"Global Warming" Anomalies.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by mrsilverservice, Feb 22, 2019.

  1. GoldenEye

    GoldenEye Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2014
    Messages:
    1,009
    Likes Received:
    479
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Nothing new here. We've seen how the climate alarmists are manipulating charts to match their alarmist hoax:

     
    STKR and 66rounds like this.
  2. doomsday surprise

    doomsday surprise Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,349
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    El Dorado
    https://scienceofdoom.com/2019/01/0...ctives-4-climate-models-and-contrarian-myths/

    Climate models are the best tools we have for estimating the future climate state. What will the world be like if we double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

    For a non-technical person, and this series is written for non-technical people, it’s hard to understand climate models. Should we trust them because climate scientists do? Do climate scientists trust them? What does “trust them” even mean?

    There are lots of papers written by climate scientists on the difficult subject of evaluating climate models. They do some things well. They do some things badly. Different models get different results. Sometimes widely different results.
     
    mmm....shiney! likes this.
  3. doomsday surprise

    doomsday surprise Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,349
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    El Dorado
    https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/stock/files/cost_of_delaying_action.pdf

    This report examines the cost of delaying policy actions to stem climate change, and reaches two main conclusions. First, delaying action is costly. If a policy delay leads to higher ultimate CO2 concentrations, then that delay produces persistent additional economic damages caused by higher temperatures, more acidic oceans, and other consequences of higher CO2 concentrations. Moreover, if delay means that the policy, when implemented, must be more stringent to meet a given target, then it will be more costly.
    Second, uncertainty about the most severe, irreversible consequences of climate change adds urgency to implementing climate policies now that reduce GHG emissions. In fact, climate policy can be seen as climate insurance taken out against the most damaging potential consequences of climate change—consequences so severe that these events are sometimes referred to as climate catastrophes. The possibility of climate catastrophes leads to taking prudent steps now to sharply reduce the chances that they occur.
     
  4. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,550
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    ^ the economic costs of climate action borne by the world’s poorest are ignored by most climate activists.
     
    66rounds and willrocks like this.
  5. JohnnyBravo300

    JohnnyBravo300 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2019
    Messages:
    584
    Likes Received:
    392
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The alarmists not only believe that co2 causes global warming but they also believe that government policy can stop or reverse it.
    Now that's just plain embarrassing!
     
    66rounds and silverster like this.
  6. GoldenEye

    GoldenEye Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2014
    Messages:
    1,009
    Likes Received:
    479
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Climate models have been proven to be flawed.
     
  7. GoldenEye

    GoldenEye Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2014
    Messages:
    1,009
    Likes Received:
    479
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    The cost of reducing CO2 far outweigh any perceived benefit, and we would be much better off fixing the real environmental problems we have.
     
    jultorsk likes this.
  8. jultorsk

    jultorsk Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2016
    Messages:
    372
    Likes Received:
    404
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You do know that vikings were farming crops in *Green*land, right? This is a documented, historical, undeniable fact. Their society collapsed as cooling climate and therefore declining agriculture yields was not able to sustain the population. There was markedly less sea ice before industrial revolution than there's now.

    In a paper by Stein et al., 2017, scientists find that Arctic sea ice retreat and advance is modulated by variations in solar activity. (well knock me down with feather!)

    Solar Forcing Of Modern, Historic Arctic Sea Ice Only Slightly Less Sea Ice Now Than Little Ice Age

    In addition, the sea ice cover during the last century has only slightly retreated from the extent reached during coldest centuries of the Little Ice Age (1600s to 1800s AD), which had the highest sea ice cover of the last 10,000 years and flirted with excursions into year-round sea ice.

    The Medieval Warm Period sea ice record (~900 to 1200 AD) had the lowest coverage since the Roman era ~2,000 years ago.

    Of note, the paper makes no reference to carbon dioxide or anthropogenic forcing as factors modulating Arctic sea ice. Graph below adapted from the charts provided in the article.

    Screen Shot 2019-11-18 at 12.10.39 pm.png
     
  9. jultorsk

    jultorsk Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2016
    Messages:
    372
    Likes Received:
    404
    Trophy Points:
    63
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/11/how-i-changed-my-mind-about-global-warming/

    But then the forecasting scientists in the Institute told me that the forecasts of global warming were not to be trusted. They pointed out that climate scientists were not forecasting scientists, that climate scientists were ignorant of the established principles that help improve the very difficult business of making forecasts (ie predicting the future) in complex conditions, and that their forecasting approaches were a very long way from best practice. It’s common for experts in a field (finance, politics, physics) to assume that their expertise means they can make better forecasts than non-experts. However, research on forecasting accuracy has shown over and over that this is not true, experts are merely more sure of their forecasts, but no more accurate.
    ---
    https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1169&context=marketing_papers

    We audited the forecasting processes described in Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report to assess the extent to which they complied with forecasting principles. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of a total of 140 forecasting principles. The forecasting procedures that were described violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. The forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing. Research on forecasting has shown that experts’ predictions are not useful in situations involving uncertainly and complexity. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.
    ---
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2019
    Oddjob, GoldenEye and silverster like this.
  10. doomsday surprise

    doomsday surprise Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,349
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    El Dorado
    Can you show me where every climate model has been shown to be flawed or are you just making that up?

    It’s not only in climate science that scientists use models. They use them in pretty much every bit of scientific research. Are you arguing that scientists shouldn’t use these tools or are you just arguing against climate science? Do you even believe in science?

    https://study.com/academy/lesson/why-scientists-use-models-simulations.html

    if you want to learn more about climate modelling you can read up about it here -

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-do-climate-models-work

    A brief history of climate modelling -

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/timeline-history-climate-modelling
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2019
  11. JohnnyBravo300

    JohnnyBravo300 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2019
    Messages:
    584
    Likes Received:
    392
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Meteorologists use climate models everyday and they cant even get the daily forecast right haha.
    No chance of accuracy with the models they use. They hardly even understand this stuff. That's why they suck at forecasting anything and they are always wrong.
    Good luck predicting the future when you cant even see tomorrow.
    Was al gore's model broken? He said wed be in an ice age by now and it was settled science.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2019
  12. GoldenEye

    GoldenEye Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2014
    Messages:
    1,009
    Likes Received:
    479
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Years ago I was a believer and even voted Greens. It was the Climategate info from the University of East Anglia scientists that was released by Wikileaks that got my attention. I realised that their computer predictions were wrong and the scientists were more concerned with covering up these errors and perpetuating the idea that "CO2 causes global warming", than looking at the cause of their errors. Having a laboratory background I understood that when your projected results don't match real life, you need to review your ideas, and not make up lies to cover your mistakes.

    I looked at one of your earlier reports on arctic ice and the flaws are so obvious. Did you ever ask yourself why they only went back to 1981 (less than 40 years of history) for their measurements and why they only look at a small part of the earth. It's because if they went back thousands of years you would discover it's been much hotter in the past than it is now, and it wasn't caused by CO2 or man. And if you also look at other parts of the planet such as the Antarctic you would see that it's recently had record high amounts of ice, and this shouldn't be happening according to the IPCC's theory.

    I look at all your reports you come up with and I wonder if you've even read any of the Sceptic's points made earlier in this topic? You need to open your mind to the possibility that everything you've been told by the UN and the IPCC is a lie, and once you do this you might be surprised at what's really happening.

    You need to understand that in the UN's quest for reports, they didn't just ask for any climate reports. They only paid for reports that showed man made CO2 caused climate change. So if anyone provided a report that showed that man wasn't affecting the climate they didn't get paid. The results of having this criteria are now obvious.

    The question you should be asking is why did the UN start this CO2 idea, and why is it continuing when it's obviously a hoax? Just a warning that you may not like what you find.

    So after years of looking into this I have come to the conclusion that it's the Sceptics who are trying to save humanity, and I expect this is the opposite of what you think.
     
    66rounds and Oddjob like this.
  13. doomsday surprise

    doomsday surprise Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,349
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    El Dorado
    Absolute rubbish when it comes to forecasting. This is your opinion based on absolutely nothing. As for Gore, as far as I know he was a politician, not a scientist in any way and never made a climate model. So more rubbish. Also, science is never settled, and scientists will tell you that, so yet more rubbish.

    Any more opinionated rubbish Based on nothing but your opinion? Any sort of facts? No? Thought not.
     
  14. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,550
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    I’m a novice weather nerd but I do know meteorology is different to climatology. Meteorologists don’t refer to climatological models when forecasting. So to suggest that because we sometimes can’t get the weather forecast for the next day right as proof that climatological models predicting climate patterns in the distant future are faulty is a fallacy,
     
  15. Oddjob

    Oddjob Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2018
    Messages:
    2,425
    Likes Received:
    2,248
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Oz
    I equate climate forecasters with economists. Great at telling you what happened and why, but less than average at telling you / us what is going to happen.

    Climate models rely on multi inputs and importantly assumptions...no different to a economic model for a country or a cashflow model for a company. I can give you any result you want (positive or negative) with a cashflow model and be able to justify the results and inputs....this is no different to those govt / NGO / privately funded researchers who rely on grants to pay the bills...hunger is a painful incentive to give the third party what they want.

    Science is about developing a hypothesis and testing, then retesting same and having others test and challenge it. If Copernicus, then Galileo had not challenged the established view of the church and scientists of the time, how many more years post the 16th century would it have been "fact" that the earth was the centre of the universe when it wasn't. Science is never settled and those saying the science on climate change (man made or not) "is settled so don't argue" are no better than the church and zelots who decried Copernicus and Galileo's work as it did not fit in with their belief system or agenda.

    Planet climate history is a better guide to the future. Earth is approx 5bn years old (give or take) and in that time the earth's climate has seen 5 major ice ages and some minor ones (last one 16th century) and all without man's intervention and provide hard data and atmospheric gas content at those times...thus solid base line data to work with. Sure, the human population on earth has effected the quality of air and water to some level via pollution etc but the world's biggest bio-mechanical machine is the earth with with it's solid iron core, spinning liquid outer core than generates our electro magnetic field that protects us from solar radiation, shifting tectonic plates which move of their own accord and allow the earth to vent all manner of gases and atmospheric gas and temps which increased and decreased due to earth doing it's own thing and possibility due to solar radiation activity from the sun.

    If people on earth think we have changed the earth's climate patterns with the last 200 years of industrialisation as compared to a planet that has been changing back and forth for 5bn years, then they are kidding ourselves.....


    And just for giggles, in case the Co2 scare fails, looks like nitrous oxide will be the next big scare...heard the ABC floating this one this morning.

    https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/am/nitrous-oxide:-damaging-greenhouse-gas-on-the-rise/11716338

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-11-19/nitrous-oxide-greenhouse-gas-increasing/11714240

    Just a reminder below of the make-up of gases in our atmosphere.

    http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html

    upload_2019-11-19_10-44-28.png
     
  16. JohnnyBravo300

    JohnnyBravo300 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2019
    Messages:
    584
    Likes Received:
    392
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Yeah I know they are different in some ways but the flaws will multiply as you predict further out. If they guess long enough they may get it right eventually though. We will know someday and then what.
     
  17. doomsday surprise

    doomsday surprise Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,349
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    El Dorado
    Absolute and utter garbage. I know this site is full of whack jobs but the level of delusion in you mate is a whole new level. I mean the military, airlines, shipping, emergency services etc etc etc don’t use meteorology. Haha. Good luck not using science in your every day life.
     
  18. GoldenEye

    GoldenEye Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2014
    Messages:
    1,009
    Likes Received:
    479
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Courtesy jultorsk.

    Climate Hoax.jpg
     
    Oddjob and STKR like this.
  19. JohnnyBravo300

    JohnnyBravo300 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2019
    Messages:
    584
    Likes Received:
    392
    Trophy Points:
    63
    And I'm the whack job haha.
     
    GoldenEye likes this.
  20. GoldenEye

    GoldenEye Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2014
    Messages:
    1,009
    Likes Received:
    479
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Climate Data in Australia is Being Altered: By Martin Armstrong

    Compared to the raw data that was adjusted in Australia, what has emerged is part of the worldwide conspiracy to reduce population. The original data at 60 of the oldest sites across Australia illustrates that the number of very hot days (40 degree c/104 F) is no different today than it was about 100 years ago. These people are determined to use climate to create hysteria in order to reduce population. What’s next? Castrate men for minor crimes and sew up women for parking violations or speed traps?

    They managed to get China to claim it would stop building coal-fired electrical plants, as they announced that they would cancel more than 100 coal power projects. China has been the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter. However, in the Shandong Province coastline, the once-suspended coal power projects have been revived. All the climate hysteria seems to be accomplishing is the fall of Western society. They have spread their propaganda to Europe, Australia, and North America. They have even told girls not to have children for they will have no future. It is curious that our model shows the shift in the financial capital of the world from the USA to China, but after 2032.

    This climate hysteria is not being taken seriously outside Europe, Australia, and North America. Other nations see it as a plot to prevent them from joining the modern world where this technology they hate so much has increased the life expectancy and led to our more comfortable living conditions.

    https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/climate-data-in-australia-is-being-altered/
     
    [email protected] and Oddjob like this.

Share This Page