Climate Change Mega Thread

[foenix]

2014 to 2016 was also a strong long lasting El Nino. When climate is warming, which isn't a bad thing, all recent years will be the warmest, LOL. Be glad the globe is not cooling, and the globe will never be static. Unfortunately the horrible warming places 2021 in 8th spot with doesn't make it sound like an emergency.

....except as usual, you've glossed over this part......

Nineteen of the hottest years have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998, which was helped by a very strong El Niño. The year 2020 tied with 2016 for the hottest year on record since record-keeping began in 1880

It's not just a couple of years.....it's been over 2 decades where we've had record setting ever increasing temperatures.....nudge me when it starts to get cooler for the next 20 years perhaps you might have a case.

[foenix]

You're really stuck on bad-skeptical science I see (John Cook - the guy you always quote that dresses up in Nazi uniforms. Like Trudeau always doing black-face)

Skeptical Science site is far from skeptical, and the author is a cartoonist by trade.

You know one's lost an argument when one has to resort to name calling ....but I don't mind getting in the trenches

If Skeptical Science is bad science, what's whatsupwiththat then? ......it's a bafflegabble of misleading, untruthful pseudo science, run by an ex TV weatherman funded by the climate denier think tank Heartland Institute. At least John Cook has a PhD in cognitive science and trained in solar phsics.....what's your guy got? .....oh yeah another Mike Roberts.

Watts's blog has been criticized for inaccuracy. The Guardian columnist George Monbiot described WUWT as "highly partisan and untrustworthy". Leo Hickman, at The Guardian's Environment Blog, also criticized Watts's blog, stating that Watts "risks polluting his legitimate scepticism about the scientific processes and methodologies underpinning climate science with his accompanying politicised commentary.

[foenix]

We all know the issues with UAH6 and ALL THE OTHER temperature data sets. At least with UAH, we know the issues and make adjustments. UAH is accurate, plus it measures the entire globe, unlike GISS that has a limited set of thermometers and many of the data collection sites have issues.

Do you know all the adjustments that have been done to GISS? Without the adjustments the raw data shows very little warming if at all. GISS tends to run hotter today, but not in the past. Even GISS shows no correlation with CO2.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/03/ ... justments/


MSU UAH GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979 AndCO2 NEW.gif

GISS GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958 AndCO2 NEW.gif


AllCompared GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958 AndCO2.gif

Are we talking about Steve McIntyre of the Climate Fraudit that unsuccessfully tried to debunk the hockey stick?

Steve McIntyre is a former statistician and minerals prospector and currently a prominent global warming denier.......He managed to get a shoddy paper attempting to "debunk" the "hockey stick" published that has itself been repeatedly debunked since its publication

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_McIntyre

The "hockey stick" describes a reconstruction of past temperature over the past 1000 to 2000 years using tree-rings, ice cores, coral and other records that act as proxies for temperature (Mann 1999). The reconstruction found that global temperature gradually cooled over the last 1000 years with a sharp upturn in the 20th Century. The principal result from the hockey stick is that global temperatures over the last few decades are the warmest in the last 1000 years.........

An independent assessment of Mann's hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick - that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.

a.gif

b.gif

c.gif

https://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

[Jlabute]

You know one's lost an argument when one has to resort to name calling ....but I don't mind getting in the trenches

Since you actually started the 'source' denigrating and do it in practically every comment, I would assume it is your primary mode and you don't even realize you are doing it. I'm just giving you a heads up on the author wo likes to pretend he's a Nazi. I only use WUWT sometimes. Certainly you've seen his pictures by now.

If Skeptical Science is bad science, what's whatsupwiththat then? ..... it's a bafflegabble of misleading, untruthful pseudo science, run by an ex TV weatherman funded by the climate denier think tank Heartland Institute. At least John Cook has a PhD in cognitive science and trained in solar physics ... what's your guy got? ..... oh yeah another Mike Roberts.

Watts's blog has been criticized for inaccuracy. The Guardian columnist George Monbiot described WUWT as "highly partisan and untrustworthy". Leo Hickman, at The Guardian's Environment Blog, also criticized Watts's blog, stating that Watts "risks polluting his legitimate skepticism about the scientific processes and methodologies underpinning climate science with his accompanying politicized commentary.

"The Guardian"? LOL. The most biased and ridiculous activist mag.

John Cook is a cartoonist and trained as a web developer for most of his career. He did do physics. They are trying hard to cover a lot of this up. WUWT has a Top 100 science site award. All you know about WUWT is you don't agree with their opinions and ignore actual studies. This is not a mode of operation for Skeptical Science. They only push their own opinion and ban counter opinions.

WUWT also highlights ridiculous studies and claims which they publicly refute. They don't ban the climate people but talk to them. This is what most climate science is today, opinion, politics, and baseless non-scientific claims. The Heartland institute has many knowledgeable climate scientists behind them. many of these people get to speak before congress and offer their knowledge about climate. Don't you think it is strange that 97% of the 'believers' think it is the 3% holding the rest behind? LOL. Not that the consensus is true obviously. It is another John Cook invention.

[Jlabute]

We all know the issues with UAH6 and ALL THE OTHER temperature data sets. At least with UAH, we know the issues and make adjustments. UAH is accurate, plus it measures the entire globe, unlike GISS that has a limited set of thermometers and many of the data collection sites have issues.

Do you know all the adjustments that have been done to GISS? Without the adjustments the raw data shows very little warming if at all. GISS tends to run hotter today, but not in the past. Even GISS shows no correlation with CO2.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/03/ ... justments/

Are we talking about Steve McIntyre of the Climate Fraudit that unsuccessfully tried to debunk the hockey stick?

Steve McIntyre is a former statistician and minerals prospector and currently a prominent global warming denier.......He managed to get a shoddy paper attempting to "debunk" the "hockey stick" published that has itself been repeatedly debunked since its publication

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_McIntyre

The "hockey stick" describes a reconstruction of past temperature over the past 1000 to 2000 years using tree-rings, ice cores, coral and other records that act as proxies for temperature (Mann 1999). The reconstruction found that global temperature gradually cooled over the last 1000 years with a sharp upturn in the 20th Century. The principal result from the hockey stick is that global temperatures over the last few decades are the warmest in the last 1000 years.........

An independent assessment of Mann's hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick - that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.

https://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

No one can dispute the fake hockey stick. The data and techniques used by Mann are proprietary to him as he says, and he has not released his work for public scrutiny. The 'idea' of the hockey stick doesn't hold true in light of many other studies and current climate trends. The validity of temperature relating directly to CO2 is failing.

pages_12k2-720x522.png

Of course, Chinese scientists do not have a 'hockey stick'. MOST consider the hockey stick as a failed attempt at proxy analysis. If you look at the trees that Mann ignored, you don't see a hockey stick. Many studies conclude a cyclic nature to temperature.

liu-2011-tibet-tree-rings-2485-year-web.gif

https://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chine ... -til-2068/

[captkirkcanada]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/plans-f ... boost.html

Eleven projects centered around floating wind technology are a step closer to fruition following a tranche of investment aimed at making the most of Britain’s windy coastlines.

The U.K. government said it would invest a total of £31.6 million (around $42.57 million) in the projects. In addition, over £30 million of cash is set to come from private industry.

more and more every day coming online, even warren buffet is investing 4 billion in a starter project

[foenix]

You know one's lost an argument when one has to resort to name calling ....but I don't mind getting in the trenches

Since you actually started the 'source' denigrating and do it in practically every comment, I would assume it is your primary mode and you don't even realize you are doing it. I'm just giving you a heads up on the author wo likes to pretend he's a Nazi. I only use WUWT sometimes. Certainly you've seen his pictures by now.

If Skeptical Science is bad science, what's whatsupwiththat then? ..... it's a bafflegabble of misleading, untruthful pseudo science, run by an ex TV weatherman funded by the climate denier think tank Heartland Institute. At least John Cook has a PhD in cognitive science and trained in solar physics ... what's your guy got? ..... oh yeah another Mike Roberts.

"The Guardian"? LOL. The most biased and ridiculous activist mag.

John Cook is a cartoonist and trained as a web developer for most of his career. He did do physics. They are trying hard to cover a lot of this up. WUWT has a Top 100 science site award. All you know about WUWT is you don't agree with their opinions and ignore actual studies. This is not a mode of operation for Skeptical Science. They only push their own opinion and ban counter opinions.

Really? It looks like a twitter photoshop to me......you have evidence he's a Nazi?

Oh please....a website run by an ex TV weather guy that has a reputation for pseudo science and it's not just the Guardian saying it. Their "science" when they get examined under careful scrutiny falls apart like a crumble cake. The reason get those awards is because they have to beg for them, not do it naturally.

Between 2008 and 2013, WUWT asked its readers to vote in several internet voting-based awards, and it won "best science blog" and "best blog" from the Bloggies[30] and the conservative Wizbang Weblog Awards. In 2013, Leo Hickman wrote in The Guardian Environment Blog that 13 of the 17 blogs nominated for the Science or Technology category for the Bloggies "were either run by climate sceptics, or popular with climate sceptics". The Bloggies founder acknowledged in 2013 that "climate sceptic" bloggers had influenced voting. He said "Unfortunately, I have no good solution for it, since they follow proper voting procedures and legitimate science blogs don't want to make an effort to compete." He discontinued the science category in 2014.WUWT did not win "Best Topical Weblog of the Year" 2014 as Watts claimed, but did enter the Hall of Fame that year

Sheesh!

[foenix]

Are we talking about Steve McIntyre of the Climate Fraudit that unsuccessfully tried to debunk the hockey stick?



https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_McIntyre



https://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

No one can dispute the fake hockey stick. The data and techniques used by Mann are proprietary to him as he says, and he has not released his work for public scrutiny. The 'idea' of the hockey stick doesn't hold true in light of many other studies and current climate trends. The validity of temperature relating directly to CO2 is failing.


pages_12k2-720x522.png


Of course, Chinese scientists do not have a 'hockey stick'. MOST consider the hockey stick as a failed attempt at proxy analysis. If you look at the trees that Mann ignored, you don't see a hockey stick. Many studies conclude a cyclic nature to temperature.

liu-2011-tibet-tree-rings-2485-year-web.gif


https://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chine ... -til-2068/

Isn't there something wrong when a supposed scientist and a researcher doesn't release the DATA and TECHNIQUES used in his research? Whatever happened to "peer review"? That's not how valid scientific research is done. You should know that. What's he scared of?

The 2006 North Report published by the United States National Academy of Sciences endorsed the MBH studies with a few reservations. The principal component analysis methodology had a small tendency to bias results so was not recommended, but it had little influence on the final reconstructions, and other methods produced similar results. Mann has said his findings have been "independently verified by independent teams using alternative methods and alternative data sources." More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original hockey stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears

So it appears Mann doesn't want to show his work and how he arrived at his conclusions but wants us to believe in faith based...."because I said so"? Sounds typical.

......and why is it all these other people that are brought out have nothing to do with climate science but still have that commonality.....funding sources....

For four years, Nova jointly co-ordinated the Shell Questacon Science Circus, a partnership between Questacon, the Shell Oil Company Australia and the Australian National University, which operates all over Australia.........

She self-published the book The Skeptics Handbook, which rejects the scientific consensus on climate change and promotes various falsehoods about climate change.The book argues that temperatures have not increased, and that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change.The book promotes the myth that there is already so much CO2 in the atmosphere that adding more will not have an impact on temperatures.The book was widely distributed in the United States by The Heartland Institute, known primarily for promoting pseudoscientific views on climate change and the harms of smoking. In 2009, Nova self-published a sequel, Global Bullies Want Your Money, and in the same year she wrote a paper for the SPPI titled Climate Money. That year, she gave a presentation at the Heartland Institute, titled "The Great Global Fawning: How Science Journalists Pay Homage to Non-Science and Un-Reason."

She has falsely claimed that fewer than half of climate scientists agree with the IPCC's conclusion that CO2 is the dominant contributor to climate change. PolitiFact described that as a "flat-out wrong" interpretation of data from a survey, and the lead author of the survey in question said that the survey showed "a strong majority of scientists agree that greenhouse gases originating from human activity are the dominant cause of recent warming." Nova has argued that climate science is distorted by money, saying "thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite."

I agree, (anti) climate science is distorted by money and she and Mann are the prime examples.

[captkirkcanada]

https://apnews.com/article/science-busi ... 7cb62a3aa7

The Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday approved a measure to ban new oil and gas wells and phase out existing ones.

The council directed the city attorney to draft an ordinance to prohibit oil and gas drilling in Los Angeles, change zoning laws to make drilling illegal and study how to legally phase out existing wells. The council also created a jobs program to transition oil and gas workers to other industries.

it is all coming to an end.

[captkirkcanada]

looks like teck has bought into the climate change hoax to the tune of billions.

https://www.castanet.net/news/Business/ ... haul-fleet

[JagXKR]

it is all coming to an end.

You are right, ....sort of.
It is coming to an end, mass migration away from California. Away from eco terroristic views and left wing dogma.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... _migration

[Jlabute]

^^^

California the leftist eco state is becoming a third world. Bad bad leftists and all their policies.

https://californiaglobe.com/articles/go ... d-country/

[Jlabute]

New coral reef study determines the following contrary to false alarms.

1) Coral reefs “develop rapidly in the warm period” (Roman, Medieval), and “coral reefs develop slowly in the cold period” (Little Ice Age, the Dark Ages Cold Period). Why? Because “warm periods are conducive to coral growth.”

2) Coral reef growth rates have rapidly accelerated in the last 300 years, or since the industrial revolution commenced.

3) Sea levels were 2 meters higher than they are today ~4,000 years ago, and still about 1 meter higher than today 1,000 years ago, or during the Medieval Warm Period. Lower sea levels produce a “decline in the coral reef development rate”.

4) The South China Sea surface temperatures were “3 to 6°C higher than today” from about 5,000 to 4,000 years ago; coral reefs developed rapidly in that warmth.




https://notrickszone.com/2022/02/24/one ... ell-swoop/

[captkirkcanada]

Chances are you’ve never heard of Eunice Foote, but she was the first person to document climate change. Five years before the man credited for discovering it.

Foote’s experiment, which was documented in a brief scientific paper in 1856 noted that “the highest effect of the sun’s rays, I have found to be in carbonic acid gas [carbon dioxide].”

This discovery laid the groundwork for the modern understanding of the ‘greenhouse gas effect’ but the recognition was given to an Irish scientist named John Tyndall in 1861.

How did she discover climate change?
The experiment that she conducted involved two glass cylinders, two thermometers and an air pump. She pumped carbon dioxide into one of the cylinders and air into the other, and then placed them out in the sun.

“The receiver containing the gas became itself much heated - very sensibly more so than the other - and on being removed, it was many times as long in cooling,” she says in her paper.

The higher temperature in the carbon dioxide cylinder showed Foote that carbon dioxide traps the most heat. She performed the experiment on a range of different gases including hydrogen and oxygen.

“On comparing the sun’s heat in different gases, I found it to be in hydrogen gas, 108°; in common air, 106°; in oxygen gas, 108°; and in carbonic acid gas, 125°.”

This finding led Foote to conclude that, “An atmosphere of that gas would give to our earth a high temperature; and if as some suppose, at one period of its history the air had mixed with it a larger proportion than at present, an increased temperature from its own action as well as from increased weight must have necessarily resulted.”

This was the first scientific acknowledgement that CO2 had the power to change the temperature of the Earth.

interesting indeed.


https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/02/ ... dit-for-it

[captkirkcanada]

another giant falls. aig to divest from oil n gas.


https://twitter.com/hannahsaggau/status ... FywWhVXQng

AIGinsurance just committed to end insurance for new coal, tar sands, and Arctic energy exploration projects!!