I love busting myths and the myth that I wish to bust today is the claim that anthropogenic climate change (ACC) brings floods in some areas and droughts in others.
Stand by for more to follow Greg and thank you for your kind donation! I try to mix up the themes to capture a wider audience from week to week, but I will be addressing your specific questions soon when Part II is published. Thank you again!
I’m sure you are right but it’s too complicated for this bear’s brain. If we are to drive a dagger through the Net Zero heart, it needs to explain how the 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere that is CO2 could not cause the Climate changes claimed, especially as 97% is naturally produced.
$Trillions are being fleeced from millions of people based on this ridiculous, false premise.
Atmospheric physics or meteorology has its complexities alright, but the "Firebox" model of the Hadley Cells and a basic understanding of how these cells oscillate between hemispheres over the yearly transit around the Sun is a great starting point for those seeking a more defensible position against the CO2 alarmists who lay claim to all modes of natural change as arbitrary evidence of their singular description of reality.
Another piece of the puzzle but it does not account for the ways we interact with the energy that reaches our planet, I agree that the flux may be very important in the preparations we need to have in relation to our human endeavors in specific regions. Co2 aside we still need to account for the massive land use changes and their effects on not only local but global atmospheric patterns. Many thanks I look forward to reading more.
This is the best article I have seen on the effect of orbit and rotation on climate. Looking forward to more.
Dr. Roy Spencer talks about deep ocean cycles among other things, are these mutually exclusive theories or compounding complicating phenomenon?
Stand by for more to follow Greg and thank you for your kind donation! I try to mix up the themes to capture a wider audience from week to week, but I will be addressing your specific questions soon when Part II is published. Thank you again!
I’m sure you are right but it’s too complicated for this bear’s brain. If we are to drive a dagger through the Net Zero heart, it needs to explain how the 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere that is CO2 could not cause the Climate changes claimed, especially as 97% is naturally produced.
$Trillions are being fleeced from millions of people based on this ridiculous, false premise.
We are winning, but we need to kill the lie .
Atmospheric physics or meteorology has its complexities alright, but the "Firebox" model of the Hadley Cells and a basic understanding of how these cells oscillate between hemispheres over the yearly transit around the Sun is a great starting point for those seeking a more defensible position against the CO2 alarmists who lay claim to all modes of natural change as arbitrary evidence of their singular description of reality.
Another piece of the puzzle but it does not account for the ways we interact with the energy that reaches our planet, I agree that the flux may be very important in the preparations we need to have in relation to our human endeavors in specific regions. Co2 aside we still need to account for the massive land use changes and their effects on not only local but global atmospheric patterns. Many thanks I look forward to reading more.
Indeed, radical reductions in forest cover can in theory reduce rainfall in a region.