Climate Hysteria Propaganda

...

Anti Federalist said:
This man did his homework.

https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1803281726300627392



Chris Martz
[MENTION=1228]ChrisM[/MENTION]artzWX
Thankfully, I always bring data to the table.

Cincinatti, Ohio has daily temperature data going back to 1872. Using this data, I plotted the number of days per year with daily TMax ≥90°, ≥95° and ≥100°. There has been - in the number of hot days; in fact, the trend is slightly down.

So, right away, this blows a hole in your theory. Like, it really blows hard. A Kamala Harris blow.

That's got a bad picture in my mind. Scratch that.

But, let's continue, shall we?

≥° :
1. 1936: 64-days
2. 1944: 58-days
3. 1913: 56-days
4. 1934 and 2007: 54-days
5. 1953: 51-days
6. 1874, 1914, 1954 and 1959: 47-days
7. 1881, 1983 and 1988: 46-days
8. 1908 and 1952: 45-days
9. 1964 and 2012: 44-days
10. 1930 and 1931: 42-days

Of the 19 total years that made the cut, 14 were prior to 1960, and only two have been in the last 35-years, and none in the last decade.

≥° :
1. 19-days in 1933 (This was FDR's fault)
2. 17-days in 1874 (what the heII was going on then?)
3. 15-days in 1913, 1934 and 1988
4. 14-days in 1944 and 1952
5. 13-days in 1914 and 1954
6. 12-days in 1925, 1936 and 1953
7. 11-days in 1894 and 1966
8. 10-days in 1890, 1921, 1964, 1994 and 2005
9. 9-days in 1901, 1931, 1943, 1969, 2007 and 2018
10. 8-days in 1888, 1895, 1899, 1908, 1910, 1923, 1949 and 1971

Of the 33-years that made this cut, 24 occurred prior to 1960 and 30 were before 2005.

It has also been 4,346 days since Cincinnati last hit the century mark; the most recent 100° day was on July 25, 2012 (100°). This is the third longest stretch on record that a reading of 100° hasn't been set. There were a total of 12 days ≥100° in 1936, 9 days in 1934, 7 days in 1988 and 6 days each in 1881, 1930 and 2012.

:
1. July 21 and 22, 1934: 108°
2. July 25, 1934: 107°
2. July 24, 1934 and July 14, 1936: 106°
3. July 22, 1901; July 20, 1934; and July 10 and July 12, 1936: 105°
4. July 10, 1881; July 23, 1934; July 11 and 15, 1934; and July 6 and 7, 2012: 104°
5. July 7, 1874; July 12, 1914; July 28, 1930; July 8, 9 and August 22, 1936; July 14, 1954 and July 9, 1988: 103°


1. June 27 and 28, 1944; and July 25, 1988: 102°
2. June 28, 1934; and June 28 and 29, 2012: 101°
3. June 27, 1914; June 29, 1934; and June 29, 1944: 100°
4. June 27, 1931 and June 18, 1944: 99°
5. June 8 and 28, 1874; June 28 and 30, 1913; June 24, 1914; June 23, 1930; June 20 and 21, 1933; June 27, 1934; June 29 and 30, 1936; June 17, 1944; June 28 and 29, 1952; June 30, 1953; June 26, 1954; and June 30, 2012: 98°

≥°:
1. 17-days (July 14-30, 1934 and July 17-August 2, 2011)

2. 15-days (June 18-July 2, 1933; June 22-July 6, 1966; and July 30-August 13, 2007)

3. 14-days (July 3-16, 1881; August 22-September 4, 1953; and June 28-July 11, 2012)

4. 13-days (July 15-27, 1934; July 19-31, 1940; and July 12-24, 1983)

5. 12-days (August 3-14, 1918; July 17-28, 1930; and July 6-17, 1936)

:
• The earliest 90° day occurred on April 11, 1930 (90°); the latest occurred on October 9, 1939 (90°).

• The earliest 95° day occurred on May 26, 1911 (95°); the latest occurred on October 1, 2019 (95°).

• The earliest 100° day occurred on June 25, 1988 (102°); the latest occurred on September 8, 1939 (100°).

So, in conclusion, [man-made] climate change is making heatwaves like this week's more frequent in Cincinatti. This is just summer sugar muffins. Summer.

I rate your propaganda 0.0 stars.

GQaC8cPaIAMnkMK
Click to expand...
 
Nikolov & Zeller: Misrepresentation of Critical Satellite Data by IPCC

A close read of Chapter 7 in the Working Group I Contribution to the 2021 IPCC Report reveals that, not only was the measured albedo-controlled solar forcing ignored as a climate driver in the Report’s conclusions, but Section 7.2.2 in Chapter 7 contains Figure 7.3, which shows opposite trends of reflected solar and outgoing thermal flaxes to those observed by CERES. This article presents the results from our investigation of the IPCC’s Fig. 7.3.

After examining the IPCC data repository at GitHub.com and communicating with two lead authors of Chapter 7, we found that the CERES global anomalies of reflected shortwave and outgoing longwave radiation have been multiplied by -1 in the computer code employed to generate Fig. 7.3. This caused inversion of the long-term trends of these key climate parameters. Dr. Matthew Palmer, one of the authors of Section 7.2.2, admitted in an email message that this trend inversion was intentionally done, but failed to provide a convincing justification for it.

The results from the trend inversion of CERES radiation data in the IPCC AR6 are highly consequential. Thus, Fig. 7.3 creates a false impression that the solar forcing played no role in recent warming and the rising concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases caused a retention of heat in the climate system by impeding the outgoing LW radiation. The truth is that the solar forcing explains the entire tropospheric warming since 2000, and there is no sign of “heat trapping” by greenhouse gases. Had the IPCC acknowledged the increase of Earth’s sunlight absorption in the 21st Century, this would have invalidated the Report’s central assertion that human carbon emissions were the main driver of climate in recent decades. In conclusion, it appears that radiative flux anomalies in Fig. 7.3 were manipulated and a discussion about long-term CERES trends in Section 7.2.2 was intentionally omitted, because the actual observations present a significant empirical challenge to the UN’s political Agenda set by Resolution A/RES/43/53 in 1988 to promote Anthropogenic Climate Change.
...
The problem with IPCC’s Fig. 7.3 is that the plots of reflected solar and outgoing thermal radiation show opposite temporal trends compared to those found in the actual CERES observations.
...
More: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/202...sentation-of-critical-satellite-data-by-ipcc/
Click to expand...

Figures at link...
 
acptulsa said:
Scientists Struggle to Understand Why Antarctica Hasn’t Warmed for Over 70 Years Despite Rise in CO2
Click to expand...

Let me start by saying that I fall into the "Luke Warmist" category when it comes to the spectrum of beliefs regarding Anthropogenic Global Climate Change. The Luke Warmists understand that:
- The Earth's atmosphere is warming
- The Earth's atmosphere has been warming at an accelerated rate since about the mid-1800's
- Most of the accelerated warming since the mid-1800's can be attributed to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (including CO and CO2), the majority of which originate from anthropogenic sources.
... However, unlike the alarmists, the Luke Warmists haven't been convinced that there is an existential crisis related to that warming ... and they also have a lot of questions regarding how to respond to whatever level of warming there is. Two of the most prominent Luke Warmists are Steven Koonin (author of "Unsettled") and Judith Curry (heralded quite frequently by Climate Deniers who don't seem to recognize that she doesn't espouse what the Deniers believe).

The snapshot in the post I quoted was from Morrison's article in the Daily Skeptic ... an article which cherry picks some passages in the study and misrepresents the thrust of the study. The thrust of the study dealt with differences between the temperature response of the Arctic region (north pole, Greenland, etc) and the Antarctic region (south pole) to monotonic increases in greenhouse gases across the globe - the "common sense" perception being that both polar regions should respond identically to the uniform increases in greenhouse gases occurring in both regions. That's what the Deniers are espousing: that if the warming were due to greenhouse gases, then the warming in the Antarctic would match the warming in the Arctic.

The study does state:
Over the same period, Antarctic sea ice area has modestly expanded, and warming has been nearly non-existent over much of the Antarctic ice sheet
Click to expand...
... which is not the same thing as saying there's been no warming in Antarctica. It's just that, taken as a whole, Antarctica hasn't warmed as much as has the Arctic region. The hypothesis examined by the study is that the reason for the reduced warming in the Antarctic is due to the orography of the Antarctic region (another way of saying that the average altitude of the Antarctic is higher than that of the Arctic). That's a fairly straight-forward hypothesis - it's basic science that higher altitudes tend to be colder than lower altitudes due primarily to the density of the atmosphere (including greenhouse gasses) being lower at the higher altitudes (so there's less atmosphere to hold in the heat). Since the average altitude of Antarctica is roughly 2,500 meters (making it the highest continent on the planet), you'd expect it to be holding less heat than the Arctic region (which is much closer to sea level. However, the portions of Antarctica that are close to or at sea-level (Western Antarctica and the Archipelago, as well as the seas around the entire land mass) are experiencing warming just slightly less than the Arctic (you do have to factor in the influence of the nearby resistance to warming offered by Eastern Antarctica, an ice cube in the hot tea - so overall, it's still not going to be identical to the Arctic).

I'm not sure how valuable the study actually is. It relies on several runs of two climate models to show what the climate results would be if the geography of the Antarctic Region were to have its altitude reduced. I mean, what's the point of that?
 
Last edited:
Brian4Liberty said:
Headline reads: The planet just saw its hottest day on record
https://x.com/CNN/status/1815801197745287488
Click to expand...

From the article:
July 21 clocked in at 17.09 degrees Celsius, or 62.76 Fahrenheit
Click to expand...

So imagine the headline reading:
The Planet's Temperature Reaches Nearly 63°F
........ Marketing Observation: Doesn't have near the impact, does it?

... and then telling your wife that you intend to keep your thermostat set lower than that sweltering temperature this winter (as your contribution to use less fossil fuel in your mission to end global warming).

OK, it's an ill-conceived idea. You don't want those ice-cubed female feet bumping up against you while you sleep. Besides, who in their right mind could imagine any woman agreeing to their bedroom being kept at that temperature?


I guess one of my engineering observations on this is just how useful is the metric of average surface temperature? Are the thermometers evenly distributed? How does "average surface temperature" compensate for factors such as "urban heat islands" (whose elevated temperatures have little to do with CO2 levels)? And what is the "survival envelope" outside of which the average surface temperature poses hazards to humanity and other life on Earth?
 
Last edited:
“Neutral Science is Undesirable” Climate Scientists Argue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqIqGVmtOQ8
{Sabine Hossenfelder | 26 October 2024}

Climate scientists on social media are constantly pushing the idea that their research demands action. On one hand, climate change is a very real and pressing issue. On the other hand, scientists should remain neutral. So is it ever okay to mix research with activism?

The two comments are here:
- https://www.nature.com/articles/s44168-024-00126-0
- https://www.nature.com/articles/s44168-024-00171-9

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Anti Federalist
This is how they manufacture propaganda.
Replies
10
Views
1K
jmdrake
jmdrake
PAF
Israel’s Biggest US Donor Now Owns CBS
Replies
1
Views
282
Firestarter
Firestarter
Anti Federalist
PBS announces "unprecedented", years long, climate change propaganda push
Replies
9
Views
543
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
The free city of Próspera: Hong Kong of Honduras?
Replies
5
Views
3K
PAF
PAF
PAF
Government and Those Who Control Government, Are the Most Monstrous Terrorists of All Time
Replies
0
Views
299
PAF
PAF
Back
Top