More Climate BS...

#1,626
#1,626
MercyPercy said:
"Paleoclimatic proxies indicate that SWNA experienced many severe swings in hydroclimate before the observed period. In particular, tree-ring records reveal several megadrought events during the Medieval era and subsequent centuries (~850–1600 CE) that dwarfed all droughts in the following 400 years in intensity and duration (12). "

"Here, we use 1521 tree-ring chronologies to reconstruct 0- to 200-cm summer (June to August) soil moisture and snow water equivalent (hereinafter termed “soil moisture” collectively) anomalies on a 0.5° latitude-longitude grid back to 800 CE across western North America [(30); Fig. 1]. Soil-moisture anomalies are standardized relative to the entire 800–2018 CE period, and the magnitude of negative anomalies indicates drought severity. "

They're making estimates based on corroborating evidence. They cite the sources to the studies on the tree rings but I have not read them yet.
Click to expand...
They have an accurate way to correlate tree ring with soil moisture based on comparison of current samples and rings?
 
#1,629
#1,629
MercyPercy said:
That's the implication. Need to read more.
Click to expand...
I think other factors besides soil moisture affect rate of annual growth in trees. But let's agree they have a formula which is precise enough to compare current samples with previous unsampled years.

I couldn't find why a 19 year time period was chosen. Do you recall why that stretch of time was picked?
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and AM64
#1,630
#1,630
Not sure if this is the best place but if this doesn't sum up why government=failure I don't know what does

Opinion | Shocking Candor on Fuel Standards

We read the Transportation Department’s newly proposed fuel economy regulations so you don’t have to. Buried deep on page 56,342 of volume 88 of the Federal Register, the agency makes this concession about its latest proposed rules: “Net benefits for passenger cars remain negative across alternatives.” In plain English, this means that mandating ever-more-stringent fuel economy for passenger cars will harm society.

How much? The department estimates that its plan of increasing passenger-car standards by 2% each year will reduce private welfare by $5.8 billion over the life of the cars. After accounting for alleged social benefits, such as reduced climate-change damages in foreign countries, the standard reduces total public welfare by $5.1 billion. You should be relieved, though: The other “alternatives” the Transportation Department is considering would have net costs of about $11 billion, so bureaucrats tell us they are exercising admirable self-restraint.

<snip>

But the proposed rule says this White House’s not-so-secret password: climate change.
What about it? Without a hint of sarcasm, page 5-39 of the department’s accompanying environmental assessment estimates that in 2060 the proposal would reduce average global temperatures by 0.000%. The modeled effect is so trivial that the bean counters ran out of decimals in their spreadsheets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, 85SugarVol, EasternVol and 7 others
#1,633
#1,633
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
Sounds like these two ^^^ need to sit down & have a serious talk about what they preaching. John Kerry gets so pissed off if nobody agrees with his lunatic agenda. Even calls those being cult members which could be used against his bird brain antics as well.

Click to expand...


Is he taking a row boat and bicycle home?
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, AM64 and StarRaider
#1,645
#1,645
the craziest thing(s) about the Nevada deal is how the protestors think the right to protest includes the right to block the road and are shocked that they are being arrested when they are non-violent protestors.

it was tribal cops so I'll be interested to see how the white supremacy of the police state was to blame
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, LouderVol, StarRaider and 5 others
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top