more ice in Antarctica

[Subduction Zone]

Nope climate models have been wrong too often to be an accurate predictor about what is going to happen.

CNN Says Climate Models Are Flawed | Real Climate Science

Climate scientists admit their models are wrong | Principia Scientific Intl.

Science magazine blows the whistle on climate model failure

Then find a valid source that says that. You are using unreliable websites. Did you forget what was needed for a reliable source already?

 

[rjs330]

And I've got more.

Global Warming: New Study Says Models Exaggerate Warming By Up To 45%

According to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there has been no systematic increase in the frequency of extreme weather events, and the ongoing rise in sea level that began with the end of the ice age continues with no great increase in magnitude.

The constancy of land-based records is obvious in data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

New Climate Models: Even More Wrong

 

[Pommer]

Nope climate models have been wrong too often to be an accurate predictor about what is going to happen.

CNN Says Climate Models Are Flawed | Real Climate Science

Climate scientists admit their models are wrong | Principia Scientific Intl.

Science magazine blows the whistle on climate model failure

Am I correct in assuming that your position on climate models is that if the model isn’t 100%, absolutely correct in its prediction, it is “wrong”?

 

[rjs330]

Oh and here's more.

Study Proves IPCC Climate Models Wrong

What is happening is evidence that we can't trust the science when they are trying to predict the future and catastrophic change that we can do something about.

1. They can't be trusted to accurately predict the change.

2. We can't trust those that say the change is catastrophic

3. We can't trust those who say we can alter any change that takes place and we must make radical changes now to do so.

The climate is going to do what the climate is going to do. The earth will go on, we will go on and we will be just fine. We don't need a radical change and we don't have to make radical alterations by 2030.or it's too late. Or whatever the silly date is now.

Relax, let's take our time. Let's do things right to keep our planet clean, but let's not get carried away by some nonsensical crisis.

I'm bored now by.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And I've got more.

Global Warming: New Study Says Models Exaggerate Warming By Up To 45%

According to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there has been no systematic increase in the frequency of extreme weather events, and the ongoing rise in sea level that began with the end of the ice age continues with no great increase in magnitude.

The constancy of land-based records is obvious in data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

New Climate Models: Even More Wrong

You still cannot seem to find a reliable source. When one wants to claim to do research one must begin by knowing how to find reliable sources. Number one is one cannot use sources that have already decided which way they are going to go. One need claims based upon peer reviewed science. Not distortions of scientific reports.

Some of the models of the IPCC are "worst case scenarios". They know that those are unlikely to occur, but to give the full story one must consider all possibilities. Pointing out that a worst case scenario did not come true is not refuting AGW.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh and here's more.

Study Proves IPCC Climate Models Wrong

What is happening is evidence that we can't trust the science when they are trying to predict the future and catastrophic change that we can do something about.

1. They can't be trusted to accurately predict the change.

2. We can't trust those that say the change is catastrophic

3. We can't trust those who say we can alter any change that takes place and we must make radical changes now to do so.

The climate is going to do what the climate is going to do. The earth will go on, we will go on and we will be just fine. We don't need a radical change and we don't have to make radical alterations by 2030.or it's too late. Or whatever the silly date is now.

Relax, let's take our time. Let's do things right to keep our planet clean, but let's not get carried away by some nonsensical crisis.

I'm bored now by.

I am bored too. All you can do is to quote sites that are not reliable.

Please see if you can find some actual evidence that supports your claims. Just like your mask argument where you did not use proper sources, for example most of them were for diseases that were not Covdi19 your papers here fail because they are from biased sites.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One of the articles claimed a "20 year pause" in AGW. I do not see it in this graph:

 

[Thera]

more ice in Antarctica







is melting faster than ever


say Scientists




World’s Ice Is Melting Faster Than Ever, Scientists Say.

Ice is melting across the globe at a faster rate than before - CBBC Newsround

World’s Ice Is Melting 65 Percent Faster Than in 1990s


more ice in Greenland

is melting faster than at any time in past 12,000 years

Greenland's ice melting faster than at any time in past 12,000 years

more ice in Alaskan glaciers

melting 100 times faster than previously thought

Alaskan glaciers melting 100 times faster than previously thought









shouldn't we drain the oceans now?

by 1 centimeters per year

using solar powered desalination of seawater

then use solar power to pump

the freshwater in land where it is needed?

because 97 percent of the worlds water is salty ocean

water and not suitable for drinking.

ocean water volume is roughly 326 million cubic miles

(1.332 billion cubic kilometers),

according to a recent study from

the U.S. Geological Survey.

71 percent of Earth is covered in salty water.





2 billion people lack safe drinking water at home, more than twice as many lack safe sanitation

2 billion people lack safe drinking water at home



money

2 billion potential customers just waiting for us to supply them clean water

even if we charge $1 per year that would be $2 billion per year

if we charge $10 per year that would be $20 billion per year

if we charge $1 per week that would be $100 billion per year

$ 6 trillion



salt

we have to mine for a quarter of a billion tons of salt each year that we currently use.






pipeline

The world's longest pipeline is 2353 miles.

the Interprovincial Pipe Line Inc. installation,

which spans the North American continent from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada through Chicago to Montreal:

a distance of 3787km.





solar power

Approximately 12000 TW (terrawatts) of energy

reaches the Earth from the Sun.

That is 1200000000000000 joules per minute

More energy reaches the earth from the sun in one day

than the whole world uses in one year.

Solar is now cheapest electricity in history says IEA




water storage

water can be stored under the land in vast aquifers as deep as 30,000 feet and as wide 174,000 square-mile .

What is Groundwater? | Live Science

aquifers underground can hold volume of water 100 times greater then amount that can be held on the surface of the land.

the aquifers underneath the deserts were last filled with water over 5,000 years ago.









Deserts

Seen from space, the majority of the Earth's surface is covered by

oceans – that makes up 71% of the surface of the Earth,

with the remaining 29% for land.

what percentage of the Earth's land surface is desert?

Deserts actually make up 33%



Planting Trillions of Trees will Cancel Out Decades of CO2 Emission say Scientists

president says "we will plant Trillions of Trees now" because




fertilizer

human produce 200 million tons of sewage every year

we could make this in to fertilizer and use it to turn the deserts

in to rich agricultural land and wildlife habitats

You're thinking like a scientist. The Earth isn't nearly overpopulated. It's just grossly mismanaged. Manage it properly, and people will find God provides bountifully for all - the righteous and the unrighteous.

 

[rambot]

Nope climate models have been wrong too often to be an accurate predictor about what is going to happen.

CNN Says Climate Models Are Flawed | Real Climate Science

Climate scientists admit their models are wrong | Principia Scientific Intl.

Science magazine blows the whistle on climate model failure

Before I take the time to read these articles, I just want to double check that YOU read the articles and not just the headlines and you thought that these were good, solid examples of how ALL climate modelling can now be thrown away.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're thinking like a scientist. The Earth isn't nearly overpopulated. It's just grossly mismanaged. Manage it properly, and people will find God provides bountifully for all - the righteous and the unrighteous.

Do not conflate existing space with a lack of being over populated. Tell me, what percentage of the Earth's land vertebrates should be man, by mass only? Is there a limit?

 

[Ophiolite]

You do know there are a lot of scientists who believe the same thing.

The proportion of scientists with the relevant qualifications to assess the data is so small as to be irrelevant. This is not a popularity contest. This is about a consensus arrived at by experts, not opinionated amateurs.
Consider this - the solutions to global warming, even if global warming were to turn out to false, are solutions that improve the state of the planet and the quality of life. Pursuing these solutions has no significant downsides.
In contrast, ignoring the solutions has downsides, even if global warming is false, and disastrous downsides, if it is true.
Given these facts, your position is both ill-informed and socially irresponsible. The damage caused by that stand point will result in death and destruction of property. That is unacceptable behaviour in a civilised society.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The proportion of scientists with the relevant qualifications to assess the data is so small as to be irrelevant. This is not a popularity contest. This is about a consensus arrived at by experts, not opinionated amateurs.
Consider this - the solutions to global warming, even if global warming were to turn out to false, are solutions that improve the state of the planet and the quality of life. Pursuing these solutions has no significant downsides.
In contrast, ignoring the solutions has downsides, even if global warming is false, and disastrous downsides, if it is true.
Given these facts, your position is both ill-informed and socially irresponsible. The damage caused by that stand point will result in death and destruction of property. That is unacceptable behaviour in a civilised society.

I don't know about that. I always found mountains unsightly:

Ahhh. Much better.

 

[Gene2memE]

And I've got more.

Global Warming: New Study Says Models Exaggerate Warming By Up To 45%

Curry and Lewis got this one wrong - I suspect deliberately so, given their histories*. Subsequent critiques showed they overemphasized climate model estimates generated from uncertain historical datasets about radiative forcing, opted for single datasets with lower degrees of sensitivity/higher variability (rather than using multiple datasets) and using cherry picked short time windows (producing larger swings in climate models/greater variability).

Multiple papers addressed their 'transient climate response' (TCR) estimates. This paper suggests TCR estimates for CIMP5 are probably about 13% too low. This paper shows the Curry & Lewis cherry picking pretty well.

As a bit of a mea culpa, Curry & Lewis' revised 2020 paper cuts their TCR estimates for climate models by better than half.

Climate models have gotten more accurate - but they're not prefect yet (as there's still lots of uncertainties). Generally speaking, they have underestimated warming, rather than overestimated warming.

This ongoing blog from a climate science professor (last updated May 2021) shows that 2016-2020 warming "falls in the warmer half of the ‘likely’ range" for the CIMP-5 mean of climate projections".

This analysis from another climate science professor found that the CIMP-5 mean of climate projections underestimated total land/sea warming by 9% compared to observations.

The ICCP's AR5 assessment found that warming in the 1998 to 2012 period was above the mean of 111 out of 114 forecasts, and for the previous 15 year period it was above the mean in 93 out of 114 forecasts.

We'll have to see about CIMP-6 when it comes out. There have been some studies that suggest that it may be biased a little high compared to CIMP-5 (by about +16%) due to the inclusion of models with higher TCR ranges.



*Nicholas Lewis is pretty infamous for this sort of thing - basically his whole shtick for the last decade or more is to claim that climate models are wrong because of some under/over estimation in historical data, and that positive system feedbacks don't matter. That said, he is a good mathematician - and there's an irony here that he's gotten other authors to retract/revise warming estimates due to basing them on uncertain historical datasets.

 

[rambot]

Curry and Lewis got this one wrong - I suspect deliberately so, given their histories*. Subsequent critiques showed they overemphasized climate model estimates generated from uncertain historical datasets about radiative forcing, opted for single datasets with lower degrees of sensitivity/higher variability (rather than using multiple datasets) and using cherry picked short time windows (producing larger swings in climate models/greater variability).

Multiple papers addressed their 'transient climate response' (TCR) estimates. This paper suggests TCR estimates for CIMP5 are probably about 13% too low. This paper shows the Curry & Lewis cherry picking pretty well.

As a bit of a mea culpa, Curry & Lewis' revised 2020 paper cuts their TCR estimates for climate models by better than half.

Climate models have gotten more accurate - but they're not prefect yet (as there's still lots of uncertainties). Generally speaking, they have underestimated warming, rather than overestimated warming.

This ongoing blog from a climate science professor (last updated May 2021) shows that 2016-2020 warming "falls in the warmer half of the ‘likely’ range" for the CIMP-5 mean of climate projections".

This analysis from another climate science professor found that the CIMP-5 mean of climate projections underestimated total land/sea warming by 9% compared to observations.

The ICCP's AR5 assessment found that warming in the 1998 to 2012 period was above the mean of 111 out of 114 forecasts, and for the previous 15 year period it was above the mean in 93 out of 114 forecasts.

We'll have to see about CIMP-6 when it comes out. There have been some studies that suggest that it may be biased a little high compared to CIMP-5 (by about +16%) due to the inclusion of models with higher TCR ranges.



*Nicholas Lewis is pretty infamous for this sort of thing - basically his whole shtick for the last decade or more is to claim that climate models are wrong because of some under/over estimation in historical data, and that positive system feedbacks don't matter. That said, he is a good mathematician - and there's an irony here that he's gotten other authors to retract/revise warming estimates due to basing them on uncertain historical datasets.

The problem with skeptics who quote stuff like this is multifacetted:
1) I'm not convinced they have any interest in any intellectual rigor on the subjects and will just cut and paste whatever they can find on "Watt's up with that?" and think it's airtight.
2) They will CERTIANLY not address it, not consider it, not think FOR A SECOND that there was naything wrong with the initial paper.
3) They will dismiss anything against their lying or mixed competent scientists as "Big environment" or some other convinient boogeyman
4) They (and let's be honest, most people) don't even understand what those scientists OR what you are saying.

It's really just that they don't trust people smarter than then unless they agree with what they THINK.

And I very much doubt a follow up article from Investor's Daily is gonna be forthcoming since the bias in that publication isn't even worth acknowledging.

 

[Thera]

Do not conflate existing space with a lack of being over populated. Tell me, what percentage of the Earth's land vertebrates should be man, by mass only? Is there a limit?

If there were a limit, I'm sure God would have told Adam and Eve. Instead, He said, fill the Earth and subdue it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If there were a limit, I'm sure God would have told Adam and Eve. Instead, He said, fill the Earth and subdue it.

But we know that story of the Bible is not literally true.

 

[Thera]

But we know that story of the Bible is not literally true.

Do we? I know that it is literally true.

 

[Pommer]

But we know that story of the Bible is not literally true.

Ask “is the Earth an oblate spheroid?”.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do we? I know that it is literally true.

I doubt if you do. You may have a very strong belief, but belief is not knowledge.

One of my favorite sayings:

If you can't show it you don't know it. The Bible will not help you because it is what is being questioned right now. How would you support your belief?

 

[Thera]

I doubt if you do. You may have a very strong belief, but belief is not knowledge.

One of my favorite sayings:

If you can't show it you don't know it. The Bible will not help you because it is what is being questioned right now. How would you support your belief?

The same way you support yours. You don't know, you believe. But if you use the word "know" to mean "believe", so can I.