Heat Wave a Sample of Things to Come

July 19, 2019

Stepped outside yet today?

Today in the midwest is what a normal summer day will be like in a few decades.

National Geographic:

In less than 20 years, millions of people in the United States could be exposed to dangerous “off-the-charts” heat conditions of 127 degrees Fahrenheit or more, a startling new report has found. In 60 years over one-third of the population could be exposed to such conditions, “posing unprecedented health risks,” the report says.

This first United States county-by-county look at what climate change will do to temperature and humidity conditions in the coming decades finds few places that won’t be affected by extreme heat.

“We were very surprised at how steeply and quickly the number of days of dangerous heat increased in such a short time,” says Kristina Dahl, senior climate scientist at Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), and co-author of the report “Killer Heat in the United States: Climate Choices and the Future of Dangerously Hot Days.”

“I don’t think anyone appreciated how quickly conditions can change,” says Dahl.

Without any action to reduce global carbon emissions, parts of Florida and Texas would experience the equivalent in days of at least five months per year on average when the heat index—which includes humidity in its calculations—exceeds 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Most of those days will surpass 105 degrees before the end of the century.

The National Weather Service’s (NWS)’s heat index goes up to 127 degrees Fahrenheit. But in as soon as 20 years the Southeast, Southern Great Plains, and Midwest will begin to experience days that are so hot they are “off the charts.” A few decades later extreme heat will affect communities in 47 states, said the report, which is also published today as a peer-reviewed study in Environmental Research Communications.

By mid-century (between the years 2036 and 2065), more than 250 U.S. cities will experience the equivalent of a month or more per year on average with a heat index surpassing 100 degrees Fahrenheit, compared to just 29 cities historically. That is a conservative estimate for cities because heat added by urban heat island effects isn’t represented in the report, said Dahl.

The increase in the prevalence of heat events by mid-century in this study “represents a terrifying prospect….[and] a direct and immediate threat to human health and wellbeing,” said Tom Crowther, a climate researcher at ETH Zürich, in an email. Crowther is the co-author of a recent study that looked at the future climates of the world’s biggest 520 cities and found that some, including 17 U.S. cities, will experience unprecedented climates by 2050.


50 Responses to “Heat Wave a Sample of Things to Come”

  1. Earl Mardle Says:

    “I don’t think anyone appreciated how quickly conditions can change,” says Dahl.

    Which part of exponential did she not get? If the scientists who spend their lives donkey-deep in this are still being shocked by the speed of the change, how the hell are we going to get the pollies clued up enough to convey the message to the masses that their asses are in serious danger?

    • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

      CO2-driven climate change hits the blind spot of human perception.

      It’s like the old joke about how all the important stuff goes on just happens to fit onto the newspaper front page every day: We’re already quite experienced at ignoring a certain amount of bad news.

  2. rsmurf Says:

    My house is all electric and all solar! WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?

  3. […] than that of the skin, the body actually gains heat by radiation and conduction. Peter Sinclair writes: “Stepped outside yet today? Today in the midwest is what a normal summer day will be like in a […]

  4. […] than that of the skin, the body actually gains heat by radiation and conduction. Peter Sinclair writes: “Stepped outside yet today? Today in the midwest is what a normal summer day will be like in a […]

  5. redskylite Says:

    Certainly the effects of increasing GHG’s are becoming more evident without looking at graphs and statistics, as we’ve just had the hottest June in the Northern Hemisphere, in a non EL NINO year, with measurable CO2 emissions sadly increasing.

    Still largely greeted by indifference, apathy and political finger pointing.

    Things are ramping up relatively quickly and we should not be too surprised at the way nature is greeting our burning of long buried fossils. Computer models may not be perfect – but they do give strong hints at what is to come.

    Now unfortunately, our years of reliance on the wonders and convenience of plastic is coming back to haunt us (big time). We can’t even send our disposables to China anymore.

    Exposed to extreme heat, plastic bottles may ultimately become unsafe
    “The hotter it gets, the more the stuff in plastic can move into food or drinking water.”


  6. colettebytes Says:

    You know, Guy McPherson (Nature Bat’s Last) has been ridiculed for years, but everything is going to come to pass that he predicted. What is he doing about it?
    You need to read his overall story (it is quite long), but ultimately now, he says it is just too late. He was a professor emeritus (one of the youngest ever) as a specialist in evolutionary biology and researcher in climate change, kicked out of his University and ridiculed for his work that told the truth about Climate. He is the only researcher brave enough to say… “we can’t stop this!”

    • redskylite Says:

      On the other hand there are scientists like Judith Curry, who also has considerable followers, who seems to see everything as just natural dandy, and despises any reaction to climate change.

      Both her and Guy are outliers

      Although a lot of damage has already taken place, it is up to us (civil society) and our leaders to choose a future.

      We know what is causing the warming and we know how to improve if not stop future escalations.

      Yet so many are still so cavalier, but it is no reason for the rest of us to give up trying.

    • greenman3610 Says:

      when MacPherson et al say “human extinction by 2030” that is just plain grossly wrong, and poor messaging besides.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        2030 is 11 years away. In view of the fact that things are always turning out to be worse than predicted by previous climate models, many factors are going exponential, and those unknown tipping points are still lurking in the future, we shouldn’t be talking about “human extinction by 2030 being grossly wrong”.

        We should be talking probabilities, and IMO, 2030 is likely to be around a time in which hundreds of millions of people die because of climate change, maybe even over a billion. If not in 2030. then in 2035 or 2040 or 2050. At what point does the loss of human population approach extinction anyway? The term implies ALL humans gone, but the extinction of human society (the thing that makes us different from the animals) will likely happen if and when things get bad enough to kill off 3/4 of us.

        (PS I have no problem with McPherson’s “messaging”—-overdone a bit, perhaps, but a needed voice in a world of indifference)

      • colettebytes Says:

        I am obviously out of my depth here. 😞

        • grindupbaker Says:

          That’s absolutely OK. It’s people like what these here call climate deniers and I call something very slightly more rude that clearly know sweet all about the science and confidently spout utter drivel about it that are totally Ivor Gaevar (sorry, I mean totally worthless, mistype).

        • grindupbaker Says:

          Do you listen to Paul Beckwith’s videos ? He explains a lot quite well. He makes an occasional mistake with known fact but they are smallish warts and few. Mostly he reviews actual climate science papers and publications.

          • colettebytes Says:

            Actually, I can’t watch too many YouTube videos as I have very limited mobile data allowances only, but I do follow Paul Beckwith I have only just looked at some of the claims of detractors of Guy McPherson’work. I am no expert (and quite frankly can’t follow your many figures posted here), so cannot say whether his work has merit or not. I just believed it. Well until some rather shocking things I have read today. In all honestly, there are so many truths and lies out there, it is difficult to know what to believe any more.

            As a lay person, I would like to believe ‘the expert’ scientists, but since so many conspiracy theories have started up, I don’t even know what to believe any more.

            One thing I do know, is that a lot of things don’t add up. I did a tiny bit of research into biomass burning for electricity (a supposedly green solution) and quickly determined that we would be better off with coal, and a greenhouse gas capture on that, than the massive forest destruction with biomass (that I believe is about to occur).
            There are some manufacturing problems with solar panels (I do have some) and so it seems to me that we haven’t really addressed how to mitigate anything properly, but there will be plenty who jump on the Green Switch bandwagon to make money out of any technology given the go-ahead.
            Looks to me, that the US is looking more at life on a new planet, than saving what is here. I find that rather telling.

            Anyway, I may be misinformed, or stupid even in your esteemed world of facts and figures, but I am like the majority of people that are now getting concerned by climate and how it might be changing. We all have to rely on somebody’s assessment. Trying to find concensus, even in th 97% of those who believe it is man made, is as difficult as finding agreement on political governance. For people like me, the level of exasperation goes up a notch, every time we are told something ‘true’ and then it turns out not to be so.

            Revolutions have occurred for lesser reasons than the lies/truths told about the changing of the Earth’s climate, and what we mere mortals should do.

            I shall stand back from now on, and let them dual it out. I am fed up of being a hapless pawn.

          • Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

            Perspire it not Chickabyte, I am a scientist and wunce could evn spel it! Whenever heavy stuff appears, the safety breakers in my brain shut down before it fries. Rule de thumb, read conclusion, which equals a data point. Agenda and authority of writer are guides to its usefulness. Another thumb rule, true scientists explain, qualify ( ad nauseam ) and back up. Others claim absolute truth. Note, for decades, real people have have used terms ‘high’ or percentage probability’ for AGW. Anyway, please hang in there. You and RWG and a touch of class and style to an often ugly brawl.

        • grindupbaker Says:

          “biomass burning”. Well there you go then. I’ve not studied WG2 or WG3 at all and no especial intention of doing so, only WG1, so I’m the ignoramus on “biomass burning” certainly compared with you.

          • colettebytes Says:

            There is no need to be sarcastic. And why do you constantly insist on using acronyms (trying to bedazzle with your superior intellect doesn’t work with me – I am too stupid, remember! ).
            Working groups 1, 2, and 3 on the biotrade industry, are just that… Working groups of ‘expert advice’ on various aspects of the import, use and export in the biotrade industries. Looking at the reports (not dissimilar to reading IPCC reports) is all very scintillating for a sustainable industry. Trouble is, like the ineffective RSPO (Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil) the companies producing wood pellets are only voluntarily producing sustainability reports that are not worth the paper they are written on (indeed they waste the paper they are written on). Stop being so smug.
            I may not be an expert or anything close to, on any subject, but you come across as sanctimonious and nasty. No one will learn anything from you. You aren’t worth the time.

      • jimbills Says:

        Technically, he says human extinction by 2026. Here’s his explanation:

        You can also buy a tote bag promoting his new children’s book. (This is not a joke.)

        • grindupbaker Says:

          I’d buy the tote bag tomorrow to placate the dumboldguy but I just spent my last cash on a three-pack of The 2030 Adaptable Man’s Adaptable Men’s thermal underpants for the coming Grand Solar Minimum Ice age and a “Got GSM lately ?” coffee mug.

        • grindupbaker Says:

          Thanks. McPherson has “Tack on, without the large and growing number of self-reinforcing feedback loops we’ve triggered recently, the 5 C rise in global-average temperature 55 million years ago during a span of 13 years (subsequently strongly supported by this paper in the 15 December 2014 online issue of Nature Geoscience and then questioned in this paper from January 2015, and it looks like trouble ahead for the wise ape” but that paper of analysis of New Jersey mud is very thin compared with Dr. Scott Wing, Smithsonian Institute, work and the GMST plot he shows at 16:30 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81Zb0pJa3Hg with all the detail he gives in that talk (and I assume in his paper) about what species moved out of that region and what moved in and then what recovered and the GMST went down again and so on. As you see he has a time line of 4-6 degrees GMST rise over 40,000 years at 56,000,000 – 55,960,000 years ago. Very different.

        • grindupbaker Says:

          Thanks again. I didn’t know that mish mash of stuff existed. Guy apparently got this (or some) from David Wasdell (who I liked to hear talking a few years back, I’ve forgotten what his information was like). It’s very meaty for me to look at when the bicycling weather breaks. For now I note that “Sensitivity and the Carbon Budget David Wasdell” has “It is clear from the symmetry that the forcing effect of increasing CO2 concentration from 180 ppm to 280 ppm is virtually identical to the forcing effect of increasing CO2 concentration from 280 ppm to 440 ppm. Historically, temperature change and CO2 forcing have been closely correlated, so you would expect the 5°C change between the coldest point of the last ice-age and the pre-industrial benchmark, would be mirrored by a 5°C increase in equilibrium temperature when CO2 concentration reaches 440 ppm. However, the set of coupled computer models on which the IPCC Assessment Reports are based consistently predicts a temperature rise of only 2°C at this concentration”.

          Which is massively incorrect (the “you would expect the…” bit) because ironically David completely forgot about a powerful feedback. So here’s from Jim Hansen the most recent deglaciation forcing and feedbacks:
          The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) forcings/feedbacks of the most recent deglaciation from ~20,000 to ~8,000 years ago were:
          0.5 +- 1 wm**-2 8% Orbital eccentricity, axial tilt & precession of the equinoxes changes forcing (what pulled the trigger that started it)
          3.5 +- 1 wm**-2 53% ice sheets & vegetation changes albedo-change feedback
          1.8 +- 0.3 wm**-2 27% CO2 change feedback
          0.4 +- 0.1 wm**-2 6% CH4 change feedback
          0.4 +- 0.1 wm**-2 6% N2O change feedback
          6.6 +- 1.5 wm**-2 total
          Note the humongous ice sheets & vegetation changes albedo-change feedback. Hey David Earth doesn’t have ice sheets half the size of Asia & half the size of North America on Asia & North America right now so expecting that much ice-reduction albedo-reduction feedback is just plain junk science. It’s also ironic that Guy McPherson where he references David’s document states that paleo-climate should not be used as the human-induced rate is unique (which dumboldguy typed to me in a comment) and then David writes that computer simulations are too complex and uncertain so he’s using paleo-climate for his basis. Great irony and then David messes up big time by trying to match the most recent deglaciation feedbacks to now. Eelco Rohling presents the results of 18 paleo-climate studies and they indicate an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of 2.4-4.8 (median is 3.6 degrees) which is similar to 3.3 degrees and far less than David’s 8x the basic forcing for his paleo-climate studies. That’s at AGU FM11 2011 talk “Paleoclimate record points toward potential rapid climate changes” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTTlAAiwgwM and sea-level rise and Jim Hansen’s presentation of the most recent deglaciation assessment is in the same talks.

    • grindupbaker Says:

      I’ve heard Guy McPherson say absolute rubbish about WG1 climate science. He’s completely out of his field of knowledge and completely out of his depth and completely spouting rubbish about that. I mean he says things that are physically impossible for this planet. I’ve heard Guy McPherson say that Earth’s
      “ice-free Arctic ocean….perhaps as early as this month July 2018”. It’s absurd. It’s pig ignorant.
      “when that happens we lose the albedo”. How brain-dead stupid and meaningless.
      “we have a collapse of civilization associated with the Arctic and that spells such a very rapid rise in global average temperature”. The rise in GMST with no Arctic summer sea ice will be:
      +0.04 degrees / year for 5 years following
      +0.006 degrees / year for 15 years after that
      +0.09 degrees total amount over the next 80 years after that
      Is that “a very rapid rise in global average temperature” ? The phrase “a very rapid rise in global average temperature” is typical lazy, unstudied, worthless Guy McPherson non information.
      “shortly after that Arctic ice is gone…well beyond the temperature at which humans have occupied the planet”. So is 20 years “shortly after” ? What does “shortly after” even mean ? It’s meaningless non information. Does the +0.29 degrees over 20 years above cause GMST to be “well beyond the temperature at which humans have occupied the planet” and how does it compare with the +0.20 degrees / decade that’s happening anyway irrespective of Arctic Ocean summer sea ice considering that the +0.29 degrees over 20 years is a one-time bump and the +0.20 degrees / decade is a relentless push that humans are determined to push for decades/centuries while steadily slightly increasing each decade ?
      “we are at one and three quarters degrees Celsius right now above the 1750 base line”. Just an outright lie of huge proportion. GMST is 1.20 degrees above the 1750 base line and this is well known from the half dozen proxies at 1700-1800 AD.
      “more likely…8 and a half degree temperature rise by 2026. It’s going to be much faster than that”. Setting aside the obvious fact that there’s no physical process been found that is going to raise Earth’s Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) by >0.5 degrees / decade there’s also the slight issue that it’s actually physically impossible for GMST to increase by anywhere near 8.5 degrees over anywhere near as short as 8 years since planet Earth has oceans. Just how lazy and pig ignorant does Guy McPherson have to be to completely forget that planet Earth has oceans ?
      At 0:45 “for most of us we’ll be going sooner than that 2026 time line I presented a couple of years ago”. Yeah, well, based on what study and calculations ? Based on zero study and calculations. At 0:58 “I don’t doubt that sociopaths in bunkers will survive for a few more years beyond, say, an ice-free Arctic”. He’s a babbling idiot. “an ice-free Arctic” is entirely meaningless.
      “…to September of 2015 and then increased another 5 or 6 tenths degree Celsius in the next 4 months…”. This is appalling junk science & cherry picking. Huge El Nino and Guy McPherson deliberately pretends it was an upward trend (it’s a natural cycle). That’s what coal/oil shills do. McPherson’s WG1 climate science is strictly at coal/oil shill quality. He uses the same scams as they do, he’s just on the opposing drivel team.
      I’ve also heard Guy McPherson lie outright about the newer study about atmospheric aerosols but I didn’t add that detail to my notes, but he lied alright (again). He said aerosol effects were doubled but it’s actually only that aerosol cloud effect might (or might not) be as much as twice as much, so that’s a maximum of 0.55 w/m**2 additional to the existing total best estimate of 1.41 w/m**2 so its’ a *maximum* of 40% more, nowhere near McPherson’s “doubled”.
      At 3:05 “does that mean they agree with me in public. No of course not because they would lose support for their prestigious academic positions if they agreed with me in public”. That’s a familiar refrain, the old brain memory is struggling here. Oh right, coal/oil shills. WG1 climate scientists are a bunch of fakers making up this global warming rubbish so’s they get funding for their work. And of course the other climate scientists are a bunch of professional fraud artists who inform in the scientific papers and/or public talks one thing (Peter Wadhams: could see a 4 to 5 C temperature rise by the end of this century) but tell their expert friend Guy McPherson the true science under the table (Peter Wadhams: tells Guy in private emails that Guy’s feedbacks should be compounded so Guy’s 8.5 degree temperature rise by much sooner than 2026 is the true goods that Peter Wadhams, a WG1 climate scientist, is hiding from the public, so massive scientific malfeasance by Peter Wadhams is Guy McPherson’s claim here on video for all to see). Yes, now I see. All WG1 climate scientists must be either fakers per human-induced climate change deniers or else be snivelling, spineless connivers per your hero Guy McPherson.
      “Humanity is a “heat engine”” is meaningless rubbish that has nothing at all to do with the topic of global warming. It doesn’t help to have idiots simply parroting the meaningless infotainment drivel of the clown-charlatan Guy McPherson when other people are trying to ponder this properly.
      At 25:35 “They never mentioned that we’re at the highest temperature experienced by Homo Sapiens”. Yes, but maybe that’s because Guy McPherson is simply, yet again, giving false information there (lying again). I just wish that Guy McPherson would stop it with giving these snippets of disinformation like this and stick with facts, then he’d be a beneficial type of entity overall instead of a worthless self-aggrandizing clown.
      In some “Peter Miller” video Guy McPherson mentions that he’s worth >$400/hour for his talks. I don’t know his actual fees but for the WG1 climate science assessments/predictions if it’s >$4/hour then it’s way too much. McPherson’s WG2 climate science and biology/ecology and crystal ball predictions other than WG1 climate science might be super excellent for all I know because I’ve never studied those, but he’s entirely worthless due to the inclusion of much total rubbish from him on very significant global warming issues, as I’ve detailed above.
      The title of a video “Calling On ALL Climate Scientists To Disprove The McPherson Paradox” reminds me of a stand-up comic joke/anecdote (supposedly true) I heard on the CBC radio. He’s on a Greyhound bus travelling to gigs, guy on the bus gets a medical problem, driver announces “Is there a doctor on the bus ?” and he’s thinking “What the ?!?!! Stop the bus, get on the highway and start flagging down Jaguars”.
      Persons such as yourself who follow and parrot the drivel (see above) of these infotainment types are entirely unstudied, lazy and pig ignorant. How about you study a bit instead ? At least 500 hours or so to get you in at the basement level.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        WHOA! This tirade borders on vicious. Are we feeling cranky today?

        Two whole screens of attacks on McPherson? What a waste of time—-he’s basically history and irrelevant now.

        Or perhaps we’re feeling misogynistic today? Your final shot at Colette is uncalled for—-you owe her an apology

        • redskylite Says:

          Agree 100% with DOG’s two comments above on McPherson and especially on the uncalled for advice for Colette to sacrifice 500 hours on study.

          One thing I especially like about Peter Sinclair’s site is that he often presents short informative videos. He puts things in layman’s language as simply as he can, without talking down to his audience.

          Also Colette is right, whatever you think of McPherson’s works, it took some considerable courage to express his thoughts – especially at a time when climate science was greeted with a lot of callous vitriol.

          The DOG has published his recommended and rich reading list of science author’s climate related books, I’m sure he doesn’t entirely agree with every detail in every book, but the whole gives a wider understanding of the time-frames and considerable problems we are facing.

          • jimbills Says:

            redsky – I have no problem with much of your comment. My issue is your use of McPherson, ‘climate science’, and ‘courage’ in the same sentence.

            First off, McPherson doesn’t actually do any of the science we’re talking about. He interprets that science very poorly, then he passes that off to others as ‘truth’. This has definite effects on people’s lives, often detrimentally, and he does absolutely zero favor to climate science in general by making such grossly inaccurate interpretations. Please read the note about suicide on McPherson’s home page to see an example of what I’m talking about. Gullible people read his stuff and want to kill themselves.

            2026 is going to roll around and he’s going to look like one of those Christian apocalyptic preachers that claimed to know the exact end of the world and watch that day enter the past. Others will also see that, laugh, and think how silly it is to think we’re going to have real problems from climate change. It will just add fuel to the fire for the deniers and those on the fence.

            Courage is worthless, and sometimes very harmful, when it’s backed by bad thinking. The moon landing denier guys in the more recent post here have courage, too.

      • grindupbaker Says:

        Delete “I’ve heard Guy McPherson say that Earth’s” in 1st paragraph (typo)

      • rsmurf Says:

        Could you repeat that, makes you look double dumb.

    • J4Zonian Says:

      Science doesn’t do predictions, it does sets of projections as part of a system of investigating possible futures in studies. It gives parameters and what-ifs for each, that can be checked against actual results and then modified. They aren’t meant to be taken as truth, only suppositions.

      McPherson does predictions, and as far as I know he’s always been wrong.

      McPherson uses the same methods of lying that denying delayalist trolls use–FLICC, outright lies, and on and on. His nonsense has been debunked numerous times on the net.
      Here’s just one: https://fractalplanet.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/how-guy-mcpherson-gets-it-wrong/ McPherson’s made several firm, dated predictions of collapse of civilization; at least some of those dates have come and gone. He’s as full of it as any of the disturbed people who post their denial on the internet using arguments created and funded by Koch, Exxon, ALEC, the Republicans, et al.

      His despair is like all such despair and denial; they’re 2 sides of the same coin and people can flip back and forth between them to avoid what to them is intolerable uncertainty. Since we know it’s not an accurate assessment of the global situation (civilization did not end any of the times he said it definitely would and we know his arguments are complete crap) it can only come from his personal psychological history. Other people aren’t saying ‘we can’t stop this’ because they don’t have the courage; they aren’t saying it because they know we don’t know whether we can or not. Certainly when he started saying it we could have avoided almost all the harmful effects that years of delay have now guaranteed. McPherson and people echoing him are partly responsible for that delay; spreading false despair is at least as immoral an act as spreading false denial.

      There’s no single point at which we cross from OK to destroyed. 1°C over preindustrial temperature–where we are now–is obviously going to be very bad. 1.5° will be worse; 2° will be worse still. 4-5°, where the policies of many major countries are heading us now, is likely to cause the death of 80-90% of humanity and obviously the extinction of millions of species.
      But as far as we know from the vast majority of science, there’s still time to avoid that. Not much time, and action has to be immediate, massive and radical, but amazing changes have happened in the past and the movement to accomplish that is huge and growing fast. You should help out rather than hinder it by spreading despair.

      If you want direness, there’s a lot going around now. See Kevin Anderson. See Wallace-Wells. See the updates on McKibben’s Rolling Stone Climate Math article. See the actual observations of thousands of species being wiped out in real time. But please pay attention to the science, not the people speaking out of unconscious reactions to their own psychological problems, from TVMOB to McPherson.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Can’t believe that you linked to Fractal Planet, a site that IMO is a garbage site. Couldn’t you find something negative about GuyMcP from a more credible source?

      • colettebytes Says:

        Thanks. I intend to back away from the twaddle. I need my sense of reality back. I am fed up listening to or reading about most of it anyway.

        • redskylite Says:

          Well a few years ago I used to stand up for climate scientists against pig ignorant deniers, in a sort of Trade Union way (having represented workmates vs. the management for a period in my past working life). I have never read any of the 15 impressively titled publications by McPherson, nor his > than 55 peer reviewed papers, but hopefully if science (peer review) methods work, his 21+ years of University teaching and published books weren’t totally a waste of time.

          Judith Curry also co wrote some excellent published materials and made valuable contributions to climate science in the past.

          Maybe something happened to the pair of them.

          It seems to me that lately the signs of climate change are so evident we no longer need to be warned by eminent scientists – with the rush of migrants/refugees, drought, flood, disease, health professionals, sea level rise, insect decline etc the signs are news every day.

          So I’ll reserve judgement on Guy until I actually get to read some of his older materials for myself.

          • jimbills Says:

            redsky – McPherson isn’t a climate scientist and hasn’t done science himself for decades. I’ve known about him for about ten years, dating back to when he was a big peak oil doomer, and I’ve kind of watched him progress in his climate change opinions since then. He says a lot that is true – these tend to be generalities about industrial civilization and human activities. But he claims gnostic-like knowledge about imminent extinction that is beyond the pale, and he misinterprets a lot of other climate science. Please watch minutes 6 to 9 here:

          • dumboldguy Says:

            McPherson can really sling it, can’t he? A mish-mosh of craziness with some good insights mixed in.

            I likely won’t be here in 2030. but if there is an “above and after” I’ll be watching—-or maybe I’ll be reincarnated as a toadstool or a sea urchin, just in time to be wiped put by the sixth extinction.

            Good luck, young folks.

  7. grindupbaker Says:

    A few weeks ago when I calculated climate sensitivity from the record so far I got a low value by 65%/89%=73% of the climate sensitivity I expected. More recently I realized that Arctic Ocean summer sea ice is likely a Dead Man Walking from the prior +1.20 degrees (so not needing the 0.81 w/m**2 imbalance or future GHGs) so I factored in the 85 w/m**2 I computed for that a few months back and got an extra 0.40 degrees over a few decades (assuming 30% already happened) for that so +1.20 + 0.40 = +1.60 degrees is to be the actual since 1750 AD with that slightly longer feedback of Arctic Ocean summer sea ice gone and that gives a climate sensitivity of 1.60*3.71/(2.65-0.81) = 3.23 degrees. As you know, IPCC is 1.5-4.5 with “around 3” likely and Andrew Dessler said WG1 climate scientists are settling at 3.3 degrees. I just computed 3.23 degrees if, and only if, the Arctic Ocean summer sea ice is already a Dead Man Walking. I’m rather sure that the Arctic Ocean summer sea ice is already a Dead Man Walking.

    • grindupbaker Says:

      I see one other possibility for a climate sensitivity of 3.3 degrees without loss of Arctic Ocean summer sea ice and that’s if the aerosols cooling effect is actually 1.90 rather than the 1.41 w/m**2 best IPCC AR5 estimate (such as cloud effects larger). Of course, it could be some combination of the two and of course also the 18 paleo-climate proxies indicate an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of 2.4-4.8 (median is 3.6 degrees).

  8. Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

    Information is good, would love to hear suggestions as what to do about it, Seriously, am short on ideas.

    • J4Zonian Says:

      Making personal lifestyle changes is nice, but in the end, unless we take political power and change how everyone lives, we’ll fail.

      Join with others where you live; organize to take power from the right and elect the most progressive, climate-aware candidates there are. Insist the government respond to reality with sanity. Work on getting a climate emergency declared in your town or city, your state or province, and nationally. Then make sure everyone treats it like the emergency it is.

      The Climate Mobilization theclimatemobilization[DOT]org

      Extinction Rebellion

      Sunrise Movement

      School strikers–millions of students and others inspired by Greta Thunberg will be taking part in general strikes and other actions September 20-27.

      Talk about climate catastrophe to everyone you can. First, know the science well enough to explain it and respond to confusion, ignorance and denial with compassion and rationality. (Second step–acknowledge and commiserate with the fear behind their opinions, even though many don’t know or won’t admit they’re afraid.)

      Emphasize the overwhelming scientific consensus, a key to convincing people.

      Understand that despite the importance of relaying the science to people who don’t know, there are many committed denying delayalists who not only won’t be convinced by facts but will actually strengthen their conviction with every truthful point you make. The only thing to do there is to keep at it for weeks or years trying as many approaches as you can find, or to address the emotional reasons they reject reality. But that takes more specific knowledge, awareness, and willingness to pay close attention to the person’s body language, language language, etc. With those radical ideological denying delayalists it can’t be done online, unfortunately, only in person. In the end, it’s much more important and less frustrating to convince those who aren’t so fanatical, though you may find it useful to do that by pretending to try to convince the fanatics.

      It will help to familiarize yourself with the science and reason that counter common lies: http://www.skepticalscience.com
      David Roberts at Vox has written a lot about energy and the politics of denial. The book Merchants of Doubt is excellent on the denial industry, and there’s a movie.

      • Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

        Thanks Jfour, was actually thinking on manuals for producing pitchforks, burning torches and plastique. May become not a joke soon.
        Tick all boxes above, many in spades. Love the student demos, their signage is brilliant.
        Arguing with unbelievers is the killer, as you addressed at length. Just reinforces their determination to be stupid. Only success has been to to project supreme confidence with complete uncaring confidence that we are totally screwed. Totally shocks them and one must not ‘argue’. Re messaging that we actually have a chance is a bit tricky. Uber has some interesting thoughts up post ‘scared enough’ (?) Maintain the rage.

  9. dumboldguy Says:

    Don’t back up too far, just keep an eye out for “exponential, tipping points, and positive feedback loops” in whatever you read. You don’t have to know all the math and science to use your common sense and get a feel for what’s going on. And so much of the problem rooted in politics, sociology, and psychology. Check out your local library for these two books—-they are perhaps the two best books I’ve seen for pulling it all together—easy to read too.

    David Wallace-Wells, Tim Duggan Books-Crown, 2019
    Bill McKibben, Holt-Macmillan, 2019

    • jimbills Says:

      Thumbs up there, because those are two guys who DO stay within the bounds of the actual science. BTW, those are both people McPherson has condemned:


      They don’t agree with what McPherson has to say, so they are obviously corrupt in his eyes.

      Now, you know very well that I’m about as big a pessimist about our future as anyone who comments on this site. But McPherson is saying stuff that directly impacts people’s lives. Young people decide they have no future anyway, so why do anything. Other people contemplate suicide. He has a cult-like following of people like this. Just read the comments on the Youtube video I posted above.

      He says we have less than 10 years to actually survive on this planet. I’d say we don’t get off that effing easy.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: