I don't think the inflation is transitory. It's endemic, structural, will happen in waves. But anyway, if the present global monetary system collapses, it isn't going to be an end. People will deny the event, confuse people what happened. Just like with the "transitory inflation".

Combating climate change is really up to China and India, the newcomers.

So, lower clouds ...

Recent global temperature surge intensified by record-low planetary albedo
^{— Helge F Goessling · Science · Dec 5, 2024}

In 2023, the global mean temperature soared to almost 1.5K above the pre-industrial level, surpassing the previous record by about 0.17K. Previous best-guess estimates of known drivers including anthropogenic warming and the El Niño onset fall short by about 0.2K in explaining the temperature rise. Utilizing satellite and reanalysis data, we identify a record-low planetary albedo as the primary factor bridging this gap. The decline is apparently caused largely by a reduced low-cloud cover in the northern mid-latitudes and tropics, in continuation of a multi-annual trend. Further exploring the low-cloud trend and understanding how much of it is due to internal variability, reduced aerosol concentrations, or a possibly emerging low-cloud feedback will be crucial for assessing the current and expected future warming.

Summaries at ... phys, abc

I watched this video and saw the following text in the subtitles:

And telling Bob who works over 40 hour weeks
in an office job in a cold and gray City
in a rainy miserable country that he
should no longer take that couple weeks
holiday to somewhere warm to escape his
miserable life because the climate
crisis is all his fault yeah I can see
how that doesn't go down very well

Bob doesn't like the cold. The word "cold" has negative connotations.

Bob likes to be warm. He takes a couple of weeks holiday to somewhere warm to escape his miserable (cold) life.

Bob could just wait a few years and then his "cold and gray" city will be "warm and sunny". All thanks to climate change.

Good for you! Shame you missed the previous piece on the AMOC collapse.

The climate of the Holocene

Here is some information about the climate of the Holocene which climate change fanatics will refuse to believe.

The information comes from a course at The University of Arizona. The course is called ATMO 336 - Weather, Climate, and Society. The course includes a lecture called "The Climate of the Holocene". The webpage for the lecture can be found at:
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall10/atmo336/lectures/sec5/holocene.html

The webpage for the lecture is well worth reading. It includes graphs, pictures, and a summary table at the end. The lecture includes a general theme that warmth is generally good and cold is generally bad.

Here are some selected quotes:

By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today. Climatologists call this period either the Climatic Optimum or the Holocene Optimum.

During the climatic optimum many of the Earth's great ancient civilizations began and flourished. In Africa, the Nile River had three times its present volume, indicating a much larger tropical region. 6,000 years ago the Sahara was far more fertile than today and supported large herds of animals.

From 600-900 AD (The "Dark Ages"), global average temperatures were significantly colder than today. At its height, the cooling caused the Nile River (829 AD) and the Black Sea (800-801 AD) to freeze.

The period 1100 - 1300 AD has been called either the Little Climatic Optimum or the Medieval Warm Period. In Europe during this time:
- The Vikings established a colony on Greenland
- Farming was productive on Greenland (has not been productive again since that time)
- Grape vines were grown in England
- Wheat was grown in Norway (64° North latitude)

A period of cool and more extreme weather followed the Little Climatic Optimum. There are records of floods, great droughts and extreme seasonal climate fluctuations up to the 1400s. Horrendous floods devastated China in 1332 (reported to have killed several million people).

From 1550 to 1850 AD global temperatures were at their coldest since the beginning of the Holocene. Scientists call this period the Little Ice Age. During the Little Ice Age, the average annual temperature of the Northern Hemisphere was about 1 degree Celsius lower than today. But in Europe:
- Re-advance of glaciers down mountains (valley houses in Swiss Alps were covered)
- Canals in Holland froze for three months straight. This rarely occurred before or after this period.
- Agricultural productivity dropped significantly, even becoming impossible in parts of northern Europe.

Good for you! Shame you missed the previous piece on the AMOC collapse. — unenlightened

The climate change gravy train is rolling along. All aboard !!!

That information comes from climatologists, the same ones who say we're already in AGW.

That information comes from climatologists, the same ones who say we're already in AGW. — frank

I am not sure what you mean by that Frank. Does that mean we can trust the information in the lecture, or that we should distrust it.

In the summary table at the bottom of the lecture it says "1850 AD - present : Warming trend". So the lecture is not denying AGW.

So the lecture is not denying AGW. — Agree-to-Disagree

Ok.

So the lecture is not denying AGW.
— Agree-to-Disagree

Ok. — frank

So the question arises, however, 'Why is this warming period different and more concerning than all them other fluctuations?'

'Why is this warming period different and more concerning than all them other fluctuations?' — unenlightened

Well it isn’t, you see, because I’m super smart and skeptical and have spent 5 hours reading Bjorn Lomburg. Nothing to worry about because it gets hot sometimes and has been really hot in the past and the scientists are all part of a groupthink dilemma, or are shouted down if they disagree…or bought by whoever funds them. One of those anyway.

Also, carbon dioxide is actually good for plants. And what about water vapor? And what about the global cooling scare of the 70s? And what about Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore taking private jets around the world? And what about…

Global warming is usually measured by calculating the global average temperature anomaly of the Earth's surface.

But people do not die just because the global average temperature anomaly goes up. They die if actual local temperatures get too high.

How do we find out what the normal local temperatures are for a location?

The website www.timeanddate.com can be used to find out what the normal local temperatures are for a location. The information shown includes (for each month of the year) the high temperature, the low temperature, and the mean temperature. The diurnal temperature range (DTR) can be calculated by subtracting the low temperature from the high temperature. The information is also shown on a very clear and easy to understand graph.

Here are the steps to find out what the normal local temperatures are for just about any city.

1) go to the webpage https://www.timeanddate.com/weather
2) enter the name of the city that you are interested in into the search box and select that city (it must be a city, and not a State or Province)
3) this will take you to a webpage with a heading like "Weather in <the city that you selected>" or "Current Local Time in <the city that you selected>"
4) go to the menu just below this heading and move the mouse pointer over the menu item "Weather".
5) a drop down menu will appear and you need to click the submenu item "Climate (Averages)"
6) Sit back and enjoy the graph and the information

If anybody has trouble getting this to work then please contact me.

Here is a numbers guy for them as likes numbers. If you don't much like numbers, zip forward to right near the end where our man speaks personally about his priorities and in just a couple of sentences characterises the coming collapse of human society, which has already started, but is still ignorable.

My take on the changing climate is, money talks and BS walks. All the protests and statistics and numbers being tossed around is the BS, cuz it's not stopping the large corporations and various governments from moving ahead as usual in the use of fossil fuels. The U.S. seems to be the largest purveyor of fossil fuels currently (Dec 2024) but that could change as other deposits or retrieval techniques are discovered.

So from the money perspective, legacy fossil fuel companies are stalling and denying while eyeing emerging alternate energy sources to see which ones can be profitably co-opted. Other companies are developing technolgies to help rich people fend off the effects of a changing climate and if they're successful, they'll probably be bought by the legacy fossil fuel companies to burnish their climate credentials and maybe even make a few bucks. Just like 40 years ago people would create computer companies in their garages, and now computer creators just want to create something that Apple or Microsoft or whoever will buy.

Until those who wish to change the direction our climate is headed in learn to cause serious economic and political pain to the legacy forces causing this current climate situation, it's all BS, even with all the deaths and destructions, because they're not being effective. Sure, the people care, they just don't care enough, and don't see enough entities successfully opposing legacy fossil fuel corporations.

, talking $s doesn't mean that all else is BS (also known as a non sequitur).
I suppose you might check the tragedy of the commons.
Say, up-and-coming countries aren't all that likely to go all green from the get-go when they can industrialize using fossil fuels. "Why should we be denied development when everyone else did this?"
And so it goes. Or whatever. "Shit where the grandkids eat."

Gaining traction, losing tread. Pollution from tire wear now 1,850 times worse than exhaust emissions.

All of the following information comes from a study that can be found on this webpage:
https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/gaining-traction-losing-tread

Emissions Analytics has been testing and analysing tire wear emissions in more detail across a wider range of driving conditions, and has performed a detailed chemical analysis of hundreds of new tires. Furthermore, we have worked with the National Physical Laboratory in the UK objectively to quantify the uncertainties in our measurements of chemical composition.

The headline conclusion we draw now is that, comparing real-world tailpipe particulate mass emissions to tire wear emissions, both in ‘normal’ driving, the latter is actually around 1,850 times greater than the former.

Particularly vocal were the battery electric vehicle (BEV) community, sensitive to any suggestion that the added weight of these vehicles might lead to tire wear emissions that might confound the ‘zero emissions’ tag.

The fundamental trends that drive this ratio (real-world tire wear particulate mass emissions divided by real-world tailpipe particulate mass emissions) are: tailpipe particulate emissions are much lower on new cars, and tire wear emissions increase with vehicle mass and aggressiveness of driving style. Tailpipe emissions are falling over time, as exhaust filters become more efficient and with the prospect of extending the measurement of particulates under the potential future Euro 7 regulation, while tire wear emissions are rising as vehicles become heavier (e.g. EVs) and added power and torque is placed at the driver’s disposal. On current trends, the ratio may well continue to increase.

While the body of research on the health of effects of ultrafine particles is growing, how bad these effects are is likely to depend on how toxic the particles are. Light-duty tires are typically made up of synthetic rubber, derived from crude oil, rather than natural rubber, together with various fillers and additives. In a recent newsletter, Emissions Analytics set out its initial findings from chemical analysis of the organic compounds in a range of tires using two-dimensional gas chromatography and time-of-flight mass spectrometry. This showed that there were hundreds of different compounds in each tire, with a significant proportion being aromatics, some of which are recognised carcinogens.

Climate change causes inflation; inflation causes populations pain; pain produces populist governments. Populists deny problems or blame 'others'; globalised trade is threatened by both climate change and populism, and the reduction of trade leads to inflation.

This video could have been in the Grump thread, or one of the several other unrest threads, but I guess the connection between the political climate and the climate is a bit abstruse for the political mind to encompass.



I think we have reached psychosocial tipping point into a self-destructive politics, that will continue to worsen our prospects until the destruction of our infrastructure and governance becomes complete enough that local community is all that is left, and gardeners rule, ok.

Reasonable Insanity.

World Economic Forum Report.

What the rich are worried about.



https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2025/

More saltwater...

Climate-Induced Saltwater Intrusion in 2100: Recharge-Driven Severity, Sea Level-Driven Prevalence (study)
^{— Adams, Reager, Buzzanga, David, Sawyer, Hamlington · Geophysical Research Letters · Nov 22, 2024}
Saltwater Could Contaminate 75% of Coastal Freshwater by 2100
^{— Margherita Bassi · GIZMODO · Dec 15, 2024}

More longer larger droughts...

Global increase in the occurrence and impact of multiyear droughts (study)
^{— Karger, Chen, Brun, Buri, Fatichi, Gessler, McCarthy, Pelliciotti, Stocker · Science/AAAS · Jan 16, 2025}
Mega-droughts are becoming more frequent and intense worldwide
^{— Beate Kittl · Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research · Jan 16, 2025}

The usual findings. Might be worthwhile preparing some.

Brief note in a New Zealand newspaper from some 113 years ago:

Brief note in a New Zealand newspaper from some 113 years ago: — jorndoe

2 points:

1) the article doesn't say that raising the earth's temperature is a bad thing

2) New Zealand has always been ahead of the rest of the world

Brief note in a New Zealand newspaper from some 113 years ago: — jorndoe

The brief note in the New Zealand newspaper from some 113 years ago came from a report in the Popular Mechanics magazine published in March 1912. The quote is the caption under a picture in the report. The quote in the New Zealand newspaper correctly matches the caption in the report.

However, the brief note in the New Zealand newspaper from some 113 years ago is only a small part of the report, which is called "Remarkable Weather of 1911". It sounds like the weather in 1911 was even more extreme at 300.6 ppm of CO2 than it was in 2023 and 2024 at 419.3 ppm of CO2. Here are some quotes from the report.

========== Beginning of quotes ==========

THE year 1911 will long be remembered for the violence of its weather. The spring opened mild and delightful, but in June a torrid wave of unparalleled severity swept over the country. The cities baked and gasped for breath, while the burning sun and hot winds withered the corn and cost the farmers a million dollars a day. A little later England was scorched and France and Germany sweltered. The mercury went above 100 deg, in western Canada, and whalers brought back reports from the Arctic regions of open water where always before there had been solid ice. The reports from Mexico and Central America would well describe the lower regions, but it is said that the summer in Iceland was enjoyable.

In August the elements took a different turn and the flood-gates of the heavens were opened. Kentucky and the South Atlantic states were deluged, and the Philippines were more thoroughly drowned than they had been before since the time of Noah. Alberta was visited by a killing frost which ruined hundreds of pioneer farmers. A cyclone devastated Costa Rica and a violent gale swept the South Atlantic coast, destroying a great number of vessels. During the later fall, the North Atlantic was tormented by a series of more violent storms than were known to the oldest sea captains. In November the southern states were visited by a killing frost, while December was remarkable for its high temperatures.

Aside from the extreme heat, the frosts of the far North and the sunny South, and the violent storms at sea, the year 1911 was still exceptional. The mean temperature of every month except November was above the average of that of the 40 years covered by the records of the United States Weather Bureau. The average daily excess was from four to six degrees.

With only one month out of twelve below normal, one may well ask if the climate is not changing and getting warmer. There is a general impression among older men that the good old-fashioned winters in which “the snow was fifteen feet deep and lasted six months” do not come any more. In spite of the fact that the year just past was above the average in temperature, there is no clear indication that there is any progressive change in the direction of a warmer climate. The average temperature of the year 1878 was as high as that of 1911. There seem to be moderate changes in a cycle of about 35 years, and it is suggested that this is related to the period of sun-spot activities, which is about one-third as long.

[ added by @Agree-to-Disagree - from 1911 to 2023 is 112 years, which is close to 3 cycles of 35 years ]

========== End of quotes ==========

The report from the Popular Mechanics magazine published in March 1912 can be found here:
https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=Tt4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA339&dq=&source=bl&ots=QvdH-SgFLl&sig=WiPUNOIzM6udOSTBm2VXzRQB9K8&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Yeah, we knew about fossil fuel burning producing CO2 and that CO2 was a greenhouse gas back in the 19th century. By the 1950s, it was becoming obvious. By the 70s, it was very obvious — even by Exxon scientists, whose predictions have been remarkably accurate.

Reagan was the point at which most things turned around for the worse. We will be — and are — living with the consequences for decades.

With Trump now in office, we’ll be lucky to cap at 2.5 degrees— which is catastrophic for billions of people. It’s not wonder there’s as much denial about it as there is about death— or there was about cigarette smoke.

Yeah, we knew about fossil fuel burning producing CO2 and that CO2 was a greenhouse gas back in the 19th century. — Mikie

Yes, we have known about global warming for a long time.

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.” — from an Associated Press report published in The Washington Post on Nov. 2, 1922.

This was published over 100 years ago. :rofl:

Climate-change/global-warming alarmists have been scaremongering and warning of impending doom for well over 100 years. Like most doomsday cults, when the predicted disaster doesn't happen when it was predicted they just shift the date of disaster to some time in the future.

Climate-change/global-warming alarmists have been scaremongering and warning of impending doom for well over 100 years. Like most doomsday cults, when the predicted disaster doesn't happen when it was predicted they just shift the date of disaster to some time in the future. — Agree-to-Disagree

"The effect may be considerablein a few centuries."

Come back in another century and sneer about failed doomsday cults. :roll:

“Impending doom” lol. Whatever it takes to deny what’s happening I guess. “They were saying the world will end decades ago and it never did!”

Climate deniers are nothing if not predictable. How many times must we go over the “global cooling in the 70s” type nonsense?

Come back in another century and sneer about failed doomsday cults. — unenlightened

That is a foolish thing to say since I won't still be alive in another century.

You probably won't be around in another century to see that your predictions were wrong. In fact almost everyone alive now will not be around in another century. It is easy to make predictions for things that are predicted to occur after you are dead. You won't be around for people to laugh at.

Climate-change/global-warming alarmists have made many predictions which turned out to be wrong.

In 1982, Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN’s Environment Program, pointed to the possibility of widespread devastation in less than 20 years. He cited “an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.”

On June 30, 1989, the Associated Press squeezed decimation into a tight, 11-year window, with an ominous article, “Rising Seas Could Obliterate Nations,” containing a jaw-dropping opener: “A senior UN environmental official (Noel Brown) says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”

In 1990, aware the apocalypse was stalled, Mostafa Tolba, doubled down: “We shall win or lose the climate struggle in the first years of the 1990s. The issue is as urgent as that.”

In February 1993, Thomas Lovejoy, assistant secretary for Environmental and External Affairs at the Smithsonian Institution, stressed the world had one remaining decade of opportunity to avoid calamity. “I am utterly convinced that most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late.”

The 1990s was a steady chain of doomsday assurances, but the heaviest hyperbole was yet to be unleashed.

Cannibals, Toast, and Chaos

In 2006, former vice-president Al Gore projected that unless drastic measures were implemented, the planet would hit an irreversible “point of no return” by 2016. Game over.

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN Climate Panel, one-upped Gore in 2007, insisting 2012 was the year of irreversibility. “If there is no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

In April 2008, media mogul Ted Turner provided far more detail than either Gore or Pachauri, emphasizing the consequences of climate inaction. “Not doing it will be catastrophic. We’ll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not 10 but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals. Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state like Somalia or Sudan, and living conditions will be intolerable. The droughts will be so bad there’ll be no more corn growing.”

The acclaimed godfather of global warming, James Hansen, drew a line in the sand testifying before Congress in June 2008, on the dangers of greenhouse gases: “We’re toast if we don’t get on a very different path. This is the last chance.”

A year later, in July 2009, then-Prince Charles chimed in, asserting the planet had 96 months to avoid decimation: “…irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.”

Only three months later, UK prime minister Gordon Brown urged nations to pull a historical handbrake ahead of a climate conference: “There are now fewer than 50 days to set the course of the next 50 years and more. If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement, in some future period, can undo that choice. By then, it will be irretrievably too late.”

In 2014, French foreign minister Laurent Fabius upped Brown’s 50 days to 500. “We have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

Twelve years to 2031. In January 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez put her chips on 2031 as the potential end of days. “Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we’re like: ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it? And, like, this is the war—this is our World War ll.”

Eleven years to 2030. Echoing Ocasio-Cortez in March 2019, but shaving off a year, UN General Assembly President Maria Garces declared an 11-year window to escape catastrophe: “We are the last generation that can prevent irreparable damage to our planet.”

In June 2019, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden threw his support behind Ocasio-Cortez’s dozen-year projection: “Science tells us that how we act or fail to act in the next 12 years will determine the very livability of our planet.”

Full circle back to 2023, and the UN’s latest “time-bomb,” released March 20, as described by the Associated Press: “Humanity still has a chance close to the last to prevent the worst of climate change’s future harms…”

In step with near annual UN declarations from the past 50 years, Secretary-General Guterres once again sounded the alarm: “The climate time-bomb is ticking.”

But therein lies the beauty of doomsday predictions: When one fails, make another. — Chris Bennett

People have been saying silly things and getting predictions wrong for as long as they have been talking. But to do it deliberately, as you do, is fortunately much rarer, though I have the impression it is becoming normalised of late.