Ignore the Hype. Last Year Hardly “Hottest” Here.

By Steve HanerThis plows old ground for many Bacon’s Rebellion readers (here and here), but it was a new topic for the Thomas Jefferson Institute distribution list.  Some of you may be interested, and some of the NOAA screenshots are new ones. One standard response when the Thomas Jefferson Institute challenges the wisdom of electricity carbon taxes or electric vehicle mandates is, are we not worried about the looming climate crisis?  The simple answer is no. Data that undercut the entire alarmist narrative are easy to find. The premise for the 2020 Virginia Clean Economy Act, which the 2025 Virginia General Assembly may revisit, is the expressed concern over catastrophic climate change.  It is a constant refrain with many of our political leaders from the current president down to county supervisors.  But what if the entire premise is false or badly overblown? A major and constant media drumbeat this year has been that 2023 was the hottest year on record and that 2024 will be hotter.  In Virginia, 2023 was unremarkable.  Even the summer months, the focus of the fear mongering about rising heat-related fatalities, showed no alarming trend.  For the data just go to a website managed by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).   

Click on graph for larger view.

Here is the chart showing average summer temperatures in Virginia from 1895 to 2023, June through September. The trend line NOAA tracks is about 1 degree Fahrenheit of rise per century, but based on data elsewhere is probably between 1- and 2-degrees Fahrenheit.  There is an overall slight warming trend in the data, but multiple summers up to a century ago were as warm or warmer than the most recent.

The same 1–2-degree Fahrenheit per century rise shows up when you track the Virginia average for the full year, and the average highs and lows.  With that website you can pick any start date you want and get any trend line you want, up or down.  For us, the longer the data set, the more reliable.  That website does report more rapid temperature rises in a few other states, but most are in the 1-2 degree F per century range, and in most recent highs were matched by highs decades ago.   

Another standard claim is that the slight warming underway, which may or may not be driven by using hydrocarbon fuels, is also leading to worsening rainfall.  NOAA tracks that on the website, too, and there is a rise in the trend line reported at 3 inches per century.  Rain is very much a beneficial aspect of the climate, especially for farmers.   

Whether or not 3 inches per year more on average than a century ago is too much of a good thing for Virginia is something you need to decide, but to us it is not worrisome. That website shows nationwide rainfall rising from 1895 to 2023 at a rate of less than 2 inches per century.   

Click on graph for larger view.

 

NOAA also tracks the coastal tide gauges that report relative sea level rise. The word “relative” is important because the measurement includes changes in sea level and also any changes in the land beside the sea.  In Hampton Roads, the shore is subsiding and that makes the relative sea level rise appear much greater than the water level itself could account for.   In Alaska, there are places where the land rises so much that the sea is receding.   

The alarmist media usually ignore the impact of subsiding or rising land levels. It avoids actual tidal readings in reports and focuses on forward-looking models, with the models themselves based on the highest of the temperature rise predictions.  Exaggeration feeds exaggeration.   

The Virginia tidal gauge with the longest record is at Sewell’s Point in Norfolk, illustrated below. The combination of sea level rise and subsidence there produces a relative change of less than 5 millimeters (about 0.2 in) per year, or about 1.6 feet per century.  Most of the scary predictions of future inundation are based on models showing massive acceleration, to multiple feet per year, but year after year the tide gauges fail to show it.   

Click on graph for larger view.

 

Look at some of the islands where NOAA is tracking the tides, places without subsidence, and the changes measured are quite slow. It is less than one foot per century in Hawaii, Midway, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Bermuda. Look at the per-century changes in places along California’s coast. The scary predictions of seas rising rapidly have been around for decades now but are not panning out in the data.   

The seas have been rising for thousands of years and even at this actual slow rate, coastal vulnerabilities are growing. The next hurricane hitting Virginia will do significant damage.  But weather is not climate change, and the mitigations and preparations needed to protect our coastal cities have nothing to do with the use of hydrocarbon fuels. (If you need to suddenly evacuate, take the gasoline car, and leave the EV in the driveway. Power may be out for a long time.) 

There is no evidence of any climate-driven crisis, certainly not in Virginia. There is little evidence of any climate change at all.  Drastic steps to rapidly eliminate use of hydrocarbon fuels in power plants, cars or homes are not justified by those fears.   


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

38 responses to “Ignore the Hype. Last Year Hardly “Hottest” Here.”

  1. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    https://news.vt.edu/articles/2024/01/COS-PNAS-subsidence.html

    A reader just responded with a link to research from Virginia Tech on the level of coastal subsidence, which is making the appearance of "sea level rise" so much more dramatic for the media seeking to scare people. The land is not sinking because you use a gas furnace or get your electricity from coal….

  2. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    My recent trip to the Kennedy Compound in Hyannisport was fun. The Kennedy's are not worried at all about rising sea levels. Every house is still owned by a Kennedy and they have no plans to leave. Nearby they have all of those marvelous windmills poking up from the tree line. You can see them from miles away and they look like those Martian machines from the War of Worlds. Not one blade was turning. Meanwhile the natural gas plant right next to the windmills was humming away.

  3. Fred Costello Avatar
    Fred Costello

    If global warming is significant to the welfare of mankind, then a key question is: How much of the global warming is due to mankind? The global-warming fears result in many people, especially university and government people, being employed. They are not likely to be unbiased in their reporting. Many scientists, like Dr. Patrick Michaels, have had their publications rejected because they showed that global warming is not a threat to mankind. With lying being so common these days, finding the truth is difficult.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      What is your evidence that Michaels had "publications rejected because they showed that global warming is not a threat to mankind"? I tried to find some mention of that on the internet but failed. In fact, I found just the opposite. Here is one summary of his influence: "His writing has been published in the major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science, as well as in popular serials such as the Washington Post, Washington Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Houston Chronicle, and Journal of Commerce. He was an author of the climate "paper of the year" awarded by the Association of American Geographers in 2004."

      1. Randy Huffman Avatar
        Randy Huffman

        I never followed Michaels that much, heard him speak a few times and he had a couple meetings at my old company decades ago, very likeable and colorful person even if you disagreed with him.

        I have no idea if any of his writings were rejected. But I vividly remember him being pushed out of his Virginia Climatologist position orchestrated when Kaine was governor. This article talks about it a little.

        https://www.climatedepot.com/2022/07/17/pat-michaels-rip/

        Excerpt: Patrick Michaels was forced out of his job as Virginia State Climatologist in 2007 after clashing with Virginia’s governor over climate change. The Washington Post reported that then-Governor Tim Kaine “had warned Michaels not to use his official title in discussing his (climate change) views.”

        The paper reported, “Nobody dislikes [Michaels] because of his day job” but because he “moonlights as one of the country’s most aggressive and, in some circles, most reviled skeptics about the scientific consensus on climate change.” Critics of Michaels lamented that he “creates the false impression of another side to a closed debate.”

        “I resigned as Virginia state climatologist because I was told that I could not speak in public on my area of expertise, global warming, as state climatologist,” Michaels said in 2007. “It was impossible to maintain academic freedom with this speech restriction.”

        Other states have also found ways to force out their inconvenient skeptical state climatologists.

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          It is no secret that Michaels was pushed out of his position as State Climatologist. That is entirely different from the claim made here that Michaels' papers were rejected by scientific journals because he argued that climate change was not a serious threat. There is no evidence provided to substantiate that claim, which is a serious one.

          1. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            Just to be clear, as I said before, I have no idea if any of Michaels work was rejected by scientific journals, unfortunately he is not with us to provide an answer.

            I did find a nice article about him written by someone who knew and worked with him, which I enjoyed reading. As it says in this article, and I heard him say it elsewhere, he identified himself as a "lukewarmer". Someone who acknowledges warming is taking place, and some of it contributed by man, but future warming is likely to be modest (or something to that effect).

            That's the problem with many on the Left (and a few people posting on this very page), anyone who challenges the Global Warming catastrophic claims is branded a denier, which is both insulting and flat out misrepresentation of how alot of people feel.

            https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2022/08/05/climate-warrior-to-the-end-a-tribute-to-patrick-j-michaels/

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            "deniers" are ones that totally reject the consensus science as well as NOAA and NASA, et al in my view.

            It's sorta like rejecting a hurricane forecast because they're never 100% correct about the path or severity.

          3. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            Hmmm. Totally reject, very subjective term.

            You made reference elsewhere to "insurance deniers", so obviously you link rates going up to climate change. A view shared by many on the Left but not so many others.

            Inflation and overbuilding in areas prone to danger from extreme weather events is driving the increase in rates. I was vacationing at the beach and noticed areas that are very prone to flooding in a storm being built up with expensive houses. That may not end well for them when the inevitable Cat 3 storm goes through, but it has nothing to do with climate change.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            My terms, yes. Skeptics are true skeptics…they don’t disbelieve the consensus science per se but they
            are skeptical about the range of impacts. Deniers typically reject the scientific consensus and dispute their data.

            But the insurance thing is ongoing and big impacts :

            Some insurers will no longer offer insurance at all in some places.

            The govt subsidized insurance is going away or requiring houses to be jacked up.

            But yes, I think the insurance industry will be the truth tellers on climate. Their coverage is not opinion.

    2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      “If global warming is significant to the welfare of mankind…”

      “…showed that global warming is not a threat to mankind…”

      Why is “threat to mankind” the only measure which will make you concerned about anthropogenic climate change?

  4. So are you saying, with facts, that the angry teen from Scandinavia was wrong? Gutsy move.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      My targets are closer to home, the politicos here in VA using the fear tactics to 1) win elections and 2) assert growing control over our economy and free choice.

  5. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    Regarding "apparent" higher temperatures in last several years, I wonder if one factor could be the recent ban on use of high sulfur bunker fuels for ships on the high seas. That was an important clean-up step, but potentially significant change in the environment re: reduced reflective aerosols.

    The recent Key Bridge collapse disaster was apparently indirectly related to the ship's presumably relatively new sulfur scrubber, which they had been testing the day before and they made a stack vent mistake that upset the power settings.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Yes, I've seen reports that the cleaner air in the last several decades could account for some of the surface temperature rises. The aerosols from "real" pollution have a cooling impact. Ironic, but in fairness, if true, that doesn't disprove the claims that CO2 and CH4 emissions are driving up temps. The bigger recent development is that underwater volcano in the Pacific two years ago that pumped billions of gallons of water vapor into the upper atmosphere and really changed the chemistry. That must have had an impact through 2023. And that water will follow the rule, what goes up must someday come down.

      I'm up to about a decade of serious reading on all this and my conclusion is there is very little actually settled. Models spit out widely different predictions based on the assumptions used. The science is in its infancy and the complexity of the issue defies easy analysis. The climate change advocates downplay the impact of the sun, but the sun drives all and its energy output varies.

  6. UVAPast Avatar

    I predict there will be numerous terrorist attacks in the US before either of Obama's waterfront mansions are flooded.

  7. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “A major and constant media drumbeat this year has been that 2023 was the hottest year on record…”

    Not what your link claims. In fact, it says:

    “Last year the rate of warming hit 0.26 degrees Celsius (0.47 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade — up from 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) the year before.”

    Would you like to disprove this statement? You set up a straw man about supposed claims about global temperatures last year and slayed it with this statement about local temperatures…

    “Here is the chart showing average summer temperatures in Virginia from 1895 to 2023…”

    It is really disappointing to see such tactics being taken to support your position. Seems you would be more effective if your arguments were not mere obfuscation.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      https://x.com/covid_parent/

      That X compilation is more fun than the link. I found it just for you. Hey, you should use the Eric Idle photo that you use on X. I'm a huge MP fan and it might raise my opinion just a smidge….

      I you actually ARE Eric Idle, well, say no more!

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        "I'm a huge MP fan…"

        Then you must recognize the tip of the hat via my handle… say no more, say no more, know whatahmean, nudge nudge, wink wink…

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Every one of those headlines could be true, and simultaneously.
        Land masses comprise only 1/5 of the Earth’s surface. Depending on the rate of change of SST versus the land masses…

    2. Randy Huffman Avatar
      Randy Huffman

      I do not follow what you are trying to cite, but on the link Stephen provided, you can insert YTD average temperature for each December (meaning the annual averages). I cannot make it print, but the link is here.

      2023 average temperature 57.5. Ties 2019 as warmest. 2020 was 57.4, 2017 57.3, 2021 and 2016 57.1.

      If you look at the trend line for the century, its up, but remember the 60's to 80's were cold, its only up about 1 degree or so when you go from the first half of the century to now, consistent with what Stephen said.

      https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/statewide/time-series/44/tavg/ytd/12/1895-2023

  8. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Is there such a thing as insurance rate increase deniers?

  9. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    It is easy to deny that which you will not see — both ways.

  10. Teddy007 Avatar
    Teddy007

    So I guess one falls into the camp that CO2 levels are doing up but that there will be no measurable effect from the increasing concentrations?

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Measurable? Possible. Existential threat? Hell no. And even if the infinitesimal increases (in parts per million) do have an effect, there are plenty of other factors that might contribute, not the least being just the usual variable patterns.

      1. Teddy007 Avatar
        Teddy007

        Like was written, one seems to be in that CO2 concentration increases will have not effect.

  11. agpurves Avatar
    agpurves

    Message to the United States Congress, POTUS, and the Virginia General Assembly: THERE IS NO EXISTENTIAL CLIMATE CRISIS.

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      In the last set of comments you simply stated the was no “climate crisis” and evidence was provided that there is indeed a climate crisis. Now you add the modifier “existential” to your claim. So your position is that even though there is indeed a negative impact on the environment from changing climate and even though it is anthropogenic in nature, we should do nothing unless and until we see that we are facing extinction from it – by which time it will be too late to do anything.

      1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
        energyNOW_Fan

        Your position is we need to assume Armageddon might happen and drastically re-design society now, even though (1) it might not be so bad , or (2) it might be too late. Left believes climate change is Goldilocks timing, it is not too late, but we must destroy US BigOil right now today, and only then we can save the planet.

      2. agpurves Avatar
        agpurves

        It is not anthropogenic. We cannot affect it. There is no evidence that we are facing extinction from it. The evidence you provided was debatable; it was not “settled science,” as indicated in Mr. Haner’s post.

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          It is. We can. No one claims we are…. and it really was not but that is not a good reason not to act even if it were.

      3. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
        energyNOW_Fan

        Your position is we need to assume Armageddon might happen and drastically re-design society now, even though (1) it might not be so bad , or (2) it might be too late. Left believes climate change is Goldilocks timing, it is not too late, but we must destroy US BigOil right now today, and only then we can save the planet.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          "but we must destroy US BigOil right now today,"

          The quiet part is that we can stop this cataclysmic event by paying more in taxes.

        2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          “…even though (1) it might not be so bad , or (2) it might be too late…”

          The case for #1 is not strong.

          The idea behind #2 is really poor reasoning.

      4. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Yes.

        This is very much like the smoker who says he's smoked for years and has no problem but if he runs into one, then he'll deal with it.

        The thing about the deniers is that they don't seem to allow for something other than climate change is real or false.

        What happened not accepting what Science is saying 100% but at the same time not ruling out that they might be right and some pro-active changes might be worth doing just in case?

        This so much like the hurricane forecasts that NOAA gives – where almost never does the hurricane do precisely what the scientific models say – and we evacuate areas that never got hit – at some expense?

        How many times have they been wrong about where it would hit but also wrong about severity and it was much worse than they predicted?

        Ditto with Ozone Holes… initially gloom and doom was predicted, might never get fixed, etc to now where there IS progress but we DID take action – and it DID cost money – but it was nowhere near to the economic disaster the critics were claiming.

        1. agpurves Avatar
          agpurves

          Some proactive changes – like making food and gas unaffordable?

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Actually EVs will cause gas prices to go down. So no, the ” making food and gas unaffordable?” thing is an oldl canard that gets brought up again and again every time there are new regs for energy efficiency and pollution reduction. Remember the “war on coal”?

  12. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    Carl Wunsch who is regarded as one of the world's leading oceanographers told EPA in a briefing that oceans have risen since the end of the last ice age and will continue rising until the next one.
    Measurements of temperature increases and sea level rise prior to the use of satellites have to be taken with more than a little grain of salt because the measurement devices were unreliable. 1979 is a good date for checking the extent of increases.
    I knew Pat Michaels. He was a good climate scientist but also very combative. The so called mainstream did not accept him and he was referred to by climate ideologues as a denier which was used to draw an inference to Holocaust Deniers. There is no knowledgable scientist who denies that climate change is real and that humans affect it. Those who use the term denier are intellectual bankrupt.

Leave a Reply