Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
turbobloke said:
But durbster, you have no problem with the theory of solar forcing. You said so yourself in August. Why ask a question to which you already know, and accept, the answer?
Your posts are blatantly contradictory, appear vexatious, and can be seen to represent a troll at work. XM5ER was right. You've provided the evidence yourself. No doubt you'll want to thank me for noticing this facing-both-ways position, though you really need to be more careful.
You're going to have to cancel that high-five. Your posts are blatantly contradictory, appear vexatious, and can be seen to represent a troll at work. XM5ER was right. You've provided the evidence yourself. No doubt you'll want to thank me for noticing this facing-both-ways position, though you really need to be more careful.
I said then, as now, that I accept that the sun is the biggest influence on the earth's temperature. As in, the sun makes the earth hot. That's all.
That is not agreeing that it accounts for all warming, nor is a declaration that it explains recent warming. My position on that has not changed, despite what you have tried to suggest with the usual selective quoting.
As for you accusing others of being contradictory:
Psychologists call that projection.
This comes from the person who says nobody can use advocacy blogs while heavily relying on advocacy blogs; says all temperature data is worthless while also saying the data shows things like "the pause"; says there's no funding for climate science that disproves AGW while saying there's loads of scientific evidence to disprove AGW; declares the data to be the only objective source, then rejects all the data because it proves him wrong; claims he has science on his side while the scientists he cites say otherwise; accuses others of belief and yet expects everyone to believe. This list could go on.
I've been consistent in my views whereas your argument continuously bounces around and falls over its own hypocrisy, as is inevitable when it's founded on lies and misinformation. If I could be arsed, I could just collect your quotes and use them to refute all your arguments, such is the extent of your hypocrisy and contradictions.
So, I can see what you were trying to do here but I'm afraid this bomb is another dud.
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
But durbster, you have no problem with the theory of solar forcing. You said so yourself in August. Why ask a question to which you already know, and accept, the answer?
Your posts are blatantly contradictory, appear vexatious, and can be seen to represent a troll at work. XM5ER was right. You've provided the evidence yourself. No doubt you'll want to thank me for noticing this facing-both-ways position, though you really need to be more careful.
You're going to have to cancel that high-five. Your posts are blatantly contradictory, appear vexatious, and can be seen to represent a troll at work. XM5ER was right. You've provided the evidence yourself. No doubt you'll want to thank me for noticing this facing-both-ways position, though you really need to be more careful.
Accepting solar forcing as the major contributor to (natural) climate change is there in your recent pixelprint.
turbobloke said:
Nah, too late and as you provided the evidence yourself, protesting too much doesn't cut it
Accepting solar forcing as the major contributor to (natural) climate change is there in your recent pixelprint.
Which says nothing more than I have no problem with the theory and that there is evidence for it. Accepting solar forcing as the major contributor to (natural) climate change is there in your recent pixelprint.
Acknowledging that something is "plausible" is not the same as saying "it's definitely correct and I'm now a believer". It's simply recognition of the fact that I'm open to other ideas if there is evidence to support them.
mybrainhurts said:
Our durbs is something of a borderline obnoxious obsessive stalker.
What say we dump him in a warm ocean with no socks?
Look, I generally ignore you yet a huge number of your posts in this thread are personal comments about me. What say we dump him in a warm ocean with no socks?
You've looked up my website to try and dig up some s
t to throw at me.You've referred to posts I've made about completely different topics elsewhere on this site.
You've requested that your team-mates here go and harass me on other threads.
Who's the obnoxious obsessive stalker?
durbster said:
mybrainhurts said:
Our durbs is something of a borderline obnoxious obsessive stalker.
What say we dump him in a warm ocean with no socks?
Look, I generally ignore you yet a huge number of your posts in this thread are personal comments about me. What say we dump him in a warm ocean with no socks?
You've looked up my website to try and dig up some s
t to throw at me.You've referred to posts I've made about completely different topics elsewhere on this site.
You've requested that your team-mates here go and harass me on other threads.
Who's the obnoxious obsessive stalker?
Engineer792 said:
durbster said:
mybrainhurts said:
Our durbs is something of a borderline obnoxious obsessive stalker.
What say we dump him in a warm ocean with no socks?
Look, I generally ignore you yet a huge number of your posts in this thread are personal comments about me. What say we dump him in a warm ocean with no socks?
You've looked up my website to try and dig up some s
t to throw at me.You've referred to posts I've made about completely different topics elsewhere on this site.
You've requested that your team-mates here go and harass me on other threads.
Who's the obnoxious obsessive stalker?
king childish ganging-up nonsense now please. It does nobody any credit and spoils a readable thread.gadgetmac said:
Can we stop the fking childish ganging-up nonsense now please. It does nobody any credit and spoils a readable thread.
If we are going to be hitting the reset button can I add a quick reminder that this is supposed to be primarily POLITICAL implications discussion 'cos there is already a thread for the science side of things.king childish ganging-up nonsense now please. It does nobody any credit and spoils a readable thread.Ta.
durbster said:
mybrainhurts said:
Our durbs is something of a borderline obnoxious obsessive stalker.
What say we dump him in a warm ocean with no socks?
Look, I generally ignore you yet a huge number of your posts in this thread are personal comments about me. What say we dump him in a warm ocean with no socks?
You've looked up my website to try and dig up some s
t to throw at me.You've referred to posts I've made about completely different topics elsewhere on this site.
You've requested that your team-mates here go and harass me on other threads.
Who's the obnoxious obsessive stalker?
Scientists at the Trancik Lab of Massachusetts Institute of Technology said:
An electric Tesla Model S P100D saloon produces more carbon dioxide (226g per kilometre) than the petrol-driven run-around Mitsubishi Mirage (192g/km).
Norwegian University of Science and Technology said:
Larger electric vehicles can have higher life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions than smaller conventional vehicles.
Latest Digest of UK Energy Statistics said:
51% of car-charging energy comes from power stations that burn fossil fuels, with nuclear power accounting for a further 21%
Then there's the metals mined for EVs, with pollution from nickel mining and processing particularly nongreen. It's not just nickel, however.FT transport energy analyst said:
If you switch from oil to cobalt and lithium, you have not addressed any problem. You have just switched problems.
Almost. It's switching from a non-problem to different but real problems.mybrainhurts said:
Someone put Elon Musk on the naughty step....
You can't do that whilst he is saving South Australia and Puerto Rico (despite, apparently, having battery production problems with the Model 3).And of course, as other on the interwebnet have observed, comparing a shopping cart with a lower end supercar (at least by price, performance and "goodies") is somewhat absurd other than for pointing out that some of the darkest shade of green are very close to being as black as coal. Or as brown as coal if discussing Germany.
Edited by LongQ on Sunday 12th November 22:52
The beebs CC story today
Antarctica's warm underbelly revealed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4197...
This is the best map yet produced of the warmth coming up from the rocks underneath the Antarctic ice sheet.
This "geothermal heat flux" is key data required by scientists in order to model how the White Continent is going to react to climate change.
If the rockbed's temperature is raised, it makes it easier for the ice above to move.
And if global warming is already forcing change on the ice sheet, a higher flux could accelerate matters....................continues
Still determined to get CC in on the act somewhere I see. Can't possibly have volcanic activity under the ice being the sole cause of the ice melting, can we ?
Antarctica's warm underbelly revealed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4197...
This is the best map yet produced of the warmth coming up from the rocks underneath the Antarctic ice sheet.
This "geothermal heat flux" is key data required by scientists in order to model how the White Continent is going to react to climate change.
If the rockbed's temperature is raised, it makes it easier for the ice above to move.
And if global warming is already forcing change on the ice sheet, a higher flux could accelerate matters....................continues
Still determined to get CC in on the act somewhere I see. Can't possibly have volcanic activity under the ice being the sole cause of the ice melting, can we ?
The Beebs other CC story
First CO2 rise in four years puts pressure on Paris targets
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4194...
Global emissions of CO2 in 2017 are projected to rise for the first time in four years, dashing hopes that a peak might soon be reached.
The main cause of the expected growth has been greater use of coal in China as its economy expanded.
Researchers are uncertain if the rise in emissions is a one-off or the start of a new period of CO2 build-up.
Scientists say that a global peak in CO2 before 2020 is needed to limit dangerous global warming this century....................continues
So we have a projected (guess), a 'might', an 'expected', an 'uncertain if'. Cut and dried then, isn't it (not) ?
First CO2 rise in four years puts pressure on Paris targets
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4194...
Global emissions of CO2 in 2017 are projected to rise for the first time in four years, dashing hopes that a peak might soon be reached.
The main cause of the expected growth has been greater use of coal in China as its economy expanded.
Researchers are uncertain if the rise in emissions is a one-off or the start of a new period of CO2 build-up.
Scientists say that a global peak in CO2 before 2020 is needed to limit dangerous global warming this century....................continues
So we have a projected (guess), a 'might', an 'expected', an 'uncertain if'. Cut and dried then, isn't it (not) ?
kerplunk said:
Your own graph shows solar activity declining since the 90's, and some would say since the 50s:
We're gonna need a bigger lag!
I know that splicing incongruent data is a "trick" invented by the cause (Michael Mann I'm looking at you) but anyway. Lets do a quick trial by internet.We're gonna need a bigger lag!
I'd say the lag is closer to 50 years on those graphs.
Just to show what extreme temps people can deal with day to day ...
"it holds the Guinness World Record for the greatest temperature range on Earth, from -67.8C in winter to 37.3C in summer."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-41914876
Hardy bunch us humans.
TX.
"it holds the Guinness World Record for the greatest temperature range on Earth, from -67.8C in winter to 37.3C in summer."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-41914876
Hardy bunch us humans.
TX.
grumbledoak said:
I love the way we can discover a previously unknown massive heat source under Antarctica but still the climate models have been right all along and it's all our fault.
I think "post truth" has moved on to "post brain cells".
It's the same as the tree story a few years ago, estimates jumped from 400 billion to 3 trillion.I think "post truth" has moved on to "post brain cells".
I don't understand how a climate modeler cannot respond with 'scrub our previous estimates, we're feeding the new input parameters in now and will get updated estimates as soon as possible'.
What it actually does is highlight how simple and incomplete their models are. They're probably not far off:
T = C/25 + Random(-0.2, 0.2)
(T=temperature and C = concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff