skookerasbil
Platinum Member
Been saying in here for 12 years....these mofu's have a mental condition.
On and on and on with this stuff yet zero wins. There's a phrase for that!
It's 2022....nobody cares about the bomb throwers anymore.
A detailed view on what ignorance will cost the human race
- Thread starter Crick
- Start date
Been saying in here for 12 years....these mofu's have a mental condition.
On and on and on with this stuff yet zero wins. There's a phrase for that!
It's 2022....nobody cares about the bomb throwers anymore.
- Thread starter
- #82
Wow, this looks like a meaningful post, fully on-topic and referenced with good data.
There is no shit storm headed our way. Within 30 years everything you believe will be proven false by colder temperatures.
There are good reasons to investigate natural variations as a cause of the recent warming trend.
“Paleoclimate evidence has long been informing us of the large natural variations of local, regional and hemispheric climate on decadal, multidecadal to centennial timescales.”
Hong Yan (晏宏), Professor of Geology and Paleoclimatology at the Institute of Earth Environment and Vice Director of the State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary Geology in Xi’an, China
“We know that the Sun is the primary source of energy for the Earth’s atmosphere. So, it always was an obvious potential contributor to recent climate change. My own research over the last 31 years into the behavior of stars that are similar to our Sun, shows that solar variability is the norm, not the exception."
Willie Soon, at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES), who also has been researching sun/climate relationships at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (U.S.A.) since 1991
“The possible contribution of the sun to the 20th-century global warming greatly depends on the specific solar and climatic records that are adopted for the analysis."
Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Oceanography and Atmospheric Physics at the University of Naples Federico II (Italy)
“During the past three decades, I have acquired highly precise measurements of brightness changes in over 300 Sun-like stars with a fleet of robotic telescopes developed for this purpose. The data show that, as Sun-like stars age, their rotation slows, and thus their magnetic activity and brightness variability decrease. Stars similar in age and mass to our Sun show brightness changes comparable to the Sun’s and would be expected to affect climate change in their own planetary systems.”
Gregory Henry, Senior Research Scientist in Astronomy, from Tennessee State University’s Center of Excellence in Information Systems (U.S.A.)
“The study of global climate change critically needs an analytical review of scientific studies of solar radiation variations associated with the Earth's orbital motion that could help to determine the role and contributions of solar radiation variations of different physical natures to long-term climate changes."
Valery M. Fedorov, at the Faculty of Geography in Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia
“The Earth’s climate is determined primarily by the radiation it receives from the Sun. The amount of solar radiation the Earth receives has natural variabilities caused by both variations in the intrinsic amount of radiation emitted by the Sun and by variations in the Earth-Sun geometry caused by planetary rotational and orbital variations. Together these natural variations cause the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at the Earth to vary cyclically on a number of known periodicities that are synchronized with known past climatic changes.”
Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator in charge of NASA’s ACRIM series of Sun-monitoring Total Solar Irradiance satellite experiments (U.S.A.)
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group II contribution to the Sixth Assessment Reportwww.ipcc.ch
I think we all know that humanity, always prone to being led by its lowest denominators, will not act in time or with sufficient commitment to prevent the catastrophic effects of global warming. For those of you that have been fighting action, be it out of scientific ignorance, fear of change, politically-driven mendacity or an ego requiring you challenge common understanding, you might want to start developing the detours and delays and diversions you'll use to hold off the attacks and animosity of your children and theirs the world over who will clearly see your role in destroying the planet we leave them.
I dont NEED to know "what the costs" are BEFORE I know what the Global Temperature anomaly WILL BE in even 75 years.. Also need to know what happened to ACCELERATED warning TRIGGER TEMP theories before ANYONE needs to pick up a bill.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
BTW Crick -- Have you noticed the "science section" of the IPCC has been relinquished to obscurity and it's the SOCIAL and ECONOMIC "scientists" WRITING this latest IPCC fart? We need less economists, sociology, anthropology, climate mitigation specialists AND MORE ACTUAL CLIMATE SCIENCE UPDATES.,.
- Thread starter
- #86
The costs do not determine the temperature anomaly. Obviously it is vice versa. If you saw a comment somewhere that suggests otherwise, how about giving us a reference. Additionally, I see no connection between "accelerated warning (sic) trigger temperature theories" and bills that need to be picked up. You seem to be spluttering. How about slowing down for a second and clearly stating whatever it is you're trying to say.
- Thread starter
- #87
Surely you're aware of the different jobs performed by the different IPCC working groups. WG-I's section of AR6 is not due out for a couple months yet.
Last edited:
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
Ditch the skepshitscience history revision and focus on the NASA data. Which SCENARIO did Hansen and MEDIA beat into people? It was the DO NOTHING scenarioA with INTENSIVE growth of CO2 right? Not the all-hands on deck remediation scenarioC right? And the Skepshit folks have PLAYED with Hansen's original graph - making it a cartoonist propaganda piece. They NEVER post "original source" data.
On the NASA graph --
WHERE'S the massive ACCELERATED warming over that 50 yr period? I know you cant read graphs worth shit -- maybe dont know that accelerations dont look like a straight line -- but all that "CATASTROPHIC" shit theories seem to be failing for lack of ANY measurable evidence.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
No you cant read or think.. The science is FAR from settled because a lot of the original "we're gonna die" theories STILL are not being detected after 50 years of this warped circus. READ MY POST AGAIN.
How do you calculate the BILL if you dont know what is being "ordered up" for the main course and dessert in the near future?
How about YOU speeding up?
How much more do I have to SIMPLIFY for you to answer any questions or discuss?
What's THE CURRENT ESTIMATED temperature anomaly in 2100? Include the min/max bounds. How does THAT compare with estimates for 2100 in 1980?
Last edited:
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
How do you calculate "the bill" for a crisis you cant predict to within a factor of 2 or 4 uncertainty surrounding it?
- Thread starter
- #91
That Hansen's projections are still as good as they are is de facto evidence that AGW has been a robust theory since its inception. But I would not go to Hansen's 1985 estimates for an accurate projection of the latter half of the 21st century and you would be foolish to think attacking Hansen weakens modern climate science. Warming HAS been accelerating and none of the IPCC's or that of the hundreds of published studies on which their assessments are based have been failing for any lack of evidence. If you think I'm wrong on those points, how about some actual references to some actual facts.
PS: I collected, analyzed and published tens of thousands of pages of data from naval sensor systems for 35 years. I do know how to read a graph.
- Thread starter
- #92
The data assessed by the IPCC shows GHG emissions and warming to be accelerating. Again, how about some links to valid references supporting your claims. Unlike your personal attacks on me, those seem a bit thin.
How does your "accelerated warning (sic) trigger temp theory" tell you what will be ordered up for the main course and dessert? My impression is that the primary goal has been to reduce human GHG emissions. Were you thinking that us AGW "alarmists" had some other measures in mind?
You don't need to simplify anything. You need to use valid terms for which we all share understanding and not anally-derived, unreferenced buzzwords
"According to climate scientists, our world is highly likely to continue to warm over this century and beyond. This conclusion is based on scientists’ understanding of how the climate system works and on computer models designed to simulate Earth’s climate. Results from a wide range of climate model simulations suggest that our planet’s average temperature could be between 2 and 9.7°F (1.1 to 5.4°C) warmer in 2100 than it is today.
The main reason for this temperature increase is carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping “greenhouse” gases that human activities produce. The biggest source of added carbon dioxide is from people burning coal and other fossil fuels."
Climate Change: Global Temperature Projections
It is virtually certain our world will continue to warm over this century and beyond. The exact amount of warming that will occur in the coming century depends largely on the energy choices that we make now and in the next few decades.
Last edited:
skookerasbil
Platinum Member
Lol....posting his own post
That avatar photo dude....psychologists would have a field day with it.....
"Here I am standing triumphantly in front of my pyramid. I am....Crick The Great!!
Who else would I be?!!!
Explains plenty!
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
No, it looks like the frenzied ranting of a religious fanatic who has lost all credibility.
BoSoxGal
Gold Member
Reading most of the comments in this thread, I agree.
Witnessing the atrocities taking place in Ukraine, I agree.
The human race is a stain on the planet. Well past time we all died and the Earth move on to the next thing. Hopefully creatures like us will never rise again.
Too bad we are taking out so many beautiful species with us.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
What's REALLY foolish is you RELYING on SkepShitScience for Hansen's work. They are FRAUDS. Hansen original predictions went out MUCH FARTHER in time than what those dishonest cartoonists portrayed. I HAVE the original graphs. And I've seen this fraud before. Dont think you're following along close enough for me to spend the time retrieving it. Just KNOW that you CAN and WILL get called on when it comes to trying to pass off SkepShitScience stuff.
Point is -- THE ORIGINAL Hansen work DID go out pretty close to the end of the 21st century. Learn to read graphs and avoid SkepShit.
It's not accelerating. LOOK at the freaking NASA chart. It's a virtual STRAIGHT line. NO acceleration. Same in the 50 years of satellite data. If there's a tiny bit of acceleration in the 2nd digit to the right of a decimal point -- THAT does not count. The media or dishonest people at IPCC who are not climate scientists WILL SAY THAT, but there's no EMPIRICAL data to make that claim.
And all of the CATASTROPHIC parts of GW theory predicted we'd be seeing the evidence by now.
EVERY metric of Global Warming has CONSTANTLY been revised down since Hansen took a whack at prediction. You and I have WATCHED the IPCC reports for DECADES and EVERY report LOWERED the previous projections on temperature and sea level and climate sensitivity by the year 2100.
NOW -- they dont even MENTION those projections. The IPCC process is now POLITICAL and guided by folks who are NOT climate researchers. Just climate "mitigators" in economics, sociology, and other PERIPHERAL fields.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
BINGO!!!! there's my point. They CANNOT be more accurate on that projection than having an UNCERTAINTY of 4.3DegC. What good is that to be planning a $20Trillion mission to FIX it? If it's 1.1, it's a virtual snooze. If it's 5.4 -- it's ARMMAGEDON. The range of UNCERTAINTY is more valuable than the prediction!!!!
THAT's NOT A REASON to completely reimagine the world, blow tons of money that could HELP PEOPLE more spent wisely, and scare the living piss out of people. Because it says "We the idiots PROJECTING these temps, dont really know if it's gonna be a snooze or everyone dies.
After 50 YEARS of this fucking fire drill -- we STILL CANNOT BE MORE ACCURATE -- and you morons scream "the science is settled"???
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
You mean like "trigger temperatures" and "accelerated warming" theories? Man if you dont know what those things are after wasting this much of your life YELPING about GW -- I really feel sorry for you. AND for me -- wasting my time trying to ACTUALLY discuss GW with ya..
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 153,202
- 78,447
- 2,645
The AGW Cult has never once show any statistically significant "warming" solely due to increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 PPM.
skookerasbil
Platinum Member
Hate to break it to you s0n.......but the past week has taken climate alarmism completely off the board as a public concern. Your shit is irrelevant right now. Watch what transpires in the coming weeks and months. Your "science" bs will be getting laughed at......almost unanimously.
That big glass pyramid in the background of your avatar just got nuked!
How does it feel?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Illinois school district practices racial segregation discrimination and assocciates whiteness with the devil- Started by Mortimer
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Trump and Hegseth Focused on Culture War as Violent Conflicts Spread Worldwide- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 13
