Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
The references didn't back your claim.
Further proof global warming is a hoax!
- Thread starter healthmyths
- Start date
The references didn't back your claim.
badbob85037
Diamond Member
- Jun 30, 2018
- 3,689
- 2,503
- 1,938
It's 3pm in Phoenix in the middle of June and it is 98 degrees. This is the coolest it has been in the Summer in the 45 years I have lived here. But some people got to have some kind of dooms day B.S. going on or they are not happy. So just remember you climate freaks don't come to Phoenix. It will burst your little bubble.How many times have we heard this from climatechangevangelistas? The earth has warmed 1.53 degrees... Global Warming!!!
EXCEPT they didn't mention these points...
- 4,000 years ago 2.5 degrees warmer than today
- There has been an increase in temperature in the 20th century – BUT the increase was from the lowest point in 10,000 years - 1875.
- 20th century temperature increase = man made? Not provable.
View attachment 788038View attachment 788038
Ice core samples reveal that UN IPCC climate models picked the 8,000 year low of global temperatures on which to base their absurd “anthropogenic global warming” (AGW) cult
Ivor Cummins posted this 4 minute video on YouTube a few weeks ago.peterhalligan.substack.com
flack
Diamond Member
GLOBAL temperatures continue to rise and there is a very good chance that in the next 3-5 years they will take a dramatic leap upward. Some places will be cooler, some places will be warmer but what matters is what the planet as a whole is doing.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 150,415
- 34,533
- 2,180
flack
Diamond Member
There has been no warming in 8 years.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 150,415
- 34,533
- 2,180
He’s a repeat the lie as often as possible demfk. Never any data
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 150,415
- 34,533
- 2,180
The real insanity is what they call human co2 is but the smallest percentage of co2 but for them lethal. Hilarious
healthmyths
Platinum Member
- Sep 19, 2011
- 29,984
- 11,455
- 900
- Thread starter
- #389
Just curious... where are your sources that a very good chance??... 20% increase? 60% increase of a "dramatic leap".. 2 degrees?
Note: Since 1880, average global temperatures have increased by about 1 degrees Celsius (1.7° degrees Fahrenheit).
The Science of Climate Change | The world is warming | Wisconsin DNR
dnr.wisconsin.gov
Finally, from the first recording efforts in 1880.. see the attached article and especially of the many questions, are you
familiar with "Urban Heating Islands"?? And that 12.5% of the earth's land mass had at the most 23 reading stations to as few as 4?
The point is doubts about global warming !
Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming
NOW if you continue to believe in CO2 emissions raising global warming, why don't you investigate the following that
would NOT cost the following:
A dramatic new EPA rule will force up to 60% of new US car sales to be EVs in just 7 years following California's lead of banning the sale of ICE vehicles by 2035. A dramatic new EPA rule will force up to 60% of new US car sales to be EVs in just 7 years NOTE today there are 228,200,000 drivers in USA..https://www.statista.com/statistics/198029/total-number-of-us-licensed-drivers-by-state/ if 65% are EV vehicle drivers the average driver drives 14,000 miles/year. https://www.thezebra.com/resources/driving/average-miles-driven-per-year/ 65% of 228,200,000 equals 171 million averaging 14,000 miles or total miles driven by EVs of 2,076,620,000,000 . The amount of ADDITIONAL electricity needed at the average of .25 kWh/mile or total kWh needed per year..519 billion kWh or about 12% of total electricity used in USA. Now as one of the 129 million households that will pay both directly and indirectly for the additional 1,379 power plants at a cost of $2,000/ kWh are you prepared to pay $1,038,050,000,000,000 ($1.1 quadrillion) or per household of $7,991,303? Oh and remember they are including "trucks" in the 65% vehicles. Trucks, buses, etc. average about 1.89 kWh/mile. The cost of building the additional 13,227 plants or $9,952,973,292,637,000 for a grand total of
$9,952,973,292,637,000 as 60% of EV cars/trucks need 14,606 power plants generating additional 7,053,106,646,319 kWh..
Have you seen these figures? NOPE because no one seems able to link 65% increase in electricity useage will cause construction of 14,606 power plants at a cost of $9,952,973,292,637,000
I know, I know... too much information!
But before we destroy the world's economy... LOOK at this.....
Direct Air Capture(DAC) that would cost $100 a ton to remove 100% of the CO2 in 2020, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 6,600,000,000 tons (13.2 trillion pounds) of carbon dioxide equivalents.Mar 24, 2023 or total cost of $660,000,000,000 to remove ALL of USA CO2 emissions.
Climate Change Indicators: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions | US EPA
This indicator describes emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States.
www.epa.gov
But the $9,952,973,292,637,000 as 60% of EV cars/trucks for 14,606 power plants are over 80 times more than the $660,000,000,000 using DAC to remove ALL USA CO2.
Last edited:
Climate Change Is Speeding Toward Catastrophe. The Next Decade Is Crucial, U.N. Panel Says. (Published 2023)
A new report says it is still possible to hold global warming to relatively safe levels, but doing so will require global cooperation, billions of dollars and big changes.
Global temperatures set to reach new records in next five years
Global temperatures are likely to surge to record levels in the next five years, fuelled by heat-trapping greenhouse gases and a naturally occurring El Niño event, according to a new update issued by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
When will global warming actually hit the landmark 1.5 ºC limit?
The planet is on track to reach the 1.5 ºC average by the 2030s — although a new report suggests a single year will probably cross the line much sooner.
www.nature.com
Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought
Latest IPCC climate report warns that rising greenhouse-gas emissions could soon outstrip the ability of many communities to adapt.
www.nature.com
1.1C (1.98F) Your numbers are over ten years old.
Are you in Wisconsin?
It's precisely what it sounds like: a subjective term indicating a significantly faster rise for the next 3-5 years than we have averaged for the past several decades. If I tell you the temperature is going to go up you will attempt to refute that with the charge that I can't say precisely how far up, ignoring the fact that the temperature will indeed go up.
Yes, I am familiar with urban heat islands. And the argument that the Earth has insufficient temperature stations is a load of horseshit. If you have doubts about AGW, you are either unfamiliar with the science or have chosen to reject it for political reasons.
This is some rather deceitful titling. An article from the National Association of Scholars (vice the far more well-known and reputable National Academy of Science, who share the same acronym), a conservative education advocacy group advocating for the elimination of Critical Race Theory, diversity training and same-sex discussions in American schools and colleges QUOTES S Fred Singer (who died three years ago at the age of 96) as estimating (off the top of his head) that 40% of climate scientists doubt AGW. Singer's comment has been repeatedly shown to be without any basis - it is a complete load of crap.Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming
I do. So do very, very close to every single science-trained person on this whole fucking planet. And with unassailable reasons.
???
Why are you repeating yourself?
I don't plan on doing any more investigation than is accomplished reading studies and articles and perhaps watching a few videos. I'm not a scientist. Scientists investigate all manner of things and I trust that they will do a far better job than you or I could. But you don't want to believe them, do you? You think they're lying to us and that you're smarter than the average scientist. Unfortunately, you're wrong on both those counts and every conclusion you've reached based on those two falsehoods.
You should probably stay away from numbers. Where did 65% come from? I suspect it was the 60% of new car sales to be EVs within 7 years. The trouble is you should have been looking at numbers of cars and new car sales, not drivers. Google tells me that while there are 278,063,737 cars and trucks in the US at present, that last year there were only 13.8 million new cars sold in the US. So, the added EVs will be 60% of 13.8 million or 8,280,000 EVs not the 171 million you came up with (a 20-fold error). That assumes, of course, that new car sales will remain unchanged; a very unlikely supposition given the significantly higher price of EVs.
The topic has been brought up here repeatedly and you're not the person to competently make the argument. I'm not worried about it and I suspect you'll be buying and driving ICEs till you die, so what do you care?
What we have too much of here is your errors and your abysmal understanding of any of the topics you've chosen to bring up.
We aren't destroying the world's economy. But failing to do anything about global warming will. What do you think the permanent migration of a few billion people will cost? Crop failures? Water shortages? The Sixth Great Extinction?
I really suggest you stay away from numbers. You're not doing yourself or your arguments any favors here.Direct Air Capture(DAC) that would cost $100 a ton to remove 100% of the CO2 in 2020, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 6,600,000,000 tons (13.2 trillion pounds) of carbon dioxide equivalents.Mar 24, 2023 or total cost of $660,000,000,000 to remove ALL of USA CO2 emissions.
Climate Change Indicators: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions | US EPA
This indicator describes emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States.
But the $9,952,973,292,637,000 as 60% of EV cars/trucks for 14,606 power plants are over 80 times more than the $660,000,000,000 using DAC to remove ALL USA CO2.
2012? The current year is 2023. We have newer and more accurate data today. And WattsUpWithThat is not science. It's crap. The only reason for preferring them to, say NASA, NOAA, Hadley, Berkely Earth, JMA or a half dozen other climatological organizations who have real scientists doing real science is that you made up your mind in advance of gaining any objective knowledge of the subject and WUWT spouts nonsense you agrees with. Well, that's your problem and I suggest you fix it before you conclude that you're qualified to give anyone else advice on this subject.
Last edited:
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
themirrorthief
Diamond Member
the global warming hacks are starting to feel the heat
What heat would that be?
healthmyths
Platinum Member
- Sep 19, 2011
- 29,984
- 11,455
- 900
- Thread starter
- #396
Now this is the only true statement you made about yourself..Climate Change Is Speeding Toward Catastrophe. The Next Decade Is Crucial, U.N. Panel Says. (Published 2023)
A new report says it is still possible to hold global warming to relatively safe levels, but doing so will require global cooperation, billions of dollars and big changes.www.nytimes.com
Global temperatures set to reach new records in next five years
Global temperatures are likely to surge to record levels in the next five years, fuelled by heat-trapping greenhouse gases and a naturally occurring El Niño event, according to a new update issued by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).public.wmo.int
When will global warming actually hit the landmark 1.5 ºC limit?
The planet is on track to reach the 1.5 ºC average by the 2030s — although a new report suggests a single year will probably cross the line much sooner.Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought
Latest IPCC climate report warns that rising greenhouse-gas emissions could soon outstrip the ability of many communities to adapt.
1.1C (1.98F) Your numbers are over ten years old.
Are you in Wisconsin?
It's precisely what it sounds like: a subjective term indicating a significantly faster rise for the next 3-5 years than we have averaged for the past several decades. If I tell you the temperature is going to go up you will attempt to refute that with the charge that I can't say precisely how far up, ignoring the fact that the temperature will indeed go up.
Yes, I am familiar with urban heat islands. And the argument that the Earth has insufficient temperature stations is a load of horseshit. If you have doubts about AGW, you are either unfamiliar with the science or have chosen to reject it for political reasons.
This is some rather deceitful titling. An article from the National Association of Scholars (vice the far more well-known and reputable National Academy of Science, who share the same acronym), a conservative education advocacy group advocating for the elimination of Critical Race Theory, diversity training and same-sex discussions in American schools and colleges QUOTES S Fred Singer (who died three years ago at the age of 96) as estimating (off the top of his head) that 40% of climate scientists doubt AGW. Singer's comment has been repeatedly shown to be without any basis - it is a complete load of crap.
I do. So do very, very close to every single science-trained person on this whole fucking planet. And with unassailable reasons.
???
Why are you repeating yourself?
I don't plan on doing any more investigation than is accomplished reading studies and articles and perhaps watching a few videos. I'm not a scientist. Scientists investigate all manner of things and I trust that they will do a far better job than you or I could. But you don't want to believe them, do you? You think they're lying to us and that you're smarter than the average scientist. Unfortunately, you're wrong on both those counts and every conclusion you've reached based on those two falsehoods.
You should probably stay away from numbers. Where did 65% come from? I suspect it was the 60% of new car sales to be EVs within 7 years. The trouble is you should have been looking at numbers of cars and new car sales, not drivers. Google tells me that while there are 278,063,737 cars and trucks in the US at present, that last year there were only 13.8 million new cars sold in the US. So, the added EVs will be 60% of 13.8 million or 8,280,000 EVs not the 171 million you came up with (a 20-fold error). That assumes, of course, that new car sales will remain unchanged; a very unlikely supposition given the significantly higher price of EVs.
The topic has been brought up here repeatedly and you're not the person to competently make the argument. I'm not worried about it and I suspect you'll be buying and driving ICEs till you die, so what do you care?
What we have too much of here is your errors and your abysmal understanding of any of the topics you've chosen to bring up.
We aren't destroying the world's economy. But failing to do anything about global warming will. What do you think the permanent migration of a few billion people will cost? Crop failures? Water shortages? The Sixth Great Extinction?
I really suggest you stay away from numbers. You're not doing yourself or your arguments any favors here.
2012? The current year is 2023. We have newer and more accurate data today. And WattsUpWithThat is not science. It's crap. The only reason for preferring them to, say NASA, NOAA, Hadley, Berkely Earth, JMA or a half dozen other climatological organizations who have real scientists doing real science is that you made up your mind in advance of gaining any objective knowledge of the subject and WUWT spouts nonsense you agrees with. Well, that's your problem and I suggest you fix it before you conclude that you're qualified to give anyone else advice on this subject.
because "scientists" generally provide proof or links or substantiation. NONE of which you have done.
Just your guesses!
The major difference between me and you is I don't depend on my own personal opinions. Where are your links to your statements like:
Where is the newer and more accurate data to refute by substantiation?
You also said without any proof...
You are not only failing to provide TRUTH but I NEVER said the EARTH ! I said and I quote: "12.5% of the Earth's mass!
There is a gross distinction here. What is a "sufficient number"? But if you make a lop sided decision based on the fact that 12.5% of the Earth's MASS... not oceans even, didn't have stations... common sense would seem to indicate there are especially in Siberia where this took place to make a GLOBAL statement that the Earth's temperature has increased by "Strengthening the Global Response to 1.5°C Global Warming. . Since 1970 the global average temperature has been rising at a rate of 1.7°C per century, compared to a long-term decline over the past 7,000 years at a baseline rate of 0.01°C per century (NOAA, 2016; Marcott et al., 2013). https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/ch... 1.5°C Global Warming&text=14-,.,et al., 2013).
Now do you understand this?
The temperature has not since 1970 increased at 1.7° which the biased MSM in this article lead idiots to believe i.e. their context was "Since 1970 the global average temperature has been rising at a rate of 1.7°C per century,
FACT So in 100 years the temperature increased 1.7° Right?
Which per year is an increase of 0.017° per year or since 1970...
How many years since 1970? 53 years...
So in 53 years the temperature increased not 1.7°
but half that or 0.9° increase
OR 0.017° per year which in a century would be 1.7° increase, not the mislead statement 1.7% since 1970!
healthmyths
Platinum Member
- Sep 19, 2011
- 29,984
- 11,455
- 900
- Thread starter
- #397
Now your complaint about my choice of "60% " of ALL Drivers today was RIGHT. OK...Climate Change Is Speeding Toward Catastrophe. The Next Decade Is Crucial, U.N. Panel Says. (Published 2023)
A new report says it is still possible to hold global warming to relatively safe levels, but doing so will require global cooperation, billions of dollars and big changes.Global temperatures set to reach new records in next five years
Global temperatures are likely to surge to record levels in the next five years, fuelled by heat-trapping greenhouse gases and a naturally occurring El Niño event, according to a new update issued by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).When will global warming actually hit the landmark 1.5 ºC limit?
The planet is on track to reach the 1.5 ºC average by the 2030s — although a new report suggests a single year will probably cross the line much sooner.Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought
Latest IPCC climate report warns that rising greenhouse-gas emissions could soon outstrip the ability of many communities to adapt.
1.1C (1.98F) Your numbers are over ten years old.
Are you in Wisconsin?
It's precisely what it sounds like: a subjective term indicating a significantly faster rise for the next 3-5 years than we have averaged for the past several decades. If I tell you the temperature is going to go up you will attempt to refute that with the charge that I can't say precisely how far up, ignoring the fact that the temperature will indeed go up.
Yes, I am familiar with urban heat islands. And the argument that the Earth has insufficient temperature stations is a load of horseshit. If you have doubts about AGW, you are either unfamiliar with the science or have chosen to reject it for political reasons.
This is some rather deceitful titling. An article from the National Association of Scholars (vice the far more well-known and reputable National Academy of Science, who share the same acronym), a conservative education advocacy group advocating for the elimination of Critical Race Theory, diversity training and same-sex discussions in American schools and colleges QUOTES S Fred Singer (who died three years ago at the age of 96) as estimating (off the top of his head) that 40% of climate scientists doubt AGW. Singer's comment has been repeatedly shown to be without any basis - it is a complete load of crap.
I do. So do very, very close to every single science-trained person on this whole fucking planet. And with unassailable reasons.
???
Why are you repeating yourself?
I don't plan on doing any more investigation than is accomplished reading studies and articles and perhaps watching a few videos. I'm not a scientist. Scientists investigate all manner of things and I trust that they will do a far better job than you or I could. But you don't want to believe them, do you? You think they're lying to us and that you're smarter than the average scientist. Unfortunately, you're wrong on both those counts and every conclusion you've reached based on those two falsehoods.
You should probably stay away from numbers. Where did 65% come from? I suspect it was the 60% of new car sales to be EVs within 7 years. The trouble is you should have been looking at numbers of cars and new car sales, not drivers. Google tells me that while there are 278,063,737 cars and trucks in the US at present, that last year there were only 13.8 million new cars sold in the US. So, the added EVs will be 60% of 13.8 million or 8,280,000 EVs not the 171 million you came up with (a 20-fold error). That assumes, of course, that new car sales will remain unchanged; a very unlikely supposition given the significantly higher price of EVs.
The topic has been brought up here repeatedly and you're not the person to competently make the argument. I'm not worried about it and I suspect you'll be buying and driving ICEs till you die, so what do you care?
What we have too much of here is your errors and your abysmal understanding of any of the topics you've chosen to bring up.
We aren't destroying the world's economy. But failing to do anything about global warming will. What do you think the permanent migration of a few billion people will cost? Crop failures? Water shortages? The Sixth Great Extinction?
I really suggest you stay away from numbers. You're not doing yourself or your arguments any favors here.
2012? The current year is 2023. We have newer and more accurate data today. And WattsUpWithThat is not science. It's crap. The only reason for preferring them to, say NASA, NOAA, Hadley, Berkely Earth, JMA or a half dozen other climatological organizations who have real scientists doing real science is that you made up your mind in advance of gaining any objective knowledge of the subject and WUWT spouts nonsense you agrees with. Well, that's your problem and I suggest you fix it before you conclude that you're qualified to give anyone else advice on this subject.
I agree I should have used 60% new CARs/Trucks in 7 years would be then based on these statistics:
"The U.S. auto industry sold nearly 2.86 million cars in 2022. That year, total car and light truck sales were approximately 13.75 million in the United States. U.S. vehicle sales peaked in 2016 at roughly 17.5 million units."
U.S.: car sales per year 1951-2024 | Statista
How many new cars are sold in the US each year? Car sales decreased in the past years. Around 3 million cars were sold in 2021, a number dipped in 2022.
www.statista.com
So in 7 years that would be a total for 20,020,000 cars
- averaging .25 kWh/mile and each driver averaging
- 14,263 miles per car or total miles of
- 285,545,260,000 miles per year or total kWh needed at .25 kWh/mile:
- 71,386,315,000 kWh in addition to average output of 11,070 power plants of 4,165,030,000,000 kWh. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
- Trucks get an average of 1.89kWh/mile for 1,600,434,492,927 driven miles
- a total of 3,024,821,191,633 kWh just by the Trucks.
- The average power station generates 376,244,806 kWh/ plant, thus there will be a need for
- 8,040 NEW power plants at a cost of $2,000/kWh or
- $6,049,642,383,265,680 or $6 quadrillion where will the money come from?
Last edited:
I have provided more links to more reliable sources than any other poster in this forum.
Is English not your native language? You phrase that as if you are about to quote something I said that requires support, then put in an unintelligible question of your own. The terms refute and substantiate are antonyms. I presume you are criticizing my comment that we have newer and more accurate data here in 2023 than the work you cited that ended in 2012. It is as if you asked me to substantiate that the sun rose this morning.
There are no proofs in the natural sciences. Only evidence. So, where is what I "said without any proof"? Did you fail to get your coffee this morning?
If some significant portion of the Earth had insufficient stations, the Earth has insufficient stations, particularly since the final product in question is the temperature of the EARTH. And, in your initial post, what you should have said there was "12.5% of the Earth's "SURFACE AREA", not "mass".
The uneducated always seem prone to false dichotomies and commonly with bad data. If I have one thermometer to measure the temperature of the Earth, I will get a value but it is likely to have a significant error. If I have two, I get a little better. If I have 100, it gets a lot better. The more datapoints (thermometers) I have, the less error - the greater accuracy of the result. First, Siberia has an area of 5.058 million square miles. The total surface of the Earth is 196.9 million square miles. (Both from Google) Siberia thus makes up only 2.56% of the Earth's surface. Second, the claim that all of Siberia was only monitored by four thermometers throughout the 20th century is disingenuous. What you mean to say is that only four thermometers monitored Siberia throughout all of the 20th century. During different periods of the 20th Century, as you noted, far more were in use. There are currently more than 59 stations there making your source's claim of only four from "1989 to the present" demonstrably false. https://www.researchgate.net/figure...Figures-in-parentheses-are-the_fig1_231128466. The conclusion that this has distorted global temperatures is simply unsupported by the facts (if that's what they are) presented.
Since your source has concluded that 4 is not sufficient, they are the ones making that determination. It would always be nice to have lots of data points, but they will always be finite and reanalysis will always be required. There is no statistical or fluid dynamics based argument provided to support the contention that global temperature data has been - or even could have been - biased by the claimed low number of Siberian stations.
1) Siberia is 2.56% of the Earth's surface, not 12.5%
2) Throughout most of the 20th century Siberia was sufficiently monitored
3) A lack of data, by itself, does not bias data. It increases deviation.
4) I see no information showing that the four named locations were at badly UHI-affected locations.
5) If all Siberian data were coming from only four stations, those stations would be very likely to be tightly monitored and any UHI influences would be known and compensated for.
Yes, I do understand this. We had passed the interglacial peak and the world was cooling and moving towards the next ice age (in several millennia) when human CO2 emissions reversed the trend and started warming the globe.
Wrong. Your problem is your real shortcomings in basic science and mathematics. The given rate is that measured since 1970. A rate can be determined over a century, a decade, a single year, a month, a day, an hour, a second or even instantaneously. They are NOT saying that it has increased 1.7 degrees in the last century. They are saying that, since 1970 till whenever that measurement was made, it was getting warmer at a rate that, if taken over a century, would increase temps by 1.7 degrees. If you drive your car at 35 mph, it does not mean that over the last hour you have covered 35 miles.
I strongly suggest you work on a GED or whatever you need to improve your understanding of mathematics and science.
Last edited:
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 150,415
- 34,533
- 2,180
my temperatures in Chicago change over 40 degrees F quite often. Why are we still here?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Upcoming Book Reveals the Turmoil in the White House Over Biden Cognitive Test That Wasn't
- Started by Hollie
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
-
