Nicely done:
Via a message from Anthony Pacheco.
Here is what is called “The Sequel” but is more of slightly different version of the first:
Also, via Rolf, is this serious report from just this year:
In January 2005, NOAA began recording temperatures at its newly built U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). USCRN includes 114 pristinely maintained temperature stations spaced relatively uniformly across the lower 48 states. NOAA selected locations that were far away from urban and land-development impacts that might artificially taint temperature readings.
…
The USCRN has eliminated the need to rely on, and adjust the data from, outdated temperature stations. Strikingly, as shown in the graph below, USCRN temperature stations show no warming since 2005 when the network went online. If anything, U.S. temperatures are now slightly cooler than they were 14 years ago.
Since 2005 there have been several new weather stations added. There now exist stations in Alaska (22), Hawaii (2), and Canada (1).
And if you want to really mock those claiming global warming refer them to the signs saying the Glacier National Park will be glacier free by 2020. The signs have been removed in the last two or three years. See also this video:
I had a lot of fun plotting Greenland ice core temperature data, which go back tens of thousands of years. All the recent fluctuations are just trivial compared to the major shifts shown there.
As for the new stations, that’s a very good thing. Many observation stations are airports, for good reason. But that means they are atypical, since they sit on sites with vast areas of asphalt and concrete pavement, often in urban areas.
I once downloaded a very large temperature database which I intended to examine for correlation with population growth of the site. Dropped that idea when it became obvious the data had been “corrected”. Not just for typos, which I can accept. But “for seasonal variations” — meaning it had been massaged so much that it no longer showed that summer is warmer than winter. The trouble with “corrected” data is that you have a combination of reality and algorithms, and no way to know which fraction of the total pattern comes from which of those two contributions.
1970s: We’re entering a new ice age! We’re running out of resources! Limits of Growth initial report.
1980s: Acid rain! Our forests are going to die. We need to plant trees.
1990s: The ozone layer is gone!
2000s: Global warming is melting the glaciers! Tornados and hurricanes will get more frequent and stronger. Update to the Limits of Growth report.
2010s: Climate Change! We have 12 years to turn this around. The Northwest passage will soon be a major sea route. The Oil Drum kills itself (Peak oil died). We’re all gonna die unless we implement the new green deal now!
2020s: Plastics are everywhere.
I wondered what was going to do away with the global warming hysteria. We’re all eating plastic and we’re going to all die! (in our eighties or nineties).
The global climate has constantly been changing.
That fact seems never to be discussed.
No, but it is the reason that the term “global warming” was dropped and “climate change” is now the slogan of choice. It has the advantage of always being true.
Recently I watched a funny movie, “the day after tomorrow” which is built on the notion that global warming causes ice ages. As a Jason Bourne style special effects spectacular it’s an ok flick, you just don’t want to take it seriously.
I’d like to see Michael Crichton’s novel “State of fear” turned into a movie. For now, though, it makes a fine book on the subject we have here.
CNN’s ‘climate crisis’ town hall will last seven hours and will focus only on solutions.
“CNN’s ‘climate crisis’ town hall will last seven hours and will focus only on socialist/statist “solutions” that empower governments with centralized planning”.
Fixed it for you. Like race relations in the US, the last thing people most active with climate change want is a solution that actually solves the problem. They have their phony baloney jobs to protect.
There is no free lunch:
“… Harvard researchers found that the warming effect of wind turbines in the continental U.S. would be larger than the effect of reduced emissions for the first century of its operation.”
Wow, that’s an amazing bit of quackery. Even the allegedly scientific journals reporting that “study” don’t explain it right. They all pretend to say that the study shows “warming” caused by turbines. If you read carefully enough between the lines you can see this is not so, it merely moves heat around by a few hundred feet vertically.
Forbes gets it right, but, for example, Science magazine does not.
I looked at some of the summaries and a couple of the papers. Yes, there is mixing of the boundary layer and air at the height of the turbine. This creates increased surface temperature at night and decreased temperature during the day. But, I didn’t dig deep enough into the referenced papers to see if they directly addressed the fundamental question, “Is there a net change in the heat content of the planet?”
It’s a difficult question. Decreased temperature of the earth (and buildings and plants) near the surface from air convection during the day will increase their net absorption of radiant (solar) energy. Increased temperatures during the night, again from transfer from the warmer air, will increase the heat loss from those same objects due to radiant losses to the dark night sky. I suspect the answer is going to depend upon the amount of cloud cover, percent of night/day, and the type of surface. Snow, black rocks, and light colored clay will have much different heat transfer from/to the air and radiation absorption and losses.
But they do not account for the dynamic changing albedo of the planet from cloud cover (things like afternoon Pacific thunderstorms, for example), so it’s not like their models don’t need bigger tweaks on things like that, first. They are talking about something that’s little more than noise on the edge of the data.
Tho, speaking of windmills, Willis Eschenbach had a good post about why windmills may kill so many birds.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/21/explaining-wind-turbine-lethality/
One of his blurbs on albedo: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/18/cooling-and-warming-clouds-and-thunderstorms/
There are others to be found on that site with the search of “willis albedo thunderstorm”
“A theory is like medicine or government: often useless, sometimes necessary, always self-serving and, on occasion, lethal. It needs to be used with care, moderation and close adult supervision.” – Taleb
We will regret not following this advice on climate change. In fact, the solutions being proposed are just a backhanded way to implement social justice and transform our society into a socialist/communist disaster.
Of course that is the nature of the proposals — for the simple reason that this actually their motivation.
A. Occasional-Cortex’s chief of staff admitted this recently, when he commented in a candid moment during an interview that their “Green New Deal” was not about climate, but about transforming government and the economy. In other words, “climate change” was merely the excuse picked to justify their communist takeover.