Pessimistic about climate

[The Green Barbarian]

And like clockwork, of course we have the junk scientists somehow finding ways to blame the fake boogeyman of man-made climate change for the rain BC just received. Of course. Can't let anything bad go to waste.

Scientists say climate change is likely playing a role in this week's catastrophic flooding in British Columbia.

Highways are blocked and communities have been evacuated after bucketing rain caused mudslides in several parts of the province.

Francis Zwiers at the University of Victoria says it's too early to know the extent to which climate change contributed to the disasters.

But he says such events are being made more common and more intense as the climate warms.

A 2019 report from the B.C. government says the province was at medium risk from extreme rain, river flooding and landslides — all of which have occurred this week.

Science is getting better at figuring out what contributions climate change is making to extreme weather, concluding that last summer's record-breaking heat dome would have been impossible without climate change.

I did like the last sentence - "science is getting better at figuring out what contributions something that doesn't exist is making to "extreme weather". Yeah sure they are getting "better", all it takes is saying "MANMADE CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSED IT" and the gullible and the stupid just clap along like trained seals.

[crookedmember]

*removed*

[ferri]

Pessimistic about climate<---Topic

[Jlabute]

I guess it all depends on the cherry picked data......

The myth of no warming since 1998 was based on the satellite record estimates of the temperature of the atmosphere. However, as discussed in the video below by Peter Sinclair, even that argument is no longer accurate. The satellites show warming since 1998 too.

There's also a tendency for some people just to concentrate on atmospheric or surface air temperatures when there are other, more useful, indicators that can give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. More than 90% of global warming heat goes into warming the oceans, while less than 3% goes into increasing the atmospheric and surface air temperature. Records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there is no sign of it slowing any time soon.

Even if we focus exclusively on global surface temperatures, Cowtan & Way (2013) shows that when we account for temperatures across the entire globe (including the Arctic, which is the part of the planet warming fastest), the global surface warming trend for 1997–2015 is approximately 0.14°C per decade.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-war ... n-1998.htm

UAH6 is satellite data. No warming for 7 years. More accurate than ever modified GISS.

Some people think if we measure ocean heat content in Zetajoules we can scare and confuse the masses.

The first problem measuring ocean heat is that there are only a few thousand Argo Buoys with limited accurate/precision. Not enough to get an accurate world-wide ocean measurement just based on coverage.

Secondly, the buoys only descend to a modest depth. Most of the ocean is 5km deep, while the few buoys that exist only descend to only 2km. This means you're not measuring who heat content of the whole ocean.

Thirdly, zetajoules translate in to a very tiny temperature equivalent. This is extremely difficult to measure. "Since 2004 (to 2021), for instance, ARGO data shows an increase of about one hundredth of a degree."

Fourthly, 70% of the planet is Ocean and exposed to sunlight. Sunlight and clouds are the major contributor to ocean cooling or heating, not you. Also, specific areas of Ocean have most of the warming, it is not homogenous like CO2.

Fifthly, ocean temperatures have been rising since the early 1900's before CO2 was a problem, so how can the issue be CO2? Also from 1940 to 1980 ocean temperatures fell. From 1910 to 1940, ocean warming happened at the same rate as 1980 onward despite higher CO2 levels. Ocean temperatures affect atmospheric temperatures, and not vice versa. We can easily see this every time there is an El Nino or La Nina.

[The Green Barbarian]

Should we be surprised that Canada’s delegation to COP26 was the world’s largest?

Why is this stupidity not causing massive rage!? I don't get it!

[Catsumi]

^^^^ perhaps it’s because we have become accustomed to regular outrages committed by this child-run and evil government?

[crookedmember]

Yes. Let's talk about stupidity and fools who can't get anything right.

[Babba_not_Gump]

Yes. Let's talk about stupidity and fools who can't get anything right.

What's that graph all about? It appears to be somewhat lacking in information.
Are you referring to delegates who attended what?

How about this one. Canada is back, with Justin introducing himself to the world with 300 hangers-on in 2015.
just elected and already blowing millions, as well as spewing out millions of tons of carbon flying all his buddies to Paris.
Or did they take Greta's sailboat?
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/the-price ... -1.2686239
Canada has one of the largest teams at the Paris climate change conference, with more than 300 politicians, government staff and bureaucrats in attendance.

That’s more than double the U.S. team, which includes fewer than 150 officials, and about triple the U.K.’s team of about 100 attendees, according to United Nations figures.

Yes. Let's talk about stupidity and fools who can't get anything right.

[The Green Barbarian]

Yes. Let's talk about stupidity and fools who can't get anything right.

This is a thread about climate, not the Liberals and Justin Trudeau, so no, let's leave the foolish Justin who can't get anything right out of this thread.

[JLives]

Pessimistic about climate<---Topic

I'm pessimistic that people who aren't qualified to understand the science think they know better than those who have actually researched it. They have educations and actual labs. And review each other's findings. Not one person here is qualified to analyze this on that level. I'm pessimistic that the public thinks they can "do their own research" and qualify it as equal to those who actually KNOW what they're talking about.

[The Green Barbarian]

I'm pessimistic that people who aren't qualified to understand the science think they know better than those who have actually researched it. They have educations and actual labs. And review each other's findings. Not one person here is qualified to analyze this on that level. I'm pessimistic that the public thinks they can "do their own research" and qualify it as equal to those who actually KNOW what they're talking about.

And I'm pessimistic that those who claim to be qualified to research man-made climate change will ever have any of their predictions come true, ever. They've been consistently wrong for decades now. At some point, even the most gullible who want to believe in fairy tales will have to admit that the sky isn't falling, and that this whole unproven hypothesis was never the bogeyman many claimed it to be. But by now, so much money has changed hands and fallen into fat pockets of true shysters, that this scam has to continue to be perpetuated, and it will be, as it seems that there's a sucker born every minute.

[The Green Barbarian]

If people had simply believed the science years ago we might have solved this issue by now

Hard to solve a problem that doesn't exist. And given the amount of money involved continually being poured into this fraud, this will never be "solved".

Now, we can only mitigate the problem because we have to keep fighting misinformation and people digging in their heels proclaiming the issue to be a fairy tale.

Or another option - we focus on providing the hundreds of millions of people on this earth with food and potable water. Then we can worry about fairy tales.

[foenix]

I guess it all depends on the cherry picked data......

https://skepticalscience.com/global-war ... n-1998.htm

UAH6 is satellite data. No warming for 7 years. More accurate than ever modified GISS.

Here, this is all the time I got right now. Satellite temperature data isn't all it's cracked out to be. They don't even actually measure anything as it's all dependent on inferred algorithms, another words, higher form of guess work. That's why it's prone to different interpretation of it's data.

Satellites do not measure temperature directly. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, from which temperature may be inferred.[1][2] The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data have obtained different temperature data (see Microwave Sounding Unit temperature measurements). Among these groups are Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). The satellite series is not fully homogeneous - it is constructed from a series of satellites starting with the 1978 TIROS-N, where different satellites had similar but not identical instrumentation. The sensors deteriorate over time, and corrections are necessary for satellite drift and orbital decay. Particularly large differences between reconstructed temperature series occur at the few times when there is little temporal overlap between successive satellites, making intercalibration difficult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satel ... re_dataset

It's called cherry picking your data to find one that suits one's narrative.

[foenix]

I guess it all depends on the cherry picked data......



https://skepticalscience.com/global-war ... n-1998.htm

Fifthly, ocean temperatures have been rising since the early 1900's before CO2 was a problem, so how can the issue be CO2? Also from 1940 to 1980 ocean temperatures fell. From 1910 to 1940, ocean warming happened at the same rate as 1980 onward despite higher CO2 levels. Ocean temperatures affect atmospheric temperatures, and not vice versa. We can easily see this every time there is an El Nino or La Nina.

Wait......you spent the first four points writing about how inaccurate ocean temperatures are but here you are in the fifth point, using the same data to further the narrative......hmmmm.....doesn't do much for the cred, hey?

[Y-Wine]

Gullible Suckers. Guess they don't teach how the world was formed and the history of climate change like when I went to school back in the day. Just the left sided political opinion of the educated teachers of the world. The same people running to the store to buy 50 gallons of milk and 20 lbs of butter. Panic in the streets. I'll just sit back and watch the citidiot's perish in the first couple months of a real SHTF event.