The US heat dome is a warning for the 2024 elections

[Delldude]

Science WITHOUT computers can be just as fucked up as science WITH them.

What did science then do, sit around until computers were invented?

Dude, you got more shit than a Christmas goose.

 

[Crick]

What did science then do, sit around until computers were invented?

Dude, you got more shit than a Christmas goose.

I said no such thing. Have you ever seen a logarithm table? The earliest ones were made by hand. It was a years long effort. Nowadays, a computer can generate one in a fraction of a second with far less errors than one made by humans. Do you believe that is the sort of tool that should be avoided?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wrong. It is science using computer models. Science WITHOUT computers can be just as fucked up as science WITH them. There is nothing magically flawed in the use of computers. The automatic rejection of computer model results that the denier movement has taken as dogma is a unsupportable act of desperation.

Predictions like continued increases in CO2? Predictions like continued and accelerating increases in temperature? Predictions like continued and accelerating ice melt around the planet? Predictions like continued and accelerating sea level rise? Predictions like the acidification of the world's oceans? Predictions like expanding coral bleaching events? Predictions like seasonal timing effects on wildlife? Have these come, failed and gone?

It has NEVER morphed. The world has continued to warm. If you think the term global warming was abandoned due to a lack of warming, you need to show us the data that support that claim. Science has ALWAYS known that the problem with this change was the rate at which it was taking place. That YOU did not know that was, once again, YOUR error, not science's.

Do not confuse political science with politics. Political science changes no more than any other field of science.

That was your error, not that of mainstream science.

As the KT impact clearly shows, there was climate change they could not survive. However, during their span of dominance in Earth fauna, temperature changes were consistently slow.

View attachment 969368

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-temperature-variation-during-the-geological-periods-During-the-last-500-million_fig2_355705887

Dinosaurs were able to survive these slow swings in temperature by migration, behavioral changes and evolution. The whole of human existence has been 1/920th of the span of the dinosaurs. The period over which temperatures have surged by 1.2C in response to human GHG emissions represents 8.1522 ten-millionths (0.00000081522) of the span of the dinosaurs.

That large temperature drop at the left end of the dinosaur era, for instance, took place at a rate of 0.00035C/century. Current temperatures are increasing at a rate of 1.8C/century, more than 28,000 times the rate the dinosaurs experienced.

That large temperature drop at the left end of the dinosaur era, for instance, took place at a rate of 0.00035C/century.

What were the 10 largest temperature changes per century during the end of the dinosaur era?

Current temperatures are increasing at a rate of 1.8C/century, more than 28,000 times the rate the dinosaurs experienced.

I love it when you make silly claims like that.

 

[Crick]

That large temperature drop at the left end of the dinosaur era, for instance, took place at a rate of 0.00035C/century.

What were the 10 largest temperature changes per century during the end of the dinosaur era?

Current temperatures are increasing at a rate of 1.8C/century, more than 28,000 times the rate the dinosaurs experienced.

I love it when you make silly claims like that.

But you've yet to present any reason we should avoid them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But you've yet to present any reason we should avoid them.

Was the rate of temperature change "at the left end of the dinosaur era", 0.00035C/century, for every century?

However, during their span of dominance in Earth fauna, temperature changes were consistently slow.

Any evidence of this claim?

 

[Crick]

Was the rate of temperature change "at the left end of the dinosaur era", 0.00035C/century, for every century?

However, during their span of dominance in Earth fauna, temperature changes were consistently slow.

Any evidence of this claim?

Do you have any evidence that my claims are false?

 

[Delldude]

Do you have any evidence that my claims are false?

You base your claims on IPCC data that's been shown to be biased and politicized.

 

[Crick]

You base your claims on IPCC data that's been shown to be biased and politicized.

For the current discussion, I haven't used a single piece of IPCC data. However, please show us some links of IPCC data being shown to be biased and politicized.

 

[ding]

For the current discussion, I haven't used a single piece of IPCC data. However, please show us some links of IPCC data being shown to be biased and politicized.

Their failure to include dissenting opinions in their reports.

 

[marvin martian]

The U.S. heat dome is a warning about the 2024 election

And there may be no policy area with a clearer divide between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.

www.msnbc.com

No one would describe Saudi Arabia in the summer as chilly, but pilgrims at this year’s Hajj experienced something unusual even for this largely desert nation. According to the Saudi weather service, temperatures at the Grand Mosque in Mecca reached an astonishing 125 degrees Fahrenheit on Monday; 2,700 people reportedly were overcome by heat exhaustion, and dozens of pilgrims died from the temperatures.

If you have grandchildren and you want them to see a bright future, you will not vote for trump. He has vowed to roll back all environmental efforts to battle climate change. His view into the future extends no farther than the end of his orange nose. With trump is is all about power and money. He is thinking of his Saudi friends and their dependence on fossil fuel revenue.

Within five years, we may be seeing 120+ degrees temperature in the US, on a regular basis. Then the repubs will come up with another excuse to deny climate change.

What are you personally doing to fight "global warming"?

 

[skookerasbil]

Voters dont care about climate change. Never have.......never will. For many years now btw.......

Many, many waaaaaaay more pressing concerns.

 

[Crick]

What are you personally doing to fight "global warming"?

Why? What does that have to do with the validity of the OP's linked article?

 

[JBG]

The U.S. heat dome is a warning about the 2024 election

And there may be no policy area with a clearer divide between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.

www.msnbc.com

No one would describe Saudi Arabia in the summer as chilly, but pilgrims at this year’s Hajj experienced something unusual even for this largely desert nation. According to the Saudi weather service, temperatures at the Grand Mosque in Mecca reached an astonishing 125 degrees Fahrenheit on Monday; 2,700 people reportedly were overcome by heat exhaustion, and dozens of pilgrims died from the temperatures.

If you have grandchildren and you want them to see a bright future, you will not vote for trump. He has vowed to roll back all environmental efforts to battle climate change. His view into the future extends no farther than the end of his orange nose. With trump is is all about power and money. He is thinking of his Saudi friends and their dependence on fossil fuel revenue.

Within five years, we may be seeing 120+ degrees temperature in the US, on a regular basis. Then the repubs will come up with another excuse to deny climate change.

This kind of hysteria serves no purpose. Even if we totally unplug it won't change any future temperatures. For more, see Climate Frauds Under Review; 112° in the Saudi Desert? (the Horror) and The Vanishing Islands That Failed to Vanish and .... Hint, the Maldives are not slipping under water, so no great center of civilization is drowning.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you have any evidence that my claims are false?

Do you have any evidence that they are true? Try again.

However, during their span of dominance in Earth fauna, temperature changes were consistently slow.

Any evidence of this claim?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Better check your sources, I was there. in the 1970s the Ohio River froze solid so you could walk from Kentucky to Indiana and Ohio! The so-called climate scientists cited that as proof we were heading for an ice age.

He lies as usual I was there too as a Teenager saw the TV news, the Newpapers and a lot of published material showed irrefutably the existence of the cooling.

285 Papers 70s Cooling 1 LINK Excerpt is below a lot more to read in the link about that lying slimeball Connolly.

285 Papers 70s Cooling 2 LINK

285 Papers 70s Cooling 3 LINK




Beginning in 2003, software engineer William Connolley quietly removed the highly inconvenient references to the global cooling scare of the 1970s from Wikipedia, the world’s most influential and accessed informational source.

It had to be done. Too many skeptics were (correctly) pointing out that the scientific “consensus” during the 1960s and 1970s was that the Earth had been cooling for decades, and that nascent theorizing regarding the potential for a CO2-induced global warming were still questionable and uncertain.

Not only did Connolley — a co-founder (along with Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt) of the realclimate.com blog — successfully remove (or rewrite) the history of the 1970s global cooling scare from the Wikipedia record, he also erased (or rewrote) references to the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age so as to help create the impression that the paleoclimate is shaped like Mann’s hockey stick graph, with unprecedented and dangerous 20th/21st century warmth.

A 2009 investigative report from UK’s Telegraph detailed the extent of dictatorial-like powers Connolley possessed at Wikipedia, allowing him to remove inconvenient scientific information that didn’t conform to his point of view.

“All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.“

After eviscerating references to 1970s global cooling scare and the warmer-than-now Medieval Warm Period from Wikipedia, and after personally rewriting the Wikipedia commentaries on the greenhouse effect to impute a central, dominant role for CO2, Connolley went on to team up with two other authors to publish a “consensus” manifesto in 2008 that claimed to expose the 1970s global cooling scare as a myth, as something that never really happened.

Peterson, Connolley, and Fleck (2008, hereafter PCF08) published “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus” in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, hoping to quash once and for all the perception that there were scientists in the 1960s and 1970s who agreed the Earth was cooling (and may continue to do so), or that CO2 did not play a dominant role in climate change.

The Concoction Of ‘Consensus’ Achieved Via Exclusion​

The primary theme of PCF08 can be summarized in 4 succinctly quoted sentences from the paper:

“[T]he following pervasive myth arose [among skeptics]: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent. A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. … During the period from 1965 through 1979, our literature survey found 7 cooling, 20 neutral, and 44 warming papers. … There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.”

 

[Crick]

He lies as usual I was there too as a Teenager saw the TV news, the Newpapers and a lot of published material showed irrefutably the existence of the cooling.

285 Papers 70s Cooling 1 LINK Excerpt is below a lot more to read in the link about that lying slimeball Connolly.

285 Papers 70s Cooling 2 LINK

285 Papers 70s Cooling 3 LINK




Beginning in 2003, software engineer William Connolley quietly removed the highly inconvenient references to the global cooling scare of the 1970s from Wikipedia, the world’s most influential and accessed informational source.

It had to be done. Too many skeptics were (correctly) pointing out that the scientific “consensus” during the 1960s and 1970s was that the Earth had been cooling for decades, and that nascent theorizing regarding the potential for a CO2-induced global warming were still questionable and uncertain.

Not only did Connolley — a co-founder (along with Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt) of the realclimate.com blog — successfully remove (or rewrite) the history of the 1970s global cooling scare from the Wikipedia record, he also erased (or rewrote) references to the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age so as to help create the impression that the paleoclimate is shaped like Mann’s hockey stick graph, with unprecedented and dangerous 20th/21st century warmth.

A 2009 investigative report from UK’s Telegraph detailed the extent of dictatorial-like powers Connolley possessed at Wikipedia, allowing him to remove inconvenient scientific information that didn’t conform to his point of view.


After eviscerating references to 1970s global cooling scare and the warmer-than-now Medieval Warm Period from Wikipedia, and after personally rewriting the Wikipedia commentaries on the greenhouse effect to impute a central, dominant role for CO2, Connolley went on to team up with two other authors to publish a “consensus” manifesto in 2008 that claimed to expose the 1970s global cooling scare as a myth, as something that never really happened.

Peterson, Connolley, and Fleck (2008, hereafter PCF08) published “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus” in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, hoping to quash once and for all the perception that there were scientists in the 1960s and 1970s who agreed the Earth was cooling (and may continue to do so), or that CO2 did not play a dominant role in climate change.

The Concoction Of ‘Consensus’ Achieved Via Exclusion​

The primary theme of PCF08 can be summarized in 4 succinctly quoted sentences from the paper:

Wikipedia is not the prime source to identify published scientific papers.

 

[Delldude]

I haven't used a single piece of IPCC data.

LOL.................we've been over that before. You use data IPCC lists on their website...................suck on that.

However, please show us some links of IPCC data being shown to be biased and politicized.

Already did, directly to you about a year ago.

Wikipedia is not the prime source to identify published scientific papers.

Yet you often have quoted it.

 

[Crick]

LOL.................we've been over that before. You use data IPCC lists on their website...................suck on that.

I have used IPCC data in dozens and dozens of conversations. I just happen to have used NONE in this particular one.

Already did, directly to you about a year ago.

And I immediately refuted it completely.

Yet you often have quoted it.

I do not go to Wikipedia looking to assess published studies. I go to Wikipedia for specific topics where I find its articles often use good references. If I wanted to search for studies I would try Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar or Science.gov

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have used IPCC data in dozens and dozens of conversations. I just happen to have used NONE in this particular one.

And I immediately refuted it completely.

I do not go to Wikipedia looking to assess published studies. I go to Wikipedia for specific topics where I find its articles often use good references. If I wanted to search for studies I would try Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar or Science.gov

However, during their span of dominance in Earth fauna, temperature changes were consistently slow.

IPCC have any evidence of this claim?

 

[Crick]

However, during their span of dominance in Earth fauna, temperature changes were consistently slow.

IPCC have any evidence of this claim?

Try the paleoclimatologists.