It is currently December 6th, 2019, 9:03 pm

All times are UTC-08:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 4 Next
Author Message
Unread postPosted: December 10th, 2018, 3:30 pm 
User avatar

Joined: April 1st, 2016, 6:51 pm
Posts: 8638
How much does anyone want to bet her research won't appear on the IPCC next doomsday report.

Quote:
Scientist Judith Curry says alarming sea level rise projections are “very weakly justified to borderline impossible.”
Curry’s new research found current sea level rise is within natural variability, despite some acceleration.
“Climate variability and change is a lot more complex than ‘CO2 as control knob,'” Curry said.
When it comes to alarming projections of global warming-induced sea level rise, veteran climate scientist Judith Curry says people need to cool it.

“Projections of extreme, alarming impacts are very weakly justified to borderline impossible,” Curry told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Curry’s latest research, put together for clients of her consulting company near the end of November, looks in detail at projections of sea level rise. Curry’s ultimate conclusion: “Some of the worst-case scenarios strain credulity.”

“With regards to 21st century climate projections, we are dealing with deep uncertainty, and we should not be basing our policies based on the assumption that the climate will actually evolve as per predicted,” Curry told TheDCNF.

“Climate variability and change is a lot more complex than ‘CO2 as control knob’,” Curry said. “No one wants to hear this, or actually spend time understanding things,” Curry said.

Current sea level rise is well-within natural variability of the past few thousand years, according to Curry. Curry said coastal communities should base their future flood plans on likely scenarios, such as one to two feet, rather than high-end scenarios.

“There is not yet any convincing evidence of a human fingerprint on global sea level rise, because of the large changes driven by natural variability,” Curry wrote. “An increase in the rate of global sea level rise since 1995 is being caused by ice loss from Greenland.”

However, the “Greenlandic ice loss was larger during the 1930s, which was also associated with the warm phase of the Atlantic Ocean circulation pattern,” Curry wrote.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/09/scie ... dium=email

_________________
“No issue better illustrates the divide between America’s working class and America’s political class than illegal immigration- Donald J. Trump.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: December 10th, 2018, 4:15 pm 
User avatar

Joined: April 24th, 2015, 7:57 pm
Posts: 24637
She was on TV here. Seemed very knowledgeable and convincing.

This is the problem with so-called "settled" climate science. Her comments seem to clearly imply that man made climate change science is far from settled.

So who are we to believe, when these boffins can't get their stories straight?

_________________
Just because I don't agree with you, it does not mean I hate you


Top
   
Unread postPosted: December 10th, 2018, 4:23 pm 

Joined: October 4th, 2012, 10:25 pm
Posts: 41381
Bricktop wrote:
She was on TV here. Seemed very knowledgeable and convincing.

This is the problem with so-called "settled" climate science. Her comments seem to clearly imply that man made climate change science is far from settled.

So who are we to believe, when these boffins can't get their stories straight?

The most extreme doomsday prophets say they are the ones we should believe.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: December 10th, 2018, 7:16 pm 
User avatar

Joined: November 15th, 2018, 11:04 am
Posts: 2104
Bricktop wrote:
She was on TV here. Seemed very knowledgeable and convincing.

This is the problem with so-called "settled" climate science. Her comments seem to clearly imply that man made climate change science is far from settled.

So who are we to believe, when these boffins can't get their stories straight?

I assume she is an outcast among the IPCC.

_________________
The Russian Rock It


Top
   
Unread postPosted: December 10th, 2018, 7:49 pm 
User avatar

Joined: April 24th, 2015, 7:57 pm
Posts: 24637
She did not seem to give a levitating copulation...

_________________
Just because I don't agree with you, it does not mean I hate you


Top
   
Unread postPosted: December 10th, 2018, 8:53 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 3rd, 2012, 8:12 pm
Posts: 20916
Bricktop wrote:
She did not seem to give a levitating copulation...

Good for her.

_________________
The Iron Chink!!


Top
   
Unread postPosted: December 10th, 2018, 9:32 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 16257
Quote:
‘CO2 as control knob’

That's what alarmists want us to believe.

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: December 16th, 2018, 9:48 am 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 12666
If countries were serious about climate change, they would ban these massive carbon footprint photo ops.

UN’s climate circus lumbers on

The United Nations’ annual climate conferences, like the latest in Katowice, Poland — attended by thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, diplomats, scientists, special interest groups and media — are a circus and a fraud.

From the first climate summit in Rio in 1992, followed by 24 annual UN “Conferences of the Parties” (COPs) to date, beginning in Berlin in 1995, the script is always the same.

Each year in November or December, thousands of the usual suspects, many on the public’s dime, fly in to that year’s favourite UN tourist destination — previous conference sites include Paris, Copenhagen, Buenos Aires, Bali, Cancun, Marrakech, Geneva, Lima, Milan, New Delhi and Montreal.

Once there, they collectively consume enough fossil fuel energy to choke a horse for the better part of two weeks.


While doing so, they piously lecture everyone else about wastefully consuming fossil fuel energy — which is what they’ve just done because apparently no one at the UN has heard of video-conferencing.

Then comes the annual parade of climate scientists warning we’re facing imminent catastrophe.

Followed by the mandatory flailing of the developed world for not shipping enough money to the developing world to fight climate change, while environmentalists of all ages mug for the cameras.

In years where a UN climate accord is being negotiated or an important (albeit artificial) deadline has been reached, there are breathless media reports that the countries are far apart in negotiations, followed by a miraculous, eleventh-hour agreement — typically after the conference’s official close — that can “save the planet”, although much more needs to be done.

Then they all go home and start preparing for next year.

Next year’s COP 25 (in UN lingo), was supposed to be in Brazil, but since its new president isn’t a fan of the Paris accord, it’s been shifted to Chile with an assist from Costa Rica.

COP 26 will be in the UK or Italy. Both are bidding since it will be the most significant meeting since Paris in 2015, because 2020 is the deadline for countries to increase their (non-binding) commitments to cut emissions by 2030.

So why is it all a fraud?

Because the best way to assess the sincerity of politicians is not by what they say but by what they do.

And after a quarter-century of these annual UN circuses, global emissions last year reached a record high of 32.5 gigatonnes (32.5 billion tonnes), with another record expected for 2018.


Global emissions went up 1.4% last year after three years of stable emissions, dashing hopes emissions had peaked.

In fact, as Barry Saxifrage, who has analyzed the numbers going back to the 1992 Rio Summit, wrote in the National Observer last week, “despite decades of global promises and negotiations, CO2 (carbon dioxide) levels have not stabilized. Not only are emissions still rising, they are actually accelerating upwards.”

Last year, two-thirds of the global increase came from Asia. In China, the world’s largest emitter, they jumped 1.7%.

Ironically, emissions in the U.S., where President Donald Trump announced he was pulling out of the Paris accord last year, were down 2.7%, primarily by replacing coal-fired electricity with lower-emitting natural gas, and the growth of renewables.

Canada’s emissions dropped 1.4% in 2016, the last year for which Canadian figures are available.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau insisted last week that through his national carbon tax/price and other initiatives, Canada is on track to meet the emission cuts he agreed to in the 2015 Paris accord, which used to be Stephen Harper’s targets.

No one who understands the numbers, including the UN, believes this, with the apparent exception of Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, who was in Katowice and whose public statements are increasingly divorced from reality.

Ditto claims by Conservative leader Andrew Scheer that his yet-to-be-unveiled climate plan will hit Canada’s Paris targets, without a national carbon tax/price.

If Canada was serious about that, Trudeau’s carbon price would already be five to 10 times higher than the $20 per tonne of emissions he’s set for 2019, rising to $50 per tonne in 2022.

But even if Canada miraculously hit its Paris target, which the UN says is already obsolete and insufficient, it would be insignificant because we account for only 1.6% of global emissions and globally emissions are rising.

What Trudeau’s national carbon price/tax really is, is a sin tax on energy — like paying for the papal indulgences of old.

It won’t fix anything, but it’s supposed to make us feel better about ourselves.

Until the next UN climate circus lands in Chile in Nov. 2019.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnis ... lumbers-on

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: December 16th, 2018, 2:03 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 16257
Is everybody blind. Don't these alarmists see the hypocrisy in pumping a shitload of C02 into the atmosphere fo these international gatherings.

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: December 16th, 2018, 2:28 pm 
User avatar

Joined: April 24th, 2015, 7:57 pm
Posts: 24637
It makes them feel good about themselves, and lines their pockets at the same time.

_________________
Just because I don't agree with you, it does not mean I hate you


Top
   
Unread postPosted: December 16th, 2018, 2:30 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 16257
Bricktop wrote:
It makes them feel good about themselves, and lines their pockets at the same time.

And pumps a hell of a lot of C02 into the atmosphere.

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: December 16th, 2018, 5:46 pm 
User avatar

Joined: April 1st, 2016, 6:51 pm
Posts: 8638
I read Whistler, BC, a playground for the rich and famous had the nerve to ask oil and gas workers to subsidize their massive carbon footprint.

Rich people play and working people pay.

_________________
“No issue better illustrates the divide between America’s working class and America’s political class than illegal immigration- Donald J. Trump.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: December 16th, 2018, 5:57 pm 
User avatar

Joined: April 24th, 2015, 7:57 pm
Posts: 24637
T'was ever thus...

_________________
Just because I don't agree with you, it does not mean I hate you


Top
   
Unread postPosted: December 16th, 2018, 8:29 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 16257
iron horse jockey wrote:
I read Whistler, BC, a playground for the rich and famous had the nerve to ask oil and gas workers to subsidize their massive carbon footprint.

Rich people play and working people pay.

That was pretty rich wasn't it. Whistler exists to feed the carbon intensive appetites of the affluent. They want working people with smaller carbon footprints to pay for their forest fire response.

Makes me frickin sick.

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: December 16th, 2018, 8:35 pm 

Joined: October 4th, 2012, 10:25 pm
Posts: 41381
iron horse jockey wrote:
I read Whistler, BC, a playground for the rich and famous had the nerve to ask oil and gas workers to subsidize their massive carbon footprint.

Rich people play and working people pay.

:sad:


Top
   
Unread postPosted: December 16th, 2018, 9:32 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 23rd, 2015, 9:41 am
Posts: 6138
I find those who've studied the sun's min and max cycles to be more credible than the CO2 gang. They've been able to show historical cooling and warming trends on Earth according to what the sun is doing. At the moment they're predicting a sharp decline towards cooling as part of a solar minimum and are investigating whether it could be a grand solar minimum due to centuries old cycles which vexed civilizations in past instances.

_________________
Four smore and seven beers ago.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: December 16th, 2018, 9:37 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 16257
Winter is Coming – Super Grand Solar Minimum

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/11/w ... nimum.html
Professor Valentina Zharkova gave a presentation of her Climate and the Solar Magnetic Field hypothesis at the Global Warming Policy Foundation in October, 2018.

Zharkova models solar sunspot and magnetic activity. Her models have run at a 93% accuracy and her findings suggest a Super Grand Solar Minimum could begin in 2020.

A Super Grand Solar Minimum would have four magnetic fields out of phase. There was about 40-60 years of cold weather 350 years ago. This was a Maunder Minimum of lower solar activity. The historical cold weather had two magnetic fields out of phase.

Zharkova is predicting a cooling effect that is 2.5 to 4 times larger than the Maunder minimum. Zharkova’s analysis shows an 8 watts per square meter decrease in TSI (Total Solar Irradiance). A 2015 Nature study looked at 2 watts per square meter decrease causing a 0.13-degree celsius effect. A four times larger effect would be 0.5-degree celsius.

Zharkova believes the warming models are including the warming effect of increased solar activity. If she is correct there would be cooling and the warming models would be wrong.

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: December 17th, 2018, 8:40 am 

Joined: October 4th, 2012, 10:25 pm
Posts: 41381
Dinky Dianna wrote:
I find those who've studied the sun's min and max cycles to be more credible than the CO2 gang. They've been able to show historical cooling and warming trends on Earth according to what the sun is doing. At the moment they're predicting a sharp decline towards cooling as part of a solar minimum and are investigating whether it could be a grand solar minimum due to centuries old cycles which vexed civilizations in past instances.

I don't know DD, I haven't looked at it..

I'm tired of my family being forced against our will to subsidize others(through carbon pricing) who are much better off financially than we are.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: December 17th, 2018, 10:39 am 
User avatar

Joined: January 25th, 2013, 4:29 pm
Posts: 11253
I think eating beef is an environmental act..


Cows dont need their fodder to be as processed as humans do..


I´m thinking, to feed us humans, we are gonna need a lot more field space than we have now..


A lot more rainforests cut down for more fertile soil to be used as crop fields.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: December 17th, 2018, 11:38 am 

Joined: October 4th, 2012, 10:25 pm
Posts: 41381
Odinson wrote:
I think eating beef is an environmental act..


Cows dont need their fodder to be as processed as humans do..


I´m thinking, to feed us humans, we are gonna need a lot more field space than we have now..


A lot more rainforests cut down for more fertile soil to be used as crop fields.

Which absorb C02, which leads to more CO2 in the atmosphere instead of being plant food..

I'm not opposed to the science of GMO crops if it means more food being produced on shrinking amounts of land..

That could be the biggest challenge the world faces.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 4 Next

All times are UTC-08:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 282 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
phpBB SEO
[ GZIP: On ]