Let It Snow..

This is the place where all heated debates shall reside. Non-tech topics allowed. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. "Enter at your own Risk".

Moderator: The Mod Squad

Re: Let It Snow..

Postby BrevCampagnolo » Fri Feb 26, 2016 4:59 pm

Image

Scientists Finally Admit Climate Models Are Failing To Predict Global Warming

A group of scientists recently put out a new study confirming the 15-year “hiatus” in global warming. That study made headlines, but what went largely unnoticed was a major admission made by the paper’s authors: the climate models were wrong.

“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” John Fyfe, Canadian climate modeler and lead author of the new paper, told Nature. “We can’t ignore it.”

“Reality has deviated from our expectations – it is perfectly normal to try and understand this difference,” Ed Hawkins, co-author of the study and United Kingdom climate scientist, echoed in a blog post.

This is a huge admission by climate scientists and a big victory for skeptics of man-made global warming who have for years been pointing to a mismatch between climate model predictions and actual temperature observations.

“Overall, the paper is an admission by prominent members of the ‘mainstream’ scientific community that the earth’s surface temperature over the past two decades or so has not evolved in a way that was well-anticipated by either the scientific community and/or the climate models they rely on,” Chip Kappenberger, climate scientist at the libertarian Cato Institute, told The Daily Caller News foundation.

“Something that the skeptic have been pointing out for years,” Knappenberger said.

Knappenberger and fellow Cato climate scientist Patrick Michaels have been prominent critics of climate models relied upon by “mainstream” scientists because they say the models have not accurately predicted global temperature rises for the past six decades.

In a recent paper, Michaels and Knappenberger compared observed global surface temperature warming rates since 1950 to predictions made by 108 climate models used by government climate scientists. What they found was the models projected much higher warming rates than actually occurred.

Michaels and Knappenberger aren’t alone. Satellite-derived temperature readings have shown a “hiatus” in global warming for at least the last 18 years, despite rising carbon dioxide emissions.

While some scientists have tried to discredit satellite readings, they have been unable to explain the lack of significant warming in recent years.

“When a theory contradicts the facts” you need to change the theory, climate scientist John Christy told Congress in January hearing. “The real world is not going along with rapid warming. The models need to go back to the drawing board.”

Christy and his colleague Roy Spencer compile satellite-derived temperature readings at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. Their satellite data has shown no warming for about two decades, and has been cited by researchers skeptical of claims of catastrophic global warming.

“The bulk atmospheric temperature is where the signal is the largest,” Christy said in the hearing, referring to the greenhouse gas effect. “We have measurements for that — it doesn’t match up with the models.”

“Because this result challenges the current theory of greenhouse warming in relatively straightforward fashion, there have been several well-funded attacks on those of us who build and use such datasets and on the datasets themselves,” Christy said.

Now, skepticism seems to have won the day — at least in terms of convincing other scientists there’s a big problem with climate models.

Fyfe’s study — which was co-authored by Michael Mann of “hockey stick” curve fame — contradicts a study by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists claiming there was no global warming hiatus.

“Overall, there is compelling evidence that there has been a temporary slowdown in observed global surface warming,” Hawkins wrote in a blog post about the study, noting “the most recent observed 15-year trends are all positive, but lower than most previous similar trends in the past few decades” which is a “clear demonstration that the rate of change has slowed since its peak.”

But even with the admission, some skeptics are still critical because the study’s authors employed research methods they have been critical of in the past.

“All of this said, the authors used techniques to demonstrate a slowdown, that when employed by the skeptics, are harshly criticized,” Knappenberger said. “This seems to me to indicate that the mainstream community gives a free pass to some researchers more so than others.”
-- Campy

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
- Popular Mechanics, 1949
BrevCampagnolo
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 2:11 pm
Location: Mucus City, USA

Re: Let It Snow..

Postby BrevCampagnolo » Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:05 am

Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare

...“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer....
-- Campy

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
- Popular Mechanics, 1949
BrevCampagnolo
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 2:11 pm
Location: Mucus City, USA

Re: Let It Snow..

Postby BrevCampagnolo » Mon Apr 25, 2016 10:35 am

The Horror! Climate Change Is Making The Weather More Pleasant
A report in Nature finds that the weather has become more pleasant for Americans over the past four decades, thanks to climate change. (AP)

...80% of Americans live in counties that are experiencing more pleasant weather than they did four decades ago,...


www.investors.com/politics/capital-hill/the-horror-climate-change-is-making-the-weather-more-pleasant/
-- Campy

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
- Popular Mechanics, 1949
BrevCampagnolo
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 2:11 pm
Location: Mucus City, USA

Re: Let It Snow..

Postby BrevCampagnolo » Mon Apr 25, 2016 10:39 am

Sayet: Why I’m a Denier (Hint: Because It’s Crap)...

In honor of Earth Day.
4.22.2016
Commentary
Truth Revolt

Given that it's Earth Day, I thought I'd re-release an article I wrote about four years ago explaining why I'm a global warming skeptic.

Originally published June 10, 2011 in Front Page Magazine.

Let's begin by acknowledging that the science of global warming is beyond the vast majority of us. Nonetheless, this does not mean we turn off our brains and simply accept the pronouncements of those sounding the alarm and offering their remedies. I am a global warming skeptic (to say the least) specifically because I have thought through the issue and the claims of the alarmists just don't add up. What follows is my thinking and what it is that has led me to conclude that global-warming is a leftist farce which is being perpetuated for both financial and political reasons.

First, I am skeptical because skepticism is the scientific starting point. Not cynicism but skepticism. This is especially true when the remedy being proposed is so drastic — in this case requiring the near-total dismantling of society as we know it.

I am not overly impressed by talk of a “consensus” as there are enough good and serious scientists who reject the claims of the alarmists to make the pronouncement of “consensus” simply untrue. Besides, every wrong theory that had previously been embraced by society – such as the “fact” that the world is flat – was embraced by a “consensus” of scientists at the time and obviously that consensus was very wrong.

My skepticism is only increased with the knowledge that the science of climatology is relatively new, little tested and since its claims about consequences are decades and even centuries in the future, never proven by having had their predictions come true. In fact, many of the alarmists' most hyped claims have been proved by time to be patently wrong. As one leading alarmist wrote in an email he thought would remain private, global warming has been on a fifteen year hiatus that he felt needed to be covered-up.

My skepticism of this new science is furthered even more by the knowledge that the “facts” upon which their models are created are based almost entirely on numbers that are not easily verified and which require great speculation to determine. If these “facts” are wrong then the models are useless (to say the least.) Remember, the whole global-warming theory is based on only a couple of degrees of change over many millennia. Do scientists really know what the temperature was in northeast Siberia in the year 802? Do they really know that number down to a single fraction of a degree? I'm skeptical and you should be, too.

My confidence in the conclusion of these alarmist scientists is further weakened because I've been here before. For as long as I can remember the “experts” – many the very same people pushing global warming hysteria today – have been predicting one ecological disaster after another. In the 1970s and virtually every year afterwards, we were doomed – doomed!!! – to global cooling, global wetting, global drying, mass starvation, acid rain, an epidemic of heterosexual AIDS, Mad Cow and, just the other day, a deadly pandemic of Swine Flu. Alarmism seems to be a tactic employed by scientists to draw attention to their causes, garner major funding and make a name for themselves and hyped by a willing news (and publishing) media because hysteria sells.

My trust in the conclusions of the alarmists is even further diminished by the unscientific methods the alarmists are using in their efforts. Not only are we now privy to leaked documents emailed back-and-forth between those at the head of the “climate change” research detailing the destruction of their work and their underhanded methods of preventing Freedom of Information laws to allow others to double-check their supposed findings, but the campaign to slander other scientists – those whose work sheds doubt on the alarmists' claims – reeks of the kind of cowardice shown by those who know they are lying. Slander is not a scientific practice. Dubbing anyone who challenges their hysterical campaign as being like Holocaust deniers is an ad hominem attack with no scientific merit. In fact, it is anti -scientific, a means to discredit the man rather than the answering the opposing science.

Another of the alarmists' ad hominem attacks – that anyone who questions their conclusions has been bought off by “big oil” (as Al Gore proclaimed in his testimony before Congress) – is not only a lie but a completely illogical claim. Whatever grant money a scientist may receive from the “evil” folks at Exxon/Mobil, etc. is nothing next to the tens of millions of dollars pocketed by folks like Al Gore. If one believes that all questions can be answered by “following the money,” then the scientist with a fifty-thousand dollar research grant from “big oil” (who must then weather the hate-mongering of the global warming establishment, put his job at risk and condemn both himself and everyone he knows and loves to a global catastrophe unequaled in human history) is not the guy to be questioning. If the “denier” is lying, he dies. If Al Gore is lying he gets to live into a ripe old age spending millions, jet-setting around the globe and showing off his Oscar and his Nobel Prize to the beautiful people in Hollywood and Cannes. If science is to be determined by who has the more obvious motive, it's pretty clear that the Al Gores are the ones who are lying.

And it sure doesn't do much to bring me to the alarmist's side to witness Mr. Gore (and his fellow “scientists”) flying all over the world in private jets, caravanning with his entourage in gas-guzzling SUVs (leaving the motors running so that when they return the temperature will be in their “comfort zone”) and spewing pollution from his mansion at rates many times that of the average citizen he and his ilk so disparage for their “consumption.” If Mr. Gore (et al) truly believed that catastrophe was imminent, one would suspect he would attempt to lead by example, not luxuriate in his newly-gained and fabulous riches while screaming “the world will end tomorrow!!!”

I also recognize as unscientific the creation of and adoration for Mr. Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth . This film, produced by Laurie David (ex-wife of Seinfeld creator Larry David), is filled with “facts” well-known to be (and acknowledged as such even by scientists employed in the making of the movie) hyperbolic at best and often out-and-out lies. That this is “documentary” – created by a D student in earth science and a Hollywood leftist whose greatest prior accomplishment was marrying a very funny man – is the “educational” tool being used to promote hysteria speaks volumes about how little there is to be truthfully said. The fact that those who continue to promote this propaganda effort, fully aware of the half-truths and out-right lies, makes clear that science (ie truth) is not, to them, sacrosanct. When scientists recognize that they cannot use the science to prove their science then, well, it's probably not science.

Nor does the campaign to brainwash small children – frighten them – with a propaganda film do much to earn my confidence. Leave the children alone. When scientists recognize that they can't win the day with adults so they attack small children with fear-mongering, chances are good the science isn't.

And just as their “science” fills me with doubts and their methods increase my skepticism, so too does their proposed remedy. Under the Kyoto Protocol the most egregious polluters get to continue to pollute unabated while some of the most ecologically advanced nations face Draconian punishment. If we were really as close to doom as the hysterics attempt to convince our children, everyone would be asked to sacrifice. Instead, it seems that the “remedy” being proposed is really nothing more than your usual Leftist efforts to redistribute wealth along the lines of an affirmative action program. Successful nations will be shackled, failed nations will be rewarded and, well, think global socialism and suddenly the Kyoto Protocols make sense.

And lo and behold, the very same folks who are screaming “the world will end tomorrow” and then destroying the evidence, pocketing millions, flying around the globe to pick up their rewards and honors are exactly the same people who support every other leftist, socialist, punish-the-successful/reward-the-failure policy.

No matter how you look at the issue – which is why the alarmists are so determined to never allow you to actually look at the issue – anyone who thinks must be skeptical of the claims of the hysterics. The science is new, its models based on utterly unverifiable numbers (ie the temperature in Guam in the year 8), the accuracy of its long term predictions obviously impossible to know, its short-term predictions having utterly failed to come to be (eg that decade-and-a-half long hiatus in global warming.) The behaviors of the hysterical scientists are unscientific, the behavior of the hysteric's favorite celebrities contradictory to those someone who truly believed would be engaging in. If you follow the money it is almost entirely into the pockets of the hysterics while the proposed “remedy” does not seem to be those that would be proposed by people who believed the end is near. In fact, what the remedy does suggest – what the entire industry of the hysterics suggests – is that “manmade global warming” is a leftist farce being perpetrated by cynics who recognize there's riches to be had, along with power and fame.
-- Campy

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
- Popular Mechanics, 1949
BrevCampagnolo
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 2:11 pm
Location: Mucus City, USA

Re: Let It Snow..

Postby BrevCampagnolo » Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:51 pm

Like I didn't see this one coming ....

Rise in CO2 has 'greened Planet Earth'

Gee, more pleasant and greener? What's not to like?
-- Campy

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
- Popular Mechanics, 1949
BrevCampagnolo
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 2:11 pm
Location: Mucus City, USA

Re: Let It Snow..

Postby Twisty » Tue Apr 26, 2016 9:43 pm

BrevCampagnolo wrote:Like I didn't see this one coming ....

Rise in CO2 has 'greened Planet Earth'

Gee, more pleasant and greener? What's not to like?


Well lets start with stuff written in the article itself!

The authors note that the beneficial aspect of CO2 fertilisation have previously been cited by contrarians to argue that carbon emissions need not be reduced.
Co-author Dr Philippe Ciais, from the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences in Gif-sur‑Yvette, France (also an IPCC author), said: "The fallacy of the contrarian argument is two-fold. First, the many negative aspects of climate change are not acknowledged."
"Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatise to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilisation effect diminishes over time." Future growth is also limited by other factors, such as lack of water or nutrients."


This article provides quite a good summary on recent climate change.
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf
I have now left the Building :tongue8:
Twisty
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
 
Posts: 1970
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 1:01 am
Location: UK / Singapore

Re: Let It Snow..

Postby bdub » Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:54 am

it is amazing how some can't put two and two together correctly, and want to remain in a dream like state.
how hard is it to see that the acceleration of climate change is clearly witness-able as being these last couple hundred of years, especially since the industrial revolution.
we've created dust bowls and ozone holes, both repairable, and repaired in fact because of the danger they posed to existing society. yet, because of special interests with massive money and other higher priorities than caring about the future of generations down the line, this particular catastrophe is only being rushed toward more fervently, even through the litany of evidence presented by a giant majority of scientists.
makes me relieved that I have no children to witness what is to come.
my main rig...
asrock 970 extreme3
AMD athlonII X3 440
zalman cpns5x performa hs/fan
crucial ballistix 2x4gb sport ddr3-1333
powercolor ax7750 1GBK3-H vga
antec neo he 650r
Samsung 840 EVo SSD 120 GB
toshiba 2TB HDD 64M cache sata3
seagate 1TB HDD 64M cache sata3
hitachi 2TB HDD 64M cache sata3
lg wh14ns40 bd burner
optiarc ad-7240s sata dvdrw (nec chipset)
bdub
Black Belt 3rd Degree
Black Belt 3rd Degree
 
Posts: 3653
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 2:12 am
Location: Washington D.C.

Re: Let It Snow..

Postby evasive » Wed May 11, 2016 8:56 am

The real problem is, no matter how many numbers you throw at it, you will NEVER have all the data you need to say if indeed the earth is warming because of us or because of the sun or earth itself. heck as we speak the earth is bombarded by water from the cosmos, yes OUTSIDE water. That water will evaporate and thus cool the earth. if we receive less water on average, the temperature rises. try and measure that one.

yes, we almost had no winter this year. but that happened in the 1910's the 1930's and then all of a sudden our behinds were freezing off for a few decades. so basically, unless it is +10 degrees on average next winter, I am waiting for the next wave of cold weather in winter. the problem is, there is no significance in what we measure because we are not measuring in enough points and not accurate enough and not long enough to correct for short term variations.
We hate rut, but we fear change.
********************************
System error, strike any user to continue...
evasive
Mobo-fu Master
Mobo-fu Master
 
Posts: 37389
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 12:01 am
Location: Netherlands

Re: Let It Snow..

Postby Karlsweldt » Wed May 11, 2016 4:42 pm

Since before the dawn of mankind, and continuing, the Earth has cycled from an abnormally warm to cool period and back.
But indeed, mankind of the 'modern' age (1700s to present) has influenced the warming cycles. Factories, metal smelting, clearing forest areas for farming. Then all the hard paving of roadways and parking areas. Multi-story concrete buildings. And lately with our homes having air-conditioning units and other fuel burning needs.
But the Earth can regain balance, and cycle anew to a different state. Excess moisture in the atmosphere helps absorb sunlight, cooling the Earth. Lesser moisture in the atmosphere can cause warming of the Earth, evaporating water to vapor.
Volcanoes, too, assist in altering the warming/cooling trend with atmospheric particulates.
Yet we have not included in the formula as to how the shifting of the magnetic poles, and the wobulation angle of the Earth's axis, has influenced the warming/cooling trend.
Around 2200 BC, Earth began a cooling trend until 1700 BC, then warmed again until 1100 BC. 250 BC was another 'cold' peak, then 'warm'; for 300 AD. 700 AD: Cold! 1250 AD: Hot! 1600 AD: Cold! 1991: Hot! Our next "mini ice-age" may begin in less than 5 years?
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
F@H.. to solve mankind's maladies.. in our lifetimes!
Karlsweldt
Mobo-fu Master
Mobo-fu Master
 
Posts: 20660
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 11:57 am
Location: 07438

Re: Let It Snow..

Postby Twisty » Wed May 11, 2016 11:16 pm

The rigorous and scientific studies conclude that our human activities are causing a global warming problem. This is undeniably clear to anybody who's read and understood the reports.
The choice each individual has is either to accept the problem exists and try to deal with it now, or pretend the problem doesn't exist - grabbing hold of counteracting flimsy conclusions as an excuse.

It is normal human tendency to ignore or brush something aside because it is inconvenient or undesirable (e.g. I'm supposed to be doing more productive things than browsing forums right now :D ) but rationally the longer something is brushed aside the harder it will be to deal with eventually.
I have now left the Building :tongue8:
Twisty
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
 
Posts: 1970
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 1:01 am
Location: UK / Singapore

PreviousNext

Return to The Hundred Year War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest