Well, in lieu of post my yearly challenge to Warmists to make climate predictions, lets see what Andrew Pershing, the director of Climate Science at Climate Central, has to say
Six climate trends may shape 2022 across the US
We’re about to wrap up 2021, another year of climate extremes across the U.S. It’s tempting to look back at the big stories: record cold in Texas, record heat in the Northwest, record rains from Hurricane Ida and December’s heat and deadly weather. But thinking about my climate work over the last year, I was struck by how much of it is about trends. I see six trends that can impact virtually all of us next year.
The first is the big one: carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We all hoped that maybe the economic slowdown from the COVID-19 pandemic would blunt the rise of carbon dioxide that drives global warming and makes extreme weather more likely. Nope.
Yet, there have warmer periods during the Holocene with much lower CO2 concentrations. Weird
The second trend follows the first: rising temperatures. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA in the U.S. and the UK Met Office will soon release their final calculations of global mean temperature. The year 2021 will likely be the sixth warmest on record. We are currently in a La Nina — a weather pattern triggered by unusually cool water in the equatorial Pacific. La Nina is like having the global air conditioner set on max — it tends to depress global temperatures. But it’s expected to fade in the coming months, so 2022 has a good shot at being warmer than 2021.
So, if nature can have such a big impact, why can in not also drive warming?
With or without La Nina, we can expect to see parts of the country struggle with deadly heat this summer. Something as weird as the 2021 Northwest heatwave may be unlikely, but the climbing global temperatures ratchet up the probability of dangerously high temperatures in the U.S. and around the world.
And, what if these don’t happen? Heat waves are entirely normal, but, what if there are few this summer? What will the climate cult say then?
The biggest trend, though, is the chance of storms rapidly intensifying into major hurricanes. In many ways, Ida was the perfect example of how climate change affects hurricanes. It was a fairly ordinary storm until it passed over the unusually hot waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Then, it exploded into a Category 4 hurricane and crashed into Louisiana — but caused heavy rains and flooding as far north as New York. Even if the number of named storms fluctuates year-to-year, each storm that forms now has a greater chance of growing into a monster like Ida.
That’s a lot of vacillating, eh? It could happen but it might not happen this year but maybe another year we just want to scare you.
Ida points to the fourth big climate trend to watch: more extremes in precipitation. A warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor. This means that when it rains, there is a greater chance that it will pour. Events like the flash flooding in West Virginia and the catastrophic rains from Ida are becoming more common. Extremes in precipitation also apply to snow. Even though the number of days when it’s cold enough to snow is decreasing across much of the country, the same moist atmosphere that can bring us big rain events can also produce big snow events.
Floods are normal. And here you have him blaming big snow events on warming. But, what if the floods do not happen? In reality, you should expect some, because floods are 100% normal.
Fifth is drought in the Southwest, which is also rather normal. What if it flips to wetter? Will they also blame that on ‘climate change’?
The final trend to watch is the total cost of all of these climate-influenced events. The human costs of extreme heat, fires, floods and high winds are brutal. But there are also direct economic costs — money that we have to pay to rebuild communities and money that we lose due to droughts and disruption. In dollars, final tallies from these events often reach the billions. And their frequency — and costs — are growing every year: the U. S. now experiences a billion-dollar disaster every 22 days.
Actually, they aren’t growing in trend, we can just track them better. But, it’s a cult, so, no matter what the weather does, they’ll blame you.
I will make some predictions. Since the left is obsessed with this being potentially the 6th warmest year on record.
I predict that we will soon have lock downs over being too fat. That is excess and gluttony and eating more than a predetermined fair share as the communist collective dictates the number of calories per day we can eat.
I predict It will rain and snow and the wind will blow so I gotta go. You know?
The sun will continue to cool unless CO2 is having a dramatic effect on the sun’s ability to generate sunspots.
Teach
The warmest holocene periods were caused by well known and understood orbital changes
What do you think is causing the more rapid temp changes that we are seeing now ?
Are you aware that Solar sunspots result in a slight disruption of solar irradiance? That is a decrease in solar power?
From the Scientific American.
Peter Foukal of the Massachusetts-based firm Heliophysics, Inc., who has tracked sunspot intensities from different spots around the globe dating back four centuries, also concludes that such solar disturbances have little or no impact on global warming. Nevertheless, he adds, most up-to-date climate models—including those used by the United Nations’ prestigious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—incorporate the effects of the sun’s variable degree of brightness in their overall calculations.
Sunspots play no role only moms driving suv’s affect our weather.
Many climate scientists agree that sunspots and solar wind could be playing a role in climate change, but the vast majority view it as very minimal and attribute Earth’s warming primarily to emissions from industrial activity—and they have thousands of peer-reviewed studies available to back up that claim.
There is an old saying. If you can question it, it’s science. If you can’t question it. Its propaganda.
https://commoncts.blogspot.com/2022/01/rip-betty-white-top-20-betty-white.html
RIP – Betty White – Top 20 Betty White Moments – Video
William Teach: Yet, there have warmer periods during the Holocene with much lower CO2 concentrations. Weird
It’s not weird when you consider that CO2 is not the only driver of historical changes in the global temperature.
William Teach: So, if nature can have such a big impact, why can in not also drive warming?
It certainly can! For instance, volcanism and changes in insolation can affect global temperatures. However, the current warming trend is due to anthropogenic emissions.
Except you can’t prove it, KiddieZ.
#LGBFJB
Bwaha! Lolgf
Z,
Better yet go away and play with your Christmas toys. Now he will call me an ad homo
Oh KiddieZ please.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/12/29/arctic-ocean-warming-began-already-in-early-20th-century-meaning-natural-factors-strongly-at-play-not-co2/
Learn something useful.
#LGBFJB
Bwaha! Lolgf
We ask this of “AGW Skeptics” periodically…
What proof would persuade you that anthropogenic emissions are causing the current warming trend?
Jeff,
And every time we give you definitive exercises that you do not preform. Such as the greenhouse experiment, and no plan glass does not stop the UV radiation that concerns you and even if it did you could generate UV with lights. Just because you throw out a laughable hypothesis does not mean we have to generate a test to disprove. You are required to show linking evidence. Just look at the Z children. They acknowledge CO2 generation from the earth, but the human kind is worse and the only resolution is global communism. By the way, under your communist system you would be jailed for your error study on your drug.
david7134: Such as the greenhouse experiment,
What is the “greenhouse experiment”? If you mean showing that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, that has been confirmed repeatedly. We even have details of the absorption spectrum.
david7134: and no plan glass does not stop the UV radiation that concerns you and even if it did you could generate UV with lights.
Huh? What does a plane of glass have to do with the atmospheric greenhouse effect?
david7134: Just because you throw out a laughable hypothesis
The greenhouse effect is supported by the basic physics of heat energy. Start by calculating the blackbody radiation of the Earth (-18°C) and compare it to Earth’s actual mean surface temperature (+15°C).
david7134: They acknowledge CO2 generation from the earth
Short of a super-volcano, geological emissions of CO2 (which are <1% of anthropogenic emissions) have an impact only over geological timescales.
Z,
Child I don’t like responding to you and thus doing your homework. You are interfering with an on going conversation that is several years old. I am not going to explain it. You can look up greenhouse experiment on the internet. And there is nothing proved on warming.
david7134: I don’t like responding to you
Let us know when you can defend your claims.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q=%22greenhouse+experiment%22
Porter david,
Can you describe your so-called greenhouse experiment in enough detail to conduct it?
Here’s what is known. Solar broad spectrum radiation reaches the Earth and is absorbed by matter (oceans, lands, plants, structures). Some radiation is reflected back to space by ice, clouds and shiny objects! Stratospheric ozone absorbs much of the UV.
Sunlight is approx half each infrared (IR or heat) and visible wavelengths with a soupcon of UV. Atmospheric gases absorb some of the incoming IR and re-emits in all directions. Visible light is absorbed by oceans, lands, plants, structures and is re-emitted in the IR range. On its trip back to space, the re-emitted IR is absorbed by atmospheric gases, e.g., methane, CO2, H2O and re-emitted. The absorption of IR by these gases retards the escape of these wavelengths to space. This results in warming of the atmosphere and Earth, especially the oceans.
Please consider Zachriel‘s point that he makes time and again: The greenhouse effect is supported by the basic physics of heat energy. Start by calculating the blackbody radiation of the Earth (-18°C) and compare it to Earth’s actual mean surface temperature (+15°C).
That’s an increase of 33°C attributed to the atmosphere. Does it make sense that a further significant increase in greenhouse gases could increase the mean surface temperature?
Jeff,
I described to you the experiment last year. I gave you enough information to look it up.
CO2 has not been demonstrated to be of significance in the weather, and, no, I don’t have to provide an answer for your climate concerns.Now, you need to get some education on chemistry of gasses and quit reading layman articles. Then answer why global government is the one and only answer for your climate concerns. Even the warmest acknowledge that all your little solutions will do nothing.
Now, why do I have to treat the Z as any more than a little shit, which he is. Oh, and Jeff you need to study stats.
Porter david,
The “greenhouse experiment” and “one world government” are your two arguments you claim falsify the theory of AGW, so it would seem YOU should supply evidence supporting or at least explaining your ideas.
Thanks
Elwood P. Dowd
david7134: I described to you the experiment last year.
Please provide a link to your description of the “greenhouse experiment”.
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Athepiratescove.us+david7134+%22greenhouse+experiment%22
Sure. An object emits LWIR, and some of that LWIR is absorbed and re-emitted by CO2, which returns and warms the initial object. Simple.
Elood P. Dowd
You ask it yet you never provide any. Only peer-reviewed papers that are written by scientists paid by Communist China.
Prove they are not paid by Communist China.
Prove to us that the CDC and FDA are not paid by Big Pharma under the table to make sure their stuff gets EUA. Prove to us that the left is not climbing in bed with giant corporations.
Prove to us that the most radical university in the country is cranking out the most Master and PHD level business people and are the most sought after by wall street and big corporations. You know the one. Berkley in California. The very place that burns down it’s own buildings if a conservative dares to show up and speak.
Your proof lies in institutions that have a fast declining credibility issues. It is why you have such a hard time proving anything to anyone. A peer reviewed paper means nothing when the scientists writting it go by the name of Kung Fu and Shaolin. Prove to us China does not want the west to collapse and they have not said they want to take over the world.
There is no proof you can show us because the proof you use lies with people that we cannot trust.
Dr. Fuckstick anyone? The CDC, FDA constantly changing their positions on everything.
Biden saying the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NOTHING FOR THE VIRUS after running on I will stop this virus.
Lies, Lies and more lies.
He who shouts the loudest gets to control the narrative. Well keep shouting my man. Cause that’s all you got. A whole host of untrusted “”SCIENTISTS”” paid by China to do their bidding.
Down on the Corner: Only peer-reviewed papers that are written by scientists paid by Communist China. Prove they are not paid by Communist China.
Asking others to “prove” a negative is a logical fallacy. For example, ask a male to prove they have never performed fellatio. Affidavits from every other male on Earth as reasonable evidence, alive during the male’s lifetime, would be acceptable.
How would one prove that thousands of scientists had NOT received compensation from China?
If you have evidence that scientists and paid by China and that the CDC and FDA are paid by Pharma, please contact FOX, Gateway Pudendum, NewsMax or ONAN to share it (you wouldn’t trust the FBI or DOJ).
Your position appears to be you can’t trust anyone or any organization that presents information that is contrary to your beliefs.
again you simply use Saul Alinsky.
You say I should provide affidavits by EVERY OTHER MALE. How about the contrary opinions and papers written by those that show data that is contrary to your view?
Those don’t count right? Yet you want me to provide affidavits from EVERY MALE ALIVE.
How about you provide the same for AGW?
I do not trust any agency that proves over and over again they are untrustworthy. Did you know the lead FBI investigator into the 1/6 event was just arrested for attempted murder of his wife?
I am supposed to trust these people? Do you trust me to take care of your grandkids, knowing nothing about me, but IF I provide Affidavits from every wife/husband on the planet that I will not perform fallatio on them then you would trust me?
Cute. But again no evidence only Saul Alinsky tactics to discredit my opinion. Mine is an opinion. I do not claim to be a climate scientist unlike you and your alter-ego Zachriel both of whom are masters of the cut and paste scientific method of discovery.
Down on the Corner: Did you know the lead FBI investigator into the 1/6 event was just arrested for attempted murder of his wife?
FBI Agent Richard Trask was charged with assault, not murder. He pleaded no contest to the misdemeanor charge and has been fired from the FBI. He was not involved in the J6 investigations.
Down on the Corner: I am supposed to trust these people?
Turns out that FBI agents can also have domestic problems. Any allegations by the FBI have to be proven in court.
Down on the Corner: Only peer-reviewed papers that are written by scientists paid by Communist China.
Have no idea what you are going on about. Scientists from different countries, under different political systems, from different cultures, and in many different related specialities, from forestry to planetology, have provided strong evidence of anthropogenic global warming.
Thanks for responding! Please understand that we were using the fellatio test as an example of the absurdity of demanding that others prove a negative.
Can you “prove” that Trump did NOT have Russian prostitutes urinate for him? Of course not. The onus is on the accusers to prove that he DID.
Again, that’s an example of the absurdity of demanding others prove a negative.
Any claim can be made and a demand to prove it’s NOT true made. What if our court system was built on the accused proving they did NOT commit a crime? The onus is on the accusers (prosecutors) to prove that they DID.
Again, that’s an example of the absurdity of demanding others prove a negative.
The issue is not whether or not we trust you, it’s whether there is evidence to support your claims.
We wish you would use more “cut and paste” to support your claims.
Down on the Corner: You ask (for proof) yet you never provide any.
Our apologies. We forgot to add that scientific theories are never definitively proven. They are always falsifiable by experimentation/observations.
You won’t like this summary, but scientific theories, once proposed based on hypotheses supported (but not proven) by evidence, stand on the accumulation of supportive evidence until a scientific consensus is reached. That’s not to say that the consensus is irrefutable; it can be reversed by new evidence. At this point in time overwhelming evidence supports the theory of AGW, that accumulating atmospheric greenhouse gases (mostly CO2) generated by humans burning fossil fuels is causing the global mean surface temperature to increase.
Porter david,
Zachriel is polite to you, so why do you do nothing but call him names and insult him? We are forced to assume you have no legitimate responses.
Jeff,
I realize the Z is far more intelligent than you, but he is still a dumbass.
Porter david,
You’re lucky. You’re the second dumbest commenter here, although you’re still the most dishonest.
Teach: no matter what the weather does, they’ll blame you
Teach again preaching victimology.