Consider

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Consider

Page 1 of 4

Consider22-11-2020 08:42
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	As this site has now gone completely political and Covid related can we assume the AGW?CC has now been solved and gone away duncan61
22-11-2020 09:46
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	duncan61 wrote: As this site has now gone completely political and Covid related can we assume the AGW?CC has now been solved and gone away You are likely the only other person interested. I'm always down to discuss it. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
22-11-2020 13:55
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I was curious about how much rain we had in November and found this Above average rainfall for November in Perth November Rainfall - above average The city received 38.2 mm of rainfall over 4 days in November, compared with the average of 22 mm on about 6 days. This was the first time Perth has exceeded its average monthly rainfall, for any month, since November 2008. The wettest day in November was 22.4 mm on the 19th, which was the wettest November day for 7 years, since the 22.8 mm on the 1st November 2002. Historically, November rainfall has ranged from nil in 1891 to 73.2 mm in 1984. Last November Perth recorded 57.8 mm on 13 days. Year to date rainfall - very much below average: The total rainfall for the 11-month period, January-November 2009, was 608.2 mm on 108 days, which was the driest January to November since 2006, then 461.6 mm. The average for the January to November period is 841 mm on about 108 days. The total rainfall for the same period last year was 796.2 mm on 110 days Mean daily maximum temperature - near average: Perth's mean daily maximum temperature in November was 26.5°C, compared with the average of 26.2°C. Daily maxima ranged from a mild 20.2°C on the 19th to a hot 35.8°C on the 24th. Last November Perth recorded it's coldest November since 1991 with a mean daily maximum temperature of 23.6°C. January to November mean daily maximum temperature - equal second highest on record: Perth's mean daily maximum temperature for the January to November period was 24.5°C, which was the equal second highest mean daily maximum temperature on record, along with 1988. The average for the January to November period is 24.0°C. The highest mean daily maximum temperature recorded for January to November in Perth was 24.8°C in 1978. Perth's top 6 mean maximum temperatures for year to date (January-November) Year Mean Maximum Temperatures (°C) Departure from normal Ranking 1978 24.8 +0.8 1 1988 24.5 +0.5 2 2009 24.5 +0.5 2 1972 24.4 +0.4 4 1976 24.4 +0.4 4 1985 24.4 +0.4 4 Mean daily minimum temperature - near average: Perth's mean daily minimum temperature in November was 13.8°C, compared with the average of 14.1°C. Daily minima ranged from a cool 8.6°C on the 27th, to a warm 20.2°C on the 12th. November monthly mean temperature and sunshine Element 2009 Long- term Average Highest Year Lowest Year Records Commence Maximum Temperature (°C) 26.5 26.2 28.5 2007 21.5 1971 1897 Minimum Temperature (°C) 13.8 14.1 16.9 1982 11.9 1954 1897 Sunshine (hours per day) 10.4 10.7 12.3 2007 5.1 1965 1898 November rainfall and rain days Element 2009 Long-term Average Highest Year Lowest Year Records Commence Rainfall (mm) 38.2 22 73.2 1984 0.0 1891 1876 Rain days 4 6.4 14 3 years 0 1891 1876 November daily extremes Element 2009 Date Extreme Date Records Commence Highest daily maximum (°C) 35.8 24/11/2009 40.3 Several 1897 Lowest daily maximum (°C) 20.2 19/11/2009 15.8 02/11/1919 1897 Highest daily minimum (°C) 20.2 12/11/2009 25.1 24/11/1920 1897 Lowest daily minimum (°C) 8.6 27/11/2009 5.0 18/11/2004 1897 Wettest 24 hours to 9am (mm) 22.4 19/11/2009 39.1 29/11/1956 1876 Denotes the highest daily maximum temperature recorded on 24 November 1913 and 11 November 2003. Climate of Perth in December December is typically a dry month and days are generally sunny and warm to hot. On most afternoons a sea breeze moderates the temperature. December is Perth's sunniest month on average with 11.6 hours of sunshine per day. December mean temperatures and sunshine Element Average Highest Year Lowest Year Records Commence Maximum temperature (°C) 28.7 31.7 1931 23.7 2005 1897 Minimum temperature (°C) 16.1 19.6 1977 13.9 2005 1897 Sunshine (hours per day) 11.6 12.6 2000 8.0 1925 1898 December rainfall and rain days Element Average Highest Year Lowest Year Records Commence Rainfall (mm) 13 80.7 1951 0.0 5 years 1876 Rain days 4.1 14 1913/44 0 5 years 1876 December daily extremes Element Highest Date Lowest Date Records Commence Maximum temperature (°C) 44.2 26/12/2007 14.9 17/12/1952 1897 Minimum temperature (°C) 27.1 18/12/1979 7.9 07/12/2007 1897 Rainfall 24 hours to 9am (mm) 46.7 03/12/1951 n/a n/a 1876 Very hot days: Perth can expect one day in December when the maximum temperature is 40°C or higher. The highest number of such December days was two in 1968, 1974, 1977, 1997, 2002 and 2007. The last time Perth recorded a very hot day in December was on 26 December 2007 with 44.2°C. Hot days: On average, Perth can expect seven days in December when the maximum temperature is 32°C or higher. The highest number of hot days in December was eighteen in 1931, Perth's warmest December on record with a mean maximum temperature of 31.7°C. Last December, Perth recorded 5 hot days. Note: Official Perth observations have been recorded at several different sites with varying instrumentation over the years, and these changes can affect the continuity of the climate record. For the current Mt Lawley site, the most significant changes of this kind relate to temperature and rain days. For that reason, current mean temperature and rain-day data quoted here are based only on readings from the Mt Lawley site, which commenced observations in 1993. Sunshine recordings are from Perth Airport and for similar reasons current means use only Perth Airport data, which commenced in 1993.
22-11-2020 15:28
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	@D, a part of this might have to do with the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. I think by now everyone in here should know that I think that holes in the ozone layer affect the weather elsewhere. This map of Australia shows what I'm talking about. When warm air from Australia's interior circulates over the Indian Ocean, might be where where the monsoons come from in northern WA. As for Perth, cool air from what some call the Southern Ocean is what's influencing your weather. Without the hole in the ozone layer there, the warm air up north might make it to you. http://www.bom.gov.au/watl/wind/forecast.shtml
22-11-2020 18:35
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	I've never really been able to grasp global warming. It's just never felt right, or even possible. Not really something closely related to any of the fields I find interesting. For a long time, I just dismissed it as some eco-terrorist movement, that would eventually fizzle out, when some new and trendy crisis was created. It started getting my attention, when they started talking carbon tax, and spending my tax dollars to convert to solar panels and windmills. I knew from personal experiments, that solar panels aren't all that great. Basically, the global warming thing, had progressed in to costing us real money, and was likely to totally screw up life as we know it. I had to see for myself, if there was an factual basis, for all this spending and changes. Mostly, all I'm finding is a lot of marketing hype, politics, and 'shady' science. Most everything seems to come off computers, models and simulations. Basically, it's all based on a video game, nerds play.

23-11-2020 00:36
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote: As this site has now gone completely political and Covid related can we assume the AGW?CC has now been solved and gone away You are likely the only other person interested. I'm always down to discuss it. You do not discuss. You preach. You lie. You ask the same questions over and over and over and over. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-11-2020 00:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James___ wrote: @D, a part of this might have to do with the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. I think by now everyone in here should know that I think that holes in the ozone layer affect the weather elsewhere. This map of Australia shows what I'm talking about. When warm air from Australia's interior circulates over the Indian Ocean, might be where where the monsoons come from in northern WA. As for Perth, cool air from what some call the Southern Ocean is what's influencing your weather. Without the hole in the ozone layer there, the warm air up north might make it to you. Ozone or the lack of it does not affect the weather. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-11-2020 00:39
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	HarveyH55 wrote: I've never really been able to grasp global warming. It's just never felt right, or even possible. Not really something closely related to any of the fields I find interesting. For a long time, I just dismissed it as some eco-terrorist movement, that would eventually fizzle out, when some new and trendy crisis was created. It started getting my attention, when they started talking carbon tax, and spending my tax dollars to convert to solar panels and windmills. I knew from personal experiments, that solar panels aren't all that great. Basically, the global warming thing, had progressed in to costing us real money, and was likely to totally screw up life as we know it. I had to see for myself, if there was an factual basis, for all this spending and changes. Mostly, all I'm finding is a lot of marketing hype, politics, and 'shady' science. Most everything seems to come off computers, models and simulations. Basically, it's all based on a video game, nerds play. First, one must be able to define 'global warming'. It is not possible for CO2 or any other gas or vapor to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. The scenario put forth by the Church of Global Warming is impossible. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-11-2020 14:54
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Global warming is the global average temperature increasing.Gee wizz that was f$"£ing hard.I do not agree on your hard core party line that nothing can be known and no gas or vapour can do anything.If the water vapour content of the atmosphere doubled it would make changes.The math is just totally wrong on a tiny bit of CO2 doing anything however it does not do nothing.My latest discovery is a group of uni students here where I live are currently digitizing the tidal records back to 1886 when the first recordings were made in Fremantle.I will need to see the results and if it fluctuates but has not risen the game is up.Its not warming and nothings melting
23-11-2020 15:35
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: ...It is not possible for CO2 or any other gas or vapor to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. ITN is dead wrong on this and has refused to discuss it. The temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere can increase without the rate of radiant energy being received increasing. That is not "creating energy" at all but rather a change in the distribution of energy. See below: 1st law https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s560.php#post_53018 Planck's law https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s680.php#post_53548 duncan61 wrote: ...tidal records ..if it fluctuates but has not risen the game is up.Its not warming and nothings melting For some reason you are fixated on something, global sea level, changing so minutely it's not going to tell you anything. Isn't it simpler to know if things are melting because you can see they have melted? "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 23-11-2020 15:55
23-11-2020 16:14
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote:ITN is dead wrong on this and has refused to discuss it. Into the Night is simply citing thermodynamics which is correct and you are simply being dishonest as usual. tmiddles wrote: The temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere ... There you go again, speaking of the bottom of the atmosphere as though it is a singular temperature. Everything you have to say on the matter is summarily dismissed. The bottom of the atmosphere is a 500 million square kilometer continuum of differing and changing temperatures ... and no one knows what the average is. I think we're done. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-11-2020 16:24
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: ...The bottom of the atmosphere is a 500 million square kilometer continuum of differing and changing temperatures ... There is not a single subject composed of a multitude of molecules whose molecules don't have a multitude of varying temperatures individually. So your statement applies to everything. The temperature is simply the average of whatever you're identifying. I have asked so many times for you to identify anything at all for which you believe the temperature can be determined and you never do. But then the NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN objection to all debate would fall apart if you did and you do know that. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
23-11-2020 16:57
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: ...The bottom of the atmosphere is a 500 million square kilometer continuum of differing and changing temperatures ... There is not a single subject composed of a multitude of molecules whose molecules don't have a multitude of varying temperatures individually. Which is why the physics models use the "body" as the atomic unit. This is the point at which you cease to be able to follow along. [hint: if you were to simply stop trying to subdivide the atomic unit then you'd have a much easier time grasping the concepts] No body of matter anywhere at any time can simply spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. This applies to the earth ... because the earth, with its atmosphere and hydrosphere, is also a body of matter. Let me know if I'm going too fast. tmiddles wrote: The temperature is simply the average of whatever you're identifying. I have asked so many times for you to identify anything at all for which you believe the temperature can be determined and you never do. I have answered you many times ... too many times. There are two things you must do: 1) Abandon your contradiction of claiming omniscience of all temperatures regardless of volume while simultaneously claiming that temperatures cannot be known because molecules have different temperatures, and 2) Start all such questions with your target margin of error. You have yet to meet these requirements. All people should ignore these questions of yours until you do. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-11-2020 18:34
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	I see that tmiddles is back to his "you believe that nothing can be known" bogus position assignment retort yet again... I also concur with IBD that you, tmiddles, must do those two things first before any of us address any of your questions... I've already addressed those questions of yours countless times, and you keep falling back to your "gfm7175 believes that nothing can be known" garbage because you absolutely refuse to do the two things that IBD has detailed for you above. The starting point for such a discussion is there. You need to do those two things before any of us can progress any further in that particular discussion with you. You also need to answer the unanswered questions before meaningful discussion on any of those particular topics can be had.... Many of us here have led you up to the water bucket... we have even demonstrated for you precisely how to drink from it, and that it is perfectly safe to drink from. We, however, cannot force you to drink from it. You must do that on your own. Yet, if you wish to remain an ignorant, blind, stupid, truth denying, easily duped libtard, then there's nothing more that we can do for you.
23-11-2020 19:03
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Consider what averages really are... They are basically a ballpark estimate. The seldom, precisely define anything. Sometimes, they are pretty much meaningless. In your set of data, there is going to be a minimum value, and a maximum value. The average will fall in the middle. That number isn't going to be the same number, as whatever the next value added to the data set.

23-11-2020 19:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	duncan61 wrote: Global warming is the global average temperature increasing.Gee wizz that was f$"£ing hard. Circular definition. You can't define a buzzword using a buzzword. You can't define 'global warming' as 'global warming'. Try again. It's harder than it looks. duncan61 wrote: I do not agree on your hard core party line that nothing can be known and no gas or vapour can do anything.If the water vapour content of the atmosphere doubled it would make changes. None as far as temperature is concerned. No gas or vapor can create out of nothing or destroy energy into nothing. See the 1st law of thermodynamics. duncan61 wrote: The math is just totally wrong on a tiny bit of CO2 doing anything however it does not do nothing. It does nothing. Zero. Nada. Nan. duncan61 wrote: My latest discovery is a group of uni students here where I live are currently digitizing the tidal records back to 1886 when the first recordings were made in Fremantle.I will need to see the results and if it fluctuates but has not risen the game is up.Its not warming and nothings melting If a sea ice melts, it does not raise the level of the sea. The sea ice isn't melting. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-11-2020 19:49
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: ...It is not possible for CO2 or any other gas or vapor to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. ITN is dead wrong on this and has refused to discuss it. I have discussed it liar. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: The temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere can increase without the rate of radiant energy being received increasing. That is not "creating energy" at all but rather a change in the distribution of energy. See below: ...deleted spam... You can't reduce entropy in any system. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You can't use a colder gas to heat a warmer surface. duncan61 wrote: ...tidal records ..if it fluctuates but has not risen the game is up.Its not warming and nothings melting For some reason you are fixated on something, global sea level, changing so minutely it's not going to tell you anything. Isn't it simpler to know if things are melting because you can see they have melted? [/quote] Comparing winter and summer pictures is meaningless. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-11-2020 19:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: ...The bottom of the atmosphere is a 500 million square kilometer continuum of differing and changing temperatures ... There is not a single subject composed of a multitude of molecules whose molecules don't have a multitude of varying temperatures individually. You are not ignoring the 0th law of thermodynamics. tmiddles wrote: So your statement applies to everything. The temperature is simply the average of whatever you're identifying. Paradox. Which is it, dude? tmiddles wrote: I have asked so many times for you to identify anything at all for which you believe the temperature can be determined and you never do. Liar. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: But then the NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN objection to all debate would fall apart if you did and you do know that. He never said nothing can be known liar. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-11-2020 02:43
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	You beat me to the photos ITN.Winter /summer someone go and take a picture right now.The reason I am obsessed with sea levels Tmiddles is that is the big doomsday prophecy is we get warmer the ice melts the sea level goes up and we all drown.If the ice melts and the sea level does not go up enough to be a problem no one on the planet will give a hoot
24-11-2020 02:46
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	Duncan, There's going to be a lot more problems than just sea level rise with climate change. Perspective is the issue most important to understanding climate change.
24-11-2020 03:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	duncan61 wrote: You beat me to the photos ITN.Winter /summer someone go and take a picture right now.The reason I am obsessed with sea levels Tmiddles is that is the big doomsday prophecy is we get warmer the ice melts the sea level goes up and we all drown.If the ice melts and the sea level does not go up enough to be a problem no one on the planet will give a hoot I've visit Glacier National Park ever so often. The glaciers are still there. They wax and wane with the seasons, like always. It's a very pretty park. Of course I'm rather partial to mountains. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-11-2020 03:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	keepit wrote: Duncan, There's going to be a lot more problems than just sea level rise with climate change. Perspective is the issue most important to understanding climate change. You have no perspective. It is not possible to measure a global sea level. There is no valid reference point. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Nowhere near enough instrumentation. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. Nowhere near enough instrumentation. Define 'climate change'. Buzzword fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-11-2020 03:46
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	ITN, Without measuring sea level can you figure out that if glaciers melt, sea level will rise? Without measuring the temperature can you figure out that temperature will go up if co2 level increases? Without measuring glacier content can you figure out that if temp goes up glaciers will melt? Without measuring co2 level can you figure out that co2 level increases when "fossil fuels" are burned? Don't waste your time with semantic arguments. Edited on 24-11-2020 03:46
24-11-2020 04:58
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	keepit wrote: ITN, Without measuring sea level can you figure out that if glaciers melt, sea level will rise? Without measuring the temperature can you figure out that temperature will go up if co2 level increases? Without measuring glacier content can you figure out that if temp goes up glaciers will melt? Without measuring co2 level can you figure out that co2 level increases when "fossil fuels" are burned? Don't waste your time with semantic arguments. Yeah, playing with words can be fun, but it proves nothing. The main thing about all the crap quote, is does it really make any difference in the long run? Glaciers have been melting for thousands of years. At least two have gone completely in my lifetime. Ice melts, that's what it does. 80% of the planet surface is covered in water. Does a few millimeters, one way or another, really alter that a whole lot? Remember matter can neither be created, or destroyed...
24-11-2020 05:36
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	Harvey, I matters a whole lot. If the ross ice shelf in west antarctica melts it would raise the seal level of the entire world by 10 feet.
24-11-2020 06:43
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Into the Night wrote: keepit wrote: Duncan, There's going to be a lot more problems than just sea level rise with climate change. Perspective is the issue most important to understanding climate change. You have no perspective. It is not possible to measure a global sea level. There is no valid reference point. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Nowhere near enough instrumentation. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. Nowhere near enough instrumentation. Define 'climate change'. Buzzword fallacy. I am going to disagree with you again ITN.My CO2 meter is consistently giving me readings from 390-420ppm and I am satisfied.I have yet to see anyone who has an issue with this amount.The big deal is is it doing anything and the answer is not a lot. I will be seeking the tide readings at Fremantle since 1886 as it has been recorded.My new problem is some uni students are digitizing the data and I have their names and E-mails and I will need to verify have they altered the data to show a sea level rise that does not exist like the BOM are doing with temperature data.I could cherry pick Carnarvon jetty as a reference as it was one of my favorite fishing destinations.At the moment more than half the jetty is out the water but that is due to sedimentation from the river mouth and flooding not sea levels falling duncan61
24-11-2020 06:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	keepit wrote: ITN, Without measuring sea level can you figure out that if glaciers melt, sea level will rise? No. It is not possible to measure either the total snow and ice on Earth nor the global sea level. keepit wrote: Without measuring the temperature can you figure out that temperature will go up if co2 level increases? Yes. It cannot. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. keepit wrote: Without measuring glacier content can you figure out that if temp goes up glaciers will melt? Irrelevant question. keepit wrote: Without measuring co2 level can you figure out that co2 level increases when "fossil fuels" are burned? Yes. We don't burn fossils for fuel. The result is zero. keepit wrote: Don't waste your time with semantic arguments. It is YOU wasting time with semantic fallacies. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-11-2020 06:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	keepit wrote: Harvey, I matters a whole lot. If the ross ice shelf in west antarctica melts it would raise the seal level of the entire world by 10 feet. No, it wouldn't change the sea level at all. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-11-2020 07:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	duncan61 wrote: Into the Night wrote: keepit wrote: Duncan, There's going to be a lot more problems than just sea level rise with climate change. Perspective is the issue most important to understanding climate change. You have no perspective. It is not possible to measure a global sea level. There is no valid reference point. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Nowhere near enough instrumentation. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. Nowhere near enough instrumentation. Define 'climate change'. Buzzword fallacy. I am going to disagree with you again ITN. Okay. Let's see your counter-argument. duncan61 wrote: My CO2 meter is consistently giving me readings from 390-420ppm and I am satisfied.I have yet to see anyone who has an issue with this amount.The big deal is is it doing anything and the answer is not a lot. The answer of zero, zip, nada. nan. CO2 has NO capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. duncan61 wrote: I will be seeking the tide readings at Fremantle since 1886 as it has been recorded.My new problem is some uni students are digitizing the data and I have their names and E-mails and I will need to verify have they altered the data to show a sea level rise that does not exist like the BOM are doing with temperature data. Fremantle is not global sea level. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. duncan61 wrote: I could cherry pick Carnarvon jetty as a reference as it was one of my favorite fishing destinations. Unfortunately, Carnaryon jetty is not the global sea level either. duncan61 wrote: At the moment more than half the jetty is out the water but that is due to sedimentation from the river mouth and flooding not sea levels falling Pretty common. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-11-2020 10:45
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	keepit wrote: Harvey, I matters a whole lot. If the ross ice shelf in west antarctica melts it would raise the seal level of the entire world by 10 feet. Yeah, I remember that from the Al Gore award winning, Sci-Fi movie. You do realize the ice shelf is already part of the ocean? Melted or solid, sea level will remain the same. See the ice cube in a glass of Kentucky Corn Whiskey example... Consider rainfall... Where does all that water come from? Where does a lot of it wind up? It rains a lot of oceans, just that nobody really cares about water, falling into more water. I've never really had any interest in looking up total annual rainfall, but it's probably quite a lot. We get storms often, that dump 2-3 inches, in about an hour. Hurricanes dump a whole lot more, and last longer. Ice melts in the summer, reforms in the winter, life goes on. Nature is awesome...

24-11-2020 13:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	HarveyH55 wrote: keepit wrote: Harvey, I matters a whole lot. If the ross ice shelf in west antarctica melts it would raise the seal level of the entire world by 10 feet. Yeah, I remember that from the Al Gore award winning, Sci-Fi movie. You do realize the ice shelf is already part of the ocean? Melted or solid, sea level will remain the same. See the ice cube in a glass of Kentucky Corn Whiskey example... Consider rainfall... Where does all that water come from? Where does a lot of it wind up? It rains a lot of oceans, just that nobody really cares about water, falling into more water. I've never really had any interest in looking up total annual rainfall, but it's probably quite a lot. We get storms often, that dump 2-3 inches, in about an hour. Hurricanes dump a whole lot more, and last longer. Ice melts in the summer, reforms in the winter, life goes on. Nature is awesome... Glaciers and snow fields also come from the oceans. ALL snow and rain, lakes, rivers, streams, glaciers, ALL of it, comes from the oceans. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 24-11-2020 13:30
24-11-2020 15:06
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	Sure, all that h2o you mention is part of the water cycle. So what. The point is that the ross ice shelf isn't sea ice, it's a glacier which means that when it melts (or any other glacier) it adds to the sea level.
24-11-2020 21:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	keepit wrote: Sure, all that h2o you mention is part of the water cycle. So what. The point is that the ross ice shelf isn't sea ice, it's a glacier which means that when it melts (or any other glacier) it adds to the sea level. It's floating on the water, dumbass, and it isn't melting. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-11-2020 21:40
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	It's mostly on land and partly suspended over water last time i checked. Were you down there to check on it personally? They call it a shelf because it's hanging over the water. Edited on 24-11-2020 22:03
24-11-2020 22:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	keepit wrote: It's mostly on land and partly suspended over water last time i checked. Were you down there to check on it personally? They call it a shelf because it's hanging over the water. It's floating on the water, dumbass. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-11-2020 22:25
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	I think they would be calling that an iceberg.
24-11-2020 23:32
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Just a question. If we burn all the coal, would the atmosphere get denser because there would be more CO2? What happens to the temperature if the atmosphere gets denser?
25-11-2020 01:06
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	keepit wrote: It's mostly on land and partly suspended over water last time i checked. Were you down there to check on it personally? They call it a shelf because it's hanging over the water. It's attach to land, but still right on the surface of the ocean. As it melts, chunks break loose, and are free-floating, called icebergs... It's really no different from the ice on ponds and lakes in the winter. That ice is also attached to the bank, but it's still floating on the surface
25-11-2020 02:26
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	The ross ice shelf is mostly above water, unlike an iceberg which is mostly below the water. That is why the ross will add to sea level while an iceberg won't.
25-11-2020 10:20
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	keepit wrote: The ross ice shelf is mostly above water, unlike an iceberg which is mostly below the water. That is why the ross will add to sea level while an iceberg won't. Every wonder why ice floats... Lets go back to rainfall for a minute... That water comes out of the ocean, pretty much constantly, but it isn't constantly raining. Does your rising sea level measurements take that into account? There must be about as many rain gauges, as thermometers. Never really seen those measurements to show how many gallons of water fell. But should show how many inches of water didn't fall back into the oceans.

Page 1 of 4

Join the debate Consider: