Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
tmcom

Its a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

812 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

lost_shaman
1 hour ago, Essan said:

Or, indeed, an explanation based on science as to why increasing atmospheric CO2, massive deforestation, brown clouds, black soot, contrails, urbanisation etc  etc would not cause climate change?

All these things are potential forcings. Who argues differently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Look at the degree of indoctrination people are exposed to on a Daily basis. For an average person just going about their daily life without much scientific background as a foundation, how can such a person be expected to have any opinion other than what is force fed to them constantly in all forms of Media? This is by design, you are not supposed to think about Global Warming caused by your own actions, you are supposed to "Believe" this is true and Vote accordingly. Forget what ulterior motives any given Politician may have to seek Power just as long as they are a Climate Crusader. Remember this is a matter of survival and only the Globalists/Socialists Climate Crusaders can save Humanity and if you think differently you are literally the Enemy of Humanity.

Yes, Doug wants a constant breakdown on Gores stuffup, which l have already done, but nope, he wants another breakdown, not sure whether he is suffering from Alzheimers or something else? But unfortunately he only needs to go to one of his junk science sites, (80% of search results) and Gores mess magically is no more.

6 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

I am still looking for a complete list of predictions Gore made and so far, I have not found one.  Neither have you posted one.  I need specifics, not somebody's interpretations.  I need Gore's own words.

What 900+ peer-reviewed papers were those?  Good scholarship demands not only a list, but citations in the text.  I don't believe Gore intended his PowerPoint to be a scientific production, but there should be a properly annotated copy around somewhere.  Wish I could get a Nobel Prize for a PowerPoint.

I am a practicing scientist.  That fact alone should tell you that I won't accept your funny stories as anything other than funny stories.  If you want to be convincing, post the science.

Doug

I have already done so, last time you asked this question! This conversation is becoming psychotic!

6 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

It's still not a list of predictions in Gore's own words, but here is a list from Skeptical Science:

https://skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm

Of Gore's listed ten predictions, the only one we can definitely say he got wrong is that Killimanjaro is not cie-free.  It still has glaciers, albeit smaller and in decline.  That decline is probably due to evaporation resulting from deforestation and not climate change.

The other none are too soon to tell, too vague to determine or accurate.

Doug

Already done so that last time you asked for a breakdown, and l have watched both his movies, and he got Nothing right!!!!

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/328388-its-a-mad-mad-mad-mad-world/?page=9

Post #200 and something.

5 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

What a complete waste of Time and student loan money! A "Carbon Footprint" is all but meaningless if the Climate sensitivity to CO2 is low, which I contend that it is. BUT I'm sure that is a Nice hard indoctrination for "every student", you know in case they missed it in all Media while growing up. :rolleyes: How about a course on how to recycle plastics as that would at least be worthwhile thing to learn (ask me about getting College educated people to recycle/spoiler they are retarded!). 

What a silly thing to say. You want people to 'believe' just as you do. I've tried to expose you to the facts that CO2 is less dangerous than you believe it is but you fight tooth and nail against the idea that CO2 might be relatively inert not because the evidence and math is saying so but because that would be antithetical to your beliefs. For you the proverbial Boogie Man is always right around the next corner.

Yes, as is shown above, (and as l have known from similar conversations elsewhere) we will never get through, and instead of saying, "you are right" we get cyclical, repetition of valid evidence, hoping that magically it will change.

I would say that for our own sanity, we need to avoid the faithful.

B)

Edited by tmcom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
7 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

All these things are potential forcings. Who argues differently?

Those who say humans are not affecting the climate ;)  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

What a complete waste of Time and student loan money! A "Carbon Footprint" is all but meaningless if the Climate sensitivity to CO2 is low, which I contend that it is. BUT I'm sure that is a Nice hard indoctrination for "every student", you know in case they missed it in all Media while growing up. :rolleyes: How about a course on how to recycle plastics as that would at least be worthwhile thing to learn (ask me about getting College educated people to recycle/spoiler they are retarded!). 

What a silly thing to say. You want people to 'believe' just as you do. I've tried to expose you to the facts that CO2 is less dangerous than you believe it is but you fight tooth and nail against the idea that CO2 might be relatively inert not because the evidence and math is saying so but because that would be antithetical to your beliefs. For you the proverbial Boogie Man is always right around the next corner.

Recycling is part of the same course that includes the carbon footprint.  In our department, this is one of those Intro courses that covers a little bit of everything for people going to Environmental Sciences.

It's simple:  once they know the science, there's really no other conclusion to come up with.

14 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

What do you mean by "warmer"? Do you mean vary positively above a mean average? That happens in noise all the time.  You also say "despite declining axial tilt", well at best this is a super low frequency forcing just off in the long term background. Very small inter-annual changes in Cloud cover are likely hundreds of times more powerful than even decadal axial forcings.

 

I know this is not the answer you are looking for nor is it my only answer, but if for no other reason at all there are simply long term trend phenomena in Noise. THIS is why you can't just say something else is trending in the same direction so the two MUST be related. 

I believe Essan is referring to the 1.8 degrees of human-caused warming since 1750.  He's right.  If you don't believe there's such a thing as global warming, then show me a dataset that backs up what you're saying.  Ever consider that you're losing these arguments because you never post any evidence - with the exception of one dodgy paper that was so poorly done it didn't get published.

Axial tilt should be causing the earth to cool.  But, like you say, it is a very small amount.

That cloud cover you're talking about increases when evaporation increases.  Evaporation increases when temps go up.  Temps go up when CO2 goes up.  That's one of those CO2-related forcings you don't believe in.

 

BTW:  In Oklahoma Climate Divison 5, and I'll bet in Vernon, Texas, too, the months of April, May and June are getting wetter, an increase of 1.12 on the PDSI scale over the last 100 years.  That's not enough to notice unless you're keeping records, but it is enough for eastern red-cedar to notice and start invading range lands.  Climate change is about a lot more than temperatures.  I plan to do some more work on this and see if I can refine it better.  Stay tuned.

Doug

 

 

Edited by Doug1029
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
1 hour ago, lost_shaman said:

July_2019_weatherBell.jpeg.f1a77d48f85b912967afaa9cb28c0975.jpeg

Any reason there is no link to the source? Given data for July is, in the real world, still only provisional?

Albeit most of the world appears to be warmer than normal on that map!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
6 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

I believe Essan is referring to the 1.8 degrees of human-caused warming since 1750.

There was no "Human caused" warming in 1750 by anyone's standard, nor in 1850 or even by 1900. Any warming that occurred between 1750 and 1900 would be purely natural warming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
14 minutes ago, Essan said:

Any reason there is no link to the source?

You can see at the bottom of the image that it is from WeatherBELL, based on NOAA’s Climate Forecast System Version 2 (CFSv2).

16 minutes ago, Essan said:

Given data for July is, in the real world, still only provisional?

Why would data from July be provisional in the "real world" when it is August now? It was your link to the BBC that was provisional because the story was written on July 29th, the WeatherBELL map goes through the entire month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Essan said:

Any reason there is no link to the source? Given data for July is, in the real world, still only provisional?

Albeit most of the world appears to be warmer than normal on that map!

 

As of Aug. 2, 2019 at 3:15p.m. CST, NOAA has not publihsed the July temperature.  We'll have to wait a few days to get the official results.

BUT: June was 0.11C warmer than June 2016.  If that trend continues, July 2019 will be the warmest month on record.  HOWEVER:  it won't be by much.  The two estimates are very close together and trying to separate two readings less than 0.007C apart is statisttically impossible.  What we're going to get is a guess.

23 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

There was no "Human caused" warming in 1750 by anyone's standard, nor in 1850 or even by 1900. Any warming that occurred between 1750 and 1900 would be purely natural warming. 

In order to determine how much warming there has been, you need a year to use as a reference, one that hasn't been siginifcantly affected by warming.  That's why the IPCC chose 1750.  You really don't understand warming or science, do you?

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
4 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

You can see at the bottom of the image that it is from WeatherBELL, based on NOAA’s Climate Forecast System Version 2 (CFSv2).

Why would data from July be provisional in the "real world" when it is August now? It was your link to the BBC that was provisional because the story was written on July 29th, the WeatherBELL map goes through the entire month.

As of today, NOAA is still analyzing it.  Until that is complete, we don't have the last coupld of days for July to include in our calculations.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
2 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

As of today, NOAA is still analyzing it.  Until that is complete, we don't have the last coupld of days for July to include in our calculations.

I don't mind waiting to see what NOAA publishes but UAH has already shown July 2019 was 3rd in its dataset behind 1998 and 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
3 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

I don't mind waiting to see what NOAA publishes but UAH has already shown July 2019 was 3rd in its dataset behind 1998 and 2016.

And I have already pointed out that NOAA may not agree.

At any rate, the differences will be small.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
34 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

You can see at the bottom of the image that it is from WeatherBELL, based on NOAA’s Climate Forecast System Version 2 (CFSv2).

Why would data from July be provisional in the "real world" when it is August now? It was your link to the BBC that was provisional because the story was written on July 29th, the WeatherBELL map goes through the entire month.

Weatherbell is run by Joe Bastardi, well known climate change denier.  But in any case the map contradicts the claims

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
4 minutes ago, Essan said:

Even Roy Spence accepts a decadal warming trend.

So do I. We've been in a long term warming trend since 1750 (a date Doug likes to throw around). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
31 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

So do I. We've been in a long term warming trend since 1750 (a date Doug likes to throw around). 

Why?  We should be in a long term cooling trend.   And that's the point.   There is no known reason for it unless you invoke human activity.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
6 hours ago, Essan said:

Why?  We should be in a long term cooling trend.   And that's the point. 

Why should we be in a long term cooling trend? Based on what? 

Before you claimed "Axial tilt" is the reason the Earth "should" be cooling so I assume this is what you mean now. If so, then you have some research to do because your idea of "what should be happening" and what is actually happening are off kilter. 

Right now the Tilt is 23.5 degrees and slowly decreasing in a range of 24.5 - 22.1 degrees. Because this is such a slow low frequency forcing it has almost nothing to do with centennial or millennial trends that we are talking about right now in terms of Global temperatures. 

Also, wheres your link Mr. Link Police? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
45 minutes ago, Essan said:

Wiki plus some obscure article from 2009?

How about you read...

"Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale" V. V. Zharkova, S. J. Shepherd, S. I. Zharkov & E. Popova Scientific Reports volume 9, Article number: 9197 (2019)

Zharkova (2019) shows that Total Solar Irradience since the Maunder Minimum has increased by 1-1.5 w/m2 which would COMPLETELY reverse any 0.2C/millennium forcing from the Milinkovich cycle. Or that the Sun's oscillation around the Solar systems barycenter is another unreported forcing that plays a major role despite or in concert with the Earth's Orbit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman

Just for reference a 0.2C/millennium forcing equates to 0.0002C forcing per/year or 0.0538C since 1750 AD. 

While a 1 w/m2 forcing in TSI equates to at least 0.303C as per IPCC equations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
28 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

the Sun's oscillation around the Solar systems barycenter

This is one of the Major ways that we detect Exo-Planets, yet it is highly unreported in context of Milinkovich cycles or Climate Science. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

We are getting off subject here this thread should be about mad, so to get back on subject...or drag Greta through the mud, (mud is natural so).

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/will-greta-heal-the-sick-and-lame-in-america-then-walk-back-home/news-story/ea6a7179a59c83cd557ded3ed1491b6a

Quote

“Will Greta heal the lame and the sick while in the Americas? Then walk back home?”

Yes, let's throw her in the ocean and see if she can walk on it?

Quote

“The carbon fibre is held together by epoxy resin-petrochemicals. The sails and running rigging are petrochemical, the standing rigging is stainless steel. The generators and solar panels use rare earth metals. A 747 is paragon of climate virtue compared to a modern yacht!”

Ok, best to give her a month, have to account for no wind, or sun.

Quote

“There are more holes than an onion bag in Thunberg’s theories, but the green/left/woke lemmings are prostrating themselves at her feet. The world has indeed gone mad.”

I made this larger than normal since it had the Mad work.

And l laughed at the prostrating lemmings remark. :lol:

Quote

“Trouble is adults are listening to every piece of nonsense that comes out of her mouth and treating it like pearls of wisdom. The world has gone mad.

“Seriously, any adult who pays any attention to the opinions of a teenager with zero life experience, who is unlikely to be widely read, but who has been brainwashed from an early age is truly a fool who probably struggles to do up their shoelaces. Anyone who makes policy decisions based on a teenager’s thoughts shouldn’t be in politics.”

Yes, adults keep buying this regardless, and keep feeding their 5 year old ego's insatiable appetite for a cause, so adults bowing down to a kid, is of no surprize.

Quote

“I disagree profoundly with this kid but it’s not her fault — it’s ours. We are meant to be the adults in the room and if we indulge a kid’s naivety then it’s our fault for not being mature enough to tell this kid in no uncertain terms that at her age she has neither the experience or maturity to tell adults how to live — and more fool us if we let her get away with it.”

And there is a diesal engine in her yaught. lol.

Quote

“Monty Python have truly turned out to be modern day prophets. If only they had included skits about climate change in their vast repertoire of contentious topics.”

Yes, the critical thinking video could be easily changed to "if a lump of coal is heavier than a climate change skeptic, then they should be drowned.

Or the messiah one in Life of Brian, where Cleese says, "l should know l have followed a few, Hail, Messiah".

 

We should be saying p.....off kid you have no idea, but instead we are kissing her feet.

Mad world, indeed. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
38 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Yes, let's throw her in the ocean and see if she can walk on it?

OMGz! She is Quetzalcoatl in the Flesh!!!

40 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Ok, best to give her a month, have to account for no wind, or sun.

There is no time limit! Quetzalcoatl arrives by the Sea. 

 

42 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Yes, adults keep buying this regardless, and keep feeding their 5 year old ego's insatiable appetite for a cause, so adults bowing down to a kid, is of no surprize.

Quote

 Its freakin Quetzalcoatl Dude! Bow down and worship the God of Prophesy. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.