Scientist express horror as they see a 2.5 C increase in earth's temperature

[Seymour Flops]

America has been fighting climate change for decades, apparently to no effect.

Maybe its time just to adapt to the weather instead of trying to fight it?

All of the accords that were signed, all of the conferences that have been held, all of the carbon credits that have been peddled,it looks like none of this has meant nothing.

Exactly. The idea that humans could affect the climate is absurd. In the unlikely even we could affect it, we would be much more likely to affect it in an undesireable way than in a desireable one.

Only fools believe that if we (meaning only the U.S.), would be willing to reduce our production, and accept smaller lives materially speaking, humans could somehow shape the climate to suit ourselves.

Time to realize that the goal of taking the U.S. down a peg or two is exactly that: taking the U.S. down a peg or two. Nobody really believes that will change the climate.

Maybe after the Rapture, Almighty God will resolve the problem, and that won't be that long according to experts in the field.

Yes, and no one who is not an expert on theology is allowed to disagree.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Thanks to Mike Johnson playing with himself for months while Poootin laughed at MAGA.

You are not a bright boy since Russia was advancing even when Ukraine was getting supplied last year, now that NATO and the West have been bled dry of the older military hardware they had sent they are now making noises to place their own cannon fodder troops in Ukraine.....

 

[Grumblenuts]

Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine

Koch Family Foundations have spent $145,555,197 directly financing 90 groups that have attacked climate change science and policy solutions, from 1997-2018.

www.greenpeace.org

 

[ding]

Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine

Koch Family Foundations have spent $145,555,197 directly financing 90 groups that have attacked climate change science and policy solutions, from 1997-2018.

www.greenpeace.org

The connections seems rather blurry to me. Was Einstein a Newtonian denier?

 

[Crick]

No, we aren't. That is a computer model.

In other words it's FICTION!

Computer models are no more fiction than when your mind suggest that you not step off the curb in front of an approaching bus.

 

[ding]

Computer models are no more fiction than when your mind suggest that you not step off the curb in front of an approaching bus.

Not really, the approaching bus is real.

"...In the global climate models (GCMs) most of the warming that has taken place since 1950 is attributed to human activity. Historically, however, there have been large climatic variations.Temperature reconstructions indicate that there is a ‘warming’ trend that seems to have been going on for as long as approximately 400 years. Prior to the last 250 years or so, such a trend could only be due to natural causes..."

"...GCMs are not sufficiently reliable to distinguish between natural and man-made causes of the temperature increase in the 20th century. Some of the predictions from GCMs are accompanied by standard errors, as in statistical analysis. But since the GCMs are deterministic models one cannot interpret these standard errors in the same way as in statistics. GCMs are typically evaluated applying the same observations used to calibrate the model parameters. In an article in Science, Voosen (2016) writes; “Indeed, whether climate scientists like to admit it or not, nearly every model has been calibrated precisely to the 20th century climate records – otherwise it would have ended up in the trash”. Unfortunately,models that match 20th century data as a result of calibration using the same 20th century data are of dubious quality for determining the causes of the 20th century temperature variability. The problem is that some of the variables representing sources of climate variability other than greenhouse gases are not properly controlled for during the calibrations. The resulting calibration of the climate sensitivity may therefore be biased. Further critical evaluations are given by several authors, such as Essex (2022)..."

"...As mentioned in the previous section climate can also change owing to internal processes within the climate system even without any variations in external forcings (chaos). In the GCMs the source of chaos is the nonlinearity of the Navier-Stokes equations. If the initial conditions are not known exactly for a dynamic model based on the Navier-Stokes relations the forecast trajectory will diverge from the actual one, and it is not necessarily the case that small perturbations have small effects. In fact, slightly different initial conditions can yield wildly different outputs..."

"...In order to assess the uncertainty due to internal variability, researchers use so-called ICE (Initial Condition Ensembles) simulations. This means that outputs of GCMs are simulated starting from slightly different initial conditions. As the climate system is chaotic, slightly different initial conditions lead to different trajectories..."

"...Subsequently, we have summarized recent work on statistical analyses on the ability ofthe GCMs to track historical temperature data. These studies have demonstrated that the timeseries of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from theGCMs is non-stationary. Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2..."

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

And this doesn't even address ALL of the flawed assumptions in their models. It just addresses the biggest one.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Regarding ding's recycled farts here:

RealClimate: A distraction due to errors, misunderstanding and misguided Norwegian statistics

RealClimate: A friend asked me if a discussion paper published on Statistics Norway’s website, ‘To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?’, was purposely timed for the next climate summit (COP28). I don’t know the answer to his question. But this discussion...

www.realclimate.org

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Computer models are no more fiction than when your mind suggest that you not step off the curb in front of an approaching bus.

That's low and stupid too

 

[sparky]

more>>>

~S~

 

[Rawley]

77% of Top Climate Scientists Think 2.5°C of Warming Is Coming—And They're Horrified | Common Dreams

"I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the Global South," one expert said.

www.commondreams.org

We are already seeing deadly weather extremes worldwide. Many world leaders are short sighted and ignoring the warnings. My children and grandchildren will suffer for that ignorance.

More likely they will be suffering becasue of their genes

 

[westwall]

Regarding ding's recycled farts here:

RealClimate: A distraction due to errors, misunderstanding and misguided Norwegian statistics

RealClimate: A friend asked me if a discussion paper published on Statistics Norway’s website, ‘To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?’, was purposely timed for the next climate summit (COP28). I don’t know the answer to his question. But this discussion...

www.realclimate.org

Models aren't misunderstood. The models are crap. In test after test after test the models have been proven to be less than worthless.

They predict warming no matter what numbers you punch in.

They have a built in bias towards warming. That means they are useless as predictive models.

 

[JimH52]

The scientists are too optimistic, frankly. Nobody predicted air and sea surface temperatures to decouple from historical means in 2024 and reach a sustained increase of over +1.5C from historical baselines, but it happened. I think that says we've got no fucking idea how fast this is going to go now that it's going or how far.

Those 6% who think we will contain heating to 1.5C are already provably wrong and yet are still saying it. One out of every 20 climate scientists is so utterly blinkered that they can't look at the current actual data and go "shit guess I was wrong about everything." That doesn't speak well of the average either.

The problem is, many in the MAGA cult cannot see beyond the end of their nose. And the ones that can, just keep listening to the stupid, insurrectionist named trump. They do not realize it, but they are dooming their grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

When the day comes when we all have to meet the water truck so we will have enough water to make it through the week or when entire communities are regularly wiped out by wild fires, then MAGA will look back and wonder why they denied scientist for all those years. But they will come up with someone else to blame.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The AGWCult has no need for science, they have consensus!

Guam, tipped over!

 

[westwall]

The problem is, many in the MAGA cult cannot see beyond the end of their nose. And the ones that can, just keep listening to the stupid, insurrectionist named trump. They do not realize it, but they are dooming their grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

When the day comes when we all have to meet the water truck so we will have enough water to make it through the week or when entire communities are regularly wiped out by wild fires, then MAGA will look back and wonder why they denied scientist for all those years. But they will come up with someone else to blame.

Pot, meet kettle. You people don't know the first thing about how science works. We do.

Computer models are not science. They are not data, they are fiction.

Useless for anything but a novel.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

A MINI ICE age could hit the Earth in the 2030s, the first such event to occur since the early 1700s. New mathematical models of the Sun's solar cycle developed at Northumbria University suggest solar activity will see a "significant" drop, causing temperatures on Earth to plummet.

The last mini ice age occurred between 1645 and 1715 and caused temperatures in northern Europe to fall dramatically, with London's River Thames freezing over during winter and sea ice extending for miles around the UK. The prolonged cold snap, known as the Maunder Minimum, has been linked to a reduction in the number of sunspots, as observed by scientists at the time.

Mini ice age could bring freezing temperatures by 2030

A mini ice age could hit the Earth in the 2030s, the first such event to occur since the early 1700s

www.wired.com

 

[sparky]

wonderful taz ,maybe then we can all chill out?....~S~

 

[westwall]

A MINI ICE age could hit the Earth in the 2030s, the first such event to occur since the early 1700s. New mathematical models of the Sun's solar cycle developed at Northumbria University suggest solar activity will see a "significant" drop, causing temperatures on Earth to plummet.

The last mini ice age occurred between 1645 and 1715 and caused temperatures in northern Europe to fall dramatically, with London's River Thames freezing over during winter and sea ice extending for miles around the UK. The prolonged cold snap, known as the Maunder Minimum, has been linked to a reduction in the number of sunspots, as observed by scientists at the time.

Mini ice age could bring freezing temperatures by 2030

A mini ice age could hit the Earth in the 2030s, the first such event to occur since the early 1700s

www.wired.com

Gee, I have been pointing out the Cold Sun issues for at least 8 years now. Nice to see it finally make it into the mainstream media.

 

[westwall]

wonderful taz ,maybe then we can all chill out?....~S~

Global warming/climate change policy is about people control.

It has nothing to do with anything else.

 

[Crick]

There is NO increase in severe storms as shown here which I have posted many times before:

Storminess has not gone up, and there’s been no increase in hurricane strength or frequency … no “emergency” there.

First, the strength.

View attachment 945504

And here is the global hurricane frequency, both for all hurricanes and for the strongest hurricanes.

View attachment 945505

Hurricane Database Source

And there is much longer evidence to back that up. Here are the records of all hurricanes (left) and major hurricanes (right) that came ashore in the US in the last 150 years … NO increase. SOURCE: Nature magazine.

View attachment 945507

And here are the numbers of Pacific typhoons (hurricanes) from the Japanese Meteorological Agency.


View attachment 945512

And here are a century and a half of records of the number of landfalling hurricanes in Florida.

View attachment 945513

Finally, here are the declining numbers of both strong and average cyclones (Southern Hemisphere hurricanes) in Australian waters, from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM).

View attachment 945516

All these graphs were produced by a massage therapist.

 

[Grumblenuts]

All these graphs were produced by a massage therapist.

Oh, Stormy!