AGW Denialists like to cherry pick data to suit their propaganda based and fossil fuel industry funded models

Take for example the classic CHOPPED graph that shows a correlation between cyclical sun spot activity and global warming trends


And why does the graph mysteriously stop at around 1980? Well let's take a look at the rest of the data folks.


Oh dear there seems to be an upward global warming trend after 1980 but the solar radiation variation curve just doesn't match. We will have to just leave it out. Nobody will notice in the mass media. It's not as if we are publishing the first propaganda graph in a peer reviewed scientific journal

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 9^th, 2011 at 10:36pm:



Quantum physics has what bearing on climate science?

The statistical aggregation of weather measurements is the climate. That is all it is. A rainy climate is one where you have to take a umbrella with you in the morning more often.

Soren wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 12:04pm:

Glad you cleared that up

Obviously you lack a basic scientific grounding or training

(Do you know what changes in average global temperature is required in order to trigger an ice age or indeed a major ice melt phase on the earth? - didnt think so. If we burnt ALL the known fossil fuel reserves in the earths crust how much of the atmospheric molecular oxygen content will be consumed? Both of these question are high school level chemistry and phsyics questions. 5 marks each you have 30 minutes)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 3:55pm:


Did you understand the question?

Do you know why the molecular Oxygen level in todays atmosphere is about 21%?

How did it get to that level and WHY?

How is the fossil fuel reserve related to the O2 level in the earths atmosphere?

As a greedy species we have burnt less than 1% of the total fossil fuel reserves on this planet

If we buirn approx 5% of the fossil fuel reserves we would ramp up the atmospheric CO2 level to approx 1% (or 10,000 ppmv)

Under those CO2 levels the earths average surface temperature would increase to about the boiling point of water (~100degC)

although we would vanish from the scene well before that.

So my question to you is HOW MUCH FOSSIL FUEL DO YOU WISH TO BURN AND WHAT CO2 LEVEL IN THE EARTHS ATMOSPHERE ARE YOU WILLING TO TOLERATE BEFORE YOU FRY OR MELT?

(or another way of posing that question is "why are you willing to cook your future progeny and relatives?")

Gizmo,
Can I ask what your scientific background is exaclty?

(just wondering whether you inderstand the difference between the dynamic Carbon cycle that is essentially biologically based and the naturally sequestered and STABLE/STATIC carbon in the earths crust)

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 4:58pm:



That is precisely the sort of question the pope asked Giordano Bruno -what are your quals to argue?


Or as AGW alarmists are asking everywhere - why don't they believe us?

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 3:46pm:



Look, piling on the stupidity won't help you.

Climate science is the statistical analysis of the weather.  Climate science has abolutely no data other than measurements of various aspects of the weather. Getting all po-faced and snooty about high school science will not disguise your inability to think.

Soren wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 7:32pm:


Let us summarise the nuerotic conspiracy based paranoia of a typical crack pot AGW DENILIAST cult priest.

1. On the Sabbath of the combustion of oil and its derivitives there shalt not emmiteth the gas known in dueteronomy as Carbon Dioxide.

2. Such a gas is NOT increasing in the earths atmosphere as a direct result of such human activites.

3. The gas known as CO2 is not a greenhouse gas

4. THe planets average surface temperature is not increasing

5. EXXON knows best

6. How do I vote fo John Howard again - our most beloved mentor and AGW DENIALIST high priest?

(Axioms 7 and 9 are ommitted due to Psychiatric orders issued against the Church of AGW DENILIASM which has also refused to inlcude an 8th Axiom - ooooh mysterious)
   

Have fun Foolosophy. My approach of attempting to explain the science from all angles is clearly not working.

Soren wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 7:06pm:


Soren - its a simple question - What is your background in science or climatology?

You were not Forbidden to comment or express an opinion.

Its just that when I need an medical opinion on a tooth ache that I have I dont go to my local mechanic.

Your juvernile attempt to avoid the question SAYS VOLUMES.

No more questions your honor

The witness is excused from the box

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 11:34pm:


Read the rest of the thread. It's a difficult process because I was trying to get some buy-in at each stage. First of all I explained how the greenhouse effect actually works in terms of greenhouse gases  dispersing long wave infrared radiation that would otherwise have escaped into space, then I discussed the actual quantities of carbon dioxide produced using coal and oil production figures in giga tonnes, and demonstrated that it was of the same order of the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere (taking into account that a proportion is absorbed into ocean sinks etc).

We have at least one poster here who can follow the scientific argument quite well.

In my experience ridiculing somebody's position on the matter is probably counter productive, and we just end up with a slanging match, making it difficult for somebody else. We need to demonstrate how the science backs it up, and it's possible to do that using neutral, non-emotive language and without resorting to "appeal to authority". (eg. 2000 Climate scientists can't be wrong, or "what are your qualifications in climate science?")  

Unless you're getting into the details of climate sensitivity and the derivation of radiative forcing equations, it can all be explained by basic science. Now feel free to continue as you are, but I just offered a more constructive approach, although it does take some effort.  

Other people read these threads.  A lot of people in the general community are confused by the various views that are put across. You just have to look at the newspaper reports to see that. An example was an article that asked (paraphrased)  "What do you tell your kids about Climate Change with all the confusing information that's going around?"

Our challenge is to explain it in simple indisputable terms, one mouthful at a time.  Now I know that takes a bit more time and effort, but I think it's worth it.    

Please don't take this as a criticism. I was there once.

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 9:11pm:



How is all this drivel a response to anything?

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 13^th, 2011 at 9:32pm:


I know what you mean, but let's do it on another thread as opposed to the Climate Science thread . Not everybody who reads these posts is a 'flat earther'.

Ok, I've split this off the Climate Science thread.

ThripD wrote on Mar 14^th, 2011 at 5:08pm:


A certain lake in Cameroon? Is that the Cameroon that is the leading generator of antropogenic CO2 due to its massive steel and manufacturing industries?
Or the Cameroon that has a lake next to a volcano leaking CO2?

Soren wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 7:06pm:


So I gather from your frothing at the mouth in religious tongues that you are not willing to entertain an answer to this simple question?

You have an interesting technique of avoiding the facts and answering questions.

Why would you need to hide behind this childish technique?

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 14^th, 2011 at 10:18pm:




Are you related to Lestat?
I think we should be told.


You ARE! I knew it, I knew it!!!

Quote:

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 15^th, 2011 at 10:23am:


Q.1 Estimate the change in average global surface temperature should the atmospheric CO2 concentration rise to a level of 1000 ppmv. [25 Marks - 30 minutes]
[/quote]
a LOT

Quote:


a LOT

Quote:


it influences it a LOT.

Quote:



Very bad, VERY BAD indeed.

Nearly 14,000 tons of waste are now produced each day in Guangzhou, which has a population of more than 10 million. Of that, about 11,000 tons is buried in four landfills, while the rest (3,000 TONNES) is burned in two large incinerators, he said.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-02/18/content_12036001.htm



Q. How many tonnes of rubbish do they burn in China (assuming Guangzhou as the norm across the land) per year? (pop. 1.3 billion)

Trick question: do they release the fumes into the atmosphere?

Supplementary trick question: whatcha gonna do about it??

In Soren's defense, I don't think he's against renewable energy judging from his previous posts.  


Quote:


As long as it complies with the rules of the board, go for it.  Don't leave everybody guessing.

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 15^th, 2011 at 4:19pm:


Well, we seem to be importing an awful lot of them. Is it some sort of we-are-the-world outreach? A Colombo-plan to teach them how to be wasteful, decadent Australians?

We should start deporting them all, no? Back to those non-decadent, frugal,  thoughtfully Carbon emitting cantons of China (and states of India etc)?

That's what you should say if you wanted to be consistent but being you - vain,  preening, muddle-headed - consistency is, of course, unforgivably non-diverse. Having diverse, logically incompatible views is a must for prancing, my-virtue-is-bigger-than-yours 'progressives'. For you it's a triumph, for me, a tragedy, that there are millions of you.

There are no aboriginal owners of this country.
There are aboriginal property owners in this country.
Not the same thing.