Science & Technology News

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Microplastics come from plastics which are made from...oil. Our modern overconsumption/pollution habits are responsible for just about all of the human insults to the planet, and are highly interlinked.

But you've come up with the perfect scheme for avoiding doing anything. You don't believe in doing anything about climate change... so no action to be taken there. So now we just need to find someone who doesn't believe that microplastics are a problem... and then we don't need to do anything about that either! It's brilliant.

Incorrect contrary to that opinion statement .

Dealing with industrial microplastic debris has verified scientific proof that it is an issue that everyone can see and agree it is an actual problem . MMGWC however has no verified proof of anything .
Show me any predictions that have been made that have actually come to pass.
There are none.
And there is your problem with changing any minds .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

MMGWC however has no verified proof of anything .
Show me any predictions that have been made that have actually come to pass.
There are none.
And there is your problem with changing any minds .

Gord just linked a bunch of them; start there.

And we have ample historic proof that there's no argument that will ever penetrate your distortion field... even when you aren't ignoring them. That's the problem, and it's mainly yours.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Gord just linked a bunch of them; start there.

And we have ample historic proof that there's no argument that will ever penetrate your distortion field... even when you aren't ignoring them. That's the problem, and it's mainly yours.

1) is not a prediction it is simply saying they have adequately manipulated the data to show the models now agree with their manipulated observations. No actual historical references or long term predictions have come to pass .

2) the models were wildly high in their predictions. So nope

3) wrong even rss data confirms the temperature rise is less than .5° C not the 1.2°C predicted.

4) past climate modeling was historically high and extremely inaccurate when compared to actual observed temperatures.


I have posted proofs of all of this in the past when the articles linked to were released.

What prediction actually has come to pass that is not within normal variability ranges?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Gord just linked a bunch of them; start there.

And we have ample historic proof that there's no argument that will ever penetrate your distortion field... even when you aren't ignoring them. That's the problem, and it's mainly yours.

My views are distorted??

I have not been wrong yet. Save one time the temperature I predicted for a month in a bet was off by .05° C above my predictions.
In other words the difference in temp you feel between your knees and chin when standing in your own living space .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Here's How Scarily Accurate NASA's Long-Term Climate Predictions Have Been So Far
In this new study [1], NASA scientists analyzed the GISTEMP data to see if past predictions of rising temperatures were accurate. They needed to know that any uncertainty within their data was correctly accounted for.
The goal was to make sure that the models they use are robust enough to rely on in the future. The answer: Yes they are. Within 1/20th a degree Celsius. Kudos.
➥ https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-s-...th-of-a-degree

Early climate models were right – at least, for the most part
The majority of climate models published between the early 1970s and late 2000s were remarkably accurate, according to a systematic review published on 4 December in Geophysical Research Letters [1]
➥ https://www.europeanscientist.com/en...the-most-part/

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right
An evaluation [1] of global climate models, used to project Earth’s future global average surface temperatures, over the past half-century, says that most of the models have been quite accurate.
A team compared 17 increasingly sophisticated model projections of global average temperature, developed between 1970 and 2007, including some originally developed by NASA, with actual changes in global temperature, observed through the end of 2017. The observational temperature data came from multiple sources, including NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) time series, an estimate of global surface temperature change.
The results: 10 of the model projections closely matched observations. Moreover, after accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate, the number increased to 14. The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections.
The authors say that while the relative simplicity of the models analyzed makes their climate projections functionally obsolete, they can still be useful for verifying methods used to evaluate current state-of-the-art climate models, such as those to be used in the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report, to be released in 2022.
➥ https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20200109/

The study:
[1] “Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections” ~ by Zeke Hausfather et al
“... We find that climate models published over the past five decades were generally quite accurate in predicting global warming in the years after publication, particularly when accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric CO2 and other climate drivers. This research should help resolve public confusion around the performance of past climate modeling efforts and increases our confidence that models are accurately projecting global warming ...”
➥ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2019GL085378
Full text ➥ https://www.researchgate.net/publica...el_Projections

1) is not a prediction it is simply saying they have adequately manipulated the data to show the models now agree with their manipulated observations. No actual historical references or long term predictions have come to pass .

2) the models were wildly high in their predictions. So nope

3) wrong even rss data confirms the temperature rise is less than .5° C not the 1.2°C predicted.

4) past climate modeling was historically high and extremely inaccurate when compared to actual observed temperatures.


I have posted proofs of all of this in the past when the articles linked to were released.

What prediction actually has come to pass that is not within normal natural variability ranges?

[GordMay]

What Powers the Northern Lights?

New research [1] into the Northern and Southern Lights has uncovered the energy source that powers these remarkable displays, solving a long-standing mystery about their origins.

Each display of the auroras that stretches across the night sky is caused by a bombardment of solar particles from space. These particles originate from the solar wind and become trapped in Earth's geomagnetic field as they flow past the planet. They then stream down into the upper atmosphere, where they smack into atoms and molecules of oxygen and nitrogen, causing them to emit tiny flashes of coloured light. It's these flashes of light — millions upon millions of them — that combine to form the auroras.

One vital piece of this process has been missing up until now, though. When the solar particles (typically electrons) become trapped in Earth's magnetic field, they don't have the energy required to produce auroras.

So, somewhere between becoming trapped and when they stream down into the atmosphere, they must gather tremendous amounts of energy. The question is, what is the source of this energy?

According to NASA, satellite measurements of the auroras and Earth's magnetic field led to the idea that this energy could come from a specific type of plasma wave, known as Alfven waves.


More About:
“Lab Experiments Shed New Light on NASA Satellite Observations”
➥ https://www.nasa.gov/goddard/2021/im...e-observations
And more ➥ https://now.uiowa.edu/2021/06/physic...as-are-created


The Study:
[1] “Laboratory measurements of the physics of auroral electron acceleration by Alfvén waves” ~ by J. W. R. Schroeder et al
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23377-5
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s414...0yfuKrH76x8%3D

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I have posted proofs of all of this in the past when the articles linked to were released.

What prediction actually has come to pass that is not within normal natural variability ranges?

Yeah sure. Why don't you post that upward sloping temperature graph again for the thousandth time, and claim yet again that it shows cooling?

Unless you can show how Gord's links are wrong, your avoidance and denial aren't persuasive.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Yeah sure. Why don't you post that upward sloping temperature graph again for the thousandth time, and claim yet again that it shows cooling?

Unless you can show how Gord's links are wrong, your avoidance and denial aren't persuasive.

As i stated the graphs and numbers from nasa dont match with rss or UAH data .
I have shown this many times .
Perhaps you should actually look at the data yourself instead of taking the word of a person whom feeding his family depends on his following what the government wants him to say.
Interesting factoid all of the scientists that dont follow the MMGWC narrative are retired and no longer need to worry about how to eat.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

As i stated the graphs and numbers from nasa dont match with rss or UAH data .
I have shown this many times .
Perhaps you should actually look at the data yourself instead of taking the word of a person whom feeding his family depends on his following what the government wants him to say.
Interesting factoid all of the scientists that dont follow the MMGWC narrative are retired and no longer need to worry about how to eat.

Avoid, deny. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Avoid, deny. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Where is the big smoking gun prediction that has actually happened ?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Where is the big smoking gun prediction that has actually happened ?

The planet is warming at an unprecedented rate. Next question?

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Interesting factoid all of the scientists that dont follow the MMGWC narrative are retired and no longer need to worry about how to eat.

fac·toid

an assumption or speculation that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact.

Looks like neither of your buddies are retired, yet they both seem to be in good health.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The planet is warming at an unprecedented rate. Next question?

That is an opinion not proof with verifiable duplicatable evidence

[CatNewBee]

Unprecedented rate? What time intervals are you looking at?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

Unprecedented rate? What time intervals are you looking at?

Decadal vs millennial.

Climate Change, and Mass Migration

For most of human history, people have lived within a surprisingly narrow range of temperatures, in the places where the climate supported abundant food production. But as the planet warms, that band is suddenly shifting north. According to a recent study [1], in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the planet could see a greater temperature increase in the next 50 years than it did in the last 6,000 years combined. By 2070, the kind of extremely hot zones, like in the Sahara, that now cover less than 1 percent of the earth’s land surface, could cover nearly a fifth of the land, potentially placing one of every three people alive outside the climate niche, where humans have thrived for thousands of years.

A 2017 study [2], in Science Advances, found that by 2100, temperatures could rise to the point that, just going outside for a few hours in some places, including parts of India and Eastern China, will result in death, even for the fittest of humans.”

[1] “Future of the human climate niche” ~ Chi Xu, et al
➥ https://www.pnas.org/content/117/21/11350

[2] “Deadly heat waves projected in the densely populated agricultural regions of South Asia” ~ by Eun-Soon Im et al
➥ https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/8/e1603322

The above is excerpted from the much longer New York Times Magazine article:
“The Great Climate Migration” ~ by Abrahm Lustgarten
Here ➥ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...migration.html