Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The key word is "PROJECTED". From a "model".
Q: Which of the climate "models" from the past 20 years have been able to accurately predict today's weather?
A: None of them.
Totally wrong. The models have been very good. Anyone familiar with the science knows that. That's why no denier knows it -- they only know what their cult sees fit to tell them, and their cult deliberately keeps them ignorant.
I suggest you deniers now refrain from posting the fraudulent Christy graph, as that would only confirm the way deniers always push fraud. Here's the actual record.
Climate model projections compared to observations
http://www.realclimate.org/images/cmp_cmip3_2016.png
Fake as the day is long.
It must be rough for you. As time goes on, and all the data disagrees with you more and more strongly, your conspiracy theories have to get progressively crazier to explain why reality refuses match your claims.
They've wiped out the 1998 El Nino completely.
No, it just doesn't have the huge erroneous effect that shows up in the much less accurate satellite measurements.
There is no ACCELERATION at the end of the graph.
But nobody claimed warming will be accelerating.
It all comes from a desperate attempt to go back 19th century methods of measuring water temperature by the folks at Goddard Inst for SPACE Studies.
Are you going to start rambling about buckets now?
The folks that don't want to use their fleet of SATELLITES to track temperature....
Being that satellites don't measure temperature, why would anyone want to use satellites for measuring temperature? Satellites only measure microwave radiation from across the whole troposphere. That doesn't show surface temperature, and it's only loosely tied to temperature at all. Such data has to be massaged and tweaked and run through a very complex model using all the right fudge factors to get a guess at temperature. That's why the sensible people don't rely on satellite data to get temperature. Dr. Mears of RSS, for example, says that the surface data set is obviously better, and that his satellite data should not be used in climate studies.
Sensible people measure temperature on the surface by measuring temperature on the surface, using miraculous devices called "thermometers" which directly measure actual temperature. It's an obvious indication of pseudoscience when a group deliberately throws away the good data so that they can use much fuzzier data. That's what deniers do in more or less every case, which is another reason why it's so obvious that denialism is pseudoscience.
Fake as the day is long.
It must be rough for you. As time goes on, and all the data disagrees with you more and more strongly, your conspiracy theories have to get progressively crazier to explain why reality refuses match your claims.
They've wiped out the 1998 El Nino completely.
No, it just doesn't have the huge erroneous effect that shows up in the much less accurate satellite measurements.
There is no ACCELERATION at the end of the graph.
But nobody claimed warming will be accelerating.
It all comes from a desperate attempt to go back 19th century methods of measuring water temperature by the folks at Goddard Inst for SPACE Studies.
Are you going to start rambling about buckets now?
The folks that don't want to use their fleet of SATELLITES to track temperature....
Being that satellites don't measure temperature, why would anyone want to use satellites for measuring temperature? Satellites only measure microwave radiation from across the whole troposphere. That doesn't show surface temperature, and it's only loosely tied to temperature at all. Such data has to be massaged and tweaked and run through a very complex model using all the right fudge factors to get a guess at temperature. That's why the sensible people don't rely on satellite data to get temperature. Dr. Mears of RSS, for example, says that the surface data set is obviously better, and that his satellite data should not be used in climate studies.
Sensible people measure temperature on the surface by measuring temperature on the surface, using miraculous devices called "thermometers" which directly measure actual temperature. It's an obvious indication of pseudoscience when a group deliberately throws away the good data so that they can use much fuzzier data. That's what deniers do in more or less every case, which is another reason why it's so obvious that denialism is pseudoscience.
Check out the projected days over 104 degrees after 2020 and compare them with the actual days over 104 degrees from 1960 to the present:
June 21, 2017 3:05 PM
Sick of Sacramento days above 104°? Scientists say your kids will see a lot more of them
By Phillip Reese
[email protected]
Sacramento likely will see its fifth straight day of temperatures above 104 degrees on Thursday, an unusually intense heat wave.
Such heat waves will be the norm if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise over the rest of the century, according to projections by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego.
Sacramento saw an average of four days each year when temperatures exceeded 104 degrees between 1960 and 2000.
Sacramento will see an average of 40 days each year with temperatures above 104 degrees between 2070 and 2100 if emissions continue to rise strongly through 2050 and plateau around 2100, according to the UC San Diego projections. For comparison, Tucson, AZ, saw about 30 days that hot last year.
That model predicts that Sacramento will begin to see several days with temperatures above 104 degrees in May and October as soon as the next decade.
A more hopeful scenario assumes the state will cut back emissions so they peak around 2040, then begin to decline. It provides a slightly rosier picture: 28 Sacramento days per year with temperatures over 104 degrees by 2100, with extreme heat in May and October beginning around 2040.
This chart shows the projected number of 100 degree days in Sacramento under the two scenarios. It uses the second generation Canadian Earth System Model, a widely-disseminated climate model developed by the Canadian government.
Data Tracker is a regular feature that breaks down the numbers behind today’s news. Explore more trends at sacbee.com/datatracker.
Phillip Reese: 916-321-1137, @PhillipHReese
Notice anything interesting? While the actual number of days over 104 degrees has remained constant over the past six decades, the projected number of days over 104 degrees for the next six decades is up to 10 times greater! How is it that all of the emissions of the last 60 years has had no effect on the number of these days, but the effects of emissions during the next 60 years will have an astronomical effect?
The answer is that this ludicrous claim is based on a concocted "model" which is completely devoid of empirical data. In our society, fake science is every bit as prevalent as fake news.
Fake as the day is long.
It must be rough for you. As time goes on, and all the data disagrees with you more and more strongly, your conspiracy theories have to get progressively crazier to explain why reality refuses match your claims.
They've wiped out the 1998 El Nino completely.
No, it just doesn't have the huge erroneous effect that shows up in the much less accurate satellite measurements.
There is no ACCELERATION at the end of the graph.
But nobody claimed warming will be accelerating.
It all comes from a desperate attempt to go back 19th century methods of measuring water temperature by the folks at Goddard Inst for SPACE Studies.
Are you going to start rambling about buckets now?
The folks that don't want to use their fleet of SATELLITES to track temperature....
Being that satellites don't measure temperature, why would anyone want to use satellites for measuring temperature? Satellites only measure microwave radiation from across the whole troposphere. That doesn't show surface temperature, and it's only loosely tied to temperature at all. Such data has to be massaged and tweaked and run through a very complex model using all the right fudge factors to get a guess at temperature. That's why the sensible people don't rely on satellite data to get temperature. Dr. Mears of RSS, for example, says that the surface data set is obviously better, and that his satellite data should not be used in climate studies.
Sensible people measure temperature on the surface by measuring temperature on the surface, using miraculous devices called "thermometers" which directly measure actual temperature. It's an obvious indication of pseudoscience when a group deliberately throws away the good data so that they can use much fuzzier data. That's what deniers do in more or less every case, which is another reason why it's so obvious that denialism is pseudoscience.
No scientist use thermometers any more..we have already been over this subject... The NIST stopped calibrating them since 2011
ELEMENTS
EACH ONE HAS A STORY.
MARCH 1 2011 10:19 AM
Blogging the Periodic Table
VIEW ALL ENTRIES
By Sam Kean
No element gets people telling crazy stories like mercury does. People have told me tales about pharmacists waxing floors with mercury, mothers rubbing it into babies' skin to kill germs, and 10-year-olds coating dimes in it to make them shine, then blithely carrying them around in their pockets.
But most people who have encountered mercury have done so after breaking a mercury thermometer. And many of us who saw the liquid balls of mercury scatter across a floor or countertop considered the element the most beautiful on the periodic table.
Advertisement
Those days have passed. Since 2001,20 states have banned mercury "fever thermometers" for medical use, and regulations tighten every year. Many pharmacies now carry only sterile digital replacements or the less accurate ones with red glop in the bulb.
Mercury thermometers have held out in labs and industry: the National Institute of Standards and Technology says that temperature is the second-most measured quantity on earth (after time), and most chemical process in most industries require scientists to monitor temperatures closely. But as of today the federal government has more or less killed the mercury thermometer in the United States—NIST has announced it will no longer calibrate mercury thermometers. This means companies and labs will have a harder time ensuring the thermometers' accuracy, all but forcing a switch to other instruments. (NIST will continue to calibrate other thermometers.)
There's no secret reason NIST (and partners like the Environmental Protection Agency and United Nations) have pushed scientists away from mercury. It's a neurotoxin—exposure can cause tremors, partial blindness, deafness, memory loss, and many, many other problems—and, if mercury does spill, it's very hard to clean up. But toxicologists have known these facts for ages
.
Fake as the day is long.
It must be rough for you. As time goes on, and all the data disagrees with you more and more strongly, your conspiracy theories have to get progressively crazier to explain why reality refuses match your claims.
They've wiped out the 1998 El Nino completely.
No, it just doesn't have the huge erroneous effect that shows up in the much less accurate satellite measurements.
There is no ACCELERATION at the end of the graph.
But nobody claimed warming will be accelerating.
It all comes from a desperate attempt to go back 19th century methods of measuring water temperature by the folks at Goddard Inst for SPACE Studies.
Are you going to start rambling about buckets now?
The folks that don't want to use their fleet of SATELLITES to track temperature....
Being that satellites don't measure temperature, why would anyone want to use satellites for measuring temperature? Satellites only measure microwave radiation from across the whole troposphere. That doesn't show surface temperature, and it's only loosely tied to temperature at all. Such data has to be massaged and tweaked and run through a very complex model using all the right fudge factors to get a guess at temperature. That's why the sensible people don't rely on satellite data to get temperature. Dr. Mears of RSS, for example, says that the surface data set is obviously better, and that his satellite data should not be used in climate studies.
Sensible people measure temperature on the surface by measuring temperature on the surface, using miraculous devices called "thermometers" which directly measure actual temperature. It's an obvious indication of pseudoscience when a group deliberately throws away the good data so that they can use much fuzzier data. That's what deniers do in more or less every case, which is another reason why it's so obvious that denialism is pseudoscience.
Fake as the day is long.
It must be rough for you. As time goes on, and all the data disagrees with you more and more strongly, your conspiracy theories have to get progressively crazier to explain why reality refuses match your claims.
They've wiped out the 1998 El Nino completely.
No, it just doesn't have the huge erroneous effect that shows up in the much less accurate satellite measurements.
There is no ACCELERATION at the end of the graph.
But nobody claimed warming will be accelerating.
It all comes from a desperate attempt to go back 19th century methods of measuring water temperature by the folks at Goddard Inst for SPACE Studies.
Are you going to start rambling about buckets now?
The folks that don't want to use their fleet of SATELLITES to track temperature....
Being that satellites don't measure temperature, why would anyone want to use satellites for measuring temperature? Satellites only measure microwave radiation from across the whole troposphere. That doesn't show surface temperature, and it's only loosely tied to temperature at all. Such data has to be massaged and tweaked and run through a very complex model using all the right fudge factors to get a guess at temperature. That's why the sensible people don't rely on satellite data to get temperature. Dr. Mears of RSS, for example, says that the surface data set is obviously better, and that his satellite data should not be used in climate studies.
Sensible people measure temperature on the surface by measuring temperature on the surface, using miraculous devices called "thermometers" which directly measure actual temperature. It's an obvious indication of pseudoscience when a group deliberately throws away the good data so that they can use much fuzzier data. That's what deniers do in more or less every case, which is another reason why it's so obvious that denialism is pseudoscience.
Yeah, because a gross distortion of the ATMOSPHERE is better measured 6 ft above the surface with 20,000 badly distributed thermometers..
Oh and random ship captain's reports of "BUCKET" temperatures. Just like the good ole 19th Century methods...
Fake as the day is long.
It must be rough for you. As time goes on, and all the data disagrees with you more and more strongly, your conspiracy theories have to get progressively crazier to explain why reality refuses match your claims.
They've wiped out the 1998 El Nino completely.
No, it just doesn't have the huge erroneous effect that shows up in the much less accurate satellite measurements.
There is no ACCELERATION at the end of the graph.
But nobody claimed warming will be accelerating.
It all comes from a desperate attempt to go back 19th century methods of measuring water temperature by the folks at Goddard Inst for SPACE Studies.
Are you going to start rambling about buckets now?
The folks that don't want to use their fleet of SATELLITES to track temperature....
Being that satellites don't measure temperature, why would anyone want to use satellites for measuring temperature? Satellites only measure microwave radiation from across the whole troposphere. That doesn't show surface temperature, and it's only loosely tied to temperature at all. Such data has to be massaged and tweaked and run through a very complex model using all the right fudge factors to get a guess at temperature. That's why the sensible people don't rely on satellite data to get temperature. Dr. Mears of RSS, for example, says that the surface data set is obviously better, and that his satellite data should not be used in climate studies.
Sensible people measure temperature on the surface by measuring temperature on the surface, using miraculous devices called "thermometers" which directly measure actual temperature. It's an obvious indication of pseudoscience when a group deliberately throws away the good data so that they can use much fuzzier data. That's what deniers do in more or less every case, which is another reason why it's so obvious that denialism is pseudoscience.
Yeah, because a gross distortion of the ATMOSPHERE is better measured 6 ft above the surface with 20,000 badly distributed thermometers..
Oh and random ship captain's reports of "BUCKET" temperatures. Just like the good ole 19th Century methods...
Yeppers, bucket measurements taken from near the engine exhaust to boot!
The key word is "PROJECTED". From a "model".
Q: Which of the climate "models" from the past 20 years have been able to accurately predict today's weather?
A: None of them.
Totally wrong. The models have been very good. Anyone familiar with the science knows that. That's why no denier knows it -- they only know what their cult sees fit to tell them, and their cult deliberately keeps them ignorant.
I suggest you deniers now refrain from posting the fraudulent Christy graph, as that would only confirm the way deniers always push fraud. Here's the actual record.
Climate model projections compared to observations
http://www.realclimate.org/images/cmp_cmip3_2016.png
The models are not necessary?The key word is "PROJECTED". From a "model".
Q: Which of the climate "models" from the past 20 years have been able to accurately predict today's weather?
A: None of them.
Totally wrong. The models have been very good. Anyone familiar with the science knows that. That's why no denier knows it -- they only know what their cult sees fit to tell them, and their cult deliberately keeps them ignorant.
I suggest you deniers now refrain from posting the fraudulent Christy graph, as that would only confirm the way deniers always push fraud. Here's the actual record.
Climate model projections compared to observations
http://www.realclimate.org/images/cmp_cmip3_2016.png
Thing is, the models aren't even necessary. The directly measured data proves global warming theory is correct. The success of the models is just icing on the cake.
Fake as the day is long.
It must be rough for you. As time goes on, and all the data disagrees with you more and more strongly, your conspiracy theories have to get progressively crazier to explain why reality refuses match your claims.
They've wiped out the 1998 El Nino completely.
No, it just doesn't have the huge erroneous effect that shows up in the much less accurate satellite measurements.
There is no ACCELERATION at the end of the graph.
But nobody claimed warming will be accelerating.
It all comes from a desperate attempt to go back 19th century methods of measuring water temperature by the folks at Goddard Inst for SPACE Studies.
Are you going to start rambling about buckets now?
The folks that don't want to use their fleet of SATELLITES to track temperature....
Being that satellites don't measure temperature, why would anyone want to use satellites for measuring temperature? Satellites only measure microwave radiation from across the whole troposphere. That doesn't show surface temperature, and it's only loosely tied to temperature at all. Such data has to be massaged and tweaked and run through a very complex model using all the right fudge factors to get a guess at temperature. That's why the sensible people don't rely on satellite data to get temperature. Dr. Mears of RSS, for example, says that the surface data set is obviously better, and that his satellite data should not be used in climate studies.
Sensible people measure temperature on the surface by measuring temperature on the surface, using miraculous devices called "thermometers" which directly measure actual temperature. It's an obvious indication of pseudoscience when a group deliberately throws away the good data so that they can use much fuzzier data. That's what deniers do in more or less every case, which is another reason why it's so obvious that denialism is pseudoscience.
How about the Weather changes just like it has in History. Then you can understand why the Weather in Egypt is so dry, this was because the Himalayas were growing up. So it blocked the weather system and changed the flow of the upper winds carrying moisture away from the area. North Africa use to be wet and now its dry, proven by space photos of dry river beds and lakes. At one time the Gulf stream moved away from the British Isles and it got colder, but did return. They could really be happy with Global warming. You do have the carbon tax people who want to profit, even if they lie to get the support and the people to buy into the global warming story.I don't trust anything coming out of Canada now days, Progressives have it fully tied up in knots and control most if not all of the main media outlets. Talked with several people from there and they agree that things have changed for the worst up north. I think this is why many are moving to the U.S>A for more freedom. Who would ever have expected that to happen.Check out the projected days over 104 degrees after 2020 and compare them with the actual days over 104 degrees from 1960 to the present:
June 21, 2017 3:05 PM
Sick of Sacramento days above 104°? Scientists say your kids will see a lot more of them
By Phillip Reese
[email protected]
Sacramento likely will see its fifth straight day of temperatures above 104 degrees on Thursday, an unusually intense heat wave.
Such heat waves will be the norm if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise over the rest of the century, according to projections by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego.
Sacramento saw an average of four days each year when temperatures exceeded 104 degrees between 1960 and 2000.
Sacramento will see an average of 40 days each year with temperatures above 104 degrees between 2070 and 2100 if emissions continue to rise strongly through 2050 and plateau around 2100, according to the UC San Diego projections. For comparison, Tucson, AZ, saw about 30 days that hot last year.
That model predicts that Sacramento will begin to see several days with temperatures above 104 degrees in May and October as soon as the next decade.
A more hopeful scenario assumes the state will cut back emissions so they peak around 2040, then begin to decline. It provides a slightly rosier picture: 28 Sacramento days per year with temperatures over 104 degrees by 2100, with extreme heat in May and October beginning around 2040.
This chart shows the projected number of 100 degree days in Sacramento under the two scenarios. It uses the second generation Canadian Earth System Model, a widely-disseminated climate model developed by the Canadian government.
Data Tracker is a regular feature that breaks down the numbers behind today’s news. Explore more trends at sacbee.com/datatracker.
Phillip Reese: 916-321-1137, @PhillipHReese
Notice anything interesting? While the actual number of days over 104 degrees has remained constant over the past six decades, the projected number of days over 104 degrees for the next six decades is up to 10 times greater! How is it that all of the emissions of the last 60 years has had no effect on the number of these days, but the effects of emissions during the next 60 years will have an astronomical effect?
The answer is that this ludicrous claim is based on a concocted "model" which is completely devoid of empirical data. In our society, fake science is every bit as prevalent as fake news.
Well then, lets take it one step at a time.
Are glaciers almost world wide retreating?
The answer is yes.
Oceans also seem to be rising.
From that I believe it is almost certain the world is getting warmer.
Now we are down to the possible causes:
solar output
orbital changes
natural cycles
man made greenhouse gases
urban heat islands (my own from my horticultural experiences)
Perhaps we aren't all that different. What do you think we should do?
How about the Weather changes just like it has in History. Then you can understand why the Weather in Egypt is so dry, this was because the Himalayas were growing up. So it blocked the weather system and changed the flow of the upper winds carrying moisture away from the area. North Africa use to be wet and now its dry, proven by space photos of dry river beds and lakes. At one time the Gulf stream moved away from the British Isles and it got colder, but did return. They could really be happy with Global warming. You do have the carbon tax people who want to profit, even if they lie to get the support and the people to buy into the global warming story.I don't trust anything coming out of Canada now days, Progressives have it fully tied up in knots and control most if not all of the main media outlets. Talked with several people from there and they agree that things have changed for the worst up north. I think this is why many are moving to the U.S>A for more freedom. Who would ever have expected that to happen.Check out the projected days over 104 degrees after 2020 and compare them with the actual days over 104 degrees from 1960 to the present:
June 21, 2017 3:05 PM
Sick of Sacramento days above 104°? Scientists say your kids will see a lot more of them
By Phillip Reese
[email protected]
Sacramento likely will see its fifth straight day of temperatures above 104 degrees on Thursday, an unusually intense heat wave.
Such heat waves will be the norm if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise over the rest of the century, according to projections by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego.
Sacramento saw an average of four days each year when temperatures exceeded 104 degrees between 1960 and 2000.
Sacramento will see an average of 40 days each year with temperatures above 104 degrees between 2070 and 2100 if emissions continue to rise strongly through 2050 and plateau around 2100, according to the UC San Diego projections. For comparison, Tucson, AZ, saw about 30 days that hot last year.
That model predicts that Sacramento will begin to see several days with temperatures above 104 degrees in May and October as soon as the next decade.
A more hopeful scenario assumes the state will cut back emissions so they peak around 2040, then begin to decline. It provides a slightly rosier picture: 28 Sacramento days per year with temperatures over 104 degrees by 2100, with extreme heat in May and October beginning around 2040.
This chart shows the projected number of 100 degree days in Sacramento under the two scenarios. It uses the second generation Canadian Earth System Model, a widely-disseminated climate model developed by the Canadian government.
Data Tracker is a regular feature that breaks down the numbers behind today’s news. Explore more trends at sacbee.com/datatracker.
Phillip Reese: 916-321-1137, @PhillipHReese
Notice anything interesting? While the actual number of days over 104 degrees has remained constant over the past six decades, the projected number of days over 104 degrees for the next six decades is up to 10 times greater! How is it that all of the emissions of the last 60 years has had no effect on the number of these days, but the effects of emissions during the next 60 years will have an astronomical effect?
The answer is that this ludicrous claim is based on a concocted "model" which is completely devoid of empirical data. In our society, fake science is every bit as prevalent as fake news.
Well then, lets take it one step at a time.
Are glaciers almost world wide retreating?
The answer is yes.
Oceans also seem to be rising.
From that I believe it is almost certain the world is getting warmer.
Now we are down to the possible causes:
solar output
orbital changes
natural cycles
man made greenhouse gases
urban heat islands (my own from my horticultural experiences)
Perhaps we aren't all that different. What do you think we should do?
And New Mexico was once shallow ocean and then rain forest when dinosaurs roamed. And it is now high desert with desert areas generally receiving about 10 inches of rain or less in wet years--the alpine terrains will get up to 20 inches which is still well below the national average. Prolonged drought--yes, the desert can have drought too--is almost certainly what drove the Anasazi people from their cliff dwellings.
And all that climate change was well before the Industrial Revolution.
How about the Weather changes just like it has in History. Then you can understand why the Weather in Egypt is so dry, this was because the Himalayas were growing up. So it blocked the weather system and changed the flow of the upper winds carrying moisture away from the area. North Africa use to be wet and now its dry, proven by space photos of dry river beds and lakes. At one time the Gulf stream moved away from the British Isles and it got colder, but did return. They could really be happy with Global warming. You do have the carbon tax people who want to profit, even if they lie to get the support and the people to buy into the global warming story.I don't trust anything coming out of Canada now days, Progressives have it fully tied up in knots and control most if not all of the main media outlets. Talked with several people from there and they agree that things have changed for the worst up north. I think this is why many are moving to the U.S>A for more freedom. Who would ever have expected that to happen.Check out the projected days over 104 degrees after 2020 and compare them with the actual days over 104 degrees from 1960 to the present:
June 21, 2017 3:05 PM
Sick of Sacramento days above 104°? Scientists say your kids will see a lot more of them
By Phillip Reese
[email protected]
Sacramento likely will see its fifth straight day of temperatures above 104 degrees on Thursday, an unusually intense heat wave.
Such heat waves will be the norm if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise over the rest of the century, according to projections by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego.
Sacramento saw an average of four days each year when temperatures exceeded 104 degrees between 1960 and 2000.
Sacramento will see an average of 40 days each year with temperatures above 104 degrees between 2070 and 2100 if emissions continue to rise strongly through 2050 and plateau around 2100, according to the UC San Diego projections. For comparison, Tucson, AZ, saw about 30 days that hot last year.
That model predicts that Sacramento will begin to see several days with temperatures above 104 degrees in May and October as soon as the next decade.
A more hopeful scenario assumes the state will cut back emissions so they peak around 2040, then begin to decline. It provides a slightly rosier picture: 28 Sacramento days per year with temperatures over 104 degrees by 2100, with extreme heat in May and October beginning around 2040.
This chart shows the projected number of 100 degree days in Sacramento under the two scenarios. It uses the second generation Canadian Earth System Model, a widely-disseminated climate model developed by the Canadian government.
Data Tracker is a regular feature that breaks down the numbers behind today’s news. Explore more trends at sacbee.com/datatracker.
Phillip Reese: 916-321-1137, @PhillipHReese
Notice anything interesting? While the actual number of days over 104 degrees has remained constant over the past six decades, the projected number of days over 104 degrees for the next six decades is up to 10 times greater! How is it that all of the emissions of the last 60 years has had no effect on the number of these days, but the effects of emissions during the next 60 years will have an astronomical effect?
The answer is that this ludicrous claim is based on a concocted "model" which is completely devoid of empirical data. In our society, fake science is every bit as prevalent as fake news.
Well then, lets take it one step at a time.
Are glaciers almost world wide retreating?
The answer is yes.
Oceans also seem to be rising.
From that I believe it is almost certain the world is getting warmer.
Now we are down to the possible causes:
solar output
orbital changes
natural cycles
man made greenhouse gases
urban heat islands (my own from my horticultural experiences)
Perhaps we aren't all that different. What do you think we should do?
And New Mexico was once shallow ocean and then rain forest when dinosaurs roamed. And it is now high desert with desert areas generally receiving about 10 inches of rain or less in wet years--the alpine terrains will get up to 20 inches which is still well below the national average. Prolonged drought--yes, the desert can have drought too--is almost certainly what drove the Anasazi people from their cliff dwellings.
And all that climate change was well before the Industrial Revolution.
I would say there is a totally different scale of time involved.
How about the Weather changes just like it has in History. Then you can understand why the Weather in Egypt is so dry, this was because the Himalayas were growing up. So it blocked the weather system and changed the flow of the upper winds carrying moisture away from the area. North Africa use to be wet and now its dry, proven by space photos of dry river beds and lakes. At one time the Gulf stream moved away from the British Isles and it got colder, but did return. They could really be happy with Global warming. You do have the carbon tax people who want to profit, even if they lie to get the support and the people to buy into the global warming story.I don't trust anything coming out of Canada now days, Progressives have it fully tied up in knots and control most if not all of the main media outlets. Talked with several people from there and they agree that things have changed for the worst up north. I think this is why many are moving to the U.S>A for more freedom. Who would ever have expected that to happen.
Well then, lets take it one step at a time.
Are glaciers almost world wide retreating?
The answer is yes.
Oceans also seem to be rising.
From that I believe it is almost certain the world is getting warmer.
Now we are down to the possible causes:
solar output
orbital changes
natural cycles
man made greenhouse gases
urban heat islands (my own from my horticultural experiences)
Perhaps we aren't all that different. What do you think we should do?
And New Mexico was once shallow ocean and then rain forest when dinosaurs roamed. And it is now high desert with desert areas generally receiving about 10 inches of rain or less in wet years--the alpine terrains will get up to 20 inches which is still well below the national average. Prolonged drought--yes, the desert can have drought too--is almost certainly what drove the Anasazi people from their cliff dwellings.
And all that climate change was well before the Industrial Revolution.
I would say there is a totally different scale of time involved.
The point, however, is that there have been dramatic, and sometimes relatively fast major climate shifts and mini climate shifts before any industrial revolution could have affected the process. And given that the scientists climate models can't take information that we have from the past and create any kind of realistic conditions that exist now should at least give us pause for thought that what they forecast for the future is likely to be just as flawed.
I want scientists who aren't getting paid to support a hypothesis beneficial to the government and the 'new world order' to agree on all this before I willingly hand over my liberties, options, choices, and opportunities to people who very likely do not have anybody's best interests at heart other than their own.
Well why do you do it then?
Targeted results oriented science is always the problem that brings on all of this
It is just like the scream about the hole in the ozone,
Yeppers, bucket measurements taken from near the engine exhaust to boot!
Yeppers, bucket measurements taken from near the engine exhaust to boot!
Is that what your conspiracy theory has evolved into? Interesting.
It still makes zero sense and is contradicted by common sense and the data, but that's not a problem. The point of conspiracy theories is to keep the cultists from being influenced by reality, being how reality usually has that nasty liberal bias. Conspiracy theories only have to fool the cultists, and the cultists want to be fooled, so they won't be bothered if the conspiracy theories make no sense.
It ain't a conspiracy theory when it's a fact.
How about the Weather changes just like it has in History. Then you can understand why the Weather in Egypt is so dry, this was because the Himalayas were growing up. So it blocked the weather system and changed the flow of the upper winds carrying moisture away from the area. North Africa use to be wet and now its dry, proven by space photos of dry river beds and lakes. At one time the Gulf stream moved away from the British Isles and it got colder, but did return. They could really be happy with Global warming. You do have the carbon tax people who want to profit, even if they lie to get the support and the people to buy into the global warming story.Well then, lets take it one step at a time.
Are glaciers almost world wide retreating?
The answer is yes.
Oceans also seem to be rising.
From that I believe it is almost certain the world is getting warmer.
Now we are down to the possible causes:
solar output
orbital changes
natural cycles
man made greenhouse gases
urban heat islands (my own from my horticultural experiences)
Perhaps we aren't all that different. What do you think we should do?
And New Mexico was once shallow ocean and then rain forest when dinosaurs roamed. And it is now high desert with desert areas generally receiving about 10 inches of rain or less in wet years--the alpine terrains will get up to 20 inches which is still well below the national average. Prolonged drought--yes, the desert can have drought too--is almost certainly what drove the Anasazi people from their cliff dwellings.
And all that climate change was well before the Industrial Revolution.
I would say there is a totally different scale of time involved.
The point, however, is that there have been dramatic, and sometimes relatively fast major climate shifts and mini climate shifts before any industrial revolution could have affected the process. And given that the scientists climate models can't take information that we have from the past and create any kind of realistic conditions that exist now should at least give us pause for thought that what they forecast for the future is likely to be just as flawed.
I want scientists who aren't getting paid to support a hypothesis beneficial to the government and the 'new world order' to agree on all this before I willingly hand over my liberties, options, choices, and opportunities to people who very likely do not have anybody's best interests at heart other than their own.
When I follow the money I get coal mine workers and B.P. for my climate conspiracies. You get old hippies who just want to take away your car for some power trip?
BTW, I don't wanna take away your car. I own 3 cars with 24 spark plugs, 16 plug wires and 8 coil overs between them.
