• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

more ice in Antarctica

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,314
9,097
65
✟432,743.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
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
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
22,612
13,972
Earth
✟244,800.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,314
9,097
65
✟432,743.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
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.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
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.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
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.
 
Upvote 0

Thera

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2019
507
334
Montreal
✟60,209.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
In Relationship

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.
 
Reactions: rambot
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
28,261
15,951
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟448,086.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
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.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
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?
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,254
10,153
✟285,817.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
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.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I don't know about that. I always found mountains unsightly:



Ahhh. Much better.
 
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,648
7,196
✟342,775.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private

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.
 
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
28,261
15,951
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟448,086.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
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.
 
Upvote 0

Thera

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2019
507
334
Montreal
✟60,209.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
In Relationship
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.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
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?
 
Upvote 0

Thera

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2019
507
334
Montreal
✟60,209.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
In Relationship
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.
 
Upvote 0