The New Climate Reality

Here is a TOUGH question for you, what made that heatwave happen?

 

CO2 is a very small player in the "heat" budget, less than 2% of the total.

Here is a simple calculation on how little the increasing CO2 levels has added since 1750:

Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?

Excerpt:

Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.5 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.


The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise.

LINK

 

Your "facts" are misleading that is why it is silly, he posted facts too and they show continual increases in production and the same for many other crops do too.

 

He presents HARD data you don't which is why you are missing the reality that crops yields and totals keeps going up.

 

The lower nutrients claims are silly as the plants still grow the same way in good soils as they have for thousands of years.

The yields have increased and so have total weight, that means the soils are able to support it.

I wonder of you go to the produce section of stores and look at the healthy plants and fruits you buy and enjoy, you really think they are becoming badly deficient?

I think you are straining to find a way to support a political narrative that CO2 is the villan and must be suppressed.

The world is showing that it LOVES the increasing levels of CO2 in the air which makes it a little easier for them to grow more successfully.

 

Translation: I can't address the content of the article therefore try to belittle it with bogus claims instead.

Meanwhile you amazingly ignore abundant evidence that plants of the world LOVE that increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere, heck even NASA published hard satellite data showing the large increase in the greening of the world.

From NASA

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.

LINK

 

You didn't addressed the published paper because your bias prevented it that is why you are not aware of it.

 

No it is called NEUTRALIZING, the water is still overwhelmingly alkaline the entire time.

Digital Analysis

Excerpt:

Neutralization Reactions
The task of any pH adjustment system is to adjust the pH of the process stream into the defined acceptable discharge range. In the case of an acid neutralization, caustic (NaOH) is added to the effluent stream to pH Neutralize the solution. This neutralization, or titration can be expressed as follows:

LINK

 

Influenza doesn't come from the sun and people congregate indoor a lot more in the winter making it much easier for the Flu and Cold season to show up.

 

LOL

You haven't made one true counter to Jacks posted data and articles on it, just a lot of statements from your finger tips.

Heck I KNOW you didn't read his articles at all such as this one LINK,

Germany’s “Katrina”: Officials Left Dams Full For Weeks Even With Heavy Rains In The Forecast

Excerpt:

Officials left dams full to the brim at least 3 weeks long during a rainy period and then failed to undertake a controlled release even when 150 mm of rain were forecast 4 days before the floods.

Now they want to hide their gross incompetence and blame climate change.

Yesterday I posted how Germany’s flood disaster could have been prevented in large part, especially in terms of lives lost. The latest death toll has risen to over 150.

Although the heavy rains had been forecast days in advance, nothing was done to avert the inevitable destruction. Instead of taking responsibility, politicians are blaming climate change in a bid to shift attention away from their incompetence and gross negligence.

=====

As usual it was the government who failed to act then LIED about it afterwards.

You are too lazy about it.

 

Why can't you answer simple 101 based questions he asked you?

 

That is false since I live right there, and recorded history tells me it was Hotter in the 1970's summer time in the region.

The NW heatwave was entirely natural based but unusual in how it was generated which you remain ignorant about as you instead parrot the propaganda narrative over it.

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

You don't even understand what happened which is why you remain ignorant of what caused it which is well known to Meteorologists who saw it coming days before it began and made very good forecasts based on the developing weather of the region which were based on their forecasting models which were using known weather developments of the region.

"Global warming" had nothing to do with it, it was a conjunction of THREE weather processes meeting in the region.

 

You know he doesn't read "denier" stuff which is why he is so ignorant of the heatwave itself which Dr. Mass posted about days before it began as he as fellow Meteorologists were tracking the three separate weather processes that converged in the region it was why it was hotter than usual.

 

Quoting Tigger2:

"And again you attempt to mislead.
Heavy rainfall days is not the same as the amount of rain that fell"

===

Maybe if you read the abstract you would know they addressed it:

"We analyzed trends of heavy rainfall days for the last decades in Germany. For all available stations with daily data, days exceeding daily thresholds (10, 20, 30 mm) were counted annually. The Mann–Kendall trend test was applied to overlapping periods of 30 years (1951–2019). This period was extended to 1901 for 111 stations. The stations were aggregated by natural regions to assess regional patterns. Impacts of data inconsistencies on the calculated trends were evaluated with the metadata and recent hourly data. Although the trend variability depended on the chosen exceedance threshold, a general long-term trend for the whole of Germany was consistently not evident."

bolding mine

 

They are refusing to read your links that is why they have no idea what is really going on.

The Guardian isn't happy about lot of trees being cut down:

Biomass is promoted as a carbon neutral fuel. But is burning wood a step in the wrong direction?

LINK

=====

A lot of trees are being cut down to feet the wood pellet making plants then shipped to Europe to burn.

 

I am sorry you believe that.

 

Ha ha, CH4 is a feeble GH gas because it is far from the OLWR terrestrial part of the IR spectrum which means negligible absorption occurs. It is well below CO2 in warm forcing effect and at the bottom of the "heat" budget.

Have you seen a IR spectrum where CH4 resides in?

CH4 decomposes into CO2 and H2 in a few months.

 

If Germany currently is having heavy rains, it reminds me of when Bill Clinton was president and they had severe heavy rains.
Also, what part of Germany has heavy rains. It matters a lot for those who do not know Germany.

 

Meanwhile your failure to read further down shows a sampling of Consensus FAILURES:

"...In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor — southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result — despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology — until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on..."

===

Reproducible research is far better than a political based consensus argument.

 

No, feel free to expose it in detail.

 

An unusual set of weather conditions falling together at the same time, accelerated by global warming from man made Co2.

My Tough question to you. If Co2 plays such a tiny part in earths temperature what keeps it at its average 14c night to 16c day. rather than the moons variance of -183c night to +106c during the day

 

Don't be sorry -- but do get a valid argument. What Scientists do I follow as per what ? If we are talking Ocean Pollution - the number one enviro Threat .. I follow myself - being a subject matter expert and all the scientists that publish stuff on Ocean Pollution - as always .. some much better than others.

"Enviro Activists" in general - are morons w/r to environmental issues -- as are politicians implementing the wishes of enviro - activists ..

The Biggest of Envro Morons of late are folks like Biden - AOC - and Greta -- suggesting policies that exacerbate and incentivize both CO2 increases and the increase to Ocean Pollution.

 

Lots of Heat ! which comes from the Sun - and gravitational interactions with the moon.

 

One data point does not a trend make. finding one example of a Hot Summer in the past - does not refute the claim that we have trended towards hotter summers of late.