperature rise after 1950 was man made.
            They even declared a ‘confidence percentage’, which is now 95%.
            However, a confidence percentage is meaningless non-science in the context of a wild guess about what caused the warming after 1950 !”

            Instead of a wild guess, AR5 compared 3 sets of surface temperature anomalies to CMIP5 models run with both anthropogenic and natural forcings (a), natural forcings only (b) and greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing only (c). The combined forcings is a good match. The observed compared to greenhouse gas forcings overshot the actual temperature as much as the natural forcings was under the observed temperature. Error bars show better than a 90% chance that the result wasnt a false positive so the IPCC said it was very likely. Extremely likely is reserved for results 95% or better.
            https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            No, the second law of thermodynamics makes that impossible.

            I think the consensus scientists massage the data to make it look like dinosaurs had feathers. Its the only way they can get grants from the government that wants to use the discredited feathered dinosaur theory to increase control and taxes.

            No, just anything to promote their religion-Darwinism.

          • Svante says:

            Stephen P Anderson says:

            “No, just anything to promote their religion-Darwinism.”

            And thanks to that we know how it works at the molecular level. Real time DNA transcription:
            https://tinyurl.com/y38wmlh2

          • Craig T says:

            “No, just anything to promote their religion-Darwinism.”

            That’s what I forgot – calling the consensus science a religion. Is Darwino-Warmism Vaxxing one or three religions?

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Thats what I forgot calling the consensus science a religion. Is Darwino-Warmism Vaxxing one or three religions?

            Just one.

          • Svante says:

            I confess, I trust in all three.

        • Carbon500 says:

          Still no sensible comment from the dissenters as to why Richard Greene is wrong. No alternative figures, no studies referred to – nothing remotely scientific – and no courtesy either.
          No surprise.

          • Svante says:

            Wikipedia says:

            During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate.[3][4] In practice, each point raised by the “Gish galloper” takes considerably more time to refute or fact-check than it did to state in the first place.

            Richard Greene says:

            The IPCC wild guessed that man made CO2 accounted for “over half” the measured warming “after 1950”, which is as little as a few tenths of a degree C. yet some climate alarmists seem to think CO2 caused ALL the warming since 1880 (+1 degree C. estimate)

            That’s a misrepresentation. Full quote:

            It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together (Figure 1.9). The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.

            the observed warming of approximately 0.6C to 0.7C over this period.

            Reality check. We were in a long term decline for 8000 years. Previous ice ages have continued down. Not only did we break the decline, but went up at an unprecedented rate:
            https://tinyurl.com/y42asq3x

            What is the likelihood that a natural variation like this would coincide with the industrial revolution?

            Best guess for the human contribution to the warming is more than all of it.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Svante, you don’t have .04% of the credibility to even know what reality is.

            You are obsessed with pseudoscience, but know nothing about the relevant physics. You believe a racehorse rotates on its axis!

            Nothing new.

          • Reply to Svante:

            The IPCC did say “It is extremely likely ” concerning their wild guess that over half the surface temperature rise after 1950 was man made.

            They even declared a “confidence percentage”, which is now 95%.

            However, a confidence percentage is meaningless non-science in the context of a wild guess about what caused the warming after 1950 !

            There is no science behind the current 95% confidence claim.

            95% is a meaningless popularity “vote”, based on a subjective feeling — fine for junk science, but meaningless in real science !

            The IPCC states it is extremely likely that human emissions have been the dominant cause of global warming since the mid-20th century, which I take to be since 1950.

            They now claim that extremely means 95% certain.

            But he number “95” was simply plucked from the air like magic, or from a hat, or from two feet lower !

            And likely is not a scientific word.

            “Likely” is a judgment, a fancy word for an opinion.

            I have 102% confidence that this comment is correct, Svante.

            And 102% is better than 95%.

          • Svante says:

            No objection to the Holocene record, good.
            How plausible is it for such an unprecedented upturn to coincide with industrial revolution but have natural causes?

          • JDHuffman says:

            No objection to your lack of credibility, good.

            How plausible is it that you could ever get anything right when you are obsessed with pseudoscience, and abhor reality?

          • CoRev says:

            Svante, did you notice the note in the lower right corner of your chart? Do you understand it negates almost all of the late rise? IIRC the averaging period for the overall graph was 30-50 years so that the peaks and valleys are considerably flattened. The end of this graph displays the entirety of the data in the last averaging period instead of showing it as just another averaged point.

            Compounding that visualization error it then appends the models’ output again as live data instead of averaged outputs without consideration of the accepted errors in the models projections. Even these are averages of between 1-4C.

            I actually prefer the Alley graphs https://climatechange.umaine.edu/gisp2/data/obrien.html
            to clarify the high and low temperature periods.

          • Svante says:

            CoRev says:

            Svante, did you notice the note in the lower right corner of your chart? Do you understand it negates almost all of the late rise?

            The Marcott ‘uptick’ is not robust because his proxy data gets sparse in the industrial era, that’s why it’s deleted.
            It’s not needed because it is covered by the instrumental record. There are other proxy studies this period.

            I’m not saying the record is perfect, it’s just the most comprehensive information we have. Compare it to PAGES2K if you like.

            IIRC the averaging period for the overall graph was 30-50 years so that the peaks and valleys are considerably flattened.

            The resolution is less than what you say, but how could an excursion like this go undetected? The accompanying CO2 excursion would certainly be found.

            The end of this graph displays the entirety of the data in the last averaging period instead of showing it as just another averaged point. Compounding that visualization error it then appends the models’ output again as live data instead of averaged outputs without consideration of the accepted errors in the models projections. Even these are averages of between 1-4C.

            Yes, you could soften the visualization, and the future has not happened yet.
            The current warming is still vertical in the greater scheme of things.

            I actually prefer the Alley graphs https://climatechange.umaine.edu/gisp2/data/obrien.html
            to clarify the high and low temperature periods.

            I don’t mind GISP2, but it’s just one spot, subject to local climate.

          • Svante says:

            Note for Richard Greene, Richard Alley is Republican:
            https://tinyurl.com/y2jezd25

          • Mike Flynn says:

            S,

            You wrote –

            “Note for Richard Greene, Richard Alley is Republican:”

            And somebody cares because . . .? Cryptic, indeed.

            Cheers.

      • Nate says:

        Richard G,

        If you want readers to take your science claims seriously, should you:

        Put your scientific claims together with extremist political conspiracy-theory claims, in the the SAME POST! ??

        Mix in a few strawmen for good measure. “Apparently, no claims can ever be falsified.”, “All PAST experience with global warming, for hundreds of years, was 100% good news, but all claims of FUTURE global warming are 100% bad news.” ??

        Throw in some HIGHLY cherry-picked stats: “+3 degree C. warming in central England, since the coldest year of the 1690s” ??

        Hmmm, I wonder…

        • Nate:

          Central England provides the only real time temperature measurements for the late 1600s,
          that’s why they were used.

          I prefer real time measurements to climate proxy reconstruction estimates.

          The central England region had +2 to +3 degrees C. warming after the 1690s, and there is no anecdotal evidence that people living there were disappointed by the warming, in contrast to a lot of anecdotal evidence that they hated the cold weather of the 1690s.
          .
          .
          If YOU know of any damage to people from the past 300 years of mild global warming, please provide us with a list of specifics.
          .
          .

          If you know of any coming climate change crisis claim that has been falsified, please provide us with a list.

          The basic formula (wild guess) supported by the IPCC today is exactly the same as it was in the 1970’s — the +3 degree C. ECS, which is approximately equal to the predictions of the average climate model, excluding the seemingly accurate Russian model INMCM4.

          Climate models average a prediction of a future warming claimed to be 2x to 4x larger than the actual global warming rate in the past, since 1975 (2x) or since 1940 (4x)) — yet the 1970’s formula in the 1979 Charney Report IS NEVER CHANGED — still used today = no scary climate prediction has ever been falsified by temperature observations == a sure sign of JUNK SCIENCE (which you love).

          • Nate says:

            ‘http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=7603’

            The only 3 degree increase I see in the CET record is from a single year downward spike in 1690s to a single-year upward spike in 2015.

            And of course this is one location.

            Theres going to be a new reality show on the History Channel, Extreme Cherry Pickers.

            You ought to try out for it.

            As far 100% of warming being good, talk to people in the sub-Tropics about Heat Waves and Droughts, and the number of fatalities that result from these.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            N,

            Here’s what a GHE true believer (Svante Arrhenius) wrote –

            “By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.”

            He was wrong about the GHE, and it seems that you think he was wrong about the benefits of warming.

            Maybe he should be known as “Erroneous Arrhenius”, do you think?

            Cheers.

          • Nate says:

            “especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth”

            Europeans being Eurocentric 120 years ago?? Shocking.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            N,

            You wrote –

            “Europeans being Eurocentric 120 years ago?? Shocking.”

            Why do you find it shocking?

            What has your comment to do with Erroneous Arrhenius? Surely you would support Antarctica returning to its previous ice-free and fertile condition. Or maybe not – what do you think?

            Cheers.

    • JDHuffman says:

      Wow, that’s quite a trove of pseudoscience, Steve! A perfect example of the media’s role in promoting the ongoing hoax. Everyone needs to see such nonsense.

      Thanks for sharing.

      • Carbon500 says:

        From the link we have ‘Scientists say this is misleading because the climate models show the largest effects of global warming hitting after 2040 unless carbon emissions are decreased.’
        Yeah, right…..the models show it, so it must be right. Welcome to the new science!

  16. bdgwx says:

    Also relevant to this blog is that the spatial distribution of tornadoes in the US is shifting east.

    https://tinyurl.com/y6xcja4m

    https://tinyurl.com/y2o67rta

  17. Mike Flynn says:

    To anyone thinking they can forecast the future (for better or worse) –

    Some people deny “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future [climate] states is not possible.”, as stated by the IPCC.

    Some people deny that when Lorenz presented his paper ” Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterflys Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas?”, he was talking literally.

    Some people deny the existence of the uncertainty principle, which states it is impossible to simultaneously determine the position and momentum of a particle.

    Some people deny that even using classical physics, accurately predicting the future state of the atmosphere is impossible.

    Some people deny that the Earth has actually cooled over the last four and a half billion years, and the surface does so every night.

    Some people deny that nobody has ever managed to usefully describe the so-called greenhouse effect.

    Nature doesn’t care what the deniers say or think. Nor do I.

    Cheers.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Mike…”Some people deny The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future [climate] states is not possible., as stated by the IPCC”.

      After making that statement in TAR, the IPCC went on to pose fabricated scenarios based on probabilities related to climate models. At first they called the probabilities predictions but had to withdraw the word after expert reviewer Vincent Gray pointed out that unvalidated models could predict nothing. So the IPCC changed prediction to projection.

      That’s all the IPCC has ever claimed. It was the media, unscrupulous politicians, and other alarmists who spread the propaganda about catastrophic warming and climate change.

    • barry says:

      I wonder how it is that the IPCC were forced to change to using the word ‘projection’ after the 3rd assessment report (TAR), when they were already using the term for forecasting future scenarios in the 2nd assessment report (SAR).

      Perhaps there was some time travel involved? Or more likely Gordon didn’t bother to check up on some BS he read on a blog somewhere.

      SAR Chapter 6 – Climate Models – Projections of Future Climate

  18. P. Dube says:

    Sorry to burst your bubble, smartass, but during the last Ice Age, and then the Mini-Ice Age during the Maunder Minimum, Alaska was warmer than the northern tier of the CONUS. Change in the Pacific Oscillation due to the Solar Minimum brought warmer waters up from the South Pacific and warmed the North Pacific. The same is happening now. Dr. Spencer isn’t knit-picking to fit a narrative, he’s telling the truth, which is more than I can say for Al Gore or the globalist frauds from the IPCC.

    • Nate says:

      ‘Change in the Pacific Oscillation due to the Solar Minimum brought warmer waters up from the South Pacific and warmed the North Pacific. The same is happening now. ‘

      Indeed, you are highlighting the fact that global climate change can cause changes in regional weather PATTERNS, changes that affect humans: floods, storms or drought, reliable water sources, agriculture, heat waves, etc.

      • CoRev says:

        Nate, has anyone denied that: “global climate change can cause changes in regional weather PATTERNS, changes that affect humans: floods, storms or drought, reliable water sources, agriculture, heat waves, etc.”?

      • Nate says:

        Well there are many people here expressing skepticism that GW can cause any significant changes, esp negative ones.

        People have been skeptical that stronger Arctic warming doesnt matter for us in mid latitudes.

        But even Dr Roy acknowledged previously that it would surprise him if a warmer Arctic did not affect weather patterns in the mid-latitudes.

  19. Mark Wapples says:

    Why is climate change all about consensus?

    That is just a counting of opinions, where only certain peoples opinions count.

    Why don’t we accept there is uncertainty in this science?

    • Leftism is always about consensus and emotional appeals.

      The coming climate change crisis is a tool of leftists to scare people — their goal is to seize more power, using the false claim that more government power is needed to save the planet for the children.

      And only leftists care about the planet, they claim … which some leftists demonstrate by polluting the air, land and water in China.

      Consensus is very important in the absence of facts, data and logic.

      • Svante says:

        Try wearing a tin foil hat.

        • JDHuffman says:

          Try facing reality, Svante.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          S,

          Unfortunately, all the tinfoil hats have been snaffled by GHE true believers.

          Gavin Schmidt’s makes him think he is a world famous climate scientist. Michael Mann’s makes him think he won a Nobel Prize. Kevin Trenberth’s makes him think that non-existent heat is missing – a travesty!

          What does yours make you think? That increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will make the thermometer hotter?

          Enjoy your tinfoil hat. It’s probably better for you and your ilk to live in tinfoil fantasyland. Having to face reality might be too much for you to bear.

          Cheers.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Richard…”Leftism is always about consensus and emotional appeals”.

        There is no such thing as Leftism. And climate change idiocy has no political bent. Blaming the climate change hysteria on left-wingers is ingenuous since many of the leaders of the idiocy are right-wingers.

    • Nate says:

      “Why dont we accept there is uncertainty in this science?”

      Scientists understand uncertainty better than most people.

      It is not possible to ever reach 0 % uncertainty, about ANY science.

      But that uncertainty should not be exaggerated, as did the Tobacco industry, and the Leaded Gasoline Corps., etc, to avoid taking action.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Nate,

        I am 100% certain that phlogiston does not exist. Am I being unscientific?

        Albert Einstein is reported to have said something that can be paraphrased into, ” . . . no amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

        Using the word “prove” indicates 100% certainty, wouldn’t you think?

        Cheers.

        • Nate says:

          ‘ . . . no amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.’

          Using the word prove indicates 100% certainty, wouldnt you think”

          Mike scores an impressive self-goal, making my point with a quote from Einstein.

          Hilarious!

        • Nate says:

          BTW, ‘a single experiment can prove me wrong.’ is an exaggeration.

          A few years ago an experiment found a particle travelling faster than the speed of light, seemingly ‘proving’ Einstein wrong.

          Of course nobody saw it as proof of anything. Any single experiment could be wrong.

          Sure enough, a few months later, the error was found. Einstein’s theory survives.

          But his theory will never be 100% proven.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            N,

            You wrote –

            “A few years ago an experiment found a particle travelling faster than the speed of light, seemingly proving Einstein wrong.”

            Were you referring to this –

            “In 2011, the OPERA experiment mistakenly observed neutrinos appearing to travel faster than light.”?

            It doesn’t really matter. Feynman said –

            “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

            That doesn’t mean slightly wrong, or a little bit wrong, or almost wrong. Wrong is wrong – 100% wrong. You cannot prove a theory to be true. That’s why a theory such as the Theory of Relativity remains just that – a theory!

            Carry on being pseudoscientific.

            Cheers.

          • Nate says:

            “If it doesnt agree with experiment, its wrong.

            That doesnt mean slightly wrong, or a little bit wrong, or almost wrong. Wrong is wrong 100% wrong.”

            Except the experiment just discussed proves his “100% wrong” statement is 100% wrong!

            Mike is simply, bar none, the king of missing points and proving himself wrong!

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Mark…”Why is climate change all about consensus?

      That is just a counting of opinions, where only certain peoples opinions count.

      Why dont we accept there is uncertainty in this science?”

      ********

      Claiming there is uncertainty is far too kind. There is no science at all behind the climate change hysteria.

      The term climate change is devoid of meaning. It suggests a global climate that is changing, which is nonsense.

      Scientists know there are many climates on the planet and why they change. None of those reasons involve a trace gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere.

      That’s why the theory is all about consensus. A minority have proposed the theory based on corrupted physics and all the rest agree. There is no proof that can pass the scientific method.

    • bdgwx says:

      The word “consensus” seems to have different meanings among different groups of people or in different context. For scientists the word “consensus” often means the consilience of evidence or the amalgamation of hypothesis that have survived falsification. In that context it is not a majority opinion, democracy, or vote. It is the manifestation of the accumulation of knowledge to form a picture that best matches reality. The consensus is usually evolutionary; not revolutionary. It changes and adapts itself as new information becomes available. When I and many others talk of “consensus” this is what we are talking about.

  20. Entropic man says:

    Richard Greene

    You would be a rightist then. The sort of conservative libertarian who would allow a child to die because three successive hospitals refused treatment when the mother could not prove that she could pay.

    • Svante says:

      Richard Greene is not rightist but wrongist.

      • JDHuffman says:

        Svante, your ignorance of politics is as evident as your ignorance of physics.

        Nothing new.

      • Svante, I do not mind being insulted by smarmy leftists like you when the insult is funny.
        So who wrote that June 1 1:36PM comment for you ?
        Did you hire a ghostwriter ?

        • Svante says:

          I’m rightist, but politics can not change physics.

          What if global anthropogenic emissions disrupted the monsoon and turned half of India into a desert?

          How would your ideology deal with that?

          • JDHuffman says:

            What if global anthropogenic emissions did much more good than harm?

            How would your ideology deal with that?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            S,

            Another Svante had the solution –

            “Arrhenius involved himself in the eugenics movement by joining the Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene, a group focused on researching and promoting the benefits of controlled reproduction in humans.

            Guess who was going to decide who should be allowed to reproduce?

            Any ideas?

            Cheers.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”What if global anthropogenic emissions disrupted the monsoon and turned half of India into a desert?”

            Show me some proof from physics that such a scenario is remotely possible.

          • Svante says:

            It was a hypothetical question Richard Greene.

            His ideology can not handle a case like this, so it’s quite useless in the real world.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Svante posed a witless gotcha –

            “How would your ideology deal with that?”

            Svante couldn’t help himself, and provided an even more witless answer to his gotcha –

            “His ideology can not handle a case like this, so its quite useless in the real world.”

            Why does Svante bother asking stupid, nonsensical questions, when his tinfoil hat shielded brain has already provided a typically stupid and nonsensical answer requiring amazing mind reading abilities at the very least!

            The pseudoscientific climate cultists cannot believe that others are not awed by their unsubstantiated assertions, appeals to non-existent authority, or fervent belief in fantasy – based on nothing but wishful thinking.

            Svante Arrhenius had far more science backing his dedication to eugenics than Svante the pseudoscientific cultist has for his unswerving belief in the indescribable GHE!

            Cheers.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Svante posed a witless gotcha –

            “How would your ideology deal with that?”

            Svante couldn’t help himself, and provided an even more witless answer to his gotcha –

            “His ideology can not handle a case like this, so its quite useless in the real world.”

            Why does Svante bother asking stupid, nonsensical questions, when his tinfoil hat shielded brain has already provided a typically stupid and nonsensical answer requiring amazing mind reading abilities at the very least!

            The pseudoscientific climate cultists cannot believe that others are not awed by their unsubstantiated assertions, appeals to non-existent authority, or fervent belief in fantasy – based on nothing but wishful thinking.

            Svante Arrhenius had far more science backing his dedication to eugenics than Svante the pseudoscientific cultist has for his unswerving belief in the indescribable GHE!

            Cheers.

    • Entropic:
      I have been a libertarian since 1973, after being a liberal and Vietnam War protestor for a few years. I have voted for only one Republican in my entire life, Ronald Reagan in 1980, because I thought Jimmy Carter was a doofus.

      Hospitals in the US can not turn away patients.

      I have no idea why you are claiming i would allow a child to die — that is a very low character attack, although perhaps not by your low standards.

      • Entropic man says:

        Patient dumping still goes on.

        https://www.socialworktoday.com/news/dn_082412.shtml

        What are you doing about it?

        You Americans are all a long way to the right by British standards. A repellant combination of christianity and social Darwinism which allows the poor to die while the rich say “F**k you,Jack. I’m all right.”

        • JDHuffman says:

          E-man it’s truly amazing, how in this age of easy access to information, you are able to remain so ignorant.

          It’s almost as if you want it that way, huh?

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Em,

          Hang on a second. If everybody dies anyway, what is your point? Or do you really believe that rich people should be exterminated because they are lucky or competent enough to be rich?

          Why should poor people be treated any better than rich people? That would be discriminatory to any foolish person who is silly enough to believe that all people are equal! Surely everyone should be regarded with equal disdain?

          Complain all you like, but you are intellectually inferior to me, just as I am intellectually inferior to Richard Feynman. What difference does it make?

          I do as I wish. So far, so good.

          Cheers.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          entropic…”You Americans are all a long way to the right by British standards. A repellant combination of christianity and social Darwinism which allows the poor to die while the rich say F**k you,Jack. Im all right.”

          You are also ignorant about geography. America is a continent, not a country. You are likely referring to the United States ‘OF’ America. Last time I checked this context, it means the US is a part of America, not America itself.

          Canada is in America and we are quite socialist. The US is in America as well and they tend, for some reason, to favour right-wing politics. Go figure, we’re both essentially of the same stock.

          At any rate, we’ve been Allies for a long time, the US and Canada, despite our difference in politics. The UK was run by a right-wing Tory, Churchill, during WII, and the Allied nations managed to overcome politics for the good of all humans. The US was a major part of that Allied cause.

          During WW II, the Brits got tired of Churchill’s right-wing madness and turfed him after the war. Churchill was always a representative of the right-wing aristocracy and he fully supported the appointment of aristocrats as officers to manage the troops. That proved disastrous in many situations, like Mountbatten’s raid of France at Dieppe in which thousands of Canadian troops were massacred.

          To this day, no one understands what Mountbatten was trying to prove. At the same time he was getting Canadians killed at Dieppe he was feverishly trying to promote his nephew, the Greek-German aristocrat, Duke of Edinburgh, as the future husband of Queen Elizabeth.

          When the Brits gave Churchill and his politics the boot, socialism struck the UK and it was a good thing for a while, till the ‘I’m alright Jacks’ got a bit carried away with themselves.

          The UK’s latest flirtation with right-wing politics has gotten them into a fine mess. If you want heartlessness toward the poor, look no further than the uber-right wing, Tory regime of Margaret Thatcher. She single-handly reduced humanitarianism in the UK nearly to the level you describe for the US.

          Even here in Canada, our poor are forced to get by on a meagre allowance. Here in British Columbia, till recently, when a socialist government was elected, we had the highest level of child poverty in Canada.

          If the UK socialists were not so corrupted with effete-snob intellectuals and special interest groups, they might be able to make inroads. In that sense UK socialists are not different than their right-wing counterparts in the US.

          Socialists or humanitarians might make an inroads in the US if they had realistic candidates. The people of the US are not heartless and they can be very generous. The system simply prevents that generosity reaching a national level.

          Look what US socialists have to offer, Bernie Sanders??? Even the so-called liberals (aka Democrats) have self-destructed due to political-correctness and down right stupidity. They have been whining for more than two years about losing the last election and their focus has been on impeaching the man who beat them.

          I now refer to them as a load of losers.

          The problem is not with the people of the United States, it’s with a system where no one can realistically run for power without a massive amount of money. There is also a hysterical right-wing media which has instilled a commie-menace mentality about anything humanitarian.

          The UK has had a long-time to establish a humanitarian system ‘for all’ which is often tested by right-wing Tories. Since the institution of the Magna Carta, in 1215, The UK has gradually built it’s government toward a humanitarian regime. It has not been till fairly recently, due to the actions of unions, that the UK could offer any kind of help to the poor.

          The US is still young and the people who formed the US were driven out of the UK and Europe by brutal imperialists and black-hearted capitalists. Marx would never have become so popular had it not been for such Draconian elements.

          A hundred and fifty years ago, the US west was a wild and woolly place. The US has simply not had the time to find a level that reflects its people but I’m optimistic they will find a way.

          • Entropic man says:

            Gordon Robertson

            I should declare a personal interest here. My neighbours, an elderly couple, visited Florida. They got lost and asked at a farm for directions, as one does in the UK. The farmer shot them.

            It has left me permanently soured on the US.

            Nothing I see in the news from the US since has given me reason to change that view.

          • Svante says:

            Gun laws, ideology Trumps common sense, same as for global warming.

          • Norman says:

            Entropic man

            Maybe you should look at UK problems and work to figure them out rather than “sour” on the US. Nations just seem to be making more out of control people. Not sure why, could be the SSRI medications causing severe psychosis in a few people that take them. I think most the random gun violence, knife attacks and acid attacks increased after these medications were developed. They do alter brain chemistry and do produce psychosis in some people. They may help many but we might have to reconsider how much of these brain altering drugs are given to so many.

            https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/antidepressants-side-effects-psychosis-nice-terror-attack-german-wings-pilot-extremism-terrorism-a7191566.html

          • JDHuffman says:

            E-man claims: “The farmer shot them.”

            Citation?

          • Svante says:

            Doping has a similar effect Norman.
            Good of Trump to recognize the opioid crisis, hope he can cure it.

          • Norman says:

            Svante

            I am not sure anyone will be able to cure the opiod crisis. This is an old and difficult problem due to the highly addictive nature of such drugs. After the Civil War morphine addiction was very high, Chinese had their opium crisis. If one is in high pain it seems worse to not relieve the pain but there is a huge cost in using addictive chemicals. Maybe scientists will develop drugs that remove the addictive need by doing something with the brains circuits that crave these substances. I am not sure it all the neurons want a dose or just some specific receptors for these.

          • Nate says:

            “This is an old and difficult problem due to the highly addictive nature of such drugs”

            The particular crisis we’re having is not old. And it is mostly self inflicted, a product of $$ influence in health care.

          • Svante says:

            As for smoking and climate change denial, there’s probably an element of stupidity involved.

            That should cure itself as people achieve ever higher levels of moral, psychological and scientific awareness (I remember you talked about those trends before Norman).

          • Entropic man says:

            JDHuffman

            Citation?

            The agent who returned the bodies to Ireland sent a copy of the police report. Their son showed it to me it after the funeral.

            The farmer was neither drunk or drugged. He told the police he was afraid that they were going to attack and he shot them in self-defence. The police accepted that and did not charge him with anything.

          • JDHuffman says:

            What were the names on the “police report”. The date? The police jurisdiction? The county? The address?

            We just need some meaningful confirmation.

            After all, your imagination can take you pretty far out there, as you’ve demonstrated here.

          • Nate says:

            ‘We just need some meaningful confirmation.’

            ‘Its good to want things’, we used to say when our kids said they NEEDED something expensive.

            Same goes for you, JD.

            We want you to stop being an idiot/troll.

            Is it going to happen? Probably not.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Nate fails again.

            Nothing new.

        • In case you are interested, people in England who get breast cancer or prostate cancer are far more likely to die than Americans who get those common cancers.

          What are you going to do about that Briitsh disaster ?

  21. Kingbum says:

    Whenever Alaska is abnormally warm and there is a high pressure ridge the jet pushes the cold over the Northern Plains. Whenever Minnesota is cold, Alaska will be hotter than average that’s just facts. If you were to look at old ice age maps Alaska was warmer than the Northern Plains which was covered by ice. Parts of Alaska was ice free, just saying.

  22. Eben says:

    So climate shyster goes to the doctor , doc I don’t feel so good lately, doc takes a look at him says no wonder you don’t , you have a low tornado count

  23. CoRev says:

    Svante, are you as clueless about what happens to the highs and lows in an averaging period?

  24. Gordon Robertson says:

    swannie…”Too bad that Dr. Spencer forgot to take note of the massive warmup over Alaska ….”

    Swannie….you’ve proved over and over you know nothing about thermodynamics, now you’re taking on a scientist with a degree in meteorology in his own domain.

    Re the so-called massive warmup in Alaska, that tends to happen during the Arctic summer, into which we are currently heading. Why don’t you come back when the Sun is really low in the Alaskan sky then disappears for a couple of months?

    I guarantee you one thing, you won’t see any warming at all, never mind a massive warming.

    Massive warming, my butt.

    • E. Swanson says:

      Gordo proves, yet again, that he can’t understand the scientific information placed in front of his eyes. Dr. Spencer’s second graphic depicts the average temperature anomaly from 1 Jan 2019 thru (almost) the end of May 2019, (provided by model reanalysis). Obviously, the Alaska warmup shown by the graphic includes months “when the Sun is really low in the Alaskan sky then disappears for a couple of months”, but not his projected “massive warmup in Alaska, that tends to happen during the Arctic summer, into which we are currently heading”. Hey, Gordo, wake up and smell the coffee, meteorological Summer just began on 1 June.

      Besides, that graphic presents anomalies, not an average of actual temperatures, so the seasonal change between Winter and Summer is removed on purpose. Your butt may be happily warmed by mid-Summer, but it’s the difference between the historical norm and that which actually occurs which matters.

      Learn some physics, it’s called climate and as the Earth’s climate warms, the greatest rate of warming is projected to be at high latitudes of the NH, especially the Arctic.

      • Norman says:

        E. Swanson

        I hope it is becoming clear that trying to discuss rational or logical physics with Gordon Robertson is not remotely possible. He can’t understand a simple Inverse Square Law for energy. He strongly believes all the radiation the Earth surface is drastically reduced in just a few meters because of his totally faulty understanding of the simplest of physics. It is a hopeless attempt to try an reason with him or try to educate him with real science. He is extreme denial of most modern science. I have attempted to correct his false world view but it is a waste of effort for sure. He is gone somewhere and logic, reason, experiment, empirical data mean nothing to him. Just consider him a kindly old crackpot. Makes him easier to deal with.

        On the severe weather. The Alaska warmth and Central US cold were caused by a blocking pattern which occur regularly on a yearly basis in the different regions of the Northern and Southern hemisphere. They produce this same result. Warm on the West side of the block and much cooler on the East side in the Northern Hemisphere.

        Here is a link to Kansas City spring average temperatures ranked by year (central location). If you look at the two graphs (Tornado vs spring temperature) I think you will find that colder springs lead to more intense tornado activity.

        https://www.weather.gov/eax/springtrank

        • Norman says:

          E. Swanson

          Here are some images of other blocking patterns. Hot on East side of block that allows warmer air to move into this location from normally warmer areas and colder on the West side of the block.

          https://archive.org/download/europelstanom_tmo_2006193/europelstanom_tmo_2006193.jpg

          https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Canicule_Europe_2003.jpg/400px-Canicule_Europe_2003.jpg

          https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/45000/45069/russialsta_tmo_2010208_lrg.jpg

          The hot air in Alaska would not contribute to the severe weather. The colder air combined with the warm moist Gulf air is what is causing this year of severe weather in the Central US.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Norman, I think you don’t understand my point. Both the warm air over Alaska and the colder air over the mid-western US are manifestations of the overall circulation. The warm air pushing toward the Pole must be balanced by an equal flow from the polar region back toward the South. Things become more complicated when orographic effects are included, that is, the mountains of the western US and Canada which create a barrier that shapes the flow of the colder air masses moving toward the south. Greenland has a similar impact on colder air masses over eastern Canada.

            Of course, the warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico feeds some of the precipitation, but that would tend to flow to the east of central TX, OK and KS, as the upper flow tends to arrive from Mexico and the Pacific. I suspect that the pattern of sea-surface temperatures also shapes the flow patterns as well, with the El Nino (ENSO) cycles resulting in year-to-year variations as well.

            HERE’s a link to the current East Pacific satellite loop, which still shows a typical pattern of storms marching across the Northern Pacific and a upper level flow from the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over Mexico, TX and OK. Turn on “LatLon” for better orientation.

          • Norman says:

            E. Swanson

            I guess I do not know what you point was. I think it a continuation of the post you made near the beginning of this thread.

            YOU: “Yeah, nice to have the facts. Too bad that Dr. Spencer forgot to take note of the massive warmup over Alaska seen in his second graphic. The large scale circulation demands that cold air masses must return south as warm air flows toward the south. Could all that cold air he notes in his first graphic be the result of the return flow from the northward warm air which set records in Alaska?”

            The point of the thread was not to say how cold the central US was in spring or the cause. Yes you are correct, an atmospheric block caused Alaska to be much warmer than normal and Central US to be cooler. His point to was explain the ingredients needed for Severe Tornado formation. There has to be some cold air, some warm moist air, a strong jet stream and a dry line (the reason US has the most severe tornadoes). Global warming would not be a cause of more intense tornadoes. It would be the opposite.

            Here is some information to reflect on.

            https://www.seatemperature.org/north-america/united-states/gulf-shores.htm

            The above is the water temperature of the Gulf of Mexico in a location in Alabama. The main point is to show that in the middle of Summer the temperature is the highest (July and August).

            This one also reflects this information. Note the Mountain range that goes through US creates a moisture shadow. The moisture for tornadoes in Tornado Alley come from Gulf moisture as can be seen in the water vapor video.

            https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/global-maps/MYDAL2_M_SKY_WV

            If you match the WV video with Tornado frequency you can see where the Gulf moisture goes.

            https://www.tornadoalleyarmor.com/images/stories/Average-Annual-Tornado-Reports.jpg

          • Norman says:

            E. Swanson

            Another graphic. Tornado frequency by month.

            https://www.ustornadoes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/tornado-average-by-month-united-states.png

            The most tornado activity occurs in May. The Gulf water is warmest in July and August but the activity declines considerably. It is not just the energy of the warm moist air that produces tornadoes, just as important is cold dry air. It creates the cap that can then create the explosive energy that drives severe weather. The colder air is pushed up over the warm moist air capping it but the air is super unstable. If anything breaks down the warm moist air will rush up rapidly and will be much more buoyant than the surrounding colder air, as it rises it condenses and releases lots of latent energy that warms it and it continues to rise, this action pulls up more warm moist air from below and a persistent severe storm continues until it runs out of energy.

            The point of the blog is you need the cold air to have the ingredients for tornado formation. That is why I linked you to the Kansas City spring temperature rankings. If you look at the colder years you will see it correlates with more tornadoes in general. Other factors are in play. You do need warm Gulf waters to provide the warm moist air fuel.

            If I still do not understand you point I apologize.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Sorry, Norman, I think you’ve got it backwards. When flows of colder air and warmer air meet, the colder air, being more dense, ends up being below the warmer, moist air. That’s classic meteorology of frontal boundary interactions. Coupled with the generation of cyclonic activity due to the different wind directions across the boundary and storms are produced. And, no, colder air isn’t required for tornado formation, as they also form as the result of hurricanes during warm weather.

            Vortexes are an inherent feature of all fluid flows on all scales. I recall a particular incident during summer in which many small vortexes appeared in still air over a 100 ft diameter cul-de-sac in my front yard after a shower dropped water on the hot asphalt. It was rather fun to experience the mini-vortexes, walking around and thru them as they wandered around the circle.

          • Norman says:

            E. Swanson

            Here is the point I was trying to make.

            The cap starts as warmer air over colder air but as the air below warms and the cap air cools it creates very unstable air.

            Here is a link:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercell

            Here is the part I refer to.

            “A cap or capping inversion is usually required to form an updraft of sufficient strength. The cap puts an inverted (warm-above-cold) layer above a normal (cold-above-warm) boundary layer, and by preventing warm surface air from rising, allows one or both of the following:
            Air below the cap warms and/or becomes more moist
            Air above the cap cools

            This creates a warmer, moister layer below a cooler layer, which is increasingly unstable (because warm air is less dense and tends to rise). When the cap weakens or moves, explosive development follows.”

            The other thunderstorm you indicate is not as explosive. It is a warm front thunderstorm and generally mild as the cold air lifts the warm moist air up, it cools, condenses and rains.

            These are not as prone to producing the severe tornadoes from the supercell formation process. You need to have air that would be colder than the warm moist air if it were forced down. It makes the warm moist air much more buoyant and it can rise explosively. The wind shear is really important to produce the super cell and the speed of the jet stream is fastest with a higher temperature gradient.

            Thanks for the thoughtful interaction.

  25. bdgwx says:

    The chart Dr. Spencer posted isn’t showing the warming “that tends to happen the Arctic summer”. It is showing the warming above and beyond that. It is an anomaly chart baselined on the climatological average for that period.

  26. barry says:

    What does the latest IPCC report say about US tornadoes?

    “Severe thunderstorms, associated with large hail, high winds, and tornadoes, are another example of extreme weather associated with the water cycle. The large-scale environments in which they occur are characterized by large Convective Available Potential Energy (CAPE) and deep tropospheric wind shear (Brooks et al., 2003; Brooks, 2009). Del Genio et al. (2007), Trapp et al. (2007, 2009), and Van Klooster and Roebber (2009) found a general increase in the energy and decrease in the shear terms from the late 20th century to the late 21st century over the USA using a variety of regional model simulations embedded in global model SRES scenario simulations. The relative change between these two competing factors would tend to favour more environments that would support severe thunderstorms, providing storms are initiated. Trapp et al. (2009), for example, found an increase in favourable thunderstorm conditions for all regions of the USA east of the Rocky Mountains. Large variability in both the energy and shear terms means that statistical significance is not reached until late in the 21st century under high forcing scenarios. One way of assessing the possibility of a change in the frequency of future thunderstorms is to look at historical records of observed tornado, hail and wind occurrence with respect to the environmental conditions (Brooks, 2013). This indicates that an increase in the fraction of severe thunderstorms containing non-tornadic winds would be consistent with the model projections of increased energy and decreased shear, but there has not been enough research to make a firm conclusion regarding future changes in frequency or magnitude.”

    IPCC AR5 WG1 Ch. 12, p1087

    Supposedly, a politician and “man in the street” have it wrong. Wouldn’t it be great if we could somehow make people conversant with the science? Imagine if science blogs started linking to science instead of newspaper reports and politicians…

    • JDHuffman says:

      barry, wouldn’t it be great if we could somehow make people conversant with the relevant physics? Imagine if blog commenters started representing reality instead of claiming plates can violate 2LoT.

      Hard to imagine such, huh?

      • Norman says:

        Imagine if blog posters would actually do valid experiments instead of making up fake physics cartoons and peddling them if they meant anything at all. Imagine if some blog commenters could actually understand what the 2LoT actually says. Imagine if some bloggers could grasp that a heated objects steady state temperature is totally affected by the colder surroundings. Imagine if they could understand that the cold atmosphere transfers considerably more energy to the surface via IR emission than the cold of space. Just imagine this. It is all one can do because the reality the science deniers will never change. They will never do actual experiments. They will never understand even one link to valid science. Yup one can only imagine since it won’t ever happen.

        Imagine if even one science denier could understand these words. It would be more than amazing. It will never happen.

        “It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”

        • JDHuffman says:

          Norman, imagine if an immature, uneducated, inarticulate typist could accept reality.

          It would be more than amazing. It will never happen.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          N,

          One problem is that nobody has ever managed to make a thermometer hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and the thermometer. Nobody.

          Nobody has ever managed to raise the temperature of something hotter by exposing it to the radiation from something colder. For example, it is not possible to raise the temperature of even the smallest amount of water by using the heat contained in an arbitrarily large quantity of ice.

          This is why nobody has ever managed to devise a useful description of the GHE. You can’t do it, and neither can anybody else.

          By all means believe that reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer will make it hotter, if you wish. You may choose to believe in the Tooth Fairy or Michael Mann’s non-existent Nobel Prize as well.

          Belief does not create fact, no matter how many believers there are. Have fun.

          Cheers.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Mikey wrote more anti-physics, saying:

            Nobody has ever managed to raise the temperature of something hotter by exposing it to the radiation from something colder.

            Happens all the time, as I’ve demonstrated several times. It’s standard engineering called a “radiation shield”. Mikey has nothing to say about it.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Swanson, are you still pretending you understand physics?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            ES,

            Cut the power supply to your heat source, and your radiation shielding stops shielding, eh?

            You haven’t managed to make something hotter by exposing it to the radiation from something colder!

            Do you really expect anybody to believe your “heating element” is less than the temperature of the ice that your illusionary “experiment” claims is making a hotter object hotter still? I suppose a GHE true believer might, but no sensible person would!

            Nope, still no GHE. Your “experiment” is an exercise in silliness.

            Try heating some water using ice. How hard can it be? You won’t even need any additional cunning heat sources will you? What a fool!

            Cheers.

          • Ball4 says:

            “Try heating some water using ice. How hard can it be?”

            It’s not hard, just properly replace the dry ice in the water with your ice and measure the water heating up with a mercury thermometer. That is if Mike can actually do experiments, somehow I doubt Mike can do so properly. No wait, I know Mike can not do so properly. JD would just draw a bogus cartoon and botch the science.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            B4,

            You wrote –

            “Its not hard, just properly replace the dry ice in the water with your ice and measure the water heating up with a mercury thermometer.”

            Ah. Unfortunately, you can’t heat water with dry ice either.

            The water freezes. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough for pseudoscientific GHE cultists. I refer to the liquid form of water when I say “water”.

            Here is one definition-

            “noun
            1.
            a colourless, transparent, odourless liquid that forms the seas, lakes, rivers, and rain and is the basis of the fluids of living organisms.l

            So no heating of water by replacing dry ice with frozen water.

            You remain as stupid and ignorant as ever. Your imaginary experiments fail, as usual. No GHE. No CO2 heating of hotter thermometers. Carry on with your delusion.

            Cheers.

          • Ball4 says:

            “So no heating of water by replacing dry ice with frozen water.”

            Only in your imagination Mike, and in JD’s bogus cartoons and botched science. So do properly run the experiment Mike; you can observe a lot just by watching the thermometer showing the water heating up when the water ice is added.

          • Norman says:

            Mike Flynn

            Repeating your points endlessly does not make them correct. If you think you are right do an actual experiment.

            As Ball 4 suggests. Have some water that is being heated continuously by some energy source while it is surrounded by a wall of dry ice (I am sure you can get some of this in your area). Measure the temperature of the water when it reaches a steady state with the surroundings. Now remove the dry ice and replace it with much warmer water ice. Record the steady state temperature. If the temperature goes up then you are just plain wrong. If it stays the same and you supply evidence, than the entire science community that works with heat transfer is wrong and they will have to redo all the textbooks.

            The point is you will never do any real science but you will endlessly post your opinions on this blog. SSDD with you.

          • Nate says:

            Mike’s silly challenges are easily met..so he moves the goal posts!

            He’s a heck of a guy.

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            YOU: “are you still pretending you understand physics?”

            Yes you are. E. Swanson has done a couple test proving you are a stupid troll. When will you do even one test to prove him wrong. I guess the answer to that is NEVER. You make stupid cartoon posts about the Moon’s rotation (something you can’t understand no matter how many intelligent people have tried to educate you! You are stuck in stupid troll mode) and heat transfer. You are totally wrong, experimental evidence, textbooks, very intelligent posters all say you are full of it. Yet you act like this expert (even though you can’t read a textbook on physics).

            Do a damn experiment troll and shut up! You are such an annoying troll with your stupid endless posts of nonsense made up physics.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            What a pack of fools!

            Heating colder dry ice with something hotter (higher temperature frozen water) is easy.

            Try heating dry ice with the hotter frozen water. The idiots are convinced that they have some cunning method of raising the temperature of a hotter body by exposing it the radiation of something colder.

            Unfortunately, when faced with something where phase change which occurs with temperature change, all their clever imaginary semantic experiments turn to garbage.

            The pseudoscientific fools refuse to accept that the heat energy in a colder body cannot be used to raise the temperature of a hotter. All they can do is lurch off into diversions involving things like unspecified heaters, infinite quantities of dry ice and magic water which remains liquid at -75 C, and all the rest of the pseudoscientific climate cult nonsense.

            And still none of them can actually describe the magical GHE! I wonder why? How hard can it be?

            Cheers.

          • Norman says:

            Mike Flynn

            It is a total waste do time to attempt rational thought exchange with you. But I want to point out you are missing a huge point!!

            We are claiming the radiant energy from a colder body will cause HEATED water to increase in temperature. If you actually did science like an actual experiment you would see indeed the radiant energy of a colder body is able to warm a hotter heated object. It happens all the time in the world around you. Observe and learn or stick your neck in the hole in the ground and sing “La, la la” and ignore all information that disturbs your incredible ignorance.

            It is correct you cannot use ice to increase the temperature of liquid water. But ice can increase the temperature of heated water. Big difference. Can you understand that or not?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            N,
            You wrote

            We are claiming the radiant energy from a colder body will cause HEATED water to increase in temperature.

            Liquid water has already been heated, you fool! Otherwise, it would still be solid, at absolute zero, with no temperature at all!

            Notwithstanding that obvious fact, if you mean hotter water, say 50 C, then by all means heat some water to that temperature, and add as much ice as you like. You claim the water will get hotter? Really?

            You are in the grip of some pseudoscientific cultist delusion.
            You cannot make liquid water of any temperature hotter by exposing it to any amount of ice of any temperature! Have a tantrum, burst into tears, cry for your mommy it wont help, will it?

            Still no GHE. A colder atmosphere cannot raise the temperature of a hotter surface. All Trenberthian fantasy. Its a travesty.

            Cheers.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Norman admits: “We are claiming the radiant energy from a colder body will cause HEATED water to increase in temperature.”

            Poor Norman. He has no clue how senseless that statement is. He’s still trying to boil water with ice cubes!

            As Mike Flynn would advise:

            “Carry on, Norman.”

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            You are truly a dense person that seems to possess no actual ability to comprehend what they read.

            NOTE YOU: “Poor Norman. He has no clue how senseless that statement is. Hes still trying to boil water with ice cubes!”

            I know you are a troll but do you have to be an ignorant troll?

            Yes you can boil water surrounded by ice if you are heating it. Do you ever boil a pot of water at your home? The air surrounding it is much colder than the water.

            If the air is really cold like outside in Arctic in winter, see if it takes longer to boil water or takes more energy.

            I think you will find the truth is you are a troll but an ignorant troll. You can’t understand even simple basic physics and waste poster’s time pretending to be an “expert” at the topic.

            I wish you would learn to comprehend what you read. I think that might be an ability beyond your reach.

            Did you look up some more physics words to convince Gordon Robertson you are a genius. He, like you, cannot understand even simple physics and gets it all wrong.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            N,

            You wrote –

            “Yes you can boil water surrounded by ice if you are heating it.”

            The typical response of the pseudoscientific climate cultist trying to say you can raise the temperature of something hotter by using the radiation from something colder! Simple – just insert something hotter than the object you are trying to heat!

            What a fool! Nothing new there. Raising the temperature of an object by using a hotter heat source has been known since the emergence of mankind.

            How about raising the temperature of an object merely by exposing it to the radiation from a colder? Try making a thermometer hotter by surrounding it with colder CO2. Try it at night so the presence of the Sun (around 5800 K) doesn’t confuse you too much.

            So much for the heating ability of CO2. There is none – at all. No GHE. Bad luck. Try again.

            Cheers.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Norman, you still make no sense.

            Maybe if you pound on your keyboard all day….

        • Norman says:

          JDHuffman

          YOU: “imagine if an immature, uneducated, inarticulate typist could accept reality.”

          It would be nice if you could accept reality, that you are a total idiot troll. You will avoid this truth and keep posting and pretending to be an expert. You better look up some more physics terms that you don’t understand (like Poynting Vectors) so the crackpot Gordon Robertson will think you are a genius.

          When will you do an actual experiment troll. Just as you stated, it will never happen. You like your made up cartoons too much to actually do an experiment. On the other thread all you could do was make idiot excuses and pointless snarks.

          Troll on. No one will be able to stop what you do. Only thing that is certain is you don’t know science at all.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          N,

          You wrote –

          “We are claiming the radiant energy from a colder body will cause HEATED water to increase in temperature.”

          Liquid water has already been heated, you fool! Otherwise, it would still be solid, at absolute zero, with no temperature at all! Notwithstanding that obvious fact, if you mean hotter water, say 50 C, then by all means heat some water to that temperature, and add as much ice as you like. You claim the water will get hotter? Really?

          You are in the grip of some pseudoscientific cultist delusion.

          You cannot make liquid water of any temperature hotter by exposing it to any amount of ice of any temperature! Have a tantrum, burst into tears, cry for your mommy – it won’t help, will it?

          Still no GHE. A colder atmosphere cannot raise the temperature of a hotter surface. All Trenberthian fantasy. It’s a travesty.

          Cheers.

          • Svante says:

            The earth is warming.
            Mike Flynn says no.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            S,

            Are you still denying that the Earth’s surface is now cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago?

            The word is “cooler”, not “warmer”.

            You must be an unclear pseudoscientific climate cultist, confused about the difference between hot and cold. I suppose you might also claim that the surface doesn’t cool at night, after sundown.

            Oh well, if you are besotted with the GHE cult, and its loony leaders, I wish you well.

            Cheers.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ball4 says:

            “JD would just draw a bogus cartoon and botch the science.”

            Here’s Ball4, agreeing with us that the GHEDT’s solution to the 3-plate problem violates laws of physics:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345722

            “JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:

            244K…290…244K”

            Thanks for your support, Ball4.

          • Svante says:

            Mike Flynn says:
            “I suppose you might also claim that the surface doesn’t cool at night, after sundown.”

            The surface doesn’t cool as much as it used to, so temperatures are going up.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            S,

            It still cools at night – in winter – during a solar eclipse, and so on.

            Cooling, fast or slow, is still cooling!

            You are probably silly enough to believe that putting a hot beverage in a Thermos makes it hotter! Nope – it just cools more slowly.

            The Earth has cooled. The surface is not molten, and the seas aren’t even boiling. Keep pushing the pseudoscience. Still no GHE – you can’t even describe it, because it doesn’t exist!

            Carry on being a delusional dimwit. It suits you.

            Cheers.

          • Svante says:

            Another Turing Test failure Mike.

          • Norman says:

            Mike Flynn

            Goodness you are dumb. You need a dose of intelligence to make you able to think!

            I am sure of one thing. Any valid explanation to you is a wasted effort.

            YOU: “Liquid water has already been heated, you fool! Otherwise, it would still be solid, at absolute zero, with no temperature at all! Notwithstanding that obvious fact, if you mean hotter water, say 50 C, then by all means heat some water to that temperature, and add as much ice as you like. You claim the water will get hotter? Really?”

            Good gracious you are too stupid to even attempt communication. When I put “HEATED” in caps that means a continuous supply of energy. Hot water that has no new input of energy IS NOT HEATED!! Dork! It is just HOT. HEATED would mean it is constantly gaining energy from some source. The water is also losing energy at a rate. When the amount of energy it gains equals the amount it loses you have a STEADY STATE TEMPERATURE!

            You really are too dumb to attempt a rational conversation

            So far we have you a computer program that can’t think at all but repeats constantly.

            We have an ignorant troll who posts as JDHuffman with zero hope of having a rational discussion.

            Then we have Crackpot Gordon Robertson who denies any science he is unable to understand.

            Skeptics have some smart people, Bart, gallopingcamel and others. The three I listed are bad news for valid skeptics on this blog.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            N,

            Are you as stupid as you pretend to be?

            Use your heater. Heat some water to whatever temperature you wish. Now throw in some ice – as much as you like.

            Now try to convince anybody that the temperature of the water has increased!

            I suppose you really meant to say something else, but you can’t figure out what you meant to say, just at the moment.

            Still no GHE. You still can’t raise the temperature of water with ice – it doesn’t matter how much heat you use. All that will happen is that the ice gets heated, and melts.

            Cheers.

          • Ball4 says:

            “Thanks for your support, Ball4.”

            DREMT’s et. al. throwing JD under the bus will always get my support while JD draws bogus cartoons, botches atm. science, and gets wrong the experimentally proven 2plate and 3plate GPE.

            “You still can’t raise the temperature of water with ice it doesn’t matter how much heat you use. All that will happen is that the ice gets heated, and melts.”

            Wrong Mike. Run the experiment using a real thermometer, as we did in HS physics, to discover that you continue to be wrong, the ice doesn’t get “heated”. As I wrote, it is possible though to raise the temperature of water with added ice. And I predict Mike being wrong will never change.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            B4,

            You wrote –

            “As I wrote, it is possible though to raise the temperature of water with added ice.”

            Apart from the fact that nobody has actually done it, have they?

            Here – put a thermometer in some water. Add ice. Kid yourself that the thermometer showed a higher temperature. Ice is used to cool beverages, not heat them. You are barking mad!

            Got any more stupid ways of using ice to heat water?

            Cheers.

          • Norman says:

            Mike Flynn

            Rarely do I comment to you but in this case I am just curious how deep your stupidity goes. It seems unreal any human can be as totally stupid as you seem to be. That is why it seems more likely you are not a human but a bot. (I really hope you are a mindless bot just responding via some program).

            Here is the experiment being requested of you: “As Ball 4 suggests. Have some water that is being heated continuously by some energy source while it is surrounded by a wall of dry ice (I am sure you can get some of this in your area). Measure the temperature of the water when it reaches a steady state with the surroundings. Now remove the dry ice and replace it with much warmer water ice. Record the steady state temperature. If the temperature goes up then you are just plain wrong.”

            Something easy to read and understand for most people (the idiot troll JDHuffman can’t understand this at all but that does not say much for him). The point is to surround heated water (which is a term you and JDHuffman are totally incapable of comprehending and no one will be able to explain what those words mean to either of you goofballs) with dry ice in one case and warmer water ice in another. Nothing says to add ice to the water. That is some stupid point you make to look like an idiot on display.

          • Ball4 says:

            “Apart from the fact that nobody has actually done it, have they?”

            They have. You can too Mike, run the experiment I described. Use a real thermometer for once not your incorrect imagination. Or as I predicted just keep botching the science like JD which is way more humorous.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            N,

            I see. To heat water with ice, the only extra thing you need is a heater!

            Why am I not surprised?

            Cheers.

          • Norman says:

            Mike Flynn

            Again I state, I hope you are not a human. The total inability to actually read and follow information is okay for a computer program. Adult humans should have at least some ability to comprehend words.

            The point made is not that ice is “heating water”. I can tell you 1000 times what is being stated and you always get it wrong. Bad for a person to do, okay for a computer program.

            Here read this again. Ice is not heating the water. Ice is allowing heated water to reach a higher temperature than such water if surrounded by colder dry ice. This is because the heated water will receive more incoming energy from warmer water ice than colder dry ice. Both will contribute some energy but the water ice will contribute more.

            Neither can increase the temperature of NON-HEATED water. Water emits more energy than it receives from either water ice or dry ice so it will cool. But as it cools it is still receiving energy from both water ice and dry ice. If it is heated, the steady state temperature will be different if surrounded by warmer water ice or dry ice.

            I do not think I can explain it any simpler than that. I doubt you will process this explanation.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “DREMT’s et. al. throwing JD under the bus will always get my support”

            No such event occurred. You don’t even seem to realize that the words of yours I quoted are in agreement with JD.

          • Ball4 says:

            “No such event occurred.”

            I’m not in agreement with JD, apparently the DREAM Team is dreaming which is what it does best.

            The internet never forgets and DREMT attempts to change recent written history. Won’t work since it is clear DREMT wrote “thank you for your support” that JD botched the science when DREMT quoted me pointing out what JD wrote “IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics”.

            Like the original author, E. Swanson gets the GPE correct and backed it with experiment where JD backs his botched science with bogus cartoons. DREMT threw JD under the bus thanking me for my support that JD is incorrect & thereby agreeing what JD wrote is a clear violation of 1LOT.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You wrote that for the blue plate to rise in temperature to 290 K, when separated, with no change of incoming or outgoing energy, would violate 1LoT.

            We agree. You still don’t seem to grasp that it is the people on your team that think this rise in temperature happens upon separation.

          • Ball4 says:

            “your team”

            DREMT, you are the commenter with the team in your screen name not me.

            There are many apparently independent commenters that use the 1LOT, 2LOT correctly, including the original author, as E. Swanson confirmed by experiment measuring how the temperatures change in the GPE. JD drawing bogus cartoons is not one of them you agreed 2:28am above any astute reader can plainly observe. Re-writing history can also be plainly observed, keep trying though, it’s humorous.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …and here’s a link to E. Swanson defending the 244 K…290 K…244 K, that you so rightly criticize…

          • Ball4 says:

            Bzzzt! No defense. 244 K…290 K…244 K does not even appear in what E. Swanson wrote in that link.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I have nothing to defend.

          • Ball4 says:

            DREMT wrote “E. Swanson defending” which I point out is not true so DREMT does have something to defend. Try again DREMT, your avoidance is telling. JD is wrong and you thanked me for the support per your 2:28am, thus you threw JD under the bus. Nice going, that’s what JD deserved from you.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            JD mentioned the “244 K…290 K…244 K on separation” to Swanson, and Swanson defended it, saying (in the link I provided):

            “That the middle plate warms after separation confirms the Green Plate Effect, which is, the outer plates act as insulation, thereby requiring an increase in the middle plate’s temperature to achieve steady state.”

            So no, I have nothing to defend.

  27. Entropic man says:

    Could you please keep your inept President under control while he’s in the UK.

    So far I’ve counted four embarassing breaches of protocol and he’s barely landed.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Em,

      Given up on trying to push the pseudoscientific climate cultism? I wouldn’t blame you – it’s irrational.

      As to the US President, he’ll probably still be President tomorrow, and none of his detractors will. Who’s the more inept, do you think?

      Cheers.

      • Entropic man says:

        Of course he’s inept. This is a man who could’nt run a casino!

        Were you one of those who were fooled into voting for him?

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Em,

          And all his opponents were obviously even more inept!

          Who was the most inept of all?

          Obviously, whoever it was, was too inept to get elected. What a waste of time, effort and money. How inept would you have to be to expend all that effort to achieve precisely nothing?

          Carry on. Maybe all the inept losers can convince themselves that they really won.

          Cheers.

        • Craig T says:

          “Were you one of those who were fooled into voting for him?”

          No, but Mike learned physics at Trump U.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            CT,

            Maybe you could quote something I wrote, and point out where I was in error (providing a fact or two to support your disagreement)?

            No?

            Or you could just try making pointless and irrelevant comments. Whichever you think will help – it’s up to you, of course.

            Cheers.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          entropic…”Of course hes inept. This is a man who couldnt run a casino!”

          Hillary could not keep her husband in line and refused to leave him even though he rubbed her face in it with multiple affairs. He capped it off with oral sex with a White House employee in the Oval Office.

          Hillary was unfazed by this humiliation, she blamed Monica Lewinsky, the victim.

          Obviously, the people of the US preferred a guy who could not run a casino to a woman who is just plain naive.

    • JDHuffman says:

      E-man, don’t forget to answer:

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/recent-tornadoes-are-due-to-unusually-cold-weather/#comment-355392

      Otherwise people will know you can’t support your own words….

      • Entropic man says:

        I’ve decided that the details are none of your business.

        • JDHuffman says:

          That’s most convenient, huh?

          Your problem is that your un-supported story fails, just as your pseudoscience.

          Nothing new.

        • JDHuffman says:

          Making up false narratives is nothing new.

          I’m reminded of Hillary claiming she had to run for cover to dodge bullets, when she landed in Iraq.

          Later, the video of her receiving flowers from a little girl, as she actually departed the aircraft. No one was running. There weren’t any bullets.

          There was only the actual video.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            JD…”I’m reminded of Hillary claiming she had to run for cover to dodge bullets, when she landed in Iraq”.

            Hillary is good at dodging bullets. After Lying Willy had multiple affairs behind her back, one costing $800,000 in an out of court settlement, Hillary blamed the women for leading poor Willy astray.

            When she was part of a Senate committee at which John Christy testified, she glared bullets of hatred at him while treating him rudely.

            Did the people of the US really want her leading the country when she displays such a lack of awareness?

  28. Brendon says:

    Op Eds – aren’t they for people that can’t do science?

  29. Eben says:

    All new cause of tornadoes has been discovered

    https://bit.ly/2WrMKph

Leave a Reply