Fitz (SO)

Smooth seas do not make good sailors.

[Fitz (SO) @FitzFromRWpod]

@gaurav_kochar 😂 Recorded human history!

So, reliably, we’re talking the last 200 years. And that’s a stretch. 200 years out a four BILLION year old planet. 😂

[Fitz (SO) @FitzFromRWpod]

@GeoffreyLean @fionaharvey 80-89% of your statistics are made up.

[Fitz (SO) @FitzFromRWpod]

@DaveThroup @MetJam_ And that proves absolutely jack shit. Like, literally nothing. For all you know this is a 5000 year cycle we are repeating. Correlation does not equal causation.

[Fitz (SO) @FitzFromRWpod]

@HasanEssam29636 No sea level rise though. So that’s good.

[Fitz (SO) @FitzFromRWpod]

@ryankatzrosene 😂

[Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX]

Fact-check: False.

The U.S. Drought Monitor's “Exceptional Drought” designation is not a new category; it is their long-established D4 classification, which has been in use since the program began in 1999.

While large portions of the U.S. are experiencing drought right now, droughts ranging from “moderate” to “exceptional” in intensity have occurred throughout the historical record, long before greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions became significant.

Furthermore, the climate is defined over periods of at least 30 years. A drought lasting a few months or even several years does not, by itself, demonstrate a long-term climatic trend or establish a causal link to GHGs.

In the Lower 48, droughts are actually less severe in scope than they were in the first half of the 20th century (and I was able to prove this by extending the U.S. Drought Monitor back to 1901 using CRU's self-calibrated Palmer Drought Severity Index (scPDSI).

My results:

D1 / Moderate Drought area: −10.8% over 1995−2024 minus 1901−30; p-value = 0.41

D2 / Severe: +0.05%; p = 1.00 (slight increase, albeit not statistically significant)

D3 / Extreme: −8.9%; p = 0.75

D4 / Exceptional: −27.8%; p = 0.43

Slight decreases in most, all within the bounds of natural variability.

[Fitz (SO) @FitzFromRWpod]

@CountryFirstRep You know Biden and Obama are out, right? They are the ones you're talking about...

[Fitz (SO) @FitzFromRWpod]

@GreatLakesPeck 😂 And then when it’s cooler, you’ll say that’s because of climate change too. 😂

[Fitz (SO) @FitzFromRWpod]

@ABQBearsGrl89 Spoken like a true moron.

[Fitz (SO) @FitzFromRWpod]

@periodicaudio @theoceanblooms I still have the scars on my feet from all the melted glass. We all had to develop hooves just to cope. And our shoes! So many shoes just melted right off our feet!!

[Fitz (SO) @FitzFromRWpod]

@periodicaudio @theoceanblooms 😂 Amazing response. Thank you for that.

[Fitz (SO) @FitzFromRWpod]

@ewarren You know Liz, I agree with you. What’s funny to me is that you’re starting to realize this NOW. Not when Obama or Biden profited… Only because it’s Trump. Also, what about your colleagues in Congress??? Your hypocrisy is laughable.

[Fitz (SO) @FitzFromRWpod]

@RevRayCistman 😂 You can’t really believe that.

[Fitz (SO) @FitzFromRWpod]

@hashjenni I agree with you on the young people part. But BAD example. Mamdani is a train wreck already and it hasn’t even been a year. Oof.

[Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki @MatthewWielicki]

NO acceleration in sea level rise!!!

"In both datasets, approximately 95% of the suitable locations show no statistically significant acceleration of the rate of sea level rise. The investigation suggests that local, non-climatic phenomena are a plausible cause of the accelerated sea level rise observed at the remaining 5% of the suitable locations."

Source: https://t.co/86IBRSzqvT

[Fitz (SO) @FitzFromRWpod]

@karlykingsley https://t.co/4ZkjMCuR0n

[Fitz (SO) @FitzFromRWpod]

@MatthewWielicki 100%

[Fitz (SO) @FitzFromRWpod]

@CharlesMullins2 😂 Someone tell all the rich people who continue to buy beach-front property.

[Steve Guest @SteveGuest]

Vox with a BOMBSHELL admission in the wake of the demise of RCP8.5.

“Those numbers shaped a decade and a half of climate journalism, including a lot of my own when I covered climate change at Time magazine. I didn’t always know — and didn’t always communicate — that the scenario behind the most apocalyptic, attention-getting findings was largely an attempt to imagine how bad things could get, not a true forecast. But I wasn’t alone. RCP 8.5 was a frequent background presence in climate journalism.” https://t.co/hS5SCyG8W6