Category Archives: Hurricanes

REBLOG: 4,300 Days Since Last U.S. Major Hurricane Strike–By Dr. Spencer.


Rebloging Dr. Roy Spencer’s posting which can be reached by clicking here.

The season is starting slowly; however,  it may surprise us.   I was in Tampa, Florida on 24 October 2005.  For a day or so, it looked like Tampa might be the landfall.  In the end,  it made landfall south of Tampa, fortunately for my son whose house we were fixing up to sell.


July 31st, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Wednesday of this week will mark 4,300 days since the last major hurricane (Category 3 or stronger, 111-129 mph maximum sustained winds) made landfall in the U.S.

That’s almost 12 years.

The last major hurricane to make landfall in the U.S. was Wilma striking Florida on October 24, 2005, one of several strong hurricanes to hit the U.S. that year. The unusual hurricane activity in 2005 was a central focus of Al Gore’s 2006 movie, An Inconvenient Truth, in which Mr. Gore suggested 2005 was going to be the new normal. As you might recall, Gore went on to receive a Nobel Peace Prize for helping to raise awareness of the severe weather dangers from global warming.

Instead, the bottom dropped out of Atlantic hurricane activity after 2005. The “drought” of landfalling U.S. major hurricanes continues, and as seen in this graphic from, no hurricanes have yet formed anywhere in the Atlantic basin in 2017, despite the forecast for an above-normal hurricane season:

Making It Criminal To Be A Skeptic—The First Amendment Is Under Siege

Senator Whitehouse (D-RI) is calling for RICO investigations of skeptics and fossil fuel companies. California legislators writing a bill allowing for the prosecution of climate change dissent—fortunately it died this past  Thursday. Seventeen  State Attorney Generals investigating Exxon. Calls to silence skeptical views are becoming more frequent. A number of major US newspapers are prohibiting discussion of Skeptical views.  This theme parallels the Social Justice Warriors efforts to impose their view of politically correct and thus allowable speech. The First Amendment to the Constitution is under siege by the media and the government itself. The Amendment was designed to prevent the Government from squashing dissenting views and is often considered the medias first line of defense from the government crackdowns such as are common in socialist, communist and dictatorial governments (e.g. Venezuela, China and Iran.)

From an earlier Climate Change Sanity blog:

”Climate science acts like it is fighting a holy war. There are only those who are just and those who must be silenced and stopped at all costs. Anyone who mounts reasonable logical, empirical, or skeptical challenges to the orthodoxy must be ruined, not by counterfactual evidence, but by vicious attack”.

Obviously the warmers are not winning the hearts and minds of free people. One reason for this is that the disinformation primarily comes from the warmers. The predictions of catastrophe are many and they have not come true. And you do not need to be a climate scientist to understand how the warmers continue to get it wrong. The mainstream media is complicit in the distribution of this disinformation.


Look at these postings where you can get some idea of how poor their predictions are:

CAGW Predictions –Zombie And Others

Quotes from the Founders Of the Global Warming Movement

More Green Predictions Are Way Off Base

5 IPCC Assessments Don’t Show Correlation Of Temperature and Severe Weather

How Reliable Are Climate Models?

And some stories of manipulation of Data to get the results they want

Can We Trust the EPA Secrete Science

Doctor Brown and Temperature Tampering

Research Papers Show IPCC Climate Sensitivity Are Too High

And Bjon Lomborg shows how just a fraction of the money wasted on these erroneous green studies could really make a difference in people’s lives:

Bjorn Lomborg Say Global Warming Poor Place to Spend Money

These are just a few of postings on Climate Change Sanity that show you need to be a skeptic.

And please contact you legislators and tell them to protect the public from those who want to take away our First Amendment rights.


Denying The Climate Catastrophe:Greenhouse GasTheory (Warren Meyers Essay)

Below is my reposting fr0m, the Warren Meyers essay on his take of the global climate change issue.


We continue our multi-part series on the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming by returning to our framework we introduced in the last chapter

Click to Enlarge

In the introduction, we discussed how catastrophic man-made global warming theory was actually made up of two independent parts.  In this section, we will discuss the first of these two parts, the greenhouse gas effect, which is the box in the upper left of our framework.

For those unfamiliar with exactly what the greenhouse effect is, I encourage you to check out this very short primer.  Essentially, certain gasses in the atmosphere can absorb some of the heat the Earth is radiating into space, and re-radiate some of this heat back to Earth.  These are called greenhouse gasses.  Water vapor is a relatively strong greenhouse gas, while CO2 is actually a relatively weak greenhouse gas.

It may come as a surprise to those who only know of skeptics’ arguments from reading their opponents (rather than the skeptics themselves), but most prominent skeptics accept the theory of greenhouse gas warming.  Of course there are exceptions, including a couple of trolls who like to get attention in the comments section of this and other blogs, and including a few prominent politicians and talk-show hosts.  But there are also environmental alarmists on the other side who have signed petitions to ban dihydrogen monoxide.  It is always tempting, but seldom intellectually rewarding, to judge a particular position by its least capable defenders.

There is simply too much evidence both from our and other planets (as well as simple experiments in a laboratory) to deny that greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere have a warming effect on planets, and that CO2 is such a greenhouse gas.   What follows in the rest of this section represents something of a consensus of people on both sides of the debate.

Continue reading

Denying the Climate Catastrophe: 1. Introduction (Warren Meyers Essay)

Warren Meyers is posting on his website, an essay on Global Warming (aka global climate change). Meyers is quite good as an explainer of issues because he can do it without making them too complex for most people to understand. The following, is the first of perhaps 6 parts. I plan on rebloging them all.


click to enlarge

I suppose the first question I need to answer is:  why should you bother reading this?  We are told the the science is “settled” and that there is a 97% consensus among scientists on …. something.  Aren’t you the reader just giving excess credence to someone who is “anti-science” just by reading this?

Well, this notion that the “debate is over” is one of those statements that is both true and not true.  There is something approaching scientific consensus for certain parts of anthropogenic global warming theory — for example, the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that concentrations of it in the atmosphere have a warming effect on the Earth is pretty much undisputed in all but the furthest reaches of the scientific community.

But it turns out that other propositions that are important to the debate on man-made global warming are far less understood scientifically, and the near certainty on a few issues (like the existence of the greenhouse gas effect) is often used to mask real questions about these other propositions.  So before we go any further , it is critical for us to get very clear what exact proposition we are discussing.

At this point I have to tell a story from over thirty years ago when I saw Any Rand speak at Northeastern University (it’s hard to imagine any university today actually allowing Rand on campus, but that is another story).  In the Q&A period at the end, a woman asked Rand, “Why don’t you believe in housewives?” and Rand answered, in a very snarky fashion, “I did not know housewives were a matter of belief.”   What the woman likely meant to ask was “Why don’t you believe that being a housewife is a valid occupation for a woman?”  But Rand was a bear for precision in language and was not going to agree or disagree with a poorly worded proposition.

I am always reminded of this story when someone calls me a climate denier.  I want to respond, in Rand’s Russian accent, “I did not know that climate was a matter of belief?”

But rather than being snarky here, let’s try to reword the “climate denier” label and see if we can get to a proposition with which I can agree or disagree.

Am I, perhaps, a “climate change denier?”  Well, no.  I don’t know anyone who is.  The world has had warm periods and ice ages.  The climate changes.

OK, am I a “man-made climate change denier?”  No again.  I know very few people, except perhaps for a few skeptics of the talkshow host variety, that totally deny any impact of man’s actions on climate.  Every prominent skeptic I can think of acknowledges multiple vectors of impact by man on climate, from greenhouse gas emissions to land use.

Continue reading

Climate Models Botch Another Prediction

I am reblogging a posting from titled “Climate Models Botch Another Prediction”. Tom Hartsfield is the posting’s author and he sums up the issues of the continued failures of climate models and the way the warmers view themselves in a holy war and must stop the skeptics at all costs.


———————————————————————————————-Climate Models Botch Another Prediction:     by Tom Hartsfield


Today’s news tells of another mistake of exaggerated climate science prediction.

I’m not getting in the foxhole with the warriors on either side of the raging climate war. But I think there’s something more alarming going on than the spike in CO2 level charts.

Our global system of air currents, ocean currents, cloud patterns, resonant temperature cycles, energy storage and release mechanisms, and further processes is mind-bogglingly complex.

Presently, the best climate models fall many orders of magnitude short of the power and intricacy needed to effectively predict the long-term climate patterns that emerge from the interactions of all these planetary systems. And that’s not a failure of science; it’s just the reality of how tough the problem is.

Predictions are made by building models using the smartest simplifications we have thought of and running them on the most powerful computers ever built. Basically, it’s the best we can do right now.

But there is a major failure of science going on.

Continue reading

An Interesting Admission From A Top Warmer Scientist. has a site called AskScience where an inquiring mind submits a question and expert scientist answer the inquiry.  Recently a question was submitted by a person concerned that the IPCC was underestimating the problem of catastrophic man-made global warming.   The questioner wanted to know the answer to the following:

” Given the nonlinear nature of the atmosphere, how can we have any confidence in long term predictions of temperature rise? “

A Major warmer scientist from MIT answered the question as follows:”

We are worried about that too. Climate is an enormously complex system and we do not pretend that we can predict is with much accuracy, which is why, for example, in the IPCC reports there is a generous range of possible outcomes. (K.E.)   (My emphasis.)


Kerry Emanuel (KE) answered that question.   Are you asking who he is? Well, see the following introduction that he provided:

“I’m Kerry Emanuel, a Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I do research on hurricanes and other types of severe weather, on climate change, and how climate change might affect severe weather. My research is mostly theoretical, but I also build computer models and occasionally participate in field experiments and build and use laboratory experiments. I have flown research aircraft into hurricanes, and wrote a book called “Divine Wind: The History and Science of Hurricanes”, aimed at a general reader and covering both the science of hurricane and how they have influenced history, art, and literature.”

If one googles Dr Emanuel, the source will almost invariably call him a “conservative warmer”. At one time he did vote for a Republican candidate. However he voted for President Obama because Emanuel admits that he is a single-issue voter and Obama signs the warmer’s songs. So much for being called a conservative.

Anyway, almost all of us agree with Dr Emanuel that warmer’s predictions are unlikely to be accurate.


12 Reasons To Be A Skeptic

James Delingpole is a Brit that writes for He has a sharp mind that he uses to take the obvious and throw it back at the pretenders often with good humor. Somewhat like Mark Steyn. They are a formidable pair and I am glad they are on our side.

The Delingpole posting that I want to discuss was written before the COP21 Paris meeting of the massive group of hanger-ons that go to these conferences on stopping global warming. But, the points he makes in this posting “Twelve Reasons Why The Paris Climate Talks Are A Total Waste” are essentially timeless within the current discussion of the catastrophic man-made global warming theory.

I may summarize the discussion in some of the twelve reasons. So I do recommend that you link to his original posting to read the reasons in their entirety. Don’t ignore the links that are included in this listing.

1   There has been no ‘global warming’ since 1997.

So, of all the children round the world currently being taught in schools about the perils of man-made global warming, not a single one has lived through a period in which the planet was actually warming

Continue reading