The boogey man of climate change - Page 116 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Manmade and Natural Disasters Drought, Diseases, Earthquakes, Riots, Wars

Advertise Here
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ashen Horse Update Bret F Books, Movies & Stories 8 06-15-2019 03:49 PM
U.S. Energy Dept balks at Trump request for names on climate change woodzman Political News and Discussion 56 12-22-2016 09:23 AM
trade war starting with Climate Change? Justme11 General Discussion 27 11-21-2016 02:29 PM
Mountain Man you out there? : ) MayDay Books, Movies & Stories 12 10-26-2016 07:07 PM

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-22-2019, 11:07 PM
PalmettoTree PalmettoTree is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 13,091
Thanks: 2,649
Thanked 17,655 Times in 7,389 Posts

Advertise Here

Originally Posted by William Ashley View Post
What metod of correlation are YOUR calculations using?

We know that climate and temeprature shift happens not in real time with location drift over time, from 10 to 20 years for atmosphere depending on altitudue or many many decades for the oceans.

Are you correlating on a time matched basis or are you using latency measures based on atmospheric timelapsing to temperature. Also are you crosslinking atmospheric conditions, and other factors or simply tying in single factors.

I think you may be al ittle narrow in your view if you are not mapping a multivariable condition as there are interrelations that change how CO2 behaves and how much of a factor it is from location to location on the planet.

I am not sure if you know the term atmospheric forcing or not. Are you considering atmospheric forcing to correlate your numbers?

Also have you offset the ice loss heat coefficient to take into consideration the solid temperature mass that was converted to air mass in your temperature change calculations? As it takes a lot more BTUs to heat ice to air temeprature than it takes to heat air temperature 2 degrees. Are you correlating ice mass to air temperatuer changes in your correlation. Afterall there are hundreds of gigatons of very cold super frozen ice loss over that period.

Did you include ice temperature change in your model Palmetto?

Every mm of sea water increase is over 368 giga tons of ice brought to air temperature from very very cold temperatures.

We are at around 4 mm per year now so that is 1400 gigatons of ice converted to air tempearture per year from super cold freezing temperatures. SO air temp increase needs to also consider the energy required to melt all those billions of tons of ice also.

The problem is that there is a threshold where ice stops melting and the glaciers start disintegrating. This may provide some cooling effect as the ice shifts north but overall it is only a temporary stopgap. Also it would introduce the sea level rise issue with most of the population living around the coasts of the planet it creates another major problem.

Without that ice you may have closer correlations.

Have you filtered out the radiative index in your model for your correlations, if not you probably invalidated your numbers by not filtering out the radiative index. Essentially your model is flawed before even applying data because you don't know what to look for in the correlations. You seem to be ignoring the fact solar output has dropped over the period of your reference timespan. Likewise they arn't linear scales but "threshold measures" of multivariable interrelation. This isn't a linear correlation it is a phasic correlation on non linear basis.

Likewise the effect is an interrelation, not acting on its own. CO2 on its own is a very small part of the system, but it is part of the system that humans control a stake of. True there are other contributors to climate change also. Add them all up we have .36 for co2 .36 for other gas products such as ch4, we have water vapour.. ADD THEM ALL UP see how it correlates then shift them out of phase for hte time lapse... offset ice loss sea level adjustment etc... you will come to a different conclusion.


any idiot knows that co2 isn't the sole cause of climate change. no one with a brain is suggesting that, co2 is one of the very small contributors we actually produce ourselves. The other stuff needs to be geoengineered to stop at scales WAY WAY WAY larger and WAY WAY WAY more epxensive.

The co2 thing is just one peice that buys us a couple extra decades before we go extinct.its a time play.

CO2 is trillions. other stuff is hundreds of trillions of dollars to fix.

trillions in 50 years is acheivable hundreds of trillions in 500 might be, but is not possible in the midterm.

we are relatively rich now we are at the top of the heap, it goes downhill in 20 years.. it is peak existence. we are buying time for technological development to save us.

do we really want the chinese to kill us all and for humanity to be controlled by AI to stop our extermination as a species?

its not about killing oil it is about social unity by reason not at the point of a gun.
First of all I have no "model". Second I do not index. I use NOAA's actual data.

I have done correlation over with data since 1895 and over shorter periods like since 1979. I have correlation for just CO2 and for all 20 so called greenhouse gases. I have done 11 year rolling averages to compensate for sunspot variation. I have 12 different spreadsheets of data. I have looked peak sunspots and sunspot minimum years. I have looked at magnetic field weakening and magnetic field movement. I eave have temperature data by month from 1895.

It is late and I do not have time to look at all the crap links you can sling against the wall. Now if you want to pick one with data and methods I can run duplication proofs on like a real scientist then post it.

Global human caused temperature caused temperature change is crap. I have proved it to be crap. Some day all this will be looked at like Greek mythology is today.
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-23-2019, 02:01 AM
dontbuypotteryfromme's Avatar
dontbuypotteryfromme dontbuypotteryfromme is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Far north queensland Australia
Posts: 20,174
Thanks: 4,427
Thanked 15,819 Times in 8,391 Posts

Originally Posted by PalmettoTree View Post
Originally Posted by dontbuypotteryfromme View Post
So you are like an anti vaccination mum?

You jumped on Google and came up with a different conclusion to those with real training in the subject.

How did your peer review go?
No I did not jump on google. I went to NOAA's website for my data. I do not even argue about NOAA's data like some. I trust NOAA's data.

I spent either in line management or problem solving manufacturing problems on 3 continents, and in 5 countries. This included compliance to EPA, OSHA, FAA, Coast Guard, and automotive safety standards just to name a few. Some times responsibilities included lab certifications and wast water treatment.

I may not be a PhD theoretical researcher but I am damn good at real world problem solving and solution applications.

You should not assume everyone does as you do. Or, like Democrats, accuse other of doing the wrongs you do.
So you didn't get peer reviewed or run it by an expert of any sort.

You just looked at the data and figured out the earth was flat?
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-23-2019, 07:18 AM
PalmettoTree PalmettoTree is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 13,091
Thanks: 2,649
Thanked 17,655 Times in 7,389 Posts

Originally Posted by dontbuypotteryfromme View Post
So you didn't get peer reviewed or run it by an expert of any sort.

You just looked at the data and figured out the earth was flat?
I welcome peer review. I post the source of my data which is NOAA. I post my methods. I post my findings. So have at it do your own math.

Not only that when people want to frame the time period, I post my finding for that time frame.

Prove I am wrong.

I even have a spreadsheet in my database devoted to measurements make by the UK. I have done an analysis of variance between NOAA and UK data and confirmed the UK data results in the same conclusion. The only difference is the UK data is smaller in numbers of samples and the area sampled. So conclusions result in the same conclusion except the NOAA data's conclusions have a higher degree of confidence.

Post your own analysis. Try using your country's data. LOL, LOL, LOL that is right they use NOAA's data too. You and yours cannot even do your own work. Another example of the global parasites living off the USA.

Put up or shut up.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PalmettoTree For This Useful Post:
Sponsored Links
Old 10-23-2019, 12:35 PM
William Ashley William Ashley is offline
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 146
Thanks: 14
Thanked 69 Times in 50 Posts

Originally Posted by Kansas Terri View Post
there is no GLOBAL loss of ice mass.
wow, seriously?

Kindly educate yourself on the facts and come back and repent.

I'm not even going to attempt to address your misinformation beyond this point as you have 0 credibility posting something like that.

We could go region by region and the severity would be extreme.

We have lost " Quadrillions " literally tons of ice

we have lost thousands of years of snow accumulation over the last 50 years. While sea ice has all but disappeared and thinned out to surface only returns of non multiyear ice that melts each year whereas in the past it was thick ice that survived year long. Are you blind? Is your head in the sand. It is just ludicrist for someone to say we havn't lost ice mass. Just nonsensical and delusional.

Data from NASA's GRACE satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica (upper chart) and Greenland (lower) have been losing mass since 2002. Both ice sheets have seen an acceleration of ice mass loss since 2009. (Source: GRACE satellite data)

Likewise the effect in Antarctica is mostly due to sea contact, not air mass..... however if Antarctica is hydrated .. and it slowly is being hydrated, as it has been a desert - as its RH increases and water vapour enters the airmass, the greenhouse effect will start to melt the ice - and it isn't being exposed to the greenhouse effect much at all yet, but over time the effects will shift once it hydrates so it will slowly accelerate the melt as RH content increases to promote the greenhouse effect and that will cause melt in Antarctica like we saw in the arctic. THAT is bad news.

Quick reply to this message


Quick Reply

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Please select your insurance company (Optional)


Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by