 Friends | Nope  Matt_ Johnston: Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX There is no observational data to support the claim that we are facing an existential humanitarian crisis due to climate change. Despite a lack of empirical evidence to support such profound statements, the alarmists stress that more and more people are being killed by “climate-driven” extreme weather events such as heatwaves, tropical cyclones, droughts and floods each year because of our “addiction” to fossil fuels. What's more, alarmists maintain that “climate-fueled” heat and drought are taking a toll on agriculture, which is increasing famine and food scarcity. However, a close examination of the data reveal that not one of these popular averments are true. 𝐀𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐝: • Africa: +131.8% (2011-20 vs. 1925) • Americas: +116.9% (2011-20 vs. 1850) • Asia: +165.8% (2011-20 vs. 1885) • Europe: +115.0% (2011-20 vs. 1850) • Oceania: +124.9% (2011-20 vs. 1870) 🔗https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy The reason for this is because of fossil fuels, which have improved our standard of living in a number of ways, including: 💡 Producing the electricity supplied to our homes to keep our lights on, HVAC working and other home appliances functioning. 🍳 Supply the electricity and/or gas to power stoves, ovens and microwaves to cook our food and reduce personal risk of becoming infected and/or falling ill to foodborne pathogens. 💊 Improving public health by facilitating a hygienic sewage treatment system, a clean running water supply and enabling scientists / engineers to develop life-saving medications, vaccines and various surgical procedures that would otherwise not exist. ⛽️ Powering vehicles, aircraft and other modes of transportation which make it easier for people to get access to better healthcare, better education and countless other essential services. 𝐃𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫-𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐡𝐚𝐳𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝟗𝟎%: Despite the increase in ~6 billion people since 1920, the absolute [decadal average] number of deaths from meteorological-related hazards (e.g., severe storms, floods, droughts or extreme temperatures) have fallen by >96.2% since the 1920s. 📉 🔗https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/decadal-average-death-rates-from-natural-disasters While this data does not really reflect climate-related trends, it is a result of improved warning coordination efforts between government officials and the public at large, which is linearly traced to improved forecast lead times. This has all been enabled by very powerful supercomputers that require nuclear fission, coal fire or natural gas to operate. 🖥️ 𝐆𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐬: Contrary to popular belief, global crop yields reached “all-time” record highs [since FAO data began in 1961] during the last decade. 📈 🌾 Wheat: +2,481.9% (2013-22 vs. 1961-70) 🌽 Maize: +2,448.7% 🍚 Rice: +2,073.3% 🌱 Soybeans: +1,960.8% 🍌 Bananas: +1,821.0% 🫛 Peas, dry: +1,650.3% 🫘 Beans, dry: +1,483.3% 🥔 Potatoes: +1,480.0% 🍫 Cocoa beans: +1,381.5% 🔗https://fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL Uptrends in crop yields are largely a byproduct of genetic engineering high yield crop varieties which are more resistant to inclement weather and invasive insect species. 🔗pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4218791 However, some of this may be augmented by higher atmospheric CO₂ concentrations and a longer growing season in the mid-latitudes. Even the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) admits this. 🔗https://climatechange.chicago.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-agriculture-and-food-supply What's more, the number of deaths from famine have decreased by 98.4% since the 1940s. 📉 🔗https://ourworldindata.org/famines So, the suggestion that food scarcity is becoming an issue at the global scale is not supported by the data. 𝐆𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐝𝐨𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞: We are routinely told that “extreme heat is the number one weather-related killer.” We are also told that as the planet warms, more and more people are going to be killed from extreme temperatures. But, it turns out that extreme heat is humans' 𝒍𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝒕𝒆𝒎𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒌 in most geographical regions. 🥵 From 2000-2019, 𝒆𝒙𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒎𝒆 𝒉𝒆𝒂𝒕 was linked to an average of 153,078 excess deaths (e.g., hyperthermia or heatstroke) per year globally. 🥶 𝑬𝒙𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒎𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒍𝒅, conversely, was linked to 205,932 excess deaths (e.g., hypothermia) per year globally. So, that's 1.3× as many fatalities than those caused by extreme heat exposure. Thus, in the grand scheme of things, direct exposure to extreme outdoor air temperature kills a surprisingly few number of people per year globally. 🔗https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004364 🔗pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38331527/ Much larger health risks are associated with moderate heat and cold exposure, however. ♨️ 𝑴𝒐𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒉𝒆𝒂𝒕 was ascribed to 335,997 excess deaths (e.g., dehydration or electrolyte imbalance) per year, on average, globally from 2000-19. That is 2.19× as many deaths than the number caused by extreme heat. 🧥 𝑴𝒐𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒍𝒅 is humans' highest temperature risk. From 2000-19, it was linked to nearly 4.4 million excess deaths (e.g., constriction of blood vessels to maintain a stable core body temperature) per year, on average, globally. That's 28.6× as many deaths than are caused by extreme heat exposure. By region, extreme heat is the 𝒔𝒎𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝒕𝒆𝒎𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒌 on 4 of the 6 permanently inhabited continents (e.g., Zhao et al., 2024). Versus extreme cold, extreme heat kills, on an annual average, • Oceania: 114 more people ⬆️ • North America: 7,026 𝒇𝒆𝒘𝒆𝒓 people ⬇️ • Latin America: 9,611 𝒇𝒆𝒘𝒆𝒓 people ⬇️ • Europe: 6,741 𝒇𝒆𝒘𝒆𝒓 people ⬇️ • Africa: 13,131 more people ⬆️ • Asia: 47,722 𝒇𝒆𝒘𝒆𝒓 people ⬇️ 🔗https://thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext But, what about increased risk with warming? 🤔 It holds true that with warming, there is an increased heat-related mortality rate, and the number of cold weather-related deaths concurrently decrease. This trend has already been observed. 🥵 On average, ~116,000 more people die per year from 𝒆𝒙𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒎𝒆 𝒉𝒆𝒂𝒕 exposure today than they did in the year 2000. 🥶 On average, ~283,000 𝒇𝒆𝒘𝒆𝒓 people die per year from 𝒆𝒙𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒎𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒍𝒅 exposure today than in 2000. But, as we can see with the figures above, the number of deaths from exposure to cold air decrease at a faster pace than the number of deaths from exposure to hot air increase. The result? Total deaths fall. ⬇️ The average number of deaths avoided annually from non-optimal outdoor air temperature exposure since 2000 now exceeds 167,000 persons. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐦 𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬. . . There is 𝒏𝒐 𝒉𝒂𝒓𝒅 𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 to suggest that a warmer planet is bad for humanity. There is 𝒏𝒐 𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 to suggest that climate warming has been a net drawback to state of human welfare. We have the ability to adapt to change with the technologies we have developed. This isn't an existential crisis by any key metric of relevance. Claims that we are facing a crisis are from individuals concerned about what 𝒎𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕 happen in the future, which stem from predictions made by faulty computer model simulations with unrealistic input assumptions from the get-go.     Matt_ Johnston: “If science can't be questioned, it's not science anymore. It's propaganda, and that's the truth.” – Aaron Rodgers Matt_ Johnston: "This is probably the biggest con that we've ever had." Geologist Prof. Ian Plimer: "There is no climate emergency... It has never been proven that human emissions of CO2 drive global warming." "Only 3% of emissions are from humans, the rest is natural... So if you're to prove that humans, and their emissions of the the gas of life, change climate, then you also have to prove that the natural emissions—97% of all emissions—don't change climate. That has never been addressed." x.com/i/status/1844702864775549216  Sir Loin: I've followed Plimer a bit and referenced him previously in this forum. Some physicists dismiss what he says because he's "only a geologist" but the paleoclimatic record is to be found in the rocks, almost nowhere else when we look into deep time. Many physicists are blind to anything but their own field Matt_ Johnston: The great scientist Richard Lindzen wrote, “What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that carbon dioxide from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that carbon dioxide, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.” Have you ever noticed that it's usually the older, highly experienced, renowned — often retired or emeritus — scientists who are questioning the narrative that anthropogenic CO2 drives climate change and are calling it a COMPLETE HOAX? There are many reasons for this: • They're the smart ones. • They're no longer dependent on grants that favor certain conclusions. • They were not brainwashed and indoctrinated from a young age. • They uphold the scientific method — NOT "the science" or any so-called (anti-science) "consensus." • They don't live in their mother's basements, and don't look like they crawled out of a hole. • They're not afraid to engage in open debate. • They don't rely on phrases like "climate scientists say..." as proof. EVER. • They have a deep understanding of the physics and mathematics spanning the numerous fields that climate science encompasses. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. Richard Lindzen Richard Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. He was Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology at Harvard University from 1972 to 1982, and in 1983, he joined the faculty at MIT as the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology until he retired in 2013 and assumed emeritus status. 1992 • Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science 1985 • Charney Award, American Meteorological Society 1977 • Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences 1977 • Member, National Academy of Sciences 1969 • Fellow, American Geophysical Union   Matt_ Johnston: 💥It Destroys the Climate Hoax 💥It Exposes how Opposing Views are Suppressed 💥Discusses how Globalist Elites GOAL which is to END FREEDOM & Rule over us ! Matt_ Johnston: Remarkable 2009 ClimateGate email: Tom Wigley talks about fraudulently and "deliberately" altering real-world data to better match the climate scam narrative. From: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu> To: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk> Subject: 1940s Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600 Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@llnl.gov> <x-flowed> Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip. I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip". Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH -- just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols. The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note -- from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not) -- but not really enough. So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.) This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I'd appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have. Tom. </x-flowed> Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\TTHEMIS.xls" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\TTLVSO.XLS" Matt_ Johnston: Scientific Bombshell Shatters the Climate Change Narrative A groundbreaking new study has found that CO2 "may have little to no further warming effect" on the Earth's atmosphere. The striking finding that made the authors come to this conclusion is the fact that the Earth's atmosphere already contains over 6 kg/m² of CO2, which is ten times the "saturation mass" needed for the gas to absorb radiation. This means that additional CO2 emissions might not significantly increase global temperatures, as the atmosphere has already absorbed nearly all the heat it can within the CO2 spectrum. The study, titled “Climatic consequences of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases,” was published in Applications in Engineering Science. These findings support the argument made by independent researchers like Randall Carlson, who actually claims that CO2 comes with many benefits, such as boosting plant growth and crop yields. He says, “Hundreds of studies have consistently demonstrated significant improvements in plant growth, crop yields, and drought resistance under elevated CO2 conditions.” This latest study aligns with what Carlson has been saying all along and is absolutely devastating for the climate change narrative. x.com/i/status/1850649559640285645 Matt_ Johnston: Earth is cooler w atmosphere, water vapor, 30% albedo not warmer. Ubiquitous GHE heat balance graphics don’t + violate GAAP & LoT. Kinetic heat transfer modes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render a BB surface & “extra” GHE energy impossible. GHE = bogus & CAGW = a scam.   Matt_ Johnston: https://keihatsu.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-climate-change?r=2kx8r6&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true We see, hear and read a lot about a ‘human-caused climate crisis leading to imminent extinction of life on the planet.’ We hear about the ‘goal of net zero CO2’ or ‘net zero carbon.’ The climate change issue has taken on a religious fervor and crusade in many circles and by millions of people who believe we are on the path to the end of life on earth due to climate change. On the other side of the spectrum are those who dismiss the idea there is a climate crisis at all - much less one caused by humans. The debate over climate change is hot and heavy. So what’s the truth? What does the true science say? (At the end of this article, the driving forces behind the climate agenda are given.) Matt_ Johnston: No study of earth's geological past shows carbon dioxide changes weather anywhere. Weather is driven by great natural forces of solar energy, orbital cycles, tectonic shift, cloud & ocean currents. Warmth generates CO2 from soils, rocks, oceans, life itself, death & decay.  Sir Loin: Gidday Matt. Were you a meteorologist? You seem to know a lot about the atmosphere but have come to a different conclusion than many other professionals Sir Loin: Cheers Matt, you come up with some interesting stuff. It'll be over the heads of most agw adherants though 🤣 Matt_ Johnston to Sir Loin: Thought you might find this interesting. Roles of Earth’s Albedo Variations and Top-of-the-Atmosphere Energy Imbalance in Recent Warming: New Insights from Satellite and Surface Observations https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7418/4/3/17 Cheers. Matt_ Johnston: From this bloke: Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. @NikolovScience Ph.D. Physical Scientist with a broad range of interests in various fields of science, i.e. climate, cosmology, astrophysics, nutrition, archaeology etc. |
@ChrisMartzWX
Here are 10 questions climate activists refuse to answer.
➊ You claim that the Earth is overheating. You say it’s “too hot.” So, what is the correct global mean surface temperature (GMST) for life on Earth and why? 🌡️
Please provide a numerical answer. Use units and round it to the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius. Then, explain why that value is ideal and cite evidence to justify your answer.
➋ What is the correct atmospheric CO₂ level for life on Earth?
🌽 What level optimizes our agricultural productivity?
⛈️ What CO₂ level will make da weatha less scary?
Give your answer as an exact value in a mole fraction or volume percentage, and then explain why that value is ideal.
➌ What makes CO₂ “pollution”?
The EPA considers CO₂ to be a pollutant, legally speaking, under the Clean Air Act, and their scientific justification is simply that, it “…𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑓𝑎𝑟𝑒.”
🔗 https://epa.gov/climate-change/endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute-findings-greenhouse-gases-under-section-202a
That seems pretty ambiguous.
Because by that measure, water vapor should also be classified as a “pollutant” because it’s also a “greenhouse gas” (GHG) — in fact, it’s the most abundant GHG and it absorbs a wider spectrum of IR wavelengths than CO₂. 🌈
So, what makes CO₂ pollution?
➍ Why are temperature departures from 1850-1900 climate conditions deemed as the human welfare control knob given that the overall human condition has never been better than it is today? How is was climate during the end of the Little Ice Age — the coldest period in the last 10,000-years — preferable to today’s?
On what account was the weather more benign? By what measure? Be specific. Tell me how the climate was supposedly less dangerous in the 17-19th centuries.
➎ The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that President Biden signed into law in 2022 was popularized as the “biggest climate bill in history,” but ever since the bill was signed, climate alarmists insist climate change has only gotten worse.
Why are we not seeing the bill work its magic? What’s not working? 🎩 🪄
🔗 axios.com/2024/07/21/biden-legacy-election-2024
➏ The estimated cost of net zero by the year 2050 in the U.S. is $75 trillion ($3 trillion per year), according to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. 💵
🔗 politico.com/news/2024/07/27/yellen-amazon-climate-change-00171522
That’s a hefty price tag. 💰🏷️
And with ~165 million U.S. taxpayers, it would cost each of us >$450,000 to get to “net zero” by the target date.
Are you willing to shell out that money, or do you just expect that everyone else will foot the bill for you? 🤔
➐ If we spend $75 trillion to decarbonize the economy by 2050, by how much will it reduce the GMST by the end of the century? Please provide your answer to the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius and show your calculations.
What does the perfect climate look like? How will we know when we get there? By what measure?
If you don’t know the answer to question six, are we supposed to spend $75 trillion and just see what happens? 🤨
➑ If “combating climate change” is a global concerted effort, why do China and India get a free pass to continue emitting CO₂ without bound? Why are they never criticized?
➒ Why are you so vehemently opposed to the deployment of nuclear power? It is the safest, most sustainable “carbon-free” energy technology, and without the compliance regulations, it isn’t expensive when compared to solar PV and wind, which are inefficient, intermittent, costly add-ons to existing electricity generation sources.
➓ If humans are a parasite to the Earth since we are destroying it, why not be the change you want to see and decarbonize yourself?
I’ve asked these questions before and not one person has given me a coherent point-by-point answer to all ten