Global Warming |
Post Reply | Page <12345 6> |
Author | ||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
...but despite this, they still claim the world faces certain doom unless we cut back the use of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas... Less than 100% accurate computer models [100% is impossible anyway] are obviously nothing to do with considering the ultimate warming scenario, some time in the future, possible if CO2 continues to rise unchecked. Inaccurate computer models are about accuracy of projections, not ultimate scenarios. It is not irrelevant. 2 years out of 10 (or 1/5 of the decade) has had record low temperatures across the globe. Garghhhhhh! How many times do you want to hear this Vulcan? You must be winding me up. You are not thick... are you? you tell me?
There wasn’t two years that had record lows across the globe they were record HIGHS. The low temperatures were only in the northern hemisphere. 2010 was the joint hottest on record globally and 2009 was the second hottest globally. Why are you not listening and reading the links? You go on about measuring over decades, but if we count the last 150 years, that gives us only 15 data points! It gives us 150 years. And global warming is measured over decades, not days, not weeks not even 10 years. 150 years gives us average global temperature over the long term. That trend, is observable despite short term variability as a result of natural temperature fluctuations. I think you’ll find that 150 years, is far more accurate than your previous statements like... “It’s cold this winter so global warming isn’t happening!” I'm not going to respond to the rest (yes, I did read it) - it's a waste of time whilst you keep contradicting yourself that measuring over decades is what it is about, then saying 1/5 of a decade is insignificant. It represents 1/75 of the entire data set (or 1.333%)! That’s the most bonkers thing you have even said on this subject. Your issue is you haven’t got a clue, but you think you are a climatologist. But despite your arrogance, you can’t grasp the simplest notion. measuring over decades is what it is about It is, many decades. Greater than 20 years is climate. In terms of MMGW they look at 30 years plus. then saying 1/5 of a decade is insignificant. I'm pretty sure you must be winding me up. If not, it's very worrying indeed.
Sorry to say this, but you're making yourself look daft. It's not worth it just to avoid backing down.
|
||||||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
More money problems......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11961378
In case no-one noticed, we are in the financial crap, and can't afford it!!!!!! If they want the products, they'll have to produce something and sell it to make money.
I guess there isn't really a financial crisis then, if we can afford to give away £63 Billion PER YEAR.
They are objecting because they want a slice of the pie, but we are using our power to prevent them, in order to protect global reserves for us. So much for all this being about CO2, huh.... I didn't realize that if we gave money away, the CO2 problem vanished. Very interesting physics. But of course, it isn't about the CO2 is it?
You can have record lows and highs in the same year whilst at the same time have a rising average. I suggest you re-read what an average is. Google Peru and their national state of emergency due to the record low temperatures for the winter of 2009/2010. Google also for Halifax, New York, Siberia, Russia, Australia and of course, the UK. California, this year (Sept. 2010), had record low temperatures: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/09/record-low-temperatures-in-southern-california.html Record lows in Australia (Nov. 2010): http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/record-low-temperatures-across-eastern-australia/15318 I'll leave you to do the rest. Remember that Oz is having their summer right now - should be seeing record highs if MMGW is anything like they claim it to be. These record highs they keep reporting - are they averages of the daily highs only, or are they the average of daily high/low temps? What is the situation if only the daily lows are counted? Is it still warming, or are the lows getting lower? Strange they never talk about this - the effect of CO2 should be most pronounced in these figures as, remember, CO2 is PREVENTING THE HEAT FROM ESCAPING (or so they keep telling us, anyway). Best regards, Vulcan. |
||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
Oh dear... you know what, I need the patience of a saint. Apologies in advance if the following seems a bit assertive, but it's understandable when faced with such bizare replies.
You can have record lows and highs in the same year whilst at the same time have a rising average. I suggest you re-read what an average is.
Of course you can. What are you suggesting, that climatologists ignore long term average temperatures and just go by the fact it was cold in the UK for two years? You must be joking. Not a single person on this forum, would regard the abandoning of average temperature assessments, long term, and globally as logical. Your statement is utter nonsense. Goggle Peru and their national state of emergency due to the record low temperatures for the winter of 2009/2010. Goggle also for Halifax, New York, Siberia, Russia, Australia and of course, the UK.
And you're still not listening, I've lost count, but the following point must have been made about 5 times now. 2009/2010 is SHORT TERM, TWO YEARS. And global temperatures were record highs. Google the above by all means, but then Goggle the plethora of countries that experienced record high temperatures in those years. Cold in certain countries means nothing. Cold in your road means nothing, cold in the UK means nothing, cold in Europe means nothing, cold in some countries in the southern hemisphere means nothing... Average temperatures WORLD WIDE, LONG TERM is significant. You can't grasp it, or don't want to, or happen to be winding me up. Which is it? This stuff is unbelievably easy! Two years are NOTHING TO DO WITH GLOBAL WARMING. Short term temperatures don't dispute or confirm MMGW. California, this year (Sept. 2010), had record low temperatures:
So what? You still aren't listening. That's short term variability. When they had record high temperatures you didn't say it was proof of global warming did you????? I'll leave you to do the rest. Remember that Oz is having their summer right now - should be seeing record highs if MMGW is anything like they claim it to be.
And again you ignore the obvious, ignore everything I tell you. Are you reading any of my posts, or winding me up? I'll add up the number of times you've ignored me and made the same obvious error, at the end of the post. Of course Australia shouldn't necessarily be having record high temperatures if global warming is fact. They are subject to short term variability like all of us. LONG TERM, GLOBAL temperature rise is significant, not Australia's natural variability.
What do I have to do to drum this simple concept into your head? Please tell me, because I'm baffled by you're inability to grasp such a simple concept???
What is the situation if only the daily lows are counted? Is it still warming, or are the lows getting lower? Strange they never talk about this
Average, Average daily temperature, average yearly temperature ETC. Now ignore everything I say, ignore the obvious, ignore common sense ... again! |
||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
Okay, I’ve added it up. You made the same mistakes... NINE TIMES in this thread alone.
Totally ignoring that MMGW is determined long term, globally, and in terms of average temperatures.
You also ignored the fact that the last two years have seen record high temperatures globally and cliamed they were low tempretures globally... THREE TIMES.
The basic concepts we are discussing, that you can't grasp, are absolutely easy to fathom. Therefore, I have to conclude that you are deliberately trying to wind me up.
|
||||||
GEOFFERS
Chief Pilot Joined: 08 Jun 2010 Location: EGBG Points: 1216 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
bring on the next ice age.
do we need to concern our selves with the fate of this little planet now
in 100/ 500 or 1000 years time it will be up to nature not mankind.
mankind will leave a mark on earth 'how best to destroy things'
Best is 'live day to day' I wanted to change the world in 60s once.
now in 50/100 years time not a blip of me will remain
|
||||||
It's easy to make a small fortune in aviation. You start with a large fortune.
|
||||||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
I don't want to change the world - we do enough as it is! People are unable to see MMGW for the scam that it is.
Whilst everyone keeps going on and on and on about the record highs, they are ignoring the record lows as if they mean nothing. Trouble is, they are HIGHLY INCONVENIENT. YOU ARE ONLY COUNTING THE HOTEST 3 MONTHS OF THE YEAR AND ARE FAILING TO COUNT THE COLDEST 3 MONTHS OF THE YEAR! You have also failed to understand my question that I asked. Let me ask them again: 1) How is the average calculated? Is it the average of all the highs, or is it the average of all the lows and the highs? 2) If you took all the lows on their own, do they show a warming or cooling trend also? 3) As I previously stated, you can have record high temps AND record low temps in the same data set, and still have a rising average. This is basic primary school mathematics. The outcome of the talks in Mexico is that
OK - so we are already in a financial mess, and now we're giving away money (to corrupt countries) as well. and:
What has Government got to do with it? I thought the SCIENCE was certain about it, so why is it down to what a few politicians think, who don't even have qualifications in any scientific subject?????? HMMMM????? People also keep ignoring the MONEY! http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AR1OI20101211
$100 Billion PER YEAR is $1 TRILLION in 10 YEARS!!!!!!!! THIS is what the MMGW scam is a about - TRANSFER OF MONEY. No-one gave a stuff until now. Why not? Remember Ethiopia in the 80s? All the emotional blackmail over famines? Want to know what happened to the money? THEY BOUGHT 6 NEW AIRBUS A340 AIRCRAFT, AND A SHED LOAD OF NEW 4x4s FOR THE POLITICIANS. THEY DIDN'T EVEN GO TO THE TROUBLE OF HIDING THEM. Whilst the majority of the country starved to death, a few elitists were living like Kings. Best regards, Vulcan. |
||||||
Concorde216
First Officer Joined: 03 Apr 2008 Location: UK Points: 398 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
Martin & Vulcan
Time out, time out
|
||||||
Concorde216
"All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics. TSR-2 simply got the first three right." - Sir Sydney Camm |
||||||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
People have got to remember that politicians are lying bar stewards who will do anything to further their agendas. Environmentalists also have secret agendas and are often corrupt, and these have been exposed over the years. It is the same old, same old, but people are blinded by BS. Martin has so far totally ignored the members of the panel who allegedly cleared the CRU of any fudging of figures. The people he thinks are infallible are extremely corrupt, and worse still, even when presented with hard evidence, he still thinks the investigation was impartial! It was as corrupt and as biased as it got! If people can't see the way they are being manipulated even when presented with the evidence, I feel very sorry for them. The Government relies on sound bites - "an independent investigation into CRU found no evidence of tampering" is all people hear - they don't bother to research and dig into the facts. If they did, they'd realize what a con the thing is! If the facts were as they first appear, THERE SIMPLY WOULD BE NO REASON TO HAVE TO LIE AND MANIPULATE THE FACTS. The very fact that they have to go to all this trouble shows what a con job it is! Unfortunately most people don't care enough to do anything. They'll care when in the next decade we have no money because we gave it all away to "poor countries", to then find that the money was squandered by corrupt Governments of tin pot nations! When Bob Geldof was recently challenged over the money raised by Live Aid, the best he did was persuade the BBC to be quiet. He didn't take legal action, as the burden of proof would be increased significantly, and he knows (as a lawyer) that he'd have one hell of a job defending it. In case you weren't aware, the allegations were that only 5% of the aid went on aid, and the rest went on arms. MMGW is part of the same carousel. Best regards, Vulcan. |
||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
People are unable to see MMGW for the scam that it is. No, people have brains. And consdier the facts, like the ones I have posted. Unlike you that is, who alows me to type reams of stuff and then totally igmores it a total of NINE TIMES... which is very disrespectful. You sir, are failing to understand my question that I asked. Let me ask them again: And you sir... are blind and have no common sense. I told you, an average, of all the highs and lows, it’s average daily temperature, average monthly temperature, etc, etc. 2) If you took all the lows on their own, do they show a warming or cooling trend also? Why on earth would you want to do that? That’s totally and utterly irrelevant. Just as it’s totally irrelevant to take jut the high temperatures on there own... you include both high and low temperatures, combined they form an average. You could of course if you were cerebrally challenged, take all the lows on their own, and calculate an average, but that would only be the average of the low temperatures, which may not have an upward trend at all, while the highs could have a massive upward trend, or visa versa. You include all temperatures, highs and lows, obviously, to eliminate natural variability. It’s the trend that’s important, not whether La Nina has sent a draft up Vulcan’s bum for a bit. Of course you can, and it’s the rising average they are looking for. What in gods name do you think they are doing? Not whether the cold temperatures alone show an upward or downward trend. That would be stupid. And once again demonstrates that you haven't a clue when it comes to short term variability. It's enough to make someone jump of a cliff in disappear. vAnd thats TEN times now you have failed to grasp it. Whilst everyone keeps going on and on and on about the record highs, they rae ignoring the record lows as if they mean nothing. TRouble is, they are HIGHLY INCONVENIENT. |
||||||
GEOFFERS
Chief Pilot Joined: 08 Jun 2010 Location: EGBG Points: 1216 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
People are unable to see MMGW for scam that it is. there is big money in it going green if you get on the band wagon
|
||||||
It's easy to make a small fortune in aviation. You start with a large fortune.
|
||||||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
Au contraire! CO2 is supposed to be trapping the heat emitted by the Earth as it cools, not heating the atmosphere more when the Sun is shining on it, so these temperatures must rise also, otherwise the whole CO2 causes warming argument collapses. If you averaged only the lows, is there still a warming trend? As you told me a zillion times now, it is the LONG TERM AVERAGE THAT IS RISING. So, tell me the LONG TERM AVERAGE of all the LOWS. Rising, or falling? Bonus question: Concentrations of methane have been constant for the last decade despite increase in output. Why? All the melting of the perma frost is supposed to cause run away climate change all on its own. Why are the concentrations CONSTANT? Best regards, Vulcan. |
||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
The people he thinks are infallible are extremely corrupt, and worse still, even when presented with hard evidence, he still thinks the investigation was impartial! It was as corrupt and as biased as it got! Which is purely supposition on your part. You have no evidence whatsoever that the inquiry was fixed. However, you expect us to believe your conspiracy theories also based on no evidence. Extraordinary claims of world wide conspiracy, involving thousands of politic ans and scientist requires extraordinary evidence. Not the fantastical ramblings of Mr Pointy. Even if the scientiost at the centre of the controversy had been gulity of misdemanors, it still wiouldn’t have wiped out evidnce going way back to Svante Arrhenius in the 1800's. He realized that Högbom's calculation of human influence on carbon would eventually lead to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. If people can't see the way they are being manipulated even when presented with the evidence, I feel very sorry for them. Actually, we feel sorry for you, you are a fantasist, with a psychological need to believe in conspiracy. The way you have ignored my responses over and over again are evidence of that. Your belief that the moon landings were fixed, microwave ovens are deadly, mobile phones will kill you and that the twin towers were blown up by the US government, are prime examples of your condition. Your reputation precedes you my friend. they don't bother to research and dig into the facts |
||||||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
Uhh - two MPs (one of whom is a Director for one of the worlds largest offshore wind turbine manufacturers with an annual turnover of £300 million/year), a guy from BP and two IT techs are NOT an independent scientific investigation into alleged scientific corruption! It is a wholesale rigging of the results by the Government!
If it was in my head I would not be able to pull report after report about the corrupt actions of officials and others! YOU are the one that's got issues if you can't see what is going on!!! Besides, aren't you resorting to personal attacks again? Best regards, Vulcan. |
||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
If you averaged only the lows, is there still a warming trend? They aren’t moronic enough to do that. In terms of global long term average temperatures... why would you average only the lows, when the highs could be so hot that they more than make up for reducing lows?????? In terms of global long term temperatures, If you aren’t adding the high temperature reading to you colder temperatures readings you would have no idea if one were adding to or compensating for the other. It would be utterly ridiculous to do that. You could get your average lows getting hotter but offset by cooler highs, or you could get average highs getting cooler but offset by your lows getting hotter. You have to add all temperature together and take an average... obviously!
As you told me a zillion times now, it is the LONG TERM AVERAGE THAT IS RISING. So, tell me the LONG TERM AVERAGE of all the LOWS. Rising, or falling?
Only an incompetent, moronic, mentally deficient climatologist would do that. It’s an average of half the temperature readings. It’s not an average if you are ignoring half your readings.
|
||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
Besides, aren't you resorting to personal attacks again? No not at all Pointy, although you could try the patience of a saint, and I do feel tempted. I’m not saying your brain is up the creek. But I do genuinely believe you have a psychological predisposition that encourages you to adopt every conspiracy theory going, based on zero plausible evidence. I mean lets face it, there aren’t many you don’t agree with... actually, I can’t think of one.
Many people do subscribe to such things of course because it puts some excitement in their lives, but I have to say, you are the most extreme example I’ve come across. I’ve gone to the trouble of typing post after post, in an attempt to answer, what I thought, were genuine queries. But the trouble is, you have ignored me a total of eleven times, not put forward a counter argument, just ignored every word as if I had never typed it. I do find that somewhat disrespectful to be honest, but I have grown used to it after a plethora of previous topics on global warming. And therefore, despite being extremely frustrated with you, and peeved at being ignored, I will just raise an eyebrow. To be honest, I regard you as a lost cause, it matters not what anyone says to you, even if the lord god himself materialised in front of you, and utilising his almighty powers imbued your brain with the undisputable facts, you would still deny it. I respond for another reason... because I don’t see why the many individuals who are in two minds on this subject, and observing this forum passively, should conceivably be swayed by the psuedo science, half truths, total inaccuracies, and illogical ramblings posted.
|
||||||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
Because of the following point: The argument regarding CO2 is simple: that it prevents the Earth cooling. So, if CO2 is preventing the Earth from cooling, low temps should be harder to achieve. If this is the case, they should also show a warming trend. It's very simple. I'm not being difficult in raising this point, but looking at only the highs is no good. If the high temperatures alone are getting higher, then CO2 isn't the issue, and there is another cause for the warming. There is much research left to be done, and much left to understand, but I'll say it again: it is convenient for politicians that CO2 is the cause as they need everyone to reduce their usage of fossil fuels. I say to them: prove it.
I would reply, but you know I can spend upwards of three hours writing a considered response? I'm too busy at the moment. I will come back though, don't worry. Best regards, Vulcan. |
||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
Okay, this is frustrating, but I will try again.
The argument regarding CO2 is simple: that it prevents the Earth cooling. Of course it does, and I’m utterly shocked that you suggest it doesn’t. I’m utterly shocked you deny basic atmospheric science you should have learnt at school. To suggest CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas is bizare. It’s basic science, fact, undeniable. So, if CO2 is preventing the Earth from cooling, low temps should be harder to achieve. If this is the case, they should also show a warming trend. They do... Long term, on average, globally. The lows are getting warmer, what makes you think they're not? The lows are included with the highs as an average. And the average tempreture is rising.
In the long term, you would get winters that are not as cold, lows that are not as low. But there would still be variability. Variability in terms of locality, and variability in terms of natural short-term events.
But to measure just the lows, would be way beyond ludicrous. Why would anyone do that, it would skew the average and introduce "locality". To be a true average it must include all temperature readings, both highs, lows, and every temperature in between. Looking at the short term. Which season are your lowest temperatures readings going to be taken? It would be winter, and winter occurs in a specific location, winter doesn't occur simultaneoulsy world wide. And if that locality happened to be in a region that was being influenced by ocean currents and exhibiting colder than average temperatures, you obviously wouldn't be seeing a rise in temperature. And that lack of a rise in temperature, wouldn't include the record high temperatures on the other side of the globe, occurring simultaneously. So you wouldn't be looking at a global average, you would be looking at a local average. Now if you add up, over decades, all of those local readings, that didn't include the simultaneously occurring highs in other localities , you end up with a temperature average, that completely missed compensatory temperature readings in the higher range ocuring at the same time elsewere on the globe.
The long term tend, would be nothing to do with a global trend... and this is man made GLOBAL warming, not local warming
Do you see why it’s essential to include all temperature readings from around the globe, in your average. Not just record winter lows which by definition are local. Otherwise it’s not an average at all, and it’s influenced by variability and locality?
It's very simple. I'm not being difficult in raising this point, but looking at only the highs is no good. If the high temperatures alone are getting higher, then CO2 isn't the issue, and there is another cause for the warming. They are NOT looking at only the highs. They are looking at both the highs and lows, because they are both included in the AVERAGE long term, global temperature data. They look at an average precisely for this reason, to include all temperatures, highs, lows, and those in between. I would reply, but you know I can spend upwards of three hours writing a considered response?
Yeah right. There was a time, when you would make a claim, not offer a counter argument, then come back a couple of months later, and make the same point again. Now however, you have outdone yourself, achieved a new milestone. I have made the same point ELEVEN separate times, and you have ignored that response ELEVEN separate times... all in the same topic. That is truly remarkable. |
||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
I will come back though, don't worry
Please don't!
|
||||||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
Well don't suggest that I'm being disrespectful in not replying immediately to every point you raise.
Best regards, Vulcan. |
||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
I don't expect you to reply immediately to every point, but I also don't expect you to ignore the concept of average, long term, global temperatures, no less than eleven times in the same thread. Essentially, it's a waste of my time. I've never come across anyone that does that.
I know it's my own fault for bothering to reply, if I had any sense I would just ignore your global warming nonsense, like everyone else does.
Let me put it in a way that demonstrates how frustrating it is...
You make a cliam, I give you the answer, you ignore it.
You make the same cliam again, I give you the answer, you ignore it.
You make the same cliam again, I give you the answer, you ignore it.
You make the same cliam again, I give you the answer, you ignore it.
You make the same cliam again, I give you the answer, you ignore it.
You make the same cliam again, I give you the answer, you ignore it.
You make the same cliam again, I give you the answer, you ignore it.
You make the same cliam again, I give you the answer, you ignore it.
You make the same cliam again, I give you the answer, you ignore it.
You make the same cliam again, I give you the answer, you ignore it.
You make the same cliam again, I give you the answer, you ignore it.
Then I feel like banging my head aginst the wall in shear frustration and kicking the cat.
Do you see how anyone would find the above, all in the same thread, rather frustrating? And why I'm the only one stupid enough to respond to your eccentricities.
|
||||||
Post Reply | Page <12345 6> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |