If someone said to you they seriously thought it was possible for Richmond to win the premiership this year would you consider them A) A football expert who should be listened to and believed on all matters football, or B) Someone with no idea about football who should be ignored whenever they gave their opinion on anything to do with football?
-
LIVE: Sydney v Brisbane Lions - 2:30PM AEST Sat
Squiggle tips Lions at 61% chance -- What's your tip? -- Ticketing Buy, Sell -- Teams on Thurs »
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Grand Final
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round PF Winner: Still Me
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Global warming not going away
- Thread starter Doctor Jolly
- Start date
- Tagged users None
If someone said to you they seriously thought it was possible for Richmond to win the premiership this year would you consider them A) A football expert who should be listened to and believed on all matters football, or B) Someone with no idea about football who should be ignored whenever they gave their opinion on anything to do with football?
I think I understand you. I think. Jeepers.
Point is according to you, there is not a "massive difference" (your words) between possibility and reasonable likelihood. The Richmond example i used illustrates that there is a massive difference. Richmond are still a possibility to win the flag but absolutely there is a massive difference between the possibility of that happening and it being a reasonable likelihood. Thats what i mean.
anyway, whatever.
sigh... see post above. Way to miss the point.
Actually, I prefer to listen to mp3s as they are audio files.
Maybe you guys can also link an inconvenient truth as well for a laugh?On the subject of hoopla, you still haven't brought anything remotely resembling a scientific study to the debate yet?
A simple graph for a simpleton...
I agree that those charts are based on satellite measurements that only go back to 1979. Although, the last time I checked, the Arctic ice had been around for lot longer than 31 years and most of these satellite years occurred during a natural warmer period in the Arctic region.
Here is an article from 2004 (the ipcc must have missed that one) that sheds some light on the subject of Arctic melt in regards to the Arctic Oscillation.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041220010410.htm
If you need help with the basics on climatology, I'm sure the fourth grader who won the junior division in the 2010 US National Science Fair would be more than happy to help a "simpleton" such as yourself.
Are people who have their opinions dictated to them by Andrew Bolt really worth arguing with?
They are way to stupid to see reason and will protect their own ignorance at all costs.
Even though Robyn Williams likely doesn't believe in god, he would likely concede that the existence of a God is a possibility. Andrew Bolt would take it out of context and very stupid people would use this as irrefutable evidence that Robyn Williams is a born again fundamentalist (not looking at anyone Hawkmania).
Just to recap:
The science is in, and the consensus of the experts is that global warming is occurring and that it is man made.
Just because some very well funded pseudoscientists who are by no means recognised experts, have been paid big money by vested interests to throw doubt in the mind of some of the public (not the experts, they have no doubt, they understand the evidence) doesn't change the science or the expert opinion of the science.
They are way to stupid to see reason and will protect their own ignorance at all costs.
Even though Robyn Williams likely doesn't believe in god, he would likely concede that the existence of a God is a possibility. Andrew Bolt would take it out of context and very stupid people would use this as irrefutable evidence that Robyn Williams is a born again fundamentalist (not looking at anyone Hawkmania).
Just to recap:
The science is in, and the consensus of the experts is that global warming is occurring and that it is man made.
Just because some very well funded pseudoscientists who are by no means recognised experts, have been paid big money by vested interests to throw doubt in the mind of some of the public (not the experts, they have no doubt, they understand the evidence) doesn't change the science or the expert opinion of the science.
Re: Another misguided labour fanboi thread
This post I made earlier came to my attention in an email from a person whom has given me a few reliable tips in the past. However, it has come to my attention that this story is based on a con where a child was given a forged prize pack. Since that info has come to light, I will retract this and advise others not to give it any credibility. I feel for the girl, her family, school, media and others that have been taken in by this.
Personally, I aim to have my posts on the subject backed by evidence and actual journalism. In this case, I was lax in my checking. I am man enough to step up and admit when I have made a mistake. I am disappointed in myself for this and it would be hypocritical of me not to come forward on this as I have savaged the un ipcc on their many errors in the past.
I will get flamed for posting this retraction and deservedly so. I will endeavour to check my sources more carefully in the future.
Usually, the information I post comes from trusted sources that I personally rate highly. These sources have been very reliable and have helped me immensely in the climate debate by offering open discussion, skeptical views and evidence based on reliable scientific methods.
This post I made earlier came to my attention in an email from a person whom has given me a few reliable tips in the past. However, it has come to my attention that this story is based on a con where a child was given a forged prize pack. Since that info has come to light, I will retract this and advise others not to give it any credibility. I feel for the girl, her family, school, media and others that have been taken in by this.
Personally, I aim to have my posts on the subject backed by evidence and actual journalism. In this case, I was lax in my checking. I am man enough to step up and admit when I have made a mistake. I am disappointed in myself for this and it would be hypocritical of me not to come forward on this as I have savaged the un ipcc on their many errors in the past.
I will get flamed for posting this retraction and deservedly so. I will endeavour to check my sources more carefully in the future.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #82
Re: Another misguided labour fanboi thread
THats not true. Here, let me reword it correctly for you...
Usually, the information I, Hawkamania, post comes from dubious unqualified sources (or bloggers) that incorrectly manipulate date to push an agenda. These sources have been proven to be false, and distanced from any respectable scientists but have helped me immensely in the climate debate by validating my beliefs.
THats not true. Here, let me reword it correctly for you...
Usually, the information I, Hawkamania, post comes from dubious unqualified sources (or bloggers) that incorrectly manipulate date to push an agenda. These sources have been proven to be false, and distanced from any respectable scientists but have helped me immensely in the climate debate by validating my beliefs.
Yep you would have to say the arctic oscillation combined with global warming is a bit of a double whammy for the arctic. 6 more years of warming and 6 more years of ice loss. Who would have thought...
And a trend is a trend is a trend...
Its 2010 you know, a lot more has been learned about AGW since then.Here is an article from 2004 (the ipcc must have missed that one) that sheds some light on the subject of Arctic melt in regards to the Arctic Oscillation.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041220010410.htm
If you need help with the basics on climatology, I'm sure the fourth grader who won the junior division in the 2010 US National Science Fair would be more than happy to help a "simpleton" such as yourself.
Hell we may not have any summer sea ice in a few years..
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090402143752.htm
A nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in the summer may happen three times sooner than scientists have estimated. New research says the Arctic might lose most of its ice cover in summer in as few as 30 years instead of the end of the century.
Re: Another misguided labour fanboi thread
Yep you're a fraud but we knew that.
The thing is your number one "source" whattsupwiddat has no more credibility than the fourth grader so i assume you will drop anfernee and co as well. Doesn't leave much - old bug eyes I guess.
Above bolded for hilarity...
Yep you're a fraud but we knew that.
The thing is your number one "source" whattsupwiddat has no more credibility than the fourth grader so i assume you will drop anfernee and co as well. Doesn't leave much - old bug eyes I guess.
Pity that the majority of people no longer believe, but by all means carry on.
PS if this winter stays as cold and wet as some are forecasting I am tipping it will do for Australia's view of 'global warming' what the recent winter in the US and Europe did.
Nature does not seem to be doing what you guys predict.
PS if this winter stays as cold and wet as some are forecasting I am tipping it will do for Australia's view of 'global warming' what the recent winter in the US and Europe did.
Nature does not seem to be doing what you guys predict.
I think you'll find it is.
Unfortunately.
Perhaps before contributing you should have read the OP
"The global temperature this year reached its warmest on record based on a 12-month rolling average, said James Hansen, the top climate change scientist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration."
Of course that world class environmental scientist, Andrew Bolt, disagrees.
Hang on.
Isn't he just a right wing columnist trying to mislead the stupid?
I repeat all polls, all over the world say the majority no longer see it as an issue. Its deader than Al Gore's marriage.
Wonaeamirri33
Lovable Whore With A Heart Of Gold
10k Posts
Bay 13: Flog of the Year
Chocolate
Artist
Ruby
- May 10, 2009
- 28,743
- 44,821
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- FITZROY, Aylesbury United, St Pauli
Morgy and assorted cohorts seem more and more like the people of "Hy Brasil" in Erik the Viking.... anyone remember that bit when the whole island was sinking and a bunch of them were just sitting there calmly denying it all?
"Well, I think you'll find it's all a question of what you want to believe in and I have far more experience in these matters than you do glug glug glug"
"Well, I think you'll find it's all a question of what you want to believe in and I have far more experience in these matters than you do glug glug glug"
Unfortunately the opinion polls have nothing to de with the veracity of man made global warming
I'd vote against global warming if I could.
It just doesn't work that way despite what Andrew Bolt would have the stupid believe.
I have had a lot of trouble believing the "popular scientific advice" ever since the Y2K bug was going to destroy anything that had a digital clock in it. ( The actual affects were pretty much what most sensible people predicted, but the amount of money wasted by organisations leading up to it was just ******* ).
What I am fairly sure of is that:
Empirical evidence shows that there is some warming occurring.
The link between altmospheric CO levels and the warming is tenuous to say the least, but we have to blame ourselves don't we. ( Can someone please explain to me how the fact that the sun has been "hotter" recently is dismissed as a cause ).
It is a good idea to save energy anyway so why not do it if you can.
Selling huge amounts of coal and gas to China will not result in less Carbon emmissions.
Bying a plug in hybrid and charging the batteries with electricity from Hazelwood is probably not better for the environment than a normal car. A little Ford Diesel is probably a much better option.
If Australia doubles the cost of Electricity and Gas, the Chinese and Indians won't go out in sympathy and stop increasing their enormous greenhouse emmissions.
Nor will they hesitate in trying to pick up any business that becomes unviable in Australia.
My prediction is that the planet is going to turn into a hellhole over the long term anyway. Look at what happens if any species breeds in an uncontrolled manner. Its no point being responsible and limiting yourself to two kids, because others with wierd religious views will see this as a way of outnumbering and taking over. Can we really double or triple the population of the earth and have everyone drive a car, and fly overseas to go to the beach, and have a house full of electrical appliences? I suspect there are not enough resources at the current population levels to give everyone what we would regard as a reasonable standard of living.
Hey but a huge war/plague/Jihad etc may save the planet ( for a while ).
What I am fairly sure of is that:
Empirical evidence shows that there is some warming occurring.
The link between altmospheric CO levels and the warming is tenuous to say the least, but we have to blame ourselves don't we. ( Can someone please explain to me how the fact that the sun has been "hotter" recently is dismissed as a cause ).
It is a good idea to save energy anyway so why not do it if you can.
Selling huge amounts of coal and gas to China will not result in less Carbon emmissions.
Bying a plug in hybrid and charging the batteries with electricity from Hazelwood is probably not better for the environment than a normal car. A little Ford Diesel is probably a much better option.
If Australia doubles the cost of Electricity and Gas, the Chinese and Indians won't go out in sympathy and stop increasing their enormous greenhouse emmissions.
Nor will they hesitate in trying to pick up any business that becomes unviable in Australia.
My prediction is that the planet is going to turn into a hellhole over the long term anyway. Look at what happens if any species breeds in an uncontrolled manner. Its no point being responsible and limiting yourself to two kids, because others with wierd religious views will see this as a way of outnumbering and taking over. Can we really double or triple the population of the earth and have everyone drive a car, and fly overseas to go to the beach, and have a house full of electrical appliences? I suspect there are not enough resources at the current population levels to give everyone what we would regard as a reasonable standard of living.
Hey but a huge war/plague/Jihad etc may save the planet ( for a while ).
Its nice to see that the global warming acolytes have "discovered" the Arctic Oscillation after downplaying its effect on the Arctic (hello bp and the real climate contributors).
Still, you could have added other natural influences such as solar output, ocean currents and calving of the ice, along with the issue of dirty snow on the ice absorbing more heat from sunlight (please note that this is caused by particulate matter containing carbon and not CO2).
If you read Watts Up With That regularly, you would have leaned about natural influences like the Arctic Oscillation much earlier.
Oh and yes a trend is a trend. The current trend is showing cooling on a global scale and increases in sea ice.
Yes, it is 2010. Most of us already know that and its nice that you caught up. From that same article:Its 2010 you know, a lot more has been learned about AGW since then.
Hell we may not have any summer sea ice in a few years..
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090402143752.htm
A nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in the summer may happen three times sooner than scientists have estimated. New research says the Arctic might lose most of its ice cover in summer in as few as 30 years instead of the end of the century.
On hansen's claims, how can you trust someone who manipulates data to support their beliefs?
And finally, this one is for Wonaeamirri33, from a believer of the ipcc global warming propaganda:
[youtube]zNZczIgVXjg[/youtube]
Really?
These guys seem to think otherwise
http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/...sen-study-global-warming-record-hottest-year/
^ Do you know who runs that propaganda blog? You may as well be quoting from al gore's staff.
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2010/03/why_joe_romm_wont_debate_roger.shtml
Here is an email from one of the lead authors of the ipcc reports that reveals more than intended.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048
Email from Ken Trenberth.
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2010/03/why_joe_romm_wont_debate_roger.shtml
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/03/end-of-week-deadline-for-romm-to-agree.html
Here is an email from one of the lead authors of the ipcc reports that reveals more than intended.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048
Email from Ken Trenberth.
Thank God for whistle blowers.
So you want to shoot the messenger, that's your prerogative. The quote is not from the blog, it's from this paper: The draft paper "Global Surface Temperature Change" by Hansen, Ruedy, Sato and Lo is available at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/paper/gistemp2010_draft0601.pdf.
Let me guess, they are corrupt too and so is their data.
Why do you keep trotting out that Trenberth quote as though is it is some tremendous smoking gun? It has been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere but no doubt you are aware of that. What exactly do you think it demonstrates?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/4248062
Quick we must all buy V8's and leave lights on to combat this problem.
But seriously, if this article points out anything in particular, its that we don't have enough knowlege of the factors that cause climate change.
Quick we must all buy V8's and leave lights on to combat this problem.
But seriously, if this article points out anything in particular, its that we don't have enough knowlege of the factors that cause climate change.
Was that paper peer reviewed?
If you are going to use hansen's interpretations of giss data, you should get yourself up to speed on some of their methods of temperature data collection. One example:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/ghcn-gistemp-interactions-the-bolivia-effect/
So you deny the climategate data and emails like poor old cardinal romm? You didn't comment on his ducking debates as he knows the evidence against his beliefs is becoming insurmountable.
Please post where realclimate have denied or downplayed the effect of the AO.
I have warned you about using watts and co before. They are not experts, merely contrarians and outright deniers. What are Watts qualifications (Hint - I know the answer to this).
Tell me again hawker, how is anfernees analysis of the weather stations going? Await your response with mirth...
And no, the trend is showing a dramatic reduction in ice extent. Even the pinheads at watts and co are struggling with that reality. The facts do not lie.
As for sea ice thickness, which anfernee and co have been banging on about in their usual science free manner, again the news is not good. You really should find some credible sources.
Not sure why you are quoting Hansen to me, perhaps you are confused again.
Finally, sea ice extent in the arctic continues at a record pace
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Overview of conditions
Arctic sea ice extent averaged 13.10 million square kilometers (5.06 million square miles) for the month of May, 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. The rate of ice extent decline for the month was -68,000 kilometers (-26,000 square miles) per day, almost 50% more than the average rate of -46,000 kilometers (18,000 square miles) per day. This rate of loss is the highest for the month of May during the satellite record.
OK donuts, explain this:
Link to http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/deetest/deetmp.369.png for a bigger pic.
As we can see from the above picture, based on satellite data before warmist adjustments, the Arctic does not seem to be suffering from any drastic loss. Although, to be fair, the warmists' dictionary may differ from everyone else in regards to the words "drastic" and "loss".
Also donuts, why has menne et al. fallen quiet when their take on the Surface Stations Project was shown to be cherry picking a smaller sample of data that fitted their criteria, while completely shutting out the authors from their "process"? This is much the same as the ipcc methods ie. not adhering to using findings based the Scientific Method.
And finally to grin, bolt owned williams, and by the transient properties of that, you got owned.
This is as laughable as declaring that CO2 is driving temperature when the opposite has been observed.
And just for those that are interested in climate science as opposed to labour party talking points:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/10/concentration-vs-extent/#more-20407
Link to http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/deetest/deetmp.369.png for a bigger pic.
As we can see from the above picture, based on satellite data before warmist adjustments, the Arctic does not seem to be suffering from any drastic loss. Although, to be fair, the warmists' dictionary may differ from everyone else in regards to the words "drastic" and "loss".
Also donuts, why has menne et al. fallen quiet when their take on the Surface Stations Project was shown to be cherry picking a smaller sample of data that fitted their criteria, while completely shutting out the authors from their "process"? This is much the same as the ipcc methods ie. not adhering to using findings based the Scientific Method.
And finally to grin, bolt owned williams, and by the transient properties of that, you got owned.
This is as laughable as declaring that CO2 is driving temperature when the opposite has been observed.
And just for those that are interested in climate science as opposed to labour party talking points:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/10/concentration-vs-extent/#more-20407
The record low Arctic Oscillation during the past winter led to a very tightly compacted central Arctic ice mass – which is clearly evident in the UIUC images above. Some commentors have found this confusing because according to NSIDC, extent is slightly lower this year than previous years. (NORSEX disagrees with the NISDC assessment, but that is a topic of a separate discussion.)
Is it possible to have higher concentration and lower extent? Of course, it is expected. If you put a 10 kg block of ice in a swimming pool, the ice will occupy a much smaller extent (and area) of the pool than a 10kg bag of ice cubes poured into the pool. Which one would melt faster? The bag of ice cubes would, because it has more surface area exposed to the water. We have an analogous situation with Arctic ice in 2010. The ice (by some measures) occupies a smaller area than the past three years – but is more concentrated.This bodes well for less melt later in the summer.
Now, let’s look at the current stats for the Arctic Basin, measured from PIPS maps.
In your usual lying way hawker you post a chart of the arctic basin.
Care to define the arctic basin...
This chart, from the experts, does not lie, unlike you.
Care to define the arctic basin...
This chart, from the experts, does not lie, unlike you.
