Goldman Sachs analysis of the impact of climate change. The result are terrifying

[AlbertaFarmer5]

eating human flesh to combat climate change has been proposed....and spoiler alert it wasn't Trump

https://www.theepochtimes.com/swedish-researcher-pushes-human-flesh-eating-as-answer-to-future-climate-change-food-shortages_3068833.html https://www.theepochtimes.com/swedish-researcher-pushes-human-flesh-eating-as-answer-to-future-climate-change-food-shortages_3068833.html

That is the example I was referring to in my post, thanks for posting the link. These are the folks who are helping common sense and science win this debate.

[rumrocks]

In the last 10 years Australian house price have risen about 61% while the cost of claims has doubled (100%) even with adjustments for inflation which would account for some of the housing price rise.

Houses are only a portion of the insured assets in Australia and I doubt that rural houses or other assets would have risen as much as all housing.

https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Pacific/Australia/price-change-10-years

The Australian Central Bank obviously has more resources to correctly assess the risk of climate change and insurance claims than you or I do. They have cited the increasing costs and risks of climate change as real.

But don't let that stop you from disagreeing with every world class scientific organization and central banks that has evidence that the costs and threat from climate change are real. LOL

As an engineer who believes that carbon is only soot, I don't think anyone should give much credibility to your arm chair analysis.

More people, insuring more assets, moving to coast lines where weather tends to be more destructive, equates to larger payouts from insurance companies.

[A990]

That is the example I was referring to in my post, thanks for posting the link. These are the folks who are helping common sense and science win this debate.

..I've actually flipped on this issue. I bought in completely for years but when alarming forecasts don't materialize and goal posts keep moving and key scientists selectively withhold data it starts to set off alarm bell..
...i liken this to markets....sometimes knowing human nature is just as useful as knowing the fundamentals

[beaverdam]

It's just too obvious, that each and every time a theory, a forecast or a prediction fails, no one in the MSM or from the glowbull warming side celebrate!

You'd think that if we found out things weren't as bad, or going to be as bad in the future,,, it'd be something to celebrate.

But ooooh nooooo, the Media doubles down harder, the warmists get even more hysterical, and the cut an' plasters, cut an' paste even more, and more, and longer and longer.

[furrowtickler]

It's just too obvious, that each and every time a theory, a forecast or a prediction fails, no one in the MSM or from the glowbull warming side celebrate!

You'd think that if we found out things weren't as bad, or going to be as bad in the future,,, it'd be something to celebrate.

But ooooh nooooo, the Media doubles down harder, the warmists get even more hysterical, and the cut an' plasters, cut an' paste even more, and more, and longer and longer.

That’s because the U.N. needs to push their agenda .... nothing more .

[jazz]

Since NASA is chucks go to, here they are admitting their models are crap. This hoax is over.

[fjlip]

Thanks jazz, end of issue, all HORSESHIT LIES AN AGENDA! Move on people, live, don't fear the future, nothing is going to happen.

[Bowerpower]

Since NASA is chucks go to, here they are admitting their models are crap. This hoax is over.

[ATTACH]5081[/ATTACH]

Trump hacked nasa

[furrowtickler]

Trump hacked nasa

It was the Russians lol

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Trump hacked nasa

No conspiracy theory required. If the alarmists bothered to read all the disclaimers and facts in the science behind the headlines, these uncertainties are stated in most case by all responsible and ethical scientists. They just don't make splashy headlines and people like Chuck looking for alarmist headlines don't repeat them ad nauseam.

What is interesting, is I tried reading this article on my phone and it was difficult to see, so I looked up the original, and I can not find it. Various paragraphs can be located, but not in its entirety( although I didn't try the way back machine). The paragraph about models needing to be 100 times more accurate to be useful, has been pared back to "more than 10 times", in the exact same paragraph on another NASA page. So much for the science being settled, what is an order of magnitude amongst friends, when you are already wrong by a factor of more than 10, after all they are only zeroes.

[chuckChuck]

Accuracy of Models can be tested using hindsight.


How reliable are climate models?
Link to this page https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-basic.htm
What the science says...

Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.

Climate Myth...

Models are unreliable
"[Models] are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behaviour in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere." (Freeman Dyson)

Rebuttal
Climate models are mathematical representations of the interactions between the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, ice – and the sun. This is clearly a very complex task, so models are built to estimate trends rather than events. For example, a climate model can tell you it will be cold in winter, but it can’t tell you what the temperature will be on a specific day – that’s weather forecasting. Climate trends are weather, averaged out over time - usually 30 years. Trends are important because they eliminate - or "smooth out" - single events that may be extreme, but quite rare.

Climate models have to be tested to find out if they work. We can’t wait for 30 years to see if a model is any good or not; models are tested against the past, against what we know happened. If a model can correctly predict trends from a starting point somewhere in the past, we could expect it to predict with reasonable certainty what might happen in the future.

So all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. All other known forcings are adequate in explaining temperature variations prior to the rise in temperature over the last thirty years, while none of them are capable of explaining the rise in the past thirty years. CO2 does explain that rise, and explains it completely without any need for additional, as yet unknown forcings.

Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions. For example, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo allowed modellers to test the accuracy of models by feeding in the data about the eruption. The models successfully predicted the climatic response after the eruption. Models also correctly predicted other effects subsequently confirmed by observation, including greater warming in the Arctic and over land, greater warming at night, and stratospheric cooling.

more .....https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-basic.htm

[jazz]

Accuracy of Models can be tested using hindsight.

What a piece of work you are chuck. You bash us for not accepting NASA and NOAA as gospel and then I give you their own admission that the models are way off like I said before and they cannot even account for certain variables that are known to affect the climate.

And you now want us to believe some guys blog? You need serious help about being able to think and judge fact for yourself. Its over. I killed your entire narrative with that article. Basically under NASAs own admission, they have no clue what they are even modelling. 25% error should be tossed right into the garbage.

Why not just admit you got panels because you are virtue signaller. Fine we can live with that. But as Greta said Don't You Dare tell us there is a climate emergency.

[sumdumguy]

JAZZ, I would say you’ve schmucked Chuck - good job - enough hog wash for a lifetime. Go Carbon - improve the world👑

[pgluca]

---

Spent some time looking for the NASA paragraph, it is there on their web site as far as I can tell. The sentence about the one hundred fold improvement needed too. the link is: https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html#COMP_MOOS You have to click on or scroll down to "Computor Climate Models". Doesn't make for very compelling press and really makes you feel good about committing time, effort and resources. Especially when Canada supposedly only is responsible for 1.6% of global CO2 emissions and realistically even with extraordinary effort we could only cut that by a fraction...………..

[jazz]

Its over for chuck. Everytime he posts something, that NASA article will follow.

Read the article closer. It states further down that the models cant even replicate low alititude cloud cover. That means a major variable is not even in the models. Its garbage. But they will probably keep working on it for decades to come.