|
|
Post by sandypine on May 5, 2023 20:33:12 GMT
wattsupwiththat.com/2023/05/04/introducing-the-realitometer/A third of a century has passed since 1990, when IPCC made its first predictions of global warming. Over the 400 months since January 1990, IPCC’s original predictions of 0.2-0.5 C warming per decade over the following century (below) have proven grossly excessive. .... Month by inexorable month, the Realitometer will show just how absurdly exaggerated were and are the official predictions of global warming on which easily-manipulated governments – in Western nations only – have predicated their economy-destroying net-zero policies. Those policies are based on the notion that at midrange there will be almost three times as much global warming as has been occurring. Yet not one mainstream news medium has reported just how startlingly large the ratio of prediction to reality is proving to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on May 7, 2023 18:58:36 GMT
Missed this, I'm surprised it's attracted no comment. I mean sandypine provides an interesting link, unless I suppose you're one of Greta's followers in which case it's obviously penned by Satan himself. However, if you're open minded, it's an interesting link.
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on May 7, 2023 19:24:42 GMT
Lord Monkton is just another denier. I don't think he's got any more skill in this subject than Lord Lawson.
Personally, I pay more attention to people with some learning and expertise in science and technology and steer clear of pseudo theories, misunderstandings and pseudo-sciences like astrology, creationism, homeopathy.
It's amazing how frequently the pseudo lot have links to money either from or supporting their cause — eg, Andrew Wakefield...
|
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on May 7, 2023 19:25:27 GMT
wattsupwiththat.com/2023/05/04/introducing-the-realitometer/A third of a century has passed since 1990, when IPCC made its first predictions of global warming. Over the 400 months since January 1990, IPCC’s original predictions of 0.2-0.5 C warming per decade over the following century (below) have proven grossly excessive. .... Month by inexorable month, the Realitometer will show just how absurdly exaggerated were and are the official predictions of global warming on which easily-manipulated governments – in Western nations only – have predicated their economy-destroying net-zero policies. Those policies are based on the notion that at midrange there will be almost three times as much global warming as has been occurring. Yet not one mainstream news medium has reported just how startlingly large the ratio of prediction to reality is proving to be. Great find which will be ignored as any counter to the new religion often is. Still we deniers what do we know,as apostates will they eventually burn us at the stake,nah add to greenhouse gases  Probably force us to listen to the wit? And wisdom? of st Greta 24/7 till we commit hari kari. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 7, 2023 19:41:20 GMT
Lord Monkton is just another denier. I don't think he's got any more skill in this subject than Lord Lawson. Personally, I pay more attention to people with some learning and expertise in science and technology and steer clear of pseudo theories, misunderstandings and pseudo-sciences like astrology, creationism, homeopathy. It's amazing how frequently the pseudo lot have links to money either from or supporting their cause — eg, Andrew Wakefield... I must admit I do find it difficult to follow those who cannot accept information. The information interpreted here is all the official information on which the global warming crisis is based. If you trust 'the science' I am unclear why you would not trust the figures 'the science' produces. The earth's temperatures are as measured by satellite, the preferred option. The IPCC models are as produced for the IPCC and in their report(s). All that has been done is to compare what was predicted with what we have got from the approved data. It is hardly Monckton's fault that the comparison is pretty abysmal but there you go fingers in ears and lalalala. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on May 7, 2023 19:59:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on May 7, 2023 20:16:58 GMT
I must admit I do find it difficult to follow those who cannot accept information. The information interpreted here is all the official information on which the global warming crisis is based. If you trust 'the science' I am unclear why you would not trust the figures 'the science' produces. The earth's temperatures are as measured by satellite, the preferred option. The IPCC models are as produced for the IPCC and in their report(s). All that has been done is to compare what was predicted with what we have got from the approved data. It is hardly Monckton's fault that the comparison is pretty abysmal but there you go fingers in ears and lalalala. I also find it difficult to follow some people, but for me, it's those who mistakenly (or intentionally) misinterpret the information in addition to introducing spurious data of their own. I'm moderately intrigued as to why — seeking notoriety, wealth, or sheer cussedness might be reasons. But they can go their ways, and I'll stick with what I consider useful.
Admittedly, I don't follow much of their output because so much of it doesn't stack up. For example — 1990 until today is 30 years. Human activity buggering up the planet has been noted over many decades, and I don't doubt the readouts wobble from year to year.
When I want what I consider reasoned interpretations of data, I go to sites such as:
I've discovered that there's many more conventional scientists and climatologists out there providing data, and debating, than there are odd balls...
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on May 8, 2023 0:09:11 GMT
Lord Monkton is just another denier. I don't think he's got any more skill in this subject than Lord Lawson. Personally, I pay more attention to people with some learning and expertise in science and technology and steer clear of pseudo theories, misunderstandings and pseudo-sciences like astrology, creationism, homeopathy. It's amazing how frequently the pseudo lot have links to money either from or supporting their cause — eg, Andrew Wakefield... The thing that sticks in my mind about Monkton is that despite being credited as a bit of a maths entrepreneur (see wiki) he wrote a climate change paper which had a load of equations in it where there is a line which states 1/(dy/dx) = dx/dy!
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on May 8, 2023 0:50:34 GMT
Frightened lefties are easy to manipulate. Since the seventies we have been told imminent disaster is on the horizon, global cooling, the ozone layer, acid ran, they were all going to end humanity within a few years, global warming is the latest eco alarm that lefties are panicking about.
Have you ever noticed that global warming 'experts' always choose their start date with care, however. The clip is just a few minutes...
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on May 8, 2023 7:55:23 GMT
I also find it difficult to follow some people, but for me, it's those who mistakenly (or intentionally) misinterpret the information in addition to introducing spurious data of their own. I'm moderately intrigued as to why — seeking notoriety, wealth, or sheer cussedness might be reasons. But they can go their ways, and I'll stick with what I consider useful.
Admittedly, I don't follow much of their output because so much of it doesn't stack up. For example — 1990 until today is 30 years. Human activity buggering up the planet has been noted over many decades, and I don't doubt the readouts wobble from year to year.
When I want what I consider reasoned interpretations of data, I go to sites such as:
I've discovered that there's many more conventional scientists and climatologists out there providing data, and debating, than there are odd balls...
But, as sp says, all that the Realitometer is doing is comparing the actual rise in temperature (according to agreed data) with the IPCC's predicted rise in temperature. You don't need to understand anything about the theory of climate change to do that. And the fact is that the IPCC has massively overestimated the warming. Or are you disagreeing with that? Also the link that provided includes the following paragraph: " Given the tremendous size and heat capacity of the global oceans, it takes a massive amount of heat energy to raise Earth’s average yearly surface temperature even a small amount. The roughly 2-degree Fahrenheit (1 degrees Celsius) increase in global average surface temperature that has occurred since the pre-industrial era (1880-1900) might seem small, but it means a significant increase in accumulated heat". There's the assumption in this statement that a rise in the oceans' surface temperature is occurring throughout the ocean - which is obviously wrong. The huge rises in surface temperature of oceans that occurs during El Ninos is the result of ocean currents bringing warmer water up to the surface. The "accumulated heat" of the ocean does NOT necessarily change - and we have NO way of measuring the total energy of the ocean anyway. It's deliberately misleading. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 8, 2023 9:36:46 GMT
I also find it difficult to follow some people, but for me, it's those who mistakenly (or intentionally) misinterpret the information in addition to introducing spurious data of their own. I'm moderately intrigued as to why — seeking notoriety, wealth, or sheer cussedness might be reasons. But they can go their ways, and I'll stick with what I consider useful.
Admittedly, I don't follow much of their output because so much of it doesn't stack up. For example — 1990 until today is 30 years. Human activity buggering up the planet has been noted over many decades, and I don't doubt the readouts wobble from year to year.
When I want what I consider reasoned interpretations of data, I go to sites such as:
I've discovered that there's many more conventional scientists and climatologists out there providing data, and debating, than there are odd balls...
Looking at your link all it does is confirm what Monckton has said. The earth is warming but at a much slower rate than predicted when greenhouse gas emissions are much higher than expected/hoped for. The point as ever is not that the planet on average is not warming but that the predictions about the levels, the causes and effects of that warming are just not happening. No point in producing data that is supposed to be definitive in terms of feeding into models to test the accuracy of the models and still repeating the same old 'we are all going to die shortly unless something is done' message when they show that accuracy to be at best suspect and at worst just plain wrong. Greenhouse gases were held as the culprit of dangerous global warming, greenhouse gases have gone up 50% since the first IPCC report yet here we are still well clear of catastrophe. All that is needed is a bit of reevaluation in the light of new data but the same old warnings are brought out. 'The science' deserves better. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 8, 2023 9:47:40 GMT
The world is in a pressing emergency and the only realistic solution is for me to take personal control of the earth's resources to save humanity from itself I guess the really unsettling question is why haven't some of the more obvious psychiatric cases been laughed off the stage
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 8, 2023 10:47:38 GMT
So far this year the UK has seen above average rainfall, below average temperatures and below average sunshine hours. But this is not an example of a lack of Global Warming - it is just normal variations in the weather. So far this year Spain has seen a heatwave - this is definitely due to Global Warming..  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2023 13:13:22 GMT
Lord Monkton is just another denier. I don't think he's got any more skill in this subject than Lord Lawson. Personally, I pay more attention to people with some learning and expertise in science and technology and steer clear of pseudo theories, misunderstandings and pseudo-sciences like astrology, creationism, homeopathy. It's amazing how frequently the pseudo lot have links to money either from or supporting their cause — eg, Andrew Wakefield... I must admit I do find it difficult to follow those who cannot accept information. The information interpreted here is all the official information on which the global warming crisis is based. If you trust 'the science' I am unclear why you would not trust the figures 'the science' produces. The earth's temperatures are as measured by satellite, the preferred option. The IPCC models are as produced for the IPCC and in their report(s). All that has been done is to compare what was predicted with what we have got from the approved data. It is hardly Monckton's fault that the comparison is pretty abysmal but there you go fingers in ears and lalalala. It's PP posting, Sandypine. It's the usual passive/aggressive non committal style. But in this case especially, it's shoot the messenger, because he cannot deny the content. I already liked the OP because I found it interesting. The warmist cult are yet to be able to accept that the pause is still paused. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2023 13:15:01 GMT
I also find it difficult to follow some people, but for me, it's those who mistakenly (or intentionally) misinterpret the information in addition to introducing spurious data of their own. I'm moderately intrigued as to why — seeking notoriety, wealth, or sheer cussedness might be reasons. But they can go their ways, and I'll stick with what I consider useful.
Admittedly, I don't follow much of their output because so much of it doesn't stack up. For example — 1990 until today is 30 years. Human activity buggering up the planet has been noted over many decades, and I don't doubt the readouts wobble from year to year.
When I want what I consider reasoned interpretations of data, I go to sites such as:
I've discovered that there's many more conventional scientists and climatologists out there providing data, and debating, than there are odd balls...
But you can't refute the report, PP, because it is correct and based on official figures. You are just waffling. |
|
Probably force us to listen to the wit? And wisdom? of st Greta 24/7 till we commit hari kari.
