2015 the hottest year on record

[jackaub 1,402]

Pro I have an earths sciences  background and your logic is absolutely correct

No sane person would look at 100 earth years and draw any proper  conclusions. Remember we could walk to Tasmania 20000 years ago nothing in Geological time

The sun is the only source of energy past and present that matters

The earth adjusts to variations in energy 

It is a miraculous well balanced machine

If theee people like the Hood want to really worship some thing significant then worship the sun.The hoods have been hoodwinked

I have tried  but you cannot have a logical converstaion with these people

Climate change is now an industry egged on by the leftist rags like the age and the ABC

 

[dieter 3,325]

16 minutes ago, jackaub said:

Pro I have an earths sciences  background and your logic is absolutely correct

No sane person would look at 100 earth years and draw any proper  conclusions. Remember we could walk to Tasmania 20000 years ago nothing in Geological time

The sun is the only source of energy past and present that matters

The earth adjusts to variations in energy 

It is a miraculous well balanced machine

If theee people like the Hood want to really worship some thing significant then worship the sun.The hoods have been hoodwinked

I have tried  but you cannot have a logical converstaion with these people

Climate change is now an industry egged on by

 

You might well have an earths sciences background, it doesn't mean you qualify as an intelligent human being. What indicates that maybe you're not is the reference to 'the leftist rags like the age and the ABC'. 

To categorize debate on this topic as 'leftist' indicates you have the proclivities of an ignorant name caller. Once upon a time people like you were called neanderthals. They used clubs instead of words. Slogans are the modern version of the club. Slogans are the enemy of logic.

Edited November 14, 2017 by dieter

[Wrecker45 3,378]

1 hour ago, dieter said:

You might well have an earths sciences background, it doesn't mean you qualify as an intelligent human being. What indicates that maybe you're not is the reference to 'the leftist rags like the age and the ABC'. 

To categorize debate on this topic as 'leftist' indicates you have the proclivities of an ignorant name caller. Once upon a time people like you were called neanderthals. They used clubs instead of words. Slogans are the modern version of the club. Slogans are the enemy of logic.

The ABC only broadcasts news on climate change if it fits their alarmist narrative. This makes them un-scientific and leftist.

[jackaub 1,402]

2 hours ago, dieter said:

You might well have an earths sciences background, it doesn't mean you qualify as an intelligent human being. What indicates that maybe you're not is the reference to 'the leftist rags like the age and the ABC'. 

To categorize debate on this topic as 'leftist' indicates you have the proclivities of an ignorant name caller. Once upon a time people like you were called neanderthals. They used clubs instead of words. Slogans are the modern version of the club. Slogans are the enemy of logic.

and fellow travellers respond by shutting down conversation Why am I not surprised by your typical response.

[Gator 17,972]

3 Atmospheric Scientists: Greenhouse Effect

Based On ‘Physically Irrelevant Assumptions’

http://notrickszone.com/2017/09/25/another-new-paper-dismantles-the-co2-greenhouse-effect-thought-experiment/#sthash.RIZWwyEy.dpbs

[dieter 3,325]

3 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

The ABC only broadcasts news on climate change if it fits their alarmist narrative. This makes them un-scientific and leftist.

That's just bullshite.

[Gator 17,972]

NASA removes warming trend from 1850-1950 from its OWN graphs.  Why, because it's inconvenient for temperatures to have been steadily rising with anthropogenic emissions flat during this period.

As recently as 1990, it was widely accepted that the global temperature trend, as reported by NASA (Hansen and Lebedeff, 1987), showed a “0.5°C rise between 1880 and 1950.”

 

Naturally, the next graph shows that NASA has removed virtually all of the warming.  Our resident Leftist dolts don't care.  They turn a blind eye as long as NASA is progressing their religion.  What do you think @Earl Hood

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by ProDee

[Wrecker45 3,378]

21 minutes ago, dieter said:

That's just bullshite.

Are you so naive to believe that the ABC broadcast / publish news on climate change if it goes against their narrative when they have publicly said they won't?

[Gator 17,972]

‘Two-Thirds Of Climate Warming’

Since 1750 Due To ‘Solar Causes’

– Dr. Alan D. Smith, Geoscientist

Much of the debate about the Sun’s role in climate change is centered around reconstructions of solar activity that span the last 400 years, which now include satellite data from the late 1970s to present.

To buttress the claim that solar forcing has effectively played almost no role in surface temperature changes since the mid-20th century, the IPCC has shown preference for modeled reconstructions of solar activity (i.e., the PMOD) that show a stable or decreasing trend since the 1970s.  Why?  Because if the modeled results can depict steady or decreasing solar activity since the last few decades of the 20th century – just as surface temperatures were rising – then attributing the post-1970s warming trend to human activity becomes that much easier.

The trouble is, satellite observations using ACRIM  data (which have been affirmed to be accurate by other satellite data sets and are rooted in observation, not modeled expectations) indicate that solar activity did not decline after the 1970s, but actually rose quite substantially.  It wasn’t until the early 2000s that solar activity began to decline, corresponding with the denouement of the Modern Grand Maximum.

Notice how closely temperatures have followed solar activity ?

After Removing Instrumental ‘Adjustments’, Urban Bias, Temperatures Follow Solar Activity

The combined Hadley Centre and Climatic Research Unit (HadCRUT) data set — which is featured in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports — underwent a revision from version 3 to version 4 in March of 2012.  This was about a year before the latest IPCC report was to be released (2013).  At the time (early 2012), it was quite inconvenient to the paradigm that HadCRUT3 was highlighting a slight global cooling trend between 1998 and 2012, as shown in the graph below (using HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT4 raw data from WoodForTrees).  So, by changing versions, and by adjusting the data, the slight cooling was changed to a slight warming trend.

[Gator 17,972]

Notice how in the graphs below temperature mimics solar activity ?

Who could believe that such a powerful beast in the sky could actually dictate our temperatures ?  Amazing, I know.

 

It's blindingly obvious, unless you're an idiot, that the sun (mainly) and oceans control temperature.

[Gator 17,972]

Solution of the Greenhouse Effect equations shows no increase in Earth's surface temperature from increase in carbon dioxide

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319324166_Solution_of_the_Greenhouse_Effect_equations_shows_no_increase_in_Earth's_surface_temperature_from_increase_in_carbon_dioxide

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

Listening to@ProDee and @jackaub presenting their arguments be like:

 

 

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by stevethemanjordan

[Gator 17,972]

19 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Listening to@ProDee and @jackaub presenting their arguments be like:

 

 

 

If you can't contribute why bother.

It makes me think you're either an idiot or a troll.

[dieter 3,325]

1 hour ago, Wrecker45 said:

Are you so naive to believe that the ABC broadcast / publish news on climate change if it goes against their narrative when they have publicly said they won't?

The bottom line, sweetie, being prepared to believe in man made  climate change does not make you or me or the ABC a leftie. For the record, I write, bowl, bat, kick, eat,  pick my nose and wipe my bum with my right hand. I am not a molly dooker.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

49 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Listening to@ProDee and @jackaub presenting their arguments be like:

 

 

 

Irony. Presented with evidence you show a South Park clip saying look at the monkey.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

12 minutes ago, dieter said:

The bottom line, sweetie, being prepared to believe in man made  climate change does not make you or me or the ABC a leftie. For the record, I write, bowl, bat, kick, eat,  pick my nose and wipe my bum with my right hand. I am not a molly dooker.

No it doesn't but being a hypocrite does.

 

[Wrecker45 3,378]

38 minutes ago, ProDee said:

If you can't contribute why bother.

It makes me think you're either an idiot or a troll.

Or both.

[Jara 1,153]

Hey Pro - you've posted about a million gigs of data here, most of which is too complicated for a simple country boy like me.

 

But I'm still waiting for a reply to the question I asked you a couple of days ago:  How do you explain Black Saturday? Just a coincidence? Lefty conspiracy? 

[Gator 17,972]

SEPTEMBER 2017

A landmark paper by warmist scientists in Nature Geoscience now concedes the world has indeed not warmed as predicted, thanks to a slowdown in the first 15 years of this century. One of its authors, Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London, admits his past predictions of runaway warming were too alarmist.

“When the facts change, I change my mind. We are in a better place than I thought.”

ANOTHER author, Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford, confessed that too many of the mathematical models used by climate scientists to predict future warming “were on the hot side”— meaning they exaggerated.

“We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models.”

[Gator 17,972]

 

[Gator 17,972]

Climate models v actual observed data.

[hardtack 10,861]

14 hours ago, jackaub said:

Pro I have an earths sciences  background and your logic is absolutely correct

No sane person would look at 100 earth years and draw any proper  conclusions. Remember we could walk to Tasmania 20000 years ago nothing in Geological time

The sun is the only source of energy past and present that matters

The earth adjusts to variations in energy 

It is a miraculous well balanced machine

If theee people like the Hood want to really worship some thing significant then worship the sun.The hoods have been hoodwinked

I have tried  but you cannot have a logical converstaion with these people

Climate change is now an industry egged on by the leftist rags like the age and the ABC

 

Care to expand on just what exactly your “earth sciences background” is?  

I have a brother who was advisor to successive Labor environment ministers (Richardson, Kelly and Faulkner), was head of National Parks in NSW and most recently (until his recent retirement), was head of the Australian Antarctic operation. He will tell you that man made climate change is very real having seen first hand what it has done in many and varied environments.

I’m sure there are those who will dismiss him as a leftist hack based purely on the fact he advised Labor ministers... but I can promise you that nothing could be further from the truth.

Edited November 15, 2017 by hardtack

[Wrecker45 3,378]

11 hours ago, hardtack said:

Care to expand on just what exactly your “earth sciences background” is?  

I have a brother who was advisor to successive Labor environment ministers (Richardson, Kelly and Faulkner), was head of National Parks in NSW and most recently (until his recent retirement), was head of the Australian Antarctic operation. He will tell you that man made climate change is very real having seen first hand what it has done in many and varied environments.

I’m sure there are those who will dismiss him as a leftist hack based purely on the fact he advised Labor ministers... but I can promise you that nothing could be further from the truth.

How does he know it is man made climate change and not naturally occurring?

[hardtack 10,861]

22 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

How does he know it is man made climate change and not naturally occurring?

Unlike you or I, he understands the science.  How do you know it is naturally occurring? 

[Wrecker45 3,378]

2 minutes ago, hardtack said:

Unlike you or I, he understands the science.  How do you know it is naturally occurring? 

I didn't say it was naturally occurring although I presume it would be. You made a statement saying your brother has seen man made climate change first hand and I just asked how he knows it wasn't naturally occurring.

Perhaps ask him and come back and answer the question.