Climate continues to change.

[Rightguide]

There is no evidence that climate change effects the number, frequency, or ferocity, of hurricanes. Just in case that comes up.

 

[Kirkrapine]

There is no evidence that climate change effects the number, frequency, or ferocity, of hurricanes. Just in case that comes up.

See here.

 

[trysail]

Manhattan Contrarian Quiz— Climate Tipping Points Edition

Frickin' priceless.

For those of you with short memories:

...Prediction Number 3:

[Predictor] . . . told author Bob Reiss in [year of prediction] that New York City would be underwater in 20 years. "The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water," [predictor] said. "And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won't be there. The trees in the median strip will change..."

The genius prognosticator...​

Nine (9) more Predictions of Imminent DOOM and their genius authors...
​

​

 

[gunthernehmen]

Manhattan Contrarian Quiz— Climate Tipping Points Edition

Frickin' priceless.

For those of you with short memories:

...Prediction Number 3:

[Predictor] . . . told author Bob Reiss in [year of prediction] that New York City would be underwater in 20 years. "The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water," [predictor] said. "And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won't be there. The trees in the median strip will change..."

The genius prognosticator...​

Nine (9) more Predictions of Imminent DOOM and their genius authors...
​

​

I'm pissed too. I was supposed to have an oceanfront view by now. I've been cheated by Gore.

 

[thør]

Climate change is getting dangerous!

 

[trysail]

Harrison ("Jack") Schmitt, Ph.D.
(NASA Apollo 17 astronaut, B.S., CalTech, Ph.D., Harvard):

(emphasis added)

“...I’m a geologist. I know the Earth is not nearly as fragile as we tend to think it is. It has gone through climate change, it is going through climate change at the present time. The only question is, is there any evidence that human beings are causing that change? Right now, in my profession, there is no evidence.”

“The observations that we make as geologists, and observational climatologists, do not show any evidence that human beings are causing this. Now, there is a whole bunch of unknowns…”

“I, as a scientist, expect to have people question orthodoxy. And we always used to do that. Now, unfortunately, funding by governments, particularly the U.S. government, is biasing science toward what the government wants to hear. That’s a very dangerous thing that’s happening in science today, and it’s not just in climate. I see it in my own lunar research.”…

“If NASA’s interested in a particular conclusion, then that’s the way the proposals come in for funding. So it’s a very, very serious issue, and I hope the science writers in this room will start to dig deeply into whether or not science has been corrupted by the source of funds that are now driving what people are doing in research, and what their conclusions are.”​

​

 

[trysail]

State of Fear— Author's Message

By Michael Crichton, M.D.

• We know astonishingly little about every aspect of the environment, from its past history, to its present state, to how to conserve and protect it.
• In every debate, all sides overstate the extent of existing knowledge and its degree of certainty.
• Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, and human activity is the probable cause.
• We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850, as we emerged from a four-hundred-year cold spell known as the “Little Ice Age.”
• Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be a natural phenomenon.
• Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be man-made.
• Nobody knows how much warming will occur in the next century. The computer models vary by 400 percent, de facto proof that nobody knows. But if I had to guess—the only thing anyone is doing, really—I would guess the increase will be 0.812436 degrees C. There is no evidence that my guess about the state of the world one hundred years from now is any better or worse than anyone else’s. (We can’t “assess” the future, nor can we “predict” it. These are euphemisms. We can only guess. An informed guess is just a guess.)...
• The “precautionary principle,” properly applied, forbids the precautionary principle. It is self-contradictory. The precautionary principle therefore cannot be spoken of in terms that are too harsh...

more...




​

 

[von_Bismarck]

^ When you fail to understand the science, and cannot argue on the merits, you provide contextless quotes that appear to support your preferred narrative.

 

[trysail]

I remain disgusted at the hijacking of "science" by politically-motivated Machiavellians. The wild exaggerations and their reporting by a complicit and gullible media have done permanent damage to the credibility of science.

At this stage in its short existence, the forecasts issued by climatology qualify as pseudoscience.


Worthwhile reading:
Matt Ridley: Global Warming versus Global Greening
An address to The Royal Society, 17 October, 2016

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/matt_ridley_gwpf_2016scr.jpg?w=720



My main disagreement with Ridley is over the accuracy and reliability of the historic temperature record. Anyone who invests a modest amount of time investigating the methods and means of how that record was compiled will come away with similar doubts.


As a result of the propagation and acceptance of this pseudoscience, billions upon billions of dollars of limited human resources have been misallocated and diverted from genuine problems. It is a tragedy and a perfect example of folly and successful propagandizing.





​

 

[Kirkrapine]

State of Fear— Author's Message

By Michael Crichton, M.D.

​

When that book came out, it was hailed as "the best peer-reviewed science since Jurassic Park!"​

 

[trysail]

Is the field of speculative non sequitur reasoning now an academic discipline of science?

Thanks to a poorly educated and complicit media, it’s what climate science has become since 1988.



​

 

[Rokk0n]

Who lives in a sailing ship under the sea?
Trysail SquarePants!

Absorbent and yellow and bore us does he
Trysail SquarePants!

If climatic claptrap be something you wish!
Trysail SquarePants!

Then drop on the poop deck and flop like a fish!
Trysail SquarePants!


https://i.imgur.com/0hGdYdm.jpg

 

[gunthernehmen]

Who lives in a sailing ship under the sea?
Trysail SquarePants!

Absorbent and yellow and bore us does he
Trysail SquarePants!

If climatic claptrap be something you wish!
Trysail SquarePants!

Then drop on the poop deck and flop like a fish!
Trysail SquarePants!


https://i.imgur.com/0hGdYdm.jpg

I have to give you points for that one, although the third verse could use a little work. It doesn't flow.

But at least you showed some creativity.

 

[trysail]

A Major Problem With The Resplandy et al Ocean Heat Uptake Paper

by Nic Lewis

...Obviously doubtful claims about new research regarding ocean content reveal how unquestioning Nature, climate scientists and the MSM are.

On November 1st there was extensive coverage in the mainstream media[i ] and online[ii] of a paper just published in the prestigious journal Nature. The article,[iii] by Laure Resplandy of Princeton University, Ralph Keeling of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography and eight other authors, used a novel method to estimate heat uptake by the ocean over the period 1991–2016 and came up with an atypically high value.[iv] The press release [v] accompanying the Resplandy et al. paper was entitled “Earth’s oceans have absorbed 60 percent more heat per year than previously thought”,[vi] and said that this suggested that Earth is more sensitive to fossil-fuel emissions than previously thought.

I was asked for my thoughts on the Resplandy paper as soon as it obtained media coverage. Most commentators appear to have been content to rely on what was said in the press release. However, being a scientist, I thought it appropriate to read the paper itself, and if possible look at its data, before forming a view...

...I wanted to make sure that I had not overlooked something in my calculations, so later on November 1st I emailed Laure Resplandy querying the ΔAPOClimate trend figure in her paper and asking for her to look into the difference in our trend estimates as a matter of urgency, explaining that in view of the media coverage of the paper I was contemplating web-publishing a comment on it within a matter of days. To date I have had no substantive response from her, despite subsequently sending a further email containing the key analysis sections from a draft of this article.How might Laure Resplandy [xiv] have miscalculated the ΔAPOClimate trend as 1.16 per meg per year? One possibility is that the computer code for the trend computation somehow only deducted ΔAPOFF and ΔAPOCant from ΔAPOOBS when computing the 1991–2016 trend, thereby in fact obtaining the trend for {ΔAPOClimate + ΔAPOAtmD}, which is 1.16 per meg per year.[xv]...

...The findings of the Resplandy et al paper were peer reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media. Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results. Just a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information, was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations...



much more...


​

​

 

[trysail]

by Nic Lewis
https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/06/a-major-problem-with-the-resplandy-et-al-ocean-heat-uptake-paper/

(emphasis mine)

"...Because of the wide dissemination of the paper’s results, it is extremely important that these errors are acknowledged by the authors without delay and then corrected.

Of course, it is also very important that the media outlets that unquestioningly trumpeted the paper’s findings now correct the record too.

But perhaps that is too much to hope for."


​

​

 

[trysail]

PAGES2K - 2017 - South America Revisited

by Steve McIntyre

...The tree ring component of this network is, more or less, a reductio ad absurdum of tree ring chronologies as useful temperature proxues: only four of 63 original tree chronologies have sufficient Hockey Stick-ness to be retained in the network, with even these poor remnants reverting to the mean in the 21st century updates. There is negligible similarity between the three lake sediment series, each of which uses a different indicator, though similar measurements appear to have been taken for all three sites. The only series with a meaningful HS (Chepical) appears to result from construction of a dam in 1885AD, rather than from increased temperature. This leaves the Quelccaya ice core series – which was a staple of temperature reconstructions as early as 1998 and, which, ironically, was used upside down in PAGES2K (2013), corrected in PAGES 2017 without disclosure/admission of the earlier error.

All in all, a rather pathetic show by PAGES2K.

more...


​

​

 

[Que]

It comes as no surprise that some climate alarmist hacks are no better at math and understanding how to quantify uncertainty in their work

https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/14/scientists-acknowledge-key-errors-study-how-fast-oceans-are-warming/?utm_term=.5c9913eef9ae

Sounds just like Frodo.

 

[von_Bismarck]

It comes as no surprise that some climate alarmist hacks are no better at math and understanding how to quantify uncertainty in their work

https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/14/scientists-acknowledge-key-errors-study-how-fast-oceans-are-warming/?utm_term=.5c9913eef9ae

Sounds just like Frodo.

Even with slightly larger margins of error, the researchers' ability to do a statistical analysis is still clearly vastly superior to yours, Queef.

 

[Que]

Even with slightly larger margins of error, the researchers' ability to do a statistical analysis is still clearly vastly superior to yours, Queef.

Your ability to construct a sentence is quite subpar, Bob.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Your ability to construct a sentence is quite subpar, Bob.

Try reading slower.

 

[phrodeau]

It comes as no surprise that some climate alarmist hacks are no better at math and understanding how to quantify uncertainty in their work

https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/14/scientists-acknowledge-key-errors-study-how-fast-oceans-are-warming/?utm_term=.5c9913eef9ae

Sounds just like Frodo.

Maybe you can apply your math skilz and tell us whether the ocean heat uptake error is greater or less than the error in trysail's graph. There are significant digits and everything.

Compare and contrast. It's fun.

From your post of 2014: http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=54076327&postcount=269
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_November_2013_v5.6.png

What on earth happened to your data? The last decade is all changed to lower numbers. Who could have changed it?

 

[gunthernehmen]

Winter is coming. Time to fire up the coal stove!

 

[Rokk0n]

Winter is coming. Time to fire up the coal stove!

If coal is so bad for the environment, why don't we just burn it all!

 

[gunthernehmen]

If coal is so bad for the environment, why don't we just burn it all!

Coal is FAR greener than solar or wind.

Solar panels require materials that are ripped from the ground in massive strip mines and processed using toxic chemicals and processes that are environmentally devastating. They'll work well for 10 years, acceptably for another 10 and tolerably on the last 10 and then they're so much toxic waste that has to be replaced by raping the environment again.

Wind mills, well, the BEST thing you can say about them is they employ hordes of workers picking up the bird carcasses beneath them, killed by the scythe like blades...

Coal on the other hand is nothing more than trees and other vegetation that spent a few million years under ground being squashed. A while longer and it turns into DIAMONDS. (Which, btw also make perfectly good, environmentally friendly heating fuel)

Coal is carbon neutral, just like burning wood. Every last bit of carbon released by burning coal is simply being returned to the environment from whence it came.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Coal is carbon neutral, just like burning wood. Every last bit of carbon released by burning coal is simply being returned to the environment from whence it came.

LMAO. Don't they teach science in high school anymore?