The US heat dome is a warning for the 2024 elections
- Thread starter JimH52
- Start date
I have posted several statements from paleoclimatologists concerning the different heating rates. But you don't care because this seems to be all you've got. If you'd like to show that the current warming is NOT anthropogenic, you need to find a cause for the current warming that doesn't involve CO2, not find another rapid heating period in the distant past from some cause that doesn't exist today.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
You posted a statement from a paleoclimatologist who said the temperature dropped "at a rate of 0.00035C/century"?
And that meant that the "temperature changes were consistently slow"?
I don't believe either of your claims. Or that a paleoclimatologist said that.
You understand that you can't take a temperature reading from 100 centuries ago and one from today and simply divide the difference by 100 and say this was the
change per century, right? Because that would be SSDD level stupid. Maybe worse.
Do YOU realize that you cannot refute AGW or any other theory with unjustified assumptions about the unknown.
But you said IPCC doesn't create data...........which is it?
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
I realize you made two very silly claims and can't admit there is no evidence.
Heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic like every other interglacial period. The vast majority of heat is stored in the ocean, not the atmosphere. I suggest you start there.
The Duke
Diamond Member
- Jul 30, 2022
- 43,011
- 55,903
- 3,488
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.
skookerasbil
Platinum Member
Here's the thing and not debatable btw....
Voters don't care about climate change. Routinely waaaaay down the bottom of list of concerns....for 15 years now.
But don't take my word for it...
... check any poll you'd like. Your pick!
As I've been astutely noting for many years in here....
Nobody is caring about the science.
Voters don't care about climate change. Routinely waaaaay down the bottom of list of concerns....for 15 years now.
But don't take my word for it...
... check any poll you'd like. Your pick!As I've been astutely noting for many years in here....
Nobody is caring about the science.
skookerasbil
Platinum Member
I say again....
Where exactly has AGW transcended anywhere outside the climate obsessed? Where exactly has the theory impacted the real world?
You've been taking bows in here for 10 years and fossil fuels still dominating the energy landscape with no end in sight.
skookerasbil
Platinum Member
The Duke
Diamond Member
- Jul 30, 2022
- 43,011
- 55,903
- 3,488
saveliberty
Diamond Member
- Oct 12, 2009
- 58,878
- 11,043
- 2,030
Sure the climate decided to enter politics...whackjob wing nut.
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 16,288
- 14,006
- 2,400
HA HA HA HA HA your lie is galaxy class stupid this is the first link mentioned
UK Telegraph
Next link mentioned,
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
Willian Connolly has been thoroughly refuted, and his lies exposed, apparently you like him because he lies a lot while you didn't offer a scrap of a counterpoint thus your post end up batting ZERO.
You lie so much now that it has become difficult to know when you tell the truth.
You haven't put the slightest doubt onto anything I said.
The Telegraph is a ******* newspaper
You haven't refuted a single thing I said. Neither Wikipedia nor the Telegraph nor the Bulletin of the AMS are sources for researching scientific studies. I don't give a shit what Connoly did with Wikipedia, you have no basis for the claims you've made. Wikipedia has no authority over the availability of scholarly papers. They aren't a ******* library you twit.
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 16,288
- 14,006
- 2,400
Connollys paper has long been debunked as there were far more than 7 papers on global cooling in the 1960's-1970's from his own paper is this quote:
He claims he found just 7 cooling papers, which is a deliberate lie since there are actually at least 285 published cooling papers.
He also lied about the significance of the cooling which was a big deal among the scientists of day in the 1970's as shown here for the second time:
"According to Stewart and Glantz (1985), in the early 1970s it was the “prevailing view” among scientists that the Earth was headed into another ice age. It wasn’t until the late ’70s that scientists changed their minds and the “prevailing view” began shifting to warming. This is in direct contradiction to the claims of PCF08, who allege warming was the prevailing view among scientists in the 1960s and early 1970s too. Furthermore, as recently as 1985, it was still acknowledged that “the causes of global climate change remain in dispute.”
Stewart and Glantz, 1985
According to scientists reporting to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (1974), 22 of 27 forecasting methods predicted a cooling trend for the next 25 years, and “meteorological experts” were thinking an 1800s climate was around the corner, with the concomitant return to monsoon failures, shorter growing seasons, and “violent weather”.
U.S. Central Intelligence Agency,1974
==================
Post #195 has the list which you ignored with this galaxy class stupidity YOU wrote:
HA HA HA HA HA........
Connolly PUBLISHED his lying paper in Bulletin of the AMS you stupidly claimed isn't a place to publish papers.
Never said Wikipedia is a place to publish science papers a lie YOU are promoting the only reason why it was mentioned at all was to show Connollys blatant editing activities in it.
It was the Telegraph who exposed his dishonest editing activities in Wikipedia the same jerk who LIED about how many cooling papers were published he claims only 7 were found while a blog manages to find 285 cooling papers and posted every single one to show they are indeed cooling papers.
How come you make so many mistakes in every post you make is it the drinking or the drugs because you do it so gosh darned much!
The Concoction Of ‘Consensus’ Achieved Via Exclusion
The primary theme of PCF08 can be summarized in 4 succinctly quoted sentences from the paper:He claims he found just 7 cooling papers, which is a deliberate lie since there are actually at least 285 published cooling papers.
He also lied about the significance of the cooling which was a big deal among the scientists of day in the 1970's as shown here for the second time:
"According to Stewart and Glantz (1985), in the early 1970s it was the “prevailing view” among scientists that the Earth was headed into another ice age. It wasn’t until the late ’70s that scientists changed their minds and the “prevailing view” began shifting to warming. This is in direct contradiction to the claims of PCF08, who allege warming was the prevailing view among scientists in the 1960s and early 1970s too. Furthermore, as recently as 1985, it was still acknowledged that “the causes of global climate change remain in dispute.”
Stewart and Glantz, 1985
According to scientists reporting to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (1974), 22 of 27 forecasting methods predicted a cooling trend for the next 25 years, and “meteorological experts” were thinking an 1800s climate was around the corner, with the concomitant return to monsoon failures, shorter growing seasons, and “violent weather”.
U.S. Central Intelligence Agency,1974
==================
Post #195 has the list which you ignored with this galaxy class stupidity YOU wrote:
HA HA HA HA HA........
Connolly PUBLISHED his lying paper in Bulletin of the AMS you stupidly claimed isn't a place to publish papers.
Never said Wikipedia is a place to publish science papers a lie YOU are promoting the only reason why it was mentioned at all was to show Connollys blatant editing activities in it.
It was the Telegraph who exposed his dishonest editing activities in Wikipedia the same jerk who LIED about how many cooling papers were published he claims only 7 were found while a blog manages to find 285 cooling papers and posted every single one to show they are indeed cooling papers.
How come you make so many mistakes in every post you make is it the drinking or the drugs because you do it so gosh darned much!
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 16,288
- 14,006
- 2,400
I am sure the stupid warmist/alarmist Connolly never read this cooling paper published in 1971,
Rasool and Schneider, 1971
https://www.atmos.washington.edu/2008Q2/591A/Articles/Rasool_Schneider_Science.pdf
[A]lthough the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. … It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 K. However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the aerosol content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant. An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5 K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!
LOL, you should drop this as you are being irrational.
Rasool and Schneider, 1971
https://www.atmos.washington.edu/2008Q2/591A/Articles/Rasool_Schneider_Science.pdf
[A]lthough the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. … It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 K. However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the aerosol content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant. An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5 K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!
LOL, you should drop this as you are being irrational.
What is it you are actually attempting to evince with this whole line?
The Wikipedia article frequently used here to evidence the existence of a very strong consensus links to numerous verifiable studies published elsewhere clearly showing that consensus. The consensus among climate scientists is indisputable and there is nothing Connolly could have done to affect that.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
New Topics
-
-
-
-
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 0
