How Extreme US Cold, a Trump Tweet & Little Ice Age Chatter Triggered A Warmist Meltdown



Global warming works in mysterious ways apparently and it is a wonder to behold the triggered, hypocritical, general dumbness and crass stupidity which its workings have on this occasion provoked among the Warmist classes – with a little help from the tweet of a certain Donald T. I’ve seen dumber responses from the AGW crowd, but I really can’t remember when.

So yes, it’s cold – very cold, record-breakingly cold – in America and Canada right now and this is making the people who regularly feed us a diet of unrelenting global warming propaganda just a teensy bit uncomfortable, especially those who reside in Canada and the Eastern United States, who now know what a wind chill of -55C feels like, something which is unknowable to many of us here in Western Europe.

But not to be deterred from keeping the warmist flame burning, even in the midst of an historically cold winter, they have taken to Twitter and the MSM to explain, variously, why ‘it’s just weather innit’, to elucidate for the benefit of us climate-challenged ignoramuses the difference between weather and climate and finally, to explain how, yes, in certain circumstances, global warming doesn’t mean just extreme heat, but can mean extreme cold too. I have only skimmed the surface of this fount of Warmist wisdom regurgitated very recently onto social media post the appearance of the dreaded 2017 polar vortex, but I do have some nuggets to present to our bewildered and naive Cliscep readers. Hopefully thus, they – and maybe even Trump if he deigns to alight here at our humble domain – will finally come to understand the difference between extreme cold, which is weather (except sometimes when it’s not), climate (which is NCDC/GISS global mean surface temperature data usually, but can be literally anything) and extreme heat (which is almost always due to ‘climate change’, aka global warming).

Firstly however, I want to talk about Little Ice Ages – which residents in Eastern USA and Canada might reasonably be forgiven for thinking they’re in, right now. Specifically I want to talk briefly about THE Little Ice Age (a generally cold period extending from the 12th century to the 19th century) and the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) and a ‘new Little Ice Age’ which apparently some scientists warn is nigh and will “freeze the Thames over”. Why? Because the MSM has been promoting it very recently, rehashing old research, in a manner not dissimilar to the way in which they promote global warming scares, i.e. misleading headlines and poorly presented half-information. The research in question is Valentina Zharkova’s 2015 paper on solar polar magnetic fields which, at the time, provoked ‘lively’ debate in climate circles. Discussion here at Tallbloke. I’m not sure why this story is doing the rounds again, but it’s topical, with the current extreme cold in Canada and the US. It would seem that Sky News decided to interview Zharkova and this is what they reported.

Scientists predict ‘mini ice age’ could hit UK by 2030

A model of the Sun’s magnetic activity suggests the River Thames may freeze over within two decades, experts say.

Which is basically a very stupid headline. First, it’s a lot warmer now than when the Maunder Minimum affected Britain, so any cooling effect arising from a new low in solar activity is probably not going to return winter temperatures to what they were in the late 1600s. Secondly, the Thames was a lot more sluggish and shallow in the days of the London Frost Fairs, so I don’t imagine it will freeze solid nowadays with the relative ease it did back then. The text is a little less alarmist and rather more informative and quotes Zharkova as saying that she hopes global warming from man-made ‘pollution’ will be temporarily halted so we have more time to save the planet. Obviously, she’s being a little more careful not to upset the Consensus enforcers who tried to censor her research the last time round.

Her actual research seems quite sound, based as it is on a mathematical model of how the two oscillatory principal components of the solar background magnetic field gradually shift in and out of phase throughout historical solar cycles, varying also in amplitude. When they are in phase and at or near maximum amplitude (eg. cycles 21-23), sunspot activity peaks, as does total solar irradiance, UV irradiance and solar activity. When they are anti-phase and particularly when their amplitude is at a minimum, solar activity dies off to near zero (no sunspots) and a Grand Solar Minimum occurs. This is what Zharkova’s mathematical model predicts for cycles 25 and 26 and she claims that, run backwards, it accurately hindcasts the Maunder Minimum of 1645-1715. So, more hard science, less wishy-washy climate modelling and you can see why the AGW crowd may be getting jittery about it. A ‘temporary’ 30 year global cooling will make it next to impossible to sell global warming to an already sceptical populace. Moreover, if any significant cooling in the northern hemisphere or across the globe occurs, it will almost certainly imply that sensitivity to GHGs is less than what scientists claim it is and solar activity has more of an effect on the climate than they care to admit. Disastrous.

What’s the relevance to the exceptionally cold weather in North America now and that which struck in winter 2014? Maybe none at all. Then again, such weather may be an early warning sign of the approaching decline in solar magnetic activity, due to start in earnest around 2030. But you won’t hear any climate scientist or AGW advocate ever say this. More than their job’s worth. Far easier to claim ‘it’s just weather’ or, alternatively, extreme cold weather due to global warming.

Ed Hawkins of the Met Office was quick to dismiss the impact of any ‘new Little Ice Age’, as he has been in the past.

My response:

On that same day, Dec 27th, the really cold weather started settling in:

The next day, a personal perspective:

With the cold came record breaking snowfall in the Great Lakes, particularly in Erie, Penn.

Evangelical climate science communicator extraordinaire, Kate Hayhoe, blamed it on . . . . global warming. Meteorologist Ryan Maue dismissed her claim:

Then Donald Trump tweeted this:

Cue mass triggering of Warmists. Even the normally even-tempered Doug McNeall of the Met Office couldn’t resist having a go:

The Guardian, of course went into hysterics, screaming:

Trump’s call for some ‘good old global warming’ ridiculed by climate experts

US president again conflates weather with climate to mock climate change

Experts call comments ‘scientifically ridiculous and demonstrably false’

You have to read it to believe the hypocrisy which permeates every line of this article. The author writes:

The president was reheating two favourite tropes: the conflation of weather with climate to pour scepticism on global warming, and the supposed cost to the American taxpayer of the Paris climate accord, from which he has confirmed the US will withdraw.

Climate scientists, however, have long warned against using individual weather events to ponder the existence or otherwise of global warming. Weather, they point out, refers to atmospheric conditions during a short period; climate relates to longer-term weather patterns.

“There is a fundamental difference in scale between what weather is and what climate is,” he said. “What’s going on in one small corner of the world at a given moment does not reflect what’s going on with the planet.”

Say what? Run that by me again! Rewind to Harvey hysteria, California drought hysteria. Rewind to June 2017, when Europe and the UK had a few very hot days. This is what was reported by the BBC:

‘Very strong’ climate change signal in record June heat

The June heat waves that impacted much of the UK and Western Europe were made more intense because of climate change say scientists.

That same day had seen the mercury hit 34.5 at Heathrow in what was the UK’s warmest June day for 40 years.

“We found clear and strong links between this month’s record warmth and human-caused climate change,” said Geert Jan van Oldenborgh, senior researcher at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI).

Got that? A hot summer month in France, Spain and Portugal and one ‘record’ hot June day on the tarmac at Heathrow constitutes a very clear signal of man-made climate change! If it’s hot, it’s not weather, it’s climate, man made climate to be precise and even just one hot day on the super-heated tarmac at Heathrow in an otherwise mediocre British summer is irrefutable evidence of climate change. You just could not make this stuff up! How breath-takingly idiotic, ignorant and downright hypocritical do you have to be to write this tripe? Beyond the grasp of my faltering senses, I have to admit.

The New York Times chipped in with its own familiar brand of stupidity too, with this ever so enlightening explanation of the difference between weather and climate:

Climate refers to how the atmosphere acts over a long period of time, while weather describes what’s happening on a much shorter time scale. The climate can be thought of, in a way, as the sum of long periods of weather.

Or, to use an analogy Mr. Trump might appreciate, weather is how much money you have in your pocket today, whereas climate is your net worth. A billionaire who has forgotten his wallet one day is not poor, anymore than a poor person who lands a windfall of several hundred dollars is suddenly rich. What matters is what happens over the long term.

Right, that’s clear as mud then and it explains why Trump is a dunce and NYT journalists are expert atmospheric/climate scientists.

By December 29th, the stupidity, like the freezing weather, had really set in, and was beginning to bite:



But this tweet wins hands down in the stupid stakes for me. Currently 7219 likes and still going strong.


For those Cliscep readers still confused about the difference between weather and climate, Steve Goddard has kindly provided this graphic. So now we all know and President Trump, if you’re reading this, you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.







  1. Very good summary Jaime. I only took on one person on Twitter on this yesterday, a tech entrepreneur from New York that I follow who, like many, was most unhappy with the President’s tweet:

    I think for what it’s worth that we should all use Curry and Darwall from November, dissecting that 2014 APS event, a lot – for the next year or more. Shub then asked the legitimate question about post-1998. But I think discussion of the minutiae of the pause can be a real trap, so …

    After two angry tweets claiming all dissenters are angry idiots I like to think the silence of Mike Dudas spoke of surprise at the substance, as well as the style, of what I pointed him to. But it’s hard to tell.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Hunters in the Snow.

    In Brueghel’s masterpiece
    ‘Hunters in the Snow,’
    though peasants skate upon
    the frozen river, no
    winter wonderland is this.
    Silhouettes of leafless trees
    stand stark against a leaden sky
    that matches mat-grey river.
    Exhausted dogs, hunters with meagre prey,
    peasants laboring on the snow fields,
    each trying to survive the Little Ice Age.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Beth. You’ve cut off the interesting bit in the top right (that most people do not see) – the mountains. Brueghel had just travelled through the Alps and just had to put them into his painting.

    For those who cannot imagine how cold -50C is. Think of you running your car to keep the engine from freezing, and the fan belt snapping from the cold while its running, of getting frostbite in the fingers when thinking you don’t need to put your gloves on when leaving your car for the door of your house only 3 metres away, or where it’s easier to drive in a skidoo suit and the heater off to avoid the moisture from your breath condensing on the inside of your windscreen as ice. Notice my examples involve vehicles; you just DONT go outside on foot in really, really cold weather.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Not forgetting that extreme cold winter weather was not the only defining feature of the Little Ice Age ‘climate’. Severe storms and mega floods were perhaps more frequent than they are today, as were miserable, failed summers, leading to crop failures and mass starvation. It was also the case however, that some summers were exceptionally hot and dry. That’s weather for you. Presumably, it was also ‘just weather’ that during December of one of the ‘hottest years ever’ globally, 2010, the UK suffered the second coldest month since 1659 in Central England. This actually means that Dec 2010 was colder than any December throughout the entire Maunder Minimum. Then just 5 years later, in 2015, we had our warmest ever December on record! That’s how variable regional weather can be – but guess what, both events have been blamed on global warming!


  5. Extreme weather attribution to man-made global warming is big business now, attracting more and more grant money. Expect almost every case of bad weather in 2018 to come under the scrutiny of the AGW weather attribution first responder teams and for most heatwaves, storms, droughts and flooding events to be tagged as ‘climate change induced’. Any inconvenient extreme cold will be tagged as ‘just weather’, ignored, or be attributed to global warming also.



    Naychur is dangerous and don’t
    you forgit it. That speckled thrush
    that chortles so sweetly has
    just devoured a worm. You yrself
    might escape harm if you
    remind yourself, often, that
    ‘Nay-chur – is – dangerous!’

    Dangerous. as the tiger, burning
    bright, that even in sleep is
    likely to overlay its cubs, or
    dangerous, as voracious fire,
    devouring all before it, spitting
    out the charred remains, oh so
    contemptuously, as it leaps
    upon a forest glade, gullies
    and all that lie therein,
    animal and vegetable, nothing
    vegan about fire … or, in
    contrast, there’s ice, some say
    it’s worse than fire. Remember
    poor Otzi, Bronze Age traveler,
    snap-frozen in the Tyrol in
    a sudden storm, swallowed
    by one of those hungry
    glaciers that engulf whole
    villages, churches where
    praying congregations seek
    insurance from the elements
    to no avail, Nay-chur has its way.


  7. Some “short, sharp science” from that well known journal of unbiased scientific respectability, The New Scientist:

    “Super-cold winters in the UK and US are due to Arctic warming”.

    Trump and climate change sceptics need to understand one thing only: there’s no such thing as ‘natural’ weather anymore – AGW has imprinted itself upon every snowflake, every ray of sunshine, every drop of rain, every breath of wind. We live in the anthropogenically enhanced, anthropocentric, CO2-charged Anthropocene.

    Liked by 4 people

  8. But, but… there was today a record warm 31st december in the Netherlands, so it must be climate change.


  9. Extremists seem to volunteer en masse for humorectomies, so they can make certain to always be serious and angry about the focus of their extremism. And even more importantly to always be serious and angry about anything non-extremists say or do that they dislike.
    Look at how Bill Nye, Mann or Lewandowsky, to name three extremists, appear if one wishes to see the long term impacts of humorectomies.


  10. Mike Dudas sounds like a real product of idiocracy:
    Simply dismiss out of hand complex nuanced thinking, refusing to actually communicate✔
    Make ridiculous claims about “planetary impacts”✔
    Accept unquestioningly the latest circular reasoning that rationalizes cherry picking weather events ✔
    And of course be angry and serious about it✔


  11. And to make certsin to be able to call out the morons echoing the excuse that cold winters are due to a warming Arctic, please do look at actual Arctic conditions:

    The climate extremists must hold not only skeptics in contempt, but themselves as well, if they actually believe the bs they promote.
    No wonder they have to dodge ir drownout any voice of disagreement.


  12. Here’s that traumatic Trump tweet again and one response:

    This led Mike Dudas to retweet a bit of meta-grandstanding last night, which I felt allowed me to widen the horizons further:

    Note how the debate is, as always, all over the place. Trump is actually mainly concerned about the “TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS” he says the USA had been expected to stump up to “protect against” global warming. This is an extremely important and fair point, completely undeserving of the “sad, stupid man” from Dudas and many others. The bottom line – well, another bottom line – is that the human impact of extreme events has been improving for a hundred years. That’s trillions of dollars Donald Trump is trying to prevent the USA pouring down the drain for nothing. On this, I’m afraid to say, he’s the smartest person in the room.

    Sorry to take Cliscep away from the science. But it really isn’t about the science at all, is it? It’s about ridicule and contempt, from those who have not thought things through anything like as clearly as the President they despise. I hope we can all go into 2018 with that cheerful thought in mind.

    Liked by 3 people

  13. Richard Drake @ 3.42pm
    You are quite right about the criticisms of Trump’s Tweet not being about the science. If it were, the real experts would contradict the President by citing evidence. Extreme cold events can be empirically accounted in global warming theory. After all the AGW is supposed to make weather more extreme. The result for a binomial distribution of temperature measurements is that the tails will become elongated. But the empirical evidence for this will be that extreme cold records will be far less frequent than extreme warm records, as the average will have shifted upwards. I lay out how this could be tested in the post below.


  14. The really amusing thing is, Trump’s tweet didn’t actually say or even imply that the extreme cold weather affecting the US was evidence that global warming isn’t real; all he said is that the US could do with some of it right now. This was more than enough though for the global warming crowd to go off on one, claiming he was using weather to deny the reality of man-made climate change. They fall for it every time. Trump really is a world class troll where the progressive left are concerned.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. Vinny thinks that cold weather in winter is a disruption.
    That is evidence that Vinny is the one needing some intervention.
    The climate issue may have at one time been about the “science”.
    That has not been the case for a long time.
    The key period was after climategate when the focus turned from defending the hypothesis- the hypothesis has been falsified- and instead to “communicating climate change” which is a euphemism for “silencing critics”.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Jaime. Think I might have blocked you myself if you had sent your tweet to me (that would have to be in another universe where I became a social media junkie). You need to revise “How to win friends and influence people” (my copy has deteriorated badly from neglect).

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Alan,

    Dudas writes:

    “Such a sad, stupid man. Elected by a group of sad, stupid people. I’m done trying to “understand” the motivations of angry, ill-informed, lazy deniers of science, truth and global progress.”

    In doing so he calls the President of the US a sad, stupid man for tweeting what was in essence a very inoffensive tweet, he insults God knows how many millions of Americans who voted for Trump using the same terms, then goes on to label all global warming sceptics effectively as “angry, ill-informed, lazy deniers of science, truth and global progress”. I reckon that deserves to be thrown right back at him, but like most lefty snowflake types, he can’t take what he dishes out. Too bad.

    PS – I’ve never been that bothered about winning friends or influencing people.

    Liked by 4 people

  18. Before CO2 was “discovered”:

    The Aztecs:
    …..unseasonal frosts and cold, followed by severe, prolonged drought, may have taken them to the brink of collapse. Once the climate became more benign again, they praised their gods with human sacrifice.

    “When rainfall and agriculture had resumed, the Aztecs responded by massively increasing the number of human sacrifices to their rain god Tlaloc. It is thought that hundreds of thousands of people were sacrificed.”

    In the Little Ice Age, witchcraft was blamed for the devastating climate:
    Fagan’s “The Little Ice Age” (Basic Books, 2000):

    “Witchcraft accusations soared, as people accused their neighbors of fabricating bad weather…. Sixty-three women were burned to death as witches in the small town of Wisensteig in Germany in 1563 at a time of intense debate over the authority of God over the weather.”

    “Almost invariably, a frenzy of prosecutions coincided with the coldest and most difficult years of the Little Ice Age, when people demanded the eradication of the witches they held responsible for their misfortunes.”

    Liked by 2 people

  19. Nothing much changes Dennis. Climate superstition still reigns supreme and they would burn us “angry, ill-informed, lazy deniers of science, truth and global progress” at the stake without hesitation if they thought they could get away with it, knowing absolutely that by doing so, they would be saving the planet and preserving a habitable climate for generations to come.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. I’ve always thought that the concept of record cold being a symptom of global warming particularly ludicrous. It essentially tries to pretend that CO2 has the ability to make temperature more clumpy. Instead of the cold being ‘normally’ distributed it bands together like nervous sheep. Riiiiight. Unless and until scientists can demonstrate that cold spells are anything but natural, they’re making fools of themselves. Dare I say that they’re coming across as desperate?

    If I was them, I’d just admit that natural variability sometimes rules.

    Liked by 2 people

  21. “Communicating climate change” a euphemism
    for “silencing critics.”

    It’s the way
    of the tyrant
    isn’t it ?
    Circa 1984 –
    ‘Freedom is Slavery!’
    ‘Truth is Lies!’
    ‘War is Peace! ‘

    Liked by 1 person

  22. “Communicating climate change” is a euphemism for “fake news”, itself an alternative of “bovine excrement” : a delicacy much consumed these days in halls of “learning”, and served with the heady wine of authoritative kant. Used to be “Communicating global warming” before the laughter set in.


  23. Tiny, your reasonable position is a no-no for alarmists. Once you accept that natural factors can cancel out AGW, you are logically admitting that half of the warming end of last century was also natural. Those who believe more CO2 = higher temps are lost if cooling sets in despite the CO2.


  24. Ron, Tiny, this is something that Roger Pielke Sr. has been trying to get across for years. The variability in regional climate is far more important and impactful upon our lives than some hypothetical measure of ‘mean global surface temperature’ and the study of it provides so much more insight into what actually is driving climate, aside from a supposed global CO2 ‘heat trapping mechanism’. This is because regional climate is so much more than average surface temperature and you can examine it in a more scientific, detailed and rigorous manner than you can ‘global climate’. By understanding regional climate and natural variability, we should be in a much better position to tease out any globally operating anthropogenic influence. But climate scientists insist on working ‘top down’, instead of ‘bottom up’, believing that changes in global energy flux and large scale radiative forcings are what ultimately determine the climate we experience, even on the regional scale. I think that’s the wrong approach.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Take heart those experiencing the polar vortex, believe the experts, they are seldom wrong:

    Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000. Balchen, 72, is recognized as a leading specialist on the Arctic. “Weather across the northern half of the United States would be 20 to 25 degrees warmer than it is now,” Balchen said.
    Tuscaloosa News, 18 May 1972

    I lived in Canada then and after ten brutal winters on the Prairies I decamped for California. Climate change happens but you must move to experience it.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Alan says:

    “I lived in Canada then and after ten brutal winters on the Prairies I decamped for California. Climate change happens but you must move to experience it.”

    That’s true, a change of climate is as good as a rest they say. This is what Catherine McKenna has done recently, presumably in an attempt to escape the bitingly cold ‘weather’ or climate change happening in Canada, for which she was mockingly called a #climatebarbie by Steve McIntyre on twitter:

    Climate ‘scientist’ Andrew Dessler didn’t see the funny side however and called McIntyre a #climateasshole. Hilarious start to the New Year ‘climate debate’! I can’t show you Dessler’s response because he blocked me – before I even got the chance to insult him or, more to the point, challenge him on aspects of The Science.


  27. Wow, I didn’t realize Dessler was such an a**hole. I did know he was a shamelessly committed alarmist though.


  28. This was Steve’s response at 4:43am London time:

    I was the first to retweet. Happy New Year or what?! The responses are worth a look.

    It’s an interesting point, the comparison with Churchill, as the release of the Gary Oldman film approaches.


  29. I don’t know what the effect of increased CO2 has on the polar vortex, but if it helps soften a solar cycle induced little ice age, it’s probably a positive thing for humanity over all.


  30. Here is a spoof featuring Mckenna done by s CBC satire show called This Hour Has 22 Minutes. I’ll paste in the embed code and hope it works


  31. I wouldn’t describe Sarah Myhre as a #ClimateBarbie; she is more like #ClimateHarpy in my opinion. Recently, she tore into Judith Curry on Twitter. Comes across as really quite a nasty, unhinged young female, stridently feminist representative of the Konsensus and #ClimateJustice. Here she is, having a go at Trump for his tweet:

    “Oh god, here we go again. Trump is regurgitating climate denialist drivel. It is predictable, toxic, and diabolically effective in bolstering anti-science rhetoric in our culture.

    Folks. Weather is not climate. Weather and climate operate on fundamentally difference scales of time and space. Weather is ephemeral, local, and episodic. Climate is planetary, comprehensive, and predictable.”

    Climate? Predictable?

    Yes, says Myhre,

    “Again, global warming is a term used to describe a prediction: that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere (sourced from human activity) will change the global heat budget of the planet. WHY? Because covalent bonds in CO2 molecules absorb Infrared Energy (aka HEAT). More CO2, more heat captured, more atmospheric warming. And guess what? Those predictions come true year after year after year.”

    Put aside the fact that those covalent bonds don’t “absorb” IR energy (photons), they absorb and re-emit those photons, therefore don’t ‘trap’ energy, just re-radiate it in all directions. But gosh, yes, climate models based on this ‘heat trapping’ get it right time and time again don’t they, year after year, even though they are next to useless for actually predicting what will happen to the ‘climate’ in any one year, even though they have consistently underestimated the long term global warming trend, but we’ll just forget about that, shall we.

    Meteorologists should basically stfu about climate and stick to predicting the weather; leave climate change predictions to the ‘expert’ earth scientists (like Myhre):

    “When we have the President of the United State tweeting about conflating weather and climate [which he didn’t actually] (“good old Global Warming”), it demonstrates the inherent danger in public scientific equivocation about weather attribution. Weathermen. Take note and do your job: forecast the weather. Leave climate change to Earth scientists. This isn’t about the weather – this is about fundamentally changing the geologic and evolutionary trajectory of this one finite planet forever.”

    How do you become that arrogant, self-righteous and opinionated? I can only guess it must be the result of a modern University ‘education’.

    Liked by 1 person

  32. Beware: what the climate kooks are after is control of who gets to speak about climate.
    They are grasping the authority to hide tgeir many failed predictions about climate and to force silence from thise they choose to silence.
    We have discussed in the past the solemn predictions of no more snow by the very same mental midgets and hypocritical bullies who now claim that if course there will be more heavy winters.
    The proper term for people like those trying to dismiss the President is “full of it”.


  33. Thanks for the link to the Sarah Myhre blog Jaime. As well as the predictable climate drivel (which can be taken either way) nowhere does she mention Trump’s concern about the trillions of dollars the US is being asked to divert, unlike other countries – by which he presumably, and fairly, means China, India and co.

    It’s only a short tweet. As you rightly point out Trump doesn’t actually make ‘the mistake’ of confusing weather and climate in it, though he must know he is trolling to that effect! He definitely is concerned about the trillions of dollars though. And this is not mentioned by someone calling him “phenomenally dumb”.

    So I’m inclined to take Myhre and her ilk as speaking in code. What they are really saying is “Don’t you dare touch those trillions.” Their derision and inability to speak plainly about the elephant in the room will eventually rebound on them.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Has anyone pointed out that greenhouse gas absorption and re-emission of IR radiation is a logarithmic relation? This includes the powerhouse of GHG’s, water vapor. Past a certain point (much lower than the current concentration) increased concentrations of CO2 translate to very minor increases in absorption and re-emission.


  35. Mr Chastain, are you able to verify that logarithmic relationship? I only ask because it is commonplace on blogs for people to quote a relationship between temperature change and CO2 concentration with a natural logarithm in the mix. No one can explain the physics. It appears to be a curve fit derived in the 1930s, but that strikes me as amateur-hour science now that we have the Higgs Boson. It was hard to resist the autocorrect of Bison, there😁


  36. A bit late to this great discussion, but as we dealing with “climate derangement syndrome”, a piece in last Sunday Times by a so called scientist called Neil Oliver, was hoping for a little ice age to “give a time out”
    in order to overcome the catastrophic effect of the evil plant food aka Co2.
    As you say Jamie – you could not make this stuff up.

    Liked by 1 person

  37. MiaB. I thought the logarithmic relationship arose as a consequence of the absorption bands for CO2 becoming saturated and can only increase by broadening (which happens at an ever decreasing rate). I also believe the main bands really consist of numerous thin bands, each of which broaden and coalesce).
    If I am wrong, I’m willing to be educated.


  38. Steve Goddard’s graphic is very informative explaining that Canada and the eastern US are affected only by weather (this perhaps explains why Washington is no longer concerned with climate?). However I note that all coastal areas lack weather or climate (do they have clither or weamate?). I am also confused by the restriction of cherries to climate areas. Will the cherry trees of the Washington Mall cease to flower and bear fruit?

    Climate is so difficult for a poor illiterate geologist.


  39. Actually, Steve Goddard’s graphic is now redundant. Because it has become so damn cold and because a bitter Nor’ Easter ‘cyclone bomb’ has made things even worse, climate change alarmists have changed tack. It’s now *obviously* not ‘just weather’, it’s global warming – official. Al Gore and Michael Mann explain:

    Liked by 1 person

  40. Marc Morano:

    “It’s almost as if it’s a comedy of explanations,” he continues. “They really just will do and say whatever they need in order to make it all fit and reassure themselves that every weather event is consistent with global warming.”

    What if scientists have a better understanding today of climate change than they did years ago?

    “Then make a verifiable forecast – tell us what’s going to happen before it happens and stop this nonsense of telling us how everything that happened was either consistent with or caused by it after the fact,” answers Morano.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.