Climate Change
- Thread starter Addict2sex
- Start date
This is not the way I put it.
To the best of my knowledge models of global climate change cannot project
anything amenable to its verification.
Some years ago I crossed path with engineers and modelers in
an environmental consultant company in Southwestern Ontario.
They were offered a contract from regional government in Southern
China to assess environmental impact of pollutants on air quality
in the Pearl Delta region. The scientists in the company employed
some computer model developed in some major environmental
institute in the U.S. Before the project was signed the model employed
was tested by feeding it with emission data of various pollutants in
different regions as well as data obtained from regional climate record.
It turned out that the model correctly predicted the timeline of the
flow of pollutants and changes in air quality over previous years.
Hence the contract which must have amounted to tens of thousands
of dollars was agreed on.
To my knowledge you cannot feed into a climate model climate
data in the past, say 1990, to test accuracy of its prediction of the
climate in 2000. You can probably obtain prediction of a global
temperature which is likely to be higher than the temperature
of the early year you input into the model. The model would not
yield any climate data for year 2000 qualitative or quantitative
of any use for assessment of its accuracy.
The way I put it is models of global climate change are not
intended for projection or prediction of climate future. I am
not sure if I can call climate models inadequate if they are
not even capable of inaccurate predictions of Earth's climate
future. I can only guess climate models are meant to provide
a guess of future global temperature a quantity which is arbitrarily
defined. If climate scientists can infer from change of this quantity
whether Earth's climate will be going badly then the climate model
has served its purpose.
There could be regional climate models that are
more or less reliable for interpretation of local
weather patterns.
Last edited:
What happens when you, like lots of rural places, can't afford insurance because of fire and flood risks?
i never said it was the way you put it
it is the way i put it and it happens to be true
of course they can not
the global climate is far too complex to model and as i pointed out the modelers are contractually obligated to model with co2 as the control knob
it is circular reasoning and not at all aligned with the scientific method
co2 is not a pollutant
without co2 in the atmosphere all life on earth dies
how can a molecule essential for all life be a pollutant
of course it did, they tune models to match recent history
Hence the contract which must have amounted to tens of thousands
of dollars was agreed on.
of course not , the climatic conditions change , jet streams, convection, condensation, cloud cover , could altitude all vary daily, and move from region to region. if the region is near a body of water/ ocean all kinds of interactions rates will change over a decade
do you think the regression co-efficients for all those interdependent variables are the same for the 1990 to 2000 as they are for the 2020 to 2010s ?
so they number noddle their models to match up as far back as they can and then say that's is what we will go with
meanwhile over a decade all the chaotic interactions of variables with each other & the impact of a change is not the same
and there is a whole lot more interdependent variables than listed above and a whole lot more variables than can be modelled properly
to make things worse climate science has a very poor understanding of cloud formations- and that is a very important process
different cloud types at different altitudes reflect (up/ down), transmit or absorb radiation, meanwhile they rise and fall, form, dissipate etc - without a clear understanding of that process , you can not model it........so they don't.
The model has been tuned to replicate the past response based on different conditions than will be in the future
it is called natural variability,
its kind of expected for a spinning top , 2/3 covered in water flying a variable path around a massive ball of fire
but instead the modelers all select an insignificant variable with a logarithmic relationship (diminishing absorption as concentration increases) as the control knob for their models.
There is a reason the climate models have such a brutal track record. >> see above
you can predict anything with a model.
GI/GO garbage in / garbage out is still a prediction
its kind of a useless prediction (actually worse than useless) for making important decisions
assessment of its accuracy ??
you either model it right or you don't
F=ma was a pretty good model
this is a good assessment of model accuracy
Attachments
Last edited:
You have to be pretty ignorant, or very evil to keep trying to push such a blatantly stupid lie.
wow, an oil despot denies the science so they can keep selling oil.
big news.
still claiming the models aren't accurate but your clowns are?
World's oil producers have had enough of this climate BS so they just went
along with climate sheeple to become a part of the climate movement. You
may think climate summit hold in an oil producing state would provide climate
leaders like Guilbeault and John Kerry, climate hypocrites such as Bill Gates and
Larry Fink and climate activists like this money whoring Vanessa Nakate and
that idiot climate warrior Dr Joe Vipond from Calgary sufficient enlightenment
to put an end to all the talks about the urgency of zero-emission. But
I suspect these fools will rather believe the summit marks the reformation
of Middle East oil producers to become stupefied like the climate sheeple
they have duped back home.
I too will become the most fervent climate change warrior if I can put my
wallet into the $100 billion climate fund. Trudeau will be happy if our
leaders all vote yes on spending the money he pledged to contribute to the
fund. Hopefully people will finally wake up to such monstrous climate idiocy.
To think of the trillions upon trillions of dollars that have gone into fighting climate change/global warming over the years. It would blow your mind how much of our wealth has been squandered on this shit. And how many politicans/bureaucrats have gotten uber rich over it.
yeah
ignorance and incompetence will be the excuse for some
there is another subset who should face criminal charges and asset seizures for enriching themselves from this fraud , but they wont.
they will retire to sea side mansions instead
it is heart breaking and sickening to think of all the positive things for humanity even a fraction of those wasted funds could have accomplished
Last edited:
Except that damage from climate change disasters, insurance costs and oil subsidies massively dwarf this.
The latest reports say we are very close to hitting 5 tipping points, where the damage gets massively worse and becomes not reversible for centuries.
Earth on verge of five catastrophic climate tipping points, scientists warn
Humanity faces ‘devastating domino effects’ including mass displacement and financial ruin as planet warms
www.theguardian.com
The Media Is Hyping Up ‘Carbon Passports’ To Restrict Travel
“By 2040, we can expect to see limitations imposed on the amount of travel that is permitted each year”
modernity.news
FRIDAY, DEC 08, 2023 - 03:00 PM
Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,
A talking point that is now everywhere in the media is the notion that in the near future travel is highly likely to be restricted through the introduction of so called ‘carbon passports’.
Last week, CNN ran a piece created by something called ‘The Conversation,’ which had the headline “It’s time to limit how often we can travel abroad – ‘carbon passports’ may be the answer”
Within this “analysis,” readers were told that record-breaking heatwaves, wildfires and extreme weather events are being driven in part by people going on holiday.
“Tourism is part of the problem,” the piece asserts, adding “The tourism sector generates around one-tenth of the greenhouse gas emissions that are driving the climate crisis.”
It then goes on to suggest that the introduction of carbon passports which would see every “traveler being assigned a yearly carbon allowance that they cannot exceed,” could “ration” travel.
“This concept may seem extreme,” the writer states before telling you that it isn’t and it’s a probably a good idea because of how on the verge of collapse the environment is.
“Boiling temperatures will probably diminish the allure of traditional beach destinations,” anyway, claims the author.
This isn’t just one alarmist story languishing somewhere in the dark depths of CNN’s website, it’s everywhere:
The
That report states that “These allowances will manifest as passports that force people to ration their carbon in line with the global carbon budget, which is 750 billion tonnes until 2050.”
Sounds like a lot of fun.
Not only will you own nothing and like it, if this progresses as these ‘experts’ suggest, you won’t be able to go anywhere either.
Of course, people like Bill Gates, John Kerry and their ilk will still be allowed to constantly fly around in their private jets, because they are “the solution.”
Your one budget Easyjet flight to Malaga every couple of years is the big problem.
ECO MENTALISM
Europe In Deep Freeze As Kerry Warns Of Rampant Global Warming
Europe In Deep Freeze As Kerry Warns Of Rampant Global Warming
"Judge with our own eyes what science is telling us"
modernity.news
Meanwhile …
In Europe private jets and yachts are already exempt from carbon tax…
Parliamentary question | Exemptions from the EU Emission Trading Scheme for private jets and yachts | E-003298/2022 | European Parliament
Question for written answer E-003298/2022 to the Commission Rule 138 Markus Buchheit (ID)
www.europarl.europa.eu
Last edited:
1. CO2 is currently 420 ppm, which is 0.042%.
Humans are responsible for 3% of that, which is 0.00126%.
Thus, 99.99874% of all CO2 is created naturally.
2. At under 270 ppm CO2, plant life dies, and everything else dies with it.
3. The atmosphere has had periods where CO2 was up to and higher than 4000 ppm. During the Triassic period 215 million years ago, both plant and animal life thrived and Alaska was a jungle.
4. When Mt. St Helens erupted in 1980, it released the same amount of pollution as 270 years of human industrial activity in 1970.
That’s 270 x 1970 industrial activity - IN ONE DAY.
* volcanic eruptions release water vapor (H20), carbon dioxide (COz), sulphur dioxide (SO2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen chloride (HCI), and hydrogen fluoride (HF) into the atmosphere.
And the 2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai eruption was nearly twice the size of Mt St Helens.
To all the politicians that spew climate nonsense & lies to get a new source of carbon tax revenue and climate scientists feed at the pig trough ( free fundings from $ billions of dollars ) with their manipulative unreliable climate model they can all Eat…
The Associated Press revealed last year that it had received $8 million to promote claims of global warming. The AP impartially described this massive conflict of interest as an illustration of “how philanthropy has swiftly become an important new funding source for journalism”.
The philanthropic quid-pro-quo saw five organizations fund the AP’s dedicated team of “more than two dozen journalists” to cover “climate issues” that the wire service would then plant in papers around the country to terrify Americans into supporting ‘green’ taxes and subsidies.
The carbon rebate plan comes from the Climate Leadership Council(CLC) whose partners include major banks, JP Morgan, Santander and Goldman Sachs, energy companies, BP, Shell and Conoco, who believe that the proposal will be good for them.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/how-green-investors-pay-the-media-to-promote-climate-change/
PS. These climate Marxist are bat **** crazy.
Humans are responsible for 3% of that, which is 0.00126%.
Thus, 99.99874% of all CO2 is created naturally.
2. At under 270 ppm CO2, plant life dies, and everything else dies with it.
3. The atmosphere has had periods where CO2 was up to and higher than 4000 ppm. During the Triassic period 215 million years ago, both plant and animal life thrived and Alaska was a jungle.
4. When Mt. St Helens erupted in 1980, it released the same amount of pollution as 270 years of human industrial activity in 1970.
That’s 270 x 1970 industrial activity - IN ONE DAY.
* volcanic eruptions release water vapor (H20), carbon dioxide (COz), sulphur dioxide (SO2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen chloride (HCI), and hydrogen fluoride (HF) into the atmosphere.
And the 2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai eruption was nearly twice the size of Mt St Helens.
To all the politicians that spew climate nonsense & lies to get a new source of carbon tax revenue and climate scientists feed at the pig trough ( free fundings from $ billions of dollars ) with their manipulative unreliable climate model they can all Eat…
The Associated Press revealed last year that it had received $8 million to promote claims of global warming. The AP impartially described this massive conflict of interest as an illustration of “how philanthropy has swiftly become an important new funding source for journalism”.
The philanthropic quid-pro-quo saw five organizations fund the AP’s dedicated team of “more than two dozen journalists” to cover “climate issues” that the wire service would then plant in papers around the country to terrify Americans into supporting ‘green’ taxes and subsidies.
The carbon rebate plan comes from the Climate Leadership Council(CLC) whose partners include major banks, JP Morgan, Santander and Goldman Sachs, energy companies, BP, Shell and Conoco, who believe that the proposal will be good for them.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/how-green-investors-pay-the-media-to-promote-climate-change/
PS. These climate Marxist are bat **** crazy.
Last edited:
Is that what you're going with?
In the Middle Ages, nobility could cleanse themselves of their sins by purchasing "absolution" certificates from the Catholic church in Rome (which was basically a bank).
Hardly anyone believed in the nonsense, but it was a way for noblemen to signal to the Church that they were being good, obedient boys and falling in line. It was also a protection payment in the sense of "don't bother me, and I'll push the church's narrative on my own peasantry here at home."
Same ****, different day.
PS. Can’t wait for the day they assign you a carbon passport and force you to eat bug and not allow eating any meat!
Last edited:
This idiot Trudeau has just given the Philippines $5 billion dollars to fight climate change
www.google.com
Philippines gets $5.3 billion climate finance commitment from Canada
The Philippines and the United Nations Development Program have secured $5.3 billion in climate finance commitment from Canada, Malacañang said yesterday.
www.google.com
