+ Reply to Thread
Page 38 of 62 FirstFirst ... 28363738394048 ... LastLast
Results 371 to 380 of 613
  1. #371
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    Wonderful post Kirst! I saw a tv show on ABC2 the other day about an atheist trying to show a group of creationists science and how the earth was created. This reminds me of that, except most of us are the atheists;-)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirst33 View Post
    It's you're opinion that only temperatures matter but MANY scientists are telling you that it ALL matters. You can cherry pick out of the reports all you want but you always seem to ignore the conclusion that the scientists are drawing from they're vast array of research and knowledge. Warming is happening and it is a problem that we should be worried about. Picking a paragraph out of their report does not change their conclusion.

    I'm not looking to change your mind, you obviously feel the environment is not a worthy cause and I've given up on trying to make you see common sense. My frustration lies with that you are trying to convince others that it is not a cause, which to me is dangerous because every person matters in trying to help save the environment from problems we cause. I don't understand the reasoning behind trying to deter people from a worthy cause? If you don't believe it, fine, frustrating but fine. But why does it worry you so much that others believe it to be true when their actions can only lead to good for the Earth? If your problem is the carbon tax, argue the problems in the tax.

    You've continually been condescending throughout this thread so I don't think one could blame me for assuming your response (which you still did, you cherry/picked through the report and stated you think only temperature matters and your constant false assumption that warming stopped 16 years ago). You are not a scientist or have researched the environment. Reading things online does not make you an expert. It doesn't make me an expert either, which is why I trust the conclusions scientists around the world are drawing. Your comment that 'we can just adapt' or 'why would environmentalists have a problem with nuclear energy' show that you are far from an expert in climate science. I have no doubt that humans can adapt to global warming, but I, unlike you, care about every other species ability to adapt. We are ruining the Earth and I see no problem with trying mend problems we have caused, whether the predictions are right or wrong we need to start showing some respect to the environment.

    This article explains how climate models work and how scientists determined global warming is man made, also how their predictions are normally right: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobile...usaolp00000003

    This is an article about China's air quality, don't know about you but I'm happy to live in a country that wants to combat climate change: http://t.co/9oD8y2jBVX

    And finally, how a climate change denier turned into a believer: http://www.wunderground.com/earth-da...climate-change

    It's Earth Day in the states so loads to read!

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to beebs For This Useful Post:

    Kirst33  (23-04-2013)

  3. #372
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirst33 View Post
    It's you're opinion that only temperatures matter but MANY scientists are telling you that it ALL matters. You can cherry pick out of the reports all you want but you always seem to ignore the conclusion that the scientists are drawing from they're vast array of research and knowledge. Warming is happening and it is a problem that we should be worried about. Picking a paragraph out of their report does not change their conclusion.
    Did you miss the bit where I said the study looked good? I am not ignoring their conclusion, nor cherry picking paragraphs. The study approaches temperature records on a regional basis, rather than global. The main point I had is that I don't find that proxies are the best way to measure temperature. A thermometer is. But that is my opinion.

    Where in the study did it say the 'we should be worried about it'? Did you put those words in? Saying that it has been warming is not the same as saying we need to worry about it. I have said all along, we have been warming since the 1700's.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirst33 View Post
    I'm not looking to change your mind, you obviously feel the environment is not a worthy cause and I've given up on trying to make you see common sense.
    Despite your assumptions, I do care for the environment. It seems however, that your 'common sense' is different to mine. Economic policies based on flawed climate models that harm economies will not help the environment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirst33 View Post
    My frustration lies with that you are trying to convince others that it is not a cause, which to me is dangerous because every person matters in trying to help save the environment from problems we cause. I don't understand the reasoning behind trying to deter people from a worthy cause? If you don't believe it, fine, frustrating but fine. But why does it worry you so much that others believe it to be true when their actions can only lead to good for the Earth? If your problem is the carbon tax, argue the problems in the tax.
    Helping the environment is a worthy cause. I have never said anything to the contrary. Nor am I trying to deter people from caring for the environment. I am not sure where you got that idea from. The 'carbon' tax is one of my problems. In general, it is government funding to a wide range of 'climate' policies. I would much rather see this money going to environmental policies - but because there is so much of it, most of it could go to hospitals and education... or in the pocket to reduce the deficit. Throwing the money at subsidies and immature technologies, and a tax that loses money, is not helping the environment. It just damages the economy. And, possibly having a negative effect by driving the emissions overseas where there is less regulation and efficiencies are lower.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirst33 View Post
    You've continually been condescending throughout this thread so I don't think one could blame me for assuming your response (which you still did, you cherry/picked through the report and stated you think only temperature matters and your constant false assumption that warming stopped 16 years ago).
    Fake? So which dataset are you using that shows that there has been warming for the last 16 years? This is not a disputed fact, even the head of the IPCC has agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirst33 View Post
    Your comment that 'we can just adapt' or 'why would environmentalists have a problem with nuclear energy' show that you are far from an expert in climate science.
    So experts in climate science all have a problem with nuclear energy??? I'm not sure what you mean by this sentence.

    I'll ask again. Which dataset shows that we have warmed for the last 16 years? Do any of the models show this pause in warming?

  4. #373
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,272
    Thanks
    946
    Thanked
    1,022
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Father, I've listed plenty through this thread to discuss the 16 years. I'm not going to go over it again. I'm confident that people will read through this, see the articles and pages I listed and understand the point of my side of this debate and what scientists are trying to tell us. Understand the conclusions they are drawing (remember my NASA page?). Understand how the world is warming and how skeptics see it (the escalator, the articles I posted yesterday). Through this whole thread you have consistently cherry picked and ignored the conclusions. Again it is YOUR opinion that only temps matter. I'll believe the educated, experienced scientists when they say it ALL matters.

    This is the first time you have shown any concern for the environment or listed what you think should be done (re carbon tax).

    Calling a thread 'the great green con' and constantly cherry picking graphs and paragraphs (throughout this thread) to prove your point, saying statements like 'we can just adapt' (I'm sorry, I have never read anything that has said that other than from you) really insinuates that you think the environment is not a cause we should bother with and you are trying to convince people of that. I'm fairly certain I am not the only one who has read it this way, just read through the thread and everyone who has chosen to comment or 'thanked' my comments. I received more than one PM yesterday thanking me for my message. This all insinuates that I am not the only one who believes you could give a rat's a** about the environment and doing what you can to help it, that you are trying to convince people otherwise.

    You asked why environmentalists had a problem with nuclear power. I think it's pretty obvious why. I do understand that some scientists are for it, but you asked about environmentalists. If I misrepresented my comment above I apologize.

    I have said before that I thought your problem was with the tax, you never responded to that, you just continued your argument against global warming (comments a couple weeks ago).

    If I come across valid articles I will continue to post them but I am moving on from this discussion with you as my husband and I have an emotional few days ahead of us.
    Last edited by Kirst33; 24-04-2013 at 08:11.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Kirst33 For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (24-04-2013)

  6. #374
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,272
    Thanks
    946
    Thanked
    1,022
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    For others that read this thread, I just remembered these bits from the article I posted yesterday about a climate denier becoming a believer: http://www.wunderground.com/earth-da...climate-change

    'The climate system, though—the atmosphere, land, ocean and sun—is not a religion or conservative or liberal and does not read emails about hiding the decline or whatever and care about spin about global warming having stopped in 1998 or whenever or about human legislation. It obeys the laws of physics, thermodynamics and chemistry...

    The Earth is not a test tube with which a parallel experiment can be conducted. The difference between what the planet's climate and weather would be without versus with anthropogenically increased greenhouse gases cannot be "proven." And yes, models can be wrong. But that includes seriously under-predicting the rapidity with which the amount of arctic sea ice is declining, and what's happening in places such as the Arctic Ocean and Greenland further convinces me that something ain't right, something that is not business-as-usual and cannot be explained exclusively by natural variability which has always existed, something that is already having profound effects.

    The preponderance of multiple lines of evidence is convincing (and dare I say alarming—does that make me an alarmist?), and whether the human body or climate/weather, whether a sharp pain or disappearing summer arctic sea ice or unusually high 200-500 millibar heights, there can be detectable warning signs of a condition with grave consequences.

    Oughtn't we to take those signs on our Earth seriously?'
    Last edited by Kirst33; 24-04-2013 at 08:12.

  7. #375
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirst33 View Post
    Through this whole thread you have consistently cherry picked and ignored the conclusions. Again it is YOUR opinion that only temps matter. I'll believe the educated, experienced scientists when they say it ALL matters.

    Calling a thread 'the great green con' and constantly cherry picking graphs and paragraphs (throughout this thread) to prove your point,
    If you are talking about warming - then yes, it is only temperature that matter. Tree rings and pollen are not as accurate as a thermometer.

    You cannot cherry pick the facts Kirst. Facts are facts. We have not warmed for 16 years. This is not cherry picked. It is fact. I have acknowledged on several occasions that we have been warming since the 1700's. So there HAS been warming. It just so happens that the warming has stopped, or paused, for the last 16 years. None of the climate models show this pause. The warming rate is well below the rate at which the models indicate.

    If I am in fact 'cherry picking', then you would be able to find a temperature graph that showed warming over the last 16 years, and would be able to find a climate model that shows the 'pause' and the reduced rate of warming.

    I'm sorry that you are leaving the thread. Maybe some other can help you in finding the temperature dataset and climate models that I must be 'ignoring' through my alleged 'cherry picking'.

  8. #376
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,272
    Thanks
    946
    Thanked
    1,022
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Has it warmed since 1998?
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...ed-in-1998.htm

    'There's also a tendency for some people just to concentrate on air temperatures when there are other, more useful, indicators that can perhaps give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. Oceans for instance -- due to their immense size and heat storing capability (called 'thermal mass') -- tend to give a much more 'steady' indication of the warming that is happening. Here records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there's no signs of it slowing any time soon.'

    And THE ESCALATOR again:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

    'One of the most common misunderstandings amongst climate change "skeptics" is the difference between short-term noise and long-term signal. This animation shows how the same temperature data (green) that is used to determine the long-term global surface air warming trend of 0.16°C per decade (red) can be used inappropriately to "cherrypick" short time periods that show a cooling trend simply because the endpoints are carefully chosen and the trend is dominated by short-term noise in the data (blue steps). Isn't it strange how five periods of cooling can add up to a clear warming trend over the last 4 decades? Several factors can have a large impact on short-term temperatures, such as oceanic cycles like the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) or the 11-year solar cycle. These short-term cycles don't have long-term effects on the Earth's temperature, unlike the continuing upward trend caused by global warming from human greenhouse gas emissions.

    The data (green) are the average of the NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomaly datasets from January 1970 through November 2012, with linear trends for the short time periods Jan 1970 to Oct 1977, Apr 1977 to Dec 1986, Sep 1987 to Nov 1996, Jun 1997 to Dec 2002, and Nov 2002 to Nov 2012 (blue), and also showing the far more reliable linear trend for the full time period (red).'

  9. #377
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,272
    Thanks
    946
    Thanked
    1,022
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    NASA (one if the four agencies that measures temps) 'The Ups and Downs of Global warming'
    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...alWarming.html

    '...show that naturally occurring periods of no warming or even slight cooling can easily be part of a longer-term pattern of global warming.'

    '... "it is possible, and indeed likely, to have a period as long as a decade or two of 'cooling' or no warming superimposed on a longer-term warming trend."

    2012 sustained long-term warming trend: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...012-temps.html

    http://m.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/I...w.php?id=80167

    “One more year of numbers isn’t in itself significant,” GISS climatologist Gavin Schmidt said. “What matters is this decade is warmer than the last decade, and that decade was warmer than the decade before. The planet is warming. The reason it’s warming is because we are pumping increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”

    “The climate dice are now loaded. Some seasons still will be cooler than the long-term average, but the perceptive person should notice that the frequency of unusually warm extremes is increasing. It is the extremes that have the most impact on people and other life on the planet.”

  10. #378
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,272
    Thanks
    946
    Thanked
    1,022
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    I'm sorry that you are leaving the thread. Maybe some other can help you in finding the temperature dataset and climate models that I must be 'ignoring' through my alleged 'cherry picking'.
    I said I will still post relevant links for those reading this thread but no desire to continue debating you as I have difficult days ahead.

  11. #379
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,272
    Thanks
    946
    Thanked
    1,022
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Also from NASA's UPs and Downs article:

    'Another important example is El Niño, which is an abnormal warming of surface ocean waters in the eastern tropical Pacific that happens every three to eight years and can affect global temperatures for a year or two. Between 1997 and 1998, there was an unusually strong El Niño, and this caused 1998 to be one of the hottest years on record (Figure 1). When Easterling and Wehner dropped the 1998 temperature spike from the data altogether, and zoomed in on the readings from 1999 to 2008, they saw a strong warming trend over this period. But when the 1998 measurement is included in the data, it looks as if there is no overall warming between 1998 and 2008 at all.'

  12. #380
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirst33 View Post
    I said I will still post relevant links for those reading this thread but no desire to continue debating you as I have difficult days ahead.
    I hope you don't expect me to not respond to your posts.

    In regard to the suggestion from your above links that the lack of warming is because the heat has gone into the oceans - the data again, does not really support that. That theory may have been valid 10 years ago, but there has been no real increase in ocean heat content since 2003 - which coincided nicely with when the Argo buoys started taking measurements.

    From the National Oceanographic Data Center.

    nodc_web_page.jpg

    Where has the warming gone since 2003? Even deeper oceans?

    Again, this is well below what the models predict.

    fourfatalpiecesargobouys.jpg

    I notice that you haven't found a model that has shown the pause in the warming. Or at least a model that has an expected rate of warming anywhere near the actual rate.


 

Similar Threads

  1. Vanuatu - Great or not so great?
    By Clarabelle in forum Destination Suggestions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 29-10-2012, 10:56
  2. Green poop
    By Alphabetsoup in forum General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 24-05-2012, 20:02

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Shapland Swim Schools
Shapland's at participating schools offer free baby orientation classes once a month - no cost no catches. Your baby will be introduced to our "natural effects" orientation program develop by Shapland's over 3 generations, its gentle and enjoyable.
sales & new stuffsee all
Bub Hub Sales Listing
HAVING A SALE? Let parents know about it with a Bub Hub Sales listing. Listings are featured on our well trafficked Sales Page + selected randomly to appear on EVERY page
featured supporter
GymbaROO
GymbaROO offers activities for babies & toddlers in a fun learning centre, focussing on developmental education. Classes are available Australia-wide. Enrol today & help your child to reach their full potential. Visit the website to find out more.
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!