The experts came in with the bold prediction. NOAA forecasts an above-average hurricane season For 2022, the National Weather Service predicts up to 20 named Atlantic storms, well above the average of 14. Forecasters are also expecting more major hurricanes than average. Note: Averages based on 1991-2020 The Facts For the first time in 25 years, August did not have a named storm https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/31/weather/hurricane-august-no-named-storms-forecast/index.html Its no wonder these people want the money back on their useless degrees. Imagine studying Global Warming and spending a bunch of money only to discover that you are horrible at your job.
Yeah, I did my research into AGW and came away SMH. Botal tullshite. NQ. Here is what i pos ton Quora in response to most AGW fear porn questions: Climate Change fear is largely based on newspaper headlines. The truth won’t get clicks. Would you click on ‘No action necessary for climate: we’ll be fine.’ No, they won’t get clicks, so that’s not the headline. How about: Study shows potential statistical effect indicating plausible link between CO2 and ⅓ of warming since 1880.’ Or, ‘Temp increases since 1880 less than 1C.’ All true, and not scary. Sorry, write a scary or no story, bub. Warmists have the absurd idea that government money is ‘pure’ and private money is corrupt. Either source may be either one. There are no ‘climate change deniers’. There are skeptics of the theory. And yes, the warmists are correct - we have different ways of seeing it and we look at different levels of evidence. We allow ourselves differing conclusions because we respect things like freedom of thought. We also allow ourselves to change our level of skepticism as we study new scientific evidence, ie - CO2 has no effect might seem reasonable, but new evidence leads to CO2 has a rapidly declining effect as concentrations increase, or even, CO2 may cause cooling. Many skeptics, after significant study, are aware that climate is an incredibly complex phenomenon with a myriad of inputs and non-linear relations to the heating outputs. This makes any belief in climate predictability to be absolutely hopeless. CO2 is one of numerous factors - solar irradiance, solar CME’s/particle forcing (a recent entry into the field), cloud formations, cosmic rays, geologic evidence, Milankovitch cycles, solar cycles, oceanic heat storage and circulation, modeling insufficiency due to this complexity, statistical analysis, data collection, differential equations etc. etc. For my skepticism, it’s 3 Main points: CO2 was 10 X higher - over 4000ppm in the past, even during the 25 million year Ordivician Ice Age. the logarithmic nature of CO2 warming, Heat precedes CO2 in the historical record, putting the effect before the cause. The definition of science includes Cause precedes Effect in Time. Subsidiary points removal of medieval warming period, data adjustments for temps in the 1930’s, the fraud of the hockey stick, the poorly established water vapor amplification effect pushing model temps from 1.1C / doubling to 4.5C, the attacks on skeptics with valid arguments, omission of solar factors like the magnetic field / cosmic ray / cloud connection (as CERN and Project CLOUD have shown) NOAA’s list of hottest temps on record shows 73 records. Only 3 have occurred since 2000. 57 occurred before 1960. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records/all/tmax#status Incredible Greening of the Earth with CO2 increases as the #1 driver. & NASA agrees. http://www.co2science.org/articles/V23/aug/a1.php Emissivity is falsely assumed to be 1. This drops emissivity by 23W/M2, many times the alleged CO2 warming effect. hide the decline’ from climategate emails (an act of fraud: deletion of the end of Keith Briffa’s tree ring graph showing temp decline 1960-1994). The link is pretty cool - it reads like a detective story using the climategate emails as source materials. Younger Dryas period when temps rose by 10C in <40 years - 25 times the current rate. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/def...efore-present-Younger-Dryas.jpg?itok=eL0wDCg- also, the 35 year - 2.3C rise (and previous decline) from Swiss ice core records - https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/24/ancient-temperatures/ the Greenland ice-mass balance, which actually grows annually, the decline in rural measurement stations from 6000 to 1500 allowing for a steady increase in the effect of the urban heat island effect. IPCC: 11 out of 19 observational-based studies of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity show values below 1.5oC in their ranges of ECS probability distribution. (Figure 1 of Box 12.2 in the AR5 WG1). Chinese Climate Scientists Paper: “Global mean surface air temperature (SAT) has remained relative stagnant since the late 1990s, a phenomenon known as global warming hiatus.” https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12583-019-1239-4 Shellenberger letter:https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Schellenberger-Apology.pdf Here’s a couple of quotes from the IPCC itself: p. 774 of Third Annual Report by IPCC, we read: ‘In climate research and modelling one has to recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear system and so long-term forecasts of the future climate condition are not possible.’ (NASA, from Gavin Schmidt no less, agrees https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rossow_01/computer.html : ‘Unfortunately, that margin of error [regarding cloud cover] is too large for making a reliable forecast about global warming...to be useful, today’s climate models must be improved more than tenfold in accuracy.’ updated June, 2018.) “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” [Phil Jones, July 8, 2004, ClimateGate emails] https://media.notthebee.com/articles/article-5f6af23c5b1d1.gif
Wow, brutally cold across the country today. Global warming causing freezing temps. It's complicated.