sharetrader
Page 125 of 133 FirstFirst ... 2575115121122123124125126127128129 ... LastLast
Results 1,861 to 1,875 of 1995
  1. #1861
    Guru minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,065

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blobbles View Post
    You seem to be in the boat of claiming that more CO2 for the atmosphere is a good thing and will enable amazing plant growth. Its true, it will. But such a narrow claim without thinking about other side effects is akin to putting mercury on your lips because it makes them look cool without thinking about the damage to the rest of your body.
    The good news is Arctic sea ice for 2018 is more than March 2017. Meanwhile CO2 is approx 408PPM in Feb 2018 compared with 406PPM in Feb 2017. Seems we need more CO2 to get the ice growing.

  2. #1862
    老外
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    930

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
    The good news is Arctic sea ice for 2018 is more than March 2017. Meanwhile CO2 is approx 408PPM in Feb 2018 compared with 406PPM in Feb 2017. Seems we need more CO2 to get the ice growing.
    Surely you can't be that dumb? Am assuming you are joking...

    If not, look at this graph: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ch...sea-ice-graph/

    Select the years from 2000 up to 2018. Note how many are above average...

    Its not hard to figure out. GHG emissions increasing the GHG effect, raising temperatures, particularly in the northern hemisphere. At higher temps, less ice. Not rocket science.

  3. #1863
    Guru minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,065

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blobbles View Post

    Its not hard to figure out. GHG emissions increasing the GHG effect, raising temperatures, particularly in the northern hemisphere. At higher temps, less ice. Not rocket science.
    Then explain why there is more ice this march than last March

  4. #1864
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
    Then explain why there is more ice this march than last March
    Higher demand for whisky on the rocks?

  5. #1865
    老外
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    930

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
    Then explain why there is more ice this march than last March
    Because we are dealing with a complex system that exhibits nonlineraity. Really you are trying to explain the climate by looking at the weather. I am talking about the climate, not the current weather.

    Did you look at the graph of sea ice? Notice the trend? Or are you only interested in picking points in time (weather) and equating that to the trend (climate)?

  6. #1866
    老外
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    930

    Default

    Or to put it in stock market terms...

    NZO's share price in April 2017 was 62c. Today it is 62c. Using the same logic you would say the entire stock market has not moved over that time. Is that an accurate assumption? No? Then why use the same logic for another complex system?

  7. #1867
    Guru minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,065

    Default

    If you are worried you are going tp loose you house to sealevel rises, dont be,
    Attached Images Attached Images

  8. #1868
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    2,539

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
    If you are worried you are going tp loose you house to sealevel rises, dont be,
    It's so funny seeing the "faith" being confronted with hard scientific data. Wonder how long they can continue the "scam" and the brainwashing.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/...arctic-icecap/

  9. #1869
    老外
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    930

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    It's so funny seeing the "faith" being confronted with hard scientific data. Wonder how long they can continue the "scam" and the brainwashing.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/...arctic-icecap/

    Have you actually read that piece? It is so laughable it just shows the stupidity that comes out of people who are not experts in the field. The engineer (note, not climate scientist) starts with a false assumption and then proves it. He thinks that global warming is because humans are producing more heat, therefore heating the planet. He then goes on to prove that we cannot be heating the planet because we aren't producing enough energy. Yay!

    If you can't see the problem with his assumption, educate yourself. Here is a clue, the earth's atmosphere is heated by the SUN not by human activities. This is the greenhouse effect - trapping heat FROM THE SUN, making the planet warm. It is a well known, accepted fact of science. If we change the make-up of the atmosphere, it stands to reason that we change the greenhouse effect.

    Please take your "scientific facts" and use them appropriately.

  10. #1870
    老外
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    930

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
    If you are worried you are going tp loose you house to sealevel rises, dont be,
    You have identified 1 data point and ignored direct observations:
    https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

    Care to try again?

  11. #1871
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    2,539

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blobbles View Post
    Have you actually read that piece? It is so laughable it just shows the stupidity that comes out of people who are not experts in the field. The engineer (note, not climate scientist) starts with a false assumption and then proves it. He thinks that global warming is because humans are producing more heat, therefore heating the planet. He then goes on to prove that we cannot be heating the planet because we aren't producing enough energy. Yay!

    If you can't see the problem with his assumption, educate yourself. Here is a clue, the earth's atmosphere is heated by the SUN not by human activities. This is the greenhouse effect - trapping heat FROM THE SUN, making the planet warm. It is a well known, accepted fact of science. If we change the make-up of the atmosphere, it stands to reason that we change the greenhouse effect.

    Please take your "scientific facts" and use them appropriately.
    Lighten up blobbles, off course the dude writing is an engineer. He says so. He was just having a bit of fun. But as to Antarctica raising sea levels... not going to happen.

    Antarctica is well below freezing nearly everywhere nearly all the time. And by well below freezing I mean minus 30 or 40. The time between snow falling in the interior and calving into the sea as ice bergs is years decades or even centuries later and that world temperatures have nothing much to do with it. Any ice mass balance change is a function of how much snow falls and how much ice calves into the ocean many years into future.

    Antarctica melting is one of the bigger canards that never seems to get challenged.

  12. #1872
    Guru minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,065

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blobbles View Post
    You have identified 1 data point and ignored direct observations:
    https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

    Care to try again?
    I think it is you who are choosing a single data point. Why highlight a trend showing sea level rise since 1993 when it has been rising for the past century (note Wellingtons big increase in 1891 - 1893).

    From NZ Min of Environment:
    "Available tide gauge data showed rising linear trends (with standard deviations given in parentheses) in all long-term monitored sites throughout the period for which data are available.
    • The Wellington tide gauge showed the most marked trend with a rate of increase of 2.23 (0.16) mm/year for 1891 to 1893 and 1901 to 2015.
    • Other sites with less marked increases were:
      • Auckland: 1.60 (0.08) mm/year from 1899 to 2015
      • Dunedin: 1.42 (0.08) mm/year from 1899 to 2015
      • Lyttelton: 2.12 (0.09) mm/year from 1901 to 2015
      • Moturiki (Mount Maunganui): 1.9 (0.25) mm/year from 1973 to 2015
      • New Plymouth: 1.37 (0.16) mm/year for 1920 and 1955 to 2015."

  13. #1873
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    2,539

    Default

    Those nice people with their nice reputations at Nasa with their 1993 starting point.... know all about that one. That's cherry picking if there ever was one.

    Mini... should your post read 1891 to 1993 not 1893 as you have it there?
    Last edited by blackcap; 17-04-2018 at 01:35 PM.

  14. #1874
    老外
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    930

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    Lighten up blobbles, off course the dude writing is an engineer. He says so. He was just having a bit of fun. But as to Antarctica raising sea levels... not going to happen.

    Antarctica is well below freezing nearly everywhere nearly all the time. And by well below freezing I mean minus 30 or 40. The time between snow falling in the interior and calving into the sea as ice bergs is years decades or even centuries later and that world temperatures have nothing much to do with it. Any ice mass balance change is a function of how much snow falls and how much ice calves into the ocean many years into future.

    Antarctica melting is one of the bigger canards that never seems to get challenged.
    I saw nothing to suggest he was joking, Which suggests he is serious. I see this a lot, "what about THIS smoking gun"... I show how bad the science is, so the person then says" Nah I was only joking "... Only to come up with another" smoking gun" which is just as shoddy. It's a boresome and divisive way to distract the ignorant/lazy/dumb from a serious problem.

    A recent study in nature showed that Antarctica sea ice is melting from the bottom due to the warmth of the oceans. Once the sea ice holding back the glaciers disappear... Yes it is a long way away (subjectivly), but do you want to condemn your grand children by not taking action now? https://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...-a8285336.html

    Notice also how the goalposts have been shifted. First we were talking about Arctic sea ice. Nobody admitted they were wrong, they just shifted the goalposts. Equivalent to jamming your head in the sand hoping it will all just go away or not be true.

    Frankly it's scary that smart people get taken in by such bad and inaccurate stories. We trust science experts all the time to inform us. But when it comes to the climate... No no no... All those climatologists are involved in some type of mass conspiracy to get funding or some other unbelievable fiction. It scares the hell out of me so I treat it with the disrespect such thinking deserves.
    Last edited by blobbles; 17-04-2018 at 01:49 PM.

  15. #1875
    Guru minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,065

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post

    Mini... should your post read 1891 to 1993 not 1893 as you have it there?
    No. I'm only quoting what Min of Environment says. Its quite inconvenient that we had sea level rise well over a century ago, but there you go.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •