Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-16-2022, 07:40 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,255 posts, read 5,126,001 times
Reputation: 17752

Advertisements

You want references on failed GW predictions? Take your your pick :
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=avast&q=fa...ictions&ia=web

Can you name even one prediction that has come true?

Their predictions are based on the assumption that warming is not cyclic, but will continue...That's like claiming the Dec temp in Chicago will be 140deg just because the 20 deg Jan temp rose to 70deg by June.

A little deductive reasoning: If rising co2 causes warming, and warming causes increased outgassing of co2 from the oceans (both probably true), then rising co2 should be a positive feedback system, therefore, leading to a crisis situation similar to the resonance phenomenon (Eg- famous Tacoma Straights Bridge collapse or Ella Fitzgerald shattering the crystal goblet)...BUT= despite having co2 levels at 8000ppm+ in Earth's history, we've never experienced that crisis...

A positive feedback system is doomed to disaster UNLESS it influences one or more other factors that are involved in negative feedback that "over-powers" the positive feedback portion. Negative feedback leads to stability. With a stable dynamic system, there is little need to do anything to influence things. It is self-regulating.

Warming leads to more clouds and precipitation which lead to cooling-- negative feedback, and because we see that the planet has not self-destructed in 4 billion yrs, it must be dominant...The sky is not falling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-16-2022, 07:47 AM
 
1,107 posts, read 1,250,739 times
Reputation: 1710
Lets see..

You said this regarding predictions

Quote:
They've all been proven wrong.
But you are wrong. Since I dont think you read any of this or looked at any links, here are a bunch of cases where the IPCC has been fairly accurate ( the hard part is predicting emissions as you have to predict population increases and emissions per population)

Some important cases where your claim is complete BS. Im not sure you look at anything but pictures but plenty for the person who actually studies this stuff to read.

Also for GLM, wanting to see any predictions that came true.


https://theconversation.com/20-years...ome-true-11245

Quote:
In 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – a group of the world’s top climate scientists – released its First Assessment Report, predicting global warming of about 1.1 degrees celsius between 1990 and 2030.

In today’s edition of Nature Climate Change, climate scientists David Frame and Dáithí A. Stone argue that, halfway through that projection period, the predictions made in 1990 are proving mostly accurate
Or this from 2018 https://theconversation.com/40-years...e-right-120502

Quote:
In the 40 years since their meeting, the annual average CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere, as measured at Mauna Loa in Hawaii, has increased by about 21%. Over the same period, global average surface temperature has increased by about 0.66℃, almost exactly what could have been expected if a doubling of CO₂ produces about 2.5℃ warming – just a bit below their best estimate. A remarkably prescient prediction.
Another from 2020 https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/s...ections-right/

Another one showing fairly good IPCC accuracy https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...lobal-warming/

More links on sea level rise and predictions.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazard...ch-report.html

.https://blogs.egu.eu/divisions/gd/20...ea-level-rise/

Last edited by waltcolorado; 08-16-2022 at 08:02 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2022, 07:59 AM
 
1,107 posts, read 1,250,739 times
Reputation: 1710
Quote:
Ok... this is getting tedious... I don't have time to itemize them for you. You get the point. Here's 47 more: https://nypost.com/2021/11/12/50-yea...lypse-is-nigh/
Actually if you had read your own link, this was 50 years, not 50 cases..

Quote:
1972, UN Climate Czar said the world would end in catastrophe in 10 years.
1989, UN Climate Czar said countries would be wiped off the face of the earth, global disaster, if not solved by 1999.
1990, UN Climate Czar said the climate war is won or lost within the next 5 years. That European countries would be underwater, and Britain would be in a siberian climate within 10 years
Somewhat odd (not really), I tried to find any information other than the picture in your links on the above. Turns out there is only a picture. I cant tell if these are real or made up.

Have to point out again that one of pictures you linked to is from about when you were born. The other two are more than three decades old.

Ok.. some comment from three decades ago might not have been accurate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2022, 08:07 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,255 posts, read 5,126,001 times
Reputation: 17752
In regards IPCC predictions-- they only look accurate because they update them according to the record. That's how they make the computer programs-- they take the record and find an algorithm that churns out the same graph (called "curve-fitting")...Then they run the algorithm for the future and that's their prediction.

The problem is, their predictions have always been pretty far off, so they do another curve fitting with the updated data and revise the prediction, etc etc....The "original" predictions are way, way off at this point.

Their predictions about flooded cities & islands, no more glaciers or snow have been laughably wrong. Food production was predicted to be lower, but it has been, in fact, higher.

The value of a theory is not in it's "correctness" but in its ability to predict. The AGW Theory is an abject failure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2022, 08:25 AM
 
1,107 posts, read 1,250,739 times
Reputation: 1710
GLM said this

Quote:
A little deductive reasoning: If rising co2 causes warming, and warming causes increased outgassing of co2 from the oceans (both probably true), then rising co2 should be a positive feedback system, therefore, leading to a crisis situation similar to the resonance phenomenon (Eg- famous Tacoma Straights Bridge collapse or Ella Fitzgerald shattering the crystal goblet)...BUT= despite having co2 levels at 8000ppm+ in Earth's history, we've never experienced that crisis...
Some problems with your deductive reasoning (or in other words, stuff you made up).

First, historically there has been a near half century delay in CO2 outgassing from the ocean due to warming. This is the CO2 feedback mechanism which is what happened before the last few hundred years. What is happening now is CO2 as a driving mechanism where increasing CO2 in the atmosphere causing the warming. And regarding the oceans outgassing, turns out that the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are so much above what was equilibrium prior to several hundred years ago that CO2 (by diffusion) is actually being driven into the ocean. Proof is in that the oceans are becoming more acidic.

Also, another big error in your assumption which we have discussed but I guess you forgot. Positive feedback is stable under some conditions. Here is a link describing stabiity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positi...%20be%20stable.

Even with positive feedback, if the LOOP gain is less than unity, the loop will be stable. This is just basic electrical engineering study on feedback systems. The loop will still amplify the results but it will be a stable result.. Here is a scientific paper regarding climate feedbacks https://www.jstor.org/stable/26243380


Quote:
However, positive feedbacks can exist in stable systems. This paper presents a simple representation of a positive feedback in both a stable and an unstable system. A simple experimental device based on a scale principle is introduced to illustrate the positive feedback and its stabilization or runaway regimes. Stabilization can be achieved whether the amplitude of the positive feedback declines (e.g., “saturation” of the feedback) or remains constant.
What you made up does not have accurate assumptions.

Last edited by waltcolorado; 08-16-2022 at 08:44 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2022, 08:35 AM
 
1,107 posts, read 1,250,739 times
Reputation: 1710
Quote:
In regards IPCC predictions-- they only look accurate because they update them according to the record. That's how they make the computer programs-- they take the record and find an algorithm that churns out the same graph (called "curve-fitting")...Then they run the algorithm for the future and that's their prediction.

The problem is, their predictions have always been pretty far off, so they do another curve fitting with the updated data and revise the prediction, etc etc....The "original" predictions are way, way off at this point.

Their predictions about flooded cities & islands, no more glaciers or snow have been laughably wrong. Food production was predicted to be lower, but it has been, in fact, higher.
Not true on the predictions. I guess I have to post a link a third time https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...lobal-warming/

This link looks at the accuracy of predictions going all the way back to 1973.

And.. a prediction of the future should absolutely take into account the record of the past. Good grief trying to find fault in that LOL.

When you are saying predictions have been wrong, are you referring to something from Al Gore or the other junk posted from three to five decades ago?

Last edited by waltcolorado; 08-16-2022 at 08:49 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2022, 10:32 AM
 
7,072 posts, read 9,615,377 times
Reputation: 4531
What happened to the coming ice age all the "experts" said would occur? This was on the front cover of Time magazine in 1977.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2022, 10:51 AM
 
1,107 posts, read 1,250,739 times
Reputation: 1710
Here are several links discussing the "ice age of the 70's"

https://arstechnica.com/science/2016...oming-ice-age/

First, if you look at the image from this link, global temperatures were sort of decreasing up until the mid 70's.
Quote:
As all of this was happening, fossil fuel use (and pollution) grew rapidly. Not entirely coincidentally, there was a lull in 20th century warming between the mid-1940s and mid-1970s. That dip is now understood as being the result of two factors: a post-World War II surge in the emissions of aerosols from dirty fossil fuel burning and the cool phase of a Pacific Ocean cycle related to the strength of the trade winds. (That same Pacific cycle suppressed global surface temperatures a bit over the past two decades.) But at the time, the causes of the dip were far from clear.

As it happens, these slightly cooler temperatures were accompanied by the first ice core and sediment records of the glacial cycles. The records were a revelation, displaying a rhythm that validated decades-old predictions that the cycles were driven by variations in Earth’s orbit. With this new-found context, it became natural to ask where we were in the orbital ice age cycle.



https://www.csmonitor.com/Environmen...e-in-the-1970s

Quote:
The argument rests on an equivocation. In the 1970s, "they" refers to a handful of scientists making tentative predictions, and a handful of journalists who repeated those predictions. Today, "they" refers to every single major scientific body in the world. There's just no valid comparison.

In fact, back in the 1970s, more scientists were worried about global warming than its opposite. As USA Today reported last year, Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed 71 peer-reviewed articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven predicted falling temperatures. Some 44 predicted warming, and another 20 were neutral
.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2022, 11:11 AM
 
880 posts, read 564,600 times
Reputation: 1690
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltcolorado View Post
Lets see..

You said this regarding predictions

But you are wrong. ...




Another from 2020 https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/s...ections-right/

Another one showing fairly good IPCC accuracy https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...lobal-warming/

More links on sea level rise and predictions.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazard...ch-report.html

.https://blogs.egu.eu/divisions/gd/20...ea-level-rise/

I'm really trying my absolute hardest to not throw out my bona fides, because it would shut down your holier-than-thou arrogance fairly quickly; however, I'm really trying to look past this... but it is annoying.


For the record... ALL of your links are broken, not a single one works. You need to learn how to post links. What you're obviously doing, is copying links from someone else who's posted links (because of the apparent ellipses), and not actually going to the link and copying from the URL.




Quote:
Originally Posted by waltcolorado View Post
Have to point out again that one of pictures you linked to is from about when you were born. The other two are more than three decades old.

Ok.. some comment from three decades ago might not have been accurate.

Another passive-aggressive insult. When exactly do you think I was born? I'll give you a hint, I'm a Gen-Xer.


Regardless... you're admitting, whether you really want to or not... but there have been constant, constant declarations of catastrophic and world-ending consequences from climate change that have come to pass and never materialized. The ones from three decades ago are the most important because those timelines have come and gone, with nothing more than a declaration of a "single degree" of average temperature increase... which is idiotically insignificant to pattern over essentially what is less than ~100 years of realistic modern logging capability.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2022, 11:47 AM
 
1,107 posts, read 1,250,739 times
Reputation: 1710
Quote:
Another passive-aggressive insult. When exactly do you think I was born? I'll give you a hint, I'm a Gen-Xer.
Maybe you forgot you said this a bunch of post back
Quote:
since I became an adult over 25 years ago
Yes.. we dont know when you declared yourself an adult.

I get the impression that you dont read any of the links??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top