Australian Politics Forum - Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS

John_Taverner Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2217 Gender:	Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Reply #435 - Jun 17^th, 2015 at 5:56pm it doesn't surprise me that you think that it's based on global temperature data alone.
Back to top	IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21376 Gender:	Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Reply #436 - Jun 17^th, 2015 at 6:03pm John_Taverner wrote on Jun 17^th, 2015 at 5:56pm: it doesn't surprise me that you think that it's based on global temperature data alone. Sorry, to what are you referring? What does someone think is based on global temperature alone?
Back to top	IP Logged

John_Taverner

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2217
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #437 - Jun 17^th, 2015 at 6:03pm

[quote author=leeforward link=1429976461/428#428 date=1434434955]Jt, To which source are you referring? I've given so many.

Isn't balance part of the basics?
Isn't diurnal day/night?[/quote]

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.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 17^th, 2015 at 6:08pm by John_Taverner »

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21376
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #438 - Jun 17^th, 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

John_Taverner

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2217
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #439 - Jun 17^th, 2015 at 6:09pm

lee wrote on Jun 17^th, 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.

I already told you that I have no idea who Mirium is. Does she post here?

Back to top

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21376 Gender:	Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Reply #440 - Jun 17^th, 2015 at 6:31pm Miriam O'Brien is sou, aka hotwhopper.
Back to top	IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21376 Gender:	Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Reply #441 - Jun 17^th, 2015 at 6:34pm BTW, I find it intriguing that you think you know me and my education or lack thereof.
Back to top	IP Logged

Dnarever Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 62090 Here Gender:	Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Reply #442 - Jun 17^th, 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 ?
Back to top	IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #443 - Jun 17^th, 2015 at 8:39pm

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 15^th, 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?

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21376
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #444 - Jun 18^th, 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

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh08

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #445 - Jun 18^th, 2015 at 12:33pm

Soren wrote on Jun 17^th, 2015 at 8:39pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 15^th, 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?

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.

FFS. How old are you? 8? 10?

Please learn something before posting on mummy and daddy's computer.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21376 Gender:	Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Reply #446 - Jun 18^th, 2015 at 1:55pm What are the margins of error on that picture? Has it been updated?
Back to top	IP Logged

John_Taverner

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2217
Gender: male

Ought 1035 Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were corre
Reply #447 - Jun 18^th, 2015 at 2:12pm

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jun 18^th, 2015 at 12:33pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 17^th, 2015 at 8:39pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 15^th, 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?

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.

for goodness sake. How old are you? 8? 10?

Please learn something before posting on mummy and daddy's computer.

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.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 18^th, 2015 at 2:45pm by John_Taverner »

IP Logged

John_Taverner Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2217 Gender:	Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Reply #448 - Jun 18^th, 2015 at 2:34pm lee wrote on Jun 18^th, 2015 at 1:55pm: What are the margins of error on that picture? Has it been updated? 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.
Back to top	« Last Edit: Jun 18^th, 2015 at 2:41pm by John_Taverner » IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21376 Gender:	Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Reply #449 - Jun 18^th, 2015 at 2:43pm And yet global temperatures aren't going up in lockstep. What about error margins, assumptions used?
Back to top	IP Logged