Global Warming Hysteria: Record Heat, Vanishing Sunspots, Co2, and Lawsuits

There's record heat, but why? How do we measure it? What's going on with sunspots? Blame the US? Answers below.

Record Heat

Yes, there's "record heat" thanks to the nonsensical way we measure temperatures.

Mann-Made Warming

Watts Up With That provides a humorous, but accurate, summation in Friday Funny: Josh on Mann-Made Warming.

In the last couple of weeks, record highs have been set around the U.S., particularly in the Los Angeles area, which I did a lengthy debunking of. Records were also set in Scotland, then denied by an errant Ice Cream truck, and also questioned in Africa. Josh is on the case to illustrate the one common denominator to all these high temperature records we’ve discussed here on WUWT.

For people who don’t believe this, or think we are just “making stuff up”…Here’s the official weather station at the airport in Rome, Italy. I wonder if the Pope has seen this?

WUWT provides more examples including some in the US including LA and Burbank. Here's Burbank.

Yes, the weather station is virtually surrounded by asphalt runways, taxiways, and aircraft parking ramps. The likelihood for the station to get in the middle of a 400F jetwash is almost a certainty, being so close to taxiways with turns. This is a ridiculous place to measure for high temperatures.

Heat Islands

NASA notes Satellites Pinpoint Drivers of Urban Heat Islands in the Northeast.

Cities such as New York, Philadelphia, and Boston are prominent centers of political power. Less known: Their size, background ecology, and development patterns also combine to make them unusually warm, according to NASA scientists who presented new research recently at an American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting in San Francisco, Calif.

Summer land surface temperature of cities in the Northeast were an average of 7 °C to 9 °C (13°F to 16 °F) warmer than surrounding rural areas over a three year period, the new research shows. The complex phenomenon that drives up temperatures is called the urban heat island effect.

Measurement Bias?

You bet

Reporting Bias?

You bet

Nonsensical Lawsuits

Clearly, we are not accurately measuring the rise in temperatures but that does not stop nonsense lawsuits.

Today a NY District Judge Tossed NYC's Climate Change Lawsuit Against Five Oil Companies.

NYC said BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips. Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell should compensate the city for the cost of mitigating the effects of global warming.

Judge Keenan wrote "Climate change is a fact of life, as is not contested by Defendants. But the serious problems caused thereby are not for the judiciary to ameliorate. Global warming and solutions thereto must be addressed by the two other branches of government."

Last month, a federal judge dismissed climate change cases against oil companies brought by Oakland and San Francisco based on similar grounds.

This case was so asinine that I wonder why it was filed in the first place. The judge should have made the city pay all of the defendants' legal costs.

That would stop the nonsense.

Sound the CO2 Alarm

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. That's the sound of my CO2 bullshit detector.

Mark Perry noted the USA alarmist nonsense.

Daniel LaCalle also rang the bell.

In Climate Agreement, Hypocrisy and Summits, LaCalle accurately writes "Decarbonization is unstoppable . Not thanks to a summit or due to politicians, quite the opposite. Thanks to competition, technology and research. Thanks to human ingenuity. Coal has been disappearing from the global energy mix for decades, despite – not to thanks to – governments. And the same is happening with oil."

Rising Oceans

But wait, what about the sea rise from melting ice in the antarctic?

I'm glad you asked.

Please consider The "Alarmist Gone Wild" Perspective of the Increase in Antarctic Snowfall.

Anew studypublished in the journal Climate of the Past has some (small) good news as far as snowfall is concerned: it’s going up. Since the 19th century, snowfall across Antarctica has increased by about 10 percent. It isn’t nearly enough to offset sea level rise from ice melting, but the numbers are still impressive.As a press releasepoints out, the continent is packing on about two Dead Sea’s worth of new ice each year.

Since it’s unclear as to whether or not Antarctica is currently losing or gaining ice, largely due to glacial isostatic adjustment uncertainties, two Dead Seas worth of additional ice (on top of the 19th century accumulation rate) is a lot of fracking ice… If two Dead Seas worth of ice per year were disappearing from Greenland, it would be catastrophic according to the alarmists. We know this because Greenland is currently losing an estimated 186-375 billion tons of ice per year and this is described as catastrophic, despite its insignificance to the overall mass and volume of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS). In Greenland, our friends at Skeptical Science describe this as “ominous”

​WUWT blasted the claim “Several millimeters a year of sea level rise coming from Antarctica’s melting ice each year”

"On what planet?," asked WUWT.

"The best recent estimate is that Antarctica is somewhere between gaining enough ice to lower sea level by as much as 0.14 mm/yr and losing enough ice to raise sea level by 0.55 mm/yr. So… Several millimeters a year of sea level rise are *not* coming from Antarctica’s melting ice each year.”

Sea Level Math

At the current rate, the sea level will rise by 1.6 inches over the next 100 years if we stay on this path.

Mercy! We need a plan.

Al Gore's $90 Trillion Plan

In order to combat the devastating impact of a global sea rise, new global commission says World Needs a $90 Trillion Infrastructure Overhaul.

I am quite certain that spending $90 trillion on nearly anything would actually do opposite of whatever the intention was.

With that thought, let's move on to sunspots.

​Sunspots Vanish at Alarming Rate

Sunspots are vanishing at an alarming rate. Let's investigate some possible implications.​

Quiet Sun: No sunspots

"Watts Up With That?" reports Quiet Sun: More than 3 months without a sunspot*.​

The title is very wrong, it's more like five days. But there have been about 100 days this year. Here are some details.

2 July 2018 – “The Belgian department of solar physics research (SIDC) says we are about to touch 100; that is, a hundred days in which we do not see spots on our sun,” says Italian meteorologist Dr. Carlo Testa.

During a time of few or no sunspots (a solar minimum) the Sun emits less energy than usual, says Dr. Testa. “According to some scholars, this situation could lead to climatic upheavals.”

Suffice it to recall, says Testa, that between 1645 and 1715 the most significant solar minimum of history, the Little Ice Age, occurred, bringing years and years marked by very strict winters that lasted until June.

Now several studies indicate that we’re headed into another Great Solar Minimum, says Testa. For some scholars, this is only a hypothesis, but we are seeing small signals that support this idea: namely, the most powerful strat-warming ever recorded in mid-February, the very very unstable Spring, and finally this summer that continues to limp along.

“What if the worst is to come?” asks Testa.

NASA: Sunspots Vanishing Faster than Expected

Also consider NASA: Sunspots Vanishing Faster than Expected

Sunspots are becoming scarce. Very scarce. So far in 2018 the sun has been blank almost 60% of the time, with whole weeks going by without sunspots. Today’s sun, shown here in an image from NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory, is typical of the featureless solar disk.

Beware, the Ice Age Cometh

Damn. If the sunspot theory holds up, we will have wasted $90 trillion to stop global warming when we need global warming!

Role of CO2

I am willing to concede - and always have - that man is responsible for a percentage of global warming (assuming global warming is actually happening).

Here is a better way of stating things: Man-made CO2, in isolation, all things being equal, would tend to raise temperatures. That statement should not be in dispute, by anyone.

But assuming there is global warming, does it account for less than 1%, 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 40%, 50%, or more?

And assuming it is happening, what percentages does one want to assign to natural cycles, sunspots or other solar activity like solar flares, volcanoes, changes in the earth's core, changes in wind patterns, ocean current changes, changes in earth's magnetic field, etc, etc, but also "man-made" global warming.

I do not pretend to know all the factors. No one else does either. And I highly doubt every factor has been tracked (or even can be!)

Correlation is not causation. Even if CO2 models correlate to change, are there more important factors (even natural cycles) that are coincidental to man-made CO2?

Magnetic Fields

Where's the discussion on this?

Earth's Magnetic Field Flip Could Happen Sooner Than Expected

Changes measured by the Swarm satellite show that our magnetic field is weakening 10 times faster than originally predicted, especially over the Western Hemisphere

Earth's magnetic field acts like a giant invisible bubble that shields the planet from the dangerous cosmic radiation spewing from the sun in the form of solar winds. The field exists because Earth has a giant ball of iron at its core surrounded by an outer layer of molten metal. Changes in the core's temperature and Earth's rotation boil and swirl the liquid metal around in the outer core, creating magnetic field lines.

Complex Systems

Cloud Mystery

That is a lengthy video, but a very important one. Henrik Svensmark's documentary on climate change and cosmic rays is one of the best believable explanations of global warming that I have seen.

Svensmark looks at background radiation coming from space, based on the earth's position in the Milky Way galaxy. His model accurately predicted prior ice ages and warming cycles.

I recommend watching the entire video. It is fascinating. One can also skip to the 30 minute mark or so for a shorter version.

His believable thesis is background radiation, or lack thereof causes warming and cooling cycles.

The video should give everyone pause to think about the simple models the alarmists project.

Final Thoughts

Climate changes - ice ages and warming - have occurred over millions of years whether man was even alive.

It is beyond idiotic to map two variables, CO2 and temperature change (one of them extremely inaccurately), in an enormously complex system of thousands of variables evolving over hundreds of millions of years, to make a determination we need to spend $90 trillion to do something about it based on data from the last 100 years.

But that is precisely what the alarmists have done.

The sad thing about this discussion is that I am in favor of reducing pollution. Millions of people in China are suffering from both air and water pollution.

Acid rain is real. It has killed forests on the East coast.

It's the hype on global warming and idiotic proposals to stop it that I cannot stand.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Comments (95)
No. 1-50
SMF
SMF

My first scare as a child was how killer bees were to take over the Americas. Never happened.

Having grown up in front of a beach, I heard stories of how the sea kept rising and taking homes away, saw how much closer the sea level rise came to the doorstep of the beach house. In 2015, the beach was twice the size it was when I was younger. Quick glance at Google Earth confirmed this. It wasn't sea level rise but simple erosion.

History is littered with climate changes occurring over periods not of thousands of years, but hundreds of years, i.e. Younger Dryas. No less than 3 differing climate environment existed during the Roman Empire.

No one can explain our quiet sun at the moment, and maybe it is only me, but I think the sun may have an effect on our climate.

Don't forget that plans use CO2 and expel the oxygen we need.

We need to take care of ourselves by keeping ourselves and our environment clean, the Earth and the sun will continue to do whatever they feel like, much as they have done for billions of years.

sequoia512
sequoia512

So the effect of CO2 is logarithmic the first 20ppm does roughly 80% of the warming. 40PPM does 90%, 80PPM does 95%, 160PPM 97.5%. 160 PPM is the bare minimum to support class 3 plants. Grains, trees, grasses, no matter how much CO2 you put in the air you can only get the last 2.5%. Total effect is probably around 4C with more than 3C baked in the cake at 160PPM. This is a big nothing burger. Check out all the record highes for the USA only one has occurred after the year 2000

ts1
ts1

Perfect, lets listen to Joe-six-pack arguements instead of science. Global warming is proven beyond any doubt, so it really only degrades you trustworthiness that you are swriting articles on topics you obviously know very little about. Perhaps you should also consider the moral obligations.

Mike Mish Shedlock
Mike Mish Shedlock

Editor

You have no bleeping idea what "proof" even means. And even IF it's happening, the notion that idiots like Al Gore (or any politician for that matter) knows what to do about it is crazy.

Mike Mish Shedlock
Mike Mish Shedlock

Editor

There is no "proof" of man-made global warming. There is data to support a THEORY, much of it fake, but some of it not. The time-frame analysis is clearly insufficient and there are thousands of factors. It is likely, we do not yet know the biggest cause of what's happening.

Moreover, as LaCalle pointed out, the free market will take care of this problem anyway, assuming there is a problem

caradoc-again
caradoc-again

Do we have more subjects for discussion than ever that become "religion". The demise of formal religion replaced by faux versions?

ts1
ts1

Proof in this case is above 95% certainty, that global warming is caused by CO2 emissions. This is what peer reviewed science agrees on. In time this number will change to 99.999% certainty, but i predict there will still be fact resistant people arguing otherwise (just like flat earth etc).

ts1
ts1

Regarding: "Moreover, as LaCalle pointed out, the free market will take care of this problem anyway, assuming there is a problem"

Enviromental issues cant be solved by the market. Actions carried out by agents in one location, will negatively affect agents in other locations. The problem with pollution is that it make economic sense for the polluter. Actually most liberal thinkers accept some kind of regulation is needed for this exact reason.

Furthermore the effects are 1) irreversible 2) has generational effects 3) has a very big impact. This calls for an extra safety margin. Action is needed now, before we have 99.99% certainty, or else we wont be able to fix the problem later.

Comparing potential conquences and certainty, and current efforts to fix the problem, i think it is safe to assume the market is NOT fixing anything (again this assumes listening to science and not various Youtubers).

FelixMish
FelixMish

One elephant in the room can be seen with a globe. Look at a globe and figure out where living things live.

Put another way, climate changes. Do you want it warmer or cooler? If your choice is "neither" then you are probably in the "I got mine" group who fill the yelling crowd on one side of the stadium watching the AGW game.

Stuki
Stuki

+1

Regardless of whether "Global Warming" is happening or not, it's really hard to view it as some form of "problem," as long as almost all life forms seem content to cluster in the globe's warmest regions....

If everyone and everything were hugging the poles looking for respite from the heat, I could understand the alarm about things getting even hotter. But for now, complaining about warming is a bit like complaining about a millimeter of additional rainfall in the Sahara.

As things now stand, even if the globe should be warming, in the worst case perhaps Disney would have to relocate Disneyworld to Newfoundland.... And we'll be surfing the North Shore of the Aleutians. You'd think people would have more pressing problems facing them than that.

ML1
ML1

Already the co2 trading systems in EU and the extra costs one needs to pay when one causes co2 in manufacturing have caused many factories to move to China so quite clean factories have been closed in Europe to stop co2 from forming in EU countries (since EU has mandated strict targets on how much co2 "pollution" needs to be cut and most EU countries are rushing to comply) and the production has been moved to China building new factories there and China does NOT care about releasing co2 so worldwide co2 emissions have actually gone up and in addition China does NOT care about environment either so actual pollution of the environment with toxins and poisons by China has increased and in addition to ruining China these toxins and pollution also partly spread to other countries and even to Pacific Ocean. . There should be environment tariffs directed at China to make it less cost effective to move production to China by charging environment tariffs for the huge pollution China is releasing to the land, water and air in actual toxins and poisons. . EU should STOP the current crippling of their economies with huge demands to drop co2 "pollution" quickly in the future that politicians have agreed to in all EU countries because they think the effects on economy will hit after they are out of power while the benefits like more votes from greenish voters are immediate.

caradoc-again
caradoc-again

EU wants tariffs on polluters. They want to use their market size to force global change. If designated a polluter they will use tariffs to penalise and protect their own onshore factories.

ML1
ML1

Climate Change (previously called Global Warming but re-branded to Climate Change after satellite temperature measurements FAILED to show any increase in global temperatures since 1999) is the new religion. . There is even lists of scientists agreeing that Climate Change as predicted by the current scientific THEORY and the current MODELS is REALLY REALLY REAL and there is a claimed "scientific consensus" despite ClimateGate emails showing that the leading scientists were themselves worried about "where is the warming" Don't look at the facts, looking at the facts is being a denier, just believe us, we are the AUTHORITY on this is what the lists of scientists are saying. . If only there had been lists of scientists telling Galileo Galilei that earth was really the center of the universe and that there was "scientific consensus" that sun was orbiting Earth and not the other way around then Galileo Galilei might have avoided being put into house arrest for the rest of his life for being geocentricism-denier. . In addition to placing temperature measurement stations in really stupid places (heat islands like airports) there is also the fact that Climate Change "scientists" just draw out of their hat temperatures for large parts of Earth that do not have temperature measurement stations and these guesses by "scientists" form most of the base for saying there is global warming. . Add in the sad fact that original temperature data from temperature measurement stations has not been archived in many cases but instead the temperature data has been run through the model of said "scientists" and then the temperatures as shown by the model are what is saved. The models show higher temperatures than what the actual temperature data was in almost 100% of the cases in the places where original temperature data is still available. . If the Climate Change hysteria is ever found out to be the insanity and fakery that it is it would discredit scientists and political leaders all over the world so now the LIE is so big that it must be kept going at all cost because otherwise every government and almost every politician is shown to be a complete idiot without any clue about what they are doing and climate change scientists that are currently worshipped like the Pope in years past will become nobodies instead of celebrated scientists earning really good money from all the funds EU has put into studying Climate Change.

ML1
ML1

It is exactly the OPPOSITE. EU is penalising factories in EU with the co2 trading schemes so that a factory in EU has to pay for the production costs of the the things they make and then they have to purchase rights to release co2 for the amount that they release in their manufacturing process. IF the factory is CLOSED and production moved to China there is NO longer any co2 release rights needed and the factory can spout twice-three-four times the co2 that the previous factory in Europe did and on top of this production is much cheaper also because the factory in China can release toxins and poisons into the air, water and land in China with no extra costs whereas the previous factory in Europe had to have filters and avid releasing any toxins to the air, water or land. Then the products produced in China are brought to Europe and even people deadly worried about co2 continue purchase those products while feeling good that Europe lowered it's co2 "pollution". On top of all the environment destruction in China one can also pay workers in China much less and make them work longer hours in China than one would be able to do in Europe so EU is actively shooting into both of it's legs and politicians are telling voters that this is responsible politics. Youth unemployment in Greece, Italy and Spain are a huge problem.

Brian1
Brian1

The problem with the climate change crowd is that all of their proposed solutions would arguably kill more people immediately than might die 100 years from now if nothing is done and all of the preposterous predictions come true. Millions of people on the planet right now are only able to survive because of cheap energy.

timden
timden

Lets hope the Educated Climate Scientists are wrong and the Auto Mechanic Idiots are right.. Listening to these climate deniers is like watching an ape smoke a cigarette; sad but they seem really happy pretending to be human.

Zardoz
Zardoz

Welcome to the Flat Earth Society.

passionatepiper
passionatepiper

I generally have a lot of respect for you and your work...not so much now. Your "source" is the most biased and discredited site on climate that there is. I suggest you take a basic physics class and note the mechanics behind CO2 in the atmosphere and then consult the trends in non stop CO2 buildup since the industrial age began. You might also consult the satellite records of the Arctic and the unquestionable shrinking of the polar ice caps. This article is patently false, disingenuous and entirely sloppy. And you are 100% wrong with your selective cherry picked examples.

JonSellers
JonSellers

Mish, when we are talking about warming or cooling, we are talking about the warmth of the atmosphere, not the physical planet itself. The molecules in the atmosphere is where the heat is kept that keeps us warm or cold. And it is the molecules that specifically store photons in the infrared spectrum that provide warmth. Those molecules are the ones we call greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is the most prominent.

Oxygen (O2), Nitrogen and Argon make up 99% of the atmospheric molecules and yet they cannot absorb any infrared radiation. So all of the warmth in the atmosphere is caused by the tiny fraction of greenhouse gases. One estimate shows that if you removed all CO2 from the atmosphere the planet would cool by 50 degrees fahrenheit. The planet would be unlivable. That's how important CO2 is to the planet and why small fluctuations in its concentration can have such significant effects.

The planet is warming. That is a fact produced by real testing over decades. The level of CO2 is rising. That is a fact produced by real testing. The increase in CO2 is consistent with the burning of fossil fuels by humans over the last 150 years. That is a fact produced by mathematics. The increase in temperature is consistent with the increase in CO2 concentrations. That is another fact that is produced by mathematics.

Now I grant that all of the forecasts as to the long-term effects of rising temperatures are speculation to some extent. I agree that the system is likely too complex to ever create a real, accurate forecast. However, I am a fairly conservative person. If something has a high probability of going off the rails, I prefer to take action before that happens than after. And just throwing your hands up in exasperation is not an option.

WildBull
WildBull

Quite true. The driving reason behind the tariffs is not CO2, it is transfer of wealth from the West to where-ever. Simply more NWO bullS#!T disguised as saving the planet (and does a lump of iron in space really notice?).

I'm very glad the US never signed up for that lunacy.

CautiousObserver
CautiousObserver

Were it up to me, today's climate change directives would not be allowed to determine world energy policy and economic policy. My reasoning has to do with climate change being promoted using hard sell techniques (Act now or it will be too late! We are close to a tipping point! The science is settled!). Also, if one worldwide council is given the power to control all atmospheric emissions and those policies become entrenched, it will become virtually impossible to prove what would have happened had those policies not been adopted, and it will definitely be too late for any kind of economic liberty after that. This is a situation where the cure might be worse than the disease.

I say let's continue to study it and, at some future date after the models are proven to do an excellent job of forecasting what actually happens, if they still show a major climate problem developing, then we will deal with the more certain forecast at that time. Based on current predictions solving the problem might be more difficult to do in the future then if we act now, but at least we will have assurance we are not unnecessarily trading one problem for an even bigger problem.

MtnMan
MtnMan

I enjoy Mish's work as well but his opinion on Global Warming seems strange. I'm not a scientist and as such I tend to agree with the scientific concensus on such matters. It doesn't seem to be an overly complicated matter even though it's on a grande scale. There's so many signs that CO2 is causing issues like the bleaching of corral reefs, etc, it's hard not to think we having an impact on the planet. I'm not in favour of any plan to spend thousands of dollars to combat the problem but I am in favour of taxing those behaviours which are likely to benefit the planet and us. Things like a carbon tax make sense in my book, get ride of all these cap and trade type schemes and keep it simple. To me there's no incentive for anyone to fabricate GW, there's no money in it, there's is on the other side of the coin (industries like O&G, etc.). I'd also argue that North American's waste a tonne of energy because it's so cheap here, a carbon tax would help to curtail usage and maybe get people to focus on efficiencies, etc.

Webej
Webej
JonSellers
JonSellers said: Mish, when we are talking about warming or cooling, we are talking about the warmth of the atmosphere, not the physical planet itself. The molecules in the atmosphere is where the heat is kept that keeps us warm or cold. And it is the molecules that specifically store photons in the infrared spectrum that provide warmth. Those molecules are the ones we call greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is the most prominent. Oxygen (O2), Nitrogen and Argon make up 99% of the atmospheric molecules and yet they cannot absorb any infrared radiation. So all of the warmth in the atmosphere is caused by the tiny fraction of greenhouse gases. One estimate shows that if you removed all CO2 from the atmosphere the planet would cool by 50 degrees fahrenheit. The planet would be unlivable. That's how important CO2 is to the planet and why small fluctuations in its concentration can have such significant effects. The planet is warming. That is a fact produced by real testing over decades. The level of CO2 is rising. That is a fact produced by real testing. The increase in CO2 is consistent with the burning of fossil fuels by humans over the last 150 years. That is a fact produced by mathematics. The increase in temperature is consistent with the increase in CO2 concentrations. That is another fact that is produced by mathematics. Now I grant that all of the forecasts as to the long-term effects of rising temperatures are speculation to some extent. I agree that the system is likely too complex to ever create a real, accurate forecast. However, I am a fairly conservative person. If something has a high probability of going off the rails, I prefer to take action before that happens than after. And just throwing your hands up in exasperation is not an option.

Actually, the most important greenhouse gas is water vapour, and without it the earth would be more than 50° F cooler. The warmth does not go into molecules in the air, 97% goes into the ocean. The molecules only play a role in keeping more radiation in than is emitted out because some molecules are transparent to incoming radiation but less so to certain wavelengths of outoing radiation, working like a one way filter. Extra CO² increases the warmth retained, and one of the most important multipliers is that this increases the amount of water vapour, which is a much stronger greenhouse gas.

Casual_Observer
Casual_Observer

I frankly dont think the warming or cooling applies. It is the rate of change of the weather and climate that at some point living things wont be able to adapt to. The world has ended before and started again. We dont know when or why this will happen but it will happen again. The rapid changes are what will undo us and our way of living.

RonJ
RonJ

I live a few miles from the Burbank airport. I think the official temperature was 116. The thermometer outside my house hit a high of 108.

SMF
SMF

Scientific Consensus has been wrong far more than it has been correct. I have read how Armageddon is just around the corner...for 40 years now. And calls for the 'end of the world' have existed since time immemorial. And yet, humans are still around.

Brother
Brother

Co2 comes out of solution after it warms not before. The hole in their theory is deeply flawed. I predict within the next 30yrs the climate will cool a few d° do to solar cooling. The sun is responsible not evil coal mines.

RonJ
RonJ

"Those molecules are the ones we call greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is the most prominent."

Water vapor is the most prominant greenhouse gas. Co2 is only some 400 parts per million. On a cloudy night it does not cool down as much as on a clear night.

Despite all the co2 in the atmosphere, after the recent El Nino, the land/sea temperature dropped 1 dgree C at a record pace, from the peak.

douglascarey
douglascarey

Great post Mish. Your most spot on and informative in a while.

timden
timden

the legit fears of doom have generally been offset by, um.. scientific revolutions, the "green revolution" which saved us from overall hunger- treatments for disease ( more science ) , cleaner industry ultimatums ( intelligent politics). All the modestly proactive scientific communities INSIGHTS into reality; take em or leave em. That said I hate GMOs, vaccinations, and think the prius is the ugliest car EVER( I drive one so I should know), and am all for population thinning and castration of the BIG INDUSTRY INDUSTRIAL WELFARE TITS.

Blacklisted
Blacklisted

You are a useful idiot, but you can take comfort in knowing you are not alone. The majority must always be wrong, just as there is someone on the other side of the trade, that’s often caught on the same side of the boat. Everyone can agree that pollution is bad, but it is not related to the warming and cooling cycles. The fact is the climate is now cooling, and heading into another mini ice age, which is far more dangerous than warming periods. In fact, warming periods are associated with economic expansion, with both peaking at similar times. Cooling periods are associated with crop failures and plagues, and when they collide with the increasing trend of volcanic activity that blocks the sun (which is once again peaking over the next 10 years), we humans can face a particularly tough time. We should be planning for these tough cyclical times, instead of ignoring or pretending we can manipulate them. What’s worst of all, many in govt exploit the sheeple for economic gain and worse. The gloBull warming hoax is all about increasing taxes, and the belief the world is over-populated. Govt’s are going broke quickly, and as interest rates rise, expect the schemes to collect taxes and impose fines and fees to get truly Orwellian.

If you live at least 15 more years, you will see that nature does a very good job at moderating everything. If you want to educate yourself, I suggest searching “climate change / global warming” at Armstrong’s site.

shamrock
shamrock

"At the current rate, the sea level will rise by 1.6 inches over the next 100 years if we stay on this path. "

That's the sea level rise from Antarctica only. The ice is melting in the Northern Hemisphere at a much higher rate.

Blacklisted
Blacklisted
JonSellers
JonSellers said: Mish, when we are talking about warming or cooling, we are talking about the warmth of the atmosphere, not the physical planet itself. The molecules in the atmosphere is where the heat is kept that keeps us warm or cold. And it is the molecules that specifically store photons in the infrared spectrum that provide warmth. Those molecules are the ones we call greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is the most prominent. Oxygen (O2), Nitrogen and Argon make up 99% of the atmospheric molecules and yet they cannot absorb any infrared radiation. So all of the warmth in the atmosphere is caused by the tiny fraction of greenhouse gases. One estimate shows that if you removed all CO2 from the atmosphere the planet would cool by 50 degrees fahrenheit. The planet would be unlivable. That's how important CO2 is to the planet and why small fluctuations in its concentration can have such significant effects. The planet is warming. That is a fact produced by real testing over decades. The level of CO2 is rising. That is a fact produced by real testing. The increase in CO2 is consistent with the burning of fossil fuels by humans over the last 150 years. That is a fact produced by mathematics. The increase in temperature is consistent with the increase in CO2 concentrations. That is another fact that is produced by mathematics. Now I grant that all of the forecasts as to the long-term effects of rising temperatures are speculation to some extent. I agree that the system is likely too complex to ever create a real, accurate forecast. However, I am a fairly conservative person. If something has a high probability of going off the rails, I prefer to take action before that happens than after. And just throwing your hands up in exasperation is not an option.

Can we please take a step back and put things into perspective -

RonJ
RonJ

The chart on the right, circled in red, was the temperaturre peak in the Minoan Warming. Each subsequent peak was lower In the lower right is where we are now, coming off the Little Ice Age.

Blacklisted
Blacklisted

Are you nuts? It's all about money and power. Pollution is not related to the changing climate. There are existing laws to address pollution, and if we could eliminate the career politician, they might get enforced. Prosperity is solving pollution problems, which explains why the poorest countries are the most polluted.

KidHorn
KidHorn

So many posters who don't understand how any of this works. CO2 absorbs infrared at very specific frequencies and then quickly re-emits the energy. What happens is a photon from the ground hits a CO2 molecule, gets absorbed and then re-emitted. The re-emitted photon is sent off in a random direction. Some photons, which would otherwies escape into space, are sent back to the earth, where they're absorbed at the surface and heat the surface up. This only happens to avery small pct of photons, but enough to make a difference. As mentioned above, water vapor also does this at different IR frequencies and what's much worse is methane, which does this at more frequencies than H20 and C02.

So far, the warming has been very small, but in theory, the warming could lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere and more methane, which would lead to more warming, etc... Causing a uncontrollable self reinforcing feedback loop. Not predicting it, but it's not impossible.

The amount of radiation emitted from the earths surface is proportional to the the aboslute surface temperature raised to the 4th power, so a small increase in surface temperature can greatly increase surface emissions. Increasing the earths surface from say 58F->60F results in a 1.5% increase of surface emissions. Increasing emissions cools the earth. So, the earth is very resistant to surface heating.

I think the earth is slowly warming, but I question anything dire will happen. Glaciers will melt in aggregate and sea levels will rise a little, but my best guess is temperatures will stabilize at a reasonable temperature.

RonJ
RonJ

Perspective is that temperature has not risen like the NASA CO2 chart.

RonJ
RonJ

Current CO2 is greater than 150,000 years ago on the NASA chart, yet the current temperature is well below the Minoan peak on Armstrong's posted chart.

timden
timden

Why would airports to which temperatures are CRITICAL create a situation for for higher readings? When the reported temps are too high NOBODY flies, kind of bad for business eh?

CautiousObserver
CautiousObserver

If there is an unavoidable uncertainty in temperature measurement, then airports would want to err on the high side. Nobody minds if the plane is able to take off in a little less runway than is actually available (actual temperature lower than reading). Everybody minds if the plane needs a little more runway is actually available (actual temperature higher than reading).

TheLege
TheLege

Sounds to me like you need to be cured of a few delusions. Pease see this quote from a genuinely intelligent man: “I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”

TheLege
TheLege

Personally, I truly hope sea levels do rise more than a few inches as I'd like to see all those multi-million $ mansions on the coastlines swamped. I live well above sea level so can view these miserable 'tards realising what idiots they really are. How do you say 'Schadenfreude' in German?