Climate change. We get it ... it’s a mess you don’t want to think about.

Milankovitch cycles.

 

Lols! You didn’t check this out did you?
Before I post multiple links to verified science do you want an opportunity to double check this?

 

Time is up!

Other resources and please point to where it states that the Milankovitch cycle is causing the current warming

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/

https://ugc.berkeley.edu/background-content/earths-spin-tilt-orbit/

 

~ CO2 production / emissions are not a problem — totalitarian government is a problem.

 

Why are they not a problem?



https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Greenhouse_effect

 

We agree.

 

Because the climate hypothesis which puts CO2 at the center has failed.
The Test and Failure of the AGW Paradigm

 

This is remarkably stupid.
Biden Maladministration Cancels Oil & Gas Lease Sales, While Demanding More Oil Production
David Middleton
Guest “I couldn’t make this sort of schist up if I was trying” by David Middleton Interior Department cancels offshore oil and gas leases in Alaska and the Gulf of…

 

oh! Lordee! Jack but you do come up with some weird ones



Some bloke on an obscure blog who obviously failed high school physics. This isn’t worth debating because I can link you to hundreds of University sites all saying the same thing - hundreds in all corners of the earth. All with the same physics all with the same conclusions but somehow you are telling me all those professors and academics and students in all those universities and bureaus of meteorology and climate researchers and oceanographers are all wrong but some uneducated TWONK on an obscure website is correct??

 

Once again you have commented before reading. The link is to my own thread here at PF. The thread incorporates the work of Thomas Kuhn, Nir Shaviv, Henrik Svensmark and William Happer, among others.

 

Yup. Additionally, it is a report that she, obviously, has not read through for herself, or else she'd be able to do more than simply link to it. Maybe she thinks that the high number of pages somehow means that it is more impressive, or that it makes it "correct" or "science" or something?

All it shows me is that a lack of ability/willingness to think for oneself (iow, to form one's own arguments) is present.

 

Oh! I looked and I searched the internet to try and find the qualifications of this “Kenneth Richard” someone who has made such an astounding finding should be published in a peer reviewed journal. I cannot find him except on Twitter notrickszone and wait for it - snopes!

Seems our Ken (who describes himself as a “mental health professional”) has been a naught naughty boy and altered facts

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/

I think he went to the Donald Trump school of meteorology

 

Ooh! And I just HAVE to share this little bit from snopes

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/

They sure nailed it!

 

Kenneth Richard is merely the presenter at NTZ (as you have been told several times). The graph comes from the linked paper Scafetta et al., (2017). You do your credibility no favors with such misstatements.

 

Yup. It is just meaningless gibberbabble.

In order for 'climate change' to mean anything, one needs to first define the term. A void definition is meaningless, as is a circular definition. Believers in the faith usually, when pressed, provide a circular definition for the term, which is unhelpful.

With regard to this specific buzzword, they would also need to describe precisely how climate "changes". There needs to be two measurements present (as the difference between them is the "change"). For instance, if I were to take two separate temperature measurements, one at 7:00am (54degF) and one at 8:00am (57degF), there was a change in temperature of 3degF between the two measurements. However, with regard to climate, there is nothing to measure. There is not a "higher climate" or a "lower climate", a "more climate" or a "less climate". There is just climate. Therefore, climate does not and cannot change, as climate is not quantifiable.

On the other hand, weather (more specifically, the elements that make up weather) can and does constantly change.

 

More avoidance of the topic. Scafetta et al., (2017)

 

Get a good dictionary and look up the word, "almost."

 

You mean the six-year cooling trend since 2016? Or what was causing the warming up to 2016? Or are you just assuming what you purport to be arguing?

 

The current warming is occurring because it is spring in the Northern Hemisphere. The 20th century warming that probably ended in 2016 was caused by the natural rebound to more normal Holocene temperatures following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years, combined with the highest sustained level of solar activity in thousands of years.

So they're irrelevant.

Which solar cycle? Are you now just assuming there is only one? Are you just assuming that the only relevant measure of the sun's effect on global temperature must be TSI?

An order of magnitude lower than it was 450Mya, when the earth was far colder than it is now.

 

If you have read, "The Gulag Archipelago" or "Atlas Shrugged," you are at least mentally prepared for it.

 

Because anything that reports something she does not like is to be ridiculed and ignored.

 

The EV may not be the answer.
Continued Use Of Combustion Vehicles Leads To ‘Much Lower’ Lifetime CO2 Emissions Than Driving EVs
By Kenneth Richard on 23. May 2022

Share this...
A new study finds “the total CO2 emissions will be much lower with continued use of the old but operational combustion car instead of buying a new electric one.”
Image Source: Neugebauer et al., 2022

. . . .

 

Telling it like it is.
Bullshit in the Sustainability and Transitions Literature: A Provocation
Guest Blogger
The most problematic archetypes may be master thesis madness and activist rants, which both typically include major quality issues.

Julian Kirchherr

Circular Economy and Sustainability (2022) | Cite this article

Abstract
Research on sustainability and transitions is burgeoning. Some of this research is helping to solve humankind’s most pressing problems. However, as this provocation argues, up to 50% of the articles that are now being published in many interdisciplinary sustainability and transitions journals may be categorized as “scholarly bullshit.” These are articles that typically engage with the latest sustainability and transitions buzzword (e.g., circular economy), while contributing little to none to the scholarly body of knowledge on the topic. A typology of “scholarly bullshit” is proposed which includes the following archetypes: boring question scholarship, literature review of literature reviews, recycled research, master thesis madness, and activist rants. Since “scholarly bullshit” articles engage with the latest academic buzzwords, they also tend to accumulate significant citations and are thus welcomed by many journal editors. Citations matter most in the metric-driven logic of the academic system, and this type of scholarship, sadly, is thus unlikely to decrease in the coming years. . . .

 

Electric car rapid charging costs soar, says RAC (msn.com)

The price of charging an electric car on a pay-as-you-go, non-subscription basis at a publicly accessible rapid charger has increased by 21% over the last nine months, the RAC said



It isn't cheaper and all energy is dirty

 

Another alarmist claim debunked.

New Findings Show Gulf Stream “Has Strengthened” Over Past Century…”Heat Transport Has Increased 30%”!
By P Gosselin on 29. May 2022

Share this...
A recent flurry of scientific publications refute climate model claims of a weakening Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC).

The latest Klimaschau looks at the latest scientific findings on the Gulf Stream. An excellent review on the latest AMOC science. Here I present the results in English.

Climate panic-makers like the Potsdam Institute like to claim the Gulf Stream is showing ominous signs of slowing down and thus threatening to send Europe into a deep freeze. Their dodgy models have predicted a decline of its strength, due to anthropogenic climate warming.

Surprise: Gulf Stream has strengthened

But as the Klimaschau explains, lots of new findings show that the opposite in fact appears to be happening: “The Gulf Stream Extention has increased steadily over the last century…The heat transport into the Nordic Seas has increased steadily in volume and temperature over the last century.”

The press release reports that Lars H. Smedsrud, professor at UiB and researcher at the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, have examined 100 years of research results to see how the ocean transport has evolved.

The researchers were surprised to find such consistent results showing a steady increase, which entails that the Gulf Stream’s extension into the Nordic Seas “has strengthened”. With the surprising volume increase, the total heat transport has increased with 30 percent. . . .