Alarmism Exposed: The entire world is warming faster than the entire planet

Back in 2010, WUWT published a story called “Faster than everyplace else…” It illustrated how the media has portrayed warming as being “doubly bad” where you live. Only one problem – we compared stories, and what we found is pretty ridiculous.

Here’s a video update:

Advertisements

148 thoughts on “Alarmism Exposed: The entire world is warming faster than the entire planet

  1. I recall hearing that the hurricane that struck the Philippines a number of years ago was so much worse because he ocean in the Philippines is rising twice as fast as anywhere else in the world. It struck me as preposterous then and still does. How does the ocean rise twice as fast in one place over the other? If you carry that to its logical conclusion, on one hundred years were would be a standing wall of water around the Philippines.

    • The surface of the ocean is not uniformly at the same level, even when you allow for tides… the earth is not exactly spherical, continental masses cause something called gravitational lensing and there are a few other factors. Yes, the sea level could rise more in one place than another.

      • “continental masses cause something called gravitational lensing”
        Especially if Guam were to capsize.

        • Yeah – he was doing OK until he got to the “gravitational lensing” part. That’s when it became obvious he didn’t have a clue what he was talking about.

      • Gravitational lensing is an astronomical term. I don’t think has any affect at the terrestrial level.

        • The only way continents could be causing ocean levels to rise (present tense) is if the mass of the continents was currently increasing.

        • MarkW October 7, 2019 at 6:19 pm

          The only way continents could be causing ocean levels to rise (present tense) is if the mass of the continents was currently increasing –

          due to heavy glaciation.

      • Of course this happens, just look at the tide differential at the Bay of Fundy (16 meters or around 52′-6″)

      • Yes, there can be temporary increases in one part of the ocean compared to another.
        The operative word there is T E M P O R A R Y.
        Changes in wind will cause water to pile up in different places. Then when the winds die down, the water flows back to where it used to be.

        Please tell us how changes in continental masses cause continuing changes in water levels.

        Gravitational lensing is when a large masses causes optical changes to light that is passing by. If you think gravitational lensing has anything to do with tides, your brain is even more defective than you have led us to believe.

        • Err no.
          1. prevailing winds keep it higher in some locations beyond the “temporary”
          2. The Ice caps keep the sea level higher for a few thousand km around their locations
          why? gravity. The mass of the ice caps pull the ocean up. same for coastal mountain ranges

          geoid.

          • So has the mass of the Philippine Islands been changing significantly during this supposed doubling of the rate of sea level rise? No. So this seems like a stupid point to make. If one part of the ocean is rising faster than another part of the ocean from one year to the next, it’s the wind that done it.

          • Steve Mosher

            2. The Ice caps keep the sea level higher for a few thousand km around their locations
            why? gravity. The mass of the ice caps pull the ocean up. same for coastal mountain ranges

            No, I’m going to disagree with you there Steve, without “a lot more” proof by real measurements.
            No sea surface map nor “gravity anomaly” map shows those type of disturbances.

          • Here’s a bit of reality about “mean sea level” and the geoid from the most respected experts in the field. https://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0703/geoid1of3.html

            We still don’t know “mean sea level” (the surface of constant gravitational potential) to within meters accuracy, let alone changes of millimeters accuracy from which we could deduce millimeters per year changes.

            All we know is what is measured locally, the relative sea level at various locations around the world. That data is quite good. But “averaging” it over the whole world strips it of all meaning. It hides what is happening. Much of the discrepancy is due to local changes in land elevation (as defined by distance of the land surface from the gravitational center of the Earth), which in turn has causes local rises and falls in the local (or “relative”) sea level.

            The local, or relative, sea level is all that matters for any practical purposes. Now, if the Greenland ice sheet were to melt completely, it would definitely raise the local sea levels everywhere they are measured. But it would not necessarily raise them all by the same amount (unless it happened instantaneously). In fact, the change in the geoid (the surface of constant gravitational potential) would have an effect on where sea levels change and by how much. I doubt that anyone has bothered making that calculation, because it wouldn’t be a trivial one. Not like just adding the volume of Greenland ice, liquefied, to the oceans, and dividing by the ocean area to find sea level rise. Which, if you think about it, wouldn’t give you a very accurate answer anyway.

          • Mosh
            Time for another coffee. You’re grasping at straws: of course wind will cause temporary higher water levels at e.g. the leeward of a lake of fjord. Duh.

            Which ice “caps”. The Antarctic one is on land.

            And gravity now pulls the oceans up?
            Maybe you’re just having a bad syntax day.

          • Yes, Steve Mosher –

            The mass of the ice caps pull the ocean up. same for coastal mountain ranges

            That’s LOCAL.

            Soil layers of different specific weights, coastal mountain ranges, extensive depressions close to the coast can produce hardly measurable sea-level differences.

            That’s LOCAL.

      • The main factors causing differences in sea level are tide, wind and oceanic currents. Persistent winds can literally cause water to pile up against a continent. The currents can cause superelevation of water in the centre of the circulating current of up to 2m. This is obviously a very simplified summary, but the bottom line is that sea level is so fluid and influenced by local currents and coastal geomorphology that a ‘global’ sea level is meaningless (same with ‘global’ temperature.
        Whenever I research places that are supposedly being hit hard by climate-related sea level rise, they all have factors in common: either high groundwater extraction, vegetation clearance or actual anthropomorphic landscape change, all leading to…. Ground subsidence and/or erosion. I have no idea why these aren’t being addressed prior to anything else.

    • It’s the mass of all that military equipment pulling water towards the Phillipines.
      If only they would use Russian military equipment, then they wouldn’t have that problem.

    • Realistically, during the La Nina, the trades push water to the west and it does pile up a bit in places like the Philippines. Given the propensity of the usual suspects to project short term effects out forever, the tidal gauges might have recorded a somewhat larger sea rise. Of course, when the El Nino hits, the water sloshes back in the bathtub. You do not hear from those folks then about the fall in sea level rise. All you hear then is about how it is the hottest year evah someplace or other.

    • It is actually possible to some extent since the sea surface isn’t a simple flat surface. It is a equipotential surface which can vary quite a bit in absolute height, depending on water temperature, currents, wind, atmospheric prrssure and the local gravitational field.

      • The height of the ocean above (or below) the equipotential surface represents a pressure field, similar to high and low pressure areas in the atmosphere. These are dynamic variations that are related to such things as ocean currents, tides, and planetary waves.

    • Natalie Gordon
      October 7, 2019 at 6:07 am
      ——————————

      Natalia,

      Strangely enough, that is how it supposes to be in consideration of SLR due to AGW.

      You see, there is not actually a global ocean, is oceans plus seas.
      Different and not mixed, different thermal response to warming as per AGW claim, different rise in level expected as per AGW.

      Where in consideration of warming as per AGW, it considered, that where actually there will not be any detectable difference in the level there in between oceans and between the seas, there still supposes as expected to be a clear enough and detectable process of mixing there allover the place.

      Which brings us at the beauty of scientific method, at this given as per Null hypothesis;

      “Where if such as condition of ocean mixing not detected, then there no SLR to be consider, or what ever SLR considered have to be so clearly outside the premise and the claim of AGW.
      No mixing observed or detected, no SLR to be considered as in the premise and the claim of AGW or “man-made climate change””

      But you see, no much do these guys, lording the Ivory Tower of science,
      care any more about the scientific method at all.
      They are too fan and certain and cock sure about their science being well above such petty things… or “ugly”, simple, well out of date method.

      Their “mesmerizing” science is far above and beyond the reach of such
      “ugly” basic method… or so they believe and keep playing it that way persistently.

      cheers

  2. “where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average…”

  3. Yep! I think that is what climate science tells us and its peer reviewed so it must be right!

  4. That video made we realise just how bad this situation is. I’m scared, and depressed, where can I get help?

    • You must use your victimitude to generate apologies, restitution and reconcilation. If you don’t have a partner, use your damaged status as a starting point for voluble virtue signalling. It is very attractive in dating circles. No concrete action is required, this is all about meaningless gestures- think fashion. Learn to work it. Much like a research scientist creatively incorporating AGW into every proposal, you should do the same.

  5. Always makes me think of one of my all-time favorite rock albums…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K12-eUX8UFg

    The third gig at the Budokan in Tokyo on the 17th August went well with no significant problems, other than the acoustics of the hall could have been better. Possible because of this the subject of the monitors came up again and Ian Gillan asked over the mic before Strange Kind of Woman: “Yeah everything up here please. A bit more monitor if you’ve got it.” Then Ritchie asks “Can I have everything louder than everything else?” which Ian Gillan repeats “Yeah, can he have everything louder than everything else.” This remained on the final master.

    https://www.thehighwaystar.com/news/2014/05/28/everything-louder-than-everything-else/

    • David Middleton

      Top album.

      Top band.

      Too many parties in my youth spent listening to them. Wine, women and song. Evidently classed as unhealthy nowadays, but we’re still here. 🙂

      • It’s been stuck in my head since 1972… The opening chords are the only thing I can play on any instrument… the piano… Drives my wife crazy, “STOP playing with my piano!” 😉

        • I remember that music stores would kick you out immediately if you played “Smoke on the Water”; they even had signs up to that effect. Apparently the song was driving staff crazy.

  6. Pick the largest number among a group of numbers for which you compute an average, and then make the claim that the largest number in the group of numbers that you averaged is larger than the average of the group of numbers in which the largest number appears – duh!

    Now choose somewhere in the world, some year or other, for this largest number to occur in a different place, and then make this obvious claim as many times as you want, because the largest number of a group of numbers that you average will ALWAYS be larger than the average of the group of numbers in which the largest number appears … [do I have to say it again?] … duh!!!

    8 + 7 + 6 + 5 + 4 = 30

    The average is 30/5 = 6

    8 is greater than the average of 6
    7 is greater than the average of 6

    Is there no end to the mathemagical acts that fools can perform? This seems like a simple act. I’m too untrained to detect the more complex mathemagical acts.

    • But ALL the land and ALL the oceans are reportedly warming faster than the planet.

      It’s the new NEW math!

      • joe,

        It is not ‘New Math”. It is misleading with numbers.

        Each locality where temperature is measured can be anticipated to provide record high temperatures during each year purely as a matter of (a) chance and (b) the time since measurements began.
        I explain this as follows.

        Temperatures started to be measured about 100 years ago. For convenience in this explanation by illustration, I shall assume they all started 100 years ago.

        On the first day that a measurement was made in any place, that measurement set records for the hottest and the coldest temperature ever recorded at that place. Indeed, each of the 365 subsequent days set new records for each calendar day (i.e. 365 records for hottest daily temperature). And each week of that year set new records for that calendar week (i.e. 52 records for hottest week), and each month set new records for that calendar month (i.e. 12 records for hottest month).

        Weather varies and, therefore, the same calendar day of each year does not always have the same temperature. Assuming global average temperature stays constant, then there is an almost equal chance that a day, week or month will be measured to be hotter or colder than the year before.

        So, in the second year of each measurement site about half of the days, weeks and months of that year can be expected to be measured to set a record hot value in the second year.

        For the same reason, about half of one in each hundred days of the hundredth year can be expected to be measured to set a record hot value. And the same is true for its weeks and months. Simply, in its hundredth year each site can be expected to provide more than 2 record high recorded temperatures (i.e ~{0.5*[365+52+12]/100} = ~2.1 ).

        But that assumes the globe has not been warming.
        The globe has been intermittently warming from the depths of the Little Ice Age (LIA) for about 300 years so the probability of record high recorded temperature is more than 1:50 for each day, week and month.

        So, almost everywhere is setting record high temperatures in most years (and they are setting record low temperatures in most years, too.)

        Richard

          • joe,

            As you say, I can do the simple arithmetic.

            What I can’t do is understand your point. Can you tell me what your point is, please?

            I remind that my point was and is that records can be expected everywhere each and every year whether or not the climate is changing.

            Richard

          • Richard

            I’m not talking about record temps.

            Climate Crisis people and the media report that the climate in location X is warming twice as fast as the planet as a whole.

            Now some people have noticed that there seem to be a lot of location Xs in this reporting. For example: the Arctic, Canada, Europe, Australia, Africa, Asia, the oceans, etc, etc.

            So my argument is quite simple. You can’t have ALL the land locations and ALL the oceans warming twice as fast as the entire planet.

            Now as for records. Recently Environment Canada threw out 100 years of actual historical temperatures in Canada, and replaced them with computer generated temperatures. This for use in talking to the public about climate change.

    • NEWS FLASH!! NEWS FLASH!! ‘8’ AND ‘7’ ARE LARGER THAN THE AVERAGE OF 5 NUMBERS! PROOF THAT THE PLANET IS DOOMED!

    • Gavin Schmidt thinks WUWT commentators are stupid, because we can spot the fraud in promoting alarm over the fact that the highs in a group of numbers for which an average is calculated are … higher than the average … of all those higher and lower numbers of the group of numbers being averaged !

      Let’s look at this again: When you add higher numbers to lower numbers to get their average, the average of the numbers is lower than the higher numbers in the group. That’s just obvious reality of numerical relationships at a pre-school level of understanding.

      5 is greater than the average of 5 + 3. Scary stuff there.

      The sky is bluer at mid day than at sunset.
      Hot water is hotter than cold water.
      Ants crawl lower than birds fly high.
      Fresh-brewed coffee is hotter than iced tea.
      1=1

      Stating the obvious as alarming is stupid, Gavin.

      Calling people “stupid” who point to those stating the obvious is REALLY stupid. I’m adding you to my list with Dr. Mann now.

  7. That’s really funny, Anthony, but here’s something else to go along with it: Extinction Rebellion says they want carbon neutrality by 2025, sort of twice as fast as 2050? Remember Alinskys’ Rules For Radicals: If you are caught in a lie, tell a bigger lie and keep going!

  8. I’m looking forward to seeing trees and beavers on Ellesmere Island, one of the most motherly islands on the planet.

    They were living there two million years ago. How did the planet survive?

    • “motherly” is a wonderful typo!

      Who else would care for the saplings and baby beavers on an island with an environment so hostile to life.

  9. While it is possible for a place to be doing something more/faster than the average that means somewhere else must be doing less/slower (there’s always some below and some above the average – unless everyone happens to be exactly the same as the average – that’s how averages work). But, as WUWT rightly points out *every place* can’t be more/faster than average, that’s just mathematical impossibile. If these places over there are warming faster than average, then there *has to* be places elsewhere that are warming slower than average (or even, *gasp* cooling). you can’t have an average otherwise.

    • it reminds me of someone complaining to me that half the population earned less than the average income, and something should be done about it.

        • It’s not even close to a uniform distribution, so a simple average doesn’t really mean anything. But, of course, people continue to use it anyway.

        • That rather depends on the population and the method of averaging.

          For the mean average of the world population you are indeed correct. For the mean average of the South Bronx (to pick an example of a population that probably doesn’t have a too wide a spread of incomes), possibly not.

          For the median average of any population, not at all – as by definition the median average is smack dab in the middle. Half the population would be below the middle and half above it.

          As for the mode average, well I don’t think anyone has ever attempted to mode average income as it wouldn’t tell you anything meaningful but I’d suspect that that number would be pulled from the lower end of the income spectrum (since there are tens of thousands (or more) of minimum wage workers to every billionaire) which could actually result in more than half the population being *above* the mode mean.

          For illustrate the difference between mean and median averaging. In the US, in 2018, average household income is either $63,179 (Median) or $90,021 (Mean). So someone making $70k could be said to be above average (median) and below average (mean) at the same time.

          • If the distribution is Gaussian, then mean, median, and mode (if applicable) are the same or nearly so. I’m not saying income distribution is Gaussian, but many thing are—say all US women’s heights measured to the nearest inch. I’d wager mean, median, and mode are as good as equal for that data set. It the mean won’t differ by more than a half-inch, anyway.

          • Well, yes Bruce, that’s why I said it depended on both the population and the method rather than one or the other. I think from the difference between mean and median for US incomes that I previously posted, it’s rather obvious that the income of the population isn’t a Gaussian distribution.

      • “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
        – George Carlin

    • Well I can tell you that here in Calgary, we are cooling twice as fast as anywhere else. This has been the coldest year in living memory. And, to top it all off, we have our second snow expected tomorrow. I do not believe we have ever (in living memory) had two snow falls before Canadian Thanksgiving.

  10. Can someone put that into map format, with red showing all the areas that are warming faster than average( don’t forget the oceans since they are hiding all the heat), and even better yet, using all the comparisons in the headlines, try to calculate just how many times faster some areas are warming compared to somewhere else?

    • I think it would be easier to map the areas that aren’t warming faster than average. A blank page should do it. 🙂

      • To be slightly more serious, if there is anyplace that’s not warming faster than the rest of the planet, that someplace has to be in the Southern Hemisphere (as most of the headlines are not only from the Northern Hemisphere – Tibet, Britain, Norway, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Artic, Canada, Alaska, US National Parks, NJ, American west, unspecified parts of the US, Japan, Finland, China, Europe in general, etc. – but also include the entire northern hemisphere as being 2x as fast as the Southern Hemisphere!)

        Only that place in the Southern Hemisphere can’t be among Australia, South Africa, or West Antarctica (and though I didn’t catch it in the video, West Africa can also be included in the faster than the rest of the world crowd according to ghanabusinessnews.com). nor can it be anywhere with mountains (mountains are warming twice as fast as the rest of the world dontchaknow). Doesn’t leave a lot of territory to choose from does it? and that small amount of territory has to be warming so slow (or cooling) as to offset the entire rest of the multiple times warmer than average world in order to get the average.

        • Well here in Wellington, New Zealand (not on your list) it is so bleeding cold over the last 2 days it must surely enable the others countries to have record high average temperatures.
          Assuming of course 2 days of recording is climate./s
          Off to put my polar fleece on./t
          BTW I saw a newspaper report some years ago that said “2 years ago 50% the population suffered (something). Now it is the complete opposite”. My sister got that published in Punch!

  11. Nice video.
    Of course when I share it anywhere some progressive climate crusaders will mock it as propaganda coming from fossil fuel interests that pay WUWT.

    • Of course they’ll mock it that manner, they’re very predictable. They’d be mocking their own beloved material, which was clearly shown in the video. Point this out to ’em, and they’ll say the video clips are forgeries. Anything to sidestep away from the inconvenient truth here.

  12. Off topic, but I need a sanity check.

    Hey Anthony – Based on assumptions about rainfall and insolation, I calculated that most of the solar energy striking the equator goes to evaporating water. Am I barking up the wrong tree?

  13. I’m glad you brought this up. I want to know where MY share of this unusual heating system has gone to.

    I am very, very TIRED of having to start the furnace early, in September, and not shut it off until after April 30. If that starts expanding into May, I will be quite upset!!!

    I have photos of three inches of snow on my roof and in my yard on April 30, and several years back behind that.

    I am VERY tired of having to shovel snow off my sidewalk in April and put birdfood out for all the redwinged blackbirds, grackles, and brownheaded cowbirds that show up at my feeding station in March, because the bugs they USED TO be able to get haven’t emerged from their warm little burrow beds just yet. I think I should get a government subsidy for feeding these birds. I sent you guys an article from NYT about how all the birds (billions and billions of them!!!!) have disappeared in the last 50 years, but since they’re showing up in my yard, that’s where they disappeared to.

    I want to know when this famous global heating is going to reach me. If it snows this week in my kingdom and keeps on keeping on, I will file a complaint about not getting my share of the alleged global warming that is due me, on a timely basis! Someone is responsible for this loss of warm weather! I want my share of global warming and I want it by April 1st, 2020!!!!

    No one should have to put up with the slop storm and power outage that I had to put up with last November!! It is UNCIVILIZED!!!!

    Time to take the old bull by the horns, dontcha think???

    • Just be glad you don’t live in Denver… Years ago when I lived a bit north of there they claimed that the earliest snow on record was July 7th, and the latest was July 4th. :<)

  14. The bottom line: All the land ( about 30% of the earth) warms faster than the oceans (SST) with every warming due to the limited evaporation over land.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/crutem3vgl/from:1979/to:2018/compress:12/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979/to:2018/compress:12

    When one compares one lands trend with others it’s clever to compare apples to apples ( the lands trend vs. the trend of the earths rest of the land. This implies a “disadvantage”: No dramatic headlines.

    • True, but even the oceans are warming faster than we thought, are the hottest on record. and are absorbing up to 90 percent of the warming caused by human carbon emissions – according to the alarmist media (I supplied several links for that elsewhere in the thread, should be visible once it get out of moderation, I’d include the links here but then this post would also end up in moderation).

      • John, it can’t be true that the whole world warmed “faster than we thought” because all estimations of the sensitivity are remarkably lower when they were deduced from observations (in case of ECS from obs. 1.7…1.9 °C/doubling CO2) but not from the CMIP5 models (ECS=3.2 °C/ doubling CO2, model mean) , which should be “what we thought”. IMO the phrase “bigger,stronger or whatevah than we thought” is very often nothing else than propaganda, a red light for further reading.

          • In case it wasn’t clear, frankclimate, in my post that you were replying to, the key phrase was “according to the alarmist media”.

    • To elaborate on frankclimate’s comment: Although not always clear from the video, most of these comparisons are between a particular area of land and the global average – over 70% of which is oceans. Oceans warm much more slowly than land due both to evaporation AND to their vastly greater heat capacity which necessarily greatly reduces the global average rate of warming. As a result, any such comparisons claims are meaningless.

      • Indeed, the only ones that weren’t entirely land-specific that I recall seeing were:
        1 – Europe’s North Sea (2x as fast as world’s oceans)
        2 – Arctic (Warming 2x as fast as world average)
        3 – West Antarctic Ice sheet (2x as fast as previously thought)
        4 – Northern Hemisphere (2x as fast as south)

  15. And that reminds me to ask what John Holdren is up to these days after explaining from Obama’s White House podium that cold weather was caused by global warming and confirmed by research.

    Brazenly stupid is a special class of stupid that needs to be monitored.

  16. Or the Northern Hemisphere is warming faster than the South.
    Probably because it has less ocean.

  17. While I get the simple statistical point – I am concerned that this video is too subtle and simply reinforces the catastrophists’ errant arguments. The late Stephen Schneider would simply smile and say thanks.

  18. My 2 cents: The video would have gained in concluding with a map showing all the spots warming faster than the world… The image would have been stunningly efficient at ridiculing the media.

  19. Stephen Schneider … the same climate prophet who pushed the scam of a new ice age caused by human activity in the late seventies ?

    If yes, it’s twice as bad as I thought.

  20. I recall hearing (about twenty years ago) that Stephen Schneider was on the governing board of PBS, which if true would explain some of PBS’ alarmism, evident now for a long time.
    I have tried to confirm Schneider’s role at PBS, but was unable to do so. PBS didn’t respond to my query, and I could find no historical data about their board.
    Can anyone confirm or deny Schneider’s relationship with PBS?

      • You ask “so perhaps you are recalling hearing about Richard and thinking it was Stephen?”

        Not at all. What I heard was quite specific about Stephen Schneider (of NCAR) blocking from view on American TV screens a skeptical take on global warming from (– surprise! –) the BBC):
        Too Hot for PBS? describing the video report and mentioning Stephen Schneider’s objection; but with no mention of Schneider’s affiliation (if any) with PBS.

        • If he doesn’t have an affiliation with PBS there would be nothing to mention, now would there? I’m not saying he didn’t have the affiliation you think he did, but you’ve given no evidence that he does beyond a vague recollection of something you think you heard from 20 years ago (ie late 90s/early 2000s).

          And the link you supplied (Too Hot for PBS from the Christian Science Monitor) doesn’t, as far as I can see, mention any objections Schneider specifically may have put forth regarding the video documentary. The only mention of Schneider I can see in that article in a quote of his captured by the documentaries cameras (TVF is the company that produced the Documentary):
          What makes the program so effective at demolishing the idea of global warming is not the wide array of scientific evidence it presents, but the remarks of global warming’s most prominent spokesmen. TVF’s cameras caught leading greenhouse theorist Stephen Schneider, who heads climate research at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, saying: “Looking at every bump and wiggle of the record is a waste of time. You’ve got to look at averages. So, I don’t set very much store by looking at the direct evidence
          So, as you can see that quote, as put forth in the article is describing the contents of the video, *not* (as you described it) a quote of his objection to that video.

          I also see no mention of the BBC in that article. Perhaps you meant to link to a different article on the subject?

          • Don’t put words into my mouth\ (Your second sentence suggests I think Schneider had an affiliation with PBS).
            I don’t know, and didn’t know, and couldn’t find out;
            my post was merely a request for facts. Goodbye.

          • Ok, I’m confused. Did you or did you not write: “I recall hearing (about twenty years ago) that Stephen Schneider was on the governing board of PBS, which if true would explain some of PBS’ alarmism, evident now for a long time.” and “Too Hot for PBS? describing the video report and mentioning Stephen Schneider’s objection; but with no mention of Schneider’s affiliation (if any) with PBS.”

            *You* are the one who brought up the idea that Schneider was affiliated with PBS (as far as I’m aware you are the only one who has ever brought forth that idea, certainly the first time I’ve ever heard it mooted). That claim came from *you*, so clearly it’s something you think enough of to want to verify and to expect articles to mention when otherwise mentioning Schneider and PBS in the same article.

            Basically you made the following claims none of which the article you posted seems relevant to.
            1) you vaguely recall hearing that Stephen Schneider was on the governing board of PBS (not mentioned by article, and something you were unable to verify) – I posted a link to a website that gives some historical information about their board, you could try digging through that but you seemed to brush that link aside instead focusing on the question I asked you about the possibility that you may have confused him with a different Schneider that *was* once on their board. And your response to my question moved the goal post from ” Stephen Schneider was on the governing board of PBS” to being specifically about ” Stephen Schneider blocking a video”. Those are not necessarily the same thing.
            2) something about the BBC (still not quite sure what. about the only thing I can figure is that you seem to think they made the skeptical video? well, they didn’t. TVF did and it aired on Channel 4 in the UK, which as far as I’m aware is not a BBC channel)
            3) Stephen Schneider’s making some kind of objection to the video (the linked article says no such thing, only mentioning Schneider in relation to his appearance *in* the video)
            4) Stephen Schneider (of NCAR) blocking [the video] from view on American TV screens
            (again you put the claim out there but the article you linked to doesn’t mention Schneider doing any such thing – not saying he didn’t have a roll in PBS not airing the video, just that the article you link to doesn’t support that claim).

            So if I’ve got any of the above wrong, would you care to explain what and how? Or have you flounced off in a huff because someone questioned your claims?

  21. Is there part of the world which is not part of the planet Earth, or part of the planet Earth which is not part of the world?

  22. I saw a summary this weekend of headlines where “________ is warming twice as fast as the globe…” that led to the conclusion of the author that everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere.

  23. I cound not see any mention of any location in Africa. That would explain the result: Africa is cooling and dragging down the average.
    Funny what these co2-molecules can do!

    • Check the video again, one of the headlines was in relation to South Africa (though you had to look at the smaller print below the headline to see that). And as I posted elsewhere, ghanabusinessnews.com has an article that touts West Africa as warming faster than the average. South America, on the other had didn’t have any direct references that I recall seeing, though there are a lot of mountains in South America, and the mountains are warming twice as fast.

  24. On a related point, the Guardian is now talking about ‘global heating’. ‘Warming’ is not alarmist enough!

    • Climate Strike claims “the world is on fire.” If memory serves, Al Gore back in 2007 said that when the “baby is on fire,” you don’t ask for another doctor to give a “second opinion.”

  25. Sometimes the news due to natural climate change can be alarming.
    Click on my name to read the report about the coming drought times.

  26. Strange, the US does not seem to warm very much, call it 0 warming. So in that sense it is also correct to say US is warming twice as fast: 2 * 0 = 0
    Here is a graph published on climatedepot August 27th 2019:
    https://assets.realclear.com/images/48/487004_5_.png
    If 0 warming is the case for all the territories mentioned in the video, the non of the claims are falsifiable.

    • The headlines in the video didn’t specify the contiguous US as warming twice as fast (that I can recall seeing, possible I missed a headline). what I did see specified was:
      1 – (unnamed) parts of the US (heating faster than globe as a whole) – this one is kind of hard to verify without knowing what parts they’re refereeing to.
      2- Alaska (2x the global average)
      3 – National Parks (2x as fast as the rest of the US)
      4 – New Jersey (2x as fast as the globe)
      5 – The American West (nearly twice as fast as the rest of the world)
      6 – and generically “mountains” – which the US has a few of (warming 2x as fast as rest of the world)

      so, in theory, parts of the contiguous US that aren’t part of the above must be warming slower and/or cooling as a counterweight to the above in order for the contiguous US as a whole to be warming at, as you say, zero.

  27. Climate Strike claims “the world is on fire.” If memory serves, Al Gore back in 2007 said that when the “baby is on fire,” you don’t ask for another doctor to give a “second opinion.”

  28. Anthony
    You forgot about Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average and so are the high temperatures.

  29. So – since almost all land is warming faster than the global average, and the northern hemisphere is warming faster than the global average – does that mean that the oceans in the southern hemisphere are cooling at a notably accelerated rate? 😛

  30. It’s hotter all over than anywhere else. But no more than usual considering the planet is in a period of good weather. Enjoy It.

  31. At 1:17 into this vid the headline of a media article read: “National Parks are Warming Twice As Fast as the US Overall”. How could this possibly be? US National Parks are tiny enclaves of land that are sprinkled throughout the US, in every state. How could it be that only the National Parks feel drastic warming while immediately outside their boundaries the ambient air is much cooler, or warming at half that rate? That’s crazy!

    • Perhaps they are referring of National Parks in Asia that might have too many Butea Monosperma?

    • If their methodology is consistent, my best guess is that they installed a weather station directly over Old Faithful, and extrapo-homogenized all National Parks.

  32. If it’s always “Worse than we thought”, then wouldn’t that indicate that “the science is settled” is a lie?
    If climate “science” really is settled, how could they not see “it” (fill in the latest hyped weather event) coming?

    And can’t climate “science” add? How much of globe DIDN”T warm twice as much as the rest of the globe? Those headlines covered about everywhere.

  33. Fantastic! If this were done to expose all the media lies their house of cards would collapse overnight. I transcribed all the links to catch the eyes of liberal FB friends who probably won’t watch the video. So if anyone wants them..

    Adirondacks warming faster than the global average, study shows
    https://poststar.com/news/local/adirondacks-warming-faster-than-the-global-average-study-shows/article_f65e9da7-eec0-56a1-8340-5472c3a4a285.html

    Himalayan meltdown: Hindu Kush Hmialayan region warming faster than global average
    https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/climate-change/himalayan-meltdown-hindu-kush-himalayan-region-warming-faster-than-global-average-63078

    Tibet is warming at twice global average
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12335-tibet-is-warming-at-twice-global-average/

    Korean Peninsula is warming at a speed faster than global average
    http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/353845.html

    China’s heating up twice as fast as the rest of the world
    https://qz.com/368028/chinas-heating-up-twice-as-fast-as-the-rest-of-the-world/

    Parts of United States are heating faster than globe as a whole
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jan/17/parts-of-united-states-are-heating-faster-than-globe-as-a-whole

    Britain warming faster than average
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/10385878/Britain-warming-faster-than-average.html

    Norway warming fast
    https://www.norwegianamerican.com/news/norway-warming-fast/

    Europe’s North Sea Warming Twice as Fast as World’s Oceans
    https://www.21stcentech.com/europes-north-sea-warming-fast-worlds-oceans/

    Spain warming faster than rest of northern hemisphere: study
    https://phys.org/news/2010-04-spain-faster-rest-northern-hemisphere.html

    Sweden’s temperature is rising more than TWICE as fast as the global average
    https://www.thelocal.se/20190401/swedens-temperature-rising-more-than-twice-as-fast-as-the-global-average

    Singapore waring faster than average
    https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-warming-faster-than-average

    Arctic is Warming Twice as Fast As World Average
    https://www.npr.org/2014/12/18/371438087/arctic-is-warming-twice-as-fast-as-world-average

    Canada warming at twice the global rate, leaked report finds
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/canada-warming-at-twice-the-global-rate-leaked-report-finds-1.5079765

    Report: Alaska warming twice as fast as global average
    https://www.ktuu.com/content/news/Leaked-climate-change-report-outlines–439353963.html

    South Africa Twice the global rate
    http://www.csag.uct.ac.za/2019/09/25/twice-the-global-rate/

    Mongolia on the Verge of Ecological Collapse: Warming Twice as Fast as Global Average
    https://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/mongolia-on-the-verge-of-ecological-collapse-warming-twice-as-fast-as-global-average.html

    National Parks are warming twice as fast as the U.S. overall
    https://www.hcn.org/articles/climate-change-national-parks-are-warming-twice-as-fast-as-the-u-s-overall

    Mountains are warming twice as fast as the rest of the world
    https://psmag.com/environment/mountains-warming-photo-essay

    Russia ‘warming 2.5 times quicker’ than global average
    https://phys.org/news/2015-12-russia-quicker-global-average-ministry.html

    Study Finds That Portions of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Are Warming Twice as Fast as Previously Thought
    https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=126398

    New Jersey warming twice as fast as globe
    http://njtoday.net/2015/09/24/new-jersey-warming-twice-as-fast-as-globe/

    American West Heating Nearly Twice As Fast As Rest Of World, New Analysis Shows
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080328091347.htm

    Finland is warming faster than the rest of the world
    https://inhabitat.com/finland-is-warming-faster-than-the-rest-of-the-world/

    Australia warming faster than world
    https://www.ft.com/content/d15bc650-9b0c-11db-aa70-0000779e2340

    Europe warming faster than expected due to climate change
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190828100544.htm

    Northern Hemisphere Warming Twice as Fast as South
    https://www.enn.com/articles/5660-northern-hemisphere-warming-twice-as-fast-as-south

    IPCC: Europe has been warming faster than the global average
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/02/ipcc-europe-warming-faster-global-average

    Canada warming at twice the global rate, leaked report finds
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/canada-warming-at-twice-the-global-rate-leaked-report-finds-1.5079765

  34. This was humorous (but should be humorless?) so thank you for that. I have been battling with my alarmist friends and family over in the FB world for the past few days now over that headline montage, and even my old college mentor-turned-alarmist has chimed in through subtle means.

    Something I’ve been struggling with is how to put this hype into a simple, but not too simple, equation. Of course it has been pointed out that the warming is different between land mass and ocean, and that oceans cover approximately 71% of the globe. Point was made that it’s very possible for localities to warm at 2 or 3x the rate of the global average. OK, I accept that, but all over the planet at the same time? Out of curiosity, I created a simple pivot table and, in a very basic level, used 100 data points with 29 of them (my “land mass”) given my increased value that I set as double the average. So, increasing my land mass values accordingly did have a modest impact upon the overall “global” average, which increases exponentially over my simulated decades.

    Satisfied my own curiosity but of course not something worthy of tossing into a FB debate. Is there a good formula I could use and reference that would provide a more accurate demonstration of this? Of course, the noted articles and research are using different averages and time periods as reference points, but just wondering. Also, I don’t recall seeing anything about the rapid cooling of land mass as compared to global average; is this not occurring as well (offset by ocean warming)?

  35. While Gavin Schmidt Tweets this link to Ken Rice, adding “Stupid People”, I ask who is the stupid one?

    Solar insolation provides the ‘first’ 255 Kelvin [ -18.15°C ] – in accordance with the black body law; this being the ‘effective’ or the ‘base’ level. Then gravitationally induced autocompression provides the ‘other’ 33 Kelvin, termed the ‘residual’, to arrive at the known and measured average global temperature of 288 Kelvin [14.85C ]. The ‘other’ 33 Kelvin is not hypothesised to be provided by the greenhouse effect, because if it was, the molar mass version of the ideal gas law would not then work to accurately calculate real planetary temperatures in the case of small incremental changes to gas levels, as it clearly does here.

    This leads directly to the conclusion that a small change in any single atmospheric gas, not only has little effect on atmospheric temperatures, but has a very similar effect to the same percentage change in any other atmospheric gas. It is seen therefore, that no one gas particularly affects atmospheric temperatures more than any other gas; so, there can be no significant ‘greenhouse warming’ caused by ‘greenhouse gases’ on Earth, or for that matter on any other planetary body. Instead, it is hypothesised that the residual temperature differences, and the tropospheric thermal gradient observed on planetary bodies, are actually caused by auto-compression

    Who is the stupid one Gavin? You or Rice ? It isn’t any of us!

    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/74cc/22093ad3181feefdc9b0b30b88ad45e6c0fa.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1af4sz3pCj8o5k7aMjnxDZF9FKvYG8_WjcJxpvOjP_KVo3zKaTBWH1eu0

  36. joe,

    As you say, I can do the simple arithmetic.

    What I can’t do is understand your point. Can you tell me what your point is, please?

    I remind that my point was and is that records can be expected everywhere each and every year whether or not the climate is changing.

    Richard

  37. I think this is very relevant to this discussion: it shows what real science has to say about Earths temperature

    “Solar insolation provides the ‘first’ 255 Kelvin [ -18.15°C ] – in accordance with the black body law; this being the ‘effective’ or the ‘base’ level. Then gravitationally induced autocompression provides the ‘other’ 33 Kelvin, termed the ‘residual’, to arrive at the known and measured average global temperature of 288 Kelvin [14.85C ]. The ‘other’ 33 Kelvin is not hypothesised to be provided by the greenhouse effect, because if it was, the molar mass version of the ideal gas law would not then work to accurately calculate real planetary temperatures in the case of small incremental changes to gas levels, as it clearly does here.

    “Temperature in a gas is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in the gas. When atmospheric gas pressure exceeds 10 KPa, a temperature gradient is set up from that pressure level, down to the planetary surface (this thermal gradient is known and measured to continue even below the surface, if there is for example, a mine shaft). It is postulated here, that the cause of this thermal gradient is gravity-induced auto-compression. In general terms, the surface temperature sets up convective overturning of the troposphere, which is adiabatic through much of the convection cycle, and this combines with gravitationally induced atmospheric auto-compression to create the observed tropospheric thermal enhancement and temperature gradient.

    “This leads directly to the conclusion that a small change in any single atmospheric gas, not only has little effect on atmospheric temperatures, but has a very similar effect to the same percentage change in any other atmospheric gas. It is seen therefore, that no one gas particularly affects atmospheric temperatures more than any other gas; so, there can be no significant ‘greenhouse warming’ caused by ‘greenhouse gases’ on Earth, or for that matter on any other planetary body. Instead, it is hypothesised that the residual temperature differences, and the tropospheric thermal gradient observed on planetary bodies, are actually caused by auto-compression.”

    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/74cc/22093ad3181feefdc9b0b30b88ad45e6c0fa.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3tZ35mdf76ZIE1jIV5hsDWKuq11fg3CP-gqfTFsSWqSRYE7SgFM9NEIiQ

  38. The main problems that exist are detailed in the below attached paper and that is :

    1. “Abstract: The global temperature trends provided by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology are artificially exaggerated due to subjective and unidirectional adjustments of recorded values.” [Please note it states:
    ” global temperature trends”

    2, “Introduction
    Raw temperature data of historical stations not affected by large urban heat islands show temperatures have not warmed since the end of the 1800s.”

    3″ Conclusion
    We suggest that priority should be given to real observed data, and data analysis should use standard statistical techniques. On this basis we find that over the full time since records were collected there is no appreciable sign of warming or increase in extreme events in Australia. There is no cause for alarm if the normal scientific method of observation hypothesis testing is retained.”

    4, Revising the raw temperature data of the past is an unscientific process that lies somewhere between dubious and fraudulent. Any link between the Australian temperature data and carbon dioxide emission is utterly speculative.”

    You can read the paper here: I would also like to state that blog discussions are utterly corrupted by AGW paid troll bloggers.

    https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/quageo.2017.36.issue-1/quageo-2017-0006/quageo-2017-0006.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3ktOaca1PQbcFEPujuS1BTh2mvbOxxdLbMovOpEZqm-3WN5BMGPQxZHoQ

  39. I’m not the expert, but it seems that land temps will rise faster than ocean temps…so of course all the places the press mention have temps rising faster than the global average. Kind of a mathematical certainty.

  40. Professor Valentina Zharkova confirms that there will only be a 2% difference between the Maunder Minimum and this GRAND solar minimum that began in 2020 but that it will be at it’s lowest between solar cycle 25 and 26. During previous interview she stated we could expect Maunder Minimum type conditions.

    You can view her lasted interview here:

    • What is your point James? Professor Valentina Zharkova has stated we will experience Maunder Minimum type conditions as a result of this Grand Solar Minimum. To which number are you referring to that is bigger?

Comments are closed.