Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Like the others you are not understanding because you don't even know what I am talking about.

We are talking AGW theory. and IPCC models are all closed systems.

The earth is a closed system with carbon syncs and emitters in nature and human emissions as per IPCC science, they have calculated and factored all sources of CO2 natural and man made.

They say Nature is in perfect balance so almost all CO2 growth is man made. That is essentially a logical closed system where only man made emissions causes the increasing gorwthrate of CO2. If you can't understand that then...

If you do not understand the core assumptions of the IPCC's science on AGW and how the global carbon budget works, in their eyes.. then by IPCC science an increase in emissions must increase the rate of CO2 increase.

But they all jump in with workaround logic without knowing anything about what the IPCC actually have in their reports.

I proved this by showing IPCC predictions, which have double the CO2 we've actually seen. These predictions came from IPCC mathematical models, which factored in the rise of emissions.

Also for the 70s and 80s Co2 rate of increase rose in tandem with emissions, and the IPCC said this was proof of man controlling CO2 content.

But when CO2 growth rate diverges from emission rates all of a sudden it's not relevant?>

Fail.

Some of the claims on here ae contradicting what the IPCC scienec claims, which is funny because these people are defending the global warming fraud.


So closed system is logical, not physical, it's the IPCC models, and the IPCC model of the earth's carbon system.. NOT the ACTUAL EARTH.

This is the confusion here people canbnot grasp because they are here to argu e with me not learn something, because there is wads of IPCC documents out there and no one bar me has read any of them yet everyone tries, in vein, to get their head around all of this without studying the subject. Typical internet logic

So you also seem to be confusing consensus by the lads here with actual fact. They can agree with each other all they like, doesn't make then any less clueless on this subject


The lads are saying CO2 emissions are not relative to CO2 growth rate and that is actually agreeing with my initial point and they don't even see it Human emissions do not control CO2 growthrate and the data proves it with a 300% rise in emissions and no rise in CO2 growth rates

They don't get that the climate science models emissions and growthrate which AGAIN is why the IPCC predicted CO2 at high estimation should be growing at double the rate it has done.

This means obviously emissions do not control gowth rate which makes AGW utterly flawed.

So the only way they can argue this is provide literature not opinion to refute the empirical data. Especially not opinion of people who have not spend even 2 hours actually looking at the science on both sides You can't just jump into this and think you can manage with your own perceived high intelligence, you have to read read read and none of them have.

There are thousands of papers and reports and studies. How one thinks they can delve into this without having read any of it is

 

The trousers are awesome, hair too, this post makes more sense than any othor post on this subject by the lads

 

Hugh Laurie. They did a piss-take of 70's Open University television. Reading last few pages of this thread reminds me of it

 

oh yeah I see it now.
Hugh Laurie, before he ran off to America.

 

please log in to view this image

IPCC emissions vs CO2 contentrations which as we can see the IPCC have assessed as relative, emissions increases in line with CO2 growth rate.

Saying this is not so, which I agree with because emissions have very little to do with growth rate, is not what the IPCC models have predicted because of calculations of emissions vs growthrate.

The planet is actually a closed system in terms of the carbon cycle, the clue is "cycle" A cycle is a closed system duh.


If all CO2 is accounted for (as per the IPCC) and all extra Co2 is us.. then us increasing emissions will certainly increase CO2 growth rate, this growth rate might then be affected by nature but the initial growth rate given CO2's halflife is 30 years, should be detectable within a short time.

The fact that growthrate of CO2 didn't change with a tripling of emissions show that AGW is wrong, that nature is absorbing more than the IPCC claim and that the growthrate can also be a result of natural sources, but the IPCC will not accept this, they are adamant they have factored all CO2 and that we are the main cause of increase.

So saying 300% rise in emissions should not affect CO2 growthrate in terms of AGW.. goes against AGW theory, a theory the lads haven't read up on, obviously they couldn't have because it takes ****ing ages to get up to speed.

 

I used to watch that as a kid Used to watch all of the science and education programs that used to be on BBC too when I was a kid, they were fantastic

 

Why doesn't that surprise me I was too young but remember thinking wtf is this 5hit whenever it was on. My Physics A Level teacher graduated from the Open University. He was the spitting image of Elvis Presley... the quiff too but thankfully not the white sequin suit!

 

Teachers were so different in those days, I thought they were better but I might be getting all nostalgic

BBC and Chanel 4 had great programs on everything from electronics to science on in day time I loved it. If only they could go back to that.

 

Not the teachers, but definitely the well-rounded (holistic) approach to teaching tbf. Blame the government for that one Sisu

I feel the same about children's programmes from that period.

 

Yeah I think you nailed it there. Exactly.

 

Just reading through reports here on the IPCC website.

They both claim there will be more precipitation and less precipitation in Australia. They claimed more drought and less drought.

if you have papers that predict both, you will always be right

Using a transient simulation with the NCAR CCMO GCM at coarse resolution (R15) (Meehl and Washington, 1996), Kothavala (1999) found for northeastern and southeastern Australia that the Palmer Drought Severity Index indicated longer and more severe droughts in the transient simulation at about 2xCO2 conditions than in the control simulation. This is consistent with a more El Niño-like average climate in the enhanced greenhouse simulation; it contrasts with a more ambivalent result by Whetton et al. (1993), who used results from several slab-ocean GCMs and a simple soil water balance model. Similar but less extreme results were found by Walsh et al. (2000) for estimates of meteorological drought in Queensland, based on simulations with the CSIRO RCM at 60-km resolution, nested in the CSIRO Mk2 GCM.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=477

Then the Queensland floods happened, and now the IPCC say more rain. So no matter what happens Queensland and regions in Australia the IPCC peer reviewed papers have all eventualities covered
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-es.html
Regional climate change has occurred (very high confidence).

Since 1950, there has been 0.4 to 0.7°C warming, with more heatwaves, fewer frosts, more rain in north-west Australia

#fraud

 

Picture of a glacier on Mt. Baker Washington USA

The black line about 6ft above the guys head is where the ice was at in 1998 1999 melt season, when satellite data (RSS) says global warming ended which just happens to be a coincidence I am sure.

please log in to view this image

RSS

please log in to view this image

 

More important now than ever to wear UV blocking sun screen folks, especially kids. The UV we are getting is beyond the scale used to determine risk, 1 to 11, 7500 is about 18 on the scale relatively.
11 on the scale is about 4500 - 5000 joules.

please log in to view this image

Also, global Ozone map, note the low Ozone is almost all in the northern hemisphere.

please log in to view this image

Nasa global warming map

please log in to view this image

Increased 'surface' temperatures in the northern hemisphere could well be down to the low Ozone areas receiving more joules of energy mostly in UV.


Put that sunscreen on biatches, skin cancer rates are climbing

please log in to view this image

 

Surely increased skin cancer rates are largely due to the vast increase in foreign holidays in the sun taken by us since the 70's, combined with the sun bed generation?

 

You can get skin cancer from British summers mate, UV is up.

You may have a point on that too re holidays as it must impact the stats but consider people more than ever use sun screen now than they did 20 years ago and that would negatively affect the stats too.

Just saying that these days with the UV increase people shouldn't take the sun screen question lightly is all. I put it on the kids but often never bothered with myself. No more I tells ya

 

When you run the numbers from RSS AND UAH data this is what you get. 0 warming trend. . Not the red line the climatard bullshitters waffle on about

please log in to view this image

 

Fcking hell Sisu, you keep some weird sh1t in your dropbox

 

Never mind me Astro, has a folder for every one of you on the boards with quotes in text files for later use, he may even have a few of your pearls of wisdom.

 

Strong El Nino this year looks like, last two have been pretty weak. Usually means the winter will be pretty cold, get your skiis out

please log in to view this image