Only Three Months Left For Planet Earth( and other false doomsday predictions)

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,982
2,898
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
On July 7 1936, the average maximum temperature across the US was 93 degrees, and nearly one fourth of the US was above 100 degrees.



These were the state maximum temperatures on July 7, 1936.

California 114
Arizona 114
North Dakota 113
Illinois 111
Kentucky 110
Indiana 110
South Dakota 109
Montana 109
Wisconsin 108
Minnesota 107
Alabama 107
Iowa 106
Oklahoma 105
Utah 104
Missouri 104
Michigan 103
Georgia 103
Florida 103
Tennessee 102
Wyoming 101
Nebraska 101
Kansas 101
Louisiana 100
Colorado 100
Ohio 99
Nevada 99
Mississippi 99
New York 98
New Mexico 98
Arkansas 98
Texas 97
Idaho 96
South Carolina 95
Virginia 94
New Jersey 94
West Virginia 93
Pennsylvania 93
New Hampshire 92
Washington 91
Vermont 90
North Carolina 90
Oregon 89
Massachusetts 88
Maryland 88
Maine 87
Connecticut 87
Delaware 86
Rhode Island 85


 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,630
22,186
113
On July 7 1936, the average maximum temperature across the US was 93 degrees, and nearly one fourth of the US was above 100 degrees.
One warm day in the US vs a month of global temperatures?
Fail.

Still can't tell the difference between weather and climate?
Still can't explain why it was warmer in Siberia than in Florida or Texas for weeks?
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,982
2,898
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
One warm day in the US vs a month of global temperatures?
Fail.

Still can't tell the difference between weather and climate?
Still can't explain why it was warmer in Siberia than in Florida or Texas for weeks?

Siberia has a subarctic continental climate.

you fail high school geography just like your climate alarmist cult leaders
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,630
22,186
113
Siberia has a subarctic continental climate.

you fail high school geography just like your climate alarmist cult leaders
That same area also has records for the coldest temperatures as well.
You fail.


By the way, for you and larue, Shellenberger's opinion piece has been given a scientific reading.
They rated it a -1.2 for scientific credibility, or low.

You can read the annotated version of his opinion piece with corrections and footnotes here.

That's how science is done.
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,982
2,898
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
That same area also has records for the coldest temperatures as well.
You fail.


By the way, for you and larue, Shellenberger's opinion piece has been given a scientific reading.
They rated it a -1.2 for scientific credibility, or low.

You can read the annotated version of his opinion piece with corrections and footnotes here.

That's how science is done.


Continental subarctic climate, major climate type of the Köppen classification dominated by the winter season, a long, bitterly cold period with short, clear days, relatively little precipitation (mostly in the form of snow), and low humidity. It is located north of the humid continental climate, from about 50° to 70° N, in a broad swath extending from Alaska to Newfoundland in North America and from northern Scandinavia to Siberia in Eurasia. In the Köppen-Geiger-Pohl system, the continental subarctic climate is divided into the Dfc, Dfd, Dwc, and Dwd subtypes.

In Asia the Siberian anticyclone, the source of continental polar air, dominates the interior of the continent, and mean temperatures 40–50 °C (40–58 °F) below freezing are not unusual. The North American representative of this climate is not as severe but is still profoundly cold. Mean monthly temperatures are below freezing for six to eight months, with an average frost-free period of only 50–90 days per year, and snow remains on the ground for many months. Summers are short and mild, with long days and a prevalence of frontal precipitation associated with maritime tropical air within traveling cyclones. Mean temperatures in summer only rarely exceed 16 °C (61 °F), except in interior regions where values near 25 °C (77 °F) are possible. As a result of these temperature extremes, annual temperature ranges are larger in continental subarctic climates than in any other climate type on Earth, up to 30 °C (54 °F) through much of the area and more than 60 °C (108 °F) in central Siberia, although coastal areas are more moderate.






And when are you going to give up on your use of fossil fuels you hate so much? when are are you going to give up your fossil fuel powered car?
 
Last edited:

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,630
22,186
113


Continental subarctic climate, major climate type of the Köppen classification dominated by the winter season, a long, bitterly cold period with short, clear days, relatively little precipitation (mostly in the form of snow), and low humidity. It is located north of the humid continental climate, from about 50° to 70° N, in a broad swath extending from Alaska to Newfoundland in North America and from northern Scandinavia to Siberia in Eurasia. In the Köppen-Geiger-Pohl system, the continental subarctic climate is divided into the Dfc, Dfd, Dwc, and Dwd subtypes.

In Asia the Siberian anticyclone, the source of continental polar air, dominates the interior of the continent, and mean temperatures 40–50 °C (40–58 °F) below freezing are not unusual. The North American representative of this climate is not as severe but is still profoundly cold. Mean monthly temperatures are below freezing for six to eight months, with an average frost-free period of only 50–90 days per year, and snow remains on the ground for many months. Summers are short and mild, with long days and a prevalence of frontal precipitation associated with maritime tropical air within traveling cyclones. Mean temperatures in summer only rarely exceed 16 °C (61 °F), except in interior regions where values near 25 °C (77 °F) are possible. As a result of these temperature extremes, annual temperature ranges are larger in continental subarctic climates than in any other climate type on Earth, up to 30 °C (54 °F) through much of the area and more than 60 °C (108 °F) in central Siberia, although coastal areas are more moderate.






And when are you going to give up on your use of fossil fuels you hate so much? when are are you going to give up your fossil fuel powered car?
And you're still going to say this is normal?

As the Arctic burns, the global climate is once again pushing into “Hottest Year Ever” territory

 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,982
2,898
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,982
2,898
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Much is made of the fact that former “climate change” advocates have now defected to the side of reason. But much more needs to be done to defeat climate change propaganda.

The latest defection, as we’ve noted here, is Michael Shellenberger, author of Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All. His arguments are well-documented but he’s been denied a voice in the major media.



The major media shut-outs are not the only way climate-change skeptics are made non-persons and their arguments, studies, and critiques of the prevailing view silenced.

The most important search engine, Google does it, too. David Wojick tested it by searching his own works and those of other climate change skeptics on Google.

The pattern is obvious — attack the skeptics of climate change alarmism. The ever-present use of the wacko DeSmogBlog attacks, usually in the top 5 items and often first or second, is actually pretty funny.

But it is also telling, as is the going back many years to pick up attack pieces, while the informational pieces are far more recent. This pattern cannot be accidental; the algorithm is clearly tuned to discredit skeptics of climate change alarmism.

The interesting question: is this illegal? After all, Google boasts that it has billions of dollars invested in renewable energy. Skepticism of alarmism probably threatens those investments.

Deliberately discrediting people in order to protect or enhance your business interests sounds illegal to me. Maybe there is even a class action suit in this.

This censoring of contrary opinion on climate change is not merely a matter of free speech and inquiry.

It’s critical because it’s likely to be the next woke campaign—overturning western civilization by piling on the moral panic which has already led to such absurdities as denouncing terms like “master bedroom” and “blacklisting” and demolishing statues of abolitionists because of some fancied connotations of slavery and racism. (I did Google Michael Shellenberger and see Google’s algorithms have not yet made him a non-person. His most recent works and statements are at the top.)

The censoring of climate skeptics is or should be of interest to more than those of us interested in this issue. It’s likely to be the next “woke” campaign theme.

And the censoring is likely to be even more extreme. Using the Forbes deletion of Shellenberger’s article as a warning, the author, Ross Clark, concludes:

A US journalist who tried to find out why was issued only with the following statement: ‘Forbes requires its contributors to adhere to strict editorial guidelines. This story did not follow those guidelines, and was removed.’ It is not hard to decode: a bunch of climate alarmists decided that Shellenberger is inconvenient to their cause and have tried to cancel him by complaining to the website – and the website caved in…
The attempt to classify climate change ‘denialism’ as a hate crime has been coming for quite a while. The very use of the word ‘denial’ is an attempt to put anyone skeptical of climate alarmism in the same pigeonhole as holocaust deniers.
There are so many fine blogs on the subject, including The Pipeline, Wattsupwiththat, Climate Change Dispatch, and Climate Audit, for example, the question no longer is who can refute the silliness of the doomsday movement, but how can we make our voices heard in the face of the media-attempted blackout and the education establishments’ embrace of climate alarmism?

Schoolchildren are especially vulnerable to the climate-change movement, which is the genius of using Greta Thunberg to appeal to the public on this issue.

She’s a modern Stephen of Cloyes who’d lead frenetic children on a disastrous endeavor—in this case abolishing the fossil fuels that keep us living well.

Her backers use her to inspire a repeat of the ill-fated Children’s’ Crusade, because children are so lacking in knowledge and experience an emotional appeal is most effective on them.

So, how do we reach the young formative minds? I went to the National Education Association’s website for its statement: “Climate Change Education: Essential Information for Educators.”

It directs teachers to a series of reports by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, PBS, and the KQED Education network. Picking one such study at random, the NOAA study, teachers will learn things like this:

Impacts from climate change are happening now. These impacts extend well beyond an increase in temperature, affecting ecosystems and communities in the United States and around the world. Things that we depend upon and value — water, energy, transportation, wildlife, agriculture, ecosystems, and human health — are experiencing the effects of a changing climate.
Or, to take a second example, the KQED Education Network:

Scientists around the globe have noticed that over the last 40 years Earth, as a whole, has been warming. This phenomenon, known as global warming, is affecting regional climates differently. For example, some regions may experience warmer summers, while other regions may see winters with heavier snowstorms.
A rise in Earth’s average temperature isn’t always immediately apparent. For example, some places still get snowy winters, which might appear to contradict the idea of global warming. (Check out Andy Warner’s comic to learn how global warming can actually lead to heavier snowfall). So, how do scientists know Earth is warming?
The NEA lists its “Green Partners,” among them:

I stopped at the first, Earth Day Network, where I learned, “Our food system accounts for more than a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions, making animal agriculture one of the largest contributors to climate change. Food production and consumption are rapidly deteriorating the planet. And what we’re eating is pushing the planet to the breaking point on climate change and deforestation.”

My point is as far as I can tell, the NEA guides for teachers rely on sources in which no countervailing opinions seem readily to appear, and often make assertions of fact which are simply untrue.

This underscores what Paul Driessen wrote last year.

From kindergarten onward, our young people are repeatedly told that they, our wildlife and our planet face unprecedented cataclysms from manmade climate change, resulting from our fossil fuel use. The science is settled, they are constantly hoodwinked, and little or no discussion is allowed in classrooms.
They thus hear virtually nothing about the growing gap between computer model predictions and satellite temperature measurements; questions about data manipulation by scientists advocating the dangerous manmade climate change narrative; the hundreds of scientists who do not agree with the supposed “consensus” on manmade climate chaos; or the absence of any real-world evidence to support claims of carbon dioxide-driven coral bleaching, species extinctions, or the seemingly endless litany of ever more absurd assertions that fossil fuel emissions are making sharks right-handed, arctic plants too tall, pigs skinnier and salmon unable to detect danger, to cite just a few crazy examples.
It all seems hopeless.

I haven’t any brilliant notions of how to combat this propagandizing and enlisting half-formed student minds to the cause, but it should start with pressuring our federal agencies to stop producing and promoting on its own fact-free propaganda, and funding outside groups to do the same.

The agencies producing the pap the NEA recommends need to be monitored and forced to provide in its place more objective, documented material for the public.

The NEA needs to be challenged regarding the sites and material it is endorsing. If you encourage teachers to teach nonsense, you’re paying them to miseducate their students.

There is a multi-state effort to create new education standards that are “rich in content and practice, arranged in a coherent manner across disciplines and grades to provide all students an internationally benchmarked science education.”

A glance at the standards, arranged by grades, seems far more objective than the NEA site. States that have not signed on to this should be encouraged to do so.

Perhaps all of the climate-change-skeptical sites should consider a feature occasionally explaining the truth of “man-made climate change” in terms that children (and their parents) can understand, a sort of Scholastic-Science feature now and then.

In the meantime, the climate cult is turning out students like those at Milwaukee’s North Division High School, which holds regular school-sanctioned walkouts on topics like Climate Activism. (Only one student out of 105 there are proficient in English and only two are proficient in math.)

Its most recent teacher-approved Red Guard-like march of the Milwaukee Public Schools was organized by “The People’s Climate Coalition” and specifically targeted Wells Fargo and Chase banks.

Apparently they were singled out because they supposedly provided funding for fossil fuel companies. Parents and citizens should challenge the manipulation of students who certainly do not need time away from school to serve as leftist foot soldiers.

We skeptics can’t just talk to ourselves if we mean to bring greater support for rational energy and environmental policies, and we can’t persuade others they are being duped and misinformed if we don’t do more.

Read more at The Pipeline
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,982
2,898
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Climate Cultists Ramp Up Calls To Throw Climate Realists In Jail



Unable to win the debate in the court of public opinion, climate activists are increasingly calling for the imprisonment of climate realists. The latest example is an article in Carbon Brief titled “How climate change misinformation spreads online.” The authors, who are all University of Exeter professors, advocate fines and imprisonment for people publishing “climate misinformation” online. They justify their call for imprisonment by claiming tremendous harm from “misleading information that is created and spread with intent to deceive.”

That’s one take, another take is that those who publish what the Left deems as “misinformation” are actually publishing what might be dubbed “inconvenient truths.” The 2006 film by Al Gore of the same name is a case in point. Gore, not being particularly good at details, published a boatload of misinformation in that film, and social media responded to correct the record. In one scene Gore used an animated clip of a polar bear in danger of drowning, trying to get onto a tiny ice flow made smaller, presumably by global warming. Gore cited this as the new normal of drowning polar bears. The reality? Scientists documented one drowned polar bear at sea after an intense storm, something that hasn’t been seen since. According to an Associated Press article: “A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article.”

Social media was the first to point out problems with Gore’s polar bear claims, and they were proven right.

Then there’s the claim Gore made about Mt. Kilimanjaro losing its ice cap due to “global warming.” Again, social media was the first to point out that what was really happening was a consequence of deforestation around the base of the mountain making less water vapor available by the process of trees releasing water into the atmosphere. Without as much water vapor causing replenishing snows, the ice simply dried up like old ice cubes in a freezer.

And finally, Gore made the bold claim in 2009 that the Arctic ice cap might be gone in five years. Again, social media was the first to point out the problems with this claim. To this day, the Arctic ice cap remains, and Gore no longer references any of those claims he once made.

If it weren’t for social media, we’d still be hearing about these. The media choose not to subject alarmist climate claims to even cursory analysis, and investigative reporting is virtually non-existent. Yet, because social media does investigate and fact-check, pushing against a group-think narrative and exposing the lies and real misinformation surrounding the climate scare, climate alarmists have to fight back using dirty tricks like labeling social media authors as if they were radical enemies of the state, worthy of imprisonment in the gulag.

This isn’t the first time such wild calls for criminalization of contrary climate opinion have been made, in fact, it goes back to 2014: Lawrence Torcello, a liberal arts professor at Rochester Institute of Technology, NY, writes in an essay at The Conversation that climate scientists who fail to communicate the correct message about “global warming” should face trial for “criminal negligence.” A commenter on his article went even further to suggest that I should be sent to the war crimes tribunal in the Hauge for having a different opinion on climate: “… I believe Anthony Watts should be frogmarched to The Hague as well. No question, in my mind. In fact, I find the idea of a defense of his actions ethically reprehensible.”

It gets worse. An ugly theatrical play, called Kill Climate Deniers, was even created in Australian about the issue.

The bottom line? Imprisonment of political dissidents has been a common theme with repressive regimes going back to the beginning of history. When those seeking power can’t convince the populace of the merits of their ideas, they start putting people who disagree in jail, hoping that fear will keep the rest in line. Fortunately, we live in a country where free speech is guaranteed by the Constitution.

But, should the time ever come when I’m going to be imprisoned for my viewpoints, I won’t go quietly, and neither will the thousands of independent thinkers on social media.

 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,630
22,186
113
Much is made of the fact that former “climate change” advocates have now defected to the side of reason. But much more needs to be done to defeat climate change propaganda.
Opinion piece.
Your article is propaganda, contains no legit references to science and only unsubstantiated claims.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,630
22,186
113
Climate Cultists Ramp Up Calls To Throw Climate Realists In Jail
Another opinion piece.

I note that you can't argue the science or evidence anymore.
You resort to possibly faked old weather reports and opinion pieces to back your own narrative.

What you can't deny or explain, is that the planet is warming up just as much as climatologists said it would.

1594247972965.png
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,117
2,848
113
Climate Cultists Ramp Up Calls To Throw Climate Realists In Jail



Unable to win the debate in the court of public opinion, climate activists are increasingly calling for the imprisonment of climate realists. The latest example is an article in Carbon Brief titled “How climate change misinformation spreads online.” The authors, who are all University of Exeter professors, advocate fines and imprisonment for people publishing “climate misinformation” online. They justify their call for imprisonment by claiming tremendous harm from “misleading information that is created and spread with intent to deceive.”
well if there is justice in life, perhaps these same University of Exeter professors, will one day need to explain why their “climate misinformation” never materialized and need to explain why they intentional mislead and tramatized children.
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,982
2,898
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
On July 10, 1936 almost half of the US was over 100 degrees, and six states were over 110 degrees : North Dakota 114, South Dakota 114, Indiana 112, Montana 112, Nebraska 111, Minnesota 11.



The average temperature across the US was 94 degrees, and 44% of USHCN stations were over 100 degrees.



 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,630
22,186
113
On July 10, 1936 almost half of the US was over 100 degrees, and six states were over 110 degrees : North Dakota 114, South Dakota 114, Indiana 112, Montana 112, Nebraska 111, Minnesota 11.

The average temperature across the US was 94 degrees, and 44% of USHCN stations were over 100 degrees.
Wow, one warm day in the US.
That really disproves climate change, eh?

Is that your only argument, CM?
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,982
2,898
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Australia’s Bureau Of Meteorology Disappears Past Heat Records


On January 13, 1939, The Sydney Morning Herald reported:

‘Based on officially recorded maximum temperatures … the registration of 124 degrees (51.1°C) at White Cliffs was the highest recorded in New South Wales since the record for the State, 125 degrees (51.7°C) was made at Bourke in 1909.’

Yet, if you look at BOM’s current records for ‘New South Wales Climate Extremes’, these heat records of the past have disappeared – and nothing 50°C or over is listed.


Amazing. Even the famous magician David Copperfield would have trouble pulling off a stunt like that.

Read more at Spectator AU
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,982
2,898
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
New Zealand Showed No Warming In 130 Years, Then NASA Stepped In


By Kirye and Pierre Gosselin

We continue to hear warming horror stories coming from the island of New Zealand, and the socialist by sales pitch how “climate change is the biggest challenge of our time.”

Yet this doesn’t seem to be the case in New Zealand. For example, we learned from Electroverse here that the Pacific island country “just recorded its coldest June temperature in 5 years.”



Moreover, when we examine NASA GISS data, we uncover where all the warming rumors come from: alterations to the recorded historical data.

The following chart shows the data from Hokitika Aerodome, going back more 130 years (It’s the only NASA station that has data going back over 100 years). Plotted are the unadjusted Version 3 data and the Version 4 unadjusted:





Data source: NASA GISS V3 and V4
The old data set showed no warming until NASA GISS went back and rewrote it Orwellian style, and made up a warming trend and called it Version 4.

Tony Heller also reported earlier: “NASA didn’t like the fact that New Zealand wasn’t warming, so they simply changed the data.”

In summary: There really hasn’t been that much change at many locations around the globe. In fact, the real changes are taking place in the NASA GISS datasets.

UPDATE: Here’s an even earlier version of the NASA GISS data plot of Hokitika station before all the data altering began (hat-tip Iggie). It shows temperatures had been COOLING:





Source: NASA
h/t Rúnar O.

Read more at No Tricks Zone

 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,982
2,898
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Siberian Heatwaves Are Fairly Common: Hottest Summer On Record Was In 1917





  • Date: 17/07/20

  • Paul Homewood, Not A Lot Of People Know That
BBC hype and a reality check: There was nothing remotely exceptional about the heatwave at Verhojansk, with the hottest summer on record way back in 1917.



Why do the BBC need three environmental reporters, when all they do is cut and paste the latest alarmist study without actually doing any cross checking or ask awkward questions?




A record-breaking heatwave in Siberia would have been almost impossible without human-caused climate change, a study has found.
The Russian region’s temperatures were more than 5C above average between January and June of this year.
Temperatures exceeded 38C in the Russian town of Verkhoyansk on 20 June, the highest temperature ever recorded north of the Arctic circle.
The Arctic is believed to be warming twice as fast as the global average.
An international team of climate scientists, led by the UK Met Office, found the record average temperatures were likely to happen less than once every 80,000 years without human-induced climate change.
That makes such an event “almost impossible” had the world not been warmed by greenhouse gas emissions, they conclude in the study.
The scientists described the finding as “unequivocal evidence of the impact of climate change on the planet”.
It is, says co-author Prof Peter Stott of the Met Office, the strongest result of any attribution study to date.
Attribution studies attempt to work out the role that human-induced climate change plays in major weather events.
Climate scientists use computer simulations to compare the climate as it is today with the climate as it would have been without human influence to see how likely different weather events would have been.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53415297
As already pointed out, there was nothing remotely exceptional about the heatwave at Verhojansk last month, as temperatures were only half a degree higher than in 1988.


Now we have the full monthly data in, we can compare June temperatures at Verhojansk:

image
While last month was a degree or two higher than usual, we can see that it was actually hotter in 1912!


Meanwhile there seems to be little trend in overall summer temperatures, with the hottest summer on record way back in 1917:

image
If anything extreme was happening to the climate in Siberia, it would be immediately apparent in these graphs.


As is well accepted, the heatwave in Siberia last month was the result of loops in the jet stream, which brought hot air up from the south in conjunction with a large and fixed area of high pressure.. But there is nothing unusual about such a phenomenon.


HH Lamb found that not only did the same thing happen back in the 19thC, but that it was probably more common then:

image
HH Lamb: Climate, History and the Modern World- p 253


Lamb, Wahl and their contemporaries relied on meticulous analysis of actual data, rather than on the GIGO computer models used by Stott.


Strangely, while the BBC are quite happy to report Stott’s junk science, they omit to mention a study from the University of Exeter earlier this year. This conclusively found that the jet stream was not getting wavier.

Full post
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,630
22,186
113
Australia’s Bureau Of Meteorology Disappears Past Heat Records
Australia's right wing government, egged on by the Murdoch press, are pushing for more coal use even after their wildfire winter.
Stupid right wingers will follow them.

Siberian Heatwaves Are Fairly Common: Hottest Summer On Record Was In 1917
Totally fake story, CM.
Your numbers are bullshit and your story false.

Recent Siberian heat wave 'almost impossible' without climate change, study says

Read the news about what is happening now, instead of spending your days looking for weather records from 100 years ago.
Look at the climate.

2020 May Be Earth's Warmest Year On Record, Even Without an El Niño

 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,982
2,898
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Roman Warm Period Was 3.6°F Warmer Than Today, New Study Shows


The Mediterranean Sea was 3.6°F (2°C) hotter during the Roman Empire than other average temperatures at the time, a new study claims.

The Empire coincided with a 500-year period, from AD 1 to AD 500, which was the warmest period of the last 2,000 years in the almost completely land-locked sea.



The climate later progressed towards colder and arid conditions that coincided with the historical fall of the Empire, scientists claim.

Spanish and Italian researchers recorded ratios of magnesium to calcite taken from skeletonized amoebas in marine sediments, an indicator of seawater temperatures, in the Sicily Channel.

They say the warmer period may have also coincided with the shift from the Roman Republic to the great Empire founded by Octavius Augustus in 27 BC.

The study offers ‘critical information’ to identify past interactions between climate changes and the evolution of human societies and ‘their adaptive strategies’.

It meets requests from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to assess the impact of historically warmer conditions between 2.7°F and 3.6°F (1.5°C to 2°C).

However, the historical warming of the Med during the Roman Empire is linked to intense solar activity, which contrasts with the modern threat of greenhouse gases.


The study identifies the Roman period (1-500 AC) as the warmest period of the last 2,000 years. Map A shows the central-western Mediterranean Sea. The red triangle shows the location of the sample studied, while the red circles are previously-found marine records used for the comparison. Map B shows the Sicily Channel featuring surface oceanographic circulation and sample location. Black lines follow the path of surface water circulation
‘For the first time, we can state the Roman period was the warmest period of time of the last 2,000 years, and these conditions lasted for 500 years,’ said Professor Isabel Cacho at the Department of Earth and Ocean Dynamics, University of Barcelona.

The Mediterranean is a semi-closed sea, meaning it is surrounded by land and almost only connected to oceans by a narrow outlet, and is a climate change ‘hot spot’ according to a previous paper.

Situated between North Africa and European climates, the sea occupies a ‘transitional zone’, combining the arid zone of the subtropical high and humid northwesterly air flows.

This makes it extremely vulnerable to modern and past climate changes, such as changes in precipitation change and average surface air temperature and is of ‘particular interest’ to researchers.

Home to many civilizations over the years, the Med, or Mare Nostrum as it was known by ancient Roman civilizations, has become a model to study the periods of climate variation.

Reconstructing previous millennia of sea surface temperatures and how it evolved is challenging, due to the difficulty retrieving good resolution marine records.

However, the study of the fossil archives remains the only valid tool to reconstruct past environmental and climatic changes as far back as 2,000 years ago, they say.


Comparison of the records from Sicily Channel studied in this work (thick dark blue line) in comparison with other samples – Alboran Sea (thick light blue line), Minorca Basin (thick red line), and the Aegean Sea (thick dark and light green lines). They support the claim that the Roman Period saw a 3.6°F rise in temperatures in the Med
Turning to another method, experts analyzed the ratios of magnesium to calcite taken from samples of single-celled protists called foraminifera, which is found in all marine environments.

In particular, the species Globigerinoides ruber, present in marine sediments, is an indicator of seawater temperatures.

Researchers took the skeletonized G. ruber sampled from a depth of 1,500 feet (475m) located in the northwestern part of the Sicily Channel.

It was recovered during a 2014 oceanographic expedition onboard the RV CNR-Urania research vessel.

These unicellular organisms, part of the marine zooplankton, have a specific habitat limited to the surface layers of the water column.

‘Therefore, the chemical analysis of its carbonated skeleton allows us to reconstruct the evolution of the temperature of the surface water mass over time,’ said Professor Cacho.

Compared to the subsequent period of the Roman Empire, the Mediterranean was characterized by a colder phase from around 500 BC to 200 BC.

This corresponds with the beginning of the so-called ‘sub-Atlantic phase’ characterized by a cool climate and rainy winters, which were favorable for Greek and Roman civilizations to grow crops.

The cool and humid climate of the sub-Atlantic phase lasted until around 100 BC and covered the entire period of the monarchy in Rome.

However, in 400 BC, cultural changes were synchronized across the Mediterranean region and more ‘homogeneous’ temperature conditions across the Med regions were established.

A distinct warming phase, running from AD 1 to AD 500, then coincided with the Roman Period and covered the whole Roman Empire archaeological period.

‘This pronounced warming during the Roman Period is almost consistent with other marine records from the Atlantic Ocean,’ the team say in their research paper, published in Scientific Reports.

This climate phase corresponds to what is known as the ‘Roman Climatic Optimum’ characterized by prosperity and expansion of the Empire, giving warmth and sunlight to crops.

Roman Climatic Optimum, a phase of warm stable temperatures across much of the Mediterranean heartland, covers the whole phase of origin and expansion of the Roman Empire.

The greatest time of the Roman Empire coincided with the warmest period of the last 2,000 years in the Mediterranean.

After the Roman Period, a general cooling trend developed in the region with several minor oscillations in temperature.

The climate then transitioned from wet to arid conditions and this could have marked the decline of the golden period of the Roman Empire after AD 500.

These new records correlated with data from other areas of the Mediterranean – the Alboran Sea, Menorca basin, and the Aegean Sea.

‘We hypothesize the potential link between this Roman Climatic Optimum and the expansion and subsequent decline of the Roman Empire.’

The study provides high resolution and precision data on how the temperatures evolved over the last 2,000 years in the Mediterranean area.

It also identifies a warming phase that’s different during the Roman Empire in the Mediterranean area and is focused on the reconstruction of the sea surface temperature over the last 5,000 years.

Read rest at Daily Mail
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,982
2,898
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Why California’s Climate Policies Are Causing Electricity Blackouts



Millions of Californians were denied electrical power and thus air conditioning during a heatwave, raising the risk of heatstroke and death, particularly among the elderly and sick.


The blackouts come at a time when people, particularly the elderly, are forced to remain indoors due to Covid-19.


At first, the state’s electrical grid operator last night asked customers to voluntarily reduce electricity use. But after power reserves fell to dangerous levels it declared a “Stage 3 emergency” cutting off power to people across the state at 6:30 pm.


The immediate reason for the black-outs was the failure of a 500-megawatt power plant and an out-of-service 750-megawatt unit not being available. “There is nothing nefarious going on here,” said a spokeswoman for California Independent System Operator (CAISO). “We are just trying to run the grid.”


But the underlying reasons that California is experiencing rolling black-outs for the second time in less than a year stem from the state’s climate policies, which California policymakers have justified as necessary to prevent deaths from heatwaves.


In October, Pacific Gas and Electric cut off power to homes across California to avoid starting forest fires. The utility and California’s leaders had over the previous decade diverted billions meant for grid maintenance to renewables.



And yesterday, California had to impose rolling blackouts because it had failed to maintain sufficient reliable power from natural gas and nuclear plants, or pay in advance for enough guaranteed electricity imports from other states.


It may be that California’s utilities and their regulator, the California Public Utilities Commission, which is also controlled by Gov. Newsom, didn’t want to spend the extra money to guarantee the additional electricity out of fears of raising California’s electricity prices even more than they had already raised them.


California saw its electricity prices rise six times more than the rest of the United States from 2011 to 2019, due to its huge expansion of renewables. Republicans in the U.S. Congress point to that massive increase to challenge justifications by Democrats to spend $2 trillion on renewables in the name of climate change.


Even though the cost of solar panels declined dramatically between 2011 and 2019, their unreliable and weather-dependent nature meant that they imposed large new costs in the form of storage and transmission to keep electricity as reliable. California’s solar panels and farms were all turning off as the blackouts began, with no help available from the states to the East already in nightfall.


Electricity from solar goes away at the very moment when the demand for electricity rises. “The peak demand was steady in late hours,” said the spokesperson for CAISO, which is controlled by Gov. Gavin Newsom, “and we had thousands of megawatts of solar reducing their output as the sunset.”


The two blackouts in less than a year are strong evidence that the tens of billions that Californians have spent on renewables come with high human, economic, and environmental costs.


Last December, a report by done for PG&E concluded that the utility’s customers could see blackouts double over the next 15 years and quadruple over the next 30.


California’s anti-nuclear policies also contributed to the blackouts. In 2013, Gov. Jerry Brown forced a nuclear power plant, San Onofre, in southern California to close.


Had San Onofre still been operating, there almost certainly would not have been blackouts on Friday as the reserve margin would have been significantly larger. The capacity of San Onofre was double that of the lost generation capacity that triggered the blackout.


California's current and former large nuclear plants are located on the coast, which allows for their electricity to travel shorter distances, and through less-constrained transmission lines than the state’s industrial solar farms, to get to the coastal cities where electricity is in highest demand.


There has been very little electricity from wind during the summer heatwave in California and the broader western U.S., further driving up demand. In fact, the same weather pattern, a stable high-pressure bubble, is the cause of heatwaves, since it brought very low wind for days on end along with very high temperatures.


Things won’t be any better, and may be worse, in the winter, which produces far less solar electricity than the summer. Solar plus storage, an expensive attempt to fix problems like what led to this blackout, cannot help through long winters of low output.


California’s electricity prices will continue to rise if it continues to add more renewables to its grid, and goes forward with plans to shut down its last nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon, in 2025.


Had California spent an estimated $100 billion on nuclear instead of on wind and solar, it would have had enough energy to replace all fossil fuels in its in-state electricity mix.


To manage the increasingly unreliable grid, California will either need to keep its nuclear plant operating, build more natural gas plants, or pay ever more money annually to reserve emergency electricity supplies from its neighbors.


After the blackouts last October, Gov. Newsom attacked PG&E Corp. for “greed and mismanagement” and named a top aide, Ana Matosantos, to be his “energy czar.”


“This is not the new normal, and this does not take 10 years to solve,” Newsom said. “The entire system needs to be reimagined.”


 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts