Say, What Do Hotcoldwetdry And Sweaters Have In Common?

In this case, the Huffington Post’s Katherine Boeher doesn’t use the un-scientific phrase “climate change”, but the old and bust “global warming”

What Do Global Warming And Sweaters Have In Common? This Climate Scientist Explains.

Climate scientist Adam Levy got sick of hearing all the usual arguments against the existence of climate change, so he decided to fight back with a clever and easy to understand YouTube channel.

His latest video explains global warming using a sweater analogy. “We’ve known for over a hundred years that the carbon dioxide that exists naturally in the earth’s atmosphere helps trap heat to keep the world warm, just like a sweater in winter.” By adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, Levy explains, we’re adding more hot clothes.

“When a sweater’s making you hot, you can just take it off,” Levy says. “Unfortunately for us, carbon dioxide doesn’t work like that. Once it’s in the atmosphere, it sticks around for hundreds of years, so if you want to stop the world getting warmer, we need to stop too much carbon dioxide getting in to the atmosphere in the first place.”

Of course, a big difference is that wearing a sweater can increase your feeling of warmth by many degrees. The Earth’s global temperature has only gone up a miniscule 1.4F since 1850. And, despite the bleating by Warmists, there really has been no statistically significant warming over the last 18+ years, in complete contradiction to the majority of their computer models.

Interestingly, making the video and having people watch it uses quite a bit of energy which creates CO2, meaning that Levy, Google, and the Huffington Post are Part Of The Problem, according to their Warmist religious tenants.

Speaking of computer models, The Hockey Schtick points to a comment by Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. at Dr. Judith Curry’s site

This is a remarkable statement

“the warming of the upper ocean predicted by these models did not agree with observations; particularly in the southern hemisphere.They inferred from this that upper ocean warming rates in the southern hemisphere have been underestimated – that it was the previous observations that were inaccurate and that the models were correct.” 

When observations and models disagree, to accept the model is an inversion of the scientific process! This is a systemic problem with these studies.

That’s right, Warmists actually think that computer models are more important that real world observational data.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “Say, What Do Hotcoldwetdry And Sweaters Have In Common?”

  1. Review says:

    I like the valuable information you supply to your articles.
    I’ll bookmark your blog and check again right here
    regularly. I am moderately sure I will be informed a lot of new stuff proper here!
    Good luck for the next!

  2. Through doing this, you can ensure that this company will provide everything you will need
    so as to make your campaign a great success. Counselors come to the home with practical advise about how to live independently with
    low vision, conduct support groups and provide opportunities to view typical low vision products.

    Right click on No – Changing – Wallpaper, click Modify, and
    change the value to 0.

  3. Jeffery says:

    “The Earth’s global temperature has only gone up a miniscule 1.4F since 1850. And, despite the bleating by Warmists, there really has been no statistically significant warming over the last 18+ years, in complete contradiction to the majority of their computer models.”

    “The Earth’s global temperature has only gone up a miniscule 1.4F since 1850.” — If your body temp goes up 1.4F, it’s called a fever. If your body temp stays that high for years and continues to rise it’s very serious indeed. The 1.4F warming since 1850 is greater than the entire temperature range of the Holocene epoch. Miniscule? Your understanding of history is miniscule.

    “…really has been no statistically significant warming over the last 18+ years…” — Of the major surface temperature datasets only one, RSS, shows no warming over that time period. And even the RSS data show warming of 0.13C/decade since 1979 (when they started). Again, Load Monckton starts with the most current temp report and moves backward until he finds a flat record (which coincidentally starts with the record El Nino year of 1998 – the highest point in RSS).

  4. John says:

    Do you think we will break the hottest year record this year?
    If it does will this be derided as insignificant ?

  5. Nighthawk says:

    Not insignificant but irrelevant.

    As someone mentioned in another post, what baseline are we using to determine what is the optimal average temperature of the Earth? Until this is pinpointed, any claims of it being too warm are based on nothing but conjecture and, as they said, just bad science.

    It’s stated that if my body temp went up 1.4 degrees it would be called a fever and this is correct. The big difference here is that we have a known baseline to compare to unlike what we have with the climate.

    Everyone also bleats that increased CO2 levels are a bad thing. Never mind that CO2 levels have only been this low twice in Earth’s history. A few hundred million years ago and now. And CO2 levels this low are very bad for plants. The optimum being more around 1000ppm.

    It could very well be the warmists that are working to destroy life on Earth as we know it. After all, you are trying to lower the concentrations of a gas that plants need to survive. If plants can’t survive, neither to we.

  6. david7134 says:

    Do you have any idea how the “scientist” determined optimal body temp, since you use it as an authoritarian reference? At the beginning of WWI troops were being medically evaluated for the first time. Suddenly someone figured out that no one know what the optimal body temp should be. So they grabbed 5 soldiers, took their temp, averaged the result. That makes as much sense as your concerns, which are beyond silly.

  7. Casey says:

    Yanno, it’s almost cute how Jeff can do nothing but mindlessly repeat the same (few) talking points over (and over and over) again. Maybe someone can do him a solid and maybe suggest a couple new ones?

    Or maybe Teach can add a macro to every AGW post that includes them, to save him the trouble of typing them.

    Jeff, why don’t you actually educate yourself on how they determine those temperature measurements? It really is interesting, if you’re into math stuff. Me I’ve always been fascinated by real number representation in digital computers, and the difference between accuracy & precision. It’s kinda like that.

    The satellites measure various bands, which are then used to infer temperature. Different groups use different methods, which give different results.

    Some of the issues they have to deal with are changing orbits, the angle of the satellite, which satellite it is (different instruments), the temperature of the satellite itself, and other goodies.

    So you see, those numbers you’re so in love with are in fact approximate inferences, not rock-solid measurements. And, yes, different groups are pretty sure their inferences are more accurate than others. When you consider we’re talking about tenths of degrees here it’s difficult to be very certain. That’s why folks like Teach usually refer to no “statistically significant” warming. The differences between RSS and other methods are small enough nearly make the argument moot. If there is a genuine warming trend, it’s nearly impossible to differentiate amongst the noise.

    Given that we’ve gone from 336 ppm in 1980 to nearly 400 ppm today -half of which happened between 2000 and 2014- one would expect a much larger increase in measured temperature over the same period. This has not happened. Ergo either a)the CAGW hypothesis is flawed à la Brahe’s solar theory, or b)it’s just wrong. Either way, predictions based on said theory have been falsified.

    And, please, quit braying about the alternative measurements; you’re just adding epicycles to epicycles to save the theory. Why not try to see where the theory is flawed, then produce some accurate, reproducible predictions.

  8. Jeffery says:


    All of human civilization developed and evolved during the Holocene epoch where the average temperature was about 1F below what it is now (and will go higher). That’s a reasonable baseline for human civilization.

    The CO2 concentration during the Holocene has been a pretty steady 280 ppm. It’s now 400 ppm. Barring the Sun dimming, a giant asteroid smashing into Earth or massive and sustained volcanic activity, 1000 ppm would be catastrophic for human civilization.

Pirate's Cove