STOP worrying Earth is getting hotter

[Robert W]

Common sense + life experience.

Why is the world's hottest day on record in 1913? Where the record was set, it has not come close to that temperature again. Even in 2023 it was 8 degrees cooler than in 1913 at Death Valley, Ca.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is 27 degrees F at 11:09 AM here. A lot of warmth is welcome.

Folks it gets colder in winter and warmer in summer. That is pretty much 'settled' science. And again we have been keeping temperature records for such a short time relative to the history of humankind and have had satellite imaging for a far shorter time that it is a near certainty that there will be record heat and record cold somewhere on the planet each and every day that goes by and that will no doubt likely continue for a very long time in our future.

And it is pretty much settled science that climate changes from day to day, year to year, century to century, eon to eon, sometimes dramatically, whether or not homo sapiens are part of that. Drought, flood, rain, snow, weather and other Earth catastrophes have always been part of the human experience.

And an increase of 7 billion people in a little over 200 years will definitely affect our immediate environment as would that kind of increase of any species on Earth. To say humankind has no effect is just as unscientific as to to blame it all on humankind. But any person capable of critical thinking has to question if human activity is so important in increases in CO2 in our atmosphere, then why have all the efforts to stop that--wind, solar, electric cars, 'energy efficient' appliances, etc. etc. etc.--made no difference whatsoever?

I think that's an honest question that deserves an answer.

 

[Pete7469]

I honestly don't fault those who pay attention to the IPCC and talking heads pushing the AGW/climate change doctrines. So do I.

What I cannot accept as 'logic, reason, honest science' though are those who refuse to even look at or even allow any point of view other than what is being pushed by governments and 'scientists' funded by governments and other interested parties who allow nobody with different points of view to participate in the discussion and policy making. And selective editing or even falsifying of data as well as those constantly moving goal posts do not inspire confidence in anybody capable of critical thinking.

Science is a field that cites conventional wisdom yes, but science requires an open mind and acceptance of ALL points of view and all pertinent criteria and challenges to the conventional wisdom so that it can get it more and more accurate. More and more correct. Just think how the 'science' was all over map and constantly changing during the pandemic as everybody was learning and trying to figure out what did and did not work to deal with it. It is no different with any other aspect of science. What was the 'conventional wisdom' about many many things--what causes fire to burn, the sound barrier, cause and treatment of many diseases, the structure of the universe etc. etc. etc. was all 'settled science' that changed with new information and capability to gather different information.

But 'official' climate science has become closed and refuses any differing opinions. Any who do not agree with the government, IPCC doctrines and Summary for Policy Makers are forced out of the participating scientific groups or made so unwelcome they quit. The leftwing MSM and other information sources shut them out, do not allow them a voice. We get nonsense like this from Heidi Cullen back in 2006:

"The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.

The Weather Channel’s (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe. . ."

<b>Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics</b>

The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which...

www.epw.senate.gov

Anybody who says there is any such thing as 'settled science' for which no new information matters is not a scientist but is a politician or opportunist or unthinking brainwashed numbnut or idiot.

It is important to be good stewards of the environment, not just so that we don't exterminate ourselves or anything else, or even risk toxifying wastelands. Instead of wasting all these resources on this MMGW hoax we should be cleaning the oceans. Even when the earth's climate does change, and lets pretend to accept the absurd theory we can even do anything about it, what if what we did fucked it up far worse? Ever see The Colony?

People REALLY ARE THAT STUPID.

 

[Robert W]

Folks it gets colder in winter and warmer in summer. That is pretty much 'settled' science. And again we have been keeping temperature records for such a short time relative to the history of humankind and have had satellite imaging for a far shorter time that it is a near certainty that there will be record heat and record cold somewhere on the planet each and every day that goes by and that will no doubt likely continue for a very long time in our future.

And it is pretty much settled science that climate changes from day to day, year to year, century to century, eon to eon, sometimes dramatically, whether or not homo sapiens are part of that. Drought, flood, rain, snow, weather and other Earth catastrophes have always been part of the human experience.

And an increase of 7 billion people in a little over 200 years will definitely affect our immediate environment as would that kind of increase of any species on Earth. To say humankind has no effect is just as unscientific as to to blame it all on humankind. But any person capable of critical thinking has to question if human activity is so important in increases in CO2 in our atmosphere, then why have all the efforts to stop that--wind, solar, electric cars, 'energy efficient' appliances, etc. etc. etc.--made no difference whatsoever?

I think that's an honest question that deserves an answer.

I would expect from too much Carbon Dioxide an increase of plant life globally. And due to plants having a cooling impact on Earth, we would see cooler temperatures now than in 1913 in Death Valley, CA. Death Valley is the gold standard of Earth when it comes to record temperatures. So due to more plants on Earth than in 1913, today we see it cooling off at Death Valley, CA and yet IPCC is not ringing alarm bells it is cooler than normal.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is important to be good stewards of the environment, not just so that we don't exterminate ourselves or anything else, or even risk toxifying wastelands. Instead of wasting all these resources on this MMGW hoax we should be cleaning the oceans. Even when the earth's climate does change, and lets pretend to accept the absurd theory we can even do anything about it, what if what we did fucked it up far worse? Ever see The Colony?

People REALLY ARE THAT STUPID.

I couldn't agree more. I WANT honest scientists--that would be scientist who aren't paid to come up with a particular conclusion--to continue to study and analyze and learn about our planet, climate, the entire universe.

And as maybe the most passionate environmentalist on USMB, I want the policy to continue to be clean water, air, soil even while we find ways for people to improve their lives, prosper, look to their own interests. (Those two things are not mutually exclusive.)

And since it is becoming more and more obvious that the most draconian government policies and regulation are not making one whit difference in the CO2 in the atmosphere, I think most of the time could be better spent in researching and discovering ways to help humankind to adapt and constructively thrive despite climate change as well as you mentioned clean up the oceans and keep our planet and the flora and fauna on it healthy and beautiful.

But that probably wouldn't put as much money in their pockets or increase their power over the people would it.

 

[Robert W]

I couldn't agree more. I WANT honest scientists--that would be scientist who aren't paid to come up with a particular conclusion--to continue to study and analyze and learn about our planet, climate, the entire universe.

And as maybe the most passionate environmentalist on USMB, I want the policy to continue to be clean water, air, soil even while we find ways for people to improve their lives, prosper, look to their own interests. (Those two things are not mutually exclusive.)

And since it is becoming more and more obvious that the most draconian government policies and regulation are not making one whit difference in the CO2 in the atmosphere, I think most of the time could be better spent in researching and discovering ways to help humankind to adapt and constructively thrive despite climate change as well as you mentioned clean up the oceans and keep our planet and the flora and fauna on it healthy and beautiful.

But that probably wouldn't put as much money in their pockets or increase their power over the people would it.

If you noticed, it is scientists presenting both sides of the argument. Politicians including the media present one side only. That humans control climate and only deniers allege humans do not control climate. They fail to mention Climate is not short term changes. Climate is a pattern established taking at least 30 years by definition. They want us to believe politicians have magic wands able to predict the future of Earth into another 30 years into the future. Despite they can't predict weather past 7 days into the future. Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry and far more present the side that man is not warming Earth and in fact might be cooling it down.

 

[Foxfyre]

If you noticed, it is scientists presenting both sides of the argument. Politicians including the media present one side only. That humans control climate and only deniers allege humans do not control climate. They fail to mention Climate is not short term changes. Climate is a pattern established taking at least 30 years by definition. They want us to believe politicians have magic wands able to predict the future of Earth into another 30 years into the future. Despite they can't predict weather past 7 days into the future. Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry and far more present the side that man is not warming Earth and in fact might be cooling it down.

Real scientists present and welcome all sides of an argument. So-called 'scientists' like Heidi Cullen may be educated in science but they are not scientists. They are politicians or 'woke' SJW activists or economic opportunists who allow only one point of view on anything, i.e. that which benefits themselves. And they should never be in a position to make or recommend policy for anybody.

 

[Pete7469]

I couldn't agree more. I WANT honest scientists--that would be scientist who aren't paid to come up with a particular conclusion--to continue to study and analyze and learn about our planet, climate, the entire universe.

And as maybe the most passionate environmentalist on USMB, I want the policy to continue to be clean water, air, soil even while we find ways for people to improve their lives, prosper, look to their own interests. (Those two things are not mutually exclusive.)

And since it is becoming more and more obvious that the most draconian government policies and regulation are not making one whit difference in the CO2 in the atmosphere, I think most of the time could be better spent in researching and discovering ways to help humankind to adapt and constructively thrive despite climate change as well as you mentioned clean up the oceans and keep our planet and the flora and fauna on it healthy and beautiful.

But that probably wouldn't put as much money in their pockets or increase their power over the people would it.

 

[odanny]

I've studied paleoclimates and the reasons for paleoclimate changes for over 20 years.

Interesting. So after 2 decades of studying the paleoclimate, do you believe that mankind's emissions have led to a warmer climate?

Also, do you believe in the long term trend of increasingly higher temperatures are the result of natural fluctuations and cycles and that mankind has very little effect on an earth that averages higher temperatures year over year?

Also, what are your observations on accelerated feedback loops, where warming temperatures trigger other conditions that also contribute to warmer temperatures? If warmer temperatures are recorded, won't these changes take place as future contributors, thereby leading to a warmer climate?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You would think Obama would know about it given his mansion is next to the Atlantic Ocean. I think Biden also owns a mansion close to the Atlantic ocean.

Don't forget Obama's mansion on the shore of the Pacific.

 

[odanny]

Why is the world's hottest day on record in 1913?

That's weather. We were discussing averages.

 

[ding]

Interesting. So after 2 decades of studying the paleoclimate, do you believe that mankind's emissions have led to a warmer climate?

Also, do you believein the long term trend of increasingly higher temperatures are the result of natural fluctuations and cycles and that mankind has very little effect on an earth that averages higher temperatures year over year?

Yes, by 0.5C which is the theoretical surface temperature increase from 300 ppm to 420 ppm calculated from the simple physics of radiative forcing from CO2.

Yes and no. The most the planet will warm by doubling CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm (the projection for the end of this century) is 1C. Not 4.5C. 1C. The rest of the warming is the planet returning to its pre-glacial temperature (we still have another 2C to go) like it has been doing since the planet became bipolar glaciated.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's weather. We were discussing averages.

How many data points in those averages?

 

[Robert W]

That's weather. We were discussing averages.

The average was hotter then than now.

What are the historic temperatures in Death Valley?


Record Temperatures

The hottest air temperature ever recorded in Death Valley (Furnace Creek) was 134°F (57°C) on July 10, 1913. During the heat wave that peaked with that record, five consecutive days reached 129° F (54°C) or above. Death Valley holds the record for the hottest place on earth.

 

[Robert W]

That's weather. We were discussing averages.

That is not climate. Climate is that Death Valley, CA is 8 degrees cooler than it was in the heat waves around 1913.

 

[Robert W]

Don't forget Obama's mansion on the shore of the Pacific.

Information about that Mansion.

Obama and the Beach House Loopholes

Although Hawaii has laws meant to preserve disappearing shorelines, beachfront property owners have been able to bypass them. That’s what happened at an expansive coastal estate officials say the Obamas will live in.

www.propublica.org

 

[Robert W]

Interesting. So after 2 decades of studying the paleoclimate, do you believe that mankind's emissions have led to a warmer climate?

Also, do you believe in the long term trend of increasingly higher temperatures are the result of natural fluctuations and cycles and that mankind has very little effect on an earth that averages higher temperatures year over year?

Also, what are your observations on accelerated feedback loops, where warming temperatures trigger other conditions that also contribute to warmer temperatures? If warmer temperatures are recorded, won't these changes take place as future contributors, thereby leading to a warmer climate?

Death Valley, CA expects snow to fall for the first time in over 100 years.

Death Valley Could Get Snow for the First Time in Over 100 Years​

Jan 03, 2024 at 11:53 AM EST

Snow could fall in one of the hottest and driest places on Earth later this month, according to a forecast.

Death Valley, which runs along part of central California's border with Nevada, has long dominated global heat records. The hottest temperature ever recorded on Earth was 134 degrees Fahrenheit at Furnace Creek Ranch on July 10, 1913, according to the National Weather Service.

Snow in Death Valley is extremely rare. The only time any measurable amount of snow fell there was more than 100 years ago, when a half inch of snow was recorded on , according to the NWS.

Since then, only trace amounts of snow have been recorded a handful of times, mostly recently on January 5, 1974.

 

[Foxfyre]

Death Valley, CA expects snow to fall for the first time in over 100 years.

Death Valley Could Get Snow for the First Time in Over 100 Years​

Jan 03, 2024 at 11:53 AM EST

Snow could fall in one of the hottest and driest places on Earth later this month, according to a forecast.

Death Valley, which runs along part of central California's border with Nevada, has long dominated global heat records. The hottest temperature ever recorded on Earth was 134 degrees Fahrenheit at Furnace Creek Ranch on July 10, 1913, according to the National Weather Service.

Snow in Death Valley is extremely rare. The only time any measurable amount of snow fell there was more than 100 years ago, when a half inch of snow was recorded on , according to the NWS.

Since then, only trace amounts of snow have been recorded a handful of times, mostly recently on January 5, 1974.

Which again testifies to anomalies that occur all over the planet in ways that the scientists neither fully understand nor can they predict. Some day we'll no doubt be able to pinpoint the cause and probabilities of those anomalies. But for now there can be rare weather occurring pretty much anywhere.

Climate change is inevitable and I am in no way convinced that scientists fully understand why and how it does so. Some day we will. But now, it is obvious our puny efforts to control the climate by reducing CO2 emissions has netted us zero benefit and a whole lot of unnecessary headaches.

 

[odanny]

Yes, by 0.5C which is the theoretical surface temperature increase from 300 ppm to 420 ppm calculated from the simple physics of radiative forcing from CO2.

Guess the 350 ppm safety valve is long since gone, and I seriously doubt very many climate scientists thought it was even possible to maintain that goal, we are in a runaway feedback loop now, with the forecast for an increasing CO2 concentration to enter the earths atmosphere. Surprisingly, the worst emitter of this is the ruminant stomachs of cattle from humans need for beef.

Which leads back to my original statement about accelerated feedback loops. You know how you clear out for a cattle farm in the Amazon? First you cut down and remove everything from the land, and then you burn everything, to remove any traces of it. You've not only elimiated a carbon sink, but you've insured that vegetation won't grow back, one of which compounds the other.

Another example: India experiencing record high temperatures that are killing people, and this from the worlds most populated nation on earth, of which about 10% have use of an air conditioner. As temps, rise, so do the contributors as more A/C is used.

One situation making another far worse, and it was already bad.

 

[Flash]