Posted on 01/07/2023 5:06:40 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
In the not-so-distant past, scientists predicted that global temperatures would surge dramatically throughout this century, assuming that humans would rely heavily on fossil fuels for decades. But they are revising their forecasts as they track both signs of progress and unexpected hazards.
Accelerating solar and wind energy adoption means global warming probably will not reach the extremes once feared, climate scientists say. At the same time, recent heat, storms and ecological disasters prove, they say, that climate change impacts could be more severe than predicted even with less warming.
Researchers are increasingly worried about the degree to which even less-than-extreme increases in global temperatures will intensify heat and storms, irreversibly destabilize natural systems and overwhelm even highly developed societies. Extremes considered virtually impossible not long ago are already occurring.
But the latest projections of warming nevertheless show humanity has made progress at reining in some of its planet-warming emissions, scientists said.
“We model the individual impact of hazards, but we don’t model the potential ripple impacts through society,” said Luke Kemp, a research associate at the Center for the Study of Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge in Britain.
And Kemp said it’s also important not to assume the latest global warming forecasts will become reality, and to keep in mind that what seems remote remains possible.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Wait until the Yellowstone caldera erupts…you ain’t seen nothing yet, squishes.
See - Global warming isn't happening, because of what we did!
You have to give us more power and money!
Complete B.S. No science involved at all, just an appeal to scientism by the climate change religion.
How much is because we lost the good sense our ancestors had to avoid living next to rivers and oceans? The settlement patterns in New Orleans showed that. The early settlements we’re on the high ground to avoid floods and malarial swamps. Coastal areas in the south were subject to hurricanes, so don’t build anything other than semi-temporary vacation houses in the beach.
Climate scientists say. What a crock!
Less warming but worse impact = We don’t know what we are doing but we need more money to find out.
What a crock...
They should be embarrassed. But they aren’t. Not even a little.
"We've determined that we need to kill off a few billion people to really get the weather more to our liking. Wettersraum uber wenige!" ~ WEF
They literally just make this up as they go
This is the Shuckin’ part of the Shuckin’ and Jivin’ we knew they would have to do when none of their predictions came true.
For those really interested in this subject and where we’re headed, I highly recommend this video. It’s some unusually reasonable language from someone to the world going to die side and someone that’s closer to the center on this whole thing.:
I don’t think the climate fairmongers are going to win this one. Reality is hitting too many people.
Changing the narrative to stay relevant.
The way to deal with the Climate Change hoax is to deal firmly to eliminate the hoaxer’s
kommiela couldn't have put it more clearly!!
LiG thermometers and PRTs built in the late 19th century were capable of high degrees of precision, even by today’s standards. I don’t have a cite, but I would wager the laboratory-grade LIGs and Callendar-type PRTs produced in 1913 were capable of achieving resolutions of 0.01 °C or better up to 550 °C. Thermometers designed for geological and meteorological applications would have had reduced precision, naturally, but resolutions of 0.1 °C would have been easy to achieve.
The problem in 1913 wasn’t the precision or range of the thermometers. The main problem was that there wasn’t a nationally agreed upon temperature standard & scale. (The first ITS wasn’t published until 1927.) So while the precision of the various thermometers may have been high, their absolute accuracies would be in question. In other words, the data for the measured *change *in temperature for a given thermometer would have likely been valid, but you would you would not have high confidence in the results when comparing data from two different thermometers (unless they were “calibrated” by the same lab & person), and you would have even less confidence from the results of performing a direct comparison between temperature data generated in 1913 and a thermometer calibrated after 1927.
Translation: Despite the fact we’ve been dead wrong about everything we’ve said about climate for as long as we’ve been saying it, we still say unless you give your money and your freedom to government you’re gonna die
Yes, and Donald Trump colluded with Russia to win the election.
Translation:
1) It’s better, but it’s actually worse.
2) We need more money for research.
3) ________________ (fill in)
Utter BS!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.