Climate Change Mega Thread

[77TA]

Fossil fuel demand to peak predictions...

There is so much garbage to unpack in this article I'm nearly at a loss for words. The media keeps telling us that government can control the earth's temperature with money they don't have. This plan fails before it even starts so don't invest in any new fossil fuel projects I guess?

Remember when the media told us there was a toilet paper shortage? There was more truth there I think.


https://www.castanet.net/news/Business/ ... IEA#448779

[Jlabute]

No, warmer air holds more moisture - that doesn't mean it would result in more rain events. I assume the blogs haven't covered the difference between absolute humidity, specific humidity and relative humidity?

Warmer air 'can' hold more moisture, but that doesn't mean it does. It isn't the point of the discussion. More precipitation is not falling as inferred by satellite. Relative measurements have been somewhat decreasing. Cloud patterns and precipitation is not modelled or understood. Models are extremely poor mathematical representations of earths climate and that is a fact. Global warming doesn't cause flooding, doesn't make storms stronger, doesn't do anything claimed by those that want your carbon tax dollars.

Sorry, the strawman argument you created doesn't fly.

What does happen, however, is climate change and where we would expect X inches of rain in a year, it doesn't necessarily happen the way climate models would suggest it should. Greece, which broke high record temperatures for months, and suffered from catastrophic wildfires, got it's whole years worth of rain (+) in 24 hours.

Strawman? Where? Climate models are useless. No one cares about Greece, or wild fires. All weather is chaotic and random. We've been observing and recording weather for a very short time so you can expect to see many things you've never seen before. A wide variation in weather is possible. You don't even know how much variation is possible. Hot and cold and speed records will continue to be broken for a long time irrespective of climate change.

Satellites don't measure precipitation, but you seem to be having trouble understanding the difference between measuring brightness temperature and calculating climate datasets, from actual measurements. Hint: "Derived", "deduced" means something entirely different than "observed", or "measured". Basically, the data deduced from TB is comparable with the data deduced from TB to show trends over time - and not a whole lot else.

Inferred measurements are calibrated and usually quite close. Maybe you should tell NASA to stop launching satellites for this purpose. Relative changes are easier to see than a small number of random samplings around the planet. 'Measure' only means to ascertain an amount.

Your github link is where climate change sceptics can spitball BS pseudo-science at folks that refuse to look at real science. If there was anything remotely believable in the chart you provided, the actual data shows we should be realizing cooling, if indeed sunspots and solar cycles were responsible for anything other than an insignificant amount of temperature fluctuation.


The peaks and valleys in solar geomagnetic activity since 1900, based on the number of sunspots observed on the face of the Sun each day (orange dots). The Sun's activity increased in the early half of the twentieth century, but it can't be responsible for warming over the past 50 years. Graph by NOAA Climate.gov, based on data from the WDC-SILSO, Royal Observatory of Belgium.

A second reason that scientists have ruled out a significant role for the Sun in global warming is that if the Sun’s energy output had intensified, we would expect all layers of Earth’s atmosphere to have warmed. But we don’t see that. Rather, satellites and observations from weather balloons show warming in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and cooling in the upper stratosphere (stratosphere)—which is exactly what we would expect to see as a result of increasing greenhouse gases trapping heat in the lower atmosphere. Scientists regard this piece of evidence as one of several “smoking guns” linking today’s global warming to human-emitted, heat-trapping gases.

Github is a collaboration tool for anything at any location. It wasn't built specifically for people who spit. Not that you could recognize pseudo-science. If you could, you wouldn't be putting your trust in Michael Mann and James Hansen.

You might already believe CO2 and climate science is solid, when in fact it isn't even beginning. Climate science is complex and the 'hard work' is too difficult. There is pretty good correlation between sun-spot cycles and global average temperature. The question is why. Science never 'rules out' anything, especially if it's role is not understood. Simplistically looking at total solar irradiance might not mean anything. What happens if solar or cosmic rays modulate/increase/decrease cloud formation? Would you know? No, you wouldn't. The easiest conjecture is 'CO2 is bad' and scientists work backwards from that using bad models. CO2 is not a smoking gun, and to many scientists it is less than a pea-shooter. This is not validated in any form of proof. The IPCC says half the warming is natural. Not to mention, the CO2 theory doesn't work well in many geological time periods, or in recent history of our current interglacial.

[Drip_Torch]

Oh, prolly nuffin...



(Daily Area Burned chart for Canada. Northern BC, Alberta, Sask and NWT were the culprits.)

.

Untitled-2.jpg

[foenix]

There is pretty good correlation between sun-spot cycles and global average temperature. The question is why.

That assumption has been debunked since the 1960 where the global average temperatures is on a upward trend regardless of solar activity. Perhaps, a reminder is in order, AGAIN...

A.PNG

https://skepticalscience.com/solar-acti ... arming.htm

[hozzle]

I'm sure this vid has been posted before... but it has been reposted on the platform today (not sure if it has been updated?)
But here it is again... really good & credible interview.

[Jlabute]

I'm sure this vid has been posted before... but it has been reposted on the platform today (not sure if it has been updated?)

But here it is again... really good & credible interview.

Thanks Hozzle. I had seen the video before, and Judith tells it as it is.
She has a lot of informative discussions on her personal site as she reposts a lot of scientific discussions.

https://judithcurry.com/


In other news: a new paper is released telling us climate sensitivity is low and CO2 likely has little effect. Climate sensitivity has been getting lower over the years, although, some organizations still stand beside unusually high constant ranges, such as the IPCC.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 23-04634-7

Capture.PNG

[The Green Barbarian]

[Drip_Torch]

Psst... I'm sure none of the blogs will mention this, but as of Oct. 10, the daily average Northern Hemisphere temperature had been at a record high for 100 consecutive days.

Who could have possibly seen that coming?

.

Untitled-3.jpg

Funny how all the blogs missed it - eh? Oh well, who cares? Credibility doesn't count much these days.

Many climate scientists say they don’t know exactly why Earth’s fever suddenly spiked so high in September, and there “may never be a clear attribution” to a specific cause, said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Most likely, it’s a combination of factors, he said, a climate recipe with “a little bit of everything combining in ways we haven’t seen before.”

But hey, if you have no critical thinking skills of your own, it's probably best you just glom onto an opinion that makes you feel comfortable.

[foenix]

I'm sure this vid has been posted before... but it has been reposted on the platform today (not sure if it has been updated?)

But here it is again... really good & credible interview.

Thanks Hozzle. I had seen the video before, and Judith tells it as it is.
She has a lot of informative discussions on her personal site as she reposts a lot of scientific discussions.

https://judithcurry.com/


In other news: a new paper is released telling us climate sensitivity is low and CO2 likely has little effect. Climate sensitivity has been getting lower over the years, although, some organizations still stand beside unusually high constant ranges, such as the IPCC.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 23-04634-7




Capture.PNG

Judith has a little credibility problem............something about never biting the hand that's feeding you.

Fossil Fuel Funding

As reported by DeSmog, in a 2022 deposition Curry said that Climate Forecast Applications Network’s clients included petroleum companies, electric utilities, and natural gas energy traders, and that she charged $400 an hour for her consulting services.

In 2015, Climate Wire reported that “Judith Curry, an atmospheric scientist who is often critical of dominant scientific views of climate change, is is being probed by Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who wants to know Curry’s funding sources. Curry runs a weather-forecasting business that supplies information to oil companies, among others.” 11

In 2010, Scientific American reporter Michael Lemonick questioned Judith Curry about potential conflicts of interest. She responded:12

“I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company…does [short-term] hurricane forecasting…for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements.”

https://www.desmog.com/judith-curry/

......also......like the saying goes., "a picture is worth a thousand words".

GlobalTemp_vs_carbon_dioxide_1850-2022.png

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/c ... otter-last

[Jlabute]

Psst... I'm sure none of the blogs will mention this, but as of Oct. 10, the daily average Northern Hemisphere temperature had been at a record high for 100 consecutive days.

Who could have possibly seen that coming?


Funny how all the blogs missed it - eh? Oh well, who cares? Credibility doesn't count much these days.

Many climate scientists say they don’t know exactly why Earth’s fever suddenly spiked so high in September, and there “may never be a clear attribution” to a specific cause, said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Most likely, it’s a combination of factors, he said, a climate recipe with “a little bit of everything combining in ways we haven’t seen before.”

But hey, if you have no critical thinking skills of your own, it's probably best you just glom onto an opinion that makes you feel comfortable.

Well, you happened to find it on a blog. No one would have seen it coming, because models aren't any good, and weather and ocean cycles are fairly random. Not that it has anything to do with climate or CO2.

Tell us how this relates to CO2. “There may never be a clear attribution” only because you're not going to find it in CO2.

[Jlabute]

Judith has a little credibility problem. Something about never biting the hand that's feeding you.

Well, I see Judith before congress giving testimony since she is well trusted. You obviously have no clue of her history. I don't see Desmog before congress giving testimony. It is Desmog that has credibility issues.

Enjoy your climate alarmism beer and pay more tax.

[foenix]

Judith has a little credibility problem. Something about never biting the hand that's feeding you.

Well, I see Judith before congress giving testimony since she is well trusted. You obviously have no clue of her history. I don't see Desmog before congress giving testimony. It is Desmog that has credibility issues.

Enjoy your climate alarmism beer and pay more tax.

.....Oh you mean, the climate change denying Republican subcommittee paid the go to man made climate change denying shrill to give ummmhmmm "expert" testimony for the fossil fuel industry like she does at other places?

Montana Is Paying a Climate Denier to Give Expert Testimony in Upcoming Trial

Montana has hired a climate scientist turned climate contrarian to be an expert witness in an upcoming trial challenging the state’s promotion of fossil fuels.

Climatologist Judith Curry has already billed the state around $30,000 for a report filed in the case Held v. State of Montana, according to the deposition she made in December to an attorney for the 16 young Montanans suing the state. Curry also claimed that she charged $400 an hour for her consulting work, although she did not disclose the full amount Montana will pay her for appearing in court.

Julia Olson, the lawyer who took Curry’s deposition, has described her as “the number one climate skeptic scientist that the Republicans go to for testimony in Congress, that the fossil fuel industry goes to.”

https://www.desmog.com/2023/05/15/judit ... ate-trial/

Yup, real credible. She"s definitely found her well compensated niche.

[Drip_Torch]

Well, you happened to find it on a blog. No one would have seen it coming, because models aren't any good, and weather and ocean cycles are fairly random. Not that it has anything to do with climate or CO2.

Tell us how this relates to CO2. “There may never be a clear attribution” only because you're not going to find it in CO2.

And yet, I pulled this thread up from the basement, after almost a year of not being used, because I saw it coming. Guess its not as random as you seem to think it is. (That really does explain why I'll be putting away the law mower soon.)

I'll do you one better! Read this word for word, a couple times if it helps... RE: CLIMATE. CHANGE. MEGA. THREAD.

Now please tell me why I need to be as obsessed as you are with CO2? I didn't mention it in my OP and I keep telling you I'm not interested in arguing with you.

[Jlabute]

Yup, real credible. She's definitely found her well compensated niche.

As I said, you have no clue. She is making half now than what she was in university as a climate kook. She's been on both sides. What don't you actually watch her video where she tells the story.

[foenix]

Yup, real credible. She's definitely found her well compensated niche.

As I said, you have no clue. She is making half now than what she was in university as a climate kook. She's been on both sides. What don't you actually watch her video where she tells the story.

Hmmm......I'm wondering which one of us is the "clueless" one? I'm pretty sure a University prof wouldn't makes 400 bucks an hour or the millions being made by various sources from the man made climate denier groupies. It's obvious the fabricated stories she tells her devoted fans are swallowed hook, line and sinker.
I'm sure unlike some people that seem to think they know someone's personal finances, one can take a guess .......

Between 2014 and February 2019, Curry testified before at least six Republican-led House committees,

I'm thinking at $400/hr, she would have made a lot of money being the shill of the fossil fuel industry and those coal loving Republicans.

a.PNG

https://peopleai.com/fame/identities/judith-curry