Australian Politics Forum - Little Ice Age imminent?

John_Taverner

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2212
Gender: male

Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Reply #105 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 9:01am

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 8:58am:

they teach the relationship between CO2 and temperature in high school??? And the problem remains that Co2 has increased and temperature has not a all. Linear or logarithmic, the relationship is clearly nowhere near that simple.

Yes they do, and as usual you have missed the point completely. You are arguing against a simplistic linear relationship.

You don't even know what you're arguing about. You fail to grasp even High School Physics.

You don't have a clue. Why do you argue about something of which you don't even know the basics?

Back to top

IP Logged

Very_Vinnie Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 539 Gender:	Re: Little Ice Age imminent? Reply #106 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 9:29am longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 8:58am: ... Co2 has increased and temperature has not a all. No matter HOW many times you repeat David Rose's "tabloid tales" - you're STILL repeating a pile of dog sh1t
Back to top	There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not? - Robert Francis Kennedy IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Reply #107 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 9:34am

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 9:29am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 8:58am:

... Co2 has increased and temperature has not a all.

No matter HOW many times you repeat David Rose's "tabloid tales"

- you're STILL repeating a pile of dog sh1t

http://www.jacobking.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/crappy-bloggers.png

find ANY graph of surface temperatures from any reliable source and you will find the same thing. try it and look.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Reply #108 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 9:35am

John_Taverner wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 9:01am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 8:58am:

they teach the relationship between CO2 and temperature in high school??? And the problem remains that Co2 has increased and temperature has not a all. Linear or logarithmic, the relationship is clearly nowhere near that simple.

Yes they do, and as usual you have missed the point completely. You are arguing against a simplistic linear relationship.

You don't even know what you're arguing about. You fail to grasp even High School Physics.

You don't have a clue. Why do you argue about something of which you don't even know the basics?

can the bluster. CO2 is rising and temperature is NOT. clearly the relationship is not what has been predicted because there are far too many factors at play here. And I know of no one that is taught about CO2/temperature at school

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Swagman Gold Member Offline Beware of cheap imitations...... Posts: 15095 Illawarra NSW Gender:	Re: Little Ice Age imminent? Reply #109 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 9:43am Here Vinnie, use this to heat your self up a nice Latte to sip on with your Greenie comrades... ......it might take a while for the pot to boil though
Back to top	IP Logged

Very_Vinnie

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 539
Gender: male

Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Reply #110 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 9:53am

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 9:34am:

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 9:29am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 8:58am:

... Co2 has increased and temperature has not a all.

No matter HOW many times you repeat David Rose's "tabloid tales"

- you're STILL repeating a pile of dog sh1t

find ANY graph of surface temperatures from any reliable source and you will find the same thing. try it and look.

Try NASA - or our own BOM
They'll let you see that global average temperatures have broken old and set new record highs at least half a dozen times over your "pause" period

2014 was the warmest year since records began - despite your claim of "no increase since 1996"

2015 is on track to surpass 2014 - despite your claim of "no increase since 1996"

Back to top

There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why?
I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?

- Robert Francis Kennedy

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 18065 Gender:	Re: Little Ice Age imminent? Reply #111 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 11:22am As the IPCC says the 'hiatus' is a break in the 1979-98 trend. The trend from 1998 on is less than before. Not what one would expect if the ever increasing CO2 levels were the control knob. Unless of course CO2 is approaching saturation, which would kill AGW theory.
Back to top	IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Reply #112 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 12:29pm

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 9:53am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 9:34am:

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 9:29am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 8:58am:

... Co2 has increased and temperature has not a all.

No matter HOW many times you repeat David Rose's "tabloid tales"

- you're STILL repeating a pile of dog sh1t

find ANY graph of surface temperatures from any reliable source and you will find the same thing. try it and look.

Try NASA - or our own BOM
They'll let you see that global average temperatures have broken old and set new record highs at least half a dozen times over your "pause" period

2014 was the warmest year since records began - despite your claim of "no increase since 1996"

2015 is on track to surpass 2014 - despite your claim of "no increase since 1996"

SHOW THE GRAPH BOOFHEAD

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Reply #113 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 12:53pm

lee wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 11:22am:

As the IPCC says the 'hiatus' is a break in the 1979-98 trend. The trend from 1998 on is less than before. Not what one would expect if the ever increasing CO2 levels were the control knob. Unless of course CO2 is approaching saturation, which would kill AGW theory.

ah, so no pause 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

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 18065 Gender:	Re: Little Ice Age imminent? Reply #114 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 1:41pm The 'hiatus' is also the 'pause'. It is the change in the trend. Of course you could try to explain why early 20th century warming shows a similar rate of change to late 20th century warming.
Back to top	IP Logged

John_Taverner

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2212
Gender: male

Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Reply #115 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 3:35pm

There is no need to explain anything of the kind. It is established beyond any reasonable doubt that increasing CO2 leads to an increase in Radiative Forcing due to CO2. That has been established time and time again using emission spectra and a progressive decrease in LWIR radation over time at the peak caused by CO2.

That relationship is well established, and it is logarithmic.

The Law of Conservation of Energy leads one to the inevitable conclusion that the extra heat must be doing something - if not conversion to kinetic energy (higher winds etc), then an increase in temperature.

That "something" has been reasonably well defined.

Back to top

IP Logged

John_Taverner

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2212
Gender: male

Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Reply #116 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 3:39pm

lee wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 11:22am:

As the IPCC says the 'hiatus' is a break in the 1979-98 trend. The trend from 1998 on is less than before. Not what one would expect if the ever increasing CO2 levels were the control knob. Unless of course CO2 is approaching saturation, which would kill AGW theory.

Go on then. I'm dying to hear you repeat that hackneyed little gem.

Start by telling everybody where in the atmospheric column all the action is?

Back to top

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 18065 Gender:	Re: Little Ice Age imminent? Reply #117 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 3:40pm John_Taverner wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 3:35pm: There is no need to explain anything of the kind. Link please.
Back to top	IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 18065 Gender:	Re: Little Ice Age imminent? Reply #118 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 3:42pm What is the level of CO2 saturation? Please tell us John.
Back to top	IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Reply #119 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 3:51pm

John_Taverner wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 3:35pm:

There is no need to explain anything of the kind. It is established beyond any reasonable doubt that increasing CO2 leads to an increase in Radiative Forcing due to CO2. That has been established time and time again using emission spectra and a progressive decrease in LWIR radation over time at the peak caused by CO2.

That relationship is well established, and it is logarithmic.

The Law of Conservation of Energy leads one to the inevitable conclusion that the extra heat must be doing something - if not conversion to kinetic energy (higher winds etc), then an increase in temperature.

That "something" has been reasonably well defined.

you are missing the point. CO2 increases and temperature has NOT increased. Clearly and obviously the drivers of temperature are a lot more complex and substantial than mere CO2 concentrations. That is the problem you face - your theory of a relationship has failed. IF there is a relationship then the limits to its application have been exceeded.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged