ADVERTISEMENT

Global Climate Changes

A majority of Americans support the U.S. becoming carbon neutral by 2050. Nearly seven-in-ten Americans (69%) favor the U.S. taking steps to become carbon neutral by 2050. The same share of Americans (69%) say the U.S. should prioritize developing renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, over expanding the production of oil, coal and natural gas. Carbon neutrality means releasing no more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than is removed.

A chart that shows about seven-in-ten Americans prioritize alternative energy development and carbon neutrality.
Nine-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents support the U.S. taking steps to become carbon neutral by 2050. Among Republicans and Republican leaners, 44% support this goal and 53% oppose it. But there are important differences by age within the GOP: Two-thirds of Republicans under age 30 (67%) favor the U.S. taking steps to become carbon neutral, but about the same share of Republicans ages 65 and older (64%) oppose this.

Climate experts say it’s necessary to significantly reduce carbon emissions in order to slow the pace of climate change. Energy production and transportation are two high-emission sectors where efforts are being made to reduce emissions.

Americans are reluctant to phase out fossil fuels altogether, but younger adults are more open to it. Americans are wary of relying exclusively on renewable energy sources. About three-in-ten (31%) say the U.S. should completely phase out oil, coal and natural gas. More than twice as many (67%) say the country should use a mix of energy sources, including fossil fuels and renewables.

A chart showing that younger U.S. adults are more open than older adults to phasing out fossil fuels completely.
Good statistics. However, the younger generation seems to have been brainwashed with Leftist talking points so no surprise there. Also, if the US goes carbon neutral and the rest of the world does not, is there any impact? Even climate scientists don't believe the US alone can make any difference.

One huge assumption that is built into the polls you cited is that there is no negative economic impact of going carbon neutral. Spending $50+ trillion over the next 30 years for minimal climate impact to switch to an energy supply that is much less reliable is guaranteed to have a huge negative impact. Think we can cool Houston during the summer and keep industry going if they happen to have a day or two of calm winds and intermittent sunlight? Multiply that by 1,000,000 and see what the economic impact is. If those polled would be asked, are you willing to live with limited economic opportunity, rolling blackouts during both winter and summer, limited mobility, etc, I think many might rethink their answers.
 
All knowing Bill, enlighten all of us. What should we do??

Why is it all or nothing?

We, or Merica aren’t the only ones cutting back emissions. Australia, China, Egypt, Korea, Europe, Canada, and India are all taking steps and investing billions into renewable energy

What if everyone does 20 percent more to clean the air?

Do you prefer breathing diesel fumes to clean air?

If you were at fatass. Say 400 pounds, you could fast for 40 days, under doctors care and take up a clean diet and hire a trainer. Or you could, cut out one meal a day and add 10 minutes of exercise per day and improve slowly

Most humans and scientists believe, but you unequivocally do not believe that man is directly causing climate change.


If we could start by agreeing to eliminate child slave labor from the “green energy” supply chain, I’d be more willing to engage in a discussion about other “solutions” to the man made global warming problem.

Right now the answer is hamstring the US economy while excusing India and China, while also pumping the US full of products dependent on slave labor. If you find that appealing at all, there is no way we will ever find a compromise.
 
If we could start by agreeing to eliminate child slave labor from the “green energy” supply chain, I’d be more willing to engage in a discussion about other “solutions” to the man made global warming problem.

Right now the answer is hamstring the US economy while excusing India and China, while also pumping the US full of products dependent on slave labor. If you find that appealing at all, there is no way we will ever find a compromise.

Green hydrogen and fcels involve zero emissions and zero child labor. India and most other countries are making large investments into hydrogen.


Do you think the oil business is healthy? Ever heard of erin brockovich? Saudis kill people over oil. Russians kill people for oil.
 
Wait, what?

Between 1952 and 1966, PG&E used hexavalent chromium in a cooling tower system to fight corrosion. The waste water was discharged to unlined ponds at the site, and some of the waste water percolated into the groundwater, affecting an area of approximately 2 square miles (5.2 km2) near the plant.[12] The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) put the PG&E site under its regulations in 1968.
 
Wait, what?

Between 1952 and 1966, PG&E used hexavalent chromium in a cooling tower system to fight corrosion. The waste water was discharged to unlined ponds at the site, and some of the waste water percolated into the groundwater, affecting an area of approximately 2 square miles (5.2 km2) near the plant.[12] The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) put the PG&E site under its regulations in 1968.

Just quickly citing a a case of fossil fuel industry lying, covering up and killing people and polluting the earth. There are millions more like that. BP oil spill. Exxon Valdez.
 
Just quickly citing a a case of fossil fuel industry lying, covering up and killing people and polluting the earth. There are millions more like that. BP oil spill. Exxon Valdez.
The "clean energy" industry has problems too. Slave labor, deaths in unsafe mines and heavy amounts of pollution, etc. are associated with mining for lithium and cobalt.


 
Interesting article about 'hottest temperatures measured' claim. I didn't know that there are only 7 weather stations that monitor the oceans. So, 7 stations that monitor 75+ % of the earth's surface while there are 1200+ that monitor the US. Seems like there is a pretty high possibility that the data might contain pretty large statistical errors.

 
Just quickly citing a a case of fossil fuel industry lying, covering up and killing people and polluting the earth. There are millions more like that. BP oil spill. Exxon Valdez.
I’m on your side Kingseve, but you won’t change any of the uneducated closed minds that primarily congregate here. These people believe the earth is flat and drink 10w-30 as a protein shake. They still think because their mom smoked cigarettes and lived to 90 that cigarettes are a healthy lifestyle choice. They take a confident pride in their cultural stupidity and no one is going to tell them any different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kingseve1
I’d go with EVERY SINGLE FEAR-MONGERING PREDICTION of oceans boiling away, ice caps being gone and coastal cities under 40’ of water, etc since at least An Inconvenient Truth. Besides that, idk.
For the last 50 years or so we have been told that in 10 years (insert predicted disaster here) will happen and none of them have. When the predicted temps did not happen the last time, we were told that the temps went sub surface into the ocean currents. "Global warming" the original prediction has not happen the way they promised so climate change became the battle cry.
 
Last edited:
A majority of Americans support the U.S. becoming carbon neutral by 2050. Nearly seven-in-ten Americans (69%) favor the U.S. taking steps to become carbon neutral by 2050. The same share of Americans (69%) say the U.S. should prioritize developing renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, over expanding the production of oil, coal and natural gas. Carbon neutrality means releasing no more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than is removed.

A chart that shows about seven-in-ten Americans prioritize alternative energy development and carbon neutrality.
Nine-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents support the U.S. taking steps to become carbon neutral by 2050. Among Republicans and Republican leaners, 44% support this goal and 53% oppose it. But there are important differences by age within the GOP: Two-thirds of Republicans under age 30 (67%) favor the U.S. taking steps to become carbon neutral, but about the same share of Republicans ages 65 and older (64%) oppose this.

Climate experts say it’s necessary to significantly reduce carbon emissions in order to slow the pace of climate change. Energy production and transportation are two high-emission sectors where efforts are being made to reduce emissions.

Americans are reluctant to phase out fossil fuels altogether, but younger adults are more open to it. Americans are wary of relying exclusively on renewable energy sources. About three-in-ten (31%) say the U.S. should completely phase out oil, coal and natural gas. More than twice as many (67%) say the country should use a mix of energy sources, including fossil fuels and renewables.

A chart showing that younger U.S. adults are more open than older adults to phasing out fossil fuels completely.
False.
 
It was ignorant before, but if you lived through Covid, and still base your entire world view on what “experts” say, and the “consensus” formed by “scientists” who are solely dependent on grants of money from interested parties, and refuse to look at actual data and manipulation that has occurred, you are beyond any hope.

If you base your conclusions on surveys of what Americans feel, you are even dumber.

Hopefully the Covid grift set the global warming grift back a few decades.

If you are so gullible you listen to “elite” assholes flying their private jets around the world advocating for the US to tank its economy, while ignoring the damage China and India cause (if you accept their arguments of harm at face value), and think they actually give a shit about the environment or future, again, there is no hope for you.
True.
 
Good statistics. However, the younger generation seems to have been brainwashed with Leftist talking points so no surprise there. Also, if the US goes carbon neutral and the rest of the world does not, is there any impact? Even climate scientists don't believe the US alone can make any difference.

One huge assumption that is built into the polls you cited is that there is no negative economic impact of going carbon neutral. Spending $50+ trillion over the next 30 years for minimal climate impact to switch to an energy supply that is much less reliable is guaranteed to have a huge negative impact. Think we can cool Houston during the summer and keep industry going if they happen to have a day or two of calm winds and intermittent sunlight? Multiply that by 1,000,000 and see what the economic impact is. If those polled would be asked, are you willing to live with limited economic opportunity, rolling blackouts during both winter and summer, limited mobility, etc, I think many might rethink their answers.
They also admitted to not including those who did not answer so...
 
  • Like
Reactions: pedroborbon
I’m on your side Kingseve, but you won’t change any of the uneducated closed minds that primarily congregate here. These people believe the earth is flat and drink 10w-30 as a protein shake. They still think because their mom smoked cigarettes and lived to 90 that cigarettes are a healthy lifestyle choice. They take a confident pride in their cultural stupidity and no one is going to tell them any different.
Post the moron who believes in Trump Russian collusion and Ukrainian quid pro quo even though proven otherwise not to mention countless other lies told by his controllers on the left. Congrats for being ignorant at least then you can't be held responsible. No one on your side ever is.
 
It’s the best I can do at this point.

Although the point of that post was to say that driving an Electric car is fun as hell. Kind of like switching from a persimmon to a big Bertha. Performance is just better
But you have to get to about 60,000 miles before your carbon footprint becomes less than my combustion auto. And, the system cannot sustain, let alone build enough electric cars to meet the objectives of blue states, such as California. Not to mention slave labor builds parts of your car.
 
A majority of Americans support the U.S. becoming carbon neutral by 2050. Nearly seven-in-ten Americans (69%) favor the U.S. taking steps to become carbon neutral by 2050. The same share of Americans (69%) say the U.S. should prioritize developing renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, over expanding the production of oil, coal and natural gas. Carbon neutrality means releasing no more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than is removed.

A chart that shows about seven-in-ten Americans prioritize alternative energy development and carbon neutrality.
Nine-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents support the U.S. taking steps to become carbon neutral by 2050. Among Republicans and Republican leaners, 44% support this goal and 53% oppose it. But there are important differences by age within the GOP: Two-thirds of Republicans under age 30 (67%) favor the U.S. taking steps to become carbon neutral, but about the same share of Republicans ages 65 and older (64%) oppose this.

Climate experts say it’s necessary to significantly reduce carbon emissions in order to slow the pace of climate change. Energy production and transportation are two high-emission sectors where efforts are being made to reduce emissions.

Americans are reluctant to phase out fossil fuels altogether, but younger adults are more open to it. Americans are wary of relying exclusively on renewable energy sources. About three-in-ten (31%) say the U.S. should completely phase out oil, coal and natural gas. More than twice as many (67%) say the country should use a mix of energy sources, including fossil fuels and renewables.

A chart showing that younger U.S. adults are more open than older adults to phasing out fossil fuels completely.
I support becoming carbon neutral by this time next year.
 
Green hydrogen and fcels involve zero emissions and zero child labor. India and most other countries are making large investments into hydrogen.


Do you think the oil business is healthy? Ever heard of erin brockovich? Saudis kill people over oil. Russians kill people for oil.

Don’t forget the US. Could attribute a few bodies to oil and the petro dollar.

It’s inarguable that big business and big government will do what’s in their best interest. When those profit interests align, as they do with oil, wars, Covid policy, climate change, etc. you should exercise a strong degree of skepticism before just relying on “consensus”. Doubly so when the free market is completely distorted (nonexistent) due to taxation and redistribution/incentive programs.

It’s always been obvious, but the coordinated corruption and profiteering was on such naked display during Covid, I don’t know how anyone with at least one functioning brain cell wouldn’t take a step back and wonder if the profiteers are doing the same thing with global warming.
 
So, are you one that denies global warming completely or do you think we are warming and there is nothing we can do about it?

- 66 percent of people in this country believe climate change is real

-99 percent of scientists
I believe that we’re probably not helping, to what degree I have no idea.

But I think you can’t expect us to dump 50 trillion into green energy while letting the biggest and third largest polluters off the hook and saying “well doing our best is better than nothing!”

That’s true, but losing global hegemony and tanking the economy to do it isn’t the answer. If we aren’t the worlds superpower basically everyone not aligned with china is touched.

I’d rather the whole thing burn down than have my kids, family, friends or myself subservient to a sino-russian alliance.

That’s basically asking black people if they’d rather stay alive but go back to slavery in 1830 or be dead.
 
Last edited:
I’m with you Rogue, and I don’t want 50 trillion spent on green by merica. I want American public and private businesses to produce the green hydrogen and build all the new machines and fuel cells. So that merica profits in multiple ways with millions of new jobs and less dependency on China and Russia and the saudis.
 
I’m with you Rogue, and I don’t want 50 trillion spent on green by merica. I want American public and private businesses to produce the green hydrogen and build all the new machines and fuel cells. So that merica profits in multiple ways with millions of new jobs and less dependency on China and Russia and the saudis.
100% on board with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kingseve1
I believe that we’re probably not helping, to what degree I have no idea.

But I think you can’t expect us to dump 50 trillion into green energy while letting the biggest and third largest polluters off the hook and saying “well doing our best is better than nothing!”

That’s true, but losing global hegemony and tanking the economy to do it isn’t the answer. If we aren’t the worlds superpower basically everyone not aligned with china is touched.

I’d rather the whole thing burn down than have my kids, family, friends or myself subservient to a sino-russian alliance.

That’s basically asking black people if they’d rather stay alive but go back to slavery in 1830 or be dead.

I think about 3% of the world’s power comes from wind and solar. 10% comes from wood. Solar and wind are not the future.
The bible tells us all things are possible though jesus. We just gotta pray harder for more solar panels and stop worshipping the big oil satan.
 
Jesus sounds far less expensive and just as likely to come up with a solution as you lunatics spending my tax dollars studying ways you can block the suns rays.

Earth’s been circling the sun for billions of years, climate’s been cycling throughout that entire time, but the grifters have you narcissistic morons convinced you’re going to effectively battle the Sun’s impact on the earth.

It’s debatable whether Christians or man made global warming alarmists require more faith.
 
Jesus sounds far less expensive and just as likely to come up with a solution as you lunatics spending my tax dollars studying ways you can block the suns rays.

Earth’s been circling the sun for billions of years, climate’s been cycling throughout that entire time, but the grifters have you narcissistic morons convinced you’re going to effectively battle the Sun’s impact on the earth.

It’s debatable whether Christians or man made global warming alarmists require more
Kudos, your retort is actually pretty funny.

But, God I hope your right. Can i go back to using lead paint and cfcs in my spray cans?
 
Last edited:
I’m with you Rogue, and I don’t want 50 trillion spent on green by merica. I want American public and private businesses to produce the green hydrogen and build all the new machines and fuel cells. So that merica profits in multiple ways with millions of new jobs and less dependency on China and Russia and the saudis.
Curious how you feel about nuclear power. Many 'greenies' are adamantly opposed to building a bunch of nuclear plants (no carbon emissions) while protesting oil/gas/coal. I've never understood the logic behind their stance unless you believe the green agenda is more about control, putting the US in its place, defeating capitalism than it is about 'saving' the earth. Personally, I believe the earth may be warming up but I firmly believe that natural occurring fluctuations in the energy we receive from the sun, the earth's orbit and longer-term natural cycles account for 1,000,000,000 X more than man's influence on the climate. I'm a passionate supporter of clean water, soil, air, etc. and believe we should do everything we can to preserve our natural habitat. Wrecking the US economy (probably causing a worldwide depression in the process) in pursuit of a goal that will not make a measurable difference in the climate is insane.

BTW, I, too, hope and believe hydrogen technology is the future, not solar/wind. I'm hoping the rest of the world continues developing the tech. We'd never be beholden to Russia, China, OPEC, etc. again.
 
Interesting article about 'hottest temperatures measured' claim. I didn't know that there are only 7 weather stations that monitor the oceans. So, 7 stations that monitor 75+ % of the earth's surface while there are 1200+ that monitor the US. Seems like there is a pretty high possibility that the data might contain pretty large statistical errors.

Actual records from NASA

If your "source" is AmericanThinker.com, then I'd say you still don't know
 
Jesus sounds far less expensive and just as likely to come up with a solution as you lunatics spending my tax dollars studying ways you can block the suns rays.

Earth’s been circling the sun for billions of years, climate’s been cycling throughout that entire time, but the grifters have you narcissistic morons convinced you’re going to effectively battle the Sun’s impact on the earth.

It’s debatable whether Christians or man made global warming alarmists require more faith.

They're both religions and that's a fact. Both rely on faith in the unseen and unproven.

I'm still shocked how few people are aware that about 20 years ago the "experts" had their emails hacked and leaked showing how they had to completely fabricate global warming numbers to make patterns to fit the narrative.
 
They're both religions and that's a fact. Both rely on faith in the unseen and unproven.

I'm still shocked how few people are aware that about 20 years ago the "experts" had their emails hacked and leaked showing how they had to completely fabricate global warming numbers to make patterns to fit the narrative.
I see you guys pray at the altar of the Koch family.
That email controversy was debunked and was just another tool of misinformation. Stop reading facebook feeds.
 
Same happened with food and the food pyramid. It was bought and paid for in the 50s-70s by corps that of course wanted their food to be eaten more often and scientists and doctors still just go with it for some reason.

They literally would do studies and take parts out that didn’t fit the narrative and never report them to the public besides the part they needed.

Watch FAT: A Documentary. Explains it all.

Just by using your brain you can deduce that you don’t need 6-11 servings of pasta and bread a day vs only 2-3 servings of meat, poultry, fish and eggs, aka protein. That’s just dumb in every possible way.
 
You just spent three years being lied to about "The Science" by three letter fed agencies.


Nasa is pure, though.

Must be that fourth letter.
Thank you I knew someone would reply to that post, wondered which one of you right wingers would take the bait. I probably would have bet on the two likes, but you win!

Let's see, NASA has landed men on the moon several times, launched many satellites, currently has robots and a drone on Mars. The other source was started 20 years ago by three guys and is a hyper partisan far right website. Wonder which one is more likely to be a source of reliable scientific information? Won't take a nanosecond to choose correctly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kingseve1
Thank you I knew someone would reply to that post, wondered which one of you right wingers would take the bait. I probably would have bet on the two likes, but you win!

Let's see, NASA has landed men on the moon several times, launched many satellites, currently has robots and a drone on Mars. The other source was started 20 years ago by three guys and is a hyper partisan far right website. Wonder which one is more likely to be a source of reliable scientific information? Won't take a nanosecond to choose correctly.
No, you win.


The others have gone rouge, but not nasa.




We just had a double letter fed that couldn't figure out how a powdery substance appeared in the most secure building in the world.


The governing left called all of the shots on social media and also tried to set up a Ministry of Truth to help educate/re-educate you on all issues.






You keep believing.
 
I’m on your side Kingseve, but you won’t change any of the uneducated closed minds that primarily congregate here. These people believe the earth is flat and drink 10w-30 as a protein shake. They still think because their mom smoked cigarettes and lived to 90 that cigarettes are a healthy lifestyle choice. They take a confident pride in their cultural stupidity and no one is going to tell them any different.
The brainwashed and miseducated always consider the intelligent people who think for themselves to be uneducated. All the examples you give are absurd and irrelevant.
 
If you feel like record-level extreme weather events are happening with alarming frequency, you’re not alone. Scientists say it’s not your imagination.

“The number of simultaneous weather extremes we’re seeing right now in the Northern Hemisphere seems to exceed anything at least in my memory,” Michael Mann, professor of earth and environmental science at the University of Pennsylvania, told CNBC.




Globally, June was the hottest June in the 174-year records kept by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the federal agency said on Thursday. It was the 47th consecutive June and the 532nd consecutive month in which average temperatures were above the average for the 20th century.

The amount of sea ice measured in June was the lowest global June sea ice on record, due primarily to record-low sea ice levels in the Antarctic, also according to NOAA.

There were nine tropical cyclones in June, defined as storms with wind speeds over 74 miles per hour, and the global accumulated cyclone energy, a measure of the collective duration and strength of tropical storms, was almost twice its average value for 1991–2020 in June, NOAA said.

As of Friday morning, 93 million people in the United States are under excessive heat warnings and heat advisories, the National Weather Service Weather Prediction Center, according to a bulletin published Friday morning. “A searing heat wave is set to engulf much of the West Coast, the Great Basin, and the Southwest,” the National Weather Service said.
 
Temperatures during the day in the desert regions of southern California, southern Nevada and southern Arizona could see high temperatures that top 120 degrees Fahrenheit in coming days, according to the National Weather Service.

Montpelier, Vermont, set an all-time record maximum for rain that has ever fallen in one day on Monday, according to the National Weather Service. “Make no mistake, the devastation and flooding we’re experiencing across Vermont is historic and catastrophic,” Vermont governor Phil Scott said on Tuesday.
Flooding in downtown Montpelier, Vermont on Tuesday, July 11, 2023. Vermont has been under a State of Emergency since Sunday evening as heavy rains continued through Tuesday morning causing flooding across the state.

Flooding in downtown Montpelier, Vermont on Tuesday, July 11, 2023. Vermont has been under a State of Emergency since Sunday evening as heavy rains continued through Tuesday morning causing flooding across the state.
The Washington Post | The Washington Post | Getty Images
On June 27, Canada surpassed the record set in 1989 for total area burned in one season when it reached 7.6 million hectares, or 18.8 million acres. And the total has since increased to 9.3 million hectares, or 23 million acres, which is being driven by record-breaking high temperatures, turning the vegetation into kindling for wildfires to race through.
Those record Canada wildfires have blanketed parts of the United States in smoke, causing some of the worst quality in the world at various points.
A view of the city as smoke from wildfires in Canada shrouds sky on June 30, 2023 in New York City, United States. Canadian wildfires smoke creating a dangerous haze as the air quality index reaches 160 in New York City. People warned to avoid outdoor physical activities and for those who spend time outdoors recommended to use well-fitting face masks when air quality is unhealthy.

A view of the city as smoke from wildfires in Canada shrouds sky on June 30, 2023 in New York City, United States. Canadian wildfires smoke creating a dangerous haze as the air quality index reaches 160 in New York City. People warned to avoid outdoor physical activities and for those who spend time outdoors recommended to use well-fitting face masks when air quality is unhealthy.
Anadolu Agency | Anadolu Agency | Getty Images
In all of 2022, there were 18 separate billion dollar weather and climate disaster events according to data from NOAA, including tornado outbreaks, high wind, hailstorms, tropical cyclones, flooding, drought, heatwaves and wildfires. So far, there have been 12 billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in 2023, according to NOAA.

More from CNBC Climate:​

Meet the 33-year-old Canadian chemist and the renowned MIT professor who are building the ‘electric vehicle of cement making’
Converting gas-powered cars to EVs is a booming business
Ex-Tesla engineer builds Aigen robots to eliminate weeds without pesticides
“This year will almost certainly break records for the number of extreme weather events,” Paul Ullrich, professor of regional and global climate modeling at University of California at Davis, told CNBC.
Global warming is making extreme weather events more severe, scientists said.
“Our own research shows that the observed trend toward more frequent persistent summer weather extremes — heat waves, floods, — is being driven by human-caused warming,” Mann told CNBC.
Ullrich agrees. “Increases in the frequency and intensity of heatwaves, floods and wildfires can be directly attributable to climate change,” Ullrich told CNBC.
Wildfire burns above the Fraser River Valley near Lytton, British Columbia, Canada, on Friday, July 2, 2021. A protracted heat wave continues to fuel scores of wildfires in Canada's western provinces, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau calling an emergency meeting of a cabinet crisis group to address the matter.

Wildfire burns above the Fraser River Valley near Lytton, British Columbia, Canada, on Friday, July 2, 2021. A protracted heat wave continues to fuel scores of wildfires in Canada’s western provinces, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau calling an emergency meeting of a cabinet crisis group to address the matter.
Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images
“Through the emission of greenhouse gases, we have been trapping more heat near the surface, leading to increases in temperature, more moisture in the air, and a drier land surface,” Ullrich said. “Scientists are extremely confident that an increasing frequency and intensity of extreme events is a direct consequence of human modification of the climate system.”
Also in June, the weather pattern called ”El Niño arrived.
El Niño is like adding lighter fuel to an already smoldering fire. “Under recently emergent El Niño conditions, temperatures are pushed higher worldwide, further compounding increases in temperature brought on by greenhouse gas emissions,” Ullrich said.
That combination of anthropogenic climate change and El Niño is “spiking some of these extreme events,” Mann said.


Animation of sea surface temperatures for past 6 months
NOAA
El Niño, which means “little boy” in Spanish, happens when the normal trade winds that blow west along the equator weaken and warmer water gets pushed o the east, toward the west coast of the Americas. In the United States, a moderate to strong El Niño in the fall and winter correlates with wetter-than-average conditions from southern California to the Gulf Coast, and drier-than-average conditions in the Pacific Northwest and Ohio Valley.
When global warming and El Niño are hitting at the same time, “it can be difficult separating what is just a weather event or if it is part of a longer trend,” Timothy Canty, professor in the department of atmospheric and oceanic science at University of Maryland, told CNBC.
But what is clear is that climate change makes it more likely that an extreme weather event will happen.
“Higher temperatures from climate change are indisputable, and with each degree increase we’re multiplying our changes of getting an extreme heat wave. In the wetter regions of the world, including the Northeastern US, we’re expecting more rain and more intense storms,” Ullrich told CNBC. “To avoid even more extreme changes, we need to both reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and act to clean up our polluted atmosphere.”
And as long as global greenhouse gas emissions continues to increase, the trend of more and more frequent extreme weather is expected to continue, Mann says.
Decreasing the greenhouse gas emissions released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels will help moderate the extreme weather trends.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Mdnerd
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT