"Climate science" haha not!

I fail to see how climate "scientists" apply there so-called "science" in any case. The normal orbit of Jupiter causes a wobble in the sun's rotation of more than 1 solar radius. This is about 0.4% of the distance between the earth and the sun. Now this occurs every 12 years. Then you have the sunspot cycles, which occur every 11 years. When you super-impose these two phenomena, you get about 150 year cycles where you may have peaks of higher temperature related to the fact that the sun may be closer to the earth and the fact that there is more activity on the sun....

In contrast to this temperatures have only been measured over the last century and not very accurately. In fact, balloon and satellite measurements only began in the 50's. (66 years ago). In other words not even 42% of one cycle. Other temperature measurements before that were done by using ground based thermometers over limited areas and is therefore not even accurate. Added to this, during the period, some adjustments were made which also changed the measurement values. (so, just how accurate are those measurements in any case).

What I gather from the 150 year period is that "weather change" (not climate change) is normal. and it occurs over hundreds of years. "Weather change" is part of the NORMAL climate on the planet and despite these changes man has survived for thousands of years. (More than a few 150 year cycles). Stated differently, temperature changes are part of the climate and a temperature change, whether up or down, is not "climate change", it is "current weather conditions" .

It is just a pity that the climate change advocates resort to idiotic rhetoric, where they say that "Because it is hotter where I live this year, there must be global warming!"

 Well said Truth. Alas ou ab ASS has sucked up all the global ist propaganda his lonely brain cell can absorb. Hahahahahahahahahaha

Global warming is not an accurate definition in what I see...it really should be global disturbance in climatic changes...certainly in other regions it's getting hotter, others colder, others drier and others wetter.

A total disturbance caused by man's abuse of natural resources and pollution.

 

 incredible,.... really incredible,... here the village idiot read something about Jupiter (!!!!!!!!!) the only 2 minutes of the day he's not gawping and thinks he can contradict the knowledge produced by the scientific community, composed of thousands of scientists who have spent their lifes studying and working on the subject, researching and publishing in peer reviews and using a scientific approach to the subject.

"I fail to see how climate "scientists" apply there so-called "science" in any case."

yeah, we all know that,.... and that's why you shouldn't write about things beyond your understanding

Oh, and the only ones using that "idiotic rhetoric" are the deniers,... the evidences of a climate change caused by the human kind are overwhelming so there's no need at all of such

None so blind as those who will not see.

Experiences:

1) Extreme cold in Moscow...-17 to - 26 degrees in October/Nov
2) Swimming pool in KZN too cold in Nov/Dec to swim...near Durbs.
3) Most beautiful trout streams/rivers in Rhodes/Barkly East completely dried up in rainy season last year.

Well there are a few others but that tells me everything...even the termites in Natal that come out in November...usually after the many hot day and thunderstorm in the evening, never came out because there weren't any.

We are simply killing the earth.

 The scientific community....oh those all knowing geniuses? Who 20 years ago, trying to fix the ozone hole.......did so by advocating the use of HFCs a chemical which creates a greenhouse gas 10000 times more potent than CO2. A decision which is now being hastily revised as quietly as possible. Because these bozos now admit this stuff could account for a third of man made warming, benign as it may be. Those geniuses?

Integrate X cubed between the limits 10 and 5 Basque, let's see how much of a 'scientist' you are

 you've truly earned it

 Thought not....all mouth, no education.

 keep on, keep on,... and you'll break all the records

Integrate X cubed....just tried to make sense of it all. May as well be trying to read hieroglyphics. Which Moz, I am pretty sure you cannot do either as it is not in your sphere of interest. Back to the point, I conclude that I cannot solve this complex problem. However, I am pretty sure solving it will neither resolve world hunger, world conflicts, religious hatred or  more importantly, weather or not climate change exists or is indeed a man made phenomenon. In other words, it seems pretty stupid to me to include such a complex mathematical problem in an argument in which it has no relevance. Except maybe to illustrate how stupid the rest of us are compared to you...which leads me to the following questions. Why argue with a bunch of plebs who you clearly believe are not on your level? And which person or group is the lesser? The ones that cannot solve the Integrate X Cubed problem, or the one that regularly feels the need to quantify his intelligence by proving to them that he can?
Now Moz, before you get defensive and attack me, I really just want to understand why you keep reverting back to this stance. I therefore expect you to be level headed enough to not take offence. Also, there were one or two posters here that clearly understood your mathematical question and even challenged you on it in the past, I am just making a general point.     

 Blue, it's quite simple, Basq is calling Moz an idiot because of his arguments on a scientific topic. Math is the language of science...so whom would be better qualified to understand the scientific model? Does Basque understand the science behind the argument or does he have blind faith in mainstream science?....The same mainstream science who have been proven wrong at times numerous in our history.

 @dbdraad,

firstly, I'm not calling mozart "an idiot because of his arguments on a scientific topic", I'm calling him stupid for bringing to the discussion, as he often does, that stupidity about integrals. As bluebok said that's a completely irrelevant issue in a discussion about the climate change and it's the resource the pompous arrogant uses each time he has no other arguments. It's like the childish "Game, set and match" he likes to self-assign to his own arguments.

Secondly, your argument is as stupid as mozart's. There's no need of knowing how to integrate to understand what the science says about climate change or to understand any specific study about climate change. In the same way, knowing how to integrate (seems that the only thing our c0cky fellow knows) doesn't imply that you understand every other field of the science, as the same mozart has probed being able to bring only fake graphs and fake data to a discussion about climate change (18. More climate change crow for ab ASS to consume ). And, without any doubt, knowing how to integrate doesn't make you the one who's right in every discussion about any field of the science, as you both pretend.

It's just a very arrogant and stupid resource

 So record high monthly temps down here  decade after decade but because someone in New York has a cold arse and 2 brain cells then he must be correct ?

Let me try to explain Bloo.....if you look through this thread you will see I raised a valid fact. Twenty years ago the same scientists who are arguing global warming solved the ozone layer by advocating a chemical which promotes warming. It could if continued continued contribute another third to the warming gasses. ........... That's a stunning data point. And they left this horrible mistake uncorrected until recently.....this is the concensus we are supposed to blindly believe! ............ As far as Climate Change is concerned for a layman I'm well educated on the subject and have participated in many debates on the sites dedicated to the topic like the Sceptical Scientist, as well as having read several books. I know all the arguments if not all the technical physics. I have a decent grasp of the modeling, enough to understand the underlying assumptions. ............... Now lets get back to this thread....after I throw my pebble in the pond about the Ozone layer Basque calls me stupid 3 times, directly or indirectly. So rather than engage in silly name calling I ask him to integrate x cubed. ............ Why that challenge? Well it's basic integral calculus. There are many other challenges I could set in optimal control theory, linear programming or non linear programming.....but they aren't basic. Integrating x cubed is basic, because without that capability and much more, you don't have a prayer of understanding these models. So it's a test. Not a test which is difficult....it's at best a first year in college problem. Or perhaps even a high school problem in China, not hard at all. But it defines a watershed in mathematical capability quite neatly. ............... So thats why I use the test......rarely ....to respond to insults with a bit of clarity.

 Common FunctionsFunctionIntegralConstant?a dxax + CVariable?x dxx2/2 + CSquare?x2 dxx3/3 + CReciprocal?(1/x) dxln|x| + CExponential?ex dxex + C ?ax dxax/ln(a) + C ?ln(x) dxx ln(x) ? x + CTrigonometry (x in radians)?cos(x) dxsin(x) + C ?sin(x) dx-cos(x) + C ?sec2(x) dxtan(x) + C   

 @mozart,

"after I throw my pebble in the pond about the Ozone layer Basque calls me stupid 3 times, directly or indirectly. So rather than engage in silly name calling I ask him to integrate x cubed."


point which are those 3 times, lier,... the rest is your usual arrogant sh¡t,... but this is a complete lie,... point where did I call you directly or indirectly stupid before you brought your usual stupidity about integrals,...

LIER

S.hite is this a rugby forum...

or maybe AC's next game plan...lol

Common Functions
FunctionIntegralConstant?a dxax + CVariable?x dxx2/2 + CSquare?x2 dxx3/3 + CReciprocal?(1/x) dxln|x| + CExponential?ex dxex + C ?ax dxax/ln(a) + C ?ln(x) dxx ln(x) ? x + CTrigonometry (x in radians)?cos(x) dxsin(x) + C ?sin(x) dx-cos(x) + C ?sec2(x) dxtan(x) + C   

Lier kinda rhymes with tyre.. But is actually a person or animal in repose. Three times? Sure: 1 When you implied I was a Republican, which I'm not, and showed Republicans in a sarcastic light. 2 When you gave me a certificate of Stupidity 3 When you said Draad's argument was as "stupid"' as mine. You are big on the attack dog stuff......an aggressive little liberal twit, who regularly has his pea head handed to him. Live with it.

What is surprising is that ou ab ASS has the intelligence to call anybody stupid. He is str etching the limits Hahahahahahahhaha

 "after I throw my pebble in the pond about the Ozone layer Basque calls me stupid 3 times, directly or indirectly. So rather than engage in silly name calling I ask him to integrate x cubed."

here you are saying that you asked me to integrate x cubed after I called you 3 times stupid, the 2nd and 3rd times you say I called you stupid:

"2 When you gave me a certificate of Stupidity"

"3 When you said Draad's argument was as "stupid"' as mine"

both after you asked me to, and as consequence of asking me to integrate, not before as you pretend

and the first one? really?



you are trying to say that this is calling you stupid? really? weren't you saying that you are not a republican?

you are a LIER OF NOTE

 Beeno, as this is a rugby site perhaps you should be comparing your knowledge of rugby with ABF's. You will quickly discover that you are lacking. If you want to prove your knowledge sign up for the fantasy rugby competition when it opens in 2017.
JW giving Beeno a much needed reality check.

 I never said I waited till you insulted me three times ....I said you insulted me three times, and I responded. Turns out I responded after the first insult. As for the Republican insult, the fact that you got it wrong...again......doesn't mean you were not trying to call me stupid. You clearly were. And if you are going to continue falsely calling me a liar....at least get it right.....a lier is somebody or some animal in repose. Got it?.

 "I said you insulted me three times, and I responded. Turns out I responded after the first insult."

Hahahahahahahahaha
please, don't continue embarrassing yourself, LIAR

 and for your stupid knowledge, the following is not an insult:



its called a joke, LIAR

Okay let's continue the lesson a step further, so far you have learned how to spell 'liar', let's work on comprehension: ' after I throw my pebble in the pond about the Ozone layer Basque calls me stupid 3 times, directly or indirectly. So rather than engage in silly name calling I ask him to integrate x cubed.' Point out where I said that I responded only after you called me stupid 3 times....go ahead this should be instructive.

 ..........

 if you cannot see it, you are even more stupid that I thought

 Explain it to me....you being so bright and all.

............

 you are a waste of time,... not going to explain what is obvious,... bye, bye LIAR

Well I guess it's game, set and match. If it was perfectly obvious you would point it out......Loser!

 ABasquefan,

The fact that you failed to understand the BASIC principles in the first post of this thread, tells me EVERYTHING I need to know about your understanding of scientific principles.

 Does Basque understand the science behind the argument or does he have blind faith in mainstream science?....The same mainstream science who have been proven wrong at times numerous in our history.Quite so Draad! It get worse ou ab ASS like rooitwitterbug believes in evolution!!!!!!!!! 

I see ABasque is discovering what a childish, ignorant and self-absorbed fool Moffie really is.

Moz, thanks for a fair reply. Even though you still had a bit of a gloat about your mathematical capabilities. No matter, I'll take it as pride in what you can do. While I don't share your enthusiasm in global warming and its causes, I do follow the discussions on the topic from a distance. I was not aware of the HFC's as a replacement for CFC's, but I have done a little research into them and I have discovered a few interesting things. For starters, there is not much information about them, that is to say, you need to actively search for the negative implications of HFC's. Almost any google search on them, takes you to the negatives of CFC's instead. As i understand it, the impact at this point from HFC's is not great, because the volumes being released into the atmosphere are minuscule compared to those of CO2 emissions. But they are MUCH more potent.  
I am much more interested in arguments for and against evolution, but lets leave that can of worms for another thread.   

 @bluebok,

there's probably less information about the HCFCs and HFCs than other current environmental issue but still you can find some interesting information.

And, as usual, facts are quite different from what mozart said,... there was a scientific consensus about the harm the CFCs were producing to the ozone lawyer, similar to the consensus nowadays existing about the climate change,... consequence of this consensus came the Montreal Protocol banning these CFCs,... so, what did the corporations like DuPont and Honeywell did?

http://www.dupont.com/corporate-functions/our-company/insights/articles/position-statements/articles/hcfcs-hfcs.html

they introduced the HCFC and after that the HFCs to continue with they profit making,... there was nothing even close to a scientific consensus about its use, its lack of harm for the environment or "advocating the use of HFCs", as mozart pretends,... it was just the corporations, as many other times, that introduced new chemicals without knowing the impacts and consequences they have,...

what they should have done? stop the production of unnecessary cooling systems,... but the chemical industry stood against it because it would reduce their benefits

Here there's an old article from 2009 which I found interesting:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jun/15/network-climate-change

according to it:

"The biggest emitters of HFCs are mobile air conditioning (MAC) systems in cars (66% of all HFC emissions according to 2002 data from US EPA and ADEME); followed by commercial refrigeration, and particularly supermarket refrigeration (23%); and finally stationery air conditioning systems (6%) such as found in retail units and offices."

that 66% used in cars is simply a completely avoidable luxury,... and should be banned,... the 6% of retail and offices, at least that of the offices also banned,... and for the rest, part of that 23% of supermarket refrigeration could also be greatly reduced,...
it would be very easy to reduce in a 80% the HFCs production,... and for the refrigeration needed for food conservation find the less harmful possible refrigerant (and there are some natural options like isobutane, propane, ammonia or the same CO2 ),... but the chemical corporations don't like this easy solution