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

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

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

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

"heavy dew" ????????????????????????? 

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

Abbott is a denier... rural votes coalition!

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



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

Perhaps it would be more instructive to read AR5.

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

Glacial Ice mass overall is increased.

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

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

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

Tell us what you see.

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

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

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

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



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


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

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



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


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

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

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

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

Didn't get up early enough today did ya mate 

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

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

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

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

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

And IPCC AR5 footnote 16 states:


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

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

Some scientists are going with mother nature. empirical data.

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

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

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


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

SOB

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

Oh dear.  WTF are you on about?!?!

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

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

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

So that is one lie out of the way.


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

We are waiting

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

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

Grow up and admit it.

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


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

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

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

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

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

Nice try - but you are still in error.

Polar ice is not increasing either.  You lied.


Figure 5 shows the total sea ice for the Arctic and Antarctic. This shows that overall there has been a decline in sea ice and that the increase in the southern hemisphere is less than the decline in the northern hemisphere. This represents a decline of about 32,000 km2/year. Allowing for permanent land ice this represents an annual loss of 0.08% of polar ice.


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

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


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

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

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

Is that the best you can do?

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

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

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

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

What the AR5 says is this:

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

Likely means >66% probability

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


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

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

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

The poles are acting differently 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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