Prior to 1950, 100 degree temperatures in the midwest were very common. They almost never happen any more.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Cheering Crowds
- Understanding Flood Mechanisms
- Extreme Weather
- 70C At Lisbon
- Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- “Earlier Than Usual”
- Perfect Correlation
- Elon’s Hockey Stick
- Latest Climate News
- “Climate dread is everywhere”
- “The Atmosphere Is ‘Thirstier.’”
- Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- “We Have To Vote For It So That You Can See What’s In It”
- Diversity Is Our Strength
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
- The Anti-Greta
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
- The Other Side Of The Pond
- “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
- Big Pharma Sales Tool
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- 622 billion tons of new ice
- Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
Recent Comments
- spren on Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- spren on Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- spren on Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- spren on Extreme Weather
- spren on Cheering Crowds
- arn on Cheering Crowds
- Gordon Vigurs on Understanding Flood Mechanisms
- Gordon Vigurs on Understanding Flood Mechanisms
- Gordon Vigurs on Understanding Flood Mechanisms
- Disillusioned on “Earlier Than Usual”
my understanding of long ago was that Greenhouse Gas theory was
More GHG = more cloud
More cloud = cooler days and warmer nights, effect most felt in winter (what’s not to like)
Your charts of declining maximums might be showing the effects of GHG – so long as it doesn’t drag us into an ice age, it is all good, better weather, longer growing seasons and increased C02 good for all that is growing.
There is no evidence to support that idea
1950 ~100°F
2010 ~ 97-98°F
60 year period gives around a 2°F-3°F fall.
The decline runs at about -1°F to 1.5°F per 30 years or so. That is still quite rapid, just not fast enough for most humans to ‘feel’.
~3.5°F fall over a lifespan will not be noticed.