journey
New member
This should have been the story of the year for the man-made global warming hoax. :first:
climate change
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
This should have been the story of the year for the man-made global warming hoax. :first:
The IPCC is a joke, and is run by the UN.
Let's look at the following excerpt from HERE
"Numerous other prominent scientists — even many who have worked with the IPCC and accept some of its global-warming theories — have been equally critical. Meteorology Professor Richard Lindzen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who served as a lead author with the third IPCC report, for example, told Climate Depot that he thought the UN body had “truly sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence” with its latest assessment. “They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase,” added Dr. Lindzen, who has published hundreds of scientific papers."
So, does Dr Lindzen qualify as someone you consider a "peer" in climatology?
As we see in the article, the IPCC is backed into a corner, but they are doubling down on their hoax, despite how wrong they are.
More from Dr. Lindzen:
(bold my emphases)
"The UN-promoted theory about the missing warming being hidden somewhere in the ocean, Lindzen continued, is really an admission that its climate models do not accurately simulate natural internal variability in the system. Because the claim that human activity is responsible for global warming depends on the models being able to do just that, the IPCC is essentially admitting, “somewhat obscurely,” that its crucial assumption is unjustified, the MIT expert explained.
“Finally, in attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about,” the scientist and professor concluded. “It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.”
(bold my emphases)
"The UN-promoted theory about the missing warming being hidden somewhere in the ocean, Lindzen continued, is really an admission that its climate models do not accurately simulate natural internal variability in the system. Because the claim that human activity is responsible for global warming depends on the models being able to do just that, the IPCC is essentially admitting, “somewhat obscurely,” that its crucial assumption is unjustified, the MIT expert explained.
“Finally, in attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about,” the scientist and professor concluded. “It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.”
Tinark
Active member
Which model and discrepancy? Please identify the specific page number(s) and the title of the report(s), please!
Also, why does he fail to directly quote the report or refer to a specific figure in the report? Sounds fishy.
Tinark
Active member
Which page number(s) is this from? How can we verify his claims if no reference is provided?
Yeah, we know. We just told you. :chuckle:
Oh, great. So you post a graph you haven't checked and suddenly it is our job to do all of your research?
Evolutionists. :doh:
Um.....I think he means all of them.
I'm going to be in Cambridge, Mass. this Saturday and Sunday (seriously), do you want me to ask him? (not seriously)
However, if by chance I bump into him, I'll ask him, now that I know what he looks like.
Tinark
Active member
Google image search failed me
Regardless, you can see that the CO2 concentration increase is accelerating each decade. 2000-2010 had the highest average annual CO2 increase ever recorded. Thus, the projections for future CO2 concentrations seems quite reasonable just based on past data alone, plus known increase in fossil fuel burning from all the developing countries.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Blaming your tools, are you?
You were trying to justify the use of uncertainty in a projection and accidentally posted a chart that did not support your agenda. So now you are arguing against us about your own data.
Evolutionists. :doh:
Tinark
Active member
Yes. When someone posted data labeled "IPCC" I figured they were being honest about the source. Now I'm unsure since they don't provide any link or ability to determine where they got the data.
You were the one saying that the projections are unreliable. I was making a point that there is a range of uncertainty, sure, but it is not so uncertain as to doubt the accelerating trend in CO2 concentrations annually, on average.
The graph was more so just for illustrative purposes.
Ardima
New member
Google image search failed me
Regardless, you can see that the CO2 concentration increase is accelerating each decade. 2000-2010 had the highest average annual CO2 increase ever recorded. Thus, the projections for future CO2 concentrations seems quite reasonable just based on past data alone, plus known increase in fossil fuel burning from all the developing countries.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Highest ever recorded? Ok I'll give you that; but what about the, as evolutionists would claim, "billions of years" not recorded. You think maybe it could be a natural pattern in a bigger scheme not recorded?
Seriously, stop applying what people claim to observe through the scientific method as universal fact. What we see today is not what could have or would have been seen even a millenia ago.
If every year the earth goes around the sun we are getting further away from it, we should be getting colder, not hotter. Use the logic that God gave you...
Posted from the TOL App!
Like every other lousy craftsman.
Nope. Pays to remember who you are talking to.
:dizzy:
Tinark
Active member
Like every other lousy craftsman.
I never claimed to be a climate graph craftsman.
You are right, I got you confused with resurrected
IPCC CO2 projection can be relied upon. That is all.
Tinark
Active member
We can measure the human contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere. All major sources and sinks of CO2 are accounted for.
Additionally, ice core data demonstrates that CO2 levels haven't been this high in the last 400k years.
So?
The speed at which this is occurring is so slow that it wouldn't have a measurable effect, unlike CO2 concentration increases in the atmosphere.
You really are full of anger, aren't you?
This is getting too deep for me. And that's not depth of consideration. Later.
GuySmiley
Well-known member
Just looking at the chart though shows you its making the opposite point of what you were saying. You saw IPCC and posted it. Btw, the website listed on the chart is the secret source you couldn't find either. I linked the report the chart is from in my response.
Then you posted a chart showing actual readings outside of the bounds of the uncertainty . . . with a title saying it not happening. :jawdrop:
don't you feel silly?
Tinark
Active member
Your response linked to the website it came from. That website does not link to the IPPC report or specify how to find the specific chart or data used to create it.
I admit it when I'm wrong. You should give it a try.