People’s Climate March on Saturday…through Snow

April 28th, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

You would think that since it’s almost May that one could plan a march against global warming without having to worry about getting snowed on.

Well, weather rules — not climate.

While the People’s Climate March in Washington DC Saturday (April 29) will enjoy unseasonably warm weather, some of the Sister Marches out West won’t be so lucky. There are winter storm warnings, watches, and winter weather advisories in effect for portions of nine Rocky Mountain and High Plains states.

I’m sure the warmth in DC will be pointed to as evidence of global warming during the march. But check out this forecast of the regions of above and below normal for midday Saturday (graphic courtesy of

Temperatures will range from 40 deg. F below normal to 27 deg. F above normal. This is what’s called “weather”. Depending on where you are marching, you will either be bundled up against the cold and wind-driven snow, or in shorts and sweating.

At the same latitude, at the same time.

Yet, even the oldest of marchers will be unlikely to have experienced more than 2 deg. F of warming over their lifetime — too little to notice.

So, one is left to wonder, what are the real reasons for these marches?

291 Responses to “People’s Climate March on Saturday…through Snow”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. fonzarelli says:

    One has to wonder how much warming that your average uninformed climate marcher believes we have had…

    • Obama says:

      I have been amazed at how uniformed alarmists are. I always ask my alarmist friends the following questions:

      1) How much warming per decade is actually happening (empirical)?
      2) How much sea level rise is actually occurring (empirical)?
      3) What are the methods of measuring global warming?
      4) How have you been personally injured, harmed, and suffered personal loss due to climate change/global warming in your lifetime? Please describe the personal harm to you over the last 30 years or so. Be specific.
      5) Over the next 30 to 50 years please be specific as to the most obvious climate disaster with the highest probability of occurring in North America? Please describe the scope and nature of this North American climate disaster vs. what we have personally experienced already in the last 30 to 50 years in North America. Most obvious risk.
      6) What is the number 1 top man-made greenhouse gas that impacts global warming?
      7) How much of #6 is in the atmosphere due to man vs. natural?

      I am amazed that the vast majority (over 80%) of alarmists I encounter have no clue to the answers of these very basic questions. They are very uninformed re: the science.

      • Laura says:

        Truly, whenever I come across an “ardent” environmentalist I simply point to a nearby bush or tree and ask them to name it.

      • barry says:

        1) 0.065C/decade over the 20th century.

        But it’s like asking exactly how much stocks are rising, or your bank balance. Even long-term figures are estimates.

        2) About 3.4 mm/yr since 1993, +/- 0.4mm. Expressed as function of volume. Lot of variability in trends region to region.

        3) Many ways to detect global warming. Sea level rise, ocean heat content, surface temperatures, lower tropospheric temperatures, global sea ice, glacier mass balance, time of year of onset of Spring, ice sheet mass balance, migration of species and growing zones etc etc.

        4) I’ve suffered no harm from global warming. How has your inevitable mortality injured you?

        5) Over the next 30 to 50 years the most obvious disasters will be inundation from storm surge on top of sea level rise and greater incidence of heatwaves. Fuck N America.

        6) CO2 is the anthropogenic GHG rising most and having the greatest impact on warming.

        7) Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have increased atmospheric levels by 44% over pre-industrial (280 ppm to 404 ppm).

        Lara, I would have trouble naming most tees, but I’d say you have a narrow view of what an environmentalist is. The people that test for and prevent toxins flowing into rivers can also be called environmentalists. Environmentalists abound among marine biologists. They don’t have to be tree-huggers to have an abiding interest in protecting the environment.

        • Earl Jantzi says:

          On item 7, mankind only contributes 3% of the total. The rest is from natural sources like plant matter decay, volcanoes etc.

        • Carbon500 says:

          Barry: Regarding comment 5 – why the unnecessary vulgarity in your comment – “f**k N America”?
          You’re not doing yourself any favours by using foul language.
          The claimed fraction-of-a-degree ‘global’ temperature changes over which so much fuss has been made are arguably trivial, and subject to all sorts of errors. And yes, I contacted the UK’s Met Office about this a few years ago to learn more.
          You state that over the next 30 to 50 years we’ll see obvious disasters in the form of inundation from storm surge on top of sea level rise and greater incidence of heatwaves.
          Given that (from what I’ve read) ‘extreme’ events such as tornadoes have lessened in recent years, why do you believe in such a bleak future?
          For an interesting and balanced appraisal, I recommend Dr Spencer’s book – much better than Al Gore!

      • Chris Morris says:

        With regards to your “answer” to #3, where is the tide gauge data showing there has been a sea level rise from global warming. All the data I have seen indicates it has been a straight line rise since records started 150 years ago. The number you quote in #2 doesn’t match the tide gauges but has “correction” factors added.
        With regards global sea ice, I thought that had flat lined. Arctic had decreased but Antarctica had increased.

    • Snape says:

      This is a test. Why do short comments go through but longer ones get lost?

  2. The UK Ian brown says:

    Hello Roy I think you are right. It’s an age my age of 70 plus .I’ve seen lots of weather over the years.but now everything is either unprecedented or a taste of things to come . In the UK the met office have now started giving quite normal low pressure systems names in an attempt to make them seem worse than they really are.its unnecessary and quite blatant .But that’s showbiz

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      “But thats showbiz”

      What a perfect statement for the AGW hoax!

    • 4TimesAYear says:

      It might be an age and memory thing. Hansen, et al, should be old enough to remember what it was like in the 50’s & 60’s (as am I) and I see nothing different than what we’ve been through before. I think for us, it’s more like “here we go again” 🙂

  3. jimc says:

    “Analysis: Its not just droughts, but nearly all extreme weather is declining or at or near record lows”

  4. Ken in Idaho says:

    Having recently moved from the Mid-Atlantic to the Pacific Northwest, I wish I could be experiencing some of that Mid-Atlantic weather right now…

    Dr. Roy, I was trying to research one thing about looking into the future of Koppen Climate Zone shifts, as in what are the areas of the world zoned in now, and where they will be in the future. Most will point that future precipitation is even harder to predict than temperature, so perhaps those research topics are even more up in the air. But I did find this production by Vivid Maps, that shows some Koppen Climate Zone shift. But what I find interesting, the area where I grew up and spent the first half of my life (Washington suburbs) and where I moved to and will spend at least the next 10 years (Snake River Plain) will have same Koppen Climate Zone in 2100. So while the “mercury” might read differently, there is no “climate” change. Has there been any research and is it reliable that says an increased 1 degree C of warming results in a shift of X% Climate Zone Shift?



    • Ken in Idaho says:

      Forgot the link to the map (Transitions Koppen Climate zones from 2000 to 2100)

    • barry says:

      Has there been any research and is it reliable that says an increased 1 degree C of warming results in a shift of X% Climate Zone Shift?

      I believe you’ll find such in the IPCC reports. I remember reading about migration of climate zones, related to agriculture.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        barry, because you believe you remember reading about fairy tales, does not make it science.

        Oh, I forgot, in your pseudoscience, all horrible nightmares are attributable to AGW.

        Alice in Wonderland….

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Yes indeed.

          IPCC–Idiotic Pap about Cliimate Change

        • barry says:

          You’ve successfully come up with some adolescent-grade commentary.

          Ken can find studies like the ones he wants listed in the reference sections of the IPCC, or by searching google scholar.

          The cure for ignorance is curiosity. There may not be a cure for a lack of curiosity.

    • Snape says:

      Do you think glaciers are affected by climate? Well, the glaciers in the Cascade and Olympic mountains, not far from where you live, are melting like crazy. I have several guidebooks that describe a hike to Anderson glacier (around 100 miles from Seattle). If you were to go there this summer, all you will find is a lake.

      • Snape says:

        The above comment was for “Ken in Idaho”

      • Bart says:

        That tends to happen during an interglacial period. Welcome to the Holocene. Be thankful you are not having to deal with the Cordilleran Ice Sheet.

        • Nate says:

          ‘Welcome to the Holocene’ said by some cave dude 12000 years ago.

          Historical time scales are nowhere near geologic epoch time scales.

          • Bart says:

            Not sure I get your point, if you have one.

          • Nate says:

            Glacial retreat should be happening at a glacial pace if it is due to events started 20k y ago. Instead it is happening on one century scale.

          • Bart says:

            “Glacial retreat should be happening at a glacial pace if it is due to events started 20k y ago.”

            Says who? What is a “glacial pace” specifically?

            Glaciers advance and retreat. It’s what they do. Most have been retreating since the end of the LIA. They still are. Big whoop. You are triggering off commonplace events, and imagining monsters under the bed.

            “Instead it is happening on one century scale.”

            Putative warming from CO2 accumulation is not even claimed by the warmist literature to have kicked in significantly until the mid-20th century. So, if you have observed rapid glacial retreat from before then (and, we did), then CO2 accumulation is not a prerequisite for rapid glacial retreat.

          • Snape says:


            Nate wrote, “Glacial retreat should be happening at a glacial pace if it is due to events started 20k y ago. Instead it is happening on one century scale.”

            This seems very logical if you ask this question, “how long would it take to melt all the ice that existed at the time of the last ice age if it were to melt at current rates?”

            Maybe a few thousand years? My guess is the earth would have been completely ice free a long, long time ago.

            That’s not the case, so it follows it must have been melting at a much slower pace than now.

          • Nate says:

            Ok. You are retreating on your point that current glacial retreat has to do with the holocene, rather it is now sue to lia.

            Ill agree that some retreat could be due to lia, and this would have happened up to around 1900. Evidence of this in record of Alps. But does not account for accel retreat in 20th century.

          • Nate says:

            Sue. Meant due.

          • Bart says:

            “My guess is the earth would have been completely ice free a long, long time ago.”

            OK, some very basic science here. You are aware that ice does not melt at temperatures below 0 degC, right?

            “Thats not the case, so it follows it must have been melting at a much slower pace than now.”

            No schist? We’ve warmed since the LIA. Exposed area has increased. Weather patterns have changed. Why in the world would you imagine that melt rates should stay constant?

            Like I said, this is nothing new, nor unexpected. Glaciers come and go. Temperatures generally have risen since the end of the LIA, so we expect additional melting. The question is, what does it have to do with CO2? And, the answer is, essentially nothing. It began before CO2 rates had risen appreciably, and it’s been going on in fits and starts since the end of the Pleistocene.

          • Bart says:

            Nate says @ May 3, 2017 at 8:23 AM

            “…rather it is now [d]ue to lia.”

            The LIA was an episode of general cooling within the Holocene. We are currently in the Holocene.

            “But does not account for accel retreat in 20th century.”

            Sure it does. No matter how you slice it, retreat accelerates when temperatures rise. Temperatures rose in the 20th century. Everyone agrees on this.

            But, CO2 did not significantly rise until the middle of that century. Rising CO2 is not a prerequisite for glacial melt. And, there is nothing about glacial melt that establishes that rising CO2 has anything to do with it.

          • Nate says:

            No accel glacier retreat is not, in isolation, proof. But it is consistent with many lines of evidence. You do great exertions to find fault with the pieces, but when the ensemble is considered, it becomes difficult to avoid co2 as the mechanism.

            What is your problem with co2 AGW? Do you think the physics is wrong?

          • Bart says:

            “But it is consistent with many lines of evidence.”

            Utterly worthless. Colder temperatures during the LIA were “consistent” with malevolent control by witches, and many hapless young women were torched on that basis. Purported “consistency” has been used to support every superstition since the dawn of time.

            This is just dumb. There is nothing about glacial retreat that indicates anything other than an increase in average temperatures. That’s it. That’s all there is.

            But, nobody is arguing that globally averaged temperature did not increase in the 20th century. We don’t need to note secondary effects of that temperature rise to prove that temperatures rose. It shows up clearly in graphs from dedicated temperature measuring devices around the world.

            “Do you think the physics is wrong?”

            It isn’t a question of mere physics. It is a question of aggregate response. If I light some candles in my house, they might increase the overall temperature in my home. But, it very much depends on the size of the house, the insulation, and most importantly, whether I have the air conditioner on. My air conditioner is pretty powerful, and it keeps the temperature pretty close to the level selected on the thermostat. I could light dozens of candles, and the impact would be virtually nil.

            This is the problem with the AGW nonsense. Everyone who knows anything agrees that, all things being equal, increasing atmospheric CO2 should increase average temperatures at the surface. But, all things are not equal. The aggregate climate system responds in a manner to resist change. Such responses are ubiquitous in nature. We give them names in various disciplines, like Le Chatelier’s Principle, homeostasis, Lenz’s Law, and so on.

            The data are very clear. We are not significantly driving atmospheric CO2 concentration, and the aggregate terrestrial temperature sensitivity to rising CO2 concentration in the present climate state is insignificant. This whole brouhaha is an utter scientific fiasco from top to bottom. It isn’t science. It is primitive, pre-Enlightenment superstition, and child-like fear of the unknown.

          • Nate says:

            ‘It isnt science, its voodoo, yada yada’

            ‘Earth resists changes yada yada’

            These are not in any way scientific or quantitative arguments. They are feelings and beliefs.

            You cant do science by analogy, eg Le Chatliers principle need not apply to Earth. Example: Earth is 33C warmer with atmosphere, this is evidence of positive water feedback.

            Point is there is a large and deep literature that makes the quantitative case for this mechanism You need to find fault with their arguments. Can you?

          • Nate says:

            And glacier retreat is not as simple as ‘Earth is warmer’. Glaciers are more sensitive to high altitude warming. Besides your side claims current warming is mismeasured and not unusual.

            Other ‘Lines of evidence’ are not all equivalent to simple Earth is warming…

          • Bart says:

            “These are not in any way scientific or quantitative arguments. They are feelings and beliefs.”

            No, they are expectations based on ubiquitous behavior repeatedly and consistently observed in an extremely wide range of physical processes.

            A system that has had time to settle always tends towards a maximum entropy state. Any disturbance from that state will always be resisted.

            “You need to find fault with their arguments. Can you?”

            Easily. The fact that the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 faithfully tracks temperature anomaly indicates that we do not significantly contribute to the atmospheric level. That relationship precludes any significant sensitivity of temperature anomaly to atmospheric CO2 content in the present climate state as it would produce an unstabilizable positive feedback which would have driven us to a saturation condition eons ago.

            That’s really all you need. It’s pretty much a slam dunk. In time, it will be recognized as such, once all the superstitious nonsense currently masquerading as climate science encounters a discrepancy that cannot be rationalized away. Watch and see what happens.

            “Other Lines of evidence are not all equivalent to simple Earth is warming”

            Like what?

          • Nate says:

            A system that has had time to settle always tends towards a maximum entropy state. Any disturbance from that state will always be resisted.’

            Nonsense. Earth is far from equilibrium. Has changed its state many times in response to disturbance. Ice ages being the most prominent example.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Easily. The fact that the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 faithfully tracks temperature anomaly indicates that we do not significantly contribute to the atmospheric level. That relationship precludes any significant sensitivity of temperature anomaly to atmospheric CO2 content in the present climate state as it would produce an unstabilizable positive feedback which would have driven us to a saturation condition eons ago.’

            Yes i have heard this one from you, however:

            a. You have a hypothesis, a notion, far from proven (certainly not published). A notion is not evidence. It doesnt prove fault with the CO2 warming mechanism, as described e.g. here:

            b.Your hypothesis, in any case, must be wrong because it conflicts with thoroughly validated facts about CO2 history. CO2 is the highest its been for > 800 ky. The change in CO2 level in last hundred years is much larger than the change from MWP to LIA (7 ppm) or even the change from the last glacial maximum (80 ppm). You can’t toss good data to support a bad model.

            c. It is a hypothesis that doesnt match reality. Oh well, it must be rejected. If you can’t do that then you are not doing science, you are doing belief.

          • Nate says:

            Other Lines of evidence are not all equivalent to simple Earth is warming

            Like what?

            TOA energy imbalance, Ocean heat accumulation close match to TOA imbalance, stratospheric cooling, arctic amplification, direct tests of CO2 forcing, all continents accelerated warming 1970s to present-at faster rates than ocean surface.

          • Bart says:

            “Earth is far from equilibrium.”

            It’s a lot closer than it was 100M years ago. All systems are always striving to get to equilibrium. Getting in the way of a massive system striving for equilibrium is like standing in front of a rolling freight train shouting “Stop!”

            “…with thoroughly validated facts about CO2 history.”

            There are no thoroughly validated “facts” about CO2 history. The proxies do not agree. Ice cores are selected simply because they appear on the surface to be consistent with desired conclusions.

            It does not matter. Even if the unvalidated ice core estimates were faithful, all my hypothesis requires is a regime change. Such changes tend to occur from time to time in a chaotic, nonlinear system.

            But, the meme that CO2 levels were tightly regulated for millennia, but suddenly became hypersensitive to human contributions from combustion of fossil fuel, is fundamentally inconsistent with everything that is known about system responses.

            “It is a hypothesis that doesnt match reality.”

            It meshes perfectly with reality, because it is based on the observations.

            “TOA energy imbalance, Ocean heat accumulation close match to TOA imbalance, stratospheric cooling, arctic amplification, direct tests of CO2 forcing, all continents accelerated warming 1970s to present-at faster rates than ocean surface.”

            None of these things require temperature sensitivity to CO2. They are all expected outcomes of rising temperatures from any number of sources.

          • Nate says:

            Clearly you dont understand what equilibrium means. The earth is constantly being driven by energy input, from the sun. Therefore it is not an equilibrium system.

            You clearly would like to apply systems theory to the earth, how do you know it is applicable to this system, and requires no physics?

          • Nate says:

            ‘But, the meme that CO2 levels were tightly regulated for millennia, but suddenly became hypersensitive to human contributions from combustion of fossil fuel, is fundamentally inconsistent with everything that is known about system responses.’

            I think you are glossing over some key physics in trying to treat the earth as a generic ‘system’. And you seem to think that your modeling Earth as a ‘system’, trumps actual data recorded from that system. More likely you’re misapplying the theory to this system.

            There is nothing wrong with CO2 ice core data. You need to have a legitimate problem with the data, or how it is analyzed, that can be explained to other scientists, in order to reject it out of hand.

            There is nothing wrong with the explanation of the buildup of CO2 from emissions, again, unless you can point to the actual flaw in calculations that have been done to show that this is occurring.

            If these data cannot be rejected for legit reasons, than they invalidate your whole temp drives CO2 idea. After all CO2 has risen 43% (125 ppm). The interglacial rise was 80 ppm due to 5C warming, the rise from MWP to LIA was 7 ppm due to ~ .5 C cooling.

            So you simply cannot account for a 125 ppm rise of CO2 in 100 years, just due to a rise in temps ~ 1C.

            Nor does physics allow for a rise of ocean temp by 1C to produce a 43% rise in Co2.

          • Nate says:

            TOA energy imbalance, Ocean heat accumulation close match to TOA imbalance, stratospheric cooling, arctic amplification, direct tests of CO2 forcing, all continents accelerated warming 1970s to present-at faster rates than ocean surface.

            ‘None of these things require temperature sensitivity to CO2. They are all expected outcomes of rising temperatures from any number of sources.’

            Just a throw-away statement, you clearly didnt even look at the list.

          • Bart says:

            “The earth is constantly being driven by energy input, from the sun. Therefore it is not an equilibrium system.”

            Equilibrium does not require zero energy.

            “You clearly would like to apply systems theory to the earth, how do you know it is applicable to this system, and requires no physics?”

            Systems theory is the physics of interconnected physical entities.

            “There is nothing wrong with the explanation of the buildup of CO2 from emissions, again, unless you can point to the actual flaw in calculations that have been done to show that this is occurring.”

            This is like saying there is nothing wrong with the explanation of a perpetual motion machine until you can point to an actual flaw in the calculations.

            No. I know that perpetual motion is impossible. I do not need to look at calculations that purport to prove it. I am on solid ground dismissing it out of hand.

            Similarly, I am on solid ground dismissing the existence of a simultaneously high bandwidth and low bandwidth response, with selective application to a favored phenomenon.

          • Nate says:

            Bart you are showing your ignorance, hubris, and lack of critical thinking.

            Earth is not in thermodynamic equilibrium. Full stop. Look it up.

            ‘This is like saying there is nothing wrong with the explanation of a perpetual motion machine until you can point to an actual flaw in the calculations.

            No. I know that perpetual motion is impossible. I do not need to look at calculations that purport to prove it. I am on solid ground dismissing it out of hand.’

            You have called it impossible for emissions to cause the observed CO2 rise, yet you have not identifying flaws in the calculations. You are making the claim, it is incumbent on you to prove it. Now, as obfuscation, you resort to name-calling.

          • Nate says:

            ‘simultaneous high bandwidth and low bandwidth response’

            I can only guess why you have an issue with this, unless you would like to be more specific.

            It is well understood that the climate system, and CO2, will have a transient response AND a much slower one, due to ice albedo changes, deep ocean warming, perma-frost melting, mineral deposit erosion.

            Not that mysterious.

          • Nate says:


            one of many, many studies proving humans are causing CO2 rise.


            It is baffling to me how you can dismiss all of this work by people who know what they are doing, as not only wrong but ‘perpetual motion machines’

    • John Hultquist says:

      Laura (above) says to ask about a bush or a tree, but just the name.

      You are asking about shifting ecotones (where 2 biomes) intersect.
      Kppen began with plants but that is very time intensive and so the system was changed to more easily recorded things.

      A few folks have suggested changes in “crop zones” based on warming or cooling but these are not Kppen-Geiger Climate Zones.These are not only set by a temperature, but rather patterns of weather, such as hot dry high-sun season and cool wet low-sun season. Some of us are used to 4 seasons.
      Kppen-Geiger Climate Zones shifts (ecotone shifts) have been studied before “global warming” became in vogue. The Pleistocene forest refuge hypothesis would be one such. Plants and animals from the NE States and adjacent Canada took “refuge” in the Southern Appalachian and then repopulated former lands as the glacial period weakened.

      For what it is worth, my mother’s folks were in Western Pennsylvania very early and the same plants and animals are there today as in the 1700s. The American Chestnut is gone but not because of climate change. I now live in Washington State and I can say the same – no “climate-change” changes in this area for a few thousand years.

      • Snape says:


        Glaciers advance and retreat according to changes in climate. You need to check out what’s been happening to Washington’s glaciers. (Glaciers all over the world, for that matter).

        • John Hultquist says:

          Glaciers advance and retreat” as they have been doing for thousands of years.
          And yet the place where I live continues to have hot dry summers, cold snowy winters, Mule Deer, and Ponderosa Pines. And Tucson is still hot and dry in the summer time.
          Nearest glacier is 44.5 miles away. I can’t see it, so maybe it has gone away. I’ve made the hike to there, and others, and walked on one in Canada, worked on trails in MT Rainier NP out of the White River campground and Sunrise area.

          Main point is that you think of “climate” in a certain way, and that is not the way I discussed climate in my answer to Ken. Thus, you and I are not on the same page — that is, we are not doing a good job of communicating.

          • Lewis says:

            Going along for the ride.
            I’m a gardener and follow certain rules, as, plant by dates etc.
            Many of these books were written decades ago yet are still accurate: the last frost date in my area is April 15 and if you planted before then, you would have had a frost on about the 12th or so.

            Perhaps it is warmer, and I hope so. But I also remember when I was a child in 1st grade, a snow where it was up to my knees. I haven’t seen snow up to my knees in decades, shins maybe.

            (Thanks to The Family Circle)

          • Snape says:


            ” I now live in Washington State and I can say the same no climate-change changes in this area for a few thousand years.”

            “Glaciers advance and retreat as they have been doing for thousands of years.”

            Yes, glaciers advance and retreat, but they don’t do so willy nilly. They respond to changes in temperature and precipitation trends, which are key components of climate.

            So to say on one hand climate has not changed, and then say on the other glaciers have been advancing and retreating…..??

            Makes me think one of the claims is incorrect.

          • Nate says:


            I see food in my fridge, clearly there cant be hunger in the world.

        • My personal preference is for less glaciers rather than more. Thank goodness the Luarentide glacier no longer covers New York.

          In historic times glaciers gobbled up land in Switzerland causing farmers to default on their taxes while priests used holy water and incantations to drive the glaciers back. Thank the “History Channel” for this excellent documentary:

  5. barry says:

    Well, weather rules not climate.

    Summer/Winter – climate rules the weather.

  6. Neville says:

    Here in OZ the media claimed we’ve just had a hot angry summer.( DEC to Mar) But when you look at BOM data you find that at least half the country had a cooler than average summer while parts of NSW and sth Qld were certainly much higher than average.
    So how does co2 jump and jive about causing both a cooler and warmer summer depending on where you live? Co2 is truly magic stuff it seems and if you believe that you’ll believe anything. And of course they do.

  7. CO2isLife says:

    Bill Nye Is Not The Right Guy Would Prefer an Ice Age Over the Current Warming

    The Nation Magazine didnt even grasp that if what Bill Nye said is true, CO2 is the greatest gift man has ever been given. Forget New York flooding in 10,000 years due to global warming, New York would be covered in ice after just a few years of an ice age. Societies collapse and die during ice ages, they thrive during warming periods. Liberals are so blinded by their ideology they dont even understand how insane their positions are. Possible death 10,000 years in the future due to warming, or certain death during an ice age. Bill Nye makes is sound like the certainty of death and misery during an ice age is preferable to continued warmth.

    • Nate says:

      Right, there is only two options hot or an ice age. You remind me of my mother in law. Shes cold so she turns the thermostat to 90.

  8. The UK Ian brown says:

    Yes I agree the cold will kill you much quicker then the heat.thats why life is much easier during the summer months.i have have been repremanded more then once.and told that weather is not climate.i find it difficult to separate them.its a bit like saying spots have nothing to do with measels.its simple cause and effect.these people don’t seem to understand that climate has always changed.and with it the weather.because of my location in the UK the weather changes almost Dayly and with it the much as10 degrees centigrade in the space of we adapt.its not rocket science

  9. CO2isLife says:

    Political Scientist Michael Mann Prefers Censorship, Slander and Punitive Action Over Debate

    It should trouble everyone in the scientific community that the primary response of its leading voices when they encounter a voice they dont like is to try to get that person fired from their job. That is doesnt trouble anyone very much says something, wrote Roger Pielke, Jr. in a blog post this month.

  10. Rockyredneck says:

    A steady state climate would seem to be impossible, so the question would be – would you prefer a warming climate or a cooling one. I don’t personally know anyone that would prefer a colder climate. Would you take Greenland over florida? Moscow over Rio?
    Is there a reason for all those Canadian snowbirds in the Southern states and Mexico during the winter months?
    Why can’t I grow bananas in Calgary? Because it is too damn cold. Why is cattle ranching so predominant in Alberta? Because the growing season is often too short for anything but grass.
    Why does Mexico have almost 65 people per square kilometer while Canada has less than 4? Could it be that a warmer climate means an easier life?
    A cold shoulder is bad.
    A warm heart is nice.
    I prefer a warm welcome to a cold reception.
    Enough rambling, I need to get in out of the cold.

    • Robert Austin says:

      And what is more infuriating is that our perfectly coiffed prime minister appears to believe that our vast cold northern country should sip energy like a third world tropical nation.

    • Snape says:


      Global temperatures had been relatively stable (compared to recent rate of warming) for the 8,000 years or so prior to the early 20th century.

      So the choice is not between cooler or warmer, it’s between relative stability or rapid warming.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Snape, was that 8000 years of temperatures data recorded on thermometers purchased at Walmart?

        You have been so deceived, but maybe you wanted it that way….

        • Snape says:

          Climate scientists have many methods for determining past temperature. None of which require a thermometer.

          Do you have evidence these methods are incorrect?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            “Climate scientists have many methods for determining past temperature. None of which require a thermometer.”

            Snape, you just proved my point.

          • Snape says:

            Not going to answer my question?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Snape, you have got to be kidding.

            You want proof that tree rings are not thermometers?

            You must be a beginning “pseudoscientist”.

          • Snape says:

            Are you just pretending not to understand my question?

          • Snape says:

            You don’t have an answer so you pretend to not understand the question?

            You definitely have a talent for deception. Science……not so much.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Are you pretending you have a question?

            Surely you aren’t wanting me to ridicule pollen count, tree rings, tea leaves, etc.

            Surely you don’t want your psycho pseudoscience permanently perished.

            Do you?

          • Snape says:

            “Ridicule”. “Permanently Perish”. “Psycho pseudoscience”

            Lots of name calling and bluster, but you haven’t even tried to answer my question. Time to give it a rest.

      • Bart says:

        “Global temperatures had been relatively stable (compared to recent rate of warming) for the 8,000 years or so prior to the early 20th century.”

        Nonsense. The past 8000 years have witnessed the Holocene climatic optimum, the Neoglacial, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age.

        The current bout of warming weather is not even unprecedented within the past 100 years, as the rise in global mean temperature from 1910-1940 was almost exactly the same as that from 1970-2000, yet the former is blamed by the orthodox on the conventient fudge factor of aerosol forcing rather than CO2.

    • Nate says:

      Why do people think what is good for them and their neck of the woods, ought to work for everyone and everywhere?

    • Nate says:

      Rockyredneck, if u want warmth I recommend you move to Mexico!

  11. Dee says:

    For a man with a PhD, you’re pretty stupid. If you knew anything about Global Warming, you would know snow does not debunk it. That is the oldest and most asinine myth.

    Seems if you pay someone enough and they’ll say anything.

    I hope you are still around in a couple of decades when the effects of Global Warming on our climate would be undeniable to even the likes of you. That way, you will be able to look the children of this planet in the eyes KNOWING that you KNOWINGLY spread misinformation about the greatest threat to this planet.

    Not that I expect you to publish this comment. It’s obvious that you delete negative ones.

    That says a lot more about you than about anything else.

    You are an evil person. Plain and simple.

    • skeptikal says:

      Are you riding the Climate Change gravy train or are you just a useful idiot for those who are?

    • Robert Austin says:

      Here is a “climate scientist” that did not seem to agree with you on the question of climate warming and snowfall. Maybe you do not know as much about climate change as you think you do.

      According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event.

      Children just arent going to know what snow is, he said.

      As to labeling Dr. Spencer an “evil person”, well that merely tells us that you are despicable, Plain and simple.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      “Dee”—-short for “Dumb”.

    • The UK Ian brown says:

      Sorry Dee.but the truth is you have more chance of being killed by an asteroid strike than climate change .I don’t know your age.but I ask you this.go out doors cast your mind back to your childhood.and say to yourself what is different today.if you can find no difference .Ask yourself your mind. Examine as much evidence as you can.just don’t be a dustbin and take anything in .PS name calling does nothing for your cause.

      • Snape says:

        Glaciers and sea ice have definitely “noticed” the warming. As for people? I agree, it’s been hard to notice. However, that may change in the coming years.

        • Laura says:

          It was predicted to have changed by now… although, granted, it is always phrased as “in the coming years”.

          • Snape says:


            I didn’t say it hasn’t warmed, I said the warming is hard to notice.

          • Laura says:

            I was replying to…

            “I agree, its been hard to notice. However, that may change in the coming years.”

            …by pointing out that it has always been phrased as in the coming years for the last two decades.

            Of course, your “noticing” has at times been referred to as, say, “dying in the coming years” or “the end of civilization in the coming years” or “no more snow in the coming years” or “ice free Arctic in the coming years”. And so on.

            We all (will) get it… in the coming years.

          • Snape says:


            Yes, it’s true people have “cried wolf” about global warming. Science has made huge advances in recent years though, and so I am not inclined to write scientists off just because they made some bad predictions in the past.

    • deeisfordumb says:

      I think you just set a record for the number of times being wrong in one short comment.

    • Peter says:

      He’s not evil, he just doesn’t like paying taxes. What I don’t understand is why fiscal Conservatives are not upset about the obscene amount the US spends on defense? At one time our defense budget was more than the rest of the world combined…and it may still be. I was hoping Trump’s America First policy would reign in defense spending and devote more of that money to restoring the nation’s infrastructure but apparently that won’t happen as there are new wars to start.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Peter, how many dangerous dictators can we squash for $100,000,000,000?

        That’s a hundred billion.

        That’s what has been wasted on “combating” climate change in the last few years.

        Waste the money on a hoax, or waste it on slapping down evil.

        What’s your choice?

        • Snape says:

          Concern for climate change has fueled research into, and development of electric vehicles. They will soon make the internal combustion engine obsolete: less expensive, much more durable (300 moving parts compared to 2000), faster and yeah, zero emissions.

          And by the way, we spent more than a trillion (that’s a 100 billion with an extra zero) in the Iraq war. Good investment???

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            The electric motor was here long before your type was obsessed with “climate change”. The electric motor will NEVER replace the internal combustion engine until batteries are improved a thousand fold.

            But, keep drinking the kook-aid. It doesn’t make you smarter, just funnier.

          • Snape says:

            Some people still prefer vinyl, so maybe you’re right.

          • Snape says:

            Better batteries is precisely what’s driving the surge in EV’s. 1000 times better?? That’s quite an exaggeration. Maybe just 5 or 6 times better will do the trick.

          • Darwin Wyatt says:

            Snape: “And by the way, we spent more than a trillion (thats a 100 billion with an extra zero) in the Iraq war. Good investment???”

            Considering Saddam’s yellow cake is safely in Canada now because of the Iraq war vs being spun like Obama’s peace in our time idiocy in Iran, I’d say yeah pretty good deal. And guess where Saddam got the yellow cake? Wait for it… Niger!

          • barry says:

            It’s as well the Iraq gov sold some of the pre-1991 yellowcake. Looters started pinching the stuff from the sealed sites after GWII decapitated the government. Then followed peace and stability for the country………

          • Darwin Wyatt says:


            “Its as well the Iraq gov sold some of the pre-1991 yellowcake. Looters started pinching the stuff from the sealed sites after GWII decapitated the government. Then followed peace and stability for the country”

            Yep, poorly executed. The larger point though is Saddam would be spinning his yellow cake, just like Iran. And considering what Iran has planned for Israel, a trillion would be cheap.

          • barry says:

            Overall it was money badly spent with a hell of a lot of blood along with it, local and coalition. The weapons programs and old material was locked down. Invasion produced more terrorists in the long run and some of the dangerous materiel in the country was stolen. Not a great result for 4,000 American lives, a trillion dollars+, another fractured country in the ME, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives including children, not to mention providing a cradle for some of the worst terrorist thugs we’ve yet seen. The fallout is still playing out and spread to Syria.

            Any case, this all has little to do with the subject we usually talk about.

          • Darwin Wyatt says:


            Iraq was doing great until Obama threw it! And granted one life lost is one too many but it took ten years to lose what we lost in a week in Kennedy’s Vietnam. Meanwhile you’re worried about a trillion over ten years when dems spent that on the stimulus in one? Or their $120 trillion in entitlement mess? The monetary cost of Iraq pales compared to what Obama and the dems did! If you recall the budget deficit was $160 billion in 07, under republicans. the debt was $8 trillion. Now we have $20 trillion, not even counting the easing. Democrats belong in jail.

          • barry says:

            The lives lost, money spent and yellowcake stolen all happened before Obama took office. Iraq was not going “great” in 2009, though most of the damage had been done by then. An upsurge in violence occurred in 2012/13 under Obama. Maybe a different president would have kept a force in Iraq indefinitely, but Obama’s challenger, McCain, vowed to have troops out 1 year later (Jan 2013) than actually happened.

            Obviously, Iraq was not “going great” enough to maintain the peace after an American withdrawal, and that was on the cards regardless of who took office. The public generally didn’t want more commitment either.

          • Darwin Wyatt says:

            You’re talking in circles Barry. If left to his own devices with sanctions crumbling, Saddam would be spinning 550 tons of yellow cake even now. Have you learned nothing from North Korea? Open a damn history book for all our sakes!!! Everything you know is wrong. And you’re too vested to back down even when it’s clear the Iraq withdrawal caused the ensuing chaos in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Iran to Syria! It all rests with your dear leader and the hinge pin was the Iraq withdrawal. Own it. If you need any more examples look to North Korea. Thank you Bill Clinton. If you’re a dem, you’re in a death cult with the bloody history to prove it.

          • wert says:

            Iraq was doing great until Obama threw it!

            When you start a war, you’d better understand who gets the license to continue it. So if the war failed (and it did in many senses), it was solely a Bush mistake. And frankly I have hard time seeing any other root reason for Bush to start the war than showing he’s a tough guy like his dad.

            Well, ultimately of course the U.S. – Iraq war was caused by Osama bin Laden, who so deeply hated infidels that arranged an act of war against civilians in New York.

            So around we come, the war was caused by racism. Racism in islamic world against western peoples.

          • barry says:

            Darwyn, the War in Iraq is one of the subjects I’ve invested tens of thousands of hours in understanding. I made a number of correct predictions based on the information available in 2002/3. No doubt you believed there were WMD programs pumping out shiny new weapons. But I only need general knowledge to understand when an argument goes from rational to partisan. My “dear leader” is Australian and I have a friend or two that served in that theatre – luckily they didn’t work the hot spots.

            No one knows what would have happened if GWII never eventuated, but some people like to imagine they do. The actual results are a matter of record, and can in no way be described as “great” at any time. Unbelievable that you should think so. In 2008 Americans were still warned off traveling to Iraq.

            The Department of State continues to strongly warn U.S. citizens against travel to Iraq, which remains very dangerous. Remnants of the former Baath regime, transnational terrorists, criminal elements and numerous insurgent groups remain active throughout Iraq. Multinational Force-Iraq (MNF-I) and Iraqi Security Forces (ISF)-led military operations continue, and attacks persist against MNF-I and the ISF throughout the country. Turkish government forces have carried out operations against elements of the Kongra-Gel (KGK, formerly Kurdistan Worker’s Party, or Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan (PKK)) terrorist group that are located along Iraq’s northern border.

            Despite recent improvements in the security environment, Iraq remains dangerous, volatile and unpredictable. Attacks against military and civilian targets throughout Iraq continue, including in the International (or “Green”) Zone. Targets include hotels, restaurants, police stations, checkpoints, foreign diplomatic missions, and international organizations and other locations with expatriate personnel. Such attacks can occur at any time. Kidnappings still occur; the most recent kidnapping of an American citizen occurred in August 2007. Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFPs), and mines often are placed on roads, concealed in plastic bags, boxes, soda cans, dead animals, and in other ways to blend with the road. Grenades and explosives have been thrown into vehicles from overpasses, particularly in crowded areas. Rockets and mortars have been fired at hotels, and vehicle-borne IEDs have been used against targets throughout the country. Occasionally, U.S. Government personnel are prohibited from traveling to certain areas depending on prevailing security conditions. In addition to terrorist and criminal attacks, sectarian violence occurs often…

            Military aircraft arriving and departing from Baghdad International Airport (ORBI) have been subjected to small arms and missile fire. Travelers choosing to utilize civilian aircraft to enter or depart Iraq should be aware that, although there have been no recent attacks on civilian aircraft, the potential threat still exists, as well as does the high risk to road transportation described above. Official U.S. Government (USG) personnel are strongly encouraged to use U.S. military or other USG aircraft when entering or departing Iraq. All personnel serving in Iraq under Chief of Mission (COM) authority are prohibited from entering or departing ORBI on commercial airlines unless approved by the Regional Security Office (RSO) on a case-by-case basis. Other personnel not under COM authority must be guided by their own agency.

            The Embassy is located in the International Zone. The Embassy can provide only limited emergency services to U.S. citizens in Iraq. The U.S. Government considers the potential threat to U.S. Government personnel assigned to Iraq sufficiently serious to require them to live and work under strict security restrictions. At present, travel to and from the International Zone is extremely limited. Unofficial travel to Iraq by U.S. Government employees and their family members requires prior approval by the Department of State. The U.S. Embassy does not provide visa services to the general public.


          • Bart says:

            “… and yeah, zero emissions.”

            Fantasy. Electricity is not an energy source, but an energy medium. The energy has to come from somewhere, and wind and solar power can hardly even sustain their own manufacture, much less power billions of electric vehicles.

            So, you are only talking about displacing the emissions, not eliminating them. Couple that with the poisoning of the environment by expanding the extraordinarily damaging mining, processing, and disposal of rare Earth minerals and you’ve got a plague rather than a panacea.

            And, FWIW, I do not weep for Saddam Hussein, nor can I comprehend the lack of empathy which leads self-regarding people to rationalize abandoning whole populations to live under the thumb of such monsters, while still imagining themselves to be good people.

          • Snape says:


            Lots of different ways to generate electricity for use in transportation. Some very clean, some not.

            EV’s will give us those options, gas won’t.

            I was happy to see the U.S. topple Saddam Hussein – out of empathy for the Iraqi people. The aftermath, unfortunately, has been a bloody mess. It’s sickening to think Iraq may have been better off with Saddam still in power….I don’t really know. Either way, the U.S. could have found a better use for a trillion dollars. I realize hindsight is 20/20, so unlike most people, I never blamed president Bush.

          • barry says:

            And, FWIW…

            Casually appropriating the horrors of far-off people as a rhetorical device in a net debate is of extremely low value.

            GWII made a dire situation worse and the causus belli turned out to be false. Iraq has known little peace and stability for more than a century, and it will be a long time if ever, sadly, that this will be achieved.

            Geopolitical quarterbacking on a blood-soaked pitch leaves a sour taste in the mouth. I’m done.

          • Bart says:

            I don’t even know what you are trying to say here. It seems a rationalization for inaction and dismissal of other peoples’ suffering cloaked in self-righteousness. As I said, I cannot comprehend it.

        • Peter says:

          My choice would be cut the defense budget in half to $325 billion, close many bases around the world, have Europe pick up their share and stop meddling in the affairs of other nations. $325 billion if done efficiently still leaves us with a strong military.

          While I’m not totally convinced that CO2 is raising global temperatures, I do strongly support weaning ourselves off fossil fuels as both my kids struggled with asthma growing up. Reducing air pollution benefits us all. We have a lot of brainpower in the world that can eventually find a better way than wind turbines to create renewable energy.

      • Darwin Wyatt says:

        And nobody takes us on. And the only wars we lose are the ones dems throw. Vietnam and Iraq in particular. The list of crimes is lengthy. Just from memory: slavery, Trail of tears, dred Scot, Jim Crow, KKK, eugenics, nuked Japan, Japanese internment, blocking suffragettes, inner cities, failed schools, welfare state, destruction of the family, the hoax onnthe backs of the poor , Begging the question why did dems become democrats? Was it because the Nazi party was taken?

        • wert says:

          Your point doesn’t fly, because no communist of today will accept that the crimes of communists of the past are her/his.

          Every generation has its own communists. Today they are “enviromentalists”, and they usually admit being “left wing”, although claiming to be “progressive” has yet again become increasingly common.

          Being progressive is OK, and environmentalism is OK, but these people mock and revert both of these consepts. Their environmentalism is something that hardly helps our environment, and progress is hardly achieved with pretty old-skool degrowth and return to nature ideologies.

      • Bart says:

        “At one time our defense budget was more than the rest of the world combinedand it may still be.”

        This is a meaningless talking point. It’s like saying NYC spends 24X more on road repair than Kansas City. Well, so what? They are different places with different needs altogether, but in particular, just about everything costs more in NYC than it does in Kansas. It’s comparing apples and tennis balls.

        A proper comparison is defense spending as a proportion of GDP. The US spends 3.3% of its GDP on defense. That is less than Algeria (6.3%). It is less than Saudi Arabia (13.5%). It is less than Russia (4.9%). It is less than a whole host of other nations.

        • Nate says:

          many ways to look at it. It is 54% of fed discretionary spending. Compare that to 2% for science and NASA.

          • Nate says:

            US spending on military is 36% of world spending. US population is 5%.

          • Bart says:

            Actually 48.7%, but so what? This is like saying it is 94% of spending that begins with the letter “D” – a completely arbitrary and unedifying distinction.

          • Bart says:

            US GDP is 23% of world GDP. We lead the world in a lot of categories. We take on the largest share of keeping the peace because we have the most to lose in a world torn by strife.

            The Pax Americana has been the greatest era of prosperity ever in history. Cutting our role in keeping the world prosperous would be penny wise and pound foolish.

          • Nate says:

            Ok, @ 54% of gov spending, that is monstrous.

            I dont completely disagree with Pax Americana idea, but the monster has to be kept under control. We have been (re)learning that the benefits of interventions have been few and the costs high.

            Imagine bringing home the $trillion wasted in Iraq, and more on unnesessary bases, and instead spend it on infrastructure.

          • Bart says:

            48.7% of an arbitrarily defined subset of government, and spending specifically demanded by the Constitution (provide for the common defense). More like 16% of total spending according to the CBO. And, nearly a third of that goes for housing, retirement, and healthcare for soldiers and veterans.

            Some interventions have been costly (Vietnam, Korea). Iraq was not much of a patch on those, and the results were good, until Obama bugged out. So good that Joe Biden was claiming it was a success story for Obama until things predictably went South after the ill-advised pullout.

            Afghanistan is a quagmire. I honestly don’t know what to do about that s***hole. The choices are not good either way. But, Iraq was the prize. The Middle East will never overcome its dysfunction until the era of brutal dictators there comes to a close.

            US military spending is actually quite low compared to most of the post-WWII era. The lesson of WWII was specifically that weakness invites aggression, and the cost of the gutting the military after WWI was that a malevolent madman nearly took over the world, and 50M people had to die to stop him.

          • Nate says:

            So our infrastructure will just have to crumble?

            Iraq was a disaster from the start with little thought of how to win the peace, little understanding of the sectarian divisions, little understansing of our required long commitment, and dramaric strengthening of Iran’s influence, ultimately leading to Isis.

          • Bart says:

            We can walk and chew gum at the same time. We built up our infrastructure at precisely the same time we were dedicating far greater a share of our domestic product to defense than now. We constructed the interstate highway system and sent men to the Moon while facing down the Soviet Union. Compared to that, pfft! Today is hardly even a challenge.

            As for Isis – that was Obama’s deal. No two ways about it. He screwed the pooch.

          • Nate says:

            Show me the money then.

            Interstate highway etc was done when top tax rates were 70 to 90%. Back when we felt it important to pay down debt.

            Contrast with $Trillion Iraq quagmire spent while tax cuts enacted!

          • Bart says:

            This is a red herring. Those were marginal tax rates, and there were tax shelters galore. Nobody paid those rates in actual fact. Tax collections today are no less as a percentage of the economy than they were then.

          • Nate says:

            Before medicare enacted and massive growth of health costs. Same % but more of it used for that.

    • Scott says:

      Dee: If your crystal ball or tarot cards are working, make a detailed prediction about what specific fate awaits us in 20 years. I’ll add it to the predictions of other charlatans, crackpots, and schemers who pretend they can predict the future to manufacture fear and get the political change they want. Here is a tiny sample:

      1973: “By 1980 the life expectancy of all Americans will be 42 years.” -Paul Ehrlich, Stanford Biologist, at Earth Day

      1973: “280 million people in 2040 is likely to be too many.” John Holdren, “Population and the American Predicament,” Caltech Population Program, Occasional Papers. [Note: U.S. population is about 325 million and by almost any measure the average American has a higher quality of life than ever.]

      1986: “A billion people could die from global warming by 2020.” – Attributed to John Holdren by Paul Ehrlich in The Machinery of Nature, (published 1986), p. 274.

      1989: “Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” -Noel Brown, ex UNEP Director

      2004: “European cities will be plunged beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020.” -Paul Harris, UK Eco journalist

      2008: “We’ll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals.” – Ted Turner

    • michael wood says:

      And by the year 1990 we will run out of oil and even worse, by the year 2000 there will be chaos due to the population bomb. There wont be enough food.

  12. jimc says:

    Youre very knowledgeable. e.g. A couple of decades from now been there done that?

  13. The UK Ian brown says:

    So mutch blamed on so little

  14. ren says:

    In the Allgäu it has been snowing for days. In some places now lie 30 centimeters of snow.

  15. Neville says:

    Ken Stewart does a UAH V 6 update every month with graphs and updates for all the regions. He finds that Australia has been cooling in the TLT for the last 18 years and 10 months and has a flat trend since NOV 1995 or 21 years 5 months. I wonder if Roy agrees?

    • Snape says:

      Too bad Australians don’t live in the troposphere.

      • John Hultquist says:

        Too bad Australians dont live in the troposphere.

        That’s too bad. I was thinking of visiting.

      • barry says:

        Some would say we’ve got our heads in the clouds. But then they wouldn’t know much about us.

      • wert says:

        Hey, the point in trends is not that ‘we live’ there, but that models predict an evolving hot spot – which we don’t really see. Not that there wasn’t people trying to find the hot spot.

        So, there is something fishy in the models. Which means, we should not use models to predict future, but observations. And the observations do not look very alarming.

        For example, my sea level is still dropping very much at the same speed as it used to. You’d be pressed to see a slow-down.

        I’ve been listening to worse-than-expected chants for maybe 20 years. Much of that has proven to be journalistic bs. You can recognize the bs with your nose. Because no journalist who doesn’t know things, can drop in enough detail to be convincing. And very very rarely do journalist know anything or of anything other than parroting.

      • barry says:

        Which means, we should not use models to predict future, but observations.

        I’m sure that if we had observations of the future we would not require much modeling.

  16. Crakar24 says:

    Snape stop talking smack, the heat from your God particle is supposed to accumulate in the lower troposphere.

    Snow forms when water is cooled below zero in the atmosphere lots of snow means……..

    Pull your head in and contribute to debate or don’t comment at all

  17. barry says:

    I’m having trouble accessing the UAH data. Anyone else?

  18. Mike Flynn says:


    Are you just pretending to be a fool, or are you expressing your real nature?

    Why do you say Australians don’t live in the troposphere? Are you really living in your own fantasy world, just like Michael Mann, who seemed to believe he was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize?

    Even the pretend scientist, the undistinguished mathematician Gavin Schmidt, hasn’t managed to achieve the high level of complete denial of reality evinced by the bumbling Mann!

    At least phrenologists had a testable hypothesis. Climatologists haven’t even got that far!

    Maybe you are confusing climatology with meteorology. Climate is only the average of weather, and meteorologists study weather, I believe. This involves knowledge of scientific principles – physics, chemistry, chaos, and so on. So called climatologists seem sadly lacking in scientific knowledge, instead claiming that the mythical GHE raises the temperatures of thermometers when exposed to equally mythical GHGs! Complete nonsense, of course – but like any religion, faith easily trumps facts.

    Keep praying – it might give you solace while the altar at which you worship gradually crumbles into dust.


    • Snape says:


      I forgot that everything I say on this blog will be taken literally. So let me rephrase:

      Satellites do a poor job estimating air temperature near the surface, which is where we live.

      • Snape says:

        Surface temperatures come from thermometers mounted several feet off the ground. Not really the “surface” at all, right? We use this term to differentiate from satellite measurements of the total lower troposphere.

        • Mike Flynn says:


          I thought as much. Obviously, climatologists are either confused, deluded, or lying, when they claim that surface temperatures are really temperatures of the surface.

          Any meteorologist could have told them that the air temperature and ground temperature are generally different. Any competent meteorologist should know that it is extremely difficult to measure the temperature of the air at a given location. What is usually measured is the temperature of a thermometer – a temperature sensing element. Only a climatologist would be daft enough to ascribe anything of importance to a so-called air temperature as a presumed proxy for surface temperature.. It’s about as silly as claiming that a slice of tree can be used as a record of past temperatures!

          Do climatologists complain that people are likely to take them literally? Or do they expect people to understand that, in climate-speak, surface doesn’t mean surface, surface temperature has nothing to do with the temperature of the surface, the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with greenhouses, and climate science has little to do with science!

          As to your unsubstantiated implication that satellite measurements of the total lower troposphere exist, and have relevance to anything at all, here’s what NASA states –

          “Land surface temperature is how hot the surface of the Earth would feel to the touch in a particular location. From a satellites point of view, the surface is whatever it sees when it looks through the atmosphere to the ground. It could be snow and ice, the grass on a lawn, the roof of a building, or the leaves in the canopy of a forest. Thus, land surface temperature is not the same as the air temperature that is included in the daily weather report.”

          No mention of the lower troposphere at all. Maybe climatologists call the surface the lower troposphere – they certainly seem to be confused about many other things. At least NASA use quotes around “surface”. The Earth’s surface is difficult to define – the roof of a building is not the surface of the Earth – it might be there one minute, gone the next. Pretty stupid if you think measuring a roof temperature reflects the temperature of the Earth in some way.

          It doesn’t really matter, I suppose. If climatologists don’t know the difference between the surface and the surface, or a greenhouse and a greenhouse, they are going to have difficulty stating any sort of hypothesis involving surface temperatures and a greenhouse effect, let alone a testable one.

          Maybe you need to pray harder – it doesn’t look like the inconvenient facts are going away.


          • Snape says:


            Could you provide a link to the NASA quote so I can see the context?

            Meteorologists also use the term “surface temperature”. Again, to differentiate from TLT, TMT, and so on. It’s understood among BOTH meteorologists and climatologists that this is not to be taken literally.

            Flynn, there is no confusion or conspiracy here. I was just trying to point out that you shouldn’t always take things literally.

            And now I’m really curious, if you don’t believe satellite measurements of the TLT even exist, why do keep commenting on Spencer’s blog?

          • barry says:

            “Surface” temperature is the averaged temps roughly 2 meters altitude above the ground. Anyone with a smattering of knowledge of the general topic is familiar with this basic term.

          • wert says:

            Surface temperature is the averaged temps roughly 2 meters altitude above the ground.

            It is important to realise it is a thermometer in a shelter, and there would be plenty of other places to measure the temperature which would yield different result (even if the thermometer were sheltered and 2m from the ground).

            This is actually the largest conundrum. My winter lies in -4 C (variance between days is between +10C and -30C), summer at +20 (summer days usually 10C warmer than nights). The temperature varies several degrees between the ground and 2m. It varies more between sheltered summer-sunny valleys and windy shady hills. It varies randomly at short distances based on cloud patterns.

            Yet, I’m told, the small difference between 1950 and 2000 should be alarming, even when it requires advanced data collection and statistic processing to see it clearly.

            I’m left to wonder why my tomatoes grow exactly as badly as they used to, with all these hiroshimas of heat being trapped in the greenhouse? Or how long I have to wait before Maldives are sunken as UNEP declared 30 years ago to happen now?

            Don’t get me wrong, I’m kind of worried. I just think the message has been incorrect, predictions wrong, alarm wrongly based. It would help if our star celebs like Bill Nye could actually measure the CO2 effects without faking the experiment. Or just shut up and let Gavin S. do the speaking.

          • barry says:

            For the point you seem to be interested in near-surface air temps are only one one of many indices that would be useful, such as ground surface temp, soil temp and moisture content, precipitation etc.

            What tools you use depend on the question being asked.

        • Mike Flynn says:


          No. I’ve provided the text. If you’re too dim to use Google, you won’t believe NASA.

          From the Australian Bureau of Meteorology –

          “The screen is raised so that the thermometer is 1.2 m above the surface, because there can be as much as a 7C temperature difference between the temperature measured at the ground and 2 m …”

          Many meteorologists believe climatological nonsense, and subscribe to the mythical GHE. You’re no doubt correct that such people are incapable of differentiating between a surface temperature and a climatological surface temperature which is not the temperature of the surface at all.

          Real scientists take facts literally, and even propose testable hypotheses rigorously enough to be taken literally.

          Fake scientists try to wriggle out of some of their more idiotic assertions by claiming they didn’t really mean surface when they said surface, or greenhouse when they said greenhouse, and so on. They can’t actually define any of their strange terms – unlike real scientists.

          As to taking things literally, if a climatologist claims that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the Earth’s surface causes the temperature of the thermometer to rise, I shouldn’t believe he means this literally? Does he really mean the temperature will fall? Or maybe remain unchanged?

          Maybe global warming really means global cooling, perhaps?

          You might want to expand your assertion relating to what I do or don’t believe. Obviously, you don’t expect me to take your statement about satellite measurements of the TLT literally. Are you saying that Dr Spencer’s figures can’t be taken literally, or that only some of them are to be trusted?

          Curiosity is often a good thing. I’m curious about the non-existence of a testable GHE hypothesis. Maybe the whole AGW farce is not meant to be taken literally. i suppose that Michael Mann’s claim of being a Nobel Laureate was not meant to be taken literally, nor Gavin Schmidt’s breathless claims of “Hottest tear EVAH!” Just one delusion after another!


          • Dr No says:

            Mike, stop talking rubbish and go back to playing the slot machines.

          • barry says:

            It’s a semantic quibble, no more than that. Managed to get 10 paragraphs out of it!

          • Snape says:


            You wrote:

            “As to your unsubstantiated implication that satellite measurements of the total lower troposphere exist, and have relevance to anything at all, heres what NASA states…”

            Again, makes me wonder why you even bother with Spencer’s blog.

      • RAH says:

        “So, one is left to wonder, what are the real reasons for these marches?”


      • RAH says:


        Many surface stations do a poor job of measuring the ambient temperatures at the surface where we live because of poor siting. Then of course even data taken from even a century before present has been adjusted in many cases. And then there is the fact that there aren’t even close to enough reporting surface stations to make a reasonably accurate estimate of global terrestrial surface temperatures so NOAA and NASA GISS interpolate to try and fill in the massive areas where they lack real data to produce their global surface temperature claims. And then there is the fact that the hypothesis of AGW requires that the warming would first show up in the upper troposphere where satellites and radiosondes measure the temperature.

        So satellites give us a better over all picture of the temperatures where we live and for the purposes of confirming or falsifying the claims of AGW.

        • Snape says:

          Let me get this straight. Satellites do a good job estimating surface temps because they measure the TLT and AGW theory (which you disagree with) says that’s where the warming should be?? Hmmmm

          • RAH says:

            You have a real reading or comprehension disability there bub. Explains a lot.

          • Lewis says:

            I have found reading for comprehension a major disability in a large number of people. Neither do they listen.

            They read or hear one word from the message, then put that word in their own context, then respond as if they understand.

          • Snape says:


            Comprehension is even more challenging when the author has wackadoodle logic.

          • Bart says:

            Let me get this straight. The AGW hypothesis, which you consider credible, says that tropospheric temperatures should warm faster than the surface, but since no significant warming is occurring there, you ignore them in favor of the surface temperature readings.


          • Snape says:


            Satellite measurements are awesome. The problem is most of the things I really care about – plants, animals, people, stuff like that, all live on the surface.

          • Bart says:

            The question is one of attribution. It is a signature of the CO2 based AGW hypothesis that the troposphere should be warming faster than the surface. If the troposphere isn’t warming, then CO2 related AGW isn’t happening, and any surface warming you may or may not observe is due to something other than rising CO2.

          • Snape says:


            The TLT is warming. The surface is warming even faster. Did scientists get this wrong? I’m not sure, but If so, I’m confident they will learn from their mistake. That’s how science works.

          • Bart says:

            Yes, they got it wrong. It means the AGW conception is wrong, and that means they haven’t a clue what caused the surface warming.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Snape says: “Satellites do a poor job estimating air temperature near the surface, which is where we live.”

        Satellite measurements provide valuable data. So do thermometers. The problem is the “adjustments” that have too often occurred with surface data.

        CO2 can NOT warm the Earth. That’s problem numero uno! Then, the temperatures do NOT support the IPCC predicted rise. (See Dr. Christy’s chart of IPCC projections.)

        So, Warmists lose on science, and they lose on observations. AGW is a hoax.

        • barry says:

          You have no idea of the adjustments made to satellite-based temp records, do you?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Adjustments to sat data are to correct known “drifts”.

            Adjustments to surface data are to insert “drifts”.

            But, you knew that….

          • barry says:

            Apparently you know very little of the topic. If the measurement error was “known” then there would be no difference at all between various satellite TLT products and no need for continued revisions to them.

            Let’s hear from an expert:

            One might ask, Why do the satellite data have to be adjusted at all? If we had satellite instruments that (1) had rock-stable calibration, (2) lasted for many decades without any channel failures, and (3) were carried on satellites whose orbits did not change over time, then the satellite data could be processed without adjustment. But none of these things are true. Since 1979 we have had 15 satellites that lasted various lengths of time, having slightly different calibration (requiring intercalibration between satellites), some of which drifted in their calibration, slightly different channel frequencies (and thus weighting functions), and generally on satellite platforms whose orbits drift and thus observe at somewhat different local times of day in different years. All data adjustments required to correct for these changes involve decisions regarding methodology, and different methodologies will lead to somewhat different results. This is the unavoidable situation when dealing with less than perfect data.

            After 25 years of producing the UAH datasets, the reasons for reprocessing are many. For example, years ago we could use certain AMSU-carrying satellites which minimized the effect of diurnal drift, which we did not explicitly correct for. That is no longer possible, and an explicit correction for diurnal drift is now necessary.

            And that is not the full spectrum of issues with the satellite data set. Nor are any of the adjustments ‘perfect,’ hence different TLT results from one data set to another.

            It can be argued that the satellite data sets (particularly UAH) have undergone revisions which changed temp trends more than the surface data sets. UAH trend doubled under an early revision, though the record was shorter then.

            Point is that all global temp data sets are imperfect, and all undergo necessary revision to remove spurious artifacts. When skeptics did the work themselves for the surface data sets based on raw data, (2 different groups) they came out with higher trends than the UK Met Office, for example. And when Anthony Watts and co did it for US temps, they got almost exactly the same mean trends as NOAA/GISS.

            But ‘skeptics’ seem to be unaware of all this. Why do you think that is?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Dang, barry, I think you just proved me right again!

          • barry says:

            The amount of drift isn’t “known,” it’s estimated. From our resident expert (quoting once again for you):

            All data adjustments required to correct for these changes involve decisions regarding methodology, and different methodologies will lead to somewhat different results. This is the unavoidable situation when dealing with less than perfect data.

            Those are some blinders you’ve got on.

          • barry says:

            As for your more general point: substanceless pap. Read the last 2 paragraphs in my post.

            “Point is that all global temp data sets are imperfect, and all undergo necessary revision to remove spurious artifacts. When skeptics did the work themselves for the surface data sets based on raw data, (2 different groups) they came out with higher trends than the UK Met Office, for example. And when Anthony Watts and co did it for US temps, they got almost exactly the same mean trends as NOAA/GISS.

            But skeptics seem to be unaware of all this. Why do you think that is?”


          • barry says:

            Of course, you’ve amply demonstrated the reason pseudo-‘skeptics’ are unaware of this: blinders. Information that conflicts with their view is just filtered out. Because they are are not interested in the truth nor truly skeptical.

          • crakar24 says:


            You are correct on both counts now all you need to do is show how that warms the atmosphere. I don’t expect an answer as this is your typical drive by random comment for the day.

            I thought you were banned anyway?

          • Bart says:

            The surface temperatures and the satellite temperatures were in close agreement until the late 2000’s. It was then decided that the data had to be changed. Those in charge of the surface data found excuses to change them. Then, they started disparaging the satellite data in an effort to get them changed or, at worst, ignored.

            This is not science, guys. In science, when the data disagree with your hypothesis, you change your hypothesis, not the data.

          • barry says:

            That makes sense. The UAH satellite data tracked more closely to the surface data prior to the latest revision. As we know the political proclivities of the compilers of UAH, your hypothesis makes perfect sense, Bart.

            Meanwhile, other skeptics (2 independent groups) have taken the raw surface data and constructed their own global surface records, coming up with trends warmer than the UK Met Office record. WUWT?

            Every time I remind skeptics of that, they do not respond to it. The blinkers go up. The unskeptical, incurious mind snaps shut. The silence roars their intellectual disingenuousness.

          • Bart says:

            Perhaps they consider your cherry picking of “studies” by “skeptics” indicates there is little value in pursuing further dialogue.

            The latest UAH revision has a minor impact overall, far less than the spurious trend introduced in the surface data by Karlization and other legerdemain. The surface data are altered almost continuously on essentially arbitrary bases. It takes considerable chutzpah to trot out occasional updates to the satellite record based on well-understood physics to disparage them when the surface data have become little more than a grab bag of subjective predisposition and comfirmation bias on steroids.

          • barry says:

            Perhaps they consider your cherry picking of studies by skeptics indicates there is little value in pursuing further dialogue.

            Maybe you’re the one skeptic who won’t close their eyes but take a critical look. Here’s one.

            Here are the conclusions:

            First the obvious, a skeptic, denialist, anti-science blog published a greater trend than Phil Climategate Jones. What IS up with that?

            … Several skeptics will dislike this post. They are wrong, in my humble opinion. While winning the public policy battle outright, places pressure for a simple unified message, the data is the data and the math is the math. Were stuck with it, and this result. In my opinion, it is a better method.


            The method is detailed in that and previous posts.

            Or if you want a paper you could look at Anthony Watts paper on US temps – Fall et al 2011. Like previous work they found bias in max and min temps, but their mean temps and trends are virtually identical to NOAA/GISS.

            I’d suggest BEST, too, but the knee-jerk rejection from skeptics is why I usually don’t.

            Any time a skeptic group has actually crunched the numbers they come up with results very similar to the ‘official’ temp records.

            And this is what skeptics ignore.

          • barry says:

            There are no other skeptic groups who have done a comprehensive job with raw data for a global (or whole of US) temp record. Those are all the cherries.

          • Bart says:

            Besides one of the most offensive tee-shirt designs I have ever seen, I am distinctly unimpressed. It only goes to 2010. Up to 2010, the surface and satellite temps are largely in agreement. It is post 2010 when the fudges that attempted to superficially eliminate the pause became significant, specifically in the GISS product.

            The surface data have a lot of problems generally. They are not spatially homogenous. They have huge regions of no measurements at all. They have siting issues. They have variable quality control. That is why satellite measurements were sought. It is only now that they have found the surface data to be much more malleable that satellites have fallen out of favor with climate cultists.

            It won’t matter in the end. Temperatures are plunging, and they’re going to continue to do so with the natural downcycle kicking in.

          • barry says:

            2010 was when they completed the work.

            Sorry, I don’t buy the post-2010 argument after hearing that it’s the data post 1998/2000/2002.2005 that they ‘fudged’. It’s all waffle.

            I also don’t buy it because I’ve read the methods papers on temp adjustments. It’s exhaustive stuff. Compare that to the vacuous hand-waving and it’s obvious what to give credit to.

            The claim that the data has been ‘fudged’ well predates 2010. Skeptics were often asked to put their money where their mouths were and create a better temp record. Prove that there was a warm bias with more than some cherry-picked weather stations.

            Two skeptics, one who was a regular contributor to WUWT (Jeff Condon), finally did the ground-up work that no skeptic up till that point had done. The results were a bombshell. But skeptics ignored it.

            Then BEST came along and found a higher trend than all the datasets. With a bit of historical revisionism, everyone on the project that was meant to be a flagship skeptic test, and which Anthony Watts endorsed no matter what the results, were suddenly pronounced fake skeptics and herded into the conspiracy theory.

            Then Anthony Watts had his paper published on US temps from well-sited stations, a four year project. It made a meal of the the min/max biases that others had noted, but ultimately concluded that the mean temps and trends were a match for the ‘official’ US records.

            Each time skeptics knuckled down and did the hard work they verified the official records. Each time, these results were either ignored or pilloried by the skeptical milieu.

            These groups are not cherry picked. No other skeptic has constructed a comprehensive global or regional data set from the ground up (using raw data).

            And that’s an important point. Where is the ‘skeptic’ temp record based on a comprehensive analysis to demonstrate that the official records are biased warm? There are NONE.

            Anthony Watts used to post endlessly about the fake temp records based on pulling a few weather stations and showing that adjustments led to warmer trends. He managed, somehow, to miss all the weather stations whose trends had been lowered after adjustment. He didn’t understand that TOB was a real thing. He didn’t know why anomalies were so different from one dataset to another (didn’t understand what different baselines mean). After his paper came out such posts are much rarer. He learned something.

            Steve Mosher used to rubbish the temp records. Then he started working with a few others at Steve McIntyre’s blog based on Anthony’s work. Preliminary results from a small number of well-sited stations seemed to match the record, but he remained suspicious. Then he worked on the BEST project, became very well informed about the issues, and no longer impugns the motives of the GISS/NOAA/Met Office compilers. He still maintains his other skeptic positions.

            I’ve watched these developments and wonder how it is after all this that skeptics can still cry fraud, when those of them who have actually done the work get the same results as the better-known temp records.

            The single largest adjustment to the surface records cooled the centennial trend. Why do skeptics not know this? Adjustment effects on weather stations globally (and for Australia) result in about half of adjustments producing a warming trend, half producing a cooling trend. Why do skeptics not know this?

            One thing has changed in the skeptic repertoire. Whereas once it was denied that global surface temps had been warming over the last 100 years, that is very broadly accepted now. But nothing else has changed, despite a mountain of evidence and the work of skeptics validating the surface records. Still there are claims of fudging. Still there are claims that ‘every adjustment produces more warmth.’ Still every update of the surface record is scorned with skeptics not bothering to read the underlying studies, and changes to UAH lauded without skeptics bothering to read the studies.

            Which is why criticism of the surface records is almost entirely substanceless. No real investigation, just rhetoric. Proclamations and denouncements shored up by blog posts telling people what they like to hear.

            And absolutely no interest in the results of skeptics who actually do the work. The real stuff. The hard yards. No, skeptics prefer the fluff pieces that feed their predilections. They prefer ignorance. I’d be filled with contempt for that intellectual slovenliness, but after 10 years of witnessing it I’ve become inured.

            Sorry that the T-Shirt offended you. I found the methods very interesting. Quite different to how the ‘official’ temp records are derived.

          • barry says:

            Bob Tisdale has done some raw/adjusted comparisons, but he has not come up with his own methods. For the record, he gets a mixed bag of trend results for global temperature, depending on the time period. For the full record, raw data has the highest trend, but not for other periods. For example, for the period 1998-2013 raw data have the lowest trend. For the period 1975-1999, raw is the second highest trend after GISS. The largest difference in trends between raw and adjusted for any period is 4 hundredths of a degree C per decade.

            IOW, his results are similar to the official records, too.

          • Bart says:

            “Compare that to the vacuous hand-waving and its obvious what to give credit to.”

            We both know you are not particularly technically adept. I would suggest that what seems “obvious” to you is not a reliable standard for judging truth. Basically, what you seem to be saying is that you are easily bamboozled. As long as one argument is more complicated than another, you put greater credence in it.

            I suggest you read up on Occam’s Razor. The history of science is that complicated arguments tend to be less successful than simpler ones. It is a simple property of statistics, really. Probabilities combine geometrically, and the more uncertain propositions in your hypothesis that have to come together and be correct, the more unlikely it is that they will.

        • wert says:

          CO2 can NOT warm the Earth.

          Of course not. It would be against thermodyenamics.

          Now go out to play.

          • David Appell says:

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

          • crakar24 says:

            ooops sorry Dave my bad replied to wrong person just let me copy and paste it here


            You are correct on both counts now all you need to do is show how that warms the atmosphere. I dont expect an answer as this is your typical drive by random comment for the day.

            I thought you were banned anyway?

          • David Appell says:

            It clearly warms the atmosphere.

            That’s what climate models do — calculate the amount of warming.

          • David Appell says:

            What does your model calculate, crakar24?


  19. ren says:

    Daily mean temperatures for the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel, plotted with daily climate values calculated from the period 1958-2002.

  20. ren says:

    Daily Snow Sensor Report California.

  21. ren says:

    Dr. Roy Spencer, threatening thunderstorms.

  22. CO2isLife says:

    Rules for Climate Radicals; A Good Tactic is One Your People Enjoy

    The one thing the political left knows how to do far better than the political right is to throw a party. The political right will tell you to go to Church on Sunday, be disciplined, be responsible, work hard and stay out of trouble. The political left says come join our PAAAARRRRTTTTYYYY!!!! One simply needs to look at the recent political events for evidence. Here are photos from the March for Science and Peoples Climate March.

    • Snape says:


      “Can’t comb over climate change”

      That’s really good. That’s for sharing 😄

    • wert says:

      Right, right wing people should learn to celebrate. March, take family with them, enjoy warm weather with ‘Thank God its not an ICE AGE’, eat grill food, dance to good music, etc. And, also, make a demonstration during a long rainy season, in raincoats, with signs complaining on PERMANENT DROUGHT, with fun, balloons, soft drinks, fur hats, umbrella salesmen, waterpicnic in swimsuits using warm water to make people happy, what ever. TAKE THE JOY OUT of mocking worst alarmists. Call them out by name. Use their own words. Coordinate the message.

      But no, right wing people go to work 6:30 a.m. and have no time make an appearance.

      Tomorrow is the First of May. It will be sleeting here. I’m staying at home; conservatives have nothing to do.

  23. Mike Flynn says:

    Barry, Dr No,

    Maybe you could endeavour to provide an actual fact or two to support any disagreement you may have with anything I wrote.

    Alternatively, you could just attempt puerile sneers, or veiled ad hom. attacks.

    I am sure you will achieve the same level of incompetence as you demonstrate in trying to evade recognition of the scientific method.

    No GHE. You can’t even define what it’s supposed to be, let alone provide a testable hypothesis, involving how CO2 raises the temperature of thermometers! No surprise there, the idea is preposterous. Give it a try. Try again.

    When you give up, claim you’re being persecuted, that people are picking on you, and expecting you to be literal. Poor diddums! Run to Mommy – the nasty man is paying no attention to your tantrums and demands.

    Sorry, but your desperation is almost palpable.


  24. ren says:

    Temporarily solar wind drops strongly and slows the jet stream. This means heavy weather on the east side of the jetstream.,130,37.81,786

  25. ren says:

    Similarly heavy weather will be in Europe and additionally very cold.

  26. ren says:

    Live weather camera images from:
    Joyce ES, Ulysses, KS 67880

  27. Dan Pangburn says:

    Climate has always changed . . . naturally. CO2 has no significant effect on climate.

  28. Dan Pangburn says:

    Emission of electromagnetic radiation from a solid or liquid surface complies with the Planck spectrum and Stephan-Boltzmann (T4) law. This also includes most particles of smoke and aerosols because they typically contain millions of molecules. Emission of radiation from gas molecules is entirely different. It is quantized and depends on the energy levels of individual molecules which are determined probabilistically according to the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution which favors lower energy photons. The average energy level of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution depends on the temperature.

    Graphs of the probability distribution curve shape are shown in the Wikipedia article on Maxwell-Boltzmann. Molecules jostled to high enough energy for long enough time can emit a photon. This is called, for lack of a better term, reverse-thermalization. The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution is more highly populated at lower energy levels resulting in biasing the Planck spectrum radiation emitted by the surface to lower energies favored according to Maxwell-Boltzmann. This also results in the higher energy (shorter wavelength) photons absorbed by the CO2 being substantially redirected to the lower energy (longer wavelength) photons emitted by water vapor molecules. The process is progressively more pronounced as temperature declines with increasing altitude.

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        Read it again. I am merely using what Planck, Stephan, Boltzmann and Maxwell discovered. You are asserting that they are wrong. You should know better.

        In fact, the graph you linked to is similar to Figure 1 in my analysis:

        Typical top-of-atmosphere (TOA) emission spectra such as shown in Figure 1 of the link below include a notch associated with the CO2 absorb/emit wavelength. The existence of this notch demonstrates that CO2 absorbs terrestrial radiation in this wavelength range. Perhaps not as obvious, it also demonstrates thermalization and that the Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity/energy distribution effectively substantially redirects the energy that was absorbed by the CO2 molecules and thermalized, to the lower energy (longer wavelength) photons of water vapor molecules which explains the reduced number of photons at the notch.

        An experiment demonstrating the effect of greatly reduced water vapor in the atmosphere already exists. Near the poles, the extremely low temperatures result in very low water vapor content while the CO2 level is about the same as everywhere else. With few ghg molecules available to emit radiation, more of the emission is from CO2 molecules near 15 microns as shown in Figure 9 of Ref 8 in my analysis linked below.

        • David Appell says:

          It demonstrates “thermalization” at a higher temperature than if the CO2 wasn’t in the atmosphere.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Your comment suggests you are unfamiliar with the concept.

            Essentially all absorbed OLR is thermalized irrespective of the temperature of the molecule that absorbed it. The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution applies irrespective of the temperature of the atmospheric gas. The energy not emitted to space by the CO2 has to go someplace. It is ‘rerouted’ to water vapor. At extremely high altitude, the rising temperature and increased molecule spacing allows the CO2 to come back into play causing the ‘spike’ at 15 microns.

            You don’t have to believe me. Take the blinders off, study up on this stuff and USE YOUR HEAD.

  29. Dan Pangburn says:

    Average global water vapor has been on an uptrend since it has been globally measured as shown in Figure 3 of the analysis at . The uptrend is more than twice what it should be based on temperature increase alone (feedback).

  30. David Appell says:

    Roy, you know very well that the presence of snow somewhere doesn’t contradict long-term global warming.

    So why do you write posts like this? It just looks and feels like propaganda, Breitbart-like, and it’s exactly the kind of bias that has made so many people suspicious about UAH’s data over the years.

    • barry says:

      I, for one, am not suspicious of UAH data, even though I also know that Roy has a general view on AGW that seems to be based on disliking policy implications. If I can know my own biases and function without caving in to them, I reckon Roy Spencer can, too.

      Anyone that imagines they have no bias is utterly fooling themselves.

      • David Appell says:

        Barry, are you aware of the very large corrections UAH has made over the years?

        Especially the sign error that they resisted for years, where they found cooling. The error meant there was warming. I’ve talked to scientists who have very raw feelings about that episode.

      • barry says:

        Barry, are you aware of the very large corrections UAH has made over the years?

        Yes, I am. I mentioned that upthread.

        There are checks in science which work, as they did in this case and many others. Poisoning the wells is politics. It’s the same as impugning the motives of NOAA and GISS. The reason you cop so much flack here is that you often enough meld the science and the optics. Which is a pity because you have useful things to offer on the science.

        • David Appell says:

          Almost all the scientists I’ve ever talked to about the UAH data are suspicious — they think they are biased cool. A good part of that comes from people banging their head against UAH for many years in the mid-to-late ’90s. Someone told me that it took someone actually going to their offices and sitting them down and pointing out the sign error for it to be corrected. And the correction was quite significant.

          The other suspicion is about the truly huge changes UAH made going from v5.6 to v6. These changes were much larger than anything Karl et al did.

          Posts like this, which I don’t see from the other side, indicate to me that Roy Spencer is biased. Making fun of snow is on the Marc Morano-level of argument, which is to say, comical to anyone who really cares about science.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Davie, you’re still arguing over the temperature records. But your pseudoscience predicted the temperatures would be clearly supportive by now.

            Your pseudoscience is a bust.

          • barry says:

            UAH TLT v6 and RSS TLT are pretty much the same. Do your scientists friends also suspect RSS of dubious behaviour?

    • Mike Flynn says:

      David Appell,

      Dr Spencer wrote –

      “So, one is left to wonder, what are the real reasons for these marches?”

      I presume you have no answer. As for myself, it seems to be some form of collective delusion manifesting itself.

      I believe the event was “The Peoples March for Climate, Jobs, and Justice, Not to be taken literally, I suppose. Do the marchers believe that climate doesn’t exist, or maybe there’s not enough? Maybe they are silly enough to believe weather and climate can be prevented from ever changing?

      Or maybe they are bitter and twisted because their tantrums aren’t as effective bending people to their perverted will any more.

      Who knows? Who cares? They’ll probably get sick of it when they get tired, hungry, footsore and despondent. You could always go to a march, and provide motivational thoughts when spirits flag. Oh wait, all that marching, shouting and banner waving might be seen as propoganda! Best stay away.

      Did you attend the march?


      • barry says:

        Not to be taken literally, I suppose.

        But you couldn’t help yourself.

        • Mike Flynn says:


          Do you think the marchers should be taken literally? What sort of climate, jobs, and justice are they marching for? Maybe it’s an anti-Trump march, disguised as something else, in an attempt to dupe the gullible or mentally challenged?

          It doesn’t seem to have achieved much, except to demonstrate the inability of the marchers to clearly define what they meant.

          What do you think they hoped to achieve (apart from disrupting ordinary citizens going about their business) by their petulant and incoherent display?


        • barry says:

          You quoted the title. Then took it literally. That’s pissy stuff.

          I’m not much interested in the marches.

          • Mike Flynn says:


            You’re right. I actually quoted something. Then I asked you if you thought I should take it literally, after I had indicated (possibly mistakenly) that I surmised the marchers couldn’t possibly be thick enough to think anyone would take them literally, let alone seriously. What is it that you are complaining about?

            I’m not sure what you mean by “pissy stuff”. Am I supposed to know what you mean?

            If you are attempting to play some sort of game, maybe you need more practice. You’re not doing terribly well so far!


      • David Appell says:

        Hi Mike. Still trolling about the GHE? Ha ha.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Hi David,

          What GHE are you talking about? The urban myth, or the delusion shared by the likes of undistinguished mathematicians prending to be scientists, and strange dim people who can’t even work out whether they are Nobel Laureates or not?

          Or is there a testable hypothesis relating to this supposed GHE?

          Come on David – admit that you’ve hidden the missing GHE details alongside Trenberth’s missing heat, and Michael Mann’s missing Nobel Prize. You’ve probably put it on the shelf just before the Luminiferous Ether!


      • barry says:

        If temps in the 2020s were to be as low as they were in the 90s (absent some massive volcanic eruption ongoing over that decade), I’d consider that a big challenge to AGW.

    • barry says:

      I agree with David about making hay out of cold weather. And before anyone makes the obvious rejoinder that ‘alarmists’ make hay out of warm weather, be aware this is a deflection that likewise impugns what you seek to defend.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Davie expounds: “Roy, you know very well that the presence of snow somewhere doesnt contradict long-term global warming.”

      Davie, in your warped pseudoscience, there is NOTHING that contradicts AGW!

    • Roy lives in the real world while climate alarmists live in a fantasy world. Fortunately histoians are much more credible as a group than “Climate Scientists”. I linked this video upthread but here it is again incase you did not watch it:

    • barry says:

      If temps in the 2020s were to be as low as they were in the 90s (absent some massive volcanic eruption ongoing over that decade), Id consider that a big challenge to AGW.

      • Snape says:

        TLT and surface models are measuring different things (virtually no overlap), so why would we expect them to show similar rates of warming? Maybe both datasets are mostly accurate. How much do scientists really understand about different levels of the lower troposphere?

        According to Nick Stokes:
        “…..The reason is that satellites really can’t measure near the surface, because that is itself a big emitter of microwave radiation, which is just noise to this signal. In fact the definition of TLT has been creeping up. UAH V5.6 claimed a peak weight at 2km, but V6 has settled for 4, as does RSS TTT V4. And you may note that John Christy nowadays rarely mentions TLT, but usually TMT. NOAA produces a TMT measure, but not TLT.

        Satellites really have very little ability to discriminate levels. They just have one signal beam coming in, with different channels, and they rely on differential weighting of this channels. Very little depth resolution.”

  31. crakar24 says:

    Quoting nick stokes wont get you very far Snape but of course you still have your global warming of the oceans to hang you hat on…………..or do you?

    Actually, it is not known whether the ocean is warming: each of the 3600 automated ARGO bathythermograph buoys somehow has to cover 200,000 cubic kilometres of ocean a 100,000-square-mile box more than 316 km square and 2 km deep. Plainly, the results on the basis of a resolution that sparse (which, as Willis Eschenbach puts it, is approximately the equivalent of trying to take a single temperature and salinity profile taken at a single point in Lake Superior less than once a year) are not going to be a lot better than guesswork

    Suggest you think twice before claiming the heat is hiding in the oceans and you have the data to prove it.

    In your mind the sats are no good ergo the ARGO bouys are no good and I don’t think anyone could mount a serious argument stating the surface temps are any good so where does that leave us Snape?

  32. Dr No says:

    Meanwhile, Arctic sea ice cover continues to set new low records:

    Of course, who cares? Why care? It is not I’m my back yard and I am sure it is just fake news designed to alarm me unnecessarily.

  33. Dan Murray says:

    There exists no temperature record of the last 150 years that shows any variation greater than those variations science tells us have occurred over the last 5000 years.

  34. Bruiser says:

    The Mendenhall glacier near Juneau Alaska has been exposing mature tree stumps as it retreats. Since this is incontrovertible evidence of of a warmer past, I am amused that you seem to believe that there is a single point in recent history that defines climate.

Leave a Reply