cobran20

Debunking The Man-Made Global Warming Myth Consensus

406 posts in this topic

Who will prove to be correct - the computer that correctly predicted Brexit & Trump (and many other things) when nobody could believe it, or the globull warmists scientists whose forecasts so far have been beaten by a broken clock?

Solar Minimum – Biggest Decline Maybe Ever

Quote

...We can see that this decline in Solar Cycle #24 has been a rapid decline that is twice as fast than any previously. Already the the upper atmosphere is losing heat energy. NASA has conceded that if the current trend continues, this could become a dramatic cold period far worse than many people suspect....

...Our computer is projecting a very serious decline in sunspot activity. This will be the backdrop to the rise in agricultural prices we see between 2020 and 2024...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2018 at 9:10 AM, cobran20 said:

So you mean it fluctuates rather than it only moves in a linear fashion towards total melting? It will be interesting to see what happens over the next couple of years, when they're getting this 'weather' just as summer finishes.

Yep. They're called seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2018 at 9:12 AM, cobran20 said:

Weather

9 hours ago, cobran20 said:

Weather or climate ... and on both hemispheres. Excuse some of the Google translate errors:

Germany - The coldest September night since the beginning of the measurement

A cold record in Poland has been made

The Netherlands - Coldest September night in 47 years

India - record snowfall

Canada - ‘Disbelief’ as snow hits and northern Alberta farmers scramble to save crops worth millions

Heavy snowfall forecast for Iceland - ...And only once in history has this been topped, when snowfall in the city reached 55cm in January 1937..

New Zealand – 100,000 lambs lost to cold and rain

The Maldives have been attempting to sink since at least 1837!

Doesn't look as if half of the world will be turned into Atlantis by 2024?

Weather

Is one days trading on the the markets a trend?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/30/2018 at 1:58 PM, AndersB said:

Not sure I fully understood those two papers. My impression is that the are talking about minor discrepancies depending on how you measure things, which would affect (introduce bias) in Spencer's conclusions.

This measurement thing is tricky. Do you only account for surface temperatures or do you look into the heat content deep down into the oceans as well? Near the poles there can be extreme temperature swings from -20 to -60 degrees. What weighting do you give these measurements compared to points of the globe near the equator? It is difficult to come up with a consistent global temperature index, which is why the measuring institutions keep changing the way they construct the temperature data. What is unforgivable is that there are cases where some of these institutions have deleted original raw data. WTF?

Still, as the HadCRUT4 data shows, observations in recent years are below, or at the very lowest, of all the IPCC published model projections. My guess is that this divergence will become increasingly obvious in the next few years.

My view is still that CO2 causes warming, and that Lindzen is probably correct that the global temperature sensitivity is probably around 0.5 to 0.8 degrees for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, and I haven't seen a credible rebuttal of Linzen's position yet. That level of sensitivity is not alarming, and the anthropogenic component of overall CO2 emissions on earth is in the small single digit percentages.

This level of warming effect is very likely to be overwhelmed by other climatic forces, such as the variability of the sun's total irradiance. We could indeed be facing decades of cooling, which unfortunately is not being prepared for by governments, nor the public.

It is only nutters like myself that try to arrange permanent living in two hemispheres for eternal summers :)

My take on the papers is that they are attempting to understand why the other (RSS and NOAA) models differ significantly from UAH. They struggle to do so because Dr Roy doesn't publish his bias correction or assumptions as opposed to the other models that publish theirs. My question would be why doesn't he publish methods? What is he afraid of?

Edited by staringclown
sensibility

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cobran20 said:

Who will prove to be correct - the computer that correctly predicted Brexit & Trump (and many other things) when nobody could believe it, or the globull warmists scientists whose forecasts so far have been beaten by a broken clock?

Solar Minimum – Biggest Decline Maybe Ever

 

It's lucky that most of us live on the surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, staringclown said:

Weather

Weather

Is one days trading on the the markets a trend?

That 'weather' has been occurring for certainly more than 1 day and in both hemispheres of the globe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, staringclown said:

It's lucky that most of us live on the surface.

It's a shame these scientific forecasters are not required to put skin in the game. They're happy to take the government monies either directly or via research grants, but zero accountability on accuracy. Whilst those that offer a paid service for their accurate forecasting are made accountable when subscriptions dry up. I guess it is part of sheeple psychology that love to be fleeced without ever complaining. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, staringclown said:

Weather

Weather

Is one days trading on the the markets a trend?

So exactly when does the ongoing drought change from 'weather' to 'climate'? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone tell me how I can get in contact with admin for an article I want taken down from years ago? Would be greatly appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, cobran20 said:

So exactly when does the ongoing drought change from 'weather' to 'climate'? 

Tony Abbott is fond of saying that Australia has always been subject to droughts and he is correct. When droughts begin to show a trend that is increasing in frequency and/or severity over a longer timescale it changes from weather to climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, staringclown said:

Tony Abbott is fond of saying that Australia has always been subject to droughts and he is correct. When droughts begin to show a trend that is increasing in frequency and/or severity over a longer timescale it changes from weather to climate.

and definition of a 'longer timescale'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just weather...

Canola production slashed as conditions conspire against farmers

Quote

FIELDS of canola which normally yield the lucrative seeds that become cooking oil and margarine are instead being cut to make hay as they are withered by a cruel double blow of drought and frosts....

... but who has accurately predicted these 'weather' conditions and just as importantly who hasn't?!

Edited by cobran20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so looking forward to how they will sell this piece of scientific discovery:

Less meat, coal for cool planet

Quote

An accelerated withdrawal from coal and a change in the global diet away from meat are needed to limit global temperature rises to 1.5C, leaked copies of a major new ­climate report say. Scientists and diplomats are meeting in South Korea this week to finalise the report that distils the findings of more than 6000 scientific papers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, cobran20 said:

and definition of a 'longer timescale'?

Typically plants adapt to climate over a long period of time. Often millennial timescales. They evolve to become used to drought frequency and duration cycles and develop mechanisms to cope with a 'typical' cycle. A longer timescale would be one in which the increased frequency/duration of drought began to affect the species makeup that inhabit the landscape. If the change is slow then a species might have time to adapt to the changing climate. However, if the change is rapid then you will see species change as plants that are more drought resistant begin to dominate and out-compete those that are less drought tolerant. 

A similar effect can be seen with ocean warming. If you start to record tropical fish species regularly at lower latitudes than previously recorded then that could be counted as evidence of climate change rather than weather.

As a general rule the longer a period of stability in an ecosystem, the more diversity you will see in its inhabitants. The stability allows evolution of more specialist species. Generalist species are more likely to survive any instability as they can switch food sources and thus adapt better. (cats are awesome generalists) But the bird that only eats the seeds of a particular tree is likely doomed if the climate changes so that the tree can no longer survive. So diversity drops with instability. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, staringclown said:

Typically plants adapt to climate over a long period of time. Often millennial timescales. They evolve to become used to drought frequency and duration cycles and develop mechanisms to cope with a 'typical' cycle. A longer timescale would be one in which the increased frequency/duration of drought began to affect the species makeup that inhabit the landscape. If the change is slow then a species might have time to adapt to the changing climate. However, if the change is rapid then you will see species change as plants that are more drought resistant begin to dominate and out-compete those that are less drought tolerant. 

A similar effect can be seen with ocean warming. If you start to record tropical fish species regularly at lower latitudes than previously recorded then that could be counted as evidence of climate change rather than weather.

As a general rule the longer a period of stability in an ecosystem, the more diversity you will see in its inhabitants. The stability allows evolution of more specialist species. Generalist species are more likely to survive any instability as they can switch food sources and thus adapt better. (cats are awesome generalists) But the bird that only eats the seeds of a particular tree is likely doomed if the climate changes so that the tree can no longer survive. So diversity drops with instability. 

So the cooling effects of the solar minimum can effectively never be measured as the cycle is only around 11 years and hence the earth only ever warms up, despite the fact that I have posted very old articles where scientists were expecting poles to melt, which proved 100% false? If/when in a couple of years, there have been successive cold winters, drought (and famine as a result of it), the earth is still considered to be warming? Seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cobran20 said:

So the cooling effects of the solar minimum can effectively never be measured as the cycle is only around 11 years and hence the earth only ever warms up, despite the fact that I have posted very old articles where scientists were expecting poles to melt, which proved 100% false? If/when in a couple of years, there have been successive cold winters, drought (and famine as a result of it), the earth is still considered to be warming? Seriously?

I'm not following you. If the earth keeps warming over a period that is longer than the 11 year solar cycle then clearly the solar cycle isn't solely responsible for the warming. The effect of the solar cycle can be quantified and corrected for (and is). Temperatures can be measured and are rising and the poles are melting. The 'old' articles that you post are correct in their predictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, staringclown said:

I'm not following you. If the earth keeps warming over a period that is longer than the 11 year solar cycle then clearly the solar cycle isn't solely responsible for the warming. The effect of the solar cycle can be quantified and corrected for (and is). Temperatures can be measured and are rising and the poles are melting. The 'old' articles that you post are correct in their predictions.

There have been old articles I have posted, predicting the end of snow, Maldives to sink, no more glaciers  ... and what happened since those articles were published? Was the cause of those events at the time the old articles were published also caused by human activity? Haven't the studies shown that the earth has gone through periods of warming & cooling for millennia? Yet we're told that the current warming cycle is all due to human activity and justification for the subsequent economic changes and costs. But the sheeple swallow it hook, line & sinker. The current articles I have published (which don't seem to make it to the front page unlike the warming dogma ones) are more consistent with cooling. What will they say when the next couple of years show similar trends? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Severe late-season frost hits winter crop

Quote

PARTS of South Australia, Victoria and NSW have been hit by severe frosts.

Temperatures dropped by as much as five to nine degrees below the August average this week.

On Monday night, the mercury dropped to -13.2 degrees at the top of Thredbo, the coldest it has been anywhere in Australia in six years, and the coldest at that station in 24 years

The mercury kept dropping on Wednesday morning, with Perisher registering -14.2 degrees making it the coldest temperature anywhere in Australia in eight years....

If the trend was rising, you should get higher highs and higher lows. Above is another example where it is not the case. Are NASA scientists & associates around the world using a thermometer inserted up their rectum to measure global temperatures? Mmmm...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cobran20 said:

Severe late-season frost hits winter crop

If the trend was rising, you should get higher highs and higher lows. Above is another example where it is not the case. Are NASA scientists & associates around the world using a thermometer inserted up their rectum to measure global temperatures? Mmmm...

No. As I've already said, you should expect to see more warm records broken than cold records. If there was no warming then you should expect an even ratio of warm to cold records broken. 

You doubt models due to manipulation. Temperature records are simply thermometer readings. No corrections are applied and the data is verifiable. Are you prepared to accept this ratio as an indicator of warming or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, staringclown said:

No. As I've already said, you should expect to see more warm records broken than cold records. If there was no warming then you should expect an even ratio of warm to cold records broken. 

You doubt models due to manipulation. Temperature records are simply thermometer readings. No corrections are applied and the data is verifiable. Are you prepared to accept this ratio as an indicator of warming or not?

If throughout the year I keep noticing more records being set to the upside in both hemispheres, then yes. If the opposite then I'd find it difficult to believe that there is a warming trend when new records are being set to the downside. There is too many vested interests involved in global warming to blindly accept what is being published. You can Google articles from skeptics claiming the data is questionable. But I'm no scientist to be able to independently assess who is correct. But where there is big money, there often tends to be corruption.

If Socrates' predictions materialise, then I'd struggle how both can be correct. Socrates' predictions are very easy to independently verify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/09/2018 at 2:11 PM, cobran20 said:

fake news or fact?

Thickest September Ice On Record In The Beaufort Sea

You'll note it has a link to the source data - the Danish Meteorological Institute

and here is the prediction made by the good Professor from Cambridge only a couple of years earlier:

A Farewell to Ice by Peter Wadhams review – climate change writ large

So tell me SC, you don't find the continuing erroneous predictions/extrapolations over the last 30 years, made by the so many 'climate experts' a bit disconcerting?

Does it justify creating a major economic upheaval and spending $squillions when every prediction published (that I've found thus far at least) has proved to be BS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now