Two Degrees Of Warming Is Even Worse Than You Think Or Something

It’s always some sort of doom with these folks

Myth-buster: Why two degrees of global warming is worse than it sounds

A couple of degrees Celsius might not sound like a lot. But in terms of global warming, it’s a big deal.

In fact, every tenth of a degree that the Earth warms in the future will make a difference in the impacts that people experience worldwide and in your neck of the woods.

Picture yourself:

  • In Phoenix, Arizona, where you have to endure roughly nine additional days of over 110 degrees Fahrenheit per year than people here used to.
  • In Montecito, California, where if you’re not shopping for new air filters due to expected wildfire smoke, you’re practicing your evacuation plan in preparation for the mudslides that are becoming more common on fire-scarred hillsides.
  • In a Gulf Coast community, where hurricanes are getting more frequent and more severe — like Hurricane Ian, which was 10% wetter than it would have been if not for climate change.

Those are just some of the impacts we’re already seeing as a result of the one degree Celsius the world has already warmed since the late 19th century.

If it’s so dangerous, why do so few Warmists practice what they preach? Why are their lives not carbon neutral?

By transitioning off fossil fuels and to clean energy, sucking carbon out of the air, and drastically slashing emissions, the world has a chance to limit global warming — averting the worst impacts and helping to preserve a safe and livable world.

Perhaps Yale should stop using fossil fuels to operate. Turn off their heating and AC. Limit the use of WiFi, electricity, stop serving meat, and so much more. But, this is only for Other People.

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

27 Responses to “Two Degrees Of Warming Is Even Worse Than You Think Or Something”

  1. Down on the Corner says:

    Scaremongering 101.

    AGW is the biggest scam perpetrated on the world.

    I fear China or the USA or any one of the 200-plus countries around the world releasing a worldwide MERS virus much more than I do from it getting hotter IN THE DESSERT.

    And there are NOT more HURRICANES and they are NOT MORE powerful.

    It’s all lies. The left lies nonstop, cheats in elections, and does whatever the hell they please, and the world and the USA are powerless to stop them.

    1984 is looking like a Eutopia compared to what the left wants to unleash on the world today.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      AGW is no scam, but the fear that state-sponsored terrorists could release a new viral vector is legitimate.

      The “middle” needs to hold. Neither MAGAtism nor extreme wokism are viable strategies.

  2. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    What Mr Teach continues to misunderstand is that while a 97F day in Raleigh feels little different than a 101F day, an average global increase of 2C (3.6F) represents a massive increase in the energy content at the surface. Note that the current changes deniers deny are caused by a mere 1C increase.

    (We know… deniers ask, “What current changes?”).

    Arctic sea ice, Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, glaciers, sea levels, severe weather (droughts, wildfires, flooding, hurricane severity/locations), distribution of flora and fauna…

    • James Lewis says:

      Dear Elwood:

      I grow weary of pointing out to you that there is no scientific theory that supports man made global warming.

      Without that all you have is faith based claims.

      If I am wrong show me the accurate forecasts.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Weariness noted. Imagine our weariness reading your typings.

        My understanding is that scientific theories don’t support physical phenomena but are proposed to explain them.

        The theory of atmospheric greenhouse gas-caused global warming is supported by many lines of evidence, from the physical-chemical properties of greenhouse gas absorption of specific wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum to the continued increase in the mean global surface temperature coincident with increased atmospheric greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide.

        The theory predicts (forecasts) that the mean global surface temperature will increase with the increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. Since the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 has increased 50% (from 280 ppm to 420 ppm), an increase resulting from human burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas). The surface temperature has increased about 1 C (1.8F) during that time.

        Recognize that CO2 is not the only input to short-term global surface temperatures. Volcanic eruptions, ocean current changes, reflectivity, solar changes etc also can influence the value. But also recognize that WE control CO2 levels.

        • James Lewis says:

          Dear Elwood:

          You wrote: “My understanding is that scientific theories don’t support physical phenomena but are proposed to explain them.”

          You seemed confused. Look up Scientific Theory. It describes and defines the difference between a small “t” theory and a Scientific Theory. To become a ST, a t must be falsifiable. It must be able to be tested. In addition, it must be predictable. Man Made Global Warming – MMGW- is a faith based theory.

          You don’t destroy western civilization based on faith based theories.

          You write: “The theory predicts (forecasts) that the mean global surface temperature will increase with the increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

          That is so loosey goosey to be funny. It also fails to explain why the Medieval Warming period happened. Where were the cars???

          You wrote: “Recognize that CO2 is not the only input to short-term global surface temperatures. Volcanic eruptions, ocean current changes, reflectivity, solar changes etc also can influence the value. But also recognize that WE control CO2 levels.”

          Uh, volcanic eruptions definitely impact CO2 levels. So does ocean current changes as it impacts grown surface temperatures.

          So, how can you say, “WE control CO2 levels.” We don’t.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Not confused. I was trying to be self-deprecating. The theory of global warming is falsifiable. Just because it hasn’t been falsified doesn’t make it false. Duh.

            The theory predicts that as CO2 rises so with the Earth’s temperature.

            That here were no automobiles during the MWP is well known. Note, that CO2 is not the ONLY factor to cause temporary regional warming (e.g., see ENSO).

            This Medieval period of warming, also known as the Medieval climate anomaly, was associated with an unusual temperature rise roughly between 750 and 1350 AD (the European Middle Ages). The available evidence suggests that at times, some regions experienced temperatures exceeding those recorded during the period between 1960 and 1990.

            The Medieval warm period was by and large a regional event. Its presence or absence reflects a redistribution of heat around the planet, and this suggests drivers other than a global increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

            The most likely cause of the regional changes in temperature was related to a modification of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation.

            The impact of volcanoes is not from CO2 emissions but from the emissions of ash, particulates and aerosols that reduce insolation. Note the cooling for a year or so after a large volcanic eruption.

            We DO control the increase in CO2 levels by human-caused emissions. We currently have NO effective way to remove large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. What do you feel is the source of the 50% increase in CO2?

            We understand fully that “fuelists” do not trust any claim from actual scientists regarding global warming. But that fact will not change the other facts and all we can do is to repeat the facts.

    • James Lewis says:

      Dear Elwood:

      “An above-average hurricane season was forecasted for 2022. Scientists at Colorado State University estimated there would be at least 19 named storms and nine hurricanes. Ultimately, the 2022 season was near-normal.”

      How did that turn out?

      “The 2022 season ended with 14 named tropical systems, including eight hurricanes, with two major hurricanes (Fiona and Ian). Hurricanes are listed in reverse alphabetical order, with the exception of the major impacts, which appear at the top of the list.”

      Well?????

  3. Matthew says:

    Whenever I read the phrase “In fact” I know everything that comes after it is most likely nonsense.

    The same goes for all the other similar qualifiers that are routinely shoehorned in front of utter bullshit in an attempt to provide some sort of credence.

    Then there are the vapor trails of adverbs that are used when the basic phrases just can’t provide enough camouflage. So when you see stuff like “to be entirely, completely honest”, or “if we’re being utterly, totally frank”, or “absolutely, altogether, heartily, perfectly truthful”, etc., anything that follows should be taken with a freight car of salt.

    Then do your own checking.

  4. xtron says:

    small inconvient fact….
    the manufacture of a solar panel, or wind generator produces more CO2 than it will offset in it’s lifetime.
    so, in fact, “green energy” is adding to the CO2 problem, not reducing it.
    instead of forcing electric alternatives which do not actually help, and have a large set of additional problems (infrastructure, storage, raw material availability)
    we need to be developing alternate fuels that are in fact renewable, and will work in the existing infrastructure. cellulostic alcohol, biobutanol, biogas from sewage, and jet fuel/diesel from sea water are just a few examples

    • Professor Hale says:

      True. Solar panels consume more energy in their manufacturing cycle than they produce in their lifetime too. In that sense, they are metaphorically more like a battery, infused with energy at the factory, and the Sun regulating the release of energy. And an inefficient one at that.

      • Matthew says:

        Then there’s the humanitarian and ecological disasters created by the mining operations for the materials used and the need for ever more of the same considering all the insane Federal, State and local green mandates (as though that sort of thing can be accomplished by fiat) that leftists are falling over one another to enact.

        Everyone under 30 is pissed off at us boomers for ruining the planet for them while at the same time they consume at a pace that leaves us in the dust. Too bad we’ll all be gone by the time the next generation is marching them to the gallows because of all the impossible to recycle solar panel and EV materials that they promoted non-stop trying to prove how fucking green they were to us!

        • Professor Hale says:

          Think positively. I am sure some Chinese peasant is already doing research about scavenging parts from solar panels to use to plug that hole in his roof.

  5. Jl says:

    “Arctic sea ice….”. And none of those can be tied to “global warming”, as none of them are worse than they used to be. Facts be damned, just doesn’t fit the narrative..
    Over the last 8 years there’s been a slight cooling-and during that time period about 14% of all human emissions have occurred

  6. Jl says:

    What’s also quite humorous is that “denier” isn’t a scientific term, of course, but rather a term used by cult belief systems over the course of human history.

  7. H says:

    Furring our last Ice Age the temp was only 5C cooler.
    However that tiny change resulted in an ice sheet 1 mile thick covering much of North America.
    The 2F rise in surface water temps off NJ has wiped out lobster reproduction off NJ.
    The eggs which float to the surface fail to become larvae
    They are very heat Sensetive.
    Also many people deny the Earth is not a spheroid .
    Others believe that the Dems are so smart they can steal elections constantly/consistently without getting caught. Perhaps they are receiving assistance from a supernatural power ?

  8. James Lewis says:

    Dear Elwood:

    You wrote: “The Medieval warm period was by and large a regional event.” Actually,evidence has been found around the world.

    You wrote: “……and this suggests drivers other than a global increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide…” If other drivers existed then, they can also exist now.

    You wrote: “The impact of volcanoes is not from CO2 emissions…” WRONG – NASA says: “Volcanic eruptions are often discussed in relation to climate change because they release CO2 (and other gases) into our atmosphere.”

    You wrote: “We DO control the increase in CO2 levels by human-caused emissions.” No. You WANT to TRY and control it by controlling when we can use carbon based fuels. So far China and India, among others, have told you to f….k off.

    You wrote: “The theory of global warming is falsifiable. Just because it hasn’t been falsified doesn’t make it false. Duh.” And what is the test that it has failed because it has not been taken? Truly, stupid is as stupid does.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      We agree on one thing. Stupid is as stupid does. But we don’t think you’re stupid, just ignorant. And repeating Forrest Gump sayings are not much of an argument.

      We understand that you desire to argue about the philosophy of science. Go ahead. Let’s say we accept your argument that global warming is a flawed theory. Then, what changes? Will the Earth begin to cool or keep warming? Is that really germane or just another distraction?

      The scientific theory is that atmospheric CO2 is the primary source of warming.

      Observation 1: The Earth is warming. (Fuelists denied this for decades but have been persuaded by the overwhelming evidence over the past several years.)

      Observation 2: Atmospheric CO2 has increased significantly over the past century from a pre-industrial 280 ppm to a current 420 ppm, the highest concentration for at least the last 1,000,000 years. (Homo sapiens have never before existed in such a sustained CO2 level in nature! The Earth is in a current ice age, with alternating glacial and interglacial periods. Typically, CO2 is around 200 ppm during glacial periods and 280 ppm during interglacial periods. The current interglacial Holocene epoch began about 10,000 years ago, coincidentally also the period of the evolution of human civilization.)

      Observation 3: The burning of fossil fuels is the source of the increased CO2. (This was demonstrated by measuring the ratio of carbon isotopes in fossil fuels vs that of CO2 in air.)

      Observation 4: CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) are largely “invisible” to visible light but absorb the longer wavelength infrared radiation (IR). This “excites” (heats) the target molecule which re-emits the IR to travel to space or hit other molecules (water, CO2, methane etc). (Scientists discovered this over a century ago. Middle school students conduct experiments demonstrating that adding CO2 gas to a container slows heat loss compared to room air. Water vapor does the same thing.)

      Observation 5: The stratosphere is cooling as the troposphere warms. (This observation is consistent with LESS IR escaping into space. If a more intense Sun was causing warming why isn’t the stratosphere also warming?)

      What evidence do you have to support the “fuelist” “theory” that the Earth is warming by some other mechanism?

      What bit of evidence falsifies the current theory of global warming? The Medieval anomaly? The 2nd Law of thermodynamics? Undersea volcanoes? Earth’s core?

      Argue away, my friend, argue away…

      • drowningpuppies says:

        Rimjob: The scientific theory is that atmospheric CO2 is the primary source of warming.

        My God! And you have the audacity to call other people stupid!

        Might want to look at that big ball of fire in the sky if you’re looking for a primary source.
        But then again you’re a moron.

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

      • James Lewis says:

        Dear Elwood:

        You wrote: “Let’s say we accept your argument that global warming is a flawed theory. Then, what changes? Will the Earth begin to cool or keep warming? Is that really germane or just another distraction?”

        The question is, should be destroy western civilization and keep the third tier countries down based on an unproven/flawed theory??

        You wrote: “The burning of fossil fuels is the source of the increased CO2. (This was demonstrated by measuring the ratio of carbon isotopes in fossil fuels vs that of CO2 in air.)
        So?? Is the impacted air spread evenly over the earth, or just in the tested area.

        You wrote: “The scientific theory is that atmospheric CO2 is the PRIMARY source of warming.” (Emphasis mine.) You have no proof. It is demonstrably wrong.

        You can observe all you want but to be a Scientific Theory you must be able to test it and receive the same result each time. IOW you must predict accurately.

        You wrote: “And repeating Forrest Gump sayings are not much of an argument.” That wasn’t an argument. It was an observation.

  9. Jl says:

    “Trolling for jl always works…” Not being able to refute JL works even better….

  10. Jl says:

    Yes, the MWP was global, and as long as we’re listing things here are a few more. There’s been no tropospheric “hot spot” as was predicted, nor any “polar amplification” at both poles as was predicted. No more severe weather as was predicted, no more wild fires as was predicted, no 50 million climate refugees as predicted, etc., etc
    “What evidence falsifies the current theory..”? What demonstrates verifiable cause- effect evidence of the theory? One can’t falsify a negative.
    “Middle school students conduct experiments demonstrating that adding CO2 to a container slows heat loss compared to room air”.
    But of course that’s not a demonstration of the theory. Adding more CO2 would have to make the air warmer than it was to begin with. Slowing heat loss is completely different.

    • Matthew says:

      Then there’s all the paleo-climate data that indicates the rise in CO2 is never the cause of warming but is one of the effects and that temperatures have been much warmer with low CO2 concentrations and much colder with high CO2 concentrations. The CO2 math has never worked at any point in the cycle. Ever. We could reduce human CO2 emissions to zero tomorrow and the atmosphere would need a spectroscope to be able to tell the difference.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Although right wing bloggers largely disagree, scientists attribute the start of interglacial periods (such as the Holocene) not to CO2 but to changes in the Earth’s relationship (eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession) to the Sun.

        And yet the current warming is being driven by CO2.

        It’s frightening to think that the current warming is also triggering a further increase in CO2.

        • Jl says:

          And yet the current warming is thought to be driven by CO2, amongst other theories. Big difference. Now, if only “science” could demonstrate a lab experiment showing back radiation from a cold gas adds to the temperature of a heat source.

Pirate's Cove