Climate Activists Switch From Blaming Humans For Too Little And Now Too Much Rainfall…And Call It ‘Science’

Modern ‘Science’ Blames Humans

For California Weather…If It’s Bad

Image Source: Cook et al., 2010

In the present era of agenda-driven journalism, major news outlets often attempt to persuade readers that weather events occurring now have never happened before…and they are worsened by human-caused climate change.

In 2015, Humans Caused Drought, Too Little Rainfall In California

Global Warming Brought on California’s Severe Drought

Humans to Blame for Catastrophic Drought in California, Scientists Say

Study: Human-caused global warming behind Calif. drought

Long-suffering California can blame drought on global warming, experts say

“Scientists predict that “enhanced drought” will continue in California throughout this century because global warming has ‘substantially increased’ the likelihood of extreme droughts in the state.”

In 2017, Humans Causing Floods, Too Much Rainfall In California

Heavy California rains par for the course for climate change

With Climate Change, California Is Likely To See More Extreme Flooding


Bill Nye Blames Global Warming For Devastating Floods In Northern Cali

Even the editor of the prominent scholarly journal Science has just claimed that the abundance of rainfall in California is now a trend brought on by human-caused climate change.  Since when is a 7-month precipitation record a trend?

Science (June 30, 2017) – Estimating economic damage from climate change

“Episodes of severe weather in the United States, such as the present abundance of rainfall in California, are brandished as tangible evidence of the future costs of current climate trends.”

Attempting to clarify how humans are simultaneously responsible for too much and too little rainfall, Michael Mann explains why warming causes more intense rainfall and widespread drought at the same time, and how this is ironic but not a contradiction.

“With warming, water is cycling more vigorously through our atmosphere. As it turns out, that implies more frequent, very heavy rainfall events, more intense weather potentially as a result of this amplified hydrological cycle. And ironically – although the atmosphere can hold more water vapor and can therefore produce larger amounts of rainfall in a given event – it turns out that these events become less frequent and the warmer surface also causes more evaporation of water into the atmosphere, drying soil surfaces, drying land surfaces. So in this warmer climate with an amplified hydrological cycle we actually see increased rainfall, intense rainfall flooding. But we can also see more widespread drought over continental regions. It might seem like a contradiction, but in fact both predictions follow from the intensification of the hydrological cycle.”

Long-Term Context Matters

It wasn’t all that long ago that journalists actually reported on climate change and weather events while considering a long-term context of natural variability rather than characterizing year-to-year weather change as unprecedented, the worst on record, and caused by humans.
For example, in 1992 the New York Times actually published an article indicating Medieval-era droughts were much more severe than now, lasting hundreds of years.   The modern period has been “relatively wet” compared to the past in that region.

New York Times, 1992

BEGINNING about 1,100 years ago, what is now California baked in two droughts, the first lasting 220 years and the second 140 years. Each was much more intense than the mere six-year dry spells that afflict modern California from time to time, new studies of past climates show. The findings suggest, in fact, that relatively wet periods like the 20th century have been the exception rather than the rule in California for at least the last 3,500 years, and that mega-droughts are likely to recur.”

“Dr. Scott Stine, a paleoclimatologist at California State University at Hayward, used radiocarbon dating techniques to determine the age of the trees’ outermost annual growth rings, thereby establishing the ends of drought periods. He then calculated the lengths of the preceding dry spells by counting the rings in each stump. This method identified droughts lasting from A.D. 892 to A.D. 1112 and from A.D. 1209 to A.D. 1350. Judging by how far the water levels dropped during these periods — as much as 50 feet in some cases — Dr. Stine concluded that the [Medieval-era] droughts were not only much longer, they were far more severe than either the drought of 1928 to 1934, California’s worst in modern times, or the more recent severe dry spell of 1987 to 1992.”

The Historical Southwest U.S. Climate: 3.2°C Warmer During Medieval Times

Millar et al., 2006

“The paleoclimate modeled for Whitewing [Sierra Nevada, CA] during the Medieval period was significantly warmer and slightly drier than present . Medieval mean annual minimum temperature was warmer than current by 3.2°C, with large differences in winter (+3.5°C, January) and summer (+4.0°C, July). Mean annual maximum temperature was also greater in the Medieval period (+2.3°C), with greater differences in winter (+3.2°C, January) than summer (+2.6°C, July). Annual precipitation was less by 24 mm.”

Scuderi, 1993

“Long-term trends in the temperature reconstruction are indicative of a 125-year periodicity that may be linked to solar activity as reflected in radiocarbon and auroral records. The results indicate that both the warm intervals during the Medieval Warm Epoch (A.D. 800 to 1200) and the cold intervals during the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1200 to 1900) are closely associated with the 125-year [solar activity] period.”

Medieval Drought Lasted Hundreds Of Years And Was Much More Severe

Whitehouse et al., 2010

“Paleoclimatic and model data indicate increased temperatures in western North America [∼AD 900–1300] of approximately 1 °C over the long-term mean. This was a period of extensive and persistent aridity over western North America. Paleoclimatic evidence suggests drought in the mid-12th century far exceeded the severity, duration, and extent of subsequent droughts.”

Kirby et al., 2014

Cook et al., 2010

Scientists: Natural Variability Dominates In Southwestern U.S. Drought

Cheng et al., 2016

“The current California drought has cast a heavy burden on statewide agriculture and water resources, further exacerbated by concurrent extreme high temperatures. Furthermore, industrial-era global radiative forcing brings into question the role of long-term climate change on CA drought. How has human-induced climate change affected California drought risk?  … The results thus indicate the net effect of climate change has made agricultural drought less likely, and that the current severe impacts of drought on California’s agriculture has not been substantially caused by long-term climate changes.”

Prein et al., 2016

“Projected changes of a poleward extension of the subtropical dry zones simulated by climate models and the corresponding decrease of precipitation in the U.S. Southwest have not been found in observations to date because of the large natural climate variability.”

Seager et al., 2015

“The causes of the California drought during November to April winters of 2011/12 to 2013/14 are analyzed using observations and ensemble simulations with seven atmosphere models forced by observed SSTs. …[T]he precipitation deficit during the drought was dominated by natural variability, a conclusion framed by discussion of differences between observed and modeled tropical SST trends.”

Diaz and Wahl, 2015

“An analysis of the October 2013–September 2014 precipitation in the western United States and in particular over the California–Nevada region suggests this anomalously dry season, while extreme, is not unprecedented in comparison with the approximately 120-yr-long instrumental record of water year (WY; October–September) totals and in comparison with a 407-yr WY precipitation reconstruction dating back to 1571. Over this longer period, nine other years are known or estimated to have been nearly as dry or drier than WY 2014. The 3-yr deficit for WYs 2012–14, which in California exceeded the annual mean precipitation, is more extreme but also not unprecedented, occurring three other times over the past approximate 440 years in the reconstruction.”

Scientists: Natural Variability Dominates In Continental U.S. Drought

Seager et al., 2009   (Southeastern U.S.)

“Tree-ring records show that the twentieth century has been moist from the perspective of the last millennium and free of long and severe droughts that were abundant in previous centuries.  The recent drought, forced by reduced precipitation and with reduced evaporation, has no signature of model-projected anthropogenic climate change.”

Stambaugh et al., 2011 (Midwestern U.S.)

[D]rought conditions over the period of instrumental records (since 1895) do not exhibit the full range of variability, severity, or duration of droughts during the last millennium.  Thirteen decadal to multidecadal droughts (i.e., ≥10 years) occurred during the last millennium – the longest lasting sixty-one years and centered on the late twelfth century.”

Andreadis and Lettenmaier, 2006 (Continental U.S.)

Droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the country over the last century.”

Scientists: Natural Variability Dominates In Global-Scale Drought

Cook et al., 2015

“Megadroughts reconstructed over north-central Europe in the 11th and mid-15th centuries reinforce other evidence from North America and Asia that droughts were more severe, extensive, and prolonged over Northern Hemisphere land areas before the 20th century, with an inadequate understanding of their causes.”

Hoerling et al., 2010 

“In this study, the nature and causes for observed regional precipitation trends during 1977–2006 are diagnosed. It is found that major features of regional trends in annual precipitation during 1977–2006 are consistent with an atmospheric response to observed sea surface temperature (SST) variability. This includes drying over the eastern Pacific Ocean that extends into western portions of the Americas related to a cooling of eastern Pacific SSTs, and broad increases in rainfall over the tropical Eastern Hemisphere, including a Sahelian rainfall recovery and increased wetness over the Indo–West Pacific related to North Atlantic and Indo–West Pacific ocean warming. It is further determined that these relationships between SST and rainfall change are generally not symptomatic of human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and aerosols.”

Sheffield et al., 2012

Little change in global drought over the past 60 years

“Here we show that the previously reported increase in global drought is overestimated because the PDSI uses a simplified model of potential evaporation that responds only to changes in temperature and thus responds incorrectly to global warming in recent decades. More realistic calculations, based on the underlying physical principles that take into account changes in available energy, humidity and wind speed, suggest that there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.”

Cai et al., 2014

Recent drought in 1993–2008 was still within the frame of natural climate variability based on the 306 yr PDSI reconstruction.    The dry and wet phases of Lingkong Mountain were in accordance with changes in the summer Asian-Pacific oscillation and sunspot numbers, they also showed strong similarity to other tree-ring based moisture indexes in large areas in and around the CLP, indicating the moisture variability in the CLP [Chinese Loess Plateau] was almost synchronous and closely related with large-scale land–ocean–atmospheric circulation and solar activity.”

McCabe and Wolock, 2015

“Monthly precipitation (P) and potential evapotranspiration (PET) from the CRUTS3.1 data set are used to compute monthly P minus PET (PMPE) for the land areas of the globe. The percent of the global land area with annual sums of PMPE less than zero are used as an index of global drought (%drought) for 1901 through 2009. Results indicate that for the past century %drought has not changed, even though global PET and temperature (T) have increased.”

Roderick and Farquhar, 2004

“Contrary to expectations, measurements of pan evaporation show decreases in many parts of the Northern Hemisphere over the last 50 years. When combined with rainfall measurements, these data show that much of the Northern Hemisphere’s terrestrial surface has become less arid over the last 50 years. However, whether the decrease in pan evaporation is a phenomenon limited to the Northern Hemisphere has until now been unknown because there have been no reports from the Southern Hemisphere. Here, we report a decrease in pan evaporation rate over the last 30 years across Australia of the same magnitude as the Northern Hemisphere trends (approximately −4 mm a−2). The results show that the terrestrial surface in Australia has, on average, become less arid over the recent past, just like much of the Northern Hemisphere.”

IPCC, 2007 (AR4):

Warming the troposphere enhances the cooling rate, thereby increasing precipitation, but this may be partly offset by a decrease in the efficiency of radiative cooling due to an increase in atmospheric CO2 (Allen and Ingram, 2002; Yang et al., 2003; Lambert et al., 2004; Sugi and Yoshimura, 2004). This suggests that global mean precipitation should respond more to changes in shortwave forcing than CO2 forcing, since shortwave forcings, such as volcanic aerosol, alter the temperature of the troposphere without affecting the efficiency of radiative cooling. This is consistent with a simulated decrease in precipitation following large volcanic eruptions [which cause cooling] (Robock and Liu, 1994; Broccoli et al., 2003), and may explain why anthropogenic influence has not been detected in measurements of global land mean precipitation (Ziegler et al., 2003; Gillett et al., 2004b), although Lambert et al. (2004) urge caution in applying the energy budget argument to land-only data.”

103 responses to “Climate Activists Switch From Blaming Humans For Too Little And Now Too Much Rainfall…And Call It ‘Science’”

  1. David Johnson

    It is very sad to see the state of climate science nowadays. Closed, blinkered minds either following the money, or playing along for the sake of their careers.

    1. AndyG55

      Or in the sake of the AGW cultist trolls, some sort of empty-child-minded, feel-good, self-gratification.

  2. tom0mason

    That statement by the UN-IPCC is admirably restrained but could do with some improvement to highlight the meaning it really holds —

    A few added words to make the IPCC message clearer —

    “Warming the troposphere enhances the cooling rate, thereby increasing precipitation[though this is debateable], but this may [or may not] be partly offset by a decrease in the efficiency of radiative cooling due to an increase in atmospheric CO2 (Allen and Ingram, 2002; Yang et al., 2003; Lambert et al., 2004; Sugi and Yoshimura, 2004). This suggests that global mean precipitation should [but might not]respond more to changes in shortwave forcing than CO2 forcing, since shortwave forcings, such as volcanic aerosol, alter the temperature of the troposphere without affecting the efficiency of radiative cooling. This is consistent with a simulated [computer model, not a citation of any observations]decrease in precipitation following large volcanic eruptions [which cause cooling] (Robock and Liu, 1994; Broccoli et al., 2003), and may [or may not] explain why anthropogenic influence has not been detected in measurements of global land mean precipitation (Ziegler et al., 2003; Gillett et al., 2004b), [or maybe there are no anthropogenic influences to be detected in measurements of global land mean precipitation] , although Lambert et al. (2004) urge caution in applying the energy budget argument to land-only data.”

    So, it should, or may, or … No it doesn’t!

  3. Curious George

    Modern climate science disregards a memory of any kind – what say said two, twenty, or fifty years ago. Historical data is only a great material for adjustments.

  4. Brian W.

    Nov 28, 2016 Weather is NOT Climate!

    No, weather is NOT climate…even when it’s warm outside. But in case there’s a climate cultist in your life that insists otherwise, here are some facts about global warming and vaguely-defined “extreme” weather that you can use to talk some sense into them.

    1. AndyG55

      Interesting paper.. shows essentially that ALL so-called warming has basically come from “Adjustments™” to the surface data.

      It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.

      1. AndyG55

        The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.

        GAST includes surface data from NOAA, NASA, HADCrut, and any other series using GHCN data.

        1. tom0mason

          I have no problem with GISS temperature record when properly displayed.

      2. Brian W.


        American Lookout reports, In a perfect example of irony, a scientific research study that intended to study global warming was cancelled after encountering large amounts of ice. Breitbart reported, A global warming research study in Canada has been cancelled because of “unprecedented” thick summer ice. Naturally, the scientist in charge has blamed it on ‘climate change.’

      3. SebastianH

        Oh no, and now it happened to RSS data too. It got adjusted to show more warming. You guys must be having a field day in climate conspiracy circles around the world 😉

        1. AndyG55

          Mears has always been a rabid warmista..

          He hung onto his scientific integrity a lot longer than I expected.

          You do know what integrity is, don’t you seb.

          I have seen zero instance of it from you.

          1. Colorado Wellington

            It’s telling he has nothing to say about the subject of the post.

  5. yonason (from my cell phone)

    Data tampering = the source of all the warming.

    …peer reviewed, too!

    Tony Heller has been saying that, with proofs, for years.

    1. AndyG55

      That’s the one I linked to just above 🙂

      1. yonason (from my cell phone)

        Oh, right. Didn’t put the two together.


    2. tom0mason

      @yonason (from my cell phone)

      That paper can not be referenced too often to highlight the corrosion inherent in modern ‘climate science™’. UN-IPCC is based on pseudo-science.

    3. Colorado Wellington

      I understand Wallace, D’Aleo and Idso worked with Tony Heller on the paper.

      1. yonason (from my cell phone)

        Good. Tony Heller has been doing such a great job for a LONG time!

        1. AndyG55

          Thing is, he uses the FR*** word regularly, direct to their faces…. but not one of the AGW scammers dare take him one, because they KNOW he will be proven correct. 🙂

          1. SebastianH

            Like the legend about “climategate”? Proven to be correct? Good one …


          2. Colorado Wellington

            Hell, no! He won’t go! ®

          3. SebastianH

            Kenneth, can you even read? I always had my doubts when looking at papers you quote from that say something completely different than what you want to “prove” with that quote 😉

            But seriously … that’s not Wikipedia. Did you try to construct a straw man argument here?

            It’s like trying to support your beliefs by linking to Michael Mann’s twitter page.

            Oh we are doing analogies again? What is linking to Principia Scientifica then? Can a website with gems like this one ( be taken seriously? Can a blog like notrickszone be taken seriously when one of its authors constantly confused units?

          4. AndyG55

            Climategate existed and showed up the scientific maleficence of the main AGW proponents.

            We know you have to DENY it, seb, because that maleficence is part of you as well.

            We know that data manipulation and FR**D is totally acceptable to the AGW cult and its hangers-on.

            That is how it was formed, afterall.

            You well know that there is ZERO PROOF of any of the actual anti-science, anti-CO2 claims of your baseless religion.

          5. tom0mason

            @Kenneth Richard 7. July 2017 at 8:53 PM

            It’s worse than that!


            Worth noting is that RationalWiki is also deemed to have a slight (politically center-left) bias compared to Wikipedia — and that’s no surprise, as we explicitly do not aim for a neutral point of view. Note also that the comparison made here to Wikipedia is not to be confused with us considering RationalWiki an encyclopedia (we don’t).

        2. tom0mason

          @Kenneth Richard

          Here’s another interesting paper for you…


          The IPCC carbon budget concludes that changes in atmospheric CO2 are driven by fossil fuel emissions on a year by year basis. A testable implication of the validity of this carbon budget is that changes in atmospheric CO2 should be correlated with fossil fuel emissions at an annual time scale net of long term trends. A test of this relationship with insitu CO2 data from Mauna Loa 1958-2016 and flask CO2 data from twenty three stations around the world 1967-2015 is presented. The test fails to show that annual changes in atmospheric CO2 levels can be attributed to annual emissions. The finding is consistent with prior studies that found no evidence to relate the rate of warming to emissions and they imply that the IPCC carbon budget is flawed possibly because of insufficient attention to uncertainty, excessive reliance on net flows, and the use of circular reasoning that subsumes a role for fossil fuel emissions in the observed increase in atmospheric CO2.

          1. SebastianH

            Let’s hope that you don’t continue to make the mistake of comparing amounts with different units with each other when you “use this one in future discussions”. Munshi doesn’t do it and neither should you 😉

            The argument still seems to be that human emissions don’t correlate with CO2 concentration increase … completely ignoring the trend and all models of gas (CO2) exchange between the atmosphere and the ocean surface.

            I’d like to repost this image: … do those lines correlate? If you know what they are you know how they are connected to each other … yet, no correlation, but the red line is causing the orange line to increase.

          2. SebastianH

            Of course the trend is ignored in that Munshi paper. They explicitly try to correlate detrended time series.

            Airborne fraction is the percentage of human CO2 that remains in the atmosphere, e.g. roughly the increase in atmospheric CO2 content divided by human emissions in that year. You do realize that, do you?

            Since the ocean CO2 uptake has increased proportionally with the atmospheric CO2 content it has been like this (around half of our emissions get absorbed) for a long time now. It’s basically a result of the mechanisms involved.

            Airborne fraction correlates very well since it is derived from anthropogenic emissions and the annual increase in CO2. Why do you think it doesn’t correlate?

          3. SebastianH

            In other words, the detrending has little or nothing to do with establishing that human emissions don’t correlate with CO2 changes

            This exactly! Because the trend that is missing after detrending both time series is the human emissions caused atmospheric CO2 content change.

            By pointing out that only temperature correlates you make it sound like human emissions have nothing to do with increase itself. Which is not – as you now admitted – the case.

            Uh, no it [AF correlation] doesn’t. Climate models have for decades predicted that the airborne fraction would rise as emissions rose.

            What climate models? The ones I know have CO2 uptake reacting to CO2 concentration, not human emissions. It just so happens that the concentration increases at the same pace as our emissions increase, resulting in a near constant airborne fraction.

            BTW: since we are talking about the airborne fraction here and you obviously know what it is, why do you still think that 40-50% of human emissions staying in the atmosphere per year and CO2 concentration increasing by roughly the same amount of CO2 each year is not a clear sign that we are responsible for 100% of the concentration increase?

          4. SebastianH

            It’s rather amazing how you are able to argue about the airborne fraction and on the other hand try to make up an argument that CO2 concentration follows temperature. That’s really difficult to grasp … I mean the airborne fraction is by definition telling us that 40-50% of the CO2 emitted stays in the atmosphere … and surprise, that’s the amount the atmospheric CO2 content increases!

            The Munshi paper doesn’t refute that human CO2 emissions are responsible for the increase. They only thing this shows is that variations in the increase correlate with temperature.

            Variations in CO2 concentration increases is following temperature. Not surprising at all since this is the model used by everyone. What temperature doesn’t explain is the increase of the CO2 concentration itself. Which – coming back to the beginning – is of the same magnitude as the what is left from human emissions in the atmosphere (airborne fraction).

            Trying to not see you as an all-or-nothing guy is really hard when you try to argument like this …

          5. SebastianH

            I must be writing Chinese or something. Is my English this bad?

            How often does this need repeating? The Munshi paper compares detrended data. That’s good to compare variations in a trend, but that completely ignores the overall trend.

            Fill a swimming pool with a constant source of water (a garden hose maybe) and now get someone to help you by getting buckets of water from inside your house. Measure the water level, detrend it and compare it to the detrended water input figures. You’ll notice that it correlates perfectly to the bucket input, not the garden hose input. But you wouldn’t argue that it was the bucket that filled the pool, would you?

            The AF has stayed the same (or decreased) despite a pronounced increase in emissions.

            Do you know what the AF is? Do you know how it is connected to human emissions? And how can you not see that 40-50% of our emissions staying in the atmosphere (4-5 GtC) is roughly the amount the CO2 content increases each year?

          6. AndyG55

            “Is my English this bad?”

            No, your arguments are just monumentally WRONG, and your mindless analogy way out of wack with reality… as always.

            Why do you hate CO2 so much ??

  6. SebastianH

    So to recap:
    – scientists give a perfectly reasonable explanation of why rain and droughts are caused by global warming
    – warm temperatures in the past caused longer and more severe droughts
    – it’s supposed to be natural variability that caused the last California drought and in fact all droughts

    So what is the problem now? It is getting warmer, so shouldn’t we expect longer and more severe droughts? And if warmer temperatures lead to this, is that part of the natural variability? What if those warmer temperatures aren’t caused by natural variability?

    The title of this blog post seems to make fun of “climate activists” for blaming global warming to be the cause of both rain and droughts. I am missing the part where it is shown that this is, in fact, ridiculous or impossible.

    P.S.: California drought causes: (by human induced warming) (not so small anthropogenic influence) (long and severe droughts – as happened in the past – “could occur in the future due to natural or anthropogenic causes”) (“[…] add weight to the accumulating evidence that anthropogenic climatic changes are already influencing the frequency, magnitude, and duration of drought in California”)

    And so on … cherry picking papers is a good strategy to support a certain point of view, but that’s unfortunately possible for any point of view. So beware letting lists of papers on a topic convince you of some claim. Those lists are most likely incomplete. Google Scholar and similar search engines are your friend 😉

    1. AndyG55

      “Google Scholar and similar search engines are your friend”

      Not your friend, that’s for sure.

      Otherwise you might be able to find a paper that proves CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

      Or a paper that proves CO2 warms oceans.

      Or some proven downsides of enhanced atmospheric CO2.

      So far you are on three strikes.

      ….. batting zero from a few hundred.

      Maybe if you open your brain and your eyes, you might get somewhere… or not.

      1. SebastianH

        Papers don’t prove anything AndyG55, they are evidence. Proofs are something you do in math.

        You still haven’t provided anything in all these discussions. No numbers, no explanations of how things are supposed to work in your magic world. I realize that I am the one intruding on your turf here and I need to explain why I think you are wrong, but you showing nothing in return is pretty telling.

        Not asking you to “prove a negative” here. But you should at least be able to explain what causes warming in a convective atmosphere that is consistent with observations and physics. You should be able to explain what exactly warms the oceans and give W/m² to support that. You should be able to demonstrate that more CO2 is beneficial at the end. This includes that either CO2 has no effect on temperatures or that higher temperatures aren’t bad enough to cancel out the benefit from better plant growth.

        So far …. nothing.


        And the cause? Humans, of course. (I think you may have missed the point of the article entirely, which was expected.)

        I think I got your point, thanks for expecting otherwise. You didn’t disappoint with your reply either.

        How do humans cause the cooling of sea surface temperatures that cause droughts? Can you explain that scientifically?

        Why would humans need to cause the cooling? Amplification is enough to cause more severe droughts. If El Nino events become more powerful with increased OHC due to increased CO2 forcing, then El Nina events shouldn’t stay normal either.

        1. AndyG55

          “From the heat content.”

          Ah, so its a solar influence.

          None of your hated CO2 involved.

          After all, we all know that CO2 does not warm oceans.

          Thanks for the clarification, seb.

          1. SebastianH

            And you tell people you aren’t trolling? 😉 Good one AndyG55.

          2. AndyG55

            You just said it was solar influences, I agreed.

            Stop your petty trolling, seb. Its tedious, and beneath even your petulant low standards.

        2. AndyG55

          “Proofs are something you do in math.”


          Your pretence at a basic education is hilarious.

          Poor little zero proof seb..STILL flapping about like a stunned mullet or a rather, a SLIMY eel trying to avoid answering basic questions.

          All the time harbouring an inner hatred of the CO2 that nourishes the whole world’s existence.

          DENIES the sun warms the Earth and the oceans

          DENIES CO2 is plant food and that enhanced atmospheric CO2 is totally beneficial.

          Explanations have been given, and your brain-washed pea-brain has totally ignored them.

          Kenneth gives paper after paper. Your CO2 hatred forces you to ignore them

          The gravity thermal effect is well published, and scientifically and mathematically supported, by real science, not baseless unproven assumptions like the AGW scam is.

          Let go of your CO2 hatred, and your science anti-knowledge, seb, and try once to actually learn.

          1. SebastianH

            You make up things I never said/wrote and that Nikolov/Zeller paper is anything but “real science”. It’s correlation without causation … the very thing that people here claim AGW proponents are doing.

          2. SebastianH

            It’s ALL correlation: Human CO2 emissions rose; OHC rose; therefore, Human CO2 emissions caused OHC to rise. That IS exactly what your side does.

            Nope, and I won’t bother explaining that to you again. I did that multiple times now … and you don’t seem to understand. Either because you can’t or because you don’t want to … I don’t know and I don’t care.

          3. AndyG55

            You really hate real science as much as you HATE CO2.

            And there very much is causation, it runs through the whole paper.

            You are just being WILFULLY BLIND and IGNORANT in refusing to see it.

            Your inner hatred of CO2 will not ALLOW you to see that it is NOT a driver of temperature in any way what so ever, and is in fact totally beneficial and absolutely essential for all life on this CARBON-BASED planet of ours.

            Attacking the very constituents of your existence, truly requires a moronic state of mind. !!!

          4. AndyG55

            Seb , by “explaining” do you mean your anti-science, CO2-hating, brain-washed AGW yapping…

            … Or are you referring to some nonsense anti-science analogy you dreamt up while high on illicit mushrooms??

            And yes, seb, you have made it perfectly obvious that you DON’T KNOW much about anything, and you DON’T CARE to fix your ignorance.

      2. Colorado Wellington

        His Google Scholar friend is within a stone throw but he won’t go

        1. tom0mason


    2. AndyG55

      “– scientists give a perfectly reasonable explanation of why rain and droughts ”

      and everything is caused by gerbil worming

      Thing is , nearly all the so-called “warming” in the last 100 or so years is purely from data adjustments.

      It is NOT REAL. It is FAKE…

      … just like ever other aspect of your anti-science AGW religion.

    3. tom0mason

      “It is getting warmer, so shouldn’t we expect longer and more severe droughts? And if warmer temperatures lead to this, is that part of the natural variability? What if those warmer temperatures aren’t caused by natural variability?”

      You obviously failed to get the message

      You silly boy!
      So stop your ignorant rant, read the paper, and understand that there is very little modern warming if any.
      Your referenced papers are based on the assumption human induced warming is happening. The reality is the only human induced warming was in the continual adjustments to the temperature figures and not the real temperature.

      1. SebastianH

        I find is fascinating that you trust a “paper” like this to get things right and have such a deep rooted distrust against adjustments of temperature records. What if the “paper” is wrong? (serious question).

        The “paper” is laughable at best. While reading it I felt like NASA must have felt when they were forced to say that there are no child s** slaves on Mars.

        The comparison with satellite data at the end is particularly interesting as RSSv4 has shown that previous satellite data was less accurate than surface data. Yet they see this as the benchmark …

        It is no coincidence that stories like this only get picked up by the crazy people media outlets (Dailycaller, Breitbart, Heartland Institute, etc).

        Climategate was another such non-story that still lives as a legend in skeptics circles and gets occasionally mentioned. Why do you tend to believe claims like this? Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence!

        1. tom0mason


          The paper about adjustments of temperature records certainly is far more believable than any you list above.

          Your papers —
          “ (by human induced warming)” What because the planet has warmed up since 1970 this paper assigns that to human activity. Sorry not very persuasive.

          your second paper (
          “…Based on the ensemble of calculations, California drought conditions were record breaking in 2014, but probably not record breaking in 2012–2014, contrary to prior findings.” By definition these model ensemble assume warming is from human induced CO2, so sorry not very persuasive.

          In fact all your listed papers have this in build confirmatory bias of AGW. Sorry not very persuasive.

          In contrast Dr. Craig D. Idso, Dr. Joseph S. D’Aleo , who co-authored the study with statistician Dr. James P. Wallace III

          With the endorsement of seven other academics and professionals from this field of expertise. —

          Dr. Alan Carlin — Retired Senior Analyst and manager, US Environmental Protection Agency,

          Dr. Harold H. Doiron Retired — VP-Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc. Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant

          Dr. Theodore R. Eck Ph.D., — Economics, Michigan State University

          Dr. Richard A. Keen – Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado
          Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Colorado
          M.S., Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado
          B.A., Astronomy, Northwestern University

          Dr. Anthony R. Lupo — IPCC Expert Reviewer —
          Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri
          Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
          M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University

          Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen — Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T.
          B.S., Physics, M.I.T.

          Dr. George T. Wolff — Former Chair EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee

          I find far more persuasive than the pile you provided above.

        2. AndyG55

          DENIAL of facts will get you laughed at even more, seb.

          Our CLOWN act and mindless yapping are already funny enough.

          You seem to relish the scientific maleficence shown by the Climategate emails.

          Data MAL-ADJUSTMENT is, to you, an acceptable part of your AGW, anti-science mantra.

          The ONLY part that matters.

          Fabricate a non-existent warming, then BLAME human CO2

          Your CO2 hatred uns deep, doesn’t it seb.

          Breathe out, little child-mind.

        3. AndyG55

          UAH matches unadjusted surface and balloon data very well. RSS now doesn’t.

          UAH even matches NOAA’s own satellites.

          You will have to do much better than mindlessly yapping that you don’t like the paper.

          But we know that is all you have.

  7. P Gosselin

    Mann’s climate lecture is probably the dumbest science you’ll ever see.

  8. Colorado Wellington

    Antifa Black Bloc are fighting for climate science, world peace and social justice on the streets of Hamburg:

    “War, climate change, exploitation are the result of the capitalist system that the G20 stands for and which 20,000 police are here to defend,” demonstrator Georg Ismail told AFP.

    1. AndyG55

      Says Georg as he pockets his iPhone in his designer jeans.

      The trappings of capitalism dripping from his lemming-minded cohorts. The system that keeps them fed and clothed.

      Move to Venezuela if you don’t like the capitalist system, bozos.

      And those cars on fire.. how do they help pollution levels.

    2. tom0mason

      Evidence of Soros’s army of indoctrinated useful fools? Maybe, probably. The old rascal enjoys chaos for profit, now work out how and where he profits.

  9. sunsettommy

    It is obvious that Sebastian,like many warmists have no idea of the scale of CO2 changes in their postulated warm forcing effect.

    I posted this twice in a recent thread for Sebastian,he completely ignored it.

    “Sebastian writes these two sections,that reflect how little understand the effect of CO2 today:

    “Because it is a greenhouse gas”

    “and the only one we have any control over.”


    The first one is irrelevant since hardly anyone dispute it,despite its misleading definition.

    The second one is absurd,since the MODERN effect of additional CO2 is very small.

    Surely most skeptics by now realize that most of the postulated CO2 warm forcing effect was already set in hundred of million years ago. Any additional amount in Modern times is trivial in comparison,which is why it has negligible effect on the heat budget in the atmosphere,of today.

    Here is the science friendly chart that is based based on Modtran results that explains it so obviously:

    AGW conjecture was dead on arrival,since most of it was already set in 800 million years ago.”

    Kenneth point about a “0.000001 changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations”, is a valid one,since it shows how trivial the CO2 warm forcing effect is today.

  10. sunsettommy

    Sebastian ignored my post in the previous thread:

    Gee i wonder why…….

    Kenneth’s point about a “0.000001 changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations” is valid one since TODAY’S CO2 warm forcing effect is minimal,since most of it was already done in the first 60 ppm. Which was around 800 MILLION years ago.

    Warmists seems completely ignorant of this,which is why they persist in their utter delusion,while the rest of us long ago understood,that CO2 levels o0f today has a trivial effect on today’s temperature changes.

    1. SebastianH

      I can not possibly answer to every reply and when I don’t look at the comment RSS feed for half a day it can happen that they just slip by. Sorry.

      While it is true that the scale for the influence CO2 has on temperature is logarithmic (e.g. a doubling from 280 to 560 ppm has the same effect as a doubling from 140 to 280 or 70 to 140 or 35 to 70 ppm), that doesn’t mean that the current doubling results in a small increase.

      You linked to this chart in your other comment:

      I hope you realize that you have to add up all small bars between 280 and 560 to get the heating effect for that doubling. That adds up to a 1.2 °C temperature rise for every doubling. However, that’s just the heating effect of CO2. Feedback can greatly enhance that effect. The range given by the IPCC goes up to 6°C (rather unlikely).

      1. AndyG55

        “While it is true that the scale for the THEORETICAL, UNPROVEN influence CO2 …. ”

        If you disregard the proven science of thermalisation, and a convective atmosphere controlled by the gravity potential.

      2. sunsettommy

        Sebastian, you and ALL the warmists never show evidence of a real positive feedback loop driving temperature has not showed up the last 100 years,not in the last 500 Million year either.

        Positive feedbacks is a modeling construct,nothing else.

        You as usual have NOTHING to support your CO2 insanity.

        Here is what YOU failed to think about:

        The first 20 ppm has a postulated 1.7 C warming effect.
        the next 20 ppm has another .375 C warming effect.
        another 20 ppm more gives us .20C more.

        Thus the first 60 ppm shows about a 2.30 C warming effect in the atmosphere.

        Now the next 60 ppm is only around .40 C

        The next 120 ppm is around .25 C more

        The next 180 ppm gave us only .065C more….

        Now we add up the next 120 more….. Tick…Tock…..Tick…. Tock…..

        See why skeptics laugh at you?

        Here is the MODTRAN result you didn’t see:

        You need to stop thinking that CO2 drives temperature changes,otherwise you will be called stupid and other less flattering names.

      3. sunsettommy

        Since it has been at least 160 ppm in the atmosphere for the last 500 million years,most of the possible warm forcing has already been set in.

        The last 120 ppm increase since the 1800’s gave us a postulated warming effect of around…….,


        It has warmed way more than .50C since 1880,which means CO2 warming effect is really small and getting smaller all the time for every 120 ppm increase into the future.


        Now you understand why they talk about Doubling from 280 to 560,NOT about the trivial increase from 280 to 400 ppm?

        The increase is so small that even a doubled rate becomes irrelevant.

        Here is the MODTRAN results again:

        See how little increase there is from 280 ppm to 560 ppm?

        Sebastian, you need to get off the stupid,”CO2 is driving temperature changes” bandwagon.

        1. AndyG55

          Eggert, a gas physicist, showed by experiment that the forcing in lab conditions actually levelled off at around 280ppm. ie.. not exactly a log curve.

          So even without the gravity-thermal regulating effect, there would STILL be no added forcing in an increase from a plant subsistence level of 280ppm, to 400, or to 500, or to 600, or even to 1000ppm.

          1. AndyG55

            Note, this is the absorption of radiation, not the re-emittance, which doesn’t occur in the lower atmosphere.

    2. tom0mason


      Excellent point.

      Coming out of the LIA it is supposed to get warmer!
      Man has not done it, nature has done it, Seb has no proof to contradict that basic premise.

  11. sunsettommy

    Why are my comments getting swallowed up?

    1. tom0mason

      I’m always asking that.
      It would be nice if there was some confirmation message saying where it went (I suspect the spam bin), but just to take it and show no information is just plain rude. Like having a conversation with some who just silently ups and leaves the room.

  12. Brian W.

    March 18, 2015 Climate Change Weapons and Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science

    Did you know that proposals to warm the climate and melt arctic ice with giant geoengineering projects has been the goal of industrialists since the formation of Standard Oil in 1870?

  13. tom0mason

    Comment about models and clouds —

    Keith D. Williams and Alejandro Bodas-Salcedo Met Office
    Received: 02 Dec 2016 – Discussion started: 03 Jan 2017
    Revised: 26 Apr 2017 – Accepted: 27 Apr 2017 – Published: 06 Jul 2017
    Abstract. Most studies evaluating cloud in general circulation models present new diagnostic techniques or observational datasets, or apply a limited set of existing diagnostics to a number of models.
    In this study, we use a range of diagnostic techniques and observational datasets to provide a thorough evaluation of cloud, such as might be carried out during a model development process. The methodology is illustrated by analysing two configurations of the Met Office Unified Model – the currently operational configuration at the time of undertaking the study (Global Atmosphere 6, GA6), and the configuration which will underpin the United Kingdom’s Earth System Model for CMIP6 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6; GA7).

    By undertaking a more comprehensive analysis which includes compositing techniques, comparing against a set of quite different observational instruments and evaluating the model across a range of timescales, the risks of drawing the wrong conclusions due to compensating model errors are minimized and a more accurate overall picture of model performance can be drawn.

    Overall the two configurations analysed perform well, especially in terms of cloud amount. GA6 has excessive thin cirrus which is removed in GA7. The primary remaining errors in both configurations are the in-cloud albedos which are too high in most Northern Hemisphere cloud types and sub-tropical stratocumulus, whilst the stratocumulus on the cold-air side of Southern Hemisphere cyclones has in-cloud albedos which are too low.

    Ho-humm, models still don’t have clouds correct.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy