Martha Stewart Exposes the Ignorance of Climate Alarmists

August 30th, 2023 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Martha Stewart with her “iceberg” cocktail and the chunk of ice it presumably came from. (Martha Stewart/Instagram)

Martha Stewart, the American home-and-hospitality retail businesswoman, television personality and writer, has been on a cruise around Greenland, where she had a chunk of ice (presumably calved from the Greenland ice sheet) brought aboard to provide ice for adult beverages.

Cue the climate alarmists, who considered such an action to be tone deaf regarding the seriousness of the climate crisis.

What, you might ask, does fishing a chunk of ice out of the ocean next to the Greenland ice cap have to do with the “climate crisis”?

Well, in some people’s minds (I know because I’ve met a few of them), ice calving off of the Greenland ice sheet is due to global warming.


The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are locations which are so cold for so much of the year, with enough snowfall, that come summer not all of the snowfall melts. This leads to a net accumulation of ice over the centuries and millennia. That’s what causes a “glacier” to form.

As the ice sheet deepens over the centuries, gravity starts to make the ice flow downhill, like very thick molasses. It then breaks off when it reaches the coast, floating away, and melting.

Everything I described above has nothing to do with global warming. Most scientists believe it has been going on for millions of years.

So, along comes Martha Stewart, at 82 years old just trying to enjoy life, and she gets global backlash for plucking a chunk of ice out of the ocean to cool her drink down.

What are they teaching kids in school these days???

193 Responses to “Martha Stewart Exposes the Ignorance of Climate Alarmists”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Stephen P Anderson says:

    Well, the Feds got a knucklehead jury to convict her for lying about a crime she didn’t commit.

    • I never followed the story in detail. The fact she bounced back after prison is admirable.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        At the end of the prosecution’s case, her team called no witnesses. They filed for motion to dismiss. The judge dismissed the insider trading charge against her but not the lying to Federal investigators charges. I believe the judge assumed the jury would be smart enough not to convict on remaining charges since the underlying charge was dismissed-not so.

      • Climate scientists Spencer picks on 82 year old woman, who is an ex-con, and obviously knows nothing about climate science.

        She was convicted of lying to the FBI. She did not commit any financial fraud and did not do any insider trading, nor was she ever charged with insider trading. Her stockbroker gave her a valuable tip about the daughter of a CEO, who was not an insider, that led to his loss of a career. The CEO’s daughter sold a lot of her father’s company’s stock and the stockbroker assumed that meant bad financial news was ahead. He was right. But she also could have been selling her stock to buy a mansion. No one actually knew why she sold.
        Martha Stewart did NOT do insider trading.

        The lesson learned here is to NEVER answer any questions asked by the FBI or any law authorities. It is your right to remain silent and you have nothing to be gained by talking. Tell then you committed no crime and then stop talking. That strategy is especially important with the current Biden politicized FBI. They will eventually ask you the same question twice, and if your answers are not the same both times, they will charge you with lying to the FBI. It is a corrupt organization, just like the Bidens.

      • Nate says:

        Evidence? Source? Or just your personal opinion?

      • Nate says:

        Is the FBI selectively targeting Republican politicians?

        From independent media NewsNation.

      • George says:

        FBI director James Comey was the was the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York who prosecuted Martha Stewart for lying about a crime that she was not accuse of committing.

        FBI director James Comey was also the acting U.S. Attorney who prosecuted Scooter Libby for lying about a crime that NO ONE was accused of committing.

    • Tim S says:

      She lied to the FBI about something that was not illegal. That is a mistake that will get prison time. Tell them the truth even if it hurts and especially when they know the truth already.

      • Nate says:

        Got Bill Clinton impeached…

      • WizGeek says:

        . . . and, more importantly, convicted.

      • Mike M says:

        As I have heard multiple times from multiple sources, seasoned investigators and prosecutors will NEVER ask a question for which they do not already know the answer.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        Yeah, the moral of the story, don’t talk to the FBI. However, if I was on her jury I would have voted not guilty on all counts.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        Also, to show what she thought of the case, the judge sentenced Stewart to the minimum sentence, which she served at a dormitory-like prison. And, I don’t recall the prosecution ever producing one scintilla of evidence that she lied. It was all innuendo. Dumb jury.

      • Nate says:

        Yeah they did. She lied about having set an automatic sell if the stock went below a certain level. Her broker testified that this was a lie.

        Its clear that she had insider information on the stock and sold it just before its price took a nose dive.

      • Nate says:

        “However, if I was on her jury I would have voted not guilty on all counts.”

        Says a biased Monday Morning Quarterback who obviously didnt see the evidence and testimony that the jury saw.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        Read the judge’s comments when she sentenced her. She thought it was a BS case too.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        Also, I don’t think her broker testified that it was a lie. You’re making crap up like you usually do.

      • Nate says:

        Do you have a transcript of the trial? Where are you getting your information from?

      • Nate says:

        The assistant to her broker lied about her stop-loss order when ordered by his boss, here broker, to do so to cover for Martha.


        “Perhaps one of the more damaging testimonies which sealed Martha Stewarts fate was the testimony of her then friend Mariana Pasternak….According to Pasternak, Stewart had said, ‘Isnt it nice to have brokers who will tell you these things’ “

      • Nate says:

        If you want ordinary people to follow the law, than what better way to send that message than to charge and successfully convict a rich well-known person for breaking that law?

        Guiliani did that with Ivan Boeski and Leona Helmsley in the 1980s.

        The unfairness in the justice system is that rich people, unlike most of us, have the ability to hire the best defense attorneys, which can make all the difference.

        Probably why she got a light sentence.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        She did follow the law.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        She got a light sentence because the judge saw that they were targeting her because she was rich. It works both ways.

      • Nate says:

        “She did follow the law.”

        I understand thats what YOU decided, but on what basis is unclear. Not the first time.

        The jury who heard the actual evidence and testimony agreed she did not follow the law.

        And from the description of it, I can see why.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        The Feds are experts at picking jury pools. Notice how they’ve gone about persecuting Trump.

      • Nate says:

        You think the prosecution gets to pick the jury?

        She hired the best defense attorneys. I think they, and the appeals court, would have had a problem with that.

      • Nate says:

        “Notice how theyve gone about persecuting Trump.”

        The people being actually persecuted were election workers falsely accused of election fraud, by Trump and followers. And as result, their lives were threatened and upended.

        Such as these two who just won their defamation case against Giuliani.

      • Alex says:

        The FBI will always find a way how to frame anyone whom they want to put in prison, and absolve others who should be imprisoned. We are living in dangerous times. Banks are now closing accounts of anyone who dares to challenge the leftist-globalist narrative. This situation is all over the place. Social media have put in algorithms that recognise the political opinion of media users, and restricts their accounts, sometimes closing them.

        George Orwell had something to say about this style of governance. He named it Big Brother.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        The Left is OK with it as long as the targets are conservative. Later, when they turn on each other, well…..

      • Tim S says:

        As to the FBI, hopefully, Comey, McCabe, and the Love Birds are outliers who let their hatred get the better of themselves.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        There are a lot more in the DOI than just those four.

      • Nate says:

        What, are guys are no longer members of the law and order party, and have you switched to the defund-the-cops party??

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        Law and order? That’s not what the DOI (Department of Injustice) is about any longer. I swore an oath to the Constitution, not the government.

      • Nate says:

        Ok, then you should have been supportive of Black Lives Matter, etc.
        But you weren’t, were you. Cuz, ya know, theyre not on your team.

    • Russell Seitz says:

      At the very least she is guilty of inspiring parodies that contribute to solar forcing by encouraging people to stencil their driveways.

  2. Nick Stokes says:

    “What, you might ask, does fishing a chunk of ice out of the ocean next to the Greenland ice cap have to do with the climate crisis?”

    What, you might ask, does it have to do with anything? No one is quoted objecting. The link to Fox News says “Martha hits back!”. But it just quotes people saying they can’t see anything wrong with it.

    • winston says:

      A simple Google search on the name Martha Stewart, and selecting the news filter, returns more than a page full of articles (alegedly independent) with headlines criticising Stewart for the same reasons as referred to in this blog post.

      The linked Fox article was one of the final parts of a series detailing Stewart’s (and Fox’s editorial) response to the criticism, which was coverec in previous Fox articles — all easily found in a more than superficial look.

      Criticism of Stewart for this is undeserved, as this iceberg “treat” is a frequent tourist activity on the featured cruise line, among others, to either polar region. Bad publicity being as good as any other sort, the cruise line has virtuously claimed that they are ceasing the practice — at least, it is assumed, until the next cruise.

      Considering Stewart’s activities of late, it is hard to imagine that this cruise was comped as a promotional event for the cruise line. Having a dozen or so momentarily “top” headlines, along with a blog post or two, makes it a commercial success.

      • Nick Stokes says:

        “Criticism of Stewart for this is undeserved”

        An article like this is useless unless you say who you are talking about, and what they said.

      • Walter says:


        The editorial from Fox News says underneath the picture in the bio “Martha Stewart / Instagram).”


      • Nick Stokes says:

        So we’re down to a couple of anonymous commenters on Instagram? And Fox tries to beat up their light-hearted comments into “haters”?

      • Walter says:

        I guess so. This seems to have upset Roy lol.

      • winston says:

        A blog post is not an “article”. A false complaint is not criticism. You’ve been told where to find the words. Not reading them is your problem.

      • Willard says:

        Handwaving isn’t citation. A question-begging dichotomy isn’t an argument. Failing to provide any evidence of what you’re talking about is your problem.

      • Sean says:

        Just remember that Martha Stewart’s alleged crime was insider trading where her broker called her to see a stock he had wanted her to sell for months but she refused to because the owner of that company was a friend of her.

        Meanwhile, Bernie Madoff had scammed people out of $50 billion in a Ponzi scheme. The ever vigilant Feds did not discover this until after one of Madoff’s sons turned him in.

        Still, government bureaucrats think they are the smartest people in the room.

      • Willard says:

        Lying about the stop loss may have been unwise.

    • Nate says:

      Media can always find somebody somewhere doing something to feed their audiences grievances. It’s what they do.

      And Roy is joining in.

  3. gbaikie says:

    We are in 33.9 million year old Ice Age. We have been cooling for about +5000 years, and should continue in next few thousand years- Humans have not made much of impression upon, Mother Earth.

    China has been doing the best job of emitting the most amount of CO2 but it’s mineable is being deleted fast and it’s population is decreasing. And China is one the most polluted countries in the World.

    • Stephen P Anderson says:

      China already controls Capitalism. Capitalism is OK as long as they control it.

      • gbaikie says:

        China [by which is meant the CCP- not the 1.4 billion people who unfortunately live in a cold land region] controls capitalism.
        And capitalism is some imagined idealogy which involves people trying to live under some bad government. No government has been good, and in US there is idealogy of having checks and balances, upon governmental and institutional and private powers.
        Which would be useless, if you imagined a good government was possible. Or capitalism might related to idea, that competition is good thing to have. CCP will allow competition, as it has made them rich.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        The US was founded with the best of intentions. Our Constitution is the greatest founding document ever conceived. When Andrew Jackson founded the Democrat Party then it was the beginning of the end of our Republic. Lincoln tried to correct it but only lasted a little while.

      • gbaikie says:

        Some might blame it on General Grant when he was the US president.
        Some might blame the Brits for supporting the South.

      • Nate says:

        FYI, Andrew Jackson was one of Trump’s favorite Presidents.

  4. Curious George says:

    If Whiskey On The Rocks is how the planet ends, I’m all for it.

  5. E. Schaffer says:

    Dr. Spencer!

    A few years back you endorsed the multi-greenhouse-effect as suggested by Manabe, Strickler.

    “Instead it is actually much more powerful than that, and would raise the temperature to an estimated 343 K (close to 160 deg. F.) It is convective heat loss generated by an unstable lapse rate caused by the greenhouse effect that reduces the temperature to the observed value.”

    I could bring a lot of arguments against this theory, but there is one simple problem standing out, I guess. If that was so and the surface was constantly heated by “back radiation” only mitigated by convection, or thermal uplifts, then how comes we only have convection when the sun shines?

    During nights we do not have thermal lifts. Instead every night, at least over land, we get inversions. In mid to higher latitude winter we even get lasting inversions night and day. With “back radiation” constantly heating the surface, that should not be possible.

    E. Schaffer:
    The greenhouse effect does not produce its own heating effect, it reduces the net rate of cooling in the lower atmosphere, while providing net radiative cooling of the upper atmosphere. At night, the solar heating of the surface goes away, but the GHE continues to keep the lower atmosphere warmer than if it was not operating. Convective overturning of the atmosphere continues at night too, even over land, (I assume you have experienced rain at night?), it is just not directly anchored to surface heating. All of this is well explained by a model of the radiative processes, for instance in every weather forecast model, and the model will create exactly what is observed. Without the GHE, you cannot explain the thermal structure of the atmosphere. The atmosphere would be nearly isothermal without it, and all convection would eventually cease, except right near the surface during the daytime.

    • E. Schaffer says:

      Thank you!

      I think you are being a little bit off point. I am perfectly fine with the definition of the GHE by the IPCC, as they have it since AR5. It does not include any “back-” or “downwelling radiation”.

      But these are two very different concepts. With the IPCC (and many others like Ramanathan) the GHE is defined as difference in surface- and TOA emitted radiation, so like 390-240 = 150. The attribution of the GHE then is furthermore based on this concept, like in Schmidt et al 2010.

      The multi-layer-backradiation model however does indeed suggest active warming of the surface by back radiation. It is the only way to get to the inflated “radiative equilibrium” towards the surface and accordingly high temperatures. Also this idea is well documented for instance in Plass 1956.

      Rain may well be part of the convective overturning of the troposphere, but it is not the means by which surface heat escapes. Also nightly inversions do not depend on rain.

      And although GHGs may have some influence on the lapse rate (mainly H2O by condensation, not because it is a GHG btw), atmospheric temperature profiles are way too similar over different planets, as that vastly different GHG concentrations would play the vital role.

      • Clint R says:

        E. Schaffer, the “390-240 = 150” is bogus. There is no “390”, and there is no “240”. You’re subtracting nonsense from nonsense and expecting to get something meaningful. What you get is just more nonsense.

    • Nate says:

      Take note GHE deniers.

      Meteorology expert Roy Spencer makes clear that:

      “The greenhouse effect does not produce its own heating effect, it reduces the net rate of cooling in the lower atmosphere, while providing net radiative cooling of the upper atmosphere. ”

      And the evidence is:

      ” All of this is well explained by a model of the radiative processes, for instance in every weather forecast model, and the model will create exactly what is observed. Without the GHE, you cannot explain the thermal structure of the atmosphere.”

      Oh well.

      • Walter says:

        Who denies GHE?

      • Bindidon says:


        ” Who denies GHE? ”

        Are you seriously asking?

        Didn’t you watch the thousands of posts written on this blog by numerous pseudo-skeptical anti-GHE zombies?

        You are kidding us a bit, aren’t you?

        Their newest fantasy is that the radiative energy balance between Earth and space is nonsense!

        The energy dissipation within the atmosphere due to conduction [sic] and convection explains all we need!


      • Walter says:


        I am partially messing around. But I seldom check this blog except for the satellite report card. When I see those particular comments on WUWT, I just skim through them and dont comment. My understanding of the greenhouse effect is very weak.

      • Clint R says:

        Walter, here’s the GHE described, without all the blah-blah:

        1) Solar warms the surface. (TRUE)

        2) Surface warms the atmosphere. (TRUE)

        3) Atmosphere re-warms the surface. (FALSE)

        There’s a lot more to the GHE hoax, like comparing Earth to an imaginary sphere. Just continue to follow comments here to learn more.

      • Bindidon says:

        Thanks Walter for the convenient reply.

        ” My understanding of the greenhouse effect is very weak. ”

        Though having read a lot of papers about it, I would say this is valid 4 me 2 :–)

        But everything is relative, and this my weak understanding nonetheless keeps above that of people writing e.g.

        ” 3) Atmosphere re-warms the surface. ”

        which is indeed false but has nothing to do with how GHE really works.

        The atmosphere does not rewarm the surface: it contributes, by intercepting IR radiation from the surface and radiating part of this intercepted radiation back to the surface, to its loss of cooling.

        This is a completely different statement talking about completely different effects.

        But GHE deniers know everything better, especially since any GHE denier can post unproven things in Youtube.

      • Clint R says:

        Bindi, you can try to bend reality to fit your cult beliefs, but it always blows up in your face.

        Now, you’re trying to say the bogus GHE does not raise surface temperatures but your entire cult claims there is “radiative forcing”. Do you understand what that claim is about? They try to claim the bogus “radiative forcing” is causing the natural temperature uptrend in recent history.

        Learn what Swenson has been teaching you — “Slowed cooling is NOT warming”.

      • Nate says:

        GHE-denier cult member, Clint, thinks Roy Spencer must be a member of a cult!

      • Clint R says:

        Nate, your false accusations ain’t science, or reality.

        You need to grow up, child.

      • Nate says:

        As always with Clint, no rebuttal of the facts, just insults.

      • Tim S says:

        Nate, after you are better educated, you will learn that the greenhouse effect is water vapor. CO2 is a very small contributor. A 50% increase in something small is still something small. The various tipping points are all just theoretical at this time. There is a very poor understanding of the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere and the wide range of results in the climate models proves that. I will admit the most most wild predictions have a chance of being correct because clearly most of them are wrong, but it seems that the most mild predictions have the best chance of being correct since they do not rely on large acceleration factors.

      • Nate says:

        I think you must be talking to Roy Spencer, since all I have done here is quote him.

  6. studentb says:

    “Ice sheets in Greenland, Antarctica melting faster than previously thought, research shows”

    Please try and take this seriously.

    • Ken says:

      These sorts of alarmist headlines have been selling advertising for over a century. For every alarmist article there is data showing the alarm is all about crying wolf.

      Anyone continuing to pay heed is a f oo l.

    • Ian Brown says:

      You can take that with a pinch of salt, almost all the Greenland melt is last winters snow fall. and the interior of Antarctica has not dropped bellow freezing point, any ice loss is due to calving,

  7. Walter says:

    Roy woke up on the wrong side of bed this morning.

  8. Ken says:

    These sorts of alarmist headlines have been selling advertising for over a century. For every alarmist article there is data showing the alarm is all about crying ‘wolf’. Anyone continuing to pay heed is a f oo l.

  9. Ken says:

    Whatshizzname, the resident brain dead anti-science tro ll, is going to get triggered by the mention of ice cubes and global warming.

  10. Clint R says:

    On the topic of “current events”, I saw the movie “Oppenheimer” last week. Seeing all the scientists portrayed, it occurred to me that the vast majority would stand against the GHE nonsense, were they alive today. Richard Feynman died before the AGW nonsense got going, but he was not intimated by NASA. He was the one that investigated and found NASA guilty or the first Shuttle disaster. He was also the one that used the expression “Cargo Cult”.

    Edward Teller lived long enough to have seen the nonsense, and was a signer of the “Oregon Petition”, which rejects the nonsense.

    • Walter says:

      That petition is a joke. Sorry, Clint. Even Roy probably agrees with that.

      • Clint R says:

        Yes, I remember the desperate attempts to discredit the 30,000+ names. But, the Oregon Petition had the desired effect.

        Remember, this was at a time when the GHE assault team was at its strongest. They had society in full panic mode. They were even doctoring the A/C units and windows during Congressional hearings. They sought to control all “peer-review”. The Petition took a lot of wind out of their sails. Then “Climategate emails” put a devastating hole in their little boat.

      • Walter says:

        Is there a way to validate those 30,000 signatures? I also remember reading that only about 12% or so of those signatures had degrees that were relevant to studying climate.

      • Clint R says:

        “Validation” within a cult is the real joke. A cult only accepts those that believe as they do. We see that here clearly. Reality and science mean nothing to the cult. They will actually claim ice cubes can boil water and passenger jets fly backwards.

      • Bindidon says:

        … and these ignorant cultists even believe that the Moon rotates about its polar axis.


      • Mick says:

        You mean those who had retired or whose livelihoods were independent of the climate warming nonsense taxpayer funded pseudoscience?

    • gbaikie says:

      Cargo cult so fits the global climate religion.
      As so many people are against civilization and yearn- and so become
      The Left is in the Stone Age, and we are in the Space Age.
      Though if we were in the stone age, it would be very impressive for the primitive human to be having a global satellite market.

      Humans wanting to be primitive isn’t new, but latest was Rousseau and Germany and Russia socialist/Commusism and Nazies going back glory day a thousand years ago. Or went Europe was pretty primitive, and not even roman with their indoor plumbing.
      Getting indoor plumbing seems to be one of the signs of corruption of Humans.

    • Entropic man says:

      Some people will sign anything.

    • Nate says:

      ” the vast majority would stand against the GHE nonsense, were they alive today. ”

      Convenient that these guys are not alive.

      Unlike you, those guys did not use fake physics, and many wrote the textbooks containing physics that you so often reject.

  11. Eben says:

    Martha stole and drank the last piece of Greenland iceberg
    that’s one for history books

  12. Walter says:

    Is there a way to get notifications when you get a response?

  13. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Powerful Typhoon Saola is about to hit southeastern China.

  14. CAS says:

    Well, Martha was tone deaf to the victims of…
    the Titanic.


  15. TechnoCaveman says:

    Dr. Spencer,
    You are right. Showing the picture to two people in IT office of professionals (now in doubt) they both said “Cutt ice off Greenland is not something you should do”
    Hopefully I kept my poker face as I asked them why. Confirmed that more snow than a simple ice berg falls on the continent annually. This is ice that would have floated away.
    Its going to be a cold awakening when the Beaufort gyre gives up the ghost based on Woodshole salinity measurements.
    Just thought you might want to know the ill informed are everywhere.

  16. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    A powerful typhoon is heading for Taiwan. The clouds top reaches -80 C, meaning it is in the tropopause.

  17. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Yearly mean and monthly smoothed sunspot number
    Yearly mean sunspot number (black) up to 1749 and monthly 13-month smoothed sunspot number (blue) from 1749 up to the present.

  18. Bindidon says:

    Oh I see: since solar cycle SC25 plays Sleepy Joe since a few weeks

    the lovers of Zharkova’s GSM story soon will bring the solar stuff back into the discussion, he he.

    I would really enjoy SC25 moving for a while down to less than 50 observed sun spots per day:

    We after all are no longer so far away of this, aren’t we?

    And the red polynomial mean starts to bend downward slightly, oh my!

  19. gbaikie says:

    The Beast Rises! What’s Left for SpaceX’s Starship before Launch Day?

    98,906 views Sep 1, 2023 #SpaceX #starship #elonmusk
    SpaceX’s Starship is nearly ready for launch! SpaceX is expanding the Orbital Tank Farm! Chandrayaan-3’s mission continues! And Japan is about to launch a combo Moon mission.

    Again, waiting for FAA.
    Besides, politicians and lawyers, AI could make good bureaucrats.

    • gbaikie says:
      NASA’s Science In Jeopardy? Starship Stack SOON! | This Week in Spaceflight

      A different weekly update. Which reminded me, of asteroid return sample planned to land on Earth within 4 week.
      Also India measured difference in temperature in top 3″ inches {the fluffy dusty surface. [Ie, Apollo footprints] anyhow, 60 C difference in temperature in about 8 cm {3.15″}. Or 50 C to -10 C.
      Or she said, “It just shows the incredible insulative properties of lunar regolith”.
      And it’s just the fluffy {low density] top few inches with these insulative properties. And why footprints in it, will make the lunar surface warmer.

  20. gbaikie says:

    Carbon Capture: BUSTED!?
    “Strong believer in catastrophic AGW shoots down the economics of carbon capture.”

    The guy thinks gasoline is pretty good stuff.

    But they put ethanol in it, and tax it a lot.

    And they don’t use gasoline in rockets.
    Nor in planes.
    Natural gas would be better- though could argue it could
    be more dangerous {and taxing it, could be problematic and ethanol
    doesn’t work with natural gas.

  21. Hristo says:

    Doc, I see situatuon for people throwing dust in the eyes of the public so it does not see the obvious truth are getting fewer and fewer. So you had to resort to Martha Stewart and a bunch of illiterate radicals to make a story…

    It does not change the fact that Earth, even in your dataset, is getting warmer.

    • gbaikie says:

      Yes, but 15 C is a cold air temperature.

      And Earth is in coldest times of the Late Cenozoic Ice Age which has been on going for about 33.9 million years.
      And most of Earth’s history has not been an Ice Age, but there are five known Ice Ages, and possible that Late Cenozoic Ice Age has been the coldest. It’s mostly thought to be caused by Earth’s geological changes.

      • Hristo says:

        I will try not to be too rude and I hope you have passed 4-th grade.

        Warming rate is currently 0.14deg/decade. Since the last Ice age there are about 13 000 years. If in the last 1000 of them the warming rate was 0.14deg per decade, imagine what would be a world with 14 deg higher average temperature.

        Are you still with me?

        And global average temperature during Ice age was 8degC, whereas currently it is 16. So if there was same warming trend for 1000 years, it would have been much much warmer today. So in a nutshell for a 4-th grader: warming trend is really fast. Maybe we do not know the whole truth, but blaming warming up on long gone Ice Age is for illiterate.

      • gbaikie says:

        “Warming rate is currently 0.14deg/decade. Since the last Ice age there are about 13 000 years. If in the last 1000 of them the warming rate was 0.14deg per decade, imagine what would be a world with 14 deg higher average temperature.”

        13,000 years ago put it in middle of thermal peak Holocene.
        Perhaps you heard of African humid period:
        “During the preceding Last Glacial Maximum, the Sahara contained extensive dune fields and was mostly uninhabited. It was much larger than today, and its lakes and rivers such as Lake Victoria and the White Nile were either dry or at low levels. The humid period began about 14,60014,500 years ago at the end of Heinrich event 1, simultaneously to the BllingAllerd warming. Rivers and lakes such as Lake Chad formed or expanded, glaciers grew on Mount Kilimanjaro and the Sahara retreated. Two major dry fluctuations occurred; during the Younger Dryas and the short 8.2 kiloyear event. The African humid period ended 6,0005,000 years ago during the Piora Oscillation cold period. ”

        Again wiki:
        “Many estimates of past temperatures have been made over Earth’s history. The field of paleoclimatology includes ancient temperature records. As the present article is oriented toward recent temperatures, there is a focus here on events since the retreat of the Pleistocene glaciers. The 10,000 years of the Holocene epoch covers most of this period, since the end of the Northern Hemisphere’s Younger Dryas millennium-long cooling. The Holocene Climatic Optimum was generally warmer than the 20th century, but numerous regional variations have been noted since the start of the Younger Dryas. ”
        {it gives spaghetti graph {which are all over the place]
        And there is always African humid period following after exiting Glacial Max, which ended about 20,000 years ago:
        “The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), also referred to as the Last Glacial Coldest Period, was the most recent time during the Last Glacial Period that ice sheets were at their greatest extent 26 ka 20 ka ago”
        Anyhow, during Holocene, sea levels have been 1 to 2 meter higher than present sea level. And past interglacial period have had sea levels 4 meter or higher than present sea level and global temperature more than 17 C.
        There various reason given for why the Holocene has not been as warm as past interglacial periods. And nature of the last Glacial Maximum {very cold} is probably an aspect of it.

      • gbaikie says:

        “And global average temperature during Ice age was 8degC, whereas currently it is 16. ”

        We are currently in an Ice Age, some only refer to last 3 million years as “present” ice age.
        But you probably referring the Last Glacial Max and yes it was about 8 to 10 C but that was coldest time within the glaciation period and perhaps coolest Earth has every been, unless you talking short time of centuries or couple thousand years.
        Large space rock impacting and/or large volcanic activity can briefly cool the Earth, a lot.

        Earth current average surface air temperature is about 15 C. And it’s about 15 C, mostly because the average global ocean surface temperature is much warmer than average land surface temperature.
        Or average yearly global land surface temperature is about 10 C and ocean is about 17 C.
        Ocean and ocean surface temperature controls global average surface temperature, because it’s 70% of planet’s surface and because it has higher average surface temperature.

      • gbaikie says:

        The average yearly temperature of Canada and Russia is about -3 C, of course, not many people live in colder parts. Something like 80% of Canadian live very close to US/Canada border- and it’s not warm, but it is much warmer than -3 C.
        China average is about 8 C. Europe is about 9 C {France is close to 15 C} And France and Spain get enough sunlight, unlike UK and Germany. And I live in southern California and it’s a bit warmer than 15. But most people live in warmer countries, India average about 25 C.

      • Willard says:

        > The average yearly temperature of Canada and Russia is about -3 C,

        Not sure where you got that, but you might like:

        The annual average temperature in Canada has increased at roughly twice the global mean (average) rate. Patterns are different across regions of the country, however. Temperatures have increased more in northern Canada than in southern Canada. Annual mean temperature over northern Canada increased by roughly 3 times the global mean warming rate.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        hristo…”I will try not to be too rude and I hope you have passed 4-th grade.

        Warming rate is currently 0.14deg/decade. Since the last Ice age there are about 13 000 years”.


        Based on the ignorance in your reply I presume you may not have gone beyond 4th grade. The last ice age, albeit brief compared to the others, was the Little Ice Age between about 1300 and 1850. Global temps dropped 1C to 2C and we are currently recovering from the LIA.

        You sound like the typical alarmist, with your head filled with convenient truths.

      • Nate says:

        “Global temps dropped 1C to 2C and we are currently recovering from the LIA.”

        Nah. Evidence?

      • Willard says:

        > And Earth is in coldest times of the Late Cenozoic Ice Age which has been on going for about 33.9 million years.

        That’s not quite true, gb:

        Check the Permian.

    • Ken says:

      Why climate changes. Watch and consider why its not CO2.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      “It does not change the fact that Earth, even in your dataset, is getting warmer”.


      Roy has never argued that the planet is not warming, in fact, he has offered that anthropogenic causes are likely involved but does not know to what extent. That makes Roy far more open-minded than me since I think the anthropogenic theory is scientific nonsense.

      We know why the planet is warming, it cooled for 400 years till 1850 due to the Little Ice Age. The IPCC, who leads the alarmist movement, refuse to acknowledge the LIA as anything more than a local phenomena in Europe only. Since when can a region like Europe drop 1C to 2C for 400 years without the rest of the planet cooling?

      Hristo represent cheaters and frauds then has the temerity to come on Roy’s blog, a scientist of integrity, and challenge that integrity. Shame on you.

  22. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Typhoon Saola has made landfall in southeastern China. Another typhoon will pass centrally over Taiwan and reach China.

    • gbaikie says:

      Category 4 Typhoon Saola batters Hong Kong
      –Historic Typhoon Saola gave Hong Kong a tremendous pounding on Friday evening local time as the ferocious 130-mph sustained winds of its northern eyewall raked the city. Saola (named after one of the worlds rarest large mammals, a forest-dwelling bovine native to the Annamite Range in Vietnam and Laos) triggered the issuance of a rare Signal 10 advisory for Hong Kong from the Hong Kong Observatory (HKO), reserved for the most extreme storms, for the first time since 2018. —
      Next one down:
      Typhoon Saola makes landfall in southern China but appears to cause only light damage
      –BEIJING (AP) Typhoon Saola made landfall in southern China before dawn Saturday after nearly 900,000 people were moved to safety and most of Hong Kong and parts of the coastal mainland suspended business, transport and classes. Damage appeared to be minimal, however, and some services were returning to normal by afternoon.–

      • gbaikie says:

        It seems the news is filled with wannabe fictional writers- but I am
        what one might call wannabe SFI writer- who wanted write about Mars of 2070’s.
        Anyways, at present moment, it seems to me a lot things are going to happen in next 50 years, but significant change in global climate isn’t going to happen. Or our average temperature of ocean which is 3.5 C is not going to change much.

        Africans might turn the Sahara desert into something like the Garden of Eden, which could easily called a massive global climate change, just as the desertification of Sahara desert over last +5000 years, is considered one of largest recent global climate changes.

        But we in an Ice Age, because our ocean is cold.
        And changing the Sahara into mostly grasslands with forests, lakes and rivers, will increase global air temperature and will effect global weather, but we are still in an Ice Age. And not in a warmer time of this Ice Age.
        And it should lower sea levels {a bit} rather than rise sea level by many meters, like it always happened during most warmer times in interglacial periods. And it could increase the amount of global glacier ice.
        So, slightly lower sea levels and a bit more glacial ice, isn’t normally connected to global warming, but it should count as climate change. And it should cause a more uniform global air temperature- and that is, definitional, global warming.

  23. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The eye of a powerful typhoon is headed straight for Taiwan.

  24. Ageing political hack exposes desperation of ageing political hack.

    • Clint R says:

      What political hack were you hoping to expose, Elliott?

      • gbaikie says:

        It might be some kind of joke.
        But it’s not a political hack it’s two political hacks.
        Something like two people walk into bar… maybe.
        First, definition:

        political hack: a politician who belongs to a small clique that controls a political party for private rather than public ends.

        Politicians wouldn’t come here, and what political party does it
        Can imagine a political hack that controls the Libertarian Party?
        It must be the wrong meaning of political hack. Maybe it’s someone trying to sell the Libertarian Party. But either way it’s sad.
        Anyhow must a better definition so it will be funny.
        Urban dictionary:
        political hack

        “A person who gets a job in government because he or she donated to a candidate. Usually the person has no qualifications for the job but paid his or her way into the position because they politically favor their boss. Very typical in corrupt machine politics like in the Northeast where political favors must be returned by candidates with patronage.”
        The Democratic party machine got Joey a comfy job, doing nothing. That political hack is now set for life. I’m told he’ll get $174,000 and he’ll collect a sweet pension, too. I figure if I give to the mayor, I’ll be a hack, too!

        That sound like the bald clown which stole women’s luggage from airports.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      I presume you represent the political hacks who run the climate alarmist camp. No science there, just politics and lies.

  25. gbaikie says:

    New Study Suggests Global Warming Could be Mostly an Urban Problem

    “It is well-known that cities are warmer than the surrounding countryside. While urban areas only account for less than 4% of the global land surface, many of the weather stations used for calculating global temperatures are located in urban areas. For this reason, some scientists have been concerned that the current global warming estimates may have been contaminated by urban heat island effects. In their latest report, the IPCC estimated that urban warming accounted for less than 10% of global warming. However, this new study suggests that urban warming might account for up to 40% of the warming since 1850.”

    Well, that also suggests that The Little Ice Age, may not have been as cold as 13 C.
    So the hardship of such conditions, wasn’t as bad as it seems.
    Similar to stories of walking to school in the snow.
    But was pretty bad in other issues. And ice fairs on Thames could be quite enjoyable for people, today.

    • barry says:

      I wonder if the WUWT article links to a study written by entrenched climate skeptics. Or if the study – if it’s actually a study – is misrepresented.

      Now to look…

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Doesn’t matter. Barry. no one has proved that the trace gas CO2 can warm the atmosphere, or do anything else it is claimed to do, other than be good for vegetation.

    • barry says:

      Yep, entrenched ‘skeptics’ proliferate the authorship and the entire lead authorship, and they reference their own papers and data sets. In typical language, the abstract states that the IPCC overlooked “the other” TSI dataset – when there are several – and the data set referred to is… yes, one put together by ‘skeptics’ (Scafetta).

      TL;DR – If you use our solar data set and our take on the instrumental records, then the world has warmed since 1850, but the IPCC is wrong to attribute more than 50% of the warming since 1950 to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Urbanisation and solar have played a bigger part than assumed.

      Gotta love that they use the word “assumed,” as if no one else has done any research on these matters.

      • Walter says:


        Your response suggests you are well informed about climate science. It also suggests you side with the climate advocates more than the skeptics. In my opinion, WUWT needs more people like you to come and debate these folks. We cant all be singing the same hymn now.

      • barry says:

        I used to participate there, 7-10 years ago. Are they actually ‘debating’ these days, or is it the Punch and Judy?

      • Cliint r says:

        barry, reality is NOT up for debate. That’s the mistake cultists keep making. They’ll actually claim things like “passenger jets fly backward”, and “ice cubes can boil water”.

        Once you cultists face reality, the GHE myth goes away. But you can’t face reality because you’re religiously and emotionally tied to your false beliefs.

        Called anyone a “lying dog” lately?

      • Walter says:

        I would say there is. Nick Stokes, bdgwx, TFN, AlanJ are there. They do get donwvoted a ton. But they definitely make valid points because they are well informed. Debates are necessary because the truth is I’m not very well informed. If I’m just reading misinformation then I’m wasting my time.

      • Willard says:

        You can always ask friends over there to join us here, Walter.

        Send my regards to the Monte bros, Karlo and Carlo, my favorite flying monkeys.

      • Walter says:


        Thank you for your guest appearance on WUWT and for the link to the Carbon Brief article. I see you also have a nifty site. I’ll be sure to explore it.

      • Willard says:

        Thank you for the kind words, Walter, and also for prompting me to add this line:

      • barry says:

        Maybe I’ll stop by, Walter.

    • gbaikie says:

      I was wondering which country {region] represents/reflects global temperature the “best”.
      So example of what region would not do this, is a country [region] in the tropics. And England has longest measured temperature, but it seems it would mostly measuring variation/change in the Gulf Stream. And sort opposite is Canada. And then thought what about in southern regions like Argentina:
      So, 1900 to 1920, about 14.4 C and in 2020 about 15.4 C
      1900 to 1920, about -5 C and in 2020 about -3.5 C

      And Argentina 1860 to 1880 about 14.2 C
      Canada, 1860 to 1880 about -5.5 C

      I wouldn’t claim this is accurate, but the question is what would one expect Canada or Argentina to be if global average surface temperature was 13 C or was 16 C?

      Oh in terms of daily yearly highs, Canada, 1860 to 1880 about 0 C
      and daily yearly lows about -10.5 C with 2020, being:
      High: 1.5 C and Low: -8.5 C
      So mostly warmed by have less cold yearly low.
      And having more warming daily lows seems best measure of global warming.
      And Argentina, 1860 to 1880 daily yearly lows: 7.25 C and 2020 about 9 C
      But again, I would not say it’s accurate.

    • barry says:

      “I was wondering which country {region] represents/reflects global temperature the ‘best’.”

      None, really. Each region/country has particular local influences. You might think a desert or an ice cap/sheet would be best – no urban influence, relative topographical uniformity. But when you compare areas like these with each other, they don’t present exactly the same. So no reason to expect any of them would represent global “best.”

      Some suggest that ocean heat content is the best measure – Roger Pielke Snr pushed this idea in the mid to late 2000s. Or perhaps lower tropospheric temperatures? But that metric has its own set of uncertainties.

      • gbaikie says:

        “None, really. Each region/country has particular local influences. You might think a desert or an ice cap/sheet would be best no urban influence, relative topographical uniformity.”

        Well Canada is fairly dry. If wet it would covered in an ice Sheet.

        The only way to measure Earth’s global climate is measuring it’s ocean average temperature {currently somewhere around 3.5 C}.
        But I was wondering temperature during Little Ice Age and Tropics isn’t effected by this cold ocean. And global cooling and warming is mostly about the region near the polar regions {which the average ocean temperature, strongly effects}.

    • Nate says:

      FYI, the journal, Climate, is on predatory journals lists.

      which suggests that it’s peer review is weak.

      • gbaikie says:

        You seem to have some kind of religious view of peer review.
        In terms of science, they have been proven to not work-
        Or all peer review has been proven to be weak.

      • Nate says:

        It is not guarantee, but it helps and is a strong deterent to crappy science.

        OTOH, if authors know the journal has poor peer review, then it will be a magnet for crappy science.

      • Tim S says:

        Okay, I fell for it. I stopped at the “C” listings. Are there any journals that are not listed? The bigger question is whether a qualified opposing paper can get published somewhere?

      • Nate says:

        Short answer, Yes.

        The issue is that there has been an explosion of papers published in such journals, with increasing acceptance rates, which profit from publishing more not less papers and thus encourage shoddy peer review.

        That means the papers that would normally get published on a blog, by some dude on the corner of 4th and Main, can get the stamp of a ‘peer reviewed’ publication.

  26. Willard says:


    The company’s worth dropped more than 50 percent after Stewart’s insider trading scandal broke, and Stewart’s personal losses totaled more than $325 million in company holdings.

    Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc is now held by Marquee Brands, which also own prestigious brands such as Anti Social Social Club, which, contrary to what one might think, does not target GOP stans.

  27. gbaikie says:

    The Ukraine Air War Moves to Russia – Drone attacks, F-16s & Changing tactics
    Perun 460K subscribers

    Tactics and stalemate. And cardboard drones.
    [And Ukraine is not likely to lose it’s air force.]

    • gbaikie says:

      Linked from Perun’s page:
      The Device that Won WW2 – The Cavity Magnetron

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gb…the Russian/Ukrainian war ended shortly after it began. Russia is currently focused on hanging on to the territory it took over on behalf of eastern Ukrainians.

      They kicked the bleep out of the Ukrainian Nazi Azov battalion in Mariupol and since then, the Ukrainians have no forces left to fight with. They are presenting nothing more today than a nuisance value.

      Meantime, the Ukraine is run by a TV personality who has set himself up as a petty dictator while he milks money from gullible nations.

      • Nate says:

        Do you recall, Gordon, that you said a year ago that Russia needed to leave Ukraine after clearing it of ‘Nazis’ such as Azov?

        They havent. They stay. And they have annexed the most valuable territory of a sovereign neighbor into mother Russia. And they continue to bomb Ukrainian cities.

        In the 1990s they signed a treaty with Ukraine and the US vowing to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine, in exchange for their nukes.

        Yet now you don’t object.

        Why the change of tune?

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        Utkin, the Nazi-tattooed commander who gave Wagner its name

        Moscow (AFP) A rare photo of the Wagner group’s military commander shows a man with a shaved head, a cold stare and the Nazi SS symbol tattooed on both sides of his neck.

        Issued on: 25/08/2023 – 18:18Modified: 25/08/2023 – 18:16

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ark…I am not a Putin toady by any means. I think it is shameful that he would employ any group with Nazi ties. I also considered it shameful that he supported the Bashir regime in Syria. He has done some questionable things.

        In the Ukraine, he has done everything right, with the exception of getting a lot of his fellow Russians killed. There is nothing honourable in the Ukrainian cause, however. The nation has been plagued with Ukrainian nationalists who are the equivalent of White supremacists everywhere. They are free to harass and murder dissidents anywhere in the Ukraine. Each year, they openly hold a candlelight vigil to celebrate Nazi collaborators in WWII.

        One of them, who sat in the Ukrainian parliament, labeled the Allies in WWII as ‘scum’ who were working for the Jews. Until these Nazi-lovers are brought under control, there will never be peace in the Ukraine. They are their own worst enemy.

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        “… he has done everything right”

        You’re a despicable human being!

        An average of three children have been killed or injured every day in Ukraine since 24 February 2022.

        This year, June has been the deadliest month for children in Ukraine, with 54 child casualties.

        Along with the constant threat of death or injury, children in Ukraine experience significant psychological distress from air raid alerts, missile strikes and shelling that hit the country every day.
        Putin refuses to adhere to obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law, to ensure that civilians and civilian objects, especially those used by children such as homes, schools, and hospitals, are protected from attack.

        Over 25,000 civilian casualties have been recorded in Ukraine since Putin first launched his full-scale invasion.

        On 17 March 2023, Pre-Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Court (“ICC” or “the Court”) issued warrants of arrest for two individuals in the context of the situation in Ukraine: Mr Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and Ms Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova.

        The Chamber considered that the warrants are secret in order to protect victims and witnesses and also to safeguard the investigation. Nevertheless, mindful that the conduct addressed in the present situation is allegedly ongoing, and that the public awareness of the warrants may contribute to the prevention of the further commission of crimes, the Chamber considered that it is in the interests of justice to authorize the Registry to publicly disclose the existence of the warrants, the name of the suspects, the crimes for which the warrants are issued, and the modes of liability as established by the Chamber.

      • Nate says:

        ” There is nothing honourable in the Ukrainian cause, however. ”

        Nothing honorable about defending your country against an invader with little regard for human life?

        You really are quite an asshole, Gordon.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        nate…”Do you recall, Gordon, that you said a year ago that Russia needed to leave Ukraine after clearing it of Nazis such as Azov?”


        Nope, I don’t recall saying that. I did say that Putin claimed they invaded to take care of Nazis but their major reason was to back the Ukrainians in eastern Ukraine who had appealed to them for help. Specifically, the Russians aimed their invasion at the Donbas region and that’s what they have done.

        Let me ask you this. Do you approve of armed Ukrainian nationalists, who do have Nazi ties, being allowed to run off a democratically elected president? Then oppressing fellow Ukrainians in eastern Ukraine who opposed their action? That was the aim of Azov in eastern Ukraine, to suppress dissidents. This time, however, the dissidents were in the right, they opposed an undemocratic coup that removed a fairly elected president.

      • Nate says:

        At the time of the Russian invasion, Ukraine was a sovereign nation with had a democratically elected Parliament and President.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        That was not true in 2014. That year, the Ukrainian army stood by while armed nationalists deposed a democratically-elected president.

        The current war is about that action in 2014. Ukrainians in the Donbas region who had voted for the deposed president rebelled. The current war began as a civil war with the Russians backing the dissidents in eastern Ukraine. Meantime, the western media lied to us about why the dissidents were rebelling.

        Biden and his son were in the Ukraine meddling in their internal affairs. His son was raking in money sitting on the board of a Ukrainian oil company and allegations have recently arisen that his son was funneling money to Biden.

        You need to get it that many of the citizens of the current Ukraine are displaced Russians. Post 1990, borders were arbitrarily drawn in the Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, trapping ethnic Russians in those countries. Why should Russia not be concerned about that situation to the point they are willing to fight to defend them?

        The US would certainly defend Yanks trapped in foreign countries just as the UK defended Brits in the Falklands.

      • Nate says:

        “That was not true in 2014.”

        So what? The invasion was in 2022.

        Russia was not defending itself, since Ukraine did not attack Russia. Thus Russia had no right to invade a sovereign neighbor, whose sovereignty they had guaranteed by treaty, because they don’t like its internal politics.

        Their ‘concern’ over ethnic Russians in Ukraine was the same excuse used by Hitler before every single one of his invasions of his neighbors.

  28. Tim S says:

    In other news, Burning Man has been rained out. There is more rain today. This will be blamed on climate change, but for the wrong reason in my opinion. The narrative is that heat trapping gases cause warming that allows the air to hold more water. The reality is that a colder upper atmosphere increases the intensity of thunder showers. In the same way, it seems to me that increased plant growth along with fire suppression would have more to do with forest fire danger than hotter days. I fully understand that drought and hot weather are also huge factors in fire potential and intensity.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      tim s…”The narrative is that heat trapping gases cause warming that allows the air to hold more water”.


      If you want to be taken seriously as a student of science, you need to explain how heat from the surface is trapped by trace gases. It’s simply not possible, although I am willing to hear an explanation if it sounds reasonable.

      • Tim S says:

        I was too subtle. I am referring to the climate change media/politician narrative that is designed to scare the public. Thus my followup sentence describing “the reality”.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        I am trying to figure out which side you are on. For some reason, I had you pegged as an alarmist. If you are a skeptic, I apologize.

  29. gbaikie says:

    X-CUSE ME? Elon Musks dad Errol claps back at claims that Tesla CEO is on drugs and has mental health issues in shock report
    Linked from:
    “Speaking exclusively to The U.S. Sun, his dad Errol said that the report is ‘blatantly inaccurate'”

    “Musks retired electromechanical engineer dad Errol, 77, believes the claims are all part of a broader attack by Elons enemies.

    He even appeared to link them to recent legal moves by the US government to go after Elons business interests.

    Asked about the article, Errol exclusively told The U.S. Sun from his home in South Africa: Its a very worrying hit job on Elon, filled with blatant inaccuracies.”

    It’s not really worrying, it’s typical.
    Fake news, gets the clicks.

    • gbaikie says:

      Electric vehicles catch fire after being exposed to saltwater from Hurricane Idalia

      {Elon related}
      “Two electric vehicles in Palm Beach, Florida caught fire after being exposed to saltwater from Hurricane Idalia, according to reports.

      Officials from the fire department said that both cars were Teslas and stated that the rechargeable car batteries might combust if exposed to saltwater.

      If you own a hybrid or electric vehicle that has come into contact with saltwater due to recent flooding within the last 24 hours, it is crucial to relocate the vehicle from your garage without delay, the department wrote in a Facebook post. Saltwater exposure can trigger combustion in lithium-ion batteries. If possible, transfer your vehicle to higher ground.

      The warning also extended to other vehicles with lithium-ion batteries such as electric golf carts, scooters and bicycles.”

      Well, Falcon 9 works, but still seeing if Starship can get to orbit.

      I hope Starship and New Glenn works.
      My idea I call a pipelauncher, would be easier with the smaller New Glenn rocket.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        I had a pipelauncher when I was younger. The pipe (about 3 feet in length) just fit a shooting marble so I would light a firecracker that also just fit the pipe, drop it down the pipe, drop a marble on top of it and the explosion blew the marble quite a distance. BTW, I had newspaper stuffed up the other end before dropping the firecracker in.

        When I went to university, I applied for a degree in rocket science but they did not have one, so I studied electrical engineering instead. That why I know that electrons are the only particle in an atom that can absorb and emit EM.

      • gbaikie says:

        They still don’t have one.

      • gbaikie says:

        Well, that roughly, is it. Just times it by 100. But use a metal end, rather than newspaper. Put in water and it will flip vertical with metal {newspaper} end up- which stops the air from getting out.
        And it would be a very stable platform.
        They have a ship which is similar to it, called, RP FLIP:
        “The platform is 108 meters (355 ft) long and is designed to partially flood and pitch backward 90 degrees, resulting in only the front 17 meters (55 ft) of the platform pointing up out of the water”

        “A spar buoy is a tall, thin buoy that floats upright in the water and is characterized by a small water plane area and a large mass. Because they tend to be stable ocean platforms, spar buoys are popular for making oceanographic measurements.

        Spar buoys range in length from a few feet to the 354-foot (108 meter) RP FLIP. ”

        So could call it, a spar buoy that can travel up vertically, and it would be powered by liquid air {nitrogen and oxygen which liquid- and it’s explosive if you drop it, in water}. And liquid air or LOX is pretty cheap by the ton. And one might use say 10 tons of liquid air.

        So, it’s floating launchpad which need some speed/acceleration to launch a rocket. Or rocket would be launched at about 50 meter above the ocean.

  30. Gordon Robertson says:

    stoopidb…”In your own words, can you explain how ice sheets melt when the average temperatures in those regions is well below 0C. Ice simply cannot melt on the Antarctic mainland because it is far too cold year round.

    It’s far too cold in Greenland as well for them to melt significantly before the next winter sets in.

  31. Gordon Robertson says:

    reality sets in…Moosonee, Ontario goes from record hot day to 30C lower in one day.


    1)the previous record was in 1959 and only 0.8C lower. That is, if the fudged modern surface temperatures are yo be believed.

    2)The Earth is a planet that orbits the Sun and it’s axis is pointed about 23 degrees to its orbital plane. That means, during part of the orbit it is exposed to lots of sunlight and in other parts is has none in some parts. Therefore, it goes from one temperature extreme to the other.

    There is nothing we humans can do to affect that orbital/axial tilt no matter ho much CO2 we emit into the atmosphere. The temperature extremes are due to weather and unless the orbit or the tilt changes significantly, climates won’t be changing much.

  32. Gordon Robertson says:

    I see a lot of posters, especially alarmists, misquoting Roy’s views. Just want to remind the curious that Roy has posted a tremendous amount of info regarding his views and published papers at the top of this page. The monthly temperature link is the bottom link but there are several links above that leading to articles and papers by Roy.

    Good reads.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      My interest in the origin of one of Roy’s graph lead to the following link. Figure 3 shows global warming over the past 2000 years. It appears to be based on proxy evidence, in part, from Craig Loehle and the red modern part comes from Had-crut.

      For me, it puts current warming in perspective.

      • bobdroege says:

        Look at where Had-Crut is now!

        Thanks for confirming that it is warmer now than in the Medieval Warm Period.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bob…you need to remove the red-region of Roy’s graph because Had-crut are major cheaters. But even if you don’t the Had-crut cheating is still cooler than the MWP.

        Remember that Had-crut was led by Phil Jones, who admitted to using Michael Mann’s cheating trick to hide declining temperatures. He also boasted that he and his fellow Coordinating Lead Author on IPCC reviews would prevent skeptical papers being reviewed on IPCC reviews.

        Do you always back the wrong horse?

      • bobdroege says:


        You fell for all that climategate bull, didn’t you.

        And they weren’t skeptical papers, just poor papers.

        Too bad we didn’t have satellites in the MWP.

        And you meant declining tree ring densities, I am sure.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bob…what is climateball?

        Don’t you find it ironic that the skeptics’ papers were deemed poor by the alarmists running the show? One of the main complainers was Trenberth, whose whining about a paper co-authored by John Christy, forced a journal editor to resign.

        In other words, Trenberth was interfering in the peer review process. Rather than allow all scientists to read the paper and form an opinion, he wanted to trash the paper to prevent other scientists from reading it.

        Is that what you stand for? Trenberth was the Coordinating Lead Author partnered with Phil Jones on IPCC reviews. They held the power to accept or reject papers for review, showing just how corrupt the IPCC is.

  33. Nate says:

    Actual climate scientists views on the Martha ‘ice controversy’.

    “It is not like she went to a glacier and carved a piece of ice off it,’ Eric Rignot, a professor at the University of California at Irvine, told The Washington Post. ‘Icebergs float at sea already and slowly melt. Whether they melt in the ocean or in your glass does not make a difference.’ ”

    “Ian Allison, a professor at the University of Tasmania, said the impact would actually be ‘zero (or at least no greater than the beating of butterflies wings in the Amazon).’

    Popping a bit of ice into a drink is no worse than taking a glass of water from a river, Allison told the Post.”

    • gbaikie says:

      Well, if understand Lefties {look at what they do, rather than what they say} it makes sense.

      • Nate says:

        “I think Roys point is to do with why its even an issue. Heres a couple of quotes from his article”

        Yep and the quotes I showed from from climate scientists agree!

        The point is a few cranks on the internet whining does not make a real controversy.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      nate…I think Roy’s point is to do with why it’s even an issue. Here’s a couple of quotes from his article…

      “What, you might ask, does fishing a chunk of ice out of the ocean next to the Greenland ice cap have to do with the climate crisis?”

      “So, along comes Martha Stewart, at 82 years old just trying to enjoy life, and she gets global backlash for plucking a chunk of ice out of the ocean to cool her drink down.

      What are they teaching kids in school these days???”

      That’s my point, why the heck would anyone make an issue of her taking ice from a glacier? Roy sums up by asking what they are teaching kids in school these days? They are brow-beating children as early as grade 3 to pick their sexual identity. Based on that, it’s no surprise they’d be teaching the same kids that taking ice from a glacier is a major crime.

      • Nate says:

        “why the heck would anyone make an issue of her taking ice from a glacier?”

        There will always be faux grievances expressed by someone somewhere on the internet.

        Some of them are here on this blog.

  34. Domain M says:

    Tried to remember “Dr. Roy Spencer” to check this blog… Couldn’t remember the name… checked chatgpt, it was bent on telling me “Dr. John Christy”.

    Bookmarked the blog this time.

    This is one of the most rational resources on a topic that I’ve found. Keep up the great work.

  35. Mick says:

    Just like it did almost a century ago. Then got cold with expanding ice sheets. That stopped in the early 80s. That’s maybe why they always show it from 1979.or they cool the past

    • gbaikie says:

      1979 is when got satellites to take temperature of mid atmosphere and they used lots balloon measurements to calibrate it.
      Or it’s balloon measurement- but constant and global.

  36. Gordon Robertson says:


    Your response suggests you are well informed about climate science. It also suggests you side with the climate advocates more than the skeptics”.


    It might suggest that to you, Walter, but Barry, is a dyed-in-the wool, narrow-minded alarmist.

    A couple of years ago I claimed the IPCC had admitted that the 15 year period between 1998 and 2012 showed no significant warming. Barry called me a liar. When I posted the exact quote from the IPCC he did not apologize, he changed the goal-posts by claiming the period was too short to be considered significant.

    Another time, when I posted a link from NOAA that claimed they had slashed their global surface stations from 6000 to just under 1500, Barry again called me a liar. When Ire-posted with the exact quote, he claimed, along with Bindidon, that the post was old, dating back to 2015. Bindidon continues to argue that NOAA uses several hundred thousand stations globally, such is the blindness of alarmists.

    We skeptics blow Barry’s arguments out of the water here on Roy’s blog and I presume the same would occur at WUWT,

  37. Frits Buningh says:

    Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups: (
    Your message wasn’t delivered. Despite repeated attempts to deliver your message, the recipient’s email system refused to accept a connection from your email system.

    Is there a remedy for this? Do I have the wrong email address?