What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Ot. Hallelujah and praise the lord

millersnose

Post Whore
Messages
65,223
Well, 30 years ago it was predicted that world average surface temperatures would today be about 0.6 degrees (Celsius) warmer, and today it is about....0.6 degrees (Celsius) warmer (under a "some effort to reduce greenhouse gasses scenario", which has happened).

Unfortunately, some of the predictions on things like melting of glaciers and arctic shelves did not take into account changes to currents from less salinity, and fewer reflected rays from less "white" surface, so these have melted at a higher rate than predicted.

We have plenty of excuses already for meddling with lives (only recently the Australian people said it was not appropriate to meddle with who you personally choose to marry, and the government, with notable exceptions such as our PM, was dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century and stopped meddling in that particular aspect), confiscating wealth (I am taxed at a much higher rate than many wealthy "business owners", such as our awesome local minister for water corruption, who set up an offshore business to take his $50 million dollar inside deal from his coalition mates, thus avoiding tax, which would have gone to supporting the nearby private schools for the wealthy nearly as much as to the local public school for the disabled that my son goes to), and suppressing freedom (such as locking up children to prevent people smuggling, with no evidence that it does that, and then threatening aid providers with jail if they report on the terrible conditions those children are in, even kicking them out of their jobs with no due process, suggesting they are coercing asylum seekers into asking for medical help, if they dare highlight the sexual abuse and torture facing locked up children). This government has shown it has no problems doing any of those things, it doesn't need the excuse.

Gee you don’t mind posting waffle
I only could be bothered addressing your first sentence

The models ran hot

That is not controversial even your most “ world is gunna end” climatologist admits this

You are not even aware of this so waffling about the science is a bit embarrassing for you
 

wibble

Bench
Messages
4,661
Well here’s a petition by 9000 PhD holders and 31000 in total

http://www.petitionproject.org/?mod=article_inline

Claiming there are no dissenters to agw is as silly as claiming there isn’t a huge body of scientists subscribing to agw

That petition is on par with the scientists who believe in evolution petition, which has the very funny (and touching tribute to Stephen Jay Gould) Project Steve response.

It would be silly to say that absolutely every person who believes they are a scientist, or even who is generally recognised as one, believes in AGW. Just as it would be silly to say that every scientist believes in evolution.

Not that science is run by convention, but we do often give weight to complex issues when we are untrained ourselves, if many experts in the field seem to have a conclusion.

But that number of signatories would represent about 0.3% of science field graduates in the U.S.A., the methodology for obtaining the signatures is unknown and undefended and therefore dubious, and some of the (0.3% of science field graduates, not all of whom were in climate sciences) petitioners now say they don't recall signing it, or would not sign it now (it was signed by many in 1997 and 1998).

See https://www.politifact.com/punditfa...00-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/

Though rather than worrying about a strange, small petition with dubious methodology, if we are concerned at what scientists think about AGW we can check to see what they have published.

This article https://www.beforetheflood.com/expl...ercent-of-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/ mentions some studies that have been done of scientific, peer reviewed journals, and some surveys of scientists. The article suggest 94% to 100% of scientists in the various studies it has summarised were believers in AGW (it should be noted the article is not itself a scientific paper, you should read the papers mentioned in it for actual scientific papers).
 
Last edited:
Messages
4,213
It helps when you adjust past temperatures down.

They also said there would be no snow in England and parts of San Francisco underwater, amongst a host of other shit.
Well there you go. If everyone was as smart as you we could all relax.
 
Last edited:

wibble

Bench
Messages
4,661
Gee you don’t mind posting waffle
I only could be bothered addressing your first sentence

The models ran hot

That is not controversial even your most “ world is gunna end” climatologist admits this

You are not even aware of this so waffling about the science is a bit embarrassing for you

Good in depth response.

There have been many, many models, and the best summation is that they were about right. But there have certainly been ones that "ran hot" and others that underestimated warming.

Briefly, this article (https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming) outlines some models and finds:
A 1975 model that overestimated warming compared to observations by about 30%
A 1981 model that underestimated by about 20%
A 1988 model that overestimated by about 30% (this is probably the one most talk about, as it was the famous 1988 "Hansen" model that was deceptively shown by famous deniers to be 300% wrong by using misleading data)- there are a number of caveats to the "overestimation" by 30%, but in general, it was pretty good for a model that tried to account for a broad range of human responses to global warming. Warming, and our actions, definitely fall between the minimum warming we do everything we can scenario, and the maximum warming we geometrically increase CO2 emissions, models.
A 1990 model that overestimates by 17%
A 1995 model that underestimates by 25%
A 2001 model that underestimates by 14%
A 2007 model that overestimates by 8%
and a 2013 model that overestimates by 16% or 9% depending on which factors you agree ameliorate the overestimating.

Of course long term models are not 100% accurate. Some confounding factors include solar output (which has reduced recently, but no one can predict that at present), volcanic activity (which is hard to predict), increase use or aerosols (which had not been predicted), and the precise levels of greenhouse gasses produced (even events like our last election, which was not well predicted the day it was run, can affect our greenhouse gasses).

But they are all pointing in the same direction. In 30 years, if you are lucky enough to be alive, and lucky enough to have grandchildren, you are going to be very embarrassed by your Ostrich behaviour when they ask you what our generation did about global warming.

And the s&*t won't really hit the fan for many more years after that, but in 30 years only anti vaxers and creationists will be the sorts of people dumb enough to deny climate change as the world average temperatures will be 1.5 to 2 degrees warmer if we don't do much/anything about greenhouse gasses (assuming we don't have a nuclear winter, massive volcanic disruption etc- the climate models can't predict those things).
 

Surely

Post Whore
Messages
101,376
Good in depth response.

There have been many, many models, and the best summation is that they were about right. But there have certainly been ones that "ran hot" and others that underestimated warming.

Briefly, this article (https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming) outlines some models and finds:
A 1975 model that overestimated warming compared to observations by about 30%
A 1981 model that underestimated by about 20%
A 1988 model that overestimated by about 30% (this is probably the one most talk about, as it was the famous 1988 "Hansen" model that was deceptively shown by famous deniers to be 300% wrong by using misleading data)- there are a number of caveats to the "overestimation" by 30%, but in general, it was pretty good for a model that tried to account for a broad range of human responses to global warming. Warming, and our actions, definitely fall between the minimum warming we do everything we can scenario, and the maximum warming we geometrically increase CO2 emissions, models.
A 1990 model that overestimates by 17%
A 1995 model that underestimates by 25%
A 2001 model that underestimates by 14%
A 2007 model that overestimates by 8%
and a 2013 model that overestimates by 16% or 9% depending on which factors you agree ameliorate the overestimating.

Of course long term models are not 100% accurate. Some confounding factors include solar output (which has reduced recently, but no one can predict that at present), volcanic activity (which is hard to predict), increase use or aerosols (which had not been predicted), and the precise levels of greenhouse gasses produced (even events like our last election, which was not well predicted the day it was run, can affect our greenhouse gasses).

But they are all pointing in the same direction. In 30 years, if you are lucky enough to be alive, and lucky enough to have grandchildren, you are going to be very embarrassed by your Ostrich behaviour when they ask you what our generation did about global warming.

And the s&*t won't really hit the fan for many more years after that, but in 30 years only anti vaxers and creationists will be the sorts of people dumb enough to deny climate change as the world average temperatures will be 1.5 to 2 degrees warmer if we don't do much/anything about greenhouse gasses (assuming we don't have a nuclear winter, massive volcanic disruption etc- the climate models can't predict those things).


Yeah I don't think many people deny climate change

It's always changed , it's not something new.
 

wibble

Bench
Messages
4,661
Yeah I don't think many people deny climate change

It's always changed , it's not something new.

Well some do.

But this is mostly about human caused climate change (the articles and models I quote are about that, the petition presented and that I countered are about that), and that is still denied by some conservatives in some countries, as a matter of political principal (rather than for any logical reason).

Plenty of conservatives in plenty of countries are on board with AGW as well. It just depends on which flavour of campaign the conservative parties ran, I guess. Peta Credlin has admitted they ran the anti "tax on carbon" campaign as it was good politics, not because they believed it or thought it was good for the country.
 

txta2

First Grade
Messages
5,175
Would you bring grand kids into this doomed world? Crazy if you do with all us deniers running about, planning how we going to kill them
Maybe not, but
Think your getting the terms Ecological and Climate Change mixed up.
There are man made ecological disasters happening on nearly every continent as we speak. The world is going through another mass extinction of wildlife through total annihilation of biodiversity.
With current right wing conservative governments turning the machines into overdrive with overpopulation and overconsumption at all time highs shit will eventually hit the fan. And under these governments the only answer to avert any crisis of a short supply of iphones or luxury cars is war.
 

Marchad

Juniors
Messages
1,635
The only thing that has come true with all of the climate change predictions. Is that our taxes are going to go up to fight against climate change.
 

Surely

Post Whore
Messages
101,376
Okay no worries . Im sorry I ever questioned your wisdom. carry on

I'm sorry all the disasters predicted haven't materialised , cheer up though there's plenty of time , earth is only 4.54 billion years old, could take more than a 100 years.
 
Messages
4,213
ok so richard lindzen and judith curry are 'crap ones' despite being some of the most cited climatologists in history

and i suppose chris landsea is corrupt?


US Climate science is completely politicized in US .Right wing left wing hugely influenced

Ill see Lindzen and raise you Sir Brian Hoskins ,Professor John Mitchell,Professor Keith Shine , Professor Tim Palmer Prof Eric Wolf. Funny that at a UK conference these climatoligists did agree on some points with Lindzen .. One notable one being Mans contribution to atmospheric Carbon levels .Lindzen had to apoligise when many of his assertions were shown to be untrue.
 
Messages
4,213
ok so richard lindzen and judith curry are 'crap ones' despite being some of the most cited climatologists in history

and i suppose chris landsea is corrupt?


Judith curry .... Receives ongoing funding from Fossil fuel industry

Chris Landsea Resigned due to peers making unsubstantiated but Authoritative statements that would damage credibility of real Science ... Laudible I guess . Also appointed by George bush to Quell some of fear mongering afterr Hurricane Katrina Debatable that one ... getting a little too close to politics maybe. Might have to question the objectivity . ?

In my very" scientific "Google search I ran across some quotes almost exactly the same as your intelligent ,non Tabloid pearls of Wisdom such as your dismissal of Consensus. NO its not "science " and I never said it was but you are simply Obfuscating anyway,using Googled stuff from American Rightwing sceptics. and have no real.understanding of Scientific Method or Statistical Analysis anyway I never read tabloids BTW . I( read reports in Agricultural Magazines. Used to read New Scientist and Australian Geographic and National Geographic . No time anymore . Shouldnt even be wasting time here Im not a scientist and dont pretend to be but I do recognise Tripe when i see or hear it..
 
Last edited:
Messages
4,213
[QUOTE="millersnose, post: 13582033, member: 5319"]Putting aside the hilarious irony of lauding consensus while at the same time lauding Einstein and Darwin for the moment it is suffice to say consensus is not how science works

And in any case the views on the scientific community on such a chaotic and little understood mechanism like climate are varied from those that think warming will be calamitous to those who think it will be small to those who think it will be beneficial

However let’s for the moment assume the tabloid version you ascribe to is correct

The point is what will be the policy response given the developing world is ..well..developing
They are building hundreds of fossil fuel plants and any reduction in Australia will have zero effect
All that is happening is that rent seeking companies like General Electric and many others are lobbying governments to legislate in favour of their products and to further subsidise their vast profits
Any solution to your tabloid version of gw has to recognise reality
You guys should really be only lobbying for huge domination and subsidisation of nuclear power not carbon credits
It’s just common sense[/QUOTE]
LoL is English your second Language? That is not what I said but your non secateurs ,Ad hominens and general obfuscating must make you very proud. You didnt answer the Question .Do you beleive in Darwins theory of evolution and natural selection? Scared to look Foolish . Dont worry you cant look more foolish than you already do. The rest of the Conga line of deniers wont realise it anyway .

Consensus is not Part of scientific Method and I did not say it was . I said it was important and it is.Do you realise that atomic theory ,,Natural selection,and many other now accepted theories were used as facts for many years in other studies to give us more knowledge and create chemical processes etc When all the causal links were not known? Do you know what made that Possible ? Consensus and Statitical tests on Data .. I mentioned Darwin ,newton etc because they observed things, thought about Anecdotal evidence and proposed Hypotheses to explain some things. They then Calculated Measured Tested recorded , revised etc.etc
They were at the other end to consensus . Darwin was able to collect a lot of Data But Reefy would not loan him his Quantum computer so he couldnt really analyse it all to say 100%Sure true and fact that Natural selection is the process by whichEvolutionary changes have happened ...I dont think its a 100% proven theory today -Not sure- you might need to ask the seventh day adventists next time they knock on your door... If you beleive it then thats a bit of a consensus thing too . Those guys are the heros of the scientific world but I wasnt "lauding them I was pointing out that some scientists with big Egos might want to be on the pointy end of proposing new Hypothesis and countering old things that are still in a state of no real Causal links . They wouldnt really want to FOLLOW the consensus . .
Well there you go Millers!! I hope that clears that up for you ...No need for an apology . I have a huge Ego so your little attempts to silence and humiliate do not worry me.
Good Game today GO SHARKIES !!! Oh yeah now the moments gone I look forward to you telling me how science works!
 
Last edited:
Messages
4,213
I'm sorry all the disasters predicted haven't materialised , cheer up though there's plenty of time , earth is only 4.54 billion years old, could take more than a 100 years.


Wow! How do you know its that old! Have you got a Quantum computer?Can I borrow it for the Farm so I can figure out when the next Hailstorm will hit ?
 
Last edited:
Messages
4,213
Ad hominens is all you got now? LOL. Seriously? My heart rate is just fine . Im sorry if the explanations are a little too complex for you . i suppose I could post a simple picture next time one of the conga line of denialists posts a load of obfuscation.. Here this is what your arguments are like for those of you who cant read.upload_2019-5-27_5-5-33.jpeg
 

millersnose

Post Whore
Messages
65,223
Judith curry .... Receives ongoing funding from Fossil fuel industry

Chris Landsea Resigned due to peers making unsubstantiated but Authoritative statements that would damage credibility of real Science ... Laudible I guess . Also appointed by George bush to Quell some of fear mongering afterr Hurricane Katrina Debatable that one ... getting a little too close to politics maybe. Might have to question the objectivity . ?

In my very" scientific "Google search I ran across some quotes almost exactly the same as your intelligent ,non Tabloid pearls of Wisdom such as your dismissal of Consensus. NO its not "science " and I never said it was but you are simply Obfuscating anyway,using Googled stuff from American Rightwing sceptics. and have no real.understanding of Scientific Method or Statistical Analysis anyway I never read tabloids BTW . I( read reports in Agricultural Magazines. Used to read New Scientist and Australian Geographic and National Geographic . No time anymore . Shouldnt even be wasting time here Im not a scientist and dont pretend to be but I do recognise Tripe when i see or hear it..
lol

so thats the best you can do

lol so no scientists oppose this tabloid version of calamity you spout on here, except for those thousands who do

and if they do they are paid to do so by the evil fossil fuel companies

and all without a shred of evidence to back your claims of corruption
 

Latest posts

Top