NOTICE!

The Weatherzone forum has now closed and is in read-only mode until the 1st of November when it will close permanently. We would like to thank everyone who has contributed over the past 18 years.

If you would like to continue the discussion you can follow us on Facebook and Twitter or participate in discussions at AusWeather or Ski.com.au forums.

Page 114 of 115 < 1 2 ... 112 113 114 115 >
Topic Options
#1135099 - 23/10/2012 15:26 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: bd bucketingdown]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2654
Originally Posted By: bd bucketingdown
You are not worth the trouble of talking to CB...when you learn what it is to be undertanding and compassionate and caring I will read your posts once again.
You are posting always like an un-caring troller. Hav you no feelings?!
I hope and pray that you wake up to yourself and find where goodness lies, that is all I can do for you until you wake up to yourself and where you are going.
Cheers and prayers with you. See you when and if you change!


And once again BD cannot handle the truth and runs away.

BD claimed that before I came along everything was just perfect yet last year before I was here he said this:

This debate is getting ridiculous...with ridiculous statements galore!
T thought this thread was about science? I must be mistaken!
_________________________

Top
#1135100 - 23/10/2012 15:27 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: snafu]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6050
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
He is not worth replying to snafu, and he does not like fun. I am not looking at all anymore, I said that before, but this time I mean it. Why waste time with him on here...ignore him he may go away, we hope! A proffesional thread wrecker by trade!


Edited by bd bucketingdown (23/10/2012 15:31)

Top
#1135106 - 23/10/2012 15:44 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: bd bucketingdown]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6050
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
See you all later I'm taking a break from here, it is no use being on here anymore, the one person has wrecked it for all.
It was a pleasant place to come once
Thanks to all the nice folk here.
Cheers and blessing to you all.
I may come back some time, not sure.

Top
#1135112 - 23/10/2012 15:47 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: SBT]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6050
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
See you all later I'm taking a break from here, it is no use being on here anymore, the one person has wrecked it for all.
It was a pleasant place to come once
Thanks to all the nice folk here.
Cheers and blessing to you all.
I may come back some time, not sure.

Top
#1135114 - 23/10/2012 15:48 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Arnost]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
Originally Posted By: CeeBee

T thought this thread was about science? I must be mistaken!


It appears that with quotes like that below it is about comedy! ROFL...

Originally Posted By: CeeBee

Look to me like the article mistakes infrared radiation for infrared thermal radiation, which is in a different wavelength. It's the trapping of long-wavelength thermal radiation by CO2 that warms the planet.


_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#1135115 - 23/10/2012 15:48 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: bd bucketingdown]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 14286
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics
Don't do that BD, if you or anyone leaves it will just inflate his already gigantic ego into thinking he has struck yet another blow in his delusional war on skeptics. Just ignore the mongrel and continue to post.
_________________________
785mm Jan
799mm Feb
130 March
2019 Total 1714mm
2018 Total 822mm






Top
#1135116 - 23/10/2012 15:53 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: SBT]
Anthony Violi Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 06/11/2001
Posts: 2336
Loc: Mt Barker - SA
Eaxactly BD, he is doing everyone a favour, he never answer questions put to him, everyone can see he is here to be a troll with only one purpose.

Keep on ignoring, you wont miss anything important.
_________________________
https://avweather.net/

Top
#1135125 - 23/10/2012 16:17 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Anthony Violi]
MattS Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 01/05/2007
Posts: 95
Loc: Ferny Grove
As someone who is still genuinely on the fence (i.e. a skeptic in the true sense of the word - not in the rarefied air of the climate change debate), I find it sad that the moderators here have decided to let this thread go to the dogs. I also find it sad that people would practice zealotry rather than actually debate the issue (which is what used to happen). That is debate as in answering questions and then posing questions in return.

Ceebee I've lurked in on these boards for a long while, but the way you post in here makes me more inclined to jump into the skeptics camp (in spite of myself). The amount of times I've seen straight-forward questions asked of you, only to be ignored. Say what you want about bd, SBT, Anthony et al, but at least they will answer the questions put to them. You seem to be nothing but an RSS feed.

To you and WZ admin, thanks for spoiling it for those genuinely interested in the science. I'll continue to read this thread for the time being, but if it doesn't improve I'll seek information elsewhere.

To everyone else, please keep debating the topic with science in mind, rather than a kind of fanatical religion. To us plebs, the debate is very informative.

Top
#1135127 - 23/10/2012 16:32 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: MattS]
refstar Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 15/10/2012
Posts: 310
Originally Posted By: Maazo
As someone who is still genuinely on the fence (i.e. a skeptic in the true sense of the word - not in the rarefied air of the climate change debate), I find it sad that the moderators here have decided to let this thread go to the dogs. I also find it sad that people would practice zealotry rather than actually debate the issue (which is what used to happen). That is debate as in answering questions and then posing questions in return.

Ceebee I've lurked in on these boards for a long while, but the way you post in here makes me more inclined to jump into the skeptics camp (in spite of myself). The amount of times I've seen straight-forward questions asked of you, only to be ignored. Say what you want about bd, SBT, Anthony et al, but at least they will answer the questions put to them. You seem to be nothing but an RSS feed.

To you and WZ admin, thanks for spoiling it for those genuinely interested in the science. I'll continue to read this thread for the time being, but if it doesn't improve I'll seek information elsewhere.

To everyone else, please keep debating the topic with science in mind, rather than a kind of fanatical religion. To us plebs, the debate is very informative.


Hear, hear & well said.

Top
#1135129 - 23/10/2012 16:36 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: liberator]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
Originally Posted By: liberator
So whats the diff between infrared radiation and infrared thermal radiation

Found this:

Quote:
Thermal Infrared Radiation

Radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface, the atmosphere and the clouds. It is also known as terrestrial or longwave radiation, and is to be distinguished from the near-infrared radiation that is part of the solar spectrum. Infrared radiation, in general, has a distinctive range of wavelengths (spectrum) longer than the wavelength of the red colour in the visible part of the spectrum. The spectrum of thermal infrared radiation is practically distinct from that of shortwave or solar radiation because of the difference in temperature between the Sun and the Earth-atmosphere system.

Climate Institute

Must be some new IPCC / cAGW scientific term... confused

No reference of it in Wiki
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1135133 - 23/10/2012 16:55 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: MattS]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2654
Originally Posted By: Maazo
As someone who is still genuinely on the fence (i.e. a skeptic in the true sense of the word - not in the rarefied air of the climate change debate), I find it sad that the moderators here have decided to let this thread go to the dogs. I also find it sad that people would practice zealotry rather than actually debate the issue (which is what used to happen). That is debate as in answering questions and then posing questions in return.

Ceebee I've lurked in on these boards for a long while, but the way you post in here makes me more inclined to jump into the skeptics camp (in spite of myself). The amount of times I've seen straight-forward questions asked of you, only to be ignored. Say what you want about bd, SBT, Anthony et al, but at least they will answer the questions put to them. You seem to be nothing but an RSS feed.

To you and WZ admin, thanks for spoiling it for those genuinely interested in the science. I'll continue to read this thread for the time being, but if it doesn't improve I'll seek information elsewhere.

To everyone else, please keep debating the topic with science in mind, rather than a kind of fanatical religion. To us plebs, the debate is very informative.


The thing is I do answer questions so your claim that I don't is not true.

I don't answer every single question as I don't have the time, and many questions are one's I've already answered, multiple times.

And many times the questions I am asked are in a post that contains insults and personal attacks. I generally ignore those posts and the questions contained in them.

If the sceptics here were true sceptics then they would take on board new information that has been shown to be valid. Unfortunately that does not happen here. Which makes answering questions a waste of time really.


_________________________

Top
#1135134 - 23/10/2012 16:57 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: snafu]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
Originally Posted By: snafu
Originally Posted By: liberator
So whats the diff between infrared radiation and infrared thermal radiation

Found this:

Quote:
Thermal Infrared Radiation

Radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface, the atmosphere and the clouds. It is also known as terrestrial or longwave radiation, and is to be distinguished from the near-infrared radiation that is part of the solar spectrum. Infrared radiation, in general, has a distinctive range of wavelengths (spectrum) longer than the wavelength of the red colour in the visible part of the spectrum. The spectrum of thermal infrared radiation is practically distinct from that of shortwave or solar radiation because of the difference in temperature between the Sun and the Earth-atmosphere system.

Climate Institute

Must be some new IPCC / cAGW scientific term... confused



What you have quoted is from IPCC http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/annex1sglossary-p-z.html

Any which way you read it: "thermal" infrared radiation is identical to "plain ol' " infrared radation. CeeBee for once decided to put his own "scientific" hat on and edumacate us...

_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#1135135 - 23/10/2012 16:58 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: snafu]
Markus Offline
Weatherzone Moderator

Registered: 02/12/2010
Posts: 2285
Loc: Clare, SA
If you dont agree with someones views/think they are a troll simply add them to the ignore list. By engaging with someone like that your only wasting your own effort and creating unnecessary spam in the threads.

Apart from that, everyone attacks everyone for no reason. Regardless of what anyone says, (and it doesn't matter about what occured in the past, its about right now........)
It has become pretty obvious of late ANYONE with views supporting global warming and associated things is completely mocked and attacked in some sort of effort to force them to leave, even people who are asking reasonable questions out of interest which is sad to see. Not going to mention names but quite a majority of people posting in these forums need to take a step back and actually think. If you hate a particular member for whatever reasons, a simple ignor and they are gone forever, I really don't understand why people complain about an issue that is so easily ignored.

Realistically with proper moderation, many of you would have already been banned yonks ago.
_________________________
My Blogging site.

http://markdawsonphoto.wordpress.com/

Top
#1135137 - 23/10/2012 16:59 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: MattS]
Seina Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7770
Loc: Adelaide Hills
Originally Posted By: Maazo
As someone who is still genuinely on the fence (i.e. a skeptic in the true sense of the word - not in the rarefied air of the climate change debate), I find it sad that the moderators here have decided to let this thread go to the dogs. I also find it sad that people would practice zealotry rather than actually debate the issue (which is what used to happen). That is debate as in answering questions and then posing questions in return.

Ceebee I've lurked in on these boards for a long while, but the way you post in here makes me more inclined to jump into the skeptics camp (in spite of myself). The amount of times I've seen straight-forward questions asked of you, only to be ignored. Say what you want about bd, SBT, Anthony et al, but at least they will answer the questions put to them. You seem to be nothing but an RSS feed.

To you and WZ admin, thanks for spoiling it for those genuinely interested in the science. I'll continue to read this thread for the time being, but if it doesn't improve I'll seek information elsewhere.

To everyone else, please keep debating the topic with science in mind, rather than a kind of fanatical religion. To us plebs, the debate is very informative.

I have been gradually reducing my involvement (particularly in this section of the forum) for months. I agree with others about the [general] cr@p in the threads and the disservice it does for all. I am continuing to read through the threads on here occasionally, but it will continue to dwindle without some serious rule setting/moderation or something similar!


Edited by -Cosmic- (naz) (23/10/2012 17:05)
Edit Reason: Correction

Top
#1135146 - 23/10/2012 17:33 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Seina]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2654

Infrared radiation is at wavelengths between 750 nanometres and 1 millimetre.

Infrared thermal radiation is radiation emmited from an object due to its temperature.

There is a difference between the two, which is what I meant when I said "It's the trapping of long-wavelength thermal radiation by CO2 that warms the planet."


_________________________

Top
#1135148 - 23/10/2012 17:39 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: CeeBee]
Anthony Violi Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 06/11/2001
Posts: 2336
Loc: Mt Barker - SA
And we are asking you to provide proof of how this causes temperatures to rise.

Given they havent warmed in 16 years thats no easy task.

But for the sake of everyone watching, go ahead.
_________________________
https://avweather.net/

Top
#1135151 - 23/10/2012 17:47 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Markus]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
Originally Posted By: Markus
ANYONE with views supporting global warming and associated things is completely mocked and attacked


Maybe that is the way it comes across... And it is a fair observation. BUT!

In defense if I may - there typically is a genuine effort to engage FIRST. I think that GeorgeM is a good / recent example. He has asked some sensational questions that truly challenge the "sceptic" world view - and certainly challenged the knowledge of the posters here - and made people posting (and reading) take a step back. But he was not rude about it. And I believe he got some pretty constructive replies and people learnt - win/win. And this is welcomed here. Call my ideas / theories wrong any time - and that's welcomed.

If however someone calls me wrong simply because I am a "false sceptic" or religious or any of the myriad things recently we've been called... well, there will be feedback eventually.

And when it finally gets to this - the poster will be treated as the joke they really are.

Why do you think that BD has threatenned to pull up stumps? Because an adolescent GetUp! clown vindictively and spitefully spread a complete falsehood about him, his business and lets facce it - his livelihood. [It ain't no secret who BD is and what he does for a living... and a lot of his paying clients lurk around here]

Otherwise Markus - what are we to do? Turn the other cheek? Again?

Or maybe we should stop posting and leave the forum like BD? That is a small victory for the trolls. Banning me or ROM or SBT will work as I we are frankly unmistakable here. Banning the trolls will not work as they simply get a new gmail address and a new handle - or they pass on to the others in the "no climate heresy allowed team". And so the moderators can't do anything because this serial trolling left them with leaving the forum unmoderated as the only alternative to closing it. And that is the ultimate victory the trolls are trying to achive. "no climate heresy allowed"
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#1135152 - 23/10/2012 17:48 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Anthony Violi]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2654
Originally Posted By: Anthony Violi
And we are asking you to provide proof of how this causes temperatures to rise.

Given they havent warmed in 16 years thats no easy task.

But for the sake of everyone watching, go ahead.


When you say you want proof, in what form does that proof need to be?

Would a peer reviewed science paper be proof?
_________________________

Top
#1135155 - 23/10/2012 17:51 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Arnost]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
Originally Posted By: CeeBee

Infrared radiation is at wavelengths between 750 nanometres and 1 millimetre.

Infrared thermal radiation is radiation emmited from an object due to its temperature.

There is a difference between the two...


Crap!





Edited by Arnost (23/10/2012 17:53)
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#1135156 - 23/10/2012 17:51 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: CeeBee]
Anthony Violi Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 06/11/2001
Posts: 2336
Loc: Mt Barker - SA
No, i want 30 years of satellite warming.
_________________________
https://avweather.net/

Top
Page 114 of 115 < 1 2 ... 112 113 114 115 >


Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
0 registered (), 47 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
caffeinated, Chaser_James, coffeeman, rhyso, Shear-iously
Forum Stats
29947 Members
32 Forums
24194 Topics
1529242 Posts

Max Online: 2985 @ 26/01/2019 12:05
Satellite Image