wxmanX said:Global Time Series | Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) (noaa.gov)ShinerAggie said:
Don't know if you've ever seen this. Not as wide ranging as your list, but still very interesting.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/failed-prediction-timeline/
My degree in Geology. Collect rocks since I was 12. Found fossils in Wyoming and Big Bend, no seawater anywhere. Wrote code that Earth climate change through time.wxmanX said:What your degree in?Rockdoc said:wxmanX said:
yes, I am.
Do you not see my credentials?
BS/MS meteorology Texas A&M.
Yeah, I don't believe you are. I've had a 40 plus year career in the earth sciences and all you're doing is cherry picking left leaning articles. But you go girl.
Have you taken weather observations since you were 12 years old, looked at climate journals since high school? Doubt it. Do you still take weather observations every day?
Have you forecasted the weather for private companies since 1990? I doubt it.
Did you write code to track weather stations all across this world, looked at reanalysis data and plot it using using your own software you wrote---doubt it.
Climate and the Earth has changed for billions of years. Man has had a measurable impact on climate in 120 years? Great Lakes were formed by glaciers. Wyoming and Montana were in a shallow inland sea.wxmanX said:
cool, you don't see me talking smack about geology.
But I will talk smack about meteorology and climatology.
"Bioethicist", S. Matthew Liao: In order to tackle "climate change", humans should be genetically modified to be intolerant to meat.
— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) September 5, 2023
"If we eat less meat, we could significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Now, some people would be willing to eat less meat, but they… pic.twitter.com/0kM4I8mnf0
oh no said:
I will continue to resist the communist and tyrannical agenda of xwomanx's religion. More government and more taxes are never the correct answers."Bioethicist", S. Matthew Liao: In order to tackle "climate change", humans should be genetically modified to be intolerant to meat.
— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) September 5, 2023
"If we eat less meat, we could significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Now, some people would be willing to eat less meat, but they… pic.twitter.com/0kM4I8mnf0
"Bioethicist", S. Matthew Liao: In order to tackle "climate change", humans should be genetically modified to be intolerant to meat.
"If we eat less meat, we could significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Now, some people would be willing to eat less meat, but they lack the willpower. Human engineering could help... We could artificially induce intolerance to meat, and in this way, we can create an aversion to eating eco unfriendly food."
We had been in a cold period for the previous 700 or 800 years or so and were warming up from it. Thank goodness we aren't still in that cold period.wxmanX said:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/1/7/1900-2023?filter=true&filterType=loess
ShinerAggie said:
Don't know if you've ever seen this. Not as wide ranging as your list, but still very interesting.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/failed-prediction-timeline/
Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:Climate and the Earth has changed for billions of years. Man has had a measurable impact on climate in 120 years? Great Lakes were formed by glaciers. Wyoming and Montana were in a shallow inland sea.wxmanX said:
cool, you don't see me talking smack about geology.
But I will talk smack about meteorology and climatology.
There is no climate crisis. Just a continuation of the same oscillating (periodic warming) Holocene temperature interglacial pattern of the last 10,000 yrs. This will continue until the next major glaciation, some thousand(s) yrs into the future. Start seriously worrying then. pic.twitter.com/7OBqb8llT3
— Robert Fagan (@fagandr1) March 4, 2021
VitruvianAg said:Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:Climate and the Earth has changed for billions of years. Man has had a measurable impact on climate in 120 years? Great Lakes were formed by glaciers. Wyoming and Montana were in a shallow inland sea.wxmanX said:
cool, you don't see me talking smack about geology.
But I will talk smack about meteorology and climatology.There is no climate crisis. Just a continuation of the same oscillating (periodic warming) Holocene temperature interglacial pattern of the last 10,000 yrs. This will continue until the next major glaciation, some thousand(s) yrs into the future. Start seriously worrying then. pic.twitter.com/7OBqb8llT3
— Robert Fagan (@fagandr1) March 4, 2021
This graph is the best demonstrator of the alarmist NS
Pepper Brooks said:
Worth a read.
Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters
https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798?nodl=1&dplnkId=e4b34e9e-729b-4370-9fc8-6e7eabbe11b0
I don't know...this has to be right up there:VitruvianAg said:Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:Climate and the Earth has changed for billions of years. Man has had a measurable impact on climate in 120 years? Great Lakes were formed by glaciers. Wyoming and Montana were in a shallow inland sea.wxmanX said:
cool, you don't see me talking smack about geology.
But I will talk smack about meteorology and climatology.There is no climate crisis. Just a continuation of the same oscillating (periodic warming) Holocene temperature interglacial pattern of the last 10,000 yrs. This will continue until the next major glaciation, some thousand(s) yrs into the future. Start seriously worrying then. pic.twitter.com/7OBqb8llT3
— Robert Fagan (@fagandr1) March 4, 2021
This graph is the best demonstrator of the alarmist NS
I guess we'd all better get on with the dying as we will need 19 people PER SECOND to die from "climate" change to reach that mark in 100 years.Quote:
Researchers from Canada and Australia have published a study predicting a remarkable one billion deaths from climate change over the next 100 years.
Citing a "scientific consensus," the authors analyzed 180 studies on climate change and mortality, converging on a "1000-ton rule," which means for every 1,000 tons of fossil fuel burned, a person dies.
The article, published in the journal Energies, contends that "a future person is killed every time humanity burns 1000 tons of fossil carbon," based on a calculation that "burning a trillion tons of fossil carbon will cause 2C of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), which in turn will cause roughly a billion future premature deaths spread over a period of very roughly one century."
Estimates of world population growth suggest that by 2100 there will be just over 10 billion humans on the planet, meaning that 10 percent of humanity will die from climate change, if the study's authors are to be believed.
Maybe so, but I think we'd notice an extra 19 people per second kicking the bucket over an above the normal mortality rate. If they attempt to twist the statistics to prove their claim but the background mortality rate remains unchanged, then that's pretty weak sauce.Mr Mojo Risin said:
Oh they've got this. I'm sure premature death in this case is anyone who dies before the median life expectancy in their particular country or region. Based on that alone, half the deaths across the globe can be attributed to MMGW/CC.
They'll topple that 1B hypothesis with ease.
^fullback44 said:
All / most of the the science deniers seem to just show up on these type posts.. most no Agtag. Just random people purchasing a subscription and then posting .. doesn't that seem odd?
But that's the beauty of it, roughly 50-60M people die each year around the globe. The "premature deaths due to AGW" is such a nebulous phrase that they will be "right" no matter the true outcome.ShinerAggie said:Maybe so, but I think we'd notice an extra 19 people per second kicking the bucket over an above the normal mortality rate. If they attempt to twist the statistics to prove their claim but the background mortality rate remains unchanged, then that's pretty weak sauce.Mr Mojo Risin said:
Oh they've got this. I'm sure premature death in this case is anyone who dies before the median life expectancy in their particular country or region. Based on that alone, half the deaths across the globe can be attributed to MMGW/CC.
They'll topple that 1B hypothesis with ease.
However, to your point, starting a world war or unleashing a more deadly virus to reduce world population could be much more effective at achieving their Malthusian goals.
That does seem to be their MO, sadly. They hide in the shadows waiting to trot out dubious calculations with no supporting scientific data or methodology.Mr Mojo Risin said:But that's the beauty of it, roughly 50-60M people die each year around the globe. The "premature deaths due to AGW" is such a nebulous phrase that they will be "right" no matter the true outcome.ShinerAggie said:Maybe so, but I think we'd notice an extra 19 people per second kicking the bucket over an above the normal mortality rate. If they attempt to twist the statistics to prove their claim but the background mortality rate remains unchanged, then that's pretty weak sauce.Mr Mojo Risin said:
Oh they've got this. I'm sure premature death in this case is anyone who dies before the median life expectancy in their particular country or region. Based on that alone, half the deaths across the globe can be attributed to MMGW/CC.
They'll topple that 1B hypothesis with ease.
However, to your point, starting a world war or unleashing a more deadly virus to reduce world population could be much more effective at achieving their Malthusian goals.
Quote:
Per CERES observations the surface incident shortwave (SW) radiation anomaly increased by +1.61 W/m from 2001 to 2019, and +1.75 W/m from 2001 to 2021 (Ollila, 2023).
This SW increase is likely due to natural variations in cloud cover albedo, or reflectiveness; it can explain global warming (0.46C) over this period.
The IPCC and climate activists have been downplaying or dismissing the increase in downwelling SW radiation as a driver of warming, as this "challenges the basis of the [climate models]" that attribute warming almost exclusively to human activities. (emphasis mine)
Quote:
Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) trends have also been linked to long-term climate warming since 1750.
Most TSI reconstruction studies depict TSI rising by ~3 W/m from 1900 to the 1930s (from -2 W/m below to +1 W/m above the reference level), and then TSI is "about 1.5 W/m higher than the reference level" from around 1990 onward.
In all, TSI has increased by 1.1 W/m since 1750, which is a non-negligible contribution to global warming.
"[T]he temperature impact of the TSI change of 1.1 W/m from 1750 to 2020 would be 0.32C."
riveting article you posted there. it's conclusion:wxmanX said:
https://artsci.tamu.edu/news/2023/07/whats-causing-earths-hottest-days-to-date-and-what-does-it-mean-for-our-planet.html
Quote:
What are the potential implications and consequences of this record being broken?
The primary consequence of the record being broken is that it is a news event that provides an opportunity to put climate change in the headlines.
Quote:
What steps (if any) can humans take to prevent the continuous record-breaking cycles?
This record will be broken again in a few years, and there's nothing we can do about that.
Does a person need a degree in science to know when the scientific method is purposefully not being used to arrive at "science?"wxmanX said:What your degree in?Rockdoc said:wxmanX said:
yes, I am.
Do you not see my credentials?
BS/MS meteorology Texas A&M.
Yeah, I don't believe you are. I've had a 40 plus year career in the earth sciences and all you're doing is cherry picking left leaning articles. But you go girl.
This is my favorite line:oh no said:riveting article you posted there. it's conclusion:wxmanX said:
https://artsci.tamu.edu/news/2023/07/whats-causing-earths-hottest-days-to-date-and-what-does-it-mean-for-our-planet.htmlQuote:
What are the potential implications and consequences of this record being broken?
The primary consequence of the record being broken is that it is a news event that provides an opportunity to put climate change in the headlines.Quote:
What steps (if any) can humans take to prevent the continuous record-breaking cycles?
This record will be broken again in a few years, and there's nothing we can do about that.
Quote:
At least hurricanes are doing what they do best, cooling the ocean...
