Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
Toltec said:
1990-91 lasted longer too, this was barely a week, I think people are just getting less tolerant of anything interrupting their normal routines and expect someone to fix it quickly.
I think you are confusing sensationalist media headlines and the real world. Mostly people just get on with their lives, as they always did. The Beast From The East Be Very Afraid Weather was not really anything that extraordinary. grumbledoak said:
Toltec said:
1990-91 lasted longer too, this was barely a week, I think people are just getting less tolerant of anything interrupting their normal routines and expect someone to fix it quickly.
I think you are confusing sensationalist media headlines and the real world. Mostly people just get on with their lives, as they always did. The Beast From The East Be Very Afraid Weather was not really anything that extraordinary. Global warming scare is due to a basic physics error...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/19/global-warm...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/19/global-warm...
Kawasicki said:
Global warming scare is due to a basic physics error...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/19/global-warm...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/19/global-warm...
WattsUp said:
There is indeed an elementary error of physics right at the heart of the models’ calculations of equilibrium sensitivity. After correcting that error, and on the generous assumption that official climatology has made no error other than that which we have exposed, global warming will not be 3.3 ± 1.2 K: it will be only 1.2 ± 0.15 K.
There's an even bigger, more basic error than that.AGW is based on an equilibrium equation but the 'incoming energy from the sun' side is an unknown.
Thus it is not solvable.
The reason the incoming radiative energy from the sun is unknown is because the clouds determine around 60% of the 'reflectiveness' (albedo) of the planet. The albedo changes as the clouds move, appear and dissipate. This is the unknown.
It's also worth noting that besides not being able to predict albedo changes due to cloud changes, the actual albedo measurement of planet earth is not known to more than an error or around 10% at any given time.
So before you even get close to ANY climate model, you are starting with an equation you can never solve. QED.
Super elementary error that any junior algebra student could spot.
Edited by Globs on Wednesday 21st March 09:21
Kawasicki said:
Global warming scare is due to a basic physics error...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/19/global-warm...
His claim is that emissions have no ambient temperature, which is absurd, much like his previous outlandish claims like curing AIDS, Flu & Herpes and being member of the house of Lords. A crank for hire.https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/19/global-warm...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton...
Globs said:
Jinx said:
the weather patterns are different than in recent past years (hence the beast from the east)
What was unusual about the 'beast from the east'?Didn't have the same in 2010?
I also remember the same back in the 1980s.
Mind you, they didn't give them stupid names then so that was a lot better.
Otherwise I can just say ->
Actually you are wrong, the Beast from the East was a lot colder than 2010 and "the 80s" ...
Prove me wrong.
Is this the science thread or the old wives tails and way back when it was my rose tinted glasses and you have never lived thread?
Toltec said:
Globs said:
What was unusual about the 'beast from the east'?
Didn't have the same in 2010?
I also remember the same back in the 1980s.
Mind you, they didn't give them stupid names then so that was a lot better.
1990-91 lasted longer too, this was barely a week, I think people are just getting less tolerant of anything interrupting their normal routines and expect someone to fix it quickly.Didn't have the same in 2010?
I also remember the same back in the 1980s.
Mind you, they didn't give them stupid names then so that was a lot better.
Stats please
Feel free to do a comparison graph.
Kawasicki said:
Global warming scare is due to a basic physics error...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/19/global-warm...
In refute I can only writehttps://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/19/global-warm...
"Christopher Monckton of Brenchley"
I rest my case.
Perhaps quote a scientist next time?
Current Antarctic and Arctic current sea ice extents and global extent
https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent
https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent
Gandahar said:
1990-91 lasted longer did it?
Stats please
Feel free to do a comparison graph.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_1990%E2%80...Stats please
Feel free to do a comparison graph.
Gandahar said:
Kawasicki said:
Global warming scare is due to a basic physics error...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/19/global-warm...
In refute I can only writehttps://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/19/global-warm...
"Christopher Monckton of Brenchley"
I rest my case.
Perhaps quote a scientist next time?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4399...
Freshwater lakes as the source of Methane.
Never mind - just drain them as much as possible and then let what moisture is left evaporate.
Problem solved.
Freshwater lakes as the source of Methane.
Never mind - just drain them as much as possible and then let what moisture is left evaporate.
Problem solved.
It would seem most of the general public are convinced of Man Made Global Warming due to one simple argument.... this is "how do you explain away the dramatic rise of global temperatures since the industrial revolution" ?
This seems to be what everyone "falls back on" when the intricacies of the numerous branches of science that are involved in providing a 'big picture' become a bit much.
This seems to be what everyone "falls back on" when the intricacies of the numerous branches of science that are involved in providing a 'big picture' become a bit much.
Atomic12C said:
It would seem most of the general public are convinced of Man Made Global Warming due to one simple argument.... this is "how do you explain away the dramatic rise of global temperatures since the industrial revolution" ?
This seems to be what everyone "falls back on" when the intricacies of the numerous branches of science that are involved in providing a 'big picture' become a bit much.
Of course the "how do you explain the dramatic fall in temperatures since the Roman warm period?" - damn Roman's what have they ever done for us?This seems to be what everyone "falls back on" when the intricacies of the numerous branches of science that are involved in providing a 'big picture' become a bit much.
A simple message assuredly delivered usually works.
"Right men, when the whistle blows you climb those ladders and go over the top and run that way. The you defeat the enemy and we all go home."
A seemingly ex forces chap told me a story yesterday about well trained troops being delivered into battle by landing craft under fire.
The troops were all ready to disembark waiting for the ramp to drop.
The craft beached, the ramp dropped and the man in charge of the craft said, in the heat of battle, something like "Right, get off my effing craft now". And nobody moved. At least until someone shouted "Go". The training and conditioning they had received had worked so well that only the very specific command word produced a reaction.
Hence, a few years ago, there was a trailing document in circulation called "Warm Words". It was directed at all who were likely to produce press releases, speeches and any form of communication about the Global Warming message to try to ensure that the entire movement was using and repeating exactly the same set of consistent and emotive words a phrases in order to deliver a constant message that would become ingrained due to perpetual repetition.
I have no doubt that it worked rather well.
"Right men, when the whistle blows you climb those ladders and go over the top and run that way. The you defeat the enemy and we all go home."
A seemingly ex forces chap told me a story yesterday about well trained troops being delivered into battle by landing craft under fire.
The troops were all ready to disembark waiting for the ramp to drop.
The craft beached, the ramp dropped and the man in charge of the craft said, in the heat of battle, something like "Right, get off my effing craft now". And nobody moved. At least until someone shouted "Go". The training and conditioning they had received had worked so well that only the very specific command word produced a reaction.
Hence, a few years ago, there was a trailing document in circulation called "Warm Words". It was directed at all who were likely to produce press releases, speeches and any form of communication about the Global Warming message to try to ensure that the entire movement was using and repeating exactly the same set of consistent and emotive words a phrases in order to deliver a constant message that would become ingrained due to perpetual repetition.
I have no doubt that it worked rather well.
LongQ said:
It was directed at all who were likely to produce press releases, speeches and any form of communication about the Global Warming message to try to ensure that the entire movement was using and repeating exactly the same set of consistent and emotive words a phrases in order to deliver a constant message that would become ingrained due to perpetual repetition.
I have no doubt that it worked rather well.
You're talking about turbobloke, right?I have no doubt that it worked rather well.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff