Climate According to Weathermen

I don't feel there is anything of scientific value (other than as illustration of scientific incompetence of the "experts", and mass delusion on the part of the public) in the ongoing political climate debates, but in the interest of informing the many who still do not understand the most basic underpinnings of the debate (or war), I have made the following response, on the American Thinker site, to an article on statements about climate change made by TV weatherman Al Roker:

Roker is a purveyor of weather on TV, a performer and entertainer. A weather propagandist, if you will. He is like the weathermen on the Weather Channel, who you can watch present the weather -- around the nation, and even around the world -- in a hyped, overwrought or biasedly enthusiastic manner, ever hour of every day.

If you want to have a serious discussion of climate, climate change, or global warming, start with this: Weather changes, all the time. Climate does not, and global climate -- as represented by the only measurement of it that scientists have, or communicate, the global mean surface temperature -- changes least of all. "Global climate" does not change at all; the global temperature record(s) that purport to show that it does change have all been shown to be inadequate at best and fraudulent at worst. See, for example:

US Temperatures Have Been Fraudulently Adjusted

Weathermen, and climate scientists as well, think they can predict the climate by following the weather, for they have been mis-educated to think, simplistically, that "climate is just the long-term average of weather". As silly as it may sound to anyone with common sense, climate models are an attempt to predict climate change by using weather models, simplistically extrapolated far beyond their effective range in time and space.

The reality is that climate is the unchanging stage, while weather is the coming and going of transient players upon the stage. This is approximately so even for regional or local climates, and it is rigorously so for the global climate, or global mean surface temperature. I have written of this many times, for example:

True Situation in Climate Science

Just remember: Weather does not affect the climate; rather climate -- the stage upon which weather plays its transient parts -- constrains the weather, within a fundamentally unchanging environment globally.

What Do They Mean By "Climate"?

A few days ago (actually, on November 13th, so not just a few days ago) I wrote the following comment on the American Thinker site, to an article about "Trump and Hillary on Climate". (Mine was a scientific comment, the site and the article are political. I don't argue politics here, I am a scientist who tries to inform, even in the current general insanity.) I would not be bringing this up here, except that yesterday I visited the Climate Etc. site of Dr. Judith Curry, and read a comment there that led me to ask the question in the title of this post. The comment stated--with utter assurance, of course--that the global mean surface temperature (and "global warming" too, if my memory serves) has nothing to do with climate. Since I have been trying for a long time to inform everyone, in my own posts and in comments elsewhere, that there is a difference between what they appear to mean by "climate" and what I take to be the "global climate"--just that which is in fact claimed by the alarmists to change with "global warming"--here is my American Thinker comment (it would be a minor miracle if any of the regular members of Dr. Curry's ongoing "sociology of climate" therapy sessions--the Climate Etc. site, I mean--were to read this and take it to heart; the insanity is too entrenched in them). My comment began by responding to another comment that the climate alarmism was a "scam".:

On the political side, it was a scam, and even more, a criminal conspiracy, as is evident from the Democratic Party Platform specifically calling for suppression of "climate skeptics", taking away their very right to free speech in the public discourse.

On the science side, it should be emphasized that the incompetence of the scientists and the rise of false theories initiated and still maintain the political alarmism. Nothing illustrates this more forcefully than the line in the above article that climate is "the weather conditions prevailing in an area", while as Kwan's comment illustrates, people are induced to believe in "global warming", which is not "in an area" but a global average. Climate as "the weather...prevailing in an area" varies hugely over the Earth, from tropical heat to polar cold, and from desert dryness to rainforest wetness; but the global "climate", as defined by the global mean surface temperature, it turns out is quite stable--varying by no more than one-half to one degree centigrade, over any time scale--and its precise value is due only to our distance from the Sun and the thickness of our atmosphere. Even the difference in temperature between night and day, and the difference in the seasons, does not affect the global average temperature, because night and day are not global but hemispheric, and the same for the seasons (which are reversed between the north and south hemispheres).

The political alarmists, from Obama on down, changed the talking point from "global warming" to "climate change" when it became widely known that there has been an extended "global warming pause" in which the global mean surface temperature has clearly not been increasing, even according to the climate scientists' fraudulently "adjusted" temperature data. Even their calling it a "pause" in global warming, rather than the disproof of the global warming theory that it is, showed their fraudulent, unscientific bias and their willingness to lie to the public to control any public debate. This lie is on a par with the Benghazi lie, that the attack was a reaction to an anti-Muslim video.

The climate in an area can change, but the global "climate" is precisely fixed, utterly stable (as my own 2010 article, "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect" makes clear, to any competent scientist and hopefully to any lay reader, who I wrote it for).

Climate: Global Me Vs. Local Everyone Else

I have submitted the following comment to the Real Science site, where Steven Goddard uses Charles Darwin to make a point about long-term and extreme "climate change", and someone made the point that Darwin considered climate to be local, not global:

I wish I could get people to realize this; it is the reason why all the supposedly learned discourse, by those with "climate" theories (including the "consensus"), about the effects of details in the atmosphere--such as water vapor, clouds, "greenhouse gases", etc.--is irrelevant to the global mean surface temperature, as definitively demonstrated by my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison. The global mean surface temperature is stable, so everyone is fundamentally deluded by thinking it must change because "climate changes". Only local conditions change, in my view, molded as it is by the definitive Venus/Earth evidence. The stable "global climate" (the global mean surface temperature, as given in the Standard Atmosphere) is maintained simply by the tropospheric vertical temperature lapse rate, due to the governing hydrostatic condition of the massive atmosphere itself, and by the fact that the troposphere is warmed by direct absorption of incident solar (IR) radiation, not from the surface of the Earth--heat from the surface drives the WEATHER, while heat from the Sun alone drives the global mean temperature.

But Darwin was wrong about undirected evolution, by "natural selection" of random mutations. --see here, here, and here.