Sympathy should not be extended to climate change deniers in my opinion!

Voting for climate denial propaganda does not exactly make for a clever farmer!!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 3:21am:

Sympathy should not be extended to climate change deniers in my opinion! Voting for climate denial propaganda does not exactly make for a clever farmer!!

Any actual evidence that this is happening or are you just making sh1t up so you can heap sh1t on people in dire need?

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 6:00am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 3:21am: Sympathy should not be extended to climate change deniers in my opinion! Voting for climate denial propaganda does not exactly make for a clever farmer!! Any actual evidence that this is happening or are you just making sh1t up so you can heap sh1t on people in dire need?

Only anecdotal i'm afraid, hence my lack of references!  :-* :-*

Also its prolly like the last drought where it was drougting all the time - there were even puddles of drought in the roads and ppl said "heavy dew" (seriously!).....

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 6:11am:

Also its prolly like the last drought where it was drougting all the time - there were even puddles of drought in the roads and ppl said "heavy dew" (seriously!)..... SOB

"heavy dew" ?????????????????????????  :o :o

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 6:07am:

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 6:00am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 3:21am: Sympathy should not be extended to climate change deniers in my opinion! Voting for climate denial propaganda does not exactly make for a clever farmer!! Any actual evidence that this is happening or are you just making sh1t up so you can heap sh1t on people in dire need? Only anecdotal i'm afraid, hence my lack of references!  :-* :-*

Maybe you should point out you have no actual eviidence for your accusations and it prolly should be ignored.

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 6:29am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 6:07am: BigOl64 wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 6:00am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 3:21am: Sympathy should not be extended to climate change deniers in my opinion! Voting for climate denial propaganda does not exactly make for a clever farmer!! Any actual evidence that this is happening or are you just making sh1t up so you can heap sh1t on people in dire need? Only anecdotal i'm afraid, hence my lack of references!  :-* :-* Maybe you should point out you have no actual eviidence for your accusations and it prolly should be ignored.

Abbott is a denier... rural votes coalition!

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 6:00am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 3:21am: Sympathy should not be extended to climate change deniers in my opinion! Voting for climate denial propaganda does not exactly make for a clever farmer!! Any actual evidence that this is happening or are you just making sh1t up so you can heap sh1t on people in dire need?

The clear and unambiguous warming of the earth over recent decades is pretty obvious evidence isn't it?  And now QLD has it's largest drought declared area ever.  And it is not even El Nino yet.

If I was Tony, I would be pulling that DD trigger ASAP for a new election ASAP.  When El Nino hits us again, his climate change denier government is going to look even more silly then they currently do.

rabbitoh08 wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 8:03am:

The clear and unambiguous warming of the earth over recent decades is pretty obvious evidence isn't it?

Tenths of a degree, About 1 degree since 1900. Do you really think you could feel the difference? How much of it is natural?

lee wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 9:15am:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 8:03am: The clear and unambiguous warming of the earth over recent decades is pretty obvious evidence isn't it? Tenths of a degree, About 1 degree since 1900. Do you really think you could feel the difference? How much of it is natural?

No - I can't really feel the difference at all.  But the clear and unambiguous evidence of rising sea levels, decline in glacial mass balance, increase in ocean temperatures and decline of the arctic ice cap show that the planet is most certainly warming.

As to how much of it is natural - the answer is very little.  From the IPCC AR4:

"It is extremely unlikely (<5%) that the global pattern of warming during the past half century can be explained without external forcing (i.e., it is inconsistent with being the result of internal variability), and very unlikely that it is due to known natural external causes alone. The warming occurred in both the ocean and the atmosphere and took place at a time when natural external forcing factors would likely have produced cooling."

Perhaps it would be more instructive to read AR5.

The table SPM.2 to Summary for Policymakers has a footnote that says that the IPCC level of confidence in the models in the short term is less than 5%. Or to put it another way - their No Confidence level is more than 95%.

Glacial Ice mass overall is increased.

Sea level rises.- Check the sea level rise for Kiribati at University of Colorado. (Kiribati is sinking apparently).

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/interactive-sea-level-time-series-wizard

Kiribati Co-ordinates - 3.3667° S, 168.7333° W

Tell us what you see.

`
BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 6:17am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 6:11am: Also its prolly like the last drought where it was drougting all the time - there were even puddles of drought in the roads and ppl said "heavy dew" (seriously!)..... SOB "heavy dew" ?????????????????????????  :o :o

Yeah - theres not really a drought in south burnett area where they go on about it. In fact a farmer told me he coudlnt plant the brocolli because the ground was too wet.

SOB

lee wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 9:15am:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 8:03am: The clear and unambiguous warming of the earth over recent decades is pretty obvious evidence isn't it? Tenths of a degree, About 1 degree since 1900. Do you really think you could feel the difference? How much of it is natural?

Heat content drives heat engines. Temperature is but a mere indicator of heat content.

..and you know what they say about indicators!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :D

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 10:04am:

` BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 6:17am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 6:11am: Also its prolly like the last drought where it was drougting all the time - there were even puddles of drought in the roads and ppl said "heavy dew" (seriously!)..... SOB "heavy dew" ?????????????????????????  :o :o Yeah - theres not really a drought in south burnett area where they go on about it. In fact a farmer told me he coudlnt plant the brocolli because the ground was too wet. SOB

So what you are saying is that farmers in the south burnett 'go on about' drought and complain the ground is too we for planting at the same time.

Are you sure you are not making this up so you can join in with drah and pay out on desperate farmers, to make yourself feel better by denigrating others.

rabbitoh08 wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 8:03am:

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 6:00am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 3:21am: Sympathy should not be extended to climate change deniers in my opinion! Voting for climate denial propaganda does not exactly make for a clever farmer!! Any actual evidence that this is happening or are you just making sh1t up so you can heap sh1t on people in dire need? The clear and unambiguous warming of the earth over recent decades is pretty obvious evidence isn't it?  And now QLD has it's largest drought declared area ever.  And it is not even El Nino yet. If I was Tony, I would be pulling that DD trigger ASAP for a new election ASAP.  When El Nino hits us again, his climate change denier government is going to look even more silly then they currently do.

Is english not your first language; my comment has nothing at all to do with climate change, but drah's accusation, without evidence, that farmers are climate change deniers and should be given no sympathy for the drought they are suffering.


And if you read his reply to me, he all but admitted he made up this vile accusation.

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 4:40pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 8:03am: BigOl64 wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 6:00am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 3:21am: Sympathy should not be extended to climate change deniers in my opinion! Voting for climate denial propaganda does not exactly make for a clever farmer!! Any actual evidence that this is happening or are you just making sh1t up so you can heap sh1t on people in dire need? The clear and unambiguous warming of the earth over recent decades is pretty obvious evidence isn't it?  And now QLD has it's largest drought declared area ever.  And it is not even El Nino yet. If I was Tony, I would be pulling that DD trigger ASAP for a new election ASAP.  When El Nino hits us again, his climate change denier government is going to look even more silly then they currently do. Is english not your first language; my comment has nothing at all to do with climate change, but drah's accusation, without evidence, that farmers are climate change deniwers and should be gine no sympather for the drought they are suffering. And if you read his reply to me,he all but admitted he made up this vile accusation.

You accuse others of getting their rocks off by denigrating others whilst you are actively participating in THE WAR MACHINE and think no one but me notices the disconnect perhaps??  ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 4:50pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 4:40pm: rabbitoh08 wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 8:03am: BigOl64 wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 6:00am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 3:21am: Sympathy should not be extended to climate change deniers in my opinion! Voting for climate denial propaganda does not exactly make for a clever farmer!! Any actual evidence that this is happening or are you just making sh1t up so you can heap sh1t on people in dire need? The clear and unambiguous warming of the earth over recent decades is pretty obvious evidence isn't it?  And now QLD has it's largest drought declared area ever.  And it is not even El Nino yet. If I was Tony, I would be pulling that DD trigger ASAP for a new election ASAP.  When El Nino hits us again, his climate change denier government is going to look even more silly then they currently do. Is english not your first language; my comment has nothing at all to do with climate change, but drah's accusation, without evidence, that farmers are climate change deniwers and should be gine no sympather for the drought they are suffering. And if you read his reply to me,he all but admitted he made up this vile accusation. You accuse others of getting their rocks off by denigrating others whilst you are actively participating in THE WAR MACHINE and think no one but me notices the disconnect perhaps??  ;D

Which "THE WAR MACHINE" would this be, slightly insane person?


You are not above lying and denigrating others for your own amusment, so Im intrigued by this latest insane rant and slanderous accusation.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 3:33pm:

..and you know what they say about indicators!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Cheesy

Always use them when driving???

lee wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 5:08pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 3:33pm: ..and you know what they say about indicators!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Cheesy Always use them when driving???

Bingo, but how many is enough and are they bright enough AND DO THEY ADHERE TO A STANDARD??

YOU SEE BUDDY- TECHNOLOGY IS THE APPLICATION OF SCIENCE!!!

Didn't get up early enough today did ya mate  ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 5:15pm:

AND DO THEY ADHERE TO A STANDARD??

And that is the operative question on CC/AGW as well. ;)

lee wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 5:59pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 5:15pm: AND DO THEY ADHERE TO A STANDARD?? And that is the operative question on CC/AGW as well. ;)

No shite sherlock.. it's called the uncertainty principle!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 6:04pm:

it's called the uncertainty principle!

The uncertainty of Scientific Principle

lee wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 8:09pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 6:04pm: it's called the uncertainty principle! The uncertainty of Scientific Principle

Lol, the fascists who vote liberal hate their kids and cry every night about why they had kids cos all they wanna do is hate but feel ashamed they are committing them to a nightmare!

lee wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 9:52am:

Perhaps it would be more instructive to read AR5. The table SPM.2 to Summary for Policymakers has a footnote that says that the IPCC level of confidence in the models in the short term is less than 5%. Or to put it another way - their No Confidence level is more than 95%.

Does it?!?!  Where?

Here is the link to the Summary for Policymakers - tell us which page

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

lee wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 9:52am:

Glacial Ice mass overall is increased.

No.  It isn't.  Please don't tell lies.


What the IPCC AR5 says is:
The average rate of ice loss from glaciers around the world, excluding glaciers on the periphery of the ice sheets, was very likely 226 [91 to 361] Gt yr−1 over the period 1971 to 2009, and very likely 275 [140 to 410] Gt yr−1 over the period 1993 to 200910

the World Glacier Monitoring Service says:
The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to be negative, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of 0.6 metres water equivalent (m w.e.) during the hydrological year 2012. The new data continues the global trend in strong ice loss over the past few decades and brings the cumulative average thickness loss of the reference glaciers since 1980 at 16 m w.e.

http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/sum12.html


Please apologise for lying to the forum.


lee wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 9:52am:

Sea level rises.- Check the sea level rise for Kiribati at University of Colorado. (Kiribati is sinking apparently).

Yes - Kiribati would be sinking.  The islands of Kiribati are atolls.  They are sinking by definition.

If you really want a discussion on the islands of Kiribati - I would be happy to engage.  I lived there for many years and know them well.


lee wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 9:52am:

Tell us what you see.

I see an ignorant fool telling lies.

And so does everybody else.

Why do you do it?

rabbitoh08 wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 9:22pm:

lee wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 9:52am: Perhaps it would be more instructive to read AR5. The table SPM.2 to Summary for Policymakers has a footnote that says that the IPCC level of confidence in the models in the short term is less than 5%. Or to put it another way - their No Confidence level is more than 95%. Does it?!?!  Where? Here is the link to the Summary for Policymakers - tell us which page http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf lee wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 9:52am: Glacial Ice mass overall is increased. No.  It isn't.  Please don't tell lies. What the IPCC AR5 says is: The average rate of ice loss from glaciers around the world, excluding glaciers on the periphery of the ice sheets, was very likely 226 [91 to 361] Gt yr−1 over the period 1971 to 2009, and very likely 275 [140 to 410] Gt yr−1 over the period 1993 to 200910 the World Glacier Monitoring Service says: The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to be negative, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of 0.6 metres water equivalent (m w.e.) during the hydrological year 2012. The new data continues the global trend in strong ice loss over the past few decades and brings the cumulative average thickness loss of the reference glaciers since 1980 at 16 m w.e. http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/sum12.html Please apologise for lying to the forum. lee wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 9:52am: Sea level rises.- Check the sea level rise for Kiribati at University of Colorado. (Kiribati is sinking apparently). Yes - Kiribati would be sinking.  The islands of Kiribati are atolls.  They are sinking by definition. If you really want a discussion on the islands of Kiribati - I would be happy to engage.  I lived there for many years and know them well. lee wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 9:52am: Tell us what you see. I see an ignorant fool telling lies. And so does everybody else. Why do you do it?

And IPCC AR5 footnote 16 states:


No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.

Meaning "our failed models still tell us figures 2 times as large as what mother nature has provided. We like to think our models are more accurate in some way compared to what we feel is a failed empirical evidence that mother nature has put forth"

Some scientists are going with mother nature. empirical data.

IPCC and the loons, well they are going with models that couldn't find a root in a brothel.

Ice melts. Ice grows. CO2 does stuff all to contribute.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 10:49pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 9:22pm: lee wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 9:52am: Perhaps it would be more instructive to read AR5. The table SPM.2 to Summary for Policymakers has a footnote that says that the IPCC level of confidence in the models in the short term is less than 5%. Or to put it another way - their No Confidence level is more than 95%. Does it?!?!  Where? Here is the link to the Summary for Policymakers - tell us which page http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf lee wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 9:52am: Glacial Ice mass overall is increased. No.  It isn't.  Please don't tell lies. What the IPCC AR5 says is: The average rate of ice loss from glaciers around the world, excluding glaciers on the periphery of the ice sheets, was very likely 226 [91 to 361] Gt yr−1 over the period 1971 to 2009, and very likely 275 [140 to 410] Gt yr−1 over the period 1993 to 200910 the World Glacier Monitoring Service says: The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to be negative, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of 0.6 metres water equivalent (m w.e.) during the hydrological year 2012. The new data continues the global trend in strong ice loss over the past few decades and brings the cumulative average thickness loss of the reference glaciers since 1980 at 16 m w.e. http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/sum12.html Please apologise for lying to the forum. lee wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 9:52am: Sea level rises.- Check the sea level rise for Kiribati at University of Colorado. (Kiribati is sinking apparently). Yes - Kiribati would be sinking.  The islands of Kiribati are atolls.  They are sinking by definition. If you really want a discussion on the islands of Kiribati - I would be happy to engage.  I lived there for many years and know them well. lee wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 9:52am: Tell us what you see. I see an ignorant fool telling lies. And so does everybody else. Why do you do it? And IPCC AR5 footnote 16 states: No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies. Meaning "our failed models still tell us figures 2 times as large as what mother nature has provided. We like to think our models are more accurate in some way compared to what we feel is a failed empirical evidence that mother nature has put forth" Some scientists are going with mother nature. empirical data. IPCC and the loons, well they are going with models that couldn't find a root in a brothel. Ice melts. Ice grows. CO2 does stuff all to contribute.

fud !!

"Consider the auk
Becoming extinct because he forgot to fly and could only walk.
Consider man, who may well become extinct
because he forgot how to walk and learned to fly before he thinked."

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 4:58pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 4:50pm: BigOl64 wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 4:40pm: rabbitoh08 wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 8:03am: BigOl64 wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 6:00am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 3:21am: Sympathy should not be extended to climate change deniers in my opinion! Voting for climate denial propaganda does not exactly make for a clever farmer!! Any actual evidence that this is happening or are you just making sh1t up so you can heap sh1t on people in dire need? The clear and unambiguous warming of the earth over recent decades is pretty obvious evidence isn't it?  And now QLD has it's largest drought declared area ever.  And it is not even El Nino yet. If I was Tony, I would be pulling that DD trigger ASAP for a new election ASAP.  When El Nino hits us again, his climate change denier government is going to look even more silly then they currently do. Is english not your first language; my comment has nothing at all to do with climate change, but drah's accusation, without evidence, that farmers are climate change deniwers and should be gine no sympather for the drought they are suffering. And if you read his reply to me,he all but admitted he made up this vile accusation. You accuse others of getting their rocks off by denigrating others whilst you are actively participating in THE WAR MACHINE and think no one but me notices the disconnect perhaps??  ;D Which "THE WAR MACHINE" would this be, slightly insane person? You are not above lying and denigrating others for your own amusment, so Im intrigued by this latest insane rant and slanderous accusation.

So up to your usual standard, slander someone and then just run away like a coward. No wonder people treat you with such contempt.




You set set yourself low standards and continually fail to meet even those.

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 4:37pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 10:04am: ` BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 6:17am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 6:11am: Also its prolly like the last drought where it was drougting all the time - there were even puddles of drought in the roads and ppl said "heavy dew" (seriously!)..... SOB "heavy dew" ?????????????????????????  :o :o Yeah - theres not really a drought in south burnett area where they go on about it. In fact a farmer told me he coudlnt plant the brocolli because the ground was too wet. SOB So what you are saying is that farmers in the south burnett 'go on about' drought and complain the ground is too we for planting at the same time. Are you sure you are not making this up so you can join in with drah and pay out on desperate farmers, to make yourself feel better by denigrating others.

No what i am saying is that the media is lying.

SOB

rabbitoh08 wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 9:22pm:

Here is the link to the Summary for Policymakers - tell us which page http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

Try the second bottom footnote on page 21.

'Calculated from projections as 5−95% model ranges. These ranges are then assessed to be
likely
ranges after accounting for additional uncertainties or different levels
of confidence in models. For projections of global mean surface temperature change in 2046−2065
confidence
is
medium
, because the relative importance of natural
internal variability, and uncertainty in non-greenhouse gas forcing and response, are larger than for 2081−2100. The
likely
ranges for 2046−2065 do not take into
account the possible influence of factors that lead to the assessed range for near-term (2016−2035) global mean surface temperature change that is lower than the
5−95% model range, because the influence of these factors on longer term projections has not been quantified due to insufficient scientific understanding. {11.3)

Re Kiribati - the furore was about Climate Change/AGW was causing sea level rise- not about atolls sinking.

lee wrote on Mar 10^th, 2014 at 1:05pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Mar 9th, 2014 at 9:22pm: Here is the link to the Summary for Policymakers - tell us which page http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf Try the second bottom footnote on page 21. 'Calculated from projections as 5−95% model ranges. These ranges are then assessed to be likely ranges after accounting for additional uncertainties or different levels of confidence in models. For projections of global mean surface temperature change in 2046−2065 confidence is medium , because the relative importance of natural internal variability, and uncertainty in non-greenhouse gas forcing and response, are larger than for 2081−2100. The likely ranges for 2046−2065 do not take into account the possible influence of factors that lead to the assessed range for near-term (2016−2035) global mean surface temperature change that is lower than the 5−95% model range, because the influence of these factors on longer term projections has not been quantified due to insufficient scientific understanding. {11.3) Re Kiribati - the furore was about Climate Change/AGW was causing sea level rise- not about atolls sinking.

Oh dear.  WTF are you on about?!?!

First - you seem to be quoting from footnote c on page 23.

And as I suspected - no, it does not say as you claim:
IPCC level of confidence in the models in the short term is less than 5%. .  You are simply telling lies because you don't understand what you are reading.

It is explaining the difference in how the 95% confidence interval ranges were calculated for short and medium term predictions.

So that is one lie out of the way.


Now please explain to us your next lie:
Glacial Ice mass overall is increased

We are waiting

'First - you seem to be quoting from footnote c on page 23.'

You are right- it comes up as page 21 on my reader- sorry for the confusion.

So you are reading right and me wrong- ok we'll agree to differ.

re Kiribati-
'But while this tiny atoll of South Tarawa may look heavenly, it will soon be completely submerged by the sea - and all because of climate change which has prompted rising sea levels.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2340804/Beautiful-Pacific-island-nation-Kiribati-claimed-sea-60-years-rising-ocean-levels.html

Re glacial Ice - sorry my error meant polar ice

lee wrote on Mar 10^th, 2014 at 1:50pm:

'First - you seem to be quoting from footnote c on page 23.' You are right- it comes up as page 21 on my reader- sorry for the confusion. So you are reading right and me wrong- ok we'll agree to differ.

Errr...no - we are not "agreeing to differ"  You are completely, totally and utterly 100% wrong.

Grow up and admit it.


lee wrote on Mar 10^th, 2014 at 1:50pm:

re Kiribati- 'But while this tiny atoll of South Tarawa may look heavenly, it will soon be completely submerged by the sea - and all because of climate change which has prompted rising sea levels.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2340804/Beautiful-Pacific-island-nation-Kiribati-claimed-sea-60-years-rising-ocean-levels.html

Yes - I will admit there is a lot of nonsense written about Kiribati.  Believe it or not - I actually lived there for many years and I know the islands quite intimately.

Your link features many images of Bikeman Is.  It disappeared about 20 years ago.  Not because of global warming (although many popular media accounts claim this) - but because of the change in lagoon currents due to the construction of the Dai Nippon Causeway between Betio and Bairiki.

HOWEVER - that does not mean that Kiribati is not at risk from global warming.  Atolls are dynamic landforms.  They grow.  An atoll is the fringing reef of a subsiding seamount.  The atolls of Kiribati may well grow at the same pace as the sea level rises - HOWEVER - many people now live in Kiribati - especially South Tarawa - with significant built infrastructure.  The key to their survival is FRESH WATER.  Fresh water exists in Tarawa as a shallow lens floating on sea water in the atoll sand.  A tiny sea level rise - and the fresh water become saline.  THIS is the danger for people living on atolls - not that they will "disappear".

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26017336


lee wrote on Mar 10^th, 2014 at 1:50pm:

Re glacial Ice - sorry my error meant polar ice

Nice try - but you are still in error.

Polar ice is not increasing either.  You lied.


Figure 5 shows the total sea ice for the Arctic and Antarctic. This shows that overall there has been a decline in sea ice and that the increase in the southern hemisphere is less than the decline in the northern hemisphere. This represents a decline of about 32,000 km2/year. Allowing for permanent land ice this represents an annual loss of 0.08% of polar ice.
http://www.climatedata.info/resources/Impacts/Sea-Ice/04-sea-ice-global.gif

http://www.climatedata.info/Impacts/Impacts/seaice.html

I think those farms have seen more rain in the past month than it has going back any month to about 2010/2011 summer season. It might be a wet winter this year, so don't fret too much.

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 12^th, 2014 at 1:01am:

I think those farms have seen more rain in the past month than it has going back any month to about 2010/2011 summer season. It might be a wet winter this year, so don't fret too much.

Indications are things are going to get worse before they get better:
Climate modelling shows chances have increased of an El Nino system, which brings warmer and drier conditions to large parts of eastern Australia, developing later this year.

The Bureau of Meteorology says most climate models are indicating warming in the tropical Pacific Ocean, with some models predicting the warming may approach El Nino thresholds by early winter.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-29/nrn-el-nino-prediction/5224234

rabbitoh08 wrote on Mar 11^th, 2014 at 11:35pm:

You are completely, totally and utterly 100% wrong.

Sorry, I can't help it if you can't parse a complex sentence.

lee wrote on Mar 12^th, 2014 at 11:47am:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Mar 11th, 2014 at 11:35pm: You are completely, totally and utterly 100% wrong. Sorry, I can't help it if you can't parse a complex sentence.

Is that the best you can do?

It has been demonstrated that that you have been telling lies.

The IPCC level of confidence in the models in the short term is NOT less than 5%.
Global glacial mass balance is NOT increasing
Global polar sea ice is NOT increasing

Can you explain why you felt the need to make up these "facts"?

'that lead to the assessed range for near-term (2016−2035) global mean surface temperature change that is lower than the 5−95% model range'

Do you see it now? The assessed range in the short term is less than the 5-95% model range, on which they rely. So less than 5%.

But maybe it means that they are more than 95% confident. :o

lee wrote on Mar 12^th, 2014 at 2:59pm:

'that lead to the assessed range for near-term (2016−2035) global mean surface temperature change that is lower than the 5−95% model range' Do you see it now? The assessed range in the short term is less than the 5-95% model range, on which they rely. So less than 5%. But maybe it means that they are more than 95% confident. :o

What the AR5 says is this:

The global mean surface temperature change for the period 2016–2035 relative to 1986–2005 will likely be in the range of 0.3°C to 0.7°C (medium confidence).

Likely means >66% probability

What you are quoting (in full) is this:
The likely ranges for 2046−2065 do not take into account the possible influence of factors that lead to the assessed range for near-term (2016−2035) global mean surface temperature change that is lower than the 5−95% model range, because the influence of these factors on longer term projections has not been quantified due to insufficient scientific understanding.
explaining that the 2046−2065 range was calculated differently to the 2016−2035 range.


Now:
The IPCC level of confidence in the models in the short term is NOT less than 5%.
Global glacial mass balance is NOT increasing
Global polar sea ice is NOT increasing

Can you explain why you felt the need to make up these "facts"?

I've merely quoted to you what the IPCC has said. If it is made up they did it.

It has been said you can lead a horse to water; but you can't make it drink. An ass you can't lead at all.

Given your lack of comprehension skills, it is pointless to go further.

Are you from BankWest?

lee wrote on Mar 10^th, 2014 at 1:50pm:

'First - you seem to be quoting from footnote c on page 23.' You are right- it comes up as page 21 on my reader- sorry for the confusion. So you are reading right and me wrong- ok we'll agree to differ. re Kiribati- 'But while this tiny atoll of South Tarawa may look heavenly, it will soon be completely submerged by the sea - and all because of climate change which has prompted rising sea levels.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2340804/Beautiful-Pacific-island-nation-Kiribati-claimed-sea-60-years-rising-ocean-levels.html Re glacial Ice - sorry my error meant polar ice

The poles are acting differently  ;)

lee wrote on Mar 12^th, 2014 at 5:24pm:

I've merely quoted to you what the IPCC has said. If it is made up they did it. It has been said you can lead a horse to water; but you can't make it drink. An ass you can't lead at all. Given your lack of comprehension skills, it is pointless to go further. Are you from BankWest?

Lee is trying to hijack your kiddies future  8-)

lee wrote on Mar 12^th, 2014 at 5:24pm:

I've merely quoted to you what the IPCC has said. If it is made up they did it.

No - you partially quoted a footnote and completely misunderstood what it was saying.

You claimed that the IPCC level of confidence in the models in the short term is less than 5%.  That is completely incorrect.  From the AR5, the IPCC has a medium level of confidence that the models in the short term  have >66% probability of being correct.

You are deliberately trying to spread misinformation based on your ingnorance of what you are reading


lee wrote on Mar 12^th, 2014 at 5:24pm:

It has been said you can lead a horse to water; but you can't make it drink. An ass you can't lead at all. Given your lack of comprehension skills, it is pointless to go further. Are you from BankWest?

Do you really think you are convincing anyone with this nonsense?

And we are still waiting for you to explain why you felt the need to lie about Global glacial mass balance increasing and Global polar sea ice increasing.

These are simply lies.  Lies you have made no effort to defend yet.

Perhaps this is why you think the IPCC is right and has such high confidence-

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392927966
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif

The current map. 2008 is old news. Notice the increasing trend .
Getting back to its long term average.

Why are you cherrypicking the graphs?

DRAH, notice it is GLOBAL sea ice extent.

lee wrote on Mar 13^th, 2014 at 10:58am:

Perhaps this is why you think the IPCC is right and has such high confidence- http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392927966 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif The current map. 2008 is old news. Notice the increasing trend . Getting back to its long term average. Why are you cherrypicking the graphs? DRAH, notice it is GLOBAL sea ice extent.

No - I don't notice an "increasing trend".  Do you?!?

I see a very steady decline in the 13 month running average extent of arctic sea ice - as would be expected since the planet is warming

I see a slight increase in the 13 month running average extent of antarctic sea ice - as would be expected since the planet is warming, meaning that more icebergs are calving off the Antarctic continent, putting more ice into the surrounding ocean, decreasing the salinity and hence increasing the freezing point of surrounding waters

And I see an overall decrease in the global trend - prior to about 1990 the extent was generally above the long term average, and post about 2004, the extent was generally below the long term average.  One data point in 2013 approaching the long term average is not a "trend".  It is one data point.

As I quoted for you earlier:
This shows that overall there has been a decline in sea ice and that the increase in the southern hemisphere is less than the decline in the northern hemisphere. This represents a decline of about 32,000 km2/year. Allowing for permanent land ice this represents an annual loss of 0.08% of polar ice.

..and, of course, it is suggestable that the difference is due to the northern hemisphere being warmer due to- predominantly- land mass ratio...