U.S.A. Temperature Trends, 1979-2023: Models vs. Observations

February 2nd, 2024 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Updated through 2023, here is a comparison of the “USA48” annual surface air temperature trend as computed by NOAA (+0.27 deg. C/decade, blue bar) to those in the CMIP6 climate models for the same time period and region (red bars). Following Gavin Schmidt’s concern that not all CMIP6 models should be included in such comparisons, I am only including those models having equilibrium climate sensitivities in the IPCC’s “highly likely” range of 2 to 5 deg. C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

Approximately 6 times as many models (23) have more warming than the NOAA observations than those having cooler trends (4). The model trends average 42% warmer than the observed temperature trends. As I allude to in the graph, there is evidence that the NOAA thermometer-based observations have a warm bias due to little-to-no adjustment for the Urban Heat Island effect, but our latest estimate of that bias (now in review at Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology) suggests the UHI effect in the U.S. has been rather small since about 1960.

Note I have also included our UAH lower tropospheric trend, even though I do not expect as good agreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends in a regional area like the U.S. as for global, hemispheric, or tropical average trends. Theoretically, the tropospheric warming should be a little stronger than surface warming, but that depends upon how much positive water vapor feedback actually exists in nature (It is certainly positive in the atmospheric boundary layer where surface evaporation dominates, but it’s not obviously positive in the free-troposphere where precipitation efficiency changes with warming are largely unknown. I believe this is why there is little to no observational evidence of a tropical “hot spot” as predicted by models).

If we now switch to a comparison for just the summer months (June, July, August), the discrepancy between climate model and observed warming trends is larger, with the model trends averaging 59% warmer than the observations:

For the summer season, there are 26 models exhibiting warmer trends than the observations, and only 1 model with a weaker warming trend. The satellite tropospheric temperature trend is weakest of all.

Given that “global warming” is a greater concern in the summer, these results further demonstrate that the climate models depended upon for public policy should not be believed when it comes to their global warming projections.


362 Responses to “U.S.A. Temperature Trends, 1979-2023: Models vs. Observations”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. CAD says:

    NorESM2-MM in there twice

  2. Willard says:

    > Following Gavin Schmidts concern that not all CMIP6 models should be included in such comparison

    From the horse’s mouth:

    How then should we talk about these models? In my opinion, describing the properties of the multi-model mean or generalizing about the models as a whole is not sensible. Claims such as those made recently that the CMIP6 ensemble runs hot are very easily misconstrued to imply that all CMIP6 models have too high ECS values (or indeed all models in general), when really it is only a subset. Discussions of the mean CMIP6 sensitivity is, to my mind, pointless, not least because the “CMIP6 mean” is based on a somewhat arbitrary selection of models that doesn’t take into account model independence nor the fact that CMIP6 itself is a moving target as more models are still being added to the database. And given that all the temperature projections in IPCC are constrained projections, the raw CMIP6 mean and its properties are simply irrelevant for any of the AR6 conclusions.

    https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/08/notallmodels/

    • Bill Hunter says:

      all this teeth gnashing over what models should be included just shows now unready for primetime the state of the models are.

      projections need to be keyed to observations and far from it is that recommendation only coming from roy. dr curry and others have been calling for that for years.

      its obvious that our policies should follow from real observations and not projections that nobody is in agreement with.

      • Willard says:

        All these teeth gnashing only shows that contrarians are ready to relitigate every single little inconsequential thing to get their way.

        And when they succeed in getting a food fight, then they proclaim that there’s no consensus on anything.

        It’s obvious that Gill is just whiffing through the Climateball motions.

        • Swenson says:

          Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            The piece continues:

            It is true that *some* models have high ECS beyond what can be reconciled with our understanding of paleoclimate change, and in those models the cloud feedback particularly in the Southern Oceans is more positive than previously. But it is not the case that all the CMIP6 models run hot, nor is true that the model projections in AR6 are affected by these high ECS values. We should therefore avoid giving that impression.

            https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/08/notallmodels/

            Unless, of course, one is hired by the Heartland Foundation to do just that…

          • Swenson says:

            Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Willard sounds like typical reaction by propagandists where they think telling the truth gives the wrong impression.

          • Willard says:

            Gill acts like an ordinary crank when he has nothing much to say.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Willard considers honesty and transparency to be optional that its more important that the government only provide information that the government wants the people to get.

            That’s a great strategy of war when your objective is to force your will on others. But has no merit outside of that realm.

          • Willard says:

            Gill considers that only corporate greed is good, and he will trust think tank talking points above anything else. The only measure that matters to him is having less kids on his lawn.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Willard says:

            ”Gill considers that only corporate greed is good, and he will trust think tank talking points above anything else. The only measure that matters to him is having less kids on his lawn.”

            Another strawman from Willard. I handle corporate greed by not doing any business with the greedy. I am only forced to when the government grants them a contract or a monopoly.

          • Willard says:

            Gill whines about strawpersons when that’s all he builds.

            He handles them with the carelessness that must have characterized his imaginary career.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Looks like you haven’t changed any from your sandbox years willard.

          • Willard says:

            Gill thinks he’s a cat and this is his sandbox.

    • Bill Hunter says:

      Willard its not about relitigating at all. Its the story that keeps changing. The jury has been out on this from day one.

    • Tim S says:

      I will translate that nonsense. There is wide scatter in the models because they don’t work. Gavin cherry picks the ones he likes, and then criticize people like Dr Spencer who reveal honest and accurate results that demonstrate the scatter.

      • Nate says:

        You don’t thing Roy is selecting and highlighting regions based on their lower than average warming?

      • Bindidon says:

        Tim S

        ” Gavin cherry picks the ones he likes… ”

        I remember very well a knowledgeable Swedish commenter who was an ace in getting data out of KNMI.

        1. He wrote e.g. on this blog (that’s at least 6-7 years ago) that Spencer/Christy themselves cherry-picked the models they liked.

        2. He produced several times KNMI outputs showing models way nearer to observations than did Spencer/Christy’s model average at that time.

        Unfortunately 1, Olof R isn’t here anymore, let alone at WUWT.

        And unfortunately 2, I have enough to do with generating time series out of a dozen of data sources all the time.

        • Neal says:

          So let me get this straight. Your argument is if Dr. Spencer uses ALL the models, this is dishonest, because some of them are way outside the mean.

          Also, if Dr. Spencer says, OK, here are he IPCC models that the IPCC says are the most reasonable, he’s also cherry picking data.

          Does that accurately summarize your critique?

          I think the response to that is: You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means

        • Bill Hunter says:

          2. He produced several times KNMI outputs showing models way nearer to observations than did Spencer/Christys model average at that time.
          —————————

          Yeah throw out a model spread that goes from mildly concerning to panic mode. Then when the results come in claim victory.

          Isn’t that Texas Sharpshooting?

          • Willard says:

            Producing a model spread is sharpshooting now.

            Gill is a freaking genius.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            texas sharpshooting, paint an entire barndoor as a target and step back 5 paces and see if you can hit it with a rifle. one should recall that warming from 1911 to 1944 was a greater warming trend than 1980 to 2013.

            all the while we were being fed fertilizer that the rate of warming was unprecedented. and that was using phil jones records.

          • Nate says:

            “texas sharpshooting, paint an entire barndoor as a target and step back 5 paces and see if you can hit it with a rifle.”

            That aint how Texas sharpshooting is done. You miss the ENTIRE point of it.

          • Willard says:

            Here is how to become a sharpshooter:

            1. Throw a bunch of models outputs on your barn door.

            2. Paint the circle that the Corn Belt summer temps make.

            3. Ask a conservatarian think tank to take photos.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            willard actually got something right. a real ‘sharpshooter’ has nothing in common with a ‘texas sharpshooter’. in fact they are opposites.

          • Willard says:

            Gill is correct:

            The Texas sharpshooter fallacy often arises when a person has a large amount of data at their disposal but only focuses on a small subset of that data. Some factor other than the one attributed may give all the elements in that subset some kind of common property (or pair of common properties, when arguing for correlation). If the person attempts to account for the likelihood of finding some subset in the large data with some common property by a factor other than its actual cause, then that person is likely committing a Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

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

            This is exactly what happens when one picks the summer temps in the Corn Belt as some kind of litmus test for something quite bigger.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            No Willard the cornbelt was chosen as stated by Roy because growing conditions in the cornbelt should be give a high priority due to its economic importance. AGW is going to do nothing to the economy of silicone valley.

          • Willard says:

            Gill believes that nobody can see his special pleading. Perhaps he still holds that corn is mainly used to make bread? LOL.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Willard continues to envision himself as an ant man on the bottom of a lobster pot expecting any minute for it to be filled with boiling water. So he continues to wave his arms in a panic at any blog post not showing sufficient sympathy to his predicament.

          • Nate says:

            “because growing conditions in the cornbelt should be give a high priority”

            Nah. Climate matters for lots of other places in the world.

            When asked by an agenda driven organization to write about climate change in a way that supports their agenda, then
            highlighting places with less warming works.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Yes Nate you are free to make a case for wherever you want. Have at it.

          • Willard says:

            Making a case is for everybody but Gill.

            As our Inspecteur Clouseau, Gill asks the Very Tough questions.

      • Bindidon says:

        Tim S

        Moreover, Nate is 100% right: even when Roy Spencer finally refrained from a nonsensical comparison of observations and models restricted to such a minuscule region as US’ Corn Belt, the same job won’t have much more sense when extending the comparison range to the US, which after all is no more than 6% of the global land surface, hence 2% of the Globe.

        *
        Years ago already I compared land temperature time series for CONUS and Europe. Here is the newest revision, dated Sep ’23:

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q1nAZRyAgkgmwkGCJAbwGGXzB_AAwf22/view

        Does that speak to you, Tim S?

        • Bill Hunter says:

          The corn belt is the bread basket for much of the world. Makes sense to make that comparison since a major portion of the CAGW narrative has centered around elevated negative effects to natural organisms and foods in particular. Again the truth is of great concern to you, except when it matches your agenda. So I expect you to be upset. good to see it as it speaks to who you are.

          • Willard says:

            Gill still fails to grasp that the Corn belt mostly produces feedstock and ethanol, and that it’s getting outpriced by China:

            We had a weather-reduced crop, and we had the Mississippi River drying up last fall and early winter that slowed our exports way down,” Mr Haerr says. “Because of that, the price of corn went up which made us less competitive.”

            […]

            In January, sales of US corn to China were as much as 70% below previous years’ levels. And in May, China started buying South African corn for the first time. It is a troubling trend for US farmers.

            https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66089408

            Someone who’d claim that winter temps don’t matter to farmers should call one.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            And Willard just can’t wait until China gets another exemption and another burden is put on the US farmer. . .right?

          • Willard says:

            And Gill cannot wait to drop bombs on Asia as vulgar display of power, like his hero Nixon did on Cambodia, right?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Willard says:

            ”And Gill cannot wait to drop bombs on Asia as vulgar display of power, like his hero Nixon did on Cambodia, right?”

            My 1968 primary vote went to Bobby Kennedy. My general election vote was to write in Eugene McCarthy.

            My 1972 votes went to George McGovern.

            That’s how misinformed you are. I am not one to run around guessing about everything like you are.

          • Willard says:

            Gill imagines that anyone cares about his bragging.

        • Bill Hunter says:

          Nobody cares what you post Willard. You are never informed about what you speak. No doubt you stalk people hoping to find some dirt and when unsuccessful you dox them.

          • Willard says:

            Gill spouts so much angry nonsense we should worry that his screen time may be bad for his neuro-degenerative disorder.

            Is there someone to watch for him?

    • Neal says:

      If the hypothesis was correct, it wouldn’t really make any difference which models were used.

      That’s how the scientific method works. I am sorry that offends you so, but being that you’re using a computer to make your comments, you actually believe in the scientific method, even if you don’t understand it.

      • Willard says:

        Here you go:

        climateball.net/but-modulz#science

      • Nate says:

        “the hypothesis was correct, it wouldnt really make any difference which models were used.

        Thats how the scientific method works.”

        How do you figure that?

        See my comment above on Hurricane models.

        First, they improved dramatically over time.

        Second, even today some models perform better than others.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Neal says:
        ”If the hypothesis was correct, it wouldnt really make any difference which models were used.”

        exactly. you ask these sycophants how the ghe works physically and they start dropping names and theories like throwing a heap of textbooks on the table for the purpose of intimidation.

        yet the answer to the question is coded in the models and these dolts either don’t know how those models are coded, or they do know and refuse to put the answer on the table.

        its like phil jones in stonewalling steve mcintyre’s freedom of information request says in a climategate email that he would rather destroy the data requested to somebody who would find something wrong with it. then when the court orders him to hand over the data he claims he lost it.

        obviously if this is going to be used to support regulation the people should demand the coding, the physics law supporting the calculations, the reasonableness rationalization for of a range of assumptions employed for variables explaining fully how the heat gets back to the surface, and a full sensitivity analysis linked to measurements and realistic ranges of uncertainty. then indeed somebody could then find what is wrong with it.

        but apparently none of the dolts in here are in memo loop and the tapes are no doubt locked up every night.

      • Willard says:

        When will Gill agree and amplify something that is not crap?

      • Nate says:

        “exactly. you ask these sycophants how the ghe works physically and they start dropping names and theories”

        The endless excuses of the Science Ignorant.

        They havent been shown the ‘blueprints’, they claim.

        As it turns out YES they have! Many times! And theyve been explained. Many times!

        But the Ignorati cannot read the blueprints, and make every effort to NOT learn how to.

        Thus they feel empowered to dismiss them.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        notice how they try to avoid actually spelling out anything that could be deemed established science. its always skeptics who fail to read or understand some principle that the accuser can’t even describe.

        • Bill Hunter says:

          meanwhile nate failed to even understand what insulation is or isn’t.
          heres nate’s take:
          https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1616821

          and why he is wrong is in the post by me below it.

          • Willard says:

            Gill’s spaghetti programming continues.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

          • Nate says:

            Bill ignorantly thinks the insulation doesn’t apply to natural phenomena, only to products purchased in a store whose certified R value he can read on the box.

            Of course the Earth’s atmosphere does not come in a box, from Home Depot.

            And yet meteorology still needs to analyze heat transfer in the atmosphere, and do so by applying the laws of physics to it, which works quite well.

          • Nate says:

            meanwhile nate failed to even understand what insulation is or isnt.
            heres nates take:

            “As I explained, an insulating effect happens whenever heat transfer is reduced. (Temperature gradient)/(Heat flux) defines R factor for insulation.”

            Let’s look that up and see whether that is wrong or right:

            “thermal resistance (R) measures the opposition to the heat current in a material or system. It is measured in units of kelvins per watt (K/W) and indicates how much temperature difference (in kelvins) is required to transfer a unit of heat current (in watts) through the material or object. It is essential to optimize the building insulation, evaluate the efficiency of electronic devices, and enhance the performance of heat sinks in various applications.”

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

            Oh well, yet another Bill assertion gets whacked.

          • Nate says:

            And under Practical Applications of Thermal resistance:

            “12. Environmental science: Thermal resistance is considered in climate studies to understand heat transfer in Earth’s atmosphere and oceans. Evaluating thermal resistance is useful in studying soil temperature profiles for environmental and agricultural research.”

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

            Oh well!

  3. CAD says:

    Seems to me everyone is interpreting the “too hot” models upside down and backwards. The hot models might be right, you know. But they are forced, you see. They are forced with trace gas and get too hot (or too cold going backwards). Hmmmm.

  4. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    Dr Spencer wrote:
    …there is little to no observational evidence of a tropical “hot spot” as predicted by models.

    The following is from May 2015…

    Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot

    Researchers have published results in Environmental Research Letters confirming strong warming in the upper troposphere, known colloquially as the tropospheric hotspot.

    “We were able to do this by producing a publicly available temperature and wind data set of the upper troposphere extending from 1958-2012, so it is there for anyone to see.”

  5. Anon for a reason says:

    Personally I’m more concerned what the trend of the inaccuracies are in each model.
    The average could be spot on, but may be very inaccurate in many parts of the domain. If anything the average down plays the models issues.

    Between two models the inaccuracies could also be in different places and at different times during the simulation.

    Rather than hoping, or praying, that the models are in some way accurate, why can’t the modelling community prove that their models are even plausible.

    • Bill Hunter says:

      Welcome to the world of hidden agendas.

      • Entropic man says:

        Otherwise known as climate change denialism.

        • Bill Hunter says:

          Actually I don’t know anybody who is denying the climate is changing. The climate has been changing all my life. So far all it has done is get better.

          • Willard says:

            Gill pretends not knowing what “climate change denialism” means, and things are so much better that Citizens is almost insolvent:

            Last year, Florida governor Ron DeSantis said Citizens has not been solvent and would not have enough to pay out if another major hurricane were to impact its policyholders. These warnings were later cited by the US Senate Budget Committee as it initiated an investigation into the insurers financial viability.

            https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/breaking-news/floridas-insurer-of-last-resort-to-continue-offloading-policies-in-2024-474732.aspx

          • Bill Hunter says:

            willard ineptly tries to counter with the financial issues surrounding the insurance business to support his ignorant views surrounding climate science.

            it appears you know nothing about either collective risk taking in the insurance business nor anything substantial about climate science. but no doubt your daddy has a script for you to follow.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            if willard had sufficient grey cells in the right place he would have verified his daddy’s script and found out that Citizens risk had risen above its assets because of inflation brought on by his daddy. this caused risks, rebuilding costs, to potentially exceed its assets and their ability to pay claims. of course his daddy would never tell him that so willard just continues to respew his daddy’s script.

          • Willard says:

            If Gill wasn’t such a vanilla denier, he’d realize that Debt Donald’s the one who tried to buy votes with COVID largesses:

            The combination of [Debt Donald’s] 2017 tax cut and the lack of any serious spending restraint helped both the deficit and the debt soar. So when the once-in-a-lifetime viral disaster slammed our country and we threw more than $3 trillion into COVID-19-related stimulus, there was no longer any margin for error.

            https://www.propublica.org/article/national-debt-trump

          • Bill Hunter says:

            the stimulus bill was a congressional stimulus that was bipartisanly supported. What wasn’t bipartisanly was the ridiculous extensions of lockdowns after the vaccine had become universally available to our citizens. Unusual risks to young people was never established. Older people took the brunt of the pandemic and I didn’t get my vaccine until about 2 months into Biden’s term. By summer 2021 the lockdowns should have ended and then there would have been no need for further economic stimulus. . .but the administration became the number one salesperson for spreading fear, extending lockdowns, implementing programs to fire any worker not getting vaccinated, trying to get people who really didn’t need the vaccine to take it.

            the negative pandemic measures were extended out for 2 more years than necessary extending economic impacts to almost 3 times as long as necessary.

          • Willard says:

            Gill deflects once more.

          • Nate says:

            State by state policies varied.

            OTOH. MAGA politicians discouraged people from getting vaccinated, and this led to extra deaths.

            There is a very clear correlation between mortality and un-vaccinated percentage, after the vaccines became widely available, on a state by state basis.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate believes he is his brother’s keeper.

            Yes its true that people who chose to not have the vaccination suffered from greater consequences of the disease. But its also true that persons who took the vaccine suffered from complications brought on by the vaccine. I took the vaccine and had an autoimmune condition problem start up about 6 weeks after the vaccine. I am still battling that. The developer of the MRNA vaccine has warned about this possibility of the vaccine encouraging attack ones own body by the nature of the vaccine.

            But all that aside the public policy issue regarding lockdowns and subsidies should have ended when the vaccine became available to people. I got my first Dose in February 2021 and there were long lines. I got my second dose in March 2021 and there were no lines. Certainly by May 2021 they should have been easing up on all the alarmism, shutdowns, mandates, and subsidies. I don’t know if all communities but the response let up should have been community by community and the federal government’s role in it should have been limited to distributing the vaccine. When no vaccine was available alternative measures made sense.

            So you claim MAGA politicians discouraged people from taking the vaccine. I have no doubt that some people would do that but who are you talking about and I am not aware of any politicians discouraging people from getting the vaccination. So are you blowing smoke again?

          • Willard says:

            > Yes its true that people who chose to not have the vaccination suffered from greater consequences of the disease. But

            Gill did not watch Games of Thrones and it shows.

            Where are the concerns about the inflation Debit Donald created?

          • Nate says:

            Sorry to hear you had an bad reaction, Bill.

            I dont think we are that far apart on the issue. Most states eventually figured out the right approach.

            You are right that after the vaccine things could open up. Though winter 2021-22 was still deadly.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Deadly perhaps to those who chose not to get the vaccine and hadn’t yet contracted the disease. But what exactly do you hope to accomplish when people don’t want to be vaccinated?

          • Willard says:

            Gill almost spills his beans. What happens when people refuse to get vaccinated because a bunch of reactionary buffoons decided to turn a simple policy issue into a political one?

          • Nate says:

            Yep, people are letting politics guide their health decisions.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:
            ”Yep, people are letting politics guide their health decisions.”

            Nate only can see an issue from one side.

            During the pandemic ”some people” were mandating the health decisions of ”other people.”

            Nate probably gets his panties all twisted up when he sees negative reviews of his favorite products.

          • Willard says:

            Gill sees things from many perspectives. His freedom, his lawn, his taxes, etc.

          • Nate says:

            Public health management during epidemics is nothing new.

            During the 1947 NYC Smallbox outbreak 2.5 Million in the city were vaccinated.

            People back then understood the need.

            Way back, Venice quaranteened travellers on ships during a plague epidemic.

            Its hyperbole to compare the mostly voluntary vaccination and masking policies here, to what went on in China.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate reverts to his typical strawman building. Nobody equated what went on here to China. But that’s an awfully low bar to set for a free nation.

          • Nate says:

            This kind of hyperbolic rhetoric “Nate believes he is his brothers keeper.” to describe modest voluntary public health policies, which as you say were not remotely like China’s policy is what drove people away from getting vaccinated.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Nate,

            There’s evidence out there that there’s excess deaths from the vaccinated. Do you watch any of John Campbell’s Youtube videos? The Covid vaccine is completely pointless. Quercetin and Zinc will prevent any issues from the virus.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            LOL! Nate considers getting fired a voluntary decision. What a bozo!

          • Willard says:

            Troglodyte believes in another crank’s crap:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGmRwQ4TZc4

            LMAO!

          • Nate says:

            “Theres evidence out there that theres excess deaths from the vaccinated.”

            Could be. But how many compared to the number of unvaxxed and died from Covid?

            Disinformation killed people.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”Could be. But how many compared to the number of unvaxxed and died from Covid?”

            Why would you make a silly comparison like that Nate? Obviously risk is individual specific. A lot of people die from an allergy that others don’t have.

            If the government can’t give you data related to your own health status and relative risk from serious vaccine complications vs threat of similar complications from covid, they might order people to get vaccines that increase their chance serious complications.

            Instead the suppressed information on vaccine complications to unbalance the information in favor of people choosing to vaccinate. They also exaggerated the threat from COVID by tallying up all deaths with covid present.

            For years their has been a push for medical records so that doctors can be better informed on how to treat their patients; yet for the COVID epidemic that all was thrown out in favor of mandating vaccines rather than allowing individuals to consult with their doctors who did have files on the health of the individuals being put at risk.

            All this involves is ignorance being elevated over reasoned decision making. Typical government overreach.

            I was trying to help people make some sense of the data that was available but the government didn’t even have the sense to make the data tranches comparable. It was a miserable effort with a lot of politicians standing up trying to look virtuous over a largely incompetent health agencies that were totally unprepared for this type of event. Apparently they were too busy genetically modifying viruses to give any consideration to a response should an accident happen. Heck they couldn’t even argue for preparation as that would have suggested the admit they were doing something they shouldn’t have been doing.

          • Nate says:

            ” suppressed information on vaccine complications”

            Im not for that.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  6. Stephen P Anderson says:

    Wiltard,

    Maybe you should think a little more about your colloquialisms.

    Signed,

    Trog

    • Willard says:

      Troglodyte,

      I welcome all concerns, including from fascists.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        Wiltard,

        It seems this has been a difficult lesson for you to comprehend but the fascists are on your side. Mussolini was a leftist. Fascists use the force of government against their enemies like Biden is using the DOJ against Trump. Does that help?

        • Willard says:

          > Wiltard

          What were you saying again about colloquialisms, Troglodyte?

          Since you mention Dirty Donald:

          The historic federal criminal case against [Dirty Donald] has been assigned to a judge he appointed.

          https://apnews.com/article/who-is-aileen-cannon-trump-judge-52964c2098546f8ade989b1555e44aae

          • Swenson says:

            Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

            You are obviously losing it.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            Here is what losing it looks like –

            Mik.e Flynn says:
            September 14, 2019 at 5:58 PM

            Roy,

            This was supposed to go elsewhere. I assume you have banned me, but I had already typed it up.

            […]

            No offence intended – your blog, your rules. I thought a bit of humour might help.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Historic federal case isn’t a good thing Wiltard. Garland and his psychopath Smith are trying to turn this country into a banana republic. They know the case has no merit and when it collapses they will blame the Trump-appointed judge and claim corruption. Typical leftist playbook.

          • Nate says:

            ” into a banana republic.”

            OTOH, some people around here believe that certain people, like monarchs, dictators, and selected ex-Presidents are immune from prosecution. Ie some people are above the law.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Nate,

            Not immune from all prosecution. For instance, if a President murdered someone or robbed a bank you would argue that he was not acting within his Presidential role. However, giving a speech at a rally, instructing the protestors to peacefully demonstrate, and offering National Guard security before the event would not qualify as insurrection nor has he been charged with such. He does have immunity from being prosecuted for interfering with Congressional business. However, you are not looking at the right case and the one that has stopped Jack Smith dead in his tracks.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate only wants immunity from prosecution for his guys.

          • Willard says:

            Gill projects Troglodyte’s claim into Nate’s mind.

          • Nate says:

            Stephen it cannot be part of his Presidential duties to send fake Elector ballots to Washington, to demand State election officials ‘find’ enough additional votes for him to overtake Biden, to demand that his Attorney General ‘find’ election fraud to help him win, to demand that his VP violate the Constitution by not validating legitimate Electors put forward by State Legislatures, to help him win.

            His Senatorial party leader argued in 2021 that

            “There’s no question none that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day,” McConnell said. “The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president. And having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on Planet Earth.”

            “President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office,”

            “”We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation,” he continued. “And former presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one.”

            https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/mitch-mcconnell/2021/02/13/mcconnell-trump-liable-court-jan-6-riot-violence/4477326001/

            But you seem to thing he IS immune from being accountable in the criminal justice system.

          • Nate says:

            DId Trump offer the assistance of the National Guard before or during Jan 6?

            https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-order-national-guard-156055113284

            NO

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:
            ” ”The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president. And having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on Planet Earth.” ”

            What people believe justifies their actions has nothing to do with Trump allegedly committing a crime Nate.

            Imagine all the democrats we could throw in prison for burning buildings in the name of causes championed by them if that were the case.

            Sorry Charlie, your double standard theory of have and have nots isn’t welcome in this nation.

          • Willard says:

            Gill doubles the number of feet he puts in his mouth:

            [Dodging Donald] can be convicted in an impeachment trial for his role in inciting the Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6 even though he is no longer in office, a bipartisan group of constitutional law scholars wrote in a letter Thursday.

            We differ from one another in our politics, and we also differ from one another on issues of constitutional interpretation, wrote the signatories, which include the co-founder and other members of the conservative Federalist Society legal group. “But despite our differences, our carefully considered views of the law lead all of us to agree that the Constitution permits the impeachment, conviction, and disqualification of former officers, including presidents.”

            More than 150 legal scholars signed on to the letter, which was obtained by POLITICO. They include Steven Calabresi, the co-founder of the Federalist Society; Charles Fried, who served as solicitor general under Ronald Reagan and is now an adviser to the Harvard chapter of the Federalist Society; Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University and adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute; and Brian Kalt, a law professor at Michigan State University and leading scholar on the specific question of whether former officials can be impeached.

            https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/21/legal-scholars-federalist-society-trump-convict-461089

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Willard I wasn’t referring to whether he was immune from trial. I am merely stating that in the public domain there is no probable cause to bring him to trial. There is zero evidence he incited people to riot. There is no way that contesting the results of an election non-violently rises to the point of advocating for violence.

          • Willard says:

            Gill denies that the FedSoc itself considers Debilitating Donald unfit to hold office:

            Two conservative law professors argue that [Debilitating Donald] is ineligible to serve as president again due to a section of the Constitution that prohibits anyone who has engaged in insurrection from holding office.

            William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas explain their conclusion in an article set to be published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

            https://news.yahoo.com/trump-disqualified-holding-office-conservative-121920656.html

            ROFL!

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Willard, Merritt Garland is a member of this conservative organization. . .and he just sucked you in.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            I mean Merrick Garland. I have a friend named Merritt

          • Willard says:

            Gill just can’t accept when he’s being beaten cleanly.

        • Bindidon says:

          Anderson

          ” Mussolini was a leftist. ”

          You wrote that disgusting nonsense about Pinochet too.

          You are one of the stûpidest and most ignorant idîots to post on this blog.

          And it is obvious that you have never experienced any kind of fascism in your entire life.

          Slowly but surely I’m starting to hope that one day you’ll suddenly find yourself in the wrong place at the wrong moment, be thrown into a dirty, wet, rat-infested dungeon by the local ‘police’, and then experience firsthand for at least ten years how REAL fascists behave.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Blinny Goebbels,

            You are one ignorant dude. So you’re saying Fasci which means a bundle of sticks denoting a collective is not socialistic terminology? And you contend that Mussolini, who was an avowed Marxist, completely flipped from the far left side of the political spectrum to the far right? You will need to explain how that happened. And, you’ll need to explain how Pinochet who was a dictator and autocrat and government control of everything somehow flipped to the right side of the spectrum? Please explain how all this happened.

          • Willard says:

            Troglodyte imagines that revisionist history spouted in favorite alt-light echo chambers have currency elsewhere:

            In the 1920s, Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile described their ideology as right-wing in the political essay The Doctrine of Fascism, stating: “We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ‘right,’ a fascist century.”

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

          • Nate says:

            Historically ‘Right Wing’ meant those who favored central authority, order, traditional values, militarism, and extreme nationalism.

            Historically it came from France, right wing and meant the side of the legislature who were in favor of the Monarchy, and the left wing was the side in favor of reform or overturning central authority, ie Monarchy.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Nate,

            Here is the Fascist Manifesto:

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

            Does it remind you of anything and is it right or left?

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Nate,

            Also, monarchies are on the left.

            The right is small and limited government. The United States started on the right as a Constitutional Republic but we are not there anymore. We didn’t maintain that for very long.

          • Willard says:

            > Also, monarchies are on the left.

            LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!

          • Nate says:

            Sorry Stephen, historically Right Wing meant those who favored central authority, order, traditional values, militarism, and extreme nationalism.

            All of those values are aligned with monarchy.

            Thus it is a historical fact that monarchists were the Right Wing of the legislature.

          • Nate says:

            “Here is the Fascist Manifesto:”

            Doesnt look at all like what Nazi Fascism ended up being in the 1930s.

            Shows how these movements evolve.

            The question is what elements of Nazi Fascism as it was practiced, overlaps with today’s political Right and Left?

            The Right today is opposed to immigration, legal or otherwise, especially of brown people. They are scapegoating immigrants and using them to gin up fear.

            Would the Nazi’s align with that? Duh!

            The Right today is opposed to deviants from heteronormative behavior, trans people, LGBT people, anyone too weird.

            Were the Nazi’s aligned with that? Duh!

            Today’s Far Right is all about White Christian Nationalism. About keeping the blood line pure.

            Were the Nazi’s aligned with that? Duh!

            Is Trump aligned with this? Well his recent remarks about immigrants “poisoning the blood” of America, suggests he is.

          • Nate says:

            Other elements of Fascism:

            The Strongman. The idea that there is only one man who is capable of solving things. And it is ok if he breaks the rules to do so.

            All others fear him, and should bend to his will. Even corporations. If they do, they will be given favors. If they don’t the government will use all its powers to suppress them.

            Does that align with todays MAGA Republican party? Duh!

            See also Ron DeSantis.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:
            Sorry Stephen, historically Right Wing meant those who favored central authority, order, traditional values, militarism, and extreme nationalism.
            ——————————
            thats just a communist myth where they saw everybody else as being right of them while denying nationalism. but their mission was using their nation to create one nation in the world using central authority, order, and militarism, including imprisonment or execution for the crime of preaching the traditional values of anything else at all. how is this any different than a Caliphate?

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Nate,

            Sorry man, your brain is so polluted with leftist dogma that you can’t think correctly about anything. You are a propagandist, nothing more.

          • Willard says:

            Troglodyte invents a world in which monarchies are left wing, and then has the bravado to suggest that he’s not the brainwashed Murican wingnut.

            ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Nate says:

            “thats just a communist myth”

            Evidence? Source?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            dictatorship of the proletariat Nate.

            i asked you the difference between this and the caliphate and so far you haven’t found an answer you want to share.

          • Neal says:

            The Left today is opposed to legal immigration, especially of white people. They are scapegoating Caucasians and using them to gin up fear.

          • Nate says:

            “The Left today is opposed to legal immigration”

            No they aren’t. Who says so?

          • Nate says:

            We all can agree that communism was bad.

            But whats being denied is that right wing dictators were also bad.

          • Willard says:

            It’s not like humanity had to deal with an unserious coup before:

            [A]s medieval historians used to thinking about long-term change, we know how time tends to blur subtle differences. [Dubious Donald] may feel like an aberration now, but give it a few decades or centuries and hell blend right in with Nixon (Watergate), Reagan (Iran-Contra), and George W. Bush (torture) as Republicans whose regimes broke the law and got away with it. Elite impunity, in fact, is a norm of our era, and a heavy factor in why some of the same bad actors arise again and again. If anything, its for that, not the specifics of the moment, that historyor rather historianswill likely judge us.

            But it’s not too late. The country could form commissions to investigate and make public the abuses done in our names by the [Dubious Donald’s] administration. We could, for once, hold the elites responsible for their misconduct. Now that would be something that history might judge, and judge favorably.

            https://www.thedailybeast.com/history-will-judge-trump-but-weve-got-to-do-it-first

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            The label of a Dictator as right wing when they aren’t and never have been right wing came after WWII. Nazis as Right wing was a term developed by academics after the war to label Hitler and Mussolini when the concentration camps were discovered. In the 1930’s these same academics as well as FDR and members of the elite were in love with the Nazis. The Nazis took their Nuremberg Laws after Democrat Jim Crow laws. The Democrats, Marxists, Nazis and Fascists are all of the same ilk-the left.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Nate,

            So how is it that Hitler was right wing when he believed in enslavement? That’s leftist ideology. He believed in using armed militant thugs like the SS and SA to enforce his ideology like the Democrat Party used the KKK? Explain.

          • Wiillard says:

            And so Troglodyte ends up where he always does: the right wing nut theory that Hitler was a leftie. As if he did not ask himself why this kind of crap only gets promoted by the Newscorp spheres of influence:

            Under Hitler, the party looked squarely to the middle classes and farmers rather than the working class for a political base. Hitler realigned it to ensure that it was an anti-socialist, anti-liberal, authoritarian, pro-business party – particularly after the failed Beerhall Putsch of 1923. The “socialism” in the name National Socialism was a strategically chosen misnomer designed to attract working class votes where possible, but they refused to take the bait. The vast majority voted for the Communist or Social Democratic parties.

            The minority anti-capitalist strand of Nazism (Strasserism) on which van Onselen fastens was eliminated well before 1934, when Gregor Strasser and the Storm Trooper (SA) leader Ernst Roehm were murdered with over eighty others in the “Night of the Long Knives.” In fact, Strasserism had already been defeated at the Bamberg Conference of 1926 when the Nazis were polling under 3% of the vote. Here, Hitler brought the dissidents back into line, denouncing them as “communists” and ruling out land expropriations and grassroots decision-making. He heightened the party’s alliance with businesses small and large, and insisted on the absolute centralisation of decision-making – the “Fuehrer (leader) Principle.”

            https://www.abc.net.au/religion/nazism-socialism-and-the-falsification-of-history/10214302

            Troglodyte just acts like the other entitled contrarians of this blog: say stuff, when rebuffed ask for evidence, then ignore the evidence and repeat the same stuff. Old white guys, losing their hegemonic edge over the world, turning their resentment into adolescent contrarianism, if not into hatred of the Other.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Most of the Nazis were right wing came from the academic elites after WWII. The socialists did not want to be associated with Hitler and the Holocaust. From Medium.com:

            Fredrich Hayek, a major social theorist and political philosopher describes Nazism as a genuine socialist movement and thus left wing by modern American standards. Indeed, the Austrian-born Hayek wrote the book from his essay Nazi-Socialism that countered prevailing opinion at the London School of Economics where he taught. British elites regarded Nazism as a virulent capitalist reaction against enlightened socialism a view that persists today which explains current and historical academic bias on this subject.

            Hayek proved point by point why the Nazis were socialists.

          • Willard says:

            And so Troglodyte ends up where he always does, with the rightwing nut meme that Hitler was in fact a leftie, a meme that only has currency in the Newscorp sphere of influence:

            Under Hitler, the party looked squarely to the middle classes and farmers rather than the working class for a political base. Hitler realigned it to ensure that it was an anti-socialist, anti-liberal, authoritarian, pro-business party – particularly after the failed Beerhall Putsch of 1923. The “socialism” in the name National Socialism was a strategically chosen misnomer designed to attract working class votes where possible, but they refused to take the bait. The vast majority voted for the Communist or Social Democratic parties.

            https://www.abc.net.au/religion/nazism-socialism-and-the-falsification-of-history/10214302

            Another old white guy who looks with resentment at the world that escapes the hegemony of old white guys and turns into an adolescent contrarian. This wouldn’t be so bad if it did not power the rise of GOP fascism.

          • Nate says:

            Bill can’t find any source that aint a dealer in Right-Wing Propaganda.

          • Nate says:

            “So how is it that Hitler was right wing when he believed in enslavement? Thats leftist ideology. ”

            Stephen, you cannot simply pretend that the views of the political parties have not evolved over time.

            To call the pro-slavery Democratic party of the 1850s progressive, or leftist is absolutely NUTS!

            They would be considered quite conservative by our standards.

            Those traits did not take root in the Democratic party until 1912 and the 1930s with Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.

            Conversely, the Republican party of Teddy Roosevelt was considered very progressive in 1905.

            But to call the Reagan Republican party of the 1980s progressive would be absolutely NUTS!

          • Nate says:

            “In the 1930s these same academics as well as FDR and members of the elite were in love with the Nazis. The Nazis took their Nuremberg Laws after Democrat Jim Crow laws. The Democrats, Marxists, Nazis and Fascists are all of the same ilk-the left.”

            Ignorant black and white thinking, Stephen.

            The political parties were never a group of people that all think alike. The Progressive Wing of the D party, which included Roosevelt from New York, pushed for Civil Rights and of course the New Deal, and were strongly opposed to Fascism.

            Thus we got into WWII.

            The southern wing of the D party from your area were very conservative, particularly in maintaining the Southern tradition of suppressing the black folks.

          • Nate says:

            FYI in the 1930s, wit Will Rogers famously said, “Im not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            well one could effectively argue that 1930s Germany was the first major Technocracy.

            https://www.nature.com/articles/35038223

            and of course there also was tremendous support of the physics community in building what was at the time the world’s most powerful war machine. however the anthropology department got rid of some of the best physicists.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            you are only deceiving yourself nate, as usual. how many states had race covenants, GI Bill home loans, private lending practices, urban renewal projects, and zoning regulations that discriminated against blacks? virtually all if not all.

          • Willard says:

            Compare and contrast:

            [ERNST FISHER] It is important that our race policies, including the Jewish question, develop an objective scientific background that is broadly accepted.

            [STEVE BANNON] Let them call you racist, let them call you xenophobes, let them call you nativists. Wear it as a badge of honour.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            You absolutely should wear it as a badge of honor because you know when they go down that avenue you have won the real argument hands down.

          • Willard says:

            Gill is about to tell us that he was very preoccupied when Raygun appointed Ralph Scott. Perhaps he will resuscitate the IQ and solar radiation studies? After all, he is from Cali.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  7. Entropic man says:

    Cad

    The underlying purpose of a climate model ensemble is to give policy makers information.

    How much warming should we expect if we follow different emission scenarios?

    Some models are set up with high emission scenarios, high forcing and forecast high temperatures; some are set up with low emissions, low forcing and forecast lower temperatures.

    The test of skill for CMIP6 is this.

    Does a model whose preset forcing matches observation accurately forecast observed temperatures?

    • Swenson says:

      EM,

      “How much warming should we expect if we follow different emission scenarios?”

      About as much as results from the heat involved in producing those “emmisions”.

      Of course, heat is just another emission, isn’t it? A real one – radiation actually is emitted during the creation of things like CO2.

      Arrhenius was similarly confused, but at least he realised that additional heat would lead to a more equable climate and so on.

      What’s your main worry? Boiling seas? I think not, but you can worry about anything you like.

      Enjoy it.

    • CAD says:

      Entropic Man,

      All models in the headpost are prescribed with the same set of forcing for intercomparison under CMIP. All have the same presets.

      • CAD says:

        For example, some CMIP modeling groups blame components of the prescribed forcing for the apparent issues in their coupled ocean-atmosphere products. Prescribed radiative forcing for CMIP are based on the products of radiative forcing model efforts. These include the force to be applied based on trace gas emission, biomass burning, aerosol, and so on.

      • CAD says:

        I think because the magnitude of these Forces cannot be directly observed they somehow avoid scrutiny altogether, except from the CMIP and AMIP gang.

      • Willard says:

        > All have the same presets.

        Not really.

        • CAD says:

          The same forcing datasets are used by all modeling groups prescribed in the input4mips.

          • Willard says:

            > The same forcing datasets

            Again, no, and no, I won’t do your homework.

          • CAD says:

            well model intercomparison of climate response is absolute nonsense if that is the case.

          • Willard says:

            Which is Gavin’s point.

          • CAD says:

            that is not Schmidt’s point. He is filtering based on the observable transient climate response to the prescribed forcings.

          • CAD says:

            Seeing that the filtered models, selected in sufficient quantity to maintain statistical power, still do tend to show hot bias in the same ways in the same places, is a good indicator the bias is traceable to the prescribed forcings themselves. All models are prescribed to be biased by their inputs.

          • Willard says:

            Yes, it is indeed Gavin’s point. And if you thought about it for one New York minute, you’d realize that it’s so incontrovertible that it’s also Roy’s. If what you suggest as being necessary was possible, we wouldn’t even need to compare models to observations.

          • CAD says:

            I don’t understand what you mean. The prescribed positive and negative forcings, be it trace gas, sulfur aerosol, smoke, landuse, etc, are distributed in space and time in the input4mips. These factors, which are not very well known, are prescribed to all models for intercomparison of the climate response. Assuming for a moment the models are generally correct, the bias is traceable to the prescribed forcing inputs.

          • Willard says:

            You don’t understand what I mean because you think you’re the first engineer who thinks he can dismiss a whole field without even having looked at it, shooting at it with an half-baked wordology from the comfort of the virtual clouds.

          • CAD says:

            Model physics could be spot on. That is the point. Those building the physical models do not control directly what forcing inputs are to be prescribed for the MIPs. The physical models are telling us the prescribed forcing inputs could be wrong or missing something.

          • Willard says:

            And?

            You might as well tell where you are coming from and admit that you never looked under the hood.

          • CAD says:

            I am not seeking a confrontation. I think it is understood that the hotter models simulate many processes better on shorter weather type scales than the colder models and probably have better physics with fewer compensating errors. When the prescribed forcings are applied and the entire ensemble is biased hot suggests the primary issue is the forcing, not the models themselves.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            exactly! they cling to old assumptions constructed on top of a climate framework of disregarding historic climate change as an error in observations and completely disregarded the role of the ocean in climate.

            now since warming across the board has failed to materialize they have looked to the ocean for excuses.

            however, the ocean maintains a mean temperature below the thermocline 14c below the mean energy input of its surroundings. a number so large that current assumptions of 400,000 years of milankovich climate cycles can’t come near to explain.

            one cannot project future ocean contribution to surface warming until science can explain why 2/3rds of the ocean is 14 to 15c colder than its surroundings

          • Willard says:

            > When the prescribed forcings are applied and the entire ensemble is biased hot suggests the primary issue is the forcing, not the models themselves.

            That does not follow, for natural variability makes things hard to guesstimate. Also, the guesstimate itself (i.e. the comparison) may introduce a bias. So objectively speaking you only got one third of the answer you’re looking for.

            Also, look at what Roy just did. He got his 59% by looking at summer temps. When he picks winter temps, he get 42%. So the overshoot isn’t even 1%. And that’s for regional observations, which are supposed to be a hard to simulate.

            A good heuristic should be this – when Gill rubberstamps an idea, chances are it’ll be turned into crap. This will be confirmed if he uses it as bait in just about every comment he writes over the next week. As if he was learning a foreign language or something.

          • CAD says:

            In my interpretation, by any objective measure, the ensemble of models is biased hot when the prescribed with the smorgasbord of forcing. I’m not seeking any particular answer, but it’s logical that if it’s the case, and that model physics is claimed to be pretty good overall, it can’t be ruled out that it’s the forcing prescription causing the issue.

            I have come to appreciate that some of the models which the hottest response to the forcing prescription have some better developed physics. This was observed overall by the jump in the CMIP6 ensemble overall, compared to previous generations. The CMIP6 models overall have more informed constraints on internal parameters and mechanisms, yet have an overall increased bias when fed the smorgasbord.

          • Willard says:

            You’re just saying stuff, CAD.

            Be well.

          • CAD says:

            ? it is no surprise to see the preference for earlier MIPs and how great they match, such as CMIP3, as they have a higher freedom in physical nonsense compared to those of today.

            That increasingly advanced models show increasing bias under forcing prescription is one of the key lessons to be derived from the models.

  8. Nate says:

    At least some models show agreement. Can you show the same for Europe?

  9. David Ramsay says:

    I find it interesting the attempt to reconcile observation with a complex model.

    As a Reservoir Engineer I have built, run and audited many oil and gas reservoirs using finite difference models. The models are populated with a geological, petrophysics like am deathly fluids data – the static model. Simulation runs then predict the reservoir performance, volumes, pressures, water cut etc. Invariably they models do not match the observation so we fiddle around to get a “match”. Simple variables like porosity multipliers, aquifer expansion, etc are used to feel the trend.

    It is very difficult to model an oil reservoir. Modelling the atmosphere and oceans must be several orders of magnitude more complex. Over my career I learned to be cautious to accept the initial modelling it was only a guide and the larger and more complex the system being modelled the less accurate the guide. One should note the time, money and effort employed in such modelling including g the use of supercomputers.

    It seems there is blind trust in models but I can say with certainty they will be wrong and at best a guide.

    Observation by far is an order of magnitude more reliable than models. Models are only a guide.

    Spend more effort getting inputs correct like reliable temperatures rather than false data (UHI issues) and correct and reliable observations. This is why I appreciate the efforts of Dr Spencer, his approach is solid, believable, observable – no black box, no agenda or bias.

    • Arkady Ivanovich says:

      “Observation by far is an order of magnitude more reliable than models. Models are only a guide.”

      If we had observations of the future, we obviously would trust them more than models, but unfortunately, observations of the future are not available at this time.

      • Swenson says:

        A,

        Yes, the future is unknowable. The effect of any perturbation at all to a chaotic system is completely unpredictable, and the IPPC acknowledges this by stating it is not possible to predict future climate states.

        Why would you assume that more CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to any particular outcome – for better or for worse? Do you believe you can peer into the future?

        I don’t believe you can, but I will listen to your reasons if you believe you can foresee the future.

        • barry says:

          “Yes, the future is unknowable. The effect of any perturbation at all to a chaotic system is completely unpredictable”

          So it’s 50/50 that you’ll get sick if you swallow a gram of arsenic? The human body is a very chaotic system indeed.

          Weather is chaotic, climate isn’t. So when the IPCC says “future climate states,” they mean the state of the climate at any given time including the specific weather patterns. Which they can’t and don’t pretend to predict.

          But what do they forecast? That’s the next sentence in that quote you keep referring to. No point repeating it, as you always forget it.

    • Nate says:

      “Modelling the atmosphere and oceans must be several orders of magnitude more complex. Over my career I learned to be cautious to accept the initial modelling it was only a guide”

      Good points.

      Another useful comparison is hurricane forecasting. The models decades ago were primitive. The 48 h track predictions could be off by the entire length of Florida.

      But they were all we had, and at least they gave some degree of useful warning to people in the general vicinity of landfall, that we previously lacked.

      Now decades later, using the same basic physical principles, the models we have today have improved dramatically in their accuracy and can be largely be trusted to guide government actions.

      https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/verification/figs/ALtkerrtrd_noTD_sm.jpg

      Still, different models produce a spaghetti of tracks. Some models do better than others.

      My point is the original models did not need to be tossed in the bin. They used the right physical principles. They just needed to be improved, tweaked, constrained by better observations from planes and satellites, and of course more powerful computers.

      IMO, todays climate models are useful and don’t need to be tossed in the bin. They are using the right physical principles, but need to be improved, tweaked, constrained by better observations, and higher resolution computing.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        nate desperatly clutches for the success of climate models out of the success of weather models. dr curry who is part of that success disagrees and has been calling for years that policy prescriptions actually follow the route that observations have taken hurricane models and get off the political bandwagon.

        • Willard says:

          Gill idolizes observations right until they tell something that would expose his crankery or threaten his Way of Life, in which case he has deep concerns about what observations tell him!

          • Bill Hunter says:

            willard dreams up a fresh lie to dispute a fact.

          • Willard says:

            Gill desperately tries to deny what he said over the last few days.

          • Swenson says:

            Willard,

            You wrote “By contrast, the average surface temperature of the Earth is 59F (15C). This heating effect is called the greenhouse effect”

            When the average surface temperature was above the melting point of rock (when the surface was molten), was that also called the greenhouse effect?

            I would have just called it very hot. Wouldn’t you?

            What happened to your description of the greenhouse effect as “Not cooling, slower cooling.”?

            The planet certainly seems to have cooled over the past four and a half billion years – no heating effect there! Maybe you are confusing yourself?

            Carry on.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            You seem to have lost your footing.

            What are you braying about?

          • Swenson says:

            Willard,

            You wrote “By contrast, the average surface temperature of the Earth is 59F (15C). This heating effect is called the greenhouse effect.”

            When the average surface temperature was above the melting point of rock (when the surface was molten), was that also called the greenhouse effect?

            I would have just called it very hot. Wouldnt you?

            What happened to your description of the greenhouse effect as “Not cooling, slower cooling.”?

            The planet certainly seems to have cooled over the past four and a half billion years no heating effect there! Maybe you are confusing yourself?

            Carry on.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            Search for “By contrast, the average surface temperature” on this page.

            Report.

      • Tim S says:

        Hurricane modeling works well where the weather system are easiest to track. Forecasting the intensity is much more difficult.

      • Swenson says:

        Nate,

        You wrote –

        “They are using the right physical principles, but need to be improved, tweaked, constrained by better observations, and higher resolution computing.”

        Do any of them show the gradual cooling of the planet over four and a half billion years?

        Unless they agree with fact, they are useless. How hard can it be to accept reality?

        • Nate says:

          “Do any of them show the gradual cooling of the planet over four and a half billion years?”

          Stoopid question, they are modeling the next few decades, not the last 4.5 By.

          • RLH says:

            “they are modeling the next few decades”

            Badly when compared to reality it seems.

          • Willard says:

            If only reality could model reality.

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            Are you really gullible enough to believe someone who can’t explain the past, but tells you they can look into the future?

            Ask a 12 year old child for a prediction. Just as skilful, and a whole lot cheaper!

            You can’t even describe the GHE, can you? Is it supposed to heat the planet with some magic of recent origin?

            Don’t be embarrassed – feel free to make a complete fo‌ol of yourself.

          • RLH says:

            If only we could model reality.

          • Nate says:

            “Nate,

            Are you really gullible enough to believe someone who cant explain the past, but tells you they can look into the future?”

            Swenson doubles down on his very stoopid questions. Nobody knows why.

            You might as well ask why the weather predictions for this week can’t explain the ice-sheets we had here 20,000 years ago!

            Gee, you are really quite clueless.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate mixes apples and oranges.

            The comparison would be a weather forecaster who can’t tell you what the weather was earlier today. Gee that would be Nate talking about climate!

          • Willard says:

            Gill ties his shoelaces together and expects people not to laugh. He’s trying to suggest that we can’t say what throwing two dice together will be in the long run.

            LOL!

          • Nate says:

            “The comparison”

            Mine was apt.

            Yours is not, Bill.

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            You wrote –

            “You might as well ask why the weather predictions for this week cant explain the ice-sheets we had here 20,000 years ago!”

            Are you really gullible enough to believe weather predictions for this week?

            You certainly can’t describe the GHE, or its role in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling! Nobody can – nor can anybody predict next week’s weather (any better than I, at least).

            Keep believing fairy tales if you wish.

          • Nate says:

            “Are you really gullible enough to believe weather predictions for this week?”

            Why do you keep saying anti-science, anti-reality stuff?

            You just look stoopider.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  10. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The beginning of rain and snowfall in California.
    https://i.ibb.co/0jCQ1NC/Zrzut-ekranu-2024-02-04-140735.png

  11. Denis Gagnon says:

    Can anyone confirm whether the model datasets in the link below are included among those listed by Dr Spencer? I doubt they are.
    https://solarisheppa.geomar.de/cmip6

  12. Rob Mitchell says:

    I can understand the scientific discussions back and forth about how much warming is occurring in the atmosphere due to increasing CO2 concentration. Some scientists think CO2 acts like a heat trap, and will eventually lead to a runaway warming earth in the not so distant future. Others think that increasing CO2 is a minor perturbation, and is easily dwarfed by the much larger factors involved with climate.

    I have strong doubts about those who believe that increasing CO2 will lead to a climate catastrophe. I used to forecast weather, ocean waves and sea ice conditions with an ice analyst off the North Slope of Alaska from 2007 through 2015. I’ll never forget the hysteria generated from the 2007 melt season. The Beaufort Sea had become ice free, and this was followed by predictions by some high level government scientists that the Arctic would experience an ice-free summer within a decade. I asked the analyst what he thought about the ice melting away because I thought it was absurd. The analyst shook his head and told me “not in our lifetimes.”

    We were operational meteorologists, not “high level” research scientists. But we knew these predictions for an ice-free Arctic were nonsense. And as it turned out, we were right with our assessment.

    Making inaccurate climate forecasts are really not that big of a deal to me. I know what it is like to make inaccurate weather forecasts. But here is the problem I have with these so-called high level climate experts. They are actually pushing government policies that will make life extremely difficult for common ordinary people.

    Are there any scientists here on Dr. Spencer’s site who actually believe that removing gas stoves and forcing everybody to drive EVs will actually “help” the climate in some way? It is astonishing to me how many in academia actually believe this bullcrap. Dr. Lindzen said it best when he stated “common people have sense, academics don’t.”

  13. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Stronger precipitation in Southern California today.
    https://i.ibb.co/1MDQ9mY/Zrzut-ekranu-2024-02-05-083618.png

  14. A planet reflects the incident solar SW EM energy not only diffuselly, but also specularly. The specular reflection was neglected in planet

    Energy in = Energy out

    radiative balance equation, and thus the specularly reflected SW EM energy was mistakenly considered as part of the “Energy in”.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Not to forget:

      Perihelion – Aphelion = 7% more solar irradiation intensity at closer to sun perihelion, than at Aphelion.

      But at Perihelion a stronger sun falls on oceanic waters and gets accumulated year after year, and causes the currently observed global warming.

      it is not a yearly cycle accumulation process, but a multimillennial one.
      12 thousands years ago, the Perihelion was occured at Northern Hemisphere’s summer time. The 7% stronger sun fell on the land and was accumulated much less.

      And that is why we experience a global warming trend now!

      https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Nate says:

      “But at Perihelion a stronger sun falls on oceanic waters and gets accumulated year after year, and causes the currently observed global warming.”

      Interesting but I dont see how that would be different from previous centuries.

      • Thank you, Nate, for your response.

        “Interesting but I dont see how that would be different from previous centuries.”

        What you asking is the why it is getting hotter so fast now.

        Well, it is an impression we have as living creatures. We have our biology producing heat. When it is warm enough it becomes difficult for us to cool our bodies, so we start sweating.
        This time of the year ( when we sweat ) is in mid July and August.

        We do not sweat in March, not in April, not in May, not even in June – all this months there is a warming accumulation happening on the Northern Hemisphere!

        Well, NATURE has its own mechanism it is a gradual reducing the amount of ice and getting the oceanic depths a little warmer

        When there is not much ice left, the temperatures rise faster.

        Thank you again.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Nate says:

        So you have no answer.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate says:

        ”Interesting but I dont see how that would be different from previous centuries.”

        Why would you think it would be unchanged for centuries?

      • Nate says:

        Because it is well known to take 13,000 years for the extra heating to change hemispheres.

        • Bill Hunter says:

          why must it change hemispheres when orbital eccentricity is changing all the time?

          • Willard says:

            Bill Gates in action, presumably.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Willard says:

            Bill Gates in action, presumably.

            —————————

            come on willard. slow on the uptake? the bill gates approach is to feed workers the SAME garbage as they produce on a daily basis.

            this since they have to eat like spoiled leftovers the idea is to get them to be more diligent.

            since nobody is talking about orbital variation we should understand that with positive feedbacks we are now in the warmest part of the 20 year cycle.

            and warming predicted by mean co2 model warming is lollygagging along slower than both the predicted rate and the observed rate of warming a century ago bringing into question of what the models are missing. somebody needs to start thinking outside the box.

          • Willard says:

            Gill really has no idea what Gates was doing or why.

            At least he concedes that he likes to boss people around.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            right Willard. I am sure you are a lot smarter and wealthier than Bill Gates. We should all take business advice from you instead, right?

          • Willard says:

            Gill does not always appreciate father figures, but when he does they have lots of money. Next he is gonna tell us that Elon is his Human Resources guru. If only he could had as much money as either of them. He could have bossed people around.

            None of that cautions his interrogation techniques.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            who bosses you around Willard?

          • Willard says:

            Back in my days, good cop/bad cop acts had two cops.

            Perhaps Gill thinks he’s Columbo? LOL!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  15. Swenson says:

    “Separately, Trenberth, also a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC report chapters admitted in a 2007 “Predictions of Climate” blog appearing in the science journal Nature.com: “None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state.””

    Oh dear!

      • Swenson says:

        Separately, Trenberth, also a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC report chapters admitted in a 2007 “Predictions of Climate” blog appearing in the science journal Nature.com: “None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state.””

        Oh dear!

        If you think it’s worth saying, it’s worth saying twice.

        • Willard says:

          “Separately”

          What are your authors braying about, Mike?

          • Swenson says:

            “Separately, Trenberth, also a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC report chapters admitted in a 2007 “Predictions of Climate” blog appearing in the science journal Nature.com: “None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state.””

            Oh dear!

            If you think its worth saying, its worth saying thrice.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            You still haven’t told us that you got this from Newsmax, and that the guy from Newsmax “forgot” to cite the Heartland Institute nut job.

          • Swenson says:

            “Separately, Trenberth, also a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC report chapters admitted in a 2007 “Predictions of Climate” blog appearing in the science journal Nature.com: “None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state.””

            Oh dear!

            If you think its worth saying, its worth saying four times.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            Larry Bell’s talking point is getting old:

            https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/09/climate-forecasting-models-arent-pretty-and-they-arent-smart/

            He isn’t pretty and isn’t really smart either.

          • Swenson says:

            “Separately, Trenberth, also a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC report chapters admitted in a 2007 “Predictions of Climate” blog appearing in the science journal Nature.com: None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state.””

            Oh dear!

            If you think its worth saying, its worth saying five times.

            You don’t seem to be disagreeing with anything, so that’s good.

            Keep it up.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            Why don’t you cite the commentary from nature dot com?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Doxer, please stop trolling.

  16. Bindidon says:

    Robertson’s boring, endless failure to learn what an anomaly actually is:

    ” According to NOAA, or anyone else with a smattering of intelligence, an anomaly is simply a departure from a calculated global average over a period like 30 years.

    Big-mouth Binny wants to convolute that simple meaning so he can live in a theoretical world of his own and get to sound important. ”

    *
    Ignoramus Robertson himself lacks any ‘smattering of intelligence’, as he still did not manage to understand the fundamental difference between simple, global departures and anomalies removing the annual cycle.

    *
    For the umpteenth time, I explain the difference, by using UAH’s monthly time series in absolute and anomaly form. The same procedure is used for any time series with cyclic character, e.g. daily sea ice extent data using a 366 day baseline.

    *
    Let’s look at a chart superposing, for UAH 6.0 LT, simple departures and anomalies:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zMrnVDsGrI63WWKdlKmt2ez_RWvNpyag/view

    *

    We see the difference between

    (1) simple, global departures (the green line in the graph above), obtained by

    (1.1) computing a single value baseline, i.e. the mean of all monthly absolute values within the reference period,

    (1.2) subtracting this single value baseline from all monthly absolute values;

    and

    (2) anomalies (the blue line), obtained by

    (2.1) computing a 12 month baseline, i.e. the means, for each month of the year, of the absolute values of that month within the reference period,

    (2.2) subtracting, from each monthly absolute value, the mean of the corresponding month in the 12 month baseline.

    *
    Procedure (1) simply displaces all monthly absolute values by the mean of all months within the reference period.

    The single value baseline for UAH 6.0 LT and the period 1991-2020:

    264.09 (K)

    After that, the resulting green line of course is the same ‘spaghetti graph’ [(c) Hogle] as before.

    *
    Procedure (2) however performs what Roy Spencer names ‘removing the annual cycle’, what of course results in the blue line being exactly the same as in the graph he shows us each month.

    The 12 month baseline for UAH 6.0 LT and the period 1991-2020:

    Jan: 263.180 (K)
    Feb: 263.269
    Mar: 263.428
    Apr: 263.843
    Mai: 264.449
    Jun: 265.099
    Jul: 265.419
    Aug: 265.234
    Sep: 264.638
    Oct: 263.946
    Nov: 263.407
    Dec: 263.191

    *
    Robertson of course would never and never ask Roy Spencer what he means about all this.

    *
    Armchair quarterback Hogle still does his very best to discredit and denigrate what I do – exactly as ignoramus Robertson does all the time.

    But I hope that unlike Robertson, Hogle at least understands the difference between NOAA’s trivial, insufficient explanation for anomalies and how everybody in the world (NOAA’s engineers included) computes them.

    And I hope that he understands also that what he calls ‘spaghetti graph’ actually is nothing else than a time series containing the annual cycle, jumping yearly between summer maxima and winter minima.

    OMG…

    • Swenson says:

      Binny,

      There is a minor (major?) problem with anomalies.

      They are not worth a bumper for anything useful, if based on any sort of “calculated average”.

      The atmosphere is chaotic in nature, which means it iterates about an ever changing “strange attractor”. What this means in practice (and theory) that the approximate present does not determine the approximate future, so projecting the past, or following “trends” is no better than blindly guessing.

      Many present-day scientists just dont accept the existence of chaos or, leading to the same impossibility of predicting the future states of the atmosphere, at the quantum level, the uncertainty principle.

      As Richard Feynman said “Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment.”

      In other words, reality rules – whether we think it should or not.

      • Bindidon says:

        " They are not worth a bumper for anything useful, if based on any sort of “calculated average”. "

        Ah well ah well: and Earth cools since 4.5 billion years, doesn’t it?

        *
        As always, we see the tr0ll Flynnson's arrogant, completely stûpid, useless and irrelevant blah blah.

        Once more, he woefully discredits anybody using concepts he doesn't understand, beginning with the blog's owner Roy Spencer himself.

        Flynnson is dûmb to such an extent that he doesn't even understand that not anomalies are subject to uncertainty, but actually the data their are generated out.

        Flynnson's most intelligent contribution on this blog: to stûpidly parrot the pseudomoderator with his

        " Flynnson, please stop tr0lling. "

        As said so often: the price for freedom of speech on this blog is very, very high: you have to put up with primîtive idîots like Flynnson all day long.

        • Swenson says:

          Binny,

          The data is generated by observations of chaos. The “average” used for anomalies is a constantly moving target.

          The future is unknowable, and yes, the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years. I assume you dont want to accept reality, but your wishes don’t really count.

          You might attract support if you quoted what I said, and then presented some facts to support any disagreement.

          At present, you seem to be implying that you can predict the future by examining historical weather observations, but you don’t have the backbone to actually come out and say so. Bizarre unhinged rants about “blah blah” and so on, probably won’t convince people that your opinions have any value.

          Nobody has to take any notice of anything I say – nor anything you say.

          I support the freedom of people to come to their own conclusions. What about you?

      • Bindidon says:

        And the best thing I forgot to mention is that armchair quarterbacks à la Walter R. Hogle refer to people like Robertson and Flynnson as “researchers.”

        OMG… Incroyable mais vrai.

        • Swenson says:

          Bindidon, please stop tro‌lling.

        • Bill Hunter says:

          Nothing beats Bindidon researching Isaac Newton and finding he once said the moon spins on its axis and he then offers that up as science. LMAO!

        • Willard says:

          For once Binny shows discipline, Gill tries to bait him!

          • Swenson says:

            Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn brays something, but what?

          • Swenson says:

            Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

          • walterrh03 says:

            Willard,

            That is Swenson, not Mike Flynn.

          • Willard says:

            Monkey Man,

            You’re referring to Mike Flynn’s sock puppet:

            Mike Flynn says:
            February 18, 2018 at 9:58 PM

            The Earth has cooled for four and half billion years, atmospheric CO2 notwithstanding.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/diagnosing-climate-sensitivity-assuming-some-natural-warming/#comment-287871

            Search for “half billion years” on this page.

          • walterrh03 says:

            Willard,

            Two people can share the same views even if they are very similar.

            Bindpanzee is the only monkey here.

          • Willard says:

            Monkey Man,

            lol

          • Swenson says:

            “Monkey Man,

            lol”

            Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            For Monkey Man’s sake –

            Mik.e Flynn says:
            September 14, 2019 at 5:58 PM

            Roy,

            This was supposed to go elsewhere. I assume you have banned me, but I had already typed it up.

            […]

            No offence intended – your blog, your rules. I thought a bit of humour might help.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226

            Cheers.

          • walterrh03 says:

            Willard,

            It’s not very nice to call people names.

          • Willard says:

            Monkey Man,

            It’s not very nice to butt in a thread to JAQ off about Jim.

          • walterrh03 says:

            Willard, it’s quite weird that you’re sharing your thoughts about JAQing off.

          • Willard says:

            Monkey Man,

            It’s even weirder that you’re trying to play the tone police.

          • walterrh03 says:

            Why are you calling me names?

          • Willard says:

            Monkey Man,

            “Willard is a monkey” is name-calling.

            “Monkey Man” is nicknaming.

            Learn the difference.

          • Swenson says:

            “Monkey Man,

            Its not very nice to butt in a thread to JAQ off about Jim.”

            Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Willard says:

            ”For once Binny shows discipline, Gill tries to bait him!”

            Thats hilarious Willard. I guess we agree how silly that is. Baiting Bindidon with his own research. LMAO!

          • Willard says:

            Gill concedes that he’s throwing bait.

            Perhaps he needs help from his selenic daddy?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            actually i did start posting here more because of the scum who were insulting nikola tesla and had nothing at all behind their insults. folks really should leave truly great men who are gone and whose greatness has withstood the tests of time despite how much dogma those left behind show a propensity to gobble up on the prospects of a payday.

            he isn’t here to defend himself from scurrilous stalking and doxing sycophantic scum like yourself. and no i never expected him to come and help.

            hows that for a scoop of bait? all i got to do is shovel the fertilizer you guys spread back to you so that you can eat it again. LMAO!

          • Willard says:

            Gill invents an unfalsifiable story for more chumming.

            He’s losing it, so he just wants his daddy back.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            willard if you have even begun to understand what tesla was talking about you would understand that i haven’t completely followed tesla’s opinion on this particular matter. through dremt’s explanations i got closer but i can’t yet say i am in complete agreement with him as i am sure i haven’t read all he had to say on the matter and don’t intend to do so.

            all i am arguing is that strong arming, stalking, doxing, insults of the intelligence and lifestyle choices of a person, have even less credence than just believing what your daddy told you. but acting as a proselytizing high priest condemning heretics amounts to nothing but the personification of evil and that deserves a response without the requirement of sharing the same identical religion, race, or point of view of somebody else.

          • Willard says:

            Gill is like a guy who would argue that he’s a militia all by himself because he wants the Constitution to vouch for his personal right to have a weird and costly hobby.

          • walterrh03 says:

            Willard,

            What does that have to do with Bill’s reply?

          • Willard says:

            Walter,

            What does Gill’s comments have to do with anything?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Walter. Thats Willard for you. He has no idea at all about what anybody is talking about so he just says stuff.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Willard is like this ant-sized guy who thinks he is standing on the bottom of a 10 gallon lobster pot that the owner of plans on boiling some water in to cook some lobster. He just kind of stands there wildly waving his hands in a desperate attempt to forestall the hot water deluge he sees coming.

          • Willard says:

            Gill is a quasi-Markovian bot who can string three or four talking points together. As long as he can string his buzzwords of the moment, it does not matter to him if he makes sense, if he is responsive, or if he is relevant. He is completely oblivious of the inefficacy of his button pushing.

            The long life of our aggrieved and entitled peddler must be tough.

          • Willard says:

            Gill lacks so much self-awareness; its actually kind of sad.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            no i am just employing the strategy used by bill gates to get windows 32 bit program written. he said he made his programmers recompile the program every night so they could start out the next day eating the garbage they had coded up the day before. its not bait its the strategy of one of the most successful software developers of all time to move the needle.

            i save throwing scoops of bait for you as you aren’t ever going to look back at any thing you ever did in here. we need to keep you around as an iconic alarmist . . .you know as the forum greeter for the alarmist community to properly set the tone.

          • Willard says:

            Gill is just using the good old bulldozing technique.

            It makes sense in high school debates where it is all about galloping breathlessly.

        • Bindidon says:

          The fundamental difference between the ignorant Hunter boy and the knowledgeable Isaac Newton is that Newton had read everything that the no less knowledgeable Johannes Kepler wrote, especially about the latter’s understanding of the lunar spin about its polar axis.

          • Clint R says:

            Bindi, are you still trying to misrepresent people to “prove” your false beliefs?

            The fact that you have NO viable model for “orbiting without spin” means you’ve got NOTHING.

            It’s over. You lost.

          • Willard says:

            Puffman, instead of baiting once again, why don’t you present us with your Skies-Shooting-Down-Cold-Rays model?

          • Swenson says:

            Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

          • Bindidon says:

            Apparently people like tr0ll Clint R can’t even find the place where Johannes Kepler perfectly explained what Isaac Newton successfully read.

            *
            And no less obviously, people like tr0ll Clint R are unable to even understand that no one on Earth other than themselves would ever need a ‘viable model for orbiting without spin’.

            What is the point of such complete nonsense?

          • Willard says:

            > What is the point of such complete nonsense?

            Making you talk about Newton, so that Bordo can write something about it, which will make people write about it, and so on and so forth.

          • Clint R says:

            Bindi asks: “What is the point of such complete nonsense?”

            Bindi is referring to my request that he provide a “viable model of orbiting without spin”. If he could provide such a model [like a ball-on-a-string], then he would quickly see that Moon is NOT spinning.
            But he can’t provide a viable model because he doesn’t understand orbital motions.

          • Willard says:

            Binny was actually talking about Gill, Puffman.

            Have you found your Skies-Shooting-Down-Cold-Rays model yet?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            ”Newton had read everything that the no less knowledgeable Johannes Kepler wrote, especially about the latters understanding of the lunar spin about its polar axis.”

            now we have secret understandings that is like a buck rogers decoder ring that even bindidon doesn’t understand well enough to put to a scientific test. oh my daddy said so, so i say so.

          • Clint R says:

            Yes Bill, Bindi has to rely on irrelevant stuff he finds on the web because he understands none of the science.

            He’s got NOTHING.

          • Willard says:

            Puffman and Gill can’t wait for their daddy to return.

            They can’t get enough of losing.

          • Swenson says:

            Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

  17. Earth is warmer than Moon, because Earth rotates faster.

    At the same distance from the sun, Earth receives 28% less solar energy (higher Albedo), but Earth rotates
    very much faster…


    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • “How fast would we need to spin the moon so we could boil water on the surface or is there a self limiting factor?”

      Earth is warmer than Moon on average surface temperature ~+68 oC. Because Earth rotates faster and because Earth is covered with water.
      Yet there are not places where we can boil water (100 oC) on Earth’s surface.
      Earth’s average surface temperature is +15 oC (288 K).

      Now, if you asking how fast should Moon rotate to achieve +100 oC the average surface temperature.

      When a planet rotates faster, its surface absorbs more solar energy. Thus the planet becomes on average warmer.
      But when a planet rotates faster, its maximum temperature lessens and the minimum temperature rises. And it is the self limiting factor.

      Thank you.

      https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  18. Entropic man says:

    Can’t think why, but I am reminded of T H Huxley’s reply to Bishop Wilberforce at the British Association meeting in Oxford.

    “A man has no reason to be ashamed of having an ape for his grandfather. If there were an ancestor whom I should feel shame in recalling it would rather be a mana man of restless and versatile intellectwho plunges into scientific questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them by an aimless rhetoric, “

  19. Stephen P Anderson says:

    Walter,

    All you need to do is realize Wiltard is an nincompoop and then he can’t offend you.

Leave a Reply