Emission Trading and climate change

Page 189 of 377 FirstFirst ... 89 139 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 239 289 ... LastLast
Results 9,401 to 9,450 of 18819
  1. #9401
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Apparently short term humanitarian aid is ok, but long term humanitarian aid is not?

    Blinkers much?

    Can we get back on topic?

    woodbe.

  2. #9402
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Yep back on topic, but it is so much fun being annoying when you are given so many dopey openings.

  3. #9403
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Just remember I'm dyslexic & failed English at school so I have no idea what you have just said, but can easily understand when someone's lips are moving but nothing of substance is emanating from them.
    You can see my lips while I type?


    Then check this out...
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  4. #9404
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    You can see my lips while I type?
    didnt say I could, reading & comprehensions not a strong point with some I've noticed.
    in public I can tell easily when some are telling a BS story, their lips are moving.
    regards inter

  5. #9405
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Apparently short term humanitarian aid is ok, but long term humanitarian aid is ok

    woodbe.
    your the only one alluding to that assumption. (As usual)
    regards inter

  6. #9406
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    It comes out of the same budget area, there is no confusion. You also restricted yourself to the words "handout cheques" you did not distinguish between emergency aid and development assistance. Also you seem unaware that while we contribute a little over .3% of GDP in aid when we have actually signed a UN pledge which is bi partisan to increase spending to .7%. I am not arguing for or against I just think your original comment was nonsense and shows an appallingly myopic view of aid in general when as part of the UN we are keen to reduce world poverty on a global scale. Both sides are guilty of watering down that commitment so you are only talking in degrees of difference anyway there actually isn't that much that sets them apart.
    A prime example of a hair splitter hard at work, don't let's the facts of what our govt does get in the way of what the powerful nations do to get what they want, when they want it.
    regards inter

  7. #9407
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    A prime example of a hair splitter hard at work, don't let's the facts of what our govt does get in the way of what the powerful nations do to get what they want, when they want it.
    regards inter
    Absolutely nothing to do with hair splitting which is just your way of stepping around the short comings in your own argument. Let's not overlook the fact that in our own region we are seen as a powerful and wealthy nation when compared with many of our near neighbours. Let's get back to the thread scoring cheap points on international relations particularly in light of the current ructions in Indonesia leaves a sour taste in my mouth as it highlights how venal and low minded we are as a nation.

  8. #9408
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    The original post:

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Apparently short term humanitarian aid is ok, but long term humanitarian aid is not?
    The tampered post and response:

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Apparently short term humanitarian aid is ok, but long term humanitarian aid is ok
    your the only one alluding to that assumption. (As usual)
    Quoting and altering someone's post and then making a comment suggesting that the poster is wrong when the alteration changes the entire meaning of the post is an ethically bankrupt excuse for a response. Seeing as the evidence is on the very same page, it's also a pathetic attempt at insult that reflects on the person altering the post, not the original poster. Throughout history evidence tamperers are regarded as amongst the lowest of the low.

    Lets get back on topic.

    woodbe.

  9. #9409
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Now this is quite cool

    https://www.ethz.ch/en/news-and-even...certainty.html

    Basically, it's a simple article describing why short to mid term (20 to 50 year) models of climate prediction don't work with sufficient precision for policy makers (and never will) over spatially constrained areas (like a region of Australia) along with a discussion of the research behind the analysis.

    But the research demonstrates that broad projections can still consistently determined with some statistical certainty/reliability for large areas (like continents) though they are potentially only of use to organisations with a global reach (or perhaps governments without sand in their ears).

    Original article is here http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate2051.html
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  10. #9410
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Yep the new big scare to replace global warming. Roll er out. Got get it up and running before the old one is completely dead.
    Um, Rod. Where are you getting your information from? 'the old one' as you laughably refer to it, is far from dead in both scientific circles and population opinion. We've aired the state of the scientific agreement already here, but what about the state of the general population opinions?

    Broad consensus on climate change across American states


    A recent US “survey of surveys” by Stanford University Professor Jon Krosnick has analysed public opinion on climate change in 46 of USA’s 50 states. Krosnick found to his surprise that, regardless of geography, most Americans accept that global warming is happening and that humans are causing it.
    In all 46 states, they found that at least 75% of participants thought global warming was happening. Even in traditionally conservative red states such as Texas, 84% thought global warming was happening and 72% agreed humans were the cause. Acceptance of global warming increased to at least 84% for states hit by drought or vulnerable to sea level rise.


    In all states, at least 65% of Americans thought humans were causing global warming. Utah showed the lowest level at 65% while acceptance was highest in New Hampshire with 90%. Most Americans also supported government curbs of greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.


    This is comparable to a CSIRO analysis that found 75% of Australians believe climate change is happening. While these results indicate high public acceptance of climate science, there is still a significant gap between public opinion and the views of climate scientists. A 2009 survey of the scientific community found that among actively publishing climate scientists, 97.4% agreed that human activity was changing global temperature.


    This result has since been replicated by an analysis of public statements by climate scientists, finding 97% consensus among 908 scientists who had published peer-reviewed climate research. Earlier this year, I was part of a team that analysed 21 years of climate research. Among 4,014 papers that stated a position on human-caused global warming, we found 97.1% agreement that humans were causing global warming.


    Of course, let me head off the flood of inevitable comments by pointing out that our understanding of climate change is based on empirical evidence. There are many lines of independent observations indicating that humans are causing global warming. The consilience of evidence has resulted in an overwhelming and strengthening consensus in the climate science community.


    Three quarters of Americans may not be as high as the 97% scientific consensus. However, politically speaking, it is still a strong majority. So why is there so little support for climate action among politicians?


    While the general public on average accepts climate science, Republicans are more likely to reject the scientific consensus. This is particularly the case with conservative Republicans, who are more likely to vote in primaries. During the 2012 Republican Presidential primaries, even candidates who accepted the science were forced to reject the scientific consensus in order to gain the support of their party.


    Many studies have found a significant link between political ideology and climate beliefs. In 2006, Heath and Gifford found that support for unfettered free markets was a significant predictor of climate change concern. In other words, those who oppose government regulation of the fossil fuel industry are more likely to reject climate change science. The more politically conservative one is, the more likely they are to reject climate science.


    However, there is a schism even within the Republican Party. A recent Pew survey found that among Tea Party members, only 25% accept global warming. In contrast, 61% of other Republicans accept that global warming is happening. A minority group out of kilter with the rest of the populace and the scientific community are exerting a disproportionate influence on the public discourse about climate change.
    And here's a cruncher for those that think their opinion (that climate change is not happening) is on a roll:
    This is also occurring in Australia. A survey of Australian views on climate change found that only 7% of Australians think climate change isn’t happening. When the 7% of Australians who deny climate change are asked to estimate how many Australians share their views, they estimate 49%. This is known as the false consensus effect, a tendency to overestimate how popular one’s opinion is.


    However, a more insidious and destructive effect is pluralistic ignorance. This is where people privately reject an opinion but incorrectly think others accept it. For example, when Australians are asked to estimate the percentage of Australians that deny climate change, the average answer is at least 20% - around three times the actual amount.
    Explains a lot of the comments by deniers.

    woodbe.

  11. #9411
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Dead planet thinking: most oceanographers, physicists, chemists treat the planet as a dead planet, where every force, every process can be described and captured in an equation, and then simulated by a computer. But life frustrates every attempt, as it corrupts equations, while also adapting to changing circumstances. Of all these, the sea is the worst with its unimaginable scale, complexity and influence. We may never be able to unravel the secrets of the sea.
    Dr J Floor Anthoni



    As usual the barrage of "me too" publications on the new "threat" to the planet showing it is in dear need of salvation .... (shrill voice) "save the plaanet" is overwhelming. I found the following articles worth reading to understand what is true and what is false behind the claims of "acidification" and claims of shellfish's shell dissolving in an acid soup into extinction.

    Pass me the vinegar ...



    Ocean acidification


    Are oceans becoming more acidic and is this a threat to marine life?

    By Dr J Floor Anthoni (2007)
    Ocean acidification
    (best viewed in a window as wide as a page. Open links in a new tab.)
    As the oceans absorb more and more CO2, they may become more acidic. Recent measurements suggest that this is somewhat the case and that grave consequences can be expected. But what is the story? Should we be alarmed? How much is known and how much is not? Is ocean acidification another hoax, a swindle, or do we need to pay serious attention? What are the threats to the oceans? How does ocean acidification work? What is the carbon cycle? In this chapter we will try to foster an in-depth understanding of the CO2 processes in the ocean and where present science fails.
    Scientists' overwhelming consensus about ocean acidification is deeply disturbing, as if there exists no doubt; as if there are no uncertainties; as if we know it all. It is equally worrisome that this chapter is the ONLY place in the world where doubts and uncertainties are raised. Our ignorance exceeds knowledge by a wide margin. It's never time not to be skeptical.

    An introduction to ocean acidification and what this chapter is all about (located on this page) (8 pages)
    The conclusion is on this page, but go to the two other parts first.
    the main part for understanding ocean acidification and the reasoning behind it, deals with the carbon cycle, how acid the oceans are and by how much it varies, evidence of acidification, the carbonate system and why it is feared that acidification could cause disaster. (31 pages)
    part 3 mentions all the missing science, uncertainties and misconceptions. It gives a good idea of where the science of ocean acidification is at and how much credence we can attach to the many fears that have been published. (3 pages)
    Learn how the global climate works and why the IPCC is wrong. Very extensive and important for environmentalists. (140 pages)
    Corrupt scientific institutions and their rogue scientists. It is time to hold individuals to account and to mention their names. Corruption is always about individuals. A collection of absurd articles. (10 pages)
    Glossary of terms used; cutting through the gobbledegook. (on this page)
    Books, publications, references and links (on this page)
    A log of recent changes to this section (on this page)
    Important tables
    & related chapters
    DDA: the Dark Decay Assay and ecological discoveries made with a pH meter.
    pH meter: how does a pH meter work?.
    sea water: what sea water contains, including atmospheric gases. Important for this chapter.
    periodic table of elements and a chemistry primer to allow you to understand the chemistry in this web site.
    Table of the important elements for life, in the universe, planet, plants, animals.
    Threats to land, sea and air: a summary of the many threats created by human activity.
    Geologic time table: ages and periods of life on earth and earlier (7 p)
    Science needs skeptics: understand how scientists, searching for new discoveries, are also afraid when they are found by others
    Science, technology and human nature: the three forces that destroy the planet are expected to save it too. Optimism? Madness?
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  12. #9412
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    The original post:



    The tampered post and response:



    Quoting and altering someone's post and then making a comment suggesting that the poster is wrong when the alteration changes the entire meaning of the post is an ethically bankrupt excuse for a response. Seeing as the evidence is on the very same page, it's also a pathetic attempt at insult that reflects on the person altering the post, not the original poster. Throughout history evidence tamperers are regarded as amongst the lowest of the low.

    Lets get back on topic.

    woodbe.
    remember i'm dyslexic, it look & reads the same to me, the iPad is to blame anyhow as it has a mind of its own sometimes.
    regards inter

  13. #9413
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Now this is quite cool

    https://www.ethz.ch/en/news-and-even...certainty.html

    Basically, it's a simple article describing why short to mid term (20 to 50 year) models of climate prediction don't work with sufficient precision for policy makers (and never will) over spatially constrained areas (like a region of Australia) along with a discussion of the research behind the analysis.

    But the research demonstrates that broad projections can still consistently determined with some statistical certainty/reliability for large areas (like continents) though they are potentially only of use to organisations with a global reach (or perhaps governments without sand in their ears).

    Original article is here http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate2051.html
    they don't even know what caused all the ice ages to happen so how in the name of crikey can they try to predict even more complex happenings with added variables.
    regards inter

  14. #9414
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    remember i'm dyslexic, it look & reads the same to me, the iPad is to blame anyhow as it has a mind of its own sometimes.
    regards inter
    When an error is made that reflects on your own integrity, the best response is a straight up apology, not to blame your tools or hide behind an affliction.

    Lets get back on topic.

    woodbe.

  15. #9415
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    they don't even know what caused all the ice ages to happen so how in the name of crikey can they try to predict even more complex happenings with added variables.
    regards inter
    Thought that we had pretty much decided to blame that Milankovitch bloke for them; something about not being able to get his SUV started to produce the needed CO2

  16. #9416
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    remember i'm dyslexic, it look & reads the same to me, the iPad is to blame anyhow as it has a mind of its own sometimes.
    regards inter
    Ipads don't retype copy and pastes, that post had to be manually altered, you do yourself no favours pretending otherwise.

  17. #9417
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    I think this is one of Bob Carter's disasters, but I could be wrong about that, he's had a few. Maybe he'll offer to pay the fine out of his Heartland money?

    Climate Deniers Must Pay $90,000 For 'Not Acting Reasonably,' Court Rules

    A New Zealand group dedicated to downplaying the existence of climate change has been ordered to pay close to $90,000 in court fees for bringing a “faulty” lawsuit that had sought to invalidate data that proved the country’s temperatures were on the rise.
    The New Zealand Court of Appeals ordered The New Zealand Climate Education Trust — a group that seeks to “reflect the truth about climate change and the exaggerated claims that have been made about anthropogenic global warming” — to pay fees to the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, an environmental science research firm. The lawsuit claimed that NIWA was unethically and intentionally misinterpreting temperature data to promote the idea that climate change was happening.
    But Justice Forrest Miller ruled that the Trust was “mounting a crusade against NIWA and was not acting reasonably,” according to a report on Radio New Zealand.
    The judge gets it:

    New Zealand High Court Justice Geoffrey Vanning ruled in a 49-page opinion in September 2012 that NIWA had “acted in accordance with internationally recognized and credible scientific methodology.” Vanning said it was “unnecessary for this Court to resolve this scientific debate,” as NIWA could have calculated temperature changes with a different method and “still have arrived at a similar result which would strengthen the robustness and validity of the previous results.”
    woodbe.

  18. #9418
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post



    As usual the barrage of "me too" publications on the new "threat" to the planet showing it is in dear need of salvation .... (shrill voice) "save the plaanet" is overwhelming. I found the following articles worth reading to understand what is true and what is false behind the claims of "acidification" and claims of shellfish's shell dissolving in an acid soup into extinction.

    Pass me the vinegar ...
    If you think information emanating from elderly computer programmers passes as scientific evidence that is entirely up to you but you are trying to pass opinion as fact which hardly cuts it does it.

  19. #9419
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    Ipads don't retype copy and pastes, that post had to be manually altered, you do yourself no favours pretending otherwise.
    well this mini iPad does all sorts of weird things with my sausage fingers late at night as was not intentional.
    regards inter

  20. #9420
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    When an error is made that reflects on your own integrity, the best response is a straight up apology, not to blame your tools or hide behind an affliction.

    Lets get back on topic.

    woodbe.
    it wasn't intentional & not meant to get so many mangina's in a twist.
    regards inter

  21. #9421
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Um, Rod. Where are you getting your information from? 'the old one' as you laughably refer to it, is far from dead in both scientific circles and population opinion. We've aired the state of the scientific agreement already here, but what about the state of the general population opinions?

    Broad consensus on climate change across American states




    And here's a cruncher for those that think their opinion (that climate change is not happening) is on a roll:


    Explains a lot of the comments by deniers.

    woodbe.
    Yes and if the right question was asked of me it could be said I believe in climate change too.

    Is climate change real?
    YES
    Do emissions of greenhouse gas cause warming?
    YES

    See its real easy! Even I agree
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  22. #9422
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    it wasn't intentional & not meant to get so many mangina's in a twist.
    regards inter
    It was posted, pointed out, and as yet there is not the slightest hint of apology, which is the normal way of resolving this kind of issue. Your other responses have shown no sign of the affliction or hardware problems you claim was the cause, and your first response which you deleted was a different and just as lame excuse altogether. (I have a copy)

    In short: your responses are not believable. I can only surmise that the post was deliberate.

    In any case, I am happy to let it be, just stop responding to the issue and let it die.

    woodbe.

  23. #9423
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Yes and if the right question was asked of me it could be said I believe in climate change too.

    Is climate change real?
    YES
    Do emissions of greenhouse gas cause warming?
    YES

    See its real easy! Even I agree
    Here's another for you Rod:

    Is CO2 a greenhouse Gas?

  24. #9424
    The Master's Apprentice Bedford's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Yarra Valley Vic oz
    Posts
    8,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    In any case, I am happy to let it be, just stop responding to the issue and let it die.
    Ok Fella's, lets leave it there and get the thread back on topic (hopefully).
    Posted by John2b, And no, BEVs are not going to save the planet, which doesn't need saving anyway.

  25. #9425
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Here's another for you Rod:

    Is CO2 a greenhouse Gas?
    Yes of course it is.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  26. #9426
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Yes of course it is.
    Is CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans increasing due to burning of fossil fuels?

  27. #9427
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Is CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans increasing due to burning of fossil fuels?
    Yes

    See we do agree on some things
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  28. #9428
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Yes

    See we do agree on some things
    I'm sure you're going to duck out at some point, let's see how far we get

    Is climate variability the result of multiple inputs into the climate system?

  29. #9429
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    I'm sure you're going to duck out at some point, let's see how far we get
    You have got that right! See how easy it is to ask the right questions to get the result you want!
    Is climate variability the result of multiple inputs into the climate system?
    Yes

    Lets see how far you can get before asking the pertinent question that make all the rest redundant in respect of need to take "urgent" action on climate change.

    So far If you asked me all these questions and got a straight answer you would think you have a supporter rather than a 100% sceptic.

    See how it works!
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  30. #9430
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Lets see how far you can get before asking the pertinent question that make all the rest redundant in respect of need to take "urgent" action on climate change.
    Hmm. Well, we can come back to that later. Seeing as we're on a roll, lets see if I can ask the right question.

    We've got the basic physics agreed. I suspect you will use the low sensitivity loophole:

    Do you think that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range of 1.5C to 4.5C per doubling of CO2?

  31. #9431
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    For me the question is not what you believe but what process you used to come to that conclusion. If you have a set of beliefs formulated by reading random blogs on the internet then you may well be right but you could never be trusted to supply rational opinions because the process used to develop them is flawed. Evidence of this lack of rigour appears regularly in the cut and pastes that show up in posts. If your theory ignores basic principles of science and well accepted data then you first need to disprove those before advancing the evidence for your own theory.

  32. #9432
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Hmm. Well, we can come back to that later. Seeing as we're on a roll, lets see if I can ask the right question.

    We've got the basic physics agreed. I suspect you will use the low sensitivity loophole:

    Do you think that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range of 1.5C to 4.5C per doubling of CO2?
    No, I believe the science says that without a feed back loop the amount is 1.5C Now that gives it away doesn't it.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  33. #9433
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    No, I believe the science says that without a feed back loop the amount is 1.5C Now that gives it away doesn't it.
    Equilibrium climate sensitivity includes feedbacks.

    Do you think that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range of 1.5C to 4.5C per doubling of CO2?

  34. #9434
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Equilibrium climate sensitivity includes feedbacks.

    Do you think that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range of 1.5C to 4.5C per doubling of CO2?
    http://www.americanthinker.com/%231%...rthHistory.gif
    computer says no, from past history it will never happen.
    regards inter

  35. #9435
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Equilibrium climate sensitivity includes feedbacks.

    Do you think that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range of 1.5C to 4.5C per doubling of CO2?
    no
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  36. #9436
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    no
    Haha. I guess I knew that.

    You claim to accept all the scientific bases which are scientific conclusions based on observation and research, yet instead of continuing you drop a u-turn and embrace a conclusion not supported by scientific observation or research. To be fair, I guess you're not as far down the track as others who have posted here.



    From Nature: Making sense of paleoclimate sensitivity

    woodbe.

  37. #9437
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Haha. I guess I knew that.

    You claim to accept all the scientific bases which are scientific conclusions based on observation and research, yet instead of continuing you drop a u-turn and embrace a conclusion not supported by scientific observation or research. To be fair, I guess you're not as far down the track as others who have posted here.



    From Nature: Making sense of paleoclimate sensitivity

    woodbe.
    nice colours, perhaps you can enlighten us with what you think it means, starting with the scale.
    regards inter

  38. #9438
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Well that threw a blanket over the parrot cage.
    regards inter

  39. #9439
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    nice colours, perhaps you can enlighten us with what you think it means, starting with the scale.
    regards inter
    Just not sure what you want to know here, the link to the paper works for me. I don't have access to the full article so I can't help with any detail but this study is like a number of others that look at past events where a doubling of CO2 occurred (either as a forcing or feedback) and the resultant temp increase was in the 2-4.5C range, as shown on the scale.

  40. #9440
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Must admit the link worked for me as well, nothing complicated about the scale especially if you read the link, perhaps Inter is just confused by the presentation of the graph and is thrown by the colours. I'm being quite serious sometimes something simple can appear otherwise if the mind has been thrown by something it wasn't expecting.

  41. #9441
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    ...sometimes something simple can appear otherwise if the mind has been thrown by something it wasn't expecting.
    ...perhaps Inter took the blanket off his parrot?


    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  42. #9442
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    aha the parrots have woken up. Only took 2 days
    regards inter

  43. #9443
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    I dont know where you get your data of convenience from but it doesn't match the recognised data that indicates the global temperature has risen from the little ice age. No need to repeat what i said about the CO2 increases, somewhere I have a photo that I took of the first ice core being recovered at Law dome.
    regards inter
    just found this storage.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails image.jpg   image.jpg  

  44. #9444
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    That's definitely Antarctica. It's upside down...

    Thing is though...even being in the right place at the right time doesn't necessarily make you right. Regardless...very envious of your experience, Inter.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  45. #9445
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    That's definitely Antarctica. It's upside down...

    Thing is though...even being in the right place at the right time doesn't necessarily make you right. Regardless...very envious of your experience, Inter.
    Likewise, and on the subject of right or wrong, care to comment on Jaworowski's theory that antarctic core samples are too contaminated by drilling fluids to give valid CO2 levels?

  46. #9446
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Nobody knows what's right or wrong yet, this was just something to gaze over in the interval, do you know what the fluid they used was ? I'll give you a hint, it's very toxic.
    regards inter

  47. #9447
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    ...do you know what the fluid they used was ? I'll give you a hint, it's very toxic.

    Water. Awful stuff. Lethal to a decent whisky. Even worse, adding it to soda water drives out all the bubbles...

    Mind you...it does have a place. Ever tried making a coffee without water? Nearest I got to success was dropping a heaped teaspoon or two of Moccona (and another of sugar) into a shot of vodka...
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  48. #9448
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Water. Awful stuff. Lethal to a decent whisky. Even worse, adding it to soda water drives out all the bubbles...

    Mind you...it does have a place. Ever tried making a coffee without water? Nearest I got to success was dropping a heaped teaspoon or two of Moccona (and another of sugar) into a shot of vodka...
    Yet a drop of spring water into a single malt brings out the flavour.

  49. #9449
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Water. Awful stuff. Lethal to a decent whisky. Even worse, adding it to soda water drives out all the bubbles...

    Mind you...it does have a place. Ever tried making a coffee without water? Nearest I got to success was dropping a heaped teaspoon or two of Moccona (and another of sugar) into a shot of vodka...
    No, they didn't use water but a toxic chemical with a high specific gravity & a freezing point below the constant ice sheet temperature of -21'C. The fluids only task was to resist the crushing force of the ice closing the bore hole.
    regards inter

  50. #9450
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    The heading is self explanatory
    Empirical / Tests Myths - CO2 and Climate Change.
    regards inter

Page 189 of 377 FirstFirst ... 89 139 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 239 289 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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