Your Fault: Climate Crisis To Drive Record Shattering Heat Extremes

All because you won’t give up meat, move into a tiny home in a big city, and give your money to government

Climate change will drive rise in ‘record-shattering’ heat extremes

“Record-shattering” extremes – which break weather records by large margins – will become more likely as a result of climate change, a new study finds.

The paper, published in Nature Climate Change, finds that the northern mid-latitudes are particularly vulnerable to record-shattering heat. This is exemplified by the recent heatwave over north-western US and Canada, in which many long-standing temperature records were broken by as much as 5C.

The study finds that record-shattering extreme events are likely to occur more frequently in the coming decades, but notes that they would be “nearly impossible” without climate change. It adds that the speed of warming is more important than the level of warming reached when determining the likelihood of these extremes.

Just wondering, what’s the penalty for being grossly wrong, like virtually every environmental and ‘climate change’ doom prognostication? What’s the penalty for news outlets who push this stuff without any sort of journalistic skepticism?

“I think it is an extremely important paper that couldn’t be more timely”, a scientist who was not involved in the research tells Carbon Brief. She adds that, after the heatwave in the Pacific north-west, “many people have suggested our climate models are not able to simulate such events”. However, “this paper shows very nicely that they do. We just haven’t asked the question in quite this way before.”

In other words, they wrote it to push the doom. And get more government study grant money. This is climate science.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

20 Responses to “Your Fault: Climate Crisis To Drive Record Shattering Heat Extremes”

  1. drowningpuppies says:

    Over and over, we are confronted with claims that last month or last year was “the warmest on record.” Each claim is accompanied by dire warnings that the alleged new records portend “unprecedented” chaos for wildlife, humans and planet.

    Virtually never do these scary press releases mention that the supposed change is mere hundredths of a degree higher than previous measurements. Never do they admit that the margin of error in these measurements is far greater than the supposed increase. Never do they suggest that a little more warmth would be infinitely better than a colder world, with less arable land and shorter growing seasons. And most certainly, never do they admit to the massive deficiencies in the system that supposedly tracks Earth’s temperature … and always blames any increases on humans and fossil fuels.


    — Today, virtually no data exist for approximately 85 percent of the earth’s surface.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/18/overheated-claims-on-global-temperature-records/

    #TheScienceIsSettled
    #TheDebateIsOver
    Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

    • Conservative Beaner says:

      — Today, virtually no data exist for approximately 85 percent of the earth’s surface.

      Also how do we really know temperatures are getting warmer when we have been measuring temps accurately for only a few hundred years. What was the temp on this day where you live say 1126 AD or how about 256 BC.

      Scientists may point to tree rings but that doesn’t give an accurate temperature.

      • Zachriel says:

        Conservative Beaner: Also how do we really know temperatures are getting warmer when we have been measuring temps accurately for only a few hundred years. What was the temp on this day where you live say 1126 AD or how about 256 BC.

        Did you know that dinosaurs roamed the rain forests of Antarctica? What will those crazy scientists come up with next?!

        While precise measurements are not possible, the trend can be discerned through proxies, such as through isotopes, tree rings, pollens, and fossils. Multiple methods that show the same trend lend confidence to the findings.

        • alanstorm says:

          While precise measurements are not possible, the trend can be discerned through proxies, such as through isotopes, tree rings, pollens, and fossils. Multiple methods that show the same trend lend confidence to the findings.

          Technically true, but misleading and therefore useless. The problem is that as you go farther back with these proxies, you add more error. When you are arguing about fractions of a degree, that counts.

          The killing strokes for “Climate Change” is that the warmists keep coming up with predictions that fail, and that to the True Believers, ANYTHING AT ALL is taken to be due to CC.

          • Zachriel says:

            alanstorm: Technically true, but misleading and therefore useless.

            If we can determine a trend, then that is substantial scientific knowledge. It’s better than shrugging your shoulders and going “Meh.”

            alanstorm: The problem is that as you go farther back with these proxies, you add more error.

            Error bars are always considered when reaching scientific conclusions. How did you think it was done?
            https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/sites/report/files/images/web-large/Figure-5-hi.jpg

          • drowningpuppies says:

            Never do they admit that the margin of error in these measurements is far greater than the supposed increase.

            Keep trying KiddieZ. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/18/overheated-claims-on-global-temperature-records/

            #TheScienceIsSettled
            #TheDebateIsOver
            Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

          • Kye says:

            Science as an institution has “a naïve belief that if only scientists were in charge, they would run the world well.” Perhaps that’s what politicians mean when they declare that they “believe in science.” As we’ve seen during the pandemic, science can be a source of power.” . . .

            “Conformity,” Mr. Ridley says, “is the enemy of scientific progress, which depends on disagreement and challenge. Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts, as [the physicist Richard] Feynman put it.” Mr. Ridley reserves his bluntest criticism for “science as a profession,” which he says has become “rather off-puttingly arrogant and political, permeated by motivated reasoning and confirmation bias.” Increasing numbers of scientists “seem to fall prey to groupthink, and the process of peer-reviewing and publishing allows dogmatic gate-keeping to get in the way of new ideas and open-minded challenge.”

          • Zachriel says:

            Kye: Perhaps that’s what politicians mean when they declare that they “believe in science.”

            There’s a difference between science and policy. The latter requires tradeoffs and human values, but should be based on the best available evidence.

            Kye: “Conformity,” Mr. Ridley says, “is the enemy of scientific progress, which depends on disagreement and challenge.

            Sure, but not all opinions are of equal weight. Just saying “Is not!” even if you repeat it loudly, does not constitute scientific skepticism.

  2. xtron says:

    so where is the paper/study on the sever cold in brazil last week that ruined this years coffee crop and KILLED many of the plants? you do realize this sever cold will result in higher coffee prices and even shortages??
    OMG what will starbucks do????

  3. est1950 says:

    But lets end A/C too!

    Brilliant.

  4. Hairy says:

    Well Teach at least you now admit that it is getting hotter
    We haven’t heard that “1998” was the hottest year so really we have been cooling since then
    And thankfully your Lord Monkton seems to have finally been forgotten

    • gitarcarver says:

      And thankfully, your buddy Michael Mann lost two parts of his lawsuit against those who told the truth:

      That’s one of the lessons of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia granting National Review’s motion for summary judgment in Michael Mann’s seemingly interminable lawsuit against us.

      For eight long years, we have watched as all remained quiet on the Western Front. Nothing had seemed to make a difference — not the anti-SLAPP laws that were designed to prevent this sort of legal harassment of publications, not all the amicus briefs in our behalf, not our motions and appeals going all the way to the Supreme Court, not the First Amendment itself. Instead, we were stuck in a grinding battle of attrition, in which the only change was the ever-growing size of our attorney fees — just as Mann intended.

      The climate scientist launched the suit in response to a Mark Steyn blog post in 2012 criticizing his work, and boasted privately that the suit was an opportunity to “ruin” NR.

      https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/03/a-victory-but-miles-to-go/

      Over nine years ago, on July 13, 2012, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) published a brief item on its “Open Market” weblog about Penn State University’s exoneration of climate scientist Michael Mann, creator of the so-called “hockey stick” climate temperature graph. Notoriously, the post’s author, Rand Simberg, suggested Penn State was no more diligent investigating Mann than it had been investigating Jerry Sandusky. Mark Steyn quoted and elaborated on the CEI post with a post of his own on National Review Online.

      Mann was understandably upset by these posts and, as is his wont, he filed suit against all involved alleging libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Nearly nine years later, the litigation continues, though it is now limping along. The Supreme Court took a pass at reviewing one of the preliminary rulings in 2019, and a DC court granted National Review’s motion for summary judgment in March, on the grounds that “actual malice” could not be imputed to National Review on the basis of its decision to publish a blog post. (Mann’s separate claims related to an article by NR editor Rich Lowry had been previously dismissed on appeal.)

      Today, Mann suffered another loss as the D.C. Superior Court granted CEI’s motion for summary judgment on similar grounds.

      https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/22/dc-court-grants-summary-judgment-for-cei-in-michael-mann-defamation-suit/

      The left hates disagreement and honest debate so much that they sue to silence critics.

      Then again, all the left has is hate.

      • est1950 says:

        Mann lost his homework. Haven’t you heard. When told to produce his data on the hockey stick lie, he could not come up with it.

        What happened was that Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it. Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.

        He told the court he could not find the data. The most important data in the history of data and he can’t find it and give it to all scientists to peer review and determine if it were true.

  5. Zachriel says:

    — Today, virtually no data exist for approximately 85 percent of the earth’s surface.

    Actually, there has been almost complete satellite coverage of the Earth’s surface since the 1980s. The satellite data shows much the same trend as the surface data.
    https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/temperature_figure1_2021.png

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Funny how the KiddieZ cannot refute that factual statement.

      But they try so hard.

      #TheScienceIsSettled
      #TheDebateIsOver
      Bwaha! Lolgfy https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

  6. alanstorm says:

    She adds that, after the heatwave in the Pacific north-west, “many people have suggested our climate models are not able to simulate such events”. However, “this paper shows very nicely that they do. We just haven’t asked the question in quite this way before.”

    A perfect self-cancelling statement.

    • Zachriel says:

      alanstorm: She adds that, after the heatwave in the Pacific north-west, “many people have suggested our climate models are not able to simulate such events”. However, “this paper shows very nicely that they do. We just haven’t asked the question in quite this way before.”

      Uh, no. Consider the Newtonian model of gravity. Someone may never have applied the model to, say, someone hitting a golf ball on the Moon. Doing so is hardly self-refuting.

      In this case, the researchers found that the probability of an extreme heat occurrence “depends on warming rate, rather than global warming level, and is thus pathway-dependent.”

  7. Jl says:

    In other news, heat waves will become more common, say climate scientists, right after a heatwave happens…

Bad Behavior has blocked 8832 access attempts in the last 7 days.