The Hoax of Global Warming

THE HOAX OF GLOBAL WARMING!

Is the earth Warming? Yes. But every couple of years the Democrat Media and Politicians keep predicting the World is going to end, because of Global Warming, and it never happens. At what point, do you stop believing their non-sense?

George Carlin, use to be very liberal. He use to be a comedian. I noticed as he got older, his points of views, just like John Wayne, and other people that tend to get older in life, get more Conservative. For example, George Carlin, once said something to this effect; "People are so worried about Global Warming ending the Earth, and that is bs.

So you're telling me, that things like natural disasters such as Earthquakes, Tornadoes, Volcanoes, Hurricanes, and other things haven't done way more damage to thee Earth than any human ever could?"

Yes, humans speed up how often those things happen, however, he said that the Earth was here before humans, and will be here long after, we have gone. His words, not mine.

Thee point is, that the Earth is very resilient. That means, it can withstand a lot.

Funny thing though. China, is the biggest producer of emissions within the World, and yet, Democrat Politicians, do nothing to hold them accountable for it, and ask them or tell them, threw deals, that they could easily make with China, to make their country more environment friendly, but they Democrat Politicians don't seem to care about their carbon footprint, effecting the World so much threw Global Warming.


Why? I thought the Democrat Politicians cared about Global Warming? If they did, wouldn't they make a deal with china, to help protect the Environment?

 

Because China is a sovereign country which will make its own decisions.
I very much doubt any request from the US will change their minds.

 

Country's in general can make deals, and talk about things. If Global Warming is so important, then why wouldn't Democrat Politicians make a deal with China?

I know why! Because all Global Warming is to Democrat Politicians, is fake! And the only reason they talk about it, and whine about it, is to push their Far Left-Wing, Radical Socialist Communist Agenda! Which they want to make America a 3rd World Country!

In which case, will delete any hopes of all the illegals coming here, for the American Dream!!!

For they will delete the middle class within America, threw their Green New Deal, of spending American Tax payers billions of dollars, and nobody will stop them, because Democrat Politicians, aren't held accountable for their Illegal Actions, by anyone!!!

 

Yes.
Of course.
Sigh.

 

George Carlin on Global Warming - YouTube

This guy use to be very Liberal. Here are his thoughts on Global Whining.

 

I don't remember anybody saying the world would end, only that it would cause problems. It already is causing problems with droughts, wildfires, and increased extreme weather, but I get how somebody in denial could shrug and say it's a natural climate phase. Very dramatic mass extinctions have occurred before, after all. I just wonder how dramatic climate change would have to be to get republicans to believe humans can impact the climate. I'm sure if the sea levels rose a foot by the end of the century, causing massive upheaval in low-lying coastal areas and ripple effects inland, and rising temperatures moves arable land north and south, republicans would still just say it's some kind of natural cycle. They have some kind of odd faith that the earth cannot be affected by humans.

 

None of that is true.

 

Brothers one reality that cannot be escaped you can't stop progress. And it seems like that's the whole entire point of the environmentalist movement is to stop progress or to hinder it as long as they can.

I don't doubt that they fool some people into believing this crap for a while there I was falling for it. But actually sounds real climate scientists and they pretty much shot these little stupid talking points to pieces.

I remember when I was a kid in public school the big scare was that the polar ice caps would melt and we would all be underwater I was supposed to be under 10 or so feet of water by now and it hasn't happened and before that we were supposed to be in an ice age experiencing winters like Buffalo because they had a real nasty winter one year.

I've lived long enough to see and notice weather patterns and I've stated one place long enough to notice them I'm in a part of the country that's highly affected by El nino and la Nina years El nino years we have hurricanes they're getting the golf they make landfall they do a bit of damage but generally speaking it's not any worse now than it ever has been. Interest any time it happens that point of finger gets pointed around this is because of all the fossil fuels no no it's not the blender and the AC and the television in the computer and all that other crap that people plug into the wall is all stuff they couldn't live without.

So if anybody comes on to this platform lecturing me without global warming they are hypocrite because they're using electricity to do it electricity is generated by burning coal or natural gas.

 

Like you would know. I'm not an expert either, but the experts aren't very divided. For example: Large contribution from anthropogenic warming to an emerging North American megadrought (science.org)

 

This professor disagrees.
Is the Southwest U.S. Experiencing a Megadrought Fueled by Global Warming?

During the past week, many major media websites have headlined a study by some UCLA researchers suggesting that the Southwest U.S. is in a megadrought--the worst in 1200 years-- and that global warming is the prime cause.

To illustrate, below is the front page of the LA Times. And the Seattle Times highlighted the megadrought claims as well.


Unfortunately, there are some major problems with this study and many of the hyperbolic claims--as I will explain below. . . . .

 

Um that's a blogger, can't even tell if it's a professor and it's certainly not a peer-reviewed article. But his arguments about "why select 22 years" was kind of stupid. The graphs that he showed completely undercut his point. The drought has been exceptional, certainly since 1900 by the graphs. So he brought up an alternative theory. I'll have to look into the "persistent ridging" he refers to. But actual papers, not blogs.

 

University of Washington. Quite prominent.

Cliff Mass - College of the Environment
https://environment.uw.edu › faculty › clifford-mass


Cliff Mass is a meteorologist who specializes in weather prediction and modeling. A particular emphasis of his research has been the weather features of the ...


Clifford Mass | Department of Atmospheric Sciences
https://atmos.uw.edu › core-faculty › clifford-mass


Clifford Mass. Professor, Atmospheric Sciences. Clifford Mass. cmass@uw.edu · (206) 685-0910 · ATG612 · Curriculum Vitae (CV) · Visit Clifford's website.


Cliff Mass | UW News
https://www.washington.edu › news › people › cliff-mass

Cliff Mass is a meteorologist who specializes in weather prediction and modeling. A particular emphasis of his research has been the weather features of the ...

 

I look at these politically biases posts and think “When are some Americans going to learn that there are more countries in the world thanAmerica and that “Leader” is in name only - especially since the Trump years

It is not American Democrats who have signed onto doing something about Climate Change it.is every country that signed the Paris Accords - all 187 of them.

 

It isn't worth much because the rise of CO2 is continuously ongoing at about the usual rate still no sign of a climate emergency either.

Meanwhile China and India are pulling away in their emissions.

 

Actually the 22 years choice damaged their claim because they chose the driest possible record which is a very short time frame.

from the link,

"A key aspect of this paper is its claim that the last 22 years were the driest over the southwest U.S. for the past 1200 years. Their measure of dryness was soil moisture and they secured this indirectly by relating tree ring chronologies to such moisture. Here is a plot of soil moisture from their paper:


Figure 1b from Williams et al. 2002. Nature Climate Change. The soil moisture
is expressed as standard deviations from the mean."

Their decision amounts to cooking the books by ignoring a lot of data.

 

If you design a prospective study, you choose a unit of time before the study results and stick to it. True. But if you do a retrospective study on how the current drought compares to others, you start at the beginning of the drought in question. In this case, it's 22 years. It is a stupid criticism.

The last graph by the blogger shows the exceptional drought more clearly.

 

Sorry, but Professor Mass is not stupid, and you have misstated his critique. From his blog post:

"There is little doubt that it has been relatively (but not record) dry over the southwest U.S. during the past two decades. The authors of this paper claim it is mainly due to global warming, but there is strong evidence that this is not the case.

Something unusual has been going on during the past 20 years: persistent ridging (high pressure) during the winter over the northeastern Pacific. And such high pressure has kept storms away from the southwest U.S.

Several highly regarded atmospheric scientists have investigated this issue and have found that the persistent high pressure and associated warm sea surface temperatures off the West Coast are due to natural variability, not global warming. This (Johnstone and Mantua 2014) work has been published in the peer-reviewed literature (see one below)."

 

No I did not misstate it. He had two main criticisms, one of which was clearly stupid, the other, which you allude to, I do not currently know enough to evaluate. I know how to evaluate studies, but my expertise is not in climate science and I am not even sure if I have access to the relevant studies, so we'll see if I can get there when I have time. But the experts overall agree that climate change is real, and simple logic dictates that human activity can affect the climate.

 

If you don't think you misstated then you misunderstood. The Mass critique is in fact devastating. His point is that set in context the current drought is unremarkable.

"Why 22 years?
A key aspect of this paper is its claim that the last 22 years were the driest over the southwest U.S. for the past 1200 years. Their measure of dryness was soil moisture and they secured this indirectly by relating tree ring chronologies to such moisture. Here is a plot of soil moisture from their paper:

Figure 1b from Williams et al. 2002. Nature Climate Change. The soil moisture
is expressed as standard deviations from the mean.
Tree rings are, of course, imperfect measurements of soil moisture, but let's put that aside for the moment.
You will notice a lot of ups and down in southwest U.S. soil moisture, and that in most ways, the recent dry period is unremarkable. In fact, there were many previous events in which the soil moisture was drier. There were many periods when the soil moisture was low (say less than -1) for longer periods.

Now, I am not a little surprised that none of the "curious" media stopped for a moment and asked: why did these researchers pick 22 years? Why not 25 years, 30 years, or 50 years?

The answer is that their whole narrative, their whole claim of unusual drought, would have weakened greatly if they had used 25 years or 30 years or anything longer.

You can see the issue from the plot above. The soil moisture was in fact VERY HIGH during the 1990s, including 1998. If they had used a longer period, they would have found more normal conditions.
If you want to see this more clearly, let me show you the Palmer Drought Index over California during the past 120 years (see below). This index combines temperature and precipitation and is a reasonable thing to compare to their soil moisture index.
The 22 year period (red, -1.51)) has an average that is much lower than the past 30 years (blue -.93) or the past 25 years (cyan, -1.24). This effect is even larger if you look at precipitation. By selecting 22 years they avoided the wet period in the mid to late 1990s.

Now I am not comfortable with their approach, with claims of megadrought dependent on selecting the exact period over which it recently has been dry."

 

Had the criticism been "that is a shitty graph" he would have been correct. The graph is too busy to show anything easily. The bloggers last graph was much clearer.

As I said, he is asking why use 22 years? Why not use 25 years? The answer is that the thing being studied is the drought. A drought is defined by things being dry. That is why you start when things got dry.

The claim is not that climate change causes persistent intractable drought as the first sign anything is wrong, but rather that droughts are caused or exacerbated by climate change. Therefore, this point is irrelevant.

Of course you would claim megadrought by selecting the exact period over which it has recently been dry. Of course! FFS, lol. And that graph also shows a trend towards worse drought if you did a linear fit on it over the whole time period, and more pronounced since 1980, so it appears to be getting worse. If trends continue, it will look even worse in 10 or 20 years.

 

No you would not. That is exactly the opposite of what's required to make a case for unprecedented megadrought.
And your reference to the distinguished Professor Mass as "the blogger" betrays your prejudice.

 

More on the alleged megadrought.

Sorry, New York Times and NPR, Megadroughts Have Been Far, Far, Worse Than Today
Climate record February 15, 20220
Dozens of news outlets today carried the alarming “news” that climate change is causing the worst drought in centuries in the Western United States....

". . . However, there is some trickery afoot. Williams has redefined megadrought and ignored available data to support his assertion that humans are causing a megadrought. As Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville explained in an email to me:

These guys redefined a mega drought down to 22 years so it was optimized to fit the most recent 22 years. Had the used 30+ years, they don’t have a result. The alpine lakes of the Sierras are fine now, but during the real mega droughts, these lakes dried up so that forests could grow in the lake beds. The use of models is inadmissible because they fail in producing natural variability which was the cause of the previous megadroughts. . . ."

 

lol, whatever, he has a blog. Blogger is a neutral term to me. Your criticism of unprecedented megadrought makes no sense. Why would you not choose the time at which the drought began, and then compare it to prior droughts with lengths of time which could be longer or shorter? Droughts don't follow neat little 10, 25, or 30 year marks.

 

The discussion is about a study by some UCLA researchers
This:

• Published: 14 February 2022

Rapid intensification of the emerging southwestern North American megadrought in 2020–2021

• A. Park Williams,
• Benjamin I. Cook &
• Jason E. Smerdon

Nature Climate Change

 

I suppose, though the core debate is whether man-made climate change is currently affecting the climate and this is just one example. It's a part of their ongoing research. I had cited a prior study by them. They didn't want to wait until the 25 or 30 year mark to publish something, obviously. In a prior publication, they called it the 2nd worst drought, and then a few years later called it the worst as it continued.