OT: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results. - Page 3

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
yeah m your a twit ,  u SIMPLY ACCEPT  ,  u dont even bother finding out for
ya self...



Quoted text here. Click to load it



Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
...

Sounds like a simple projection.

What have you gone out and measured to make you sure of your position?

Don't worry. It's rhetorical. We know you generally can't prove a negative
that way.

Hence:
"If an eminent scientist examines all the evidence and concludes
that something is not so, they are most likely wrong". -- Albert E

Moreso for non-scientists, one assumes.

--
Another problem that has to be taken seriously is a slow rise of sea level
which could become catastrophic if it continues to accelerate. We have
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Al Gore, self proclaimed expert has been reported to be buying
waterfront property, apparently Rudd has done the same.
I wouldn't worry about it too much. Might be a good time to get into
beach front property once the market finishes dropping.

Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
...
Quoted text here. Click to load it

The Lex Luthor stategy. :)

The California coast sounds like it should have very very high returns.
(AKA a "courageous investment" in Yes Minister terminology).


Heavy coastal erosion in 2009-2010 winter linked to climate change

Suzanne Bohan
Contra Costa Times [Cal, US]
07/14/2011 03:20:53 PM PDT

The storms that battered the W Coast during the winter of 2009-10 eroded
record chunks of shoreline, and more will likely disappear as the changing
climate brings more such powerful storm seasons, scientists warn in a new study.

Pacific waves were 20% stronger on average than any y since 1997 and
higher-than-usual sea levels drove them further inland, tearing away on
average 1/3 more land in California.

The state's beaches were "eroded to often unprecedented levels," said Patrick
Barnard, a coastal geologist with the US Geological Survey who led the research.

"It's the kind of winter we may experience more frequently" as global
temperatures rise, he said.

Nowhere along the W Coast was erosion more pronounced than at Ocean Beach in
San Francisco. That winter, the Pacific encroached 184 feet inland, 75% more
than in a typical season.

Waves reaching 30 feet eroded bluffs and triggered the collapse of a section
of Highway 1. It reopened with one of its 2 southbound lanes permanently
closed. San Francisco built a 425-foot rock bulwark to protect the road and
the wastewater treatment plant behind it.

The southern end of Ocean Beach "really is in a sad state," said Benjamin
Grant, a consultant with the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research
Association. He's leading the nonprofit's development of a voluntary master
plan for the beach.

"Large piles of rubble make it very difficult to move along the beach or
across the beach to get into the water. "...  Ocean Beach really looks like a
lot more of (what) the California coast is going to look like in 20, 30, 40,
50 years," Grant said. "It's a glimpse of California's future in some ways."

The raging storms also stripped several San Diego beaches, leaving nothing but
"cobble, boulders and just rock," Barnard said.

Bluff, dune and cliff erosion, along with winter waves hauling off fine sand,
is part of the natural dynamic along coastlines. Summer brings smaller waves
carrying sand back on shore, replenishing beaches.

However, after the winter of 2009-10, there was less beach replenishment than
usual. That leaves scoured beaches vulnerable to even worse erosion if one
powerful winter is followed by another.

The force behind the damaging storms of 2009-10 was a different type of El
Ni?o, a climate pattern that periodically brings wetter winters to the
California coast.

Warmer-than-usual sea surface temperatures in the eastern equatorial region of
the Pacific create the classic El Ni?o, which drenched California during the
winters of 1982-83 and 1997-98.

But researchers observed another type of El Ni?o has become far more
prevalent, the Central Pacific El Ni?o.

It's characterized by warm sea surface temperatures in the central Pacific,
flanked on the E and W by cooler waters. It's also called El Ni?o Modoki; the
last word is Japanese for "similar, but different."

The new study notes that the Modoki occurred more frequently during the past 2
decades than the classic El Ni?o. Climate change is expected to raise central
Pacific water temperatures, increasing by as much as fivefold of El Ni?o
Modoki frequency, according to a 2009 study in Nature.

The estimated frequency is based on varying projections for carbon dioxide
emissions in coming decades.

Given the odds that the newly identified El Ni?o will continue its regular
appearance, researchers decided to compare its effects to a typical El Ni?o,
Barnard said.

They found that Modoki packs a punch when compared to a typical El Ni?o.

"Pretty much everywhere we surveyed, the erosion during the 2009-10 winter was
comparable to or more severe" than the classic El Ni?o in 1997-98, Barnard said.

He acknowledged that the study encompassed 5 to 13 y of data, depending upon
the beach. The researchers studied sections of the coastline, using GPS, buoys
and airborne laser mapping between Seattle and San Diego.

But given what he called a startling lack of coastline studies, Barnard said
the data they gathered "is the best we have. There's nothing like it, and it
covers a really broad area."

Barnard was the lead author of the study, published by the American
Geophysical Union on July 9 in Geophysical Research Letters.  Researchers with
5 other institutions participated.

With little more than a decade of data, "we couldn't unequivocally" say this
portends the future, he said.

"But there's no indication that there's a light at the end of the tunnel
anytime soon, given the current trends that we're observing."

--
[CO2 can tell who added it to the atm:]
you retarded or what , its  the  NATURAL OCCURING CHANGES  TAHT WE SEE,  IT
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
...

I just remembered. If only you had mentioned your plan earlier I could
have put you onto my sister.

She was trying to unload^h^h^hsell some land up on the Whitsundays she
bought a few years back. Well...  lemme think.... maybe 30 years back.

In the interim it seems to have developed cyclone-prone and swampy tendancies.

But maybe it's just a statistical abberation?

--
They said it was only luck. But the more I practised, the luckier I got.
-- Gary Player [and others]

Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
Quoted text here. Click to load it


He just goes to a "priest" (Ipcc Et al) who tells him what to think
and how to think
and says "yes master", even if they were to tell him the sky was
green.



Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

You guys keep confusing the Pope (the guy that accepts what he reads in
the old books) with Galileo (the guy that measures something and decides for
hisself).

Not really unusual. It probably takes one to know one.

--
If your ideas are any good you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
-- Howard Aiken

Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.

Quoted text here. Click to load it


How true a statement this is.


Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
Quoted text here. Click to load it


I would also suggest he has been indoctrinated into this in a similar
way to how these religious cults (including Jim Jones)
indoctrinate their "followers" to strictly follow their crackpot
ideals.

I can remember years back this was a big thing and there were lots of
documentaries over time showing how much time and
effort was needed to "deprogram" these people from this crap.



We should also note the sort of dangerous fanatics involved in the AGW
movement who advocate killing large portions of the world population,
show graphic advertisements with children in class being blown up and
their guts going all over their classmates for not wanting to reduce
carbon, (This is "child abuse material" and should be prosecuted as
such, especially since it seems our courts view nude cartoons of the
Simpsons are child abuse material) and want people arrested, charged
and jailed for speaking out against AGW.   To me this sounds like a
Nazi party on steroids.


Note that Trevors only defense (apart from linking to the discredited
IPCC) is to claim that anyone that doesn't share his views, then it is
because of a religious belief, or is a moron, or paid off by some oil
company, when in reality big oil is actively pushing for the carbon
tax.

I suppose he goes to Alan Bond and Christopher Skase to learn about
corporate ethics ?



64% of Australians in the "Telegraph" poll are morons. liars etc
according to Trev.  "have an IQ of  room temperature".  I would doubt
that people of that IQ could even read and understand much in the
newspaper (rather than pictures) much less form an opinion or make a
vote on a website


Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
...
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Sounds like projection to me. :)

Quoted text here. Click to load it
...

I'm afraid if X hasn't done Y by now, there is no point expecting same.
While my early childhood experience persuaded me that "anyone can
do science" (indeed, some of the teachers tried to encourage this view)
it turns out not to be the case. Humans are always trying to fool themselves
about something and there is also that "optimism bias" the psychologists
talk about -- wanting to beleive the best case without regard to
its probability.

No, "doing science" needs a pretty unusual and brutally honest approach to
all topics. And that's rather unusual, as it turns out (even among
"scientists" :).

But there's also another idea. "Seeing is believing". Not quite as powerful
as the usual optimisim bias (sometimes characterised by the phrase
"eyes wired shut").

Simple plots with some statistical figuring (adjustment for nastiness in
the data that might otherwise falsely say something is significant when
it actually is not) shows that "unusual weather conditions" in Australia
have become more common since records began.

The "conditions" chosen by scientists are not subject to the usual population
growth confounding factors (e.g. "dollar cost of storm damage" simply grows
1-2% per year due to inflation, and maybe another 1-2% because of
incraseses in population density, and maybe another 1-2% because of
the keeping up with the Jonese factor).

Like "number of consecutive days with a daily max temp over 30 C".
Or "number of days in a year with less than 1 mm of dain per day".

These data are plotted at:

http://www.kymhorsell.com/graphs/aus-extreme.html


--
[Some n00b can't tell the diff between HTML and binary:]
Why have you posted binaries to a text-only newsgroup, fuck wit?
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Exactly right   That sums it up perfectly..

Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
...
Quoted text here. Click to load it
...

To put it in numerical terms, a search of the literature since
c1970 shows about 40,000 journal publications with "climate change"
or "global warming" or related keywords.

Of these, about 800 papers (i.e. around 2%) have taken a view that
(e.g.) CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, the so-called "greenhouse effect" is
negligible, or the greenhouse effect  (usually calculated to add 33C to the
earth's average surface temperature thereby putting conditions mostly above
freezing for its distance from the primary) is not affected by human
activity, or there is nothing that can be done to change any warming effect
and we should just lay back and take it, etc.

Another analysis (I've posted that elsewhere) suggests those
800 minority position articles have mostly been written by a dozen authors
over the past 40 y.

So if we admit that opinion is not unanimous (who would think
it would be?) then it's something like 98% to 2%  seem to view
the available evidence in a certain way.
(That itself doesn't always point in just one direction -- but only
kooks claim there are no exceptions to their little rules).

--
Scientists are always changing their story and as a Conservative, I
have no tolerance for ambiguity.  It proves that all science is lies
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
climate change is a load of crap.

people dont realize , that  climate change has just been created.

it is false.
the government just wanted to create a demand to pay them moree money.

like i say , they cant   tell us what the wether will be next tuesday,  but
they can tell us with absolute certainty whatthe weather will be in ten
years time.

so science is always  correct, never wrong ? your the idiot.


Quoted text here. Click to load it



Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
...
Quoted text here. Click to load it
...

Fr3udian slip? :)

--
Scientists [and kooks] are always changing their story and as a Conservative, I
have no tolerance for ambiguity.
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
Quoted text here. Click to load it



That is part of it, but it goes deeper than that, if you control
resources, food, water, power, you
control everyone, decide who gets and doenst get them etc. That is the
main thing. From that you
can have as much money as you want, and use anyone any way you want.





Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Indeed. The warming we are experiencing will be crap. Of course, if you
mean "crap" in the same sense that Tony Abbott meant crap, then you are as
big a scientific ignoramous as he is.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Nup. It was predicted more than 100 years ago. Sadly, those predictions
are proving to be factual.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Nup. The government does not really want to bring in a carbon tax.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Wanna bet?

The "wether" (sic) for next Tuesday will be (for Sydney):

Min - 10
Max - 18
Partly cloudy. Scattered showers. Light winds.

The accuracy for a prediction for next Tuesday is likely to be about 60%.

However, none of this means diddly squat. Weather is not climate. Climate
change predictions relate to general shifts in climate, not specific day to
day numbers.



 but they can tell us with absolute certainty whatthe
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**No, they cannot. They can tell us what the CLIMATE will be in 50 or 100
years, IF CO2 emissions continue to rise at the present rate.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Here's a suggestion:

BEFORE you start calling people idiots, I suggest you learn a little
nettiquette, some grammar and spelling. Your ignorance is nothing short of
breathtaking. Your posts suggest your intellect lies somewhere South of a 9
year old. That is nothing for you to be proud of.

That said: I'll play your game. Submit your science that proves the IPCC
reports are incorrect.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
there  IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE , ITS JUST THE NATURAL  OCCURING CHANGES.


Quoted text here. Click to load it



Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**OK, Mr Top Posting Moron, prove it.

Prove that anthropogenic CO2 is not responsible for the warming trend noted
over the past 100 years.

Also note: Unless you can provide some scientific proof that the IPCC
reports are 100% wrong, or that you are not a child, this will be my last
response to you on this topic. I have no interest in carrying on an adult
discussion with a child or a person with a severe learning disability.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
i`ll top[ post all i want you newbie ,  , uu rage audio rip off , you sure
yyou not selling any wooden  volume control knobs that give you that real
smooooooooooth sound ???


the Nakamichi PA-7 power amplifier your selling  for   $ 1800 ?? your joking
arent you , your lucky its worth  half that ...

i also have  no interest  in a child that  rips people of with  amps , that
they think are worh  alot of money....
why do you think you know anything about audio ???  its clear to me that you
dont.


Quoted text here. Click to load it



Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

That is right.  has been shown many times that the climate was
changing like this long before there were any widespread carbon
emissions.

Site Timeline