Essay by Eric Worrall
Some places are warmer than usual, some places are colder than usual. Did anyone else notice the end of the world?
The ‘extraordinary’ record-breaking data that has climate experts baffled
New heat records have been set every day since March last year. Scientists are confused and concerned about the worrying data.
Published 15 June 2024 6:38am
Updated 15 June 2024 8:30am
By Charis ChangEvery day since March last year, daily heat records are reaching new heights and multiple climate records have been broken.
The “extraordinary” and unexpected phenomenon has concerned the world’s climate scientists, who fear the severe impacts of global warming are emerging sooner than expected and may leave us in “uncharted territory”.
…
The University of Maine’s Climate Reanalyzer platform shows new daily records have been set for sea surface temperatures since around mid-March last year.
…
In February, it was revealed the Earth had recorded land surface temperatures above the 1.5C Paris Agreement target for the first time.
…
“What we are seeing is extraordinary, and concerning,” Australian National University professor Mark Howden told SBS News.
“Breaking records continuously over a 12-month or more period is extraordinary.”
Howden said the higher than normal ocean temperatures also boosted temperatures over land.
“We are consequently seeing extraordinary temperatures over the land as well, impacting on human health and wellbeing, agricultural production, water availability, economic productivity and the environment to name just a few of the affected domains,” he said.
…
Read more: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/daily-heat-records-keep-getting-broken-its-leaving-experts-baffled/x7h38zakp
Meanwhile back in the real world, while much of the USA swelters in a heatwave, other places are experiencing cold weather.
Brrr-itish summer: why is it so cold and when will it get warmer?
Below-average temperatures and rain may feel more miserable because heatwaves are now seen as the norm
Ian Sample
Science editor Fri 14 Jun 2024 21.47 AESTLast modified on Sat 15 Jun 2024 04.05 AESTFrom the water coolers to the WhatsApp groups, the question remains the same: what has happened to the British weather, and is there any sign of summer hiding in the forecasters’ models?
Halfway through an unseasonably cold June, a shift is already under way. But that doesn’t mean it is time to break out the barbie. Having endured chill winds blowing down from the north, the shift in weather will bring warmer, if not quite warm, temperatures, and with it, sporadic downpours and even thunderstorms.
“It feels like quite a contrast from last year when we were all experiencing a heatwave with about 30C temperatures in south-east England,” says Dr Matt Patterson, a climate physicist at the University of Reading. “It’s not like that this year.”
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jun/14/brrr-itish-summer-why-is-it-so-cold-when-will-it-get-warmer
While Moscow is currently experiencing warm weather, a few months ago it was a different story;
Temperatures in Siberia dip to minus 56 Celsius as record snow blankets Moscow
By Reuters
December 5, 202312:58 AM GMT+10MOSCOW, Dec 4 (Reuters) – Temperatures in parts of Siberia plummeted to minus 56 degrees Celsius (minus 69 degrees Fahrenheit) on Monday while blizzards blanketed Moscow in record snowfall and disrupted flights as winter weather swept across Russia.
In the Sakha Republic, located in the northeastern part of Siberia and home to Yakutsk, one of the world’s coldest cities, temperatures fell below minus 50 C, according to the region’s weather stations.
…
Almost all of Sakha is located in the permafrost zone. In the region’s capital, Yakutsk, which lies some 5,000 km (3,100 miles) east of Moscow, the temperature was around minus 44 C to minus 47 C.
…
Read more: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/temperatures-siberia-dip-minus-50-celsius-record-snow-blankets-moscow-2023-12-04/
China is experiencing a heatwave, like the USA;
China’s record heat and heavy rain raise food security concerns
By Edward Szekeres, Fred Hu and Robert Shackelford, CNN
Published 7:23 AM EDT, Fri June 14, 2024Hong KongCNN —
China is grappling with extreme weather as severe drought and record temperatures scorch the north while heavy rains inundate the south, raising concerns about food security in the world’s second-largest economy.
Areas of the country that produce a lot of rice and wheat have been badly affected, disrupting spring and summer planting seasons.
The Ministry of Agriculture said Thursday that drought and heat have had an adverse impact on the planting season in some northern and central provinces, and it warned that temperatures were expected to surpass 35 Celsius (95 Fahrenheit) in the coming days.
…
Read more: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/14/business/china-record-heat-rain-food-security-intl-hnk/index.html
Large parts of Australia are unusually cold;
Prolonged cold snap across eastern Australia to last at least a week
By ABC meteorologist Tom Saunders
Posted Fri 14 Jun 2024 at 5:14amFriday 14 Jun 2024 at 5:14am, updated Fri 14 Jun 2024 at 5:01pm
After Melbourne recorded it coldest day in five years yesterday, parts of south-east Australia today have shivered to their coldest maximum in up to 27 years.
The chilly weather is part of a prolonged cold outbreak which will last another week.
Some of the lowest maximums today include:
- Longerenong 7.9C — coldest day in 27 years
- Horsham 8.1C – coldest day in 8 years
- Hopetoun 8.3C – coldest day in 4 years
- Charlton 8.3C — coldest day in 4 years
- Nhill 8.3C – coldest day in 22 years
- Keith 8.9C – coldest day in 18 years
- Swan Hill 9.1C — coldest day in 4 years
The most extreme anomalies are being experienced under a band of rain from south-east South Australia, through western and central Victoria to southern New South Wales, where maximums dropped as much as seven below average for June.
…
Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-14/nsw-cold-snap-south-east-australia-melbourne/103975574
South America has experienced cold weather recently;
An unusual autumn freeze grips parts of South America, giving Chile its coldest May in 74 years
Updated 11:55 AM AEST, May 18, 2024Share
SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) — Chileans are bundling up for their coldest autumn in more than 70 years mere days after sunning in T-shirts — a dramatic change of wardrobe brought on this week by a sudden cold front gripping portions of South America unaccustomed to bitter wind chills this time of year.
Temperatures broke records along the coast of Chile and in Santiago, the capital, dipping near freezing and making this month the coldest May that the country has seen since 1950, the Chilean meteorological agency reported.
An unusual succession of polar air masses has moved over southern swaths of the continent, meteorological experts say, pushing the mercury below zero Celsius (32 Fahrenheit) in some places. It’s the latest example of extreme weather in the region — a heat wave now baking Mexico, for instance — which scientists link to climate change.
…
Read more: https://apnews.com/article/chile-argentina-paraguay-cold-weather-e0aee88ea6475f0665283aa08cf0a313
Just as well we’ve got climate scientists to tell us we’re experiencing a climate emergency. Otherwise all of this would look just like weather.
Update (EW): h/t Nick – forgot to add the reference to 1.5C to the first quoted article.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I had an emergency on Friday, four wheeling to one of my favorite mountain lakes and getting stuck by snow. Had to walk the last couple of miles and found the lake still mostly iced over. This was quite unusual for mid-June.
“Climate Scientists Panic about 1.5C Breach”
Not a single scientist (or anyone else) is quoted panicking about 1 1.5C breach.
They emphasize it as a critical threshold, but in reality, everything will stay the same.
Actually, they don’t. It is a target for governments etc to aim for. Scientists don’t say it is a critical threshold.
Wrong:
Michael Mann: Yes, we can still stop the worst effects of climate change. Here’s why.
By Michael E. Mann published November 14, 2023
If thermal inertia was all there was, keeping warming below the “dangerous” 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) level would be nearly impossible, given that warming is already near that level, at approximately 1.2 C (2.2 F).
(boldface mine)
Nick finally agrees that Michael Mann is not a scientist. I think that is progress.
Maybe Nick will admit that these people aren’t scientists either:
(boldface mine)
They are scientists,but they aren’t panicking. They say 1.5C is probably unachievable and 3C would be a better target.
Nick, it seems that these folks thought the 1.5 was a critical threshold. No?
According to Chat GPT here are some notable quotes from scientists discussing the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold and its associated dangers:
1. **Debra Roberts**, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II:
– “The next few years are probably the most important in our history. The decisions we make today are critical in ensuring a safe and sustainable world for everyone, both now and in the future. This report gives policymakers and practitioners the information they need to make decisions that tackle climate change while considering local context and people’s needs.”
2. **Hans-Otto Pörtner**, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II:
– “Every extra bit of warming matters, especially since warming of 1.5°C or higher increases the risk associated with long-lasting or irreversible changes, such as the loss of some ecosystems. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared with 2°C would reduce challenging impacts on ecosystems, human health, and well-being and make it easier to achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.”
3. **Jim Skea**, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group III:
– “Limiting warming to 1.5°C is possible within the laws of chemistry and physics, but doing so would require unprecedented changes. The report shows that we are already seeing the consequences of 1°C of global warming through more extreme weather, rising sea levels, and diminishing Arctic sea ice, among other changes.”
4. **Valérie Masson-Delmotte**, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I:
– “Climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and economic growth are projected to increase with global warming of 1.5°C and increase further with 2°C. Limiting warming to 1.5°C could reduce the number of people both exposed to climate-related risks and susceptible to poverty by up to several hundred million by 2050.”
5. **Panmao Zhai**, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I:
– “We are already seeing the consequences of 1°C of global warming through more extreme weather, rising sea levels, and diminishing Arctic sea ice, among other changes. At 1.5°C, we would expect even greater impacts, including a significant increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. This would mean more heatwaves, more intense storms, and more devastating impacts on communities and economies.”
6. **Myles Allen**, Professor of Geosystem Science at the University of Oxford and IPCC Lead Author:
– “If temperatures rise to 2°C above pre-industrial levels, we will be faced with severe consequences. These include more severe and prolonged droughts, increased flood risk, significant threats to biodiversity and ecosystems, and drastic impacts on agricultural productivity. Staying within the 1.5°C limit would significantly reduce these risks and provide a safer and more stable climate.”
7. **Mark Howden**, Director of the Climate Change Institute at the Australian National University:
– “A rise to 1.5°C brings us dangerously close to triggering critical tipping points in the climate system, such as the irreversible melting of the Greenland ice sheet. This could lead to multi-meter sea level rise over centuries, impacting millions of people living in coastal regions. Additionally, warming of 1.5°C is expected to result in substantial species extinction, with serious repercussions for ecosystems and human societies that rely on biodiversity.”
“What we are seeing is extraordinary, and concerning.
Professor Mark Howden, Australian National University”
Come on Nick .
Contact your marxist totalitarian comrade, and tell him to stop making panicked comments…
I dare you. !!
“It’s in Australia’s best interests to act”
Absolutely NOT.
Australia’s best interests would be served by building a new coal fired power stations in each state, and putting an immediate stop to all wind turbines and grid solar.
You friends with Bill McGuire, too Nick ??
Opinion: I’m a climate scientist. If you knew what I know, you’d be terrified too | CNN
Yes Nick, we know you think they’re brilliant:
Nick,
Can you not accept that the originally dominant, then captured and altered, proposition that we have to change our fuel use for CO2 reduction to avoid some increased air temperature like 1.5C — is preposterous and wrong and likely to lead to many avoidable human deaths?
That the alternative, to do nothing about 1.5 C, carries no proven threat of more than little significance?
No, that’s not a peer-reviewed study published by a “climate scientist” telling him what to think. Your comment would require actual evaluation of disparate lines of evidence and critical thinking.
Mr. Sherro: Based on observation, Mr. Stokes would rather engage in sophistry about the word “panic” than engage in a productive discussion about the loonies on his side.
than engage in a productive discussion about the loonies on his side.
I have yet to see any believer call them out in any way.
Perfect!
“Dangerous” does not mean “panic” in your world?
Of course they panic about it- which is why so many nations are planning on spending hundreds of trillions of dollars/pounds/Euros to stop it.
Target for what?
Who are “they”?
“boldface mine”
Yes, but the quotes (“dangerous”) are Mann’s. He isn’t panicking about 1.5C. He is just saying we’re almost there.
I think that, just this once, Nick Stokes may be correct. I doubt if any “Climate Scientist” with an IQ score greater than their hat size is really much bothered about 1.5°C, or even 3.0°C temperature rise since the end of the Little Ice Age.
But their efforts to scare politicians, the media and the public at large have been absolutely tremendous. Maybe the fact that their remuneration and career advancement absolutely hinges on their scaremongering (and not giving the game away by laughing), is why they are so good at it?
Their REAL panick is seeing that, very slowly, people are realising that it is all 99.96% hoax and only 0.04% science.
With you in this Martin. According to BoM temperature data we have been over 1.5C since 1850 after the 2020 El Nino and nobody in government noticed. The recent warming surge in 2023 is mostly in the Northern Hemisphere as Australia recorded one of its coolest and wettest Summer and Spring in a decade. The Bom’s computer models just are not good enough especially with AGW input to provide any accurate forecasts, they need to go back and start from scratch.
Additionally, further down he wrote:
Why would he opt to use the word ‘must’?
Because he’s paid to say it.
Note that relating to the hoax of CAGW the ‘science’ is bound up in a story using terms such as – might, could, more than likely, possible, probably, may cause, indicating, correlation, low/medium/high probability etc, etc.
However, to fix the non-existent CO2 problem, humans must stop using hydrocarbons.
Or “critical”?
“Why would he opt to use the word ‘must’?”
Because, as a scientist, he is explaining what is needed to meet that target. But it is governments which set the target.
“But it is governments which set the target.”
Well now that we have reached it.
Onward and upward to the next, new, revised target. ! 🙂
Yes, and another deadly climate prediction has passed with hardly any notice from the elite worriers. How they keep a straight face whilst spouting their dire predictions is beyond me, but then science is beyond their comprehension anyway! Political ideology is all they know or care about, not the Planet.
Are you joking or just using a red herring assertion to deflect? Show us evidence that governments have set a ΔT target based only on their own research with no input at all from climate scientists.
Anyone who has kept track of all the propaganda knows this isn’t the case and I can’t imagine why you even pose this as the actual truth!
And you think that excuse applies also to his use of ‘critical’?
….. and all without even knowing how a 50% reduction in emissions would relate to the temperature when ECS isn’t known (and he doesn’t even know what ECS is, or why it would be in his 3 component arithmetic formula, and doesn’t know what the word arithmetic means, and so on and so forth).
And “critical”.
Ask ‘the man in the street’ what the ‘dangerous limit’ is and he/she/it would likely answer ‘1.5C”. They are the ones that put the scare-mongering pro-ruinables into power (e.g. Albasleazy and Blackout Bowen in Oz)
What matters is what the non-scientific voters think, not the word salad, obfuscating words of scientists.
OK, not scientists panicking, then. The man in the street?
And “climate scientists” doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to counter it.
Therefore CONDONING IT.
Why wouldn’t they.. keeps the funds flowing.
They called them “collaborators” in the 1940s and it didn’t end well for them. Charles de Gaulle summed it up for French collaborator #1, Pétain:
led his successor Charles de Gaulle to declare that Pétain’s life was “successively banal, then glorious, then deplorable, but never mediocre”.
There goes Nick ignoring all the quotes from the IPCC Working Group co-chairs. Are they not “scientists”?
You give a $h!t what the scientific fraud says to dupe voters?
And Mann is like— the Albert Einstein of climate scientists! 🙂
No, Einstein issued a challenge for just 1 person to disprove his hypothesis.
Mann’s required 2 – Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.
The former was unsuccessful.
The latter was – well, even the IPCC dropped Mann’s graph cartoon from its propaganda.
I think you missed the sarcasm.
No, I got it Jim.
Just “adding context” as the bullshitters like Nick say when they’re found out.
ROFLMAO.
Never seen such childish back-pedalling denialism in all my life. !!
You are all of the 3 stooges combined into one, Nick. !!
How are they going to aim for it without knowing ECS?
Answer: They don’t give a rat’s a$$ and don’t know how to work a calculator anyway.
(Not to mention that ECS is going to turn out to be zero +/- virtually nothing at current CO2 levels).
“Scientists are confused …” I thought the science was settled. How can they be confused?
And you are correct, Nick, it has always been a target, originally a stretch goal from the UN to encourage greater efforts to avoid the original political goal of 2C. However, since the 1.5C goal was proposed, it has been turned into a disaster inflection point, as noted by other commenters.
Scientists don’t say it is a critical threshold.
So then what’s the big deal?
IS there a “critical threshold” and if so what is it?
https://www.state.gov/remarks-to-the-press-at-the-conclusion-of-the-un-climate-change-conference-cop28/
Thanks for the heads up about the IPCC report (warning about a 1.5C tipping point) not having anything to do with science!
So what did the IPCC say about 1.5C?
If you ask scientists, they will just say, if you want to stop AGW, bring down CO2 starting now. As matter of governance that is of course not possible, but that isn’t a scientific issue. It is for governments, who decided a 1.5C target was a reasonable compromise.
So what you are saying is 1.5c is a political exercise and not scientifically important. I can live with that.
It is a target set on the way to the important task of getting CO2 levels down.
“It is a target set on the way to the important task of getting CO2 levels down.”
No, it is a meaningless number pulled out of the nether regions of one of the climate troughers at Potsdam.
The very last thing we should be doing is reducing atmospheric CO2.
“The task” is not just unimportant, it is moronically stupid.
Anyone would think that Nick hasn’t read Lindzen, Happer and van Wijngaarden (2024).
I have. If you use am empirically derived estimate of climate sensitivity, you will see that, using their crude formula, we will breach the 1.5 C threshold even if we reduce emissions to net zero immediately. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/06/12/net-zero-averted-temperature-increase/#comment-3927078
I went to your link thank you, and saw that you forgot to subtract out the pre-1940 or so baseline warming. You climate sensitivity folks always seem to forget that minor detail. Almost seems like it could be deliberate, but only science frauds would do that, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Now, all you have to do is subtract out the recent El nino warming, and there you have it in a round number. ZERO.
Please demonstrate why it is important – your word.
Agreed. Nick seems to want to be scientifically accurate and precise in nitpicking other people’s comments but then uses evidence-free assertions to try to support the hoax.
The only thing Climate Alarmists have are evidence-free assertions.
“if you want to stop AGW, bring down CO2 starting now.”
Which of course is totally scientifically unsupportable BS.
But you KNOW that, don’t you Nick.
Have you sent a stern letter to the UN chief yet , Nick ??
And told him to stop his moronic caterwauling.
Or to Albo and bow-wow ??
Surely at the next election you won’t vote for Labor with such LIARS about PANICKERS about climate as their leaders.
Write to them. tell you think all their idiotic measures for wind and solar are totally unnecessary because the temperature rise is nothing to PANIC about.
LMAO.
Some may, but any informed real scientist knows that CO2 is not significant.
I’m a scientist and nobody has ever asked me. Aren’t you being a little hypocritical when nitpicking every little word and nuance that someone else says, then making an unscientific overgeneralization of what “scientists” would say if you ask them?
There are a hell of a lot more real scientists than climate scientists that would say the exact opposite of what you claim all scientists would say.
From Nick’s mates at the “Climate Council”
(A pack of unelected AGW scammers, zealots and whingers in Australia)
Nah.. no panic at all there, is there Nick !!
Of course, science does not support AGW or any dangerous consequences of warming, and reducing CO2 will not reduce global warming from natural causes anyway. Given China and the BRICS nations control 2/3 of the world industrial output and related CO2 emissions, anything our smaller democratic nations do to limit CO2 will have zilch effect globally, so why would a responsible government continue with supporting the Paris Agreement protocols?
As Dutton implied Australia should reject the 2030 climate schedule and renewables manifesto pushed by the deluded Labor and rabid Green parties, and instead seek energy reliability and cheaper power using conventional sources, that will bring down escalating living costs. The immanent domestic power failure brought on by credulous politicians in support of the global power grab by the UN/EU socialists, must be recognized and measures taken to consolidate our energy security for now and the future. Climate astrology will not solve our climate/energy mess, only commonsense, conservative cost/benefit economics, good engineering plus a social license and environmental humanism will solve these issues. Do we have the requisite politicians to achieve this?
Propagandists have a number of rules they follow in order to maintain their propaganda. One of those rules is,
Just another rhetorical trick of the propagandists.
And from the WEF.
Many people, experts and otherwise, have complex emotional responses to climate change.Climate anxiety or eco-anxiety can be described as a “chronic fear of environmental doom”.
OH NOOOOoooo !!!
And no doubt Nick is a friend of Peter Kalmus !
What grief for a dying planet looks like: Climate scientists on the edge | Climate Crisis News | Al Jazeera
“Not a single scientist (or anyone else) is quoted panicking about 1.5C breach.”
The BBC and all the usual suspects did the panicking for them. Not even you Mr Stokes can bring yourself to make a balanced observation on this as per usual …
Nick has never made a balanced observation on anything.
Always twisted and taint by his previous employment and his deep marxist tendencies.
Nick, I can only gently suggest that you pay a little more attention to world news.
“UN Secretary-General António Guterres delivered another speech critical of the failure to make progress on climate action. In the opening remarks for his Climate Ambition Summit, he said ‘humanity has opened the gates of hell‘ warning we are heading toward a ‘dangerous and unstable world.’ “
” ‘Our focus here is on climate solutions – and our task is urgent. Humanity has opened the gates of hell. Horrendous heat is having horrendous effects. Distraught farmers watching crops carried away by floods, sweltering temperatures spawning disease and thousands fleeing in fear as historic fires rage. Climate action is dwarfed by the scale of the challenge,’ Guterres said in his remarks.”
“If nothing changes, we are heading towards a 2.8-degree {deg-F, TSY} temperature rise – towards a dangerous and unstable world.”
— https://abcnews.go.com/International/humanity-opened-gates-hell-secretary-general-climate-urgency/story , dated Sept 2023
(my bold emphasis added)
If that bold text is not Guterres wanting to instill panic in the world, I don’t know what would be.
And, yes, 2.8 deg-F is right at 1.5 deg-C.
“And, yes, 2.8 deg-F is right at 1.5 deg-C.”
Guterres, speaking to the UN, is not using °F. I don’t know what prediction of 2.8°C he is talking about, but it would be more dangerous and unstable.
His remarks continued were:
“If nothing changes we are heading towards a 2.8 degree temperature rise – towards a dangerous and unstable world.
But the future is not fixed.
It is for leaders like you to write it.
We can still limit the rise in global temperature to 1.5 degrees. We can still build a world of clear air, green jobs, and affordable clean power for all. “
“towards a dangerous and unstable world. “
So.. MANIC PANIC.
As well as being absolutely scientific NONSENSE.
Thanks for the quote, bozo !!
The rest of Gutty’s words are just meaningless anti-science mantra gibberish.
But you know that, don’t you NIck.
The math explained, based on the second-to-last sentence of your quote (thank you!):
In it, Guterres clearly states: “We can still limit the rise in global temperature to 1.5 degrees”, which in context is interpreted to mean the rise in global LAT from an un-defined date in the past (probably pre-Industrial Revolution) up to the present.
So, per the last sentence of my quote of Guterres, he must be either talking about the predicted change going forward to some undefined future date (= another 1.3 deg-C, to total 2.8 deg-C since that undefined date in the past), or he must be referring to another 2.8 deg-F (= 1.56 deg-C) of total change going forward.
You yourself stated:
“I don’t know what prediction of 2.8°C he is talking about, but it would be more dangerous and unstable.”
The first half of that statement stands in evidence, but as regards the second half there is this: since the first 1.5 deg-C of asserted temperature rise (and there is NO scientific proof as to what part, if any, of that is attributed to mankind!) has been shown to be completely without dangerous impact to the planet, why would you or anyone else assert that a hypothetical prediction of another 1.5 or even 1.3 deg-C of warming would be, in your words, “more dangerous and unstable”?
“1 1.5C breach.”
I think we’d all be concerned about a 11.5C rise.
(Sorry, Nick. Just having fun with a typo. I’ve made enough of them myself!) 😎
“forgot to add the reference to 1.5C”
Well, that is a journalist observing that we may have passed that level. But where are the climate scientists panicking about 1.5C?
Really you have been in the basement too long as Dr. Mann has been howling about it for a long time.
LINK
So what does he say? Panic?
So Nick now says the 1.5C number is totally meaningless and that no-one cares about at all except for political reason.
Something we all knew all along.
Well done Nick !!
Next time you see stupid comments about the 1.5C in the newspapers or from any of your fellow AGW zealots….or anywhere else…
… you will, of course, come straight out and say they are talking balderdash…
Won’t you Nick. 😉
Start with the CSIRO and work your way through every climate change sciences faculty in Australia.
Old mate is torn between his political green/left capitalist economic growth hating philosophies and his mathematical mind convincing him that that all models, predictions, ‘data’ & actual observations tell him it’s all really bullshit. If you stare at the numbers, dots and plots long enough, they sort of take on a mind of their own.
Lost forever in a climate hyperreality divorced from reason and objectivity. Wandering, endlessly wandering in a circular doomsday nightmare of global boiling.
Nick is from the CSIRO…
The far-left crud that now makes up the climate unit at CSIRO is one of the main cheerleaders for the anti-CO2 scam.
They are all Nick’s buddies.
CSIRO – Captured long ago as many other institutions have been. Replaced science with semantics.
Many years ago, they first put a leftist bureaucrat in charge rather than a “through-the-ranks” real scientist.
Everyone knew that was the start of the slippery slope demise of CSIRO.
During Nick’s time there, it obviously became an avalanche.
Mr. Stokes: Have you considered submitting your own article on the etymology of the word “panic”?
He doesn’t have to say the word. Panic has several meanings, and can be both transitive and intransitive. So the scientists can panic (be in a state of panic) and can panic others (cause others to panic or be frightened)
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/panic#Verb
Verb
panic (third-person singular simple present panics, present participle panicking, simple past and past participle panicked)
(transitive)
To cause (someone) to feel panic (“overwhelming fear or fright”); also, to frighten (someone) into acting hastily.
(computing) To cause (a computer system) to crash.
(US, colloquial) To highly amuse, entertain, or impress (an audience watching a performance or show).
(intransitive)
To feel panic, or overwhelming fear or fright; to freak out, to lose one’s head.
(computing) Of a computer system: to crash.
So, you seem to be part of a ‘scare job’, trying to frighten the people into support government actions which could derail society and the country. When that happens, real panic will ensue.
No panic, no problem. Just another day of sunshine living in an existential crisis.
. . . not to mention the additional greening of the Earth due to warming temperatures (with attendant increase in world food production) as well as the reduction in cold-related excess deaths of humans, which outranks heat-related excess deaths by a ratio of about 10:1 on a global average.
What is your infatuation or obsession with climate scientists?
Eric put them in the headline.
Yeah, he did but he should have put quote marks on each side of the word scientists. 🤔
Ho hum!
Europe and the USA – when one is cold the other hot.
Nope. It’s just as cold here in the Pacific Northwest. Was a very cool and wet May, and is turning out to be the same for June. Still only in the 50s and 60sF right now.
Locally, I think it is just the ENSO.
Got back from 3 days in Ireland and 4 days on the Isle of Man 2 weeks ago. Never busted 62 F the whole time. Cloudy, windy and rain. I was transported back to April where I live in the Midwest. Asked a local on the IOM about the weather. She cheerfully exclaimed “Oh, we get 2 weeks of sunshine every year”. Going to be upper 90’s here for the rest of the week. I’ll take it, thank you.
Remember global warming always happens somewhere else…
The wind is always blowing……..somewhere. Just gotta cover the entire planet with wind turbines! Ask Chris Bowen.
Which explains why rain and cold keep following me about. Heh, Eureka: I am the answer to global warming!
{p.s. My rates for hire in endangered areas are very reasonable.}
Ha yes, Venice, the Maldives, Las Vegas, and the reef at Bora Bora is in danger of boiling over (I just made that up). Do you need a bag-carrier?
Seems we need a glossary for this issue.
“Panic” must be on a spectrum, maybe 0 to 11.
“Scientist”, maybe -11 to +11.
“target”, who cares? >in place panic, maybe a hop or two.
” critical threshold” > holy schist!! Run & scream, jump and twirl
He he – echoes of “medium confidence” = 50:50 🙂
“Scientist”, maybe -11 to +11.
You forgot “ClimateScientist.” Shirley on the far left end of the spectrum.
The map for May doesn’t seem to be available yet but a glance at the UAH global temperature map for April shows a pattern of anomalies over the globe that can have little to do with any underlying effect of an increase in the concentration of well-mixed GHGs.
Precisely.
The current warming started from the ENSO region (ish) and spread far and rapidly.
Still hanging in, especially in the tropics.
Mr. Hanley: Great point, how do “well mixed” gases produce warming that is not “well-mixed”?
Clouds which are not modeled at all.
I have been waiting fir a couple of months now for the likes if Reading University and UEA to tell us about climate disasters linked to the 1.5 C breath. All they’ve managed is to turn a cold May into the warmest ever for the UK
Why do they call it man-made? I bet there were loads of women involved in those “calculations”, and then some ……
From BBC website, story about deaths in Saudi Arabia at the Hajj.
Several Jordanian pilgrims have died in the heat.
This is from the piece:
“Temperatures exceeded 46C (114.8F) this week, making many of the rituals that are performed outdoors and on foot challenging especially for the elderly.
The head of Saudi national meteorology centre, Ayman Ghulam, warned last week: “The expected climate for Hajj this year will witness an increase in average temperatures of 1.5 to 2 degrees [Celsius] above normal in Mecca and Medina.””
Note the meteorology centre warned the expected CLIMATE for Hajj… surely they should have said weather?
We know that the weather in the U.K. is determined in part by the position of the jet stream. Too far south and we have a cool summer, 1975 had snow in June in parts of Derbyshire. To the north we get hot weather especially if air is pulled in from the Sahara. 1963 blocking high in winter, long cold winter. 1976 blocking high in summer, long hot summer.
I’m having trouble caring.
If the air in the troposphere is pushed out by high pressure over the Arctic Circle from the north, it is logical that it will be cooler in middle latitudes and warmer in low latitudes.
Which is clearly visible at an altitude of 2,500 meters.
“Temperatures are likely to dip below -5°C in parts of southeastern Australia between Tuesday and Thursday mornings.”
https://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/six-aussie-states-below-zero-degrees-this-morning-more-to-come/1889534?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=20240617_news_six-aussie-states-below-zero-degrees-this-morning-more-to-come&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1JMh6FwY4MugUNyVemMuuJx3EQVAu2_1I5z6_uG8ZpqOjeejyuVgazL00_aem_ZmFrZWR1bW15MTZieXRlcw
It is a safe bet that 365 days a year, some place (or places) on earth is experiencing a record warm day, and another place (or places) is experiencing a record cold day.
How many locations are there in the world? According to WMO (World Meteorological Organization) more than 10,000 weather stations report data to WMO daily. Most of those stations have short records (less than 30 years), and as we know, or should know, two locations a mile or two apart, or even less, can experience temperatures that differ by at least several degrees … and we should know that many existing weather reporting stations are poorly located, with local influences that vary over time due to human development.
Additionally, Weather Underground (www.wunderground.com) claims a network in excess of 250,000 weather stations that report continuously.
So what are the odds that at least one, and more likely at least hundreds out of more than a quarter million reporting stations will report a temperature that, on a particular date in a 365 day calendar, will be the highest or the lowest it’s every recorded?
If the media report that “many” places are having record heat, they are purporting to represent that this is a climate anomaly. Which of course, it is not. Meantime while totally ignoring those places that are experiencing record cool temperatures at the very same time.
And not to mention, that records are just that, records. Records do not necessarily reflect climatic patterns at all. They are just records at a particular station on a particular date, and the variance from prior record data is usually very small, less than the standard deviation departure from the average data value.
To wit:
You have two data points. The higher one of the two is the record high, and the lower one of the two is the record low … until you have three data points. Gather more data and the statistical relevance of any single data point tends to become more significant and the precision of statistical analysis gets better. Which is why generally anything less than 30 data points representing a single date at a single location is the bare minimum to draw any conclusions about underlying “climate” performance.
You have 30 temperature data points for a given date of the year at a particular weather station, precise to within plus or minus 0.5 degree of measurement error. The variance of those 30 data points is such that the standard deviation is 4 degrees. A single data point that is 1 degree higher than the highest in the data set is the “record”, but is it actually indicating that the underlying population of data that is being measured is changing? According to statistical science, no, the change is not statistically significant.
Meteorologists (and probably most people who ever think about the weather), know that temperatures, whether high or low, on a given date are highly dependent upon normal, regular weather phenomena like the passage of high and low pressure fronts, warm and cold and occluded fronts, precipitation, cloud cover, humidity, and antecedent conditions, all of which vary on that particular date every year. How does one tease out the effects of these factors that are routine and temporary from an underlying thermal energy trend within the climate system?
I am assuming you are discussing a “baseline” temperature over 30 years. If so, you have captured the essence of level 3 stability uncertainty (as defined by NIST) which is captured over a long period of time.
It could also be a monthly average of 30 days, if a “single date” is defined a month. That would be a level 2 reproducibility uncertainty (as defined by NIST) which is captured over a period of several days.
In either case setting records is weather and as you point out can be statistically insignificant in the overall scheme of things.
Thank you. Most people who are not trained in either meteorology or statistical science – which means virtually all media writers and talking heads – do not understand the probabilistic nature of defining climate parameters. They think only in terms of “records” or at most “averages” without considering the length of and the measurement errors in weather data sets. Getting into the weeds on statistical analysis is of course far beyond the casual reader of a media report. The propagandists take full advantage of both the lack of understanding and the short attention span of casual news consumers. Nothing much we can do about it.
But, what people do inherently understand is that they can tell if there is a true catastrophe underway or not that affects them or someone else. And as a result of consuming major weather event news over the years and decades, people go generally understand that there are major weather events that can do significant damage and “there but for the grace of God go I” (or, “glad I’m not that unlucky to be at the wrong place at the wrong time”).
Despite all the yak about “climate change”, the average person only understands that in certain places, it gets hot at times of the year and cold at other times of the year, and that this varies from north to south, in general, or from low high elevation to low elevation. The warmunists have a difficult time trying to convince the average person that they are actually being personally hurt by changes in the weather that constitution climate change.
Given that (a) humans have only been capable of accurately measuring temperature for less than 300 years, and (b) the Earth’s age since life first appeared on it is at least 3.5 billion years, all MSM talk of “setting temperature records” is based on considering just the last 0.000009% of Earth’s relevant climate history.
Even if one considers just the span since humans first started making durable records of history, thought to be about 5,000 years ago, all talk of “setting temperature records” actually involves just the last 6% of recorded history.
Climate alarmists do nothing if not cherry-pick the time interval for setting temperature “records”.
Yes, I defy anyone, any time, anywhere in shade outside and without a thermometer to accurately nominate what the ambient temperature is on the hour, every hour over a day.
Let alone whether it gets precisely 1.5 C warmer at any point.
Excellent comments, Duane.
The Climate Change Propagandists are implying that every place on Earth is overheating at the same time (because CO2), but your comments explain the truth of the matter very well.
To Climate “Scientist” and journalism majors,
Tell me you don’t understand averages without telling me…
“New heat records have been set every day since March last year.”
Somewhere on this vast planet. It would be impossible for that not to happen.
“The “extraordinary” and unexpected phenomenon has concerned the world’s climate scientists, who fear the severe impacts of global warming….”
All you have to fear – is fear itself.
wimps!
OMG! 86F! Perfect weather for mid summer in Wokeachusetts.
“While Moscow is currently experiencing warm weather,”
Must be all those burning refineries- due to careless smoking. 🙂
These climate wackos have convinced themselves that a delta-T “anomaly” is a real temperature.
The Climatistas at the UK Met Orifice issued instructions that we are to ignore our senses because whilst it might have felt colder than usual in May, it was hottest ‘on record’ – the record dating back 4.5 billion years to 1860. The reason was, it was night time when it was ‘hottest’ so we would not have noticed.
Well my electric central heating noticed and night time consumption of electricity was higher this May than last.
This has been one of the coldest, wettest springs I can remember in Calgary. Expected low of only 3 degrees tonight. We might get frost in mid fricken June.
Here in south of France, it has been surprisingly mild. Morning temperatures around 12deg C and daily max around 25-27 deg C, 50% cloud cover occasional light rain. Normally even May would be way hotter with clear blue skies all day long.
In about 25y down here, I don’t recall such an agreeable month of June. I would have to say it’s unprecedented.
After a mild winter people were saying : OMG can you imagine how hot the summer will be. Ah no, it doesn’t work like that I said. There is no reason a mild winter predicts a boiling hot summer.
Mind you this very agreeable warm weather would probably be called “heat wave” in Britain.
That’s alright for late autumn or early spring, but a bit fresh for the warmer months.
And where I am would seem a bit nippy for Eric in north Queensland.
This is of course a total LIE.
The Paris agreement refers to 30y long term average temperature, NOT one monthly mean anomaly.
Come back in 30y if you actually do have data breaking that arbitrary, non scientific threashold.
Excellent! That had even escaped me. Propaganda can infect anyone.
Not to mention the nonsense averaging. The “Earth” doesn’t do anything homogenously.
“The Paris agreement refers to 30y long term average temperature”
No, it doesn’t. The only place 1.5C is mentioned is Article 2a:
“Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change; ”
It doesn’t mention any particular period, because it is just a way of quantifying the policy objective (“pursuing efforts”).
It is total anti-science, anti-reality GIBBERISH, and you know that.
Why don’t you just tell the truth, Nick !!
Come on, don’t be a coward.
repeat after me…. I dare you.
There is no Climate Emergency.
There is no Existential Threat.
Guys: 43 RESPONSES TO NICK STOKES Post. You are all ruining this site. Dont be an egotist. I dont care what he posts and nor should you. Just IGNORE. But no, just like everywhere else, the most idiotic post gets the most replies. 43..! You are all part of the problem..