Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

More crap from a blogger.

NOAA data is shown below. The whole idea of a 101 month pause is just plain FALSE:

Instead of parroting bloggers chosen by climate denier WATT, you need to try to get actual data from reputable sources.

 

Actually, your own graph confirms the pause. Do you not understand your own graph?

 

Fossil fuels to the rescue.
Record Cold in New England, As Natural Gas Comes to The Rescue Again
Guest Blogger
The fossil fuels that Joe Biden has promised to eliminate from the grid by 2035 supplied 65% of New England’s electricity at 8.00pm on Friday night. . . .

 

The data are correct.

Suitably altered to conform to CO2-centered climate theory, no doubt....?

No, YOUR OWN SOURCE confirms it:

"Climate denier"? The moment you use such a false, absurd and disingenuous characterization, you prove that you are trying to deceive readers.

UAH is the most reputable and accurate source for lower troposphere temperatures. The accuracy of its data is proved by ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVENTS, such as the fact that arctic sea ice has increased since 2012.

 

So, now you are suggesting that NOAA is corrupt?? Good lord.

101 months is nearly 9 years. No legitimate source shows a 101 month "pause".

And, sea ice growth does not mean global pause, either. Global pause refers to the globe.

 

Your own NOAA graph shows the pause.

 

Nothing about climate change suggests that their won't be serious cold spells in some region.

Global temperature is an average of the globe, NOT an average of New England.

 

I disagree.

101 months is nearly 9 years. And, NOAA data shows there hasn't been a pause for that long.

 

101 months is slightly less than 8.5 years. Your own NOAA graph shows the pause of that length. Do you not understand the graph?

 

Increases have to be measured by some number of trailing years.

There is no rational way of doing that to create a claim of a pause that long.

 

Sorry, but the data are otherwise. I suggest you study the matter further. This is from the link in my #1850.

As the third successive year of la Niña settles into its stride, the New Pause has lengthened by another month (and very nearly by two months). There has been no trend in the UAH global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies since September 2014: 8 years 5 months and counting.


As always, the New Pause is not a prediction: it is a measurement. It represents the farthest back one can go using the world’s most reliable global mean temperature dataset without finding a warming trend.

 

Um, 9 years before 2023 is 2014. Look at your graph. Find 2023. Now find 2014.

Notice that the graph is trending pretty dang flat between those two points.

It is, after all, your graph. You should, at a minimum, learn to read it.

 

That still shows positive movement through 2021 and 2022.

It was a fine trick to put a blue line at well over zero! It makes it look like we're COOLINT!!

 

Heading for trouble in New York.
In New York, A Very Slow Political Awakening
February 04, 2023/ Francis Menton

• 
  Here in New York, both State and City, we have supposedly committed ourselves by law to ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets that are somehow going to “save the planet.”
  
  
• The targets for a few years out are completely impossible to achieve, and have been adopted without any meaningful consideration of whether the technology to meet them even exists short of leaving large numbers of people without heat or electricity.
  
  
• Sooner or later we will run at full speed into the green energy wall, but exactly when and how that will occur remains undetermined.
  
  
• Maybe the first crunch will come via New York City’s Local Law 97.
  

READ MORE

 

The graph shows temperature anomalies, not temperature. The blue line is produced by least squares regression analysis to show the trend. Is this all new to you?
Least Squares Regression Line: Ordinary and Partial
https://www.statisticshowto.com › statistics-definitions

The Least Squares Regression Line is the line that makes the vertical distance from the data points to the regression line as small as possible. It's called a “ ...

 

I like this quote, "I think the term 'cap and invest' is some new branding, given the bad vibes that now accompany the prior brand name of 'cap and trade.'"

I was working in DC at the hieght of the Climate Change handwringing when "Cap and Trade" was all the rage. After all, everyone knew that if EPA was turned loose on it it would prove disasterous (as it has) and that Cap and Trade was the savior. In 2009 Congress took up a Cap and Trade law known as "Lieberman Warner". Of course at that point the entire charade was exposed and the bill failed miserably. And low and behold, the solution that sucked then became the preffered game.

Ah, good times, good times.

 

But a zero trend for over 8 years.

We are. Temperatures plunged in the last months of 2022, and have continued downward.

 

The anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda campaign has corrupted all of climate science.

False. There is a zero trend over that period in YOUR OWN SOURCE.

But sea ice is a temperature indicator that is harder to fudge than instrument readings. And the arctic is supposed to show intensified warming. It isn't, and hasn't for a decade. Indisputable facts of objective physical reality are coming at your theory, and it is not going to survive the collision.

 

Of course. But, it doesn't support the statement made by some blogger you found on an anti-climate change site.

 

You're still thinking that scientists are "fudging".

But, that would mean that the entire WORLD of scientists are all fudging, and in well coordinated ways.

That IS an absolute FANTASY. You have not evidence of that, or of that even being possible.

 

Yes, it does, as does the NOAA graph you posted.

 

No one is fudging. You simply don't understand the data or the graph you posted.

 

Uh, yeah, it does.

 

Propagandists are not scientists.

No, that's just garbage. It would only take a handful of people in the right positions to falsify the temperature record. The rest would be oblivious.

Because you made it up.

 

Scientists as a whole are not fudging anything. "Climate scientists" being devoid of any possible useful science, are all fudging in well coordinated ways. It's the only way they can earn a living basically defrauding governments to pay them to make stuff up.

Since there is absolutely no possible way that minute quantities of supposed "greenhouse gases" can have the kind of effect on global temperatures (again, it's like trying to use 4 ounces of boiling water to try to heat a full bathtub) that they need to hype their scare and make models with proper terror implications in any of the conventional sciences (physics, chemistry, etc.), they have created the idea of mythical "forcing factors" that are added to the models to give them the results they need.

In any other arena they'd all be arrested for fraud.