August 07, 2023

Continued Major Errors and Misinformation In Seattle Times Climate Stories: Damaging and Unnecessary.

During the past weeks, profoundly flawed and error-filled stories on climate change have been headlined in the Seattle Times.  Stories that can easily be demonstrated to have serious factual and interpretative errors.  

Stories that grossly misinform Seattle Times readers and work against efforts to mitigate global warming.

Let me demonstrate the problem.

Saturday's front-page story describes how because of urbanization "more than half of Seattle's population resides in areas where daytime temperatures are over 8 degrees hotter than they would be naturally" and nearly 10% are in parts of the city recording an increase of over 12 degrees."  

The figure below was found in the Seattle Times story, and was based on a report from climate advocacy group, Climate Central.  The "angle" of the story is how the growth of the city and loss of trees are greatly warming the environment.

This figure is obviously very wrong.  

First, while temperatures should be in degrees, the colors say percent.  But that is the least of the problem with this figure.   The areas of warmth are all wrong.  Tree-lined areas near Lake Washington are among the warmest.  Downtown Seattle, near very cool Elliot Bay, is VERY hot.  Tree-covered south Mercer Island is warm.  

Anyone, who has studied local temperature variations knows this map is in error.  

Let me explain how they got it wrong.   Below is the same map from the Climate Central report used by the Seattle Times.  It notes that  hat 184 THOUSAND PEOPLE feel 8F or more warmer due to "urban heat spots."  Simply nonsense. 

I looked at the map and was stunned....their warmest temperatures were centered over LAKE WASHINGTON.    The Seattle Times did not show this obvious error in their source.  Clearly, Climate Central used a problematic surface map that did not know about our lakes.


But is worse than that.  I carefully reviewed the "Methodology" section and realized the approach was flawed.  The "researchers" ran a simple model of the interaction of the surface with the atmosphere, BUT NEGLECTING ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE REGIONAL WIND CIRCULATIONS and other critical weather forcings (such as the effects of air blowing in over cold water).  Actual surface temperatures were not used.

Seattle's heat island is greatly mitigated by the presence of Puget Sound, the Strait, and the Pacific Ocean.  There is a reason that Seattle's summer temperatures are far milder than Portland's.

To see how wrong the Seattle Times/Climate Central map is, consider the temperatures on the hottest day of the summer (July 5) in Seattle (see below).   

Totally different than the Seattle Times map.  Temperatures ranged from the 70s near the water to mid to upper 80s away from the water.   No huge heating over Lake Washington.  The warmest temperatures are in more rural areas (mid-90s).   Downtown Seattle is NOT a huge hot spot as pushed by the Seattle Times.  Their map is simply wrong.  Urbanization is not making some Seattle locations 12F warmer than rural areas.


The truth is that a small reduction (or addition) in tree cover in Seattle will have a very modest influence on temperature because of Puget Sound, our mountains, and the local winds during summer.  As an aside, I wish the Seattle Times would report on the effects of the construction of the third runway and urbanization around SeaTac Airport on the temperatures from the airport.

Ticks and Climate Change

Another deceptive Seattle Times story this week suggested that climate change could be making the tick problem worse in the Northwest.

This article is a study of hyping a threat that does not exist in order to get folks worried about climate change.


The article begins with the ominous note that "bloodsuckers are on the move in the Northwest" and notes that "warming trends, exacerbated by climate change, are creating a more hospitable environment for the parasites" in the Northwest.

However, the article provides no evidence that ticks have become more of a problem in the Northwest.  And it certainly shows no evidence that climate change is causing a tick problem.

Hot, dry weather is bad for ticks, which would increase with all the heatwaves predicted by Seattle Times stories.   The writer does not mention this important element, which would work against an invasion of the feared "bloodsuckers."


Finally, milder winter temperatures (November through March) plausibly might encourage winter ticks.  

So have winter temperatures in our region warmed substantially over the past?   Below are the temperatures over the Puget Sound lowlands over the past 40 years, when global warming has been most noticeable (see below).  

Little warming is evident, a situation promoted by the nearby, slow-to-warm, Pacific Ocean.


The threat of "bloodsuckers" is clearly not changing much over our region and may, in fact, decline.  Scarester articles like this are not constructive.

Killing Older Women in Switzerland?

Many of the over-the-top, crazy climate stories in the Seattle Times are reprinted from the NY Times, Washington Post, and other media.  Today this was a story about dying older women in Switzerland.


Amazingly, the article claims that the Swiss temperatures in July have warmed by 35F since the 1800s, with July 2023 temperatures being 60F.    I repeat 35F increase (or about 19C), which means the mean temperature in July would have been 25F.....well below freezing in July.  


This is nuts.   But don't believe me.  Here are the official statistics from the Swiss government.  A 2.12 C increase.  That is about 3.8F.  NOT 35F.


Irresponsible Climate Journalism at the Seattle Times

What is happening at the Seattle Times is both sad and disappointing.

I could have provided you will many more problematic, non-factual articles from the newspaper (for example, the bogus claims that global warming is causing a marine heatwave over the northeast Pacific).   Stories that are intended to hype climate change and scare people. 

Human-caused global warming is a slowly growing, modest problem.  Our planet has warmed by around 2F during the past 50 years and human emissions are probably the dominant cause.

Hyping and exaggerating this problem may be popular in some "progressive" circles, but it is counterproductive.  

A democratic society like ours can not function when the media is providing inaccurate information to citizens, and I am afraid that the Seattle Times has decided that advocacy is more important than providing factual information.

There was a time when the Seattle Times employed exemplary science reporters, such as Hill Williams and Dietra Henderson.  Reporters dedicated to getting the science right, without any political or advocacy angle.   Unfortunately, those days are over at the Seattle Times.

Monday Update

Unbelievably, there was ANOTHER front-page climate article in the Seattle Times today that was essentially wrong, one that confuses weather and climate:


The article claims that drier conditions this year reduced hydropower and is a sign of climate change (global warming).  Strangely, the article suggests that wetter conditions in California, as observed this year, are also a sign of climate change.  Earlier articles in the ST suggested drying in CA is a sign of climate change.

The truth is that there is no long-term trend in precipitation over our region.  If anything, it is going up. 

 Want proof?   Here are the NOAA precipitation totals over Washington since 1900.  Lots of ups and downs (weather variability) but little long-term trend.  Yes, this year is on the low side, but not a record-breaking low. 


PLEASE:  Do not leave me comments calling me names, like "denier" or accusing me of taking money from oil companies.  If you think I got some fact wrong, let me know where you think my science is wrong, and provide the data/publications to support your claim.




65 comments:

  1. What Cliff is illustrating vis a vis the Seattle Times is occuring across the rest of the MSM. Right on cue, every media outlet immediately began screeching headlines such as the planet is reaching boiling point, record heat and deaths basically everywhere - no context, no macro analysis, no contrary statistics are ever voiced. The Midwest and Northeast have been enjoying milder summers compared to the past, yet we only hear of "record flooding" there because of the usual summer T - storms and resultant downpours. To cite just one example here in Portland - the MSM has begun their annual worry - fest in citing record low rainfall so far this summer, despite the deficit being the comparison between a quarter inch versus the usual 2 inches. But do they give the audience that vital comparison? Of course not, because the Narrative Must Prevail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The MSM may be guilty of getting the science wrong in specific instances like this, but that doesn't mean that global warming is just a "modest problem" as Cliff states.

      Delete
    2. Bennett...any objective evaluation suggests that global warming is a modest problem. Please review the IPCC report. Deaths from extreme weather are down 90%+ DOWN. Less poverty. Greatly increased agricultural productivity. Fewer deaths from extreme temperatures extremes.... Facts are facts...cliff

      Delete
  2. And to think.. people read nonsense like this in the Seattle Times, believe it, then go out and vote for stuff. It explains a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I normally side with facts, but this is one subject where the effect of misinformation on the general public can be viewed as a positive. Why? Because the more amped up people are about climate change, the more motivated they will be to demand change from their governments. Candidates who are seen to be advocates for a greener future are going to eventually be those elected. I say, let these pieces do that job!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's NEVER a good idea to knowingly misinform people under any circumstances. Doing so is ALWAYS wrong and raises some very serious concerns about our how we are raising our children to think and behave. That there are people like yourself who don't understand this is far more worrying than global warming will ever be.

      Delete
    2. This attitude is more disturbing than the Times articles. At least they pretend.

      Delete
    3. Slugcheese, it has the opposite effect.

      Delete
    4. On the contrary, lying about the magnitude of effects of climate change creates a scarecrow that is far easier for climate change deniers to knock down, often ending the conversation, because once they've caught on to the lies or exaggerations once, credibility is gone out the window.

      I'm sick and tired of discussions with family and acquaintances on the topic becoming sidetracked trying to convince them that claims they read in the mainstream media that are full of holes aren't actually the scientific basis for the concern.

      Lying is the worst method possible to convince people climate change is real and needs to be addressed.

      Delete
    5. Slugcheese - Please reread the tale of the boy who cried wolf. I'm sure there are other Aesop's fables you could familiarize yourself with, as well. Or maybe Hans Christian Andersen's The Emperor's New Clothes. Go back to classic children's literature and see how well lying works out. It's basically Life 101.

      Delete
  4. Curious to know whether you have spoken with Times editorial management about the errors, etc. in their climate stories.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have tried....and they are not interested. Clearly, the policy on exaggerating climate change comes from ST management. I wish they were willing to have a respectful engagement on this. They are not.

      Delete
    2. And as you say, other media iare just as dishonest in the way they overhype climate change. And exaggerate the ease with which we can implement the Green New Deal. And fail to report that we can't possibly meet our energy needs without safe/clean nuclear.

      Delete
    3. Cliff, as a former journalist (when it was an honorable calling), I strongly suspect that the Seattle Times put you on their sht list when you knocked down the ocean acidicfiation series nine years ago. They were clearly looking for a Pulitzer Prize and invested a lot of space and staff time in the effort. Your rebuttal put the kibosh on it, and made you persona non grata there.

      You have, to your credit, tried to contact them. It's what an honest man does. But it's clear that you're under no illusions about them. The Seattle Times never performed up to the standards that were set by other big metro papers, but in recent years they have been captured by far-left ideologues.

      Keep fighting the good fight, but set your expectations at zero, which I suspect you've done quite a while ago.

      Delete
  5. Although I agree with the general theme that the model used for urban heating seems flawed I wanted to point out you've got a couple problematic statement in the blog. For example: "Downtown Seattle is NOT a huge hot spot as pushed by the Seattle Times." Keep in mind the article is supposed to be talking about areas where it is hotter than it *naturally* would be. Since downtown is right on Elliott Bay it would naturally be cool. The article isn't suggesting that downtown Seattle is the hottest place in the city--just that it is hotter than it would naturally be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are not correct. The temperatures shown are differences from a rural environment without urbanization...please read the figure caption. Proof of this is that the largest anomaly is over a lake with no urbanization.

      Delete
    2. I realize that, but the first graphic is not suggesting that downtown Seattle is the hottest part of the Seattle, just that downtown Seattle shows the highest temperature differential compared to if it was rural. In other words this graphic is (supposed to) show temperature differential--not absolute temperature.

      Delete
    3. It is essentially the same as absolute temperature in terms of pattern.

      Delete
  6. "Human-caused global warming is a slowly growing, modest problem." Assumes facts not in evidence. The climate models are garbage. The predict 0.35-deg C/decade warming while the observed warming is 0.13-deg D/decade. They do not include solar variations over the decades and centuries. They don't include water vapor. These models have the accuracy of a airplane flight model that doesn't include the wings.

    The absorption spectra for water vapor and CO2 overlap. Doubling the CO2 concentration from 400-ppm to 800-ppm hardly changes the absorption spectra, maybe 1-2%. Heat transfer in the troposphere is accomplished by conduction and convection, about 99.5%. Radiation accounts for about 0.5%. Radiation transfer is significant in the stratosphere, where the air pressure is greatly reduced.

    Temperature proxies show it's been warmer in the past than today. During the Medieval Warm Period, the Vikings colonized Greenland and raised barley. No one does that today. The Romans raised wine grapes in Britain during the Roman Warm Period. The Artic was ice free during the summer ca 10,000-ya. Not today.

    The climate hysterics want high-cost energy to control us. So-called "Green energy" isn't green, it destroys the environment. It requires the cutting down of forests to site wind and solar. Solar panels leach heavy metals into the soil. Wind mills kill birds and insects. Off-shore wind kills the whales. These only have 20-year life span, if that, then they go to the land fill. Electric vehicles are more accurately called Emission Elsewhere Vehicles because the power to recharge them comes from coal and gas power plants.

    It's a scam from top to bottom.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Slight correction. Most of the model heating is caused by water vapor. All models assume positive feedback from CO2 warming that increases water vapor that increases warming by more than the CO2 alone. That assumption is one of the key points of contention with many scientists who are critical of the modelists. Otherwise I mostly agree with your points.

      Delete
    2. First, CO2 and water have very different spectra: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIBsjBvRTew

      Sorry, you're spewing bullshit. We don't know that Arctic had been ice-free (in summer) 10000 years ago. It might have been, but we're not certain. And even then we ARE close to that state right now. The Northwest Passage became traversable in 2007, for the first time in millennia.

      And we're already way past the Medieval Warm Period temperatures. People also are growing wine in Britain right now.

      Basically, your message is nothing but misinformation.

      @Cliff - can you delete the trolls, please?

      Delete
    3. Cyberax, you might want to familiarize yourself with the latest research regarding water vapor and the aftereffects from the recent volcanic eruption:

      https://essopenarchive.org/users/304243/articles/657090-long-term-surface-impact-of-hunga-tonga-hunga-ha-apai-like-stratospheric-water-vapor-injection

      This study was recently published and is currently being peer - reviewed, something most of the climate alarmists will not allow when citing their own research.

      Delete
  7. If only we (citizens, press, politicians, even scientists) would fully absorb your last sentence and make that a fundamental part of our approach to understanding and doing, how much better off we all would be. Thank you Dr Mass for your efforts to focus on facts and logic over groupthink and virtue signalling, and for being willing to take the heat!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dr. Mass,
    What is your opinion on "the blob", is it back? Looks like sea temps are very high, could this mean more humid air for a while?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the unusual atmospheric circulation has created an area of warm water....

      Delete
  9. Cliff, why do you not provide links to the stories you reference? It makes you look deceptive -- I want to go read the articles you're talking about and judge for myself, not just see the parts that you've clipped here. This is the web! Link things!

    Secondly, I think you're misreading that first article -- it's talking about temperature differences from what "they would be naturally". So the fact that downtown Seattle is marked as "very hot" makes sense, and the fact that it's near the cooling bay is irrelevant -- they're just saying that urbanization has increased temperatures from what they otherwise would have been. Your map of area temperatures is a non-sequitur -- they're not talking about _absolute_ temperatures, they're talking about _differences_ vs a hypothetical where the urbanization didn't exist. It's the exact same "head island" effect that you've talked about here in the past.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris...you are not correct. The temperatures shown are differences from a rural environment without urbanization...please read the figure caption. Proof of this is that the largest anomaly is over a lake with no urbanization. I don't feel the need to provide links...all you have to do is go to the ST website. Strange you would call that deceptive..cliff

      Delete
  10. Seems like a pretty obvious typo that the NYT story simply forgot the decimal point between the three and the five. That they haven't fixed it yet after 24 hours is more shocking. It's also interesting that they don't allow comments on that story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Carl...not sure it is obvious that they simply left of a decimal point. The NY Times finally fixed the error, but the Seattle Times has not. What this shows to me is a shocking lack of review of such articles. Even crazy stuff gets through...The writing is superficial and haphazard, and the writers don't spent enough time to understand what they are writing about...cliff

      Delete
    2. "The writing is superficial and haphazard, and the writers don't spent enough time to understand what they are writing about"

      Sadly, that's pretty much describes all of journalism now and it's only getting worse.

      Delete
  11. Slugcheese said: "I normally side with facts, but this is one subject where the effect of misinformation on the general public can be viewed as a positive. Why? Because the more amped up people are about climate change, the more motivated they will be to demand change from their governments. Candidates who are seen to be advocates for a greener future are going to eventually be those elected. I say, let these pieces do that job!"
    --------------------------------------

    In a comment from back in July 2023, I made several points offered within the context that a professed climate activist, Joe Biden, is now President of the United States; and that another professed climate activist, Jay Inslee, is now Governor of Washington State. In addition, our climate activist governor is now supported by a climate activist state legislature. The full comment is here:

    Betah Blocher comment, Cliff Mass blog, July 21, 2023

    To my personal knowledge, no articles have appeared in the Seattle Times which acknowledge the fact that America's climate activist politicians haven't gone nearly as far as current law allows them to go in quickly suppressing America's carbon emissions.

    Neither has Attorney General Bob Ferguson -- soon to be our next governor and also a professed climate activist -- used the full authority of his office in suppressing carbon emissions generated either directly or indirectly by commercial activities carried out in Washington State.

    Here is the most prominent regional example of political inaction regarding the alleged dangers of climate change. As I noted in that previous comment from mid-July, jet airliners represent three percent of global carbon emissions, with Boeing's airliners comprising roughly half of the world's jet airliner fleet.

    This is the issue .... If you are a professed climate activist living in Washington State, or if you are a member of the Seattle Times editorial board, shouldn't you be demanding that our state's politicians put strong pressure on Boeing to cease production of carbon-fueled jet airliners by the mid-2030's or else lose the tax and financial incentives Boeing currently enjoys in this state?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Waiting for the inevitable scare headlines: "Scorpions spreading in Northwest Washington?" "Rattlesnakes spreading in Northwest Washington?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FYI..Scorpions have been found in the Tri-Cities area! But that area is semi-desert, so it makes sense.Rattlers can be found not far from our mountain passes, heading East. I would not be shocked, if they wiggle their way down the Western slopes of the Cascades, in the next 20 years or so...along with Black Widow spiders!..I am therefore looking forward to a new Ice Age!

      Delete
  13. It's interesting that you never criticize BIG OIL for bribing the politicians to do nothing on global boiling yet you harp on a piddly news outfit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Big Oil" is not my local newspaper that I and others depend upon for information. Do do get your information from "big oil"? And can you provide any evidence of Big Oil bribing local politicians? And what in the world is global boiling? Sounds pretty silly to me....

      Delete
  14. Great post Dr. Mass. I have corresponded with several of the times reporters and the Editorial Board and only Danny Westneat wa as nice enough to respond even though it was to defend his obvious "cherry picking" of historical forest fire figures. With my recent billing notice I realized that they were now charging over $1000 per year for home delivery, and decided that a online subscription was sufficient for the quality of information provided and raised the question of how accurate is their reporting on other issues if they fail to publish facts on subjects I am quite knowledgeable about!!!



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. $1000 per year! Say what? The web site says $163.80. The Ellensburg paper charges more for 4 days per week.

      Delete
  15. And then there's Salon magazine's Matthew Rosza. I have nothing against him, and it looks like in other realms he's got some interesting pieces and interviews (and writing can be a VERY tough gig). However, in the climate realm...well, let's just say that if you've bothered to read any HH Lamb, you're likely to be labeled if not a denier then at least a heretic. He has some decent points directed at the most extreme anti-AGW folks who may be 'denying' that the world has warmed at all (I don't think I know any of these folks, btw)--but dare to question anything but the most extreme ideology going the other way, and prepare to be labeled a denier. : https://www.salon.com/2023/08/07/what-climate-change-deniers-get-totally-about-the-little-ice-age/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Definitely true...prepare to be labeled a denier, or worse.

      Delete
  16. Cliff, setting aside for the moment global warming/climate change, I'm wondering what if any downsides would there be to transition -- even trying to aggressively transition -- away from fossil fuel and towards renewable energy sources?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott...first, you need the technologies to make the complete transition...which we don't have now. Renewables can not do the job right now. Strangely, many "environmentalists" oppose nuclear. Second, if the transition increases costs, it preferentially hurts poor people and poor countries. ..cliff

      Delete
    2. Cliff, I'm confused. By definition, "transitioning" is incremental, so why do we first need technologies to make a "complete" transition.

      As to whether or not poor people/countries would be hurt through increased costs, you might have a point there. I would put forward however that the extent the poor would be economically disadvantaged is more political than economic, and the current power structure (no pun intended, really) is disinclined to mitigate the harm if that means self-sacrifice.

      It's my belief the enormous American entrepreneurial spirit is capable of achieving breakthroughs leading to truly sustainable renewable energy that could meaningfully benefit everyone, including and maybe especially the poor, but only if leaders such as yourself are supportive of such initiatives.

      Ronald Reagan's first act as President was to remove Jimmy Carter's solar panels from the WH roof. I wonder were we would be today if instead he had pushed for a JFK-like moonshot for renewable energy way back then.

      Delete
    3. It's true we need evolve to renewable and nuclear yet the downside of transitioning too aggressively is the cost and the damage to our economy. Green New Deal aspects of the current administration's policies have led to high energy costs which has been a significant contributor to the inflation we've suffered (over 16% since the current administration took office). Is it smart to handcuff our economy when China and India are reaping the the benefits as they continue to increase their CO2 emissions? The media has been just as dishonest as Cliff details on climate change when they ignore the way the Green New Deal is hurting us. Inflation is like a tax increase that's regressive as it hurts the lower class more than any demographic. Copy this link for more info https://bit.ly/3WHSUlE

      Delete
    4. Scott...the technology is simply not there to rapidly transition off of fossil fuels for energy, agriculture, and transportation. Can you name a single nation that has done this? I am optimistic though. Once we have fusion power, then we can make rapid progress, including pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere. That is the moonshot. Environmentalists have blocked the massive use of fission power. Renewables are only a small part of the solution...cliff

      Delete
  17. Tics.
    I've worked on a hiking trail to Edgar Rock, east of Chinook Pass.
    That's my vote for the worst tic area in WA.

    Farther east of the Cascade Crest it is both warmer and mostly no ticks.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Good post Cliff. It is definitely true that the pseudo-science on climate has gotten a lot worse in the last decade. Every record high or intense weather event is hyped as proof that we are in an emergency. There are a number of biases at work here including the bullseye effect. As urban areas grow, the probability that a random storm will impact a high value area are greater.

    But climate is not an exception. The corporate media generally are simply no longer doing journalism. They are thinly disguised ideological narrative promoters and have been captured to a large extent by the deep state and the Democrat party. They also are staunchly partisan and use every tool including lying to promote their favored political party. They lied for 4 years about Russian interference and collusion in our elections. Nothing has been retracted either. They colluded with CIA officials to spread the lie that the Hunter Biden laptop was a Russian information operation when the FBI had known for over a year that it was real. They now spread the lie that Joe Biden was not involved in his son's business dealings despite evidence he participated in business dinners and phone calls. It's a shameful tract record of corruption.

    I only trust independent journalists such as Michael Schellenberger, Matt Taibbi, and Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald is in my view the most consistent in his beliefs and has paid a high personal price for sticking to his principles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have subscribed to both Greenwald and Taibii's Substack accounts, and have always respected their journalistic integrity. Interestingly, both are also committed leftists regarding their politics, but they cast those proclivities aside in search of actual facts. The media climate has become so polluted that Greenwald actually had to resign from the very site he cofounded not too long ago (The Intercept), because of their refusal to own up to their own biased reportage. If you want to see even more bad behavior on the part of journalists, watch the recent Munk debates with Taibbi and Malcom Gladwell.

      Delete
  19. Think at this point, the best way to fight climate change is to do nothing. It's too late. Just keep on with business as usual, which is what is going to happen anyway. Time to own it. It won't kill us all off. Just some or most of us. The only real fix for the climate is far less people. Think we all sort of know this. It's the elephant in the room. Get Human population down to around a billion, keep it capped at that level, along with green tech.. and the planet will slowly heal over several millennia.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you are inline with the WEF that tells us we will be poor and happy as population is decimated to 1 billion.

      Delete
    2. Based upon current tech, societal norms, political will, and population growth, the fastest way to fix climate change is to do nothing and allow a mass die off either directly or indirectly. Indirectly would be less children born into a cruel world, or famine from a crop failure, resource war etc. Directly are weather event mortalities such as deaths from a heat wave or storm.
      Ultimately, definitely poor, but probably not happy. It IS the path of least resistance, since doing nothing means changing nothing. The wealthy nations can maintain a semblance of their quality of life, and the rest *shrug* die. A rather Darwinian approach. I do not see how maintaining high living standards, high levels of consumption, population growth, economic growth etc can co-exist with any other outcome than basically doing nothing and hoping for the best.

      We won't go extinct. There might not even be a massive die off of Humanity. It depends on how well we adapt or if people even think it's worth it to. Trying to figure this all out with perhaps 10 billion people in 2050 all trying to live like current day Americans? Yah, not happening. It would require massive tech break through a and a total revamp of society. Again, extreme doubt. We can't even get half the country to agree the fossil fuels are finite and pollute.

      Delete
  20. I am all in with your science based approach to global warming, and am also tired of the constant and more often than not baseless climate change attribution to the whole myriad of problems, be it heat waves, deep cold, big snow flakes, small snow flakes, heavy rain, no rain, bears in Alaska being late for dinner... but you lose me at describing global warming as a moderate problem. For us in Western Washington, it may be even of some benefit, but for the billions of people who live in cities on coasts, even a moderate rise in sea level would be a bit more than a moderate problem. Take for an example the entire country of Bangladesh and its 300 million people. It is sited on a river delta almost entirely at sea level, prone to large tropical cyclones. Very poor with not much more in the way of resources to feed its population, let alone mitigate for sea level rise as a place like the US or Holland. How is this not a pretty big, if not catastrophic problem? Lets say sea level rise renders a good percentage of that country uninhabitable, where will they go? I, like you, am not worried about us at all (aside from the horrifying possibility of less powder days on the slopes for instance) but I am very worried about people in places like that. Displacement and migration of that scale has never been seen before, and will undoubtably cause many bad knock on effects globally. Wars, famine, GDP impacts, you name it. Perhaps you could discuss your thoughts on this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with your assessment, ARP. We in the PNW have some regional good fortune, it seems, as far as climate change goes but the issue is global, serious, and we will feel it profoundly soon enough. I, too, would appreciate Cliff's comments in this regard. Media often garishly amplifies the effects of climate change but that has more to do with capturing eyes and clicks than pushing some other agenda. Many of the comments here illustrate other arguments that jump to their own conclusions. The net effect of Cliff's blog posts appears to be, unintentionally I think, feeding the polarization while making a necessary point about science.

      Delete
    2. Anyone and everyone concocts the climate disaster scenario (one of many). The sea level rise has been miniscule and constant over the past 150 years. Sea level rise at Ellis Island, for example, is at most millimeters.
      The Tongo tsunami was much worse than what you are describing and that was a volcano eruption, that, by the way, is a significant factor in the recent heat waves in the South and elsewhere.

      Delete
    3. MSUSpartan76, that's a new one on me. How is the Tongo tsunami a significant factor in the recent heatwaves, seriously? I agree with you about observable sea level rises (compared to what we're told is happening).

      Delete
  21. It's difficult to explain how the media in general, allied with "climate advocacy" groups are creating such a maelstrom ( weather pun not intended!) of hyped climate reporting. Normally, pushback from even a few well informed people can correct such crazy lopsided phenomena. The fact that this is such an extended and uniform national campaign, ruling out conspiracies, means that we have an epic example of group think among educated americans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Minor nit: a maelstrom is not weather related. It is a water born whirlpool.

      Delete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. There has been a very noticeable increase in the Spring tick population in the Bow hill area of Skagit over the last several years as well as Summer mosquitos. I am not sure what kind of climate a tick most enjoys but I had always noticed them more in drier locales such as Leavenworth and Fidalgo Island. The mosquitos used to be gone by mid July now hang out all Summer until the cool Fall nights send the little vampires back to their lair. Seems like even very modest changes to our local climate has made conditions more favorable to both of these pests, not sure if temperature or precipitation is the driving factor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can only speak from personal experience, growing up in the Southeast and sometimes pulling ticks off my dogs, but never having one attached to me, to having lost count of the number that have crawled or latched onto me in the Whatcom County foothills over the past half dozen years. Sitting on dead/down trees in forestlands at the height of springtime is definitely not recommended. On the other hand, I still haven't encountered any in the more remote, interior heart of the Cascades.

      Delete
  24. Good to see you call out ST and other media for their incorrect and alarmist reporting! From my studies I've concluded it's more accurate to say "human emissions are a contributing factor" than "human emissions are probably the dominant cause" since history shows natural factors (not just those of long duration like the Milankovitch cycles rather look also for example at what caused the geological features of the dry falls in eastern WA with a period estimated to be 50-60 years per cycle) had and have stronger impact than today's "experts" believe. Here's more- https://normanjansen.substack.com/p/climate-catastrophe

    ReplyDelete
  25. BAMCIS said: "Think at this point, the best way to fight climate change is to do nothing. It's too late. Just keep on with business as usual, which is what is going to happen anyway. Time to own it. It won't kill us all off. Just some or most of us. The only real fix for the climate is far less people. Think we all sort of know this. It's the elephant in the room. Get Human population down to around a billion, keep it capped at that level, along with green tech.. and the planet will slowly heal over several millennia."

    --------------

    The late Dr. Carl Sagan believed that the only practical way to reduce the world's population without deliberately murdering billions of people was for the entire world to industrialize.

    Dr. Sagan recognized that transforming every third world nation into an industrial nation would take a very long time. He also recognized that keeping pollution and other kinds of environmental damage under control during the transition would be a difficult challenge.

    But maybe Dr. Sagan's plan isn't nearly fast enough for those climate activists who claim the world is boiling; that the size of the earth's human population is the major factor driving the growth of GHG emissions; and that something must be done about the problem now, ASAP, without delay.

    OK .... If you are a climate activist, is there an argument to be made for solving the twin issues of overpopulation and climate change in one fell swoop? Using one highly ambitious and fully integrated grand plan?

    If that's what the climate activists really want, here are three key elements of a 'Get it Done Now!' approach to solving both climate change and overpopulation, an approach guaranteed to solve both problems in a decade or less.

    1: Solar Radiation Modification -- Implement a global program entitled 'Tambora 2.0' which injects massive volumes of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere thus producing a man-made 'Year Without Summer' which lasts a decade or more, quickly reducing the earth's global mean temperature to pre-industrial levels while simultaneously causing massive worldwide crop failures.

    2: Just Say No to Natural Gas -- Quickly reduce the world's supply of natural gas thus increasing the numbers of cold weather deaths while simultaneously reducing the world supply of the agricultural fertilizers needed to sustain the current world population.

    3: DEI for Diesel Fuel Rationing -- Strictly ration the world supply of diesel fuel thus quickly reducing the food supply for the great majority of the world's population wherever they live, whatever their cultural and ethnic background.

    Concerning the problem of overpopulation, which of these three elements is likely to be the most effective over the shortest period of time?

    It is #3, DEI for Diesel Fuel Rationing. The great majority of the world's population are people of color as DEI advocates now define the term. Diesel fuel is essential for powering the world's mobile farming equipment, regardless of where the crops are being grown or who is growing them. Quickly reducing the supply of diesel fuel means quickly reducing the world supply of food.

    Anyway ....

    If, in the opinion of the climate activists, climate change is now producing wars, mass migrations, famines, 1000-year floods, massive wildfires, killing heatwaves, rising sea levels -- and also a greater incidence of diabetes, auto-immune diseases, skin cancers, psychological depression, and toe nail fungus -- it is likely that billions of people are certain to die in the coming decades.

    Assuming this is the case, and if most of these catastrophes will be happening anyway, then these people should be asking themselves if there is an argument for getting the whole process over with quickly; i.e., solving climate change in less than a decade while simultaneously reducing the world's population from 8.5 billion to one billion.

    ReplyDelete
  26. The Blethen Beacon, otherwise known as the Seattle Times, has long been an organ of the downtown establishment and country club set, so its alarmist articles probably have less to do with an "agenda" than with the simple intent of garnering more clicks on articles, thereby resulting in greater revenue. Big media long ago figured out that people want to consume the content that troubles them most. "Doomscrolling" and such. No one is attracted to articles that describe how today is only very slightly different than yesterday. If it bleeds, it leads....

    ReplyDelete
  27. Cliff I would love for you to peruse the book: Weatherman's Guide to the Sun. And/Or check out the suspicious0berservers YouTube channel and see what you think about the myriad of ideas presented there. Clearly mainstream media makes it all too obvious they no longer have our best interests in mind, and science to them does not require using data, otherwise it wouldn't be able to push aggressively myopic narratives to scare people into using their emotional versus rational thinking abilities. I love seeing that you are awake to the nonsense, and that you are willing to put yourself out there and leading by example and disagreeing with data to support your claims. Please keep up the good fight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I started with John Casey and his video " the cold Sun" back about 8 years ago then stumbled on Diamond from the Oppenheimer Ranch Project after that, learning about grand solar minimum cycles and long term cycles ie 12000 year and longer cycles, there is so much we were not taught in school and such

      Delete
  28. Little Black Tick (From the Heidi Mueller folk song album 'Up Hurricane Creek')

    ReplyDelete

Please make sure your comments are civil. Name calling and personal attacks are not appropriate.

More Typical Spring Temperatures Will Save Washington and California's Cherry Crop this Year

Last year was a cherry disaster for the West Coast and the key driver was the cool/wet weather late last winter and spring in California.   ...