cobran20

Debunking The Man-Made Global Warming Myth Consensus

954 posts in this topic

On 2/2/2019 at 3:04 PM, cobran20 said:

Early Feb and record broken for (part of) North America at least. See how other parts of the northern hemisphere perform by the end of the month:

Local temperatures break or tie previous cold weather records

tracking the forecast very well so far

UK weather: Britain faces MORE snow and -16C in February

Quote

BRITAIN has been warned to brace for another onslaught of heavy snow and sub-zero temperatures this month in what is forecast to be one of the coldest winters on record....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/02/2019 at 11:53 PM, AndersB said:

It is kind of humorous that after all these years the great housing crash may have finally arrived in Australia - and we'll just keep bickering about climate change :)

OK, so Scafetta may not have the best climate science pedigree. Still, as a PhD he should be able to do a half descent literature review, which is what the chart shows. So are all those papers he quotes of dubious quality as well? Knutti (2002) estimates 5 degrees of warming for a doubling of CO2, but Knutti and Torressini (2008) suggests around 1.7 degrees.

A man needs a hobby ^_^

No the other papers are not necessarily of dubious quality. However, neither are they necessarily correct. 

Here's the latest observations versus predictions from the Met Office

decadal-forecast-2019-2023.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/02/2019 at 5:14 PM, cobran20 said:

Well SC, 2024 is around the 5 year mark for our bet. Though I expect it will be resolved before then:

Setting the Train Track on Fire

UN Admits Paris Accord Will Never Work

I tend to agree that the Paris Accord won't work. Not because there isn't a need to adopt policies that cut emissions, rather that such policies prove unpopular when joe public realise that there is a cost involved. 

Share this post


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

112 year record broken

Let's have a look at the NOAA records broken site while the US government is up and running.

Granted, they only have the data up until the 27th Jan due to the shutdown. I will post the comparison again when they have the data for the polar vortex days.

Between the 1st Jan - 27th Jan

Highest Max temp daily records tied or broken: 651

Highest Min temp daily records tied or broken: 905

Lowest Max temp daily records tied or broken: 419

Lowest Min temp daily records tied or broken: 321

Highs:Lows ratio 1556:740 or ~ 2:1. Not a steady state climate

Share this post


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

Let's have a look at the NOAA records broken site while the US government is up and running.

Granted, they only have the data up until the 27th Jan due to the shutdown. I will post the comparison again when they have the data for the polar vortex days.

Between the 1st Jan - 27th Jan

Highest Max temp daily records tied or broken: 651

Highest Min temp daily records tied or broken: 905

Lowest Max temp daily records tied or broken: 419

Lowest Min temp daily records tied or broken: 321

Highs:Lows ratio 1556:740 or ~ 2:1. Not a steady state climate

But the IPCC told us only mild winters ahead? At least in confirms climate changes, which is consistent with the 'climate change' theory. After all, the climate on earth had been static since earth existed ... until they created that theory.

Share this post


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

But the IPCC told us only mild winters ahead? At least in confirms climate changes, which is consistent with the 'climate change' theory. After all, the climate on earth had been static since earth existed ... until they created that theory.

I think you'll find that they have made no such statement and that your interpretation is flawed. As shown in the previous post records are being broken at the rate of 2:1 on the warm side. What part of "milder" winters do you not understand? You continue to cherry pick a specific location on a specific date to prove your case. Look at the data overall. Your argument is akin to stating house prices are rising across Australia because they rose in a suburb.

Share this post


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

I think you'll find that they have made no such statement and that your interpretation is flawed. As shown in the previous post records are being broken at the rate of 2:1 on the warm side. What part of "milder" winters do you not understand? You continue to cherry pick a specific location on a specific date to prove your case. Look at the data overall. Your argument is akin to stating house prices are rising across Australia because they rose in a suburb.

Well, I don't understand how a polar vortex that is impacting North America and now the Uk (probably continental Europe) is defined as a 'mild winter'?

As far as cherry picking, I have posted the brilliant IPCC forecasts already on this thread. A summary can be found here. What is interesting of note is that some of those links to the source no longer work. Why would that be now - PC police now hiding the truth? That includes an article from The Independent newspaper, quoting the IPCC. Did the PC police put a bit of pressure on them perhaps? In any case, you can find a copy of it on the internet that some deplorable(s) saved before it was removed. 

 

Screen-Shot-2017-01-06-at-9.41.34-AM-down-1.gif

Share this post


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

Well, I don't understand how a polar vortex that is impacting North America and now the Uk (probably continental Europe) is defined as a 'mild winter'?

As far as cherry picking, I have posted the brilliant IPCC forecasts already on this thread. A summary can be found here. What is interesting of note is that some of those links to the source no longer work. Why would that be now - PC police now hiding the truth? That includes an article from The Independent newspaper, quoting the IPCC. Did the PC police put a bit of pressure on them perhaps? In any case, you can find a copy of it on the internet that some deplorable(s) saved before it was removed. 

 

Screen-Shot-2017-01-06-at-9.41.34-AM-down-1.gif

Speaking of conspiracy theories - I can't find any trace of the actual independent article. I'd like to see the full context. This article also in the independent says the headline didn't reflect the story. It's the difference between journalism and science.

Quote

The story was about the frequency of snowfalls, and how "snow is starting to disappear from our lives", which it stated clearly.

A more accurate headline would be something like: "Snowfalls are becoming less frequent in our little corner of the world but that doesn't necessarily mean that snow will disappear from our lives completely and forever." Unfortunately, any sub-editor who would suggest such a tediously long headline is unlikely to last very long.

...

So a headline saying that "snowfalls are now just a thing of the past" is not a scientific prediction or statement. It is a newspaper headline, and should be treated as an invitation to read the entire story, which in this case clearly pointed out that snowfalls are becoming less frequent in Britain. This is still the case even with the experience of having two snowy winters on the run.

 

Share this post


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

Speaking of conspiracy theories - I can't find any trace of the actual independent article. I'd like to see the full context. This article also in the independent says the headline didn't reflect the story. It's the difference between journalism and science.

 

Search for that phrase. The links to the IPCC article or newspaper article no longer work. The one to the Independent did work for me a few years ago when I first started reading about globull warming. That PC police took care of them as we can't have the sheeple learn about those forecasts. Here is more on that quote:

Quote

The Independent, 2000:

Snow is starting to disappear from our lives. Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries … Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community … According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

The Independent, 2013:

Stand by for icy blasts and heavy snow

and more quoted by the Murdoch press, so be warned and careful before you click the link.

Share this post


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

Search for that phrase. The links to the IPCC article or newspaper article no longer work. The one to the Independent did work for me a few years ago when I first started reading about globull warming. That PC police took care of them as we can't have the sheeple learn about those forecasts. Here is more on that quote:

and more quoted by the Murdoch press, so be warned and careful before you click the link.

Only the newspaper headlines survives to be endlessly repeated without the context of the rest of the article.

Is the frequency of snowfall decreasing in the UK?

Yes it is according to this murdoch press article and the met office

So the original article is most likely correct.

Share this post


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

The thought of this must be keeping those IPCC forecasters awake at night! :P

 

So according to the article "scientists are warning of a prolonged cold snap". Your link illustrates perfectly the difference between journalism and science. Which scientists are making the prediction? NASA

Nope.

Quote

The sun is relatively calm compared to other stars. "We don't know what the sun is going to do a hundred years from now," said Doug Rabin, a solar physicist at Goddard. "It could be considerably more active and therefore have more influence on Earth's climate."

Or, it could be calmer, creating a cooler climate on Earth similar to what happened in the late 17th century. Almost no sunspots were observed on the sun's surface during the period from 1650 to 1715. This extended absence of solar activity may have been partly responsible for the Little Ice Age in Europe and may reflect cyclic or irregular changes in the sun's output over hundreds of years. During this period, winters in Europe were longer and colder by about 1 C than they are today.

Since then, there seems to have been on average a slow increase in solar activity. Unless we find a way to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning, the solar influence is not expected to dominate climate change. But the solar variations are expected to continue to modulate both warming and cooling trends at the level of 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.18 to 0.26 Fahrenheit) over many years.

 

Share this post


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

So according to the article "scientists are warning of a prolonged cold snap". Your link illustrates perfectly the difference between journalism and science. Which scientists are making the prediction? NASA

Nope.

 

Expectations from scientists whose forecasting track record is?

Whilst on the subject matter on the quality of forecasts, read this: link1   link2

They are from August last year. Just to compare, Inigo at that time had already been writing on his FB page that he had advised his clients to sell up or prepare for a prolonged drought. I have no read one posting from him changing his forecast, unless you have a farm near the coast. Cold winters and drought ahead.

 

Edited by cobran20

Share this post


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

Expectations from scientists whose forecasting track record is?

Come again? You posted the link. The "scientists" in question are your boys. Your source of rebuttal to my posts. How is even possible to evaluate a "prediction" when you can't name who made it? Just some generic scientist? Is that your increasingly desperate argument? That if any scientist makes any prediction it is by nature unreliable?

Are you now debunking your own posts?

The truth of course is that there are no such scientists. The journalist has gone to the NASA website, read the first bit where it says the little ice age may have been caused by the solar minima. He's taken that and interpolated that if the solar minima caused the little ice age back then, of course the solar minima now would lead to the same outcome. The journalist is the "scientist". Then he attaches some unnamed "scientist" to the prediction. No wonder you are so deluded about science and what you call "predictions". You believe the journalists.

The express has form. You've posted most of this rubbish yourself so you should recognise it.

Quote

No winter approaches without predictions in the Express of Snowmageddon. In November 2012, Rao’s headline warned us: “Coldest Winter in 100 Years on Way”. In November 2013, he promised “100 DAYS OF HEAVY SNOW: Britain now facing worst winter in SIXTY YEARS warn forecasters”. In October 2014, a story by the same author told readers “Winter 2014 set to be ‘coldest for century’. Britain faces ARCTIC FREEZE in just weeks”. In November, another article of his was headlined “POLAR VORTEX WARNING: Latest winter weather models show UK faces MONTHS of heavy snow”. And so it went on all the way until the end of January, when the front page blared: “Britain on RED alert: ‘Displaced polar vortex’ to unleash crippling snowstorms next week”.

Needless to say, it was all bollocks with bells on. Temperatures for central England in every month of the winter just passed were slightly higher than average. There were no abnormal snow events, and no plagues of frogs, boils, lobsters or aliens. All rather disappointing in fact.

The paper’s misleading weather stories, and their weak links to reality, have been closely documented by John Mason, who has collaborated with me in writing this article.

But even the Express is not prepared simply to pluck this clickbait out of thin air. It must be able to quote an authority, however flimsy their credibility may be. So it leans on a number of people who call themselves forecasters, but some of whose credentials appear difficult to establish.

For a while, such stories made abundant use of a man called Jonathan Powell, who ran a company called Positive Weather Solutions. After I revealed in the Guardian that the forecasters employed by this company did not exist, but had made-up names attached to stock shots of models, Positive Weather Solutions shortly closed down.

It was soon replaced by another company of Powell’s, Vantage Weather Services. That company also closed after bad publicity. He now runs a firm called Principality Weather, which appears to feature only in the Welsh press, and then rarely.

Today, the man most frequently cited in improbable weather stories in the Express (and sometimes elsewhere) is James Madden, who runs a company called Exacta Weather. His wild predictions have formed the basis of Express stories for several years, and appear in several of those I’ve just mentioned. So I sent him a list of questions. (I also sent a list to the newspaper, but have not received a response).

I asked him:

  1. Could you explain the basis on which you made these forecasts?
  2. What are your qualifications as a weather forecaster?
  3. How do you respond to the charge that you are engaging in “stopped clock forecasting”: making the same predictions again and again in the hope that they will occasionally be proved right, allowing you to claim vindication?
  4. How do you respond to the claim that your “accuracy” record [published on the Exacta website] is highly selective and misleading?
  5. Are you deceiving potential purchasers of your service by offering this misleading account?
  6. Why do you not publish an independent audit of your forecasting accuracy?

Instead of specific answers, he sent me a note that seemed to me to consist largely of bluster and threats.

“I remember the last time you tried dragging me into an unfair article involving only PWS [Positive Weather Solutions], for which I still have a dated response and video to yourself, which was shown to all my clients.” [You can read the article here].

“The previous also highlights you in previous statements/articles about weather being the weather, and sometimes forecasts will be wrong (in defence of the Met Office). No surprises there!

“After seeking advice, I will not hesitate to make an official complaint to the press complaints commission about the previous article, as I also will for any future articles that are misleading. I will also make people aware of this via the site, and your personal vendetta against myself, and your clear defensive nature of anything Met Office related.

“An explanation and detailed review of my winter forecast will be posted to subscribers and via the site shortly, and in my own time and not at deadline requests from yourself.”

Quote

Whilst on the subject matter on the quality of forecasts, read this: link1   link2

They are from August last year. Just to compare, Inigo at that time had already been writing on his FB page that he had advised his clients to sell up or prepare for a prolonged drought. I have no read one posting from him changing his forecast, unless you have a farm near the coast. Cold winters and drought ahead.

More climate change whack-a-mole articles. The BOM publish the accuracy of their predictions. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 hours ago, cobran20 said:

The thought of this must be keeping those IPCC forecasters awake at night! :P

 

I'll ask again since you breezed past the question the first time. Is the frequency of snowfall decreasing in the UK?

Share this post


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

Only the newspaper headlines survives to be endlessly repeated without the context of the rest of the article.

Is the frequency of snowfall decreasing in the UK?

Yes it is according to this murdoch press article and the met office

So the original article is most likely correct.

It is early days in the Solar minima and the Uk is getting hit with a polar vortex. Next few years should be interesting to see how those increasing temperature and decreasing snow predictions hold up.

Share this post


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

 

I'll ask again since you breezed past the question the first time. Is the frequency of snowfall decreasing in the UK?

It is whatever that comes out of the publishing of the IPCC. But can you confirm that is still their current forecast for the next five years so that it can be compared to actuals ... just like their forecasts over the last 30 years? Because almost 20 years ago they said snow will be history and we have the actuals. So when will snow disappear now ... another 20, 50 100, 1000 years?

Share this post


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

Come again? You posted the link. The "scientists" in question are your boys. Your source of rebuttal to my posts. How is even possible to evaluate a "prediction" when you can't name who made it? Just some generic scientist? Is that your increasingly desperate argument? That if any scientist makes any prediction it is by nature unreliable?

Are you now debunking your own posts?

The truth of course is that there are no such scientists. The journalist has gone to the NASA website, read the first bit where it says the little ice age may have been caused by the solar minima. He's taken that and interpolated that if the solar minima caused the little ice age back then, of course the solar minima now would lead to the same outcome. The journalist is the "scientist". Then he attaches some unnamed "scientist" to the prediction. No wonder you are so deluded about science and what you call "predictions". You believe the journalists.

The express has form. You've posted most of this rubbish yourself so you should recognise it.

More climate change whack-a-mole articles. The BOM publish the accuracy of their predictions. 

 

Just give me the IPCC's latest forecasts with years when it will occur. We will monitor their accuracy.

You see, for as much as you praise the IPCC & Co, at the end of the day, when you look at the predictions since 1989, they were so accurate that they had to change from globull warming to 'climate change' so that any event is in accordance with the theory. 

I don't have a bias, I just monitor accuracy of predictions to justify the $squillions of tax payers monies being spent. You can use any scientific reasoning for defending them, I'll just look at the actual outcome within the timelines provided.

Share this post


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

It is early days in the Solar minima and the Uk is getting hit with a polar vortex. Next few years should be interesting to see how those increasing temperature and decreasing snow predictions hold up.

So? The solar minima happens every 11 years. The records showing warming go back over multiple solar minima

Share this post


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

It is whatever that comes out of the publishing of the IPCC. But can you confirm that is still their current forecast for the next five years so that it can be compared to actuals ... just like their forecasts over the last 30 years? Because almost 20 years ago they said snow will be history and we have the actuals. So when will snow disappear now ... another 20, 50 100, 1000 years?

It's got nothing to do with the IPCC. The data shown to you is from the met office from observations. One more time, Is the frequency of snowfall decreasing in the UK? Is it increasing? Is it staying the same. I look forward to hearing your evidence to support your claim.

Share this post


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

I don't have a bias,

Of course you don't. You just regard anything that scientists predict as unworthy of examination from any point of view other than that interpreted by the media and their vested interest overlords. Never mind an impartial reading of the data from the source itself. You just think that the whole climate change debate is a conspiracy by the left to destroy global capitalism. That every scientist, every weather station monitor, every person that is old enough to notice the warming in on the great conspiracy. 

If a doctor diagnosed you with an illness you would likely treat it as an attempt to extract money from you for unnecessary health expenditure.

Quote

I just monitor accuracy of predictions to justify the $squillions of tax payers monies being spent. You can use any scientific reasoning for defending them, I'll just look at the actual outcome within the timelines provided.

No you don't. You read denialist websites and repost their disinformation. You don't even understand who is responsible for what? The climate is forecast by the IPCC based on models vs observations and research. The weather is predicted by the weather bureaus. Met office, NOAA and the BOM. Conflating the two makes you look a fool.

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