Australian Politics Forum | |
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
Member Run Boards >> Environment >> there is no climate change debate. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1481690951 Message started by Pho Huc on Dec 14th, 2016 at 2:49pm |
Title: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 14th, 2016 at 2:49pm
Climate change is anthropogenic. 97% of published scientific papers support this position. The 3% of papers dissagreeing are funded by parties with vested interests in maintaining a status quo.
Im sick of people here pretending to be scientists and critising the methods that researchers utilize without having any personel qualifications or experience other than a preexisting opinion and ability to access google. Vent over. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Panther on Dec 14th, 2016 at 3:44pm Pho Huc wrote on Dec 14th, 2016 at 2:49pm:
I believe that Climate Change is......it exists......it has existed for 100s of millions of years at varying levels. Climate change is an absolute fact......full stop. Has mankind caused it, & can mankind do anything to completely stop it.......politically, yes, but actually.....absolutely not, & nobody has, beyond doubt, ever proven otherwise.......full stop. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Rider on Dec 14th, 2016 at 4:19pm Pho Huc wrote on Dec 14th, 2016 at 2:49pm:
Seriously...you drag out the old 97% garbage?? However, as your concern for the earth is paramount, it is clearly encumbent on you to lead by example and immediately cease expelling this heinous natural trace gas. You know it makes sense. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 14th, 2016 at 5:21pm
You may want to cut down the trees. Plants respire too.
'They found that, averaged over the entire globe, the evapotranspiration effects of plants account for 16% of warming of the land surface, with greenhouse effects accounting for the rest. But in some regions, such as parts of North America and eastern Asia, it can be more than 25% of the total warming. “If we think of a doubling of carbon dioxide as causing about four degrees of warming, in many places three of those degrees are coming from the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and one is coming from the direct effect of carbon dioxide on plants.” ' https://carnegiescience.edu/news/co2-effects-plants-increase-global-warming-0 Every little bit helps. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Sir Bobby on Dec 14th, 2016 at 6:06pm Pho Huc wrote on Dec 14th, 2016 at 2:49pm:
There is already a long thread for this - 66 pages: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464603948/975#975 |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by miketrees on Dec 14th, 2016 at 7:02pm I dont give a Phohuc |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Dnarever on Dec 14th, 2016 at 7:55pm lee wrote on Dec 14th, 2016 at 5:21pm:
evapotranspiration effects of plants account for 16% of warming of the land surface, You mean the bit that has been part of the natural system balance for centuries ? |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 14th, 2016 at 9:01pm Dnarever wrote on Dec 14th, 2016 at 7:55pm:
Who said it hadn't been calculated? It is a source, perhaps we should cut them down. ;) Do the calculations take into account the greening of the planet? |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by bogarde73 on Dec 17th, 2016 at 10:17am
Which climate change are they all fussing about?
Change from what it was 100 years ago? 1000 years ago? 10000 years ago? 50000 years ago? |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Ajax on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:28pm Pho Huc wrote on Dec 14th, 2016 at 2:49pm:
Is it now....................!!! Do you know that when the earth formed it was a molten rock of lava. Is man also responsible for the Earth metamorphosing in to what we experience now. Climate change has been around since the Earth formed, and will be around until the Earth is no more. Mans contribution to climate change is minimal at worst. Wake up and smell the CO2 mate, coming out of Rajendra Kumar Pachauri's arse hole............................ ;D |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Ajax on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:31pm Quote:
Maurice saviour of the world If you ever run into this can't, can you please ask him how he has curbed his use of fossil fuels................... ;D ;D ;D |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Emma on Dec 18th, 2016 at 3:10am Ajax wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:31pm:
Hmm interesting quotes. I'll accept them at face value. Clearly, this is correct. Hopefully technology will go a long way to negating, or at least easing the impacts of human activity on the health of the planet, as much for our benefit, as for all the other life forms on the planet. I'm not, however , holding my breath. Good luck to you and your beloveds,, in the world WE are responsible for. No one else to BLAME IS THERE.? |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by The_Barnacle on Dec 18th, 2016 at 10:52am Emma wrote on Dec 18th, 2016 at 3:10am:
Quote #1: pretty much stating what we all know anyway. The planet can not sustain 7 billion people living an affluent middle class life style. Quote #3: pretty much the same as quote #1 Quote #2: a fabricated myth from the climate denier website "info wars" |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Ajax on Dec 18th, 2016 at 6:04pm
Hey Barnacle,
Dear old Maurice Strong would have you and all of us, living out of a cave. While he enjoys ALL the creature comforts of fossil fuels. There is not one creature comfort that he goes without. He just wants us plebs to live in caves.......... ;) Have you smelt the CO2 coming out of Rajendra Kumar Pachauri's arse hole lately..................... ;D ;D ;D A railroad engineer head of the IPCC.............. :o He got into climate change cause he knows FA about railroads. He also knows FA about climate change, but that's the way of things these days, the boss usually knows FA about anything..... :o |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by AnotherJourneyByTrain on Dec 18th, 2016 at 6:18pm |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 18th, 2016 at 6:35pm TheFunPolice wrote on Dec 18th, 2016 at 6:18pm:
First described in the 1850's. What a bore. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by AnotherJourneyByTrain on Dec 18th, 2016 at 10:42pm lee wrote on Dec 18th, 2016 at 6:35pm:
Oh noes, lee gets bored :o |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 19th, 2016 at 11:01am TheFunPolice wrote on Dec 18th, 2016 at 10:42pm:
yes, with your inanities. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 19th, 2016 at 5:52pm lee wrote on Dec 14th, 2016 at 5:21pm:
Good to see you focus on the 16% that supports your existent opinion while discounting the 84% that doesn't. Very objective. If your running out of papers that agree with you to quote, its probably because there just arn't very many............. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 19th, 2016 at 6:11pm Pho Huc wrote on Dec 19th, 2016 at 5:52pm:
I was merely pointing out that seeing as you are so afraid of CO2, perhaps you could cut down some trees. : ;) |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 19th, 2016 at 8:00pm lee wrote on Dec 19th, 2016 at 6:11pm:
Oh, that's what you though you were doing. What you were actually doing was dissembling badly while referring to credible scientific paper which opposed your opinion. No charge for the correction. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 19th, 2016 at 8:22pm Pho Huc wrote on Dec 19th, 2016 at 8:00pm:
Nope I knew it. I didn't "though" it. Pho Huc wrote on Dec 19th, 2016 at 8:00pm:
I surprised you know the word, but you would have to show you know the meaning and point out my egregious error. ;) Pho Huc wrote on Dec 19th, 2016 at 8:00pm:
First you have to prove it is a correction. ;) |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 19th, 2016 at 9:38pm lee wrote on Dec 19th, 2016 at 8:22pm:
I feel that would be helping you move the topic away from the large amount of science supporting my opinion and the lack of science supporting your opinion. And that's really my point. Your trying to make this sound like there are multiple reasonable interpretations of climatic behavior, while people like me point out there was a scientific consensus on this issue decades ago. Again, its obfuscation and its what's you do. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 19th, 2016 at 9:54pm Pho Huc wrote on Dec 19th, 2016 at 9:38pm:
Please cite the evidence that it is AGW, not natural variation. Of course the "Climate Science" has said that the warming is too much for natural variability. If that is so, the "hiatus" or "pause" cannot be attributed to natural variability, because apparently CO2 is the driver of climate change. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Jovial Monk on Dec 19th, 2016 at 10:26pm |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 19th, 2016 at 10:50pm lee wrote on Dec 19th, 2016 at 9:54pm:
What evidence would you like? I presume papers based on empirical evidence? How many? in which languages? from when-the 1960's? 70's? 80's, 90's-the last 15 years? yesterday;)? Your welcome to pick any of those parameters and ill post as many as you want. Its the wonderful thing about science. Its not about being right first time. Its about putting forward a hypothesis based on the available evidence, and attempting to prove it. The peer review process makes it hard for flawed ideas to remain unchallenged as there is considerable prestige in debunking a established scientific belief. In spite of this innate self correcting nature there is a more consensus supporting AGW in the relevant scientific communities than ever before. If anyone can actually demonstrate that the current data doesn't indicate AGW that person is set for life, from a financial and status view point. You could argue that only a small number of people are actively looking for proof that climate change is not anthropogenic, but that would be flawed since science is not about looking for proof of a preexisting opinion, rather about collecting data and finding a coherent consistent explanation(which is how all the scientists came to conclusion that its anthropogenic) |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 19th, 2016 at 10:54pm Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 19th, 2016 at 10:26pm:
Yes they say water vapour and CO2. Both are increasing. And water vapour has a bigger effect. But once they mention water vapour they don't discuss it increasing. Funny that. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 19th, 2016 at 11:02pm lee wrote on Dec 19th, 2016 at 10:54pm:
Solid rebuttal Lee. Nothing to say about the rest of its points which pretty much undermine 90% of your contributions to this board? |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 19th, 2016 at 11:08pm Pho Huc wrote on Dec 19th, 2016 at 11:02pm:
How can it be solid rebuttal, where they only discuss the increase in CO2? Besides, you have heard correlation is not causation haven't you? |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 19th, 2016 at 11:18pm lee wrote on Dec 19th, 2016 at 11:08pm:
Brian Dunning proves two things. CO2 levels have increased. The climate has got hotter. He then states that science has no CREDIBLE explanation for this warming, other than it being caused by CO2(Causative). Because it is the only thing which could be causing climate change, and it would be expected to create climate change, its probably the cause of climate change. Its about as solid as science gets really. Since your position has been either or; (A) the climate is not changing (B) The changing climate is not cuased by CO2/ The CO2 increase is not anthropogenic. I invite you to provide a more credible hypothesis for climate change. Unless you think its just God twinkling his fingers in which case ill cease arguing with you, pack up my bat and go home. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 19th, 2016 at 11:49pm Pho Huc wrote on Dec 19th, 2016 at 11:18pm:
Nope.The climate has always changed. CO2 may be responsible for a small portion./ CO2 increase is partially anthropogenic. Have you heard of the greening of the planet? Natural CO2 increase. The proof of AGW theory lies with the proponents, and you haven't provoded proof, merely conjecture upon conjecture. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 20th, 2016 at 12:24am lee wrote on Dec 19th, 2016 at 11:49pm:
No they can think of reason. CO2 levels. what I said was they couldn't think of any OTHER reason that was consistent with the observed data. Kind of like how scientists can't guarantee that gravity will be working tomorrow. It always has, and it fits with the current observations but you never really know. That's what science is. there is always uncertainty. lee wrote on Dec 19th, 2016 at 11:49pm:
evidence(backed by hard data) has been provided that the majority of CO2 recently added to the atmosphere is anthropogenic, and that there is no other coherent explanation for the recently climatic change other than it being directly caused by CO2 levels. If you want ill provide even more evidence and publish links to data. Again ill request you provide any peer reviewed material supporting your position. I dont expect anything, but you don't ask you dont get. Please, i would love to be able to support your opinion but you have to give me something that doesnt make me giggle! |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 20th, 2016 at 12:29am
Just in case some actual hard evidence could shake your faith, this is the paper on isotope concentrations referred to previously.
You know "evidence" That thing you don't have. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/modern_isotopes.html |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Emma on Dec 20th, 2016 at 12:56am Pho Huc wrote on Dec 19th, 2016 at 10:50pm:
+ Well put Phuc No.. oh sorry :) Pho Huc.. well put. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Emma on Dec 20th, 2016 at 12:59am
Yes indeed.
Sadly Lee isn't about reasonable debate. I suppose it may be fun to engage him.. Phuc Nos's why ::).. but you'll find the same as do we all... Lee is NOT about reason. One suspects he is an agent provocateur. There are a fair few here on OzPol. :) |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 20th, 2016 at 1:13am
Cheers Emma,
I aware that its futile trying to reason with Lee, but i'm an argumentative insomniac so I might as well aim it somewhere slightly productive. I can deal with someone who just states they don't believe in climate change without justification, provided they don't try and persuade other people(which they don't in my experience). People who promulgate misinformation are dangerous though, because theoretically they are the people create the first kind of skeptic. I guess its either a case of the thrill you get from being the outsider(who always wants more people join so they can become leaders of a majority), an ulterior motive or just being an anus. I don't know, people are unpredictable. In the end it probably doesn't matter. I'm yet to see a single poster on this forum change their position on anything significant. Its where we come to argue, not learn. Though I have learned a lot researching my arguments. I expect that most of the poster here have learned a lot about their opponents positions as we research the topics and look for holes in there statements. Hopefully we all end up with a more well-rounded knowledge base as a result. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Emma on Dec 20th, 2016 at 5:19am
cheers to you too
I agree with the reasons you engage... it is an opportunity to express your views. That is why I participate in the OzPol forum. If your posts draw responses that is always a good thing. :) |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Jovial Monk on Dec 20th, 2016 at 8:11am
Agree with the above but science is about DISproving theories.
|
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 20th, 2016 at 10:46am Pho Huc wrote on Dec 20th, 2016 at 12:24am:
But they can't think of any other reason, so by their estimation CO2 MUST be the culprit. Pho Huc wrote on Dec 20th, 2016 at 12:24am:
I haven't argued otherwise. Pho Huc wrote on Dec 20th, 2016 at 12:24am:
That is a leap of faith, not evidence. Pho Huc wrote on Dec 20th, 2016 at 12:29am:
Yep. We got that. You are repeating yourself. Now link it to AGW, or CAGW if you really think it a problem. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 20th, 2016 at 10:48am Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 20th, 2016 at 8:11am:
Incorrect. The idea is to disprove the null hypothesis. That is natural variation. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 20th, 2016 at 2:16pm lee wrote on Dec 20th, 2016 at 10:46am:
No. I have explained it, provided empirical proof and scientific papers supporting my position. You are unable to admit that you have nothing to stand on, so your trying to make this about my evidence. If you don't have anything to support your position go and do some research and build up a credible position. You could always just shut and stop embarrassing yourself, but i'm happy to stay here and keep pointing out your ignorance and stupidity. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 20th, 2016 at 3:13pm
Just looked at your much vaunted references on the other thread.
All of them rely on models. Models that have a number of "forcings" or parameters. The output of these models is not empirical data. They are a function of whatever is introduced by these parameters. Change one parameter and the output changes. ' With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.' Attributed to von Neumann by Enrico Fermi, as quoted by Freeman Dyson in "A meeting with Enrico Fermi" in Nature 427 (22 January 2004) p. 297 But you believe implicitly, so there is no changing your mind. The AGW religion. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 20th, 2016 at 4:51pm lee wrote on Dec 20th, 2016 at 3:13pm:
If you were half as good as logic as you are at obfuscation you would have cracked dark matter by now. You have no evidence to support your position that climate change is caused by anything other than mans CO2 emissions. Again, if you have ANY credible research supporting your opinion please post it. Or shut up. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 20th, 2016 at 7:33pm Pho Huc wrote on Dec 20th, 2016 at 4:51pm:
You don't know the climate models use "forcings" aka parameters? Then you don't know your argument. Pho Huc wrote on Dec 20th, 2016 at 4:51pm:
But I don't need to The alarmists have to PROVE that natural variation is not the reason for Climate change. Just saying so does not make it so. Natural variation is the null hypothesis. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 20th, 2016 at 10:00pm lee wrote on Dec 20th, 2016 at 7:33pm:
OK. So after 60 years of research by thousands of independent scientists the only plausible cause for the increasing temperatures is CO2 released by man. Developed countries sacrifice billions of dollars in cheap energy to reduce their carbon output. And you sit there and tell me that I have to provide evidence. Its all your capable of. Because you have nothing to support you. Hell, now your back to "Natural Variation" i.e god wiggling his fingers! |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 20th, 2016 at 10:13pm Pho Huc wrote on Dec 20th, 2016 at 10:00pm:
Nothing to do with God. Te climate has varied for thousands of years. No sign of CO2 being the cause. Pho Huc wrote on Dec 20th, 2016 at 10:00pm:
Is that supposed to be proof? Pho Huc wrote on Dec 20th, 2016 at 10:00pm:
Yep, prove CO2 is the driver. The null hypothesis is natural variation. hat's the way most science works. "Climate Science"TM wants to change the burden of proof. Pho Huc wrote on Dec 20th, 2016 at 10:00pm:
An appeal to authority. That's cute. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 20th, 2016 at 10:19pm
None of my points were proof.
They were an appeal to reasonableness, an attempt to explain to you why I felt the honus of proof was on you, given that you have the divergent opinion from the establishment. You state that all prevailing scientific opinions are wrong. When I ask you to prove it you have nothing. At least they offer me evidence. How could any reasonable person agree with someone who can provide nothing other than criticism of people who are doing real research? |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 20th, 2016 at 10:36pm
Climate Science is still in its infancy. They can't even determine what effects the interactions between various elements will be.
Have a look at IPCC AR5 Chapter 9 final pdf page 818 or 78 of 128 in your browser to see what is excluded from most models. Planck Feedback, Water Vapour Feedback, Lapse rate Feedback, Surface Albedo, Cloud Feedback. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf And tell us how much the scientists know. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 20th, 2016 at 10:57pm
I think you got mixed up Lee. That posts in the wrong thread.......
Take as long as you need :) |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 20th, 2016 at 11:28pm Pho Huc wrote on Dec 20th, 2016 at 10:57pm:
Nope, Your the one claiming that the 60 years of climate science has proven of AGW. But you won't read the report, |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 21st, 2016 at 12:12am
Thats a different kind of mixed up.
I mean your literally mixed up-you posted the same response to two different threads. I know your a bit short of information that supports your opinions but surely you don't have to be that parsimonious! |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 21st, 2016 at 10:29am Pho Huc wrote on Dec 21st, 2016 at 12:12am:
So delusional, thinking the same post on different threads is somehow not relevant. :D :D :D :D :D |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 21st, 2016 at 11:54am
None of my points were proof.
They were an appeal to reasonableness, an attempt to explain to you why I felt the honus of proof was on you, given that you have the divergent opinion from the establishment. You state that all prevailing scientific opinions are wrong. When I ask you to prove it you have nothing. At least they offer me evidence. How could any reasonable person agree with someone who can provide nothing other than criticism of people who are doing real research? |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 21st, 2016 at 1:43pm Pho Huc wrote on Dec 21st, 2016 at 11:54am:
You got that bit right. Figure 10.5 | Assessed likely ranges (whiskers) and their mid-points (bars) for attributable warming trends over the 1951–2010 period due to well-mixed greenhouse gases, other anthropogenic forcings (OA), natural forcings (NAT), combined anthropogenic forcings (ANT) and internal variability. The Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit gridded surface temperature data set 4 (HadCRUT4) observations are shown in black with the 5 to 95% uncertainty range due to observational uncertainty in this record (Morice et al., 2012). This is a direct copy of IPCC AR5 chapter 10 final pdf. Figure 10.5. at page 18. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf Note how, according to the IPCC, there are no natural forcings or internal variations. It is all man's fault. However, in other papers - "Climate variability without forcing – called internal variability, such as El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) fluctuations in the Pacific Ocean, is the dominant source of internal climate variability on decadal to centennial time scales." So they deny the existence of them. "Climate Science"TM strikes again. Edit: The name of the Chapter -"Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional" |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by AnotherJourneyByTrain on Dec 21st, 2016 at 6:27pm
OUT OF CONTEXT aka false argumentum [next!! :o :o]
|
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 21st, 2016 at 6:44pm TheFunPolice wrote on Dec 21st, 2016 at 6:27pm:
What's out of context? The IPCC is supposed to be the font of all knowledge, on things climate. Accordingly, to them there is no natural climate forcing. But - "They found that, averaged over the entire globe, the evapotranspiration effects of plants account for 16% of warming of the land surface, with greenhouse effects accounting for the rest. But in some regions, such as parts of North America and eastern Asia, it can be more than 25% of the total warming. ' https://carnegiescience.edu/news/co2-effects-plants-increase-global-warming-0 So that is a natural forcing. But it got lost. Perhaps you can post a rebuttal. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by jeez on Dec 21st, 2016 at 7:02pm
If the plankton die we die, we are one finely balanced ecosystem and nobody knows the impact of an emerging human population ripping this place apart, we may be the only living thing in the universe, we have a duty of care to be more responsible and ensure life continues. But why the long face.
|
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 21st, 2016 at 8:14pm Johnnie wrote on Dec 21st, 2016 at 7:02pm:
Apparently plankton is growing rapidly. 'Rapid plankton growth in ocean seen as sign of carbon dioxide loading ' http://hub.jhu.edu/2015/11/26/rapid-plankton-growth-could-signal-climate-change/ |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 21st, 2016 at 9:03pm lee wrote on Dec 21st, 2016 at 1:43pm:
Please note that initially Lee linked to the credible IPCC report. This makes it look likes he knows his stuff Notice that he has not linked to a credible document that supports his statement. This is because he does not know his stuff. But he rrreeeaaalllllllyyy doesn't want you to know that. Please Lee, provide one piece of credible research that supports anything other than CO2 as the primary drivers of climate change or remain silent. Im not asking you for anything that any rational person wouldn't have. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 21st, 2016 at 10:45pm Pho Huc wrote on Dec 21st, 2016 at 9:03pm:
My bad. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf Try page 28 of the same report. para 3 [quote author=deepideas link=1481690951/58#58 date=1482318183 Im not asking you for anything that any rational person wouldn't have. [/quote] And now you are claiming to be a rational person. :D :D :D :D |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 1:42am
Since it appears that your deriving you information on this subject why don't we actually include the whole section that your referencing-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf pg 894 Extract of the leading and preceding paragraph's of the quoted text. The fingerprint of human-caused greenhouse gas increases is clearly apparent in the pattern of observed 20th century climate change. The observed change cannot be otherwise explained by the fingerprints of natural forcings or natural variability simulated by climate models. Attribution studies therefore support the conclusion that ‘it is extremely likely that human activities have caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperatures from 1951 to 2010.’ The Earth’s climate is always changing, and that can occur for many reasons. To determine the principal causes of observed changes, we must first ascertain whether an observed change in climate is different from other fluctuations that occur without any forcing at all. Climate variability without forcing—called internal variability—is the consequence of processes within the climate system. Large-scale oceanic variability, such as El Nińo-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) fluctuations in the Pacific Ocean, is the dominant source of internal climate variability on decadal to centennial time scales. Climate change can also result from natural forcings external to the climate system, such as volcanic eruptions, or changes in the brightness of the sun. Forcings such as these are responsible for the huge changes in climate that are clearly documented in the geological record. Human-caused forcings include greenhouse gas emissions or atmospheric particulate pollution. Any of these forcings, natural or human caused, could affect internal variability as well as causing a change in average climate. Attribution studies attempt to determine the causes of a detected change in observed climate. Over the past century we know that global average temperature has increased, so if the observed change is forced then the principal forcing must be one that causes warming, not cooling. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you understand that you cant pull one sentence out of a report like this an claim it is legitimate research that supports your opinion, while simultaneously declaring your opposition to points it make much more clearly and forcefully. I don't have the information needed to disagree with any of the points that this report makes. That's fine with me, it accords with approximately what i think is going on with climate change. Your the one saying climate change is not anthropogenic while cherry picking the research that disagrees with you. Go find some really interesting nutty stuff for us to argue over, This constant referral to sources that torch you worse that I ever could is getting repetitive. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 10:35am
Yes. So now you admit their is a reference for my post. That's good.
Now as you have highlighted the section I quoted; why does the IPCC not have any internal variability in their Figure 10.5, even though they admit it exists? Why is there no Natural Forcings in their Fig. 10.5, which you admit exist? That is the point I am making, but you continue to obfuscate. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 2:51pm lee wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 10:35am:
I have no idea. Why are you unable to read the first paragraph? "The fingerprint of human-caused greenhouse gas increases is clearly apparent in the pattern of observed 20th century climate change. The observed change cannot be otherwise explained by the fingerprints of natural forcings or natural variability simulated by climate models. Attribution studies therefore support the conclusion that ‘it is extremely likely that human activities have caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperatures from 1951 to 2010.’" If you agree with this fair enough, and while i've had a lot of trouble pinning you opinion down, im pretty sure you have stated multiple times that global warming is not anthropogenic. Since all the credible evidence you post is 95% opposed to everything you say, why do you only listen to the 5%? |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 3:14pm Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 2:51pm:
You mean that without data of any kind from natural forcings or natural variability they can't discern a "fingerprint"? How bizarre. Is that what passes for science these days? Is it supposed to be proof that they don't exist, when on page 28 they say it does? Do you have a comprehension problems? |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 3:23pm
I don't have a problem with you discounting the IPCC report, if you have an alternative credible source.
The thing is, you raise it up on your left hand a proclaim that the IPCC demonstrates the strength of your argument, While also raising it in your right hand and claiming that it is nothing but distortions. Either pick one, Or get some evidence that doesn't crap all over your assertions. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 3:33pm Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 3:23pm:
Nope the IPCC, to my mind, is not a credible resource. That is why I point out the shortcomings. Which you don't seem to want to accept. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 4:18pm
Ok, since you state the IPCC is NOT credible, why do you cite it as evidence for so many of your assertions?
I havnt referenced it once. Its always you that tries to use it as evidence. and then states its unreliable. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 4:33pm Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 4:18pm:
lee wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 3:33pm:
lack of comprehension strikes again. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 5:05pm
If you want comprehension maybe try being coherent?
Your trying to use a document to invalidate itself, without providing any external source of data. So long as your only reference the IPCC report, you are bound by the findings of that report. Because you have not provided any other credible data which supports your numerous assertions, I am unable to give them any credibility. The IPCC report is ONE of the many official documents which correlate with each other and can find no reason for climate change other than GHG's. You have NOTHING that supports your position. Please, get some evidence or shut up. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 5:32pm Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 5:05pm:
Correlation is not causation. Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 5:05pm:
Really? Have you got a study to say that is so? Or is it a meaningless assertion? You do know the role of science. It is to question. I am questioning the report. Of course you could accept a (Hypothetical) report that said injection of spinach strainings would reduce cataracts. Would you question it or accept it? You really want to go down the road of unquestioning acceptance? |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 5:51pm lee wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 5:32pm:
Go nuts on questioning the report. Its a unwieldy politco-scientific document. I'm not basing my opinions on the report. I'm basing my opinions on the numerous more focused papers. (which i am happy to provide) The global climate is currently heating at a rate greater than any recorded history. The only plausible driver for a temperature increase at this rate is GHG's. If you want any part of that statement supported by credible scientific research, please highlight it and I will provide it. This is the third time I have made this offer. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 6:24pm Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 5:51pm:
Please provide Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 5:51pm:
Again - How long is this recorded history of global temperatures? Remember the SST component of the global temperature has been Karlized, which artificially warms it. Again you ignore the null hypothesis of natural variability, the one the IPCC can't find a "fingerprint" for/ Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 5:51pm:
This is the third time I have responded. Maybe you will provide something this time. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 8:59pm
The global climate is currently heating at a rate greater than any recorded history.
Its not so much the temperature levels which justify my opinions, rather its the rate the temperature is increasing. During historical warming periods the temperature increased at a rate of .8-1.4 ddC per thousand years. In the last 100 years the RECORDED average temperature has increased .7 dgC This is 5-10 times faster than has been recorded at ANY time in the past. Given that instead of a since the system is heating up at a speed an order of magnitude greater than any in all of history, maybe something slightly different is happening. Derived from. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html The only plausible driver for a temperature increase at this rate is GHG's. The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm There you go. Three totally separate peer reviewed articles, supporting two clear concise statements. Please note, all these papers are based on empirical data. I'm sure you are going to say that there were flaws in the papers I have quoted, And i'm equally sure that your not going to provide ANYTHNG credible that supports any viewpoint counter my stated opinion. Prove me wrong(not that proving is your strong suite!) |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 10:32pm Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 8:59pm:
Are they still using Mann's hockeystick? :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D You notice the early 20th century warming. It has a very similar slope, ie rate of change. And that was before the CO2 was postulated to be a problem. Then we had the global cooling scare. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 10:58pm Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 8:59pm:
1. It is a Letter to Nature. Not a peer reviewed paper. 2. It provides "experimental evidence". Have they finished the paper and provided more definite evidence. 3. A search for the DOI returns "DOI Not Found 10.1038/3506655" Has it been retracted? Why are the increase in greenhouse forcing only inferred? Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 8:59pm:
From the abstract - "The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons." Have they continued for a decade or so? From the extended abstract- "but they also provide a means of validating the predictions that are made by global warming models (Ellingson et al., 1991)." So how is that going? Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 8:59pm:
Well done you got something right. Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 8:59pm:
That's because you haven't proved anything. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 11:53pm
Other than the planet is getting hotter faster than at any time in history?
Do you have any evidence for any of your contortions yet? It obvious that you can find scientific literature that supports my position-why do have so much drama supporting your position? |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 8:19pm Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 11:53pm:
How long is this history of global warming? You never seem to answer. 150 years, 200 years? |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 9:28pm
You never asked.
The most accurate answer for your question would be since the first piece of gas trapped in the gravity well of an accretion of elements which eventually become the earth was heated and cooled. Cumbersome. Anthropogenic climate change has been occurring since the first cavemen did his first fart. I presume that you mean how long has science considered the current rate of temperature increase to be outside of the range expected prior to the human release of GHG's? Svante Arrhenius and Arvid Högbom were the first people to publish papers hypothesizing that CO2 released into the atmosphere would increase global temperatures(this was around 1895) Guy Stewart Callendar published a paper in 1938 that stated that global temperatures had been increasing for the previous 50 years, and concluded that it was being driven by CO2 level rises, So that was probably the first time that anthropological climate change was postulated professionally. They are all correct or incorrect answers depending on exactly what your question was. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 10:31pm Pho Huc wrote on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 9:28pm:
So only 120 years. Not a very long history. BTW - Arrhenius amended his warming theory in 1906. Reducing the change in temperature. Pho Huc wrote on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 9:28pm:
Yep Interesting. Based on MODTRAN Most of the warming is in the first 300ppm |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 11:10pm
Really?
You think i'm going to argue with you about the accuracy of 100-70 years old scientific papers? before satellites, ice cores, radio dating........ You were asking about the history of it. I could name 5 scientific fields which hadn't even been thought of then which are fundamental to the workings of our world in modern times. What you may not know was that when these papers were being published there was much more diverse opinion about what drove the earth climate, and a GHG driven model was quite on the outer. The reason it became the dominant theory was because it was the only explanation which fitted all the data that became available as science advanced. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 11:17pm Pho Huc wrote on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 11:10pm:
You're the one referenced paleo "data". |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 11:22pm
There is a difference between scientific paper written 100 years ago,
And modern research conducted on samples 100000 years old. baby steps. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 24th, 2016 at 2:31pm Pho Huc wrote on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 11:22pm:
yep. And the error bars, don't forget the error bars on current reconstructions of paleo "data". it is not only amplitude but timing. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Emma on Dec 25th, 2016 at 4:12am
Seen the latest temperatures in the Arctic North.?
|
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Jovial Monk on Dec 25th, 2016 at 7:32am Emma wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 4:12am:
Lees has asked a couple of times “above or below freezing” which is totally irrelevant, of course, what is relevant is the record high temp. Lees is all about obfuscation, partly through concentrating on minor points. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 25th, 2016 at 11:05am Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 7:32am:
Only if it is unprecedented, you know never happened before, ever. Since man walked the earth at least. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Lord Herbert on Dec 25th, 2016 at 11:53am Pho Huc wrote on Dec 14th, 2016 at 2:49pm:
The anthropogenic 'Global Warming' hoax lost any credibility it might have had when the instigators to this fraud switched to relabelling it as 'Climate Change' to hedge their bets when North America suffered its coldest winter in more than a hundred years. And then these Social-Marxist hoaxters blatantly revealed their political hand when they kept whisper-quiet upon learning that both India and China were fully intending to carry on burning fossil fuels. It soon became clear that the hoax was all about a sneaky plan designed to transfer gazillions of dollars from the wealthy Western nations to the Third World for ostensibly the purpose of helping them to finance the construction of Green energy resources. It's all very passé now, and even our socialist media has become very tired and bored with it. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Rider on Dec 25th, 2016 at 12:39pm Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 7:32am:
Not a record. Has happened before will happen again. Actual answer is 'so what?' Thought tbis would equate to a weather event, much akin to snow falls in thr Sahara during the week.... Or is it climate change when it suits.....hard to believe so many swamp rats in one place.....drain the swamp! |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Lord Herbert on Dec 25th, 2016 at 2:07pm
Global warming is good - it's the Global cooling that would be a worry.
|
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 25th, 2016 at 7:05pm Lord Herbert wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 11:53am:
Speechless. All I can say is i'm not sure you know what a hoax is. p.s, When was the ice age meant to kick in? im debating re-gassing the air-con in my work shed. 51 dg in there! |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 25th, 2016 at 7:19pm Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 7:05pm:
Do some research. John Holdren Obama's science czar is one 1971. for starters |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Lord Herbert on Dec 25th, 2016 at 7:43pm
The 'Climate Change' hoax has become a cult that involves the movement of billions of dollars around the world. It's something like the international charity rackets that make certain leading individuals very rich indeed.
Pho? Relax. The Mekong isn't about to evaporate because of 'Climate Change', and those fish farms for the export trade to Australia and elsewhere will still be swimming in human sh!t from a 1000 miles of upstream toilet-dumping by a couple of million people. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Pho Huc on Dec 25th, 2016 at 7:45pm Lord Herbert wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 7:43pm:
Can you link me the high quality, well researched impartial video that your basing this on. Literally PMSL! |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Lord Herbert on Dec 25th, 2016 at 7:59pm Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 7:45pm:
What do you mean by 'impartial'? The 'Climate Change' hoax is all about university funding grants, moral posturing, political agendas, social engineering, and lots of money being 'gifted' to the Third World from the pockets of the much-abused Western taxpayers. There's nothing 'impartial' about it. Our own top politicians think nothing of spending $64,000,000 of taxpayers' money on a non-binding plebiscite to ask the punters what they think about buggery being sanctified by marriage vows. I mean, fair bloody dinkum, cobber. And you're telling us we can trust our politicians with what they tell us on any particular subject, and we should respect them for how they are using our money? |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Emma on Dec 25th, 2016 at 10:53pm Rider wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 12:39pm:
Oh? When was that exactly.? Please tell us. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Emma on Dec 25th, 2016 at 11:01pm Lord Herbert wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 7:59pm:
Sweetie?? it is the scientists advising us all of this,, not the pollies. Depending on their views they'll say anything, but opinion isn't fact. I don't listen to what the pollies are saying, because their agenda is all about gaining and retaining personal power, unfortunately. I mean, I'd like to think there are some who are honest, but its like being a cop. Once you join you have to think like a cop, or you get charged with criminal offenses for telling the truth. Scientists on the other hand, have a different agenda. AND.. if they are to be given any credence by their peers, they have certain RULES, which dictate how seriously their findings will be taken, by their peers. Pollies, in the main, have shown themselves to be like ferals, they'll do whatever it takes for power. Please don't confuse government bullshit for scientific theory. ::) |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Rider on Dec 26th, 2016 at 9:30am Emma wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 11:01pm:
IPCC.....Intergovernmental Panel.....ooops looks like you've had a fall at the very first hurdle. Shame you're not a horse. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Rider on Dec 26th, 2016 at 9:32am Emma wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 10:53pm:
You got proof it hasen't? |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 26th, 2016 at 10:35am Emma wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 10:53pm:
You really do have to have some perspective. How long the records are. Area. population. "Due to the lack of major population centres in the Arctic, weather and climate observations from the region tend to be widely spaced and of short duration compared to the midlatitudes and tropics. Though the Vikings explored parts of the Arctic over a millennium ago, and small numbers of people have been living along the Arctic coast for much longer, scientific knowledge about the region was slow to develop; the large islands of Severnaya Zemlya, just north of the Taymyr Peninsula on the Russian mainland, were not discovered until 1913, and not mapped until the early 1930s (Serreze and Barry, 2005)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_the_Arctic Did the Vikings use sleighs reindeer? Ships? Vikings seem to have relied on ships. Ships require open water. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Rider on Dec 26th, 2016 at 3:26pm Rider wrote on Dec 26th, 2016 at 9:32am:
Have you seen the latest temps in Siberia? More record lows..... But I'd reckon that would just be local weather wouldnt it? Not the calamitous world exploding (in a billion years time) kind of bleating piffle we see from the swampies. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Jovial Monk on Dec 26th, 2016 at 4:32pm
Siberia also had record high temperatures last NH summer.
|
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 26th, 2016 at 4:49pm Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 26th, 2016 at 4:32pm:
Isn't it marvellous what weather can do? |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Emma on Dec 26th, 2016 at 10:06pm Rider wrote on Dec 26th, 2016 at 3:26pm:
UMmmmm .... ;D :) :-? ;D ;D The reason for that is the very fact that the Polar Vortex is losing cohesion. What this means is that large masses of hot air are pushing up into the arctic from the two major land masses connected to the arctic, rather like amorphous horns, which push and displace the cold arctic air to the SOUTH, into those same aforementioned landmasses. The Arctic cold is being displaced , resulting in warmer temperatures in the far north and colder temperatures in places just like Siberia, and Northern Europe, as well as continental North America. Therefore we have large ice melts in the Arctic and snow in the Saharan desert, and Northern California. Do you understand it now.? ::) ::) |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 26th, 2016 at 10:13pm Emma wrote on Dec 26th, 2016 at 10:06pm:
You do understand it is not a recent phenomenon? First described in 1853. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Emma on Dec 26th, 2016 at 10:39pm lee wrote on Dec 26th, 2016 at 10:13pm:
Indeed, snow last fell on the Sahara about 40 years ago. It is the scale and severity of the meteorology that is the concern. We don't have any back-up scenarios available to us, and the population that will be affected is exponentionally :) greater than at any time in the past. UNDENIABLE. Can you find any earlier references?? because humans have been recording meteorological information for a lot longer than that. Personally, I think the only records which are relevant are those pertaining to the years since, say 1920. There is no harm in looking at earlier records for comparisons sake, where available though. It just behooves the injunction to realise that older data is largely irrelevant to where we are today. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 27th, 2016 at 11:37am Emma wrote on Dec 26th, 2016 at 10:39pm:
Do you mean something more than "this is a bitch of a winter a can't remember one like it"? ;) Emma wrote on Dec 26th, 2016 at 10:39pm:
Oh, good. We can include the early 20th century warming, before CO2 was postulated to be a problem. ;) Emma wrote on Dec 26th, 2016 at 10:39pm:
Any proof today is worse than any other time in say the last two thousand years? The only data we have is CO2 levels today. We only have proxy data to say it was never that high since humans have walked the earth. CO2 levels lag temperature by about 800 years according to scientists, they don't drive temperature. Have other warm periods been, supposedly, driven by CO2? You would ignore what science says about perihelion and aphelion? And other cycles? ::) Emma wrote on Dec 26th, 2016 at 10:39pm:
There is a larger population so any effect would be larger. First you have to show there is anything bad happening, and that it is global. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Rider on Dec 28th, 2016 at 5:10am Emma wrote on Dec 26th, 2016 at 10:06pm:
So the Polar Vortex is "losing cohesion".....interesting....you got any proof of this, oh, and is "losing cohesion" a scientific term or just a meaningless glib term coined to promote more alarmist twaddle? Weather as you described commonly occurs, no records, nothing unprecedented.....begging the question....so what? |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Rider on Dec 28th, 2016 at 5:16am Emma wrote on Dec 26th, 2016 at 10:39pm:
So you think modern weather measuring technology shouldnt be coupled to historic data like tree rings and ice cores and be directly correllated.....wow...we agree. But it kinda blows apart the complete warmist assertion exposing it to be nothing other than the corrupt UN scandal it truly is. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Emma on Dec 29th, 2016 at 12:21am
Well.. really?...
I've been thinking I agree with the title of this topic. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Jovial Monk on Dec 29th, 2016 at 7:43am
Funny how the BuMet and CSIRO all show warming temperatures as does the UK Met Office as does NASA etc etc.
Simplest hypothesis: the globe is warming. The mechanism is there in CO2 and H2O. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Ajax on Dec 29th, 2016 at 8:25am Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 29th, 2016 at 7:43am:
The climate models also told the world that there was a hot spot (the signature foot print of AGW) in the tropopause around the equator and that CO2 was the main cause unfortunately for you lot weather balloons and satellite data fail to detect this hot spot which only existed in computer models. Lies and deception from the oligarchy who want to tax us all including you on the air we breathe. Let’s not forget that 95% of the greenhouse effect on Earth is due to water vapour and clouds. Here is a list of all the failed predictions of the climate models. The big list of failed climate predictions https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/ Earth's energy budget from 53minute mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeCqcKYj9Oc |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Jovial Monk on Dec 29th, 2016 at 12:26pm
wattsupwiththat is a denialist website that is frequently wrong.
|
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by Ajax on Dec 29th, 2016 at 3:45pm Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 29th, 2016 at 12:26pm:
It's a site that presents all the facts, whether they are for or against the alarmist argument. Unlike that fraudulent blog site called skeptical science. Even it's name is deceiving its not sceptical at all, it pushes the alarmist message loud and clear to its readers. It has ties to Al Gore, maybe honest John will become a high priest some time soon. |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 29th, 2016 at 5:29pm Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 29th, 2016 at 12:26pm:
And of course you have multiple examples of these errors? And are willing to impart them? |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 29th, 2016 at 10:03pm
Re: there is no climate change debate.
There appears to be change afoot. From The Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel reporting on the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources - Quote:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/28/dnr-purges-climate-change-on-web-page/95929564/ http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/greatlakes/climatechange.html |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by AnotherJourneyByTrain on Dec 30th, 2016 at 11:53am Ajax wrote on Dec 29th, 2016 at 3:45pm:
Ajax should ask his best mate JOHNNY OLD MAN SMELL HOWARD what he thinks about climate change. Ajax should ask his best mate JOHNNY OLD MAN SMELL HOWARD what he thinks about climate change. Ajax should ask his best mate JOHNNY OLD MAN SMELL HOWARD what he thinks about climate change.i ;) |
Title: Re: there is no climate change debate. Post by lee on Dec 30th, 2016 at 6:32pm TheFunPolice wrote on Dec 30th, 2016 at 11:53am:
|
Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2! YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved. |