Jump to content

Gator

Life Member
  • Posts

    6,591
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    79

Everything posted by Gator

  1. More incredible science theory. Monday 17 September 2012 20.14 AEST As sea ice shrinks to record lows, Prof Peter Wadhams warns a 'global disaster' is now unfolding in northern latitudes. One of the world's leading ice experts has predicted the final collapse of Arctic sea ice in summer months within four years. "This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates". Wadhams says the implications are "terrible". "The positives are increased possibility of Arctic transport, increased access to Arctic offshore oil and gas resources. The main negative is an acceleration of global warming." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice Umm no. He was only out by 4.64 million square kilometres. 2017 Arctic sea ice minimum (you know, summer) had 500,000 more square kilometres than a decade ago (2007). But how can that be when the last decade has been the hottest on record. How can sea ice defy temperature. Answer ? It can't. It's simply defied NASA's fraudulent "adjustments". The Arctic sea ice minimum extent in 2017 was 1.23 million square kilometres greater than the year Prof Wadhams made his alarmist prediction. Trigger warning. This post is not a safe space for Lefties. Too late.
  2. Original scientific graphs were simply changed to suit a new global warming narrative. It cooled between 1940 and 1978, but that was too "inconvenient".
  3. Thick Arctic ice is growing at a greater rate than a decade ago when NASA and NOAA would have you believe the Arctic's temperatures are the hottest on record. Only a Leftwing brain would think that sounds reasonable.
  4. There are many indications that the 1940’s were as warmer or warmer than the present, and that government climate scientists intentionally erased the warmth. They're scratching their heads as to why it was warmer and what they can do about it. They simply started making "adjustments". Because how could it be warmer then with less CO2 in the atmosphere ? That's not helpful at all.
  5. The facts wreck global warming theory, so NASA quite predictably responded by erasing the 1940’s Arctic warmth.
  6. According to NASA and NOAA, Earth and the Arctic are much warmer now than they were in 1940. Yet in 1940 Arctic ice was melting, and in 2017 Arctic ice is expanding. Ice doesn’t lie, but government climate scientists do. The 1930's was the hottest decade on record until NASA and NOAA adjusted data.
  7. The NOAA HAS made adjustments to US temperature data over the last few years that has increased the apparent warming trend. These changes in adjustments have not been well-explained. In fact, they have not really be explained at all, and have only been detected by skeptics who happened to archive old NOAA charts and created comparisons like the one below. Here is the before and after animation(pre-2000 NOAA US temperature history vs. post-2000). History has been cooled and modern temperatures have been warmed from where they were being shown previously by the NOAA. This does not mean the current version is wrong, but since the entire US warming signal was effectively created by these changes, it is not unreasonable to act for a detailed reconciliation (particularly when those folks preparing the chart all believe that temperatures are going up, so would be predisposed to treating a flat temperature chart like the earlier http://www.climate-skeptic.com/category/temperature-measurement
  8. It will be seen that there is no correlation whatsoever between carbon dioxide concentration and the temperature at the earth’s surface. During the latter part of the Carboniferous, the Permian and the first half of the Triassic period, 250-320 million years ago, carbon dioxide concentration was half what it is today but the temperature was 10ºC higher than today . Oxygen in the atmosphere fluctuated from 15 to 35% during this period From the Cretaceous to the Eocene 35 to 100 million years ago, a high temperature went with declining carbon dioxide. The theory that carbon dioxide concentration is related to the temperature of the earth’s surface is therefore wrong. Vincent Gray Wellington, New Zealand https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/04/dr-vincent-gray-on-historical-carbon-dioxide-levels/
  9. NOTE: All charts were plotted directly from composite data sets using Lotus 1-2-3. CO2 Graph Sources: Temperature Graph Sources: 2001-1958: South Pole Air Flask Data 1958-1220 B.P.: Law Dome, Antarctica 1220 B.P.- 2302 B.P.: Taylor Dome, Antarctica 2302 B.P.- 414k B.P.: Vostok Ice Core Data 2000-1979: Satellite stratospheric data 1979-1871: S. Hemisphere ground temp. data 1871- 422k B.P.: Vostok Ice Core Data
  10. Yes, I'm aware of the funding addicted scientists who push their climate porn agenda. I'm also aware of people like Bill Gray, who was defunded by Al Gore, because he didn't like his views. Gray was America's pre-eminent expert on hurricanes and his views didn't fit Gore's narrative. 'Dr. Bill Gray has passed away. He was my hero, and an inspiration. Bill was a man of the highest integrity and character. Bill had his funding cut off by Al Gore in 1993 for refusing to go along with Gore’s global warming politics. Unlike so many others, Bill chose scientific integrity over politics and money, and fought against climate fraud to his last breath.' NASA and NOAA show a 30 year exaggerated trend by about a third of a degree due to poorly sited weather stations. https://fallmeeting.agu.org/2015/files/2015/12/Press-Release-NEW-STUDY-OF-NOAA-USHCN.pdf https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/the-scientific-method-is-at-work-on-the-ushcn-temperature-data-set/ Look at a couple of photos on the above link to see where a weather sensor is located in a car-park near office air conditioners. Climate scientists thought we were in a warming phase in the 1940s and then a cooling phase in the 1970s. Now it's back to warming, even though we're about 1 degree difference since 1880. Wow. Can you believe it ? A whole of a degree. And even then, it might be a bit less. Not to mention the planet was coming out of a little ice age in the 1800s. James Hansen from NASA said "much of Lower Manhattan would be underwater by 2008". The same James Hansen admitted in 1999 "Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought." The same James Hansen predicted the Arctic would be free of summer ice by now. Dr Hansen was considered a climate "prophet". In 1986 the same Hansen predicted temperatures would increase "4-6 degrees between 1958 and 2020". It better hurry up. Do you want more dud predictions ? Do you want more evidence of data tampering from NASA and NOAA ? They've fudged records to make the 40s and earlier appear cooler and from the 70s onwards to appear warmer. Answer me this Hood. The planet is 4.5 billion years old. How do you know what the perfect temperature is anyway ? There's enough evidence to suggest being warmer is better than cooler. CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. Human contributes about 3% of that. Australia contributes 1.5% of that. Australia contributes 0.000018% of atmospheric CO2 and almost half of that is absorbed in the biosphere. This hoax is beyond a joke. As for the cost ? This article is 6 years old, but it highlights spend categories. https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/#1170797ebbef CO2 has gone from 280 ppm in 1880 to about 400 ppm in 2017. 1880 wasn't far off a little ice age. In that time the planet has barely gone up a degree in temperature. And within that time we've had cooling and warming periods. We've cooled as the CO2 has gone higher than 280 ppm. CO2 doesn't drive climate, imo. It may contribute a small amount of heating as a greenhouse gas, but it certainly isn't the "driver". And the planet is far from warming "dangerously". Some more warming would be GOOD.
  11. Yes, and the following video in particular, uploaded just two weeks ago, shows NASA and NOAA for the fraudsters they are and the hysteria over nothing. Have a listen @hardtack
  12. It's not as simple as that. The claim is that man's contribution is not easily absorbed and has upset the "natural balance". So even though it's relatively small it's very significant. About 40% of anthropogenic CO2 is absorbed into the ocean and vegetation and approx. 60% remains in the atmosphere. Due to man's contribution CO2 levels (ppmv) are at their highest levels for 15-20 million years, or so the claim goes (and I'm not disputing it). Unfortunately for the zealots their models have been wrong and the planet hasn't been warming as they predicted even with these higher carbon levels. So what to do ? Tamper with the data and try and show that it has been. There's nothing earth shattering about the 150 years claim. It simply coincides with increased human activity with coal burning and deforestation. 150 years ago CO2 was 280 ppm and now it's 400 ppm. One of the questions is could the increase in CO2 be natural or is it all the fault of we bad humans. Some scientists argue one way, some another. What nature gives to the biosphere nature takes out. So humans piling on has a deleterious effect, because we don't take it back. Nature emits, nature absorbs. Humans emit... The general consensus is that humans contribute about 3% of CO2, but this site says 5%. http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp William Whitesell's book says 3%, which is the figure usually mentioned. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=sktLX1gSSOYC&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=atmospheric+CO2+is+97%+natural&source=bl&ots=OP9U7d54lY&sig=pUlQ1CZpSb7nkz0P9L2PaGPW2ms&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiBsuuoganXAhVLU7wKHe4UC5cQ6AEIUjAG#v=onepage&q=atmospheric CO2 is 97% natural&f=false You can buy the book here: https://www.booktopia.com.au/climate-policy-foundations-william-c-whitesell/prod9781107002289.html Probably the best proof of human contribution is a chart from this site: https://wryheat.wordpress.com/2014/07/19/only-about-3-of-co2-in-atmosphere-due-to-burning-fossil-fuels/
  13. What does this comment even mean ? I'm just citing commonly referred to discussions re mankind's percentage contribution. If you're genuinely interested do your own frigging research and come back and share your discovery.
  14. If you have an open mind re the climate I encourage you to listen to the talk given by Tony Heller (aka Steve Goddard) linked below. Heller was a global warming enthusiast from 1980-2003. In this talk he irrefutably proves that NASA and NOAA fudge their data to suit the narrative they want to portray. He shows graphs, articles, and emails. It's very informative for even someone like yourself, who seemingly believes man is dangerously warming the planet and billions being spent to combat it is somehow a good thing. After you've had time to view it let me know what you think. EDIT: for some reason the video starts at 8 minutes 50. Just scroll back to the beginning.
  15. I have no idea. I've never studied or investigated anything to do with the fossil fuel industry. In my spare time I've looked into the merits of specifically climate change.
  16. To show a warming that isn't there. To continue a narrative that the planet is warming dangerously. They do this to support a view they genuinely believe, but can't always prove and to also receive the funding they've been accustomed to receiving. It's not hard. And even if you astonishingly still don't understand the question you can still answer it. Do you think NASA and NOAA have altered historical data sets to show a warming that didn't exist to make it now appear that it did ? Hint: there are 4 possible answers. Yes, no, maybe, or don't know.
  17. Their "own ends" means fraudulently manipulating historical data to make previous data sets look different. i.e. making cooler periods now warmer than they were. A simple yes or no will suffice.
  18. A question to the climate worshippers. Do you think NASA and NOAA manipulate data to suit their own ends ?
  19. I think they mean 3% now from annual measuring of atmospheric carbon having grown since the industrial revolution some 150 years ago. There's no doubt we're producing more carbon today than 50 years ago, so that percentage should keep increasing.
  20. Sloane is most definitely an A-grader and a better footballer than Nathan Jones.
  21. There are anomalies with other clubs like Carlton and St Kilda, that are unfathomable on the surface of it, but I'm in the camp that says a basket case of a club that has been out of the finals for 11 years doesn't have much to complain about. We've got a terrific opportunity to get lots of wins on the board early on, which should set up the season.
  22. I think Oscar's no.1 trait as a 196cm tall is that he's a competitor. As he physically matures, gains more experience and in turn becomes more confident he'll be that steady last line defender you can rely on. There's no elite trait, but he'll be dependable and do most things required by a defender really well.
  23. 'Old Melbourne' would draft this guy. That's because we had a rubbish list and would take anyone who smiled nicely at us. We've moved past guys like this. We'll play a high brand of pressure again next year and with talls in Hogan/McDonald and excellent marking mid-talls in Petracca, Hannan, Balic and vandenBerg we don't need this guy. Harmes marks pretty well too. Two talls and high pressure smalls and mid-talls is the go. Let North take him.
×
×
  • Create New...