OT: Climate change simulation, the forerunner


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v
xPOqwCr1I Computer predicts the end of civilisation (1973) | RetroFocus ABC News In-depth or how sims can be hopelessly wrong

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 15:42:53 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

There is still a heavyweight discussion going on over on WUWT as to whether the models linking global temperature to CO2 have any substance. A comment that I like from the most recent criticism:
"It is a little depressing that after many years of being criticised for their insufficiently good understanding of statistics and lack of close engagement with the statistical community, the climate science community appears still not to have solved this issue."
https://tinyurl.com/y4zyxo24
Also on Judith Curry's blog https://tinyurl.com/y4lxrcsp
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25/10/2019 07:35, Chris Hogg wrote:

Quite a level headed set of contributions - the Congressional testimony papers are interesting in their way, and don't seem to rely on selective papers and crass misrepresentations.
I do wonder, though, why non-climate related discussions about fossil fuel consumption and production are rarely discussed - air pollution, waste, disruption and dangers of extraction, even geopolitical stability.
They all seem to be fixated on trying to pull down and attack aspects of climate science - which I can't see ever being resolved.
--
Cheers, Rob

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, yes, because they're climate science blogs etc. I'm sure there are plenty of blogs dealing with FF consumption, pollution, hazards etc. Even WUWT touches on those sorts of topics occasionally.

It will be resolved eventually. Either the climate will get warmer due to CO2 and as predicted by the majority of climate scientists and their models (in fact a lot warmer and pretty rapidly, too; it's got quite a bit of catching up to do) or it won't. It might even plunge into a new Maunder minimum in the next couple of decades, as suggested by Zharkova. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3
Time will tell...
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25/10/2019 14:41, Chris Hogg wrote:

It has already failed to do that. # and as predicted by the majority of climate scientists
No, a monority of actual climate scientists predict that, In fact its probably only about 4 and one of those is losing court cases for lying.
< and

Indeed.*ALL* the evidence points to other things than CO2 being far more significant adjusters of climate.
--
"If you don’t read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, 26 October 2019 04:26:14 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

So why are glaciers shrinking and coral reefs dying?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/10/2019 07:54, harry wrote:

It's what happens when an ice age comes to an end.
--
Spike

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/10/2019 09:14, Spike wrote:

Soem are growing and corals are rejuvenationg

--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/10/2019 08:54, harry wrote:

Pollution for coral reefs. If see levels were rising they wouldn't bleach so easily as there would be more water to protect them from the UV. The temps of coral reefs hasn't gone up by much.
Glaciers do shrink the same as some grow and nobody here has said there isn't warming, just that its not CO2 that is doing it all. But as a brexiteer you will just lie and say everyone denies climate change even though we have millions of years of evidence that it happens all the time even when man didn't exist. It doesn't suit your stupid arguments to accept all climate change isn't driven by man.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25/10/2019 13:24, RJH wrote:

Climate change is a money spinning fraud to sell renewable energy. Those other conversations have much less traction in that arena.

Climate science is in a total mess. AGW is demonstrably a false hypothesis - at least at the level it is promoted.
The science is settled: CO2 has been shown to 3 sigma confidence levels to have very little impact on climate at all.
--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/10/2019 04:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Yeahbut - you and other climate science people on the denier spectrum seem to be interested in only one aspect - refuting AGW. You don't seem to be interested in proving anything else. And seem blind to the profound negative impact producing and consuming fossil fuels has. It sucks the oxygen out of any progressive debate.
Fossil fuels are doing much in addition. I just find it curious that the otherwise quite reasoned (from a quick read) Curry contributions are silent on other consequences of fossil fuels.

Well so you keep saying. I just have proper scientists refuting your notion. So it's an agree to differ moment.
Why don't you now harness that considerable energy and focus on another aspect of fossil fuels - you could spend the next few years denying any link between fossil fuels, respiratory disease and mortality.
--
Cheers, Rob

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/10/2019 10:58, RJH wrote:

That is because we understand that science can never prove anything true. One advances a hypothesis. The data refutes it, It is therefore bad science unless you abandon it.

Burning fossil fuels is far less harmful to mankind than stopping burning them and using renewables. We dont want to be responsible for collapsing Western civilisation ofdr driving Africa back to te stome age.

There *are* no real consequences of burning gas at all. Nor coal if its flue scrubbed and has soot precipitators. Its more dangerous to mine it underground. But not many do any more, Just rip the top off a mountain and pile it up somewhere else and rip the coal seam out with a digger.

No, you dont have proper scientists refuting that. Not one. That is actually resposnible for climate mmodels
And it isnt ME who is refuting it. It is the DATA.
Stop listening to what people tell you and look at the DATA.

Absent of unscrubbed coal burning there is no link between fossil fuels, respiratory disease and mortality.
Windmills and power cuts are far more deadly.

--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/10/2019 11:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

snip

From domestic fires to the ICE, there demonstrably is a link with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia and possibly tuberculosis. And death.
But you denying it just supports what I'm saying.
--
Cheers, Rob

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, 26 October 2019 15:18:01 UTC+1, RJH wrote:

All sources of energy cause deaths. That isn't news & does not support what you're saying in any way.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 27/10/2019 02:05, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Is that the basis of your argument - everything does something? That's exactly the sort of populist drivel that *does* support what I'm saying.
Plenty of alternatives cause fewer health issues. Consuming and producing less do too.
--
Cheers, Rob

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, 27 October 2019 08:57:07 UTC, RJH wrote:

the basis of what argument?

that all forms of power generation cause deaths is simple fact

alternatives to what? If you mean coal, sure, what's your point?

Obviously some ways to consume less cause less & some cause more deaths.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/10/2019 19:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Nonsense. Have you seen the number of 'wood burners' fitting shops and ads? Or walked in a city residential area on a cold dry evening? (although the wisdom of fitting the things, especially now in the face of tighter regulation, is more questionable)
Here in Sheffield, 3 people I know l have had wood burners fitted in the past 2 years. Annual sales 175,000 according to an industry source.
snip
--
Cheers, Rob

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 27/10/2019 09:12, RJH wrote:

Well there you go. Here they are almost mandatory on new builds as heat pumps fail in winter temperatures.
It's justs like diesel, 'Green' regulations increase pollution.

--
“Progress is precisely that which rules and regulations did not foresee,”

– Ludwig von Mises
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.