The Last 12 Months Have Been the Hottest on Record
It's virtually certain that 2023 will be the warmest year ever in the instrumental temperature record.

Earth just recorded its hottest 12-month streak (from November 2022 to October 2023) with respect to the preindustrial (1850–1900) baseline, according to researchers at Climate Central. "Most of this warming, about 1.28ºC, results from human-induced climate change, with natural variation in the climate caused by processes such as the ongoing ocean-warming event El Niño contributing much less, says climate researcher Friederike Otto at Imperial College London," according to Nature.
The Copernicus Climate Change Service basically concurs. Its researchers report that October 2023 was the warmest October in its global temperature record, which goes back to 1940. The average surface air temperature rose 0.85°C above the 1991–2020 average for October and was 1.7°C above the average for the pre-industrial reference period. October 2023 "marked the fifth consecutive month of record temperatures globally," per Copernicus.
The year 2023 from January to October was 0.1°C warmer than the 10-month average for 2016, "currently the warmest calendar year on record, and 1.43°C warmer than the pre-industrial reference period," Copernicus reported.
The satellite temperature record by University of Alabama in Huntsville researchers also notes that "the global atmospheric temperature anomaly increased slightly in October from the record value observed in September to +0.93°C (+1.67°F) above the 30-year average, setting a new anomaly record for the 45-year satellite era."
"October 2023 has seen exceptional temperature anomalies, following on from four months of global temperature records being obliterated," observed Samantha Burgess, deputy director of the Copernicus Climate Change Service. "We can say with near certainty that 2023 will be the warmest year on record, and is currently 1.43ºC above the preindustrial average."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
And way, way warmer than the last ice age.
So what?
The earth gets warmer, the earth gets cooler.
Deal with it. (without using force)
Deal with it.
A good starting point for the US would be to cut FEMA's budgetary authority substantially. Floods and storms should be left to the states to manage, both from the operational side and the financial side. States can of course insure against adverse weather events.
I think it would be reasonable for the feds to provide an interstate compact so that states could cooperate to deal with natural disasters. Otherwise the Constitution prohibits states from cooperating with other states. Reinsurance would certainly be one function since no private reinsurer could reliably pay a claim of more than a few billion dollars and natural disasters can cost a lot more than that and the US isn't going to allow a foreign corporation to 'take over' a state. Likewise, if militia is ever needed to go to a different state to help out, that requires feds.
States can create an interstate compact.
Then the states control it instead of the feds
And the constitution does not prohibit states cooperating together.
No state shall, without the consent of Congress,….enter into any agreement or compact with another state or a foreign power..
That’s a unique power of Congress not the Exec Branch. And the scope of those agreements or compacts are not enumerated. Meaning interstate compacts are precisely the means by which Congress should determine the scope of the agreement and states (not Prez) should manage it.
Well, you better get on all those inter-state compacts entered into without the consent fo Congress.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome9.com
The Constitution impedes states in no such way as you claim. The clause you imagine prevents cooperation relates to warmaking capacity and war itself, not on states' ability to cooperate on all non-federal issues. It is odd you argue the feds have a role here despite there being no language at all allowing the feds to spend one state's taxpayers money to benefit the people of another state who've suffered a disaster. And there is nothing which prevents the people of one state, through their state government, from helping their sister state should they want to.
Good idea.
More testing needed!
What is the perfect global temperature? And when did that perfect temperature occur?
Now you’re just trying to hurt their feelings. I approve.
Cool enough to sleep .
Perfect global temperatures are as unlikely to arise from fuel rationing as setting fire to as much as possible as fast as possible
https://reason.com/2008/07/23/carbon-based-prohibition/
Not in central NY State. Cold Summer way below average, so far a brutal fall..snow on Nov 1st.
We have bigger problems than a little PPM increase in CO2.
Pretty mild in VA as well. Usually we have streaks of 100+ degree days. At most we had a handful of short spikes barely above it. I had to laugh when someone told me it was the hottest day on record when the high in that late July day was around 80.
Sure, I get that this is a local anecdote but when they make these claims I'd like to hear what region had the sort of temperature deviation to offset what most of the country experienced. Otherwise I have a difficult time believing the claim and view it as bs activism
It's reasonable to ask "what region had the sort of temperature deviation to offset what most of the country experienced. Otherwise I have a difficult time believing the claim"
The answer you seek is available globally and for free 24/7 at
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-75.00,0.00,409
Control panel at lower left
the Earth display provides constantly updated and animated Whole Earh view of temperature, pressure and wind , integrated from weather station & satellite data, at elevations from ground to the edge of space, but full pelt sea state and currents, atmospheric chemistry, smoke and dust, auroral activity
Enjoy!
I also live in VA. June this year was so cold that some nights even dipped into the 30s! Which is nuts. I know that because I was planning to go sailing and it was just too cold.
It was very mild in SC this summer, don't think we hit 100 a single time this year. Friends and acquaintances from all over are saying the same, there were a couple hot spots but most of the planet seems to have been below normal. This is just fraud and it's a bit disgusting that Reason supported the fraud instead of pointing out the fraud.
Reason always supports totalitarian fraud.
Did so with anti-Russia hoaxes, did so with covid, did so with the election, and does so with green totalitarianism.
Southern hemisphere temperatures show no increase.
The aspect of global warming they don't like to talk about, because people calm down about it when they find out, is that it's mostly a matter of milder winters, and warmer nights. Slight increases in the highest temperature during summer days is almost a second order thing.
Remember, it's not an increase in the energy coming in during the day, it's a reduction in the energy escaping at night. It's bringing the lows up, not the highs.
Brett,
That's correct! I'm always annoyed when they call a milder winter a sign of climate disruption. But, also, the urban heat island effect (UHI) due to pavement and buildings makes it warmer at night.
No way was 2023 the warmest year in Illinois. Only ran the AC 10 days. And it was 24f when I woke up this morning.
Im making over $13k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do.
This Website➤---------------➤ https://www.dailypro7.com
The enviromentalists switched to using wet bulb temperature, which is the wrong way to measure, as it is a very localized heat stress temperature rather than actual tempurture. It combines temperature cloud cover uv indes wind and humidity as a way to measure how environmental stress will effect humans preforming work in said conditions
Wet bulb temperature is not the ‘wrong way to measure’. Especially not since people like you will deliberately lie about the impact of temperatures.
If the record high temperature is 134 F – and the highest possible humidity is 100% – then obviously that means that everything is fine until the world average winter hits 134 F and 100% humidity.
And temperature readings are done as dry temperature. Wet-bulb is a calculated temp not a measured temp.
No changing the methodology, official definitions, and misrepresenting data for the purpose of getting the result you want is always wrong.
But then again you are the person that bought all the wuflu jab and mask bs where the gov did the exact same thing of changing definitions, are exactly what they do.
OH yeah they also blackmail, bribe, and extort scientists in order to get them to toe the gov line. 3 things you don't need to do to get someone to tell the truth
https://twitter.com/Oilfield_Rando/status/1723363416075583998?t=OPRC5u6A_cx2NbWwDZK4mA&s=19
If you think they wouldn’t cheat in an election to control trillions of dollars you probably also think they wouldn’t lie about climate change to control trillions of dollars.
I wouldn't put it past anyone to lie for their own benefit. But that includes people who lie about others, for their own benefit.
The problem you have, in both cases, is that of evidence.
oh well definitely killswitches in cars and fire-roasted crickets.
If you concede to eating the roasted crickets – the next play is forcing you to eat them raw.
They’ll just put them in flour and other basic ingredients. Unless you grow everything you eat, you’ll have no choice.
"...eating the roasted crickets..."
Cock-roach stew and rat-fur coats all around, for everyone!!! Those were good enough for MEEE, ass I grew up in a shoe-box in the middle of the road, so tit-shit will be good enough for YOU, damnshitall!!!!
So many dead rats to make a coat. Mink seems slightly more ethical in terms of lives taken.
On the plus side rat broth makes an OK substitute for beef broth. I don't think minks and other weasels taste very good.
Remember when the Democrats bragged that one of the great accomplishments of big government in the 20th century was keeping bugs out of our food? My how times have changed.
I just got paid 7268 Dollars Working off my Laptop this month. And if you think that’s cool, My Divorced friend has twin toddlers and(Q) made 0ver $ 13892 her first m0nth. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less.
This is what I do………> > > > > > http://Www.Smartcareer1.com
Then transition to a zero net carbon lifestyle.
Or an absolute zero carbon lifestyle. No breathing out.
We have less than two centuries of temperature measurements out of how many millions of years?
We’re going to destroy the world economy over this nonsense?
Someone certainly wants to, and even this claim is a lie, as the 1930s were warmer.
The actual, technical claim is "The warmest year on record using modern measurement techniques" which is not quite the same thing.
Not to mention that Scandinavian glacier whose retreat up the valley from melting uncovered the remains of a forest of 300 year old trees, showing it had been as warm for 300 years, until the glacier grew down the valley 1500 years ago.
Or that cattle were raised in Greenland 1000 years ago, but not now.
Or that the Romans grew olive trees above the current tree line.
It's just another fake political alarm, and it's a damned shame Ron fell for it, because he used to have useful science articles.
+1 It's amazing how many will not accept such data as they're brainwashed to believe the current climate change nonsense.
My parents generation had the Vietnam War and the real divisive issues of serious real racism to deal with. My grandparents had World War II and the evils of the real NAZIs to grapple with. What do kids today have to compare?
They desperately want some sort of crisis so when people manufacture a crate Armageddon of course they jump for it. Someone tells them Trump is a NAZI and they jump on it. People tell them there is racial strife and they eat it up.
Kids just have it too good today.
Don’t forget that England used to be warm enough to make wine.
Which is why it's rather alarming to see it being produced in Scotland and, wait for it, Norway
VM tends to spout vintage Mark Steyn:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2015/06/mark-steyn-medieval-cooler-than-now.html
Oh, dear god… the apocalypse is upon us!
Man. You idiots are still angry at Mark Steyn for publishing a book of quotes and statements from nobel winners and leading climate scientists to mock Mann over his hockey stick.
Fuck off and die with your fake spam link. Nobody is falling for it retard
The Earth has been warmer in the past. The Romans had vineyards in Britain 2,000 years ago and Hannibal walked elephants over the Alps using passes that are snow covered today. These climate alarmists have no appreciation for history and the variations in the planet’s environment over time (beyond a few decades). All because we are around to see one of those variations does not make it more significant.
Do you even Authoritarian bruh?
Don't forget the changes in methods and technology in those 200 years. From a mercury bulb being read by a human at a time his innqcurate watch said was right to a computer controlled thermistor tracking in real time set by atomic clocks.
Climate Central
WTF?
according to a report by the non-profit organization Climate Central
Ah, another self-perpetuating carbon generator that excuses itself from supposedly dooming us all by emitting CO2 without producing any other value for anyone.
Copernicus Climate Change Service
Holy shit?! Another one? What service do they provide?
Oh good, the libertarian "science" writer is upselling literal government climate propaganda now.
Gee, wonder if the non-profit ceases to get donations if the numbers were not always abysmal.
According to wingnut.com AGW is no problem because the Rapture is happening soon anyway.
You’d definitely be depressed if all the little children were out of your reach forever, wouldn’t you?
If I am pissing you Team Red nutcases off then I am doing something right.
This Bailey article reminds me of when I was posting as 'shrike' I linked a Pew Research poll that surveyed US scientists and only 6% identified as Republican. The Peanut Gallery went ballistic. You would have thought someone shot their dog. That's when I knew that H&R was just a GOP circle-jerk.
Ok, pedo.
I remember that poll. It included social scientists and such. Basically making it useless. Also remember you posting obamas 99% of climate scientists agree papers by oreskes and Cook, both social scientists who had the authors of the paper call bullshit on their classification.
social scientists and such
In other words, some very well-educated people like anthropologists, clinical psychologists and other elitists.
In other words, people who know fuck all about real science.
Why not include people with religious doctorates while you’re at it?
Or for that matter, why not include “creation science “?
It does have “science” in the title after all.
Because a survey of in-bred Trump hillbillies is much more appropriate to determine science policy?
You’re the half-wit who thinks tacking the word “science” on to something makes it actual science.
turd lies. turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
turd lies. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit and a pederast besides.
So you double down on the bullshit lol.
I think Hayek had some insighful views on "social scientists." Scientism I think he used...
SS is a joke..it isn't science as its theories cannot be tested in controlled settings and repeated. The entire field is just warmed over cultural marxism.
Close down all social science departments..including "marco economics"....Keynes was a degenerate pedo whose theories were bs.
"In other words, some very well-educated people like anthropologists, clinical psychologists and other elitists."
Credentialed and educated are not synonymous.
Like the antropoligists that can't tell if a skeleton is male or female?
turd lies. turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
turd lies. turd is a TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit and a pederast besides.
Don't confuse bemused mockery with anger.
People would have to take you seriously to get angry.
turd, the TDS-addled ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
It's kind of a race. Global warming will make the Earth an uninhabitable literal hell in, what, 8 years now? Vs. the Antichrist showing up any day now, leaving 7 years til the End of the World As We Know It.
Which doomsday cult will win?
Stay tuned!
That’s easy: the climate cult is afraid of guns.
So there is no real crisis in the Social security trust fund, then?
According to the noaa/environmentalist (circa 2012) the world will end in 10 years
So you arte a warming cultist in addition to being a pedophile.
Speaking of cultists...
Totally not a democrat fuckboi.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
That proves how dumb it is for libertarians to have anything to do with girl-bullying mystical Comstock Trumpanzees.
I don't believe in their end of the world fairy tales any more than yours. Theirs do have a certain romance to them. Yours are just dull.
According to wingnut.com AGW is no problem because the Rapture is happening soon anyway.
I think the saddest thing is that you've been using this same stupid line for over a decade and you still seem to think it's clever.
Except it hasn't been "the hottest year ever." That headline was based on satellite modeling data going back only to 1979. Based on actual US surface temperatures, it was only the 15th hottest year since 1890.
NGOs don’t get their funding by reporting such information.
^^^ THIS ^^^ All but a deceptive lie and now Reason is peddling this BS.
But even if it wasn’t the madness around a BS 1.43/200-years = 0.00715/yr is a complete joke. Does anyone really believe a global temperature measurement that accurate can even be measured especially clear back to the 1800s?
Humorously the fastest ‘cooling’ ever recorded was during WWII and it’s precisely why these propaganda outlets are always chopping graphs and measurements around 1940s to cherry-pick for a narrative ironically so insignificant it’s own measurement accuracy is easily questioned.
The whole thing is just indoctrinating propaganda for a Nazi-Empire.
In the 70s it was the Global Cooling Crisis
In the 80s it was the Global Warming Crisis
In 2000 they just gave up and said any weather changing is a crisis.
BS on top of BS that is so much BS it doesn't even have a point/goal anymore.
Ironically the biggest crisis of all would occur when/if the weather actually stopped changing. Then it will become the static weather crisis. Nothing but panic for the sake of panic needed to indoctrinate a Nazi-Empire.
"Does anyone really believe a global temperature measurement that accurate can even be measured especially clear back to the 1800s?"
Absolutely. They're called paleoclimatologists, and unlike most paleoconservatives of my acquaintance, they've been continuously improving their instruments and methods for over a century.
lol... Yet somehow it's amazing that they do such a bang up job that they can't even figure a precise degree difference in the weather prediction for tomorrow but somehow must be believed their 0.007 difference next year is definitely accurate.
Oh wait; They already made their predictions. Over and over and over and over and over again and the results of those predictions have been 100% FALSE by the very test of time.
Ya know; just like almost all the BS from my leftarded acquaintance is. They really think their blind 'faith' in compulsive falsehoods can walk on water.
I love paleontology. Tell me, have they made up their mind if the brontosaurus was real or not yet? Every time I read a news article about it they aren't sure. I don't get how paleoclimatigoists are going to be anymore certain than their colleagues in the ontology department are.
If they can't make up their minds about one of the largest land creatures EVER then how are they so darned certain about a couple of degrees of temperature?
Come on, dude. Who cares (or knows) what happened before 1979. That was like, ages before both the Internet and Greta were born.
That's the other fun part, they go by "modeled data" even though there is not a single climate model that has ever been remotely correct. "they are twice as accurate as before!" okay what was the previous accuracy? 0.00%, good 2x that is still 0
Most of this warming, about 1.28ºC, results from human-induced climate change, with natural variation in the climate caused by processes such as the ongoing ocean-warming event El Niño contributing much less
This was met with laugher, right? Right?!
How the fuck do they even quantify it to that level of accuracy to lay at the feet of humanity.
Step 1 lie
Step 2 burry the data (per the un irrc, <13% is due to all of human activity)
Step 3 when people bring up step 2 destroy their career through lies blackmail and extortion
Bingo....
“The capacity of humans to believe in what seems to me highly improbable- from table tapping to the superiority of their children- has never been plumbed.” Heinlein
Good thing we have air conditioning.
Lets go to the "ScIeNcE!"
Well, considering that human civilization is only about 6000 years old, and most of them weren't keeping climate records...
Phase them out with what?
Well, I mean, we already have. More than literally anyone else on the planet.
Have you considered calling China? And India?
“This is the hottest temperature that our planet has experienced in something like 125,000 years,” says Pershing, the vice-president for science at Climate Central.
Even according to their own records and analyses of historical ice cores, this isn't true.
In the Eemian Interglacial (the period they're talking about) the average temperature was still 3 - 3.5 degrees C higher, and we had pine trees to 71' North and hardwoods to 65' North latitudes.
If it was as warm now as it was 125kya, we'd have wheat fields in Siberia and Canada and Alaska.
Ice cores also average 100 to thousands of years of gas mixing due to melt and refreeze. And the temp construction is based on the same falsified models that forward project Temps. Models that remove things like the MWP and LIA.
*strokes chin*
Fascinating. Indubitably fascinating.
*smokes meerschaum pipe*
*sips brandy, and relaxes into highbacked chair*
You realize nobody actually cares beyond the esoteric value of that kind of thing among enthusiasts trying to rationalize the value of their job, right?
Oh yes, I absolutely understand that the scammers don't give a fuck about the actual answers, so long as they can continue to pull in money and power.
Congrats on crippling your argument by rediscovering albedo feedback !
Well, then it's settled. Since we are not 100% certain that the planet is getting warmer due to the influence of human behavior, then not only should the government not take any action to stop climate change, but private individuals should not take any corrective actions either.
On the other hand, if there is even the faintest hint of the merest possibility of voter fraud somewhere in the vicinity of a ballot drop box, then that is conclusive proof that the election was stolen and Trump was the rightful winner, and the government must make massive changes to the entire electoral process to make it so incredibly difficult to vote in the name of stopping voter fraud.
Did I do that right?
The burden of proof is on you, fucknuts.
For being an individualist Jeff sure does push a lot of narratives without inspection.
You forgot the “radical” part.
Radical collectivist, while less flowing off the tongue, would be far more honest.
Typical Collectivist fits better.
So, the burden of proof is on you to prove that there was widespread voter fraud in 2020 to cause the vote to be stolen in favor of Biden.
Oh wait, that isn't how it works for your tribe when it comes to the 2020 election? Vague conspiracy theories and half-assed claims of "evidence" are good enough? Okay then! If that's the standard of proof that we are going with, then not only was the 2020 election totally stolen from Trump, then by your own estimation, humans are totally warming the planet in a catastrophic way.
Here's the data you don't want to see.
Read it and weep.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-75.00,0.00,409
Well see, the thing about elections is, they're exclusively controlled by the talking apes. Both the blue ones AND the red ones.
The climate, on the other hand, doesn't even notice the talking apes as mother gaia just continues doing whatever mother gaia does.
Also, why all this talk of "stopping" climate change? Why not talk about adapting to it?
What have they suggested to date, that would make it "so incredibly difficult" to cast a vote?
Nothing?
The climate, on the other hand, doesn’t even notice the talking apes as mother gaia just continues doing whatever mother gaia does.
This is assuming the conclusion.
Also, why all this talk of “stopping” climate change? Why not talk about adapting to it?
Sure, we could, if we want to ignore the human influence on the climate.
What have they suggested to date, that would make it “so incredibly difficult” to cast a vote?
Well, first, let's acknowledge that to make it more difficult to vote is a subjective standard. I think that, for instance, abolishing early voting would make it much more difficult to vote. For example, in Iowa they recently passed a law that would reduce early voting and shorten the time to vote on Election Day.
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2021/03/08/iowa-governor-kim-reynolds-signs-law-shortening-early-voting-closing-polls-earlier-election-day/6869317002/
Part of their rationale is "election integrity". But unless they have proof that the extra voting days led to voter fraud, why shorten the length of time? Seems to me, they are making it harder to vote for no reason. Why?
That being....?
No, I won't acknowledge that. Deal in objectivity.
The reason you want me to acknowledge it in a subjective sense is so that you can ultimately conflate the words "inconvenient" and "impossible." That's not going to happen. More difficult may be inconvenient, but that doesn't make it impossible. And your right to something doesn't imply the convenient means to exercise it. And so long as it's across the board, and not targeting certain people to frustrate their rights in particular (aka discrimination), it's fair game.
Remember that voting is a civic duty. And if that's a duty you care about, then you'll put in the effort to exercise it. If you expect it handed to you on a tray with a medium fries, soft drink, and cheap plastic toy - then you've got a fundamental misunderstanding of basic civics going on.
Your car not starting in the morning may make it difficult for you to get to the polling station to vote. But that doesn't mean you're being denied your vote. It means that if you care about your vote, you'd better start hoofing it. And if you can't be bothered, then maybe you weren't really taking that vote all too seriously to begin with.
That being….?
Addition of extra carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, for starters?
The reason you want me to acknowledge it in a subjective sense is so that you can ultimately conflate the words “inconvenient” and “impossible.”
But that is a strawman, I did not claim that recent voting changes made voting "impossible".
And your right to something doesn’t imply the convenient means to exercise it.
Umm, yeah it does actually. That is one of the key differences between a right and a privilege. For example, take gun rights. The government erecting excessive burdens on one's ability to buy a gun is an infringement of one's right to buy a gun, even if one is not explicitly *forbidden* to buy a gun. It doesn't mean that the government must mandate a gun store on every corner. But it does mean that the government must not erect unnecessary and burdensome hurdles to a citizen wishing to exercise his/her right to own a gun. So it is the same with voting. It doesn't mean that the government must hand-deliver a ballot on a silver tray to every citizen. But it does mean that the government must not erect unnecessary and burdensome hurdles to a citizen wishing to exercise his/her right to vote. And in this case, the people erecting the hurdles to the right to vote have very tenuous rationales for doing so, citing vague and unsubstantiated claims of "voter fraud".
Remember that voting is a civic duty.
No, it's a right. *You* may view it as a duty, and good for you if you do. But fundamentally, it is a civil right. Some choose to view it as a civic duty, some choose to view it as a popularity content. You don't get to impose on everyone else how they must view the act of voting.
And we should care about that because...?
Then what's your gripe?
They haven't.
It's a duty and a right.
Self-governance requires citizen participation. When citizen participation wanes, they're no longer self-governing. That's when aristocracy and oligarchy starts to fill the vacuum. Which is what we're dealing with now.
Yes, that is correct.
I would like to add that a message on a laptop found in a repair shop stating "10% for the big guy" is conclusive proof that the then vice-president was bribed by some overseas company and he must have done something-or-another to reward that company at some point in time although no one knows what that something is.
#WingnutLogic
Why do you have a 2 at the end of your account name?
Something to do with posting CP to Reason and getting banned.
Are you finally admitting the laptop is his, you mendacious fuck?
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit.
Er, the "then-vice president" at that time was Mike Pence...
Government action has always and will always only make things worst. That is the case against government action.
If global warming is real, it’ll be Capitalism not communism that solves it.
I'm all in favor of government inaction. Damn, why doesn't that space bar work! Government inaction. Damn!
No, you're just being a hypocrite, as usual.
Except literally no one here is saying private INDIVIDUALS shouldn’t do anything.
So no, you didn’t do it right.
A comment that mocks the entire concept of "fighting climate change", even from a private individual perspective
https://reason.com/2023/09/07/politicians-say-they-want-to-fight-climate-change-so-why-are-they-fighting-china-on-electric-vehicles/?comments=true#comment-10227464
Hilarious. An article about the fucking government doing something and the comment you linked to was about people working together, not individual action.
https://reason.com/2023/04/27/global-warming-trend-is-only-one-half-of-the-climate-model-simulations-says-new-paper/?comments=true#comment-10037516
Here, a belief in man-made climate change is considered to be a faith-based theology.
"Here, a belief in man-made climate change is considered to be a faith-based theology."
Given that it cannot be falsifiable...it is very much a religion. No difference, except religion has provided some benefits to humanity.
Sure it is. Develop an alternative hypothesis that explains all available observations.
Everything is well within historic norms.
That is sufficient.
You're asking for dramatic changes on miniscule information.
Because it is one? (Not the climate changing part, the man-made part)
https://reason.com/2023/04/27/global-warming-trend-is-only-one-half-of-the-climate-model-simulations-says-new-paper/?comments=true#comment-10037819
Here's another one:
https://reason.com/2023/04/27/global-warming-trend-is-only-one-half-of-the-climate-model-simulations-says-new-paper/?comments=true#comment-10038767
Here's another one:
The clear inference from these comments is that the science itself is bad, not that government involvement per se is bad. So why would a sane person invest resources to combat a problem based on "faith-based theology" or a problem created by "cooking the books"? You get the idea.
By trashing the entire field, the skeptics deter even individual action to combat climate change, let alone government policy.
Can you explain "Hide the decline"?
A phrase taken out of context?
Can you provide the context that makes it understandable and NOT in any way deceitful to a layperson?
Sure. The phrase referred to tree ring data that was being used as a proxy for temperature data. It had been known for a little while that the tree ring data from the 1960s onward was unreliable as a proxy in this manner since the 1990s. So that phrase was about removing tree ring data, which showed a decline in temperatures, from the rest of the data set which showed an increase in temperatures.
So, remove conflicting data. Sounds super-sciency.
Note, they use that same tree ring study to extrapolate temperatures for centuries. But it is only WRONG recently.
So, remove conflicting data. Sounds super-sciency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grubbs%27s_test
Note, they use that same tree ring study to extrapolate temperatures for centuries. But it is only WRONG recently.
Humans have had a much larger effect on the environment recently.
https://skepticalscience.com/Tree-ring-proxies-divergence-problem.htm
Again, assumptions without evidence.
The decline of climate denial is evident in its hiding behind cliches like' climategate'
Some methods are more accurate on different time scales than others, and as surely the relative rank of methods changes as instruments and algorithms evolve. knowledge of past climate can be improved by using better temperature proxies as fast as they come along instead of sticking to less reliable ones.
Historical records are not reliable. Exactly zero predictions have come true.
The behavior of the biggest climate activists show that not even they take it seriously.
Science should not dictate policy.
That it also is bad science is immaterial to the above statement.
Science should inform *good* policy.
No.
Rule by expertise is why our government is on it's way to technocratic rule.
The only thing that should inform policy is morality and goals.
The only thing that should inform policy is morality and goals.
In order to have well-formed goals, one must first have solid knowledge about the state of the world as it exists. Otherwise, how can one know what to change or how much to change something?
And to do so, one must have some reliable means by which to measure the state of the world. Hence, science.
In order to have well-formed goals
This is not a requirement for policy.
And indeed, most goals aren't.
"the skeptics deter even individual action to combat climate change."
LOL. Said the flea to the dog.
So, you have seen the comments to my post and the comments that I have cited. I think it is clear, that while we all agree that government coercion to stop climate change is not appropriate, that based on the comments, the prevailing opinion is also that private action to stop climate change is ALSO not appropriate.
No, Jeff, no one is stopping you from playing in traffic with the just stop oil idiots if you want to take some “private action to stop climate change”.
I’m sure this idea must appeal to the “radical individualist” in you, somehow.
Well, then it’s settled. Since we are not 100% certain that the planet is getting COOLER due to the influence of CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVISM, then not only should the government not take any MORE action to stop climate change, but private individuals should not take any corrective actions either.
There. Fixed that for you so it actually made some intelligent sense.
Oh here's a fun fact. The fastest cooling happened during WWII when more entirely unfiltered full-streams of Gasoline/CO2 was being dumped than ever before it.
Why it's almost like the data point to the cause and effect being entirely opposite of the BS indoctrination. Or maybe the whole thing is just a load of OCD BS.
All of your collectivist narratives are falling apart and it’s making you very bitter, Jeff. It shows in your recent angry posts.
You should probably just be like mike and stay away from here for a while. It’s only going to get harder for you.
Haha.
Elections are something the government is inherently involved in and should be. Micromanaging the climate is not something it is empowered or qualified to do.
Oh you silly person.
Al Gore should be your spirit animal. Not only does he believe that the planet is going to boil us off the surface by the year 2000 he also beleives his election was stolen by the waskly wepuwicans. Funny thing he his evidence for both is lacking.
Ctrl+F "Hunga Tonga" -- zero results
So... nothing about the massive undersea volcano eruption that kicked exaliters of water into the upper stratosphere? As though that's completely irrelevant?
What will your schtick be in five years once that finally precipitates out and the temperature goes back down? "Ignore the dropping temperatures behind the curtain!"
Fuck off, Bailey. Nobody is buying your bullshit.
Yea, but Tonga Time is like this really little place that is mostly rock and vegetation. Ain't nobody fracking and coal mining in Tonga. How can we sell our green eco crap against that kind of backdrop?
No sir, I need smokestacks, and chimneymen from yesteryear covered in soot, and flames coming out of automobile tailpipes! We gotta SELL this eco crap bruh.
Warlocks who refuse to do artihmetic are doomed to talk nonsense.
One exaliter is a million billion tons, and a billion tons is 1Km3 of water.
The Tonga blowout lofted ten thousand times less water than you imagine- roughly 50 Km3, , not millions, and the published estimate is that stratospheric water vapor rose by about 5% CF:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq2299
It has been an unusually high solar activity cycle.
The current solar cycle, known as Solar Cycle 25, has been full of activity, more so than expected. Scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Space Weather Prediction Center in Boulder, Colorado, have already tracked more sunspots than those counted at the peak of the previous cycle.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/14/world/solar-maximum-activity-2024-scn/index.html
Also the heating remains in urban areas and nighttime data accounting for most of the geat. Whi would have thought buildings and asphalt retains heat.
https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news-and-updates/cities-are-often-10-15-degc-hotter-their-rural-surroundings-2022-07-25_en
Ha! Like a giant ball of continuously exploding plasma could possibly make things warmer.
Ha! Like a bunch of low temperature sunspots are going to increase radiative forcing ?
Average solar energy output is flat to within a few parts per thousand on a time scale of centuries,
Have you been breathing the Gas of Life again ?
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/11/attack-of-user-friendly-anime-molecules.html
Are you a Mann acolyte? Get your money before he is completely discredited. He is nearly there.
Mann isn't a solar physicist, but they, like most sensible folks credit the observed warming to human enterprise enriching the atmosphere with gases that absorb and trap heat.
This is not exactly news :
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2014/10/climate-wars-salt-talks.html
The theory of carbon as the primary driver 9f warming has continually been debunked over and over. It is a small part of the greenhouse gasses, water is the primary. A doubling of carbon assuming ideal gas laws would increase heat trapped by 0.7 deg C. The problem is that absorption is logarithmic, not ideal. And science has already shown atmospheric volume is not constant adding even more evidence against ideal gas law usage. Models all assume 1.7 deg to 7.3 deg. This is due to feedback measures assumed in the models. However those feedback measures are absolute gift, explaining the variance in future projections. The models also have different feedback factors such as with atmospheric particulates where the forcing function of each variable changes wildly between each model using those terms in hind cast fitting. No model uses the same parameter values for the feedback functions.
You continue to show to be quite ignorant of basic facts.
stuff your fake web-site up your ass and then make your familiy proud: Fuck off and die, public imbecile.
Average solar energy output is flat to within a few parts per thousand on a time scale of centuries,
How accurate do you suppose measurements of solar output were 300 years ago?
What part of 'proxy' and 'isotopic systemics' don't you understand?
I enjoy how you act so smug and condescending, it reminds me of Tony.
Youre assuming the equation of models used is accurate enough to predict past temperatures even though those very same models have to be fit to historical temperatures every few years due to failed predictions.
Why are we still using thermometers instead of ‘proxy’ and ‘isotopic systemics’ ?
Because, like thermodynamics, and gravimetry, they were not yet invented .
Do you really imagine that geophysics didn't exist until instruments were invented to quantify it?
What part of 'brain--dead' is a mystery to you. public imbecile?
Eat shit and die.
Didn’t use the window unit this summer and began burning wood a week earlier than last October. A real scorcher for sure.
They expect us to ignore the actual weather.
If you aren’t a scientist, how can your opinion possibly be of value?
Only the high priests can divine such things.
Do you mean the Reverend Doctor Calvin Beisner, who preaches that sea level can not rise, as God told Noah otherwise ?
His congregation includes such climate luminaries as Roy Spencer shown here receiving Beisner's blessings in the holy city of Las Vegas:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2014/07/he-maketh-me-to-lie-down-in-green.html
Get lost.
You've already lost if you have to resort to non sequitur to try to reclaim an argument.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
Have you tried putting wax in your ears ?
Mike Hihn followed Sevo’s advice and you can too.
Seattle’s to-be-hottest-summer tuned into one of the more mild ones in recent memory.
“Stop equating weather with climate”
“then why was the warning of ‘hottest summer ever’ proof of anthropogenically forced climate change?”
“because hotter summers are proof that it’s getting hotter, duh”
The C./S. American immigrants worried about freezing to death outside Chicago police stations in the unusual Oct. cold snap *just* rotated out of the news cycle.
Don't remember the semi-annual 'people are gonna die'/'cooling centers are open' discussion this year.
No, it has not.
https://www.vvdailypress.com/story/weather/severe/2023/02/23/snow-falls-in-the-high-desert-blizzard-expected-friday/69938415007/
How are those two things related, in your mind?
I'm curious how you relate a single event in a single place to a global average.
If the global average was the hottest on record, that winter storm would not have happened.
Yeah. It really hasn't been that hot.
It was a typical summer here in CLT.
Last winter was exceptionally mild for us. Maybe that's where their claim has merit? Or more likely there was local sustained warming elsewhere that offset what most in this country experienced
Last winter was exceptionally mild for us.
Same.
Tell that to people living in Victorville, Lake Arrowhead, or Big Bear Lake.
Reason Commentariat - Lalalalalalalala. I can't hear you.
Go get another booster.
That is always the answer. If you are unsure about something, get another booster. Boost until you can't boost anymore.
Boost until your heart explodes.
Or maybe because 2023 is far from the hottest year in the past fifty years or so.
https://www.sunset.com/travel/san-bernardino-mountains-snow-storm-2023
This is why you’re so great JFree. You latch on to every single chicken little scenario you can, ignore data presented to you, and just act like a common moron that you are.
Put your mask back on.
Please enlighten us as to what LIBERTARIANS should be arguing the government to be doing to “combat climate change”.
Um... Banning climate control in houses and cars? I think that's what government thinks is the solution to climate changing. Why it's almost like an oxymoron.
Being aware of what is actually happening. That is what the Mises Caucus types can't handle because they/you prefer willful ignorance (aka stupidity, self-deception).
The one ignoring all evidence this morning is you as you preach chicken little philosophy that leads to government control. No wonder you hate the MC. You will use any crisis to justify government power.
+10000000... lol... "chicken little philosophy"
"Being aware of what is actually happening."
Ah, Woke about climate change/global warming/global cooling/overpopulation/underpopulation/latest hip scientism?
Doomers gonna doom.
When claims run afoul of actual experience, the claims have problems.
Anecdote trumps evidence, every time...
I'm not saying I can't hear him, I'm saying he's wrong you stupid fuck.
JFree: "I know I'm the smart one because I believe everything I'm told by any figure who appears to have even the slightest authority!"
Chicken little
''The sky is falling! The sky is falling"
Fuck off and die.
Well, what you believe is even more irrelevant than what Biden believes.
None of the proposed policies on climate change are going to affect the climate significantly. All they are going to do is affect the economy, negatively.
Jfree- Lalalala, I’m afraid of everything I’m told to fear.
Lol, no it wasn’t. Stop lying.
"On record" does a whole lot of lifting, putz!
0.1c - compared against the pre-industrial data that doesn't have that level of measurement precision? Really?
And we're, if course, totes capable of ensuring that different measurement types (satellite vs thermometer) can be accurately compared to each other because we have sooper-sekret numerical adjustments!
There is nothing secret about an asshole, the apparent source of much of this data and much of the analysis.
Are you too lazy to read the methods and instruments appendices of climate science publications?
I saw, with my own eyes, snowfall at Cajon Pass on February 23, 2023.
And I was in a snowball fight thereabouts on the 4th of July 1986. What do local anecdotes have to do with global climate forcing and temperature change?
What do you have to do with anything other than bullshit?
Yes, and the analysis is highly questionable. We simply cannot make reliable statements about precise changes in global average temperatures.
What we can say is that we are probably in a rapid warming trend, but that that is nothing unusual towards the end of an interglacial warm period.
0.1c – compared against the pre-industrial data that doesn’t have that level of measurement precision? Really?
Given what I've seen that passes for science, climate, statistics, and otherwise, I'm more than 99% sure it doesn't even have that level of mathematical precision.
This has gotten tedious. Every year now is the hottest on record, so what am I supposed to do? Oh yeah, repent my carbon sin and flagellate myself while kissing an icon of Greta Thuneberg, after I give all my savings to the church of climate science, aka the Democrat Party.
What I find funny is how the "faithful" never question things like satellite measurements, global measurements, etc. which haven't been in use long enough to be credible.
Don't get me wrong - global warming is real. But pronouncing every year as the warmest is flat stupid.
I will still stand by Glenn Reynolds' maxim: I will believe it is a crisis when the people who proclaim it a crisis act like it is a crisis.
Yes.
When Greta et al start pitching nuclear power, I'll begin to take climate change seriously.
And give up their beach front property and private flights
What are you supposed to do? Ignore the chicken littles and trust in human adaptivity and ingenuity.
What a stupid article! I guess it was written for the non-thinking climate change lapdogs.
Really?
Ron is the author of
Ecoscam: the False Prophets of the Ecological Apocalypse
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312109717/reasonmagazinea-20/
Here's something that will absolutely blow some minds.
It's possible to accept that fact that human activity is causing the planet to warm faster than it otherwise would have without demanding that government do something about it.
Looks as though that thought doesn't compute in many heads, because anyone who says AGW is real is immediately attacked for supporting environmental policies.
Unfortunately, the two are inseparably linked .
Like I said, people cannot comprehend accepting the science without supporting government policy.
So if they oppose the policy they feel compelled to attack the science.
Which is incredibly stupid.
Yes: that's what most conservatives and libertarians actually do.
People like you then go around smearing them as "not accepting the science".
In my experience most conservatives attack the science and anyone who supports it.
Not sure what libertarians think since I haven't met one in a while.
Conservatives ask questions that the "science" should be able to answer but cannot.
A science with zero predictive value is pointless.
I agree that predictive models are inaccurate. Doesn’t mean temperatures aren’t rising. Some of the rise in temperatures is due to nature, and some to human activity. The failure of models doesn’t make the underlying facts wrong. Just means the models are wrong Which is unsurprising given the complexity of what they are modeling.
That is correct, because climate science is a corrupt, unscientific endeavor, because climate scientists are unqualified to propose policies, and because the people who talk about it don't understand it; just look at yourself.
However, those observations are unrelated to the conservative criticism of climate policies themselves, namely that even assuming that what you call "the science" is correct, climate policies are still not just ineffective but harmful.
Glad you know what I understand and what I don't understand. I'm sure you know my education and work experience as well, oh omniscient one.
I go by what you write.
They attacked because you keep insisting the government do something - anything, even pointless and counterproductive things.
So it's kind of irrelevant that some small number believe that AGW is happening but that the government needs not get involved.
*YOU'RE* not one of those people.
I don't know about him, but I'm perfectly happy to accept that mankind may be responsible for global warming, and that the proper governmental response to this is not to divert 100% of global GDP towards "combating" it (using wholly untested and unproven assumptions about how this might be done--but which always seem to involve us transferring loads of money to someone else).
Nothing I have seen in the last 20 years suggests that the world is even remotely able to work together in any fashion which would be reasonably likely to turn the supertanker of climate change (even if there were some way of knowing how to do that), so the only reasonable function of government in response to global warming is to focus on the mitigation and adaptation measures reasonably likely to be effective to help their people survive it.
And that's only if the people want their governments to do so: no XRzi-style "sortition" replacing elections (because democracy doesn't reach the "right" results).
I see all the denialist bullshit arguments here as usual, e.g.
“but in the 70s it was global cooling!” – one of those statements which proves that the poster is a lying POS, because despite the claims in denialist quarters, “global cooling” was never a major concern. It was briefly speculated about, an article or two in the popular press and a few papers, but other than that, nope.
“we only have two hundred years of measurements and the earth has been around for X million years” – I am surprised that anyone capable of using a computer can even advance such a moronic argument. The issue here is what will conditions be like for humans – 2000ppm CO2 and 100% humidity, for example, suits many organisms. Just not us. And no other animals have to worry about the effect of sea level rises.
“The burden of proof i on the warmists!” – indeed it is, though almost no denialist will accept any proof anyway, and the burden has long since been met because the predictions have been made and not only has the Earth warmed per prediction, no other mechanism has been found to explain it (though it doesn’t stop some denialists saying in effect that there has to be an as yet unidentified natural mechanism because it can’t be AGW because reasons. And it's not just a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc because the warming effect of CO2 has been known for 170 years or more – and the AGW prediction was made by Svente Arrhenius long before Al Gore.
“But it was cool near me” – possibly the most fucking stupid argument of all.
Underlying some of the denialist positions are 1. the argument from consequences 2. People we don’t like support AGW 3. Willful ignorance of the state of the science – protecting them from having to reconsider their opinions and allowing them to assert things that are simply untrue 4. Motivated reasoning 5. Giving greater weight to fringe scientists and non-climate science than to the body of climate scientists
Meanwhile, if you can show me that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas, or that most of the increase since about 1850 isn’t due to human activity, that all the measurements of SST are erroneous and there is no warming, or that if there is warming, there is a mechanism that stops CO2 acting like a GHG while there is another identified natural mechanism causing almost all AGW, I’ll change my mind.
I've come to the conclusion that the people who refuse to accept the science do so because they oppose the policy prescriptions.
Which makes me think that in the back of their minds they really do believe government is the answer to all of our problems. If they didn't then they could accept the science while telling policy makers to fuck off.
You correctly identify that people oppose the policy prescriptions; that's because the policy prescriptions are ineffective.
You then smear the people who reject these policy prescriptions as "refusing to accept the science".
The irony is that it is people like you who "refuse to accept the science". It is "the science" that tells us that the policy prescriptions are ineffective.
The irony is that it is people like you who “refuse to accept the science”. It is “the science” that tells us that the policy prescriptions are ineffective.
After I twice said that I oppose the policy prescriptions you accuse me of supporting them. You after the JesseAz prize in assholery?
No, I did not accuse you of supporting particular policies. I accuse you of being a scientific nincompoop who doesn't understand any of the science or economics involved and who misrepresents the conservative position. That's because you are an asshole who does all of those things, repeatedly, on this very discussion page.
Since I didn't say anything about the science or economics, your conclusions are based not upon what I said but upon what I didn't say.
That means you are definitely in the running for the JesseAz prize, because that's pretty much all he does.
So, we have established that your first excuse, namely that I supposedly "accuse[d] [you] of supporting [climate change policies]" was wrong.
As to your second part, you are correct: we often determine the absence of expertise based on what people don't say.
Who's "we", exactly?
"We" as in "humans, speakers of the English language, rational human beings".
Does that include you?
It's not ironic - he's just being hypocritical.
Guess again. It was written by the author of Ecoscam: the False Prophets of the Ecological Apocalypse:
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312109717/reasonmagazinea-20/
When did you become net carbon neutral?
This is all very interesting, but ultimately academic. According to many (consensus?) Climate Scientists it is already too late. So arguments of this type are just bickering over who forgot to close the barn door.
Declare victory SRG2 and collect your prize.
Irrelevancies from the arrogant asshole.
Nothing happened.
(1) Rapid warming usually occurs at the end of an interglacial.
(2) No matter what causes it, there is nothing we can do to stop it.
(3) It's not a bad thing.
There were literally TV shows about it, articles about it. Leonard Nimoy talked about it.
It's easier to lie about that to people who didn't live through it. Especially if the person making the claims also didn't live through it either, one assumes, or was simply not paying attention at the time.
Note that being clearly and egregiously wrong hasn't stopped people from using Ehrlich as a source, either. People still freak out over population even though not a single one of those predictions has come true.
There were indeed a few TV shows, and a Newsweek article or two and elsewhere, and a book or two. But that did not represent the state of the science then and was never an opinion held by the majority of climate science then - as you can tell if you use say scholar google.
And as we know, people's memories are fallible (and other people lie).
Meanwhile: https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/11584/1/2008bams2370%252E1.pdf
A bit of gaslighting here.
“The Copernicus Climate Change Service basically concurs. Its researchers report that October 2023 was the warmest October in its global temperature record, which goes back to 1940.”
They conveniently omit the 1930s - the hottest decade in the 20th Century - from their calculation. That would be like saying “As a country, we’re getting thinner,” after we stopping weighing fat people.
"This has been the most violent year in America since 1866."
"It's virtually certain that 2023 will be the warmest year ever in the instrumental temperature record."
And nothing happened.
If you look back at the predictions made 10 yrs ago none of them were accurate. The world we eventually go electric but it can’t be forced.
You can look back 30 years and find not a single specific prediction has been shown to be true.
Further, the warming, such as it is, hasn't seemed to cause any problems, other than to incite the chicken littles and the believers in the post-Mosaic religion
You can look back 50 years and find not a single specific prediction has been shown to be true...
These same people have been consistently wrong longer than I've been alive. Anyone who isn't skeptical of their claims at this point is a credulous moron.
Stating that none of the predictions has been shown to be true gives FAR too much credit to the predictions. In reality, every climate related prediction has been proven FALSE.
That's true. But John von Neumann claimed it is not possible to model climate. Search Google and all you see are things by someone else, never what Johnny actually wrote. This suffices for me to bet money and lay odds that my memory is correct, though I cannot lay hands on chapter and verse at this time. Lots of problems in mathematics have no solution, yet none of the specific arguments to that effect are easy to follow or cite.
I suppose there's no point in asking you for evidence of this absurd claim.
https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming
There are more recent articles as well.
But I doubt you even bothered to check, its being an article of faith amongst denialists that the models are wrong.
What is interesting, btw, is not a single denialist has ever pointed to a model by climate scientist sceptics. One would think that a sceptical scientist would have no problem in constructing a model that showed that AGW was not occurring, with reasonably accurate predictions. Yet where are these models?
Science.org will publish anything. You should look into the efforts to get those magazines to publish retractions when previous articles were proven wrong by peer review. There are 30 year old articles out there where the writer not only plagiarized but was WRONG and the articles still stand.
Articles in science journals are less reliable than the National Enquirer.
Only if you wear a political blindfold darker than all the forces of climate hype can muster? It only took Ron a decade to figure out the basics as to how they got the sign right, yet you sadly persevere in misrepresentind the normative science that led to our uncontroversial understanding of radiative forcing. from the theoretical work of Fourier in 1827 to the experiments of Tyndall in 1959& Arrhenius in 1996 to the infrared spectroscopy of today.
If to want to watch greater fools predicting global cooling from sunspot cycles , Steve Bannon is hosting them on NewsMax.
There is usually rapid warming towards the end of any interglacial.
In any case, there is nothing we can do about it other than to adapt.
Global average temperature is meaningless.
It's like finding the global average phone number - you can dial it, but you won't get the average person.
(555) 555-5555
For the average Hadean temperature dial (666) 666-6666
Yes, that about illustrates the current state of climate science: "the global average phone number is (555) 555-5555". Not even your assumptions are correct.
1-900-HOT-GRLZ
Earth just recorded its hottest 12-month streak (from November 2022 to October 2023) with respect to the preindustrial (1850–1900) baseline, according to researchers at Climate Central.
That statement alone is a CONFESSION to manipulating the data by selecting a time frame KNOWN to ignore most of history.
" Most of history " means before the Industrial Revolution .
One of its productions was a magazine by the name of The Economist, which has shrewdly observed that climate denial in the sense of refusing to connect, let alone correlate, temperature trends externalities and population growth may be hazardous to the long term value of your portfolio.
"One of its productions was a magazine by the name of The Economist,..."
Which at one time, published data, not propaganda.
Why is it still in print while you have never been?
Cur four letter words.
They're just using the data that they've got. It's not like the Egyptians carved temperature reading into tomb walls.
Just as you can date ancient Egyptians by measuring carbon 14 decay, and source their food by applying stable isotope ratio methods, ancient temperatures can be read directly from ancient materials, both natural and manmade.
Go wiki palaeothermometer.
Has the Reason science correspondent ever passed a college subject in physics? chemistry? differential equations? All I see in the blurb is stuff like prattling at Moscow U. But right here, a bald speculative guess based on fake data is passed on as a "duck and cover" alert for Libertarians. I am willing to bet money against this lie, but that, like carbon, is Satan to the Looter Kleptocracy.
Plus, they’re also girl bulliers too, hank.
Over the last 50 years, summers in most of the US have COOLED.
.
Reason? It’s the extra clouds on the warmer earth.
You have things exactly backwards.
The overall warming GCMS project is greatest on winter nights. Because that is when clouds and CO2 trap and re-radiate more ten micron radiation from the ground .
It's complicated, but if you work through the math, you will find this persuasive:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/
Cloud coverage reduces the temp. That was halarious when it came out that the modelers got the fucking sign wrong.
The way the temperatures are recorded changed last year from 2 meters above the surface to on the surface. In other words, the data was jacked around yet again. There is no evidence of hotter temperatures than normal. There is no evidence of rising sea levels. There is no evidence of loss of ice. These "record" temperatures are short term anomalies based on a recent adjustment of data gathering technique - nothing more.
Hogwash.
Not hogwash. It's why my town was listed as hitting 120f+ while the local measurements - which hasn't changed their methodology - still showed 115f highs.
And they fucking put out a press release about the changes.
You must dwell in a town of truly great and powerful wizards if they can erase a century of evidence of rising sea levels, ice loss and a six sigma upward shift in integrated temperature measurement by land , sea air and satellites orbiting , geostationary and Lagrangian.
Look at the goddam data for a change:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-34.66,24.61,410
But the Pubic Untellectual will beat you with propaganda until such time as it's put out of everyone else's misery.
The truth that sets men free is seldom the one Warlocks, chipper or miserable, want to hear.
Nothing the climastrologists are doing will set anyone free. Quite the opposite.
I am making money from home with facebook. i received $15000 in this month for doing easily home job. I work in my part time only 3 to 4 hours a day on facebook. Everyone can earn more cash easily from home. For more information visit below this website....... https://newyorktime9098.blogspot.com
"Earth just recorded its hottest 12-month streak (from November 2022 to October 2023) with respect to the preindustrial (1850–1900) baseline,"
You can quit reading right after this. Everything else is bullshit. They are quoting temperatures to a tenth or hundredth of a degree. Until digital thermometers came into common use (late 60's, early 70's) the tolerance of a mercury or alcohol thermometer was plus/minus 2 degrees. Many temperature reading were taken using the Fahrenheit system and were later converted to Celsius. That throws in the possibility of a rounding error adding more inaccuracy.
Here in Pittsburgh, I used the AC in my bedroom window only two days and one night this past summer, which is the least I've turned on the AC during the past ten summers (since I bought the AC).
While carbon banners continue to scare Americans about global warming and carbon emissions (while ignoring China's exponential increase in carbon emissions as they declined by 25% in the US),
I hate going into buildings whose temperature is set below 75 degrees in the summer.
From an interview of a climate 'scientist'
That is no accident, Brown argues, and it is very well known in scientific circles:
The first thing the astute climate researcher knows is that his or her work should support the mainstream narrative—namely, that the effects of climate change are both pervasive and catastrophic and that the primary way to deal with them is not by employing practical adaptation measures like stronger, more resilient infrastructure, better zoning and building codes, more air conditioning—or in the case of wildfires, better forest management or undergrounding power lines—but through policies like the Inflation Reduction Act, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Shocking details of corruption and suppression in the world of peer-reviewed climate science have come to light with a recent leak of emails. They show how a determined group of activist scientists and journalists combined to secure the retraction of a paper that said a climate emergency was not supported by the available data. Science writer and economist Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. has published the startling emails and concludes: “Shenanigans continue in climate science, with influential scientists teaming up with journalists to corrupt peer review.”
The offending paper was published in January 2022 in a Springer Nature journal and at first attracted little attention. But on September 14th the Daily Sceptic covered its main conclusions and as a result it went viral on social media with around 9,000 Twitter retweets. The story was then covered by both the Australian and Sky News Australia. The Guardian activist Graham Readfearn, along with state-owned Agence France-Presse (AFP), then launched counterattacks. AFP ‘Herald of the Anthropocene’ Marlowe Hood said the data were “grossly manipulated” and “fundamentally flawed”.
But but we can lie for the children
We are told climate change is a crisis, and that there is an “overwhelming scientific consensus.”
“It’s a manufactured consensus,” says climate scientist Judith Curry in my new video. She says scientists have an incentive to exaggerate risk to pursue “fame and fortune.”
Mr. Bailey fails to make a distinction between "average temperature anomaly" and "absolute maximum temperature". The L.A. Times also fails to note the difference, as pointed out in an item on Watts Up With That a couple of days ago.
Indeed, it's quite possible to set a record for the average temperature anomaly, and not set any actual temperature records. All it takes is a mild winter and some balmy summer nights, actually. Warmer than usual during times when it's normally cold count just as much as hot summer days, and that's mostly what global warming does: Bring the lows up, not raise the highs.
The funny part of this is anyone who has actually read the UN report they would know all of these doomsday predictions are in the low order of probability range while the majority of the report talks about how our civilization can adapt to the possible changes if they get bad enough to require any changes.
You're getting this doomsday stuff from the media, which has as a driving motto "If it bleeds, it leeds." You should take it all with a block of salt.
This recent study shows that the cold weather we have every year causes about 4.6 million deaths a year globally mainly through increased strokes and heart attacks, compared with about 500,000 deaths a year from hot weather. We can't easily protect our lungs from the cold air in the winter and that causes our blood vessels to constrict causing blood pressure to increase leading to heart attacks and strokes.
'Global, regional and national burden of mortality associated with nonoptimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study'
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
Who the hell let’s you post your drivel here?
Earth just recorded its hottest 12-month streak (from November 2022 to October 2023) with respect to the preindustrial (1850–1900) baseline, according to researchers at Climate Central
These time frames aren’t even a nanosecond in the lifespan of the earth.
You make prognostications akin to hearing that one grain of sand was found to be black therefore ALL sand is black–and worse since it may have been colored black by a human, that humans are creating all the black sand.
You are worse than moronic. You are Tysonic.
Let's see what a non-alarmist climatologist has to say about the so-called warmest year on record:
"The Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM) challenges our understanding of climate dynamics, particularly in relation to the role of greenhouse gases. Despite the lower levels of atmospheric CO2 during the HTM compared to the modern day, the Northern Hemisphere experienced significantly warmer temperatures. This phenomenon underscores the complex interplay of various factors influencing Earth's climate, including solar insolation, orbital changes, and natural feedback mechanisms in the climate system."
https://irrationalfear.substack.com/p/no-you-didnt-just-live-through-the