I’ll stick with ‘impending climate disaster’ as winters are getting colder and more intense and infrastructure is more likely to fail in cold than heat.
Except that the actual global atmospheric warming is minimal, 0.14 C/decade. [0]
The actual problem is climate change in the western part of the United States, coupled with higher population density, poor forest management, and poor power line maintenance.
The California problems may well be more due to forest mismanagement and PG&E issues than global warming. But 0.14C/decade is not “minimal” in any useful sense — it’s severely problematic.
Where I sit, there was ice a mile thick 15,000 years ago. We are still coming out of the last ice age. Besides that, we have just come out of the so-called Little Ice Age, at the height of which people walked from Manhattan to Staten Island on the ice in New York Harbor.
1.5 C per century is inconsequential. Not only that, but I predict that humans will stop emitting CO2 in a few decades, in any case.
You are mentioning these geological time scales such as 15,000 years ago, but those figures representing delta are derived from a 42 year period.
What is the delta if you account for the temperatures relating to any significant change in human consumption as opposed to this period which is the only one that coincides with fuel efficiency standards and increased environmental enforcement?
Selecting a very small time period that does not include the industrial revolution, large scale construction (New deal public works, highways) operations, world wars, nuclear energy, adoption of mechanized logistics & transportation, any time at all with unrestricted emissions, etc is nearly useless for analysis.
Why should the delta during 1979-2021 be representative of the overall climatology when the dataset appears to be barely large enough to even begin making any analysis?
> Where I sit, there was ice a mile thick 15,000 years ago. Besides that, we have just come out of the so-called Little Ice Age, at the height of which people walked from Manhattan to Staten Island on the ice in New York Harbor.
At the last glacial maximum, global temperature was about 7°C cooler than today; the “Little Ice Age” wasn't a particular period of global cooling, but a set of unsynchronized localized phenomenon featuring typical less than 1°C of large-area cooling.
> 1.5 C per century is inconsequential.
1.5°C/century of global change is gigantic compared to either of the phenomena you raise to try to minimize it.
> Not only that, but I predict that humans will stop emitting CO2 in a few decades, in any case.
>Not only that, but I predict that humans will stop emitting CO2 in a few decades, in any case.
I expect that per capita greenhouse emissions will go down, they have in the US for quite some time.
Clean sheet mitigation results in a lot of ox goring. You probably need more nuke plants, less (or no) immigration from the third world to the first, replacement of coal with natgas, hammer on the Chinese, encourage birth control.
People are generally hard on the environment and there's too darn many of them. Environmental issues are typically used to achieve political/financial power.
Look at the satellite temperate record I showed. It is the only believable record at this point, because of terrestrial temperature manipulation by people like Hansen. The linear trend is 0.14 degrees per decade over the last 40 years.
Read Spencer’s book for an alternate point of view. Global warming is real, but it is not catastrophic.
