Australian Politics Forum - Climate Change is back on

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #195 - Mar 10^th, 2013 at 10:25pm

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 8:55pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 8:35pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 7:11pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 6:46pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 2:22pm:

AGW unproven = doomsday cultists are faith based believers.

Can you explain to us why you blindly believe the Daliy Mail columnists silly opinion piece about "no global warming for 17 years"

when:
oceans continue to warm?
sea levels continue to rise?
the arctic ice cap continues to decrease?
global glacial mass balance continues to decrease?
every single one of the past 17 years has had an average surface temperature above the long term average.

Why are these things happening if - as your guru from the Daily Mail claims - there has been "no warming for 17 years"

You keep running away from this question. Why?
Can't your guru from the Daily Mail answer it?

I guess this is the problem when you get all of your opinions from journalists and shock jocks, isn't it.

When faced with a simple question based on logic - it all falls apart and makes you look like an idiot.

Please tell us why:
oceans continue to warm
sea levels continue to rise
the arctic ice cap continues to decrease
global glacial mass balance continues to decrease
every single one of the past 17 years has had an average surface temperature above the long term average.

if there has been "no warming for 17 years"

don't run away again. Try to answer this time.

I dont see where you get this david rose thing from. I refer to math. 0.5 = 0.5 and I have already answered this same question 3 times now and you just ignore it, so stuff u

No you haven't "answered this same question 3 times now". Don't tell lies.

If you had you would link to where you have done this.

But you can't can you. You are just trying to run away again.

Please answer the question:

Please tell us why:
oceans continue to warm
sea levels continue to rise
the arctic ice cap continues to decrease
global glacial mass balance continues to decrease
every single one of the past 17 years has had an average surface temperature above the long term average.

if there has been "no warming for 17 years"

Or if you claim to have "answered this same question 3 times now" - show us an example. Show us you are not telling lies.

oh ffs. For the 4th time. These questions you ask me do not relate to my statement at all. If you have a question that relates to my statement of 0.5 equaling 0.5 and you have some new research that says 0.5 does not in fact equal 0.5, then bring it on. Otherwise, take your cultist BS to someone else.

If you want to learn, look for lag, short wave radiation, black carbon, the sun ect but dont bother with co2, it just doesnt have a large enough impact and dont bother asking me these questions again unless it relates to a statement I make.

Well that's new. A Gish gallop. Still not an answer, progs. And not nearly as entertaining as Lord Monckton.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 10^th, 2013 at 10:34pm by MOTR »

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

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #196 - Mar 10^th, 2013 at 10:39pm

MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 10:25pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 8:55pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 8:35pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 7:11pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 6:46pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 2:22pm:

AGW unproven = doomsday cultists are faith based believers.

Can you explain to us why you blindly believe the Daliy Mail columnists silly opinion piece about "no global warming for 17 years"

when:
oceans continue to warm?
sea levels continue to rise?
the arctic ice cap continues to decrease?
global glacial mass balance continues to decrease?
every single one of the past 17 years has had an average surface temperature above the long term average.

Why are these things happening if - as your guru from the Daily Mail claims - there has been "no warming for 17 years"

You keep running away from this question. Why?
Can't your guru from the Daily Mail answer it?

I guess this is the problem when you get all of your opinions from journalists and shock jocks, isn't it.

When faced with a simple question based on logic - it all falls apart and makes you look like an idiot.

Please tell us why:
oceans continue to warm
sea levels continue to rise
the arctic ice cap continues to decrease
global glacial mass balance continues to decrease
every single one of the past 17 years has had an average surface temperature above the long term average.

if there has been "no warming for 17 years"

don't run away again. Try to answer this time.

I dont see where you get this david rose thing from. I refer to math. 0.5 = 0.5 and I have already answered this same question 3 times now and you just ignore it, so stuff u

No you haven't "answered this same question 3 times now". Don't tell lies.

If you had you would link to where you have done this.

But you can't can you. You are just trying to run away again.

Please answer the question:

Please tell us why:
oceans continue to warm
sea levels continue to rise
the arctic ice cap continues to decrease
global glacial mass balance continues to decrease
every single one of the past 17 years has had an average surface temperature above the long term average.

if there has been "no warming for 17 years"

Or if you claim to have "answered this same question 3 times now" - show us an example. Show us you are not telling lies.

oh ffs. For the 4th time. These questions you ask me do not relate to my statement at all. If you have a question that relates to my statement of 0.5 equaling 0.5 and you have some new research that says 0.5 does not in fact equal 0.5, then bring it on. Otherwise, take your cultist BS to someone else.

If you want to learn, look for lag, short wave radiation, black carbon, the sun ect but dont bother with co2, it just doesnt have a large enough impact and dont bother asking me these questions again unless it relates to a statement I make.

Well that's new. A Gish gallop. Still not an answer, progs. And not nearly as entertaining as Lord Monckton.

Its not an answer (to what rabbit wants) because it isnt a question in relation to anything I said. If he wants those questions answered, then I suggest he relates it properly or starts a new thread. Dont tell me you are slipping as well. I know it is easier to go with rabbit because you are in the same cult, but you dont normally seem 100% gone and troppo.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: Climate Change is back on Reply #197 - Mar 10^th, 2013 at 10:48pm Rabbitoh isn't the least bit crazy. He is just expecting an answer to a straight forward question. How could the warming have paused when the evidence clearly tells us otherwise.
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

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #198 - Mar 10^th, 2013 at 10:52pm

MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 10:48pm:

Rabbitoh isn't the least bit crazy. He is just expecting an answer to a straight forward question. How could the warming have paused when the evidence clearly tells us otherwise.

Yes but my statements are on empirical data of the atmospheric temperature data. 0.5 does equal 0.5. No amount of complaining that some ice somewhere is melting, is going to change that.

If he wants the question answered, then he should do as I said earlier. I am not going to entertain rabbits wishful thinking.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #199 - Mar 10^th, 2013 at 10:57pm

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 10:52pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 10:48pm:

Rabbitoh isn't the least bit crazy. He is just expecting an answer to a straight forward question. How could the warming have paused when the evidence clearly tells us otherwise.

Yes but my statements are on empirical data of the atmospheric temperature data. 0.5 does equal 0.5. No amount of complaining that some ice somewhere is melting, is going to change that.

If he wants the question answered, then he should do as I said earlier. I am not going to entertain rabbits wishful thinking.

Of course 0.5 equals 0.5. What's 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

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #200 - Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:10pm

MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 10:57pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 10:52pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 10:48pm:

Rabbitoh isn't the least bit crazy. He is just expecting an answer to a straight forward question. How could the warming have paused when the evidence clearly tells us otherwise.

Yes but my statements are on empirical data of the atmospheric temperature data. 0.5 does equal 0.5. No amount of complaining that some ice somewhere is melting, is going to change that.

If he wants the question answered, then he should do as I said earlier. I am not going to entertain rabbits wishful thinking.

Of course 0.5 equals 0.5. What's your point.

After all this time, after stating it so often, I will just be indirect and say it is something similar to the below

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #201 - Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:19pm

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 9^th, 2013 at 3:04pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 9^th, 2013 at 10:28am:

It doesn't help misrepresenting my position.

I've made my position very clear. A statistical pause in surface temperatures does not represent a pause in global warming.

The physics has not changes. Our oceans are heating up and it won't be long before some of this heat is transferred to our atmosphere.

I can't find any fault in Rabbitoh's argument.

It seems, Longy, that your whole argument is based on Lloyd's paraphrasing.

It would be very easy for you to prove otherwise.

this entire debate has nothing to do with your position. it actually boils down to whether or not you believe the IPCC cheif said there had been apause of 17 years in warming, he did. you've seen the quotes. Hansen also accepts it. This stupid deabte isnt on what the pause means or even unbelievably if the pause has happened but rather did the IPCC day it had happened.

BTW your first sentence acknowledges it has happened. So how can you possibly support rabbit-turds and his idiotic circular argument?

Hansen certainly doesn't accept that there has been a pause in global warming. Rajendra Pachauri has not said there has been a pause in global warming. Both accept there has been a statistical pause in atmospheric surface temperatures. However, both also believe there is a heat imbalance between the incoming solar energy and the outgoing heat, ipso facto they must also believe our planet is still accumulating heat. Unlike you, they also trust the data which tells them our oceans are still warming. That is why you will not find a direct quote of them saying global warming has paused. Why would they. Unlike you, they accept the data that is used to construct the graph below. Good luck finding a direct quote, longy.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:25pm by MOTR »

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: Climate Change is back on
Reply #202 - Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:33pm

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:10pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 10:57pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 10:52pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 10:48pm:

Rabbitoh isn't the least bit crazy. He is just expecting an answer to a straight forward question. How could the warming have paused when the evidence clearly tells us otherwise.

Yes but my statements are on empirical data of the atmospheric temperature data. 0.5 does equal 0.5. No amount of complaining that some ice somewhere is melting, is going to change that.

If he wants the question answered, then he should do as I said earlier. I am not going to entertain rabbits wishful thinking.

Of course 0.5 equals 0.5. What's your point.

After all this time, after stating it so often, I will just be indirect and say it is something similar to the below

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02505/guide_2505022c.jpg

So your point is that there has been a statistical pause in global atmospheric surface temperatures over the past 17 years or so. Big deal, progs. We had a decline that lasted 21 years, during this current anthropogenic warming phase. The rise in atmospheric surface temperatures has not been monotonic and is not expected to be monotonic.

The clear evidence is that the heat is accumulating in our oceans.

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

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #203 - Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:33pm

MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:19pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 9^th, 2013 at 3:04pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 9^th, 2013 at 10:28am:

It doesn't help misrepresenting my position.

I've made my position very clear. A statistical pause in surface temperatures does not represent a pause in global warming.

The physics has not changes. Our oceans are heating up and it won't be long before some of this heat is transferred to our atmosphere.

I can't find any fault in Rabbitoh's argument.

It seems, Longy, that your whole argument is based on Lloyd's paraphrasing.

It would be very easy for you to prove otherwise.

this entire debate has nothing to do with your position. it actually boils down to whether or not you believe the IPCC cheif said there had been apause of 17 years in warming, he did. you've seen the quotes. Hansen also accepts it. This stupid deabte isnt on what the pause means or even unbelievably if the pause has happened but rather did the IPCC day it had happened.

BTW your first sentence acknowledges it has happened. So how can you possibly support rabbit-turds and his idiotic circular argument?

Hansen certainly doesn't accept that there has been a pause in global warming. Rajendra Pachauri has not said there has been a pause in global warming. Both accept there has been a statistical pause in atmospheric surface temperatures. However, both also believe there is a heat imbalance between the incoming solar energy and the outgoing heat, ipso facto they must also believe our planet is still accumulating heat. Unlike you, they also trust the data which tells them our oceans are still warming. That is why you will not find a direct quote of them saying global warming has paused. Why would they. Unlike you, they accept the data that is used to construct the graph below. Good luck finding a direct quote, longy.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ur4VMLmj7BQ/URW7c1Pr_MI/AAAAAAAACbE/WsEkNXWEGH4/s1600/...

Come on motr. You should know that co2 is in the atmosphere where it can supposedly do the damage. The GHG right. If the atmosphere is not warming further, then the less that 1mm (actually micron, less than a human hair) penetration of back radiation is going to be flat (if you believe it does anything). The ocean simply isnt going to warm at the same rate is it. It is going to have a trend change. There isnt a trend change according to you. Couple that with the co2 in the atmosphere will be the first indicator of the what warming affect it is having. Oceans will be the last indicator of what co2 is doing because the atmosphere is directly affected, the oceans are an after affect.

So if the atmosphere is flat, then co2 is not doing what it is supposed to be doing, hence the models need to go back to the drawing board, because we didnt know what we thought we did.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: Climate Change is back on Reply #204 - Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:38pm Absolute rubbish, progs. Your premises are absolutely wrong. Where is your evidence.
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

progressiveslol Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17029	Re: Climate Change is back on Reply #205 - Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:40pm MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:38pm: Absolute rubbish, progs. Your premises are absolutely wrong. Where is your evidence. Evidence of logic ok
Back to top	IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #206 - Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:44pm

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:40pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:38pm:

Absolute rubbish, progs. Your premises are absolutely wrong. Where is your evidence.

Evidence of logic Grin

ok

Where is your evidence that long wave radiation can't warm the oceans. That's one of your premises. If this premise doesn't hold, you have no argument.

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

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #207 - Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:47pm

MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:44pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:40pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:38pm:

Absolute rubbish, progs. Your premises are absolutely wrong. Where is your evidence.

Evidence of logic Grin

ok

Where is your evidence that long wave radiation can't warm the oceans. That's one of your premises.

No, I said IF you believe a penetration of less than a human hair for co2 back radition (mind you verse a penetration of metres for short wave "sun" radiation), then even if we go with that, then the atmosphere being flat in temps, means the back raditation is going to be flat, hence there should be a trend change as there has been with the atmosphere. But according to you, there is no trend change.

Back to top

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #208 - Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:49pm

MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 10:57pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 10:52pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 10:48pm:

Rabbitoh isn't the least bit crazy. He is just expecting an answer to a straight forward question. How could the warming have paused when the evidence clearly tells us otherwise.

Yes but my statements are on empirical data of the atmospheric temperature data. 0.5 does equal 0.5. No amount of complaining that some ice somewhere is melting, is going to change that.

If he wants the question answered, then he should do as I said earlier. I am not going to entertain rabbits wishful thinking.

Of course 0.5 equals 0.5. What's your point.

Interesting the 0.5 usage here

Has anyone looked at the accepted definition of El Nino?

Quote:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensofaq.shtm...

NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, which is part of the National Weather Service, declares the onset of an El Niño episode when the 3-month average sea-surface temperature departure exceeds 0.5oC in the east-central equatorial Pacific

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #209 - Mar 11^th, 2013 at 12:00am

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:44pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:40pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:38pm:

Absolute rubbish, progs. Your premises are absolutely wrong. Where is your evidence.

Evidence of logic Grin

ok

Where is your evidence that long wave radiation can't warm the oceans. That's one of your premises.

No, I said IF you believe a penetration of less than a human hair for co2 back radition (mind you verse a penetration of metres for short wave "sun" radiation), then even if we go with that, then the atmosphere being flat in temps, means the back raditation is going to be flat, hence there should be a trend change as there has been with the atmosphere. But according to you, there is no trend change.

Explain your understanding of the link between back radiation and atmospheric temperatures.

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