More Climate BS...

[GroverCleveland]

Why do we only care about 150 years in a planet that is apparently 4.5 billion years old?

To be fair, we do happen to live and have developed functioning civilizations within the last 10,000. But to your point, yeah, selective filtering.

 

[rikberry31]

WMO confirms 2025 was one of warmest years on record​

Meanwhile there’s another Super El Nino brewing, likely to make 2027 the hottest year on record.

Where’s that cool period?

Instead of looking at the bogus graph that ignored "outliers" and all rural temperature stations, go look at them.

The WMO's bread is buttered on the side of manmade global warming. The U.N. has already admitted that it was a bunch of crap.

 

[ButchPlz]

To be fair, we do happen to live and have developed functioning civilizations within the last 10,000. But to your point, yeah, selective filtering.

It's just an idiot trap. "Recorded history" sounds significant, until you realize it's meaningless.

 

[BartW]

It [2024] is the hottest on record.

Hotter than in the 1930's, nope.

Tell NASA and the NOAA.

Their own data says it was hotter in the 30's. They try to BS it by saying that it is only the U.S. where it was hotter. They "estimate" the temps (fudge the numbers) in places that did not have accurate temperature records.

Oh, I didn't know America was the only country with thermometers in the 1930s

Now, @BartW , that is not what he said.

Ok then. America is the only country with accurate thermometers. The rest of the world just fudges the numbers.

 

[BartW]

the modern day climate warriors estimated the temperatures of the past to fit the global warming agenda and prop up the money machine. Even the actual data that is available at the time suggests that it was much hotter in the medieval period

So you reject climate science, except the parts you think support your narrative? How would you even know of the medieval warm period if not for climate science? Ridiculous.

You can’t say the science is a lie, and then use the same science to support your argument. I see it all the time in here.

 

[BartW]

being somewhere in a 1000+ page report isn't really "available". Its certainly never made it to the general conversation, again it begins to even out the conversation because right now in the world of the public its:

THE WORLD IS ENDING BECAUSE OF MAN MADE CLIMATE AND HERE ARE THE FIXES WE MUST TAKE. THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS WITH THE FIXES AND THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED AND IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS YOU BELIEVE THE EARTH IS FLAT.

that doesn't leave any middle ground. you are either 100% in, or you are the enemy. a reasonable stance supported by the actual science of "Hey here are the things we need to fix, here are the actual outcomes, and we are still trying to work out some of the details" frames the conversation completely differently and sets up a realm where you don't have to be 100% "in" or "out".

giving the people the freedom to choose their response, instead of a heavy handed one size fits all climate policy from the government, would have drastically helped messaging. The case I will point to is PV. An idiot could have sold that to every redneck farmer, outdoorsy person, or someone with a remote home/property as an off the grid alternative. Instead Obama politicizes it, requires it, and those same people who should be client #1 instead feel resentful about the whole thing and are going to be less likely to buy in.

when it comes to public policies, messaging matters a TON.

“Why didn’t anybody say anything?!” Lol.

I agree messaging is important, and problematic, but you chose a crummy example to pick on. Just because you personally just recently learned about aerosols doesn’t mean it’s been kept secret this whole time. I’ve discussed them on VN several times (usually in the context of explaining why a small minority of scientists predicted cooling in the 70s, but I can think of at least one more). In all likelihood, you’ve come across it at some point, but didn’t give it a second thought.

 

[LouderVol]

“Why didn’t anybody say anything?!” Lol.

I agree messaging is important, and problematic, but you chose a crummy example to pick on. Just because you personally just recently learned about aerosols doesn’t mean it’s been kept secret this whole time. I’ve discussed them on VN several times (usually in the context of explaining why a small minority of scientists predicted cooling in the 70s, but I can think of at least one more). In all likelihood, you’ve come across it at some point, but didn’t give it a second thought.

I have been aware, but that doesn't mean the general population is. which was my point.

and the people shouting down any questions, whether it be aerosol related or otherwise, has been far louder than the small voice at the back of the room giving out the actual information. that, and so many other ledes, have been buried, without the scientists calling foul on any of it.

well too be fair its not really the "lede", but its fact related to the subject matter.

 

[BartW]

I mean if you want to claim Al Gore's stuff is not supported by any science, I am not going to argue with you. I just wish the collective "you" would have spoken out about it.

I think you are splitting hairs here. there is what RCP8.5 is in the scientific community, and then there is how RCP8.5 is used. multiple states/cities and forth have set policy based on that model. it has been held up as the ONE path we are on as the worst case scenario and it ignored the changes that were happening even at its conception.

"Based on our literature evaluation, 90% of the hazard assessments assume coastal sea levels based on geoid models, rather than using actual sea-level measurements"

"However, spaceborne DEMs can have vertical errors up to several metres, contain sensing or interpolation artefacts, or are outdated, thereby affecting the quality of coastal hazard assessments, especially in flat, subsiding coastal plains and densely populated river deltas10,12,13. Apart from considering vertical uncertainty of elevation data, using DEMs in coastal hazard assessments requires correctly combining coastal elevation with local sea-level height and the proper conversion to a common vertical reference frame2,3. Through a systematic review evaluating recent SLR impacts and coastal hazard assessment studies, we found that these crucial steps were often not considered or performed incorrectly. Rather than considering actual, local sea-level height, coastal sea level is most often assumed to equal (an often outdated) global geoid (or in some instances even ellipsoid), to which open-access global DEMs are typically referenced when provided."

Sea level much higher than assumed in most coastal hazard assessments - Nature

Meta-analyses on a global scale show that the measured coastal mean sea level is higher than assumed in most coastal hazard assessments.

www.nature.com

their models for sea level rise didn't match the local measurements. they based their model on satellite data, not local measurements. Instead of taking the common sense approach that the satellite data is off (which they admit in the above) and adjust the models; they instead just claim that the sea is rising more than predicted. my point is they don't know what the baseline actually was to say sea level has actually risen. and instead of adjusting their process or hypothesis based on more correct local data, they just change the results because the truth makes things look worse than they are.

So, just to be clear, you don’t have a reference for the Al Gore climate model saying there wouldn’t be any glaciers left in 20 years? I guess you just pulled it out of your ass based on a vague faulty memory and ran with it?


You’re completely misunderstanding/misrepresenting that paper on sea level rise. It has nothing to do with the rate of sea level rise, or the amount of sea level rise observed to date. There is no claim here that the sea is rising more than predicted. There is no change to the amount of future sea level rise predicted.

The paper is about local coastal impact assessments and hazard mapping. It seems many hazard maps assume an incorrect present-day local baseline, because they assume the present-day sea level is equal to the present geoid (global gravity-based) height calculation. Using the geoid as a baseline doesn’t take into account localized effects due to currents, tides, etc. Consequently, many local hazard maps are underestimating how much land will be underwater on X date. The discrepancy was largest in the Indo-Pacific and SE Asia (notably poor areas) and was smallest in Europe and North America.

Thailand etc. really need to update their hazard mapping. That’s all it’s saying.

 

[LouderVol]

So, just to be clear, you don’t have a reference for the Al Gore climate model saying there wouldn’t be any glaciers left in 20 years? I guess you just pulled it out of your ass based on a vague faulty memory and ran with it?


You’re completely misunderstanding/misrepresenting that paper on sea level rise. It has nothing to do with the rate of sea level rise, or the amount of sea level rise observed to date. There is no claim here that the sea is rising more than predicted. There is no change to the amount of future sea level rise predicted.

The paper is about local coastal impact assessments and hazard mapping. It seems many hazard maps assume an incorrect present-day local baseline, because they assume the present-day sea level is equal to the present geoid (global gravity-based) height calculation. Using the geoid as a baseline doesn’t take into account localized effects due to currents, tides, etc. Consequently, many local hazard maps are underestimating how much land will be underwater on X date. The discrepancy was largest in the Indo-Pacific and SE Asia (notably poor areas) and was smallest in Europe and North America.

Thailand etc. really need to update their hazard mapping. That’s all it’s saying.

yeah, I had assumed Gore had based his claim on some type of science. You say that assumption is wrong. Considering I was in high school when that came out, I never did a deep dive on it like I do with modern claims. I am not surprised, and not arguing otherwise. but that has not been the messaging. and it just goes back to my point about what the scientific community has allowed.

you are right, I shouldn't have said "the sea is RISING more". I should have said the "sea is not where they predicted". one would think that beyond adjusting the maps, they would also want to address their calculations as well. Seems strange that they wouldn't want to use the more correct data WHEN they do their predictions on sea level change.

 

[Vol423]

So, just to be clear, you don’t have a reference for the Al Gore climate model saying there wouldn’t be any glaciers left in 20 years? I guess you just pulled it out of your ass based on a vague faulty memory and ran with it?

It was super difficult to find. It required a quick Google search. It was included in his acceptance speech for his bogus Noble Peace Prize.

What did Al Gore actually say?

If we go back to Dec 2007, in the immediate aftermath of the shocking decrease in sea ice that summer, Gore gave his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize he’d received jointly with the IPCC. In it he said:

Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

RealClimate: “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”

RealClimate: Almost two decades ago, some scientists predicted that Arctic summer sea ice would 'soon' disappear. These predictions were mentioned by Al Gore and got a lot of press. However, they did not gain wide acceptance in the scientific community, and were swiftly disproven...

www.realclimate.org

 

[BartW]

yeah, I had assumed Gore had based his claim on some type of science. You say that assumption is wrong. Considering I was in high school when that came out, I never did a deep dive on it like I do with modern claims. I am not surprised, and not arguing otherwise. but that has not been the messaging. and it just goes back to my point about what the scientific community has allowed.

you are right, I shouldn't have said "the sea is RISING more". I should have said the "sea is not where they predicted". one would think that beyond adjusting the maps, they would also want to address their calculations as well. Seems strange that they wouldn't want to use the more correct data WHEN they do their predictions on sea level change.

How about, the sea will rise further than many hazard maps indicate. It is tricky to word. You got it. I agree though, where true, it's a very poor oversight. I guess in some places if the reference elevations aren't much different anyway some agencies might use the lower reference level out of scientific reticence. That's being generous though. I sure can't explain how an agency in SE Asia could have their maps off by a whole meter and not notice, that really doesn't make sense to me. I'll have to read more thoroughly and digest some time.

All good on Gore. I was half expecting said reference to exist. But it's not that bad. It was recently the 20 year anniversary of the film and I saw this review from a climate journalist I respect:

A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later​

DN did go soft on Gore by not discussing the wildly early ice-free Arctic prediction, which is probably what you're thinking of, seeing as it's the only claim I remember off the top of my head. It comes up in these climate discussions, and Gore is rightfully ridiculed for it. Some scientists did publicly push back on that at the time and over the years, but it's not like that goes on the front page of the NYT.

 

[swampfoxfan]

99.3 % of scientists believe the earth is getting warmer at an alarming rate. Most,if not all, agree is the result of burning fossil fuels. The $ 400 trillion big oil industry hires a handful of "scientists: who disagree. Conservatives refuse to assist development of wind,solar, and other alternative energy sources because big oil hires the politicians to convince them. This is also the firm belief of that liberal,commie,socialist Bill Frittz, former US Senator from Tennessee.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

There is absolutely nothing but hearsay and unproven theories in everyone of your links. If you actually read your own links you'll see that many predictions in the research never came true and/or will never happen.

You were 100% correct that for many* people, man-made global warming is a religion. Period. They will not be shaken in their belief despite the fact that every 10 years of my life we have crossed a fake threshold where they all screamed from the top of their lungs that we would be dead or underwater. Miami and coastal areas were ALL gonna be submerged worldwide by 2000. Then 2010. Then 2020. These weren't crazed shrub hugger potheads from Berkeley screaming this...it was Al Gore, the Globalists, the UN etc. From coming Ice Ages in 1970 to Acid Rain!! In 1980 to Ozone Layer Depletion in 1990 to the aforementioned Al Gore Era....its an ENDLESS screaming about the imminent calamity that is gonna kill us ALL. These people are indoctrinated to the point where it IS their religion. No amount of failure and grift will change their minds. Trillions upon trillions of dollars stolen and wasted in increased taxes to fix EACH AND EVERY fake problem of the decade which I listed above.

It is the single biggest grift since income taxes were imposed as a "temporary measure". No amount of evidence will change their minds until they are finally ready to walk away...which thankfully we are FINALLY starting to see more of. This is the religion of the modern Left. The true believers will never quit though. Many of them like Bart here have livelihoods and lives that depend on this hoax. OH may be in the same boat. Unless he decided to pay out of his own pocket to go to those conferences in his spare time... instead of spending time with family, playing golf, boating, biking etc like normal people do. He may have a career that depends on his religion too. Millions of people are employed in these boondoggle green companies like Solyndra etc, and countless tax dollars keep universities studying this bullcrap on the public dime.

* "many people" is relative. While millions are in on the grift, it does seem that in the last few years since Trump has been in power more Centrists and Lefties are walking away from the CC grift. Hopefully it continues.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

The human need for energy will eventually require either affordable fusion or else gigantic space based solar grids in my opinion. Technology growth is exponential. Current energy production methods are not.

We should be building nuclear reactors regularly and never should have stopped. Some of the newer designs are amazing and very efficient with close to zero danger. I felt this way when my brother was just a kid. Now he is a nuclear engineer but unfortunately a Lefty married to a super Lefty who works for a "nonprofit" NGO that Dems use to pilfer public millions. Regardless, he has shown me some of the modern designs and they're amazing. Especially with the amount of energy used by Big Tech/ AI and its exponential increase, we should be building new reactors nationwide in almost every state in the Union IMO. Hog is spot on in his assessment that we will have to generate 3 or 4x as much power as we do today to support switching to electric cars, then there is the huge power needed for data centers, server farms and AI etc. The price increases per kw/hr nationwide have been bad. In some states they have gone up dramatically (MN?)