What Do We Think About Climate Change

I used to work with a guy who's dad was a NASA scientist and he said that our galaxy was spinning slowly into the Sun.
So out little star will blow up in a few years.
Maybe coz we are getting closer to the Sun some people think we are getting hotter?

 

I'm just undecided....
Although agree we polute way too much

 

I have found the way to have fun on this thread.
Just skip Boston's post.
Take away them and this is real fun.

This is not a joke....well sort of... it is Boston, so don't start. Truly your post are TOOOOOO long and pictures are not fun. Please post fun pictures for those with short attention span.

 

I think Troy its because they actually have nothing meaningful to present

I mean imagine if you got your *** handed to you everytime you brought up a certain subject at the dinner table
eventually
no mater how dense you might be ( rhetorically speaking of course ) you might just resort to mild attempts at levity to ease the pain of realization you just might be wrong

same holds true for what Im seeing on this thread these days
hell
last say 30 pages or so actually

deniers simply have no leg to stand on and instead are simply nipping at heals
they have no coherent theory capable of accurate predictions like science does
they dont even have a hypothesis in the pipe line anywhere
kinda looks like a free for all to come up with anything they can blunder into to refute anything at all from here
I've been asking for a coherent theory since I got here eons ago and have yet to get any kind of response at all

sooooo
we get these inane postings hoping to distract from the consistent failures of the denialist diatribe

simple really if you think about it
they know they are outclassed and simply want to play a different game

cheers
B

 

Unfortunately the same can be said for you Boston. You think you are posting irrefutable evidnece yet you are not.
It does not matter how many times your position has been consistently rebutted, you keep on reheating the same old stuff.
So the only thing left to do to remain polite is to post light stuff.

 

then present a detailed refutation of the data presented rather than bombard the thread with inane postings

specifically show a detailed analysis of how the mas isotopic balance of co2 does not represent fossil fuels based emissions

or how the other three methods of measuring the excess co2's origins fail to support that data

feel free to show through reference in published works how exactly your theory works and what it has predicted

please detail an analysis of any cosmic energy connection found across each of the proxy data groups for cosmic ray intensity and variability, these data sets must be found in agreement with each other as any detailed analysis of one and not the others is that cherry picking you were complaining about earlier

that is just a small portion of what you have missed out on commenting on just in the last few pages
your silence on these issues sorta looked like a failure to be able to address them in a precise and coherent scientific manor

If I was somehow mistaken then please detail each of the previous positions for us to discuss

best of luck with that
B

I noticed you also missed out commenting on
the dramatic rise in co2
the dramatic rise in temp
the dramatic rise in methane
the residence time of co2 as there is a distinct nonlinear dissipation of this GHG into the biosphere
the fact that co2 is a GHG

simple and basic stuff you are suggesting you have some rational refutation for

ok
lets hear it

 

The problem with you my friend is that you are too dramatic.
There is no point in debating any of the point you present.

Only ONE is of any value.
The HYPOTHESIS that man made CO2 actualy rises temperatures in any measurable way.

And that is impossible to demonstrate simply because it does not happen.

So the "global warming" camp goes on swinging their arms around like windmill wings saying that the temperature is rising, the islands are sinking, the sea is reaching the mountain tops the hurricanes are going to wipe us all out and the goulf stream has stopped and toothpaste does not clean like before.

Even if all of the above was actually happening, (it is not) there is still no link between human activity and any un-natural un-seasonal never happen before, change.

And so just like it is possible to make a link between temperature dropping from 2007 and populist governemt, it is possible to make all sorts of speculative assumptions backed up with graphs in various colours and still demonstrate nothing further than my link between politics and temperatures.

It was all done before to great lenght and with a lot of repetitions to no avail

 

The problem with saying something is "impossible to demonstrate simply because it doesn't happen" is that it is really more an article of faith than anything else because it presents a conclusion without requiring evidence. Whatever it is, it is certainly not science.

 

You keep saying that same thing (about the conclusions of the global warming advocates being based on extrapolations from graphs), even though you know that extrapolations from graphs are not at the core of the predictions of the global warming advocates. Their predictions are based mainly on computer calculations using measured inputs and physical models of the processes involved. Extrapolations have little to do with the predictions, except for a few inputs, such as reasonable estimates of future CO2 production rates.

Why do you continually falsely represent the work of the side that you oppose? Can't you at the very least base your discussion of your opponents' positions on what they actually say, rather than your own made up and false descriptions of their positions?

 

wrong

there is no appreciable physical difference between anthropogenic co2 and and naturally occurring co2 other than in the isotopic balance, which is minor and has virtually no effect on its value as a GHG.

since we know co2 is a GHG then it stands to reason that additional co2 yields additional warming

direct experimentation does confirm this
http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/08/15/greenhouse-gas-experiment/

additional direct experimentation can be found here
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm

further confirmation can be found here as well
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

so once again your way off base and the only thing you deemed important enough to actually stick your neck out on took about three seconds to debunk as completely wrong

that is why you have filled the thread with inane postings rather than engage in a meaningful discussion of the finer points of Rapid Global Climate Shift

sorry but you don't even have the basics down in order to understand the higher level theory

just for fun would you care to elaborate on the any of the points that were actually mentioned or do you need more convincing that co2 is actually a GHG

 

Computer models...aah the end to all ends.

Computer modelling is like printing. 50 years ago if something was printed..well it was gospel. It's there in black and white...IN PRiNT!!
Toady if a computer goes plink plink plink and presents you with a prediction everyone goes OOOOHH Marvel!!

Let me tell you a short story. We are facing a little political crisis in Australia, due to a rather obnoxious ignorant incompetent bunch of lunatics from a certain asylum that have taken the government for a short period.

They believe that rich is bad and poor is virtuous. They conduct a Robin Hood government and one of their latest brainchild is a new Tax. An additional 40% tax, additional to all other, on any profit above 6% from mining companies (the bad guys)

So they got the treasury to conduct a study (independent they call it) on the projected results of the application of this tax to the mining industry and their likely consequences.
They also imposed assumptions on this so called independent study and computer modelling. The assumption was that the 40% extra tax would not impact on the ability of mining companies to rise funds for their projects.

The resulting computer modelling shows there IN BLACK AND WHITE...actually probably in nice colours, that applying the new tax will produce extra revenues for the government and no disruption to growth.

Anyone with half a brain firing once in three times knows, that such is ridiculous and that no banker will lend to an industry faced with such burden of tax. THe rest is history, billions are being frozen and pulled out and BHP, Rio Tinto, Fortesque and all the others are making plans to go to Canada. In fact even Cuba or Papua New Guinea would be better.

This little story comes to illustrate that computer modelling is just as crap as any other extrapolation. As bad as my own made up projection of global cooling and labour governments.
I can make up a computer modelling that would demonstrate precisely that. In fact I can make u pa computer model that predicts anything I want it to predict. All I have to do is feed it the right tripe.

And because it is a computer based on complicated algorithm I am probably not going to be found out unless the predictions are too outrageous to be swallowed.

There is a lot of argy bargy going on about this climate change BS, or rather there was, whilst it was necessary to distract the pundit from the real financial crisis product of a total lack of integrity and leadership from most governments.

Lately most con artist behind this have gone to ground.
I wonder what they will come up with next.

I wait with baited breath.

 

Well of course! Anyone who knows anything about computer modeling calculations knows that just throwing a computer at something does not automatically produce good results.

Computers enable the performance of calculations that are too hard to do without the computer. However, you need to use the right methods (models and algorithms) and input the right parameters if the results are to be meaningful. Computers have resulted in an enormous increase in capability in the sciences, but they have to be intelligently applied.

 

That makes a lot of sense.
I fertilise my orchad to have more fruit.
More fertiliser more fruit?

I want to lose weight so I take a meal replacement shake. If I want to lose more should I take 2 meal replacement? 3?

You better don't try that one. Come on Boston who do you want to fool? CO2 has been incresing steadily from all sources including human yet the temperature does not follow.

 

Data please?

 

Agreed on all point. And my example of a con perpetuated with a computer model loaded with the wrong assumptions is precisely the same trick performed with the infamous hokey stick and many other "models" Computer models are a disingenuous way to make a credible case from smoke and mirrors.

Then of course there is the valuable use of them as you point out. The problem is how to dintinguish from the two.

If someone says, CO2 increase produces temperature increase and all of a sudden this does not happen anymore. And if you look back in history and find that CO2 was once several times higher and has gone up and down, which "computer modelling " do you believe?