2015 !!
Here is the relevant section of IPCC AR6 WG1 (2021)
Looks like a raft of subsequent studies showing Mann was correct and his critics were wrong
Prices of the electricity we use to charge
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Here is the relevant section of IPCC AR6 WG1 (2021)
Looks like a raft of subsequent studies showing Mann was correct and his critics were wrong
And Dr Willie Soon showed that the thermometer data had been tampered with. Plus, many sensors were moved to city heat islands, airport runways, etc. So all their studies based on false data are moot!
Add to that the fact that the "IPCC" report is based on same altered data makes it likewise, moot.
"Climate change hoax collapses as Michael Mann’s bogus “hockey stick” graph defamation lawsuit dismissed by the Supreme Court of British Columbia
Monday, August 26, 2019"
lightonconspiracies.com
But fake algorithm aside. How did the earth warm in medieval period without man-made hydrocarbon CO2? They weren't burning that many witches, were they?
Add to that the fact that the "IPCC" report is based on same altered data makes it likewise, moot.
"Climate change hoax collapses as Michael Mann’s bogus “hockey stick” graph defamation lawsuit dismissed by the Supreme Court of British Columbia
Monday, August 26, 2019"
Climate change hoax collapses as Michael Mann’s bogus “hockey stick” graph defamation lawsuit dismissed by the Supreme Court of British Columbia - Ole Dammegard - Truth Seeker, Code Breaker - Peacemaker
Monday, August 26, 2019 by: Mike Adams Tags: badclimate, badscience, climate change, deception, dish
lightonconspiracies.com
But fake algorithm aside. How did the earth warm in medieval period without man-made hydrocarbon CO2? They weren't burning that many witches, were they?
Never mind all that. You're avoiding the question. Can you rationalise how everywhere in the world is warming faster than everywhere else?
Same question to you. yes, there are loads of conspiracy theories, but what's your explanation for why everywhere in the world is warming faster than everywhere else? Your last answer didn't hold water, and since then, you seem to be avoiding the question.
But still I have the same answer regardless of all these convolutions:
No matter the argument, this planet is undeniably warming to a degree dangerous to us:
The permafrost is melting fast.
Sea ice on both poles is seasonally disappearing faster.
Glaciers that have existed for thousands of years are disappearing or already gone in some instances.
.
You're still avoiding the question. I'd have thought that a clever guy like you might be able to give a rational answer. The data can't be wrong. All those sources that I mentioned are trusted sources that Peter or anybody else would be happy to reference. In their articles about climate change they always reference trusted scientific data sources, the same ones that inform you. The data is solid. What's the explanation?
The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in Bay Area
The plant in Tracy, built by Silicon Valley startup Heirloom Carbon Technologies, puts California at the forefront of the emerging carbon removal industry as a handful of so-called direct air captu…
www.mercurynews.com
Don't think I have attempted to answer that question. Could you link to one particular claim ? Around the equator warms least quickly and the poles most, (and I guess most people live a fair distance from the equator) but I would be surprised if there's a lot of difference. I have a vague recollection that the Northern hemisphere is warming quicker than the Southern hemisphere I would have to check the exact claim made.
The other thing is that warming over land is much quicker than over the oceans, (the oceans absorb the heat) so if you are comparing weather station trends almost anywhere they are likely going to be higher than the global warming trend including land and oceans. I checked that Science Daily extract and the "news story headline"
Large parts of Europe are warming twice as fast as the planet on average
bore no resemblance to the actual paper it was refering to :
Unmasking the Effects of Aerosols on Greenhouse Warming Over Europe
later on in the paper it did compare the warming over Europe with the global warming rate including land and ocean - no surprise it is much higher (mostly, I suspect because it is over land)
My suspicion is that it is the media picking up and amplifying short term and localised effects that are not significant.
"Milton Keynes bombshell - warming at .882 times the global rate" is not deemed newsworthy. Better getting sober analysis from Royal Society / NASA / IPCC etc
heat map here of how different regions have warmed at different rate :
Last edited:
interesting aricles. Biden has to spend some money in CCS technologies but the small amounts so far invested by private investors show clearly that the potential of on land CCS tech is quite small. The problem I see is not only the cost but the whole process of using lime to capture CO2 generates a fair bit of pollution. Years ago, I suggested to my kids that if we were serious about CO2, we should sequester trees. Just cut and burry them.
OK then. Tell me somewhere that it isn't. In a 1 minute search, I can can find articles and data from those prestige sources, that claim Africa, USA, Canada, Europe, Australia, the Artic, Antartica, Asia, Latin America and the Carribean. That's more or less the whole planet. You tell me a region That's warming at a half that rate or less and large enough to bring the global average down.
Multiple reasons why I don't bother to look for an answer:
The biases I've already mentioned.
The exaggeration that Peter and I mention.
Is the data truly solid and trustworthy?
The uncalculated factors, for example the fact that the earth's crust in any area over time has a distance varying from earth's centre of gravity. i.e. Greece is sinking and will disappear, the high and cold Tibetan plateau after bouncing is settling back down again. For a related but separate example the distance from the molten magma to the surface is constantly changing with tectonic shift. All affecting spot measurements of fractions of degrees.
And I'm too old and too close to death to care, since regardless of its rate of change it won't affect me.
The future belongs to the future and we shouldn't be so arrogant that we plan other's future for them. Whatever we leave them they'll love and won't want changed, since being small "c" conservative is fundamental to human nature.
.
According to Reuters, that map is wrong. Africa and Australia are both warming faster than the global average.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/5MP2HYWG2BK3TIREXJPE56FA24.jpg)
Africa endures more severe warming than elsewhere, posing risk of conflict
Africa is heating up at a faster rate than the rest of the planet and enduring more severe climate and weather disasters such as droughts, a joint U.N.-African Union report said on Monday, warning that climate change could stoke conflict over resources.
www.reuters.com
Australia temperatures rising faster than rest of the world: official report
(This version of the Jan 26th. story corrects that Australia pledged money to Climate Fund in December)
www.reuters.com
According to YourWeather, that map is wrong as Latin America and the Carribean are warming faster than the global average:
Latin America and the Caribbean warming faster than global average
A report on the impacts of climate change in Latin America and the Caribbean has highlighted risks of drought, sea level rise and extreme heat.
www.yourweather.co.uk
According to the IMF, that map is wrong. They say that Asia is warming twice the global average:
Asia’s Climate Emergency
Fiscal policy can help address climate change in Asia, the region hit hardest by global warming.
www.imf.org
That's a two minute search, so who's correct - either your source is wrong or both Reuters and the IMF are wrong. Which is it? All those places are on the equator, so it sort of destroys your theory. I think I'd trust Reuters and the IMF over your second rate source. How do you explain that your source is incorrect?
My source is NASA https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperaturesAccording to Reuters, that map is wrong. Africa and Australia are both warming faster than the global average.
.Africa endures more severe warming than elsewhere, posing risk of conflict
Africa is heating up at a faster rate than the rest of the planet and enduring more severe climate and weather disasters such as droughts, a joint U.N.-African Union report said on Monday, warning that climate change could stoke conflict over resources.
Australia temperatures rising faster than rest of the world: official report
(This version of the Jan 26th. story corrects that Australia pledged money to Climate Fund in December)
According to YourWeather, that map is wrong as Latin America and the Carribean are warming faster than the global average:
Latin America and the Caribbean warming faster than global average
A report on the impacts of climate change in Latin America and the Caribbean has highlighted risks of drought, sea level rise and extreme heat.
According to the IMF, that map is wrong. They say that Asia is warming twice the global average:
Asia’s Climate Emergency
Fiscal policy can help address climate change in Asia, the region hit hardest by global warming.www.imf.org
That's a two minute search, so who's correct - either your source is wrong or both Reuters and the IMF are wrong. Which is it? All those places are on the equator, so it sort of destroys your theory. I think I'd trust Reuters and the IMF over your second rate source. How do you explain that your source is incorrect?
You'd have to look exactly what each claim is based on - I suspect news channels are incorrectly summarising scientific research but I will have a look at some of those links
So are you suggesting that these prestige and trusted information sources, which are Reuters, the BBC, Telegraph, Guardian, IMF, WHO, etc, are all wrong and your NASA link is correct? That would imply that they're involved in some sort of conspiracy theory. I would have thought that it's much more likely that your source is incorrect. Maybe NASA misunderstood some data or they're misrepresenting the data to get more government funding.
most of the earth is covered in water. It follows from that where there are human habitation, it's going to warm up faster than the average.
Nice theory, but a one minute Google search will show a massive heat wave in all the oceans. You need to do a bit of research before postulating theories.
It's not a theory, common sense will suffice to justify the observations. You can dig deeper into local variables but we are talking averages here.
Are you saying Reuters are wrong? They have articles about every ocean warming up in crisis. here's one:
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/4IY7Z4UJZVLZ7ARW4Y6EBRPZA4.jpg)
Record ocean temperatures lift Atlantic hurricane outlook
Forecasters at Colorado State University for a second time raised their estimate for tropical storms during this year's Atlantic hurricane season, citing record warm sea surface temperatures.
www.reuters.com
Arctic 'warming at twice global rate'
The Norwegian Polar Institute's Jan-Gunnar Winther explains the challenges of conducting science experiments in the Arctic.
www.bbc.co.uk
Related Articles
-
MTF Enterprises announces acquisition of EMU Electric Bikes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Wisper 806T folding bike wins Which? ‘Best Buy’- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Sustrans calls for protected cycle lanes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Amazon launch their first UK e-cargo micromobility hub- Started by: Pedelecs
