wattsupwiththat.com
alt-market.us
Welcome back! I'm impressed you did, and glad you did! I put the members that aren't respectful and can't separate good references from bad on ignore as there's just nothing to discuss with them as they're not open to ideas... they're not honest to the discussion, just noise and part of the problem - not sure why they even bother posting on a thread about climate change. But it is good to hear from others and I do try to post interesting information as I come across it.
What? You mean I can't call myself a climate scientist and make zillions by getting in on the global conspiracy? Dang! ; -)
And yet, they've done amazingly well never being outside the stated range of error (see table right). Not sure how well they'll stand up as we continue to warm and waltz past tipping points. But science is always advancing and it'll probably get even better. It'll be interesting if the "hot" models do turn out to be more accurate. |
I think it's easier to model the Earth as a whole for the next 20 years than it is to determine the weather for any 2 square miles next week as it averages out when you're planet-wide. At least the IPCC predictions have been more accurate than our weather forecasts.
Yup. People don't like to have their preconceptions challenged and many seek to divide us. As to enemies, that seems more emotional than rational. No reason for any of us on the forums to be enemies, just uninformed or misunderstood. Discussion and honesty using good sources can fix that (except for those that disbelieve data from rational sources like NASA/NOAA). I think many are just too tired of the discussion to actually look into it, but still have the energy to post opinions. ; -)
| Category | Wind Speed (mph) |
|---|---|
| 1 | 74-95 |
| 2 | 96-110 |
| 3 | 111-129 |
| 4 | 130-156 |
| 5 | 157-190 |
| 6 | 191 and above |
Growing skepticism
dailysceptic.org
So with no firm reply I visited Mr. Beard’s organisation’s website and discovered under ‘Research’ there was no report on the risk of nuclear holocaust, but there was an extensive section on climate change that relied almost completely on the research of the economists Wagner and Weitzman, who used the IPCC’s figures to produce estimates – which were of course highly uncertain – of possible extreme temperature rises. “If we continue to pursue a medium-high emissions pathway, [the IPCC authors] estimate the probability of eventual warming of 6°C is around 10%, and of 10°C is around 3%.”
wattsupwiththat.com
Don't know if this was photoshopped or not, but pretty funny and I suspect it is real.Sure, they have no stake in petroleum going away or not and he probably has no ties to any oil companies. It's like that bit @Hedges re-posted in #4,752 (not picking on you, but I have some people on ignore so can't cite the original) about the CO2 frequency gap and how it means adding more CO2 won't make things worse. Someone twisting science for those that want to disbelieve there really is a problem (see this link for a scientific explanation for GHGs work). |  |
Wrestling heavy containers builds character! ; -)
Thanks for the information, love getting things from people that have the practice rather than the theory! What type of plants did they grow? You mentioned customer areas and closing in the winter which makes me think of landscaping plants rather than things like food in the winter.
My searches show it depends on the plant, possible with C3s (e.g., 40-100%, ref). But, for example, while it increases growth in wheat it also decreases nutritional value. ref
But neither plants or humans are "safe" from global warming which increased CO2 causes. Keep in mind that 50 million years ago when it was last +4C over the IPCC baseline crocodiles lived on the Arctic island of Ellesmere [ref].
Rapid and massive changes to our current living conditions are already expensive to fix. For example, just looking at the "adjusted" costs to repair weather disasters is nearly a half trillion per year more expensive that it was in the '80s:
Clearly you dont understand instrumentation. So if I have a poorly calibrated thermometer and it told me yesterday that the temp is 50F when a precise instrument told me the temp was 52.3F and today the poorly calibrated instrument tells me the temp is 51F, do you think today is hotter than yesterday, colder than yesterday, or just the same as yesterday? I work with data sets that have huge potential integration errors. I use 20 individual pressure measurements in a rake to "deduce" the mass flow though a duct. It is functionally impossible to truly calibrate this deduction. But if my process says the mass flow in the duct went up do to a design change, I believe it. Generally precision and accuracy are the things we focus on when we look at instrumentation, BUT, when we are looking at trends, repeatability is generally sufficient.Manmade climate change is fake. It is based on fake, madeup data!
EXCLUSIVE: A Third of U.K. Met Office Temperature Stations May Be Wrong by Up to 5°C, FOI Reveals – The Daily Sceptic
A third of U.K. Met Office temperature stations have 'junk status' and may be wrong by up to 5°C, an FOI reveals. A further almost 50% are 'near junk' and may be out by 2°C.EXCLUSIVE: A Third of U.K. Met Office Temperature Stations May Be Wrong by Up to 5°C, FOI Reveals
Nearly one in three (29.2%) U.K. Met Office temperature measuring stations have an internationally-defined margin of error of up to 5°C. Another 48.7% of the total 380 stations could produce errors up to 2°C, meaning nearly eight out of ten stations (77.9%) are producing ‘junk’ or ‘near junk’ readings of surface air temperatures. Arguably, on no scientific basis should these figures be used for the Met Office’s constant promotion of the collectivist Net Zero project. Nevertheless, the state-funded operation frequently uses them to report and often catastrophise rises in temperature of as little as 0.01°C.
Under a freedom of information request, the Daily Sceptic has obtained a full list of the Met Office’s U.K. weather stations, along with an individual class rating defined by the World Meteorological Office. These CIMO ratings range from pristine class 1 and near pristine class 2, to an ‘anything goes’ or ‘junk’ class 5. The CIMO ratings penalise sites that are near any artificial heat sources such as buildings and concrete surfaces. According to the WMO, a class 5 site is one where nearby obstacles “create an inappropriate environment for a meteorological measurement that is intended to be representative of a wide area”. Even the Met Office refers to sites next to buildings and vegetation as “undesirable”. It seems class 5 sites can be placed anywhere, and they come with a WMO warning of “additional estimated uncertainties added by siting up to 5°C”; class 4 notes “uncertainties” up to 2°C, while class 3 states 1°C. Only 13.7%, or 52 of the Met Office’s temperature and humidity stations come with no such ‘uncertainty’ warnings attached.
The above graph shows the percentage totals of each class. Class 1 and 2, identified in green, account for just 6.3% and 7.4% of the total respectively. Class 3 identified as orange comes in at 8.4%. The graph shows the huge majorities enjoyed by the darkening shades of red showing classes 4 and 5. It is possible that the margins of error identified for classes 3, 4 and 5 could be a minus amount – if for instance the measuring device was sited in a frost hollow – but the vast majority are certain to be pushed upwards by heat corruptions.
Last year, the investigative journalist Paul Homewood sought FOI information from the Met Office about the Welsh weather station Porthmadog, which often appears in ‘hottest of the day’ listings. He was informed that the site was listed as class 4 and “this is an acceptable rating for a temperature sensor”. Hence, continued the Met Office, “we will continue to quote from this site”. In short, observes Homewood, the Met Office is happy to use a class 4 site for climatological purposes, “even though that class is next to junk status”. It is bad enough that the Met Office is using this site, but it is even worse that they know about the issues but still plan to carry on doing so, Homewood continued. “How many other weather stations are of such poor quality?” he asked.
Now we know.
The graph above shows nothing more than very minor, gentle warming since 2005, slight warming that might be expected in the small and continuing natural rebound from the depths of the pre-industrial Little Ice Age. A reliable source of global data is to be found in the UAH satellite record, which shows less overall warming since 1979 than the surface datasets. Both these datasets are rarely mentioned. In fact one of the compilers of the satellite data, along with the UAH paper on urban heat, is Dr. Roy Spencer. In 2022 he was kicked off Google AdSense for publishing “unreliable and harmful claims”. The move demonetised Dr. Spencer’s widely consulted monthly satellite temperature update page by removing all Google-supplied advertising. Google is on record as stating that it will ban all sites that are sceptical of “well established scientific consensus”.
So Quantum physics is hard, thats why I changed my major from Physics to engineering way back when. But... just as I am not qualified to comment on quantum, he is likely not qualified to comment on climate. Einstein sawed the bottom third of a centerboard off of his boat to get into shallower water, but then complained the boat no longer would sail to windward. If he had don the math on the change of center of effort of the hull with that change, and the lateral resistance, he would have understood why he should not have done what he did. Having a Nobel in physics in no way qualifies you as an expert in any other field. But if they agree with you they must be right.LOL "Mr Scientist" who has been indoctrinated in today's education system where 2+2=5.
Here is what real scientists say:
“There Is No Climate Crisis”…1600 Scientists Worldwide, Nobel Prize Laureate Sign Declaration
1609 signatories recently signed a declaration that states there is no climate crisis, thus casting doubt over man’s alleged role in climate change and extreme weather.
Their doubt is based on data showing that natural factors are very much at play, the warming is slower than predicted, the models are unreliable, that CO2 has great benefits and weather disasters have not increased. The media hysteria and weather hype are not supported by data.
Growing skepticism
Nobel Laureate in Physics Dr John F. Clauser also signed the manifesto.
The message is clear: there is no climate crisis. The number of critical scientists who no longer submit to the dogma of the alleged man-made climate catastrophe is growing.
