Bummer: World Will See Disastrous ‘Climate Change’ Despite World Pledges

Remember when we were told that the Paris Climate (scam) agreement was historic? That it would lead to big changes? That nations would go big with their pledges? And were mad when Trump finally pulled the U.S. out? And got a thrill up their leg when Biden rejoined? Yet, we keep getting articles like this (which includes a photo of the 2013 Morgan fire (Contra Costa County), which they think was caused by an individual)

Climate change will be disastrous even after latest world pledges, report finds

The recent pledges made by world governments to limit carbon emissions will not be sufficient to meet the goal of keeping global temperatures from rising above 1.5 degrees Celsius, a new report concluded. Instead, those nonbinding commitments will result in a rise in the average global temperature to a potentially catastrophic 2.4 degrees Celsius.

The Climate Action Tracker, an independent network of scientists that tracks the commitments made on cutting emissions, released its findings Monday, just weeks after President Biden convened a climate summit with world leaders. The report notes that more robust targets made at the summit “have improved the Climate Action Tracker’s warming estimate by 0.2°C,” but that the net result would still mean the world is poised to blow past the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold set in 2018 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

“While all of these developments are welcome, warming based on the targets and pledges, even under the most optimistic assumptions, is still well above the Paris Agreement’s 1.5˚C temperature limit,” the report states.

Despite the initial commitments made by world leaders in the Paris climate accord, temperatures have already risen by more than 1.2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, according to a report released last month by the United Nations World Meteorological Organization, a finding that led U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres to declare, “We are on the verge of the abyss.”

Hmm, why have all these Warmist nations failed in creating pledges that comply with the climate cult? Are they paying lip service? Sure, the 3rd world nations have their pledges, which are to receive lots and lots of free money and good, with absolutely no obligation to the 1st world nations, because, in their minds, the 1st world owes them.

While keeping the average rise of surface temperatures below 1.5 degrees Celsius is still possible, the Climate Action Tracker said doing so will require a massive, unified effort from world governments that would transform life as we know it.

More and more Big Government? Surprise! Strange how it always seems to come to big, controlling government. And if you refuse to agree, then the planet is doomed.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

131 Responses to “Bummer: World Will See Disastrous ‘Climate Change’ Despite World Pledges”

  1. Est1950 says:

    AGW TERRORISTS March onward daily.

    Short video. Informative. Shows how the climate scientists continue to fudge numbers. Includes the FORMER head of one of the panels for the IPCC on Rising sea levels and how that is FALSE. His panel consisted of not one expert but rather a collection of bureaucrats and politicians from around the world and himself which was the leading expert of sea level change to give his panel legitimacy.

    Unfortunately he didnt tell the IPCC what they wanted to hear so he resigned since they were going to change his findings anyway.

    And there was NONE.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViY2J3LPgN4

    Worth the watch for both AGW NAZI’S and AGW deniers. Only about 17 minutes long. There are literally 1000’s of these kinds of videos from Climate experts, Physicists and Scientists denying AGW or certainly that AGW is a CLIMATE HYSTERICAL EMERGENCY.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      YouTube videos are not a valuable source for scientific information.

    • Zachriel says:

      3% of 0.04% isn’t negligible and 1.3 percent of 3% 0.04 percent isn’t negligible then the word negligible has lost its meaning

      Leaving aside the conflation of CO2 flux and net CO2, what is “negligible” is dependent. For instance, a dose of 0.0000001% of your weight in LSD is sufficient to cause severe perceptual disruption. In this case, 0.0000001% IS significant.

      With regards to greenhouse gases, monatomic and homonuclear diatomic molecules are virtually unaffected by infrared energy; consequently, the vast majority of the atmosphere (nitrogen, oxygen, and argon) is not composed of greenhouse gases. Globally CO2 represents about 20% of the greenhouse effect. Without the greenhouse effect, which is caused by a very small percentage of the atmosphere, the Earth would be a chilly ≈-18°C rather than the balmy ≈+15°C that it is. In other words, the world would be a snowball.

  2. Est1950 says:

    NEW STUDY linking a 22 year cycle of the sun to La Nina and El Nino.

    IE. The suns magnetic poles flip every 22 years. Continually and forever. It is a 22 year cycle.

    These scientists decided that the flipping of the polls eerily corresponded to the SUNSPOT CYCLES, so they took it a step farther and for the last 350 years the 22 year pole cycle eerily coincides with the advent of El Nino and La Nina.

    It is not Co2. It is the Sun as we all suspected that drives the weather. Even today.

    The IPCC scientist agree with these numbers. In fact they are their own numbers.

    .04 percent of the atmospheres is made up of CO2. OF that .04 percent….. .03 percent is man made with the earth contributing the other 97 percent. Of that .03 percent of .04 percent Australia makes up .015 percent and the USA makes up .15 percent.

    So to be clear. The USA makes up .15 percent of .03 percent of .04 percent.

    CLIMATE HYSTERIA. CREATE A PROBLEM and then offer to solve it!!!!!!!!!!! That is how the democrats operate. That is why BLACK PEOPLE ARE ON PLANTATIONS IN BIG CITIES and are UNCLE TOMS if they leave the plantation for the truth.

    • Zachriel says:

      Est1950: These scientists decided that the flipping of the polls eerily corresponded to the SUNSPOT CYCLES, so they took it a step farther and for the last 350 years the 22 year pole cycle eerily coincides with the advent of El Nino and La Nina.

      Um, that concerns internal climate variability, not global warming.

      Est1950: .04 percent of the atmospheres is made up of CO2.

      That’s right. Due to the greenhouse effect, a doubling of CO2 will lead to a direct increase in the Earth’s mean surface temperature of about 1°C. As the atmosphere warms, it’s water content increases, so the expected total warming is 2-3°C per doubling of CO2.

      Est1950: .03 percent is man made with the earth contributing the other 97 percent.

      Anthropogenic contributions amount to a net increase of 45% in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 from pre-industrial levels — and rising.

      • Est1950 says:

        Well then Wiki ZACH you should tell that to the IPCC heads who are recorded on audio of the facts I just gave you.

        Who do we believe?

        YOU or the IPCC? Tell me Wiki Zach.

        According to the head of the IPCC from Australia .04 percent of the atmosphere is c02. Of that .04 percent .03 percent is man made and of that .03 percent .15 is produced by the USA and .0015 is produced by Australia and yet Australia has quadrupled their energy costs because of their insignificant amount of Co2 production.

        So who is telling the truth ZACH?

        YOU

        Or the IPCC HEAD FROM AUSTRALIA?

        • Zachriel says:

          Est1950: According to the head of the IPCC from Australia .04 percent of the atmosphere is c02

          That’s right. Atmospheric CO2 is about 410 ppm. (It would also behoove you to provide direct citations.)

          Est1950: Of that .04 percent .03 percent is man made

          That’s somewhat ambiguous. The pre-industrial level of CO2 was about 280 ppm. It is now about 410 ppm, or a net increase of 46% due to human industrial activities.

          You are probably trying to say that human emissions are only a tiny portion of total emission, but most of the emissions you are counting do not represent a net change, but natural net zero exchange between the hydrosphere and atmosphere. What is important to the greenhouse effect is the *net* change in greenhouse gases.

  3. Professor Hale says:

    Imagine that. Pledges by bureaucrats and politicians at cocktail parties don’t actually result in any reductions in carbon.

  4. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    nuCons such as Teach now are content to destroy America and the Earth to “prove” their point. Such hatred and spite!

    If the changes from the current 1.2C increase isn’t bad enough, Teach is now crowing about doubling that!

    But Teach, have you no concern about your children or your children’s children?

    America’s nuGQPhers are completely untethered from Earthly reason.

    But they’ll continue to protect Snow White, the Potato Heads, Dr. Seuss and bathrooms.

  5. Zachriel says:

    William Teach: why have all these Warmist nations failed in creating pledges that comply with the climate {goals}?

    Because it is difficult to balance sustaining economic growth with limiting carbon emissions. It’s a challenging, but not insurmountable problem.

    Meanwhile, if 2°C warming will have deleterious effect, 3°C warming will be even more dire.

    • Est1950 says:

      I doubt it Wiki Zach. The earth FLOURISHED when it was at its warmest. I find it funny how the AGW Nazi’s scream about El Nino and La Nina as a result of climate change but then when you show a correlation between the sun and the cycles its oh, well that doesn’t mean anything.

      Yes, the recent discovery of the correlation between the changing poles of the sun and El Nino and La Nina is very significant and important. It is science. It is new. It has never been known before just like 99 percent of AGW is new and we have NO idea where it will lead. Only Hypothesis designed to scare the bejesus out of people for no reason.

      Even your own IPCC can’t get its story straight including hiring the worlds foremost expert on sea level rise only to find out the sea is not rising at any alarming rate that. His report was altered in the IPCC report and he resigned because they told him they were going to rewrite his report to show sea level rise….HIS WORDS…NOT MINE. You can hear the interview if you even cared about the truth.

      If your so concerned about it getting hotter. Give the poor air conditioning for Free, not take away their fossil fuels which will power said AC since there is zero that can be done to stop AGW since John Kerry says so.

      • Zachriel says:

        Est1950: The earth FLOURISHED when it was at its warmest.

        Sure. But it was not the world human civilization evolved in. Rapid warming will cause inundation of highly populated coastal areas, crop disruptions, damage to ecosystems, and increased social tensions associated with mass migration. The U.S. is having political troubles over a few thousand refugees from Central America.

        Est1950: I find it funny how the AGW Nazi’s scream about El Nino and La Nina as a result of climate change

        Huh? ENSO is internal variability. It is certainly important for understanding how global warming will affect climate, but is not in and of itself global warming. You might want to provide a citation to what you are talking about.

        The rest of your comment similarly lacks specifics.

        • Jl says:

          Oh, my.. “The earth flourished…but it was not the world human civilization evolved in”. So? Is it supposed to stay the same? No. And that still doesn’t refute the fact that the earth has flourished during warmer times. CO2 goes up-the earth greens, life spans increase, poverty decreases, crop yields increase, etc.
          “Rapid warming will cause…”. No, predicted to cause. No empirical evidence for any of that

          • Zachriel says:

            Jl: Is it supposed to stay the same? No.

            Climate always changes, but the current global warming is due to human activities. If the warming continues unabated, it will result in many deleterious effects on humans and ecosystems.

            Jl: And that still doesn’t refute the fact that the earth has flourished during warmer times.

            Huh? We agreed that Earth flourished during previous warming periods. However, that world is not the world of modern humans. For instance, humans have vast infrastructure along coastal plains that could be subject to flooding as sea levels rise. As noted elsewhere, the U.S. can’t even handle a few thousand refugees from Central America without political friction. Imagine when millions of people are displaced.

        • Est1950 says:

          What specifics would you like? The PA. Global warming impact that PA will be 6 degrees warmer by 2050 but on page one the Group putting the report together disclaim their own report?

          Would you like me to link audio recordings or video recordings of IPCC personel admitting that Global warming is a scam. Or that there is no sea level rise beyond the norm as per the most reknown doctor on the planet on sea level rise and resigned his position from the IPCC when they told him they would not accept his report and instead rewrote it to show sea level rise?

          Which lie would you like to discuss first. The fact that the dog ate Professor Manns hockey stick data when he sued a professor from Canada who wanted his work in discovery to prove it false? Or perhaps the fact MANN was told by the Russians who did the tree ring data that he was cherry picking the tree ring date of Brifa to prove something that statistically was not there?

          How about NOAA taking down their website after everyone was pointing out their site showed NO WARMING which would be apparent in the Stratosphere if the IPCC predictions were to hold true and suddenly after being down for two weeks the site reappeared with readjusted data to show warming in the stratosphere? That one?

          Which specifics would you like to discuss Zach. The Santa Barbra School of Oceanography showed that when there were 1450 PPM of co2 in the atmosphere for 10,000 years the Greenland Ice sheet only lost 40 percent of its mass. The paper was taken down but not before it was screen shotted around the world including our agency.

          How about ring Data of Hawaii that showed the typical sea level rise of the oceans during the last great co2 period was almost exactly where it is today?

          Here is a good one for you Zach. Australia’s leading Great Barrier reef expert was fired when he told the news that the Reef was doing just fine and it was IN FACT GROWING and not SHRINKING as it adopted to a more alkaline ocean caused by co2 absorption.

          Or the IPCC head in Australia that said .04 percent of the Atmosphere is co2 and that .03 percent in man made and when questioned on this he confirmed its validity. And yet today all we hear is how man is increasing to co2 in the atmosphere by 50 percent per year. At that rate we will all be dead in 50 years.

          On and on it goes Zach. Which should I be specific on. AGW IS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION that has no credibility but it sure has a lot of Zealots like YOU who defend a bag full of lies at all costs. How much do you stand to gain by transitioning the world to a great reset.

          Do you own Wind and solar power stocks? Are you paid to lobby for Green energy? Do you fly with Al Gore or John Kerry in their co2 spewing jets as they claim we are all going to die?

          Sorry….specifics are long past me now.

          • Zachriel says:

            Est1950: Global warming impact that PA will be 6 degrees warmer by 2050 but on page one the Group putting the report together disclaim their own report?

            So? The federal government commissioned a report, and attached a standard disclaimer, a disclaimer which has been used thousands of times for thousands of reports.

            Est1950: Would you like me to link audio recordings or video recordings of IPCC personel admitting that Global warming is a scam.

            So? There are always a small percentage of people who reject the consensus. They could even be right, but their position is only as strong as the evidence they provide.

            Est1950: Or that there is no sea level rise beyond the norm

            Satellite observations show that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating. See Nerem et al., Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era, PNAS 2018: “we show that this rate is accelerating at 0.084 ± 0.025 mm/y2, which agrees well with climate model projections.”

            Est1950: How about NOAA taking down their website after everyone was pointing out their site showed NO WARMING which would be apparent in the Stratosphere if the IPCC predictions were to hold true and suddenly after being down for two weeks the site reappeared with readjusted data to show warming in the stratosphere?

            Huh? Please provide a citation.

            Est1950: The Santa Barbra School of Oceanography showed that when there were 1450 PPM of co2 in the atmosphere for 10,000 years the Greenland Ice sheet only lost 40 percent of its mass.

            That would represent a sea level rise of about 92 feet.

            Est1950: And yet today all we hear is how man is increasing to co2 in the atmosphere by 50 percent per year.

            Huh?
            https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/CO2_emissions_vs_concentrations_1751-2019_620.gif


            Instead of providing specifics, you keep waving your hands in what you think is the general direction. Your entire post lacks citations or references that can be checked. Why not provide a link or citation?

  6. Jl says:

    “If the changes from the current 1.2C increase isn’t bad enough..” How is it “bad”, J?

    • david7134 says:

      That is my question. What is wrong with warm? The other thing is how this how world communism and selective destruction of the US economy would help.

      • Zachriel says:

        david7134: That is my question. What is wrong with warm?

        Anthropogenic global warming is leading to rapid climate instability. This will result in huge economic costs to humans, as well as severe damage to ecosystems.

        david7134: The other thing is how this how world communism and selective destruction of the US economy would help.

        Neither will help. Strong markets are essential for the economic growth and technological innovation required to meet the climate challenge while also providing the fruits of industrialization for the world’s people. It will require international cooperation, though.

        • david7134 says:

          Z,
          Child, there is no instability unless you listen to hyperbolic selected news. There is nothing wrong with a warm world. We just left an ice age and humans did not do so well during that period. We are continuing to warm from the ice age. We do have a pollution problem, that is about 3 billion too many people. That is your CO2 production. Yes, I know of your flawed study of carbon isotopes. Now, we are at war with China, how are you going to get cooperation from them on anything? And for us to unilaterally destroy our economy is nuts, but fits in the thinking of the children at this time. As I have said before, read, then read some more, you are not that bright. Also, lawyers do not debate and if you desire to be a good lawyer quit posting here, go to a nursing home and volunteer, and then take all the money save by the people there, that is a good lawyer.

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: here is no instability unless you listen to hyperbolic selected news.

            As the Earth’s surface warms, it will cause significant changes to regional climates. It will also cause sea level rise.
            https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

            Humans can certainly adapt, but part of adaptation for humans is using science, including learning to mitigate the degree of global warming. The slower humans adapt, the greater the economic damage and the greater the permanent ecological loss. There are likely to be social and political problems, as well.

          • david7134 says:

            Z,
            Really. You referenced NASA, that is like asking the SS if the Jews are in good health. Then your comment makes no sense at all.

            I have a good project for you and your mentor. Answer why you can go to a conservative site and say what you desire, regardless of the level of stupidity, but would be immediately blocked on a liberal site.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            doogie hoser compares NASA to the Nazis murdering Jews.

            We “just left an ice age” over 10,000 years ago – a moment in geological time but quite a long time for humans. Deniers keep saying that we’re destroying our economy, but most of what conservatives believe is just untrue.

            Mr Zachriel is very polite and factual responding to the often false information that you and other commenters use in your attacks on him. Why? Why aren’t you interesting in learning anything?

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: Really. You referenced NASA, that is like asking the SS if the Jews are in good health.

            Really. You just compared NASA to the Nazi SS. NASA is one of the premier scientific and technological institutions in the world.

          • david7134 says:

            Z,
            Don’t know much about NASA or the government we have. Remember, our government was stolen.

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: Don’t know much about NASA or the government we have.

            We know enough that NASA is not comparable to the Nazi SS, and that you are engaging in ad hominem, a fallacy of diversion.

        • Jl says:

          “Rapid climate instability” . Where? There’s no more extreme weather events now than there used to be. That would be more stable. Anyway, it’s been theorized that it’s the temp differential that causes instability. A warming Arctic would cause less differential temps.

  7. Jl says:

    “It will cause sea level rise”. Seas have been rising for the last 20,000 years or so, with no rate change out the ordinary.

    • Zachriel says:

      Jl: “It will cause sea level rise”. Seas have been rising for the last 20,000 years or so, with no rate change out the ordinary.

      Satellite observations show that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating. See Nerem et al., Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era, PNAS 2018: “we show that this rate is accelerating at 0.084 ± 0.025 mm/y2, which agrees well with climate model projections.”

  8. Jl says:

    “If the warming continues unabated, it will have deleterious effects on humans and…..”. No evidence of that, only computer model projections which of course isn’t evidence. “However, that world is not the world of modern humans”. Sorry, it’s been as warm or warmer before-see the MWP. And what’s happened as CO2 has increased-human condition has increased. “Imagine millions of people displaced”. Imagine providing any evidence of that happening, and any evidence that if it did, it couldn’t be handled. There isn’t any. And by the way, 50 million “climate refugees” was supposed to have happened years ago. Another failed prediction

  9. Jl says:

    “Eight of the ten warmest years on record in the US have happened since 1998”. Which tells us nothing of the rate, which you implied. However, “hottest on record” only means since 1880 or so, since widespread thermometer use. Out of 4.5 billion.
    ‘In California, where higher temps and drier conditions have led to increased wildfire extent.” Not true at all. Nearly 80-90% of all wildfires started by humans or lightning, which has nothing to do with climate change. California’s recent wildfire extent most6l due to forest mis-management. Wildfires world wide have been decreasing, and California’s heat and droughts used to be much worse in the past. By the way, what happens in California is no way “global”, anyway.

  10. Jl says:

    “We indicated climate instability”. You may indicate it, but you’ve shown no evidence of it. As said, extreme weather no worse than before, so that would mean instability staying the same.
    “California is warmer and drier”. No, it’s not, as shown in the graph. Two hundred years droughts in the past, and no change in rainfall rate. California isn’t the globe anyway. But another good one-“Cal. warmer and drier”. As said, that’s not true, but even if it was that would by no means prove why it would be warmer and drier.
    Wildfires deceasing-yes, they are, contrary to all the scare stories. Why even brig them up, then? “The decrease in global fires…” So in other words, there’s a decrease in global fires and wild fires.
    “Again, you mislead on tertiary references.” No, I lead by showing peer -reviewed papers. Nothing you’ve said refutes that low point were reached in the 40s.
    Satellite data is much more accurate than tide gauges”. According to the article, no, it’s not. Again, all due to adjustments and the final tally is from a computer model. Models aren’t evidence

  11. Jl says:

    And even before the 40s, early last century, Arctic ice and glaciers experiencing major melting events with CO2 much lower. https://realclimatescience.com/2016/01/disappearing-glaciers/

  12. Arabic7134 says:

    JL.
    Know that the z’s are high school kids in a debate society. They all consider themselves very smart, as per their mothers. Also, they are budding lawyers and you will notice they love to use legal terms, for which they really do not understand. Their chemistry and physics is limited to high school level. Their climate knowledge is very old and most has been discounted.

  13. Zachriel says:

    Jl: “California is warmer and drier”. No, it’s not, as shown in the graph.

    Higher temperatures mean the soil is drier. Rain patterns in California have become more pronounced, meaning that periods of extremely low and extremely high precipitation have become more frequent. Furthermore, the start of the rainy season is coming later. All that leads to greater fire extent.

    http://zachriel.com/blog/California-RainfallVariability.png

    https://i1.wp.com/www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/SJM-L-NORAIN-0205-90-01.jpg

    Jl: Wildfires deceasing-yes, they are, contrary to all the scare stories.

    Your teriary citation was fallacious (a non sequitur), a point you ignored.

    Jl: No, I lead by showing peer-reviewed papers.

    Jl: {then cites a secondary source}

    Reading just the first referenced paper: “The Arctic currently faces rapid climate change caused by global warming.” You don’t seem to understand the actual scientific sources.

  14. Jl says:

    “Higher temps temps mean the soil is drier” Nice try Zach, but as shown the the soil was much drier earlier, and for longer periods of time-up to 200 years, with CO2 much lower. “All that leads to a greater fire extent”. Can you show actual fire extent is higher? No, you can’t-it’s actually lower. Actually, the rolling 200 year, less CO2 dry events obviously dwarfed today’s “fire extent”. You have nothing new-and again the precipitation record going back to 1895 shows no change. You have absolutely no evidence of anything in California being any worse than earlier. But what’s interesting is the mind-set-if things were different in California what would it prove? That’s just California, not the globe. According to that “logic”, if some other place had wetter weather and less fire extent, that would disprove what you think happened in Cal.
    “Your tertiary citation was fallacious..,” My citation was NASA. If can refute what the satellite showed, by all means do it. (Remember, according to you satellites are more accurate.) Or if you can prove wildfires are greater, by all means do it.
    “Just saying it’s a model isn’t an argument”. Which doesn’t refute the fact that models aren’t evidence. If you have evidence, models aren’t needed.
    “The Arctic faces Rapid climate change caused by global warming” You mean like the warming early last century with CO2 much lower? Or the warming that allows us to have more ice extent now than over the last 10,00 years when CO2 was much lower?

  15. Zachriel says:

    Jl: as shown the the soil was much drier earlier, and for longer periods of time-up to 200 years

    If the claim was that climate never changes, then you might have a point. The climate has at times been much warmer than it is now, even warmer than projected warming over the next century. As Est1950 pointed out, Greenland lost 40% of its mass when CO2 reached 1450 ppm, which would represent a sea level rise of about 92 feet.

    Jl: Can you show actual fire extent is higher?

    https://i.insider.com/5b6c4b1c2154a320008b4d58?width=750&format=jpeg&auto=webp

    Jl: You have nothing new-and again the precipitation record going back to 1895 shows no change.

    That is incorrect. Periods of extremely low and extremely high precipitation have become more frequent. Furthermore, the start of the rainy season is coming later. This leads to drier conditions and therefore greater fire extent.

    http://zachriel.com/blog/California-RainfallVariability.png

    https://i1.wp.com/www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/SJM-L-NORAIN-0205-90-01.jpg

    Jl: That’s just California, not the globe.

    That’s very much true. Here’s the global temperature anomaly:
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/sotc/global/2020/dec/global-land-ocean-anomalies-202001-202012.png

    Jl: My citation was NASA.

    There’s only two links that we see to NASA.gov, and neither seem to have been posted by you. In any case, you {indirectly} referenced a citation to global fires to make a claim about wildfires. We explained why those are different, but you ignored the explanation: The decrease in global fires is due to changes in agricultural practices, primarily in Africa.

    Jl (from indirect reference): “They are then validated against new data over time.”

    https://climate.nasa.gov/system/internal_resources/details/original/2299_Updated_CMIP3_Model_Comparisons_Hindcast_Forecast_20210122.JPG

  16. Zachriel says:

    Jl: as shown the the soil was much drier earlier, and for longer periods of time-up to 200 years

    If the claim was that climate never changes, then you might have a point. The climate has at times been much warmer than it is now, even warmer than projected warming over the next century. Gee whiz. At one point the Earth comprised molten rock and a sulphurous atmosphere. As Est1950 pointed out, Greenland lost 40% of its mass when CO2 reached 1450 ppm, which would represent a sea level rise of about 92 feet.

    • Zachriel says:

      Please ignore. Duplicate content.

    • Jl says:

      Yes, so in other words the climate in California has historically been periods of on and off droughts, most lasting much longer than now. So the climate In Cal. Is no different than before

  17. Zachriel says:

    Jl: You have nothing new-and again the precipitation record going back to 1895 shows no change.

    That is incorrect. Periods of extremely low and extremely high precipitation have become more frequent. Furthermore, the start of the rainy season is coming later. This leads to drier conditions and therefore greater fire extent.

    http://zachriel.com/blog/California-RainfallVariability.png

    https://i1.wp.com/www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/SJM-L-NORAIN-0205-90-01.jpg

  18. Zachriel says:

    Jl: That’s just California, not the globe.

    That’s very much true. Here’s the global temperature anomaly:
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/sotc/global/2020/dec/global-land-ocean-anomalies-202001-202012.png

    Jl: My citation was NASA.

    There’s only two links that we see to NASA.gov, and neither seem to have been posted by you. In any case, you {indirectly} referenced a citation to global fires to make a claim about wildfires. We explained why those measures are different, but you ignored the explanation: The decrease in global fires is due to changes in agricultural practices, primarily in Africa.

    Jl (from indirect reference): “They are then validated against new data over time.”

    https://climate.nasa.gov/system/internal_resources/details/original/2299_Updated_CMIP3_Model_Comparisons_Hindcast_Forecast_20210122.JPG

  19. Zachriel says:

    Please ignore. Duplicate content.

    • david7134 says:

      Don’t worry. I think most of the people here realize you are a child and not participating in an honest discussion.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Mr Zachary is about the only one here who DOES participate in honest discussion.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          Rimjob, dipshit that he is, hasn’t the slightest acquaintance with the concept of honesty.

          Neither do the KiddieZ.

          #BelieveTheLie
          Bwaha! Lolgfy https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

    • Jl says:

      “Here’s the global temp anomaly..”. Which of course doesn’t in anyway prove why the temp anomaly is the way it is, which would be what’s important. But it does show major data tampering. ‘The globe cooled from 1921to 1979” from NOAA. Funny how don’t see a graph today showing that.. https://twitter.com/jimfish56837379/status/1391568316888612868?s=21

  20. Zachriel says:

    Jl: For long term Western US drought index, see that it was worse earlier

    Z*: If the claim was that climate never changes, then you might have a point. The climate has at times been much warmer than it is now, even warmer than projected warming over the next century.

    Jl: Yes, so in other words the climate in California has historically been periods of on and off droughts, most lasting much longer than now.

    Z*: At one point the Earth comprised molten rock and a sulphurous atmosphere.

    Jl: you have to take the longer view-no change

    Z*: Rain patterns in California have become more pronounced, meaning that periods of extremely low and extremely high precipitation have become more frequent. Furthermore, the start of the rainy season is coming later.

    Jl: Again, global wildfires decreasing.

    Z*: Gee whiz. That’s the problem with your reliance on tertiary references. Your source conflated fire with wildfire. The decrease in global fires is due to the increase in sedentary farming techniques, primarily in Africa.


    * Ignoring our points doesn’t constitute an argument.

    • Jl says:

      Zach-this all seems to go right over your head, I see. You bring up California wild fires-fine. But what’s your point? They’re no worse now than they were earlier. It’s funny you keep bringing up “rainy season starting date”. Irrelevant-just answer the simple question-are there more fires now than in the past? No. Are there more wildfires than in the past? No. The point is the “rainy season starting date” was no doubt much, much earlier during those 200 year long droughts California had, one of which was during the MWP, when CO2 was much lower. So we have less rain, more droughts and more fires with lower CO2. Hence, it’s nowhere near sure that CO2 is causing whatever is happening now, which of course is less extreme than what happened before. So again, you point is…what? Do you have one?

  21. Zachriel says:

    Jl: “Here’s the global temp anomaly..”. Which of course doesn’t in anyway prove why the temp anomaly is the way it is, which would be what’s important.

    There are many lines of evidence that support global warming, including the basic physics of the greenhouse effect, which has been known for more than century. You might start by calculating the Earth’s blackbody temperature. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be a chilly -18°C rather than the balmy +15°C that it is.

    Jl: ‘The globe cooled from 1921to 1979” from NOAA. Funny how don’t see a graph today showing that.. https://twitter.com/jimfish56837379/status/1391568316888612868?s=21

    Your tertiary source appears to be quoting Dr. Thomas Karl. Per Karl et al., Possible artifacts of data biases in therecent global surface warming hiatus, Science 2015: “Here, we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century.”

    Here’s your graph: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/recent-global-surface-warming-hiatus

  22. Jl says:

    Somehow I knew you’d bring up the hiatus. Here is the IPCC mentioning it many times in their 2013 report. It inconveniently happened. https://twitter.com/jimfish56837379/status/1336050307869106176?s=21

  23. Jl says:

    Karl did say there was global cooling during those years as stated, but it was very inconvenient so ”adjustments” were made, in 2015, which is probably the paper you’re talking about. That was reversed by a 2017 paper. https://twitter.com/jimfish56837379/status/1371239244149223424?s=21

    • Jl says:

      Specifically, the adjustments were made to SST… https://twitter.com/dawntj90/status/1380977224518660105?s=21

    • Zachriel says:

      Jl: Karl did say there was global cooling during those years as stated

      Sorry, but twitter is not a primary source. We cited his actual paper.

      • Jl says:

        Nor does it refute the Karl quote. As the one example showed, that paper was written after taking heat from the quote, which also said most of the heating occurred before 1921, I believe. Highly inconvenient. He used SST as his excuse to “where the heat was hiding”. That finding was reversed by Huang 2017

  24. Jl says:

    “There are many lines that support global warming..” Except there’s still not one simple physics experiment that’s been done which shows an object emitting LWIR, and then CO2 absorbs and re-emits some of that LWIR, which then goes back and warms the initial object. Trillions spent-and no simple experiment. Of course there are several alternate theories, one of the main ones being clouds, of which several papers have been presented here earlier.

    • Zachriel says:

      Jl: Except there’s still not one simple physics experiment that’s been done which shows an object emitting LWIR, and then CO2 absorbs and re-emits some of that LWIR, which then goes back and warms the initial object.

      Huh? The thermal properties of CO2 are well-studied. Indeed, it’s something you look up in a book, like molecular weight.
      https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1

      • Jl says:

        Sorry, that’s not an experiment showing CO2 back radiation warming the initial object, which of course is the agw theory. It would need to be measured, not modeled

  25. Zachriel says:

    Jl: On clouds, and modeling in general, NASA says models must improve “a hundred-fold.

    Notably, you conflate climate change with global warming. Global warming is strongly supported. How the heat will distribute within the Earth’s climate system, especially on a regional basis, is highly chaotic. Accurate modeling will require greater precision.

  26. Jl says:

    “Global warming is strongly supported”. Of course the amount and the cause are not, though. Begin with “adjustments”, notably Karl’s above quote on cooling to the real global temp record being highly suspect because 1880 to 1900 to even 1920 most of the globe was not measured at all. The US was the only place that had long term records, which showed no warming or even cooling, along with many papers on CO2 sensitivity being less than 0.5C, and many papers on clouds being the cause of the warming.

  27. Zachriel says:

    Jl: Of course the amount and the cause are not, though. Begin with “adjustments”,

    Are you saying the Earth is not warming, or that the cause hasn’t been shown? Let’s start with warming. Two completely independent measures of Earth’s heat, different instruments, different researchers, show virtually the same trend.
    https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/Globalsurfacetemperatureanomaly.png

    • Jl says:

      That’s funny-that graph looks nothing like this one. https://twitter.com/dawntj90/status/1385946692537798658?s=21

      • Jl says:

        Scroll down to see the RSS graph

      • Zachriel says:

        Jl: That’s funny-that graph looks nothing like this one. https://twitter.com/dawntj90/status/1385946692537798658?s=21

        That should cause you to reconsider your reliance on the scientific journal “Twitter.” You do realize the graph shows a warming trend? Here is a direct link to RSS, with the trend line showing:
        http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

        • Jl says:

          “You do realize the graph shows a trend”. But of course myself nor anyone else ever said warming totally stopped post hiatus. That’s why the term “hiatus” was used, Zach. It does show that the warming did stop, from about 1996 to about 2015. In other words, the hiatus, as stated.
          “That should cause you to reconsider the scientific journal Twitter.” It’s RSS data from 1980 to 2015, as stated. If you have some proof that it’s not valid, by all means show us. And please show us the rule where graphs can’t be copied and posted on Twitter or wherever for a wider audience to see. Good luck on that.

          • Zachriel says:

            Jl: It does show that the warming did stop, from about 1996 to about 2015.

            1996-2015
            GISTEMPv4: 0.161°C/decade (surface)
            UAHv5.6: 0.123°C/decade (lower troposphere)

          • Zachriel says:

            Jl: And please show us the rule where graphs can’t be copied and posted on Twitter or wherever for a wider audience to see.

            There’s not a problem with Twitter, per se. The problem is your links are to propaganda devoid of context. In any case, your own link shows a warming trend.

        • Jl says:

          But it’s nice to see that you completely ignore the tampered RSS data. Here it is again, pre-tampering, in this article. That “so called hiatus” shows up quite nicely. The article has Heller predicting that Mears would be forced to adjust his RSS graphs to get rid of the hiatus-and in 2016 that prediction came true. Your graph is simply the adjusted one and looks nothing like the earlier one https://realclimatescience.com/my-2015-data-tampering-prediction/

          • Jl says:

            Here’s what happened to your graph (as was shown yesterday) https://realclimatescience.com/2019/04/adjusting-good-data-to-make-it-match-bad-data/

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            How do you know that the earlier RSS data was correct? Because it matches your denialism?

            So are you back to denying it’s warming? How did the “warmists” persuade the glaciers, ice sheets and Arctic sea ice to melt?

          • Zachriel says:

            Jl: But it’s nice to see that you completely ignore the tampered RSS data.

            Ignored it? We posted a direct link to RSS.

            And data adjustments are part of the process, and subject to peer review like all other scientific findings. You do realize that satellites don’t measure temperature directly, and the data has to be adjusted for many factors, including satellite decay?

  28. Jl says:

    I’m sayin the amount and the cause of the warming isn’t known completely. “Let’s start with warming..” Again, it’s not the warming, it would be the cause and the amount. Why? Because periods of the Holocene were warmer and the MWP was as warm, or warmer, both with much lower CO2. As shown before, there are many papers on cloud forcing as being the alleged cause, so just saying “it’s warming” doesn’t mean much.

  29. Jl says:

    “Two independent measures”. Compare your satellite graph to the one I posted at 7:34pm today. . That one shows the present cooler than 1998, while yours doesn’t. Hence, the problem. Also, this https://twitter.com/tony__heller/status/1381265623271890951?s=21

  30. Zachriel says:

    Jl: Again, it’s not the warming, it would be the cause and the amount.

    Then why do you keep arguing the point? To discuss causation, given the warming trend, do you accept the reality of the greenhouse effect?

    Jl: As shown before, there are many papers on cloud forcing as being the alleged cause, so just saying “it’s warming” doesn’t mean much.

    More citations to the noted journal “Twitter”?

    You do realize that climate scientists do study clouds? See Dessler, A Determination of the Cloud Feedback from Climate Variations over the Past Decade, Science 2010.

    • Jl says:

      “Then why argue the point?” Because the cause and the amount is the point-just saying “it’s warming” is irrelevant.
      “Do you accept the reality of the greenhouse effect”. Do you accept the realty that there’s still no physics experiment to verify it? (Remember, we’re constantly told “it’s simple physics”).
      “More citations form noted journal Twitter”. Uh, the ones I’ve shown are all referenced-you can look them up yourself. A common theme, though-go after the messenger instead of the message. As earlier, if you have evidence they’re faulty or don’t exist or whatever, by all means show us.
      “You do realize climate scientists study clouds?” Sure I do, hence the several papers earlier referenced about clouds being the heating mechanism and NASA admitting they must model clouds better a hundred-fold. That’s a funny question, Zach, as I’m the one who showed the papers on clouds to begin with.

      • Zachriel says:

        Jl: Sure I do, hence the several papers earlier referenced about clouds being the heating mechanism and NASA admitting they must model clouds better a hundred-fold.

        To which we replied: Notably, you conflate climate change with global warming. Global warming is strongly supported. How the heat will distribute within the Earth’s climate system, especially on a regional basis, is highly chaotic. Accurate modeling will require greater precision.

        See Dessler, A Determination of the Cloud Feedback from Climate Variations over the Past Decade, Science 2010: “Over this period, the short-term cloud feedback had a magnitude of 0.54 ± 0.74 (2σ) watts per square meter per kelvin, meaning that it is likely positive. A small negative feedback is possible, but one large enough to cancel the climate’s positive feedbacks is not supported by these observations.”

  31. Zachriel says:

    Jl: “Do you accept the reality of the greenhouse effect”. Do you accept the realty that there’s still no physics experiment to verify it?

    Heat laws are well-understood. Start by calculating the blackbody temperature of the Earth. (Feel free to adjust for albedo.) We’ll wait. Or are you claiming that the Stefan–Boltzmann law hasn’t been verified?

Bad Behavior has blocked 11975 access attempts in the last 7 days.