THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 22, 2020 at 7:46 pm
Paul Plante says:
And Chas, dude, speaking of the horrendous harm that has been done to Nick and Greta and their generation, who have really gotten a damn poor deal with this run-away climate change that is going to destroy a good chunk of America, including Cape Charles, along with causing the dissolution of the nation itself, on purpose, we find as of 17 January 2020, the news is now out, all over town, and it is not good for Obama at all, nor is it good for his mindless devotees who let him get away with anything he wanted because he was “black,” and so, operated by a “different” set of standards from what the white folks were used to, and no Chas, we are not talking Republican talking points, or mindless raving by Trump; no, quite to the contrary, we are speaking of the pellucid insight into the workings of reality itself when it comes to Washington politics in the January 17, 2020 dissent in Juliana v USA of Josephine Laura Staton, a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California who obtained a Juris Doctor in 1986 from Harvard Law School, to wit:
In these proceedings, the government accepts as fact that the United States has reached a tipping point crying out for a concerted response — yet presses ahead toward calamity.
It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses.
Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation.
end quotes
So, Chas, when the judge states that the “government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation,” she is referring directly to Hussein Obama, because he is the dude the lawsuit was levied against, the CHIEF PERPETRATOR, and it is his policies that have caused the world Nick is to inherit to be crumbling, and this accordinfg to a federal judge who is as good a Democrat as they come, not some Republican slug or hack whose writings on the subject of Obama you would dismiss out of hand as Republican talking-points, a favorite dodge of yours, by the way, dismiss stuff as being Republican talking-points which makes it of no consequence, except this is a Democrat judge speaking, to wit:
According to plaintiffs’ evidence, our nation is crumbling — at our government’s own hand — into a wasteland.
In short, the government has directly facilitated an existential crisis to the country’s perpetuity.
end quotes
A wasteland, Chas – according to that judge, and she did go to Harvard, that is Obama’s true legacy to the people of America, including those not yet born – a wasteland, so no wonder young people like Nick and Greta Thunberg feel real visceral anger, and my goodness, Chas, how could they not when Barack Hussein Obama destroyed the world before they even had a chance to live in it, and willfully so, as we see in this footnote, to wit:
My asteroid analogy would therefore be more accurate if I posited a scenario in which the government itself accelerated the asteroid towards the earth before shutting down our defenses.
end quotes
And that, my dear friend and fellow American patriot Chas Cornweller, is MONSTROUS!
Yes, monstrous, Chas – I can think of no other word for it!
Talk about high crimes against humanity and misdemeanors towards Nick and his generation who are going to have to pay the penalty, there it is in plain sight, and from the pen of a federal judge just five (5) days ago, which takes us back to that decision, as follows:
Plaintiffs bring suit to enforce the most basic structural principle embedded in our system of ordered liberty: that the Constitution does not condone the Nation’s willful destruction.
So viewed, plaintiffs’ claims adhere to a judicially administrable standard.
end quotes
Plainly stated, dear friend Chas, these aggrieved children whose lives have been turned upside down by the policies of Hussein Obama which are causing the nation to crumble brought suit against Hussein in an attempt to prevent the willful destruction of the nation that Obama was causing as we see by returning to that decision, to wit:
And considering plaintiffs seek no less than to forestall the Nation’s demise, even a partial and temporary reprieve would constitute meaningful redress.
As the majority recognizes, and the government does not contest, carbon dioxide (“CO2”) and other greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions created by burning fossil fuels are devastating the planet. Maj. Op. at 14–15.
According to one of plaintiffs’ experts, the inevitable result, absent immediate action, is “an inhospitable future . . . marked by rising seas, coastal city functionality loss, mass migrations, resource wars, food shortages, heat waves, mega-storms, soil depletion and desiccation, freshwater shortage, public health system collapse, and the extinction of increasing numbers of species.”
end quotes
And who we all have to thank for that horrible future, Chas, is Barack Hussein Obama, and all I can say is that I hope some young person like Nick with his education can bring Obama up on criminal charges for these crimes of his against humanity, to wit:
Even government scientists project that, given current warming trends, sea levels will rise two feet by 2050, nearly four feet by 2070, over eight feet by 2100, 18 feet by 2150, and over 31 feet by 2200.
To put that in perspective, a three-foot sea level rise will make two million American homes uninhabitable; a rise of approximately 20 feet will result in the total loss of Miami, New Orleans, and other coastal cities.
So, as described by plaintiffs’ experts, the injuries experienced by plaintiffs are the first small wave in an oncoming tsunami — now visible on the horizon of the not-so-distant future — that will destroy the United States as we currently know it.
end quotes
Many of us, Chas, warned over and over that Obama was a Marxist intent on bringing down our Republic so Obama could replace it with a socialist state, and there, we finally have a federal judge confirming what we rational people in this country have known all along, that Obama was intent on destroying the United States as we currently know it, while people like yourself cover up for him and by doing so, cheer him on, which takes us back to the decision as follows:
What sets this harm apart from all others is not just its magnitude, but its irreversibility.
The devastation might look and feel somewhat different if future generations could simply pick up the pieces and restore the Nation.
But plaintiffs’ experts speak of a certain level of global warming as “locking in” this catastrophic damage.
Put more starkly by plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Harold R. Wanless, “(a)tmospheric warming will continue for some 30 years after we stop putting more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.”
“But that warmed atmosphere will continue warming the ocean for centuries, and the accumulating heat in the oceans will persist for millennia” (emphasis added).
Indeed, another of plaintiffs’ experts echoes, “(t)he fact that GHGs dissipate very slowly from the atmosphere . . . and that the costs of taking CO2 out of the atmosphere through non-biological carbon capture and storage are very high means that the consequences of GHG emissions should be viewed as effectively irreversible” (emphasis added).
In other words, “(g)iven the self-reinforcing nature of climate change,” the tipping point may well have arrived, and we may be rapidly approaching the point of no return.
Despite countless studies over the last half century warning of the catastrophic consequences of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, many of which the government conducted, the government not only failed to act but also “affirmatively promote(d) fossil fuel use in a host of ways.” Maj. Op. at 15.
end quotes
Thanks, Obama, for destroying the world before Nick got his chance to enjoy it!
The candid world will certainly remember your name for what you have left the future generations of America which is a great big ******* mess.
And Chas, as the earlier judge pointed out, Obama is impeached and convicted by his own mouth in his 2015 SOTU, so yes, he is the guilty party here, and should be considered so and treated as so by Nick’s generation and all these younger children including my granddaughters who are the parties so callously harmed and deprived of their future by Democrat Barack Hussein Obama whose actions were so reprehensible even another Democrat wouldn’t give him political cover.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... ent-221628
ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 24, 2020 at 11:08 am
Paul Plante says :
“Here and now, the plaintiffs submit undisputed scientific evidence that their distinct and discrete injuries are caused by climate change brought about by emissions from fossil-fuel combustion.”
That is a statement of Josephine Laura Staton, a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California who obtained a Juris Doctor in 1986 from Harvard Law School which is found in Footnote 9 at p.49 of the 17 January 2020 Decision of the United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit in the matter of Juliana at al. v. United States et al., and it is patently false!
In point of fact, the plaintiffs, all children, did not submit undisputed scientific evidence that their distinct and discrete injuries were caused by climate change brought about by emissions from fossil-fuel combustion, because their supposed “evidence” was never challenged, and their claims that their “injuries,” such as one little boy pouting and throwing a sulk because he couldn’t go skiing because he didn’t like the snow conditions, they weren’t what he feels himself entitled to, or a little girl who lives in a flood plain denoted as such by the federal government because flooding is historically common there, were caused by emissions from fossil-fuel combustion are highly disputed.
Or were, until this unelected federal judge turned science on its ear, and instead, has made science subject to judicial decree, so that even if a claim is factually false, it really is true because a federal judge said it was, which is a travesty of justice here, as well as making the very concept of “science,” the aim of which is to build true and accurate knowledge about how the world works, into nothing more than a mockery.
Talk about warping and twisting the minds of America’s youth, this burst of sheer hysteria and outright falsehood from this federal judge takes the cake!
Good-bye sanity and rationality in the United States of America and welcome benighted ignorance by judicial decree.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-222352
Paul Plante says :
“Here and now, the plaintiffs submit undisputed scientific evidence that their distinct and discrete injuries are caused by climate change brought about by emissions from fossil-fuel combustion.”
That is a statement of Josephine Laura Staton, a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California who obtained a Juris Doctor in 1986 from Harvard Law School which is found in Footnote 9 at p.49 of the 17 January 2020 Decision of the United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit in the matter of Juliana at al. v. United States et al., and it is patently false!
In point of fact, the plaintiffs, all children, did not submit undisputed scientific evidence that their distinct and discrete injuries were caused by climate change brought about by emissions from fossil-fuel combustion, because their supposed “evidence” was never challenged, and their claims that their “injuries,” such as one little boy pouting and throwing a sulk because he couldn’t go skiing because he didn’t like the snow conditions, they weren’t what he feels himself entitled to, or a little girl who lives in a flood plain denoted as such by the federal government because flooding is historically common there, were caused by emissions from fossil-fuel combustion are highly disputed.
Or were, until this unelected federal judge turned science on its ear, and instead, has made science subject to judicial decree, so that even if a claim is factually false, it really is true because a federal judge said it was, which is a travesty of justice here, as well as making the very concept of “science,” the aim of which is to build true and accurate knowledge about how the world works, into nothing more than a mockery.
Talk about warping and twisting the minds of America’s youth, this burst of sheer hysteria and outright falsehood from this federal judge takes the cake!
Good-bye sanity and rationality in the United States of America and welcome benighted ignorance by judicial decree.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-222352
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 24, 2020 at 9:47 pm
Paul Plante says:
According to a NOAA article entitled “Climate Change: Global Temperature” by Rebecca Lindsey and LuAnn Dahlman on January 16, 2020, the 2-degree increase in global average surface temperature that has occurred since the pre-industrial era (1880-1900) might seem small, but it means a significant increase in accumulated heat.
According to NOAA, and truly, we only have their word to take for it, and their word is no longer trustworthy, that extra heat is driving regional and seasonal temperature extremes, reducing snow cover and sea ice, intensifying heavy rainfall, and changing habitat ranges for plants and animals — expanding some and shrinking others.
Temperatures were warmer than average across most global land and ocean areas during most of the year.
Record high annual temperatures over land surfaces were measured across parts of central Europe, Asia, Australia, southern Africa, Madagascar, New Zealand, North America, and eastern South America.
Record high sea surface temperatures were observed across parts of all oceans, including the North and South Atlantic Ocean, the western Indian Ocean, and areas of northern, central and southwestern Pacific Ocean.
No land or ocean areas were record cold for the year, and the only substantial pocket of cooler-than-average land temperatures was in central North America.
Though warming has not been uniform across the planet, the upward trend in the globally averaged temperature shows that more areas are warming than cooling.
According to the NOAA 2019 Global Climate Summary, the combined land and ocean temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.07°C (0.13°F) per decade since 1880; however, the average rate of increase since 1981 (0.18°C / 0.32°F) is more than twice as great.
The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998, and 9 of the 10 have occurred since 2005.
The year 1998 is the only year from the twentieth century still among the ten warmest years on record.
Looking back to 1988, a pattern emerges: except for 2011, as each new year is added to the historical record, it becomes one of the top 10 warmest on record at that time, but it is ultimately replaced as the “top ten” window shifts forward in time.
By 2020, models project that global surface temperature will be more than 0.5°C (0.9°F) warmer than the 1986-2005 average, regardless of which carbon dioxide emissions pathway the world follows.
The concept of an average temperature for the entire globe may seem odd.
After all, at this very moment, the highest and lowest temperatures on Earth are likely more than 100°F (55°C) apart.
Temperatures vary from night to day and between seasonal extremes in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
This means that some parts of Earth are quite cold while other parts are downright hot.
To speak of the “average” temperature, then, may seem like nonsense.
end quotes
And actually, it is nonsense.
As to the voice of an expert on that subject, we have this from the noteworthy Dr. H.H. Lamb in his seminal work on the subject of the earth’s climate, Climate, History and the Modern World, 2d Edition, to wit:
The lowering of world temperatures from the 1930s and 1940s to some time between 1975–80 and 1985 has been less than the rise over the previous fifty years.
Hence, the twentieth century has been warmer than the previous two centuries.
This is a broad summary statement that is generally true the world over.
However, estimating average temperatures for the whole Earth to something approximating the degree of precision claimed (or, at least, generally implied) by figures now commonly published can surely never be realistic because of the huge ocean spaces — about 70 per cent of the surface of the globe — and the local diversity of soils and drainage, etc. on land, not to mention the error margins to which all sensing methods are liable.
In central England the 1900–93 average temperature is 0.8°C above that which Manley derived from the late seventeenth century (1659–99) and 0.3°C above the figures for the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
Despite the remarkable warmth in 1989 to 1990 (years which in England were however not significantly warmer than 1948 and 1949), no later decade has so far equalled the average for the 1940s or for the 1930s and 1940s combined.
end quotes
So much for NOAA’s assertion that “Looking back to 1988, a pattern emerges: except for 2011, as each new year is added to the historical record, it becomes one of the top 10 warmest on record at that time, but it is ultimately replaced as the “top ten” window shifts forward in time.”
As I say, we are largely forced to have to take the word of NOAA here, because we do not have access to all their supposed data, but for Albany, N.Y, this is what NOAA’s own data has to say, to wit:
All-Time EXTREMES for ALBANY, NY
Daily Temperatures & Pressure: 1874 to present Annual & Monthly Temperatures: 1820 to present Annual & Monthly Precipitation: 1826 to present Snowfall: 1884-85 to present: Wind: 1987-present
NOAA Regional Climate Centers
Updated: October 2019
Temperature
Record Measurement Date(s)
Lowest -28°F January 19, 1971
Highest 104°F July 4, 1911
Low Maximum -8°F Feb 15, 1943 & Dec 20, 1942
High Minimum 81°F July 31, 1917
Coldest Month 9.7°F January 1970
Warmest Month 79.7°F July 1868
Coldest Year 42.7°F 1875
Warmest Year 51.6°F 2012
Shortest Growing Season 113 days May 24 – September 14, 1963
Longest Growing Season 218 days April 8 – November 12, 1883
end quotes
One thing we do not see is each year since 1988 getting warmer, and only one year after 2000, 2012, is listed as the warmest year.
As to highest temperature, we need to go back in time over a hundred years to July 4, 1911 when it was 104°F, a temperature not seen in my lifetime of over 70 years, and the growing season in 1883 was longer, not shorter, than the growing season in 1963, when it should have been the opposite way around according to this global warming theory.
And the Warmest Month was 152 years ago in July 1868.
So is this concept of global average temperature meaningless?
I certainly would say so, and at the minimum, it is highly misleading, but what am I saying, of course it is – it was intended to be that way to scare us and make us incapable of thinking to question this horse****.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/e ... ent-222552
Paul Plante says:
According to a NOAA article entitled “Climate Change: Global Temperature” by Rebecca Lindsey and LuAnn Dahlman on January 16, 2020, the 2-degree increase in global average surface temperature that has occurred since the pre-industrial era (1880-1900) might seem small, but it means a significant increase in accumulated heat.
According to NOAA, and truly, we only have their word to take for it, and their word is no longer trustworthy, that extra heat is driving regional and seasonal temperature extremes, reducing snow cover and sea ice, intensifying heavy rainfall, and changing habitat ranges for plants and animals — expanding some and shrinking others.
Temperatures were warmer than average across most global land and ocean areas during most of the year.
Record high annual temperatures over land surfaces were measured across parts of central Europe, Asia, Australia, southern Africa, Madagascar, New Zealand, North America, and eastern South America.
Record high sea surface temperatures were observed across parts of all oceans, including the North and South Atlantic Ocean, the western Indian Ocean, and areas of northern, central and southwestern Pacific Ocean.
No land or ocean areas were record cold for the year, and the only substantial pocket of cooler-than-average land temperatures was in central North America.
Though warming has not been uniform across the planet, the upward trend in the globally averaged temperature shows that more areas are warming than cooling.
According to the NOAA 2019 Global Climate Summary, the combined land and ocean temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.07°C (0.13°F) per decade since 1880; however, the average rate of increase since 1981 (0.18°C / 0.32°F) is more than twice as great.
The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998, and 9 of the 10 have occurred since 2005.
The year 1998 is the only year from the twentieth century still among the ten warmest years on record.
Looking back to 1988, a pattern emerges: except for 2011, as each new year is added to the historical record, it becomes one of the top 10 warmest on record at that time, but it is ultimately replaced as the “top ten” window shifts forward in time.
By 2020, models project that global surface temperature will be more than 0.5°C (0.9°F) warmer than the 1986-2005 average, regardless of which carbon dioxide emissions pathway the world follows.
The concept of an average temperature for the entire globe may seem odd.
After all, at this very moment, the highest and lowest temperatures on Earth are likely more than 100°F (55°C) apart.
Temperatures vary from night to day and between seasonal extremes in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
This means that some parts of Earth are quite cold while other parts are downright hot.
To speak of the “average” temperature, then, may seem like nonsense.
end quotes
And actually, it is nonsense.
As to the voice of an expert on that subject, we have this from the noteworthy Dr. H.H. Lamb in his seminal work on the subject of the earth’s climate, Climate, History and the Modern World, 2d Edition, to wit:
The lowering of world temperatures from the 1930s and 1940s to some time between 1975–80 and 1985 has been less than the rise over the previous fifty years.
Hence, the twentieth century has been warmer than the previous two centuries.
This is a broad summary statement that is generally true the world over.
However, estimating average temperatures for the whole Earth to something approximating the degree of precision claimed (or, at least, generally implied) by figures now commonly published can surely never be realistic because of the huge ocean spaces — about 70 per cent of the surface of the globe — and the local diversity of soils and drainage, etc. on land, not to mention the error margins to which all sensing methods are liable.
In central England the 1900–93 average temperature is 0.8°C above that which Manley derived from the late seventeenth century (1659–99) and 0.3°C above the figures for the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
Despite the remarkable warmth in 1989 to 1990 (years which in England were however not significantly warmer than 1948 and 1949), no later decade has so far equalled the average for the 1940s or for the 1930s and 1940s combined.
end quotes
So much for NOAA’s assertion that “Looking back to 1988, a pattern emerges: except for 2011, as each new year is added to the historical record, it becomes one of the top 10 warmest on record at that time, but it is ultimately replaced as the “top ten” window shifts forward in time.”
As I say, we are largely forced to have to take the word of NOAA here, because we do not have access to all their supposed data, but for Albany, N.Y, this is what NOAA’s own data has to say, to wit:
All-Time EXTREMES for ALBANY, NY
Daily Temperatures & Pressure: 1874 to present Annual & Monthly Temperatures: 1820 to present Annual & Monthly Precipitation: 1826 to present Snowfall: 1884-85 to present: Wind: 1987-present
NOAA Regional Climate Centers
Updated: October 2019
Temperature
Record Measurement Date(s)
Lowest -28°F January 19, 1971
Highest 104°F July 4, 1911
Low Maximum -8°F Feb 15, 1943 & Dec 20, 1942
High Minimum 81°F July 31, 1917
Coldest Month 9.7°F January 1970
Warmest Month 79.7°F July 1868
Coldest Year 42.7°F 1875
Warmest Year 51.6°F 2012
Shortest Growing Season 113 days May 24 – September 14, 1963
Longest Growing Season 218 days April 8 – November 12, 1883
end quotes
One thing we do not see is each year since 1988 getting warmer, and only one year after 2000, 2012, is listed as the warmest year.
As to highest temperature, we need to go back in time over a hundred years to July 4, 1911 when it was 104°F, a temperature not seen in my lifetime of over 70 years, and the growing season in 1883 was longer, not shorter, than the growing season in 1963, when it should have been the opposite way around according to this global warming theory.
And the Warmest Month was 152 years ago in July 1868.
So is this concept of global average temperature meaningless?
I certainly would say so, and at the minimum, it is highly misleading, but what am I saying, of course it is – it was intended to be that way to scare us and make us incapable of thinking to question this horse****.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/e ... ent-222552
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 26, 2020 at 7:52 pm
Paul Plante says :
And staying with the concept that to speak of the “global average” temperature is nonsense, except to those in NOAA who are firm believers in the concept, for reasons known only to themselves which they cannot express in intelligent terms that make sense to those of us who actually live in the world their models are attempting to describe, since they are experts and we are not, here is what NOAA has to say about the concept in a NOAA article entitled “Climate Change: Global Temperature” by Rebecca Lindsey and LuAnn Dahlman on January 16, 2020, to wit:
However, the concept of a global average temperature is convenient for detecting and tracking changes in Earth’s energy budget — how much sunlight Earth absorbs minus how much it radiates to space as heat — over time.
end quotes
Which is a very stupid statement indeed given that “temperature” in any given location is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles of a substance, in this case, air, and the higher the temperature of air, the higher is its kinetic energy, and that kinetic energy comes from many sources, so there is no direct comparison between locations, as we can see from this following from the USEPA, to wit:
What is the basis for the urban heat island concept?
Surfaces that were once permeable and moist generally become impermeable and dry.
This development leads to the formation of urban heat islands—the phenomenon whereby urban regions experience warmer temperatures than their rural surroundings.
end quotes
And then we have this from the informative CLIMATE CENTRAL article “Hot and Getting Hotter: Heat Islands Cooking U.S. Cities” published August 20th, 2014, to wit:
Cities are almost always hotter than the surrounding rural area but global warming takes that heat and makes it worse.
But on average across the country cities are even hotter, and have been getting hotter faster than adjacent rural areas.
Our analysis of summer temperatures in 60 of the largest U.S. cities found that:
57 cities had measurable urban heat island effects over the past 10 years.
Single-day urban temperatures in some metro areas were as much as 27°F higher than the surrounding rural areas, and on average across all 60 cities, the maximum single-day temperature difference was 17.5°F.
Cities have many more searing hot days each year.
Since 2004, 12 cities averaged at least 20 more days a year above 90°F than nearby rural areas.
The 60 cities analyzed averaged at least 8 more days over 90°F each summer compared to adjacent rural areas.
In two thirds of the cities analyzed (41 of 60), urbanization and climate change appear to be combining to increase summer heat faster than climate change alone is raising regional temperatures.
In three quarters (45 of 60) of cities examined, urbanized areas are warming faster than adjacent rural locations.
On average across all 60 cities, urban summer temperatures were 2.4°F hotter than rural temperatures.
Urban heat islands are even more intense at night.
Over the past 10 years, average summer overnight temperatures were more than 4°F hotter in cities than surrounding rural areas.
end quotes
And the elevated temperatures associated with that excess heat in these cities which is generated by the people living there that is causing them to be considerably warmer than their surroundings are then averaged in with the lower temperatures out here in the countryside, which serves to elevate our temperatures to make it seem that yes, the world is getting warmer, when it is the cities that are in fact doing so, which takes us back to the All-Time EXTREMES for ALBANY, NY from the NOAA Regional Climate Centers updated October 2019, to wit:
Earliest 80+ degrees 81°F March 9, 2016
Latest First 80+ degrees 80°F June 15, 1924
Latest 80+ degrees 81°F / 82°F November 2, 1982 & 1950
Least # of Days 80+ in a Year 38 days 1874
Most # of Days 80+ in a Year 99 days 1959
Most Consecutive Days High 80+ 44 days June 28 – August 10, 2018
Earliest 90+ degrees 91°F April 16, 2012
Latest 90+ degrees 90°F October 6, 1900
Earliest Heat Wave / 90+ for 3+ days April 26-28, 1990
Latest Heat Wave / 90+ for 3+ days September 24-26, 2017
Most # of Days 90+ in a Month 19 days July 1955
Least # of Days 90+ in a Year 0 days 1998
Most # of Days 90+ in a Year 32 days 1955
Most Consecutive Days High 90+ 10 days August 27 – September 5, 1953
Most # of Days 100+ in a Year 3 days 1953, 1936, & 1933
Most Consecutive Days High 100+ 3 days July 8-10, 1936
end quotes
As we can clearly see there, it was hotter in the past in this area than it is now, but if you average in our lower temperatures with the high temperatures of the top 10 cities with the most intense summer urban heat islands (average daily urban-rural temperature differences) over the past 10 years, those being Las Vegas (7.3°F), Albuquerque (5.9°F), Denver (4.9°F), Portland (4.8°F), Louisville (4.8°F), Washington, D.C. (4.7°F), Kansas City (4.6°F), Columbus (4.4°F), Minneapolis (4.3°F), and Seattle (4.1°F), you can jack ours up, even though they have gone down in reality, and by God, you can get yourself a real existential crisis out of it, and get a GREEN NEW DEAL passed in New York as a result, and in politics today, that is the name of the game.
So is the concept of global average temperature nonsense?
Or is it good sense from the standpoint of politics?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/e ... ent-223252
Paul Plante says :
And staying with the concept that to speak of the “global average” temperature is nonsense, except to those in NOAA who are firm believers in the concept, for reasons known only to themselves which they cannot express in intelligent terms that make sense to those of us who actually live in the world their models are attempting to describe, since they are experts and we are not, here is what NOAA has to say about the concept in a NOAA article entitled “Climate Change: Global Temperature” by Rebecca Lindsey and LuAnn Dahlman on January 16, 2020, to wit:
However, the concept of a global average temperature is convenient for detecting and tracking changes in Earth’s energy budget — how much sunlight Earth absorbs minus how much it radiates to space as heat — over time.
end quotes
Which is a very stupid statement indeed given that “temperature” in any given location is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles of a substance, in this case, air, and the higher the temperature of air, the higher is its kinetic energy, and that kinetic energy comes from many sources, so there is no direct comparison between locations, as we can see from this following from the USEPA, to wit:
What is the basis for the urban heat island concept?
Surfaces that were once permeable and moist generally become impermeable and dry.
This development leads to the formation of urban heat islands—the phenomenon whereby urban regions experience warmer temperatures than their rural surroundings.
end quotes
And then we have this from the informative CLIMATE CENTRAL article “Hot and Getting Hotter: Heat Islands Cooking U.S. Cities” published August 20th, 2014, to wit:
Cities are almost always hotter than the surrounding rural area but global warming takes that heat and makes it worse.
But on average across the country cities are even hotter, and have been getting hotter faster than adjacent rural areas.
Our analysis of summer temperatures in 60 of the largest U.S. cities found that:
57 cities had measurable urban heat island effects over the past 10 years.
Single-day urban temperatures in some metro areas were as much as 27°F higher than the surrounding rural areas, and on average across all 60 cities, the maximum single-day temperature difference was 17.5°F.
Cities have many more searing hot days each year.
Since 2004, 12 cities averaged at least 20 more days a year above 90°F than nearby rural areas.
The 60 cities analyzed averaged at least 8 more days over 90°F each summer compared to adjacent rural areas.
In two thirds of the cities analyzed (41 of 60), urbanization and climate change appear to be combining to increase summer heat faster than climate change alone is raising regional temperatures.
In three quarters (45 of 60) of cities examined, urbanized areas are warming faster than adjacent rural locations.
On average across all 60 cities, urban summer temperatures were 2.4°F hotter than rural temperatures.
Urban heat islands are even more intense at night.
Over the past 10 years, average summer overnight temperatures were more than 4°F hotter in cities than surrounding rural areas.
end quotes
And the elevated temperatures associated with that excess heat in these cities which is generated by the people living there that is causing them to be considerably warmer than their surroundings are then averaged in with the lower temperatures out here in the countryside, which serves to elevate our temperatures to make it seem that yes, the world is getting warmer, when it is the cities that are in fact doing so, which takes us back to the All-Time EXTREMES for ALBANY, NY from the NOAA Regional Climate Centers updated October 2019, to wit:
Earliest 80+ degrees 81°F March 9, 2016
Latest First 80+ degrees 80°F June 15, 1924
Latest 80+ degrees 81°F / 82°F November 2, 1982 & 1950
Least # of Days 80+ in a Year 38 days 1874
Most # of Days 80+ in a Year 99 days 1959
Most Consecutive Days High 80+ 44 days June 28 – August 10, 2018
Earliest 90+ degrees 91°F April 16, 2012
Latest 90+ degrees 90°F October 6, 1900
Earliest Heat Wave / 90+ for 3+ days April 26-28, 1990
Latest Heat Wave / 90+ for 3+ days September 24-26, 2017
Most # of Days 90+ in a Month 19 days July 1955
Least # of Days 90+ in a Year 0 days 1998
Most # of Days 90+ in a Year 32 days 1955
Most Consecutive Days High 90+ 10 days August 27 – September 5, 1953
Most # of Days 100+ in a Year 3 days 1953, 1936, & 1933
Most Consecutive Days High 100+ 3 days July 8-10, 1936
end quotes
As we can clearly see there, it was hotter in the past in this area than it is now, but if you average in our lower temperatures with the high temperatures of the top 10 cities with the most intense summer urban heat islands (average daily urban-rural temperature differences) over the past 10 years, those being Las Vegas (7.3°F), Albuquerque (5.9°F), Denver (4.9°F), Portland (4.8°F), Louisville (4.8°F), Washington, D.C. (4.7°F), Kansas City (4.6°F), Columbus (4.4°F), Minneapolis (4.3°F), and Seattle (4.1°F), you can jack ours up, even though they have gone down in reality, and by God, you can get yourself a real existential crisis out of it, and get a GREEN NEW DEAL passed in New York as a result, and in politics today, that is the name of the game.
So is the concept of global average temperature nonsense?
Or is it good sense from the standpoint of politics?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/e ... ent-223252
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 27, 2020 at 12:03 pm
Paul Plante says:
Little Greta, MJM, has some big bucks backing her action, otherwise we would not even know who this ignorant little girl even is.
How ignorant the little girl actually is can be seen in her statements in Davos, and here I am quoting from her published transcript of that speech, which is available on-line, as follows:
And let’s be clear: We don’t need a low-carbon economy.
We don’t need to lower emissions.
Our emissions have to stop, if we are to have a chance to stay below the 1.5-degree target.
And until we have the technologies that at scale can put our emissions to minus, then we must forget about net zero.
We need real zero, because distant net-zero emission targets will mean absolutely nothing if we just continue to ignore the carbon dioxide budget that applies for today, not distant future dates.
end quotes
First of all, and not surprisingly, that is almost undecipherable gibberish, which is usually what pours from out the mouth of little Greta, along with prodigious amounts of carbon dioxide, and although mindless gibberish, nonetheless, the attentive media that dotes of little Greta prints her words as if they were the utterances of the Pythia or Oracle of Delphi, the priestess who held court at Pytho, the sanctuary of the Delphinians, a sanctuary dedicated to the Greek god Apollo whose unintelligible utterances were highly regarded, for it was believed that she channeled prophecies from Apollo himself, while steeped in a dreamlike trance.
As to our emissions of CO2 having to stop, then human life itself has to stop precisely because the average human exhales about 2.3 pounds of carbon dioxide on an average day, and a hysterical little girl like Greta when she has her mouth running at flank speed produces up to eight times as much CO2 as the rest of us who unlike little Greta are not hysterical ravers.
So if little Greta wants to set a good example for the rest of us, and she should, being a leader as she is, she should be the first to stop emitting CO2 by ceasing to exhale.
And then she should get all of her many followers, and this would start with AOC and the staff at The Guardian to stop emitting CO2 by ceasing to exhale, and my goodness, I can see hope for the future beginning right there.
But then, ALL combustion of anything flammable also has to cease, because ALL combustion produces not only CO2, which is bad enough, but water vapor, as well, which is a much more serious “greenhouse” gas than is CO2.
Consider the combustion of wood, for example:
C6H12O6 (cellulose) + 6 O2 = 6 CO2 + 6 H2O
Or the combustion of gasoline:
C8H18 + 12.5 O2 → 8 CO2 + 9 H2O
Or butane:
2C4 H10 + 13O2 → 8CO2 + 10H2O
And on and on that list goes because life on earth is carbon-based, and for there to be zero emissions of carbon dioxide, essentially, all life on earth has to come to an end.
Greta is demanding that we all commit mass suicide in order to save the earth.
Greta, you and AOC go first, is my thought.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/i ... ent-223523
Paul Plante says:
Little Greta, MJM, has some big bucks backing her action, otherwise we would not even know who this ignorant little girl even is.
How ignorant the little girl actually is can be seen in her statements in Davos, and here I am quoting from her published transcript of that speech, which is available on-line, as follows:
And let’s be clear: We don’t need a low-carbon economy.
We don’t need to lower emissions.
Our emissions have to stop, if we are to have a chance to stay below the 1.5-degree target.
And until we have the technologies that at scale can put our emissions to minus, then we must forget about net zero.
We need real zero, because distant net-zero emission targets will mean absolutely nothing if we just continue to ignore the carbon dioxide budget that applies for today, not distant future dates.
end quotes
First of all, and not surprisingly, that is almost undecipherable gibberish, which is usually what pours from out the mouth of little Greta, along with prodigious amounts of carbon dioxide, and although mindless gibberish, nonetheless, the attentive media that dotes of little Greta prints her words as if they were the utterances of the Pythia or Oracle of Delphi, the priestess who held court at Pytho, the sanctuary of the Delphinians, a sanctuary dedicated to the Greek god Apollo whose unintelligible utterances were highly regarded, for it was believed that she channeled prophecies from Apollo himself, while steeped in a dreamlike trance.
As to our emissions of CO2 having to stop, then human life itself has to stop precisely because the average human exhales about 2.3 pounds of carbon dioxide on an average day, and a hysterical little girl like Greta when she has her mouth running at flank speed produces up to eight times as much CO2 as the rest of us who unlike little Greta are not hysterical ravers.
So if little Greta wants to set a good example for the rest of us, and she should, being a leader as she is, she should be the first to stop emitting CO2 by ceasing to exhale.
And then she should get all of her many followers, and this would start with AOC and the staff at The Guardian to stop emitting CO2 by ceasing to exhale, and my goodness, I can see hope for the future beginning right there.
But then, ALL combustion of anything flammable also has to cease, because ALL combustion produces not only CO2, which is bad enough, but water vapor, as well, which is a much more serious “greenhouse” gas than is CO2.
Consider the combustion of wood, for example:
C6H12O6 (cellulose) + 6 O2 = 6 CO2 + 6 H2O
Or the combustion of gasoline:
C8H18 + 12.5 O2 → 8 CO2 + 9 H2O
Or butane:
2C4 H10 + 13O2 → 8CO2 + 10H2O
And on and on that list goes because life on earth is carbon-based, and for there to be zero emissions of carbon dioxide, essentially, all life on earth has to come to an end.
Greta is demanding that we all commit mass suicide in order to save the earth.
Greta, you and AOC go first, is my thought.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/i ... ent-223523
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
FACING SOUTH
"The NOAA officials defending Trump's bogus Hurricane Dorian Alabama claim"
By Olivia Paschal
September 9, 2019
Last week, as Hurricane Dorian moved toward the Bahamas and the Carolina coast, President Donald Trump sent out a tweet warning that it might also hit Alabama "(much) harder than anticipated."
His prediction was wrong, according to forecasts from his own federal agencies and meteorologists in the state.
The hurricane would miss Alabama, everyone but Trump agreed — and it did.
Faced with a flood of calls from worried Alabamians, the National Weather Service (NWS) in Birmingham issued a tweet affirming that "Alabama will NOT see any impacts from Dorian."
But Trump then doubled down, issuing statements, doctoring maps, and castigating the media for reporting on his erroneous claim.
And then things got really strange.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the federal agency that oversees the NWS, reportedly issued an internal directive to employees telling NWS scientists to "stick to official [National Hurricane Center] forecasts" if reporters called asking about "national level social media posts" (i.e., Trump's tweets) and to "not provide any opinion" about the tweets.
Five days after the NWS tweet, NOAA issued a statement that appeared to back Trump.
The NWS tweet, it said, "spoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time."
NWS employees were reportedly livid.
"Shocked, stunned, and irate" was how the president of the union representing the workers described them.
"When the NWS issues a hurricane warning or flash flood warning — it's very important [that] everyone is on the same page," Dan Sobien, president of the NWS Employees Organization, told The Daily Beast.
"It's hard enough to convince people to evacuate or take cover."
"If you have confusion, it could be very bad."
At a Sept. 9 meeting of the National Weather Association, the head of the NWS defended the Birmingham forecasters, asking them to stand and saying they "did what any office would do to protect the public."
The NWS has historically been one of the most apolitical branches of the federal government.
But as the Union of Concerned Scientists noted in a Sept. 7 blog post, the NOAA has been dogged by worries of political interference in scientific activities before — though it's worked to overcome them.
A 2007 report and investigation by the UCS and the Government Accountability Project found that while government scientists believed that the quality of their research on climate change was high, "there is broad [political] interference in communicating scientific results."
In the years since then, however, UCS notes that the agency's Scientific Integrity Policy, which allows NOAA scientists free rein to communicate with the media and the public, had allayed these concerns.
But recent events indicate that this stance may be changing under the Trump administration.
NOAA has not had a confirmed leader since Trump took office in January 2017.
Since February of this year, the agency has been led by Neil Jacobs, the acting undersecretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere, the NOAA branch that oversees the NWS.
Jacobs grew up surfing the Outer Banks, earned undergraduate degrees in math and physics at the University of South Carolina, and received his master's and doctoral degrees in atmospheric science from North Carolina State.
His wife, a biologist, currently works at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.
Jacobs and NOAA Chief of Staff and Communications Director Julie Kay Roberts were reportedly involved in drafting the statement disputing the NWS tweet.
Before joining NOAA in 2017, Jacobs worked in the private weather forecasting industry as the chief atmospheric scientist at Panasonic Weather Solutions.
He was nominated alongside Barry Myers, the CEO of AccuWeather, whose nomination to oversee the NOAA is still pending because of concerns that his company has tried to undercut the ability of the NWS to do its job.
Some critics who were worried about Myers' ties to the private forecasting industry, including Andrew Rosenberg of UCS, had similar concerns about Jacobs serving as NOAA's acting head.
"Do people have a right to accessible weather information that they pay for with their tax dollars?"
"Myers and AccuWeather, as well as Jacobs and Panasonic appear to think not," wrote Rosenberg.
Upon his nomination to NOAA last year, Jacobs told Surfline, a company that provides ocean-related forecasts, that he believes there could be greater collaboration between public agencies and private weather industry, though he said criticism that he was pro-privatization was off the mark.
"I would like to see NOAA harness the capabilities in the private industry through public/private partnerships working together in a collaborative versus competitive relationship," he said.
"It's different from privatization, which is just replacing the public sector with the private sector."
'Try to keep politics out'
Since assuming his acting position, Jacobs has appeared before several congressional panels on behalf of the agency.
In climate-related testimony, he has avoided outright denying climate science as the president does, but he has also avoided using the phrase "climate change."
In testimony delivered to a House panel during a February hearing on climate change and research, for example, Jacobs focused not on climate change but on short-term forecasting.
"Because so many factors influence the Earth's climate, and these factors can be highly variable, accurate and long-term observations of the current state of the Earth’s environmental conditions are critical," he said.
"To derive meaningful information on trends and interactions from all of these observations, they must be monitored without interruption for many decades or longer."
By contrast, NASA's director of Earth Science Research opened his testimony at the same hearing by talking about rising sea levels, rising global temperatures, diminishing sea ice cover, and the increased frequency of severe weather events.
Jacobs was also asked about the dire conclusions of the most recent National Climate Assessment, a behemoth report released by the federal government in November 2018 and signed off on by 10 agencies.
When asked whether he agreed with its first sentence, that "Earth's climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities," he seemed to agree.
"If you remove natural variation … then the remaining trend is anthropogenic," Jacobs said.
That echoed previous comments he made to Surfline that climate change is indisputably real but the science is not settled on "how much influence are humans having on it versus how much is from natural variability and natural signals."
Jacobs gave a straight "yes" or "no" answer to just one of the subcommittee chair's questions about whether he agreed with specific findings of the report; he also said it was beyond the scope of his agency to comment on some of its findings.
At a House budget hearing in March, Jacobs defended the Trump administration's proposal to cut 18 percent, or about $1 billion, from the NOAA's budget.
The bulk of those cuts would come from the Climate Program Office, slashing climate research programs and funding for competitive climate research grants.
At the hearing, Jacobs also said that it wouldn't make a difference if a proposed National Security Council panel to reassess climate science was led by a climate skeptic.
"As long as they stick to the peer-reviewed literature, personal views really don't matter," he said.
"If you go through the peer review process, it's designed to eliminate personal bias."
Jacobs' efforts to toe the administration's line on climate change is not out of step with the NOAA’s trajectory under Trump.
Last summer under then-acting administrator Tim Gallaudet, the agency considered reorienting its mission away from understanding and predicting changes in the climate to observing, understanding, and predicting atmospheric and ocean conditions.
After criticism from scientists around the country, including a former NOAA head, Gallaudet quickly walked back the proposed changes.
But they fit with a broader shift under the Trump administration to downplay climate science and the effects of global warming.
During Gallaudet's tenure, for example, Trump was reportedly not briefed on climate change and stated publicly that he did not "believe" the results of his government's own National Climate Assessment.
In the Surfline interview, Jacobs said everything is political in Washington.
"I'm fortunate that NOAA's basically a science agency, and I’m going to do my best to keep politics out of it," he said.
"We've got a job to produce the most accurate, robust and defendable science …"
"We have to make sure that everything is objective and transparent and try to keep politics out of that, which is fine by me."
But Jacobs' partner in drafting the controversial NOAA statement comes from a more explicitly political background.
Roberts served as the deputy director of internal and diplomatic affairs on Trump's inaugural committee and before that worked for the Trump campaign doing advance work for Mike Pence.
She previously served in several federal agencies during the George W. Bush administration and worked in emergency management in Florida during Obama's second term.
Her Facebook profile includes two photos of her with Vice President Pence.
In late August, as Hurricane Dorian headed toward the U.S. Southeast, Roberts changed her Facebook cover photo to an Aug. 29 White House image showing Jacobs briefing Trump on Hurricane Dorian.
On Sept. 5, the same day Business Insider reported that the photo confirmed Trump had been briefed with a map showing Alabama was outside of Dorian's impact cone, Roberts changed her Facebook cover image to one reading "Fearless."
It appears that the controversy over the Dorian misinformation is not over yet.
This week, the Washington Post reported that Craig McLean, the NOAA's acting chief scientist, told colleagues he would be investigating the agency's "political" response as a violation of the NOAA's ethics policy, calling it a "danger to public health and safety."
Olivia Paschal @oliviacpaschal
Olivia is a staff reporter with Facing South whose work focuses on democracy, money in politics, the census, and agriculture.
https://www.facingsouth.org/2019/09/noa ... bama-claim
"The NOAA officials defending Trump's bogus Hurricane Dorian Alabama claim"
By Olivia Paschal
September 9, 2019
Last week, as Hurricane Dorian moved toward the Bahamas and the Carolina coast, President Donald Trump sent out a tweet warning that it might also hit Alabama "(much) harder than anticipated."
His prediction was wrong, according to forecasts from his own federal agencies and meteorologists in the state.
The hurricane would miss Alabama, everyone but Trump agreed — and it did.
Faced with a flood of calls from worried Alabamians, the National Weather Service (NWS) in Birmingham issued a tweet affirming that "Alabama will NOT see any impacts from Dorian."
But Trump then doubled down, issuing statements, doctoring maps, and castigating the media for reporting on his erroneous claim.
And then things got really strange.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the federal agency that oversees the NWS, reportedly issued an internal directive to employees telling NWS scientists to "stick to official [National Hurricane Center] forecasts" if reporters called asking about "national level social media posts" (i.e., Trump's tweets) and to "not provide any opinion" about the tweets.
Five days after the NWS tweet, NOAA issued a statement that appeared to back Trump.
The NWS tweet, it said, "spoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time."
NWS employees were reportedly livid.
"Shocked, stunned, and irate" was how the president of the union representing the workers described them.
"When the NWS issues a hurricane warning or flash flood warning — it's very important [that] everyone is on the same page," Dan Sobien, president of the NWS Employees Organization, told The Daily Beast.
"It's hard enough to convince people to evacuate or take cover."
"If you have confusion, it could be very bad."
At a Sept. 9 meeting of the National Weather Association, the head of the NWS defended the Birmingham forecasters, asking them to stand and saying they "did what any office would do to protect the public."
The NWS has historically been one of the most apolitical branches of the federal government.
But as the Union of Concerned Scientists noted in a Sept. 7 blog post, the NOAA has been dogged by worries of political interference in scientific activities before — though it's worked to overcome them.
A 2007 report and investigation by the UCS and the Government Accountability Project found that while government scientists believed that the quality of their research on climate change was high, "there is broad [political] interference in communicating scientific results."
In the years since then, however, UCS notes that the agency's Scientific Integrity Policy, which allows NOAA scientists free rein to communicate with the media and the public, had allayed these concerns.
But recent events indicate that this stance may be changing under the Trump administration.
NOAA has not had a confirmed leader since Trump took office in January 2017.
Since February of this year, the agency has been led by Neil Jacobs, the acting undersecretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere, the NOAA branch that oversees the NWS.
Jacobs grew up surfing the Outer Banks, earned undergraduate degrees in math and physics at the University of South Carolina, and received his master's and doctoral degrees in atmospheric science from North Carolina State.
His wife, a biologist, currently works at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.
Jacobs and NOAA Chief of Staff and Communications Director Julie Kay Roberts were reportedly involved in drafting the statement disputing the NWS tweet.
Before joining NOAA in 2017, Jacobs worked in the private weather forecasting industry as the chief atmospheric scientist at Panasonic Weather Solutions.
He was nominated alongside Barry Myers, the CEO of AccuWeather, whose nomination to oversee the NOAA is still pending because of concerns that his company has tried to undercut the ability of the NWS to do its job.
Some critics who were worried about Myers' ties to the private forecasting industry, including Andrew Rosenberg of UCS, had similar concerns about Jacobs serving as NOAA's acting head.
"Do people have a right to accessible weather information that they pay for with their tax dollars?"
"Myers and AccuWeather, as well as Jacobs and Panasonic appear to think not," wrote Rosenberg.
Upon his nomination to NOAA last year, Jacobs told Surfline, a company that provides ocean-related forecasts, that he believes there could be greater collaboration between public agencies and private weather industry, though he said criticism that he was pro-privatization was off the mark.
"I would like to see NOAA harness the capabilities in the private industry through public/private partnerships working together in a collaborative versus competitive relationship," he said.
"It's different from privatization, which is just replacing the public sector with the private sector."
'Try to keep politics out'
Since assuming his acting position, Jacobs has appeared before several congressional panels on behalf of the agency.
In climate-related testimony, he has avoided outright denying climate science as the president does, but he has also avoided using the phrase "climate change."
In testimony delivered to a House panel during a February hearing on climate change and research, for example, Jacobs focused not on climate change but on short-term forecasting.
"Because so many factors influence the Earth's climate, and these factors can be highly variable, accurate and long-term observations of the current state of the Earth’s environmental conditions are critical," he said.
"To derive meaningful information on trends and interactions from all of these observations, they must be monitored without interruption for many decades or longer."
By contrast, NASA's director of Earth Science Research opened his testimony at the same hearing by talking about rising sea levels, rising global temperatures, diminishing sea ice cover, and the increased frequency of severe weather events.
Jacobs was also asked about the dire conclusions of the most recent National Climate Assessment, a behemoth report released by the federal government in November 2018 and signed off on by 10 agencies.
When asked whether he agreed with its first sentence, that "Earth's climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities," he seemed to agree.
"If you remove natural variation … then the remaining trend is anthropogenic," Jacobs said.
That echoed previous comments he made to Surfline that climate change is indisputably real but the science is not settled on "how much influence are humans having on it versus how much is from natural variability and natural signals."
Jacobs gave a straight "yes" or "no" answer to just one of the subcommittee chair's questions about whether he agreed with specific findings of the report; he also said it was beyond the scope of his agency to comment on some of its findings.
At a House budget hearing in March, Jacobs defended the Trump administration's proposal to cut 18 percent, or about $1 billion, from the NOAA's budget.
The bulk of those cuts would come from the Climate Program Office, slashing climate research programs and funding for competitive climate research grants.
At the hearing, Jacobs also said that it wouldn't make a difference if a proposed National Security Council panel to reassess climate science was led by a climate skeptic.
"As long as they stick to the peer-reviewed literature, personal views really don't matter," he said.
"If you go through the peer review process, it's designed to eliminate personal bias."
Jacobs' efforts to toe the administration's line on climate change is not out of step with the NOAA’s trajectory under Trump.
Last summer under then-acting administrator Tim Gallaudet, the agency considered reorienting its mission away from understanding and predicting changes in the climate to observing, understanding, and predicting atmospheric and ocean conditions.
After criticism from scientists around the country, including a former NOAA head, Gallaudet quickly walked back the proposed changes.
But they fit with a broader shift under the Trump administration to downplay climate science and the effects of global warming.
During Gallaudet's tenure, for example, Trump was reportedly not briefed on climate change and stated publicly that he did not "believe" the results of his government's own National Climate Assessment.
In the Surfline interview, Jacobs said everything is political in Washington.
"I'm fortunate that NOAA's basically a science agency, and I’m going to do my best to keep politics out of it," he said.
"We've got a job to produce the most accurate, robust and defendable science …"
"We have to make sure that everything is objective and transparent and try to keep politics out of that, which is fine by me."
But Jacobs' partner in drafting the controversial NOAA statement comes from a more explicitly political background.
Roberts served as the deputy director of internal and diplomatic affairs on Trump's inaugural committee and before that worked for the Trump campaign doing advance work for Mike Pence.
She previously served in several federal agencies during the George W. Bush administration and worked in emergency management in Florida during Obama's second term.
Her Facebook profile includes two photos of her with Vice President Pence.
In late August, as Hurricane Dorian headed toward the U.S. Southeast, Roberts changed her Facebook cover photo to an Aug. 29 White House image showing Jacobs briefing Trump on Hurricane Dorian.
On Sept. 5, the same day Business Insider reported that the photo confirmed Trump had been briefed with a map showing Alabama was outside of Dorian's impact cone, Roberts changed her Facebook cover image to one reading "Fearless."
It appears that the controversy over the Dorian misinformation is not over yet.
This week, the Washington Post reported that Craig McLean, the NOAA's acting chief scientist, told colleagues he would be investigating the agency's "political" response as a violation of the NOAA's ethics policy, calling it a "danger to public health and safety."
Olivia Paschal @oliviacpaschal
Olivia is a staff reporter with Facing South whose work focuses on democracy, money in politics, the census, and agriculture.
https://www.facingsouth.org/2019/09/noa ... bama-claim
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
DEMOCRACY NOW
“Our House Is Still on Fire”: Full Speech by Greta Thunberg at World Economic Forum in Davos"
Web Exclusive
January 21, 2020
The 17-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg delivered a speech Tuesday to the world leaders and global elite gathered in Davos, Switzerland, for the World Economic Forum, one year after she first condemned the forum for its inaction on climate change.
AMY GOODMAN: We end today’s show with the words of a 17-year-old: Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg.
She just turned 17 in the last weeks.
She addressed world leaders today at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
GRETA THUNBERG: One year ago, I came to Davos and told you that our house is on fire.
I said I wanted you to panic.
I’ve been warned that telling people to panic about the climate crisis is a very dangerous thing to do.
But don’t worry.
It’s fine.
Trust me.
I’ve done this before.
And I can assure you: It doesn’t lead to anything.
And for the record, when we children tell you to panic, we’re not telling you to go on like before.
We’re not telling you to rely on technologies that don’t even exist today at scale and that science says perhaps never will.
We are not telling you to keep talking about reaching net zero emissions or carbon neutrality by cheating and fiddling around with numbers.
We’re not telling you to offset your emissions by just paying someone else to plant trees in places like Africa, while at the same time forests like the Amazon are being slaughtered at an infinitely higher rate.
Planting trees is good, of course, but it’s nowhere near enough of what is needed, and it cannot replace real mitigation and rewilding nature.
And let’s be clear: We don’t need a low-carbon economy.
We don’t need to lower emissions.
Our emissions have to stop, if we are to have a chance to stay below the 1.5-degree target.
And until we have the technologies that at scale can put our emissions to minus, then we must forget about net zero.
We need real zero, because distant net-zero emission targets will mean absolutely nothing if we just continue to ignore the carbon dioxide budget that applies for today, not distant future dates.
If high emissions continue like now even for a few years, that remaining budget will soon be completely used up.
The fact that the U.S.A. is leaving the Paris accord seemed to outrage and worry everyone.
And it should.
But the fact that we are all about to fail the commitments you signed up for in the Paris Agreement doesn’t seem to bother the people in power even the least.
Any plan or policy of yours that doesn’t include radical emission cuts at the source starting today is completely insufficient for meeting the 1.5- or well below 2-degree commitments of the Paris Agreement.
And again, this is not about right or left.
We couldn’t care less about your party politics.
From a sustainability perspective, the right, the left, as well as the center, have all failed.
No political ideology or economic structure has been able to tackle the climate and environmental emergency and create a cohesive and sustainable world, because that world, in case you haven’t noticed, is currently on fire.
You say children shouldn’t worry.
You say, “Just leave this to us."
"We will fix this."
"We promise we won’t let you down."
"Don’t be so pessimistic.”
And then nothing.
Silence.
Or something worse than silence: empty words and promises which give the impression that sufficient action is being taken.
All the solutions are obviously not available within today’s societies, nor do we have the time to wait for new technological solutions to become available to start drastically reducing our emissions.
So, of course, the transition isn’t going to be easy.
It will be hard.
And unless we start facing this now, together, with all cards on the table, we won’t be able to solve this in time.
In the days running up to the 50th anniversary of the World Economic Forum, I joined a group of climate activists demanding that you, the world’s most powerful and influential business and political leaders, begin to take the action needed.
We demand, at this year’s World Economic Forum, participants from all companies, banks, institutions and governments immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction, immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies and immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels.
We don’t want these things done by 2050 or 2030 or even 2021; we want this done now.
It may seem like we are asking for a lot, and you will of course say that we are naive.
But this is just the very minimum amount of effort that is needed to start the rapid sustainable transition.
So, either you do this, or you’re going to have to explain to your children why you are giving up on the 1.5-degree target — giving up without even trying.
Well, I’m here to tell you that, unlike you, my generation will not give up without a fight.
The facts are clear, but they are still too uncomfortable for you to address.
You just leave it, because you just think it’s too depressing and people will give up.
But people will not give up.
You are the ones who are giving up.
Last week, I met with Polish coal miners who lost their jobs because their mine was closed.
And even they had not given up.
On the contrary, they seem to understand the fact that we need to change more than you do.
I wonder: What will you tell your children was the reason to fail and leave them facing a climate chaos that you knowingly brought upon them?
That it seemed so bad for the economy that we decided to resign the idea of securing future living conditions without even trying?
Our house is still on fire.
Your inaction is fueling the flames by the hour.
And we are telling you to act as if you loved your children above all else.
Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: Seventeen-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg addressing world leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
She spoke just after President Trump spoke at the gathering, touting the economy but not talking about the climate crisis, which is the focus of the World Economic Forum in Davos.
That does it for our show.
We’ll post her whole speech online at democracynow.org.
https://www.democracynow.org/2020/1/21/ ... ll_on_fire
“Our House Is Still on Fire”: Full Speech by Greta Thunberg at World Economic Forum in Davos"
Web Exclusive
January 21, 2020
The 17-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg delivered a speech Tuesday to the world leaders and global elite gathered in Davos, Switzerland, for the World Economic Forum, one year after she first condemned the forum for its inaction on climate change.
AMY GOODMAN: We end today’s show with the words of a 17-year-old: Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg.
She just turned 17 in the last weeks.
She addressed world leaders today at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
GRETA THUNBERG: One year ago, I came to Davos and told you that our house is on fire.
I said I wanted you to panic.
I’ve been warned that telling people to panic about the climate crisis is a very dangerous thing to do.
But don’t worry.
It’s fine.
Trust me.
I’ve done this before.
And I can assure you: It doesn’t lead to anything.
And for the record, when we children tell you to panic, we’re not telling you to go on like before.
We’re not telling you to rely on technologies that don’t even exist today at scale and that science says perhaps never will.
We are not telling you to keep talking about reaching net zero emissions or carbon neutrality by cheating and fiddling around with numbers.
We’re not telling you to offset your emissions by just paying someone else to plant trees in places like Africa, while at the same time forests like the Amazon are being slaughtered at an infinitely higher rate.
Planting trees is good, of course, but it’s nowhere near enough of what is needed, and it cannot replace real mitigation and rewilding nature.
And let’s be clear: We don’t need a low-carbon economy.
We don’t need to lower emissions.
Our emissions have to stop, if we are to have a chance to stay below the 1.5-degree target.
And until we have the technologies that at scale can put our emissions to minus, then we must forget about net zero.
We need real zero, because distant net-zero emission targets will mean absolutely nothing if we just continue to ignore the carbon dioxide budget that applies for today, not distant future dates.
If high emissions continue like now even for a few years, that remaining budget will soon be completely used up.
The fact that the U.S.A. is leaving the Paris accord seemed to outrage and worry everyone.
And it should.
But the fact that we are all about to fail the commitments you signed up for in the Paris Agreement doesn’t seem to bother the people in power even the least.
Any plan or policy of yours that doesn’t include radical emission cuts at the source starting today is completely insufficient for meeting the 1.5- or well below 2-degree commitments of the Paris Agreement.
And again, this is not about right or left.
We couldn’t care less about your party politics.
From a sustainability perspective, the right, the left, as well as the center, have all failed.
No political ideology or economic structure has been able to tackle the climate and environmental emergency and create a cohesive and sustainable world, because that world, in case you haven’t noticed, is currently on fire.
You say children shouldn’t worry.
You say, “Just leave this to us."
"We will fix this."
"We promise we won’t let you down."
"Don’t be so pessimistic.”
And then nothing.
Silence.
Or something worse than silence: empty words and promises which give the impression that sufficient action is being taken.
All the solutions are obviously not available within today’s societies, nor do we have the time to wait for new technological solutions to become available to start drastically reducing our emissions.
So, of course, the transition isn’t going to be easy.
It will be hard.
And unless we start facing this now, together, with all cards on the table, we won’t be able to solve this in time.
In the days running up to the 50th anniversary of the World Economic Forum, I joined a group of climate activists demanding that you, the world’s most powerful and influential business and political leaders, begin to take the action needed.
We demand, at this year’s World Economic Forum, participants from all companies, banks, institutions and governments immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction, immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies and immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels.
We don’t want these things done by 2050 or 2030 or even 2021; we want this done now.
It may seem like we are asking for a lot, and you will of course say that we are naive.
But this is just the very minimum amount of effort that is needed to start the rapid sustainable transition.
So, either you do this, or you’re going to have to explain to your children why you are giving up on the 1.5-degree target — giving up without even trying.
Well, I’m here to tell you that, unlike you, my generation will not give up without a fight.
The facts are clear, but they are still too uncomfortable for you to address.
You just leave it, because you just think it’s too depressing and people will give up.
But people will not give up.
You are the ones who are giving up.
Last week, I met with Polish coal miners who lost their jobs because their mine was closed.
And even they had not given up.
On the contrary, they seem to understand the fact that we need to change more than you do.
I wonder: What will you tell your children was the reason to fail and leave them facing a climate chaos that you knowingly brought upon them?
That it seemed so bad for the economy that we decided to resign the idea of securing future living conditions without even trying?
Our house is still on fire.
Your inaction is fueling the flames by the hour.
And we are telling you to act as if you loved your children above all else.
Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: Seventeen-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg addressing world leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
She spoke just after President Trump spoke at the gathering, touting the economy but not talking about the climate crisis, which is the focus of the World Economic Forum in Davos.
That does it for our show.
We’ll post her whole speech online at democracynow.org.
https://www.democracynow.org/2020/1/21/ ... ll_on_fire
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 27, 2020 at 7:14 pm
Paul Plante says:
J, with all due respect to yourself, you have obviously missed the memo informing us that as of now, whatever else you or some crowd at whatever the ICS Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) might think about what era we are really in, the fact of the matter, regardless of what you might think, is that we are really in the ANTHROPOCENE, as we clearly see from the following official government language, as it is a treaty, and thus, law of the land, to wit:
The IPCC produces reports that contribute to the work of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the main international treaty on climate change.
The objective of the UNFCCC is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system”.
end quotes
You see what I am saying there, J?
Even though you and the ICS Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) might not think we are in the ANTHROPOCENE, this treaty that says we are in the ANTHROPOCENE renders their opinion on reality irrelevant, and has you talking heresy against politico-scientific orthodoxy.
So from the above, we can see that it is not merely my opinion that the Holocene has officially ended; those who make that determination have in fact made such a determination as part of a global treaty and whatever the ICS Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) might in fact be, their opinion has been rendered meaningless and un-essential.
So, yes, J, you, as well as I or anyone else, are entitled to our opinions, and I whole-heartedly agree with you that when we provide opinion, we should not present it as fact.
And yes, as a society, we do have the means to broadly, easily, and freely distribute information and without an appropriate guardrail, we can easily misinform.
That is what The Guardian and NOAA and AP science fiction writer Seth Borenstein have been doing, which is why I am so thankful as an American citizen to the Cape Charles Mirror for being the only venue in America where a free exchange of ideas between us could take place, J, as the Mirror is open to all points of view, and let me say I am also thankful the Mirror gave me an opportunity to give you a warning about speaking heretical statements by insisting this is not the ANTHROPOCENE when it clearly is.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/i ... ent-223523
Paul Plante says:
J, with all due respect to yourself, you have obviously missed the memo informing us that as of now, whatever else you or some crowd at whatever the ICS Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) might think about what era we are really in, the fact of the matter, regardless of what you might think, is that we are really in the ANTHROPOCENE, as we clearly see from the following official government language, as it is a treaty, and thus, law of the land, to wit:
The IPCC produces reports that contribute to the work of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the main international treaty on climate change.
The objective of the UNFCCC is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system”.
end quotes
You see what I am saying there, J?
Even though you and the ICS Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) might not think we are in the ANTHROPOCENE, this treaty that says we are in the ANTHROPOCENE renders their opinion on reality irrelevant, and has you talking heresy against politico-scientific orthodoxy.
So from the above, we can see that it is not merely my opinion that the Holocene has officially ended; those who make that determination have in fact made such a determination as part of a global treaty and whatever the ICS Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) might in fact be, their opinion has been rendered meaningless and un-essential.
So, yes, J, you, as well as I or anyone else, are entitled to our opinions, and I whole-heartedly agree with you that when we provide opinion, we should not present it as fact.
And yes, as a society, we do have the means to broadly, easily, and freely distribute information and without an appropriate guardrail, we can easily misinform.
That is what The Guardian and NOAA and AP science fiction writer Seth Borenstein have been doing, which is why I am so thankful as an American citizen to the Cape Charles Mirror for being the only venue in America where a free exchange of ideas between us could take place, J, as the Mirror is open to all points of view, and let me say I am also thankful the Mirror gave me an opportunity to give you a warning about speaking heretical statements by insisting this is not the ANTHROPOCENE when it clearly is.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/i ... ent-223523
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 27, 2020 at 9:47 pm
Paul Plante says :
So, is the whole earth getting warmer as NOAA would have us believe?
Is the world today warmer than it ever has been?
Or is that a real horse**** statement from NOAA intended to confuse us by making us scared that the world is about to end?
For that answer, or to help us determine that answer we need to go back to the All-Time EXTREMES for ALBANY, NY from the NOAA Regional Climate Centers updated October 2019, but before we do, we need to define “Degree Days,” which are defined as the number of degrees by which the average daily temperature is higher than 65°F (cooling degree days) or lower than 65°F (heating degree days), as degree days reflect changes in climate and are used as a proxy for the energy demand for heating or cooling buildings, to wit:
Cooling Degree Days (CDD) January 1st – December 31st / Heating Degree Days (HDD) July 1st – June 30th
Greatest CDD Monthly 383 July 1887
Greatest HDD Monthly 1705 January 1970
Least CDD Year 355 1982
Least HDD Season 5339 2011-12
Greatest CDD Year 996 1959
Greatest HDD Season 7741 1874-75
end quotes
To understand the numbers there before the year, we need to take into consideration as follows:
“Degree-days” are relative measurements of outdoor air temperature used as an index for heating and cooling energy requirements.
Heating degree-days are the number of degrees that the daily average temperature falls below 65° F.
Cooling degree-days are the number of degrees that the daily average temperature rises above 65° F.
The daily average temperature is the mean of the maximum and minimum temperatures in a 24-hour period.
For example, a weather station recording an average daily temperature of 40° F would report 25 heating degree-days for that day (and 0 cooling degree-days).
If a weather station recorded an average daily temperature of 78° F, cooling degree-days for that station would be 13 (and 0 heating degree days).
end quotes
So, first off, given we are looking for when it was the hottest, we are more interested in Cooling Degree-days (CDD), and looking at the chart, we find as follows for Greatest CDD Monthly, and we notice that it was 133 years ago in July 1887, not in the years since 2000, as we are supposed to believe according to NOAA.
And we find the Greatest CDD Year, which would be associated with a hot year, to be 61 years ago in 1959, which I remember as a hot year, having been alive back then when it was hotter than it is now in this area, not in any year since 2000.
As to when the least cooling degree-days occurred, which would indicate a cooler year, that Least CDD Year was 1982.
And while the Least HDD Season was 2011-12, which would indicate a less-cold winter, we do not see a pike or rise in CCD for that year listed, because while it was less cold in the winter, it was also less cold during the rest of the year, which is to say, milder, not hotter.
And I’m using these numbers for Albany because I could find them.
I looked for comparable for Cape Charles, but was unable to locate the same data.
I also asked NOAA for all the sites whose temperature goes into constructing this so-called “global average temperature” so I could check the circumstances of each location to determine why it was so hot, like France, with its 58 nuclear reactors which are turning its rivers into heat sources that are cooking those people over there like frogs in a pot of boiling water, but have received no reply and frankly, do not expect one as I’m considered a heretic at NOAA for daring to question their assumptions, especially here in the Cape Charles Mirror where they can exert no control over what gets stated and published.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/e ... ent-223690
Paul Plante says :
So, is the whole earth getting warmer as NOAA would have us believe?
Is the world today warmer than it ever has been?
Or is that a real horse**** statement from NOAA intended to confuse us by making us scared that the world is about to end?
For that answer, or to help us determine that answer we need to go back to the All-Time EXTREMES for ALBANY, NY from the NOAA Regional Climate Centers updated October 2019, but before we do, we need to define “Degree Days,” which are defined as the number of degrees by which the average daily temperature is higher than 65°F (cooling degree days) or lower than 65°F (heating degree days), as degree days reflect changes in climate and are used as a proxy for the energy demand for heating or cooling buildings, to wit:
Cooling Degree Days (CDD) January 1st – December 31st / Heating Degree Days (HDD) July 1st – June 30th
Greatest CDD Monthly 383 July 1887
Greatest HDD Monthly 1705 January 1970
Least CDD Year 355 1982
Least HDD Season 5339 2011-12
Greatest CDD Year 996 1959
Greatest HDD Season 7741 1874-75
end quotes
To understand the numbers there before the year, we need to take into consideration as follows:
“Degree-days” are relative measurements of outdoor air temperature used as an index for heating and cooling energy requirements.
Heating degree-days are the number of degrees that the daily average temperature falls below 65° F.
Cooling degree-days are the number of degrees that the daily average temperature rises above 65° F.
The daily average temperature is the mean of the maximum and minimum temperatures in a 24-hour period.
For example, a weather station recording an average daily temperature of 40° F would report 25 heating degree-days for that day (and 0 cooling degree-days).
If a weather station recorded an average daily temperature of 78° F, cooling degree-days for that station would be 13 (and 0 heating degree days).
end quotes
So, first off, given we are looking for when it was the hottest, we are more interested in Cooling Degree-days (CDD), and looking at the chart, we find as follows for Greatest CDD Monthly, and we notice that it was 133 years ago in July 1887, not in the years since 2000, as we are supposed to believe according to NOAA.
And we find the Greatest CDD Year, which would be associated with a hot year, to be 61 years ago in 1959, which I remember as a hot year, having been alive back then when it was hotter than it is now in this area, not in any year since 2000.
As to when the least cooling degree-days occurred, which would indicate a cooler year, that Least CDD Year was 1982.
And while the Least HDD Season was 2011-12, which would indicate a less-cold winter, we do not see a pike or rise in CCD for that year listed, because while it was less cold in the winter, it was also less cold during the rest of the year, which is to say, milder, not hotter.
And I’m using these numbers for Albany because I could find them.
I looked for comparable for Cape Charles, but was unable to locate the same data.
I also asked NOAA for all the sites whose temperature goes into constructing this so-called “global average temperature” so I could check the circumstances of each location to determine why it was so hot, like France, with its 58 nuclear reactors which are turning its rivers into heat sources that are cooking those people over there like frogs in a pot of boiling water, but have received no reply and frankly, do not expect one as I’m considered a heretic at NOAA for daring to question their assumptions, especially here in the Cape Charles Mirror where they can exert no control over what gets stated and published.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/e ... ent-223690
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
USA TODAY
"New global temperature record is 'likely' within the next five years, report says"
Doyle Rice, USA TODAY
31 JANUARY 2020
The heat goes on.
The world will set a new temperature record within the next five years, scientists from the United Kingdom's Met Office said Thursday.
"The latest five-year forecast suggests continued warming, consistent with sustained high levels of greenhouse gases," said Doug Smith, a Met Office expert on decadal prediction, in a statement.
Up until now, the warmest year on record was 2016, which was followed closely by 2019, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
"Uncertainties exist within the forecast, but most regions are expected to be warmer and forecast patterns suggest enhanced warming over land, especially northern parts of Europe, Asia and North America – extending the ongoing trend," Smith said.
In addition the current relatively cool conditions in the north Atlantic are also predicted to warm, potentially exacerbating the warming over Europe, the Met Office reported.
Last year alone, record highs were registered in several countries, including across northern Europe during an unprecedented heatwave that scientists said was made more likely by climate change, Phys.org said.
"By initializing computer models with the current state of the climate, the Met Office has demonstrated increasing skill to predict fluctuations in the climate," said Adam Scaife, the Met Office’s head of long-range prediction.
He added that only a large volcanic eruption, which would act to cool the global climate, could prevent a new heat record in the upcoming several years.
The planet has warmed by 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) since the start of the Industrial Revolution in the late 1800s, which represents the quickest shift in the climate since the last Ice Age ended some 10,000 years ago, according to Bloomberg News.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: New global temperature record is 'likely' within the next five years, report says
http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topsto ... li=BBnb7Kz
"New global temperature record is 'likely' within the next five years, report says"
Doyle Rice, USA TODAY
31 JANUARY 2020
The heat goes on.
The world will set a new temperature record within the next five years, scientists from the United Kingdom's Met Office said Thursday.
"The latest five-year forecast suggests continued warming, consistent with sustained high levels of greenhouse gases," said Doug Smith, a Met Office expert on decadal prediction, in a statement.
Up until now, the warmest year on record was 2016, which was followed closely by 2019, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
"Uncertainties exist within the forecast, but most regions are expected to be warmer and forecast patterns suggest enhanced warming over land, especially northern parts of Europe, Asia and North America – extending the ongoing trend," Smith said.
In addition the current relatively cool conditions in the north Atlantic are also predicted to warm, potentially exacerbating the warming over Europe, the Met Office reported.
Last year alone, record highs were registered in several countries, including across northern Europe during an unprecedented heatwave that scientists said was made more likely by climate change, Phys.org said.
"By initializing computer models with the current state of the climate, the Met Office has demonstrated increasing skill to predict fluctuations in the climate," said Adam Scaife, the Met Office’s head of long-range prediction.
He added that only a large volcanic eruption, which would act to cool the global climate, could prevent a new heat record in the upcoming several years.
The planet has warmed by 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) since the start of the Industrial Revolution in the late 1800s, which represents the quickest shift in the climate since the last Ice Age ended some 10,000 years ago, according to Bloomberg News.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: New global temperature record is 'likely' within the next five years, report says
http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topsto ... li=BBnb7Kz