Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop

Black Diamond: SET of 8 "C4" Cams and 8 matching wire gates. Sizes .3 .4 .5 .75 1 2 3 & 4 and 8 anodised "neutrino" - wire gate karabiners. NB Comes with a FREE carry bag.  $775.00
20% Off

Chockstone Photography Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

 Page 21 of 41. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 220 | 221 to 240 | 241 to 260 | 261 to 280 | 281 to 300 | 301 to 320 | 321 to 340 | 341 to 360 | 361 to 380 | 381 to 400 | 401 to 420 | 421 to 440 | 441 to 460 | 461 to 480 | 481 to 500 | 501 to 520 | 521 to 540 | 541 to 560 | 561 to 580 | 581 to 600 | 601 to 620 | 621 to 640 | 641 to 660 | 661 to 680 | 681 to 700 | 701 to 720 | 721 to 740 | 741 to 760 | 761 to 780 | 781 to 800 | 801 to 818
Author
OT: Skeptics vs Alarmist Cage Match unSpectacular!

evanbb
19-Jun-2009
11:25:45 AM
Go to Forums, and sort by # of posts and # of views. We're still a long way off.

Sabu
19-Jun-2009
11:27:56 AM
The haveachatwithhexy thread will have the record for the most posts by a LOOONG way.

Such an awesome thread that was.
Wendy
19-Jun-2009
11:28:44 AM
On 19/06/2009 Sabu wrote:
>The haveachatwithhexy thread will have the record for the most posts by
>a LOOONG way.
>
>Such an awesome thread that was.

2943. I'm guessing that'd be the record.
Wendy
19-Jun-2009
11:29:19 AM
Still, here's another one closer to it.
Wendy
19-Jun-2009
11:29:30 AM
I really really am bored

Sabu
19-Jun-2009
11:30:33 AM
Interestingly, it doesn't have as many views as mousey's magical land! but yea that's the
record, in second is mousy's one at 954, a winning margin of around 2000 posts!
Wendy
19-Jun-2009
11:31:49 AM
But we're getting there at no 7!

ajfclark
19-Jun-2009
11:47:26 AM
On 19/06/2009 Wendy wrote:
>I really really am bored

The other day I was so bored I figured out how to use pivot tables in excel...

evanbb
19-Jun-2009
12:01:41 PM
On 19/06/2009 ajfclark wrote:
>On 19/06/2009 Wendy wrote:
>>I really really am bored
>
>The other day I was so bored I figured out how to use pivot tables in
>excel...

Pppffffffftttt. That's nothing. Pivot tables are easy anyway.

One day at work I was so bored I worked out the terminal velocity, in air, of a 30kg Yellow Fin tuna.

It's close to 750kph!

ajfclark
19-Jun-2009
1:18:30 PM
On 19/06/2009 evanbb wrote:
>Pppffffffftttt. That's nothing. Pivot tables are easy anyway.

Yes, but dull. I also did my compulsory OH&S and compliance assessments for something a little more lively.

>One day at work I was so bored I worked out the terminal velocity, in air, of a 30kg Yellow Fin tuna.
>
>It's close to 750kph!

See, that at least sounds amusing...

IdratherbeclimbingM9
19-Jun-2009
1:36:26 PM
On 19/06/2009 Sabu wrote:
>Interestingly, it doesn't have as many views as mousey's magical land!
>but yea that's the record, in second is mousy's one at 954, a winning margin of around 2000 posts!

Mousey sat on the 'view key' for a while and artificially bumped up that statistic.
He owned up to it in a post somewhere (on hex thread iirc), sometime; but I don't see much value in hunting it down at the mo.

Now that you are talking about the hex (who is back again as another user-id at the moment), thread; ... he is likely to be encouraged.
I have actually been impressed with his restraint so far under the new ID he is using(!), given some of his past performances.
TonyB
19-Jun-2009
2:58:47 PM
On 19/06/2009 evanbb wrote:
>The point is, that there have been contradictory views of the Hockey Stick;
>it has not been proved false outright as a lot of people suggest.

Rubbish. Even IPCC doesn't use it now. Read the Wegman report if you are interested in how it was debunked. Funny how Mann had to be forced to reveal his calculations (these things must be kept secret you know). It was then shown that any data, even random numbers, could be fed into his calculations, to produce the same shaped graphs.

Here's another graph for you. It shows in yellow, the rapid increase in fossil fuel usage after World War 2. It also shows 2 graphs of global temperatures side by side, for the period before 1945 and the period after 1945, showing the reate of temperature increase for each period. Temperature scales are shown on the left and right respectively. Data source: IPCC/UK Met Office/Hadley Centre - Hadcrut3

Alarmist would expect to see a "rapid" and "alarming" rate of temperature rise after 1945, however the reverse is true. The warming rate is less after 1945 than before !!

Conclusion: Man's fossil fuel burning has not caused increased, or "alarming" global warming.

Also shown is the data error range as claimed by IPCC.



IdratherbeclimbingM9
19-Jun-2009
3:11:06 PM
On 19/06/2009 TonyB wrote:
>Also shown is the data error range as claimed by IPCC.

I am no statistician, but with those error bands involved, it seems to me that it would not be difficult to see those trend lines skewed considerably if initial point remains same (or choose one of your preference within the allowable tolerance!), and end point allows for 'error', ~> resulting in a quite different outcome.

anthonyk
19-Jun-2009
3:22:04 PM
On 19/06/2009 TonyB wrote:
>Alarmist would expect to see a "rapid" and "alarming" rate of temperature
>rise after 1945, however the reverse is true. The warming rate is less
>after 1945 than before !!
>
>Conclusion: Man's fossil fuel burning has not caused increased, or "alarming"
>global warming.

first of all you've just conceded that the current temperatures are part of a significant increasing trend, so all that rubbish you were spouting about look its getting colder its getting colder! since 1998 is bollocks

second of all you've cherry picked a irregular section that doesn't represent the overall trend. here's the bigger picture.


(instrumental record of global average temperatures as compiled by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office.)

its all smoke and mirrors, sorry
jono_1
19-Jun-2009
4:15:00 PM
On 19/06/2009 TonyB wrote:
"Conclusion: Man's fossil fuel burning has not caused increased or "alarming" global warming."

We can all present graphs however we like to suit our desired outcomes BUT Tony, based on your comment above, if you can not even be open to the possibility (even 1 in 100) that growth in CO2 emissions from humans is partly contributing, even insignificantly, to global temperature increases please give us 100% proof that human CO2 is not contributing to climate change. Then we can dump the IPCC, ETS, etc and get on with our lives.

Show us the proof that current temperature increases can be solely explained by natural forcings?

I don't know of any rational person who believes global temperature increases are controlled by only natural forcings or by only human CO2. There are multitudes of forcings with varying contributions over various timescales (which I'm sure you are aware of). A major issue/debate as I see it is over the relative contributions of the various forcings to temperature change.

evanbb
19-Jun-2009
4:16:52 PM
On 19/06/2009 TonyB wrote:
>Conclusion: Man's fossil fuel burning has not caused increased, or "alarming"
>global warming.
>
>Also shown is the data error range as claimed by IPCC.
>
Yeah, whatever you reckon Tony. I'm pretty close to blocking your comments. At least RJ engages on some points and attempts to engage on something reasonable. You just seem to make bigger and bigger graphs and ignore all of our criticisms.
R James
19-Jun-2009
5:53:39 PM

>Show us the proof that current temperature increases can be solely explained
>by natural forcings?

I have to agree with TonyB that Mann's Hockey Stick was a complete stuff up. Anyone with climate knowledge, giving it a quick glance, can see that it drew a straight line through the known "little ice age" ( AD1400 - 1800 - when the Thames froze) and "medieval warm period" (AD800 - 1300. - when the Vikings colonized Greenland) http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/

It's hard to believe that something so obviously wrong, and statistically incorrect could be published by the so called climate authority (IPCC). Of course, they dropped it at the first opportunity. I now have little confidence in the IPCC.

Here's an example of conflicting data today. Arctic ice today is reported by NSIDC to be at the same level as in 2007 http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png However, the Nansen Environment & Remote Sensing Center shows it to be well above 2007 level - in fact within 1 SD of the 1979 - 2007 average. http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic

So which one do we believe? Both are published and updated every day, but one is clearly very wrong. I can tell you that the latter one recently switched satellites due to a fault, and re-worked their data for at least the past 6 months, causing big changes.
My point is that there's a lot of so called data out there that we can't rely on. (If you don't see this when you check, it could be corrected any day now, but I keep copies for reference)

Then there's last October when GISS published temperature data for October using September figures from Russia. Satellite data that doesn't agree with surface data

As for proof that current temperature increases are natural, I doubt that that can be proven any more than CO2 as a driver can be proven. No doubt CO2 has an effect, but so far nothing real indicates that it's significant. I can't get excited over an hypothesis that can't be backed up by real data. Even the "greenhouse signature" 10km above the Earth can't be found. This was supposed to be the data that proved the models right, but it's not there. Overall, the hypothesis doesn't seem to have much to support it, other than theory.

To top it off, this whole thing is driven my Al Gore who owns two companies set up to profit from trading carbon credits - perhaps a conflict of interests.


TonyB
22-Jun-2009
4:07:26 PM
On 19/06/2009 jono_1 wrote:
>BUT Tony, based on your comment above, if you can not even be open to the
>possibility (even 1 in 100) that growth in CO2 emissions from humans is
>partly contributing, even insignificantly, to global temperature increases
>please give us 100% proof that human CO2 is not contributing to climate
>change.

Firstly I should say, that unlike many, I don't work for Penny Wong's Department of Hot Air, or the thousands of other paid alarmists, and I'm sorry but I don't have time to respond to every comment here.

Man does influence global temperatures, by the urban heat island effect (dozens of papers and articles such as this http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=202 ) ... although UHI is dismissed by the IPCC via this paper : http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf

As I have said several times before, theoretically CO2 increases DO increase temperatures by a tiny amount due to the greenhouse effect. However CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, and the greenhouse effect itself plays a minor role in global temperature changes.

It is an even bigger stretch to prove that man's CO2 output has caused any warming, or that man's CO2 output is responsible for the observed global CO2 concentration increases. No one has yet succeeded in linking man's CO2 output to global temperature increases, despite many billions of dollars being wasted looking for that elusive evidence.

If man's fossil fuel burning caused "alarming" and "recent" warming, we would expect to see it in the graph below. We simply don't !

Anyone who claims that man's fossil fuel burning is causing "alarming" and "recent" global warming, please state exactly when the "alarming" "recent" warming became apparent. Was it:

a) 7 years ago
b) 11 years ago
c) 30 years ago
d) 60 years ago
e) from when Adam was a boy
?



>Then we can dump the IPCC, ETS, etc and get on with our lives.
First we'll have to convince the masses, to convince the pollies that man caused global warming is a scam, to deprive them of yet another excuse to tax us.

>Show us the proof that current temperature increases can be solely explained by natural forcings?
Compare the temperature changes over the past century with those over the previous 10,000 years of the current interglacial ... there is nothing abnormal in any way ... there are warmer periods, cooler periods, faster rates of warming. Bob Carter's excellent videos make this very apparent.

Sabu
22-Jun-2009
4:20:44 PM
FFS enough already!

evanbb
22-Jun-2009
4:26:43 PM
On 22/06/2009 Sabu wrote:
>FFS enough already!

I agree.

No one is going to change their mind. I certainly won't be. We know what you think Tony, lots of people disagree with you. Other people disagree with the IPCC. Lots of people are addressing climate change. Like everyone else, you'll be paying taxes for it soon enough; maybe sooner than you think as the prices of goods from the EU start to rise. I hope the bitterness doesn't stop you from climbing.

 Page 21 of 41. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 220 | 221 to 240 | 241 to 260 | 261 to 280 | 281 to 300 | 301 to 320 | 321 to 340 | 341 to 360 | 361 to 380 | 381 to 400 | 401 to 420 | 421 to 440 | 441 to 460 | 461 to 480 | 481 to 500 | 501 to 520 | 521 to 540 | 541 to 560 | 561 to 580 | 581 to 600 | 601 to 620 | 621 to 640 | 641 to 660 | 661 to 680 | 681 to 700 | 701 to 720 | 721 to 740 | 741 to 760 | 761 to 780 | 781 to 800 | 801 to 818
There are 818 messages in this topic.

 

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Landscape Photos Australia

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.



Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | High Country Mountain Huts | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints