January 19, 2026

Global Warming is Only A Modest Problem

Human-forced global warming (also called "Climate Change" by some) is only a modest problem.   

The scientific facts are clear:

It is NOT an existential threat to humanity.   It is NOT a crisis.


Huge amounts of money are being wasted (such as the unfortunate Washington State Climate Commitment Act), governments are putting great efforts into non-productive activities, and people are suffering unnecessary anxiety and fear.

Why should you at least consider what I say on this topic?  

 I have published dozens of papers on climate topics.   I  studied with and published with one of the leading climatologists of the past century (Steven Schneider of NCAR and Stanford).  When Jay Inslee (then a congressman) sought a tutorial on climate change, he came to me. I have received several NSF grants to work on climate topics.

Climate "Journalism" at the Seattle Times

Let's consider a few of the unfounded claims of climate activists.  

Extreme Weather, Enhanced by Climate Change, Is Causing Increasing Numbers of Deaths

You have heard the claim multiple times:   increasing extreme weather resulting from climate change is resulting in many more extreme weather-related deaths.

This is simply untrue.   Deaths from extreme weather (extreme heat/cold, hurricanes, extreme windstorms, flooding, etc.) are down...a LOT (see proof below).


Such deaths are down even though there are a lot more people on the planet.  

Why?   Much better forecasts allow people to get out of the way or prepare.  Many nations have invested in making themselves less vulnerable to severe weather--including some of the poorest.

Want an example?  In 1970, Cyclone (Hurricane) Bhola hit Bangladish and nearly 500,000 people died.


In 2020, a more powerful storm (Super Cyclone Amphan) hit virtually the same location, with only 133 deaths.


Severe storm deaths are profoundly down.....is this a "crisis"?

What about Northwest flooding and heavy rain?  

Average rainfall over the region is not increasing; if anything, it is level (see SEATC annual precipitation.



Winter daily extreme precipitation is up slightly (see sample for SeaTac below)


Regional climate models suggest a small decrease by the end of the century (the change in the annual highest 5-day precipitation is shown below)

There is little reason to expect more severe flooding over Washington State by the end of the century. 

 With better management of our rivers and development, there could be LESS flooding even with the very modest increases in precipitation.

Extreme Temperature Deaths Will Decline

There is a deep literature showing that cold waves kill far more people than heat waves.   For example, a 2015 article in The Lancet found 17 times more deaths from cold than heat (see figure from that article below).

Thus, global warming will REDUCE deaths from extreme temperatures.  

Furthermore, it is generally much easier to protect from heat than cold, with air conditioning being effective for taking the edge off of generally shorter head waves, compared to the extended cold waves that result in most of the deaths.

Northwest Snowpack

Global warming is causing the region to slowly warm, which will cause a slow decline in snowpack.  A very slow decline.  

As shown by the data, Washington State has warmed by about 1°F over the past 125 years during the winter snow accumulation season (October through March).  Human greenhouse gas emissions were the key contributor to the recent warming.


This modest warming has only produced a very small decline in April 1 snowpack at the official (SNOTEL) observing sites (Figure below produced by past Washington State Climatologist, Mark Albright)

High-resolution regional climate models suggest a continued slow decline in Northwest snowpack, dropping by ~15% by mid-century.  Not the end of the world.

Wildfires

Probably the most irresponsibly hyped aspect of global warming is the connection with wildfire.    The truth is that human alteration of the surface, increasing population, and human ignition of fires are FAR more important than climate change.  

Consider a plot of wildfire acres burning across the U.S. (below).  A LOT more fire acreage a century ago, when global warming was very small.


Considering only Washington State during the past ten years...a period when global warming was supposedly the greatest... wildfires are actually down.


The truth is that human ignition and wildfire management are central.  That human modification of the surface is critical....and far more important than climate change.   

The development of the technology of fire suppression and the funding of a massive suppression infrastructure led to a big drop in fires during the middle of the 20th century.  

Human mismanagement of forests and human introduction of flammable grasses contributed to the recent modest fire increase.  There has a huge increase in human ignitions (e.g., powerlines and arson) and the massive intrusion of flammable structures into the wildland/urban interface.


Warming temperatures are a very minor contributor to the modest increases in wildfires during the past decades.

Sea Level Rise?

Sea-level is slowly rising with NO acceleration as claimed by climate activists.  Here is the long-term trend at Seattle--about an 8-inch rise over a century.   Very typical of locations around the world.


Climate Economists Set the Record Straight

There have been a number of studies of the impacts of global warming on the world economy.   The general conclusion:  even unfettered global warming would only have a very small impact on economic growth across the planet.

Without or without global warming, humanity will be immeasurably richer and better off by the end of the century.

William Nordhaus, who received the Nobel Prize for his analysis, found that even unfettered global warming would decrease global economic growth by a few percent.  The entire world will be MUCH richer and healthier by the end of this century, even with global warming.

Willian Nordhaus

Final Words

Why are so many groups hyping and exaggerating the impacts of global warming?  Claiming disaster and existential threats without a factual basis.

For some, it may give them the satisfaction that they are "saving the world", giving meaning to their lives.

For others, it may be a political tool to undermine the opposing political party.  Or a way to gain political power (e.g., certain prior governors)

For others, it may be a way to gain money and resources.  The Washington State CCA is a poster child for such greed.

Whatever the reason, climate change hype and exaggeration are both destructive and counterproductive, often hurting the very people advocates claim to be concerned about.


44 comments:

  1. How sure are you that the relatively rapid anthropogenic CO2 increase will not trigger any weather or biological feedback loop reactions? Isn't it possible that we could be approaching unseen tipping points due to the anomalous rate of change?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1. Should we make efforts to resuce CO2 emissions with renewables, heat pumps, EVs or should we just live normal life?
    2. How has CO2 concentration in the atmosphere changed due to human activity post industrial revolution and what was the climate like at the same CO2 levels in past?
    3.When are we getting snow on the slopes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To answer number 2, if I remember right, carbon dioxide has gone from about 280 ppm (0.028%) to about 420 ppm now. The information is readily available. And yes, we should work to reduce our emissions, in my opinion. As for the snow, no one knows, but the forecast I heard suggests that we will probably get a good deal of it in the second half of the winter.

      Delete
  3. Is there any risk, even weakly understood, that human-forced global warming may influence the timing of potential abrupt sea level rise or other globally disruptive irreversible changes? If so, is it quite appropriate to call it a modest problem? And does this optimistic outlook depend in part on continuing efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions?

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is very sad. I see nothing about the impacts on any other species. Nor do I see any mention of the future impacts of rising ocean levels? Reads more like talking points for the anti-environmental organizations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I added sea level rise....another modest issue...and one we can do a lot about (ask the Dutch). The truth is non anti-environmental....why would say that? Other species? Which ones are you concerned about? If we were concerned about other species, we should restore our forests and shop pushing development into natural areas. But that has little to do with climate change.

      Delete
  5. What are your thoughts about potential sea level rise due to glacial melting on Greenland and Antarctica?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Our socioeconomic system is dependent on increasing growth; people and productivity. Eventually (unless we get off the planet), there will be a need to stop growing and figure out how to achieve a healthy equilibrium. However, humans are probably not much different from other lifeforms. We will grow to the limits imposed by our environment and then experience significant, perhaps cataclysmic, setbacks. Climate change is just one of many factors in this grand experiment of life on earth.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for this analysis based on facts and common sense.

    As you noted, for some climate alarmists, "it may give them the satisfaction that they are "saving the world", giving meaning to their lives."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Cliff, what about the other effect of CO2 increases, namely the rise in carbonic acid level in the oceans, AKA ocean acidification? Most oceanic taxa rely on the ability to fix calcium carbonate, either at their own taxanomic level or at lower prey levels. Over geological timescales, continental weathering can solve the acidification problem, but half a million years is a long time to wait. I have never heard a warming optimist address this very reassuringly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. abe...ocean "acidication" is a very, very minor issue. I have blogged about it several times. The ocean will never become acidic and moduation of upwelling is hugely greater modulator of ocean PH..cliff

      Delete
    2. Well, talk to the oysters farmers in Wash who have to modify and try to adapt to increasing ocean acidity that is interfering with farming practices.

      Delete
    3. aaaaa... the oyster are fine. It turned out that the problem had nothing to do with ocean acidification, but the oyster hatcheries ingesting upwelled water that naturally was less basic...cliff

      Delete
  9. Given your stance that it's a modest problem at worst, what should policymakers, leaders of industry, and ordinary citizens do to address global warming? Nothing? Or some more measured approach to prevention and/or mitigation?

    ReplyDelete
  10. The charts and data are starting to diverge from our everyday experience. The claims of modest change do not pass anyone’s smell test at this point. But sure, it’s all going to be just fine!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Science is not done by "smell". It is done with facts. The facts are quite clear.... GW is a significant, but modest problem.

      Delete
    2. No, the model projections are diverting from everyday experience. We now have ample evidence from empirical sources that support Dr. Mass'es contentions. The modelers should have corrected their models years ago but have refused to do so. Modeled results are not proof.

      Delete
    3. Our "every day experience" is the weather, not GW.

      Delete
  11. Excellent article. People are so gas lit by this topic though, I can't imagine it's going to get much traction. It'd be nice if it did!

    ReplyDelete
  12. You state "Washington State has warmed by about 1°F over the past 125 years ...Human greenhouse gas emissions were the key contributor to the recent warming." What is the scientific proof for this claim?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Very poor snowpack this season. About the same as 2015 statewide.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Are there similar studies for Alaska? I understand that global warming affects are more pronounced in polar regions.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I have been following you since I was a kid. Love this article. The lies and stealing of money to attack a problem they deem the end of Washington drives me crazy. The carbon credit system needs to go! The biggest issue I see in our state relating to forest fires is the mismanagement of forest land. Snow is down this time of year but the next few weeks are looking great! February will be a great ski month!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Fantastic, science based article. This climate catastrophe narrative for political gain and the almighty dollar is possibly the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. Could you please notify every mainstream media outlet that presents this "crisis" as a non-negotiable fact.

    ReplyDelete

  17. Great article. The institute of Public Affairs in Australia publishes a series of books "Climate Change the Facts". They come out every few years and are collections of technical articles on the wide variety of climate issues from a perspective like Cliff's. The first was in 2017 and the current one in 2025. Most are highly technical but nonetheless good reading for objective info.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jeez Cliff, get out more. We have a place in Skykomish at maybe 1000 feet elevation. 20 years ago we were routinely sledding in our backyard. Haven’t been able to do that in the last 10 years. The persistent snowpack at lower elevations has disappeared. This fall we could easily walk across the Skykomish river due to low flow. Your snowpack percent of average numbers do not tell a complete picture - go out and talk to people who experience winter activities first hand, they will tell you of some significant trends. And when all the people who rely on places like the Summit at Snoqualmie for their livelihood lose out due to elevated snow levels (as you mentioned in a past post), tell the, global warming is only a modest problem. Shame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Low level snowpack is declining. This is why it is a modest problem. Higher level snowpack is holding. We just should not hype and exaggerate the impacts.

      Delete
  19. I think Alaska may disagree with your assessment. They seem to be on the front line of some climate changes that have little to do with development and forest practices.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Re: Sea level rise. Of course a linear fit will show no acceleration. However, NOAA’s best fit does show sea level rise accelerating.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'm curious, then -- what are your policy recommendations to address this significant but modest problem? Accept that the benefits (economic growth, etc.) outweigh the costs? Even if it's not an existential problem, should we be taking steps to reduce warming and CO2 emissions? If so, how should we do that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We need to do smart things and not go into panic mode. Expand use of fission power. Develop fusion power. This solves the energy problem. Fix our forests. Build smart in vulnerable areas. Work on resilience. Stop wasting money (such as WA CCA). Don't make people fearful for no reason....just cruel.

      Delete
    2. Perhaps we can all agree that doubling down on coal, oil, and gas are not smart things to do.

      Delete
    3. Jerry....no one is doubling down on coal. Doubling down on gas is a great idea (the reason why the US carbon emissions is down). We should double down on nuclear...and triple down on fusion research and development. ..cliff

      Delete
  22. I've heard some reports that a lack of sea ice in the Arctic is one of the causes of the weakening polar vortex and stretched vortex down into the lower 48 that we are seeing as the predominant pattern this Winter. Is this just a theory?
    Also when you mentioned Climate Change as a "modest"problem, one of the reasons I agree with you is the amount of time that we have to adapt to some of the more major effects of Climate change is actually significant. For example, the sea level rise will take centuries before it becomes a bigger problem and there's lots of time to adapt. Furthermore, the glaciers melting will be a problem in the summer due to lack of water in some river systems.But it can also be fixed with better water storage , such as higher dams and larger storage capacity in reservoirs , to contain some of the atmospheric river water that will fall in the fall and winter.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Are you discounting the West Antarctic Ice sheet? Even without that we would be looking at around 50 centimeters on the east coast by 2100 per MIT Climate ( which would be pretty catastrophic for Florida and building dutch style dikes is not going to work there because there are no choke points to dam). But if the Ice sheet starts melting it would be much worse, on the order of 2 - 10 meters, which would be truly catastrophic even for the Northwest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not discounting anything. No reason to expect a major loss of ice in Antartica. If anyone is suggesting this, they are being very irresponsible...

      Delete
  24. Any mention of nuclear fusion as a significant energy source is not borne out by the lack of progress in developing this technology. Building a small sun turns to be very difficult. What hasn’t been mentioned is the loss af arable land and declining freshwater sources like deep aquifers.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02299-w

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. on the contrary...there has been substantial progress in developing fusion power, such as https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/01/260101160855.htm

      Delete
  25. It's quite apparent that your implied b message here is that Climate change is "A modest Problem" right now - at this moment of history. For the sake of argument I would agree and so does most anyone else of any skill (just forget about the headlines for now, focus on the skilled opinions)

    However when it comes to the future - a time you seem to avoid in this post - there is a strong consensus that climate change will not be merely "a modest problem" and that without a doubt a transition away from fossil fuels is mandatory if we want to avoid increasingly destabilized ecological systems.

    You are clearly on record acknowledging all this - even in your comments here about nuclear fusion for example - and you've even staked a political position on that in being a carbon tax promoter going back a decade or more. The question is, why actively promote a carbon tax or nuclear fusion at all ......

    if Climate change is a "modest problem"?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Bruce...you are not correct.... I am talking about the future as well...particularly about the future. As the world gets more richer and technically advanced, climate change fades as a problem...even with increased warming...cliff

    ReplyDelete
  27. Can we honestly say with absolute confidence that there are no potential tipping points on the horizon and that this trajectory of modest change has no chance of transforming into accelerated change and/or an otherwise more severe situation, one that we may or may not be able to effectively mitigate? My understanding is that this is exactly what many climate models predict might happen. Are you saying all those models are wrong and you are the scientist best qualified to make that judgement? I would argue that neither Cliff nor anyone else possesses the scientific power to be sure about this. Therefore I believe it comes down to a simple question: what are the consequences of being wrong? If we succeed at shifting away from fossil fuels and are wrong about the climate change trajectory and it stays “modest”; we at least helped create a new clean energy economy and technology. But if we rationalize ourselves into complacency based on plots of recent trends…. and end up being wrong. Wouldn’t that be far far worse for humanity and the planet?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Smithalino, Mike Smith here. I am a meteorologist who has specialized in extreme weather for more than 50 years.

      With regard to "Tipping Points," I invite you to read something I wrote on my blog years ago: https://www.mikesmithenterprisesblog.com/2013/08/tipsy-from-tipping-points.html

      None of those have come to pass.

      Delete
  28. In contrast to the minor problem of global warming there is the environmentally disastrous consequences of several types of “green” energy. By far the worst of these is biofuels. The net energy gain from our largest source of biofuels, cor-based ethanol, is near zero. It takes a gallon of ethanol to produce a gallon of ethanol. Over 30 million acres are used to grow biofuels. That is the largest land use change of the last 50 years. Millions of acres of Forests and grasslands have been destroyed worldwide to grow near useless biofuels. We have spent trillions of dollars to destroy the environment to grow these biofuels

    ReplyDelete

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

Precipitation and Cooler Temperatures Return to the West Coast

The persistent ridge of high pressure over the western U.S., which brought generally dry conditions and less snowfall, is now history, with ...