Jump to content

Global warming err Climate change HOAX

Very wide right
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 7.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

DC Tom
DC Tom
Deranged Rhino
Deranged Rhino
B-Man
B-Man

.

Posted Images

DC Tom Hall of Famer

DC Tom

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

So? It's not that big a storm - certainly not a super-typhoon. Not small - 935mb, and 125mph gusts. Although I imagine any storm surge into Incheon bay is non-trivial.

 

But calling it "unprecedented," then referencing four other storms that hit Shanghai in the past 70 years that were worse (as another article I read did) is asinine.

 

By the way...the new Japanese satellite has some awesome resolution. Incredible imagery.

 

http://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/ramsdis/online/loop.asp?data_folder=himawari-8/himawari-8_band_03_sector_04&width=1020&height=720&number_of_images_to_display=60&loop_speed_ms=100

Edited by DC Tom
OCinBuffalo All Pro

OCinBuffalo

Posted
Posted (edited)

I will ask you again:

 

WHY does an 18-year "hiatus" in global warming need an explanation if it doesn't exist? WHY are half the theory's supporters denying the hiatus, and the other half explaining it, at the same time?

WHY is this guy, who created the AGW "story" 26 years ago, when he was the Chief Science Editor at The Economist, now calling himself a "lukewarmer"?

 

Yeah, these questions are based on "ignorance"? :lol: No. These questions are based 100% on the words of the AGW cultists. I didn't say any of this. We aren't comparing and contrasting different POVs here. I am literally using ONLY the words of the AGW cultists. They can't get their story straight. I am merely pointing out the obvious logical flaws in what AGW supporters, and only AGW supporters, are saying.

 

New question:

 

Why all the dissembling, disagreement, and backpedaling, amongst AGW supporters, not amongst skeptics, on something that ALL of them have sworn was "settled" 10 years ago?

 

I'm going to repost this every damn week until somebody answers theses questions. And, I'm counting the weeks going forward. Calling us ignorant? Answer the damn questions and prove it, clowns.

 

Um...sorry about the repeats.

Edited by OCinBuffalo
Chef Jim Hall of Famer

Chef Jim

Posted
Posted

All this cooling and heating threats reminds me of this fantastic Twilight Zone episode. One of my favorites!

 

The Midnight Sun

 

 

The plot:

 

The Earth's orbit has been perturbed, causing Earth to slowly fall into the sun.

A prolific artist, Norma, and her landlady, Mrs. Bronson, are the last people in their apartment building. Everyone else has either moved north where it is cooler or perished from the extremely high temperatures. Norma and Mrs. Bronson try to keep each other company as they see life as they know it erode. They watch in terror as their water supply is turned on for merely an hour a day and their electricity is considerably reduced. Food and water are scarce. As mentioned by a radio reporter, all citizens are to remain indoors and be prepared for a looter rampage. The radio reporter also states that you can "fry eggs on your sidewalk and heat up soup in the oceans."

As the temperature grows hotter the two women increasingly perspire. Mrs. Bronson's mind cannot manage the psychological pressures any longer and she beseeches Norma to paint a picture other than hot topics such as a burning city, screaming deliriously, "Don't paint the sun anymore!" Footsteps are heard outside the apartment door. Norma asks her landlady if she locked the downstairs doors of the apartment complex, but Mrs. Bronson is uncertain if she did. They hear a knock on the door, and Mrs. Bronson starts to answer it as Norma screams for her to not open the door under any circumstances. Through the closed door, Norma threatens the mysterious man with a gun and after a few seconds he says he will leave. Unfortunately, despite Norma's warning to the contrary, Mrs. Bronson opens the door and the stranger, still present, forces his way into the apartment and drinks their supply of water. After several moments, he begs for their forgiveness and claims that he is an honest man and would never hurt them, and that he was driven to looting by the heat. He goes on to describe the recent death of his wife due to complications of childbirth, as well of the death of their newborn child. He then leaves the apartment building.

Feeling that her latest painting might cheer her friend, Norma displays a beautiful oil of a waterfall cascading over a lush pond, implied to be that of Taughannock Falls near Ithaca, New York (specifically in Ulysses). Mrs. Bronson, unable to cope with the unbearable conditions of the raging sun, deliriously claims that she can feel the coolness and delightfully splashes in the imaginary water before she collapses to the floor and dies. The thermometer surges past 120 °F (49 °C), and eventually shatters. As her oil paintings melt, Norma screams and also collapses.

The scene cuts to the apartment at night with snow outside the window. The same thermometer reads −10 °F (−23 °C). Norma is bedridden with a high fever and is accompanied by Mrs. Bronson and a doctor. She was only dreaming that the Earth was moving closer to the sun. In reality, the Earth is moving away from the sun and will eventually be so far away that the sun will seem to disappear. Norma tells Mrs. Bronson about her nightmare, adding, "Isn't it wonderful to have darkness, and coolness?" Mrs. Bronson replies with a sense of dread in her voice, "Yes, my dear, it's... wonderful."

....lybob Veteran

....lybob

Posted
Posted

 

Ice Age Media Hype"A new study and related press release from the Royal Astronomical Society is making the rounds in recent days, claiming that a new statistical analysis of sunspot cycles shows “solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s” to a level that last occurred during the so-called Little Ice Age, which ended 300 years ago. ...

 

If you look closely at the original press release, the study’s author, Valentina Zharkova, never implied a new ice age is imminent—only that we may see a sharp downturn in the number of sunspots. Yes, the sun is a variable star, but its output is remarkably stable. The amount of energy we receive from the sun just doesn’t change fast enough to cause a rapid-onset ice age in just a few decades.

 

The root of the problem here may be a poorly worded quote in the press release implying an imminent 60 percent decline in solar activity. Yes, numbers of sunspots can vary by that much or even more on an 11-year cycle, but the sun’s output—the total amount of energy we get—is extremely stable and only changes by about 0.1 percent, even in extreme sunspot cycles like the one Zharkova is predicting."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/07/13/sunspot_cycles_won_t_cause_a_mini_ice_age_by_2030.html

Azalin All Pro

Azalin

Posted
Posted

 

"Yes, numbers of sunspots can vary by that much or even more on an 11-year cycle, but the sun’s output—the total amount of energy we get—is extremely stable and only changes by about 0.1 percent, even in extreme sunspot cycles like the one Zharkova is predicting."

 

So a tiny fraction in variation of solar output is insignificant, while a tiny fraction of temperature increase in Earth's atmosphere will cause an ecological calamity? I would point out that while 0.1 percent isn't a lot relative to the Sun's total energy output, it's still a hell of a lot when measured in degrees.

reddogblitz Hall of Famer

reddogblitz

Posted
Posted

All this cooling and heating threats reminds me of this fantastic Twilight Zone episode. One of my favorites!

 

The Midnight Sun

 

 

The plot:

 

The Earth's orbit has been perturbed, causing Earth to slowly fall into the sun.

A prolific artist, Norma, and her landlady, Mrs. Bronson, are the last people in their apartment building. Everyone else has either moved north where it is cooler or perished from the extremely high temperatures. Norma and Mrs. Bronson try to keep each other company as they see life as they know it erode. They watch in terror as their water supply is turned on for merely an hour a day and their electricity is considerably reduced. Food and water are scarce. As mentioned by a radio reporter, all citizens are to remain indoors and be prepared for a looter rampage. The radio reporter also states that you can "fry eggs on your sidewalk and heat up soup in the oceans."

...

She was only dreaming that the Earth was moving closer to the sun. In reality, the Earth is moving away from the sun and will eventually be so far away that the sun will seem to disappear. Norma tells Mrs. Bronson about her nightmare, adding, "Isn't it wonderful to have darkness, and coolness?" Mrs. Bronson replies with a sense of dread in her voice, "Yes, my dear, it's... wonderful."

 

Chef Jim and I agree on something! This is one of my favorite Twilight Zones as well.

GG Hall of Famer

GG

Posted
Posted

 

So a tiny fraction in variation of solar output is insignificant, while a tiny fraction of temperature increase in Earth's atmosphere will cause an ecological calamity?

 

It's a different scale. Theirs goes to eleven.

DC Tom Hall of Famer

DC Tom

Posted
Posted

 

"Yes, numbers of sunspots can vary by that much or even more on an 11-year cycle, but the sun’s output—the total amount of energy we get—is extremely stable and only changes by about 0.1 percent, even in extreme sunspot cycles like the one Zharkova is predicting."

 

So a tiny fraction in variation of solar output is insignificant, while a tiny fraction of temperature increase in Earth's atmosphere will cause an ecological calamity? I would point out that while 0.1 percent isn't a lot relative to the Sun's total energy output, it's still a hell of a lot when measured in degrees.

 

Typical solar output varies by what amounts to 1-2 watts per square meter (depending on which source you believe) at the earth's orbit. The warming from a doubling of CO2 is equivalent to 3.7 watts per square meter, other considerations ignored.

 

So neither's insignificant. They're both of the same order of magnitude. The warming that causes depends on the climate sensitivity...which, if you really want to see how "settled" the science is, you should read about it. The values for sensitivity you see quoted most often is "between 1.5 and 4.5C" is taken from a paper in 1979 took the lowest and highest numbers she could find in available studies, chose a margin of error that "seemed reasonable," and subtracted it from the lower and added it to the higher. Basically..."Well, X says 2, but H says 4, so the range will be 2-4. But let me add a fudge factor of...oh, let's say 0.5 or something. So the climate sensitivity is probably 3, but certainly somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5."

 

And by the way, that same paper says that H's estimate (and yes, H is James Hansen, I forget who "X" was) is wrong, because he screwed up his model. Then uses his estimate for the high end anyway. And every model and theory since then has used that sensitivity range to prove that sensitivity range is true. Even today's research, which looks at the detailed contributions to sensitivity and adds them all up, can't get reliable numbers for the component sensitivity (some they can't even decide if the sensitivity is positive or negative.) But they still decide "Yeah, we don't know exactly what it is, but it's probably 3, and certainly between 1.5 and 4.5.)

 

Settled science, my ass. A foundational value of the entire science is based on a two models by two scientists defining the extremes of the research, plus a fudge factor added by a third scientist because it "seemed reasonable" and believed one of the models she referenced to be inaccurate. The first four sentences in this post are better science than that.

Azalin All Pro

Azalin

Posted
Posted

 

Typical solar output varies by what amounts to 1-2 watts per square meter (depending on which source you believe) at the earth's orbit. The warming from a doubling of CO2 is equivalent to 3.7 watts per square meter, other considerations ignored.

 

So neither's insignificant. They're both of the same order of magnitude. The warming that causes depends on the climate sensitivity...which, if you really want to see how "settled" the science is, you should read about it. The values for sensitivity you see quoted most often is "between 1.5 and 4.5C" is taken from a paper in 1979 took the lowest and highest numbers she could find in available studies, chose a margin of error that "seemed reasonable," and subtracted it from the lower and added it to the higher. Basically..."Well, X says 2, but H says 4, so the range will be 2-4. But let me add a fudge factor of...oh, let's say 0.5 or something. So the climate sensitivity is probably 3, but certainly somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5."

 

And by the way, that same paper says that H's estimate (and yes, H is James Hansen, I forget who "X" was) is wrong, because he screwed up his model. Then uses his estimate for the high end anyway. And every model and theory since then has used that sensitivity range to prove that sensitivity range is true. Even today's research, which looks at the detailed contributions to sensitivity and adds them all up, can't get reliable numbers for the component sensitivity (some they can't even decide if the sensitivity is positive or negative.) But they still decide "Yeah, we don't know exactly what it is, but it's probably 3, and certainly between 1.5 and 4.5.)

 

Settled science, my ass. A foundational value of the entire science is based on a two models by two scientists defining the extremes of the research, plus a fudge factor added by a third scientist because it "seemed reasonable" and believed one of the models she referenced to be inaccurate. The first four sentences in this post are better science than that.

 

That's a hell of a lot more than I know about climate science, and I appreciate the info. What I'm wondering is if the supposed upcoming cooling of the sun is based on observation, or conjecture? I've never really trusted computer models, since it seems as if you can get all kinds of results depending on how you conduct them, as opposed to actual, empirical evidence that can be measured and observed without question.

Gary M Veteran

Gary M

Posted
Posted

 

That's a hell of a lot more than I know about climate science, and I appreciate the info. What I'm wondering is if the supposed upcoming cooling of the sun is based on observation, or conjecture? I've never really trusted computer models, since it seems as if you can get all kinds of results depending on how you conduct them, as opposed to actual, empirical evidence that can be measured and observed without question.

 

That's probably more than Al Gore Knows!

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...