Global Warming

The urban heat island effect is real and magnified in many of the places that they take temperature readings:

1693662281077.jpeg
 
lotr10 said:
More science showing that Greenland is not getting warmer nor is it losing it's ice cover.

wattsupwiththat.com

Greenland’s 2022-’23 Ice Coverage Well Above 1981-2010 Average Despite ‘Global Boiling’ Rhetoric

The Greenland ice sheet didn’t even cooperate with the narrative during the “global boiling” melt months of July and August.
wattsupwiththat.com wattsupwiththat.com
Click to expand...
Are you sure the author of this article and the information he provided is on the approved list of the climate specialist the liberal have paid off? I mean developed?
 
Most skeptics are suspicious that the Climate Change alarmists are hiding the real factor behind measured increases in temperature: the urban heat effect. We're also suspicious of the casual way the alarmist computer models account for and then dismiss most of the Sun's impact (solar forcing) on the measured temperatures. Well a recent study shows us that our suspicions may have been right. At the very least the science is NOT settled:


A new study published in the scientific peer-reviewed journal, Climate, by 37 researchers from 18 countries suggests that current estimates of global warming are contaminated by urban warming biases.

The study also suggests that the solar activity estimates considered in the most recent reports by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimated the role of the Sun in global warming since the 19th century.

It is well-known that cities are warmer than the surrounding countryside. While urban areas only account for less than 4% of the global land surface, many of the weather stations used for calculating global temperatures are located in urban areas. For this reason, some scientists have been concerned that the current global warming estimates may have been contaminated by urban heat island effects. In their latest report, the IPCC estimated that urban warming accounted for less than 10% of global warming. However, this new study suggests that urban warming might account for up to 40% of the warming since 1850.

Irish Buffalo since you don't trust WUWT here's the actual peer reviewed scientific paper:

www.mdpi.com

The Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Land Surface Warming (1850–2018) in Terms of Human and Natural Factors: Challenges of Inadequate Data

A statistical analysis was applied to Northern Hemisphere land surface temperatures (1850–2018) to try to identify the main drivers of the observed warming since the mid-19th century. Two different temperature estimates were considered—a rural and urban blend (that matches almost exactly with...
www.mdpi.com www.mdpi.com

In summary, to resolve the causes of the climate changes since the 19th century more satisfactorily, we encourage more research into the following:
  • Better quantification of the contribution of urbanization bias to current global temperature estimates.
  • Improving temperature homogenization techniques to minimize urban blending and more accurately correct for other non-climatic biases.
  • Establishing which (if any) of the current TSI datasets are most reliable. We see this as involving two distinct periods: the satellite era and the pre-satellite era. We propose that further satellite missions could help improve the former, while more sun-like star projects could help improve the latter.
  • Consideration of the possibility that current estimates of the anthropogenic contribution to recent climate change might be too high.
  • Natural climate change drivers other than TSI and volcanic activity.
 
lotr10 said:
People who block public roads in protest are committing an act of violence against their fellow citizens. They are the scum of the earth. These kinds of confrontations are going to end in terrible violence and the blame will rest entirely on the protesters.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1695794212686450915

I have to ask were the hell are the police? How the hell can these people block a rode for this long with no sign of law enforcement? How long do you think pro life protesters would be allowed to block a public road leading to an abortion clinic?
Click to expand...
Only when people start running them over will they get out of the way permanently.

I'm as peaceful as they come, but when you play stupid games you win stupid prizes.
 
Climate change alarmists are dangerous people. They have more in common with Nazi's then they do "environmentalists". If you don't believe me check what this whack job is recommending to fight Global Warming:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1699081367022162005

As an aside, the TED talks have been taken over by pseudo intellectuals without a lick of commons sense and only half a brain. And this guy calls himself a "bioethicist". The only thing ethical about this clown is his complete lack of ethics.
 
lotr10 said:
Climate change alarmists are dangerous people. They have more in common with Nazi's then they do "environmentalists". If you don't believe me check what this whack job is recommending to fight Global Warming:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1699081367022162005

As an aside, the TED talks have been taken over by pseudo intellectuals without a lick of commons sense and only half a brain. And this guy calls himself a "bioethicist". The only thing ethical about this clown is his complete lack of ethics.
Click to expand...
I used to enjoy TED Talks, even ones I didn't agree with were informative.

Too many lately have been hacks like this moron.
 
A true profile in courage. A climate scientists admits how he must distort the information to get published:

www.thefp.com

I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published

I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work.
www.thefp.com www.thefp.com

The paper I just published—“Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California”—focuses exclusively on how climate change has affected extreme wildfire behavior. I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other than climate change in my research because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell.

This matters because it is critically important for scientists to be published in high-profile journals; in many ways, they are the gatekeepers for career success in academia. And the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.

To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.
 
Here's more from this eye opening article:

Here’s how it works.

The first thing the astute climate researcher knows is that his or her work should support the mainstream narrative—namely, that the effects of climate change are both pervasive and catastrophic and that the primary way to deal with them is not by employing practical adaptation measures like stronger, more resilient infrastructure, better zoning and building codes, more air conditioning—or in the case of wildfires, better forest management or undergrounding power lines—but through policies like the Inflation Reduction Act, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

So in my recent Nature paper, which I authored with seven others, I focused narrowly on the influence of climate change on extreme wildfire behavior. Make no mistake: that influence is very real. But there are also other factors that can be just as or more important, such as poor forest management and the increasing number of people who start wildfires either accidentally or purposely. (A startling fact: over 80 percent of wildfires in the US are ignited by humans.)

In my paper, we didn’t bother to study the influence of these other obviously relevant factors. Did I know that including them would make for a more realistic and useful analysis? I did. But I also knew that it would detract from the clean narrative centered on the negative impact of climate change and thus decrease the odds that the paper would pass muster with Nature’s editors and reviewers.

This type of framing, with the influence of climate change unrealistically considered in isolation, is the norm for high-profile research papers. For example, in another recent influential Nature paper, scientists calculated that the two largest climate change impacts on society are deaths related to extreme heat and damage to agriculture. However, the authors never mention that climate change is not the dominant driver for either one of these impacts: heat-related deaths have been declining, and crop yields have been increasing for decades despite climate change. To acknowledge this would imply that the world has succeeded in some areas despite climate change—which, the thinking goes, would undermine the motivation for emissions reductions.
 
AMEN!

But climate scientists shouldn’t have to exile themselves from academia to publish the most useful versions of their research. We need a culture change across academia and elite media that allows for a much broader conversation on societal resilience to climate.

The media, for instance, should stop accepting these papers at face value and do some digging on what’s been left out. The editors of the prominent journals need to expand beyond a narrow focus that pushes the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. And the researchers themselves need to start standing up to editors, or find other places to publish.

What really should matter isn’t citations for the journals, clicks for the media, or career status for the academics—but research that actually helps society.
 
lotr10 said:
Climate change alarmists are dangerous people. They have more in common with Nazi's then they do "environmentalists". If you don't believe me check what this whack job is recommending to fight Global Warming:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1699081367022162005

As an aside, the TED talks have been taken over by pseudo intellectuals without a lick of commons sense and only half a brain. And this guy calls himself a "bioethicist". The only thing ethical about this clown is his complete lack of ethics.
Click to expand...
These people are sick
 
lotr10 said:
A true profile in courage. A climate scientists admits how he must distort the information to get published:

www.thefp.com

I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published

I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work.
www.thefp.com www.thefp.com

The paper I just published—“Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California”—focuses exclusively on how climate change has affected extreme wildfire behavior. I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other than climate change in my research because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell.

This matters because it is critically important for scientists to be published in high-profile journals; in many ways, they are the gatekeepers for career success in academia. And the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.

To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.
Click to expand...
Actually a vast left wing conspiracy, if you think about it.
 
said_aouita said:
Funny. It's putin who is all for global warming. It would open up the northern shipping route year round.
Click to expand...
Not funny at all. A NATURALLY warming climate not only helps Russia but it helps Canada & the US by opening up the Northwestern Sea route over the top of North America as well as freeing up millions of square miles of potentially highly productive agricultural land.
 
Interesting look at the power of NATURAL atmospheric processes:

www.thebrighterside.news

Earth’s atmosphere can clean itself, breakthrough study finds

Scientists have made a groundbreaking discovery that could change the way we think about air pollution.
www.thebrighterside.news www.thebrighterside.news

The discovery is outlined in a new paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which suggests that the traditional thinking around the formation of OH in the atmosphere is incomplete. Until now, it was thought that sunlight was the primary driver of OH formation, but this new research shows that OH can be created spontaneously by the special conditions on the surface of water droplets.

“You need OH to oxidize hydrocarbons, otherwise they would build up in the atmosphere indefinitely,” said Sergey Nizkorodov, a University of California, Irvine professor of chemistry, who was part of the research team.

“OH is a key player in the story of atmospheric chemistry. It initiates the reactions that break down airborne pollutants and helps to remove noxious chemicals such as sulfur dioxide and nitric oxide, which are poisonous gases, from the atmosphere.”

The implications of this discovery are significant. It could change the way we model air pollution, as the assumption has always been that OH comes from the air and is not produced in the droplet directly. This means that existing models may need to be revised to take into account this new source of OH.

Note that:

* The science is not close to being settled about all things related to the atmosphere & climate. And anyone that says it is is a liar or ignoramus.

* The models they use need a lot of work.
 
lotr10 said:
Interesting look at the power of NATURAL atmospheric processes:

www.thebrighterside.news

Earth’s atmosphere can clean itself, breakthrough study finds

Scientists have made a groundbreaking discovery that could change the way we think about air pollution.
www.thebrighterside.news www.thebrighterside.news

The discovery is outlined in a new paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which suggests that the traditional thinking around the formation of OH in the atmosphere is incomplete. Until now, it was thought that sunlight was the primary driver of OH formation, but this new research shows that OH can be created spontaneously by the special conditions on the surface of water droplets.

“You need OH to oxidize hydrocarbons, otherwise they would build up in the atmosphere indefinitely,” said Sergey Nizkorodov, a University of California, Irvine professor of chemistry, who was part of the research team.

“OH is a key player in the story of atmospheric chemistry. It initiates the reactions that break down airborne pollutants and helps to remove noxious chemicals such as sulfur dioxide and nitric oxide, which are poisonous gases, from the atmosphere.”

The implications of this discovery are significant. It could change the way we model air pollution, as the assumption has always been that OH comes from the air and is not produced in the droplet directly. This means that existing models may need to be revised to take into account this new source of OH.

Note that:

* The science is not close to being settled about all things related to the atmosphere & climate. And anyone that says it is is a liar or ignoramus.

* The models they use need a lot of work.
Click to expand...
Add in that they now apparently know it’s a somewhat self regulating system. Which anyone with a brain assumed to be the case wrt climate. Things go not rapidly spiral out of control. Despite what the alarmists would like us to think.
 

Earth is outside its ‘safe operating space for humanity’ on most key measurements, study says​

Earth is exceeding its “safe operating space for humanity” in six of nine key measurements of its health, and two of the remaining three are headed in the wrong direction, a new study said.

Earth’s climate, biodiversity, land, freshwater, nutrient pollution and “novel” chemicals (human-made compounds like microplastics and nuclear waste) are all out of whack, a group of international scientists said in Wednesday’s journal Science Advances. Only the acidity of the oceans, the health of the air and the ozone layer are within the boundaries considered safe, and both ocean and air pollution are heading in the wrong direction, the study said.
Click to expand...
apnews.com

Earth is outside its 'safe operating space for humanity' on most key measurements, study says

A new study of Earth's health says the planet is outside its “safe operating space for humanity” on six out of nine key measurements.
apnews.com apnews.com

I wish these "scientists" understood their alarmism isn't helping things. Having a mature discussion about possible issues means not inflating every issue to the extreme,

Put it this way, if this was a lawyer speaking to a jury, they would have already lost the trial no matter how solid their case may have been,
 
lotr10 said:
Not funny at all. A NATURALLY warming climate not only helps Russia but it helps Canada & the US by opening up the Northwestern Sea route over the top of North America as well as freeing up millions of square miles of potentially highly productive agricultural land.
Click to expand...
Butbutbut Lurch Kerry told us we need to get rid of farms and farmers.
 
What a colossal waste of resources:

www.foxnews.com

Biden unveils massive govt work program to fight global warming

President Biden is creating a giant New Deal-style work program to fight climate change and restore the nation's environment via executive action.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com

Biden's so-called American Climate Corps will, according to the White House, mobilize "a new, diverse generation" of more than 20,000 Americans who will be trained and put to work on conservation, clean energy and environmental justice projects. The ultimate goal of the program is to pave the way for members of the corps to find jobs in the public and private sector.

Of course they'll be a DIVERSE workforce (diversity above all else) but will they have the right technical qualifications to work on CLEAN ENERGY projects? They'll also work on environmental JUSTICE projects, whatever the hell they are.
 

Bill Gates sees ‘a lot of climate exaggeration’ out there: ‘The climate is not the end of the planet. So the planet is going to be fine’​

“There’s a lot of climate exaggeration,” said Gates, who founded Microsoft and is now a philanthropist. “The climate is not the end of the planet. So the planet is going to be fine.”

The world will not be able to meet its agreed-upon goal to limit future warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial temperatures, but it won’t hit the 3-degree Celsius mark either, said Gates, who is not a climate scientist.

Gates cited a reason for thinking it won’t be as bad as it once looked: Since 2015, until last year, the world went on a “gigantic” innovation binge in efforts that could help curb climate change.
Click to expand...
fortune.com

Bill Gates sees 'a lot of climate exaggeration' out there: 'The climate is not the end of the planet. So the planet is going to be fine'

Gates, Mike Bloomberg and Prince William were announcing finalists for the Earthshot Prize for companies and groups with new ways to save the planet.
fortune.com fortune.com

I thought it was interesting that the authors decided to include the line, "said Gates, who is not a climate scientist."

Just because they don't agree with him, all of a sudden he is not a scientist. With every other liberal point of view he espouses, he is a brilliant businessman. But once he says something they disagree with, the little digs come out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top