Climate Change Puts Buildings, Coastlines, The North At Most Risk: Report Extreme wea

[malleefarmer]

Usual debate to and fro.

Tad off topic but recently had a election here which conservative supposedly unexpectedly won i hung onto hope they would sc**** through.

Anyway some called it a "climate change election" conservatives won. Some of the fact and fiction and debates were interesting.

Some of the greens policies were jsut incredible iwas basically gonna be on a electric tractor in in 10 plus years.

Sanity prevailed. Strangely one of the most informed and common sense pollies on climate change debate lost his seat ever so narrowly.

We had a by election in sydney our largest city and climate change lady "rabid" almost got in in by election about six months ago well she got voted out in election proper.

anyway not getting into pointless deabte

[fjlip]

During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.

http://https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-11/scientists-finland-japan-man-made-climate-change-doesnt-exist-practice http://https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-11/scientists-finland-japan-man-made-climate-change-doesnt-exist-practice

Oh well, the CULT was fun for a while, now put away all the SCAREY SHIT and go about your lives...

[AlbertaFarmer5]

DML, You took all the time and effort to debunk the anecdotal story about a fox, can you put The same effort into answering the question about natural versus human caused sealevel rise please?

OK, I'm going to resort to responding to myself, since neither Chuck nor DML have( or will) answer such a simple question.

And the reason why none of the CAGW propagandists want to address this is obvious. Sea level rise is the perfect "evidence" of CAGW because, unlike all the other scary scenarios which are either supposed to happen someday in the vaguely defined future, or have already been given up on because they weren't happening, or don't affect the average person, and are impossible to prove/disprove for the average person, Sea Level Rise (SLR) is actually happening here and now, just like it always has. It works to scare people because SLR really is happening, and all communities close to sea level ( except coral islands which rise with it), will eventually have to be abandoned due to SLR. So it is the most effective propaganda they have left, or ever will have, and must be exploited to the fullest.

To acknowledge that there is more than just a human caused component ruins the entire narrative. Admitting that the human component is indistinguishable in the raw data cannot be permitted. Acknowledging that sea levels have been rising in fits and spurts since the peak of the last ice age, and will continue to until well past the peak of this interglacial just wouldn't be scary enough.

I have been asking them both multiple times, but they obviously comprehend how inconvenient the truthful response would be, so ignore it instead.

Any slightly informed alarmist by now realizes that they can no longer use the following as evidence because mother nature just refused to cooperate
-Warming on a scale remotely close to their cherished models
-Ocean temperatures
-Polar bear decline
-Coral bleaching
-Pine beetles
-Hurricanes
-Tornadoes
-Droughts
-Extreme weather
-Food shortages
-Ice free arctic
-Climate refugees
-Desertification
-Mass extinction
etc. etc. etc.

But mother nature was cooperative with sea level and they have continued their relentless march up, and so SLR is the last bastion of catastrophe for the true believers, and therefore cannot be questioned or examined in detail.

[jazz]

DML, You took all the time and effort to debunk the anecdotal story about a fox, can you put The same effort into answering the question about natural versus human caused sealevel rise please?

AF since dml is such a disciple of science he needs to brush up on the standard of a scientific theory. As in its up to the group making the claim to prove it beyond doubt. People who doubt the claim have no burden of proof.

[furrowtickler]

AF since dml is such a disciple of science he needs to brush up on the standard of a scientific theory. As in its up to the group making the claim to prove it beyond doubt. People who doubt the claim have no burden of proof.

Ben Davidson could school any one of these self proclaimed climate scientists that are shouting this garbage , including chuck or DML

[AlbertaFarmer5]

AF since dml is such a disciple of science he needs to brush up on the standard of a scientific theory. As in its up to the group making the claim to prove it beyond doubt. People who doubt the claim have no burden of proof.

Thanks for wording it so succinctly, I tried to explain that above regarding the null hypothesis, but you said it much better.

[malleefarmer]

Huge push for electric vehicles in NZ starting soon

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2019/07/14/678168/crucial-moves-cutting-emissions https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2019/07/14/678168/crucial-moves-cutting-emissions

[AlbertaFarmer5]

OK, I'm going to resort to responding to myself, since neither Chuck nor DML have( or will) answer such a simple question.

And the reason why none of the CAGW propagandists want to address this is obvious. Sea level rise is the perfect "evidence" of CAGW because, unlike all the other scary scenarios which are either supposed to happen someday in the vaguely defined future, or have already been given up on because they weren't happening, or don't affect the average person, and are impossible to prove/disprove for the average person, Sea Level Rise (SLR) is actually happening here and now, just like it always has. It works to scare people because SLR really is happening, and all communities close to sea level ( except coral islands which rise with it), will eventually have to be abandoned due to SLR. So it is the most effective propaganda they have left, or ever will have, and must be exploited to the fullest.

To acknowledge that there is more than just a human caused component ruins the entire narrative. Admitting that the human component is indistinguishable in the raw data cannot be permitted. Acknowledging that sea levels have been rising in fits and spurts since the peak of the last ice age, and will continue to until well past the peak of this interglacial just wouldn't be scary enough.

I have been asking them both multiple times, but they obviously comprehend how inconvenient the truthful response would be, so ignore it instead.

Any slightly informed alarmist by now realizes that they can no longer use the following as evidence because mother nature just refused to cooperate
-Warming on a scale remotely close to their cherished models
-Ocean temperatures
-Polar bear decline
-Coral bleaching
-Pine beetles
-Hurricanes
-Tornadoes
-Droughts
-Extreme weather
-Food shortages
-Ice free arctic
-Climate refugees
-Desertification
-Mass extinction
etc. etc. etc.

But mother nature was cooperative with sea level and they have continued their relentless march up, and so SLR is the last bastion of catastrophe for the true believers, and therefore cannot be questioned or examined in detail.

Just bumping this thread up to point out that, as predicted, none of the true believers have responded to my questions about sea level.

[Guest]

Just bumping this thread up to point out that, as predicted, none of the true believers have responded to my questions about sea level.

Can you catfish a little louder, it appears your congregation has pressed mute

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Can you catfish a little louder, it appears your congregation has pressed mute

Perhaps you know the answer?

[jazz]

Finnish study finds no evidence of climate change. Says models are flawed.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE

We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature

[farmaholic]

Speaking of CO2, It will be mandatory that all homes install a Carbon Dioxide detector to ensure the colorless odorless gas remains at safe levels.

One of the recommended solutions is more house plants and the less popular option of holding your breath.

Some one in government must have a friend manufacturing these things.

[chuckChuck]

Finnish study finds no evidence of climate change. Says models are flawed.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE

We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/clouds-and-climate-change/

A paper is making the rounds on climate denial sites that claims to debunk human-caused climate change in a single stroke. Predictably, the paper does nothing of the sort, but it does raise a complex issue regarding climate change that is worth reviewing. But first let’s get to the paper itself.

The paper, by J. Kauppinen and P. Malmi, is a pre-publication paper on the Arxiv. This means it is not peer-reviewed. Their central claim, from the abstract:

In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature.

Right in the first sentence is a huge red flag – claiming to be able to “prove” that the IPCC report is false. That’s a bold claim, and suggests a less than rigorous intellectual approach. They also claim to rebuke a rather robust conclusion built on many lines of evidence with a single line of evidence – the single stroke approach. This is also a huge red flag.

The claim is built around one major line of reasoning, that if you compare low cloud cover with changes in global temperatures, you see a strong correlation. In fact, the authors argue, you can explain most of global warming as resulting from a decrease in low cloud cover, leaving almost nothing left for anthropogenic forcing. There is a great deal wrong with this claim. The site ClimateFeedback has helpfully curated much of the response from climate scientists, who eviscerate the Kauppinen paper, and I will give you a summary of their summary.

The main criticisms include:

The authors do not give a reference for the dataset they are using, which appears to be wrong and/or out of date.
They ignore datasets that show the opposite trend they claim.
They are assuming cause and effect without giving any line of evidence or reasoning.
They criticize the use of climate models, but then give their own highly flawed climate model.
They falsely claim CO2 goes from the oceans to the atmosphere, when it’s the other way around.
They dismiss without evidence or argument the entirety of climate science, while referencing their own (mostly unpublished) work.
“It cites six references: one to the IPCC report and one scientific article, both of which they apparently did not read or understand; two of their own unpublished manuscripts and two of their own articles in questionable or predatory journals.”
They present no hypothesis as to how cloud changes are being forced, and therefore no explanation for why the climate is changing.

In short, this paper is a great example of pseudoscience. It would not pass any serious peer-review, but it can seem persuasive to a lay public, especially one that is eager to believe its conclusions. In other words, this looks more like political fodder than a serious scientific paper.

[chuckChuck]

More detailed response from various climate scientists debunking the J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMi paper on climate change and clouds.

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

A feeble try Jazz. One unpublished paper with 6 references, 4 of which came from the authors, does not refute the entire work of thousands of other credible climate scientists! LMAO

A sucker is born every minute.

[Partners]

More detailed response from various climate scientists debunking the J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMi paper on climate change and clouds.

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

A feeble try Jazz. One unpublished paper with 6 references, 4 of which came from the authors, does not refute the entire work of thousands of other credible climate scientists! LMAO

A sucker is born every minute.

Yes chuck..look in the mirror..
A sucker born every minute.lol..