The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Are the Climate Commission's claims of a hot summer correct? > Comments

Are the Climate Commission's claims of a hot summer correct? : Comments

By Anthony Cox, published 12/3/2013

How can there be a continent wide summer record when no part of the continent had a record?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 34
  7. 35
  8. 36
  9. Page 37
  10. 38
  11. All
Loudmouth,

Yes, it's clear that you like to imagine that you "think for yourself". No matter what is presented to you by whom, you can't quite ignore that little gremlin in there telling you it's all a con and if you look at the science dispassionately the reality is that "..somebody, for their own ends, is crying wolf.." and you're determined not to get "...kicked in the nuts, whether by politicians, 'experts', or their useful idiots."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13951&page=0#241446

So you "thinking for yourself" is suitably nobbled from the start..

Instead when someone trained in areas associated with climate science takes the time to explain a few things to you, this is the treatment you dish out:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13951&page=0#241476

That was after he answered your inquiries here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13951&page=0#241436

No one's going to put it over Loudmouth - especially an "expert"!

Thank you for your snide and patronising opening to your last post...as in "Thanks Poirot but I think you are missing the point, which is understandable, after all, since it's fairly complicated..."

Yep...to sum up...you really are a piece of work.....(but you're a piece of work who thinks he thinks for himself...bar the seeping conspiracy mentality)

(Yes, dear, I realise you're going to squeal "ad hom" as if your usual snide rejoinders don't provoke it - go ahead "Back to topic!")
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 5 April 2013 7:46:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot they made a movie about ice melt and the freshwater disturbing ocean currents and causing a sudden ice-age.

Don't worry about it; the Arctic and Greenland ice melt appears to be cyclic:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/03/weather-not-climate-caused-the-brief-surface-melt-in-greenland-last-summer/

This is like a death-wish; combing the records for some confirmation of your expectation of doom. Give it up this is as good as it gets.
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 5 April 2013 9:07:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Poirot,

Sorry, what was you point ? Sometimes it's a bit time-consuming to go through all the wet-hanky slaps which you deliver with such devastating effect.

Now, as you suggest, back to topic.

0.7 degrees global temperature rise in a century.

2 inches rise in sea-level in a century.

Wow

General Electric - and probably many other capitalist enterprises, including those in 'communist' [yeah, right] China - are seeing opportunities to massively boost their bottom line by going green.

Regardless of AGW, I'm all in favor of wind farms, vast arrays of solar panels (in Australia, for christ's sake - tell that to a South Australian), geo-thermal energy, hot rocks research, etc., etc., irrespective of whether or not there is AGW.

I don't really mind if GE makes big bucks in its switch from crap-coal-dependent electrical products to progressive/revolutionary forms of electrity generation, that's how capitalism works. Successful capitalist enterprises develop in that way, as Warren McFarlane expounded for so many years - that a product went through a cycle from star to cash cow, as he termed them, until a new product was developed. Quite brilliant really, the way he used to describe it:

http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ssqFUpquFjUC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=f.+warren+mcfarlan&ots=vWop0PDk0E&sig=lD-0Mf3G_IOv0RvFPQoVKSmFNiA

http://www.harbus.org/2004/A-Trip-Down-Memory-2999/

the point being that capitalist enterprises have to constantly seek for new innovations, new ways to generate profits, through innovations, new anything whatsoever that might kick off new sources of income, to get ahead of their competitors. Marx would say, "Right on".

And lo and behold [I suspect] along comes renewable sources of energy. Great ! Terrific ! Whoopee ! I'm all for it. I don't care if capitalist companies like GE make billions from it. Good on them - move away from coal. Go green, just in case.

That's called the precautionary principle, Poirot. Look it up :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 5 April 2013 11:56:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow yerself, Loudy.

I was reading this evening from a book titled "The Goldilocks Planet", and I noted this:

[Talking of the last thousand years] "Within the envelope (or at least within its individual components) there are ups and downs on the scale of years, decades, and centuries. But the overall pattern is for slightly higher temperatures early on in medieval times--the eleventh to fourteen centuries--diminishing to colder temperatures that then dominated the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries. The difference in average annual temperatures between these two states is generally estimated at under one degree Celsius--and most studies suggest less than half a degree. Nevertheless, that difference in climate was palpable. These were the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, and this is where climate statistics take on a human dimension: the translation is more vivid than the simple numbers might indicate. The Little Ice Age, for instance, seems to have killed off the Viking colony in Greenland in the mid-fifteenth century, after the warmth of the Medieval times had tempted the Vikings to settle there."

(So instead of asking me to "look things up", perhaps you should be educating yourself a little more fulsomely - "0.7 degrees rise in a century....Wow")

cohenite,

I actually found that quite interesting regarding the cloud cover over Greenland.

But I wonder what's going on in the Arctic circle in general?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS2ngqBDnBg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GetB-xs9D_A
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 6 April 2013 12:27:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Poirot,

Thank you for responding. I don't quite know what you are trying to say - that might be the cause of my advanced years and daily brain f@rts - but my child's brain asks, how did that Medieval Warming period go ? Was it somehow bad for there to be trees or grass and crops growing in 'Greenland' ? And was it good that the Viking colonies there, and in 'Vinland', [presumably implying grape-growing] in eastern Canada, were wiped out by some sort of, what? return to a norm ?

So ........ what was so terrible about the Medieval Warming Period ? What social advances are associated with the period bwetween 800 AC and 1400 AC ? And how did it compare, on social, environmental and economic terms, with the 0.7 degree warming of the past century ?

Are you suggesting that 'Warming periods' are actually beneficial in some way ? If so, I agree with you, we are brothers and sisters in arms :)

Resolution !

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 6 April 2013 9:44:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yo, Joe,

Be interesting to see what happens if we can nudge it up to 2 or 3 (or more) degrees Celsius.....we're in unchartered territory with such a complex climate system.

We've been able to prosper as a species because of the relative stability of climate since we arrived.

But the planetary climate can turn quite diabolically turbulent in response to even relatively modest stimuli - and has for much of the Earth's history.
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 6 April 2013 10:22:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 34
  7. 35
  8. 36
  9. Page 37
  10. 38
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy