490 replies to this topic

[Rogerdodger]

Will Rogers: "If you don't like the weather in Oklahoma, wait a minute. It will change."

Mark Twain once said, “Everyone keeps complaining, but no one seems to do anything about it,” because quite frankly there isn’t anything we can do about it.

 

Record-breaking temps expected as 'death ridge' hits Southeast...

Snowiest May Ever Means August Skiing at Mammoth...

Edited by Rogerdodger, 24 May 2019 - 06:58 PM.

[Rogerdodger]

Earth’s thermosphere is now approximately 10 times cooler than it was during the record-setting Solar Max of 1957-58!

 

Weather WARNING: Solar minimum arrives EARLY and it could bring long EXTREME cold

THE solar minimum is now in full swing as scientists note there has been a distinct lack of sunspots this year – and it could bring with it EXTREME cold.

May 24, 2019

Sunspots have now not been present for 79 days – or 55 percent – of the year so far, which scientists state is a major sign that the long awaited solar minimum has arrived.

“To find a similar number of blank suns, you have to go back to 2009 when the sun was experiencing the deepest solar minimum in a century.” Earth’s host star was not expected to head into a solar minimum until around 2020 and, if the phenomenon has arrived early, this will mean a prolonged cold snap.

The last time there was a prolonged solar minimum, the event led to a ‘mini ice-age’, scientifically known as the Maunder minimum - which lasted for 70 years. The Maunder minimum, which saw seven decades of freezing weather, began in 1645 and lasted through to 1715, and happened when sunspots were exceedingly rare. During this period, temperatures dropped globally by 1.3 degrees celsius leading to shorter seasons and ultimately food shortages, and death.

 

More people die from cold weather than from heat!

 

NASA explains on its website: “All weather on Earth, from the surface of the planet out into space, begins with the Sun.

 

DUH!

 

“Space weather and terrestrial weather (the weather we feel at the surface) are influenced by the small changes the Sun undergoes during its solar cycle.”

The space agency adds on its Thermosphere Climate Index (TCI) “a weather metric that tells us how the top of Earth’s atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) is responding to solar activity” that “the top of Earth’s atmosphere is approximately 10 times cooler than it was during the record-setting Solar Max of 1957-58.”

 

Reference: https://www.solen.info/solar/

 

Edited by Rogerdodger, 25 May 2019 - 12:43 PM.

[Rogerdodger]

BIGGEST SCIENCE SCANDAL EVER IS TAKING IT'S TOLL!
As "GREEN" Political parties gain growing youth support.

Youth Paranoia 1967:
There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking' their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid...
~"For What It's Worth"~ Buffalo Springfield

Youth Paranoia 2019:
Global warming and mass species extinction.

Merkel's CDU  has been blindsided by youth-led anger over global warming.
"You're running out of excuses, we're running out of time," read one protest banner.
Climate overtakes immigration as the main worry for Germans this year.
Voters handed her CDU party and its centre-left coalition partner SPD their worst score in European election history, while doubling support for the Greens amid rising fears over global warming.
The Greens also snatched second spot from the Social Democratic Party, coming in just behind Merkel's centre-right alliance.
Crucially, the environmental party took more than a million votes -- including many from young people -- each from the SPD as well as from the CDU.
their Spiegel said the coalition is "in danger" after Sunday's drubbing.
"They overlooked climate which had overtaken immigration to become the main worry for Germans this year.

Climate Myopia is caused by misleading indoctrination, beginning in Kindergarten, and a lack of historic climate facts.

 

Edited by Rogerdodger, 27 May 2019 - 11:26 AM.

[Rogerdodger]

After quiet years, tornadoes erupt in United States...

 

Jan 2, 2019 -
"2018 was one of the least active years on record for US tornadoes; No twister rated EF4 or higher. 2018 is running near the minimum in terms of number of tornadoes recorded in modern times”

500 REPORTED IN MONTH!

 

Kerry A. Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said, "Dealing with tornadoes and climate change is “absolutely complicated,” and there are relatively few papers that discuss tornadoes and climate because “it’s almost impossible to see any signal in the data.” What’s more, he said, the data of the current generation of radar technology goes back to only about 1990.

Edited by Rogerdodger, 28 May 2019 - 10:45 PM.

[Rogerdodger]

New way of measuring earthquakes 'may unlock holy grail of where and when they will strike...

BUT...

“We are a very long way from that, and indeed it may never be possible to accurately predict the location, time and size of future earthquakes.

Scientists have long struggled to identify patterns for earthquakes, leading to suggestions they strike at random.

 

But "Climate Scientists" accurately predicted the end of all mankind In 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020.

 

Even the end of snow!

 

OOPS!

 

Colorado's snowpack 4,121% times above normal after rare summer solstice dump...

 

The Denver Post wrote, the state's snowpack was "in virtually every numerical sense . . . off the charts."

At the time, the snowpack was 751% above normal.

Due to the new snow Friday into the weekend, the Natural Resources Conservation Service reported that the state's snowpack ballooned to 4,121% above normal as of Monday.

 

So I guess the "Climate Scientists" can be wrong...unless it's:

"A deliberate, orchestrated deception."

"they reached a consensus before the research even began."

Maybe they could open their minds a bit, even be curious, and let go of their dogma and indoctrination...

Or silence those who prefer real science.

Or maybe they are the actual  "skeptics" of real science!

Edited by Rogerdodger, 24 June 2019 - 09:30 PM.

[Rogerdodger]

More NOAANASA Temp Tampering

 

Since 1990, they quadrupled warming primarily by cooling the past and warming the present.

In 1990, the IPCC showed that earth was much warmer 800 years ago, when CO2 was 280 PPM during the Medieval Warm Period.

 

 

Over a two year period, satellites show land temperatures plummeting.

Edited by Rogerdodger, 25 June 2019 - 09:46 PM.

[Rogerdodger]

Below is a "SCIENTIFIC" study of climate change.

We can say that anyone who questions this "SCIENTIFIC" study is a  clearly a flat-earther and a  "CLIMATE DENIER"! ;-)

 

NEW STUDY FINDS NO EVIDENCE FOR MAN-MADE CONTRIBUTION...

 

A study by researchers at Turku University in Finland found that the human contribution to a rise of 0.1°C in global temperatures over the last century is just 0.01°C.

The paper, titled ‘No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change’ was published by Jyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi.

The study found that, “During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.”

Kauppinen and Malmi conclude that global temperatures are controlled primarily by cloud cover and that “only a small part” of the increased carbon dioxide concentration is anthropogenic.

 

The study also calls into question the claims of the UN IPCC, which concluded that global temperatures are largely driven by human activity.

While the methods and results of the study can be debated, this once again illustrates how there is no overwhelming consensus on man-made global warming as the media often claims.

In reality, there are dozens of prominent scientists who believe that climate change is driven by natural forces or that the United Nations’ climate projections are unreliable.

Edited by Rogerdodger, 12 July 2019 - 09:05 AM.

[hhh]

Tried to upvote the above post but: "You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day".

[MaryAM]

Below is a "SCIENTIFIC" study of climate change.

We can say that anyone who questions this "SCIENTIFIC" study is a  clearly a flat-earther and a  "CLIMATE DENIER"! ;-)

 

NEW STUDY FINDS NO EVIDENCE FOR MAN-MADE CONTRIBUTION...

 

A study by researchers at Turku University in Finland found that the human contribution to a rise of 0.1°C in global temperatures over the last century is just 0.01°C.

The paper, titled ‘No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change’ was published by Jyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi.

The study found that, “During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.”

Kauppinen and Malmi conclude that global temperatures are controlled primarily by cloud cover and that “only a small part” of the increased carbon dioxide concentration is anthropogenic.

 

The study also calls into question the claims of the UN IPCC, which concluded that global temperatures are largely driven by human activity.

While the methods and results of the study can be debated, this once again illustrates how there is no overwhelming consensus on man-made global warming as the media often claims.

In reality, there are dozens of prominent scientists who believe that climate change is driven by natural forces or that the United Nations’ climate projections are unreliable.

Earth's atmosphere

78% Nitrogen

21% Oxygen

0.09% Argon

0.03% CO2

97% of the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is created by nature.

So we're talking about

3% of 0.03% = .0009% that's anthroprogenic.  By the way, a CO2 meter can't even measure this amount.

What exactly is the problem?  

12 years what will happen?

 

We're all supposed to do what?

Edited by MaryAM, 13 July 2019 - 03:05 PM.

[Rich C]

Below is a "SCIENTIFIC" study of climate change.

We can say that anyone who questions this "SCIENTIFIC" study is a  clearly a flat-earther and a  "CLIMATE DENIER"! ;-)

 

NEW STUDY FINDS NO EVIDENCE FOR MAN-MADE CONTRIBUTION...

 

A study by researchers at Turku University in Finland found that the human contribution to a rise of 0.1°C in global temperatures over the last century is just 0.01°C.

The paper, titled ‘No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change’ was published by Jyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi.

The study found that, “During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.”

Kauppinen and Malmi conclude that global temperatures are controlled primarily by cloud cover and that “only a small part” of the increased carbon dioxide concentration is anthropogenic.

 

The study also calls into question the claims of the UN IPCC, which concluded that global temperatures are largely driven by human activity.

While the methods and results of the study can be debated, this once again illustrates how there is no overwhelming consensus on man-made global warming as the media often claims.

In reality, there are dozens of prominent scientists who believe that climate change is driven by natural forces or that the United Nations’ climate projections are unreliable.

 

Rebuttal:

 

Timothy Osborn, Professor, University of East Anglia, and Director of Research, Climatic Research Unit:
The unpublished paper by Kauppinen & Malmi is deeply flawed and the claims that (1) CO₂ has caused only 0.1 degC of warming and that (2) only 10% (0.01 degC) of this warming is from human activity are both unsupported claims.

The paper should not be relied upon.

Their claims are based on a chain of reasoning with multiple flaws:
(1) They claim that climate models cannot be relied upon but do not demonstrate this.
(2) They instead make a new climate model (despite this being in contradiction of (1)).
(3) Their new climate model is unvalidated. It is based upon datasets of cloud and humidity without any sources given and which are not up-to-date. They provide no assessment of the accuracy of the data used—these variables are very difficult to measure on a global basis over the time period used. No physical basis is given for their new climate model (e.g. no process is given for how higher relative humidity can make the globe cool).
(4) They fail to consider cause and effect. For example, they assume without any support that a decrease in relative humidity is natural. They give no reasons why it would have decreased. They fail to consider whether climate change could have caused relative humidity to change.

(5) They state without any support that most of the atmospheric CO₂ increase is due to emissions from the oceans. They ignore anthropogenic CO₂ emissions which are more than large enough to explain the full increase. They ignore observational evidence that shows that the oceans are net sinks of CO₂ at present, not net sources.
(6) They dismiss the entire body of climate science—especially that there is a significant greenhouse effect—and instead cite their own work (unpublished or published in journals outside the field).

In reality there is strong scientific evidence for conclusions in stark contrast to those of Kauppinen and Malmi, namely that (a) all of the CO₂ rise is from human activity, ( that 100% of the CO₂-induced warming is therefore anthropogenic, and © that (together with anthropogenic emissions of other greenhouse gases like methane) the total anthropogenic warming is around 1 degC.

A published paper demonstrating (a) and ( is Cawley (2011)¹.

A body of evidence for © is Haustein et al (2017)² and references therein.

• 1- Cawley (2011) On the Atmospheric Residence Time of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide,
  Energy & Fuels
• 2- Haustein et al (2017) A real-time Global Warming Index, Scientific Reports

 

 

The Finns produced a more detailed paper in 2011 and this critique applies to that paper.  The most recent paper is essentially the same as the earlier one, so this critique applies equally.

Edited by Rich C, 14 July 2019 - 10:02 AM.