Climate Change Mega Thread

[foenix]

Huh? Link?



https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monito ... bal/202206

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/ua ... -06-deg-c/

The tropical (20N-20S) anomaly for June was -0.36 deg. C, which is the coolest monthly anomaly in over 10 years, the coolest June in 22 years, and the 9th coolest June in the 44 year satellite record.

Note: +0.13C/decade now instead of +0.14C/decade as the trend has slowed.

The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.11 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).

Satellites do not measure temperature directly. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, from which temperature may be inferred. The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data have obtained different temperature data (see Microwave Sounding Unit temperature measurements). Among these groups are Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). The satellite series is not fully homogeneous - it is constructed from a series of satellites starting with the 1978 TIROS-N, where different satellites had similar but not identical instrumentation. The sensors deteriorate over time, and corrections are necessary for satellite drift and orbital decay. Particularly large differences between reconstructed temperature series occur at the few times when there is little temporal overlap between successive satellites, making intercalibration difficult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satel ... re_dataset

[Jlabute]

Satellites do not measure temperature directly. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, from which temperature may be inferred. The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data have obtained different temperature data (see Microwave Sounding Unit temperature measurements). Among these groups are Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). The satellite series is not fully homogeneous - it is constructed from a series of satellites starting with the 1978 TIROS-N, where different satellites had similar but not identical instrumentation. The sensors deteriorate over time, and corrections are necessary for satellite drift and orbital decay. Particularly large differences between reconstructed temperature series occur at the few times when there is little temporal overlap between successive satellites, making intercalibration difficult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satel ... re_dataset

It is still better than thermometers which only have a tiny coverage of the earth. Satellite readings ARE accurate, cover the entire earth, while many weather station thermometers are placed in poor locations not according to meteorological standards. Thermometers also have changed over the years and used to be less accurate. They have parallax reading errors and human transcription errors and such temperature data sets are always being adjusted, more so than UAH. Certainly corrections are normal, but corrections have been done and applied retroactively. The corrections are also very small. It is also the preferred modern method of obtaining global temperature data.

accuweather_2015_dec_30_wrong.PNG

Also, UAH follows thermometer datasets.

Capture.PNG

[Jlabute]

Solar satellite record gap.

I only had time until the historian started asking for money and will have further chuckles later but so far the video is starting just like any other anti denial conspiracy spew.

That's too bad. It is an interesting and truthful account of solar activity and its' record gap. Saying there is no dispute since the 60's is a complete misrepresentation of the truth, and the scientific method. You don't have to pay, you realize that?

[foenix]

Satellites do not measure temperature directly. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, from which temperature may be inferred. The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data have obtained different temperature data (see Microwave Sounding Unit temperature measurements). Among these groups are Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). The satellite series is not fully homogeneous - it is constructed from a series of satellites starting with the 1978 TIROS-N, where different satellites had similar but not identical instrumentation. The sensors deteriorate over time, and corrections are necessary for satellite drift and orbital decay. Particularly large differences between reconstructed temperature series occur at the few times when there is little temporal overlap between successive satellites, making intercalibration difficult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satel ... re_dataset

It is still better than thermometers which only have a tiny coverage of the earth. Satellite readings ARE accurate, cover the entire earth, while many weather station thermometers are placed in poor locations not according to meteorological standards. Thermometers also have changed over the years and used to be less accurate. They have parallax reading errors and human transcription errors and such temperature data sets are always being adjusted, more so than UAH. Certainly corrections are normal, but corrections have been done and applied retroactively. The corrections are also very small. It is also the preferred modern method of obtaining global temperature data.

accuweather_2015_dec_30_wrong.PNG



Also, UAH follows thermometer datasets.


Capture.PNG

You realize the graph basically reinforces what I've been saying, just like the stock market, there are variations in short term data and trend, but the overall graph of the global temperatures are going up up and away.

[Jlabute]

Just because temperatures may trend up over a very short period of time, it doesn't give you a cause. If CO2 is implicated, you don't know to what degree. If there is a valid ECS you don't know what it is. CO2 could be pretty much saturated with little to no capacity to induce further temperature rises, since 80% of warming from CO2 happens in the first 20ppm.

There are millions of times in history when temperature rose for less than 100 years. lol.

[foenix]

I only had time until the historian started asking for money and will have further chuckles later but so far the video is starting just like any other anti denial conspiracy spew.

That's too bad. It is an interesting and truthful account of solar activity and its' record gap. Saying there is no dispute since the 60's is a complete misrepresentation of the truth, and the scientific method. You don't have to pay, you realize that?

Of course not, it was just a crass way of asking for it right at the beginning like a Trump fund raiser......and I'm not sure how much weight I can give to the video put together by a historian and not someone at least not involved in one of the climate sciences. It's just like the weight I would give to someone like Anthony Watts with his fake credentials spouting off like a climate expert.

[foenix]

Just because temperatures may trend up over a very short period of time, it doesn't give you a cause. If CO2 is implicated, you don't know to what degree. If there is a valid ECS you don't know what it is. CO2 could be pretty much saturated with little to no capacity to induce further temperature rises, since 80% of warming from CO2 happens in the first 20ppm.

There are millions of times in history when temperature rose for less than 100 years. lol.

Lol.....We weren't even talking about CO2. We were discussing an alarming rise in global temperatures in a very short time unlike in the past where those incremental rise in temperature happened over a very long time like 10's of thousand years when the level of CO2 averaged 280ppm.

[The Green Barbarian]

In yet another example of sheer government stupidity, the moronic imbeciles running Vancouver into the ground want to waste taxpayer money "fighting" the non-existent evil sky genie. Such utter and complete fools. Such as waste of taxpayer money. Think of all the good this $660,000 could be going to instead of fighting fairy tales. Just so gross.

Vancouver council agrees to spend up to $660,000 to fight 'Big Oil' in court
Vancouver mayor Kennedy Stewart breaks tie with vote in favour of fighting the world's five largest oil and gas companies to help cover climate-change related costs

Vancouver council has voted 6-5 in favour of spending up to $660,000 to participate in a proposed legal action that will ask the world’s major oil companies to pay municipalities to help cover climate-change related costs like seawall repairs and protections from extreme heat.

The idea of a class-action lawsuit being brought by municipalities against major oil companies is advocated by the Vancouver-based West Coast Environmental Law’s recently launched Sue Big Oil campaign.

Vancouver Green party councillor Adriane Carr brought forward the motion that the city agree to contribute up to $1 for every Vancouver resident toward the proposed legal action.

Green councillors Carr, Peter Fry, Michael Wiebe and COPE councillor Jean Swanson voted in favour, while councillors Rebecca Bligh, Melissa De Genova, Lisa Dominato, Colleen Hardwick and Sarah Kirby-Yung voted against.

Mayor Kennedy Stewart with the deciding vote supported the motion.

WCEL staff lawyer Andrew Gage said Vancouver was the first municipality to sign on to the charity’s Sue Big Oil campaign.

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-new ... l-in-court

What do these fools hope to accomplish exactly? You can't win a lawsuit against something that doesn't exist. It's just so dumb.

[captkirkcanada]

Great salt lake drying up and exposing toxic compounds .

https://www.reuters.com/business/enviro ... 022-07-14/

[The Green Barbarian]

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#376620

Now the evil sky genie has decided that he hates monarch butterflies. That guy is really messed up.

[77TA]

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#376620

Now the evil sky genie has decided that he hates monarch butterflies. That guy is really messed up.

Well, the numbers are very accurate though right?

"The group estimates that the population of monarch butterflies in North America has declined between 22% and 72% over 10 years, depending on the measurement method."

[Jlabute]

The leftist media and activists must have bought their random emergency generator software from a bake sale or something. Monarch Butterflies are not endangered. Seems many media do not factcheck their stories.


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/23/ ... ndangered/


Monarch Butterfly - least concern
https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/159971/806727

[Jlabute]

On a brighter side of climate, fewer people are dying from climate related disasters. (Or weather)
Fewer people die from heat exhaustion, than cold temeratures. Climate or weather disasters are an increasingly smaller proportion of GDP, and fewer people are dying every year. Probably isnt as bad as leftist politicians and activists say.

https://notrickszone.com/2022/07/20/cli ... s-reality/

A8D9E447-8382-402F-A986-59784F6C93E3.png

11E29297-FCB8-4BF4-B46B-750133699699.png

E82919F1-2131-46D9-8DCE-9B527DF08758.png

[foenix]

Didn't we have this debunked discussion many moons ago? For sure the first chart went like.....it's because of the modern medicine, technology, food production etc etc that's decreasing deaths from droughts, disease, famines, weather, etc etc.

[foenix]

Extreme temperatures kill 5 million people a year with heat-related deaths rising, study finds

More than 5 million people die each year globally because of excessively hot or cold conditions, a 20-year study has found – and heat-related deaths are on the rise..........

Researchers analysed mortality and weather data from 750 locations in 43 countries between 2000 and 2019, and found the average daily temperature in these locations increased by 0.26C per decade.

The study found more people had died of cold than heat over the two-decade period. But heat-related deaths were increasing, while cold-linked deaths were dropping.

Monash University’s Prof Yuming Guo, one of the study’s lead researchers, said this trend would continue because of climate change, and total mortality rates may go up.

“In the future, cold-related mortality should continue to decrease, but because the heat-related mortality will continue to increase, that means there will be a break point,” Guo said.

He said in Europe there had already been an overall increase in the rate of deaths associated with temperatures......

The highest heat-related excess death rate was in eastern Europe, while sub-Saharan Africa had the highest mortality rate linked to cold temperatures.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... tudy-finds

Who would have thought the highest cold weather deaths would be from Africa?