Climate Hysteria Propaganda

**acptulsa** · 08-22-2024, 01:22 PM

**Brian4Liberty** · 09-06-2024, 02:06 PM

**Brian4Liberty** · 09-17-2024, 10:37 AM

https://x.com/USAB4L/status/1836081663635501301

**Voluntarist** · 09-20-2024, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by acptulsa

Scientists Struggle to Understand Why Antarctica Hasn’t Warmed for Over 70 Years Despite Rise in CO2

Let me start by saying that I fall into the "Luke Warmist" category when it comes to the spectrum of beliefs regarding Anthropogenic Global Climate Change. The Luke Warmists understand that:
- The Earth's atmosphere is warming
- The Earth's atmosphere has been warming at an accelerated rate since about the mid-1800's
- Most of the accelerated warming since the mid-1800's can be attributed to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (including CO and CO2), the majority of which originate from anthropogenic sources.
... However, unlike the alarmists, the Luke Warmists haven't been convinced that there is an existential crisis related to that warming ... and they also have a lot of questions regarding how to respond to whatever level of warming there is. Two of the most prominent Luke Warmists are Steven Koonin (author of "Unsettled") and Judith Curry (heralded quite frequently by Climate Deniers who don't seem to recognize that she doesn't espouse what the Deniers believe).

The snapshot in the post I quoted was from Morrison's article in the Daily Skeptic ... an article which cherry picks some passages in the study and misrepresents the thrust of the study. The thrust of the study dealt with differences between the temperature response of the Arctic region (north pole, Greenland, etc) and the Antarctic region (south pole) to monotonic increases in greenhouse gases across the globe - the "common sense" perception being that both polar regions should respond identically to the uniform increases in greenhouse gases occurring in both regions. That's what the Deniers are espousing: that if the warming were due to greenhouse gases, then the warming in the Antarctic would match the warming in the Arctic.

The study does state:

Over the same period, Antarctic sea ice area has modestly expanded, and warming has been nearly non-existent over much of the Antarctic ice sheet

... which is not the same thing as saying there's been no warming in Antarctica. It's just that, taken as a whole, Antarctica hasn't warmed as much as has the Arctic region. The hypothesis examined by the study is that the reason for the reduced warming in the Antarctic is due to the orography of the Antarctic region (another way of saying that the average altitude of the Antarctic is higher than that of the Arctic). That's a fairly straight-forward hypothesis - it's basic science that higher altitudes tend to be colder than lower altitudes due primarily to the density of the atmosphere (including greenhouse gasses) being lower at the higher altitudes (so there's less atmosphere to hold in the heat). Since the average altitude of Antarctica is roughly 2,500 meters (making it the highest continent on the planet), you'd expect it to be holding less heat than the Arctic region (which is much closer to sea level. However, the portions of Antarctica that are close to or at sea-level (Western Antarctica and the Archipelago, as well as the seas around the entire land mass) are experiencing warming just slightly less than the Arctic (you do have to factor in the influence of the nearby resistance to warming offered by Eastern Antarctica, an ice cube in the hot tea - so overall, it's still not going to be identical to the Arctic).

I'm not sure how valuable the study actually is. It relies on several runs of two climate models to show what the climate results would be if the geography of the Antarctic Region were to have its altitude reduced. I mean, what's the point of that?

**Voluntarist** · 09-20-2024, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty

Headline reads: The planet just saw its hottest day on record
https://x.com/CNN/status/1815801197745287488

From the article:

July 21 clocked in at 17.09 degrees Celsius, or 62.76 Fahrenheit

So imagine the headline reading:
The Planet's Temperature Reaches Nearly 63°F
........ Marketing Observation: Doesn't have near the impact, does it?

... and then telling your wife that you intend to keep your thermostat set lower than that sweltering temperature this winter (as your contribution to use less fossil fuel in your mission to end global warming).

OK, it's an ill-conceived idea. You don't want those ice-cubed female feet bumping up against you while you sleep. Besides, who in their right mind could imagine any woman agreeing to their bedroom being kept at that temperature?

I guess one of my engineering observations on this is just how useful is the metric of average surface temperature? Are the thermometers evenly distributed? How does "average surface temperature" compensate for factors such as "urban heat islands" (whose elevated temperatures have little to do with CO2 levels)? And what is the "survival envelope" outside of which the average surface temperature poses hazards to humanity and other life on Earth?