Dear Eclipse Now and Lexi

Hope to meet with you on other threads. There is no point in attempting to debate climate change with people who source their material from the likes of the Heartland Institute, Monckton. Like Eclipse Now, I prefer reliable sources and valid science from the likes of CSIRO, BOM, NASA, NOAA - actual scientists in other words.

What has been lacking from the AGW debate has been peer reviewed science proving that the current changes to climate that we are experiencing are NOT influenced by human activity. I wish it were otherwise. Even so, and people wish to believe that unlimited pollution will have no effect, we still have to adapt to changes as they occur. Humans have, until recently, been very good at adaptation, the only obstacle is political will, currently harnessed by fossil industries.

Lexi, it is fine to use Wikipedia as a source, provided you check their references at the end of the article. As research is what I do, I have to be sure of the bona fides of my work.

UOG

If you cannot, like GrahamY, make a post without denigrating another poster's moniker, you are wasting your time thinking I will bother to treat your contributions seriously.

//If you cannot, like GrahamY, make a post without denigrating another poster's moniker, you are wasting your time thinking I will bother to treat your contributions seriously.
//

I only respond to UOG when something in particular catches my eye as I rapidly scan through it. I feel like someone's slipped a little Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds into my coffee when I read UOG. I don't recommend consuming UOG posts and then operating heavy machinery! Think of the OH&S implications.



I find
the incredible
incomprehenib-ility

of the sudden-left of field
postings so blah blah blah

Purple prose, the moon, the rose
The rabid laughing of the dogs

Deranged blab blah blah something
Cherry-tree and the tinkling of the rainbow moon
But it's all the government's fault

So the communists blah blah blah
and you've been taken
-in.

blab blah blah dried fish,
and guvern-ment control,
and conspiracies... maaaaan.

No Eclipsed, you don't get away with your snide denigration of others. Tell me what the sample error is on the databases that you are relying on, then show me that the temperatures you are quoting are outside the error bands.

If the temperatures are all within the same error bands, then they are equal. NASA will confirm that if you care to contact them. But make sure it is real scientists and not the public affairs department.

Your response confirms my guess. You never studied science, yet you presume to pontificate on it and tell the rest of us how to read data. Par for the course for someone who links to a non-existent blog site in his profile.

On the issue of siting, what I said was:

"Much less of an issue there than with the issues with the terrestrial measurements which include the siting of thermometers, the choice of which thermometers to use, the adjustments made over time to them, and the elimination of some thermometers over time from the measurements, not to mention the fact that some areas of the world are very sparsely covered by thermometers."

Your response was:

"And the Urban Heat Island effect is not a problem at all. The climatologists have stated that it was relatively easy to tick off the erroneous sites and have the database correct for them."

But they don't "tick off the erroneous sites" they pretend to adjust for the heat island effect, which is a bit difficult to do because you don't know what would have happened without the heat island. And in any event, that is only a fraction of the issues to which I was drawing attention.

Time you did some proper homework.

hi ammonite..[an extinct fossilised marine molusc]
named after the 'horn of ammon'

here i found this clip of your leader

ALl' gore
voicing his true feelings
when he thought the mike was off

http://dailybail.com/home/super-congress-seeks-to-protect-military-buffett-calls-for-t.html

ofr course it isnt 'science'
cause your leaders arnt scientists

they buy and sell them..[really they are a dime a dozen]

so they have found this great cure for c02 warming
alian teqnology...

[yes aint it great..the gulllible
will swallow it up like manna]

i wont put up the links
awa heck here goes
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/fbi-memo-says-roswell-saucers-were-real/story-fn6bqphm-1226036846002

i will let them surprise you
and mr now

[personally i dont believe in alians]
nor that earth warming[cooling]..change stuff

but hey if you lot believe heavy breathing will melt the sky
and raise the sea levels 7 meters..[like all gore said]

well dream on
you pay the full price
stop lobbying govt for ever more manna[govt cash/subsidy]

your going to love the upcomming plans
and why wont 30 $ believe it
thats how many believe c02 is the only real/present danger

its kiddy stuff
but some have the minds of children
http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/52138-project-bluebeam-imminent-michio-kaku-hyping-alien-invasion-as-corporate-media-says-alien-threat-would-help-global-governance

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/ufo/8026971/Aliens-have-deactivated-British-and-US-nuclear-missiles-say-US-military-pilots.html

and as for temp readings
here is a crashed 'weather balloon'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/ufo/8026971/Aliens-have-deactivated-British-and-US-nuclear-missiles-say-US-military-pilots.html

at rothwell

that fbi swears was a ufo
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/fbi-memo-says-roswell-saucers-were-real/story-fn6bqphm-1226036846002

dont believe evcerything you read or hear in the media
they are there to serve their advertiser's

did you watch that guff on sbs [global warning spin]
turns out one nuke powerr station equals 9000 windmills
and we need only tripple the nuke stations..to cut one 7 th
off the 'graph'...[you know that one that melded divergent numbers

ie THE LIE..!

mr now write a good bit of guff
but his last post...indicates he read soime of my stuff
YET CANT REFUTE ONE LINE OF IT...!

well played mr now
you read yet cant refute
how weak is that?

>> No Eclipsed, you don't get away with your snide denigration of others. <<

THAT"S RIGHT.

Only certain people can "get away with snide denigration of others". And it isn't people who have any kind of scientific background or training. If you are of a fundamentalist Christian or indeed the boss (do I say not as I do), you can pretty much get away with anything.

As for our esteemed leader's focus on but one aspect of AGW, which has been explained, ad infinitum, he fails to consider the source of his arguments nor the many observations from a wide variety of data collected and compared to pre-industrial to post-industrial Earth.

A diversity of data which consists of:

1. Impacts of an explosive volcanic eruption to aviation, climate, maritime operations and society. The threats, or impacts, from an eruption vary depending on the eruption style, duration and proximity.

2. Basic tsunami science, hazards produced by tsunamis.

3.Sea levels, ocean acidification, sea surface temperatures, ocean heat, and ocean circulation have all been changing in ways unseen for thousands of years. Arctic sea ice melted significantly more during summers in the last 30 years, and storms are intensifying.

4. Flood assessment, duration, frequency and forecasting.

5. Observation and computing technologies upon material basic hydrologic science. Such as computer modelling, ice core sampling, assessing intensity of weather events.

6. Current and forecast trends in sea-ice - predictions made back in the 70's and 80's have been proven correct. Unfortunately. http://psc.apl.washington.edu/BEST/PSW2007/PSW07_modelpredictions.html
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/BEST/PSW2007/PSW07_icepredictfrontpage.html

7. Changes in vegetation spread, early event flowering, extinction of indigenous vegetation due to warming, animal migration.

There's much more, but head-in-sand is the easier option

dear ammonium nitrate...[thats not
name calling]..thats an aussie-ism
where we call red head guys blue

its an old tradition[taught to us as kids]
just like the rhyme stick and stones

when im called by the title one under dog
or a hollow cause denialist..or science ignorant

i laugh at how clever you lot are
with calling names..and note your playing the man
not the ball..[cause thats all some have got]

dont melt down..and add extra heat...
[the poor earth needs more cool]

so lets stick to explaining[or rebutting
what we are actualy talking about

your coup de grass..quote..""A diversity of data""

oh i thought you had an abundance of consensus
well lets see what you think you got?

""Impacts of an explosive volcanic eruption""

oh yes man made indeed
lol

""aviation, climate, maritime operations and society.""

yes plenty of data there
so your consensus consists of what?

""The threats,or impacts,""

that should read impact of threats
but we will let your simplistic destraction
continue with its reveakl...[lol]

[impacts]""from an eruption
vary depending on the eruption style,
duration and proximity.""

yes i noted that by the name calling stuff
but lets continue

""Basic tsunami science""

yes plates moving over other plates
COULD MAKE heat/friction
but MAN MADE..needs to exclude NON man made data sets
however impressive that spoin might look,

""hazards produced by tsunamis.""

yes nuke meltdowns
half man made
half sunamie caused

ok tell you what
i give you half a point so far

""Sea levels,""
well the data there is mixed
in the main cause we live on..these big plates
if a plate sinks 6 fet..[like in japan recently]
is that proof..the oceans rising..[or the plate sinking?

""ocean acidification,""

mate thats from agriculture run-off
you know running sew-rage into water