Essay by Eric Worrall
Things are getting truly desperate in climate activist land.
The climate fight has one great ally. You just can’t look at it directly
Bill McKibben
Wed 23 Sep 2026 20.00 AESTLast modified on Wed 23 Sep 2026 20.09 AESTThere is hope in solar power. As the UN meets, we are urging leaders to pursue a clear goal: clean energy for all by 2030
As climate experts from around the world gather in New York for their annual week of talking through the world’s deepest dilemma, the vibes are mostly bad.
…
… If there’s an apocalyptic fear that can still rouse politicians to action, it seems to be AI agents breaking through firewalls, not European nations facing firestorms.
But there is one solitary (and very literal) ray of sunshine amidst this gloom: the steady rise of solar, wind and batteries. …
None of it is happening fast enough to catch up with the physics of global warming, though …
That’s why a group of leading advocates will deliver a letter to the UN this week, urging faster action. The letter offers a clear goal for the entire world to rally around: clean energy access for everyone, everywhere by 2030. And a way to get there: raising funds to bring clean energy to the poorest corners of the world and organizing in our communities, including for a global Sun Day of action next year to kick off what could be the great uniting project of our time.
The signatories range from the most popular active politician in the US (that would be Bernie Sanders) to the most morally grounded spokesperson of the global south (Yeb Saño of the Philippines, say, whose witness after devastating hurricanes helped produce the Paris accords). …
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/sep/23/climate-un-clean-energy-2030
Seriously Bill, the climate movement has lost – your letter urging more solar will sink without trace.
But there is still hope for the activist movement – you could follow Bernie’s lead, and fully embrace the crusade against artificial intelligence.
I mean you could work in the outsize carbon footprint of artificial intelligence, so it looks like your new AI push is related to your climate mission, to help your followers ease into your new pivot.
I’m guessing someone in your circle mentioned AI is what gets politicians excited these days. Your friends are trying to help you.
Take their advice. Don’t go down with the sinking climate activism ship. You’ve given us a lot of entertainment over the years, it would be sad to see you sink into obscurity and irrelevance, when there is still so much more for you to give.
Does Bill McKibben still head 350.0rg?
That is the organization that was formed to keep CO2 concentrations below 350ppm, thus the name of the organization.
Well, their efforts failed. CO2 concentrations are now around 425ppm.
They should change their name to something like 500.0rg.
Or something like 350.stupid
He just wrote a new book “Here Comes the Sun: A Last Chance for the Climate and a Fresh Chance for Civilization”. That’s why he’s on this solar kick. He’s trying to sell more copies.
Here is one of McKibben’s track records regarding CO2; a total pack of lies
Middlebury College Overstates CO2 of Its Tree Burning Plant by 2 times and Sequestering CO2 by its Forests by 10 times
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/middlebury-college-overstates-co2-of-its-tree-burning-plant-and
By Willem Post
.
Middlebury College in Vermont, has an Environmental Studies Department.
The Department receives federal and state government grants and alumni bequests to perform environment-related studies
The Department held a Senior Student Seminar (ES 401) during the Winter of 2010 regarding:
1) the CO2 emissions of the Campus tree burning plant, and
2) the sequestering of CO2 by the forest owned by the College.
1) According to the Campus wood burning plant website, the best estimate of wood chip delivery is 20,000 tons of green wood chips per year.
Incorrect CO2 Calculation
The seminar report states: “Thus, a more realistic estimate of carbon emissions is: 20,000, US ton of green wood x 0.50, moisture content x 44/12 x 1 = 36,667 tons of carbon”. See URL, pages 38 and 39.
This calculation is incorrect, because it did not account for the carbon content of dry wood
BTW, the word “carbon” should read “CO2”
http://www.middlebury.edu/media/view/255078/original/Winter_2010carbon_sequestration.pdf
Correct CO2 Calculation
The wood chips contain 20,000, US ton of green wood x 0.50, moisture content = 10,000 US ton of dry wood.
The dry wood contains 10,000 US ton of dry wood x 0.487 lb carbon/lb dry wood = 4,870 US ton of carbon.
The CO2 created by combustion is 44/12 x 4,870 = 17,857 US ton of CO2.
The report overstated the CO2 emissions by 36,667/17,856 = 2.05 times
2) Incorrect Calculation of CO2 Sequestered by the Forest
The report states: “Middlebury College-owned forests, 1295 ha (3200 acre), will sequester about 9,905 US ton of carbon/y, or 9905/3200 = 3.095 US ton of carbon/acre, or 44/12 x 3.095 = 11.35 US ton of CO2/acre. See URL, page 39, table 7
For reference: Vermont forestland, 4,511,000 acres, sequestered about 4,390,000 metric. ton of CO2, or 0.973 metric ton of CO2/acre, or 1.073 US ton of CO2/acre, per US Forest Service.
https://fpr.vermont.gov/sites/fpr/files/Forest_and_Forestry/The_Forest_Ecosystem/Library/Forest%20Carbon%20Inventory%20_Mar%202017_final.pdf
The report overstated the sequestered CO2 by 11.35/1.073 = 10.6 times
I sent McKibben a copy of my numbers
He told me he would forward it to the proper persons
Those are the type of enviros who fear-monger us, are taxing us, are mandating us, and are telling us to spend our hard-earned money on super-expensive, impoverishing Net-zero to reduce CO2 by 2050.
CO2 is a life gas, if below 200 ppm most plants barely grow.
At 200 CO2 ppm, there would be no greening of the earth, and no fauna, and no 8 billion people.
We need about 1000 CO2 ppm for optimum plant growth, as proven in laboratories and commercial greenhouses.
These McKibben-perverted/brainwashed enviros are incompetent and should be reduced to nothing
State and federal government grants are being wasted and should be cancelled
Alumni donations should not be squandered on BS “studies”.
CO2, just 0.042% in the atmosphere, is a weak absorber of a small fraction of the available, absorbable, low-energy IR photons.
CO2 has near-zero influence on world surface temperatures.
Increased CO2 ppm in atmosphere, a life-giving gas, with sunshine and water and nutrients from the soil, grows lusher, green forests all over the world, increases fauna, reduces desert areas, such as the Sahara, and increases crop yields per acre to better feed 8 billion people.
After $trillions of subsidies for wind, solar, batteries, grid work, heat pumps, EVs, etc., in 2025, here are the results:
World Primary Energy Consumption for all purposes:
Oil 201,0 EJ
Coal 166.0 EJ
Gas 150.7 EJ
Nuclear 31.0 EJ
Hydro 16.0 EJ
Wind 17.1 EJ
Solar 18.35 EJ
Biomass $ Biofuels 11.5 EJ
Total 600.1 EJ
Several specific claims and timelines presented in Al Gore’s 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth did not occur as predicted or relied on exaggerated timelines and worst-case scenarios.
Unfulfilled or Exaggerated Predictions
Legal and Scientific Context
A British High Court ruling in 2007 reviewed An Inconvenient Truth when it was distributed to secondary schools to brainwash the students.
The judge concluded the film was broadly accurate in its underlying thesis on global warming but identified nine distinct scientific errors or exaggerated assertions, ruling that they were presented in the context of alarmism to maximize rhetorical impact.
While subsequent decades have validated the broader scientific consensus regarding rising global temperatures, melting global ice sheets, and intensifying extreme weather, many of Gore’s specific milestone dates and dramatic near-future timelines failed to materialize.
“the vibes are mostly bad.”
There are good reasons for the bad climate vibes.
Most Christian millenarians would have moved on, or at least gone quiet, after the
Greens track record.
“Climate models provide an important way to understand future changes in the Earth’s climate. In this paper we undertake a thorough evaluation of the performance of various climate models published between the early 1970s and the late 2000s. Specifically, we look at how well models project global warming in the years after they were published by comparing them to observed temperature changes. Model projections rely on two things to accurately match observations: accurate modeling of climate physics and accurate assumptions around future emissions of CO2 and other factors affecting the climate. The best physics-based model will still be inaccurate if it is driven by future changes in emissions that differ from reality. To account for this, we look at how the relationship between temperature and atmospheric CO2 (and other climate drivers) differs between models and observations. We find that climate models published over the past five decades were generally quite accurate in predicting global warming in the years after publication, particularly when accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric CO2 and other climate drivers. This research should help resolve public confusion around the performance of past climate modeling efforts and increases our confidence that models are accurately projecting global warming.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378
He’s back again, toting his stale, old Red Herring.
We are laughing at your idiocies.
Catnip time!
Hi Sparta!
Agreed. What I find amusing is this priceless gem.
“climate models published over the past five decades were generally quite accurate…”
Does it need to be pointed out that “generally quite accurate” is an utterly meaningless phrase? What kind of doofus takes this seriously?
But they “maybe could be accurate” – probably.
We can land a craft on an asteroid- based on superb science and superb engineering. Close wouldn’t be good enough.
The kind who compares temperature/climate results against the training period of the model and declares that it’s good.
My cat is getting bummed-there’s so much catnip going out that he’s beginning to take it personally because he ain’t getting it. He’s worried about his supply train.
We find that climate models published over the past five decades were…
…complete garbage.
I wish that were the case.
Our poor planet…
Wake up- you’re in a trance! 🙂
Nah. He is merely pouncing on catnip.
Hillarious.
The cat is beginning to growl…
“Our poor planet…”
Was it better in the stone age when we lived hand to mouth and often starved to death- and had to worry about cave bears and cave lions and your neighbors cracking you over the head with a club and no police or ambulance to call – after all, there was no water or air pollution. Of course there were at least as many floods, droughts, forest fires, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes. A real paradise, huh!
I gather (correct me if I’m wrong) your argument is essentially: life was terrible before civilization, therefore concerns about environmental deterioration are misplaced.
Those aren’t mutually exclusive. The Stone Age was a very hard time for humans, and so will 2150 be if the global average temperature is +5C above the pre-industrial average.
And, anticipating this point, yes, Earth has been much warmer in the past. But the rate at which we get there matters.
I have concerns about environmental problems when they’re real. The climate “problem” ain’t real. Neither is the AI problem.
There’s countless “what if problems” that COULD happen, but most likely won’t. Worry about these things if you must- but just don’t force solutions on the rest of us.
“The climate “problem” ain’t real. “
Climate change isn’t a hypothetical “what if” problem. We’re already observing the consequences of rapid, human-caused global warming.
Example: Lake Powell has just fallen to its lowest level since the reservoir began filling.
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/earth-observatory/lake-powell-drops-to-record-low-levels
This past winter in the U.S. West was freakishly warm: record breaking temperatures and abysmal mountain snowpack. It’s part of a broader trend toward warmer winters and declining mountain snowpack.
I’m genuinely concerned about the prospect of severe water scarcity in the region. At some point, how much further can we push the Southwest before parts of it become effectively unlivable?
“We’re already observing the consequences of rapid, human-caused global warming.”
That’s your fantasy. Some might be human-caused but it’s not known what percent, so you should know better than to proclaim it’s human-caused.
A lot of entities take water out of the Colorado River which doesn’t help. If the SW is so potentially unlivable, why do so many people keep moving there? Maybe it’s time to end all golf courses and green lawns in the area- and swimming pools. So is it a climate problem or an excessive demand of water by humans problem?
‘That’s your fantasy. Some might be human-caused but it’s not known what percent, so you should know better than to proclaim it’s human-caused.”
Well, Milankovitch cycles currently predict cooler Northern Hemisphere summers and a long term tendency toward ice accumulation in the Arctic, as Earth’s axial tilt decreases and Northern Hemisphere summers occur closer to aphelion — the point in Earth’s orbit farthest from the Sun.
But that trend has been overwhelmed and reversed by recent warming, with Arctic sea ice declining very dramatically.
So… yeah, it’s not a fantasy.
https://web.archive.org/web/20071102121828/http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/frozen-north/
“The data indicate sizeable warming of the arctic region, very recently, and rapid loss of perennial sea ice. The climate in the arctic is changing right before our very eyes. It may not be so very far in the future, that the frozen north isn’t so frozen after all.“
“A lot of entities take water out of the Colorado River which doesn’t help. “
And so does greater evaporation from the Colorado River Basin due to higher temperatures, along with declining mountain snowpack…
Despite the fact that there are dozens of reasons why the Lake Powel might be down, the fool fixates on the one he’s been told to fear, at the exclusion of everything else.
Typical of someone with no knowledge of science or statistics.
Sea Ice decline stopped after 2007, thus you are comically out of date, meanwhile there have been times of little to zero summer sea ice in the earlier part of the interglacial.
Nah.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2025/05/02/arctic-sea-ice-5/
“Clearly the uncertainty is large compared to the actual values, because the time series are very short and quite noisy. The confidence interval for the “since 2007” rate includes zero, so it is believable (statistically) that yes indeed, there has been no real change since then. But the confidence interval also includes the rate it was changing before 2007 — so that even using the model in which there is a discontinuous shift in 2007, we still can’t be sure that the rate also changed at that time.”
Why does your graph of Arctic sea ice stop in 2007?
Oh yeah, like this has never happened before…*rolls eyes*…
It was record-breaking.
In a 130-year record.
The previous record for the warmest winter in the Southwest, set in 1980–81, was shattered by 2.5°F.
That’s not trivial.
Winters are getting warmer, fast.
Oh dear! RUN AWAY!!!!
Don’t run away from the problem.
Face it. Stop pretending it isn’t there.
“Here, kitty-kitty!”
What’s going to happen to Colorado’s skiing industry over the next 200 years?
They make snow, you silly person…
Still needs sufficiently cold temperatures.
Meanwhile:
According to a 2nd-order polynomial fit (which has a higher R² than a linear fit), the freakishly warm winter of 2025–26 becomes ‘normal’ by 2130.
Another demonstration of the Deadly Sin of Reification.
“Another demonstration of the Deadly Sin of Reification.”
What is?
2nd-order polynomial fits?
R^2 values?
Linear fits?
Which one are you talking about here?
I’ll give you the Beeton answer: “go study and educate yourself.”
Who cares. Same as the Dirty Thirties. Things happen.
What’s the saying, nothing new under the sun.
No, not all.
The 1930s were cold in the southwestern United States, while unusually warm conditions were concentrated in only a few regions of the world.
Mean DJF T for CO during 1930-39: -3.85C
Mean DJF T for CO during 2020-29 (thus far): -2.2C
Who knows what will happen to Colorado’s skiing industry over the next 200 years?
The industry was born in the warm dust bowl years. Since then its growth has been correlated with CO2 emissions, energy consumption and wealth.
Except the Dust Bowl period in Colorado wasn’t particularly warm by the state’s long-term record.
Here’s a plot of annual average temperatures in Colorado from 1895 to the present:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/statewide/time-series/5/tavg/12/12/1895-2026
The warmest years on record are:
2012: 48.3°F
1934: 48.0°F
2017: 47.9°F
2024: 47.7°F
2025: 47.7°F
2021: 47.5°F
1954: 47.4°F
2015: 47.4°F
2016: 47.3°F
2020: 47.3°F
2018: 47.2°F
Only one year from the 1930s appears on that list.
Warming is firmly intact, and over time, higher-elevation mountain environments and the ski resorts that depend on reliable snowpack will be increasingly affected.
All of the modern measurements are biased high due to heat island and other effects from population increases. Nevertheless, Boulder’s high temperatures were still recorded in 1954.
Here are the annual average temperatures from a USCRN station in Boulder, Colorado:
The trend shows a warming rate of 0.45°/decade. That’s higher than Colorado’s statewide average trend of 0.33°C/ decade over the same 2004-2025 period.
Station listing here:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/crn/station-listing
Find the data here: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/metadata/landing-page/bin/iso?id=gov.noaa.ncdc:C00546
If you look at the entire record, it’s obvious there is no problem.
The main problem is overdraws of the water of which the Colorado river can’t overcome.
You overlook that part of the math.
130 year record, I’m sure that’s impressive, unless you recognize that climate proxies go back thousands, even 10’s of thousands of years.
130 years, doesn’t even get us back to the coldest period of the Little Ice Age.
Malarkey. One place is warmer than it was 100 years ago. Where I am there were 20x as many daily high temperature records in the 1920s than in to 2020s. That doesn’t mean that I’m going to parrot that we’re all doomed because the ice is coming back because it’s obviously getting colder.
But I am alarmed that very few are seriously looking at when the ice will return. The average where I live now over the last 2 million years is a mile thick ice. This interglacial will end. The ice will return. Stop diverting from the question of when.
“Where I am there were 20x as many daily high temperature records in the 1920s than in to 2020s.”
“… trend towards warmer winters and declining mountain snowpack.”
Definitely true of US northwest!
…… However…….
.How record-breaking is this weather?
.Has it happened before – or something comparable?
.Has this weather trend been compensated for, at least in part, by colder /snowier conditions, often found at the other end of the weather system causing the unusual conditions?
.How much of it can realistically be attributed to “human-caused” climate change?
.Even if found to be caused by humans, how much of the human impact can be attributed to CO2?
.Even if attributable to CO2, does the greater concentration have net benefit or net negative impact for the planet as a whole?
All the above questions must be answered with 100% accuracy (in other words much more accurately than current climate models) before any UN led World Government forces everyone to bend knee to the Net Zero mantra.
“How record-breaking is this weather?”
October 2025–March 2026 was 3.72°F above average — the warmest October–March period on record for the CONUS, and more than 1°F above the previous record.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/6/3
“Has this warmth been compensated for, at least in part, by colder/snowier conditions elsewhere in the weather system?”
No. If colder conditions elsewhere in the CONUS were offsetting the exceptional warmth, the national anomaly would be closer to zero. Instead, it was +3.72°F.
March 2026 was particularly extraordinary: +7.69°F above average, the warmest anomaly on record for the CONUS.
“How much of this can realistically be attributed to human-caused climate change?”
All of it. See my comment above about the Milankovitch cycles — absent human influence, the globe should be cooling.
“Even if attributable to CO₂, does higher CO₂ have a net benefit or net negative impact?”
Nope. Overwhelmingly negative.
I can’t find any negatives, only positives.
The American southwest has a long, long history of droughts. Many lasting 100 to 200 years. I bet you didn’t know that. (Or want to)
Hurricanes, completely normal.
Tornadoes, completely normal.
Wild fires, completely normal.
There is nothing at all unusual regarding any climate statistic.
I first stepped foot in the Rockies and Southwest 50 years ago. For the past 30 some years I’ve been a full year resident.
I’ve experienced just about everything as far as weather is concerned over that time. Other than it being more developed and populated, this past year was rather nice.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01290-z
“A previous reconstruction back to 800 ce indicated that the 2000–2018 soil moisture deficit in southwestern North America was exceeded during one megadrought in the late-1500s. Here, we show that after exceptional drought severity in 2021, ~19% of which is attributable to anthropogenic climate trends, 2000–2021 was the driest 22-yr period since at least 800. This drought will very likely persist through 2022, matching the duration of the late-1500s megadrought.”
In other words, I was right. Mega droughts are a feature of the southwest and none of the previous ones required enhanced CO2.
As I said before, there is nothing happening now that hasn’t happened may times before.
Without AGW, the drought would likely have been less severe.
That’s your assumption, there is zero data to support such a belief.
BTW, enhanced CO2 makes plants more efficient at using water.
Therez data you can find on the internet:
“Regardless of the anthropogenic impact on multidecadal variability, the 1980–2018 wet-to-dry transition was hastened by the background drying forced from anthropogenic warming.”
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaz9600?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
Indeed—strikingly abrupt, as the above graph demonstrates.
This year there has been a complete absence of Atlantic hurricanes. Is this evidence for catastrophic global warming, Eldrosian?
It was “freakishly” hot in the 1930’s yet Americans trudged through it.
Lake Powell is a MAN-MADE reservoir that is declining due to increased water withdrawals that exceeds the average inflow from the Colorado.
It was also freakishly cold:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_cold_wave
The 1930s were defined not simply by unusually warm temperatures, but by extreme temperatures at both ends of the spectrum, which average out,
My post remains unchallenged, too bad for you who is trying this deflection to cover your failure.
You were trying to draw a parallel between the very hot and dry conditions in the southwestern U.S. during the 21st century and those of the 1930s.
But the 1930s were characterized not simply by unusually warm temperatures. They also experienced extreme temperatures at both ends of the spectrum, which largely offset each in the long term average.
Hope that helps. Sorry you need it.
I just have to ask–which pre-industrial average? The one in the medieval warm period, or the Roman warm period, or some other pre-industrial time? And how do we know what the temperature was then or is now?
1850-1900.
It’s the earliest period for which scientists have enough complete observations to estimate global surface temperature.
How much of an error range is involved in this estimated “global surface temperature”? Satellite measurements only go back to 1979, and even that is not complete.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-1/
“Warming of the climate system is most commonly presented through the observed increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST). Taking a baseline of 1850–1900, GMST change until present (2011–2020) is 1.09°C [0.95 to 1.20] °C (Section 2.3 and Cross-Chapter Box 2.3).”
+0.95 – +1.2C.
And it has warmed since 2020.
So you really do believe that current measurements are accurate to 0.01C?
Are you actually trying to claim that this accuracy goes back to 1850?
Well this is nonsense, the only way you lot get to “global average” is via Fake Data.
It’s not fake data. It’s actual temperature measurements recorded by thermometers.
BS and you know it — ocean thermometers were essentially nil, but the klimate kooks krank out pretty graphs with ocean Fake Data and don’t even bat an eye.
Climate patterns operate on very large spatial scales, and there were enough ocean and land temperature measurements to reasonably interpolate between observations.
Need more catnip?
Really pissing off my cat.
Climate patterns operate on very large spatial scales, and there were enough ocean and land temperature measurements to reasonably interpolate between observations.
Your absolute ignorance of statistics is showing through again.
Not true! He knows enough of averaging to know that if 3 arctic stations are dropped from the averaging and 10 tropical stations are added then the average increasing going forewards means that Climageddon (from heat) is coming. That’s enough to support his religion.
Unfortunately you missed this earlier today Mark, when the trolls talk about Science instead of science they are making a religious claim. Good luck beating a cult with logical thinking and fact.
You are describing the calculation as though it is a simple average of raw station temperatures.
Instead, what’s actually used are temperature anomalies relative to local baselines.
Adding a tropical station doesn’t automatically give that location disproportional influence over the global mean.
And again there’s plenty of observations by that time. They are sparser and properly accounted for.
If that were true why do modelers need smaller and smaller grid sizes?
Higher resolution enables models to better simulate fine-scale processes.
Thank you for admitting that models don’t do well with fine-scale processes.
Computers have finite resolution and computational limits. Of course climate models don’t perfectly resolve every fine scale process.
that’s a basic limitation of numerical modeling, not some devastating admission about climate science.
Actually it is a devastating admission. It’s an admission that the models are not fit for purpose. As anyone who’s actually studied them already knew.
Lol, global warming is not fine scale.
If this were true, then 1 thermometer would be all you need.
Irrefutable – and hilarious!
Logic is the enemy of Klimate Klowns like Eldrosian.
Stop making absurd claims you can’t support.
Read up on the many problems that have been found in this thermometer record.
So how did they determine the “average” temperature from readings taken at 9AM and 3PM?
Snicker, you actually believe 100 to 200 sensors in mostly Europe and the eastern seaboard of N. America, can be used to get an accurate estimation of global temperatures.
Let’s also not forget that these observations were made by volunteers with widely varying amounts of training and recorded to the nearest degree.
Especially when they turn around and say there is no evidence for a global Little Ice Age or warm periods.
They were sparse, but more widespread than that.
Uncertainty estimates for global temperatures are larger further back in time but they remain sufficiently small to allow us to draw meaningful conclusions.
Only if you are psychotic.
A handful in Asia, 1 or 2 in S. America, almost none in the Atlantic and Pacific.
Not enough to make a difference.
FYI There just 141 stations comprising the USCRN compared to Climdiv’s 1218.
“The U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) has 114 primary stations in the contiguous United States (plus additional stations in Alaska and Hawaii), while the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN)contains 1,218 stations. [1, 2]”
Yet they yield sufficient data to represent the contiguous USA just fine.
Oh, and Mr karlo … indeed it’s all fake data (sarc).
Wait till karlomonte brings out his Pee Wee Herman.
That’s now, too bad most of those stations turned out to be class 4 and 5.
Go back 100 years, and the number of stations drop, dramatically.
“That’s now, too bad most of those stations turned out to be class 4 and 5.”
You’re conflating allegations about the Met Office temperature record with the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), which is a separate dataset and network.
Here’s what Anthony Watts himself says about USCRN:
“The graph shows the Average Surface Temperature Anomaly for the contiguous United States since 2005. The data comes from the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) which is a properly sited (away from human influences and infrastructure) and state-of-the-art weather network consisting of 114 stations in the USA.
These station locations were chosen to avoid warm biases from Urban Heat Islands (UHI) effects as well as microsite effects as documented in the 2022 report Corrupted Climate Stations: The Official U.S. Surface Temperature Record Remains Fatally Flawed. Unfortunately, NOAA never reports this data in their monthly or yearly “state of the climate report.” And, mainstream media either is entirely unaware of the existence of this data set or has chosen not to report on this U.S. temperature record.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/u-s-surface-temperature/
And, as Anthony Banton demonstrates, the USCRN data validates the original U.S. temperature record.
Sorry, but the surface temperature record really is legitimate.
As usual, you’re ignorance is awe inspiring.
A similar survey was done here in the US over a decade before the UK survey.
To the original network, not CRN.
Why does that graph not show any warming trend?
It does.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2025/02/27/not-just-a-river-in-egypt/
“Now it’s plain that the global rate, while definitely upward, is the slowest of the three. The ClimDiv estimate of the USA48 rate is higher, and the estimated warming rate for USA48 from the USCRN data is the fastest of all.“
How many weather stations across the world in 1850 were used? How many in the Southern Hemisphere?
https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/52041/
“An audit of uncertainties in the HadCRUT4 temperature anomaly dataset plus the investigation of three other contemporary climate issues”
And yet another disproven trope.
First off trying to compare the modern thermometer record to proxies with 100 to 1000 year resolutions, is something so stupid that only someone with no knowledge of science or statistics would do it.
I bet that you have no idea as to why it is such a stupid idea.
So not the Stone Age then? How about the LIA? That must have been comfortable, right? 😉
I don’t know.
But it was about 1degree cooler than hothouse earth. 😉
Information is available, for those with the courage to look.
Show us your nincompoop math
Climate patterns operate on very large spatial scales, and there were enough ocean and land temperature measurements to reasonably interpolate between observations.
If that were true, as MarkW observes, you would only need one thermometer in the entire World.
Why would you only need one thermometer?
Sounds like London …..
The warming from the bottom of the LIA has been entirely beneficial, as has the extra plant food in the air.
“Model projections rely on two things to accurately match observations: accurate modeling of climate physics and accurate assumptions around future emissions of CO2 and other factors affecting the climate.”
That’s all? No problemo. /s
Earth’s temperature is determined by its energy balance: incoming solar radiation reflected and outgoing thermal radiation.
If you can accurately model that energy balance, including the processes that affect it, you can model global temperature.
You also need to account for the emissions trajectory and other external forcings.
That’s a big if. It’s tough enough to model basic things in chemistry and physics- never mind the planet’s MANY climates. So, your logic starts with modeling the energy balance- which then leads to model global temperature. Better to start off with very high quality data and good basic research including far more research on clouds, the effects of 8 billion people on the planet, the effects on the climate by covering vast areas of the globe with wind and solar energy, etc., etc. Ergo, global models of climate are still in the baby steps level and will not advance rapidly because there are unknowns and unknown unknowns- and to top it off, there are always trade offs. Whatever decisions are made to deal with the climate, some people will be hurt and some will benefit, some will benefit financially very well indeed- and should they be trusted to be honest about the trade offs? This isn’t just about science- it’s a very deep political problem- seldom mentioned by the alarmist cult.
Yes, there are uncertainties. Climate models aren’t perfect — clouds and aerosols are good examples.
But that’s not the same thing as saying, “We don’t understand the basic physics.”
Climate models have been making quantitative projections for decades, and those projections have performed quite well when compared with subsequent observations, particularly when you account for what actually happened to GHG emissions and other forcings, as Hausfather, 2020 did.
Policy choices are complicated, I agree — there are trade-offs. But that’s different from saying the underlying problem isn’t real. It is.
Basic physics aren’t enough to generalize to a worldwide climate model sufficiently accurate to require major political decisions costing trillions of dollar. Until you get way past the basic physics, you can’t say that the problem is real. Besides, so far, the trivial warming isn’t hurting anyone. It can’t cause floods, droughts, hurricanes (of which we see few this year), forest fires, etc. Because YOU say it’s real isn’t very convincing. There are real problems- like some big American cities now being run by communists. That’s a bigger problem than a degree or two increase in temperature.
But what if it ends up being more than a degree or two?
We’re already at roughly +1.5°C above the pre-industrial baseline. And that’s not the end point — it’s the warming we’ve already experienced.
You have too many “ifs” and “coulds”. Too many to build good policy with. We’re not talking about whether to build Trump’s ball room- we’re talking about spending gazillions of dollars, covering much of the landscape with wind and solar systems, drastically rebuilding the grid. Notice the economic difficulties the UK is now having as they attempt to arrive at Net Zero Nirvana. Same here in Wokeachusetts where now the cost of living is very high so that few young adults can afford a home. Real science will have very few if any ifs and coulds. I doubt you’d find any in any of Einstein’s work. You think the science supports your beliefs in climate catastrophe, but it really doesn’t.
Enough for today, I’ll be happy to let you have the last word. 🙂
We still aren’t back to the temperatures that the world enjoyed during the Medieval Warm Period and several degrees cooler than the Holocene Optimum.
Apologies, I posted before I had read this.
We have possibly reached the warmth of the Medieval Warm Period, but are still below the temperatures of the Roman and Minoan eras, and well below those of the Holocene.
Why do you have problems with this?
Baseless assertions.
His high priests have declared that the models are accurate, therefor they are.
He doesn’t need knowledge, he’s got faith.
Pat Frank has shown conclusively that climate models can only work if they are artificially constrained to give plausible results. Without such constraints, the errors explode exponentially with each iteration.
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2019/09/another-round-of-pat-franks-propagation.html
Most models cannot accurately account for cloud formation over time, and cannot account for how those (different kinds of) clouds affect surface temperature. That is a pretty big failing.
Eart does NOT have “a” temperature. The very idea of a global temperature can only be entertained by people like you who have no clue about Physics or Metrology.
You said earlier Earth has a temperature.
I’ve seen this sort of caveat near the paper’s end in a number of non-climate marine science papers. These where I know the subject raises questions if not alarm. Do the stats in their figures produce this “obsolete” conclusion in the end of their paper?
“……While the relative simplicity of the models analyzed here renders their climate projections operationally obsolete, they may be useful tools for verifying or falsifying methods used to evaluate state-of-the-art climate models……”
Anyone with even a modicum of intelligence could have predicted that the warming trend coming out of the Little Ice Age would continue.
Perhaps if it continues for another 100 years, temperatures will recover to what the what the world enjoyed during the Medieval Warm Period.
As the UN meets, we are urging leaders to pursue a clear goal: Jam Tomorrow.
And that’s it.
Aside from the irony and sarcasm of that statement, I will be happy to not see or hear of this old anorak, ever again.
It will be back, but in the interim, we’ll have to put up with a global cooling scare if the cycles of history are any indication of the future. As well as some new silly scares (like AI, robotics, and space cooties).
Wild Bill McKibben
Fire in the dumpster..,
Global warming alarmist Bill McKibben took to Twitter immediately to publicize what he believed to be proof of global warming, tweeting to Senator James Inhofe (Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, “Senator Inhofe, God may be trying to get your attention. Check out this picture.”
https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2012/8/post-e928fbb4-802a-23ad-43ed-f10460c56be2
A complete melonfarmer…
Meanwhile the invasion war in Ukraine has lasted longer than WW2. Send Bernie and Bill to Moscow to end it.
I’m sure Putin will listen to them. /s
Yep . . . just like he listened to Donald Trump, who during his 2024 Presidential campaign frequently stated he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in a single day, or within 24 hours of taking office, because he would talk to his “good friend” Vladimir.
Of course, Putin has ended up playing the Orange Man for the fool that his is, from then until now.
The fact that Trump said all that doesn’t mean that even he believed it. Are you aware of the fact that people running for office lie? All of them? And, I doubt he gives a f*** about Putin or Russia. Why should he? To build another Trump Tower in Moscow? That’s absurd. I have the following theory- that Trump and his state dept. have decided that it’s not smart to act aggressive towards Russia- which will only make Putin dig in his heels even deeper. Trump wants to portray himself as a potential middle man in that struggle so he can be the peacemaker. And, he wants Europe to deal with Russia while America has a much bigger fish to deal with- China and with the continued struggle with the crazy Moslem world. People, especially lefties, vastly underestimate Trump because he often sounds a bit scatter brained- but that’s really him trolling everyone. Despite all that, America has helped Ukraine a great deal so far and I suspect helped in ways not discussed.
“People, especially lefties, vastly underestimate Trump because he often sounds a bit scatter brained- but that’s really him trolling everyone.”
You do know that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale, right?
Oh yes, Putin played him so well that Trump ended up merging US intelligence and military with the Russian one.
And even the giant abomination sold as Ballroom turned out to be the Ancient Russian throne residence with 700+299+1 seats.
Oh, btw – it was Trump who broke all his promises,analogue to the Iran MOU, he made in Anchorage to Russia(that’s how much Putin played him)
which lead to Lawrovs comment: ” US is agreement incable” which is a french euphemism for honorless Lying Sacks Of Shit.
Putin actually played Trump so well, that the CiA is even bragging about helping Ukraine to hit Russian targets.
A little more of such Putin play and Russia becomes again a Wall Street colony as Venezuela is now and as Russia was in the 90ies.
Hmmmm . . . Bill McKibben and Bernie Sanders, two has-been hacks both trying valiantly to stay relevant in a world that has passed by them.
I’m just wondering what percentage of the energy needed to transport Bernie and “all those climate experts from around the world gather(ed) in New York at the UN for their annual week of talking through the world’s deepest dilemma” and to keep them housed, fed and entertained will be provided from solar energy as compared to from fossil fuels . . . my best guess 8% solar versus 80% fossil fuels, with the remaining 12% being other “renewables” and non-renewables.
BTW, in one very real sense, the “world’s deepest dilemma” is how to rid itself of so many grifters, such as these two.
Alas, true.
Presently NY in state generation is 2% wind, 8% burnable renewable stuff plus solar, 45% fossil fuel, 25% hydro and 20% nuclear. They are importing about 2000 MW. So, yeah, more fossil than anything else, and that doesn’t count transportation, which I am sure there will be a lot of.
I’m still unconvinced there is any return on investment for AI. Trillions are being spent on data centres, etc., for improved search and faster code writing, which seems overly optimistic. Money may evaporate, but there is no threat to humanity in that.
AI is like railroad. All the original railroad entrepreneurs went bust. But the railroads they built changed the world.
Let’s see … We need more energy to power AI while we also need to stop polluting our planet with CO2 … how about we include a safe, clean, reliable nuclear power plant with each AI factory? Hummm …
Regardless of whom is the UN leader or who has the greatest influence within that body, it doesn’t mean that strong climate action will be taken largely by the major consumers of fossil fuels and most of the smaller ones who all know that their economies and future prosperity depends on these energy sources. They may pay some lip service to renewables, but they realize these can only supplement fossil fuel energy. So within the UN and national governments there may be a few climate activists, but no one from federal officials down to consumers intends to take any of the action that they advocate.
“As the UN meets, we are urging leaders to pursue a clear goal: clean energy for all by 2030”
2027… 2028… 2029…
If he had said “by 2050” it might have been plausible – except nobody would have done anything until 2049. So: Fail, but he had no better options. Project managers curse.
I do not understand the enthusiasm for solar, it is a dreadful source of electricity from a grid perspective. yes, domestic users are seduced by getting cheaper (nominally) electricity but it adds cost to the grid in terms of extra control required and a reduction of business for the grid connected (Domestic solar is beyond grid control) suppliers whose fixed costs remain, so require a higher market price.
0
0
My friend is very clever with finances, so he is well aware he will never make his money back on solar in terms of return on investment. BUT there is a real chance the crop of incompetents who run Australia could mess up our power grid. Even the industry body AEMO says our grid will become less stable in the near future.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/09/03/aemo-east-coast-aussie-states-are-failing-or-about-to-fail-energy-reliability-standards/