Home insurance and climate

1751508692252-webp.1131677


1998changesannotated-sg2014.gif


Son of a gun! After the unwarranted "Baseline Adjustment" it's warming all over again!
 
It is all FUDGE, all of it.

The only actual warming in the data is from the growth of urban areas on the surface of the urban area. There is no other actual warming in the data...

NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
NO WARMING in the OCEANS
NO ONGOING NET ICE MELT
NO BREAKOUT in CANE ACTIVITY
NO OCEAN RISE
NO INCREASE in SURFACE AIR PRESSURE


= PLANET EARTH is NOT WARMING
 
It is all FUDGE, all of it.

The only actual warming in the data is from the growth of urban areas on the surface of the urban area. There is no other actual warming in the data...

NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
NO WARMING in the OCEANS
NO ONGOING NET ICE MELT
NO BREAKOUT in CANE ACTIVITY
NO OCEAN RISE
NO INCREASE in SURFACE AIR PRESSURE


= PLANET EARTH is NOT WARMING
1998changesannotated-sg2014.gif


No Warming? No problem!

They just alter the data to fit their false theory
 
You shouldn't be criticizing what you obviously don't understand, Debbie.
There were a number of preventative course of actions that could have minimized
the disasters.
There are some cases in which the correct action at a particular time would have prevented the spread of the fires. However, once a fire gets going in a wind above 30 miles an hour, and most of the really big fires recorded winds of 50+ mph, there is no way of stopping the fire. And the high winds are also knocking down power lines that start fires where there is no easy access. Of course, one could underground the power in the vulnerable areas, and double the cost of electricity, no one would complain about that, right? Big wildfires are going to be a fact of life as a changing climate creates optimum conditions for them. And we simply do not have the resources to eliminate that threat.
 
Hide the Decline...

everyone with a brain understood what that meant, that fudging data was casual routine normalcy at climate fraud central...
Now there are some people that live in an alternative universe, and others that are just to ******* stupid to see what is going on around them.
 
There are some cases in which the correct action at a particular time would have prevented the spread of the fires. However, once a fire gets going in a wind above 30 miles an hour, and most of the really big fires recorded winds of 50+ mph, there is no way of stopping the fire. And the high winds are also knocking down power lines that start fires where there is no easy access. Of course, one could underground the power in the vulnerable areas, and double the cost of electricity, no one would complain about that, right? Big wildfires are going to be a fact of life as a changing climate creates optimum conditions for them. And we simply do not have the resources to eliminate that threat.
The key is to clean out the dead fall, which you moronic "environmentalists" prevent at every opportunity.
 
The fact is that AT MOST 120PPM of CO2 will raise temperature .0024F

1653955514542-png.652088


Delta between common air and 100% CO2

Experiment 1: 90-90 = 0
Experiment 2: 100-94 = 6
Experiment 3: 110-99= 11
Experiment 4: 120-100= 20

The incremental heat from 120PPM CO2 is therefore:

Experiment 1: 0
Experiment 2: .00072F
Experiment 3: .00132F
Experiment 4: .0024F
Well now, that was from 1858, here is a summary from 2021;

Plain Language Summary​


Increasing CO2 reduces the rate at which energy leaves Earth, causing a net energy gain at its surface. The resulting warming increases the rate that energy leaves the planet. The planet stops warming once it regains balance. Studies usually assume that doubling atmospheric CO2 always produces the same eventual global temperature rise (called the “equilibrium climate sensitivity”), whatever the starting CO2 level. We show, on the contrary, that in nearly all the computer climate models we have examined, the extra warming for each doubling goes up as the CO2 level increases. In most models, the warmer the climate becomes, the more it has to warm in order to balance a further CO2 doubling because warming becomes less effective at rebalancing the flow of energy. This effect increases projections of warming, especially for scenarios of greatest CO2 increase.

And then the math;


2 Equilibrium Warming​

Let T be the globally averaged surface temperature and ΔTTT<em>pi</em> be the warming relative to the preindustrial period. We define ΔT<em>eq</em>(C) as the equilibrium warming caused by changing the CO2 concentration from its preindustrial value (pCO2,<em>pi</em> ≈ 280ppm) to a new value (pCO2), where Cis the number of CO2 doublings relative to this preindustrial period,
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0001
(1)
Under preindustrial conditions, C<em>pi</em> = 0; in an abrupt 2 × CO2 simulation, C = 1; and so forth. Table S1 is a glossary of all symbols used in this paper.

One condition for equilibrium is that the net top-of-atmosphere radiative flux N (downwards positive) is zero, on average. If we assume that N depends solely on C and T, then we can express a change in N in an abrupt n × CO2 simulation as an initial change due to C and a subsequent change due to T:
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0002
(2)
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0003
(3)
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0004
(4)
F is the radiative forcing, the change in N relative to a given initial condition (C<em>i</em>, T<em>i</em>) caused by C doublings of CO2 while holding surface temperature fixed (F(C<em>i</em>, T<em>i</em>, C) ≡ N(C<em>i</em> + C, T<em>i</em>) − N(C<em>i</em>, T<em>i</em>)), and λ is the radiative feedback, the dependence of N on T (λ(C, T) ≡ ∂N(C, T)/∂T), where the sign convention implies the feedback is typically negative. We can find ΔT<em>eq</em>(C) by setting N(C, T) = 0:
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0005
(5)
where we assume N(C<em>pi</em>, T<em>pi</em>) = 0, since the preindustrial climate was roughly in equilibrium.

Under preindustrial concentrations, the spectral line shape of CO2 absorption bands creates a logarithmic dependence of N on changes in pCO2, so that the forcing per CO2doubling (
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0006
) is often assumed to be constant (Myhre et al., 1998). Our definition of radiative forcing also includes adjustments of the atmosphere, land, and ocean to CO2 changes that occur independently of subsequent changes in surface temperature (e.g., Kamae et al., 2015; Sherwood et al., 2014). This “effective radiative forcing” is also often assumed to be constant per CO2 doubling (Forster et al., 2016), as is the radiative feedback (Gregory et al., 2004; Hansen et al., 1985). Substituting these constant terms into Equation 5, we can solve for ΔT<em>eq</em>(C):
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0007
(6)
Assuming a constant
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0008
and λ is equivalent to approximating N(T, C) with the linear Taylor expansion of N around preindustrial values of C<em>pi</em> and T<em>pi</em> (i.e.,
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0009
, where C = ΔC because C<em>pi</em> = 0). The linear approximation of Equation 6 is ubiquitous in climate science (e.g., Knutti et al., 2017; Stocker et al., 2013).

The linear approximation implies that the equilibrium climate sensitivityT2<em>x</em>), the equilibrium warming per CO2 doubling, is simply
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0010
, which, being a ratio of two constants, is itself a constant. It should therefore not matter how many CO2 doublings are used to estimate it since ΔT2<em>x</em> = ΔT<em>eq</em> (C1)/C1 = ΔT<em>eq</em> (C2)/C2. Figure 1a shows instead that our estimates of ΔT<em>eq</em>(C)/C increase with CO2 concentration for 13 of 14 models. Colored bars show estimates made by extrapolating regressions of years 21–150 of N against ΔT to equilibrium (N = 0) for abrupt 2<em>C</em> × CO2 simulations (Gregory et al., 2004, see also solid gray lines in Figure S1). In these estimates, N and ΔT are anomalies: for LongRunMIP, we subtract the model's control simulation's mean value; for CMIP6, we subtract the linear fit of the control simulation after the branch point for the abrupt n × CO2 simulations. We use only one ensemble member for each simulation.


Now that is a American Geophysical Union publication, and I am sure that old Westie thinks he is smarter than all the real scientists in the AGU.
 
The key is to clean out the dead fall, which you moronic "environmentalists" prevent at every opportunity.
You truly are that ******* dumb. Apparently you have no idea of the size of the forests in the Western US. Or the kind of terrain that those forest are on. And you claim to by a PhD geologist. LOL
 
You truly are that ******* dumb. Apparently you have no idea of the size of the forests in the Western US. Or the kind of terrain that those forest are on. And you claim to by a PhD geologist. LOL
Nah, I have no idea having worked as a Hot Shot during my college days.

You truly are a ignorant ****. Deadfall clearance is a year round job. Except your environutjobs refuse to allow it to be done.

You all are nothing but mental midgets
 
Tens of thousands of people are losing their home insurance due to increasing risk of fire and storms. Areas that used to be insurable are no longer insurable or only insurable at a rate that makes the mortgage unaffordable for most. But the deniers still insist nothing is happening. LOL



As the articles states, wild fire burnt area is less and no one is reporting it.

The reason why no one is reporting it, is because if doesn't follow the narrative, the political science. Everyone is on the band wagon to charge everyone more and more, and the excuse to do so is climate change. The city I used to live in is built on a flood plain.Historical notes shows the city has experienced floods for hundreds of years, but the floods from 2000 are classed as the result of man made climate change. We live in stupid times.

The Weather and climate in Southern Scotland is improving!!
 
Well now, that was from 1858, here is a summary from 2021;

Plain Language Summary​


Increasing CO2 reduces the rate at which energy leaves Earth, causing a net energy gain at its surface. The resulting warming increases the rate that energy leaves the planet. The planet stops warming once it regains balance. Studies usually assume that doubling atmospheric CO2 always produces the same eventual global temperature rise (called the “equilibrium climate sensitivity”), whatever the starting CO2 level. We show, on the contrary, that in nearly all the computer climate models we have examined, the extra warming for each doubling goes up as the CO2 level increases. In most models, the warmer the climate becomes, the more it has to warm in order to balance a further CO2 doubling because warming becomes less effective at rebalancing the flow of energy. This effect increases projections of warming, especially for scenarios of greatest CO2 increase.

And then the math;


2 Equilibrium Warming​

Let T be the globally averaged surface temperature and ΔTTT<em>pi</em> be the warming relative to the preindustrial period. We define ΔT<em>eq</em>(C) as the equilibrium warming caused by changing the CO2 concentration from its preindustrial value (pCO2,<em>pi</em> ≈ 280ppm) to a new value (pCO2), where Cis the number of CO2 doublings relative to this preindustrial period,
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0001
(1)
Under preindustrial conditions, C<em>pi</em> = 0; in an abrupt 2 × CO2 simulation, C = 1; and so forth. Table S1 is a glossary of all symbols used in this paper.

One condition for equilibrium is that the net top-of-atmosphere radiative flux N (downwards positive) is zero, on average. If we assume that N depends solely on C and T, then we can express a change in N in an abrupt n × CO2 simulation as an initial change due to C and a subsequent change due to T:
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0002
(2)
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0003
(3)
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0004
(4)
F is the radiative forcing, the change in N relative to a given initial condition (C<em>i</em>, T<em>i</em>) caused by C doublings of CO2 while holding surface temperature fixed (F(C<em>i</em>, T<em>i</em>, C) ≡ N(C<em>i</em> + C, T<em>i</em>) − N(C<em>i</em>, T<em>i</em>)), and λ is the radiative feedback, the dependence of N on T (λ(C, T) ≡ ∂N(C, T)/∂T), where the sign convention implies the feedback is typically negative. We can find ΔT<em>eq</em>(C) by setting N(C, T) = 0:
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0005
(5)
where we assume N(C<em>pi</em>, T<em>pi</em>) = 0, since the preindustrial climate was roughly in equilibrium.

Under preindustrial concentrations, the spectral line shape of CO2 absorption bands creates a logarithmic dependence of N on changes in pCO2, so that the forcing per CO2doubling (
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0006
) is often assumed to be constant (Myhre et al., 1998). Our definition of radiative forcing also includes adjustments of the atmosphere, land, and ocean to CO2 changes that occur independently of subsequent changes in surface temperature (e.g., Kamae et al., 2015; Sherwood et al., 2014). This “effective radiative forcing” is also often assumed to be constant per CO2 doubling (Forster et al., 2016), as is the radiative feedback (Gregory et al., 2004; Hansen et al., 1985). Substituting these constant terms into Equation 5, we can solve for ΔT<em>eq</em>(C):
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0007
(6)
Assuming a constant
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0008
and λ is equivalent to approximating N(T, C) with the linear Taylor expansion of N around preindustrial values of C<em>pi</em> and T<em>pi</em> (i.e.,
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0009
, where C = ΔC because C<em>pi</em> = 0). The linear approximation of Equation 6 is ubiquitous in climate science (e.g., Knutti et al., 2017; Stocker et al., 2013).

The linear approximation implies that the equilibrium climate sensitivityT2<em>x</em>), the equilibrium warming per CO2 doubling, is simply
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0010
, which, being a ratio of two constants, is itself a constant. It should therefore not matter how many CO2 doublings are used to estimate it since ΔT2<em>x</em> = ΔT<em>eq</em> (C1)/C1 = ΔT<em>eq</em> (C2)/C2. Figure 1a shows instead that our estimates of ΔT<em>eq</em>(C)/C increase with CO2 concentration for 13 of 14 models. Colored bars show estimates made by extrapolating regressions of years 21–150 of N against ΔT to equilibrium (N = 0) for abrupt 2<em>C</em> × CO2 simulations (Gregory et al., 2004, see also solid gray lines in Figure S1). In these estimates, N and ΔT are anomalies: for LongRunMIP, we subtract the model's control simulation's mean value; for CMIP6, we subtract the linear fit of the control simulation after the branch point for the abrupt n × CO2 simulations. We use only one ensemble member for each simulation.


Now that is an American Geophysical Union publication, and I am sure that old Westie thinks he is smarter than all the real scientists in the AGU.
The article posted was from a laboratory experiment.

You posted the standard Squid Ink Defense BECAUSE the laboratory refuses to validate your failed theory
 
Well now, that was from 1858, here is a summary from 2021;

Plain Language Summary​


Increasing CO2 reduces the rate at which energy leaves Earth, causing a net energy gain at its surface. The resulting warming increases the rate that energy leaves the planet. The planet stops warming once it regains balance. Studies usually assume that doubling atmospheric CO2 always produces the same eventual global temperature rise (called the “equilibrium climate sensitivity”), whatever the starting CO2 level. We show, on the contrary, that in nearly all the computer climate models we have examined, the extra warming for each doubling goes up as the CO2 level increases. In most models, the warmer the climate becomes, the more it has to warm in order to balance a further CO2 doubling because warming becomes less effective at rebalancing the flow of energy. This effect increases projections of warming, especially for scenarios of greatest CO2 increase.

And then the math;


2 Equilibrium Warming​

Let T be the globally averaged surface temperature and ΔTTT<em>pi</em> be the warming relative to the preindustrial period. We define ΔT<em>eq</em>(C) as the equilibrium warming caused by changing the CO2 concentration from its preindustrial value (pCO2,<em>pi</em> ≈ 280ppm) to a new value (pCO2), where Cis the number of CO2 doublings relative to this preindustrial period,
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0001
(1)
Under preindustrial conditions, C<em>pi</em> = 0; in an abrupt 2 × CO2 simulation, C = 1; and so forth. Table S1 is a glossary of all symbols used in this paper.

One condition for equilibrium is that the net top-of-atmosphere radiative flux N (downwards positive) is zero, on average. If we assume that N depends solely on C and T, then we can express a change in N in an abrupt n × CO2 simulation as an initial change due to C and a subsequent change due to T:
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0002
(2)
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0003
(3)
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0004
(4)
F is the radiative forcing, the change in N relative to a given initial condition (C<em>i</em>, T<em>i</em>) caused by C doublings of CO2 while holding surface temperature fixed (F(C<em>i</em>, T<em>i</em>, C) ≡ N(C<em>i</em> + C, T<em>i</em>) − N(C<em>i</em>, T<em>i</em>)), and λ is the radiative feedback, the dependence of N on T (λ(C, T) ≡ ∂N(C, T)/∂T), where the sign convention implies the feedback is typically negative. We can find ΔT<em>eq</em>(C) by setting N(C, T) = 0:
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0005
(5)
where we assume N(C<em>pi</em>, T<em>pi</em>) = 0, since the preindustrial climate was roughly in equilibrium.

Under preindustrial concentrations, the spectral line shape of CO2 absorption bands creates a logarithmic dependence of N on changes in pCO2, so that the forcing per CO2doubling (
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0006
) is often assumed to be constant (Myhre et al., 1998). Our definition of radiative forcing also includes adjustments of the atmosphere, land, and ocean to CO2 changes that occur independently of subsequent changes in surface temperature (e.g., Kamae et al., 2015; Sherwood et al., 2014). This “effective radiative forcing” is also often assumed to be constant per CO2 doubling (Forster et al., 2016), as is the radiative feedback (Gregory et al., 2004; Hansen et al., 1985). Substituting these constant terms into Equation 5, we can solve for ΔT<em>eq</em>(C):
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0007
(6)
Assuming a constant
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0008
and λ is equivalent to approximating N(T, C) with the linear Taylor expansion of N around preindustrial values of C<em>pi</em> and T<em>pi</em> (i.e.,
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0009
, where C = ΔC because C<em>pi</em> = 0). The linear approximation of Equation 6 is ubiquitous in climate science (e.g., Knutti et al., 2017; Stocker et al., 2013).

The linear approximation implies that the equilibrium climate sensitivityT2<em>x</em>), the equilibrium warming per CO2 doubling, is simply
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0010
, which, being a ratio of two constants, is itself a constant. It should therefore not matter how many CO2 doublings are used to estimate it since ΔT2<em>x</em> = ΔT<em>eq</em> (C1)/C1 = ΔT<em>eq</em> (C2)/C2. Figure 1a shows instead that our estimates of ΔT<em>eq</em>(C)/C increase with CO2 concentration for 13 of 14 models. Colored bars show estimates made by extrapolating regressions of years 21–150 of N against ΔT to equilibrium (N = 0) for abrupt 2<em>C</em> × CO2 simulations (Gregory et al., 2004, see also solid gray lines in Figure S1). In these estimates, N and ΔT are anomalies: for LongRunMIP, we subtract the model's control simulation's mean value; for CMIP6, we subtract the linear fit of the control simulation after the branch point for the abrupt n × CO2 simulations. We use only one ensemble member for each simulation.


Now that is a American Geophysical Union publication, and I am sure that old Westie thinks he is smarter than all the real scientists in the AGU.

How is it they could do a controlled experiment in 1858, but you can't?
 
Now there are some people that live in an alternative universe, and others that are just to ******* stupid to see what is going on around them.


Indeed, the idiocy required to believe CO2 FRAUD is breathtaking.

Your side has ZERO actual evidence.

Surface Air Pressure prove

1. Earth is NOT WARMING
2. Earth is not experiencing an ongoing net ice melt

and maybe that is why

Bill Gates defunded his climate activist group
Blackrock divested from climate stocks
There has not yet been a Million MORON March on DC protesting "climate denialism"
 
Well now, that was from 1858, here is a summary from 2021;

Plain Language Summary​


Increasing CO2 reduces the rate at which energy leaves Earth, causing a net energy gain at its surface. The resulting warming increases the rate that energy leaves the planet. The planet stops warming once it regains balance. Studies usually assume that doubling atmospheric CO2 always produces the same eventual global temperature rise (called the “equilibrium climate sensitivity”), whatever the starting CO2 level. We show, on the contrary, that in nearly all the computer climate models we have examined, the extra warming for each doubling goes up as the CO2 level increases. In most models, the warmer the climate becomes, the more it has to warm in order to balance a further CO2 doubling because warming becomes less effective at rebalancing the flow of energy. This effect increases projections of warming, especially for scenarios of greatest CO2 increase.

And then the math;


2 Equilibrium Warming​

Let T be the globally averaged surface temperature and ΔTTT<em>pi</em> be the warming relative to the preindustrial period. We define ΔT<em>eq</em>(C) as the equilibrium warming caused by changing the CO2 concentration from its preindustrial value (pCO2,<em>pi</em> ≈ 280ppm) to a new value (pCO2), where Cis the number of CO2 doublings relative to this preindustrial period,
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0001
(1)
Under preindustrial conditions, C<em>pi</em> = 0; in an abrupt 2 × CO2 simulation, C = 1; and so forth. Table S1 is a glossary of all symbols used in this paper.

One condition for equilibrium is that the net top-of-atmosphere radiative flux N (downwards positive) is zero, on average. If we assume that N depends solely on C and T, then we can express a change in N in an abrupt n × CO2 simulation as an initial change due to C and a subsequent change due to T:
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0002
(2)
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0003
(3)
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0004
(4)
F is the radiative forcing, the change in N relative to a given initial condition (C<em>i</em>, T<em>i</em>) caused by C doublings of CO2 while holding surface temperature fixed (F(C<em>i</em>, T<em>i</em>, C) ≡ N(C<em>i</em> + C, T<em>i</em>) − N(C<em>i</em>, T<em>i</em>)), and λ is the radiative feedback, the dependence of N on T (λ(C, T) ≡ ∂N(C, T)/∂T), where the sign convention implies the feedback is typically negative. We can find ΔT<em>eq</em>(C) by setting N(C, T) = 0:
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0005
(5)
where we assume N(C<em>pi</em>, T<em>pi</em>) = 0, since the preindustrial climate was roughly in equilibrium.

Under preindustrial concentrations, the spectral line shape of CO2 absorption bands creates a logarithmic dependence of N on changes in pCO2, so that the forcing per CO2doubling (
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0006
) is often assumed to be constant (Myhre et al., 1998). Our definition of radiative forcing also includes adjustments of the atmosphere, land, and ocean to CO2 changes that occur independently of subsequent changes in surface temperature (e.g., Kamae et al., 2015; Sherwood et al., 2014). This “effective radiative forcing” is also often assumed to be constant per CO2 doubling (Forster et al., 2016), as is the radiative feedback (Gregory et al., 2004; Hansen et al., 1985). Substituting these constant terms into Equation 5, we can solve for ΔT<em>eq</em>(C):
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0007
(6)
Assuming a constant
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0008
and λ is equivalent to approximating N(T, C) with the linear Taylor expansion of N around preindustrial values of C<em>pi</em> and T<em>pi</em> (i.e.,
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0009
, where C = ΔC because C<em>pi</em> = 0). The linear approximation of Equation 6 is ubiquitous in climate science (e.g., Knutti et al., 2017; Stocker et al., 2013).

The linear approximation implies that the equilibrium climate sensitivityT2<em>x</em>), the equilibrium warming per CO2 doubling, is simply
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl61772:grl61772-math-0010
, which, being a ratio of two constants, is itself a constant. It should therefore not matter how many CO2 doublings are used to estimate it since ΔT2<em>x</em> = ΔT<em>eq</em> (C1)/C1 = ΔT<em>eq</em> (C2)/C2. Figure 1a shows instead that our estimates of ΔT<em>eq</em>(C)/C increase with CO2 concentration for 13 of 14 models. Colored bars show estimates made by extrapolating regressions of years 21–150 of N against ΔT to equilibrium (N = 0) for abrupt 2<em>C</em> × CO2 simulations (Gregory et al., 2004, see also solid gray lines in Figure S1). In these estimates, N and ΔT are anomalies: for LongRunMIP, we subtract the model's control simulation's mean value; for CMIP6, we subtract the linear fit of the control simulation after the branch point for the abrupt n × CO2 simulations. We use only one ensemble member for each simulation.


Now that is a American Geophysical Union publication, and I am sure that old Westie thinks he is smarter than all the real scientists in the AGU.



Your side has a THEORY, that increasing atmospheric CO2 warms atmosphere.

We have two and only two measures of atmospheric temps, satellites and balloons. What did the ACTUAL DATA show before your side FUDGED IT in 2005?




satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling (or more precisely showed precisely NO WARMING in highly correlated fashion for 3+ decades of rising CO2)


SCIENCE SAYS THEORY REJECTED

"The Science" says FUDGE THE DATA and continue to BILK THE TAXPAYER
 
15th post


As the articles states, wild fire burnt area is less and no one is reporting it.

The reason why no one is reporting it, is because if doesn't follow the narrative, the political science. Everyone is on the band wagon to charge everyone more and more, and the excuse to do so is climate change. The city I used to live in is built on a flood plain.Historical notes shows the city has experienced floods for hundreds of years, but the floods from 2000 are classed as the result of man made climate change. We live in stupid times.

The Weather and climate in Southern Scotland is improving!!



The funniest thing, if Earth was warming, which it isn't, there would be less wildfires not more...




"During the Jurassic Period, the Earth's climate was much warmer and wetter than it is today"


which makes sense given that when oceans do warm, they emit more H2O back into atmosphere, causing more rain, and more rain means less fires...
 
Indeed, the idiocy required to believe CO2 FRAUD is breathtaking.

Your side has ZERO actual evidence.

Surface Air Pressure prove

1. Earth is NOT WARMING
2. Earth is not experiencing an ongoing net ice melt

and maybe that is why

Bill Gates defunded his climate activist group
Blackrock divested from climate stocks
There has not yet been a Million MORON March on DC protesting "climate denialism"

Arctic Ice free? Check
Antarctica Ice Sheet melting, massive Ice Loss? Check
Sea Levels rise? Check
IMG_8975.webp
IMG_8977.webp
 
Last edited:
Nah, I have no idea having worked as a Hot Shot during my college days.

You truly are a ignorant ****. Deadfall clearance is a year round job. Except your environutjobs refuse to allow it to be done.

You all are nothing but mental midgets
Sure, and I am Napoleon reincarnated. LOL And just where are you going to get the manpower to clear all the debris in the forests? There are 294,275 square miles of forest in the US. That is 818,814,000 acres. And much of the terrain is rather rough. How many tens of thousands of people are you going to hire on a year round basis for that work? Where are you going to get them, and how are you going to pay for them. Westie, you are an unfunny joke.
 
Arctic Ice free? Check
Antarctica Ice Sheet melting, massive Ice Loss? Check
Sea Levels rise? CheckView attachment 1132216View attachment 1132218
Another really dumb **** post.
"Thirty years ago, scientists and engineers launched a new satellite to study the rising and falling of seas over time, a task that once could only be done from the coast. TOPEX/Poseidon rocketed into space on August 10, 1992, and started a 30-year record of ocean surface height around the world. The observations have confirmed on a global scale what scientists previously saw from the shoreline: the seas are rising, and the pace is quickening.

Scientists have found that global mean sea level—shown in the line plot above and below—has risen 10.1 centimeters (3.98 inches) since 1992. Over the past 140 years, satellites and tide gauges together show that global sea level has risen 21 to 24 centimeters (8 to 9 inches)."

 
Back
Top Bottom