You've obviously misunderstood the "Carbon Footprint" issue.
Since "carbon" (code for carbon dioxide) is the thermostat for weather, you've clearly got yours set too low!
Crank it up! That truck shouldn't be sitting in the driveway--it should be idling! With lots and lots of "carbon" cranking your thermostat up! And every other "fossil fuel" burning mechanism should be cranked too. It ain't easy being carbon-conscious.
Throw another log on the fire--free up all the trapped "carbon" in the wood.
Do your part! Increase your Carbon Footprint, decrease the severity of the coming Ice Age!
As Mikey the Mann says: Only you can prevent global ice age!
I remember being a wee lad in the late 70s/early 80s and them terrifying us with the next ice age. It was definitely going to kill us all by the year 2000.
Then they switched to global warming and Miami was going to be permanently underwater by 2016.
Fast forward to today and I don't trust them to get the daily weather forecast right.
Stay warm Uncle Sgt. Briggs, and may any snow you have to attend to be fluffy and light.
It's so strange how CLIMATE EMERGENCIES!1!!1! work...
Been a relatively mild winter here in the middle of America, at least to my Nor'eastern raised mind. I, too, am old enough to remember the Blizzard of '78 in New England: it made our local weather-guesser - John Ghiorsi - a hero to Rhode Islanduhs because he correctly predicted it over the disdain of all the other local augurers who claimed to read God's sigils in the weather.
Satellites and doppler radar have done wonders in helping us nervous flyers avoid the worst turbulence, but beyond the next 72 hours, we're no better than Caesar's portent-guessers. At the risk of being sued, I'll say it: Mike Mann is one of the biggest frauds and con-men ever.
That video brought back many memories! I was 16 during the winter of 1977 and remember being stuck during the blizzard that hit New England in a crummy apartment away from my friends. Our landline wasn't hooked up yet so I would trudge through the snow to phone booth a couple of blocks away to call my friends every few hours just to have someone to talk to. No cell phones of course and not even cable TV in that apartment at the time. It wasn't fun.
Most of us who have lived in a snowy climate have one or two good stories to tell about a situation dealing with the white stuff.
I remember "In Search Of..." as well.
And the manufactured terror of a coming ice age. Yes, we really did fear that.
My how things change. Or don't - in the case of manufactured terror.
I remember those days also. On icy days we would “hop cars”; hang on their bumpers as they pulled us down the street. In summer, we ran in the fog from the trucks spraying insecticides. Ridiculous that I’m still alive.
I wasn't that crazy but I did watch those trucks from my 2nd floor bedroom wondering what they were spraying that smelled so bad. Ridiculous that many of us are still alive.
Before we get the inevitable Climate Change jokes, December was the third warmest in the past 100 years (per NOAA). And January looks to be similar, so far.
Yes, it is sad that so many people don’t believe temperature data from a so many sources - radiosondes, Argo floats, satellites, ground stations. Produced by scores of teams.
Dr. Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer (EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA IN HUNTSVILLE) report lower troposphere temperatures using satellite data. They show 2025 as the second warmest on record (47 years of data), with December the warmest on record for the continental 48 states.
Wow, I wonder if the great proliferation in number & type of climate measuring tools might be introducing some kind of invisible & (currently) unquantifiable bias into global temperature reports.
Besides, its' not like guys in Britain have found a bunch of ground stations to be non-existent, or stuck right next to huge confounds like airport tarmac or power substations. Couldn't happen anywhere else, the British are just weird like that.
I do not understand why more systems measuring a complex and changing global system introduces “bias.” The opposite seems more plausible: seeing the system from different perspectives reduces odds of bias.
I’ve followed climate science for a decade, reporting on it as an amateur journalist (registered with the Am Met Society, scores of articles posted widely), reading Nature and Nature Climate Science, employed for several years doing pr for a climate science firm, and in frequent correspondence with several top-tier climate scientists.
So, yes, there is much I don’t understand. But I might I know more about climate science than you.
Re: ocean heat temperature and content - There was very rough global surface coverage soon after WW2, albeit with low resolution. After 2000 the Argo floats (2007) and other systems gave high resolution data on ocean surface temperatures and heat content. Rather than show biases in the previous data, roughly confirmed them.
I hope some of that warming comes my way. It’s been unusually cold where I live and has been since November. My electric bill is through the roof. Maybe if we got more thermometers here we could lower the global average temperature and solve global warming.
Much of the blame for that state falls on a very stable polar vortex keeping cold air bottled up at the pole. Sure it's warmish for the moment, but the ice will return soon, geologically speaking, just as it has forty-something times in the last two point something million years.
It’s been much warmer than this, but only long ago. I’m a skeptic about use of proxies as “measures” of long-term global average temperatures. But I believe they are adequate to say it was warmer long ago.
Perhaps we refer to different timescales scales. The higher resolution modern ocean temperature data (starting ~2005) confirms trends seen in the post-WW2 data (starting roughly 80 years ago). If you mean that climate scientists’ pre-WW2 understanding was proven wrong by “introducing a lot of (very warm) ocean area which wasn't surveyed beforehand” - perhaps so. I neither know nor see any significance to that.
2/ Re: doomsters
I don’t believe you characterize this correctly. I’ve written much about the plague of doomsters who have afflicted us since the 1960s (like background radiation that’s become too intense). Some are scientists, but most are political activists.
For example, the debate among scientists in the 1970s was about the trend - warming or cooling. No consensus, few predicted doom. Again, I have often written to document this debate. Example:
Hang in there, Matt. It will improve...my God, you are having the winter from hell. Ours is bad, but nowhere near as bad as what you're having. It's so cold out I don't even want to go out and shovel the snow.
Rest well. This has been a much livelier winter around here as well. More snow and ice on the way. I sometimes miss the thrill of Great Lakes winters, but they are undoubtedly draining at times.
Stay warm Sergeant Briggs. I predict that after the current ice age ends we will experience months of localized global warming.
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
- Robert Frost, Fire and Ice
"From what I´ve tasted of desire"
- probably not talking about desiring a scotch on the rocks.
You've obviously misunderstood the "Carbon Footprint" issue.
Since "carbon" (code for carbon dioxide) is the thermostat for weather, you've clearly got yours set too low!
Crank it up! That truck shouldn't be sitting in the driveway--it should be idling! With lots and lots of "carbon" cranking your thermostat up! And every other "fossil fuel" burning mechanism should be cranked too. It ain't easy being carbon-conscious.
Throw another log on the fire--free up all the trapped "carbon" in the wood.
Do your part! Increase your Carbon Footprint, decrease the severity of the coming Ice Age!
As Mikey the Mann says: Only you can prevent global ice age!
I remember being a wee lad in the late 70s/early 80s and them terrifying us with the next ice age. It was definitely going to kill us all by the year 2000.
Then they switched to global warming and Miami was going to be permanently underwater by 2016.
Fast forward to today and I don't trust them to get the daily weather forecast right.
Stay warm Uncle Sgt. Briggs, and may any snow you have to attend to be fluffy and light.
Wow. Stay safe. Generac executives are no doubt popping champagne corks in the office.
It’s been a winter here too. -17 here is civilized degrees.
It's so strange how CLIMATE EMERGENCIES!1!!1! work...
Been a relatively mild winter here in the middle of America, at least to my Nor'eastern raised mind. I, too, am old enough to remember the Blizzard of '78 in New England: it made our local weather-guesser - John Ghiorsi - a hero to Rhode Islanduhs because he correctly predicted it over the disdain of all the other local augurers who claimed to read God's sigils in the weather.
Satellites and doppler radar have done wonders in helping us nervous flyers avoid the worst turbulence, but beyond the next 72 hours, we're no better than Caesar's portent-guessers. At the risk of being sued, I'll say it: Mike Mann is one of the biggest frauds and con-men ever.
That video brought back many memories! I was 16 during the winter of 1977 and remember being stuck during the blizzard that hit New England in a crummy apartment away from my friends. Our landline wasn't hooked up yet so I would trudge through the snow to phone booth a couple of blocks away to call my friends every few hours just to have someone to talk to. No cell phones of course and not even cable TV in that apartment at the time. It wasn't fun.
Most of us who have lived in a snowy climate have one or two good stories to tell about a situation dealing with the white stuff.
I remember "In Search Of..." as well.
And the manufactured terror of a coming ice age. Yes, we really did fear that.
My how things change. Or don't - in the case of manufactured terror.
I remember those days also. On icy days we would “hop cars”; hang on their bumpers as they pulled us down the street. In summer, we ran in the fog from the trucks spraying insecticides. Ridiculous that I’m still alive.
I wasn't that crazy but I did watch those trucks from my 2nd floor bedroom wondering what they were spraying that smelled so bad. Ridiculous that many of us are still alive.
To be fair to the geniuses in charge of spraying that stuff in packed neighborhoods, mosquitoes today still won’t bite me….
You might just be around to many other tasty people.
I am! Lol
Before we get the inevitable Climate Change jokes, December was the third warmest in the past 100 years (per NOAA). And January looks to be similar, so far.
Sad, when you can’t believe the NOAA.
Yes, it is sad that so many people don’t believe temperature data from a so many sources - radiosondes, Argo floats, satellites, ground stations. Produced by scores of teams.
Dr. Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer (EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA IN HUNTSVILLE) report lower troposphere temperatures using satellite data. They show 2025 as the second warmest on record (47 years of data), with December the warmest on record for the continental 48 states.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2025/December2025/GTR_202512_v2.pdf
Wow, I wonder if the great proliferation in number & type of climate measuring tools might be introducing some kind of invisible & (currently) unquantifiable bias into global temperature reports.
Besides, its' not like guys in Britain have found a bunch of ground stations to be non-existent, or stuck right next to huge confounds like airport tarmac or power substations. Couldn't happen anywhere else, the British are just weird like that.
I do not understand why more systems measuring a complex and changing global system introduces “bias.” The opposite seems more plausible: seeing the system from different perspectives reduces odds of bias.
For starters, by introducing a lot of (very warm) ocean area which wasn't surveyed beforehand.
I think there's a lot you don't understand.
I’ve followed climate science for a decade, reporting on it as an amateur journalist (registered with the Am Met Society, scores of articles posted widely), reading Nature and Nature Climate Science, employed for several years doing pr for a climate science firm, and in frequent correspondence with several top-tier climate scientists.
So, yes, there is much I don’t understand. But I might I know more about climate science than you.
Re: ocean heat temperature and content - There was very rough global surface coverage soon after WW2, albeit with low resolution. After 2000 the Argo floats (2007) and other systems gave high resolution data on ocean surface temperatures and heat content. Rather than show biases in the previous data, roughly confirmed them.
These might give you a good introduction:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(oceanography)#History
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
Especially this: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/global-ocean-heat-content/index3.html
I hope some of that warming comes my way. It’s been unusually cold where I live and has been since November. My electric bill is through the roof. Maybe if we got more thermometers here we could lower the global average temperature and solve global warming.
Much of the blame for that state falls on a very stable polar vortex keeping cold air bottled up at the pole. Sure it's warmish for the moment, but the ice will return soon, geologically speaking, just as it has forty-something times in the last two point something million years.
It’s been much warmer than this, but only long ago. I’m a skeptic about use of proxies as “measures” of long-term global average temperatures. But I believe they are adequate to say it was warmer long ago.
1/ “ocean area which wasn't surveyed beforehand.”
Perhaps we refer to different timescales scales. The higher resolution modern ocean temperature data (starting ~2005) confirms trends seen in the post-WW2 data (starting roughly 80 years ago). If you mean that climate scientists’ pre-WW2 understanding was proven wrong by “introducing a lot of (very warm) ocean area which wasn't surveyed beforehand” - perhaps so. I neither know nor see any significance to that.
2/ Re: doomsters
I don’t believe you characterize this correctly. I’ve written much about the plague of doomsters who have afflicted us since the 1960s (like background radiation that’s become too intense). Some are scientists, but most are political activists.
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2017/07/17/why-we-love-doomster-stories/
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2019/06/24/climate-doomsters/
For example, the debate among scientists in the 1970s was about the trend - warming or cooling. No consensus, few predicted doom. Again, I have often written to document this debate. Example:
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2009/11/23/cooling-3/
so it's been this warm before? huh.
that's that darn global warming again
we should probably spray a shitload of aluminum particles into the sky to block out the sun, or something
Hang in there, Matt. It will improve...my God, you are having the winter from hell. Ours is bad, but nowhere near as bad as what you're having. It's so cold out I don't even want to go out and shovel the snow.
Not only is this winter bad it started in November!
whoa. Check out the Russian Winter. https://x.com/ChayasClan/status/2013264799296078228?s=20
Very silly to build the standard Soviet apartment blocks on the Kamchatka Peninsula.
Rest well. This has been a much livelier winter around here as well. More snow and ice on the way. I sometimes miss the thrill of Great Lakes winters, but they are undoubtedly draining at times.
Yeah, I’d say move. Somewhere warm. Where snow is a fun occurrence every other decade.
Flippin right.
100 car pile up in Zeeland, MI.
Take Care!