Only Three Months Left For Planet Earth( and other false doomsday predictions)
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
So far, January has been 16th coldest on record in the US, with much colder weather in the forecast fossil fuels will keep us warm
Hundreds of people died in Texas on Valentine's Day 2021, because their wind turbines froze and the grid collapsed.
Green energy is environmentally destructive, inherently unreliable, and dangerous.
The drought and fires in California are caused by cold temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, associated with La Nina. It has nothing to do with "global warming" and is the same climate California has always had.
Hundreds of people died in Texas on Valentine's Day 2021, because their wind turbines froze and the grid collapsed.
Green energy is environmentally destructive, inherently unreliable, and dangerous.
The drought and fires in California are caused by cold temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, associated with La Nina. It has nothing to do with "global warming" and is the same climate California has always had.
Why California Wildfires are NOT Climate Driven: A Historical and Meteorological Perspective
3 days ago
Anthony Watts
99 Comments
The tragic wildfires currently raging in Los Angeles have reignited the predictable chorus blaming climate change for natural disasters. As articles from outlets like Axios, Newsweek, and the BBC demonstrate, there’s a growing tendency to tie every fire, flood, or storm to climate change. However, a closer look at history, meteorology, and land management reveals that these claims are often oversimplified by low-information journalists, and fail to address more immediate, actionable causes.
It’s essential to separate the headlines from the science to understand these wildfires in their proper context. The current fires, like many before them, are largely driven by well-documented weather phenomena, historical land-use patterns, and human decisions—not by a nebulous, all-encompassing narrative of “climate factors.”
Wildfires: A Part of California’s History
California’s relationship with fire predates the Industrial Revolution and certainly modern climate discussions. Historical records and studies consistently demonstrate that large wildfires have been a natural part of the state’s ecosystem for millennia. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the frequency of large wildfires in Southern California has remained relatively consistent over the last century, with human settlement and land management playing a much larger role than global temperature trends (source).
A map of wildfires dating back to 1878 shows that they are endemic to California:
As the Newsweek article points out, fires like the Palisades Fire are often attributed to “climate change,” by media but they rarely pause to acknowledge that human activity—like arson, accidental ignition, or poor land management—frequently sparks these events. Controlled burns, a practice used by Native Americans for centuries, were abandoned with the advent of European settlement. This led to the buildup of dense, fire-prone vegetation. In fact, a major portion of the state’s wildfire problem today stems from these overgrown landscapes, not from incremental changes in global temperatures. For example, a study published by the U.S. Forest Service highlights the significant role of wildfires in the natural ecology of California, with fire-return intervals ranging from decades to centuries, depending on the ecosystem.
Santa Ana Winds: Weather, Not Climate
A critical factor in the Los Angeles wildfires is the role of the infamous Santa Ana winds, which are neither new nor related to climate change. These dry, gusty winds are a recurring weather phenomenon caused by high-pressure systems over the Great Basin that force hot, dry air down through Southern California’s mountain passes. They’ve been a well-documented driver of wildfires for as long as records exist. The Sky News article acknowledges the role of these winds in rapidly spreading the flames, but then pivots to climate change without making a concrete scientific connection.
To clarify: Santa Ana winds are a short-term weather event, not a long-term climate trend. Conflating weather with climate—something the media routinely does—misrepresents the science. Climate refers to patterns observed over decades or centuries, while weather deals with immediate atmospheric conditions. Ignoring this distinction fuels alarmism at the expense of nuanced understanding.
Land Management and Urban Growth
Another overlooked issue is land management. Decades of fire suppression policies have allowed dry brush, dead trees, and dense vegetation to accumulate, creating the perfect conditions for catastrophic fires. The Palisades Fire, for instance, was fueled by dense vegetation that had built up over years, according to reports cited by Newsweek.
Urban sprawl into fire-prone areas—the wildland-urban interface—further exacerbates the problem. California has seen a significant increase in housing developments encroaching into areas historically prone to fires. A report from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) highlights how poor planning and a lack of defensible space around structures are key contributors to wildfire destruction (source).
Controlled burns and vegetation management, both inexpensive and effective, are vastly underutilized. Even the BBC article acknowledges that poor land management plays a significant role, although it glosses over this point to focus on climate change narratives.
Media Hype and the Climate Change Narrative
It’s become all too common for the media to frame natural disasters as evidence of an impending climate apocalypse. The Axios, Newsweek, and Sky News articles are prime examples of this trend. While they acknowledge weather and land-use factors in passing, their focus inevitably returns to vague, unsupported claims about “climate factors.”
The problem with this approach is that it misleads the public and policymakers alike. By blaming wildfires primarily on climate change, we risk ignoring the more immediate, solvable issues at hand. The media’s fixation on climate change as a universal scapegoat leaves critical factors like land management, urban planning, and fire prevention under-discussed.
The Danger of Misguided Policies
Blaming wildfires on climate change makes for dramatic headlines, but it distracts from practical solutions. For instance, California’s increasing reliance on renewable energy mandates and electric vehicles might help lower emissions over time, but they do little to address the state’s wildfire risks today. Worse, these policies often divert resources from pressing issues like fire prevention and infrastructure improvements.
A report by the Little Hoover Commission emphasizes the urgent need for better forest management practices, including thinning dense forests and conducting prescribed burns. Yet these solutions are frequently ignored in favor of policies that sound good politically but fail to address the root causes of wildfire devastation.
Conclusion: Facts Over Fear
California’s wildfires are tragic, but they are not unprecedented. Historical fire records, the role of Santa Ana winds, and the impacts of poor land management reveal a much more complex picture than the climate change narrative suggests. As the Sky News and Newsweek articles inadvertently highlight, there are many proximate causes of wildfires that demand our attention—causes that have little or nothing to do with global climate trends.
The rush to attribute every fire to climate change oversimplifies the issue and distracts from actionable solutions. Improving forest management, enforcing defensible space requirements, and addressing urban sprawl into fire-prone areas are steps we can take today.
It is crucial to separate hype from reality. These fires are not proof of a climate crisis but a reminder of the importance of thoughtful land management and disaster preparedness. Let’s focus on solutions grounded in science, history, and practicality—not fear.
Why California Wildfires are NOT Climate Driven: A Historical and Meteorological Perspective – Watts Up With That?
3 days ago
Anthony Watts
99 Comments
The tragic wildfires currently raging in Los Angeles have reignited the predictable chorus blaming climate change for natural disasters. As articles from outlets like Axios, Newsweek, and the BBC demonstrate, there’s a growing tendency to tie every fire, flood, or storm to climate change. However, a closer look at history, meteorology, and land management reveals that these claims are often oversimplified by low-information journalists, and fail to address more immediate, actionable causes.
It’s essential to separate the headlines from the science to understand these wildfires in their proper context. The current fires, like many before them, are largely driven by well-documented weather phenomena, historical land-use patterns, and human decisions—not by a nebulous, all-encompassing narrative of “climate factors.”
Wildfires: A Part of California’s History
California’s relationship with fire predates the Industrial Revolution and certainly modern climate discussions. Historical records and studies consistently demonstrate that large wildfires have been a natural part of the state’s ecosystem for millennia. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the frequency of large wildfires in Southern California has remained relatively consistent over the last century, with human settlement and land management playing a much larger role than global temperature trends (source).
A map of wildfires dating back to 1878 shows that they are endemic to California:
As the Newsweek article points out, fires like the Palisades Fire are often attributed to “climate change,” by media but they rarely pause to acknowledge that human activity—like arson, accidental ignition, or poor land management—frequently sparks these events. Controlled burns, a practice used by Native Americans for centuries, were abandoned with the advent of European settlement. This led to the buildup of dense, fire-prone vegetation. In fact, a major portion of the state’s wildfire problem today stems from these overgrown landscapes, not from incremental changes in global temperatures. For example, a study published by the U.S. Forest Service highlights the significant role of wildfires in the natural ecology of California, with fire-return intervals ranging from decades to centuries, depending on the ecosystem.
Santa Ana Winds: Weather, Not Climate
A critical factor in the Los Angeles wildfires is the role of the infamous Santa Ana winds, which are neither new nor related to climate change. These dry, gusty winds are a recurring weather phenomenon caused by high-pressure systems over the Great Basin that force hot, dry air down through Southern California’s mountain passes. They’ve been a well-documented driver of wildfires for as long as records exist. The Sky News article acknowledges the role of these winds in rapidly spreading the flames, but then pivots to climate change without making a concrete scientific connection.
To clarify: Santa Ana winds are a short-term weather event, not a long-term climate trend. Conflating weather with climate—something the media routinely does—misrepresents the science. Climate refers to patterns observed over decades or centuries, while weather deals with immediate atmospheric conditions. Ignoring this distinction fuels alarmism at the expense of nuanced understanding.
Land Management and Urban Growth
Another overlooked issue is land management. Decades of fire suppression policies have allowed dry brush, dead trees, and dense vegetation to accumulate, creating the perfect conditions for catastrophic fires. The Palisades Fire, for instance, was fueled by dense vegetation that had built up over years, according to reports cited by Newsweek.
Urban sprawl into fire-prone areas—the wildland-urban interface—further exacerbates the problem. California has seen a significant increase in housing developments encroaching into areas historically prone to fires. A report from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) highlights how poor planning and a lack of defensible space around structures are key contributors to wildfire destruction (source).
Controlled burns and vegetation management, both inexpensive and effective, are vastly underutilized. Even the BBC article acknowledges that poor land management plays a significant role, although it glosses over this point to focus on climate change narratives.
Media Hype and the Climate Change Narrative
It’s become all too common for the media to frame natural disasters as evidence of an impending climate apocalypse. The Axios, Newsweek, and Sky News articles are prime examples of this trend. While they acknowledge weather and land-use factors in passing, their focus inevitably returns to vague, unsupported claims about “climate factors.”
The problem with this approach is that it misleads the public and policymakers alike. By blaming wildfires primarily on climate change, we risk ignoring the more immediate, solvable issues at hand. The media’s fixation on climate change as a universal scapegoat leaves critical factors like land management, urban planning, and fire prevention under-discussed.
The Danger of Misguided Policies
Blaming wildfires on climate change makes for dramatic headlines, but it distracts from practical solutions. For instance, California’s increasing reliance on renewable energy mandates and electric vehicles might help lower emissions over time, but they do little to address the state’s wildfire risks today. Worse, these policies often divert resources from pressing issues like fire prevention and infrastructure improvements.
A report by the Little Hoover Commission emphasizes the urgent need for better forest management practices, including thinning dense forests and conducting prescribed burns. Yet these solutions are frequently ignored in favor of policies that sound good politically but fail to address the root causes of wildfire devastation.
Conclusion: Facts Over Fear
California’s wildfires are tragic, but they are not unprecedented. Historical fire records, the role of Santa Ana winds, and the impacts of poor land management reveal a much more complex picture than the climate change narrative suggests. As the Sky News and Newsweek articles inadvertently highlight, there are many proximate causes of wildfires that demand our attention—causes that have little or nothing to do with global climate trends.
The rush to attribute every fire to climate change oversimplifies the issue and distracts from actionable solutions. Improving forest management, enforcing defensible space requirements, and addressing urban sprawl into fire-prone areas are steps we can take today.
It is crucial to separate hype from reality. These fires are not proof of a climate crisis but a reminder of the importance of thoughtful land management and disaster preparedness. Let’s focus on solutions grounded in science, history, and practicality—not fear.
Why California Wildfires are NOT Climate Driven: A Historical and Meteorological Perspective – Watts Up With That?
Failure 1) arguing that because one day is cold that climate change isn't happening. That's confusing weather against climateSo far, January has been 16th coldest on record in the US, with much colder weather in the forecast fossil fuels will keep us warm
Hundreds of people died in Texas on Valentine's Day 2021, because their wind turbines froze and the grid collapsed.
Green energy is environmentally destructive, inherently unreliable, and dangerous.
The drought and fires in California are caused by cold temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, associated with La Nina. It has nothing to do with "global warming" and is the same climate California has always had.
Failure 2) posting a global map focused on la nina (the one cold zone on the planet) as if it discounts all the red areas in that same global map
Forest Fire as a Military Weapon A June 1970 Report of study commissioned by the Department of Defense.
Vietnam War : Forest Fire as a Military Weapon
Vietnam War : Forest Fire as a Military Weapon
Michigan is poised to cut down hundreds of acres of forest to make space for a solar panel development, MLive reported Thursday. [emphasis, links added]
The state will soon start competitive bidding on approximately 420 acres of forested land near Gaylord, Michigan, to clear space for a solar farm while generating revenue and advancing the state’s long-term green energy targets, according to MLive.
There is some evidence suggesting that such a move would increase emissions, and Michigan is one of the least sunny states in the country, according to an analysis conducted by The Washington Post.
“Not incredibly popular with everyone,” Scott Whitcomb, the director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) public lands office, told MLive. “I will be frank about that.”
“We don’t give this land away for free,” Whitcomb told the outlet. “That lease revenue can go into natural resources management. So, I wouldn’t say it’s the only reason, but it is something we think about. The bottom line is, we have to pay for the activities of this agency somehow.”
Notably, one study published by Harvard researchers found that clearing forests to replace solar panel developments may actually lead to an overall increase in greenhouse gas emissions, and a paper published by Chinese researchers also reached similar conclusions.
There are also oil and gas wellheads in other areas of the woods that remain forested, according to MLive.
SOURCE: North America Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS) Daily Sunlight (Insolation) years 1979-2011 on CDC WONDER Online Database, released 2012. Published July 13, 2015 (WaPo)
“This is pretty amazing. Michigan is not like California, it’s not like the sun is always shining there,” Dan Kish, a senior research fellow at the Institute for Energy Research, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
“This is the theater of the absurd, and it’s all driven by tax credits and giveaways from the federal and state government, and by mandates that the governor there has implemented.”
Michigan’s Healthy Climate Plan states that officials should “avoid land-use conversion that causes a net increase in [greenhouse gas] emissions and prioritize land uses that reduce [greenhouse gas] emissions” concerning the state’s waters and forests, but Whitcomb told MLive that he hopes to use some solar revenues to purchase land for uses like connecting habitat for wildlife or carbon sequestration.
Whitcomb added that the 420 acres is already cut in half by a major transmission line that will make it easier to get the solar farm operational and make it less likely that new power lines will need to be built.
Read rest at Daily Caller
Whitmer's Follies: Mich. To Clear-Cut 420+ Acres Of Carbon-Storing Trees For Solar Farm - Climate Change Dispatch
The World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO) article, “Climate Change Impacts Grip Globe in 2024,” paints a dire picture of a planet spiraling into chaos, with extreme weather events attributed to anthropogenic climate change. [emphasis, links added]
While the narrative is emotionally compelling for low-information readers, it falsely conflates short-term weather events with long-term climate trends.
It is a fundamental error that undermines the scientific integrity of the claims, especially since the WMO itself actually defines what climate is:
One of the core flaws in the WMO article is its failure to differentiate between weather and climate. Weather encompasses short-term atmospheric phenomena, such as heat waves, storms, and rainfall, while climate refers to long-term patterns and averages over decades or centuries.
The distinction is crucial, yet the WMO blurs the line by implying that individual weather events in 2024 are definitive evidence of climate change.
Only long-term trends of thirty years or more in weather can indicate climate change, and no such long-term trends in worsening extreme weather events are found in the data.
As highlighted by Climate Realism, “Extreme weather events have occurred for millennia, often with no connection to human influence.”
The site notes that attributing every flood or heatwave to climate change ignores natural variability and fails to account for the complexities of atmospheric systems.
Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledges the difficulty of attributing specific weather events to long-term climatic trends, stating that such attribution requires rigorous analysis and cannot rely on anecdotal observations.
In short, the WMO’s approach is highly misleading, using weather events as propaganda tools to sell the narrative of a climate emergency.
While the WMO’s article focuses on the immediate impacts of extreme weather, it conveniently omits a critical fact: deaths from weather-related disasters have plummeted over the past 100 years.
In the 1920s, the global average annual death toll from such disasters was approximately 485,000. Today, that number has fallen by over 98%, to fewer than 10,000 annually. This is not evidence of escalating danger but of extraordinary human progress. See the figure below.
Figure. The graph demonstrates a vast improvement in human mortality related to all extreme weather events over 100 years from 1920 to 2021. Source: Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, data from International Disaster Database published in ScienceDirect.
As detailed in Climate at a Glance, the dramatic decline in weather-related fatalities is due to advancements in forecasting, emergency response, infrastructure, and communication technologies.
Humanity’s ability to anticipate and adapt to extreme weather has improved exponentially, saving millions of lives and mitigating the impacts of natural disasters.
Far from being more vulnerable, we are more resilient than ever before.
Additionally, Watts Up With That highlights that while global news reporting on extreme weather events has increased—creating the illusion of worsening conditions—the actual frequency and intensity of such events remain within historical norms.
This underscores the importance of context, reminding readers that cherry-picking extreme events while ignoring overall trends leads to badly skewed public perceptions and expensive government policy missteps.
Another flaw in the WMO’s argument is the assumption that all unusual weather patterns are the result of human activity.
While the climate system can be influenced by some anthropogenic factors, it is also highly subject to natural variability.
Phenomena such as El Niño, volcanic activity, and solar cycles play much larger roles in shaping weather patterns and must be considered when assessing the causes of extreme events.
For instance, the WMO’s article references record-breaking rainfall and floods in 2024, implying these are unprecedented.
However, as noted by Climate Realism, historical data shows similar events occurring long before industrialization. Ignoring this historical context creates a distorted view of current conditions and fosters unnecessary alarmism.
The WMO’s approach is emblematic of a broader trend in climate reporting: using short-term weather events as proof of long-term climate change. This tactic is not only scientifically flawed but also dangerously misleading.
By conflating weather and climate, such narratives erode public trust in science and promote policies that are often more harmful than the phenomena they aim to address.
For example, diverting resources toward combating exaggerated climate threats can leave communities less prepared for immediate challenges, such as poverty, disease, and actual natural disasters.
The WMO’s “Climate Change Impacts Grip Globe in 2024” exemplifies the misuse of short-term weather events to promote a long-term climate crisis narrative. Such sensationalism not only undermines public understanding of climate science but also fosters misguided policies that prioritize fear over fact.
Weather is not climate, and conflating the two is either an act of ignorance or deliberate deception, either of which can lead to misdirected resources, endangering people’s lives and well-being.
The public should hold climate reporting to a higher standard—one that prioritizes scientific accuracy over sensationalist headlines. The stakes are too high for anything less.
Read more at Climate Realism
WMO Report Debunked: Weather Hype Fuels False 'Climate Crisis' Claims - Climate Change Dispatch
The state will soon start competitive bidding on approximately 420 acres of forested land near Gaylord, Michigan, to clear space for a solar farm while generating revenue and advancing the state’s long-term green energy targets, according to MLive.
There is some evidence suggesting that such a move would increase emissions, and Michigan is one of the least sunny states in the country, according to an analysis conducted by The Washington Post.
“Not incredibly popular with everyone,” Scott Whitcomb, the director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) public lands office, told MLive. “I will be frank about that.”
“We don’t give this land away for free,” Whitcomb told the outlet. “That lease revenue can go into natural resources management. So, I wouldn’t say it’s the only reason, but it is something we think about. The bottom line is, we have to pay for the activities of this agency somehow.”
Notably, one study published by Harvard researchers found that clearing forests to replace solar panel developments may actually lead to an overall increase in greenhouse gas emissions, and a paper published by Chinese researchers also reached similar conclusions.
There are also oil and gas wellheads in other areas of the woods that remain forested, according to MLive.
SOURCE: North America Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS) Daily Sunlight (Insolation) years 1979-2011 on CDC WONDER Online Database, released 2012. Published July 13, 2015 (WaPo)“This is pretty amazing. Michigan is not like California, it’s not like the sun is always shining there,” Dan Kish, a senior research fellow at the Institute for Energy Research, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
“This is the theater of the absurd, and it’s all driven by tax credits and giveaways from the federal and state government, and by mandates that the governor there has implemented.”
Michigan’s Healthy Climate Plan states that officials should “avoid land-use conversion that causes a net increase in [greenhouse gas] emissions and prioritize land uses that reduce [greenhouse gas] emissions” concerning the state’s waters and forests, but Whitcomb told MLive that he hopes to use some solar revenues to purchase land for uses like connecting habitat for wildlife or carbon sequestration.
Whitcomb added that the 420 acres is already cut in half by a major transmission line that will make it easier to get the solar farm operational and make it less likely that new power lines will need to be built.
Read rest at Daily Caller
Whitmer's Follies: Mich. To Clear-Cut 420+ Acres Of Carbon-Storing Trees For Solar Farm - Climate Change Dispatch
The World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO) article, “Climate Change Impacts Grip Globe in 2024,” paints a dire picture of a planet spiraling into chaos, with extreme weather events attributed to anthropogenic climate change. [emphasis, links added]
While the narrative is emotionally compelling for low-information readers, it falsely conflates short-term weather events with long-term climate trends.
It is a fundamental error that undermines the scientific integrity of the claims, especially since the WMO itself actually defines what climate is:
Furthermore, historical data reveals that humanity is not facing an escalating climate crisis but has instead become more resilient to extreme weather, with weather-related deaths plummeting over the past century.
One of the core flaws in the WMO article is its failure to differentiate between weather and climate. Weather encompasses short-term atmospheric phenomena, such as heat waves, storms, and rainfall, while climate refers to long-term patterns and averages over decades or centuries.
The distinction is crucial, yet the WMO blurs the line by implying that individual weather events in 2024 are definitive evidence of climate change.
Only long-term trends of thirty years or more in weather can indicate climate change, and no such long-term trends in worsening extreme weather events are found in the data.
As highlighted by Climate Realism, “Extreme weather events have occurred for millennia, often with no connection to human influence.”
The site notes that attributing every flood or heatwave to climate change ignores natural variability and fails to account for the complexities of atmospheric systems.
Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledges the difficulty of attributing specific weather events to long-term climatic trends, stating that such attribution requires rigorous analysis and cannot rely on anecdotal observations.
In short, the WMO’s approach is highly misleading, using weather events as propaganda tools to sell the narrative of a climate emergency.
While the WMO’s article focuses on the immediate impacts of extreme weather, it conveniently omits a critical fact: deaths from weather-related disasters have plummeted over the past 100 years.
In the 1920s, the global average annual death toll from such disasters was approximately 485,000. Today, that number has fallen by over 98%, to fewer than 10,000 annually. This is not evidence of escalating danger but of extraordinary human progress. See the figure below.
Figure. The graph demonstrates a vast improvement in human mortality related to all extreme weather events over 100 years from 1920 to 2021. Source: Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, data from International Disaster Database published in ScienceDirect.As detailed in Climate at a Glance, the dramatic decline in weather-related fatalities is due to advancements in forecasting, emergency response, infrastructure, and communication technologies.
Humanity’s ability to anticipate and adapt to extreme weather has improved exponentially, saving millions of lives and mitigating the impacts of natural disasters.
Far from being more vulnerable, we are more resilient than ever before.
Additionally, Watts Up With That highlights that while global news reporting on extreme weather events has increased—creating the illusion of worsening conditions—the actual frequency and intensity of such events remain within historical norms.
This underscores the importance of context, reminding readers that cherry-picking extreme events while ignoring overall trends leads to badly skewed public perceptions and expensive government policy missteps.
Another flaw in the WMO’s argument is the assumption that all unusual weather patterns are the result of human activity.
While the climate system can be influenced by some anthropogenic factors, it is also highly subject to natural variability.
Phenomena such as El Niño, volcanic activity, and solar cycles play much larger roles in shaping weather patterns and must be considered when assessing the causes of extreme events.
For instance, the WMO’s article references record-breaking rainfall and floods in 2024, implying these are unprecedented.
However, as noted by Climate Realism, historical data shows similar events occurring long before industrialization. Ignoring this historical context creates a distorted view of current conditions and fosters unnecessary alarmism.
The WMO’s approach is emblematic of a broader trend in climate reporting: using short-term weather events as proof of long-term climate change. This tactic is not only scientifically flawed but also dangerously misleading.
By conflating weather and climate, such narratives erode public trust in science and promote policies that are often more harmful than the phenomena they aim to address.
Such alarmist rhetoric has real-world consequences, driving economically disastrous policies that disproportionately harm the world’s poorest populations.
For example, diverting resources toward combating exaggerated climate threats can leave communities less prepared for immediate challenges, such as poverty, disease, and actual natural disasters.
The WMO’s “Climate Change Impacts Grip Globe in 2024” exemplifies the misuse of short-term weather events to promote a long-term climate crisis narrative. Such sensationalism not only undermines public understanding of climate science but also fosters misguided policies that prioritize fear over fact.
Weather is not climate, and conflating the two is either an act of ignorance or deliberate deception, either of which can lead to misdirected resources, endangering people’s lives and well-being.
The public should hold climate reporting to a higher standard—one that prioritizes scientific accuracy over sensationalist headlines. The stakes are too high for anything less.
Read more at Climate Realism
WMO Report Debunked: Weather Hype Fuels False 'Climate Crisis' Claims - Climate Change Dispatch
You think you get real science from the Daily Caller?Michigan is poised to cut down hundreds of acres of forest to make space for a solar panel development, MLive reported Thursday. [emphasis, links added]
The state will soon start competitive bidding on approximately 420 acres of forested land near Gaylord, Michigan, to clear space for a solar farm while generating revenue and advancing the state’s long-term green energy targets, according to MLive.
There is some evidence suggesting that such a move would increase emissions, and Michigan is one of the least sunny states in the country, according to an analysis conducted by The Washington Post.
“Not incredibly popular with everyone,” Scott Whitcomb, the director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) public lands office, told MLive. “I will be frank about that.”
“We don’t give this land away for free,” Whitcomb told the outlet. “That lease revenue can go into natural resources management. So, I wouldn’t say it’s the only reason, but it is something we think about. The bottom line is, we have to pay for the activities of this agency somehow.”
Notably, one study published by Harvard researchers found that clearing forests to replace solar panel developments may actually lead to an overall increase in greenhouse gas emissions, and a paper published by Chinese researchers also reached similar conclusions.
There are also oil and gas wellheads in other areas of the woods that remain forested, according to MLive.
“This is pretty amazing. Michigan is not like California, it’s not like the sun is always shining there,” Dan Kish, a senior research fellow at the Institute for Energy Research, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
“This is the theater of the absurd, and it’s all driven by tax credits and giveaways from the federal and state government, and by mandates that the governor there has implemented.”
Michigan’s Healthy Climate Plan states that officials should “avoid land-use conversion that causes a net increase in [greenhouse gas] emissions and prioritize land uses that reduce [greenhouse gas] emissions” concerning the state’s waters and forests, but Whitcomb told MLive that he hopes to use some solar revenues to purchase land for uses like connecting habitat for wildlife or carbon sequestration.
Whitcomb added that the 420 acres is already cut in half by a major transmission line that will make it easier to get the solar farm operational and make it less likely that new power lines will need to be built.
Read rest at Daily Caller
Whitmer's Follies: Mich. To Clear-Cut 420+ Acres Of Carbon-Storing Trees For Solar Farm - Climate Change Dispatch
The World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO) article, “Climate Change Impacts Grip Globe in 2024,” paints a dire picture of a planet spiraling into chaos, with extreme weather events attributed to anthropogenic climate change. [emphasis, links added]
While the narrative is emotionally compelling for low-information readers, it falsely conflates short-term weather events with long-term climate trends.
It is a fundamental error that undermines the scientific integrity of the claims, especially since the WMO itself actually defines what climate is:
Furthermore, historical data reveals that humanity is not facing an escalating climate crisis but has instead become more resilient to extreme weather, with weather-related deaths plummeting over the past century.
One of the core flaws in the WMO article is its failure to differentiate between weather and climate. Weather encompasses short-term atmospheric phenomena, such as heat waves, storms, and rainfall, while climate refers to long-term patterns and averages over decades or centuries.
The distinction is crucial, yet the WMO blurs the line by implying that individual weather events in 2024 are definitive evidence of climate change.
Only long-term trends of thirty years or more in weather can indicate climate change, and no such long-term trends in worsening extreme weather events are found in the data.
As highlighted by Climate Realism, “Extreme weather events have occurred for millennia, often with no connection to human influence.”
The site notes that attributing every flood or heatwave to climate change ignores natural variability and fails to account for the complexities of atmospheric systems.
Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledges the difficulty of attributing specific weather events to long-term climatic trends, stating that such attribution requires rigorous analysis and cannot rely on anecdotal observations.
In short, the WMO’s approach is highly misleading, using weather events as propaganda tools to sell the narrative of a climate emergency.
While the WMO’s article focuses on the immediate impacts of extreme weather, it conveniently omits a critical fact: deaths from weather-related disasters have plummeted over the past 100 years.
In the 1920s, the global average annual death toll from such disasters was approximately 485,000. Today, that number has fallen by over 98%, to fewer than 10,000 annually. This is not evidence of escalating danger but of extraordinary human progress. See the figure below.
As detailed in Climate at a Glance, the dramatic decline in weather-related fatalities is due to advancements in forecasting, emergency response, infrastructure, and communication technologies.
Humanity’s ability to anticipate and adapt to extreme weather has improved exponentially, saving millions of lives and mitigating the impacts of natural disasters.
Far from being more vulnerable, we are more resilient than ever before.
Additionally, Watts Up With That highlights that while global news reporting on extreme weather events has increased—creating the illusion of worsening conditions—the actual frequency and intensity of such events remain within historical norms.
This underscores the importance of context, reminding readers that cherry-picking extreme events while ignoring overall trends leads to badly skewed public perceptions and expensive government policy missteps.
Another flaw in the WMO’s argument is the assumption that all unusual weather patterns are the result of human activity.
While the climate system can be influenced by some anthropogenic factors, it is also highly subject to natural variability.
Phenomena such as El Niño, volcanic activity, and solar cycles play much larger roles in shaping weather patterns and must be considered when assessing the causes of extreme events.
For instance, the WMO’s article references record-breaking rainfall and floods in 2024, implying these are unprecedented.
However, as noted by Climate Realism, historical data shows similar events occurring long before industrialization. Ignoring this historical context creates a distorted view of current conditions and fosters unnecessary alarmism.
The WMO’s approach is emblematic of a broader trend in climate reporting: using short-term weather events as proof of long-term climate change. This tactic is not only scientifically flawed but also dangerously misleading.
By conflating weather and climate, such narratives erode public trust in science and promote policies that are often more harmful than the phenomena they aim to address.
Such alarmist rhetoric has real-world consequences, driving economically disastrous policies that disproportionately harm the world’s poorest populations.
For example, diverting resources toward combating exaggerated climate threats can leave communities less prepared for immediate challenges, such as poverty, disease, and actual natural disasters.
The WMO’s “Climate Change Impacts Grip Globe in 2024” exemplifies the misuse of short-term weather events to promote a long-term climate crisis narrative. Such sensationalism not only undermines public understanding of climate science but also fosters misguided policies that prioritize fear over fact.
Weather is not climate, and conflating the two is either an act of ignorance or deliberate deception, either of which can lead to misdirected resources, endangering people’s lives and well-being.
The public should hold climate reporting to a higher standard—one that prioritizes scientific accuracy over sensationalist headlines. The stakes are too high for anything less.
Read more at Climate Realism
WMO Report Debunked: Weather Hype Fuels False 'Climate Crisis' Claims - Climate Change Dispatch
If you think that post makes good arguments, you really can't tell science from disinformation.
No, Mainstream Media, Climate Change Isn’t to Blame for California’s Wildfires
The devastating wildfires in Los Angeles have once again become a rallying cry for those blaming climate change for natural disasters. Recent coverage, such as stories in Axios and by the BBC hastily and falsely connect these wildfires to a “rare confluence of climate factors,” a narrative that has become all too familiar. However, any such connection is unsupported by data. As is often the case, linking individual wildfires or even a single year’s wildfires to long-term climate change oversimplifies complex natural events, failing to address the broader context. To truly understand these fires, we must consider history, meteorology, and land management—not just the latest climate narrative.
California has a long history of wildfires, the vast majority of which occurred well before human-induced climate change became a point of discussion. Historical records and studies show that the region has always been prone to cycles of fire. For example, a study published by the U.S. Forest Service highlights the significant role of wildfires in the natural ecology of California, with fire-return intervals ranging from decades to centuries, depending on the ecosystem.
Native Americans set fires to manage vegetation and prevent catastrophic wildfires. However, these practices were abandoned after European settlement, contributing to the accumulation of fuel in forests. Today’s fires, while tragic, fit into a long history of natural and human-influenced fire activity in the region.
The cause? Santa Ana Winds, which is weather, not climate.
The current fires in Los Angeles are largely driven by the infamous Santa Ana winds, a well-documented weather phenomenon. These dry, gusty winds blow from the inland deserts toward the coast, creating the perfect conditions for rapid fire spread. The National Weather Service provides detailed explanations of the Santa Ana winds, describing how they are driven by high-pressure systems over the Great Basin. All it takes is a spark, or an arsonist. to initiate a raging wind-driven wildfire.
In this satellite video below from the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, note how the Santa Ana wind, coming from the Northeast, is fanning the fire, and blowing the smoke out to sea at a rapid pace.
Video Player
The Axios article frames the fires as being fueled by “climate factors,” but Santa Ana winds have not changed as the planet has warmed and are a textbook example of weather, not climate. Weather describes short-term atmospheric conditions, while climate refers to long-term trends over decades or centuries. To conflate the two is to misrepresent the science.
Another critical factor in California’s wildfire problem is land management. Decades of fire suppression policies have allowed fuel – (aka dead trees, dry brush, and dense vegetation) – to accumulate, creating tinderbox conditions. A report from Cal Fire explains the role of vegetation management in reducing fire risks and outlines how fuel accumulation has made fires more intense
Meanwhile, urban expansion into wildland areas (the so-called wildland-urban interface) places more homes and infrastructure in harm’s way. Studies by the University of California, Berkeley, highlight the challenges posed by housing developments in fire-prone areas.
Historically, fires that would have naturally thinned forests and cleared underbrush were extinguished, leading to denser forests that burn more intensely. These issues receive far less attention than the simplistic claim that “climate change” is to blame.
Why does every natural disaster now seem to come with a climate change label? The media and policymakers have increasingly tied singular weather events—hurricanes, droughts, floods, and now wildfires—to global warming aka climate change. While it’s true that the climate influences weather patterns, the leap to blaming every fire or flood on climate change often skips over critical context.
The Axios article refers to “rare climate factors” but offers little in terms of specifics. Are these factors quantifiable, or are they speculative? Without rigorous data, these claims serve more as hyperbolic talking points than scientific evidence.
Blaming wildfires on climate change might make for an easy headline, but it distracts from real solutions. Improving forest management, enforcing sensible building codes, and investing in early detection and firefighting infrastructure could significantly reduce the risk and impact of wildfires. The Little Hoover Commission, an independent state oversight agency, has been vocal about the need for better forest management practices in California (source). Unblocking and stopping the removal of forest roads, for example, to allow easier access by firefighters to fires in distant wilderness areas before they become large conflagrations that reach populated areas, would be one good policy response to reduce the land, buildings, and lives lost to wildfires. Reinstituting large scale logging on overcrowded forested areas to reduce the fuel available when fires start would be another.
Policies driven by the climate change narrative often prioritize symbolic actions over practical measures. For example, California’s focus on renewable energy mandates and electric vehicles will have little or no impact on either the short- or long-term risks of wildfires. Worse, these policies can siphon resources away from critical fire prevention measures.
California’s wildfires are tragic, but they are not unprecedented. The media’s rush to attribute these fires to climate change reflects a broader trend of politicizing natural disasters, often at the expense of meaningful solutions.
It’s essential to approach the wildfire issue with a clear-eyed understanding of history, science, and policy. The fires in Los Angeles are a reminder not of climate doom, but of the importance of thoughtful land management and disaster preparedness—solutions grounded in reality, not rhetoric.
No, Mainstream Media, Climate Change Isn’t to Blame for California’s Wildfires - ClimateRealism
The devastating wildfires in Los Angeles have once again become a rallying cry for those blaming climate change for natural disasters. Recent coverage, such as stories in Axios and by the BBC hastily and falsely connect these wildfires to a “rare confluence of climate factors,” a narrative that has become all too familiar. However, any such connection is unsupported by data. As is often the case, linking individual wildfires or even a single year’s wildfires to long-term climate change oversimplifies complex natural events, failing to address the broader context. To truly understand these fires, we must consider history, meteorology, and land management—not just the latest climate narrative.
California has a long history of wildfires, the vast majority of which occurred well before human-induced climate change became a point of discussion. Historical records and studies show that the region has always been prone to cycles of fire. For example, a study published by the U.S. Forest Service highlights the significant role of wildfires in the natural ecology of California, with fire-return intervals ranging from decades to centuries, depending on the ecosystem.
Native Americans set fires to manage vegetation and prevent catastrophic wildfires. However, these practices were abandoned after European settlement, contributing to the accumulation of fuel in forests. Today’s fires, while tragic, fit into a long history of natural and human-influenced fire activity in the region.
The cause? Santa Ana Winds, which is weather, not climate.
The current fires in Los Angeles are largely driven by the infamous Santa Ana winds, a well-documented weather phenomenon. These dry, gusty winds blow from the inland deserts toward the coast, creating the perfect conditions for rapid fire spread. The National Weather Service provides detailed explanations of the Santa Ana winds, describing how they are driven by high-pressure systems over the Great Basin. All it takes is a spark, or an arsonist. to initiate a raging wind-driven wildfire.
In this satellite video below from the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, note how the Santa Ana wind, coming from the Northeast, is fanning the fire, and blowing the smoke out to sea at a rapid pace.
Video Player
The Axios article frames the fires as being fueled by “climate factors,” but Santa Ana winds have not changed as the planet has warmed and are a textbook example of weather, not climate. Weather describes short-term atmospheric conditions, while climate refers to long-term trends over decades or centuries. To conflate the two is to misrepresent the science.
Another critical factor in California’s wildfire problem is land management. Decades of fire suppression policies have allowed fuel – (aka dead trees, dry brush, and dense vegetation) – to accumulate, creating tinderbox conditions. A report from Cal Fire explains the role of vegetation management in reducing fire risks and outlines how fuel accumulation has made fires more intense
Meanwhile, urban expansion into wildland areas (the so-called wildland-urban interface) places more homes and infrastructure in harm’s way. Studies by the University of California, Berkeley, highlight the challenges posed by housing developments in fire-prone areas.
Historically, fires that would have naturally thinned forests and cleared underbrush were extinguished, leading to denser forests that burn more intensely. These issues receive far less attention than the simplistic claim that “climate change” is to blame.
Why does every natural disaster now seem to come with a climate change label? The media and policymakers have increasingly tied singular weather events—hurricanes, droughts, floods, and now wildfires—to global warming aka climate change. While it’s true that the climate influences weather patterns, the leap to blaming every fire or flood on climate change often skips over critical context.
The Axios article refers to “rare climate factors” but offers little in terms of specifics. Are these factors quantifiable, or are they speculative? Without rigorous data, these claims serve more as hyperbolic talking points than scientific evidence.
Blaming wildfires on climate change might make for an easy headline, but it distracts from real solutions. Improving forest management, enforcing sensible building codes, and investing in early detection and firefighting infrastructure could significantly reduce the risk and impact of wildfires. The Little Hoover Commission, an independent state oversight agency, has been vocal about the need for better forest management practices in California (source). Unblocking and stopping the removal of forest roads, for example, to allow easier access by firefighters to fires in distant wilderness areas before they become large conflagrations that reach populated areas, would be one good policy response to reduce the land, buildings, and lives lost to wildfires. Reinstituting large scale logging on overcrowded forested areas to reduce the fuel available when fires start would be another.
Policies driven by the climate change narrative often prioritize symbolic actions over practical measures. For example, California’s focus on renewable energy mandates and electric vehicles will have little or no impact on either the short- or long-term risks of wildfires. Worse, these policies can siphon resources away from critical fire prevention measures.
California’s wildfires are tragic, but they are not unprecedented. The media’s rush to attribute these fires to climate change reflects a broader trend of politicizing natural disasters, often at the expense of meaningful solutions.
It’s essential to approach the wildfire issue with a clear-eyed understanding of history, science, and policy. The fires in Los Angeles are a reminder not of climate doom, but of the importance of thoughtful land management and disaster preparedness—solutions grounded in reality, not rhetoric.
No, Mainstream Media, Climate Change Isn’t to Blame for California’s Wildfires - ClimateRealism
current temperatures on this Winter Sunday Morning millions of North Americans Using Fossil Fuels to keep warm. without them we would freeze to death
climate alarmists like Frankie wants to get rid of fossil fuels that keep us warm in the winter. while he refuses to set an example
climate alarmists like Frankie wants to get rid of fossil fuels that keep us warm in the winter. while he refuses to set an example
Climate is not the same as weather.
If you can't understand the difference, stop posting about it.
One of the shocking changes noted has been the rise of global sea temperatures, raising the temp of water all across the globe requires so much energy.
These changes are massive.
tonight's forecast freezing temperatures fossil fuel is required and none of the climate alarmists are practicing what they preach to keep themselves warm on this North American Continent
From Arctic Blasts To L.A. Fires: Beware The Storm Of Climate Nonsense
Los Angeles is burning and the East Coast and Midwest have been walloped by cold and snow. [emphasis, links added]
Naturally, the global warming alarmists screech and honk about human reliance on fossil fuels. It is a gross and irresponsible assumption.
It never takes long for the foolish to break out and Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders didn’t disappoint on Wednesday when he tweeted:
“80,000 people told to evacuate. Blazes 0% contained. Eight months since the area has seen rain. The scale of damage and loss is unimaginable. Climate change is real, not a ‘hoax.’ Donald Trump must treat this like the existential crisis it is.”
Unfortunately, he speaks for the many who are uninformed and naive, as well as those who want to use the man-made global warming narrative as a means to fundamentally change this country – and the West – into a political society run by leftists who, to borrow an applicable phrase, have difficulty resisting their authoritarian impulses.
Overshadowed by the tragic Los Angeles fires is the Arctic blast that dropped temperatures and snow in much of the country. This too, is man’s fault. But then when it doesn’t snow, well, man is to blame for that, as well.
As we have been doing regarding global warming for about three decades, allow us to offer some facts that don’t scream as loudly but are facts nonetheless:
Watching Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass go stone silent after returning from a poorly-timed “official” trip to Ghana after being warned of an impending wind disaster, and then hearing California Gov. Gavin Newsom pretend he has nothing to do with this disaster and its aftermath, was instructive.
California’s ultra-left progressives have made it difficult (bordering on impossible) to do even the most responsible, common-sense things like build reservoirs (so firefighters and households won’t run out of water, as they did this week in L.A.), manage overgrown fire-prone forests (by controlled burns and by cutting back tinder-dry overgrown brush), and by ending the regulatory war against insurers in California (Newsom’s insane regulations on the insurance industry has sent fire coverage premiums soaring, if homeowners can get insurance at all).
Top photo by Jessica Christian on Unsplash
Read rest at Issues & Insights
From Arctic Blasts To L.A. Fires: Beware The Storm Of Climate Nonsense - Climate Change Dispatch
Los Angeles is burning and the East Coast and Midwest have been walloped by cold and snow. [emphasis, links added]
Naturally, the global warming alarmists screech and honk about human reliance on fossil fuels. It is a gross and irresponsible assumption.
It never takes long for the foolish to break out and Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders didn’t disappoint on Wednesday when he tweeted:
“80,000 people told to evacuate. Blazes 0% contained. Eight months since the area has seen rain. The scale of damage and loss is unimaginable. Climate change is real, not a ‘hoax.’ Donald Trump must treat this like the existential crisis it is.”
Unfortunately, he speaks for the many who are uninformed and naive, as well as those who want to use the man-made global warming narrative as a means to fundamentally change this country – and the West – into a political society run by leftists who, to borrow an applicable phrase, have difficulty resisting their authoritarian impulses.
Overshadowed by the tragic Los Angeles fires is the Arctic blast that dropped temperatures and snow in much of the country. This too, is man’s fault. But then when it doesn’t snow, well, man is to blame for that, as well.
As we have been doing regarding global warming for about three decades, allow us to offer some facts that don’t scream as loudly but are facts nonetheless:
- While “there’s a growing tendency to tie every fire, flood, or storm to climate change,” says meteorologist and climate researcher Anthony Watts, “a closer look at history, meteorology, and land management reveals that these claims are often oversimplified by low-information journalists, and fail to address more immediate, actionable causes.” Watts goes on to cover California wildfire history, explains why weather rather than climate is a factor and discusses the impacts of policy mistakes, so read the entire piece.
- Tony Heller helpfully points out that “Pacific Palisades was largely destroyed by fires in 1938 and 1961.” Yet we’re supposed to believe that our oil and gas needs set California on fire this time.
- Today’s Los Angeles wildfires are, of course, “an avoidable tragedy.” “The most common causes of recent wildfires in the Golden State have been human activities (including arson) and poorly maintained power lines,” says Jonathan Lesser. We would add that the latter is a function of misapplied resources – rather than use funds to harden their equipment against fires, they are instead diverted to green energy projects.
- Claims that wildfires have increased are false. While there are year-to-year variations nationally, the numbers are virtually the same as they were 40 years ago. It could be argued that acres burned have increased, but again, the totals change every year and there are numerous weather and firefighting variables that determine how much is destroyed, none of them caused by fossil fuel consumption.
- In California, wildfires have fallen sharply since the late 1980s, from nearly 14,000 a year to about 7,000. That is, the number of fires and acreage burnt have declined over the last 100 years, a time, we’re told, that the temperature has steadily risen. So there is no cause and effect. If you believe wildfires are a function of global warming, you’re mistaken.
- How about the latest explanation, climate change-driven “weather whiplash?” As a recent piece in Grist explains, “Exceptionally wet winters drove a boom of grasses and shrubs that a record hot summer dried into the fuel now powering California’s wildfires.” But that “pattern” is not new. It’s been going on for thousands of years. The real reasons for California’s devastating fires aren’t “weather whiplash” or any other new theory. It’s human error, repeated mistakes made by California’s clueless progressive political class.
Watching Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass go stone silent after returning from a poorly-timed “official” trip to Ghana after being warned of an impending wind disaster, and then hearing California Gov. Gavin Newsom pretend he has nothing to do with this disaster and its aftermath, was instructive.
California’s ultra-left progressives have made it difficult (bordering on impossible) to do even the most responsible, common-sense things like build reservoirs (so firefighters and households won’t run out of water, as they did this week in L.A.), manage overgrown fire-prone forests (by controlled burns and by cutting back tinder-dry overgrown brush), and by ending the regulatory war against insurers in California (Newsom’s insane regulations on the insurance industry has sent fire coverage premiums soaring, if homeowners can get insurance at all).
Top photo by Jessica Christian on Unsplash
Read rest at Issues & Insights
From Arctic Blasts To L.A. Fires: Beware The Storm Of Climate Nonsense - Climate Change Dispatch
Still can't understand the difference between climate and weather.
That's pathetic.
The huge fires of 1917 in southern California were preceded three years earlier by massive flooding in 1914. Droughts, fires and floods are the normal climate of California.
Jan 30, 1914, page 1 - Ventura Free Press at Newspapers.com
Jan 30, 1914, page 1 - Ventura Free Press at Newspapers.com
On June 17, 1917, California was on fire. The city of Ojai in the mountains was destroyed, as was the coastal city of Carpinteria. Normally cool Santa Barbara was 115F, which was 41 degrees above average.
Jun 17, 1917, page 2 - The Morning Press at Newspapers.com
19th century Los Angeles newspaper reports reveal the Santa Monica Mountains have a long history of catching on fire. If you're in state or local government and you weren't prepared for this disaster, you own it, not "climate change."
From 1818 to 1824 North America was in drought, and from 1825-1840 North America was wet. Climate is cyclical and it has nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuels.
(PDF) North American 1818–1824 drought and 1825–1840 pluvial and their possible relation to the atmospheric circulation
Jun 17, 1917, page 2 - The Morning Press at Newspapers.com
19th century Los Angeles newspaper reports reveal the Santa Monica Mountains have a long history of catching on fire. If you're in state or local government and you weren't prepared for this disaster, you own it, not "climate change."
From 1818 to 1824 North America was in drought, and from 1825-1840 North America was wet. Climate is cyclical and it has nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuels.
(PDF) North American 1818–1824 drought and 1825–1840 pluvial and their possible relation to the atmospheric circulation
Funny how those fires don't make it on the list of the 14 biggest fires in California's history.
How many humans did the world need to support ten thousand years ago?
p.s. Your cartoon is incorrect. The 'Little Ice Age" was a local climate occurrence in the North Atlantic, not global. You might as well as try claiming it being cold today to 'prove' there is no global warming.
Little Ice Age was global: Implications for current global warming
Date:November 19, 2014
Source: University of Gloucestershire
Summary: Researchers have shed new light on the climate of the Little Ice Age, and rekindled debate over the role of the sun in climate change. The new study, which involved detailed scientific examination of a peat bog in southern South America, indicates that the most extreme climate episodes of the Little Ice Age were felt not just in Europe and North America, which is well known, but apparently globally. The research has implications for current concerns over global warming.
The team of researchers, from the Universities of Gloucestershire, Aberdeen and Plymouth, conducted studies on past climate through detailed laboratory examination of peat from a bog near Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego. They used exactly the same laboratory methods as have been developed for peat bogs in Europe. Two principal techniques were used to reconstruct past climates over the past 3000 years: at close intervals throughout a vertical column of peat, the researchers investigated the degree of peat decomposition, which is directly related to climate, and also examined the peat matrix to reveal the changing amounts of different plants that previously grew on the bog.
The data show that the most extreme cold phases of the Little Ice Age -- in the mid-15th and then again in the early 18th centuries -- were synchronous in Europe and South America. There is one stark difference: while in continental north-west Europe, bogs became wetter, in Tierra del Fuego, the bog became drier -- in both cases probably a result of a dramatic equator-ward shift of moisture-bearing winds.
These extreme times coincide with periods when it is known that the sun was unusually quiet. In the late 17th to mid-18th centuries it had very few sunspots -- fewer even than during the run of recent cold winters in Europe, which other UK scientists have linked to a relatively quiet sun.
Professor Frank Chambers, Head of the University of Gloucestershire's Centre for Environmental Change and Quaternary Research, who led the writing of the Fast-Track Research Report, said: "Both sceptics and adherents of Global Warming might draw succour from this work. Our study is significant because, while there are various different estimates for the start and end of the Little Ice Age in different regions of the world, our data show that the most extreme phases occurred at the same time in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. These extreme episodes were abrupt global events. They were probably related to sudden, equator-ward shifts of the Westerlies in the Southern Hemisphere, and the Atlantic depression tracks in the Northern Hemisphere. The same shifts seem to have happened abruptly before, such as c. 2800 years ago, when the same synchronous but opposite response is shown in bogs in Northwest Europe compared with southern South America.
Little Ice Age was global: Implications for current global warming | ScienceDaily
