NOAA

2019 Was Second Warmest Year on Record Says NOAA

The past five years have been the warmest of the last 140 years.

|

The Earth's global surface temperatures in 2019 were the second warmest since modern record-keeping began in 1880, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Globally, 2019 temperatures were second only to those of 2016. In 2019, global average temperatures were 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (0.98 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean. The past five years have been the warmest of the last 140 years.

How high will temperatures go?
2nd hottest year

Europe's Copernicus Climate Change Service also reports that 2019 is the second hottest year in its records. The Copernicus researchers further agree that last years have been five warmest years on record and that 2010 to 2019 was the warmest decade on record. Overall, 2019 was almost 0.6 °C warmer than the 1981-2010 average and the globe's average temperature of the last five years was between 1.1 and 1.2 °C higher than the pre-industrial level.

University of Alabama in Huntsville researchers John Christy and Roy Spencer who track global temperatures using satellite data basically concur. Their latest report notes that "for the calendar year as a whole, 2019 was quite warm at +0.44 °C (+0.79 °F), slightly below the second-place year of 1998 (+0.48 °C) and below the warmest year of 2016 (+0.53 °C). Since 1998 and 2019 are separated by only +0.04 °C, it could be argued that they actually tied for second place."

Some folks who remain skeptical of man-made global warming point out that the high average global temperatures for both 1998 and 2016 were boosted by big El Ninos, a phenomenon that periodically warms the waters off the western coast of South America.

This observation doesn't, however, offer much comfort. As I reported in my long analysis, "What Climate Science Tells Us About Temperature Trends," back in November, a 2019 International Journal of Climatology article by a team of Chinese atmospheric scientists looked at how the long-term global warming trend affected both the 1998 and 2015/2016 super El Ninos. They calculated that the 1998 El Nino event added +0.18 C to the long-term global warming trend whereas, in 2016, that El Nino event added just +0.06 C to the long-term warming trend. In other words, it took a lot less heat to boost the 2015/2016 El Nino to slightly above the level of the 1998 El Nino. They concluded that this "implies that warmer years like 2014-2016 may occur more frequently in the near future."

In other words, natural variations like El Nino oscillations will be play ever smaller roles as global average temperatures continue to rise due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

NEXT: LAPD Chief Says Its Gang Database Abuse Scandal Now Has 'Criminal Aspects'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. AGW remains unproven. And even if you think it is, there is not a single realistic proposal to do anything about it nor any proposal that isn’t worse than the problem even if it were realistic.

    There really isn’t any rational reason to care about this or to take it into account in public policy. Doing so is certain to cause more harm than good for the sake of what are at best symbolic gestures and at worst thinly veiled schemes to deprive people of their property and freedoms on scales not seen since the old Eastern Block.

    1. Couldn’t agree more.

    2. I’m sorry, you’re wrong that it remains “unproven.”

      I was a skeptic for the longest time, but unless you prove NASA and scientists are openly lying about the greenhouse effect (which was proven well over 100 years ago before the words “climate change” or “anthropogenic global warming” were ever invented), and scientific data regarding carbon rates in the atmosphere doubling the highest levels ever seen in history over the past 70 years (https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/) just so they can get more grant money or something, it seems like you’re letting your stubborn contrarianism stand in the way of the obvious facts.

      I agree carbon taxes are an ineffective way to address the problem and will primarily burden the poor of the world. But let’s not deny that there’s a major problem here created by human activity for the massive percentage of the world’s population living in coastal areas.

      1. People who cite the greenhouse effect at proof are fucking dumb. The atmospheric effects due to atmospheric expansion and contraction can not be modeled as a greenhouse dumbfuck. Earths atmosphere is not the same as paned windows of a fixed volume building. Full stop.

        1. Loooooooool. You truly are retarded, Jesse.

          1. Eunuch with the most impotent defense

          2. https://www.space.com/6229-earth-atmosphere-breathes-rapidly-thought.html

            Chipper… you may want to actually learn science before calling others retarded.

          3. Discussion on why the model is a bad representation.

            https://skepticalscience.com/does-greenhouse-effect-exist.htm

            Hint. I didnt say glasses didnt have absorption properties, I said why greenhouse models are bad.

            You are too scientifically illiterate to understand why even though I put it in my post.

            I knew I’d get some to prove their ignorance of science.

            1. Lol, that page debunks the myth that greenhouse gases do not exist. Maybe you posted the wrong link, genius? The other page shows that the atmosphere expands and contracts at a certain rate. That in no way disproves the existence of greenhouse gases. Do you think that if you build a greenhouse with walls that moved back and forth, that the greenhouse would not trap heat? I can’t believe I am even discussing this with you. It’s like arguing with a flat earther.

              1. For fucks sake chipper, I never said green house glasses dont exist you fucking retard. I said the green house model is a shit model of the atmosphere because it ignore volume expansion, ignore albedo, ignores shifting gas absorption, ignores logarithmic expansion of gas absorption, etc.

                How fucking ignorant are you? They teach the greenhouse effect to children because it is a first order representation. It is a bad representation though due to the awful assumptions on the model.

                Just fucking admire you dont know shit about science.

                1. Do you even know what a first order representation means? It means those other factors are quite minor in comparison. Ok, maybe not albedo, but albedo is decreasing due to decreasing ice, which leads to less reflection and more heating. So that’s not helping your case.

              2. Learn to fucking read you dishonest fuck.

                1. Eunuch wants so very badly to think he’s intelligent.
                  Reading cannot be allowed

          4. I mean we have chipper here who things atmospheric volume is fixed… that or he doesnt know basic physics and realize temps and volume are related.

            Chipper? Why do you want to prove yourself retarded?

        2. +1,000,000!!!!

      2. Also, way to out yourself as a sock by posting the same ignorant bullshit as DOL.

        1. That was my first thought

          1. Then Bailey comes in to try for more clickbait with his links and the unreason socks spooge all over themselves. Big surprise.

            JFree
            January.15.2020 at 2:47 pm
            Ron – I appreciate that you wade into the comments of your articles. Just wanted to say that.

        2. FWIW, proprietist writes a lot better than the rest of the troll brigade.

          IMHO, of course.

      3. At best, they have a correllation. They do not have causation. If they did, their models would likely be accurate.

        1. WK: Actually as I report my long review of the climate science (linked to in the above post) the models have turned out to be fairly accurate with respect to projecting global average temperature.

          1. If you retroactively adjust the inputs.

            1. S=C: If by “inputs” you mean quantities like what actual emissions of greenhouse gases turned out to be over the past few decades, then, yes. On the other hand, once actual emissions are inputted, the models temperature trends fairly well track the rise in temperatures the globe has experienced. In other words, the models’ basic physics seems to be about right.

              Of course, as I note in my long article (referenced in the post) constructing realistic greenhouse gas emissions scenarios remains a huge problem for modeling future temperatures.

              1. Of course, as I note in my long article (referenced in the post) constructing realistic greenhouse gas emissions scenarios remains a huge problem for modeling future temperatures.

                So, one might suggest that our ability to go back and tweak the models until they comply with historical data still doesn’t give us any predictive abilities about future trends?

                1. Yeah. Tweaking the models with corrections that you admit you don’t know how to predict is kicking the can down the road in a ‘pay no attention to the man behind the curtain’ manner.

                  1. Go ask bailey how well they understand feedback mechanisms. If you look at all the various models they cant even agree on atmospheric particulates which is one of their primary tuning knobs. Likewise they don’t agree on global vapor assumptions or cloud formation. Each model uses different values in order to hind cast their reconstructions.

                    The models are literal bullshit.

                2. So scientists need to be soothsayers about the exact quantity of carbon that will be emitted by humans in the future or else their models are wrong?

                  When you put in the actual emissions amounts, the temperature correlates with the model’s expectations accurately.

                  The problem with future climate modeling is it includes somewhat unpredictable natural and human inputs (quantity of emissions, changes in solar radiation, etc.) that can’t be known until they happen.

                  That’s the problem with future modeling in general. Next you’re going to tell me we shouldn’t be worried about the debt and entitlements because we can’t quantify the exact amount of government spending over each of the next ten years.

                  1. So scientists need to be soothsayers about the exact quantity of carbon that will be emitted by humans in the future or else their models are wrong?

                    No. The models are consistently incorrect in their predictions. In order to be considered people who can make accurate predictions, they need to consistently make accurate predictions.

                    When you put in the actual emissions amounts, the temperature correlates with the model’s expectations accurately.

                    Yup. Almost like there is a greenhouse effect that can be isolated from the other inputs. In response, I offer you back your own next sentence:

                    “The problem with future climate modeling is it includes somewhat unpredictable natural and human inputs (quantity of emissions, changes in solar radiation, etc.) that can’t be known until they happen.”

                    Next you’re going to tell me we shouldn’t be worried about the debt and entitlements because we can’t quantify the exact amount of government spending over each of the next ten years.

                    That’s a silly comparison. We already know what the government plans to spend, and the spending is the spending. It’s not some complex system involving an unknown number of variables that need to be modeled somehow.

                    Are you ever going to tell me what you believe the “Scientific Consensus” to be and what your source is for it?

                  2. How cute, the idiot JEFFREY thinks the models only have one input parameter.

            2. There’s also a bit of ‘one statistician misses by a foot to the left, the other misses by a foot to the right, and the third shouts “We hit it!”‘.

              I’d love to hear the reason why they chose 1970 to 2007. I’m sure their’s a good reason but, to the cynic, it seems an awful lot like they scrapped everything after 2007 because there were so many and they were all too hot and then went back to 1970 to get some models that hadn’t yet ruled out the next ice age as a possibility.

              1. m.c: They chose them because they could check the predictions made by them against what actually happened later. That’s their good reason.

          2. Of course they are “fairly accurate”. They are tuned models. That’s what tuned models do. (Remember the old Van Neumann quote: “With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”)

            Nothing about the things you describe in your article makes the models predictive. You can fit the data about equally well with a model that merely assumes a regression to the mean following the end of the Little Ice Age.

            1. To prove it just have him compare the tunable parameters between the models. They vary radically even though in theory the parameters should match.

              What they do is take carbon and temp and then use the other feedback such as air particulates and vapor content to adjust temp to carbon as the independent factor. Literally go look at how varying assumed constants and knobs vary from model to model.

            2. What’s worse, is that it isn’t so much that it’s been getting enormously hotter lately, as that the late 19th century inexplicable keeps getting colder and colder.

          3. the models have turned out to be fairly accurate with respect to projecting global average temperature

            This is pretty disingenuous Ron. First, it’s not one model it’s a retrospective across several models. Second, the abstract clearly says, “with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, ***particularly when mismatches between model‐projected and observationally‐estimated forcings were taken into account***.” Third, despite the paper being published in 2019, the models represented were from only 1970-2007.

            So, when you take an average of the models that the researcher selected in a distinctly non-randomly fashion, correct them for the average mismatch, you get an accurate prediction to the historical data you already have on file.

            Being clear, I’m not saying they produced no useful information and/or are trying to mislead, but to take what they did and say “the models have turned out to be fairly accurate with respect to global average temperatures” is skipping quite a few bases.

            1. m.c: The models were selected (not randomly) so that they could be checked to see how well their “future” projections worked out. Therefore these models’ “futures” were between, say, 2000 and 2017. In other words, the researchers were seeking to test model predictions against what actual temperature trends turned out to be, i.e., checking hypotheses against data.

              As I noted in an earlier above response:

              If by “inputs” you mean quantities like what actual emissions of greenhouse gases turned out to be over the past few decades, then, yes. On the other hand, once actual emissions are inputted, the models temperature trends fairly well track the rise in temperatures the globe has experienced. In other words, the models’ basic physics seems to be about right.

              Of course, as I note in my long article (referenced in the post) constructing realistic greenhouse gas emissions scenarios remains a huge problem for modeling future temperatures.

              1. Now explain why the other control factors are not correlated across the models but vary in rose to get the answer they want.

          4. Ron – I appreciate that you wade into the comments of your articles. Just wanted to say that.

            1. Seconded.

              1. I’ll third it.

            2. It’s nice that he responds. I hope he’s as much a critic when interacting with these people as he is a cheerleader when he’s spreading their word.

      4. Same here. I was skeptical for a long time, but you can’t deny the evidence. Conservatives will eventually concede, as they always do in the end. I remain, however, completely opposed to any government “solutions” to climate change.

        1. I too was sceptical for a long time.

          What makes me uncomfortable is what I hear about proposed solutions. For one thing, the way that nuclear power is categorically ruled out is ridiculous—especially given that the arguments against it are rooted in old technology.

          I also hate that far too many so-called environmentalists are proposing some kind of profound changes to the economic system…If AGW is a problem causes by technology, then the solution should also be technological. It doesn’t follow that “smashing capitalism” or giving governments even more power than they already have will do anything helpful.

        2. You proved you didnt understand actual science at even a basic level above dummy.

      5. The Medieval Warming Period and the Roman Warming Period were both warmer than today, using better proxies than Mann did. For Greenland in particular, they were raising cattle there 1000 years ago, and not now.

        Climate changes, unpredictably. If the background change can’t be predicted or measured, how the devil can you attribute any part of it to man?

        1. I didn’t claim they weren’t warmer today, although historic temperature is less provable than carbon sampling.

          I claimed that carbon in the atmosphere has doubled the all time high over the past seventy years based on ice and rock core samples taken from the Arctic, Antarctic as well as tropical glaciers. That it “suddenly” correlates with the Industrial Revolution and the introduction of automobiles, planes and carbon emitting factories is too obvious to dismiss it from being the cause. Given the greenhouse effect is real, humans are certainly contributing to climate change on a massive scale.

          The natural cycles may offset the impacts and make predictions inaccurate, but if we assume this human-caused warming effect combines with deforestation and a period of natural warming, we could indeed be in for the kinds of mass scale coastal disasters, increased desertification, etc. the doomsdayists claim.

          Climate will have natural ups and downs with fluctuations in solar radiation. That’s why I support climate engineering as the preferable solution to counteract both natural and anthropogenically caused climate change to prevent disasters and mass droughts. Investing in research and developing more cost-effective green technology is the better solution than raising carbon taxes.

          1. “historic temperature is less provable than carbon sampling” means nothing. There were no temperature readings 1000 or 2000 years ago. Further, Michael Mann created his hockey stick from historical proxies. Are you saying that Michael Mann was wrong?

            The historical temperatures are not from thermometers. They are from observed effects. Tree lines, reports of mountain snow, and so on.

            Michael Mann lied about the historical artifacts and pretended the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, both, never happened. The historical artifacts do show it was warmer in both periods.

            1. He doesn’t deny either one of those happened. He denies that they were GLOBAL events.

              1. And he is wrong. They have found evidence of the MWP and LIA in African and North American records.

                1. And they’ve found evidence of them in South America and the Pacific islands as well, to thwart the smartasses that try to claim that they were a Northern Hemisphere only phenomenon.

              2. Besides, his hockey graph claimed to show the temperature record covering both the MWP and the LIA yet showed neither, and did show current temperatures as alarmingly higher than any previous temperatures. How is that NOT claiming the MWP did not exist?

                Michael Mann is a notorious liar.

                1. I’m not defending him or his hockey stick. Don’t know why you feel you need to lie yourself in order to refute him.

            2. I’m not defending Michael Mann who I think was a fraud and abused science to fit his conclusions. I’m not relying on temperature data which I consider unreliable.

              The stark contrast between the pre- and post-Industrial Revolution carbon sampling as well as the obviousness of the melting Arctic in that period are enough proof of causation for me. (Note: it seems logical the Arctic would be more drastically affected than the Antarctic given that most human activity has historically occurred in the Northern hemisphere. 90% of the Earth’s population resides in the Northern hemisphere.)

              1. Wait a sec — I thought it was GLOBAL warming, not Northern Europe or Northern Hemisphere warming.

                Do you mean to say the two hemispheres are NOT interconnected, that what happens in one DOES NOT affect the other?

                Better tell Michael Mann, who claims THIS warming is GLOBAL but the MWP and RWP were isolated.

            3. Mann created his reconstruction from tree rings that are complety variable on such factors as nutrients and water cycles. When the tree rings stopped moving the way he wanted he removed them from reconstruction and glued on satellite data instead, that was literally what “hide the decline ” meant. The proxies went opposite the measurements after a point.

          2. I claimed that carbon in the atmosphere has doubled the all time high over the past seventy years based on ice and rock core samples taken from the Arctic, Antarctic as well as tropical glaciers.

            This is false, and you’re actually putting your ignorance on display here.

            There is no rock in the Arctic to core. Ice cores only go back as far as the recent Ice Age (i.e. about 1M years). Prior to that there was no permanent ice on the planet. And CO2 concentrations have been an order of magnitude higher in the distant past than they are now.

            That it “suddenly” correlates with the Industrial Revolution

            It doesn’t. The most recent cycle of warming started a few thousand years before the Agricultural Revolutionm when the glaciers started receding (again – the Ice Age had several “interglacial” periods). There are signs that it may have accelerated over the last 70-80 years. That does correlate with a distinct uptick in anthropogenic GHG emissions (not just CO2, which is probably less of a concern than CO, since CO2 can and is being taken up by new vegetation).

            if we assume this human-caused warming effect combines with deforestation

            We would be wrong, because there is more forest in the world today than there was 70-80 years ago.

            I support climate engineering as the preferable solution

            That’s insane, and displays a dangerous level of hubris on your part. You may understand the climate system well enough to recognize warming and theorize about what causes it. You don’t understand it well enough to take control of it.

            1. “There is no rock in the Arctic to core.” – Where did I claim there was? Go read the NASA link I posted (https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/). Their data comes from the past 800,000 years. The data since the Industrial Revolution and especially the past 70 years is utterly stark.

              “most recent cycle of warming”
              I’m not claiming the cycle of warming itself is being caused by humans though. Warming cycles can be naturally caused, and yet human emissions resulting in the greenhouse effect can make it far worse than it would have been. That’s why scientists are terrified that the sudden massive influx of GHG emissions by human activity will set us up for climate disaster at some point.

              “more forest in the world today than there was 70-80 years ago”
              That may be true (may also be connected with heightened human carbon emissions), but Bolsanaro is deforesting the Amazon at a massive rate right now.

              Climate engineering: “insane, and displays a dangerous level of hubris on your part.”
              Hubris? What about researching ways to artificially alter our climate to prevent disaster (both natural or anthropogenically caused) reflects hubris? Weather modification technology is still evolving and in it’s early stages. I’d feel a lot more safe than to have it than not, and it seems more like hubris to claim we don’t need such technology because we don’t need to worry about potentially preventable climate disasters.

              1. Where did I claim there was?

                “I claimed that carbon in the atmosphere has doubled the all time high over the past seventy years based on ice and rock core samples taken from the Arctic”

                The one problem is claiming rock core samples from the Arctic, which don’t exist, the other is using the phrase “all time high” to describe the high point of the last 800,000 years when the last 1M years the planet has been in an Ice Age and has, as far as we know, seen some of the lowest levels of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere ever in the 4B year history of the planet.

                The CO2 concentration has literally been an order of magnitude higher, and the planet was teeming with life.

                I’m not claiming the cycle of warming itself is being caused by humans though.

                You are and you aren’t. Obviously something started the planet warming thousands of years ago. That thing may or may not still be influencing global climate. Anthropogenic GHGs may be staving off re-glaciation. They may be accelerating a pre-existing warming trend. They may not even be having much of an effect at all. What humans are emitting may be “massive,” but maybe compared with other sudden massive events it’s not that unusual, geologically speaking.

                Do you have some proof underpinning your alarmist assumptions that you’d like to share?

                Bolsanaro is deforesting the Amazon at a massive rate right now

                And the Congo rain forests are expanding at a massive rate, without even being forced by humans.

                Hubris? What about researching ways to artificially alter our climate to prevent disaster (both natural or anthropogenically caused) reflects hubris? Weather modification technology is still evolving and in it’s early stages.

                Read those last two sentences together, over and over, until you understand why I call it hubris.

                You can’t foresee all the impacts of whatever it is you think needs to be done. The only thing we can do is try to identify causes as best we can and remove them. And if you get the government involved in that, they’re going to fuck it up by making you concentrate on the wrong thing (like CO2) for political purposes.

                1. “ice and rock core samples taken from the Arctic” “…,Antarctic as well as tropical glaciers.”

                  The “rock core” samples from tropical glaciers, specifically Mauna Loa. Ice core samples from Arctic and Antarctic. Did you simply neglect including my entire quote so you could make me look stupid?

                  “Read those last two sentences together, over and over, until you understand why I call it hubris.”

                  hubris: excessive pride or self-confidence. Refusing to research such technology because…we’ll figure it out when climate disasters happen…is actually hubris, assuming self-confidence in the face of a climate that has been catastrophic at many points in the history of life on earth.

                  1. Did you simply neglect including my entire quote so you could make me look stupid?

                    Merely pointing out that you clearly don’t know as much about this as you claim to. Which is why your intent to start geo-engineering scares me.

                    “Hubris” =/= self-confidence in the face of adversity. “Hubris” = you little human thinking you can control the climate of the whole planet and that you’ve taken all the relevant factors into consideration.

                  2. specifically Mauna Loa

                    Specifically Mauna Kea. Mauna Loa hasn’t had any glaciers in recorded history.

          3. “Given the greenhouse effect is real, humans are certainly contributing to climate change on a massive scale.”

            Homeboy, you just made a huge leap there. Where is the evidence that humans are causing a massive change in the climate?

            Frankly, I don’t care either way. I’ve always leaned skeptics thanks to cap and trade, but if we are causing it, I’m totally fine admitting it. Problem is, everyone has made it their religion.

            Climate change is nothing more than a group identifier with typical religious beliefs. There’s no unbiased scientists – all we see is conflicts of interest from both sides. We can’t possibly model that large of a system correctly – we can barely predict the weather a week out.

            Therefore, I say we do nothing until the singularity hits. Then AI can figure it out. It’s fucking pointless talking about it anymore. Fucking throw your recyclables in the correct can and let’s move on.

          4. “I claimed that carbon in the atmosphere has doubled the all time high over the past seventy years”

            Yeah, and good thing. Atmospheric CO2 levels have been gradually trending down over the history of the planet; Starting at about 4,000 ppm, and getting down to about 150ppm before humans got into burning things in a big way.

            We were getting close to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere where C3 plants would have started dying off!

            That’s why you see grasses all over the place: Because C4 photosynthetic plants handle CO2 starvation better than C3 plants.

            “all time high over the past 70 years”. On a planet that’s billions of years old. Sheesh.

      6. And if you are relying on the models, you’re naive beyond belief. They can’t even predict the last 20 or 30 years/ Why would you put any trust in them for the future?

        1. Not relying on the models for the future, only on the scientific evidence we have for the past. Again, climate is a combination of human and natural effects, but human activity emitting historically and unnaturally massive quantities of carbon dioxide as well as removing forest cover (which could have somewhat offset that effect) means we’re going to be in for a bad time when the natural cycle is also warming. As you said, that natural cycle is unpredictable. That’s why it’s scary.

          1. The evidence for the past shows the Roman and Medieval Warming Periods were warmer than today. Michael Mann’s interpretation of that data ignored the RWP, and showed the MWP and the Little Ice Age did not exist.

            1. I’m not relying on Michael Mann’s inaccurate data to make my case, so why are you bringing it up? If you keep bringing one bad scientist up to dismiss all the scientific evidence, it looks more like you’re interested in ad hominems than factual scientific debate.

              1. You said you were relying in scientific evidence for the past. The scientific evidence for the past shows the RWP and MWP were warmer than today, and that the dino age CO2 level was 3-3 times today’s level.

                What more do you need?

                1. I’m done arguing with you. You’re obsessed with using Michael Mann’s flawed model to dismiss all evidence of anthropogenic global warming and all scientists as being frauds, and you’re going to stubbornly persist in that opinion regardless of what evidence I provide. You’re also going to continually disregard what I’m actually saying (i.e. I never denied that the RWP and MWP were possibly hotter than today. I merely stated that human GHG emissions are both highly correlated and almost undoubtedly contributory to an already naturally warming cycle, leaving us in additional danger from rising sea levels in an earth where 10% of the global population live within 10m of sea level on coasts.


                  1. …leaving us in additional danger from rising sea levels in an earth where 10% of the global population live within 10m of sea level on coasts.

                    Reminder: global history is literally filled with global disasters annihilating coast lines, and if you go down plenty of coasts you’ll find…sunken ancient cities. Let us not pretend this is new, or that rising sea levels are something we can reasonably combat in any timeframe.

                    If you take it as a given that the sea will rise, and it certainly will, it seems you’re trying to stop the thing you can’t stop (the sea rise) instead of concentrating on the thing you can control, that being where you specifically live.

                    Even if the sea’s rise at ‘disastrous’ levels, we’re still talking over 100 years lead time on moving a city. There are few cities in America older than that, if you think about it for a second. How many times has New York City burned to the ground, again?

                    And yet, I notice that New Yorkers are not fleeing the city because they believe it will sink in a decade. Curious that even ancient people’s were wise enough to flee when their cities sank.

                    1. I just had to deal with flying in to LaGuardia and renting a car to drive to Stony Brook for work…if I lived in NY I’d leave too..too many people..too much bs construction…too many traffic jams.

                      If the wokes are so worried about global warming they should just all kill themselves…

                  2. you’re going to stubbornly persist in that opinion regardless of what evidence I provide

                    You haven’t provided any evidence, despite multiple requests. You’re doing what all Climate Believers do, which is declare there is consensus, refuse to say what that consensus is, and then accuse anyone who asks any further questions of being a “Contrarian.”

          2. Propecia- your arguments are so painfully intellectually average that I‘ve got to ask how you managed to get fired from a state desk job?

            Also, you can’t put “undue influence” on your resume for being a caretaker to your aging parents, you coddled sac of shit. Why don’t you put that hp/compaq word processor you stole from your dad to use and apply for a temp job? Goddamn nigger.

            1. On a side note – we don’t say nigger around here, do we? My bad.

      7. I’m sorry, you’re wrong that it remains “unproven.”

        No, he’s 100% right.

        The current correct position is that science isn’t about ‘proof’ so much as it’s about consensus and we can’t wait for the consensus to be subjected to standards of proof before taking drastic, unspecified government action.

        unless you prove NASA and scientists are openly lying about the greenhouse effect

        This is a disingenuous false choice. No one is saying that scientists are lying about the existing of the greenhouse effect.

        I think the clearest way to frame a response to this is to ask you exactly what it is you feel is “proven” that people are “denying.”

        1. I literally linked to a chart showing how carbon dioxide has doubled the historic high and even doubled the largest variation in the past 800,000 years based on ice and rock samples from the Arctic, Antarctic and tropics over just the past 70 years. This alone should be scientific evidence to convince you.

          But tell me again how correlation doesn’t equal causation and argument from consensus is a fallacy – I used to make the same arguments. This place is called Reason, not Stubborn Contrarianism.

          The massive scientific consensus has a reason, and it’s not just that scientists want grant money. Claiming the tiny percent of skeptics are more correct than the consensus requires proof on your part.

          1. I literally linked to a chart showing how carbon dioxide has doubled the historic high and even doubled the largest variation in the past 800,000 years based on ice and rock samples from the Arctic, Antarctic and tropics over just the past 70 years. This alone should be scientific evidence to convince you.

            See my response to you above.

            This place is called Reason, not Stubborn Contrarianism.

            I see you’ve picked up the latest terms for dismissing dissent. There is Consensus, except among the Contrarians whose opinions don’t count.

            The massive scientific consensus has a reason

            Please clarify what this “massive scientific consensus” is and what your source is for it.

            1. “massive”

              That’s probably what he tells his prospective girlfriends too, who always end up disappointed.

          2. CO2 was 3-4 times the current levels during the dino era. Tell me again how worried I should be about current levels reaching a tipping point in 12 years.

          3. There’s no point in discussing things with people who are so invested in the notion that ~400PPM of CO2 is a ‘tipping point’ of doom when provably CO2 has been several thousand PPM higher than it is today. Nevermind that ~170PPM CO2 is near the point where most life on Earth dies.

            The same idiot you’re talking to today is apparently the same idiot we were talking to yesterday given that his ‘links’ are the same links debunked yesterday.

            Hence the desire to change their username, I assume. DoL’s best argument against CO2 being so much higher in the past was a generic hand-wave about it being ‘incompatible with modern life’ which is about as meaningless of a comment as one can imagine.

            No matter how you slice it, the odd’s of New York City being forever above water approaches zero. It doesn’t matter to anyone if that happens over the course of 100 years, or over the course of 1000 years. Or 100,000 years, for that matter.

            Again, should we blame ancient Egypt and ancient Greece for the sinking of Thonis-Heracleion? Apparently, ancient people’s had incredible effects upon ocean levels!

          4. You do know that the farther back in time an ice core goes that the less variation you see due to melt and remedy as years and decades blend together right?

            Nevermind, you seem to not understand shit.

            1. “Melt and remelt”

      8. Yes and no. The “greenhouse” effect of Carbon Dioxide is reasonably well understood but it’s direct effects within the terrestrial atmosphere are very minor. Unlike on Venus, water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. The terrestrial global warming hypothesis has always included the assumption that CO2 drives a large and positive feedback effect to water vapor concentration.

        That CO2->H2O multiplier assumption is not merely unproven but it is getting increasingly likely that we can say it has been disproven. Despite significant measured increases in CO2, trends of measurements of water vapor show flat to slightly down. Furthermore, water vapor’s effects as a net greenhouse gas remain fundamentally unknown. Under what circumstances do the albedo changes overwhelm the radiative effects? How do the phase changes within the atmosphere itself affect climate? What do spontaneously-generated feedback mechanisms (such as thunderstorms) do to the global energy budget?

        All of those questions remain unanswered. Without an understanding of such basic interactions, the best we can say about the global warming hypothesis is that it remains unproven.

        1. By the way, you are flat wrong in your statement above about forest cover. Deforestation, like the “urban heat island” effect, increases both land and atmospheric temperatures. There are no known scenarios where deforestation “offsets” the effects of CO2 production.

          1. That’s my point – deforestation contributes to CO2 because it is not being consumed by the trees. In other words, human activity is compounding the problem they’re creating by cutting down the Amazon.

            1. No, you’re still wrong. Deforestation contributes to warming because it changes the net albedo of the surface. Grasses and microorganisms continue to consume CO2. The “lost” CO2 sequestration effect after cutting down a forest is, to be blunt, too small to measure.

              This is especially true when you remember that the vast majority of photosynthesis and therefore CO2 consumption occurs in the oceans, not on land at all.

              To summarize: Do land use changes adversely affect climate? Yes. Do they do so by the mechanism you describe? No. Is the difference important? Very much so.

            2. deforestation contributes to CO2

              It would if it were happening. But there is more forest in the world today than there was 70-80 years ago.

        2. It is a valid point that H2O vapor is the primary greenhouse gas on planet Earth. No one is interested in talking about that, though, since we measure water as a percentage instead of PPM generally speaking.

          And, for what it’s worth, no one has really figured out how to model for water vapor yet. Clouds, as one example, are free floating masses of greenhouse gas yet cool the surface under them. Hard to model, indeed.

      9. I agree with all that. I was and still remain skeptical of the climate scientists themselves – and obviously no one can predict the future.

        It took me until I saw the warming at the poles to realize the willfully blind stupidity of ‘denial’ at this point. eg Arctic sea ice from 1870 – 2010 split by season of the year

        1. Hey, how’d they get the total mass of all the ice in the Arctic, every three months in 1870s? Satellites? Ships? Ice cores? With such mastery of the polar climate, why’d it take another 40 yrs. to reach the poles? Also, with such complete data, surely you’ve got the total mass of all the ice in the Antarctic for the same period?

          1. They didn’t. They measured the EXTENT. Very easy to do even in 1870. The Y-axis is millions of square kilometers. The one season that has an insufficiency of data (hence ‘flat line’ most years early on) is autumn – where ships did not want to risk heading too far into the Arctic where they might then get trapped by winter ice.

            1. You realize, of course, that such data is essentially valueless right? The tools to measure polar ice caps in 1870 didn’t exist as far as I’m aware. Or are you trying to tell me that circumference of ice sheets is the only metric that matters?

              I’d admit one can infer quite a bit from old data, but using is as precise data in a model intended to be predictive? Not so much. At best, you get a very rough idea of the past (say, by scale, hundreds of data points compared to millions of data points).

              Amusingly, this is what climatology attempts with ancient data points as well. Nevermind that there might be several million years between points for prehistory, or that there might be a trillion points for recent history. Nothing bad can happen with that type of extrapolation, I’m sure.

              And, as a reminder, one of the poles has ice sheets that are expanding. I wonder how that fits into your ‘both poles are warming’ narrative…?

              1. The tools to measure polar ice caps in 1870 didn’t exist as far as I’m aware.

                The hell they didn’t. Sailing ships designed to withstand some ice – and techniques by sailors to test whether the ice is solid, unstable, etc – are part of all far north fishing/maritime cultures.

                And, as a reminder, one of the poles has ice sheets that are expanding. I wonder how that fits into your ‘both poles are warming’ narrative…?

                Because the difference is that the Arctic (avg annual air temp is prob -15F) is water surrounded by land so it is a warm pole where crossing the 25F (freezing point for ocean) creates obvious seasonal discontinuities.

                The Antarctic (avg annual temp = -70F in interior, 14F on the coast) is land surrounded by water. The ice doesn’t ‘melt’ there. It just breaks off in big chunks and those chunks COOL the surrounding ocean – freezing it. That local phenomenon is a result of warming not cooling unless you can present a scientific case that the water is then annually going back onto land so it can repeat the process every year.

            2. Actually, no, it was not “very easy” to measure sea ice extent in 1870. We do have some estimates but they are extrapolations from point measurements made by individual ship captains who attempted individual routes at particular times of year. We also know that those individual observations are strongly influenced by recent weather, especially wind. Since those effects can be highly localized, the extrapolation from a few point measurements per year to an estimate of millions of square kilometers is… Well, let’s just say that the error bars for that estimate are large.

              1. We also know that those individual observations are strongly influenced by recent weather, especially wind.

                Then you only ‘know’ horseshit. Wind blowing does not create sea ice. Sea ice requires a few hundred meters depth of ‘near seawater freezing temp’. What triggers it is seasonal sunlight/darkness.

                Well, let’s just say that the error bars for that estimate are large.

                Any error bars sure as fuck aren’t 4+ million square kilometers – an area nearly twice the size of Greenland. Which is what they would have to be to maintain some pre-1940 ‘trend’ supporting your assumption that the post-1960 trend is nothing human caused but is just part of some long-term non-human warming.

                  1. Cool. So it’s a race between the benefit of shorter shipping routes and the nasty CO2/methane feedback of warming permafrost (happening 70 years faster than expected).

                    I’ll bet the permafrost wins.

                1. You’re advertising your ignorance, JFree. While you are correct that wind does not “create” sea ice, it does disperse, weaken and destroy it and it has a huge impact on how we measure extent. Remember that the measurement of sea ice extent is not merely where ice exists but where pack ice exists above the defined threshold of density. You may remember the flurry of articles over the low Arctic sea ice extent from the 2016 season. There was a lot less press for the articles that came out several months later explaining that the low extent was the result of unusually high winds the prior season and not unusual temperatures.

                  And yes, the error bars applicable to pre-satellite estimates of sea ice extent are quite large but no, it is not necessary or accurate to assume purely linear trends. The most accurate predictors assume a strong multi-decadal cycle overlaid on a linear increase that started with the end of the Little Ice Age. There is support for the hypothesis that the “linear” component since the end of the LIA is itself just another cyclical structure with a century or maybe millenial-scale period but we don’t have enough data to confirm that hypothesis.

                  1. You are simply trying to assume the conclusion you prefer

            3. They didn’t.

              So no measurements of total mass of the ice sheets back to 1870 then? More of an inference that the arctic has gotten colder or warmer based on its 2D size, then.

              How is this proof one way or the other any more than proving my fridge is colder than my freezer because the square footage is larger?

              1. More of an assumption that the freezing point of seawater has remained constant over time and that major visible state changes occur at that temperature. Especially measurable in those parts of the ice coverage that are seasonal.

                Of course I’m sure that you will reply that my very use of the word ‘state’ in the above sentence is just proof that I’m a socialist proggie central planner. Because everyone knows that the market determines the freezing point of seawater which means it can and does change a lot over time.

          2. With such mastery of the polar climate, why’d it take another 40 yrs. to reach the poles?

            If you look at that chart, the pole itself is never ‘ice-free’ in any season. Not then and not for now at least. And it was precisely because there were so many Arctic expeditions in the late 19th century that they gathered so much data about the EXTENT of Arctic ice then.

            1. Again, ice may be a proxy for temperature. Distance is, in no way, a proxy, especially in 1-2 dimensions. So, what you’re presenting isn’t proof but evidence. Evidence that requires subjective interpretation in order to be considered a proxy for temperature. It’s poor data and poor science even by ecological standards and is only used because the alternative is complete ignorance. Many would consider portraying poor data as proof to be lying.

      10. I’m sorry, you’re wrong that it remains “unproven.”

        I was a skeptic for the longest time, but unless you prove NASA and scientists are openly lying

        Unproven and lying aren’t antonyms. You’ve confused fact with truth, data with information, and understanding with mastery.

        There may be absolute consensus among fighter pilots that nearly 100% of the conflicts jet fighters have been deployed in have ended. They are the unquestioned experts but, whether I know how a jet fighter works well enough to fly one or not, I’m not wrong if I refute them by saying that fighter jets are an inefficient and/or ineffective way of preventing future conflict. Even if we enact some policy who’s sole foundation is jet fighters prevent future conflicts, we should still have people working on the idea that there are different and better ways than jet fighters, at least potentially, to prevent future conflict.

      11. What exactly is this major problem, 3cm of sea level rise per decade? Or is there something more dire that I haven’t heard of? And then what’s your solution that doesn’t involve keeping or driving more of the worlds population into poverty?

        1. The problem is capitalism exist and we must use climate change as a reason to get rid of it.

          1. We may in fact be warming. I’m interested in hearing about ideas that are not rooted in idea from those who want the US to become a socialist state.

            If those like AOC really want us to take them serious on the issue, then they should decouple it from their socialist desires.

            1. We are warming, at least in the short term, and that much isn’t really in dispute. The questions are more related to cause and extent, by and large.

              There is also the fairly convincing argument that when a planet exits an ice age, one might expect some average temperatures to go up.

              Turns out, modeling a chaos system that’s over 4 billion years old with a data set of less than 100 years is tantamount to guessing in the dark though. Combine that with a general knowledge of science that finds the argument that Earth could become Venus compelling and you can see the problem.

      12. Would that be the same NASA that said CO2 acts to cool the atmosphere?

        Aside from. . . We’re in the middle of a carbon drought – we’re barely a couple of hundred PPM away from losing all plant life. We need to double, at the least, the carbon present in the atmosphere.
        Unless starving sounds good to you.

    3. “…thinly veiled schemes to deprive people of their property and freedoms on scales not seen since the old Eastern Block.”

      That is the idea. Especially if you think that people no longer own property, but merely have the right to use it for the benefit of subsequent generations.

      Government controlling energy will result in government controlling everything.

      1. That’s not what usufruct means. Usufruct means you can’t DESTROY – abusus – the thing.

        And the fact that you are willfully misrepresenting that idea also tells me that your notion that only govt can actively ‘control things’ is also a strawman. Govt itself is a big part of the problem. ‘Democracy’ is all about giving to current voters at the expense of those who are too young to vote. Hence $23 trillion in debt and rising fast. They get the debt/serfdom – we get the benefits of the spending. That is THEFT.

        Same phenomenon re ‘land’ in modern economics

        1. And in your leftist utopia, ‘destroying a thing’ will be conflated with using a thing in an unapproved manner. Such as causing CO2 levels to rise.

          You, and the rest of the autocrats you’re carrying water for, can go straight to Hell.

          1. My ‘leftist utopia’ is legally based on Thomas Jefferson and economically based on Ricardo and George.

            1. I suppose you could also add the legal notion of ‘jubilee’ from the Bible (that notorious commie rag)

    4. This latest data set measured ocean temps to a thousandth of a degree… the absurdity of that alone is enlightening.

      1. Just the way the did during Grover Cleveland’s Administration

      2. .003 degrees Celsius error, from 4000 floats, each supposedly accurate to .002. So, somehow their essentially claiming to be able to measure the entirety of the ocean with 4000 floats to an uncertainty basically indistinguishable from the uncertainty of each individual measurement. Just for scale, that’s one float for a surface area roughly the size of Illinois, 2Km deep.

    5. Clearly massive carbon taxes coupled with big welfare spending will cause the world’s temperatures to drop.

      1. LS: Not the only options as I point out in my article: Climate Change: How Lucky Do You Feel?

      2. Well, maybe; it depends on how many people the socialists kill this time – – – –

    6. Yes, that’s pretty much where I’m at. I’m inclined to believe that AGW is real to some extent or other. But I am unconvinced that any proposed solution won’t do more harm than good, or that any solution is really needed. Climate change won’t happen overnight. People have plenty of time to adapt. It’s not as if bad weather and shoreline erosion haven’t been constant battles throughout human history.
      Also, how about starting the graph sometime before several very large volcanic eruptions in the 19th century?

    7. I don’t believe a word of this propaganda

    8. The posted temperature chart is junk. This is the only chart that matters: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2019/December2019/tlt_201912_bar.png

    9. And speaking of Eastern Bloc deprivations of freedom and property, if you really want to ruin the earth, that’s the way to go. Eastern Bloc countries were and are ecological disasters that people in free countries can’t even imagine.

  2. //In other words, natural variations like El Nino oscillations will be play ever smaller roles as global average temperatures continue to rise due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.//

    What a subtle way of editorializing the science, Reason. Keep up the good work.

    1. GG: Just summarizing. Take a look at the actual study to which I link in the post.

    2. NASA Predicts Next Solar Cycle will be Lowest in 200 Years (Dalton Minimum Levels) + the Implications

      An approaching Grand Solar Minimum is gaining evermore support. Even NASA appears to be on-board, with their recent SC25 prediction — though, predictably, they stay clear of the implications.

  3. Serious question, Ron: Is there an agreed-upon algorithm for computing “the globe’s average temperature”, presumably from a database of discrete (space-time-stamped) temperature readings? If so, would you *kindly* point me to it?

    1. Nope. And they all have problems that are fairly well known. Spencer has some food literature on each of them.

  4. 140 years? Bullshit. Good data doesn’t extend back that far. Make it the last 40 years, since the advent of satellite microwave measurements, and I’ll believe it.

    Haven’t we read a spate of these, “Warmest year ever!” announcements from NOAA and the like over the last decade? And despite those, global temperatures—in as much as such a thing exists—still haven’t reached even the lower bounds of the IPCC’s prediction set issued near the turn of the century?

  5. If 2019 was so warm, why was there snow on the Grapevine in November?

    1. Because they wont separate cities and places like Eastern China and India where there might be a 1-2*F increase because half the World’s populations live, while most of the rural areas of the World have not changed.

      Its also based on a bunch of assumptions that when they dont pan out, the Lefties tweek the data to get the conclusion they want.

  6. And now a word on how homoginized data can corrupt the record…

    https://notrickszone.com/2020/01/03/smoke-and-deception-blanket-australia-nasa-giss-fudges-data-australian-cooling-turns-into-warming/

    What we are seeing with many if the data sets that the “fixes ” to the data, like removing UHI, are actually raising data temps from measured instead of lowering measured like you would expect when accounting for UHI.

    There is also still a huge infill problem on the poles and in much of the Pacific ocean where you see some of the largest growth parameters in the map posted. Just a reminder for people. Very little of the ocean is measured with the current ocean stations, so infill accounts for over 60% of the global data. The process of how to infill accounts for a large percent of the reported warming trends.

    1. The process of how to infill accounts for a large percent of the reported warming trends.

      Man made climate change, there you have it!

  7. According to the NOAA, the errors aren’t random. They’re systematic. As we noted, all of their temperature adjustments lean cooler in the distant past, and warmer in the more recent past. But they’re very fuzzy about why this should be.

    Far from legitimately “adjusting” anything, it appears they are cooking the data to show a politically correct trend toward global warming. Not by coincidence, that has been part and parcel of the government’s underlying policies for the better part of two decades.

    What NOAA does aren’t niggling little changes, either.

    As Tony Heller at the Real Climate Science web site notes, “Pre-2000 temperatures are progressively cooled, and post-2000 temperatures are warmed. This year has been a particularly spectacular episode of data tampering by NOAA, as they introduce nearly 2.5 degrees of fake warming since 1895.”

    1. J & R: You may want to take a look at my section on “Evidence Tampering” in my article (linked above) “What Climate Science Tells Us About Temperature Trends” and now here too.

    2. “But they’re very fuzzy about why this should be.”

      Elections, my friend, elections.

    3. Exactly. For some reason lack of knowledge in Climate Science means we should raze all cities and technology and move back into mud huts.

      Lefties have brain problems. Some can be super smart in a tiny area and bat shit crazy about the rest of reality.

      An example is some of the brilliant scientists who created nukes for various nations, including the USA. After they see what an atomic bomb does in reality, they are 100% against nukes. They could have simply said no to helping create those nukes.

      If some government asked me to create the most powerful weapon ever conceived, I would say, “no thanks”.

      1. >I>…we should raze all cities and technology and move back into mud huts.

        I think that’s what that little Greta girl wants. Of course, people living in mud huts spending full days just trying to survive on very basic level are a lot easier to control so I’m sure that’s why they love her.

    4. Eric S. Raymond found computer source code whose only purpose can be to fake global warming, in the Halloween Documents, over 10 years ago:

      http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1447

  8. So we have to assume the following to make the case that we have to do something now about anthropogenic climate change or it will be too late and we will have global catastrophe:
    1) Global temperatures are getting hotter
    2) The temperature increases are not part of the natural variation in climate
    3) Man made CO2 emissions are the primary driver of temperature increases
    4) The effects of man-made climate change are overwhelmingly negative
    5) the negative effects will be significant enough to threaten the life and/or prosperity of a sizable portion of the population on Earth.

    If any ONE of those premises is false, the entire argument falls apart.
    1) I think there is pretty solid evidence that the globe has warmed a bit over the last 100 years. However, there are still open questions about the quality of the data from the early 1900s, the heat island effect, etc.
    2) What does a 100 years mean in terms of the planet’s climate? Is there evidence for temperature changes of similar or greater magnitude happening over a similar time period in the past? What caused them?
    3) There are MANY questions here: there is significant disagreement on the effect clouds have on warming (increased albedo vs. thermal blanket effect), and what about the variability of the sun’s magnetic field? This can have large consequences of cosmic ray flux, and other charged particles, which interacting with the Earth’s magnetic field can cause significant effects. So far it seems like a lot of correlation but little causation in the relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature
    4) This is pure speculation. Why do we consider rising sea levels to be catastrophic, but don’t consider longer growing seasons? Throughout our history, mankind has always done better during warmer times then colder ones.
    5) Corollary to 4, even though the temperature has (apparently) risen, the predicted negative effects have generally NOT come to pass. Why aren’t the Maldives underwater yet? The polar bears seem to be doing just fine. Glaciers which we were told were retreating are now seen to be expanding. We are told hurricanes will increase (not true) or that the magnitude of these will be stronger (not true).

    Before we literally turn our economy upside down, causing significant harm in itself, we should probably have a better handle on these questions.

    1. Anyone can install Tony Heller’s Pulling Back the Curtain software (realclimatescience.com) for U.S. temperature data from hundreds of stations that have been operating for the past century. Even leaving in data from stations installed in green meadows and now surrounded by asphalt and hot exhausts, the dataset downloaded from government recording stations using his software graph above a time axis. Like any spreadsheet (which you may use on the same data) it generates trendlines mostly level or downward. There are intervals within the 100-year span where temps rose or fell for a few years at a time. But overall the trend is flat. Sea levels rise gradually because of silt (with uranium and salt) washing into the ocean, which proves only that rainfall exists. As in the case of nuclear reactor safety, the thing waddles and quacks like a hoax, and even the same quacks back it.

  9. What the fuck does “globally” mean? Their favorite cities around the globe. I’m pretty sure they didn’t stick a thermometer in the air every 100 miles in every direction.

  10. It’s too bad thermometers can’t be persuaded to provide data supporting Chinese communist State Science Institute prophesies. Their nameless, faceless scientist impersonators fake data to justify laws against anyone but China emitting CO2. In America nearly 32,000 identified people with actual college science degrees petitioned to ignore climate hoaxes. Assume those are the 3%, who and where are the 97%? And why do unaltered temperature readings at US stations for the past century not reveal an increasing temperature trend?

  11. I’ll believe its a crisis when the people saying it is a crisis act like it is a crisis. Flying from LA to DC to protest for the “Green New Deal” which includes getting rid of private health insurance to fight “Climate Change” doesn’t qualify. Ignoring the carbon footprint, if temps were the life or death issue they are claimed to be, the left wouldn’t be adding all these extra, hot button, issues to their proposed solution.

    1. This.

      Let’s say I was fearful about the potential hazards of deploying molten salt reactors, but I was also convinced I would die from climate change in 12 years (as AOC believes). I would roll the dice on modern reactor technology, not oppose it no matter what.

      It’s like you’re dying of cancer but still aren’t willing to try any experimental therapy. What have you got to lose?

      I can’t help but question these people’s sincerity (and intelligence) when they link the response to climate change to stuff like health insurance or the minimum wage. Come on.

  12. That implies cooling from the most warmest year. Either the margin of error means these comparisons are worthless, or the models aren’t good enough to allow for such variations.

  13. This dodgy ‘science’ will be music to the climate change scammers ears.

    As an aside. Seems it was the Australian government who started those fires in order to comply with to the Agenda 2030 plan, which advocates for the implementation of radical changes to the central role of ownership rights of land and natural resources over the next decade.

    The fires were all corresponding with where the government are going to run a high speed train line.

    How convenient.

    https://tottnews.com/2019/12/05/australian-bushfires-conspiracy/

  14. It’s always warmest before the yawn.

  15. I will start to give a damn when ‘greenies’ stop using electricity to publish about global-climate-warming-change.
    And do not use open flames to replace electricity for light or heat.
    And do not use any manufactured product whatsoever.
    And do not use any form of transportation except walking.
    Oh, yeah, and show me exactly how it is man causing the warming, and not the whole universe acting in concert.

  16. Temperatures are rising, but I do laugh every time I see the time period of a data set or graph start in the last millenium or so.
    We were in an Ice Age until about 12-13,000 years ago. At the time, because so much water was tied up in glaciers, seas were about 120′ lower than today – this is why humans were able to walk across and populate the Americas. Boston was under 2km of ice. The glacial cycle is about every 100,000 years; we’re pretty much where we were 100,000 years ago, and we’re nowhere near the peak temperatures of the last cycle. Moreover, the data (despite the “interpretations”) shows that the slope of the increase today is parallel to that of the increases 100,000 years ago, 200,000 years ago, and 400,000 years ago. For example, see the graph about 1/3 of the way down the page at https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

  17. And as long as we keep using the 140 year timeline, it’s going to look that way for a while. Remember kids, start at the end of a cool period, then start counting.

  18. HEY LOOK AT THAT!!!! Temperatures were LOWER BEFORE all the EPA ‘Clean Air’ standards!!!! What do we have to show for the BILLIONS-UPON-BILLIONS dumped into the ECO-SCAM?????

    The EXACT opposite of the goal intended!

    1. Not really.
      The goal intended (not the goal stated) was more and more government meddling. And we got it big time.

  19. The Earth’s global surface temperatures in 2019 were the second warmest since modern record-keeping began in 1880, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    There may be a record that has been kept, but before satellites and certainly before the 20th century, what is the quality of the data that comprises those records? (Hint: far from good.) Also, the concept of “global average temperature” is flawed. Anyway, how am I supposed to trust a value of “global average temperature” from 1880? Seriously.

    1. And it’s disingenuous to describe the world as “getting hotter” when no such thing is happening – it is getting less cold, which is why the polar ice caps are melting but temps in the tropics have stayed static AFAIK. The average going up is a function of the rising lows, not the rising highs.

  20. Ron, I just don’t understand.

    You spend part of your time showing how these things are being tweaked and misread or cherry-picked to give the most catastrophic scenario, and another part of your time trying to convince people that ‘this’ time, it’s for reals.

    And still more of your time being shocked that people are using what you’ve said to refute what you’ve said.

  21. 140 years seems like an arbitrary benchmark. It can’t possibly be because something happened around 140 years ago that cooled the earth. It just can’t be.

  22. I am a full supporter of global warming.
    The sooner things get warmer up north, the sooner the damnyankees will stop retiring south and leave us alone.

    1. ^this
      If you’re not pro global warming, you’re literally Hitler

    2. Careful! One of the reasons this yankee is moving south is the cold. You can’t blame me now?

  23. When the “climate change” believers can prove what the daily or yearly temperature was 50 million years ago, 10 million years ago, 5000 years ago, and can prove without a doubt that the Earth has only now in the last 100 years (Fossil fuel use age) began to heat up to record highs then I’ll take stock into their research and views.

  24. “The past five years have been the warmest of the last 140 years.”

    So that amounts to 0.00003% of the earth’s history.

    Or if we restrict ourselves to time since the last glacial episode, a whopping 0.9% of that brief (16,000 year) time.

  25. Ron you gotta be able to explain what happened in the period from 1910 to 1940 if you want thinking people to get on board. I’ve followed this pretty closely since it was first beaten into me in elementary school in the early 90’s and still have yet to hear a decent explanation for how we heated up so much so quickly despite emitting, prior to 1940, a tiny percentage of the carbon we’ve emitted since.

  26. “When American climate alarmists claim to have witnessed the effects of global warming, they must be referring to a time beyond 14 years ago. That is because there has been no warming in the United States since at least 2005, according to updated data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    In January 2005, NOAA began recording temperatures at its newly built U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). USCRN includes 114 pristinely maintained temperature stations spaced relatively uniformly across the lower 48 states. NOAA selected locations that were far away from urban and land-development impacts that might artificially taint temperature readings.

    Prior to the USCRN going online, alarmists and skeptics sparred over the accuracy of reported temperature data. With most preexisting temperature stations located in or near urban settings that are subject to false temperature signals and create their own microclimates that change over time, government officials performed many often-controversial adjustments to the raw temperature data. Skeptics of an asserted climate crisis pointed out that most of the reported warming in the United States was non-existent in the raw temperature data, but was added to the record by government officials.

    The USCRN has eliminated the need to rely on, and adjust the data from, outdated temperature stations. Strikingly, as shown in the graph below, USCRN temperature stations show no warming since 2005 when the network went online. If anything, U.S. temperatures are now slightly cooler than they were 14 years ago.”

    https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/08/23/climate_alarmists_foiled_no_us_warming_since_2005_110470.html

  27. You know that calender they use to show relative time of earth’s existence, from January 1 until December 31st, with last final seconds before midnight on the last day being man’s total existence? Then we say the hottest year ever? Then we say ever is 140 years? Really? Which is it? Exaggeration destroys trust and the truth suffers, no matter who is right. If it’s all scientific, then why not try facts and leave the ginzo knife promotion style on midnight TV.

  28. All the Leftist hysteria surrounding AGW is the biggest nothing in the history of history. Libtards, CO2 is plant food, thus, get out of your filthy city and help plant a trillion trees …. plant two trillion trees if necessary and use the abundant resource.

  29. I might be an outlier, but I am not convinced climate change is a bad thing requiring panic.

    Maybe we need some warming of temperatures. I know I’d like it overall.

    We have evolved through worse.

  30. Please consider the adjustments that have been made to cool the past and warm the present which has been going on for years.

    https://realclimatescience.com/overwhelming-evidence-of-collusion/

  31. Also, consider that 140 years ago we were just coming out of a cold period where the Thames and the canals in the Netherlands regularly froze solid. Is that the optimal climate the alarmists seek?

  32. Wow . . .the Little Ice Age ends, and the temperature goes up . . ?
    Whooda thunkitt????
    Yet I’m amused that the same people who tell us to panic (and send them money) because the computer programs they wrote the temperature will be ONE degree higher in 80 years can’t tell us within THREE degrees what the temperature will be 2 days from now, using those same programs.

  33. If you are going to measure global temperatures over long periods of time (eg 140 years), you can only use places that are unaffected by ongoing local metropolitan development. Otherwise, you will ‘observe’ rising temperatures due to new buildings giving off more heat, asphalt absorbing it, etc rather than greenhouse gases such as water vapor. Mount Washington, NH is a good place to use, at least over the past 80 years.

    Moreover, most environmental problems in the US are caused by illegitimate government activities such as the building of the (socialist) Interstate Highway System. The IHS is a government transportation project that required the seizure of millions of acres of private land, including homes. It resulted in the migration of businesses and educated people from cities to suburbs (urban sprawl) and it ruined the intercity passenger rail business (which also ruined “Atlas Shugged”).

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.