Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2013 10:06:08 GMT -5
|
|
Fossilman
Cave Dweller
Member since January 2009
Posts: 20,694
|
Post by Fossilman on Sept 27, 2013 10:23:09 GMT -5
LMAO-Scientists are like political people to me....Most are full of crap and no brains.....(I said most,not all).. The Earth goes through cycles and we just happen to be living in one of her cycles thats changing the weather patterns and temperatures...... My opinion,its simple logic.....Thumbs up
|
|
robsrockshop
has rocks in the head
Member since August 2012
Posts: 715
|
Post by robsrockshop on Sept 27, 2013 10:27:15 GMT -5
"UN" sponsored panel. That says it all.
|
|
|
Post by Rockoonz on Sept 27, 2013 10:48:40 GMT -5
"In the end, the IPCC made only a brief mention of the issue in the summary for policymakers, stressing that short-term records are sensitive to natural variability and don't in general reflect long-term trends.
"An old rule says that climate-relevant trends should not be calculated for periods less than around 30 years," said Thomas Stocker, co-chair of the group that wrote the report.
So on a planet that is how many years old 10 years is short term and 30 years is long term. Sounds like someone has been busy pulling "science" out from their anal orifice.
Lee
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Sept 27, 2013 11:39:24 GMT -5
SIMON KENT | QMI AGENCY
Never prophesy about anything that can be tested in your own lifetime. It's a rule of life that should be heeded by religious fanatics, cultists and scientists everywhere.
These days it does seem hard to separate the three but that shouldn't be allowed to dilute the essential message.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would be wise to heed it after the release Friday of sections from its much-anticipated latest report.
The scientific panel says it's "extremely likely" that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming.
It says the evidence has grown thanks to more observations, a better understanding of the climate system and improved models (its own) to analyze the impact of rising temperatures.
A few words of caution here.
Keep in mind these are the same people who could not tell you what the weather will be like tomorrow or next week yet they have predicted what the earth will be experiencing for the remainder of the century.
The IPCC says a human footprint can be found in the warming of the atmosphere and oceans, in rising sea levels, melting snow and ice and variations in some climate extremes.
The panel predicts temperatures would rise by 0.3C to 4.8C this century.
It also projected sea levels would rise by between 26 cm and 82 cm by 2100, according to a summary of the first volume in a long-awaited review.
If that's not enough to give you an attack of the vapours, there's more.
According to this Nobel Prize-winning entity (who knew an entity rather than a person could claim a prize?) the IPCC says it was "extremely likely," a term meaning it was 95% convinced, that humans caused more than half of the warming observed over the past 60 years.
That is just plain sloppy work by the IPCC. "Extremely likely" is not proof and not unequivocal.
It's also not an objective measure of likelihood. In statistics, which much of the report is based on, a 95% likelihood is enough to declare a possible link and nothing more.
That's 5% chance that there is no link and who knows how much of that 95% is actually bias or methodological error.
The full report won't be released until Monday so until then we are left with the Summary for Policy Makers.
Two excerpts show that while there have been the slightest of changes to the temperature of the earth's atmosphere, they are within the plus or minus margin of error accepted in any scientific analysis.
After all, no measure is perfect. Nor is it absolute. It's just somebody's educated guess.
So the IPCC says we've seen about 0.85C (how did they measure that?) of warming over the past 130 years: "The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85C (0.65C to 1.06C), over the period 1880-2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist. The total increase between the average of the 1850-1900 period and the 2003-2012 period is 0.78C (0.72C to 0.85C), based on the single longest dataset available..."
Had you noticed? No, neither had I.
Seems that warming slowed dramatically over the past 15 years - to just 0.05C a decade, or virtually zero. Again it is impossible to tell with any scientific accuracy because that tiny figure falls well within the study's margin of error:
"Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998-2012); 0.05C [-0.05C to +0.15C] per decade), which begins with a strong El Nino, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951-2012; 0.12C [0.08C to 0.14C] per decade)..."
All of that is linked by the IPCC to man-made carbon dioxide emissions, yet global warming and global cooling - often more rapid and substantial than our recent modest fluctuations - occurred many times before humans began living in big cities, driving SUVs and utilizing coal-fired power plants.
This counters the assertion that carbon dioxide emissions from humans alone can drive the climate, although we knew that already.
In the 1970s there were scientists who made unchallenged assertions that the Earth was heading for a different climate catastrophe - a new ice age - due to human activity on the planet.
A famous Newsweek article set out the argument and concluded by criticizing government leaders on the matter, calling for urgent action to combat global freezing.
"The longer the planners (politicians) delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."
Sounds pretty familiar, doesn't it.
The article also emphasized sensational and largely unsourced consequences - "resulting famines could be catastrophic", "drought and desolation", "the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded", "droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons", "impossible for starving peoples to migrate", "the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age."
None of it happened and it seems many scientists have learned nothing since.
Which is where we came in.
Never prophesy about anything that can be tested in your own lifetime.
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Sept 27, 2013 11:55:11 GMT -5
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Sept 27, 2013 11:56:04 GMT -5
"In the end, the IPCC made only a brief mention of the issue in the summary for policymakers, stressing that short-term records are sensitive to natural variability and don't in general reflect long-term trends. "An old rule says that climate-relevant trends should not be calculated for periods less than around 30 years," said Thomas Stocker, co-chair of the group that wrote the report.
So on a planet that is how many years old 10 years is short term and 30 years is long term. Sounds like someone has been busy pulling "science" out from their anal orifice. Lee
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Sept 27, 2013 12:04:40 GMT -5
From Thursday's Daily Telegraph blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100238047/global-warming-believers-are-feeling-the-heat/"On Friday the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change delivers its latest verdict on the state of man-made global warming. Though the details are a secret, one thing is clear: the version of events you will see and hear in much of the media, especially from partis pris organisations like the BBC, will be the opposite of what the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report actually says." "Already we have had a taste of the nonsense to come: a pre-announcement to the effect that “climate scientists” are now “95 per cent certain” that humans are to blame for climate change; an evidence-free declaration by the economist who wrote the discredited Stern Report that the computer models cited by the IPCC “substantially underestimate” the scale of the problem; a statement by the panel’s chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, that “the scientific evidence of… climate change has strengthened year after year”. As an exercise in bravura spin, these claims are up there with Churchill’s attempts to reinvent the British Expeditionary Force’s humiliating retreat from Dunkirk as a victory. In truth, though, the new report offers scant consolation to those many alarmists whose careers depend on talking up the threat. It says not that they are winning the war to persuade the world of the case for catastrophic anthropogenic climate change – but that the battle is all but lost. At the heart of the problem lie the computer models which, for 25 years, have formed the basis for the IPCC’s scaremongering: they predicted runaway global warming, when the real rise in temperatures has been much more modest. So modest, indeed, that it has fallen outside the lowest parameters of the IPCC’s prediction range. The computer models, in short, are bunk. To a few distinguished scientists, this will hardly come as news. For years they have insisted that “sensitivity” – the degree to which the climate responds to increases in atmospheric CO₂ – is far lower than the computer models imagined. In the past, their voices have been suppressed by the bluster and skulduggery we saw exposed in the Climategate emails. From grant-hungry science institutions and environmentalist pressure groups to carbon traders, EU commissars, and big businesses with their snouts in the subsidies trough, many vested interests have much to lose should the global warming gravy train be derailed. This is why the latest Assessment Report is proving such a headache to the IPCC. It’s the first in its history to admit what its critics have said for years: global warming did “pause” unexpectedly in 1998 and shows no sign of resuming. And, other than an ad hoc new theory about the missing heat having been absorbed by the deep ocean, it cannot come up with a convincing explanation why. Coming from a sceptical blog none of this would be surprising. But from the IPCC, it’s dynamite: the equivalent of the Soviet politburo announcing that command economies may not after all be the most efficient way of allocating resources. Which leaves the IPCC in a dilemma: does it ’fess up and effectively put itself out of business? Or does it brazen it out for a few more years, in the hope that a compliant media and an eco-brainwashed populace will be too stupid to notice? So far, it looks as if it prefers the second option – a high-risk strategy. Gone are the days when all anybody read of its Assessment Reports were the sexed-up “Summary for Policymakers”. Today, thanks to the internet, sceptical inquirers such as Donna Laframboise (who revealed that some 40 per cent of the IPCC’s papers came not from peer-reviewed journals but from Greenpeace and WWF propaganda) will be going through every chapter with a fine toothcomb. Al Gore’s “consensus” is about to be holed below the water-line – and those still aboard the SS Global Warming are adjusting their positions. Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”. Others, such as the EU’s Climate Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, steam on oblivious. Interviewed last week by the Telegraph’s Bruno Waterfield, she said: “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said: 'We were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of the things you have to do in order to combat climate change?” If she means needlessly driving up energy prices, carpeting the countryside with wind turbines and terrifying children about a problem that turns out to have been imaginary, then most of us would probably answer “No”.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2013 12:04:56 GMT -5
I want to make it perfectly clear that "this should get ya'll buzzing" does not mean that I agree with them. I am not a scientist and I do not have a clue except for the fact that it is getting colder and I am not ready to head south. waa waa waa Jim
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Sept 27, 2013 12:13:12 GMT -5
I want to make it perfectly clear that "this should get ya'll buzzing" does not mean that I agree with them. I am not a scientist and I do not have a clue except for the fact that it is getting colder and I am not ready to head south. waa waa waa Jim Your right Jim it is getting colder. My tomato's and ruebarb bit the dust last night. First frost was 2 weeks early this year. 30F this morning.
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Sept 27, 2013 12:46:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on Sept 27, 2013 12:57:27 GMT -5
I want to make it perfectly clear that "this should get ya'll buzzing" does not mean that I agree with them. I am not a scientist and I do not have a clue except for the fact that it is getting colder and I am not ready to head south. waa waa waa Jim Your right Jim it is getting colder. My tomato's and ruebarb bit the dust last night. First frost was 2 weeks early this year. 30F this morning. Yup, sure is getting colder. The Black Hills and areas around Rapid City got a dusting of snow last night. 2 Weeks earlier than last year, and 5 weeks earlier than 2012. Could it be that Al Bore got it backwards ? That it's actually the beginning of the next ice age ? Only gonna hit 61 here today. According to the global warming freaks, we should be in the high 70's to mid 80's today. Oh ya, we had our first killing frost 1-1/2 weeks ago.
|
|
|
Post by Rockoonz on Sept 28, 2013 0:38:01 GMT -5
Coolest summer in the NW in years. West side of Oregon and Washington never even hit 100 degrees. Ended early too, my Serrano and Anaheim peppers will have to come in tomorrow.
|
|