Idiotic Environmental Predictions

[Bullseye]

“Globalist is used to promote the antisemitic conspiracy that Jewish people do not have allegiance to their countries of origin, like the United States, but to some worldwide order—like a global economy or international political system—that will enhance their control over the world’s banks, governments, and media.

Globalist was embedded in the core ideology of Nazism. Hitler often portrayed Jews as “international elements” who “conduct their business everywhere,” posing a threat to all people who are “bounded to their soil, to the Fatherland.”

Today, Globalist is a coded word for Jews who are seen as international elites conspiring to weaken or dismantle “Western” society using their international connections and control over big corporations (see New World Order)—all echoing the destructive theory that Jews hold greed and tribe above country.”

Globalist | #TranslateHate

Translate Hate was created by American Jewish Committee (AJC) to explain antisemitism. This glossary aims to improve media literacy on antisemitism and hate, especially in the digital realm. See when Globalist is antisemitic.

www.ajc.org

So says the American Jewish Committee.

Who ever THEY are.

 

[flogger]

It's very hard to make environmental predictions. Unfortunately, the global economy wants the opposite.

Thats because the empirical 'science' and observable real world data supporting such predictions is entirely missing all the rest is subjectively skewed guesswork based on politically 'engineered' shonky climate modelling

 

[watsup]

Thats because the empirical 'science' and observable real world data supporting such predictions is entirely missing all the rest is subjectively skewed guesswork based on politically 'engineered' shonky climate modelling

As usual, you haven’t a clue as to what you are talking about.

 

[ralfy]

Thats because the empirical 'science' and observable real world data supporting such predictions is entirely missing all the rest is subjectively skewed guesswork based on politically 'engineered' shonky climate modelling

We're looking at a biosphere that's not a lab, which means highly complex systems.

 

[longview]

We're looking at a biosphere that's not a lab, which means highly complex systems.

And within that biosphere, the predicted feedback factors cannot be observed.
Think of it this way, while you may know nothing about mechanical engineering,
if a car maker claims a new car will get 100 miles per gallon, going 60 miles per hour on level ground.
testing the car at 60 miles per hour on level ground, you only see 40 miles per gallon,
it is not difficult to see that their claim was inaccurate.
In AGW the claim is that a doubling of the CO2 level will produce 3C of warming in response to
the 2XCO2 input forcing warming of ~1.1C. This is a feedback factor of 2.72 sustained.
Yet within the 150 year temperature record, this level of feedback factor cannot be observed.

 

[Buzz]

And within that biosphere, the predicted feedback factors cannot be observed.
Think of it this way, while you may know nothing about mechanical engineering,
if a car maker claims a new car will get 100 miles per gallon, going 60 miles per hour on level ground.
testing the car at 60 miles per hour on level ground, you only see 40 miles per gallon,
it is not difficult to see that their claim was inaccurate.
In AGW the claim is that a doubling of the CO2 level will produce 3C of warming in response to
the 2XCO2 input forcing warming of ~1.1C. This is a feedback factor of 2.72 sustained.
Yet within the 150 year temperature record, this level of feedback factor cannot be observed.

Back to ignoring the cooling from aerosols again?



It's A good thing you are not an actual climate scientist... because you are really bad at science.

 

[longview]

Back to ignoring the cooling from aerosols again?



It's A good thing you are not an actual climate scientist... because you are really bad at science.

Buzz, you have to have imagined warming before you can have imagined cooling.
The aerosol cooling is something that has been receding since 1985.
If you think the aerosol cooling is a factor, then state how much aerosol cooling you think has happened
since 1990?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Back to ignoring the cooling from aerosols again?



It's A good thing you are not an actual climate scientist... because you are really bad at science.

Why are you still stuck on such silly notions? Some aerosols cool, some warm.

 

[Threegoofs]

Why are you still stuck on such silly notions? Some aerosols cool, some warm.

Buzz, you have to have imagined warming before you can have imagined cooling.
The aerosol cooling is something that has been receding since 1985.
If you think the aerosol cooling is a factor, then state how much aerosol cooling you think has happened
since 1990?

Jesus, people.

Is this an act, or do you literally not remember anything?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Jesus, people.

Is this an act, or do you literally not remember anything?

View attachment 67439701

I wonder if the day will ever come that you realize the way the IPCC misrepresents the science.

 

[Threegoofs]

I wonder if the day will ever come that you realize the way the IPCC misrepresents the science.

LOL.

The climate scientists around the world who study this for a living are pretty much fully on board with this representation. The people who collected snd published this data seem to have no problem with it, and you can’t cite any researcher who disagrees.

Meanwhile, you, with your utter absence of any credentials whstsoever, thinks you are representing the science faithfully.

What a joke.

 

[flogger]

We're looking at a biosphere that's not a lab, which means highly complex systems.

And we are as a consequence nowhere near fully understanding them in the here and now much less predicting what they will be like 100 years from now

 

[longview]

Jesus, people.

Is this an act, or do you literally not remember anything?

View attachment 67439701

Just for fun, let's see what the 2XCO2 sensitivity is for Lower, Medium, and High greenhouse gases sensitivity shown on the IPCC's graph.
The AGGI 1900 CO2-eq level was 315 ppm, and 2019 was 500 ppm, so the formulas would be,
1, 1.5, and 2/ln(500/315), each multiplied by the ln(2) =, 1.49C, 2.24C, and 2.99C respectively.
Basically the graph is simply a representation of the low end of the 1.5 to 4.5 C 2XCO2 range that has been around since 1979.
Without any other information it shows the IPCC is lowering their expectation of possible 2XCO2 warming.

 

[Threegoofs]

Just for fun, let's see what the 2XCO2 sensitivity is for Lower, Medium, and High greenhouse gases sensitivity shown on the IPCC's graph.
(mental masturbation deleted)
Without any other information it shows the IPCC is lowering their expectation of possible 2XCO2 warming.

You probably should get that ‘other information’.

But I’d have to feed it to you since you seem incapable of finding it in your own, and you’d forget it tomorrow.

 

[longview]

You probably should get that ‘other information’.

But I’d have to feed it to you since you seem incapable of finding it in your own, and you’d forget it tomorrow.

Why would it change the data the IPCC has published, you were the one who provided the graph,
I just used the existing formulas to show what the 1 to 2C for well mixed greenhouse gases meant.
If you think my numbers are incorrect, then please show us how?

 

[Threegoofs]

Why would it change the data the IPCC has published, you were the one who provided the graph,
I just used the existing formulas to show what the 1 to 2C for well mixed greenhouse gases meant.
If you think my numbers are incorrect, then please show us how?

It’s you who needs to figure out why your conclusions don’t match anyone elses

 

[Buzz]

Buzz, you have to have imagined warming before you can have imagined cooling.

Imagined? What are you talking about?

The aerosol cooling is something that has been receding since 1985.
If you think the aerosol cooling is a factor, then state how much aerosol cooling you think has happened
since 1990?

What good would that do when you were talking about the entire temperature record? Do you think moving the goalposts negates your obviously bogus and unscientific calculations?

When are you going to quit lying about and misleading people on the subject of AGW?

 

[Buzz]

Why are you still stuck on such silly notions? Some aerosols cool, some warm.

The vast majority of aerosols are cooling.

You would know this if you really read the literature as you claim.

I wonder if the day will ever come that you realize the way the IPCC misrepresents the science.

This is such BS! If you think the IPCC misrepresents the science, why don't you show us where they do this? Quote the part from the IPCC report that is wrong and the studies that back up what you say.

Hell... you can't even be bothered to read the latest IPCC report.

 

[longview]

Imagined? What are you talking about?

What good would that do when you were talking about the entire temperature record? Do you think moving the goalposts negates your obviously bogus and unscientific calculations?

When are you going to quit lying about and misleading people on the subject of AGW?

The observed warming is about 1C above the pre 1900 average.
The only way to claim the actual warming is 2C, is to imagine that two additional things happened.
One the warming is not really 1C but 2C, and Two the actual warming is being suppressed by aerosol cooling.
Because nether cannot actually be measured, they might as well be figments of someone's imagination.
The IPCC places aerosol cooling from 1850–1900 to 2010–2019 at between 0.0°C and 0.8°C, and observed warming
between 0.8°C to1.3°C. They also say, "It is likely that well-mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0°C to 2.0°C"
So Observed warming 0.8°C to1.3°C
Theorized warming 1.0°C to 2.0°C
Theorized aerosol cooling 0.0°C and 0.8°C

 

[Lord of Planar]

The vast majority of aerosols are cooling.

I'm pretty sure you are wrong on that account. Do you recent peer reviewed (not pal reviewed) resources saying that?

You would know this if you really read the literature as you claim.

Yes, I know your indoctrination has you believe that.

This is such BS! If you think the IPCC misrepresents the science, why don't you show us where they do this? Quote the part from the IPCC report that is wrong and the studies that back up what you say.

I have shown the facts several times.

Hell... you can't even be bothered to read the latest IPCC report.

Is it finalized yet, or still being revised? Last I looked, only two or three sections were finalized.

 

[Buzz]

The observed warming is about 1C above the pre 1900 average.
The only way to claim the actual warming is 2C, is to imagine that two additional things happened.
One the warming is not really 1C but 2C, and Two the actual warming is being suppressed by aerosol cooling.
Because nether cannot actually be measured, they might as well be figments of someone's imagination.
The IPCC places aerosol cooling from 1850–1900 to 2010–2019 at between 0.0°C and 0.8°C, and observed warming
between 0.8°C to1.3°C. They also say, "It is likely that well-mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0°C to 2.0°C"
So Observed warming 0.8°C to1.3°C
Theorized warming 1.0°C to 2.0°C
Theorized aerosol cooling 0.0°C and 0.8°C

Oh... so since aerosol cooling wasn't precisely measured it is just imaginary and theorized? How come you never mention that when you claim that the reduction of aerosols and its associated brightening has warmed the planet since about 1990?

It is because you have double standards and are intentionally misleading when debating AGW. You forget all about aerosols when it suits your argument but when you want to blame warming on something besides GHGs you will suddenly remember aerosols.

The fact of the matter is that you are just intellectually dishonest.

 

[Buzz]

I'm pretty sure you are wrong on that account. Do you recent peer reviewed (not pal reviewed) resources saying that?

I know you are wrong. Just look at 3G's graph from the IPCC. It clearly shows most aerosols are cooling.

Yes, I know your indoctrination has you believe that.

Well... I guess I am indoctrinated by science because I get it from the studies that you refuse to read.

I have shown the facts several times.

Really? Where did you do that? Other than you whining about Cook's attribution study, all I remember is your bad-mouthing blogs.

Is it finalized yet, or still being revised? Last I looked, only two or three sections were finalized.

What difference does it make? If you are going to constantly accuse the IPCC of misrepresenting the science then don't you think you should know what they are actually saying?

And here you are just admitting that you still haven't read AR6. And didn't you say around here somewhere that you had downloaded the latest report last September?



You are obviously too lazy to even read it.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I know you are wrong. Just look at 3G's graph from the IPCC. It clearly shows most aerosols are cooling.

Well... I guess I am indoctrinated by science because I get it from the studies that you refuse to read.

Really? Where did you do that? Other than you whining about Cook's attribution study, all I remember is your bad-mouthing blogs.

What difference does it make? If you are going to constantly accuse the IPCC of misrepresenting the science then don't you think you should know what they are actually saying?

And here you are just admitting that you still haven't read AR6. And didn't you say around here somewhere that you had downloaded the latest report last September?



You are obviously too lazy to even read it.

I'm sorry you forget, and/or deny evidence I presented before.

Does it give you jollies trying to make people waste their time?

 

[Buzz]

I'm sorry you forget, and/or deny evidence I presented before.

I remember what you do and don't do far better than you do. That is why I can often find and show examples when you almost never can.

Does it give you jollies trying to make people waste their time?

You are the one who has to be constantly reminded of your previous mistakes.

Remember?

You are the one making people waste time.

Still all talk and no proof.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I remember what you do and don't do far better than you do. That is why I can often find and show examples when you almost never can.

Bullshit.

You constantly use synonyms that don't apply to what I said in context. You also flat out lie about what I say.

You are the one who has to be constantly reminded of your previous mistakes.

Remember?

Why do you like rehashing old material? Stop wasting people's time. Like I said, you lie about what I say, and claim victory. If what you claim I said was fact, then some of those would be a win. But no, you lie about my words for the win.

That is pathetic.