[hrothgar]

 Al_U_Card, on 2019-March-22, 20:20, said:

Recall that a "once in a hundred year event" can occur more often than that and still be within statistical norms. The qualification is used as a reference more than a prediction.
The precise mathematical relation of our 4% of the 5% of extant GHG and global climate would help to ensure that our tax dollars will be used effectively to control weather and its natural variability.

Just a regular remind that

1. Al is a LaRouchie
2. He admits to lying and falsifying information if he things it will help make his point

The goal in dealing with the likes of Al is de-platforming, not discussion

[johnu]

 Al_U_Card, on 2019-March-22, 20:20, said:

Recall that a "once in a hundred year event" can occur more often than that and still be within statistical norms. The qualification is used as a reference more than a prediction.

...
More Yada cribbed from someplace without context
...

The obvious point to most people is that if hundred year events happen every couple of years, it's no longer a hundred year event and you need to reevaluate what's normal weather. You don't have to run a statistical analysis (although you could) to understand this.

[Al_U_Card]

 Cyberyeti, on 2019-March-23, 04:57, said:

Well nobody's ever raised that as an issue here, and there are plenty of EU bashers who would if it was true.

I recall the "controversy" https://www.google.c...ay-farmers.html
but not if any conclusions were drawn. Maybe it never made the Grauniad?

[Cyberyeti]

 Al_U_Card, on 2019-March-23, 14:18, said:

I recall the "controversy" https://www.google.c...ay-farmers.html
but not if any conclusions were drawn. Maybe it never made the Grauniad?

I never read the Grauniad, it stopped doing any serious journalism years ago, the daily fail is just as bad on the other side and are exactly the sort of people who would bash the EU for this sort of thing.

Actually the agency concerned with rivers said that dredging really didn't have a lot of effect and wasn't cost effective, it went back to the same state pretty fast in most cases.

[Chas_P]

 johnu, on 2019-March-22, 14:32, said:

Speaking of climate change,

See The Heat Records Broken In Puget Sound This Week




Climate change deniers claim this was due to daylight savings time But there are new temperature records, and there are new temperature records. Breaking previous records by 10 and 12 degrees F are pretty memorable records.

Perhaps you can tell us exactly what the ideal temperature is for every place on Earth every day of the year and what we must do to attain this utopia.

[Al_U_Card]

 Cyberyeti, on 2019-March-23, 15:06, said:

I never read the Grauniad, it stopped doing any serious journalism years ago, the daily fail is just as bad on the other side and are exactly the sort of people who would bash the EU for this sort of thing.

Actually the agency concerned with rivers said that dredging really didn't have a lot of effect and wasn't cost effective, it went back to the same state pretty fast in most cases.

Good to know. Seems like catastrophies arrive "without warning" but mostly due to lack of or improper planning. Thanks.

[Al_U_Card]

 Chas_P, on 2019-March-23, 19:40, said:

Perhaps you can tell us exactly what the ideal temperature is for every place on Earth every day of the year and what we must do to attain this utopia.

Whatever it may be, it appears to be the fault of our 4% of the 5% of ghg that has less and less effect, the more there is... Surely that precise mathematical relation will be revealed soon .... like when models finally manage to make an accurate prediction. Sure it will.

[Al_U_Card]

Anecdotal occurances are to science what nothing-burgers are to special prosecutor impeachment investigations...

[johnu]

 Chas_NoDignity_NoIntegrity, on 2019-March-23, 19:40, said:

I depend on local observers. BTW, what is the weather like in fantasy land today? Is the earth still flat where you live?

[johnu]

 Al_U_Card, on 2019-March-23, 20:04, said:

...
Yada that doesn't make any sense, what's new?
...

LOL, more data points about extreme weather phenomena. Just like all the recent record hot years that have the climate change deniers denying that it's getting warmer.

[hrothgar]

 Chas_P, on 2019-March-23, 19:40, said:

Perhaps you can tell us exactly what the ideal temperature is for every place on Earth every day of the year and what we must do to attain this utopia.

Seems stupid to focus the mean when the rate of change is what has people really concerned, but then again no one ever accused you of being smart...

[Cyberyeti]

 Al_U_Card, on 2019-March-23, 19:48, said:

Good to know. Seems like catastrophies arrive "without warning" but mostly due to lack of or improper planning. Thanks.

And btw when I said once in 150 year events I should have been clearer, I meant rainfall events rather than floods, so the building/dredging is irrelevant to that, just changes the effect. Getting 6-9 months rain in 12 hours is never going to be good, but seems to be happening a lot more often these days.

[Al_U_Card]

 Cyberyeti, on 2019-March-24, 05:56, said:

And btw when I said once in 150 year events I should have been clearer, I meant rainfall events rather than floods, so the building/dredging is irrelevant to that, just changes the effect. Getting 6-9 months rain in 12 hours is never going to be good, but seems to be happening a lot more often these days.

For sure. I am just trying to recall AR5's WG1 and 2 and what they found relative to indications of changes to weather caused by CO2. I'll go back to my copy and give it a look see but my recollection is that the findings were hardly conclusive or even convincing. The SPM tends to sensationalize as well as changing a lot of the conclusions based on their selection of studies that support their position. It is the effect of our CO2 versus the other "forcings" that may, or may not, affect our weather.

[Al_U_Card]

 Al_U_Card, on 2019-February-27, 12:22, said:

The planet has "greened" 7% over the last several decades.
Colder times are drier times (droughts like the perpetual one in Ca. that occurred during the little ice age) and both cause crop failures.
Warmer always coincides with wetter and bumper crops as well as flourishing civilisations although the CO2 does help plants deal with drought.
Now, what was that exact mathematical relationship between [CO2] and global temps or is that only the models that are wrong for some other reason?

An interesting paper on sea level rise and the models inability to provide accurate projections https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/6/1/11

I really like the "keep your grant" phrasing at the end of the abstract.

"model-projection products exceed observational records for nearly all stations and Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) experiments, and are likely in the range of 1.6–2.5 mm/year. The analysis might provide an early warning sign that the evaluation of ocean model components with respect to projected mean sea level could be relevantly improved. "

[Al_U_Card]

30+ years is climate, right? Observations only count when they show warming, right? Flowers are blooming earlier as it gets hotter, right? Or,

http://notrickszone....n-30-years-ago/

[hrothgar]

 Al_U_Card, on 2019-March-24, 16:34, said:

30+ years is climate, right? Observations only count when they show warming, right? Flowers are blooming earlier as it gets hotter, right? Or,

http://notrickszone....n-30-years-ago/

Yo shiite for brains

What happens if you start the analysis in 1988 rather than cherry picking 1987 as your starting date
Completely different result...

https://www.dwd.de/D...blob=poster&v=9

As I said in the other thread, you post a never ending series of misrepresentations and lies

[Al_U_Card]

So, all the way back to 1971 ... no change! Wow, CO2 is not the climate changing force it is made out to be. Went from 330 ppm to 410 and ... no difference! Unlike single Yamal trees and wonky statistical methods and general malfeasance by the IPCC peer-reviewed science, nature transcends our foolishness and remains true to form within its normal variation. CO2 has varied way more than 80 ppm in the past and just believing in the misrepresentations of the weasel-worded climastroligist screeds shows what's what.

[hrothgar]

 Al_U_Card, on 2019-March-25, 07:03, said:

So, all the way back to 1971 ... no change! Wow, CO2 is not the climate changing force it is made out to be. Went from 330 ppm to 410 and ... no difference! Unlike single Yamal trees and wonky statistical methods and general malfeasance by the IPCC peer-reviewed science, nature transcends our foolishness and remains true to form within its normal variation. CO2 has varied way more than 80 ppm in the past and just believing in the misrepresentations of the weasel-worded climastroligist screeds shows what's what.

Once again, you are incapable of learning...

YOU cited web site that made a specific claim.

"The trend of spring blossoming show that springs in Hamburg have been cooling over the past 30 years."

Turns out that the claim was compete bullshit because they cherry picked the start points and the end points for the analysis.

You have now shifted your claim to say "No evidence of warming", never admitting that you are too stupid and too lazy to evaluate any of this information to begin with. You just credulous spew crap believing that it somehow supports your claims.

What a *****head you are.

[Al_U_Card]

So, that makes the precise relation between CO2 and global climate:

Global climate + CO2 forcing = Global climate.

Do the math and balance that equation. LOL

[hrothgar]

 Al_U_Card, on 2019-March-25, 16:33, said:

So, that makes the precise relation between CO2 and global climate:

Global climate + CO2 forcing = Global climate.

Do the math and balance that equation. LOL

No shiite for brains....

That means that its stupid trying to use an isolated data set of from Hamburg Germany to explain world wide climate change.

Why not go back to explaining the "truth" about 9/11?
Or did you finally give up on that idiocy?