Australian Politics Forum - Global Warming's terrifying new maths

tonegunman1

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 427

Re: Global Warming's terrifying new maths
Reply #135 - Jul 28^th, 2012 at 5:23pm

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 2:39pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 1:18pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 9:56am:

Tonegunman1, how about you provide some context to the graph you've just posted.

I forgot you have trouble reading/understanding/comprehending/evaluating/discerning/....
Ignorant twat.

No need to be rude. I'm quite certain I can do all those things, how about you have a go a putting your argument into words.

Drop the lecturing, patronizing tone then.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Global Warming's terrifying new maths
Reply #136 - Jul 28^th, 2012 at 9:41pm

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 5:18pm:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 2:09pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 1:18pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 9:56am:

Tonegunman1, how about you provide some context to the graph you've just posted.

I forgot you have trouble reading/understanding/comprehending/evaluating/discerning/....
Ignorant twat.

What I discern from the graph is that there is a clear and undeniable correlation between CO2 and global temperature.

What do you discern from it?

Really...then you can tell which of the two come first.

If you asked a climate scientist they would tell you the temperature increase came first.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Global Warming's terrifying new maths
Reply #137 - Jul 28^th, 2012 at 9:49pm

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 5:23pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 2:39pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 1:18pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 9:56am:

Tonegunman1, how about you provide some context to the graph you've just posted.

I forgot you have trouble reading/understanding/comprehending/evaluating/discerning/....
Ignorant twat.

No need to be rude. I'm quite certain I can do all those things, how about you have a go a putting your argument into words.

Drop the lecturing, patronizing tone then.

How about you explain how that graph represents cherry picking. And if you have a problem with cherry picking you must admit Schmidt has very little credibility.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

tonegunman1

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 427

Re: Global Warming's terrifying new maths
Reply #138 - Jul 28^th, 2012 at 9:56pm

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 9:41pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 5:18pm:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 2:09pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 1:18pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 9:56am:

Tonegunman1, how about you provide some context to the graph you've just posted.

I forgot you have trouble reading/understanding/comprehending/evaluating/discerning/....
Ignorant twat.

What I discern from the graph is that there is a clear and undeniable correlation between CO2 and global temperature.

What do you discern from it?

Really...then you can tell which of the two come first.

If you asked a climate scientist they would tell you the temperature increase came first.

Exactly.

Back to top

IP Logged

Prevailing Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 7169 Stop Men	Re: Global Warming's terrifying new maths Reply #139 - Jul 28^th, 2012 at 10:03pm Its time we cracked down on international trade with stiff import duties and tariffs then isn't it./...
Back to top	I condemn Male Violence Against Women The Government Supports Gynocide There Is Something Dreadfully Wrong With Men IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Global Warming's terrifying new maths
Reply #140 - Jul 28^th, 2012 at 10:07pm

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 9:56pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 9:41pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 5:18pm:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 2:09pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 1:18pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 9:56am:

Tonegunman1, how about you provide some context to the graph you've just posted.

I forgot you have trouble reading/understanding/comprehending/evaluating/discerning/....
Ignorant twat.

What I discern from the graph is that there is a clear and undeniable correlation between CO2 and global temperature.

What do you discern from it?

Really...then you can tell which of the two come first.

If you asked a climate scientist they would tell you the temperature increase came first.

Exactly.

So what is your point.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

tonegunman1

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 427

Re: Global Warming's terrifying new maths
Reply #141 - Jul 28^th, 2012 at 10:11pm

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 9:49pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 5:23pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 2:39pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 1:18pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 9:56am:

Tonegunman1, how about you provide some context to the graph you've just posted.

I forgot you have trouble reading/understanding/comprehending/evaluating/discerning/....
Ignorant twat.

No need to be rude. I'm quite certain I can do all those things, how about you have a go a putting your argument into words.

Drop the lecturing, patronizing tone then.

How about you explain how that graph represents cherry picking. And if you have a problem with cherry picking you must admit Schmidt has very little credibility.

I have a problem with anyone presenting a geological timescale eyeblink to purport to prove a "point" that is not only not supported but contradicted by the known record when you look at long term trends and patterns.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: Global Warming's terrifying new maths Reply #142 - Jul 28^th, 2012 at 10:28pm So what you are saying is that because of the time frame AGW is impossible to prove. That's awkward if the climate scientists are right and AGW is actualy happening.
Back to top	Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings "What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions." IP Logged

tonegunman1

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 427

Re: Global Warming's terrifying new maths
Reply #143 - Jul 28^th, 2012 at 11:06pm

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 10:07pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 9:56pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 9:41pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 5:18pm:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 2:09pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 1:18pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 9:56am:

Tonegunman1, how about you provide some context to the graph you've just posted.

I forgot you have trouble reading/understanding/comprehending/evaluating/discerning/....
Ignorant twat.

What I discern from the graph is that there is a clear and undeniable correlation between CO2 and global temperature.

What do you discern from it?

Really...then you can tell which of the two come first.

If you asked a climate scientist they would tell you the temperature increase came first.

Exactly.

So what is your point.

So temperature rise comes first and is followed some time later by the rise in CO2 that "caused" it. Is that your point?

Back to top

IP Logged

tonegunman1

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 427

Re: Global Warming's terrifying new maths
Reply #144 - Jul 28^th, 2012 at 11:47pm

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 10:28pm:

So what you are saying is that because of the time frame AGW is impossible to prove. That's awkward if the climate scientists are right and AGW is actualy happening.

Also awkward if they're wrong. I'm not saying it's impossible to prove either but it requires a bit more effort than pointing to a thermometer and saying that any rise is attributable to anthropogenic sources where during the course of the last half million years or so it has been hotter with no deforestation and no fossil fuel use on several occasions. These spikes are not explained well by earth's orbital variation. And by spike they are invariably followed by steep declines in temperatures often with CO2 still high and increasing.
It does not matter in any case because despite anything Australia does fossil fuel use will increase on a global scale. So we can argue as long as we like it will change nothing.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Global Warming's terrifying new maths
Reply #145 - Jul 29^th, 2012 at 6:54am

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 11:06pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 10:07pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 9:56pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 9:41pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 5:18pm:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 2:09pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 1:18pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 9:56am:

Tonegunman1, how about you provide some context to the graph you've just posted.

I forgot you have trouble reading/understanding/comprehending/evaluating/discerning/....
Ignorant twat.

What I discern from the graph is that there is a clear and undeniable correlation between CO2 and global temperature.

What do you discern from it?

Really...then you can tell which of the two come first.

If you asked a climate scientist they would tell you the temperature increase came first.

Exactly.

So what is your point.

So temperature rise comes first and is followed some time later by the rise in CO2 that "caused" it. Is that your point?

It depends on the point of time you are talking about. There is no doubt CO2 has warming properties. Our satellites have measured a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. In the past changes in atmospheric CO2 have largely been determined by changes in global temperature. Generally orbital forcings have pushed up northern hemisphere temperatures reducing the albedo effect and releasing trapped greenhouse gases from the thawing Arctic tundra. These feedback effects explain why the warming in the past was global in nature. So in the past temperature led CO2 which led to further warming then more CO2 and so on.

Today, we are responsible for kick starting this warming process. Nature doesnt care who put the extra CO2 into the atmosphere, it just responds as it always has.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

Upton Sinclair

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 496

Re: Global Warming's terrifying new maths
Reply #146 - Jul 29^th, 2012 at 10:06am

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 11:06pm:

So temperature rise comes first and is followed some time later by the rise in CO2 that "caused" it. Is that your point?

Well to follow your point to its logical conclusion then you must believe that it is a change in temperature that caused us to start digging billions of tonnes of carbon up and burning it to release the CO2 back into the atmosphere.

So, clearly, that hasn't happened which suggests sometimes things OTHER than slight changes in temperature can cause the initial outgas of CO2 - and if there is one thing we CAN clearly discern from the graph that you posted it is that CO2 amplifies warming.

So unless you ARE suggesting that a temperature change caused us to dig up coal and oil then you have to acknowledge that CO2 rises sometimes do lead temperature changes and that in this instance human activity has been the catalyst for an outgassng of CO2 that will result in significant warming. Either that or you deny the clear and undeniable correlation between CO2 and temperature during past climatic changes.

Back to top

"I am not asking the Australian people to take me on trust, but on the record of a lifetime,"
--Tony Abbott

IP Logged

tonegunman1

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 427

Re: Global Warming's terrifying new maths
Reply #147 - Jul 29^th, 2012 at 3:43pm

MOTR wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 6:54am:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 11:06pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 10:07pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 9:56pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 9:41pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 5:18pm:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 2:09pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 1:18pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 9:56am:

Tonegunman1, how about you provide some context to the graph you've just posted.

I forgot you have trouble reading/understanding/comprehending/evaluating/discerning/....
Ignorant twat.

What I discern from the graph is that there is a clear and undeniable correlation between CO2 and global temperature.

What do you discern from it?

Really...then you can tell which of the two come first.

If you asked a climate scientist they would tell you the temperature increase came first.

Exactly.

So what is your point.

So temperature rise comes first and is followed some time later by the rise in CO2 that "caused" it. Is that your point?

It depends on the point of time you are talking about. There is no doubt CO2 has warming properties. Our satellites have measured a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. In the past changes in atmospheric CO2 have largely been determined by changes in global temperature. Generally orbital forcings have pushed up northern hemisphere temperatures reducing the albedo effect and releasing trapped greenhouse gases from the thawing Arctic tundra. These feedback effects explain why the warming in the past was global in nature. So in the past temperature led CO2 which led to further warming then more CO2 and so on.

Today, we are responsible for kick starting this warming process. Nature doesnt care who put the extra CO2 into the atmosphere, it just responds as it always has.

Thank you for a considered reply.
The first part you make the point that satellite measurement of reductions in the radiation spectrum associated with CO2 and CH4 and this has one effect to the extent that higher temperatures can cause release of these into the atmosphere through melting. Higher water temperatures also hold less gas in solution. Not sure what you are getting at with line about explaining why warming in the past was global in nature. You seem to be implying that warming now is not global. Anyway we can agree that increasing temperature can drive more CO2 into the atmosphere so we have an associated effect. It is not the case that there is here a pure cause and effect although there may be some contribution of indeterminate magnitude. This is overcome at various points in any case with despite high and increasing CO2 we have a climate that begins to rapidly cool.We are here in the realm of what has in the past been natural.
If the process has been "kick started" and causation is purely speculation without separating out the proportional anthropogenic contribution, it will run to it's logical conclusion whatever that is and there can be no measures to prevent it.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Global Warming's terrifying new maths
Reply #148 - Jul 29^th, 2012 at 3:52pm

I'm not implying that warming today is not global in nature. I'm pointing out the mechanism through which an increase in the northern hemisphere temperatures spread to the southern hemisphere. I was assuming you watched the video I posted earlier.

Secondly, we certainly can't stop the warming already in the system. What we can do is not start the next cycle. If we keep on increasing atmospheric CO2 we will continue to increase the terminal temperature.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

tonegunman1

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 427

Re: Global Warming's terrifying new maths
Reply #149 - Jul 29^th, 2012 at 3:55pm

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 10:06am:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 11:06pm:

So temperature rise comes first and is followed some time later by the rise in CO2 that "caused" it. Is that your point?

Well to follow your point to its logical conclusion then you must believe that it is a change in temperature that caused us to start digging billions of tonnes of carbon up and burning it to release the CO2 back into the atmosphere.

So, clearly, that hasn't happened which suggests sometimes things OTHER than slight changes in temperature can cause the initial outgas of CO2 - and if there is one thing we CAN clearly discern from the graph that you posted it is that CO2 amplifies warming.

So unless you ARE suggesting that a temperature change caused us to dig up coal and oil then you have to acknowledge that CO2 rises sometimes do lead temperature changes and that in this instance human activity has been the catalyst for an outgassng of CO2 that will result in significant warming. Either that or you deny the clear and undeniable correlation between CO2 and temperature during past climatic changes.

1. To follow your post to it's logical conclusion you're an utter fukwit.

2. Of course there are other things apart from temperature that cause CO2 to be released. The graph however does not show that CO2 amplifies warming otherwise temperature would not fall, it shows an association...see point 1.

3. Your last paragraph...see point 1.

Back to top

IP Logged