HighDesertOffgrid
Solar Addict
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2022
- Messages
- 628
It hasn't been totally ignored. The weather channel compared the event to the movie " The day after tomorrow". Beginning at 1:20 below....Possibly why western outlets ignored it?
It hasn't been totally ignored. The weather channel compared the event to the movie " The day after tomorrow". Beginning at 1:20 below....Possibly why western outlets ignored it?
Maybe I'm missing something.... well ... 20/2024 and not today? Okay... the airport reports a low of -15F for yesterday... still not -52.3°CIt's below the headline. Notice that was the last story update.
That URL isn't the weather channel, I'd be leery of it given what I'm googling (or rather not googling).It hasn't been totally ignored. The weather channel compared the event to the movie " The day after tomorrow".
Just remember the tit twister it is not “global warming” it is tada “climax change”. You will recieve the lecture from the minister of love until you repeat after him.It hasn't been totally ignored. The weather channel compared the event to the movie " The day after tomorrow". Beginning at 1:20 below.
That is certainly odd. I click on your February link and it shows -30 not -27. Are you seeing manipulated data that confirms your bias? Weird.
"I am the science!" ~Tony Faucci.Don’t question science. Trust the science.” where did the Mayan and Aztec ppl go?
It was at that moment Tony Fauci knew he had a check in the mail from Israel for $1 million dollars. Smiles and cheers all around USA Govt Employee took money from a Foreign Govt. Christmas Story"I am the science!" ~Tony Faucci.
Stop spreading BS
2023 “Earth’s Hottest Year on Record” Claims Fail
These “hottest year on record” claims are based on misrepresenting the year 2023 obscure “global average temperature anomaly” outcome that is not applicable to any specific location or region…wattsupwiththat.com
The year 2023 flawed climate alarmist claims of “hottest year on record” are in the same vein as the flawed claims made by climate alarmists about the summer of 2023 being “the U.S. hottest summer ever” that was addressed here and shown below.
If any of you morons bothered to read the opening post you'd realize that this discussion was meant to be about "The Approaching New Grand Solar Minimum and Little Ice Age Climate Conditions"
You all just went off on a tangent trashing global warming theories.
What would be worse; A long cold ice age or manmade global warming preventing an ice age. I’d prefer the later.
All the BS you guys posted referencing articles by highly skewed right wing publications that wouldn't even make good toilet paper are meaningless in this discussion.
History, which I assume you guys lend no credibility to, does indicate that there was a little ice age and that it corresponded to a period between the 16th and 19th century where very few if any sun spots were observed. It is called a Grand Solar Minimum.
It was not a global but a regional phenomenon.
The drop in solar irradiance is not substantial and I believe the regional characteristics of this “ice age” may have been caused by upper atmosphere air currents. Sun spots spew charged particles which ionize the upper atmosphere and affect the air currents.
The peaks in sun spot activity over the last few cycles led many people to believe we are on the verge of entering a “little ice age”. Ten years ago some people were even predicting it to start in 2020.
History may in fact show that the greenhouse gases emitted by industrial civilizations actually saved those civilizations.
This article correctly shows that surface temperature measerements are not an accurate way to determine overall planetary warming. A better indicator is ocean water temperature which have been rising;
Rate of Ocean Warming Has Nearly Doubled Over Two Decades, Study Says
Well at least I got you to take the time to type something other than that stupid HaHa emojiDepends, no one cares what you think, even if you agree with them.
Well at least I got you to take the time to type something other than that stupid HaHa emoji
You are in denial if you dont understand that solving overpopulation is critical in mitigating climate change.What money? Can you provide some context on this? The way I see it, a lot of people are angry about stuff that isn't even happening. Can't imagine you're upset with the pocket change spent on scientific studies when compared to the billions Congress wastes (e.g., Alaska's bridge to nowhere, see this link for Congress spending a billion on a trolley).
The way I see it, not spending money on it now is going to cost us a lot more later.
But, maybe I missed something? I would say, if you think trillions have been spent on climate change (federal tax dollars, not states or private investors like Bill Gates spending millions of his own money or people investing in solar farms to make money), make sure to look at the fine print as to where the money was actually spent ( I don't consider fixing lead pipes in Detroit or keeping the existing grid operational, repairing stuff after extreme weather, building natural gas pipelines, or funding Universities as fighting climate change (mainly because they don't address the root cause)).
BTW, just talking about the U.S. I know other countries have spent a lot on it (e.g., China spent $890 billion in 2023).
So the global temperature going up (regardless if human-induced or not) is costing us more every year to fix what we have. You say the alarmists are clueless, but maybe they just look at the existing facts and trends to make decisions rather than believe the Merchants of Doubt?
But obviously, it's not just about fixing our infrastructure after the fact. There are other factors that add to the costs such as increased healthcare costs, preventative infrastructure (e.g., keeping cities from flooding), disease, drought mitigation, international instability, and yes, border control.
Fortunately, the U.S. is a country that people want to live in (some countries build walls to keep citizens from escaping). In order to keep the population stable you need about 2.1 kids per family, the U.S. is about 1.6 ... meaning we're on the decline rather than overpopulation and some think it might soon be a crisis. Here's a video on it:
Great post. C02 is driven by temperature not the other way around. Ive believed that for years now but alarmists always shoot it down.'Pure Junk Science': Researchers Challenge Narrative On CO2 And Warming Correlation
'Pure Junk Science': Researchers Challenge Narrative On CO2 And Warming Correlation | ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zerowww.zerohedge.com
Each year from 2023 to 2030, climate change sustainable development goals will cost every person in economies such as the United States $2,026, the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development estimates. In lower-income economies, the per-person annual cost ranges from $332 to $1,864
“CO2 does not cause global warming. Global warming causes more CO2,” said Edwin Berry, a theoretical physicist and certified consulting meteorologist. He called Royal Society’s position on CO2 “pure junk science.”
Ian Clark, emeritus professor for the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Ottawa, agreed that if all greenhouse gas emissions ceased today, the Earth would continue warming—but not because of CO2.
He said that contrary to popular opinion, temperature doesn’t follow CO2—instead, CO2 follows temperature, which, itself, is due to solar activity.
Temperature and CO2
One of Mr. Clark’s primary areas of research is paleoclimatology (the study of climate conditions using indirect records such as tree ring data, ice cores, and other proxy records), and in particular, Arctic paleohydrogeology, which is the study of the Earth’s water throughout history.
“During the ice ages, we had great temperature variations, and this has to do with, not straight-up solar activity, but the amount of solar activity that is hitting the Earth at certain important latitudes, all caused by celestial events,” Mr. Clark said.
“The Earth, in our solar system, is moving around and being jostled. And we have different orbiting patterns that affect solar input, and that creates ice ages and interglacial periods—which we’re in now. And CO2 tracks that. So we'll see enormous temperature changes, going from ice ages to interglacials, and CO2 gets very low during ice ages and very high during interglacials.
“And that gives the appearance that CO2 is driving the climate, but it’s actually following. It lags by about 800 years.”
Mr. Clark said that during ice ages, and particularly the past 10,000 years, scientists have a fairly good idea of the temperature, thanks to proxy records. He said those records show that the Medieval Warm Period was likely much warmer than today, and agriculture and civilization flourished.
But the Little Ice Age followed that from the 1400s to 1800s. “And that’s when we had difficulty with agriculture,” Mr. Clark said.
“The Thames froze over. We have all sorts of recollections about how cold, and some would say miserable, it was back then. But then it started warming up again. So, about every 1,000 years or so, we seem to have these fluctuations. This is due to solar activity, and that’s where we see the importance of the sun, which is the ultimate source of energy beyond geothermal and nuclear energy. Solar drives climate.”
Another peer-reviewed study, by scientist William Jackson, examined the relationship between CO2 levels and temperature over the past 425 million years.
Mr. Jackson is a distinguished research and emeritus professor for the department of chemistry at UC–Davis who specializes in understanding the role that molecules such as CO2, nitrogen, and carbon monoxide play in planetary atmospheres.
I write you a respectful post with easily verified information from a 3rd party and you send me back an opinion and denigrate me. If you don't want to discuss the topic with others why are you posting it? I'll add you to the ignore list since your anger at some spills over onto anyone with a differing opinion.You are in denial
So you postulate we're going into an ice age and that warming is accelerated due to GHGs trapped in melting ice.They also dismiss the residual effect of methane releases from melting polar ice.
You think this statement is an attack upon you?I write you a respectful post with easily verified information from a 3rd party and you send me back an opinion and denigrate me. If you don't want to discuss the topic with others why are you posting it? I'll add you to the ignore list since your anger at some spills over onto anyone with a differing opinion.
So you postulate we're going into an ice age and that warming is accelerated due to GHGs trapped in melting ice.
The two ideas seem to be at odds to me.
But climate scientists are not in denial nor do they dismiss the effect of methane in ice. It was predicted by climate scientists; it is one of the infamous "tipping points". You can read more about the tipping points here.
Growing skepticismThere is no climate emergency
Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.
Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. Go for adaptation instead of mitigation; adaptation works
whatever the causes are.”