How We Know that Global Warming is Accelerating and that the Goal of the Paris Agreement is Dead

[LetItSnow!]

3 minutes ago, Mucka said:

Tuesday night marked record low temperatures in various places. Copenhagen experienced its coldest November night in a hundred years, with the Frederiksberg district recording -7.7 degrees, the lowest since 1919.

I would say that was more a record than a lot of the headlines we see about a Max temp date records being broken where records in many cases only go back  a few decades or even less.

If it is cherry-picked then so are all the "Global Boiling" statistics.

The thing is urban spread and cites account for a couple of Celsius extra ambient heat that comparisons with records going back over a century don't account for.

We have 24/7 heated homes and massive industry etc giving off unaccounted for latent heat that simply did not exist when these old records were made.

Sure there has been some warming, we are in an interglacial period after all, but not to the extent being portrayed by how data is correlated data to show warming these days.

We are told the fastest warming place on Earth is the Arctic and we have been told for decades that the Arctic would be sea ice free in the summer and the same things a re repeated today without a trace of self reflection or irony as they were all those years ago.

When the head of UN uses hyperbole like "Global boiling," you know it is about fear propaganda and not science.

All the wealthiest industrialists and corporate heads and global elite in the World didn't suddenly have an epiphany, become moral, and get down with Gaea Earth overnight. they found a way to make themselves self appointed arbiters of truth and dictate how we should live with less freedom and less wealth and less independence while they live in opulence and rule over us.

I do also think you make some good points here. I think there may be an already warming signal that is being amplified in city regions. For example, London records probably cannot be compared to the 1800s as to what they are now - however rural data is also changing and I think somewhat softens the idea that it's as big an amplifier as to be the reason things are so warm at the moment.

What I do think though is that not a single one of these elites can be trusted, regardless of their stance on the matter. It truly is a mass point of confusion. But something is absolutely going on and these people who bang on about solar cycles and ice ages have been saying the same things for a decade or more and we haven't seen a damn thing about it. I guess we'll see if that AMOC collapse happens and if it does just what will happen there.

[Mucka]

9 minutes ago, LetItSnow! said:

Misread that! However, I still don't know why people are disagreeing with the claim of it being cherry picked though. I have commented that the depth of cold to our east at the moment is very impressive but it also does not negate the fact that a lot of the world is well above average and 2023 will likely be the warmest year ever recorded. It all comes to the same point.

Yes it comes down to trust because the science is not conclusive beyond Co2 being one of many Greenhouse gasses, a fairly weak one in fact compared to other Greenhouse gasses.

If we want to say that Co2 is the driver of climate change (natural or manmade) then we need to explain why there is a disconnect between that theory and Climate and Co2 levels on the geological scale.

We know there has been glaciation and ice ages when Co2 has been double and even triple what it is now, so how can one propagate theories of runaway warming with Co2 much lower against that and call it scientific?

Especially when Co2 has been much higher still for tens of millions of years and there was no runaway warming, indeed life thrived.

Edited December 3, 2023 by Mucka

[WYorksWeather]

1 minute ago, Mucka said:

Tuesday night marked record low temperatures in various places. Copenhagen experienced its coldest November night in a hundred years, with the Frederiksberg district recording -7.7 degrees, the lowest since 1919.

I would say that was more a record than a lot of the headlines we see about a Max temp date records being broken where records in many cases only go back  a few decades or even less.

If it is cherry-picked then so are all the "Global Boiling" statistics.

The thing is urban spread and cites account for a couple of Celsius extra ambient heat that comparisons with records going back over a century don't account for.

We have 24/7 heated homes and massive industry etc giving off unaccounted for latent heat that simply did not exist when these old records were made.

Sure there has been some warming, we are in an interglacial period after all, but not to the extent being portrayed by how data is correlated data to show warming these days.

We are told the fastest warming place on Earth is the Arctic and we have been told for decades that the Arctic would be sea ice free in the summer and the same things a re repeated today without a trace of self reflection or irony as they were all those years ago.

When the head of UN uses hyperbole like "Global boiling," you know it is about fear propaganda and not science.

All the wealthiest industrialists and corporate heads and global elite in the World didn't suddenly have an epiphany, become moral, and get down with Gaea Earth overnight. they found a way to make themselves self appointed arbiters of truth and dictate how we should live with less freedom and less wealth and less independence while they live in opulence and rule over us.

Cherry-picking is something that has an established meaning. For example, if I seize on an individual warm event to try to prove something about global warming, that is cherry picking as well.

What is not cherry picking is to use a well-established global dataset, and look at the trends. Nowhere, on the entire Earth, has had its coldest January-September on record. Nowhere. And yet over 10% has had its hottest January-September. It becomes even more obvious when you look at decadal or multi-decadal trends.

For the rest of your post, I notice a distinct lack of attention paid to what climatologists are saying. Most of them are very measured in their explanations, cite their sources, and acknowledge uncertainties. There's nothing they can do if people decide to write wild newspaper headlines or misquote things.

And in fact, over the broad spectrum of global temperature increase projections, most of the models are pretty much bang on. Even Exxon's own internal model from the late 70s early 80s got the global trend right, with a fraction of the knowledge we have now.

As for the rest of the conspiratorial stuff, frankly I don't buy into any of it. Especially when there is well-founded evidence of the exact opposite. Which group of people do you think has more influence? Climate activists and environmentalists, or the oil and gas industry?

[alexisj9]

1 hour ago, WYorksWeather said:

How about some non-cherry picked data. Source is linked at the bottom (emphasis mine):

"Year-to-date, 11.1% of the Earth’s surface has experienced average temperatures that are a local record high. In addition, none of the Earth’s surface has been record cold year-to-date."

https://berkeleyearth.org/september-2023-temperature-update/

This is naturally a bit outdated - we'll have to wait for the final yearly update early next year.

What you've just posted is not even a record, so wouldn't even figure in these totals, but however you count them, whether you do daily records, monthly records, annual records, at city or regional level, national level, or global level, the one consistent factor is that warm records outnumber cold ones, by an enormous margin.

 

 

Extreme cold doesn't disprove climate change, it is a symptom of it. Records will drop both ways, as they have been all year. More to do with slow momentum, and stuck systems, flooding will also increase for the same reason. For answers to the cold look north, factor in the slow gulf stream. Some say the wrong places are colder looking at it that way. However warm water is still heading up, just at a slower rate, so the normal mixing of the whole area would be different. So quick freezes away from where the golf stream is, would be expected.

[WYorksWeather]

6 minutes ago, Mucka said:

Yes it comes down to trust because the science is not conclusive beyond Co2 being one of many Greenhouse gasses, a fairly weak one in fact compared to other Greenhouse gasses.

If we want to say that Co2 is the driver of climate change (natural or manmade) then we need to explain why there is a disconnect between that theory and Climate and Co2 levels on the geological scale.

We know there has been glaciation and ice ages when Co2 has been double and even triple what it is now, so how can one propagate theories of runaway warming with Co2 much lower against that and call it scientific?

Especially when Co2 has been much higher still for tens of millions of years and there was no runaway warming, indeed life thrived.

You're going to have to be more specific here. Nobody is saying that CO2 is the sole driver of warming across all geologic timeframes. Over thousands of years, there are orbital and solar cycles. Over millions of years, there's a general trend towards increasing insolation as the age of the sun increases. There are also other drivers on a more regional scale and for shorter timeframes, plus disasters like asteroid impacts and major volcanic eruptions.

So, which specific bit of the temperature record do you think contradicts AGW?

And also, which part of the theory do you disagree with? That CO2 has increased? That warming is happening? That the increase in CO2 is due to human activity? That the warming is due to human activity? That CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Without a better understanding of what you currently believe I can't answer your question.

[WYorksWeather]

3 minutes ago, alexisj9 said:

Extreme cold doesn't disprove climate change, it is a symptom of it. Records will drop both ways, as they have been all year. More to do with slow momentum, and stuck systems, flooding will also increase for the same reason. For answers to the cold look north, factor in the slow gulf stream. Some say the wrong places are colder looking at it that way. However warm water is still heading up, just at a slower rate, so the normal mixing of the whole area would be different. So quick freezes away from where the golf stream is, would be expected.

Hm - this one the science is a bit more split on. We'd still expect some cold records to go, but my understanding is that unless we get a shutdown of the AMOC (the current slowdown being the cause of the North Atlantic warming hole), you'd still expect that almost everywhere will continue to see a warming trend. Of course cold patterns will still happen - as a recent paper that looked at 1962/63 suggested, that would still be an exceptionally cold winter even today. But I've not read anything that suggests that on a global scale, we'd expect AGW to increase the number of record cold spells.

17 minutes ago, LetItSnow! said:

I do also think you make some good points here. I think there may be an already warming signal that is being amplified in city regions. For example, London records probably cannot be compared to the 1800s as to what they are now - however rural data is also changing and I think somewhat softens the idea that it's as big an amplifier as to be the reason things are so warm at the moment.

What I do think though is that not a single one of these elites can be trusted, regardless of their stance on the matter. It truly is a mass point of confusion. But something is absolutely going on and these people who bang on about solar cycles and ice ages have been saying the same things for a decade or more and we haven't seen a damn thing about it. I guess we'll see if that AMOC collapse happens and if it does just what will happen there.

To be fair, most temperature measurements do account for this sort of stuff.

There are also completely independent methods, for example ocean heat content measurements, which are completely unconfounded by urban heat islands. This graph is somewhat outdated but proves the point well enough:

[alexisj9]

1 minute ago, WYorksWeather said:

Hm - this one the science is a bit more split on. We'd still expect some cold records to go, but my understanding is that unless we get a shutdown of the AMOC (the current slowdown being the cause of the North Atlantic warming hole), you'd still expect that almost everywhere will continue to see a warming trend. Of course cold patterns will still happen - as a recent paper that looked at 1962/63 suggested, that would still be an exceptionally cold winter even today. But I've not read anything that suggests that on a global scale, we'd expect AGW to increase the number of record cold spells.

Not really on about global scale, just basically the quick refreeze in the artic, and the cold in the east, the are very much connected.

[WYorksWeather]

Just now, alexisj9 said:

Not really on about global scale, just basically the quick refreeze in the artic, and the cold in the east, the are very much connected.

Ah yes, in that case, on a more regional scale, depending on whether we get an AMOC shutdown, there is the possibility that over the long term, the UK and other parts of NW Europe could see more cold records. Thanks for clarifying.

[WYorksWeather]

1 hour ago, LetItSnow! said:

I'm at a point where I think that the government, whatever you want to call it, big oil etc - It's all so performative when they have these agreements. It's still being talked about as if it's a future issue. It's here. It's been here for a while. Another point I'm not sure on (I'm not a scientist) is that even if all emissions stopped today, warming would still increase from the CO2 that's already been put there. I am not saying we shouldn't curb our emissions (**** that really, we should be drastically cutting them), but I am saying that we are at a point where even reducing emissions is not going to save us. We need to be having a bigger conversation about things we can do to alter the atmosphere in whatever ways we can, like spraying the atmosphere, planting more trees (especially in urban areas where it's been proven to lower temperatures) etc. We need to act now. If we focus on fixing, then it can give us more room to actually curb the emissions. There's a fear I've heard, saying that if we do my idea that it'll lull people into not changing (It's not people we really are talking about honestly - it's the mega-rich) but I disagree. Unless you believe in a tough love approach I guess? I'm also so tired of uneducated/misinformed people on the internet who so quickly brush aside heat records and all sorts year after year and month after month, but the moment a local daily record low goes it's a sign that the times are turning. And it's usually a demographic who don't have to worry about the consequences. I don't really care if they disagree with me to be honest because it's happening. The warming is absolutely undeniable and it is sad.

That's just my outsider perspective on it. I'm tired and also sad of being anxious every summer about the next dystopian heatwave to afflict the continent. We've been very lucky with our records being so short lasting! Maybe we won't be so lucky soon. And this was a bit of a rant but I think it's justified. Move this to another page if it's not correct for this thread. 

Forgot about this post (on a bit of a roll here responding to all the others!). I think the key point to remember is that all of the Paris agreement targets are ultimately as much political as scientific. There is something of a scientific basis to 2C, i.e. that this broadly encompasses the range of global temperatures humans have experience of.

In terms of what happens when emissions hit net zero, that is called the ZEC in scientific terms, or Zero Emissions Commitment. The latest estimate of the ZEC over several decades after net zero, assuming we stop hit net zero at around 2C or less above pre-industrial, is zero, with a margin of error of 0.2C. There are greater uncertainties around what happens say multiple centuries later, because that depends on lots of other factors. The ZEC may rise if net zero is reached at higher warming levels, because more processes will start to have their own inertia, like melting permafrost, ice sheet feedbacks, and so on.

In terms of adaptation or geoengineering, the adaptation budgets need to increase massively. But the issue is that adaptation would present a moving target. For example, if you start rebuilding London's infrastructure today to cope with say a 50cm sea level rise and regular summer heatwaves in the low 40s C every few years by the end of the century, if we don't stop emitting, that might still be inadequate over time.

On geoengineering, I think the controversy with that is generally over the ethical questions, e.g. if geoengineering disproportionately benefited or harmed certain countries. It's a very tricky one as it probably means the rich world making a decision for the Global South.

[Mucka]

41 minutes ago, WYorksWeather said:

Cherry-picking is something that has an established meaning. For example, if I seize on an individual warm event to try to prove something about global warming, that is cherry picking as well.

What is not cherry picking is to use a well-established global dataset, and look at the trends. Nowhere, on the entire Earth, has had its coldest January-September on record. Nowhere. And yet over 10% has had its hottest January-September. It becomes even more obvious when you look at decadal or multi-decadal trends.

For the rest of your post, I notice a distinct lack of attention paid to what climatologists are saying. Most of them are very measured in their explanations, cite their sources, and acknowledge uncertainties. There's nothing they can do if people decide to write wild newspaper headlines or misquote things.

And in fact, over the broad spectrum of global temperature increase projections, most of the models are pretty much bang on. Even Exxon's own internal model from the late 70s early 80s got the global trend right, with a fraction of the knowledge we have now.

As for the rest of the conspiratorial stuff, frankly I don't buy into any of it. Especially when there is well-founded evidence of the exact opposite. Which group of people do you think has more influence? Climate activists and environmentalists, or the oil and gas industry?

Cherry-picking is something that has an established meaning. For example, if I seize on an individual warm event to try to prove something about global warming, that is cherry picking as well.

Some night say, something the hockey stick was entirely based upon. But I agree of course, I am just pointing out that we get headline news every time a max date record is broken somewhere on earth even when those date records are far more insignificant.

 

"yet over 10% (Of Earth?) has had its hottest January-September" I would like the source for that and what data is included and what data is excluded and remember the current way climate temps are recorded is different and all the old data was "hindsighted"  and adjusted to fit with it.

There is little debate there has been warming, there is no debate there is climate change. The debate is whether the data and headlines we are now given can be trusted when every climate model based upon it massively exaggerates warming.

 

As for conspiracy theory, do you really think climate activists are running the AGW propaganda machine and not victims of it? That would be an odd conclusion.

It is also worth noting that oil companies are by the far largest investors in so called "green energies". Indeed they have never made such amazing profits ever since the AGW bandwagon rolled into town. Conflicting isn't it?

 

The  real conspiracy theories are the asinine AGW propaganda and predictions of doom that are repeatedly debunked by future reality along with the "cherry picking" of reported weather events by media should at least raise suspicion all is not quite right.

You don't need to look at the media, you need to look at who owns it and question why so many supposedly independent media companies are in lockstep with narratives that have proved to be false.

I just believe that if you have to threaten, censor, persecute, blackmail and propagandise people into believing something that is supposed to be self evident then there may be an agenda behind that motivation and it is clearly not self evident.

If your consensus is formed by only allowing voices that agree with you and banishing all dissent and alternative theories then it ain't much of a consensus, more a cabal.

With the pandemic the now admitted "fear propaganda," PsyOps "nudge teams" and "Worse than worse case scenarios" being promoted as the most likely outcomes was of course all for our own good, just like being under de facto house arrest, being surveilled and tracked 24/7 and the reimagining of digital ID's and Social Credit score as "health passports". Now we see great powers being given to globalist institutions such as WHO over our freedom and sovereignty, all for our own good of course.

I mention the pandemic because the propaganda and totalitarianism have some discomforting parallels with AGW narrative and sledge hammer diktats from on high while being told our suffering is the only way to make things better.

Our media no longer speaks truth to power, power speaks through the media and so it is up to us to try and maintain a healthy democracy by ensuring debate can take place and being able to question that power. Have you noticed how our politicians now seem more like rulers than public servants?

 

Anyhow conspiracy aside, there is a perverse an upside  in that people are more aware of how precious our Earth is and as custodians of nature should ensure we are dutiful in our moral obligations.

Unfortunately many do not understand or actually believe that, the more their speech and freedom is restricted and the more their free will is replaced with conditioning all the better the brave new world will be. We can just leave it up to all those bought and paid for experts and the AI the elite are building.

 

35 minutes ago, alexisj9 said:

Extreme cold doesn't disprove climate change, it is a symptom of it. Records will drop both ways, as they have been all year. More to do with slow momentum, and stuck systems, flooding will also increase for the same reason. For answers to the cold look north, factor in the slow gulf stream. Some say the wrong places are colder looking at it that way. However warm water is still heading up, just at a slower rate, so the normal mixing of the whole area would be different. So quick freezes away from where the golf stream is, would be expected.

Right, which means extreme heat does not prove climate change. So long as people understand that and both extreme cold and extreme heat are given the same media attention without any AGW spin all will be well.

I won't hold my breath though, I'm not suicidal.

Edited December 3, 2023 by Mucka

[alexisj9]

5 minutes ago, Mucka said:

Cherry-picking is something that has an established meaning. For example, if I seize on an individual warm event to try to prove something about global warming, that is cherry picking as well.

Some night say, something the hockey stick was entirely based upon. But I agree of course, I am just pointing out that we get headline news every time a max date record is broken somewhere on earth even when those date records are far more insignificant.

 

"yet over 10% (Of Earth?) has had its hottest January-September" I would like the source for that and what data is included and what data is excluded and remember the current way climate temps are recorded is different and all the old data was "hindsighted"  and adjusted to fit with it.

There is little debate there has been warming, there is no debate there is climate change. The debate is whether the data and headlines we are now given can be trusted when every climate model based upon it massively exaggerates warming.

 

As for conspiracy theory, do you really think climate activists are running the AGW propaganda machine and not victims of it? That would be an odd conclusion.

It is also worth noting that oil companies are by the far largest investors in so called "green energies". Indeed they have never made such amazing profits ever since the AGW bandwagon rolled into town. Conflicting isn't it?

 

The  real conspiracy theories are the asinine AGW propaganda and predictions of doom that are repeatedly debunked by future reality along with the "cherry picking" of reported weather events by media should at least raise suspicion all is not quite right.

You don't need to look at the media, you need to look at who owns it and question why so many supposedly independent media companies are in lockstep with narratives that have proved to be false.

I just believe that if you have to threaten, censor, persecute, blackmail and propagandise people into believing something that is supposed to be self evident then there may be an agenda behind that motivation and it is clearly not self evident.

If your consensus is formed by only allowing voices that agree with you and banishing all dissent and alternative theories then it ain't much of a consensus, more a cabal.

With the pandemic the now admitted "fear propaganda," PsyOps "nudge teams" and "Worse than worse case scenarios" being promoted as the most likely outcomes was of course all for our own good, just like being under de facto house arrest, being surveilled and tracked 24/7 and the reimagining of digital ID's and Social Credit score as "health passports". Now we see great powers being given to globalist institutions such as WHO over our freedom and sovereignty, all for our own good of course.

I mention the pandemic because the propaganda and totalitarianism have some discomforting parallels with AGW narrative and sledge hammer diktats from on high while being told our suffering is the only way to make things better.

Our media no longer speaks truth to power, power speaks through the media and so it is up to us to try and maintain a healthy democracy by ensuring debate can take place and being able to question that power. Have you noticed how our politicians now seem more like rulers than public servants?

 

Anyhow conspiracy aside, there is a perverse an upside  in that people are more aware of how precious our Earth is and as custodians of nature should ensure we are dutiful in our moral obligations.

Unfortunately many do not understand or actually believe that, the more their speech and freedom is restricted and the more their free will is replaced with conditioning all the better the brave new world will be. We can just leave it up to all those bought and paid for experts and the AI the elite are building.

 

Right, which means extreme heat does not prove climate change. So long as people understand that and both extreme cold and extreme heat are given the same media attention without any AGW spin all will be well.

I won't hold my breath though, I'm not suicidal.

You misunderstand me I think, both extremes are proof of climate change, and the planet is far warmer than it was even just 20 years ago, we are doing this. Everything is connected. The gulf stream slowing down is due to changes in our atmosphere, warmer Atlantic doesn't cause the same effects a colder one did.

[Mucka]

26 minutes ago, alexisj9 said:

You misunderstand me I think, both extremes are proof of climate change, and the planet is far warmer than it was even just 20 years ago, we are doing this. Everything is connected. The gulf stream slowing down is due to changes in our atmosphere, warmer Atlantic doesn't cause the same effects a colder one did.

Well climate change is quite different from Anthropogenic Global Warming. Climate change is unintuitively a constant and existed before man and will exist long after man. (hopefully)

If you are using the term Climate Change to mean AGW then with or without manmade Co2 you would still have proof of it because there will always be extreme weather events. That is all it is really proof of, the weather is changeable and can be volatile.

The claim that extreme weather events are more common now is very dubious at best and fluffed up with claims that wild fires are caused by extreme weather events without evidence, indeed there is much counter evidence that wild fires are being deliberately set by activists and in some cases where they are more damaging because of changes in wild fire management practises such as not clearing out brushwood and not manufacturing fire breaks by cutting down swathes of trees, ironically due to eco-activism.

Specifically on global weather records, we have to remember that headlines of "hottest ever..." can often mean in the last 30/40 years.

Even with records that go back 100 years it would be far more unusual if records were not commonly broken.

With a warming climate we would expect less cold records than hot records to be broken but I'm not sure the MSM are much interested in announcing cold records.

 

We can be sure of one thing though. The trillionaires and billionaires who sanctimoniously demand we pay more for less and go cold to save the planet won't be making any cut-backs tot heir lavish lifestyles nor stop buying private Islands and building multi-million beachfront properties they tell us will be under water within a decade.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Mucka

[WYorksWeather]

20 minutes ago, Mucka said:

Cherry-picking is something that has an established meaning. For example, if I seize on an individual warm event to try to prove something about global warming, that is cherry picking as well.

Some night say, something the hockey stick was entirely based upon. But I agree of course, I am just pointing out that we get headline news every time a max date record is broken somewhere on earth even when those date records are far more insignificant.

 

"yet over 10% (Of Earth?) has had its hottest January-September" I would like the source for that and what data is included and what data is excluded and remember the current way climate temps are recorded is different and all the old data was "hindsighted"  and adjusted to fit with it.

There is little debate there has been warming, there is no debate there is climate change. The debate is whether the data and headlines we are now given can be trusted when every climate model based upon it massively exaggerates warming.

 

As for conspiracy theory, do you really think climate activists are running the AGW propaganda machine and not victims of it? That would be an odd conclusion.

It is also worth noting that oil companies are by the far largest investors in so called "green energies". Indeed they have never made such amazing profits ever since the AGW bandwagon rolled into town. Conflicting isn't it?

 

The  real conspiracy theories are the asinine AGW propaganda and predictions of doom that are repeatedly debunked by future reality along with the "cherry picking" of reported weather events by media should at least raise suspicion all is not quite right.

You don't need to look at the media, you need to look at who owns it and question why so many supposedly independent media companies are in lockstep with narratives that have proved to be false.

I just believe that if you have to threaten, censor, persecute, blackmail and propagandise people into believing something that is supposed to be self evident then there may be an agenda behind that motivation and it is clearly not self evident.

If your consensus is formed by only allowing voices that agree with you and banishing all dissent and alternative theories then it ain't much of a consensus, more a cabal.

With the pandemic the now admitted "fear propaganda," PsyOps "nudge teams" and "Worse than worse case scenarios" being promoted as the most likely outcomes was of course all for our own good, just like being under de facto house arrest, being surveilled and tracked 24/7 and the reimagining of digital ID's and Social Credit score as "health passports". Now we see great powers being given to globalist institutions such as WHO over our freedom and sovereignty, all for our own good of course.

I mention the pandemic because the propaganda and totalitarianism have some discomforting parallels with AGW narrative and sledge hammer diktats from on high while being told our suffering is the only way to make things better.

Our media no longer speaks truth to power, power speaks through the media and so it is up to us to try and maintain a healthy democracy by ensuring debate can take place and being able to question that power. Have you noticed how our politicians now seem more like rulers than public servants?

 

Anyhow conspiracy aside, there is a perverse an upside  in that people are more aware of how precious our Earth is and as custodians of nature should ensure we are dutiful in our moral obligations.

Unfortunately many do not understand or actually believe that, the more their speech and freedom is restricted and the more their free will is replaced with conditioning all the better the brave new world will be. We can just leave it up to all those bought and paid for experts and the AI the elite are building.

 

Right, which means extreme heat does not prove climate change. So long as people understand that and both extreme cold and extreme heat are given the same media attention without any AGW spin all will be well.

I won't hold my breath though, I'm not suicidal.

The hockey stick graph is literally the exact opposite of cherry picking. You take a global scale climate reconstruction, and look at the longest possible period you can. You should be suspicious of anyone who doesn't want you to see the data at the largest possible scale. Whenever I see someone post a regional or local record, or data restricted to a small period, the question is always why? Why would you exclude other data?

You also still haven't answered my perfectly reasonable question. You claim that the models massively exaggerate warming. Which models? Under what emissions scenarios? Which doom-laden predictions? Who made them, and were they a qualified climatologist, or (more likely) a media pundit or newspaper editor, in which case who cares?

Some oil companies are big investors in green energy, but here's the actual top 10 as of 2023 if you're interested: 

10 Biggest Renewable Energy Companies in the World

WWW.INVESTOPEDIA.COM

---

With General Electric (GE) leading the pack, these are the 10 biggest renewable energy companies by 12-month trailing revenue.

 

As for the rest of your comment, it goes much more into general politics, and what I would call wild conspiracy theories (you, no doubt, would disagree), which is not what I'm trying to discuss here.

If you're willing to keep a narrow focus, and stick to talking about climate change / AGW and which predictions you think are wrong, in specific terms, I'm happy to have a discussion. What I'm not willing to do in a CC thread is discuss politics.

You also call for equal weight to be given. Equal weight is being given. As I've already said, extreme heat records outnumber extreme cold records by a massive margin. It's not equal weight to say that things are 50-50 just because that's what you'd like to believe. That's like saying we should have two people on to explain gravity, one being a scientist, and the other being Dave from down the pub who things objects fall because they feel like it.

[LetItSnow!]

1 hour ago, alexisj9 said:

Extreme cold doesn't disprove climate change

I’m not sure I agree with this - again, I am not scientist, but my logic asks: How can added warmth in the atmosphere contribute to extreme cold? I understand the argument of shifting weather patterns in certain areas that allow for colder winds to blow (I don’t think we’ve seen this trend in many places) but surely these cold pools will not be as intense as they could have been, say 50 years ago? However, there is still room for these exceptionally cold pools to develop - but they’re not as cold as they could have been, even if they smash a record. Say if come January or February we had an absolute beast of an easterly with -20C uppers: would that be a product of climate change? In my logic, the -20C would be extraordinary not just because of its unusual nature for the UK, but because it’s in a warming world - and that without the added warming, that -20C upper would maybe be -22-26C — I hope this makes sense 

[TomB]

1 hour ago, Mucka said:

All the wealthiest industrialists and corporate heads and global elite in the World didn't suddenly have an epiphany, become moral, and get down with Gaea Earth overnight. they found a way to make themselves self appointed arbiters of truth and dictate how we should live with less freedom and less wealth and less independence while they live in opulence and rule over us.

Yes by ignoring climate change and not adapting in any way. Just maintaining a veneer of interest while carrying on as they always have.

They have doomed us all in the pursuit of power and wealth. 

[WYorksWeather]

3 minutes ago, Mucka said:

Well climate change is quite different from Anthropogenic Global Warming. Climate change is unintuitively a constant and existed before man and will exist long after man. (hopefully)

If you are using the term Climate Change to mean AGW then with or without manmade Co2 you would still have proof of it because there will always be extreme weather events. That is all it is really proof of, the weather is changeable and can be volatile.

The claim that extreme weather events are more common now is very dubious at best and fluffed up with claims that wild fires are caused by extreme weather events without evidence, indeed there is much counter evidence that wild fires are being deliberately set by activists and in some cases where they are more damaging because of changes in wild fire management practises such as not clearing out brushwood and not manufacturing fire breaks by cutting down swathes of trees, ironically due to eco-activism.

Specifically on global weather records, we have to remember that headlines of "hottest ever..." can often mean in the last 30/40 years.

Even with records that go back 100 years it would be far more unusual if records were not commonly broken.

With a warming climate we would expect less cold records than hot records to be broken but I'm not sure the MSM are much interested in announcing cold records.

 

We can be sure of one thing though. The trillionaires and billionaires who sanctimoniously demand we pay more for less and go cold to save the planet won't be making any cut-backs tot heir lavish lifestyles nor stop buying private Islands and building multi-million beachfront properties they tell us will be under water within a decade.

With a warming climate we would expect less cold records than hot records to be broken but I'm not sure the MSM are much interested in announcing cold records.

We don't need the media. Do you not understand? Any one of us can look at the temperature records, and see whether records are being set or not. The conclusion is obvious, there are far more heat records than cold records. You won't find any global dataset that contradicts that statement because there aren't any.

Your position, as far as I can make out, is that every single dataset is compromised (except if it shows a cold record), every meteorological organisation the world over is lying, plus all the universities, all the major climate scientists, almost all of the world's governments, and that in fact it's nothing to worry about, based (as far as I can tell) on your own opinion, plus a few scientists who disagree with the consensus, virtually none of whom are climatologists. Do you have any idea how unhinged that makes you sound? Do you have any idea how many people would have to be involved in such a conspiracy?

[WYorksWeather]

5 minutes ago, LetItSnow! said:

I’m not sure I agree with this - again, I am not scientist, but my logic asks: How can added warmth in the atmosphere contribute to extreme cold? I understand the argument of shifting weather patterns in certain areas that allow for colder winds to blow (I don’t think we’ve seen this trend in many places) but surely these cold pools will not be as intense as they could have been, say 50 years ago? However, there is still room for these exceptionally cold pools to develop - but they’re not as cold as they could have been, even if they smash a record. Say if come January or February we had an absolute beast of an easterly with -20C uppers: would that be a product of climate change? In my logic, the -20C would be extraordinary not just because of its unusual nature for the UK, but because it’s in a warming world - and that without the added warming, that -20C upper would maybe be -22-26C — I hope this makes sense 

Yep, this is one I do disagree on. The only way this could plausibly happen at a regional level is through a local circulation change, like e.g. shutdown of the AMOC, which could redistribute heat content in such a way that areas near the North Atlantic cooled enough to offset the background warming trend.

It's not something that could happen at a global scale though, so we'd continue to expect that in any scenario, as temperature increases, the global number of extreme cold events will fall, even if they may increase in some regions due to changes in circulation patterns. Hope that makes sense?

[Mucka]

The hockey stick graph is literally the exact opposite of cherry picking. You take a global scale climate reconstruction, and look at the longest possible period you can.

What a strange statement. It contradicts reality itself.

Earth's life giving climate goes back over 550M+ years, that is your data pool.

The Hockey stick graph Cherry picks less than one half millionth of that data

It purports to show nearly 1C of sudden warming in just 30 years, 1961 to 1990.

Other than the row about leaked emails etc the graph has been debunked by the following 30 years of climate data that show not even 10% of that warming even though Co2 levels are purportedly far higher than then.

How do you scientifically explain why warming increased so dramatically and suddenly in 1961 through to 1990 and then declined so dramatically and suddenly post 1990 if manmade Co2 is driving that warming and manmade Co2 is much higher (more than double 1960 levels) post 1990?

With China alone pumping out more Co2 than the whole of Europe and US combined post 1990 why hasn't global tempt risen exponentially? 

We know each year is not hotter than the last because climate temp is far more complex than just how much Co2 exists in the atmosphere. We know it has been much colder with much more Co2, so what other mechanisms are at play that override atmospheric Co2 and why are they being ignored?

If we don't cherry pick the data we see other periods of rapid warming (and cooling) and if we increase the scale to sensible levels then the hockey stick gets lost in the noise of perpetual climate change.

 

Edited December 4, 2023 by Mucka

[alexisj9]

10 minutes ago, WYorksWeather said:

Yep, this is one I do disagree on. The only way this could plausibly happen at a regional level is through a local circulation change, like e.g. shutdown of the AMOC, which could redistribute heat content in such a way that areas near the North Atlantic cooled enough to offset the background warming trend.

It's not something that could happen at a global scale though, so we'd continue to expect that in any scenario, as temperature increases, the global number of extreme cold events will fall, even if they may increase in some regions due to changes in circulation patterns. Hope that makes sense?

You do realise you've said exactly the same as me, with different words, right. Not sure there's a disagreement, just a misunderstanding. Re cold in the east this year, it is I think down to a circulation change, slowing of the gulf stream, allowing a fast re freeze away from the north Atlantic, due to less mixing of warm water in the artic region. 

Re the rest of my first post, all year we've had heat domes build, and lows hanging about causing both heat and cold records to be broken, more or less simultaneously, in different areas  evidence for this is in you global records thread, plus flooding or extreme rainfall totals where troughs get stuck.

Big question is though, is that down to change in ocean state, that happened this year re Pacific. Not sure it is, as the year before this had similar stuck patterns, just perhaps slightly different places.

[Mucka]

1 hour ago, WYorksWeather said:

With a warming climate we would expect less cold records than hot records to be broken but I'm not sure the MSM are much interested in announcing cold records.

We don't need the media. Do you not understand? Any one of us can look at the temperature records, and see whether records are being set or not. The conclusion is obvious, there are far more heat records than cold records. You won't find any global dataset that contradicts that statement because there aren't any.

Your position, as far as I can make out, is that every single dataset is compromised (except if it shows a cold record), every meteorological organisation the world over is lying, plus all the universities, all the major climate scientists, almost all of the world's governments, and that in fact it's nothing to worry about, based (as far as I can tell) on your own opinion, plus a few scientists who disagree with the consensus, virtually none of whom are climatologists. Do you have any idea how unhinged that makes you sound? Do you have any idea how many people would have to be involved in such a conspiracy?

My point is the media have been propagandised to push the AGW narrative and one should question why that is.

Again, I will need a source for all these max temp records being broken at higher rate than some arbitrary time in the past and that cold temp records are being as well sourced and far fewer.

We know the data sets have been compromised, they openly state they have altered data records, they just reason that it is necessary evil to make them compatible with their new methods of recording and manually adjusting recorded temps.

 

Yes tens of thousands and even millions of people can be involved in conspiracy knowingly or unknowingly.

Compartmentalisation is a part of it but money and fear are great motivators and if you don't believe that then read a history book, most of history was created by a conspiracy of some form or another we just use other terms.

The whole point of creating powerful NGO's and institutions is to influence and usurp national power and sociopathic career politicians are among the cheapest and easiest to buy and influence, just ask Klaus Schwab.

There were many conspiracies during the pandemic that involved many thousands of people.

How many people were involved in the Lab leak cover up and the various debunked WHO conspiracy theories that it was a natural variant?

How many people were involved with the conspiracy to dispense with the long held method for gauging mortality of deadly disease and replacing it with "died  (of any cause) within 28 days of a positive test" (Did you ever question why such an anti-scientific and distorting method of gauging mortality of a deadly disease was suddenly the global norm?)

How many people were involved with the conspiracy theory that basic face masks prevented Covid infection?

How many involved in the conspiracy theory that healthy children were dying from Covid (Not one healthy child died in the UK from Covid, a few every unhealthy children died WITH covid)

How many involved in the conspiracy to inflate Covid hospitalisation numbers by testing all new patients and listing them as Covid patients if they  had a positive test result

 even if they were asymptomatic and in with a broken leg?

How many involved in the conspiracy theory that the Covid Vaccine was "100% safe and effective?"

How many involved in the conspiracy theory that lockdowns were a viable and useful pandemic management tool?

I could go on and on and that is just the pandemic.

 

But don't worry about conspiracy theory, can you get behind the idea that the wealthiest and most powerful people in the World who invest fortunes in media and lobbying and more nefarious methods of influence want to not only maintain that wealth and power but increase it?

Of course if that were true they would have meetings discussing global policy the public are not privy to and conventions called something like  "World Government Summit" and institutions with billionaire donors like the WHO would be making treaties on Global health etc, and institutions like the WEF would be bragging about how many of their people carrying out their "Great Reset" agenda they have in various Governments and those Governments regardless of whether they has a supposedly left wing or right wing Gov would walk in lockstep to various global diktats from Mass immigration to Net Zero and such things would be outlined in UN policy documents and they would have things like global agendas called something like Agenda2021 or Agenda2030. (Hi Justin!)

Good job none of that is happening then. 

 

Edited December 4, 2023 by Mucka

[Mucka]

1 hour ago, TomB said:

Yes by ignoring climate change and not adapting in any way. Just maintaining a veneer of interest while carrying on as they always have.

They have doomed us all in the pursuit of power and wealth. 

Oh so you must have missed the deindustrialisation of the west, all those SF6 emitting windfarms and the energy crisis then?

Yeah things definitely haven't changed since the millennium.

 But you are right about one thing, the rich just get richer and the powerful more powerful, maybe you should look into not only why that is but how that process has accelerated since we suddenly became plagued by global crises that demanded global action if you really want change.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Mucka

[WYorksWeather]

7 hours ago, alexisj9 said:

You do realise you've said exactly the same as me, with different words, right. Not sure there's a disagreement, just a misunderstanding. Re cold in the east this year, it is I think down to a circulation change, slowing of the gulf stream, allowing a fast re freeze away from the north Atlantic, due to less mixing of warm water in the artic region. 

Re the rest of my first post, all year we've had heat domes build, and lows hanging about causing both heat and cold records to be broken, more or less simultaneously, in different areas  evidence for this is in you global records thread, plus flooding or extreme rainfall totals where troughs get stuck.

Big question is though, is that down to change in ocean state, that happened this year re Pacific. Not sure it is, as the year before this had similar stuck patterns, just perhaps slightly different places.

Sorry, yes, in that case we're just slightly talking at cross-purposes!

[WYorksWeather]

6 hours ago, Mucka said:

My point is the media have been propagandised to push the AGW narrative and one should question why that is.

Again, I will need a source for all these max temp records being broken at higher rate than some arbitrary time in the past and that cold temp records are being as well sourced and far fewer.

We know the data sets have been compromised, they openly state they have altered data records, they just reason that it is necessary evil to make them compatible with their new methods of recording and manually adjusting recorded temps.

 

Yes tens of thousands and even millions of people can be involved in conspiracy knowingly or unknowingly.

Compartmentalisation is a part of it but money and fear are great motivators and if you don't believe that then read a history book, most of history was created by a conspiracy of some form or another we just use other terms.

The whole point of creating powerful NGO's and institutions is to influence and usurp national power and sociopathic career politicians are among the cheapest and easiest to buy and influence, just ask Klaus Schwab.

There were many conspiracies during the pandemic that involved many thousands of people.

How many people were involved in the Lab leak cover up and the various debunked WHO conspiracy theories that it was a natural variant?

How many people were involved with the conspiracy to dispense with the long held method for gauging mortality of deadly disease and replacing it with "died  (of any cause) within 28 days of a positive test" (Did you ever question why such an anti-scientific and distorting method of gauging mortality of a deadly disease was suddenly the global norm?)

How many people were involved with the conspiracy theory that basic face masks prevented Covid infection?

How many involved in the conspiracy theory that healthy children were dying from Covid (Not one healthy child died in the UK from Covid, a few every unhealthy children died WITH covid)

How many involved in the conspiracy to inflate Covid hospitalisation numbers by testing all new patients and listing them as Covid patients if they  had a positive test result

 even if they were asymptomatic and in with a broken leg?

How many involved in the conspiracy theory that the Covid Vaccine was "100% safe and effective?"

How many involved in the conspiracy theory that lockdowns were a viable and useful pandemic management tool?

I could go on and on and that is just the pandemic.

 

But don't worry about conspiracy theory, can you get behind the idea that the wealthiest and most powerful people in the World who invest fortunes in media and lobbying and more nefarious methods of influence want to not only maintain that wealth and power but increase it?

Of course if that were true they would have meetings discussing global policy the public are not privy to and conventions called something like  "World Government Summit" and institutions with billionaire donors like the WHO would be making treaties on Global health etc, and institutions like the WEF would be bragging about how many of their people carrying out their "Great Reset" agenda they have in various Governments and those Governments regardless of whether they has a supposedly left wing or right wing Gov would walk in lockstep to various global diktats from Mass immigration to Net Zero and such things would be outlined in UN policy documents and they would have things like global agendas called something like Agenda2021 or Agenda2030. (Hi Justin!)

Good job none of that is happening then. 

 

I'm going to ignore the comments about COVID, as it's not relevant (and, for the record, I disagree with almost everything you said, but to go into that here would completely derail this thread and so I'm not doing it). I'm also going to ignore the conspiracy theory point again.

On your substantive point about warm vs. cold records, here are three sources, with a couple of charts taken from them. There are dozens more if you have a problem with these three. The sources show a US-only analysis, a global analysis, and a UK analysis.

Heat records falling twice as often as cold ones, AP finds

WWW.APNEWS.COM

---

Over the past 20 years, Americans have been twice as likely to sweat through record-breaking heat rather than shiver through record-setting cold, a new Associated Press data analysis shows. The AP looked at 424...

Mean Monthly Temperature Records Across the Globe | October 2023 Global Climate Report | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

WWW.NCEI.NOAA.GOV

---

October 2023 Global Climate Report Supplemental Material

U.K. Caps Decade of Record High Daily Temps as Climate Shifts

NEWS.BLOOMBERGLAW.COM

---

The U.K. endured more high-temperature records during the 2010s than any decade over the last century, according to the nation’s weather service, attributing the trend to climate change.

I can include more formal links to scientific papers if those are preferable.

[WYorksWeather]

7 hours ago, Mucka said:

The hockey stick graph is literally the exact opposite of cherry picking. You take a global scale climate reconstruction, and look at the longest possible period you can.

What a strange statement. It contradicts reality itself.

Earth's life giving climate goes back over 550M+ years, that is your data pool.

The Hockey stick graph Cherry picks less than one half millionth of that data

It purports to show nearly 1C of sudden warming in just 30 years, 1961 to 1990.

Other than the row about leaked emails etc the graph has been debunked by the following 30 years of climate data that show not even 10% of that warming even though Co2 levels are purportedly far higher than then.

How do you scientifically explain why warming increased so dramatically and suddenly in 1961 through to 1990 and then declined so dramatically and suddenly post 1990 if manmade Co2 is driving that warming and manmade Co2 is much higher (more than double 1960 levels) post 1990?

With China alone pumping out more Co2 than the whole of Europe and US combined post 1990 why hasn't global tempt risen exponentially? 

We know each year is not hotter than the last because climate temp is far more complex than just how much Co2 exists in the atmosphere. We know it has been much colder with much more Co2, so what other mechanisms are at play that override atmospheric Co2 and why are they being ignored?

If we don't cherry pick the data we see other periods of rapid warming (and cooling) and if we increase the scale to sensible levels then the hockey stick gets lost in the noise of perpetual climate change.

 

Back in the 90s, the climate reconstruction data for much further back was far less available. There are now reconstructions that go back a lot further.

The graph hasn't been debunked, and has in fact been re-confirmed by dozens of fresh studies using a wide variety of data sources in the years since. I'd love to see your source for that claim. In addition, there's no global temperature record I'm aware of that shows a marked decline in the rate of temperature increase since 1990. Global temperature increase was something like 0.6C from 1960 to 1990, then another 0.7C or so in the years since then. Some variation between datasets, but no wild deviations from that.

With China alone pumping out more Co2 than the whole of Europe and US combined post 1990 why hasn't global tempt risen exponentially

Because emissions growth has generally slowed. Also, there is possible evidence of an acceleration, e.g. that the last 30 years has warmed somewhat faster than the 30 years before that, but it's marginal. I've no idea where you got the idea that the increase should be exponential - that word has a specific meaning. The warming, may, however, be faster than linear, but it remains to be seen.

We know each year is not hotter than the last because climate temp is far more complex than just how much Co2 exists in the atmosphere.

Correct.

We know it has been much colder with much more Co2

Correct.

what other mechanisms are at play that override atmospheric Co2

Dozens of them, broadly falling into four types - internal variability (El Nino / La Nina being the most important), other anthropogenic emissions, solar and/or orbital changes (over very long timescales, thousands to hundreds of thousands of years) and general increases in solar output (over even longer timescales, millions to tens of millions of years or more). There are then the various amplifying and mitigating feedbacks, like water vapour, ice cover, etc., but they're not in and of themselves causes.

why are they being ignored

They're not.

If we don't cherry pick the data we see other periods of rapid warming (and cooling) and if we increase the scale to sensible levels then the hockey stick gets lost in the noise of perpetual climate change.

I'd like to see evidence of a single case where the global temperature changed (in any direction) by more than let's say three degrees Celsius, within a timespan of a few centuries or less (not millennia or longer), and the result was not catastrophic for whatever life was on Earth at the time. I don't think you'll find one, but I await your response. As for the scale, a global temperature increase of 1C is hugely significant, as it's about a quarter the distance between where we were in the 1960s and the last ice age (but in the opposite direction). Google the Eemian climate, which I've explained elsewhere - that is what 2C looks like in the long term.

 

 

[SnowBear]

8 hours ago, Mucka said:

How do you scientifically explain why warming increased so dramatically and suddenly in 1961 through to 1990 and then declined so dramatically and suddenly post 1990 if manmade Co2 is driving that warming and manmade Co2 is much higher (more than double 1960 levels) post 1990?

Haven't had time to read the whole thread yet, but will later. 

Just want to pick up on this point made here where the graph increases very quickly in the period mentioned. 

Two major things occurred just before, the first was the advent of the jet engine. Unlike coal fires, and even industrial emissions, jet engines emit their pollution higher into the atmosphere. Along with the pollution a fair amount of water due to water injection is in the exhaust of jets, anywhere from 36kg for small jets to 11t for big airliners, per hour. Water, is one of the strongest greenhouse gases, although short lived, is continously being injected into the atmosphere by jet aircraft at high atlititudes and as aircraft use has increased, so has that rate of injection. 

Second, was the introduction of the Clean Air Acts in the UK of 1956 and again in 1968 (which by the way were not the first attempts to bring in anti-pollution laws, Manchester and Leeds back in 1842, and many US cities had laws in place by the 1900's), and along with an increase in laws globally soon after on smoke emissions has meant we now have very clear air in comparison to 100 years ago, meaning more sunlight reaches the ground. This was discussed recently this year in Spain where it has been counted as a factor for increased heat in the southern regions. 

These two events are not the be all and end all, but are two very important factors to take into account to understand the whole. 

Edited December 4, 2023 by SnowBear
Clarity