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."