Further proof global warming is a hoax!

[BlindBoo]

Great English!!

Great English? Hell that was a excellent pole vault away from your moroonie city heat hypothesis to crack on that none scientist 'ManBearPig' some more. Keep up the great deflective work.......

 

[Crick]

Average winter temperatures in the region typically hover around –18°C, but sometimes temperatures drop to –25°C for spans of a week or more. One northern Siberian town even saw temperatures plummet to –66°C this past January.

Why Are Siberian Temperatures Plummeting While the Arctic Warms? - Eos

The answer involves the intricacies of stratospheric circulation, which, if better represented in climate models, could help predict extreme weather events in Siberia and elsewhere.

eos.org

I find it interesting that you've been going on and on about this area being unmonitored yet you have tons of temperature data from there. How does that happen? I also found it interesting that you failed to note that the study used by your linked article makes a clear connection between low sea ice in the Kara and Barents Seas (a product of global warming) with the anomalously cold temperatures in Siberia. And neither this article nor the study on which it is based make any comment about a paucity of temperature monitoring stations in the area.

The number of stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present.
Only four stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations… The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Climategatekeeping: Siberia

Siberian temperatures are an interesting case study in CRU gatekeeping. As reported a few days ago here, in an email of Mar 31, 2004, Jones advised Climategate correspondent Michael Mann that he ha…

climateaudit.org

Global warming figure increasing by 1.7° does NOT include almost all of the world's 12.5% land mass and as a result the 1.7° increase doesn't count!

The rejected study on which you base your claim is dated 2004 and has never passed peer review (save the bias complaints). Here are some more recent comments about weather monitoring in Siberia:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Location-of-the-59-selected-weather-stations-in-Siberia-Figures-in-parentheses-are-the_fig1_231128466

www.arcticobserving.org/images/pdf/Workshops/4th_stpetersburg/slideshow/makshtas.pdf

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

https://siberiantimes.com/other/others/features/f0281-highest-weather-station-in-siberia-with-a-toilet-teetering-on-cliff-edge/

 

[expat_panama]

If you have convinced yourself that the over 190 nations that have signed onto the Paris Agreement have been duped into accepting falsified data and analysis contrived by an unscrupulous climatological community...

Let's be clear, I personally see the fact that the nations of the world have agreed on something to be a good thing. My political views favor agreement and unity among nations, but that's politics and I was hoping you and I would focus on science.

My political views favor agreement and unity among nations, but that's politics and I was hoping you and I would focus on science.

Earth’s temperature has risen by an average of 0.14° Fahrenheit (0.08° Celsius) per decade since 1880, or about 2° F in total.
The rate of warming since 1981 is more than twice as fast: 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade.

So when someone makes a conclusion about a physical observable phenomenon, and we want to understand it, then we ask about the data upon which the conclusion is based.

The scientific community agrees on what the temperature of the sun's surface is to an accuracy of four significant figures. There's a lot of info on how the sun's temperature is measured (example: this link) and it's easy to check out. This is not the case w/ the earth's temperature, Nobody is willing to say what the average temperature of the earth was in 1880 and every decade since.

We don't know what the scientific basis is, we only can see here the political realities.

 

[Crick]

Let's be clear, I personally see the fact that the nations of the world have agreed on something to be a good thing. My political views favor agreement and unity among nations, but that's politics and I was hoping you and I would focus on science.

My political views favor agreement and unity among nations, but that's politics and I was hoping you and I would focus on science.


So when someone makes a conclusion about a physical observable phenomenon, and we want to understand it, then we ask about the data upon which the conclusion is based.

The scientific community agrees on what the temperature of the sun's surface is to an accuracy of four significant figures. There's a lot of info on how the sun's temperature is measured (example: this link) and it's easy to check out. This is not the case w/ the earth's temperature, Nobody is willing to say what the average temperature of the earth was in 1880 and every decade since.

That is absolutely untrue. NOAA, NASA, JMA, Berkely Earth, HadCRU have ALL published temperature data back that far and their methods are completely transparent.

We don't know what the scientific basis is, we only can see here the political realities.

We can see precisely what the scientific basis is.

 

[OKTexas]

If you have convinced yourself that the over 190 nations that have signed onto the Paris Agreement have been duped into accepting falsified data and analysis contrived by an unscrupulous climatological community (that is being confirmed by demonstrable climatological consequences in recent years) while Iran, Libya, Eritrea, and Yemen champion your attitude by abstention from such a document, you sleep with strange bedfellows indeed!

Featured in the scientific data that, as apostates from the global community, Iran, Libya, Eritrea, and Yemen do not acknowledge:

• Earth’s temperature has risen by an average of 0.14° Fahrenheit (0.08° Celsius) per decade since 1880, or about 2° F in total.
  
  • The rate of warming since 1981 is more than twice as fast: 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade.
• 2022 was the sixth-warmest year on record based on NOAA’s temperature data.
  
  • The 2022 surface temperature was 1.55 °F (0.86 °Celsius) warmer than the 20th-century average of 57.0 °F (13.9 °C) and 1.90 ˚F (1.06 ˚C) warmer than the pre-industrial period (1880-1900).
• The 10 warmest years in the historical record have all occurred since 2010.

[Climate Change: Global Temperature]

Paris was nothing but a massive wealth redistribution boondoggle. Hell, I'd sign it too if it put me in line to get massive amounts of cash from developed countries. Tell me it makes sense to declare the second largest economy in the world (China) as a developing country. And here's how they are complying:

China approved equivalent of two new coal plants a week in 2022, report finds

China is surging ahead with coal, a new report shows, rapidly approving and building new power plants despite its own promises to cut back on carbon as the world plunges ever deeper into the climate crisis.

www.cnn.com

.

 

[schmidlap]

Your notion that virtually every nation on earth, every climatological body, the diverse interests of science, academia, agriculture, the military, urban planning, industry, and commerce all have a "boundless appetite for bullshit" because your ideological fervor gives you a raging appetite for it is noted.

You can derive whatever modicum of solace you might from Iran, Libya, Eritrea, and Yemen not having signed onto the Paris Accord last I checked.

Good luck with your fellow travelers.

You realize that the ideological crackpots who can't handle the empirically-established scientific reality are impotent in making it go away, I hope. You can't ignore the truth.

 

[OKTexas]

The ideological crackpots on the fringe are not preventing the global community from confronting the consequences of anthropogenic climate change. There are consequence for clinging to ignorance.

Irrationally, the deniers are promoting the mass migrations they purportedly abhor:

With at least 192 nations preparing to gather in Bonn, Germany, in June for a major climate conference, scientists at the Universities of Exeter in the UK and Nanjing in China have quantified the human cost of global warming.​

​

Their message: failing to keep temperatures in check could jeopardize the fates of 2 billion people, forcing them into intolerable circumstances. But if the global community acts quickly, it can reduce the risk by a factor of five.​

​

“There’s the potential for large-scale movements of people,” says Professor Tim Lenton, director of the Global Systems Institute at Exeter, in a conversation with this writer. “Those people who are affected are the poorer people on the planet. At higher temperatures, life becomes unbearable, affecting water, agriculture, and food. You can’t barricade yourself from climate change. There is an undeniable interconnection amongst nations.”​

​

It is easy to see how uncontrolled temperature increases would lead to extraordinary movements across borders,” says Lenton...​

​

The good news is that the corporate community is on board.​

​

Morgan Stanley MS +2.2% says that 3,152 businesses made net-zero pledges in 2022, up from 2,891 in 2021. They target emissions at their operations by deploying energy-efficient technologies and by buying cleaner fuels from third parties. They also use their financial clout to get their supply chains to take climate action.​

​

[What Is The Human Cost Of Global Warming?]​

As I said, follow the money. Still laughing.

.

 

[OKTexas]

That's not inconsequential

Yeah, it natural, we can't control nature.

.

 

[Crick]

Yeah, it natural, we can't control nature.

.

We control nature every minute of every day.

 

[OKTexas]

The big "if", ("might" and "could") is what you and Faux Not the News (and the alarmist who believed) forget. Al (manbearpig) Gore always qualified his alarmism in his stump speeches with a healthy portion of "IF....." If the current trend continues we might see.......(Horrible things, maybe). Al is not a scientist and most peer reviewed studies do not concur with his hyperbole. Most of them put the ice free artic event in the later half of the 21 century with worst case scenarios in the 2030's. Same thing with Greenlands' Ice sheet. They also predict that the Atlantic basin will see less hurricanes later in the century as it warms.

Hmmmm, did you know they used to grow grapes in Greenland and had crocodiles as far north as NY. The point is it's been much warmer than is is now, or even projected to be in the future. And they didn't have SUVs or major industry back then, and yet we are still here.

.

 

[OKTexas]

We control nature every minute of every day.

You might modify it's effects, but you don't control it.

.

 

[abu afak]

Hmmmm,pb] did you know they used to grow grapes in Greenland and had crocodiles as far north as NY. [/b]The point is it's been much warmer than is is now, or even projected to be in the future. And they didn't have SUVs or major industry back then, and yet we are still here.

.

Do you know with if they were growing Grapes in Greenland and Crocodiles in NY......NOW
It means the Poles will melt and Sea Level Goes up 230 feet.

You Goobers have no brains at all.
`

 

[OKTexas]

Do you know with if they were growing Grapes in Greenland and Crocodiles in NY......NOW
It means the Poles will melt and Sea Level Goes up 230 feet.

You Goobers have no brains at all.
`

And mankind survived, and we are much more prepared to adapt to whatever mother nature throws at us, than they were then. But we have no way to control it.

.

 

[abu afak]

And mankind survived, and we are much more prepared to adapt to whatever mother nature throws at us, than they were then. But we have no way to control it.

.

Mankind survived when there were crocodiles in NY?
When was that?
:^)
`

 

[schmidlap]

‘Monster profits’ for energy giants reveal a self-destructive fossil fuel resurgence​

Last year’s combined $200bn profit for the ‘big five’ oil and gas companies brings little hope of driving down emissions
[âMonster profitsâ for energy giants reveal a self-destructive fossil fuel resurgence]​

As I said, follow the money. Still laughing

The West's top energy firms raked in a combined record profit of $200 billion in 2022.

A dispassionate recognition of profit as a motive for the refusal to honestly confront global warming is needed, but even the fossil fuel cartel is no longer in denial.

The ideological oiks who can't handle the truth are a different problem, but this incorrigible, whiny, discredited ilk is inconsequential.

All major institutions in the United States have accepted the reality, as have virtually all nations on earth.

​

​

​

 

[multivita-man]

We need to prioritizing shutting down certain industries and prop up other ones

I actually think this is a fair point. What makes us think that the switch to renewables is going to protect us from ecological armageddon.

Not sure what the fuck the OP's about, though. The earth was not 2.5 Celsius warmer 4,000 years ago - we were coming out of an ice age.

https://scitechdaily.com/images/Past-and-Future-Global-Temperature-Trends-scaled.jpg

 

[multivita-man]

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.

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. His SubStack is here (100) The Emperor Speaks | Ivor Cummins | Substack. The video has been around for quite a while, but in case you missed the brutal four-minute take-down of all the misrepresentations about global warming...

peterhalligan.substack.com

View attachment 788038View attachment 788038

• 
  

Tl/dr: You're full of shit

 

[schmidlap]

Tl/dr: You're full of shit

The ideologically-driven denial of human impact on climate induces an ever-expanding paranoia as virtually all nations, scientific bodies, academia, agriculture, the military, etc., etc., etc. honestly confront the irrefutable empirical data.

 

[Burgermeister]

The ideologically-driven denial of human impact on climate

irony.

 

[multivita-man]

The ideologically-driven denial of human impact on climate induces an ever-expanding paranoia as virtually all nations, scientific bodies, academia, agriculture, the military, etc., etc., etc. honestly confront the irrefutable empirical data.

Yeah, the short of it is, modern human civilization is a mass-extinction event.

My only objection to climate alarmism is that there's so much emphasis on "global warming," which is an over-simplification. Our current situation is more aptly described as total ecological destruction, which includes destruction of the biosphere, but isn't limited to just that.

It's possible that multicellular life could survive a heating event. In fact it has survived several in the past, the most recent being the end of the Eocene period (50-55 million years ago) which was, compared to today, really, really fucking hot. So was the End-Permian era (250-253 million years ago). Equatorial high temps regularly hit 160-170F! And yet life somehow persisted. Just not at the equator. It was up closer to the poles, which had no ice then.

Of these two hot periods, though, the Permian was a far deadlier event, killing 90% of all species, and even wiping out many insect species. It wasn't just heat that made the Permian a super killer; it was the heating of halogens - in addition to the release of massive amounts of carbon. Oceans, which are carbon sinks, had sucked in so much carbon and heat that it had massive amounts of anoxic dead zones. Marine ecosystems collapsed - as they are beginning to right now.

It's not just the release of carbon that makes this extinction so dangerous; it's our release of other toxins and our total habitat destruction independent of global warming. We're killing off insects. Do that, and we'll kill of bird species as well and we'll destroy entire flora and fauna ecosystems -- not far away from that actually.

At our current rate, there won't be much life left in another 100+ years and what survives will be in pain and struggling.