[AFAIK]

I think it's safe to ignore TTP since he can't tell the difference between climate and weather. Climate is measured over centuries and can't be established in a single summer.

[Truth To Power]

Okay, I did.

They said it was definitely cooler then and it is hotter now.

Thanks!

I do not believe you.

[Truth To Power]

I think it's safe to ignore TTP since he can't tell the difference between climate and weather.

You are just makin' $#!+ up again.

Climate is measured over centuries and can't be established in a single summer.

Climate changes on decadal scales, and we haven't been measuring it for centuries. Lyin' Michael Mann claimed to have measured climate over centuries, but he actually just contrived a way to make the MWP and LIA disappear from the data.

[Truth To Power]

I have a shallow roof. I used to have to shovel it off 2 or 3 times a winter. I have on;y done that once in the last several years.

It was warmer in the 1930s-40s, but cooled from the 40s-70s.

When I was a kid in the 1950s, we would get subzero temps every winter. Haven't seen those, either.

Decadal oscillation. See above. It's just a cycle you haven't lived through all of yet, so you think its up-phase is a secular trend.

Last year the Gulf of Maine warmed by 4 degrees, which is stunning, for one year.

And it wil cool back down next year or the year after. It's a cycle.

The New England midcoast ecology has started to move into Maine.

Nice!

Years ago, the caribou left, it got too warm. We brought a herd here, but they also bugged out.

Where were they in the Holocene Optimum?

Scientists, as opposed to intellectual deficient and dishonest kooks, have been talking about warming since the 1970s...

Because that's when the cooling phase of the cycle ended.

[Truth To Power]

Yes. Solid plan. Lets ignore science and data,

No, let's remember that science is not the same as data, which can be faked.

and instead ask a 80-100 year old person if they remember a ~1C (on average) temperature increase over the last 80 years as compared to when they were children.

Ultimately, we can only trust actual physical events. Data can be manipulated, cherry-picked, altered, adjusted, falsified. Whether there is enough ice to skate on the local pond is a physical fact.

Because we all know that personal anecdote is more reliable than data and science.

Actual physical events are more reliable than manipulated, charry-picked, and even falsified data. I remember in the 1960s, older relatives from Britain complaining that they had not had a proper summer since the War. That fact has now been erased from the "science" and "data."

That kids have excellent ability to subjectively record temperature, and elderly have excellent memory and that none of this is absolutely subjective at all.

The fact that one could not skate on the local pond in the winter in the 1930s and 40s, but could in the 1960s and 70s, is not subjective at all.

[late]

Ultimately, we can only trust actual physical events.

This place is like a comedy club.

You just threw science out with the bath water...

[Robert Urbanek]

Correction: After rereading the story, it appears that the 220 million total is for all the SUVs in the world, not just the U.S. The thread headline is incorrect.

[Pants-of-dog]

I do not believe you.

Then ask the nonagenarian that I asked. If she says differently, let me know. But so far, the evidence you asked for contradicts your claim.

It was warmer in the 1930s-40s, but cooled from the 40s-70s.

Please describe how the global temperature has changed since 1970. Thanks.

[Truth To Power]

Please describe how the global temperature has changed since 1970.

Because of the sustained multi-millennial high in solar activity in the second half of the 20th century, temperature increased about 0.4C in the 40-odd years after 1970, probably peaking sometime between 2012, when arctic sea ice extent bottomed, and 2016, when lower troposphere temperature peaked. It probably won't revisit the peak in our lifetimes unless solar activity increases again. Astrophysicists don't expect it to, but it underwent a sudden, very unexpected increase a year ago, which has continued into this year, so one can't be sure.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

Provide evidence that there was a sustained multi-millennial high in solar activity in the second half of the 20th century,

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

Provide evidence that there was a sustained multi-millennial high in solar activity in the second half of the 20th century,

"The Sun is more active now than over the last 8000 years"

"... one needs to go back over 8,000 years in order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the last 60 years..."

https://www.mpg.de/research/sun-activity-high

[Pants-of-dog]

"The Sun is more active now than over the last 8000 years"

"... one needs to go back over 8,000 years in order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the last 60 years..."

https://www.mpg.de/research/sun-activity-high

The quoted text does not support the claim.

This is the text from your source that discusses whether or not solar activity is responsible for the observed warming:

Because the brightness of the Sun varies slightly with solar activity, the new reconstruction indicates also that the Sun shines somewhat brighter today than in the 8,000 years before. Whether this effect could have provided a significant contribution to the global warming of the Earth during the last century is an open question. The researchers around Sami K. Solanki stress the fact that solar activity has remained on a roughly constant (high) level since about 1980 - apart from the variations due to the 11-year cycle - while the global temperature has experienced a strong further increase during that time. On the other hand, the rather similar trends of solar activity and terrestrial temperature during the last centuries (with the notable exception of the last 20 years) indicates that the relation between the Sun and climate remains a challenge for further research.

[Truth To Power]

delete

[Truth To Power]

The quoted text does not support the claim.

Yes, of course it does.

This is the text from your source that discusses whether or not solar activity is responsible for the observed warming:
Because the brightness of the Sun varies slightly with solar activity, the new reconstruction indicates also that the Sun shines somewhat brighter today than in the 8,000 years before. Whether this effect could have provided a significant contribution to the global warming of the Earth during the last century is an open question. The researchers around Sami K. Solanki stress the fact that solar activity has remained on a roughly constant (high) level since about 1980 - apart from the variations due to the 11-year cycle - while the global temperature has experienced a strong further increase during that time.

That is merely the obligatory genuflection to CO2-centered climate "science" now required in all papers submitted for consideration to the most prestigious peer-reviewed climate journals. In fact, the claimed "strong further increase" in temperature since 1980 was created by deliberate, retroactive alteration of temperature records to reduce the temperatures recorded in the 1930s and 40s.

On the other hand, the rather similar trends of solar activity and terrestrial temperature during the last centuries (with the notable exception of the last 20 years)

Which we know has been fabricated by retroactively altering the temperature record...

indicates that the relation between the Sun and climate remains a challenge for further research.

It certainly merits further scientific research -- which can't happen as long as researchers are required, as a condition of obtaining their research funding or publication in peer-reviewed journals, to assume CO2 determines global surface temperature, and to falsify their results to support that hypothesis.

[late]

@Truth To Power

Ignore him.

Something I have been waiting for has happened, scientists are finally starting to talk net negative carbon.

Yeah, that'll be fun.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, of course it does.

If you wish to believe that, go ahead.

Everyone can read for themselves that the text discusses the last eight thousand years while the original claim was for the last half of the twentieth century.

That is merely the obligatory genuflection to CO2-centered climate "science" now required in all papers submitted for consideration to the most prestigious peer-reviewed climate journals. In fact, the claimed "strong further increase" in temperature since 1980 was created by deliberate, retroactive alteration of temperature records to reduce the temperatures recorded in the 1930s and 40s.

Which we know has been fabricated by retroactively altering the temperature record...

Ad hominem, Ignored.

It certainly merits further scientific research -- which can't happen as long as researchers are required, as a condition of obtaining their research funding or publication in peer-reviewed journals, to assume CO2 determines global surface temperature, and to falsify their results to support that hypothesis.

Yet the very scientist you cite, Dr. Sami Solanki, is still gainfully employed and (among other things) audits climate models to make them more consistent with observed heliospheric physics and their relationship with climate.

[Robert Urbanek]

In my 32 years living in Vacaville, I have never seen weather like this: 12 atmospheric rivers this year, according to a weather person, and another one coming this week. An increase in atmospheric rivers is consistent with climate change predictions that a warming ocean will create more and severe storm fronts.

Milpitas, a city in Silicon Valley, experienced wind gusts of 81 miles per hour and a tornado was reported in Los Angeles.

[Puffer Fish]

What a lot of those on the Left will never touch - what they refuse to even think about even if it is placed right in front of them - is WHY the U.S. relies so much on cars.
It's like a connection between two neurons in their brain refuses to form, because they know where that thought is leading and they don't want to think about it.

To begin to understand, you have to go all the way back to period in the 1940s through 60s when racial segregation was ending in the big cities. Shortly after this there was a movement of middle class white people away from the big cities and into the suburbs. This led to the beginnings of freeways and long commute times to work. (This was intimately tied to racial issues)

Then you also have to understand why Americans have, since about the 70s, been reluctant to take public transportation. Crazy stuff goes on in public transportation in American big cities. Middle class people do not feel it is clean and do not feel comfortable or safe. (We could have a whole discussion about this)
Let's just say it's not like public transportation in Japan where all the passengers and respectful, clean, and well-behaved.


You know what's interesting? In the 1910s to 1920s a lot of American cities had electric trolleys, even cities with only medium sized populations. (This was right before cars became commonly owned by most families) Now in a lot of these cities the electric trolleys no longer exist. It's like things have gone backwards.

[Pants-of-dog]

What a lot of those on the Left will never touch - what they refuse to even think about even if it is placed right in front of them - is WHY the U.S. relies so much on cars.
It's like a connection between two neurons in their brain refuses to form, because they know where that thought is leading and they don't want to think about it.

To begin to understand, you have to go all the way back to period in the 1940s through 60s when racial segregation was ending in the big cities. Shortly after this there was a movement of middle class white people away from the big cities and into the suburbs. This led to the beginnings of freeways and long commute times to work. (This was intimately tied to racial issues)

Why would people opposed to racism be reluctant to discuss how racism has caused environmental problems?

Then you also have to understand why Americans have, since about the 70s, been reluctant to take public transportation. Crazy stuff goes on in public transportation in American big cities. Middle class people do not feel it is clean and do not feel comfortable or safe. (We could have a whole discussion about this)
Let's just say it's not like public transportation in Japan where all the passengers and respectful, clean, and well-behaved.

Somyou are saying that rich people do not take public transportation because they think poor people are violent losers. Yes, stereotyping is a real problem.

You know what's interesting? In the 1910s to 1920s a lot of American cities had electric trolleys, even cities with only medium sized populations. (This was right before cars became commonly owned by most families) Now in a lot of these cities the electric trolleys no longer exist. It's like things have gone backwards.

Electric streetcars are no longer used because they get caught in traffic jams if there is no dedicated lane for them, and most streetcar companies had a mandate to maintain pavement around their tracks which became an onerous subsidy for the private cars driving on the tracks and blocking the streetcars.

[Robert Urbanek]

I think it's safe to ignore TTP since he can't tell the difference between climate and weather. Climate is measured over centuries and can't be established in a single summer.

I think the whole weather vs. climate debate is a waste of time. Climate change affects weather so it’s really a distinction without a meaningful difference.