Squalid posted:Please don't image leach. Thanks.
yes please save the image to your hard drive, spinning it up to 75,000 rpms, then from there reupload it to another website, taxing their servers, unnecessarily requiring millions of superfluous CPU cycles and generating extra waste heat in our already overcrowded thermosphere, tia
Ironicwarcriminal posted:“I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence,” Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot… ”They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.”
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claimed it was 95 percent sure that global warming was mainly driven by human burning of fossil fuels that produce greenhouse gases. The I.P.C.C. also glossed over the fact that the Earth has not warmed in the past 15 years, arguing that the heat was absorbed by the ocean.
“Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean,” Lindzen added. “However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.”
“However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability,” Lindzen continued. “Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.”
hubris and folly from our cretinous technocratic elite
why would you even quote something from a 'scientist' who says the earth hasnt warmed over the past 15 years
roseweird posted:do you know any coal miners? i don't
that's only because that judge said you arent allowed to come within 500 yards of a miner
Superabound posted:can you imagine living in a world without miners? FUCK, i sure cant!
itd be a lonely world
'the heat is hiding in the ocean' sounds a lot like 'the dog ate my homework' to me
In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950.
In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems.
In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.
Almost all CMIP5 historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus.
you've all been conned
roseweird posted:regardless of what you believe about climate change a global economy based on fossil fuels and their byproducts is gross and unsustainable and it seems naive to point to the dishonesty and hyperbole of climate researchers without putting it in the context of a fossil fuel lobby that has a long history of dismissing much less controversial environmental/public health concerns, because the only thing they want is to dig up and sell all of the earth's goos and gassy discharges. basically if the entire world fell for a climate hoax but the end result was a global economy running on solar and nuclear power i would say it was a pretty good lie
Ironicwarcriminal posted:what do atmospheric chemists know about oceans or solar radiation
jack
fucking
shit
at least a little bit, depending on the work they are carrying out? i mean the atmosphere is in constant chemical exchange with the ocean, you can't fully study one without the other, and you can't study atmospheric chemistry without some awareness of variations in solar radiation. pretend i said "a member of a team containing a marine ecologist, an atmospheric chemist, and an astrophysicist, plus Others" if that makes you feel better
you forgot An Australian
Ironicwarcriminal posted:no thanks, i choose logic: and logic tells me that if the rate of warming has slowed while the rate of human emissions has increased then something's not adding up
'the heat is hiding in the ocean' sounds a lot like 'the dog ate my homework' to me
If I took your head and pounded it through windshields, I bet it wouldn't matter. Nothing. Not a thing from this world would hold any import. You'd be out of any sort of activity in this world. Global warming would mean nothing to you. I want this for you. I want you to feel as such. Sydney airplane ticket purchased ass hole. Hope your 1 million dollar closets don't value windows at too high a price.
roseweird posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
good, the climatologists can investigate it on their own dime and we can reinvest their salaries towards actual public services that matter to working peoples lives.
yeah, climate research is the main thing standing in the way of working people receiving necessary public services, i'm sure if we cut climate science funding poverty will immediately become a thing of the past ??????? ??? ?? ?
?
calm down dear
i don't know what a gamerscore is because i don't play games because i'm not a child
Real scientists and science use successful past prediction as evidence their theory is correct. Climate "science" doesn't work like this. They don't ever want to talk about how successful past predictions have been; they always want to talk about their new predictions which haven't yet been tested. And climate "scientists" do this because the normal measure of scientific truth - the ability of the theory to make accurate future predictions - is woeful.
I believe theories such as General Relativity and Evolution through Natural Selection to be valid theories because they make multiple novel predictions which have turned out to be correct. I do not believe current climate "science" to be a valid theory, as it has not demonstrated any predictive power. In this sense it is akin to Astrology; I don't have to understand the theory behind Astrology to know that it is false theory; I just have to note that Astrology is very poor at predicting the future, which is the acid test for truth in science.
For climate "science" to move out of the pseudo-science category (where it sits right next door to Astrology) and into the real science category (joining Darwin, Einstein, Maxwell, Bohr) it needs to produce similarly accurate predictions. Einstein's General Relativity makes predictions valid to seven significant digits, Maxwell's equations make predictions verified to nine significant digits. Climate "science" can't make predictions of temperature change valid to even a single significant digit. Indeed, climate "science" has less predictive power than Astrology, where at least occasionally the predictions are true.
Which explains why climate scientists are always talking about new predictions which have not yet been shown to be false rather than their past predictions which have already turned out to be false. For example, 10 years ago the prediction was made that dams would never again be full on the East Coast of Australia. In fact most are currently overflowing. The prediction that our dams would never be full again received extensive publicity at the time. Have you ever seen a single article by a climate "scientist" acknowledging that prediction turned out to be 100% false? No? That's because climate "science" seems to be above the scientific method - that a prediction is false does not apparently invalidate the theory. No proper science would get away with this.
If climate science made correct predictions I would believe it to be a correct theory. Same as for any other scientific theory. But its record of correct prediction is no better than Astrology manages to achieve, and as such it has about as much supporting evidence as Astrology. It is junk science.
What really unsettles scientists, however, is their inability to forecast precisely what is happening in the Arctic, the part of the world most vulnerable to the effects of global warming. 'When we did the first climate change computer models, we thought the Arctic's summer ice cover would last until around 2070,' said Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University. 'It is now clear we did not understand how thin the ice cap had already become - for Arctic ice cover has since been disappearing at ever increasing rates. Every few years we have to revise our estimates downwards. Now the most detailed computer models suggest the Arctic's summer ice is going to last for only a few more years - and given what we have seen happen last week, I think they are probably correct.'
hahaha: 'it's really unsettling we can't accurately predict stuff but like, this worst case scenario is probably gonna happen, i can feel it in my bones!'
*doesn't happen*
maybe you should read this paper
Aussie Rules, Our Rules: Ways of Knowing in Mount Druitt