CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26052
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2019 7:05 am
 


BTW Doc, Freeman Dyson tells us the biosphere is growing. Why are we supposed to pay greater heed to you're "denying" that? Is it because you are - as you keep telling us - the only real representative of "the science?"


Attachments:
climate-doom-timeline.jpg
climate-doom-timeline.jpg [ 92.05 KiB | Viewed 9 times ]
Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9470
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2019 7:12 am
 


But we do know that, Runaway Greenhouse/Glaciation take thousands of years to come about. Unless there is a mass overturn event, which is what fucked Venus, or our Magnetosphere turns off or disrupted (ie. Pole Reversal) and our atmosphere gets stripped (which, maybe climate change may not be the biggest issue facing the species at that point). 30 years is far too short a period.

30 years is used because it's close enough to be believable and scare the shit out of some, but far enough off, to be able to revise the date/time frame and not look like a pack a frauds.

Do I think we need to transition off of fossil fuels? yes. Is it smart to do without a replacement? nope.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 37224
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:21 am
 


llama66 wrote:
But we do know that, Runaway Greenhouse/Glaciation take thousands of years to come about. Unless there is a mass overturn event, which is what fucked Venus, or our Magnetosphere turns off or disrupted (ie. Pole Reversal) and our atmosphere gets stripped (which, maybe climate change may not be the biggest issue facing the species at that point). 30 years is far too short a period.


30 years is too short a period for a natural event to occur. But this is not a natural event. The temperature of Earth isn't what's bothering most scientists, it's the rate at which we are doing it. The Earth has never seen such a rate of change as we are making, and the climate models don't know how to handle such a rapid input of heat.

Image

llama66 wrote:
30 years is used because it's close enough to be believable and scare the shit out of some, but far enough off, to be able to revise the date/time frame and not look like a pack a frauds.


30 years is used, because the climate models predictions start to go pretty wild that far in the future, as you can see above. Let's not forget, 10,000 years is a short time, to the Earth. 30 years is nothing. Earth can't react to such a short change, so it's up to us to react instead.

llama66 wrote:
Do I think we need to transition off of fossil fuels? yes. Is it smart to do without a replacement? nope.


That is the excuse everyone uses. We have alternatives. But there are those who's pocketbook depends on using fossil fuels. But many of us would do just fine using renewables. CFCs were banned inside of a couple years after the Montreal Protocols, because only a few companies produced them, and the biggest, -DuPont said "Ok, we can make other things." And the Ozone hole may recover in 50 - 60 years. That's the time scale these things happen at.

It's the oil companies spreading doom and gloom (and there would be) to move away from fossil fuels.

But think of the alternative, if the models are right. How many trillions of dollars (hundreds? thousands?) would it cost to protect the worlds coastal cities Netherlands style, in order to protect the mega-trillions in real estate value,; versus the billions it would cost to to just stop polluting the atmosphere? The earlier we start, the less it costs. And people have been saying that for 30 years too.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2577
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2019 11:04 am
 


DrCaleb wrote:
But think of the alternative, if the models are right. How many trillions of dollars (hundreds? thousands?) would it cost to protect the worlds coastal cities Netherlands style, in order to protect the mega-trillions in real estate value,; versus the billions it would cost to to just stop polluting the atmosphere? The earlier we start, the less it costs. And people have been saying that for 30 years too.

There is currently zero choice that does not result in massive fiscal waste. Using it as a "fact" in the data set is moot.

Keep on keeping on = costs hundreds of trillions.
Cold turkey quit = costs hundreds of trillions.
Slow ween = costs hundreds of trillions

Etc, etc.

The reason for this if flawed human perception and prioritization...which is why it is the same, regardless of the environmental end of the equation.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 37224
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2019 12:30 pm
 


peck420 wrote:
DrCaleb wrote:
But think of the alternative, if the models are right. How many trillions of dollars (hundreds? thousands?) would it cost to protect the worlds coastal cities Netherlands style, in order to protect the mega-trillions in real estate value,; versus the billions it would cost to to just stop polluting the atmosphere? The earlier we start, the less it costs. And people have been saying that for 30 years too.

There is currently zero choice that does not result in massive fiscal waste. Using it as a "fact" in the data set is moot.

Keep on keeping on = costs hundreds of trillions.
Cold turkey quit = costs hundreds of trillions.
Slow ween = costs hundreds of trillions

Etc, etc.

The reason for this if flawed human perception and prioritization...which is why it is the same, regardless of the environmental end of the equation.


Humans are terrible at future planning. It's how we are wired. Especially if the future may not involve ourselves, but our descendants.

I think the choice at this point is 'how bad do we want it to be'. Economically depressive bad, or extinction bad.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11846
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2019 12:40 pm
 


Another Climate Scientist with Impeccable Credentials Breaks Ranks: ‘Our models are Mickey-Mouse Mockeries of the Real World’

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/09/30 ... eal-world/


Quote:
Dr. Mototaka Nakamura received a Doctorate of Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and for nearly 25 years specialized in abnormal weather and climate change at prestigious institutions that included MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, JAMSTEC and Duke University.

In his book The Global Warming Hypothesis is an Unproven Hypothesis, Dr. Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on:

“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,” writes Nakamura. “Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”

From 1990 to 2014, Nakamura worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology.

He’s published 20+ climate papers on fluid dynamics.

There is no questioning his credibility or knowledge.

Today’s ‘global warming science’ is akin to an upside down pyramid which is built on the work of a few climate modelers. These AGW pioneers claim to have demonstrated human-derived CO2 emissions as the cause of recently rising temperatures and have then simply projected that warming forward. Every climate researcher thereafter has taken the results of these original models as a given, and we’re even at the stage now where merely testing their validity is regarded as heresy.

Here in Nakamura, we have a highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials rejecting the unscientific bases of the climate crisis claims. But he’s up against it — activists are winning at the moment, and they’re fronted by scared, crying children; an unstoppable combination, one that’s tricky to discredit without looking like a heartless bastard (I’ve tried).
Climate scientist Dr. Mototaka Nakamura’s recent book blasts global warming data as “untrustworthy” and “falsified”.
DATA FALSIFICATION

When arguing against global warming, the hardest thing I find is convincing people of data falsification, namely temperature fudging. If you don’t pick your words carefully, forget some of the facts, or get your tone wrong then it’s very easy to sound like a conspiracy crank (I’ve been there, too).

But now we have Nakamura.

The good doctor has accused the orthodox scientists of “data falsification” in the form adjusting historical temperature data down to inflate today’s subtle warming trend — something Tony Heller has been proving for years on his website realclimatescience.com.

Nakamura writes: “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.”

The climate models are useful tools for academic studies, he admits. However: “The models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (as they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting.”

Climate forecasting is simply not possible, Nakamura concludes, and the impacts of human-caused CO2 can’t be judged with the knowledge and technology we currently possess.

The models grossly simplify the way the climate works.

As well as ignoring the sun, they also drastically simplify large and small-scale ocean dynamics, aerosol changes that generate clouds (cloud cover is one of the key factors determining whether we have global warming or global cooling), the drivers of ice-albedo: “Without a reasonably accurate representation, it is impossible to make any meaningful predictions of climate variations and changes in the middle and high latitudes and thus the entire planet,” and water vapor.

The climate forecasts also suffer from arbitrary “tunings” of key parameters that are simply not understood.
NAKAMURA ON CO2

He writes:

“The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naive climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics. The dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation.”

Solar input is modeled as a “never changing quantity,” which is absurd.

“It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square meter. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No.”

Read Mototaka Nakamura’s book for free on Kindle — arm yourself with the facts, and spread them.

Facts such as these little nuggets (all lifted/paraphrased from the book):

“[The models have] no understanding of cloud formation/forcing.”

“Assumptions are made, then adjustments are made to support a narrative.”

“Our models are mickey-mouse mockeries of the real world.”


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2577
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2019 12:44 pm
 


DrCaleb wrote:
Humans are terrible at future planning. It's how we are wired. Especially if the future may not involve ourselves, but our descendants.

That is part of it, but not all of it.

We are also hardwired to kill each other, in times of distress, to further our own instincts and genetics.
Quote:
I think the choice at this point is 'how bad do we want it to be'. Economically depressive bad, or extinction bad.

Nope.

A) There is zero chances that this a HUMAN extinction event. As much as alarmist wish that was true (as that could actually put some urgency to the matter), but it is not. Even in the worst case scenarios, there is far more humans surviving than what is required for species level survival. The only real issue, is that it might not be Westerners in charge of those areas. Also why this is such a Western centric issue.

B) Economically, this will be depressingly bad because our economy happens to be evolving while this crisis is occurring. Yes, you read that right, the economic fallout is coming, REGARDLESS of how the environmental debate is ended. We are quickly approaching the point in humanity's economic evolution that will require a complete removal of the current oil (money), and at minimum, a drastic reduction in the different types of oil (money) currently in use. Again, only a major issue for the West because we fear loosing our current status as leader in this area.

It terms of actual damage to "humans" as a "species", this is a giant nothing burger (as sad as that sounds). This is really about a world that is being forced to change, and our side attempting to force the existing command and control structure over it.

Edit for grammar and cleanup.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1176
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2019 12:49 pm
 


Peak Oil was 20 years ago. Yawn.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26052
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:14 pm
 


DrCaleb wrote:
30 years is too short a period for a natural event to occur. But this is not a natural event. The temperature of Earth isn't what's bothering most scientists, it's the rate at which we are doing it.


I keep hearing that from "most scientists" like Bill Nye the standup comedian "science guy" or the not very Skeptic, "Skeptic Science" website.

But it always makes me curious about questions we're not supposed to ask. Like, "the rate" as compared to what? Or "faster" as compared to what? When? Over what period? How trustworthy is your data? Not very if it's the manipulated, in fact thoroughly rewritten, land surface temperature data or guesstimate climate proxies I hear about.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Dallas Stars


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 18738
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:21 pm
 


All I know, and if you all remember, a few years ago I had the coldest nuts in Austin in the middle of summer. I am still thawing so do not turn down the heat to much. :lol:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26052
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:28 pm
 


The Summer on the west coast was kind of cool comparatively too. In fact, downright chilly at times.

But we're not supposed to worry about that. That's just weather. It's only climate when it was something like Doc's 2017 'Summer from Hell' when there were two weeks of heatwave in northwest central BC and all the Sockeye Salmon were supposed to die according to a girl at the CBC. Except they didn't.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9470
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:42 pm
 


Humans will survive. We're like fucking cockroaches.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30021
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:03 pm
 


llama66 wrote:
Humans will survive. We're like fucking cockroaches.


And so much greater the tragedy. :|

DrCaleb wrote:
Thanos wrote:
The majority of the "solutions" being offered by the activists are utter bunk.


^^^

No one has the balls to do what is necessary. So they do nothing, which means the solutions will have to be worse the longer we wait.

Which is what people like Suzuki realize.


That's what makes the activists no more than a bunch of fucking salesmen, pushing delusion to the credulous slack-jaws as much as the orcs from coal and oil and the Trump Org do. If people were told the only real solution to saving the planet (i.e. the current biosphere) they'd be horrified. That's why they're so eager to lap up this pabulum about windmills and solar panels - it's easier for the brain to digest and doesn't present a threat to their regular day. The reality though, of what needs to be done? That's something so huge very few except the most mentally disciplined, or the cynics who genuinely believe collective humanity has what's coming to it, are capable of accepting it.

That "be fruitful and multiply" crap? It has to come to an end, everywhere, or the catastrophe is inevitable. It's simply the way it has to be. :|


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:12 pm
 


N_Fiddledog wrote:
The Summer on the west coast was kind of cool comparatively too. In fact, downright chilly at times.

But we're not supposed to worry about that. That's just weather. It's only climate when it was something like Doc's 2017 'Summer from Hell' when there were two weeks of heatwave in northwest central BC and all the Sockeye Salmon were supposed to die according to a girl at the CBC. Except they didn't.


It's unusually cool/cold in the West right now. I went to Costco at lunch and there were people wearing SWEATERS....in OCTOBER....in SACRAMENTO... 8O 8O 8O

Last I checked I had a God-given right to wearing Hawaiian shirts and flip flops until Halloween.

It must be the end of the world!!!


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 24468
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:48 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
N_Fiddledog wrote:
The Summer on the west coast was kind of cool comparatively too. In fact, downright chilly at times.

But we're not supposed to worry about that. That's just weather. It's only climate when it was something like Doc's 2017 'Summer from Hell' when there were two weeks of heatwave in northwest central BC and all the Sockeye Salmon were supposed to die according to a girl at the CBC. Except they didn't.


It's unusually cool/cold in the West right now. I went to Costco at lunch and there were people wearing SWEATERS....in OCTOBER....in SACRAMENTO... 8O 8O 8O

Last I checked I had a God-given right to wearing Hawaiian shirts and flip flops until Halloween.

It must be the end of the world!!!

Incase anyone was wondering how big of pansies Californians are. It was 20 degrees.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 143 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 ... 10  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.