Fine analysis as usual BUT the real takeaway is that THE EXTREME HEAT WAS CALUSED BY HUMANS - the Dust Bowl was notoriously a consequence of bad farming practices that plowed up the deep-rooted prairie sod; when it dried out the exposed dirt baked and absorbed more sunlight, leading to more drying etc. Moreover the PROBLEM WAS SOLVED by improved land use policies. So the heat peak is actually a perfect lesson, in miniature, of anthropogenic climate change!
Thanks, Dr. Weart! Mercenary and volunteer obstructionists love to reanimate the undead 'it was hotter in 1934' meme. Science defenders have commonly countered with 'not globally', which is both true and unassailable. It hadn't previously occurred to me that the extreme heat seen in the American Midwest was itself anthropogenic, though not because of greenhouse emissions to that date. Now it's plain as day! As the Gemini LLM says:
"Humans did not cause the sea-surface temperature shifts that kicked off the dry weather, but by dismantling the biophysical shield of the Great Plains, human land use converted a routine, ocean-driven dry spell into an unprecedented, self-amplifying thermal disaster. "
I read Worster's "Nature's Economy" 50 years ago, when anthropogenic global warming wasn't a clear and present danger. In it and his subsequent book "Dust Bowl", he makes clear the impact of sod-busting on the unprecedented regional drought and dust, but a direct connection to lethal heat waves wasn't made. I read "The Discovery of Global Warming" when it was published, but it makes only the briefest mention of the dust bowl heat, in a photo caption:
"Terrible dust storms were accompanied by unprecedented drought and heat from sun warming the dessicated soil".
I feel like a big piece of the puzzle just fell into place!
Well, if that isn't just the cruelest thing to say to the victims of the 1.3C of anthropogenic (i.e. by you and me) global warming in the last 175 years and their loved ones. How 'miniscule' do you suppose they actually are? With reasonable certainty, they're at least more numerous than li'l ol' you! 'Interminable'? Don't be ridiculous. We can be sure it has terminated some homes, livelihoods and lives, even if not yours! You may as well say "I don't care! I'm buffered from climate change enough that I see no need to decarbonize myself, and other people don't matter!"
LOL! The Dust Bowl 'proves' only that humans can make huge mistakes and sometimes partially recover from them, after mass casualties. But your claim it 'proves' anything is strictly science-y: proof is for mathematics and distilled beverages. Both Drs. Hausfather and Weart are actual scientists. You just might be right, but my money's on them. Hell, pigs might fly, but I'm not investing my retirement savings in large sturdy umbrellas!
Temperature readings since 1895 aren't compelling AT ALL, not when you consider geological time, which you must do if you are truly a climate scientist, or even looking at the climate in a scientific manner.
The fact is that we are in an interglacial interval during an Ice Age, and that there are factors at work other than human-caused pollution, factors we are not close to completely understanding. This is confirmed by the fact that every single worst case climate model prediction has been proven wrong for the last 30 years.
The real lesson here is that in the face of traumatic information our lizard brain craves an off-ramp. But in order to prepare ourselves for the dangers to ourselves and our loved ones, the complexity will matter, will be life or death. Our burning cells understand that fact, our respiratory systems do not lie to us. We can literally feel this coming. We all need to move to the protection of the vulnerable as fiercely as a hoarder moves to avoid taxes.
Excellent and balanced analysis which makes important points. Keeping the discussion global allows the parochial arguments to be kept in context and not used to detract from the central issue.
So you agree, raw data was tampered with and data is being fabricated at weather stations shut down decades ago. The result is the appearance of a cooler past and warmer present. Confirms that when "scientists" are paid massive amounts of money and their peers will only accept them if they come up with the "right" answer, they'll come up with the "right" answer. RCP8. 5 anyone?
The raw data shows more warming globally, not less. And as the US shows there are real biases like time of observation changes and instrument changes that need to be addressed.
Thank you for your measured response. If billions had been spent compensating scientists to come up with the benefits of energy abundance and the fertilization effect of CO2, there could a real discussion. But there is no balance, folks are increasingly aware of that, their tired of it, and it's causing a backlash (Trump anyone?). Doomerism leads folks to question / reject even a thoughtful analysis like the one in this analysis. Over the top climate alarmists have only themselves to blame.
From one data geek to another, this is absolutely gorgeous! Thank you.
Fine analysis as usual BUT the real takeaway is that THE EXTREME HEAT WAS CALUSED BY HUMANS - the Dust Bowl was notoriously a consequence of bad farming practices that plowed up the deep-rooted prairie sod; when it dried out the exposed dirt baked and absorbed more sunlight, leading to more drying etc. Moreover the PROBLEM WAS SOLVED by improved land use policies. So the heat peak is actually a perfect lesson, in miniature, of anthropogenic climate change!
Thanks, Dr. Weart! Mercenary and volunteer obstructionists love to reanimate the undead 'it was hotter in 1934' meme. Science defenders have commonly countered with 'not globally', which is both true and unassailable. It hadn't previously occurred to me that the extreme heat seen in the American Midwest was itself anthropogenic, though not because of greenhouse emissions to that date. Now it's plain as day! As the Gemini LLM says:
"Humans did not cause the sea-surface temperature shifts that kicked off the dry weather, but by dismantling the biophysical shield of the Great Plains, human land use converted a routine, ocean-driven dry spell into an unprecedented, self-amplifying thermal disaster. "
I read Worster's "Nature's Economy" 50 years ago, when anthropogenic global warming wasn't a clear and present danger. In it and his subsequent book "Dust Bowl", he makes clear the impact of sod-busting on the unprecedented regional drought and dust, but a direct connection to lethal heat waves wasn't made. I read "The Discovery of Global Warming" when it was published, but it makes only the briefest mention of the dust bowl heat, in a photo caption:
"Terrible dust storms were accompanied by unprecedented drought and heat from sun warming the dessicated soil".
I feel like a big piece of the puzzle just fell into place!
It proves human ingenuity trumps most challenges, including a miniscule amount of warming over a interminable period of time.
Well, if that isn't just the cruelest thing to say to the victims of the 1.3C of anthropogenic (i.e. by you and me) global warming in the last 175 years and their loved ones. How 'miniscule' do you suppose they actually are? With reasonable certainty, they're at least more numerous than li'l ol' you! 'Interminable'? Don't be ridiculous. We can be sure it has terminated some homes, livelihoods and lives, even if not yours! You may as well say "I don't care! I'm buffered from climate change enough that I see no need to decarbonize myself, and other people don't matter!"
LOL! The Dust Bowl 'proves' only that humans can make huge mistakes and sometimes partially recover from them, after mass casualties. But your claim it 'proves' anything is strictly science-y: proof is for mathematics and distilled beverages. Both Drs. Hausfather and Weart are actual scientists. You just might be right, but my money's on them. Hell, pigs might fly, but I'm not investing my retirement savings in large sturdy umbrellas!
I live simply, off-grid in the boreal forest in Canada, so we’re not as affected as many others around the globe, but you are right.
I’m not sure what it would take for people to start changing the way that they live.
Temperature readings since 1895 aren't compelling AT ALL, not when you consider geological time, which you must do if you are truly a climate scientist, or even looking at the climate in a scientific manner.
The fact is that we are in an interglacial interval during an Ice Age, and that there are factors at work other than human-caused pollution, factors we are not close to completely understanding. This is confirmed by the fact that every single worst case climate model prediction has been proven wrong for the last 30 years.
The real lesson here is that in the face of traumatic information our lizard brain craves an off-ramp. But in order to prepare ourselves for the dangers to ourselves and our loved ones, the complexity will matter, will be life or death. Our burning cells understand that fact, our respiratory systems do not lie to us. We can literally feel this coming. We all need to move to the protection of the vulnerable as fiercely as a hoarder moves to avoid taxes.
Excellent and balanced analysis which makes important points. Keeping the discussion global allows the parochial arguments to be kept in context and not used to detract from the central issue.
So you agree, raw data was tampered with and data is being fabricated at weather stations shut down decades ago. The result is the appearance of a cooler past and warmer present. Confirms that when "scientists" are paid massive amounts of money and their peers will only accept them if they come up with the "right" answer, they'll come up with the "right" answer. RCP8. 5 anyone?
About that: https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-raw-temperature-deal
The raw data shows more warming globally, not less. And as the US shows there are real biases like time of observation changes and instrument changes that need to be addressed.
Thank you for your measured response. If billions had been spent compensating scientists to come up with the benefits of energy abundance and the fertilization effect of CO2, there could a real discussion. But there is no balance, folks are increasingly aware of that, their tired of it, and it's causing a backlash (Trump anyone?). Doomerism leads folks to question / reject even a thoughtful analysis like the one in this analysis. Over the top climate alarmists have only themselves to blame.