rigorousintuition.ca

DrEvil » Thu Aug 25, 2022 1:15 am wrote:Guus Berkhout has worked for the oil industry most of his career. He might be a little biased.

The "over 1100 scientists and professionals" are just that - a random (actually not random, self-selected) collection of people, possibly with degrees and probably some expertise in whatever the hell they do for a living (like me being a professional cashier when I worked at a store), most of them irrelevant to the field of climate research. This is just more of the same old nonsense. Experts in completely different fields have strong opinions on things their expertise doesn't cover. I mean, would you pay attention if a group of people with degrees in geology, programming and finance suddenly started having strong opinions on the intricacies of brain surgery? Would you for even a second think that their opinions were better informed, or more likely to be correct, than those of actual brain surgeons?

Here's the first twenty names on their list:

1. Ian Plimer, Professor Earth Sciences (he's a geologist), The University of Melbourne; WCD Ambassador
2. Viv Forbes, Geologist with Special Interest in Climate, Founder of http://www.carbon-sense.
com, Queensland, Australia; WCD Ambassador
3. D. Weston Allen, Physician and Medical Director of Kingscliff Health, New South
Wales, Author of a number of Climate-related papers
4. Don Andersen, Retired Teacher, Programmer
5. David Archibald, Research Scientist
6. Michael Asten, Retired Professor in Geophysics and Continuing Senior Research
Fellow at the Monash University, Melbourne
7. József Balla, retired teacher and manager of a small business
8. Stuart Ballantyne PhD, Senior Ship Designer, Sea Transport Corp.
9. Jeremy Barlow, Energy and Mining professional, Director and CEO
10. Dr. Colin M. Barton, Geologist, Retired Civil Engineer with Experience in Project
Control, Research and Professional Training, Honorary Fellow RMIT University
Australia
11. Gordon Batt, Director GCB Investments Pty Ltd.
12. Maxwell Charles S. Beck, lifetime of experience in law, retired Magistrate and Coroner
on the bench
13. Robert M. Bell, Retired Geologist, Victoria
14. Richard Blayden, Professional Engineer (not just an engineer mind you, a professional engineer. These people have standards!)
15. Colin Boyce, Engineer, Member of Parliament, Queensland State Parliament, Engineer,
Farmer and Entrepreneur (he's twice the engineer you'll ever be!)
16. Howard Thomas Brady, Member Explorers Club of New York, Member of the
Australian Academy of Forensic Sciences
17. Geoff Brown, Organizer of a Critical Climate Group (I've organized stuff too. Does that mean I can be on the list?)
18. Andrew Browne, Exploration Geoscientist, Fellow AusIMM (CP), 50 Years Global
Experience
19. Frank Brus, holds a B. Comm from UNSW, spent most of his working life with the
Electricity Commission of NSW
20. Ernest Buchan, Chartered Engineer MIET, Kardinya, W. Austral

And so on and so on. There's a hell of a lot of no climate scientists on that list. Lots of geologists though. Might have something to do with the fossil fuel industry employing so many of them.

the notion that any current fluctuations are due to CO2 emissions (or at least, CO2 emissions by everyday, common human activities) as the primary culprit does not hold up to sober scrutiny.

Greenland ice sheet gained 7 Gigatons of mass in just one day yesterday — the largest daily gain ever recorded during the summer.

Belligerent Savant » Tue Aug 30, 2022 6:16 pm wrote:.

Oh, I've been applying scrutiny, removed from dogma and static thinking. Others here have not, however, nor directly assessed the various points raised over the last few pages, other than tepid attempts to attack messengers (scientists, geologists, and their supposed agendas -- agendas insinuated absent substantive corroboration, based on their titles alone, etc.) rather than the messages themselves.

Greenland ice sheet gained 7 Gigatons of mass in just one day yesterday — the largest daily gain ever recorded during the summer.

http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9114001000

The implication is that CO2 forcing and dynamic feedback mechanisms will dictate climate change long into the future, and for this reason the forcing and feedbacks that link these processes are important future targets for Arctic research in the years to come.

@AlexBerenson
·
Note to self: all those neat electric cars and solar panels and windmills and compost heaps don’t mean squat if you don’t have a functioning (by which I mean carbon-based) energy infrastructure behind them.

...

Fossil fuels, only a problem until you don't have them.

Don't kid yourself. The only reason this isn't happening here

A) Natural gas isn't a truly global market so Europe can't force its shortage on us

B) Democrats haven't (yet) destroyed US production

---

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy ... 022-08-24/

BERLIN, Aug 24 (Reuters) - Germany's public buildings are to become cooler and streets darker this winter under energy-saving measures approved by the cabinet on Wednesday, as part of efforts to protect the nation's gas reserves to offset throttled deliveries from Russia.

@prageru
Replying to @AlexBerenson

Germany planned to shut down all remaining nuclear power plants this year, making them even more reliant on Russian energy.

How’s that going for them?

Belligerent Savant » Wed Aug 31, 2022 1:19 am wrote:.
going down with the ship, eh?

What of Germany (as but one current example)? Why is there a pressing energy crisis, and why are they discussing looming blackouts in the months ahead?

One may disagree with this person's delivery -- and I disagree with him on the topic of Ivermectin, for one, but he's not wrong here:

@AlexBerenson
·
Note to self: all those neat electric cars and solar panels and windmills and compost heaps don’t mean squat if you don’t have a functioning (by which I mean carbon-based) energy infrastructure behind them.

...

Fossil fuels, only a problem until you don't have them.

Don't kid yourself. The only reason this isn't happening here

A) Natural gas isn't a truly global market so Europe can't force its shortage on us

B) Democrats haven't (yet) destroyed US production

---

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy ... 022-08-24/

BERLIN, Aug 24 (Reuters) - Germany's public buildings are to become cooler and streets darker this winter under energy-saving measures approved by the cabinet on Wednesday, as part of efforts to protect the nation's gas reserves to offset throttled deliveries from Russia.

@prageru
Replying to @AlexBerenson

Germany planned to shut down all remaining nuclear power plants this year, making them even more reliant on Russian energy.

How’s that going for them?

https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status ... EhHdeIC4MQ

Belligerent Savant » Sun Jul 31, 2022 1:51 pm wrote:.
...

Circling back to this:

DrEvil » Fri Jul 22, 2022 12:42 pm wrote:

Haven't read the Off-Guardian article, but as mentioned before, my key reservation/objection is the claim that most of current climate-related issues are due primarily/exclusively to human-related activities

Who should I believe? Your gut feeling, or the thousands of scientists who have studied this for decades and are all in agreement that you are wrong? It's so hard to decide!

You mean scientists that have largely relied on MODELS (and have also received funding by parties with vested interests in perpetuating "climate change" for various ends)?

Fucking models. From covid to 'climate change', models have facilitated acceptance/justification of harmful/deleterious policy, due in part to increasingly docile and passive consumers lacking in discernment (and aided, of course, by reams of propaganda and conditioning over the years).

You're also wrong that it's just "gut feeling" by random anonymous online handles. There are also scientists that rebuke current climate change narratives. You know, based on SCIENCE.

(Ironic, the dogmatic thinking among those that align with "atheism")

Here's one sampling of counter-arguments; I make no firm claims on validity as I haven't yet performed a "deep dive" on this presentation, as it's 232 pages in total. But you'll note the presentation is based on application of science-based methods (this, by itself, doesn't make it "true" of course -- that wouldn't be science; that'd be dogma).

https://www.wm.edu/offices/auxiliary/os ... limate.pdf

A few notable snippets -- if you plan to counter this content please review the far more expansive material in the above pdf link, not the substantively abridged excerpts below. Please note also the sampling of scientists -- not anonymous online handles -- at the bottom of these excerpts openly questioning "climate change" narratives:

What is the Climate Issue?
•What are the physics of the atmosphere?
•What are the hypotheses & theories?
•What are the data sources?
•What predictions do the models make?
•What hypotheses do the data support or
disprove?

Hypotheses
• Warmists: man-made CO2 is driving the thermal balance
• Skeptics: natural processes govern the thermal balance. Recent weather is not unusual

• Nature exhibits cyclic processes not well understood
• El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO), Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), Atlantic

Decadal Oscillation (ADO), Eddy Cycle, De Vries/Suess solar cycle, etc.
• Except Milankovitch cycles are understood, but are very long term

....

Predictions

• Warmists:
• Based on computer models, temperatures will rise a
specific amount, storms will become more severe,
droughts will increase, sea level rise will accelerate, polar
ice caps will decrease and more

• Skeptics:
• Some warming will occur, but nothing extraordinary, and
not unprecedented in recent history




40 Years of Observation

• The warmists are wrong.
• There has been no increase in observed water vapor
• There has been no observed “tropic hot spot”, necessary if the
increased water vapor hypothesis were correct
• All their forecasts have failed
• The observed temperature increase is in agreement with the
skeptics’ model
...

EDITS made to charts:

...

Weather is NOT getting more extreme
• Following charts are USHCN data, 1918 to 2018
• Blue lines are annual data
• Red lines are 5 yr averages




...

Model Issues

As climate modeller Syukuro Manabe has said:
“The climate model is a very good tool for
understanding climate, but a very bad tool for
predicting climate”.

Most fields of science don’t accept a model unless it has
been rigorously validated against available data, but
climate science is different; the modelling process itself
frequently seems to be accepted as evidence that the
climate model is correct, a circular chain of reasoning
which leads to positions which outside of climate science
would be considered absurd.

•[C]limatologists tell the models there will
be strong CO2-driven warming; sure
enough, the models tell the climatologists
the same; and the climatologists cite the
outputs of the models as purported
justification for the article of faith that they
had built into the models in the first place.



IPCC’s Statement
• As the IPCC itself said (AR4 WG1): “we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that the longterm prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

Propagation of Error and the Reliability of
Global Air Temperature Projections
Front. Earth Sci., 06 September 2019

• A directly relevant GCM calibration metric is the annual average ±12.1% error
in global annual average cloud fraction produced within CMIP5 climate
models. This error is strongly pair-wise correlated across models, implying a
source in deficient theory. The resulting long-wave cloud forcing (LWCF) error
introduces an annual average ±4 Wm–2 uncertainty into the simulated
tropospheric thermal energy flux.
• This annual ±4 Wm–2 simulation uncertainty is ±114 × larger than the annual
average ∼0.035 Wm–2 change in tropospheric thermal energy flux produced
by increasing GHG forcing since 1979
• Patrick Frank, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford University,
Menlo Park, CA, United States

Science Mag: “Missed wind patterns are throwing off
climate forecasts of rain and storms”, July 29, 2020
• Excerpts:
• For example, models predicted that the Horn of Africa,
which is heavily influenced by Indian Ocean winds, would
get wetter with climate change. But since the early
1990s, rains have plummeted, and the region has dried.
• What’s not clear yet is why climate models get
circulation changes so wrong.
• But until modelers figure out how to confidently forecast
changes in the winds, Smith says, “We can’t take the
models at face value."

----

• I believe the largest model errors are the result of a lack of knowledge of the temperature dependent changes in clouds and precipitation efficiency (thus freetropospheric vapor, thus water vapor “feedback”) that actually occur in response to a long-term forcing of the system from increasing carbon dioxide.

• My main complaint is that modelers are either deceptive about, or unaware of, the uncertainties in the myriad assumptions — both explicit and implicit — that have gone into those models.

-- September 11th, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

---

•These flawed models are the ONLY support for the hypothesis that CO2 is driving “climate change”
•These models which have failed in EVERY measurable projection they have made are still relied on to justify a solution by eliminating CO2

---

Maldives Threat of Drowning
• Former president Mohamed Nasheed has been highly
outspoken about this issue, saying in 2012 that "If carbon
emissions continue at the rate they are climbing today, my
country will be under water in seven years.“
• "First of all, I want give you a bit of good news. The good news
is that the Maldives is not about to disappear," President
Waheed said countering the claims by his predecessor that the
Maldives would be be completely submerged in the near future
August 24, 2012
• “Egg on Their Faces: The Maldives Still Above the Waves 30
Years After Environmentalist Prediction”
• Maldives to open five new airports in 2019

Mann’s Hockey Stick
• Global Warming Bombshell
“A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate
change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.”
MIT Technology Review, October 15, 2004

• McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that
had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data
is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is
widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When
McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann
procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

---

New paleoclimate records from Europe, Scandinavia-Russia,
China, and the northeastern USA indicate there has been no
unusual modern warming. Instead, these newly published
reconstructions show warmer periods and more rapid
centennial-scale warming events occurred in past centuries, or
when CO2 concentrations were much lower than they are now.

• None of these Northern Hemisphere temperature
reconstructions indicate there has been any unusual modern
warming relative to the natural temperature variations of the
last few millennia.

• Warmists still deny that the MWP was global or warmer than
now

---

News Clippings:

• Global coal-fired generation capacity saw a net decline of 2.9
gigawatts (GW) from January to June, the first drop on record
for a six-month period, thanks to plant retirements in Europe
and elsewhere, the U.S.-based think tank Global Energy
Monitor (GEM) said in the study.

• SHANGHAI: China has nearly 250 gigawatts (GW) of
coal-fired power now under development, more than the
entire coal power capacity of the United States, a new
study said on Thursday, casting doubt on the country's
commitments to cutting fossil fuel use.
- Reuters, June 25, 2020, 08:28 IST

Forget Paris: Russia Boosts Coal Production: Will Be
World’s Top Exporter Within Decade
Russia Today, 2 May 2020

The world’s largest coal-producing country, Russia,
plans to increase its output and exports over the
next 15 years. Russia’s share of the global coal export
market is projected to expand to 25 percent from the
current 11 percent.

---

Warren Buffet on Wind Energy

• "I will do anything that is basically covered
by the law to reduce Berkshire's tax rate,"
Buffet told an audience in Omaha, Nebraska
recently. "For example, on wind energy, we
get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms.
That's the only reason to build them. They
don't make sense without the tax credit."

---

"One thing that has made California’s grid so
vulnerable to soaring demand is the state’s rapid
shift away from natural gas. About 9 gigawatts of
gas generation, enough to power 6.8 million
homes, have been retired over the past five years
as the state turns increasingly to renewables,
according to BloombergNEF. That leaves fewer
options when the sun sets and solar production
wanes."



Summary
• The null hypothesis – “the observed climate is within normal
variations” – has not been disproved. It is well within
statistical bounds
• The AGW hypothesis has been disproven, and in fact, there
is no scientific evidence of it.
• All projections of this hypothesis have failed.
• The only support of the hypothesis are the computer models
which are known to be in error
• The Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period
demonstrate against the hypothesis that man-made CO2 is
causing unusual global warming

...

So What?
• Massive mis-investment chasing unnecessary and ineffective
solutions regarding CO2
• Inefficient and ecologically harmful “green energy” solutions
• Restrictive regulations
• Carbon tax and subsides distorting market
• Distraction from ecological problems we could solve
• Wetland preservation
• Clean water issues
• Agricultural runoff control
• Chemical and pharma pollutions (Prozac, hormones, cocaine, etc.
in water)

Some Famous Skeptics:

• Roy Spencer (born December 20, 1955) is a meteorologist, a principal research scientist at
the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced
Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has served as senior
scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.
• John Christy is a Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center
at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). He has also been Alabama's State Climatologist
since November 2000.
• Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace. PhD in Ecology
• Don Easterbrook Geology Professor Emeritus, WWU
• Ray Pielke, Jr. has been on the faculty of the University of Colorado since 2001
• Richard Lindzen, emeritus professor of meteorology at MIT, Alfred P. Sloan Professor, beginning in
1983. Prior to that he was the Robert P. Burden Professor of Dynamic Meteorology at Harvard
University.
• Judith Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric
Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote
sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions
• Bob Carter (9 March 1942 – 19 January 2016) was an English palaeontologist, stratigrapher and
marine geologist. He was professor and head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook
University in Australia from 1981 to 1998

Warmists who have become Skeptics:

• Claude Allegre, prominent French scientist and socialist
• Ivar Giaever, former science advisor to Obama
• James Lovelock, developer of the Gaia Principle
• William Briggs, Statistician
• Caleb Rossiter, Policy expert, Climate statistician
• David Bodkin, former Chair Envio. Studies, UCalif.
• Richard Tol, IPCC – had his name removed from IPCC report
• Philip Stott, Univ. London
• Denis Rancourt, Univ. Ottawa
• John Theon, Sr. Atmospheric Scientist, NASA
• Michael Schellenberger, Prominent Environmental Activist

Peer-reviewed Skeptical Papers Bibliography
• http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/1 ... rting.html
• This is a bibliographic resource for skeptics not a list of skeptics.
Lists of skeptical scientists can be found here:
• 31,487 Scientists Reject AGW Alarmism
• https://shepherdgazette.com/49-nasa-sci ... -the-fact/
• 1100 Climate Realists sign 'The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change'
• 1000+ International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming
Claims
• 300+ Eminent Scientists Reject U.N. Climate Change Treaty
• https://www.iceagenow.com/More_than_100 ... uke%20Obam
a.htm

“I would like to add something that’s not essential to the
science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you
should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a
scientist. I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity
that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how
you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to do when acting as
a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists,
certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.”
• Richard Feynman, Cargo Cult Science

Top Recommendations:
• Restoring Scientific Debate on Climate
• https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/10/03/ ... onclimate/
• Excellent extensive set of links to all climate issues, pro and con
• https://sealevel.info/learnmore.html
• Video on opening page of 1st link is a complete review of this topic. The link is
“Climate Curious” and the video is “Siegal Climate Movie 2”
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06ac0CuFevw
• Many other good videos here
• http://www.climatedepot.com/wp-content/ ... _FINAL.pdf

When a politician says, concerning an issue involving
science, that the debate is over, you can be sure of two
things: The debate is raging, and he is losing.

• This first link is a short discussion about the climate debate (you might read this short piece first):
• https://rclutz.wordpress.com/the-dysfun ... te-debate/
• The next is probably the most popular skeptic site and is usually updated daily.
• https://wattsupwiththat.com/
• This site concentrates on scientific published papers and has a large and detailed subject index
• http://www.co2science.org/
• GWPF is a UK organization that provides emails (if you sign up) with current worldwide articles
• https://www.thegwpf.org/ Newsletter at Benny Peiser peiser@thegwpf.com
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Z5FdwWw_c and
• https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=pa ... 58&mid=902
60FF6BD50034C725A90260FF6BD50034C725A&view=detail&FORM=VIRE Patrick Moore’s talks on CO2
• https://realclimatescience.com/ https://judithcurry.com/ http://www.drroyspencer.com/
• A site that explains CO2 and the benefits of (and necessity for) CO2
• http://co2coalition.org/
• Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) https://www.cfact.org/

There's a link to a lengthy report that delves into it in quite some detail.

Rather than attempt to downplay the caliber or ethics of these scientists ("they must be compromised if they don't believe in Scientific American's view of climate change!"), specific counters to the points raised in the report would be useful here.

First of all, it's not a report, it's the class notes/slideshow for a lecture at Mary & William's Osher Lifelong Learning Institute (summer lectures for bored old people), and the actual lecture is missing. Edward McMahon is a volunteer class assistant, who also teaches an introduction to Chinese cooking, which I'm sure is delightful. Second, it's just a hodgepodge of graphs and images with piss-poor quality, paired with lists of bullet points, and copious links to all the dodgiest climate change deniers and skeptics.

They are not "my" claims as much as the claims of a growing count of scientists. Last I checked, you have yet to counter any of their claims directly, though I haven't looked at your most recent response in the Ecofascism thread because it's clearly a waste of energy at this point.

DrEvil » Thu Sep 01, 2022 5:55 pm wrote: This is just some random dude's (who happens to have a PhD in something. Could be vocal anthropology for all we know, and we have no idea if he's a scientists of any kind either) pet project, and the lecture part is still missing. I'm not wading through 200+ pages of this shit just so you can go AHA! on one isolated point (see also: one day of icecap gain on Greenland ) and pretend you've just disproved man-made climate change.

That "random dude who happens to have a PhD" cited from myriad scientists, studies, and findings. So your -- once more -- broad-brush summary and description of the report is minimally misleading, if not dishonest. And again, you state no interest in exploring or digging into the studies/findings referenced in the lecture/report.

But, hey, whatever brings you comfort. Yes, everyone that scrutinizes current dogma Re:climate change are all cranks, if you say so. Your view -- as presented by dominant entities and narratives -- is clearly the correct assessment. All is as presented to you. Enjoy your sleep.

MSM OBFUSCATION

Refocusing on Greenland, despite this year’s ‘healthy’ melt season, obfuscation was abound across the mainstream media.

CNN wrote the following in July 20 article: “The amount of ice that melted in Greenland between July 15 and 17 was enough to fill 7.2 million Olympic-sized swimming pools, or cover the entire state of West Virginia with a foot of water.”

They even have a quote from cLiMaTe ScIeNtIsT Ted Scambos: “The northern melt this past week is not normal, looking at 30 to 40 years of climate averages. But melting has been on the increase, and this event was a spike in melt.”

CNN is screaming about this period of melting (circled below):


I’ve already given you the data regarding the season as a whole.

The audacity of CNN to claim that the 2022 melt season was in anyway alarming is cherry-picking obfuscation at best and outright fraud at worst. Even the staunchest of AGW proponents must see this–the propaganda can’t be that blinding, surely?

HOW THE GREENLAND ICE SHEET ‘REALLY’ FARED THIS YEAR

SEPTEMBER 23

The Greenland ice sheet’s melt season is over, bringing the 2021-2022 season to a close. Below I take a deep-dive into how the poster boy for global warming fared over the past 12-months.

‘SURFACE’ MASS BALANCE

Greenland’s ice sheet gains snow and ice from September through to the following June, and then, as temperatures climb with onset of late-Spring, begins to lose more ice through surface melt than it gains from fresh snowfall. This is known as ‘the melt season’, which generally lasts until the end of August, with snow gains minus ice losses called the ‘Surface Mass Balance’ (SMB).

The map below, courtesy of the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), plots the SMB over the past 12-months.

The blue line in the upper chart shows the day-to-day SMB (in Gigatons), while the blue line in the lower chart depicts the accumulated SMB (again, in Gts), from the beginning of the season (Sept 1 2021). The grey line is the multidecadal average.



This year –that is, Sept 1 2021 to Aug 31 2022– the Greenland ice sheet achieved a Surface Mass Balance of approximately 471Gt, ranking it as the 10th highest SMB year in data extending back to 1981.

2022 MELT SEASON

The summer of 2022 was anomalously cold and snowy across Greenland and was book-ended by huge snowfall events.

The first came in June, delaying the melt season by 17-days vs the 1981-2021 median; and the second brought seasonal melting to an abrupt stop in mid-August after a record-breaking 20bn tonnes (Gt) of snow accumulated on the south of the island.

This summer chimed with last years; that is, it was characterized by several monstrous, record-smashing snowfall events. Fresh snow reflects sunlight better than the old, darker glacial ice underneath; and as a result, the onset of melting, which is defined as the first day of three days in a row where the SMB is less than -1Gt, was on June 30, two-and-a-half weeks later than normal.

The end of August 2022 was then marked by truly mammoth snow event. More than 8Gts was added on Aug 30 alone, an unprecedented amount for summer–visualized below by the dramatic-looking ‘spike’ at the end of the DMI’s SMB chart:



The reason for these persistently cold and wet conditions across the Greenland ice sheet is linked to “atmospheric blocking”–a phenomenon shown to increase during times of low solar activity (such as the historically low output we’re experiencing now).

For much of the summer, a high-pressure blocking system stalled over Western Europe, leading to many nations experiencing record-breaking heatwaves. And far out to the west, across the pond, blocking systems also formed over Western Canada and the US. These setups altered the jet stream’s flow, reverting its usual straight (zonal) course to a wavy (meridional) one. The jet effectively ‘buckled’ with Greenland situated in the middle, on the ‘upper’ side of a southerly-plunging jet which saw it subject to influxes of frigid Arctic air; while, conversely, W Europe and the US found themselves located ‘below’ a northerly-arching jet, meaning they were open to rising tropical warm.



The below graphic aims to clarify the general setup.

And as hinted at above, the prevalence of this ‘wavy’ jet stream setup increases during times of low solar activity. In short, with less energy entering the system, the usually-rigid west-to-east flowing jet weakens and its shape becomes Omega (Ω) or ‘meridional’. It is this mechanism –or more specifically its upshot, i.e. erratic weather patterns– that today’s activist-scientists broadly label ‘climate change’: A weakened jet stream caused by low solar activity.



MSM OBFUSCATION

Refocusing on Greenland, despite this year’s ‘healthy’ melt season, obfuscation was abound across the mainstream media.

CNN wrote the following in July 20 article: “The amount of ice that melted in Greenland between July 15 and 17 was enough to fill 7.2 million Olympic-sized swimming pools, or cover the entire state of West Virginia with a foot of water.”

They even have a quote from cLiMaTe ScIeNtIsT Ted Scambos: “The northern melt this past week is not normal, looking at 30 to 40 years of climate averages. But melting has been on the increase, and this event was a spike in melt.”

CNN is screaming about this period of melting (circled below):



I’ve already given you the data regarding the season as a whole.

The audacity of CNN to claim that the 2022 melt season was in anyway alarming is cherry-picking obfuscation at best and outright fraud at worst. Even the staunchest of AGW proponents must see this–the propaganda can’t be that blinding, surely?

‘TOTAL’ MASS BALANCE

The ‘Surface’ Mass Balance (SMB) is just one of three components when it comes to determining an ice sheet’s overall ‘health’ –its ‘Total’ Mass Balance (TMB)– with the others being the ‘Marine’ Mass Balance (MMB) and the “Basal’ Mass Balance (BMB).

In Greenland’s case, the MMB consists of the breaking off –or ‘calving’– of icebergs as well as the melting of glaciers that meet the warmer sea water. While the BMB, although largely unimpactful, refers to ice losses from the base of the ice sheet mainly caused by frictional effects and ground heat flux.

The components of the Total Mass Balance going back to 1987 are shown below — CNN pay close heed. The SMB is shown in blue, the MMB in green, the BMB in yellow and, most importantly, the TMB is marked in red.



This is the official data. Every news outlet has access to it. And what it unambiguously shows is, well, not a lot, certainly nothing to write home about, and most-certainly nothing ‘catastrophic’.

The TMB (red line) did indeed decrease between 1996 to 2012; however, the trend has very clearly shifted since then, to one of overall growth. This is more clearly depicted in the next chart (which doesn’t yet include 2022’s higher reading):



Now, I’m not sat here scratching my head pondering why the MSM works so desperately hard to obfuscate. I’m not naive. Unalarming Greenland data does not serve the doom and gloom agenda and reporting on it honestly on would risk stopping the intravenous-dispensation of fear that requires constantly administering to the masses in order to be effective, in order to force through their controlled demolition of society–that now appears fully underway.

This is what the MSM are tasked with nowadays, perhaps it has always been the case — a population forever scared, always looking over their shoulder for the next ‘catastrophe’ that threatens to upend and ruin them are far easier to keep under the thumb, to marshal, to own, to control. It’s a travesty.

Belligerent Savant » Tue Oct 18, 2022 4:03 pm wrote:.
...

Modeling

One of the foundational beliefs of our religion of science is that everything in the universe can be broken down into mathematical equations. In many cases, this is completely true. However, with more complex natural systems, especially those involving sentient organisms, those models often fail to hold up (e.g. consider this collection of climate models that were later proven to be false). Unfortunately, due to the faith we hold in the “scientific” paradigm, when bad mathematical models are put forward, they are rarely if ever questioned. The below graph is meant to illustrate what I have observed with more models or projections than I can count:



A recent memorable example were the projected vaccination rates in the United States compared to what actually happened:



The modeling problem was most evident with the dire models that were used to justify mass lockdowns. The modelers, who had previously made wildly inaccurate models that greatly overstated the death rate from various infectious diseases, produced a model for COVID-19 that predicted a global catastrophe if strict lockdowns were not immediately implemented. When policymakers were presented with these catastrophic models, they of course felt duty-bound to impose these lockdowns and viewed their potential consequences as a necessary sacrifice.

There were however three problems with those models:

•Lockdowns were nonsensical because at best, all they could accomplish was delaying the spread of the disease as individuals would eventually have to leave their homes.

•The modelers did not consider the social and economic consequences of their models.

•The individuals who made these models utilized a variety of flawed assumptions that would not have withstood any degree of independent scrutiny had they been subject to peer review. Malcolm Kendrick provided an excellent summary of some of the methodological flaws in their model and it is truly amazing these mistakes were never flagged by the scientific community (although fortunately they later were put in the spotlight by a parliament hearing).

One of my favorite “bad models” is the ASCVD calculator which was rolled out in 2013 by the American Heart Association and was eagerly adopted by my colleagues (it has a few easy to obtain numbers you can punch in to “scientifically” calculate how likely someone will be to have a heart attack or stroke in the next 10 years). Those with a score of at least 5% were “encouraged” to take a statin, while those with at least a 7.5% risk were “advised” to start a statin.

I was always suspicious of this model as I knew statins provided minimal benefit in preventing these conditions (but were excellent at creating life altering side effects and enriching the statin manufacturers). It was thus not hard for me to notice they would normally calculate a risk which passed the statin threshold which immediately reminded of the 2010 WebMD scandal.

WebMD (a website which Google consistently ranks at the top for all health related search queries) provided a free depression survey that regardless of your answers, always concluded you were at risk for severe depression and recommended seeing your doctors to prevent disastrous complications like suicide, visits that almost always resulted in lifelong psychiatric medication prescriptions. WebMD of course had heavy sponsorship from Eli Lily (Prozac’s manufacturer) and had engaged in decades of egregious conduct to keep their drugs on the market (which I believe represents the best parallel to how everyone in the government covered up the dangers of the COVID-19 vaccines).

Most of my colleagues gleefully adopted this cardiovascular risk calculator (as did the medical board examinations and the guidelines each physician is expected to follow). At this point, I have lost track of how many times numbers were authoritatively pushed into the calculator in front of a patient after which the patient was gently, then firmly, and then if still not agreeing to, hysterically lectured on their urgent need to start taking a statin regardless of the side effects of the drug. I was thus overjoyed when I learned that a 2016 Kaiser study had looked at the electronic health care data of 307,591 Americans and discovered that the calculator was overestimating the risk of a heart attack or stroke by between 5 to 6 times!

This is a huge figure which cannot be account for by anything besides a dysfunctional calculator in the first place, and had this error been corrected, almost none of the patients who met the calculator’s criteria for initiating statin therapy would have qualified. Unfortunately, few of my colleagues are aware this study exists, and the calculator has remained in widespread use (which may be explained by most of the members of the guideline committees who inevitably conclude people need to take statins regardless of the evidence being on the payroll of statin manufacturers).

Although the widely adopted calculator overestimating the risk of a heart attack or stroke by 5 to 6 times was a national scandal in of itself with profound consequences for millions, it was far more accurate than the unchallenged and farcical epidemiological models for COVID-19 (or any of the models those individuals had made previously).

As you might suspect, this exact same problem has occurred for decades with modeling herd immunity, and like many other models, the modelers have never been required to defend their models or held to be accountable for their models’ failures.

...