Scientists Grant Earth A Reprieve!

Originally 350 PPM CO2 was going to kill us.  Now it is 410 PPM.

That is why they created 350.org, which is now 400.350.org

400.350.org

It doesn’t really matter though, because the UN says global warming killed us 18 years ago.

A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

Fear not! Our friends on the left have determined they can save children from global warming, by having school teachers murder the children.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Scientists Grant Earth A Reprieve!

  1. Scott Koontz says:

    Why did you not post something about Australia?

    Are you cherry picking again?

    • tonyheller says:

      Ask and ye shall receive, again!

      • Scott Koontz says:

        So a warming Australia is NOT warming because you have an article about snow in one location at one time.

        You are being absurd.

        • Gator says:

          No Lityle Scotty, he is fighting fire with fire.

          Please show us where you have berated alarmists for their cherry picking. You did not do it with Jeff, whom you praised.

          You are clearly not a trained scientist, you are barely a trained troll.

        • Travis T. Jones & the Missing Heat says:

          “You are being absurd.”
          Take a ticket and stand in line …
          “A few years ago, talking about weather and climate change in the same breath was a cardinal sin for scientists.
          Now it has become impossible to have a conversation about the weather without discussing wider climate trends, according to researchers who prepared the Australian Climate Commission’s latest report.

          It might even be the case that the mantra chanted after every catastrophic weather event – that it can’t be said to be caused by climate change, but it shows what climate change will do – has become a thing of the past. ”

          – Will Steffen, the report’s lead author and director of the Australian National University’s Climate Change Institute.

          https://www.theage.com.au/national/climate-change-a-key-factor-in-extreme-weather-experts-say-20130303-2fefv.html

    • Snowleopard says:

      We can’t cherry pick here…The cherries have not even blossomed yet!

  2. arn says:

    What i really love about scientific science is those numbers.
    (let’s ignore some “unimportant” things as the facts that they never
    explain why the current climate(which climate,at which parts and climate zones of the planet and at which heights is the besr????)exactly those numbers are the tipping points
    as such numbers really exist in certain scientific fields as the critical mass)
    These numbers by some unexplainable coincidence are always round numbers.
    Ending with one or more zeros.
    Though the chances are 1:10 that a specific figure ends with a 0
    in pop-science it is the standard.
    Global temperatures will rise by 2.0-5.0 degrees.
    350 ppm is the end of the road if we want to survive.
    And the arctic ice is considered nonexistent as soon as it shrinks to
    1 million square kilometers(this crap was posted by a lady from england(=130.000 square kilometers=nonexistent minus 87%)

    I’m really amazed how the hell nature and science always have such extremly
    PR friendly numbers as result.
    But not just that.The Zeros at the end of the figure increase drastically
    as soon as those 0-scientists ask for money so that can save you,your dog or the planet.
    Those humble people don’t ask for; let’s say 369.255.147 millions
    as result of accurate calculations.
    No-they used to ask for 300,400 or 500 millions.
    Such numbers are off course outdated nowadays as millions are so 90ies.
    Now they usually ask for billions (with many many zeroes.)

  3. RAH says:

    Wouldn’t it be nice just to enjoy the warmth after a long cold winter without having to deal with the dumbasses crying we’re all going to die?
    It got up to 85 F here today. I just had to get my acre mowed because the forecast is for thunderstorms tonight and tomorrow and around here during the spring the grass grows like crazy! I put on a pair of shorts for the first time this year and went out and did it and enjoyed the exercise of trimming and then the Jack & Coke I consumed as I mowed with the riding mower and then used the lawn sweeper to pick up the worst of the clippings. Since I just got in at 05:00 this morning and have had 9 hours sleep since I departed for Harrisonburg, VA on Wednesday at 18:00, I will sleep very well tonight. Wanted to go to the sprint car races but was afraid I would fall asleep in the stands.

    • Gator says:

      I’m flying into Vegas tomorrow, where the high is forecast to be 82. Picking up a 4×4 and heading to Utah for the week. Weather looks perfect.

  4. Travis T. Jones & the Missing Heat says:

    Difficult to predict
    The Bureau of Meteorology usually has several days’ indication that a system like this may form, but development of multiple low-pressure centres at the surface makes it tricky to predict exactly where local impacts will strike.

    https://theconversation.com/heres-how-a-complex-low-pressure-system-sent-temperatures-plummeting-96422

    > But 100 year predictions are spot on?

  5. GoFigure says:

    The proponents of anthropogenic-caused global warming invariably, and ironically, DENY that the Medieval Warming Period (MWP, 1,000 years ago) was global and likely warmer than it is now. These folks acknowledge only that Europe experienced the MWP. They likely take this unjustifiable position because their computer models cannot explain a global, warmer MWP. Why? Because their models require on increasing co2 level, plus depend even more on the built-in ASSUMPTION that water vapor feedback, the actual culprit, causes 2 to 3 times the temperature increase as brought on by the increase in co2. However, co2 did not begin increasing until the 1800s, long after the MWP.

    With no co2 increase there is obviously also no further temperature increase provided by water vapor feedback. The MWP global temperature increase must have therefore been nothing more than natural climate variation. It becomes plausible that our current warming (such as it is) may also be due to NATURAL climate variation. But that, of course, conflicts with the UN’s IPCC (and other alarmists’) claim that our current warming is mostly due to the human-caused increase in co2 level.

    It’s easy to show that the MWP was indeed both global and at least as warm as now. While that says nothing about the cause of our current warming (such as it is) it speaks loudly about the credibility of the folks who deny that the MWP was global and at least as warm as now. A large subset of this group also claims that the “science is settled”. A brief meta-analysis follows to demonstrate that the MWP was indeed global and at least as warm as it is now.

    First, the MWP trend is conclusively shown to be global by borehole temperature data. The 6,000 boreholes scattered around the globe are not constrained to just those locals required to obtain ice core data. A good discussion of the borehole data can be found at Joanne Nova’s website.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/the-message-from-boreholes/

    Next, the receding Alaskan Mendenhall glacier recently exposed a 1,000-year-old shattered forest, still in its original position. No trees (let alone a forest) have grown at that latitude anywhere near that site since the MWP. It was obviously warmer in that part of Alaska than it is now, and Alaska is quite distant from Europe.

    Finally, there have been hundreds of peer-reviewed MWP studies, and the earlier results (showing a global, warmer MWP) were reflected in earlier IPCC reports. These studies were carried out around the globe by investigators and organizations representing numerous countries. It’s curious that Mann and his cohort did not give more consideration to those study results before presenting their conflicting “hockey stick” claim. One of their own players, Phil Jones, admitted publicly that if the MWP was global and as warm as now then it was a different “ballgame”. More important, studies continue to regularly show up confirming that the MWP was warmer than now.

    The Greenland Temperature (gisp2) study, for example, shows, among other things, that Greenland was warmer during the MWP than it is now. Greenland is distant from both Europe and Alaska.

    These numerous MWP studies have been cataloged at the co2science.org website. Dr. Idso, the proprietor of that website, is a known skeptic. However, the peer-reviewed studies were independently performed by numerous researchers using various temperature proxy techniques and representing many different countries. These studies also now span several decades.

    Interested readers should satisfy themselves by going to co2science.org and choosing (say) a half-dozen regions (all should be remote from Alaska, Greenland, and Europe). Focus on the subset of the MWP studies which directly address temperature estimates. Choose at least one temperature study from each selected region. (Idso provides brief summaries but feel free to review the study in its original format.) You will find that each of the selected sites were warmer during the MWP than now. These study results are consistent with the temperature trend exhibited by borehole data.

    There are also other confirming observations which include such things as antique vineyards found at latitudes where grapes cannot be grown today, old burial sites found below the perma-frost, and Viking maps of most of Greenland’s coastline.

    The MWP studies as well as various other data are all consistent with the borehole data results. This meta-study consists of straightforward activities. The studies can be replicated and the research results do NOT require the use of controversial “models”, or dubious statistical machinations.

    One of the “talking points” posed by alarmists, to “rebut” the claim of a global, warmer MWP is that warming in all regions during the MWP must be synchronous. Obviously the MWP studies sited herein were generally performed independently, so start and end dates of each study during the MWP will vary. However, anyone foolish enough to accept that “synchronous” constraint must also admit that our current warming would also not qualify as a global event.

    For example, many alarmists go back into the 1800s when making their claims about the total global warming temperature increase. However, that ignores a three-decade GLOBAL cooling period from about 1945 to 1975. That globally non-synchronous period is much more significant than just a region or two being “out of synch”.

    There are also other reasons to exclude consideration of temperature increases during the 1800s. There was a significant NATURAL warming beginning around 1630 (the first low temperature experienced during the LIA) and that period of increasing temperatures ran at least until 1830 (perhaps until 1850) before co2 began increasing. However, it would have taken many decades, possibly more than a century, for co2 increase following 1830, at an average 2 ppmv per year, to accrue sufficiently before having ANY impact on thermometer measurements. Neither is there any reason to expect that the 200 years of natural and significant warming beginning in 1630 ended abruptly, after 2 centuries, merely because co2 level began increasing in 1830 at a miniscule 2ppmv per year. How much, and for how long was the temperature increase after 1830 due to the continuing natural climate warming beginning in 1630?

    Any current considerations about global warming must therefore be constrained to a starting point no earlier than 1975. The global temperature began increasing in 1975 and that increase basically terminated during the 1997/98 el Nino. Even the IPCC (a bureaucracy which cannot justify its mission if current warming is NATURAL) has acknowledged another GLOBAL “hiatus” in temperature increase following 1998. NASA, in comparing recent candidate years for “hottest” was wringing its hands about differences of a few hundredths of one degree. It’s clear that the uncertainty error is at least one tenth of a degree. Some argue that the uncertainty error is as much as one degree.

    So, all this current controversy involves just two decades, and that warming has been followed by almost another two decades of no further statistically significant increase in temperature. But wait … ! It turns out that even the period from 1975 to 1998 apparently does not qualify as a global warming period because there were numerous “out of synch” regions and/or countries which have experienced no additional warming over durations which include the 1975-1998 span.

    http://notrickszone.com/2018/02/18/greenland-antarctica-and-dozens-of-areas-worldwide-have-not-seen-any-warming-in-60-years-and-more/#sthash.5Hq7Xqdh.JsV4juVL.dpbs

    Another alarmist rebuttal attempt is that the MWP studies cataloged by co2science.org have been cherry-picked. Readers should satisfy themselves by searching for conflicting credible peer-reviewed MWP temperature studies which have not been cataloged by co2science.org. But, keep in mind that a few stray conflicting studies will not likely have much impact, because, as the previous link demonstrates, there is no shortage of regions showing no increasing warming during the supposedly 1975-1998 global warming period.

    While this may not prove that the CAGW theory isn’t credible, it does indicate that the proponents of CAGW are not credible.

  6. Loren says:

    How perfectly Stalinist the 1010 program appears to be. “Comply or we kill you.”

    Seems we in the U.S. need our Second Amendment more than ever.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *