Any guesses to the amount of CO2 generated by recent fires in Canada, western US and Hawaii compared to ol' everyday CO2 production?

I bet it is A LOT.

ShinerAggie said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Eliminating meat, forcing EV adoption, running the grid on niche energy like solar and wind, etc is insane.

---

And things like THIS are exactly what's evil about the whole scam:

Biden's Multi-Billion Dollar Carbon Capture Gamble

1. $3.5 BILLION wasted on things like this when that money could actually be used to feed and house people or do things other than make politicians rich.

2. The underpinning assumption is that CO2 is bad, but there is a very real possibility that the world is operating at a CO2 deficiency with respect to vegetative and agricultural demand. We should be working on how to feed all of the people in the world, not squandering resources on misguided and bassackward attempts to address an non-issue.

3. And, as mentioned above, ALL of this is negated by the emissions of the two most populous, non-participating nations in the world.

The whole thing is criminal, but I don't think there's enough humility in the world to stop the madness, admit mistakes, and rectify the abhorrent misuse of resources.

---

Well said. The only thing this project is capturing is our tax money and then 10% of it is sequestered into FJB's pockets.

It's 100 with a heat index of 115.

But the reality is we haven't been very hot much of the summer

Dry? Yes.

But not triple digits more than a couple of times

Austin, TX most 105F's on record, same with College Station, today probably hitting 110F College Station.

wxmanX said:

---

Austin, TX most 105F's on record, same with College Station, today probably hitting 110F College Station.

---

And?

Heat happens.
Ice happens.


Is your A/C on right now?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

This is about science and fact.

---

So how much has the temperature of the oceans risen? You stated this as fact, so please share it.

---

It's hot, in the summer, in August, in Texas. Stop the presses!

We should really only be concerned if it was unseasonably cold right now.

wxmanX said:

---

Austin, TX most 105F's on record, same with College Station, today probably hitting 110F College Station.

---

You seem to post at a primitive level. In early Sept 2000 Austin hit 112. Thoughts ? Do you have any or do you parrot cheap talking points. In 1936 more states recorded all time highs than any other year by far.

So Austin's 105 run is not terribly impressive vs actual historical facts.

wxmanX said:

---

Austin, TX most 105F's on record, same with College Station, today probably hitting 110F College Station.

---

LOL.

It's 70 in Las Vegas right now. Today's weather means nothing. There are always aberrations somewhere.

wxmanX said:

---

Austin, TX most 105F's on record, same with College Station, today probably hitting 110F College Station.

---

That's called a summer hot spell. Daily weather. Not climate change. This is so ridiculous.

wxmanX said:

---

Austin, TX most 105F's on record, same with College Station, today probably hitting 110F College Station.

---

"record" is weak, even for you.

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

wxmanX said:

---

Austin, TX most 105F's on record, same with College Station, today probably hitting 110F College Station.

---

Blame that Big Blue H sitting over Texas right now.

You know the one forcing the air to sink and heat up, also preventing tropical moisture, but you knew that because you've studied physics

---

Da H is homa.

wxmanX said:

---

Austin, TX most 105F's on record, same with College Station, today probably hitting 110F College Station.

---

Emotions aren't science. Being hot where you are isn't necessarily climate change.

wxmanX said:

---

Austin, TX most 105F's on record, same with College Station, today probably hitting 110F College Station.

---

I thought you left the chat?

Just got back from TN. Last week was unseasonably cool, Wednesday had a high of 75! Rest of the week was highs in the high 70s and low 80s. Was a very nice break!

This week they go back to highs in the high 90s.

wxmanX said:

---

Austin, TX most 105F's on record, same with College Station, today probably hitting 110F College Station.

---

So no response to the Evans video and associated content?

Strange for someone so cocksure of themselves.

I just find it so odd that people who consider themselves scientists are not actually concerned that they're spewing non-science. They're not even interested in the science.

MaroonStain said:

---

Any guesses to the amount of CO2 generated by recent fires in Canada, western US and Hawaii compared to ol' everyday CO2 production?

I bet it is A LOT.

---

It'll probably move the needle to .0041% of the Earth's atmosphere.

Climate Models do not Conserve Mass or Energy

Quote:

---

One of the most fundamental requirements of any physics-based model of climate change is that it must conserve mass and energy. This is partly why I (along with Danny Braswell and John Christy) have been using simple 1-dimensional climate models that have simplified calculations and where conservation is not a problem.

Changes in the global energy budget associated with increasing atmospheric CO2 are small, roughly 1% of the average radiative energy fluxes in and out of the climate system. So, you would think that climate models are sufficiently carefully constructed so that, without any global radiative energy imbalance imposed on them (no "external forcing"), that they would not produce any temperature change.

It turns out, this isn't true.

Back in 2014 our 1D model paper showed evidence that CMIP3 models don't conserve energy, as evidenced by the wide range of deep-ocean warming (and even cooling) that occurred in those models despite the imposed positive energy imbalance the models were forced with to mimic the effects of increasing atmospheric CO2.

Now, I just stumbled upon a paper from 2021 (Irving et al., A Mass and Energy Conservation Analysis of Drift in the CMIP6 Ensemble) which describes significant problems in the latest (CMIP5 and CMIP6) models regarding not only energy conservation in the ocean but also at the top-of-atmosphere (TOA, thus affecting global warming rates) and even the water vapor budget of the atmosphere (which represents the largest component of the global greenhouse effect).

These represent potentially serious problems when it comes to our reliance on climate models to guide energy policy. It boggles my mind that conservation of mass and energy were not requirements of all models before their results were released decades ago.

---

What is a tropical cyclone and what happened to tropical depression?

Leftists must somehow think conservation laws are part of the oppressive patriarchy and therefore not applicable.

Just checking in to see if womanx is still getting her liberal ass kicked.

Fact check: She is.

4 More Temperature Reconstructions Fail To Support The 'Unprecedented' Global Warming Narrative

Quote:

---

From 1785-2015 (231 years), the warmest 21-year period in India's Himalayan region occurred from 1890-1910 (Rastogi et al., 2023). The years spanning 1995-2015 were the 4th warmest and 1946-1966 was the 2nd warmest period.

---

Quote:

---

Over the last 1000 years along Eurasia's extensive Silk Road trade routes, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was warmer than the Current Warm Period (CWP), as "the amplitude of the warming during the CWP did not exceed that during the MWP" (Chen et al., 2023).

---

Quote:

---

Temperatures in northeastern Asia are no warmer today than the 1800s or 1940s (Du et al., 2023). The warmest period in the Common Era occurred during Medieval times (830-850 CE).

In the last 170 years, 8 of the 10 coldest years occurred between 1965-2012.

---

Quote:

---

A new study finds reconstructed temperatures in Iran align well with the "actual" temperatures for recent decades (1976-2014). And when the reconstructed temperature record is extended to 1657, the long-term trend shows no net warming trend in the last 357 years.

---

But, but, but....it's GLOBULL!

wxmanX said:

---

I should just trust myself, and all the climate scientists I've worked with, some with PHD's from MIT.

I'm sure you guys are smarter than he is. I can just tell by the intelligence on this board.

Specifically, the dude who had some PHD in genetics, that makes you a great meteorologist or climate scientist.

---

And yet you made no effort to refute any of the points I made. Regardless of specific discipline, the core aspects of being a research scientist are the same in following the scientific method:

1. Perform literature review and identify a knowledge gap.
2. Construct a hypothesis.
3. Design an experiment to collect data and test hypothesis.
4. Perform statistical analyses to determine significance of quantitative results.
5. Publish findings of significant results.

Climate "scientists" ignore the goal of the last 2. If their stats are terrible and non-significant, they publish anyway and proclaim it as truth. Look no further than the trash article that was posted on another thread about CO2 release by Volcanoes and its 54% margin of error. That's not science; it's a joke. If that's the kind of studies being put out by your MIT graduated friends, then MIT should take their PhDs back to protect MIT's reputation.

Anyone who's done real research science or advanced data analytics can read a journal article and determine if its methodology, use of data, statistical analyses, and conclusions are sound. Hell, anyone who's actually passed a class in statistics should know enough to recognize unacceptable error margins and question the validity of any related results and conclusions.

Courtesy of Tony Heller:

A local town delayed school until next week because of the heat wave.
Some of their bus routes can take 60-90 minutes and are not air conditioned. So with heat indexes over 115 some days, they decided to delay.

Still don't believe in man made global climate change though.

I just ***** about the heat

Everyone's complaining about this year but last year was much worse. It didn't really get hot hot in Texas until July. June was great imo. And we actually had a great spring this year.

German Scientists: Global Warming A "Corrupt", Fear-Mongering Scheme "Headed By Super-Rich"

Quote:

---

The business model "global warming" is mainly corrupt and is run by paid scientists and organizations and is headed by a super rich group of billionaires. Their aim is not to protect the climate, but to generate funds for themselves and their dubious machinations.

Their goal is to introduce a CO2-emission tax, like the sin-emission model in the Middle Ages, in which all the states, the politicians and corrupt scientific institutions make money. Their approach is fear and panic mongering by claiming that the end of the world is coming and that it is due to man burning fossil fuel.

This business model also involves the media who employ trained fear reporters who are referred to as "experts". Their mission is to work for the profitable business model of global warming and climate death. They are experts of fear-mongering and the propagation of the CO2-climate lie.

These alarmists are rewarded for their fear exaggerations and brazen lies designed by advertising strategists at PIK Potsdam with goodwill, continued employment and career advancement. Normal taxpayers pay for everything out of a bad conscience and with the belief it will prevent the alleged climatic world end.

The poor of the world will get nothing of it, however, because the money flows exclusively into the pockets of the followers of this modern indulgence trade. Really respectable experts are marginalized and disparaged, as for example the Nobel prize winner Professor Clauser (here). These distinguished experts never get mentioned at all in the German media.

---

Glad to see recipes improving beyond fried eggs!

And yet, somehow this is okay:

Climate grant illustrates growth in philanthropy-funded news

Quote:

---

NEW YORK (AP) The Associated Press said Tuesday that it is assigning more than two dozen journalists across the world to cover climate issues (read: climate propaganda)*, in the news organization's largest single expansion paid for through philanthropic grants.

The announcement illustrates how philanthropy has swiftly become an important new funding source for journalism at the AP and elsewhere at a time when the industry's financial outlook has been otherwise bleak.

---

*emphasis mine

ShinerAggie said:

---

Glad to see recipes improving beyond fried eggs!

---

Or windshield cookies

ShinerAggie said:

---

Climate Models do not Conserve Mass or Energy

Quote:

---

One of the most fundamental requirements of any physics-based model of climate change is that it must conserve mass and energy. This is partly why I (along with Danny Braswell and John Christy) have been using simple 1-dimensional climate models that have simplified calculations and where conservation is not a problem.

Changes in the global energy budget associated with increasing atmospheric CO2 are small, roughly 1% of the average radiative energy fluxes in and out of the climate system. So, you would think that climate models are sufficiently carefully constructed so that, without any global radiative energy imbalance imposed on them (no "external forcing"), that they would not produce any temperature change.

It turns out, this isn't true.

Back in 2014 our 1D model paper showed evidence that CMIP3 models don't conserve energy, as evidenced by the wide range of deep-ocean warming (and even cooling) that occurred in those models despite the imposed positive energy imbalance the models were forced with to mimic the effects of increasing atmospheric CO2.

Now, I just stumbled upon a paper from 2021 (Irving et al., A Mass and Energy Conservation Analysis of Drift in the CMIP6 Ensemble) which describes significant problems in the latest (CMIP5 and CMIP6) models regarding not only energy conservation in the ocean but also at the top-of-atmosphere (TOA, thus affecting global warming rates) and even the water vapor budget of the atmosphere (which represents the largest component of the global greenhouse effect).

These represent potentially serious problems when it comes to our reliance on climate models to guide energy policy. It boggles my mind that conservation of mass and energy were not requirements of all models before their results were released decades ago.

---

---

So people developing these complex climate models don't incorporate the most fundamental laws of physics - ie the conservation of mass and energy?

As an engineer that has spent a career doing energy and mass balances on a smaller scale, I concur with what these guys are saying..