Resisting Climate Hysteria

[bellenuit]

An interesting visual. I note that the change is being displayed in degrees centigrade and wonder why climate scientists aren't using degrees kelvin for their research calculations.

For this particular graphic visualisation, it would be exactly the same if degrees kelvin were used. It is showing variation from the base year 1950 and as 1 degree kelvin variation is the same as a 1 degree centigrade variation, either scale would yield the same result.

 

[cynic]

For this particular graphic visualisation, it would be exactly the same if degrees kelvin were used. It is showing variation from the base year 1950 and as 1 degree kelvin variation is the same as a 1 degree centigrade variation, either scale would yield the same result.

For displaying an end result that would be correct, but the underlying calculations leading to that end result for each year, should be performed using positive numbers, should they not?

Edit: upon further consideration I think I may be mistaken on this one. After comparing a few centigrade versus kelvin averages in my head and converting they are consistent.

 

[SirRumpole]

Well I am sure that you will have googled it by now, or did you come back with absolute zero (those with knowledge of kelvin degrees will understand what is meant by this).

Any school child knows or should know what degrees K means. You seem to have been confused a bit yourself, Centigrade and Kelvin are the same scale with a gauge offset, so a 1 deg C increase is the same as a 1 deg K increase.

 

[cynic]

Any school child knows or should know what degrees K means. You seem to have been confused a bit yourself, Centigrade and Kelvin are the same scale with a gauge offset, so a 1 deg C increase is the same as a 1 deg K increase.

Yes I certainly am aware that the scale is the same with a displacement of 273. My initial (although unwarranted) concern, was the impact on the performance of calculations using mixtures of positive and negative numbers,particularly with respect to statistical derivations. However, I do believe that where practicable, calculations of large amounts of data should ideally be performed using positive numbers.

 

[orr]

In trying to sound clever, orr makes herself unclear. However her intention to misrepresent is clear.

More the attempt to distract from the point raised ...Quick look look over their what is it ....Oh look it's Exxon history in Climate science research.... Confirming back in the 1970's and 80's the fears of all those you malign.
Don't like to think about it? less assess the success of the misinformation campaigns effect on you?

And yes cynic;
Your personal 'theory' posted in #7662. Is debunked by; to begin with Exxons CC work, and from there there's little need to go on. All that's needed is for you to prove Exxon's work wrong... Should be all in an afternoons work for you. Exxon are handing out cheque's to those that help with this very job.
All this will help you with your imagined fallacies in this from #7676 , see...

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/

The only thing a scientist is indoctrinated to do is to study, question and review. Science 101, the lesson you must have missed... which will be the fundamental flaw with getting you though the first part of this exercise.
(apologies to Sisyphos)

 

[cynic]

...
And yes cynic;
Your personal 'theory' posted in #7662. Is debunked by; to begin with Exxons CC work, and from there there's little need to go on. All that's needed is for you to prove Exxon's work wrong... Should be all in an afternoons work for you. Exxon are handing out cheque's to those that help with this very job.
All this will help you with your imagined fallacies in this from #7676 , see...

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/

The only thing a scientist is indoctrinated to do is to study, question and review. Science 101, the lesson you must have missed... which will be the fundamental flaw with getting you though the first part of this exercise.
(apologies to Sisyphos)

There are some things in life that I would like to be true and others that I would prefer to be untrue. I would dearly love to live to see the day that my personal theory is truly disproven and humanity awakens to the true enormity of this universe and the unfortunate reality that our science, wonderful as it is, is still very much a work in progress.

I find it quite comical that, despite my earlier comments, you've chosen to link to, rather than distance yourself from, that epa website and the logically bereft, morally bankrupt rubbish contained therein.

 

[wayneL]

The only thing a scientist is indoctrinated to do is to study, question and review. Science 101, the lesson you must have missed... which will be the fundamental flaw with getting you though the first part of this exercise.
(apologies to Sisyphos)

I'm glad we agree on that point. "Review", part of the scientific method is to test and falsify. Those in the alarmist community don't seem to like those steps though.

 

[Tisme]

Anyone see the piece on the Islands going under yesterday. I felt for the coconut trees being reduced to stumps, now out in the sea.

I bet China is making sure their island bases are built up high enough for the persistent rise in tides; no debates, just necessity.

 

[noco]

Anyone see the piece on the Islands going under yesterday. I felt for the coconut trees being reduced to stumps, now out in the sea.

I bet China is making sure their island bases are built up high enough for the persistent rise in tides; no debates, just necessity.

Is the water rising on those islands you mentioned or are they sinking.?.....Many of those island originated from coral cays and on occasions disintegrate down under giving the appearance that waters are rising.

 

[wayneL]

Is the water rising on those islands you mentioned or are they sinking.?.....Many of those island originated from coral cays and on occasions disintegrate down under giving the appearance that waters are rising.

That's why they lose credibility Noco.

Manipulation of facts to fit a narrative.

 

[SirRumpole]

That's why they lose credibility Noco.

Manipulation of facts to fit a narrative.

If you want to argue against the scientific opinion that sea levels are rising then you need to provide evidence that the islands are sinking.

 

[Tisme]

Is the water rising on those islands you mentioned or are they sinking.?.....Many of those island originated from coral cays and on occasions disintegrate down under giving the appearance that waters are rising.

Well I don't really know Noco and that thought had crossed my mind too, but the article was at pains to say the tides had been rising 10mm/annum. It wasn't an hysterical piece, although foreboding in the context that the island are apparently a bellweather for the rest of us, especially with sea frontage (I'm only about 50 metres from the shore and thinking of installing stainless steel stumps ).

I'd be interested if you find anything about it. Islands include the Solomons and the Torres Straits also, so it's over a wide area.

 

[basilio]

If you want to argue against the scientific opinion that sea levels are rising then you need to provide evidence that the islands are sinking.

Sorry Rumpy . If you are Wayne you don't need to provide evidence. It's all self evident.

(And for God's sake don't talk about what's happening in Antartica/Greenland..)

 

[basilio]

Interesting to see what the former head of the NAB had to say about climate change and the Liberal governments approach to renewable energy.

Australia's leaders 'wilfully blind' about climate change, says former NAB chief

Cameron Clyne says he doesn’t think anyone has ‘grasped quite how revolutionary’ the emergence of renewable energy will be

Oliver Milman
@olliemilman

Monday 3 August 2015 13.26 AEST

Australia’s political leaders are “wilfully blind” to the challenge of climate change, with the country at risk from an “economically reckless” reliance upon fossil fuels, the former head of the National Australia Bank has warned.

Cameron Clyne, who was chief executive of NAB from 2009 until he stood down last year, said he doesn’t “think any of us have grasped quite how revolutionary” the emergence of renewable energy will be, warning that Australia cannot continue to be wedded to carbon-heavy fuels such as coal.

“The truth is that Australia’s lack of diversification is economically reckless,” Clyne wrote in Fairfax newspapers. “Most of our electricity generation is reliant on coal; an overwhelming majority of our transport and a very large percentage of our export industries are reliant on fossil fuels.

"When you look at this, you would be blind to not see a myriad of looming business risks.”

Clyne wrote that falling global oil and coal prices, a dip in Chinese coal consumption owing to air pollution concerns, pressure on fossil fuel subsidies that have been estimated at $10m a minute and competition from solar and wind are leaving Australia’s fossil fuel assets at risk of being “stranded”.

“So you can be as angry as you like with environmentalists and “environmentalism” but from an economic point of view, it still wouldn’t make sense to be so heavily addicted to this polluting business as Australia is,” Clyne said.

“We know from history what happens when a business or a government sets its face against a change that is coming anyway. It’s usually not the politicians or the chief executives who end up at the unemployment office

.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...nd-about-climate-change-says-former-nab-chief

 

[noco]

Well I don't really know Noco and that thought had crossed my mind too, but the article was at pains to say the tides had been rising 10mm/annum. It wasn't an hysterical piece, although foreboding in the context that the island are apparently a bellweather for the rest of us, especially with sea frontage (I'm only about 50 metres from the shore and thinking of installing stainless steel stumps ).

I'd be interested if you find anything about it. Islands include the Solomons and the Torres Straits also, so it's over a wide area.

Perhaps this link will explain the reasons why island sink rather than the sea rising.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoll

Atolls are the product of the growth of tropical marine organisms, and so these islands are only found in warm tropical waters. Volcanic islands located beyond the warm water temperature requirements of hermatypic (reef-building) organisms become seamounts as they subside and are eroded away at the surface. An island that is located where the ocean water temperatures are just sufficiently warm for upward reef growth to keep pace with the rate of subsidence is said to be at the Darwin Point. Islands in colder, more polar regions evolve towards seamounts or guyots; warmer, more equatorial islands evolve towards atolls, for example Kure Atoll.

Darwin's theory starts with a volcanic island which becomes extinct

As the island and ocean floor subside, coral growth builds a fringing reef, often including a shallow lagoon between the land and the main reef

As the subsidence continues the fringing reef becomes a larger barrier reef farther from the shore with a bigger and deeper lagoon inside

Ultimately the island sinks below the sea, and the barrier reef becomes an atoll enclosing an open lagoon

 

[explod]

Noco the above does not explain why the ocean level is rising 10mm per year everywhere.

 

[noco]

Noco the above does not explain why the ocean level is rising 10mm per year everywhere.

Maybe it is called Climate Change or something like that.....

 

[luutzu]

Is the water rising on those islands you mentioned or are they sinking.?.....Many of those island originated from coral cays and on occasions disintegrate down under giving the appearance that waters are rising.

haha ha

dam it noco, you always amaze me with your logic.

 

[luutzu]

Perhaps this link will explain the reasons why island sink rather than the sea rising.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoll

Atolls are the product of the growth of tropical marine organisms, and so these islands are only found in warm tropical waters. Volcanic islands located beyond the warm water temperature requirements of hermatypic (reef-building) organisms become seamounts as they subside and are eroded away at the surface. An island that is located where the ocean water temperatures are just sufficiently warm for upward reef growth to keep pace with the rate of subsidence is said to be at the Darwin Point. Islands in colder, more polar regions evolve towards seamounts or guyots; warmer, more equatorial islands evolve towards atolls, for example Kure Atoll.

Darwin's theory starts with a volcanic island which becomes extinct

As the island and ocean floor subside, coral growth builds a fringing reef, often including a shallow lagoon between the land and the main reef

As the subsidence continues the fringing reef becomes a larger barrier reef farther from the shore with a bigger and deeper lagoon inside

Ultimately the island sinks below the sea, and the barrier reef becomes an atoll enclosing an open lagoon

and when the atolls sinks, it displaced the water. Hence the rising sea level

Next it'll be all due to too many boatpeople and illegals floating around displacing water.

 

[wayneL]

Sorry Rumpy . If you are Wayne you don't need to provide evidence. It's all self evident.

(And for God's sake don't talk about what's happening in Antartica/Greenland..)

Tsk tsk. Is that all you have? You have to lie to think you're taking a shot at me?

One day Im going to find you and ask you to justify this sort of crap to my face. I'm punting you wont have the cajones.