Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A new study claims that while the US West will feel the impact of Climate Change by 2028, Southern Great [Plains] region won’t notice Climate Change until 2074.
When will the US feel the heat of global warming?
For the Great Plains, natural variability will dominate until late this century.
JOHN TIMMER – 3/21/2018, 6:55 AM
By increasing the energy stored in our atmosphere, climate change is expected to generate more severe storms and heat waves. Severe storms and heat waves, however, also happen naturally. As a result, it’s tough to figure out whether any given event is a product of climate change.
A corollary to that is that detecting a signal of climate change using weather events is a serious challenge. Are three nor’easters in quick succession, as the East Coast is now experiencing, a sign of a changing climate? Or is it simply a matter of natural variability?
A team of researchers has now looked at heat waves in the US, trying to determine when a warming-driven signal will stand out above the natural variability. And the answer is that it depends. In the West, the answer is “soon,” with climate-driven heat waves becoming the majority in the 2020s. But for the Great Plains, the researchers show that a specific weather pattern will push back the appearance of a warming signal until the 2070s.
…
To quantify this difference, the authors developed a simple measure: the year in which half of the heat waves wouldn’t have qualified as heat waves if it weren’t for the influence of climate change. For the US West, that point was crossed in 2028. The West was followed by the Great Lakes, which crossed the threshold a decade later in 2037. But the Great Plains were on a completely different schedule. In the Northern Plains, the 50-percent threshold wasn’t crossed until 2056, while the Southern Plains didn’t have a clear signal of climate change until 2074.
…
So why is internal variability so significant in the Great Plains? The researchers suggest two potential causes of these regional differences. One is a difference in the flow of air across the continental US, something that may be changing with our warming climate. If the prevailing winds become more erratic, then it’s possible that they would bring cooler air across the Plains more often. The alternative is soil moisture. This takes up heat from the air and ground as it evaporates, which would counteract some of the heating caused by greenhouse gases.
…
Read more: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/when-will-the-us-feel-the-heat-of-global-warming/
The abstract of the study;
Early emergence of anthropogenically forced heat waves in the western United States and Great Lakes
Climate projections for the twenty-first century suggest an increase in the occurrence of heat waves. However, the time at which externally forced signals of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) emerge against background natural variability (time of emergence (ToE)) has been challenging to quantify, which makes future heat-wave projections uncertain. Here we combine observations and model simulations under present and future forcing to assess how internal variability and ACC modulate US heat waves. We show that ACC dominates heat-wave occurrence over the western United States and Great Lakes regions, with ToE that occurred as early as the 2020s and 2030s, respectively. In contrast, internal variability governs heat waves in the northern and southern Great Plains, where ToE occurs in the 2050s and 2070s; this later ToE is believed to be a result of a projected increase in circulation variability, namely the Great Plain low-level jet. Thus, greater mitigation and adaptation efforts are needed in the Great Lakes and western United States regions.
Read more (paywalled): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0116-y
So much for the climate emergency – if the study is correct, if you live in the Southern Great Plains and you are lucky enough to live until 2074, you might notice the weather has warmed slightly.
Wow. Climate prediction is amazingly precise!! They can tell us natural variability will override global warming in the Great Plains until 2074, but they can’t tell us if El Niño will bring rain or drought, or what year it’ll happen next.
Yes WOW! All this and a bag of chips. But since every hot day is the hottest evah, and is climate change; they cannot predict wet or dry or even hot or cold days more than a week or 10 days. And sometimes the forecast keeps changing up and through the last of the week.
Truly, claiming they can forecast “climate” through 2074 is a fraud and a hoax.
It is simply results of models which are based on models that nature has disproven in the current satellite record. It showcases the pattern of circular logic as revealed by this study:
https://www.academia.edu/36025745/CIRCULAR_REASONING_IN_CLIMATE_CHANGE_RESEARCH?auto=download&campaign=weekly_digest
I “borrowed” this one. It seems to fit.
“We’re familiar with the body’s immune system. It mounts a reaction to intruders, and in the process it swings into a full inflammatory response. Swelling occurs. Fever. The result, if the immune system is healthy, is the banishing of the intruders and a return to well-being. The body gains a victory—and the person builds confidence in his ability to stave off attacks.
“The mind has the potential to operate in a similar fashion. But there are prerequisites. The mind needs basic ideas and principles on which to erect its response.
“These basics are inherent in a healthy mind: the desire for freedom, for self-sufficiency, for the creation of a desired future, for committed work in that direction.
“In the absence of these strong fundamentals, the mind will not mount a direct immune response against intruders. It will be clueless.”
A condition of being clueless is “ignorance.” Believing you have a clue while believing things that are not true is “delusional”. Is paranoia a communicable social disease of the mind?
Pop Piasa: I downloaded the paper. It looks interesting. I’ve often commented on the circular reasoning involved. Thanks.
Sheri, you made my day. Pass it on.
No, natural variation always will dominate. Sometimes it will be in the direction of apparent rising temperatures and sometimes it will be in the direction of apparent falling temperatures. You can’t just say that, when natural variation goes your way, then it’s all CAGW.
Exactly Richard. I’m just shaking my head at this ridiculous piece of ‘research’, a prime example of the foolish arrogance that seems to pervade climate change science. It’s incredible to think that these people actually get paid to work on stuff like this.
“By increasing the energy stored in our atmosphere” is a new one.
Yeah that started my eyeballs rolling.
I immediately googled the author’s name to find out how anyone could write a first line like that. Turns out the guy is PhD biochemist working as senior editor at ARSTechnica in NYC.
What a blunder.
This is not an uncommon misunderstanding though, that the global warming is about increasing the energy stored in the atmosphere. You could think so because warmer air holds more energy than cold air. And if water vapour increases, then the latent heat increases.
The mistake comes in ‘stored’, because air doesn’t store much heat more than for some hours. I remember reading about a rough calculation on how long the atmosphere would last if the Sun was put out. It is not so long before the nitrogen and oxygen would precipitate down. The seas would remain liquid a long time under an ice cover. They ‘store’ some heat.
Mark – just what do you think heat is? It is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the atoms and so if the temperature goes up then the energy stored goes up as well.
Germonio,
If you knew anything at all about our planet’s climate system you’d recognize that compared to the oceans, the atmosphere doesn’t store heat. And the sun’s SW radiation passes mostly right through it to warm the water and land surfaces, where heat really is stored.The atmosphere is the Long wave radiation conduit-barrier through which (by convection and radiation) the final radiative heat transfer must occur back to space for equilibrium. The atmosphere only slows that heat transfer process down. Its storage is miniscule compared to the ocean and land surfaces heated by solar SW energy.
Yes technically it stores heat, but to emphasize such a minor contribution in your lead sentence demonstrates the author (Dr John Trimmer in this case) doesn’t know jack shit about what he is writing about.
Joel,
The point of the first sentence is to point out that increased energy in the atmosphere is likely to lead to an increased number of major weather events like storms or heatwaves. It has nothing to do with whether or not orders of magnitude more energy is stored in the ocean. If the article was talking about hurricanes then it might start “by increasing the energy stored in the ocean”.
Geronimo
Heat is not stored in the air, it is being transported from a source to a point of dissipation.
Regards
Heat is energy in transfer. It is transient and cannot be stored. Go back and study physics before commenting.
Gemonio, that more warming means more and bigger storms is often claimed by you alarmists.
Unfortunately the real world once again fails to follow the example of the models.
Storms have not been increasing, or getting bigger.
“By increasing the energy stored in our atmosphere, climate change is expected to generate more severe storms and heat waves.”
What’s wrong with that statement?
Does that mean we can store excess solar and wind derived electricity in ‘the Cloud’? Wow! No batteries needed!
+1 I may have to borrow that one some time. 😉
Solid matter has a thousand times higher heat storage ability than air.
Water has a four thousand times higher heat storage ability than air.
Heat in the air will be gone with the wind….
That was well put.
This bloke is out of his specialty and wanted to show it with a snappy opening line, I guess.
It’s kind of like a carpenter writing plumbing regulations
…Not that one of the best carpenters I know in’t a plumber by day, but needs help with electrical. The important point is not to pontificate about the other crafts’ jobs unless you’ve really done them.
“Great Plains” is the correct spelling, please fix.
[Done. .mod]
Maybe it’s a pun of the cargo cult science of climate modeling?
Priceless.
Yeah, thats it… 😉
Hey Eric, maybe you can fish out my long comment out of the spam folder. I probably used too many expletives to describe this paper by Hosmay Lopez at Univ of Miami. That poor guy is probably just trying to keep the paycheck coming and a little job security to pay the bills. Sad what the demand for rent seeking for job tenure does to good people in academia these days.
Without reading the paper, it seems that they’ve run climate model runs for different “climates” and come up with incompatible answers. If that’s the case it’s pure junk.
“By increasing the energy stored in our atmosphere…”
Right off the bat, the writer goes off into pseudoscience.
The oceans are 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere.
To John Timmer: It’s the oceans, Stupid.
But then this is all just model madness and the cargo cult science behind it. Here they are claiming they are parsing out regional differences of North American climate in 2075 to 2100. My BS meter just broke with this statement;
But then John Timmer, the author of this intro at ARSTechnica* needs to stick to biochem/biology writing, as he obviously has not taken the time (as I have and many other PhD biologists/biochems have done) to study and understand climate modeling via GCMs and it immense problem of tuning to expectations. If he had, he’d realize the climate GCMs are the archetypal definition of Dr. Feynman’s cargo cult science.
All my calculations show Great Plains “over-riding” in 2073…looks like fake news…
How about this:
It’s all due to natural variability. And, so is climate change.
BINGO!
If natural variabilities are suppressing the effects of GHGs now, why wouldn’t we consider the possibility that they were able to amplify them from 1978-1998?
I think it must be a Red Statew / Blue state phenomenon. The Blue states out west and in the Great Lakes region have bought into the climate change Bullshit already.
Great Lakes region all blue? Hardly!
In Illinois, the collar counties around Chicago are blue.
The rest of the state is red – farm country, corn, wheat, soybeans.
Same thing with Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York.
You must have not paid attention to the vote counts on election night 2016, joelobryan.
I didn’t say All Blue. But I did think about poor Wisconsin and Gov Scott Walker’s fight with the public unions to keep his state purple.
It’s just that man-made climate climate change is just that — Mannmade. And the humans in the Blue States are going to feel its pain sooner (much sooner in California) than the Red States if the climate hustlers aren’t put in jail for defrauding the US taxpayers.
Uhhhm, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio all voted for Republican President Trump. Not ‘blue’…. nope.
Yeah, right. Models that cannot predict something like the El Nino are so precise that they can predict weather sixty years out. If you believe that, do you want to buy into my venture in voodoo accupuncture?
Nothing less than climatism hocus pocus and wand waving, funded fiddling with crystal bollox models and a whiff of current empiricism for the veneer of plausibility, while claiming some mystical insight into what the weather looks like in more than fifty years. File under ‘climafiction’ and move on.
“If the prevailing winds become more erratic, then it’s possible that they would bring cooler air across the Plains more often.”
Is a statement like that even remotely possible to be called science?
No doubt it was peer reviewed. And how cool is that?
No peer review. Just an editors commentary. That was written by John Timmer, PhD, Biochemistry in his ARS Technica summary of this work by Lopez, et al.
Well you gotta admit somebody peered at it and thought it was cool but perhaps it was really just peek reviewed.
It’s getting lots of “pee review” here. You know, since it’s getting pissed on a lot. Does that count?
“…Are three nor’easters in quick succession, as the East Coast is now experiencing, a sign of a changing climate? Or is it simply a matter of natural variability?…”
The hypothesis is that more CO2 causes more warmth, not more cold. So the only possible answer to this question, from their own perspective, is “natural variability”. Sooner or later they will catch up with everyone else and accept that the warmth we’ve been enjoying has also been due almost entirely to natural variability.
Natural variability doesn’t work for the pseudoscientist rent seekers because the socialist politicians that fund that junk science need anthropogenic attribution and an alrmist message. Anthropogenic climate change fearmongering is after all just a Trojan Horse carrying a socialist poison pill for Western democracy.
You dont need to have a degree in critical thinking to work out that the more you explain the Pause as ‘natural variability’ the more you open the original ‘climate change’ up to ‘natural variability’.
The degree of doublethink necessary to believe the current meme, is massive.
People manage it though. Its unprecedented.
Hi Leo – you wrote:
“People manage it though. Its unprecedented.”
Maybe unprecedented, but they came close with the ban on DDT:
Radical environmentalists are the great killers of our time, ranking with Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
The banning of DDT greatly increased malaria in the tropics – a global-scale holocaust based on false environmental alarmism. Below is a graph that quantifies the number of DEATHS EACH YEAR FROM MALARIA – between one and two million.
Note how malaria deaths increased steadily since 1980 (or earlier), after the banning of DDT in 1972, and how malaria deaths declined after DDT was re-introduced.
See the red area of the graph – that is CHILDREN UNDER 5 YEARS OF AGE – FOUR AND UNDER – JUST BABIES FOR CHRIST’S SAKE! Yes I am upset. This holocaust was preventable, and easily so.
I want to personally recognize the radical environmental movement for the key role it played in the banning of DDT and the resulting deaths of millions of people from malaria, especially children under five years of age. After this holocaust became fully apparent, many greens continued to oppose DDT, based on flimsy evidence and unsupported allegations.
DDT was only re-introduced circa year 2002. Malaria deaths declined after that. The battle against malaria continues.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1566107003466856&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater
It’s fantastic how precise climate projections have become. Our children won’t know what faulty climate projections are.
We know exactly how faulty they are. They are all total garbage.
“The future is certain, it is only the past which is unpredictable”
Someone wants a job till 2070 to wait for a sign.
This appears to be one of those “I don’t really have anything important to say, but I have to publish SOMETHING so as to keep my job” articles, more than anything else.
Every time I see words like quantify, corollary, team of whatevers, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, I become suspicious of whether any actual research is being done, and think that it’s a stop-gap effort to keep the job for another year.
January 1, 2075 is going to be ugly.
I’m forecasting cold night in Times Square. But no one will see the Ball Drop because the solar panels won’t power the lights at midnight.
They’ll just ban night time lighting, except for official government functions.
That way the batteries will be enough to last all night.
It is interesting to see the evolution of the narrative:
First, warming was too big to be explained by natural variability.
Then, the warming wasn’t as big at natural variability after all
Now, the warming won’t even be detectable for another decade. Or six.
LOL
“But keeping the funding coming and we’ll keep researching the imminent doom.”
– signed: The Rent Seekers.
LMAO. Climate Change TM – the chameleon of sciences.
If what he said is true, I’ll be 133 years old then and will probably have other things on my mind, like making it to the year 2100. I look forward to lying out in the warm sunshine, working on my tan.
Claim: Natural variability will dominate until after I am retired, and likely dead.
Test
Are any of you reading this on your phone and getting popup saying your phone is 28.1% damaged due to viruses. I scanned my phone and it seems ok. My research indicates that it usually originates from the visited website. Has something hijacked this site – or is one of the advertisements going stray?
If it’s just me – I’ll deal and try to figure out what the issue is. but if it is lots of us then we should see this site gets fixed. Makes it almost impossible to read an article any more.
Could be that the mobile site certificate is expired (shows a 12/31/2017 expiry date). An expired certificate can lead to warnings that don’t have anything to do with the actual problem.
I was getting this last week. Only on this site. My phone is an ancient Galaxy S4, stuck at Android Lollipop. Using Lookout and the default Samsung Internet browser.
So I reset the phone back to its original defaults using the recovery partition. After setting it all back up again, the phone was working a lot better and a new app appeared from Samsung. It reported that it had “protected me” so I assume it detected a malicious ad. Since then, no popups. No ” You won the Facebook lottery!” or “Your phone is infected!” Lots of ads and it often reports “website stopped responding” but eventually it gets there.
These ads never appear on any of my desktop or laptop machines. Never in Edge or on Safari. Only on the phone.
I suspect that a malicious ad is targeting this site, either a deliberate cyber attack or just someone who is trying to make a buck by tapping into a popular site. I never saw the attack on other sites. And it can’t be simply a rogue app I installed because it still appeared after a factory reset.
You can completely block all ads or block JavaScript as others have commented, but the site proprietor does accrue some slight income from the ads. So I don’t want to do that even though it would make the articles easier to read.
The moral is: keep your device updated, use a security app that scans your browser, and enjoy.
My phone is getting pop ups congratulating me on winning a prize on some competition or I just have been selected at random to maybe win something, I have not clicked on them but just shut them down and reported the adverts which might be doing this.
Try turning off JavaScript. Worked for me.
Its starting to sound like the Nibiru cataclysm, every time it doesn’t happen they put it off 50 yrs 😛 About the time this prediction could be verified I suspect we will have already heard once again how the sun had dimmed and the Earth is heading toward ice age. In its lovely cycle the Earth will prove them fools once again and warm back up:)
What matters is not energy stored in the atmosphere, but ,energy gradients.
Thus the Northern hemisphere ‘stores’ more atmospheric energy in summer. But the wind speed and vigor of mid-latitude weather systems actually decreases due to the reduced temperature differential between the Polar and more Southerly regions. Winter storms are stronger. This is standard text book stuff.
“the time at which externally forced signals of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) emerge against background natural variability (time of emergence (ToE)) has been challenging to quantify”
Because you’ve spent all that time abreviating (ACCToE) sound like something Ash Williams used in Evil Dead 2
I think you meant III (AKA “Army of Darkness”).
…while the US West will feel the impact of Climate Change by 2028…
What time, please? I need to schedule my nap, which is usually in the afternoon…
It’s official. There will be no climate for the next 50 years.
Expected? Expected by whom? As Roy Spencer points out from time to time, weather outside the tropics is largely driven by differences in energy (OK, OK … differences in temperature), not by absolute values. Because of “Arctic Amplification” differences in temperature between the poles and tropics should possibly be expected (on average) to decrease, not increase.
Caveat — tropical cyclones (hurricanes, typhoons, tropical storms) are fueled by evaporation rather than horizontal temperature differences and might reasonably be expected to respond differently to a warmer climate than temperate areas. … OTOH, I’m not aware of much geologic evidence for more frequent or devastating tropical storms in warmer times like the Cretaceous, Paleocene, or early Eocene
If you cannot pick out climate change driven variability from natural variability now, how on Earth can you say that it is happening? Doesn’t this paper implicitly acknowledge that we cannot see anything by natural variability currently?
Well it’s like this with tipping points and doomsday scenarios-
http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/25-years-of-predicting-the-global-warming-tipping-point/
When Gaia continually lets you down you have to keep moving the tipping point doomsday clock forward if you’re to stay on the gravy train with the last chance meme. So 2074 is a nice far enough away figure that looks like you know what you’re talking about and is eminently fit for purpose. After all who cares about the career prospects variability of the new indoctrinees once you and the mates are all safely ensconced on the pension?
At least give them credit for 2028 , that after all is a mere tens years from now when they may well be in a position to be asked why they got it so wrong . As opposed to making their claims for so far ahead that they will never be in a position to be asked ‘so why did you get it wrong ‘ as become largely standard within climate ‘science ‘
“At least give them credit for 2028”
No no you’re engaging in a peek review when a peer review would be focussing on the 2074 backstop figure for when 2028 comes around. This technical sciency stuff is not for laypersons.
From the article: “As a result, it’s tough to figure out whether any given event is a product of [Human-caused] climate change.”
Not “tough” but *Impossible* with current knowledge, I would say.
They invented a time machine?
It also shows these people know nothing about climate.
A heat wave is not defined as temperatures reaching a particular point, it’s defined as temperatures getting a certain level above what is considered average for that day.
If the CAGW nonsense is correct, the average is going to increase, so there will not be an increase in heat waves.
More people die in NY when the temperatures push 90, than die in New Mexico when temperatures top 120.
It’s all in what you are used to and what your infrastructure is designed to deal with.
From the article: “A team of researchers has now looked at heat waves in the US, trying to determine when a warming-driven signal will stand out above the natural variability. And the answer is that it depends. In the West, the answer is “soon,” with climate-driven heat waves becoming the majority in the 2020s.”
Soon? Here’s a Heller chart that shows heatwaves have been *decreasing* all over the United States since the 1930’s:
From the article: “But for the Great Plains, the researchers show that a specific weather pattern will push back the appearance of a warming signal until the 2070s.”
It’s really getting ridiculous when they start claiming that CAGW is happening in one part of the U.S., while natural variability is going on in another part at the same time. They can’t even tease out any human-caused signal, yet they make claims like this, apparently sincerely. This is a head-shaker.
I thought that post had been lost in the ether.
For a forecast of the amount of global cooling until 2100 see Fig 12 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2018/01/global-sst-data-confirms-cooling-is-on.html
Fig. 12. Comparative Temperature Forecasts to 2100.
Fig. 12 compares the IPCC forecast with the Akasofu (31) forecast (red harmonic) and with the simple and most reasonable working hypothesis of this paper (green line) that the “Golden Spike” temperature peak at about 2003 is the most recent peak in the millennial cycle. Akasofu forecasts a further temperature increase to 2100 to be 0.5°C ± 0.2C, rather than 4.0 C +/- 2.0C predicted by the IPCC. but this interpretation ignores the Millennial inflexion point at 2004. Fig. 12 shows that the well documented 60-year temperature cycle coincidentally also peaks at about 2003.Looking at the shorter 60+/- year wavelength modulation of the millennial trend, the most straightforward hypothesis is that the cooling trends from 2003 forward will simply be a mirror image of the recent rising trends. This is illustrated by the green curve in Fig. 12, which shows cooling until 2038, slight warming to 2073 and then cooling to the end of the century, by which time almost all of the 20th century warming will have been reversed
IPCC makes no predictions whatsoever. Only projections. The difference is that projections are not legally binding, which shows you what confidence they have in their own work.
AR5 says
” Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes
in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and
in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for
human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been
the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}”
Their definition of extremely likely is 95 – 100%. It is this extreme overconfidence of the scientific academic establishment in their scientific ability which has mislead the MSM and the eco-left chattering classes and has lead governments to waste trillions of dollars in their literally insane attempts to control temperatures by reducing CO emissions.
“To quantify this difference, the authors developed a simple measure: the year in which half of the heat waves wouldn’t have qualified as heat waves if it weren’t for the influence of climate change.”
Heatwaves are generally solar driven in the short term, a source and not a symptom of climate change.
The article attributes future Great Plains heatwaves to changes in soil moisture, and the illusory Arctic Amplification, rather than the widely known dominant driver, the AMO. Which presents the logic that as negative North Atlantic Oscillation states drives a warm AMO phase, but rising CO2 is expected to increase positive NAO, our dear friend climate change should in theory reduce desiccation and heatwaves in the Great Plains during the next AMO warm phase in ~70 years time.
“To quantify this difference, the authors developed a simple measure: the year in which half of the heat waves wouldn’t have qualified as heat waves if it weren’t for the influence of climate change. ”
So. These authors use an arbitrary threshold on data from unproven simulations. How, precisely, do they determine what the influence of “climate change” (on their simulated data) is?
…..And April Fool’s Day is still almost a week away?
From the article: “A team of researchers has now looked at heat waves in the US, trying to determine when a warming-driven signal will stand out above the natural variability. And the answer is that it depends. In the West, the answer is “soon,” with climate-driven heat waves becoming the majority in the 2020s.”
Soon? Here’s a Heller chart that shows heatwaves have been *decreasing* all over the United States since the 1930’s:
Here’s the EPA’s Heatwave chart:
From the article: “But for the Great Plains, the researchers show that a specific weather pattern will push back the appearance of a warming signal until the 2070s.”
It’s really getting ridiculous when they start claiming that CAGW is happening in one part of the U.S., while natural variability is going on in another part at the same time. They can’t even tease out any human-caused signal, yet they make claims like this, apparently sincerely. This is a head-shaker.
“2074”
What, they couldn’t pick a month and a day as well?
First we had “ninja heat”, and now we have “ninja climate”. Climate “science” is such fun!
2074. Yeah, that oughta make sure they’re never accountable for being full of @#$#.
Also, by extrapolation, this would imply that the climate is CURRENTLY dominated by natural variability, and therefore nothing going on today could be a product of AGW.
Sigh. Ever notice these sorts of back-to-back contradictions never seem to imprint on alarmists?
“By increasing the energy stored in our atmosphere, climate change is expected to generate more severe storms and heat waves.”
First sentence, and already complete BS. Increasing temperatures occur at the greatest level in the polar regions (remember “polar amplification?) as the climate warms. Similarly, if you believe in “greenhouse” warming, the atmosphere warms at height, decreasing the temperature differential between the higher levels of the atmosphere and the surface. As a consequence, the temperature differential between the poles and the equator, and the surface and the upper atmosphere, all shrink, resulting in LESS turbulent overall weather, not more.
It is temperature differentials, not the “average global” temperature, that drives more severe storms.
As for “heat waves,” nearly the ENTIRETY of the “trend” in temperature increase is accounted for NOT by higher daytime high temperatures, but by nighttime LOW temperatures not getting as low. Again, reducing temperature differential. Again, contributing to LESS stormy weather, not more.
These idiots live in a fantasy world where warmer weather is worse. Why do you suppose the warmest period in the current epoch, the Holocene, was called the “Holocene Climate OPTIMUM?!” Because the weather was so BAD?!
Yes, but which weekend in 2074 so we can start the countdown?
Lollers. A web plugin making countdowns for climate change predictions is welcome.
If you have the right pal review any model will do.
For years we’ve been speculating about how the warmist rhetoric would explain away the hiatus. Here we see a convenient use of hindcasting natural forcing combined with a forecast that the devil in the greenhouse will soon vanquish nature and punish us for our sins of emission.
Tropical cyclone Marcus is roaring along with sustained winds around 135 mph. It is predicted to move south, and then southest. So this could turn into the next Onslow TC since 2015. This one is good sized. …https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/700hPa/orthographic=-250.08,-14.58,1305/loc=107.910,-16.466
I love this future imperfect tense what ‘happened in 2074’.
There is a principle in Physics called the anthropomorphic principle which says the laws of physics should not assume some special place for man or our place in the universe.
Climate Science suffers from a lack of data. We really have only good data for the last 40 years. Before that data was accumulated from sporadic locations and sources. Different instruments, different proxies and in most cases from very few locations. What we know even about extreme events is very small. No one kept track of storms, measured them and where people didn’t have a city there was no one to even write something incidental down.
So, when climate scientists use the last 40 years to conclude something about the last 200 years or the next 200 years they are operating in a “anthropomorphic” way. They are assuming that when we get 3 big storms in a row it is extraordinary but in fact we have no idea if other people 100, 200, 300, 400 or whatever experienced the exact same weather.
The assumption has to be that weather was at least as bad in the past. The reason is that just looking at the last century we can see that millions would die from a single natural disaster event. Heat waves, droughts, storms, famines would kill 10s, 100s of thousands and even millions. Today no event has killed more than a thousand people in years. In the US we had 3 huge storms in a row that in recent years killed more than 1,000 each. Less than 100 people died in each. This is happening worldwide.
Scientists tell us these are big storms. They say the energy or wind speed is huge. They tell us temperatures are rising but the effects of these events is less and less. Many people are affected and the 3 storms caused a lot of damage but this is largely because people have more to damage and its worth more. We just don’t know.
Many people can only process the latest disaster or temperatures and seem to assume if it is hot, it must be the hottest EVER. If there is a storm, it was the worst ever. This simply reflects lack of education and anthropomorphic thinking, maybe lack of experience. One should never assume that this is the worst or the best or that this has never happened before and if you hear that you should be immediately skeptical and demand solid proof of some sort. It is just incredibly unlikely that we live in this special time.
Consider that once every 2 millions years or so the Earth experiences a major asteroid hit and every 60 million years or so a serious hit so bad to in some cases wipe out 50% or more of all life on Earth. People are assuming that the “normal” is a static world locked pretty much to the current experience of their tiny brains last few years experience when in fact just 20,000 years ago temperatures were 8C(16F) colder than today worldwide. California was covered in an ice sheet all year.
Humans have a poor sense of time and we live remarkably short lives compared to geologic time. For 60,000,000 years during which almost all living things today evolved and prospered the temperature of the Earth was 8C (16F) warmer on average than today and the atmosphere had 2,000+ ppm of CO2 or 5 times todays elevated levels. There is no reason to think that adding 100ppm will end life on Earth or make one hill of beans difference.