Emission Trading and climate change

Page 200 of 377 FirstFirst ... 100 150 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 250 300 ... LastLast
Results 9,951 to 10,000 of 18819
  1. #9951
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    A tiny change in CO2 is not "the primary cause of global warming", it is the primary cause of excess global warming, over and above "natural" global warming, in the 150 years post industrialisation.

    That the atmosphere might trap heat was first anticipated in 1820 by Fourier and a mechanism involving CO2 first confirmed by John Tyndall in 1859. Tynadall was trying to understand previous ice ages, and through careful laboratory observations identified that CO2 in the atmosphere would trap heat. By 1896 another scientist, Arrhenius, completed a laborious numerical computation that suggested that halving the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere might lower the temperature some 4-5°C - enough to explain an ice age. No one has "undone" or disproven this finding since.

    In 2005 accurate long-term measurements of temperatures in all the world's ocean basins were finally compiled. There is only one possible source of the colossal additional energy found in the oceans: an alteration in the Earth's radiation balance. It only takes simple physics to calculate that the heat required is about 1 watt per square meter, averaged over the planet's surface, year on year, the amount that greenhouse computations have been predicting for decades.
    That well worn theory is far from proof & has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. If it were true then the predictions the alarmists make would be realised. It is surprising how low & quiet they are when the global average temperature has been stable for the last 16 or so years, so makes the relationship between CO2 & the primary cause of global warming anecdotal, but mainly a long winded anecdote
    regards inter

  2. #9952
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    It is surprising how low & quiet they are when the global average temperature has been stable for the last 16 or so years.
    regards inter
    Surprising you think it's been quiet - perhaps you should your hands off your ears and you might hear what is being said. The idea that there hasn't been any warming of Earth for the past 16 years is a credible as belief in the tooth fairy. In case you didn't realise, global air temperature in the lower atmosphere is only a proxy for global warming. The lower atmospheric air temperature affected by the weather, which moves heat around the planet in and out of the oceans, where most of the heat from the sun is first absorbed. This is variability really obvious if you look at the temperature record for the past few decades, and not just the past few years, as is the relentless rise in temperature. Hint: you have to look with your mind open to see it. Look are the area under the curve and see how it increases towards the right.


  3. #9953
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Surprising you think it's been quiet - perhaps you should your hands off your ears and you might hear what is being said. The idea that there hasn't been any warming of Earth for the past 16 years is a credible as belief in the tooth fairy. In case you didn't realise, global air temperature in the lower atmosphere is only a proxy for global warming. The lower atmospheric air temperature affected by the weather, which moves heat around the planet in and out of the oceans, where most of the heat from the sun is first absorbed. This is variability really obvious if you look at the temperature record for the past few decades, and not just the past few years, as is the relentless rise in temperature. Hint: you have to look with your mind open to see it.

    so the oceans average temperature that hasn't warmed a fraction of a degree which have the greatest influence on our climate, is to blame for say a hundredfold warming of the atmosphere, now I know where so come & see some fairys, the're in your bottom garden. Perhaps you could do a calculation to show us how long a theoretical 1watt /m2 would take to rise the globes oceans average temperature by 1'C , along with all the variables that would counteract the equation.
    regards inter

  4. #9954
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    just for us maybe you can produce just one scientific source than proves that the tiny change in CO2 is the primary cause of global warming.
    regards inter
    It's been provided, you just haven't absorbed or understood it, more than likely both.

    woodbe.

  5. #9955
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    so the oceans average temperature that hasn't warmed a fraction of a degree which have the greatest influence on our climate, is to blame for say a hundredfold warming of the atmosphere, now I know where so come & see some fairys, the're in your bottom garden. Perhaps you could do a calculation to show us how long a theoretical 1watt /m2 would take to rise the globes oceans average temperature by 1'C , along with all the variables that would counteract the equation.
    regards inter
    The oceans have warmed:
    "Over the past 50 years, the oceans have absorbed more than 80% of the total heat added to the air/sea/land/cyrosphere climate system (Levitus et al, 2005). As the dominant reservoir for heat, the oceans are critical for measuring the radiation imbalance of the planet and the surface layer of the oceans plays the role of thermostat and heat source/sink for the lower atmosphere."

    No need for me to do a calculation. More than 1000 analysis paper's have been written around the Argo dataset, including one by Levitus with this graph:



    Global Change Analysis

  6. #9956
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Oh noes, not the Ocean Heat Content!

    Inter doesn't want to know about that, he only wants to know about degrees C so he can convince himself the oceans are warming a miniscule amount.

    Forget about the huge Mj going into the oceans, that's irrelevant, it's only energy!

    woodbe.

  7. #9957
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    It only takes simple physics to calculate that the heat required is about 1 watt per square meter, averaged over the planet's surface, year on year, the amount that greenhouse computations have been predicting for decades.
    The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature - Callendar - 2007 - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - Wiley Online Library




    (EDIT: to replace link)

  8. #9958
    The Master's Apprentice Bedford's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Yarra Valley Vic oz
    Posts
    8,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    And here is a paper by G S Callendar from 1937 who got it right way back then: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store...5y4gz&be2846a9
    Your link's a fizzer....

    Forbidden

    You don't have permission to access /store/10.1002/qj.49706427503/asset/49706427503_ftp.pdf on this server.
    Posted by John2b, And no, BEVs are not going to save the planet, which doesn't need saving anyway.

  9. #9959
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bedford View Post
    Your link's a fizzer....
    Try this one then:

    The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature - Callendar - 2007 - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - Wiley Online Library

    It's a 1937 publication, perhaps republished by Wiley in 2007. John2b's graphics appear on P11.

    woodbe.

  10. #9960
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default Oops!

    Oops.

    About that highly publicised Arctic "recovery"...



    We're about a month away from the yearly maximum extent. Plenty of time for the recovery to kick in.

    Are our skeptics offering odds that 2013-2014 minimum will be equal or greater than 2012-2013 yet?

    lol

    woodbe.

  11. #9961
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    The man who 'invented' Global Warming


    By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: December 30th, 2010
    506 Comments Comment on this article

    Mr Tickle: altogether funnier, nicer and more useful than Sir Crispin Tickell

    I'm in Ireland this week and am not yet sure how close I'll be to the internet. So to tide you over just in case here is a fascinating essay from Ishmael2009 (not his real name) on Sir Crispin Tickell is one of the chief architects of Man Made Global Warming's towering cathedral of half truths, exaggeration, hysteria and Neo-Malthusian lunacy. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, the mighty Ishmael2009…..

    Our Man at the Climate Summit: Essay on Sir Crispin Tickell


    Sir Crispin Charles Cervantes Tickell is one of the most influential people behind the idea of man-made global warming. Yet you could easily be forgiven for having never heard of him.
    Tickell, you see, is a diplomat and a scion of the British establishment, and as such works largely behind the scenes, like a real-life Sir Humphrey. His CV bulges with numerous honorary doctorates, chairmanships and directorships around the world, including the European arm of Pachauri’s TERI organization (1). After starting as a bright young thing with the civil service, he spent two years at Harvard, where he addressed himself to the up and coming subject of climate change, the result of which was his 1977 book Climactic Change and World Affairs, a work that detailed the threat posed to Western civilization by possible changes in the world climate. It made his name, and on his return Tickell was made Chef de Cabinet to the President of the European Commission and afterwards advisor to the Thatcher government, where he was instrumental in persuading leading politicians to put global warming on the political agenda (11).
    So is AGW the most serious threat facing the world today, so far as Tickell is concerned? Well, almost. There is one other threat that he sees as even more urgent than AGW – the human race itself. Specifically, those feckless, irresponsible classes and nations that continue to breed at more than the replacement level of 2.1 children (Tickell, it should be noted, has three children. Considerations of overpopulation do not apply to his class, of course (1)). For him, overpopulation is the driving force behind AGW: we are a cancer on the planet. In language which we would normally expect to come from extremists, Tickell lays out his vision of the rest of the world.
    We are, he believes, "a malignant maladaption in the corpus of living organisms, and behave and reproduce like a virus out of control" (2). We are "infected tissue in the organism of life" (3). "More than ever," he writes, "humans can be regarded like certain species of ant" (5).The only relief from this that Tickell sees on the horizon is that "it is hard to believe that there will be anything like current or future human numbers in their present urban concentrations or elsewhere. Whether weeded out by warfare, disease, deteriorating conditions of life, or other disasters, numbers are likely to fall drastically. We must, I believe, expect some breakdowns in human society before the end of this century with unforeseeable outcomes" (4). That’ll teach us to pollute his nice clean world!
    Of course, Tickell is well aware that in every single industrialised country, total fertility rates (TFR) have fallen below replacement levels – in other words in modernised nations population is declining. The real threat, then, is from the feckless hordes in the less developed nations. Overpopulation and climate change will, he warns, lead to refugees from these countries becoming a "prime threat" to Western society in coming years (3).
    For Tickell, these refugees are clearly at the root of his concerns. They represent a threat to Western culture as they "bring with them alien customs, religious practices, eating habits, agricultural methods, and – not least – diseases" (3). Yikes! Those horrible, horrible people! He warns that environmental refugees "like normal refugees . . . mostly rely on charity" and worst of all "tend to spread their poverty around them" (3). Tickell claims that "full assimilation" into national culture "is rare" and cautions that in the event of rapid change these refugees would be "only one of myriad animal species trying to cope with disruption of their [unassimilated] way of life" (3). They are, he tells us, a "dangerous element" in Western society and their presence will have "secondary effects" such as "disorder, terrorism, economic breakdown, disease, or bankruptcy" (3). Remember, these warnings come from the man largely responsible for putting AGW on the world political map.
    Of course, the real nightmare scenario for Malthusians has always been not overpopulation per se, but differential fertility, so that the fecund foreign hordes pour into an under-populated and degenerate West. This is also a worry for neo-Malthusians such as Tickell as well, it seems. Pointing to the fact (as he sees it) that illegal Mexican immigration into the USA has led to many parts of America taking on "Hispanic characteristics", he foresees a tidal wave of foreigners swarming into the under-populated areas of the world:
    Desperation could push Africans into Europe, Chinese into the relatively empty parts of Russia, the Indonesians into northern Australia. Sheer numbers could swamp most efforts at control (3).
    Double yikes! Start breeding chaps, there’s billions of ‘em! So, clearly, as industrialisation leads to a decline in population, what Tickell demands is the modernisation of the poorer countries, right?
    Well, no. There aren’t enough resources to go around, you see. Tickell demands that the world pursue"‘sustainable development". What does that phrase mean? He doesn’t spell it out exactly, but he does know one thing – what was right for the West is not right for the rest:
    We should also be clear what it [sustainable development] does not mean: following the methods of industrialisation espoused in the West [ . . . ] Instead it should mean something specific to each country or regions' resources and culture (6).
    Like fellow neo-Malthusian Jonathon Porritt who believes that allowing poor nations to have an electricity grid would be "the end of the world," Tickell believes that instead of allowing poor nations to industrialise, thus lowering their fertility rates as every developed nation has done, they must lower their populations without first industrialising (7).
    At a lecture to The Royal Geographical Society in March 1990, while among friends and colleagues, Tickell spelt out exactly whom he was referring to. Industrialisation in the developed Western world was fine, as it "grew out of previous history" and was sustained by a "resilient" environment with the result that although the environment was greatly altered little irremediable damage was done" (12). Non-Western countries, sadly, do not have the same "history" and have not yet learnt to stop breeding, and so must not be allowed to follow the same path of modernisation. Well, of course. Makes perfect sense, if you’re a neo-Malthusian.
    This is reflected in UK government policy towards global warming, according to Left-wing environmental historian David Pepper, who observes:
    . . . the British Government (advised by neoMalthusian Crispin Tickell) predictably used Neo-Malthusian arguments at the Rio environmental summit in 1992 to try to shift the blame for global environmental degradation from the West to third world countries (9).
    Tickell, unsurprisingly, puts it differently. Overbreeding by poorer nations is he claims "the biggest single environmental issue" and was ignored at Rio, thanks to a "tacit conspiracy", though he forebears to mention any names behind this ‘conspiracy’ (13).
    Like all neo-Malthusians, Sir Crispin Tickell knows full well that fertility rates in industrialised countries always decline to a perfectly manageable level as people decide to more with their lives than simply raise children. If overpopulation really is a problem, then the solution is simple: modernisation and industrialisation – which is exactly the route these countries are pursuing for themselves. To compare mankind in general with "infected tissue" and demand that poor countries simply stop breeding before they modernise is surely not acceptable. But then, our man behind AGW doesn’t see it that way.
    ————–



    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  12. #9962
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    The man who 'invented' Global Warming

    Sir Crispin Charles Cervantes Tickell is one of the most influential people behind the idea of man-made global warming. Yet you could easily be forgiven for having never heard of him. Tickell, you see, is a diplomat and a scion of the British establishment, and as such works largely behind the scenes, like a real-life Sir Humphrey.



    Regardless of whatever Sir Crispin Tickell might have said or done, one thing he certainly is not responsible for is "inventing" global warming. He is not the first or the last to write about, just one of thousands who have penned their concerns. Tens of thousands of researchers from rich countries and poor, from first world countries and third, from eastern and western, from capitalist and communist, from private organisations an public ones, form government institutions and industry bodies - people who are skeptics by profession - have contributed to the body of knowledge about AGW, and most of them would not have heard of Sir Crispin Tickell either. The cornerstone of AGW is measurements, not the collected whimsey of some Mr Humphrey character.

    More conspiracy theories. Who can honestly read and then still believe the twaddle in the post above? Only someone with their eyes wide shut and their mind closed.

  13. #9963
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Delingpole has 'moved on' from his job with News Ltd. That article helps explain why.

  14. #9964
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    It's been provided, you just haven't absorbed or understood it, more than likely both.

    woodbe.
    Well it very difficult to absorb or understand something that hasn't been provided when asked numerous times, I like the new tactic, nice try but no prizes to second place.
    regards inter

  15. #9965
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Oh noes, not the Ocean Heat Content!

    Inter doesn't want to know about that, he only wants to know about degrees C so he can convince himself the oceans are warming a miniscule amount.

    Forget about the huge Mj going into the oceans, that's irrelevant, it's only energy!

    woodbe.
    its only measured in Mj because that's the only units they can measure a change in.
    Must have a enormous multiplying effect to heat the global average atmosphere 0.8'C from an almost immeasurable average ocean change.
    regards inter

  16. #9966
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    The oceans have warmed:
    "Over the past 50 years, the oceans have absorbed more than 80% of the total heat added to the air/sea/land/cyrosphere climate system (Levitus et al, 2005). As the dominant reservoir for heat, the oceans are critical for measuring the radiation imbalance of the planet and the surface layer of the oceans plays the role of thermostat and heat source/sink for the lower atmosphere."

    No need for me to do a calculation. More than 1000 analysis paper's have been written around the Argo dataset, including one by Levitus with this graph:



    Global Change Analysis
    For the umpteenth time, yes a C' calculation or graph would be nice to put into perspective how long it would take for the process. We have all seen graphs like that so many times which mean jack to the question asked, but still they are parroted because that's all that can be trawled up.
    regards inter

  17. #9967
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Well it very difficult to absorb or understand something that hasn't been provided when asked numerous times, I like the new tactic, nice try but no prizes to second place.
    regards inter
    Look in the mirror



    There have been countless references to evidence and science showing the effect of CO2 on the energy budget of earth in this thread. Clearly there is a comprehension problem when someone keeps asking for the same information. Some would say trolling.

    On the other hand, there have been repeated requests for factual evidence that the average ice thickness in the Antarctic is the same as the Arctic yet such simple evidence as ice thickness that is just a bunch of numbers and needs very little understanding cannot be found despite what the poster claimed.

    We wouldn't even have to take off our socks.

    woodbe.

  18. #9968
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Oops.

    About that highly publicised Arctic "recovery"...



    We're about a month away from the yearly maximum extent. Plenty of time for the recovery to kick in.

    Are our skeptics offering odds that 2013-2014 minimum will be equal or greater than 2012-2013 yet?

    lol

    woodbe.
    Again you will have to try & explain why a supposed CO2 global warming problem is materialising in only one hemisphere?
    regards inter

  19. #9969
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Again you will have to try & explain why a supposed CO2 global warming problem is materialising in only one hemisphere?
    regards inter
    Er no, you have to explain why YOU think global is only one hemisphere. The fact that the southern hemisphere isn't balancing losses in sea ice in the northern hemisphere has already been established. Do try to keep up!

  20. #9970
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    its only measured in Mj because that's the only units they can measure a change in.
    Must have a enormous multiplying effect to heat the global average atmosphere 0.8'C from an almost immeasurable average ocean change.
    regards inter
    Told you john2b

    We don't want to know that it takes a lot more energy to heat a litre of water than it does to heat a litre of air, or that the mass of water on the planet is way greater than the mass of the atmosphere. We just want to hide that energy under the bed and pretend it is meaningless.

    That's not even skepticism, it's something else.

    woodbe.

  21. #9971
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Look in the mirror



    There have been countless references to evidence and science showing the effect of CO2 on the energy budget of earth in this thread. Clearly there is a comprehension problem when someone keeps asking for the same information. Some would say trolling.

    On the other hand, there have been repeated requests for factual evidence that the average ice thickness in the Antarctic is the same as the Arctic yet such simple evidence as ice thickness that is just a bunch of numbers and needs very little understanding cannot be found despite what the poster claimed.

    We wouldn't even have to take off our socks.

    woodbe.
    your making stuff up again I see on all fronts, especially on the last item, I'd like see you to try & reproduce where I made that a claim about Antarctic sea ice being the same thickness as the arctic. As for the former all you do is parrot theories that are shot to pieces so easily & not just by me on my own with a meagre intelligence. Oh yes, what is the reason for the average global temperature being stable for the last 16 or so years & not increasing as inline with the alarmists projections? ( past & present )
    regards inter

  22. #9972
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Er no, you have to explain why YOU think global is only one hemisphere. The fact that the southern hemisphere isn't balancing losses in sea ice in the northern hemisphere has already been established. Do try to keep up!
    just as usual you can't answer a straight question, instead is a question in relation to a question......you must watch parliament question time to get skills like that.
    regards inter

  23. #9973
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Told you john2b

    We don't want to know that it takes a lot more energy to heat a litre of water than it does to heat a litre of air, or that the mass of water on the planet is way greater than the mass of the atmosphere. We just want to hide that energy under the bed and pretend it is meaningless.

    That's not even skepticism, it's something else.

    woodbe.
    did you fail high school physics & common sense ? A one degree change in water temperature in a container will change the air temperature above it............. One degree! WOW, who would imagine that anything different to that!
    Regards inter

  24. #9974
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    did you fail high school physics & common sense ? A one degree change in water temperature in a container will change the air temperature above it............. One degree! WOW, who would imagine that anything different to that!
    Regards inter
    The energy being stored in the oceans has far more effects than that of a container in the physics lab heated by a bunsen burner.

    eg:


    There has been a massive amount of energy uptake in the oceans and the whole climate system due to the alteration of the planet's energy budget.

    We know this, it's been measured every possible way and the results all show the same thing.

    Oh yes, what is the reason for the average global temperature being stable for the last 16 or so years
    That is so 2013





    Trend remains on track despite your obviously cherry picked date.

    I'd like see you to try & reproduce where I made that a claim about Antarctic sea ice being the same thickness as the arctic.
    Got me there, your claim is that the Antarctic sea ice gains balance the Arctic losses and that the Antarctic sea ice average thickness is not 1m compared to the Arctic's ~3m. I apologise for misrepresenting your claim as being about average sea ice thickness balance.

    (see how easy it is to apologise when you make a mistake?, you should try it.)

    In any case, you haven't shown any evidence of either claim, so it's inter vs the body of scientific data he claims he helped to collect.

    There should be a new WGMS Worldwide Glacier mass balance report out by now. Would you like me to see if I can find it, perhaps the glaciers are in "recovery" too?

    woodbe.

  25. #9975
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    did you fail high school physics & common sense ? A one degree change in water temperature in a container will change the air temperature above it............. One degree! WOW, who would imagine that anything different to that!
    Regards inter
    inter, you are right, it is high school physics. The amount of heat to raise 1 cubic meter 1 degree is specific heat x weight. For water at a temperature of 25 degrees this is 4.18 J·g−1·K−1x 1,000,000 g = 4,180,000 Joules. For air at surface pressure of 1 Bar and temperature of 25 degrees this is 1.012 J·g−1·K−1 x 1,120 g = 1,133 Joules.

    Therefore 1 cubic meter of water heated by 1 degree contains enough heat to raise 3,689 cubic meters of air by 1 degree (4,180,000/1,133).

  26. #9976
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    RET reviewer Dick Warburton: I’m not a climate sceptic


    Mr Warburton told The Australian last night he was not a climate change sceptic.


    “I am not a denier of climate change,” he said. “I am a sceptic that man-made carbon dioxide is creating global warming.”

    That's equivalent to saying: "I am not a denier that computers work. I am a sceptic that a few parts per billion of rare earth elements in silicon is what makes them work". Utterly ridiculous!

    Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  27. #9977
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    LOL

    Looks like the RET gets a kangaroo court.

    woodbe.

  28. #9978
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    The man who 'invented' Global Warming


    By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: December 30th, 2010
    506 Comments Comment on this article

    Mr Tickle: altogether funnier, nicer and more useful than Sir Crispin Tickell

    I'm in Ireland this week and am not yet sure how close I'll be to the internet. So to tide you over just in case here is a fascinating essay from Ishmael2009 (not his real name) on Sir Crispin Tickell is one of the chief architects of Man Made Global Warming's towering cathedral of half truths, exaggeration, hysteria and Neo-Malthusian lunacy. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, the mighty Ishmael2009…..

    Our Man at the Climate Summit: Essay on Sir Crispin Tickell


    Sir Crispin Charles Cervantes Tickell is one of the most influential people behind the idea of man-made global warming. Yet you could easily be forgiven for having never heard of him.
    Tickell, you see, is a diplomat and a scion of the British establishment, and as such works largely behind the scenes, like a real-life Sir Humphrey. His CV bulges with numerous honorary doctorates, chairmanships and directorships around the world, including the European arm of Pachauri’s TERI organization (1). After starting as a bright young thing with the civil service, he spent two years at Harvard, where he addressed himself to the up and coming subject of climate change, the result of which was his 1977 book Climactic Change and World Affairs, a work that detailed the threat posed to Western civilization by possible changes in the world climate. It made his name, and on his return Tickell was made Chef de Cabinet to the President of the European Commission and afterwards advisor to the Thatcher government, where he was instrumental in persuading leading politicians to put global warming on the political agenda (11).
    So is AGW the most serious threat facing the world today, so far as Tickell is concerned? Well, almost. There is one other threat that he sees as even more urgent than AGW – the human race itself. Specifically, those feckless, irresponsible classes and nations that continue to breed at more than the replacement level of 2.1 children (Tickell, it should be noted, has three children. Considerations of overpopulation do not apply to his class, of course (1)). For him, overpopulation is the driving force behind AGW: we are a cancer on the planet. In language which we would normally expect to come from extremists, Tickell lays out his vision of the rest of the world.
    We are, he believes, "a malignant maladaption in the corpus of living organisms, and behave and reproduce like a virus out of control" (2). We are "infected tissue in the organism of life" (3). "More than ever," he writes, "humans can be regarded like certain species of ant" (5).The only relief from this that Tickell sees on the horizon is that "it is hard to believe that there will be anything like current or future human numbers in their present urban concentrations or elsewhere. Whether weeded out by warfare, disease, deteriorating conditions of life, or other disasters, numbers are likely to fall drastically. We must, I believe, expect some breakdowns in human society before the end of this century with unforeseeable outcomes" (4). That’ll teach us to pollute his nice clean world!
    Of course, Tickell is well aware that in every single industrialised country, total fertility rates (TFR) have fallen below replacement levels – in other words in modernised nations population is declining. The real threat, then, is from the feckless hordes in the less developed nations. Overpopulation and climate change will, he warns, lead to refugees from these countries becoming a "prime threat" to Western society in coming years (3).
    For Tickell, these refugees are clearly at the root of his concerns. They represent a threat to Western culture as they "bring with them alien customs, religious practices, eating habits, agricultural methods, and – not least – diseases" (3). Yikes! Those horrible, horrible people! He warns that environmental refugees "like normal refugees . . . mostly rely on charity" and worst of all "tend to spread their poverty around them" (3). Tickell claims that "full assimilation" into national culture "is rare" and cautions that in the event of rapid change these refugees would be "only one of myriad animal species trying to cope with disruption of their [unassimilated] way of life" (3). They are, he tells us, a "dangerous element" in Western society and their presence will have "secondary effects" such as "disorder, terrorism, economic breakdown, disease, or bankruptcy" (3). Remember, these warnings come from the man largely responsible for putting AGW on the world political map.
    Of course, the real nightmare scenario for Malthusians has always been not overpopulation per se, but differential fertility, so that the fecund foreign hordes pour into an under-populated and degenerate West. This is also a worry for neo-Malthusians such as Tickell as well, it seems. Pointing to the fact (as he sees it) that illegal Mexican immigration into the USA has led to many parts of America taking on "Hispanic characteristics", he foresees a tidal wave of foreigners swarming into the under-populated areas of the world:
    Desperation could push Africans into Europe, Chinese into the relatively empty parts of Russia, the Indonesians into northern Australia. Sheer numbers could swamp most efforts at control (3).
    Double yikes! Start breeding chaps, there’s billions of ‘em! So, clearly, as industrialisation leads to a decline in population, what Tickell demands is the modernisation of the poorer countries, right?
    Well, no. There aren’t enough resources to go around, you see. Tickell demands that the world pursue"‘sustainable development". What does that phrase mean? He doesn’t spell it out exactly, but he does know one thing – what was right for the West is not right for the rest:
    We should also be clear what it [sustainable development] does not mean: following the methods of industrialisation espoused in the West [ . . . ] Instead it should mean something specific to each country or regions' resources and culture (6).
    Like fellow neo-Malthusian Jonathon Porritt who believes that allowing poor nations to have an electricity grid would be "the end of the world," Tickell believes that instead of allowing poor nations to industrialise, thus lowering their fertility rates as every developed nation has done, they must lower their populations without first industrialising (7).
    At a lecture to The Royal Geographical Society in March 1990, while among friends and colleagues, Tickell spelt out exactly whom he was referring to. Industrialisation in the developed Western world was fine, as it "grew out of previous history" and was sustained by a "resilient" environment with the result that although the environment was greatly altered little irremediable damage was done" (12). Non-Western countries, sadly, do not have the same "history" and have not yet learnt to stop breeding, and so must not be allowed to follow the same path of modernisation. Well, of course. Makes perfect sense, if you’re a neo-Malthusian.
    This is reflected in UK government policy towards global warming, according to Left-wing environmental historian David Pepper, who observes:
    . . . the British Government (advised by neoMalthusian Crispin Tickell) predictably used Neo-Malthusian arguments at the Rio environmental summit in 1992 to try to shift the blame for global environmental degradation from the West to third world countries (9).
    Tickell, unsurprisingly, puts it differently. Overbreeding by poorer nations is he claims "the biggest single environmental issue" and was ignored at Rio, thanks to a "tacit conspiracy", though he forebears to mention any names behind this ‘conspiracy’ (13).
    Like all neo-Malthusians, Sir Crispin Tickell knows full well that fertility rates in industrialised countries always decline to a perfectly manageable level as people decide to more with their lives than simply raise children. If overpopulation really is a problem, then the solution is simple: modernisation and industrialisation – which is exactly the route these countries are pursuing for themselves. To compare mankind in general with "infected tissue" and demand that poor countries simply stop breeding before they modernise is surely not acceptable. But then, our man behind AGW doesn’t see it that way.
    ————–



    I would like to read this Marc but just cant when it is not broken up into paragraphs!
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  29. #9979
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    RET reviewer Dick Warburton: I’m not a climate sceptic


    Mr Warburton told The Australian last night he was not a climate change sceptic.


    “I am not a denier of climate change,” he said. “I am a sceptic that man-made carbon dioxide is creating global warming.”

    That's equivalent to saying: "I am not a denier that computers work. I am a sceptic that a few parts per billion of rare earth elements in silicon is what makes them work". Utterly ridiculous!

    Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
    Not ridiculous at all. This is exactly how most people who are sceptical of Co2 being the cause of warming are including me.

    So you think that a person who agrees that climate has changed MUST agree that co2 is the reason for the change over all the possible natural causes that have driven past climatic changes?

    Now that is what I call utterly ridiculous.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  30. #9980
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    I would like to read this Marc but just cant when it is not broken up into paragraphs!
    It's a copy and paste from the Telegraph Rod. Just go to the original: The man who 'invented' Global Warming – Telegraph Blogs

    woodbe.

  31. #9981
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Not ridiculous at all. This is exactly how most people who are sceptical of Co2 being the cause of warming are including me.

    So you think that a person who agrees that climate has changed MUST agree that co2 is the reason for the change over all the possible natural causes that have driven past climatic changes?

    Now that is what I call utterly ridiculous.
    What is ridiculous is transposing the argument to deny the impact of CO2.

    It is one thing to say that there are natural causes of climate change, few deny that.

    It is another thing altogether to systematically deny the effects of human caused increases in CO2 that are additive to those natural causes.

    And then you suggest that you are being required to agree that "co2 is the reason for the change over all the possible natural causes that have driven past climatic changes".

    What you have constructed is called a straw man argument.

    woodbe.

  32. #9982
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    So you think that a person who agrees that climate has changed MUST agree that co2 is the reason for the change over all the possible natural causes that have driven past climatic changes?
    When the physics that works that can explain past climatic changes and can explain current global warming is deem to be faulty, that is ridiculous.

  33. #9983
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    What is ridiculous is transposing the argument to deny the impact of CO2.

    It is one thing to say that there are natural causes of climate change, few deny that.

    It is another thing altogether to systematically deny the effects of human caused increases in CO2 that are additive to those natural causes.

    And then you suggest that you are being required to agree that "co2 is the reason for the change over all the possible natural causes that have driven past climatic changes".

    What you have constructed is called a straw man argument.

    woodbe.
    Well I am not about to repeat myself again answering this you know my thoughts.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  34. #9984
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Well I am not about to repeat myself again answering this you know my thoughts.
    Yes I do.

    You don't need to stoop to bodgy debating tactics though.

    Accepting the physics of climate science all the way to climate sensitivity which you put an artificial 1C lid on does not buy you a get out of jail card.

    woodbe.

  35. #9985
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    inter, you are right, it is high school physics. The amount of heat to raise 1 cubic meter 1 degree is specific heat x weight. For water at a temperature of 25 degrees this is 4.18 J·g−1·K−1x 1,000,000 g = 4,180,000 Joules. For air at surface pressure of 1 Bar and temperature of 25 degrees this is 1.012 J·g−1·K−1 x 1,120 g = 1,133 Joules.

    Therefore 1 cubic meter of water heated by 1 degree contains enough heat to raise 3,689 cubic meters of air by 1 degree (4,180,000/1,133).
    fantastic! All that to basically confirm what I stated already, now all you have to do apply this to the ocean volume, along with the time line & your almost answering a question. In all reality I'm on half qualified at being a halfwit, yet I can realise that the average global air temperature which has risen 0.8'C, yet the ocean which is suppose to be driving the rise hasn't risen even a fraction of that. So in conclusion it must be realised that the oceans are not driving up the air temperature, therefor the claims that CO2 is influencing all this is............ a poopteenth above zero, much like the concentration of it in our atmosphere.
    regards inter

  36. #9986
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    RET reviewer Dick Warburton: I’m not a climate sceptic


    Mr Warburton told The Australian last night he was not a climate change sceptic.


    “I am not a denier of climate change,” he said. “I am a sceptic that man-made carbon dioxide is creating global warming.”

    That's equivalent to saying: "I am not a denier that computers work. I am a sceptic that a few parts per billion of rare earth elements in silicon is what makes them work". Utterly ridiculous!

    Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
    Get over it, it's called democracy, for too long the fruitless cause was backed by some lilly livered political party that was too scared to go against a minority party, the man has stated his current beliefs, hold him to them all you like, unlike lying & saying " there will be no carbon tax under a govt' I lead "
    regards inter

  37. #9987
    7K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Geelong
    Posts
    7,576

    Default

    500 pages!!!

    You guys should be discussing things where you can actually make a difference.

    Whoops...

  38. #9988
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    The energy being stored in the oceans has far more effects than that of a container in the physics lab heated by a bunsen burner.

    eg:


    There has been a massive amount of energy uptake in the oceans and the whole climate system due to the alteration of the planet's energy budget.

    We know this, it's been measured every possible way and the results all show the same thing.



    That is so 2013





    Trend remains on track despite your obviously cherry picked date.



    Got me there, your claim is that the Antarctic sea ice gains balance the Arctic losses and that the Antarctic sea ice average thickness is not 1m compared to the Arctic's ~3m. I apologise for misrepresenting your claim as being about average sea ice thickness balance.

    (see how easy it is to apologise when you make a mistake?, you should try it.)

    In any case, you haven't shown any evidence of either claim, so it's inter vs the body of scientific data he claims he helped to collect.

    There should be a new WGMS Worldwide Glacier mass balance report out by now. Would you like me to see if I can find it, perhaps the glaciers are in "recovery" too?

    woodbe.
    besides the graphs showing a nthn 3.2% decline versus a sthrn 3.7% increase
    what I showed was your data was taken from an area that represented a large polynya, yet it averaged 1m. When Antarctic sea ice forms at a rate of around 100mm a week from march onwards you can understand my scepticism.
    just for you, taken from the same page you parroted claiming the 1m thickness was the benchmark to base your claims on

    Thickness


    "Because sea ice does not stay in the Antarctic as long as it does in the Arctic, it does not have the opportunity to grow as thick as sea ice in the Arctic. While thickness varies significantly within both regions, Antarctic ice is typically 1 to 2 meters (3 to 6 feet) thick, while most of the Arctic is covered by sea ice 2 to 3 meters (6 to 9 feet) thick. Some Arctic regions are covered with ice that is 4 to 5 meters (12 to 15 feet) thick."
    They forgot to add that the multiyear fast Antarctic sea ice that remains during the summer would be equal in thickness to the arctics thickest sea ice.
    regards inter

  39. #9989
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    fantastic! All that to basically confirm what I stated already, now all you have to do apply this to the ocean volume, along with the time line & your almost answering a question. In all reality I'm on half qualified at being a halfwit, yet I can realise that the average global air temperature which has risen 0.8'C, yet the ocean which is suppose to be driving the rise hasn't risen even a fraction of that. So in conclusion it must be realised that the oceans are not driving up the air temperature, therefor the claims that CO2 is influencing all this is............ a poopteenth above zero, much like the concentration of it in our atmosphere.
    regards inter
    Why assume there is a 1:1 relationship between ocean temperature and air temperature? And if there isn't a 1:1 relationship, how or why does this disprove the relationship between CO2 and radiative forcing? In any case, you are wrong, the ocean surface temperature is rising:


  40. #9990
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Get over it, it's called democracy, for too long the fruitless cause was backed by some lilly livered political party that was too scared to go against a minority party, the man has stated his current beliefs, hold him to them all you like, unlike lying & saying " there will be no carbon tax under a govt' I lead "
    regards inter
    If you are diagnosed with cancer, would you be happy for your treatment to be determined by a democratic vote of non-experts, or would you rather have an Oncologist prepare a treatment plan?

  41. #9991
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    besides the graphs showing a nthn 3.2% decline versus a sthrn 3.7% increase
    When comparing the Arctic winter to the Antarctic Summer. The trends are obvious yet if you wanted to choose a season to downplay the differences, now would be it:



    Lets look at September shall we? Or perhaps look at the overall trends which have already been posted. Yes, this is 2012, get over it, it's not easy to find a graph with both on it showing deviations from the mean.

    what I showed was your data was taken from an area that represented a large polynya, yet it averaged 1m. When Antarctic sea ice forms at a rate of around 100mm a week from march onwards you can understand my scepticism.
    just for you, taken from the same page you parroted claiming the 1m thickness was the benchmark to base your claims on

    Thickness


    "Because sea ice does not stay in the Antarctic as long as it does in the Arctic, it does not have the opportunity to grow as thick as sea ice in the Arctic. While thickness varies significantly within both regions, Antarctic ice is typically 1 to 2 meters (3 to 6 feet) thick, while most of the Arctic is covered by sea ice 2 to 3 meters (6 to 9 feet) thick. Some Arctic regions are covered with ice that is 4 to 5 meters (12 to 15 feet) thick."
    They forgot to add that the multiyear fast Antarctic sea ice that remains during the summer would be equal in thickness to the arctics thickest sea ice.
    regards inter
    Fast Antartic ice is thicker than Arctic sea ice lol. How about comparing apples with apples. The Arctic has fast ice too...

    I also showed data from other areas which you studiously ignored. Whatever.

    So lets get your claim straight. You seem to be claiming that fast ice is not included in the average sea ice thickness calculations. Is that what you are claiming? If not, what exactly is your claim, we might as well sound this rabbit hole and put it to bed.

    Which station did you go and measure the ice at, was it fast ice you were measuring?

    woodbe.

  42. #9992
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    If you are diagnosed with cancer, would you be happy for your treatment to be determined by a democratic vote of non-experts, or would you rather have an Oncologist prepare a treatment plan?
    LMAO you are wheeling out an old pathetic, done to death, previously discredited analogy.

    This just keeps getting better. Next we will get the smoking thing out.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  43. #9993
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    That's ok Rod. Delingpole couldn't answer it either.

    We don't need to bring up the smoking thing. Everyone knows the same tactics are in play in the Climate Change 'debate'.

    woodbe.

  44. #9994
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    When comparing the Arctic winter to the Antarctic Summer. The trends are obvious yet if you wanted to choose a season to downplay the differences, now would be it:



    Lets look at September shall we? Or perhaps look at the overall trends which have already been posted. Yes, this is 2012, get over it, it's not easy to find a graph with both on it showing deviations from the mean.

    I posted the graphs with the anomaly differences quoted a couple of posts ago from your very own site, what is the problem? Or don't you understand the figures.


    Fast Antartic ice is thicker than Arctic sea ice lol. How about comparing apples with apples. The Arctic has fast ice too...

    your making stuff up again I see.

    I also showed data from other areas which you studiously ignored. Whatever.

    I can only deal with one false lead at a time, as it appeared to another load of rubbish it was passed on

    So lets get your claim straight. You seem to be claiming that fast ice is not included in the average sea ice thickness calculations. Is that what you are claiming? If not, what exactly is your claim, we might as well sound this rabbit hole and put it to bed.

    now your dreaming stuff up

    Which station did you go and measure the ice at, was it fast ice you were measuring?

    I have lived at the AU bases over 3 years & forgotten half the stuff I measured, yes it was fast ice
    woodbe.
    regards inter

  45. #9995
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Why assume there is a 1:1 relationship between ocean temperature and air temperature? And if there isn't a 1:1 relationship, how or why does this disprove the relationship between CO2 and radiative forcing? In any case, you are wrong, the ocean surface temperature is rising:

    well 1:1 is the best one could expect but you guys are thinking 100:1 is possible, in you world the container of waters temperature has risen a theoretical 0.008'C to make the air above it rise to 0.8'C! To say it's even remotely probable is a overstatement & a miracle of physics.
    regards inter

  46. #9996
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Lets look at September shall we? Or perhaps look at the overall trends which have already been posted. Yes, this is 2012, get over it, it's not easy to find a graph with both on it showing deviations from the mean.

    I posted the graphs with the anomaly differences quoted a couple of posts ago from your very own site, what is the problem? Or don't you understand the figures.
    You posted figures for this time of year when the Arctic sea ice is growing and the Antarctic sea ice is melting. Yes. The figure above shows that the Arctic anomaly trend is negative but relatively minor during winter but a large negative during summer. It has been doing this for decades. The Antarctic trend does not show an equivalent trend in either summer or winter. That means that you are picking the most favorable season to show a 'balance' that does not exist in the annual trends. A september comparison is far more dramatic but not in your favour. It would also be an equivalent cherry pick to yours.

    This shows the annual trends, there is no balance:



    Fast Antartic ice is thicker than Arctic sea ice lol. How about comparing apples with apples. The Arctic has fast ice too...

    your making stuff up again I see.
    Lol. What is your claim? That the Arctic has no fast ice?

    I also showed data from other areas which you studiously ignored. Whatever.

    I can only deal with one false lead at a time, as it appeared to another load of rubbish it was passed on
    Here it is again:

    Seasonal Development

    By far the greatest seasonal changes in the ice thickness distribution of the East Antarctic pack are in the open water and thin ice categories. The amount of open water decreases from almost 60% in December to little more than 10% in August, and the thinnest ice thickness category (0 - 0.2 m) shows a 30% seasonal change between December and March. In contrast, the amount of ice greater than 1.0 m shows very little seasonal variability. This is because undeformed ice rarely exceeds 1 m thick, and the deformed ice greater than 1 m thick only comprises a small fraction of the pack, with the nature of the ice drift largely preventing the accumulation of the thicker ice to form multi-year ice. The fractional coverage of the different ice types discussed below are based upon data collected from 18 voyages into the East Antarctic pack between 1986 and 1995.

    The Onset of Winter

    In March, at the beginning of the growth season, there is approximately 25% open water and an additional 60% of ice less than 0.4 m. This is indicative of rapid new ice growth over large areas of the Southern Ocean as the air temperatures begin to cool, with very little differential drift between the new floes to form thicker ice by rafting.
    As winter progresses the amount of open water within the pack decreases and new ice thickens quite rapidly due to the cold air temperatures. This leads to a decrease in the thinner ice categories and an associated increase in thicker ice. In August, the pack is quite consolidated, and the open water fraction averages 12%. There is only a small percentage of ice less than 0.4 m, and the ice between 0.4-0.8 m thick is of greatest concentration.
    Deal with it.

    So lets get your claim straight. You seem to be claiming that fast ice is not included in the average sea ice thickness calculations. Is that what you are claiming? If not, what exactly is your claim, we might as well sound this rabbit hole and put it to bed.

    now your dreaming stuff up
    That was a question, not a dream. What is your claim about the fast ice in regard to the average sea ice thickness in the Antarctic?

    Which station did you go and measure the ice at, was it fast ice you were measuring?

    I have lived at the AU bases over 3 years & forgotten half the stuff I measured, yes it was fast ice
    Ok, so you didn't measure any sea ice other than fast ice, but you think the scientific claim based on the data that suggests average Antarctic sea ice is 1m is incorrect. I can see how you might come to that conclusion, but I think you would be wrong. Fast ice accounts for just 14-20% of the total volume of sea ice in the Antarctic at it's annual maximum. (P. Heil et al., 2011);(Fedotov et al.,1998). The vast bulk of the ice area is less than 1m.



    woodbe.

  47. #9997
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    How 'Skeptics' get their arguments:


    FOX Alert: O'Reilly Factor Producer Asks DeSmogBlog to Provide Best Arguments Against Global Warming | DeSmogBlog


    Got to hand it to O'reilly and Fox, these guys are right on the case.

    woodbe.

  48. #9998
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    well 1:1 is the best one could expect but you guys are thinking 100:1 is possible, in you world the container of waters temperature has risen a theoretical 0.008'C to make the air above it rise to 0.8'C! To say it's even remotely probable is a overstatement & a miracle of physics.
    regards inter
    Did you even look at the graph of sea surface temperature? (You included it in your reply BTW.) And then you say "no discernible rise" with your miracle of observation and logic LOL!

  49. #9999
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    What are we looking at here?



    woodbe

  50. #10000
    The Master's Apprentice Bedford's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Yarra Valley Vic oz
    Posts
    8,178

    Default

    Bugger Me!!

    10,000

    Posts!!



    Posted by John2b, And no, BEVs are not going to save the planet, which doesn't need saving anyway.

Page 200 of 377 FirstFirst ... 100 150 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 250 300 ... 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
  •