If Dorian Hits as a Cat4, Still No Long-term Trends in Florida Major Hurricanes

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

NOTE: This post was updated on 30 August to include Hurricane Michael (2018).

Atlantic hurricane activity is notoriously variable, not only from year to year, but decade to decade.

In fact, based upon studies of overwash sediments in coastal lakes stretching from the Florida panhandle to eastern Louisiana, it appears that the period from 1,000 to 3,800 years ago had a considerably higher incidence of Category 4 & 5 hurricanes than in the last 1,000 years. These are admittedly indirect, proxy estimates, but if you read this American Scientist article, it sounds like the researchers have pretty strong evidence.

Why would major hurricane activity vary so much? No one knows. Our climate is a nonlinear dynamical system, capable of undergoing unforced changes both locally and globally. Atmospheric steering currents, wind shear, and African easterly wave activity all play a role in hurricane formation. Tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the late summer are always sufficiently warm to support a major hurricane and are, in my opinion, overrated as a controlling factor. Factors other than SST tend to largely determine hurricane activity and strength.

More direct measurements of hurricane landfalls in Florida have only been possible in the last 120 years or so since prior to 1900 very few people lived there. Before 1900, the intensities of these storms at landfall were quite uncertain. It could be some even went unreported.

If we examine the record of major (Category 3 or greater) hurricanes at landfall in Florida since 1900, and assume that Hurricane Dorian strikes Florida as a 115 kt Category 4 storm, we see that there will still be no long-term trends in either the intensity or number of major landfalling hurricanes.


If Hurricane Dorian makes landfall in Florida as a 115 kt Category 4 storm, there will still be no long term trend in Florida major hurricane landfalls since 1900.

This is not to say there won’t be potentially catastrophic damage. For example, the population of Miami in 1900 was less than 1,700 people. It is now 2.74 million. Needless to say, vast expanses of storm-vulnerable infrastructure has been built over the last 120 years across the Miami-Ft. Lauderdale-West Palm Beach metroplex, and northward along most of the Florida coastline.

But increasing storm damage does not mean increasing storminess.


627 Responses to “If Dorian Hits as a Cat4, Still No Long-term Trends in Florida Major Hurricanes”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. gbaikie says:

    I am going to re-post this:
    –gbaikie August 28, 2019 at 1:16 pm
    “What this is revealing is a net flow of a large amount of heat energy from the Equator to the poles.”

    I would say, a large amount of heat energy from the tropical ocean to the poles.
    The heat energy is atmospheric and warmed oceanic waters.
    Or the tropical ocean is the heat engine of our world.
    Tropical ocean average surface temperature is about 26 C.
    Tropics is 40% of earth surface.
    Tropical ocean is about 40% of entire ocean and remain 60% the world’s
    ocean has average surface temperature of about 11 C.
    And entire average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C.

    If entire average ocean surface temperature had an uniform temperature
    of 17 C {not change amount of heat of surface entire ocean}, Earth average temperature would be much warmer.
    What would be dramatically warmer if ocean surface had uniform temperature of
    17 C is the average land temperature.
    Or currently the global land temperature is currently about 10 C. And with uniform Ocean surface of 17 C, average land would about 15 C. Or many would call increasing, all land temperature by 5 C as being dramatic warming.

    But I would point out that 15 C {59 F} is not very warm.
    And more importantly I would point out, as was mentioned in above article, is we are living in an Icebox Climate. And often referred as the Ice Age.

    Icebox or icehouse climate is probably a better term than Ice Age because icebox climate is polar icesheets {ice caps] and a cold ocean.
    A cold ocean as is commonly said, 90% of entire Ocean is 3 C or colder.
    Or the average temperature of entire ocean is about 3.5 C.

    One reason “preventing” our ocean surface temperature from having a near uniform temperature of about 17 C is our average temperature of our entire ocean is about 3.5 C.
    Or might easy to see that if the average temperature of the entire ocean was not 3.5 C but instead was 15 C, then a uniform ocean surface temperature could be closer to uniform temperature of 17 C, rather than merely an average temperature of 17 C.
    Though I would not argue that if entire ocean was 15 C that average surface would be a lot warmer than 17 C, but with entire ocean being 15 C, it would make {or require} that the temperature of ocean surface is a lot more uniform- then it is now.
    For instance, if the entire ocean temperature was 15 C, the average surface temperature of tropical ocean might remain close to 26 C, and 60% of rest of ocean instead of being 11, is say, 16 C
    40 x 26 = 1040
    60 x 11 = 660
    = 17
    And
    40 x 26 = 1040
    60 x 16 = 960
    = 20 C
    Or average ocean surface of 20 C
    which I would say is more uniform compared to what we got, probably mean arctic average ocean surface water of about 10 C, and could freeze in winter, but would not have polar sea ice most of the time. Or like the Great Lakes or Hudson Bay is currently. And volume temperature of relative small arctic ocean could be say, about 5 C.
    But ocean with average volume of 15 C is not a cold ocean and you aren’t in icebox climate, instead in a “greenhouse” climate or also called Hothouse climate.
    Hothouse same thing or same meaning as greenhouse. I think Brits tend say hothouse. And a hothouse climate doesn’t polar ice sheets. And is not in an Ice Age.
    So in sense having less extreme conditions found in an Ice Age, we can call this “warming”. And we have been warming since we left the Little Ice Age or about 1850 AD.
    But average volume ocean in 1850 AD, was about 3.5 C as it is today. But some claim it’s warmed as much as .2 C. But we have not measured the ocean enough to say whether ocean is 3.5 C, presently.
    We limited to saying Earth average temperature is about 15 C. The Southern Hemisphere is about 1 C cooler than Northern Hemisphere. And average volume ocean temperature is about 3.5 C. And these about numbers have not really changed in last 100 years.
    Or when this religion began, and it was said that Earth average temperature was about 15 C, that was correct, then.
    And it is now.
    Though you can humor us, and give a number to tenths and/or hundredths of a degree.
    Nice to get a laugh whenever you are living in an Ice Age.–

    • gbaikie says:

      Why I re-posted it, is because I “accidently” explained something which been trying to explain for quite a long time.
      Normally I would say it this way, the world is not as warm as it appears.
      Or other times I would say, a uniform temperature is not the same as an average temperature- as it relates to the basic model of Greenhouse effect theory.

      The basic model is an ideal thermal conductive blackbody, which at Earth distance, give a uniform temperature of about 5 C. And then the “greenhouse effect theory” subtracts from this the aspect that Earth reflects 30% of sunlight and arrive at model which -18 C
      average global temperature or -18 C uniform global temperature.
      Or it’s assumed or skipped that average and uniform is the same thing.

      Now, I am not saying I correctly explained it, it more about illustrating the difference of uniform and average temperature.
      What is true about the world is the tropics has a high average temperature and rest of world as low average temperature.

      Or 40% of class does well on a test exam and 60% does not do well on a test exam. And because 40% does well it raises the class average scores, but doesn’t make 60% of class do better on their test results {doesn’t make the rest of class warmer}.
      But reality is the tropical ocean does warm the rest of world or it’s similar to the 40% allowing 60% to see their answers or allows the rest of class to cheat on the exam.
      So 40% share some answers to 60% and class average score increases. So you have two things giving illusion that 60% of class is smarter or can do better at doing a test exam.

      The Ideal thermally conductive blackbody model indicate a world at 1 AU has uniform temperature of about 5 C and that real world would have an average temperature of around 5 C.
      And allows a possibility of large portion of world to be well above 0 C and a large portion of world to be below 0 C.

      One make rule that worlds without oceans do not have an uniform temperature.
      Or Earth without it’s oceans would have wider range of temperatures, or less resembling having an uniform temperature.

      The rule would be better if worlds without oceans and/or a significant atmosphere do not have a temperatures which are somewhat uniform.

      Mars surface can warm higher than 20 C, average temperature about -50 to -60 C and goes below -100 C. Wide swings in day and night and cold polar winters {a uniformity in terms being cold when sunlight doesn’t reaches region for months- but not as cold as the Moon’s surface when sunlight doesn’t reach it for 2 weeks.
      {and I said before, if Mars had tropical ocean, it would have higher average temperature- it would have more uniform temperature in tropics which is 40% of the entire area of planet.}

  2. ren says:

    Soon there will be a very strong blockade of the stratospheric polar vortex near the Earth’s south magnetic pole.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t50_sh_f120.png

  3. ren says:

    Poniższa animacja pokazuje, w jaki sposb strumień odrzutowy nad Ameryką Płnocną przyczyni się do osłabienia burzy Dorian.
    http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/natl/mimictpw_natl_latest.gif
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=nwatl&product=wv-mid

  4. Scott R says:

    Anyone else having difficulties with this blog? I submit a comment and it doesn’t post and I have to re-write the whole thing. I copied to my notepad first and tried like 4 times and couldn’t get a link to post.

    Nate I still owe you more responses when I can fix the issue.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      scott r…”Anyone else having difficulties with this blog? I submit a comment and it doesn’t post and I have to re-write the whole thing”.

      First of all, before you post do a copy/paste to a word processor or Notepad. Or just a copy, in case you lose the post.

      If it doesn’t post, look for letter combinations like d-c, without the hyphen. eg. Had-crut. Do that in links as well.

      If I suspect a link, I post w/o the link, explaining that I am testing. If it posts w/o link, troubleshoot link.

      If the post won’t work and you have copy/pasted to Notepad or whatever, try posting the first paragraph. If it posts, try the next paragraph as a separate post in reply to the first post.

      By messing around like that you can isolate the offending word or letter combo.

      I have found it’s usually one word or letter combo and there are not a lot of them. I can get all of my posts posted, eventually.

    • barry says:

      Scott, Use this web page to paste your text – it will convert all characters to those read by this website:

      https://mothereff.in/html-entities

      There are a few words and strings that are banned here for one reason or another.

      Any words with the letters D an C next to each other in that order. This is annoying for the acronym NCD.C. Putting a full stop between solves that problem.

      A.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n
      R.e.f.r.i.g.e.r.a.t.i.o.n

      Those 2 words also cause posts to be binned.

      I’ve read that posts will not allow more than 5 links. Not sure if that’s strictly true or not.

    • dp says:

      Why on earth would you use a blog as an editor? Create your post in a text editor then copy/paste it into the web page editor. Be smarter than the problem.

    • Scott R says:

      Thanks for looking into it Roy. It seems a link to the NOAA tides and currents database was holding up my posts for some reason.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        scott…”Thanks for looking into it Roy. It seems a link to the NOAA tides and currents database was holding up my posts for some reason”.

        Did the link have ncd-c in it? Without hyphen, of course.

        If a link does have ncd-c, add the hyphen or * between d*c and advise reader to remove the – or * and copy/paste to URL bar in browser.

      • barry says:

        Or just convert any problematic links to a tiny url in a couple of seconds.

        https://tinyurl.com/

        As long as the tiny url that is generated does not contain the letters D and C in that order, it will always post.

  5. Entropic man says:

    The mean number of hurricanes per decade is 4.3 and the 90% confidence limits are +/-6.8.

    The uncertainty is so large that you cannot make any meaningful statements about trends or the lack of a trend.

    I’m not very keen on using hurricanes hitting Florida as a metric. It means that many (most?) Atlantic hurricanes are not counted and the sample size is much reduced.

    Using an artificially small sample is a good way to make sure that you do not find any trend.

  6. George Schuh says:

    Dr. Spencer it seems that the measurement of wind velocities in tropical storms and hurricanes have been changed from when I was growing up in Houston. Slightly Off Topic but important to the overall narrative. At 1303 CDST 8/28/2019. I heard a NWS announcement on the radio that Tropical Storm Dorian had transitioned to a hurricane. I typed up a list of windspeeds at surface(55kph, 34mph) 1000hPa(75kph/46.5mph), 850(110kph/68;2mph), and 700 hPA(44kph/27.3mph) from memory at 17:23, because when I submitted the post at WUWT it said it was not accepted and I had to go to an appointment. The storm has now moved past the island and I have taken readings at the same relevant quadrant of the storm (NNE) at Surface, 1000, 850, 700 hPA those speeds are (95kph/59 mph at Surface)(107kph/67mph at 1000 (363ft above sea surface))(120 kph/114mph at 4770 ft above sea level 850hP$)(97kph/74.4mph at 9800ft above sea level 700hPA) at 1750 hrs When I was a lad of 8 and Dan Rather got famous for his Hurricane Carla coverage they reported wind speed as measured on an aneometer that was no more than 40ft above ground level and hurricane force 1 winds started at 75mph. It would appear that wind speed is now measured at 850hPA or an altitude of about 4500 ft above the sea level surface. Are they anticipating drastic sea level rise or just fudging the numbers to get more hurricanes as they are doing with sun spots and thermometers over asphalt and air conditioner exhausts in cities with UHI affects? Used earth:nullschool to capture data both times. Since yesterday have been using null school measurements which appear to track Dorian eye position to about .1degree of positional agreement with NOAA storm track yet their statement is that sustained winds have been at 85mph when at surface 1000hPA, 850hPA, 700hPA and 500hPA my results measure kph values not mph vales ie 85kph or 52.7mph what am I doing wrong

  7. Nate says:

    I love Trump response to the hurricane possibly hitting Puerto Rico. His main concern, er more like complaint, was having to send more money to this US territory!

    Take note, Greenland!

    Now that it may hit Florida, suddenly hes on high alert, cancelling trips etc

    What a mensch!

    • gbaikie says:

      There is a lot difference between a Cat 1 and a Cat 4, but possible doesn’t hit US and/or it’s a Cat 1 or tropical.
      But it could be 3, 4, or worst.

    • coturnix says:

      I think in a certain sense he acts quite rational. I am not an american here, but afaik US president is elected by the states, not by the citizens. Puerto Rico – not a state, tehrefore why would he care.

  8. DocSiders says:

    Monitoring Dorian wind speeds (NOAA) at 10m altitude 9:00 pm EST. Max sustained wind speeds are currently 54 mph.

    Where are they getting the 85 mph sustained winds?

    That 54 mph barely qualifies as a tropical storm. You have to go up to an altitude of 1000m to see any hurricane force wind speeds…BUT THAT’S NOT HOW IT WAS EVER DONE IN THE PAST.

    I don’t like not being able to trust our news reporting. Feels like living in China or the Middle East…where lies are just part of doing business.

  9. Mike Flynn says:

    Dr Spencer wrote –

    “Our climate is a nonlinear dynamical system, capable of undergoing unforced changes both locally and globally.”

    Chaotic. Changes all by itself. No “forcings” needed.

    Fortune sellers such as “climate scientists”, economists, financial planners, and all the rest, don’t want to admit chaos and unpredictability are real and part of the natural order of things.

    CO2 heats nothing, but even if it did, nobody could say with certainty what the consequences would be. Maybe good for some, but bad for others – who knows? Much ado about nothing. I am sure the time effort and money wasted on pointless efforts to peer into the future could be better spent on useful things. Maybe a cure for rhe common cold or hay fever? Better outcomes for spinal surgery? Non addictive pain relief, perhaps?

    Hope for the best, prepare for the worst, seems a reasonable approach.

    Cheers.

    • Dr Myki says:

      Begone, incontinent dog!

      • Midas says:

        I do imagine him licking his own balls every time he makes a post.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          midas…”I do imagine him licking his own balls every time he makes a post”.

          That is about your mind and it’s aberrant contents. I hope you are just imagining it and not interfering with yourself at the same time.

          • Midas says:

            He’s the one licking his balls – I’m only the messenger.

          • Lewis guignard says:

            Midas,

            You seemed obsessed with the idea. Envious?

          • Midas says:

            Not at all. I can’t lick my balls, but I can go one better.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Lg,

            He’s envious. He wishes he had some. It seems he can stick his head up his own fundament, and put his foot in his mouth at the same time.

            The contortions of the Witless Warmist are indeed a wonder to behold!

            Cheers.

  10. ren says:

    Active northwest fronts hinder Dorian’s development.
    https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00987/drlifs3fygt6.png

  11. ren says:

    The cold front generates dangerous thunderstorms.
    https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00987/15wh89e3sezq.png

  12. Midas says:

    UAH percentile trends – percentiles for each 5-year period
    1980-84, 1985-89, 1990-94, 1995-99, 2000-04, 2005-09, 2010-14, 2015-19

    90th percentile:
    +0.03 +0.10 +0.12 +0.48 +0.25 +0.26 +0.34 +0.55

    75th percentile:
    -0.03 +0.04 +0.04 +0.16 +0.21 +0.18 +0.22 +0.44

    Median:
    -0.15 -0.17 -0.11 +0.05 +0.14 +0.12 +0.14 +0.34

    25th percentile:
    -0.25 -0.29 -0.23 -0.06 +0.03 +0.02 +0.05 +0.25

    10th percentile:
    -0.32 -0.37 -0.33 -0.10 -0.05 -0.13 -0.04 +0.19

  13. Scott R says:

    ren,

    The Nino 1+2 region has started to spike back down again, about a 40% retrace of the up move so far…

    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png

    The 3.4 region has made a smaller 20% retracement…

    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png

    This is still heading towards La Nina. I think the 1+2, 3.4 regions have an inverse relationship short term. Intermediate term they have a direct relationship. So by studying the retracements, we can see if the momentum is still heading towards La Nina.

  14. caffeine withdrawals says:

    Has there been any research on declining hurricane speeds near the coast? And on the extent that changes are attributable to warmer global temps?

    Looks like Dorian will be YET ANOTHER slow-mover when it makes landfall.

  15. ren says:

    It is likely that Hurricane Dorian will reach the east coast of Florida.

  16. ren says:

    The strong geomagnetic storm on Sunday will increase the speed of jet streams. As a result, hurricane strength will also increase.

    • Midas says:

      Its strength will increase because it will move over warmer water (assuming the predicted path is maintained). Where do you get this rubbish from?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        midas…”Its strength will increase because it will move over warmer water (assuming the predicted path is maintained). Where do you get this rubbish from?”

        ren knows more about meteorology than you do anything. ren tries to contribute scientific information to Roy’s blog whereas all you tend to do is whine. You’re not even a good whiner.

  17. David Gray says:

    When we start looking at climate data from thousands of years ago, just about everything goes out the window. Somewhere between 5,000 and 11,000 years ago the Sahara Desert was lush jungle. Somewhere before 11,000 years ago glaciers covered much if not most of the Northern Hemisphere. That major hurricanes were more prevalent several thousand years ago probably is just a symptom of massive climate swings that are common when measured on such time scales. Climate swings like this are affected by the direction of the earth’s axis with respect to the orbital plane, which is known, and solar radiance, which is virtually unknown beyond a few hundred years ago. CO2 levels have been significantly higher in the past than at present. Frankly, it is hubris that makes humans think we have much of an effect on climate. Further, and even more hubristic, is that the current generation of alarmists thinks they know the “ideal” climate and what humans should do to achieve it.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      David…”Frankly, it is hubris that makes humans think we have much of an effect on climate”.

      That’s putting it kindly. Mainly it is sheer stupidity based on a faulty brain which the bearer has no idea is faulty. In some circles that condition is referred to as The Cosmic Joke.

    • barry says:

      Nope, a fair account of the past and a load of bollocks about the present.

    • Midas says:

      At the peak of the last glacial period about 20000 years ago, the ice sheets only made it down into the very northern part of the USA. Perhaps do some research instead of inventing your own “facts”.

    • Lewis guignard says:

      I don’t know if hubris is the correct word to describe the belief some people have about influencing their environment. It is similar to the guilt people have when something goes wrong and they say ‘if only I had…’

      It was not so long ago that human sacrifices were made to the gods to change drought, floods, heat, crop failure… whatever. ‘We did something to anger the gods so we must assuage our guilt by killing something to humor them’. The same goes on today. Since we are hurting the environment, something must be done. In today’s world the guilty party is industrialization. Those who will be punished are the poor, while those recommending the sacrifices will remain rich and jetting around to conferences.

      Nothing has changed. Only the players. It is about control of others. Not hubris.

      • David Appell says:

        Lewis guignard says:
        It is about control of others.

        Actually it’s about the direct opposite — seeing that no one pollutes and affects all others, or changes the climate for the next 100,000 years, wiping out all coastal cities in the process, forcing hundreds of millions of people to abandon their homes, seeing that no one threatens the food supply of, especially, the poor.

        But don’t worry Lewis, you’ll be just fine. That’s all that matters.

    • barry says:

      That human activity is changing the global temperature is not hubris or belief or religion or a need for control.

      It’s the conclusion of scientific research.

      That’s a fact.

      • JDHuffman says:

        Wrong barry, “pseudoscience” is NOT scientific.

      • barry says:

        Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Roger Pielke Senior and other ‘skeptics’ who have the qualifications to understand the science know that it is sound. The only hubris here is that you think you know better than them.

        It would be mildly interesting to see how you frame their agreement with the enhanced greenhouse effect. Stupid or suckered?

        • JDHuffman says:

          barry, from what I know, both Drs Spencer and Christy accept the GHE. They do not dispute the “theory”, AFAIK. They prefer to challenge it in a different way, developing the science of using satellites. I think that is great. There is more than one way to skin a dead squirrel.

          And, from physics, the GHE is a “dead squirrel”. As Mike Flynn repeatedly implies, no one can state the GHE so that the laws of physics are not violated.

          When you approve the violation of the laws of physics, perversion and corruption of the data, and then try to hide behind people legitimately working to make proper and valid observations, you are up to your neck in pseudoscience.

          Do you know how to swim?

          • coturnix says:

            AFAICS, the common misconception that GHE effect somehow violates the laws of physics stems from people making a simple mistake of confusing the summary energy fluxes, which need to obey the 2nd law, and the quantities such as radiance that pertain to the particular subset of photons traveling from point a to point b. The individual radiant fluxes need not subject to the simplified and sometimes erroneously interpreted formulations of the second law as often used. Should there be an unrecognized hypothetical error in radiative physics as applied to the GHE it would be a rather subtle effect, not obvious on a simplified treatment of the subject as it is often done, but not omething like GHE not being there.

          • gbaikie says:

            Wiki:
            “The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet’s atmosphere warms the planet’s surface to a temperature above what it would be without this atmosphere”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

            That is misleading and/or wrong. Next:
            “Radiatively active gases (i.e., greenhouse gases) in a planet’s atmosphere radiate energy in all directions. Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, warming it.”
            Greenhouse gases don’t increase the surface temperature.
            It’s possible greenhouse gases might increase the average surface air temperature.
            Or might increase the air temperature, and can’t increase the ground or ocean surface temperature. Air is not a surface, surface air refers to air near the surface.

            But rather than going over all that wrong about the greenhouse effect theory.
            What is right about it?
            It seems it’s right when it states the water vapor is most dominate greenhouse gas.

            But generally greenhouse gases have very small effect upon our present global average temperature.
            And if going to talk present global temperature, the most relevant aspect is we are currently in an Ice Age.
            And in terms of Earth history, most of time, had much higher global average temperatures.

            It seems debatable that current CO2 levels would prevent us from returning to glacial period. Our Ice Age has glacial and interglacial periods. Higher CO2 level might have some affect upon returning to a glacial period, but Higher CO2 levels are going cause us to leave our present Ice Age.

          • JDHuffman says:

            gbaikie, the second sentence of the wiki link is the violation of 2LoT: “Radiatively active gases (i.e., greenhouse gases) in a planet’s atmosphere radiate energy in all directions. Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, warming it.”

            The radiation directed towards the surface does NOT “warm it”. “Cold” does NOT warm “hot”.

            This morning, directly overhead –> 13.7F (-10.2C)

            Ground –> 73.2F (22.9C)

          • gbaikie says:

            –JDHuffman says:
            September 1, 2019 at 7:41 AM
            gbaikie, the second sentence of the wiki link is the violation of 2LoT: “Radiatively active gases (i.e., greenhouse gases) in a planet’s atmosphere radiate energy in all directions. Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, warming it.”

            The radiation directed towards the surface does NOT “warm it”. “Cold” does NOT warm “hot”.–

            Yes. The greenhouse effect theory is not a theory it’s pseudo science.

            But “cold” can warm “hot” but it’s not a radiant process.

            The relatively cold clouds of Venus does warm the rocky surface of Venus, and it’s not violation of 2LoT.
            And the same process does occur on Earth but it not significant aspect that has much to do with global or surface air temperature.

            It involves convectional process, rather than than radiant process.

            The foolish aspect about “The greenhouse effect theory” is the claim that it’s too complicated to explain and a simplified version given is for “public consumption”.

            But global climate can be explain in simple terms. Anyone can explain it so the public can understand- if one happens to actually understand it, but the fools promoting “greenhouse effect theory” don’t vaguely understand it, don’t want to understand it, instead they have silly religion they are promoting.

          • JDHuffman says:

            gbaikie, you seem to understand that the GHE is nonsense, but yet want to cling to the associated pseudoscience, for some reason.

            When I state “cold” can NOT warm “hot”, that is shorthand for a cold object can NOT, by itself, raise the temperature of a hotter object. Which is just an abbreviated rehash of 2LoT.

            So when you state: But “cold” can warm “hot” but it’s not a radiant process, you are, possibly unintentionally, misleading people. “Cold” can NEVER warm “hot”, by its own means, anywhere in the known Universe.

            What you may be referring to is blocking convection and/or conduction. If someone doesn’t understand 2LoT, they might say putting on a coat is an example of “cold” warming “hot”. But, they are really just indicating they do not understand the thermodynamics involved. All they have to do is put the coat on a corpse to learn differently.

            “Cold” can NOT warm “hot”.

          • gbaikie says:

            –JDHuffman says:
            September 1, 2019 at 10:32 AM
            gbaikie, you seem to understand that the GHE is nonsense, but yet want to cling to the associated pseudoscience, for some reason.–

            Well the term, global warming was not invented by the pseudoscience,
            lefties steal labels, it’s a full time job for them.
            So, perhaps the “cling to the associated pseudoscience” is because use some to the words that the religious have robbed and perverted for their demented purposes.

            “So when you state: But cold can warm hot but its not a radiant process, you are, possibly unintentionally, misleading people. Cold can NEVER warm hot, by its own means, anywhere in the known Universe.”
            A hot flame can cool, as with propane refrigerator.
            And it’s not just humans involved with the refrigeration business.
            If you compress gas, it heats.
            An atmosphere in gravity field compresses gas. And molecules of gas “are machines” which transfer kinetic energy.
            A way to look at it, a gas molecule is in a vast empty space, which not made empty by trillions molecule going every direction, their travel at a speed of bullet “fills the space”.
            In atmosphere in gravity field, there less traffic up, rather than down, and kinetic energy does tend to go up, but it also goes down and there other factors which make it tend to go down.
            And down is hotter because their more traffic in the empty space.

            ” What you may be referring to is blocking convection and/or conduction. If someone doesnt understand 2LoT, they might say putting on a coat is an example of cold warming hot. But, they are really just indicating they do not understand the thermodynamics involved. All they have to do is put the coat on a corpse to learn differently.

            Cold can NOT warm hot.”

            What talking about only works with gases. Which also true of refrigeration. Now to make it better, refrigeration also uses condensation. And I am not really talking about that, but I will note that Venus clouds do rain.

          • barry says:

            no one can state the GHE so that the laws of physics are not violated

            Earth receives incoming energy from the sun, and part of that energy reaches the surface, warming it. Gases that are relatively transparent to sunlight absorb and re-emit the long wave radiation emitted by the surface, thereby slowing the escape of that radiation from the surface to space. The temperature of the surface is partly dependent on how efficiently the atmosphere transports energy away from the surface to space. So-called ‘greenhouse’ gases are less efficient at transporting energy to space than an atmosphere without greenhouse gases.

            Therefore, the ‘greenhouse effect’ operates by slowing the rate at which energy leaves the system through the atmosphere.

            No physical laws broken here.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Very good, barry. You didn’t violate any laws of physics. The atmosphere does NOT warm the surface. The atmosphere regulates the energy radiated to space, thereby maintaining Earth’s temperature within a set range. What you described is called the “atmospheric effect”.

            The GHE, as originally touted, states that the atmosphere can warm the surface. And, by implication, that means “beyond its set point”. You have probably seen mention of “Earth becoming like Venus”, which is bogus.

            The “atmospheric effect” is real, the GHE is pseudoscience.

          • JDHuffman says:

            PS This morning’s “atmospheric effect”:

            Bright sun, clear blue sky

            Directly overhead –> 7.7 F (-13.5 C)

            Ground –> 80.4 F (26.9 C)

          • barry says:

            What on Earth is the “set point” of the surface temperature? That sounds like pure pseudoscience to me. Can you explain?

            No one conversant with the science thinks the Earth will ever become like Venus. I don’t see that comment made here, or hardly anywhere at all, so that’s a red herring argument from you.

            An increase in the amount of gases in the atmosphere that absorb (and re-emit) long wave radiation much more than they absorb solar radiation, means that the rate of energy escaping from surface to space is slowed down more than the incoming energy reaching the surface.

            Any object receiving continuous energy (Earth’s surface receives solar energy) that has the rate of its energy loss slowed down must perforce, by the laws of physics, increase in temperature.

            No laws of physics were broken in this post.

            That is the description of the enhanced ‘greenhouse’ effect that does not break the second law by speaking of cold objects making warm ones warmer.

          • JDHuffman says:

            What on Earth is the “set point” of the surface temperature? That sounds like pure pseudoscience to me. Can you explain?

            barry, the “set point” is determined by the laws of thermodynamics. It is believed to be about 288-289K.

            No one conversant with the science thinks the Earth will ever become like Venus. I don’t see that comment made here, or hardly anywhere at all, so that’s a red herring argument from you.

            barry, I didn’t state that real scientists were making the Earth/Venus link. So don’t try to imply otherwise. But, just in case you have missed the pseudoscience, here’s just a few:

            https://www.livescience.com/59693-could-earth-turn-into-venus.html

            https://www.thoughtco.com/venus-earths-sister-planet-3074105

            http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/lectures/venus.htm

            The rest of your comment was covered. Obviously you don’t want to learn.

          • barry says:

            the “set point” is determined by the laws of thermodynamics. It is believed to be about 288-289K

            I asked for an explanation of the “set point,” not its temperature. That is not the blackbody temperature of Earth’s surface, so how are you arriving at that figure?

            The first link corroborated, the other 2 didn’t. It is still very much a fringe idea, and a red herring to bring it up in this forum.

          • JDHuffman says:

            barry, you were trying to describe the GHE, without violating the laws of physics. But, what you described was the “atmospheric effect”. You can NOT describe the GHE that does not violate the laws of physics. So, you launch into your debate tricks: wanting explanations of “set point”; distractions like saying 288-289 K is not the blackbody temperature; and trying to create a red herring about whether or not people have used Venus as a scare tactic.

            If you want to learn, stop with the debate tricks.

            Now, one point at a time.

            I asked for an explanation of the “set point,” not its temperature.

            In control theory, a “set point” is the value about which feedback subsystems use for a goal. A simple example is a thermostat on a furnace. If the temperature falls below the set point, the system is designed to turn the furnace on, until the temperature gets back to the set point.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setpoint_(control_system)

            Again, no tricks, and only one discussion point at a time, if you sincerely want to learn.

          • gbaikie says:

            –barry says:
            September 3, 2019 at 6:16 PM
            the set point is determined by the laws of thermodynamics. It is believed to be about 288-289K

            I asked for an explanation of the set point, not its temperature. That is not the blackbody temperature of Earths surface, so how are you arriving at that figure?–

            JDHuffman is simply stating the obvious.
            Or the “”set point” is believed to be 288-289K {14.85 C to 15.85}
            and obviously it is determined by the laws of thermodynamics.

            And you want him to explain how the global average surface air temperature is about 15 C {which it is believed to be}.

            I would say it’s more important to understand that we living in an Icebox climate {which is also widely accepted as proper way to view global climate].
            And that average global surface air temperature of about 15 C is not very useful. But this average temperature is due to average ocean global surface of 17 C and global average land surface temperature of about 10 C.
            Since human are mostly confined to living on land, the average land temperature of 10 C, might be useful to know.
            Particularly, if humans are planning to remain living on 30% of Earth surface which is land surface, and compounded with possessing irrational fears about an over population of human beings on planet Earth.

            We living in an Ice Age, on land which has average temperature of 10 C, and about 30% of all land is deserts {or land that doesn’t get enough yearly rainfall]. Few people are living where there is average temperature of about 15 C {I do} and we have educational system terrorizing children about the idea that average global temperature could get warmer than 15 C.
            Where is an average land temperature with 20 C?
            I will guess Mexico City. Now, I will check. Nope, apparently it’s average is 16.5 C. Though average of the country of Mexico is a bit over 21 C.
            Or school children are terrorized they might in the future live in world like Mexico- though the fire and brimstone of future implanted in the kiddies minds is not like anyplace on Earth.

            The leading priest of the religion want world with fewer than 1 billion people. And in this utopia, they probably want to live until they are 120 year old {or older} or world with far fewer children. Though maybe, everyone going to have commit suicide at age 30, an world without any adults. Anyhow, some kind brave new world with a totalitarian rule.

            A blackbody surface temperature of mostly a transparent ocean surface which ,has average tropical surface of 26 C, and rest ocean surface average is about 11 C.
            Now when have enough atmosphere is insulates regions of Earth, or in what could call the latitudinal bands or regions of Earth getting about same amount sunlight in a day of a year.
            Or in climate there is Tropical Zone, the Temperate Zones, and Polar regions, five latitudinal bands.
            In a Ice Age there large differences of temperature in these latitudinal bands. And in hothouse climate there isn’t a large difference in temperatures.
            Since we in an Ice Age, it doesn’t make much sense to talk about an average surface air temperature.
            And we living in a world with large cooling mechanisms and the focus is on what warming the Planet.
            The answer is sunlight and the tropical ocean heat engine {which adding warmth to our cold world}.

        • barry says:

          Definition of “set point,” according to the wiki link you helpfully provided, Huffman:

          In cybernetics and control theory, a setpoint (also set point or set-point) is the desired or target value for an essential variable, or process value of a system.

          This isn’t cybernetics and control theory.

          The set point is a “desired quantity”, rather than one determined by physics?

          If you can’t make this real clear in the next post, I think any reader of our conversation would agree that you are posting pseudoscience.

          Make this so clear that I could explain it to any reasonably competent adult, please. So far it is very garbled. I think you’re flailing. But a cogent post that nails your view down clearly would sort that out. No BS please, just clarity.

          • JDHuffman says:

            barry, you’ve never studied control theory. You’ve never studied the relevant physics. You’ve never studied thermodynamics.

            And now, because you can’t understand, it’s MY fault?

            I told you no more tricks. I’m not using any BS. When I tried to explain, using the simple example of a furnace thermostat, and linking you to the explanation of “set point”, you respond with your denial.

            If you were honest, you would just admit you don’t want to learn. You want to keep your false religion. I’ve seen it all before.

            Nothing new.

          • barry says:

            A set point is a desired range quantity that humans design a system to stay within. This does not explain how you derive 288-289K in any way. All you’ve suggested so far is that an intelligent designer has made that the value for the Earth.

            Are you unable to explain the mechanics and show the equations?

          • JDHuffman says:

            barry, don’t get hung up on terms or definitons. Try to understand the concepts. Physics is NOT about semantics. Don’t look for ways to confuse the issues. That just makes you appear as if you’re afraid of reality.

            Earth’s temperature is maintained as if it were a “set point”. The laws of physics provide the mechanisms to control around that set point. Earth receives energy, and the oceans and atmosphere work to maintain the set point based on that input. Too hot, things happen. Too cold, things happen.

            There are many equations involved, if you wanted to delve into the details. One, easy to understand, is the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. That Law states that the radiated emission from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature.

            Now, it’s time to check your understanding.

            Question 1: If a surface increases from 250 K to 300 K, how much does the emission increase? (Choose the best answer.)

            a) Stays the same.
            b) 20% increase.
            c) 100% increase.
            d) 200% increase.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Well it’s been over 24 hours and barry is a “no show”. His type just can’t handle facts and logic.

            Nothing new.

          • barry says:

            So you are unable to do it. Unsurprising.

            d) is the best answer, but inaccurate, and quite meaningless.

            What a waste of time you are.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Yes barry, a 20% increase in temperature is countered by a 200% increase in emission. That’s bad news for you worriers because it means Earth is easily able to handle any excess warming.

            That’s just one example of how a control system and set point work.

            But, likely you are unable to understand it.

            Nothing new.

    • Nate says:

      “Frankly, it is hubris that makes humans think we have much of an effect on climate.”

      No just science. The same kind that gave you all the facts in your post.

      “Further, and even more hubristic, is that the current generation of alarmists thinks they know the ‘ideal’ climate”

      No, but it was significantly easier for hunter-gatherer societies to respond to climate change–by moving, and very gradually, without our massive infrastructure, coastal cities, agriculture, etc

    • David Appell says:

      David, your comment made several errors.

      The angle of Earth’s axis changes too slowly to explain warming since 1850.

      Nor has the Sun changed enough to explain modern warming.

      And higher CO2 levels in the past must be compared against a dimmer Sun back then.

      All of these should be known by anyone who wants an opinion on climate change.

      • JDHuffman says:

        DA argues with himself, again:

        Nor has the Sun changed enough to explain modern warming.

        And higher CO2 levels in the past must be compared against a dimmer Sun back then.

      • Nate says:

        Sun-modern-Not dimmer

        Sun-past-dimmer

        JD very dim.

        • JDHuffman says:

          Anonymous troll Nate actually believes he can make up for his lack of knowledge of the relevant physics by attempted insults.

          Nothing new.

        • Nate says:

          Aww JD felt insulted….after he insulted someone for umpteenth time this week.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Nate, your need to misrepresent and falsely accuse is a constant reminder that your opinions are invalid.

            Nothing new.

            (And, I won’t respond to your upcoming response. So, go crazy with your insults, misrepresentations, and false accusations.)

  18. gbaikie says:

    “U.S.—After some confusion was expressed by casual observers of apparent hypocrisy in their denunciation of Dave Chappelle’s most recent comedy special, liberals from around the country clarified that they only want black voices to be heard when those voices are saying liberal-approved things.”
    https://babylonbee.com/news/liberals-clarify-they-only-want-black-voices-heard-when-theyre-saying-liberal-things
    Linked from:
    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/

    I can’t say listened much to Dave Chappelle in the past, and I didn’t feel like I was missing much, but I feel missing a lot not watching him on netflicks.
    I guess a got to get around to watching it.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gbaikie…from your link…”The offended white progressives asked black comedian Dave Chappelle to “keep it down” and “maybe not talk so much” after his comments made them feel uncomfortable, sources confirmed Thursday”.

      Political correctness knows no bounds.

      But wait…maybe their protests have some basis. In his Netflix show, David Chappelle jokes about having sex with white, blond, kids.

      Only a stupid idiot would use such offensive schtick in a comedy act. Comedians who use such crap are those who lack the wit to be funny without it.

      It’s about time we stopped this kind of mindless drivel on TV and in movies. Free speech is free speech but yelling, “Fire!!!” in a crowded movie theatre is deemed free speech by many.

      I’m for throwing idiots like Chapelle in jail, where he can get all the sex his heart desires.

      • gbaikie says:

        –Gordon Robertson says:
        August 30, 2019 at 6:14 PM
        gbaikiefrom your linkThe offended white progressives asked black comedian Dave Chappelle to keep it down and maybe not talk so much after his comments made them feel uncomfortable, sources confirmed Thursday.

        Political correctness knows no bounds.–

        No, that is satire:

        —What is The Babylon Bee?
        The Babylon Bee is the worlds best satire site, totally inerrant in all its truth claims. We write satire about Christian stuff, political stuff, and everyday life.

        The Babylon Bee was created ex nihilo on the eighth day of the creation week, exactly 6,000 years ago. We have been the premier news source through every major world event, from the Tower of Babel and the Exodus to the Reformation and the War of 1812. We focus on just the facts, leaving spin and bias to other news sites like CNN and Fox News.

        If you would like to complain about something on our site, take it up with God.

        Unlike other satire sites, everything we post is 100% verified by Snopes.com. —

        https://babylonbee.com/about

        { Yes, it is true, the dumb, Snopes.com has spent time and effort, fact checking The Babylon Bee.}

        “But waitmaybe their protests have some basis. In his Netflix show, David Chappelle jokes about having sex with white, blond, kids.”
        People are paying to listen to the comic, David Chappelle.
        I am not paying, but I am seriously considering that option.
        I no longer have Netflix account, so I guess would have do that- but if was Spectrum cable [It might be, I have not checked] then I wouldn’t have to join Netflix.

        Though, Gordon, if you are being satirical.
        Well Played.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson said
        Im for throwing idiots like Chapelle in jail, where he can get all the sex his heart desires.

        That’s why you’d never make it in America, where we believe speech should be free. For all its flaws and problems, this is one of the best features of the USA.

    • Nate says:

      He is extremely funny, usually right on target, and extremely offensive.

      But thats the point of comedy, IMO.

      Im a fan.

    • barry says:

      Gbakie seemed a little slow to recognize he’d posted satire.

      Gordon didn’t get it at all.

      And what the hell is this material doing here? Have we become a facebook page now?

      • gbaikie says:

        “barry says:
        August 31, 2019 at 6:22 PM
        Gbakie seemed a little slow to recognize he’d posted satire.

        Gordon didn’t get it at all.”
        I knew it was satire.
        but I thought it was possible that what Gordon was posting was satire.
        Gordon didn’t get it all or he was pretending he didn’t get it.

        But since Gordon didn’t reply that he was being satirical, I guess it wasn’t.
        But would been excellent satire, if that had been Gordon’s intention.

        “And what the hell is this material doing here? Have we become a facebook page now?”

        Now?
        Really?
        Do all imagine that you keep strictly on topic?
        Anyhow I was hearing Dave Chappelle is driving the Left bonkers, and since there is bunch Lefties here, and I was wondering if it widespread effect.
        Apparently it’s only affecting the Lefty, Gordon.

      • barry says:

        Most posts are to do with science at least. Your contribution here is way left of field.

        I would pity Roy if his blog descended into a topic free-for-all.

        • gbaikie says:

          “barry says:
          September 2, 2019 at 5:28 PM
          Most posts are to do with science at least. Your contribution here is way left of field.”

          This current post of Barry, has nothing to do with science.

          “I would pity Roy if his blog descended into a topic free-for-all.”

          The blog is free-for-all. Roy probably gains nothing from your pity, but he might gain something from something quite funny AND it actually is related to this blog {you have to try harder}.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        barry, please stop trolling.

  19. gbaikie says:

    “MIAMI (AP) Hurricane Dorian powered toward Florida with increasing fury Friday, menacing its eastern coast with a potentially devastating direct hit while also giving indications it might just skirt up the U.S. coastline.

    Forecasters warned that no one is out of danger and Dorian could still wallop the state with extremely dangerous 140 mph (225 kph) winds and torrential rains late Monday or early Tuesday, with millions of people in the crosshairs along with Walt Disney World and President Donald Trumps Mar-a-Lago resort.”
    https://apnews.com/e923b7f405894d79a7112d8f47f4b4c1
    linked from:
    https://www.drudgereport.com/

    • Midas says:

      Here’s hoping it will wipe out Mar-a-Largo and spare the rest of Florida.

      • Lewis guignard says:

        Typical leftist. Wishing ill on people who disagree with you.

        MERSA for you. Isn’t that how it works?

        • Midas says:

          I wish no harm to anyone, only to the place Trump goes to run away from doing his job.

          • Lewis guignard says:

            And, of course, the jobs of those who work there, and their families.

            No, you are wishing harm on people due simply to the fact you don’t like them or their politics.

            It is only mean people who have such thoughts.

          • David Appell says:

            “In 2005, Trump said he received a $17 million insurance payment for hurricane damage to the resort, but an Associated Press investigation found little evidence of such large-scale damage.

            “At the time, Trump said he didn’t know how much had been spent on repairs, but acknowledged he pocketed some of the money. He transferred funds into his personal accounts, saying that under the terms of his policy “you didn’t have to reinvest it.””

            – ABC News 8/30/19
            https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/trumps-florida-mar-lago-resort-hurricane-dorians-path-65293295

          • Midas says:

            LG
            I guess you have never actually paid attention to the kinds of comments your cult hero Trump has been making. If you support him, you support meanness.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            David, Mi-Des, please stop trolling.

  20. gbaikie says:

    Visiting space will be “just like going on a cruise” says space hotel architect

    “The first commercial space hotel will be more like a cruise ship than Stanley Kubrick’s sleek space station from 2001, says Tim Alatorre, senior design architect of the Von Braun Space Station.

    The Gateway Foundation is designing the world’s first space hotel the Von Braun Space Station with the aim of making visiting space accessible to everyone.

    It will have gravity, full-working kitchens, bars, and interiors made with natural materials and colours.”
    https://www.dezeen.com/2019/08/29/space-hotel-architect-von-braun-space-station/
    Linked from:
    https://www.drudgereport.com/

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gbaikie…”Visiting space will be just like going on a cruise says space hotel architect…”

      It would be easier to cruise through the Northwest Passage in mid-winter.

      • gbaikie says:

        “cruising through the Northwest Passage in mid-winter, would require a lot time and lacks a view, can’t do it in less than week.
        Orbit is minutes away and minutes away to get back on Earth, and could land anywhere on Earth. So go to space before or after a slower cruise ship traveling somewhere. And finish it all before completing “cruising through the Northwest Passage in mid-winter” {probably in a Russian Nuclear powered icebreaker}.

    • gbaikie says:

      Also:
      “The goal of the Gateway Foundation is to have the Von Braun operational by 2025 with 100 tourists visiting the station per week, he continued.

      “Because the overall costs are still so high most people assume that space tourism will only be available to the super rich, and while I think this will be true for the next several years, the Gateway Foundation has a goal of making space travel open to everyone.”

      A hundred tourist per week, will *make* it affordable.
      Or SpaceX, Starship, is suppose to carry 100 passenger, and 52 launches of spaceship per year, by itself, should get launch cost down to near cost of rocket fuel, or $100 per kg to LEO.
      Or less than 1/2 million per seat or less. Or reduction of seat price [to space and back} by 1/100th. {and SpaceX making a lot money}. Add in more market than hotel and more competition and it could get much cheaper than that.
      Or +2025 in beginning whole price per person could be few million for the week long vacation and within 5 to 10 year could be about 1 million, and few decades less than 1 million. But in few decades one could get “different ways getting people to orbit” which beats rocket fuel costs of something like SpaceX Starship. It could be simple as a Starship carrying more passengers, but also other ways of doing it.

      This if successful {not likely as soon as they saying] but if, it would change my idea about initial cost lunar rocket fuel and the mineablity of lunar water. Also Mars settlements and how soon we get Space Power satellite, maybe less than 40 years rather than 50 years. But it require brilliance people and luck to start all this as fast as they are suggesting.

      I tend to think or guess, that such a hotel would come after lunar water mining, rather than before it.

      • Midas says:

        How much rock do you think would have to be dug up to get a day’s supply of water for one person?

        • gbaikie says:

          On earth one person uses about 80 to 100 gallons per day:
          https://water.usgs.gov/edu/qa-home-percapita.html

          But water used for growing food and electrical power production and anything you buy. But in terms drinking and eating {adding water to dehydrated food stuff] and not doing much activity, maybe a liter of water is enough to survive.
          But if mean about 100 gallons, that is about 380 kg.

          normal dry dirt on Earth has about 5% of mass of dirt being water, assume you might mine lunar if less than %5 per mass of lunar regolith. And cubic meter lunar dirt weighs 1500 kg
          1500 times .05 = 75 kg
          So water in vacuum boils at 0 C
          And so might heat lunar regolith in range of 10 C to 50 C to remove most [or say 95%] of water from water ore.
          Anyhow:
          380 / 75 = about 5 cubic meters or 7600 kg of lunar regolith- or about dump truck load of dirt if at 5% per weight concentration.

          And most think lunar water is worth about $500 per kg.
          380 kg of water at $500 per kg worth $190,000 dollars on the lunar surface.

          • Midas says:

            “Worth” in what sense?

          • gbaikie says:

            Midas says:
            August 30, 2019 at 10:18 PM
            Worth in what sense?

            In the normal sense, as in gold is worth around $50 per gram.
            The big difference is there is no current market for water on the
            Moon.

            But if was market for Lunar water, $500 per kg should be reasonable price to buy or sell lunar water.
            But it this point in time, we aren’t ready for a lunar water market {and only a market can give an actual price}.

            If the lunar polar region is explored, to determine if and where there is mineable lunar water, then it’s quite possible there could be market for lunar water.

            So if water concentration is about 5% then I say roughly worth $500 per kg. If it’s 3% or less, not confident it could be mined. If %10 fairly confident it could mined. If 20% or more, it will be less than $500 per kg and quite confident it could be mined.

            But say, instead, if I don’t know the details of water concentration, but price of lunar water is said to cost more than $1000 per kg to mine, I wonder if it’s doable. If instead costs is said to be $200 per kg, it seems quite doable- and I am wondering how/if it’s possible.
            It’s complicated, but if lunar water is cheaper than $500 per kg, it’s good news. And if much higher than $1000 per kg, not as good, and it is heading the general direction of “I am not buying it”.

            But what is important is the price of lunar rocket fuel at lunar surface. Which should be about $2000 per kg {again, less is better}.
            And if lunar water is $1000 per kg, lunar rocket fuel still could be fairly $2000 per kg.
            And what seemed like over priced Amazon stock price, lunar water could have higher price and still work.

  21. ren says:

    The front retreated inland and made room for the hurricane.
    https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00987/t0ln5esdvmty.png

  22. Gordon Robertson says:

    It’s interesting that in Roy’s graphic showing Florida hurricane landfalls since 1900 that the strongest one was in 1935.

    1934 is still the hottest year in US history. What was causing all the heat in the 1930s?

  23. ren says:

    Dr. Spencer was right. The hurricane can reach the Florida coast as a 4th category hurricane.

  24. ren says:

    The northern lights (waves caused by the solar wind) are visible over North America.
    https://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/animations/ovation-north/latest.jpg?time=1567231673000

    • ren says:

      G1 (Minor) geomagnetic storms are likely on 31 Aug due to a
      geoeffective, positive polarity CH HSS. The solar wind environment is likely to become favorable for G2 (Moderate) storming on 01 Sep with ongoing CH HSS effects.

  25. ren says:

    Hurricane Dorian is approaching the Bahamas very quickly.

  26. studentb says:

    Global SST anomaly has risen to +0.3
    30-day average SOI has fallen to -3

  27. ren says:

    The strength of the geomagnetic wave will increase even more.
    https://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/satellite-env.gif?time=1567254963000

  28. ren says:

    The jet stream directs the hurricane to Southeast Florida.
    https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00987/avvt01ebkmv6.png

  29. ren says:

    The hurricane will bring heavy rainfall to Georgia. It will collect huge amounts of moisture on its eastern side.

  30. ren says:

    HURRICANE CATEGORY 4 DORIAN
    DORIAN’S CURRENT STATS
    Last Updated 8/31/2019, 4:00:00 PM GMT+2
    Status
    Hurricane Category 4
    Position
    25.929 N, -73.134 W
    Winds
    222 km/h
    Gusts
    268 km/h
    Movement
    WNW 22 km/h
    Pressure
    942.00 mbar

  31. Nate says:

    It seems that the addition of one hurricane changed the trend from negative to positive.

    Illustrates that the stat significance is pretty poor.

  32. David Dilley of Global Weather Oscillations seems to have success predicting hurricanes. Dilley is the only hurricane foster to correctly predict 2017’s hyper-active season (see: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-hurricane-forecasts/meteorologists-see-normal-atlantic-hurricane-season-in-2017-idUSKBN17M2J8 ), and his prediction of another above-normal season this year is on track to beat out other forecasts. Also, Dilley predicts that we are about to enter a 110-year cooling trend, with this winter seeing significantly cooler temperatures!

  33. ren says:

    In a few hours, Dorian will hit the northern Bahamas.
    https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00987/lzilneqvrz63.png

  34. ren says:

    HURRICANE CATEGORY 4 DORIAN
    DORIAN’S CURRENT STATS
    Last Updated 8/31/2019, 10:00:00 PM GMT+2
    Status
    Hurricane Category 4
    Position
    26.2 N, -74.1 W
    Winds
    250 km/h
    Gusts
    306 km/h
    Movement
    W 15 km/h
    Pressure
    942.00 mbar

    • Midas says:

      We are all perfectly capable of getting our own weather updates.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        midas…”We are all perfectly capable of getting our own weather updates”.

        Enough with the alarmist whining.

        ren is a member in good standing here and his posts are informative.

        • Midas says:

          I notice that you have still not replied to my comment where I pointed out that ren hedged his bets by claiming in another thread that Dorian would weaken. Anyone can appear to be informed by using that strategy.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            midas…”I notice that you have still not replied to my comment where I pointed out that ren hedged his bets by claiming in another thread that Dorian would weaken”.

            Experienced meteorologists do that and freely admit it.

            I don’t know why you have a problem with ren. He’s a good person who tries to submit informative information.

            Are you one of those chronic complainers who pick at someone for doing what you don’t care about? Remember, Roy is a meteorologist and I would think info on meteorology would be of interest to him.

          • Midas says:

            So meteorologists make opposite claims using the same available data, do they? If he is unsure, he should be indicating that uncertainty, instead of saying something WILL happen and then contradicting himself shortly after.

            By problem with him is that he has a strong bias in his weather reporting towards colder events, and that he posits nonsense explanations for his hypotheses that turn out to be correct only slightly more than 50% of the time.

        • David Appell says:

          ren’s information and claims are always junk whenever I look at them closely. His favorite tactic is claiming trends then presenting a snapshot of a day’s data. Up above he referenced a volcano and then gave a link that was only about an earthquake, no volcano.

          ren’s more frequent responder is himself.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Mi-Des, David, please stop trolling.

  35. Gordon Robertson says:

    midas…”2012 is the hottest year in US history”.

    Don’t know how you got to be so gullible.

    2012 is not even in the running, it averaged near the baseline. It’s one of the only years recently that dipped below the baseline.

    Seriously, you have to stop looking at the fudged data from NOAA. Here is data from NOAA satellites.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2019_v6-900×519.jpg

    • Midas says:

      According to NOAA, April 2018 was the 15th coldest April in their 125 year record. Yet UAH had the US above average for that month. Did NOAA fudge their data that month?

    • David Appell says:

      Why are the N-O-A-A data fudged, Gordon? Let’s hear it….

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Why are the N-O-A-A data fudged, Gordon? ”

        I don’t know why they fudge the data, I presume they are politically motivated to support the anthropogenic theory.

        Obama was running around calling out climate deniers and NOAA worked for him. When the Trump admin asked for their methodology to verify it, NOAA refused to cooperate.

        There is no doubt that NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut are rife with climate alarmists. The Climategate emails revealed that. Karl, head of NOAA, knew about the fudging in the hockey stick and took no steps to reveal the chicanery.

        • David Appell says:

          What’s your PROOF anybody fudged anything?

          Cite the specific emails (by link) in the Climategate emails that shows Karl wrote what you claimed.

          I bet you can’t.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            Where’s your PROOF that nobody ever fudged anything? I’ll bet you haven’t got any at all!

            I suppose you believe fakers, frauds and phonies like Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt.

            The harder you push, the stupider you look. I won’t bother asking you to describe the GHE, because you can’t. What a fool.

            Cheers.

          • Midas says:

            When someone makes a claim, the onus is on them to prove it.
            ONLY THEN it the onus on the respondent to defend themselves.
            Interesting that someone who deigns to talk about the scientific method would claim otherwise.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Mi-Des, please stop trolling.

    • barry says:

      Uh, Gordon, on a question of US temperature you have posted the global temperature.

      Here is the UAH time series and annual averages for US temps.

      https://tinyurl.com/y4hdz6vc

      2012 is 4th highest in the 40 year record, and well above the baseline.

      The US is not the whole world. Repeat – remember.

  36. Gordon Robertson says:

    DA…”Thats why youd never make it in America, where we believe speech should be free. For all its flaws and problems, this is one of the best features of the USA”.

    How far does your free speech extend?

    In his act, Chappelle is joking about having sex with Macauley Culkin when the latter was a 10 year old. Is that what you call free speech, DA? Next you will be advocating that it’s OK to joke about sexual predators advocating sex with children.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      DA…”Thats why youd never make it in America…”

      BTW, I am making it in America, since Canada is part of America, as is the United States ***of*** America.

      America is a continent, not a country.

    • David Appell says:

      Yes, Gordon, that’s free speech.

      We have an amendment to protect speech exactly because of wanna be censors like you.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Yes, Gordon, that’s free speech.”

        If talking about having sex with a 10 year old boy is free speech then you are a sicko.

        • Midas says:

          I agree. I also believe that the idea of free speech should not permit a contender for the US presidency to suggest to his supporters at a rally that they assassinate his opponent.

    • Midas says:

      Be careful! Don’t challenge our resident expert ren, or Gordon will come after you.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        midas…”Dont challenge our resident expert ren, or Gordon will come after you”.

        I come after you for your utter lack of respect for a person trying to be informative while doing no one any harm.

        You’re yet another whiney alarmist.

    • Erik says:

      you “regulars” crack me up .. the idea anyone can predict weather systems a month, a year or decades in advance is laughable considering all that is known about tropical storms and less than 8 hours after “experts” prediction of a direct hit on central Florida, probably not.

      Science is about observation and falsifying hypothesis not making ego-based predictions that will be wrong by some degree and on rare occasion will happen to fit a prediction same as a broken clock shows the correct time twice a day

      It’s like a majority of you haven’t read nor understood Global Warming 101

  37. Gordon Robertson says:

    DA…”In fact, 1934 is now only the 7th warmest year in USA48 since 1895. The top seven years are, in order from warmest

    1 2012
    2 2016
    3 2017
    4 2015
    5 2006
    6 1998
    7 1934″

    Where do you get this propaganda?

    2006, 2012, 2015, and 2017 are not even in the running.

    The only years close to 1934 are 1998 and 2016. According to climateaudit.

    Your propaganda comes from GISS where they use altered confidence levels to move years like 2006 into contention when they are not even close.

    https://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=130&cpage=1

    2006 is a very average year, well below 1998, 2016 and 2010. Then again, that comes from UAH sat data which covers the oceans, not just the land surface, as used by GISS.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2019_v6-900×519.jpg

    • Midas says:

      What data source does this blog site “climate audit” use to make this claim?

      “that comes from UAH sat data which covers the oceans, not just the land surface, as used by GISS.”

      For global temps, BOTH use land and ocean data.
      For US temps, BOTH use land only data.
      Yet another BS claim from you.

      And still waiting for your response concerning April 2018.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Ooooooh! “Still waiting” are you?

        Keep it up. Hold your breath while you wait. It will save oxygen, and reduce the amount of that terrifying CO2!

        How long do you intend to wait?

        Cheers.

    • David Appell says:

      That Warwich link is from 2007. USA48 has had four warmest years since.

      1 2012
      2 2016
      3 2017
      4 2015

      I get my information straight from the source.

      Gordon Robertson says:
      Then again, that comes from UAH sat data which covers the oceans, not just the land surface, as used by GISS.

      There are no oceans in USA48.

      GISS uses both land and ocean data.

      2012 was 1.2 F above 1934.

  38. Gordon Robertson says:

    repost for midas.

    DA…”Why are the N-O-A-A data fudged, Gordon? ”

    I don’t know why they fudge the data, I presume they are politically motivated to support the anthropogenic theory.

    Obama was running around calling out climate deniers and NOAA worked for him. When the Trump admin asked for their methodology to verify it, NOAA refused to cooperate.

    There is no doubt that NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut are rife with climate alarmists. The Climategate emails revealed that. Karl, head of NOAA, knew about the fudging in the hockey stick and took no steps to reveal the chicanery.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ps. when Had-crut was asked by Steve McIntyre for their data, they refused. Later, Phil Jones asked why he should release data to McIntyre and have have him find errors in it like he did in the hockey stick data.

      Jones was a friend of Mann, the hockey stick man, and I guess he was sensitive to Mann’s embarrassment. He was also sensitive to the fact there was chicanery in the Had-crut data and did not want to be exposed. He admitted as much in a Climategate email when he admitted to using Mann’s chicanery to hide declining temperatures.

    • David Appell says:

      PROOF, Gordon, PROOF.

      What’s your proof N-O-A-A fudged any data? Or anyone else?

      You’ve never presented any evidence, and I’ve asked many times.

      I don’t think you have any such evidence. I think you’re lying about this too.

      • JDHuffman says:

        DA, if your side has to resort to corrupting the data, you lose.

        But, don’t give up. Keep pushing your same old failed agenda, and asking the distracting questions.

        Surely there is someone that is being fooled by your tired techniques….

        • Midas says:

          He asked for proof that the data is “corrupted” and all you can do in response is to assert yet again without proof that the data is “corrupted”.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Midas, you and DA are extremist trolls. You don’t want “proof”. You want to pervert and corrupt reality, as you attempt to disrupt this blog.`

            Nothing new.

          • Midas says:

            So there is no proof – got it. Thanks for your admission to lying.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            midas…”He asked for proof that the data is corrupted and all you can do in response is to assert yet again without proof that the data is corrupted”.

            It has been explained to DA over and over how NOAA corrupts data yet he tries to pose gotchas by asking the same dumb question over and over.

            Since you are a newbie, I will explain again.

            NOAA admitted to slashing the stations it uses from 6000 globally to less than 1500. It has slashed the GHCN record by 90% since 1990.

            NOAA is now in the business of climate modelling. It uses data from 1500 real station them interpolates and homogenizes that data in a climate model to SYNTHESIZE the rest of the data. That means using two stations up to 1200 miles apart to synthesize the temperature for a station in the vicinity.

            The NOAA SST is almost exclusively created using climate models and such interpolation/homogenization.

            The entire story is well documented here:

            Note: this is a seed page for Gistemp. You can find everything about the chicanery of NOAA and GHCN elsewhere on the site.

            https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            The link to NOAAs admission of slashing it’s global database from 6000 to less than 1500 stations:

            https://web.archive.org/web/20150410045648/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html

          • Midas says:

            Did you choose not to read the reason for the cut? And how on earth does the word ‘admit’ apply? The word is “inform”.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Do you really believe all the nonsense that NOAA puts out?

            Are you particularly gullible, or just stupid?

            Cheers.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            midas…”Did you choose not to read the reason for the cut?”

            There is no scientific reason for slashing a data base of REAL surface station data from 6000 to less than 1500.

            Did you read chiefio’s documentation of the chicanery now practiced at NOAA and GISS?

            No, I didn’t think so?

            I suppose you read NOAA’s bs about slashing the data by 75% then claiming the database actually got larger. They depend on the highly gullible like you to swallow that crap.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        DA,
        Proof? So what kind of proof would you accept David? Does Gordon need a video of members of the NOAA huddled in a back room snickering and joking about how they fudged all the weather data? Does he need copies of their bank records of checks from where George Soros has paid off the “data keepers?” Or maybe he just needs examples of previous records and the records presented today and show where the data has changed? David, real scientists don’t change raw data. The data is the data. They have to prove it was taken incorrectly. You show us the “proof” it was ever taken incorrectly.

      • Go Fish says:

        You David are living proof of Gordons point since you drink from the same cup as they do! Gordon doesn’t provide what you want since you will reject any possibility of truth regardless of the evidence presented. Like the other regurgitators of AGW alarmist cronies!

        https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/300-scientists-blast-noaa-fudging-climate-change-data/

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          GF…thanks for link….good stuff.

        • David Appell says:

          No peer reviewed science there, just unproven accusations.

          Anyone can have an opinion. That hardly makes it science.

          Gordon is still lying.

          • Go Fish says:

            David, if your science is anything like this science you are as misplaced as the role of science in contemporary society!

            https://evolutionnews.org/2019/02/skepticism-about-darwinian-evolution-grows-as-1000-scientists-share-their-doubts/?fbclid=IwAR0wdJZpPPTEi4qiRC1_qtBhHFoBtjLPy1rcx78cysXLrTFvNiv4ZoNxvCo

            https://stream.org/renowned-yale-computer-science-prof-leaves-darwinism/?fbclid=IwAR2_b3DwsRn9hMAtu2PrhkNJXl0I4S58-AMhwkftEek_hHPqVL58tUsEe1Q

            Thus, the questions about origins has not been determined by science nor can it be! It stands (or falls) plainly on the shoulders of presupposition, conjecture, hypothesis, guess and faith! Yes, faith since it IS a belief system and not provable. Though it smack you in the face you fail to see it, like a blind man attempting to find his way through life without the assistance of anyone else! You are surrounded by facts that you declare falsehoods! There is only ONE who has such authority and He rules in the kingdom of men!

          • Go Fish says:

            David wants peer reviewed science and thinks that by ignoring me I will go away. Define peer reviewed science! Is that like only by your cronies? Must it be someone with “credentials” or can there be persons with knowledge that do not have credentials? Who decides what is peer reviewed?

            Crickets to my post about at least 1000 scientists that question the validity of a scientific position that has held folks hostage for over a century. Yet you claim there must be peer reviewed science. Is not there peer reviewed science on this board? Yet there are opposing opinions!

            JD and others are correct to label your views pseudoscience. Moreover, science has been exalted to the throne of a godhead in the modern world as if it can answer every question posed to it’s infallible authority. How ironic then that Darwinism has now been challenged by science itself and scientists that study such things! The clear and obvious point here is that that kind of science actually determines little in the way of facts but is merely a good guess. The same is true for AGW. Yet you act as if you stand firmly upon indisputable facts (or merely semantics)! So, if science can be found questionable on one of it’s primary tenets (Darwinism) then it is suspect whenever overzealous extremists attempt to convince more level headed types that they are the overzealous extremists! What a quandary it must be to those who cling to uncertain anomalies!

            For many the following exercise will appear an effort in futility but for genuine objective truth seekers that actually consider all the evidence it could be life changing. If Genesis 1:1 is not true then it follows that the rest of the Bible is not true. However, if it IS true then the rest of the Bible is true.

            In the beginning [time], God [force], created [action/motion], the heavens[space] and the earth [matter]. Any one of these fundamental manifestations plus NOTHING, equals NOTHING! The problem of origins has not been solved by science and it cannot be! Something (God) set it all in motion.

            So we have 2 possibilities: A Creator or mans’ very limited knowledge and science aka the big bang theory! A 50/50 proposition of likelihood at best. Pick a straw or go on to door number 2 below. But a warning first. To much logic and reason could be detrimental to your well being! Yes, the fool said in his heart there is no God!

            https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-210/god-creator-and-redeemer

        • David Appell says:

          The hilarious thing about Gordon’s big lie is that the adjustments REDUCE THE LONG-TERM WARMING TREND.

          Why would scientists do that if they were trying to cheat like he claims?

          TKO.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          David, please stop trolling.

    • Midas says:

      “When the Trump admin asked for their methodology to verify it”

      Please give more details on this, including the date.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Why? Who cares what you want?

        Cheers.

        • Midas says:

          What I want is for him to prove his inability to justify his claims. So it seems I already have what I want. Thanks for not caring.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Who cares what you want?

            Why bother asking if you don’t really want or need it? Sounds like witless idiocy, doesn’t it?

            Have you any more stupid witless wants?

            Cheers.

          • Midas says:

            If I hadn’t asked then I wouldn’t have got what I wanted, now would I SFB.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Try uttering some more idiotic nonsense. Who cares whether you got what you wanted? Is somebody supposed to be impressed?

            Run away and dream up some more completely pointless questions. Don’t be surprised if nobody seems terribly interested in whether you wait for answers or not.

            Cheers.

  39. Midas says:

    Gordon Robertson

    Your comment from April 28 2018:

    “ren.good work ren, thanks for keeping us posted on this record cold.”

    So, at the time both you and ren were stating that April was cold in the US. NOAA agreed with you, its data making it the 15th coldest April in the US. Roy Spencer also agreed with you in a post he created at the time. Yet the UAH data did not – it said that April 2018 was above average, and that using the elevated 1981-2010 baseline.

    So I ask you again – whose data was correct for the US in April 2018 – NOAA or UAH?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      midas…”So I ask you again whose data was correct for the US in April 2018 NOAA or UAH?”

      And again I reply, NOAA fudges data and fudgers make mistakes.

      I have supplied a link in this same thread that uncovers all of NOAA’s chicanery. NOAA is forever making rash claims about temperatures.

      They claimed with a 48% confidence level that 2014 was the hottest year on record. If you are too stupid to figure out the dishonesty in that claim for yourself I can’t help you.

      BTW…their alarmist buddies at GISS used a 38% confidence level for the same year.

      • Midas says:

        The issue here was 2012 vs 1934 in the US, and whether UAH data can be used to form an opinion. As you found the need to avoid that issue, we will take it as given that you now agree that it cannot.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Ooooooh! “We”!

          You and which other fools?

          Cheers.

          • Midas says:

            I was referring to Gordon and I. Does that answer your question?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Don’t be stupid. You and some other nameless idiot were telling GR want he was agreeing to.

            Don’t try and weasel out of your stupidity.

            Cheers.

          • Midas says:

            Before you shoved your ass where it didn’t belong, there were only two in this thread. It is you who must do the weaseling to avoid your awkward insult to GR.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            M,

            You don’t have to try to look more idiotic. You are doing fine as it is.

            If you are feeling insulted on behalf of GR, be my guest. Feel twice as insulted. I’m sure he won’t mind.

            Cheers.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          midas…”The issue here was 2012 vs 1934 in the US, and whether UAH data can be used to form an opinion”.

          Stop being obtuse. I gave you the correct answer, UAH is correct and NOAA is wrong. I also gave you a ton of information as to why they are wrong, how they fudge temperatures.

  40. ren says:

    HURRICANE CATEGORY 4 DORIAN
    DORIAN’S CURRENT STATS
    Last Updated 9/1/2019, 7:00:00 AM GMT+2
    Status
    Hurricane Category 4
    Position
    26.334° N, -75.38° W
    Winds
    241 km/h
    Gusts
    296 km/h
    Movement
    W 13 km/h
    Pressure
    941.00 mbar
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=05L&product=ir

  41. ren says:

    The temperature at SH dropped to -0.6 degrees C in relation to the average from 1979-2000.

    • Midas says:

      Will you also be reporting when it gets back to +0.6?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Why do you want to know?

        Cheers.

        • Midas says:

          Because I am an inquisitive person who likes to ask questions.

          As opposed to someone like you, who tries to suppress questions that are asked of others, lest they blurt out an answer that might be awkward for your agenda.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            You are a dimwit with an addiction to foolish attempts to time wasting.You don’t care what the answer is. You are only trying (not very successfully) to be anmoying. What a fool you are!

            Cheers.

          • Midas says:

            I care that there is no answer. Hope that helps.

          • Lewis guignard says:

            Midas,

            You’ve shown what you are many times.
            It is obvious you are a mean, odious person.

            I hope that helps.

            Lewis

          • Lewis guignard says:

            Midas,

            If you’ve paid attention, the inquisitiveness you believe you have, would already know that ren, regularly, notes climate/weather type information/links without comment.

            Grow up. Pay attention.

          • Midas says:

            LG
            Really? Tell me – what sort of a person is Mike Flynn?

          • Lewis guignard says:

            Midas,

            Are you paying for the information? If so, then I will oblige. If not, I’m not much interested in your imbecile requests.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            midas…”Really? Tell me what sort of a person is Mike Flynn?”

            Mike’s a great guy. He’s funny, observant, and spot on with his skepticism of the GHE and AGW.

    • studentb says:

      The temperature at NH jumped to =+0.8 degrees C in relation to the average from 1979-2000.

    • Bindidon says:

      ren

      1. Which temperature series do you mean? UAH? RSS? GISS? NOAA? Had-CRUT? BEST? JMA? WeatherBELL?

      2. Why did you ‘choose’ this completely deprecated baseline “1979-2000” ?

      3. Which period do you mean? 1979-now?

      4. Do you mean 0.6 C par decade? per century?

      *
      For example, here are UAH6.0 LT’s trends per decade wrt 1981-2010 for NH and SH:

      – NH: + 0.15 C
      – SH: + 0.11 C

      *
      Precision and accuracy are fundamentals in weather & climate information.

  42. ren says:

    HURRICANE CATEGORY 5 DORIAN
    DORIAN’S CURRENT STATS
    Last Updated 9/1/2019, 2:00:00 PM GMT+2
    Status
    Hurricane Category 5
    Position
    26.485° N, -76.5° W
    Winds
    259 km/h
    Gusts
    315 km/h
    Movement
    W 15 km/h
    Pressure
    927.00 mbar

  43. Nate says:

    “Tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the late summer are always sufficiently warm to support a major hurricane and are, in my opinion, overrated as a controlling factor. ”

    Whats the basis for this assertion?

    Fourth year in a row of Cat 5 in the Atlantic

  44. Stephen P Anderson says:

    Dr. Spencer and Dan Pangburn,

    I hadn’t watched this presentation by Salby 2018 HSU very closely before (I just hadn’t gotten to it). You guys need to watch this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rohF6K2avtY

    Dr. Spencer, he totally demolishes your anthropogenic perturbation model. Dan Pangburn, he totally destroys your water vapor hypothesis. The odds that temperature change is due to a systematic change are less than 5 percent. Also, Nate, he addresses the left’s argument about isotopic data supporting anthropogenic warming in that he completely debunks it.

    Gordon Robertson, you are right, the temperature curve is almost certainly random and there is no systematic influence on the planet’s temperature.

    • Stephen P Anderson says:

      Also, the little clip he shows at the 54 minute mark about theories-you can’t prove a vague theory wrong. That’s somewhat what the alarmists are trying to do. The theory GHE goes from global warming to climate change to whatever’s next. You can’t disprove a moving target.

    • gbaikie says:

      “Gordon Robertson, you are right, the temperature curve is almost certainly random and there is no systematic influence on the planets temperature.”

      The planet’s temperature is not random.
      What controls our global temperature is the average temperature of entire ocean which is currently [and for thousands of years] about 3.5 C
      Because our ocean is cold we living in an icebox climate, and have been is this global climate for millions of years.
      And in the millions of years of this Ice Age, the ocean temperature has varied from 1 to 5 C.
      When ocean is colder, we are in a glacial period, and when ocean 3 C or warmer, we in an interglacial period.

      Above the cold ocean is the surface temperature of the ocean which has global average temperature of about 17 C.
      The tropical ocean surface [about 40% of entire ocean surface] has average temperature of about 26 C. 60% of ocean outside of the tropics, has average temperature of about 11 C.

      And all land surfaces have average temperature of about 10 C. And all land surfaces are about 30% of the entire surface of Earth.
      30% at 10 C and 70% at 17 C gives an average global surface temperature of about 15 C.

      The global air temperature is controlled by the ocean average surface temperature of 17 C. And as it is said, the tropical ocean [average of 26 C} is the heat engine of the entire world.
      It’s a heat engine in terms driving global atmospheric processes, and in terms of driving global oceanic heat. Another driver of oceanic heat, is cold water falling in the polar regions {roughly polar regions “pull” and warm tropical water “push”- though I should say that the cold denser water falling is essential or important factor- or it can variable that radically effects global climate [it’s a large factor related the average ocean temperature changing from 1 to 5 C. And ocean water can be denser and fall due to greater levels salt in the water- and warm salty water can also fall as does the salty cold water.]
      One could describe short term global weather as essentially random- due to lack understanding all variables and interactions within global climate system- and it’s dependence upon shallow fragile ocean surface temperature. But longer global processes are more clock like than random.
      And in terms of longer term processes, we are currently recovering from the Little Ice Age which ended somewhere around 1850 AD.
      And it seems fairly clear that at least northern hemisphere is warming {or has been warming for more than 100 years] and also appears to be globally warming.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        Gbaike,

        If observational evidence doesn’t agree with theory then theory is wrong. Salby provides observational evidence and calculations that supports that there is a 5 percent probability that temperature increase is non random.

        • Stephen P Anderson says:

          Watch the presentation before you comment. If you watch his presentation you’ll see he bases most of his view on contemporary data with actual temperature records and not proxy data.

          • gbaikie says:

            I have listen to Salby before. Not sure heard this one before, it’s more than hour. The introductor said something refuting CO2 causing all warming and basically that CO2 is a threat.

            IPCC says “highly confident” CO2 causes more than 1/2 of recent warming, and they are dumb bureaucrats who living depends on believing CO2 is problem.
            Since no one believes CO2 has caused all warming, it’s strawman argument.

            But do I think Salby might be closer to being correct about what is causing CO2 rise as compared to all the other idiot explanations which are out there?
            And compared to other “views’ I tend to think Salby might more correct.

            As far as know, know one has measured the amount of warming from higher CO2 levels.
            My guess is a doubling of CO2 will cause 0 to .5 C of warming. And if it’s .5 C within a couple decades the effect might be measured by someone. If less than .5 C it might take a lot longer to measure it.

            If CO2 caused 2 C per doubling, I don’t think it’s a problem.
            A long time ago, when I thought, a doubling might cause as much as 3 C of warming, I did not think to would be problem, and today, I don’t think 3 C of warming is a problem.
            Whenever you living in an Ice Age, one should want more warming.

            India average temperature is about 24 C, in southern California the average is about 15 C, why the poor idiots living in cooler temperature are afraid of some warming, is a bit mind boggling.
            And they probably dream of living tropical island paradise {why wouldn’t they, they are freezing their butts off}.

            And the hottest Continent in the world is Africa, and some idiots are worried about their fast growing populations.
            How does fast growing population, and end the world fit into their minds?
            If I were Chinese or European I would be worried about their declining populations- that’s a real problem.

          • Midas says:

            Ahh yes, Murry Salby, the guy who applies for two grants from different sources and keeps one for himself.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Ah Yes the ole leftist attack the attacker argument. When I was in graduate school I don’t know how many profs were in some kind of trouble or another for mismanaging their funding especially if they were on the outs with the department head. Then you have the really smart ones who were always contrary like Salby they were the ones who usually led the pack. However, it never diminished their brilliance nor the content of their work.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Gbaikie,
            He has several presentations published and if you take the time to listen to them several times (it usually takes that many to understand them) then you realize they are almost irrefutable.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            “Ahh yes, Murry Salby, the guy who applies for two grants from different sources and keeps one for himself.”

            Ahhh yes, Michael Mann who fraudulently claims to be a Nobel Laureate in court documents to make himself look good.

            Cheers.

          • gbaikie says:

            –Gbaikie,
            He has several presentations published and if you take the time to listen to them several times (it usually takes that many to understand them) then you realize they are almost irrefutable.–

            I listen to whole thing. I don’t plan on listening to it several times.
            I took notes:
            “…festing sore on public back will chronically emerge”

            “Climate change: the Musical”

            [It seems they will have change it to:
            Climate emergency: the Musical

            Otherwise they will be punished]

            But it was not much fun. And stand by what said before spending over hour listening to it.
            But, Climate change: the Musical was almost worth the time spent.

          • Dr Myki says:

            Are you aware of the long investigation into Dr Salby by the National Science Foundation in the United States which resulted in the scientist being barred from having anything to do with the foundation’s taxpayer-funded grants for three years.

            The investigation, finished in February 2009 – a year after Dr Salby joined Macquarie, concluded that Dr Salby had engaged in a long-running course of deceptive conduct involving both his University and NSF. The investigators wrote that Dr Salby’s conduct reflects a consistent willingness to violate rules and regulations, whether federal or local, for his personal benefit.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            midas…”Murry Salby, the guy who applies for two grants from different sources and keeps one for himself”.

            That’s it??? No scientific evidence that he is wrong?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            mickey…”Are you aware of the long investigation into Dr Salby by the National Science Foundation in the United States which resulted in the scientist being barred from having anything to do with the foundations taxpayer-funded grants for three years”.

            You gullible idiot.

            Salby is a skeptic and he is being ostracized. The NSF claimed he ‘likely’ did what they claimed but they lacked the evidence to bring charges. So they debarred him from accessing US funds.

            I’ll bet dollars to donuts that some frickin’, alarmist scientists are behind this.

            Skeptics are always under the gun. Patrick Michaels was sacked from his job as state climatologist in Virginia because he expressed skeptical views. Henk Tennekes, a top rated meteorologist was sacked for similar utterances.

            When are you idiots going to get it that good scientists are being persecuted for expressing their views?

            In another field, Peter Duesberg was ostracized for claiming HIV is a harmless virus that could not possibly cause AIDS. That was 25 years ago. Since then, the scientist who discovered HIV, Luc Montagnier, has declared that HIV will not harm anyone with a healthy immune system.

            The stats back what Montagnier and Duesberg have claimed. The death rate from AIDS in countries where immune systems are healthy is negligible, a far cry from the epidemic declared by the WHO 20 years ago.

            Duesberg is a world-class expert in retroviruses like HIV. He won the California Scientist of the Year Award and he was the youngest member at the time inducted into the National Academy of Science.

            He has been vindicated by Montagnier but that won’t get him back what he has lost.

            You jerks who support this lame AGW nonsense are contributing to scientists being osctracized for expressing contrary views.

          • Midas says:

            GR
            No scientific evidence that he is right?

          • David Appell says:

            THere’s lots of evidence Salby is wrong.

            But none that’s worth repeating for people like you, who won’t read it in the first place and won’t understand it either.

            ANd if you do understand it, you’ll lie about it. Because you don’t mind lying at all.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Mi-Des, David, please stop trolling.

    • Nate says:

      Stephen,

      “left’s argument about isotopic data”

      Im pretty sure isotopes vote Republican.

      If you can’t tell the difference between physical science and political science, then you your judgement of what is good science has no credibility.

  45. ren says:

    HURRICANE CATEGORY 5 DORIAN
    DORIAN’S CURRENT STATS
    Last Updated 9/1/2019, 5:00:00 PM GMT+2
    Status
    Hurricane Category 5
    Position
    26.543° N, -76.8° W
    Winds
    287 km/h
    Gusts
    352 km/h
    Movement
    W 15 km/h
    Pressure
    913.00 mbar

  46. Nicholas McGinley says:

    I have a question: The storm is projected by most of the models and official forecast to curve north and slow.
    But it has not slowed and is almost due west with no wavering, and is now a very deadly storm.
    At current forward speed and direction, it will hit Florida tomorrow morning I think (the eye…the outer bands will be here long before that).
    So we sure hope is behaves.
    But, do hurricanes have a reliable history of behaving?
    If it keeps not doing what models and forecast say it will do, and keeps heading west at 7, at what point will someone say “Hey, maybe we ought to consider the fact that the storm is a deadly monster heading for a dense population center that has not had a direct hit in many decades, so maybe we should not play chicken with the strongest hurricane in modern times to be in this location heading in this direction”?
    If Dorian is not starting to slow or curve north in the next several hours, I think it becomes clear this storm is too strong to be affected by normal steering currents.
    This observation is not unprecedented. I seem to recall several very strong storms ignoring predictions of path and intensity.

    • gbaikie says:

      –I have a question: The storm is projected by most of the models and official forecast to curve north and slow.
      But it has not slowed and is almost due west with no wavering, and is now a very deadly storm.–

      Not wind speed but speed it moves, which currently around 5 mph and it about 10 mph, yesterday

      • ren says:

        HURRICANE CATEGORY 5 DORIAN
        DORIAN’S CURRENT STATS
        Last Updated 9/1/2019, 11:00:00 PM GMT+2
        Status
        Hurricane Category 5
        Position
        26.7° N, -77.4° W
        Winds
        296 km/h
        Gusts
        361 km/h
        Movement
        W 9 km/h
        Pressure
        910.00 mbar

  47. Rune Valaker says:

    Still No Long-Term Trends in Florida Major Hurricanes, but The World Is More Than Florida, Does This Story Tell Any Trends?

    “Dorian is the fifth Cat 5 in the Atlantic since 2016, joining Michael (2018), Irma (2017), Maria (2017), and Matthew (2016). This makes 2019 the fourth year in a row the Atlantic basin has had at least one hurricane reach Cat 5 strength, beating the previous record, a three-year stretch from 2003 to 2005. Including Dorian, there have been 35 Category 5 hurricanes in the Atlantic Basin, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).”

    https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Historic-Catastrophic-Hurricane-Dorian-Pounding-Bahamas-185-mph-Winds

    • JDHuffman says:

      “Does This Story Tell Any Trends?”

      Most definitely Rune. It tells of the continuing trend in “cherry-picking”.

      In pseudoscience, everything you see is proof of what you believe.

    • David Appell says:

      This makes 2019 the fourth year in a row the Atlantic basin has had at least one hurricane reach Cat 5 strength

      If Roy started his graph at sometime like 1950, before which he claims GW was not noticeable, there’d be a positive trend in his landfalling FL hurricane intensity.

      Roy is playing with statistics.

  48. captain droll says:

    Gee this guy is smart.
    President Trump: “I’m not sure that I’ve ever even heard of the Category 5. I knew it existed, and I’ve seen some category 4s — you don’t even see them that much but the category 5 is something that I don’t know that I’ve ever even heard the term other than I know it’s there.”

    • Midas says:

      Even putting the content aside, that speech pattern just looks so presidential, doesn’t it.

      • Lewis guignard says:

        Midas,

        We all know you hate Pr. Trump and probably all those who voted for him. You are probably hoping for a recession so he won’t get re-elected, caring not a whit for those who would lose their jobs in order that you get your way.

        But, be assured, there are many of us who appreciate what he is doing for the country.

        So, your attempts at belittling him, while you pick your nose, examining the yield, only reinforce other’s, already, low opinion of you.

        • Dr Myki says:

          DT is the major cause for the upcoming recession.
          He belittles himself every time he opens his mouth.
          When he gets dumped by his own party, will you still appreciate him?

          • Lewis guignard says:

            D. M.

            Presidents, despite your belief to the contrary, usually only influence attitudes about the economy. Congress writes the tax laws etc. Presidents influence attitudes except Obama, who wrote many rules to the detriment of the economy, which Trump has been undoing fairly quickly. Further he is trying to loosen the stranglehold the administrative state has on OUR country. Why do you object to that?

          • David Appell says:

            Lewis, the economy did better under Obama than under Trump. So did the stock market.

          • David Appell says:

            Lewis guignard says:
            Presidents, despite your belief to the contrary, usually only influence attitudes about the economy.

            Where did you ever get that idea?

            Presidents also influence

            * foreign policy and how foreign countries see the US
            * regulations of all manner
            * priorities in the Executive branch
            * strongly helps guide the country’s values and morals

            Trump’s cabinet has been one of the most corrupt ever, so I can see how you’d rather ignore that.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            David, please stop trolling.

        • Midas says:

          He can’t be belittled. He is already such a little man.

        • David Appell says:

          Lewis guignard says:
          We all know you hate Pr. Trump and probably all those who voted for him.

          I don’t hate Trump, but I do strongly dislike him for

          * his lying
          * his racism
          * his narcissism
          * his crudity
          * his misogyny
          * his decisiveness
          * his stupidity

          and
          * his lying

          Other than this he’s a great guy!

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Even putting your stupidity aside, you still manage to look stupid, don’t you?

        Cheers.

        • captain droll says:

          Huh?
          Compared to DT, I am a genius man!

          • Mike Flynn says:

            You appear to be so stupid that you can’t even remember which sock puppet you are!

            At least try to keep track of which troll identity you are using!

            Cheers.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Droll’s not even a leftist. He’s too stupid to be a leftist and most leftist are pretty stupid. He’s probably a disabled federal worker.

          • Midas says:

            MF
            ‘Captain droll’ is not me, if that is what you were insinuating.

          • captain droll says:

            Hey Midas, we have been likened to each other ! Who is the more insulted – you or me ?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            What a pair of fools!

            Now you can try and figure out who is who, by comparing your ability to feel insulted!

            If that doesn’t work, see who can whine the most about feeling offended, annoyed, or upset.

            Good luck with the competition. Let me know who can appear the most stupid.

            Cheers.

          • Midas says:

            MF
            You have no ability to make me feel insulted. Just thought you should know.

          • captain droll says:

            Midas – me neither. But I can be mightily entertained by MF’s derangement!

          • Mike Flynn says:

            You just thought you’d let me know? What mental defect leads you to think I care?

            So all your idiocy about feeling insulted was just pointless waffle, designed to achieve precisely nothing. Well done, the peanut pair!

            Cheers.

          • captain droll says:

            “What mental defect leads you to think I care?”
            Man, you really do care ! Why else do you respond so quickly?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            If you understand, no explanation is necessary. If you don’t, no explanation is possible.

            Cheers.

    • captain droll says:

      And has a great memory:

      September 14, 2017: It actually hit the Keys ..it was a category 5.
      Today:”I never even knew category 5 existed.”

      September 26, 2017: It actually touched down as a category 5.
      Today:”People have never seen anything like that.”

      October 18, 2017: They got hit dead center.
      Today:”Nobody has ever heard of a 5 hitting land.”

      May 8, 2019: “I’ve just come from a stop at Tyndall Air Force Base, where I saw the devastating effects of that Category 5 hurricane, Category 5.”
      Today:”Never heard about Category 5s before, a Category 5 is big stuff.”

      • professor P says:

        Please don’t make fun of the early onset of alzheimers.
        One theory is that it may be associated with a life-long diet of coke and hamburgers.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Why do you boast about being a fool? At least Michael Mann boasted he had a Nobel Prize (even if he was too confused to realise he wasn’t really a Nobel Laureate).

          Maybe you need to cut down on the coke and hamburgers! You are lapsing into incoherent gibberish.

          Cheers.

          • Dr Myki says:

            Michael Mann, one of the champion scientists of our age. He deserves a Nobel Prize, and may well be given one once all the hoohah has died down and he is vindicated 100% !

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Maybe if he can manage to convince a judge that he isn’t a fraud, and shouldn’t be in the state pen, rather than at Penn State, his chances for a Nobel prize will be no worse than yours – which is to say, none at all.

            He can always fraudulently claim he is a Nobel Laureate. You’d believe him wouldn’t you?

            Why does he need vindication? Who is claiming he is a fraudulent balding bumbling buffoon? He should sue!

            What a fool!

            Cheers.

          • Dr Myki says:

            The hockey stick was derided, and he was unmercifully attacked by the ignorant, but has s since been proved right – time and time again. Truth and courage wins again. Is canonization out of the question?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            The delusional Mann couldn’t even convince a judge that he was not a fraud, and didn’t t deserve to be in the state pen.

            He seems to believe in some nonsensical effect that neither he nor anybody else can actually describe.

            What a peanut!

            Cheers.

          • Nate says:

            Ha! Mike doesnt get that you dont go to jail when you lose a civil suit!

            Also, Mann got the publishers to retract their article and apologize to him for publishing “untrue and disparaging accusations which impugned the character of Dr. Mann”.

  49. Go Fish says:

    If anyone is interested in a meteorologists perspective that has shown a consistent ability to maintain a high level of accuracy in prediction as opposed to collecting a paycheck then Rebecca is the one. The problem for many on this forum is that her main blog posts are on Facebook. That may be a huge hinderance for those opposed to such a venue for anything climate related. I will post the link to her FB posts and if you can stomach the venue you can see for yourself how many days out she got it correct or does so more than many others.

    https://www.facebook.com/rebeccanortheastweather/

  50. Go Fish says:

    hindrance

  51. Eben says:

    This is the best formed hurricane ever , “ever” meaning about 40 years of good observation technology

    • Stephen P Anderson says:

      I’ve been through four hurricanes. Most of them hit at around 110-120 miles per hour. I’ve never heard of one hitting at 185 miles per hour.

  52. JDHuffman says:

    The turn north has started.

    SUMMARY OF 1200 AM EDT…0400 UTC…INFORMATION
    ———————————————-
    LOCATION…26.6N 78.0W
    ABOUT 45 MI…70 KM E OF FREEPORT GRAND BAHAMA ISLAND
    ABOUT 130 MI…210 KM E OF WEST PALM BEACH FLORIDA
    MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS…180 MPH…285 KM/H
    PRESENT MOVEMENT…W OR 275 DEGREES AT 6 MPH…9 KM/H
    MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE…914 MB…26.99 INCHES

  53. AaronS says:

    I have issues with this blog. My reply posts get placed at bottom even though I got a new phone. This is a test from wifes iPhone. If it goes down in queue then I know it is my email or call name. If it attaches then perhaps my same identification number passed on from old phone to new phone.

  54. AaronS says:

    Test two different email address

  55. Shareen says:

    Different call name test

  56. Gordon Robertson says:

    repost for mickey (aka myki)…

    mickey…”Are you aware of the long investigation into Dr Salby by the National Science Foundation in the United States which resulted in the scientist being barred from having anything to do with the foundation’s taxpayer-funded grants for three years”.

    You gullible idiot.

    Salby is a skeptic and he is being ostracized. The NSF claimed he ‘likely’ did what they claimed but they lacked the evidence to bring charges. So they debarred him from accessing US funds.

    I’ll bet dollars to donuts that some frickin’, alarmist scientists are behind this.

    Skeptics are always under the gun. Patrick Michaels was sacked from his job as state climatologist in Virginia because he expressed skeptical views. Henk Tennekes, a top rated meteorologist was sacked for similar utterances.

    When are you idiots going to get it that good scientists are being persecuted for expressing their views?

    In another field, Peter Duesberg was ostracized for claiming HIV is a harmless virus that could not possibly cause AIDS. That was 25 years ago. Since then, the scientist who discovered HIV, Luc Montagnier, has declared that HIV will not harm anyone with a healthy immune system.

    The stats back what Montagnier and Duesberg have claimed. The death rate from AIDS in countries where immune systems are healthy is negligible, a far cry from the epidemic declared by the WHO 20 years ago.

    Duesberg is a world-class expert in retroviruses like HIV. He won the California Scientist of the Year Award and he was the youngest member at the time inducted into the National Academy of Science.

    He has been vindicated by Montagnier but that won’t get him back what he has lost.

    You jerks who support this lame AGW nonsense are contributing to scientists being osctracized for expressing contrary views.

  57. Midas says:

    Hey Roy Spencer – that great meteorologist Donald Trump has predicted that Dorian will hit Alabama, contradicting every other meteorologist. Are you worried, or is Trump an idiot?

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Hey stupid, do you think anybody can usefully and accurately predict a hurricane path?

      Or are you an idiot?

      Cheers.

      • Midas says:

        Does Trump think he can usefully and accurately predict a hurricane path?

        Or is he an idiot?

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Why don’t you ask him? Maybe you are dreaming – how do you know he is a meteorologist?

          Have you considered that you might be hallucinating?

          Cheers.

  58. Ian says:

    Murry Salby (corrupt), Pat Michaels (funded by oil and tobacco interests) and Henk Tennekes (sacked 20 years ago)
    “good scientists”? LOL
    What a load of old tripe!

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Michael Mann – fraud. Gavin Schmidt – faker. Kevin Trenberth – confused and befuddled.

      ‘Good scientists”? LOL!

      Cheers.

    • Stephen P Anderson says:

      Salby’s work is irrefutable.

      • gbaikie says:

        How big is the carbon cycle, how CO2 is absorbed and emitted per year globally?

        • Stephen P Anderson says:

          About 100ppm.

          • gbaikie says:

            So typically, it’s said to about 100 billion tonnes, though also usually said it could be much higher, and predicting it’s about 800 billion tonnes?
            I could be getting wrong I think 1 ppm is about 8 billion tonnes of CO2??

            Anyhow, I have tended to think the 100 billion tonnes was a low number. And people used to say human effects on land use was creating more CO2 emission than fossil fuel use. They seemed to have stopped saying that {probably didn’t want to be punished by the religious wackos}.

            Also has a lot water created in atmosphere {water vapor condensing] and going to suck up the CO2 and the acidified rain water will erode rock- and as nutters, say, acidify the oceans.

      • Midas says:

        SPA
        That’s a grand statement to make. Could you explain every line of his reasoning?

  59. Entropic man says:

    Am I the only one who’s actually read the Mann v Ball judgement?

    This is the text of the order from the bench.

    1) Order that the claim made by Plaintiff be dismissed.
    2) Costs will follow the event and of the action since the action is dismissed.

    That is all. You can read it here.

    https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/file/hearingDetail.do?fileID=2215840

    Anything else you may have read is speculation.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Tim Ball called Michael Mann a fraud. Michael Mann got all petulant, and sued Tim Ball in a fit of pique.

      The court dismissed Michael Mann’s claim. Michael Mann refused to produce evidence to show that Tim Ball was not being merely truthful by characterising Michael Mann as a fraud.

      Who but a fool would launch a legal action he had no intention of supporting with objective evidence?

      Pseudoscience meets evidence based legal system. Pseudoscience loses.

      Cheers.

      • Jack says:

        The Frontier Centre for Public Policy which printed Ball’s comments apologized to Mann and retracted Ball’s comments.

      • Jack says:

        Of course Ball withdrew his lawsuit against Dan Johnson and the Calgary Herald. Johnson had written that Ball had inflated his credentials. Johnson’s statement of defence was provided by the Calgary Herald, which stated that Ball “…never had a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming,” and that he “…is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.” In the ensuing court case, Ball acknowledged that he had only been a tenured professor for eight years, and that his doctorate was not in climatology but rather in the broader discipline of geography, and subsequently withdrew the lawsuit on June 8, 2007.

        • David Appell says:

          Yes, the admissions about Ball were particularly brutal.

          After the Calgary Herald published an op-ed by Ball on April 19, 2006, whom the newspaper identified as the first climatology PhD in Canada and a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years, they published a letter on April 23, 2006 from Dr. Dan Johnson, a professor at the University of Lethbridge, who pointed out that neither of those descriptions is true; that Dr. Ball’s credentials were being seriously overstated. Ball later threatened Johnson and the Herald and ultimately sued for defamation.

          In their Statement of Defense filed in Court, the Calgary Herald submitted the following:

          1. “…that the Plaintiff (Ball) never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming.

          2. “The Plaintiff has never published any research in any peer-reviewed scientific journal which addressed the topic of human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming

          3. “The Plaintiff has published no papers on climatology in academically recognized peer-reviewed scientific journals since his retirement as a Professor in 1996;

          4. “The Plaintiff’s credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media; and

          5. “The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”

          Ball dropped his lawsuit.––

          Source: The Calgary Herald, Statement of Defense – paragraph 50, Dr Tim Ball v The Calgary Herald, In the Court of the Queen’s Bench of Alberta Judicial District of Calgary, Dec 7, 2006 (http://is.gd/brO4uO).

          More at:
          http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-vs-dan-johnson-update-0
          http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-vs-dan-johnson-lawsuit-documents
          http://www.desmogblog.com/ball-bails-on-johnson-lawsuit

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Well, again more disinformation from the leftists. Ball got his PhD in geography with an emphasis in historical climatology. His thesis was in climatology. His expertise and field of study if you listen to him was in proxy data in particular in tree rings. That was the problem he had with what Mann was doing and wanted to know how he did it. Mann was taking tree ring data and fusing it with temperature record. He asked Mann how he did it and to show his analysis and Mann would not do it. Mann took tree ring data, eliminated the part of the data that he didn’t like (the famous “hide the decline”) and spliced it with contemporary temperature data. This is truly unscientific and fraudulent.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Michael Mann has a PhD in Geology and Geophysics, I believe.

            Self proclaimed climatologist, self proclaimed Nobel Prize winner.

            Claims not to be a fraud or a faker or a fool.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Stephen, you clearly don’t know what “hide the decline” meant.

            Hint: the decline wasn’t in actual temperatures.

          • David Appell says:

            Stephen P Anderson says:
            “Mann was taking tree ring data and fusing it with temperature record.”

            Wrong, MBH used tree rings and other proxies to *infer* a global temperature.

            How is that fraudulent? Many studies since have confirmed and reproduced the hockey stick, and replication is the gold standard in science, remember? And the HS is expected on theoretical grounds — that’s very simple to show.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Mann is a fraud. He was unable to convince a court otherwise, after he claimed that he was not a fraud as alleged by Tim Ball. Mann’s claim was dismissed by an objective outside legal body.

            Mann is not a climatologist, and has no climatological qualifications – just like other so called climatologists.

            Mann cannot even describe the GHE which is supposed to make the world hotter! What sort of scientist can’t even describe his supposed science? A pseudoscientist, that’s who! Fakers, frauds or fools, all. And their followers? Not terribly bright, obviously.

            Cheers

          • Nate says:

            ‘Mann is not a climatologist, and has no climatological qualifications just like other so called climatologists.’

            Poppycock!

            Where do you get this nonsense from, Stephen?

            He has worked in the field of climatology for at least 25 years, his PhD work was in climatology, and he published numerous highly cited papers in that field.

        • Stephen P Anderson says:

          Also, Ball never inflated his credentials or anything of the sort. He has always explained he studied proxy data. He understands the limitations of proxy data especially trying to make if fit modern temperature record.

    • Stephen P Anderson says:

      Eman,
      The judge did so because the case had no merit.

      • Jack says:

        The case dismissed because of time delays.

        • Stephen P Anderson says:

          Same thing. It had no merit.

          • Jack says:

            This was a verbal decision from the bench; there are been no written judgement. There is no indication that the suit had no merit.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            If the suit had any merit the judge would have let it continue.

          • David Appell says:

            Tim Ball asked for the termination, arguing he wasn’t important enough or widely read enough for his opinion to matter.

          • Jack says:

            The judge did not rule on merit. Ball’s submission for termination relied heavily on the state of his health.

          • David Appell says:

            Ball’s request for termination also relied on his lack of status or efficacy.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            A fine example of climatological redefinition. A loss is defined as a win.

            Mann’s case was dismissed. It means the suit he brought against Ball failed. He was unable to rebut Ball’s defence that he spoke the truth when he called Mann a fraud.

            Mann’s claim that he was defamed was dismissed. He refused to provide the evidence he undertook to provide to the court to show that Ball couldn’t claim truth as a defence.

            Mann’s case was dismissed. He lost. Mann has to pay his own costs, and the court will apparently determine how much of Ball’s costs are to be paid by Mann, as Ball’s legal expenditure would have been nil had he not been sued by Mann.

            Man is not only a fraud, he is also a fool and a faker. A fool for refusing to provide the court with evidence which would have supported his suit. How stupid is that?

            Pseudoscience meets reality. Pseudoscience loses.

            Cheers.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Ball asked for termination, so what? If the case had any merit the judge would not have terminated. Everyone recognizes it as a major victory for Ball except the hard core Nazi leftists.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Also, the judge awarded Ball court costs. Hmmm?

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Is Penn State doing for Michael Mann what they did for Jerry Sandusky? Are they covering up criminal behavior?

          • David Appell says:

            Admitting you’re too insignificant for your opinion to matter is hardly winning a court case.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Mann’s suit against Ball was dismissed. Ball’s defence was truth. Mann was unable to show that he was not a fraud, in spite of claiming he could. Why would you promise that you would provide supporting evidence, and then claim you couldn’t show anybody because it was secret intellectual property?

            It doesn’t matter – Mann’s suit against Ball was dismissed. No doubt Mann can sue Ball again, if he is convinced he can produce evidence to show he is not a fraud.

            Ball won – Mann lost.

            Cheers.

  60. ren says:

    HURRICANE CATEGORY 5 DORIAN
    DORIAN’S CURRENT STATS
    Last Updated 9/2/2019, 3:00:00 PM GMT+2
    Status
    Hurricane Category 5
    Position
    26.679 N, -78.33 W
    Winds
    268 km/h
    Gusts
    324 km/h
    Movement
    W 2 km/h
    Pressure
    916.00 mbar

  61. JKintheUSA says:

    https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/bs/marsh-harbour/MYAM/date/2019-9-1 shows maximum average wind speed of 21 MPH with maximum gust of 35 MPH for yesterday, 9-1. The weather station must not have recorded wind speed observations properly.

    https://www.wunderground.com/dashboard/pws/IWESTGRA2/table/2019-09-2/2019-09-2/daily show maximum average wind speed of 63 MPH so far for today, 9-2.

    https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=SPGF1 shows maximum average wind speed of 45 kts and maximum gust of 57 kts (949AM) so far for today.

    Further to the north, https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=41010 shows max avg wind speed of 29 kts and max gust of 41 kts so far for today.

  62. JDHuffman says:

    Dorian continues a slow turn to the north, at a snail’s pace of 1 mph! Interestingly, its max sustained wind has now dipped below Cat 5 level. It should be able to pick up some energy, since the Sun is aiding. We’ll see….

    SUMMARY OF 1100 AM EDT…1500 UTC…INFORMATION
    ———————————————–
    LOCATION…26.8N 78.3W
    ABOUT 30 MI…50 KM NE OF FREEPORT GRAND BAHAMA ISLAND
    ABOUT 110 MI…180 KM E OF WEST PALM BEACH FLORIDA
    MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS…155 MPH…250 KM/H
    PRESENT MOVEMENT…W OR 280 DEGREES AT 1 MPH…2 KM/H
    MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE…922 MB…27.23 INCHES

  63. gbaikie says:

    I wonder what effect the ocean currents have on Dorian.
    Wiki:
    “The Florida Current is a thermal ocean current that flows from the Straits of Florida around the Florida Peninsula and along the southeastern coast of the United States before joining the Gulf Stream Current near Cape Hatteras.”

    “The Florida Current has an estimated mean transport of 30 Sv, varying seasonally and interannually by as much as 10 Sv. The volume transport increases as it flows farther north, reaching its maximum transport of 85 Sv near Cape Hatteras.”

    “The Florida current reaches a maximum transport in July and a minimum transport in October, with a subsequent secondary maximum and minimum occurring in January and April, respectively.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Current

    Anyhow, I don’t see any mention of it. Well, here it mentioned:

    “RTOFS is an ocean forecast system based on the HYbrid Coordinate Ocean Model (HYCOM), which is a dynamical model. The model is run once a day. In meteorology and oceanography, the goal of dynamical models is to explain observed circulations on the basis of fundamental physical principles using complex mathematical equations. RTOFS specific goal is to establish high resolution short-term forecasts (approximately 1 week) of the ocean circulations, including eddies and currents. There is special emphasis on determining the location and strength of the the entire Gulf Stream circulation.

    One application of this model is to determine the path of objects embedded in the ocean such as the path of oil in an oil spill. Another application is to assist in hurricane strength forecasting. Water temperatures are higher in the Gulf Steam. If a hurricane is forecast to pass over the warmer Gulf Stream water, it could have a major impact on the strength of the hurricane. Knowing the exact location of currents such as the Gulf Stream and its associated warm and cold eddies is important information that can, in turn, be used in hurricane strength forecast models.”
    http://www.myfoxhurricane.com/rtofs_current_gulf.html

    But why wouldn’t effect the direction traveled by Dorian {the very slow moving hurricane, Dorian]

    • gbaikie says:

      Another thing, will Dorian effect the gulf Stream [if goes on for a week or more].
      Or can Dorian both affect the beginning leg of gulf steam and be affected in terms of direction the hurricane travels in.
      Also what effect on storm surge will the ocean current have interacting with hurricane {particularly in regards hurricane at it’s present location and not moving very fast.

      • gbaikie says:

        I didn’t play their model at:
        http://www.myfoxhurricane.com/rtofs_current_gulf.html
        But model seems indicate Dorian going to move fairly quickly north.
        Which is possible.

      • gbaikie says:

        Wiki:
        “The water transport in the Gulf Stream gradually increases from 30 Sv in the Florida Current to a maximum of 150 Sv south of Newfoundland at 55W longitude.

        The Antarctic Circumpolar Current, at approximately 125 Sv, is the largest ocean current.

        The entire global input of fresh water from rivers to the ocean is equal to about 1.2 Sv.”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdrup

        So each second a billion tons water traveling past a point.
        All Rivers 1.2 billion tonnes water per second entering the ocean -and there is a lot seconds in a year.
        Or US uses about 600 billion tonnes of water per year or equal to about 10 minutes of world’s total river discharge in year.

        Anyways Florida Current is small faction {1 /5th} of gulf stream- but could have larger effect than it seems.

        • David Appell says:

          Or US uses about 600 billion tonnes of water per year or equal to about 10 minutes of worlds total river discharge in year.

          But such water isn’t fungible, so comparing a country’s water use to global water availability matters not at all.

          If the US uses less water that doesn’t mean Ethiopia has more fresh water available to it.

          • gbaikie says:

            If US uses more water, it could allow Ethiopia to get a bit more.

            In same sense the solar energy actually makes electrical power- a tiny amount.

            So if US built a huge dam in Greenland and US used say 4 times more water, one could sell it as a way to allow Ethiopia to get more water- as some tiny percentage would end up in Ethiopia.

            But if you were more serious about getting some water to Ethiopia,
            one could probably irrigate the Sahara desert. And that is probably a lot cheaper than huge dam in Greenland.

            It’s said one way to green a desert is to have cattle near edge of desert. So you can irrigate to grow food for cattle and raise cattle. And Africans could get more meat.
            So, you could have Exodus African cattlemen to Sahara Desert, and they can provide more meat to Africa {and rest of the world}.

            But of course I like bacon, and that does not solve the global shortage of bacon.

          • David Appell says:

            How does the water get from Greenland to Ethiopia?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Work it out for yourself. What’s your answer?

            Cheers.

          • gbaikie says:

            –David Appell says:
            September 2, 2019 at 3:51 PM
            How does the water get from Greenland to Ethiopia?–

            Wiki:
            “Ethiopia has one of the fastest-growing economies in the world and is Africa’s second most populous country. Many properties owned by the government during the previous regime have now been privatized and are in the process of privatization. However, certain sectors such as telecommunications, financial and insurance services, air and land transportation services, and retail, are considered as strategic sectors and are expected to remain under state control for the foreseeable future. ”

            GDP: per capita $951 (nominal, 2019 est.)

            It seems the Greenlanders are not going to ship it, and Ethiopians are not going to buy or get it.

            But since government is suppose to involved in strategic sectors, maybe they should get water from Antarctica.

            Do they need water:
            “Access to water supply and sanitation in Ethiopia is amongst the lowest in Sub-Saharan Africa and the entire world. While access has increased substantially with funding from foreign aid, much still remains to be done to achieve the Millennium Development Goal of halving the share of people without access to water and sanitation by 2015, to improve sustainability and to improve service quality.
            Some factors inhibiting the achievement of these goals are the limited capacity of water bureaus in the country’s nine regions,two city administrations and water desks in the 550 districts of Ethiopia (woredas); insufficient cost recovery for proper operation and maintenance; and different policies and procedures used by various donors, notwithstanding the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness.

            In 2001 the government adopted a water and sanitation strategy that called for more decentralized decision-making; promoting the involvement of all stakeholders, including the private sector; increasing levels of cost recovery; as well as integrating water supply, sanitation and hygiene promotion activities. Implementation of the policy apparently is uneven.”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Ethiopia
            [[hmm, it seems they want to get the government out of the water business, but are struggling with it]]

            “Ethiopia has 12 river basins with an annual runoff volume of 122 billion m3 of water and an estimated 2.6 – 6.5 billion m3 of ground water potential. This corresponds to an average of 1,575 m3 of physically available water per person per year, a relatively large volume. ” And:
            “The major river in Ethiopia is the Blue Nile. However, most drinking water in Ethiopia comes from ground water, not rivers.”

            Anyhow, the “1,575 m3” doesn’t seems like enough water, and they are planning on building more dams, but they use dam water for primary source of national electrical energy.

            I generally think public sector can’t do anything very well, but maybe they could get water from Antarctica.

          • David Appell says:

            Do you have a guess what it might cost to ship water from Antarctica to Ethiopia?

            It might well be cheaper to relocate the Ethiopians….

          • gbaikie says:

            –David Appell says:
            September 2, 2019 at 8:30 PM
            Do you have a guess what it might cost to ship water from Antarctica to Ethiopia?

            It might well be cheaper to relocate the Ethiopians.–

            Well, I tend to think the public sector is not challenged enough,
            so they can compared cost to relocate the Ethiopians vs cost to ship water from Antarctica.
            It will likely be wrong, but it would give them something to do.

            It might also give them excuse to talk to the neighboring countries in order to work out the scheme.
            And dialogue with other countries might a good thing.

          • David Appell says:

            “challenged enough??”

            What does that mean — more taxes?

            There are many better investments to make in the world than shipping Antarctic water to Ethiopia. Like global vaccinations. Like universal health care. Like population reduction. Like protecting biodiversity. Like carbon reduction.

          • gbaikie says:

            –David Appell says:
            September 2, 2019 at 10:05 PM
            challenged enough??

            What does that mean more taxes?–

            That is a common lefty answer.
            How about trying something different.

            –There are many better investments to make in the world than shipping Antarctic water to Ethiopia. Like global vaccinations. Like universal health care. Like population reduction. Like protecting biodiversity. Like carbon reduction.–

            That, “Ethiopia has one of the fastest-growing economies in the world”, seems to indicates that Ethiopia could heading in right direction. And they seem to be planning on making more dams. Which seems like this could a good investment.
            Carbon reduction would bad idea, unless carbon reduction means doing such things which increase/promote the future use of natural gas.

  64. David Appell says:

    Roy, regarding your graph…. what’s the trend since 1950?

    (Remember, you dismiss global warming before 1950, so it’s only fair to start your graph there. I’m guessing there IS a positive trend since then.)

  65. Bindidon says:

    Some are really dumb enough to counfound a hurricane’s moving speed with its power…

    Jesus. Pseudoknowledge at its best…

  66. Jack says:

    Kerry Emanuel of MIT has an excellent presentation on hurricane intensity.

    https://youtu.be/aR7a3ET5uws

    • JDHuffman says:

      The first part was interesting and informative, especially about the historical hurricane record.

      But, at 29:00, he went pure psedoscience: “We’ve know for 30 years, blah-blah, hand-waving…basic physics.” Even his body language made him appear guilty.

      That’s when I quit watching.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      jack…”Kerry Emanuel of MIT has an excellent presentation on hurricane intensity”.

      Emmanuel is a dyed-in-the-wool alarmist. Never listen to an alarmist. Check out a hurricane expert like Chris Landsea.

      https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/06/08/34001/

  67. JDHuffman says:

    Dorian has run out of gas. His speed has been only about 1 mph for most of the day. The latest NHC report indicated Dorian’s movement as “nearly stationary”.

    The maximum sustained winds continue to fall also, now reported at 145 mph. Dorian has dropped to Cat 4.

    Stuck in one place, with the Sun now starting to set, Dorian needs some energy quickly.

    Hope he’s not depending on CO2….

    • Jack says:

      The energy source of a hurricane is the large latent heat of water.

      • JDHuffman says:

        That’s partically correct, Jack.

        Think of it this way: The warm surface water starts the process, and the release of latent heat at altitude amplifies the process. Remove the warm surface water and the process ceases. So as a hurricane remains in one spot, it actually cools the surface, cutting off its own fuel.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Do you have a point?

        Cheers.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        jack…”The energy source of a hurricane is the large latent heat of water”.

        Heat, the kinetic energy of atoms, provides the fuel. Something has to start it spinning.

        Tornadoes get started when colder air from the north mingles with cooler air from the south to create rotation. I would guess there has to be two massive fronts available to start the rotation.

        You might say that both hurricanes and tornadoes are started by weather.

  68. gbaikie says:

    Anyone else see, Roy W. Spencer on Fox?

    He gave a brief and good explanation of why hurricanes are not related to global warming.
    And made the reporter go, huh.

    • Midas says:

      By “explanation” you mean “rationalization”.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Is that another pseudoscientific GHE true believer redefinition?

        He wrote “explanation”, which you have redefined to mean “rationalisation”. You are just a person who cannot accept what others say.

        You wrote “rationalization”, when you really meant “explanation”. No wonder you get confused!

        Cheers.

      • gbaikie says:

        I am always telling people they should know the religion that they belief in.
        Global warming is largely about warming the planet outside of the tropics. Or most warming occurs in polar regions.
        Now, a more exotic aspect of the religious yore, is the tropics pretty much remain around the same average temperature whether cooling or warming and that average temperature is about 26 C.

        And hurricane need about 26 C.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        midas…”By explanation you mean rationalization”.

        Roy has a degree in meteorology, unlike you, a dimwit alarmist fairy. Roy has the credentials to explain hurricane activity whereas you cannot even provide a rationale for your religion.

        • Midas says:

          As do the majority of meteorologists who share the opposite opinion.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Back to majority opinion, eh? Science is based on fact and reproducible experiment. Pseudoscience followers love a good consensus. Who can disprove an opinion?

            My opinion is that you are a witless fool, who can’t even define what global warming is, much less why and how it would relate to hurricanes!

            Cheers.

          • Midas says:

            They share that opinion for a reason. And most of them are not invested in climate change.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            It’s a pity you can’t state the opinion, who shares it, or why, but don’t let that worry you.

            Facts don’t seem to concern you overmuch.

            By the way, climate is only the average of weather – no investment required. Just 12 year old arithmetic.

            Cheers.

    • David Appell says:

      Wonder why Fox never puts any other scientists on their programs but those who they know will give them the answer they want.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gbaikie…”He [Roy] gave a brief and good explanation of why hurricanes are not related to global warming”.

      That’s why I have a great appreciation for the integrity and courage of Roy and John Christy of UAH.

      Hope you’re feeling better, Roy, and on the mend.

  69. Aaron S says:

    David A or whoever,

    I replied above in comment string, but will undoubtedly be cast to the bottom of the comments. It seems Roy coded a line to do that for some reason. His blog his rules.

    What I dont get about the hockey stick is why stich in instrumental data at all? If the proxy is working (sampled correctly) then the modern tree ring record last decade would match anyway. This is why it is fundamentally illogical to me. It is absolutely unnecessary to change methods. In an unbiased science community world you could not bait and switch. As I understand it tree rings are not generally picking up the climate change. Same with Ice core data. They bait and switch and hide that the resolution is smoothed and high frequency fluctuations (century scale or less) are indistinguishable. This, this warming event could have occurred many times without detection.

    Aaron.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      aaron…”What I dont get about the hockey stick is why stich in instrumental data at all?”

      It’s called ‘hide the decline’. On its own, the tree ring proxy data was showing cooling. Mann et all snipped off the cooling and spliced in real data.

      They also hid the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period to get a straight shaft. All in all, the hockey stick graph was an amateur production created by non-climate scientists. It was so bad that one tree covered an entire century.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        Aaron,

        Tim Ball was asking Mann for his R2 regression analysis of the data. The regression analysis states how well the curve you draw fits the data. Mann has never produced that and no one has ever reproduced his curve using all the data which he has never produced. If you go onto wikipedia you will find all kind of BS about how Mann and his team used all kinds of analyses on all this raw data which allowed them to exclude some data and use other data, etc. etc.-all BS. Mann manipulated the data until he got the curve he wanted and also unscientifically spliced two completely different types of data to construct the curve. What I want to know is Penn State culpable in a fraudulent attempt to deceive the public like they did in the Sandusky case?

    • Entropic man says:

      The “declne” was a divergence between the observed temperature record and the temperatures derived from tree rings.

      The tree rings were growing less,as would happen if the temperature trend had reversed.

      In retrospect, the decline coincides with the 1960s trend to high chimneys on power plants. This spread acid rain across Europe and reduced tree growth for a reason independent of temperature.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Dendrochronology (treemometry) is bunkum. Pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo, promoted by fools, fakers, and frauds.

        Give one of the practitioners of this branch of pseudoscience a lump of wood, and ask them to divine the air temperature of each year of growth. Some people are gullible enough to believe anything.

        Cheers.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        Eman,

        I know if it wasn’t for damn humans and their acid rain those tree rings would have shown temperature to certainly increase just like the temperature record showed. Damn humans and damn their acid rain.

  70. ren says:

    North of Dorian are the highs. Dorian stopped.

  71. Gordon Robertson says:

    stephen…”Gordon,

    Salby is much more than a skeptic. He has shown with a 95% proability that the temperature curve is due to randomness-that there is no systematic influence on temperature. This supports the point youve been making”.

    Thanks for clarification. I did not remember using the word ‘random’, it was Salby then. The point I have been making in that direction is that CO2 has nothing to do with warming and that any warming is due to natural causes. That would align with Salby’s thinking.

    Salby’s argument is compelling. I liked the point he made about alarmists beginning their data circa 1960 to avoid the equal warming in the 30s and 40s.

  72. Gordon Robertson says:

    DA…”Where can I read Salbys peer reviewed journal papers?”

    You can’t, it out of bounds for alarmist weenies like you.

    • Midas says:

      So they don’t exist – got it.

    • Stephen P Anderson says:

      Acutally I think Salby has authored or coauthored over 70 peer reviewed papers on atmospheric physics. He was considered an intellectual giant (he still is) until he ran afoul of the pseudoscience community. Then of course McQuarrie University siezed all of his records and files. DA, if you are unafraid of the truth why don’t you and your ilk call out for McQuarrie to release his records and files?

      • Midas says:

        Try MACQUARIE.

        • Stephen P Anderson says:

          Sorry I didn’t look up the correct spelling Midas. Did I offend your Australian sensibilities?

          • Midas says:

            Just trying to attract your attention. Now that I have it, when do you plan on answering my question? My last post on the matter repeated for your benefit:

            Ive watched the video, thanks all the same. Im asking YOU to explain what you believe he is saying.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Are you saying you don’t understand what he is saying? It would take me quite awhile. Why don’t you watch it three or four times like I did and if you still don’t understand and want clarity on certain points I’ll try to explain them the best I can.

          • Midas says:

            No, I want you to explain the key points of his explanation, in logical order.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            OK, let’s take the first point which is that the temperature record, both proxy and satellite have displayed random variation and not systematic variation. Do you understand probability density functions?

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Also, I’ve never been able to consistently write mathematical equations on this board so I’ll have to verbally explain and ask you to go to points on the video. Is that OK?

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            You would agree that temperature is not discrete random variables but conforms to the probability density function?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            M,

            You want. You’re asking him to explain

            Dimwit. Work it out for yourself. Don’t blame others for your incompetence.

            If you admit you are incapable of understanding something, I will explain it for you. Just tell me what you can’t understand, and why. You will need to satisfy me that you have made a bit of effort, and that you are not just being a dork, trying to waste peoples’ time.

            Ask away.

            Cheers.

  73. Gordon Robertson says:

    DA…”I dont hate Trump, but I do strongly dislike him for…”

    Since you seem to think a comedian talking about having sex with a 10 year old boy is supported by free speech, I suppose you think it was OK for Bill Clinton to have sex in the Oval Office with a female intern.

    I have seen Trump do nothing to compare with that level of sleeziness during his term as President.

    How about Hillary? Lyin’ Willie cheats on her several times, culminating in him sexually harassing a female intern in the Oval Office, while having sex with her, yet Hillary stays with her man and blames the women for leading him astray.

    I suppose you wanted her as president after showing such a lack of intelligence and guts.

  74. Gordon Robertson says:

    midas…”GR
    No scientific evidence that he is right?”

    I gave you the evidence you dimwit.

    Montagnier discovered HIV circa 1983 and has steadfastly claimed since 1983 that HIV could not cause AIDS on its own, that a co-factor was required. He recently supplied the co-factor, the immune system has to be compromised first. Stated another way, HIV cannot infect a healthy immune system.

    Duesberg stated that 25 years ago. He pointed out that the T-cells in the immune system outnumbered HIV cells 800 to 1, even in a badly compromised immune system. In other words, the immune system was handling the infection even in sick people.

    The stats support Montagnier and Duesberg. In countries where people in general have healthy immune systems, AIDS deaths are a small fraction of 1%. That small fraction is 90% due to two high risk groups: homosexual males and IV drug users.

    Duesberg advised homosexual males 25 years ago that if they had monogamous relationships they had nothing to worry about. The 16% of homosexual males who do contract AIDS are involved with multiple partners and doing drugs. He narrowed down certain AIDS opportunistic infects like Kaposi’s sarcoma and pneumocystitis to specific practices of high-risk homosexual males.

    Duesberg has claimed all along that AIDS is a lyfestyle problem, not a viral problem. Montagnier now agrees.

    • Midas says:

      I was referring to Salby. I have no interest in a discussion on AIDS, except to say that that other idiot who denies both the cause of AIDS and the cause of climate change was mercifully taken from this earth a few weeks ago by aliens disguised as glowing green raccoons.

      • the Real Plastic says:

        Midas- You might have no interest in discussing HIV/AIDs, but Gordon looks for it – it is an obsession of his that he eventually tries to weave into every debate. For homophobic and xenophobic reasons, with little understanding of the condition as it stands in North America currently.

    • Dr Myki says:

      Why am I not surprised to uncover the background to Gordon’s hero Duesberg.
      According to Wikipedia:
      “Duesberg’s views are cited as major influences on South African HIV/AIDS policy under the administration of Thabo Mbeki, which embraced AIDS denialism. Duesberg served on an advisory panel to Mbeki convened in 2000. The Mbeki administration’s failure to provide antiretroviral drugs in a timely manner, due in part to the influence of AIDS denialism, is thought to be responsible for hundreds of thousands of preventable AIDS deaths and HIV infections in South Africa.[12][13] Duesberg disputed these findings in an article in the journal Medical Hypotheses,[14] but the journal’s publisher, Elsevier, later retracted Duesberg’s article over accuracy and ethics concerns as well as its rejection during peer review.[15][16] The incident prompted several complaints to Duesberg’s institution, the University of California, Berkeley, which began a misconduct investigation of Duesberg in 2009.[17][18] The investigation was dropped in 2010, with university officials finding “insufficient evidence … to support a recommendation for disciplinary action.”

      See that expression: “AIDS denialism” ? Any climate denialists here like to disassociate themselves from this character?

      Note: “..responsible for hundreds of thousands of preventable AIDS deaths ”

      Fascinating what grubs you discover when you turn over a rock.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      Mi-Des, Ian, please stop trolling.

  75. Gordon Robertson says:

    gbaikie…”Gordon Robertson, you are right, the temperature curve is almost certainly random and there is no systematic influence on the planets temperature.

    gb…The planets temperature is not random.

    ***

    It was not me who claimed it was random, it was Salby. Stephen has kindly clarified that in a later post.

    I do agree with Salby’s analysis but I don’t think he is denying what you claim re the oceans. I think he is claiming there is no predictable underlying causation. In other words, the oceans don’t follow a predictable pattern with their warming.

    • SPM says:

      the oceans dont follow a predictable pattern with their warming

      Really????

      I have noticed over the last 60 years or so that the water temperature at my local beach is higher in summer than in winter.

      So this is just a random occurrence according to Salby.

      Simply brilliant.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        SPM,

        Yes the Earth does orbit around the Sun approximately every 365 days. Yes, the Earth does rotate on its axis ever 24 hours. And, yes the Moon does orbit the Earth approximately every 30 days. I’m submitting your name to the Nobel committee.

        • Midas says:

          Every 23 hours 56 minutes. Sorry – you miss out on the Nobel.

        • SPM says:

          Thanks for your input there Stephen.

          You have really delved deep into that intellect of yours and come up with a response, which, like you, is totally irrelevant.

          Try harder next time.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Just trying to help you clear up your misunderstanding of randomness.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            SPM,

            You seem to be incapable of accepting basic physics. Blaming others for your own stupidity and ignorance won’t make you any smarter.

            You should try harder to understand. At the moment, it’s not necessary to try hard at all, to be smarter than you. Off you go. Predict that the Sun will rise tomorrow. Pat yourself on the back if it does.

            Gee, how clever are you?

            Cheers.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Don’t be really, really, stupid. It has been known for a long, long, time, that sunlight can make things hotter – even water. Summer is generally warmer than winter for this reason.

        You don’t even know what the water temperature at a particular location, at a particular depth is, right now, do you? Predict away!

        You are confused. Random is not the same as chaotic. It sounds like Salby is smarter than you, but feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

        Cheers.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        spm…”I have noticed over the last 60 years or so that the water temperature at my local beach is higher in summer than in winter”.

        Get with the program, laddie, we are not talking about how the oceans have warmed, we’re talking about how the oceans warm the planet. I have claimed Sabby was right, it’s unpredictable.

        For all you know, in 50 or 100 years that warmed ocean may have cooled. Salby claims there is no rhyme or reason to the warming/cooling.

    • Stephen P Anderson says:

      Gordon,
      I was referencing the fact that you don’t believe there is any GHE at all. I believed that possibly Dan Pangburn’s work had shown that there could be an influence from increased water vapor caused by man. I think you had disagreed with that too. I do too now.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        stephen…”Gordon,
        I was referencing the fact that you dont believe there is any GHE at all”.

        **********

        Thanks for further clarification.

        To be clear, I think something has increased the Earth’s surface temperature over a similar planet with no atmosphere and no oceans. I just cannot accept the GHE theory as presented.

        The GHE is based on a real greenhouse. The basis for the analogy is the incorrect notion that glass traps electromagnetic radiation (IR) which in turn somehow raises the temperature of the air in the greenhouse. Certain types of glass might block IR but there is no explanation as to how such blocked IR can raise the temperature of air inside the greenhouse, which is 99% nitrogen and oxygen.

        The alternate theory of greenhouse warmed offered by CO2 (and other gases) radiation expert, R.W. Wood, is that the greenhouse warms due to a lack of convection, or reduced convection. He did an experiment to prove that fact.

        Wood claimed CO2 radiation could not warm the atmosphere. He thought it far more likely that air is heated by the surface, and being a gas, it cannot radiate the heat away easily. The stored heat, for whatever time, increases the temperature of the atmosphere.

        Then there are the oceans. They store heat and transport it around the planet. Here in Vancouver, Canada, we benefit from tropical heat transported to the west coast of North America by the Japanese Current.

        The oceans also have oscillations, like ENSO, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Arctic Oscillation, etc. Tsonis et al discovered that the oscillation operate in phase and out of phase. When in phase, the planet warms, when out of phase it cools.

        I don’t buy the argument that greenhouse gases like CO2 or WV can slow down radiation at the surface. According to Stefan-Boltzmann, the only effective slowing of heat loss would be the surface-atmosphere interface. That means the temperature of the air layer at the surface mitigates the rate of heat loss.

        The layer is 99%+ nitrogen and oxygen.

        Obviously the interface should be in thermal equilibrium. However, as air warms it rises and cooler air from aloft replaces it. Therefore you have a cycle atmospheric temperature fluctuation at the interface.

        Lindzen has claimed that without such convection, the surface temperature could rise to 70C. Therefore, the nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere cools the surface if anything.

        I am only claiming that whatever has raised the Earth’s temperature is far more complex than what we understand.

  76. rah says:

    How I Love living in a time when a truck driver in the Midwest that’s fascinated by the natural sciences in general and weather and climate can garner so much information from such reliable and informed sources while sitting at his computer in his study and then use that same tool to impart what he has learned to others.

    On August 12th I sent out this e-mail to family and friends:

    “Though the ACE index is only at 29% of average for the North Atlantic Basin where our hurricanes form as I write this, things are changing and we can expect the tropics to start firing up in a couple weeks. The dust and dry air over the Atlantic Basin MDR is dissipating. The weak Modoki El Nino is gone and the ENSO is now neutral and the MJO is moving towards sector 2. All of these point to conditions much more conducive for Tropical Storm development in the Atlantic Basin. So it looks like there is a good chance the 2nd half of the Atlantic Hurricane season is going to be quite active.”
    In a separate e-mail to my girls that had just moved into a home at Daytona Beach about 3 blocks from the shore I sent the above e-mail and added that they should get hurricane shutters installed ASAP!

    I’m not tooting my horn here. Far from it! I’m lauding the real experts that imparted the information and knowledge that allowed a truck driver to forewarn those he cares about the possibility of dangerous weather coming and the technology that allowed me gain that insight and share it.
    So, thanks so much to people like Roy Spencer, Joe Bastardi, Levi Cowan, Ryan Maue, and so many others that over the years shared their knowledge in a manner that allowed even a truck driver to comprehend most of it and put it to good use.

  77. JDHuffman says:

    Dorian can’t move, it’s almost as if he’s glued in place!

    If he can’t start moving, he will die a slow death. He’s already down to Cat. 3, and failing fast.

    SUMMARY OF 700 AM EDT…1100 UTC…INFORMATION
    ———————————————-
    LOCATION…27.0N 78.4W
    ABOUT 35 MI…55 KM NE OF FREEPORT GRAND BAHAMA ISLAND
    ABOUT 110 MI…175 KM ENE OF WEST PALM BEACH FLORIDA
    MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS…120 MPH…195 KM/H
    PRESENT MOVEMENT…STATIONARY
    MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE…952 MB…28.11 INCHES

  78. Bindido n says:

    I know, It is definitely out of topic. But ignorance must be fought everywhere.

    HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) is a virus that attacks the immune system . (The immune system fights infections and diseases in a person’s body.)

    Over time, HIV weakens a person’s immune system so it has a very hard time fighting diseases.

    HIV causes AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome). People with HIV can have it for many years before it develops into AIDS.

    Further infos:

    https://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/aids/general/resources/child/docs/chapter_1.pdf

    And it is no wonder at all that those ignoring what HIV really is, also ignore everything about people like Luc Montagnier who has been contradicted in France due to absolutely unscientific ideas.

    His most incredible, nonsensical ‘contributions’ were
    – that healthy persons would be able to beat HIV by themselves,
    and
    – that vaccination would be dangerous, causing the Sudden infant death syndrome, what has been demonstrated by French researchers to be absolutely wrong.

    All stuff based on individual observations lacking scientific behavior like long term studieds over greater populations.

    He was contradicted by French medicine scientists with such intensisty that he then left France toward China in 2010 where he got a chair at the Shanghai Jiao Tong University.

    The differencre between the English and the French Wiki pages concerning Montagnier is simply tremendous.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) is a virus that attacks the immune system . (The immune system fights infections and diseases in a persons body.)

      Over time, HIV weakens a persons immune system so it has a very hard time fighting diseases”.

      **********

      You believe this propaganda for the same reason you believe the Moon rotates on its axis. None of what you wrote above has ever been proved.

      For one, no one has ever seen the HIV virus, isolated it, or purified it. When Montagnier was confronted with that information he agreed his team had not seen it, isolated it, or purified it. He thought he had isolated it but could not prove it.

      All of these procedures is required to prove a virus exists, according to the Louis Pasteur Institute, who laid out the guidelines. One of the members on Montagnier’s team sat on the LPI board that laid out the guidelines yet none of the group applied them in their claim to have found the virus.

      Montagnier further offered that the virus is ‘presumed’ to exist based on RNA particles found in a person with AIDS. The antiviral inferred to treat HIV is based on that phantom information. No one applying the antiviral has any idea what the so-called virus is attacking.

      The companies who produce the antivirals offer a disclaimer that the antivirals will not cure HIV. Yet HIV+ people are put on this crap for life. The companies also claim that the antivirals can cause kidney and liver damage leading to death.

      But here’s the clanger. The companies admit the antivirals produce IRS, and srug induced form of AIDS. Peter Duesberg called that practice ‘death by prescription’.

      Biologist, Stefan Lanka, who discovered the first virus in the ocean, thinks HIV does NOT exist. In fact, he has claimed that photos of HIV and other viruses, have been fabricated, or represent cells in which HIV is thought to exist.

      http://www.whale.to/a/lanka5.html

      Peter Duesberg, an authority on retroviruses like the phantom HIV, claims it is absurd that a virus would wait up to 15 years before activating. He claimed that all known viruses that infect, do so within a week.

      Good explanation for HIV by an expert:

      http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/pdpnas89.htm

      general skepticism about the HIV/AIDS connection:

      http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/

      from Duesberg…

      http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/whistleblowers.htm

      Once again, the data supports these scientists. HIV has NOT become the epidemic predicted. In countries where people enjoy healthy immune systems, AIDS is generally unknown. It is restricted (90%+) to high risk groups like certain male homosexuals (16% of male homosexuals) and IV drug users.

      It has mainly been the media who has spread the propaganda about HIV/AIDS. Those people should be prosecuted.

      • Nate says:

        Gordon readily appeals to an authority figure with loose screws, but dismisses actual data (such as below) as fake news. As judged by Gordon, no data should be trusted anymore.

        In the 1980s and 90s, infection with HIV was a certain death sentence, even in non-s-hole countries.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5302412/

        It is plain to see, as in fig 2 here, that before anti-viral treatment in Switzerland, with an HIV infection at age 20, death on average came by age 31.

        With the advent of anti-viral treatment in the 1990s, someone infected at age 20, will live to age 75 on average.

        If one of Gordon’s family members gets HIV, I certainly hope they won’t take his treatment advice.

        • the Real Plastic says:

          Nate – antiretroviral therapy is an astonishing thing! And it has come really far since the early days of treatment. Gordon states there is no epidemic – well, there isn’t anymore, because the therapies have come so far. Though in his mind, mainly “gays and Africans” get it for miscellaneous reasons that don’t apply to everyone else. Ostensibly, these denialists blame malnutrition, drug use, and “other disease” – this is obscurist language, shielding beliefs that are a lot more grim and ignorant.

      • the Real Plastic says:

        Nice propaganda sites.

        While you pretend to be outraged that people are dying, what you miss is that:

        – an inflammatory response is typical for a variety of immunodeficiency issues, once they begin to be treated. It is as if the beleagured immune system that was almost completely compromised now has just enough energy to say “Hey, I can tackle this other stuff I have brewing.” It is NOT death by prescription. No current physician treating HIV/AIDs says this. YOU say this, as you munch cookies at your keyboard in the dark and pretend to be a rebel. You first have to have knowledge so you at least know what side you are choosing. You are a cheerfully ignorant homophobe xenophobe, so you will never be bothered to change your mind about HIV/AIDs.

        -no one is claiming there is a cure for HIV/AIDs, you ninny. It is a lifelong chronic illness thus must be managed daily. Why are you outraged about this? No one is claiming to cure AIDs. The current therapies do wonders and improve quality of life tenfold.

        I am all for questioning established knowledge but you are egregiously misinformed and are too stupid to even be ashamed of yourself. I am ashamed of you on your behalf.

  79. i’m checking this site every 30 minutes until the August report cones out :’D

    • Bindidon says:

      Wooaaah!

      I did not know that Roy Spencer’s monthly LT reports could make people as addictive as cocaine!

      I’m sorry for you.

  80. barry says:

    For anyone wanting latest updates, these three links are probably the most authoritative.

    Latest conditions
    Latest forecast
    Forecast discussion

    • JDHuffman says:

      Dorian is not moving fast enough. The longer he stays in one spot, the more he depletes the sea surface energy. But, he is now close enough to shore to catch the northbound warm current. That’s helping to keep him alive, even though his strength is about to fall to Cat 2.

      At least he was smart enough to get stuck in a warm current. A stupid hurricane would have tried to get energy from CO2….

    • Bindidon says:

      barry

      Thanks for the info.

      It is amazing to see how condescendant some people can write about such events, whenever they are not at all concerned by their consequences.

      Tomorrow I read in the (very conservative) French newspaper ‘Le Figaro’ about this hurricane.

      It was instinctively clear to me that for a target like the Bahamas, a hurricane’s slowdown would have worst consequences.

      Here is a pic made by a Polish/Finnish microsatellite:

      https://tinyurl.com/y2occczl

      The dark places were not flooded by the hurricane.

      *
      I imagine some reactions in CONUS, far away from any endangering:

      ‘But Bindidon, keep cool! Only 5 persons died! Did they really?
      60,000 people with immediate nutrition problems? So what!

      I’m sure you alarmist Figaro misinformed you.’

      Or, a voice out of the Great Plains:

      ‘Bahamas? Wha’ you say man? bahamas? Kinda banana?
      C’na eat it?’

      *
      Sometimes one could begin to really enjoy the idea that such stupid, ignorant ‘commenter’s one day might become a direct target of what they are laughing here about today.

      *
      And we can be sure that all rich people will have saved their giant cabin cruisers in due time, saying:

      ‘Good bye, guys ‘n dolls, see you again when your nice islands are pretty enough for us!’

    • barry says:

      Bindidon,

      I’ve read that potentially 13,000 homes are destroyed and 5 deaths in The Bahamas.
      It’s hard to know if the climate debate makes some people so cold-blooded on related issues, or if they are that way anyway.

      • JDHuffman says:

        Human pschology is not my field, but I have noticed that, in the AGW nonsense, people that are not educated in the relevant physics get quite defensive, even to the point of insulting, misrepresentating others, making false accusations, and even avoiding reality.

        It’s almost like they know they have a false religion, but don’t want to leave it. Someone once used the term “cargo cult”.

      • Nate says:

        Only 5 deaths because people had plenty of warning.

        Thanks to numerical weather models and the GHE they include.

  81. Jim Eichstedt says:

    Hey,
    I’m at a Corner Bakery in Wauwatosa, WI, and the local wifi which is filtered by SonicWall is blocking Roy’s site. What’s up?

  82. JDHuffman says:

    Dorian has not been able to strengthen all day. Now a Cat 2, and with the Sun gone, will he drop even more by morning?

    SUMMARY OF 900 PM EDT…0100 UTC…INFORMATION
    ———————————————-
    LOCATION…28.3N 78.9W
    ABOUT 105 MI…175 KM E OF MELBOURNE FLORIDA
    MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS…110 MPH…175 KM/H
    PRESENT MOVEMENT…NW OR 325 DEGREES AT 6 MPH…9 KM/H
    MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE…958 MB…28.29 INCHES

  83. Gordon Robertson says:

    binny…”Some are really dumb enough to counfound a hurricanes moving speed with its power”

    Did you notice that once the hurricane stalled at the Bahamas it lost power?

    • Bindidon says:

      Robertson

      People like you and Huffman should be picked up by the troop on some cold morning at 4 AM, put on a military truck and sent to the Bahamas, where they would have to stay for 6 months, and work there 7 days per week in reconstructing what has been destroyed by this ‘pathetic CAT 2’ Dorian pseudohurricane.

      • JDHuffman says:

        Bindidon are you willing to pay for our vacation? I’ve always wanted to go to the Bahamas, and 6 months is plenty of time to really get to know the place.

        Where do I send the bill?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”People like you and Huffman should be picked up by the troop on some cold morning at 4 AM, put on a military truck and sent to the Bahamas”

        Just can’t bring yourself to admit that a hurricane’s strength can be related to its speed. When it’s forward momentum was stalled at the Bahamas, it ran out of steam.

        That’s a testament to the power in the atmosphere, that a ferocious hurricane locale can be directed and manipulated by stronger forces.

        Actually, when you look at it from aloft, and see those fronts curling around each other, it’s pretty impressive. I am currently watching it being guided along the US east coast by some mysterious force, as it peters out.

  84. ren says:

    Another hurricane is developing in the eastern Atlantic. It is the effect of strong solar wind in the north.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…Another hurricane is developing in the eastern Atlantic. It is the effect of strong solar wind in the north”.

      Thanks for updates, ren.

  85. Gordon Robertson says:

    mickey…”See that expression: AIDS denialism ?”

    Is there any chance you could possibly try using a little bit of intelligence before running off at the mouth about something you don’t understand?

    It’s a term like climate denial. It means nothing.

    Duesberg has never claimed AIDS does not exist, he has only claimed that HIV could not cause it. No one has ever proved what causes AIDS. Some people have developed AIDS while being HIV negative. Some people with HIV have never developed AIDS.

    People who use the term, “AIDS denial”, are presuming, incorrectly, that HIV and AIDS are the same thing. AIDS is an umbrella acronym that covers over 30 opportunistic infections, like Kaposi’s Sarcoma on one end and hepatitis on the other. The connection is that they infect a body with a malfunctioning immune system.

    So what is it, AIDS denial, or HIV denial? It’s akin to climate denial vs global warming denial.

    Anything about Duesberg in the wiki was written by an idiot unable to think for himself/herself. Duesberg is an expert on retroviruses like HIV. He has carefully explained his position and time has proved him correct.

    On the other hand, the guru of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis in North America, Robert Gallo, once made a fool of himself by claiming cancer was caused by a virus. When opportunity knocked, Gallo presented his failed cancer viral hypothesis to the Reagan administration as the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Same theory, different symptoms.

    Meantime, Gallo has cleaned up financially. He patented the HIV tests and has made a load of money from them. Trouble is, they don’t work.

    Get the picture? The same crowd of alarmists who have crippled science with the AGW theory did the same with the HIV/AIDS theory. Same pseudo-science, different crowd.

    • the Real Plastic says:

      Hello Gordon,

      You are very quick with tossing off insults like “jackass” and “stupid” in every single posting where you are retorting to someone who doesn’t validate your ravings: The knee-jerk mudslinging of a reactionary pseudointellectual clinging to beliefs quite outside his realm. You still have not answered my question about what your own credentials are? I am guessing electronics assemblyman or handyman work. You speak with assertion, but not with the tone of one exposed to modern knowledge. I also sense frustration.

      Yet you are so enamoured of the perceived underdogs, so invested in discrediting what is established, that you are embarrassing in your embrace of discredited or outdated beliefs, particularly related to HIV/AIDs.

      You refer to (obsess over!) scientists from decades ago who might have contributed useful ideas at one time but are quite irrelevant to the field of HIV/AIDs therapy as it stands today.

      Luc Montagnier is currently peddling homeopathy in China.

      Your boyfriend Duesberg was promising in his cancer research a few decades ago, but now is an established crank (who gained the stature of an “expert” in your eyes by a paper published *and then redacted* by a journal whose express purpose is to present “hey what if?” ideas unsupported by peer review). Duesberg has since utterly ebraced his racism and homophobia and status of an irrelevant old man (three things that you seem to share with him!). He clings to tenure at Berkeley by a thread that was woven decades ago when he was actually a contributing biologist in the field he knew something about: cancer. Shamefully, he saw an opportunity for some money and power (the latter he has long since lost in USA) by becoming an advisor to Thebo Mbeki, President of South Africa and fellow lazy-arsed AIDs denialist. Duesberg thus directly contributed to deaths that might have been prevented with antiretroviral medication (sorry to use “denialist”, one of your trigger words!) So this is your oft-spouted hero. Slink off, Gordon.

      You talk about the WHO declaring an epidemic 20 years ago. Dude, it WAS an epidemic 20 years ago, even in your beloved Canada (where it still exists, by the way, but is thankfully quite readily managed by a medication schedule that is in no way the killer you think it is). You get all red in the face about AZT, one of the earliest antiretroviral medications on the market – can you even name ONE modern antiretroviral? AZT is still used, but only in combination with another antiretroviral. Like any medication it has side-effects – side-effects that can be quite well managed. In contrast to, you know, full blown AIDs, you afternoon farmer.

      I feel like your understanding of HIV/AIDs therapy/treatment ended 20 years ago because that is all you ever reference. Go to St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver and there are myriad up-to-date, relevant, devoted doctors and researchers who are actually contributing to this field.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        plastic…”You are very quick with tossing off insults like jackass and stupid in every single posting where you are retorting to someone who doesnt validate your ravings:”

        ********

        I don’t use the word stupid that often, it is more along the line of jackass or idiot. I reserve those names for special alarmists who come here to oppose Roy’s moderate message re warming/climate change. Even at that, I reserve the terms for egregious claims based on pseudo-science.

        “Luc Montagnier is currently peddling homeopathy in China”.

        It’s not homeopathy, it’s good medical science related to oxidative stress. He thinks AIDS is oxidative stress and that the natural cure is to stop the high risk behavior one is practicing and take antioxidants.

        That’s along the lines of what Duesberg recommended more than 20 years ago…stop the high risk behavior.

        BTW…MOntagnier never did advocate that HIV causes AIDS, he has claimed all along that a co-factor is required.

        “Your boyfriend Duesberg was promising in his cancer research a few decades ago, but now is an established crank…”

        Anyone who would claim such nonsense about Duesberg, with his background and expertise in retroviruses, is both a jackass and an idiot. You have confirmed that with your inability to discriminate brilliance from an appeal to authority, which those who support the HIV/AIDS hypothesis long for.

        Not many researchers are inducted into the National Academy of Science and he was the youngest inductee at the time. Duesberg was framed by idiots like you.

        “it WAS an epidemic 20 years ago, even in your beloved Canada (where it still exists, by the way, but is thankfully quite readily managed by a medication schedule that is in no way the killer you think it is)”.

        The epidemic was akin to the current frenzy about catastrophic warming/climate change.

        You are full of crap that HIV is being managed by antivirals. The companies who produce them claim they cannot cure HIV. They also admit that the drugs cause AIDS.

        Antivirals today are not much better than AZT, which was banned as a cancer chemotherapy agent because it was far too harsh. Not too harsh for the witch-doctors who use it on HIV positives…for life. Seriously, those people deserve to be in jail.

        Read this horror story by David Rasnick, who helped develop antivirals while working for pharmaceutical companies. He covers AZT which is marked with a skull and crossbones (poison) and has a warning that the drug should not be inhaled or come in contact with the skin.

        It’s OK for an HIV+ to take it for life, however, to treat a virus which has never been seen and which the drug companies claim cannot be cured by their drugs.

        http://www.davidrasnick.com/aids/hiv-drugs-cause-aids.html.

        http://www.davidrasnick.com/aids/index.html

        You are a serious twit, a typical butt-kissing believer who lacks the ability to use any intelligence you may harbour below your thickness.

        “Go to St. Pauls Hospital in Vancouver and there are myriad up-to-date, relevant, devoted doctors and researchers who are actually contributing to this field”.

        BS. St. Paul’s program is run by Julio Montaner. He came on TV one night imploring British Columbians to be tested for HIV. When pinned down on the severity of the problem he admitted that if every person in BC was tested (~4 million) only a small fraction of 1% would test positive for HIV.

        Montaner is paid by pharmaceutical companies to speak on bahalf of their drugs. I have a very low regard for him.

  86. JDHuffman says:

    Dorian continued to weaken overnight. His min. pressure is climbing, as winds decrease. His winds must remain above 95 mph for him to maintain Cat 2 status.

    To miss South Carolina, he needs to start a sharp turn to the east, SOON!

    SUMMARY OF 700 AM EDT…1100 UTC…INFORMATION
    ———————————————-
    LOCATION…29.4N 79.5W
    ABOUT 95 MI…155 KM E OF DAYTONA BEACH FLORIDA
    MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS…105 MPH…165 KM/H
    PRESENT MOVEMENT…NNW OR 330 DEGREES AT 8 MPH…13 KM/H
    MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE…964 MB…28.47 INCHES

  87. Gordon Robertson says:

    plastic…”Nate antiretroviral therapy is an astonishing thing! And it has come really far since the early days of treatment. Gordon states there is no epidemic well, there isnt anymore, because the therapies have come so far. Though in his mind, mainly gays and Africans get it for miscellaneous reasons that dont apply to everyone else. Ostensibly, these denialists blame malnutrition, drug use, and other disease this is obscurist language, shielding beliefs that are a lot more grim and ignorant”.

    ***********

    No antiviral has ever cured AIDS because there is no specific disease to cure.

    AIDS IS NOT A DISEASE!!!

    AIDS is an umbrella term for up to 30 opportunistic infections that are claimed to infect a person with a weak immune system.

    The manufacturers have offered a disclaimer that antivirals DO NOT cure HIV. So, what is being cured???

    Hint: Nothing!!!

    So, what is being targeted by antivirals???. NO ONE KNOWS!!! The team that discovered HIV only claimed that certain RNA particles were found which they thought was HIV. The presumed that 1 in 10,000 particles in a sample taken from a person with advanced AIDS was HIV.

    THEY PRESUMED IT!!!

    All that can be targeted is RNA particles.

    The companies that produce the antivirals claim they DO NOT CURE HIV. If they cannot cure HIV they cannot eradicate the virus. What are they doing?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      part 2…Let’s take one of the AIDS opportunistic infections, tuberculosis. The cause has been known for a long time, Mycobacterium tuberculosis. If you get sick from mycobacterium tuberculosis you have tuberculosis. If HIV is detected, you have AIDS.

      Ridiculous!!!

      BACTERIA CAUSES ONE AIDS OPPORTUNISTIC INFECTION!!!

      I know, I know…HIV is supposed to weaken the immune system so those infections can get in. But where do does the bacteria come from in the first place? It’s not like you pick it up from toilet seats.

      It’s a lifestyle problem.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        part 3…Here are some other AIDS opportunistic infections and their causes:

        Kaposis’s sarcoma…This cancer, also known as KS, is caused by a virus called Kaposis sarcoma herpesvirus (KSHV)

        Histoplasmosis…This illness is caused by the fungus Histoplasma capsulatum.

        Isosporiasis…This infection is caused by the parasite Isospora belli,

        Herpes Simplex…Herpes simplex virus

        Candidiasis…type of fungus called Candida

        Lymphoma..cancer of the lymph nodes

        Pneumocystis carinii…caused by a fungus, Pneumocystis carinii

        Wasting Syndrome…also known as Slim’s Disease…caused by…you guessed it…malnutrition, contaminated drinking water, and parasitic infections.

        Guess what all of the above opportunistic infections are also related to??? Severe partying, drugs, and having sex indiscriminately with multiple partners while stoned, especially homosexual sex since it involves bacteria from another person’s butt.

        Wasting syndrome, or Slim’s disease, was well known in places like Africa long before the HIV/AIDS nonsense began in 1983. The cause is well-documented: malnutrition, contaminated drinking water, and parasitic infection like malaria.

        Sum them up, you get LIFESTYLE!!!

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          part4…

          Are you taking notes?

          Many gay men suffer enlarged lymph nodes, they have candidiasis and other fungal diseases, they have venereal diseases…and all without having HIV. They could die from their activities anyway, but some idiot noted that a harmless virus MIGHT be the cause of deaths back in 1983, and the media has turned HIV, the virus ‘THOUGHT to cause AIDS’, into HIV, the AIDS virus.

          No one has ever proved that HIV can do anything, or even that it exists. All we have received as the public is a massive coverup for the gay lifestyle.

          Africa is a different matter. The poor souls there dying of wasting syndrome are now being blamed for acquiring it through sexual transmission of HIV.

          That’s sick!!! Those people are dying of malnutrition, contaminated drinking water, and parasitic infections.

          Only a stark, raving idiot would miss that obvious cause and blame it on a virus that has never been seen, isolated, or purified.

          • the Real Plastic says:

            Wow, it is arrogant to presume I’d take notes from a ranting eccentric with a bug up his arse, so egotistical that he speaks in black and white on a complex health issue. Taking medical/scientific advice from Gordon would be like taking financial advice from the man begging with a can outside of the drugstore.

            Reading your ALL CAPS rant doesn’t convince anybody – it merely allows us to imagine the proverbial spittle flying as you yell.

            Your rhetoric is tired and 25 years out if date. On your wall calendar, what year is it? It is incredible that you think you are presenting facts when in fact you are just an ill-informed homophobe and racist (“lifestyle problem” is easily translatable into what you REALLY mean. Also, don’t fake concern (“those poor people…”). You are not concerned, or else you would inform yourself, and not just prop up your perceived “dissidence” by relying on the same disproven talking heads. What you view as scientific dissidence is actually just unsophisticated and uninformed denialsm. Those who advocate your views are usually lethally deluded (see: denialists infected with HIV who succumbed to their disease, all the while protesting that there is no such thing. Christine Maggiore, Karri Stokley, virtually everyone in ACT UP…but the true unfortunates are those not given a fighting chance because of opportunistic has-beens like Peter Duesberg advising AGAINST life saving pharmaceutical interventions.

            Um, congratulations on listing known opportunistic infections, I guess? These are well-documented as complications.

            You cherry pick your sources and have your beloved figureheads who speak Gospel in your mind.

            Good thing you are irrelevant. The real work is getting done in the meantime and those afflicted with HIV/AIDs are being helped, no matter what delusional contrarians think.

            As someone pointed out above, “fight ignorance where you find it,” but this is a site about climate, not medicine, so I will respectfully turn the conversation back to that topic. There is no reason in you – you’re like a newborn baby chicken who has decided a pile of turd is its mother.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            plastic…”You cherry pick your sources and have your beloved figureheads who speak Gospel in your mind.”

            You are even more of an idiot than binny.

            In this video, which I posted elsewhere in this thread, David Rasnick, an expert on antivirals claims they have no healing effect at all.

            Takes the video a bit to get into the drug info. Be patient.

            http://www.davidrasnick.com/aids/hiv-drugs-cause-aids.html

            http://www.davidrasnick.com/aids/index.html

            Rasnick worked for pharmaceutical companies developing such drugs. The pharmaceutical companies themselves admit right on the drug container labels that they cannot cure HIV.

            On the label of the drugs NOT released to the consumer, there is a skull and crossbones to indicate a poison. The handler is advised not to touch the drugs, they are that poisonous.

            Where do you come by your stupidity and your need to follow a pseudo-scientific paradigm? Do you lack the sense to read what skeptics have to say and weigh it against the fairy tales of HIV/AIDS proponents?

            Why are you so stupid as to believe an extremely toxic drug has any benefit whatsoever to a person tested as HIV+? As Rasnick put it, if a cancer doctor put a cancer patient on an antiviral like AZT for life, he’d be thrown in jail. Yet the witch doctors claiming to heal HIV positives get away with it.

            People are being killed and made seriously ill by antivirals.

            The antivirals cause AIDS, for cripes sakes…it is called IRS rather than AIDS.

            Here’s one rationale for IRS. It is claimed that taking antivirals heals the immune system. How does an extremely toxic drug heal an immune system?

            Supposedly by killing HIV thus curing a patient of HIV. But wait…the drug companies claim the antivirals cannot do that. And there is no proof whatsoever that HIV can damage an immune system. Montagnier, who discovered HIV, claims the immune system has to be damaged first…by lifestyle.

            It is further claimed that an opportunistic infection like tuberculosis goes into hiding when the immune system is weakened. When the antivirals are taken, the immune system magically gets stronger and the TB just as magically re-appears.

            That’s how these idiots have explained IRS. They fail to grasp that the antivirals are suppressing the immune system even further, causing AIDS symptoms.

  88. JDHuffman says:

    Dorian has managed to gain energy, as ren predicted. Dorian is now back to a weak Cat 3. He’s following the Gulf Stream, taking advantage of the warm surface waters. Since yesterday, he has turned 40° to the east, which will reduce damage to coast.

    SUMMARY OF 900 AM EDT…1300 UTC…INFORMATION
    ———————————————-
    LOCATION…32.2N 79.2W
    ABOUT 70 MI…110 KM SE OF CHARLESTON SOUTH CAROLINA
    ABOUT 160 MI…260 KM SSW OF WILMINGTON NORTH CAROLINA
    MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS…115 MPH…185 KM/H
    PRESENT MOVEMENT…NNE OR 15 DEGREES AT 8 MPH…13 KM/H
    MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE…959 MB…28.32 INCHES

  89. JDHuffman says:

    Dorian is not turning enough. He is getting too close to shore. The predicted 90° turn has not happened. Carolinas are still in danger.

    The “good” news is Dorian is back to Cat 2.

    SUMMARY OF 600 PM EDT…2200 UTC…INFORMATION
    ———————————————-
    LOCATION…33.2N 78.2W
    ABOUT 45 MI…75 KM SE OF MYRTLE BEACH SOUTH CAROLINA
    ABOUT 75 MI…120 KM SSW OF WILMINGTON NORTH CAROLINA
    MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS…110 MPH…175 KM/H
    PRESENT MOVEMENT…NNE OR 25 DEGREES AT 8 MPH…13 KM/H
    MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE…960 MB…28.35 INCHES

Leave a Reply