Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 ... 33
Send Topic Print
Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS (Read 25340 times)
Ajax
Gold Member
*****
Offline


CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10952
Australia
Gender: male
Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #300 - May 24th, 2015 at 2:21pm
 
Chimp_Logic wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 1:26pm:
Ajax wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 9:38am:
Chimp_Logic & deathridesahorse your both lost without muso aren't you.

Earth is a water planet, water dominates CLIMATE CHANGE here on Earth and water in the atmosphere in the form of water vapour and clouds is the dominant greenhouse gas.

Water vapour and clouds are responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect.

The other greenhouse gases, all of them including CO2 are trace gases meaning they are present in very small amounts.

These greenhouse gases only make up 1% of the greenhouse effect.

From that one percent man's contribution of CO2 is again so small it wouldn't make any difference.

Watch from the 54 minute mark for explanation..



Salby's crack pot theory has already being refuted and exposed on the basis of a serious lack of understanding of simple scientific principles

Have you ever wondered why you continue to quote YoutTube Videos as authoritative analyses?

Thats what happens when you allow your own paranoia and political bas insanity inform your opinions. And your so called opinions aren't even yours anyway.

you should be ashamed of yourself Batman

absolutely ashamed of yourself


What are you talking about you silly silly chimp.

Are you saying that the energy budget he presents in that video is wrong or deceitful...???

If that's what you're implying then you and my furry friend Cerberus (DRAH) are a good match mentally.

Both pea brains...LOL..... Shocked
Back to top
 

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery &  prison" Regas Feraeos
 
IP Logged
 
Chimp_Logic
Gold Member
*****
Offline


πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male
Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #301 - May 24th, 2015 at 4:51pm
 
Ajax wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 2:21pm:
What are you talking about you silly silly chimp.

Are you saying that the energy budget he presents in that video is wrong or deceitful...???

If that's what you're implying then you and my furry friend Cerberus (DRAH) are a good match mentally.

Both pea brains...LOL..... Shocked


what I suggest that you do Mr Batcrap is look at the entire lunacy the the Salby maniac is painting for you denialist clowns.

Havent you read Salby's complete fraud thesis?

Laughable pseudo science.

And thats exactly what you are Ajax - a disciple of the Great Dr Sircus, the Easterbrook bunny and the Salby maniac freak maggot.

Do you even understand what these snake oil salesmen are pitching and who they work for?

Your illness is worsening batCrap

You do realise Ajax that we can never really be friends if you preach lies in public and dress in a fake costume with ridiculous blinking excrement eyes?

...
Back to top
 

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness
 
IP Logged
 
John_Taverner
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2170
Gender: male
Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #302 - May 24th, 2015 at 7:43pm
 
lee wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:22pm:
John_Taverner wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 11:43am:
Explain what you mean. You are the one trying to put a case against the bulk of scientific knowledge.



Just for you. From the GRACE pages.

'WHAT IS THE UNCERTAINTY IN THIS GIA MODEL?
The uncertainty is about +/- 20%.
The 20% value is somewhat ad-hoc, and comes from looking at results for various viscosity values and alternative deglaciation models for Antarctica and Greenland. This +/-20% probably over-estimates the uncertainty in northern Canada, where the deglaciation history is reasonably well-known; and it probably underestimates the uncertainty in Antarctica and Greenland, where the ice history is not as well-known. Plus, if you happen to be looking at a region where the model is close to zero because it is a transition region from large positive values to large negative values, then +/-20% of near-zero values is likely to underestimate the uncertainty.'

http://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/data/pgr/

So Antarctica is likely to have error bars higher than +/- 20%. But they don't know what they are.

But they have the utmost confidence that ice loss is  'net mass balance at -71 ± 53 gigatonnes per year.'

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/antarctic-ice-sheet-surfac...

And all this predicated partly on a model on which they don't know the error bars. This is sometimes referred to as Scientific Wild Assed Guess, or SWAG.


Even if it was 71-53, the maximum error, that still leaves a negative ice balance.

What are you saying?

Do you have the latest POOMA based figures from Jo Nova  or Anthony Watts?   

All I've heard as an alternative is that the sea ice figures have increased.  This is just a predictable consequence of increased continental ice melt.
Back to top
 
72+Adelaide+Street  
IP Logged
 
John_Taverner
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2170
Gender: male
Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #303 - May 24th, 2015 at 7:45pm
 
Chimp_Logic wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 4:51pm:
what I suggest that you do Mr Batcrap is look at the entire lunacy the the Salby maniac is painting for you denialist clowns.


Sorry, I'm new here. Are you saying that Ajax and Sir Bobby are the same person?
Back to top
 
72+Adelaide+Street  
IP Logged
 
Chimp_Logic
Gold Member
*****
Offline


πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male
Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #304 - May 24th, 2015 at 8:08pm
 
John_Taverner wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:45pm:
Chimp_Logic wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 4:51pm:
what I suggest that you do Mr Batcrap is look at the entire lunacy the the Salby maniac is painting for you denialist clowns.


Sorry, I'm new here. Are you saying that Ajax and Sir Bobby are the same person?


are you new here?
Back to top
 

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16343
Gender: male
Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #305 - May 24th, 2015 at 8:10pm
 
John_Taverner wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:43pm:
Even if it was 71-53, the maximum error, that still leaves a negative ice balance.

What are you saying?


Why don't you read and comprehend. GRACE says that the error bands are not reliable for Antarctica and gives no estimates for what it should be for Antarctica. But despite this still come up with a figure.

"We don't have an error band for this, but trust us"?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #306 - May 24th, 2015 at 8:35pm
 
John_Taverner wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:45pm:
Chimp_Logic wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 4:51pm:
what I suggest that you do Mr Batcrap is look at the entire lunacy the the Salby maniac is painting for you denialist clowns.


Sorry, I'm new here. Are you saying that Ajax and Sir Bobby are the same person?


No, they're not the same person. Chimp hasn't figured that out yet, though.
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
John_Taverner
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2170
Gender: male
Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #307 - May 24th, 2015 at 8:35pm
 
lee wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 8:10pm:
John_Taverner wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:43pm:
Even if it was 71-53, the maximum error, that still leaves a negative ice balance.

What are you saying?


Why don't you read and comprehend. GRACE says that the error bands are not reliable for Antarctica and gives no estimates for what it should be for Antarctica. But despite this still come up with a figure.

"We don't have an error band for this, but trust us"?


- but it still agrees very closely with the latest IceSat  and other survey data.

What is the source of the  data? I have a feeling it's from an old study, because the data I have is 69±18 Gigatonnes per year.

There have been progressive improvements in the GIA data in recent years.
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 24th, 2015 at 8:42pm by John_Taverner »  
72+Adelaide+Street  
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16343
Gender: male
Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #308 - May 24th, 2015 at 9:11pm
 
JT, GRACE haven't updated their page, which suggests that they are no closer.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Chimp_Logic
Gold Member
*****
Offline


πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male
Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #309 - May 24th, 2015 at 9:31pm
 
Is John Taverner new here?

...
Back to top
 

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness
 
IP Logged
 
BatteriesNotIncluded
Gold Member
*****
Offline


MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966
Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #310 - May 24th, 2015 at 10:03pm
 
Soren wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 10:52am:
BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 9:32pm:
Soren wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 9:12pm:
John_Taverner wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 3:25pm:
What about the actual crux of radiative forcing?  Don't you want to talk about how that tiny proportion of CO2 affects Long wave Infrared back scatter or stuff like that? 

What are the thoughts of the Wise Sir Soren?



Yeah, what about it?


Why don't you explain how 0.0192% of the atmospheric CO2 rules over the entire climate system?

You seem to be confident about knowing how that works. Why don't you tell us.

Go on.







Balance buddy: CO2 comes in and out of the water everyday yet it is the water vapour that is in cycle and it is the CO2 that is being mechanically injected into the system falsely creating more water vapour than would naturally occur for the given prevailing conditions.

We all know the science is accepted and you are just playing pause button politics to maximise retooling time.... the kids know about the concepts of the diminishing returns of jevons paradox which won't pass your lips ever because you're a complete joke unable to handle facts !!!!! Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink


Balance: yeh, that's the one the crack smokers never learn until the big guys walk in  Grin Grin Grin Grin (oh wait that's why all the crack smokers sit around in daddys spare rental for all those boring decades  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes)

Tell me more about how 0.0192% of the atmosphere  is the crucial thing in the balance of all the things that make up the climate; specifically, how much extra water vapour does the human CoE that comprises 0.0192% of the atmopheric gases create?


No: do your own homework!

Cheesy Cheesy
Back to top
 

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is.  It wouldn't be there without the tax payer.  Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know....  (swaggy) *
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #311 - May 24th, 2015 at 10:56pm
 
BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 10:03pm:
Soren wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 10:52am:
BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 9:32pm:
Soren wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 9:12pm:
John_Taverner wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 3:25pm:
What about the actual crux of radiative forcing?  Don't you want to talk about how that tiny proportion of CO2 affects Long wave Infrared back scatter or stuff like that? 

What are the thoughts of the Wise Sir Soren?



Yeah, what about it?


Why don't you explain how 0.0192% of the atmospheric CO2 rules over the entire climate system?

You seem to be confident about knowing how that works. Why don't you tell us.

Go on.







Balance buddy: CO2 comes in and out of the water everyday yet it is the water vapour that is in cycle and it is the CO2 that is being mechanically injected into the system falsely creating more water vapour than would naturally occur for the given prevailing conditions.

We all know the science is accepted and you are just playing pause button politics to maximise retooling time.... the kids know about the concepts of the diminishing returns of jevons paradox which won't pass your lips ever because you're a complete joke unable to handle facts !!!!! Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink


Balance: yeh, that's the one the crack smokers never learn until the big guys walk in  Grin Grin Grin Grin (oh wait that's why all the crack smokers sit around in daddys spare rental for all those boring decades  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes)

Tell me more about how 0.0192% of the atmosphere  is the crucial thing in the balance of all the things that make up the climate; specifically, how much extra water vapour does the human CoE that comprises 0.0192% of the atmopheric gases create?


No: do your own homework!

Cheesy Cheesy


So: you have NO idea then Grin Grin Grin Grin
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
John_Taverner
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2170
Gender: male
Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #312 - May 25th, 2015 at 7:48am
 
Soren wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 10:52am:
Tell me more about how 0.0192% of the atmosphere  is the crucial thing in the balance of all the things that make up the climate; specifically, how much extra water vapour does the human CoE that comprises 0.0192% of the atmopheric gases create?



You seem to be having some difficulty. I conducted a search and found this material, which seems to be more appropriate to your level of understanding.
http://climatekids.nasa.gov/

No need to thank me. Enjoy.
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 25th, 2015 at 8:19am by John_Taverner »  
72+Adelaide+Street  
IP Logged
 
BatteriesNotIncluded
Gold Member
*****
Offline


MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966
Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #313 - May 25th, 2015 at 11:59am
 
gizmo_2655 wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 10:56pm:
So: you have NO idea then Grin Grin Grin Grin

i know Tony Abbott and the fascist liberal voters got caught trying to sell out the University of Western Australias global reputation to a (!global) political activist who wants to argue that fossil fuels should be allowed to warm our kids earth by 3 degrees instead of 2 and you can't pretend he didn't!

That's what I know buddy so bring it on fellla  Wink Wink

Tony Abbott and the liberal voters of Australia got publicly laughed at by the toffs themselves and told very publicly that this state of WA floats the nation so why don't you eat that one in question time until the election  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

** hey, imagine having copper internet as a legacy to your kids whilst simultaneously trying to tell them we built the asian century and that's why your own kids have to pass their mortgage on to your grandkids ... thanks dad yehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh i wish i had business acumen and conveniently forgot to tell everyone that primary industry concentrates wealth and that jevons paradox is a big secret  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

C'mon smart guy BRING IT ON NOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW  Grin
Back to top
 

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is.  It wouldn't be there without the tax payer.  Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know....  (swaggy) *
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #314 - May 25th, 2015 at 12:47pm
 
BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 10:03pm:
Soren wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 10:52am:
BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 9:32pm:
Soren wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 9:12pm:
John_Taverner wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 3:25pm:
What about the actual crux of radiative forcing?  Don't you want to talk about how that tiny proportion of CO2 affects Long wave Infrared back scatter or stuff like that? 

What are the thoughts of the Wise Sir Soren?



Yeah, what about it?


Why don't you explain how 0.0192% of the atmospheric CO2 rules over the entire climate system?

You seem to be confident about knowing how that works. Why don't you tell us.

Go on.



Balance buddy: CO2 comes in and out of the water everyday yet it is the water vapour that is in cycle and it is the CO2 that is being mechanically injected into the system falsely creating more water vapour than would naturally occur for the given prevailing conditions.

We all know the science is accepted and you are just playing pause button politics to maximise retooling time.... the kids know about the concepts of the diminishing returns of jevons paradox which won't pass your lips ever because you're a complete joke unable to handle facts !!!!! Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink


Balance: yeh, that's the one the crack smokers never learn until the big guys walk in  Grin Grin Grin Grin (oh wait that's why all the crack smokers sit around in daddys spare rental for all those boring decades  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes)

Tell me more about how 0.0192% of the atmosphere  is the crucial thing in the balance of all the things that make up the climate; specifically, how much extra water vapour does the human CoE that comprises 0.0192% of the atmopheric gases create?


No: do your own homework!

Cheesy Cheesy



I have done my homework and said that it is ridiculous to blame 0.0192% of atmospheric gases (the amount of human CO2 in the atmosphere) for climate change.

If you are ridiculous enough to still maintain that that tiny proportion of only one of the climate factors is responsible for climate change then you'd better explain it.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 ... 33
Send Topic Print