Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

The Climate Change debate

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

The Climate Change debate

Old 29th Apr 2011, 08:30
  #7781 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
The greens tend to look at an event and say how can we blame this event on man's activities and come up with something that will stir their sheep like followers into a frenzy, any possible scientific correlation is purely a bonus.

This is dutifully aided by people like Richard Black et al at the BBC.
green granite is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2011, 09:42
  #7782 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
You couldn't make it up. Is this paving the way to admitting they might be wrong about the science being settled?

Taken from More knowledge, less certainty by Kevin Trenberth
More knowledge, less certainty : article : Nature Reports Climate Change
(my emphasizing)
"[An IPCC AR5 chapter] will deal with longer-term projections, to 2100 and beyond, using a suite of global models. Many of these models will attempt new and better representations of important climate processes and their feedbacks — in other words, those mechanisms that can amplify or diminish the overall effect of increased incoming radiation. Including these elements will make the models into more realistic simulations of the climate system, but it will also introduce uncertainties.

So here is my prediction: the uncertainty in AR5′s climate predictions and projections will be much greater than in previous IPCC reports, primarily because of the factors noted above. This could present a major problem for public understanding of climate change. Is it not a reasonable expectation that as knowledge and understanding increase over time, uncertainty should decrease? But while our knowledge of certain factors does increase, so does our understanding of factors we previously did not account for or even recognize. …"
green granite is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2011, 16:51
  #7783 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
Yeah, global cooling was not taken seriously, you bet, Simonpro has said so.

Another Ice Age? - TIME

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

A New Treasure Trove Of 1970s

Global cooling was big enough to make the headlines and front pages of Time and Newsweek.

And the current Global Warming / Climate Change / Climate Disruption etc. etc., whatever next iteration it is called by is again proposed and supported by so called " research " and " science " done by a " handful of scientists" which is now unravelling at it's seams. And by the way, there were no experiments or results or evidence from this science. It was based upon assumptions built into climate models, with no empirical evidence or testing. And, as empirical evidence shows, these models failed woefully.

And yet, we have experts who proclaim absolute faith and certainity in the " science " and the models, based on pure faith and belief with no empirical evidence.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2011, 17:38
  #7784 (permalink)  
bearfoil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Haven't read your links, but I recall no less than James Hansen contributed labwork and analysis as a student to the Coolers.

We are likely at the terminus of an Interglacial. If so, AGW is not completely thrashed, as one would wish, but things NEVER happen overnight. Ma Nature is a sloth, truth be told.

bear
 
Old 30th Apr 2011, 00:01
  #7785 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
Jane-DoH

Right on the ball, shameless hucksters have already linked the tornadoes with man made global warming.

The folly of linking tornado outbreaks to “climate change” | Watts Up With That?

The lowlife have crawled out from under whichever stones they were and have started taking advantage of this disaster to link it to AGW.

ThinkProgress » Top Climate Scientist On The Monster Tornadoes: ‘It Is Irresponsible Not To Mention Climate Change’

Some people have no ethics or morals.

Last edited by rvv500; 30th Apr 2011 at 03:34.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2011, 03:56
  #7786 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
And ” Climate Scientists ” attributed these kinds of storms to ” Global Cooling in 1974.


Another Ice Age? - TIME


Go figure.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2011, 04:19
  #7787 (permalink)  
bearfoil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
We may as well remember that "Acid Rain" was going to dissolve all of Italy's statuary, and the buckles, buttons on our clothing!! And then there's "Bigfoot"... These are all modern iterations of the erm....bogeyman. Grimm invented the witch and the wolf, frankly, I think the warmers will do better when they find a new....molecule, or summat.

"He'll huff and he'll puff, and your wallet will disappear"
 
Old 30th Apr 2011, 04:41
  #7788 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
Yeah, it looks like for shameless scientists weather is not climate until people die. Then it immediately becomes climate.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2011, 04:54
  #7789 (permalink)  
bearfoil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Never waste a tragedy when there is money to be made....


despicable
 
Old 30th Apr 2011, 06:00
  #7790 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
And this is another excellent piece from Dr.Roy Spencer about the tornadoes


MORE Tornadoes from Global Warming? That’s a Joke, Right? « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.


His last sentence says it all


” Anyone who claims more tornadoes are caused by global warming is either misinformed, pandering, or delusional.”
rvv500 is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2011, 06:05
  #7791 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
And here's what Piers Corbyn said at WUWT

" What we need here is a sense of proportion. It is gloves off time.

The Global warmers who claim these devastating tornadoes are connected with man-made CO2 are despicable cockroaches who should be drummed out of the scientific community.

Their anti-science puts their own sordid self-serving gravy train ahead of the need to save lives. For heavens sake we, WeatherAction – using solar activity (and lunar modulation) PREDICTED ALL SEVEN OF THESE EXTREME WEATHER PERIODS in USA this April. Someday, maybe, someday these advances in science might help warnings and SAVE LIVES. But NO the New York Times and their associated leeches, spongers, liars and brainwashers prefer people to die than science which can help save lives get a look in.

Please see Comments from Piers

Thanks Piers"
rvv500 is offline  
Old 1st May 2011, 19:40
  #7792 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
I bet you all thought that the wind farm issue couldn't get sillier.

Read here.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 1st May 2011, 21:11
  #7793 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,319
hellsbrink,
Hilarious, especially if you start reading some of the better informed comments....

CJ
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 2nd May 2011, 02:06
  #7794 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
Indeed, CJ, ff2 would survive for about 2 minutes here.

But the one from the National Grid spokesman about how hydro power was working well because it was raining heavily was a beauty too.......
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 2nd May 2011, 05:32
  #7795 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
rvv500

"Never let a crisis go to waste
Jane-DoH is offline  
Old 2nd May 2011, 08:56
  #7796 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central Azervicestan
Posts: 68
Is Hansen seeing a fork in the road coming up? Lukewarmists may start appearing in greater numbers from now perhaps...

Honest Jim: the science is not settled - The Drum Opinion (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
konstantin is offline  
Old 2nd May 2011, 09:43
  #7797 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Why oh why would I wanna be anywhere else?
Posts: 1,306
A different theory/explanation every week. Is there any wonder why the whole climate change flim flam is not taken seriously by those of us who have to pay the taxes.
sisemen is offline  
Old 2nd May 2011, 17:28
  #7798 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: korat thailand
Age: 78
Posts: 136
Just been talking to farmer in U.K. who says he gets 11,000 pounds per turbine for having them on his land.PER YEAR! He has 7. Says it is better than working .
crippen is offline  
Old 3rd May 2011, 01:05
  #7799 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Terra
Age: 42
Posts: 27
I know there are some MAJOR differences between Climatology and Meteorology, but consider this:
Meteorologists around the world spend their entire occupational life honing their skills at forecasting our weather in a system which allows them to make a forecast for 1, 3, 5, 10.. days and then, within 1, 3, 5, 10.. days, have a 1:1 check of their results..
This is to say that they have unlimited possibilities of going back on their computer models and other tools to correct minor errors and improve their code/knowledge during their career.
I do not want to knock meteorologists in general, my sister being one, but although they can produce pretty sound forecasts in certain, stable conditions they are pretty much “guessing” at anything above a 1-2 day forecast when they encounter “mixed” weather.
Now, enter Climatologists.. They study the climate of the planet, which changes not so much from day to day but rather over a very elongated period of time.
99,99% of their available data is such that possible human impact on the climate is close to zero.
There has been no anthroposophic impact on the world during the vast majority of the period of time from which their data stems.
None the less they are drawing conclusions from the current anthroposophic impact. And they are not limiting themselves to forecasts over the next 1, 3, 5, 10.. years.. They are making forecasts for the next century..

Now, if I had played soccer my entire life and was still unable to run with a ball, I would not claim to be proficient at ice hockey just because I had read about it and seen a game..

This is basically what Climatologists (ipcc) are doing when forecasting the climate with such total disregard for how “bad” the meteorologists are doing, despite the later having had a lot more “training”.

You can pull out the most impressive rack of super computers ever seen. If your code is not completely flawless, you will do very little but wasting cycles/”flops” when you execute it..

Now, I am just guessing (and contrary to the ipcc I admit it), but I believe that there is “some” limited truth to the findings they have made.
However I am pretty certain that there will be some ‘as of yet unknown factor’ that will reek total havoc in their “models” so that even should their assumptions currently be right, they will be quite ‘off’ before you could have any real use of them..

somewhat akin to the current weather forecast..
Svenestron is offline  
Old 3rd May 2011, 06:16
  #7800 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
The Climate modellers have no clue about what they are doing as there are so many assumptions built into a model. And their forecasts have been way off reality.

NASA's Dr.Andrew Lacis, who along with James Hansen, Reto Ruedy et. al., did the climate model scenarios proposed by GISS was asked the following questions in Dr.Judith Curry's blog, when he posted some comments.

" Please provide 5- 10 recent ‘proof points’ which you would draw to our attention as demonstrations that your sophisticated climate models are actually modelling the Earth’s climate accurately."

His answer was

" Of note is the paper by Hansen, J., A. Lacis, R. Ruedy, and Mki. Sato, 1992: Potential climate impact of Mount Pinatubo eruption. Geophys. Res. Lett., 19, 215-218, which is downloadable from the GISS webpage."

The answer can be seen at below link

http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/20/un...#comment-24824

Willis Eschenbach, analysed that model in his article at WUWT and showed how far off the mark the actual data was, from the predictions of the model

Prediction is hard, especially of the future. | Watts Up With That?

Read the full article and the comments. It's informative. If this is the model which the model makers from Hansen et. al. state is the best, you'd shudder to think what could be their worst. Mind you, it's not anybody cherry picking a model. It is the modeller himself stating that this is their best model.

And on the basis of models like this does AGW rest and they all want to destroy world economy!! Go figure.
rvv500 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.