A new report done by the organization Climate Central predicts the impact that global warming will have on 1,001 cities worldwide. They’ve compiled an interactive map that will show just how incredibly hot it will get in these cities in the year 2100.

If the map and data is correct, the impact that global warming will have on our weather is horrifying. Every city’s temperature will rise between 6 to 12 degrees Fahrenheit. Most cities will rise somewhere between 7 and 10 degrees, however.

The interactive map shows that in 2100, the city of Boston, MA will be as hot as the current temperatures of Miami, Florida. Meanwhile, an already warm city like Las Vegas, NV, could get as hot as the current temperatures of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which is around 111°F.

“Summer temperatures in most American cities are going to feel like summers now in Texas and Florida — very, very hot,” said Alyson Kenward, lead researcher of the analysis.

While the data looks at the impact that global warming will have on temperatures, it does not look at other key statistics. Missing are the expected humidity levels, pollution levels, sea levels, and frequency of storms, for starters. Still, it is interesting (and a bit scary) to see what the temperature of your city will be like in the future.

The map can be found here at Climate Central’s website.

223 Responses

  1. Alfonso Freda

    Point understood !!! But fact remains …………………nothing will be done by living …………

  2. Garrett MM MM YEAH YEAH

    I just want to know if these climatologiss can predict how many trees I am going to chop down and use for firewood this christmass.

      • Hardcore Realist

        Let’s say that you burn 3 tons of wood this winter. The world will emit about 32 gigatonnes of CO2 this year. Your 3 tons constitute one-billionth of the total. I’d call that insignificant — wouldn’t you?

      • Garrett MM MM YEAH YEAH

        Wait I’m confused. You are saying my 3 tons equals one billionth of the total? What about the other 8 billion people? If my 3 tons equals 1 billionth of 32 then the world output based on a per person total output would 32 gigatons multiplied 7 more times based on a population of 8 billion. I guess funny math is what global warming is about.

      • Hardcore Realist

        Well, my own math was off: divide 32 gigatonnes by 3 tons and you get one TEN-billionth. But more important is your assumption that everybody burns the same amount of carbon. The average American emits about 18 tons of carbon per year. The average Chinese, by contrast, emits only about 6 tons. And a goodly segment of humanity emits less than 3 tons per year.

      • Garrett MM MM YEAH YEAH

        Actually the per person average consumption was your number. There is absolutely no way to account for every individuals carbon emmision so any numbers will be based on statistical averages. However it does not matter because…….The Chinese are liars!!!

      • Hardcore Realist

        No, you can get these numbers in a variety of places. Google “average carbon emissions per person” and select the first entry: it’s from the World Bank, not known for lying. And it’s fairly easy to calculate these numbers from solid numbers such as electricity output, coal consumption, and so forth. The Chinese can’t lie about those numbers.

      • Garrett MM MM YEAH YEAH

        Right but they are still averages. Google does not know if I drive an SUV 20k miles per year or 4k miles per year because I lie. Also to think the Chinese can’t or do not lie is very naive. I have some chinese made dog food for your pets you can have if you are sick of having them around.

      • Hardcore Realist

        Who cares what you do? Your carbon footprint is insignificant.

        As to naivete, I suggest that the shoe is on your foot. Sure, Chinese companies can and do lie all the time, but the Chinese need a central bank for setting interest rates and exchange rates, and that bank cannot function with bad economic statistics. They gather their own data and, because that bank is run by the government, lying to them is a crime. They gather reams of economic information — and they publish all of it because that’s required by outside groups such as investors, the World Bank, and the WTO.

      • Garrett MM MM YEAH YEAH

        Its not the companies that lie, its the Chinese government. Sigh……

      • Hardcore Realist

        Sure the Chinese government lies about a lot of things, but not primary economic data. It’s like a huge spreadsheet, with all the numbers connected with each other. So it’s almost impossible to lie about most economic statistics. The one thing that many governments lie about is inflation. The Chinese government does it, so does Argentina and so does Venezuela. But economists are able to deduce the true rate of inflation from the underlying economic data, so these lies are merely PR, and serious people are not taken in by them.

  3. rhjames

    This is based on models developed over the past 20 years. To date, none of them have matched real data. Therefore, what use is it trying to predict temperatures so far in the future? They might as well pull figures out of a hat.

    • Hardcore Realist

      Wrong. Their RMS error is very low. You disagree? Then show me a calculation of RMS error. You can’t; I doubt that you even know what RMS error is.

      • Bruce Richardson

        HardCore, the second warming period of the 20th century was from around 1975 to around 2001. During that time, temperatures were increasing in a fairly uniform way. It is fairly easy to tune a model to predict that a current rate will continue. So in a sense you are correct about the RMS error but only until 2001. After 2001, the model results and the actual temperature record have been diverging. None of the models predicted that the trend since 2001 would be flat. The models are showing continued warming which has not happened.

        At this point, solar activity is at a 100+ year low, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has already moved into a cool phase, and the North Atlantic Sea Surface Temperature (NA SST) is still in a warm phase but it isn’t getting any warmer.

        If the NA SST does start moving into the next cool phase, we are likely to see a definite cooling trend regardless of what the concentration of CO2 is. At present, it is at 0.04% of the atmosphere at Mauna Loa.

      • Hardcore Realist

        OK, so you admit that you don’t know what the RMS error is and have no idea of how accurate the models’ output is.

  4. Ceunei

    Oh relax already.
    Let us all sit back and watch the weather…no choice but to go through what happens when it happens for many of us…the weather is something to talk about not argue about…LOL

  5. Bruce Richardson

    Even the United Nation’s IPCC isn’t making predictions as outlandish as 6 to 12 degrees Fahrenheit warmer. Those predictions are based on models rather than actual data. The actual data show that the trend since around 2001 has been flat i.e. no appreciable warming or cooling for the last 13 years. None of the models predicted that in advance. Models are based on assumptions and beliefs of the people who create them.

    • Hardcore Realist

      Oh lordy, here we go with the old “no warming” claptrap. You’re looking at only 1% of the subject: the atmosphere. 99% of the earth’s surface heat is held in the oceans. And the oceans have continued to rise without pause, because they are warming and warming causes water to expand.
      And your disdain for models would, if applied with integrity, require you to dismiss most science and reject most of modern technology, which is based on models. Newton’s Laws are models. Everything in science is based on models. Even our temperature measurements are based on models.

      • Rich Persoff

        Hardcore, I admire your persistent posts rebutting astroturfers, etc. But I suspect they aren’t listening and don’t care for reality. Thanks for your service in not permitting their hogwash to go unchallenged and unrefuted!

      • Hardcore Realist

        Of course they don’t care about the truth! Yes, some of them are surely astroturfers, paid shills for the fossil fuel industry. But my goal here is not to convince them — nothing could ever get them to change their minds.. Instead, my purpose here is to demonstrate to readers that deniers are dishonest, illogical, and ignorant of the science.

      • Bruce Richardson

        Your purpose is to demonstrate to readers that “deniers” are dishonest, illogical, and ignorant of the science. And the way to do that is to be dishonest, illogical, and ignorant of the science?

      • Hardcore Realist

        I challenge you to find anything I’ve written that is dishonest, illogical, or ignorant of the science. You can’t.

      • Bruce Richardson

        In my first comment, I said that the even the UN’s IPCC isn’t making predictions as outlandish as 6-12 degrees Fahrenheit warmer. That would be 3.3°C-6.6°C warmer.

        I said further that those predictions were based on models rather than actual data. I said that since 2001 (the last 13 years), there has been no appreciable warming or cooling, I pointed out that none of the models predicted that in advance.

        Your response was:

        “Oh lordy, here we go with the old “no warming” claptrap. You’re looking at only 1% of the subject: the atmosphere. 99% of the earth’s surface heat is held in the oceans. And the oceans have continued to rise without pause, because they are warming and warming causes water to expand.”

        That’s a deception called misdirection i.e. intellectual “slight of hand.” I consider that to be dishonest.

        You intentionally moved the attention away from the subject of the article, the models predicting a continuing increase in air temperature, and my comment which was about air temperature. You attempted to categorize the lack of warming in the surface temperature records since around 2001 as “claptrap” by changing the subject to “99% of the earth’s surface heat is held in the oceans” which is a fundamentally different subject.

        My basic position is that the global surface temperature modeling results on average diverge from the actual global surface temperature empirical data (NOAA, HadCRUT, GISS, BEST, UAH, RSS) starting around 2001.

        You said:

        “The IPCC projections for the end of this century are pretty broad, ranging from a low of 0.5ºC to a high of 6ºC. ”

        That would be from a low of 0.9°F to a high of 10.8°F increase. The IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (Synthesis) 2001, predicted the following based on models. Please note that this was the prediction in 2001. :

        “The globally averaged surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8°C (Figure 5d) over the period 1990 to 2100. These results are for the full range of 35 SRES scenarios, based on a number of climate models.”

        The IPCC was predicting an overall rate of between 0.13°C per decade and 0.52°C per decade. What we actually saw in the NOAA data since 2001 was rate of +0.005°C per decade which is insignificant.

        If we want to compare the low model predicted rate to the NOAA empirical data, the model prediction was 26X what actually occurred in the NOAA data. If we want to compare the high high model predicted rate to the NOAA empirical data, the model prediction was 104X what actually occurred between 2001 and 2014.

        Where a model is wrong by 26X to 104X, I would to bet on the future accuracy of that model[s]. Your suggestion that the models predicted the flat rate since 2001 would qualify as “ignorant of the science.”

        For “illogical” we have:

        “And your disdain for models would, if applied with integrity, require
        you to dismiss most science and reject most of modern technology, which
        is based on models. Newton’s Laws are models. Everything in science is
        based on models. Even our temperature measurements are based on models.”

        I only pointed out correctly that the models didn’t accurately predict what actually happened. Nothing that I said suggested “disdain” for models in general or climate models in particular so what followed was based on a false premise. Any argument based on a false premise is a fallacious argument which by definition is illogical.

        Now kindly point out what you think that I have said that was dishonest, illogical, or ignorant of the science.

      • Hardcore Realist

        Your call me dishonest for writing “Oh lordy, here we go with the old “no warming” claptrap” in response to your statement that “the trend since around 2001 has been flat”. Nope. Your further explanation only demonstrates that you don’t grasp the subject. I showed that the planet’s surface continues to warm. You *still* don’t get it. Fine, I knew I wouldn’t convince you, but I think any other reader can see right through you now.

        “My basic position is that the global surface temperature modeling results on average diverge from the actual global surface temperature empirical data (NOAA, HadCRUT, GISS, BEST, UAH, RSS) starting around 2001.”

        And you STILL don’t understand how meaningless that is? I’ll remind you that the difference between weather and climate is that climate is weather conditions that persist for at least 30 years. Can you figure out how many years have elapsed since 2001?

        The same argument applies to your criticism of the Third Assessment Report.

        You claim “Nothing that I said suggested “disdain” for models in general or climate models in particular”

        Oh really? How about this statements of yours: ” Those predictions are based on models rather than actual data.”

        It is absurd to require a prediction to be based on “actual data” because you cannot HAVE actual data from the future! The only way to predict the future is by means of a model. Yet here you are disparaging predictions because they’re based on a model.

        You ask, “Now kindly point out what you think that I have said that was dishonest, illogical, or ignorant of the science.”

        I didn’t accuse you of that; my accusation was directed against deniers in general. Surely you will agree that some of the denier statements made in these 200+ comments are dishonest, illogical, and ignorant of the science. In your own case, I’ll cite your failure to grasp the difference between weather (short term) and climate (30+ years) as an example of ignorance of science. For illogic, I’ll cite you attempt to characterize my “Oh lordy” comment as dishonest. However, I see nothing in your few posts that I would be so bold as to call dishonest.

      • Bruce Richardson

        Rich, what does “astroturfer” mean in the context.

      • Bruce Richardson

        Hardcare, I have no disdain for models. I have created models. But when models don’t agree with empirical data for 13 years, shouldn’t that raise some doubts about claims that are based on those models?

        The article was talking about 6 to 12 degrees increase in surface temperature not ocean temperature. The models were also talking about surface temperatures. When we look at NOAA Land & Oceans, HadCRUT4, GISSv3, & BEST, we see no significant warming or cooling in the global surface temperatures since around 2001. UAH and RSS (satellites) show no significant warming or cooling since around 2001.

        Most of the suns energy is indeed stored in the oceans. The oceans are around 73% of the earth’s surface. Solar activity during the latter half of the 20th century averaged significantly higher than any similar period since the mid 1700’s. That suggests that there is a lot of heat stored in the oceans. With solar activity presently at a 100+ year low, that’s may prove to be a good thing.

        The problem with your claim is that we don’t have any way to gauge the amount of heat being stored. What do we compare it to? The ARGOS 3000 float array was only completed in 2007. That system is the only one with the potential accuracy of plus or minus 0.001 degree Celsius that would be necessary to roughly estimate changes in ocean heat content.

        Even if the accuracy is truly there, can 3000 floats provide a representative sample of the world’s oceans? Assuming that they are evenly distributed–they aren’t–there would be one float for each 47.366 square miles of oceans and on average 103,333 cubic miles of ocean water.

        Your last paragraph was surprising. Models are often useful, but only if model results approximate empirical data. In other words, are the models able to accurately predict what the empirical data are going to be. If the models fail time and again to do that, then it’s back to the drawing board for the models. Only in climate would someone choose model results over actual empirical data when they don’t agree. That’s not the scientific method that I learned. If we are talking about measurements, it can’t be based on models. It would be based on measurements.

      • Hardcore Realist

        The IPCC projections for the end of this century are pretty broad, ranging from a low of 0.5ºC to a high of 6ºC. The Climate Central people are using the upper end of this range, so I think it fair to call their projections “pessimistic”, but not “wrong”.

        “But when models don’t agree with empirical data for 13 years, shouldn’t that raise some doubts about claims that are based on those models?”

        If that were true, then yes, we should worry about it. But it’s false. The models have done a great job of projecting not just temperatures, but many other climate variables: rainfall, humidity, storm intensity, and so forth. I challenge you to back up your claim with an RMS error calculation for the entire output of the models. If you can’t produce an RMS number, or some other quantitative measurement of error, you’re just blowing smoke.

        “Solar activity during the latter half of the 20th century averaged significantly higher than any similar period since the mid 1700’s.”

        You’re talking about sunspots; what matters is solar power output. Our measurements show that sunspots have a very tiny effect on solar power output — far too low to explain the current warming.

        “UAH and RSS (satellites) show no significant warming or cooling since around 2001.”

        Correction: no significant increase in SURFACE temperatures. If most of the heat is going into the deeper ocean, we would expect surface temperatures to slow their rise or even stop until some sort of thermal equilibrium is re-established. Right now the situation is so far out of equilibrium that the oceans’ responses are truly chaotic. But they’re real.

        “With solar activity presently at a 100+ year low, that’s may prove to be a good thing.”

        Again, you’re talking sunspots, not energy.

        Your complaints about the difficulties of monitoring deep ocean temperatures do not constitute a contradiction to the conclusion that deep ocean temperatures are rising; you’re saying only that we cannot corroborate the conclusion of rising deep ocean temperatures with direct measurements. But the rising sea level is the most solid evidence that the oceans are increasing in temperature.

        You repeat your misinformation that the climate models don’t match observation. I challenge to provide a quantitative measure of the error in CMIP5 outputs.

  6. kclayd51

    Global warming/climate change articles are predictable and easy to write. Usually, an extreme headline is used, followed by a misleading photo. This one offers an apocalyptic map of doom. As the writer states, it is “frightening.” In USAToday, there is an article about Chicago being beset by an Artic Vortex, much like the movie, “The Day after Tomorrow.” It has a photo of a child covered in wintry snow. It, too, promised to be frightening, but it reported there was no arctic vortex, and the temperatures would be pleasing, 70s during the day, dipping below 50 at night. There would be no snow or freezing weather, no frozen children or tidal waves sweeping over NY City. In another article, global warming was going to eliminate red heads, and another one warned women would lose their “hour glass” figures. In today’s news, we are promised climate change will increase kidney stones. Of course, more studies are always required, which require additional funding to alarmists. The next story may be entitled, “The Sky Is Falling.”

  7. kclayd51

    Climate Central can predict the weather 100 years from now, but not for next week?

    • TabNabber Educator

      Actually temperature predictions 1 week out tend to be very accurate, precipitation predictions on the other hand are accurate to about 2 days out.

  8. Poltroon

    Give it up boys, your andropogenic global warming hypothesis is has pretty much run it’s course.

  9. Bill H

    Well…the scary thing about this story is that some of the lunatic left believe this nonsense and they are willing to destroy our economy to save tomorrows world.

    Overpopulation of our planet is the greatest threat. Work on that one.

    • Rich Persoff

      Defund the Center for Disease Control and let Gaia sort us out.

  10. Mystick

    The model has already been shown to be flawed. It’s all histrionics at this point because there is too much money wrapped up in the “climate change” industry to let it go quietly.

    • TabNabber

      I know right? The fossil fuel industry doesn’t have that much money wrapped up in it.

    • Rich Persoff

      Mystick (or My stick?) There’s LOTS more money wrapped up in the existing coal and oil industries and the infra-structures and investments dependent on them (To say nothing of terrorist-funding Arab states) which will fight to preserve the status quo down to the last iceberg! After all, an ice-free Arctic will sure be good for shipping, won’t it?

      • Bruce Richardson

        Rich, assuming that the current Arctic Warm Phase continues and the Arctic Summer sea ice extent continues to decline at the present rate, the Arctic could be ice free for a week or two by around 2038. That’s based on my analysis of ijis Arctic data. That probably wouldn’t have much impact on shipping. The ice is floating and moves with the currents and the wind. That would make it treacherous for shipping.

        Sediment studies suggest that there have been innumerable Arctic warm phases. More recently, there were Viking settlements in Greenland, they were farming land that is still frozen today. it must have been warmer. I seriously doubt that the current Arctic Warm Period will continue for another 20+ years. Do you think that the Arctic Warm Phase will continue so long as atmospheric CO2 is increasing? Or do you think that it will end as Arctic Warm Phases always have have in the past.

  11. John Normanton

    What a lot of rubbish they pick a date when most of us reading this article won’t be here and those that will be here are not old enough to read this load of bull.

    • T1000

      Well, lifespans continue to increase, and at some point (possibly within our lifetimes), scientists will be able to extend lifespans significantly by slowing and even reversing aging via genetic, biomedical, and/or robotics engineering, so it may not be wise to assume that we won’t be around.

  12. Alfonso Freda

    Telling the living in 2014 about 2100 is stupid……….all will be DEAD !!!!!! or near DEAD !!!!!!

    • Bruce Richardson

      After the “Population Bomb” bombed, a lot of scientists know better than to make predictions that may be shown to be bogus during their lifetime.

  13. Allen L Roland

    Global warming is here, Folks ~ except I believe this increase will be evident within the next 10 years.

  14. Pete

    Most liberals have a propensity for backing anything that puts more control in government hands and less freedom in the citizens and global warming is one of those scams.

    • JustWorld B

      And more conservatives are shoving their heads deeper up that a$$. Boy, does it stink there?

      • cdw

        Winston Churchill: “Never let a good crises go to waste.”

        That advice was certainly not wasted on Obama’s corrupt associate, Rahm Emanuel: “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

      • JustWorld B

        Stating obvious again? And you point is?

      • cdw

        It transparently obvious that not only is the Obama administration full of scamming and corruption but that most liberal, Progressive Democrats have no moral compass whatsoever, and their goal is more government and less freedom.

      • Hardcore Realist

        The fact that you bring politics into a discussion of science demonstrates that you are motivated by political ideology, not concern for scientific truth.

      • cdw

        Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), Climate Change, or Climate Disruption was first politicized and misrepresented by the liberal, Progressive Democrats.

        I am bringing balance to not only a scientific discussion, but to a political controversy.

      • Hardcore Realist

        You are definitely one of the fringe cases. AGW is a SCIENTIFIC issue, one that has been discussed by scientists for more than a century. As evidence that it was actually taking place began developing in the 80s, scientists began to give it more serious consideration. It had nothing to do with politics. You, however, are obviously motivated by political preferences rather than scientific knowledge.

        You are not bringing balance, you are pushing a fringe view embraced only by a radical minority.

      • cdw

        No, I consider that the current corrupt politicians of our age will stoop as low as possible to use any issue, such as AGW, to further their political agenda and stuff their wallets.

      • Hardcore Realist

        No, but you haven’t answered any of my challenges. You’re a rock that makes lots of claims, offers no evidence, and refuses to answer when I nail you with a challenge.

      • Rich Persoff

        Even though a crazy drunk (l, P D) was the first one to warn that a tridal wave would follow the earthquake (AGW), If you didn’t choose to run you got drownded (sic).

      • Rich Persoff

        So how do you control my dog if it chooses to drop a load on your front lawn? Fences? Shooting it? Shooting me?
        How about “Curb your dog” laws?
        Or do you just smile and shovel up the fresh crap along with everything else that’s being dumped on you? Oh, sorry, you didn’t know?

      • cdw

        I suggest that you place the dog crap on, and in the middle of the sidewalk, out of your way, at the property line, where the dog owner must walk his dog.

  15. albundy57

    Its July 12th and 80 degrees near washington dc… These fake scientist/political activists must smoke a hell of a lot of dope! Gonna be 50’s in July in Chicago next week dunskies. Wake the f$$$ up!!! This is a money grab using the only group of dummies that wont challenege them – liberal enviro oppressives!

    • JustWorld B

      Right. Tens of thousands of scientists who worked their a$$es off to learn their science, spent countless hours analyzing data and developing algorithms are “smoking dope” and you, with your statements pulled out of rear end, are the real thing. Conservatives are proving that they are anti-science and anti-knowledge ignorants. That must be really exciting.

      • cdw

        No, only a few scientific “con men”, notably Michael Mann of Penn State University and Jones of the UK’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) are corrupt opportunists with a dedicated interest in AGW research money.

        Search online for “Climategate” and “Let’s use Mike’s trick to hide the decline…”

      • JustWorld B

        Fact for you: 97% of climate scientists in the world are in agreement that humans are accelerating climate change and that serious action is needed to reverse this trend. If you even remotely understood how science works you would surely shut up and listen to the wise.

      • cdw

        I very well understand how science works: form a hypothesis and test it.

        At what government-run school were you indoctrinated?

      • Hardcore Realist

        Yes, and climate scientists have performed THOUSANDS of experiments and they all confirm AGW. Perhaps you should read about them.

      • Hardcore Realist

        Just look at the chapter endings of any of the chapters of AR5. Here, I’ll copy and paste a sample for you. These are citations for just ONE chapter (Chapter 8) and they represent JUST the As:

        Aaheim, A., J. Fuglestvedt, and O. Godal, 2006: Costs savings of a flexible multi-gas climate policy. Energy Journal,
        Special Issue #3, 485-501.

        Abreu, J., J. Beer, F. Steinhilber, S. Tobias, and N. Weiss, 2008: For how long will the current grand maximum of solar
        activity persist? Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L20109.

        Ackerley, D., B. B. B. Booth, S. H. E. Knight, E. J. Highwood, D. J. Frame, M. R. Allen, and D. P. Rowell, 2011:
        Sensitivity of Twentieth-Century Sahel Rainfall to Sulfate Aerosol and CO2 Forcing. Journal of Climate, 24,

        Allan, W., H. Struthers, and D. C. Lowe, 2007: Methane carbon isotope effects caused by atomic chlorine in the marine
        boundary layer: Global model results compared with Southern Hemisphere measurements. Journal of Geophysical
        Research-Atmospheres, 112, D04306.

        Ammann, C. M., and P. Naveau, 2003: Statistical analysis of tropical explosive volcanism occurrences over the last 6
        centuries. Geophysical Research Letters, 30, 1210.

        ——, 2010: A statistical volcanic forcing scenario generator for climate simulations. Journal of Geophysical Research-
        Atmospheres, 115, D05107.

        Anchukaitis, K. J., B. M. Buckley, E. R. Cook, B. I. Cook, R. D. D’Arrigo, and C. M. Ammann, 2010: Influence of
        volcanic eruptions on the climate of the Asian monsoon region. Geophysical Research Letters, 37, L22703.

        Andersen, M., D. Blake, F. Rowland, M. Hurley, and T. Wallington, 2009: Atmospheric Chemistry of Sulfuryl
        Fluoride: Reaction with OH Radicals, CI Atoms and O-3, Atmospheric Lifetime, IR Spectrum, and Global
        Warming Potential. Environmental Science & Technology, doi:10.1021/es802439f, 1067-1070.

        Andersen, M., V. Andersen, O. Nielsen, S. Sander, and T. Wallington, 2010: Atmospheric Chemistry of
        HCF2O(CF2CF2O)(x)CF2H (x=2-4): Kinetics and Mechanisms of the Chlorine-Atom-Initiated Oxidation.
        Chemphyschem, 11, 4035-4041.

        Andrews, T., and P. M. Forster, 2008: CO2 forcing induces semi-direct effects with consequences for climate feedback
        interpretations. Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L04802.

        Andrews, T., M. Doutriaux-Boucher, O. Boucher, and P. M. Forster, 2011: A regional and global analysis of carbon
        dioxide physiological forcing and its impact on climate. Climate Dynamics, 36, 783-792.

        Andrews, T., J. Gregory, M. Webb, and K. Taylor, 2012a: Forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity in CMIP5 coupled
        atmosphere-ocean climate models. Geophysical Research Letters, 39, L09712.

        Andrews, T., P. Forster, O. Boucher, N. Bellouin, and A. Jones, 2010: Precipitation, radiative forcing and global
        temperature change. Geophysical Research Letters, doi:10.1029/2010GL043991.

        Andrews, T., M. Ringer, M. Doutriaux-Boucher, M. Webb, and W. Collins, 2012b: Sensitivity of an Earth system
        climate model to idealized radiative forcing. Geophysical Research Letters, 39, L10702.

        Antuna, J. C., A. Robock, G. Stenchikov, J. Zhou, C. David, J. Barnes, and L. Thomason, 2003: Spatial and temporal
        variability of the stratospheric aerosol cloud produced by the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption. Journal of
        Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 108, 4624.

        Archibald, A. T., M. E. Jenkin, and D. E. Shallcross, 2010: An isoprene mechanism intercomparison. Atmospheric
        Environment, 44, 5356-5364.

        Archibald, A. T., et al., 2011: Impacts of HO(x) regeneration and recycling in the oxidation of isoprene: Consequences
        for the composition of past, present and future atmospheres. Geophysical Research Letters, 38, L05804.

        Arora, V. K., and A. Montenegro, 2011: Small temperature benefits provided by realistic afforestation efforts. Nature
        Geoscience, 4, 514-518.

        Arora, V. K., et al., 2013: Carbon-concentration and carbon-climate feedbacks in CMIP5 Earth system models. Journal
        of Climate, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00494.1.

        Ashmore, M. R., 2005: Assessing the future global impacts of ozone on vegetation. Plant Cell and Environment, 28,

        Azar, C., and D. J. A. Johansson, 2012: On the relationship between metrics to compare greenhouse gases – the case of
        IGTP, GWP and SGTP. Earth Syst. Dynam., 3, 139-147.

      • cdw

        Very few of your citations are actual experiments that generate experimental data, although I appreciate your cut-and-paste effort.

        Most of what you cite is along the lines of “Carbon-concentration and carbon-climate feedbacks in CMIP5 Earth system MODELS.” (Emphasis mine.) Or, the papers are essays with an individual analyzing some kind climate as they see fit.

        Real experiments are a little different. They test a hypothesis, or a process – with a control, sometimes.

        When I have time, I will sift through your list and attempt to access a paper or journal. I no longer have an active university library account, so that might be difficult.

      • Hardcore Realist

        Oh, so NOW you’re insisting on laboratory experiments. Earlier you wrote: “I very well understand how science works: form a hypothesis and test it”
        So only lab experiments count as tests. I suppose, then, that astronomy is not a science, because you can’t put a star into a lab. In your book, scientific observations and data-taking don’t count as science.
        Right. You know all about science, don’t you?

        Oh, and as far as models go, I challenge you to explain why Newton’s Laws are not a model.

      • cdw

        Of course, not all experiments need laboratory settings. Actually, you *can* put a star into a laboratory. Helium was predicted to exist (a hypothesis) and found on the sun before found on the earth as a product of radioactive decay.

        Yes, scientific observations and data collection does count, but hypothesis about the data are very much open to testing (sometimes possible only with additional observations).

        However, some sciences such as “String Theory” are known to be untestable, if my memory serves me. Climatology itself may only be testable with models. A wrong model, a wrong result.

        Our current best understanding now supersedes Newton’s laws of motion. At speeds near 0.9c, they are not accurate anymore.

        Have you heard of the Loretz Transformation discussed in Modern Physics? It is absolutely fun and fascinating. And testable.

      • Hardcore Realist

        “Climatology itself may only be testable with models.”

        Your towering ignorance continues to astound. Did it ever occur to you that the reason why we are taking so much data, via satellites, ocean sensor systems, and other sources is to provide data against which to test our models? Sheesh…

        Your response to Newton’s Laws doesn’t answer the challenge. OK, so I challenge you to explain why relativity is not a model.

        “Have you heard of the Loretz Transformation”

        It’s called the “Lorentz Transform” and I would be happy to provide you with an explanation of why it is the result of the core assumption that the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames of reference.

      • JustWorld B

        Well, I am certainly not home schooled, like you are. Advice: stop discussing things about which you have no clue. You are making fool of yourself.

      • Hardcore Realist

        You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about. Mr. Mann’s ‘hide the decline’ comment referred to an algorithm that everybody agreed was quite clever and absolutely reliable. There were seven different investigations of “Climategate”, and every single one of them exonerated all the scientists.

      • cdw

        Professor Richard Muller of Berkeley disagrees with you and it is on public record.

        Muller considers it falsification, unethical, and dishonesty.

        There are some people’s scientific papers that he will no longer read or consider, including Jones’ and Mann’s.

      • Hardcore Realist

        Well, well, well, you found ONE scientist who rejects AGW. Actually, there are a number of others, but the important point is that a handful of cranks do not constitute a school of thought that deserves credibility. Not when so many others endorse it.

      • cdw

        “Well, well, well, you found ONE scientist who rejects AGW.”

        How lazy of you. Obviously, you know nothing about Dr. Muller and have not *bothered* to do any research. Muller fully *accepts* the AGW hypothesis AFTER doing his own analysis of the data.

        The difference is, he is an >honest< man.

        Muller: "If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions."

      • Hardcore Realist

        So tell me, how do you know that Mr. Muller is an honest man? Is he a long-time friend of yours? Or are you just making this up? You have made a parade of claims without an iota of supporting evidence.

      • cdw

        Honest men have very identifiable characteristics, such as keeping an open mind and being able to admit a mistake. But, you are correct, it is my assessment of the man.

        You still haven’t bothered to do any research? Search on YouTube. Let me know what you think, not what you feel.

      • Hardcore Realist

        Actually, I don’t place my trust in ANY individual scientist. Scientists, after all, are human beings and are therefore quite fallible. The only true test of scientific truth is the scientific process by which lots of scientists work on a problem from different angles, write papers presenting their findings, submit them for publication, go through the peer review process, get their papers published, then go through the public review process in which lots of other scientists pick apart their work. If there are LOTS of such papers supporting a hypothesis, then I place some confidence in it.

        Another good test is to look at the scientific institutions that have published endorsements of AGW. I’ll paste a list of them for you to consider.

        The important thing here is that putting all your money on one scientist is foolish.

        American Association for the Advancement of Science

        American Astronomical Society

        American Chemical Society

        American Geophysical Union

        American Institute of Physics

        American Meteorological Society

        American Physical Society

        Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

        Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO

        British Antarctic Survey

        Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

        Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

        Environmental Protection Agency

        European Federation of Geologists

        European Geosciences Union

        European Physical Society

        Federation of American Scientists

        Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

        Geological Society of America

        Geological Society of Australia

        Geological Society of London

        International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)

        International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

        National Center for Atmospheric Research

        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

        Royal Meteorological Society

        Royal Society of the UK

        Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)

        Royal Society of Canada

        Chinese Academy of Sciences

        Academie des Sciences (France)

        Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)

        Indian National Science Academy

        Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)

        Science Council of Japan

        Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico)

        Russian Academy of Sciences

        Academy of Science of South Africa

      • cdw

        Actually, it is not so much a *public* review as it is a *peer* review. I do accept that point.

        But, you do strike me as someone with a certain religious viewpoint, afraid that you might be converted to something else. I suppose that is a normal, socially protective function of the human brain.

      • Hardcore Realist

        Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of how science functions. The FIRST review process is peer review. That relies on a handful of reviewers who check only that the paper contains no obvious mistakes. But publishing the paper doesn’t settle the matter. The acid test is the PUBLIC review that comes after the paper is published. Sometimes mistakes slip past the reviewers, and that’s when the public review saves us, because somebody will shoot it down if there’s a flaw in it. This is sometimes done in the letters section of the journal or by a new paper.
        But there’s a THIRD level of test: the citation index. How many other papers cite the paper in question? That tells us just how valuable and reliable the paper is. Papers that get through this process and get lots of citations can be considered to be highly valuable.

      • cdw

        Agreed. Absolutely correct. Of course, the scientific review & publishing system was very recently scammed by a network of peer reviewers. Glad that was caught.

      • Hardcore Realist

        No, the scientific review and publishing SYSTEM was not scammed. A single journal, which was sloppily run, was scammed. Here’s a quote from the article you cite:

        “SAGE concludes that the scam was orchestrated—possibly alone—by one physicist, Peter Chen, at the National Pingtung University of Education (NPUE) in Taiwan. But what ultimately made the scam possible, ScienceInsider has learned, was a lax editorial policy at the journal.”

        So it was ONE physicist at work taking advantage of sloppiness at ONE journal. It’s an obscure journal; such journals have lower standards than usual. Papers published in the top tier of scientific journals are the gold standard, and when you get LOTS of them substantiating AGW theory, you’ve got something vastly more reliable than one scientist’s opinion.

      • Hardcore Realist

        So what? One professor does not mean much. Why did you pick that particular professor? There are thousands of them. Did you pick him because he agrees with you?

      • cdw

        I offer Dr. Richard A. Muller as an example of someone capable of doing HONEST and reliable scientific work, unlike a plethora of politically-motivated, narcissistic individuals who are currently in the public eye.

      • Hardcore Realist

        No, you offer Dr. Richard A. Muller because he agrees with you. Your accusations against other scientists are nonsense and you can’t document them.

      • cdw

        You don’t get it, do you. You do no research. You have no idea what Muller thinks. You do not even realize that he is an AGW proponent, and a well-known researcher.

        Absolutely amazing. Your statements are what can be certainly described as “dogmatic”, an attribute of a religious sect.

      • Hardcore Realist

        “You do no research.”
        Oh, really? I’ve read both AR4 WG1 and AR5 WG1 in their entireties. Have you? I have read many scientific papers on the subject. Have you?

      • cdw

        Correction: “You do no research on Muller.”

        Bravo – try to expand your horizon, too.

      • Hardcore Realist

        “”You do no research on Muller.”
        I’ve read about the BEST work and I’ve read a lot more. It appears that Muller is the ONLY scientist you have read about. It’s a big world out there, and the opinions of one scientist don’t mean much. And have you read AR4 and/or AR5? What scientific literature have you read?

  16. Garrett MM MM YEAH YEAH

    When I was a 2nd grader we were told that Los Angeles would be under water by 2020. LOL Seriously the generation in charge today has really smoked too much dope. We have no real science. No space program. Just a bunch of political correctness, high crime, crushed dreams. Big brother, and constant propagandized nonsense. But hey I do not want to hurt any feelings, keep smiling maintain that self esteem all of you ages 50 to 70. Oh yeah, we are also supposed to be living space stations. Living in a world full of stupid people run by the worst generation ever sucks.

    • Hardcore Realist

      So go complain to your stupid teacher, who didn’t know the science. And while you’re at it, read some science.

      • Garrett MM MM YEAH YEAH

        I probably just did knowing idiots reading this crap probably were my teachers. Oh and I read plenty of science. Having my own biology kits, chemistry sets, taking highschool and college courses in honors biology, physical sciences, astronomy all with labs and reading my father medical books. But hey thanks for the advice.

      • Hardcore Realist

        If you know so much about science, how came you to regard AGW with such contempt? Have you read any of the science behind it? Are denier sites your only source of information about AGW?

      • Garrett MM MM YEAH YEAH

        I did not come with contempt. I read the article with an open mind and made an appropriate comment based on recognizing that it was just more of the same BS we all have been putting up with since at least I can remember. Its a nicely written article. However there is no substance behind it. Its like news today. When I was a little kid a news story on TV ran for several minutes or more and was actually educational. Now it’s 30 second sound bytes with no information, insight, just bloated politically skewed opinion to drive an agenda all sensationalized to the lowest common IQ.

      • Hardcore Realist

        So, is your contempt for the news reports or the actual science of climatology?

      • Garrett MM MM YEAH YEAH

        I thought my responses were clear. I have no contempt for any “ology”. I am very disappointed however with the “information” we are fed today. Its poor plain and simple.

      • Hardcore Realist

        “No real science. No space program”? But I don’t want to pester you about a loose statement like that. Let’s move on.
        Nobody is “fed” information on the Internet. You go where you want and get the information you seek. If you want, there are countless denier sites that will tell you that climate change is an evil conspiracy by evil leftists who want to rule the world with their black helicopters. Or you find sites that push the other way, blaming the Koch brothers and the Heritage Institute for all our troubles.

        OR you can go to purely scientific sites such as Real Climate or the National Academy of Sciences to get solid science.

        It’s all up to you.

      • Garrett MM MM YEAH YEAH

        Look I am going to be Frank with you. When I was in second grade they started talking about climate change. Then in the third grade they blamed the death of all the dinosaurs on climate change after they changed their minds about giant asteroids hitting the earth. So my point is what’s the point. Anyone with a third grade education and revell plastic models of black helicopters can figure out that the weather is constantly changing! So what is with all the hooplah just because we know that their are swings in the earths temperature over the millions of years of its existence. Current super computers cannot accurately predict the weather. So predicting the earths temperature 83 years and 5 months from now is a joke.

      • Hardcore Realist

        Well, Frank, I suggest that an informed citizen will rely on more than his third grade science class to make judgements about scientific issues. At the very least, if you don’t know anything about the subject, why not just listen to the experts who DO know something about the subject?

        Lastly, you confuse weather with climate. They are completely different. Weather is what is happening at one location at one time. Climate is the long-term average of weather over 30 years. Just as you can’t predict the price of cucumbers at your supermarket next week, you can still make some decent predictions about the economy a year from now.

      • Garrett MM MM YEAH YEAH

        Lol I knew you were going to call me Frank.

      • Hardcore Realist

        Yeah, that was a pretty obvious ploy. Next time I make an attempt at humor, I’ll try to be more clever.

    • Tyson

      No science or space program? We have 2 robots on mars, are making preparations to setup colonies there (and possibly the moon) and a handful of people ARE living on a space station called the ISS. Maybe it’s just taking a little bit longer than you were expecting, doesn’t mean it won’t happen.

      • Garrett MM MM YEAH YEAH

        OK so I am impatient? I will admit that. I just want to know what really happened in roswell, and who really killed Kennedy and how many alien species have made contact with us.

  17. RonMGA

    This is amazing !!!
    So amazing that they should be able to accurately predict the temperature next week !!!

  18. Higgs Boson

    The Dopey Liberal’s “Climate Change” Dictionary:

    ► CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce panic for profit. “Climate Change” is the new “Global Warming”…. the name may have changed, but the hoax is still the same.

    ► PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.

    ► SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics, money or both.

    ► DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.

    ► NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way.

    ► DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.

    ► CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.” Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.

    ► JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge.

    ►SCIENTIFIC MODEL: Mathematical representation of theory that emphasizes alarmist political impact instead of being actually able to accurately predict any measurable events.

  19. Higgs Boson

    Memo to morons: Your AGW scam ended almost two decades ago…duh!

    • Hardcore Realist

      65% of Americans agree that AGW is real and serious.

      • Higgs Boson

        85% of Americans are too stupid to even know what AGW is.

      • Hardcore Realist

        That may be true, but you’re still wrong about the “scam” ending almost two decades ago. You deniers are the ones pushing the scam. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is working on responses. The ones working hardest are corporations that could be affected by AGW. They’re now investing in “green bonds”, investments in companies that make products or services for dealing with AGW. Green bonds are a new idea; the first ones were created just two years ago and garnered about $3 billion in investments. Last year it leapt to about $10 billion, and this year it *already* amounts to about $20 billion. These green bonds are hot stuff, because lots of serious businesses realize that they’re great investments. The primary investors just now are pension funds and insurance companies, but everybody seems to be excited about them. Why? Because they make great economic sense. They’re a hedge against losses due to AGW.
        Thus, while you crackpots spout your nonsense, businesspeople in the real world are very serious about AGW because they know that there’s real money at stake here.

  20. Conway193

    Ask me if I care what happens in 2100 – I’ll be long dead.

  21. brian

    I haven’t EVER in my life seen an accurate 7 day forecast !!!!!! AND YOUR TELLING ME TEMPERATURES IN 100 YEARS ???????

    • jimrussell

      An oak sapling may or may not be 4 feet in diameter in 100 years, but it will be big. And the world is actually round. It’s the trend not the measurement to the last centimeter.

    • JustWorld B

      Right. Scientists are known for “following the money”. They are the ones listed on Forbes 500. Are you this stupid always or just occasionally?

  22. Bob O

    It’s about your money, your rights, and your property- it’s about control, and they won’t stop until they get it. Warming, cooling, Climate Change, whatever. The Fable will get all the fine tuning it needs to fly and the crooked media will push it.

  23. Amigi

    You cannot know the weather past seven days. It takes air seven days to circumnavigate the globe and begin anew. That is a fact. So… paid shills are trying to tell us what it will be like in 80 years? Good luck with that.

    • Really?

      Temperatures can be predicted beyond 7 days very accurately. And air travels around the earth in 7 days? The earth’s circumference is ~25,000 miles. If air moves constantly at 30 miles / hour it would take it 34 days to go around the globe.

  24. Jim

    Communist bull shit designed to turn the US into a third world hell hole like Mexico.

  25. vonholland

    I’ve bend seeing these maps for many years n they are no closer to happening now than they were then .

  26. Phil Meier

    Amusing. Been to las Vegas in the summer. It’s regularly over 105. 111 is pretty normal. Once you get over 110 it doesn’t matter…. It’s just hot. In redding Ca 110 is a fairly typical august day.

    • Non-denier

      Anyone seen the movie idiocracy?

      Sure seems like we are heading that way based upon the comments by the deniers above

      Sure what matters what happens in 100 years, I will be dead too. Really? What a jack ass.

      All of what can be done now with hydrocarbons can be synthesized via several other methods.

      You know we are growing at a rate that is comparable to bacteria living in a test tube with enough food and supplies for what seems like for ever. We have come to believe that growth is the very definition of progress. You talk to any businessperson or politician and say, ‘How well did you do last year?’ And, within a picosecond, they will talk about growth in the GDP and the economy in profit, jobs or market share. And, anything in a finite world cannot grow forever. We live within the biosphere, that cannot grow- it’s fixed.
      And, I use the analogy of the bacteria in the test tube for why it’s suicidal to look for steady endless growth. Anything growing exponentially has a predictable doubling time. I give you a test tube full of food for bacteria- that’s an analogy with the planet- and I put one bacterial cell in and it is us. It’s going to go into exponential growth and divide every minute. So, at time zero, at the beginning, there is one bacterium. One minute, there are two. Two minutes, four. Three minutes, eight. Four minutes, 16. That’s exponential growth.
      And at 60 minutes, the test tube is completely packed with bacteria, and there’s no food left. When is the test tube only half full? And the answer of course, is at 59 minutes. So, at 58 minutes it’s 25 percent full, 57 minutes, 12 and a half percent full. At 55 minutes of the 60-minute cycle, it’s three percent full. So, if at 55 minutes, one of the bacteria looks around and says, ‘Hey guys, I’ve been thinking, we’ve got a population problem.’ The other bacteria would say, ‘Jack, what the hell have you been drinking, man? 97 percent of the test tube is empty, and we’ve been around for 55 minutes!’ And, they’d be five minutes away from filling it.

      • Silas B. Hayes

        You think the Earth is fragile enough that cockroach humans can destroy it? Don’t flatter humanity. Like you, it is full of itself and not as smart as it should be.

  27. cdw

    Instead of using unproven computer climate models to predict geographic summertime weather 100 years from now, take a look at the past, instead, to estimate future temperatures.

    During the Jurassic Period, 150-200 million years ago, the fossil record shows an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 1950 ppm, 4-5 times greater than the modern level. However, the average earth surface temperature was only 3 degrees Celsius greater than the modern level, not any kind of catastrophe.

    It is likely that current computer models underestimate the negative feedback potential of water vapor (H2O), THE most powerful “greenhouse gas” on earth.

    For a metaphorical breathe of fresh air, check out the lectures of Berkeley professor Richard Muller, available on YouTube. Diogenes of Sinope would be surprised.

  28. DM

    The same guys that predicted in 1998 that it would be 2-3 degrees hotter now. It isn’t.

    • string123

      Actually, should you be a bit more accurate, you would say that ” the average temperature across the globe would be 2-3 degrees hotter” But this is wrong vision of things. look at antarctica and look at ice melting there. Is this fiction? Or, may be, tea party republicans will say that these are fake data….

      • ray

        I guess you have not heard the latest bit from the high priests of climate change. The Antarctic ice sheet is growing and now they say this is because of climate change. Anyone who happens to misplace his or her car keys is a victim of climate change as well.

      • Tyler Stewart

        Sure go ahead and ignore the arctic ice sheet, or the greenland ice sheet, or sea-air surface temperatures. You folks are great at staring at one thing intently while ignoring everything else.

      • cdw

        Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is hyperbole. The arctic ice sheet is irrelevant.

        If you are worried about ocean levels rising, only ice accumulations over land masses are important.

        We are in the midst of a warm interglacial period (named the “Holocene”).

        We are in the midst of an on-going ice age. The glacial ice will most certainly come again in the next 7,000-10,000 years. However, you will not be alive to see it.

      • Hardcore Realist

        “The arctic ice sheet is irrelevant.”

        Tell me, what does the melting of sea ice do to the earth’s albedo? Is that relevant?

        “If you are worried about ocean levels rising, only ice accumulations over land masses are important.”

        What about thermal expansion of water? Did you know that about half of the recent rise in sea level is due to increases in water temperatures?

        The fact that ice ages have happened in the past does not necessarily mean that there will be ice ages in the future. If conditions change, then there could be no ice age at all. And the great increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere definitely changes conditions. Venus has an atmosphere with high concentrations of CO2, and its surface temperature is 462ºC.

      • cdw

        As I stated elsewhere in this thread, CO2 is a pitiful greenhouse gas in its current atmospheric concentration of 400 ppm.

        But, as you mention the earth’s albedo, you are certainly on to something.

        Water vapor is THE most powerful greenhouse gas, reflecting 30-70% or more of the sun’s incident energy away from the earth during daylight hours in the form of atmospheric condensation (clouds) and reflecting infrared blackbody radiation back to the earth’s surface during nighttime hours.

        Richard A. Muller, an American professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and faculty senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory brings balance to the science. Pay attention to his statements about the contribution *water vapor* can play in computer climate models.

        Although Dr. Muller accepts Anthropogenic Global Warming as a reality, he is an honest man (a requisite for performing true science), unlike many others in the field, whom he says he will no longer read their scientific papers.

        “McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

        “Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called “Monte Carlo” analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

        “That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen?”

        Learn from history. The earth’s atmosphere CO2 concentration during the Jurassic Period, 150-200 million years ago, was 1950 ppm, 4-5 times greater than modern levels. However, the earth’s average surface temperature was only 3 degrees Celsius greater than modern levels, not any kind of a catastrophe.

      • Hardcore Realist

        If there were the slightest substance to these accusations, it would be easy for McIntyre, McKitrick, or Muller to write up a paper pointing out the errors and get it published. But they have not done so. That in itself is the best demonstration that they are wrong. McKintyre pointed out some errors in the classic Hockey Stick graph some years ago and Mann corrected the errors — and the correction had no effect on the final result because the errors that McKintyre so triumphantly found were trivial in significance.

        I challenge you to explain why anybody should accept Mr. Muller over the National Academy of Sciences.

        Yes, the earth’s CO2 concentrations were much higher in the past. And sea levels were about 400 feet higher. Would you regard such a development as insignificant?

      • cdw

        No, the errors were *not* trivial. With correction, the “hockey-stick” blade at the modern-years end of their graph *disappears*.

        You should really learn more about Dr. Richard Muller and the “Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature” (BEST) project. I am surprised you know nothing about it. They believe what you believe, except they are not AGW *con men*. URL: berkeleyearth(dot)org

        It is not the rising sea levels that I that I consider dangerous. There will be plenty of time for relocating millions of people from the continental coasts, if ever needed. Then, in a few thousand years, the glacial ice will return, the sea levels will decrease, once again. Perhaps fossil fuels will form, again.

      • Hardcore Realist

        “With correction, the “hockey-stick” blade at the modern-years end of their graph *disappears*.”

        That’s not the view of the scientific community; that’s the opinion of some crackpots.

        I know all about Dr. Muller and BEST, and I was impressed that he changed his mind when the evidence required that. But again, he is ONE scientist. The world is a very big place, Mr. CDW, and one scientist does not rule the world of science.

        “There will be plenty of time for relocating millions of people from the continental coasts, if ever needed.”

        And what about the costs of such relocation? Do you know how many trillions of dollars humanity has invested in coastal facilities? Housing, port facilities, sewage systems, roads, water supplies, electrical service? It adds up to many, many trillions of dollars. And we’ll lose all that if sea levels rise just a few meters.
        But you don’t care about economic costs, do you? 😉

      • cdw

        The Michael Mann computer program took ANY random data and then made a *hockey stick* chart. That is a fact the scientific community fully accepts. However, it took PEER REVIEW to discover this and to demonstrate it (peer review of their computer program was not something that the CRU was too willing to do – they generally would not even publish their data for peer review).

        Yes, at the current 3.3 mm per year ocean level rise, eventually a relocation will need to take place. If it continues for 1,000 years, the ocean level will have risen 3.3 meters (about 10 feet). If caused by AGW, the level of the ocean will STOP increasing in less than 100 years when fossil fuels are depleted (they are a finite resource). It is a self-solving problem.

      • Hardcore Realist

        “The Michael Mann computer program took ANY random data and then made a *hockey stick* chart.”

        That’s not true. That’s the false claim of some crackpots. The scientific community does not accept those falsehoods.

        “That is a fact the scientific community fully accepts.”

        No, that’s false too. If that were the case, then they wouldn’t make the Hockey Stick so basic to all their presentations.

        “peer review of their computer program was not something that the CRU was too willing to do – they generally would not even publish their data for peer review)”

        Michael Mann is not at CRU. He’s at Pennsylvania. This is what happens when you rely exclusively on denier sites for your information.

        “If caused by AGW, the level of the ocean will STOP increasing in less than 100 years when fossil fuels are depleted (they are a finite resource). It is a self-solving problem.”

        Sheesh, your ignorance of science continues to astound. First, sea level rise is accelerating, so we expect to see much more than 3.3 mm per year. Second, CO2 has a half-life in the atmosphere of several thousand years, meaning that the greenhouse effect doesn’t go away when we stop burning carbon. It will get worse and worse.

      • rhjames

        They have written this up. For a start, details are available in a 482 page document by Montford (which I have). It references 270 publications, including those from both McIntyre, and McKitrick.

      • Hardcore Realist

        But their paper was not published in a peer-reviewed journal. Anybody can write a long screed; getting it published is the first step in establishing its credibility. Since they have failed to meet that test, their work is without scientific credibility.

      • rhjames

        Which paper are you referring to? Any of the ones published in Energy & Environmment? Are you suggesting that their publication 27 Oct 2003 vol 14 Issue 6 wasn’t peer reviewed? It was!!

      • Hardcore Realist

        Oh, dear me, you don’t know about E&E? It is a house organ for the fossil fuel industry; they fund it. It has absolutely zero credibility in the scientific community. They’ve been publishing their pap since the 1970s. You should look up the citation index for the papers published in it. Extremely few citations in the genuine scientific literature.

      • rhjames

        Which paper are you referring to? Any of the ones published in Energy & Environmment? Are you suggesting that their publication 27 Oct 2003 vol 14 Issue 6 wasn’t peer reviewed? It was!!

      • rhjames

        I’ve have Montfords :The Hockey Stick Illusion” which covers McIntyre and McKitrick’s work. It certainly reveals problems with Mann’s Hockey Stick. Actually, the first time I saw the plot, it was obvious that it was in conflict with current established data history.

      • ray

        Oh my God, run for your lives, there’s a lobster loose. Arm yourselves with lemon and butter. Put the bibs on your children before it’s too late. Science of this nature is not my forte’, so I cannot opine on whether or not global warming/cooling/somethining is real or not or if man is the cause and if so what is going to happen hundreds of years in the future. What I am sure of is that we cannot do anything about it even if it is true. All solutions that I have heard lead to the destruction of the US economy. Unless you are going to build a bubble over the US and all of that evil stuff that the balance of the world is producing will be kept out, you are not going to accomplish much. But hey, don’t take my word for it. Go on over to places like China, India, Russia or pretty much anywhere in the third world and convince them to do what you want to happen in the US. Just make sure you take a pre-addressed body bag with you. Now go back and have your silly academic debates about how to save the world and allow the adults to address the best reaction to whatever may or may not be happening.

      • Hardcore Realist

        Could you explain to me how a carbon tax of $30/ton will “lead to the destruction of the US economy”?

      • ray

        First of all, it is not just a carbon tax of $30 per ton that is being promulgated. Second, why any tax when other countries (with the exception of maybe the EU, emphasis on maybe) are not going to follow suit. All you have to do is look at all the treaties for nuclear and missile proliferation that certain countries have gladly signed and then gone ahead and done whatever they felt like. Like I said, how are your bubble building capabilities. Start looking at all of the EPA’s regulations regarding the destruction of the US coal industry. And yes, their goal is to shut down the industry by making it too expensive to operate. You go on over to China, who uses a lot of coal for firing their furnaces and try to explain to them how great it is for them to switch to other fuels. If the climate change high priests are correct, then maybe we should be spending our time and energies on how to adapt to a new environment. That or watch more sci-fi programs and learn how to build an eco-chamber for you and your followers to survive in and later to rebuild the earth.

      • Hardcore Realist

        “it is not just a carbon tax of $30 per ton that is being promulgated”

        But you wrote: “All solutions that I have heard lead to the destruction of the US economy”

        So now what you’re talking about are massive approaches, like a tax of $100/ton on carbon, the total elimination of all fossil fuels in the country, etc. Yes, I agree, these would destroy the US economy. But there are many less idiotic proposals floating around that would reduce — not eliminate, REDUCE — our CO2 emissions. And you are ignoring those for the straw men.

        I agree that getting a global treaty on carbon emissions will be very difficult. However, the world did readily accept a global treaty on airburst nuclear tests. When everybody’s well-being is obviously at stake, people really do accept the realities.

        But they will NOT agree to reduce their CO2 emissions when ours are much higher than theirs. Deniers like to talk about the fact that China emits more CO2 than the USA. That’s because they have more people. The USA emits 18 tons of carbon per person; China’s number is only 6 tons/capita. Do you really think that the Chinese will accept that ratio and reduce their emissions if we refuse to reduce our own?

      • ray

        The Chinese will never do anything because of what we do or because they feel shamed into doing it. Here’s a clue for you. US companies are in global competition each and every day. This not only includes energy costs, but labor, tax burden, regulatory costs etc. It does not take a lot to put us out of competitive balance. You make the same mistake that all of climate change priesthood makes, and that is that the balance of the world agrees with you that the end is nigh. History is replete with examples of treaties that have been signed and then cheated on before the ink is dry.

      • Hardcore Realist

        “The Chinese will never do anything because of what we do or because they feel shamed into doing it. ”
        You take a black-and-white approach: China is the bad guy, America is the good guy. It’s a lot more complicated than that. Why, for example, has China repeatedly revalued the yuan? It’s solely because of pressure from the USA and WTO. Why has China been changing its corporate governance laws? Again, pressure from outside investors has been a major factor in this. The general pattern is clear: when foreign pressure is strong, China yields. China is already paying lip service to AGW, and is also making a concerted effort to stop burning coal, largely because of the pollution it makes, which is poisoning the Chinese people.
        Yes, there’s plenty of competition, but direct competition between Chinese companies and American companies is nowhere near as great as you seem to think. That’s because Chinese strengths are in labor-intensive manufacturing, while American strengths are in design and services. We design iPhones and they manufacture them. That’s not competition, that’s cooperation due to the natural pressures of a free market.
        Actually, most of the world DOES agree with me; for example, go to the Wikipedia article on “climate change opinion by country” and look at the results. The highest numbers (such as 91% for Japan) are in the countries with high literacy rates. The lowest numbers (such as 29% for Afghanistan) are in countries with low literacy rates. In other words, there’s a correlation between education and acceptance of AGW.

      • ray

        You are as thick as a whale omelet. I am not debating whether or not the religion of catastrophic man made climate change is correct or not. Not my area of expertise. I am only debating the response and whether we should bankrupt ourselves while others in this world go about their merry way. In spite of what you and others may think about China and other countries, they do whatever is needed at the time. If they seem to be coming along to your way of thinking, just wait awhile. If it behooves them to pull the rug out from under you, so be it. Please try not to be so naïve. Look at the world around you and try to understand why China and others are reviving what was once called a cold war mentality. It is because they can. And when they think that they can renege on any agreements, they will. I do not care who agrees with you, but you may have noticed that I call this a religion. Religions have dogma that cannot and will not be defied. The acts of Galileo, he challenged the settled science and was excommunicated. This is what happens to all that challenge any of the man made climate change religion. This is no longer science to you and your ilk, it is dogma, religion. You are on a mission to save the world and anyone who gets in your way will be burned at the stake.

      • Hardcore Realist

        OK, so let’s start off on what we agree on: that AGW is real and serious. The next step is the question, what are we going to do about it?
        I suggest that you take a more adult view of China. Even Mr. Bush was able to deal with the Chinese; surely you can rise to his level of foreign policy maturity?
        You are free to refer to science as religion, but I prefer to call it ‘science’.
        And BTW, Galileo was not excommunicated. He did NOT challenge the settled science, he got into a political spat with conservatives in the Church, largely because he was tactless and hot-tempered.
        I cannot help but notice that you admit that you have no expertise in climate change, but that doesn’t stop you from declaring it false.
        Lastly, I’ll note that your comment has all the flavor of a rant. Are you capable of calm, reasoned discussion?

      • ray

        As to your last sentence, not with an idiot. First of all we do not agree on anything. You assume that I agree with you when all I have done is to state that I do not have the knowledge to make a reasoned response. You then turn that into saying that I declare climate change false. I only disagree with you as to how this country should respond, if at all. That was a pretty good leap. Going to the Olympics in Brazil? You’ll get a ten for that one. I do not refer to science as religion, only you and your ilk’s view of science is what I compare to a religion. You really need to work on your comprehension skills. My view of China is grounded in reality. As for Bush dealing with the Chinese, of course he did, and we all have to. But dealing with them is not the same as hoping and praying that they do what is best for us. That is just plain naïve and downright dangerous. As for Galileo, the one thing you do have correct was that he was not excommunicated. My bad. He was accused of heresy, forced to renounce his theory of the sun sitting motionless in the center of the solar system while the planets revolved around, kept under house arrest for the rest of his life and treated pretty badly for originally sticking by his theories. These theories went against the settled science of the times because the church was what set these scientific principles. Namely that the Earth was the center of the universe.

      • Hardcore Realist

        Look, you’re just here to argue. You sling mud and have nothing of substance to offer. I suggest that you subscribe to The Economist, possibly the best weekly news magazine in the world, which deals in hard reality rather than political ideology. Or read something of Chinese history. And read about the trial of Galileo; there are plenty of resources on the web that go well beyond your third-grade version.
        I’m done with you. Rant away to your heart’s content.

      • rhjames

        Is something unusual happening in the Arctic? Don’t you think ice level might have been low when the North West passage was discovered a hundred years ago? What about submarines that have surfaced at the South Pole decades ago? Remember, ice records only go back about 30 years. The Arctic was supposed to be ice free by 2013 – it’s nowhere near it.

      • Hardcore Realist

        “What about submarines that have surfaced at the South Pole decades ago?”

        They must have been very special submarines to surface at the South Pole. I assume that you mean the North Pole. First, sometimes they had to punch their way through the ice; second, the North Pole itself is not necessarily the coldest place in the Arctic Ocean. Yes, there have been some ice melt in the past; but there’s no question that the current situation is much warmer than in past times.

        “The Arctic was supposed to be ice free by 2013 – it’s nowhere near it.”

        Yes, and there are people who claim that the Moon landings were staged. That doesn’t make NASA wrong. You can always find a few nut cases. What matters is what the experts say, and they said no such thing.

      • rhjames

        Opps – obviously that’s supposed to be North Pole.

      • albundy57

        More ice in antarctica actually! Look it before engaging in your belief tactics of blaming everything on conservatives. Pretty sure pelosi, obama, reid were running roughshod over America. If they could have ‘fixed it’ they would. They know they cant but instead use it to narrow your focus on how much money they are actually stealing and leaving your name on the IOU. Dunskie.

      • Hardcore Realist

        Wrong. Antarctica is losing something like 50 gigatonnes of ice each year. Some of that ice is calving, moving into the sea, where it is sea ice. All that melting is generating lots of sea ice, which is the only thing you’re aware of.

      • rhjames

        Yes, that’s one of the desperate theories being thrown around. More sea ice in the Antarctic is the result of global warming. Less sea ice in the Arctic is global warming. I suppose if sea ice doesn’t change, it will be global warming. I’m sure that if Antarctic ice area was decreasing, it would be blamed on global warming.

      • Hardcore Realist

        No, it is not a desperate theory, it is an actual measurement — the thing that you insist must be the foundation of all theories. The loss of ice mass is measured by satellite. So, now you are in a pickle: either you are consistent in declaring measurements to be the ultimate source of reliability — thereby accepting that Antarctica is losing ice — or you play the hypocrite, demanding measurement in one place and rejecting it in another.

      • rhjames

        It’s simple – measurements show a recent decrease in Arctic ice are, and an increase in Antarctic ice area.

        There are many theories of why Antarctic sea ice is expanding eg :

        1. Increased precipitation.

        2. Increase in Westerly winds in the Southern Ocean.

        3. Melting of the continental ice

        4. Increased precipitation resulting in an increase in the water freezing point (salt water freezes at about -2 degC)

        5. Zang in the Journal of Climate reported that 80% of the ice volume increase can be explained by stronger and converging winds around the South Pole. Zang further points out that if warming is man made, Antarctic ice should eventually retreat.

        It’s also noted that the advance of Antarctic sea ice is in conflict with computer models, which predict a decline. This has been reported by Assistant Professor Elizabeth Barnes – Dept of Atmospheric Science Colorado State University. “This modeled Antarctic sea ice decrease in the last three decades is at odds with observations, which show a small yet statistically significant increase in sea ice extent,”

        Overall, the reason for increasing Antarctic ice area is still unknown, and handled by hypothesis only.

      • Hardcore Realist

        None of your statements address the key point: Antarctica is losing ice mass. The cumulative ice mass loss to date, relative to 1991, is 2000 gigatonnes. See AR5 WG1 Figure 4.16. Antarctica is warming. The increase in sea ice does nothing to contradict that fact.

      • Mystick

        It is fiction, since RIGHT NOW, there is a record level of Antarctic sea ice, and it’s not done this year’s growth cycle yet.

        Even the Great Lakes had ice in JUNE this year.

        The model is flawed. It’s histrionics supporting an agenda that has too much money involved to quietly go away.

      • Hardcore Realist

        No, the sea ice is just land ice that has partially melted and fallen into the ocean.

      • Mystick

        It is not. Sea ice forms from low temperatures, and is actually the source of deep-ocean currents from varying levels of salinity.

      • Hardcore Realist

        No, although sea ice *can* form, Antarctica is losing about 50 gigatonnes of ice every year. Where do you think that ice is going? Much of it is calving into the ocean to form icebergs.

      • rhjames

        Antarctica? The ice area has been growing steadily for at least the past 30 years? A little more attention to fact wouldn’t go astray.

      • Hardcore Realist

        Sheesh, how many times do I have to explain that all that sea ice is coming from the ice on land that’s melting? Antarctica is losing something like 50 gigatonnes of ice mass every year. Some of that ice slides into the sea.

  29. Mock

    hell you twits can’t predict one year out, only a real and total fool would think this was accurate.

    • Higgs Boson

      ….you’re underestimating the number of real and total fools out there. Just look at who is in the White House!

  30. Think 4 once

    Predicting the future is science fiction – not science.

    • string123

      And not being able to predict future is science then. This makes science irrelevant . Correct me on this, please

    • maaaaaaan

      Science is about making predictions and crafting mathematical models based on the results of those predictions. For example, E= mc^2 started as a prediction–and was proved to be true, so we kept the mathematical model.

      • cdw

        Yes, science (especially engineering science) is certainly about making predictions.

        However, predicting the weather (or climate changes) falls under the science of “Chaos Theory”. The specific behavior of chaotic systems cannot be accurately predicted, only estimated.

        There are plenty of books that address Chaos Theory.

      • Amigi

        And they have been wrong…. 100% of the time regarding climate predictions.

      • WxScience

        and… 100% of the time? Not like… 35.8% of the time or 87.4% of the time? You must be 100% correct about your 100% statement.

      • albundy57

        Except your models are being manipulated by a bigger variable=$$+socialism you dolt!

    • teddyspaghetti

      Honestly, I’d rather “educated guesses,” if you will, (scientists) over appeals to emotion and fallible logic motivated by obvious politics (anthropogenic Global Warming dissenters.)

      Even IF somehow the overwhelming consensus on anthropogenic global warming turns out to be wrong, burning oil and gas is dirty and archaic and it’s about time we move to renewable sources anyway. What does it hurt?

      All these big-oil supporters whine about lost jobs but in reality converting the world to solar/wind/etc would create more employment than expanding every oil operation running today.

      • Jack Getze

        What does it hurt? Everything and everybody — the world’s whole economy is based on the use of fossil fuel (transportation, manufacturing, plastic production, and most importantly energy) and you can’t throw it away based on assumptions and predictions. It’s not even possible to fire 30% of all workers without plunging us all into revolution. Build a battery that can hold electricity efficiently and THEN we can start getting off oil and gas.

      • cdw

        You are correct. The work energy that can be extracted from a gallon of gasoline (mostly benzene, toluenes, and short alkanes) with a modern internal combustion engine is about 9-10 kWh of the overall 36.6 kWh heat energy that can be obtained from combustion.

        The Nissan Leaf EV has a 24.5 kWh battery. That is the equivalent of less that 2.5 gallons of gasoline.

        The Tesla S 80 kWh batter is larger, the equivalent of 9-10 gallons of gasoline.

        I will certainly hope to have one of these for short trips and commutes. In April, May, and June, my solar array produced an average of 50+ kWh per day, enough electricity to cool and heat my home, and keep an EV battery charged.

      • Tyler Stewart

        So you are saying that one reason we need to keep using oil at the current rate is because it employs way more people than the renewable economy would? Doesn’t that just make it inefficient?

      • teddyspaghetti

        The purpose of an energy company is to produce energy. It shouldn’t matter the source of the energy. As long as the same top energy companies control that market, they’ll do fine. And they will keep control.

        Right now the US imposes 18% to 34% tariffs on small Asian solar companies and gives billions in subsidies to oil and gas.

        I bet when the time is right companies like Trina Solar (worth less than $900m last I checked) will drown when it’s time to switch to renewable. Companies like Exxon-Mobil, worth hundreds of billions, can (and will) switch to mass-producing renewable tech and lobby for those tariffs to become subsidies as well.

        BP used to produce solar and renewable tech, actually, but stopped. Whoever thinks they’re not prepared to protect what they have is a fool. We just need to do it already.

      • Jack Getze

        Absurd. Solar is a dream that will someday come true. No batteries make it impossible now.

      • teddyspaghetti

        Oh I agree completely. I’m just opposing all these dissenters assuming BP, Exxon, etc will sit around waiting for the end of oil and lose their companies.

        I’d bet they’ve planned and I’m 90% confident they will completely own the renewable market when the time is right.

        The time will be right when they stop paying morons like S. Fred Singer to go around reporting on faulty anti-AGW ‘science’ and have their lobbyists flip-flop in the other direction.

      • Bob

        No more, tires, prescriptions, plastics, clothing, fertilizer, semiconductors, etc…. Every single source of renewable energy is built on oil based products.
        No more air planes, trains, freight semis to move goods and people around…..
        There isn’t an energy source available that can propel these beasts at the efficiency which oil does. No oil, no food, no food=chaos! Humans have burned something to form heat to produce energy since they discovered fire.
        Yeah, some great future you have envisioned there!
        Don’t take it the wrong way, I’m for using renewable energy for certain aspects of our life, but oil can’t be replaced realistically with the planets current demand for produce and population.
        Perhaps hydrogen technology in the far distant future.

      • cdw

        Hydrogen technology is VERY inefficient. There are no large, naturally-occurring deposits of hydrogen that can be mined. So, hydrogen becomes only a chemical *storage* system for energy.

        In the electrolysis phase of producing hydrogen from electricity and water, you will achieve about 70% efficiency. Then, when you compress the hydrogen gas for storage in steel tanks, you achieve another 90% efficiency because of the energy needed for compressing the gas. Then, if you insist on burning the hydrogen gas in an internal combustion engine, you can expect a typical 25-30% energy conversion-to-work efficiency. The overall efficiency is terrible.

        You can achieve much higher efficiencies (86% or more) by storing electrical energy in relatively safe LiFePO4 (lithium ion) batteries and directly converting the electrical energy to work with an EV electric motor.

      • Tyler Stewart

        OK. You’ve got BP (and several other petroleum-centered organizations), who relies on the world’s faith in their oil supplies to keep them from moving to green energy (like Germany is doing, where tax dollars go to R&D of renewables and 25% of their energy needs are met by renewables, some days as much as 75%, compared to about 6% 14 years ago). Once we realize we’ve run out, BP goes out of business (because we will all go the way of Germany). And you’ve got BP (and the others) saying we have 50 years worth of oil deposits. 50 years. How many years do we really have if BP is saying 50? And you’re suggesting that we should continue to subsidize it and set it on fire inside our tiny little car engines, or else we’ll never have tires or fertilizer again. If we need petroleum to make tires and semiconductors, and we are on the verge of running out of oil, why keep setting it on fire? Why keep subsidizing it, when our future is clearly going to be renewables, period? We can’t run a crane with a battery right now, so yeah we’re gonna need to set aside petroleum to run our cranes. To run our rock crushers. To run our huge farming equipment and keep everything lubricated. We can drive to work, however, in our tiny little cars, using little to no petroleum. Save the petroleum for the industries that really need it and subsidize renewables where renewables can work instead.

      • Rodney Vero

        I agree Teddy. A slow migration away from burning proven dirty energy sources to energy sources which don’t pollute the planet is the way to go. Anyone silly enough to claim “we’ll be thrown into chaos” clearly thinks you’re advocating the immediate shutdown of current energy sources tomorrow at high noon! It is proven FACT that fossil fuels are dirty and that we have alternates that are not dirty. Yet chaos theorists would have us believe we must keep soiling the planet or we’ll surely die. They can’t see beyond this current hour is all, and I feel for them…

      • Jack Getze

        This is exactly what is happening. Slow migration.

      • Rodney Vero

        I agree yet wonder how this will cause the ‘economic chaos’ so many others claim WILL happen.

      • Advisor

        Though the flash mob aspect of the deniers here is impressive, they don’t really get a vote on whether this is real or not.
        The science is far past the “even if it’s wrong why not do something anyway” to “what’s civilisation going to look like when you start losing a New Orleans several times a year. ”

        The only denier comment that makes sense and not mindless emotion is from cdw.
        cdw comment 1: chaos theory.
        Response: not entirely chaos. The Yukon has warmer days and colder days, but it is almost always colder than Miami, which also has warmer and colder days. There are larger systematic drivers of climate…… that rise above the noise (the chaos).

      • cdw

        Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), Climate Change, or Climate Disruption, whatever the ever changing buzz words are, is a SELF SOLVING problem.

        By the end of this century (year 2100) it is likely that proven worldwide crude oil reserves will be near depletion, and the fuels, plastics, and other items made from crude oil will be unaffordable for average earth inhabitants other than the elite, rich, and politically well-connected. Worldwide consumption of fossil fuels is increasing dramatically (China is a good example) and the U.N. estimate of the world’s population at the end of the century is at least 10 billion, likely more.

        In less than 85 years, most CO2 production from fossil fuels will come to a grinding halt.

        If you are still alive, you will be searching for your next meal, wondering how to produce agricultural fertilizers (Haber process) and desperate to find fuels to power your farm equipment.

    • Jack Getze

      Exactly, but nobody here will listen to the truth. They have an agenda that allows no dissent.

    • Weather Science

      Ah, so the weather forecast for tonight and tomorrow is just pure science fiction? Weird, I thought it was numerical weather prediction… Oh well. You must be right.

  31. Borderlord

    Lived in Phoenix, AZ for a couple years in early 1970s. Summertime temps were up to 125F. Is it really any warmer now? After a couple months to acclimate, I wasn’t bothered until it reached 110-115.
    If it gets warm enough to not have to use salt on the roads in the winter, I’ll be happy.

    • cdw

      Actually, the Sky Harbor International Airport record for Phoenix, Arizona, is 122 degree F.

      In the last 50 years, a substantial amount of black asphalt road material has been laid down in the Phoenix area as the population exploded, even on the concrete Interstate Highways (rubberized asphalt, to reduce traffic noise). My engineering calculations show that a substantial amount of sun’s energy that was previously reflected by the light-colored desert is now absorbed and turned into heat and infrared blackbody radiation.

      The city is now a “heat island” but interestingly the temperatures are not climbing to extremes.

      • Borderlord

        It may be that ponding of roofs, increased greenery, with the accompanying irrigation and evaporation is mitigating the additional heat absorption. That would likely mean a measurable increase in humidity, though. Also, photosynthesis converts some of the solar energy to chemical energy, though I couldn’t say how much.

      • cdw

        A nearby city, Tempe (Arizona State University), which is part of the Phoenix metropolitan area, created a recreational body of water in the normally dry Salt River bed, the “Tempe Town Lake”. Summer humidity has increased dramatically there – it is no longer a “dry heat”. 😉

        When humid air propogates into central Arizona from the South in July and August, during the midst of 110 degree F daytime temperatures, the humid air begins to rapidly ascend and condense into thunderclouds in the upper atmosphere surrounding Phoenix, at altitudes of 10,000 feet or greater, where (as you know) the temperatures are much, much lower. As the sun sets, high intensity winds occur, blowing dust from the surface of the desert and farmlands.

        This is called “The Monsoon” although it is nothing like the monsoons in India or Asia. When humid air is present, there seems to be a limit on the maximum air temperature, which when exceeded, gestates massive thunderstorms, which sometimes brings cool rain from the upper atmosphere.

      • Borderlord

        Very interesting. Thank you for the comprehensive (and comprehensible) reply. With higher humidity, the heat must certainly seem worse, even if the actual temperatures are no higher.

      • Hardcore Realist

        Can you cite the increase in humidity at any of the standard weather stations?

      • cdw

        The Phoenix “Monsoons” are a rather well-known phenomena, discussed
        in painstaking detail on the local television news. With nothing else to
        report on, local television ‘anchors’ bring us videos of blowing dust.

        Residents of Phoenix, Arizona, know well that relative humidity increases dramatically in late summer months.

        Here, do your own research. Choose any of the regional Phoenix airports:

    • Mshidden

      Random averages are deceptive. When, we say the average temperature will be higher it does not mean we will have more extreme temperatures in fact it’s possible that there will be less extreme days but longer periods of being hot. I do not know what the constraining variables are with respect to temperature in Phoenix, but a few data points are simply not enough to discern a trend.

      • Borderlord

        Thank you for your reply. Do feel free to expound on the concept of ‘random averages’. You may have hit on a new field of mathematics.

      • Mshidden

        Weather is a random average, in other words a chaotic system, so the estimate of a temperature is a random average of the temperature range. We never know the exact temperature, but we know the temperature range. In the 80’s, but this does not mean we want have days in the 70’s and it is possible we could even have a day in the 50’s. The probability of having a day in the 50’s is extremely low, but it will happen. Regardless of any given temperature on any given day we can asked the question what is the temperature average for that time of year, which should look like a normal distribution around the average temperature. Now some environments have secondary constraints, which in my local area is the ocean. If it get’s too hot, the heat creates a marine fog and it cools the area off the following day. This is a kind of tipping point in my area, because it only happens when it gets too hot. Too hot being in the 80’s, for most of the day.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.