The New Climate Reality

I don't even think that is a rational thing for you to claim.

First of all, expertise on this board is irrelevant. The expertise that is important is that of the professionals around the entire world who are studying in the numerous related fields that contribute to an understanding of climate change.

Beyond that, Hayes spends his time looking for papers that he thinks don't support the conclusion of the world wide view of climatological scientists. And, he posts those papers regardless of whether they have been reviewed or published.

That is a total dedication to wish fulfillment, not science.

 

My analogy was to illustrate a problem with cells that you must believe are surrounding Earth.

 

For your posts?

 

No, you just failed again!

NOBODY is asking you to believe Mann. In fact, nobody is asking you to believe any specific individual.

That is ALL on you.

 

Too bad for you, I guess.

 

Not another blog.
More charts and graphs clearly showing warming with a bloke saying ignore them.
Sigh

 

No I didn't. But you are just makin' $#!+ up again.

Yes they are, and you are one of them. You claim that peer-reviewed publication is the necessary and sufficient condition for scientific credibility.

I am aware of my responsibility for the contents of my own mind.

 

Right: it's UAH. You do know what UAH is, right?

No, with a bloke saying look at what they say, and try thinking for a change.

 

Beautiful dancing.

 

LOL - yes, review is seriously important. So are duplication and other aspects.

No, you don't have to take the world of Mann or any other individual.

 

But pal review is just trash.

You mean replication of findings and validation of hypotheses? They are indeed. But the final judge is always actual physical events, and on that score, anti-fossil-fuel hysteria is batting .000.

Oh, I don't, believe me.

 

The fossil fuel companies have known about GW for 40 years.,And you didn’t ?
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/ho...orse than,told them so more than 30 years ago.

 

And you’ve been wrong a hundred times because your remarks indicate you don’t even know what climate change is about.

I KNOW I’ve had to correct that statement many times, but here goes. It’s not about change, it’s about the rate of change. It’s not about the warming trend, it’s about how fast the warming trend is progressing……fasted than at any time in the history of man kind. It’s changing faster then OUR species can adapt.


We don’t expect you to understand for two reasons. First, your species of deniers appear to be overwhelmed by the math of change ( calculus) and secondly, you don’t appear to accept EVOLUTION as a group. So WTF. No ones blaming you guys.

I’ll repeat what Trump says about himself and his followers.
“We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated," he said during his victory speech.”

 

You refused to correct me about climate change. You drifted off on the rate.

 

The Coriolis video has to show I knew this as far back as 1980. That was when I became a pilot. I am not speaking of the oil firms or coal firms.

 

Here you go.
Global Tropical Cyclone Activity | Ryan Maue
http://climatlas.com › tropical

by SS File — Around the globe, 80-100 tropical storms are observed every year unevenly distributed across the Indian, Pacific, and Atlantic oceans. About half go on to reach ...

 

No increase in strength either.

 

~snip~

"In summary, it is premature to conclude with high confidence that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities have had a detectable impact on Atlantic basin hurricane activity, although increasing greenhouse gases are strongly linked to global warming... Human activities may have already caused other changes in tropical cyclone activity that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of these changes compared to estimated natural variability, or due to observational limitations."​

Regardless of the scientific ability to conclude confidently in every impact of climate change on hurricanes, they will continue to occur and devastate rapidly growing coastal regions. The only proven and practical way to prevent loss of life and property damage is to prepare ahead with improved building codes and maintain a high level of vigilance and resilience in the face of natural disasters. This includes more accurate intensity and track forecasting through advanced numerical weather prediction or weather models.
​

So where is the part that contradicts climate change?

 

No one has said NOAA is "wrong," but rather that there's a trend in their data they have chosen not to highlight.

The cooling trend is firmly established.
Solar Update September, 2021
2021 › 09 › 22 › solar-update-september-2021

Our planet’s temperature peaked in 2016 and has been in a disciplined decline since. It is in a channel 0.5°C wide with a slope of -0.03°C per annum. The atmosphere had been warming at 0.013°C per annum according to Dr Roy Spencer’s work. If the established cooling trend continues it will only take another decade to get back to the temperatures of the early 1980s. With the cooling trend firmly established, the question is: Can the proximate cause be found in the solar record?

 

Actually, we're debating your claim in #1497: "very exponential growth of the climate disasters we are experiencing today"

I challenged that and, in the case of hurricanes, I just demonstrated that your claim was false.

 

But I didn't specifically mention hurricanes, did I?

Climate disasters come in all forms; drought, flood, heatwaves, changing weather patterns, changing water currents and salinity -- all these and more are tied to climate change.

 

I chose hurricanes as one example, as I said. The same lack of worsening can be shown across the board.

 

Then you have a lot of research to go there buddy. The general consensus is that it is happening. It is incumbent on you to prove otherwise, and that is a pretty tall order when you are just some random guy on the internet.

 

I see the global temperature anomaly on this chart for today as being 0.9, not .01.

Plus, I don't see that chart as showing an "established" reduction. If you extend the red lines, there aren't any readings outside of those lines, except perhaps that one super high reading in 2017.

Perhaps more importantly, these data aren't being corrected for our understanding of natural cycles that are taking place. The chart shows calculated actuals.

Finally, these are NOAA data and analysis. And, NOAA clearly does NOT see this as an indication of a near term cooling trend.

 

Don't think so - albeit Dirty Donny gave it a good try.