3 ms·

Please publish a scientific paper debunking this. In the mean time, I'm more inclined to believe the article I've linked.

by revax 5y ago

swader999 5y ago
Specifically, look at the USGCRP Climate Science Special Assessment: Volume 1: Chapter 6: Temperature Changes in the United States https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/ https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/ Scroll down to figure 6.3. You can see that the 1920's to 1940's had more extreme heat events than any time since. Figure 6.4 is also useful to look at. IPCC AR5 WGI Section 2.6.2.3 says they have "low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the century" https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_f... As far as model's go, gosh where to begin... Read the closing remarks here. They admit in far to many words cooking the books or 'tuning' the model to fit what they observed. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019MS002037 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/201... Another book examining albedo modification admits their futility: "The uncertainties in modeling of both climate change and the consequences of albedo modification make it impossible today to provide reliable, quantitative statements about relative risks, consequences, and benefits of albedo modification to the Earth system as a whole, let alone benefits and risks to specific regions of the planet." source: https://www.nap.edu/read/18988/chapter/4#39 https://www.nap.edu/read/18988/chapter/4#39 Or just find the climate gate code from a few years back and see how horrendous it is for yourself.
- CraigJPerry 5y ago
  I think you might be arguing in bad faith. Looking at your first link, and reading your comment above this one, you’ve drawn an opposite conclusion from the paper. The paper starts with “ United States has increased by 1.2°F (0.7°C) for the period 1986–2016 relative to 1901–1960 and by 1.8°F (1.0°C) based on a linear regression for the period 1895–2016 (very high confidence)” But reading the text around your chosen chart is even more enlightening. “ are mainly tied to the unprecedented summer heat of the 1930s Dust Bowl era, which was exacerbated by land-surface feedbacks driven by springtime precipitation deficits and land mismanagement. However, anthropogenic aerosol forcing may also have reduced summer temperatures in the Northeast and Southeast from the early 1950s to the mid-1970s, and agricultural intensification may have suppressed the hottest extremes in the Midwest.” If you’re going to cherry pick at least do it from a paper that doesn’t counter your argument.
  - swader999 5y ago
    I don't think your quote really changes the facts that we aren't seeing more extreme heat events. Read chapter 6 in Steve Koonin's new book "Unsettled". He does a great job of going through all the real data on heat over the last century.

Please publish a scientific paper debunking this. In the mean time, I'm more inclined to believe the article I've linked.

by revax 5y ago

Please publish a scientific paper debunking this. In the mean time, I'm more inclined to believe the article I've linked.

swader999 5y ago

Specifically, look at the USGCRP Climate Science Special Assessment: Volume 1: Chapter 6: Temperature Changes in the United States https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/ https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/ Scroll down to figure 6.3. You can see that the 1920's to 1940's had more extreme heat events than any time since. Figure 6.4 is also useful to look at. IPCC AR5 WGI Section 2.6.2.3 says they have "low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the century" https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_f... As far as model's go, gosh where to begin... Read the closing remarks here. They admit in far to many words cooking the books or 'tuning' the model to fit what they observed. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019MS002037 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/201... Another book examining albedo modification admits their futility: "The uncertainties in modeling of both climate change and the consequences of albedo modification make it impossible today to provide reliable, quantitative statements about relative risks, consequences, and benefits of albedo modification to the Earth system as a whole, let alone benefits and risks to specific regions of the planet." source: https://www.nap.edu/read/18988/chapter/4#39 https://www.nap.edu/read/18988/chapter/4#39 Or just find the climate gate code from a few years back and see how horrendous it is for yourself.

CraigJPerry 5y ago
I think you might be arguing in bad faith. Looking at your first link, and reading your comment above this one, you’ve drawn an opposite conclusion from the paper. The paper starts with “ United States has increased by 1.2°F (0.7°C) for the period 1986–2016 relative to 1901–1960 and by 1.8°F (1.0°C) based on a linear regression for the period 1895–2016 (very high confidence)” But reading the text around your chosen chart is even more enlightening. “ are mainly tied to the unprecedented summer heat of the 1930s Dust Bowl era, which was exacerbated by land-surface feedbacks driven by springtime precipitation deficits and land mismanagement. However, anthropogenic aerosol forcing may also have reduced summer temperatures in the Northeast and Southeast from the early 1950s to the mid-1970s, and agricultural intensification may have suppressed the hottest extremes in the Midwest.” If you’re going to cherry pick at least do it from a paper that doesn’t counter your argument.
- swader999 5y ago
  I don't think your quote really changes the facts that we aren't seeing more extreme heat events. Read chapter 6 in Steve Koonin's new book "Unsettled". He does a great job of going through all the real data on heat over the last century.