5 minutes ago, huangnon said:

Anyone noticed beachfront property getting sold cheap, yet?

 

Thought not.

Florida Sees Signals of a Climate-Driven Housing Crisis

All across Florida’s low-lying areas, it’s a similar story, according to research published Monday. The authors argue that not only is climate change eroding one of the most vibrant real estate markets in the country, it has quietly been doing so for nearly a decade.

“The downturn started in 2013, and no one noticed,” said Benjamin Keys, the paper’s lead author and a professor of real estate and finance at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. “It means that coastal housing is in more distress than we thought.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/12/climate/home-sales-florida.html

In addition to multi-millennial glacial and interglacial cycles, there are shorter cold-warm cycles that occur on approximately 200 to 1,500 year time scales. The mechanisms that cause these cycles are not completely understood, but are thought to be driven by changes in the sun, along with several corresponding changes such as ocean circulation patterns

 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/education/climate-primer/natural-climate-cycles

3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Florida Sees Signals of a Climate-Driven Housing Crisis

All across Florida’s low-lying areas, it’s a similar story, according to research published Monday. The authors argue that not only is climate change eroding one of the most vibrant real estate markets in the country, it has quietly been doing so for nearly a decade.

“The downturn started in 2013, and no one noticed,” said Benjamin Keys, the paper’s lead author and a professor of real estate and finance at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. “It means that coastal housing is in more distress than we thought.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/12/climate/home-sales-florida.html

Holland?

Since 1990, global surface temperatures have warmed at a rate of about 0.15°C per decade, within the range of model projections of about 0.10 to 0.35°C per decade. As the IPCC notes,

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate

 

Lets analyse this

 

reality 0.15+

 

0.05+ or - is close enough so the 0.1 to 0.2 models are ok. 

 

The models at 0.21 to 0.35+ are wrong to very wrong.

 

0.35 vs 0.15 is a degree of error of 133%

 

0.25 vs 0.15 is 66% wrong.

 

I could build a better model than that.

 

I predict 0.08 to 0.16 warming per decade next 50 years. I will bet baht on it.

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate

 

Only the 0.1 to 0.2 models are close enough.

 

The 0.21 to 0.35 models wrong by too much. 

54 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate

 

Only the 0.1 to 0.2 models are close enough.

 

The 0.21 to 0.35 models wrong by too much. 

Again your completely ignoring the articles that I posted that confirm they were mostly right.

0.15 times 8 is 1.2 degrees over 80 years.

 

If anyone is predicting 3 degrees of warming in 80 years I wouldnt buy real estate from them. 

 

 

22 hours ago, Dirk Z said:

Completely agree. It's hard to understand how people can deny this. 

Some will be denying it when the water is to their chins on the fifth floor, rather like the Covid victims denying right up to their last gasping breath.

53 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Again your completely ignoring the articles that I posted that confirm they were mostly right.

0.35 vs 0.15 is 133% wrong. 0.25 is 66% wrong.

 

Only the models up to 0.2 are close enough but if being precise the 0.13 to 0.17 models the only real accurate ones.

 

If journos want to spin it another way its spin not fact.

 

Good models should be within 15%.

 

If you cant produce a model within 15% accuracy then you arent doing a good job.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Kwaibill said:

Some will be denying it when the water is to their chins on the fifth floor, rather like the Covid victims denying right up to their last gasping breath.

Look at the facts not hype. There is no 10m high sea rises.

2 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

0.35 vs 0.15 is 133% wrong. 0.25 is 66% wrong.

 

Only the models up to 0.2 are close enough but if being precise the 0.13 to 0.17 models the only real accurate ones.

 

If journos want to spin it another way its spin not fact.

 

Good models should be within 15%.

 

If you cant produce a model within 15% accuracy then you arent doing a good job.

 

 

Nothing to do with journos it was the climatologists who made the predictions and who got them right

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

I said it doesn't have any relation to climate change.

Correct. La Nina is an effect of climate, not a prima causa.

3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Nothing to do with journos it was the climatologists who made the predictions and who got them right

Name the scientists who got it right.

41 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Name the scientists who got it right.

its in the articles I posted even the nobel prize winners

46 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Impossible to make specific and precise predictions but......................................

 

How climate models got so accurate they earned a Nobel Prize

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/how-climate-models-got-so-accurate-they-earned-a-nobel-prize

 

Climate predictions have mostly come true

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/climate-predictions-have-mostly-come-true-jz7x8g2pc

 

20 years on, climate change projections have come true

https://theconversation.com/20-years-on-climate-change-projections-have-come-true-11245

Obviously you failed to read the links you posted. Wrong by 37.5%. Thats pretty bad really.

 

"Twenty years after the 1990 prediction, we see it’s not perfectly accurate – it’s about a 0.4 degree rise instead of a 0.55 degree rise – but it’s still statistically significantly above zero,” he said."

 

If a stockbroker predicts a profit of $137.5m and it comes in at $100m thats a big blunder.

 

Same with temps, 37.5% overestimated is a poor estimate.

 

Mostly wrong, not mostly right.

37 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

its in the articles I posted even the nobel prize winners

I read your links, not much there. Wrong estimates by 37.5%.

 

 

1 minute ago, Sparktrader said:

I read your links, not much there. Wrong estimates by 37.5%.

That was quick reading........lol

 

4 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Obviously you failed to read the links you posted. Wrong by 37.5%. Thats pretty bad really.

 

"Twenty years after the 1990 prediction, we see it’s not perfectly accurate – it’s about a 0.4 degree rise instead of a 0.55 degree rise – but it’s still statistically significantly above zero,” he said."

 

If a stockbroker predicts a profit of $137.5m and it comes in at $100m thats a big blunder.

 

Same with temps, 37.5% overestimated is a poor estimate.

 

Mostly wrong, not mostly right.

This is not about stock brokers

1 hour ago, Sparktrader said:

Climate change is both natural and manmade.

Does the word RATE mean anything at all to you?

Just now, Bkk Brian said:

That was quick reading........lol

 

This is not about stock brokers

Not much to read in those links. Forecasts are forecasts. If your models are wrong by 30% plus then your models are pretty inaccurate and not much value.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

I read your links, not much there. Wrong estimates by 37.5%.

 

 

Really

 

Manabe argued that global temperatures would increase by 0.57 degrees Celsius (1.03 degrees Fahrenheit) between 1970 and 2000. The actual recorded warming was a remarkably close 0.54°C (0.97°F)

39 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

its in the articles I posted even the nobel prize winners

You don't really expect climate deniers to actually read the links you post do you?

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

Really

 

Manabe argued that global temperatures would increase by 0.57 degrees Celsius (1.03 degrees Fahrenheit) between 1970 and 2000. The actual recorded warming was a remarkably close 0.54°C (0.97°F)

Yes 1 guy got close. 1 guy.

 

 

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

You don't really expect climate deniers to actually read the links you post do you?

I read the links, and name calling means you cannot discuss science.

 

 

Just now, Sparktrader said:

Yes 1 guy got close. 1 guy.

 

 

I thought you read the links, its not just one guy, try reading again

1 minute ago, Sparktrader said:

Not much to read in those links. Forecasts are forecasts. If your models are wrong by 30% plus then your models are pretty inaccurate and not much value.

It really doesn't matter what the numbers are, the evidence is now plaint o see and it's catastrophic, already. Only fools and the corrupt think this is a natural cycle and that the extremes in temperatures and climate will go away.

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It really doesn't matter what the numbers are, the evidence is now plaint o see and it's catastrophic, already. Only fools and the corrupt think this is a natural cycle and that the extremes in temperatures and climate will go away.

1. 37.5% wrong is a bad model

2. No warming for 6 years.

3. Calling people fools weakens your claims. It shows you cannot discuss science.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/climate/hottest-year-ever.html

6 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

I read the links, and name calling means you cannot discuss science.

It means nothing at all. I'm not directing my comments at individual board members, just everybody on the planet who spins the same disinformation. They are, as I said, nothing more than useful idiots of the fossil fuel industry. Climate change deniers are fringe group of right wing, uninformed and uneducated. Maybe 30 years ago they could have been given some slack. Not now.

 

We may as well debate whether Hansel and Gretel were real people.

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It really doesn't matter what the numbers are,

Science is about numbers. If you are going to ignore numbers then you are taking politics not science.

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It means nothing at all. I'm not directing my comments at individual board members, just everybody on the planet who spins the same disinformation. They are, as I said, nothing more than useful idiots of the fossil fuel industry. Climate change deniers are fringe group of right wing, uninformed and uneducated. Maybe 30 years ago they could have been given some slack. Not now.

 

We may as well debate whether Hansel and Gretel were real people.

Science is about numbers. If you don't understand that you don't understand science.

 

 

Just now, Sparktrader said:

Science is about numbers. If you are going to ignore numbers then you are taking politics not science.

Climate change deniers are ignoring the numbers. There are no numbers which deny climate change or even significantly change the forecasts. There is no natural phenomenon going on now which could even conceivably warm the planet. Climate deniers are politically and religiously driven, not scientists (in the main).