Marshmallow Marshalls Moralising Muscle


#181

That article might have been written last year when the tend WAS going down. They still explain why CO2 is more of a concern than methane and it has nothing to do with the trend graph.


#182

ok
Lots of interesting discussion in the threads.
I just want to know when Ruthergenn in Victoria will start to warm up as for 80 years there hasnt been a change.
You would be hard pressed to find any thermometer in the world that has worked that long.
Graphs are good but where did the data come from?


#183

Nevertheless, the warmists predicted certain signatures of a human induced warming. One would be the so-called “hot spot” meant to appear in the atmosphere but which has remained undetected by balloons designed for the purpose. There’s no hot spot but the warmists just change the subject.

In a quick search I find that there IS evidence for the hot spot. See this article from 2015:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/may/15/new-study-finds-a-hot-spot-in-the-atmosphere

Your move.


#184

You’re likely to find a few specific locations where there has been no change. What drives climate change is the global average temperature, not any one specific location.


#185

And global warming can also mean colder or wetter winters in some places.
A snow storm in USNE in April doesn’t mean that the earth is cooling.
It is caused by changes in the jet streams due to global warming in general.


#186

If you want to get to the North Pole by crushing through heavy ice on board the world’s most powerful icebreaker you better hurry up before the ice melts:
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/travel/2018/04/five-nuclear-powered-voyages-north-pole


#187

Strange Capt Phoenix’s seaman’s eyes couldn’t find my claim, but you can sophocles.

Well I did a one minute search and here’s the answer to that particular rubbish paper which was written by a well known warmist on the payroll of the taxpayers as all warmists are.

Simply put, he’s “reinterpreted” the data by homogenising. So instead of using thermometers, he guesses at the temperatures with scientific gobbledegook and an unverified computer model … again.

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/desperation-who-needs-thermometers-sherwood-finds-missing-hot-spot-with-homogenized-wind-data/


#188

Rutherglen has been a particular example of bad practice with respect to the warmists getting hold of perfectly valid and reliable data and torturing it by homogenisation to produce the result they want ie warming. Our authorities in Australia continue to stonewall.

Here’s a paper by Dr Jennifer Marohasey who has been a thorn in their side and won’t give up about Rutherglen.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Notes-EnvironCommittee-October2015-V4.pdf


#189

Another study some at the University of Washington that proves the hot spot exists:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm


#190

More like the article you posted is rubbish and written by a well known climate change denier. If she could prove his study was faulty it would be retracted, since she can’t she results to writing BS articles to give science deniers like you something to glom onto.


#191

So you’re saying that USNE has no historic record of snow storms prior to global warming theory? I’d love to know how global warming causes changes to the jet streams.

I call bull.


#192

I’ll go back to it… what’s your point? This isn’t a conversation. You started this thread and demanded people change your mind. Yet, when presented with any kind of studies, theories, facts, or anything else, you completely dismiss them. You’re obviously not looking for conversation, you’re just looking to let us know that you are really, really, really smart. And now we know. You win!


#193

there is nothing to prove, the temp records are there for everyone to see, its clearly a straight line, the gov just drew a line through the data on an angle, it was laughable then the gov tried to shred the original data.


#194

No. I said this.

Yes, with proper scientific studies. I’m not the scientist. I’m quoting other people and I say I accept their science rather than the bogus science of the warmists eg the famed and totally debunked meme that 97% of climate scientists believe in human caused global warming.

Yes. I am. From people who can converse, not just hurl insults and call them arguments. It is you who should be questioning your belief. I question my beliefs all day every day. In the meantime I try to be right.

Here’s a quote from a man you can google.
“The growth of knowledge depends entirely upon disagreement.”

Karl Popper

Nobody ever wins. Science grows bit by bit, not a winner takes all victory.


#195

Again, I’ve taken no position. You just seem inclined to want to argue at all costs. You haven’t had any conversing at all.
Nobody needs to prove anything to you, since you are the one that started the thread, unsolicited.


#196

You don’t have to take a position. You don’t have to comment.

I simply stated a case I believe. I think I’ve tried to defend my case with evidence. Some people here are having a go at me and my views. Not you in particular. Should I simply roll over and have my tummy tickled?

And exactly how much does and argument cost? Again, refer to the quote from Karl Popper. History is full of examples of people questioning those in authority and accepted wisdom. Some paid for it with their lives and freedom. All were thought to be stupid at first, but later proved right. If you simply accept what you read as the truth you fall into the same trap.

Nobody has to prove anything to me. But if their argument against my point of view is to say I’m “full of shit”, I’d say that reflects poorly on whoever wrote it and it hardly constitutes an argument.

Finally, do I have to be solicited? Can’t I state an opinion? Who cares what I think? Don’t care, don’t comment.

Is this a site just for the insiders? I know I’m a “deplorable” (a badge I wear with pride) but I joined the site years ago to read the daily maritime news. I’m now commenting on maritime matters from my experience as a mariner of over 50 years experience. I can learn from others as they can learn from me.


#197

Written by a former Naval Officer, not employed by the taxpayers I presume??


#198

No that is NOT what I said, but snow storms in April was rearer before.

I will oblige of course:
https://www.pnnl.gov/science/highlights/highlight.asp?id=4353
Not like there is any hope that you will read, understand and/or agree to anything that doesn’t fit your preconceived opinion, so it is fairly futile effort I’m afraid.

I call two bulls on your judgement of reality though.


#199

Not any more. I suppose the difference is that the government has a monopoly on navies. You can’t start up your private one and do a bit of piracy to keep the funds flowing in. Privateers were in fashion some time ago, but not now. Defence of the nation is one of the very few totally legitimate things the state should control and fund.

But the climate alarmists can’t produce alarmist science without taxes supporting them. Private companies should do the science funded by their output of useful predictions. Ha ha. Governments are stupidly funding them, but I’m looking to Trump and Pruitt to rein that in. Watch them squeal. I hope Australia follows suit.


#200

OK. I’ve read far enough to call bull on that study.

Here’s why. From the study which admits it has tried to find out what “climate change” does to the jet stream ie it sets out to try to prove a pre-conceived result rather than setting out to find out what possible effect it might have, we have this method.

“Methods: In these experiments, the research team conducted large ensembles of simulations with two state-of-the-art atmospheric general circulation models by abruptly switching the sea-surface temperature warming on from January 1st to focus on the wintertime circulation adjustment.”

As I’ve shown already on this topic, there are no validated climate models which are otherwise known as general circulation models. There’s lots of them but they don’t work. They consistently have predicted higher temperatures that have been actually measured and the gap between their predictions and the observations have widened to the extent that cannot be explained by their advocates.

If you can find me a fully validated GCM/climate model I’ll shut up.

These things simply can’t be trusted to predict changes to the climate. Even climate scientists don’t trust them. But supposedly by feeding artificial and concocted data into one end of these models (“by abruptly switching the sea-surface temperature warming on”) we can trust the junk exiting the other end. It might be an intellectual exercise but it doesn’t produce reliable repeatable results.

You will have learnt a simple computer saying - GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out. So you can believe this stuff but I don’t for the reasons stated.