WebsterMark wrote on 08/19/19 at 14:25:02:


So, did you say this:

"Why haven't I noticed a difference caused by this catastrophic change in climate?"

Just a simple yes or no.

If you answer "no", then you're lying.

If you answer "yes", then my position on how world hunger is fake because I just ate and no one I know is starving, is pretty relevant.

You may want to go back and look at what you're basing your "expert" opinion on, mark.

T And T Garage wrote on 08/19/19 at 14:50:02:

I agree there are a tremendous amount of variables, and not all outcomes are due to man-made influence.  

Not all? You can't positively identify a single one. Sounds like you're looking at data generated after multiple alterations were made to the process and assuming some results were the result of temperature change.

 I do still argue however that every weather model ever made is not incorrect.  Too many people use them to create successful business plans for all of them to always be incorrect.

No, their is no evidence to suggest their successful plans were because they made adjustments that countered an increase in temperature. Shell oil for example may have taken what were ultimately financially profitable steps but that success may have had nothing to do with countering a tiny increase in temperature. It may have had everything to do with playing the political game and pretending they believe global warming is a serious threat in order to capture business from customers who require sustainability plans be in place before they engage in business with them.
Shell Oil did not invest in equipment with a 1 degree C grester heat resistance and because of that investment, earned more profit.

"Not all? You can't positively identify a single one. Sounds like you're looking at data generated after multiple alterations were made to the process and assuming some results were the result of temperature change."

 Then I am not portraying what I am using correctly.  The assessment of accuracy comes from comparing a prediction to the measured outcome in the timeframe the prediction was made.  From 1983 to now, some, not all, weather models have had high accuracy.

 If a weather model predicts on Jan 01 2019 there will be snow 1-2 inches of snow on Jan 02 2019 and then on Jan 02 2019 1.78 inches of snow falls the prediction would by my standard be considered accurate.

 If a weather model predicts an annual increase in watershed irrigation volume of 28-34% the following year and the watershed irrigation volume increases by 29% that prediction by my standard would be correct.

 I can't speak for Shell Oil, I only am referencing the agriculture belt where my land is.  People who use predictive weather modeling to pre-purchase seed, prepare land and develop distribution strategies have higher returns than those who do not.  

 It may be completely coincidental but by my standard the multi-decade results are too consistent to meet the definition of coincidence.  

 To clarify: The businesses I am directly involved with by means of land-use and lease of water-shares use predictive weather modeling.  My assessment of such does not include any other business such as Shell Oil.  As such my assessment is that not every single weather model ever made is inaccurate.

WebsterMark wrote on 08/19/19 at 15:32:09:



So... no answer?

Even though you're the one that said "Why haven't I noticed a difference caused by this catastrophic change in climate?" - you call me clueless?

Thanks mark! You've proved my point!

Eegore wrote on 08/19/19 at 19:14:46:


Let's wrap this up. I say no one can prove definitively a change in any pattern or event that was caused by the .38c increase in average temperature since 1979. Nothing you've written challenged that. Are the models those people used to prepurchase seeds or otherwise alter production techniques saying a tiny fraction of a degree triggers the drastic production changes? I can't believe that's true. There's more too these models. What parameters are they projecting? El Nino, etc...?

T And T Garage wrote on 08/20/19 at 05:17:27:


You're really not that bright are you?

Its been 30 years. Why can't I see these drastic changes you guys are telling me about. Its a 28 mile stretch of river that's virtually untouched by humans. No farms or business. Any change in the pattern of nature over 30 years should be very noticeable.

How about because a tiny fraction of increase in the global average temperature is meaningless to the ecosystem. It's absorbed. I can't see any difference because there isn't any difference.