Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Knobby22]

Not scientists, politicians and pundits.
Official science predictions from IPCC have been pretty much bang on, if a little conservative. The modelling has been very good.

Watch what happens next.
Some famous French and Australian wine producers are ready for it (e.g.Brown Brothers) setting up vineyards in Tazzy and UK.
China is building the ships and the Canadian port to make a trade route through the arctic.

Follow the money.

 

[Sean K]

 

[Sean K]

The Communist Republic of the United Nations is a joke. I'm gutted.

Having deployed on multiple UN peace keeping and peace making operations, which have all had very good intentions, I am ashamed of what the UN has become as a global body.

Why hasn’t the head of the United Nations been forced out of – indeed, laughed out of – office already?

UN secretary-general António Guterres – who used to be just another hack European socialist, bent on destroying their own country, in his case Portugal, before upgrading to aiming at global destruction – solemnly announced we had entered the era of “global boiling”.

Just a tad hyperbolic, just a smidgen of hysteria, there?

And going right off the climate cult script.

Didn’t he get the memo?

We had to move on from the original ‘global warming’ to the repackaged ‘climate change’, precisely because it has been hard to sustain the claim that the planet had actually, well, warmed.

 

[Smurf1976]

Having deployed on multiple UN peace keeping and peace making operations, which have all had very good intentions, I am ashamed of what the UN has become as a global body.

Somewhat off topic but I contend that pretty much all of society's key institutions are at least somewhat tarnished at this point in time.

Everything from religion to central banks, from the UN to state governments, from the fictional world of Hollywood movies to the hard reality of universities, all have the common element of no longer being on a pedestal and seen as beyond doubt as they were not so long ago. All have become at least somewhat suspect as to their integrity and motives.

That alone explains much of society's troubles in my view across a vast range of subjects. And yes, the issues involving entertainment matter just as much as the issues involving education or religion - pretty much everything that could be loosely considered a pillar of society or a common uniting force is suffering the same basic problem.

 

[UMike]

It is summer in the US and it’s hot, in case you’ve missed the news.
More than 100 million people, across dozens of states, have been living under heat advisories for the past few weeks, issued when temperatures exceed 38 degrees (100 degrees Fahrenheit).
While most Americans have got on with life and taken refuge in the plentiful supply of airconditioning (found in about 90 per cent of US households, more than any other nation except Japan), others have used the intense summer heat to make ridiculous statements.
On this score it’s a competition between Hillary Clinton and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. The former US secretary of state last week blamed “MAGA Republicans” for the heatwave. “Hot enough for you? Thank a MAGA Republican. Or better yet, vote them out of office,” she said on social media, linking to a tweet that attacked Republicans for not supporting the Inflation Reduction Act

It's shaping up to be the hottest week of the summer for parts of the US as the country’s heatwave is expected to…
Meanwhile, Guterres said at a press conference in New York that “the era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived”, declaring climate change “here and terrifying”.

The two statements were stupid in their own ways. Clinton was trying to politicise the weather, something no government can control over any measurable time frame. Guterres was simply being hysterical, seeking to use fear to garner political support for more “climate action”, which not coincidentally means more power for governments and “experts”.
That both of them, who privately must know their claims are absurd, feel confident to say such things reflects the depressing effectiveness of years of relentless climate change propaganda.
A 2021 survey of 10,000 young people aged 16 to 25 across wealthy nations – the next generation of leaders – found 59 per cent were “extremely worried” to the point that 45 per cent said climate change affected their “daily life and functioning”, according to the Lancet.
These two comments came as scientists had confirmed July was the hottest month ever recorded in 120,000 years of history, according to the Scientific American and a deluge of media articles. That reliable measures only go back a little over a century doesn’t seem to matter.

Illustration: Johannes Leak.
Even assuming the “global temperature” can be measured accurately, an average taken over three weeks is meaningless. Indeed, a quick internet search suggests the 1936 heatwave in the US, which killed thousands of people, was at least as bad, and lasted longer.

Government institutions as much as the media are to blame for this propaganda victory, increasingly starved of alternative voices to report on and biased published data.

Earlier this month the International Monetary Fund quietly disinvited John Clauser, an American scientist who won the 2022 Nobel prize for physics, from giving a presentation on July 25 about climate change models.
From the perspective of climate alarmists it’s not hard to see why. Some junior bureaucrats must have alerted the organisers to Clauser’s sacrilege of a few weeks earlier at Quantum Korea, a science conference in Seoul.
In his keynote address he told an audience of budding scientists the world was “awash with pseudoscience”. Then he committed a cardinal sin. “I can confidently say there is no real climate crisis, and that climate change does not cause extreme weather events.”
Indeed, it’s already understood by the shrinking share of thinking people that the frequency and costs of extreme weather events have collapsed over the past century, as scientist Steve Koonin laid out in his 2021 book, Unsettled.

“The IPCC is one of the worst sources of dangerous disinformation,” said Clauser, who won the Nobel prize “for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science”.
I suppose he – unlike Greta Thunberg, who is feted by global institutions – is not a proper climate expert.
Similarly, the US Environmental Protection Agency on its website shows charts indicating the frequency, duration and intensity of heatwaves in the US have been increasingly steadily since the 1960s. If it was a UN event, perhaps one could understand, given the IPCC is ultimately a United Nations body. But the IMF is independent of the UN, suggesting the cancellation was another pathetic example of censorship by a supposedly intellectual institution stuffed with PhD graduates.
But dig a little deeper on the website and one finds a “Heat Wave Index” going back to 1895, which clearly shows the heatwaves were more common before the 1960s, especially in the 1930s, before human-induced climate change was even considered.

These two recent examples of bias and censorship in relation to climate change merely pave the way for stupid statements by senior political figures.

As shown by the shocking fraud surrounding the origin of Covid-19, in which scientists privately downplayed a lab-leak theory in favour of the more politically correct natural emergence theory, the practice of science is highly political.
How many scientists “agree” with something in public is irrelevant to the truth, especially when the vast bulk of “agreeing” scientists depend on government agencies, such as the IMF, who insist on a particular narrative being presented.

Plenty of eminent scientists do dispute the climate Armageddon narrative but are ignored or ridiculed, in turn making it less likely that dissenters will speak out.
No one denies that the climate changes, it always has, for reasons obviously unrelated to human activity. At issue is whether how much of the change is our fault, and whether it’s economically feasible to stop or reverse it.
The only silver lining of the Covid-19 pandemic was to show in real time how hopelessly wrong the so-called “scientific consensus” can be, whether it’s about the effectiveness of lockdowns, vaccines, masks or even the origin and nature of the virus itself.

Unfortunately for the world, because the climate changes so slowly in human terms, it’s much more difficult for the public to see for themselves the nonsense that’s paraded as “settled science” than it was during the pandemic.

In that context it’s even more important that governments respect a diversity of voices.

ADAM CREIGHTON​

WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT

.........AND MY HERO. ?

 

[rederob]

As discussed and argued here on ASF eons ago, it is absolutely y12 level education to prove current levels of CO2 or even a 10% increase can not in any way bring a significant increase of temperature.

This is proven to be scientifically false.
But why bother with physics when you just need to look at thermometer readings which will show July to be the hottest year in recorded history.

It does not mean climate is not warming or any temp increase if any man made. It does not mean it is good to burn fossil fuels, etc..
But pretending preventing any climate warming..(if it is real it is now very hard to get unrigged data.), by reducing CO2 human emissions, is lunacy...and scientific fraud but too much profits involved

There is zero profit in reporting on climate.
On the other hand you can look at where market wealth lies, and it has been heavily towards fossil fuel sectors.

Shameful but our government are shameless with the misuse of sciences..

Yet it is actually you who seems unaware of basic physics.

 

[rederob]

The Communist Republic of the United Nations is a joke. I'm gutted.

Having deployed on multiple UN peace keeping and peace making operations, which have all had very good intentions, I am ashamed of what the UN has become as a global body.

View attachment 160338


Why hasn’t the head of the United Nations been forced out of – indeed, laughed out of – office already?

UN secretary-general António Guterres – who used to be just another hack European socialist, bent on destroying their own country, in his case Portugal, before upgrading to aiming at global destruction – solemnly announced we had entered the era of “global boiling”.

Just a tad hyperbolic, just a smidgen of hysteria, there?

And going right off the climate cult script.

Didn’t he get the memo?

We had to move on from the original ‘global warming’ to the repackaged ‘climate change’, precisely because it has been hard to sustain the claim that the planet had actually, well, warmed.

Why have you no capacity to use science in your posts?
The rate of increase in warming is unprecedented.
The many recent climate reports present a dire picture for global climate going forward, and the present day situation is just a portend of what is to come.
Climate scientists have being pointing this out for over 4 decades, but as fractional temperature increases are not something you notice from year to year the general public wonder if there is anything to worry about. Most of us never worry about nor are affected by Arctic or Antarctic sea ice extents, and few understand the role of oceans in heat and CO2 absorption. However, it's the cumulative effects of these metrics that continue to head in the wrong direction that are now causing extreme weather events, and finally can't be ignored.

The saddest part of climate change denial will be the effect on future generations. And the sadder aspect of this will be the level of gross ignorance that prevailed to perpetuate mumbo jumbo and pseudoscience that thwarted more sustained global efforts to mitigate warming.

So intellectually feeble are denialists that they have to wage regular attacks on the likes of Greta and Antonio who are doing nothing other than reflecting where the science is showing where we are heading.

 

[UMike]

But why bother with physics when you just need to look at thermometer readings which will show July to be the hottest year in recorded history.

Or have iconic rock formations of your youth revisited 50 years later to prove there is no rising of the sea level.


This is why no one can take you seriously.

There is zero profit in reporting on climate.

 

[Sean K]

The rate of increase in warming is unprecedented.

Wrong.

Please stop with the personal abuse Rob.

 

[rederob]

Global - 150k years:

Near vertical from 1850 to present (in red).

Or this:

Global temperatures over last 24,000 years show today's warming 'unprecedented'​

And of course sea levels are not rising because satellites don't exist, or we would this posted by intellectual giants:

 

[basilio]

This reference that Rederob quoted offers excellent detail on how current temperatures compare to the past 100k plus yaers .

Is it really hotter now than any time in 100,000 years? ​

Recent heat waves underscore Earth’s new climate state.​

...The last glacial episode lasted nearly 100,000 years. There is no evidence that long-term global temperatures reached the preindustrial baseline anytime during that period.

If we look even farther back, to the previous interglacial period, which peaked around 125,000 years ago, we do find evidence of warmer temperatures. The evidence suggests the long-term average temperature was probably no more than 1.5 C (2.7 F) above preindustrial levels – not much more than the current global warming level.

Now what?​

Without rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, the Earth is currently on course to reach temperatures of roughly 3 C (5.4 F) above preindustrial levels by the end of the century, and possibly quite a bit higher.

At that point, we would need to look back millions of years to find a climate state with temperatures as hot. That would take us back to the previous geologic epoch, the Pliocene, when the Earth’s climate was a distant relative of the one that sustained the rise of agriculture and civilization.

Is it really hotter now than any time in 100,000 years?

Long before thermometers, nature left its own temperature records. A climate scientist explains how ongoing global warming compares with ancient temperatures.

theconversation.com

 

[Sean K]

Global - 150k years:
View attachment 160373
Near vertical from 1850 to present (in red).

Or this:

Global temperatures over last 24,000 years show today's warming 'unprecedented'​

View attachment 160374
And of course sea levels are not rising because satellites don't exist, or we would this posted by intellectual giants:
View attachment 160375

'Near vertical from 1850' will depend on the X and Y axis of the charts used. Please remember 1850 was the bottom of the LIA, and we've potentially just naturally cycled up from that low point. We also inexplicably went through a cooling phase from 1940 to 1975 where industrial development went through the roof after WW2. Perhaps there's a time lag in CO2 and temperature.

As far as going 'vertical', as you can see from the CET temperature record, it actually went way more vertical from 1700-1730. There's some dispute about that data but it seems to be the best record we have before more modern World temperature recording.

Before the CET we just have to rely on ice cores and tree rings. The data we have from those shows some pretty vertical rises and falls, but it's hard to tell the time frames as they're so long scale and the data is from ice and trees. As you have pointed out we've been through some significant periods of ice age and recovery into warm periods. By all accounts we are coming towards the end of the Holocene interglacial. I'm not sure how humans are going to survive when most of the northern hemisphere inevitably becomes covered in ice. There's going to be a lot of migration to central Australia.

Just about the only trusted temperature record I follow is the UAH satellite data, because I'm not sure if it can be tampered with or homogenised to cool the past. It's only young and might need to be upgraded at some point, but it's not really looking 'vertical' to me. I'm sure you could squish the X axis to make it look steeper. But even this data is starting from the bottom of a 30 year cooling period so you'd expect it to be going up.

It sounds like the July temp, when it comes out, will be another spike up. Might get as high as 2016.

 

[basilio]

Another graph that highlights world wide temperature variations in the last 1700 years

1700 years of Temperature from Proxy Data | GlobalChange.gov

Changes in the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere from surface observations (in red) and from proxies (in black; uncertainty range represented by shading) relative to 1961-1990 average temperature. These analyses suggest that current temperatures are higher than seen globally in at least the...

www.globalchange.gov

 

[Sean K]

Another graph that highlights world wide temperature variations in the last 1700 years

1700 years of Temperature from Proxy Data | GlobalChange.gov

Changes in the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere from surface observations (in red) and from proxies (in black; uncertainty range represented by shading) relative to 1961-1990 average temperature. These analyses suggest that current temperatures are higher than seen globally in at least the...

www.globalchange.gov

View attachment 160380

That graph seems to represent about a 2.5 degree change from the bottom of the LIA. Possibly 3. Why is there a difference in the 'official' graphs on temp? I thought we'd just got to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels.

 

[basilio]

That graph seems to represent about a 2.5 degree change from the bottom of the LIA. Possibly 3. Why is there a difference in the 'official' graphs on temp? I thought we'd just got to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels.

View attachment 160384

The graph I posted earlier is measuring degrees F. The above graph is in degrees C. I believe they will show (near) identical outcomes

 

[Sean K]

The graph I posted earlier is measuring degrees F. The above graph is in degrees C. I believe they will show (near) identical outcomes

Yes, sorry, missed that. The IPCC use C don't they? The F graph you put up certainly looks catastrophic.

 

[basilio]

Yes, sorry, missed that. The IPCC use C don't they? The F graph you put up certainly looks catastrophic.

The figures are still identical. The first graph comes from a US source. The steep increase in temperature of around 1.C/1.5 F from 1975 to 2023 is still the money shot. The fact that this rate of warming is actually accelerating .....

The physical reality of what this increase in temperature is doing to the ecosystems, climate and so on.

 

[Sean K]

The physical reality of what this increase in temperature is doing to the ecosystems, climate and so on.

Like the Great Barrier Reef? In the best condition since records have been kept.

Give me a good scientific reason why the reefs across the equator where the water is 30 degrees are thriving compared to the lower barrier reefs ranging from 26-28 degrees. The only answer is adaption, not the actual temp.

Record snow seasons? What happened to end of snow? Or, no more rain?

Overall damage from natural disasters like fires and storms is going down.

The Earth is greener.

Yep, the temp has gone up and CO2 may have contributed to it. But arsonists in Melbourne and Greece lighting up underbush that has not been allowed to be cleared because of green/left activist policies may be the story.

Let's not even get close to idiots building high rise buildings on the sand in hurricane risk areas. Ref Miami. Have you been there? Dumb.

Surely the World should have learnt from Venice building a city on the top of sand 1m above the water line. Morons.

I shouldn't have to mention The Netherlands. It's underwater except for a few concrete dykes.

This is all pre-CO2 scare.

Start building up.

And, let's not forget who is now the culprate for any future CO2 increases which is going to boil the planet.

 

[mullokintyre]

There have been a few ASF members who have accused other ASF members of not following "the Science".
What they really mean, is that those heretical members are not following hte science and scientists that they approve of,
So here are some scientists that they can debunk, or accuse of not being peer reviewed , or just plain wrong.
And to top it off, it comes from theat cesspit of misinformation at the The Murdoch Press

John Christy, a professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, said heatwaves in the first half of the 20th century were at least as intense as those of more recent decades based on consistent, long-term weather stations going back over a century.

“I haven‘t seen anything yet this summer that’s an all time record for these long term stations, 1936 still holds by far the record for the most number of stations with the hottest ever temperatures,” he told The Australian, referring to the year of a great heatwave in North America that killed thousands.
Professor Christy said an explosion of the number of weather stations in the US and around the world had made historical comparisons difficult because some stations only went back a few years; meanwhile, creeping urbanisation had subjected existing weather stations to additional heat.

“In Houston, for example, in the centre it is now between 6 and 9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the surrounding countryside,” he explained in an interview with The Australian.

Major newspapers from the Washington Post to the London Times have reported July as the hottest month on record after the average global daily temperature last month surpassed 17 C – around 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels – based on satellite data compiled by the University of Maine.

“We’re just really starting to see climate change kick in,” Nathan Lenssen, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Colorado, told the Washington Post last month.

Karsten Haustein, a climate scientist at Leipzig University, told the Times that July was “outrageously warm” and may have been the warmest month since the Eemian interglacial period, about 120,000 years ago.
The IMF cancelled a scheduled talk by Nobel prize winner John Clauser last week after he publicly stated: “I can confidently say there is no real climate crisis, and that climate change does not cause extreme weather events.”

Professor Christy, conceding a slight warming trend over the last 45 years, said July could be the warmest month on record based on global temperatures measured by satellites – “just edging out 1998” – but such measures only went back to 1979.

Professor Mass said the climate was “radically warmer” around 1000 years ago during what’s known as the Medieval Warm Period, when agriculture thrived in parts of now ice-covered Greenland.

“If you really go back far enough there were swamps near the North Pole, and the other thing to keep in mind is that we‘re coming out of a cold period, a Little Ice Age from roughly 1600 to 1850”.

“Global warming, it‘s a serious issue, but it’s a slow issue, it’s not an existential threat,” he added, suggesting human activities may have added up to one degree Celsius to average temperatures since the 1980s.

Mick

 

[rederob]

'Near vertical from 1850' will depend on the X and Y axis of the charts used.

If you understood the concept of an increasing rate of change you would know it had nothing to do with the X and Y axis.

Please remember 1850 was the bottom of the LIA, and we've potentially just naturally cycled up from that low point.

Not true as the data shows it was cooler from 1500 to 1700. Nor is there an iota of scientific evidence that there was any "natural cycling".

We also inexplicably went through a cooling phase from 1940 to 1975 where industrial development went through the roof after WW2.

This has been well explained, so another falsehood. You seem to have no idea of the role of aerosols in mitigating temperature increases.

Perhaps there's a time lag in CO2 and temperature.

There's actually a strong positive correlation, and here's where you could have gone to learn something:

As far as going 'vertical', as you can see from the CET temperature record, it actually went way more vertical from 1700-1730.

When did central England's temperature record equate to the planets?
If you had a clue about determining global trends in climate you would know that using averages over 20 years (minimum) was necessary so that decadal-level countertrends could be ruled out. Choosing a single 30 year period is cherry picking, made worse by failing to use a global standard.

Just about the only trusted temperature record I follow is the UAH satellite data, because I'm not sure if it can be tampered with or homogenised to cool the past.

UAH and RSS use exactly the same data source, but adopt different methodologies (algorithms). Neither reflects the surface temperature (HADCRUT charted below).
In any case all the data series confirm the trend of an increasing rate of change of temperature, with UAH data showing a greater increase than RSS when using the 20-year average.