the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

The Future of Weather – Uncommon Sense

Posted by Jeff Id on February 2, 2014

USA today published yet another climate rant on the state of global warming.  This time they tied it to the polar vortex that is still freezing our ___ (insert anatomy here) off.  The article is filled with the ‘local is not global’ and ‘weather is not climate’ (until they say it is) mantra that has been so common in recent years.   The problem that  AGW scientists and left-wing mouthpieces have is identical, while things have warmed a tiny bit, the stupid thermometers are falling well behind the not-so-clairvoyant, modeled projections of planet-wide doom.

What to do

…what to do.

Well the general media seems to have congealed on a temporary strategy at least. The collection of like-minded opinion is not a conspiracy between writers, but rather an obvious shelter during the cold.  Strategically, it is basically a placeholder until something happens that looks politically better for global warming activists.  The formula is to keep repeating that cold is still consistent with models, ignore the fact that a decade ago they were claiming we wouldn’t have nearly as much snow today, and tell people that warm is still coming tomorrow, and scare them that in the future we won’t have snow.  They could almost run the same articles from years ago and just insert new pro-AGW weather events between claims of weather is not climate.

How many weathers does equal a climate?

I’m sure that all of us agree that a single weather event does not define climate, but even the ever-left USA Today needs to recognize that eventually the summation of weather events does equal climate.   I’m sure the progressives™ would be hard to pin down on this particular question but when the summation of weathers doesn’t exhibit the predictions of climate, a little reality check is in order.

The no “good” data quicksand.

This particular pro-global warming article, which was born during cold weather, seemed to take a defensive tone.  With little helpful weather to work from this winter,  they refer to the summary for policy makers of the IPCC AR5 with a “fairly loose” “somewhat speculative” prevaricatory caricature of the IPCC,  in lieu of an actual quotation (my bold):

But climate scientists are 95% to 100% sure that human activity — emission of greenhouse gases — is the dominant cause of dramatic warming.

It makes me giggle.  What can I say.

The dramatic warming of Earth to date is minimally detectable 0.85C since the beginning of the 1900’s (IPCC AR5), it shows no sign of accelerating and falls under half the rate which the average climate model predicted.   The models require not only more warming, but an accelerated rate of warming for the IPCC doom scenarios to become remotely plausible.  Many of us science minded observers, reasonably question the validity of any of the “doom” scenarios themselves, as they are based on what can only gifted generously with the term – speculation.  What’s more is that the speculation, is being published as though it were science.  Science traditionally requires data, so our hapless author teams are oft pressured into statistical falsification of results, aka”scientific speculation”.    See warming attribution sections of various butterfly, sheep, glacier or fish shrinking studies for endless examples.  This tendency to fabricate the supporting data of a study is to be expected when the speculation in question supports and improves the funding which in turn supports the studies.

It seems to me that the USA Today article found themselves in the same boat as our palm-reading climate scientists.   Since the AR5 summary which USA Today linked to is full of big words that don’t say what USA editors wanted, a little caricature of reality was required to support their progressive™ intent.  I wonder how many of the thousands of readers will check the AR5 link for accuracy?

Exxon – send checks ASAP!

USA ends their prayer to the climate model gods (which are apparently different gods from the climate gods) to bring change to the evil right-wing legislators.

The damage will only be compounded if it becomes an excuse for yet another year of denial and delay in addressing climate dangers.

It seems that USA Today is in denial again. As it stands, the EPA and Obama have been proceeding full speed ahead on their insane concept of building windmills, bankrupting coal power, generally limiting combustion energy wherever possible (even beach fires) and increasing usage costs through regulation and governance at a truly unprecedented rate.  It is so bad that despite massive energy cost increases, brownouts are becoming something we are dealing with more often in the US now.  The authoritarian leftists couldn’t move forward with limitation policy any faster if they tried, but for USA Today it still isn’t fast enough.  Meanwhile, the truly dim-witted liberal politician’s attempts to take the lead from global progressive™ reporters, and change global weather by adding costs to combustion energy for only one country on the globe, have scientifically zero chance of success.

The nothing-new-news is that these writers are very, very, ignorant people with strong opinions and big pens.  We are inundated today with so many anti-progress media voices across the planet hollering the same message, that society unwittingly bends to their will.  Eventually, because CO2 emission won’t actually be stopped or slowed appreciably by government, the data will prove out that warming isn’t actually a bad thing at all.  Unfortunately for us, the law and policy, which are likely the true damage of global warming, are being implemented and tightened today.   Equally unfortunate for us citizens, government policy worldwide has proven much more intractable than the CO2 in our atmosphere could ever be.


I have a blog!

There is little we the oppressed can do to fight the global ignorance epidemic, so I blog. Whether it changes opinions or not, it at least puts a little rebuttal to the near-omnipotent global media in public view.


Since, according to climate scientists, there has been literally zero detected increases in hurricanes, tornadoes, rain, snow, earthquakes, locusts, drought, flood, etc.. and since the polar ice cap didn’t choose to melt …. again….. it seems that we need a more pragmatic and more scientific list of global warming effects than can be produced in aggregate by warming-centric government funded scientists. 

To that end, I have compiled a new list of weather trend predictions for the future.  My list is statistically and scientifically falsifiable and even more appropriately, is one that the common person can really get their heads around.   Think of it as common sense.  This list is unabridged and contains every weather event that will statistically change in frequency and strength, and has an asterisk by those that you will experience or scientists will measure that will be attributable to man made temperature change in the next 40 years.

Jeff’s list:


19 Responses to “The Future of Weather – Uncommon Sense”

  1. Iain Hall said

    Reblogged this on Iain Hall's SANDPIT and commented:
    A wonderfully insightful piece Jeff and what you say about your United States experience holds equally true here in the Antipodes where the stupid leftist government that we so recently threw out imposed a most pernicious Carbon Tax upon our economy and even though they were decisively thrown out of office as a consequence of the hubris the ALP and Greens still try to maintain the useless tax with their numbers in our upper house.

  2. ArndB said

    @ “How many weathers does equal a climate?”

    The Glossary of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), explains weather as: “The state of the atmosphere, mainly with respect to its effects upon life and human activities”, continuing with following distinctions:
    • The “present weather” table consists of 100 possible conditions,
    • with 10 possibilities for “past weather”, while
    • Popularly, weather is thought of in terms of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, visibility, and wind.
    Interestingly AMS has no suggestions on “future weather”; discussed here: and here:

  3. omanuel said

    AGW promoters are in a difficult situation.

    If this propaganda collapses, there is danger to the entire post-1945 structure of “consensus, settled, standard, profitable science,” from the Big Bang creation of H, to the Standard Solar Model of H-filled stars and Magically Oscillating Solar Neutrinos, to the final Black Holes at the end of this obviously long expansion of the universe !

    Promoters of nuclear energy are back in the game:

    Comments that I posted there about errors (Weizsacker’s nuclear binding energy) in basic nuclear information being taught in nuclear physics and nuclear engineering were deleted.

    It now looks like the common masses will have to freeze before government scientist will consider letting go of the warm tit of federal funds for those promoting AGW as science.

    • omanuel said

      Missouri continues to suffer ice storms, bitter cold, and loss of faith in our government’s AGW tale.

      Yet not a single member of the consensus science community has challenged the data in Figures 1-3 (pages 17-29 of Chapter 2 of my autobiography) or the conclusion that the Sun’s core is a pulsar remnant from the birth of the solar system.

      Click to access Chapter_2.pdf

      Is the United States National Academy of Sciences like “a generation of vipers,” a private, self-perpetuating organization that reviews the budgets of federal agencies for Congress and thus guides their research, with little or no limit on conflict of interest?

      With deep regrets,
      – Oliver K. Manuel
      Former NASA Principal
      Investigator for Apollo

  4. omanuel said

    Stephen Hawking himself recently cut the tail off this fabulous tale of consensus cosmology:

    Big Bang => expands => Black Holes

    • omanuel said

      Secret efforts to hide information on the abundant source of energy that powers our beautiful, benevolent universe from the cores of

      Heavy atoms like Uranium
      Some planets like Jupiter
      Ordinary stars like the Sun
      Galaxies like the Milky Way

      Were first exposed when Climategate emails revealed manipulation of data to fit a political agenda in November 2009, . . .

      . . . Yet most critics (except Donna Lafamboise) could not then, and will not now, believe that NASA and other federal research agencies were manipulating observations and data to fit the UN’s agenda when President Eisenhower warned of this threat to our form of government in January 1961:

      With deep regrets,
      – Oliver K. Manuel
      Former NASA Principal
      Investigator for Apollo

  5. timetochooseagain said

    I’m continually frustrated by the disconnect between the media treatment-wherein “climate change” seems to have become synonymous with, even a replacement for, “bad weather,” and the actual, mainstream science, which actually indicates mostly good weather should arise.

  6. BoyfromTottenham said

    Jeff, I wouldn’t “giggle” at the blatant, clever and pervasive dis-information and propaganda coming out of the CAGW camp – it is worthy of, and may be playing from the same textbooks used by the likes of M Gorky (USSR) and J Goebbles (Nazi Germany). Read some of the history of dis-information and propaganda as practised by these two (even Wikipedia is informative) and take it seriously, please – this is definitely NOT stuff to be laughed at!

    • omanuel said

      I agree. It is NOT to be laughed at. World leaders believed they were “saving the world from nuclear annihilation” when they started promoting misinformation about the source of energy in cores of heavy atoms and stars in 1945, but . . .

      That decision undermined the integrity of nuclear physics textbooks that train the engineers and technicians who design and operate our nuclear reactors. Current proponents of nuclear energy are unwilling to address those flaws:

  7. Brian H said

    Jeff, your list is too long. I was afraid of that.

  8. Visiting Physicist said

    Future climate change can be predicted, as in the last paragraph below, but let me explain how and why. If you would like to know exactly why there has been no warming since 1998 and how and why it is gravity trapping thermal energy throughout the universe I will give you a brief summary of what is in my new book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” available soon on Amazon.

    The original Clausius (hot to cold) statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to radiative heat transfers and also to non-radiative heat transfers in a horizontal plane where there is no change in gravitational potential energy. Physicists have realised that the Clausius statement is limited and the more general form of the law pertains to entropy. The law actually describes an evolving process whereby entropy will increase until it reaches a maximum determined by the constraints of the isolated system being considered. That state is thermodynamic equilibrium which is not necessarily an isothermal state. Rather it is a state of homogeneous total energy wherein there are thus no unbalanced energy potentials. In the absence of chemical reactions and any phase change, we need only consider the (gravitational) potential energy (PE) and the kinetic energy (KE) the mean of the latter enabling a temperature measurement. So at thermodynamic equilibrium (the state which the Second Law says will evolve spontaneously) there will be homogeneous (PE+KE) and this implies a temperature gradient equal to -g/Cp where g is the acceleration due to gravity and Cp the weighted mean specific heat. This temperature gradient (aka “lapse rate”) would be observed in a pure non-radiating gas, but inter-molecular radiation between so called greenhouse gas molecules has a temperature levelling effect (opposing the gravity gradient) and so the wet gradient is less steep, as is well known.

    By the way, the attempts to disprove the above-mentioned Loschmidt gravity gradient are all flawed because they overlook the fact that the temperature gradient occurs in solids, liquids and gases, so a wire also has a gradient and no perpetual energy circulation happens.

    Now all the above implies that an autonomous temperature gradient will be maintained in a planet’s atmosphere. But how, on Uranus for example, does the solar energy which is nearly all absorbed by the methane layer near its TOA move down into warmer regions? This “heat creep” process, as I call it in the book, is a direct corollary of the Second Law process whereby thermodynamic equilibrium evolves. When newly absorbed energy disturbs that equilibrium, that new energy will spread out in all accessible directions (like new rainwater in the middle of a lake) because that is how thermodynamic equilibrium will be restored. This process explains the temperature gradients observed in all planetary atmospheres, crusts and deeper sub-surface regions. That, in fact, is what keeps Earth’s core hot, and that of our Moon.

    The temperature plot in the atmosphere thus has a pre-determined gradient, whilst its overall level is set by the need for radiative balance. Where the plot intersects Earth’s surface determines the “supporting” temperature which, as is observed, slows surface cooling in the early pre-dawn hours. This means all climate change is caused, not by back radiation, but by natural variations in the overall level of the temperature plot. Local variations, such as those due to variable water vapour levels, are shown in a study in the Appendix to lead to cooler mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures in the more moist regions. Water vapour and all GH gases cause cooler surface temperatures because the temperature plot rotates in order to maintain radiative balance. However the total cooling effect of carbon dioxide is less than a tenth of a degree.

    Climate follows natural cycles, probably regulated in some way by planetary orbits. The most obvious cycles are a long-term (roughly 1,000 year) cycle which has been increasing by about half a degree per century over the last 300 years or so, and an overlapping 60 to 65 year cycle which had a maximum in the 1998-2003 period. At present the short-term cycle is dominating slightly, causing a small net cooling that will continue until about the year 2030. But the good news is that the long-term cycle will only increase by about half a degree for one more century before 500 years of long-term cooling sets in.

  9. Mark said

    In your predictions list, I recommend adding a word to your final sentence: “legitimately.” Because it is predictable that, in fact, every weather event that comes on the pulblic’s radar “WILL be attributed(able) to man made temperature change in the next 40 years” by those who wish to promote the AGW meme.

  10. Mark T said

    We must be lucky here in the Colorado Springs area. One of our local weather men (yes, a dude, not a weather person) rightly pointed out the nonsense polar vortex thing: “It’s ALWAYS THERE.” Now, somehow, the fact that cold air is escaping its frigid grasp to infiltrate the lower 48, we have more evidence of global warming, and it has a name ripe for scaring the populace… sigh.

    My mother, in St. Louis, is tired of shoveling the global warming off of her driveway.


  11. Visiting Physicist said

    Yes this does relate to future climate predictions, and helps you understand why it’s not carbon dioxide after all.

    Anyone is entitled to disagree with the brilliant 19th century physicist, Loschmidt if you so choose, but you can’t prove him wrong, whereas I have proved him correct. And no, the WUWT article which ran a wire up the outside of a cylinder did not rebut it because the wire also develops a temperature gradient which prevents perpetual energy circulation.

    The temperature gradient results from a diffusion process and does not require any upward convection. More often than not the new energy absorbed in higher, cooler regions actually can move downwards towards warmer regions if it is restoring thermodynamic equilibrium. I call this “heat creep” because it is a slow process that can be dominated by high levels of absorption, such as in Earth’s stratosphere and ocean thermoclines.

    So I’m not talking about convection or pressure or solid surfaces absorbing solar radiation. I am asking anyone to explain why the base of the Uranus troposphere (altitude -300Km) is 320K according to Wikipedia (Uranus / Troposphere) as there is no surface there, no incident solar radiation, no internal energy generation and no reason for any net upward convection.

    ” Uranus’s heat flux is only 0.042 ± 0.047 W/m2″

    Furthermore, there is very close to perfect energy balance at TOA according to measurements from Voyager 2, so any internally generated thermal energy, which some seem to think is responsible for maintaining the 5,000K temperature in the small solid core (thousands of Km below the troposphere) would be far less than 0.042W/m^2. That’s a tall ask for so little energy. And it’s got to keep all that atmosphere hot too, or so they seem to think.

    Now consider Venus. Its surface cools by about 5 degrees during its 4-month-long night. So its internal energy is not succeeding in keeping its surface at around 730K. But for the Sun’s energy, it could easily have cooled right down in a few centuries. (So too could Uranus.) But the Sun’s energy raises the temperature of the Venus surface by 5 degrees spread over the course of the next 4-month-long Venus day. But it cannot do that by direct radiation which is less than 20W/m^2.

    For the back radiation enthusiasts, such back radiation coming from that initial new solar energy would also be less than 20W/m^2. But you would need over 16,000W/m^2 of direct radiation to actually raise the temperature. That’s about five times the Solar energy that even reaches TOA, so obviously the energy cannot be amplified within the Venus atmosphere.

    The required energy does not come from radiation at all. Nor does pressure create energy and we have no reason to believe the pressure changes much at the surface anyway. For any increase there would be a cancelling decrease, and thus no net change in temperature due to pressure changes.

    So can anyone else explain Venus and Uranus temperatures?

  12. omanuel said


    Official responses to 2009 Climategate emails have confirmed: ACCEPTANCE OF REALITY = SANITY

    Our beautiful, bountiful Earth and humans could not be

    1. Orbiting around the Sun in 1543.
    2. Powered by the source of energy that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945.

    The scientific revolution began when humans accepted #1.
    The scientific revolution ended when we refused to accept #2.

    If you doubt the validity of the above conclusion, ask any member of the UN’s IPCC, the UK’s Royal Society, the US or any other National Academy of Sciences, or the Swedish or Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee to publicly address three figures of precise experimental data (Figures 1-3, pages 19-27, my autobiography) that falsify standard post-1945 models of stars and nuclei.

    Click to access Chapter_2.pdf

    Readers are also invited to address the data.

  13. Atmospheric-Physicist said

    No one here explained the -g/Cp thermal gradient in the Uranus troposphere, or how the Venus surface warms by 5 degrees, or why it’s hotter in the Moon’s core – now did they Jeff? And neither will you be able to do so unless and until you read my book.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: