If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
3. Those who benefit most from society's systems, in any form of government, must pay the most into the support of the "system". In our current capitalist system, there is nothing illegal about a "wealth" tax, in addition to progressive "income" tax. No one is stealing anything, not the government, not the neighbour. Rather it is a user-pays system, and billionaire's have been shirking (Morally, not legally [The Oligarchs have managed to skew the system to their advantage], usually) their fair payment in.
Bob A (Anthropogenicist)
You are confusing 'legality' with 'rightness'. Slavery and oppression of women was legal till recently, but these were not the right thing to do even when they were legal or constitutional in some countries. If our system is faulty in that it enables some to become unfairly obscenely rich and obscenely powerful, then the right thing to do is change the system, not try to counter it by legalizing theft (direct taxation), or legalizing weaponization of stupid laws... two wrongs never make a right.
Libertarianism is a very inexpensive form of government, and minor indirect taxes would be the appropriate user-pays system...
2. Yes we must eventually eliminate fossil fuels for two reasons: a. pollution; b. they are finite (Renewables, that are "sustainable", as a percentage of our energy source, must increase, and rapidly).
Bob A (Anthropogenicist)
Pollution is already being appropriately taxed with the carbon tax in a rare Libertarian action by governments, and since the renewables are finite, market forces will take care of the transition to renewable energy... your big-government does not need to mess up with that.
1. Agriculture will not be "discontinued". What may have to be discontinued, because of its colossal use of resources, is carnivore-directed farming.
Bob A (Anthropogenicist)
You have not been reading the posts Sid has kindly provided you with, which details how badly European farmers are fighting big-government just to maintain their regular 'vegan' agricultural output...
CT'ers of all stripes are now invited to propose amended statements, for the majority to choose between. You can also just post confirmation that you believe the particular statement to be true.
Take a hand at drafting "critical scientific statements"!
6.CT'ers' Local Action: Promotion of the Conversation on Negative Climate Change
You can do something! Promote the discussion on Negative Climate Change!
a. When you like one of this thread's links on an aspect of climate change, spread the news by posting it to your social media accounts and other Websites/Discussion Boards you participate in!
b. You can also re-post the tentative STATEMENTS above.
~ Bob A. (Anthropogenicist)
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Friday, 4th August, 2023, 07:40 AM.
4. Negative Climate Change: The “Conversation” Project
All sides have been trying to come up with accurate statements on climate change that will gain general acceptance....we are using the "Conversation Format" protocol.
Under "The Conversation Format" protocol we have adopted in this thread, a proposed statement is given the benefit of the doubt that it is "generally accepted" when originally proposed. If not challenged during one week, then the Statement joins the other generally accepted Statements, without any discussion, nor Secretary ruling.
Should a proposed Statement be challenged, with reasons, then the originator of the Statement, and any other CT'ers here, must defend the Statement's truth. As well, the onus is on the Challenger to muster CT'er support for his/her challenge, to confirm that s/he is not the only challenger. The discussion will generally have one week to run from the date of the defence to the first Challenge.
The goal is not “unanimity”, though that would be nice. We only seek a substantial majority for a Statement to be “generally accepted
We have reached now 6 STATEMENTS in various stages of acceptance (See below).
All are a work-in-progress, though for some, there are no outstanding proposed revisions, and so they currently stand unchallenged, or challenges have previously been defeated. So, for this forum, a number of the statements are now “generally accepted” as “fact”.
"Generally-Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change (Layman's Terms)"
(Following a "Conversation Format" protocol)
Statement # 1
Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change. It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth.
Support - Bob Armstrong (Post # 1453 – 23/7/20 - slightly edited) - "Our new Commonly Accepted Statement # 1 does not play one way or another as to whether the rise in temperature is a “problem”. It merely states the fact that Naturalists agree with - their fact is that the average rising temperature is about .5 degrees C every 100 years.....that is "rising" temperature."
Statement # 2
Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future.
Support 1 – Bob Armstrong – Post # 1485 – 23/7/22 [Lightly Edited]
“The post of Sid Belzberg (Post # 1296 – 23/4/29) "supports" Statement # 2! He asserts evidence that the average rate of increase is ".5 degrees every 100 years" over a 300 year period. This confirms "the temperature is now rising, and has been for some time".
Arguably, if it has been rising for 300 years, and you look at all the human problems arising from this rising heat (See Statement # 3), then heat is going to "likely continue to rise for some time in the future". We, of course, at this point in developing our Statements, have not taken on the issue, yet, of whether this trend of .5 degrees per 100 years is the expected increase for the future.”
Support 2 – Bob Armstrong – Post # 1523 – 23/7/27
“The New Warming Climate State/Multi-Century Temperature Periods
Scientists concluded a few years ago that Earth had entered a new climate state not seen in more than 100,000 years. As fellow climate scientist Nick McKay and I recently discussed in a scientific journal article, that conclusion was part of a climate assessment report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2021.
Earth was already more than 1 degree Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) warmer than preindustrial times, and the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were high enough to assure temperatures would stay elevated for a long time.
Bob Armstrong (As Group Secretary) – Post # 1548 - 23/7/31
“The term “Record-Breaking” is sometimes loosely/wrongly used in the Main Stream Media re Earth's currently rising temperature. Cities across the globe may have unique geographic and meteorological characteristics that determine current temperature variations. Fact checking may be necessary.”
Status re Processing: If unchallenged for one week, our protocol is that the Statement is “generally accepted”. Deadline is 23/8/7 @ 11:59 PM EDT.
Statement # 3:
Currently rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth is a problem for humanity.
Support 1 - Bob Gillanders (Post # 1468 – 23/7/19)
"Seems crazy and very hard to believe that they [Texas Governor, Greg Abbot,] would have to legislate employers to allow such breaks from a scorching heat work environment, but apparently that is the case. The water breaks since 2010 that Governor Abbott now wants to take away has reduced the death toll on workers significantly."
Support # 2 - Fred Harvey (Post # 1470 - 23/7/19)
"I have lived in the same town for 50 plus years (how dull...not). Amongst other things, I have seen the tomato growing season go from 2.5 months to 4 months. For 35 years we lived without air-conditioning....now not so much. Them's two facts that suggest significant warming."
Support # 3 - Bob Armstrong (Post # 1451 - 23/7/11)
"I, for one, believe we see "problems" for human living all around us every day, the world over, from rising heat levels (Regardless of arguing over why the heat is rising or the rate at which it is rising)."
Statement # 4
Since the year 1650 (200 years before the Industrial Revolution [Started: 1850], which is the earliest global temperature recording), the Earth's mean temperature has been rising naturally (Earth has been in a natural warming cycle; it has gone through various cooling and warming cycles before this current warming one). There is surface temperature data for the period 1650 to 1850, and beyond, from the records of the UK Meteorological Observatory. Some propose that they are sufficient to use to analyze our increasing temperature problem.
Support - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 (23/4/29)
"Given that heart of the early Industrial Revolution started in the UK, where manmade CO2 emissions were significant, it is an excellent platform to analyze the data.”
Statement # 5
For 650,000 years, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere never rose beyond 300 parts per million (to 1949). In 1950, 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had spiked dramatically to 380 parts per million. Since 1950, we have now had another 75 years of the Industrial Revolution. We are seeking a source for the 2023 count for CO2 parts per million.
[Note: The significance of CO2, and the Industrial Revolution, as factors in negative climate change is hotly debated. But it is necessary to include a factual finding on these two items, to have some common factual statement concerning them, for future Statements & debate.]
Challenge: Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 (23/4/29)
"What is the source of your data and methodology concerning Co2 concentrations PPM in the atmosphere for the last 650,000 years? The data you refer to in statements 1 & 2 shows that rate of temp. Increase is a modest (.5 degrees per century) before and after manmade CO2 emissions.)
Statement # 6
It is essential to have alternate sources of energy; it is good that this transition is now underway; our options include renewables (solar panels, tidal, water turbines, windmills) and nuclear. Traditionally used fossil fuels, including coal, are finite, though more plentiful than commonly thought.
Support # 1 - Bob Gillanders (Post # 1415 – 23/7/2)
“Scientists have been warning us about climate change (global warming) for decades. The science is very complicated, but we now have 50 years of data to support the premise that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause. We need to free ourselves from our dependence on fossil fuels. Our options include renewables (solar panels, windmills) and nuclear.”
Views
.....................................................2023 Average.... 2022 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Views/Day Views/Day........Views/Day.............(30 wks.)___________
Last week's stats continue in the range of the substantial jump of the prior week. This week's, and last weeks, stats are way beyond the 2023 average so far. There is much more “response” activity. This is generating a growing viewership.
There remains here, a steady interest in the critical issue of negative climate change. All sides of the issue are free to post material they claim to be in support (Though this thread was started by an Anthropogenicist). CT'ers are getting a good sampling of all that is out there. You decide!
Climate Change Thread “Responses”
There are lots of climate change articles out there, both on negative anthropogenic climate change, and negative natural climate change.
This thread encourages CT'ers on all sides to re-post here, as responses, the climate change posts of interest they see elsewhere. Overall, ChessTalker's have been quite active here in posting “responses” and it seems that chessplayers across Canada are wanting information on climate change, a challenge unlike any our species has ever faced before.
Note:
1. The goal of this thread is not to woodshed an opposing view into submission. Every position is entitled to post as it sees fit, regardless of the kind of, and amount of, postings by other positions. What is wanted is serious consideration of all posts........then you decide.
2. I personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least every 2nd day, but admit my busy schedule means I am sometimes falling short on this. So it is great that a number of other CT'ers are posting responses here somewhat regularly.
2. The Anthropogenicist Position
The Pressing Climate Change Issue
The core issue:
Building a sense of URGENCY on this issue in society. We must realize that we cannot kick it down the road any longer!
The public is aware of the climate change issue.......
BUT.....
climate activists must find strategies to “AWAKEN” the public to the “urgency”.
It is expected, though somewhat disheartening, to see other negative issues of the day climb immediately to the top of the public's agenda, with climate change being sometimes substantially downgraded in importance. We will all pay for this.........
The Time Line
Nature's Tipping point is estimated to be, on current trajectory, only 9 years away (Around Jan. 1, 2031). Capping the temperature rise at only 1.5 degrees Celsius (the original international target) is now impossible (UN Climate Change Panel's most recent report in March, 2023). Their position is that the problem at this time is mostly due to human activity, and that radical change in our method of living is the only way to avoid this rising, very problematic, temperature. UNCCP noted that current government deadlines were totally insufficient to solve the problem. CO 2 must be capped by 2025 since it is the main contributor to the problem! Methane is another greenhouse gas of concern, with some maintaining it contributes more to the problem than CO2. The extent of involvement in the greenhouse effect of water vapour is somewhat controversial.
Also, it has now become necessary to add in the process of CO 2 “removal”, along with “eliminating” the spewing of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere by human activity.
Our window of opportunity is fast closing.
The Large Picture Solutions
Can we come up with at least one viable suggestion of some impressive, radical thing that might wake up the public, that we could then put out there to other concerned climate activists?
3. The Naturalists' Position
Negative “Natural” Climate Change
This thread has had a number of CT'ers arguing for Natural Climate Change, and arguing that the human economic activity contribution to negative climate change is negligible. We are just in one of Nature's long warming cycles.
We would encourage everyone to consider the materials being presented, and then see whether they in any way change your perspective, if you are an adherent of negative Anthropogenic climate change. Whether you change anything, or not, your assessment of the evidence would be most welcome in this thread.
1. Agriculture will not be "discontinued". What may have to be discontinued, because of its colossal use of resources, is carnivore-directed farming.
2. Yes we must eventually eliminate fossil fuels for two reasons: a. pollution; b. they are finite (Renewables, that are "sustainable", as a percentage of our energy source, must increase, and rapidly).
3. Those who benefit most from society's systems, in any form of government, must pay the most into the support of the "system". In our current capitalist system, there is nothing illegal about a "wealth" tax, in addition to progressive "income" tax. No one is stealing anything, not the government, not the neighbour. Rather it is a user-pays system, and billionaire's have been shirking (Morally, not legally [The Oligarchs have managed to skew the system to their advantage], usually) their fair payment in.
Bob A (Anthropogenicist)
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Friday, 4th August, 2023, 01:35 AM.
But since Trump is getting arrested again today, I am sure all the media attention will focus there, and climate change will be on the back burner for some time yet. Too bad.
I guess you are dreaming about MSM propaganda leading to agriculture being discontinued, use of fossil fuels made illegal, and everyone's income over a million being stolen by big government..
Well, sweet dreams... till you finally wake up!
Finally, another graph from the EPA shows that heat waves were actually the worst for the U.S. in the 1930s, well before climate change became a blip on the media radar. See Figure 3. Figure 3. This figure shows the annual values of the U.S. Heat Wave Index from 1895 to 2021. These data cover the contiguous 48 states. An index value of 0.2 (for example) could mean that 20 percent of the country experienced one heat wave, 10 percent of the country experienced two heat waves, or some other combination of frequency and area resulted in this value. Data source: Kunkel, 2022, EPA https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicato...ors-heat-waves
Thanks for the link to the EPA website, now we can see the source of Dilip's graph. It looks like the Heat Index spiked in 1931, 1934, and 1936. The years in between those are lower but still relatively high. Are there any theories you have come across to explain the 1930's heat index spike? I don't know, sunspots, volcanic eruptions, etc. Unless we understand why, I am not sure what that tells us. Maybe the 1930's need to be treated as outliers? Just a thought.
I am also note figure 1 on the EPA site, Heat Wave characteristics by decades since the 1960's. That shows a steady increase from the 60's till now, as I would expect. Too bad it doesn't extend back earlier to include the 1930's.
But since Trump is getting arrested again today, I am sure all the media attention will focus there, and climate change will be on the back burner for some time yet. Too bad.
Share
A number of media outlets are claiming that U.S. heatwaves are getting worse this week due to climate change. This is false. Actual data from temperature measurements show that heatwaves in the U.S. are on the decline even as climate change has occurred over the last 75 years.
It is summer in the Northern Hemisphere, and unsurprisingly to those that pay attention to data, it is hot in many places in the U.S. – in other words, business as usual for summer. But, the media sees climate change in every heatwave event, and seeks to exploit a connection, even though one doesn’t exist. For example, last week it was declared that the world had seen its hottest day ever on July 4, with some outlets claiming the “hottest in 100,000 years.” That of course, was proven laughably false here at Climate Realism on both counts.
Monitoring the planet’s climate this summer can give one the impression that the climate system — which includes the oceans, atmosphere, ice sheets and more — has gone off the rails.
…
Climate studies have warned about an uptick in simultaneous heat waves occurring in the Northern Hemisphere.”
None of the news outlets running heat wave stories this week examined or cites historical data on heat waves, preferring instead to push scary numbers in the form of heat indexes that combine temperature and humidity, reprint the opinion of “climate scientists,” and reference computer models that suggest climate change is making heat waves worse.
Yet, data exists, for any reporter with a modicum of journalistic curiosity to find. The problem is that the data doesn’t look scary.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintains a web page on heatwaves in the U.S. which contains some very interesting data and maps. Despite the claims of climate change creating worse heatwaves, the data the EPA has compiled going back to 1948 says exactly the opposite.
The data is on display in Figure 1, below. Figure 1: This map shows trends in unusually hot temperatures at individual weather stations that have operated consistently since 1948. In this case, the term “unusually hot” refers to a daily maximum temperature that is hotter than the 95th percentile temperature during the 1948–2020 period. Thus, the maximum temperature on a particular day at a particular station would be considered “unusually hot” if it falls within the warmest 5 percent of measurements at that station during the 1948–2020 period. The map shows changes in the total number of days per year that were hotter than the 95th percentile. Red upward-pointing symbols show where these unusually hot days are becoming more common. Blue downward-pointing symbols show where unusually hot days are becoming less common. Data source: NOAA, 2021, EPA
The EPA writes:
The data come from thousands of weather stations across the United States. National patterns can be determined by dividing the country into a grid and examining the data for one station in each cell of the grid. This method ensures that the results are not biased toward regions that happen to have many stations close together.
…
[Figure 1] was created by reviewing all daily maximum temperatures from 1948 to 2020 and identifying the 95th percentile temperature (a temperature that one would only expect to exceed in five days out of every 100) at each station. Next, for each year, the total number of days with maximum temperatures higher than the 95th percentile (that is, unusually hot days) was determined. The map shows how the total number of unusually hot days per year at each station has changed over time.
The EPA’s data for 1,066 weather stations across the United States showed a total of 863 stations, or 81 percent, reporting either a decrease or no change in the number of unusually hot days. By comparison, only 19 percent of all weather stations reported an increase in the number of unusually hot days since 1948.
Many of the stations showing hotter temperatures over the 1948-2020 period were located at airports or otherwise badly sited locations that created heat biases such as reported by the study Climate Realism covered last year, Corrupted Climate Stations: The U.S. Temperature Record Remains Fatally Flawed. As reported in that study, much of the upward heat bias occurs in the minimum overnight temperature at these weather stations, enabling them to reach higher than expected daytime high temperatures had they not had a “head start” from the warmer than expected overnight low.
In fact, you can see this issue on display using maximum and minimum data for all weather stations in the U.S. Figures 2A and 2B below show maximum and minimum temperatures in the U.S. from 1948, so that it matches the start of EPA data in Figure 1. Figure 2A maximum temperatures in the U.S. since May 1948 to June 2023, 2B minimum temperatures in the U.S. since May 1948 to June 2023. Source: NOAA National Temperature Index plotter. Note: color of the maximum temperature series in 2A has been changed to red from blue to delineate the two sets of data.
In figure 2A, you can see the maximum temperatures (the sort of temperatures that would occur in a heat wave) have not changed much since 1948. In fact, there are spikes of high temperatures in the U.S. in 1954 and in 1963 that are higher than the present day.
In figure 2B, you can see the minimum temperatures have had a slow and steady rise since 1948, with peaks in the last 20 years (warmer nights) being higher than values in the 1940s and 1950s.
Finally, another graph from the EPA shows that heat waves were actually the worst for the U.S. in the 1930s, well before climate change became a blip on the media radar. See Figure 3. Figure 3. This figure shows the annual values of the U.S. Heat Wave Index from 1895 to 2021. These data cover the contiguous 48 states. An index value of 0.2 (for example) could mean that 20 percent of the country experienced one heat wave, 10 percent of the country experienced two heat waves, or some other combination of frequency and area resulted in this value. Data source: Kunkel, 2022, EPA https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicato...ors-heat-waves
The bottom line is this: despite what the media says, real-world data shows heat waves are NOT getting worse in the United States due to climate change. This flies in the face of opinions by climate scientists cited in the mainstream media which seems wedded to the narrative that climate change is causing a crisis, despite data to the contrary.
Heat Waves are local, and have nothing to do with the mean temperature of the Earth's air/atmosphere. This is an average temperature, balancing all the various uniquenesses of various Earth geographic locations that affect heat variation.
Bob A (Anthropogenicist)
The problem is the MSM makes exaggerated claims about local heatwaves, not global temps. The article exposes these lies from the MSM
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Thursday, 3rd August, 2023, 10:02 AM.
Thanks for the explanation. Scaling of the y axis can certainly affect the readers impression, leading to either distortion or focusing on the key point. I am guessing 1.2 vs 0.2 means a difference of 1 degree between the peak in the 1930's and other years. I did click on your link, but I was blocked by requests to disable my ad blocker. I wasn't willing to do that.
The sign of a good scaled graph is the inclusion of the actual data points. Did you not see actual heat wave reading on the graph? Maybe Bob A can tell us.
A Wilson Center event featuring Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo was cut short when a group of climate change protesters barged in and interrupted Raimondo, video shows.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Listen to this article
0:00 / 4:57
1X BeyondWords
Every summer, heat waves inevitably hit the U.S. and other parts of the world, causing climate alarmists and left-leaning media outlets to demand dramatic, disastrous changes to the global energy system. Unfortunately, this summer is no different.
On Tuesday, U.S. media outlets published a wave of stories about supposedly "historic" heat waves in Europe and North America. For example, The Washington Post published an article titled "Heat waves in U.S., Europe ‘virtually impossible’ without climate change, study finds."
Although certain parts of the U.S. have undoubtedly experienced strong heat waves this summer, there’s no reason to believe these weather events are evidence that the world is hurtling toward a climate change catastrophe. In fact, the best available evidence suggests that heat waves recorded a century ago were more problematic than anything we’re seeing today.
Climate change protesters are seen marching and chanting as they carry placards in Melbourne, Australia, on Nov. 6, 2021. Protests across Australia were organized as part of a global day of action demanding world leaders act decisively on climate to prevent catastrophic global warming. (Asanka Ratnayake/Getty Images)
Government researchers have been tracking heat waves for more than 100 years. According to data from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, which is made available by the Environmental Protection Agency, the annual heat wave index for the contiguous 48 states was substantially higher in the 1930s than at any point in recent years. In some years in the 1930s, it was four times greater or even more.
Additionally, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has a large database of daily temperatures that goes back to 1948. NOAA used 1,066 weather stations located across the U.S. to collect this data.
According to NOAA, huge swaths of the U.S. have experienced a significant decrease in abnormally hot days recorded since 1948, especially in the Midwest and northern and eastern Texas.
Although it’s true that some parts of the U.S. have seen the number of hotter-than-usual days increase over the past 70 years — including in California and the New York metropolitan area, both of which happen to be areas where a large number of media outlets are located — most weather stations have shown no meaningful changes or even declines.
U.S. Annual Heat Wave Index, 1895–2021 (EPA)
Meteorologist Anthony Watts, who works with me as a senior fellow at The Heartland Institute, analyzed NOAA’s data in detail and found that 81% of the weather stations used in NOAA’s database reported that since 1948 there has been "either a decrease or no change in the number of unusually hot days."
If the available data so clearly reveal that there is no heat-wave crisis, why are media outlets suggesting the opposite is true? The answer is sloppy, irresponsible media reporting, combined with cherry-picked data.
Anyone who wants to show a long-term warming or cooling trend can do so by selectively choosing starting and ending points in datasets that will provide the answer you’re looking for.
For instance, if you start your examination of historic temperatures with figures collected in the 1970s, when temperatures were unusually low compared to the rest of the century, then current temperatures look abnormally high.
Video
If you start around 2010, then temperatures over the past decade appear to have dipped below "normal" and are only now recovering.
When many media outlets and left-wing politicians talk about climate change data, they almost always selectively choose a range that offers an incomplete picture of the larger available dataset. This makes it appear as though today’s temperatures are "historic" when they are actually well within normal historical predictions.
Another problem is that media outlets have been using temperature forecasts in their news reports as if those figures were actual temperature data. A forecast is, by definition, a guess, and some alarmist analysts have recently made a bad habit of incorrectly predicting insanely high temperatures that never come to fruition.
For example, the Telegraph, one of the largest papers in the U.K., published an article on July 18 in which the author claimed, "The European Space Agency said thermometers could tip 48C in Sardinia and Sicily, while the temperatures in Rome and Madrid could both reach the mid to high-40Cs. In drought-stricken Spain, temperatures were set to reach highs of 44C in Catalonia.
"If the available data so clearly reveal that there is no heat-wave crisis, why are media outlets suggesting the opposite is true? The answer is sloppy, irresponsible media reporting, combined with cherry-picked data.
None of these predictions came true. In fact, some of them were off by several degrees or more.
Heat waves happen every year, but this isn’t evidence that Americans are facing a global warming crisis. When heat-wave data are put into their proper historical context, it’s clear that everything humans are experiencing today has been witnessed in the past.
The ugly truth behind climate alarmism is that much of it is driven by a radical ideological agenda that is seeking to transform the global economy and American society, not by science. The best way to fight back against it is to use cold, hard facts. And those facts plainly show that there is no reason to panic about our ever-changing climate.
Dilip, you are fundamentally misunderstanding the source of our climate anxiety.
We know climate change is real and mostly caused by human activity. Of course, I am speaking primarily about the past few decades.
The evidence is overwhelming, despite an enthusiastic minority who tell us otherwise.
Our climate anxiety is caused by the lack of an adequate response.
MSM making a big big fuss about it actually helps alleviate my symptoms. More and better coverage please.
You are missing the point, Bob G:
Even if climate change is real, it is not worth being anxious about it, and MSM making a big, often fudged, fuss about it is getting boring...
Thanks for the explanation. Scaling of the y axis can certainly affect the readers impression, leading to either distortion or focusing on the key point. I am guessing 1.2 vs 0.2 means a difference of 1 degree between the peak in the 1930's and other years. I did click on your link, but I was blocked by requests to disable my ad blocker. I wasn't willing to do that.
The sign of a good scaled graph is the inclusion of the actual data points.
Bob G
Thanks for pointing that out, Bob G. What a data-fudged world we have... it is not new, though, theologians have been bluffing us for millennia...
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Tuesday, 1st August, 2023, 08:44 AM.
So please don't get anxious about a few heat waves occurring in 2023... despite MSM making a big, big fuss about it...
Dilip, you are fundamentally misunderstanding the source of our climate anxiety.
We know climate change is real and mostly caused by human activity. Of course, I am speaking primarily about the past few decades.
The evidence is overwhelming, despite an enthusiastic minority who tell us otherwise.
Our climate anxiety is caused by the lack of an adequate response.
MSM making a big big fuss about it actually helps alleviate my symptoms. More and better coverage please.
Figure 3. This figure shows the annual values of the U.S. Heat Wave Index from 1895 to 2021. These data cover the contiguous 48 states. An index value of 0.2 (for example) could mean that 20 percent of the country experienced one heat wave, 10 percent of the country experienced two heat waves, or some other combination of frequency and area resulted in this value. Data source: Kunkel, 2022, EPA https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicato...ors-heat-waves
Figure 1: This map shows trends in unusually hot temperatures at individual weather stations that have operated consistently since 1948. In this case, the term “unusually hot” refers to a daily maximum temperature that is hotter than the 95th percentile temperature during the 1948–2020 period. Thus, the maximum temperature on a particular day at a particular station would be considered “unusually hot” if it falls within the warmest 5 percent of measurements at that station during the 1948–2020 period. The map shows changes in the total number of days per year that were hotter than the 95th percentile. Red upward-pointing symbols show where these unusually hot days are becoming more common. Blue downward-pointing symbols show where unusually hot days are becoming less common. Data source: NOAA, 2021, EPA
Figure 2A maximum temperatures in the U.S. since May 1948 to June 2023, 2B minimum temperatures in the U.S. since May 1948 to June 2023. Source: NOAA National Temperature Index plotter. Note: color of the maximum temperature series in 2A has been changed to red from blue to delineate the two sets of data.
Video
Leave a comment: