Hottest year? Not this one (16 Jan, 2020)

Have your say on today's Aardvark Daily column

Re: Hottest year? Not this one (16 Jan, 2020)

Postby aardvark_admin » Thu Jan 16, 2020 4:31 pm

I"m sure it's all to do with the equator being closer to the moon :-)
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4506
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: Hottest year? Not this one (16 Jan, 2020)

Postby phill » Thu Jan 16, 2020 4:56 pm

its one of the deniers contortions of evidence to discredit gw / agw / sea level rise

last i heard yes the islands are sinking for various reasons .. deniers claim its just a natural one off ( albeit they use it for quite a few low lying islands currently facing inundation )

but the scientific facts are for two ways
ie
land sinking compounded by sea level rise .. and there are plenty facing inundation that are not sinking
but all this is again twisted by disputing the way sea level is measured at any one point

most of the denier logic follows the .. if god is so powerful can he create a rock so big he himself cannot lift it theme

cause
if he can it proves he is not an all powerful god
but
if he cant it proves he is not an all powerful god
( ,,,,,,,, ....... A E I O U use em sparingly theres probably not enough )

i might live and eat in a sewer .. but hey look how many of these shiny things i have got
User avatar
phill
 
Posts: 2327
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:31 pm

Ad hominen Put Downs

Postby Perry » Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:35 pm

I'm always leery of observations and comments that include the ad hominem expression, "denier." [singular or plural]

Good W'gton woodenhead and spin doctor practice, it is.

Who is lying and who is truthing?

As for NIWA, I gave up checking on their 'predictions' a few years back. They were wrong so many times that, in my eyes, they had no residual credibility.
Perry
 
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Hottest year? Not this one (16 Jan, 2020)

Postby phill » Thu Jan 16, 2020 6:01 pm

niwa are useful in that they have the analytical answers
empirical proves are easy to find

i find the word denier is more acceptable than using the term delusional fukwits .. which i far prefer and mentally use in the stead of denier when i type it
but to your wishes i shall stop using the word denier
( ,,,,,,,, ....... A E I O U use em sparingly theres probably not enough )

i might live and eat in a sewer .. but hey look how many of these shiny things i have got
User avatar
phill
 
Posts: 2327
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:31 pm

Re: Hottest year? Not this one (16 Jan, 2020)

Postby phill » Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:02 pm

there is a response to that letter
excerpt


SUMMARY

This letter presenting a short list of claims about climate change boasts a list of “500 scientists and professionals” who have co-signed it.

The claims contradict or misrepresent the evidence uncovered by geoscientists, failing to provide support for its conclusions downplaying the threat of climate change. The letter claims, for example, that climate models ignore the benefits of increased CO2 on plant growth. This is false, as many climate models simulate the response of vegetation to increased CO2—and the climate change it causes.

And while some outlets described the co-signers as experts in climate science, most are not. As noted in an analysis below, a significant portion of the co-signers are either engineers or professionals in non-technical fields. Only 10 identified themselves as climate scientists.

Similar letters have sought to establish credibility with large numbers of co-signers in the past, but evidence is what counts in science.

See all the scientists’ annotations in context.
REVIEWERS’ OVERALL FEEDBACK

These comments are the overall assessment of scientists on the article, they are substantiated by their knowledge in the field and by the content of the analysis in the annotations on the article.

Timothy Osborn, Professor, University of East Anglia, and Director of Research, Climatic Research Unit:
This statement is unscientific. It ignores well-established understanding of climate and of what causes the climate to change. It makes cherry-picked statements, such as noting that some vegetation grows more with increased CO2 while ignoring the risks of serious damage arising from the climate change that is being caused by the same increase in CO2. The authors of the statement appear to be very unfamiliar with climate science: for example, they do not know that the amount of global warming we have observed is very close to the amount predicted by climate models.

link https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/ ... e-science/
( ,,,,,,,, ....... A E I O U use em sparingly theres probably not enough )

i might live and eat in a sewer .. but hey look how many of these shiny things i have got
User avatar
phill
 
Posts: 2327
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:31 pm

Re: Hottest year? Not this one (16 Jan, 2020)

Postby Perry » Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:16 pm

phill wrote:i find the word denier is more acceptable than using the term delusional fukwits

Do you understand the expression ad hominem?

Any sort of put-down, no matter the word / language style chosen, is inimical to reasoned or logical debate.
Perry
 
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Hottest year? Not this one (16 Jan, 2020)

Postby phill » Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:50 pm

do you understand the term .. > 20 years of frustration ..
lordy me its passed 30 now
im becoming less tolerant

being quiet calm and rational plainly hasn't worked

you refuse to put your butt on the line ( the bet you refused to answer to )
so you tell me
what does it take to change the mind of the .. ( insert whatever term you wish )
( ,,,,,,,, ....... A E I O U use em sparingly theres probably not enough )

i might live and eat in a sewer .. but hey look how many of these shiny things i have got
User avatar
phill
 
Posts: 2327
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:31 pm

Re: Hottest year? Not this one (16 Jan, 2020)

Postby Kiwiiano » Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:48 pm

You’ve fallen into the old trap of mistaking weather for climate, Bruce. Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get and this is not the climate we expect. Sure it’s been a bit cold in the central NI, although we had some new record or near record highs elsewhere in NZ. You need to keep your eye on the big picture, the global temperature records, both terrestrial and marine being reset regularly, the last decade being the hottest ever, the CO2 levels the highest ever (and continuing to increase). Ice is melting everywhere, droughts and rainfall are (paradoxically) getting worse, heatwaves more common and stronger/longer, even in places as unlikely as the Arctic.
The Aussie bushfires are conspicuous, not just because of their severity and extent, but the fact that they are happening both too early in the season and at a time of a neutral-weak El Niño. All the previous disastrous fires coincided with strong El Ninos. God help them when the next severe ENSO event arrives.
~ Kiwiiano
“Nothing will make any sense until you realise that nothing makes any sense!”
Kiwiiano
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 5:36 pm

Re: Hottest year? Not this one (16 Jan, 2020)

Postby aardvark_admin » Fri Jan 17, 2020 5:57 am

Although I'm not a climate denier, I do frown at how the media and those with an agenda to pursue often "repurpose" the facts to suit their cause.

If conditions are aligned with climate-change predictions -- "it's climate". If they're contrary to predictions "it's just weather" :-)

Also, in the case of the Aussie bush fires, climate/weather is just *one* factor in the disaster we presently see. Changes/removal of management provisions that has meant fires spread more readily, plus the presence of arsonists whose actions apparently added significantly to the problem have all been downplayed in favour of "climate change disaster" headlines. The reality (IMHO) is that the bushfires are more due to an unfortunate convergence of multiple factors than any one of those factors alone -- but that doesn't fit the media/interest-group's narrative so it's ignored.

As always, the truth lies somewhere between the extremes of opinion. Now I'm off to check my horoscope (after Bible class) so as to make sure it's not going to be the day I fall off the edge of the Earth because I wasn't paying attention :-)
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4506
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: Hottest year? Not this one (16 Jan, 2020)

Postby Malcolm » Fri Jan 17, 2020 8:12 am

aardvark_admin wrote:Although I'm not a climate denier, I do frown at how the media and those with an agenda to pursue often "repurpose" the facts to suit their cause.

If conditions are aligned with climate-change predictions -- "it's climate". If they're contrary to predictions "it's just weather" :-)

Also, in the case of the Aussie bush fires, climate/weather is just *one* factor in the disaster we presently see. Changes/removal of management provisions that has meant fires spread more readily, plus the presence of arsonists whose actions apparently added significantly to the problem have all been downplayed in favour of "climate change disaster" headlines. The reality (IMHO) is that the bushfires are more due to an unfortunate convergence of multiple factors than any one of those factors alone -- but that doesn't fit the media/interest-group's narrative so it's ignored.


Those are bullshit being propogated by Murdoch media. The reason they haven't done much hazard reduction burns is because to do it they need a very narrow window of weather and ground conditions, not too wet, not too dry, wind not too strong and blowing in the right direction etc. They have had an 18 month drought meaning everything was too dry and any fire was a hazard which could get out of control. Also the number of forest rangers had been dropped from about 240 to 180 under Abbott/Turnbull in order to cut costs at the federal level. There was no corresponding increase at the state level to make up for it. They were lacking in manpower to conduct scrub clearing operations. So the hazard reduction burns were not carried out due to unfavourable conditions and a lack of resources.

As for arson once again a false talking point being pushed in Murdoch publications to avoid talking about the real issue. They claimed the police were investigating about 180 suspected arsonists. This was not backed by a statement from the police or by other un-affiliated news outlets. I think the NSW police did put out some numbers which said 24 people were spoken to about suspected arson, but there were also 90 issued infringement notices for breaching the fireban, for things such as coal BBQ in a total fireban area, rubbish fires inside a fireban area, unauthorised back-burns etc. Another 50 odd were fined for things like careless disposal of lit cigarrette butts. They have also had about 200 big fires, I think a couple of dozen were suspected arson leaving ~170 fires starting from other causes, apparently dry-air lightening strikes is the main on.
Also They have always had arson, but the fires got so big so fast and much earlier this year because the 18month drought and unseasonably hot weather left the forests in highly flammable state. Usually they have their big bush fires in late January/early February, this summer they were in a crisis from late November.
Malcolm
 
Posts: 492
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 9:43 am

PreviousNext

Return to Today's column

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron