Author Topic: New University Of Exeter Study Finds Climate Models Skewed, Overhype CO2 …”Uncertainties Rigorously  (Read 1992 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rangerrebew

  • Guest
New University Of Exeter Study Finds Climate Models Skewed, Overhype CO2 …”Uncertainties Rigorously Concealed”!

By P Gosselin on 1. December 2018
 

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(German text translated/edited by P Gosselin)

One of the main criticisms of the IPCC climate assessment is the marginalization of natural climate drivers. Indrani Roy of the University of Exeter published a paper in Frontiers, promoting greater consideration of natural factors in modern climate change. Press release from the University of Exeter of 10 October 2018:

    Role of “natural factors” on recent climate change underestimated, research shows

    Pioneering new research has given a new perspective on the crucial role that ‘natural factors’ play in global warming. The study, by Dr Indrani Roy at the University of Exeter, suggests that the natural phenomena such as solar eleven-year cycles and strong volcanic explosions play important roles in recent climate change which has been ‘underestimated’.

http://notrickszone.com/2018/12/01/new-university-of-exeter-study-finds-climate-models-skewed-overhype-co2-uncertainties-rigorously-concealed/

Oceander

  • Guest
Somebody shut him up.  The 97% consensus among climate scientists has already decreed that climate change is caused solely by human activity. 

@Dexter

Offline Sanguine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,986
  • Gender: Female
  • Ex-member

Offline Dexter

  • User banned for personal attacks. --CL
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,624
  • Gender: Male
I'm still not a scientist and I still don't trust the No Trick Zone. Got something recent from Fox or even Breitbart?
"I know one thing, that I know nothing."
-Socrates

Offline catfish1957

  • Laken Riley.... Say her Name. And to every past and future democrat voter- Her blood is on your hands too!!!
  • Political Researcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,365
  • Gender: Male
Somebody shut him up.  The 97% consensus among climate scientists has already decreed that climate change is caused solely by human activity. 

@Dexter

Exactly....

As algore said, the Argument is over with.

These guys being drummed out the meteorological community as heretics in 3...2...1...
I display the Confederate Battle Flag in honor of my great great great grandfathers who spilled blood at Wilson's Creek and Shiloh.  5 others served in the WBTS with honor too.

Offline Dexter

  • User banned for personal attacks. --CL
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,624
  • Gender: Male
The 97% consensus among climate scientists has already decreed that climate change is caused solely by human activity. 

Incorrect.

0% of climate scientists think climate change is caused solely by human activity. However the vast majority do believe that humans have some level of measurable impact.
"I know one thing, that I know nothing."
-Socrates

Offline bigheadfred

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,516
  • Gender: Male
  • One day Closer
She asked me name my foe then. I said the need within some men to fight and kill their brothers without thought of Love or God. Ken Hensley

Offline DB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,085
Incorrect.

0% of climate scientists think climate change is caused solely by human activity. However the vast majority do believe that humans have some level of measurable impact.

You understand that that is a meaningless statement.

Obviously paved streets (among other man made structures) raise the temperature of urban areas and is known as the heat island affect and is measurable. You want to get rid of pavement just because you can measure the "climate change" in urban areas? Phoenix AZ is something like 10 degrees warmer than it was 50 years ago and is attributed to this cause.

Oceander

  • Guest
Incorrect.

0% of climate scientists think climate change is caused solely by human activity. However the vast majority do believe that humans have some level of measurable impact.

Unless that covers only scientists who think that human activity is a principle driver of climate change, then it’s a meaningless statement, because clearly everything anyone of us does has some minor effect. 

When I pave my driveway, and shovel the snow into a mound in the backyard, I affect my local environment, but my actions are meaningless to the climate as a whole. 

You really should stop buying into lies told to you by former scientists who have sold out science for political gain.

This “consensus” of which you speak is nothing more and nothing less than the wishful thinking of people who have brought preconceived beliefs with them, and are now trying to mangle the science into justifying their prejudices.

If they had more than speculation and subjective belief, they wouldn’t need “consensus” and they wouldn’t need to bullshit people like you into accepting “consensus” and “belief” in the place of evidence and fact.

The bottom line is this: they cannot demonstrate a causal connection between human activity and global climate change.  All they can do is assert that the believe human activity must be having an effect.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2018, 08:36:43 pm by Oceander »

Offline truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,386
  • Gender: Male
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
Incorrect.

0% of climate scientists think climate change is caused solely by human activity. However the vast majority do believe that humans have some level of measurable impact.
Useless "word salad."

"God must love the common man, he made so many of them.�  Abe Lincoln

Offline Dexter

  • User banned for personal attacks. --CL
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,624
  • Gender: Male
This “consensus” of which you speak is nothing more and nothing less than the wishful thinking of people who have brought preconceived beliefs with them, and are now trying to mangle the science into justifying their prejudices.

Would you help me figure out what percentage of legit climate scientists believe AGW is happening to varying degrees? It should have been obvious that I was referring to the same thing I have been telling you in three different threads now. The vast majority of climate scientists agree that AGW is happening. They do not agree on the level of impact humans are having. Over half of them believe our impact is severe. Something like 80% believe it is moderate or worse, and 97% (last I knew) agree that there is some level of impact, from extremely minor to severe. There are something like 10% or more of climate scientists that don't think we need to worry. I just wish you'd give the others the consideration they deserve.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2018, 08:43:36 pm by Dexter »
"I know one thing, that I know nothing."
-Socrates

Oceander

  • Guest
Would you help me figure out what percentage of legit climate scientists believe AGW is happening to varying degrees? It should have been obvious that I was referring to the same thing I have been telling you in three different threads now. The vast majority of climate scientists agree that AGW is happening. They do not agree on the level of impact humans are having. Over half of them believe our impact is severe. Something like 80% believe it is moderate or worse, and 97% (last I knew) agree that there is some level of impact, from extremely minor to severe. There are something like 10% or more of climate scientists that don't think we need to worry. I just wish you'd give the others the consideration they deserve.

No. You’re the one acting as proponent for this “consensus” so its up to you to unpack it, tease out the nuances, and demonstrate that there really is something there other wishful thinking and preconceived political bias. 

Until you can do that, you’re selling everyone here a bill of goods, and the rest of us are justified in rejecting it.

Offline Dexter

  • User banned for personal attacks. --CL
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,624
  • Gender: Male
No. You’re the one acting as proponent for this “consensus” so its up to you to unpack it, tease out the nuances, and demonstrate that there really is something there other wishful thinking and preconceived political bias. 

Until you can do that, you’re selling everyone here a bill of goods, and the rest of us are justified in rejecting it.

There is a consensus that AGW is a real thing. There is not an extreme consensus that AGW is a critical threat to our way of life, but most climate scientists are at least worried about that. It's so incredibly ignorant and dangerous to shrug off their concerns. You are the one with political bias. Republicans are too stubborn to admit they might be wrong about AGW.
"I know one thing, that I know nothing."
-Socrates

Offline DB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,085
There is a consensus that AGW is a real thing. There is not an extreme consensus that AGW is a critical threat to our way of life, but most climate scientists are at least worried about that. It's so incredibly ignorant and dangerous to shrug off their concerns. You are the one with political bias. Republicans are too stubborn to admit they might be wrong about AGW.

The ignorance is on your part. Educate yourself. Don't take the easy way out and rely on supposed "experts" with an agenda. Otherwise you just become a pawn in someone else's game.

Offline catfish1957

  • Laken Riley.... Say her Name. And to every past and future democrat voter- Her blood is on your hands too!!!
  • Political Researcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,365
  • Gender: Male
The ignorance is on your part. Educate yourself. Don't take the easy way out and rely on supposed "experts" with an agenda. Otherwise you just become a pawn in someone else's game.

This is a conservative forum.  I am really surprised we have some here that have bought into this hokum.
I display the Confederate Battle Flag in honor of my great great great grandfathers who spilled blood at Wilson's Creek and Shiloh.  5 others served in the WBTS with honor too.

Offline Sanguine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,986
  • Gender: Female
  • Ex-member
No. You’re the one acting as proponent for this “consensus” so its up to you to unpack it, tease out the nuances, and demonstrate that there really is something there other wishful thinking and preconceived political bias. 

Until you can do that, you’re selling everyone here a bill of goods, and the rest of us are justified in rejecting it.

When you're right, you are so right!

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,365
  • Gender: Male
  • Dumbest member of the forum
Dexter wrote:
"There is a consensus that AGW is a real thing..."

You should take a few minutes to read Dr. Michael Crichton's essay on the role of "consensus" in science:
http://www.aei.org/publication/for-earth-day-michael-crichton-explains-why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-consensus-science/

Oceander

  • Guest
There is a consensus that AGW is a real thing. There is not an extreme consensus that AGW is a critical threat to our way of life, but most climate scientists are at least worried about that. It's so incredibly ignorant and dangerous to shrug off their concerns. You are the one with political bias. Republicans are too stubborn to admit they might be wrong about AGW.

So what?  A “consensus” in science is code-speak for “something we really want to be true, but we don’t have the evidence to back up our belief.”

In other words, consensus isn’t the end result of science, it’s the antithesis of science. 

So, you say there is a consensus amongst a group of individuals who call themselves climate scientists that humans have caused global warming.

I say fine; that just means they aren’t scientists.  If they were scientists, they would have science - reasoned hypothesis supported by objective evidence verified through repeatable experiment - they wouldn’t need consensus.

So you say there is a consensus?  I say that’s too bad, because it means we don’t have science, we have religious belief masquerading as science, and policy should be based on science, not religious belief.

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,827
There is a consensus that AGW is a real thing

There was also a consensus back in '72 that McGovern would beat Nixon.  How did ghat pan out?
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Offline Dexter

  • User banned for personal attacks. --CL
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,624
  • Gender: Male
There was also a consensus back in '72 that McGovern would beat Nixon.  How did ghat pan out?

It doesn't guarantee anything, but it is very significant that most climate scientists have come to the same conclusion. We should at least be listening to them.
"I know one thing, that I know nothing."
-Socrates

Offline Sanguine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,986
  • Gender: Female
  • Ex-member
It doesn't guarantee anything, but it is very significant that most climate scientists have come to the same conclusion. We should at least be listening to them.

Well, obviously we've been listening to them or we wouldn't be able to so thoroughly refute their claims!

Oceander

  • Guest
It doesn't guarantee anything, but it is very significant that most climate scientists have come to the same conclusion. We should at least be listening to them.

Why?  If they had reasonable hypothesis based on evidence derived from reproducible experiment, they wouldn’t need consensus because they would have science.  Instead, they have a political decision. 

They don’t derserve the time of day until they have science, and not politics.

Offline The_Reader_David

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,275
Not only have the role of natural factors been underestimated, the role of non-greenhouse-gas human impacts has been, too:  all of the models underestimate the effect of changes in arctic albedo due to soot from coal burning, principally in China and India (exempted from the Paris Accord caps), but also in Russia.

Human causation that can be fixed by three non-Western countries adopting and enforcing analogues of the American Clean Air Act somehow isn't interesting to the IPCC.   :pondering:
And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know what this was all about.

Offline bigheadfred

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,516
  • Gender: Male
  • One day Closer
Not only have the role of natural factors been underestimated, the role of non-greenhouse-gas human impacts has been, too:  all of the models underestimate the effect of changes in arctic albedo due to soot from coal burning, principally in China and India (exempted from the Paris Accord caps), but also in Russia.

Human causation that can be fixed by three non-Western countries adopting and enforcing analogues of the American Clean Air Act somehow isn't interesting to the IPCC.   :pondering:

The Asian "brown cloud". Visible even from the limited orbit obtainable on this flat earth.
She asked me name my foe then. I said the need within some men to fight and kill their brothers without thought of Love or God. Ken Hensley