Climatologists Vs. Science

According to the Chicago Tribune, climatologists say the Great Lakes region is wettest on record this year, getting wetter, has warmed 2.3 degrees since 1951, and it is due to global warming .

24 Jun 1988, 6 – The Dispatch at

Now let’s compare that to reality. In 1988, when climatologists started the global warming scare before Congress, they predicted drought for the  Midwest.

24 Jun 1988, 6 – The Dispatch at

They also predicted water levels in the Great Lakes would fall by eight feet.

03 Oct 1989, Page 6 – Detroit Free Press at

Instead, water levels are at a record high.  No problem for climate alarmists though – they simply blame their incompetence on climate change.

Surging Great Lakes water levels shrink beaches, flood docks in Michigan | Bridge Magazine

The vast majority of the warming which NASA says has occurred over the past 40 years has been in the Arctic winter, where there is very little moisture in the atmosphere. Warming the Arctic from -30C to -25C has almost no effect on atmospheric moisture content.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (v4): Global Maps

Weather is regional – blaming precipitation in the Great Lakes region on largely meaningless global statistics is not science. Over the past century, maximum temperatures in that region have declined sharply. The claimed 2.3 degrees warming in that region is incorrect, and an incredibly dishonest cherry-picked start date.

This year has been very wet and cool in the US.

YearTDeptUS.png (2200×1700)

YearPNormUS.png (2200×1700)

Average maximum temperatures over the past 12 months have been fourth coolest on record.

The last 12 months have been the wettest on record, and 1934 was the driest on record.

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Cool years tend to be wet. Hot years tend to be dry.

psi-193407.gif (690×488)

psi-201907.png (650×475)

Most precipitation is associated with cold air.  Rain and snow falls when cold fronts arrive, because cooler air can’t hold as much moisture. The exact opposite of the logic being used by climatologists.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Climatologists Vs. Science

  1. Stephen Reiss says:

    Will you please produce a tutorial on making graphs, like the ones in this post, of percent of days above specified temperatures at historical climatology network stations, in language for non computer experts like me?

  2. Tyrannosaurus Rex says:

    Climate change (or climate in general) isn’t some big old dragon. It’s a pack of wolves. These wolves all work together obviously, but each one is different from the others. Even if you handle one wolf, another will get you from the back. If there really is a climate crisis, our central planners would be toast no matter what.

  3. Joshua Peterson says:

    The weather station for my area ( is a couple hundred yards from where I live. Tracking precipitation data and comparing it to the weather station, the station’s totals are usually about 0.25-0.5″ less than what I find with 1+ collectors in open areas. That deviation seems pretty consistent, whether storms are large or small. The cumulative effect has been for precipitation totals to be 1-3″ less per month. It has been wet where I live in southern NH. The reported data, though, describes this as a normal or slightly dry year. As with temperature data, I suspect manipulation of precipitation data, and wonder at how widespread the effects are.

  4. Cam says:

    But, in 2012, National Geographic assured us “Low water levels are not the only climate-related trend being observed on the Great Lakes.” They publish in the hopes that nobody will remember their blunders when they are reversed or don’t come to pass.

  5. David Jung says:


    I tried to find data on Lake Erie’s water temperature over time on the NOAA site. While I could find average temperatures for specific calendar dates, they only showed graphs of the entire years data for 2014 – 2019, which showed no trend. Any idea how to get Lake Erie water temp data? I suspect there’s no upward trend in water temperatures either, which was alluded to in the Tribune article. Propaganda like this needs to be called out.

  6. Jack Locke says:

    I was looking at land only temperature graphs and came across something really strange. There’s a post on Berkeley Earth showing the NASA, NOAA, CRU, and Berkeley Earth datasets and how closely they track to atmospheric co2 in the land-only record.

    I’m a skeptic that respects the science and I was impressed with this. If you look at the graphs, they have a link below that says “temperature, co2, and volcanic data”. I encourage everyone to download this Excel file right now.

    I had a little surprise in the text on human effects, when it said “Solar variation does not seem to impact the temperature trend.” A little surprising, but yeah it might not affect the *trend* much.

    So I looked at the data sheet and it showed how this near perfect fit is really a linear combination of co2 and volcanic activity, with the equation for temperature being

    T~= 8.3421049 + 4.4663687 * ln( CO2 / 277.3 ) + -0.0151461 * Volcanic

    I have to admit, I was taken in by this at first. My critical thinking didn’t kick in because I was thinking “they cracked the code, we can get a lower bound to ecs from this”. So I converted 4.4663687 to the coefficient for log base 2, and got a little above 3.

    It was then that the smell test seemed off. The land-only record is nearly perfectly modeled by atmospheric co2 and volcanism only and the coefficient for *rapid response* to logarithmic change in co2 just happens to be the ECS value being pushed by the IPCC.

    I started to think about what that equation really meant, if it were true. It’s not that solar activity has no impact on the trend, it’s that it has no effect on the temperature at all in terms of five to ten years. But there’s more than just that, to believe this, I’d have to believe that the only effect on land temperature is from atmospheric co2 and volcanism. That means

    – do solar changes have effect on land temperature? Nope, changes in solar forcing inexplicably have no changes in surface temperature.

    – do ENSO effects, el nino, la Nina, or other ocean effects change land temperature? Nope, we can expect no land temperature changes lasting more than a year from oceanic events and cycles.

    – does changing albedo affect land temperature? No, albedo changes have no representation in the land temperature record.

    – do aerosols affect land temperatures? No, aside from those from volcanism, aerosol levels can’t be used to model land surface temperature.

    – do other GHGs (no2, ch4) have an effect on land temperature? If their atmospheric concentrations track co2 closely, it’s possible some of their effect is counted in the linear equation. If they aren’t in sync with co2, then no, we can see no effect from other GHGs.

    – are there any long term feedbacks that come into play later? No, it’s seen that land temperatures react to atmospheric co2 immediately and have no long term feedbacks.

    So, what makes more sense: that none of those things have an effect on land temperature, or that the land surface record is fudged to the point that it doesn’t represent land temperature? Do we really think that land temperature is a simple linear relationship to just atmospheric co2 and volcanism or is the record messed with in a way to support some kind of idea about what the temperature “should be”?

    Temperature records like UAH have me still believe there’s warming over the last half-century. It just seems on review that what is a real trend in data is adjusted through a process to produce an assumed conclusion.

  7. netprophet says:

    I just came out of a meeting at the major S&P 500 company I work for. I was told that my views on climate change (that it is being driven by data manipulation of the historical temp grid, that there is no change in the frequency of extreme weather events, etc.) were not welcome. I was strongly cautioned, “Oh, don’t go down that path, you will be swimming upstream”. Separately, I was also told by a colleague of mine, who just returned from a large energy conference that I would have been cringing in my seat had I been there because he said, there is a good chance the Democrats will sweep both houses in 2020 and if they do, there will be massive changes in the way we consume energy by 2040 – a total ban on fossil fuels (same goal at the company I work for). Absurdity is sweeping the land.

    • Gator says:

      Absurdity is sweeping the land.

      Absurdity breeds revolution. They should be careful for what they wish.

    • KevinPaul says:

      Communists want to Phuck the U.S. good and proper. Once it’s lost the rest of the West will fall like bricks from a scaffold.

    • Mark Amey says:

      Don’t worry, here in Australia, universities are sacking scientists for disagreeing with the approved groupspeak. Our go to place for academic news, The Conversation, refuses to publish any article or comment that disagree with AGW. Scientists who have been simply asking our BOM for raw temperature data, not homogenised / adulterated figures are treated like kooks. Even businesses are refusing to deal with other businesses that support the coal industry ( I wonder where they buy their electricity?).

      • Aussie says:

        And insurers and banks are now refusing to insure or finance any fossil fuel plant.

        We actually need to have fossil fuel back up for those renewables that people love so much, but which only deliver for less than 30 % of the time.

        All I can say is that at some point, if we don’t have a sensible govt take over, things will get very bad here in Australia with regular blackouts. At that point everybody will wake up and then ask “how did we get here?” The answer would be due to utter stupidity.

    • paul courtney says:

      net: Here in SW Ohio, all the companies big enough to be that stupid have left. When you decide to leave, you can have fun telling them they won you over, and they have to STOP USING FOSSIL FUEL NOW!!!!! AND GET VERY LOUD AND ANNOYING ABOUT HOW THE sorry, I was still yelling. Anyway, I’d bet your employer uses copious amounts of fossil fuel electric plane travel etc., and top officers have beach home like Obama or vast Mcmansions like Gore, or both. Anyway, they got a nice business, be a shame if a green mob (you only need a mob of one if she’s named Greta) descended on it and demanded they turn off the lights- literally.
      Also, here in SW Ohio, we had a historic drenching in spring, followed by a drought summer into fall. Amazing, all the more so because both were caused by CO2.

  8. John says:

    Bill Harper on Fox News: There’s a ‘cult’ building around climate scientists

  9. Robert Roddis says:

    It’s been my understanding that most of the water to replenish the Great Lakes comes from snow in Northern Ontario and Quebec. I saw this extreme snow depth map of Canada from 4/15/19 at and grabbed a screen shot because I assumed it would soon be gone.

    It’s never mentioned that it was these deep snows which has caused the Great Lake to literally overflow. I thought snow was a thing of the past.

    Lake replenishment times:

  10. Robert Roddis says:

    It’s been my understanding that most of the water to replenish the Great Lakes comes from snow in Northern Ontario and Quebec. I saw this extreme snow depth map of Canada from 4/15/19 at and grabbed a screen shot because I assumed it would soon be gone.

    It’s never mentioned that it was these deep snows which has caused the Great Lake to literally overflow. I thought snow was a thing of the past.

    Lake replenishment times:

  11. GreyGeek says:

    Your “UNHIDE THE DECLINE” software works great!

    I ran it on Kubuntu 18.04 running on an Acer Aspire V3-771G 17″ with in i7 cpu and 16 GB of RAM. I use BTRFS on a Samsung EVO 860 500GB SSD.

Leave a Reply to paul courtney Cancel reply

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