Dr. Maue posted this thread on X today.
Note, just because the Earth is 1.3°C warmer than Little Ice Age in 1850 and atmosphere holds more water vapor does NOT mean a particular weather event was caused by climate change. It's not that simple.
— Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) September 18, 2024
Example of climate misinformation that leads to bad policy and fraud: pic.twitter.com/uZNCy4ciQr
https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1836428267789623774
5
18
votes
Article Rating
“Note, just because the Earth is 1.3°C warmer than Little Ice Age in 1850 and atmosphere holds more water vapor does NOT mean a particular weather event was caused by climate change. It’s not that simple. ”
Indeed. But it doesn’t mean it wasn’t. If you get 1.3°C warming, weather will not be unaffected. It has an influence.
You can see how this goes. If we get another 1.3°C warming, and another, and more and more heat waves and storms, some here will still be saying that no event can be attributed to climate change, therefore climate change has no effect.
That supposed 1.3c warming wasn’t everywhere. Still isn’t. Some places have warmed, some have cooled, some have remained relatively static. There’s no “there” there.
LOL… Nick channelling the Kamal with a meaningless word salad.. Hilarious.
Suppository after suppository…
And still absolutely ZERO evidence of any human causation except in urban areas.
Anything else is purely imaginary nonsense with zero scientific backing.
Exactly what we would expect from Nick.
You beat me to it!
Where are the hurricanes?
In fact warming is not expected to bring more frequent hurricanes, but they will probably be stronger. Typhoon Yagi a few days ago was a monster, as was Typhoon Haiyan last year.
Speculative nonsense.
They HAVEN’T actually gotten stronger. Take a look at the figure below, which shows the Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) index:
I acknowledge there may be an increase in the future, but if that happens, we must NEVER FORGET that hurricanes were falsely claimed to be worse in intensity during a time when the data simply did not support it!
IN THE FUTURE, I WILL POINT BACK TO THIS COMMENT AS PROOF PAST CLAIMS WERE UNFOUNDED IF I HAVE TO.
https://climatlas.com/tropical/
Mr Stokes, your comments, always ideological, have regressed to blather.
“have regressed to blather.”
I think EVERYBODY has noticed that.
bnice,
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/03/monday-mirthiness-the-stokes-defense/
“Monday Mirthiness – The Stokes Defense
March 3, 2014
If you read the comment threads at Climate Audit then you will be familiar with a character called Nick Stokes who argues the impossible and indefensible with great tenacity. Steve’s patience with him is exemplary and this thread, in particular, prompted the cartoon.”
That was over 10 years ago!
Love you Nick!
“argues the impossible and indefensible with great tenacity”
Good description.
No kidding.
“If we get another 1.3°C warming, and another, and more and more heat waves and storms, some here will still be saying that no event can be attributed to climate change, therefore climate change has no effect.”
I don’t read all his posts, but that has to be high up on his personal douchebag list. Where to start – hello, human emissions didn’t get going until 1940-50-ish. You think posters other than the usual buffoons on here are going to fall for the 100-year gap. Holy sh!t. Time to retire yourself mate.
Sure. Or weaker. Or about the same.
One of those is sure to be true.
One guess is as good as another.
Up until recently the claim was more and more intense hurricanes. The back peddling include a history rewrite.
“In fact warming is not expected to bring more frequent hurricanes, but they will probably be stronger.”
Here’s your man, Hansen’s U.S. temperature chart below. Are you saying there were more frequent and/or stronger hurricanes during the hot 1930’s than in the cold 1910’s or 1970’s?
As you can see, there is a difference of about 2.0C between the cold 1910’s/1970’s and the hot 1930’s. That’s a bigger difference then your 1.3C.
So is there a noticeable difference between the hurricane numbers/strength during the cold periods versus the warm periods in the recent past?
Hansen 1999:
Tom, a future addition to your write up:
Plus, during the 1930s, CO2 was much lower than it is now.
There is no connection between CO2 and world temperatures
Yup. No empirical evidence suggests a “CO2 drives temperature” relationship.
To the contrary, much empirical evidence suggests NO “CO2 drives temperature relationship.”
I recall a recent ocean sediment study that found Atlantic tropical cyclone activity was HIGHER DURING THE LITTLE ICE AGE than it is today.
It is a COLDER climate that increases extratropical storminess, NOT a warmer climate. Higher temperature DIFFERENTIALS result in the most violent weather, not a higher AVERAGE temperature.
Nick, doesn’t have the courage of his conviction by not using the word “probably”.
He’s probably giving you “projections” as opposed to “predictions.” 🙄🤡
Yep, those were strong typhoons; just like all the strong typhoons that preceded them and those that will Shirley follow. One or two typhoons does not a climate change make.
And anybody that believes CliSciFi climate models can predict anything are Leftist ideologically useful idiots. The rest of the climate scammers are just in it for the money and know those models are developed for propaganda purposes.
And climate refers to long-term statistical weather patterns; climate cannot “cause” specific weather events.
LOL, those are in the PACIFIC ocean region and they have been normally more powerful than in the Atlantic, but the rate of Typhoons has not gone up.
“In fact warming is not expected to bring more frequent hurricanes, but they will probably be stronger. Typhoon Yagi a few days ago was a monster, as was Typhoon Haiyan last year”
No proof. Just a claim. They claim events that have always happened are now “worse” because of “Climate Change”.
(Maybe they’re worse because “The moon wasn’t in the Seventh House
And Jupiter didn’t align with Mars?”)
What happened to Francine?
Still there but becoming less intense and less frequent. Climate change? LOL.
Here’s your Hurrycane
You seem to have the shared assumption that the Little Ice Age had “good weather”, along with your fellow True Believers. You also assume James Hansen was basically correct, and there is such a thing as a tipping point.
“You also assume James Hansen was basically correct, and there is such a thing as a tipping point”
I don’t believe JH assumed that. I don’t. If the climate average warms by 1.3°C you’ll get different weather. And if it warms by another 1.3°C, different again.
Tipping points was what Hansen was preaching to Congress in that infamous hearing when they also turned off the AC. Again, why is change from the LIA a “bad thing”? You must apparently like famine, war, and plague.
No, it wasn’t. Just warming, which he correctly predicted. No AC was involved.
Correct Nick.
No AC was involved.
Because they turned it off.
Hansen’s low-end CO2 emissions “prediction” is the closest to reality.
Yet CO2 has continued to climb (to the benefit of all life on Earth)
PROVING that CO2 has no warming effect.
You are talking speculative, non-scientific GIBBERISH.
Apart from the highly beneficial natural warming…
… there is basically no indicator of any “climate” trend anywhere.
If the climate average is now 1.3C higher than the Little Ice Age, our “different weather” would seem to be preferable to one of the coldest periods in human history, no? And how can you compare our weather to what it was in a largely unknown, un-discovered, unpopulated world 500 years ago?
It seems there’s never been a better time to be alive, and you are trying to find something, anything, to complain about, when there really is no there there.
Probably trying to get paid by somebody.
You left off a zero.
Well, I was referring primarily to the LIA. Little to argue about that it was probably the coldest period in “recent” human history, by many measures. I don’t understand how Nick, and apparently the entire climate science community can argue the climate was somehow better back then.
…… and you can change the course of CO2 emissions by having politicians organize it. Fk me are you still in kindergarten ?
Yes, by definition. The question is whether it’ll be “worse” or “better” weather and what metrics should be used to determine that.
Believing is done in church
Climate does not drive weather. Climate is a long term average of weather.
Better each time most likely.
Warmest period during the Holocene was the Holocene Climate OPTIMUM.
Need the dictionary for that last bit?!
Indeed. The weather will be a bit warmer here and there now and then. Lol.
A premium load of gobbledygook.
Claiming that climate effects weather defies the definition. Weather changes affect climate over 30 years. Cause and effect. You can’t put the cart before the horse.
But that’s a “climate science” specialty. They are STILL trying to suggest that CO2 level changes which FOLLOW temperature changes 800 years behind in the ice core reconstructions are “contributing” to the warming.
Obviously has not bothered to read last year’s IPCC summary report which clearly showed nothing there, across the board, except possibly a bit of more warming.
If it doesn’t mean that it does…
And it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t…
Then attribution is ambiguous and inferring one exists IS akin to lying for prophet.
It’s like attributing Climate Change to the Changing Climate.
Spot on..!
Nick says, “If we get ANOTHER 1.3°C warming, and ANOTHER, and MORE and MORE….
This is blatant nonsense. The dominant warming its in winter. The tropics are limited to 30C. So the warmer winters means less imbalance and lower intensity equilibration through advection.
There would be cyclones if the whole globe equilibrated to 30C but that is not possible because there is not enough sunlight in higher latitudes to achieve the 30C limit.
The human population is benefitting from warmer winters. It lowers heating costs.
The argument is like correlation is not causation ie, there can be correlation without causation, and correlation cannot be used to prove causation. To prove causation you need to argue separately for causation, typically by identifying and quantifying the underlying mechanism. If you want to argue for causation, it is not sufficient to say “it doesn’t mean it wasn’t”. The onus is on you to demonstrate that there actually is causation.
The 1.3 is an overestimate. No evidence that the small rise is anyhow anthropogenic.
The mantra ‘a warmer atmosphere carries more water’ assumes that the relative humidity is a conserved property in atmospheric matters, for which there is not a hoot of observational evidence (meaning that it could also be that absolute humidity is conserved, or neither is, we simply do not know what mechanisms control humidity in an open system).
I could be spot on, but given the known accuracies, tolerances, error budgets, etc., it could also be -0.3 C.
It also depends on the starting time. Back up or go forward a year and the trend line is different (lower).
This is an example of a “strawman” logical fallacy.
Most people here don’t say that “climate change”, i.e. “an increase in GMST”, will have no effect, “we” say that any supposed “effect” up to 2100 (at least) will be something in the range of “very, very small” to “undetectable / lost in the natural variability”.
.
Roger Pielke Jr. has been saying similar things for a long time now, often re-posted / cross-posted here at WUWT.
A recent iteration of his thought processes on the subject can be found in his “Climate Fueled Extreme Weather” post from the beginning of July (direct link) :
“It is an outcome, not a cause” … a bit extreme, possibly, but he provides a convincing logical argument that can’t just be dismissed out of hand (by me, at least).
.
From the IPCC AR6 document cycle, the “Glossary” entry for the term “climate change”, e.g. Annex VII of the WG-I contribution, on page 2222 :
I have developed the following “rough rule of thumb” when considering various events attributed to “climate change”, but note that other people will disagree with my framework.
Timescale : Terminology (examples)
< 1 year : Weather
1 to 9 years : Natural variability (e.g. ENSO, MJO, QBO, …)
10 to 29 years : Decadal trends
30+ years : Climate (e.g. PDO, AMO, …)
According to the IPCC, the basic question to be posed when examining a claim that an event was “caused by” climate change is:
“Have those ‘extreme’ events / values persisted for several decades ?”
The Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period were several C warmer than to-day, and CO2 was low, about 280 ppm
0.042% of CO2 in the atmosphere has minuscule influence on climate, per real scientists.
It is total bull manure to even have A CLIMATE AGENDA, and spend $TRILLIONS PER YEAR on it, which pseudo-scientist, nitwit Nye is promoting to pervert/brainwash the brains of his innocent, naive children listeners, who lap it up, because the real scientific viewpoints are suppressed by the lapdog, bought-off Media and government censors
China, India, Russia, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, etc., and about 30 other BRICS countries, will not comply with Western rules-based mandates and IPCC- based mandates, which means whatever the West does regarding expensively reducing CO2 will negatively affect the puny West, and not the rest of the world, which will continue growing faster than the West.
Chuckle. Nick jumps in with a word salad that would make Kamala blush.
One has to wonder if Nick writes for the Harris campaign.
The increased undersea geothermal heat put into the bottom of the oceans over the past couple of decades more than likely caused the +1.3C (which in itself is a guess) than CO2 ever could. If increasing geothermal continues, so will the warming in all probability, but CO2 is at it’s limit in contributing to the climate.
But we don’t know 10 or 20 years from now where we will stand. Geothermal in fact could drop off or blast aerosols into the stratosphere and with the thermal inertia of the oceans and a self regulating climate, we might be in a cooling trend by then. And I might point out, a cooling trend will bring shorter growing seasons and earlier killing frosts.
The 600 lb gorilla is the changing Earth’s magnetic field. Increased solar activity causes weather changes including intensifying rain events, jet stream shifts and intensification, more lightning and possibly increased volcanic activity. Predicting the weather long term is a fools errand, especially with today’s climate scientists that can’t think independently in designing models that actually work.
Nitpicking his way to a Nicstopian future based on extrapolation … doesn’t get much scarier than that.
Climate change is the effect, climate is not the cause of weather, weather is the cause of climate.
But Nick,
Where is the measurement evidence that we are getting more heatwaves? It is easy to assume that hotter ambients will logically lead to hotter heatwaves, but I do not find this for Australia’s 6 State capitals plus Darwin and Alice Springs. Some of these cities have the longest daily temperatures and some are candidates for extra hospital structure if they do get hotter. But several of these cities show a slight cooling over their whole record. If you use adjusted data you get a slightly different pattern and raise old arguments that BOM is shy to discuss.
Same for storms. Pielke Jnr regularly shows data that do not support official claims of more storms, esp in US. Here in Australia I have not seen papers showing more storms. Links appreciated. Just because a warming atmosphere can hold more water, does not follow that it will hold more water.
Overall, we are looking at tiny changes over the last century. Others and I favour a “global” temperature increase of half the official 1.4 C in the last century and have strong evidence. UAH data are against us, but not well understood wrt historical thermometry. People are wrongly asserting that a heatwave 1 or 2C above previous are “extreme” or “severe” when some historic heatwaves are 10 to 15C above previous. There are not many of these. There is very little literature about conditions leading to these genuine extremes. The whole heatwave subject is a mess because of unscientific stories used for advocacy are much more frequent than proper scientific studies designed to advance knowledge. Geoff S
Yes, weather may be affected by global warming, but in a good way.
The Arctic has warmed more than the equator. Therefore the temperature difference between the Arctic and equator has got smaller.
More warming occurs in the winter compared to the summer. Therefore the temperature difference between winter and summer is smaller.
More warming occurs at night compared to the day. Therefore the temperature difference between night and day is smaller.
Storms aren’t driven by temperatures. They are driven by temperature *differences*. As temperature differences have got smaller the world is likely to be less stormy.
The historical data is clear: a colder world is much stormier, possibly because actual temperature differences are bigger. Storms during the Little Ice Age were far worse than today. If you have any doubts about this, read H. L. Lamb.
The world is producing more food per head of population than ever before, and according to NASA one reason for this is global warming.
Global warming isn’t an overall problem. It has been of huge benefit for mankind and the world.
The real climate crisis isn’t caused by climate change. It’s caused by barking mad government policies such as Nut Zero. It’s also caused by climate doom mongers who are the true enemies of humanity. So, Nick, which side are you on?
Chris
Exactly. Have said this many times, usually crickets chirping is the only response from the “climate crisis” cheerleaders since it’s difficult to argue with logic and reason ( not to mention history).
My dog could s**t a better engineer than Bill Nye.
In one video- he’s shown pouring lighter fluid on a globe and torching it while screeching in delight.
He is an a-hole perverting/brainwashing the innocent, naive minds of children.
He is a danger to civil society
He’s an engineer, not a scientist. Of course he can express his opinion about the climate issue, like us- but he can’t claim to be a climate scientist- but he wants people to think he is.
Bill Nye, the pseudo Science Guy, is engaging in false advertising. and misrepresentation, aka lies
It is plainly deceptive to liken SciAm of 179 years ago to the pathetic rag of today.
How do you folk in the US start misinformation proceedings against the perps? SciAm is no longer scientific or American. There are no easy connections with owners, publishers, writers, topics or conventional science 179 years ago. There is only the name. Geoff S
Scientific American went full political, all the time, with SDI. Their opposition to “Star Wars” was pure Party propaganda, and whether the party in question was the Democratic Party or the Soviet Communist Party was difficult to tell.
My impression was that the rot in SciAm was underway in the 1980’s (i.e. same time as SDI), but the kicker for me was an early 1980’s article of how North Korea shining example of urban planning. Another was SciAm turning down Forrest Mims for the Amateur Scientist column due to his support for intelligent design.
For me, one “Van Halen brown M&Ms test” for a “science” publication is whether they use Palomar Mountain for the location of the Palomar Observatory. SciAm started using Mt Palomar sometime in the 1980’s, Science News took another 15 – 20 years to back slide. Sky&Telescope still gets it right (along other place names such as Hawai’i) and they are a lot more careful about the uncertainties in science.
“Another was SciAm turning down Forrest Mims for the Amateur Scientist column due to his support for intelligent design.”
Maybe because intelligent design has no science basis.
Until we can explain everything, we can not disprove intelligent design.
“My impression was that the rot in SciAm was underway in the 1980’s”
Somewhere around that time. A little earlier, actually. I’m referring here to the coverage of climate science that Scientific American was providing.
Scientific American started going off track with Human-caused Global Cooling meme in the 1970’s. They kept promoting this idea even though there was never any evidence shown that humans were causing the climate to cool. At the time, in the late 1970’s, the climate had cooled about 2.0C from the highpoint in the 1930’s, so there was a legitimate issue with the cooling, but they were trying to tie it to human activity, and never managed to do so.
At the time, I didn’t know if humans were causing the Earth to cool or not. I was open to suggestions. But as time went along, I realized those proposing these things didn’t really have enough evidence to prove their case. They never explained the mechansim.that could lead to this happening. And after a while, it got pretty irritating to see the same old claims over and over and never be given the evidence for how this worked.
Then the temperatures started warming up in the early 1980’s, and the climate science community promptly switched over to a Human-caused Global Warming meme.
And it was the same thing with Human-caused Global Warming as it was with Human-caused Global Cooling, with lots of speculation, assumptions, and assertions, but never any definitive evidence for either one.
By this time I was extremely disgusted with Scientific American and cancelled my subscription somewhere around 1984, specifically because of the way they mishandled the notion that humans are having a detrimental effect on the Earth’s weather.
I remember I would get angry every time I got a new issue of the magazine because it almost always had some climate change hype on the cover, which, by that time, I knew they couldn’t back up with the facts.
I didn’t want to get angry every month so I cancelled the subscription.
Scientific American is owned by a German company.
And here they are interfering in American elections.
It is a good thing they didn’t recommend Trump, otherwise the Biden “Justice” Department would be after them for election interference from a foreign entity.
The Economist used to be a proper source of information, but during the past 40 years, BS woke minds took over as editors. It has gone downhill ever since, similar to debate riggers ABC and CNN
The best and easiest proceeding is to stop paying for it and stop reading it. It’s now totally dominated by far left women. Almost all the editors are of that persuasion.
Just what the hell is climate ”change” and can someone please give me some examples of how the climate has changed in say, the last 50 years. Thanks, I’ll wait….
Pease also explain what caused this…… ”The precipitation event in July 1342, which happened over an area now situated in central Germany, most probably exceeded in damage any other reported event in historic and recent times in Central Europe.”
“can someone please give me some examples of how the climate has changed in say, the last 50 years. Thanks, I’ll wait….”
I’ve been around longer than 50 years, and the climate looks about the same to me. Actually, the weather seems to be more moderate here in the Dust Bowl, than in the past. The last really hot, dry summer we had was in 2011, which was a hot one, like in the old days, but nothing like it since.
GLOBAL WARMING IN VERMONT
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/global-warming-in-vermont
EXCERPT
Each year has peak temperatures during the summer months June, July, August. The below graph shows those peak temperatures in Vermont, for about 40 years.
Those temperatures were measured by the weather stations in Vermont of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA
Vermont has four weather stations; Burlington, St Johnsbury, Castleton and Windsor.
New Hampshire also has four stations
The peak temperatures increased by 1.5 F over 40 years, or 0.0375 F per year.
Almost all people cannot sense the difference of 77 F and 78.5 F
“Almost all people cannot sense the difference of 77 F and 78.5 F”
Obviously true.
However the Earth’s ecosystem can as there is only -9 F delta between now and an Ice age and at that rate it would only take 6×40=240 years before Vermont would be under permanent ice.
”During the shift from the last glacial period to the current interglacial, the total temperature increase was about 5°C. That change took about 5000 years, with a maximum warming rate of about 1.5°C per thousand years, although the transition was not smooth.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/faqs/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FAQ_Chapter_02.pdf
BS. as usual
No warming in the last 45 years apart from naturally powered El Nino events.
No evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
So…. No evidence that AGW even exists.
Well all power to the Ol Nino then.
Perhaps we should study it and tap into it to solve the Earth’s energy requirements.
Coz it seems that it is producing free energy.
No matter what “evidence” is presented to you it would be dissmissed …. so no point Oxy.
After all we need 101% certainty!
Like I’ve said to you, good look in the next world, it may be possible there.
Misanthrope indeed
If the Guardian didn’t get the F, it wasn’t for lack of trying …
Thanks to Ryan for an interesting article,
w.
Stephen Hawking on science, from A Brief History of Time:
“Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.”
====
If more climatologists and fake scientists like Nick Stokes had actually read and understood that we might have been saved an expensive lot of nonsense. It is in the first chapter of his book too, so you didn’t even have to read the whole thing.
We’ve got a whole load of failed predictions yet the climate worriers still claim manmade carbon dioxide emissions are the cause.
No wonder, the IPPC has its own proprietary science, because it does not have to play by these pesky rules
SImilar to what Einstein said.
Is it not considered ‘normal’ when the weather improves and warms going from winter to spring then into summer? Temperature rises of 20 deg C between winter and late spring in the UK are normal.
Surely a similar process applied when Northern Europe started to see better weather after 550 years of the LIA – especially farmers!
IF temperatures have increased by 1.3C since AD1850 that equates to circa 0.007C annually. So, yes we have witnessed an increase in temperature but, like many times in global history Mother Earth does it her way- measured.
My own daily temperature records show that the previous two summers in the UK are starting to become cooler. Climate Change or Weather?
Can we blame CO2 for this cooling as it appears to be responsible in some people’s minds for just about everything else?
There was a 2.0C increase in temperatures from the 1910’s to the 1930’s, and a 2.0C decrease in temperatures from the 1940’s to the 1970’s, and then a 2.0C increase in temperatures from the 1980’s to 1998 (see the Hansen 1999 chart below).
So where in this scenario do we fit that 1.3C rise in temperatures that Nick is referring to?.
Ah, Mr Abbott again. with his precious truncated US temp graph I see.
And indeed, posted on this thread twice ….
“So where in this scenario do we fit that 1.3C rise in temperatures that Nick is referring to?.”
Looking at a (much) more up to date graph …. it seems that the US has indeed pretty much seen the same “1.3C rise in temperatures that Nick is referring to”
“2.0C increase in temperatures from the 1910’s to the 1930’s”
Actually a 0.5C rise (taking the mean) – largely due in the US the unique “dust bowl” era when climatic conditions met disasterous farming practises.
“2.0C decrease in temperatures from the 1940’s to the 1970’s,”
(actually on your graph the mean is 1C) …. was due to the ramp up of undustry post WW2 that created much atmospheric aerosol at a time when total radiative forcing from GHG’s was low (we emit CH4 and NO2 as well).
” …and then a 2.0C increase in temperatures from the 1980’s to 1998″
Yes, and radiative forcing increased quickly as anthro GHGs ramped up and aerosol plateaued.
As you have been told many times, despite which you continue to wear your ignorance as a badge —- there is more to consider than just CO2, especialy when it’s radiative forcing was not much greater than the -ve one caused by aerosols.
PISS is unreliable as they cool the past and warm the present, thus your post failed.
Heck, now there’s a surprise ! … it has to “fail’ to be on the mark here.
Indeed I actively look for the red “thumbs” because of that.
PS: Now I would put it this way – conspiracy theory is really a plunge to the last resort and very definitely a “fail”.
FAKED urban data is all you have.
And everybody knows you are well aware of that fact.
LYING DELIBERATELY
Who pays you??
Indeed, like the 40.2C at Gringley-on-the-hill and the dozens of othes os stations on the 19th of July 2022 exceeded the previous highest recorded UK temp by up to 1.6C.
PS: I pay myself in the fun gained by pricking your absurd cognitive dissonance (and many others on here) Oxy.
Please keep it up.
As you woud say it’s “HILARIOUS”.
Tho you would put it in bold.
Hey, here’s a suggestion how about you do that now!
And get the last laugh.
It has been known for years that PISS doctors their temperature data has been shown many times in this blog.
Of course it has.
However any AGW science is “shown to be” on here.
Preaching to the converted.
There couldn’t be a more biased, cognitvely dissonant audience.
It’s what it says on the tin.
A given.
And as such no one out there but you gives a rats arse.
“thus your post failed”
My sentiment exactly.
Here are 600 charts (below) for Anthony that show a similar temperature profile to the Hansen 1999 chart.
None of them show a “hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick profile like the chart Anthony tries to fool us with.
The written, historic temperature records repudiate the bogus, computer-generated Hockey Stick chart profile. It was just as warm in the recent past, all over the world, as it is today, which means there is no unprecedented warming/weather today, which means CO2 has had no discernable effect on the Earth’s temperatures since there is more CO2 in the air today, than in the past, yet it is no warmer today than in the past, therefore CO2 is a minor player in the scheme of things. So minor, that there is no need to destroy our economies seeking Net Zero CO2 emissions.
CO2 is a benign gas, essential for life on Earth, and there is no evidence otherwise.
https://notrickszone.com/600-non-warming-graphs-1/
A quick look at the top dozen or so “papers” shows them to be concerned with elements of climate before the modern era of warming.
Yes, we know it was warmer during the HCO … because the orbital configuration of the planet afforded the NH with 50+ W/m2 more of solar insolation at 65 deg N than now. And that being the latitude encompassing greatest landmass – so there was sig warming as a result.
Hint: the Earth isn’t in the same position obitally now.
roflmao
FAKED and MALADJUSTED URBAN TEMPERATURES.
Utterly meaningless.
As is your comment Oxy
And any others you/denizens here make concerning conspiracy theory … it being the last resort than can never be gainsaid.
Noticeable that you NEVER try to prove it to be wrong just spew empty crap in reply.
I have been reading this blog since 2007 have seen it addressed many time the changes made to their database, thus your way behind the curve…..
Here in Vermont, it was 82 F yesterday afternoon, and 55 F at 7 am the next day
The sun went down and came back up.
We have global warming and global cooling everyday, FOR FREE!!!
We are sooooooo blessed
So Vermont is the Globe is it ?
That is taking US centrism a bit far.
How about on the opposite side of the globe where that happened somewhere in reverse.
Opposite side of the globe is in the ocean to the south of Western Australia, bozo. !!
You have ZERO clue.
Bit weak Oxy.
And no shouting.
Am I getting to you?
Not that I care mind.
Oh, and it’s actually the Indian Ocean ….
https://www.geodatos.net/en/antipodes/united-states/washington-vt
Shaddapp!
He made no such declarative comment outside of his area he was being sarcastic.
You try hard to be stupid and dishonest I am impressed!
Bill Nye and Kamala have much in common. They are both about as useful as hen s**t on a pump handle and every bit as wise.
I’ve got the perfect theme song for the Harris campaign, courtesy of Creedence Clearwater Revival…
“You keep on changin’ your face, like a chameleon,…”
A true “Manchurian Candidate” – nobody could possibly know what she stands for, because everything she says is “subject to change without notice.”
Hmmm….1.3 degrees must include the present El Nino warming, which is likely to drop .4 to .6 degrees over the next year and 1/2. Also we often talk about the Little Ice Age ending 1850-ish….but we have reasonably good written records and proxies that show maximum glacial advance in the “written records era” at about 1750. From Switzerland, Japan, Alaska, New Zealand….
mostly European records, which had enough population, education, and country gentry that people were concerned about villages being crushed and wrote their aristocrats. Of course with thermometers invented in 1714 and not in wide usage for another century, “greenies” don’t accept such evidence, mainly they accept treemometers (not Briffa’s but Mann’s) and pond sediment that has been totally undisturbed by water bugs and fish for a few millenia…
And if they did accept it, their point would be “Yes, the warming is worse than we thought”
The winter of evil is coming. Look at the thickness of the troposphere.
What do you mean by “winter of evil”?
I saw a headline yesterday claiming the Antarctic ozone had expanded dramatically, and the article suggested that the Hunga-Tonga eruption had something to do with it.
I can’t find the article in a search right now.
I figured you would be a good person to ask about this claim.
The ozone hole over Antarctica will now reach its maximum and may, as can be seen from the graphic, last until December. The size of the ozone hole depends on the strength of the polar vortex and can vary from year to year over a wide range.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/polar.shtml#plot1
Because of La Niña, water vapor will be pulled heavily from the atmosphere. There will be more snow in the beginning and more cold in the middle of winter.
Starting off in the west, an upper trough and tropical moisture will combine to bring widespread cloud, showers, rain and thunderstorms to parts of northern Western Australia and western Northern Territory with heavy falls and severe thunderstorms possible. Flood Watches are also current in parts of WA and NT.
It is already apparent that the stratospheric polar vortex will be shifted over the Atlantic and air from Siberia will pass abover the Bering Sea far to the south US.
