The Profound Junk Science of Climate

[Stryder50]

One day it will eventually dawn on you lumps that its a fact. It's like the stolen election. Eventually you realised you were wrong.

One day it might dawn on you (Loonie Leftist/psuedo-liberals/socialists-communists/anti West Civ) dimwits that we "lumps" don't deny NATURAL Climate Change producing slight NATURAL Global Warming, which are FACT going back to the start of this planet and it's hydrosphere, and resulting biosphere. What we contest and are skeptical about is the unproven and false claim that current trends of the past century and a half of slight average, annual, global warming are mostly to solely the result of human activities.

This is the huge PROBLEM with your sort of idiots, in that you can't, or won't, be precise in language and terms and repeatedly display gross ignorance on basic science and math regards the ever flux and change of global climates.

BTW, repeated evidence of ballot/voter irregularities from several states suggest either election fraud, or more than half the voters of this nation having gone further stupid to elect the puppet dolts Biden/Harris. Neither prospect is very encouraging regards the future of our nation or the preservation of the Republic.

 

[Colin norris]

One day it might dawn on you (Loonie Leftist/psuedo-liberals/socialists-communists/anti West Civ) dimwits that we "lumps" don't deny NATURAL Climate Change producing slight NATURAL Global Warming, which are FACT going back to the start of this planet and it's hydrosphere, and resulting biosphere. What we contest and are skeptical about is the unproven and false claim that current trends of the past century and a half of slight average, annual, global warming are mostly to solely the result of human activities.

This is the huge PROBLEM with your sort of idiots, in that you can't, or won't, be precise in language and terms and repeatedly display gross ignorance on basic science and math regards the ever flux and change of global climates.

BTW, repeated evidence of ballot/voter irregularities from several states suggest either election fraud, or more than half the voters of this nation having gone further stupid to elect the puppet dolts Biden/Harris. Neither prospect is very encouraging regards the future of our nation or the preservation of the Republic.

Yeah sure. Heard it all before comrade.
Rave on like a petulant child.

 

[Stryder50]

All working climate scientists? Yes they do. They spend their days trying to devise ways to prove it wrong. That's what every test is. Every model. They are in agreement because of where the evidence goes. They are not burdened by your baseless fetishes.

And your "curioisty" is not a substitute for actual education and experience. No, you uneducated slobs have not outsmarted the global scientific community with your Google searches. Sorry. If it were any other scientific topic you did not have a political and ideological hard on for, you would easily see how embarrassing your behavior is. But your fetishes have handicapped your brains.

As I've begun to show and you fail to document/substantiate, not "ALL" "working climate scientists" are supporters of the ACC/AGW hypothesis. Only those whom are chasing the funding to "prove the case for", which is what the majority of funding is available to support/provide.

The "baseless fetishes" come from likes of you whom fail to provide supporting sources and documentation to your propagandist (political based) claims in support of an unproven hypothesis, and subjective and stacked "evidence" to tailor support this false hypothesis.

"Education" equals lots of money and time spent on tuition and class attendance, but is seldom proof of real knowledge or grasp of a subject. Just the ability to pass tests and memorizes the needed class lectures/notes. Result is programmed and handicapped "brains" prepared to comply with Dogma that dominates the system.

Unfortunately, ACC/AGW does not remain a merely academic debate topic since it's advocates push for social, economic, industrial, technological reforms and 'adjustments' that would undermine the world's economic~political~social systems. Hence the delusional concepts of ACC/AGW have become very political and when there are electable candidates whom run for offices while supporting ACC/AGW, it's a duty of the citizens/voters to be informed and educated and those whom would mislead us.

I'd wager your grasp of basic science/chemistry is such that you'd mix bleach and ammonia in effort to make a better home-brew cleaning solution. You display as another fail of the K-12 education system (though admittedly that system has been failing itself now for a few decades).

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So all the extra heat is just in your head?

The imaginary heat trapped in the deep ocean?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Maybe YOU can ask them. I am not the one with a goofy denier fetish. But you won't. Not ever. Because you know what will happen to you, if you try to challenge a climate scientist. Same thing that would happen to any uneducated slob who thinks he has outsmarted the experts.

A climate "scientists" has never done any actual science

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Don't need your propagandist contacts.

You won't contact any climate scientests. Not sure who you think you are fooling, ya uneducated slob. .

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A climate "scientists" has never done any actual science

Haha, poor little Francis REALLY needs some attention.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Any idiot with even the slightest understanding of thermodynamics knows that bullshit.

Extra heat is an actual, real, and possible thing.

Extra cold isn't. It's a lack of heat.

You're just another climate denying whack-job pretending to be educated. And you've got the nerve to call me a troll.

 

[Crepitus]

The imaginary heat trapped in the deep ocean?

How did you get it from the deep ocean into your head?

 

[Stryder50]

You won't contact any climate scientests. Not sure who you think you are fooling, ya uneducated slob. .

Were you paying attention, you'd see I did so in post number 40. Likely not your choice of course.

You could just toss out your choice propagandists, but for those looking, try here;

List of climate scientists - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

One might want some basis of what they are claiming to be about;

Climatology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm sure your selection includes these;

 

[Quasar44]

excalibur
There is a slight global warning trend that cannot be denied
This can be proven and has

 

[james bond]

We're not getting enough rain where I live in Cali. We have too many days when it looks like rain, but it doesn't. Enough days like this in the fall/winter, shortage of water, and you believe its climate change.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And it has always been junk science and lies. It is all for power and money, that is all.

Climate change prophecy hangs its hat on computer climate models. The models have gigantic problems. According to Kevin Trenberth, once in charge of modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “[None of the] models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate [of the Earth].” The models can’t properly model the Earth’s climate, but we are supposed to believe that, if carbon dioxide has a certain effect on the imaginary Earths of the many models it will have the same effect on the real earth.​

​

The climate models are an exemplary representation of confirmation bias, the psychological tendency to suspend one’s critical facilities in favor of welcoming what one expects or desires. Climate scientists can manipulate numerous adjustable parameters in the models that can be changed to tune a model to give a “good” result. Technically, a good result would be that the climate model output can match past climate history. But that good result competes with another kind of good result. That other good result is a prediction of a climate catastrophe. That sort of “good” result has elevated the social and financial status of climate science into the stratosphere.​

​

...​

​

Testing a model against past history and assuming that it will then predict the future is a methodology that invites failure. The failure starts when the modeler adds more adjustable parameters to enhance the model. At some point, one should ask if we are fitting a model or doing simple curve fitting. If the model has degenerated into curve fitting, it very likely won’t have serious predictive capability.​

​

A strong indicator that climate models are well into the curve fitting regime is the use of ensembles of models. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) averages together numerous models (an ensemble), in order to make a projection of the future. Asked why they do this rather than try to pick the best model, they say that the ensemble method works better. Why would averaging worse models with the best model make the average better than the best? This is contrary to common sense. But according to the mathematics of curve fitting, if different methods of fitting the same (multidimensional) data are used, and each method is independent but imperfect, averaging together the fits will indeed give a better result. It works better because there is a mathematical artifact coming from having too many adjustable parameters that allow the model to fit nearly anything.​

​

One may not be surprised that the various models disagree dramatically, one with another, about the Earth’s climate, including how big the supposed global warming catastrophe will be. But no model, except perhaps one from Russia, denies the future catastrophe.​

​

...​

The Profound Junk Science of Climate

Climate change prophecy hangs its hat on computer climate models. The models have gigantic problems. According to Kevin Trenberth, once in charge of modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “[None of the] models correspond...

www.americanthinker.com

It's a complicated issue. Clearly something is happening, but what is it?

For me "climate change" is the wrong title for this issue.

It should be "living in balance with our world" because we simply don't know the impact we're having on the world, and when we find out, it might be too late to stop it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

We're not getting enough rain where I live in Cali. We have too many days when it looks like rain, but it doesn't. Enough days like this in the fall/winter, shortage of water, and you believe its climate change.

I guess if you went to the equator during an ice age, it'd be hot. Or you got to the Antarctic in the hottest year in 100,000 years and it's still cold.

 

[james bond]

I guess if you went to the equator during an ice age, it'd be hot. Or you got to the Antarctic in the hottest year in 100,000 years and it's still cold.

Not exactly what I'm talking about. You would be living at the equator and know what hot is. Now, you're still living there and expecting the same type of heat as the days/nights look and feel the same, but instead of hot, you'd get warm. The days/nights look the same, but the results are different. Here, it'll look and feel like rain, but we'll get only the briefest rain. I don't mean sprinkles either that become rain. It just rains, but oh so briefly.

 

[ReinyDays]

We're not getting enough rain where I live in Cali. We have too many days when it looks like rain, but it doesn't. Enough days like this in the fall/winter, shortage of water, and you believe its climate change.

This is just weather change ... and weather is supposed to change ... on average every three days ... the sciency egg-head term for this period is the "synoptic period" ...

California gets very dry on a regular basis ... and that's considered normal for her current climate ... of course you want to believe this will change, that rainfall will become more regular in both time and space ... but that's not how meteorology works ...

California's weather has been exactly as expected this past year ... in every way ... the more important question is why are you complaining? ...

Sioux Falls, SD: "Snow. The snow could be heavy at times. High near 30. Northeast wind around 15 mph, with gusts as high as 25 mph. Chance of precipitation is 100%. Total daytime snow accumulation of around 8 inches."

 

[james bond]

This is just weather change ... and weather is supposed to change ... on average every three days ... the sciency egg-head term for this period is the "synoptic period" ...

California gets very dry on a regular basis ... and that's considered normal for her current climate ... of course you want to believe this will change, that rainfall will become more regular in both time and space ... but that's not how meteorology works ...

California's weather has been exactly as expected this past year ... in every way ... the more important question is why are you complaining? ...

Sioux Falls, SD: "Snow. The snow could be heavy at times. High near 30. Northeast wind around 15 mph, with gusts as high as 25 mph. Chance of precipitation is 100%. Total daytime snow accumulation of around 8 inches."

Even with weather change, we have a pattern and there will be rainy days and nights. With this, it's like we get the rainy days and nights look and feel, but no rain. It tells me that something has changed.

It would be like rain on a clear, sunny day. We would expect warm, sunny weather, but it's not. You and others should be experiencing this as you know the weather in your local area the best.

 

[Stryder50]

Here up above you in the PNW, we've a month plus of "above average" rainfall (snow in the mountains=higher elevations) but nothing out of range of what has occurred over past several decades.

Climate is an average of at least 30 years measure, but the longer the timescale used, the more accurate such MIGHT be.

In past 30-50 years have there been similar years of "short" precipitation in your part of California?

 

[ding]

It's a complicated issue. Clearly something is happening, but what is it?

For me "climate change" is the wrong title for this issue.

It should be "living in balance with our world" because we simply don't know the impact we're having on the world, and when we find out, it might be too late to stop it.

We've been in an ice age for almost 3 million years. You should worry more about extensive northern hemisphere continental glaciation.

 

[ReinyDays]

Even with weather change, we have a pattern and there will be rainy days and nights. With this, it's like we get the rainy days and nights look and feel, but no rain. It tells me that something has changed.

It would be like rain on a clear, sunny day. We would expect warm, sunny weather, but it's not. You and others should be experiencing this as you know the weather in your local area the best.

This is all dynamics ... the push and pull of the high and low pressure systems ... nothing unusual about what you describe ...

Here up above you in the PNW, we've a month plus of "above average" rainfall (snow in the mountains=higher elevations) but nothing out of range of what has occurred over past several decades.

Climate is an average of at least 30 years measure, but the longer the timescale used, the more accurate such MIGHT be.

In past 30-50 years have there been similar years of "short" precipitation in your part of California?

The first well documented drought in California was in the 1880's ... wiped out the cattle business that was thriving at the time ...
The drought of the 1920's wiped out the fledgling wheat business ... but Them the People got smart and hardened their water systems ...
Thus, the drought in the 1970's didn't actually wreak the economy ... we had enough water stored to get us by ... (barely) ...
The drought in the 2010's wasn't any worse than the one I lived through in the late 1970's ... the difference was so much more land planted into agriculture ... where the almond and pistachio trees stood naked and dead in 2012 was open prairie in 1979 ...

There's reason to believe this has been occurring since long before Europeans arrived ... long before humans starting burning much coal ...

I ask again ... why are you complaining? ... I had jack frost on my lawn this morning ... outrageously cold ... and you bitch about it being sunny and warm ... [sniff] ... some nerve ...