Australian Politics Forum - IPCC models vs Observed Data

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #75 - May 29^th, 2015 at 8:55pm

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 5:18pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 4:57pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 2:44pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

Seriously rabbit, give it a rest, it was not a lie, just because you believe it to be wrong doesn't make me 'bald-faced liar',..)

Look gizmo mate, you have been exposed on this point categorically and emphatically - rabbit has demonstrated that you in fact wilfully lied to this honourable forum.

At least have the courage and integrity to apologise to everyone on Ozpolitics so we can all move on from this. You cant just gallop in here and deliberately lie and expect to get away with it. Surely you have some self respect left. Apologise and then take a 3 month break from this board so that you can take a long good look at yourself in the mirror mate. Apologise to yourself and then you can return with a small amount of integrity and credibility.

As it stands your posts are embarrassing at the moment - rabbit is urinating and defecating all over your smelly carcass and all you can do is continue to add lie after lie after lie after lie....its pathetic gizmo - do it for the children mate

http://theesposure.com/DAMMnation/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/smoking_monkey.gif

No, actually he hasn't. And posting in big letters won't change that.

Actually - you have Gizmo.

You told us that global glacial mass balance is "going up".

This is a clear falsehood. Not a matter of opinion. A lie.

We know it is a lie because you have not posted a single piece of evidence to support that ridiculous claim.
Not one single piece.

Then to make matters worse, you have compounded your lie by pretending that you did provide evidence.

You didn't Gizmo. Not one single piece.

You could easily prove me wrong right now by re-posting any evidence you claim to have posted. Why don't you do that Gizmo?

I did, you just refused to accept that it showed what I said.

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

rabbitoh08

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #76 - May 30^th, 2015 at 8:19pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 8:49pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 12:27am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 11:05pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 11:02pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:58pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:50pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:44pm:

Then your log book is as inaccurate as everything else you post.

You see gizmo? The data and facts are presented to you - they stare you square in the face and you close your eyes to the truth

I am starting to wonder whether you will ever love the children again.

Look at their faces gizmo - why do you want to sacrifice them on the altar of a fire laden scorched planet? Haven't you got a beating heart in your chest man?

http://stylepantry.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/kids-smiling.jpg

LOL ah yes, the "why do you hate the children" response.........a sad and hopeless gambit, used when you can't refute the other person's evidence.

The children aren't in any danger from this mythical 'fire laden scorched planet', they are more danger from a cold and desolate planet but the greatest risk is suffering from poverty and economic collapse when the idiot warmists try to stop a natural occurrence (natural global warming) by throwing vast amounts of money down the toilet.

Gizmo doesn't even agree with the products of combustion now Roll Eyes

Where do you get that idea from?

You saying global warming was a natural occurence: obviously you are not accounting for the man made CO2 Wink

But does Co2 actually 'cause' global warming??? That IS after all the basic point of dispute about agw.

Gizmo,

you told us that "global glacial mass balance is "going up"."

Could you please who us some evidence to support this - or apologise to the forum for telling lies.

Please stop running away.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh08

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #77 - May 30^th, 2015 at 8:22pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 8:55pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 5:18pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 4:57pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 2:44pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

Seriously rabbit, give it a rest, it was not a lie, just because you believe it to be wrong doesn't make me 'bald-faced liar',..)

Look gizmo mate, you have been exposed on this point categorically and emphatically - rabbit has demonstrated that you in fact wilfully lied to this honourable forum.

At least have the courage and integrity to apologise to everyone on Ozpolitics so we can all move on from this. You cant just gallop in here and deliberately lie and expect to get away with it. Surely you have some self respect left. Apologise and then take a 3 month break from this board so that you can take a long good look at yourself in the mirror mate. Apologise to yourself and then you can return with a small amount of integrity and credibility.

As it stands your posts are embarrassing at the moment - rabbit is urinating and defecating all over your smelly carcass and all you can do is continue to add lie after lie after lie after lie....its pathetic gizmo - do it for the children mate

http://theesposure.com/DAMMnation/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/smoking_monkey.gif

No, actually he hasn't. And posting in big letters won't change that.

Actually - you have Gizmo.

You told us that global glacial mass balance is "going up".

This is a clear falsehood. Not a matter of opinion. A lie.

We know it is a lie because you have not posted a single piece of evidence to support that ridiculous claim.
Not one single piece.

Then to make matters worse, you have compounded your lie by pretending that you did provide evidence.

You didn't Gizmo. Not one single piece.

You could easily prove me wrong right now by re-posting any evidence you claim to have posted. Why don't you do that Gizmo?

I did, you just refused to accept that it showed what I said.

No you didn't Gizmo. Don't make your lie worse.

If you claim you did post evidence - then it will be easy for you to re-post it right her and prove me wrong.

Do it Gizmo.

You can't - can you. You are a liar that has been caught red-handed telling lies.

Come on Gizmo - prove me wrong. Show us your "evidence" that supports your statement that global glacial mass balance is "going up".

We are waiting Gizmo.

Back to top

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic Gold Member Offline πολιτικός Posts: 4826 Mawson Base Gender:	Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data Reply #78 - May 30^th, 2015 at 8:50pm Come on gizmo, rabbit has issued a valid challenge for you to entertain. Accept rabbit's challenge like a real man, and then apologise
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

rabbitoh08

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #79 - May 30^th, 2015 at 8:57pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 30^th, 2015 at 8:50pm:

Come on gizmo, rabbit has issued a valid challenge for you to entertain.

Accept rabbit's challenge like a real man, and then apologise

I think it is fairly clear that Gizmo is neither real man, nor woman.

Gizmo is just a pathetic little liar - that when called on it runs away and makes stupid excuses..

Here is your big chance Gizmo. Prove me wrong. Show me to be the idiot.

Please post your evidence to support your statement that global glacial mass balance is "going up"

You could make me look so silly by doing that. Why don't you?

BTW - just to help you - don't look at the World Glacier Monitoring Service website - they won't help you:
The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to be negative, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of 0.89 metres water equivalent (m w.e.) during the hydrological year 2013
http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/sum13.html

Maybe you could find a convincing Andrew Bolt blog page to post for us?

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 30^th, 2015 at 9:04pm by rabbitoh08 »

IP Logged

Marla Gold Member Offline A joint a day keeps the MAGA away Posts: 15035 Colorado Gender:	Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data Reply #80 - May 31^st, 2015 at 2:55am Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 10:06pm: She hasn't come up with one piece of evidence or a good argument, all she talks about is the kotch brothers and big oil. A cork head indeed.
Back to top	I like takin' Tuinal. It keeps me edgy and mean. I'm a teenage schizoid I'm a teenage dope fiend IP Logged

Dnarever Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 62097 Here Gender:	Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data Reply #81 - May 31^st, 2015 at 7:47am IPCC models vs Observed Data The models used in the comparison look about 10 years out of date, wonder what a genuine comparison would look like. My understanding is that current modelling is pretty accurate.
Back to top	IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 62097
Here
Gender: male

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #82 - May 31^st, 2015 at 7:48am

Marla wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 2:55am:

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 10:06pm:

She hasn't come up with one piece of evidence or a good argument, all she talks about is the kotch brothers and big oil.

A cork head indeed.

http://www.votersopinion.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/oh-the-irony.jpeg

Yes Tony advises women to think when doing it.

Back to top

IP Logged

Ajax Gold Member Offline CO2 has never controlled temperature on Earth Posts: 11070 Australia Gender:	Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data Reply #83 - May 31^st, 2015 at 9:32am Dnarever wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 7:47am: IPCC models vs Observed Data The models used in the comparison look about 10 years out of date, wonder what a genuine comparison would look like. My understanding is that current modelling is pretty accurate.
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

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21376
Gender: male

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #84 - May 31^st, 2015 at 11:36am

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 30^th, 2015 at 8:57pm:

The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to be negative, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of 0.89 metres water equivalent (m w.e.) during the hydrological year 2013
http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/sum13.html

'Thus a study has been carried out to find the change in the extent of Himalayan glaciers during the last decade using IRS LISS III images of 2000/01/02 and 2010/11. Two thousand and eighteen glaciers representing climatically diverse terrains in the Himalaya were mapped and monitored. It includes glaciers of Karakoram, Himachal, Zanskar, Uttarakhand, Nepal and Sikkim regions. Among these, 1752 glaciers (86.8%) we re observed having stable fronts (no change in the snout position and area of ablation zone), 248 (12.3%) exhibited retreat and 18 (0.9%) of them exhibited advancement of snout. The net loss in 10,250.68 sq. km area of the 2018 glaciers put together was found to be 20.94 sq. km or 0.2% (+/- 2.5 % of 20.94 sq. km).

http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/106/07/1008.pdf

From the World Glacier Monitoring -

'Mass balance values for the observation period 2012/13 have been reported from more than 125 glaciers worldwide.'

Compared to over 2,000 glaciers in the Himalayas alone. I can see where those figures really stack up. Do I need a \sarc tag?

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 62097
Here
Gender: male

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #85 - May 31^st, 2015 at 6:42pm

Ajax wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 9:32am:

Dnarever wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 7:47am:

IPCC models vs Observed Data

The models used in the comparison look about 10 years out of date, wonder what a genuine comparison would look like. My understanding is that current modelling is pretty accurate.

http://i57.tinypic.com/qq7rcp.gif http://i57.tinypic.com/vhepeb.gif[IMG]

OK so it isn't 10 years out of date, it is marked as 1990. it is 25 years out of date.

Nice of you to point that out, obviously the comparisons are meaningless.

Back to top

IP Logged

Bobby. Moderator Offline Australian Politics Posts: 121259 Melbourne Gender:	Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data Reply #86 - May 31^st, 2015 at 7:55pm Ajax is sure putting up some powerful arguments backed up with graphs & charts - well done!
Back to top	IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #87 - Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 11:05am

lee wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 11:36am:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 30^th, 2015 at 8:57pm:

The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to be negative, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of 0.89 metres water equivalent (m w.e.) during the hydrological year 2013
http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/sum13.html

'Thus a study has been carried out to find the change in the extent of Himalayan glaciers during the last decade using IRS LISS III images of 2000/01/02 and 2010/11. Two thousand and eighteen glaciers representing climatically diverse terrains in the Himalaya were mapped and monitored. It includes glaciers of Karakoram, Himachal, Zanskar, Uttarakhand, Nepal and Sikkim regions. Among these, 1752 glaciers (86.8%) we re observed having stable fronts (no change in the snout position and area of ablation zone), 248 (12.3%) exhibited retreat and 18 (0.9%) of them exhibited advancement of snout. The net loss in 10,250.68 sq. km area of the 2018 glaciers put together was found to be 20.94 sq. km or 0.2% (+/- 2.5 % of 20.94 sq. km).

http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/106/07/1008.pdf

From the World Glacier Monitoring -

'Mass balance values for the observation period 2012/13 have been reported from more than 125 glaciers worldwide.'

Compared to over 2,000 glaciers in the Himalayas alone. I can see where those figures really stack up. Do I need a \sarc tag?

You can't measure everything: it's called THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE Cheesy

and is why all measurement is probablity and all good science is associated with error value.

** thank for playing Wink

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

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data Reply #88 - Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 11:10am Bobby. wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 7:55pm: Ajax is sure putting up some powerful arguments backed up with graphs & charts - well done! They'd be even more impressive if the sources were given
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

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #89 - Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 11:13am

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 8:49pm:

But does Co2 actually 'cause' global warming??? That IS after all the basic point of dispute about agw.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829145.000-ocean-pump-keeps-northern-hem...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829145.000-ocean-pump-keeps-northern-hem...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829145.000-ocean-pump-keeps-northern-hem...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829145.000-ocean-pump-keeps-northern-hem...

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