https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/05/09/a-heatwave-in-spain/
From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
h/t Ian Magness
The latest garbage from the Guardian:
These were my comments:
Mike Maguire
May 9, 2023 2:36 pm
“Before the climate crisis, such an extreme event would have been expected only once in a least 40,000 years, making it statistically impossible on human timescales”
Previous 3 periods with similar warmth to current warmth based on Authentic Paleoclimatology :
Medieval Warm Period ~1,000 years ago.
Roman Warm Period ~2,000 years ago.
Minoan Warm Period ~3,500 years ago.
Not as warm yet in the higher latitudes today as the peak warmth below(when there was less Arctic Sea Ice):
Holocene Climate Optimum 9,000-5,000 years ago
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/90279/#90284
Reply to Mike Maguire
May 9, 2023 2:45 pm
This can’t be repeated enough times:
It really boils down to this (Cliff Mass can be counted on as an elite source for using objective, authentic science)
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-golden-rule-of-climate-extremes.html
The Golden Rule
Considering the substantial confusion in the media about this critical issue, let me provide the GOLDEN RULE OF CLIMATE EXTREMES.
Here it is:
The more extreme a climate or weather record is, the greater the contribution of natural variability.
Or to put it a different way, the larger or more unusual an extreme, the higher proportion of the extreme is due to natural variability.
Recent threads discussing this:
Climate Crisis: short on proof, drowning in nonsense
10 responses |
Started by metmike - Feb. 28, 2023, 2:23 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/93502/
Science corruption
19 responses |
Started by metmike - March 20, 2023, 5:50 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/93926/
Another 1 in 1,000 year rain
8 responses |
Started by metmike - April 14, 2023, 2:55 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/94542/
New extreme weather/climate crisis fake term
4 responses |
Started by metmike - Feb. 3, 2023, 7:30 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/92830/
4th time this Summer for a 1 in 1,000 year rain event........but the same thing happened in 2018, 1932 and 1922 at this location, so it was actually a 1 in 25 year event. What a 7% increase in H2O means. Golden Rule of Climate extremes. Weather/Climate related deaths have been reduced by 95% over the last 100 years. Why they do this. August 2022
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/88256/
Latest 1 in 1,000 year(rain) event Sept/Oct 2022
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/89333/
DeathbyGreening:
Keep in mind that I'm a practicing, authentic environmentalist that fights against REAL pollution and against junk/corrupt science, crony capitalism, dishonest politics/government/media used to support counter productive energy and economic policies, (for both humans and the planet) disguised as fake "save the planet schemes".
Happy Earth Day, April 22, 2023
10 responses |
Started by metmike - April 22, 2023, 1:01 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/94693/
Additional, related recent threads:
More bad science
Started by metmike - May 12, 2023, 2:49 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/95151/
Science corruption
19 responses |
Started by metmike - March 20, 2023, 5:50 p.m.
++++++++++++++++
Last July, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA doesn't have the authority to regulate CO2 emissions.
July 19, 2022 – In late June, the Supreme Court issued a ruling stating that the Environmental Protection Agency cannot put state-level caps on carbon emissions under the 1970 Clean Air Act. Such authority would, in effect, steer states away from coal and toward other types of power sources that emit less carbon. The Court said that, instead, the authority to decide how power is created in the U.S. must come from Congress.
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency is a setback to the EPA’s ability to curb carbon pollution. The 6-to-3 decision holds that the agency’s authority to implement a key part of the Clean Air Act doesn’t include directing power plants to shift from dirty sources of energy, such as coal, to cleaner ones like wind and solar.
The Court’s majority got there through a sweeping new “major questions doctrine,” with broad implications. But the decision still leaves the EPA with significant authority to use the same part of the Clean Air Act to set technology-based standards that make power plants operate more cleanly.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
So the EPA gave the Supreme Court the middle finger and instead, imposed technology-based standards that require power plants to install extremely expensive carbon capture technology to remove CO2 instead(that is not even being used yet). The extreme cost of that technology, in essence means that coal powered plants will have to go bye bye because there's no way they can afford it........ which is what the EPA wants to accomplish.
My wife is part of a group with a new invention. A very affordable carbon capture technology that will save the coal industry(and help other CO2 emitters, like cement plants). After it makes its debut, which will be late this month? I'll be able to reveal the details.
This will save the coal industry, with a good chance of the US building new coal plants.
The United States has 24% of the worlds coal reserves. It's completely insane for us to not be using that for efficient, clean coal energy independence. ....AND WE WILL!
KillingCoal
14 responses |
Started by metmike - Nov. 21, 2021, 10:57 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/78168/
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/78168/#78173
++++++++++++++++++++
Just to elaborate more on what the new EPA ruling means:
The proposal would limit how much carbon dioxide power plants, which are the source of more than a quarter of U.S. emissions, can chuff into the atmosphere, putting the industry on a years-long course to install billions of dollars of new equipment or shut down.
Environmental groups and scientists have long argued that such steps are crucial to curb global warming, but fossil fuel-producing states argue that they represent government overreach and threaten to destabilize the electric grid.
The proposal sets standards that would push power companies to install carbon capture equipment (CCS) that can siphon the CO2 from a plant’s smokestack before it reaches the atmosphere, or use super-low-emissions hydrogen as a fuel.
The Environmental Protection Agency projects the plan would cut carbon emissions from coal plants and new gas plants by 617 million tonnes between 2028 and 2042, the equivalent of reducing the annual emissions of 137 million passenger vehicles.
++++++++++++++++++++++
This will be tenaciously opposed!
In fact, the Supreme Court ruled last Summer, 6-3 that the EPA didn't have the power to do this, so there will be some strong legal challenges.
As the battle goes on in the courts, politics and science world, this cheap, new carbon capture technology from my wife's company will revolutionize the industry. Ironically, these currently impossible to meet regulations using carbon capture........will actually drive massive new business to my wife's company.
This is NOT speculation. It's already happening but you just don't know about it.......yet.
Kerry, whos carbon footprint is at least 50 times mine is actually scary because following his agenda would cause the greatest harm, by a wide margin to poor people From much higher energy prices Which come from converting to fake green energy.
Multi millionaires, like him, Gore, Biden and Obama talk about higher energy prices being an accepted part of saving the planet.
atheir solutions, like wind turbines and batteries are what’s wrecking the planet and hurting wildlife AND humans….especially poor humans the most.
In 2023, most people no longer fact check or think critically, which would enable them to see thru scams and charlatans.
if the charlatan is from their party……they follow their political ideologies like members of a religious cult.
they’re too busy and too intellectually lazy and most of all, WANT to believe to dig deeper or to look at the other side.
Comer covered alot of solid ground in that interview and nailed multiple profound points about the FAKE climate crisis, REAL energy crisis, REAL Biden corruption and REAL border crisis, all caused by or perpetrated by this administration.
4 years ago, this was my discussion about the Great Obama Climate agreement that he made with China. A blatantly fraudulent FAKE agreement that he used to claim China was on board with the Paris Accord, Global Climate Agreement!
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/38309/
Fonda told the audience at Cannes, “We’ve got about seven, eight years to cut ourselves in half of what we use of fossil fuels, and unfortunately, the people that have the least responsibility for it are hit the hardest — Global South, people on islands, poor people of color. It is a tragedy that we have to absolutely stop. We have to arrest and jail those men — they’re all men [behind this].”
Fonda continued, “It’s good for us all to realize there would be no climate crisis if there was no racism. There would be no climate crisis if there was no patriarchy. A mindset that sees things in a hierarchical way. White men are the things that matter, and then everything else [is] at the bottom.”
The actress said, “You can take anything — sexism, racism, misogyny, homophobia, whatever, the war.” She then articulated, “If you really get into it, and study it and learn about it and the history of it, everything’s connected. There’d be no climate crisis if it wasn’t for racism.”
Mike Maguire
May 29, 2023 2:16 pm
Thanks for the authentic meteorology lesson Jim!
I listen to NPR too. They have some great human interest and non climate science stuff.
But they have tunnel vision, fake climate crisis derangement syndrome that takes them to the land of exaggeration of extreme weather/climate and junk science as a rule, not as the exception.
This can’t be repeated enough and applies to your wonderful authentic science:
It really boils down to this (Cliff Mass can be counted on as an elite source for using objective, authentic science)
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-golden-rule-of-climate-extremes.html
The Golden Rule
Considering the substantial confusion in the media about this critical issue, let me provide the GOLDEN RULE OF CLIMATE EXTREMES.
Here it is:
The more extreme a climate or weather record is, the greater the contribution of natural variability.
Or to put it a different way, the larger or more unusual an extreme, the higher proportion of the extreme is due to natural variability.
"But they have tunnel vision,"
LOL ~ EVERY TIME I HEAR / SEE THAT PHRASE ~ I ALWAYS THINK OF A COLONOSCOPY!! YOU CAN CONCLUDE, ON YOUR OWN, THE REST OF THAT THOUGHT. HAHAHAHAA
