The Heatwave Of Halloween, 1950

We are having our fourth October snowstorm in Boulder today, and yesterday afternoon never made it up to the freezing mark.

But on this date in 1950 it was 82 degrees in Boulder with 90 degree weather reported Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona and California. More than half of the US was over 80 degrees that day.

From 1932 to 1950, Halloween was a warm day in the US. But temperatures plummeted after that and never recovered.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

99 Responses to The Heatwave Of Halloween, 1950

  1. Rah says:

    You have a lot more of the White stuff coming Tony. Most of Canada is being slammed and it’ll becoming down. You’ve had a taste already and it’s coming for many of the rest of us. Looks like it’ll likely be another great year for the ski areas at both ends of the country.

    • arn says:

      looks more like 2018 will be another warmest november ever
      in all those regions which will be now covered with snow and ice :)

      (don’t believe me? just wait a few weeks.
      They wait until it gets warmer and a few weeks pass so that people forget and then they’ll start telling how incredibly hot november was and most people will believe this while wondering why they spent so much more money for heating in november than before)

  2. arn says:

    Boulder was just ahead of time and
    had global warming (on a local scale) long before it was
    en vogue :)
    Seems pretty obvious as man made co2 was already a thing then and the
    climate in Boulder already knew how devastating co2 really is it decided to turn warm.
    Long before climate scientists(all of a sudden)discovered the magic and fantastic abilities
    co2 has in the 80ies.They couldn”t discover them earlier,as superhot co2 would have disrupted their global cooling scare of the seventies.
    And they did a great job:
    Heat is a much much better tool to scare people than cold
    as it reminds us of one of our primal fears(=fire)
    and one of the most successfully implemented artificial fears of the past millenias(=hellfire,eternal)
    and red is considered a signalcolor for danger(blood,fire etc)
    and if you want to drive a man crazy putt him into a red room,not a blue one.

    So from a propagandic point of view the switch from global cooling to global warming was absolut necessary to succeed with a tax on a global scale.
    As rebranding from the pretty specific term global warming to the completely meaningless climate change was necessary((with warming one can only blame warming
    and will be destroyed with cooling while everything can be considered climate change)

    The only global thing in global warming(besides global tax) was the rebranding
    of global warming into climate change-
    and all of a sudden all politicians and media started calling it climate change instead of global warming.
    Which is either result of dozens of unexplainable coinvidences or result of centralised and controlled politicians and media(eg. by the nazi+jesuit created bilderbergers+cfr,club of rome) who’ll parrot anything the agenda tells them.

  3. Dan says:

    The interesting thing about this blog is that it isn’t really a blog against “climate change” per se, but rather an indictment of science and scientists generally. It strikes me as odd that the people reading this blog disregard the conclusions of thousands of scientists with regard to climate change, but implicitly trust the conclusions of scientists in all other aspects of life. Where would we be without scientists? They have created everything that we use on a daily basis: cars, computers, phones, etc. How many times have you questioned the conclusions of scientists prior to the climate change debate? Implicitly, you trust your life and the lives of everyone you care about to the conclusions of scientists. For example, they have been able to figure out how to keep people safe while driving (air bags, seatbelts, etc.) and have discovered life-saving medicines. Our lives have by and large improved from the input of scientists, who have always worked diligently to improve our technologies. My interpretation of the climate change debate is that these scientists can be trusted, but anyone working on climate science should be immediately and completely distrusted.

    Why is it that in this one particular instance you choose NOT to believe the conclusions of scientists? Are you trying to assert that only this one group of scientists is immoral, but all other scientists are truthful? Or are you asserting that all scientists are fraudulent? Either way, it is a sad reflection of our current society, and the politicization of science (which, inherently, SHOULD BE an a-political discipline). I would not claim that all scientists are truthful, and I agree that some publish fraudulent research to secure more funding, generate a reputation, etc. However, given the tangible advances in technology and science, clearly most scientists are truthful and are trying to make the world a better place.

    The next interesting question is WHY has this become a politicized issue? It is clear that liberals generally believe climate science and the need for modifying our societal paradigms to limit CO2 emissions, while conservatives generally don’t believe in climate science and see no reason to limit CO2 emissions. Why the cultural divide? Certainly it DOES have to do with propaganda, as the poster above mentioned. Propaganda by whom? To convince people of what agenda? Readers of this blog will assume the “propaganda” is the result of scientists and the federal government, in some kind of collusive relationship.

    I think we can all agree that propaganda is used to manipulate the thoughts of the populace to further an agenda. Let’s consider the motivations and agenda for said propaganda. There are two possibilities for this: one, a scientist/government cabal intent on destroying Big Oil and replacing it with a renewable industry or two, an industrial cabal intent on limiting the implementation of renewable energies and retaining economic power through business-as-usual practices. Who has the most to gain by denying climate change? Or, conversely, who has the most to lose if global warming turns out to be correct?

    What would scientists gain? At the most, more funding. They have no investment in whether we burn fossil fuels or get energy from wind or the sun. In fact, their output has little to no impact on implementation of renewable energies — implementation is primarily a political issue. Moreover, scientists will be funded to study the climate (this is partially why NOAA exists) whether global warming exists or not so it’s doubtful their funding would change drastically. What would the government gain/lose? Nothing, as far as I can tell. There are individuals within the government that would gain lobbying funds. Last I checked, lobbying power of renewable energy companies was basically nil, while the lobbying power of Big Oil is immense. What about Big Oil? What do oil/utility/car manufacturing industrial giants have to gain? If global warming were real, their paradigm of business would collapse. We would use electric cars, solar panels and windmills for energy. No longer would we burn fossil fuels to drive our cars, putting Big Oil out of business. Home energy would be decentralized (wind/solar) versus centralized under the control of a utility company, challenging the supremacy of utility companies. This would put oil companies, utility companies and car companies out of business or at the very least decrease their profits. These are groups of people that are incredibly powerful and have incredible economic and political power. They have a lot to lose if global warming was a fact. In fact, they would be bankrupted. This, incidentally, is why industrial representatives say renewable energies would be job killers…..killing drilling/coal mining/etc. jobs in antiquated industries. Compared to this decrease in positions, renewable energy industries would create an even greater number of new jobs and new industrial opportunities. Why do we view renewable energy as a “job killer” even though it would create more jobs than it would destroy? Yes, it does have to do with propaganda….from the oil industries!

    So, who stands to gain the most by climate denial? Industrial giants. Who stands to lose the most if climate change were real? Industrial giants. What do the government/scientists have to gain/lose? Very little.

    • tonyheller says:

      Your diatribe is idiotic and indicative of the fact that you have no clue what science is about. You are unable to distinguish between “science” and “political propaganda”

      I discuss data in great detail on this blog, and the psycho-babble you obviously thrive on has no meaning to me as a scientist. I see study after study coming out of academia which directly contradicts the underlying data. Whatever climate scientists are doing, has nothing to do with science.

      • Dan says:

        Oh Tony. You don’t know anything about me, bud. I know that ad hominem attacks are in vogue right now (as your response illustrates clearly), but perhaps we can stick to the topic at hand. Would love for you to address ANY of the points in my post, as opposed to just lashing out at me. Let’s discuss the issue, not attack each other!

        While not a scientist, I do actually know quite a bit about the scientific method. Sadly, you seem to think that science == political propaganda. But, opinion actually has nothing to do with the scientific method. That is the point of the scientific method. I won’t say that all scientists are a-political, but by its very nature, science is an a-political discipline. Our discussions, of course, disregard the fact of peer review, which keeps scientists honest. Since when have you seen scientists capable of propaganda in this framework? Would be curious to know of an example of propaganda created by scientists outside of the climate change “debate”.

        I am unsure why this topic engenders so much anger in you. It should be an unemotional debate about science, results and conclusions. It shouldn’t be a soap box to vilify science or scientists. You are doing yourself and this country (founded on science — from Ben Franklin to Edison to Bell and so on) a disservice. We should believe in science and the output of scientists. In this day and age, I’d have to say scientists are one of the few classes of people we SHOULD trust.

        • tonyheller says:

          My point is very clear. Study after climate study directly contradicts the underlying data, as I have been documenting for a decade.

          The only way to interpret that is academic climate science has been completely corrupted by the tens of billions of dollars being pumped into it.

      • Dan says:

        Data culled from where? I’m sure I don’t need to explain confirmation bias to a scientist, but sure sounds like an instance of it.

        I might add that many have already accused you of misrepresenting, manipulating and fabricating data. In fact, you have had to retract one of your own articles because it was blatantly false (https://thinkprogress.org/a-new-olympic-record-for-retraction-of-a-denier-talking-point-aa88ac3a7ae1/).

        Who else has to retract articles? Fraudulent scientists.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “You don’t know anything about me”

        We can all see that you are a mindless AGW suckophant , with zero understanding of anything to do with science or climate.

        Also a whole heap of mindless, self-centred, attention-seeking yapping coming from you.

        Enough to show you are a moron.

    • gator69 says:

      It strikes me as odd that the people reading this blog disregard the conclusions of thousands of scientists with regard to climate change, but implicitly trust the conclusions of scientists in all other aspects of life.

      Dan, I don’t disregard the conclusions of scientists whose conclusions appear to be valid, and that includes all scientists in every field. I choose not to trust or believe, I study the science on my own and draw my own conclusions. And it just so happens that I was a climatology student right after the ice age scare and right before the great global warming swindle. I have follwoed the science for decades and I don’t need to trust or believe anyone but myself.

      I have questioned my doctor, and been correct. I have questioned my mechanic, and been correct. This is how I live my life Dan, intelligently, and not like the sheep that you seem to prefer.

      Why are you a science denier Dan?

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        Emotional Dan: “Yes, it does have to do with propaganda….from the oil industries!”

        Unemotional Dan: “It should be an unemotional debate about science …”

        • Dan says:

          You’re right. The exclamation mark nullifies all of the rationality of the post.

          The crazy part here is that oil companies and utilities have ALREADY ADMITTED to funding false science, misrepresenting the dangers of CO2 and using it for propaganda. We will believe it when the oil companies themselves admit it?
          http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/exxonmobil-climate-change-oil-gas-fossil-fuels-global-warming-harvard-a7908541.html

          This is also good for perspective on the politicization of the issue.
          https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html

          • gator69 says:

            Once again, Dan latches on to opinions that he likes, and does not fact check for himself.

            So sad, but so common for the flock of believers.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Dan, you obviously can’t see how emotional you look to other people but it’s the self-contradictory nature of your proclamations that really kills whatever message you came to advocate. Calm down, stop emoting and think for a change. I guarantee it will work better than what you do now.

          • Dan says:

            Where is the contradiction, gator69?

          • Dan says:

            Sorry, intended for Wellington. I’m curious about what contradiction you are referring to. I’ve put forward many sources and arguments for why this blog is misinforming us. Experts have looked at Heller/Goddard and have come to the conclusion his data is erroneous. That isn’t my term, that is what other people have called his work. Why defend him or this blog?

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            ”I’ve put forward many sources and arguments for why this blog is misinforming us.”

            Politifact, eh? Sorry, kiddo, lunch break is over. Most of us work for a living.

          • Terry says:

            What a total load of crap Dan. I have worked for a utility for 33 years, and we have done nothing but cave into “Green” interests and left wing whack jobs for that entire time. You are about the most disingenuous paid left wing troll I’ve ever read on here. Our company at one time owned 90% coal fired power and now owns about 40% coal fired power and dropping fast, partly fuel by economics of cheap natural gas but also kowtowing to politics of the day. Anyone who spends ten minutes of study would know that ALL the money in this debate is on the alarmist side of this equation. You need to tell your left wing troll fact supplier that your canards are failing spectacularly.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Experts”

            BULLSHIT !!

      • Dan says:

        I completely agree that being skeptical is a healthy and reasonable state of mind. Why are we being skeptical about a politically charged issue that has been conclusively studied by many scientists in many countries? That sounds like data that should be believed. Reproducibility is the backbone of science, and climate data is being recapitulated daily, monthly, annually.

        It’s odd to me that if you pride yourself on being an independent thinker, you still read the blog of someone that has been shown to lie, to manipulate and distort facts to support HIS OWN AGENDA.

        I would inclined to think if you are really are a skeptic, you wouldn’t be reading this blog. Or, if you did, you’d be siding with the scientists too. It’s a cop out to say that all of the overwhelming data supporting climate change is wrong and that you’re being a sheep if you believe it. The whole idea of science is that overwhelming data should be enough to convince EVEN A SKEPTICAL SCIENTIST. We have that overwhelming data, so why aren’t you convinced?

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          ”Let’s discuss the issue, not attack each other!”

          “… you still read the blog of someone that has been shown to lie, to manipulate and distort facts …”

          You are in up to your nostrils, kiddo. Anyone who comes here can read the dishonest trail of comments you left behind. It makes you look stupid, if not worse.

        • gator69 says:

          Dan, natural variability has never been disproven. The global climate changes we have seen are exactly what one would expect to observe post LIA. We are in an interglacial Dan, it”s supposed to be getting warmer.

          Why are you a science denier Dan?

          • Dan says:

            I like how you copy the first part of that paragraph, but neglect the second part: “….experts in U.S. temperature measurement say it ignores why the charts shifted. There were major changes in how the country gathered temperature information over the decades.”

            Here are more tidbits:
            “he ignored that the network of weather stations that feed data to the government today is not the one that existed 80 years ago.”

            “the raw data used in the blog post suffered from an equally troubling flaw. The temperatures were not measured at the same time of day.”

            “All of the experts we reached or whose work we read rejected Goddard’s conclusions.

            “Goddard’s results stem from an erroneous analysis of the data,”

            And, finally, when a fellow skeptic is criticizing him, you know Goddard/Heller is way off base. “Anthony Watts, a popular skeptic of most climate change data, posted his objection to Goddard’s claim. “I took Goddard to task over this as well in a private email, saying he was very wrong and needed to do better,” Watts wrote.”

          • gator69 says:

            Dan, What I wanted to show is that Tony’s chart is 100% accurate. Pay attention.

            I am familiar with the opinions of your experts, and I disagree with them, and can explain why.

            But first, why don’t you, in your own words, defend the various adjustments to actual data collected by experts.

          • Dan says:

            The main problem is that Heller/Goddard uses absolute temperatures, although weather/monitoring stations changed over that time AND the timepoints for temperature monitoring changed. Thus, baseline temperatures at each site changed as a result. This wasn’t accounted for and is the reason no one believes the plots in this blog.

            Please explain! I would love to hear your take on this.

          • gator69 says:

            Dan, That is an overview and excuse for data manipulation. Let’s try again…

            In your own words, defend the various adjustments to actual data collected by experts.

          • tonyheller says:

            NOAA reports US temperatures as absolute temperatures. I use NOAA data and report US temperatures as absolute temperatures – the same way they do.

            I have done numerous studies using only a stable subset of USHCN stations, and get exactly the same results.

            Your arguments are becoming increasingly idiotic.

          • Dan says:

            Not an excuse for data manipulation. I am delineating the mistakes Goddard/Heller made trying to compare pre-1980s data to post-1980s data in his temperature vs. time plots. These mistakes invalidate his analysis of the data, which many have already agreed on.

            Are you talking about the various models climate scientists use to fit pre-1980s data to post-1980s data?

            Either way, ball’s in your court! Please enlighten me on why you think Goddard/Heller’s approach is valid, but the approach of 1000’s of scientists is not.

          • gator69 says:

            So Dan is admitting that he has no idea what adjustments are made, why, or by how much.

            Keep the faith Dan.

            PS – This is mainly a science blog, so you should probably move on. You are looking more silly by the minute now.

          • Dan says:

            Tony (Steve? unsure why you need a pseudonym) — you have been accused of improper science. This could either be from a lack of complete knowledge or from confirmation bias. Either way, it makes your plots meaningless.

            But, there’s no real reason to continue this conversation. People with any knowledge about climate methodology have no respect for your work, precisely because your data analysis is wrong. It’s easy enough to google you and see how many times people (including other climate skeptics! ouch) have proved you wrong. If any of your readers want to know about you, just google “Tony Heller Steven Goddard” and you’ll find many people have encountered this “research” and have written it off as nonsense.

            The really sad part is that you feel the need to disinform others too. You are already on the wrong side of the debate. Even oil companies admit global warming is a real thing!

          • gator69 says:

            why don’t you, in your own words, defend the various adjustments to actual data collected by experts.

            We are well aware of the opinions of Tony’s critics Dan. We have researched these claims and found them to be 99% false. Tony is human, and therefore fallible, unlike your precious CAGWBS experts or their (failed) models.

            Dan, it is you and those like you that make this site a draw, for some of us. You come here with an unmerited sense of superiority, and in short order show yourself to be a highly opinionated know-nothing. I love almost nothing more than showing the fence sitters who the real science deniers really are.

            Just why do you deny science Dan?

          • gator69 says:

            Woops! Wrong quote!

            If any of your readers want to know about you, just google “Tony Heller Steven Goddard” and you’ll find many people have encountered this “research” and have written it off as nonsense.

            (See above)

          • Dan says:

            Ain’t no science happening here, gator69 (love the handle, by the way!). I am not here to change anyone’s mind. I figure that anyone that read about Heller/Goddard’s fraud probably stopped reading this blog long ago. Maybe it’s only Heller/Goddard himself responding to all these posts!

            Anyone denying human contributions to global warming will look foolish in the long run, just as people who denied “evolution” look like fools now. A majority of people support limited CO2 emissions, and “believe” in climate change, although using the term “believe” in relation to a scientific concept is silly.

            https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/07/06/new-survey-shows-majority-americans-believe-climate-change-real-and-caused-human-activity

            We can either accept the facts and combat climate change in unity, or we can (a)pathetically pretend like it isn’t happening. I don’t expect any of the readers here to help with that fight because they have their own axes to grind — political in nature, presumably.

            The fact of the matter (and the reason I feel the need to comment here) is that your attitude of distrust toward scientists is dangerous. The USA has a negative attitude toward education and science that will eventually harm our country as a whole. THAT does matter to me. Education and science are the foundation of any country, and reflect how healthy its society is. Based on this blog and these responses, I’d have to say our society is ailing.

          • gator69 says:

            Dan, thanks for your worthless opinions.

            Actual science is taking place here, and that is why actual scientists frequent this blog. Your strawman about evolution is a juvenile drive by.

            The fact remains that natural variabilty has never been disproven, and there is nothing unusual or unusually dangerous about our global climate. And if you took the time to actually study the science instead of simply latching onto opinions you like, you would already know this.

            What truly degrades a society, is its inability to think on its own. Sheep lead by those looking for fleece is no way to advance science Dan.

          • neal s says:

            Got news for you Dan. Macro evolution is looking increasingly impossible. But you wouldn’t know that if you believed what you are taught at school.

            Perhaps one day you will know the truth, but by then it will be too late for you. Enjoy your blissful ignorance in the meanwhile.

          • Dan says:

            Just curious….what kind of authority on science are you, exactly? Can’t imagine any self-respecting scientist would post with a name like “gator69”. Also, if you have to say things like “has never been disproven”, you have no scientific ground to stand on.

            I am not talking about natural variability. That is clearly a component of global temperature.

            Not even sure why we are debating….the greenhouse effect is a fact. That is why we have liquid (not frozen) water on earth. Having more greenhouse gases retains more heat in the atmosphere. Regardless of variability in climate, CO2 leads to more ambient heat retained in the atmosphere. What am I missing? I guess facts don’t mean much in this day and age.

          • gator69 says:

            Dan, if natural variability has never been disproven ,then how can we blame man?

            Just curious.

          • Dan says:

            Whoa. I figured that there would be climate skeptics, but never imagined there would be people denying “macroevolution” here. Holy cow. That is astounding!

            If microevolution is true, why wouldn’t macroevolution be true too?

          • neal s says:

            For Dan, try visiting these sites and using your brain.

            http://scienceagainstevolution.info/topics.htm

            http://detectingdesign.com/

          • tonyheller says:

            The New York Times recently had a front page hit piece attacking me, apparently because no one pays attention to my work.

            It is hilarious watching alarmists pretend to be polite for about five minutes, and then rapidly turn into slobbering rabid dogs.

          • Dan says:

            What’s the point of being polite when you and all your acolytes resort to continual ad hominem attacks? I’ve been the most civil person on this page, for what it’s worth (not that it’s hard to be more civil than the people frequenting this place). But, then again, everyone seems to be marginally-to-incredibly delusional here so I’m sure they would disagree. You’re part of the “alternative facts” crowd, right?? Do I get an award for getting that answer right too?

            Have fun existing in your ignorant and angry little worlds, chillun!

          • Sunsettommy says:

            Gator,

            it is made clear that Dan is unaware of the NULL hypothesis,which is why he is writing the way he does. He is ignorant of the basic science of the AGW nonsense.

            He, like Ivanmarkisman at WUWT,ignore the posted predictive failures,those made by the IPCC to support the AGW conjecture.

            I challenged him many times in this post:

            Some Failed Climate Predictions
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/30/some-failed-climate-predictions/

            To show where Javier,the author of the post that he is wrong about the failures. He instead made a DEFLECTING comment attacking the goodness of the CO2 molecule itself and that there is too much of it in the air.

            This is all I need to know that he has NOTHING to dispute Javier with. That he can’t even challenge one of the many listed in the post,not even one!

            Dan doesn’t know how to make a critical assessment on them,which is why you have yet to see any here. He attacks Tony instead,not his criticism of the many examples of the false or failed IPCC and individual scientists making absurd claims.

            You got anything better,Dan?

          • AndyG55 says:

            “I’ve been the most civil person on this page,”

            BULLSHIT.

            Your very first post was a sliming accusatory puke of AGW rubbish and self-importance.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Ain’t no science happening here”

            Yep Dan, you have not produce ONE SINGLE BIT OF SCIENCE to counter anything Tony has said or produce.

            Just empty whinging and sliming.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “the greenhouse effect is a fact.”

            No, it is NOT a fact, it is failed hypothesis.

            And its mis-named anyway.

            It has NOTHING to do with anything to do with a greenhouse, or CO2, or other so-called GHGs

            Its real name would be the gravito-thermal effect, which has been PROVEN, by REAL SCIENTISTS to apply on every planet with a dense enough atmosphere.

            You do trust REAL SCIENTISTS don’t you, Dan.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “We have that overwhelming data, so why aren’t you convinced?”

          The data is overwhelmingly pointing toward the CO2 warming of the atmosphere being a total myth and a fabrication.

          There is not one paper that empirically proves that CO2 causes warming. End of story.

          There is NO SCIENCE to back up the very basis of the AGW meme.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Many of the best science and physics minds in the world think that CO2 forced climate change is a load of crock !

        There is absolutely ZERO empirical proof for the most basic myth of the AGW agenda.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Dan,

      That is probably the most PATHETIC, WHINGING anti-science, mindlessly yapping post I have ever seen.

      Riddled with so many LIES, and DISTORTIONS of reality, that I have to wonder which sewer you get your information from.

  4. Andy DC says:

    Dan at least gets the award for the wordiest troll in the history of this blog. Just to parrot the same alarmist drivel and lame personal attacks that we’ve heard a thousand times before. If he had half a brain, he would go back and read the last six months of this blog and actually educate himself as the rest of us have, but I very seriously doubt that he does.

  5. Sunsettommy says:

    I see that Dan,like Nick Stokes and Steve Mosher will not challenge Tony’s work on the USHCN code to see if he is playing fast and loose with the NOAA data.

    They chose instead to do wind and piss route to make fools of themselves.

  6. Sunsettommy says:

    Dan,

    Culled from where you ask?

    “Data culled from where? I’m sure I don’t need to explain confirmation bias to a scientist, but sure sounds like an instance of it.”

    Try looking at his sources he list in his postings,they are Masie,NOAA,NASA,NSIDC,UAH,RSS and so on.

    Besides you keep referring from places that are hostile to real debates since Desmoblog NEVER come here to debate with Tony,neither has Nick Stokes and Steven Mosher who loudly make attacks on Tony from another place.

    You have yet to make an actual defined rebuttal to THIS post. Go here to download the software,then go prove his post is false:

    https://realclimatescience.com/ghcn-software/

    You are fast becoming a bore,a trol who plaster a lot of words with little to show for it.

  7. Douglas Hoyt says:

    Dan says the greenhouse effect is a fact, but its strength is disputed here:
    http://file.scirp.org/Html/4-4700320_51443.htm

    The final sentence in that paper states that the “accumulation of additional amounts of methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have practically no effect on the Earth’s climate.”

    • Dan says:

      Doug, not to defend Dan but

    • AndyG55 says:

      Dan seems to be NOTHING but a brain-washed twerp, with little or no understanding of science of any sort.

      Unable to think for himself and easily led like a sheep.

      Dan, produce one paper that proves empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

      There is NO CO2 warming signature at all in the satellite temperature data.

      There is NO CO2 warming signature in sea level rise.

      in fact, there is NO CO2 warming signature ANYWHERE.

      It is a NON-EVENT.

  8. Dan says:

    Doug, thanks for the paper. It does come from this group and should be taken with a grain of salt.

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

    • Sunsettommy says:

      Dan, would it surprise you that most skeptics agree that CO2 has a warm forcing effect,but as Douglas shows it is TOO SMALL to change the weather or cliamte.

      The level of warm forcing was already cast in stone over 500 million years ago,because it was over 300 ppm THEN,there is very little warm forcing left to be had from increasing CO2 levels in todays world.

      Surely you are familiar with the law of diminishing returns?

    • Douglas Hoyt says:

      It doesn’t matter where it comes from. There are other papers supporting the position that the 33 K attributed 100% to greenhouse gases is better explained by the Loschmidt Effect. See the comments by Doug Cotton at http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4101

  9. Sunsettommy says:

    Now Dan,who never posted a single counterpoint to anything Tony posted here is beginning to cry ….. again:

    “What’s the point of being polite when you and all your acolytes resort to continual ad hominem attacks? I’ve been the most civil person on this page, for what it’s worth (not that it’s hard to be more civil than the people frequenting this place). But, then again, everyone seems to be marginally-to-incredibly delusional here so I’m sure they would disagree. You’re part of the “alternative facts” crowd, right?? Do I get an award for getting that answer right too?

    Have fun existing in your ignorant and angry little worlds, chillun!”

    Wow, what a hypocritical jerk you are!

    You came here with both barrels blazing COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC, with a long winded BORING whine,with a lot stupid complaints that Tony has nothing to do with,then when Tony replied to you,you came back whining about Ad Homs,

    Tony writes:

    “Your diatribe is idiotic and indicative of the fact that you have no clue what science is about. You are unable to distinguish between “science” and “political propaganda”

    I discuss data in great detail on this blog, and the psycho-babble you obviously thrive on has no meaning to me as a scientist. I see study after study coming out of academia which directly contradicts the underlying data. Whatever climate scientists are doing, has nothing to do with science.”

    Dan’s crying reply:

    “Oh Tony. You don’t know anything about me, bud. I know that ad hominem attacks are in vogue right now (as your response illustrates clearly), but perhaps we can stick to the topic at hand. Would love for you to address ANY of the points in my post, as opposed to just lashing out at me. Let’s discuss the issue, not attack each other!…”

    You have yet to counter something Tony posted here,since you are here to bore with crap many here first saw YEARS ago. Do I have to tell you how many times I have heard about “big oil” or “climate denial” or “conservatives are bad” or ….. Zzzzzzzz.

    You need to create some new bullcrap material to bug us with,or try answering his post itself instead (which you seem to avoid), snicker.

    • Dan says:

      Hm, didn’t say anything about conservatives. Only about Big Oil. In fact, I am a independent myself!

      I guess that’s what’s funny about all this. Y’all are willing to fight with your own about something that even I can see is a politicized issue. I don’t believe my Republican senator (that I helped elect!) when he tells me that climate change isn’t real — I do the research and it is clear that global warming is a real thing that should be taken seriously. Anyone telling you differently is being paid to say so, or doesn’t understand physics/chemistry. What bothers me is that you all are most likely of the same political background as me and you treat me like I am not one of you. I am showing you that some things should not be politicized. Science is one of those things.

      Maybe that thought IS what separates Independent voters from Republicans.

      • Sunsettommy says:

        I cringe when people say, “climate change isn’t real” when it is OBVIOUS that it is real. However I dislike the being called a denier of climate change hundreds of times,even when I tell them I agree that climate change exist and changes over time. I still get the crap. I even accept that CO2 has some warm forcing effect as most here does as well,but still considered denialists……..

        Most warmists comes here like you did with a level of UP FRONT HOSTILITY,which unsurprisingly get a strong return. Many skeptics here are scientists or have a science background,who tire of the attacks. We WANT warmists to make decent arguments on what Tony posts,that make skeptics consider,but it rarely happens because most warmists are idiots from the start.

        • Dan says:

          Honestly, I appreciate that. Not trying to say that all folk here think climate change is false, though some do.

          My perspective is more from a political viewpoint, not a scientific one. I have a science background, but I’m not all that knowledgeable about it. My thought is: we can’t control natural cycles in temperature, but what does it hurt if we assume that CO2 emissions are contributing to it and try to do something about it together? I don’t buy the argument that renewable energy harms our economy. I think renewables harm the bottom line of Big Oil. I don’t care much for Big Oil (especially their lobbying of our government, such as it is) and I would be happy if they had less power politically and economically.

          I don’t see any reason to not put solar panels on my house. It gives utility companies less control over me. I don’t see any reason to not take the threat seriously. If global warming isn’t due to human nature, at least I am no longer at the mercy of Big Oil and utility companies. If global warming is being worsened by pollution, then our children will thank us. Seems like a win-win to me.

          • gator69 says:

            I don’t see any reason to not take the threat seriously.

            What threat, Dan?

            The threat of milder weather? History proves that warm periods are good for humanity, and cooler periods are not.

            Do you hate humans Dan?

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            ”I don’t see any reason to not put solar panels on my house. It gives utility companies less control over me.”

            So you have either installed or you are in the process of installing PV panels on your house, with a grid-tie imverter like 99% of them, I must assume. How many nominal kW? What was your initial investment? How much was your kWh cost from your utility?

            And please tell us how your utility controlled you before and how it lost control over you.

      • gator69 says:

        I do the research and it is clear that global warming is a real thing that should be taken seriously. Anyone telling you differently is being paid to say so, or doesn’t understand physics/chemistry,

        That’s rich!

        Dan, who is ignorant of the scientific method, ignorant of the null hypothesis, and ignorant of the calculations used by the government to alter historic data, does his own research.

        So what does your foot taste like Mr Researcher?

    • AndyG55 says:

      Dan, you really are rather PATHETIC, even for a low-life troll.

      Poor little SJW has been triggered. !! :-)

  10. Colorado Wellington says:

    Looks like Tony caught himself another little troll. The poor thing can’t remember who said what and what it said earlier. Refers to self in third person. It doesn’t understand what people are saying to it. Probably working multiple blogs simultaneously, pasting stuff from place to place.

    • Sunsettommy says:

      Yeah, the dude has YET to answer Tony’s post itself:

      The Heatwave Of Halloween, 1950

      We are waiting,Danny…. waiting,waiting for you to get on topic, respond to the post.

      Do you have it in you,…. danny?

      • Dan says:

        See my post above. It’s not about Tony’s scientific arguments, though I don’t believe him as an individual scientist. I do believe in the science of thousands of researchers and see no reason to distrust it. It bothers me that you all would rather trust a single guy over a huge group of well-trained thinkers.

        Mostly, it’s about trusting scientists over politicians, which I would do any day.

        You all can hate me as much as you want. Not sure what it gets you, but I think my points speak for themselves. We live in a country run by lobbyists (especially Big Oil) that corrupt our bloated government, not the other way around. I don’t want to be beholden to Big Oil, or utility companies. Not sure why anyone would want that.

        • gator69 says:

          I do believe in the science of thousands of researchers…

          Please provide this list of “thousands of researchers”, Dan.

        • Sunsettommy says:

          I don’t hate you,but dislike people coming here,make an irritating big off topic comment,then whine about replies.

          I have already mentioned two specific things in this thread that you have so far ignored,

          IPCC prediction failures (based on those hundreds of scientists work) and the NULL hypothesis.

          You have ignored Tony’s post,several specific science statements in the thread,the sole exception is Douglas Hoyt who shows how minor CO2 is on the climate.

          Try harder, Dan!

          • Dan says:

            Try harder? I’ve worked my whole life for this goddamn country.

            You have successfully alienated someone that probably agrees with you about most political issues. Another whiny statement: what a shame that dialogues in this country are turning into this. Certainly wasn’t like this in the pre-internet days — back then, people in this country stuck up for each other and listened to each other’s thoughts and concerns. We were working for the betterment of the country as a whole. Now, it’s just bitter fighting between political parties — online, no less.

            Next election, I’ll be sure to vote for Democrats down the ticket. If this whole Trump-Russia thing wasn’t enough to convince me, the people on this blog sure are.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Whiny statements are what you have done, from your very first post. It was one septic piece of leftist AGW slime from the very start.

            Look at your posts. They are those of far-left loser troll trying to make a mark for himself.

            I’ve never see someone make such pathetic namby pamby anti-science statements as you have, Dan.

            Your knowledge of actual science is that of a social scientist.

            So you just keep “BELIEVING” instead of actually going and doing some thinking..

            But first.. provide one single paper that proves that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            Waiting !

          • Gator says:

            … this goddamn country.

            Thanks for the unmasking Dan. As the rest of your rant clearly illustrates, for you it is all about the politics, and not the science.

          • Sunsettommy says:

            Ha ha ha, you have NEVER been on topic.

            I was talking about YOU NOT replying comments about science stuff,which you keep dodging.

            This is a SCIENCE based post,not a political one!

            Why do you keep avoiding the topic?

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            ”Next election, I’ll be sure to vote for Democrats down the ticket. If this whole Trump-Russia thing wasn’t enough to convince me, the people on this blog sure are.”

            Oh, no! Please, please, Dan, don’t do it! Don’t be mad at us! I promise I will listen to the scientists from now on. I will stuff myself with carbohydrates to lose weight and when I get craving for steak I will buy tofu. For the good of the country, I will not use salt! I will install the same solar panels you have and I will not let the Russians talk me out of it. I will start a petition to shutter the Boulder power plant. I’ll memorize the Quran and I’ll find out why they hate us. I swear there won’t be a statue left standing when I’m done. I’ll beg Ms. Clinton to run as an independent. I’ll demand they start another family foundation so we can all give them money. We’ll listen to each other’s thoughts and concerns, you and me, like in the good old days before internet. For the country’s sake, it doesn’t have to end this way!

        • Andy DC says:

          There is not the least bit of evidence that Tony, or anyone on this board gives a rat’s behind about Big Oil or has ever received one penny from the energy lobby.

          What we do oppose is higher taxes and less freedom to fight a problem that the data and statistics clearly show not to be serious at present time. Statistics that you can easily replicate and duplicate on your own time.

          We also don’t want to see billions of our hard earned tax dollars forked over to corrupt 3rd world dictators in the name of fighting “climate change”. That is little more than an a blatant left wing scheme to sacrifice our Constitution and our freedoms for World Communism.

  11. Sunsettommy says:

    Challenge this Dan,

    The 1990 IPCC report PREDICTED that it will warm about .30C per decade,but RSS Satellite data shows it to be about .16C per decade and much less from 2001 of just .10C per decade rate.

    Here you go………….

  12. Dana says:

    Tony, what is the proper syntax for this argument?

    ghcn.exe US.txt month=[1-12]

    I can’t get any of the other command line options to work. The only one that reliably works is ghcn.exe US.txt date=0814

    This is under Win7_64 using your latest software.

  13. Rah says:

    I have to say it appears that Dan has set a new record on this blog for typing the most words in a string while presenting zero data or actual science content.

Leave a Reply

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

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