I wish people would stop using "climate change" as a substitute for AGW (man made climate change). Climate change has existed for as long as the world has had a climate and of course it is a chaotic system of events that we have no control over and in all probability very little effect upon.
It amuses me when the 'so called' scientists talk of global average temperatures, there can be no such thing for a chaotic system and compounding their folly we have inflicted upon us graphs showing temperature change from some arbitrary mean temperature from two or four or six decades back. Then we have the 'so called' scientific consensus and with consensus being a political construct it has NO place within scientific research IMO.
Excellent presentation on an extremely complex subject. Thank you, John. I note that the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report issued in 2021 identifies "increases in temperature extremes" as one of the relatively few climatic trends about which there is "high confidence". Of course, fewer than one in 10,000 people will probably ever read beyond the headline to figure out exactly what that means or whether the attribution of temperature extremes to human causes should be considered as credible.
Excellent presentation. Now, I'm still hunting for the evidence that actually supports the report (NASA for example) that 2023 was the world's hottest summer for the last 150 years. Was everywhere on earth hotter? Is there a group of high temperatures that are skewing the data when you calculate the single mean value for all of the local temperature measurements in the entire world for how many days? 90? 200? 365? What happened to Winter "down under?"
Professor Chris Folland of the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research said "The data doesn't (sic) matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models."
David Frame, a climatist at Oxford University, said "The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful."
A question I pose for climatists is "How did the polar bears survive while the Romans were growing grapes along Hadrian's wall, or while the Vikings were growing barley and raising sheep in Greenland? Nobody is doing either one now." They always change the subject.
Here's another question that baffles them: Sea levels rose about 120 meters within about half a century at the end of the Younger Dryas, about 11,000 years ago. How did coral survive?
My final question for today? How is climatism different from Holland's 1634-1637 Tulip Mania?
I wish our media would support side-by-side debate columns about the AGW so we can all discover the truth about the false claims based on computer models (garbage in, garbage out). How about a debate a week, each on a particular claim?
I wish people would stop using "climate change" as a substitute for AGW (man made climate change). Climate change has existed for as long as the world has had a climate and of course it is a chaotic system of events that we have no control over and in all probability very little effect upon.
It amuses me when the 'so called' scientists talk of global average temperatures, there can be no such thing for a chaotic system and compounding their folly we have inflicted upon us graphs showing temperature change from some arbitrary mean temperature from two or four or six decades back. Then we have the 'so called' scientific consensus and with consensus being a political construct it has NO place within scientific research IMO.
Excellent presentation on an extremely complex subject. Thank you, John. I note that the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report issued in 2021 identifies "increases in temperature extremes" as one of the relatively few climatic trends about which there is "high confidence". Of course, fewer than one in 10,000 people will probably ever read beyond the headline to figure out exactly what that means or whether the attribution of temperature extremes to human causes should be considered as credible.
Excellent presentation. Now, I'm still hunting for the evidence that actually supports the report (NASA for example) that 2023 was the world's hottest summer for the last 150 years. Was everywhere on earth hotter? Is there a group of high temperatures that are skewing the data when you calculate the single mean value for all of the local temperature measurements in the entire world for how many days? 90? 200? 365? What happened to Winter "down under?"
Professor Chris Folland of the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research said "The data doesn't (sic) matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models."
David Frame, a climatist at Oxford University, said "The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful."
A question I pose for climatists is "How did the polar bears survive while the Romans were growing grapes along Hadrian's wall, or while the Vikings were growing barley and raising sheep in Greenland? Nobody is doing either one now." They always change the subject.
Here's another question that baffles them: Sea levels rose about 120 meters within about half a century at the end of the Younger Dryas, about 11,000 years ago. How did coral survive?
My final question for today? How is climatism different from Holland's 1634-1637 Tulip Mania?
Van Snyder says "Sea levels rose about 120 meters within about HALF A CENTURY at the end of the Younger Dryas, about 11,000 years ago."
I don't think so.
I wish our media would support side-by-side debate columns about the AGW so we can all discover the truth about the false claims based on computer models (garbage in, garbage out). How about a debate a week, each on a particular claim?
Is there someone who’d like to give me a simple description of the greenhouse theory as it applies to CO2. Preferably, with NASA type diagrams.
There is lots of noise and talk that Feb 2024 was the warmest on record .... mmm ... anyone have any actual evidence of this to share ?