COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Climate continues to change.

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is still, to this day, zero evidence of man caused climate change, just computer models.
 
when even his 'own team' of climate scientists put out a report which contrasts with just about every word out of his own mouth, trump still chooses to blame the models

there is a reason we have 'experts' - it's because they know more about this shit than those of us who haven't the education in this field. when 87 countries (i think it was that number, can't be arsed to go look) and hundreds if not thousands of scientists produced that other big report all about changes and man's impact on it, somehow i'm more inclined to listen to them than the present president.
 
Kirkrapine said:
What makes you think those aren't evidence?
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me?

First off, computer simulations and models aren't worth shit unless you know what the damn variables and assumptions are.

Second, thus far the model forecasts have demonstrated no predictive skill whatsoever. In point of fact, they've been dead flat wrong.


Hell, it's pretty obvious that climatology doesn't even know what all the bloody variables are and it sure as hell doesn't know what to use for climate sensitivity.



​
 
trysail said:

Are you kidding me?

First off, computer simulations and models aren't worth shit unless you know what the damn variables and assumptions are.

Second, thus far the model forecasts have demonstrated no predictive skill whatsoever. In point of fact, they've been dead flat wrong.


Hell, it's pretty obvious that climatology doesn't even know what all the bloody variables are and it sure as hell doesn't know what to use for climate sensitivity.



​
Click to expand...

If I give you a gallon of bleach, will you drink it?
 
Que said:
Maybe she can explain the difference between climate and weather to Frodo. He sure seems to get exercised whenever a record heat temperature is achieved.
Click to expand...

When there are record temps for several consecutive years? Yes, its something to get upset about.
 
President Trump cited sea level rise and increasing severity of storms in his permit application for a sea wall to protect his golf course in Ireland.

Maybe he thinks he can keep the truth about climate change to himself.
 
phrodeau said:
President Trump cited sea level rise and increasing severity of storms in his permit application for a sea wall to protect his golf course in Ireland.

Maybe he thinks he can keep the truth about climate change to himself.
Click to expand...

Yeah. He was probably intimately involved in that, as opposed to sending an email from his secure email server instructing the local managers and lawyers to build a sea wall and prevent erosion. It's an obvious, slam dunk TACTIC. Sort of like "it's for the children".
 

Special Report On Sea Level Rise
https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/27/special-report-on-sea-level-rise/


by Judith Curry, Ph.D.

Professor & Chair (emerita), School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
Ph.D., Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, 1982
NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee
Fellow, American Meteorological Society
Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Fellow, American Geophysical Union





...[Q]1. Is the recent sea level rise (since 1993) of magnitude 3 mm/year unusual?

[A] No, although this conclusion is conditional on the quality of the global sea level data. The available evidence shows the following:

Sea level was apparently higher than present at the time of the Holocene Climate Optimum (~ 5000 years ago), at least in some regions.

Tide gauges show that sea levels began to rise during the 19th century, after several centuries associated with cooling and sea level decline. Tide gauges also show that rates of global mean sea level rise between 1920 and 1950 were comparable to recent rates.

Recent research has concluded that there is no consistent or compelling evidence that recent rates of sea level rise are abnormal in the context of the historical records back to the 19th century that are available across Europe...

more...
https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/27/special-report-on-sea-level-rise/

​


​
 
Last edited:

There's stupid and then there's Bernie Sanders-esque, colossally-dumb, stupid:


...In addition to being afflicted with energy poverty, Vermont is also afflicted with energy stupidity. In August 2018, the average residential electricity rate in Vermont was 17.93 ¢/kWh, 35% above the national average of 13.30 ¢/kWh. Shockingly, Vermont has the second least expensive electricity in New England. Residential natural gas prices are also high in Vermont ($12.93/mcf), 32% above the national average of $9.78/mcf. Not that there’s any rocks in Vermont worth frac’ing, but this sort of mentality probably factors heavily in Vermont’s fuel poverty and excess winter deaths…

Vermont first state to ban fracking [of course]...
-David Middleton
​


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11...eople-than-coal-and-cecil-b-demille-combined/

​






Vermont Works To Attract New Residents and Multiply The State's Work Force

by Nina Keck

Vermont's declining population is creating a headache for employers...
​


​
 
Last edited:
Que said:
Maybe she can explain the difference between climate and weather to Frodo. He sure seems to get exercised whenever a record heat temperature is achieved.
Click to expand...

Liberal definition: Weather is the condition of the atmosphere at a particular place over a short period of time, whereas climate refers to the weather pattern, using statistical data, of a place over a long enough period to yield meaningful averages.

Conservative definition: Weather and climate are synonyms, both referring to the condition of the atmosphere at a particular place over a short period of time, whereas statistical averages of temperatures over a period of time is fake news. FAKE NEWS, DAMMIT!
 
There's always some reading to do

Special issue “Polar climate change: driving processes, extreme events, and global linkages” was published in Advances in Polar Science in September 2018, hosted by the Guest Editors, Prof. Zhaomin Wang, Prof. Kent Moore, Prof. Annette Rinke, and Prof. John Turner.
You can read and download freely all papers published in this special issue and other issues of Advances in Polar Science (http://www.aps-polar.org/paper/2018/29/03).
We encourage all of you to share this open-accessed journal broadly with interested colleagues, and we look forward to your contributions to the Journal.
 

by Tim Ball, Ph.D.




...the IPCC accepted the AGW hypothesis from the start. This meant that when evidence appeared that contradicted, they ignored it or created false data. When this failed, they began orchestrated attacks on individuals and groups who asked questions or identified scientific problems.

They never answered the questions. The latest report used to justify the demand for action at the Conference of the Parties in Poland is another example.

Here is a short list of those questions. I am sure the skeptics on this site can add many more.


  • Why was the definition of climate change used as the basis for the IPCC research limited to only human causes?
  • How did this allow them to ignore water vapor, by far the most important and abundant greenhouse gas?
  • Why were they allowed to build computer climate models when they knew the data was inadequate?
  • Why was the IPCC membership and participation in Reports limited to only those chosen by bureaucratic members of the WMO?
  • Why are almost all the people involved in the IPCC unqualified in climatology?
  • Why did the IPCC only examine temperature and warming?
  • Why didn’t the IPCC report on the positive effects of warming?
  • Why don’t they release the Working Group I (WGI) Physical Science Report first?
  • Why did they set up a separate group of politicians and bureaucrats with a few selected scientists to produce the Summary for Policymakers?
  • Why was it released before the scientific evidence of WGI?
  • Why were the forecasts made in the first IPCC Report in 1990 so wrong?
  • Why did the second Report in 1995 stop providing forecasts?
  • Why did they switch to providing scenarios or projections after 1990?
  • Why did they ignore all the legitimate critiques of the early Reports?
  • Why did they finally establish a method of feedbacks and critiques?
  • Why did most of these never make it into the Reports?
  • Why did approximately 30,000 attend the recent climate conference in Poland?
  • Why were a majority of them environmental activists with no qualifications in climatology?
  • Why were industry and business so poorly represented from the start?
  • Why does that continue at the recent climate conference?
  • Why is the IPCC the source of e annual production of human CO2 for their computer models?
  • Why does a CO2 increase cause a temperature increase in their computer models when it doesn’t exist in the empirical data?
  • Why are similar computer models unable to forecast weather much beyond 72 hours?
  • Why were all the IPCC projections from 1995 to the present incorrect?
  • Why has most of the global temperature record been altered?
  • Why did all these alterations only change the record in one direction?
  • Why did those adjustments only lower early temperatures?
  • Why do major agencies that calculate the annual average global temperature get different results?
  • Why did skeptics become deniers?
  • Where is the evidence that climate change deniers deny climate change?
  • Why, in fact, do all the deniers claim that climate change occurs?
  • Why do the media never ask Al Gore about his climatology qualifications?
  • Why in IPCC AR4 did they provide a completely different definition of climate change that they claimed, falsely, they used in their Reports? They didn’t even use it in the one in which they claimed it.
  • Why, if the science is so clear, do most nations act hesitatingly or fail to act?
  • Why did the Kyoto Protocol fail?
  • What replaced the Kyoto Protocol?
  • Why is China entitled to and now demanding $2 billion from the IPCC through the Paris Climate Agreement?

Most people reading this website know most of the answers to these questions.



​
 
UK peoples!

We would be extremely grateful if you could please spread the word to any UKRI eligible prospective applicants that we are advertising a large range of funded (fees, stipend and RTSG) 3.5 year PhD studentships. The studentships include Doctoral Training Partnership training and support and many also include case partners that will provide excellent support, access to datasets/facilities and host for a placement during the PhD. Sadly this call is restricted to UK students or those eligible for UK residence: for more clarification and detail please see the ONEPlanet website: https://research.ncl.ac.uk/one-planet/ or email: oneplanet@ncl.ac.uk

Full details of the many projects offered can be found here: https://research.ncl.ac.uk/one-planet/studentships/ and some titles that might be of particular interest to Cryolisters include:

OP1901 - Arctic Weather Forecasting

OP1906 - How are large permafrost rock faces responding to climate change?

OP1910 Glaciers and ice sheets: pressurized nutrient bioreactors for the oceans

OP1939 If a slope in Antarctica falls down does it matter?

OP1932 Ice Sheet Influences on Tropical Climate

OP1926 Monitoring and modelling the drivers and responses of permafrost coastal erosion

OP1924 From Greenhouse to Icehouse

OP1963 Greenhouse Gas Cycling in Supraglacial Debris Covers

OP1955 Using ocean tides as a natural experiment to learn about ice sheet

OP1950 Mulit-sensor fusion for Ice-Mass studies over Greenland

OP1941 Simulating evolving snow proceses in the changing climate

OP1942 Determining the impact of seasonal meltwater on the subglacial hydrology
 
Que said:
Was there any interesting weather this week?
Click to expand...

Yeah I went out and gathered coal for my grandparents in shorts and a wifebeater because it was warm enough to do that in the middle of December. Right after a fucking snowstorm.

And before that it went from hot to snowstorm in literally like 6 hours. It was insane. People didn't bring coats.

The weather went from 90 to 50 like it saw a state trooper, then back to 75 when it found out it lost him.
 
It takes nature millions of years to sequester carbon through photosynthesis and geology.

It takes mankind less than a century to release millions of years worth of said carbon in to the atmosphere.


Brain science and rocket surgery, I know.
 


2018 6th Warmest Year Globally of Last 40


by Roy Spencer, Ph.D.


"Even before our December numbers are in, we can now say that 2018 will be the 6th warmest year in the UAH satellite measurements of global-average lower atmospheric temperatures, at +0.23 deg. C (+0.41 deg. F) above the thirty-year (1981-2010) average.

The following plot ranks all of the years from warmest to coolest, with the ten warmest and ten coolest years indicated:





The first (1979) and last (2018) years in the record are indicated in purple.

2018 is also the 40th year of satellite data for monitoring global atmospheric temperatures..."


more...


​


​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

SugarDaddy1
The next big climate scare: Counting climate change deaths
Replies
1
Views
53
Fuzzy1975
F
B
Today’s ‘Climate Crisis’ Is a Fairy Tale
Replies
13
Views
126
Chernosoth
Chernosoth
Rightguide
About Our Current Heat Wave
4 5 6
Replies
149
Views
2K
DeluxAuto
DeluxAuto
Counselor706
Environment Canada airbrushes 100 years of inconvenient climate data out of history
Replies
0
Views
204
Counselor706
Counselor706
Rightguide
96% Of U.S. Climate Data Is Corrupted
5 6 7
Replies
172
Views
2K
schism666
schism666
Back
Top