Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 289101112
Results 1,101 to 1,168 of 1168

Thread: The TRUTH about climate change

  1. #1101

    Default

    [QUOTE=MrCombust;909271]
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Here's a list of 125 errors in the Monckton "research" paper:http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
    ahhh this disagrees with everything I've said, no point reading this past E1


    FTFY

  2. #1102

    Default



    What caused the acceleration in global warming in 1690-1740?

  3. #1103

    Default The TRUTH. The obvious fudging of the land based temperature record.

    Ladies and gentlemen of Alberta. Temperature records of the past are created using different methods. Proxy records use indicators other than modern instruments to determine the temperature. Instrument records (thermometers) have been used by the US, Britain, and other countries (depending on development) since the 1800's. GISS, NOAA and Hadcrut are land based thermometer readings, or ship based ocean readings of temperature that go back to the 1800's. Radiosonde, UAH, and RSS are atmospheric readings that go back about 40 years.

    Radiosonde, UAH, and RSS show no significant warming in the last 20 years, and increasingly even the 40 year trend is coming into question.

    Climate advocacy at NASA, NOAA, Hadcrut, has given the keepers of the temperature records the leniency to fudge the data to fit the global warming theory. They present a picture of of a worldwide, smooth, exponential, warming curve that correlates well with CO2. But this close match is collusion and fraud. The dust bowl of the 1930's has been erased, record high temperatures are recorded all over the world where there is no data, the 1970's cooling has been erased, the early 1900's records have been lowered. And with all that fudging, 5 independent records from NOAA, NASA, Hadcrut, and others are shown to be identical, an irrefutable indication of collusion.

    Tony Heller explains the fudging and collusion of the land based records in this video. Tony uses past versions of GISS, Hadcrut, newspaper clippings, and other records to show the 1930's warming was real, and has been erased from the temperature record. You can argue about the validity of the fudging of the data, but with past records (still) available on the internet, you cannot argue the records aren't being fudged.

    Watch this comprehensive video on the comprehensive fudging, and misrepresentation of the land based temperature records..............

    Last edited by MrCombust; 06-11-2018 at 07:14 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  4. #1104

    Default The TRUTH. Exactly where does "climate science" come from?

    One source of "climate science" is the IPCC. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was formed by the UN to summarize all the published climate science to produce a cohesive summary report for nations of the world. The IPCC has many scientists working on technical reports, followed by a summary report by, and for, policy makers.

    But the IPCC went a little berserk, instead of "summarizing" science, they became eco-climate activists. Instead of "summarizing" the science, the policy makers began to dictate the science. Here's a report from the IPCC explaining why 16 pages of changes to the technical report had to be made to fit the policy report. That's changes to the science reports to fit the policy reports.........................

    "Changes to the Underlying Scientific-Technical Assessment to ensure consistency with the approved Summary for Policymakers"

    http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_...ckle_backs.pdf

    So the next time CBC says we gotta reduce our carbon footprint, ask them....... according to the science, or the IPCC policymakers?
    Last edited by MrCombust; 10-11-2018 at 03:32 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  5. #1105

    Default The TRUTH. The climate change gravy train.......

    It's always comical when the climate advocates slander some guy because he sat in the same restaurant with an Exxon employee. They pretend climate denial is based on big money from the fossil fuel corporations. Nothing, NOTHING compares to the ocean of money, glory, fame, and adulation of climate advocacy. Who doesn't love somebody trying to "save the planet"?

    Watch this video on the massive money stream to keep the climate change agenda alive.

    Look who's making the REAL money.........

    "Follow the Money" by Marc Morano.

    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  6. #1106

    Default The TRUTH. No end in sight to the 30 year cooling trend!



    What cooling trend? Where'd it go?


    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  7. #1107
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,053

    Default

    ^^

    mark morano?

    really???

    this mark morano:

    MarcMorano is the real-world fossil fuel industry version of Nick Naylor. His career began working for Rush Limbaugh, followed by a job at Cybercast News Service where he launched the Swift Boat attacks on 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. In 2006, Morano became the director of communications for Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), who is perhaps best known for throwing a snowball on the Senate floor and calling human-caused global warming “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”

    Thus it’s unsurprising that in 2009, Morano began directing fossil fuel funded think-tanks designed to cast doubt on the reality of and dangers associated with human-caused global warming. As he admitted in Merchants of Doubt, Morano frequently embodies the strategy of climate denial known as ‘fake experts’…


    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...-million-users

    that mark morano?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  8. #1108
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,204

    Default

    If you actually follow the money, you realize the trail leads to people like him. Because there's a whole lot more money in the oil industry than in the "climate change industry" or whatever.

  9. #1109

    Default The TRUTH. The left wing CBC has a schizophrenic break. More fraud from the CBC.

    The poor CBC had a big problem this week. The Inuit and "climate change" had a clash and they didn't know what to do. There are so many polar bears in Nunavut they're now eating local Inuit population. But climate "science" says the polar bears are going extinct. Who to back?

    As usual, the CBC trots out a "scientist" Dr. Andrew Derocher from the U of A, and published all the usual talking points. There's a "scientific consensus" the polar bear population is declining. Polar bears are declining because of "climate change".

    The ridiculous CBC calls Inuit being eaten by polar bears "local inuit knowledge" when discussing polar bear population, and that "western SCIENCE" says the polar bears are declining.

    I guess the "climate change" agenda trumps indigenous agenda.

    What Dr. Andrew Derocher, and the CBC don't mention is that Northern Canadian provinces have quotas for polar bear hunting licenses. The quotas go up when there are a lot of bears. This system has been in place for decades. What's the effect on the polar bear population by hunting?

    Why not send the CBC, or Dr. Derocher of the U of A an e-mail and ask him why hunting licenses weren't a part of the discussion?

    Isn't it time this ridiculous fraud of blaming EVERYTHING on climate change stopped? Can't we all be smarter? Or do we all have to listen to the CBC's endless propaganda drivel? When discussing "climate change" why do "investigative reporters" turn into sycophant cheerleaders"? And shouldn't we start calling them on that?

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north...ears-1.4901910
    Last edited by MrCombust; 15-11-2018 at 10:42 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  10. #1110

    Default The TRUTH. US heat wave index, courtesy of the EPA

    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  11. #1111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    The poor CBC had a big problem this week. The Inuit and "climate change" had a clash and they didn't know what to do. There are so many polar bears in Nunavut they're now eating local Inuit population. But climate "science" says the polar bears are going extinct. Who to back?

    As usual, the CBC trots out a "scientist" Dr. Andrew Derocher from the U of A, and published all the usual talking points. There's a "scientific consensus" the polar bear population is declining. Polar bears are declining because of "climate change".

    The ridiculous CBC calls Inuit being eaten by polar bears "local inuit knowledge" when discussing polar bear population, and that "western SCIENCE" says the polar bears are declining.

    I guess the "climate change" agenda trumps indigenous agenda.

    What Dr. Andrew Derocher, and the CBC don't mention is that Northern Canadian provinces have quotas for polar bear hunting licenses. The quotas go up when there are a lot of bears. This system has been in place for decades. What's the effect on the polar bear population by hunting?

    Why not send the CBC, or Dr. Derocher of the U of A an e-mail and ask him why hunting licenses weren't a part of the discussion?

    Isn't it time this ridiculous fraud of blaming EVERYTHING on climate change stopped? Can't we all be smarter? Or do we all have to listen to the CBC's endless propaganda drivel? When discussing "climate change" why do "investigative reporters" turn into sycophant cheerleaders"? And shouldn't we start calling them on that?

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north...ears-1.4901910
    climate change is causing polar bears to migrate from traditional areas into areas where there is population as their food sources become less and less.


    Your line of reasoning is just incredibly...

  12. #1112

    Default The TRUTH. Jordan Peterson tells the TRUTH about global warming.

    In this video Jordan Peterson tells the frank truth about global warming in a short synopsis. He's asked if "climate change" will unite us all in a common cause. Jordan answers "no", and talks about the "Low resolution thinking" of the climate activists.

    "Climate change is a catastrophic, nightmarish mess"

    I guess he will now be slandered by the climate change liar blogs as an Exxon Mobile funded denier.

    Climate change is thug science, and Jordan Peterson will now be attacked.

    Notice the poser of the original question asks if the climate issue will "take us beyond debate". Her question is actually her answer. In science there is no such thing as "beyond debate". When the budget of solving a problem is a quadrillion dollars over the period of a century, the issue will never be "beyond debate". Climate activists do not want debate, they want submission and agreement with their position, and the poser of this question is no exception. She doesn't even understand her own folly while asking when the issue will be "beyond debate".

    Last edited by MrCombust; 15-11-2018 at 06:33 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  13. #1113

    Default

    Looks like a good read (below). This article is sure worth reading:



    Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science - Wikipedia

    “Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science(1957)—originally published in 1952 as In the Name of Science: An Entertaining Survey of the High Priests and Cultists of Science, Past and Present[1]—was Martin Gardner's second book.[2][3] A survey of what it described as pseudosciences and cult beliefs, it became a founding document in the nascent scientific skepticism movement. Michael Shermer said of it: "Modern skepticism has developed into a science-based movement, beginning with Martin Gardner's 1952 classic".[4] ...”



    “Gardner says that cranks have two common characteristics. The first "and most important" is that they work in almost total...”

    The second characteristic of the crank (which also contributes to...) is the tendency to... There are five ways in which this tendency is likely to be manifested.

    The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.

    He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both.

    He believes there is a campaign against...”


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fads_a...ame_of_Science

  14. #1114
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,204

    Default

    ^^Why is Jordan Peterson an authority on climate change? He's not a climate scientist, not an environmental scientist. He's not even well respected within his own field.

    He's simply someone who knows how to sound smart without saying anything of value, and how to pander to an audience that wants to hear their prejudiced ideas from an "educated" voice.

  15. #1115
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,714

    Default

    If Mr. Combust had bothered to read the key points accompanying this chart, he would know the chart does nothing to disprove global warming either in the contiguous 48 states or anywhere else in the world.

    Not that I expect these points to penetrate Mr.Combust's extreme case of confirmation bias, but others may find them informative:

    Heat waves in the 1930s remain the most severe heat waves in the U.S. historical record (see Figure 1). The spike in Figure 1 reflects extreme, persistent heat waves in the Great Plains region during a period known as the Dust Bowl. Poor land use practices and many years of intense drought contributed to these heat waves by depleting soil moisture and reducing the moderating effects of evaporation.
    and

    If the climate were completely stable, one might expect to see highs and lows each accounting for about 50 percent of the records set. Since the 1970s, however, record-setting daily high temperatures have become more common than record lows across the United States (see Figure 6). The most recent decade had twice as many record highs as record lows.

  16. #1116
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Castledowns, Edmonton
    Posts
    227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    The poor CBC had a big problem this week. The Inuit and "climate change" had a clash and they didn't know what to do. There are so many polar bears in Nunavut they're now eating local Inuit population. But climate "science" says the polar bears are going extinct. Who to back?

    As usual, the CBC trots out a "scientist" Dr. Andrew Derocher from the U of A, and published all the usual talking points. There's a "scientific consensus" the polar bear population is declining. Polar bears are declining because of "climate change".

    The ridiculous CBC calls Inuit being eaten by polar bears "local inuit knowledge" when discussing polar bear population, and that "western SCIENCE" says the polar bears are declining.

    I guess the "climate change" agenda trumps indigenous agenda.

    What Dr. Andrew Derocher, and the CBC don't mention is that Northern Canadian provinces have quotas for polar bear hunting licenses. The quotas go up when there are a lot of bears. This system has been in place for decades. What's the effect on the polar bear population by hunting?

    Why not send the CBC, or Dr. Derocher of the U of A an e-mail and ask him why hunting licenses weren't a part of the discussion?

    Isn't it time this ridiculous fraud of blaming EVERYTHING on climate change stopped? Can't we all be smarter? Or do we all have to listen to the CBC's endless propaganda drivel? When discussing "climate change" why do "investigative reporters" turn into sycophant cheerleaders"? And shouldn't we start calling them on that?

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north...ears-1.4901910
    climate change is causing polar bears to migrate from traditional areas into areas where there is population as their food sources become less and less.


    Your line of reasoning is just incredibly...
    Why don't you do some reading on this Medwards? You know - exploding polar bear numbers in all Canadian polar bear ranges save one. The guy who started the polar bear scam went to jail for fraud while the other activist studies didn't set one foot in Canada. The actual Canadian wildlife sources on the ground and their continuous monitoring is completely ignored in favour of activist nonsense. Polar bear ranges are getting larger because of more bears needing larger territories - not migration nonsense. Their numbers and average weights have increased greatly through this harrowing climate change nonsense.

  17. #1117
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Castledowns, Edmonton
    Posts
    227

    Default

    https://polarbearscience.files.wordp...2018-final.pdf A source for virtually every real polar bear survey by real scientific organizations.

  18. #1118

    Default

    This is disconnected but on Nature of things they just did a segment on how Polar Bears are now exhibiting different hunting behaviors at Hudson Bay Estuaries where they in masse occupy different boulders and as a collective effort catch more prey than they would otherwise. The key though is that more of the bears seem to be adapting to finding ways of catching prey closer to land, and not having to swim out into any Arctic Ocean pack at all. So that this seems transformative, and a solution for the bears, but no so much for the local people that have seen massive increases of Polar bears simply staying near the Arctic and Hudson Bay shore lines. This too could relate to the counts being higher. The Polar Bears now are frequenting more areas that are likely to be counted vs being hundreds of miles away on whatever ice they can find.


    Watching the Polar Bears feed in estuaries is similar to how Grizzlies or Bears have often fished en masse for Salmon. With enough bears around the prey cannot avoid them.

    In anycase a potential win for species adaptation in a changing world.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  19. #1119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    ^^Why is Jordan Peterson an authority on climate change? He's not a climate scientist, not an environmental scientist. He's not even well respected within his own field.

    He's simply someone who knows how to sound smart without saying anything of value, and how to pander to an audience that wants to hear their prejudiced ideas from an "educated" voice.
    Its an interesting comment. As much as I happen to approve of some of his message its also quite clear, and has been throughout, that he see's himself as a renaissance man capable of tackling any topic or issue and being a self described authority. So that his forays into themes like this just seem silly. But not to him. Because his penchant for being an authority on every matter seems self learned. JP is a big mouth, but we knew that.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  20. #1120
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krokwalk View Post
    https://polarbearscience.files.wordp...2018-final.pdf A source for virtually every real polar bear survey by real scientific organizations.
    The Global Warming Policy Foundation is a "real scientific organization?" Who knew.

    So far as the report author Susan Crockford is concerned, there are those who question her expertise.

    Ian Stirling, who has spent more than four decades studying polar bears and publishing over 150 papers and five books on the topic, says Crockford has “zero” authority on the subject. [2], [7]
    “If you tell a lie big enough, often enough, people will begin to believe it,” said Ian Stirling. “The denier websites have been using her and building her up as an expert.” [7]
    https://www.desmogblog.com/susan-crockford

    Perhaps polar bears - whose range extends from southern Hudson Bay to the High Arctic - may be more adaptable to disappearance of sea ice than some scientists think. But to claim that there is no reason to be concerned at all is an even bigger stretch.
    Last edited by East McCauley; 16-11-2018 at 04:42 PM.

  21. #1121

    Default The TRUTH.

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Krokwalk View Post
    https://polarbearscience.files.wordp...2018-final.pdf A source for virtually every real polar bear survey by real scientific organizations.
    The Global Warming Policy Foundation is a "real scientific organization?" Who knew.

    So far as the report author Susan Crockford is concerned, there are those who question her expertise.

    Ian Stirling, who has spent more than four decades studying polar bears and publishing over 150 papers and five books on the topic, says Crockford has “zero” authority on the subject. [2], [7]
    “If you tell a lie big enough, often enough, people will begin to believe it,” said Ian Stirling. “The denier websites have been using her and building her up as an expert.” [7]
    https://www.desmogblog.com/susan-crockford

    Perhaps polar bears - whose range extends from southern Hudson Bay to the High Arctic - may be more adaptable to disappearance of sea ice than some scientists think. But to claim that there is no reason to be concerned at all is an even bigger stretch.
    Polar bears been around for 100,000 years. Northern communities been hunting them for 100's of years. Ian Stirling says they're in decline because of CO2.

    The Holocene maximum was warmer than it is today, and lasted 3,000 years.

    And Ian Stirling was part of the fake news, fake science, story about the youtube bear with a broken leg died of "climate change" too. And not just the youtube bear either. Here's another dead bear Ian Sterling says died of "climate change"............................
    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...d-sea-ice-melt
    I guess every dead bear Ian Sterling comes across gets a "dead from climate change" autopsy.

    What a hoot.

    Who is Ian Sterling to say Susan Crockford has "zero" authority?

    And yes, Susan Crockford is a scientist.

    I guess you can have a "consensus of scientists" on this if you slander, mock, ridicule, and exclude scientists that don't agree.

    As usual, the climate advocates on this forum post links to a cesspool, lying slander blog like it's top drawer climate science. desmogblog
    A blog dedicated to slandering, mud slinging, and disparaging anybody who doesn't agree with fake climate science.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 17-11-2018 at 11:48 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  22. #1122

    Default

    Science at work below. I’ve never heard a global warming critic say they were wrong and will redo their calculations. Instead the critics just go silent on such issues and find some other thing to criticize.


    Ocean warming: Scientists behind study say errors were made - CNN

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/14/world...ntl/index.html

  23. #1123

    Default The TRUTH. Scripps ignores thermometers and measures ocean temp using "biogeochemistry"

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Science at work below. I’ve never heard a global warming critic say they were wrong and will redo their calculations. Instead the critics just go silent on such issues and find some other thing to criticize.


    Ocean warming: Scientists behind study say errors were made - CNN

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/14/world...ntl/index.html
    "During recent decades, ocean heat uptake has been quantified by using hydrographic temperature measurements and data from the Argo float program, which expanded its coverage after 2007. However, these estimates all use the same imperfect ocean dataset and share additional uncertainties resulting from sparse coverage, especially before 2007. Here we provide an independent estimate by using measurements of atmospheric oxygen (O2) and carbon dioxide (CO2)—levels of which increase as the ocean warms and releases gases—as a whole-ocean thermometer. "

    So they're measuring the temperature of the ocean to 1/10 of a degree, based on(constantly changing) oxygen and CO2 levels in the atmosphere, instead of the multiple, worldwide, ocean bouy thermometer readings?

    Scripps SHOULD admit they were wrong, and apologize. Oceans "warming faster than expected"? More fake science. Why not stop publishing fake science, instead of publishing fake science and then apologizing for it?

    NOAA has thermometers all over the oceans. We know what the temperature of the ocean is. All you have to do is read the thermometers.

    But the oceans aren't warming fast enough for scripps. So they measure ocean temperature using biogeochemistry. "The issues do not invalidate the study's methodology or the new insights into ocean biogeochemistry on which it is based,". What the hell is wrong with using the $BILLION$ dollar ARGO bouy system? Oh yeah. Thermometers show the oceans aren't warming.

    Thanks for admitting your error when you ignored thermometer readings and published fake science, pretending to measure ocean temp better than a scientific instrument with "biogeochemistry". Oh, but you didn't apologize for that, did you?
    "The issues DO NOTinvalidate the study's methodology".

    I guess we can all look forward to scripps' new ocean temperature estimations based on biogeochemistry, while ignoring the worldwide, extensive thermometer, bouy systems after they correct thier errors.

    Ladies and Gentlemen of Edmonton and Alberta. Want to know where your carrbon tax money goes? More research like this. You give it, they'll spend it. And they tell you what you want to hear so you'll keep funding thier projects.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 17-11-2018 at 12:13 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  24. #1124

    Default The TRUTH. Scripps statement on ocean warming measurements........

    From the Scripps ocean temperature post below...............

    ""During recent decades, ocean heat uptake has been quantified by using hydrographic temperature measurements and data from the Argo float program, which expanded its coverage after 2007. However, these estimates all use the same imperfect ocean dataset and share additional uncertainties resulting from sparse coverage, especially before 2007. Here we provide an independent estimate by using measurements of atmospheric oxygen (O2) and carbon dioxide (CO2)—levels of which increase as the ocean warms and releases gases—as a whole-ocean thermometer. "

    What does Scripps say about ocean warming measurements?

    "
    these estimates all use the same imperfect ocean dataset and share additional uncertainties resulting from sparse coverage"

    Letter published by the journal Nature................

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8

    I've been posting about how suspect the temperature record is from NOAA for about a year here. Nice to know Scripps is in my corner on this one.

    Last edited by MrCombust; 17-11-2018 at 01:33 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  25. #1125
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,714

    Default

    ^^^^Susan Crockford is a real scientist because she confirms your biases. Ian Stirling is a fake scientist because he contradicts your biases. Like I said earlier, you are an example of a person with an extreme case of confirmation bias.

  26. #1126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^^^^Susan Crockford is a real scientist because she confirms your biases. Ian Stirling is a fake scientist because he contradicts your biases. Like I said earlier, you are an example of a person with an extreme case of confirmation bias.
    No.

    Firstly, studying polar bears doesn't make you a climate scientist. Yes the arctic has warmed. But Ian Stirling's expertise doesn't appear to be related to the physics of CO2 and climate modelling, so what is he basing his link about CO2 on? Is he just dabbling in two different fields of science?

    Secondly,
    Ian Stirling has pointed to an individual polar bear and attributed it's death to "climate change" twice. Making a direct connection like that discredits him.

    Thirdly, if you want to read one of the worst "climate change" papers ever written, read this paper Ian Stirling co-authored...........
    "Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy"
    "Approximately 80% of the denier blogs cited here referred to one particular denier blog, Polar Bear Science, by Susan Crockford, as their primary source of discussion and debate on the status of polar bears. Notably, as of this writing, Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on the effects of sea ice on the population dynamics of polar bears"

    A direct, personal attack on Susan Crockford in a published ?scientific? paper. Dr. Crockford is mentioned by name 19 times in this paper. And Susan Crockfords published papers and books are available online despite the idiotic rambling and babbling in this paper Ian stirling co-authored.

    Read it yourself to see how bad it is.

    https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/.../4/281/4644513



    Fourthly, Ian Stirling is studying polar bears that don't exist. He says..........

    "Highly specialized species are particularly vulnerable to extinction if their environment changes, and polar bears fit that prescription. If the population of the planet is truly concerned about the fate of this species, we need to collectively reduce greenhouse gas production significantly and quickly."

    https://polarbearsinternational.org/...ional_2007.pdf

    According to ice core records the earth has been this warm, and warmer, for the past 10,000 years. Ian Stirling's polar bears went extinct thousands of years ago.




    Last edited by MrCombust; 17-11-2018 at 04:12 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  27. #1127

    Default The TRUTH. It used to be hotter. Sea levels were higher.

    Ladies and Gentlemen of Edmonton and Alberta. They show you the fraudulent hockey stick graph and tell you it's never been this hot before. But if you've been reading my posts you'll find hundreds of references to evidence it's been hotter in the past. Here's another 70.

    When the earth gets hotter (a natural occurrence), ice melts and sea level rises. It's been much warmer in the past 10,000 years than it is today. If you're paying attention, you might think it stands to reason the sea level must have been higher too. If you think that you'd be right, and not just a few feet we see today, several metres....................

    Here's a few of 70 papers you can read about sea levels rising, higher than today, and long before CO2 started to rise............
    http://notrickszone.com/2018/04/12/7...le-from-noise/

    http://2dgf.dk/xpdf/bull64-1-55.pdf
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...31018213004689
    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...1002/ece3.3266
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...72771417305498
    “Continuous record of Holocene sea-level changes … (4900 years BP to present). … The curve reveals eight centennial sea-level oscillations of 0.5-1.1 m superimposed on the general trend of the RSL [relative sea level] curve.”





    Last edited by MrCombust; 23-11-2018 at 05:25 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  28. #1128

    Default

    Did the sea level rise or did the land mass fall? (Ya know that plate tectonics and all...)


    What you’re saying though has been taught in school for decades. North Smerica wa populated by migrations across a land bridge, North American native villages under tens or hundreds of feet of water, ancient cities in the Mediterranean sitting under water, etc.

    So we know that water levels have changed in the past and we know that glaciers have changed in the past, and we know that land masses have moved about the globe and have been pushed down and up through tectonic forces. We also know that periods of volcanic activity have significantly altered the climate for decades at a time. Forest fires, meteorites, etc have also altered the climate. Sunspot activity is associated with climate change. So we know that “change is a constant”.
    Last edited by KC; 23-11-2018 at 08:03 PM.

  29. #1129

    Default

    Climate change: Report warns of growing impact on US life - BBC News


    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46325168

  30. #1130

    Default The TRUTH. Laughable silliness in the "latest report". Threats and fake science.

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Climate change: Report warns of growing impact on US life - BBC News


    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46325168
    Ladies and Gentlemen of Edmonton and Alberta. How many lies did you catch?
    First, the standard threats.........no facts, no science, just threats..........

    "Future risks from climate change depend... on decisions made today," the 4th National Climate Assessment says."
    " It is already deadly serious and without urgent, dramatic change, it will be catastrophic."
    ""presenting growing challenges to human health and safety, quality of life, and the rate of economic growth".
    "it could only be stopped if the world made major, and costly, changes."


    How many years can you say this? 20? 30? Same "imminent threat" mantra for three decades. Yawn.
    Isn't it already too late? Already deadly serious? Record high crop yields is deadly serious? Hurricanes on the decline is deadly serious? Plant life growing faster all over the world is deadly?

    More stupid stuff....................

    "This report.........is not abstract. It gives many specific examples"
    "The report warns that the frequency of wildfires COULDincrease if climate change is unchecked"

    could?

    "warnings about the effects on crumbling infrastructure"

    Global warming gets blamed for everything.

    "failing crops"

    Record high crop yields all over the world.

    "it majors on the economic impact"

    What economic impact? The only (&*&^(*^^^* economic impact I see is the new (*&*& carbon tax. They steal your money and tell you "climate change" took it.

    ""With continued growth in emissions at historic rates, annual losses in some economic sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century"

    Now we get to the real truth. It's a PREDICTION by a software simulation. The key word in this deceptive sentence is "projected". What losses? They "project" crops will fail, and it's a lie. Every year brings another record high crop yield. This stuff isn't hard to verify.

    "Without substantial and sustained global mitigation and regional adaptation efforts, climate change is expected to cause growing losses to American infrastructure"

    Well, at least it's not "we're all gonna die" anymore, now it's just our infrastructure. Bridges gonna collapse because the temperature rose one degree. Never mind the daily variation is 10X that.

    "The report notes that the effects of climate change are already being felt in communities across the country, including more frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events."

    Flat out lying now.

    "If the world fails to act, the researchers warned, there would be some significant and dangerous changes to our world, including rising sea levels"

    Sea levels been rising for 20,000 years. Falling on the 10,000 year trend. Rising on the 200 year. Pay your carbon tax and the government is going to control the sea level?
    Last edited by MrCombust; 27-11-2018 at 10:45 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  31. #1131

    Default


    Now we get to the real truth. It's a PREDICTION by a software simulation. The key word in this deceptive sentence is "projected".
    I really don’t understand how your mind works. Global warming has always been about past observations and predictions based on a theory either trying to explain past observations or a theory looking to past observations to support the theory. Out of that theory is an attempt to predict what will likely happen. So what is wrong with forecasts and predictions? No one expects them to come to fruition exactly as predicted as there are too many variables and too many ways to interpret the results. Nonetheless, a prediction that come next spring and summer temperatures will rise and the climate will change dramatically with snow turning to rain is reasonable.

  32. #1132
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,714

    Default

    ^Everything MrCombust posts is filtered through the ideological position he has staked out. This position is mostly to deny that global warming is taking place. Occasionally, MrCombust deviates from this denial position to claim that, even if there is some warming, the impacts are likely to more beneficial than harmful.

  33. #1133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    []
    Ladies and Gentlemen of Edmonton and Alberta. How many lies did you catch?
    []
    How many times have you waxed inane from that pseudonym?

    @ss.

  34. #1134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post

    Now we get to the real truth. It's a PREDICTION by a software simulation. The key word in this deceptive sentence is "projected".
    I really don’t understand how your mind works. Global warming has always been about past observations and predictions based on a theory either trying to explain past observations or a theory looking to past observations to support the theory. Out of that theory is an attempt to predict what will likely happen. So what is wrong with forecasts and predictions? No one expects them to come to fruition exactly as predicted as there are too many variables and too many ways to interpret the results. Nonetheless, a prediction that come next spring and summer temperatures will rise and the climate will change dramatically with snow turning to rain is reasonable.
    You're funny. There are no past observations CO2 affects temperature, let alone man made CO2.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  35. #1135

    Default The TRUTH. "Climate deniers" riot in Paris...........

    "French police fire tear gas at fuel price protesters"
    "
    Police fired tear gas and used water cannon to disperse protesters in Paris who are angry over rising fuel costs and President Emmanuel Macron's economic policies"

    "
    The unrest is a dilemma for Macron who casts himself as a champion against climate change but has been derided as out of touch with common folk and is fighting a slump in popularity."

    France signed onto the Paris accord with much fanfare. When you jack up the price of fuel to reduce your carbon footprint this is the result. This is what the climate advocates want.

    www.cnbc.com/2018/11/24/french-police-fire-tear-gas-at-fuel-price-protesters.html
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  36. #1136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post

    Now we get to the real truth. It's a PREDICTION by a software simulation. The key word in this deceptive sentence is "projected".
    I really dont understand how your mind works. Global warming has always been about past observations and predictions based on a theory either trying to explain past observations or a theory looking to past observations to support the theory. Out of that theory is an attempt to predict what will likely happen. So what is wrong with forecasts and predictions? No one expects them to come to fruition exactly as predicted as there are too many variables and too many ways to interpret the results. Nonetheless, a prediction that come next spring and summer temperatures will rise and the climate will change dramatically with snow turning to rain is reasonable.
    You're funny. There are no past observations CO2 affects temperature, let alone man made CO2.
    The planet Venus would like to have a word with you.

  37. #1137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post

    Now we get to the real truth. It's a PREDICTION by a software simulation. The key word in this deceptive sentence is "projected".
    I really dont understand how your mind works. Global warming has always been about past observations and predictions based on a theory either trying to explain past observations or a theory looking to past observations to support the theory. Out of that theory is an attempt to predict what will likely happen. So what is wrong with forecasts and predictions? No one expects them to come to fruition exactly as predicted as there are too many variables and too many ways to interpret the results. Nonetheless, a prediction that come next spring and summer temperatures will rise and the climate will change dramatically with snow turning to rain is reasonable.
    You're funny. There are no past observations CO2 affects temperature, let alone man made CO2.
    The planet Venus would like to have a word with you.
    The planet Venus can't talk. It has no intelligence. If you have credible, comparable evidence, small variations in CO2 on earth has been affecting changes in the earth's temperature using Venus as a proxy.......... present it.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  38. #1138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    "French police fire tear gas at fuel price protesters"
    "
    Police fired tear gas and used water cannon to disperse protesters in Paris who are angry over rising fuel costs and President Emmanuel Macron's economic policies"

    "
    The unrest is a dilemma for Macron who casts himself as a champion against climate change but has been derided as out of touch with common folk and is fighting a slump in popularity."

    France signed onto the Paris accord with much fanfare. When you jack up the price of fuel to reduce your carbon footprint this is the result. This is what the climate advocates want.

    www.cnbc.com/2018/11/24/french-police-fire-tear-gas-at-fuel-price-protesters.html
    This has nothing to do with the the science you said you were here to talk about. Either way there will be those that believe one thing or the other. It would be like posting on the onlookers of the Scopes monkey trial.
    Last edited by KC; 25-11-2018 at 05:02 PM.

  39. #1139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    […]
    Ladies and Gentlemen of Edmonton and Alberta. How many lies did you catch?
    […]

    Easy

    411 lies

    All I had to do was just count your posts...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  40. #1140

    Default The TRUTH. Germany's renewable disaster

    The country of Germany has invested heavily in windmills. Their strategy was to be at the forefront of the global warming mitigation. Germany spent $billions$ installing thousands of wind turbines. But things didn't turn out the way they wanted.

    1) Wind power is sporadic, unstable, and can drop to 0 in minutes. Because of this Germany needed to have a backup source of power, so without closing the fossil fuel sources they added a second, unreliable source of power.

    2) Electricity prices increased considerably, in addition to the hidden subsidies sourced through taxation.

    3) CO2 emissions have increased in Germany despite this colossal expenditure.

    4) Magnificent and beautiful Germanic countryside is now peppered with giant, noisy windmills as far as the eye can see.

    5) Health effects of noise and subsonic vibrations are now becoming part of the equation.

    6) Aging windmills are increasingly in need of costly repair and overhaul.

    7) The windmills are an environmental nightmare, killing birds and bats by the thousands.

    The power grid is becoming increasingly unstable as large power surges from the windmills ebb and flow depending on the prevailing wind.

    Most of these issues have been whitewashed and ignored in the name of the noble cause of reducing CO2. But these problems are not going away as Germany reconsiders their strategy through political battles.

    Here's a short video of windmills peppering the Germanic countryside................

    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  41. #1141

    Default

    Can you stop your lies? Now up to 412

  42. #1142
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,204

    Default

    I can't wait the the TRUTH about the flat earth. Because that's about how much credibility these posts have.

  43. #1143

    Default

    When you have to upper case the entire word TRUTH, you know its a lie

  44. #1144
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,053

    Default

    ^^^^

    the video clip and the consequences and conclusions you're forwarding as "proof of failure" are missing the point.

    the problem isn't one of generation, it's one of storage. coal - and other carbon based fuel sources - and nuclear have been advantageous when compared with wind because they are efficient stores of power, not because they are particularly efficient generators of power. hydro is relatively efficient as well not for it's power generation but for our ability to "store" that generation behind dams.

    once wind and tide and other non-carbon power sources are linked to efficient storage mechanisms, all of the "failures" you are trying to point out as being insurmountable pretty much disappear.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  45. #1145

    Default The TRUTH. Just for laughs. "We're all gonna die" reports vs temperature

    Yeah. Bad science just for laughs.

    If you've been reading the news or reading my posts you know that the 4th US National Climate report has been issued. This report says the same thing as the first three reports. Stuff like "we're all gonna die", "crops are gonna fail", "weather extremes", "only a few years left to save the planet", blah, blah, blah........

    Graph courtesy of the deniers at wattsupwiththat, temperature data courtesy of NOAA...................

    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  46. #1146

    Default

    you obviously didn't read the report this year, or the past years. The reports don't say what you've stated.


    more LIES pretending to be TRUTH.
    Last edited by Medwards; 28-11-2018 at 03:37 PM.

  47. #1147
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,871

    Default

    Not to mention that once again, he's posted a chart showing a clear rising temperature trend and not realized it. Granted that it's not much, but that would be expected given that the chart only shows 25-30 years. But just the same, it's there.

  48. #1148

    Default

    ​Mr Combust please stop with your LIES!!!!

  49. #1149
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,714

    Default

    ^^Since the chart is locked it's not possible to apply a trend line. If it were possible to plot a trend line, just eyeballing tells me there has been close to 1 degree C of warming in this 28 year time series, which is actually quite a lot.

  50. #1150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    The author is a comedian, but the graph is still mostly true.

    I think so...

  51. #1151

    Default The TRUTH. The sad state of peer review when it comes to "climate science"

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Science at work below. Ive never heard a global warming critic say they were wrong and will redo their calculations. Instead the critics just go silent on such issues and find some other thing to criticize.


    Ocean warming: Scientists behind study say errors were made - CNN

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/14/world...ntl/index.html
    Ladies and gentlemen of Alberta and Edmonton...... I addressed this in an earlier post but I wanted to revisit it in a more serious manner. The publishing of this paper shows just how flawed the peer review process is when it comes to "climate science". "Peer review" is a process by which fellow scientists, who are qualified, check a paper for scientific integrity. In addition to this the journal Nature is regarded as one of the most prestigious journals in science.

    So when the journal Nature published the Scripps paper about Earths oceans have absorbed 60 percent more heat per year than previously thought, it was bound to be taken seriously.

    This story isn't about honest climate scientists admitting they were wrong,. This story is about how does a climate science paper with numerous, and obvious errors, pass peer review and get published in a so-called prestigious journal?

    Here is the story of Nic Lewis who discovered errors in the paper within hours of reviewing it, ultimately causing it to be retracted...............................

    Nic Lewis.......
    "
    CONCLUSIONSThe findings of the Resplandy et al paper were peer reviewed and published in the worlds premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media. Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results. Just a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information, was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations.

    Moreover, even if the papers results had been correct, they would not have justified its findings regarding an increase to 2.0C in the lower bound of the equilibrium climate sensitivity range and a 25% reduction in the carbon budget for 2C global warming.

    Because of the wide dissemination of the papers results, it is extremely important that these errors are acknowledged by the authors without delay and then corrected.
    Of course, it is also very important that the media outlets that unquestioningly trumpeted the papers findings now correct the record too."

    https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/06/a...-uptake-paper/
    https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/07/r...ematic-errors/
    https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/17/r...ed-correction/
    https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/23/r...-developments/
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  52. #1152
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,053

    Default

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-russ...nd-conference/

    at one time russia and saudi arabia and kuwait would have qualified as axis of evil members. what does joining them say about the trump administration?

    how to use one single word to provide ammunition for MrCombus and others to say there isn't any consensus...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  53. #1153
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,714

    Default

    From link above:

    Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait also called for the study to be "noted" but not "welcomed."

    While none of the four-oil exporting countries spelled it out, their objection to the report likely included its suggestion that fossil-fuel use needs to be phased out by 2050. Oil, gas and coal are major sources of carbon dioxide, which traps heat in the atmosphere.
    Hate to say it, but these countries have a point. There is not a hope in hell that fossil fuel use (coal, oil and natural gas) will be ended by 2050, or cut in half by 2030. The folks at the UN climate conference need to recognize this reality and start setting more achievable targets. Otherwise, public cynicism will only increase and the backlash against doing anything will only get stronger.

  54. #1154
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    I saw a piece one day not long ago about a UofA student capturing carbon and making useful products from the residue. He had a machine there that he had invented. He was from Africa originally. The idea was to use such a thing on smokestacks etc and totally end up with a usable end product hard almost steel like. This could be a way to go. Did anyone else see it?

  55. #1155
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,053

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    From link above:

    Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait also called for the study to be "noted" but not "welcomed."

    While none of the four-oil exporting countries spelled it out, their objection to the report likely included its suggestion that fossil-fuel use needs to be phased out by 2050. Oil, gas and coal are major sources of carbon dioxide, which traps heat in the atmosphere.
    Hate to say it, but these countries have a point. There is not a hope in hell that fossil fuel use (coal, oil and natural gas) will be ended by 2050, or cut in half by 2030. The folks at the UN climate conference need to recognize this reality and start setting more achievable targets. Otherwise, public cynicism will only increase and the backlash against doing anything will only get stronger.
    except that's a bit disingenuous isn't it? the report wasn't commissioned to document what would happen if the goals for fossil fuel use were to end it by 2050 or cut it in half by 2030.

    the report was commissioned to determine what would be required to ensure average global temperatures don't rise by more than 1.5 Celsius.

    twisting those around by confusing goals with methods is what increases public cynicism. are those the only exclusive methods and those the only dates to achieve the goal? maybe not. but i haven't seen any other plans put forward and even the four countries wanting to change "welcome" to "received" don't seem to be disputing either the goal or the method. just because the method addressed by the report has the potential to be "bad news" financially for those four countries doesn't negate the science behind the report.

    if those four countries have an alternative method to reach the agreed upon goal, perhaps they should table it and commence implementing it instead of playing semantics with single words.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  56. #1156
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    I saw a piece one day not long ago about a UofA student capturing carbon and making useful products from the residue. He had a machine there that he had invented. He was from Africa originally. The idea was to use such a thing on smokestacks etc and totally end up with a usable end product hard almost steel like. This could be a way to go. Did anyone else see it?
    Not that one in particular, but direct air capture of carbon is being worked on by numerous researchers and companies. One of them in particular is based in Calgary and is considered one of the leaders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Engineering

    They have a demonstration plant that is capturing about a ton of carbon per day, and that carbon is then used to produce fuel. At scale they estimate they could get costs down to near $100 USD/ton of carbon captured. That puts in to perspective the kind of carbon tax that is going to be necessary to make such systems viable. The good news is that such a system, if they really can get the costs down that low, would be a way to de-carbonize really difficult industries like air travel, as the fuel produced would effectively be net-zero emissions. But DAC isn't an answer by itself. Nor is pretty much any other technology or system. The problem is way, way too big for any one magic pill.

  57. #1157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    I saw a piece one day not long ago about a UofA student capturing carbon and making useful products from the residue. He had a machine there that he had invented. He was from Africa originally. The idea was to use such a thing on smokestacks etc and totally end up with a usable end product hard almost steel like. This could be a way to go. Did anyone else see it?
    Not sure if I saw the same thing, but much of its covered here: https://www.ualberta.ca/engineering/...arbon/research

  58. #1158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    I saw a piece one day not long ago about a UofA student capturing carbon and making useful products from the residue. He had a machine there that he had invented. He was from Africa originally. The idea was to use such a thing on smokestacks etc and totally end up with a usable end product hard almost steel like. This could be a way to go. Did anyone else see it?
    Not sure if I saw the same thing, but much of its covered here: https://www.ualberta.ca/engineering/...arbon/research
    Theres quite a few products that can utilize capture carbon, so there is a potential direct payback from the technologies.


    One Ive had a few bucks bet on for number of years now. (Like all concept stocks odds are against any such stocks from ever making money though.)
    https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/20...roject-quebec/
    Last edited by KC; 10-12-2018 at 04:25 PM.

  59. #1159

    Default The TRUTH. Climate model nonsense.

    Ladies and gentlemen of Alberta and Edmonton........ there's a reason climate models are used extensively to "prove" CO2 will cause "climate change'. And that reason is that there is literally no other evidence. As my tagline below demonstrates, mathematics suggests doubling CO2 would only cause as much as 1 degree of warming. This is based on mathematics. Amplifying the minor effect of CO2 using feedbacks to get more warming simply cannot be proven. CO2 alone represents only a few percent of the total heat budget of the earth. In order for CO2 to be the main driver of temperature, all the other effects, that make up 98% of the heat budget must be subservient to CO2, and extremely sensitive to changes in CO2. This cannot be measured, demonstrated, or proven in the real world so climate models (software simulations) are used to "measure" these effects.

    The notion that software simulations can simulate the effect of CO2 on radiation, clouds, albedo (reflectivity), solar radiation, cosmic rays, water vapour, and describe these effects so accurately that the temperature 50 years from now is known is preposterous. The heat budget of the earth is a chaotic and random.

    In addition to this there is ample evidence CO2 has had little or no effect on temperature in the past, with temperature rising and falling completely out of sync with changes in CO2. Or, in the case of the last million years or so, CO2 rising and falling after temperature changes.

    But just about every prediction made in the media bites you hear are based on these software simulations.

    And when the software simulations are wrong, the theory of climate change is not dismissed as falsified. The climate models themselves are not dismissed as falsified. They are simply retuned and the predictions continue. What kind of science is this?

    If climate models were indeed accurate, there would only be one. The one that represents the earth. How can you average 50 climate models that give you the wrong answer and assume the average is the right answer? The idea is nuts.


    "Model falsifiability and climate slow modes"
    "
    HighlightsClimate models do not and cannot employ known physics fully. Thus, they are falsified, a priori."
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...78437118301766

    "Abstract"
    "....................Overall, the simulated clouds do not radiatively warm the surface as much as observed."

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0023.1

    "Abstract"
    ".........Dynamical processes in the atmosphere and ocean are central to determining the large-scale drivers of regional climate change, yet their predictive understanding is poor....................."
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-017-0059-8

    "Fluctuations in Arctic sea-ice extent: comparing observations and climate models"

    "none of the models exhibits the decadal time scales found in the satellite observations"
    "
    the multi-model ensemble mean exhibits neither the observed white noise structure nor the observed decadal trend. "
    https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2017.0332

    "Based on the assumption of “perfect” models, previous studies have suggested that errors in simulated internal climate variations and/or external radiative forcing may cause the discrepancy between the multi-model simulations and the observation."
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-017-3688-8

    "Recent changes in summer Greenlandblocking captured by none of the CMIP5 models"
    https://www.the-cryosphere.net/12/32...-3287-2018.pdf

    Read about more model failures here....................
    http://notrickszone.com/

    RSS satellite data vs climate models..........
    "
    The black line is the time series for the RSS V4.0 MSU/AMSU atmosperhic temperature dataset. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations."

    http://www.remss.com/research/climate/


    Last edited by MrCombust; 11-12-2018 at 06:43 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  60. #1160

    Default

    Isn’t methane a far more effective global warming gas? Even the chemical in blown in foam insulation is something like a 1,000 times greater threat by weight than cO2

    CO2 is the greatest threat owing to its volumes not its - potency
    Last edited by KC; 11-12-2018 at 07:17 AM.

  61. #1161

    Default

    Your graph shows a trend. Can you guess what trend it shows?

  62. #1162
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    From link above:

    Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait also called for the study to be "noted" but not "welcomed."

    While none of the four-oil exporting countries spelled it out, their objection to the report likely included its suggestion that fossil-fuel use needs to be phased out by 2050. Oil, gas and coal are major sources of carbon dioxide, which traps heat in the atmosphere.
    Hate to say it, but these countries have a point. There is not a hope in hell that fossil fuel use (coal, oil and natural gas) will be ended by 2050, or cut in half by 2030. The folks at the UN climate conference need to recognize this reality and start setting more achievable targets. Otherwise, public cynicism will only increase and the backlash against doing anything will only get stronger.
    except that's a bit disingenuous isn't it? the report wasn't commissioned to document what would happen if the goals for fossil fuel use were to end it by 2050 or cut it in half by 2030.

    the report was commissioned to determine what would be required to ensure average global temperatures don't rise by more than 1.5 Celsius.
    While this is true, don't see how that makes the point I made disingenuous?

    Since there's isn't a hope in hell of the world reducing fossil fuel at the rate the report authors say is required to limit global warming to 1.5 Celcius, why do 20,000 policy makers, politicians, scientists and environmentalists need to gather for two weeks or more each year to keep flogging this dead horse?

    Isn't it about time to shift the focus to climate adaptation strategies based on achievable emissions targets?

  63. #1163
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,053

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    From link above:

    Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait also called for the study to be "noted" but not "welcomed."

    While none of the four-oil exporting countries spelled it out, their objection to the report likely included its suggestion that fossil-fuel use needs to be phased out by 2050. Oil, gas and coal are major sources of carbon dioxide, which traps heat in the atmosphere.
    Hate to say it, but these countries have a point. There is not a hope in hell that fossil fuel use (coal, oil and natural gas) will be ended by 2050, or cut in half by 2030. The folks at the UN climate conference need to recognize this reality and start setting more achievable targets. Otherwise, public cynicism will only increase and the backlash against doing anything will only get stronger.
    except that's a bit disingenuous isn't it? the report wasn't commissioned to document what would happen if the goals for fossil fuel use were to end it by 2050 or cut it in half by 2030.

    the report was commissioned to determine what would be required to ensure average global temperatures don't rise by more than 1.5 Celsius.
    While this is true, don't see how that makes the point I made disingenuous?

    Since there's isn't a hope in hell of the world reducing fossil fuel at the rate the report authors say is required to limit global warming to 1.5 Celcius, why do 20,000 policy makers, politicians, scientists and environmentalists need to gather for two weeks or more each year to keep flogging this dead horse?

    Isn't it about time to shift the focus to climate adaptation strategies based on achievable emissions targets?
    maybe it will be more apparent if i state it the other way around?

    the report was commissioned to determine what would be required to ensure average global temperatures don't rise by more than 1.5 celsius. the answer was "cut fossil fuel in half by 2030 and end its use by 2050".

    the answer was not the goal - the goal was to ensure the target isn't exceeded.

    you're taking the answer as the goal is what's disingenuous. while there may be other answers that achieve or help achieve the stated goal - some of which may even include technologies not yet feasible or known - if the goal is limiting the rise in temperature, focusing on achievable emissions targets so that they might be met but knowing that the actual goal won't then be achieved is what i took to be disingenuous.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  64. #1164
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,346

    Default

    Anyone want to comment about this?

    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  65. #1165
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,053

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Anyone want to comment about this?

    you mean other than remembering reading the exact same thing about efforts to stop acid rain or clearcutting or overfishing or banning the use of chlorofluorocarbons or phosphates or mercury or lead...?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  66. #1166
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,346

    Default

    That's good. Don't forget about the plastic in our oceans and space debris orbiting the planet.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  67. #1167
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    While this is true, don't see how that makes the point I made disingenuous?

    Since there's isn't a hope in hell of the world reducing fossil fuel at the rate the report authors say is required to limit global warming to 1.5 Celcius, why do 20,000 policy makers, politicians, scientists and environmentalists need to gather for two weeks or more each year to keep flogging this dead horse?

    Isn't it about time to shift the focus to climate adaptation strategies based on achievable emissions targets?
    maybe it will be more apparent if i state it the other way around?

    the report was commissioned to determine what would be required to ensure average global temperatures don't rise by more than 1.5 celsius. the answer was "cut fossil fuel in half by 2030 and end its use by 2050".

    the answer was not the goal - the goal was to ensure the target isn't exceeded.

    you're taking the answer as the goal is what's disingenuous. while there may be other answers that achieve or help achieve the stated goal - some of which may even include technologies not yet feasible or known - if the goal is limiting the rise in temperature, focusing on achievable emissions targets so that they might be met but knowing that the actual goal won't then be achieved is what i took to be disingenuous.
    This is the report I'm referring to in my post above: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

    Have not had time to read the entire report but did carefully read Chapter 2 (purporting to show how emissions can be brought to zero by mid-century to limit global warming to 1.5 degree Celcius). The mitigation pathways required to achieve this goal include pricing carbon at very high levels, concurrent deep reductions in non-CO2 forcers such as methane, and an almost total shift in investments toward renewable energy and away from fossil fuels.

    How likely is it that these types of measures will in fact be adopted by every country in the world? Especially when the Nationally Determined Contributions currently pledged by the parties to the Paris Agreement would result in continued growth in overall emissions until at least 2030.

  68. #1168
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,053

    Default

    based on past and current experience, the likelihood that the answer to the question first posed will in fact be adopted by every country in the world is somewhere between slim and none.

    but that doesn’t invalidate the answer, it just increases the need for some other as yet unidentified and potentially unachievable answer which pretty much guarantees that the initially stated goal simply won’t be met.

    will that be the end of the world? probably not. but it will more than likely lead to a world very different than the one we have now.
    Last edited by kcantor; 11-12-2018 at 09:05 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 289101112

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •