Discussion:
"global warming" is a load of political activism crap.
(too old to reply)
Clinton Communism
2017-09-26 14:12:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
There is no proof, only manipulated statistics to get government
grant money.

Only an idiot would fall for it.
 
bra
2017-09-26 15:51:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Only an idiot [--------------]  
Loading Image...
Bruce Hoult
2017-09-26 16:36:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bra
Only an idiot [--------------]  
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2678/4200620700_0c746bc24d_b.jpg
How silly.

There is no indication that the intensity or severity of storms and floods is increasing. Just ask the IPCC.
bra
2017-09-26 17:25:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bruce Hoult
There is no indication that the intensity or severity of storms and floods is increasing. Just ask the IPCC.
I don't care about storms, I care about the rising temperatures and the melting of ice caps, which are incontrovertible facts. Anything that reduces fossil fuel use --- especially coal -- I'd welcome.

Loudly spoken climate activists can really irritate, but temperatures ARE going up and the ozone layer IS breaking down. Maybe if activists murmured instead of confronting us, we'd get somewhere.

For Mr Trump to promote coal is ---- medieval.

Voila, a modest two penn'orth.
Bruce Hoult
2017-09-26 17:55:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bra
Post by Bruce Hoult
There is no indication that the intensity or severity of storms and floods is increasing. Just ask the IPCC.
I don't care about storms, I care about the rising temperatures and the melting of ice caps, which are incontrovertible facts. Anything that reduces fossil fuel use --- especially coal -- I'd welcome.
The last ice age lasted from about 110000 years ago to 12000 years ago. Temperatures and ocean levels have been rising ever since. The ocean is about 300 meters (1000 ft) higher now than during the ice age.

That's incontrovertible.

The ocean will keep on rising until the world starts cooling for the next ice age. There's fuck all we can do about it, in either direction. Maybe a very slight change to the rate, but that's all. We couldn't reverse or halt it if we tried.

Winter Is Coming.
alister
2017-09-26 18:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bruce Hoult
Post by bra
Post by Bruce Hoult
There is no indication that the intensity or severity of storms and
floods is increasing. Just ask the IPCC.
I don't care about storms, I care about the rising temperatures and the
melting of ice caps, which are incontrovertible facts. Anything that
reduces fossil fuel use --- especially coal -- I'd welcome.
The last ice age lasted from about 110000 years ago to 12000 years ago.
Temperatures and ocean levels have been rising ever since. The ocean is
about 300 meters (1000 ft) higher now than during the ice age.
That's incontrovertible.
The ocean will keep on rising until the world starts cooling for the
next ice age. There's fuck all we can do about it, in either direction.
Maybe a very slight change to the rate, but that's all. We couldn't
reverse or halt it if we tried.
Winter Is Coming.
We are still IN an Ice age
--
"To your left is the marina where several senior cabinet officials keep
luxury
yachts for weekend cruises on the Potomac. Some of these ships are up to
100
feet in length; the Presidential yacht is over 200 feet in length, and
can
remain submerged for up to 3 weeks."
-- Garrison Keillor
Mark Jackson
2017-09-26 19:43:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bruce Hoult
The last ice age lasted from about 110000 years ago to 12000 years
ago. Temperatures and ocean levels have been rising ever since.
It's a bit more complicated:

https://xkcd.com/1732/
--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
It is never a good idea to elect people who promise as many
as six impossible things before breakfast. - Simon Johnson
Bruce Hoult
2017-09-26 20:11:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Jackson
Post by Bruce Hoult
The last ice age lasted from about 110000 years ago to 12000 years
ago. Temperatures and ocean levels have been rising ever since.
https://xkcd.com/1732/
That's about right, except it's a nonsense to append 100 years where we know the daily temperature and exactly how it wiggles around to thousands of years before that when we're lucky if we know the average temperature over a century.

And appending the results of crude mathematical models that don't successfully predict temperatures even ten years in the future on the end of *that* is even more silly.
bra
2017-09-26 20:33:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bruce Hoult
That's about right, except it's a nonsense to append 100 years where we know the daily temperature and exactly how it wiggles around to thousands of years before that when we're lucky if we know the average temperature over a century.
So, we should continue burning more and more coal and bunker oil?

Rasf1 fans in general admire the phenomenal advances by Merc and Audi, [for instance] --- an ICE that is over 50% fuel efficient allied to wonderful heat recovery and electricity generation --- so I'd be surprised if "we" were not alarmed by the crude mottos being Twittered from the White House at 2:00am local time, as regards fossil fuels.
Bob Latham
2017-09-27 08:15:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bra
So, we should continue burning more and more coal and bunker oil?
Rasf1 fans in general admire the phenomenal advances by Merc and Audi,
[for instance] --- an ICE that is over 50% fuel efficient allied to
wonderful heat recovery and electricity generation --- so I'd be
surprised if "we" were not alarmed by the crude mottos being Twittered
from the White House at 2:00am local time, as regards fossil fuels.
But the IPCC admitted only last week that there hasn't been any warming
this century, 17 years with no rise. A big piece in The Times last week
where the IPCC said their models were "significantly" different from what
had been measured. In other words they know their models are wrong and
their predictions are wrong as a result.

Man's contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is 15ppm we're told and 385ppm
is natural. To put those into a visually more obvious statement:

total CO2 in atmosphere 385ppm or 25.6 inches in a mile.
man's CO2 in atmosphere 15ppm or less than 1 inch in a mile.

Think about that, less than one inch in a mile.


I believe in climate change it is natural and has always been so. Man
makes little or no difference.

Cheers,

Bob.
Geoff
2017-09-28 01:34:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Latham
I believe in climate change it is natural and has always been so. Man
makes little or no difference.
Cheers,
Bob.
Climate-change certainly is natural. But as an overwhelming majority of
scientists (climatologists, meteorologists, glaciologists, hydrologists,
geologists, paleontologists, etc) who have dedicated their careers to
studying such things have not the slightest doubt about, the current
incredibly accelerated *rate* and direction of climate change can be
categorically indexed to the era of human industrialisation, of which
CO2 emissions are only a part.

However a bunch of red-neck religious fundamentalist politicians and
their followers, and some individuals who just think they for some
reason know better, seem to have a much deeper understanding of the
subject ...

geoff
keithr0
2017-09-28 04:58:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
Post by Bob Latham
I believe in climate change it is natural and has always been so. Man
makes little or no difference.
Cheers,
Bob.
Climate-change certainly is natural. But as an overwhelming majority of
scientists (climatologists, meteorologists, glaciologists, hydrologists,
geologists, paleontologists, etc) who have dedicated their careers to
studying such things have not the slightest doubt about, the current
incredibly accelerated *rate* and direction of climate change can be
categorically indexed to the era of human industrialisation, of which
CO2 emissions are only a part.
However a bunch of red-neck religious fundamentalist politicians and
their followers, and some individuals who just think they for some
reason know better, seem to have a much deeper understanding of the
subject ...
geoff
People will believe what they want to believe. A lot of people don't
want to believe in global warming because it may mean that they have to
make some sacrifices.
~misfit~
2017-09-28 05:22:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by keithr0
Post by Geoff
Post by Bob Latham
I believe in climate change it is natural and has always been so.
Man makes little or no difference.
Cheers,
Bob.
Climate-change certainly is natural. But as an overwhelming majority
of scientists (climatologists, meteorologists, glaciologists,
hydrologists, geologists, paleontologists, etc) who have dedicated
their careers to studying such things have not the slightest doubt
about, the current incredibly accelerated *rate* and direction of
climate change can be categorically indexed to the era of human
industrialisation, of which CO2 emissions are only a part.
However a bunch of red-neck religious fundamentalist politicians and
their followers, and some individuals who just think they for some
reason know better, seem to have a much deeper understanding of the
subject ...
geoff
People will believe what they want to believe.
Probably the truest thing said in this thread (or what I see of it).
Different people believe in different deities (despite there being no
evidence that any sch things exists) and are prepared to kill others who
don't. Why should denying mans effect on global climate change be any
diffferent?
Post by keithr0
A lot of people don't
want to believe in global warming because it may mean that they have
to make some sacrifices.
Probably the second truest thing said in this thread.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
t***@gmail.com
2017-09-28 05:34:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
(or what I see of it).
You stupid fucking cunt
Bob Latham
2017-09-28 06:46:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
Post by Bob Latham
I believe in climate change it is natural and has always been so. Man
makes little or no difference.
Cheers,
Bob.
Climate-change certainly is natural. But as an overwhelming majority of
scientists (climatologists, meteorologists, glaciologists, hydrologists,
geologists, paleontologists, etc) who have dedicated their careers to
studying such things have not the slightest doubt about, the current
incredibly accelerated *rate*
A rate of zero! Which has been the case since 2000.

Even the IPCC have admitted this.

I notice you make no comment about the number of scientists who resigned
from the IPCC and couldn't get their name removed from the credits on the
reports try though they might. No mention either of the removal of
statements the scientists made from the official report.


Statements deleted included:
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we
can attribute the observed climate change to the specific case of
increases in green house gases"

"No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate
change observed to anthropogenic (man made) causes."

Professor Frederick Seitz said
"I have never witnesed a more disturbing corruption of the peer review
process than the events that led to this IPCC report"
Post by Geoff
and direction of climate change can be categorically indexed to the era
of human industrialisation, of which CO2 emissions are only a part.
In fact, CO2 rising and temperatures rising pretty much only coincided
from the late 1970s until 2000 since 1900. In other words for most of the
last 117 years the two were not in the same direction.

In the post war years 1940s - 1970s when CO2 was going up very sharply the
temperature was going down sharply , check it out! The BBC did
documentaries about the Global cooling and how we were heading for the
next ice age.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/
Post by Geoff
However a bunch of red-neck religious fundamentalist politicians and
their followers, and some individuals who just think they for some
reason know better, seem to have a much deeper understanding of the
subject ...
Just check the facts out for yourself it is easy enough to do, provided
you get original data and not data "modified" by the IPCC. They have
recently shown graphs with the medieval warm period removed. Doesn't do a
lot for your case where it is easily shown that it was warmer 1000 years
ago than it is now.

The less hysterical climate change scientists who don't think it is green
house gases but more more likely to do with solar activity are predicting
no warming for at least the next decade. We'll see who is correct.

Oh, and their graphs of solar activity and earth temperatures do match
over the 20th century and more.

There is tons of evidence that CO2 based ACC is a scam, I've not even
started to list it.


Bob.
Post by Geoff
geoff
geoff
2017-09-28 08:09:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Latham
Post by Geoff
Post by Bob Latham
I believe in climate change it is natural and has always been so. Man
makes little or no difference.
Cheers,
Bob.
Climate-change certainly is natural. But as an overwhelming majority of
scientists (climatologists, meteorologists, glaciologists, hydrologists,
geologists, paleontologists, etc) who have dedicated their careers to
studying such things have not the slightest doubt about, the current
incredibly accelerated *rate*
A rate of zero! Which has been the case since 2000.
What about over the last century ?
Post by Bob Latham
Even the IPCC have admitted this.
The IPCC which you seem to have a thing about, isn't the only authority.
Post by Bob Latham
I notice you make no comment about the number of scientists who resigned
from the IPCC and couldn't get their name removed from the credits on the
reports try though they might. No mention either of the removal of
statements the scientists made from the official report.
I'm not the one stuck on the IPCC.
Post by Bob Latham
In the post war years 1940s - 1970s when CO2 was going up very
sharply > the temperature was going down sharply , check it out! The BBC did
Post by Bob Latham
documentaries about the Global cooling and how we were heading for the
next ice age
Try telling the glaciers and ice-caps that.

geoff
Bob Latham
2017-09-28 08:50:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[Snip]
Post by geoff
Post by Bob Latham
Post by Geoff
y accelerated *rate*
A rate of zero! Which has been the case since 2000.
What about over the last century ?
Very little correlation as I've already pointed out except between 1970s
and 2000. the rest of the century did not match. Coincidence of two none
connected systems. A far better match is with solar activity.
Post by geoff
Post by Bob Latham
Even the IPCC have admitted this.
The IPCC which you seem to have a thing about, isn't the only authority.
Post by Bob Latham
I notice you make no comment about the number of scientists who
resigned from the IPCC and couldn't get their name removed from the
credits on the reports try though they might. No mention either of the
removal of statements the scientists made from the official report.
I'm not the one stuck on the IPCC.
Good, they don't play nice at all.
Post by geoff
Post by Bob Latham
In the post war years 1940s - 1970s when CO2 was going up very
sharply > the temperature was going down sharply , check it out! The BBC did
Post by Bob Latham
documentaries about the Global cooling and how we were heading for
the next ice age
Try telling the glaciers and ice-caps that.
Funny you should say that. There was a expedition to check out sea ice a
few months ago and they found far more than they were expecting and in
fact got the ship stuck in the ice.

Please don't forget this happened a 1000 years ago only much more so and
the poles melted back and Greenland became just that and the Polar bears
didn't die out.

You do know that for most of the last 10,000 years CO2 has been much
higher than now.

It is nothing new and man's puny input has no baring except for political
use.

Bob.
Post by geoff
geoff
geoff
2017-09-28 10:30:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Latham
Post by geoff
Try telling the glaciers and ice-caps that.
Funny you should say that. There was a expedition to check out sea ice a
few months ago and they found far more than they were expecting and in
fact got the ship stuck in the ice.
Are you serious ? Sea-ice is an annual and transient thing. Glacier
length and ice-cap thickness is a long-term average effect. The growth
or recession of those is relatively easily tracked and dated.
Post by Bob Latham
Please don't forget this happened a 1000 years ago only much more so and
the poles melted back and Greenland became just that and the Polar bears
didn't die out.
You do know that for most of the last 10,000 years CO2 has been much
higher than now.
It is nothing new and man's puny input has no baring except for political
use.
That would be "bearing". So the vast output of many contaminants has no
effect. That's reassuring. More political (and financial) gain to be
had out of denying. In the short-term at least.

Next thing you'll be claiming that plastics aren't fucking up the seas
either.

geoff
Bob Latham
2017-09-28 11:20:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
Post by Bob Latham
Post by geoff
Try telling the glaciers and ice-caps that.
Funny you should say that. There was a expedition to check out sea ice
a few months ago and they found far more than they were expecting and
in fact got the ship stuck in the ice.
Are you serious ?
Yes.
Post by geoff
Sea-ice is an annual and transient thing.
Yes, I agree. NSS.
Post by geoff
Glacier length and ice-cap thickness is a long-term average effect. The
growth or recession of those is relatively easily tracked and dated.
OK.
Post by geoff
Post by Bob Latham
Please don't forget this happened a 1000 years ago only much more so
and the poles melted back and Greenland became just that and the Polar
bears didn't die out.
You do know that for most of the last 10,000 years CO2 has been much
higher than now.
It is nothing new and man's puny input has no baring except for
political use.
That would be "bearing".
So sorry.
Post by geoff
So the vast output of many contaminants has no effect. That's
reassuring.
I thought the subject was CO2 and CO2 isn't a pollutant.
Post by geoff
More political (and financial) gain to be had out of denying. In the
short-term at least.
Next thing you'll be claiming that plastics aren't fucking up the seas
either.
<sigh>. I am concerned about pollution and plastics in the seas are
definitely that. I don't know why you've gone off on that tangent I've
said nothing to hint I'm not concerned with pollution.

CO2 is not a pollutant it is essential for life. Greenhouses are often
pumped up to much higher levels around 100ppm to speed plant growth.

I thought you wanted to stop this conversation...


Bob.
Post by geoff
geoff
geoff
2017-09-28 19:13:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Latham
CO2 is not a pollutant it is essential for life. Greenhouses are often
pumped up to much higher levels around 100ppm to speed plant growth.
CO2 in unnatural amounts is, as any other compound beyond a natural balance.
Post by Bob Latham
I thought you wanted to stop this conversation...
Not me.

geoff
Mark Jackson
2017-09-28 13:18:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Professor Frederick Seitz said "I have never witnesed a more
disturbing corruption of the peer review process than the events that
led to this IPCC report"
Fred Seitz died in 2008. On matters outside the field of solid state
physics (his - and my - area of specialization) he was a loon, denying
the harmfulness of tobacco smoke among other things. Top-notch
condensed matter physicist, though.
--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
It is never a good idea to elect people who promise as many
as six impossible things before breakfast. - Simon Johnson
.
2017-09-28 13:44:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Professor Frederick Seitz said "I have never witnesed a more
disturbing corruption of the peer review process than the events that
led to this IPCC report"
Fred Seitz died in 2008.  On matters outside the field of solid state
physics (his - and my - area of specialization) he was a loon, denying
the harmfulness of tobacco smoke among other things.
Not to mention his; hate of socialism; support for the
Viet Nam war and every weapon system (including those
in space) imaginable; denial of harm originating from
organophosphates, chlorofluorocarbons, and acid rain.
Top-notch
condensed matter physicist, though.
Bob Latham
2017-09-28 13:52:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Jackson
Professor Frederick Seitz said "I have never witnesed a more
disturbing corruption of the peer review process than the events that
led to this IPCC report"
Fred Seitz died in 2008.
Indeed.
Post by Mark Jackson
On matters outside the field of solid state physics (his - and my - area
of specialization) he was a loon, denying the harmfulness of tobacco
smoke among other things.
Yes, but in this case as I understand it, he wasn't commenting on the
science that had been done or what the scientists had written. He was
commenting on modifications done to what the scientists had written and
the final conclusion which resulted.

Removing "No clear evidence" statements is enough to give many people
concern, I would think.
Post by Mark Jackson
Top-notch condensed matter physicist, though.
Maybe so.

Bob.
geoff
2017-09-28 19:15:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Professor Frederick Seitz said "I have never witnesed a more
disturbing corruption of the peer review process than the events that
led to this IPCC report"
Fred Seitz died in 2008.  On matters outside the field of solid state
physics (his - and my - area of specialization) he was a loon, denying
the harmfulness of tobacco smoke among other things.  Top-notch
condensed matter physicist, though.
Nicotine and the by-poducts of cigarette combustion are not pollutants !

geoff
Bruce Hoult
2017-09-28 10:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
Post by Bob Latham
I believe in climate change it is natural and has always been so. Man
makes little or no difference.
Cheers,
Bob.
Climate-change certainly is natural. But as an overwhelming majority of
scientists (climatologists, meteorologists, glaciologists, hydrologists,
geologists, paleontologists, etc) who have dedicated their careers to
studying such things have not the slightest doubt about
Actually, no. Meteorologists and geologists, at least, have a fairly high concentration of sceptics.
bra
2017-09-28 16:07:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
Climate-change certainly is natural. But as an overwhelming majority of
scientists (climatologists, meteorologists, glaciologists, hydrologists,
geologists, paleontologists, etc) who have dedicated their careers to
studying such things have not the slightest doubt about, the current
incredibly accelerated *rate* and direction of climate change can be
categorically indexed to the era of human industrialisation, of which
CO2 emissions are only a part.
However a bunch of red-neck religious fundamentalist politicians and
their followers, and some individuals who just think they for some
reason know better, seem to have a much deeper understanding of the
subject ...
geoff
+1
.
2017-09-28 16:34:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
Climate-change certainly is natural. But as an overwhelming majority of
scientists (climatologists, meteorologists, glaciologists, hydrologists,
geologists, paleontologists, etc) who have dedicated their careers to
studying such things have not the slightest doubt about, the current
incredibly accelerated *rate* and direction of climate change can be
categorically indexed to the era of human industrialisation, of which
CO2 emissions are only a part.
However a bunch of red-neck religious fundamentalist politicians and
their followers, and some individuals who just think they for some
reason know better, seem to have a much deeper understanding of the
subject ...
geoff
+1
It's the very same "super patriots" that declared war
on the US, still fly the confederate flag and loudly
complain if the playing of the national anthem doesn't
receive the reception that they desire and demand.
~misfit~
2017-09-28 05:28:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Latham
Post by bra
So, we should continue burning more and more coal and bunker oil?
Rasf1 fans in general admire the phenomenal advances by Merc and
Audi, [for instance] --- an ICE that is over 50% fuel efficient
allied to wonderful heat recovery and electricity generation --- so
I'd be surprised if "we" were not alarmed by the crude mottos being
Twittered from the White House at 2:00am local time, as regards
fossil fuels.
But the IPCC admitted only last week that there hasn't been any
warming this century, 17 years with no rise. A big piece in The Times
last week where the IPCC said their models were "significantly"
different from what had been measured. In other words they know their
models are wrong and their predictions are wrong as a result.
Man's contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is 15ppm we're told and
385ppm is natural. To put those into a visually more obvious
total CO2 in atmosphere 385ppm or 25.6 inches in a mile.
man's CO2 in atmosphere 15ppm or less than 1 inch in a mile.
Wrong comparision. The correct one is 1 inch in 25.6 inches (in a
finely-balanced system).
Post by Bob Latham
Think about that, less than one inch in a mile.
Why? That's blatent obfuscation. Why not compare the difference in CO2 to
the weight of the moon? It woud be almost as valid.
Post by Bob Latham
I believe in climate change it is natural and has always been so. Man
makes little or no difference.
"Believe" being the operative word. You're entitled to your beliefs. When
you go distorting facts to support them is when you cross the line to
evangelist.

My last post in this very OT thread.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
t***@gmail.com
2017-09-28 05:37:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
My last post in this very OT thread.
You stupid fucking cunt.
Bigbird
2017-09-28 09:12:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Latham
Post by bra
So, we should continue burning more and more coal and bunker oil?
Rasf1 fans in general admire the phenomenal advances by Merc and
Audi, [for instance] --- an ICE that is over 50% fuel efficient
allied to wonderful heat recovery and electricity generation --- so
I'd be surprised if "we" were not alarmed by the crude mottos being
Twittered from the White House at 2:00am local time, as regards
fossil fuels.
But the IPCC admitted only last week that there hasn't been any
warming this century, 17 years with no rise. A big piece in The Times
last week where the IPCC said their models were "significantly"
different from what had been measured. In other words they know their
models are wrong and their predictions are wrong as a result.
Man's contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is 15ppm we're told and
385ppm is natural. To put those into a visually more obvious
total CO2 in atmosphere 385ppm or 25.6 inches in a mile.
man's CO2 in atmosphere 15ppm or less than 1 inch in a mile.
Think about that, less than one inch in a mile.
That is unbeleivably naive; that because something sounds small it has
no effect.

Who do you think you are addressing, Trump supporters?
Post by Bob Latham
I believe in climate change it is natural and has always been so. Man
makes little or no difference.
Then you know the difference between the natural rate of increase and
mans contribution.

Where does mans contribution fit into the natural cycle?

This isn't the place to discuss this but neither is the sloganistic
approach to science ever creditable.
Bob Latham
2017-09-28 09:37:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bob Latham
But the IPCC admitted only last week that there hasn't been any
warming this century, 17 years with no rise. A big piece in The Times
last week where the IPCC said their models were "significantly"
different from what had been measured. In other words they know their
models are wrong and their predictions are wrong as a result.
Man's contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is 15ppm we're told and
385ppm is natural. To put those into a visually more obvious
total CO2 in atmosphere 385ppm or 25.6 inches in a mile.
man's CO2 in atmosphere 15ppm or less than 1 inch in a mile.
Think about that, less than one inch in a mile.
That is unbeleivably naive; that because something sounds small it has
no effect.
That is funny because I can't believe how "naive" it is to believe this
scam.
Post by Bigbird
Who do you think you are addressing, Trump supporters?
Post by Bob Latham
I believe in climate change it is natural and has always been so. Man
makes little or no difference.
Then you know the difference between the natural rate of increase and
mans contribution.
Where does mans contribution fit into the natural cycle?
In Earth terms next to sod all. In the ice age 438 million years ago CO2 =
4000ppm.

None of this is new, the earth has seen this and far more many times in
the past and will again long after we're gone.

Ice core data from Greenland shows it has been warmer than the current
temperature for most of the last 10,000 years.
Called Holocene Optimum.

There is no evidence that CO2 causes significant climate effects at
anything like the current levels or that it has in the past, there just
isn't. The ice core samples show CO2 rises AFTER temperature goes up not
before because the oceans cannot hold as much CO2 when warm as they can
when cold.
Post by Bigbird
This isn't the place to discuss this
I agree, last post on this.
Post by Bigbird
but neither is the sloganistic approach to science ever creditable.
Ah, intellectual superiority, you must be right.


Bob.
Bigbird
2017-09-28 10:12:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Latham
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bob Latham
But the IPCC admitted only last week that there hasn't been any
warming this century, 17 years with no rise. A big piece in The
Times last week where the IPCC said their models were
"significantly" different from what had been measured. In other
words they know their models are wrong and their predictions are
wrong as a result.
Man's contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is 15ppm we're told
and 385ppm is natural. To put those into a visually more obvious
total CO2 in atmosphere 385ppm or 25.6 inches in a mile.
man's CO2 in atmosphere 15ppm or less than 1 inch in a mile.
Think about that, less than one inch in a mile.
That is unbeleivably naive; that because something sounds small it
has no effect.
That is funny because I can't believe how "naive" it is to believe
this scam.
Great. Here you are blasting away on an F1 group with your simplistic
view that you pulled off a couple of documentaries without much clear
understanding while claiming thousands of scientists are naive.
m***@yahoo.co.uk
2017-09-27 20:34:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
1. The planet Venus - that is what carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does to the heat from the Sun. Or is it all down to it simply being nearer to the Sun I suppose?

2. Even every Third World country now has its 2nd or 3rd city choked with cars (Google the place Blantyre in Malawi on the Images section and see for yourself - or are they just Madonna's hoard of child adoption vehicles?) and just about every First World city is clogged too (Cheltenham, Cirencester etc - surely yes?) - and that is just cars in a dense atmosphere essentially just 7 miles high. That industrial pollution has been increasing since about 1740 AD with the Industrial Revolution and is having no effect whatsoever?

(I say Climate Change deniers saw Michael Howard tricking the Bulgers forever and a day with the voter ultimately throwing him out simply due to John Major being his boss - and so realised it would work for them too as long as their boss was never John Major either - it certainly gave us Trump anyway)

"He has something of the night about him" - hang em and flog em Ann Widdecombe about Michael Howard.

But hey, should the Third World decide that they've had enough of being flooded by us and choose direct action against us in retaliation, at least our politicians know from Tony Blair that they can line their own pockets in the resulting war.
Bruce Hoult
2017-09-28 00:43:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk
1. The planet Venus - that is what carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does to the heat from the Sun. Or is it all down to it simply being nearer to the Sun I suppose?
Well, here's an interesting little fact you can go and check...

Meterology on Earth is done based on the temperature, winds etc at various pressure levels in the atmosphere, not altitudes. For example, you commonly get maps of conditions at the 925, 850, 700, 500, 300, 250 millibar level. 500mb level is the most common (other than the surface level), and represents approximately 18000 ft in typical Earth conditions.

Here's the interesting part: if you take the same pressure level on Earth, Venus and Mars you'll find the temperature is very nearly the same!

This is despite very different atmospheres, very different distances from the Sun etc.

Mars of course has a very thin atmosphere, with only about 6mb at a lot of the surface, and 11.5mb at Hellas Planitia (a large plain located at the bottom of a 2300 km wide impact crater). So you can only compare it to very high in the Earth's atmosphere -- something like 98000 ft to 113000 ft on Earth.

Similarly, Venus has a very dense atmosphere and Earth-like pressures occur quite high in it. The hot parts of the Venus atmosphere are at much higher pressures than occur on Earth.

[snip]
m***@yahoo.com
2017-09-28 20:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clinton Communism
There is no proof, only manipulated statistics to get government
grant money.
Only an idiot would fall for it.
 
Yeah, 7 billion people strip-mining the earth's resources have no effect.
Bruce Hoult
2017-09-29 00:29:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@yahoo.com
Post by Clinton Communism
There is no proof, only manipulated statistics to get government
grant money.
Only an idiot would fall for it.
 
Yeah, 7 billion people strip-mining the earth's resources have no effect.
The Sarcasm Tell (With an Absurd Absolute)

oday I will teach you to spot The Sarcasm Tell. When you see the tell it means you won the argument. But it won’t feel that way to you because cognitive dissonance will cause your opponent to reinterpret the world in some bizarre new way in order to avoid the appearance of being dumb. The form of the tell is this:

1. You make a reasonable argument.

2. The other person runs out of reasonable objections (and has thus been persuaded).

3. Other person is “struck dumb” for a second. Eyes stay open. Mouth stays shut. Cognitive dissonance is setting in.

4. Other person restates your opinion as an absurd absolute and adds sarcasm.

The absurd absolute by itself is a tell, but you usually see it paired with sarcasm to hide the trick.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/141657128476/the-sarcasm-tell-with-an-absurd-absolute
Loading...