THE ACCURATERELOADING.COM FORUMS

December 7, 1941 "A date which will live in infamy"

Page 1 2 3 4 

Moderators: Walterhog
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Climate Change Denialism Just Got a Lot Harder Login/Join 
one of us
posted Hide Post
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weat...1gt2ty?ocid=msedgdhp

Warming is clearly visible in new US 'climate normal' datasets
Russ Schumacher, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science and Colorado State Climatologist, Colorado State University and Becky Bolinger, Assistant State Climatologist and Research Scientist in Atmospheric Science, Colorado

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has released updated “climate normals” – datasets that the agency produces every 10 years to give forecasters and the public baseline measurements of average temperature, rainfall and other conditions across the U.S. As the state climatologist and assistant state climatologist for Colorado, we work with this information all the time. Here’s what climate normals are, how they’ve changed, and how you can best make sense of them.


--------------------------------------------------------

Reality: Resistance is Futile.

---------------------------------------------------------

 
Posts: 13727 | Location: Depends on the Season | Registered: 17 February 2017Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weat...1g9aiN?ocid=msedgdhp

Satellites show world's glaciers melting faster than ever
BY SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer 4/28/2021


--------------------------------------------------------

Reality: Resistance is Futile.

---------------------------------------------------------

 
Posts: 13727 | Location: Depends on the Season | Registered: 17 February 2017Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...1ftN3J?ocid=msedgdhp

'Ghost forests' are spreading across US coastal regions


--------------------------------------------------------

Reality: Resistance is Futile.

---------------------------------------------------------

 
Posts: 13727 | Location: Depends on the Season | Registered: 17 February 2017Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
conditions across the U.S.


That is not the whole world!!!!!!!!!

That is not the whole world!!!!!!!!!

That is not the whole world!!!!!!!!!

It is because of the ocean climate shift to the north.Warming the north.

And the area the climate shifted away from got cooler

and when averaged out with accurate weather stations there is no global warming.

And in all this process CO2 did not cause the shift to the north..... Geez what a dummy.....


MZEE WA SIKU
 
Posts: 27742 | Registered: 03 February 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
That is not the whole world!!!!!!!!!



Whaaaat?


quote:
Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weat...1g9aiN?ocid=msedgdhp

Satellites show world's glaciers melting faster than ever
BY SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer 4/28/2021


--------------------------------------------------------

Reality: Resistance is Futile.

---------------------------------------------------------

 
Posts: 13727 | Location: Depends on the Season | Registered: 17 February 2017Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
FROM THE ARTICLE-
''The study is the first to use this 3D satellite imagery to examine all of Earth’s

glaciers '''not'''' connected to ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctic.''


Ice sheets in Antarctica are sliding out a little faster and breaking off because of more snow and

ice piling up on land pushing them out. That is happening more because that continent has cooled.

And it cooled because of the ocean climate shifted away from it, that is warmer ocean

shifted away from it to the north causing warming in the north. Affecting glaciers there,

When that southern hemisphere area of the earth is averaged in with correct thermometer readings

there is no warming. ...Geez you are a dummy ME ..The warming shysters ignore a whole bunch

of geography and physical science and weather factors, to give the wrong warming conclusion...

They are a bunch of crooks like you ME continuing the warming crap..


MZEE WA SIKU
 
Posts: 27742 | Registered: 03 February 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
You, ME as a DEM I assume, and the dems pushing the great vote getting warming

narrative, is just as bad as the fascist party (gop)pushing the hate asylum seekers

ungodly bullshit.. both operations are criminal,


MZEE WA SIKU
 
Posts: 27742 | Registered: 03 February 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grandpasez:
FROM THE ARTICLE-
''The study is the first to use this 3D satellite imagery to examine all of Earth’s

glaciers '''not'''' connected to ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctic.''


Ice sheets in Antarctica are sliding out a little faster and breaking off because of more snow and

ice piling up on land pushing them out. That is happening more because that continent has cooled.


And it cooled because of the ocean climate shifted away from it, that is warmer ocean

shifted away from it to the north causing warming in the north. Affecting glaciers there,

When that southern hemisphere area of the earth is averaged in with correct thermometer readings

there is no warming. ...Geez you are a dummy ME ..The warming shysters ignore a whole bunch

of geography and physical science and weather factors, to give the wrong warming conclusion...

They are a bunch of crooks like you ME continuing the warming crap..


Total crap. The increased flow is due to warming of the water underneath the ice shelves thinning them, making more of them break off and increasing the flow to fill in behind.

" The GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite gravity mission shows that total mass loss in Antarctica is accelerating over time. They found that total mass loss increased by 26 ± 14 gigatonnes per year from 2002 to 20099. Rignot et al. (2011) found a smaller acceleration of 14.5±2 gigatonnes per year from 1993-20115, but this change is still three times larger than that found for mountain glaciers and ice caps."

http://www.antarcticglaciers.o...urface-mass-balance/

" This paper agrees with recent studies that have mapped grounding line recession of major ice streams in the WAIS, associated with warm ocean currents melting ice sheets and ice shelves from below. This body of research indicates that it is not changes in snowfall or surface air temperatures that are driving major ice-sheet recession in West Antarctica; rather, it is grounding-line recession and increased calving, associated with decreased ice-shelf buttressing from thinner and smaller ice shelves, that is driving large-scale ice losses."

http://www.antarcticglaciers.o...ice-sheet-1992-2017/
 
Posts: 5924 | Location: Tennessee | Registered: 09 December 2007Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote- ''increased flow is due to warming of the water underneath the ice shelves thinning them,

making more of them break off and increasing the flow to fill in behind.''

That ice shelf breaking off mentioned is mostly on the west side, Pacific side and that is where

there is a volcanic ridge that is getting active last 30 years that is warming the water underneath.

The volumn lost is making it seem the whole continent of 3 million sq mi has overall lost ice and snow.

But reports from interior show the snow and ice is been getting deeper the last 50 years as well

as interior weather stations back in 70s , 80s, and 90s reported temp drops of 16 deg in 10 year periods,

then warmists got in charge and discarded this info and just use 4 stations around the outside

close to the ocean to add to the averages,,FOR REPRESENTING 3 MILLION SQ MI!!!!!AS well as representing

same or more amount of ocean around it in the averages,!!! It is crooked and criminal...to take

jerry-rigged info and use it to do things in the name of warming, spending taxes like

madmen, and raising my energy costs with expensive windmills.., that is definition of fraud....


MZEE WA SIKU
 
Posts: 27742 | Registered: 03 February 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grandpasez:
quote- ''increased flow is due to warming of the water underneath the ice shelves thinning them,

making more of them break off and increasing the flow to fill in behind.''

That ice shelf breaking off mentioned is mostly on the west side, Pacific side and that is where

there is a volcanic ridge that is getting active last 30 years that is warming the water underneath.

The volumn lost is making it seem the whole continent of 3 million sq mi has overall lost ice and snow.

But reports from interior show the snow and ice is been getting deeper the last 50 years as well

as interior weather stations back in 70s , 80s, and 90s reported temp drops of 16 deg in 10 year periods,

then warmists got in charge and discarded this info and just use 4 stations around the outside

close to the ocean to add to the averages,,FOR REPRESENTING 3 MILLION SQ MI!!!!!AS well as representing

same or more amount of ocean around it in the averages,!!! It is crooked and criminal...to take

jerry-rigged info and use it to do things in the name of warming, spending taxes like

madmen, and raising my energy costs with expensive windmills.., that is definition of fraud....


Surface mass balance varies extensively over Antarctica. The Antarctic Peninsula has the highest accumulation rates (up to 1500 mm per year), followed by coastal West Antarctica, which has around 1000 mm accumulation per year2. Compare this with the interior of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, where it is dry and cold; here accumulation can be less than 25 mm per year.

The GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite gravity mission shows that total mass loss in Antarctica is accelerating over time. They found that total mass loss increased by 26 ± 14 gigatonnes per year from 2002 to 20099. Rignot et al. (2011) found a smaller acceleration of 14.5±2 gigatonnes per year from 1993-20115, but this change is still three times larger than that found for mountain glaciers and ice caps.

It's not as simple as choosing which thermometers to read, as much as you want to push that bullshit for whatever reason.
 
Posts: 5924 | Location: Tennessee | Registered: 09 December 2007Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
An 83% Global Cooling/Weak CO2 Influence Scientific ‘Consensus’ During 1960s, ’70s
As will be shown here, the claim that there were only 7 publications from that era disagreeing with the presupposed CO2-warming “consensus” is preposterous. Because when including the papers from the 1960s and 1970s that indicated the globe had cooled (by -0.3° C between the 1940s and ’70s), that this cooling was concerning (leading to extreme weather, drought, depressed crop yields, etc.), and/or that CO2’s climate influence was questionable to negligible, a conservative estimate for the number of scientific publications that did not agree with the alleged CO2-warming “consensus” was 220 papers for the 1965-’79 period, not 7. If including papers published between 1960 and 1989, the “non-consensus” or “cooling” papers reaches 285.

Again, these estimates should be viewed as conservative. There are likely many dozen more scientific papers from the 1960s-’70s cooling scare era that would probably fall into the category of a “cooling” paper, but have not yet been made available to view in full online.

But let us say that the PCF08 claim is true, and that there were indeed only 44 papers published between 1965-’79 that endorsed the position that the Earth’s climate is predominately shaped by CO2 concentrations, and thus the Earth would someday start warming as the models had suggested. Interestingly, if we were to employ the hopelessly flawed methodology of divining the relative degree of scientific “consensus” by counting the number of papers that agree with one position or another (just as blogger John Cook and colleagues did with their 2013 paper “Quantifying the Consensus…” that yielded a predetermined result of 97% via categorical manipulation),

the 220 “cooling” papers published between 1965-’79 could represent an 83.3% global cooling consensus

for the era (220/264 papers), versus only a 16.7% consensus for anthropogenic global warming (44/264 papers).


Comment- But there is no govt/business largesse in doing the cooling truth, so those in science and govt wanting

big grants/paydays, the wall street traders and globalists, wanting a system of making billions on carbon credits,

the dem political party wanting a sure fire vote getter, turned to agw,, it is criminal just as bad

as our fascists hating and plotting against asylum seekers......


MZEE WA SIKU
 
Posts: 27742 | Registered: 03 February 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
The Antarctic Peninsula, where Larsen-B ice shelf has mostly disappeared, has warmed , but

stations inside the continent and in the interior appear to have cooled slightly

(Doran et al., 2002; GISTEMP).

Researchers have found increased undersea volcanic activity warming the water

along that volcanic ridge. That ridge is an extension of the Andes Mtns on south

out of Argentina to line up with the Antarctic Peninsula, and down the west/Pacific side of the continent...


So here we have volcanic activity causing warm water along the side of

a continent , and warmists are misusing this to promotes agw...


MZEE WA SIKU
 
Posts: 27742 | Registered: 03 February 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grandpasez:
An 83% Global Cooling/Weak CO2 Influence Scientific ‘Consensus’ During 1960s, ’70s
As will be shown here, the claim that there were only 7 publications from that era disagreeing with the presupposed CO2-warming “consensus” is preposterous. Because when including the papers from the 1960s and 1970s that indicated the globe had cooled (by -0.3° C between the 1940s and ’70s), that this cooling was concerning (leading to extreme weather, drought, depressed crop yields, etc.), and/or that CO2’s climate influence was questionable to negligible, a conservative estimate for the number of scientific publications that did not agree with the alleged CO2-warming “consensus” was 220 papers for the 1965-’79 period, not 7. If including papers published between 1960 and 1989, the “non-consensus” or “cooling” papers reaches 285.

Again, these estimates should be viewed as conservative. There are likely many dozen more scientific papers from the 1960s-’70s cooling scare era that would probably fall into the category of a “cooling” paper, but have not yet been made available to view in full online.

But let us say that the PCF08 claim is true, and that there were indeed only 44 papers published between 1965-’79 that endorsed the position that the Earth’s climate is predominately shaped by CO2 concentrations, and thus the Earth would someday start warming as the models had suggested. Interestingly, if we were to employ the hopelessly flawed methodology of divining the relative degree of scientific “consensus” by counting the number of papers that agree with one position or another (just as blogger John Cook and colleagues did with their 2013 paper “Quantifying the Consensus…” that yielded a predetermined result of 97% via categorical manipulation),

the 220 “cooling” papers published between 1965-’79 could represent an 83.3% global cooling consensus

for the era (220/264 papers), versus only a 16.7% consensus for anthropogenic global warming (44/264 papers).


Comment- But there is no govt/business largesse in doing the cooling truth, so those in science and govt wanting

big grants/paydays, the wall street traders and globalists, wanting a system of making billions on carbon credits,

the dem political party wanting a sure fire vote getter, turned to agw,, it is criminal just as bad

as our fascists hating and plotting against asylum seekers......


You may not know anything you didn't know 50 years ago, but science has gotten a wee bit better in the interim.

And your desperate search for any alternate explanation, piecemeal, is pathetic.

The climate is warming, and humans are primarily responsible through the emission of greenhouse gasses by various mechanisms, exacerbated by landscape changes that inhibit natural mitigation like deforestation. There is also a looming feedback loop in which warming begets warming through release of methane from melting permafrost and warming seawater. On the bright side it's likely that the oceans have probably reached something close to peak acidification from absorbing excess CO2, but that means they won't be taking it from the atmosphere as in the past.

The question is long past answered of whether humans will change the climate significantly over the next half-century; the only remaining question is how drastically, and people like yourself advancing bullshit excuses for doing nothing differently are actively trying to make it worse.
 
Posts: 5924 | Location: Tennessee | Registered: 09 December 2007Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
but science has gotten a wee bit better in the interim.


Oh then why don't they put the stations affected by urban heat effect giving

too high of readings for the areas they represent , in proper places,,

It is that politics and greed has gotten worse, And if ,if those stations were

properly sited and more readings were taken to represent interior Antartica

there would be global cooling.

Example- If there are 30 stations in the US which has 3 million sq mi.

That is 100,000 sq mi per station average and that then should be maintained for a true average

all across the world, so that Antarctica the same size as the US would have 30 stations ,

instead of just 4 counted..And big part of them interior.


Some Urban affected astations read 6 deg too high for the areas they represent,

like the one at Tucsan, AZ we pictured above setting right on the blacktop,

and about 25% are sited wrong , so with warmists claiming agw based on

fractions of deg on their faulty averages, you can see the effect that

these stations reading 3-4-5-6-7 deg high is having. and that Along with no stations

where it is really cold not considered any more...It is criminal..


MZEE WA SIKU
 
Posts: 27742 | Registered: 03 February 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
However, recent studies analysing the temperature trend in the Antarctic Peninsula have discovered a shift from a warming trend to a cooling trend since 1998/1999 (Oliva et al., 2017;Turner et al., 2016). These studies indicate that the cooling has been most significant in the northern and north-eastern sectors of the Antarctic Peninsula, but is absent in the south-western Antarctic Peninsula (Oliva et al., 2017;Turner et al., 2016). The effect of this cooling has already been observed, particularly in the northern to north-eastern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula, where there has been a slow-down of glacier recession, positive mass gains for smaller peripheral glaciers (Engel et al., 2018), and a reduction of permafrost active layer thickness on some islands (Oliva et al., 2017). ...



.....


MZEE WA SIKU
 
Posts: 27742 | Registered: 03 February 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote -- absent in the south-western Antarctic Peninsula


that is where the greatest under water volcanic activity

and on down the western side of the continent was noted..


MZEE WA SIKU
 
Posts: 27742 | Registered: 03 February 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
the NOAA.

1972 – Kukla-Mathews publishes in Science, an article about the end of the current inter glacial. Also writes a letter to Nixon in 1972, specifically warning about global cooling.
1973 – First Climate office started in Feb 1973 (ad hoc Panel on the Present Inter Glacial). This was after a meeting of 42 of the most prominent climatologists, and apparently there was consensus about cooling. Especially as the NOAA, NWS and ICAS were involved.
1974 – Office of Climate Dynamics opened.
1978 -Carter signs Climate Program Act, partly due to the SEVERE WINTER experienced the preceding winter.

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/produc...oceedings/Reeves.pdf


MZEE WA SIKU
 
Posts: 27742 | Registered: 03 February 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
So 5, did ya think when you started this thread, that you’d end up spending all this time arguing with one of your own party’s whack jobs? While I agree with little he posts, he’s far closer to the truth on this subject than you and Kabob.






 
Posts: 1499 | Registered: 28 September 2006Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
own party


I am '' not'' in his party, I am a truth teller libertarian..


MZEE WA SIKU
 
Posts: 27742 | Registered: 03 February 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Science getting better... or smarter..

Not according to this picture.

It says money grubbing warmists are crooks...




MZEE WA SIKU
 
Posts: 27742 | Registered: 03 February 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by pointblank:
So 5, did ya think when you started this thread, that you’d end up spending all this time arguing with one of your own party’s whack jobs? While I agree with little he posts, he’s far closer to the truth on this subject than you and Kabob.


I still find it strange, for lack of a better word, that this is so unreconcilable. It's one of those things which seems obvious to me, yet there are such hard core differing opinions. I can think of no other way to ID it than strange. This issue is way beyond any other that I can think of, and there are plenty of issues to disagree on.

I think I really don't understand it, and the human nature behind it, but I want to. It's a mystery.


--------------------------------------------------------

Reality: Resistance is Futile.

---------------------------------------------------------

 
Posts: 13727 | Location: Depends on the Season | Registered: 17 February 2017Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
nature behind it,


Called truth. country can't survive on untruths..

Whether the agw one....... or the russians didn't put trump in one


MZEE WA SIKU
 
Posts: 27742 | Registered: 03 February 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
But, I'll keep posting reliable sources.

Does anyone recognize that Gramps post only opinion, with no backup at all.

Yet, some believe he's credible? That's amazing to me. Must be an affirmation thingy.

Anyway, I think NOAA is reliable:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weat...1goAQb?ocid=msedgdhp

NOAA's "new normal" climate report is anything but normal
Jeff Berardelli 13 hrs ago


--------------------------------------------------------

Reality: Resistance is Futile.

---------------------------------------------------------

 
Posts: 13727 | Location: Depends on the Season | Registered: 17 February 2017Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grandpasez:
quote:
nature behind it,


Called truth. country can't survive on untruths..



Well, I'm glad that you value truth. How about facts?

Anyway, maybe your intent is good, but IMO you are a zealot, and utterly wrong.

It's sad.


--------------------------------------------------------

Reality: Resistance is Futile.

---------------------------------------------------------

 
Posts: 13727 | Location: Depends on the Season | Registered: 17 February 2017Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Is that photo wrong in what it shows, that photo is the most credible source.

It shows that he warmists are measuring the sun boiling the blacktop,

and not measuring accurate temperatures to base their agw claim on...


MZEE WA SIKU
 
Posts: 27742 | Registered: 03 February 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
No, it doesn't show a damn thing but to affirm what you already believe. And you absolutely don't get that.

You are calling climate scientists liars, and claiming you absolutely know better. I can't imagine a person in such a state of delusion. But, you show that it is possible.


--------------------------------------------------------

Reality: Resistance is Futile.

---------------------------------------------------------

 
Posts: 13727 | Location: Depends on the Season | Registered: 17 February 2017Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
The warmists are claiming that there is warming based

on their faulty derived figures from poorly sited stations of about .6 deg F..

That is point 6 deg F , less than one degree...

A quarter of the stations at least read too high by 4 deg at least as an average,

so what that does to the overall average of all stations is raise them 1 degree
,
and if stations poorly sited are fixed the figure for all stations average goes down one degree..

So a apply the negative one deg over the ,6 degree warmists are using and we have

a negative trend, - ,4 degree This is even with the ocean climate to the north, but the

ocean climate shift to the north warming things , is what affects glaciers , due to onshore

warm winds, but great parts of interior NA and Eurasia with no glaciers are not affected.

Those areas are showing a slight cooling if stations are corrected, which by the way follows

the low cycles of the sun right now..


MZEE WA SIKU
 
Posts: 27742 | Registered: 03 February 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
doesn't show a damn thing



Bullshit- It shows a station that can not possibly give

an accurate temp reading to represent the whole area it is to represent.


No matter what I or you or biden or trump or the tooth fairy believes.You are stupid, geez


MZEE WA SIKU
 
Posts: 27742 | Registered: 03 February 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Glaciers don't lie.


--------------------------------------------------------

Reality: Resistance is Futile.

---------------------------------------------------------

 
Posts: 13727 | Location: Depends on the Season | Registered: 17 February 2017Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
ocean climate shift to the north warming things , is what affects glaciers


Absolutely they don't lie they tell exactly what is happening, you just

have to know science , geography. geology, meteorology, etc to interpret it right.


Ocean climate shift north, makes the Japanese current warmer and stronger with warmer onshore winds affecting glaciers

in Alaska for example and makes Gulf stream warmer and stronger affecting glaciers in Norway , etc,


But in both examples does not stop the cold winds and cold fronts, making a miserable cold spring on the interiors.

of the continents . Like we have here in MI now..The ground so cold won't be able to plant for a month..


MZEE WA SIKU
 
Posts: 27742 | Registered: 03 February 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Do you all realize what we'd have,if there was not that peninsula protruding out

of russia toward Alaska, say making the strait 6 times wider.

Thus making a straight wide shot for the warm Japanese current into he Arctic ocean???

No cold ocean, no ice, CAN and Siberia subtropical. Reason to mention this is to show

what the power of these currents are and that their effects are not due to agw!!!!!!


MZEE WA SIKU
 
Posts: 27742 | Registered: 03 February 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Wow; so much to know. I'm amazed at how much you "know".


--------------------------------------------------------

Reality: Resistance is Futile.

---------------------------------------------------------

 
Posts: 13727 | Location: Depends on the Season | Registered: 17 February 2017Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Thanks.. clap


MZEE WA SIKU
 
Posts: 27742 | Registered: 03 February 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Severe Arctic Cold Headed for Continental U.S.............................






“What’s on course to hit the U.S. starting this weekend looks BIG,” says electroverse.net. “It looks unprecedented.”



According to the latest GFS models (above) from May 6 through May 8, periodic pockets of out-of-season cold will bring temperature departures crashing down to some 8C to 16C below the seasonal average.

But it’s on Sunday, May 9 that the real problems are forecast to begin.

A violent kink the jet stream looks set to deliver intense Arctic cold to the majority of the CONUS.

The image at top of this page shows the GFS temperature anomaly chart for Sunday, because that’s when a fierce band of polar cold is on course to streak west to east through the entire breadth of the U.S.

From Montana to Virginia, temperatures are scheduled to plunge as much as 20C below the seasonal norm.

Then, from May 10 to May 12 (image below), a rare mid-spring freeze sinks south to engulf Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska and Wyoming.



“May 13 is predicted to deliver an even harsher shot of polar cold to central and southern states, with huge departures from the norm.”

Along with the cold, record-annihilating snowfall is expected to drop down from Canada.

“Beginning in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming on Saturday, May 8, wintry storms are predicted to have engulfed Colorado by Monday, May 10, where they’ll be counting totals in the feet across the state’s higher elevations.”

“Needless to say, these are unprecedented totals for May,”.

“If the reality pans out anything like the models are forecasting, then May, 2021 will enter the books at the snowiest May on record across many U.S. states with the highest one/two/three-day snowfall totals.” If so, “there will be nothing in recorded history that comes even remotely close.”


MZEE WA SIKU
 
Posts: 27742 | Registered: 03 February 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Brutal 2020/21 Northern Hemisphere Winter One for the Record Books

Ice Age..


The northern hemisphere winter of 2020/21 was one for the record books and is dragging on into late April.

Reporting even more global cooling as measured by satellites and new harsh cold events, particularly in Western Europe that have severely harmed early crops.

Harsh cold events have also struck China, Russia, the Mediterranean, the Middle East, North America and Australia.

If you still think global warming is a problem, look at the sheer number of non-global warming events that have occurred in just the last few month. (Originally published by NoTricksZone.com on April 21, 2021.)

We published in 2002 that there was no catastrophic human-made global warming /climate change crisis, and green energy schemes were not green and produced little useful (dispatchable) energy.

Global warming is not a threat, but global cooling is dangerous. In 2002 we predicted that global cooling would start circa 2020, based on low solar activity, and that prediction is strongly supported by the evidence.

Our 2002 predictions are among the most accurate on the planet: “If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”


MZEE WA SIKU
 
Posts: 27742 | Registered: 03 February 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Climate Change Bullshit Just Got a Lot Harder To Spread


FIXED IT...


MZEE WA SIKU
 
Posts: 27742 | Registered: 03 February 2003Reply With Quote
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4  
 


Copyright December 1997-2021 Accuratereloading.com


Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia