• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Global warming discussion V

The Atheist said:
...insults snipped...I did not say anywhere it was wrong....insults snipped...
Click to expand...
Using the units that papers use in a field of study is basic and correct scientific scholarship. Wrong scholarship is using non-standard units that introduces surplus zeros. You wrote that the authors should use wrong scholarship because you found the numbers "scary". The is encouraging wrong scholarship.

You wrote "I suspect they went with the scary number rather than tonnes" and my reply was Suspicion does not make scholarship wrong. A paper about methane emissions went with units that are used in methane emissions as you mentioned (The only time I've ever seen the term used is for methane or CFC emissions) and the units make sense when writing the numbers involved: Writing 29000 (±18000) tonnes per year as 29 (±18) Gigagram per year is basic scientific scholarship .

ETA: Followed by a couple of good news stories, The Atheist
Carbon emissions from energy industry rise at fastest rate since 2011
Scientists shocked by Arctic permafrost thawing 70 years sooner than predicted
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
.../complete nonsense removed....
Click to expand...

There were no insults involved, and feel free to report to check, if you wish.

You lied, and I called you on it, noting that the constant lying about what I've said makes you look like a fool, because it's there to check. I'm not sure whether you should go to Specsavers or try actually reading a bit more carefully.

I'm just well and truly over it. I figured, after ten days or so, you'd finally accepted your fate, but you keep doubling down.

It's little wonder a lot of ordinary people - who would otherwise actually care about climate change - are turned off by zealots.

Let's discuss that and leave the feeble attempts at strawmen alone for a while.
 
applecorped said:
...
year 49.........and losing steam
Click to expand...
Year ~123 and unfortunately gaining steam. Natural climate changes were found in the early 19th century (ice ages) so that was a hint of man-made climate changes. The possibility of global warming has been known since 1896 (the greenhouse effect was found and CO2 levels were thought to be rising from industrialization). It took to the 1960's for the climate science to be filled out and evidence of CO2 levels increasing to be gathered. In the 1970's ("year 49"), climate scientists had enough confidence in the science to start warning about global warming. The situation now is that it is looks likely that global warming will surpass the limits that agreements on climate mitigation used to make the consequences acceptable.

The Paris Agreement wants "to keep the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels; and to limit the increase to 1.5 °C, since this would substantially reduce the risks and effects of climate change". The "Effectiveness" section later in the article list some studies that say that the goals are unlikely to met.
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
...calling me a liar snipped again...
Click to expand...
Which does not leave much to reply to!
He encouraged wrong scholarship (the use of non-standard units in a paper because he found the standard units used "scary") and I stated that is what he wrote.

ETA:
A "constant lying about what I've said" lie that needs addressing (sorry for the derail). Posts in reply to The Atheist (some combined)
  1. 26th March 2019: That imaginary "load of people" will tell you ... (the posters in this thread know about climate science) is a comment on what he imagined about posts in the thread.
  2. 26th March 2019: I explained the basic fact that economics vary and thus CO2 emissions vary. (thus the need to look at periods that smooth out economic cycles).
  3. 26th March 2019: That is not quite what that news article says, The Atheist.
  4. 2nd April 2019: Not a good comparison because Invercargill is different from Klawock. (if you compare things do not use "apples and oranges" - that is a contrast)
  5. 16th April 2019 Rather irresponsible politics is countered by responsible people reforming a scientific advisory group to complete the work it would have finished for the federal government
  6. More posts about "Invercargill is different from Klawock" with true facts about them and the original article.
  7. 10th June 2019: Papers try to use units that reduce redundant zeros and reflect the uncertainty.
  8. More posts with true facts about scientific scholarship.
  9. 11th June 2019: Not a huge numerical difference. But climate science tells us that small changes in greenhouse gases can have large changes in climate.
4th April 2019: I wrote about weather and terrain and get back Your dishonesty is becoming worse by the day when nothing in the post or preceding posts was dishonest.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
A chance you replied to my post before I finished it so what I actually wrote:
Click to expand...

Nope, I read it.

Reality Check said:
... because he found the standard units used "scary")
Click to expand...

Nope, and even better, linking to the actual quote and still lying about it!

Nowhere did I say I found them scary - I understand both maths and metric measurements. I said quite clearly other people may find the numbers scary,

Reality Check said:
...
and I stated that is what he wrote.[/URL]
Click to expand...

And yet again, you're lying about what I actually said.

Give it up, man. You're just digging the hole deeper and deeper.

And that's my final response to you - the thread's about climate change, not how many lies you can post.
 
Looks a chance of a repeat of late summer 2003, when 3,000 or so people died in a single day in Paris.

I remember in the 2008 documentary "Six degrees that could change the world" one of the scientists interviewed predicted that a similar event could happen in Europe every two years after 2017.
 
The Atheist said:
Nope, I read it...
Click to expand...
This is what you wrote: I suspect they went with the scary number rather than tonnes. That is wrong as I explained in He encouraged wrong scholarship (the use of non-standard units in a paper because he found thinks other people find the standard units used "scary").

Once again: Climate scientists writing for climate scientists using the units that climate scientists use for their field of methane emissions do not select units because they produce "scary" numbers. Climate scientists understand metric measurements as do you and I. Climate scientist certainly do not find units scary! I do not find units scary. You do not find units scary, Maybe no one in the world who knows the metric system thinks that units are scary. Thus that suspicion is wrong.

It is tonnes that come close to "scary" or at least bigger numbers. Grams would be even "scarier" :D. Writing 29000 (±18000) tonnes per year as 29 (±18) Gigagram per year is basic scientific scholarship
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
I think we can reasonably say events like this will become more and more commonplace as a result of the warming planet: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/24/hell-is-coming-week-long-heatwave-begins-across-europe

Meanwhile, NZ's first climate-induced move is happening: https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment...mmunity-of-60-people-to-move-to-higher-ground
Click to expand...
Standard climate science in the first news article - global warming means that the frequency of extreme weather events such as heat waves increases.

The second news article exaggerates a tiny bit. The Hohepa community is moving residences because there is a "threat of inundation from sea rise and flooding due to climate change" in the future and the community residents have a history of refusing to move in past threatened floods. So it makes good sense to move now. The overall theme of sea level rises and storm intensity increases threatening sea-side communities is spot on.
 
Some deep irony here - we have a government so committed to green policies that we've banned oil & gas exploration, yet on a percentage of GDP basis, we're right down with former Soviet states in emissions against GDP: https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment...have-barely-budged-in-a-decade-new-data-shows

What the survey doesn't tell you is that the sharp rise in domestic emissions is against a background of strong uptake of solar energy, compulsory home insulation, and additional fuel taxes. Good to see our mates across the ditch are sticking with us.

Disappointing effort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom