Climate talks fail

Post Reply New Topic

Your source for this "little gem" is anonymous (what a surprise) but claims to have an advanced degree himself? I also enjoyed reading some of the entertaining comments posted on his blog suggesting his motives/ulterior motives.

Technically he is using his own (unsubstantiated) "advanced degree" to appeal to readers of his blog which means he is actually appealing to authority-fallacy, I suspect he is unable to see the irony (and neither have you)

I wonder what Patrick Stokes' political views are.

The IPCC have produced 102 climate models to predict our future climate. The world’s meteorological organizations use weather models to forecast and predict weather and have been for many years. They have proved to be very accurate over 4 days and reasonably accurate over a week. The IPCC’s climate models are notoriously inaccurate. We’ve had these models now for some 30 years and we now have 30 years of data to compare them against. They are not even close to accurate.

Climate models are not even forecasting. Those curves on the chart are hindcasts.¹ They already knew what the answer was but still can’t get them right.

Temperature Adjustments – Homogenization

One has to be excused for being skeptical here but it does look prima facie like the IPCC has asked their 50% partner, the WMO, to give them some temperature data that more closely matches their models. At least 3 of the WMO’s senior partners, BOM – Australia, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – NOAA – America and Met Office – UK are adjusting their temperature data to something that has a much more closer resemblance to the IPCC’s models. There is no evidence that Hydrometeorological Centre of Russia – (Roshydromet), is involved with these adjustments.

Raw data is being removed from public scrutiny and no one knows if it is actually being destroyed. Officially they are providing no scientific basis for making these adjustments. The adjustments they are making are complex. The 1940/41 and 1998 El Ninos have been wiped from these records.

However, it is apparent that in this advisory, annual raw minima values from Rutherglen are compared with data from neighbouring sites that have already been homogenised. This approach, which may once have been considered fraudulent, is now consistent with the postmodernist epistemology that underpins homogenisation as practiced by the Bureau .

the politicians who sold out the planet
to line their pockets with oil company
money will go down in history like all those generals who stood around hitler.

i hope they do. if the complacent elderlies here won't be around to see it then i will.

still don't know why wanting to preserve the only planet there will ever be to live on is such a radical and controversial subject. kinda baffling

I knew a professor who believed, wholeheartedly, that the world was created in 4004 BC.

the politicians who sold out the planet
to line their pockets with oil company
money will go down in history like all those generals who stood around hitler.

i hope they do. if the complacent elderlies here won't be around to see it then i will.

still don't know why wanting to preserve the only planet there will ever be to live on is such a radical and controversial subject. kinda baffling

the politicians who sold out the planet
to line their pockets with oil company
money will go down in history like all those generals who stood around hitler.

I feel like it's implausible that the Earth have been "created" by some "supreme being."

That's the way I feel. It's based on "faith." My faith that the Earth is billions of years old.

There's, obviously, overwhelming scientifically-derived evidence as well.

I doubt that you believe in such a precise date for the earth's "creation."

You said it yourself. Politicians. There's a string of politicians who supposedly need to be put in power to save the planet. The greedy imperialistic capitalistic ones need to be replaced by socialistic communistic ones. And this needs to be done around the globe. That's the only way to save the planet. And we are running out of time.

Every bit of energy you expend will need to be regulated and taxed. Your computer use, phone use, cooking meals etc will need to be taxed via carbon credits or whatever. Commuting will be heavily taxed. Even if you use public transit.

Why would you or anyone else wonder why that is considered radical and controversial?

Hurry quickly we are running out of time.

Red Alert!

Oceans were hottest on record in 2019
The world's oceans were the hottest in recorded history in 2019, scientists said on Tuesday,(1) as manmade emissions warmed seas at an ever-increasing rate with potentially disastrous impacts on Earth's climate.(2)

Oceans absorb more than 90 percent of excess heat created by greenhouse gas emissions and quantifying how much they have warmed up in recent years gives scientists an accurate read on the rate of global warming.(3)

A team of experts(4) from around the world looked at data compiled by China's Institute of Atmospheric Physics (IAP) to gain a clear picture of ocean warmth to a depth of 2,000 metres over several decades.
They found that oceans last year were by far the hottest ever recorded and said that the effects of ocean warming were already being felt in the form of more extreme weather, rising sea levels and damage to marine life.(5)
The study, published in the journal Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, said that last year the ocean was 0.075 Celsius hotter than the historical average between 1981-2010.(6)

That means the world's oceans have absorbed 228 Zetta Joules (228 billion trillion Joules) of energy in recent decades.
"That's a lot of zeros," said Cheng Lijing, lead paper author and associate professor at the International Centre for Climate and Environmental Sciences at the IAP.
"The amount of heat we have put in the world's oceans in the past 25 years equals 3.6 billion Hiroshima atom bomb explosions."(7)

The past five years are the five hottest years for the ocean, the study found.(8)

As well as the mid-term warming trend, the data showed that the ocean had absorbed 25 Zetta Joules of additional energy in 2019 compared with 2018's figure.

"That's roughly equivalent to everyone on the planet running a hundred hairdryers or a hundred microwaves continuously for the entire year," Michael Mann, director of Penn State's Earth System Sciences Center, told AFP.(9)

Centuries of warming

The 2015 Paris accord aims to limit global temperature rises to "well below" 2C, and to 1.5C if at all possible.(10)

With just 1C of warming since the pre-industrial period, Earth has experienced a cascade of droughts, superstorms, floods and wildfires made more likely by climate change.(11)

The study authors said there was a clear link between climate-related disasters—such as the bushfires that have ravaged southeastern Australia for months—and warming oceans.(12)

Warmer seas mean more evaporation, said Mann.

"That means more rainfall but also it means more evaporative demand by the atmosphere," he said.

"That in turn leads to drying of the continents, a major factor that is behind the recent wildfires from the Amazon all the way to the Arctic, and including California and Australia."(13)

Hotter oceans also expand, leading to sea level rises.(14)

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in a landmark oceans report last year warned that tens of millions of people could be displaced from coastal areas by the end of the century because of encroaching seas.(15)

And given that the ocean has a far higher heat absorption capacity than the atmosphere, scientists believe they will continue to warm even if humanity manages to drag down its emissions in line with the Paris goals.(16)

"As long as we continue to warm up the planet with carbon emissions, we expect about 90 percent of the heating to continue to go into the oceans," said Mann.(17)

"If we stop warming up the planet, heat will continue to diffuse down into the deep ocean for centuries, until eventually stabilizing."(18)

Just found this on phys.org:

(Reading this raised a few questions in my mind which are listed below the article.)



(1) How and why is this significant?
Thanks to ice core analysis and other techniques we have a pretty fair understanding of how the climate has changed throughout the Holocene. How does the current trend compare to that of preindustrial times?
Note: "scientists said" ≠ proof.

(2) Begging the question. What proof do you have to support either one of these claims?

(3) "Quantifying how much they have warmed up"? Methods and data sets please.
How accurate are the results?

(4) "A team of experts" Well I guess that means the science is settled then. /sarc

(5) Begging the question again. What is the chain of evidence that ties "manmade emissions" to "more extreme weather, rising sea levels and damage to marine life"?
Is there really "more extreme weather" etc. even happening? As compared to what?
And how about those rising sea levels anyway? Did/do predictions align with observation?

(6) Zero point zero seven five degrees C. And your point is...?
The historical average 1981-2010. Why was that period in time chosen as the "historical average"?

(7) "That's a lot of zeros," So it is. No doubt some will even be impressed by them.
How did you arrive at these figures? What percentage of the oceans energy input can be verified to be anthropogenic in origin? What percentage from solar and other natural sources?

(8) Were they? How far back in the records did you look? Why would that be a problem?

(9) See (7).

(10) Why? Can the claimed "crisis" which gave rise to the Paris accord even be verified to be real?
What about their proposed solutions? Are they rational and logical? Or are they politically and/or economically motivated?

(11) Correlation does not imply causation and you're begging the question again.
Where is the evidence to support your conclusion?

(12) And your evidence is...?

(13) Evidence please?

(14) How much have the oceans risen lately? How does that compare to the last 1,000 years? 10,000 years? 20,000 years?

(15) So the UN IPCC issued yet another scary warning.
Are there any sane and rational reasons to justify taking their warnings seriously?

(16) So are you saying that the Paris accord is of little or no value beyond its status as a platform for virtue signalling?

(17) What evidence do you have that human related carbon emissions are responsible for ocean temperature changes?

(18) Umm...OK.
Again: Where is the evidence? Are "we" really responsible for global climactic conditions?

China is already a communist dystopia, so there's no reason to use climate catastrophe to trick them into becoming one.