Only Three Months Left For Planet Earth( and other false doomsday predictions)

[Frankfooter]

1. Skeptic know that Climate is a nonlinear chaotic system and computer modeling would require solving for the Navier-stokes equations for the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere
Good luck isolating at the interdependent variables and solving the equations
I believe there is a million dollar priZe available for anyone that can do that. Been available for some time now
Skeptics know the computer models do not work, so they do not publish predictions which they do not believe in
That is why there are no skeptics predictions

Skeptics don't publish predictions very often because they aren't good scientists, but when they do, they fail miserably.

Whereas James Hansen's 30 year prediction was actually pretty amazing.

2. The greenhouse effect occurs in the atmosphere and there is a reason millions of weather balloons have been sent up over the decades
Besides the surface record is incomplete and is flawed by all kinds of data issues

The greenhouse effect occurs in the atmosphere and on the surface of the planet.
Since humans live on the surface, climate change projections are always made based on surface temperatures and measured against surface temperatures.
People who try to bait and switch with atmospheric temperatures are incredibly bad cheaters, the kind of people who make Trump look wily and bright.

 

[canada-man]

 

[canada-man]

 

[canada-man]

Australian Father Pulls Son Out of School over Climate Change ‘Brainwashing’

A fed-up father has pulled his son out of school and has accused staff of brainwashing children, after the climate movement made its way in to his son's Year 4 classroom.
Around the country thousands of students have taken to the streets to protest on climate change, but Matthew Karlos is infuriated about the topic being taught at his son's state school claiming, "it's ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous."
Mr Karlos' 10-year-old son Max told A Current Affair reporter Pippa Bradshaw "they asked us all to dress up as hippies, and sing this song, big yellow taxi."
"We shouldn't be worrying about the end of the world," he said.
Agreeing with his son, Mr Karlos claims, "it's just brainwashing the younger generations."

The father and son duo are taking a stand against climate change activism.
"They shouldn't be teaching kids that, and yeah we shouldn't toss away our rubbish like I said before, but we shouldn't be worrying about the end of the world," Max said.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/c...c6b-4552-a3ec-137d5ebc7618?ocid=Social-9NewsS

 

[canada-man]

The Ideology of Climate Change Denial in the United States:
The concerted effort to discredit the scientific consensus over man-made global warming has been continuing for two decades in the United States, and shows no sign of weakening. It is very often described as an attempt on the part of corporate America, most notably the fossil fuel industries, to hinder governmental regulations on their activities. While emphasising this dimension of the US climate denial movement, this article also aims to show the complexity of the movement, rather than the mere defence of the narrowly-defined and short-term economic interests of the oil and gas industries, by shedding light on two additional factors which have been instrumental in blocking strong climate action. First, climate denial stems from the strong ideological commitment of small-government conservatives and libertarians to laisser-faire and their strong opposition to regulation. Second, in order to disarm their opponents, US climate deniers often rest their case on the defence of the American way of life, defined by high consumption and ever-expanding material prosperity. It is the contention of this article, therefore, that the US climate denial movement is best understood as a combination of these three trends.

https://journals.openedition.org/ejas/10305

Except Heat Waves were much more intense in the 1930s.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

This one is my personal favourite :biggrin1:

Its an article from 2000. Of course the UK has had horrible winters with lots of snow since then, which is why the article was quickly deleted

 

[Frankfooter]

Meanwhile in reality.........


The Earth just had its hottest September on record
Doyle Rice, USA TODAYPublished 2:18 p.m. ET Oct. 4, 2019 | Updated 12:55 p.m. ET Oct. 7, 2019

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ing-september-2019-hottest-record/3865898002/

 

[Ginomore]

Meanwhile in reality.........


The Earth just had its hottest September on record
Doyle Rice, USA TODAYPublished 2:18 p.m. ET Oct. 4, 2019 | Updated 12:55 p.m. ET Oct. 7, 2019


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ing-september-2019-hottest-record/3865898002/

Sure-every month is hottest-coldest-wettest-driest of all time.

 

[Frankfooter]

Sure-every month is hottest-coldest-wettest-driest of all time.

I don't think you understand the concept of breaking records.
Have you been hanging out in phil's basement or something?

 

[canada-man]

On this date in 1972, NASA announced that additional CO2 will have very little impact on global temperature.


pic sharing


15 Oct 1972, Page 44 – The San Bernardino County Sun at Newspapers.com

https://www.newspapers.com/image/61...oxide+wouldn't+raise+the+temperature+any+more

 

[canada-man]

As China builds hundreds of new coal fired power plants, America shuts down our food supply.

 

[canada-man]

Half Of Russia is Buried in Snow


On October 15, Yakutia province, located in the far Northeast, recorded a minimum low of -32C (-25.6F) and a maximum high of -13C (8.6F) — “severe frosts” have resulted, according to gismeteo.ru.

In addition, it would appear that HALF of the transcontinental country is currently buried under astonishing levels of early season snow — turning to data from the Rutgers Snow Lab, the pack even descends as far south China, and as far west as Scandinavia:




Lifted from an Oct 17 gismeteo.com article: “Chukotka, Yakutia, the northern Baikal and Transbaikal Regions, Evenkia, and Taymyr are covered in snow. Thus, a huge territory (entire Eastern Russia) is under the snow cover. The deepest snowdrifts are observed in Magadan and Yakutia.“

Severe snowstorms blew through Magadan on ‘Pokrov Day’ (Oct 14), burying the province under half a meter (20 inches) of snow. The neighboring province of Yakutia didn’t fair much better, with accumulations of 46cm (18.1 inches) reported by hmn.ru.

Early-season-snow doesn’t fit the AGW narrative, it simply shouldn’t be happening in a warming world — and that’s exactly why this story won’t be covered by the world’s mainstream media.


https://electroverse.net/half-of-russia-buried-in-snow/

 

[Frankfooter]

Half Of Russia is Buried in Snow

Another extreme weather event.

Climate Crisis Weekly: 2019’s extreme weather breaks records, UN says climate change threatens human rights, more

https://electrek.co/2019/09/14/clim...rds-un-climate-change-threatens-human-rights/

7 million people were displaced this year because of extreme weather events.

 

[JohnLarue]

Another extreme weather event.


https://electrek.co/2019/09/14/clim...rds-un-climate-change-threatens-human-rights/

7 million people were displaced this year because of extreme weather events.

Extreme weather not proof of global warming, NASA on global cooling
http://www.ipsnews.net/2018/11/extreme-weather-not-proof-global-warming-nasa-global-cooling/

By Yen Makabenta
To comprehend the complex arguments and abstruse terminology of the climate debate, I have been helped by the advice of one scientist who said it is essential to grasp the difference between weather and climate.

Weather and climate: The difference
You can’t take better guidance on these concepts than from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), two major science agencies in the United States.

I have taken the following from a brief of NASA and NOAA. I quote:

“The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere ‘behaves’ over relatively long periods of time.

Global warming errs badly
To understand the great confusion about global warming or climate change, my most lucid guide has been Dr. Richard Lindzen — a former Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT and member of the US National Academy of Sciences — and his now famous lecture for the Global Warming Policy Foundation last October 8.

Some say that the lecture is must reading for everyone who thinks about global warming/climate change, and for everyone who thinks about science and its role in human society and politics.

In just a number of segments of his lecture, Dr. Lindzen crystallized for me why the church of global warming errs so badly in its dogma.

Global warming promoters fostered the popular public perception of the science of climate change as quite simple. It is that here’s one phenomenon to be explained (“global average temperature,” or GAT, which, says Lindzen, is a thoroughly unscientific concept). And there’s one explanation for it: the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

But the reality is that Earth’s climate system is probably the most complicated system ever studied, with the exception of DNA and the human brain.

There are dozens of categories of factors that influence it, and thousands to billions of individual pieces of each category…

GAT is only one of many important phenomena to measure in the climate system, and CO2 is only one of many factors that influence both GAT and all the other phenomena.

CO2’s role in controlling GAT is at most perhaps 2 percent, yet climate alarmists think of it as the “control knob.”

Consequently, as Lindzen says, the currently popular narrative concerning this system is this: The climate, a complex multifactor system, can be summarized in just one variable, the globally averaged temperature change, and is primarily controlled by the 1 to 2 percent perturbation in the energy budget due to a single variable — carbon dioxide — among many variables of comparable importance.

This, says Lindzen, is an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking. But this is the narrative that has been widely accepted.

Crisis of credibility
I turn next to my latest find in my continuing research on the UN doomsday scare and the global warming debate. I refer to an article published on April 24, 2018 in Real Clear Markets and Investors Business Daily titled: “Did You Know the Greatest Two-Year Global Cooling Event Just Took Place?” by Aaron Brown.

Brown reports that NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Does this make NASA a global warming denier?

Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, “global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius.” That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.

“The 2016-2018 Big Chill,” he writes, “was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five-month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average.”

Brown’s discovery did not warrant any news coverage in US mainstream media.

There was the study published in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate showing that climate models exaggerate global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45 percent. It was ignored.

Then there was the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that found that climate models were faulty, and that, as one of the authors put it, “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models.”

Nor did the press see fit to report on findings from the University of Alabama-Huntsville showing that the Earth’s atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed.

Now, they are also turning their backs on NASA’s findings.

In sum, says Brown, global warming faces a crisis of credibility.

There you go Frankfooter
You now need to perform your despicable Character Assassination on
1. Yen Makabenta
2, Dr. Richard Lindzen
3. Aaron Brown.
4. NASA

 

[Frankfooter]

Extreme weather not proof of global warming, NASA on global cooling
http://www.ipsnews.net/2018/11/extreme-weather-not-proof-global-warming-nasa-global-cooling/


There you go Frankfooter
You now need to perform your despicable Character Assassination on
1. Yen Makabenta
2, Dr. Richard Lindzen
3. Aaron Brown.
4. NASA

Wow, larue, you found an opinion piece and think that's science?
Holy shit, that's pathetic.

You think this is correct?

Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, “global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius.” That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.

Go to NASA's global temp page and tell me where you see that temperature drop.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

You've been suckered again, larue, you fell for bullshit yet again.

 

[JohnLarue]

Wow, larue, you found an opinion piece and think that's science?
Holy shit, that's pathetic.

You think this is correct?


Go to NASA's global temp page and tell me where you see that temperature drop.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

You've been suckered again, larue, you fell for bullshit yet again.

Pathetic?
You did not even check to see if this was true or not & jumped into denial mode right away
That is pathetic

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/
2016.21 Temp Anomaly = 1.36C
2018.21 Temp Anomaly = 0.89 C
Difference = - 0.47 C

The difference in Jan was - 0.53 C

Close enough to what Brown described to show this was significant cooling for a two year period.

Do your god damn homework before call me for bullshit you pathetic science know -nothing

 

[Frankfooter]

Pathetic?
You did not even check to see if this was true or not & jumped into denial mode right away
That is pathetic

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/
2016.21 Temp Anomaly = 1.36C
2018.21 Temp Anomaly = 0.89 C
Difference = - 0.47 C

The difference in Jan was - 0.53 C

Close enough to what Brown described to show this was significant cooling for a two year period.

Do your god damn homework before call me for bullshit you pathetic science know -nothing

Cherry picking

larue, your example is one of the lamest examples of cherry picking I've seen in a while.
Proof?
From that same page of stats:
2012.21 Temp Anomaly -0.91
2019.21 Temp Anomaly -0.31
Difference = 0.6ºC warmer over only 7 years

Same chart, different cherry picked numbers show that your numbers are bullshit.
You, sir, are a cheat and can't even argue honestly.

What was it you just said to me, larue?

Do your god damn homework before call me for bullshit you pathetic science know -nothing

larue, you are a really lousy cheat.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

What was it you just said to me, loser

Post reported to mod

 

[Frankfooter]

Post reported to mod

So much for your love of free speech.
And lets see if they respond to poor language:

Do your god damn homework before call me for bullshit you pathetic science know -nothing

 

[JohnLarue]

Cherry picking
larue, your example is one of the lamest examples of cherry picking I've seen in a while.
Proof?
From that same page of stats:
2012.21 Temp Anomaly -0.91
2019.21 Temp Anomaly -0.31
Difference = 0.6ºC warmer over only 7 years

What is wrong with you
Here is the statement

Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, “global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius.” That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.

And you question if this is correct

You think this is correct?

Then I show you it is correct
The man specified the dates, what else do you need?

And you say Cheery pick

Same chart, different cherry picked numbers show that your numbers are bullshit.
You, sir, are a cheat and can't even argue honestly.

You got the sir part right , everything else is ridiculous

Actually it shows an inconsistent two year period trend, Nothing more, nothing less. What are so scared of
This is not definitive proof that Co2 is not the control knob. It is proof rather
1. You will attack anything and everything which is not supportive of your climate catastrophe narrative
2. The media seems to ignore a lot which is not supportive of the climate catastrophe narrative
3. A little cooling trend is inconsistent with continued Co2 increases. HmMM Interesting

It also shows the latest data point July 2019 and being inline +/- 0.11 C with July 2018, July 2017, July 2016, July 2015
July must be a slow month in the climate change business

What was it you just said to me, larue?

Pathetic was the word you used I believe
Yeah that will do

larue, you are a really lousy cheat.

Learn something for a change

Consequently, as Lindzen says, the currently popular narrative concerning this system is this: The climate, a complex multifactor system, can be summarized in just one variable, the globally averaged temperature change, and is primarily controlled by the 1 to 2 percent perturbation in the energy budget due to a single variable — carbon dioxide — among many variables of comparable importance.

This, says Lindzen, is an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking. But this is the narrative that has been widely accepted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

IPCC activities
Lindzen worked on Chapter 7 of 2001 IPCC Working Group 1, which considers the physical processes that are active in real world climate. He had previously been a contributor to Chapter 4 of the 1995 "IPCC Second Assessment". He described the full 2001 IPCC report as "an admirable description of research activities in climate science"[60] although he criticized the Summary for Policymakers. Lindzen stated in May 2001 that it did not truly summarize the IPCC report[61] but had been amended to state more definite conclusions.[62] He also emphasized the fact that the summary had not been written by scientists alone. The NAS panel on which Lindzen served says that the summary was the result of dialogue between scientists and policymakers.[c]

Amended to state more definite conclusions & the result of dialogue between scientists and policymakers.
PsuedoScience at its worst