FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  "Climate science" haha not!

"Climate science" haha not!

Started by The_Truth71 REPLIES2,847 VIEWS· 20 Dec 2016, 11:37
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
22 Dec 2016, 18:10
#41
22 Dec 2016, 18:10#41
The Montreal agreement was established in 1987.......and it took the consensus scientists till 2016 to agree an amendment to reduce the production of HFCs. It took them 29 years to fix a solution they agreed, which produced a gas which had up to 10000 times the potency of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. ............. These are the infallible scientists.....the great consensus, who can't be questioned. ............. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Produced mostly in developed countries, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) replaced CFCs and HCFCs. HFCs pose no harm to the ozone layer because, unlike CFCs and HCFCs, they do not contain chlorine. They are however greenhouse gases, with a high global warming potential (GWP), comparable to that of CFCs and HCFCs.[17] The Montreal Protocol as it is currently in effect does not currently address HFCs, but these substances figure in the basket of six greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol. Developed countries following the Kyoto Protocol report their HFC emission data to the UNFCCC; parties to the Montreal Protocol have no such obligation. In November 2015 in Dubai, at the 27th Meeting of Parties of the Montreal Protocol, the 197 countries and other parties which participate in the Montreal Protocol agreed to begin working on an amendment to the Protocol which will reduce production and consumption of HFCs.[18][19] On 15 October 2016, negotiators from over 170 nations meeting at the summit of the United Nations Environment Programme reached a legally-binding accord to phase down hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in an amendment to the Montreal Protocol.[20][21][22] The amendment has not entered into force.
AB
ABasquefanPro2,549 posts
22 Dec 2016, 18:37
#42
22 Dec 2016, 18:37#42
 as always wrong,...

"and it took the consensus scientists till 2016 to agree an amendment to reduce the production of HFCs. It took them 29 years to fix a solution they agreed"

scientists didn't agree any solution,... and if you say otherwise probe it
it took the political responsibles 29 years "to agree an amendment to reduce the production of HFCs", not to the scientific community
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
22 Dec 2016, 19:01
#43
22 Dec 2016, 19:01#43
The scoentists certainly recognized their error before that. But their mistake in promoting the use of HFCs to replace CFCs took 29 years to fix.........case closed.
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
22 Dec 2016, 20:03
#44
22 Dec 2016, 20:03#44
Moffie getting schooled on science, maths and pretty much everything else. 
LMAO!
It's almost embarrassing seeing this puffed up and pitiful old buffoon trying to pretend he's not being humili ated by ABF on every thread!
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
22 Dec 2016, 20:47
#45
22 Dec 2016, 20:47#45
 Now why would you say that? Could it be you are dishonest or biased or jealous or stupid or tired of being humiliated. Or perhaps all five ? LMAOFY!
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
22 Dec 2016, 21:22
#46
22 Dec 2016, 21:22#46
LMAO!
"Now why would you say that?"
Hmmm . . . let's see . . . maybe it's because ABF relies on facts rather than bluster? Maybe because he uses logic and reason rather than thinking he's so important that people will believe him just because it's him saying it . . . maybe because he has a real education and not some certificate he pulled out of a Kelloggs Cornflakes cereal box . . . maybe because he's prepared to do some research rather than just sucking one-eyed and juvenile garbage out of his thumb?
Are those enough reasons, Moffie?
LMAO!
You're getting schooled, chump. Your Servile Gimps can snap and snarl all they like but everyone else can see that ABF is owning you on every climate thread.
Bottom line . . . even if there's only a 1 in a 1000 chance that the global warming lobby is correct, the denialists should do their bit to reduce pollution and help clean up the planet. Only a selfish, small-minded and greedy capitalist who is more concerned with immediate profits than cleaning the planet up for future generations would disagree . . . and ummm . . . that would be you, Moffie!
Clean up your act, chump. You stink! Oh . . . and get an education. Your ignorance is showing!
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
22 Dec 2016, 23:13
#47
22 Dec 2016, 23:13#47
Well lets count up the examples of ignorance in your post. ........ 1) Not one of Basque's thoughts are original or even tie together two non original thoughts. If you disagree name the original thoughts. ......... 2) The Kellogg school is the Business School at Northwestern University.....frequently ranked in the top 5 of American Business Schools. It has absolutely no operational link with the cereal company. ......... 3) Denialists, love the little politically correct word, have a lot more to do with practically dealing with pollution.....unlike Ivory Tower types who talk about it. ............ 4) Selfish capitalists would not be so stupid as to willfully pollute, if they are as self serving as you think.....why squeeze out a few more fractions of a percent and risk going to jail. ............ 5) I initiated the clean up of several miles of a damaged river....damaged before my time.....and have always taken the high ground on environmental issues. Not because I am necessarily a great environmentalist, but because it costs less money in the long term. It's the smart play. If you want a clean environment, appoint profit conscious executives. ........... Your liberal claptrap gleaned from reading the left leaning press is totally ignorant. Let me suggest you read Major Barbara and pay particular attention to the ideas of Undershaft....it's simplified but instructive for planks like you.
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
22 Dec 2016, 23:23
#48
22 Dec 2016, 23:23#48
 A Quarter Century of The BusinessWeek MBA Ranking 1988 – 2014 .......................... 'If anything the first quarter century of BusinessWeek rankings saw very little change among the top schools. As the historic table accompanying this article illustrates, until Duke grabbed the crown in 2014 only three business schools had ever held the #1 position – Kellogg (5 times), Chicago (4 times) and Wharton (4 times). And while 18 business schools have made the top 10 since 1988, only 3 had featured in the top 5 every year since the BusinessWeek ranking began – Wharton, Kellogg and Harvard. Such enduring success said a lot not only about the reputation of these schools, but also the quality of experience delivered over time, as reflected in the satisfaction levels of the student survey." ........................ The Kellogg School number one the most times of all US Universities over the last 25 years.....poor old Rooinek, every avenue you open up results in a humiliation.
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
24 Dec 2016, 18:50
#49
24 Dec 2016, 18:50#49
In 2016 the US government spent $678 million on 13 climate change models. That's over $50 million per model....just in 2016! It's a gravy train.
WA
WardadPro6,663 posts
26 Dec 2016, 17:00
#50
26 Dec 2016, 17:00#50
 So 20c above normal arctic temps is nothing then ? 
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
26 Dec 2016, 17:40
#51
26 Dec 2016, 17:40#51
 Its called a probability distribution.....every now and then you see a 'tail' phenomenon. November was very warm in the great plains.....December was 4 degrees below normal, that's a lot. We had a day with a high of 11 degrees.....and a day with a high of 50 degrees.both 20 degrees off normal. The time to be concerned is when we no longer see new lows....that would mean the tails have shifted. We are still seeing as many new lows as new highs in the plains. Yes I know it's 'local".....but it's the planet's second largest land mass.
AB
ABasquefanPro2,549 posts
26 Dec 2016, 19:24
#52
26 Dec 2016, 19:24#52
"We are still seeing as many new lows as new highs in the plains."

when are you going to stop bringing false information?

this was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America:

"Observed temperature extremes over the continental United States can be represented by the ratio of daily record high temperatures to daily record low minimum temperatures, and this ratio has increased to a value of about 2 to 1, averaged over the first decade of the 21st century"

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/49/13977.abstract


RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
26 Dec 2016, 21:20
#53
26 Dec 2016, 21:20#53
 Wehe!
Bam . . . down goes Moffie again!
The old fossil is staggering but he'll soon be shrieking "game set and match" to the applause of his Servile Gimps and demanding that everyone integrates the square root of x cubed while apologizing repeatedly and profusely for everything they've ever said that the doddering and pompous old fool has ever disagreed with.
You watch.
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
26 Dec 2016, 23:56
#54
26 Dec 2016, 23:56#54
Publish your data for the Great Plains Basque. Didn't I make that clear enough for you? What you are showing here are stale reports for the whole USA. These aggregates for the US are driven by 4 El Ninos (vs a typical 2) in the period 2000 to 2010....and a super El Nino event 2014 to 2016. They are also dubious aggregates, which fail to compensate for the heat island effect, but are massaged to 'eliminate inconsistincies' ...just another black box. I have more faith in the simple state level data. If we look at those records there is no indication that more record highs are occuring since 2000. Two States have set record highs since 2000 South Carolina and South Dakota.......and two States have set record lows Maine and Oklahoma. So nope.....if you don't buy the data, you don't buy the conclusion. Garbage in/garbage out.
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
27 Dec 2016, 09:01
#55
27 Dec 2016, 09:01#55
Lets face facts global warming is fake news. Climate change due to CO2 is fake news. These twits have had their day.  The fightback against global ist propaganda is growing into a tidal wave.
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
27 Dec 2016, 11:14
#56
27 Dec 2016, 11:14#56
 I note in passing that big hypocrite warped Dud is posting on a non rugby tread. But enough of the clown. Top Professor says Climate Change is a Hoax





BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
27 Dec 2016, 11:16
#57
27 Dec 2016, 11:16#57
 Dr Easterbrook Global Warming HOAX & Facts



BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
27 Dec 2016, 11:21
#58
27 Dec 2016, 11:21#58
 Wise reader forget about the globalist elite co2 climate change hoax. Lets leave ou ab ASS   to blabbering away incoherently.  

RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
27 Dec 2016, 23:11
#59
27 Dec 2016, 23:11#59
"Lets leave ou ab ASS to blabbering away incoherently."
LMAO!
Yes, very coherent from the resident clown!
On the contrary Baboon-ou, on every climate thread ABasque has been rational, articulate and thought-provoking. You just sound like a blithering idiot as usual while Moffie tries to obfuscate the issue with lies and "facts" that he's found on right-wing denialist websites that only stupid people ever bother to read. 
Trust me, all the intelligent members on this site are well aware who is winning the big global-warming debate on SARuckersforum!
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
27 Dec 2016, 23:15
#60
27 Dec 2016, 23:15#60
How can we tell......trust me says Rooiurinal......LMAOFY!
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
27 Dec 2016, 23:32
#61
27 Dec 2016, 23:32#61
How can we know if this is the real Moffie . . . what with all that egg dripping down his stupid face?
Go on then, prove you're the real Moffie . . . integrate the square root of x cubed using the degree you got out of your Kelloggs Cornflakes cereal box or else stamp your foot and demand an apology for something!
LMAO!
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
28 Dec 2016, 00:30
#62
28 Dec 2016, 00:30#62
Hahaha......let's see 8 attempted insults in one short posting. Did that make you feel better or do you still need your third pop to get through the night?
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
28 Dec 2016, 22:02
#63
28 Dec 2016, 22:02#63
 Rooitwitterbug you know you cant handle scientific discussions. Remember how many times I floored you regarding evolutions You were a nervous wreck at the end.
Rooitwit please stop being so utterly jealous of Dr Moz. This jealousy of his superior education and very superior financial status is eating you up.
Beeno giving his good friend rooitwit some sound advice! 

BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
28 Dec 2016, 22:21
#64
28 Dec 2016, 22:21#64
 A nice article from Breitbart NEWS (47 million viewers and 248 million hits a month, a giant in the news World and much smeared by the lying globalist MSM so discredited today)

What to do if you don’t believe that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing a global warming catastrophe? Here are some ready-made responses, the next time someone questions you.

You don’t believe in global warming?

Yes, I do. The earth has warmed by roughly 0.8 degrees Celsius over the past century or so.

You don’t believe in climate change?

Yes, I do. The earth’s climate has changed several times, just in the past 1,000 years.

CO2 levels are rising and the earth is warming.

Carbon dioxide concentrations have risen from roughly 0.028% of the earth’s atmosphere in the late 1800s to the current 0.040%. However, solar output has also increased significantly in that time. If the correlation between solar variability and the climate swings of the past few thousand years is any indication, this rise in solar activity offers a valid explanation for the overall increase in temperatures seen over the past century.

Solar activity and temperature trends don’t match up in recent years.

Solar activity actually peaked somewhere around the middle of the 20th Century, and at elevated levels not seen since the Medieval Warm Period (1,000 years ago) or the Roman Warm Period (1,800 years ago.) Solar activity remained at this high level through the start of the 21st Century, with temperatures rising at the same time. While the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that changes in solar “irradiance” have little impact on climate, other research argues that accompanying variations in the solar wind and solar magnetic field contribute significantly to changes in global climate. In fact, Russian scientists studying solar variability now worry that declining solar activity could lead to globally cooler temperatures by 2030.HAHAHAHAHAHAHA POOR AL GORE!!

But CO2 levels are the highest in 800,000 years.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere are currently among the lowest ever recorded in the earth’s long history. The past 800,000 years is a convenient timeframe to cite, however, since the earth has undergone repeated glacial cycles in that time—which has reduced atmospheric CO2.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. More CO2 means more warming.

CO2 possesses a major limitation as a greenhouse gas, and one that casts doubt on its ability to function as the sole agent of climate change. As demonstrated in laboratory studies, CO2 exponentially loses heat-trapping capacity as its concentration increases. This happens because, even in minuscule quantities, CO2 quickly becomes opaque to a certain spectrum band of infrared radiation. Essentially, CO2 rapidly absorbs all of the infrared radiation it can. Adding additional quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere will not contribute much additional heat-trapping function. CO2 is also a “well-mixed gas,” which means that its concentrations are distributed throughout the atmosphere. Consequently, its heat-trapping function is essentially reaching a saturation point throughout the troposphere and stratosphere.

But higher CO2 levels mean higher temperatures. I saw that graph in “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Al Gore left out a key point when citing the parallel relationship between historical levels of atmospheric CO2 and temperature. Carbon dioxide dissolves in water, with cold water able to hold more CO2 than warm water. When the climate cools, the oceans cool—and draw in more CO2 from the atmosphere. When the climate warms, as seen at the start of the most recent interglacial period (roughly 18,000 years ago), the oceans gradually warm, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. (A good visualization for this is a bottle of soda kept in hot sunlight. If the temperature rises high enough, the bottle will leak or burst— because the warmer soda water is no longer able to hold all of the dissolved CO2.) The point is, when global temperatures change, atmospheric CO2 inevitably follows along.

Scientists say that CO2 is warming the earth.

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it helps to maintain warmth in the atmosphere. But as noted above, CO2’s heat-trapping function is essentially saturated by the current level of 0.04%. Furthermore, climate models actually project that most of the presumed “man-made” warming will come from an increase in atmospheric water vapor. The principal idea of “anthropogenic global warming” (AGW) is that the small amount of additional warming contributed by CO2 (before it becomes saturated) will cause more water vapor to enter the atmosphere. Since water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas of the atmosphere (and is responsible for roughly 80% of the “greenhouse effect”), this water vapor will create “positive feedback” for further warming. Unfortunately, the AGW theory essentially disregards the cooling feedback caused by clouds (since atmospheric water vapor inevitably transitions to cloud cover.) Clouds provide net cooling by reflecting solar radiation back into space, shading ground surfaces, and producing rain (which not only cools surface temperatures but also scrubs atmospheric CO2.) HOW WONDERFULLY GOD HAS MADE THE EARTH!

But 97% of scientists believe in global warming.

What’s most amusing is that, truthfully, no one really knows how many scientists there are in the world. Or what they all think about global warming. Or how many of them work in relevant scientific disciplines. However, the “97% consensus” is a flawed statement. Only 32.6% of the papers examined in the infamous John Cook study actually stated a position endorsing anthropogenic global warming. However, 97% of those said that “recent warming is mostly man-made.” And so what we have is a misleading statement that has become misrepresented and cited as fact. (Interestingly, there is a website called The Petition Project that lists more than 30,000 scientists who have publicly declared their disagreement with the theory of catastrophic man-made warming.)

2015 was the hottest year ever, and now 2016 is even hotter.

The warm temperatures experienced in 2015-2016 are the direct result of a strong El Nino.

El Nino is caused by global warming.

El Nino is a naturally occurring phenomenon. It happens when prevailing winds start to fade after several years of progressively “piling up” water in the western Pacific Ocean. This surplus, warm water washes back over the eastern Pacific, releasing tremendous amounts of heat. 2015’s spike in temperatures was due to El Nino. It would be dishonest and inaccurate to claim that 2015’s increase in surface temperatures was simply due to man-made warming. And even climate “alarmists” admit that El Nino is not a manifestation of man-made warming.

The “pause in global temperatures” is just people denying that the earth is getting hotter and hotter.

Satellite measurements from both UAH-Huntsville and RSS clearly show a “pause” in global temperatures (I.e. a net flatlining of temperatures) over the past 15-20 years. As the current El Nino fades, it’s reasonable to expect a resumption of recent global temperatures. More significantly, the “pause” has been the subject of numerous debates and research papers. Climate alarmists don’t deny that it has happened, and instead offer varying explanations. Even Michael Mann, creator of the infamous “Hockey Stick” graph, says that the pause occurred and was not foreseeable.

NOAA says there’s no “pause” in global warming.

There is legitimate concern as to the accuracy and reliability of recent temperature measurements being reported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA.) Last year, NOAA reported adjustments to global temperature records that suddenly “erased” the pause. I.e. Earlier decades were revised to be “cooler,” while recent years were suddenly marked as “warmer” by factoring in measurements that included seawater temperature readings from the engine manifolds of ocean-going vessels. Various academic papers have debunked NOAA’s “new” temperature findings, but NOAA’s revised measurements continue to be used to make claims such as “warmest year ever.” The questionable methods utilized by NOAA to assemble its “pause buster” study are now the subject of a Congressional investigation.

But the oceans are becoming acidic.

The oceans remain comfortably alkaline, as they have for millions of years. As noted above, atmospheric CO2 levels have typically ranged far higher throughout the earth’s history, yet the oceans never became acidic. In fact, if they had, submarine fossil layers would have readily dissolved. Claims of the ocean “becoming acidic” are actually a misrepresentation of variations in the ocean’s pH scale. Seawater has typically measured roughly 8.18 on the pH scale. Recent, pH levels of 8.10 have been noted, which would mean slightly less alkaline oceans. But it’s misleading to say that the oceans are “becoming acidic,” particularly when ocean pH often varies greatly, based on season and location.

But the glaciers are melting.

Even NASA has stated that Antarctica’s ice cover is growing, not shrinking.

But there are more hurricanes and more tornadoes.

The U.S. has reached a record 127 months without a major hurricane. The U.S. is also at its lowest 3-year tornado total since 1950.

But we need to cut dangerous carbon pollution.

The “carbon pollution” you hear so much about is carbon dioxide, also known as CO2. It’s what all animals (including humans) breathe out, and what plants absorb. In fact, rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have led to a progressive “greening” of global plant life in recent decades. Because atmospheric CO2 is at such historically low levels, the world’s plants and oceanic phytoplankton are currently rejoicing in this slightly more abundant supply of nourishment.

To conclude, it’s helpful to study the basic issues involved in the climate debate (as well as recent geologic history) when considering various aspects of global warming.

OU AB ASS IS UP THE PROVERBIAL CREEK WITHOUT A PADDLE.  ITS UNFORTUNATE THAT YET AGAIN ROOITWITTERBUG HAS GOT IT ALL WRONG. ROOITWIT HAS A MIND TOTALLY SHAPED BY GLOBALIST PROPAGANDA. I DOUBT HE HAS A SINGLE THOUGHT NOT FED TO HIM BY THE GLOBALIST ELITES. ITS FRIGHTENING TO SEE SUCH A ZOMBIE IN ACTION .


AB
ABasquefanPro2,549 posts
01 Jan 2017, 21:41
#65
01 Jan 2017, 21:41#65
 I imagine Beeno as the bearded guy wering Hillary's T-shirt,... but well passed his 60s



MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
11 Jan 2017, 19:50
#66
11 Jan 2017, 19:50#66
Back to the top with this rugby topic. It has to be a rugby topic Rooi Urinal posted on the string.
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
11 Jan 2017, 19:51
#67
11 Jan 2017, 19:51#67
Grow up you pathetic and spiteful little loser.
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
11 Jan 2017, 19:56
#68
11 Jan 2017, 19:56#68
Not spiteful and not a loser....that would be you. As someone who has posted on soccer, your family, movies, books, politics and voluminously about other posters........you have no basis for telling posters where to post. So clean up your own act and stop sabotaging strings, it sets a precedent where any poster can sabotage anything he doesn't like.
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
11 Jan 2017, 20:01
#69
11 Jan 2017, 20:01#69
Perhaps I was a bit unfair, Moffie . . . calling you spiteful and a loser is an insult to all the spiteful losers out there!
This is a rugby forum. There is a forum beneath this one for other sports and then there's another forum beneath that for non sports related topics. If you don't believe me then get an adult with a double digit IQ to read you out the names of the various forums. Okay?
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
11 Jan 2017, 20:04
#70
11 Jan 2017, 20:04#70
A principle you have unfortunately never followed.
DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
06 Mar 2024, 19:05
#71
06 Mar 2024, 19:05#71

Welcome back Truth!

DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
06 Mar 2024, 19:06
#72
06 Mar 2024, 19:06#72

Basque is gone but Stav stepped right up to the plate.

— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby