tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post117425676718339551..comments2024-03-29T10:51:27.752+13:00Comments on Not PC: Crisis? What crisis?Peter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1174611407758120812007-03-23T13:56:00.000+12:002007-03-23T13:56:00.000+12:00Anon, certainly it is most useful to measure solar...Anon, certainly it is most useful to measure solar output over hundreds, thousands, or millions of years, but the question under consideration is, <I>what is the source of warming in the last 100 years?</I><BR/><BR/>Hence, solar output measurements 'in recent years' will certainly be relevant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1174595840534020202007-03-23T09:37:00.000+12:002007-03-23T09:37:00.000+12:00Luke H:Recent years? Earth Sciences measure trends...Luke H:<BR/><BR/>Recent years? <BR/><BR/>Earth Sciences measure trends over centuries! <BR/><BR/>You really expect to distinguish between nature-driven warming and cooling by looking at 'trends' over a measly decade?<BR/><BR/>And given that the only measurement available to judge the Sun's energy output prior to the invention of Space craft is to count sun spots I hardly think that the jury is even in a position to close the book on Sun-driven warming of the Earth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1174513864467840412007-03-22T10:51:00.000+12:002007-03-22T10:51:00.000+12:00...steam (a by-product of nuclear power generation...<I>...steam (a by-product of nuclear power generation) is often presented by AGW skeptics as a more important greenhouse gas than CO2.</I><BR/><BR/>That is correct <I>Anonymous</I> <B>Ruth</B>. Don't you know that this is an undeniable fact, whether you're a warmist or a skeptic?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1174508733173586422007-03-22T09:25:00.000+12:002007-03-22T09:25:00.000+12:00Yes water vapor is the premier 'green house gas.' ...Yes water vapor is the premier 'green house gas.' And despite the release of steam being synonymous with industry since the invention of tempered steel, the world is still here and I had to suffer through -20 degree temperatures a couple of times this winter. This despite the fact that Kansas has a Nuclear Power Plant that generates 25% of the State's electricity.<BR/><BR/>And the proportion of vapor produced by humans is miniscule compared to the action of the sun on the oceans - which cover 70% of the globe. <BR/><BR/>Oh but that's right, compared to human action, according to the GW-crowd, the sun is an insignificant factor in heating this planet.<BR/><BR/>Idiot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1174455903886018862007-03-21T18:45:00.000+12:002007-03-21T18:45:00.000+12:00Robert, just to throw a little spanner in your wor...Robert, just to throw a little spanner in your works, steam (a by-product of nuclear power generation) is often presented by AGW skeptics as a more important greenhouse gas than CO2. :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1174445839739047412007-03-21T15:57:00.000+12:002007-03-21T15:57:00.000+12:00Robert,"the model of 'natural' forcings assumes th...Robert,<BR/><BR/>"the model of 'natural' forcings assumes that the sun will & has behaved just as a light bulb does, producing the same radiant energy at the same wavelength until the filament goes out."<BR/><BR/>Actually, observations show that in recent years, solar output has been steady at 1366 watts per square metre. Maximum variation up or down from this figure is 0.7 watts. Variations in total solar output are so slight that they were barely detectable until satellites were invented.<BR/><BR/>There just isn't enough variation in solar output to explain climate change.Luke Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09929408708481681826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1174441958068380442007-03-21T14:52:00.000+12:002007-03-21T14:52:00.000+12:00Nah, Sean. He's not angry. He fancies you!I wouldn...<I>Nah, Sean. He's not angry. He fancies you!</I><BR/><BR/>I wouldn't be surprised if the <B>he</B> is a <B>she</B>, Ruth Anonymous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1174435851512031792007-03-21T13:10:00.000+12:002007-03-21T13:10:00.000+12:00Nah, Sean. He's not angry. He fancies you!Nah, Sean. He's not angry. He fancies you!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1174418633799340052007-03-21T08:23:00.000+12:002007-03-21T08:23:00.000+12:00Wow, such anger. I didn't realise my opinion was s...Wow, such anger. I didn't realise my opinion was so important to you. Amazing. I shall try to wield my extraordinary influence with more care in the future!<BR/><BR/>Sean.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1174395587012957192007-03-21T01:59:00.000+12:002007-03-21T01:59:00.000+12:00Gwammer is the bwacbone of your bwain. Fwurther it...Gwammer is the bwacbone of your bwain. Fwurther it stops you saying anything that has any depth becaause its difficult to rwite with a pen up one's awse.<BR/><BR/>Sowwy if my post is unintelligible to you, please let me know when you will be observing the gwammer herein, so I can be sure to widdle as much as I can and get you vewy upset, Herr Doctor Goebbels.<BR/>And all you ever seem to say Is The wules of gwammer have been bwoken I will give this person an E- for their lack of cowwect gwammer.<BR/><BR/>Boy you are a ponce, one, who in this times of vast changes will be checking for gwammer ewwors. A pencil pusher if ever I saw one.<BR/>I have no disdain of gwammer just contempt for schoolmarnish pwigs like you.<BR/>Why does evewything you write sound like a very trite english teacher(failed writer) who loathes the days he has to spent teaching mischevious schoolboys. Oh if only the world could see you are actwually the reincarnation of Lord Bywon.<BR/><BR/>Oh how I love wwiting to annoy those who rwide around the english language like sargent majors in a dirty playgwound. Who have no love of ideas just the dusty remnants of their wigour. If you get my dwift.<BR/><BR/>Gwammer is not the bwacbone of communication, understanding is, good Herr Doctor Goebbels. And you it seems wouldnt understand good communication if it mangled a vowel, and bit you on your wrinkled buttocks.<BR/><BR/>I guess you are libertawian if you wander around here complaining about gwammer, so a reminder. Libertawianism is just another way of justifying being an arsehole.<BR/><BR/>But enough of you Herr Goebbels.<BR/>Winey, The sun does put out the same amount of radiant energy, it is some other, as yet unknown) variable that causes fluctuations.<BR/>And you are wrong Greenpace does not consider all CO2 as a pollutant that is a total misrepresentation, another one, by you in your zealotry.<BR/><BR/>A disclaimer I didnt preview this on purpose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1174351038289205742007-03-20T13:37:00.000+12:002007-03-20T13:37:00.000+12:00Grammar is the back bone of communication. Further...Grammar is the back bone of communication. Further, it is essential for purposes of logic. As you disdain grammar so much it is hardly surprising that your posts are, at best, muddled and at worst, simply unintelligible.<BR/><BR/>Sean.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1174347040999045842007-03-20T12:30:00.000+12:002007-03-20T12:30:00.000+12:00Oh Dear the argument about India and China just do...Oh Dear the argument about India and China just doesnt stack up. And your presumption that they will just thumb their nose at the west smacks of deeply held prejudice.<BR/>Oh by the by, they are signatories to Kyoto, and doing a lot of research into nuclear, you really need to keep up. Saying, why do anything because what is saved by the west using renewables is just going to be taken up by China and India is patently dumb.<BR/><BR/>As for Australia storing waste when did that happen?<BR/>I know a lot of people think it a good idea like Howard and the liberals, but this is stymied by state govts. <BR/>Also a lot of your other statements seem to be assertion without basis sure the Australian nuclear policy is riddled with contradiction, mainly because of the sleight of hand practiced by the present govt.<BR/>Anyway a NZer saying Australia should get off its "high horse" is ludicrous as NZ is highly unsuitable as a place to site any nuclear power stations. Whaddaya want a power cable across the tasman?<BR/><BR/> Oh Fuck what ever, and sean get a new saying.. what are you a fucking grammar nazi.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1174335043592194762007-03-20T09:10:00.000+12:002007-03-20T09:10:00.000+12:00Anon's post may not help me choose between man-mad...Anon's post may not help me choose between man-made warming vs natural warming, but it shakes to the core my belief in the existence of rules of grammar.<BR/><BR/>Sean.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1174317182930532482007-03-20T04:13:00.000+12:002007-03-20T04:13:00.000+12:00Luke,Observe the graphs you posted. Observe that t...Luke,<BR/><BR/>Observe the graphs you posted. Observe that the conclusions (natural vs arthopogenic) are being made based on computer projections.<BR/><BR/>The natural model assumes that the mean temperature change due to natural forcings will remain constant. Why is that?<BR/><BR/>The Sun (as one example) is not a bazillion watt light bulb producing a constant amount of energy. <BR/><BR/>And yet the model of 'natural' forcings assumes that the sun will & has behaved just as a light bulb does, producing the same radiant energy at the same wavelength until the filament goes out.<BR/> <BR/>Can you not see the problem in this argument?<BR/><BR/>Does it not worry you that this is claimed to be established science and that this science is being used as the basis for political policy?<BR/><BR/>Does the fact that Greenpeace et al. are treating CO2 (vital for microbiological and plant photosynthesis) as a pollutant not strike you as odd? Even while you sit there exhaling CO2 reading this?<BR/><BR/>Does the fact that Greenpeace aren't marching militantly in China and India - places that are building coal-fired power-plants just as fast as the bricks come out of the kiln - not strike a discordant note? They will become the major producers of nitrous, sulfurous and CO2 gas emissions in the very near future. Far more so then SUV driving Americans or NZers.<BR/><BR/>Religiously anti-global warming? No I just don't like bullshit science. And I like political opportunists (Al Bore) and socialists in green cloaks even less (Al Bore and Greenpeace).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1174311934186089392007-03-20T02:45:00.000+12:002007-03-20T02:45:00.000+12:00'Anyway research is on going its just possible tha...'Anyway research is on going its just possible that nuclear fusion power generators will be a reality in 100yrs.. maybe!"<BR/><BR/>We already have a Green House emission free method of generating energy. It's called Nuclear Fission. And the waste produced by all the Nuke plants in the world (including those in China and India - two countries who will present their middle finger to sandal-wearing clods like Anon and Luke) would fill a 10 story parking building.<BR/><BR/>And if Australia ever gets off it's anti nuke high horse (it provides Uranium for Nuke plants for F--ks sake!) and allowed a private company to store the waste in its arid, barren and geologically inactive deserts about 200 mi inland from Perth, they'd be making Billions from the funds allocated by each US Nuke plant for safe disposal of the waste.<BR/><BR/>http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2005/1491985.htm<BR/><BR/>The interesting thing is to see who stands in the way of building more nuke plants? Why, the very people who advocate CO2 taxes and all the other tripe.<BR/><BR/>One wonders why they don't practice what they preach and stop producing CO2 themselves thereby doing their bit to save the Planet. Easiest thing in the world, don't exhale.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1174284990859432992007-03-19T19:16:00.000+12:002007-03-19T19:16:00.000+12:00As much as "denialists" like to portray "warmists"...As much as "denialists" like to portray "warmists" as fanatical to the point of religiosity. Sorry guys its just not the case, it more the pot calling the kettle black.<BR/><BR/>Any case its hardly likely we will kill the planet worst case scenario we kill ourselves eventually. Then when the planet finds a balance again, maybe descendants of cockroaches gain consciousness just before it all ends as the sun implodes.<BR/><BR/>And as for this rubbish about... it all a vast conspiracy by warmists just fucking keeping themselves in a job.<BR/>Do you honestly believe that? Anyway isnt that just what the global resource companies have been doing for a lot longer. <BR/>Anyway research is on going its just possible that nuclear fusion power generators will be a reality in 100yrs.. maybe! <BR/>But Its looking as if relying on fossil fuels till then is not a good bet. So dont you think investing in renewables, which are making great strides at the moment, is a good idea. And while we're about it maybe break up some of the monopolies in that sector. Make it possible for people to go off the grid build energy efficient houses so there are no high voltages AC lines everywhere, also they look ugly. Yeah I know a lot are buried now which is even more absurd.<BR/>The climate is changing and I dont know how you can go on denying that 6 billion people have nothing to do with it. Its sun spots or hippies keeping themselves in a job, if those are your explanations well, Im going to start thinkig there is a teapot circling the sunAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1174279239188221722007-03-19T17:40:00.000+12:002007-03-19T17:40:00.000+12:00pc. it's useless to present religous fanatics with...pc. it's useless to present religous fanatics with facts.<BR/>Fun, but useless. :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1174266061576553842007-03-19T14:01:00.000+12:002007-03-19T14:01:00.000+12:00Luke, May I invite you to read (or re-read) the co...Luke, May I invite you to read (or re-read) the comments regarding the degree of uncertainty regarding their modesl attempting to attrite causes:<BR/><BR/>"Attribution of the cause in climate change is not formally possible. The term “attribution” means consistency with a climate model-generated scenario, rather than formal proof of causality. The same data could be consistent with contradictory hypotheses, including large or small greenhouse warming. Attribution studies rely on the validity of model-generated estimates of the climatic response to forcing, and model-generated estimates of natural variability. The reported uncertainties in attribution studies do not take into account basic uncertainty about climate model parameters.<BR/><BR/>"These uncertainties can be considerable. Evidence for a human influence on climate relies on model-based detection studies. On average, models used for attributing recent climate change to human interference assume that natural forcings alone would have yielded virtually no change over the 20th century, and global cooling since 1979 [something rendered rather foolish by Akasofu's point above]. Attribution studies to date do not take into account all known sources of possible influence on the climate.They conclude, "Due to the uncertainties involved, attribution of climate change to human cause is ultimately a judgment call."<BR/><BR/>A judgement call that is reflected in how exactly the models themselves are tuned.Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1174265047853702392007-03-19T13:44:00.000+12:002007-03-19T13:44:00.000+12:00One link, PC. One link.One link, PC. <A HREF="http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm" REL="nofollow">One link</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com