Get used to it.

The AGW alarmists lose another round.

Transient Climate Response from observations 1979-2022
Posted on December 7, 2022 by curryja | 71 comments


by Frank Bosse

A very interesting blog post by Gavin Schmidt provides input on “constraining“ the observed TCR ( Transient Climate Response) in the time window 1979- 2022 using the latest climate models.

Continue reading →

 

It's both water diversion and climate change as mentioned by the NPR article.

The plundering of Jordan’s groundwater alarms scientists who are studying the country’s current resources and forecasting future changes. Jordan gets nearly two-thirds of its water from aquifers, and the supply is not sustainable, they say. Global warming has already hit the Middle East hard, and projections indicate this region will suffer profound problems in coming decades as rainfall grows more unpredictable, rising temperatures accelerate evaporation and the land grows drier.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02600-w

 

Nope.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41...PWEaScUWcLz_m8se4lob-OadIiDSYz68K3d5FuPgxOg==

 

Projections and conjecture are not data.

 

Three years old, and debunked.
Increasing Hurricane Intensity Study Fatally Flawed
Charles Rotter
The data shows that the global results are driven largely by a single basin, the North Atlantic. The proportion of major wind speeds increased by 72% in the North Atlantic,…

". . . In any other field of science, peer review would have spotted this fatal flaw in Kossin’s paper, which would never have been published."

 

Here's another nail in the coffin of the claim that hurricanes have become stronger or more frequent. They haven't.
Analysis: Hurricanes Have Not Gotten More Intense, Frequent Over Past 170 Years
By P Gosselin on 10. October 2021

Share this...
In the latest climate and energy video by German site Die kalte Sonne, media claims of increasingly stronger and frequent hurricanes are examined closely and reach the conclusion: “Over the past 170 years, hurricanes have not occurred more frequently or gotten more intense.”

In the wake of hurricane Ida, a number of mainstream media outlets, like German ZDF, blared that hurricanes have gotten worse over the recent decades – due to global warming. But that statement has been found to be driven more by alarmism and activism, and not based on data.

New paper by Vecchi et al

Citing a new paper by Vecchi et al, 2021, appearing in the journal Nature, Changes in Atlantic major hurricane frequency since the late-19th century, the authors found: “The homogenized basin-wide HU and MH record does not show strong evidence of a century-scale increase in either MH frequency or MH/HU ratio associated with the century-scale, greenhouse-gas-induced warming of the planet.”

Hurricane recording before satellite observation started in 1972 was based on eye witness observation, meaning a number of hurricanes before 1972 never got recorded. After adjusting, the authors came up with the following chart:



Source: Nature.

The adjusted median frequency for major hurricanes was higher in the 1920s and 1950s than after 2000. . . .

 

It's horse **** there's more extreme weather now than they're ever has been.

They are just blaming the climate change bogeyman in order to pretend this crap is real.

You should only get 3 doomsday prophecies before your religion loses credibility. As far as I can tell they are in number 11

 

As always this comes down to whether you choose to believe the scientifically based conclusions of the world's climate change experts and most prestigious scientific institutions...........or the deniers.........many of whom are financed by the fossil fuel industry.

 

Actually, it doesn't, because my citation is "the scientifically based conclusions of the world's climate change experts and most prestigious scientific institutions."

From my link: "Citing a new paper by Vecchi et al, 2021, appearing in the journal Nature, Changes in Atlantic major hurricane frequency since the late-19th century, the authors found: “The homogenized basin-wide HU and MH record does not show strong evidence of a century-scale increase in either MH frequency or MH/HU ratio associated with the century-scale, greenhouse-gas-induced warming of the planet.”

 

Nope it's which science you find that adheres the closest to your religion.

Climate change activities are a religion.

 

As always this comes down to whether you choose to believe the scientifically based conclusions of the world's climate change experts and most prestigious scientific institutions...........or the deniers.........many of whom are financed by the fossil fuel industry.

When I say "this" I'm referring to the broader issue of man made climate change and the hobbyists who deny it.

 

A proposition for which you have no evidence.

 

Perhaps noting that dismissal of overwhelming scientific evidence, so characteristic of the cult of deniers, is the best way to end my participation in this thread. See ya around, Jack.

 

Sorry, but your reference to "overwhelming scientific evidence" is more religious than actually scientific. I shall continue to post on this thread; I find it useful.

 

December 13, 2022
More Climate Misinformation and Factual Errors in the Seattle Times. Should You Care?

Perhaps I should not read the Seattle Times anymore.

During the past weeks, there have been several climate-related stories and opinion/cartoon pieces that are just plain wrong. Clear factual errors, or hyping/exaggerating the impacts of global warming.

And there are dozens of additional examples of profound errors in Seattle Times climate pieces over the years, several discussed in this blog. Newspapers should be about communicating the truth, not advocacy of a certain politized viewpoint.






The citizens of a democracy must be well informed about important issues of the day, with newspapers playing an important role. As shown below, the Seattle Times is failing in its responsibilities.

Worse than that, the Times has suppressed information contradictory to their problematic information.

Let me provide some recent examples.

Is Climate Change Inundating the Quinault Nation on the Central Washington Coast?

It started with an article about how the Feds are providing funds to move a Quilayute Village away from the coast because of climate change: The ST claimed that rising sea level and stronger storms resulting from global warming was the cause.






The article is quite specific about this:






And the Seattle Times doesn't stop there. Seattle Times editorial cartoonist David Horsey has a "Climate Carol". Nearly all of it is wrong.







And he makes the claim about the Quinault village. The ocean is rising and coastlines are sinking from climate change. And yes storms are getting bigger.



The problem? None of this is true. And it can be PROVEN not to be true. . . .

 

No. He's right. Your claim is false.

Ask NOAA: climate change has not increased hurricane frequency or intensity



https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://hot...ased-hurricane-frequency-or-intensity-n575967

'15,000 years North America, Europe, and much of Asia were covered by glaciers a mile thick. Believing that a degree or two of warming could be more dramatic to the ecosystem than the melting of the glaciers is the mark of an insane mind.'

'One of the reasons why I disdain most climate alarmists has little to do with their ridiculous assertions, and everything to do with their insistence on lying. Being wrong is no sin. Lying to get your way is a huge one, especially when you lie in order to seize power and destroy others’ lives.'

'One of the biggest lies we hear every hurricane season is that climate change is increasing the frequency and/or intensity of hurricanes. This assertion is pounded into us relentlessly, and millions of people believe it. They see the video, hear the “experts,” are propagandized about a false “consensus,” and are told that skeptics are like Holocaust deniers.'

It's all lies and bull crap.



Science is utterly compromised.

 

I have suspected this for a long time. When they claim that nearly 100% of published papers support AGW and not much over 50% in a poll support AGW, it creates all sorts of doubts for me.

 

Remember: Climate Change has nothing to do with "Climate". It has to do with power and control.

the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration.

'NOAA puts out “State of the Science” fact sheets, and they have a recent one on hurricanes and climate change.'



'They released a new one in May this year, and it throws cold glacier-melt water on the assertion that there have been measurable increases in hurricane activity or intensity caused by carbon emissions.'

'The data isn’t there. Natural variability is far greater than anything human beings may or may not have done. They aren’t even sure if increases in global temperatures would lead to an increase or a decrease in either frequency.'

In other words, once again, it's all bullcrap.

DECREASING TREND?

'A decreasing trend since 1900 in the propagation speed of tropical storms and hurricanes over the continental U.S. has been reported.'

THEY LIE, CONSTANTLY

'we are being told constantly that the “science” tells us something that it simply cannot. This is not a mistake. It is a lie. All you need to do is ask NOAA–I found this in less than 5 minutes of Googling.'

 

Many of the papers that are considered to support AGW actually do not (some even contradict it), but like Brown, their authors have genuflected to the CO2 narrative in order to get published.

 

Except for the scientifically based conclusions of the world's climate change experts and most prestigious scientific institutions. To which you typically reply, "they're all wrong." To which I typically reply, "Based on your favorite bloggers. I'll put my money on the consensus of global experts in the field." And on it goes.

 

You misspelled, "politically."

No, Jack has posted links to hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals.

You mean the consensus that actually isn't one, as explained in my post immediately preceding yours?

 

Sorry, but you don't get to run away and hide by changing the subject. This exchange began with you objecting to my #1306, a post which cited and linked a peer-reviewed paper in the journal Nature. It was in fact my post that was based on the work of "global experts in the field." Game. Set. Match.
". . . Citing a new paper by Vecchi et al, 2021, appearing in the journal Nature, Changes in Atlantic major hurricane frequency since the late-19th century, the authors found: “The homogenized basin-wide HU and MH record does not show strong evidence of a century-scale increase in either MH frequency or MH/HU ratio associated with the century-scale, greenhouse-gas-induced warming of the planet. . . ."

 

To emphasize your point, Christiana Figueres, once the executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

 

Actually it isn't increasing. In fact it has been almost a decade since the last increase in average global temperature and extreme weather events are about the same as they have been for the past century or so. Throwing up a couple of examples of extreme weather is pointless. Everybody already knows the planet deals with extreme weather.

 

Pretty sad that conservative media took the path of conveniently, hysterically, misrepresenting the meaning of what she said. Which was the need to change the economic paradigm that resulted in the world's dependence on fossil fuels.