The Boogeyman of Climate Change

Despite Media Panic, There Is No Reason to Think 2024’s Warming Is Disastrous

From ClimateREALISM

By Linnea Lueken

Multiple outlets have posted articles covering a report from the European Copernicus Climate Change Service (“Copernicus”) which says that 2024 will be the first to surpass 1.5°C warming since pre-industrial times, which the media claims will cause untold weather disasters. This is mostly false. Although it is likely that 2024 will have higher average temperatures than in recent decades, it is not the end of the year yet, and there limited evidence to support the claim that it will represent the highest temperatures humans have ever experienced and no evidence whatsoever that weather disasters have gotten or will get worse.

The BBC and CNN are among the numerous mainstream media outlets reporting on Copernicus’ report.

CNN describes the report as “devastating news for the planet that comes as America chooses a president that has promised to undo its climate progress both at home and abroad.”

The Copernicus group estimates that 2024 will end up 1.55°C hotter than the 1850-1900 average, which is 0.05°C above the warming limit set by the Paris Agreement. This may be true, but there is no evidence that the 1.5℃ threshold is actually some kind of deadly tipping point for weather disasters. The same organization sounded the alarm last year that the “limit” was breached for several months in a row, while ignoring natural factors like an underwater volcano eruption. As for the 1.5 degree limit itself, it was not established by professional climate scientists. Only one of the people who were on the panel that came up with the value was even a meteorologist.

Two other points worth noting. The claim is bit of sleight of hand, cherry picking the data for comparison. Earth was only just coming out of a little ice age at the onset of the 1850 period, one of the coldest periods during the past millennia. When you pick an usually cold period for comparison, a modest warming seems more dramatic than it is.

Second, the 1.5℃ is an arbitrary temperature choice. As Climate Realism has discussed repeatedly, herehere, and here, for example, it was chosen by politicians for political reasons. There is no scientific evidence it represents some tipping point for catastrophic climate change. It is likely that the world has warmed more than 2°C since the 1700s, with no apocalypse.

One would think that if warming causes more extreme weather there would be solid data and identifiable consistent trends showing an increase in extreme weather, but there is none. Three of the weather events CNN cites at the end of their article as proof of a supposed climate emergency, Hurricane Milton, the flooding in Spain, and low snow amounts at Mt. Fuji, are not proof of a climate emergency. CNN frames any bad weather as “climate change-fueled” which is unscientific at best, propagandistic and dishonest at worst.

Hurricane Milton, as Climate Realism covered herehere, and here, was not unprecedented. Nor was it caused by climate change. Similar storms have struck the area in the mid-1800s and early 1900s, before modern modest warming started in earnest. Data for Florida in particular show no trends in hurricane severity. (See figure below)

Hurricanes in general are also not intensifying.

The flooding in Spain this fall likewise has no actual data to back up any ideas of being “climate-fueled” – again, weather history shows that the event was not unprecedented or unexpected. While it is true that warmer air can hold more moisture, this does not mean that every severe rainfall event is being influenced by this effect. There is not a direct linear correlation between the ability of the air to hold more water vapor, and an increase in the amount of rain that falls when a storm occurs. In addition, massive flooding with similar deadly impacts have occurred repeatedly in Spain’s history, at times when temperatures were cooler. All of this was covered in more detail in the Climate Realism post “Flooding Facts Drowned by Climate Hysteria: The BBC Ignores Spain’s Weather History.”

As for Mt. Fuji, CNN is once again exaggerating. The previous records for late snow on the mountain were set in 1955 and 2016 at October 26th, while this year the mountain saw snow November 6th, which is rather late, but not cataclysmic. Experts in Japan say it is too early to link this late snow to climate change.

The BBC is a bit more tempered in its approach, going so far as to admit that much of the warmth this year and last was due to “the natural El Niño weather pattern.” This is true, and is important context to keep in mind when discussing weather patterns and warming. Climate at a Glance: El Niño and Global Warming points out that removing those phenomena from the climate record causes almost half of global warming in the 21st century to disappear. This is a natural weather pattern that has a major influence on global conditions – there is no amount of fossil fuel abandonment that would change that.

The news media is abuzz about this latest warming scare story, but as usual, digging into the facts reveals that there is little “news” in the stories and even less to actually be worried about. CNN and the BBC would serve their audiences better by checking their biases towards climate alarm at the door, do some fact checking on reports from advocacy groups, like Copernicus, and stick to facts, consisting of data that can be confirmed, rather than relying on scary anecdotes and alarming assertions. Alarm may make for good headlines, but it makes for poor reporting.

4.8 16 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

47 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 8, 2024 10:41 pm

And certainly no reason to think that humans have caused any of the small extra warmth this year.

Looks like a continuation of the 2023 El Nino which is taking a lot longer to decay than usual.

Richard Greene
Reply to  bnice2000
November 9, 2024 2:32 am

The El Nino ended in May 2024, Mr. El Nino Nutter.

Reply to  Richard Greene
November 9, 2024 3:04 am

Even the most clueless AGW- cultist would realise that the El Nino effects are still hanging on.

Certainly there is no sign of any sort of human causation otherwise you would be able to show us where it was and how large it was.

Robert Cutler
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 9, 2024 7:21 am

Devastating news. Even my sunspot model didn’t predict this catastrophe:

Snow patch known as U.K.’s longest-lasting has vanished for fourth straight year

Nick Stokes
November 8, 2024 10:46 pm

The record isn’t a disaster in itself. But where is it going? The 2024 anomaly average in UAH looks like it will come in at about 0.8C. 2023, itself a record, was 0.429C, Next highest, 2016, was 0.388C. The record is up by 0.4C in just to years. A few more years like that and stuff really starts to happen.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 8, 2024 11:28 pm

The world is going exactly where it’s been going since the end of the Little Ice Age

Reply to  Redge
November 9, 2024 8:35 am

Agreed, having the world recover from the coldest centuries in the last 10,000 years isn’t a catastrophe.

leefor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 8, 2024 11:48 pm

Wow. Stuff happens. I never knew that /sarc.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 8, 2024 11:54 pm

Stuff like making up a heat wave that doesn’t exist. You can’t average intensive properties, but you do.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 9, 2024 2:18 am

Why remain CLUELESS Nick.

Even you must know that the current warming is the remnant of the El Nino event that is gradually diminishing.

You must also know that you can show no possible human causation.

You are just a senile old scaremongering twit, living with a mindless brain-washed idiotology.

Have you got your “The End Is Nigh” sandwich boards yet ???

So you can walk down the streets of Moyhu ringing a hand-bell ??

Richard Greene
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 9, 2024 2:34 am

What stuff starts to happen, Mr. Stroker?

More people celebrate warmer winters?

Bob B.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 9, 2024 3:58 am

Yes, and how ‘bout that record week in the stock market. A few more years like that and I’ll be a very rich man.

Reply to  Bob B.
November 9, 2024 10:54 am

I hope it has the same effect on my Australia base stocks

Scissor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 9, 2024 5:01 am

I’m still hoping that someone will get me a new pair of slippers for Christmas.

0perator
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 9, 2024 6:48 am

Nobody cares you absolute cockwomble.

Reply to  0perator
November 9, 2024 7:01 am

Had to look it up, the perfect descriptor for Herr Stokes.

Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
November 9, 2024 11:44 am

That’s the one I looked at!

Reply to  karlomonte
November 9, 2024 12:42 pm

I’ve been calling Trudeau a cockwomble for years, Thanks Scots!

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 9, 2024 6:58 am

The UAH can resolve 0.001K?

I don’t think so.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 9, 2024 7:41 am

The record is up by 0.4C in just t[w]o years.

NB : I have posted the following before, possibly even in response to some of your previous posts (I honestly cannot remember), but it is worth repeating.

From the IPCC’s standard “Glossary” annex for the AR6 document cycle, in this case from “Annex VII” of the WG-I assessment report, on page 2222 :

Climate Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period for averaging these variables is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The relevant quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.

Climate change A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer.

While some people will latch onto the “… a period of time ranging from months to …” phrase like an Arcturan mega-leech (hat-tip : Douglas Adams), to the exclusion of everything else in that extract, the IPCC clearly thinks you need “decades” worth of data before you can start talking about “climate (change)”.

.

A few more years like that and stuff really starts to happen.

Also from the AR6 WG-I report, section 1.4.1, “Baselines, reference periods and anomalies”, on page 192 :

20-year reference periods are considered long enough to show future changes in many variables when averaging over ensemble members of multiple models, and short enough to enable the time dependence of changes to be shown throughout the 21st century.

Even limiting the “extended period” requirement to only two decades (instead of the WMO’s three), your “few more years” becomes “eighteen more years” of (more than) 1.5°C anomalies before anyone can even start to talk about “climate change”.

Reply to  Mark BLR
November 9, 2024 10:28 am

An aside:

“…in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities…”

It should be noted that the variance/standard deviation of the means of these quantities is routinely ignored in climate science (to include the UAH). Thus climate science is at odds with the official definitions of the IPCC (not the first time).

Reply to  karlomonte
November 10, 2024 2:39 am

… the variance/standard deviation of the means of these quantities is routinely ignored in climate science …

The short version I learned was “It doesn’t have error bars ? … Then it isn’t science (/ scientific) …”

A bit too simplistic, maybe, but experience tells me that the underlying notion is correct.

Richard M
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 9, 2024 8:56 am

Nick, there was an immediate drop in cloud cover which seemed to start about two years ago and continued on into 2023. I haven’t seen any cloud data for 2024 but if it has continued to remain low, I think we have the answer.

The question then becomes, what led to the reduction in clouds?

Reply to  Richard M
November 9, 2024 12:39 pm

I suspect it is more the HT stratospheric water vapour slowing the escape of the El Nino energy.

But yes, there could also be a cloud facet.

Greytide
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 9, 2024 6:36 pm

Temperature measurements to an accuracy of 0.001c?? Come on. Just what is the margin of error??

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 11, 2024 2:14 am

Hi Nick, long time no spar! I have seven points to make.

  1. I apologize for the rude comments people have been making to you.
  2. The recent UAH and HadCRUT5 spikes are indeed unusual, and potentially concerning.
  3. They are so unusual that the most likely explanation is not El Nino (on its own), which did not produce such a big spike in 2016, but a separate climatic event.
  4. It is accepted that volcanoes can affect global weather for 2-3 years (e.g. Pinatubo in the 90s), but generally that has been cooling via volcanic dust.
  5. In early 2022 the Hunga Tonga eruption ejected vast quantities of water into the stratosphere, and water is a stronger greenhouse gas that carbon dioxide.
  6. Time will tell whether, instead of “a few more years like that”, the global temperature falls back somewhat.
  7. In any case, as for “stuff really starts to happen” I am sceptical; none of the doom-mongering predictions since Hansen 35 years ago have been borne out statistically.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 11, 2024 11:53 pm

A few more years like that and stuff really starts to happen.

What do you think the first thing will be that will cause grief? Or are you just going to claim specific bad weather events as though climate change is to blame?

Phillip Bratby
November 9, 2024 12:26 am

The biased BBC is beyond redemption. It has green idiots like Justin Lowrat, who have no scientific qualifications, in charge of climate change reporting (propaganda).

strativarius
November 9, 2024 1:21 am

The real disaster is the now daily eruptions of Trump Derangement Syndrome across the media [in the UK]

The Dunkelflaute goes on in tandem with their madness

Only the Telegraph is reporting:
Trump planning to withdraw from Paris climate agreement https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/11/09/trump-planning-withdraw-from-paris-climate-agreement/

The rest are still in shock no doubt

Richard Greene
November 9, 2024 2:31 am

The only climate that is important is the local climate where people live and work.

Since I moved to SE Michigan in 1977, 2024 (so far) was the best year for the local climate.

I don’t need a Ph.D. climate scientist or a cliimate confuser game to tell me that.

The 2024 winter was the warmest and had the least snow by far, since 1977. 10 minutes of snow shoveling, one time, during the whole winter.

The summer was cooler than usual with more rain — the grass stayed green all summer with no watering.

So far, the fall is average, not as warm as last year, but there are six weeks left.

These conditions were observed from the same home since 1987 and from an apartment 4 miles south from 1977 to 1987. I am confident these trends were real and not biased by the fact I dislike cold weather.

We love global warming in Michigan and hope it continues for another 50 years.

Reply to  Richard Greene
November 9, 2024 3:12 am

NH snow cover not going anywhere.

(need to click on the pic.)

NHemisphereSnowCoverSince2000
UK-Weather Lass
November 9, 2024 3:08 am

The problem seems to be the reliability of thermometers and the people who manage them in this day and age. No one would guess that temperature is now a matter of who reads the instruments and many of them have a vested interest in adding a bit on for “keeping to the agenda” benefits.

Reply to  UK-Weather Lass
November 9, 2024 10:58 am

And in the UK, they also seem to place new thermometers in class4/5 locations, making sure they can get higher readings.

November 9, 2024 4:02 am

I like these depictions of world and NH/SH/Arctic/Antarctic/Tropic zone T2m (modeled 2 meter air temperatures) from the ERA5 reanalysis. This is the same model from which the values in the recent news originated.

https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world

Look at the tropics. The modeled anomalies have now dropped below those from 2023.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=tropics

Anything to worry about? No. Do emissions of CO2 have anything to do with this? No.

How is this so clear to me? The modeled dynamics of the general circulation make it blindingly obvious, especially about energy conversion. Kinetic energy <–> [Internal energy + Potential energy]

ERA5 computes an hourly parameter “vertical integral of energy conversion.” Please consider watching this brief time-lapse video of plots for 2022 at 45N. And please read the full text description of the video to get the background. Bottom line: There is no way to isolate the radiative effect of incremental CO2 for reliable attribution of reported warming, and there is no good reason in the first place to expect absorbed energy to accumulate as sensible heat in the land + ocean + atmosphere system as a result of incremental change in any of the non-condensing GHGs.
https://youtu.be/hDurP-4gVrY

Thank you.

Walter Sobchak
November 9, 2024 4:37 am

A warmer world is a happier, healthier, and more prosperous world. Eras of warming were eras when civilization advanced such as the Roman era, the high Middle Ages, and the Minoan period. Eras or cooling where setbacks to civilization like the 6th century, the Fimbul Winter, and the Black Plague.

antigtiff
November 9, 2024 5:35 am

Disastrous? It is Catastrophic Cataclysmic Apocalyptic Climate Change – WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE.

Mr Ed
November 9, 2024 7:58 am

I’ll point to the “Hunga Hangover” as the cause. As good as any to me.

Coach Springer
Reply to  Mr Ed
November 9, 2024 9:26 am

Well, 2024 is a noticeable “spike”. It would be nice to be able attribute the spikiness to something. CO2 ain’t it.

Reply to  Mr Ed
November 9, 2024 11:04 am

The extra WV in the stratosphere from HT in slowing the escape of the 2023 El Nino event energy..

I think we will see a continued slow decline in temperature as it slowly dissipates, rather than the more transient El Nino effect seen at the last two major El Ninos.

gezza1298
November 9, 2024 11:08 am

Will some of this warming come from the Met Office in the UK where it is now clear that they make up data for lots of their ‘weather stations’ as they have been taken away?

November 9, 2024 12:37 pm

They only put the scare into people who actually watch or listen to CNN and BBC , a vanishingly few people, mostly those who are already convinced of imminent disaster.

November 9, 2024 12:51 pm

Like like watching multiple news channels, today france24 led on trump saying he is going to leave the paris climate agreement. They are fully o board with this nonsense!

November 9, 2024 1:11 pm

I stubbed my toe this morning walking over to adjust the thermostat. I blame climate change.

Editor
November 9, 2024 1:32 pm

Folks ==> Linnie is absolutely correct.

1850-1900 was a COLD period, the tail end of the Little Ice Age. It has warmed up a little….mostly after 1980 or so. That’s a good thing.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
November 9, 2024 7:25 pm

1930s,40s may have been similar temperature to now.

Unfortunately the past data has been so corrupted by agenda mal-adjustments…

… and modern data is so tainted with urban expansion and bad site placement…

.. that we really can’t be sure.

Sparta Nova 4
November 11, 2024 1:39 pm

Initial conditions.
Where the model starts has every effect on the rate of change.

Why 1880? 1990 had the lowest MESURED CO2 atmospheric levels in the entire century. 1820 levels are as high as they are today. Measured levels.

Temperature. Seems the pick one of the colder temperatures to baseline on as well. The point being there is a great deal of variation based on small changes in initial conditions.