Meteorology student. Climate + energy. Python programmer. Weather guesser. Offensive pot stirring comedian. Opinions my own. They call me Martzy.
7 subscribers
Oct 12, 2024 β’ 4 tweets β’ 7 min read
Yikes. π¬
CNNβs Jim @Acosta interviewed childrenβs TV science educator and mechanical engineer, @BillNye, yesterday to offer his expertise on hurricanes, and to take a jab at Florida Governor @RonDeSantis, who β and I quote their headline β ββ¦denies climate change fueled [Hurricane] Milton.β
ππ’π₯π₯ ππ²π: βππππ, πππ πππ’π‘πππ¦. . .β, then goes on to explain why we should vote [for Kamala Harris] with the climate in mind.
Letβs take a look at these claims one-by-one to see if they have any merit.
𧡠1/4
The studies that Acosta refers to are two new βflashβ modeling attribution studies conducted by scientists for the World Weather Attribution (WWA) β an international academic collaboration which attempts to quantify how much climate change contributed to a particular extreme weather event.
Neither of these βstudiesβ have been subject to the βpeer-reviewβ process, but nonetheless are receiving widespread media circulation to feed hungry audiences with sensationalistic junk. The irony of this is that the alarmist arm-wavers require skeptics to have their thoughts circle-jerked through the βpeer-reviewβ process in order for it to be considered valid.
I guess this doesn't apply to scientists who adhere to the establishment narrative on climate change. So long as you say nothing deviant from their accepted standards, your feet aren't held to the fire.
Even more laughable is that the Milton βstudyβ was published not even two days after the hurricane made landfall. It's bunk. No ensemble of scientists can conduct research that fast and publish a half-baked preprint with definitive results on quantification.
𧡠2/4
Mar 26, 2024 β’ 14 tweets β’ 24 min read
I'm an atmospheric science major, and I also watched @ClimateTheMovie.
While I don't necessarily agree with everything said in the movie, the scientists interviewed often made great points, and much of what this βscience journalistβ has argued is crap.
Time to debunk the debunker. 1/? π§΅
Maarten argues that βThe βwarmβ Medieval and Roman periods... were actually REGIONAL. Current warming is EVERYWHERE.β
Except... that's not what the United Nations' IPCC said in their First Assessment Report (FAR) in 1990. Directly from Chapter 7.2.1 on Page 202,
βThere is growing evidence that worldwide temperatures were higher than at present during the mid-Holocene (especially 5,000-6,000 BP), at least in summer, though carbon dioxide levels appear to have been quite similar to those of the pre-industrial era at this time... Parts of Australia and Chile were also warmer. The late tenth to early thirteenth centuries (about AD 950-1250) appear to have been exceptionally warm in western Europe, Iceland and Greenland. This period is known as the Medieval Climatic Optimum... South Japan was also warm. This period of widespread warmth is notable in that there is no evidence that it was caused by an increase of greenhouse gases.β
Figure 7.1 is captioned as showing βglobal temperature variations.β Figure 7.1 (c) covers the last 1,000 years, and it is evident that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was anomalously warm relative to the modern era. In later reports, this diagram was replaced with Michael Mann's βHockey Stickβ graph.