On episode 108 of The Climate Realism Show, special guest James Taylor, president of The Heartland Institute and the founding director of Heartland’s Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy, presents data refuting multiple climate change myths.
James recently took part in a debate called “THE DUEL OF THE THEORIES ON GLOBAL WARMING” with Professor Harold R. Wanless, professor in the Department of Geography and Sustainable Development at the University of Miami and author of The Invading Sea. Taylor covers topics such as global temperatures, sea level rise, crop production, hurricanes, and tornadoes, citing data from peer-reviewed sources in the process.
Join host Anthony Watts, and The Heartland Institute’s H. Sterling Burnett as we do some play-by-play analysis. Plus, as always, the Crazy Climate News of the Week. Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET (12 p.m. CT) for the kind of climate realism you can’t find anywhere else, and join the chat to get your questions answered, too.
WATCH LIVE (or the recording later) HERE.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
OT: On Dr. Spencer’s site, troll The Final Nail claims you haven’t posted UAH anomaly for April yet because you’re trying to sneak it in when few will notice.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1664769
Speaking of UAH…the downtrend since 2016 is no longer intact and as water vapor from the Hunga Tonga eruption diminished the temperature marched up. What do you make of that?
How much water vapor has fallen out of the stratosphere? Its spatial distribution has changed, in any case.
El Niño contributed to warmth. As it fades in coming months, global T should fall.
We’ll see. Other factors are also in play. One thing we can be sure of however is that CO2 can’t explain the bump up last summer.
Will the UAH observations cause you to reconsider the factors you used to make your earlier predictions?
What predictions? I don’t recall predicting the 2016-23 cooling would last indefinitely. Indeed I wouldn’t have forecasted three Las Niñas in a row in 2020. I was surprised strong El Niño 2019-20 didn’t have more effect.
“June anomaly was 0.38 C, up from 0.37 in May. El Niño effect should continue warming the air, but the downtrend from 2016 should remain intact.”
“As water from the Tonga eruption leases the stratosphere, global average temperature should continue dropping.”
Please provide links for context.
The trend did remain intact until late 2023. I didn’t predict indefinite cooling. Indeed, quite the opposite:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/08/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-3759498
We’re still in the Modern Warm Period, so the secular trend is up. But I don’t think IPCC predicted The Pause or the seven-year post-2015-16 Super El Niño cooling, both under 25 years of increasing CO2.
Indeed, without the Tongan eruption, 2023-24 El Niño might not have ended the cyclic down trend, as prior El Niño didn’t.
Do you think 1.05 C in UAH is the top or do you think it will eventually go higher?
I don’t know. It will take a long time for all that water to leave the stratosphere, but the end of recent El Nino could mean a lower anomaly for May 2024.But I can’t say what might happen in the rest of the year. A subaerial volcanic eruption or La Nina could lower near term anomalies.
I think a lower value for May or at least soon thereafter is a good call. Let me reword the question…do you think 1.05 C or whatever the peak is for this ENSO cycle is the top or do you think it will eventually go higher?
Just a guess, but IMO that’s about it. Maybe a fraction higher, but IMO it’s peaking or has peaked. Stratospheric water mass appears to have stabilized.
If I were trading that chart, I’d sell but not short, given El Nino as a technical indicator.
What is the measurement uncertainty associated with that 1/05C? Do you have a clue? Not the standard deviation of the sample means but the *measurement* uncertainty!
Why should a few months of barely warmer “global” temperatures change anything? Look at the whole graph of 40 years and see how many times an El Niño bumped temperatures up briefly, yet none of us registered anything noticeably different. Weather kept weathering, skiers kept skiing, beachgoers kept beachgoing, and the Obamas bought a house right next to the ocean, apparently unconcerned about that supposedly catastrophic sea level rise the alarmists have been bleating about for decades, that hasn’t happened.
Brief warm spikes, followed by cooling. Average “global” temperature anomaly over 45 years is up about 0.6 ºC, or around 1.3 ºC per century, but there is no way to know if that continues for any length of time. According to statistical aggregation of terrestrial measurements (however much you trust them), it warmed to 1880 then cooled for 30 years. It warmed from 1910 to 1940-ish and cooled for 30 years. Who knows what will happen next?
For those that predicted that warming had stopped it should force them to rethink their theories.
The thing to note is that the “Tropics” (probably some 35% of Earth’s surface) has started to decline.
The Tropics is where the El Nino energy emanates from.
note, I did ask Roy what % of the surface each column represents, maybe he will include it when the full data comes out.
… so the 35% is just a quick guestimate.
Wiki:
The tropics constitute 39.8% of Earth’s surface area and contain 36% of Earth’s landmass. As of 2014, the region was home also to 40% of the world’s population, and this figure was then projected to reach 50% by 2050.
As I said.. only a guestimation.. 😉
UAH state it uses 20N-20S so less that the Wiki “Tropics” (+-23.4 degrees latitude)
Same as UAH NoPol is not the Arctic circle, but from 60N.
So polar area more than actual and tropics less, based on the planet’s changing tilt. Except not sure if satellites can see above 80 degrees N and S. But we know from the South Pole station that there has been no warming there since start of continuous observation in 1958. Yet that’s just where CO2 should have had the greatest warming effect, although without much feedback from more water vapor.
My understanding is the satellite go to 85N and 80S, so they really don’t miss much of the surface.
My calcs say above 85N is about 2.8% of the area above 60N (UAH NoPol stated boundary.)
Also, if you read up on things, because of the extreme cold, it is more than likely that, if CO2 has any affect in the Antarctic at all, it might actually be a cooling effect.
Great that you admit there is no human causation.
It’s all human-caused.
Natural variation. That’s what I make of it. Just like the last 170 years. Nothing of consequence other than an extraordinarily beneficial warm climate which is preferable to the cold climates that dominated most of the last million years. But I’m a glass-half-full kind of guy who looks at the big picture, not a pathological chronic worrier that obsesses over minutiae.
Mostly cold over the last 800k years.
The Holocene hasn’t yet neared, let alone exceeded, Eemian balminess, without benefit of a Neanderthal industrial revolution.
My question was meant specifically Milo since he made two predictions that didn’t pan out.
And the climate howlers have made HUNDREDS of predictions that didn’t pan out..
Your point is…. pointless.
What were those?
In June I said if it kept warming up at that rate, the cooling trend from 2/16 would reverse.
You haven’t linked to my posts, just cut and pasted the parts you wanted.
I literally linked your posts. On July 5th 2023 you said the downtrend trend from 2016 should remain intact. It didn’t. On January 3rd 2024 you said the global average temperature should continue dropping. It didn’t.
You gussied them up. Milo probably overlooked them. I missed them too.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/03/climatetv-at-last-a-real-debate-the-duel-of-the-theories-on-global-warming/#comment-3904744
bd, leave the burbs this weekend. Cinco de Mayo at Nebraska and Cherokee street today (5/4?). St. Ambrose/Italian Hill festival tomorrow.
I know that Clyde Spencer whines about virtue signaling, but if he lived somewhere that was e bikeable, and had destinations worth riding to, he’d be wrenching on his training wheels and going for it.
I wish I could. I’ve been so busy at work lately and traveling a lot already. I’m damn close to the companion pass with Southwest and it’s only May.
An utterly clueless comment well done for making a fool of yourself
First…I’m not the one who made predictions that didn’t pan out.
Second…making predictions that don’t pan out isn’t a sign of foolishness. It’s a sign that someone wants to test his hypothesis and learn.
Third…my intent here isn’t to rub salt in the wounds. It’s to get Milo to reconsider the theory upon which those hypothesis were formed. I’ll remind people that my own predictions often fail to pan out as well. For example I predicted a peak much lower for this ENSO cycle than what actually occurred. It is forcing me to reconsider my previous position that the warning rate has not accelerated.
Milo,
The moderators know that TFN is a bozo. If they really cared about his opinion, he would have been removed from the platform a long time ago.
I guess I needn’t have added an entry to the Bozo Chronicles. TFN can be counted on further to beclown itself when the April UAH report be posted here.
Yep. I think one has to send their post here in order for it to be posted. Maybe Roy hasn’t done that yet.
It often takes Anthony a couple of days to put UAH up.
He’s a busy boy ! 😉
Fungal is just a whiney little whinger, that is all.
Fungal is also a monkey.
A Whinger Monkey is worse than a Howler Monkey. If not as loud, more annoying. The Whinger has but one note in its repertoire.
Notice the Youtube propaganda pasted over the video. Just like you can’t use search engines any more to find honest debate about OMG, the World is Burning!!!
There are to my understanding four (4) theories for global warming. Which one of the 4 is correct?
mkelly:
And the 4 theories are?
Short and sweet but those are the 4 I can think of there may be more. Any that blame CO2 are wrong.
To me, the two hypotheses to account for whatever warming has been observed since AD 1850, ie end of the Little Ice Age Cool Period, are:
1) Earth is warming unusually due to human activity, not normal natural variation, or
2) Nothing out of the ordinary is happening to Earth’s climate, so no special explanation is needed.
Put another way, the null hypothesis can’t be rejected, eg sea level rise hasn’t accelerated above its rate since the depths of the LIACP during the Maunder Minimum, c. 1690. The CO2 climatic control knob hypothesis was born falsified, in both senses of the term.
Milo:
Of your 2 hypotheses’, the first is correct. But it is NOT due to CO2.
Human activity clearly has local to regional warming effects, but IMO the global impact is negligible. Things we do also cool the planet.
mkelly:
You had wondered “which of the 4 is correct”.
You have answered your own question. “any but CO2 are wrong”, leaving No. 4, but what IS No. 4?
#4 is new to me it is that since CO2 causes energy to stay in the atmosphere longer it must therefore cause warming,
But no accounting of how much more energy is required just to offset the 30+ giga tonnes of CO2 is added each year.
Resident time means nothing if the mass increases.
#1 is correct and explains the greenhouse effect which is responsible for keeping the planet about 60F warmer than it would be if there were no atmospheric ghgs. And mans burning of fossil fuels accounts for all of the 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 seen since 1750, and is the primary cause of the fastest warming of the planet over the last 10,000 years.
James Taylor:
I note that your graphs for Florida temperatures ended around 2015. What has happened since then?
Sea level rise was less than 4 ft per century when the continental ice sheets were melting 12000 years ago. To predict 8 ft. per century is not reasonable.
Except that all the massively thick continental ice sheets are gone, except Greenland and Antarctica..
And at their current freezing temperatures, they aren’t going anywhere.
Yes it is reasonable — because the rise is accelerating.
Very glad I watched the whole 1:20. Great job. Somebody should force Al Gore and John Kerry… and Joe Biden… to watch the whole thing. But Joe could probably not stay awake for it however.