Posted on 11/26/2018 3:25:31 AM PST by RoosterRedux
The federal government’s Fourth National Climate Assessment, released on Friday, has gained praise from leftists and left-wing environmental groups as a dire warning of the coming death and destruction in the United States if we don’t stop global warming.
But critics of the report, including scientists, have slammed it as “exaggeration,” bad science and even said its conclusions are “false.”
“This latest climate report is just more of the same – except for even greater exaggeration, worse science, and added interference in the political process by unelected, self-serving bureaucrats,” Tim Huelskamp, president of the Heartland Institute said in statements released by the free-market think tank following the report’s release.
“With a new volume out in December, The Heartland Institute has published 4,000 pages of the Climate Change Reconsidered series by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Huelskamp said. “Those reports cite many hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers that show how every conclusion of this latest government report [is] false.”
“This report from the climate alarmist Deep State in our government is even more hysterical than some United Nations reports,” Huelskamp noted. “The idea that global temperatures could rise as much as 12 degrees in the next 80 years is absurd and not a shred of actual data and observation supports that.”
“This report is a scientific embarrassment,” Jay Lehr, science director at the Heartland Institute, said. “Not only does it rely on computer models to predict the climate through the end of the century, it relies on computer models from five years ago that have been laughably wrong, failing to get even close to reality since 2013.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Better a troll than a dumbass.
As I am one, I was questioning the poster. Looking past the small things leads to order of magnitude mistakes.
+1
I’m always amazed at folks that just WILL NOT admit when they are wrong.
I know. It wasn’t that big a deal, really, at least to me.
Here's what a correctly maintained temperature station looks like (notice temps declining, on chart at right):
And, here is a poorly-maintained temperatures-gathering station, notice it is situated next to multiple heat sources - voila!, 'Global Warming' (this faulty-data gathering problem is *COMMON* for a MAJORITY of the weather stations used across the US!):
From: http://www.surfacestations.org/
PIF,
Where are these quotes from?
I find it suspicious that the Earth’s average distance to the Sun can change by as much as 2 million miles and that this can last for 350-400 years...
The Quotes where form a wiki on sun’s wattage - the rest wqas from Zarakova as I said earlier.
Both the Sun and the Earth wobble ... this is apparently a 2000 year event as far as distance goes. The Sun’s wattage drop at earth’s surface and 4 solar magnetic loops out of phase is new.
I just got off work and a, a bit dazed by the 20 degree temps plus wind chill I’ve been working in all day - so this might not be explained too clearly - best you listen to the link I posted and reach your own conclusions.
There is something very wrong with this Zarkova presentation. I did some research on this wobble and sure enough the distance between the Sun and Earth hardly changes over long periods of time.
For sure it changes during the year quite dramatically because the Earth’s orbit is slightly elliptical, but the closest approach (which happens every year in the first week of January) is extremely stable. From now to 2200 the closest approach between the Earth and the Sun does not vary by more than 8500mi. That is an error of less than 0.009%!
The Sun does wobble ... quite a lot, by millions of miles, but the Earth goes along with it. The Sun moves 2M miles closer to the center of the galaxy, so does the Earth, then they move back. They wobble somewhat in sync.
Intuitively it makes sense. For the Sun to all of a sudden get 2 million miles closer to Earth and stay there for 200 years it would require a gigantic disturbance in the Solar System, akin to a black hole appearing nearby :-)
This lack of understanding of basic orbital mechanics puts in doubt the whole rest of the presentation.
The sunspot magnetic model is what interests me. Tracking sunspots alone is a good predictor of weather for about 2 years out. The magnetic model seems to extend it much further, with major trends being identified.
Somehow I doubt that Zarkova “lack(s) of understanding of basic orbital mechanics”. I think you believe you are correct as well. But you may be missing some vital point she used to find what she did. For that you would have to have access to her math and the data she used in her reasoning.
Watts cause heating which is temperature much the same as a 100 watt light bulb heats a room ... the closer you are to the bulb the hotted it feels, because you are receiving more watts so the temperature rises.
Saying “A watt is not a unit of temperature” is just an argumentive misdirection on the subject at hand.
Oh, give it up. You were wrong. The more you try to pretend you weren’t, the sillier it makes you look.
Grow up.
Saying “A watt is not a unit of temperature” is just an argumentive misdirection on the subject at hand.Say it it 100% accurate.
Stop embarrassing yourself.
I don't know how credible this Piers Corbyn is but he is not the only one worried about global cooling.
What I have read is that the top of the atmosphere will receive 8 watts/sq meter less energy during the Solar minimum. Right now it receives about 240 w/sq m so 8 less is huge reduction.
The earth is not going to move away from the sun by an additional 2 million miles. There is an annual variation of 3 million miles but that is not new. Someone is implying that the average will increase by 2 million miles. Someone is confused.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.