Page 210 of 210 FirstFirst ... 110 160 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
Results 10,451 to 10,472 of 10472
  1. #10451
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    so are you magically expecting the arctic ice to recover while being coated with soot pollution, which has the most destructive impact on any ice or snow.
    regards inter
    Is that natural soot or man-made soot?

  2. #10452
    intertd6 is online now 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    1,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    lol.
    so in your mind pollution soot is a factor in snow & ice longevity & has an opposite albedo effect to what is proven?
    regards inter

  3. #10453
    intertd6 is online now 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    1,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Is that natural soot or man-made soot?
    Yes
    regards inter

  4. #10454
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    http://www.climateconversation.words...600m_years.gif

    Somebody & especially nobody would have to be blind & or daft not recognise that there is & has never been a relationship between historical temperatures & CO2. This data is the same as a copy from the IPCC's own report, no need for a time machine, just the need to be not as dim as the common garden variety propaganda believer that the sky is falling.
    regards inter
    Which is it: there is? or, there never has been? Do you believe the data? or, do you not believe the data? So when the sun was no where near as strong as it is today, the extra CO2 didn't help to keep the planet Earth warm? or, it did then, but it doesn't now?

  5. #10455
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Yes
    regards inter
    So would there have been more soot without the activity of mankind, or less soot?

  6. #10456
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    so in your mind pollution soot is a factor in snow & ice longevity & has an opposite albedo effect to what is proven?
    regards inter
    How do "proven" effects of albedo strengthen your position, when you disregard the "proven" effects of CO2. Hint: it's the same physics.

  7. #10457
    woodbe is offline Gone Feral - 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    so in your mind pollution soot is a factor in snow & ice longevity & has an opposite albedo effect to what is proven?
    regards inter
    Keep misreading posts and anything is possible, even pigs flying over the Arctic.

    Hint: 'Arctic recovery' is an often used term by deniers. They use it the year after a massive loss (eg: 2008, 2013)

    I'm sure the soot is helping with the recovery.

    There is no Planet B


  8. #10458
    intertd6 is online now 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    1,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Nope, that's based on reconstruction, it's not historical data.
    All data is a reconstruction of findings, readings, observations, tests, etc, etc, etc, but to the point
    its data & it's historical, you can split hairs all you want after that, prove it wrong if you can, but it puts you firmly in the somebody or nobody category.
    regards inter

  9. #10459
    intertd6 is online now 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    1,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    How do "proven" effects of albedo strengthen your position, when you disregard the "proven" effects of CO2. Hint: it's the same physics.
    Is that the proven physics that you haven't provided yet verses the effects any idiot can test for them selves on two ice cubes on a tray in the sun, one with soot sprinkled on it.
    regards inter

  10. #10460
    woodbe is offline Gone Feral - 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    All data is a reconstruction of findings, readings, observations, tests, etc, etc, etc, but to the point
    its data & it's historical, you can split hairs all you want after that, prove it wrong if you can, but it puts you firmly in the somebody or nobody category.
    regards inter
    Nope.

    Historical data is recorded at the time of the event for posterity.

    Reconstructed data is a forensic effort to recreate the data that was never recorded.

    We have historical data for the climate for a couple of hundred years.

    There is no Planet B


  11. #10461
    intertd6 is online now 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    1,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Which is it: there is? or, there never has been?
    Both
    Do you believe the data? or, do you not believe the data?
    I believe the data to its range of accuracy & will do until it is proven otherwise.
    So when the sun was no where near as strong as it is today, the extra CO2 didn't help to keep the planet Earth warm? or, it did then, but it doesn't now?
    Produce some data to back up your assertion otherwise it is just a hypothetical idea like CO2 being the main driver of the global temperature
    Regards inter

  12. #10462
    intertd6 is online now 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    1,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Nope.

    Historical data is recorded at the time of the event for posterity.

    Reconstructed data is a forensic effort to recreate the data that was never recorded.

    We have historical data for the climate for a couple of hundred years.
    prove it wrong if you can? Whatever you want to call it
    regards inter

  13. #10463
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Produce some data to back up your assertion otherwise it is just a hypothetical idea like CO2 being the main driver of the global temperature
    Regards inter
    No problems.

    "Since its birth 4.5 billion years ago, the Sun's luminosity has very gently increased by about 30%. This is an inevitable evolution which comes about because, as the billions of years roll by, the Sun is burning up the hydrogen in its core. The helium "ashes" left behind are denser than hydrogen, so the hydrogen/helium mix in the Sun's core is very slowly becoming denser, thus raising the pressure. This causes the nuclear reactions to run a little hotter. The Sun brightens."

    The Sun's Evolution

  14. #10464
    intertd6 is online now 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    1,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    No problems.

    "Since its birth 4.5 billion years ago, the Sun's luminosity has very gently increased by about 30%. This is an inevitable evolution which comes about because, as the billions of years roll by, the Sun is burning up the hydrogen in its core. The helium "ashes" left behind are denser than hydrogen, so the hydrogen/helium mix in the Sun's core is very slowly becoming denser, thus raising the pressure. This causes the nuclear reactions to run a little hotter. The Sun brightens."

    The Sun's Evolution
    Thats common knowledge, the data which will back up your claim just has to be overlaid on the provided CO2 / temperature graph with the proper explanations which make it relevant.
    regards inter

  15. #10465
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Thats common knowledge, the data which will back up your claim just has to be overlaid on the provided CO2 / temperature graph with the proper explanations which make it relevant.
    regards inter
    No problem.

    "In order to understand the apparent disparity between past temperature and levels of atmospheric CO2 we must appreciate that CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Other drivers of past climate change include variations in solar output, continental drift, orbital variations (known as Milankovitch cycles), volcanism, and ocean variability. Any conclusions that we draw from a perceived lack of correlation in the climate record between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures must take into account these factors.

    "The further back we go, the higher CO2 levels rise. However, as we go back in time solar activity also falls and in the early Phanerozoic the solar constant was about 4% less than current levels. Royer (2006) combined the radiative forcing from CO2 and solar variations to find their net effect on climate. The result is shown in Figure 2 (cooler climate is indicated by shaded areas which are periods of geographically widespread ice).



    Figure 2: Combined radiative forcing from CO2 and sun through the Phanerozoic. Values are expressed relative to pre-industrial conditions (CO2 = 280 ppm; solar luminosity = 342 W/m2); a reference line of zero is given for clarity. The dark shaded bands correspond to periods with strong evidence for geographically widespread ice (Royer 2006).

    "As we can see from the graph, Royer found that when solar variations are taken into account, the “total radiative forcing” correlates excellently with past temperature reconstructions. In layman’s terms, this means that when the sun is less active, the CO2 level required to initiate a glaciation is much higher. For example, if the CO2-ice threshold for present-day Earth is 500 ppm, the equivalent threshold during the Late Ordovician (450 million years ago) would be 3000 ppm, making it perfectly possible to have widespread glaciation accompanied by comparatively high levels of atmospheric CO2. This understanding of the correlation between past levels of atmospheric CO2 and global temperature is widely accepted: “over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect”.

    https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=179736

  16. #10466
    Rod Dyson is offline quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,623

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    There is a single climate scientist who said something like "if the warming keeps up like this, there will be no summer ice by 201X" or something like that. It wasn't a scientific prediction, it wasn't published in a peer review journal, it was a personal reaction to a very warm season. Perhaps 2007. Couldn't be bothered looking it up for our fake skeptics, and clearly they couldn't either. We've been there before. The actual language is far less inflammatory than the reporting of it.

    As expected, the climate denial sites parrot that statement as a prediction ad infinitum and ignore the detail and the actual predictions. That's how they work.
    Yes I would also be backing away from these claims too if I were you. LOL I have notice a little bit of tempering in the warmists world. Truly a good sign. There will be further temperance as time goes by. The IPCC has also downgraded their certainty levels. Nice to see soon there wont be much difference at all between us. Just the need to waste money trying to fix a non-problem that cant be fixed any how.

    Like I say I am patient time will reveal all.
    CARBON TAX
    NO


    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT

  17. #10467
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Yes I would also be backing away from these claims too if I were you. LOL I have notice a little bit of tempering in the warmists world. Truly a good sign. There will be further temperance as time goes by. The IPCC has also downgraded their certainty levels. Nice to see soon there wont be much difference at all between us. Just the need to waste money trying to fix a non-problem that cant be fixed any how.

    Like I say I am patient time will reveal all.
    1. Woodbe was not backing away from any claims. On the contrary, he was demonstrating that the original claims were false constructs made by fake "skeptics".

    2. The IPCC has not downgraded their certainty levels. That notion is another false construct of fake "skeptics". Here is the confidence statement from the fourth IPCC report in 2007:

    "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [90 percent confidence] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." Summary for Policymakers - IPCC

    And here is the confidence statement from the fifth IPCC report in 2013:

    "It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. - See more at: Climate Change 2013.- IPCC. - IEEE

    What isn't obvious from these statements is that the second statement includes an assessment of the impacts of cooling from aerosols, hence the change of term from "anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" to "anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together." This makes the later assessment much, much more certain.

    If the case for AGW is so weak, why is it that the "skeptics" of AGW find it necessary to make so many claims that are easily shown to be false, not backed up by data, unsubstantiated or just plain wrong? Why not use facts?

  18. #10468
    woodbe is offline Gone Feral - 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    1. Woodbe was not backing away from any claims. On the contrary, he was demonstrating that the original claims were false constructs made by fake "skeptics".
    Correct. This 'no summer ice by 201X' is a statement by one scientist which has been paraded by the fake skeptics on this thread many times. It was never a prediction, and it was never published in peer review.

    Fake skeptics' stories are like zombies. Every time you knock them down by showing them facts, they come back again with the same fake story.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson
    Nice to see soon there wont be much difference at all between us.
    I agree you've moved a long way towards understanding climate theory since you started this thread Rod. There is plenty we now agree on.

    There is no Planet B


  19. #10469
    SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    SilentButDeadly is offline Duck Fat - 2K club member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Below the Seventh Circle......
    Posts
    2,841

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    prove it wrong if you can? Whatever you want to call it
    What if I said that the reconstructed data was extrapolated and assembled from the fossil record by a computer model...would that help?

    But then if one accept the virtues of this modelled data then one giggles with inanity at the ongoing sociopathic struggle to not accept 'other' modelled data.
    People don't ever seem to realise that doing what's right is no guarantee against misfortune

  20. #10470
    SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    SilentButDeadly is offline Duck Fat - 2K club member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Below the Seventh Circle......
    Posts
    2,841

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    The IPCC has also downgraded their certainty levels.
    Not exactly. They are still quite certain about it. However, they've finally accepted that we will rarely (if ever) have sufficient power and sensitivity in the models to determine significant details about the scope, scale and timing of climate changes at scales smaller than the regional (their word for continental) scale. Put simply we can only make sweeping statements rather than provide detailed predictions of what might happen within a continent and when. Planners, bureaucrats and politicians don't like that lack of detail but they'll just have to get used to it
    People don't ever seem to realise that doing what's right is no guarantee against misfortune

  21. #10471
    Rod Dyson is offline quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,623

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post


    I agree you've moved a long way towards understanding climate theory since you started this thread Rod. There is plenty we now agree on.
    My opinions haven't changed.
    CARBON TAX
    NO


    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT

  22. #10472
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    My opinions haven't changed.
    Nor has the science which is based on evidence, not opinion.

    The evidence is that human activities, and in particular the burning of fossil fuels, is causing unprecedented global warming and there is no possibility that there is any other significant contributor to the current unprecedented rate of warming.

LinkBacks (?)

  1. 6th Mar 2014, 07:55 AM
  2. 12th Feb 2014, 04:04 AM
  3. 14th Jan 2014, 02:18 PM
  4. 4th Nov 2012, 01:41 AM
  5. 17th Jun 2012, 11:18 PM
  6. 12th Jun 2012, 03:48 AM
  7. 14th Dec 2011, 10:55 PM
  8. 30th Sep 2011, 01:14 PM
  9. 14th Aug 2011, 11:15 AM
  10. 26th Jun 2011, 11:36 PM
  11. 11th Jun 2011, 07:22 PM
  12. 30th May 2011, 10:46 PM
  13. 15th Mar 2011, 09:36 AM
  14. 5th Mar 2011, 08:18 AM
  15. 25th Dec 2010, 10:00 PM
  16. 1st Sep 2010, 06:53 PM
  17. 11th Jul 2010, 06:24 PM
  18. 20th May 2010, 04:49 AM
  19. 27th Feb 2010, 10:04 PM
  20. 20th Nov 2009, 04:32 AM
  21. 16th Nov 2009, 10:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2