Don’t Miss a Post. Subscribe now.

Investigating the Mass Hysteria Over 1 Degree in Climate Change Since 1850

Inquiring minds are diving into the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Please consider the Climate Change 2021 Report, the Physical Science Basis.

Key Snips 

  1. Global surface temperature was 1.09 [0.95 to 1.20] °C higher in 2011– 2020 than 1850–1900, with larger increases over land (1.59 [1.34 to 1.83] °C) than over the ocean (0.88 [0.68 to 1.01] °C). The estimated increase in global surface temperature since AR5 is principally due to further warming since 2003–2012 (+0.19 [0.16 to 0.22] °C). Additionally, methodological advances and new datasets contributed approximately 0.1ºC to the updated estimate of warming in AR6  
  2. The likely range of total human-caused global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 2010–2019 is 0.8°C to 1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C
  3. Global mean sea level increased by 0.20 [0.15 to 0.25] m between 1901 and 2018. The average rate of sea level rise was 1.3 [0.6 to 2.1] mm yr between 1901 and 1971, increasing to 1.9 [0.8 to 2.9] mm yr between 1971 and 2006, and further increasing to 3.7 [3.2 to 4.2] mm yr between 2006 and 2018 (high confidence). 
  4. In 2011–2020, annual average Arctic sea ice area reached its lowest level since at least 1850 (high confidence). Late summer Arctic sea ice area was smaller than at any time in at least the past 1000 years (medium confidence). The global nature of glacier retreat, with almost all of the world’s glaciers retreating synchronously, since the 1950s is unprecedented in at least the last 2000 years (medium confidence).
  5. It is likely that the global proportion of major (Category 3–5) tropical cyclone occurrence has increased over the last four decades, and the latitude where tropical cyclones in the western North Pacific reach their peak intensity has shifted northward; these changes cannot be explained by internal variability alone (medium confidence). There is low confidence in long-term (multi-decadal to centennial) trends in the frequency of all-category tropical cyclones
  6. Global surface temperature will continue to increase until at least the mid-century under all emissions scenarios considered. Global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C will be exceeded during the 21st century unless deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades.
  7. It is very likely that heavy precipitation events will intensify and become more frequent in most regions with additional global warming. At the global scale, extreme daily precipitation events are projected to intensify by about 7% for each 1°C of global warming (high confidence).
  8. It is virtually certain that global mean sea level will continue to rise over the 21st century. Relative to 1995-2014, the likely global mean sea level rise by 2100 is 0.28-0.55 m under the very low GHG emissions scenario (SSP1-1.9), 0.32-0.62 m under the low GHG emissions scenario (SSP1-2.6), 0.44-0.76 m under the intermediate GHG emissions scenario (SSP2-4.5), and 0.63-1.01 m under the very high GHG emissions scenario (SSP5-8.5), and by 2150 is 0.37-0.86 m under the very low scenario (SSP1-1.9), 0.46- 0.99 m under the low scenario (SSP1-2.6), 0.66-1.33 m under the intermediate scenario (SSP2-4.5), and 0.98-1.88 m under the very high scenario (SSP5-8.5) (medium confidence).

Changes in Global Surface Temperatures

Key Snip Synopsis

  • Temperatures have risen a a best estimate of 1.07°C since 1850 due to man-made causes.
  • The sea rise between 1971 and 2006 was 1.3 mm per year. That’s 0.0511811 inches per year. 
  • The sea rise between 2006 and 2018 was 3.7 mm per year. That’s 0.145669 inches per year.
  • Under all emissions scenarios, global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C will be exceeded during the 21st century.

Future Emissions Projections 

Future Emissions Projections Table

Future Emissions “What If?”

  • If by some miracle we follow the SSP 1-1.9 row in the table, the current best estimate is temperatures will rise anyway until 2100 by 1.4 degrees.
  • According to row SSP 2-4.5, if there is no further progress at all until 2050, temperatures would only rise an additional 1.3 degrees vs SSP 1-1.9.
  • Under SSP 1-2.6, there’s a mere 0.4 degrees difference from a very radical effort to cut emissions to 0 by 2050!

Media Can’t Handle the Climate Truth

Please consider the WSJ Op-Ed Media Can’t Handle the Climate Truth

After 41 years of promoting a fuzzy and unsatisfying estimate of how much warming might result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2, the world’s climate science arbiter has finally offered the first real improvement in the history of modern climate science.

The U.N. panel now says the dire emissions scenario it promoted for two decades should be regarded as highly unlikely, with more plausible projections at least a third lower.

The report also notes, as the press never does, the full impact of these emissions won’t be manifested until decades, even a century, later. The ultimate likely worst-case effect of a doubling of CO2 might be 4 degrees, but the best estimate of the “transient climate response” this century is about 2.7 degrees, or 1.6 degrees on top of the warming experienced since the start of the industrial age.

You might not wish this on your least-favorite planet, but compare it with media coverage of the U.S. National Climate Assessment in 2018, which paraded as a nearly foregone conclusion a temperature increase of 6.1 degrees.

This week’s massive rainstorm in the Northeast reflexively was described as a consequence of climate change. Never mind that heavy rains always happened and, in any case, climate policy can’t be a solution for a New York City storm-drain system designed not to withstand a five-year storm, let alone a 100-year storm.

Or take the U.S. government’s claim that July was the hottest month on record. Unmentioned in any news report that I could find, the margin of error in this measurement was 10 times as large as the purported difference over the previously claimed hottest month of July 2016.

Code Red For Humanity?

The words most quoted in the press weren’t found in the U.N. report or even its executive summary. They were the claims of a pair of U.N. officials that the report heralded a “code red for humanity” and, even more devoid of meaning, that “no one is safe” from a warming planet.

Even if you believe the science, the one thing neither the media nor any panels like to discuss is costs.

Economically Crazy

Stunningly Absurd Green New Deal

On February 7 2020, AOC unleashed her Stunningly Absurd “New Green Deal”.

  1. Upgrade all existing buildings in the US
  2. 100% clean power
  3. Support family farms
  4. Universal access to healthy food
  5. Zero-emission vehicle infrastructure
  6. Remove greenhouse gasses form the atmosphere
  7. Eliminate unfair competition
  8. Affordable access to electricity
  9. Create high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages
  10. Guaranteeing a job with a family sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States

A think-tank led by a former Congressional Budget Office director has come up with a price of the New Green Deal: AOC’s Green New Deal Price Tag of $51 to $93 Trillion vs. Cost of Doing Nothing

More $90 Trillion Solutions

In 2015, Business Insider noted A Plan Is Floating Around Davos To Spend $90 Trillion Redesigning All The Cities So They Don’t Need Cars

The $90 trillion proposal came from former US vice president Al Gore, former president of Mexico Felipe Calderon, and their colleagues on The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. 

50 Years of Dire Climate Forecasts

Let’s review 50 Years of Dire Climate Forecasts and What Actually Happened

  1. 1967 Salt Lake Tribune: Dire Famine Forecast by 1975, Already Too Late
  2. 1969 NYT: “Unless we are extremely lucky, everyone will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years. The situation will get worse unless we change our behavior.
  3. 1970 Boston Globe: Scientist Predicts New Ice Age by 21st Century said James P. Lodge, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
  4. 1971 Washington Post: Disastrous New Ice Age Coming says S.I. Rasool at NASA.
  5. 1972 Brown University Letter to President Nixon: Warning on Global Cooling
  6. 1974 The Guardian: Space Satellites Show Ice Age Coming Fast
  7. 1974 Time Magazine: Another Ice Age “Telling signs everywhere. Since the 1940s mean global temperatures have dropped 2.7 degrees F.”
  8. 1974 “Ozone Depletion a Great Peril to Life” University of Michigan Scientist
  9. 1976 NYT The Cooling: University of Wisconsin climatologist Stephen Schneider laments about the “deaf ear his warnings received.”
  10. 1988 Agence France Press: Maldives will be Completely Under Water in 30 Years.
  11. 1989 Associated Press: UN Official Says Rising Seas to ‘Obliterate Nations’ by 2000.
  12. 1989 Salon: New York City’s West Side Highway underwater by 2019 said Jim Hansen the scientist who lectured Congress in 1988 about the greenhouse effect.
  13. 2000 The Independent: “Snowfalls are a thing of the past. Our children will not know what snow is,” says senior climate researcher.
  14. 2004 The Guardian: The Pentagon Tells Bush Climate Change Will Destroy Us. “Britain will be Siberian in less than 20 years,” the Pentagon told Bush.
  15. 2008 Associate Press: NASA Scientist says “We’re Toast. In 5-10 years the Arctic will be Ice Free”
  16. 2008 Al Gore: Al Gore warns of ice-free Arctic by 2013.
  17. 2009 The Independent: Prince Charles says Just 96 Months to Save the World. “The price of capitalism is too high.”
  18. 2009 The Independent: Gordon Brown says “We have fewer than 50 days to save our planet from catastrophe.”
  19. 2013 The Guardian: The Arctic will be Ice Free in Two Years. “The release of a 50 gigaton of methane pulse” will destabilize the planet.
  20. 2013 The Guardian: US Navy Predicts Ice Free Arctic by 2016. “The US Navy’s department of Oceanography uses complex modeling to makes its forecast more accurate than others.
  21. 2014 John Kerry: “We have 500 days to Avoid Climate Chaos” discussed Sec of State John Kerry and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabious at a joint meeting.

World Will End in 12 Years 

Also recall AOC’s shocking revelation World Will End in 12 Years if we don’t act on climate change.

AOC says that was “hyperbole”. Play the clip. She sure sounded serious, and got a huge round of applause to boot.

Moreover, look at the absurd details of her plan that I outlined above. She sure acts serious as well.

Cost Comparison

The cost of following scenario SSP 1-1.9 would be in the tens of trillions of dollars if not higher. The alleged benefit is 0.4 degrees by 2100, phased in over roughly 80 years.

The cost of following SSP 1-2.6 is arguably little. We may very well already be on a path to reduce emissions by 50% by 2050. 

AOC wants an 80% reduction by 2030 and 100% by 2035. That is far more radical than SSP 1-1.9.

It’s also economically crazy. I believe, anything beyond SSP 1-2.6 is economically crazy.

New Prophets of Doom 

Al Gore, AOC, president Biden, John Kerry, and Gretta are the new prophets of doom.

Every decade has them. 

AOC and Gretta are the new torch bearers.

Mainstream media always goes along with the hype and the new torch bearers, no matter what the story.

Code Red for the Opportunists!

Code Red” is the drumbeat of of the progressives and those who stand to stand to benefit from trillions of dollars of spending thrown at the impossible idea stopping of climate change

The media is behind every “Code Red” story because it attracts eyes. “Code Red” on Iraq led most into believing the nonsensical “weapons of mass destruction” story got got us into Iraq and Afghanistan for 20 years.

If we follow this “Code Red”, costs of everything will soar and GDP will sink. 

How to Avoid a Carbon-Based Global Trade War in Simple Steps

There are two plans that address how to avoid a carbon-based global trade war. 

In How to Avoid a Carbon-Based Global Trade War in Simple Steps, World Trade Online presents one idea. I present another, far simpler idea.

Stagflation Threat of Climate Hysteria

The Stagflation Threat of Climate Hype is very real but Congress holds the key.

Only two Democratic Senators, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona stand in the way of a real disaster. 

Fortunately, Senator Manchin Seeks “Strategic Pause on Reconciliation” 

Did Biden’s Green New Budget Just Die?

Let’s hope so.

Meanwhile, it’s futile to attack the science whether you believe it or not, so just accept it. 

Instead, openly embrace the idea of 0.4 degrees by 2100. Alternatively, point to the chart of what happens if we delay further progress until 2050.

Then attack the obvious economic stupidity of what those like AOC propose to do about it. 

Please Subscribe!

Like these reports? If so, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.

Mish 

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Comments to this post are now closed.

47 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
oee
oee
4 years ago
It is not mass hysteria. Please see California mega fires in Lake Tahoe. The Hurricane Ida which brought destruction to LA, and the Northeast. 
CEOoftheSOFA
CEOoftheSOFA
4 years ago
Increased precipitation IS a sign of climate change – it’s a sign that
another ice age is commencing.  The warm inter-glacial periods last for
11,500 years and the Holocene Inter-glacial period is 11,500 years old. 
Carl_R
Carl_R
4 years ago
For those who say that the world can not react to problems like these, it has only been about 25 years since the world reacted to a different threat. That threat was the threat of ozone depletion by chloroflorocarbons. Without the ozone layer, life on Earth is impossible since UV-C can kill all living cells. Chloroflorocarbons are capable of depleting the ozone layer, if they get there, but that takes a long time. Yet, the half life of R-12 in the atmosphere was 700 years.  The world agreed, quickly, that this was not a good thing, and over the course of only a few years, R-12, and other similar chemicals, such as 113-Trichloroflorocarbon,  were taxed, and then banned.  Replacement refrigerants were developed, and the world went on.
Yooper
Yooper
4 years ago
Reply to  Carl_R
“Replacement refrigerants were developed, and the world went on.” I think this is key. Allow a free market to develop ways to accomplish the larger goals. Another example is the Clean Air Act. “oh the costs to the economy”, the companies cried. Yeah, the companies who were polluting and violating private property rights of those downwind. Enact the law, and all those “costs” end up in brand new industries, brand new jobs, brand new technology, especially in the air scrubbers in the stacks of coal power plants. This was critical here in PA to dramatically reduce acid rain from the coal plants in Ohio – detrimental to the world-class trout streams as well as the communities.
KidHorn
KidHorn
4 years ago
Reply to  Carl_R
We did get rid of the majority of CFCs, but having worked on finding a replacement for R-12 and R-22. It wasn’t entirely driven by environmentalism. The new refrigerants are actually a mix of other refrigerants. It allowed a sloped evaporation and condensation temperature instead of a constant temperature with a single refrigerant. Better efficiency. So R-12 and R-22 would have gone away with or without the ozone hole.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
4 years ago
Reply to  Carl_R
“Without the ozone layer, life on Earth is impossible”
You’re underestimating the adaptability of life. Not every sulfurvent microbe et al is as fragile as CFC emitters. They’ll (some variation) will be standing long past us falling, ready to pick up the pieces we left behind.
There’s plenty of examples of humanity realizing they are polluting their environment and wising up. LA air quality from the late 60s to the late 80s being another example.
CO2, OTOH, is the end result of minimizing pollution. If you can get to CO2, you’ve done your job. CO2 is as natural and non toxic as O2. At least.
The exact average temprature on the planet at any particular time, is also rather irrelevant. Life being plenty adaptable enough to navigate whatever it happens to be. There used to be jungles at the polar circle and beyond… That’s a climate which would take an awful lot of soda burps to get to by fossil fuel burning alone.
Furthermore, when observed reality is that nearly all life forms, from algae to plants to humans, are hugging the warmest, equatorial regions of the planet, while shying as far away from the colder parts as possible: It takes quite some contrivance to deduce that “the problem” the earth faces. is that of being somehow too warm….. IOW there are plenty of vacant buffer capacity in Siberia and Mulletstan, for any life form who gets boiled out of their currently preferred climate near the equator, to move into.
Very specific species, which currently thrive only at the coldest points, like Polar Bears, may be out of luck. Just as was, no doubt, the case for species which only thrived near the equator when things started getting colder again back in the Alaskan Jungle days. But while Polar Bears are no doubt cool, so will, just as no doubt, warm weather species which only thrive at a warmed up equator, also be. It’s hardly humanity’s role to be picking favorites (With the possible counterargument, built on self interest, that colder weather was what gave warm blooded animals a leg up on lizards back when. But man, is that reaching…)
RonJ
RonJ
4 years ago
“10. 1988 Agence France Press: Maldives will be Completely Under Water in 30 Years.”
“A global-scale analysis of 221 islands in the tropical
Pacific and Indian Oceans reveals “a predominantly stable or
accretionary trend in the area of atoll islands worldwide” throughout
the 21st century. The Maldives islands alone expanded by 37.5 km² from
2000 to 2017.”
 
Webej
Webej
4 years ago
The ultimate likely worst-case effect of a doubling of CO2 might be 4 degrees, but the best estimate of the “transient climate response” this century is about 2.7 degrees
This has been the stable consensus for quite some time now.
However, there is no discounting of the risks involved. It’s like fire insurance for your house … you don’t know whether it will happen, but the results are catastrophic enough to take into account, like falling off a cliff. There are many feedbacks that we don’t understand well enough. Some of those could prove to be negative feedbacks which would mitigate the effects. However, paleontological research informs us that there could be positive feedbacks which would essentially mean we have no recourse any more.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
4 years ago
Reply to  Webej
“there could be positive feedbacks which would essentially mean we have no recourse any more.”
They are logically possible. Extremely unlikely though, since fundamental instabilities like that, would, almost (though only almost) certainly, long ago have ended our particular permutation out of all possible universes. In addition, empirically, our planet has been _a_lot_ warmer than now, at times. Without abandoning some present local optimum for a Venus like state.
My guess, and it’s just a guess, is that the exponential nature by which living things (aside from Homo Progressivus Deathcultius obviously…) multiply to take advantage of newly opened opportunities, will result in unexpectedly strong plant growth binding more and more of the newly made available atmospheric carbon. It has likely already started. Just isn’t close enough to the hockey stick turnup of exponential expansions to be noticeable yet. At some point it will even overshoot. Making global cooling, this time with all the fossil fuels once used for heating already burned, the next hobgoblin du jour. But that is just a guess.
Webej
Webej
4 years ago
To be honest, AOC’s claim is less nutty than it sounds: She is misquoting the claim that we had 12 years to change the trend in the carbon budget if we hope to stay below the 1.5° warming agreed to in Paris. This is essentially true, though somewhat erroneously expressed.
Many of the headlines are cherry-picked information, some wildly out of context (policy deadlines and such), virtually none of which were consensus opinion among client scientists. Discussions should take place on the basis of good faith.
MasOro
MasOro
4 years ago
US cannot have green energy without copper. Like it or not, copper is indispensable. Biden has blocked development of two very large copper deposits, the Resolution deposit in Arizona (and the Rosemont near Tucson) and the Pebble deposit in Alaska (the largest mineral deposit in the world). It will take a decade or more to bring them on line. Go figure.
Kick'n
Kick’n
4 years ago
Reply to  MasOro
Isn’t Pebble the one that is next to a salmon fishery? If even a small amount of contamination gets in it could destroy a $2B industry. Did not many local people disagree with the Keystone including farmers who might be affected by a spill? We really need to get off our addiction to oil just for environmental reasons if nothing else.
njbr
njbr
4 years ago
100 million people arguing from their deeply held religious belief instilled by their favorite media/twitter source do not outweigh 100 climate scientists.
You can forestall the means of dealing with the issue, but the issue does not go away. 
Every day, key tipping points come nearer.
The deepest stupidity–those who think the climate scientists are making things up to keep their $50,000 grant monies while ignoring the fact that it is in the interest of those that profit by the trillions from BAU to deny climate change.  Interesting, huh… 
tbergerson
tbergerson
4 years ago
Reply to  njbr
The key is what the proposed solutions are.  Even if one were to agree that the climate is warming (it has been for 15-20,000 years as we came out of the last ice age – also, the little 1850-2020 uptick in both CO2 and warming are tiny, though potentially worrisome moves, compared to the levels existent 100 million and 300 million years ago, an order or two of magnitude more CO2 in the atmosphere – we are currently exiting what has been a historically low level of CO2, when you look at it on geological time scales, so 1/8 the age of the earth or about  500 million years, which just so happens to mark the Cambrian explosion)
But back to the solutions.  Deforestation seems to me to be a big part of the problem.  While we have ramped up hydrocarbon burning we have simultaneously destroyed a huge part of the worlds carbon sinks, trees.  So the FIRST thing you do is you plant hundreds and hundreds of billions of trees.  I will take 100 just on my little property.  
What we should NEVER do, is allow for the creation of carbon markets, which is just code words for enriching politicians, their donors and large investment banks.  And we should NEVER allow the government to arrogate to itself even more powers, most notably the power to tell you you cannot sell your home if it doesnt meet some farcical AOC approved government measure of efficiency.
If you want to impose a Carbon Tax, then great.  If you can convince enough of the voters to do that go ahead.  Voters can make such decisions.
But AOC and the Green New Deal are absurd.  The artificial elevation of energy costs will kill people.  Through starvation.  As they can afford less food.  The Warmist religion is essentially a vengeful hateful religion whose goal is literally to kill people.  But hey that fits their vision too.  Fewer people means less fossil fuel burning.
Lets try the tree thing first, which will actually have huge collateral BENEFITS, like creating habitat and removing carbon.  Should things still look bad AFTER that, then we can talk about more dangerous remedies.
ed_retired_actuary
ed_retired_actuary
4 years ago
If our time frame for cost-benefit analysis is a a few decades, Mish is almost certainly correct that only a limited amount of climate mitigation is cost effective.  When we consider that absent unprecedented global cooperation, benef9ts are diffused while costs are localized, then only local efforts (such as making structures more water and storm resistant) make much economic sense from this narrow perspective.  However, if our time frame is centuries (not one for which humans have evolved) and we can effectively coordinate globally (again contrary to human nature which leads us to primarily identify tribally) , then the climate change will eventually far exceed these projections without major behavioral change,  and a massive global effort to largely eliminate net greenhouse gas emissions should make very long term economic sense.
QTPie
QTPie
4 years ago
The climate models themselves, when averaged, have actually been spot on and showing that warming has been just as predicted since the 1970s. The complicating and confusing issue has been that folks on each side of the debate choosing whichever outlaying model prediction that best suits their argument.
We need to pursue practical, most bang-for-the-buck climate solutions possible: get off of coal as quickly as possible (that also means that China must stop building new coal plants – it is the only country in the world to be doing so) and invest as much as possible in advancing the technology behind batteries for EVs (current li-ion batteries are still too expensive) and for grid storage (still no economically-viable solution but people are working on it) – without cost-effective grid storage, renewables (due to their intermittent nature) cannot viably replace existing energy sources on a large enough scale.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
4 years ago
Reply to  QTPie
“When averaged” is a rather broad statement for climate models, because the range of the climate models was and still is huge, depending on the forcing you want to figure in. So much so that I regard this statement, which is oft repeated, as apologia for mediocre models.
I think it’s far more honest to admit that the “BAU” models that were developed to show where we’d be by mid-century with no mitigations were quite wrong to the high side.., and that the observed data is a decent fit for the middle of the road models.  
LM2022
LM2022
4 years ago
Arguing about global warming misses the big picture.  In just a few decades we’ve completely trashed this planet, the only home we have or will ever have, and we’ve condemned future generations to a very bleak future. It would be nice if the mythical hand of the free market could do something about that – but the “market” only values something which can be exploited, extracted, manufactured or sold.  
Felix_Mish
Felix_Mish
4 years ago
OK, just to liven things up a little, let’s think about this:
1 degree since 1850?
2 more by 2100?
Given how much better the world has become since 1850, I say, “Score! Bring on more of this!”
Except, I don’t own property in Canada, nor even Siberia. Dang. Maybe I can find a place on that big island off the north coast of North America. Greenland.
Oh, wait. I live out in the country. I could just move in to town to get those 2 degrees.
Cheers, y’all.
Casual_Observer2020
Casual_Observer2020
4 years ago
I think we will know in 10 years or less  who is right and who was wrong about climate change. The libertarian answer to everything is for government to do nothing. The truth is much of what we rely on today is because of some research funded by government that advanced science, engineering and technology 
TCW
TCW
4 years ago
We’ve had the coolest summer that I can remember so it doesn’t feel like a greenhouse to me.  In a greenhouse, shouldn’t temps everywhere be staying warm?  How can a greenhouse be warm on one side and cool on the other side?
geophysical
geophysical
4 years ago
Hi Mish,
Your brilliant with economics and math so please add more math and physics to climate analysis.  Temperature is a poor indicator of the energy flow that is happening.  Ice is melting.  It takes a tremendous amount of heat as measured in BTU’s or calories or joules to melt ice and that is basic materials science phase change math.  The amount of ice that is already gone is from the surplus of heat and that does not express as temperature (but very minimally) until a critical amount of ice surface area is gone.  Then the extra heat can no longer absorbed by the ice.    The extra heat that is being bounced back to us is from the higher refractive index of CO2 and other gasses that we are emitting on a scale that rivals what volcanoes do.  When a critical surface area of ice is gone then those same trapped BTU’s get expressed as temperature increases that is drastic and far more than a few degrees. 
Mish and others.  If you took inorganic chemistry, or basic physics, please recall the thermodynamic ice melting experiment.  If not then look it up, and to get a real hands on appreciation do the simple experiment yourself.  As for a bit more on how the heat confusion happens.  Heat is a unit of energy measure that is not always felt as temperature.  Think of temperature as the concentration of vibrating molecules and that can be felt by humans. Heat is the total amount of energy that may be in a large area and not concentrated to very much temperature at all.  But in the process of adding greater refractive index to the atmosphere it eventually concentrates to be felt as temperature. 
It is easy to create a culture of reading and argue among ourselves.  I recommend that more individuals do some labs, and if possible field work.  If not then begin to talk to individuals who do and who can explain the difference between heat and temperature and phase change physics. 
I am sympathetic to Mish’s  criticisms of the ridiculous government schemes of the variety that make no sense when measured in terms of physics and math.  However basic physics shows that climate instability is a real problem that needs doing something about in a sensible way. 
Mish
Mish
4 years ago
Reply to  geophysical
I addressed melting:
It is virtually certain that global mean sea level will continue to rise over the 21st century. Relative to 1995-2014, the likely global mean sea level rise by 2100 is 0.28-0.55 m under the very low GHG emissions scenario (SSP1-1.9), 0.32-0.62 m under the low GHG emissions scenario (SSP1-2.6)0.44-0.76 m under the intermediate GHG emissions scenario (SSP2-4.5), and 0.63-1.01 m under the very high GHG emissions scenario (SSP5-8.5), and by 2150 is 0.37-0.86 m under the very low scenario (SSP1-1.9), 0.46- 0.99 m under the low scenario (SSP1-2.6), 0.66-1.33 m under the intermediate scenario (SSP2-4.5), and 0.98-1.88 m under the very high scenario (SSP5-8.5) (medium confidence).
I have seen other similar reports with much lower confidence levels. You see, melting ice will cool the ocean. If the ocean cools, what does that do to the temperature projections? Hurricanes?
CzarChasm Reigns
CzarChasm Reigns
4 years ago
Reply to  Mish
“melting ice will cool the ocean”…
it is not that simple of a feedback system:
“Ice reflects more sunlight than many other types of surfaces”
quote from “Positive Feedback – Arctic Albedo”
less ice = less reflective = more heat (gets in).
Webej
Webej
4 years ago
Reply to  Mish
Melting polar ice has no effect on sea-level. But ice has much higher albedo than does water. In the interim, the melting ice cools the oceans, but as soon as the majority is gone, shallow arctic waters will see increased warming and perhaps large-scale methane releases from hydrates and from perma-frost.  (short-term, methane has 200× the effect of CO²)
Land ice is a different matter … it affects sea-levels and will probably have impacts on ocean circulation and climate. The North Atlantic already has a persistent cold spot, which could have implications for Europe and the Gulf stream, and oceans generally.
Increases in hurricane activity is not a central projection of climate science. Hurricanes, like snow, require a very special set of circumstances to emerge. Climate change may well mean less hurricanes, or may alter the path of hurricanes. Hurricanes that make land-fall are only a sub-set of all hurricanes. Climate change does predict that the top end of the scale for possible hurricane damage (the worst hurricanes) will be extended, because there is more ocean heat to feed such storms.
TCW
TCW
4 years ago
Reply to  geophysical
Maybe it’s underwater volcanoes causing the ice to melt.
Casual_Observer2020
Casual_Observer2020
4 years ago
Reply to  geophysical
Everyone is an expert at everything because of the internet.  
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
4 years ago
Another example of how polarized people can be….about a problem that affects us all. 
On one hand you have a growing population of true believers, most of whom are influenced more by media hyperbole than the actual facts, or even by the models.  The worst ones are the real campaigners, like ER, people with an agenda….a mostly socialist agenda aided by creating hysteria. I’d put AOC in this camp. Social media has been a highly  effective recruiting tool for them.
On the other hand you have a large group of deniers who are willing to believe just about anything EXCEPT that climate change is real. And if they can’t effectively deny that it is real, then they deny that it’s man-made. For this group, social media has been an excellent source of gobbledygook that they like to spread……mostly created by paid merchants of doubt, which the deniers parrot with the same degree of zeal as the other side.
Thirty years of observed data has failed to support the worst scenarios described in the original BAU models. The data does support the middle range, however, and it could get worse, certainly. We really don’t know.
But the same 30 years of data does clearly support a 3 degree rise for every doubling of CO2. Could that get worse? Sure, but none of the most apocalyptic predictions have happened on schedule, to date. 30 years isn’t that long, but that’s where we are. 
Like Diogenes with his lamp, I went looking a few years back for one honest, qualified climate scientist who wasn’t in either camp…and Judith Curry was the best I found. I still think she’s far and away the best person to read on climate.
On social media (in this case YouTube), the only truth-teller I endorse is the UK’s Mallen Baker. 
So I recommend those two to anyone who would like to cut through some of the bullshit…which seems to me to be practically nobody these days, as far as I can tell. Everybody picked their “side” long ago, and the truth doesn’t matter much to anyone I talk to here or anywhere else.
Here is a recap of a recent presentation made by Curry, given before the American Chemical Society….in which she breaks down exactly where we are with regards to climate and climate science, in 15 minutes. It’s good.
Here’s some recent climate common sense by Baker, answering some questions posed by viewers on his channel. It starts at 11:15 in.
Call me a believer in climate change who remains very skeptical about one facet…….. that TPTB are going to do much about climate that isn’t either (a) some kind of conduit scheme to make certain people shockingly rich, or (b) doesn’t have a plethora of unintended consequences.
Felix_Mish
Felix_Mish
4 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
30 years.
Some years ago I read through a web site (since forgotten) where climate researchers hung out. It was fun and informative to read their postings and comments. Details about how data was being gathered. Details about the state of models. That sort of thing.
The main thing I learned at that site was that they separated weather and climate at 30 years. That is, if it happens for 30 years or more, it’s climate. If a shorter time period, it’s weather.
Why 30 years? I didn’t ask because the answer seemed apparent.
So, here’s the deal: A 30 year time period implies two things:
1) To get valid data you must get a sample, a reading, at least twice in each 30 years (“Nyquist limit”).
2) You can get more samples to nail down your once-in-15 year samples. But if you do get more samples, you must filter them such that the sub-15 year data is smoothed out. Otherwise, you’ll get fake, misleading data (“aliasing”).
So, if you’re looking at a 30 year period, you are, in essence, looking at only 3 readings, taken at 0, 15, and 30 years. Wanna extrapolate out from only 3 numbers? Good luck. You’ll go far as a journalist. 🙂
Anyway, just something I find handy to keep in mind.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
4 years ago
Reply to  Felix_Mish
Thirty years (roughly) have passed  since the IPCC began to make models to try to show where we might be headed, Sorry, I thought most people knew that by now.
We’ve been gathering data for much longer than 30 years, and we gather it fairly well…..often every day, not twice a year.
But where we are now, we can at least begin to see how closely the early models fit the observed data. That’s what I was talking about.
For instance, we can see that RCP 8.5, which was widely touted as representing the future without immediate mitigation 15 years ago, didn’t turn out to be even close to the observed data. 
I don’t think it’s an accident that the IPCC summaries always concentrate on the future. Their charts usually start the year they’re published. If they had to include the past they wouldn’t look nearly so spiffy.
But the middle-of-the-pack….the old RCP’s 4 and 5 didn’t miss the observed data much at all. Now they have changed the terminology to SSP’s which stands for “Shared Socio-economic Pathways”….which sounds very Woke, but isn’t much different. But it makes it hard to track the past performance when the names of everything keeps changing.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
4 years ago
Reply to  Felix_Mish
I read your discussion above with Realist with regards to the heat of enthalpy of melting ice, and I also noticed someone talking about solar reflection from sea ice and the expected effects as arctic sea ice goes away. 
That’s why I think its worth paying very close attention to the models that try to show how much temperature rise should be expected from each doubling of CO2.  The so-called ’sensitivity”.
For the first 20 or more years, the IPCC said that the sensitivity of temperature to rising CO2 was somewhere between 2.7 and 8.1 (degree rise) for every doubling of CO2.  The possible 8.1 sensitivity number led to all kinds of scary predictions, none of which panned out so far.
The new IPCC 6 has it now at 2.5 to 4, with 3 degrees being the likeliest. I’m happy to see this revision, because it fits the observed data for a lot longer than the IPCCC has existed….for as long as we have data in fact……, and it is, as far as I know, the one observed climate change phenomenon that is close to being a reliable constant.
But if….if that curve does start to steepen for some reason, it’s a vey bad sign. So far it has not……
Webej
Webej
4 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
Actually, most scientists were only reluctantly convinced of the problem during the seventies, eighties, and beyond.
Most resisted, but were slowly convinced by the evidence, and of course, fundamental physics.
Richard Mueller, the guy who literally wrote the text book on Milankovitch cycles, assembled a team at Berkeley with funding from the Koch brothers, to finally shore up the skeptical scientific position, was slowly forced to admit that the only hypothesis that correlated with observed facts was the CO² content of the atmosphere.
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
4 years ago
Could have been an award winning article if it focused on the causes rather the consequences.
The growth at any cost mantra, and necessitated debt out the wazoo. Being promoted for a long time, but particularly after the pre-programmed crash.
The worshipping of quack economists/fake Nobel prize winners by the elected representatives of the people.
The rest is already mentioned below.
Bam_Man
Bam_Man
4 years ago
2014 John Kerry: “We have 500 days to Avoid Climate Chaos
Well I guess we must have avoided it, because in 2017 (the 500 days were up) he bought a 7-bedroom oceanfront mansion on Martha’s Vineyard for $12 million.
Bam_Man
Bam_Man
4 years ago
2019 – Obama buys a 6,800 sq ft oceanfront mansion on Martha’s Vineyard for $15 million.
PostCambrian
PostCambrian
4 years ago
I don’t think that you know how to interpret the report. A single number really doesn’t mean anything. The number could be zero and climate change could be tremendous if the poles warmed and the equatorial regions became colder. I think that you need to stick to something much simpler like economics.
davebarnes2
davebarnes2
4 years ago
Personally, I am against focusing on “climate change”.
Focus on pollution.
Promote clean air, water and land. For the opposition to defend dirty air.
If pollution is reduced to near zero, then, the global warming problem fixes itself.
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
4 years ago
Reply to  davebarnes2
Well, no. You could have crystal clean air, and cannot escape the piles of garbage and refuse accumulating on land and ocean floor.
FromBrussels
FromBrussels
4 years ago
 Climate change,  whether man made or not, might just as well be taking place….with hindsight we should know it is only natural and it would be no fn problem if a, taking everything for granted  Sapiens Ape, in the name of eternal economic growth and the subsequent promise of eternal life, had not been breeding itself into destruction in just a matter of half a century,  reaching a insane  8 billion predative specimen thriving on a global Ponzi Scheme ….it is about time actually that pandemics come to the rescue taking care of a utterly precarious unsustainable situation….unless you think of course that  out of the blue created money and fn  vaxxines will save our a***s into eternity….amen…
Six000mileyear
Six000mileyear
4 years ago
Making energy affordable, union jobs that pay prevailing wages, and jobs with family sustaining wages are all contributors to climate warming since they create a demand for energy use. If you can’t buy as much energy, then you can’t waste it on recreation or entertainment. If know you won’t be able to feed your family, then you won’t have kids that increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That’s the science.
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
4 years ago
Reply to  Six000mileyear
Put another way, every technological advance made by a handful of geniuses or idiots savant, has been misused by lesser beings for unrestrained multiplication and splurging. 
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
4 years ago
It’s not misused. It’s simply the way nature works in general.
Whenever there is a surplus of food/great living conditions populations (animal, insect, plants, single cell organisms etc) expand until they fill it all up. Normally this results in overshoot followed by a die off until things reach equilibrium.
So each time technology and resources make it possible to feed more people, the human population expands.
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
4 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
Well, that’s what I was saying. The portion of human population is no different than those lesser beings you listed.
whirlaway
whirlaway
4 years ago
Ah, the depths of ignorance!
“…  heating isn’t distributed evenly: as we came out of the last ice age, the temperature in northern countries rose by more than at the equator. When you average over the entire world it turns out to have only been about 6 °C global warming: for people living in Northern Europe and Canada it’s the difference between walking around in a t-shirt and a mile of ice over your head.”

From https://skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm

TexasTim65
TexasTim65
4 years ago
Reply to  whirlaway
This is one reason why many people/countries aren’t really on board with doing much about climate change. That’s because they won’t be affected much at all and so don’t really care beyond doing some lip service to the idea.
Eventually each country is going to do whatever they want to do (or nothing). This may (likely) will include schemes to reduce temperatures (seeding with sulfur dioxide) and increase rain fall (cloud seeding).
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
4 years ago
Let’s call the IPCC report for what it is, (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/) 3,949 pages of biased survey of published literature favoring the climate change agenda/hypothesis. Therein, lies the bane of research–biased researchers will produce biased research, aka ‘you will always find what you are looking for.’
And that 1 degree C change over 100 years? Might that explain the change from Global Warming to Climate Change? As we all know, just a minor fluctuation (over time) in the sun’s output will cause the Earth’s temperature to rise or fall.
Just about anything in the weather can be ascribed to climate change; too much rain or too little rain; an extra hurricane in a year, or  fewer hurricanes–for example. It’s hard to think of better propaganda–the weather changes every day.
El_Tedo
El_Tedo
4 years ago
Completely analogous to the Covid hysteria. 

Decorate Your Walls with Mish Fine Art Images

Click each image to view details or purchase in the store.

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.