Guest Essay by Larry Hamlin
The L A Times published an Editorial claiming that the “The planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record breaking heat” and mandates that a “climate emergency” must be declared but then fails to present any data graph or tables in its editorial.
The opening L A Times editorial paragraph claims that for California “the last few months have been more than 2 degrees hotter than average”. This claim is erroneous as demonstrated in the discussion below.
NOAA’s data for the maximum temperatures experienced in California for the month of February 2024 as well as all February months for years from 1895 to 2023 are shown below.
NOAA’s data shows the mean February maximum temperature over its base period interval of 1901 – 2000 is 55.6 degrees F compared to California’s February 2024 maximum value of 56.0 degrees F (0.4 degrees F above the mean) as indicated in NOAA’s data table below versus the Times distorted and false claim of “2 degrees hotter than average”.
More importantly, the February 2024 maximum temperature of 56 degrees F in California is only the 62nd highest out of 130 total February recorded highest values with the 2024 temperature clearly not representing “a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” as falsely hyped by the L A Times editorial.
NOAA’s data for the maximum temperatures experienced in California for the month of March 2024 are shown below along with all other March temperatures for the years 1895 through 2023.
NOAA’s data shows a mean March maximum temperature over its base period interval of 1901 – 2000 is 60.0 degrees F compared to the states March 2024 maximum value of 59.7 degrees F (-0.3 degrees F below the mean) as indicated in NOAA’s data table below versus the Times distorted and false claim of “2 degrees hotter than average”.
More importantly, the March 2024 maximum temperature of 59.7 degrees F in California is only the 57th highest out of 130 total March recorded highest values with this temperature clearly not representing “a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” as falsely hyped by the L A Times editorial.
NOAA’s maximum temperature data for California shows that the temperatures experienced in February and March in 2024 are very close to “average” for these months (0.4 degrees above and -0.3 degrees below NOAAs base period interval 1901-2000 mean values respectively) representing only the 62nd and 57th maximum temperatures respectively experienced in California for these months out of 130 maximum measured temperatures for each of these two months.
The Times flawed claim that February and March 2024 (“the last few months” as noted in their article) are about “2 degrees above average” is based on their misrepresentation of the February and March 2024 monthly temperature outcomes by averaging these months with 9 additional previous months and then erroneously claiming these cherry-picked 10-month long intervals (May through February and June through March) mean values represent the February and March 2024 mean value outcomes which is of course incorrect.
The Times comparison is meaningless in addressing changes occurring in February and March temperatures over time because year 2024 outcomes for these months are being determined for temperatures associated with 10-month-long cherry-picked interval averages instead of averages of NOAAs February and March measured temperature outcomes over its 1895 to 2024 historical tracking period.
Additionally, it is clearly obvious on inspection of NOAA’s February and March California maximum temperature graphs shown above that nothing remotely resembling “a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” is occurring as so ridiculously hyped in the Times article.
NOAA’s monthly maximum temperature graph and data for the state of California for all months during the years 1895 through March 2024 establishes a mean maximum temperature of 70.0 degrees F during this period as shown below with by far the highest maximum temperature experienced in the state being in July 1931 during the “dust bowl” era of the 1930s along with many other year hot July and August months.
NOAA’s California maximum temperature data table (with the highest values shown below) establishes that the February and March 2024 temperatures are far below the mean 70-degree F value while representing only the 312 (56.0 degrees F) and 480 (59.7 degrees F) respectively out of the highest 1551 total data values respectively.
NOAA’s California maximum temperature data, including February and March 2024, clearly does not support the Times absurd alarmist claim that “The planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat”.
NOAA’s Contiguous U.S. Maximum Temperatures graph and data table for all months during the years 1895 through March 2024 are shown below with the mean maximum temperature of 64.0 degrees F during this period with the highest ever occurring in July 1936 and 1934 with four of the top ten occurring in the “dust bowl” 1930s era and many other year hot July and August months.
NOAA’s Contiguous U.S. maximum temperature data table (with the highest values shown below) establishes that the February and March 2024 temperatures are far below the mean 64-degree F value while representing only the 482nd (52.18 degrees F) and 618th (56.61 degrees F) respectively out of the highest 1551 total data values respectively.
NOAA’s Contiguous U.S. maximum temperature data clearly establishes that the Times alarmist claim that “The planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” is completely false.
Additionally, NOAA’s USCRN Contiguous U.S. maximum temperature anomaly data shown below for all months from January 2005 through March 2024 show no established upward trending signature for these monthly temperature anomalies during this period with the March 2024 maximum anomaly of 1.28 degrees F far below the March 2012 maximum temperature anomaly peak value of 7.72 degrees F.
The Times alarmist claims that “The planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” are false and unsupported by valid and relevant analysis of NOAA’s California and Contiguous U.S. measured maximum absolute temperature and maximum temperature anomaly data as provided above.
NOAA’s Global Time Series provides monthly average temperature anomaly data for 16 global regions which demonstrate the trend of these anomaly outcomes for these regions over varying time periods.
Shown below are results for 9 of these regions which demonstrate the significantly varied outcomes from these regions establishing the wide divergence of global climate behavior across the world that clearly illustrate global climate cannot be validly characterized by a single global average temperature anomaly value as frequently and erroneously attempted by climate alarmists.
The Times discusses NOAA global average temperature anomaly data updated through March 2024 but conceals that the global average temperature anomaly data values vary significantly throughout the world’s many differing climate regions.
Even though global CO2 levels are ubiquitous in the atmosphere the average temperature anomaly values associated with world are not homogeneous but a highly heterogeneous patchwork across the globe completely contrary to the flawed claim by climate alarmists that the global average temperature anomaly value can be used to characterize all global climate.
This patchwork discrepancy clearly demonstrates that multiple nonuniform natural weather and climate causalities dominate the global climate behavior versus the data unsupported hype that man made climate change is dominant – a highly significant outcome unaddressed by the Times.
The Times editorial concealed significant global average temperature anomaly data differences that are presented and summarized below.
NOAA’s Global Land area region average temperature anomaly measured outcome (shown by both graph and table presentations) is shown below for March 2024 revealing a decline from March 2023 (2.09 degrees C versus 2.19 degrees C respectively) with the year 2016 (with El Niño event year values of 2.52 and 2.46 degrees C in February and March respectively) remaining the highest measured average temperature anomaly outcomes.
The starting year value for these average temperature anomaly graphs is selected as year 2005 so the detail of the monthly changes in the period 2005 through 2024 are clearly visible on the graphs so that the validity or lack of validity of the L A Times editorial claim that the “planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” can be readily observed and displayed.
The Global Land area region is where Earth’s 8 billion people live. Based on NOAA’s global land area average temperature anomaly data the March 2024 anomaly value is exceeded by the prior February and March year 2016 El Niño driven outcomes which remain the highest global land average temperature anomaly values as clearly shown on the graph and table above.
The Times editorial flawed claim that the “planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” is falsified by NOAA’s Global Land region temperature data results with the year 2016 highest average temperature anomaly outcome exceeding all years from 1895 through March 2024 as provided in both NOAA graph and table values.
NOAA’s Northern Hemisphere Land area region average temperature anomaly measured outcome is shown below for March 2024 revealing the decline from March 2023 (2.39 degrees C versus 2.62 degrees C respectively) with year 2016 (an El Niño event year values of 3.17 and 3.12 degrees C in February and March respectively) remaining the highest measured average temperature anomaly outcomes.
The Times editorial flawed claim that “The planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” is falsified by NOAA’s Northern Hemisphere Land region results with year 2016 highest average temperature anomaly outcomes exceeding all years from 1895 through March 2024 as provided in both NOAA graph and table values.
NOAA’s Asia Land area region average temperature anomaly measured outcome is shown below for March 2024 revealing the decline from March 2023 (2.52 degrees C versus 4.01 degrees C respectively) with year 2020 (4.26 degrees C in February) remaining the highest average temperature anomaly measured outcome.
The Times editorial flawed claim that “The planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” is falsified by NOAA’s Asia Land region results with year 2020 highest average temperature anomaly outcome exceeding all years from 1895 through March 2024 as provided in both NOAA graph and table values.
NOAA’s Oceania Land area region average temperature anomaly measured outcome is shown below for March 2024 revealing the decline from March 2023 (0.93 degrees C versus 1.10 degrees C respectively) with year 2019 (2.61 degrees C for December 2019) remaining the highest average temperature anomaly measured outcome.
The Times editorial flawed claim that “The planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” is falsified by NOAA’s Oceania Land area region outcomes with year 2019 highest average temperature anomaly results exceeding all years from 1895 through March 2024 as provided in both NOAA graph and table values.
NOAA’s East N Pacific Land and Ocean area region average temperature anomaly measured outcome is shown below for March 2024 revealing the decline from March 2023 (0.87 degrees C versus 0.35 degrees C respectively) with year 2015 (1.76 degrees C in October) remaining the highest average temperature anomaly measured outcome.
The Times editorial flawed claim that “The planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” is falsified by NOAA’s East N Pacific Land and Ocean area region results with year 2015 highest average temperature anomaly outcome exceeding all years from 1895 through March 2024 as provided in both NOAA graph and table values.
NOAA’s Gulf of Mexico Land and Ocean area region average temperature anomaly measured outcome is shown below for March 2024 revealing the decline from March 2023 (0.95 degrees C versus 1.51 degrees C respectively) with year 2020 (1.73 degrees C in April) remaining the highest measured average temperature anomaly outcome.
The Times editorial flawed claim that “The planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” is falsified by NOAA’s Gulf of Mexico Land and Ocean area region results with year 2020 highest average temperature anomaly outcome exceeding year all years from 1895 through March 2024 as provided in both NOAA graph and table values.
NOAA’s Hawaiian Region Land and Ocean area region average temperature anomaly measured outcome is shown below for March 2024 revealing the decline from March 2023 (0.31 degrees C versus 0.61 degrees C respectively) with year 2015 (1.85 degrees C in September) remaining the highest measured average temperature anomaly outcome.
The Times editorial flawed claim that “The planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” is falsified by NOAA’s Hawaiian Land and Ocean area region results with year 2015 highest average temperature anomaly outcome exceeding all years from 1895 through March 2024 as provided in both NOAA graph and table values.
NOAA’s Arctic Land and Ocean area region average temperature anomaly measured outcome is shown below for March 2024 revealing the decline from March 2023 (2.42 degrees C versus 2.85 degrees C respectively) with year 2016 (an El Niño year 4.99 degrees C) remaining the highest measured average temperature anomaly outcome.
The Times editorial flawed claim that “The planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” is falsified by NOAA’s Arctic Land and Ocean area region results with the El Niño year 2016 highest average temperature anomaly outcome exceeding all years from 1895 through March 2024 as provided in both NOAA graph and table values.
NOAA’s Antarctic Land and Ocean region area average temperature anomaly measured outcome is shown below for March 2024 revealing the decline from March 2023 (0.24 degrees C versus 0.50 degrees C respectively) with the year 1996 (2.23 degrees C – not shown the graph time line below) remaining the highest measured average temperature anomaly outcome.
The Times editorial flawed claim that “The planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” is falsified by NOAA’s Antarctic Land and Ocean area region results with the year 1996 highest average temperature anomaly outcome (some 28 years ago) exceeding all years from 1895 through March 2024 as provided in both NOAA graph and table values.
NOAA’s graphs and tables presenting its average temperature anomaly data outcomes over the 129+ year long period from 1895 through March 2024 demonstrate that the “planets” Global Land region, Northern Hemisphere Land region, Asia Land region, Oceania Land region, East N Pacific Land and Ocean region, Gulf of Mexico Land and Ocean region, Hawaiian Land and Ocean region, Arctic Land and Ocean region and Antarctic Land and Ocean region are not experiencing “a horrifying streak of record breaking heat” outcomes.
These NOAA global regions highest ever measured average temperature anomaly results are in years 2016, 2020, 2019, 2019, 2015, 2020, 2015, 2016 and 1996 respectively.
Therefore, NOAA’s Global absolute temperature and average temperature anomaly measured data establishes that the planet is NOT “experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat”.
This L A Times hyped claim of global “horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” is falsified by NOAA’s 129+ yearlong measured climate data outcomes as measured over 9 of 16 NOAA’s global climate regions, the Contiguous U.S. and California as presented in detail in the analysis provided above.
I don’t understand how 10 months of ‘record-breaking heat’ can count as a climate emergency if it only exists on a spreadsheet.
Because that’s far more than is necessary to convince today’s average politician that it amounts to an existential threat that must be fought with trillions of $ expenditures.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
— H.L. Mencken
The average politician doesn’t need to be convinced that it’s an existential threat, only that it can be SOLD as one so as to keep them in office to “fix” it.
(As the Mencken quote points out)
“existential threat” should always be met with the question:
What does “existential threat” mean?
The straightforward definition is “threat to (one’s) existence”.
The climate emergency bromide is just plain stupid as there is NO increase in heat related deaths and weather events are NOT spiraling out of control.
What is spiraling is the climate cult delusions which means they are leftist loons.
Where is the Climate Emergency?
LINK
I posted this article in a FORUM LINK that after 31 pages of replies by climate cultists who continue to avoid hard evidence of no climate crisis because they are TERRIFIED of the truth.
To be fair to those pesky Climate Howlers, the climate crisis is always “coming” but is not here yet. They have the really BAD imaginary boogeyman of runaway global warming. Not in the next hundred years but eventually. It’s hard to claim we are in a climate crisis NOW unless you consider warmer winters a crisis.
Nut Zero has the potential to become a climate related crisis when we get blackouts.
When you are a leftist, you know everything you believe is true because it was written in a paper by some leftist with a Ph.D.
This post presents data. The LATimes Editorial Board presented an opinion based on feelings. In climate matters the two seldom match up. Especially at the LATimes. The LA Times editorial board website says it opines on important matters. This opinion published April 17.
Their previous opinion, published April 15, was “High electric bills threaten California’s clean future.” In truth, renewable driven high electric bills threaten California’s future, period.
Difficult to have it both ways in a single week. Unless you are the LA Times, where facts and logical consistency don’t matter—only feeling based opinions.
“This post presents data.”
I don’t live in LA but I know that the record highs and lows for my little spot on the globe, from NOAA, have been changed.
(I wonder what he’d find if he used TheWayBackMachine for LA’s past record highs? LA’s even cooler now than he thought?)
“the planet is NOT “experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat”.
Darn!
I keep waiting to reach the promised ‘tipping point’ so we can give up trying to control the weather and just deal with it as it happens.
I was hoping for a tipping point so I could give up my job, grab a lawn chair, and start drinking beer at 8:00 am.
Many “tipping points” have come and gone also with the projected time of seeing the consequences come and gone.
If they admit, according to what they claim, it’s too late to do anything, then it’s also too late to use “climate change” as an excuse for the Big Government power grab.
2023 was past +1.5 degrees C. and people were dying left and right. It was in all the newspapers
You can create your own tipping point by tipping up a beer(s).
Try doing that without waiting for a tipping point . . . it works!
I think you confused ‘tipping’ with ‘tippling’.
Again the author deceptively leads his rebuttal with the maximum monthly temperature ( a single data point) to supposedly contradict an article talking about “monthly temperature” (an average of numerous reading in different locations at different times).
What monthly average? An average of daily temps which isn’t actually an average daily temp at all? How do you know from the daily mid-point temp whether the month was warm or not? The mid-point temp can be driven up by higher minimum daily temps just as easily as by higher maximum daily temps. Since when is higher minimum temps considered to be a CLIMATE EMERGENCY?
Do *YOU* know what is actually happening with the temp? Does the LA Times?
One cannot take a daily maximum averaged with the daily minimum and get an accurate daily average.
Go to the NOAA weather site. Pick a city. Then average the 24 1-hour temperature readings and compare to the (max-min)/2 = average.
Once the true mean for each site is determined, RMS and RSS calculations can determine the data set mean and probable max and min values.
Integrating the temperature profile is how modern cooling/heating degree-day calculations are done. I did this a year ago for selected stations around the world. Cooling degree-day values showed mostly stagnant trends with a few having a positive trend and a few having negative trends. Heating degree-day trends, however, showed mostly up. Meaning minimum temps were driving the “average” up, not max temps. Ag studies back this up with longer growing seasons and earlier frost-free days on a global basis – a big reason for seeing harvest totals go up each year.
Climate science is not holistic at all. Looking only at temperature using faulty statistics (ever see variance, skewness, or kurtosis mentioned for the temp data?) based solely on an ill-defined “average” temp simply isn’t sufficient to make any actual claims about “climate”, especially global climate.
What you describe is what I believe is the right way.
However, what the CAGW crowd claim is not based on that.
It does not take $100k student loans to get better data.
“Go to the NOAA weather site. Pick a city. Then….”
___________________________________________
Yeah but they keep changing the numbers.
What NOAA’s Climate at a Glance said in 2017
and what they said in 2020 about Los Angeles:
There is that, and it is being exposed more and more frequently. Too bad it has to take amateur sleuths to dig it out of the noise.
Top is labeled “May to October”, so excluding winter, bottom is full year, so including winter. Apples-to-oranges.
NOAA average Temperature shows it to be false.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/national/time-series/110/tavg/1/3/1895-2024?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000&trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1895&endtrendyear=2024 for the National Time Series.
For the Global Time series also false.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series
Maybe you should do some research before shooting from the “lip”.
Exactly what science background does the LA Time editorial staff have? Do they even know what can cause an average temp to go up or down?
I went and looked. There are seven, and none have any. All have journalist backgrounds either at LA Times or other California newspapers.
They don’t need no stinking
badgesscience background. Remember, the science is settled! (/sarc)This sentence is utterly nonsensical. The global average cannot vary from region to region, because… it’s the global average. There’s only one.
The LA Times article is not referring to the global anomaly from the NOAA (which this article does everything in its power to avoid actually showing), but to the ERA5 reanalysis dataset, which does indeed show the last ten months as being the warmest on record:
The NOAA data shows 8 of the past 10 warmest months being in the last 10 months, with only 2 months in 2016 also breaking into the top spots:
Interesting, but lacking the methods and assumptions in the calculations.
Anomalies, by the way, are not defined temperatures and how the global average is calculated is not present in that chart.
Fascinating that the dashed line is the 1.5 C precipice declared by the IPCC as the point of no return.
And no tipping point yet?
Typically data visuals do not include exhaustive methodology in the table caption, and one must refer to the primary literature. But the WUWT article does not indicate any methodology, either, and is citing the same data, but no one seems to be complaining to the author, so maybe let’s spare ourselves the hand wringing.
The IPCC does not declare the 1.5 degree target as a point of no return.
the 1.5C is a totally meaningless number, pulled out of the nether region of a climate whacko at Potsdam.
The last several months have been under the influence of a strong El Nino event.
The alarmists will, of course, milk this for all they can.
Do you have any evidence this has any human causation ?
A 6’3” tall man stands on a six inch tall apple box in a room with several people. He is much taller than the other people in the room. Bnice says “the Apple box makes it so!” But would a 5’ man on the Apple box still be the tallest in the room? One must ponder.
What a stupid attempt at a childish analogy.
And again, you failed utterly to produce any evidence of human causation.
As always, bnice struggles to follow the conversation and this makes him angry, so he lashes out.
And again, you failed utterly to produce any evidence of human causation.
Doubling down on a totally moronic apple box comment.
How can I possibly be “angry” when I’m laughing so much at such a hopeless case.
The 2016 and 2023 started from about the same anomaly…
ie.. NO warming from 2016 -2023.. No fake, imaginary “apple box”
The 2023 El Nino started a lot earlier in the year and climbed more rapidly for longer and has lasted a lot longer.
Your chart uses the 2023 El Nino for all its worth…. as you have to, to support the AWG scam.
Problem for you is, there is absolutely no way this was caused by anything humans have done.
There is no “A” driving the current El Nino that you are pinning everything on.
If you think there is.. then produce the evidence.
Darn…. forgot the chart…
Oh that isn’t how trends work, bnice. But we’ve been over all this before and you were unable to learn then, how do you think this time might be different?
Playing with downvotes too…
Now for something entirely different….
Has anyone assessed the potential impact of climate on temperature?
It may be miniscule, but nevertheless, it seems it should be non-zero.
Reliable paleoclimate temperature proxies indicate a significant natural range in the average temperature. For example, Dome C ice core indicates a global temperature range of 17C.
During an interglacial, the temperature reaches its maximum a few thousand years after the peak of the upswing in northern hemisphere summer solstice sunlight due to the precession cycle then the temperature crashes about 5k to 7k years after the peak: soon after the following upswing in the precession cycle starts.
The Holcene peak around 5ka was 3C lower than the previous interglacial peak. The NH is 500 years into the next upswing. So far only Greenland is gaining ice extent but the rest of the land north of 40N will follow over the next 1000 years. Starting with accumulation on northern faces near the Arctic and then progressing down as well as south. The global temperature will fall to 6C lower than present over 10k years. This is due to ice accumulating on land and ocean level falling to increase the difference in elevation. The lapse rate plays a role.
The notion that trace amounts of CO2 can alter surface temperature is as silly as it gets. It only happens in climate models. The real world has real changes and the models will not alter that.
I left out a word. POLLEN.
My bad.
Damn. Left out the word POLLEN.
My bad.
Even if the planet is getting a few tenths of degrees hotter, how would that be an emergency?
Warmer means better living conditions, as illustrated by India having 50 times the population density of Russia (look it up for yourself)
I’m aware that climate alone is not destiny, as demonstrated eloquently by Richard Tol by pointing to Hispaniola and the Korean peninsula. Obviously communism/gang rule is much more destructive than any imagined threat such as climate change.
Still, a warmer planet is a lusher planet, especially if plants aren’t starved of carbon dioxide. The benefits are obvious: a greener Earth, bigger crops, more wildlife – in short: more life.
Though the “record heat” narrative is false, it seems to be true that the world is warming slightly. Let’s tell the world that it’s actually a good thing.
This article is far too long, contains a lie about USCRN popular among conservatives, including this website’ home page, and data mines for an unfair comparison with the false LA Times claims.
If this is the best a conservative can write, then all hope is lost in the effort to refute CAGW predictions of doom
FIRST LIE
“NOAA’s USCRN Contiguous U.S. maximum temperature anomaly for all months from January 2005 through March 2024 show no established upward trending signature for these monthly temperature anomalies during this period”
That’s a lie
The data has a STRONG upward trend of +0.34 degrees C. per decade through early 2024, more than twice as fast as the UAH GLOBAL average temperature’s rising trend since 1979 of +0.15 degrees C. per decade.
USCRN is rising at the average rate the IPCC considers to be CAGW.
The description under the USCRN chart at this website says the same thing. Another liar.
The author cherry picks two months at the peak heat of a very strong El Nino in early 2016 as the starting point for one comparison with 2024. That is obvious data mining.
MORE IMPORTANT
The LA Times is claiming hotter than average temperatures. The author repeatedly ignores the average temperature to focus on the maximum (TMAX) temperatures.
Since the post-1975 warming is mainly TMIN, rather than TMAX, his TMAX choice is suspicious data mining.
This article needed one paragraph to compare the LA Times +2 degree warmer BS with the actual AVERAGE temperature anomaly for February 2024 and March 2024, which I did not even notice here.
Another paragraph could explain how the LA Times cooked the books, which was included here.
This was potentially a two paragraph article stretched into a tedious inaccurate diatribe.
Richard Greene
(BS, MBA and DRCS)
DRCS = Don Rickles Charm School graduate.
Even of true, why would a warmer than usual February and March be horrifying? Sounds like good news to me.
How long did it take for the first ice to melt the tree to grow and how warm would have to be for all this to happen?
And all those permafrost peat beds the climate worriers get all anxious about…
… how did they ever grow! 😉
Or this one. Same idea.
https://www.icelandreview.com/news/3000-year-old-trees-excavated-under-glacier/
I have asked the Times to change their headline to:
“Los Angeles is experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking L. A. Times BS”
A survey of LA Times insiders revealed the +2 degrees was pulled out of a hat, after a big dog ate their NOAA source documents, stamped “Revision 185”, which came in an envelope from China, with no return address.
Even if these allegations of record-breaking heat were true, what evidence exists that the temperatures are having serious negative effects on people’s health, population growth, infant mortality, life expectancies, agricultural output, food production, and environmental well-being? Is there positive proof that weather events are causing more damage and deaths? Why aren’t consumers adopting greener lifestyles and demanding more government action to forestall the impacts of these higher temperatures? Little or none of this is happening, so why lose sleep over a slight warming that can be associated with the natural season-to-season fluctuations?
Mixing hundreds of thousands of daily high and low temperature measurements together, incorporating estimated temperatures for stations with missing data, cooking them with statistical manipulations, and declaring the average result is a “record” is like taking every 100-meter sprint result of every officially-timed track meet, averaging them, and declaring the average result is a record. Except the averaged 100-meter results would be more accurate because the data wouldn’t have estimated data standing in for missing measurements. That’s the current (low) bar in climate science “observations”.
Statistical descriptors are *NOT* data. They are not measurements. They are exactly what they are named and nothing more. Every time you average you lose information unless you also provide other statistical descriptors that describe the data, descriptors like range, variance, skewness, and kurtosis. The current “global average” is meaningless by itself. You can’t tell from it whether maximum temps are going up, minimum temps are going up, or a combination of effects is happening. The sad thing is that if minimums are going up while maximums are not that is a *good* thing and we shouldn’t be trying to ruin our civilization as a response.
Cold is by far the bigger threat.
This study shows that about 4.6 million die each year from cold-related causes compared to about 500,000 that die each year from cold-related causes.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
Humans have a great air conditioning system. When trained we can run 30 miles in marathons without overheating, much more than most other animals.
TIP TIP
Washington electric vehicle rebates up to $9,000 available beginning in August | News | dailyrecordnews.com
I suspect other media will have the same story.
Who pays !!
And what do they do with the EVs in a few years time, when they are totally worthless.
Poor little red thumber.. doesn’t like the questions.. or the answers it would have to give.
Sad. 🙂
Tax payers pay.
Debt causes inflation so everyone who does not have Scrooge McDuck money bins pays.
Even Scrooge McDuck pays, but his wealth is such that he doesn’t notice the payment amount–not like us little, poor guys.
…
Hot, cold, rain, drought, storm, ice, sea levels, fires……
Left out dark of night.
But then Postal Workers no longer follow that creed.
Could be. Or not. Someday.
Anyway, they do not claim that nations would wiped off by the year 2000. They say nations could be wiped off eventually, if the warming is not reversed by 2000. This is like predicting second advent of Christ and Doomsday, which can be done permanently. All they have to do is to shift the target day, say that it is still not too late to act, that trillions need to be spent now to prevent the disaster.
It figures: the LA Times trying to do one-upmanship on UN Secretary-General Guterres, who recently declared “the era of global boiling has arrived” (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/27/the-era-of-global-boiling-has-arrived-says-un-boss-antonio-guterres.html )
Fools all.
“horrifying“