|
Post by missouriboy on May 20, 2019 2:43:07 GMT
Thanks for the suggestions guys. Guess I'm going to have to do some downloading and practicing.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 21, 2019 1:43:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 22, 2019 2:29:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on May 24, 2019 19:08:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 25, 2019 1:22:00 GMT
"Page does not exist"? At first I thought you had posted an image depicting GoreAl's conscience.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 25, 2019 9:38:27 GMT
"Page does not exist"? At first I thought you had posted an image depicting GoreAl's conscience. No it was: Ethics in Climate 'Science' (The single sheet printed version is between 'Domestic Science' and 'Political Science' in college libraries)
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 25, 2019 18:36:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 26, 2019 2:42:51 GMT
Inference related to common breaks in a multivariate system with joined segmented trends with applications to global and hemispheric temperaturesThat's NOT German?
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 26, 2019 4:00:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 26, 2019 9:00:09 GMT
"US Now Wettest In 2 Decades! Meteorologist Bastardi: 2012 “Permanent Drought” Predictions “As Big A Fiasco” As Ice-Free Arctic Prediction,
Again today we are seeing earlier sensational, hysterical alarmist predictions made by “climate scientists” falling to pieces before our eyes. Recall how back in 2012 parts of the USA were seeing drought conditions and so the climate alarmists declared the US climate was entering a “permanent drought” – due to man’s use of fossil fuels. The only hope, they claimed, was that we radically transform our free-market based system into an (experimental) authoritarian, eco-socialist society with diminished property rights and severely rationed energy. Major policy decisions would then be done by “science experts” sitting on a “Future Committee” and not by masses of ignorant voters."notrickszone.com/2019/05/25/us-now-wettest-in-2-decades-meteorologist-bastardi-2012-permanent-drought-predictions-as-big-a-fiasco-as-ice-free-arctic-prediction/
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 27, 2019 8:10:04 GMT
"Science's Untold Scandal: The Lockstep March of Professional Societies to Promote the Climate Change Scare
When we started our careers, it was considered an honor to be a member of professional societies that helped practitioners keep up with the latest developments in their fields through relevant meetings and publications. Senior author Dr. Jay Lehr had the privilege of leading one of these societies long ago. But things are different now. Whether it be chemistry, physics, geology or engineering, many of the world’s primary professional societies have changed from being paragons of technical virtue to opportunistic groups focused on maximizing their members' financial gains in support of the climate scare, the world’s greatest science fraud. In particular, they continue to promote the groundless hypothesis that carbon dioxide emitted as a result of mankind’s use of fossil fuels is leading to environmental catastrophe. "pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/sciences-untold-scandal-the-lockstep-march-of-professional-societies-to-promote-the-climate-change-scare/What is interesting here is not so much the story - as that an outlet like Pajama Media is posting it. So the non-alarmists appear to be making inroads into the media. Could this account for the renewed shrieking and climate change becoming climate emergency? However, do read the article in full as it has some very interesting points especially about Allan MacRae and APEGA.
|
|
|
Post by mondeoman on May 27, 2019 8:44:06 GMT
If they really were winning their "war on climate", then there would be no need to make it an "emergency". Nature isn't on their side, so the rhetoric has to become more shrill.
What they've missed is that an empty can rattles the most, and most people know that.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 28, 2019 11:33:03 GMT
"An “attack” that is nothing of the sort Yesterday, the New York Times got rather upset over changes to President Trump’s climate policy, which it represented a hardening of his “attack on climate science”. Interestingly though, you have to read quite a lot of words before you actually get to the point – usually a sure sign that there is actually nothing much by way of news and quite a lot by way of hand waving. It turns out that Trump’s attempt to “undermine the very science on which climate change policy rests” is down to this:
>>[Director of the US Geological Survey,] James Reilly, a former astronaut and petroleum geologist, has ordered that scientific assessments…use only computer-generated climate models that project the impact of climate change through 2040, rather than through the end of the century, as had been done previously. <<
To describe this as an “attack” is obviously absurd. Reasonable people can question the ability of climate models to give us useful information about the climate in 20 years’ time, let alone 80. In a GWPF paper published last week, it was pointed out that climate models are overestimating warming in the tropical troposphere by a factor of three. With errors of that magnitude, how much trust can we really put in projections for the end of the century? You would have to be quite an innocent to take them at face value."More at: www.thegwpf.com/attack/
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on May 28, 2019 12:55:24 GMT
"An “attack” that is nothing of the sort Yesterday, the New York Times got rather upset over changes to President Trump’s climate policy, which it represented a hardening of his “attack on climate science”. Interestingly though, you have to read quite a lot of words before you actually get to the point – usually a sure sign that there is actually nothing much by way of news and quite a lot by way of hand waving. It turns out that Trump’s attempt to “undermine the very science on which climate change policy rests” is down to this:
>>[Director of the US Geological Survey,] James Reilly, a former astronaut and petroleum geologist, has ordered that scientific assessments…use only computer-generated climate models that project the impact of climate change through 2040, rather than through the end of the century, as had been done previously. <<
To describe this as an “attack” is obviously absurd. Reasonable people can question the ability of climate models to give us useful information about the climate in 20 years’ time, let alone 80. In a GWPF paper published last week, it was pointed out that climate models are overestimating warming in the tropical troposphere by a factor of three. With errors of that magnitude, how much trust can we really put in projections for the end of the century? You would have to be quite an innocent to take them at face value."More at: www.thegwpf.com/attack/ mailchi.mp/6cd6282382fc/press-releaseclimate-models-have-been-predicting-too-much-warming-174401
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 28, 2019 13:10:42 GMT
"An “attack” that is nothing of the sort Yesterday, the New York Times got rather upset over changes to President Trump’s climate policy, which it represented a hardening of his “attack on climate science”. Interestingly though, you have to read quite a lot of words before you actually get to the point – usually a sure sign that there is actually nothing much by way of news and quite a lot by way of hand waving. It turns out that Trump’s attempt to “undermine the very science on which climate change policy rests” is down to this:
>>[Director of the US Geological Survey,] James Reilly, a former astronaut and petroleum geologist, has ordered that scientific assessments…use only computer-generated climate models that project the impact of climate change through 2040, rather than through the end of the century, as had been done previously. <<
To describe this as an “attack” is obviously absurd. Reasonable people can question the ability of climate models to give us useful information about the climate in 20 years’ time, let alone 80. In a GWPF paper published last week, it was pointed out that climate models are overestimating warming in the tropical troposphere by a factor of three. With errors of that magnitude, how much trust can we really put in projections for the end of the century? You would have to be quite an innocent to take them at face value."More at: www.thegwpf.com/attack/ From the GWPF article quoting John Christy: "“They all have rapid warming above 30,000 feet in the tropics – it’s effectively a diagnostic signal of greenhouse warming. But in reality it’s just not happening. It’s warming up there, but at only about one third of the rate predicted by the models.”"This is the famous tropical tropospheric hot-spot. I wonder sometimes if the models the climate 'scientists' use have a 'typing' (as in computer variable typing) problem and that they are considering heat == temperature; perhaps there is more latent heat with higher humidity. Does this fit with the metrics for the upper troposphere in the tropics? Anyone know? There are some references such as: "Typical Vertical Profiles
One of the things Romps is interested in explaining is the "C" shape of vertical relative humidity profiles: the relative humidity is largest close to the surface and in the upper troposphere, with a maximum of about 90%, and there is a minimum of around 30% in the mid-troposphere. This shape comes about because of how s and d
change with altitude.
When going from the surface to the mid-troposphere the lapse rate increases and the change in temperature is large, so s increases and, assuming that d is roughly constant, the relative humidity will decrease. But eventually s stablizes at about 1km−1, because Γ is just the dry adiabatic lapse rate. At the same time, d
starts to increase close to the anvil and so the relative humidity gets large again in the upper troposphere. This gives us the C shape.
We can also calculate what we expect the maximum and minimum relative humidities to be. Taking s ~ 0.3km−1 in the lower troposphere and using the values of d from before, we get 0.2/(0.2+0.3)=0.4 and 2/(2+0.3) = 0.9, close to what is observed."nicklutsko.github.io/blog/2016/09/04/Relative_Humidity
|
|