They actually have nothing to do with cooling, which will resume after the current El Nino pause. Meanwhile, you continue to dodge the answers to the question you asked.
I was not the one who brought up cooling. That was done by the poster to whom I was responding, presumably as a deflection. As for factors, those are addressed pretty clearly in the linked threads. I'm not here to do your homework.
Well, no. The paper excludes the possibility of disagreement based on the evidence. That is not only disrespectful, in the language of current discussion it robs the dissenters of agency.
Legacy auto in America sells technically superior ICE vehicles. When the stupid EV forcing mandates fall, China and Tesla are toast in America.
That's right, your long-term strong cooling trend that has resulted in ... record high temperatures. Why do you expect to be taken seriously?
I read it as more of a selection of issues that deniers have. You don't have to take that as an insult.
Another pin in the "Tesla is not god" map. https://www.fool.com/investing/2024/02/26/opinion-the-tesla-growth-story-is-officially-dead/
I take it as an insult because it was meant as an insult. The insult continues in your phrasing "issues that deniers have." "Deniers" is an insult on its own, and is meant to be. "Issues" ignores the science of climate skepticism, and is meant as an insult.
Consensus climate science has abandoned Richard Feynman's ethical standard. The Climate Cargo Cult By Julius Sanks “In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what…
That is exactly correct. And from almost every one I have seen, they start with a very incorrect belief in what the planet's temperature should be. And no, I am not kidding. Almost every single one tends to use as the "baseline" the temperature at around the time of the start of the 20th century. You know, when most of us at the time recognized we were still in the "Little Ice Age"? Rant a real idea of what the baseline should be? Well, to start it must be no more recent than around 2.6 million years ago. Because that is right before North and South America met, and started to mess up the global climate. That event is what killed the global equatorial current, and plunged the planet into a never-ending cycle of ice ages that has continued from then until today. But yes, going back that far gives you an actual idea of what temperature the planet wants to be in, because that is how things were for around half a billion years. No permanent ice caps, no huge chunks of the water sequestered in ice. A climate significantly hotter and more humid than it is today, with a much higher ocean level than today. That is the "normal" for the planet. Not now, not the past 10,000 years, not even the past 2 million years. We are literally living in an extreme aberration of the conditions our planet would be in. And every geologist knows this. Just as every geologist knows this will continue for millions of years more. Likely around 100 million years, until the Atlantic shrinks enough with the coming of Pangea Ultima and the Pacific is so large that the global equatorial current resumes bringing massive storms from one side of the planet to the other. In computers, we have a saying for the problem with the hypotheses they are using, that is GIGO. In other words, "Garbage In - Garbage Out". When one starts with the mistaken belief that the planet wants to be in temperatures at or close to what it was 100 years ago, that is a complete and utter failure. Our planet wants to be a hell of a lot hotter, but the placement of the continents is preventing this. So it is behaving like a patient with alternating fever-chills, alternating between the two because it can not remain where it wants. But the cold like today is the real aberration, not the hot. And the funny thing is, I get called a "denier" all the time, even though I always say that even their most frightening predictions are far below reality, and that things are going to get a hell of a lot hotter than they are now. Simply because I refuse to accept this is caused by man, and not part of a cycle that has been going on when we were still living in trees.
That's a bad reading of data, as 2016 was a one year relative high point. As we all know, 2023 was a warmer year than 2016.
Which year on the chart would you prefer to pick as a starting point: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature I disagree that there is some notion of what Earth's average temperature "should" be. Humans on Earth have learned to live within a general temperature and sea level range. Serious problems arise when climate moves outside of the methods developed by societies in these areas. It's reasonable to have actual measures of climate when predicting these problems. Regardless of what you believe is the cause of warming, we need these measures to help identify problems early enough that we have a chance to mitigate them.
That article is all about stock price evaluation. And, it missed the headwind that is the aggressive world competition by Chinese car companies. Tesla isn't god. But, they did produce the highest selling car in the world - and in America, where they did that with no advertising.
That is total nonsense. You can't pick a significant high and then measure from there. No legitimate method of creating an average supports your contention.
What would you prefer to term those who don't accept anthropogenic climate warming? "Issues" does not ignore science. It identifies points of concern that should be resolved. Business meetings usually have a list of issues to address.
Unfortunately they can and they do, because according to this methodology the earth is constantly 'cooling'.
Depends on your frame of reference. Solar Update September, 2021 2021 › 09 › 22 › solar-update-september-2021 by solar hemisphere 1985 – 2021 ... Breaking down solar activity by hemisphere shows that solar activity ... relative length of the solar cycles. ... Figure 6: F10.7 flux for solar cycles 19 to 25 aligned modulates the solar signal on the decadal scale, but that the QBO is itself modulated by the solar variability Our planet’s temperature peaked in 2016 and has been in a disciplined decline since. It is in a channel 0.5°C wide with a slope of -0.03°C per annum. The atmosphere had been warming at 0.013°C per annum according to Dr Roy Spencer’s work. If the established cooling trend continues it will only take another decade to get back to the temperatures of the early 1980s. With the cooling trend firmly established, the question is: Can the proximate cause be found in the solar record? . . . .
"Skeptics" would be the appropriate term. "Issues" is not meant in the paper to be points of concern. It is clearly used in the sense of issues denoting a disability or psychological shortcoming -- in other words an insult.
The funny thing is, notice how they almost avoid like the plague when somebody brings up some actual hard science? Not speculation, not hypothesis, but actual facts? Oh, they love their models, even though they have failed far more often than they have been right. And I find it funny how many still believe either busted climate claims of the past, or claim they never happened in the first place. There is a damned good reason I consider it more religion than science. And like in any religion, all heretics must be destroyed unless they accept the orthodoxy of their faith. And in this they are the most fanatical, in that even those that they might even agree with in some parts but do not accept all must be destroyed also. And that is a perfect example of that. Simply making claims based on beliefs and nothing else. Might as well bring out the pitchforks and stakes with firewood on the base the way some behave.
