Speedzilla Motorcycle Message Forums - Reply to Topic
Thread: Global Warming Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Speedzilla Motorcycle Message Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
04-25-2018 09:31 PM
DanST4
The End

And that folks is the end of the story:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/95...-bad-on-planet


CLIMATE change is likely to be markedly less severe than forecast, a study claimed yesterday.

By John Ingham
PUBLISHED: 10:19, Wed, Apr 25, 2018 | UPDATED: 13:50, Wed, Apr 25, 2018

It predicted that the impact could be up to 45 per cent less intense than is widely accepted.
But the study emerged as other scientists said winter waves pounding the Scottish and Irish coasts have grown grow by up to 5ft 6in (1.7metres) over the past 70 years.
Rising sea levels and more intense storms are in line with global warming forecasts.
The study questioning the future intensity of climate change was carried out by American climatologist Judith Curry and UK mathematician Nick Lewis.
It is based on analysing the warming effect of greenhouse gases and other drivers of climate change, from the mid 19th century until 2016.
It forecast that future warming will be between 30 per cent and 45 per cent lower than suggested by simulations carried out by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel one Climate Change.


The study in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate predicts temperature rises of 1.66C compared to one IPCC forecast of 3.1C and 1.33C compared to another IPCC study predicting 1.9C.
The 2015 Paris climate agreement sought to limit climate change to 2C above pre-industrial levels and no more than 1.5C if possible.
Mr Lewis, said: “Our results imply that, for any future emissions scenario, future warming is likely to be substantially lower than the central computer model-simulated level projected by the IPCC, and highly unlikely to exceed that level.”
Governments around the world base their preparation for tackling climate change on the IPCC models.
Actions include subsidising green energy which has led to higher electricity bills.
02-09-2018 03:39 PM
DanST4
11 years later...

Perhaps it's time for a new thread: Global Cooling

The Sun will get unusually cold by 2050 and might trigger a mini ice age

Scientists warn of 'mini ice age' that could hit Earth and freeze major rivers by 2030
01-22-2018 10:13 PM
DanST4 The Big List of failed climate predictions

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/...e-predictions/

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
– Voltaire
01-22-2018 10:03 PM
DanST4 The models are fake, the science is fake, and the scientists are fake. Climate alarmists are snake oil salesmen and ambulance chasers – not scientists.
12-01-2016 03:02 PM
DanST4
  • What do you think the correct temperature of the world is?
    1. Should that temperature always be the same, or is some variation acceptable (or even healthy)?
    2. Who gets to pick that temperature? Mosquitoes? Polar bears? Camels? Plankton? What’s best for one may not be ideal for another.
    3. Note that right now we believe that it is cooler than it has been for 90% of the time since the last Ice Age. So it is likely to be getting warmer over the next few hundred years, if everything evens out statistically. This, of course, is presuming that we are not entering another Ice Age now, or if something else happens – hard to say. Would it be better if it got warmer, or if it got cooler? Are you sure?
    4. Also note that we have only been collecting satellite data on planet temperatures for the past couple decades. Our satellite data continues to improve, we think – it was of dubious accuracy in the beginning of the space age. Before that, we looked at a bunch of thermometers of varying accuracy in various locations and averaged them together somehow. So we’re judging climate trends which occur over the course of hundreds of millions of years based on 10-20 years’ worth of “data” which we think might be close to accurate. Until we improve it next year. The difference between that and pure guessing is not much.
  • Do you think it’s likely that our understanding of climate science 100 years from now will be the same as it is now? Are we sure about all this? Remember that just 20-30 years ago we were certain that the next Ice Age was imminent. Perhaps we were right then. Perhaps we’re right now. Perhaps there’s some other possibility we haven’t thought of yet. All we know is that our 5-10 year models that we’ve done over the past several decades have all been no better than pure guessing – usually wrong. In my job as a doctor, I would not make a decision on patient care based on such inconsistent data. That’s not called settled science. That’s called malpractice.
  • The primary source of energy on this planet is the Sun. Previous variations in temperatures have been mostly linked to changes in solar output. Will the output of the sun increase in the next 10 years? 100 years? 1,000 years? Or will it decrease? Are you sure?
  • Are there any major volcanic eruptions scheduled in the next couple hundred years? If so, what impact will that have on the weather? Are you sure?
  • The most potent greenhouse gas is not CO2 – not even close. We believe that the most potent greenhouse gas is, by far, water vapor. What factors control the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere? We have no idea.
  • So, suppose we figured out how to install a thermostat on the planet. And we could make it cooler if we decided it was too warm. Or warmer if we decided it was too cold. Should we do that? If so, who’s in charge of the thermostat? Are you sure? We’ve spent enormous amounts of time & energy “improving” our environment via importing Japanese Beetles, or moving snakes to change squirrel populations, or protecting forests by putting out small fires, etc. – our record is dismal. There are always unforeseen variables. As it turns out, the complexity of our environment is close to infinite, like the arrogance of those who claim to understand it all.
  • Should people, who currently can’t figure out which bathroom to use, be in control of the entire planet? Are you sure?
Once my friends understand my concerns, they generally will at least cut me a little slack. And if I persist in looking at the problem logically, my friends will generally change the subject. Which is fine with me. Because when it comes to climate science (i.e., understanding the whole world), I don’t know what I’m talking about. And neither do they. That is one thing I am absolutely sure of.
05-04-2016 04:31 PM
DanST4 I'm sure the "warmers" will find the "source" of this piece is connected to big oil or some other goofy conspiracy, and they won't actually address the facts linked to in the article. Fact is, Gore was and is full of lukewarm air.

After 10 Years Al Gore?s Film Is Still Alarmingly Inaccurate | The Daily Caller
04-22-2016 01:02 PM
DanST4
Rising levels - goodbye Ft Knox - Yada Yada Yada

Get politics out of climate debate: Opposing view

Get politics out of climate debate: Opposing view

John Coleman 4:29 p.m. EDT April 21, 2016
Science has taken a back seat at the United Nations.



(Photo: Adam Rountree, AP)



On this Earth Day 2016, there is a great deal of frenzy about how our Earth is going to become uninhabitable, as the civilized activities of man allegedly trigger unstoppable global warming and climate change.



With the Obama administration set to commit the U.S. to the Paris climate agreement by signing our nation onto the document Friday, it is obvious that science has taken a back seat at the United Nations.
The environmentalists, bureaucrats and politicians who make up the U.N.’s climate panel recruit scientists to research the climate issue. And they place only those who will produce the desired results. Money, politics and ideology have replaced science.


U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres has called for a “centralized transformation” that is “going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different” to combat the alleged global warming threat. How many Americans are looking forward to the U.N. transforming their lives?


Another U.N. official has admitted that the U.N. seeks to “redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” The former head of the U.N. climate panel also recently declared that global warming “is my religion.”


When all the scare talk is pushed aside, it is the science that should be the basis for the debate. And the hard cold truth is that the basic theory has failed. Many notable scientists reject man-made global warming fears. And several of them, including a Nobel Prize winner, are in the new Climate Hustle movie. The film is an informative and even humorous new feature length movie that is the ultimate answer to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. It will be shown one day only in theaters nationwide on May 2.


As a skeptic of man-made global warming, I love our environment as much as anyone. I share the deepest commitment to protecting our planet for our children and grandchildren. However, I desperately want to get politics out of the climate debate. The Paris climate agreement is all about empowering the U.N. and has nothing to do with the climate.


Weather Channel founder John Coleman has spent more than 60 years as a meteorologist, including seven years as the original weathercaster on ABC’s Good Morning America.
03-22-2016 11:47 PM
justjoe
Quote:
Originally Posted by justjoe View Post
New Data Reveal Stunning Acceleration of Sea Level Rise - Scientific American

This is going to cost a lot of money to fight. Is that what they mean by trickle down economics?
Shoot, it might even lead to cutting our military budget.
Yep. A lot of money. Goodbye, Fort Knox.

"The researchers estimated that the cost of relocating the 13.1 million people displaced by sea-level rise would be $14 trillion, based on relocation estimates for residents of Alaskan coastal villages."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/sc...ange.html?_r=1
03-15-2016 03:39 AM
justjoe February 2016 continues a string of 372 consecutive months at or warmer than average. The last colder-than-average month in NASA's database was February 1985, and Earth's last colder-than-average January was 40 years ago, in 1976.
February 2016: Warmest February on record - AOL


Fossil fuel-burning and the strong El Nińo pushed CO2 levels up by 3.05 parts per million (ppm) to 402.6 ppm compared to 2014. “CO2 levels are increasing faster than they have in hundreds of thousands of years,” said Pieter Tans, lead scientist at Noaa’s Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network. “It’s explosive compared to natural processes.”
https://www.theguardian.com/science/...hocking-amount

Remember when we were looking up at 400 ppm just a few years ago?
02-27-2016 01:16 AM
justjoe New Data Reveal Stunning Acceleration of Sea Level Rise - Scientific American

This is going to cost a lot of money to fight. Is that what they mean by trickle down economics?
Shoot, it might even lead to cutting our military budget.
01-18-2016 12:32 AM
justjoe
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanST4 View Post
The 52% Consensus

The 97% consensus quoted daily by Barack Obama is based on a few fraudulent studies of a handful of published papers.
Hi, Dan. I hate to rain on your parade again but...

First of all, your link at the top is Steven Goddard again. He's a quack. I already went over that.

Secondly, the AMS is a very well respected organization. But they are meteorologists, not climatologists. Meteorologists study short-term weather, like the ghay guy with the bow tie on local news. Climatologists study long-term climate, in a white jacket in a quiet room. Who you gonna follow?
Too, maybe you didn't read their report that you linked. The 52% figure that you cite is not 52% of all meteorologists. It's 52% of the respondents to the query. They talk about that in the third paragraph of the Discussion section at the bottom of the report. Here's a quote:

First, even though the response rate to our survey
was well within the normative range, nearly three quarters
of the AMS members invited to participate
did not do so. This raises the possibility that our
respondents may not accurately represent the views
of the broader AMS membership.


The other thing that you apparently missed is this (also at the bottom of the report):

DISCUSSION. Our findings regarding the degree
of consensus about human-caused climate change
among the most expert meteorologists are similar
to those of Doran and Zimmerman (2009): 93% of
actively publishing climate scientists indicated they
are convinced that humans have contributed to global
warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities
of experts view human activity as the primary cause
of recent climate change: 78% of climate experts
actively publishing on climate change, 73% of all
people actively publishing on climate change, and
62% of active publishers who mostly do not publish
on climate change. These results, together with those
of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert
consensus about human-caused climate change
(Farnsworth and Lichter 2012; Bray 2010).


The Doran and Zimmerman studies they mention are where the 97% figure comes from. It's where Obama and others got that number.
Below is another scientist who was involved in those studies to explain the methodology. I would urge you to watch it. Fast forward to 1:30.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAqR9mLJrcE

In short, three different studies, using three different methodologies, came up with very similar results: Well over 90% of climate scientists agree.

When someone starts talking about meteorologists, or even worse, just "scientists", you know they are trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
01-15-2016 11:39 PM
DanST4 The 52% Consensus

The 97% consensus quoted daily by Barack Obama is based on a few fraudulent studies of a handful of published papers.


The only study which actually asked the scientists was done by the American Meteorological Society in 2013. It showed that only 52% of professional members believed the cause of global warming was “mostly human.” Among professional forecasters, the number was closer to 38%. No group came anywhere close to 97%.










http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/...S-D-13-00091.1



01-06-2016 02:54 AM
Old Fart
Quote:
Originally Posted by justjoe View Post
BTW, who the hell is this Katsung47 dude? In all my years of forum fornication I've never run across anyone so completely deranged.
Google Katsung47
You'll be truly amazed at the amount of tripe posted everywhere. To the point you think is this a cyber bot doing it? The amount of time spent by whomever it is to post in soo many locations is astounding. Moto forums are a small percentage of where he she it posts.
01-05-2016 12:31 AM
justjoe
the solar cycle

It runs 11 years, on average.
Often times you'll hear less informed people say that increased solar output or increased sun spots is causing our increased warming. But they apparently are not aware that we just completed the weakest solar cycle in 100 years.
The Weakest Solar Cycle in 100 Years - Sky & Telescope
Yet temps just keep rising:
https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/ho...last-100-years
While CO2 just keeps rising:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

As well, if solar output actually was the driver of temperature on Earth we'd see a consistent rise and fall in Earth temperature in line with the 11 year cycle. We don't.

Dan might like the following website. It has amassed a long list of denier websites, doctored graphs and other misinformation for those searching for such. Notice that the site looks cheap, there is no author listed and no source group attributed to it:
C3: Historical Temperatures - Charts/Graphs
What a joke. Whoever funds this crap is too embarrassed to put their name to it. Reminds me of Mr. Steven Goddard...or is it Mr. Tony Heller? (laughing all the way to the swimmng pool)
You can pull this crap for only so long, Dan, before someone comes along and calls you on it. Sorry. Better generate a bunch of posts quick to move to the next page because this one is getting embarrassing for you.
01-03-2016 05:45 PM
justjoe
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanST4 View Post
Most of the time when you hear a climate statistic from a government expert, it is pretty safe to assume that the exact opposite is true,
Think about that for a moment.

That is the heart of your state of denial - denigrating science because you don't trust politicians. Sorry, but that's a failure of critical thinking. It exposes your own political slant.The Al Bore's of the world (like you and Mr. Goddard) are just noise. So is a lot of the alarmist pandering. I'm not worried about giant hurricanes any time soon. But the greenhouse effect is a fact of life, always has been, always will be (from the Cambrian, when the average Earth temp was around 130 degrees F and ratio of mass of atmospheric CO2 was over 14%, until now, when the average temp is around 60 degrees and the ratio is under 1% and rising). We are very fortunate to live in this time of moderate temps. It allows human prosperity. The last thing we need is cooling. The next worse thing is warming. But it's bad to go either way...unless you want more of the world to be like Siberia or North Africa.
01-03-2016 05:05 PM
justjoe
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanST4 View Post
24 days to Al Gore?[/URL]
Al Gore is not a climatologist and has never published a scientific paper. He long ago became irrellevant.

But hey, you go with whatever your body fluid doctor bloggers tell you to go with.



BTW, who the hell is this Katsung47 dude? In all my years of forum fornication I've never run across anyone so completely deranged.
01-03-2016 04:59 PM
justjoe Danno, I had to get up walk around the room after reading up on Mr Goddard, laughing all the while.

He's another one of your blogger/liars.

Really Sciency: Who Is Steven Goddard?

I really like the way he deletes inconvenient responses to his lies on his blog.
Examples:
Kyle Towers1 September 2013 at 11:16
Goddard is maximally dishonest in the way he handles comments on his blog. I have, on multiple occasions, nailed him good, with supporting links that he couldn't refute. I did it again just lately.

His response is to leave up my initial comments and his snide, dismissive, dishonest responses, but to block or delete my refutations and block me from ever posting again.

Then he and his minions make great sport for days or weeks of ridiculing my epic "failure".


Lazarus2 September 2013 at 07:57
I know the drill believe me. I too have found my self banned from replying. It's easier for him to do that when things get uncomfortable and he starts to look like an idiot in front of his cronies.


Dan, are you one of his "cronies"?

Get real or get out of the denial game.
Uhr, come to think of it, you can't be real and be in the denial game. So you're right where you belong.
01-02-2016 09:44 PM
DanST4 Thanks good to see you too! I check-in from time to time to see what the "warmers" have to say about the weather. It's funny, 10 years ago a buddy of mine was arguing the merits of Global Warming/Climate Change and how the "warmers" had it right and the "deniers" were all wrong. He sent me a spreadsheet with a value every month, in his words "clearly showing that there's a warming trend".

I replied that "the data is what's in question". He didn't understand. I tried to clarify by saying we don't agree on the numbers or their source. He just didn't understand my position since, as we have all learned, it's "SETTLED SCIENCE".

I never have understood this idea that science is "settled" when someone declares it settled.

Anyway, the Earth hasn't warmed for nearly 20 years now yet the warmers are yelling that we're out of time. Every time it gets warm it's CLIMATE. Yet every time it gets cold it's WEATHER.

Paris climate conference nothing but hot air

24 days to Al Gore?s ?10 years to save the planet? and ?point of no return? planetary emergency deadline | Watts Up With That?
01-02-2016 12:24 AM
mattmansell Dan,

Haven't been in the war room in a while, but good to see you back here!

Matt
01-01-2016 12:58 PM
DanST4 2015 Was One Of The Coolest Years On Record In The US

Posted on January 1, 2016 by stevengoddard


Government climate experts say that the US is getting much hotter, but the exact opposite is true. Both the number of hot days and the real extent of heatwaves in the US is plummeting.


In 1936 nearly 80% of US stations reached 100 degrees, but the the past three years have been closer to 30%. A massive decline.

The frequency 100 degree days has plummeted from 5% in 1936 to about 1% in recent years.

The frequency of 90 degree days has also plummeted from 15% in 1936, down to 9% in 2015.

Most of the time when you hear a climate statistic from a government expert, it is pretty safe to assume that the exact opposite is true,
This thread has more than 20 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome