National Public Radio (NPR) ran a story claiming that scientists using computer models can now determine how much more severe a weather event was, or whether a particular event was likely caused by, climate change. Weather data demonstrates this claim is false. There are significant issues with the kinds of computer models that attribution scientists use to make these kinds of connections. They have yet to predict any weather event, and real-world weather data show no worsening trends amid current warming.
NPR is famously bad about spreading misinformation about climate science. Climate Realism has covered a multitude of stories debunking the fake climate news pushed by NPR, here, here, and here, for example. In fact, in the first story link listed, Climate Realism debunked a post by this very same “Science Desk” writer, Rebecca Hersher, who again misleads on the connection between weather and climate.
In her latest piece, “Researchers can now explain how climate change is affecting your weather,” Hersher says that scientists can decisively attribute different natural events—specifically heat waves, wildfires, and hurricanes—to climate change itself.
“For some types of weather, it’s become possible to say exactly how much worse it was because of climate change. Or that without global warming, the disaster would not have happened at all,” writes Hersher.
Since climate is an average of weather in a region over the span of 30 years, right away attempting to attribute individual storms to climate change is unscientific at best. Attribution research has been widely criticized for it’s inability to be repeated through testing, falsified, or measured in the real world—all necessary characteristics of science—and for the fact that predictions made by the models are based on emission scenarios that don’t match real world emission data, and are, in some instances, impossible. The climate change and temperature scenarios that weather attribution models are based on run way too hot, according to scientists, and therefore do not accurately represent current warming.
You cannot determine what the difference is between a fictional climate system and a real one—or worse, two fictional climate systems, as is the case with modern attribution science. Attribution researchers compare a a model of the what they think the Earth’s climate would be like, absent any humans in existence, to modeled scenario they create including humans but based on faulty emission and temperature assumptions. The differences between these two are what attribution modelers claim as “proof” that climate change is making weather worse.
Real world data refutes the model predictions.
Specifically, in the case of heat waves, the worst of them occurred during the dust bowl era of the 1930s, shown in the chart below.
The chart shown in the NPR article that allegedly shows an increase in the frequency of heat waves is misleading, as explained in a post on climate website WattsUpWithThat, here. When maximum temperatures are compared across the United States, it demonstrates that most of the warming is in urban areas. The Urban Heat Island Effect causes higher nighttime lows in cities due to concrete and other surfaces taking in heat during the day and releasing it at night. Anthony Watts explains this effect in a Climate Realism post, here.
Nor are wildfires getting worse globally. Just the opposite is true. Satellite data (shown in the figure below) comparing wildfires and atmospheric CO2 concentrations show increasing trend in wildfire occurrence or severity. Indeed, a study published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research, analyzing global wildfires back to the year 1901 reported, “a notable declining rate of burned area globally.” In addition, NASA satellites have documented a global long-term decline in wildfires. NASA reports satellites have measured a 25-percent decrease in global lands burned since 2003.
Another specific claim made in the article is that hurricanes are getting more powerful, intense, or have more rain, due to climate change. Hersher parrots the now-debunked Hurricane Harvey attribution: “Researchers found that climate change caused up to 15% more rain to fall during Hurricane Harvey in 2017. Another study looked at the entire 2020 hurricane season and found that climate change increased extreme rain by 10% for the season as a whole.”
In reality, those attribution studies suffer from the same issues discussed above (and in Climate Realism posts like this one), and data show that there is no increasing trend in hurricane severity or frequency. The figure below shows data on Accumulated Cyclone Energy, a measure of hurricane power, in different tropical basins and the globe.
NPR’s Science Desk writers should take the time to actually look into data, and have just a touch of curious skepticism when confronted with claims made with attribution modelling. The fact is such studies use computer models that have repeatedly proven to be unreliable; unable to successfully predict even temperature trends just a few years out. Accordingly, how could they accurately represent hugely complex weather conditions like hurricanes? Attribution modeling organizations are interested in continuing their work and getting paid to do it, and like anyone selling a product they will downplay the weaknesses and uncertainties concerning their product, in this case climate attribution claims, and make glowing promises about how the product will improve lives. In reality all that’s being sold is fear. It is completely unjustified and does not represent the real state of Earth’s climate.
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/linnea-lueken
Linnea Lueken is a Research Fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy. While she was an intern with The Heartland Institute in 2018, she co-authored a Heartland Institute Policy Brief “Debunking Four Persistent Myths About Hydraulic Fracturing.”
Good report — bad climate models. Not only do the models run too hot, none can replicate past climate changes — like the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. They all fail the smell test.
Notwithstanding the Medieval Warm Period, they can’t explain (at least openly) the 30’s to 40’s warming and then cooling to end of 70’s.
“Why the blip?”
Climate computer games don’t have to explain
the 1940 to 1975 cooling.
It’s been “revised away”
Your aside, regarding “at least openly”, hits correctly on one of the MOST CRITICAL ISSUES OF MODERN TECHNO SOCIETIES.
In our USA, for example, fundamentally, our NATION is a democracy; which means, essentially, that We The People, ultimately, are IN CHARGE; that is, We RUN the NATION and that the GOVT is there for one purpose and one purpose ONLY: that is, to fairly and equally protect our individual unalienable rights.
IOW: our USA is a NATION of people — that is, We The Americans — that has a GOVT; NOT the other way around.
[In our Declaration of Independence — which, among other things, is the presentation of our SUPREME TRUTHS/PRINCIPLES of our LAND … on which our Constitution is based; that is, it is a statement of the principled reasons why, as a NATION, we exist — this notion democracy could hardly be made clearer; where, as far as I know, there is no NATION in human history where democracy, more clearly, is intended and functionally designed].
Following these facts as defined in our national charter docs, in order for We The People to be able to evaluate and elect properly our representative leaders, we MUST HAVE ABSOLUTE TRANSPARENCY. ALL SUCH MATTERS — and this includes all aspects — must be openly available in a timely manner for one and all to evaluate and individually decide.]
Especially, on any and all technology policies — proposed and/or implemented by any and all elected leaders — there MUST BE TOTAL DISCLOSURE of all data, methods, analysis of errors and uncertainties, conclusions, ect … by which any such policies are constructed and proposed.
Such TOTAL TRANSPARENCY is critical to the existence of any democracy.
This lack of transparency, IMO, is the outstanding Achilles Heel of all the AGW Alarmists’ agendas: in most [all?] cases of importance, these Alarmists REFUSE to provide TOTAL TRANSPARENCY … and, in a NATION of freeborn citizens, this cannot stand.
In the not-too-distant future, I believe that this shortcoming — as it should and must be — will be blown wide open.
Thank you for your comment … bringing to light this critical matter.
Without disagreeing too much with your other points, we do not have a democracy, we have never had a democracy, and God forbid that we should ever have a democracy. We have a Republic with a Constitution that limits government and recognizes inalienable rights of individuals, inferred from natural law.
In a pure democracy, 50%+1 rules absolutely and can vote to literally eat the 50%-1 (to make the point with an extreme example). In our Constitutional Republic, even if 100% vote in Congress to pass a law that takes away individual rights, that is unconstitutional.
I’m not so naive as to believe that the Constitution could withstand such an attack, but at least we have a gloriously anti-democratic process which requires 2/3 of each house of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures to amend the Constitution.
In practice, our Republic is fragile. It is not inconceivable that the Second Amendment or even the First Amendment could be repealed via the established mechanism for amending the Constitution at some point in the future. In practice those amendments are not being fully honored and may soon become a dead letter.
There are also good reasons why the Founding Fathers envisioned a Republic with democratically-elected representatives, trusted to make policy and implement it subject to the limits set by the Constitution. That may not always be consistent with a policy of total transparency. There are many cases where transparency is counter-productive to effective government. You would not for example publish details of investigations into foreign spies or mafia bosses, etc. But certainly in the realm where you are discussing, full transparency is the correct and prudent approach.
It is so very nice that Im not the only one saying “we aren’t a Democracy,” lol. We may have some flavor of a Democracy at the State level but that doesn’t make America into a Democracy.
Democracy? Republic? That is all way last century. We have an Oligarchy intent upon driving the society and the economy into the ground and you can’t vote them out.
Easy to despair. I hope it’s not too late.
You misunderstand climate models
You think they are intended to make accurate predictions
ha ha ha ha
They are programmed to make scary predictions.
Except the Russian INM model, which everyone ignores.
If there were a real Climate Emergency we could all see it. Instead only the Commie/Fascist left can see this imaginary Climate Crisis they made up.
Allan Savory has an interesting solution to the problem. At least his approach can be tested within a few years. He says Big Agriculture is the big problem https://www.youtube.com/watch?=v58Fu1_3EBVU
Big Ag did what? Fed the world? And they’re the “problem”?
What about Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Steel, Big Banks, Big Guns, Big Bags, Big Bogs, Big Bugs, Big Everything?
It’s a small small world. The Big Tyrants are the real problem. Not that the Little Tyrants are much better. NPR is a filthy joke.
It’s not called National Propaganda Radio for nothing.
The only BIg problem we have are the Commie/Fascists that use the weather to implement Communism against our will.
What “models”?
A model has to have reproducible mathematical precision and only use actual inputs from collected and measured data.
60% of what is inserted into those shitty attempts at linear progressions is fabricated and near to 100% of the actual real-world data is altered with bias and set inflation.
With the way they smooth data for local temperatures they’re literally shoving the actual thermometer readings completely out of the data set.
Every time I try to figure out what they think they’re doing I come to the conclusion that they don’t understand that derivatives will produce up to 3 false answers per-nomial in the original integration and that it is a good thing none of them are primarily statisticians because their source universities would revoke their degrees.
The “models” predict the future climate.
There are no data for the future climate
or anything else in the future.
Data are for the present and past only.
Historical climate data make no difference to the models.
Their predictions are not based on historical data.
They predict much faster warming than even in the
cherry picked 1975 to 2020 period.
Computer games would predict scary rates of future warming
no matter what data were fed into them.
Because that’s what their programmers want predicted.
They are a “scientific style” prop in a climate propaganda war.
I believe Feynman said something like the use of computers eventually devolves into playing games.
I occassionally tune in NPR just to learn what US history has changed and what a terrible person I am. Even the game shows inject left wing beliefs.
We audiophiles used to love NPR in Detroit — they had the best radio music in town. Then they switched to almost all leftist talk. Music only on weekends.
Music lovers actually protested in front of the station.
We have not listened to our local NPR since then.
We never listened to the talk — just their music.
NPR is awful.
I used to listen to it on my commute, to learn what the enemy thinks. But it has become too painful to stomach. (I’ll admit, though, after a big defeat for the Left, I sometime listen to enjoy their delicious tears).
got to agree with you about the music. I had it on every day, but then they went & fixed it when it wasn’t broken & then as usually happens when unneeded fixin’ is done it is unuseable. I haven’t had NPR on for over 20 years.
The climate models “predict” nothing!
All of that alleged prediction are programmer assumptions or biased interpretations by advocates.
If a model uses zero historical or current data, then it isn’t a model at all. They are fabricated self satisfaction fantasies.
I think you mean Linnea progressions.
They’re climate scientists so that their degrees do not get revoked.
As president the first thing that I would do is to defund National Propaganda Radio.
I’d arrest Hunter Biden first.
he’s why Ukraine is able to fight… Biden had 150,000 small arms and 50,000,000 rounds of ammunition in Ukraine before Putin rolled in.
Do you really think Trump, Putin’s lackey, was illegally running spies in Ukraine to follow Hunter because he was on a gas company’s board? Do you think he was actually on that gas company’s board?
When Trump first took office, his new Secretary of Defense came to him and told him the Obama-Biden administration had left the U.S. military critically short of ammunition.
How would you like to hear that on your first day as president?
Great renaming of the left’s main propaganda arm!
“The biggest problem with computer models is getting them to match-up with reality.”
I have done computer modeling for a living. I have taught computer modeling in university, too.
The biggest problem with computer modeling is what data to ignore — what simplifications to do.
Climate models need to be verified by comparing with real-world data. Almost none have come close to predicting current events.
Climate changes slowly in human terms. Each person who lives and dies where they were born experiences one climate in their lifetime. Any graph of climate change should involve a 100-year moving average.
Narrative
Propaganda
Regurgitated
And that’s at best…
I’m just waiting for National Public Radio (NPR)—with their outstanding knowledge of weather, climate and the accuracy of climate models—to explain why Earth has experienced a pause/hiatus in global warming for the last 7 years and 10 months (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/02/the-new-pause-lengthens-to-7-years-10-months/ ) despite humans continuing to emit their “massive” quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels and making cement and glass.
/sarc off
“a pause/hiatus in global warming for the last 7 years and 10 months”
Meaningless short term data mining.
There is strong evidence that a “pause” for a decade
and even the 35-year global cooling trend from 1940 to 1975,
had no predictive ability.
Those events actually happened during the 325-year
global warming trend since the 1690s that began
during the coldest decade of the Maunder Minimum period
… and the global warming resumed.
They did not signal a change of trend.
OK, then, let’s put your reasoning into the larger perspective:
The last glacial period on Earth ended approximately 11,500 years ago, following the Younger Dryas anomalous cooling interval.
The overall trend (eliminating any “short term data mining”, don’tcha know) since then has been global warming, just as you point out.
As I have been informed on numerous occasions, humans have only been emitting large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution, about 1760 AD.
Therefore, (2022-1760)/11,500 = .0228 = 2.3% of total global warming since exiting the last glacial period has been due to mankind’s emissions of CO2.
After all, by your logic, the Industrial Revolution “did not signal a change of trend”.
ROTFLMAO.
“2.3% of total global warming since exiting the last glacial period has been due to mankind’s emissions of CO2.”
You are right — the industrial revolution did not signal
a change of trend. It is a possibility that all warming
in the past 20,000 years was natural. But I doubt if that
is true. the global warming and CO2 emissions increase
since 1975 are both fast enough to suggest
manmade causes are involved.
So what? The warming has been good news !
The primary subject is global warming since about 1950.
CO2 has been significantly rising since about 1950,
from manadeCO2 emissions
Those emissions probably caused
some of the post-1950 warming.
How much, no one knows.
Natural and manmade causes of climate change
exist at the same time (mainly since the 1800s).
There are so many causes of climate change
that the exact effect of each one is unknown.
Richard and so many scientists cannot and will not explain how the world recovered from a major ice age 11,000 years ago and that there have been three warmer periods than the present mild warming since then .
Then the world experienced the Little Ice Age in the 1700s.
This all happened with out rising CO2 levels .
CO2 warmed the earth millions of years ago but it has been well understood that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic.
The doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot and will not raise the earths temperature by even one degree Celsius.
It is high time that the worlds population wakes up to the fact that CO2 is never going to be a problem .
There is no climate crisis .
The worlds most urgent problem is to replace these socialist governments that are screwing their countries with governments that will look after their people .
Tell the UN to do the job they were formed for .
Stopping wars and prosecuting war criminals and helping poorer countries lift their standard of living .
The UN was not formed to socialize the world through demonizing the use of fossil fuel.
The world is heading for a major inflationary shock that will hurt every person on this earth .
Politicians seem powerless to do any thing positive .
Countries are reporting inflation rates of 6% to 8% but inflation has not even got its boots on .
Fuel has doubled in most countries .
Container shipping has increased 600 %.
Cartage contractors are forced to put their rates up by 30%
Fertilizer has increased up to 300% if farmers can purchase it .
Electricity prices are being forced up in many countries
All this is happening because of the stupid policies that so many governments have made restricting oil and gas drilling and fracking .
The world has to wake up as this will only get worse .
What is the avg temp supposed to be and why?
“NPR is famously bad about spreading misinformation about climate science.”
Actually, NPR is very good at spreading lies about the climate.
Bad weather = climate change
Good weather = just weather
Proof of any climate claim “Scientists say … “
Actually, NPR is very good at spreading lies about everything
the climate. Fixed.It should be called National Progressive Radio. I stopped listening years ago since their so call “news” is anything but factual.
Progressive sounds like making positive progress, and of course all the progressive ideas being proposed by the left create chaos & disaster. (Crime, Inflation, Open Border, Drug Smugglers, Human Trafficking, …
Let’s stick with Propaganda as that describes NPR agenda.
I watch NPR every now and then to keep informed what the enemy is up to. Popcorn and lots of Blue words help sit through it.
I agree, I’ve been calling it National Propaganda Radio for a long time. But how do you watch radio? Does it taste bad, too? I imagine it smells horrible.
Satellite radiometer measurements give 240 ±100 W m-2 OLR flux [CERES]. However, the spectral distribution of the OLR flux is not that of a single blackbody radiator. Instead, the LWIR emission to space is produced by the cumulative effect of the LWIR emission from many different altitudes in the atmosphere. It is simply a cooling flux that cannot be associated with any single temperature. The intensity of the LWIR flux at TOA cannot be used to define an ‘effective emission temperature’ of 255 K using Stefan’s Law.
The surface temperature is dominated by the operation of the Second Law of thermodynamics. The troposphere functions as an open cycle heat engine that transports part of the absorbed solar heat from the surface to the middle and upper troposphere by moist convection. From here it is radiated back to space, mainly by LWIR emission from water in all its phases. The only direct surface contribution is by the IR windows. There can be no positive water vapor feedback so long as the water continues to condense and emit continuous IR spectra, and so long as water vapor remains buoyant relative to a dry atmosphere.
There is no requirement for any kind of thermal equilibrium as assumed in common concepts. The solar insolation for any location at TOA changes on a daily and a seasonal time scale. The LWIR flux at TOA does not show similar changes in intensity. There are significant time delays between the absorption of the solar flux by the climate system and the subsequent LWIR emission to space. The absorbed solar heat is stored both as heat in various climate thermal reservoirs and as gravitational potential energy in the atmosphere. This makes prediction of future climate states practically impossible by quantifying a LW radiative forcing.
The response of the climate system to the imposition of an initial radiative forcing is frequently described using the linearized energy balance equation: R = F + λTs where R is the is the resulting TOA flux imbalance from the combined forcing and response. F is the is the imposed forcing, and λ is the change in TOA flux per unit change in surface temperature Ts, or ‘feedback parameter’. λ is expressed in units W m-2 K-1. However, the λ is not really a feedback at all to a LW radiative perturbation. It is the most basic and universal climate process. It is the result of the total system thermodynamics, not just the puny impact of human emission of CO2.
Physical reality has been abandoned in favor of mathematical simplicity. The only physical mechanism whereby humanity can affect their climates is by disruption of the small water cycle in our terrestrial landscapes. Whereby massive drainage and drying of the lands necessarily results in anomalies of temperature and hydrological extremes by water cycle disruption. ‘Global’ climates are dominated by time varying flux from the various thermal reservoirs in the total system, including solar and oceanic reservoirs.
Baloney
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
More greenhouse gases in the troposphere
should impede Earth’s ability to cool itself
by some unknown amount, that so far
appears to be small and harmless.
A warmer troposphere will hold more water vapor
— a positive feedback.
There is obviously some limit to that positive feedback
because there was no runaway warming in the past
with CO2 levels up to 10x higher than today.
My best guess is that more water vapor in the troposphere
leads to more clouds, blocking more incoming solar energy.
Your guess is as good as mine.
If your long comment did not say what I just explained
in simple words, which I believe almost all climate scientists
in the world would agree with (CO2 being a greenhouse gas
and that greenhouse gases impede cooling), then your comment is alt-science claptrap.
Your static conceptualization of the climate system is out dated.
Your use of the word “should” is based on your assumptions, not physical reality.
What is the physical mechanism limiting this positive feedback? How does atmospheric dynamics and emission profiles relate to your limit?
To get caught up with the program start here:
https://youtu.be/2_YHe6F97iY?t=1711
The atmospheric dynamics never stops. The consensus community has only recently regained interest in the feedback parameter λ. This because of the widely acknowledged problems with climate model parameterization in the era of CMIP6. To advance the science you must move beyond static conceptualizations.
‘The consensus community has only recently regained interest in the feedback parameter λ’
Who or what pray tell is the ‘consensus community’?
those running their experiments based on virtual CMIP climate environments. It is necessary to advance these environments when the experimental results do not resemble reality.
I’m lost, man. What doesn’t resemble reality – the virtual CMIP climate environment, the experiments, the experimental results, all of the above?
The CMIP ensemble members exist to provide a virtual sandbox to test out different perturbations and the like to see how the system responds. Ideally the models are a perfect surrogate for the Earth system. This is how much of academic climate science functions. They draw experimental results from these virtual environments.
‘Ideally the models are a perfect surrogate for the Earth system.’
And if they’re not surrogates (perfect of otherwise) for the Earth system, the ‘experimental results’ are meaningless, right? Or am I missing something?
I agree with you, however, that this is how much of ‘academic client science’ seems to function.
Correct. The experimental results are meaningless if the model platform is not adequately representing physics. Experimental results range from CO2 forcing sensitivity, to attribution of extreme weather, to sea ice dynamics, to water cycle, etc etc. Many are earning entire PHDs based on experiments they are running on CMIP ensembles or members. It’s possible their research has no physical basis. The majority of environmental policy is based on CMIP experiments, where these policy recommendations may also have no physical basis.
Of course the climate computer games are not representing correct climate physics. They have consistently over predicted the rate of warming since the 1970s. And no one in charge cares.
The computer games are programmed to make scary climate predictions, and that is exactly what they do. The scientists and programmers are HIRED to make scary predictions.
So that is what they do.
Science + Politics = Politics
I think it would be much more realistic to simply say “it is VIRTUALLY CERTAIN their research has no physical basis,” and to say “these policy recommendations ALSO HAVE NO physical basis.”
Why sugar coat it?
So you are saying these models provide useful data?
It depends on your perspective. For advancement of knowledge unphysical model outputs are not particularly useful.
For advancement of one’s politics such models provide the illusion of knowledge which is useful.
So they needed to stop advancing about 40 years ago, and just give the game away altogether.
JCM, thank you for debunking physicist William Happer and others.
This poses no contest to H&W’s initial radiative forcing in clear sky atmosphere by non condensing gases. The thermodynamics does not operate in local profiles.
O/T but relevant.
A clearly illegal offer is being made for Antifa or for public service employees to stalk and report the locations of several Supreme Court Justices in order to harass them or worse, perhaps to harm them as we have seen one alleged assassin arrested near the home of Justice Thomas with a weapon. This solicitation is for money to be sent to them via a payment processor called “Venmo” or something like that. Shouldn’t those accounts be shut down as funding criminal activity and possibly violating the RICO law since it appears to be a coordinated group “conspiring” to fund crime and for those accepting payment to be conducting criminal activity?
If the offer was for cash (fed currency), should the currency printing presses be shut down and all existing currency demonetized?
You may have misunderstood the question AndyHce.
He’s not saying to shut down Venmo. He’s saying that the accounts of those offering to make payments should be shut down by Venmo under court order.
Yes of course they should. And of course they will not be.
” Satellite data (shown in the figure below) comparing wildfires and atmospheric CO2 concentrations show increasing trend in wildfire occurrence or severity.” Is there a NOT missing?
Satellite data begin after the low period if acres burned in the 1970s
Also the data are meaningless
There is no logical connection between acres burned and the global average temperature. If such a correlation existed, then it would be spurious data.
Up to 90% of wildfires are human caused.
How would a few tenths of a degree warming
of the global average temperature cause wildfire
acres burned to increase?
Would people cause more accidental fires?
More arson?
Would more branches take down power lines?
What’s the logical connection?
In fact, precipitation has increased with global warming.
I am not saying there is any connection between “climate change” and wildfires, just pointing out that “global average temperature” is not “climate change”. Possibly there is some connection between “climate change” and “acres burned” that has nothing to do with global average temperature, i.e. there is a logic fault in your statement.
A logical climate connection would be precipitation changes.
But precipitation has increased with warming.
How about these variables:
Forest management
Lack of prescribed fires to clear dead brush.
Rising population.
More people living near forests.
Poor trimming of trees near transmission lines.
Spotting fires faster with satellites.
Putting out fires faster with airplanes.
Random decade to decade variations.
The only “change in severity,” is because there are so many more structures now in the path of the wildfires… there is no logic behind the idea that a degree warmer temperature, could cause more fires! Add that there are significantly more human caused fires, but globally, the number of fires have DECREASED by 15% since 1950… how is that possible… if CO2 is the main driver of every catastrophe as purported by those on the far left?
Retired 33 year firefighter from Los Angeles CA.
Every year in CA there is a forest fire season with lots of dry fuel.
A few tenths of a degree warmer can’t make already dry fuel any drier.
Yes
Today, in my area of the globe, weather will be another mild 80f summer day with 56f overnight low, scattered clouds, 3 mph wind. It is one of many similar mild days so far this season.
Should the weather be somehow different today? What is the correct weather?
Do these models ever predict extremely mild weather because of climate change?
Here in Pennsylvania we had 49F last night, normally this time of year about 65F is the nighttime low. Using the climastroligists logic, that is clear evidence of global cooling.
At 3mph, less than 1.5m/s, wind mills near you will be in standby mode – standing by for an increase of an order of magnitude before they can add to supply.
I don’t know where in the world you are, but I’d guess the USA. Here in the East Midlands of England we have (had) similar conditions. The UK wind has contributed nothing and solar is turning off for the night
The “correct” weather was
on June 6, 1750 at 3:06pm.
That was climate utopia.
Any change since then,
in either direction,
is a climate emergency.
People living at the time thought
their climate was too cold.
But what could they possibly know?
They were not climate scientists.
The last time NPR had anything at all worth listening to was Garrison Keillor’s Prairie Home Companion. That ended in 2016.
The only show I listened to was Car Talk. The Tappet brothers were a riot! 🙂
Nowadays they’d just say, buy a new circuit board and plug it in.
Defund NPR. And all the rest of them, PBS and the like who are firmly attached to the taxpayer teat, spewing leftist propaganda without even trying to be objective and search for the truth.
“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” – Thomas Jefferson
By an amazing coincidence, scientists can also decisively attribute certain events to witches, hob goblins, and space aliens. It’s science, so you can’t argue with it, unless you are a witch-hob goblin-space alien denier.
“NPR is famously bad about spreading misinformation about…” everything.
A total waste of taxpayer dollars. Even their classical music broadcasting is ostentatiously woke.
Hello, I know this comment will probably get a lot of downvotes and backlash, will probably get called a troll but I’m honestly hoping very much to find some kind of help and answers that will help ease my extreme eco-anxiety. I’ve made comments like this on a few other posts but I’m still having some issues. I’m so sorry to do this but I’m honestly at the end of my rope here, losing my grip and I don’t know what else to do. I apologize for this comment not being relevant to this particular post but I didn’t know where else to go. I’ve spent on and off the last 7 years going down the rabbit hole of looking up stuff online about global warming/climate change. Mostly trying to find arguments/debunkings against the alarming claims for my own peace of mind. I know it probably would have been smarter for me not to but when you suffer from OCD, eco-anxiety, and depression like I do you’re willing to try anything just to get your brain to shut up with the worries. I’ve always been on the fence with this, mostly because I don’t really understand it. Was never good science or math, I’ve always just wanted to have my mind set and my feet firmly planted on the skeptics side without any question but it makes it difficult when so many argue against it and say that it is happening. Every time there’s an article or some video on YouTube that’s there to debunk the claims from the alarmists there’s so many comments from people below arguing against said article or video using scientific explanations as to why carbon is a pollutant and how things are very bad and are going to continue to get worse, hence why it’s difficult for me to figure out which side I’m on. I definitely don’t want to believe that we’re all doomed and there’s nothing we can do and that’s really why I’m here. Honestly I hate everything about the topic of climate change and wish no one had ever said anything about it one way or another. In many ways it has ruined me being able to enjoy a qulaity of life. I’ve spent so much time trying to do research when I could have been doing something more productive or fun with my time. It’s all so confusing when there’s so many different theories and opinions going from ‘there’s nothing going on and it’s all a scam’ to ‘it is happening, just not that bad’, to ‘it is bad but we can still fix it’, to ‘it’s way too late, we’re totally screwed, and there’s nothing we can do.’ Of course that last one worries me the most. And then there’s what I call the biggest extremist doomers when it comes to that last one. People like Extinction Rebellion, Jem Bendell and his ‘Deep Adaptation’ which is said to be sending people to therapy, and then Sam Carana of the ‘Artic News’ blog site and Guy Mcpherson with their near term human extinction saying that because of tipping points, positive feedback loops, and methane being released that by 2026 it’s going to cause temperatures to increase 10 degrees and wipe out all of humanity. Of course I don’t want to believe this, I want to tell myself it’s absolutely ridiculous and they’re just doing it for the attention but it makes it difficult when there’s so many other people who agree and say that the science is spot on. And then others who say that the IPCC is erring on the side of less drama and putting out conservative reports to not let us know just how bad things really are. All this doom and gloom just really scares me and it doesn’t help that I live in San Antonio, TX and we just had our hottest June on record since 1895. The last record was in 1990 where there were 10 days that hit triple digits, this June we had 17. Not to mention that any day that wasn’t in the triple digits was in the high 90s, the whole month was close to 17 degrees above seasonal average or more. And now every day of July so far has hit triple digits and that’s not stopping anytime soon when looking at our local forecasts. I’ve lived here since 93 and have never seen it being this hot this early for this long. I don’t want to believe it’s cause of global warming and I’m hoping to find an alternate explanation as to what’s causing this to happen. So I’m asking if anyone here can use graphs or some mathematical/scientific explanation that shows this has nothing to do with global warming. I’m so tired of constantly worrying about this. I have a wife and we have a 7 month old daughter and I just want to feel strong and confident that we didn’t bring her into a world that’s going to cause her a short life that ends in doom. I also wanted to ask if it was at all possible for someone to specifically directly address the claims made by Jem Bendell and his ‘Deep Adaptation’, Extinction Rebellion, Sam Carana from Arctic News and Guy Mcpherson possibly specifically directly debunking what they all say. I know it may sound ridiculous but it’s what really causes very bad anxiety. Again also looking to find an explaination why San Antonio, TX just had their hottest June on record and why the highs still continue to be in the triple digits every single day and that doesn’t look to be stopping anytime soon that has nothing to do with global warming. It’s just unusually hot for us and too early because we normally don’t get triple digits until August and I can’t stop worrying about all of this and am desperately looking for help. I know it’s a lot to task and if it’s too much I understand and I apologize. This is literally on my mind 24/7 and I don’t want to become suicidal because I can’t do that to my family. So if anyone here, anyone at all can possibly provide something scientific/mathematic to show that all these worries are bunk I’d really appreciate it. I know I repeated myself a bit there but as I said truly at the end of my rope and I don’t know what else to do.
You have been living with global warming your whole life unless you are over 47 years old. Warming started in 1975.
In each of those 47 years, we were warned about a coming climate crisis that never showed up. Were you harmed in any way? Of course not. Because every prediction of environmental doom since the 1960s was wrong. 100% wrong.
Most US states have maximum heat records
in the 1930s. Few in recent decades.
U.S. state and territory temperature extremes – Wikipedia
As cities grow, they do get warmer, unrelated to more CO2.
More concrete, bricks AND asphalt get hot in the day
and make the nights warmer as they release heat.
San Antonio had a population of about 50,000 in 1900.
The population in 2020 was 1.43 million.
A city of 1.43 million people will be much warmer
than a city of 50,000 people.
The record maximum temperature in Texas:
“The highest temperature ever measured in Texas was 120 °F (48.9 °C), recorded on August 12, 1936 in Seymour, during the 1936 North American Heatwave, and again on June 28, 1994 in Monahans.”
SOURCE OF QUOTE:
Climate of Texas – Wikipedia
Is there possibly a more scientific explanation? Cause if that’s the case why hasn’t it been this hot in more recent years before this and what about other cities in Texas with lower population and fewer buildings who are also experiencing an abnormally hot earlier than normal Summer? And what about a lot of other areas the country that are experiencing record breaking heat right now?
“…..we had our hottest day on record since 1895”
If this record temperature could only be caused by CO2 and by CO2 alone – then what was the dangerous level of CO2 ppm in 1895?
Food for thought????
I didn’t say hottest day, I said hottest June on record since 1895 meaning since the temperatures record began in 1895
Admittedly, that quote was in a moment of hot tired and dusty frustration, but it fits very well how many people feel about hot Texas summers.
Visiting my brother’s wife’s parents just outside of San Antonio in the mid 1990s, while the temperatures were in the triple digits, we went and visited a wildlife park and some large caverns.
Meanwhile, at night, I listened to my sister-in law’s parents about how they raised orchids for decades on trees in their yard. All their orchids were killed when a severe freeze came through the previous year.
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW),Global Warming,Climate weirding, climate change and all of the former names have been changed because every future climate prediction has failed.One result from those failures, besides of the frequent name changes, are that climate doomists have been moving their predictions out beyond their life spans.
Weather repeating itself is normal. That has nothing to do with carbon dioxide.
If you feel the temperature is extreme, leave the city and visit a very rural shady location.
It’s quite likely, the extreme heat you are feeling is Urban Heat Island (UHI) effects. As cities grow, their heat profile increases. Especially during heat waves when air conditioners pull the heat from inside and dump it outside on top of many square miles of black asphalt and tarred city roofs.
A fact often refused by NOAA, as such attribution hurts their cries of climate change.
Beware of newspapers trumpeting “records” as many use truncated data sets or temperatures from new locations that did not exist over fifty years ago.
Humans are utterly dependent upon carbon, CO₂ and organic things, like food. Without carbon and CO₂ life dies! Period!
Alleging that “carbon” is a pollutant is specious misrepresentation. The reference is intended to cause listeners/readers to think of carbon black; soot under other names.
Yet in the developed world, actual carbon emissions to the atmosphere are essentially nonexistent.
Only in countries that ignore emission controls are soot emissions a problem, e.g., China.
Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is fundamental to all life. That the world greened during the past forty years is evidence of that connection to all life.
The facts are:
Be grateful for every warm moment and day! The cold that comes with glaciation is a definite killer, far more deadly than any alleged “global warming”.
All of this information is available here on Wattsupwiththat.com. Much of that is available in the “Reference Pages” listed in the top menu.
Just live your life without worrying about climate change Bobby K.
Just remember this .
There is no climate crisis .
There will never be a climate crisis .
Graham
I grew up in San Antonio and I live in San Antonio. Yes, it is hotter than normal but really, we’ve had several cool summers the last few years. Which argues against the climate getting hotter. I also can remember some really hot summers in the past when I was much younger. This isn’t really that much hotter than I’ve felt in the past. But one of the problems is that when I was growing up, there was nothing outside of 410 and now there are miles and miles of roads and pavement out past 1604. There is a urban heat island effect.
But the reality is that if you are going to worry about every little thing, you might as well just go and live in a cave somewhere.
I’m going to be blunt. I’m sorry. But nothing I can say or anyone can say is going to change what you feel if you are really as worried as you say you are. (I kind of wonder if you aren’t trolling since you’ve posted in the past and are still here posting the same stuff.) Nonetheless, what you are exhibiting in your thought patterns is free floating anxiety unconnected to anything specific. My guess is that there are other things in your life that also worry you.
What you need is professional help if all this is true. Sorry to be blunt.
I assure you I’m not trolling, I just come here and ask if someone can scientifically or mathematically provide a debunking for the claims made by extinction rebellion, Jem Bendell, Sam Carana and Guy Mcpherson. I don’t know if graphs or what could be used, I’m no good at science but no one seems to be doing this and I don’t understand why. Can it not be done? I’m not trying to be rude, I just don’t understand why.
Ok, so let’s take this at face value. Why it isn’t debunked is because you can’t mathematically debunk claims that are not based on real science. But what you can do is understand why these claims are not real. But you are going to have to do some real work.
First, go to https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/. Look at the archives and find the one about Scientific Fraud. Click on that and it brings you to a series that the website author calls the “Greatest Scientific Fraud of All Time.” He is up to 30 blogs and writes very well, so it is very easy to follow and is a good overview. You will have to scroll back to #1 and read through them. Reading all 30 is nice but the first 10 will provide you an understanding of the systematic retroactive changing of historical temperatures records over the last 30 years. For example, there is plenty of evidence that the original temperatures from the 1930s were actually hotter than today. But those temperatures have all been modified down so that the heat waves are no longer apparent. You can discover the lack of any rational reason or transparency as to how the actual changes that were made. The term that is used is to homogenize the data, whatever that means. You can also notice that all the changes go in one direction, ie making temperatures in the past cooler so that today’s temperatures are higher.
Then go to https://realclimatescience.com/. Tony Heller, the website owner, has done a lot of work in the area of this systematic rewriting of the historical record. One of the things he does, which is fantastic is that he compares the official records of temperature against newspaper articles from the historical period. So for example, he’ll find an article in a local gazette from that day that talks about the heat wave the day before when the temperature hit 105 degrees. And then he’ll show that the official homogenized record states it was only 98. So which are we to believe, a temperature record that has been systematically adjusted for reasons that are never explained other than to homogenize the data or the actual writings by reporters back in the past about what happened on the ground that day. He does this not only for temperature but for a lot of other stuff. He also looks at heat waves and compares heat waves in the past with heat waves today. Which is very illustrative.
Start there and then think about what it means to be the hottest year on record when all the previous data is systematically reduced by a number of degrees. You begin to realize that maybe it isn’t true. Then come back and talk about concerns you have about whether we need to debunk predictions based on data that isn’t accurate to begin with.
And if it is an urban heat island effect then how come so much of Texas outside of San Antonio is having the same kind of Summer and experiencing the same kind of heat in areas with less roads, less buildings, fewer people? Again seriously not trying to be rude in any way whatsoever, I’m just hoping to find an explanation for this that scientifically explains why this is happening that has nothing to do with global warming along with the unseasonably hot Summer that is said to be going on in a lot of other parts of the country right now. Again I’m not trolling, just looking for a scientific explanation that’s not doom and gloom
Today it was 107 degrees in downtown San Antonio. Where I live, North Central, it got up to 103 or 104. Get out to the Hill country it may have been as low as 101 or 102. Still hot but not really that hot.
I just looked at the temperatures at 6:30 pm. It was 103 in San Antonio and 98 out away from town.
When you get a chance, open a weather app that has a map and pull up the overlay for temperature. You’ll see that the cities are always many degrees hotter than the surrounding areas. So really, the areas outside of the cities are not experiencing the same kind of heat as the cities. But all you hear about are the cities.
It just concerns me cause it’s only July
Big deal
Go away, troll.
I wish we stop using the term “Misinformation” and call it for what it is. LIES.
From the article: ““For some types of weather, it’s become possible to say exactly how much worse it was because of climate change. Or that without global warming, the disaster would not have happened at all,” writes Hersher.”
Predictably, the author doesn’t explain how it is possible to attribute CO2 to weather changes.
So, again, we are left with mere assertions from alarmists. No proof of anything, just assertions that there is proof. This is the state of alarmist climate science: One unproven assertion after another.
The author is either a dupe or a liar.
Main photo caption:
Sheeple listening to NPR
Climate Change is a political movement. It has nothing to do with the environment. Climate Change is about power.
Even Tokyo Rose knew she was lying. These imbecile leftwits are too dumb to even realize it.
In graphs I’ve seen (I believe from John Christy), IPCC’s models nearly all run too hot. The one that is closest to mirroring reality is a Russian model.
Why do the models run too hot. I’m not an expert, and I’d love to hear responses from those more familiar with the methodology. I can think of 3 possible reasons:
In a word, YES.
The network for the ill-informed and easily distracted
Should read NO increasing trend!
When the Republicans take control of all levers of government I hope they defund NPR. Useless drivel.