• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

Recommended Posts

Science has and is recording what is happening to the planet.  See above.

Science is also attempting to predict something that has never been experienced before.

I let the second one go and focus on what has happened so far and why, the use my own brain to build my own model.  You should try it.

Instead you choose to be a foot soldier for the Merchants of Doubt. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, random said:

Don't give a fuck about models.  But it's getting hot around here.

2016-12_p14.png

The average albedo of the earth is .31.  Deal with it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Saorsa said:

The average albedo of the earth is .31.  Deal with it.

 

Fucking Sao, seeds of doubt merchant and Trump Lover.

He throws those little gems out there to confuse.  It sure confused him so he's pretty confident it will work on everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, random said:

Fucking Sao, seeds of doubt merchant and Trump Lover.

He throws those little gems out there to confuse.  It sure confused him so he's pretty confident it will work on everyone else.

The average albedo of the earth should mean something to people who think the last ice age is over.  A little geologic history wouldn't hurt either.

Say, did you know that 70% of the earth is covered by the water that all those ice shelves float on?  Water has an albedo of about .10.  That's where the heat gets absorbed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah Sao you must share your Geology and natural history qualifications with us.

Meanwhile ... oh look back there in History something is shiny!  Oh don't look at the CO2 measurements since we have been burning all that black stuff, there's nothing to see there!

Look at the albedo figures, not the temperature readings!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, random said:

Ah Sao you must share your Geology and natural history qualifications with us.

Meanwhile ... oh look back there in History something is shiny!  Oh don't look at the CO2 measurements since we have been burning all that black stuff, there's nothing to see there!

Look at the albedo figures, not the temperature readings!

You do realize that if you continue to accept heat it has to go somewhere.

If you ever figure out albedo we can start on entropy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, random said:

Ah Sao you must share your Geology and natural history qualifications with us.

------------------------------------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, random said:

------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't think you would understand the sciency stuff.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2017 at 3:01 PM, random said:

Don't give a fuck about models.  But it's getting hot around here.

2016-12_p14.png

That would be "weather"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Heat is not temperature.

Ah Sao you must share your Geology and natural history qualifications with us.

Oh and while you are at it, your physics qualifications.

Ta in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, random said:

Ah Sao you must share your Geology and natural history qualifications with us.

Oh and while you are at it, your physics qualifications.

Ta in advance.

He's made a pretty straight forward statement. See if you can figure it out on your own. Hint, you don't need geo or Nat hist quals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sao throws shit like that in all the time, they mean nothing and make him look stupid.

He posts no links to science, just throw-away words to sew seeds of doubt, to discredit scientists and their science.

He is a fuck wit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, random said:

Sao throws shit like that in all the time, they mean nothing and make him look stupid.

He posts no links to science, just throw-away words to sew seeds of doubt, to discredit scientists and their science.

He is a fuck wit.

Put your pot down. The kettle doesn't care what you think.

you don't post links to science. Not a one. No linky, Randy's stinky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2017 at 9:20 PM, Saorsa said:

Heat is not temperature.

I made that comment because IIRC, ranDumerthatdoggiedoo posted that graph from an AGW " Australia is getting warmer " op ed report in one of his earlier posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2017 at 3:14 AM, random said:

Ah Sao you must share your Geology and natural history qualifications with us.

Oh and while you are at it, your physics qualifications.

Ta in advance.

You are a fuckwit for challanging Sao's assertions that the earth is covered 70%  with water and ice floats on water. Fuckwit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, warbird said:

You are a fuckwit for challanging Sao's assertions that the earth is covered 70%  with water and ice floats on water. Fuckwit.

Witches float too.   How is any of this relevant to the melting ice and warming water?  

 

IMG_0178.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, random said:

figure_4.3.1.jpg

image

You do know that Mauna Loa is downwind of an active volcano , right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lark said:

Witches float too.   How is any of this relevant to the melting ice and warming water?  

 

IMG_0178.JPG

You challanged Saorsa to cradentials after he stated commonly known facts. Cmmonly known to most of us anyway!:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, warbird said:

You challanged Saorsa to cradentials after he stated commonly known facts. Cmmonly known to most of us anyway!:lol:

I don't recall challenging him, but do think his uttering albido three times makes a poor talisman  for climate change.    Cloud cover changes may increase with currently observed changes, decreasing albido.    Old studies of Alaska show localized seasonal changes much exasperated by melting slimed mud instead of snow.   On the other hand, the smog over India and China help some, with increased high altitude reflection prior to the heat penetrating toward the surface.   A volcano or nuclear winter would do the same thing.   Nuanced complex picture of many variables.    But as I responded to.... ice floats.    The earth is 70 percent surfaced by water, some frozen, some melting,  some liquid. muchcontaminated with salt.   I don't understand the relevance of your observation,     The combined logic is worthy of Python:    Some mistaken assumptions, some facts, cobbled together in a fanciful way.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lark said:

I don't recall challenging him, but do think his uttering albido three times makes a poor talisman  for climate change.    Cloud cover changes may increase with currently observed changes, decreasing albido.    Old studies of Alaska show localized seasonal changes much exasperated by melting slimed mud instead of snow.   On the other hand, the smog over India and China help some, with increased high altitude reflection prior to the heat penetrating toward the surface.   A volcano or nuclear winter would do the same thing.   Nuanced complex picture of many variables.    But as I responded to.... ice floats.    The earth is 70 percent surfaced by water, some frozen, some melting,  some liquid. muchcontaminated with salt.   I don't understand the relevance of your observation,     The combined logic is worthy of Python:    Some mistaken assumptions, some facts, cobbled together in a fanciful way.   

All of those things have their own albedo.  I just pointed out the average albedo of the earth which would indicate that the earth retains more heat than it gets rid of.  CO2 is an extremely minor part of that.

Trying to help I then introduced entropy whereby all that ice really want to be water.  We could then get to the mechanics of ocean currents and particularly those of the southern ocean bringing all that nice warm water down (or up) to the icebound latitudes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sao with more doubt inducing bed time stories.

Meanwhile back on planet earth.

figure_4.3.1.jpg

image

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, random said:

Sao with more doubt inducing bed time stories.

Meanwhile back on planet earth.

figure_4.3.1.jpg

image

 

Same sensor since 1960?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/07/2017 at 8:25 AM, Saorsa said:

Random is really short on fundamentals.

thermo2.gif

And you know when this law is suspended and how that relates to Climate Change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Laker said:

And you know when this law is suspended and how that relates to Climate Change?

On a micron scale for a couple of seconds.  The ninth circuit decision didn't last long.

Fucking Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saorsa said:

On a micron scale for a couple of seconds.  The ninth circuit decision didn't last long.

Fucking Trump.

not really, under the second law, the amount of chaos goes up as more energy is added to the system.  Higher the temperature, the more the molecules run around.  With life, within constraints, the more energy added to the system, the more growth and less chaos one gets.  Climate change is related to growth scenarios and thus many of the processes fall into the "more energy, less chaos" slot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Laker said:

not really, under the second law, the amount of chaos goes up as more energy is added to the system.  Higher the temperature, the more the molecules run around.  With life, within constraints, the more energy added to the system, the more growth and less chaos one gets.  Climate change is related to growth scenarios and thus many of the processes fall into the "more energy, less chaos" slot.

Yeah, like the frog in the pot story.

It's really fucking hard for 'life' to be less chaotic, in an untenable environment.  Illiterates think that we are somehow no longer reliant on the environment we live in, after all they just go to the mall when it's hot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Laker said:

not really, under the second law, the amount of chaos goes up as more energy is added to the system.  Higher the temperature, the more the molecules run around.  With life, within constraints, the more energy added to the system, the more growth and less chaos one gets.  Climate change is related to growth scenarios and thus many of the processes fall into the "more energy, less chaos" slot.

 

Actually, that's kind of exactly backwards if I understand what you're trying to get at.  Configuration entropy goes up when you combine things into 'growth'. 

Take a simple gas phase reaction as an example.  H2 + 1/2 O2 -> H2O.  There's a net reduction in the number of molecules from 1.5 to 1.0, or a ' reduction' in chaos (random motion of molecules) and an 'increase' in growth or complexity of the system so to speak (use your reference).  The thing is that the number of vibrational states actually goes up.  There's an O-H and an H-O whereas before you had H-H and O-O.  That's a wash - two vibration states in each case.  But what's not a wash is that you've added a bending vibration as the H's flex toward and away from each other in H2O that's not present before the reaction.  That extra vibrational state is an additional energy state that results in a net increase in the entropy of the system.  Both the first and second laws are satified, meaning H2O forms spontaneously from H2 + 1/2 O2 assuming you overcome the kinetic activation barrier.

First law - energy conserved

Second law - heat flows downhill.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irony will save the GBR,  please tell the coral about the "extra vibrational states".  They will be stoked.

bleaching.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Laker said:

not really, under the second law, the amount of chaos goes up as more energy is added to the system.  Higher the temperature, the more the molecules run around.  With life, within constraints, the more energy added to the system, the more growth and less chaos one gets.  Climate change is related to growth scenarios and thus many of the processes fall into the "more energy, less chaos" slot.

And that's why there are state changes in materials.  Water boils into steam, steam condenses to vapor which may preciptate in liquid or solid form as heat is transferred changing temperature.

That doesn't suspend entropy.  It simply means that it continues and is affected by other influences also seeking an entropic state.  It is chaotic because we can't quantify it on a global scale..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

And that's why there are state changes in materials.  Water boils into steam, steam condenses to vapor which may preciptate in liquid or solid form as heat is transferred changing temperature.

That doesn't suspend entropy.  It simply means that it continues and is affected by other influences also seeking an entropic state.  It is chaotic because we can't quantify it on a global scale..

That's fucking awesome.  Let's tell the great barrier reef, it will be stoked to hear that ... nothing to worry about.

coral+bleaching+2.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Saorsa said:

And that's why there are state changes in materials.  Water boils into steam, steam condenses to vapor which may preciptate in liquid or solid form as heat is transferred changing temperature.

That doesn't suspend entropy.  It simply means that it continues and is affected by other influences also seeking an entropic state.  It is chaotic because we can't quantify it on a global scale..

You may wish to read up on that.  Change of state has nothing to do with entropy reversal.  Entropy reversal is a special case where the addition of energy causes higher order and less chaos.  Changes of state are the freeing of dimensional restraints in the direction and magnitude of the motion of the molecule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Laker said:

Changes of state are the freeing of dimensional restraints in the direction and magnitude of the motion of the molecule.

Hey Great Barrier Reef!!!   See the words above, does that mean you are saved?

RTXICHB.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last Friday was Brisbanes coldest day in 3 years. Looks like we didn't get the memo about global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, random said:

Irony will save the GBR,  please tell the coral about the "extra vibrational states".  They will be stoked.

bleaching.jpg

Yes that Cyclone did terrible damage to the reef. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Laker said:

You may wish to read up on that.  Change of state has nothing to do with entropy reversal.  Entropy reversal is a special case where the addition of energy causes higher order and less chaos.  Changes of state are the freeing of dimensional restraints in the direction and magnitude of the motion of the molecule.

when you grow a seed into a plant, energy must be added in the way of sunlight and CO2.  When you want to get a larger amount of algae, you need to add sunlight.  When you want larger thermal vent crabs, you must add sulphur to the mix that feeds the algae, vent heat plus sulphur.  When you want to grow a human being it is sunlight plus O2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Yes that Cyclone did terrible damage to the reef. 

cyclone damage

damaged-coral-after-hamishW.jpg

 

Hot water damage

bleaching.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

The more denier posts I read the more convinced I become they are just plain crazy 

In a way they are.  But first they are greedy cunts prepared to lie to everyone including themselves, to keep what the have and get even more stuff.

After you accept that, then they can be seen to be crazy for being that way.  But they are the intelligent ones. 

The stupid ones are the Australian bogans and the American Trump voters.  These are people who believe everything broadcast by shock-jocks and Exxon funded Institutes and shills.  The mind-control is so effective that it is truly terrifying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, random said:

cyclone damage

damaged-coral-after-hamishW.jpg

 

Hot water damage

bleaching.jpg

the fishing is still pretty good...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I made a mistake, the flattened coral is from the last time LB put his shitter on the bricks up there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are jumping in the boat!

This recent bleaching was caused by the fall in sea level - surely anyone with a questioning mind and access to the internet can work that out.

Jim Steele, Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University said and I quote

"It is puzzling why the recent 2017 publication in Nature, Global Warming And Recurrent Mass Bleaching Of Corals by Hughes et al. ignored the most critical factor affecting the 2016 severe bleaching along the northern Great Barrier Reef – the regional fall in sea level amplified by El Niño. Instead Hughes 2017 suggested the extensive bleaching was due to increased water temperatures induced by CO2 warming."

Visitors to Lizard Island had reported more extreme low tides and more exposed reefs as revealed in the photograph above, which is consistent with the extremely high mortality in the Lizard Island region during the 2016 El Niño. Of course reefs are often exposed to the air at low tide, but manage to survive if the exposure is short or during the night. However as seen in tide gauge data from Cairns just south of Lizard Island, since 2010 the average low tide had dropped by ~10 to 15 cm. After previous decades of increasing sea level had permitted vertical coral growth and colonization of newly submerged coastline, that new growth was now being left high and dry during low tide. As a result shallow coral were increasingly vulnerable to deadly desiccation during more extreme sea level drops when warm waters slosh toward the Americas during an El Niño."

You alarmists need to understand that Mother nature can be a cruel bitch at times.

You have been schooled again.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global warming headline when California is in a drought...

2quozmb.jpg

Global warming headline after California has heavy rain...

1zlxgxs.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Dog said:

Global warming headline when California is in a drought...

2quozmb.jpg

Global warming headline after California has heavy rain...

1zlxgxs.jpg

That's where the chaos comes in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Global warming headline when California is in a drought...

2quozmb.jpg

Global warming headline after California has heavy rain...

1zlxgxs.jpg

The first one says "could"

The second one says 12% through 2100.

Which one is wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, random said:

The first one says "could"

The second one says 12% through 2100.

Which one is wrong?

I don't believe either one. I'm not a believer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Laker said:

when you grow a seed into a plant, energy must be added in the way of sunlight and CO2.  When you want to get a larger amount of algae, you need to add sunlight.  When you want larger thermal vent crabs, you must add sulphur to the mix that feeds the algae, vent heat plus sulphur.  When you want to grow a human being it is sunlight plus O2.

As I pointed out.  This occurs at the micron or less level for very brief periods.  You are merely catching something in a state of flux.  It will simply be a long time until your plant returns to CO2.  Two parts of the carbon cycle.  The water cycle is more complex since water can be in multiple states at normal temperatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Water is only in multiple states at the triple point.  It can be in two states, but not multiple except at the triple point.  Adding sunlight to a plant over its growing season is not longer than a brief period?  Is a plant not larger than a micron?  We are talking about different things, obviously.  I am talking about the reversal of entropy in living things. Just as with ferromagnetism happens in a distinct set of elements within a distinct temperature range, entropy reverses in a distinct set of molecules under a distinct set of conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dog said:

I don't believe either one. I'm not a believer.

So you must be into science then like this

2016-12_p14.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Laker said:

Water is only in multiple states at the triple point.  It can be in two states, but not multiple except at the triple point.  Adding sunlight to a plant over its growing season is not longer than a brief period?  Is a plant not larger than a micron?  We are talking about different things, obviously.  I am talking about the reversal of entropy in living things. Just as with ferromagnetism happens in a distinct set of elements within a distinct temperature range, entropy reverses in a distinct set of molecules under a distinct set of conditions.

I said normal temperatures.  That means the normal range of temperatures for an area.  I wouldn't expect a molecule of water to try being in three states at once.  However, I have seen it in three states at the same time.

dsc_8317a-marjorie-glacier.jpg

 

Of course, the clouds are actually just very small quantities of liquid water but, their presence is an indication of free water vapor even if it is invisible.

A plant is cellular.  Not every part of every plant is in flux at one time.  You are looking at precision again, not accuracy.  I would contend that entropy is not suspended or reversed, you simply have an energy flow in another direction due to the specific circumstances. 

Not all energy is heat

energy

(en'er-je) [Gr. energeia, activity]

In physics, the capacity to do work, effect change. Energy is manifested in motion (kinetic energy) or position or chemical bonding (potential energy).

Changes in energy may be physical, chemical, or both. Movement of a part of the body shortens and thickens the muscles involved and temporarily changes the position and size of cells, but intake of oxygen in the blood combined with glucose and fat creates a chemical change and produces heat (energy) and waste products within the cells; fatigue is produced in turn.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

I wouldn't expect a molecule of water to try being in three states at once.  However, I have seen it in three states at the same time.

That's awesome news, how about you tell the GBR it is saved now?

2016-2017_GBRbleaching_low_res.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, random said:

That's awesome news, how about you tell the GBR it is saved now?

2016-2017_GBRbleaching_low_res.jpg

Nothing beats a cartoon from an organisation that describes itself as 'centre of excellence'

Farkin cold here this morning. When's this  global warming supposed to kick in? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, random said:

So you must be into science then like this

2016-12_p14.png

So why is the sea level falling not rising? Did you watch the project last night? They had the worlds greatest conman, Al Gore on and the Islamic Uncle Tom couldn't fawn to him enough. It was pathetic. Al didn't seem at all interested in their jihad against plastic bags. it was taking attention away from his new movie which is all he wanted to talk about. What's your man Al's take on the 911 hoax? Is he with you on that issue as well? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's such great news Sao, will you tell the coral it's all good now or will I?

8430100-3x2-700x467.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coral bleaching is a naturally occurring phenomenon. Even the most left wing scientists will grudgingly admit that it was occurring back before people lived in caves. 

It is natures way, just like a lion killing a baby antelope. Sad to watch but even the cave men understood. So how come you modern cave men can't understand that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, random said:

The first one says "could"

The second one says "project" 12% through 2100.

Which one is wrong?

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, random said:

The first one says "could"

The second one says 12% through 2100.

Which one is wrong?

Both. 

The first introduces ambiguity with 'could' and the second is a projection based on a model with 'normalized' data.

Your choice of certainty will depend on which you consider the lesser of two weasels.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

r the lesser of two weasels.

Well you know a lot about weasels and their words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great Barrier Reef: scientists ‘exaggerated’ coral bleaching

'Activist scientists and lobby groups have distorted surveys, maps and data to misrepresent the extent and impact of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef, ­according to the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Russell Reichelt.

A full survey of the reef ­released yesterday by the author­ity and the Australian Institute of Marine ­Science said 75 per cent of the reef would escape unscathed.

Dr Reichelt said the vast bulk of bleaching damage was confined to the far northern section off Cape York, which had the best prospect of recovery due to the lack of ­onshore development and high water quality.'

But what would the chairman of The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority know about the reef hey Randumb?

He might have gone on to say ' These reports are typical distortions of the facts by the lunatic fringe, just like the reported failure of the Mango crop at some SE Queensland 'Mango Stations'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Gutterblack said:

Fuck the coral, whats it ever done for us?

It gives Brent Swain somewhere to moor his shitbox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it about scientists and their urge to constantly make up shit about global warming ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

What is it about scientists and their urge to constantly make up shit about global warming ??

Same reason Randumb posts about it.

Attention seeking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the more compelling arguments for skepticism is that adjustments to the raw temperature data accrue to the benefit of the alarmist argument. A recent scientific study of temperature adjustments produced this graph. Early 20th century adjustments have been in the downward direction. There followed a few decades, 40's, 50's and 60's where temperature adjustment were split between warmer and cooler. From the mid 70's to the present, adjustments have been to the warm side. The effect of course, is to make the warming curve steeper and some argue to create a warming curve where one does not exist in the raw data. It's pretty damning evidence that the adjustments serve an agenda. Obviously there is a limit to how long you can get away with this and it's probably not coincidental that recently we have seen some prominent alarmists seeking more moderate ground.

2cwn0ww.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alarmists: what is that??

i suspect Dog's "alarmists" are those who want to try to do something to stop the warming from ruining the ecosphere.

We could leave quatrillions of dollars worth of known oil and coal in the ground, cause billions to lose jobs based on carbon burning, and notice no significant change in the temperature.  One or two degrees change is difficult to notice and it is even harder to personally view and comprehend any changes caused.

i am Not among those who believe we can convince people to leave the oil and  coal in the ground. 

I am one who believe we are already totally fucked. The carbon emissions are accelerating and will continue to do so. In a couple hundred years the planet will be a much different place ...

and I will be dead 

if anyone a hundred years from now ever happens to look at this thread thatvreader will say, "Gouvernail knew it was happening but he was also powerless to protect the future from the likes of Dog."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping that the Doggies of PA and the rest of the world, really are just greedy fucks, shills to protect their toys.  I prefer to think of them as that over the alternative, that they really are that fucking stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

One of the more compelling arguments for skepticism is that adjustments to the raw temperature data accrue to the benefit of the alarmist argument. A recent scientific study of temperature adjustments produced this graph. Early 20th century adjustments have been in the downward direction. There followed a few decades, 40's, 50's and 60's where temperature adjustment were split between warmer and cooler. From the mid 70's to the present, adjustments have been to the warm side. The effect of course, is to make the warming curve steeper and some argue to create a warming curve where one does not exist in the raw data. It's pretty damning evidence that the adjustments serve an agenda. Obviously there is a limit to how long you can get away with this and it's probably not coincidental that recently we have seen some prominent alarmists seeking more moderate ground.

2cwn0ww.gif

Dog,

That period from the 50s to 70s is the period most often used as an average base for anomaly models.  The distortion that introduces account for the big red jump there prior to 1950, and the more rational ranges in the 50-70 range.  The prior period, the temperatures were from thermometers, after the 70s there were a lot of proxies used to state temperature.

That's one of the reasons I hate anomaly charts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile back on planet Earth ...

  • The year-to-date temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.66°F above the 20th century average of 55.5°F. This was the second highest for January–May in the 1880–2017 record, behind 2016.
  • The year-to-date globally averaged land surface temperature was 2.77°F above the 20th century average of 42.8°F. This was also the second highest for January–May in the record, behind 2016.
  • The year-to-date globally averaged sea surface temperature was 1.26°F above the 20th century average of 60.8°F. This was the second highest for January–May in the 138-year record, behind the record year 2016.

january-may-2017-global-temperature-perc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

Alarmists: what is that??

i suspect Dog's "alarmists" are those who want to try to do something to stop the warming from ruining the ecosphere.

We could leave quatrillions of dollars worth of known oil and coal in the ground, cause billions to lose jobs based on carbon burning, and notice no significant change in the temperature.  One or two degrees change is difficult to notice and it is even harder to personally view and comprehend any changes caused.

i am Not among those who believe we can convince people to leave the oil and  coal in the ground. 

I am one who believe we are already totally fucked. The carbon emissions are accelerating and will continue to do so. In a couple hundred years the planet will be a much different place ...

and I will be dead 

if anyone a hundred years from now ever happens to look at this thread thatvreader will say, "Gouvernail knew it was happening but he was also powerless to protect the future from the likes of Dog."

 

So what is your explanation for the pattern of adjustment to the temperature record?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dog said:

So what is your explanation for the pattern of adjustment to the temperature record?

What pattern?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Post 382

All I see in that post is an un-cited graph.  No linky it's stinky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, random said:

All I see in that post is an un-cited graph.  No linky it's stinky.

Quite right, the graph come from this scientific study.

 

On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding

Abridged Research Report

 

Dr. James P. Wallace III

Dr. Joseph S. D’Aleo

Dr. Craig D. Idso

June 2017

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

Quite right, the graph come from this scientific study.

 

On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding

Abridged Research Report

 

Dr. James P. Wallace III

Who?  An Engineer is he?

-----------------------------------------------

Dr. Joseph S. D’Aleo

According to leaked documents, D'Aleo is one of a number of climate change skeptics who receives funding from the Heartland Institute, an organization at the forefront of climate change skepticism in the U.S.

-----------------------------------------------

Dr. Craig D. Idso

Oil Industry Ties

Craig Idso served as Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy from 2001-2002 in St. Louis, MO. According to ExxonSecrets, Craig and Keith Idso produced a report for the Western Fuels Association titled “The Greening of Planet Earth Its Progression from Hypothesis to Theory” in January, 1998. [1][2]

Craig and Keith Idso have other ties to the Western Fuels Association. In October, 1999, they assisted in publishing a report for the Greening Earth Society (a group funded and controlled by Western Fuels) titled “Forecasting World Food Supplies: The Impact of the Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentration,” as Idso announced in a separate CO2 Science article. [38]

June 2017

Like you these guys are paid quacks.  FIFY above.

You lied, no NOAA or NASA behind that graph.  You are a lying cunt shill Doggy, not even a good one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, random said:

Like you these guys are paid quacks.  FIFY above.

You lied, no NOAA or NASA behind that graph.  You are a lying cunt shill Doggy, not even a good one.

 

Virtually all scientists get paid. And I didn't say anything about NOAA or NASA being behind that graph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, random said:

Like you these guys are paid quacks.  FIFY above.

You lied, no NOAA or NASA behind that graph.  You are a lying cunt shill Doggy, not even a good one.

 

Except, you know, for, like, uhhh, the underlying uhhhh data and stuff.

It's a collected vs. reported thing.

Thermometers are simple devices, easy to calibrate to a reasonable degree of precision.  Using data that is considered just like a thermometer except different so we need to adjust the actual thermometer data to meet specs is suspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dog said:

Virtually all scientists get paid. And I didn't say anything about NOAA or NASA being behind that graph.

You have been busted quoting a few of the best known Exxon shills on the planet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Except, you know, for, like, uhhh, the underlying uhhhh data and stuff.

It's a collected vs. reported thing.

Thermometers are simple devices, easy to calibrate to a reasonable degree of precision.  Using data that is considered just like a thermometer except different so we need to adjust the actual thermometer data to meet specs is suspect.

8921423._SY540_.jpg

Share this post


Link to post