Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Invented climate model has been used as facts in thousands of studies
More info

Quote:[Image: jorden.jpg]

Invented climate model has been used as facts in thousands of studies
February 4, 2020

When the IPCC Climate Panel released its fifth report in 2014, researchers presented four examples of scenarios that describe what carbon dioxide emissions could look like during the rest of the century. Now it is revealed that the researchers' most alarmist example RCP8.5 has been used incorrectly and that the climate situation is not at all as serious as it has been presented in thousands of reports.

In a worst-case scenario presented, RCP8.5, coal use increases by 500 percent. This at the same time as there are almost no regulations to limit emissions. It now emerges that this invented and unrealistic climate model has been used in several thousands of studies which thereby have an overly alarmist profile.

Initially, RCP8.5 was intended to be a tool for developing new energy models. The creators did not see the nightmare scenario as a likely outcome. They calculated that the probability of such an extreme development being realized was only three percent. But the researchers have been unclear in clarifying this.
The extreme model has been used incorrectly
Instead, the RCP8.5 climate model was presented as a fact and without regard to climate measures and technological development. According to the extreme and unlikely model, the Earth's temperature would rise by 6 degrees to the year 2100. The worst case scenario is that the temperature may instead rise by 3 degrees.

A review has now been published in Nature that shows how RCP8.5 has had the wrong effect on climate research. The critics behind the study find that many climate scientists have made assumptions instead of checking the data they use.
- After all, researchers must take responsibility for what data they use as a basis, and that there must be some thoroughness in the work. How many of our average climate scientists actually know the nuances of RCP8.5? It would be really interesting to know, says Glen Peters, one of the authors, at the Center for Climate Research in Norway to the BBC.
Since the report was released, other climate scientists have used the extreme model in more than 2,000 scientific dissertations, which has thereby become misleading and overly alarmist.
That's a great article and goes to show what we're up against.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
True, it is all a Fabricated Scam using Junk Science.
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
Perhaps the world should read this  tinybiggrin

Quote:Sweden public voted for the worst waste of money in 2019:

 By VOICE OF EUROPE  7 February 2020
[Image: shutterstock_1140511865-702x459.jpg]

The climate policy
Sweden, the mother country of the most popular climate activist Greta Thunberg, voted for the worst money waste of government‘s action for last year. The climate policy is therefore awarded the award by the Taxpayers’ Disposal Ombudsman.
Despite Sweden sent more than doubled figures for decreasing the emissions the country produces the results are greatly disappointing. While in 2014 the government budget was 5.2 billion SEK, there is a plan to spent 12.6 billion SEK in 2020. But despite this, emissions no longer decrease. Last year, emissions even increased marginally. In 2018, the situation was even worse when emissions increased by half a million tonnes.

With over 18,000 votes 30 percent of the votes landed on climate policy. Swedish have been deeply unsatisfied in recent years when the climate policy was accented and for example, in 2017 the National Institute of Economic Research writes that the program “risks becoming a costly blow in the air”.
In the Taxpayers’ Association released reads: „At the same time, almost every third environmental car sold in Sweden goes with an environmental car bonus on exports to Norway in just a few years. Investing so much money on grants for electric bicycles, support for solar cells or why not climate anxiety therapy when there are other measures that have made greater use of the climate cannot be classified as anything other than waste.“
While the climate policy is the winner in this so-called award, on the second place came the artists’ commission’s million grants for art for earthworms and third place Gothenburg’s plans on a cable car across the Göta River.
(02-08-2020, 02:22 PM)Wallfire Wrote:
Quote:Sweden public voted for the worst waste of money in 2019:
Well, isn't always this way? Greta should have stayed home and bitched about where she lives first
before enjoying some yachting, meeting dignitaries and raking in piles of cheddar for her parents.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)