For a harrowing depiction of what sustained wet-bulb temperatures could look like, check out the opening of Kim Stanley Robinson’s Ministry for the Future.
NATO is coming together over the Ukraine to ensure that they control the NG and potential oil reserves there and not Russia. I live in a NATO country and hope my team wins because, ultimately, it will be better for me.
All of the rest of the narratives are propaganda to get the public feeling morally good about another conflict over fossil fuels.
There's nothing heartening about this. The end result of this will ultimately be more burning of fossil fuels, we're just fighting to see who pays what to burn them.
Back here in the real world, not the modelled world, we have to ask is the temperature even rising at all? This shouldn't even be a legitimate question to ask but it turns out it is. In recent years temperature "rises" have sometimes turned out to be the result of data modification and not really existing. See how NOAA has announced that July 2021 broke the previous temperature record set in 2016, and how they also announced that July 2019 was a record breaking year. This happens because climatologists are constantly rewriting the historical record to create new warming trends where none were previously seen. They admit to this in obscure papers but reason, correctly, that the media/political set will not call them on it, so they can get away with making their predictions about the future come true by simply altering the past.
In many cases temperature graphs for massive regions that were flat in the past have become sloped in the present. Consider this front page New York Times article from 1989:
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/us-data-since-1895-fai...
"US data since 1895 fail to show warming trend"
Look at the graph in the lower left hand corner for long term US temperatures and notice that it's flat. The US should certainly have warmed between 1895 and 1989 given GHG emissions in this time frame but it didn't. Now go look up a temperature history of the USA from modern sources like the NOAA website. Observe that it's sloped upwards for the same time frame. The past has been changed.
In the first part of the century there was a notorious so-called pause in global warming. Temperatures were once again not going up. Scientists fixed this by rewriting the past once again:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17700
If there was actually runaway global warming, they would not need to do this sort of thing. But they do, because otherwise, warming does not appear in the data.
Given that the temperature record is not trustworthy by climatologists own admission it would be incredibly destructive and unwise to do geo-engineering on the basis of such flimsy data. It could easily make things far worse. In fact we just finished up with a global crisis; one that appears to have started in a lab that was tampering with viruses in an attempt to pre-solve a future disease crisis that existed primarily in the heads of the scientists researching it. The scale of it was then exaggerated by modellers who didn't understand what they were modelling and who have utterly refused to accept evidence that their suggested interventions had no effect.
Academia is just not reliable enough to take drastic action on the basis of their predictions and people who keep denying this are, in my view, the real deniers.
Either that or you're spreading misinformation and cherry-picking a few small examples to support a pre-determined conclusion.
"We should only trust people who never ever change their mind or attempt to correct their previous interpretations of data"
Look, I realize what I'm showing you is hard to accept. It was for me too. I did a lot of digging before coming to the conclusion that I couldn't refute what was happening. Nonetheless, please recognize that you're in denial here. These people are not changing their interpretations of the data. They are changing the data itself and I believe I made that extremely clear. It's very hard to get the raw, pre-editing historical datasets. Sometimes it's possible, sometimes it's not. It really depends on the temperature series, the organization that produces it, the time frame in question etc. That's why I'm forced to cite newspaper archives above, because they are one of the places where history is recorded that scientists can't easily rewrite.
"Thanks, random internet stranger, for showing that millions of scientists and dozens of government organizations are completely incompetent and/or malicious liars!"
Unfortunately facts aren't decided by how many people say them or who they work for. Facts are what they are and one person pointing out one fact, can - in fact - show that millions of scientists and dozens of government organizations are doing something highly unusual.
At any rate, there aren't millions of climatologists, lol. It's a tiny field. Even fewer of them produce temperature data sets. Probably fewer than 100 people do that work globally (I'm not counting the people who actually read the thermometers here because they aren't publishing combined temperature series).
With respect to being incompetent and malicious liars, I'm afraid they are something far worse - highly competent and badly incentivized liars. If there was no global warming them climatology would be dusty academic backwater that none of us would ever think about. They wouldn't be the center of a massive cultural industry that venerates them, instead their status and funding would be somewhere near the sort of people who categorize rare species of butterflies.
You absolutely are going against the consensus built up over the last 100 years across all of these disciplines. I don't think it's unreasonable to say the number of people that contributed to that consensus is in the millions. You're claiming all of that work is discredited because someone reviewed old data and said "this measurement was odd and their notes are bad; they probably left the thermometer in the sun. Let's throw out this data point". Questionable or not, that's not a counterexample to the well-understood mechanism of the greenhouse effect and atmospheric measurements of CO2, nor to the hundreds of other lines of evidence that have led nearly all science-literate people to accept reality.
It's simple: you are spreading misinformation. Stop it.
I said (again, quite clearly) that there are probably 100 or fewer climatologists actively producing aggregated temperature datasets, not 100 climatologists in total. There are many climatologists, but they all use the same set of temperature time series produced by a relatively small group. And that makes sense. Collecting all the data is a lot of work. You have to maintain relationships with many different meteorological agencies, potentially spend lots of time typing in numbers read from old log books, etc. It'd be odd if that work were duplicated by every person who wanted to explore climate data.
Then you go off and talk about how there's consensus that CO2 could lead to global warming, which is nothing I've disagreed with at any point. CO2 could cause that, yes, but how much effect it is actually having in practice is definitely not in agreement, as the numerous different estimates for ECS show.
"You're claiming all of that work is discredited because someone reviewed old data and said "this measurement was odd and their notes are bad; they probably left the thermometer in the sun. Let's throw out this data point"."
Argh, no. I am explicitly not claiming that, I'm claiming the opposite. Faced with measurements they believe are erroneous they do not throw out the data. That would be a scientific thing to do. Instead what they do is keep it, but then apply a large range of "fixes" to it, and present the "fixed" data as if it were the original recordings. This is bad news because actually in the original data no warming is visible, and the trend they are claiming is really happening only appears after their model-driven adjustments. In other words, when observed data doesn't match the theory, the theory triumphs and observed data is modified.
"It's simple: you are spreading misinformation. Stop it."
Someone who can't even correctly understand the things I'm writing is in no position to claim other people are spreading misinformation. None of the points I've responded to in this thread were actually rebuttals to anything I've said!
One: the "glaciers" - I assume you mean something like the Greenland ice sheet here - aren't actually shrinking. See for yourself, data direct from the observation satellites:
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_comb...
Note that accumulated surface mass balance for both 2021-2022 so far, and for 2020-2021, is pretty much bob on the 1981-2010 average. In fact last year it was a little over the average. You think they're massively shrinking because scientists and the media like to announce years when it's lower than average, then are silent in years when it's average or above average. This form of soft censorship makes you think they're constantly shrinking when in fact size wanders around.
Even so, we must be careful with interpreting this sort of data because they're all at it. Many claims about changes in ice depth or size are the result of ... more modelling ... which has the exact same problem as temperature modelling, it's too easy to bias in your desired direction by constantly adding convenient fixes. Exactly the same problem as seen in COVID models.
The second reason is more subtle. You refer in your comment to temperature "corrections". By definition, "correcting" observational data to make it conform to your theory (which is the effect of what they're doing) is not scientific. Scientists aren't allowed to "correct" their raw data, period, end of story. If they do it's always fraud when judged by the standards of more normal and rigorous fields. If your historical data is of poor quality then you need to admit that, add error bars and propagate them through to your final confidence intervals, then interpret the CIs honestly i.e. if the CIs are wide enough to incorporate "nothing is changing" then so be it even if that's bad for your grant approval rate.
Climatologists don't do this. Instead what happens is that they collect data, it fails to show warming, and they then spend years coming up with plausible sounding justifications for why their observations need to be changed. So they do it, but their corrections are motivated reasoning so newly collected data of course shows the same problem - no warming (hence why we see stories about the mysterious lack of warming from both 1989 and 2015 in the press, see my citations above). So they come up with yet more reasons to adjust the data and do it again.
This practice has now reached its logical conclusion: they adjust every data point every time a new data point is added. That's why NOAA call their temperature history a reconstructed dataset. They literally reconstruct it every day. Climatology is all about making predictions about temperature but literally according to them, they cannot accurately measure temperatures that were recorded last week, not even at specific weather stations. They cannot read thermometers today, but measuring the temperature of the world as it was 1000 years ago, or predicting what it will be in 100 years, no problem. Obviously no rational person can accept such a claim: it is absurd on its face.
What about corrections to compensate for known biases? Such as moving a measuring station from the cold to the hot side of a valley.
Where climatologists go wrong is when they say "and now we'll rewrite the prior observations to what we think they would have been, had the weather station been there all along". That's not scientific. Consider how easy it is to make mistakes that way, or have biases in which only adjustments beneficial for your career are included. Especially when your central claim is about long term trends over time, it should be obvious why editing the past isn't allowed.
Two favorites from the last couple years: Mary Lou Jepsen talking about new modes of cheap, easy medical imaging and their potential impacts: https://longnow.org/seminars/02018/oct/29/toward-practical-t...
Michael Frachetti on the role of nomadic pastoralists in both generating and spreading knowledge along the historic silk roads: https://longnow.org/seminars/02018/feb/26/open-source-civili...
They’re really such a diverse group of speakers and subjects, and all of them have been really high quality and high value.