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 > General Discussion > Climate Emergency

Climate Emergency

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 98
  7. 99
  8. 100
  9. Page 101
  10. 102
  11. 103
  12. 104
  13. ...
  14. 114
  15. 115
  16. 116
  17. All
/cont

Oh and one more thing. Max earlier wrote: "Bill McKibben did the math on the highest probability .....". When I asked for evidence of that Max obfuscated, tried to change the subject and most definitely didn't DIDN'T offer evidence. Now we know there was no evidence. McKibben didn't do ANY math but just took the word of some scientists running some (not all) simulations. And he didn't take the highest probability. Instead each simulation (presumably) took its own sensitivity number.

Max felt under pressure to try to justify his idiotic 'do the math' BS and simply MADE UP the claim about McKibben ( or anyone else for that matter) taking the highest probability. JUST MADE IT UP. Don't think I haven't taken note of that.

As to Oreskes....if you want to consider an article by someone with no science or statistical background as being valid, well so be it. But I don't. Oreskes has been so spectacularly debunked, I thought all good alarmists had Winston-Smithed it.

Finally because this is my last post here (I only came back to help NNS from being overwhelmed by Max's inanities) I'd just note how Belly/Max have completely ignored the Thredbo number while toasting other supposed records. They can't even mentioned the word Thredbo - it might have cooties or something.

Earlier I posted two studies that showed a much lower TCR than the IPCC/alarmist community would like. I predicted that "I know perfectly well that you'll pretend to not notice these papers because the only science you 'see' is the science that tells you what you want to hear. A bit like good ol' Max who refuses to even look at websites that might tell him something he doesn't want to be true."
And that's exactly what happened. Tell yourselves that you follow the science if that's what you need to do. But ignoring science that tells you things you don't want to be true isn't in the slightest bit, following the science.
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 15 December 2019 7:43:32 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
Belly for the record Alice Springs Weather History:
Coldest ever
9.3°
12/12/2002
Coldest this year
-3.2°
22/06/2019
Coldest this month
12.5°
01/12/2019
Long term average
20.3°

Average this month
19.6°

Coldest December on record
Avg. min. temp. 17.0°
1974
Hottest ever this month
44.2°
23/12/1972
Hottest this year
45.6°
03/01/2019
Hottest this month
43.6°
09/12/2019
Long term average
35.4°

Average this month
38.5°

Hottest December on record
Avg. max. temp. 38.4°
1972

Note the hottest and coldest. There is no evidence Alice Springs is getting hotter as the hottest December on record was 1972. The coldest day in the Alice for December was 2002. These are the official records, so the land locked centre of Australia is not getting hotter. It has hot days but the average for summer does not demonstrate extreme increases in differences.
Posted by Josephus, Sunday, 15 December 2019 7:53:07 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
THERE YOU HAVE IT EVERYONE!
MHAZE demands - he's very needy. That's all he has. False demands. He demands we show the math from the scientist that calculated the probabilities in over 40 climate models, knowing full well I don't have access to it and that he and I are both not qualified to even READ IT! (Oh, he might pretend he can, but that's lying deniers for you.)

He misdirects. There's no cover up here: I've always said I'm not the expert but that we should trust the experts. They're the paleoclimatologists who have studied the Earth's DEEP climate past and come up with the multiplying factor for climate sensitivity. We know doubling CO2 will raise the earth 1.2 degrees, and then the climate multipliers will take it up into a range (YES, a RANGE people! RANGE!) of low to higher temperatures.

The experts ALSO know there's only a very, very tiny probability that the lower numbers on the multiplier will play out. It's like playing reverse Russian roulette with 5 of your 6 chambers loaded and only 1 empty. DO YOU WANT TO SPIN THAT WHEEL and pull that trigger?

Oh, MHAZE doesn't care about probability! See, this dumbass forget to check the probability statements around this precious RANGE! (YES, THERE'S A RANGE PEOPLE! A RANGE! Shout it from the rooftops a thousand times to distract everyone: a RANGE!). He thought he had Bill McKibben and I, that he could just shout us down because of the RANGE!

...continued....
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 15 December 2019 8:59:12 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
But here's the thing he forgot when he 'spanked me' a few years ago.

MOST OF THE MODELS RANGE AROUND 3 DEGREES PER DOUBLING!

MHAZE misdirects with source attacks. Yes, it's only Rolling Stones, but it's Bill McKibben summarising the peer-reviewed findings and models. Also, what math is Bill McKibben saying we should do? Here's CONTEXT BOY AT WORK AGAIN!

Bill's not saying we should run the climate models ourselves! He's saying we should accept the 565 gigaton allowance FROM THE MOST PROBABLE MODELS and do the math back to where we are now and how we're going to avoid it.

So every time MHAZE does his recalcitrant dumbass routine of "Show me the math!", it's just him being Context Boy again. He's all disappointed because he didn't get a string of indecipherable computer code from vastly complex climate models running on supercomputers that are processing inputs from hundreds and thousands of paleoclimate proxies. And what would he do with that 'math', I wonder?

The models are converging on 3 degrees per doubling. Reality might be a few tenths of a degree either side, if we're really really lucky it might be even lower.

But who wants to play Reverse Russian Roulette and pull that trigger when we're going to run out of fossil fuels one day and be forced to turn to sustainable energy anyway!?

Seriously, why are climate deniers so stubborn? WE'RE GOING TO RUN OUT OF FOSSIL FUELS ANYWAY, AND BASELOAD RELIABLE NUCLEAR POWER COULD RUN THE WORLD FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS!
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 15 December 2019 9:00:19 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
Josephus using the Alice Springs record to measure the national or the world is , well you think about it
And is it not YOU and YOUR side who refuses to accept the international and our own weather bureau facts?
Still if it amuses you as much as it does me please continue
In the fashion of your post it is not dry in parts of Brisbane three inches in an hour what are these climate changers on about
OH that right extremis are part of the prediction
Got a fix, on a road construction site nearly twenty years ago, a first Nation Australian, showed how to bring rain
He stacked three rocks on top of each other by the entrance to worksite
Told everyone it would rain
It did, workers sent home with pay, too wet to work
That site had rocks every place you could think of three rocks high
Forman totally convinced rushed his 4x4 around madly kicking them down
Dave [ a former workmate and long time friend] laughed when telling me he knew on placing the first stack it always rained there, about that time of year
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 15 December 2019 11:24:20 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 Josephus,
I'm not sure why you're so fixated on just Alice Springs.

How about the whole Northern Territory?

How about the whole of Australia?

How about averages for the whole planet in a given month or year? Forget Alice for a moment, who's hottest individual day still seems to be back in 1960. (BOM retracted a more recent hottest day record due to faulty instrumentation, which I'm taking as a win for climate science as it demonstrates how they cross check everything when announcing a new record — or at least retract it later if they find out it was wrong.)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-21/bom-withdraws-alice-springs-hottest-day-record-advice/6030090

So, because we're talking about Alice Springs so much (for some reason that escapes me?), how about broadening this out a bit. I mean, the topic is GLOBAL warming, not Alice Springs warming. So we're talking about much vaster levels of extra trapped heat energy, as in 3 little Christmas lights per square meter of the surface of the Earth. What does the temperature database for the whole Northern Territory say?

Why, from January THIS YEAR!

"The Northern Territory recorded its hottest January and the delayed onset of the monsoon contributed to the Territory receiving less than half its average January rainfall. Darwin had one of its warmest Januaries on record while rainfall was also below average."

Ouch! What about broader still, the whole of Australia?

"It's official: January 2019 was Australia's hottest-ever month on record going all the way back to 1910, according to the monthly climate review released by the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM)."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-01/australian-weather-hottest-month-on-record-in-january/10769392

Now it would be ironic if you trusted the BOM when it came to Alice Springs, but now the whole of Australia, wouldn't you agree? ;-)
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 15 December 2019 12:32:53 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. 98
  7. 99
  8. 100
  9. Page 101
  10. 102
  11. 103
  12. 104
  13. ...
  14. 114
  15. 115
  16. 116
  17. All

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