So how about that global warming?
-
- Placenta of Attention
- Posts: 9049
- Joined: 25 Feb 2008 02:23 pm
- Twit
- Noticeably Unintelligent
- Posts: 2877
- Joined: 11 Jul 2006 09:50 am
- XBL ID: Twit AU
- PSN ID: KAKwit
- Steam ID: KAKwit
Re: So how about that global warming?
Here’s an awesome and factually factual article explaining why Ars (represented by Joe Mullin and Ken Fisher) were spastically wrong, thus vindicating my valid and carefully considered opinion that it was “pretty crap”:
http://blog.patentology.com.au/2012/04/ ... aging.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://blog.patentology.com.au/2012/04/ ... aging.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- Twit
- Noticeably Unintelligent
- Posts: 2877
- Joined: 11 Jul 2006 09:50 am
- XBL ID: Twit AU
- PSN ID: KAKwit
- Steam ID: KAKwit
Re: So how about that global warming?
An interesting (IMO) read:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/ ... e-science/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/ ... e-science/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- Cletus
- Hates Everyone Equally
- Posts: 15563
- Joined: 04 Jul 2006 12:56 am
- Location: Aboard the HMAS Todd Margaret
- Contact:
Re: So how about that global warming?
Should I head down to Port Melbourne Beach again?
- Seraph
- The only seraph on the internet.
- Posts: 2580
- Joined: 05 Jul 2006 10:30 am
- XBL ID: Seraphcon V
Re: So how about that global warming?
No, it's heading to you.
- Cletus
- Hates Everyone Equally
- Posts: 15563
- Joined: 04 Jul 2006 12:56 am
- Location: Aboard the HMAS Todd Margaret
- Contact:
Re: So how about that global warming?
Cheers. How long do I have?
Re: So how about that global warming?
Twit wrote:An interesting (IMO) read:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/ ... e-science/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I'm not unfamiliar with modeling. I have done financial modeling (DCFs) for so many years now that the Excel logo gives me nightmares. They revolve around the idea that money you get in the future is worth less than money you get today.
So, if you have a huge building filled with people who pay you money every month, what is say five years of operation worth to you at this moment in todays money?
Well you stack every outgoing against every incoming every month. And you calculate what the effect of decreasing value of money (according to inflation) would have relative to the current moment. Down to the month, remembering to increase the income in time with each escalation in rent, (ever have your landlord tell you your rent is going up? It's to offset inflation) This is done via (among other things) a discount rate.
Now, the discount rate is an estimate of inflation. The discount rate you use, in itself, requires epic amounts of research. In fact any company in valuation (speculation, management etc) worth it's salt has a team of people researching that.
Now, I understand that modelling a commercial building is less complicated than modelling the earth.
But the best and most recent model from the IPCC only recreates current conditions in 2% of it's simulations
If we don't have 4 degrees Celsius of warming, across the globe, in the next 4 years and 2 months, then the very, very, very latest climate models, in all their sophistication will be (as close as possible, with out actually being) 0 percent accurate.
And this arstechnica article that really only manages to say
'Modelling is complicated'
Titles the artice why I should trust them?
If the modelling I've done was only accurate in 2% of scenarios I'd have been sued and possibly jailed.
Edit: Well, actually I'd have been fired. But if the company was careless enough to stand by them, both the company and I would be criminally liable for negligence and probably sued for damages.
-------------------------------------
Re: So how about that global warming?
THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest assessment reportedly admits its computer drastically overestimated rising temperatures, and over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed in the previous IPCC report in 2007.
- See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/he ... dt0kR.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-------------------------------------
- Cletus
- Hates Everyone Equally
- Posts: 15563
- Joined: 04 Jul 2006 12:56 am
- Location: Aboard the HMAS Todd Margaret
- Contact:
Re: So how about that global warming?
Yup. It might just be the thing Bill Shorten needed to dump Kevin and Julia's misguided vision for Labor, Australia and The Future.
- pilonv1
- Eels - regular season champions
- Posts: 19049
- Joined: 04 Jul 2006 11:08 am
- XBL ID: pilonv1
- PSN ID: pilonv1
- Steam ID: pilonv1
Re: So how about that global warming?
I am shockeditch wrote:THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest assessment reportedly admits its computer drastically overestimated rising temperatures, and over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed in the previous IPCC report in 2007.
- See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/he ... dt0kR.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: So how about that global warming?
So am I, considering that the 2007 IPCC report available online here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... 1.html#1-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; says that "The linear warming trend over the 50 years from 1956 to 2005 (0.13 [0.10 to 0.16]°C per decade)..."
Where's this 0.2 degrees that the Daily Mail is asserting was in the 2007 report?
Where's this 0.2 degrees that the Daily Mail is asserting was in the 2007 report?
Re: So how about that global warming?
Maybe this?
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... ns-of.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections".
But that's talking about the last two decades only. Very dishonest reporting. Anyway, the headlines have been written and the damage has been done and no amount of facts will overcome the inertia of the media.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... ns-of.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections".
But that's talking about the last two decades only. Very dishonest reporting. Anyway, the headlines have been written and the damage has been done and no amount of facts will overcome the inertia of the media.
- Twiztid Elf
- Team Wowboy
- Posts: 7459
- Joined: 04 Jul 2006 05:59 pm
- XBL ID: Koco Savage
- PSN ID: giantenemycrabb
Re: So how about that global warming?
Back in 1995, I read an article that was very persuasive and had me believing that Australia would have no snow by 2000. Definitely no snow by 2005. I was worried.
When I read pretty much the same article last month, I laughed.
When I read pretty much the same article last month, I laughed.
Re: So how about that global warming?
Hercy, with the weight of all of the mounting dud predictions you still want to whinge about some factual reporting on their complete miss on the temperature projections? Look at what itch posted about 4 posts above about how the models are running at a 2% confidence level, the same models that's evidence was 95% certain.
Vzzzbx, you lose again!
-
- Forum Faggot
- Posts: 19126
- Joined: 04 Jul 2006 01:51 am
- XBL ID: Madmya
- Steam ID: Madmya
- Location: Brisbane
Re: So how about that global warming?
Yeah there's been too much fear mongering regarding global warming.
Re: So how about that global warming?
The other side of the coin -
And another cracker of a twitter incident from Rupey lately:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ges-denial" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report
Climate contrarians appear to be running damage control in the media before the next IPCC report is published.
Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal and The Australian are providing the media coverage for climate contrarian damage control.
The fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is due out on September 27th, and is expected to reaffirm with growing confidence that humans are driving global warming and climate change. In anticipation of the widespread news coverage of this esteemed report, climate contrarians appear to be in damage control mode, trying to build up skeptical spin in media climate stories. Just in the past week we've seen...
And another cracker of a twitter incident from Rupey lately:
Rupert Murdoch himself has embarrassingly weighed in on Twitter with some David Rose style Arctic Ice extent denial which led to a incisive retort from Ben Stewart of Greenpeace.
Murdoch: "Al Gore. Pls explain record increase in Arctic ice. Other greenies crippling US growth in opposing safe tracking for natural gas."
Ben Stewart: Pls explain record increase in Arctic ice.” It's like yr papers' circulation. Long term downward trend w/ occasional spikes
-------------------------------------
-
- Forum Faggot
- Posts: 19126
- Joined: 04 Jul 2006 01:51 am
- XBL ID: Madmya
- Steam ID: Madmya
- Location: Brisbane
Re: So how about that global warming?
Al Gore is a piece of shit.
- Peppermint Lounge
- The End
- Posts: 8034
- Joined: 04 Jul 2006 09:23 am
- XBL ID: peppermintl2k5
- Steam ID: peppermintl2k5
- EpicGS ID: peppermintl2k5
- Battle.net ID: Punchanella#11145
- Location: Melbourne
Re: So how about that global warming?
There's been as much from the other side with claims an ETS will wipe towns off the map and the usual fear mongering from Bolt et al about Green Nazi policies 'hovering over our wallets'. Unfortunately what should be an objective thing is laden with drama from all vested interests.Madmya wrote:Yeah there's been too much fear mongering regarding global warming.
Re: So how about that global warming?
So stating the obvious that green schemes do cost us a crap load of money is fear mongering? An ETS might not shut down Whyalla straight away but it's a slow strangle, each year as it rises it would be killing off that towns industrial heart. The whole point of the ETS\carbon tax is to shutdown places like the smelter in Whyalla. The global warming theory is in its final days, the ones making a living and lots of cash out of it won't go down without a massive burst of fear to try and save their gravy train.
Vzzzbx, you lose again!
- Peppermint Lounge
- The End
- Posts: 8034
- Joined: 04 Jul 2006 09:23 am
- XBL ID: peppermintl2k5
- Steam ID: peppermintl2k5
- EpicGS ID: peppermintl2k5
- Battle.net ID: Punchanella#11145
- Location: Melbourne
Re: So how about that global warming?
Ah thanks for reminding me. That’s the other bit of drama – that scientists are making all this up to make out like bandits. Of course Bolt and others aren’t commercially benefiting at all from pushing the other side. Bolt’s profile has increased significantly in recent years as the ratings of right-wing drama-queens continue at gravy-train levels. Prior to their success the move towards less pollution was a universally bi-partisan thing. I mean, who wouldn’t want less pollution? Such was the case not long ago anyway. Any criticism or observation you throw up about AGW theories being vested can be easily countered. Climate science won’t stop just because the right’s pop-star columnists decide the global warming theory as far as they’re concerned is finished.
Re: So how about that global warming?
Yes Andrew Bolts rise is all because he had a contrary opinion on climate change, get a grip. Why don't you go and look at the flow of grants around the world for investigating anything to do with climate change? It is a gravy train an almost guaranteed source of funding for the last 10 - 15 years, need some funding, just whack climate change into the heading with the indication that you will be researching a negative effect of it and bam it's yours.
Yes because of Andrew Bolt and other insignificant Australian's musings the entire worlds right-wingers have come together to be pro-pollution. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, the world still works on anti-pollution measures together. People who have a hard on for co2 based earth melting always have it in their mind that as soon as anyone doesn't buy the failed theory that they must hate the environment and all measures to protect it. You will continue to attack Bolt and the like because the warmist agenda is failing, why don't you look at why? We are at a point where the observational world has caught up with the modelled one, stop blaming Bolt and everyone else and look at why globally everyone is starting to realise what a gigantic waste it's all been.
Yes because of Andrew Bolt and other insignificant Australian's musings the entire worlds right-wingers have come together to be pro-pollution. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, the world still works on anti-pollution measures together. People who have a hard on for co2 based earth melting always have it in their mind that as soon as anyone doesn't buy the failed theory that they must hate the environment and all measures to protect it. You will continue to attack Bolt and the like because the warmist agenda is failing, why don't you look at why? We are at a point where the observational world has caught up with the modelled one, stop blaming Bolt and everyone else and look at why globally everyone is starting to realise what a gigantic waste it's all been.
Vzzzbx, you lose again!
Re: So how about that global warming?
Personally I don't think cost of living pressures really compares to predicting the apocalypse and The End Of Life As We Know It.
If you're talking fear mongering, there's no comparison.
If you're talking fear mongering, there's no comparison.
-------------------------------------
Re: So how about that global warming?
or blaming every bushfire on global warming like the one last week EVEN after the actual source has been explained, thanks Andrew O'Keefe.
Vzzzbx, you lose again!
- Peppermint Lounge
- The End
- Posts: 8034
- Joined: 04 Jul 2006 09:23 am
- XBL ID: peppermintl2k5
- Steam ID: peppermintl2k5
- EpicGS ID: peppermintl2k5
- Battle.net ID: Punchanella#11145
- Location: Melbourne
Re: So how about that global warming?
I didn't say Bolt's rise was down to his climate change denial. Anyone can see his repertoire consists of more than that. The 'warmist agenda' is a narrow view. As I said actual climate science is still unfolding outside all the populist, cherry-picked rubbish from lobbyists. You're the one who needs to look elsewhere for a breadth of info ie: outside newspaper opinion columns.