Post by Copper-toned-stunt on Apr 26th, 2015 at 8:26pm
progressiveslol wrote on Apr 26th, 2015 at 7:47pm:
|
| Australian Politics Forum | |
|
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
Member Run Boards >> Environment >> Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1429976461 Message started by progressiveslol on Apr 26th, 2015 at 1:41am |
|
|
Title: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by progressiveslol on Apr 26th, 2015 at 1:41am Quote:
https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/global-warming-more-moderate-worst-case-models Slowly getting there until these AGW loons finally just take their bat and ball and go home because no-one wants to play their Stalinist game. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on Apr 26th, 2015 at 2:20am
:o :o
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Dnarever on Apr 26th, 2015 at 7:33am
They are not saying that global warming is not happening just that it might be a bit slower than the worst case models.
This isn't saying to not worry about global warming. At the end of the day does it matter a lot if the world is uninhabitable in 300 years instead of 200 ? Does it make a lot of difference if the temp rises by 3 degrees in 20 years or 40 years ? Having longer with an excuse to do nothing holds no real benefit in the end. are more likely to occur under a middle-of-the-road scenario Isn't a middle of the road scenario about the result most would expect ? So it in reality is only saying don't worry it is only about as bad as we thought it was, not worse case ? Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS No this does not support the nutters party ideological driven view. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John Smith on Apr 26th, 2015 at 10:10am
one day progs will learn to understand whats written in front of him
Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now,” doesn't sound like Abbott and the libs were right to me. Also worst case scenario is just that, worst case. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Apr 26th, 2015 at 11:43am
Except that CO2 emissions are not following a 'middle of the road' path.
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Happy Lucky on Apr 26th, 2015 at 7:15pm
The IPCC propaganda machine definately ISN'T following a 'middle of the road path'. Then again, you leftist troglodytes love swallowing propaganda just as much as you love swallowing Al Gore's baby batter.
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by progressiveslol on Apr 26th, 2015 at 7:47pm John Smith wrote on Apr 26th, 2015 at 10:10am:
Hi little johnny. You still getting it wrong I see. I read and comprehended, hence "Slowly getting there until these AGW loons finally just take their bat and ball and go home because no-one wants to play their Stalinist game. " Did you, noooo. Slowly but surely, the AGW loons are backing out of their catastrophic climate change, until it becomes a whimper. Now that's going to take some swallowing. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John Smith on Apr 26th, 2015 at 7:52pm
you are an idiot ... worst case scenarios are always that, worst case.
The predictions of worst case scenarios do not rule out other less extreme options. They just point out the worst possible outcome. When you learn what all that means, come back to me. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Sir Bobby on Apr 26th, 2015 at 8:11pm
The Earth has entered a mini Ice Age but it may only last 15 years.
After that it might get very hot. see my thread: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1421385253/585#597 |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on Apr 26th, 2015 at 8:26pm progressiveslol wrote on Apr 26th, 2015 at 7:47pm:
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on Apr 26th, 2015 at 8:26pm Bobby. wrote on Apr 26th, 2015 at 8:11pm:
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on Apr 26th, 2015 at 8:30pm
Abbott is a lawyer - a poor one at that
What does Abbott and his Liberal government think about the results coming out of the the Large Hadron Collider? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on Apr 26th, 2015 at 8:34pm |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by progressiveslol on Apr 26th, 2015 at 8:46pm Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 26th, 2015 at 8:34pm: Dangerous if you are a lefty. I can live with that. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John Smith on Apr 26th, 2015 at 8:54pm progressiveslol wrote on Apr 26th, 2015 at 8:46pm:
Liberal party PM a leftie? ;D ;D ;D you really aren't that bright are you? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on Apr 26th, 2015 at 10:02pm progressiveslol wrote on Apr 26th, 2015 at 8:46pm:
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on Apr 26th, 2015 at 10:24pm |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on Apr 26th, 2015 at 10:49pm progressiveslol wrote on Apr 26th, 2015 at 8:46pm:
Malcolm Fraser was a leftie? havent you noticed - both major parties are right wing corporate puppet clown organisations - NEVER vote for the major parties in Australian elections. You are voting for bankers and the corpocracy - pure fascism. You dont seem to understand a lot about the corpocracy that enslaves you. Voters who blindly vote Labor or Liberal are moronic dumb buggers in my humble opinion. The only trivial difference between the two is that those that vote Liberal are generally selfish cruel moronic dumb buggers rather than ordinary moronic dumb buggers like most labor voters are. Its a subtle distinction but worth noting |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by progressiveslol on Apr 26th, 2015 at 10:51pm John Smith wrote on Apr 26th, 2015 at 8:54pm:
Hmm show me in that image where he says Abbott is a danger to him. You haven't changed a bit have you little johnny. Getting it wrong at every turn. That image leaves a bit of wiggle room hey. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on Apr 26th, 2015 at 10:54pm |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on Apr 26th, 2015 at 11:15pm ...and apparently a Climate Science Expert, like the acupuncturist Dr Sircus who can cure cancer patients with baking soda and magnesium tablets |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by progressiveslol on Apr 26th, 2015 at 11:21pm Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 26th, 2015 at 11:15pm:
The lefty who created that image sounds scared. When scared, I suggest not being too obvious and desperate when trying to denigrate your opponent. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on Apr 26th, 2015 at 11:26pm progressiveslol wrote on Apr 26th, 2015 at 1:41am:
As has already been pointed our for you - that study does not say what you seem to think it does. But it does beg the question - since you remain committed to denying the bleeding obvious - you must be very cranky that your hero Mr Abbott just gave away $660 million of taxpayers money to polluters for emissions abatement? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-23/government-buys-47m-tonnes-of-carbon-abatement-in-erf-auction/6415532 Though - I guess you are essentially right when you say, Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. After all - Tony says: Just to make it clear... I think that climate change is real, humanity makes a contribution. It's important to take strong and effective action against it, and that is what our direct action policy does... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Abbott#Climate_change And that is why he is committed to giving away $2.55 billion of our taxpayer money to big polluters over coming years (funny though, one would think that getting polluters to pay for abatement would surely be more efficient than this "Carbon Tax" he has imposed) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on Apr 26th, 2015 at 11:32pm progressiveslol wrote on Apr 26th, 2015 at 11:21pm:
whats a Lefty? There are no left wing politicians in the Australian parliament. All right wing globalist corporatists - anti democratic and puppets I see that your delusional disorientation has worsened |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on Apr 26th, 2015 at 11:33pm |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by progressiveslol on Apr 26th, 2015 at 11:34pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Apr 26th, 2015 at 11:26pm:
Well as long as I know that Abbott isn't saying "We have to make the carbon tax over $100 a tonne" or "we need to get a consensus from the people first so therefore we will not have a carbon tax until then" and then introducing one anyway or "I am such a fruit loop, my church is the church of climatology", then I am in a situation where I have to accept that all politicians will tweak their concern to get some of the less religious zealots of AGW to be satisfied that something is being done. So no, it doesn't make me lose sleep. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John Smith on Apr 26th, 2015 at 11:45pm progressiveslol wrote on Apr 26th, 2015 at 10:51pm:
you show me in that image where it says Abbott is a danger to lefties? I see you haven't changed either, still as dumb as dogsheat. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on Apr 28th, 2015 at 12:08pm Bobby. wrote on Apr 26th, 2015 at 8:11pm:
15 years is an age? then in the year 2029 it will become hot? will there be another 15 year Hot Age after 2029 Sir Booby Trap? Do you read your own lunacy? from the warmest decade on record we will plunge into a mini ICE-AGE that will last a staggering 15 years up to the critical year 2029, and then the Earth will deliver a HOT AGE. Absolute lunatic fringe religious fundamentalist garbage by Jethro. He has no sense of shame and continues his deliverance of spin sermons extracted from the spin web sites - like a parrot freak clown. His mentor? None other than the Great Dr Sircus, acupuncturist and curer of cancer using baking Soda and magnesium. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Sir Bobby on Apr 28th, 2015 at 7:13pm
What evidence would be enough for the Chimp?
41 pages of: facts, books, videos & links has failed to satisfy him. I forgot to mention the pictures of ice & snow in Sydney - in April! Sydney weather: Hail storms batter Sydney April 26, 2015 - 1:07AM http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/sydney-weather-hail-storms-batter-sydney-20150425-1mt1rk.html Snowboarding in Newtown. Ice floats across the Parramatta River on Saturday evening. Hail gathers across Newtown. Just look at that snow & ice in Sydney |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on Apr 28th, 2015 at 7:38pm |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on Apr 29th, 2015 at 12:31am
jethro shamed at referring to his climate mentor Dr Sircus - the man who can cure cancer with banking Soda and magnesium
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Sir Bobby on Apr 29th, 2015 at 7:17am
What evidence would be enough for the Chimp?
My thread has a lot more than just one person's opinion - as he would have you believe. 41 pages of: facts, books, videos & links has failed to satisfy him. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1421385253/0#0 I forgot to mention the pictures of ice & snow in Sydney - in April! Sydney weather: Hail storms batter Sydney April 26, 2015 - 1:07AM http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/sydney-weather-hail-storms-batter-sydney-20150425-1mt1rk.html Snowboarding in Newtown. Ice floats across the Parramatta River on Saturday evening. Hail gathers across Newtown. Just look at that snow & ice in Sydney |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by damien on Apr 29th, 2015 at 9:11am Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 29th, 2015 at 12:31am:
Banking soda? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by damien on Apr 29th, 2015 at 9:14am
Does anyone remember the predictions from the "expert" Tim Flannery? "Dams will not fill", "there will be no rains", etc. And some believed it!!
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on Apr 29th, 2015 at 9:27am damien wrote on Apr 29th, 2015 at 9:14am:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/bpiomasicevolumeanomalycurrentv21_thumb_thumb.png?w=900&h=665 https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/age_coverage_time_series_83_15_w_labels2_thumb.jpg?w=780&h=584 |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on Apr 29th, 2015 at 9:33am |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Apr 29th, 2015 at 9:42am
Interesting graphic of the glaciers. What is the claimed accuracy of the data? Why does it only go to 2005?
Is the Arctic the only Sea Ice available? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Apr 29th, 2015 at 10:00am
'Record lows in Arctic sea ice extent are making frequent headlines in recent years. The change in albedo when sea ice is replaced by open water introduces a nonlinearity that has sparked an ongoing debate about the stability of the Arctic sea ice cover and the possibility of Arctic “tipping points”. Previous studies identified instabilities for a shrinking ice cover in two types of idealized climate models: (i) annual-mean latitudinally-varying diffusive energy balance models (EBMs) and (ii) seasonally-varying single-column models (SCMs). The instabilities in these low-order models stand in contrast with results from comprehensive global climate models (GCMs), which typically do not simulate any such instability. To help bridge the gap between low-order models and GCMs, we develop an idealized model that includes both latitudinal and seasonal variations. The model reduces to a standard EBM or SCM as limiting cases in the parameter space, thus reconciling the two previous lines of research. We find that the stability of the ice cover vastly increases with the inclusion of spatial communication via meridional heat transport or a seasonal cycle in solar forcing, being most stable when both are included. If the associated parameters are set to values that correspond to the current climate, the ice retreat is reversible and there is no instability when the climate is warmed. The two parameters have to be reduced by at least a factor of 3 for instability to occur. This implies that the sea ice cover may be substantially more stable than has been suggested in previous idealized modeling studies.'
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00654.1?journalCode=clim |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on Apr 29th, 2015 at 1:20pm damien wrote on Apr 29th, 2015 at 9:11am:
Look up the official web site of the Great Dr Mark Sircus - acupuncturist and cancer curer with household cooking ingredients and mineral supplements bought from the Hardware store. I was referred to the Great Dr Sircus by Sir Booby Trap. I dont normally use the internet to obtain serious peer reviewed scientific research and articles. Do you Damien? Are you aware that Sir Booby is claiming that 2014 is the commencement year for the Earth plunging into an ICE-AGE which will last for 15 years (exactly 15 years, not 14 or 16 years but exactly 15 years)? Are you also aware that Sir Booby is claiming that immediately after this ICE-AGE in the year 2029 the Earth will become very hot? (and incidentally the predictions for the various Australian tropical and temperant regions are still valid as the Earth continues to warm due to rising atmospheric CO2 concentration) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on Apr 29th, 2015 at 1:27pm Bobby. wrote on Apr 29th, 2015 at 7:17am:
What are the scientific principles and evidence that supports your assertion that the Earth has just plunged into an ICE-AGE at the end of 2014 which will last for exactly 15 years? Why will the Earth then propel itself into a HOT-AGE after the year 2029? Go on Jethro, release some of your baking Soda evidence, DO IT for the children |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Sir Bobby on Apr 29th, 2015 at 7:29pm Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 29th, 2015 at 1:27pm:
I already presented 41 pages of evidence & you know it. forgiven namaste |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by progressiveslol on Apr 29th, 2015 at 8:18pm damien wrote on Apr 29th, 2015 at 9:14am:
Too funny flimflam flannery. The ground will just soak up any rain because it will be too dry. Kids wont know what snow is. What a blast. He is a real labor wanna be. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on Apr 29th, 2015 at 9:03pm
You really need to be a supreme ignorant "profanity" to vote for either of the major parties in Australia.
Labor Party are right wing global, corporatist lunatics and the Liberal party just a tad further to the right than that - hardly noticeable. Keep voting in the corporate fascist clown puppets and continue complaining, and wondering why your so called FREE DEMOCRATIC circus show is neither Free nor Democratic ...watching these deranged nice people argue against each other over trivialities and leader personalities is hilarious ladies and gentlemen We currently have the most moronic, unimaginative, bugger head of a PM - easily in the top 3 biggest bugger heads on the planet. We cant even go overseas without hiding our Australian background. Even the British Tories have slammed Abbott as someone who is trying to take everyone back to the 16th century. Even before the smacking Maunder Minimum dumb buggers by the truck load in this country, voting for fascism every 4 years and dont even realise it. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on Apr 30th, 2015 at 1:23pm damien wrote on Apr 29th, 2015 at 9:14am:
No. i don't recall these predictions that "Dams will not fill" and "there will be no rains", etc. Perhaps you could reproduce them for us here - in there full context so we can see what Dr Flannery ACTUALLY said. Could you do that please? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by progressiveslol on May 1st, 2015 at 9:44pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Apr 30th, 2015 at 1:23pm:
Yes we have done that one before and in context and you still come on here like you have no clue. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on May 1st, 2015 at 11:38pm progressiveslol wrote on May 1st, 2015 at 9:44pm:
Perhaps you could reproduce them for us here - in their full context so we can see what Dr Flannery ACTUALLY said. Why won't you do that? Shall I help you? This is what Prof Flannery said in 2007, during the last major El Nino influenced drought in eastern Australia: PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: We're already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we're getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that's translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that's a real worry for the people in the bush. http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm He didn't say "dams will be empty in 2015" or anything like that - did he. He didn't say we would never have another La Nina event or anything like that - did he. He made the simple, and uncontroversial observation - that winter rainfall is decreasing, and also that warming will reduce runoff. We are observing that the earth is clearly and unambiguously warming, hence it is obvious that we will see a reduction in runoff. And he said there has been a decline in winter rainfall in Australia, and this is exactly what is being observed: Since 1970 there has been a 17 per cent decline in average winter rainfall in the southwest of Australia. The southeast has experienced a 15 per cent decline in late autumn and early winter rainfall since the mid-1990s, with a 25 per cent reduction in average rainfall across April and May. Declining rainfall in the southwest has been statistically significant over the recent period, and has occurred as a series of step changes. The decline in this region has also been characterised by a lack of very wet winters. http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/ Are you saying that the observation made by Prof Flannery is incorrect? Why? Please explain. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on May 2nd, 2015 at 12:19am
The anti-cyclones are not reaching into the country like they used to... arctic sea ice is looking frightening as an indicator of global warming where the northern hemisphere was always expected to feel it first as the thermal conveyor always made the northern hemisphere warmer than the southern.
The very fact wind-patterns are changing in the southern hemisphere truly makes this a global phenonomenon. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by innocentbystander. on May 2nd, 2015 at 9:58am progressiveslol wrote on May 1st, 2015 at 9:44pm:
They just ignore the bits they don't like ;D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on May 2nd, 2015 at 10:44am innocentbystander. wrote on May 2nd, 2015 at 9:58am:
Quotes, thanks ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Rider on May 2nd, 2015 at 11:40am
Coldest April evah!
See it on page 7 of the Herald.....bottom of page....about a 3 cm single column..... Temperature record crashed by 1 degree Celsius. ... not like the 0.02 of a degree increase which would be front page lol any other day of the retarded world of warming fvcktuppery :D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on May 2nd, 2015 at 11:46am Rider wrote on May 2nd, 2015 at 11:40am:
Multi-year sea ice says what? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 2nd, 2015 at 6:00pm innocentbystander. wrote on May 2nd, 2015 at 9:58am:
So why did you ignore the response by rabbitoh several post earlier? Oh what's wrong, afraid of being exposed as a fossil fuel spin sucker? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on May 2nd, 2015 at 6:05pm Chimp_Logic wrote on May 2nd, 2015 at 6:00pm:
innocent doesn't like the kiddies... innocent is a planet accountants groupie!! |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by progressiveslol on May 2nd, 2015 at 7:11pm rabbitoh08 wrote on May 1st, 2015 at 11:38pm:
That's what you get from a hob knob academic, better than though environmental activist. Unqualified and unquantified statements, in context mind you, that makes the speaker of such hog wash sound like an absolute fool. Mind you he has a fervent following :D ;D Thanks for the context rabbit. It helps with the original statements that he was not taken out of context. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by progressiveslol on May 2nd, 2015 at 7:15pm
Come on Timmy, be a man of conviction
An open invitation to Tim Flannery to explain climate science to us here http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/an-open-invitation-to-tim-flannery-to-explain-climate-science-to-us-here/ |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on May 2nd, 2015 at 7:16pm progressiveslol wrote on May 2nd, 2015 at 7:11pm:
progslol has nothing but still insists on hating the kids by chewing up internet address space as that is what planet accountant groupies have been told to do! It's all real estate... it's the same old greed game :o :o |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by progressiveslol on May 2nd, 2015 at 7:19pm
What you reckon Timmy. You still psuedo sciency back this statement
FIVE years ago, Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery predicted that the nation's dams would never be full again and major Australian cities would need desalination plants to cater for our water needs. Yesterday, in his latest report, he said "climate change cannot be ruled out" as a factor in recent flooding rains, which led to some of those dams overflowing. The apparent contradiction accompanies predictions that heatwaves, made worse by concrete, asphalt and buildings, will cause deaths and violence in western Sydney. And just weeks before the carbon tax is due to come into effect and drive up electricity prices by 10 per cent, Professor Flannery's fellow commissioner Lesley Hughes said elderly people who cannot afford airconditioning were most at risk from the surge in temperatures. Other claims in the report include that Sydney Airport will be flooded by a 1.1m sea level rise and catastr- ophic bushfires will happen more often. Professor Flannery was quizzed at a press conference to launch the report yesterday on whether people would believe the latest round of predictions or if he thought some of his past predictions about rainfall and dams had been wrong. "I've been really consistent with what I've said, which is that we've got a water problem in this country," he said. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on May 2nd, 2015 at 8:12pm progressiveslol wrote on May 2nd, 2015 at 7:19pm:
link, cheers ;) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 2nd, 2015 at 9:49pm
Gee there are lot of posters in here who worship these two child haters and greed merchants
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by progressiveslol on May 2nd, 2015 at 11:51pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 2nd, 2015 at 8:12pm:
Cause you asked nicely ;) http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/slippery-when-wet-tim-flannerys-climate-warnings-questioned-after-recent-flooding/story-e6freuzi-1226355256833 |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 3rd, 2015 at 1:20am progressiveslol wrote on May 2nd, 2015 at 11:51pm:
I notice that the great progressive laugh neglected to include Tim Flannery's next sentence in this so called world breaking source "It's a land of drought and flooding rains. Just because we've had a few wet years doesn't mean that the problem is solved." |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by progressiveslol on May 3rd, 2015 at 1:37am Chimp_Logic wrote on May 3rd, 2015 at 1:20am:
lol now your getting it. Just reverse it and open your eyes. "It's a land of drought and flooding rains. Just because we've had a few dry years doesn't mean that there is a global warming problem. Especially when you cant quantify it and that you are no climate scientist, but merely an environmental activist. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Dnarever on May 3rd, 2015 at 8:29am
Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Pages of waffle but the end of the story is that NO they didn't. At the end of the day discrediting one commentator over what he may or may not have said is irrelevant. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on May 3rd, 2015 at 9:23am progressiveslol wrote on May 3rd, 2015 at 1:37am:
so progs won't link to the original statements ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on May 3rd, 2015 at 9:38am progressiveslol wrote on May 3rd, 2015 at 1:37am:
Arctic sea ice says what? Multi-year ice says what?? California has double Australias population and they say what??? It would seem the copper elephant isn't tonys only embarrassing legacy ::) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by progressiveslol on May 3rd, 2015 at 9:39am BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 3rd, 2015 at 9:23am:
so deadhorse is blind |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by progressiveslol on May 3rd, 2015 at 9:41am BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 3rd, 2015 at 9:38am:
Artic says "im ok, I fell over, but im back on my feet. Thanks anyway" Multi year ice, same Cal says droughts happen. Man up and get over yourself. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Soren on May 3rd, 2015 at 10:25am Chimp_Logic wrote on May 2nd, 2015 at 9:49pm:
You hate them - they must be right. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on May 3rd, 2015 at 10:49am Soren wrote on May 3rd, 2015 at 10:25am:
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=4251 |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 3rd, 2015 at 10:59am progressiveslol wrote on May 3rd, 2015 at 1:37am:
why did you selectively half quote Tim Flannery's comments? The stench that you emit on this forum is juvenile and wafting through the air like a rotting foul putrid weasel carcass.... |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 3rd, 2015 at 11:02am
Oh No the Great Soren has entered the debate
The one dimensional hater of specific types of people and children Soren selects where he directs his fascist immorality towards. Now Soren is defending Abbott the racist dumb fascist and Andrew Bolt, Murdoch's attack dog.. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by progressiveslol on May 3rd, 2015 at 11:38am Chimp_Logic wrote on May 3rd, 2015 at 10:59am:
What half. Have you got a full you would like to try and make a point with. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 3rd, 2015 at 1:14pm
Must be their scientific approach ;D
 1087.jpg (226 KB | 28
) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by innocentbystander. on May 3rd, 2015 at 2:30pm
One climate skeptic turns up and the useful idiot left gos into meltdown LOL ;D , smell the fear as the left scurry like the cockroaches they are, terrified that someone is going to turn on the light and expose them, scurry scurry scurry ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on May 3rd, 2015 at 3:14pm innocentbystander. wrote on May 2nd, 2015 at 9:58am:
Yes they do. That is why no one ever posts the full quotes of what Flannery said and the context in which they were said - only the Andrew Bolt version. They just ignore the bits they don't like. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on May 3rd, 2015 at 3:20pm innocentbystander. wrote on May 3rd, 2015 at 2:30pm:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on May 3rd, 2015 at 3:20pm progressiveslol wrote on May 2nd, 2015 at 7:11pm:
We are observing that the earth is clearly and unambiguously warming, hence it is obvious that we will see a reduction in runoff. And he said there has been a decline in winter rainfall in Australia, and this is exactly what is being observed. Could you explain to us what you think is incorrect about this? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on May 3rd, 2015 at 3:27pm progressiveslol wrote on May 3rd, 2015 at 9:41am:
Does it? Arctic sea ice extent for March 2015 averaged 14.39 million square kilometers (5.56 million square miles). This is the lowest March ice extent in the satellite record. It is 1.13 million square kilometers (436,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average of 15.52 million square kilometers (6.00 million square miles). It is also 60,000 square kilometers (23,000 square miles) below the previous record low for the month observed in 2006. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on May 3rd, 2015 at 4:38pm
And Global Sea Ice says what?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by progressiveslol on May 3rd, 2015 at 4:43pm lee wrote on May 3rd, 2015 at 4:38pm:
That graph looks scary. So you telling us the global, ill say that again, the global ;) sea ice extent is actually growing. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by progressiveslol on May 3rd, 2015 at 4:46pm
The only rabbit should be concerned about is how to follow pseudo scientists who cough up this crap as the truth of earths temperature due to co2
Temp gauge in red circle |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on May 3rd, 2015 at 4:59pm progressiveslol wrote on May 3rd, 2015 at 4:43pm:
progs has given up on the arctic ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 3rd, 2015 at 7:17pm The global ice inventory is decreasing year by year as shown by the rising sea level trend and data from the GRACE mission. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6k84k0xp When you get similar results from completely different sources, it's difficult to criticise. Of course, some will claim that black is white. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 3rd, 2015 at 8:06pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RedrutZ_G3Q
https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x It's a bit too late to enrol unfortunately. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 3rd, 2015 at 8:10pm
...so the Abbott fascist regime hiding in Canberra at the moment is about to pump billions of dollars of tax payers money into the fossil fuel corporations bank accounts, most of which are foreign owned, so that they can reduce their Carbon emissions, even though AGW is a load of BS
got it... |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on May 3rd, 2015 at 10:27pm Chimp_Logic wrote on May 3rd, 2015 at 8:10pm:
They are very compromised: but that means Australia! |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 3rd, 2015 at 10:45pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 3rd, 2015 at 10:27pm:
corporatised fascist puppets are never compromised...they're just following orders and lining their own pockets. Politicians are some of the most honest and loyal servants in society - but not to their constituencies - they serve their masters. In order to be voted in, they must say and do whatever it takes. The difference between the major parties is trivial and an illusion |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on May 4th, 2015 at 11:00am John_Taverner wrote on May 3rd, 2015 at 7:17pm:
An interesting Graph. 'After taking into account all the above effects, the GRACE scientists find that from 2002 through 2005, the volume of the Antarctic ice sheet decreased substantially, corresponding to .4 mm plus or minus .2 mm of sea-level increase per year. This result was a surprise, both because of the extremely low temperatures in Antarctica, as mentioned above, and because forecasts of global warming had predicted increased snowfall in Antarctica.' http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/grace.cfm I can see that ALL that melting ice from the Antarctic is really scary. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by innocentbystander. on May 4th, 2015 at 12:05pm John_Taverner wrote on May 3rd, 2015 at 8:06pm:
Is there a making sense of the idiotic climate change cult course avaliable?, or would that be covered under making sense of scientology :D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on May 4th, 2015 at 12:46pm innocentbystander. wrote on May 4th, 2015 at 12:05pm:
It's called you :) :) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on May 4th, 2015 at 1:23pm lee wrote on May 3rd, 2015 at 4:38pm:
Global sea ice says that: Passive microwave satellite data reveal that, since 1979, winter Arctic ice extent has decreased about 3 to 4 percent per decade (Meier et al. 2006). Antarctic ice extent is increasing (Cavalieri et al. 2003), but the trend is small. https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html Arctic sea ice is declining because the planet is warming. And the Antarctic sea ice extent is increasing slightly (that is in area, not the actual quantity of sea ice) - because the warming of the Antarctic continent is causing more glacial calving and a slight decrease in salinity of Antarctic waters The ice melting from ocean heat flux decreases faster than the ice growth does in the weakly stratified Southern Ocean, leading to an increase in the net ice production and hence an increase in ice mass. This mechanism is the main reason why the Antarctic sea ice has increased in spite of warming conditions both above and below during the period 1979–2004 and the extended period 1948–2004. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI4136.1 The planet is warming. This is clear and unambiguous. Denying this by trying to cherry pick little factoids that 'you think" support your denial is just silly. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on May 4th, 2015 at 1:28pm lee wrote on May 4th, 2015 at 11:00am:
Much of the sea level rise due to global warming being observed at the moment is due to thermal expansion rather than ice sheet decrease. Thermal expansion: When water heats up, it expands. About half of the past century's rise in sea level is attributable to warmer oceans simply occupying more space. http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/ But then again - you deny that global warming is occurring, so facts seem to be of little interest to you. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Tap on May 4th, 2015 at 2:35pm rabbitoh08 wrote on May 4th, 2015 at 1:28pm:
I don't deny that global warming is occurring, but I also don't deny that global cooling is taking place as well. The last thing I refuse to deny is that it's all happened thousands, upon thousands of times before in Earth's history. I won't deny that what's happening in our recent lifetimes is nothing new, and will naturally keep recurring 'till we breathe our last breaths. Cold Carlton anyone? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on May 4th, 2015 at 3:25pm Tap wrote on May 4th, 2015 at 2:35pm:
lol, another rates-of-change circle jerk yes pleeeeeeeease ::) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on May 4th, 2015 at 4:14pm rabbitoh08 wrote on May 4th, 2015 at 1:23pm:
And Arctic ice is a fraction of Antarctic Ice. Your point being? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 4th, 2015 at 4:36pm lee wrote on May 4th, 2015 at 4:14pm:
The point being that Antarctic ice mass has also reduced. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 4th, 2015 at 4:41pm lee wrote on May 4th, 2015 at 4:14pm:
You seem to have a very selective concern for your world lee... You cherry pick years to suit your fascist global propaganda dogma, and now you like some "ice" over other "ice" interesting neurotic psychosis |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 4th, 2015 at 4:46pm innocentbystander. wrote on May 4th, 2015 at 12:05pm:
Even Scientology has more credibility than the idiotic climate change denialist cult. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 4th, 2015 at 4:52pm John_Taverner wrote on May 4th, 2015 at 4:36pm:
Dear John Do you think that the ice loss will be replaced during the mini Ice Age that will last for exactly 15 years from the year 2014 to 2029? Jethro has already informed everyone on this forum of this Ice Age and checked the prediction with his mentor Dr Sircus who is an acupuncturist that can cure cancer with baking Soda and magnesium tablets. Sir Booby Trap has also shown pictures of snow in small towns in the USA - what else do you want? Do you really think the ice will be replaced during this Jethro Mini Ice Age? Do you really think so John? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 4th, 2015 at 4:55pm Chimp_Logic wrote on May 4th, 2015 at 4:41pm:
You don't seem to be winning, Lee. Have a drink. I have a nice Denialist Cocktail for you: Wild Cherry picking brandy on Antarctic sea Ice |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 4th, 2015 at 4:56pm
Gee, i am extremely impressed with the supreme intellect and sublime wisdom that the AGW denier possesses.
Incredible intellect - only matched by the genius of the Flat Earthers who still run an office in London. Amazingly smart and wise people these AGW deniers. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 4th, 2015 at 4:58pm Chimp_Logic wrote on May 4th, 2015 at 4:52pm:
Which month of 2014 did his Ice Age start? ;D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on May 4th, 2015 at 5:01pm Tap wrote on May 4th, 2015 at 2:35pm:
The planet is warming. Not cooling. The evidence is clear and unambiguous. To deny this is just silly. Tap wrote on May 4th, 2015 at 2:35pm:
Good for you. No one has ever claimed that climate change has not happened before in Earth's history Tap wrote on May 4th, 2015 at 2:35pm:
Then you are a fool. What's happening in our recent lifetimes is something new, because it is occurring as a result of the increase in concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gasses from anthropogenic sources. This is something new. Tap wrote on May 4th, 2015 at 2:35pm:
The increase in the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gasses from anthropogenic sources is not a "natural" phenomena. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on May 4th, 2015 at 5:06pm lee wrote on May 4th, 2015 at 4:14pm:
I have already made my point. Arctic sea ice is declining because the planet is warming. And the Antarctic sea ice extent is increasing slightly (that is in area, not the actual quantity of sea ice) - because the warming of the Antarctic continent is causing more glacial calving and a slight decrease in salinity of Antarctic waters. What is it about this that don't you understand? I would be happy to explain it for you in further detail. Are you seriously trying to deny the mountains of empirical evidence which shows that the planet is clearly and unambiguously warming? Do you seriously believe that virtually every scientist on the planet is involved in some sort of conspiracy theory - and Andrew Bolt is the only person you can really trust? Seriously? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on May 4th, 2015 at 5:11pm John_Taverner wrote on May 4th, 2015 at 4:36pm:
Yes - Antarctic ice mass has also reduced. THis is because the planet is warming. Accelerating total mass losses from Antarctica The GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite gravity mission shows that total mass loss in Antarctica is accelerating over time. They found that total mass loss increased by 26 ± 14 gigatonnes per year from 2002 to 20099. Rignot et al. (2011) found a smaller acceleration of 14.5±2 gigatonnes per year from 1993-20115, but this change is still three times larger than that found for mountain glaciers and ice caps. http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/antarctic-ice-sheet-surface-mass-balance/ How people can continue to deny this is just astounding! |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on May 4th, 2015 at 6:31pm lee wrote on May 4th, 2015 at 4:14pm:
It's indicators of a complex system! Heat content of the system is what's important: temperature is just an indicator of that heat content! The beginning of the science was working out that heat content was transported via the thermo-haline process making the northern hemisphere warmer than the southern. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on May 4th, 2015 at 6:33pm
Then why all the talk of Arctic Ice? That is selective is it not?
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on May 4th, 2015 at 6:35pm
JT your faith in GRACE is noted.
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 4th, 2015 at 6:42pm
Ok Lee, what's your problem with GRACE? ::)
- not giving the answer you like? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 4th, 2015 at 6:47pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 4th, 2015 at 6:31pm:
It is a complex system. Higher global tempertures contribute to higher atmospheric moisture content, which leads to higher precipitation (including snow on the Antarctic plateau). Then there is the question of changing airflows over the Antarctic shelf. Never the less, the mass of ice is decreasing both in the Arctic and Antarctic. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on May 4th, 2015 at 6:50pm lee wrote on May 4th, 2015 at 6:33pm:
Certainly it is selective ,yes: it's only an indicator of change like any other indicator of change- that's the problem with complex systems... which indicator is more important than any other or are they all completely a waste of time? What is life? ::) ::) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by innocentbystander. on May 5th, 2015 at 8:20am
Even no global warming is not enough to convince them that there is no global warming ;D ;D ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 5th, 2015 at 9:43am
Have a wild cherry picking brandy cocktail:
Find some data that matches what you want to say irrespective of the source. Now here is the real non manipulated graph from the horses mouth: You will notice that the source provided in your post is a text file. The graph has been doctored, presumably by Mr Watts. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Anthony_Watts_blog.htm For those who are really concerned about accuracy, this is what RSS says on its website: Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 5th, 2015 at 9:57am lee wrote on May 4th, 2015 at 6:35pm:
Still waiting. Are you a gravity denialist too? ;D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 5th, 2015 at 11:32am innocentbystander. wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 8:20am:
EXPOSED ;D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on May 5th, 2015 at 1:17pm lee wrote on May 4th, 2015 at 6:33pm:
All the "talk about Arctic ice" is because the rapid decline of the arctic icecap is one piece of evidence that shows us that the planet is warming. Just like "all the talk" about global glacial mass balance is because the rapid decline of global glacial mass balance is another piece of evidence that shows us that the planet is warming. And just like "all the talk" about Antarctic ice sheet volume is because the decline of Antarctic ice sheet volume is another piece of evidence that shows us that the planet is warming. Why do you like to selectively ignore "all this talk" - and try to only concentrate on one specific observation (i.e.. the expansion of sea ice AREA around Antarctica) - which you then deliberately misinterpret? Do you genuinely not understand that one of the obvious results of the warming of very cold continental land mass covered in in vast amounts of frozen fresh water, is that there will be an increase in the extent (by AREA) of floating ice around the continent, as the ice sheet collapses and adds vast amounts of frozen fresh water to the surrounding ocean? Let me try to help you out a bit. Do you know the freezing point of fresh water? It is 0 degrees C. And seawater?: The freezing point of seawater decreases as salt concentration increases. At typical salinity, it freezes at about −2 °C http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater Making any sense to you yet? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on May 5th, 2015 at 1:20pm innocentbystander. wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 8:20am:
It would be. But global warming is clear and unambiguous. It is the reason the arctic is melting It is the reason global glacial mass balance is decreasing. It is the reason sea levels are rising It is the reason Antarctic ice max is decreasing It is the reason the Greenland ice sheet is decreasing. And it is the reason that 2014 was likely the warmest year ever recorded - and it wasn't even an El Nino year. All of the doctored graphs in the world do not change these facts. Carry on denying. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on May 5th, 2015 at 1:34pm rabbitoh08 wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 1:17pm:
Why does lee select the unborn to pick on :D :D :D :D :D :D :D (Cos daddy will only give him the spare rental to smoke his crack in if he does ::) ::)) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on May 5th, 2015 at 2:35pm
http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/TLT/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.png
Nice graph. Now notice the difference in time lines 1. 1997 to present; and 2. 1980 to presumably present. Can you see the correlation between 1997 to present on the 1980 to present? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by The Outrage Bus on May 5th, 2015 at 2:43pm innocentbystander. wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 8:20am:
Can we stop using this graph when you guys can't even interpret it properly. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on May 5th, 2015 at 3:28pm lee wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 2:35pm:
You mean you prefer shorter timescales? I thought you guys wanted to go back millenia? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on May 5th, 2015 at 4:11pm
You can go back that far if you want; and put the present into context.
But if you want to show warming has stopped; you start at the latest date the figures are available and work backwards. And all this with greater CO2 than the model predictions for Scenario A, too. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on May 5th, 2015 at 4:13pm Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 2:43pm:
Please tell us how we should interpret it. I mean interpretation is such a personal thing. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on May 5th, 2015 at 4:27pm lee wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 4:11pm:
lol, you couldn't sell a fridge at harvey norman! "..Oh black is white but but but but but but but,... I'll give ya 10% off ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)" |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on May 5th, 2015 at 4:29pm lee wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 4:13pm:
Oh, the ol' lee wants everyone to do his homework trick ::) ::) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 5th, 2015 at 5:17pm
Gee I am really worried about this mini Ice Age, which apparently just commenced in 2014 and will cease in the year 2015, lasting exactly 15 years.
WOW these AGW deniers are so precise and back up their claims with hard science and repeatable experimental data I wish I was as smart as Jethro, Lee and the bystander who is apparently innocent. I may need to read more of Dr Sircus's work, so that I can learn about how to cure cancer with Baking Soda and magnesium |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 5th, 2015 at 5:25pm lee wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 2:35pm:
Which dataset should we be using? Upper Troposphere, Lower troposphere or total troposphere Explain why. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 5th, 2015 at 5:31pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 3:28pm:
It's called cherry picking. This is how it works. First you select a year with a higher temperature as a starting point. Second, you select a dataset with a high error variation. Third, you pick a period that is far too short to mean anything. Denialists say the darndest things. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Copper-toned-stunt on May 5th, 2015 at 5:57pm John_Taverner wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 5:31pm:
I bet ya all of a sudden lee doesn't think all debt is bad debt either ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on May 5th, 2015 at 6:01pm lee wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 4:11pm:
If warming has stopped, Why is the arctic ice cap decreasing? Why is Antarctic ice mass decreasing? Why is global glacial mass balance decreasing? Why are sea levels rising? If "warming has stopped" as you claim - why are these things occurring? Any answers? Or just continued denial of facts? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by innocentbystander. on May 5th, 2015 at 7:33pm rabbitoh08 wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 6:01pm:
Why why why why why ... because thats what they have been doing since forever drongo ;D When was the last time all of the above were stable? ::) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by IyamnoBillGatessorrykids on May 5th, 2015 at 7:44pm innocentbystander. wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 7:33pm:
innocent doesn't like rates of change :o :o ;D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on May 5th, 2015 at 8:06pm John_Taverner wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 5:31pm:
Exactly wrong. Select the latest data and work backwards. Yep cherry pick the end date, that works for me. Now JT loaded one graph and innocent bystander the other, I can't pick cherries better than that. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on May 5th, 2015 at 8:08pm innocentbystander. wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 7:33pm:
No. They haven't been doing that "forever". And I asked that if the world is supposedly "not warming" as was claimed - why are these things being observed? Answer the question: If warming has supposedly stopped: Why is the arctic ice cap decreasing? Why is Antarctic ice mass decreasing? Why is global glacial mass balance decreasing? Why are sea levels rising? Do you have anything of value to add to this conversation? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on May 5th, 2015 at 8:09pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 4:29pm:
He's the one making the claims. He should prove it. But of course the adherents of the AGW/CC thing don't do proof well. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on May 5th, 2015 at 8:10pm lee wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 8:09pm:
You don't do anything very well Lee. If warming has supposedly stopped: Why is the arctic ice cap decreasing? Why is Antarctic ice mass decreasing? Why is global glacial mass balance decreasing? Why are sea levels rising? Can you answer the is question for us? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on May 5th, 2015 at 8:13pm
Sea level rises - The heat warming the water increasing SLR 0.02-.03mm per decade. But keep using the zettajoules it helps to make it look scary.
Why does data that is recorded in degC get changed to Zj anyway? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by IyamnoBillGatessorrykids on May 5th, 2015 at 8:15pm lee wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 8:09pm:
You supplied the graph to make a claim but you conveniently forget to mention that bit :D :D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by IyamnoBillGatessorrykids on May 5th, 2015 at 8:17pm lee wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 8:13pm:
because temperature is an indicator of heat content: you love your circle jerks don't ya buddy! |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on May 5th, 2015 at 8:20pm lee wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 8:13pm:
Sea levels rise because of thermal expansion of the water and melting of glacial ice. Why is this happening, and being observed if - as you say - the "warming has stopped" Waiting for an answer genius. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by innocentbystander. on May 5th, 2015 at 8:26pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 7:44pm:
Innocent doesn't like children either :D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 5th, 2015 at 8:56pm John_Taverner wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 5:25pm:
Come on Lee. Let us know if you have any credibility. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Soren on May 6th, 2015 at 10:08am John_Taverner wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 5:31pm:
Where is the evidence that human generated Co2 is responsible for whatever is happening to the climate and that there would be no change without human CO2?? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 6th, 2015 at 10:23am Soren wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 10:08am:
The experts are researchers carrying out valuable work in this area, have a variety of cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Some even have dark skin, and speak different languages, and follow various religions such as Buddism and Islam. Some of them are even asian and African Americans, South Americans etc. Are you ok with that Soren? Will you be able to handle the moral shock? Have you seen the light or are still the same old Soren? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by progressiveslol on May 6th, 2015 at 12:01pm rabbitoh08 wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 8:20pm:
You should know better. I think you are stuck on the thought of warm air at the surface of water, warming or slowing the cooling of the ocean. Oceans are mostly warmed by shortwave radiation and more can hit the water or less, depending on cloud cover, not because of it getting warmer in the atmosphere. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on May 6th, 2015 at 12:31pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 8:15pm:
You need to go back and check that. Your comprehension skills are lacking. As stated One graph from John Taverner another by innocentbystander. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on May 6th, 2015 at 12:35pm
deleted repeat post.
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on May 6th, 2015 at 12:43pm rabbitoh08 wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 8:10pm:
How can you be sure? Cryosphere Today Daily Sea Ice hasn't recorded anything since 10April. http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=05&fd=01&fy=1980&sm=04&sd=11&sy=2015 |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on May 6th, 2015 at 12:46pm lee wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 12:43pm:
So - global warming stopped on 10 April 2015 did it Lee! You will probably get a Nobel Prize for this discovery. Well done. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on May 6th, 2015 at 12:49pm progressiveslol wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 12:01pm:
So, the arctic ice cap decreasing Antarctic ice mass decreasing Global glacial mass balance decreasing And sea levels rising but it is not because the planet is warming?!?!? So what is causing the arctic ice cap to decrease Antarctic ice mass to decrease Global glacial mass balance to decrease And sea levels so rise? Any ideas? Or are all these decades worth of observation just part of a Communist plot? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on May 6th, 2015 at 1:00pm Soren wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 10:08am:
It is not just anthropogenic CO2 that is the cause - other anthropogenic gasses are also contributing to the warming. And the evidence for this is that the radiance spectra of energy re-emitted by these molecules has been measured over time and it has been show that the amount of energy being re-emitted by these molecules is increasing as the concentration of the gasses increases: Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate W.F.J. Evans, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming. https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by IyamnoBillGatessorrykids on May 6th, 2015 at 1:26pm Soren wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 10:08am:
more homework :o :o |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on May 6th, 2015 at 2:01pm rabbitoh08 wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 12:46pm:
Merely pointing out that a DAILY sea ice page is not working, and asking how you can be sure it is melting. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by IyamnoBillGatessorrykids on May 6th, 2015 at 2:11pm lee wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 2:01pm:
more homework :o |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 6th, 2015 at 5:24pm progressiveslol wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 12:01pm:
Do you mean Infrared radiation of wavelength 1.3 to 3 microns? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 6th, 2015 at 5:27pm rabbitoh08 wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 1:00pm:
Very succinct. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 6th, 2015 at 6:02pm
The Cruel Bigot has raised his callous cranium
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 6th, 2015 at 7:54pm lee wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 8:13pm:
Remember ΔH= SMΔT from school? Obviously not. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on May 6th, 2015 at 8:59pm
Why then convert the Zj back to degC? Compounding any errors.
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 6th, 2015 at 9:29pm John_Taverner wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 7:54pm:
S? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 6th, 2015 at 9:38pm Chimp_Logic wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 9:29pm:
Specific Heat Capacity. Showing my age perhaps. What did you use? C? Sometimes ΔH (change in Enthalpy) is written as Q. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on May 6th, 2015 at 10:16pm lee wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 2:01pm:
Because it has been observed to be melting Lee. Arctic ice cap is melting: Arctic sea ice extent for March 2015 averaged 14.39 million square kilometers (5.56 million square miles). This is the lowest March ice extent in the satellite record. It is 1.13 million square kilometers (436,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average of 15.52 million square kilometers (6.00 million square miles). It is also 60,000 square kilometers (23,000 square miles) below the previous record low for the month observed in 2006. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ the Greenland ice sheet is melting: The mass of ice in the Greenland Ice Sheet has begun to decline. From 1979 to 2006, summer melt on the ice sheet increased by 30 percent, reaching a new record in 2007. At higher elevations, an increase in winter snow accumulation has partially offset the melt. However, the decline continues to outpace accumulation because warmer temperatures have led to increased melt and faster glacier movement at the island's edges. https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html The Antarctic ice mass is decreasing: The GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite gravity mission shows that total mass loss in Antarctica is accelerating over time. They found that total mass loss increased by 26 ± 14 gigatonnes per year from 2002 to 20099. Rignot et al. (2011) found a smaller acceleration of 14.5±2 gigatonnes per year from 1993-20115, but this change is still three times larger than that found for mountain glaciers and ice caps. http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/antarctic-ice-sheet-surface-mass-balance/ and global glacial mass balance is decreasing: Glacier Mass Balance Bulletin, No. 11, 2011... During the first decade of the century, the maximum loss of the 1980−1999 time period (−824 mm w.e. per year in 1998) was exceeded twice (in 2003 and 2006), the percentage of positive glacier mass balances decrease from 33 % in the 1980s to 20 %, and there were no more years with a positive mean balance in the past two reporting decades. The melt rate and cumulative loss in glacier thickness continues to be extraordinary. Furthermore, the analyses of mean AAR values show that the glaciers are in strong and increasing imbalance with the climate and, hence, will continue to melt even without further warming. Yet you tell us (via Andrew Bolt, or WUWT or whatever nut job blog you subscribe to) - that "global warming has stopped!!! Seriously - stop making a fool of yourself. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 7th, 2015 at 12:06am John_Taverner wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 9:38pm:
CpmDT = U = Q I thought for a minute there you snuck in Entropy Incidentally if you used S for specific Heat capacity, what did you use for Entropy? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 7th, 2015 at 5:33am
Entropy was S too. Maybe that's why they changed.
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 7th, 2015 at 9:30am John_Taverner wrote on May 7th, 2015 at 5:33am:
when were you born, during Boltzmann's time? ....he has his own equation engraved on his tomb stone I believe Although my all time favorite mathematical relationship is Euler's equation - conceptually poetic indeed |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 7th, 2015 at 10:05am
It should be lower case s. They still use it Stateside according to this handout.
http://xablab.ucsd.edu/15/u3_6.pdf Page 1 near the bottom. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 7th, 2015 at 10:11am Chimp_Logic wrote on May 7th, 2015 at 9:30am:
Euler's Identity. Yes. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 7th, 2015 at 10:45am John_Taverner wrote on May 7th, 2015 at 10:11am:
Eulers relationship has some profound implications It contains "one" and "zero", 2 infinite transcedental numbers "e" and "pi" and an imaginary number "i" which apparently doesnt even exist in the real number plane. The fact that Euler was even able to connect these components into one simple relationship is astonishing - its almost poetic and certainly has philosophical implications. It may also tell us something profound about the fundamentals of mathematics and logic. A deeper understanding that perhaps only mathematics can reveal. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 7th, 2015 at 3:39pm John_Taverner wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 5:24pm:
OK. I didn't think you had a clue. I was obviously right. I'm trying to find out exactly what point you're trying to make. Are you saying that the oceans are mostly warmed by incident radiation or are you saying that only a portion of the near infrared is involved in the process? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Soren on May 7th, 2015 at 3:42pm rabbitoh08 wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 1:00pm:
Well, where is the evidence that anthropogenic greenhouse gases cause climate change (and where is the evidence of abnormal climate change)? That article from 2006 concludes: 4. CONCLUSIONS Measurements of the downward radiative flux have been made for several important greenhouse gases. At mid-latitudes in summer as compared to winter, our measurements show that the downward surface flux from H2O has doubled to 200 W/m2. The water increase causes a reduction of the fluxes from the other greenhouse gases. These measurements show that the greenhouse effect from trace gases in the atmosphere is real and adds significantly to the radiative burden of the atmosphere. The greenhouse radiation has increased by approximately 3.52 W/m2 since pre-industrial times. This compares favorably with a modeled prediction of 2.55 W/m2. Measurements such as these can provide a means by which to verify the predictions made by global warming models (Puckrin et al; 2004). They got their data from 1986 and 990: The data is based on models by Dickinson and Cicerone (1986) and those which are included in the IPCC report (IPCC, 1990). Although there are extensive model calculations of radiative forcing in the literature, there are few experimental measurements of the greenhouse radiation which is responsible for global warming. In what follows, measurements of the surface greenhouse radiation are described and compared with the modelled estimates of radiative forcing. This forcing caper didn't quite work out. What a pity that these models and speculations and measurements could not predict the pause in warming. SO what value can you put on all their other predictions, also unfuifilled so far? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 7th, 2015 at 5:26pm Soren wrote on May 7th, 2015 at 3:42pm:
This forcing "caper" did work out. Anyway, you only half read the Conclusion section. Read the short sentence before the bit you highlighted for a start. What pause in warming? Tell me how the forcing that was actually measured in the intervening period indicates a "pause". This data is readily available. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on May 7th, 2015 at 5:50pm Soren wrote on May 7th, 2015 at 3:42pm:
WTF are you on about? You asked for evidence that human generated Co2 is responsible for whatever is happening to the climate - you were shown it. Measured downward radiation is shown to be increasing as atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations increase. it is evident that the actual greenhouse radiation has increased by over 3.5 W/m2 since pre-industrial times, or by about 2.3% of the total greenhouse radiation. And WTF is this "pause in warming" you mention? The ongoing decline of the cryosphere and sea-level rise doesn't indicate any "pause in warming". |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 7th, 2015 at 7:31pm
....the bulk of the additional heat retention is dumped into the earth's oceans
the CO2 concentration in the earths atmosphere has breached the 400 ppmv level Onward and upward we drive the train wreck off the cliff's edge like corporately insane maniacs |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Soren on May 7th, 2015 at 8:58pm rabbitoh08 wrote on May 7th, 2015 at 5:50pm:
It's all BS. Human contribute 2.3 % of total KNOWN greenhouse radiation. (how much CO2 do the under-sear volcanos produce? The ones we never know about, never measure) And that 2.3% tail wags the entire climate dog. There is no sea level rising due to CO2. AGW is nonsense. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Soren on May 7th, 2015 at 9:01pm Chimp_Logic wrote on May 7th, 2015 at 7:31pm:
Oooh... it has breached the 0.04% mark!!!!! Plant food has breached the 0.04% mark!! Run for the hills!!!! |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 7th, 2015 at 9:29pm Soren wrote on May 7th, 2015 at 8:58pm:
Come on, if you are questioning Atmospheric Physics 101, you need to be more convincing. Now this "Greenhouse radiation" you talk of. It scares me to death just thinking about it. I have never heard of it. Where is it radiated from exactly? Please educate me on greenhouse radiation. Maybe it's a Soren posterior derived radiation source? Pooma syndrome? ;D ;D ;D Think of a bottle of soda. How much pressure is it under? What happens to the CO2? How much pressure at the bottom of the ocean? more? How much CO2 do you really think would be released by subsea volcanoes into the atmosphere, and how much would combine with magnesium and calcium salts in the seawater? Soren. for goodness sake start to think for yourself and recognise BS that you find on the web for what it is. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Soren on May 7th, 2015 at 9:45pm John_Taverner wrote on May 7th, 2015 at 9:29pm:
See? Nuffin' to do with humans. It's all an endless 'what about' and stupid, tendentious models that are designed with human gult built into them. It's nonsense. Nobody understands the complexity of the climate. Nobody has a complete or near-complete picture of all the things that influence it and all the things that make the climate keep on an evenish keel. The only thing they understand and can measure is antropogenic CO2 THEREFORE the pin all the unknows onto it, no matter how insignificant it is (less than 0.01.5% of atmospheric gases, if that). Read that again - about 1.5 % of 1 %. It's a ridiculous nonsense. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 7th, 2015 at 9:48pm
The only thing that's a ridiculous nonsense is you trying to convince anybody that you actually know something about atmospheric physics.
Go and bathe in some greenhouse radiation. ;D ;D (Have you been drinking?) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 7th, 2015 at 10:19pm Soren wrote on May 7th, 2015 at 9:01pm:
when did the atmospheric CO2 concentration last breach the 400 ppmv level? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 7th, 2015 at 10:42pm Chimp_Logic wrote on May 7th, 2015 at 10:19pm:
Anytime before about 100,000 years ago. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on May 7th, 2015 at 10:48pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 7th, 2015 at 10:42pm:
Exactly. And how many permanent human settlements existed before 100,000 years ago? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 7th, 2015 at 10:51pm rabbitoh08 wrote on May 7th, 2015 at 10:48pm:
Almost none from what I've read/studied. They were mostly hunter/gatherers at that stage. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on May 7th, 2015 at 10:59pm Soren wrote on May 7th, 2015 at 8:58pm:
No. It isn't Soren wrote on May 7th, 2015 at 8:58pm:
Human activities have increased the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 40% over the past 200 or so years. This is a significant change to the gas that regulates the climate of the planet Soren wrote on May 7th, 2015 at 8:58pm:
No - there is sea level rising because of global warming. the global warming is occurring because of CO2. And the sea level rise is quite significant Soren wrote on May 7th, 2015 at 8:58pm:
No. It isn't. If it were - many scientists would have published evidence by now that it was nonsense - and thereby won themselves Nobel Prizes and become fabulously rich and famous. This hasn't happened, has it. No - your whole "AGW is nonsense" mantra is based on the ludicrous belief that there is some massive, evil conspiracy amongst all the world's scientists - and only you and Andrew Bolt know the REAL truth. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 7th, 2015 at 11:00pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 7th, 2015 at 10:42pm:
well done Gizmo. You do realise that the last major ICE AGE, whereby the majority of current day USA was covered in ice and snow, occurred when the temperature was 5 degC colder than it is now. What do you think will happen to the earth if the earths fever increases by 5degC? What CO2 level in the Earths atmosphere would cause a 5 degC increase? How much Fossil fuel combustion and deforestation needs to to occur to cause a 5 degC increase in the average global temperature? How would you find answers to these questions? (apart form your normal sources such as Andrew Bolt and Lord Monckton) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Sir Bobby on May 7th, 2015 at 11:03pm Quote:
I thought the greatest green house "gas" was water vapor? forgiven namaste |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 7th, 2015 at 11:17pm Chimp_Logic wrote on May 7th, 2015 at 11:00pm:
And do you realise that since the Co2 levels were above 400 ppm during a glaciation (the last major ICE AGE, as you put it) and the temperatures were 5 deg C colder than now, that would seem to indicate that Co2 levels and temperature are NOT directly linked?? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 7th, 2015 at 11:18pm Bobby. wrote on May 7th, 2015 at 11:03pm:
Jethro, it seems that the rest did you a lot of good my friend Indeed the atmospheric component which contributes the most to the earths thermal retention is water vapor. Then again, the last major ICE AGE was triggered with a 5 degC cooler Earth. Did you know that Sir Bobby? During this ICE AGE, current day USA and most of Mexico was covered in ICE. 5 degC cooler Jethro. What will happen if the Earth becomes 5 degC warmer? What atmospheric CO2 level is needed to cause a 5 degC increase in the earth average temperature? have you checked? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 7th, 2015 at 11:21pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 7th, 2015 at 11:17pm:
and what's the transient lag period between these two parameters gizmo? Do you understand the basic principle of causality? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Sir Bobby on May 7th, 2015 at 11:21pm Chimp_Logic wrote on May 7th, 2015 at 11:18pm:
Dear beloved Chimp, you have taken this thread off course with wild speculation. CO2 may very well have almost no affect on temperature. Ever notice how cold it is when there are no clouds at night? It's the water vapor that keeps the heat in - not CO2. forgiven namaste |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 7th, 2015 at 11:27pm Chimp_Logic wrote on May 7th, 2015 at 11:21pm:
I do understand causality, but isn't 14,000 years stretching the idea of transient lag a bit?? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on May 7th, 2015 at 11:52pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 7th, 2015 at 10:51pm:
Very good! So - can you now explain to us why you think your question was relevant? We are talking about something happening now - that is impacting significantly on permanent human habitations and their associated infrastructure. Why is what may or may not have happened 100,000 years ago relevant? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 8th, 2015 at 12:04am rabbitoh08 wrote on May 7th, 2015 at 11:52pm:
Since the Co2 levels were above 400 ppm 100,000 years, without human industry or action (and during a Glaciation) why are you so sure that 400 ppm of Co2 has anything to do with the recent warming or was even mostly caused by human industry?? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on May 8th, 2015 at 12:20am gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 12:04am:
We know that the current concentration of greenhouse gasses is impacting on the earth climate because an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been measured indicating an enhanced greenhouse effect, and we know that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere has come from human industry by measuring the changing 13C/12C ratio of carbon in the atmosphere A lot of things can cause global warming - but none of them are happening now. What is happening now is a 40% increase in the concentration of a significant greenhouse gas. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by IyamnoBillGatessorrykids on May 8th, 2015 at 12:37am gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 12:04am:
Correlation ;) ;) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 8th, 2015 at 6:55am gizmo_2655 wrote on May 7th, 2015 at 10:42pm:
Really? What is your source? This shows more recent history: You might like to check here. Any time before 100,000 years huh? CO2_history_1024.jpg (67 KB | 27
) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 8th, 2015 at 7:03am gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 12:04am:
Your premise is wrong. Anyone who accepted this without any challenge needs to brush up on the facts too. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 8th, 2015 at 7:07am Bobby. wrote on May 7th, 2015 at 11:21pm:
You're the ice age bozo. I won't waste too much time on you, but you seriously need to go back to school. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Sir Bobby on May 8th, 2015 at 7:16am John_Taverner wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 7:07am:
I merely ask you to consider all the evidence. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Dnarever on May 8th, 2015 at 7:21am BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 12:37am:
Correct, every time in the past that one of the greenhouse gasses were measured to be high the event correlated to a warm period. Co2 has anything to do with the recent warming or was even mostly caused by human industry? CO2 levels were fairly constant for many centuries, From the industrial revolution till today we have been pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Do you really think that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere coinciding with us pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is just a crazy coincidence. Conclusion is that we know that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will cause temperature increases as it has every other time in the past and we know that CO2 levels are increasing in the atmosphere and have been ever since we started pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere (hardly a surprise finding). People arguing that pumping more of something in will not increase the volume are literally arguing that 2 + 2 = 2. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 8th, 2015 at 8:46am Dnarever wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 7:21am:
This is true, but apart from that, the fact that Carbon Dioxide absorbs Infrared radiation of the right wavelength (and scatters it) is about as well established as you can get. It's even a well established way of measuring CO2 levels. http://www.systechillinois.com/en/infrared-carbon-dioxide-sensors_48.html Quote:
There is no need for second guessing or relying on past data. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by progressiveslol on May 8th, 2015 at 9:10am John_Taverner wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 8:46am:
So is a wavelength saturation, but what the activist climate junky relies on, are the unknowns. They rely on feedbacks. Co2 alone is not an issue. So no, the way you talk of confidence is utter crap. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Dnarever on May 8th, 2015 at 9:51am progressiveslol wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 9:10am:
The unknowns are getting less and less, the facts would indicate that it is the other side reliant on obfuscation and shaky cherry picked data. Co2 alone is not an issue. Welcome back from your 20 year stay on Mars, you have some catching up to do. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by progressiveslol on May 8th, 2015 at 11:32am Dnarever wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 9:51am:
I think you are getting mixed up with a planet not having an atmosphere similar to earth. Sure, put a plastic bag over your head without resupply of oxygen and you would be right, although right for what argument, only you know. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by IyamnoBillGatessorrykids on May 8th, 2015 at 11:32am Dnarever wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 9:51am:
CO2 alone is an issue: the others just make it worse. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by IyamnoBillGatessorrykids on May 8th, 2015 at 11:58am Bobby. wrote on May 7th, 2015 at 11:21pm:
Water Vapor is the greenhouse effect: CO2 is a major GHG that drives it! Solubility in water decreases with increasing temperature so when the planets pull the earth into a warm orbit CO2 outgasses and drives more water vapour into the air sustaining an enhanced greenhouse effect in a what's known as a positive feedback loop. When the planets pull the earth back into a cold orbit the CO2 returns to the ocean because solubility in water has increased with the decreasing temperature and another positive feedback loop in the oppositie direction results in a sustained and decreasing greehouse effect. Shall we do another billion word circle jerk?? (You really haven't done much reading yourself have ya buddy :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ..or are you just pretending and playing pause button politics so industry can retool for the new paradigm ::) ::) ::) :o :o) It's called a complex relationship but you know all that and pretend you don't because you hate the kids that much :D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by progressiveslol on May 8th, 2015 at 12:56pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 11:58am:
NO. You are doing the IM CONFIDENT of the unknowns. No sorry, you don't know at all. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 8th, 2015 at 1:01pm Bobby. wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 7:16am:
Did you examine ALL the evidence on whether smoking tobacco causes illnesses in Humans such as cancer before you arrived at your wise opinions. There was lots of EVIDENCE which disputed the link between smoking tabacco and detrimental health effects. Were you skeptical Jethro? Did you watch a lot of Videos from You Tube? Did you pay close attention to the spin doctors paid by the tobacco corporations? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 8th, 2015 at 1:56pm John_Taverner wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 7:03am:
How is the premise wrong...IF Co2 levels were at or over 400 ppm during a Glacial event, then the Co2 levels we currently have are not causing warming. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 8th, 2015 at 2:28pm Dnarever wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 7:21am:
C-14 is produced from C-12 in the biosphere by cosmic radiation. Fossil fuels have been buried shielded from cosmic radiation long enough to have all their C-14 decayed to C-12 if you look at a graph of change in C-14 over time, you will see that there is a decrease in the fraction of C-14 (relative to C-12) and this means that much of the CO2 added to the earths atmosphere is made up of Carbon which is depleted of the C-14 isotope So, this is very strong evidence that the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is due to the combustion of fossil fuels. This coincidence that you speak of, has left a very distinct isotopic marker which can be measured there is no doubt that the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels are human generated (fossil fuel combustion and deforestation) (in any case, a simple mass balance will tell you how much CO2 has been produced by human activities over the past century or so, and this CO2 has gone somewhere hasnt it folks) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 8th, 2015 at 2:46pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 12:37am:
Yes, correlation, as opposed to causation... |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by progressiveslol on May 8th, 2015 at 3:07pm Chimp_Logic wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 2:28pm:
Just sayin... do you have anything younger for a graph. Anybody do any papers after the 1950's |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 8th, 2015 at 3:32pm progressiveslol wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 3:07pm:
And you do realise that Co2 is NOT Carbon-14 or Carbon-12 |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 8th, 2015 at 5:42pm progressiveslol wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 9:10am:
So what you're saying is that you're the better class of denialist, who realises that CO2 causes the greenhouse effect, but you question the extent of the negative (and positive ) feedbacks . Is that right? So you distance yourself from the froth at the mouth (CO2 is a tiny amount) Soren types? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by IyamnoBillGatessorrykids on May 8th, 2015 at 6:58pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 2:46pm:
First there must be correlation! |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by IyamnoBillGatessorrykids on May 8th, 2015 at 7:01pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 1:56pm:
That doesn't follow: the equation is complex and involves planetary alignments BUT YOU KNOW THAT AND ARE JUST PRETENDING BECAUSE THAT'S HOW MUCH YOU HATE THE KIDS LONGTIME :o |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 8th, 2015 at 7:03pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 6:58pm:
Which really does NOT mean that Co2 is the cause (causality) of warming...it just means that warming and Co2 are both 'increasing' at the same time... :D :D :D "1. Confusing correlation with causation A correlation is when two variables vary together, whereas causation occurs when one factor causes the other. It may be tempting to think that the former implies the latter, but that is hardly ever the case. For instance, ice cream sales may increase in the summer and decrease in the winter. The same may be true for drowning accidents. Does this mean we can draw the conclusion that drowning accidents causing ice cream sales? Does this mean that people have become so selfish and morally vile that they prefer to buy ice cream and watching people drown than trying to save them!? Fortunately, not really. Just because two variables vary together does not mean that one caused the other. " |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by IyamnoBillGatessorrykids on May 8th, 2015 at 7:04pm progressiveslol wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 12:56pm:
;) ;) if you're happy to put that on the internet for eternity then so be it! |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by IyamnoBillGatessorrykids on May 8th, 2015 at 7:11pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 7:03pm:
It's all probability: thus the meaning of complex systems arriving at solutions with associated error value. You can still try and disprove gravity if you want: why don't you spend the rest of your life giving it a try ;) ;) Geez this forum loves it when you let me own you: break out the bourbon and coke fellas- gizmos always loved me and has regularly volunteered participation for our collective enjoyment :-* :-* |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by IyamnoBillGatessorrykids on May 8th, 2015 at 7:13pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 7:03pm:
lol: felt the need to qualify that quick retort did you: lol, we at this forum all love you so very very much gizmo :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by IyamnoBillGatessorrykids on May 8th, 2015 at 7:15pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 7:03pm:
you are so inept: :D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 8th, 2015 at 7:15pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 1:56pm:
You're bastardizing the issue. Your premise, if I am reading you right, is that CO2 was > 400ppm for a reasonably prolonged period approximately 100,000 years ago. This is incorrect. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 8th, 2015 at 7:37pm John_Taverner wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 7:15pm:
Is it?? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 8th, 2015 at 7:48pm
Yes it is.
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 8th, 2015 at 7:52pm John_Taverner wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 7:48pm:
No it's not.. :D :D What is your proof, other than Al Gore said so, or 75 out of 77 'scientists' said so?? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by IyamnoBillGatessorrykids on May 8th, 2015 at 7:55pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 7:37pm:
:o :o what the ?? :o :o |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 8th, 2015 at 7:55pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 7:52pm:
Where is your evidence of this statement, which you made earlier in the week? Quote:
Let's just assume that that graph can be confirmed. Where is 100,000 years on that graph? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by IyamnoBillGatessorrykids on May 8th, 2015 at 7:57pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 7:52pm:
Why did you post that graph and now pretend you didn't :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 8th, 2015 at 8:02pm John_Taverner wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 7:55pm:
About 3 mm from the right hand side (as best as I can judge) Feel free to dispute that finding...it might be 200.00 years, or even 500,000 years. The scale is pretty rough. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 8th, 2015 at 8:02pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 7:57pm:
I didn't 'pretend' I didn't.. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 8th, 2015 at 8:06pm
http://phys.org/news/2009-10-carbon-dioxide-high-million-years.html
Quote:
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2009-10-carbon-dioxide-high-million-years.html#jCp - and that was published in 2009 when global CO2 levels averaged about 388ppm(v). There are also countless other studies using actual measurements of atmosphere from 1 millon years ago to the present day. I recognise that graph as a composite of two studies based on mineral isotope ratios. Do you happen to know what the error bars that were on the original graph look like? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 8th, 2015 at 8:08pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 8:02pm:
That graph tells us nothing for the period in question. 100,000 years is less than the thickness of the Y axis line on the right hand side. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by IyamnoBillGatessorrykids on May 8th, 2015 at 8:08pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 8:02pm:
You're a fraudulent kiddie hater ;) ;) Do you respresent all lib voters or are they all embarrassed of you and your crack smoking induced rants they've politiely asked you to cease bringing down to the pub :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D Geez this forum loves the voluntary positions you put yourself in under me just for giggles and stuff :) on so regular a basis... people tune in just for the me and you get down and boogie show,.. seriously ... freediver should pay us :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D (... one wonders if gizmo is putting on a demonstration of the uncertainty principle on purpose :D :D :D) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 8th, 2015 at 8:16pm John_Taverner wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 8:06pm:
And that scientist is WRONG...Co2 levels were about 328 ppm in 1890. and 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv. http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/ |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 8th, 2015 at 8:17pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 8:08pm:
And because YOU are completely drug f*ck doesn't mean that anything you think is true... |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by IyamnoBillGatessorrykids on May 8th, 2015 at 8:26pm John_Taverner wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 8:08pm:
How many years has gizmo spent trying to seriously hate the kids? (How many kids are there on this planet again?) Gizmo is a serial kiddie hater,... no wonder his mates don't put up with his "politics" down the pub :o :o |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 8th, 2015 at 8:28pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 8:16pm:
Oh dear. Quote:
I don't see the connection between radiological protection and glaciology. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by IyamnoBillGatessorrykids on May 8th, 2015 at 8:29pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 8:17pm:
:o whoah, don't like defeat do you mister-copper-internet-voter-because-you-hate-life :D :D :D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 8th, 2015 at 8:34pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 8:16pm:
Another personal blog by the looks of it. http://www.warwickhughes.com/ The main site doesn't exactly inspire confidence. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 8th, 2015 at 8:38pm John_Taverner wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 8:34pm:
And?? Because it's personal blog does NOT mean that it's wrong... After all http://www.skepticalscience.com/ is a personal blog too.. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 8th, 2015 at 8:44pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 8:38pm:
If Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection thought that all glaciology studies were wrong, then why didn't he bother to publish in a recognised journal? After all, it sounds very .... er relevant. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 8th, 2015 at 8:57pm John_Taverner wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 8:44pm:
Would a 'recognised' journal actually publish a non-AGW paper??....after all most of them won't. The last editor who did got sacked, remember.. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by IyamnoBillGatessorrykids on May 8th, 2015 at 9:02pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 8:57pm:
LINK, THANX ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 8th, 2015 at 9:11pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 9:02pm:
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/09/cool_climate_paper_sinks_journ.html |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Sir Bobby on May 8th, 2015 at 10:41pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 11:58am:
You sound like the beloved Chimp with a new nick name. When the planets pull the earth back into a cold orbit. What are you talking about? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by IyamnoBillGatessorrykids on May 8th, 2015 at 10:53pm Bobby. wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 10:41pm:
Do some homework and you'll know :) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on May 11th, 2015 at 1:41pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 8:57pm:
Oh dear. Tin foil hats on everybody! Here come the conspiracy theories!! Seriously - do you really believe this garbage? That all of the worlds scientists are conspiring together and only Andrew Bolt and those brave coal miners can save us? Just have a think before writing this nonsense - OK? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on May 11th, 2015 at 1:44pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 9:11pm:
From your link: The editor of Remote Sensing, Wolfgang Wagner of the Vienna University of Technology, said he now views the paper as “fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief—to make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process seriously.” ...“The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extent also in the literature.” The authors, he said, ignored those criticisms and the reviewers did not pick up on that fact." The editor made an error and published a flawed paper that should not have been published. So he resigned. Is this what you are pining your conspiracy theory on?!?!? Really?!?!?! |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 11th, 2015 at 2:37pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 8:57pm:
The question should be, would a reputable journal publish pseudoscientific crap? No. They'd have to go elsewhere. Interesting that you should classify it as non AGW. Was that its intentions, do you think or do you think it genuinely sought to correct errors in the dataset? In this case I agree with you. It's anti- AGW advocacy, and undercooked at that. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on May 11th, 2015 at 3:47pm rabbitoh08 wrote on May 11th, 2015 at 1:41pm:
Can I have chips with that; or can you provide a link? Channeling John Cook. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Soren on May 12th, 2015 at 6:11pm John_Taverner wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 5:42pm:
Two things to note, pal CO2 is a tiny proportion of the athmophere. But what is even more important is that human generated CO2 is a small percentage of that tiny proportion. The consumption of terrestrial vegetation by animals and by microbes (rotting, in other words) emits about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, while respiration by vegetation emits another 220 Gt. These huge amounts are balanced by the 440 Gt of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere each year as land plants photosynthesise. Similarly, parts of the oceans release about 330 Gt of CO2 per year, depending on temperature and rates of photosynthesis by phytoplankton, but other parts usually soak up just as much - and are now soaking up slightly more. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html#.VVG0APmqpBc So that's 550 Gt, on round figures. Human emissions? 26.4 Gt (in 2007). Less than 5%. Tiny is correct in every sense and from every angle. But let's go back to the New Scientist: How can we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere? There are several lines of evidence. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14. D'oh. No evidence or explanation of how "we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere." To conclude: Human CO2 IS A TINY amount when looked at as a proportion of all CO2 (iself a small part) in the athmosphere and nobody can or has explained how this tiny proportion of a tiny proportion makes all the huge, catastrophic difference. And you know why? Because nobody quite understands how the climate works. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 14th, 2015 at 8:50pm Soren wrote on May 12th, 2015 at 6:11pm:
- but of course, as demonstrated by the previous post, you are the authority and in fact lead the pack in that particular field (not understanding how the climate works) You should be proud of being so outspoken about climate science. Where did you study it? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Soren on May 14th, 2015 at 8:55pm John_Taverner wrote on May 14th, 2015 at 8:50pm:
Well, you are not one of those gormless fatheads who pretend to understand it all, are you? Or are you? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 14th, 2015 at 9:03pm Soren wrote on May 14th, 2015 at 8:55pm:
Well I'm not as pretentious as some. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by thanxforthecopperinternetgran on May 14th, 2015 at 10:50pm Soren wrote on May 12th, 2015 at 6:11pm:
Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) Black is white ;) ::) ::) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Soren on May 17th, 2015 at 2:50pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 14th, 2015 at 10:50pm:
Thank you, you have just demonstrated that you have no actual argument, only a party line that you expect everyonbe to toe. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 17th, 2015 at 6:16pm Bobby. wrote on May 8th, 2015 at 10:41pm:
I see So Jethro, tell me how strong the outer planets pull is compared to that of the Sun (and also the moon and inner planets) You would need to know and understand this comparison before you could estimate any changes in the orbital trajectory of the earth. Then you would need to understand and predict the change in global temperature as the Earth orbit shifts. I trust that you have done all the ground work Jethro. Or did you consult with the Great Dr Sircus again? ;D :D ;D :D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John Smith on May 17th, 2015 at 6:19pm
So Jethro
;D ;D ;D good name for bobby |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Ajax on May 17th, 2015 at 6:50pm
When predictions don't match observations its out with the baby and its water.
Too bad the IPCC will not concede that it's circulation models haven't been able to forecast Jack's sh!t. Back to the drawing board for the IPCC and all you suckers that follow them. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 17th, 2015 at 7:21pm Ajax wrote on May 17th, 2015 at 6:50pm:
so you want every month predicted by long term modelling? Are you disputing that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activities such as fossil fuel combustion and de forestation? Are you disputing that CO2 is a Greenhouse? Are you disputing that the earth has warmed over the past century - and in particular over the past 5 or 6 decades? Are you hiding behind Dr Sircus too Batman? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 18th, 2015 at 1:30am Soren wrote on May 17th, 2015 at 2:50pm:
define the word 'TINY': thanx for playing tryhard-kaffer afficionado :o ::) (consensus starts with nomenclature for those that are 'just looking' ;) ;)) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Soren on May 21st, 2015 at 9:45pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 1:30am:
Already did, guber. Now made it red for ya so you can see it. But here are the baby steps: Total CO2 in atmosphere = 400 parts per million = 0.04% Proportion of total CO2 to emissions (550 Gt) that is human emission (26.4 Gt) = 4.8% of all CO2 in atmosphere. Human CO2 in atmosphere as proportion of all atmospheric gases = 4.8% of 0.040% = 0.00192% Considering that nobody actually understands how the climate works (other than it is not exclusively controlled by atmospheric gases) it is really laughable to make such a huge deal out of 0.00192% of atmospheric gases. Juts ridiculous. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 21st, 2015 at 11:02pm
Soren is hilarious when he tries to post serious comments
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 22nd, 2015 at 6:25am Soren wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 9:45pm:
lol, balance is what? Mugabe is what percent?? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Rider on May 22nd, 2015 at 9:51am Chimp_Logic wrote on May 17th, 2015 at 7:21pm:
I was going to accuse you of being a gullible twat, but you aren't, you're a fraud who is masking their socialist agenda in an environmental cloak. Your game is up Chump. Hope you choke on your own CO2. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 22nd, 2015 at 10:49am Rider wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 9:51am:
Money is socialism! |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Soren on May 22nd, 2015 at 3:04pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 6:25am:
I invite you to show how my calculations are incorrect. Until then, you have nothing. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 22nd, 2015 at 4:50pm Soren wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 3:04pm:
;D ;D ;D Until now, I thought that Sir Bobby was the biggest troll. That's your argument? It's er tiny so it er can't be too important.... yeah! Challenge my highly complex calculations. ;D ;D ;D In the words of McEnroe, you cannot be serious! I'll leave you to battle this out with copperinternet. I am not worthy. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:33pm
Ajex, Rider, Soren, lee, Gizmo and Jethro, the world's premier thinkers and scientific analysts, disciples of the Great Dr Soren, the Easterbrook bunny and Selby the brain maggot freak
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 22nd, 2015 at 7:46pm Chimp_Logic wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:33pm:
Well, certainly the forums premier thinkers and scientific analysts. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 22nd, 2015 at 9:43pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 7:46pm:
That response was very short, therefore it can't be that important ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Ajax on May 23rd, 2015 at 10:11am Chimp_Logic wrote on May 17th, 2015 at 7:21pm:
Settle down chimp, they can't predict next month let alone 100 years from now. like I said when observations don't match predictions..........!!!!!!!!! Quote:
No not at all, but the natural CO2 cycle far out weighs anything humans have been doing....!!!!!! Quote:
No CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is a trace gas here on Earth, do you know what trace means.....?????? Quote:
No not at all, the evidence is there to be seen by all. What I'm disputing is that the warming was all due to Anthropogenic activities, sure they contribute but in the overall scheme of things are minor and play no part in heating or cooling of the Earth. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on May 23rd, 2015 at 11:30am
Like jt- not important.
Any rebuttal on the Grace sat error bars? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Dnarever on May 23rd, 2015 at 11:38am John_Taverner wrote on May 14th, 2015 at 9:03pm:
Do you rate yourself in 3rd, 4th or 5th position ? All would have some more pretentious. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Dnarever on May 23rd, 2015 at 11:42am Soren wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 9:45pm:
We need to get Longy on the assignment to confirm the Math if he can get past his bias. If it is really this simple then I wonder why a few thousand scientists disagree with you. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 23rd, 2015 at 11:43am lee wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 11:30am:
Explain what you mean. You are the one trying to put a case against the bulk of scientific knowledge. The ball is in your court - and no cutting and pasting. I'll be watching. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 23rd, 2015 at 11:46am Dnarever wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 11:42am:
Yes, I can imagine Longy in his black teachers robes smudged with chalk, bending over Soren saying - You have to show your workings or you won't get any marks. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Ajax on May 23rd, 2015 at 11:46am Dnarever wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 11:42am:
You mean all 73 scientists from the consensus.....!!!!!! Suppose to be thousands yet turns out to be only 73, these alarmists if AGW was real there would be no need to lie distort and hide past warm periods. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 23rd, 2015 at 11:48am Dnarever wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 11:38am:
Somewhere between 52nd and 48th position. It's hard to pin it down. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Ajax on May 23rd, 2015 at 11:49am John_Taverner wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 11:43am:
Are you referring to that consensus of thousands that turned out to be 73 scientists in the end..? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Ajax on May 23rd, 2015 at 11:52am lee wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 11:30am:
Ke....??? What are we disputing.....???? Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 23rd, 2015 at 12:48pm Ajax wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 10:11am:
No CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is a trace gas here on Earth, do you know what trace means.....?????? Quote:
No not at all, the evidence is there to be seen by all. What I'm disputing is that the warming was all due to Anthropogenic activities, sure they contribute but in the overall scheme of things are minor and play no part in heating or cooling of the Earth. [/quote] water is in a cycle: additional CO2 is being mechanically injected into the system increasing water vapour.. why can't AJAX admit this if he is such a genius? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Ajax on May 23rd, 2015 at 12:54pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 12:48pm:
Hi there my K9 friend, Its really not your fault that God blessed you with a pea brain. So as Soren says in baby steps for you pea brains. Soren wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 9:45pm:
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Soren on May 23rd, 2015 at 2:48pm Dnarever wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 11:42am:
These are the figures. Thousands of scientists agree with these numbers - all scientists do - because the maths is really simple. The interpretation of the numbers - for example, that 0.00192% of atmospheric gases (the human contribution to atmospheric Co2, itself only 0.040% of the atmosphere - to be the driver of the change of a complex system (climate) that is made up of many other elements besides the atmosphere and the complexity and workings of which system is not understood by anybody, well, that interpretation is not shared by scientists, only by ideologues and activists. The most a scientists would say that is that human human CO2 'contributes'to climate change. But that contribution is vanishingly small and in no way justifies the wild claims activists attribute to scientists. AGW is a political claim, not a scientific one. The maths simply does not support the political and economic claims and schemes. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 23rd, 2015 at 3:25pm Quote:
So your argument hasn't changed? "It's er tiny so it can't do any damage." Girls have gotten into big trouble for assumptions like that. What about the actual crux of radiative forcing? Don't you want to talk about how that tiny proportion of CO2 affects Long wave Infrared back scatter or stuff like that? What are the thoughts of the Wise Sir Soren? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Soren on May 23rd, 2015 at 9:12pm John_Taverner wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 3:25pm:
Yeah, what about it? Why don't you explain how 0.0192% of the atmospheric CO2 rules over the entire climate system? You seem to be confident about knowing how that works. Why don't you tell us. Go on. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 23rd, 2015 at 9:32pm Soren wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 9:12pm:
Balance buddy: CO2 comes in and out of the water everyday yet it is the water vapour that is in cycle and it is the CO2 that is being mechanically injected into the system falsely creating more water vapour than would naturally occur for the given prevailing conditions. We all know the science is accepted and you are just playing pause button politics to maximise retooling time.... the kids know about the concepts of the diminishing returns of jevons paradox which won't pass your lips ever because you're a complete joke unable to handle facts !!!!! ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) Balance: yeh, that's the one the crack smokers never learn until the big guys walk in ;D ;D ;D ;D (oh wait that's why all the crack smokers sit around in daddys spare rental for all those boring decades ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 23rd, 2015 at 9:36pm Ajax wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 12:54pm:
Ajax can't understand sorens inability to explain himself :D :D :D ...does your dad love you longtime because i promise I do and I bet I'm not speaking just for myself ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Do you ever say this stuff down the pub?? :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 23rd, 2015 at 9:37pm
Approximately 99% of the atmospheric gases have minimal or zero direct affect on the greenhouse effect.
The remaining 1% of greenhouse gases is in fact dominated by water vapor, but CO2 packs a lot of punch for its weight ladies and gentlemen. Nitrous Oxide and methane have an even higher Global Warming Potential (GWP) than CO2 Only freak maggot clown puppets isolated raw percentages and DECLARE to the world their universal conclusions of ignorance and arrogance. http://image.slidesharecdn.com/consequencesofglobalwarmingandclimatechange-130221105843-phpapp01/95/consequences-of-global-warming-and-climate-change-38-638.jpg?cb=1361949526 when is the Mini-Ice-Age coming? Get Dr Sircus on the phone. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 23rd, 2015 at 10:53pm Chimp_Logic wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 9:37pm:
Just tell 'em waters in a cycle and co2 is being mechanically injected : they lose their crack smoking minds and probably shout at their girlfriends who are putting plans in place ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I'm having fun anyway ::) ::) ::) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Ajax on May 24th, 2015 at 9:38am
Chimp_Logic & deathridesahorse your both lost without muso aren't you.
Earth is a water planet, water dominates CLIMATE CHANGE here on Earth and water in the atmosphere in the form of water vapour and clouds is the dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour and clouds are responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect. The other greenhouse gases, all of them including CO2 are trace gases meaning they are present in very small amounts. These greenhouse gases only make up 1% of the greenhouse effect. From that one percent man's contribution of CO2 is again so small it wouldn't make any difference. Watch from the 54 minute mark for explanation.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0 |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Soren on May 24th, 2015 at 10:52am BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 9:32pm:
Tell me more about how 0.0192% of the atmosphere is the crucial thing in the balance of all the things that make up the climate; specifically, how much extra water vapour does the human CoE that comprises 0.0192% of the atmopheric gases create? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Dnarever on May 24th, 2015 at 11:12am Ajax wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 11:46am:
Quote:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/ turns out to be only 73, these alarmists Are you really saying that 73 scientists wrote 11,944 papers on global warming ? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 24th, 2015 at 11:20am Dnarever wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 11:12am:
No, for the papers it was only 64 that stated humans were causing global warming. The other is from the Doran/Zimmerman survey on scientists opinions. They sent out 10,000 survey requests, got 3146 responses and based the '98% of scientists agree' result on 75 out of 77 people (after they removed everyone who didn't meet their ideal of a climate scientist). |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on May 24th, 2015 at 12:22pm John_Taverner wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 11:43am:
Just for you. From the GRACE pages. 'WHAT IS THE UNCERTAINTY IN THIS GIA MODEL? The uncertainty is about +/- 20%. The 20% value is somewhat ad-hoc, and comes from looking at results for various viscosity values and alternative deglaciation models for Antarctica and Greenland. This +/-20% probably over-estimates the uncertainty in northern Canada, where the deglaciation history is reasonably well-known; and it probably underestimates the uncertainty in Antarctica and Greenland, where the ice history is not as well-known. Plus, if you happen to be looking at a region where the model is close to zero because it is a transition region from large positive values to large negative values, then +/-20% of near-zero values is likely to underestimate the uncertainty.' http://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/data/pgr/ So Antarctica is likely to have error bars higher than +/- 20%. But they don't know what they are. But they have the utmost confidence that ice loss is 'net mass balance at -71 ± 53 gigatonnes per year.' http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/antarctic-ice-sheet-surface-mass-balance/ And all this predicated partly on a model on which they don't know the error bars. This is sometimes referred to as Scientific Wild Assed Guess, or SWAG. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 24th, 2015 at 1:26pm Ajax wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 9:38am:
Salby's crack pot theory has already being refuted and exposed on the basis of a serious lack of understanding of simple scientific principles Have you ever wondered why you continue to quote YoutTube Videos as authoritative analyses? Thats what happens when you allow your own paranoia and political bas insanity inform your opinions. And your so called opinions aren't even yours anyway. you should be ashamed of yourself Batman absolutely ashamed of yourself |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 24th, 2015 at 1:33pm
...read on about the Salby crack pot - he is worse than the Great Dr Sircus and his Easterbrook bunnies
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natural.htm Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural Link to this page What the science says... Multiple lines of evidence make it very clear that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to human emissions. Climate Myth... Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural "Salby’s argument is that the usual evidence given for the rise in CO2 being man-made is mistaken. It’s usually taken to be the fact that as carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increase, the 1 per cent of CO2 that’s the heavier carbon isotope ratio c13 declines in proportion. Plants, which produced our coal and oil, prefer the lighter c12 isotope. Hence, it must be our gasses that caused this relative decline. But that conclusion holds true only if there are no other sources of c12 increases which are not human caused. Salby says there are - the huge increases in carbon dioxide concentrations caused by such things as spells of warming and El Ninos, which cause concentration levels to increase independently of human emissions. He suggests that its warmth which tends to produce more CO2, rather than vice versa - which, incidentally is the story of the past recoveries from ice ages." (Andrew Bolt) Every year humans release about 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil. This is causing the Earth to warm by disrupting the biological (fast) carbon cycle, and is therefore increasing the Greenhouse Effect. Although there are large annual fluctuations in carbon dioxide, as it is exchanged back-and-forth between the atmosphere, oceans, soils, and forests, just under half of human emissions (the airborne fraction) remain in the air because the oceans, soils and forests are unable to absorb all of it. As a result, carbon dioxide has been steadily accumulating in the atmosphere. Figure 1 - Fraction of the total human emissions (fossil fuel burning & land use change) that remain in the: a) atmosphere, b) land vegetation and soil, c) the oceans. From Canadell (2007) Murry Salby, a professor at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, has an upcoming paper that attempts to pin the current rise in carbon dioxide on rising temperatures. Having listened to a podcast of a talk Salby gave at the Sydney Institute earlier this week, he demonstrates a remarkably poor understanding of the carbon cycle, and his hypothesis seems to stem from this fundamental misunderstanding. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 24th, 2015 at 1:35pm
...read on folks - the crack pot doesn't understand ;D
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natural.htm Salby's carbon cycle confusion Professor Salby refers to a number of graphs in his talk, but I have been unable to track down copies of these, therefore we'll have to rely on what I'm able to glean from the podcast, and given it's length, I'll only address some of the more obvious mistakes. At the beginning of the talk Salby states: "current CO2 values are 380pmmv"(parts per million by volume) Not an encouraging start that he cites the atmospheric CO2 concentration as it was in 2005, rather than the 393 parts per million by volume (ppmv) it currently is in 2011. Not a fatal flaw of course, but not encouraging either. "Net annual emission has an average increase of about 1.5ppmv per year. We're on the right planet. That's the annual average increase you just saw. But it varies between years, dramatically by over 100%. From nearly zero in some years to 3ppmv in others. Net global emission of CO2 changes independently of of the human contribution" At this point the accentuation and drama in Salby's voice make it sound as though he has stumbled onto something momentous, something no one else has noticed before. On the face of it, it seems preposterous that the army of scientists that have worked on carbon cycling over the years could have missed something so glaringly obvious. No, of course they haven't. As discussed in the first paragraph of this post (and evident in Figure 1), the natural flux of CO2 in and out of natural systems varies from year-to-year. This flux is 20-30 times larger than the annual contribution by humans, but this balances out in the long-term. This variability is driven largely by El Nino and La Nina in the tropical Pacific, which shifts rainfall patterns over much of the world and is associated with warming and cooling of equatorial waters in the Pacific. The change in seawater temperature, and episodic upwelling of carbon-rich deep water, significantly affects the uptake and outgassing of CO2 from the oceans, and of course rainfall variation greatly affects plant growth. The upshot is that land vegetation takes up more CO2 during La Nina, and expels more CO2 during El Nino. In the ocean, the opposite trend occurs - El Nino leads to more CO2 absorption, and La Nina is when the oceans give up more CO2 (Figure 2). Figure 2 - (a) time trend in the exchange of CO2 by land-based vegetation (& soil microbes) with the atmosphere. (b) same - but for exchange of CO2 by ocean with atmosphere. Red indicates El Nino and blue La Nina phase. See Keeling (1995). There is simply no reason why the annual fluctuation should match the human contribution. At least Salby doesn't explain why he expects this to be the case. Having now convinced himself that short-term net CO2 has nothing to do with the human contribution, Salby therefore deduces long-term net CO2 must also be unrelated to human emissions. He goes on to derive a formula for CO2 rise associated with temperature. Salby claims a good match back to 1960 but therefafter it deviates from actual CO2 measurements by 10ppmv. By 1880, prior to atmospheric CO2 sampling, he estimates atmospheric CO2 at 275ppmv with a whopping uncertainty of 220 to 330ppmv! In order to explain the deviation between the surface temperature record and his calculated atmospheric CO2 level, Salby blames the surface temperature record as being unreliable. As for his calculated trend disagreeing with the ice core record for the year 1880 (i.e the CO2 in air, from that period, trapped in ice cores) he 'disses' the ice core record claiming it to be only a 'proxy'. Which is news, I'm sure, to respected ice core experts like Dr Richard Alley. You will note that every time the data disagrees with Salby's 'model', he trusts his 'model' over the data. Which contravenes the 'skeptic lore' that models are worthless and must be bashed, and only data should be trusted. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 24th, 2015 at 1:37pm
....no wonder Salby was sacked from his university in Australia :D Crack Pot City ;D read on
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natural.htm Q&A time - try not to shoot yourself in the foot! The question & answer session at the end of Salby's talk throws up a few more comments that just reinforce that he has strayed into a field of science which he just simply doesn't understand. Witness: "I think it's a pitfall that people look at the ice proxy of CO2 and take it literally. It's not atmospheric CO2, and I don't believe it's CO2 that was even in the atmosphere when that piece of snow was layed down" This is nonsense. Perhaps Professor Salby should have acquainted himself with glaciology research before making such comments, because CO2 from ancient air trapped in the ice cores is precisely what is measured, albeit with some uncertainty in dating some sections. "CO2 after the turn of the (21st) century continued to increase, in fact if anything slightly faster, but global temperature didn't. If anything it decreased in the first decade of the 21st century. Now I'm confident the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) will come up with an explanation, in fact they've come up with several" It's here we need to back the truck up a bit. Salby's entire premise is that CO2 in the air directly dependent upon temperature - increase temperature and you increase CO2. Yet here he argues that CO2 can increase without an accompanying increase in temperature. Which contradicts his 'model'. By this time Salby is too focused on 'dissing' the IPCC to notice his own incoherency, and none of the audience picks up on this either. Note that SkS recently discussed the 'noughties slow-down' in global temperature here and here. If the curve fits Seasoned readers will notice similarities between this Salby claim and a Lon Hocker rebuttal here at SkS last year. But the whole premise seems to follow along the lines of other recent flawed works tendered by Roy Spencer and Craig Loehle & Nicola Scafetta. That is: find some tenuous statistical relationship between two sets of data, and use these to assert the mainstream scientific establishment is wrong. The fact that there is no physical basis for the statistical relationship, or it doesn't fit within the well-established scientific framework, or is contrary to numerous other sets of data, never seems to warrant attention by "skeptic" scientists. It should, because of the implications one can draw. So what does this work by Salby imply, if it were true? From what I can gather from Salby's podcast, a 0.8°C change in average surface temperature is supposed to lead to about 120ppmv change in CO2. Therefore we can work backward in time to estimate what he reckons atmospheric CO2 would be at the time of the last Ice Age (glacial maximum), a time when global temperatures were about 4-6°C cooler than now . Today atmospheric CO2 is about 393ppm, so with 4°C cooling you already have a negative value for CO2 when we re-trace our steps back to the last ice age. Therefore all plant-based life on Earth must have died (and all the animals that depended on them) according to Professor Salby. And the Earth froze solid too. Figure 3 - the last Ice Age according to Murry Salby? Fictional image from celestiamotherlode.net Science - a description of reality, but YMMV Without viewing Salby's calculations on the temperature/net global CO2 relationship, it's not possible to provide the 'killer blow' to his assertions; however, I don't believe that's necessary, considering the many flaws in Salby's work and fundamental reasoning. The gradual increase in atmospheric CO2 is less than the total emissions of CO2 from human sources, so by elementary deduction, the excess must be going into the oceans, forests and soils, the other components of the fast carbon cycle. A tell-tale signature of human fossil fuel emissions is the large fraction of CO2 being driven into the oceans. According to Henry's Law, we would expect the oceans to absorb more CO2 as the air above it becomes increasingly saturated with CO2. In other words the CO2 must be coming from a source external to the fast carbon cycle. This is supported by measurements showing that CO2 is accumulating in the ocean, and is reflected in the declining oceanic pH, showing the ocean is actually gaining CO2 over the long-term, not losing it, as Salby seems to believe. We also know that the world's land vegetation has increased in mass - through re-growth in forests in the Northern Hemisphere, and CO2 fertilization of tropical forests. So that is gaining carbon too, and the areas affected are so large, we would expect them to have an effect on atmospheric CO2 levels at a global scale. There are a host of other problems with Salby's 'model', such as the ice core record, and where the warming came from in the first place, but there's no need to go into these details when the fundamental premise of Salby's argument is so clearly wrong. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 24th, 2015 at 1:49pm Chimp_Logic wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 1:33pm:
So is the idiot who wrote that article.. http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/why-dana1981-hasnt-proved-climate.html# "Dana1981 is a 29-year-old Prius driver and the owner of several other alternative vehicles who has mistakingly received a bachelor degree in astrophysics and a master degree in physics, so he or she became a self-described environmental scientist who is "passionate" about the climate hysteria." |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Ajax on May 24th, 2015 at 1:55pm Chimp_Logic wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 1:37pm:
You're building a defence case from that algorian site which deceives people into thinking that it asks questions about everything. Skeptical science run by that fraudster John Cook at el. http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/cooks-97-consensus-is-a-case-study-of-agnotology-ignorance-and-misinformation/ http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-a-0-3-consensus-not-97/ I'm sorry chimp but getting John Cook's web site sceptical science which is anything but sceptical and these people at sceptical science have associations with AL Gore who they hail as some sort of demi god. Anyway getting these people (sceptical science) views on Prof. Murry Salby, is like getting Michael Mann to explain his hockey stick and why there is no medieval warm period. When the science is real the is no need for deception, lies, accusations etc etc. FAIL The truth about sceptical science blog - they are anything but sceptical, rather they are algorians pushing the anthropogenic global warming religion onto the unsuspecting. http://wattsupwiththat.com/tag/skeptical-science/ http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html More about sceptical science here http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-drown-them-out.html#uds-search-results |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Ajax on May 24th, 2015 at 2:21pm Chimp_Logic wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 1:26pm:
What are you talking about you silly silly chimp. Are you saying that the energy budget he presents in that video is wrong or deceitful...??? If that's what you're implying then you and my furry friend Cerberus (DRAH) are a good match mentally. Both pea brains...LOL..... :o |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 24th, 2015 at 4:51pm Ajax wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 2:21pm:
what I suggest that you do Mr Batcrap is look at the entire lunacy the the Salby maniac is painting for you denialist clowns. Havent you read Salby's complete fraud thesis? Laughable pseudo science. And thats exactly what you are Ajax - a disciple of the Great Dr Sircus, the Easterbrook bunny and the Salby maniac freak maggot. Do you even understand what these snake oil salesmen are pitching and who they work for? Your illness is worsening batCrap You do realise Ajax that we can never really be friends if you preach lies in public and dress in a fake costume with ridiculous blinking excrement eyes? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 24th, 2015 at 7:43pm lee wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:22pm:
Even if it was 71-53, the maximum error, that still leaves a negative ice balance. What are you saying? Do you have the latest POOMA based figures from Jo Nova or Anthony Watts? All I've heard as an alternative is that the sea ice figures have increased. This is just a predictable consequence of increased continental ice melt. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 24th, 2015 at 7:45pm Chimp_Logic wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 4:51pm:
Sorry, I'm new here. Are you saying that Ajax and Sir Bobby are the same person? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 24th, 2015 at 8:08pm John_Taverner wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:45pm:
are you new here? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on May 24th, 2015 at 8:10pm John_Taverner wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:43pm:
Why don't you read and comprehend. GRACE says that the error bands are not reliable for Antarctica and gives no estimates for what it should be for Antarctica. But despite this still come up with a figure. "We don't have an error band for this, but trust us"? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 24th, 2015 at 8:35pm John_Taverner wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:45pm:
No, they're not the same person. Chimp hasn't figured that out yet, though. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 24th, 2015 at 8:35pm lee wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 8:10pm:
- but it still agrees very closely with the latest IceSat and other survey data. What is the source of the data? I have a feeling it's from an old study, because the data I have is 69±18 Gigatonnes per year. There have been progressive improvements in the GIA data in recent years. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on May 24th, 2015 at 9:11pm
JT, GRACE haven't updated their page, which suggests that they are no closer.
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 24th, 2015 at 9:31pm
Is John Taverner new here?
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 24th, 2015 at 10:03pm Soren wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 10:52am:
No: do your own homework! :D :D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 24th, 2015 at 10:56pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 10:03pm:
So: you have NO idea then ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 25th, 2015 at 7:48am Soren wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 10:52am:
You seem to be having some difficulty. I conducted a search and found this material, which seems to be more appropriate to your level of understanding. http://climatekids.nasa.gov/ No need to thank me. Enjoy. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 25th, 2015 at 11:59am gizmo_2655 wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 10:56pm:
i know Tony Abbott and the fascist liberal voters got caught trying to sell out the University of Western Australias global reputation to a (!global) political activist who wants to argue that fossil fuels should be allowed to warm our kids earth by 3 degrees instead of 2 and you can't pretend he didn't! That's what I know buddy so bring it on fellla ;) ;) Tony Abbott and the liberal voters of Australia got publicly laughed at by the toffs themselves and told very publicly that this state of WA floats the nation so why don't you eat that one in question time until the election :D :D :D :D ** hey, imagine having copper internet as a legacy to your kids whilst simultaneously trying to tell them we built the asian century and that's why your own kids have to pass their mortgage on to your grandkids ... thanks dad yehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh i wish i had business acumen and conveniently forgot to tell everyone that primary industry concentrates wealth and that jevons paradox is a big secret ::) ::) C'mon smart guy BRING IT ON NOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW ;D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Soren on May 25th, 2015 at 12:47pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 10:03pm:
I have done my homework and said that it is ridiculous to blame 0.0192% of atmospheric gases (the amount of human CO2 in the atmosphere) for climate change. If you are ridiculous enough to still maintain that that tiny proportion of only one of the climate factors is responsible for climate change then you'd better explain it. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 25th, 2015 at 1:01pm Soren wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 12:47pm:
Dood, your numbers !! ;) ;) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 25th, 2015 at 1:04pm
;) ;)
As Tannen suggests in this inarguably excellent book, amass enough of those trusting, open-minded individuals, and what you’ve got is a new cultural force. But in the meantime, I suspect many will cling to a proverb once uttered by that old Zen master Ronald Reagan: Trust but verify. http://www.ew.com/article/1998/03/13/argument-culture |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on May 25th, 2015 at 1:16pm John_Taverner wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 8:35pm:
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/antarctic-ice-sheet-surface-mass-balance/ Last updated 4/2/15 which depends on dd/mm/yy or mm/dd/yy. BTW did you know ICEsat is currently using some of GRACE's functionality? I understand the Canadian isostatic rebound because the Laurentide melted millenia ago. I'm not sure that the pressure on the earth's crust from 26.5m cu km's would allow much, if any, rebound. Perhaps that is why the GRACE page concluded - ' Plus, if you happen to be looking at a region where the model is close to zero because it is a transition region from large positive values to large negative values, then +/-20% of near-zero values is likely to underestimate the uncertainty' So many ambiguities. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 25th, 2015 at 1:51pm lee wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 1:16pm:
Science is all probability: nothing new there buddy :D :D :D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on May 25th, 2015 at 2:03pm
Yep and the probability is low.
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 25th, 2015 at 2:32pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 11:59am:
And so what is UWA's 'global reputation'?? A hot bed of deluded AGW alarmists?..If so 'selling out' their rep could only be a GOOD thing (it might introduce some balance to the debate on Global Warming/Climate Change/whatever the hell it's called this week). And the actual 'effective' difference between 2 degrees C and 3 degrees C would be basically ZERO, for humans, and every other type of life on Earth. Lomborg is probably much closer to accurate than the IPCC, Flannery, Gore, Mann and the rest of the catastrophic climate change believers will EVER be. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 25th, 2015 at 2:47pm lee wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 1:16pm:
What do you understand by the term "GIA data" in my previous post? Quote:
current as in 2015? Explain what you mean. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 25th, 2015 at 2:52pm lee wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 2:03pm:
link, thanx :D :D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 25th, 2015 at 2:54pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 2:32pm:
bro, light up the crack pipe again and get really bored why don't ya :) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on May 25th, 2015 at 3:11pm John_Taverner wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 2:47pm:
'Precision Orbit Determination (POD) improvements include updated GPS orbit solutions, reference frame, ground stations, and observational and dynamic and modeling, including the GRACE-derived GGM03C gravity model. See CSR SCF Release Notes for Orbit and Attitude Determination V3 for details.' http://nsidc.org/data/icesat/data_releases.html |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on May 25th, 2015 at 3:15pm John_Taverner wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 2:47pm:
Please provide a ref for your updates and improvements. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 25th, 2015 at 3:19pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 2:54pm:
I'll leave that to you...an 'increase' of 6 degrees C..'MIGHT' be harmful to humans (and other life on Earth) but that's way more than even the real worst case scenarios. 2 degrees or even 3 degrees would only take the planet back to close to the temperatures that humans evolved in. Which is also what modern plants and animals also developed in. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 25th, 2015 at 3:26pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:19pm:
dood, are you stoned on boring meth?? You're a tripper fella seriously... that shite is so boring: GET OFF IT NOW ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 25th, 2015 at 3:37pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:26pm:
Unlike you, no, I've never used meth (that seems to be you're passion) and nothing in my post is anything other than accurate. Yes, humans DID evolve in warmer conditions than currently exist, yes most of the modern plant and animal life is more suited to warmer temperatures than currently exists and NO, a 2 or 3 degree C increase in global temperatures would NOT cause the human species (or animal/plant life) any 'dangerous' stress.. Deal with it...the whole 'catastrophic climate change' scenario is total bullshit. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 25th, 2015 at 3:41pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:37pm:
link, thanx :D :D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Dnarever on May 25th, 2015 at 3:52pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:19pm:
an 'increase' of 6 degrees C..'MIGHT' be harmful to humans . 2 or 3 Deg is what they are saying we have already locked in. This type of increase is expected in the next 50 years or so. This isn't where it stops, its just the beginning. we keep increasing the CO2 output and that number will keep going up. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 25th, 2015 at 4:06pm Dnarever wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:52pm:
And so what??? Do you really think that humans, as a species, will 'magically' cease to exist when the temperatures rise a bit?? And that's without even mentioning the various 'non-believer' science that says it may not even get close to 2 degrees? Given our current level of technological skill, even 6 degrees possibly wouldn't be very difficult for humans to survive. Sure we might have to eat tofu and yeast type foods, but we'd still survive until the pendulum swung back. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 25th, 2015 at 4:14pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 4:06pm:
lol gizmo is playing guessing games with our kids futures and admitting to doing so otherwise he would be providing sources to back his excretement up !! Has he never heard of complex systems ?!!? He seems to think CO2 is the only limiting factor to plant growth and 3 degrees is no problem just because he said so... I mean: NOT EVEN THE BIGGEST CRACK HEAD THAT EVER LIVED WOULD SAY SOMETHING THAT MESSED UP ::) :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ ** go gizmo f'n lol 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on May 25th, 2015 at 4:15pm
Isn't that 2-3 deg per doubling? 278ppm in 1700, 576ppm for a doubling. Or Bill Mckibben's 350ppm doubles to 700ppm.
Although there now appears to be some doubt on that. An increase on historical levels of 120.6, and since the end of 1996, an increase of 36.16. An increase of approximately 30%, but temperatures are running flat, according to the satellite data. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 25th, 2015 at 4:18pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 4:06pm:
lol,... then check out how he rounds out his argument ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D all those loose ends sewed up ay giz: pack that friggin glass pipe and start getting really bored mate cos you have a few corrections to make over the next lifetime after a statement like that :D :D (like seriously ::)) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 25th, 2015 at 4:20pm lee wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 4:15pm:
hey look over there ::) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by The Outrage Bus on May 25th, 2015 at 4:20pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 4:18pm:
Seriously, you have always been a smacking idiot. Leave the arguments to the adults. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 25th, 2015 at 4:24pm Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 4:20pm:
make me ;) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 25th, 2015 at 4:39pm Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 4:20pm:
Going by his/her posts...YES always a smacking idiot. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 25th, 2015 at 4:45pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 4:39pm:
Says gizmo who admits to guessing a 3 degree temperature rise should be fine ;) ;) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Dnarever on May 25th, 2015 at 5:00pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 4:06pm:
The expectation of substantial temperature increase is that vastly less viable farming land would be available. We would be able to produce enough food to feed a few billion less people. I would hope that there is a record of all the people who have obstructed action and their descendants are on the list to not be getting fed. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 25th, 2015 at 5:02pm Dnarever wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 5:00pm:
Really, so all those cool/cold climate lands would not be usable if the temperatures warmed??? The bigger risk of starvation is from cooler temperatures, not from warmer ones. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 25th, 2015 at 5:03pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 4:45pm:
Yes, which is still true..you ARE a smacking idiot...deal with it. :D :D :D :D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 25th, 2015 at 5:12pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 5:02pm:
...again the con man called gizmo insists on reducing a complex system to a simple one! Where is all the science to support your crack smoke induced ramblings buddy? Thanx for playing :D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 25th, 2015 at 5:15pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 5:03pm:
Hey, how about that lomborg bloke getting told to get the funk out of Western Australias proud University systems for fear of poisoning their reputation ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ...I bet all the lib voters love talking about that one instead of trying to hide it under the carpet like a bunch of intergenerational thieves :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :) :) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 25th, 2015 at 5:34pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 5:15pm:
Which simply means the WA University is full of warmist idiots (like you). Nothing Lomborg believes is 'bad' scientifically, it's just 'bad' ideologically. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 25th, 2015 at 5:46pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 5:34pm:
There is not a single school or a single university that teaches Climate Change Denialism. There is not a single National Academy of Science that supports it. In fact, even in David Cameron's Conservative UK, Climate Change is taken seriously. The fly in the ointment is unfortunately the current Australian Government. It's about time we had some real Conservatives with integrity, honesty and long-term fiscal responsibility in government, so that corporations can start to benefit from carbon trading within Australia instead of trading with Europe and sending all the benefits there as they do now. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Ajax on May 25th, 2015 at 5:53pm John_Taverner wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 5:46pm:
In the middle ages you would be branded a heretic if you said the Earth was round, and maybe even worse. The science is not settled as we're finding out how all the IPCC predictions have fallen in a heap. And yet they will not admit they got it wrong, the rothchilds want to tax us on the air we breath and one way or another they will make it happen. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Dnarever on May 25th, 2015 at 5:58pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 5:02pm:
You don't think that the gains would have been considered ? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 25th, 2015 at 6:02pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 5:34pm:
Lomborg believes it is OK for fossil fuels to warm our kids earth by 3C without any rationale as to why he thinks that is safe: so don't go telling me his science ain't 'bad' brother because he hasn't got any smart guy! :) :) You really don't know much about this Lomborg guy do you mate :D :D but still you think 3C is safe and refuse to provide any science as to why you have come to that conclusion! You haven't because you can't without being laughed at :D :D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Dnarever on May 25th, 2015 at 6:03pm Ajax wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 5:53pm:
The science is not settled as we're finding out how all the IPCC predictions have fallen in a heap. The current IPCC model is compatible with everything that has occurred. In the middle ages you would be branded a heretic if you said the Earth was round, and maybe even worse. Yes the Flat Earthers are now saying that global warming is BS. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Ajax on May 25th, 2015 at 6:14pm Dnarever wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 6:03pm:
I haven't got time, but what did the IPCC predict about the first decade 21st century its fallen in a heap. Where did the hot spot in the tropapause disappear to...!!!!! Not in the oceans cause we have ARGO noqwhere elses to go. What about the energy budget of the atmosphere,,,,!!! When has CO2 ever controlled temperature here on Earth....???? Answer NEVER...!!!! |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 25th, 2015 at 6:20pm Dnarever wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 6:03pm:
....the ancient Greeks knew that the earth was not flat but had a spherical geometry. They also determined its circumference to within about 5% accuracy (see Eratosthenes's measurements in 190 BC) So get with the times mate - the middle ages were indeed dark - best that you stay away from that era if you wish to make a point |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on May 25th, 2015 at 7:01pm John_Taverner wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 5:46pm:
https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by longweekend58 on May 25th, 2015 at 7:17pm Dnarever wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 5:00pm:
a statement that makes very little sense since it would make MORE land available for farming in the northern and southern regions as well as make some far more productive. The worst case scenario is that nothing would change. A lot of the world might come here to learn how we farm in a dry arid and hot environment and do exceedingly well at it. like most hysterical climate predictions, it is garbage. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by longweekend58 on May 25th, 2015 at 7:19pm Dnarever wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 5:58pm:
No or have you not missed the entirely hysterical one-sided, worst-case scenario predictions that are pretty much stock-standard climate activism? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on May 25th, 2015 at 7:41pm Dnarever wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 5:58pm:
No, I do not think that the gains would have been considered, quite the opposite in truth. They would have been ignored or dismissed out of hand. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by longweekend58 on May 25th, 2015 at 7:51pm gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 7:41pm:
a bit like how the Medieval Warm Period and the Little ICe Age were removed from the hockey stick. Inconvenient. And not a lot different from how sea level data has now been changed historically and it now has 100% agreement with IPCC predictions. A bit like how the 17year pause in temperatures is now known to have not occurred after a 'review' of temperature records. OOPS!!!! That hasn't happened yet!! BUT IT WILL. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 25th, 2015 at 8:10pm lee wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 7:01pm:
That course is designed to teach people how to deal with all the climate denialist nonsense such as the crap that ends up on these threads. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on May 25th, 2015 at 8:22pm
But it is a university course teaching denialism; exactly as per your stipulation.
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Soren on May 25th, 2015 at 8:32pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 1:01pm:
You should be able to show why they are wrong - but you don't. Because you can't. Numbers - they are not opinions. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 25th, 2015 at 10:05pm lee wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 8:22pm:
You have been drinking the Kool-Aid. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on May 25th, 2015 at 10:09pm lee wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:11pm:
You think that 2003 is current? referring to this question by you: Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 25th, 2015 at 11:25pm
The Great Soren has spoken ladies and gentlemen
We must all bow our humble craniums to the wisdom of the GREAT SOREN - deliverer of truth justice and the white man's way! |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 26th, 2015 at 2:12am Soren wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 8:32pm:
I do what I want: you do what you want ! |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by longweekend58 on May 26th, 2015 at 9:01am lee wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 8:22pm:
to be fair, it is teaching how to OPPOSE denialism and starts with the discredited '97% of scientists' claim. a truly worthless course. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on May 26th, 2015 at 11:19am John_Taverner wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 8:10pm:
Oh dear, John has spit the dummy. He now repeats the "climate denialist" mantra. Are you currently studying under John Cook, Climate Communicator? Can you post a link to where someone, on these pages, has denied that climate changes? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 26th, 2015 at 11:29am lee wrote on May 26th, 2015 at 11:19am:
"..let's all do the semantic circle jerk again yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy :) :)" ** Consensus starts with nomenclature: [!!next ;)] |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by longweekend58 on May 26th, 2015 at 12:02pm lee wrote on May 26th, 2015 at 11:19am:
the hysterics are only interested in blind adherence to a dogma, not science or fact. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on May 26th, 2015 at 12:20pm longweekend58 wrote on May 26th, 2015 at 12:02pm:
Heh!!!! Fact!!!! Coming from you!!!! That is funny. Remember here when you denied that 2014 has been found to have been the hottest year on record: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1431874578/51#51 Instead, you claimed: the actual results say opposite. You were asked numerous times to show us these "actual results" that say the opposite. But you can't. You made it up. There are no "actual results" that say the opposite. You were simply caught red-handed telling a lie. A proven liar like you saying to somebody else: "the hysterics are only interested in blind adherence to a dogma, not science or fact"!!! Comedy gold! |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by longweekend58 on May 26th, 2015 at 12:55pm rabbitoh08 wrote on May 26th, 2015 at 12:20pm:
we've already done this dance, rabbit-droppings. Your problem is that your blind adherence precludes you from understanding a position not to your liking. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 26th, 2015 at 1:36pm longweekend58 wrote on May 26th, 2015 at 12:55pm:
you mean the circle jerk is finally over: :o :o :o :o :o |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Soren on May 26th, 2015 at 7:40pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 26th, 2015 at 1:36pm:
You are the last man jerking and it is a very, very dry wank, pal. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Ajax on May 26th, 2015 at 8:56pm Chimp_Logic wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 11:25pm:
All 75 scientists from the consensus of the supposed thousands....LMFAO...??? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 28th, 2015 at 11:40am
Poor Batman, his little fraudulant list of misquoted scientists has been exposed
Poor Poor Batman - exposed in public as a crack pot clown maggot and disciple of the neurotic Dr Sircus, follower of the Esterbrook bunny and mentorised by the freak oil puppet Salby Poor Poor Sooky sooky Batman |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on May 28th, 2015 at 12:14pm longweekend58 wrote on May 26th, 2015 at 12:55pm:
Yes. You are still dancing. It is a simple question isn't it? Remember - you denied that 2014 has been found to have been the hottest year on record: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1431874578/51#51 Instead, you claimed: the actual results say opposite. Why can't you simply show us these "actual results that say "the opposite". Just post a link. It is simple. Cut and paste ctrl-c/ctrl-v Why can't you do it? It is because you were telling a lie, isn't it. Don't you think you should grow up and apologise for telling lies? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by damien on May 29th, 2015 at 10:06pm damien wrote on Apr 29th, 2015 at 9:14am:
"So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that's a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we're going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation." - Tim Flannery!! http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Soren on May 30th, 2015 at 4:02pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 26th, 2015 at 2:12am:
If you can tell me how much extra water vapour 0.0192% of the atmospheric gases that is human CO2, I tell you if your 'balance' theory and 'forcing' work or not. I do not believe you can actually demonstrate how much extra water vapour is due to that miniscule human addition of CO2. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 30th, 2015 at 4:43pm
Do clouds cool or warm the earth? ;)
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on May 30th, 2015 at 4:56pm Chimp_Logic wrote on May 30th, 2015 at 4:43pm:
Yep |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Ajax on May 30th, 2015 at 5:18pm Chimp_Logic wrote on May 30th, 2015 at 4:43pm:
You're such a conniving little piece of sh!t aren't you worm breath. Why does it have to be one or the other why can't clouds do both....??? You're not smart chump, you're just an AGW religious zealot that preaches the algorian school of climatology on this forum. I think its you that should say sorry to all on here. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 30th, 2015 at 7:27pm Ajax wrote on May 30th, 2015 at 5:18pm:
Are you stealing MY material now Ajax??? Oh what's wrong dingbat, arent you able to think of anything original yourself? You've been copying and pasting for so long that you confuse your stinkin' ass with your mouth you caramelised slab of putrid wart hog excrement. Everybody on OzPolitics is still waiting for your written apology. For once in your foul mouthed stenched up existence of deceit and lies do the right thing and apologise. It's pathetically sad watching a once proud crime fighter collapse in a heap of sooky sooky cry baby vomit tears just because he lacks the integrity and credibility to offer a sincere apology |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on May 30th, 2015 at 8:17pm rabbitoh08 wrote on May 28th, 2015 at 12:14pm:
No answer from Longweekend about being caught telling lies yet. Typical. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Ajax on May 31st, 2015 at 9:50am Chimp_Logic wrote on May 30th, 2015 at 7:27pm:
Maggot mouth that all you got personal insults and name calling. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Soren on May 31st, 2015 at 11:38am Chimp_Logic wrote on May 30th, 2015 at 4:43pm:
How much extra cloud is generated by 0.0192% of the atmosphere that is human CO2?? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 31st, 2015 at 11:58am Soren wrote on May 31st, 2015 at 11:38am:
It is clear how much hatred you have for children Soren But why do you hate certain "people" Soren? Were you raised that way? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Soren on May 31st, 2015 at 1:34pm Chimp_Logic wrote on May 31st, 2015 at 11:58am:
Sooooo - how much extra cloud is generated by 0.0192% of the atmosphere that is human CO2?? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Sir Bobby on May 31st, 2015 at 3:05pm
Chimp,
Quote:
How can Chimp get away with that? I was banned once for 1% of that. :o |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 31st, 2015 at 3:17pm Bobby. wrote on May 31st, 2015 at 3:05pm:
My abuse is creative, jovial, spiritual and accurate in nature.... that's why we are such close friends Jethro. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Sir Bobby on May 31st, 2015 at 3:22pm Chimp_Logic wrote on May 31st, 2015 at 3:17pm:
But it shows different rules for banning for different monkeys. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Chimp_Logic on May 31st, 2015 at 3:24pm Bobby. wrote on May 31st, 2015 at 3:22pm:
were you really banned jethro? That is appalling - your hard work in here is first class mate.... I will tell you what I will I do for you mate... I will sacrifice myself for 1 month. I will self impose a 1 month ban just to balance the books. See you in a month mate - keep the boat rocking mate while I am gone ...see ya in a month |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Sir Bobby on May 31st, 2015 at 6:24pm
Don't go Chimp - you are always good for comic relief.
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on Jun 2nd, 2015 at 2:09am Soren wrote on May 31st, 2015 at 1:34pm:
No one knows. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on Jun 2nd, 2015 at 2:25am Ajax wrote on May 30th, 2015 at 5:18pm:
as far as I know the jury is still out on clouds... if more clouds are created then they will reflect sunlight yet water vapour needs to rise to create clouds and this all depends on the concept of 'flotation' which itself may run into complicated behaviour. Warm air doesn't actually rise, cold air sinks and the energised and more separated air(aka less 'dense' air) allows the colder less energised air(more 'dense' air) to sink through it resulting in the warmer, energised and separated air 'floating' on top. Bottomline: iff (note the double 'f') more clouds are formed it would act as a negative feedback mechanism meaning our oceans won't boil away- what happened on Venus can't happen here as there are too many negative feedback mechanisms available to stop that from happening but what is possible is still catastrophic if enough CO2 in mechanically injected into the system. That's the point: water is in a cycle whereas CO2 is being mechanically injected into the system. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Rider on Jun 2nd, 2015 at 7:55am BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 2nd, 2015 at 2:25am:
Well if these boffins can't work out the clouds they definitely cannot work out a miniscule trace gas called carbon dioxide. Snouts out of troughs now. Give us tax payers our money back you idiot fraudsters. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on Jun 2nd, 2015 at 10:26am Rider wrote on Jun 2nd, 2015 at 7:55am:
The snouts in the trough are all of using our kids environment as a toilet. IT'S CALLED INTERGENERATIONAL THEFT!! |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on Jun 2nd, 2015 at 10:32am Soren wrote on May 31st, 2015 at 11:38am:
That question assumes that increased CO2 leads to an increase in cloud cover. Maybe it does. What is your understanding? What makes you think that an increase in CO2 leads to an increase in cloud cover? Are all clouds the same? What type of clouds would result in a net energy loss to space? What type of clouds would result in a net energy gain? What type of clouds would increase or decrease as a result of increased CO2? Are clouds the biggest factor or even a major factor in Global warming? As you see, you may be asking a question that is not relevant. In the light of your tenuous grasp of the basic principles involved, what would your response be to A. An increase in cloud cover of 2%? B. A decrease in cloud cover of 2%? One more question - Your figure of 0.0192% is based on what atmospheric CO2 level in ppm(v) ? Frankly, your question shows that you don't have a clue. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 2nd, 2015 at 11:36am BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 2nd, 2015 at 2:25am:
IPCC says net effect of clouds is likely positive. But the bottomline is no one; including the IPCC has a clue. And AGW relies on net feedback of clouds being positive. So JT can add the IPCC to those who don't have a clue. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on Jun 2nd, 2015 at 11:57am lee wrote on Jun 2nd, 2015 at 11:36am:
It's all probablity... the reason the IPCC reports are conservative is because all nations involved have to agree what goes into the reports yet the truth remains that the NH is warmer than the SH due to the heat pump called the thermohaline cycle. If clouds provide a positive or a negative feedback the NH still remains warmer than the SH else you are talking about a shutdown of the heat pump itself. I'm starting to think you don't understand what a negative feedback mechanism is.... it dampens a positive feedback mechanism but doesn't turn the ship to completely opposite-ville. :o :o |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 2nd, 2015 at 12:51pm
Yeah Heat Pump. PDO, ENSO, El Nino.
Who the hell says a negative feedback only dampens a positive feedback? It's either negative or positive, less negative, or less positive, more negative or more positive. Unless of course you wave wandered off into the realm of multiple positive, negative feedbacks; and then there is so much uncertainty. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on Jun 2nd, 2015 at 12:58pm lee wrote on Jun 2nd, 2015 at 12:51pm:
The thing is lee: you have no respect for the definitions of science known as nomenclature making you the shite breathing idiot I have consistently pointed you out as... :D :D Consensus starts with nomenclature: as I have been saying for quite along time now :) :) Don't cry buddy: just because you think fossil fuels should be allowed to warm the future earth by 3 degrees instead of 2 so you can please your fossil fueled masters for 1/2 a second doesn't mean you're the devil... ::) ::) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 2nd, 2015 at 2:19pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 2nd, 2015 at 12:58pm:
Ahh, the consensus argument. :) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on Jun 2nd, 2015 at 6:10pm lee wrote on Jun 2nd, 2015 at 2:19pm:
ahh, lee has never heard of the nomenclature argument ;) ;) Face it lee: everyone watches to see me put it in your face oh so consistently like that(ooh gotcha hot stuffikins yehhhhh!!).... :) :) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 2nd, 2015 at 6:28pm
You mean like AGW is defined while climate change isn't?
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Ajax on Jun 2nd, 2015 at 6:42pm Chimp_Logic wrote on May 31st, 2015 at 3:24pm:
goodbye and good riddance |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on Jun 2nd, 2015 at 7:36pm lee wrote on Jun 2nd, 2015 at 6:28pm:
yes, buddy: whatever floats daddykins boat :o :o |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on Jun 2nd, 2015 at 7:37pm Ajax wrote on Jun 2nd, 2015 at 6:42pm:
hardcore child hater, lol: have you got a mcmansion or something? ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Ajax on Jun 3rd, 2015 at 6:01pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 2nd, 2015 at 7:37pm:
WTF are you talking about....? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on Jun 4th, 2015 at 12:53am rabbitoh08 wrote on May 28th, 2015 at 12:14pm:
Longweekend. you are caught telling a lie - do you have nothing to say for yourself? Remember - you denied that 2014 has been found to have been the hottest year on record: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1431874578/51#51 Instead, you claimed: the actual results say opposite. Why can't you simply show us these "actual results that say "the opposite". Why do you always run away when you are caught telling lies? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 4th, 2015 at 11:17am rabbitoh08 wrote on Jun 4th, 2015 at 12:53am:
You mean like NASA and NOAA claimed the "hottest year evah", with error bars you could drive a truck through? '26 January 2015 - Provisional full-year global mean temperature figures show 2014 was one of the warmest years in a record dating back to 1850. The HadCRUT4 dataset (compiled by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit) shows last year was 0.56C (±0.1C*) above the long-term (1961-1990) average. Nominally this ranks 2014 as the joint warmest year in the record, tied with 2010, but the uncertainty ranges mean it's not possible to definitively say which of several recent years was the warmest.' http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/release/archive/2015/2014-global-temperature |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on Jun 4th, 2015 at 4:13pm lee wrote on Jun 4th, 2015 at 11:17am:
The easiest way to reduce the error is to take the mean of two or three consecutive years. By doing this, it's easy to show a rising trend. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 4th, 2015 at 4:45pm John_Taverner wrote on Jun 4th, 2015 at 4:13pm:
But I thought climate was longer than that, 2-3 years was merely weather. However, to the main point, if a temperature is equalled by another year, how can it be the "hottest year evah"? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on Jun 4th, 2015 at 5:30pm lee wrote on Jun 4th, 2015 at 4:45pm:
I knew I shouldn't have posted that. I should have known that you wouldn't understand even something so basic. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on Jun 4th, 2015 at 6:45pm lee wrote on Jun 4th, 2015 at 11:17am:
All this means lee agrees with LOMBORG that fossil fuels should be allowed to warm our kids earth by 3 degrees instead of 2 ;) ;) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 4th, 2015 at 7:59pm John_Taverner wrote on Jun 4th, 2015 at 4:13pm:
Unless the errors are all high or all low, then the mean is still wrong and not less. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Dnarever on Jun 4th, 2015 at 8:05pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Jun 4th, 2015 at 12:53am:
Why do you always run away when you are caught telling lies? I think it is only that he gets a bit confused between what he would like to be true and what is actually factual. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on Jun 5th, 2015 at 12:35am lee wrote on Jun 4th, 2015 at 7:59pm:
Some nice logic, ...but to what end does it serve?? ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on Jun 5th, 2015 at 12:37am Dnarever wrote on Jun 4th, 2015 at 8:05pm:
amatuer attempt at the concept of indirect argument :D :D :D :D hopefully it pays well ::) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Soren on Jun 15th, 2015 at 12:50pm John_Taverner wrote on Jun 2nd, 2015 at 10:32am:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1429976461/282#282 |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on Jun 15th, 2015 at 6:12pm Soren wrote on Jun 15th, 2015 at 12:50pm:
It's around 40% of the total atmospheric CO2. I think you're taking annual carbon emissions and not converting to CO2 or something like that. Let me see if I can work out what you're doing. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on Jun 15th, 2015 at 6:34pm
Right, so you're taking an annual emission of CO2 to atmosphere based on 2000 emission levels, and you are taking this as a proportion of positive fluxes, completely ignoring balancing fluxes, then you are taking a total atmospheric CO2 content and saying that this annual emission is a tiny fraction of the total.
Let me guess. Arithmetic was not one of your strong subjects at school? I don't know that for sure, because you may have lost a few brain cells since then. However, my previous conclusion seems valid enough. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Take an area of ocean. As it heats up, during the day, more CO2 is partitioned into the atmosphere. As it cools during the night (winters etc) it goes back into the sea. Now Soren here ( can I call you Mr Genius as a mark of respect?) thinks it's ok to regard the day time flux as an emission and totally disregard the balancing night time flux. Now I can forgive genuinely stupid people more than dishonest people. So are you stupid, dishonest or both? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Soren on Jun 15th, 2015 at 7:08pm John_Taverner wrote on Jun 15th, 2015 at 6:12pm:
Sorry about the 'higher order' maths, here are the baby steps: Total CO2 in atmosphere = 400 parts per million = 0.04% Proportion of total CO2 to emissions (550 Gt) that is human emission (26.4 Gt) = 4.8% of all CO2 in atmosphere. Human CO2 in atmosphere as proportion of all atmospheric gases = 4.8% of 0.040% = 0.00192% Figures are from the New Scientist. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1429976461/249#249 Get out your calculator and check. I could be wrong - but then you need to show that I am wrong, not just hint at it and nudge-nudge. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on Jun 15th, 2015 at 9:30pm
Read my previous post. The basic assumptions you make are wrong. For a start, why do you use the annual emissions for the year 2000?
Why do you even mention natural fluxes that are balanced, if not to deceive? (See the example I gave of diurnal and seasonal ocean related fluxes) You need to show the New Scientist link you used. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 16th, 2015 at 11:28am John_Taverner wrote on Jun 15th, 2015 at 6:34pm:
Is it really in balance? 'Fields of daytime and night-time transfer velocity are computed using wind speed observations from QuikSCAT. These fields are then used to compute monthly mean fields of the daytime sea-air CO2 flux, FD and the night-time flux, FN.The mean of these, FDN gives the monthly mean flux including covariance terms brought around by diurnal variations. The covariance terms themselves are given as the difference between FDN and F, where F is the flux computed from the monthly mean data.' http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004GL020583/pdf Why would you compute a mean when the fluxes are in balance? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on Jun 16th, 2015 at 12:19pm lee wrote on Jun 16th, 2015 at 11:28am:
You need to read up on it from a reputable site. i'm not responsible for your self education or lack of. Just think in terms of an annual natural flux to atmosphere of 550 Gt compared to an atmospheric inventory of say 820 Gt. if the natural fluxes were not in Balance, we'd be seeing 400ppm this year and 650 ppm the next. Try any NASA site on climatology if you want to learn more. I'd rather deal with just one crusty old ignoramus at a time please. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 16th, 2015 at 1:49pm
What makes you think onlinewiley is not a good site? Peer reviewed science. It's just not paywalled.
'Technique on a Temperate Mire in Poland' http://www.pjoes.com/pdf/21.3/Pol.J.Environ.Stud.Vol.21.No.3.643-658.pdf Or 'Terrestrial biosphere flux studies are often process based, using bottom-up models. However, this requires assumptions about the physical processes involved and models vary dramatically in terms of complexity. Models agree at continental scales, as current atmospheric monitoring provides adequate constraints at a large scale, however on the scale of biomes, (e.g., grasslands, forests) the models do not agree on seasonality or flux.' http://decadal.gsfc.nasa.gov/documents/12-30-08-ASCENDS_Workshop.pdf Of course that's models and the first one I posted was measurements. To which should I defer? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 16th, 2015 at 2:03pm
'John Wiley & Sons, Inc., also referred to as Wiley (NYSE: JW.A), is a global publishing company that specializes in academic publishing and markets its products to professionals and consumers, students and instructors in higher education, and researchers and practitioners in scientific, technical, medical, and scholarly fields. The company produces books, journals, and encyclopedias, in print and electronically, as well as online products and services,[3] training materials, and educational materials for undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education students.[4]'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wiley_%26_Sons Just for you. JT |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on Jun 16th, 2015 at 3:57pm
Nothing wrong with the source. The problem is that you lack the basic knowledge of climatology that most high school kids have these days.
So when it comes to interpreting this kind of thing, you are just not understanding the basics. It's ridiculous to regard a diurnal or a seasonal flux as an emission, but you just don't get that intuitively. What I said in my last post clearly went over your head, otherwise you'd be embarrassed at giving that nonsense any credence. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 16th, 2015 at 4:09pm
Jt, To which source are you referring? I've given so many.
Isn't balance part of the basics? Isn't diurnal day/night? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on Jun 16th, 2015 at 10:18pm lee wrote on Jun 16th, 2015 at 11:28am:
All johns is saying is that co2 is less soluble at higher temperature to see how indirect your argument gets, which you have done! You, sir, are Dr Strawman who fishes with red herring for bait ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) The kids love you as does Bjorn Lomborg and the out of fashion real estate guys with the moustaches and stories about the seventies ... don't mention their kids of course because they all messed up on the crack and pleaded for a bailout to keep looking cool and stuff but ya know,... Bronny and the out of date crowd still like to party and do old school cool stuff like COUNT MORE COIN AND SHITE ::) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on Jun 16th, 2015 at 10:21pm lee wrote on Jun 16th, 2015 at 4:09pm:
lee can't accept formula-e is here because he voted for copper internet and that means the kids have already promised to let him die alone in the nursing home... bye bye :-/ :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 17th, 2015 at 11:37am BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 16th, 2015 at 10:18pm:
No, John quite clearly refers to a 'balance'. ' and totally disregard the balancing night time flux. ' |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 17th, 2015 at 12:19pm
From the Royal Society-
'Speaking of the ‘hiatus’ in global warming that has been observed since the end of the 20th century, and the doubt that it has cast on climate change modelling – points which had been discussed at length at the Global Warming Policy Foundation event – Davies remarked: “They had two guys whose job it was to go around and persuade everyone that we’re all trying the ruin the economy. “We pinned them down on this hiatus… they were arguing that yes, there might have been a hiatus, but warming might be going into the ocean, or it could be due to volcanic activity. So we asked at what point would you begin to accept there had been no warming. If there is no warming for five years, or ten years? “Finally they conceded they would wait fifty years. “We asked would that be fifty years from now, or fifty years from 1997, when the hiatus started? They said they wouldn’t change their mind for fifty years from now.' http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/16/exclusive-well-all-be-dead-before-climate-change-orgs-admit-theyre-wrong-says-mp/ |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Rider on Jun 17th, 2015 at 12:42pm lee wrote on Jun 17th, 2015 at 12:19pm:
that is gobsmacking.....I bet they wouldn't wait 50 seconds if one of their confected reports using tortured data was produced showing 0.01degree increase though...which no doubt will be rolling off the ' |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 17th, 2015 at 12:46pm
It must be remembered AGW was proposed with less than 10 years of data.
Does 80 years (50+30) mean that is how long to determine AGW? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on Jun 17th, 2015 at 5:56pm
it doesn't surprise me that you think that it's based on global temperature data alone.
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 17th, 2015 at 6:03pm John_Taverner wrote on Jun 17th, 2015 at 5:56pm:
Sorry, to what are you referring? What does someone think is based on global temperature alone? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on Jun 17th, 2015 at 6:03pm lee wrote on Jun 16th, 2015 at 4:09pm:
Ok, I'll talk to one village idiot at a time. Read up on the basics at NASA or another reputable source, and don't go straight from kindy to university without gaining an understanding first. A Bachelor in Bullsh1t from Anthony Watts university doesn't cut it. When you think you're ready, let me know, although by then it would probably have become obvious to you. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 17th, 2015 at 6:07pm
So hilarious John.
Quoting Miriam - that's hardly a a uni thing. I used two posts. One showed actual measurements (data) which didn't back model predictions/prognostications/ projections and the other from NASA that said the modelled data didn't match reality. And it was you who referred me to NASA. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on Jun 17th, 2015 at 6:09pm lee wrote on Jun 17th, 2015 at 6:07pm:
I already told you that I have no idea who Mirium is. Does she post here? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 17th, 2015 at 6:31pm
Miriam O'Brien is sou, aka hotwhopper.
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 17th, 2015 at 6:34pm
BTW, I find it intriguing that you think you know me and my education or lack thereof.
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Dnarever on Jun 17th, 2015 at 6:42pm
Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Everyone know that Abbott and Liberals have many other positions on this topic all dependant on what you want to hear ? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Soren on Jun 17th, 2015 at 8:39pm John_Taverner wrote on Jun 15th, 2015 at 6:34pm:
So what proportion of the atmospheric CO2 is generated by humans? My calculations show that of the total ANNUAL CO2 emission into the atmosphere, 0.00192% is human generared. How long does it take for that 0.00192% of human generated CO2 to add up to 40% of atmospheric CO2? This time, you do the calculations. Your silly bluster about my arithmetic is just that, silly bluster. Prove me wrong, don't just whistle and shout. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 18th, 2015 at 12:03pm
John, You sound almost grown up.
Your repeated references to the NASA site lead me to conclude that has been the focus, channeled perhaps, of your school studies. The fact that you hadn't heard of onlinewiley, in fact responded, "You need to read up on it from a reputable site", leads me to conclude that you haven't done much research outside of NASA. There are a number of good sites out there. Also your unwavering support to Karl et al (2015), with its ludicrous p value of 10%, shows that your analysis of the paper was uncritical. Overall it tends to show complete faith in NASA, akin to religious fervour. That of course would mean, the letter from former astronauts and employees, should have them figuratively branded as heretics. http://www.livescience.com/19643-nasa-astronauts-letter-global-warming.html |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on Jun 18th, 2015 at 12:33pm Soren wrote on Jun 17th, 2015 at 8:39pm:
FFS. How old are you? 8? 10? Please learn something before posting on mummy and daddy's computer. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 18th, 2015 at 1:55pm
What are the margins of error on that picture? Has it been updated?
|
|
Title: Ought 1035 Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were corre Post by John_Taverner on Jun 18th, 2015 at 2:12pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Jun 18th, 2015 at 12:33pm:
I suspect that it's more like 70 or 80. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that "getting it" is not on their agenda. Soren, You are assuming very simplistically that all emitted CO2 adds to the atmospheric inventory. It does not. Roughly 1035 Gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent released between 1850 and 2000, and an additional 440 since then makes a total of 1475 Gt emitted as a result of human activities. As I said before, the total atmospheric inventory is around 850 Gt, and a proportion of the emitted CO2 ends up in carbon sinks as we know. Those sinks are slowly decreasing in capacity. The net anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 has been around 360 Gt. I'm happy for anybody to correct these figures. I'm not going to agonise about triple checking them. http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/how-many-gigatons-of-co2/ That's a good site that sums up emissions etc. Suggest you read so that you have some understanding of emissions. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on Jun 18th, 2015 at 2:34pm lee wrote on Jun 18th, 2015 at 1:55pm:
Thanks for pointing that out. The atmospheric inventory is now about 850 Gt, up from about 730Gt in the year 2000 and it's increasing by about 15Gt (to be confirmed) per year. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 18th, 2015 at 2:43pm
And yet global temperatures aren't going up in lockstep.
What about error margins, assumptions used? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on Jun 18th, 2015 at 3:00pm lee wrote on Jun 18th, 2015 at 2:43pm:
Lee, global heat contribution is increasing. The radiative forcing can be measured directly with high precision. You need to define what you mean by Global Temperatures, but there is always natural variation. It's like going uphill on a bumpy road. If you have an alternative hypothesis then please present it, but I suggest you start with the basics. The basis of AGW is not on historical data, but on well established first principles. basic physics. The data helps to refine our understanding. It's fine to be critical and sceptical of data. I have never accepted anything at face value and have always gone back to first principles. It's apparent that you are not as sceptical as I am, because your posts reveal that you haven't gone into the science in any depth. You need to learn more about the science in order to have a fully functioning bullsh1t meter. Yours is broken. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 18th, 2015 at 3:03pm John_Taverner wrote on Jun 18th, 2015 at 3:00pm:
You mean Climate models are true? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on Jun 18th, 2015 at 3:21pm
The basics. You don't even need climate models for that.
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 18th, 2015 at 3:30pm
Ahh, you mean the null hypothesis?
Or perhaps evidence of CO2 causing warming? I'd like to see a link to that. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by John_Taverner on Jun 18th, 2015 at 3:34pm lee wrote on Jun 18th, 2015 at 3:30pm:
Don't post Popplerian bull crud. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 18th, 2015 at 3:49pm
John, I realise absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But to be a theory, rather than conjecture; you need something.
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on Jun 18th, 2015 at 3:49pm
"...All heil Bjorn Lomborg ;D ;D !"
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on Jun 19th, 2015 at 1:24pm lee wrote on Jun 18th, 2015 at 3:03pm:
Climate models, like all models - are models. Neither 'true' nor 'false'. Some are more accurate than others - depending on the data used and assumptions made. Climate models have proven to be very accurate in predicting the observed warming: climate forecasts conducted in the 1990s have been quite accurate in simulating what happened since the year 2000. A study by Myles Allen and colleagues at Oxford University, for example, compared climate forecasts that begin in 1996 with the actual temperatures observed since. They found that the simulations accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade to within a few hundredths of a degree…. ...Advances in modelling also have enhanced scientists’ ability to separate natural causes from human activities’ influence on the climate system. Natural changes alone can’t explain the temperature changes that have occurred over the last 150 years. For instance, when climate models include only recorded natural climate drivers, such as the sun’s intensity, they cannot accurately reproduce the observed warming during the latter half of the 20th century. However, when scientists include human-induced climate drivers, such as carbon dioxide emissions, in their simulations, they accurately capture recent temperature increases in both the atmosphere and the oceans. http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html#.VYOKmOs9PKA |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on Jun 19th, 2015 at 1:36pm lee wrote on Jun 18th, 2015 at 2:43pm:
Who ever said that global temperatures will go up "in lockstep". Why did you feel the need to make something like that up? There are many natural drivers unrelated to AGW that have a greater impact on climate than AGW. This doesn't mean however that AGW is insignificant. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Rider on Jun 19th, 2015 at 2:03pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Jun 19th, 2015 at 1:36pm:
It kinda does actually. AGW is statistically irrelevant. The pathetic scaremongering and circular discussions funded by billions of dollars of tax payers money is however significant. If you'll excuse me I need to check the mailbox for the long overdue cheque from Big Oil, seem to have been overlooked again....I'm sure it'll turn up sooner or later. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 19th, 2015 at 3:52pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Jun 19th, 2015 at 1:24pm:
'There is medium confidence that the trend difference between models and observations during 1998–2012 is to a substantial degree caused by internal variability, with possible contributions from forcing error and some models overestimating the response to increasing greenhouse-gas forcing.' 'The simulation of clouds in climate models remains challenging. There is very high confidence that uncertainties in cloud processes explain much of the spread in modelled climate sensitivity.' http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter09.pdf From the underlying paper. So with these 'uncertainties', how were the models able to get so close? Must have been the 'forcings'. How does that make the models accurate? Adjust the 'forcings' to get the required outcome? Ahh, I see it - a re-analysis, using computer models to confirm the model results. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on Jun 19th, 2015 at 6:29pm Rider wrote on Jun 19th, 2015 at 2:03pm:
No. It doesn't Rider wrote on Jun 19th, 2015 at 2:03pm:
No. It isn't There is nothing "statistically irrelevant" about the increase in average global temperature, rise in sea level, ecosystem disruption and decline of the cryosphere that has been observed over recent decades. The observed impacts have been quite significant. Rider wrote on Jun 19th, 2015 at 2:03pm:
You mean like this?: ""Up close, they're (windmills) ugly, they're noisy and they may have all sorts of other impacts," Mr Abbott said…..It's right and proper that we're having an inquiry into the health impacts of these things," he said, referring to a current parliamentary inquiry initiated by crossbench senators. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-12/tony-abbott-launches-another-attack-against-wind-farms/6541952 Rider wrote on Jun 19th, 2015 at 2:03pm:
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on Jun 19th, 2015 at 6:37pm lee wrote on Jun 19th, 2015 at 3:52pm:
Yes. A model is a model. There is inherent uncertainty. What is your point? lee wrote on Jun 19th, 2015 at 3:52pm:
"Adjust the 'forcings' to get the required outcome?" Yes. that is called hind casting or backtesting. That is how models are developed and improved. Again - what is your point? You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you. lee wrote on Jun 19th, 2015 at 3:52pm:
I suggest you actually read that paper - rather than just trying to cherry pick things you 'think' support your ignorance (they don't) I am happy to help you if there are things you don't understand. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 19th, 2015 at 7:50pm
'During the last five years, for example, climate scientists have made dramatic advances (pdf) in their ability to track two key climate indicators—ocean heat content and Arctic sea ice seasonal cycles—and are confident that current models can reproduce surface temperature increases since 1870, including the rapid warming in the second half of the 20th century.'
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html#.VYPlAJQS06J Check the 'dramatic advances' link. You admit the uncertainties, but even with (or because) of those uncertainties, they are more sure than ever. Have the models been hindcast since the adjustments? There is nothing written to say that. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Rider on Jun 19th, 2015 at 8:44pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Jun 19th, 2015 at 6:29pm:
Oh bunny, when you have any evidence that any of the nonsense you spruik has anything to do with the miniscule amount of co2 man puts into the atmosphere I'll give you a carrot. Until then...go talk to the Pope. He's come on board your 'team' and you dregs are welcome to him, he'll fit in with you lot of closet totalitarians. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by gizmo_2655 on Jun 19th, 2015 at 8:49pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Jun 19th, 2015 at 1:36pm:
So, what actually IS the major driver of climate change if it's NOT, as you stated, humans??...could it be (gasp) natural???? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Rider on Jun 19th, 2015 at 8:55pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 19th, 2015 at 8:49pm:
Double..gasp...could it all be fiction created by Al Gore & Maurice Strong?? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Ajax on Jun 20th, 2015 at 10:28am John_Taverner wrote on Jun 18th, 2015 at 3:00pm:
The Earth always heats up and cools down. You are acting as though this is a first that the Earth heating up has never happened before. Get a grip ForFS. Climate change has been with us since day dot and will be with us until the Earth is no more. As for anthropogenic global warming it is insignificant. CO2 has never controlled temperature here on Earth and it never will. All the trace gases put together including CO2 only account for 1% of the greenhouse effect. 95% of the greenhouse effect here on Earth is caused by water vapour and clouds. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 20th, 2015 at 12:49pm John_Taverner wrote on Jun 18th, 2015 at 3:00pm:
What physics is used to determine climate sensitivity? John_Taverner wrote on Jun 18th, 2015 at 3:00pm:
Excluding the Karl et al paper. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 20th, 2015 at 12:53pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Jun 19th, 2015 at 1:24pm:
You mean engineering models if not 'true', are regurgitated and used again? A model that doesn't model reality is not false? Unbelievable. So that is why they use an unfalsifiable definition. The climate models are so good, they used an expert panel to determine the near future in AR5, they couldn't get the models to co-operate. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 11:57am Rider wrote on Jun 19th, 2015 at 8:44pm:
Well - here are 2 pieces of evidence - relating to the observed changes in downward and outgoing long wave radiation caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration that have been measured: Our findings demonstrate that the clear-sky OLR over tropical oceans was slightly decreasing over the last two decades (-0.09 ± 0.12 W m−2 decade-1) while the climate warmed. The decrease in the clear-sky OLR is not significant as it is within than the estimated stability of HIRS OLR. Conversely, the difference between the surface and TOA emission of longwave radiation, i.e., the greenhouse effect, increased significantly at the rate of +0.80 ± 0.13 W m−2 decade−1 over the satellite observation period (1982- 2004). We showed that the GHE increase is inconsistent with natural variability and only reproduced if simulations include anthropogenic forcing. https://skyros.locean-ipsl.upmc.fr/~ggalod/papers/GSDO2013_R2_v6.pdf Gastineau et al 2013 The decadal variations in global Ld under both clear and cloudy conditions at about 3200 stations from 1973 to 2008 are presented. We found that daily Ld increased at an average rate of 2.2 W m−2 per decade from 1973 to 2008. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD011800/abstract Wang 2009 - there are mountains more evidence - but I doubt that a denier like you would ever bother to read them. You are happy to believe whatever Bolty tells you. Can i have my carrot now? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 12:12pm
From the skyros paper-
'This problem has been partly addressed with radiative transfer calculations using reanalysis water vapor and temperature profiles (Slingo et al., 1998). However, such estimates rely heavily on reanalysis models and are not purely independent of the climate models used for climate projections.' So another re-analysis, models analysing models, but they do admit some shortcomings. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Ajax on Jun 27th, 2015 at 12:29pm
All the alarmists have is models which it appears are no better than crystal balls.
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Dnarever on Jun 27th, 2015 at 12:47pm Quote:
The conservatives are desperate to find something that Abbott and the Liberals have got right but this is barking up the wrong tree. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on Jun 29th, 2015 at 12:36pm lee wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 12:12pm:
Yes - the relatively short time period of TOA radiation data meant that there is a reasonable amount of uncertainty with the assessment of long term changes in TOA radiation. This is explained in the paper and the methodology used to address this shortcoming is explained. Are you going to pretend that this somehow renders all the rest of the findings of the paper irrelevant? Particularly the overall conslucion that: GHE increase is inconsistent with natural variability and only reproduced if simulations include anthropogenic forcing. Do you pick cherries for a living? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 29th, 2015 at 2:52pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Jun 29th, 2015 at 12:36pm:
What is the level of uncertainty? 20%, 50%,more? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by rabbitoh08 on Jun 29th, 2015 at 10:04pm lee wrote on Jun 29th, 2015 at 2:52pm:
The level of uncertainty of what? Would you like to be more specific. I am not going to waste my time on some monkey trying to pretend he understands what he is talking about. (BTW - yes - I know as well as you do that you are simply a monkey that has no idea what he is talking about) But hey - why don't you give it a shot anyway. Try to ask an intelligent question. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jun 30th, 2015 at 11:18am
Your the one who says "that there is a reasonable amount of uncertainty with the assessment of long term changes in TOA radiation."
A straightforward question; what is this reasonable amount of uncertainty? As you don't seem to know the answer; it may be unanswerable. An unknown. But that would make the paper claptrap. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on Jul 1st, 2015 at 4:08pm Ajax wrote on Jun 27th, 2015 at 12:29pm:
Therefore we should all believe, like Lomborg, that fossil fuels should be allowed to warm our kids earth by 3 degrees instead of 2. Great use of circular logic there crack-man! Is that why the kids don't come and see you anymore?? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by copperinternetISARORT on Jul 1st, 2015 at 4:11pm Ajax wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 10:28am:
It's about rates of change!! CO2 does control temperature on earth: how hot would it be if the earth had no CO2? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Ajax on Jul 11th, 2015 at 1:03pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 4:11pm:
CO2 contributes in a very small way, it certainly doesn't control temperature here on Earth dog breath how many times do you have to be told. Temperature controls the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere, and temperature is controlled by our sun, the orbit of the Earth, cosmic rays etc etc. If you think CO2 controls temperature here on Earth ...PROVE IT..??!! |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jul 11th, 2015 at 1:31pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 4:11pm:
How hot would it be if the Earth had no water vapour? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Pho Huc on Jul 15th, 2015 at 1:40pm Ajax wrote on Jul 11th, 2015 at 1:03pm:
2 links to sites publishing conclusions based on peer reviewed papers. One site giving a overview based on multiple scientific studies. google rtcc scientists-confirm-critical-link-between-co2-emissions-and-warming/ google nasa climate evidence. google planet seed. co2-and-temperature-change I am unable to post links directly for which i apologise. Proved to my satisfaction as a engineer with the proviso that its an analysis of a complex dynamic system with partially understood homeostatic mechanism. If you can provide me two published peer reviewed papers supporting your proposition that CO2 levels are a symptom as opposed to a cause of climate change and I will cede the point. Thats all I ask. two reputable peer reviewed articles. Not financed by a petrochemical company or fossil fuel producer. Since in your opinion the science on climate change is so weak that really shouldn't be a problem should it? I dont even understand why their is a debate. you are using a computer to access this site. The computer functions using processes predicted by physicists and refined by engineers. All this is done using scientific method, a system designed for removing human nuttyness from an evaluation process. The same scientific method is used for climate analysis Everyone doubts climate science. Especially climate scientists. The basis of science is to attack an idea until all weakness and flaws have been exposed. You then re-hypothesize based on the available data and re-test. When people cease being able to detect errors in a concept it generally accepted as "true", until proven erroneous. The more complex an idea the more difficult it is to prove it, and the easier it is to find flaws or inconsistencies in it. The first scientific link between CO2 levels and climate change was published in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius. Over the next 110 years scientists have honed and modified their models to provide a closer correlation between prediction and observation. After 110 years of global research by Scientists(any of whom would LOVE the acclaim that would come with disproving climate change) no theory has been accepted as plausible other than a CO2 driven climate cycle. Want a Nobel prize and a million bucks? then show me a alternate theory that satisfactorily explains current climate behavior and correlates with all the terabytes off data that has been collected over the past 100 years. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by lee on Jul 15th, 2015 at 8:45pm
'Carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas: water vapour also plays a role, along with oxides of nitrogen and methane or natural gas.'
- See more at: http://www.rtcc.org/2015/03/02/scientists-confirm-critical-link-between-co2-emissions-and-warming/#sthash.nDpqQYXX.dpuf And water vapour is a much larger part of the atmosphere than CO2. Their IR bands overlap. How do you then differentiate between the two? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Ajax on Jul 15th, 2015 at 9:14pm Pho Huc wrote on Jul 15th, 2015 at 1:40pm:
It doesn't matter what peer reviewed papers are saying because the observations vs the predictions have seen these papers sail into the rubbish bin. If you still pin your hopes on computer climate models that cannot predict tomorrows weather let alone 100 years worth of climate change. Then my friend you are an alarmist and must obviously be on that gravy train known as AGW. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by oHTheStenchofCopperInternet on Jul 21st, 2015 at 12:22pm lee wrote on Jul 11th, 2015 at 1:31pm:
There would be no water vapour without CO2 as CO2 holds the heat in! :D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by oHTheStenchofCopperInternet on Jul 21st, 2015 at 12:27pm Ajax wrote on Jul 11th, 2015 at 1:03pm:
Dog Breath am I? You don't even understand how the green-house effect works: year 9s in high school would laugh at you! CO2 traps the heat! You don't even know what temperature is :D :D :D :D :D :D :D Science is consensus and that's because it starts with nomenclature!! So cum get me buddy because we all know you love me long time: the only reason we all come to this forum is to watch me own you over and over and over again :) :) :) (..and you love it don't you ya dirty little _____ ;) ) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Post by Dnarever on Jul 21st, 2015 at 12:35pm lee wrote on Jul 11th, 2015 at 1:31pm:
It wouldn't matter how hot it was nobody would be here. |
|
Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2! YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2026. All Rights Reserved. |
