Global Warming

[TGM]

Oh, FFS stop parading your ignorance, as I pointed out earlier, a concentration of 0.00015% cyanide per Kg of a human body is enough to kill said human. This argument about the low concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is not only complete crap, it is also completely illogical as the lower the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere the less we have to pump into the atmosphere to make a difference. Unfortunately the logic of this eludes you.



I'm no that old, but I have lived in Melbourne since a young age.

You're right about the shifts in rainfall. El Nino contributed to the Millennium Drought and we were clamouring for water. Dams low, desal plant built in Victoria etc. Now we have a few years of La Nina and what used to be one in a hundred year floods have now happened a few times over a couple of years. Not only is it warmer, but more extremes. We had a winter which was around or just above average and the Northern Hemisphere were smashing temperature records.

It's a mess and we need to stop contributing to it.

DS

False and False.
What about Al Gore's movie? That hasn't aged well and he's the leader of "the science"

 

[DavidSSS]

False and False.
What about Al Gore's movie? That hasn't aged well and he's the leader of "the science"

Al Gore was Vice President and made a film about global warming, somehow this convinces you he was a scientist

Can't say I'm surprised given some of the deadsh!ts you cite.

DS

PS: are you going to post on the footy threads or are you just here to troll?

 

[spook]

Beautiful winter up here in the Northern Rivers but the lightest shower sends locals into the foetal position. Lanina Vixon can gagf.

The Future Is Being Rewritten by Green Investment And Climate Devastation

Accelerating crises make a grim backdrop to sudden and striking advances

time.com

 

[TGM]

Al Gore was Vice President and made a film about global warming, somehow this convinces you he was a scientist

Can't say I'm surprised given some of the deadsh!ts you cite.

DS

PS: are you going to post on the footy threads or are you just here to troll?

Yes and he used "the science" and "the models" from the IPCC you have such great faith in.
Yes the founder of Greenpeace (also an ecologist and forest biologist) and a head professor at Princeton University are real dimwits. You are much smarter than them.

 

[AngryAnt]

What about Al Gore's movie? That hasn't aged well and he's the leader of "the science"

Your honour, the defence rests.

 

[TGM]

You should have a rest mate. If you think too much for yourself you might blow a gasket.

 

[AngryAnt]

You should have a rest mate. If you think too much for yourself you might blow a gasket.

True, I'm a sheeple, victim of the MSM global warming hoax, vaccine victim, George Soros Bill Gates Anthony Fauci Klaus Whatsisface from the WEF lizard people illuminati Great Reset etc etc.

See ya on the footy threads TGM!

 

[TigerMasochist]

Tell you what, I dunno much about climate change, but one thing I do know is that I am sick to the back teeth of all this **** rain in Melbourne. Hasn’t stopped for 5 months. Doing my head in. Will rain flat out again later today and then continue the entire weekend ….again.

For the experts, what the hell is causing this ongoing drenching ? And what’s this I hear about Spring and Summer being a continuation of all this rain ? Will it bring **** hailstones with it over the warmer months ? Great.

Really starting to do some damage. Parks, gardens, roads, footy fields, golf courses, housing damage etc.

I need answers from all you Jane Bun’s dammit !!

Don't sweat it Redders. It's just them dodgy wog twins Nina n Nino playing with the taps n messing up your head space. Little arseholes have been doing it for millions of years.

 

[AngryAnt]

Don't sweat it Redders. It's just them dodgy wog twins Nina n Nino playing with the taps n messing up your head space. Little arseholes have been doing it for millions of years.

Not that simple actually TM

First-Ever Record of 400 Years of El Ninos Shows They Really Are Getting More Brutal

The pattern of El Niño has changed dramatically in recent years, according to the first seasonal record distinguishing different types of El Niño events over the last 400 years.

www.sciencealert.com

There is some evidence of El Nino events happening as far back as the Holocene (10,000 years).

El Niño - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Of course, I'm just regurgitating the "mainstream science narrative" here - I'm sure @TGM as a truly independent-minded science thinker has some amazing new theories about this that he totally just thought up himself.

 

[TigerMasochist]

Not that simple actually TM

First-Ever Record of 400 Years of El Ninos Shows They Really Are Getting More Brutal

The pattern of El Niño has changed dramatically in recent years, according to the first seasonal record distinguishing different types of El Niño events over the last 400 years.

www.sciencealert.com

There is some evidence of El Nino events happening as far back as the Holocene (10,000 years).

El Niño - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Of course, I'm just regurgitating the "mainstream science narrative" here - I'm sure @TGM as a truly independent-minded science thinker has some amazing new theories about this that he totally just thought up himself.

So you're suggesting that the twins aren't millions of years old, like I was thinking?
Reckon at just 400 years that'd be like full scale two year old brutal tanty capability.
Possibly up to 10,000 years old then they'd be something like the five year old I can put my own pants on n nearly tie my shoe laces type moderately composed n placid most of the time behaviour.
Millions of years old would be well into the bored, pissed off, I'm gunna *smile* with your head space just because I can teenager attitude n you can tie your knickers in massive knots just trying to cope with what I'm up to stage.

Got me a feeling in my waters that humanities gunna spend a massive amount of time, energy n *smile* up head space running around gibbering n twitching without actually achieving anything of relevance over future generations.
Ever since humans figured out how to make their own personal little camp fires there's been massive hidden negatives discovered from every supposed advancement we've ever made. One fine day we'll make such a fancy advancement that we'll simply disappear without trace up our own clackers, then whatever's left of the world will simply continue spinning along without us.

 

[frickenel]

OK, if we must, then we must.



Source us the "fact" that in entire history of the planet a metre squared of CO2 "contributed" a total of 2 watts of energy. I'm guessing they mean per square metre of the earth's surface area - the amount of energy retained and released by CO2 - following the second law of thermodynamics after absorbing infrared radiation reflected from the earth's surface, which as you noted, was warmed by energy from the sun.

What's confusing me is the claim that the total amount of heat energy (2 watts) radiated as per the 2nd law by CO2 OVER THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE PLANET - not continuously - is 2 watts. First, how would you measure this over 4 billion years - probably less given we didn't have atmosphere for part of this 4 billion year period? Second, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has varied over time, as climate change deniers often point out - so again, how could this total amount of energy be measured or even estimated? I guess you could somehow do it with a model if you had enough data, but we know climate deniers don't like models.

Lastly, the energy total for CO2 seems a bit low - we know the sun provides around one kW/h per hour for every square metre of Earth during sunlight hours. Do you mean 2 W/h per hour maybe? The NASA figure I found in terms of heat energy imbalance (yes we know you dudes don't trust NASA) was 0.85 W/h per hour which doesn't sound much, but of course has a great cumulative effect over years.

Maybe just give us the source of this malarky so we can have a look for ourselves.

I will see what i can find for you when i have time, not right now as i'm in the middle of watching anotherWall St melt down, and i'm in the middle of a FEdex Short trade.
But i'm not sure why you're referring to 4 billion years for when we're referring to Co2

You do realise

I'll rely on current scientists thanks, emeritus prof means retired.

Plus, we all know he was exposed by Greenpeace as a mouth for hire and was a Trump aid. Oh, and he also argued CFCs weren't causing a hole in the ozone layer.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere can have a major effect, it isn't some impression, it is what the scientists have found. You can't deny the Greenhouse effect, we know it exists and we know that life on this planet would not be possible without it. Try living on Mars and see how you go, or maybe Venus with its atmosphere locking in massive heat. If you mess with the concentrations of different gasses in the atmosphere it does have an impact. Small concentrations can have big impacts, 1.5 milligrammes of cyanide per Kg is enough to kill a human, gee, how can that be the case, such a small concentration (0.00015% if you want to know).

Your thinking is based on nothing, just supposition. You need to actually look at the science from credible sources, I'd suggest start with NASA https://climate.nasa.gov/ After all, they concluded that global warming is happening, predicted what the likely change in temperature would be and were within 1/20 of a degree, see https://www.universetoday.com/14232...y-accurate-within-1-20th-of-a-degree-celsius/ You really don't want to look at how the deniers' predictions have worked out, woeful.

DS

Relying on current scientists is exactly the mistake you guys are making, because science is supposed to be peer reviewed and challenged. That's how science used to advance. But to challenge the narrative now is to end your own career.

So what if he was a Trump adviser. It's not like Trump had the US grinding to a halt like the current incompetent administration.

Further pushing the point of scientific bias, you have to understand that the IPCC is a politcal body, and not filled with scientists. It takes advice from scientists and prints what it chooses. Bearingin mind that they are not scientists, they sometimes put things in their reports that contradict their narrative, and have to remove them. I will highlight this in another post at Angry Ant when i get the time.
One thing everyone needs to clarify is the terminology. Climate change is real, there is no doubt about that. The climate has always changed.
The question is man's on climate. Is is a lot, is it very minimal, or is it basically nothing.
Man certainly didn't cause the last ice age. He didn't cause the earth to come out of the last ice age. Bearing in mind that the temerature increases that the alarmists talk about are very conveniently measured fro mthe end of the little ice age, then one has to wonder how warm the midieval warm period was.

Without man mande warming, the highly paid jobs in the IPCC dissapear. And as the IPCC is an EU construct, then all the elitists in the WEF don't get to tell other countries how to run their affairs, and to channel vast amounts of cash into industries that they are all invested in.

It's also a known fact that NASA and NOA manipulate the raw thermometer readings of the past. They admit this, and have excuses for doing it, but the odd thing seems to be that all the manipulation of the past data is down. Based on the raw data, the 1930's is by far the hottest decade on record. They might be able to massage the temps down, but its a bit harder to massage out the record heatwaves. Right here in Victoria, we should be well aware of this. Afterall, it's pretty hard to manipulate out the worst bushfire in our history or for that mater the US dust bowls of the 1930's.
The difficult thing DavidSSS, is that Google searches now hide anything that doesn't fit the narrative. As for Fact Check sites, don't get me started on that stuff.

The Hunder Biden Laptop was fact checked out of existence prior to the 2020 election.
Where is the fact check last month on Biden claiming they had ZERO inflation for the month?
Where is the fact check on Camala Harris's claim that the southern border is under control?
Wher eis the fact check on Karine Jean-Pierr's statement that the Biden administration interrited the border issues from the previous administration, or thefact check on anything else that comes out of her mouth, liek that inflation is under control?
Or the fact check on the Biden Administrations celebrations on their "Inflation Buster" legislation ? The ironic thing abotu this was that the new inflation data was released while they were celebrating and as expected, it went up sending Wall St into a tail spin.

The real problem with our society now is the main stream media. Everything is team this or team that, rather than holding both sides accountable equally, and as a result, we have the worst political leaders in our history right across the globe.

 

[frickenel]

Science is neither Left nor Right TGM - it's a way of understanding the universe through creating models and hypotheses based on empirical observations - these must be falsifiable - so we can know that they are wrong if new empirical/experimental/observational data shows that. These models persist until they are falsified and replaced with models that better fit the observed empirical evidence.

Anyone who believes this is naive at best and a liar at worst.

How accurate are the models yet nobody is asking questions abotu the theory lest they lose their career.
Every climate scientist on the planet admits, that any warming will be experienced first in the troposphere over the equator. Since the 1950's ther ehas been no noticeable increase. Certain spots are a bit warmer others a bit cooler.

The response to this by the alarmists is that the real world must be wrong, and the models correct.

 

[frickenel]

OK, if we must, then we must.



Source us the "fact" that in entire history of the planet a metre squared of CO2 "contributed" a total of 2 watts of energy. I'm guessing they mean per square metre of the earth's surface area - the amount of energy retained and released by CO2 - following the second law of thermodynamics after absorbing infrared radiation reflected from the earth's surface, which as you noted, was warmed by energy from the sun.

What's confusing me is the claim that the total amount of heat energy (2 watts) radiated as per the 2nd law by CO2 OVER THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE PLANET - not continuously - is 2 watts. First, how would you measure this over 4 billion years - probably less given we didn't have atmosphere for part of this 4 billion year period? Second, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has varied over time, as climate change deniers often point out - so again, how could this total amount of energy be measured or even estimated? I guess you could somehow do it with a model if you had enough data, but we know climate deniers don't like models.

Lastly, the energy total for CO2 seems a bit low - we know the sun provides around one kW/h per hour for every square metre of Earth during sunlight hours. Do you mean 2 W/h per hour maybe? The NASA figure I found in terms of heat energy imbalance (yes we know you dudes don't trust NASA) was 0.85 W/h per hour which doesn't sound much, but of course has a great cumulative effect over years.

Maybe just give us the source of this malarky so we can have a look for ourselves.

You ain't going to like this but it's from an IPCC report, from memory dating back to about 2002, and it was pointed out to me by a contact at the March Airforce Base in California.

I spent a year there as a fitness co-ordinator many years ago. I got a boxing scholarship into the US and spent 2 years in Park Chester which is in the Bronx. I returned to Australia for a year, but returned to live a year in Moreno Valley CA near the March Airforce Base for reasons i won't go into here.

I just touched on this in another post. He sends me a lot of data. The thing about the IPCC reports are that they are very long winded, and not typically what you see in the media. They really are what you should be reading, and not the condenced versions that make the press. The condenced versions get juiced right up on the alarmism stuff.

He wrote the IPCC to them relating to a couple of pages on that data and a graph that had interpreted the data incorrectly and was in direct contradiction. So what did the geniuses as the IPCC do? They got rid of the data and left the graph.

If you want to trawl through all that stuff and try to find it, you're welcome, but i don't have he time, hence i was away from the whole PRE site for 7 or 8 months.

Every time i post here is starts a torrent of posts and i don't have the time to keep up.

To be really honest with all you guys, the last thing you should be worried about right now is the climate, because there are some serious economic head winds looming on all of us right now.

If i can get time to sift through the correct report i'll do so. Maybe the easiest thing will be to go back to Marty as he would hopefully remember what report it was and i can look from there, then it shouldnt be so hard to find.

 

[frickenel]

Here we go again. After the invermectin rush now we have termite from Twitter and Facebook claims.

It’s just a ludicrous proposition. If termites were doing this then co2 levels would have been rising since termites were a thing which I assume is a long long time. They are part of a cycle where they eat plants that have sequestered co2 then put it back out. I.e. net zero. Fossil fuels don’t have enough dinosaurs eating plants and decaying to fossils at the rate humans put it into the atmosphere. It’s basically a one way process.

Classic Twitter and Facebook bait where you present half of the information to make a point for the “researchers” out there. Invermectin did this by showing lower death rates where it was used but failing to mention that was because people stopped getting the worm infection they had previously.

I was in the oil industry. The whole premise of biofuels is the same. You grow plants that sequester co2 then you burn the oil that comes from them. Not quite net zero but can be 5-20% of the current emissions and actually zero if you use renewable energy to handle processing and transportation.

Even with that apparently the out part of the termites is one tenth of the human out. https://factcheck.afp.com/its-other...ly-one-tenth-carbon-dioxide-emissions-created Irrelevant though as you need to know where the co2 is coming from. Once the termites eat out an area they would die as they would have nothing to eat so it has to balance out over time.

Buddy, i don't have time to be on Facebook or Twitter. This site is as close to social media as i come, and i struggle to find the time to even come on here.

"Fact Checkers", the arbiters of the truth.................... FMD

The problem with anything on social media is the bias involved. You do realise that termites along are around 3 times the biomass of humans?

Diverting a little, but the other left wing joke being pulled on the middle class is that we shouldn't be eating meat, that we should eat bugs instead to save the planet. For some reason, these geniuses think that if you take all the cows, sheep etc off the pasture lands, that nothing is going to replace them and eat grass, and burp and fart.

We all listen to their garbage like good little people, after all, it feels so safe to be running with the flock. It takes a lot more guts to step out and call you guys out, and i tip my hat to the few other posters who have stepped away from the flock to do the same.

I shake my head at you guys, listening to the political elites telling us what to do. Camala Harris signed off on the last spending bill to save e planet a month ago, and what was the frist thing she did after that? She jumped on a private jet and flew to Hawaii for a holiday.

These people lecturing you guys individually have a carbon footprint of a small suburb, yet you hang on every word they say. Do you think they won't be devouring a juicy steak while you eat bugs? Fing hell guys, wake the FU

 

[AngryAnt]

I will see what i can find for you when i have time, not right now as i'm in the middle of watching anotherWall St melt down, and i'm in the middle of a FEdex Short trade.
But i'm not sure why you're referring to 4 billion years for when we're referring to Co2

You do realise

Relying on current scientists is exactly the mistake you guys are making, because science is supposed to be peer reviewed and challenged. That's how science used to advance. But to challenge the narrative now is to end your own career.

So what if he was a Trump adviser. It's not like Trump had the US grinding to a halt like the current incompetent administration.

Further pushing the point of scientific bias, you have to understand that the IPCC is a politcal body, and not filled with scientists. It takes advice from scientists and prints what it chooses. Bearingin mind that they are not scientists, they sometimes put things in their reports that contradict their narrative, and have to remove them. I will highlight this in another post at Angry Ant when i get the time.
One thing everyone needs to clarify is the terminology. Climate change is real, there is no doubt about that. The climate has always changed.
The question is man's on climate. Is is a lot, is it very minimal, or is it basically nothing.
Man certainly didn't cause the last ice age. He didn't cause the earth to come out of the last ice age. Bearing in mind that the temerature increases that the alarmists talk about are very conveniently measured fro mthe end of the little ice age, then one has to wonder how warm the midieval warm period was.

Without man mande warming, the highly paid jobs in the IPCC dissapear. And as the IPCC is an EU construct, then all the elitists in the WEF don't get to tell other countries how to run their affairs, and to channel vast amounts of cash into industries that they are all invested in.

It's also a known fact that NASA and NOA manipulate the raw thermometer readings of the past. They admit this, and have excuses for doing it, but the odd thing seems to be that all the manipulation of the past data is down. Based on the raw data, the 1930's is by far the hottest decade on record. They might be able to massage the temps down, but its a bit harder to massage out the record heatwaves. Right here in Victoria, we should be well aware of this. Afterall, it's pretty hard to manipulate out the worst bushfire in our history or for that mater the US dust bowls of the 1930's.
The difficult thing DavidSSS, is that Google searches now hide anything that doesn't fit the narrative. As for Fact Check sites, don't get me started on that stuff.

The Hunder Biden Laptop was fact checked out of existence prior to the 2020 election.
Where is the fact check last month on Biden claiming they had ZERO inflation for the month?
Where is the fact check on Camala Harris's claim that the southern border is under control?
Wher eis the fact check on Karine Jean-Pierr's statement that the Biden administration interrited the border issues from the previous administration, or thefact check on anything else that comes out of her mouth, liek that inflation is under control?
Or the fact check on the Biden Administrations celebrations on their "Inflation Buster" legislation ? The ironic thing abotu this was that the new inflation data was released while they were celebrating and as expected, it went up sending Wall St into a tail spin.

The real problem with our society now is the main stream media. Everything is team this or team that, rather than holding both sides accountable equally, and as a result, we have the worst political leaders in our history right across the globe.

Your claim was 2 per metre2 watts of energy released over the entire history of the planet. That's 4 billion years. If I've misunderstood or as is more likely, you just expressed the concept poorly please clarify, when convenient of course.
You seem to have plenty of time to write hundreds of words about other topics so posting a source would seem easy by comparison.

 

[AngryAnt]

You ain't going to like this but it's from an IPCC report, from memory dating back to about 2002, and it was pointed out to me by a contact at the March Airforce Base in California.

I spent a year there as a fitness co-ordinator many years ago. I got a boxing scholarship into the US and spent 2 years in Park Chester which is in the Bronx. I returned to Australia for a year, but returned to live a year in Moreno Valley CA near the March Airforce Base for reasons i won't go into here.

I just touched on this in another post. He sends me a lot of data. The thing about the IPCC reports are that they are very long winded, and not typically what you see in the media. They really are what you should be reading, and not the condenced versions that make the press. The condenced versions get juiced right up on the alarmism stuff.

He wrote the IPCC to them relating to a couple of pages on that data and a graph that had interpreted the data incorrectly and was in direct contradiction. So what did the geniuses as the IPCC do? They got rid of the data and left the graph.

If you want to trawl through all that stuff and try to find it, you're welcome, but i don't have he time, hence i was away from the whole PRE site for 7 or 8 months.

Every time i post here is starts a torrent of posts and i don't have the time to keep up.

To be really honest with all you guys, the last thing you should be worried about right now is the climate, because there are some serious economic head winds looming on all of us right now.

If i can get time to sift through the correct report i'll do so. Maybe the easiest thing will be to go back to Marty as he would hopefully remember what report it was and i can look from there, then it shouldnt be so hard to find.

I neither like nor dislike it. Your claim is weird, so just wanted to see the source as it doesn't make sense the way you've written it.

I havent mentioned the IPCC in this thread in living memory - maybe you are confusing me with someone else.

 

[AngryAnt]

Buddy, i don't have time to be on Facebook or Twitter. This site is as close to social media as i come, and i struggle to find the time to even come on here.

"Fact Checkers", the arbiters of the truth.................... FMD

The problem with anything on social media is the bias involved. You do realise that termites along are around 3 times the biomass of humans?

Diverting a little, but the other left wing joke being pulled on the middle class is that we shouldn't be eating meat, that we should eat bugs instead to save the planet. For some reason, these geniuses think that if you take all the cows, sheep etc off the pasture lands, that nothing is going to replace them and eat grass, and burp and fart.

We all listen to their garbage like good little people, after all, it feels so safe to be running with the flock. It takes a lot more guts to step out and call you guys out, and i tip my hat to the few other posters who have stepped away from the flock to do the same.

I shake my head at you guys, listening to the political elites telling us what to do. Camala Harris signed off on the last spending bill to save e planet a month ago, and what was the frist thing she did after that? She jumped on a private jet and flew to Hawaii for a holiday.

These people lecturing you guys individually have a carbon footprint of a small suburb, yet you hang on every word they say. Do you think they won't be devouring a juicy steak while you eat bugs? Fing hell guys, wake the FU

What I see from you so far is that you make some confused claim for which you cannot provide a source, and then you go on a conspiratorial rant about things no-one else has mentioned.

You claim you have no time to find a source but then have enough time to write paragraphs of references to Kamala Harris, your travels as a young boxer to the Bronx and California etc - again, no one mentioned Harris except you. And of course the usual "you people are being fooled by global elites, how can you be so blind" narrative.

Ok, prove us wrong. Just provide a scientific source for your claims mate. Simple.

1. The total of 2W per m2 of CO2 emitted during the entire history of the world.
2. Something about termites.

 

[AngryAnt]

So you're suggesting that the twins aren't millions of years old, like I was thinking?

Well maybe, but we don't have the data for that. I guess 10000 years is still a long time.

The main point is that the pattern of El Nino/La Nina events has changed significantly over the last 400 years.

 

[RoarEmotion]

Diverting a little, but the other left wing joke being pulled on the middle class is that we shouldn't be eating meat, that we should eat bugs instead to save the planet. For some reason, these geniuses think that if you take all the cows, sheep etc off the pasture lands, that nothing is going to replace them and eat grass, and burp and fart.

The issue is cows effectively concert co2 to ch4 which ~25 times the global warming effect. The good news is that breaks down. In about 12 years. You would imagine that if the meat based crops get replace with plant based crops then it’s co2 going to co2. So yes a massive effect if we swap from cow to plants.

The point is fair that if you substitute for something worse or the same then there is no effect.

Methane has been the Achille’s heel for cattle emissions, but it may be part of a climate solution

Highlights: GWP* is a new way to measure the true warming impact of short-lived climate pollutants, such as methane. Methane from cattle is not only emitted, it is also destroyed relatively quickly. This means it’s warming impact should be measured differently than that of CO2.

clear.ucdavis.edu

 

[DavidSSS]

How accurate are the models yet nobody is asking questions abotu the theory lest they lose their career.

Pretty bloody accurate.

One of the weakest arguments we often hear has reared its imbecilic head again above. The climate has changed before, therefore human activity cannot be the cause. This is so mind numbingly stupid I can't believe that anyone even puts it forward. Just because something has happened before, with a different cause, does not mean it can't happen again with a new cause.

I'm still yet to hear how human activity can belch billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, in the process change the chemical composition of the atmosphere, and yet this is supposed to have no effect? How can that be the case? You can't alter the atmosphere and expect no impact.

DS