Essay by Eric Worrall
Yet another dreary warning we’re pushing past global limits. So lets see how hard we can push.
Double danger? Climate change, El Niño push Earth ‘beyond its limits’
Doyle Rice, USA TODAY
…
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) announced on March 23 that the planet’s climate is now “more out of balance than at any time in observed history.”
…
If El Niño develops as expected, it would likely boost the planet to its warmest year on record, climate scientist Zeke Hausfather said on X earlier in March.
The news comes as the WMO reports dire climate change data: “The state of the global climate is in a state of emergency,” said U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, in a statement. “Planet Earth is being pushed beyond its limits. Every key climate indicator is flashing red.”
…
The WMO’s scientific officer John Kennedy explained that under a balanced system, incoming energy from the sun is about the same as the amount of outgoing energy, but this is not the case at the present time.
“There’s less outgoing energy due to the increased concentrations of greenhouse gases,” he said in a statement. “More energy coming in than going out means that energy is accumulating in the Earth’s system.”
…
Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-au/weather/topstories/double-danger-climate-change-el-niño-push-earth-beyond-its-limits/ar-AA1ZG8d7
The one break we had from these whiny warnings was when the world breached 1.5C. The premature 1.5C breach messed up the PR campaign, giving us the hilarious spectacle of alarmist scientists scrambling to revise their narrative.
But now they’re back to warning us about climate imbalances, like the 1.5C embarrassment never happened.
So let’s embarrass them again. Push up those CO2 emissions, connect up all the AI data centers, breach all their ridiculous fake limits, and watch them once again scramble to explain why nothing bad happens. Because last time was way too entertaining not to call for an encore.
‘Climate scientist Zeke Hausfather said.’ Therein lies the problem.
Zeke once ‘proved’ that UHI does not exist when it obviously does
Can you post a link to this proof? I’d like to review it.
J. Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, v118 i2 pp 481-494, 1/2013.
Easier to find as doi.org/10.1029/2012JD018509. Zeke was lead author.
From the abstract:
14% UHI effect pre homogenization, zero effect post homogenization. Covered all US HCN for (then) past 80 years.
You need to learn to do your own climate research. I did a decade and a half ago, and am disinclined to do yours for you.
No where in that paper did he say UHI does not exist. Literally no where. In fact, a large portion of the paper is dedicate to how average temperature datasets deal with UHI. And, of course, the very first sentence in the paper is an acknowledgement that it exists.
Yep. Because Zeke and scientists before him accept that the UHI effect is real they go to great lengths to remove it from average temperature datasets so that those datasets better represent temperature trends sans localized land use changes.
The irony here is that these datasets are intentionally removing some of the warming that is real and which also happens to be caused by anthropogenic activities.
So says the guy who completely misrepresented Zeke Hausfather.
How can anything be called “data” for use in proper scientific treatments when the actual recorded measurements (i.e THE “data”) are subjectively altered by the “scientists” applying the treatments?
The probity of such numeric constructs is patently unacceptable.
Hear, hear!
It is a matter of trust. The only reason for doing so is to create a data set that can be claimed to be 100 percent accurate for showing anthropogenic warming.
Proper analysis should include processes that determine attribution. But, that would mean climate science couldn’t blame 100% of any warming on the burning of fossil fuels. God forbid that propaganda would be compromised.
You have no ethical appreciation for real, measured data if you approve of this.
How can accurate determination of attribution to temperature be done when the data doesn’t include part of the needed information?
By taking this position, you are saying that an actual increase in temperature is more than what is calculated.
How does one properly area-weight temperature if not all temperature is used.
Temperature determines the intensity of radiation. How does one evaluate an accurate assessment of what the Earth’s surface radiates?
Why do you think justice systems rely on pristine and uncontaminated evidence? Just like a judge throwing out contaminated evidence, contaminated data should be declared not fit for purpose and discarded. Modifying data to what someone thinks it should be lowers the trust level of results
I would personally prefer it, if no adjustments were required (even if, as you argue “these datasets intentionally remove warming that is real….”). It would be far better to organise the surface temperature recording in such a way that stations are located away from urban heat sources. In fact, I think that it would be a reasonably easy exercise in the meantime to simply discount all records that are likely to be contaminated by UHI effect. There must be enough rural stations worldwide that can be used to represent global temperature?
There can never, not even an infinite number, of temperature monitoring sites that can be used to represent “global temperature.”
Point in fact, a single global temperature is bogus, a mathematical trick to confuse the issues.
I don’t disagree. I’ve discussed this before. The UHI effect is real so we should not try to remove it unless there is a specific intent to isolate the non-UHI warming effect. Either way we should not allow datasets to be biased by the UHI effect. Some datasets have opted to remove the UHI effect as a means of eliminating the bias it might cause.
Note that the UHI effect and UHI bias are two different (albeit related) concepts. The effect is the real phenomenon by which urban areas exhibit higher temperatures relative to neighboring rural areas. The bias a non-real artifact caused by the gridding, sampling, averaging, etc. methodologies employed. The simplest example of the bias is when you use an urban station for a grid cell that is predominantly rural. There are other ways the bias can appear though.
“ It would be far better to organise the surface temperature recording in such a way that stations are located away from urban heat sources. “
To wit, I refer you to …
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/crn/
“The U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) was specifically designed to be located away from the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, providing a pristine, rural temperature record to validate existing climate data. Reddit
Key Aspects of USCRN and UHI Avoidance:
Thanks!
Interesting that for a change, your comment hasn’t received any downvotes. Just too tricky to take offence to the reality, I guess!
“which also happens to be caused by anthropogenic activities.”
Exactly where in the climate models and IPCC results are *all* anthropogenic activities included? How is CO2 effect separated out of all anthropogenic activities?
Are you advocating for Malthusian theory that population should be limited to prevent UHI?
“You need to learn to do your own climate research. I did a decade and a half ago, and am disinclined to do yours for you.”
You did the research, invested the time, and that is very good.
“Can you post a link to this proof? I’d like to review it.”
He was not asking you to do research. He was asking for information at your fingertips.
Point being, saving a person from repeating what you have already accomplished creates the opportunity for the requester to spend the saved time on other research projects. It is simply a matter of time efficiency.
I don’t think he read that paper. At least I hope that is the case. Otherwise the misrepresentation would be intentional and thus disinformation.
I asked him for the citation so that I could review it. I did this because I’ve never seen Dr. Hausfather say, let alone prove, that the UHI effect is not real. In fact, all of his work has confirmed that the UHI effect is, in fact, real and most be considered when constructing temperature datasets.
That only works if you don’t misrepresent the research you cite.
Zeke is the model for Roy Kent from the tv series Ted Lasso –
“he’s here, he’s there, he’s every fvkin’ where”
https://climate.uchicago.edu/people/zeke-hausfather/
Zeke Hausfather is a climate scientist and energy systems analyst whose research focuses on observational temperature records, climate models, and mitigation technologies.
He spent 10 years working as a data scientist and entrepreneur in the cleantech sector, where he was the lead data scientist at Essess, the chief scientist at C3.ai, and the cofounder and chief scientist of Efficiency 2.0.
He also worked as a research scientist with Berkeley Earth, was the senior climate analyst at Project Drawdown, and the US analyst for Carbon Brief.
He has masters degrees in environmental science from Yale University and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and a PhD in climate science from the University of California, Berkeley.
Lots of jobs.
Berkley does not offer a PhD in “Climate Science.”
Berkely offers the following climate related curricula:
Tell that to UChicago, whose link I posted.
Just guessing but I’d presume that his name means “house father” in German?
Not unlike madam of the house. His given name is more appropriately Zecke.
I lived in Munich for 6 years and am fluent in 3 of 4 German dialects (HochDeutsche, Bayerisch, Oestreichisch—never mastered Schwitzerdeutsche, which even Bavarians say is ‘eine Halzkrankheit’, aka a throat disease. You are correct.
The way to fix the UHI problem is to not use temperature data from thermometers subject to it. Airport thermometers, for example, are needed for safe flight takeoffs and landings but are elevated by pavement and engine exhausts. Their measurements are not a measure of climate effects so do not use them for climate research purposes. NOAAs Climate Reference Network takes only data from well-sited weather stations. So use that data and that from other well-sited weather stations only.
Let’s not lets
Typos R US.
Communication is primarily (written or otherwise) the means through which we convey messages. Small grammatical errors, while they might be slightly irritating to those who insist on absolute literary correctness, really don’t need to alter the message that is being conveyed….. unless of course you allow the irritation the become all-consuming 🧐 😉 notice…. emojis instead of full stop/period 😁
The spirit in which you offer this comment is beyond reproach.
However, your phraseology could be improved and the author’s correction of the typo would improve the article’s presentation.
Well now, WMO, how exactly does the planet as a whole deal with the obvious energy imbalances implied in the ~3.8 deg C annual cycle of warming and cooling of surface air temperatures as modelled by ERA5? It’s not a trick question.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world
Of all the technical disciplines, meteorology should be the most capable to explain the absurdity of these “flashing red” claims.
But here we are.
Are they benefiting from the climate hoax? Or just not too smart?
Maybe captured. With sympathy for their captors, like Stockholm Syndrome. Surely they know it’s all made up.
(duplicate)
WMO along with a whole alphabet of UN organizations have proclaimed multiple times that this gig is not about the environment, it is about changing the world’s economies.
“The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) announced on March 23 that the planet’s climate is now “more out of balance than at any time in observed history.”
Just how do they define “observed history”?
The satellite era? Written history? The first thermometer? The founding of the WMO?
(Of course, they should also quantify just what a “balanced climate” looks like.)
How can they quantify something that so far has never happened?
How can they quantify something that cannot be quantified?
another bingo!
bingo!
To them, a balanced climate is them having all power, money and control.
To borrow from an astute reader/poster:
bingo!
Only been able to observe or measure any imagined “imbalance” since about 1970 (or maybe even later)
What does “Out of balance climate” mean? It seems to me that such a phrase is out of place in a paper that purports to be scientific.
Funny that, especially since there is no planet climate. A whole bunch of micro climates averaged does not create a meaningful result.
There are more polar bears now than there were ten years ago.
name them 🙂
Ursus maritimus.
ya got me good, there Scissor.
Fred
Rodger
Nelson
Bartholomew
Matthew
Paul
Simone
Martha
Reed
Margaret
Beth
Yogi
Booboo
Cindy
…
…
…
There’s about 12,000 more of them on the latest Census, how many more named do you desire?
How many ya got? 🙂
Enough for a 12,000 word responce but it would be a rather lengthy and boring post
There has to be Mohammad, Mohammed, Muhammed, Mohamed, Mohamad, and Muhamad in the top 10 Polar Bear names, quite likely most related.
There is an inverse correlation of polar bear population to 30 caliber rifle ammunition sales in Northern Canada. Doesn’t seem related to CC….
“name them”
Humor – a difficult concept.
— Lt. Saavik
🤣
And if we only use linear thinking like too many scientists, we can project that the PBs will take over the planet by the end of the century. 🙂
Actually they’ll take over the Arctic and grow their numbers by 32,000 thereby doubling their release of CH4 and CO2 causing a runaway temperature overload in the Arctic. We owe it to the Arctic to hunt them to extinction…to protect the Arctic.
We also need teams of youth volunteers in the Sahara pulling out all the new plant growth to save the desert. /s
Now that sounds like a Renewable (GND) Job if ever there was one.
Wow, the Climate Caterwaulers sure are more out of balance than at any time in observed history. But then, their climastrology religion is collapsing on them, so I guess that explains it. They need to calm down. Maybe see a shrink, take a chill pill or three, whatever.
Maybe have a beer and watch the clouds?
Oh. Wait. Beer emits CO2 when the can is popped.
And how helpful was Mr. Kennedy, explaining the greenhouse theory? Otherwise, we wouldn’t have known that more energy going in than out means energy buildup. Wow, that is stunning. He deserves a medal for that. Give him a big round of applause.
Well, to sell climate armageddon to the masses, you have to dumb it down.
Waaaaay down.
Like the way Bill Nye once gave a talk about the climate issue- all he did was cover a globe with lighter fluid and torched it. It’s on YouTube.
My question is whether we are approaching an optimum temperature or have gone beyond it. You can’t cry wolf if there is no problem. Right now it seems crying wolf is just sowing more doubt.
I’ll add that looking at anomalies doesn’t tell one what temperatures are being discussed. For me, an average temperature of 70°F wouldn’t cause me concern.
Until the optimum climate is defined in metrics that are observable and measurable by all, we cannot know if we have departed the optimum or are slowly moving towards it.
That aside, the is no single global climate. There is no single “climate control knob.”
Right, so an improvement in one region might be matched by a negative change to another. So then it’s become political? Assuming we made an effort to control the climate. Better to leave it to Mother Nature, she’s done pretty well for us.
Decades ago we were advised (TV adds) to not “mess with Mother Nature.”
Perhaps that was more wisdom than recognized at the time.
Tell me again why warming is a Bad Thing. The LIA was a period noted for war, famine, and plague. So moving away from that should be avoided?
It’s a bad thing because “scientists say….”
Another words, no explanation.
“More energy coming in than going out means that energy is accumulating in the Earth’s system.”
Oh, how they hate energy! Unless it’s clean and pure and cheap and that’ll save the planet. Such visions are not only wrong- but they’re dam crazy and dangerous.
Missing from this is there is no “run away greenhouse effect.’
More energy accumulating results in more energy going out.
Earth is an open system.
El Niño is part of natural variability. It will get warmer, we will see scarlet red maps on TV, a few “experts” claiming that “this is only a foretaste of what lies ahead,” and then that media panic will subside. In contrast to the arrogance of politicians who tell us, under a gleaming air conditioner, that “air conditioning is an maladaptive response to global warming.”
See how the alarmists salivate when there is a possibility of a major El Nino event. 😉
It is nice that they are finally realising that it is El Nino events that are causing the slight beneficial warming…
.. and NOT CO2.
You really seem to have no self respect. Can you point us to one peer reviewed paper, one climate scientist, one rational person who accepts your childish (ohh look I pulled the wings off flies and now they are deaf) simplistic “El Nino is what done it” theory? Just one?
Google broken for you again?
Google wont help anyone with this silly idea. And I’ll note bnasty2000 hasn’t responded. That says it all.
Tell you what dude, look up time series shock. Tell us what tests and procedures climate science uses to ensure that El Nino shocks are damped quickly. If special attention is not given, they won’t be damped and will remain permanently. Do you have any idea what global temperature series might have that problem?
Tell you what “dude” why don’t you try to help Mr Nasty and find a peer reviewed paper that supports his infantile idea re El Nino. Bet you can’t. And while you are at it see if you can find one that says the moon landing was fake?
So even if the planet has been pushed past its warming limits, how is it affecting the general population? Is it dropping? Are life expectancies being shortened? Is agricultural output and overall food supplies falling? Is infant mortality rising? How about global GDP numbers? Are they dropping? The reality is that none of this is happening; in fact, all these parameters are improving which show that human ingenuity, creativity, resourcefulness, and resilience is alive and well and knows how to rise to the occasion. We don’t run around like headless chickens because the goofy eco-alarmists tell us that we’re all doomed unless we follow their irresponsible admonitions that just earn them well-deserved horse laughs.
It is the Chicken Little syndrome they promote.
Yes, that’s what natural warming has always done. ENSO is after all, completely natural.
Since humans could only have been recording the warmth of the planet since 1617, instead of the 4 billion years the climate has been around, Zeke’s statement doesn’t actually mean much.
It should be noted that the alarmist have to use completely natural El Nino events..
They pray for them to happen, even though they are nothing to do with CO2.
El Nino events are the cause of basically all the atmospheric warming in the atmospheric data.
Its all they have. !!
Oceans warm mostly via increased absorbed radiation…
… which has been happening for the last couple of decades.
CO2 has nothing to do with it.
It seems they do ….
Though not by your Sky-dragon slaying *theory*.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL037527
(2009)
“.…… While there is a large increase in the greenhouse effect from increasing greenhouse gases and water vapor (as a feedback), this is offset to a large degree by a decreasing greenhouse effect from reducing cloud cover and increasing radiative emissions from higher temperatures. Instead the main warming from an energy budget standpoint comes from increases in absorbed solar radiation that stem directly from the decreasing cloud amounts. These findings underscore the need to ascertain the credibility of the model changes, especially insofar as changes in clouds are concerned.”
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4250165/
(2014)
It is interesting bnice has many +ve ticks and yet not one of them is prepared to verbally support him.
And good on them as his *theory* is a concept diametrically opposite the the 2nd LoT, and if it where true we would have free energy.
The +ves of course are merely a tribal response, as are the -ves for Simon ….
And now for me
LOL
Gemini: When the WMO says the climate is “more out of balance than at any time in observed history,” they are specifically pointing to the fact that the gap between energy in and energy out is at its widest point since we began tracking the Earth’s total energy inventory in the mid-20th century.
““More energy coming in than going out means that energy is accumulating in the Earth’s system.””
And this from the WMO “SCIENTIFIC” officer?
In other words, entropy *increases*?
Temperature of a closed system may go up but that does *NOT* mean heat is accumulating. The higher temperature increases the flux out. If this wasn’t true the earth would have been a molten ball soon after formation and would still be a molten ball. Internal heat distribution can change, i.e. internal temperatures inside the closed system, but total system energy won’t change. If heat gain is always greater than heat loss because of internal redistribution then where does it stop?
Earth is not a closed system. That nit aside, you are correct.
Tip – Since the demise of our beloved ENSO-Meter may I suggest this link as an alternative
https://klimata.org/el-ninometer-real-time-enso-index/?i=1
I’ve lost count if the tipping points that have been past, and we have survived at least half-a-dozen Peak Oils with even more oil now than before.
In fact, Dr.John Kennedy is not “the WMO’s scientific officer” as the UN wrongly stated in its release of the 23rd of March 2026. As the WMO informs he is only involved with the agency as an expert. The point is that, as one can see, the UN does not care to fact-check its own statements. The question is if they equally care to fact-check a thousand-page volume such as the IPCC’s?
In terms of the ongoing Arctic Sea Ice alarm, I’m noticing this Spring, that sea ice within the main Arctic Archipelago, is pretty close to normal.
It’s actually only the Sea of Okhotsk that’s well below normal and causing the Spring Sea Ice max to plateau out.
It is actually around equal lowest on record …..
This gives the full picture ….
https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today/sea-ice-tools/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph
That’s true!
But isn’t the main area in and around the archipelago that’s causing the deficit…. that’s why I attached the map, rather than the graph, so that it’s clear which part (s) of the Arctic are causing the deficit. Interesting to see that the deficit around the Barents and Labrador/West Greenland isn’t nearly as noticeable as it’s been in some recent years.
It is clear all nations need to take a good look at the money they spend on education and science. If this is the best we can expect for our money we are in a bad place.