Time To Connect The Dots

Ten years ago, experts told us that hurricanes like Katrina and Rita were the new normal, due to global warming.

ScreenHunter_10077 Aug. 14 09.07

Time to Connect the Dots – The New York Times

The period since has been the quietest on record for US hurricanes, with no major (category 3-5) hurricanes.

ScreenHunter_10076 Aug. 14 09.02

Weather Street: 2015 Atlantic Hurricanes and Tropical Storms

It is time to connect the dots, and recognize that climate experts have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Time To Connect The Dots

  1. willys36 says:

    Why is the current situation the perfect scenario and any change either direction will be catastrophic? Could it be that the climate is self adjusting and driven by a Higher Power who has our best interest at heart? Just trying to figure out their thought process.

    • John Smith says:

      I think it just shows how humans have changed little in the modern era
      still superstitious
      the shamans now have PhDs and wear white lab coats
      their spells and potions are a little better, but not much
      and they’re loath to admit their limitations
      and just like the old days the yuppies in the court are the easiest to fool
      and the peasants still laugh at them behind their backs
      everybody’s still looking for ‘signs’
      climate science is starting to sound like astrology to me … for Gaia’s sake, they keep telling us we must believe what the enlightened ones say and if we don’t we’re ‘deniers’
      I rest my case

    • Willy,

      There are good reasons to believe that cooling would indeed have a severe and possibly catastrophic impact. Historically, warmer periods coincided with times of prosperity while colder periods brought poor harvests, famines, unrest and war. Our modern just-in-time management of resources has brought increased productivity but it made the system more vulnerable. A multi-year cold weather disruption to the world’s food supply would hit the masses of the poor in undeveloped countries first and hard.

      Why anyone unconnected to the AGW money machine argues that a moderate warming would be detrimental escapes me totally. Based on challenging the believers I’ve met, my best guess is that such people are either completely ignorant or complete morons.

      Frequently both.

  2. omanuel says:

    The image that emerges – when all the dots are connected – is almost too frightening to contemplate: A figure (with Stalin’s mustasch holding the crew of an Anerican B29 bomber and Japan’s atomic bomb plant at Konan, Korea) entering into negotiations to unite nations (UN) and national academies of sciences (NAS) on October 24, 1945.

    • omanuel says:

      Two early dots were hidden from the public by a news blackout of events in Aug-Sept 1945:

      _ i.) Stalin’s capture of Japan’s atomic bomb plant at Konan, Korea
      _ ii.) Stalin’s capture and retention of the crew of an American B-29 bomber

      The next two early dots are still visible for all to see:

      1. False changes in the internal composition of the Sun from:
      _ a.) Mostly iron (Fe) in 1945 to
      _ b.) Mostly hydrogen (H) in 1946

      2. False changes the definition of nuclear stability from:
      _ c.) Minimum value of Aston’s nuclear packing fraction, before WWII to
      _ d.) Maximum value of Weizsacker’s nuclear binding energy per nucleon after WWII

      These two lies destroyed the integrity of solar and nuclear physics almost immediately after nations and national academies of sciences merged into a worldwide Orwellian Ministry of Consensus Science (UN)Truths on October 24, 1945.

      After 1945, Nobel and Crafoord Prizes were awarded to those who helped destroy the veracity (scientific integrity) of these major disciplines: Astronomy, astrophysics, climatology, cosmology, nuclear, particle, planetary, solar and theoretical physics.

      Typo correction: crew of an American B29 bomber

  3. oldbrew says:

    Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
    NYT 2005: ‘Hurricanes have therefore become bigger and more destructive and are likely to grow even more violent in the future.

    This cycle cannot be reversed any time soon.’

    Climate fortune telling is a risky business.

  4. craigm350 says:

    Reblogged this on the WeatherAction News Blog and commented:
    If today it rains cats and dogs, under climate change we will get more of that. If it rains lamas expect more of that. As long as there is funding we will extrapolate any event and call it a trend. Cos it’s climate change. Be afraid and give us cash.

  5. rah says:

    And this same scenario of disproved epiphanies of doom proven to be absolutely false prophesies applies across the board, from Tornadoes, to wild fires, to droughts, to flooding, to snows, to sea level rise, to Arctic ice, to Antarctic ice, and even, unbelievably, EARTH QUAKES. Do any of the many writers of these Epiphanies of doom ever show the integrity to come back and admit to their readers that they were wrong? None that I can recall. Don’t we now know what kind of people would have made multiple trips to the Oracles of Delphi?

  6. Andy DC says:

    Cornbelt droughts in the US are way down, only one severe drought since 1988. For every argument that the climate has gotten worse, there are probably at least 3 arguments that the climate has gotten better.

  7. Menicholas says:

    Our host is finally getting some recognition for his diligence. Tony, you deserve a lot more respect than you are getting from the “skeptic community”. Maybe this is the beginning of a change:


  8. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    “These are natural disasters — but with human fingerprints.”

    Said the climate change alarmist, after no major US (cat 3-5) hurricanes for a record 10 years later.

  9. iurockhead says:

    Wetter, schmetter, who cares? What about the GODZILLA EL NINO?!!!!! It’s coming!! Lester Holt said so.

    • Menicholas says:

      “Why not show why you do not trust Goddard’s graph?”

      Skeptics! You have no link to the original. You have no idea what version of USHCN he is talking about. You have no idea how the graph was made, or the basis for it. But you trust it, because it looks as you would like.

      My version is here. The adjustment is nowhere more than half what Goddard claims. I explain how I calculated it. I give the code. I show a complete breakdown by states.

      And here I show why the major adjustment, TOBS, is readily quantified and absolutely required.”

      • rah says:

        Where us “here”. I so not link to anything?

        • Menicholas says:

          You have to go to the WUWT comment by Stokes for his link. I do not know how to create a link on a copied comment. The link to his comment will take you there.
          I had to go to sleep before, but am up now.
          I was looking for the original posting here of the graph Dr. Brown and Mr. Brozek used.

    • rah says:

      “Start by asking why you trust Goddard’s graph.”

      No I will start by asking why I should trust Stokes? Tony has demonstrated time and again the historical record verses the newly adjusted one. The examples can be found through out the archives of this site for the last two years or more. Stokes NEVER addressed why virtually ALL the adjustments made to the historical record make the past cooler did he? He didn’t dispute that FACT either now did he! Nor did he explain in detail how UHI is handled now and why! Why not ask him WHY?
      Sometimes when one reads the comments on WUWT it seems like there are a whole lot of educated and very smart people that are above someone like this ignorant truck driver commenting on. But my life experience as an SF soldier and then a businessman and now a truck driver has given me a pretty good Bull Shit detection ability. And there is really no gray area here. Either the adjustments made reflect reality or they don’t. Do you believe they do?

      If you start paying attention to the questions they don’t answer that are prescient to the questions they ask there is considerable contingent there that reminds me of Think Progress or Slate trying to explain why Hillary’s email scandal isn’t really so bad. The key is never ever forgetting what the key question is. And that question is if the adjustments made to the historical records are justified. Is it really hotter now than it was in the 1930’s?

      • David A says:

        True Rah, to a point, as in how I answer some of Mosher’s comments here…http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/14/problematic-adjustments-and-divergences-now-includes-june-data/#comment-2007672

        However as Tony produced the graphic, the data for it should be available, and likely is.

      • Menicholas says:

        I also agree with you Rah. I said so in response to Stokes. He never has responded to anything I have ever said. Oh, well. No one knows who I am, and a lot of these guys will only respond to people they know I guess. I would identify myself publicly, but I have to consider my employment. Speaking publicly about these things could cause problems for my employer.
        Besides, I do not think it matters in science who asks the question…only the question matters.
        Mr. Brozek has expressed his hope that Tony will respond. I hope so too.
        But I can understand if he does not.
        Frankly, I am surprised if neither of the authors contacted Mr. Heller before using his graph.

        • David A says:

          Frankly, I am surprised if neither of the authors contacted Mr. Heller before using his graph.
          I also am extremely surprised given the somewhat tumultuous history between the two sites. These details should have been cleared up before the post. IMV the strength of the post is in describing how the troposphere flat line for 19 years could not happen if CAGW was correct , and the surface only warming is completely contrary to the “consensus” physics of CAGW.

      • Menicholas says:

        Rah, I think you may have read my comments on WUWT, both on this thread and many others.
        I rarely get a response to my questions. A few do engage me.
        Again, I agree with you. I think the “adjustments” (I use quotes because fraud is not an adjustment, it is a lie.) are completely bogus. I think that those who wish to let the adjusters off the hook are doing so for several reasons, none of them good reasons.
        I have stated so repeatedly, on the linked thread and many other times.
        In fact, I say it a lot. More than maybe anyone.
        When I started commenting on WUWT, few people where mentioning it. Now more are.
        I do not know if my comments are helping, but I suspect maybe they are, even if no one responds I know they are reading what I write.
        One thing I notice is…few people ever jump on me. so I must be saying something right.
        No commenter can post things people disagree with and never get called out.
        I try to only write what I am sure of, have a link to, etc.
        If I state an opinion, I make it clear I am doing so.
        Too many declare opinions as facts.
        If I call the climate establishment a pack of lying thieves, there is a mountain of evidence to back me up. It is past being an opinion.
        A lot of commenters want to hold that the climate liars are lying, but it is somehow going to far to call it a hoax, or a fraud.
        It is not. I have looked up the definition of these words to be sure I am not using words out of context.
        if people believed something at one time, but since have had doubts, but have not voiced them or retracted statements…they are now lying. Lying for money is fraud.
        An organized community of people who lie every day are engaged in a hoax.

        I always knew CAGW was bullshit. I was studying all of the relevant subjects in school when the meme was created.
        Since finding out about these alterations to the historical data, my opinion has changed. I can no longer believe that it is an honest disagreement of the facts.
        It is plainly organized fraud.
        There is ample evidence of direct collusion to alter data and present a coordinated front to the public.
        Climategate and other emails and events make it as plain as can be.

        • Menicholas says:

          BTW, I have also held and loved a lot of different sorts of jobs…nurseryman, truck driver, cabinetmaker and carpenter, production technician, service manager, troubleshooter.
          Right now I am employed troubleshooting and repairing high voltage underwater electrical machinery.
          I have loved every job I ever had. When I started this one, I just wanted to try something new in a new place after a painful breakup.
          I knew nothing about such machinery, or power transmission, etc.
          Now, I have electrical engineering firms calling me when they can not figure something out.
          The power quality specialists from FPL hate to hear from me. They never can or will answer my questions. I know why…the answers would require expensive solutions.

          Everyone gives the answer they are paid to do…or they find another job. I can tell that few “climate scientists wish to find another job. Riding the government gravy train sounds like a fat gig.
          Too bad what they do has become so dangerous for society.
          I will do whatever I can to expose this climate liars.
          To the point of going back for a more relevant degree.

        • AndyG55 says:

          The surface can ONLY warm faster than the lower troposphere through data corruption or the problem that the surface data is heavily influenced in localised UHI effects.

          The global surface temperature and the lower troposphere temperature are tightly linked by the lapse rate. CO2 does not affect the lapse rate. Only H2O does that.

        • rah says:

          Yes I read them and they were excellent as were David A s. And I will say that over time skeptics at WUWT have been, to put it bluntly, kicking ass! Despite the original dispute over the intent and import of the “adjustments” between this site and WUWT it appears that they are now fully on the case and putting some pretty good stuff out. Reinforcing Tony’s efforts can only be a good thing. I lack the knowledge and mathematical/statistical background and expertise to contribute much of anything when people start talking codes. But from the beginning my intuitive BS detector certainly has proven to be good when the likes of a Mosher start their defense and with the knowledge I’ve gained here and elsewhere it has gotten more sensitive. Or perhaps it has something to do with just learning who the players are over time.

    • I have no idea what he is doing. My calculations are the average of all final temperatures minus the average of all raw temperatures. He is doing manipulations to the data which are giving him the wrong answer.

      • Menicholas says:

        Can you show me the page where you did the calculation, and/or posted the graph?

      • Menicholas says:

        I think an explanation of the specific method used to create the total adjustments vs CO2 concentration graph would disarm the critics.
        Nick Stokes obviously has a vested interest in the whole warmista meme.
        Your graph makes it completely obvious that the adjustments are not random, or some coincidence, or any legitimate attempt to make the historic climate record more accurate…it is an effort to force the climate records to match CO2 concentration.

  10. hunter says:

    Tropical cyclones are amazing powerful storms but are not well understood if one confuses descriptive metaphors with the reality of the storms. They are not actually powerful engines. They are not actually monsters. They are not simply driven by heat differentials. They are complex huge movements of air that can be disrupted by many things: airborne dust, upper level wind patterns, dry air, high pressure ridges, cold fronts, land masses, etc. The dots the alarmist claptrap in the NYT and other popular media did not bother to connect was just how rare the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons were. And the climate obsession of science has reduced the curiosity of researchers to figure out what variables aligned to produce the conditions to create those two exceptional years.
    Connecting the dots, as Steve Goddard points out, shows another cost of the CO2 obsession: bad science that does not bother to investigate things that may conflict with the obsession.

  11. I still figure that some of these storms may have been given a little technological help: “H.A.A.R.P.”

    A key towards this question, is that even Nikola Tesla was the one who first demonstrated that most storms (especially, electrical storms) produced a lot of noise at about 500kHz (just below the AM Broadcast Band frequencies). One could tell a storm was soon approaching, by tuning his/her radio to the lowest part of the AM Broadcast Band (down to 520kHz, on the dial), and pick up the electrical “noise” from lightening strikes and the increased disruptive static in the atmosphere.

    Now, I do not see CO2 levels having any effect upon this interesting effect, as CO2 is not very electromagnetically-affected like water vapor and O2 would be. (Oxygen is actually quite magnetically-attracted.)


    We still must consider the level of activity on the Sun’s surface as one of the biggest contributors to the Earth’s weather patterns, and even general character of the climate for a period of years. Where most of the severe storms occurred, was when Sunspot counts were much higher than the usual average. Again, CO2 would have very little to do with this fact, because our CO2 concentrations would absolutely NO EFFECT upon the Sun’s activity levels. (Duh!) – Yet, most of the “mean-greenies” would hear none of this, because it directly conflicts with their limited view of Nature and the climate cycles.

    How about they connect THOSE dots? (Of course not. Please refer to previous paragraph as to why.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *