They are accurate representations of NASA data. The process was entirely transparent and accurate. In your haste you may have missed this explanation and link. Can you tell which graph visually represents a “climate crisis” and which one doesn’t? Feel free to check my work – the Excel spreadsheet and the calculations are here: GISSTEMP-in-absolute-masterDownload To create the graphs above in Figures 5 and 6, I used the data from the Excel Sheet imported into the graphing program DPlot.
June 18, 2023 The Real Story About a "Melting" Mount Rainier[/paste:font] As many readers of the blog know, I often provide a reality check for over-the-top and often inaccurate Seattle Times articles dealing with climate change. It is unfortunate that the Seattle Times has moved to an advocacy role on the issue of climate change, often exaggerating the effects of global warming. They often fail to provide reliable information to their readers on this important topic. In yesterday's online paper, they had a front-page story written by their columnist, Danny Westneat: Mount Rainier is melting. Can anything be done to stop it? As you can imagine, they are talking about the glaciers on Mt. Rainier. The story references a new "piercing" National Park Service report and talks about the substantial reduction in glacier ice volume. The message in the article is clear: Rainier's glaciers are now rapidly retreating and that human CO2 emissions are the cause. We need to act now. "It’s climate change before your eyes." "We’ve really got to focus on how we emit carbon into the air.” This is a very deceptive article designed to convince us that a signature aspect of our region is being lost due to human carbon emissions. . . . .
He mentions going back to the Little Ice Age and its recovery. Then, that recovery is used to denigrate current warming trends that DON'T have that historic natural justification. Yet, he claims the "just nature" conclusion that climatologists from around the world do not accept. If there are natural events that are affecting climate over the times of the advent of industry, then they should by all means be identified, but this article does not claim that anything like that is happening. I seriously disrespect comments such as "YIKES. Now the temperatures have warmed by 4F! Folks would start to panic." THEN, he actually pointed out that it snowed on the mountain the day he wrote his piece!!! This isn't science - it's pure political snark.
Actually, it's quite a bit more science than you are apparently accustomed to. Clifford Mass | Department of Atmospheric Sciences University of Washington https://atmos.uw.edu › core-faculty › clifford-mass Clifford Mass. Professor, Atmospheric Sciences. Clifford Mass. cmass@uw.edu · (206) 685-0910 · ATG612 · Curriculum Vitae (CV) · Visit Clifford's website.
I very well know who he is and read what he says. I lived in Seattle for at least 20 years. He's certainly known. He is NOT the only source of climate science. He may find it insulting that someone didn't use him as a source, or referenced other science than his. That doesn't excuse snark.
I find no snark. The fly rarely has anything good to say about the swatter. Meanwhile: ". . . Although the story was supposedly motivated by a new report by Scott Beason and associates of the National Park Service (a very nice piece of work, I might add), this article NEVER mentions that most of the glacial loss on Rainier has little to do with human-caused climate change produced by increasing CO2, and the proof of this statement is found in the report itself. . . ."
I stated the snark. And, it WAS pure snark. Yes, he included his contrarian conclusion. Scientists are free to do that.
He deployed ridicule that was richly deserved by his target. His conclusion was not contrarian; it was in line with the findings of the research that was distorted by the Seattle Times.
Alarmists are wrong again. New Study: 21st Century Precipitation Trends Have Become Less Intense Globally By Kenneth Richard on 19. June 2023 Share this... Yet another instance of the models getting it wrong. Hydrological processes were expected to intensify with warming. The opposite has happened. · Per a new study, global precipitation intensity, measured in mm/hour per century, has exhibited flat (large precipitation systems) to declining (medium and small systems) trends from 2001 to 2020. Image Source: Zhang et al., 2023 The de-intensification of the hydrological cycle has also been documented for the second half of the 20th century. The highest frequency of global-scale extreme rainfall events occurred from 1960-1980 − when there were concerns about cooling. Since then, the frequency and intensity of rainfall events have “decreased remarkably” (Koutsoyiannis, 2020). Image Source: Koutsoyiannis, 2020
Want to know if climate change is real or not? Find out what the people whose whole livelihood is based on whether climate change is real or not are doing. I'm talking about the insurance companies, who by their very nature, have to base their actions on what the most likely scenario is going to be. So what are the insurance companies doing? Well, in California and in Florida, a bunch of insurance companies are leaving because of "rapidly growing catastrophe exposure". That's right, insurance companies are leaving two of the most economically powerful states due to the increase of climate related catastrophes. If you believe that they have joined some type of conspiracy, you're thinking is very much flawed. These are rich and powerful, capitalistic companies that have billions of dollars at stake. They have the best risk analysts around and have nothing to gain by lying one way or the other. They don't care about politics, they care about their bottom line so that they can keep their stockholders happy and their profits up. It's all about money for them, not conspiracy theory pseudoscience.
They are pulling out because of California's hostile regulatory environment. California's Coming Insurance Crisis City Journal https://www.city-journal.org › article › californias-co... Saddled with heavy losses and stifled by a government-controlled system, insurance firms are pulling out of the state or reducing their underwriting. Insurers Fleeing California Market Want Rate-Hike Flexibility Bloomberg Law https://news.bloomberglaw.com › litigation › californi... 7 days ago — “The pullout from new homeowners' coverage for consumers living in California poses an existential dilemma for California insurance ...
John Christy on making sense of data in the climate change debate Charles Rotter Climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann notes climatologist Dr. John R. Christy as a compelling voice on the other side of the climate change debate. Climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann notes climatologist Dr. John R. Christy as a compelling voice on the other side of the climate change debate. Dr. Christy, a pioneer in measuring global temperatures by satellite, discusses challenges to understanding data from satellites, balloons, and terrestrial weather stations. He also examines the impact of CO₂ and the practical problem with climate models driving energy policy worldwide, especially in developing nations. Distinguished professor of Atmospheric Science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, as well as the Alabama state climatologist, Dr. Christy talks with Dr. Jed Macosko, academic director of AcademicInfluence.com and professor of physics at Wake Forest University. . . . .
Wrong, CNN, Attribution Groups Prove Nothing About Extreme Weather and Climate Change ALARMIST MESSENGERS/CLAIMS JUNE 22, 2023 A recent article on CNN relies on the opinion of climate attribution groups, claiming that these groups are able to calculate exactly how much impact climate change has had on various weather events. These claims are always false. Attribution claims are unverifiable, untestable, and rely on the presupposition that climate change did make an individual weather event more severe. The article, “Without climate change, these extreme weather events would not have happened,” relies on the testimony of the World Weather Attribution Initiative, whose members assert that climate change is indeed making weather events more severe, or severe weather more likely. The CNN post goes on to claim that extreme weather like “droughts, storms, wildfires, and heat waves” are becoming more intense and frequent. But this is false, as Climate at a Glance shows: the data isn’t clear about whether droughts are becoming more intense according to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; storms like hurricanes and tornadoes show no increasing trend; wildfire data in the U.S. indicates forest policy has more to do with them than warming does; and heat anomalies, especially in the United States, show no increasing trend. . . . .
Hi, all. I'm not sure if I have the credentials to get into this discussion or not. You see, I'm a retired scientist who worked in the fields of chemistry and quality assurance for over 40 years. During that time I made use of the scientific method and went through peer review of my work. In reading some of the palaver about global warming on a number of forums, I'm struck by some posters not even showing an ability to distinguish between weather, climate change, and global warming. It's no wonder than some folks are confused about the concept of global warming. On 'consensus', it's again a concept that can seem misleading. It shouldn't be. Mischief can occur, but it can be recognized and dealt with. Regards, stay safe 'n well.
“The man who is striving to solve a problem defined by existing knowledge and technique is not, however, just looking around. He knows what he wants to achieve, and he designs his instruments and directs his thoughts accordingly. Unanticipated novelty, the new discovery, can emerge only to the extent that his anticipations about nature and his instruments prove wrong. . . . There is no other effective way in which discoveries might be generated.” ― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Hi, Jack Hays. Thinking back on a couple of my 'discoveries', they occurred initially as an insight to a different way to do something or a change in how something was shaped. The initial thought came almost unbidden. The work of confirmation took far longer, as did the peer review process. Sound data reduced the risks of the latter. Regards, stay safe 'n well..
The beginning of the wrong turn. ‘Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate’ (1988 exaggerations vs. today) Guest Blogger Today, 35 years later, the recorded increase is 1F and 4 inches. . . .
So why are they only pulling house and property insurance, but not car insurance, and what about Florida?
Car insurers are leaving too. Californians struggle to get car insurance as companies ... San Francisco Chronicle https://www.sfchronicle.com › US & World › California 6 days ago — Jerry Conrey, an insurance broker in Orange County, said his agency has noticed pullbacks in business from Safeco, Mercury, Nationwide, Geico, ... Major car insurance companies getting out of California CBS News https://www.cbsnews.com › ... › Local News Jan 20, 2023 — Major auto insurers are pulling back in the California marketplace because they are saying our drivers are just too expensive to insure.
Florida is Undergoing an Insurance Crisis The Zebra https://www.thezebra.com › ... › Homeowners Apr 10, 2023 — The insurance market in Florida is teetering on the brink of collapse due to a combination of roofing scams, sluggish claims handling processes ...
An anniversary worth recalling. Anniversary Issue: the Crichton CalTech Michelin Lecture Kip Hansen It is not strictly the 20th anniversary of this repeatedly-quoted lecture – that would have been the 17th of January, but I am not a strict by-the-calendar guy. I post…
Thus is born your conspiracy theory - that throughout the ENTIRE world, almost all scientists are perverting their science in a supremely coordinated manner. In fact, the more agreement we find, the more certain we can be that there is a world wide conspiracy. Following this out, if there is 100% agreement, it is PROOF that there is a PERFECT conspiracy!! They all agree, so it MUST be wrong! Does anybody really believe that is what Kuhn was stating? Frankly, there is NO chance of that. This then becomes a justification for making civilian style arguments on THIS THREAD that are then not checked against the findings of science in general - because why would anyone check their results with a member of a conspiracy? Why would anyone consider that MAYBE the majority of scientists have a point? And, it isn't limited to this topic. We have conspiracy theorists such as Kennedy spouting crap about health, vaccines, homeopathy, etc., and others doing the same nonsense on other topics. Scientists agree, thus proving a conspiracy. Individual events appear to be counter, thus the scientists must be wrong. Kuhn had something to say, and he put it in strong terms to make a point. BUT, there is NO possibility that he was considering his issue to be applied in the manner that today's conspiracy theorists are applying it.
Your "interpretation" makes a claim that is the opposite of what Kuhn had to say. “And even when the apparatus exists, novelty ordinarily emerges only for the man who, knowing with precision what he should expect, is able to recognize that something has gone wrong.” ― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
That doesn't form an excuse for the standard model to be discarded whenever some experiment doesn't seem to match. While Kuhn has a real issue, that issue does not justify casting out science as a whole - which is EXACTLY how it is being used. Also, the dangers of the cloistered nature of single universities that hire those who selectively support a certain economic model, or whatever, is not the same thing by ANY stretch of the imagination, as accusing the entire world of science of being one giant conspiracy. As said before, it's total BS to assume that greater agreement proves greater conspiracy - instead of greater likelihood of accuracy.
