How real are the threats of global warming?

Aviation Trivia, Jokes & Humour

Moderator: Moderators

Skymaster
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 732
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:32 pm
Closest Airfield: FAGM
Location: Johannesburg
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 13 times

How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by Skymaster » Tue Sep 19, 2017 10:40 pm

Climate alarmists have finally admitted that they’ve got it wrong on global warming.

This is the inescapable conclusion of a landmark paper, published in Nature Geoscience, which finally admits that the computer models have overstated the impact of carbon dioxide on climate and that the planet is warming more slowly than predicted.

The paper – titled Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C – concedes that it is now almost impossible that the doomsday predictions made in the last IPCC Assessment Report of 1.5 degrees C warming above pre-industrial levels by 2022 will come true.

In order for that to happen, temperatures would have to rise by a massive 0.5 degrees C in five years.

Since global mean temperatures rarely rise by even as much as 0.25 degrees C in a decade, that would mean the planet would have to do 20 years’ worth of extreme warming in the space of the next five years.

This, the scientists admit, is next to impossible. Which means their “carbon budget” – the amount of CO2 they say is needed to increase global warming by a certain degree – is wrong. This in turn means that the computer models they’ve been using to scare the world with tales of man-made climate doom are wrong too.

One researcher – from the alarmist side of the argument, not the skeptical one – has described the paper’s conclusion as “breathtaking” in its implications.

He’s right. The scientists who’ve written this paper aren’t climate skeptics. They’re longstanding warmists, implacable foes of climate skeptics, and they’re also actually the people responsible for producing the IPCC’s carbon budget.

In other words, this represents the most massive climbdown from the alarmist camp.

But you certainly wouldn’t guess this from the way the scientists are trying to spin their report.

According to the London Times:

Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London and one ofthe study’s authors, admitted that his previous prediction had been wrong.

He stated during the climate summit in Paris in December 2015: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.”

Speaking to The Times, he said: “When the facts change, I change my mind, as Keynes said.

“It’s still likely to be very difficult to achieve these kind of changes quickly enough but we are in a better place than I thought.”

and

Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and another author of the paper, said: “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.”

He said that the group of about a dozen computer models, produced by government research institutes and universities around the world, had been assembled a decade ago “so it’s not that surprising that it’s starting to divert a little bit from observations”.

He said that too many of the models used “were on the hot side”, meaning they forecast too much warming.

Note the disingenuousness here.

Grubb is claiming that the facts have changed. Which they haven’t. Climate skeptics have been saying for years that the IPCC climate models have been running “too hot.” Indeed, the Global Warming Policy Foundation produced a paper stating this three years ago. Naturally it was ignored by alarmists who have always sought to marginalize the GWPF as a denialist institution which they claim – erroneously – is in the pay of sinister fossil fuel interests.

Allen’s “so it’s not that surprising” is indeed true if you’re on the skeptical side of the argument. But not if, like Allen, you’re one of those scientists who’ve spent the last 20 years scorning, mocking and vilifying all those skeptics who for years have been arguing the very point which Allen himself is now admitting is correct.

That’s why Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation says, this is a “landmark” moment in the history of great climate change scare.

“It’s the first official confirmation we’ve had that CO2 is not as big a driver of climate change as the computer models have claimed; and it’s the first official admission that the planet is not warming dangerously.”

But this is not, unfortunately, a cause for wild celebrations in the street. ManBearPig has been scotched but by no means been slain. Nor are the alarmists yet ready to admit the full scale of their errors.

This is little more than a damage limitation exercise by scamsters who know they’ve been caught cheating and have now been forced to concede at least some territory to their opponents for fear of looking ridiculous.

Paul Homewood has their number:

1) We have known for several years that the climate models have been running far too hot.

This rather belated admission is welcome, but a cynic would wonder why it was not made before Paris.

2) I suspect part of the motivation is to keep Paris on track. Most observers, including even James Hansen, have realised that it was not worth the paper it was written on.

This new study is designed to restore the belief that the original climate targets can be achieved, via Paris and beyond.

3) Although they talk of the difference between 0.9C and 1.3C, the significance is much greater.

Making the reasonable assumption that a significant part of the warming since the mid 19thC is natural, this means that any AGW signal is much less than previously thought.

4) Given that that they now admit they have got it so wrong, why should we be expected to have any faith at all in the models?

5) Finally, we must remember that temperatures since 2000 have been artificially raised by the recent record El Nino, and the ongoing warm phase of the AMO.

Yup. But at least we climate skeptics have been proved right yet again, that’s the main thing.

Oh, and by the way, snooty alarmist scumbags: that word you were looking for to describe the current state of global warming science is: “Sorry.”
User avatar
heisan
Fife Thousand feet
Fife Thousand feet
Posts: 5573
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:45 pm
Closest Airfield: Rhino Park
Location: Pretoria
Has liked: 29 times
Been liked: 156 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by heisan » Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:21 pm

WTF???

Here is the abstract of the paper that this spiel as based on:
Abstract
The Paris Agreement has opened debate on whether limiting warming to 1.5 °C is compatible with current emission pledges and warming of about 0.9 °C from the mid-nineteenth century to the present decade. We show that limiting cumulative post-2015 CO2 emissions to about 200 GtC would limit post-2015 warming to less than 0.6 °C in 66% of Earth system model members of the CMIP5 ensemble with no mitigation of other climate drivers, increasing to 240 GtC with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation. We combine a simple climate–carbon-cycle model with estimated ranges for key climate system properties from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Assuming emissions peak and decline to below current levels by 2030, and continue thereafter on a much steeper decline, which would be historically unprecedented but consistent with a standard ambitious mitigation scenario (RCP2.6), results in a likely range of peak warming of 1.2–2.0 °C above the mid-nineteenth century. If CO2 emissions are continuously adjusted over time to limit 2100 warming to 1.5 °C, with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation, net future cumulative CO2 emissions are unlikely to prove less than 250 GtC and unlikely greater than 540 GtC. Hence, limiting warming to 1.5 °C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible.

Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ing_to_15C
So, what they are actually saying, is that with the most ambitious models, and a bit of luck, it is not actually impossible (just very difficult) to limit total warming to 1.5C by 2100. Not quite the rosy picture painted by the above collection of out of context quotes.

And even that 1.5C increase is still possibly a doomsday scenario. With around one billion people likely to be displaced, and many more having their primary food sources disrupted. And obviously the wars that will result.
These users liked the author heisan for the post:
Darren
Justin Schoeman

ZU-FSR (Raven)
dany
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1910
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 7:07 am
Closest Airfield: moscow
Location: Moscow/Africa
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 13 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by dany » Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:08 am

And with new scrubbing technology we scrub the exhaust gases of engines running on natural gas and methane and pump that CO2 back into green tunnels.
User avatar
skytrooper
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2175
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:39 pm
Has liked: 22 times
Been liked: 26 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by skytrooper » Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:02 am

heisan wrote:WTF???

Here is the abstract of the paper that this spiel as based on:
Abstract
The Paris Agreement has opened debate on whether limiting warming to 1.5 °C is compatible with current emission pledges and warming of about 0.9 °C from the mid-nineteenth century to the present decade. We show that limiting cumulative post-2015 CO2 emissions to about 200 GtC would limit post-2015 warming to less than 0.6 °C in 66% of Earth system model members of the CMIP5 ensemble with no mitigation of other climate drivers, increasing to 240 GtC with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation. We combine a simple climate–carbon-cycle model with estimated ranges for key climate system properties from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Assuming emissions peak and decline to below current levels by 2030, and continue thereafter on a much steeper decline, which would be historically unprecedented but consistent with a standard ambitious mitigation scenario (RCP2.6), results in a likely range of peak warming of 1.2–2.0 °C above the mid-nineteenth century. If CO2 emissions are continuously adjusted over time to limit 2100 warming to 1.5 °C, with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation, net future cumulative CO2 emissions are unlikely to prove less than 250 GtC and unlikely greater than 540 GtC. Hence, limiting warming to 1.5 °C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible.

Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ing_to_15C
So, what they are actually saying, is that with the most ambitious models, and a bit of luck, it is not actually impossible (just very difficult) to limit total warming to 1.5C by 2100. Not quite the rosy picture painted by the above collection of out of context quotes.

And even that 1.5C increase is still possibly a doomsday scenario. With around one billion people likely to be displaced, and many more having their primary food sources disrupted. And obviously the wars that will result.
Exactly, The Emperical Evidence for Climate Change is beyond overwhelming, those so called "non believers" Are either corrupted politicians spreading propaganda, creating "so called scientific data " to propagate their lies all for one cause only, their own selfish greed with no regard to the planet and those inhibiting it or either frankly put dumb or blind by not understanding the evidence.
Last edited by skytrooper on Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
These users liked the author skytrooper for the post:
Darren
Ubluwulululululu....!
User avatar
V5 - LEO
Six Tousand
Six Tousand
Posts: 6261
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:18 pm
Closest Airfield: FYWH
Location: Namibia
Has liked: 84 times
Been liked: 80 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by V5 - LEO » Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:35 am

...here, make an informed decision :idea:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
In God I trust. The masses are never right, the minority are sometimes right, but the truth is always right.
“One good teacher in a lifetime may sometimes change a delinquent into a solid citizen.” — Philip Wylie
Skymaster
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 732
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:32 pm
Closest Airfield: FAGM
Location: Johannesburg
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 13 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by Skymaster » Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:57 am

He said that too many of the models used “were on the hot side”, meaning they forecast too much warming.

By any measure this is an admission of lying!
And clearly demonstrates that their dodgy computer models cannot possibly be called "science".
Of course these shocking statements by "scientists" shows the crooked lengths they are willing to go to in order to force their unproven beliefs on a naive and unsuspecting public.

"To reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Discover magazine, October 1989
User avatar
heisan
Fife Thousand feet
Fife Thousand feet
Posts: 5573
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:45 pm
Closest Airfield: Rhino Park
Location: Pretoria
Has liked: 29 times
Been liked: 156 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by heisan » Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:04 pm

Skymaster wrote:He said that too many of the models used “were on the hot side”, meaning they forecast too much warming.

By any measure this is an admission of lying!
And clearly demonstrates that their dodgy computer models cannot possibly be called "science".
Of course these shocking statements by "scientists" shows the crooked lengths they are willing to go to in order to force their unproven beliefs on a naive and unsuspecting public.

"To reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Discover magazine, October 1989
1) Read the 'article' you posted.
2) Read the article your article is claiming to be based on.

Which author do you think is being dishonest?
Justin Schoeman

ZU-FSR (Raven)
User avatar
Jack Welles
Tree Tousand
Tree Tousand
Posts: 3857
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:15 pm
Closest Airfield: FACT
Location: Muizenberg
Has liked: 23 times
Been liked: 188 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by Jack Welles » Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:06 pm

Is this topic not a "Cessna vs Piper" or "Canon vs Nikon" type argument, where never the twain shall meet?
Jack Welles (thriller_author pen name)
https://www.amazon.com/Jack-Welles/e/B073VJQTTX
Eddie Haynes-Smart
Textbook - "The Lore of Negotiation"
http://www.loreofnegotiation.com
coline
Steep Turn Right
Posts: 298
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:17 am
Closest Airfield: FASI
Location: Springs
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 8 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by coline » Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:16 pm

To try and understand the facts around climate change, it is best to go and read Duncan Steel. Once you grasp the facts of the physics, population and the food/energy to support the population, one can then begin to prioritize what action we can take to combat, if at all, the effects. Currently the world is doing nothing constructive.

Colin
vanjast
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 806
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:08 pm
Closest Airfield: 200
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 20 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by vanjast » Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:44 pm

Climate change, global warming... whatever the 'greenies' and their accompanying green economy want to call it.. is nothing more than hokus pocus.

For the simple reason that we do not have a few hundred thousand years of records ot actually make a sensible conclusion, so it's nothing but theory and fear mongering by a twisted media, that feeds off 'scientists' wanted to make a name for themselves and the greed for 'research funds'.. and these same people use the media. It's like fake news, where not much info is certified before publishing.

Before one gets excited about pollution, what happened before fire and disaster control. Fires and disasters continued unabated until they burnt themselve out... I bet that is a lot more polltuion than humanity has created :wink:
dany
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1910
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 7:07 am
Closest Airfield: moscow
Location: Moscow/Africa
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 13 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by dany » Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:23 pm

We do have records actually. Nature keeps its own logbooks.
These users liked the author dany for the post:
Darren
excolonial
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2066
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:09 pm
Closest Airfield: komani
Location: East Jalalabad on the Straits.
Has liked: 192 times
Been liked: 65 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by excolonial » Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:10 am

skytrooper wrote:
Exactly, The Emperical Evidence for Climate Change is beyond overwhelming, those so called "non believers" Are either corrupted politicians spreading propaganda, creating "so called scientific data " to propagate their lies all for one cause only, their own selfish greed with no regard to the planet and those inhibiting it or either frankly put dumb or blind by not understanding the evidence.
Skytrooper, the climate may indeed be warming, it may hemispherical bias to it due to many factors. All this "empirical evidence" does not clearly show the relationship between climate change and human activity vs natural pollution and solar cycles. The climate modeling, as with all models is entirely dependent on the quality of its inputs, and the results are easily skewed by bias, whether intentional or not.

You calling those who disagree with you "non believers", is ample evidence that you "believe" what you are told at face value. Climate science is guesswork at best, and many conflicting views have been espoused based on very real data. Look up global dimming, and also the rainfall patterns caused by greenhouse gasses, and the recent reduction in pollution actually causing warming. Way too big a subject, and way to complex to draw any real conclusions based on a very short period of ananlysis, much of which is flawed and driven by a desire to make money. The so called "green" lobby is a huge industry, and is just as ugly and corrupt as those that oppose them.

Of all the threats we face, I think "climate change" is a long way down the list. Pollution/overpopulation(linear relationship) is a far bigger threat, and does not require any scientific effort to "prove".
The older I get, the more I am convinced that "A Confederacy of Dunces" is non fiction.
excolonial
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2066
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:09 pm
Closest Airfield: komani
Location: East Jalalabad on the Straits.
Has liked: 192 times
Been liked: 65 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by excolonial » Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:14 am

heisan wrote:
1) Read the 'article' you posted.
2) Read the article your article is claiming to be based on.

Which author do you think is being dishonest?
Quite probably both of them, depending on who is funding them - there is precious little independent climate science out there, and that which there is agree on very little (about the impact f human activity anyway). Just becuase you lke/agree with what someone is saying, and it validates your view does mean it is accurate or correct.
The older I get, the more I am convinced that "A Confederacy of Dunces" is non fiction.
User avatar
skytrooper
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2175
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:39 pm
Has liked: 22 times
Been liked: 26 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by skytrooper » Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:55 am

excolonial wrote:
skytrooper wrote:
Exactly, The Emperical Evidence for Climate Change is beyond overwhelming, those so called "non believers" Are either corrupted politicians spreading propaganda, creating "so called scientific data " to propagate their lies all for one cause only, their own selfish greed with no regard to the planet and those inhibiting it or either frankly put dumb or blind by not understanding the evidence.
Skytrooper, the climate may indeed be warming, it may hemispherical bias to it due to many factors. All this "empirical evidence" does not clearly show the relationship between climate change and human activity vs natural pollution and solar cycles. The climate modeling, as with all models is entirely dependent on the quality of its inputs, and the results are easily skewed by bias, whether intentional or not.

You calling those who disagree with you "non believers", is ample evidence that you "believe" what you are told at face value. Climate science is guesswork at best, and many conflicting views have been espoused based on very real data. Look up global dimming, and also the rainfall patterns caused by greenhouse gasses, and the recent reduction in pollution actually causing warming. Way too big a subject, and way to complex to draw any real conclusions based on a very short period of ananlysis, much of which is flawed and driven by a desire to make money. The so called "green" lobby is a huge industry, and is just as ugly and corrupt as those that oppose them.

Of all the threats we face, I think "climate change" is a long way down the list. Pollution/overpopulation(linear relationship) is a far bigger threat, and does not require any scientific effort to "prove".
Excolonial, Yes the evidence does clearly show the relation between human activity and climate change. Clearly you don't understand the science and know even less what i base my knowledge upon, a typical denier reply.

Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

For our next piece of evidence, we must look at the amount of CO2 in the air. We know from bubbles of air trapped in ice cores that before the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 in the air was approximately 280 parts per million (ppm). In June 2013, the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory in Hawaii announced that, for the first time in thousands of years, the amount of CO2 in the air had gone up to 400ppm. That information gives us the next piece of evidence; CO2 has increased by nearly 43% in the last 150 years.

Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.

Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.

And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.

The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up.
These users liked the author skytrooper for the post:
Darren
Ubluwulululululu....!
excolonial
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2066
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:09 pm
Closest Airfield: komani
Location: East Jalalabad on the Straits.
Has liked: 192 times
Been liked: 65 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by excolonial » Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:12 am

skytrooper wrote: Excolonial, Yes the evidence does clearly show the relation between human activity and climate change. Clearly you don't understand the science and know even less what i base my knowledge upon, a typical denier reply.
Denier?? Wow, you really are a little too predictable.

As with most people certain of their "facts" you can't even answer the simplest of challenges. If man is responsible for global warming then explain why it was warmer for much of the 1600s than it is now?

I am neither a "denier" or a "believer" (perhaps fundamentalist is a more accurate description of your view). The science is too complex, and too poorly modelled for me to accept any of their biased views on either side as "fact". Ranting and raving won't make me change my mind either.
The older I get, the more I am convinced that "A Confederacy of Dunces" is non fiction.

Return to “123.45”