Global Warming -- LOL

Hahahaha....tell yourself whatever you need to.

 

We get a steady diet of stories pretending that weather 'confirms' the doomsday cult. Enjoy your plate.

 

Again, what does that have to do with the factual statement I posted? Psst…I’m not these others you refer to. I don’t believe in this doomsday. You should probably try not making sweeping generalizations. It’s the adult thing to do.

 

Fair enough. Let me hunt for your statement. Yes. You are correct. Weather isn't climate. But, another thing to keep in mind is that interglacials do end in glacial advances, and historically the ice stacks very much in line with these polar blasts that we have been seeing as of late.

• I welcome warmth,
• I fear the next glacial advance.

In light of the hard evidence of natural science, both of those positions flow naturally from the proofs.

 

When we banter about temperatures it’s important to remember people in equatorial areas are benefiting from increasing global temperatures as well as people in more temperate climates. Below optimal temperatures are still the biggest temperature related killer in sub Saharan Africa and warming is decreasing temperature related mortality in Southeast Asia at a faster rate than anywhere on earth.

Excess deaths related to colder than optimal temperatures still exceed excess deaths related to above optimal temperatures by a factor of 10.

It’s entertaining to joke about temperatures and AGW, but at the end of the day we should remember warming is reducing mortality rates globally (even in the tropics) related to suboptimal temperatures.

 

For climate true believers of the Climate Inquisition, ignorance is a choice.
Climate Change Weekly #461: Answering the Climate Inquisition
Guest Blogger
Having closed their minds to evidence and even the mere possibility that humans might not be causing a climate catastrophe, the CI not only refuses to debate or engage climate…

 

I at least know there is a difference between weather and climate but you don’t seem to. So it’s curious we don’t hear from you when it’s unseasonably warm out. Oh wait never mind.

 

Yes. Quite curious, Indeed!

 

In 2003 The Globe Was 0.34% Urban. By 2035 0.96% Will Be. ‘Global’ Warming Is Significantly Urban-Induced.
By Kenneth Richard on 13. February 2023

Share this...
Two new studies affirm the rapid growth in urbanization is causing significant non-climatic warming, artificially increasing the “global” trend.
Water covers approximately 362 million km² of the Earth’s surface. Land covers 148 million km² of the Earth’s surface.

As of 2003, just 0.5 million km² (0.34%) of the globe’s 510 million km² surface was urban or mostly urban. As of 2018, it was 0.7 million km² (0.42%). By 2035, 1.4 million km² (0.96%) of the Earth’s surface will be urban.

So approximately 99.8% of the Earth’s surface is not urban, and yet the majority of the temperature stations contributing to the “global” warming trend records over the last decades are located in urban areas. This would appear to have a tendency to bias the warming trends.

Urbanization adds artificial, non-climatic warmth

A new study assesses urbanization (concrete, machinery, roofs, vehicles, etc.) added 0.054°C of additional warmth to the annual temperature over the 16 years from 2003 to 2018. In summer, as much as 0.122°C was added to global temperature records over this period.

Urban areas are poised to experience rapid growth in the next two decades, almost tripling the proportion of the surface area (from 0.34% to 0.96%) during the 2003-2035 period.

This explosive expansion in global urban area is predicted to “nearly double” the growth in artificial, non-climatic warming added to the surface temperature record from densely populated areas.

Since the majority of the globe’s temperature stations are situated in urban areas, this urbanization tendency is poised to inflate temperature records well beyond that of non-urban areas.



Image Source: Shen et al., 2023

 

Another new study assesses the mean surface warming trend as 0.5 ± 0.20 K·decade−1 in the urban core of more than 2000 city clusters across the globe. This is “29% greater than the trend for the rural background.”

In other words, “surface warming in global cities is substantially more rapid than in rural background areas.”



Image source: Liu et al., 2022

 

Fight climate change -- kill a whale.
Offshore wind (whale) impact probe proposed
Guest Blogger
In the crosshairs are the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), which does the environmental impact assessments, and NOAA Fisheries which is supposed to protect the whales and other sea…

 

LOL.. Truly, when you get caught not being able to debate using actual science, or citing science that actually supports your specious claims, it does provide an excellent reason for you to not discuss the science... I'm laughing.. a lot. And your only response is.. but... but.. and not a lick of actual evidence.. Only the bleatings of a zealot that cannot face the truth of their factual undoing in public.

I remember you saying you were conservative... and now you're "moderate".. I don't think you know what those words mean. Admit it. You are debating absent any ability to do so.

 

The sad part is that the nice folks in CA still won't learn the lesson that they live on the good graces of others to not use the water they need, and they still won't invest in desalination to support the population that needs the water in the state. The "emergency" being the ability at any time to take the rights of the people there. That has always been the model.

 

Yes. I have many times. Read Matt Taibbi's excellent analysis of the subject.

 

Well, to be fair, it seems our Aussie brethren enjoy being nannied or otherwise restricted by their government. It seems to be socially acceptable there. And when the agency of governments needs folks to be scared or otherwise compliant, when the facts don't otherwise support their hysteria, well, you don't tell the truth to them in a timely way. As for "unprecedented", well, that's just a word that the social tyrants learned to use as incorrectly as the rest of their science.. The good news is, so far, their continent hasn't sunk yet...

 

Perhaps it's time we set the CPSC (Consumer protection Safety Commission) on these folks, as they don't seem to know what truth in advertising is... Or I suppose we could use the FTC as it seems remarkable that these folks seem to want to dramatically influence trade and the economy or otherwise create vast monopolies or financial reservations for themselves. All illegal under the law in the US.. Perhaps the FBI would take notice of this? Treasury? Isn't good government there to protect the people from folks like this?

 

Yes, the unresolved part being, whoooopsie, we aren't profitable yet....

 

Being late, as well as uninformed surely doesn't bode well for your credibility in this conversation.

 

He should have been roundly embarrassed by the outcome of that exchange.

 

LOL... this is you being what? Smart? I know you didn't read the column, it clearly cited the study in question and of course, your rush to smear the person is designed to do what exactly? Does it make you feel better about your otherwise inability to otherwise refute the science?

 

LOL... no one does. As so many of us have always suggested the climate has changed, it does change, and it will continue to change in the future. What is stupid, is this idea that it shouldn't change.

 

But... but..... but..... if CA isn't in drought, how can Gavin Newsome ever become president...

 

There are some hilarious examples of how badly things like chatGPT and other AI engines have responded. The Azure AI will even pout when you challenge it. One example from a researcher even provided evidence that the AI engine threatened actual violence....

How did we get here? Folks "trust" computers for some reason.. As if the "computer" isn't otherwise programed, and to your point, by folks who have an obviously dishonest intent to begin with.

 

You're BSing and woofing--a lot.

If you present even half-intelligent evidence, I might be interested in a discussion. So far, you got nuttin'.

You still have nothing.

 

Perhaps this is unfair, but my impression is that when evidence is presented you withdraw.