Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Messages

This section allows you to view all Messages made by this member. Note that you can only see Messages made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - LP

8447
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Deer in the Headlights
Quote from: flyboy77 – on
Climategate never happened right? All innocent grade school banter?
You mean Professor Phil Jones, the guy that Climate Change Denialist's had dragged before the UK Parliament only to see fully exonerated. A case they initiated and then labelled a conspiracy when it didn't go their way!

Then the same fringe groups tried to disparage Professor Jones' team in an an investigation chaired by the former head of Shell UK(Yes chaired by the former head of an oil company.) Which also cleared Professor Jones' staff and stated they acted with rigour, honesty and integrity.

Unlike their accusers it seems! ;D
8448
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Deer in the Headlights
Quote from: flyboy77 – on
New Zealand? https://truebluenz.com/new-zealand-climate-scientist-dr-david-kear-debunks-climate-crisis/?fbclid=IwAR0KlhXK46-TKqfnAURDezGSgID-oHvAUvLwruGBsL-yscAENP243Ud4-qo
So the link opens with;
Quote from: TrueBlueNZ
The following is reproduced from a 2013 self published article by Dr David Kear. Dr Kear has impeccable credentials as a climate scientist, and to his advantage, was educated when universities schooled students in how to think, and didn’t tell them what to think. He died in 2019 aged 95.
Except Kear allegedly wasn't a climate scientist but a geologist!

He was another like Freeman Dyson (Physicist) who took issue with Human Induced Climate change in his later years, and his self-published articles have been somewhat corrupted to support radical climate denialists. Kear had a right to an opinion as any do, but like Dyson not all opinions are equal and a geologist's opinion is not equal to a genuine climate researcher's opinion. btw., Kear's alleged primary problem with the science was in the language used to describe minimums and maximum measurements, he didn't have much of an issue with most of the actual numbers or measurements presented, and he mostly debates whether warming was human induced or natural occuring, not if it was real!

Is anything you've found to support your opinion going to be accurate?
8450
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Deer in the Headlights
Quote from: flyboy77 – on
BOM and their ACORN datasets - nothing more needs to be said.
Except there is, the assertion of some conspiracy was more fake news based around claims of the BoM changing data.

Data that is actually re-calibrated and standardised as the global organisations set new international standards for data homogenisation so that the world speaks the same units of measure relative to global standards. Like the NOAA graph a few posts ago! ;D

That BoM / ACORN conspiracy was debunked more than half a decade ago!
8452
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Deer in the Headlights
Quote from: flyboy77 – on
But again, you endeavour to attack the man rather than the information presented - says it ALL.
So exposing someone's alleged fraudulent behaviour is an unsuitable topic of discussion and I'm smug, yet the accused fraud and the former Australian Senator that partly funds his activities are somehow nice blokes! :D

Isn't offering an alleged frauds fraudulent report as supporting evidence an issue? :o

I've already pointed out that scientists do not make claims of certainty, so you post assertions of certitude, obfuscation and avoidance. Publication tactics perfectly copied by climate sceptics from the Tobacco Lobby!

All the presented data represents trends and risks, and it will change over time with improvements in measurement and calibration techniques, it's people like Heller that try to assert that it's immutable and that any hint of change is conspiracy!

There is no subject you can drag into this debate to divert from the real facts, whether it's making false claims about peak science organisations, dragging various religions into the debate or implying that the presented basic math and charted data is merely obfuscation to avoid debating the issues!

Debunk the basic math if you feel it's wrong.
8453
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Deer in the Headlights
Quote from: flyboy77 – on
Again, you ignored all the issues raised (again) and hit the rhetoric button. Ho hum.
I can't debate fake facts because they are fake, including the old Tony Heller "fake faked graphs routine!"

You may as well start your claims by writing something like "After Carlton won the 2018 premiership things got colder!" Because your weather theories and facts are just as inaccurate as the imagined AFL result!

Tony Heller you offer above was caught out altering the graphs! The very graphs he provides in his video as proof of NOAA and NASA altering graphs! The unaltered graphs are still available to this day on the NOAA and NASA websites, here are some unaltered officially published data sets;





Of course we won't worry about the fact that NOAA and other scientific organisations actually calibrate data by cross referencing multiple methods of measurement to improve it's accuracy, which actually reduced temperature rise from the last centuries raw data! They don't fake a graph like Heller then offer it in isolation as proof of anything!

Another uncomfortable truth for the sceptics to deal with, it's so easy to disprove the climate sceptics fraud that children can do it! ;D
8454
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Deer in the Headlights
No physicist or another other person with rudimentary algebra skills will claim a GSM, whether it is a Minimum or Maximum event, has any significant impact on temperature, global warming, human induced global warming or cooling!

Firstly, given the term GSM describes sun spots and other solar activity like CME(Coronal Mass Ejection) primarily exposed by techniques from the field of Helioseismology.

Secondly, even if it had some detectable influence on changes in fluence(irradiation over time), the math shows it's effect would only be about 1/90th of the effect that the Earth experiences from the elliptical orbit it completes year after year!

The Earth temperature rising by 1°C on average is roughly a 6.7% change in temperature, because the average Earth temperature is about 15.0°C. You know stats, scales, ratios and averages which might be important given some parts of Earth are frozen and others are desert! ;)

The total solar irradiance(TSI) level changing from the average due to a GSMaximum might be 1360W/m² to 1361W/m² which is only a 0.07% change!

But don't let facts like math get in the way of your imagination, just stick fat with the crazy ideas of "Scotty from Marketing" and "The Donald"! ;D
8455
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Deer in the Headlights
Quote from: flyboy77 – on
Now you're just making stuff up.

No more from me. Like every other alarmist, totally incapable of having a rational debate/discussion.

ps if you're playing the facile D-K card, projection looks a certainty.
A typical skeptic's reaction to any uncomfortable truth, you can try to walk away but you can't escape reality.

As I wrote earlier, there is no need to feel guilty or act defensively because Global Warming is not your fault!

Flyboy77,  you would be much better off if you put as much effort into understanding the facts as you do dredging up fakes! But I realise the fakes are the downhill path, the easier way out of understanding a sometimes difficult problem! Just deny, deny, deny and it will all be good!

Rational scientists do not lay blame for this, they just explain the data and the risks, then usually recommend some sensible actions like harm minimisation!
8456
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Deer in the Headlights
Quote from: flyboy77 – on
https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/

(noting NASA of course will down play the implications and keep on with the AGW narrative)

NASA doesn't have to downplay anything, because GSM isn't a measure of fluence(the total solar flux over time). GSM(Grand Solar Minimum) is primarily a measure of general solar/sunspot activity, a longer term version of the Suns regular 11 year cycle.

Even Wikipedia gets GSM right, I don't think NASA has anything to worry about being proven wrong by skeptics! ;D

It's uniformed skeptics who attached a significant effect to the GSM in an effort to explain climate change. Confusing and erroneously referencing things like the GSM and Maunder Minimum to "explain" why the Earth was cooler then and hotter now. I gather they erroneously think "Grand Solar Minimum" means something significant in regards to fluence.



Of course basic analysis of the data shows the total fluence varies by less than 0.1%, about +/- 1W around an average fluence of 1360W/m² (1/1360 x 100 = 0.07%). You know the mysterious yellow scale on the left of the graph above, which I think some crazy people call the Y-Axis, it's a scale apparently!

While Earth's aphelion(furthest from Sun) and perihelion(closest to Sun) position contributes a +/- 3% change in total fluence yearly, you know more scales and logarithms! ;D

Assuming skeptics accept that the Earth does travel around the Sun in a ellipse and that it's not flat.

Of course if Earth is flat then forget everything I said! :o

So is the skeptics failure to accept primary school math deliberate wilful ignorance, pure stupidity, or perhaps Dunning-Kruger at work again?
8458
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Deer in the Headlights
Quote from: flyboy77 – on
Seriously LP. you're projecting.

Look that up.

I used the issue of ocean alkalinity as it is but one example of the laughable scare mongering rolled out by alarmists. And your commentary suggests you don't even get a log scale....no wonder your comments were facile and rhetorical.

No doubt you missed this during the week. eight studies out of JCU could not be replicated. Hmmmm.

https://phys.org/news/2020-01-double-checking-science-ocean-acidification-impair.html

When scientists fudge/adjust/manipulate data there's an agenda. And in the climate change field, there's been mountains of dodgy stuff going on - Mann, Marcott, Climategate, the JCU stuff....

I gave you the opportunity to hone in a particular topic and get to the nitty-gritty - you chose the ad hominem attack.

Says it all really.
That and personal attacks would be your modus operandi, I'm not here to assist you in correcting that behaviour. It is a matter for you!

So ignoring the diversion back to the debate, after all a bit of learning and we might be able to send Scotty from Marketing some useful advice for his new clean green persona, Scotty too Hotty!

So I'm still waiting for anything from you on the pending GSM and global warming, even a rough general summary is fine. It's not a bogus fact you picked up somewhere and repeated is it?
8460
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Deer in the Headlights
Quote from: flyboy77 – on
Ocean acidification (not acidity)
.
.
.
Clearly your back ground includes little or no knowledge of the geologic timescale - I suggest you brush up on that  ;)
If you wish to get persnickety, that would be background wouldn't it?

Can you sell me a brush? ;D

Unlike some skeptical commentators I know enough about deep time not to confuse CO2 or global temperatures from the Hadean or Achean(FFS, lunatics quoting relative Hadean temperatures as proof the earth isn't warning!) with the post-Proterozoic Cenozoic or as it may now become cynically known the Pyrozoic! And probably I know just enough not to equate effects that happen over tens or hundreds of years like recent CO2 rise and a Grand Solar Minimum(GSM), with geologic processes that occur over thousands or millions of years like an ice age! ::)