+ Reply to Thread
Page 39 of 62 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 613
  1. #381
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,272
    Thanks
    946
    Thanked
    1,022
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    OMG! Yes, I just OMGed, not something I'm proud. It's like constantly being hit over the head with a baseball bat.

    For those reading, THE FACTS are that places like NASA (one of the four agencies that measures global temps) are telling you that it has warmed the past 15 years, that there are certain weather conditions (like El Niño) that change the temps but that the trend is that it has warmed and is continuing to warm.

    THE FACTS are that they measure more than surface temps to determine what is happening to the Earth (father only cares about the surface temps but the scientists are telling you that it ALL matters).

    I'm going to quote my posts from yesterday as there is some great reading as to how it all works and also include more (which include links to those data sets that father is obsessed with). But, The ESCALATOR I've provided many times explains the warming trend and uses all four (it may be three?) data sets.

    I don't just care about the graphs though, I care about the conclusions that places like NASA are drawing from their VAST experience and research and the conclusions they are drawing are that it has warmed the past 15/16 years, it continues to warm, the weather extremes are dangerous to the environment and the warming trend is detrimental to the Earth's environment. Those are THE FACTS. They also care more about just the 15/16 years and it continues to baffle me as to why Father is so hung up on this one time period when the scientists are telling him not only do they look at so much more but it is warming!

    There are plenty of graphs included in all the links if those are the sorts of things that tickle you. (I already know which graph Father will copy and past for you but please keep in mind the conclusions these scientists are drawing and that they care about so much more than just surface temps, yet they still conclude there is a warming trend in surface temps).

    http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/a...d-in-1998.html

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergle...-climate-data/

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirst33 View Post
    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.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirst33 View Post
    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.'

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

    wrena  (25-04-2013)

  3. #382
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,272
    Thanks
    946
    Thanked
    1,022
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Just going to quote this part again from the second paragraph below:

    '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...'


    Quote Originally Posted by Kirst33 View Post
    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?'

  4. #383
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    17,710
    Thanks
    1,392
    Thanked
    7,295
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts

  5. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to BigRedV For This Useful Post:

    Anjalee  (27-04-2013),beebs  (26-04-2013),DJ Nette  (26-04-2013),Kirst33  (25-04-2013),wrena  (25-04-2013)

  6. #384
    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 don't just care about the graphs though, I care about the conclusions that places like NASA are drawing from their VAST experience and research and the conclusions they are drawing are that it has warmed the past 15/16 years, it continues to warm, the weather extremes are dangerous to the environment and the warming trend is detrimental to the Earth's environment. Those are THE FACTS.
    If they are scientific facts then the evidence should be able to be easily shown, ie. graphs. Words are easily made up, but numbers don't lie. Where has this warming gone? Argo has not detected it in the oceans.

    We have always had weather extremes. Are you saying that they have increased or something?

    Is a cooling trend detrimental to the Earth's environment?

  7. #385
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Sorry to post again. But this article by Professor Deming from the University of Oklahoma pretty much sums up how the global warming theory has become an ideology.

    The last couple of paragraphs:
    Confronted by an endless avalanche of such nonsensical drivel, it seems almost foolhardy to argue facts. There has been no increase in mean global temperature for 15 years. Drought is not increasing, nor are wildfires. Tornadoes are not increasing in frequency or intensity. Routine hurricanes such as Sandy and Katrina have been offered as evidence of climate change, but worldwide hurricane activity is near a 40-year low. Over the past 20 years, sea level has risen by about 5 centimeters an ominous trend unless you’re aware that since the end of the last Ice Age, global sea level has risen 120 meters.
    At the end of March, the areal extent of sea ice in the Arctic was 3 percent below the 30-year average. Sea ice in the Antarctic, however, was elevated 24 percent. Global sea ice was above the 30-year mean and higher than it was in March 1980. Only the naive can be so logical as to reason that “global” warming, or lack thereof, should be evaluated in terms of “global” conditions rather than local. A study published in Nature Geoscience on March 31 concluded that the increase of Antarctic sea ice is caused by you guessed it global warming.
    With each passing year, it is becoming increasingly clear that global warming is not a scientific theory subject to empirical falsification, but a political ideology that has to be fiercely defended against any challenge. It is ironic that skeptics are called “deniers” when every fact that would tend to falsify global warming is immediately explained away by an industry of denial.

    Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2RTUGdjkw

    Or is this Professor not an 'expert'?

  8. #386
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,188
    Thanks
    483
    Thanked
    1,050
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    If they are scientific facts then the evidence should be able to be easily shown, ie. graphs. Words are easily made up, but numbers don't lie. Where has this warming gone? Argo has not detected it in the oceans.

    We have always had weather extremes. Are you saying that they have increased or something?

    Is a cooling trend detrimental to the Earth's environment?
    Numbers don't lie! Please tell me you are joking. This goes back to my original question ages ago, what qualifications do you have to make comment on this data.

    I can make a 'graph' say pretty much anything. It is very easy to pick and choose data before you graph it. What is the quality of the data being used, what data has been excluded (and should have been included) and what data has been included (that should have been excluded). I have spent a lot of time in field data collection and can assure you that not all data is created equal. Data loggers fail, collectors mis read information, recordings are not always accurate etc etc.

    Then there is the question of statistics. What is the statistical significance of the '16 years' you keep quoting. Sure you graph shows it isn't warming, but is this statistically significant? What confidence interval is being used?

    The fact that you are happy to believe a graph, without understanding what values were used, their statistical significance or the written conclusion make me (from a scientific point of view) really annoyed.

    Father, I also note some of your other comments about subsidising renewables etc. Do you have the same issue with the ongoing subsidy of the car manufacturing industry in Australia? Without the ongoing propping up provided by various governments there would practically be no car industry in Australia, is this ok? Or are you only against subsidies that don't suit your 'ideals'. Many industries are given 'hand outs' in the form of incentives, subsidies, tax breaks, low cost loans etc in Australia, some are to help emerging industries, some help industries experience a specific negative event (flood, drought) or others just to help an industry the public want to see continue even though they might not be financial. The carbon tax is just another one of the ways the government has chosen to assist some industries.

    Kirst - I admire your perseverance, but you would probably have as much success banging your head against a brick wall.

  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DJ Nette For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (25-04-2013),Busy-Bee  (26-04-2013),Kirst33  (26-04-2013)

  10. #387
    Mod-pegasus's Avatar
    Mod-pegasus is offline ADMINISTRATOR
    and all that the Lorax left here in this mess was a small pile of rocks with the one word...UNLESS
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,644
    Thanks
    1,733
    Thanked
    1,735
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    DJ Nette - you bring up a bit of a conundrum regarding the subsidising of industries. We've lost so many industries to overseas. Where they can produce the goods so much cheaper. The car manufacturing one is a major example. We've lost Ford and Holden production to overseas (not sure if we have any car manufacturing in Australia anymore). Anyone know? When the government subsidises them, we're able to sustain the industry as the costs can be kept down, but then the emissions are in Australia, whereas to help the statistics regarding carbon emissions, it would appear better not to have production in Australia.

    I was reading an interesting piece on "The economic vandalism of carbon trading" today. Admittedly people will say it's from a biased source (Paul Murray as an opinion piece), but he raises some very valid thoughts (IMO).

    Here's the link for those interested.

    I can post some quotes later - but basically it talks about the failures of the carbon tax to do what it is said to do

    I know Paul Murray is opposed to the carbon tax, and that's what people will say makes the piece biased, but the reason he's opposed to the carbon tax is what makes him biased against it. Same as I am against it. I don't believe it does what it's supposed to do.

    The deals which Gillard made with the big mining companies is a big reason for this and I guess that's where it links in with the subsidies issue you raised.

  11. #388
    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 DJ Nette View Post
    I can make a 'graph' say pretty much anything. It is very easy to pick and choose data before you graph it. What is the quality of the data being used, what data has been excluded (and should have been included) and what data has been included (that should have been excluded). I have spent a lot of time in field data collection and can assure you that not all data is created equal. Data loggers fail, collectors mis read information, recordings are not always accurate etc etc.
    Yes. You are correct. Maybe I could have been less general in my statement. The thermometers (whether they are in the ocean, on the surface, on in the upper atmosphere) don't lie.

    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Nette View Post
    Then there is the question of statistics. What is the statistical significance of the '16 years' you keep quoting. Sure you graph shows it isn't warming, but is this statistically significant? What confidence interval is being used?
    Depends on which dataset is used.
    For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
    For RSS: +0.127 +/-0.134 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
    For UAH the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
    For UAH: 0.146 +/- 0.170 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
    For Hadcrut3 the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
    For Hadcrut3: 0.095 +/- 0.115 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
    For Hadcrut4 the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
    For Hadcrut4: 0.095 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
    For GISS the warming is not significant for over 17 years.
    For GISS: 0.111 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/0...-january-data/

    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Nette View Post
    The fact that you are happy to believe a graph, without understanding what values were used, their statistical significance or the written conclusion make me (from a scientific point of view) really annoyed.
    What don't I understand?

    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Nette View Post
    Father, I also note some of your other comments about subsidising renewables etc. Do you have the same issue with the ongoing subsidy of the car manufacturing industry in Australia?
    No. We should not be continually propping up the car industry either.
    Last edited by Father; 26-04-2013 at 08:15. Reason: Fixed quote boxes

  12. #389
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,272
    Thanks
    946
    Thanked
    1,022
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Nette View Post
    Kirst - I admire your perseverance, but you would probably have as much success banging your head against a brick wall.

    Trust me I'm beginning to give up, mostly because I have bigger issues going on in my life right now and I feel the point has been made. This has provided a welcome distraction on days when I need to be though, which is probably why I'm so willing to engage.

    It's funny how Father insists numbers don't lie but ignores any graphs that show him it has continued to warm. (The Escalator which uses data from all four agencies, NASA who is one of those agencies, and other articles I've posted). It's amazing how he can ignore what the same agencies are telling him, that it has continued to warm, that it is warming, that we are having extremes never seen before and they are detrimental to the environment. I am not talking about extremes that happen during natural weather cycles like El Niño.

    I agree the carbon tax isn't perfect and may not be the right way, I believe it was Pegasus who made some good points a couple days ago. I would love to see a global consensus on a carbon tax so that manufacturing and emissions can't just be moved overseas to avoid rates.

    The funny thing is is that this debate and reading things I wouldn't have read before has just instilled in me more the knowledge that global warming is happening at a detrimental rate and that we need to do whatever possible to slow it down.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Kirst33 For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (26-04-2013),Clementine Grace  (26-04-2013)

  14. #390
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirst33 View Post
    It's amazing how he can ignore what the same agencies are telling him, that it has continued to warm, that it is warming, that we are having extremes never seen before and they are detrimental to the environment.
    But Kirst, It is 16 years for goodness sake, 16 Years!!! How much more evidence does anyone need?

    I'm going super cra cra tonight and leaving all my lights on. 16 years can't be wrong.

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

    Clementine Grace  (26-04-2013)


 

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
Boody Organic Bamboo Baby Wear
Softer than your bub's bum Boody Organic Bamboo Baby Wear
Australia's favourite eco brand has delivered a gorgeous baby collection. Made from organic bamboo, Boody's extraordinarily soft and stretchy, skin-friendly tops, bottoms, onesies, bibs and wraps don't 'cost the earth'. Get 20% OFF! Code BUBHUB16.
sales & new stuffsee all
True Fairies
True Fairies is the first interactive website where children can engage and speak with a real fairy through the unique webcam fairy portal. Each session is tailored to the child, and is filled with enchantment and magic.
Visit website to find out more!
featured supporter
HuggleBib
The HuggleBib is not "just another" baby bib. Sure, your child may be a messy eater who gets more food ON them rather than IN them, so you dread cleaning after feeding times! Well the HuggleBib is THE best solution to help with all these daily tasks!
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!