- Dec 27, 2017
- 24,443
- 53,985
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Thread starter
- #3,026
Huh?
Warming is a verb.
Aren’t you suggesting that the level should be lowering because of the current reduction in emissions?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 9
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Huh?
Warming is a verb.
Aren’t you suggesting that the level should be lowering because of the current reduction in emissions?
No, I am stating that the modelling is not even close to predicting the phenomena. It's woo woo.
"Climate warming science" is akin to astrology in many aspects, mostly because it predominately emanates from non classically trained scientists. There's too much political interference in the subject.
Ok. Yeah agree that the alarmist types have done nothing to really help their cause.
Who can be trusted on this? I don’t mean I want to look at data produced by scientists, because that would just go over my head. I mean what person or people can I go to that have annualised the data and are reporting on it so the average punter like me can get a clear picture of wtf is actually happening. At the moment there’s just noise.
Actual scientists. The ones that aren't compromised by politics & ideology (and therefore do not qualify as scientists)
Climate prediction is fairly reliable for periods pertaining to days up to a few weeks, nothing more. The system is just too chaotic and there's too many factors to punch in to the modelling. As for CO2, it has received far too much focus as a point of blame. This is predominately about the sun and the oceans. Water vapor is overwhelmingly the major factor behind most climate phenomena of interest, due to it's atmospheric propensity and dipole nature.
There are reasonable schools of thought who claim that we need more CO2 in the atmosphere.!!!
Sorry, I get it’s scientists. I mean who? Which scientists in particular?
Climate science is a new designated field that is overpopulated with ecologist computer programmers. In other words, they bring bias in to their formatting when doing their modelling, and this is of course not science.
The IPCC modelling has had the s**t kicked out of it on multiple occasions. It's political, and politics has no place in science. There is no "qualitative methodology" applied here, that reasoning is for the humanities.
Is that your way of saying you don’t know?
Sorry, I get it’s scientists. I mean who? Which scientists in particular?
Warming is a verb.
What do you mean?
Do I know how the climate works well enough to make long term predictions? Hell no! No one on the planet knows.
.....is a pretty ****ing vague question.
What has that got to do with it?Where's the water ferb?
- March 26, 2020
Record-breaking warm waters have bleached large parts of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef this year, as they did in 2016 and 2017, scientists reported on Thursday — the latest sign that global warming threatens the health of one of the world’s most important marine ecosystems.
“We can confirm that the Great Barrier Reef is experiencing its third mass bleaching event in five years,” David Wachenfeld, chief scientist of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, said in a video posted on its website.
- March 26, 2020
Record-breaking warm waters have bleached large parts of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef this year, as they did in 2016 and 2017, scientists reported on Thursday — the latest sign that global warming threatens the health of one of the world’s most important marine ecosystems.
“We can confirm that the Great Barrier Reef is experiencing its third mass bleaching event in five years,” David Wachenfeld, chief scientist of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, said in a video posted on its website.
A press release?
No paper published in the science literature?
Analysis conducted from a plane?
View attachment 847957
Seems about as rigorous as most of the "climate science" that I have encountered.
Bit naive of you to dismiss the authority who was quoted.
On the contrary, it's scientifically naive of you to even take that in to account.
So, you dismiss the process behind getting published in Nature and Ecology?
If so, you have a very narrow perception of what constitutes academic rigour.
A press release?
No paper published in the science literature?
Analysis conducted from a plane?
View attachment 847957
Seems about as rigorous as most of the "climate science" that I have encountered.
No I posted something straight here from my phone and when I read it carefully realised how stupid it was. Everyone makes mistakes.Ferbs, a couple of days ago you thought temperatures above 27C could destroy Covid19, and now you're piping up about what I assume to be aerial spectrophotometry?
Give it a rest mate.
No I posted something straight here from my phone and when I read it carefully realised how stupid it was. Everyone makes mistakes.
Except you of course.
Watch the video.
What's aerial spectrophotometery and how does it work?
Its not just fires. Its leading people, getting the best out of them and whatever is associated with all that.Let's just take it as read that you couldn't school me about anything to do with chemistry, analytical chemistry, or bioscience, and we can both save on the bandwidth, because I pretty much ignore any "advice" you seem to be compelled to offer on these issues.
I like you ferbs, but pick your marks better. I wouldn't attempt to school you about fighting bushfires.