Global Warming Hysteria: Record Heat, Vanishing Sunspots, CO2, & Lawsuits

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

There's record heat, but why? How do we measure it? What's going on with sunspots? Blame the US? Answers below...

Record Heat

Yes, there's "record heat" thanks to the nonsensical way we measure temperatures.

Mann-Made Warming

Watts Up With That provides a humorous, but accurate, summation in Friday Funny: Josh on Mann-Made Warming.

In the last couple of weeks, record highs have been set around the U.S., particularly in the Los Angeles area, which I did a lengthy debunking of. Records were also set in Scotland, then denied by an errant Ice Cream truck, and also questioned in Africa. Josh is on the case to illustrate the one common denominator to all these high temperature records we’ve discussed here on WUWT.

For people who don’t believe this, or think we are just “making stuff up”…Here’s the official weather station at the airport in Rome, Italy. I wonder if the Pope has seen this?

WUWT provides more examples including some in the US including LA and Burbank. Here's Burbank.

Yes, the weather station is virtually surrounded by asphalt runways, taxiways, and aircraft parking ramps. The likelihood for the station to get in the middle of a 400F jetwash is almost a certainty, being so close to taxiways with turns. This is a ridiculous place to measure for high temperatures.

Heat Islands

NASA notes Satellites Pinpoint Drivers of Urban Heat Islands in the Northeast.

Cities such as New York, Philadelphia, and Boston are prominent centers of political power. Less known: Their size, background ecology, and development patterns also combine to make them unusually warm, according to NASA scientists who presented new research recently at an American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting in San Francisco, Calif.

Summer land surface temperature of cities in the Northeast were an average of 7 °C to 9 °C (13°F to 16 °F) warmer than surrounding rural areas over a three year period, the new research shows. The complex phenomenon that drives up temperatures is called the urban heat island effect.

Measurement Bias?

You bet

Reporting Bias?

You bet

Nonsensical Lawsuits

Clearly, we are not accurately measuring the rise in temperatures but that does not stop nonsense lawsuits.

Today a NY District Judge Tossed NYC's Climate Change Lawsuit Against Five Oil Companies.

NYC said BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips. Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell should compensate the city for the cost of mitigating the effects of global warming.

Judge Keenan wrote "Climate change is a fact of life, as is not contested by Defendants. But the serious problems caused thereby are not for the judiciary to ameliorate. Global warming and solutions thereto must be addressed by the two other branches of government."

Last month, a federal judge dismissed climate change cases against oil companies brought by Oakland and San Francisco based on similar grounds.

This case was so asinine that I wonder why it was filed in the first place. The judge should have made the city pay all of the defendants' legal costs.

That would stop the nonsense.

Sound the CO2 Alarm

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. That's the sound of my CO2 bullshit detector.

Mark Perry noted the USA alarmist nonsense.

Daniel LaCalle also rang the bell.

Last year the United States had the largest decline in CO2 emissions *in the entire world* for the 9th time this century.

In Climate Agreement, Hypocrisy and Summits, LaCalle accurately writes "Decarbonization is unstoppable . Not thanks to a summit or due to politicians, quite the opposite. Thanks to competition, technology and research. Thanks to human ingenuity. Coal has been disappearing from the global energy mix for decades, despite – not to thanks to – governments. And the same is happening with oil."

Rising Oceans

But wait, what about the sea rise from melting ice in the antarctic?

I'm glad you asked.

Please consider The "Alarmist Gone Wild" Perspective of the Increase in Antarctic Snowfall.

A new study published in the journal Climate of the Past has some (small) good news as far as snowfall is concerned: it’s going up. Since the 19th century, snowfall across Antarctica has increased by about 10 percent. It isn’t nearly enough to offset sea level rise from ice melting, but the numbers are still impressive. As a press releasepoints out, the continent is packing on about two Dead Sea’s worth of new ice each year.

Since it’s unclear as to whether or not Antarctica is currently losing or gaining ice, largely due to glacial isostatic adjustment uncertainties, two Dead Seas worth of additional ice (on top of the 19th century accumulation rate) is a lot of fracking ice… If two Dead Seas worth of ice per year were disappearing from Greenland, it would be catastrophic according to the alarmists. We know this because Greenland is currently losing an estimated 186-375 billion tons of ice per year and this is described as catastrophic, despite its insignificance to the overall mass and volume of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS). In Greenland, our friends at Skeptical Sciencedescribe this as “ominous”

​WUWT blasted the claim “Several millimeters a year of sea level rise coming from Antarctica’s melting ice each year”

"On what planet?," asked WUWT.

"The best recent estimate is that Antarctica is somewhere between gaining enough ice to lower sea level by as much as 0.14 mm/yr and losing enough ice to raise sea level by 0.55 mm/yr. So… Several millimeters a year of sea level rise are *not* coming from Antarctica’s melting ice each year.”

Sea Level Math

At the current rate, the sea level will rise by 1.6 inches over the next 100 years if we stay on this path.

Mercy! We need a plan.

Al Gore's $90 Trillion Plan

In order to combat the devastating impact of a global sea rise, new global commission says World Needs a $90 Trillion Infrastructure Overhaul.

I am quite certain that spending $90 trillion on nearly anything would actually do opposite of whatever the intention was.

With that thought, let's move on to sunspots.

​Sunspots Vanish at Alarming Rate

Sunspots are vanishing at an alarming rate. Let's investigate some possible implications.​

Quiet Sun: No sunspots

"Watts Up With That?" reports Quiet Sun: More than 3 months without a sunspot*.​

The title is very wrong, it's more like five days. But there have been about 100 days this year. Here are some details.

2 July 2018 – “The Belgian department of solar physics research (SIDC) says we are about to touch 100; that is, a hundred days in which we do not see spots on our sun,” says Italian meteorologist Dr. Carlo Testa.

During a time of few or no sunspots (a solar minimum) the Sun emits less energy than usual, says Dr. Testa. “According to some scholars, this situation could lead to climatic upheavals.”

Suffice it to recall, says Testa, that between 1645 and 1715 the most significant solar minimum of history, the Little Ice Age, occurred, bringing years and years marked by very strict winters that lasted until June.

Now several studies indicate that we’re headed into another Great Solar Minimum, says Testa. For some scholars, this is only a hypothesis, but we are seeing small signals that support this idea: namely, the most powerful strat-warming ever recorded in mid-February, the very very unstable Spring, and finally this summer that continues to limp along.

“What if the worst is to come?” asks Testa.

NASA: Sunspots Vanishing Faster than Expected

Also consider NASA: Sunspots Vanishing Faster than Expected

Sunspots are becoming scarce. Very scarce. So far in 2018 the sun has been blank almost 60% of the time, with whole weeks going by without sunspots. Today’s sun, shown here in an image from NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory, is typical of the featureless solar disk.

Beware, the Ice Age Cometh

Damn. If the sunspot theory holds up, we will have wasted $90 trillion to stop global warming when we need global warming!

Role of CO2

I am willing to concede - and always have - that man is responsible for a percentage of global warming (assuming global warming is actually happening).

Here is a better way of stating things: Man-made CO2, in isolation, all things being equal, would tend to raise temperatures. That statement should not be in dispute, by anyone.

But assuming there is global warming, does it account for less than 1%, 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 40%, 50%, or more?

And assuming it is happening, what percentages does one want to assign to natural cycles, sunspots or other solar activity like solar flares, volcanoes, changes in the earth's core, changes in wind patterns, ocean current changes, changes in earth's magnetic field, etc, etc, but also "man-made" global warming.

I do not pretend to know all the factors. No one else does either. And I highly doubt every factor has been tracked (or even can be!)

Correlation is not causation. Even if CO2 models correlate to change, are there more important factors (even natural cycles) that are coincidental to man-made CO2?

Magnetic Fields

Where's the discussion on this?

Earth's Magnetic Field Flip Could Happen Sooner Than Expected

Changes measured by the Swarm satellite show that our magnetic field is weakening 10 times faster than originally predicted, especially over the Western Hemisphere

Earth's magnetic field acts like a giant invisible bubble that shields the planet from the dangerous cosmic radiation spewing from the sun in the form of solar winds. The field exists because Earth has a giant ball of iron at its core surrounded by an outer layer of molten metal. Changes in the core's temperature and Earth's rotation boil and swirl the liquid metal around in the outer core, creating magnetic field lines.

Complex Systems

Cloud Mystery

That is a lengthy video, but a very important one. Henrik Svensmark's documentary on climate change and cosmic rays is one of the best believable explanations of global warming that I have seen.

Svensmark looks at background radiation coming from space, based on the earth's position in the Milky Way galaxy. His model accurately predicted prior ice ages and warming cycles.

I recommend watching the entire video. It is fascinating. One can also skip to the 30 minute mark or so for a shorter version.

His believable thesis is background radiation, or lack thereof causes warming and cooling cycles.

The video should give everyone pause to think about the simple models the alarmists project.

Final Thoughts

Climate changes - ice ages and warming - have occurred over millions of years whether man was even alive.

It is beyond idiotic to map two variables, CO2 and temperature change (one of them extremely inaccurately), in an enormously complex system of thousands of variables evolving over hundreds of millions of years, to make a determination we need to spend $90 trillion to do something about it based on data from the last 100 years.

But that is precisely what the alarmists have done.

The sad thing about this discussion is that I am in favor of reducing pollution. Millions of people in China are suffering from both air and water pollution.

Acid rain is real. It has killed forests on the East coast.

It's the hype on global warming and idiotic proposals to stop it that I cannot stand.


Free This SergeA.Storms Fri, 07/20/2018 - 09:53 Permalink

Hey retreads, when was the thermometer invented? 1714 that's when! Tell me how 300 years makes any kind of trend?

Ice cores you say? Lookup when Mt Pinatubo blew it's top!

Pollen counts? Maybe it was warmer back then!

Otherwise STFU, they are looking to tax you for your farts!

Case closed, next docket!

Not directed at you SergeA.Storms just so you know! Just in general to all the global warming haoxters!

In reply to by SergeA.Storms

hedgeless_horseman Free This Fri, 07/20/2018 - 09:54 Permalink


At lunch yesterday an acquaintance explained that the biggest reason he hates Trump is because he pulled us out of the Paris climate agreement.

I am going to send him this article and the chart...

Last year the United States had the largest decline in CO2 emissions *in the entire world* for the 9th time this century.


In reply to by Free This

Just Another V… BandGap Fri, 07/20/2018 - 10:26 Permalink


It all boils down to the RUSSIANS.   They did it.  Its their fault.    The USA needs to fix problem.

Spend that 100 Trillion before we all burn up and melt.

Cool off the sun.  Cool down the earth.    Get rid of all the satellites causing orbital disruptions and interference. 

Stop those earthquakes, volcanoes, and swarms of activity in the mantel.

Get rid of all the plastic in the oceans.   Fix the Fukashima radiation problems right now....



Strangely ....some think really that we can do it all, that we have UNLIMITED RESOURCES, 

and we can control just about anything, yet often those same folks are unhinged and out of control themselves.

In reply to by BandGap

PT Just Another V… Fri, 07/20/2018 - 10:57 Permalink

It's easy to reduce CO2 output.  For example:
Send all manufacturing overseas so it is some other country's "problem".
Impoverish everyone so they can not afford to buy anything.
Kill everyone - now they can not create CO2 and neither can any offspring they might have otherwise put on this earth.

Now if someone wanted to make money from, say, carbon credits, would they do it the hard way or would they do it the easy way?  Who is going to stop them from doing it the easy way?  Who is going to stop the enforcers from doing it the easy way?

Reduced CO2 output?  I won't congratulate anyone until they explain HOW.

And BTW, does anyone know what the optimum concentration of CO2should be on planet earth and to what tolerance level (i.e. margin of error)?

In reply to by Just Another V…

Teja PT Fri, 07/20/2018 - 11:04 Permalink

Basically correct, in addition to natural gas replacing coal, that is exactly what is happening in the US. Manufacturing going to China and such.

Problem is anyway that CO2 is ACCUMULATING, ie up to a point addititve - stop any artificial supply (ie by burning carbon which has accumulated over the last 100'000'000 years) and it will go back only very slowly. Optimum point of course being at something around the 1900 level, ie 300ppm if I remember right. It is logical. Maybe there is an even more optimal point in regards to total food produced, but that would mean shifting people and nations around to use it, eg in a warmer Canada and Russia. Both would object, same as those peoples who would have to move north.

Will happen anyway. People moving around because they look for food.

But the gist of the article, the effect of placing weather stations in strange locations, I don't believe in that. There are too many weather stations around, and I know for a fact that the weather services are trying to filter out weather stations which deliver inconsistent results. Also, much data collected on the seas and via satellites.

To see that the current heatwave all around the world is not pure fantasy, you just have to go outside, in most places. I just went to a rural spot in Northern Germany, Mecklenburg-Pommern, really hot and dry, the blueberries half their usual size, totally dried up. If you are following the news, Iran is drying up, Sweden is calling for help with their forest fires. Lots of fires in Eastern Germany, too. All this stuff mostly reported locally only, so you need to go into the detailed news.


Edit: Thank you for the many downvotes. Good to know that you deserve what you will get. Here a small teaser, directly from ZH themselves.…

In reply to by PT

Zerogenous_Zone peddling-fiction Fri, 07/20/2018 - 12:23 Permalink

warmistista's...undereducated, non-critical thinking snowflakes melting under the 'mann-made' hysteria of climate change...


it amazes me that people think they can become experts by listening to whatever 'choir' they like to hear...


when ALL nuggets of TRUTH are like gold nuggets...RARELY found easily and more often that not, found after extensive research, digging, failing and perseverance...



CO2 is a product of combustion, metabolism and other chemical reactions...and is NEEDED for life on earth (NOT a POLLUTANT!!)


10% (roughly) of ALL global pollution (hazardous and typical) originates from OCEAN FREIGHTING and NOT oil consumption...


ppm is parts per 1 ppm is 0.0001 percent and therefore 400 ppm is 0.04 percent...and ANYONE telling you that the earth's climate is so fragile that a mere 0.01 percent change (that is 400 to 500 ppm) in CO2 ppm levels will be catastrophic needs to be SMACKED!!!


solar minimums, orbit of of our solar system moving through the perihelion (think age of Aquarius) of or galaxy, increase in surface temps on Mars, magnetic fields and increase in passing through heated gas...


i have 100's of these facts (by day i work as an environmental engineer; PE)...but you get the idea...


it's the with it, please...



In reply to by peddling-fiction

Dickweed Wang peddling-fiction Fri, 07/20/2018 - 17:22 Permalink

. . . to make a determination we need to spend $90 trillion . . .


And that is the primary issue that leads anyone with any critical thinking skills at all to realize that the entire "man caused global warming" scam is just that . . . a scam to squeeze the last few dollars from regular people all over the planet while also reinforcing the control that the "elite" have over everyone.  Prior to around 1980 the entire scientific establishment was talking about a "coming ice age" and then like magic an article appeared in Newsweek magazine that talked about how CO2 was going to cause a global melt down.  The rest, they say, is history. It has always been about the money and power and has nothing to do with the environment.

If what (actual) scientists and researchers are predicting about the coming "grand solar minimum" comes to pass people all over the world are going to be in for a major shock as crops start to fail on a regular basis because of screwed up growing seasons, particularly in the areas of the world where most of the grain is grown.  During the last grand solar minimum at the turn of the 17th century there were massive famines and millions of deaths due to crop losses (for example, the Irish potato famine was around that time).  The current decline in solar activity mirrors the decades leading up to that period almost exactly.

In reply to by peddling-fiction

glenlloyd Dickweed Wang Fri, 07/20/2018 - 23:41 Permalink

This is all so asinine anyway.

It's so arrogant to think that we're powerful enough to influence the's not possible.

Further, if it were possible we would have done it back during the 50's when we were 1)belching smoke into the sky, 2) driving cars using gasoline with tetra ethyl lead and 2) and no emissions controls at all on anything.

This is all just another hysterical leftist greenie issue.

If anything Al Gore should be sued for instigating all this nonsense.

In reply to by Dickweed Wang

afronaut Cassandra.Hermes Fri, 07/20/2018 - 13:41 Permalink

The "warming" shown by satellite starts in 1979. After a very cold period. If we gained 0.8 Deg C since then, that is a good thing. 

1880- 1940 the earth warmed about 1.5 Deg C. although some say about 1.2 Deg C. This has been published in hundreds of papers.

the earth cooled about 0.8 Deg C into the 70s. And warmed between 0.6-0.8 to present.

The warming is well within natural variability.according to what is shown. The starting point in 79 just shows the earth coming out of what was considered an anomalously cold era. Cherry pickers

In reply to by Cassandra.Hermes

Zerogenous_Zone Cassandra.Hermes Fri, 07/20/2018 - 14:30 Permalink



so, tell me how you correlate these data sets with the temp readings from 1930?  and what, pray tell, is the standard deviation?


and when you find out, you'll understand you've been duped, since the measured increase and deviation is WELL WITHIN natural fluctuations from the data sets extrapolated from Norwegian Fir's AND the ice cores...


next you'll bitch about the rising sea level (again, check out the data sets and realize there is ocean floor 'subsidence)...and Miami or the Maldives's being under water in 2500...



In reply to by Cassandra.Hermes

abgary1 Zerogenous_Zone Fri, 07/20/2018 - 16:17 Permalink

The climate is driven by 6 factors that interconnected in complex ways by 23 processes (24 if you include Malankovicht effect) that we have little of no data on or understanding of which makes it is impossible to model or predict.

To learn about climate science and the debate please read Human Caused Global Warming and/or The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science by Dr. Tim Ball (PhD. Climatology).

To learn how complex cloud formation, which is considered a major driver of the climate, is please read The Chilling Stars: A Cosmic View of Climate Change by Svensmark and Calder.

There is absolutely no consensus that co2 is impacting the climate.…


Climate facts:

-Co2 is not a GHG, is benign and does not impact the climate.

-Water vapor is 99% of the GHG's, 94% if you consider co2 is GHG.

-Man-made co2 is 0.032% of the atmosphere by volume and it is impossible for that small amount of gas to impact the climate.

-The average level of co2 (1200ppm), determined by glacial ice cores, for the past 300 million years is 3 times higher than the present level (400ppm).

-The IPCC and CRU peer-review their own work and can not be trusted to provide credible data or forecasts.

-The US EPA has requested raw data from NASA and NOAA out of distrust.

-There is no data for the oceans, ice caps, grasslands, forests, jungles, deserts or mountains.

-The lack of rural ground stations has distorted the temp. data.

-Temp., precip. and water vapor data is needed more that computer programs that attempt to model insufficient and distorted data.

In reply to by Zerogenous_Zone

oneno abgary1 Fri, 07/20/2018 - 16:56 Permalink

One picture can demolish the entire CO2 greenhouse gas global warming narrative.

Atmospheric temperatures are a function of the heat content - a measure of water vapor in the air that maintains the temperature much better than dry air - as taught in grade-9 science class.

Listen to this June 8, 2017 Science Hour broadcast on Climate Change Science.

A good book on how the weather works is PRINCIPIA METEOROLOGIA - THE PHYSICS OF SUN EARTH WEATHER.

In reply to by abgary1

Ms No Teja Fri, 07/20/2018 - 11:22 Permalink

Good article Mish.  I found an interesting tidbit from a paleo climatologist named Diamond at Openheimer Ranch Project on Utube, who has been very predictive on this issue and even Hawaii eruption etc., etc., (he is also geologist and long term "warming denier".

Big eruptions that compound cooling, massive quakes and an uptick in regular quakes are also involved in this process.  They can occur at any time now but he says that during the winter of 2019, as this minimum bottoms, and when the sun flips its magnetic fields, we are at huge risk for the 9.0 quakes.

Anyway, I thought that was interesting.  carry on...

In reply to by Teja

Killdo Ms No Fri, 07/20/2018 - 13:04 Permalink

I noticed recently the beach I have been going to on Lake Huron has shrunk by about 65% since a few years ago. Water level is probably at least a couple of ft higher. There used to be rocks sticking out to dive from - they are all submerged. I've been going there since 20 years and more ago - and I have never seen anything like that. It started happening rapidly about 3 years ago

In reply to by Ms No

kellys_eye Killdo Fri, 07/20/2018 - 16:42 Permalink

The sea ports that I frequented as a child are at the same sea level today as they were then, 50 years ago.  It's a regional thing caused by 'uplift' and 'sinking' of local areas and very little to do with sea levels.

Check out any Victorian ports - are they under water or are they still in operation today?


In reply to by Killdo

PT Teja Fri, 07/20/2018 - 12:02 Permalink

300 ppm?  Really???????

Start here:…

Global Warming The Science has been totally swamped by Global Warming The Politics.
Thankfully, Global Warming The Politics is MUCH easier to debunk.  GWTP just wants to make you feel guilty for being alive, enslave you and steal all of your stuff.  It doesn't take too many brain cells to work that out.  All you have to do is look at what is happening in the real world and ask yourself, "Why This and not That"?

eg, before the invention of LED light bulbs, why were incandescent bulbs considered "bad" and yet downlights were totally ignored when rooms that were previously serviced by one or two incandescents were now being serviced by four or more down lights?  Does Global Warming issue an exception for current fads?
Why no push for ZPG or NPG?  Instead, people are paid to have babies but the instant those babies are born, suddenly they are made to feel guilty for being alive because they consume resources and "cause" Globull Warming?  I could go on with other examples but if those two are not enough to make you think then no more examples are going to help.  Basically, why put everyone on rations and tax them but ignore all other potential solutions for less consumption?  Why do we need a Carbon tax when fossil fuels are already taxed?  What is the point in halving our consumption and then doubling the population?  Doesn't that just reduce the margin for error and guarantee that more people suffer when things go wrong?

Will people still need to travel 25 miles just to get to work if they introduce carbon credits or will people suddenly magically find a job next door to where they work?  Why do so many need to commute so far in the first place?  What REALLY determines the size and shape of cities?

By their deeds you shall know them.  The GW crowd has already proven loud and clear what they REALLY stand for.  All you really need to do is pay attention.

In reply to by Teja

flapdoodle Teja Fri, 07/20/2018 - 12:05 Permalink

I suggest everyone WATCH THE VIDEO provided in this article - its long but brilliant and IMHO definitive...

Svensmark: The Cloud Mysteries

This IMHO NAILS the cause of temperature variations - its all cosmic rays from the Sun or the Galaxy that induce cloud formation which in turn increases/decreases the Suns rays striking the Earth and hence the temperature on Earth. The eyeopener was the Astronomer Shaviv explaining the 260million year circuit of the solar system around the Galaxy with cosmic rays increasing every time the Sun passes through a spiral arm (hence an area with more cosmic rays)

Of course, if clouds are what affects climate on Earth (in particular LOW cloud cover) then WTF is the Deep State doing with the chemtrails?

Interesting also that Svensmarks experimental results as a paper were rejected numerous times. The Deep State at work...

In reply to by Teja

Ms No flapdoodle Fri, 07/20/2018 - 12:28 Permalink

People were right that the trails were not normal but that may also be a part of this natural process.  Our magnetic fields are down, the US and South American are near the weakest spot.  We are getting more meteors for some reason (loss of shielding and shorter time to desentigrate?). 

It might be the cosmic rays and their cloud seeding effects, or something related to that.  It likely was another big indicator of the changes in five different directions that people chose to dismiss hastily.

They were real though.  Thanks for the vid.

In reply to by flapdoodle

not dead yet Ms No Fri, 07/20/2018 - 16:27 Permalink

When Svensmark first reported his findings that cosmic rays form clouds, and that clouds control temps by insulation or reflecting the suns rays back into space, the AGW midgets called bunk as they didn't want their true beliefs challenged. Since then the theory has been proven over and over including the scientists at CERN the huge collider in Europe. When the CERN scientists had proven the theory they were told by their bosses not to make a big deal of it and only give it casual mention. The media equivalent of burying it on the back page under the obituaries.

In reply to by Ms No

holmes Teja Fri, 07/20/2018 - 12:59 Permalink

Nice description of the Weather in a few spots around the globe. The article describes the lack of Scientific evidence of Global Warming and the scams of the Global Alarmists.

In reply to by Teja

Ms No holmes Fri, 07/20/2018 - 13:46 Permalink

The temp is forced by the sun and before the sun goes dormant there is an overly active period that warms.  It reaches a double peak and collapses straight down every time.  Low and behold that is exactly what happened reflected by temp.  That's why you had the Minoan, Roman, and Mideival warm periods before grand solar minima.  Warm periods are short.  This might just be the most important issue of your life and lives are at stake.  This winter and next will be a real bitch and it wont be over there.

Edit: Nobody does FB but you can often still see things.  Lots of charts on here.  

In reply to by holmes

not dead yet Teja Fri, 07/20/2018 - 16:20 Permalink

Short term it's weather, long term is climate. You are talking weather. Russia and parts of Europe had very late springs and lots of record cold and snow. Russia has been colder than normal. In the southern hemisphere which is now in winter they are setting cold records all over. For the man made climate change believers if it's warmer than normal it's climate change if it's colder it's just weather. Good site for info is They don't make it up but direct you to the local media reporting.

Germany is shutting down it's nukes and replacing them with at least a dozen coal plants. Even though China and India are using solar, wind, and building lots of nuke plants they are still constructing lots of coal plants.

Most of the record heat recently in the US is from physics not climate change. Even the warmist Weather Channel has pointed this out. What we have had is a string of upper level highs that produce sinking air which heats when it hits the ground and compresses. I'm sure the climate change true believers caught up in their cult will say it's bullshit but that just shows how ignorant they are as they only want to believe the man made gloom and doom stories and their failed models.

Anthony Watts who created WUWT, Watts Up With That, got started by doing a weather station siting analysis. It is very extensive and has shown there are HUNDREDS of badly sited weather stations in the US not to mention in the world. Many are located at airports that when established the airports were smaller and had less traffic and were out of town. Now those airports are buried inside cities and subject to the urban heat island effect. Others were placed in parking lots or close to roads and buildings as the one thing they all have in common is putting them where they are is the convenience of getting the readings by humans. If the government, who runs the system, would spare the cash they could put them in proper areas and have them report by wifi. One guy named Morton who had a site called The Migrant Mind ran studies of similar towns, not big cities, only a few miles apart on the same elevation with the only difference being the siting of the weather stations. Every town with an improperly sited station was warmer.

In many countries and large swaths of the Arctic there are very few thermometers or none at all so they pull a number out of their ass. They have been caught fudging the numbers to cool the past, where most heat records came from, to make it look like we are in a huge temperature uptrend. Their graphs are in hundreths of a degree and if one doesn't notice it it looks like a huge warming. There has been no warming for 20 years now and when they claim new records it's in hundreths of a degree and within the margin of error. Of course no one looks past the headline.

One big lie in this article is that Greenland is losing ice. Yes and no. Yes because as ice sheets GROW they calve icebergs. No in that this year alone Greenland has gained record amounts of ice and still growing as it has for many years now. Many birds that nest in the "balmier" areas of Greenland in summer are having problems finding snow and ice free places to nest. A few years ago the warmists were apoplectic over the huge ice melt over the Greenland ice sheet. Their only proof was the temperature for a few hours on one day got a few degrees above freezing. Ergo, huge ice melt.

The melt season in the Arctic got started later this year and it's looking like it's going to end far earlier. You know the Arctic where all the ice was supposed to be gone years ago according to Gore and his fellow travelers.

In reply to by Teja

Teja not dead yet Sun, 07/22/2018 - 12:46 Permalink

Short term it's weather, long term is climate. You are talking weather.

Yes and No. Of course a heat wave is weather, but a rising probability for heat waves end up as climate.

Like if you make waves in a bathtub. When the bathtub is only quarter filled, no water will spill over. When it is almost full, the same size waves will spill over regularly.

In reply to by not dead yet

OverTheHedge PT Fri, 07/20/2018 - 11:24 Permalink

Umm...I know it is very impressive that the US, the UK, and other worthy first world countries reduced their co2 emissions, but did you see China's increase? Beats all the decreases put together. Luckily, the atmosphere is a static beast, and nasty, dirty  Chinese CO2 would never move to the other side of the planet, thank god.

Note: I am in no way claiming that human CO2 emissions are responsible for global temperature measurements, because that would be patently silly.…

In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source." (Watts 2009)



In reply to by PT

Ms No OverTheHedge Fri, 07/20/2018 - 12:35 Permalink

Its amazing that they got away with this when CO2 follows temperature.  Science is a great thing but somehow in modern times more wrong than not and the rest kept from the public.  People follow complete BS appeals to authority and it isn't just with climate.  It is in every field from medicine to archeology.  We are riddled with scientists incapable of independent thought.  Go figure, fits with everything else.  I guess some of them probably wanted to be allowed to earn a living.

In reply to by OverTheHedge

afronaut Ms No Fri, 07/20/2018 - 14:31 Permalink

It sure beats teaching 2nd year calculus to undergrads for a lifetime. Better to use that PhD for publishing papers, travelling to conferences around the globe, tenure, and plenty of free cash and prizes at taxpayers expense.

It's a make work project, based on pseudoscience, and most people don't have enough education to read the science or understand it, beyond what is written in the newspaper or on the evening news. I'm a Chemist that formally studied this subject in the mid nineties. With 20 years of reading both sides and studying the subject, I have come to my own conclusion. The current CO2 warming theory, as it stands, is pseudoscience.

Many tenured or retired climatologists have spoken out, yet they are ignored or ridiculed. 

 freeman dyson? Just one of many

In reply to by Ms No