Bobby. wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 3:30pm:


Do you promise no Muslims will be harmed?

System Information

This topic is locked, and you are not allowed to post or modify messages.

So the moderator of an environment topic that repeatedly directs people to the ICE AGE Cometh thread, asks people to post evidence for something that even school children in the street understand intimately, but he doesn't?

goober

Quote:


can you try not to be a complete imbecile, just for 5 minutes?


Nothing to do with FD? 

John Smith wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 3:47pm:



That's an ad hominem attack.
You know that's not allowed -
why do you do it?

Present your evidence for global warming -
or go away.

DonDeeHippy wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 4:03pm:



I have always said they I dislike fossil fuels.
The worst one is stinking coal.
I sincerely hope that Thorium power can save the planet.
here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519823686/0#0

A slogan it's happening is not evidence.

John Smith wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 4:29pm:


But that's the topic title petal.

You and your incomprehension again.

Johnnie wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 4:36pm:


Was that using the ACORN1 "data" or the NEW IMPROVED ACORN2 "data"?

With the new secret ingredient, Humbug^TM.

lee wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 4:32pm:


but I didn't reply to the topic title you idiot, I replied to goober

lee wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 4:54pm:

No matter which data you use, if it wasn't the hottest summer on record according to BOM it must have gone very very close, too close for comfort IMHO.

posters -

please try and post evidence with a link or a video.

Bobby please supply evidence that breathing is required to stay alive.

lee wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 5:28pm:

faq off idiot. I know what i responded to. It's not my fault you struggle with basic comprehension.

lee wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 5:34pm:



Thanks Lee,
we're at the end of the 2nd page and still not one link or video as evidence. 

I want to see video evidence that the sun will come up tomorrow, right now all I can see is it disappearing.  I'm scared, help me out.

While I am waiting, why would a mod of an environment topic challenge posters to prove some thing the every primary school child understands in detail?  And if it was the same mod who directs posters to a wacko ICE AGE cometh thread ... WTF would that be?

random wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 5:43pm:



What about the environment does every primary school child understand in detail?

lee wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 5:46pm:



Can those kids explain the record extreme cold events
that have happened all over the World in the last 2 or more years?
I doubt it -
scientists are struggling to comprehend it.
NASA and NOAA are doctoring records to try and blot it out.

John Smith wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 5:54pm:



Have you found some evidence yet? - you troll.

Johnnie wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 5:50pm:


You are the trusting one. it would be better coming from you. i would be labelled a "denier".

Adjustment to data are no longer data. You do understand that?

Aussie wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 5:59pm:



There is plenty out there if you Google it.
I'm not going to spoon feed you.
You're an adult aren't you?

lee wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 6:01pm:

I don't know if you are denier or not, are you? if so how much is because of man? take a punt, put it out there.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 6:04pm:


Just one question...the right question.....and I have established the point random was making.

I'll add...you are the snake oil man's yes 'man.'

The 4th page and still not one link of evidence -
not one video.   

I'm wasting my time trying to get real answers from kids.

Maybe you're just geriatrics in hospital beds?   

Bobby. wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 4:14pm:


Would you be a person that states they hate coal. Yet when renewables are used also complain about the higher energy prices.

The facts are...there must be a balance had between what is sustainable and ensures the environment is cared for but also what is sustainable for the population, economy and finances.

Johnnie wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 6:06pm:


No. The earth has been warming. How much is attributable humans is uncertain.

If CO2 is the main driver of AGW you need two of three parameters to work it out.

Total CO2 emissions, Natural CO2 emissions and human CO2 emissions.

We have a fair idea of human emissions, but only fair.

We don't know total emissions and we don't know natural emissions.

Johnnie wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 6:06pm:


All answered above.

random wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 6:12pm:


Do these school kids know the relationship of pressure and temperature?

lee wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 8:04pm:


We know it all in great detail,  you guys know sweet F all.
https://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/carbon-dioxide-emissions

random wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 8:30pm:


So if you are so good please tell us. You never got back to us about the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Johnnie wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 9:04pm:


Given that we don't know at least 2 of the three parameters it is an unknown. Given that we only have estimates of human cause CO2 emissions.

lee wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 9:52pm:

Do you have a straight answer, given the parameters in your opinion.

Johnnie wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 10:10pm:


You will never get a straight answer out of lee. He knows that if he never stats a position he can't be proven wrong.
His sole purpose is to discredit, obfuscate and confuse.

Hey team,
I got banned, next time they will shut the door better.

What a bunch of pussies, they can't handle the truth!

random wrote on Mar 18^th, 2019 at 8:04pm:


Since you have posted no data, how can that be the truth?

Can you tell us what you know about the Laws of Thermodynamics? Been asked at least twice. Perhaps you just missed them.

Well it seems random has shown his level of "knowledge".

lee wrote on Mar 18^th, 2019 at 8:07pm:

Where is Jules when you need him, we need lots of cut and pasting to understand thermos dynamics, I mean I think they are the greatest invention ever.... keep hot things hot and cold things cold....... the question is how do they know which is which ?

Can a blanket violate the second law of thermodynamics?
Filed under:

    Climate Science

— stefan @ 20 September 2016

One of the silliest arguments of climate deniers goes like this: the atmosphere with its greenhouse gases cannot warm the Earth’s surface, because it is colder than the surface. But heat always flows from warm to cold and never vice versa, as stated in the second law of thermodynamics.

The freshly baked Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts has recently phrased it thus in his maiden speech:

    It is basic. The sun warms the earth’s surface. The surface, by contact, warms the moving, circulating atmosphere. That means the atmosphere cools the surface. How then can the atmosphere warm it? It cannot. That is why their computer models are wrong.

This is of course not only questions the increasing human-caused greenhouse effect, but in general our understanding of temperatures on all planets, which goes back to Joseph Fourier, who in 1824 was the first to understand the importance of the greenhouse effect.

The atmosphere acts like a blanket which inhibits heat loss. In fact according to Roberts’ logic, a blanket could also not have a warming effect:

    It’s simple. The body warms the blanket. This means that the blanket cools the body. So how can the blanket warm it? It cannot!

The answer is simple. The warm body loses heat to the cold air. The blanket inhibits and slows this heat loss. Therefore you stay warmer under a blanket.

The Earth loses heat to the cold universe. The atmosphere inhibits this heat loss. Therefore, the surface remains warmer than it would be without the atmosphere.

It is true that the surface loses heat to the atmosphere – but less than it would otherwise lose directly to space. Just as I lose less heat to the blanket than I would otherwise lose to the air, without blanket.

Of course, in neither case is the second law of thermodynamics violated. The heat always flows from warm to cold – just more or less effectively. The processes of heat transfer are quite different – for the blanket it is mainly heat conduction, for the greenhouse effect it is thermal radiation. The climate deniers claim that the colder atmosphere cannot radiate thermal radiation towards the warmer surface. This is of course nonsense. The cool Earth also sends thermal radiation towards the hot sun – how would thermal radiation leaving Earth know how warm the surface is that it’s going to hit? It’s just that the sun sends more radiation back to us  – the net flow is from hot to cold. More is not implied by the second law of thermodynamics.

Thanks to two Germans (Gerlich and Tscheuschner of the TU Braunscheig – deeply embarrassing for this university), the absurd claim that the greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics even made it into an obscure physics journal – obviously there was no peer review to speak of. The bizarre article was promptly demolished by some US physicists. Just recently I read the claim again in an article of coal lobbyist Lars Schernikau – with such fairy-tale beliefs of its representatives, one is not surprised by the decline of the coal industry.

The thermal radiation from the atmosphere toward the ground, which allegedly cannot exist, is of course routinely measured, including its increase (see e.g. Philipona et al. 2004, 2012).

And you can even feel it. Those who sometimes sit outside in the garden after dark know this. Under a dense, low cloud layer you do not nearly get cold as fast as on a clear starry night. This is due to the thermal radiation coming from the clouds. They are colder than our body, but warmer than the night sky in clear air.

Roberts said: “Like Socrates, I love asking questions to get to the truth.”  Perhaps he will ponder my answer next time he sits in his garden at night, or slips under a blanket.

P.S.

Here is the energy balance diagram for our Earth, explained in IPCC FAQ 1.1. The “Back Radiation” makes the greenhouse effect. It is larger than the solar radiation reaching the ground, and measured by a global radiation measurement network.



References

R. Philipona, “Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect”, Geophys. Res. Lett., vol. 31, 2004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018765

R. Philipona, A. Kräuchi, and E. Brocard, “Solar and thermal radiation profiles and radiative forcing measured through the atmosphere”, Geophys. Res. Lett., vol. 39, pp. n/a-n/a, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2012GL052087
Comments (229).

random wrote on Mar 21^st, 2019 at 7:51am:


So let's see it is model driven, and they have done such a bang up job so far.

It is a thermostat and apparently the thermostat is broken?

"The climate forcing experiment described in Science was simple in design and concept -- all of the non-condensing greenhouse gases and aerosols were zeroed out, and the global climate model was run forward in time to see what would happen to the greenhouse effect. Without the sustaining support by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, "

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html



You do understand that once they take the model forward it relies on the parameters (unknowns) that have been force fed. They don't actually have the data to go back and actually do it empirically.

"With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk." John von Neumann


But he is right insofar as if we removed all CO2 from the atmosphere earth would quickly cool.

https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/comment-on-the-science-paper-a...

BTW - have you read of the refrigerant  R744?

random wrote on Mar 21^st, 2019 at 8:05pm:



He's been a decent contributor and member of this Forum.

You on the other hand, are just a SOCK (with your own hand up your arse, doing the talking for you) .

Looks Gay and fictional to me.
What else you got in your closet Sock-boy?

Now now Sock-boy.
Don't laugh too eagerly.
By the end of the film you will on your knees and punching the sand.
But life as a Sock for you is a bit like that... futile.

Do I have to repeat myself?

random wrote on Mar 21^st, 2019 at 9:28pm:


Yes - because you are a Sock and Socks repeat themselves because they are unoriginal. 

lee wrote on Mar 21^st, 2019 at 9:55pm:



Talking to yourself? That's the first sign of a serious mental illness.

Marla wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2019 at 8:21am:


Just think all these Koch funded climate scientists. Must be more than the postulated 3%.


Also published in such an esteemed journal.

But I did notice you didn't try to refute it.

It must good to have faith in something like the IPCC that have no error bars in their publications whatsoever. Though they did famously say "the climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

Funny how people forget that.

Is that the same Koch Bros that donated money to a university near you?

Let us know which one and I will advise you.

It is a pity you don't post your links. Some may mistakenly believe they are you own words.

https://urbdezine.com/2018/12/11/criminal-liability-climate-change/

I thought you went for scientific articles?

But speaking of "a Hollywood set of false facades" whoever could forget Al Gore's movie  "An Inconvenient truth", with its 9 inconvenient scientific untruths. 

BTW - your prose of yesterday nearly brought a tear to a glass eye.

random wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2019 at 6:55pm:


No petal. You are barely able to string a phrase together.

random wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2019 at 6:55pm:



The dream of the truly deluded.

Where am I susceptible to the First Amendment? Of course that would only work in the USA and then only if a high level of AGW was proven.

Climate models are not only not science they are not proof of anything. Why do BoM, CSIRO, NOAA etc feel the need to adjust the past?

BTW - where exactly have I denied climate?

What happens when you don't have a clue. You repeat yourself.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 28^th, 2019 at 4:29pm:

The glacier is not recovering Bobby its just not melting as fast as it was,,, id say that is 2 very different things 

DonDeeHippy wrote on Mar 28^th, 2019 at 5:11pm:



It is recovering. The Glacier is moving back up country.

Did you really expect the glacier, a river of ice, to stop moving?

I posted the following recently in the "School Kids Climate Protest" thread. The author, Peter Hadfield, has over 40 videos on Climate Change. Most look at the common myths and misconceptions behind AGW skepticism, including those put forth by Christopher Monckton. Others look at the exaggerated claims of AGW proponents, including Al Gore:

Climate change explained, and the myths debunked

Quote:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Mar 29^th, 2019 at 4:40pm:



OK - so you now have an open mind like me?

It's good to see one person converted.

It was so cold today.
I have a beany and a scarf on inside the house.

Channel 7 news said it was the coldest March day since 2015. in Melbourne.



http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/frosty-morning-beckons-in-the-east/529514


Frosty morning beckons in the east
Jacobus Cronje, Saturday March 30, 2019 - 13:05 EDT

Following a period of prolonged, above average heat over most of the eastern parts of Australia, a strong cold front currently moving off the eastern seaboard should bring significant cooling in its wake.

On Sunday morning, most of inland NSW west of the Great Dividing Range should see minimum temperatures well below 10 degrees, finally making it feel like autumn. In fact, it should be the coldest morning of the year over such a large portion of the country, with some locations along the slopes and tablelands probably seeing the first hint of frost.

Places like Canberra, Orange, Armidale are likely to cool to below 5 degrees, while frost and near-zero temperatures are possible for places like Cabramurra.

Cold air in the wake of a cold front can lag behind the actual airmass boundary that we understand to be and mark as the actual cold front. As is the case with the current system, and apart from the initial cool burst of air,  cold air being dragged up from the Southern Oceans will take a while to cover such a massive area of land, making Sunday the actual colder day for much of the state.

Early morning cooling will be enhanced further by skies clearing rapidly in the wake of the system, allowing for less heat to be trapped, as would be the case with partial or complete cloud cover.

Captain Nemo wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2019 at 3:31pm:



And they still used NEW Improved ACORN2 with yeast; to get that furrher rise, rather than the RAW data (historical observations).