Select to expand quote

cisco said..
Yes!! The climate is changing, thank goodness.

That appears to be a compendium of popular misconceptions. She even trots out those strawmen CO2 is not a toxin and global temp increase is a virtue not a hazard. She doesn't appear to understand marginal CO2 as a forcing. She doesn't understand how elevated CO2 in the records can lag temperature rise and still be the main driver etc.

Cat contradicts science. Who do you trust, a populist misinformed YouTube cat or received science?

Climate change deniers and flat earthers both appear to prefer ignorant Youtube cats to science.

GW sceptics don't seem to understand what a real sceptic is. Tip; it isn't a conspiracy theorist or someone who's a paid shill for big business.

Not so much latest finding but latest observations, clowns with the Patagonia " big oil don't surf" stickers on their cars, really ? so it's ok for you to run your petrol burning oil lubricated air and environment polluters carrying your oil based surf sticks anywhere you want including climate change protests and also it's ok by you to drill for oil in oceans anywhere in the world except Oz for you to consume in 100s if not 1000s of various products, really ?

This is why the world is fucd, the self entitled hypocritical look at me minority expecting everyone else to fix the problem they contribute to daily and a billionaire owner of an American company called Patagonia riding the back of oil by stealth, buy Patagonia because big oil don't surf, how does Patagonia transport their "natural" products ?

Select to expand quote

log man said..
I think making fun of climate deniers should be in the olympics.

Why? Would the gold medalist be the person who made the biggest dick of himself?

I'll give you some examples of the problem with AGW "science".

1./ The biggest events in global climate are El Ninos. They happen roughly every 4 years, but climate models can't predict them - not their timing, duration or intensity.

If you can't predict El Ninos, the predictive value of your model in other areas is suspect.

2./ When James E Hansen and others announced in 1988 that global warming was here , they predicted a 0.35 degrees Celsius increase over the next ten years.

The actual increase? 0.11 degrees.

It was wrong by 300%, as many of the climate change predictions are... indicating guesswork.

When NASA launched the Mars Rover, they predicted a landing time 253 days later at 8.11pm. In fact , it landed at 8.35pm. That is an error of a few thousandths of a percent....Now that is science.

Select to expand quote

psychomub said..

When NASA launched the Mars Rover, they predicted a landing time 253 days later at 8.11pm. In fact , it landed at 8.35pm. That is an error of a few thousandths of a percent....Now that is science.

That is a much simpler system. Newton came up with the basic equation 400 years ago.

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..

psychomub said..

When NASA launched the Mars Rover, they predicted a landing time 253 days later at 8.11pm. In fact , it landed at 8.35pm. That is an error of a few thousandths of a percent....Now that is science.

That is a much simpler system. Newton came up with the basic equation 400 years ago.

It's real science.

Being 200% -500% out on your calculations is guesswork, not science.

It's engineering. The science dates back to Newton.

Select to expand quote

psychomub said..Being 200% -500% out on your calculations is guesswork, not science.

Mr Milk said..

psychomub said..
When NASA launched the Mars Rover, they predicted a landing time 253 days later at 8.11pm. In fact , it landed at 8.35pm. That is an error of a few thousandths of a percent....Now that is science.

That is a much simpler system. Newton came up with the basic equation 400 years ago.

It's real science.

The Wright Brothers were a bit out on their early calculations too, but we're getting the flying thing pretty spot on now.

A bit off topic but a good explanation of the current weather.
www.seabreeze.com.au/forums/Windsurfing/Gps/Whats-driving-the-current-weather-

Select to expand quote

psychomub said..
El Nino

Another boogey man from my childhood along with La Ni?a. Whatever happened to them?

Select to expand quote

log man said..
GW sceptics don't seem to understand what a real sceptic is. Tip; it isn't a conspiracy theorist or someone who's a paid shill for big business.

Oh puh-lease -- you're lecturing us on what a skeptic is?

Tip: when you have "conspiracy theorist" in the same sentence as "shill for big business" you literally are the conspiracy theorist.

Any legitimate skepticism in this thread has been dismissed as a "denial", like that answers any valid question of the science you present as the basis for your argument ... and can't actually rebut.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

log man said..
GW sceptics don't seem to understand what a real sceptic is. Tip; it isn't a conspiracy theorist or someone who's a paid shill for big business.

Any legitimate skepticism in this thread has been dismissed as a "denial", like that answers any valid question of the science you present as the basis for your argument ... and can't actually rebut.

Word salad........

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

psychomub said..
El Nino

Another boogey man from my childhood along with La Ni?a. Whatever happened to them?

I think they grew up and now have muchos ninyos.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

Kamikuza said..

psychomub said..
El Nino

Another boogey man from my childhood along with La Ni?a. Whatever happened to them?

I think they grew up and now have muchos ninyos.

Ay caramba!

Select to expand quote

log man said..

Kamikuza said..

log man said..
GW sceptics don't seem to understand what a real sceptic is. Tip; it isn't a conspiracy theorist or someone who's a paid shill for big business.

Any legitimate skepticism in this thread has been dismissed as a "denial", like that answers any valid question of the science you present as the basis for your argument ... and can't actually rebut.

Word salad........

Sorry, forgot your reading level is The Guardian.

Let me rephrase for you - you just don't have the skills to play the ball and not the man.

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..

Say hi to George for me Tony

Gee, who would have thought that Greta, a little girly girl could get the big boy huffy puffy deniers so triggered haha

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
Gee, who would have thought that Greta, a little girly girl could get the big boy huffy puffy deniers so triggered haha

It's only because her message is so completely wrong.

Select to expand quote

psychomub said..

holy guacamole said..
Gee, who would have thought that Greta, a little girly girl could get the big boy huffy puffy deniers so triggered haha

It's only because her message is so completely wrong.

This message
"Action must be powerful and wide ranging.After all the climate crisis is not just about the environment.
Its a crisis of human rights,of justice and of political will.
Colonial,racist,and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it.We need to dismantle them all."

So blah blah blah socialism blah blah blah new world order.

So triggered....

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..
A bit off topic but a good explanation of the current weather.
www.seabreeze.com.au/forums/Windsurfing/Gps/Whats-driving-the-current-weather-

There is some inbuilt contradictions about what do we thing about this global meteorology.At first we blame humans for global warming and effecting climate on planetary scale. On another hand we claim that there is nothing we could do beside planting some solar panels on roofs, That looks good for PR but change nothing.Lets fantasize what people / humans could really do .Lets imagine 100 -200 years from now people could still complain about heat and drought in Australia as today.But their resources may be 100x greater. What we could do to alternate our Australian climate pattern?

Lets imagine gigantic misting plants / constructions by the sea that will take water from the sea and disperse finley into mist.

That water mist will evaporate instantly in our temperatures and brings humidity to 100 % at the mid day when temperature is highest.Once we have this wind direction from the sea into the land all this moist air will be carried deep into the land, then when temperature drops, need to turn back into liquid water . Basic physics. At lower temperature at night air is not capable to sustain as much humidity as warm air.Each cubic meter may give us back as much as 20 g of water. Obviously the scale of project must be gigantic for country like Australia to works. But with solar powered machinery ,taking water from the sea and turning into mist to evaporate , this geoengineering could be done one day in the future.Obviously we don't have to wait 200 years and could do test projects on smaller scale to check how increased artificially humidity could effect weather on localized scale. We could setup small misting stations where the wind is most likely travelling inland and observe effects at localized scale. We could extrapolate our calculation to check what is the scale and energy needed to cover bigger region, say 300 km around Brisbane.Scale of the project may surprise us at first, but if we are able to spend 15 bln dollars on water buy back program- that do just opposate what was intended for , we could afford to buy and set some serious equipment to turn water into mist and vapour.

Does my misting project fit the criteria of extreme measures? Or better spend those billions on conferences and PR propaganda ? If 100 conferences in the greatest cities do more then 100 spray misting towers for the planet?
www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/exceptional-heat-urgent-climate-action-needed-to-avoid-extremes-20191203-p53gih.html

Macro, this is another one of your ideas. Good on you.

But, where does the salt go? Is it clogging the misting tubes? Is it sprayed out in the mist and drops to the ground? Does it carry with the mist and settle on whatever is in the way? Does it impact the formation of water vapor/cloud?

I know, so many questions, but unless you have done a trial with seawater, what is the validity of this approach.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..
Macro, this is another one of your ideas. Good on you.

But, where does the salt go? Is it clogging the misting tubes? Is it sprayed out in the mist and drops to the ground? Does it carry with the mist and settle on whatever is in the way? Does it impact the formation of water vapor/cloud?

I know, so many questions, but unless you have done a trial with seawater, what is the validity of this approach.

You are absolutely right. This salt could be our another precious resource. Evaporated salt is very popular commodity that we could then sell. This is mix of very precious minerals and we don't need to wait another 10 millions of years to create deposit that we could mine later.Maybe thanks to this left over- we could fund whole projects to recover money ? Lets also remember that evaporating water takes a lot of heat / energy . I could imagine that even 1 km long trial spray line made for testing purposed could create significant microclimate change in area.At the mid day there is 1 GigaWatts of sun energy falling onto 1 square km of land. Now we could take all this energy back and make good use. we need to find out exact amount of energy and water now needed for our pumps to deliver and spray this sea water.
Now we could do simple calculation how many liters of water do we need for 1kn2 to complete disperse this energy.
Lets take 2500kJ/ to evaporate 1 liter
and 6 GWatts hours per 1km - convert this into energy in J.
Done.
Additionally we could divert some of the moist air to condensing tunel to produce clean drinking water. Instead of expensive to build and maintain desalination plants, that relay on osmosis and membranes, filters our system is completely solar powered , low maintenance low cost. Could supply drinking water for whole city at almost no cost.
My brief calculation suggest that utilizing 1 square km of land and sun power we could produce
8,800 tonnes of clean water - or evaporate and release into air every day!that is 8.8 mln of liters of clean water ! If ever person do drink 3 liters a day that means we could sustain almost 3 mln people providing them all drinking water they need.

Probably should start another thread titled the "the great pro green corporate lie" but these are related findings to the theme of the post

Direct quotes from the Patagonia website:

Quote "The automobile is a wondrous tool, but it comes with some serious downsides: air pollution, including carbon dioxide, traffic and parking congestion, oil spills, etc"

So Patagonia create plastic (oil) bumper stickers to put on automobiles so numptees can drive around being an environmental warrior while conversly polluting Oz and creating free advertising for Patagonia, great business model.

But surely Patagonia don't manufacture in China, the world's greatest polluter ? um sorry believers yep they do

Quote "Of the 43 factories we currently contract with to make Patagonia products, 13 are in China and nine are in the U.S. . Far more of our products are made by those Chinese suppliers than they are by the U.S factories because of their expertise and price"

Other 20 or so factories located in India and sth east asia, so Patagonia manufacture in the world's top 2 greatest polluter countries, China and India, because it's cheaper, is that not corporate profits before environment, lol, how else could Yvon become a billionaire.

Still proud to have that sticker on your car ?

And to think this man used to live in a teepee on the great ocean road, now an official Patagonia ambassador, I'm shattered.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

log man said..

Kamikuza said..

log man said..
GW sceptics don't seem to understand what a real sceptic is. Tip; it isn't a conspiracy theorist or someone who's a paid shill for big business.

Any legitimate skepticism in this thread has been dismissed as a "denial", like that answers any valid question of the science you present as the basis for your argument ... and can't actually rebut.

Word salad........

Sorry, forgot your reading level is The Guardian.

Let me rephrase for you - you just don't have the skills to play the ball and not the man.

Thanks for editing. It makes sense now......still bollocks but at least we can understand now.