Emission Trading and climate change

Page 247 of 377 FirstFirst ... 147 197 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 297 347 ... LastLast
Results 12,301 to 12,350 of 18819
  1. #12301
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Not emerging. The pattern of your posts has been consistent and obvious to all for yonks. Miss the point of the post, point the finger at others, duck the obvious issue, lose the plot, denigrate those who you don't agree with, drop your claim like a stone as though you never posted.
    Sums him up perfectly.

  2. #12302
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Simple request. Show your evidence.

    Do you really think it's possible for you to get your jollies this way from me? To engage any further on this reminds me of an old saying " try not to argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level & beat you with experience every time"

    How about focusing on climate change, instead of describing your opinion of my antics? You don't even know me. I am honoured but as much as you might want to make it, this forum isn't about me. It is about this:

    Indicators of climate change




















    The simple truth is CO2 hasn't been proven to be causing the majority of these global warming symptoms "& the problem with the simple truth is it always takes a gaggle of complete idiots or a team of all-knowing geniuses to miss it."

    inter

  3. #12303
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Do we have to do this? Are you so ignorant of FF and business that it has to be explained?

    A Barrel goes for $90 average. It contains 159 litres of crude oil. That is the raw material. Without going into huge detail, lets just look at something simple enough for you to grasp.



    149 litres x 50% = 74.5 Litres. How much are you paying for petrol? Lets say $1.50 There is $111.75 Gross Turnover from petrol alone from that barrel.

    Raw material costs do not equal gross turnover. If they did, the business would go out the door backwards.

    You still have less than nothing.


    Originally Posted by intertd6
    and also mysteriously material costs have been reinvented into the value of crude oil consumption! Which anybody with half an ounce of intelligence would know is.........ta da! Gross turnover!
    inter

    your definitely right about me having nothing! I'm only quoting what you've said!
    inter

  4. #12304
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    The simple truth is CO2 hasn't been proven to be causing the majority of these global warming symptoms
    I thought you said there was no significant warming. Now you are saying there is significant warming?

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    the simple truth is it always takes a gaggle of complete idiots or a team of all-knowing geniuses to miss it."
    Team Inter, Rod and Marc.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  5. #12305
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    your definitely right about me having nothing! I'm only MISQUOTING what you've said!
    There, fixed it for you, Inter.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  6. #12306
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    I thought you said there was no significant warming. Now you are saying there is significant warming?

    Back down to your low level & beating me again with your experience I see!


    Team Inter, Rod and Marc.

    You didn't happen to miss the flat spot in the global ave' temp over the last 16 years did you?
    inter

  7. #12307
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Not emerging. The pattern of your posts has been consistent and obvious to all for yonks. Miss the point of the post, point the finger at others, duck the obvious issue, lose the plot, denigrate those who you don't agree with, drop your claim like a stone as though you never posted.
    wow! now that's original! Is that all your own work?
    inter

  8. #12308
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    There, fixed it for you, Inter.
    How miraculously inventive of you!
    inter

  9. #12309
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    For the benefit of any neutral observers who may happen to run across this and want to seek answers for themselves there is an abundance of resources out there. Start with this site. If that doesn't work for you there are a number of textbooks on basic atmospheric physics out there. Try Pierrehumbert's 'Principles of Planetary Climate; a bit expensive and fairly heavy into the math but really good. There is the alternative of signing up for one of the online courses offered through the open university program. Both Harvard and MIT offer online courses on atmospheric physics. They're free but be aware that some classes have 40,000 students. They have student forums so you do have a chance of getting some help if you need it.

  10. #12310
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    For the benefit of any neutral observers who may happen to run across this and want to seek answers for themselves there is an abundance of resources out there. Start with this site. If that doesn't work for you there are a number of textbooks on basic atmospheric physics out there. Try Pierrehumbert's 'Principles of Planetary Climate; a bit expensive and fairly heavy into the math but really good. There is the alternative of signing up for one of the online courses offered through the open university program. Both Harvard and MIT offer online courses on atmospheric physics. They're free but be aware that some classes have 40,000 students. They have student forums so you do have a chance of getting some help if you need it.
    Now the really interesting thing would be know the number of onlookers doing a PHD in psychology & using this forum as research tool for findings of AGWists psyche defending their cult like belief, not that the psyche is different for any cult of belief but the topic is relatively new! One just has to look at the number of guest of onlookers to see it very popular entertainment wise or a valuable tool for students & spooks.
    inter

  11. #12311
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Back down to your low level & beating me again with your experience I see!
    All your own work.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  12. #12312
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Now the really interesting thing would be know the number of onlookers doing a PHD in psychology & using this forum as research tool for findings of AGWists psyche defending their cult like belief, not that the psyche is different for any cult of belief but the topic is relatively new! One just has to look at the number of guest of onlookers to see it very popular entertainment wise or a valuable tool for students & spooks.
    inter
    The psychology of climate science denial is a hot topic, Inter. You would be chuffed if you were smart enough to realise you are the subject of so many PhD's.


    Specifically, we have found that the denial of environmental problems is facilitated by information-processing distortions associated with system justification that affect evaluation, recall, and even tactile perception (Hennes, Feygina, & Jost, 2011). In one study, we found that individuals who scored higher (vs. lower) on Jost and Thompson’s (2000) Economic System Justification scale (which measures responses to such statements as “If people work hard, they almost always get what they want,” and “It is unfair to have an economic system which produces extreme wealth and extreme poverty at the same time,” reverse-scored) found messages disparaging the case for global warming to be more persuasive, evaluated the evidence for global warming to be weaker, and expressed less willingness to take action to curb global warming.


    psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2013/april-13/the-mind-of-the-climate-change-skeptic.html

    '+windowtitle+'
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  13. #12313
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Despite the pain, shame, difficulty and minefield of other psychological barriers that we face in fully addressing climate change, both Lertzman and Gifford are still upbeat about our ability to face up to the challenge. “It’s patronizing to say that climate change is too big or abstract an issue for people to deal with,” says Lertzman. “There can’t be something about the human mind that stops us grappling with these issues given that so many people already are — maybe that’s what we should be focusing on instead.”

    http://science.time.com/2013/08/19/in-denial-about-the-climate-the-psychological-battle-over-global-warming/
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  14. #12314
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  15. #12315
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  16. #12316
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  17. #12317
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    What topic has 396,000 Google hits?

    Let me google that for you
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  18. #12318
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Originally Posted by intertd6
    and also mysteriously material costs have been reinvented into the value of crude oil consumption! Which anybody with half an ounce of intelligence would know is.........ta da! Gross turnover!
    inter
    Nice try, no cigar. It's the fossil fuel industry we are talking about and their capacity to fund attacks on climate science. Crude oil is one of the basic inputs and there is a lot of value add in refining and marketing the resulting products. Gross turnover of the fossil fuel industry does not equal the value of crude oil consumption. There is a lot more to gross turnover, ask your Accountant to explain it to you.

    Here is what I said in the original post that challenged the silly suggestion that there is more funding available to climate science than the FF Industry:

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Cash flow from crude oil in a single year approximates US$2,900 Billion. On top of that, we need to add the other major Fossil Fuels (Gas, Tar Sands) to get a good picture of the whole industry, and we should then include the value add from processing and marketing.
    Inter must have slept through Accounting 101

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  19. #12319
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Talk of climate change is ‘hoax’ for some

    Harold R. Wanless, chairman of the University of Miami Department of Geological Sciences and chairman of the Miami-Dade Climate Change Advisory Task Force, laughed at the notion that warning folks about climate change – and getting lambasted by conservative politicians for their trouble – was a lucrative pursuit. “I pay my own way to most speaking engagements. I don’t get paid to speak. I do it for the same reason most scientists do it. Because we clearly see a horrible situation. We’re just trying to awaken people.”

    The real money, he said, was in climate change denial. The fossil fuel industry has the big bucks – much more than academia – and funds pseudo-science outfits like the Heartland Institute to generate doubt and skepticism about global warming.


    Fred Grimm: Talk of climate change is ‘hoax’ for some | The Miami Herald


    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  20. #12320
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    The term 'Knowledge is power" does not necessarily have anything to do with wealth. Information maybe, especially a bit of inside information may help with your google shares; I'll leave that up to you. The laws of physics do not care whether you like them or ridicule them. If your ideas requires that those laws cease to work then being labelled a conspiracy is the least you can expect to happen to them.
    Just semantics Phil, I expected more from you.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  21. #12321
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Marc, can you explain why the report you linked shows that global warming has become more severe since 1998? This is the graphic from your link:

    Warming becoming "more severe" after 1998?

    You must be looking at a different graph.
    In the above one, the black line shows a heating of ...hard to see but about 0.1 to 0.2 after 98 flattening and seeming to go down after 2004.

    In case you missed it, the point of this graph is to show the crap your side has been feeding us just to keep the gravy train rolling. Those are all the crap fabrications that are represented by the many little pretentious line above.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  22. #12322
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Despite the pain, shame, difficulty and minefield of other psychological barriers that we face in fully addressing climate change, both Lertzman and Gifford are still upbeat about our ability to face up to the challenge. “It’s patronizing to say that climate change is too big or abstract an issue for people to deal with,” says Lertzman. “There can’t be something about the human mind that stops us grappling with these issues given that so many people already are — maybe that’s what we should be focusing on instead.”

    http://science.time.com/2013/08/19/in-denial-about-the-climate-the-psychological-battle-over-global-warming/
    Oh dear! were counting 2000 + years with some believing in something with no proof, like that belief, come up with some proof that CO2 is going to do something other than what it has done continually for the last billion years or so with no relationship to temperature changes & make some new believers in the process. Like I said before the psyche is the same just a different topic, that's why it will suck in the herd following dills who don't need much evidence for their belief while ever there is a breathable atmosphere.
    inter

  23. #12323
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    And that was a great game league football!
    regards inter

  24. #12324
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Warming becoming "more severe" after 1998?

    You must be looking at a different graph.
    In the above one, the black line shows a heating of ...hard to see but about 0.1 to 0.2 after 98 flattening and seeming to go down after 2004.

    In case you missed it, the point of this graph is to show the crap your side has been feeding us just to keep the gravy train rolling. Those are all the crap fabrications that are represented by the many little pretentious line above.
    Any sane logical person would describe it as "insignificant", for the panic merchants, doom & gloom is all that can be conjured up from pause in global warming to fog the realities of what is really happening!
    inter

  25. #12325
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Warming becoming "more severe" after 1998?

    You must be looking at a different graph.
    In the above one, the black line shows a heating of ...hard to see but about 0.1 to 0.2 after 98 flattening and seeming to go down after 2004.
    Nope. Your graph does not go down after 2004. Put a ruler on it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    In case you missed it, the point of this graph is to show the crap your side has been feeding us just to keep the gravy train rolling. Those are all the crap fabrications that are represented by the many little pretentious line above.
    In case you missed it, your graph does not support your contention at all. There are no "sides" in climate science - it is not a football match FFS.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  26. #12326
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Oh dear! were counting 2000 + years with some believing in something with no proof, like that belief, come up with some proof that CO2 is going to do something other than what it has done continually for the last billion years or so with no relationship to temperature changes & make some new believers in the process. Like I said before the psyche is the same just a different topic, that's why it will suck in the herd following dills who don't need much evidence for their belief while ever there is a breathable atmosphere.
    inter
    Is this ramble meant to convey some meaning? Or are you just providing fodder for the shrinks earning their psych PhDs...
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  27. #12327
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Is this ramble meant to convey some meaning? Or are you just providing fodder for the shrinks earning their psych PhDs...
    it just goes to show that anything remotely sensible, similar or logical is completely lost on those so severely afflicted with a belief!
    Inter

  28. #12328
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Nope. Your graph does not go down after 2004. Put a ruler on it.
    In case you missed it, your graph does not support your contention at all. There are no "sides" in climate science - it is not a football match FFS.
    To be or not to be, that is the question.
    Honestly ... just like your reply to the stingless bees.
    The graph in question shows computer predictions that did not eventuated. FACT. And a graph with real data. FACT.

    The point is to show that computer predictions are rubbish and therefore policy can not be based on this rubbish.
    If the said graph shows o.1 cooling or heating and if it stopped in 1998 or in 2004, who cares? Its not the point. Your side and yes there are sides in this just like in a football match or just like during a election campaign, base their scaremongering on predictions that did not eventuate to their great disappointment I must add.

    Making gratuitous predictions aimed at "scaring" the masses into "believing' is a deceitful practice better left to TV evangelist and doomsday cults.

    And your comments on the most meaningless variations of temperature are called, "to strain the gnat and swallow the camel".
    Gulp !
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  29. #12329
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    The graph in question shows computer predictions that did not eventuated. FACT. And a graph with real data. FACT.

    The point is to show that computer predictions are rubbish and therefore policy can not be based on this rubbish.
    Data casting doubt on climate scientists’ predictions? Find any climate scientist who has “predicted” in the peer reviewed literature (or anywhere else for that matter) that global temperatures will rise uniformly year upon year.

    This only becomes “politically sensitive” if the politicians in question accept spoon-fed misrepresentation of the science from the
    anti-warming pseudoscience of the lunatic fringe.

    No, the point is that nothing in any of your posts has ever shown that the laws of conservation of energy are broken, nor that the planet has miraculously entered a cooling phase despite the planet's measured radiation balance tipping further into heat gain. Earth is continuing to warm and weather is continuing to play with the distribution of heat energy between the ocean and the surface like it always has.



    http://www.readfearn.com/wp-content/.../Escalator.gif
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  30. #12330
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Data casting doubt on climate scientists’ predictions? Find any climate scientist who has “predicted” in the peer reviewed literature (or anywhere else for that matter) that global temperatures will rise uniformly year upon year.

    This only becomes “politically sensitive” if the politicians in question accept spoon-fed misrepresentation of the science from the
    anti-warming pseudoscience of the lunatic fringe.

    No, the point is that nothing in any of your posts has ever shown that the laws of conservation of energy are broken, nor that the planet has miraculously entered a cooling phase despite the planet's measured radiation balance tipping further into heat gain. Earth is continuing to warm and weather is continuing to play with the distribution of heat energy between the ocean and the surface like it always has.



    http://www.readfearn.com/wp-content/.../Escalator.gif
    thats an idiots guide for following propaganda! And you just proved that you have swallowed it! We don't care about any other time frame outside 1998 to the present! As that is not been discussed, the really funny thing is that after all your denials that there has been no warming since 1998 you again provide a graph that shows it! I would be ashamed to be as clever as that!
    inter

  31. #12331
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Data casting doubt on climate scientists’ predictions? Find any climate scientist who has “predicted” in the peer reviewed literature (or anywhere else for that matter) that global temperatures will rise uniformly year upon year.

    No it wasn't us! we didn't do it! It was the computer model!

    This only becomes “politically sensitive” if the politicians in question accept spoon-fed misrepresentation of the science from the
    anti-warming pseudoscience of the lunatic fringe.

    I can't speak for anybody else, but the planets history & no scientific proof that CO2 can, has, or will ever do any harm to humans wins me over from any fear mongers claptrap.

    No, the point is that nothing in any of your posts has ever shown that the laws of conservation of energy are broken, nor that the planet has miraculously entered a cooling phase despite the planet's measured radiation balance tipping further into heat gain. Earth is continuing to warm and weather is continuing to play with the distribution of heat energy between the ocean and the surface like it always has.

    you really must show us how your laws of energy conservation were annulled & reversed throughout the globes climate history in the provided link, as you have been asked to provide these answers before it could be ascertained that your theory isn't solely or even a minor component which is applicable to the globes climate systems. Yet totally applicable in the vacuum of a AGWists head
    http://www.renovateforum.com/attachm...historical.jpg
    inter

  32. #12332
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    We don't care about any other time frame outside 1998 to the present!
    One would have to be incredibly dumb not to notice that. You clearly don't really care about the climate then, who ever said that the only period in the climate of significance was 1998 to the present, and even if that was the case, why would you take such a narrow view of planetary temperatures that excludes anything that is warming?

    Because you've got nothing, and you're parading it as if it was something!

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  33. #12333
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    One would have to be incredibly dumb not to notice that. You clearly don't really care about the climate then, who ever said that the only period in the climate of significance was 1998 to the present, and even if that was the case, why would you take such a narrow view of planetary temperatures that excludes anything that is warming?

    Because you've got nothing, and you're parading it as if it was something!
    So you have given up denying the pause in global warming since 1998 then? Or this is just the continuation of the limp red herring repertoire. Too right I have nothing! So give us some proof that CO2 is going to cause the end of man kinds future & we will both have something to worry about! Even the less than blessed know the difference between facts & faith based beliefs.
    inter

  34. #12334
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Reading comprehension 101.

    Let me spell it out for you.

    One would have to be incredibly dumb not to notice that you "don't care about any other time frame outside 1998 to the present!"

    Apparently, the climate didn't exist before 1998 in your book.

    You think 1998 is the answer but it's just another year in the climate record. I accept that the climate is changing and the rate of change due to CO2 varies as a result of natural processes. That's why the records continue to show an uphill sawtooth over time. The fingerprint of CO2 remains and will remain long after the peak of 1998 looks like yet another anthill on the future temperature records just like the previous peaks do in the escalator graphic John2b posted.

    1998 is simply an idealogical cherry pick, it does not cover all the temperature series, it is too short a time frame, and there has been warming since than as has been repeatedly demonstrated in this thread. None so deaf as those who won't hear. It's one of your big nothings you carry around like a badge of honour for your membership of the 'I've got nothing' club.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  35. #12335
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  36. #12336
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    AGW Falsified: NOAA Long Wave Radiation Data Incompatible with the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming

    Posted by Michael Hammer, December 17th, 2013
    ANTHROPOGENIC Global Warming (AGW) theory claims the earth is warming because rising CO2 is like a blanket, reducing Earth’s energy loss to space. However, data from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows that at least for the last 30 years, Earth’s energy loss to space has been rising. The last 30 years of NOAA data is not compatible with the theory of AGW. It would appear that either 30 years of NOAA data is wrong or the theory of AGW is flawed. This is Michael Hammer’s conclusion following analysis of the official outgoing long wave radiation (OLR) data.
    Read the complete article here: ‘The NOAA Outgoing Long Wave Radiation Data Appears to be Incompatible with The Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming’ by Michael Hammer.
    The research uncovers some interesting trends and most importantly highlights that:
    1. Earth can only warm if the rate of energy input exceeds the rate of energy loss;
    2. Thus earth would warm if energy absorbed from the sun increased or energy loss to space (outgoing longwave radiation or OLR for short) decreased – or of course both;
    3. The theory of AGW claims that Earth is warming because rising CO2 is reducing the energy loss to space i.e. is causing OLR to decrease;
    4. Thirty years of experimental data published by NOAA (one of the prime AGW reference sites) shows OLR has been rising progressively between 1980 and 2010 and is now 2.5 watt/sqM higher than in 1980; and
    5. The period between 1980 and 2010 is when almost all the CO2 induced warming is supposed to have taken place.
    “If the corner stone of AGW theory says earth is warming because outgoing long wave radiation is decreasing yet 30 years of experimental data shows OLR is rising (remember 30 years is the time AGW proponents claim is the interval necessary to separate climate from weather) it would seem the theory of AGW is as a minimum extremely seriously compromised.”
    Read the complete article here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-conte...ael_Hammer.pdf
    ****
    Michael Hammer has a B Eng Sci and M Eng Sci from Melbourne university. His original training was as an electrical engineer but for the last 35 years he has been employed to carry out research across a wide range of technologies for a major multinational spectroscopy company. Over that time he has taken around 20 patents and his work has resulted in a significant number of commercially successful products.


    Related:
    Analysis finds both water vapor & increased CO2 act as negative feedbacks to cool the Earth surface

    New data falsifies basis of man-made global warming alarm, shows water vapor feedback is negative





    Posted by MS at 8:04 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest



    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  37. #12337
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    New paper is a huge blow to CAGW: ‘Missing heat’ NOT found in the deep oceans – Published in Nature Climate Change Study finds the deep oceans [below 2000 meters] cooled from 2005-2013, debunking the convenient excuse that Trenberth's AGW 'missing heat' has been hiding in the deep oceans. According to the authors, this deep ocean cooling caused a global sea level decrease of -0.13 mm/yr from 2005-2013.



    DANGER, Will Robinson: more psuedoscience drivel approaching!


    Honestly Marc, is that the best you can do? You really should take a moment to check your sources before posting such embarrassing flimflam.


    The “paper” is not a paper, it is a letter to the editor of “Nature Climate Change” and has not gone through editorial review.


    The letter is a response to a peer reviewed paper by Paul J. Durack, Peter J. Gleckler, Felix W. Landerer & Karl E. Taylor:

    This study uses satellite observations and climate models to investigate upper-ocean (0-700 m) warming. The analysis shows that the use of extrapolation leads to a bias that under-represents upper-ocean heat content.


    … large increases (2.2–7.1 × 1022 J 35 yr−1) to current global upper-ocean heat content change estimates…


    There is more heat in the oceans than previously believed!


    The letter starts by stating:

    In recent decades, over nine-tenths of Earth's top-of-the-atmosphere energy imbalance has been stored in the ocean, which is rising as it warms.


    Funny, I have been attacked many, many times for saying that in this forum. Now you are posting a confirmation!!!


    Their conclusion that the heat may be “missing” is based on - wait for it - COMPUTER MODELS, which are attempting to reconcile the different measurements from Argo buoys, satellites and other records. They acknowledge that the models have very large residual errors.


    You have made dozens, if not hundreds, of posts deriding the use of computer models in climate science, and then post an article based on a COMPUTER MODEL to back up your position.

    Whoops!
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  38. #12338
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    This paper (released back in April) is interesting A probabilistic analysis of human influence on recent record global mean temperature changes

    It demonstrates an approach that suggests that the current so-called "pause/hiatus/stall/whatever it is" in the mean global temperature profile since 1998 is actually the result of AGW. Basically without the influence of GHGs...there'd be more of these pauses and they'd be shorter. So it is actually an anomalous event...just like a bunch of others...whose comparatively large size & scale (compared to normal) can be attributed to AGW.

    It's Open Access by the way so anyone can read it...the guts of it are hard going but the abstract and discussion are a fair distillation.

    If you want a dummies guide to the article then the authors prepared this more recently ECOS Magazine - Towards A Sustainable Future
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  39. #12339
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    This paper (released back in April) is interesting A probabilistic analysis of human influence on recent record global mean temperature changes

    It demonstrates an approach that suggests that the current so-called "pause/hiatus/stall/whatever it is" in the mean global temperature profile since 1998 is actually the result of AGW. Basically without the influence of GHGs...there'd be more of these pauses and they'd be shorter. So it is actually an anomalous event...just like a bunch of others...whose comparatively large size & scale (compared to normal) can be attributed to AGW.

    It's Open Access by the way so anyone can read it...the guts of it are hard going but the abstract and discussion are a fair distillation.

    If you want a dummies guide to the article then the authors prepared this more recently ECOS Magazine - Towards A Sustainable Future
    Hmm pause in AGW caused by AGW... makes sense!
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  40. #12340
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Hmm pause in AGW caused by AGW... makes sense!
    Yep, stairs would not make much sense if they were all risers and no treads, but they still go up.

    When are you guys going to understand that the weather is overlaid on top of climate change? This isn't anything new. What IS new is the ratio and scale of rises to plateaus.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  41. #12341
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Reading comprehension 101.

    Let me spell it out for you.

    One would have to be incredibly dumb not to notice that you "don't care about any other time frame outside 1998 to the present!

    "We don't care about any other time frame outside 1998 to the present! As that is not been discussed"
    There is nothing like some creative editing to shoot yourself in the foot,


    Apparently, the climate didn't exist before 1998 in your book.

    Only in your delusions obviously
    !

    You think 1998 is the answer but it's just another year in the climate record. I accept that the climate is changing and the rate of change due to CO2 varies as a result of natural processes. That's why the records continue to show an uphill sawtooth over time. The fingerprint of CO2 remains and will remain long after the peak of 1998 looks like yet another anthill on the future temperature records just like the previous peaks do in the escalator graphic John2b posted.

    i don't think anything is the answer! But some points are fantastic at easily unraveling the AGW mantra, then the hilarious scrambling of them & the endless drivel that flows forth!

    1998 is simply an idealogical cherry pick, it does not cover all the temperature series, it is too short a time frame, and there has been warming since than as has been repeatedly demonstrated in this thread. None so deaf as those who won't hear. It's one of your big nothings you carry around like a badge of honour for your membership of the 'I've got nothing' club.

    It's this, it's that, it's something you can't explain! Basically your putting your fingers in your ears & going La la la la la la!
    inter

  42. #12342
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Hmm pause in AGW caused by AGW... makes sense!
    It goes with the global warming you have when you have no warming, pure nonsense at its greatest!
    regards inter

  43. #12343
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post


    DANGER, Will Robinson: more psuedoscience drivel approaching!

    what like the anecdotal evidence you parade as undeniable proven scientific fact!



    Honestly Marc, is that the best you can do? You really should take a moment to check your sources before posting such embarrassing flimflam.


    The “paper” is not a paper, it is a letter to the editor of “Nature Climate Change” and has not gone through editorial review.


    The letter is a response to a peer reviewed paper by Paul J. Durack, Peter J. Gleckler, Felix W. Landerer & Karl E. Taylor:

    This study uses satellite observations and climate models to investigate upper-ocean (0-700 m) warming. The analysis shows that the use of extrapolation leads to a bias that under-represents upper-ocean heat content.


    … large increases (2.2–7.1 × 1022 J 35 yr−1) to current global upper-ocean heat content change estimates…


    There is more heat in the oceans than previously believed!

    But by some miracle this heat is not being transferred to the air above it! Yet before this pause in global warming the oceans heat was being released! Before you start rabbiting on about El Niño it's irrelevant, as it has shifted since 1998
    The letter starts by stating:

    In recent decades, over nine-tenths of Earth's top-of-the-atmosphere energy imbalance has been stored in the ocean, which is rising as it warms.

    But by some miracle this heat is not being transferred to the air above it! Yet before this period the heat was being released?

    Funny, I have been attacked many, many times for saying that in this forum. Now you are posting a confirmation!!!

    Funny you haven't been able explain it yet!

    Their conclusion that the heat may be “missing” is based on - wait for it - COMPUTER MODELS, which are attempting to reconcile the different measurements from Argo buoys, satellites and other records. They acknowledge that the models have very large residual errors.

    But your computer models are infallible!

    You have made dozens, if not hundreds, of posts deriding the use of computer models in climate science, and then post an article based on a COMPUTER MODEL to back up your position.

    you are missing the simple point that your models are being proven to be wrong! To be fair & equitable find the errors in those quoted models before you run off at the typing before engaging the brain!

    Whoops!
    inter

  44. #12344
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default Re: Emission Trading

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    It goes with the global warming you have when you have no warming, pure nonsense at its greatest!
    regards inter
    Ahhh the ideological response I expected. You rarely disappoint.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  45. #12345
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default Re: Emission Trading

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Hmm pause in AGW caused by AGW... makes sense!
    ...but clearly not to you. Is that because you are intellectually lazy or just couldn't be bothered looking up at the possibility?

    Don't answer that. It is immaterial.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  46. #12346
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    "We don't care about any other time frame outside 1998 to the present! As that is not been discussed"
    There is nothing like some creative editing to shoot yourself in the foot,
    Oh really, it 'is' (has) not been discussed? Perhaps this is a feature of your lack of reading comprehension. It has been pointed out multiple times that the climate involves long term changes, but you are fixated on a single short period of time, and you think that it is a let out clause even though there have been multiple similar step changes throughout recorded climate whilst the warming trend continues.

    If all you have is the period since '98 to justify your denial, then you truly have nothing. What else have you got?

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  47. #12347
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Ahhh the ideological response I expected. You rarely disappoint.
    Still denying no significant global warming since 1998? That's the ideological reality you can't swallow!
    inter

  48. #12348
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Still denying no significant global warming since 1998? That's the ideological reality you can't swallow!
    inter
    Still denying that the climate is a long term system and changes often occur step-wise?

    That's a climate science fact you won't swallow because it conflicts with your ideology.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  49. #12349
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Oh really, it 'is' (has) not been discussed? Perhaps this is a feature of your lack of reading comprehension. It has been pointed out multiple times that the climate involves long term changes, but you are fixated on a single short period of time, and you think that it is a let out clause even though there have been multiple similar step changes throughout recorded climate whilst the warming trend continues.

    If all you have is the period since '98 to justify your denial, then you truly have nothing. What else have you got?
    we just love to watch your group splutter every time you can't explain it! The entertainment factor is priceless.
    inter

  50. #12350
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    What else have you got?
    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    we just love to watch your group splutter every time you can't explain it! The entertainment factor is priceless.
    That's it? That's all you've got? Repeating a nonsense that has already been explained?

    All you are doing is confirming that you are trolling and you have nothing.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


Page 247 of 377 FirstFirst ... 147 197 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 297 347 ... 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
  •