Australia drying caused by greenhouse gases and ozone

Jul 13, 2014
The agreement between observed and model simulated rainfall changes supports the idea that human activity contributed to the drying of southwestern Australia and that the drying will increase in the 21st century. Changes in fall-winter rainfall from observations (top panel) as compared to model simulation of the past century (middle panel), and a model projection of the middle of the 21st century. Credit: NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

NOAA scientists have developed a new high-resolution climate model that shows southwestern Australia's long-term decline in fall and winter rainfall is caused by increases in manmade greenhouse gas emissions and ozone depletion, according to research published today in Nature Geoscience.

"This new high-resolution climate model is able to simulate regional-scale precipitation with considerably improved accuracy compared to previous generation models," said Tom Delworth, a research scientist at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J., who helped develop the new model and is co-author of the paper. "This model is a major step forward in our effort to improve the prediction of regional climate change, particularly involving water resources."

NOAA researchers conducted several climate simulations using this to study long-term changes in rainfall in various regions across the globe. One of the most striking signals of change emerged over Australia, where a long-term decline in fall and winter rainfall has been observed over parts of southern Australia. Simulating natural and manmade climate drivers, scientists showed that the decline in rainfall is primarily a response to manmade increases in as well as a thinning of the caused by manmade aerosol emissions. Several natural causes were tested with the model, including volcano eruptions and changes in the sun's radiation. But none of these natural climate drivers reproduced the long-term observed drying, indicating this trend is due to human activity.

Southern Australia's decline in rainfall began around 1970 and has increased over the last four decades. The model projects a continued decline in winter rainfall throughout the rest of the 21st century, with significant implications for regional water resources. The drying is most severe over southwest Australia where the model forecasts a 40 percent decline in average rainfall by the late 21st century.

"Predicting potential future changes in , including drought, are an immense societal challenge," said Delworth. "This new climate model will help us more accurately and quickly provide resource planners with environmental intelligence at the regional level. The study of Australian drought helps to validate this new model, and thus builds confidence in this model for ongoing studies of North American drought."

Explore further: US Southwest water availability reductions ahead according to research that reveals spring drying trends

More information: Regional rainfall decline in Australia attributed to anthropogenic greenhouse gases and ozone levels, Nature Geoscience, dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2201

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Aerosols -- their part in our rainfall

Feb 12, 2009

Aerosols may have a greater impact on patterns of Australian rainfall and future climate change than previously thought, according to leading atmospheric scientist, CSIRO's Dr. Leon Rotstayn.

Agriculture's growing effects on rain

Apr 15, 2014

(Phys.org) —Increased agricultural activity is a rain taker, not a rain maker, according to researchers at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and their collaborators at the University of California Los ...

Study finds Southern Hemisphere becoming drier

Oct 03, 2012

A decline in April-May rainfall over south-east Australia is associated with a southward expansion of the subtropical dry-zone according to research published today in Scientific Reports, a primary research journal from t ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 106

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

plaasjaapie
1.7 / 5 (23) Jul 13, 2014
Yeah, like NOAA has any credibility as anything save a protected employment sanctuary for warmist activists. :-/
Nik_2213
4 / 5 (8) Jul 13, 2014
Uh, that yah-boo attitude is 'Official Policy' since the recent change of government. Along with dumping dredging silt on the GBR and a bunch of other 'total stupids'. Can't quibble with the ozone hole, though, as there are too many sensors out there in private hands...
Shootist
1.7 / 5 (17) Jul 13, 2014
It isn't as if Australia hasn't been dry for most of 35 million years.
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (16) Jul 13, 2014
If it rains too much over my house, it's man made global warming.
If it rains too little over my neighbor's house, it's man made global warming.
Perhaps this new computer model could explain, the history of drought in southern Australia, perfectly also.
Grallen
4.4 / 5 (13) Jul 13, 2014
Green house gas emissions will lead to a world war. Is a world war what your boss seeks? Or is it human extinction?

I can't believe the persistence of this anti-science misinformation campaign. What is the few extra dollars that your bosses gain, by delaying the truth from propagating to the public, in the face trillion of dollars of damage that is going to be caused my the delays in policy changes? Those few dollars will be worthless! @antigoricle, @shootist (I hope you are not the same person...): Please as your supervisors to pass this to your master(s?) that they need to do a ROI analysis again and they will realise that this plan will indeed damage their long term investments!
Seren_verch_Dafydd
2.2 / 5 (13) Jul 13, 2014
This article perfectly illustrates the problem with using climate models to predict climate change.

The top map show in the article shows the actual changes recorded in Australia for the time period. This is reliable data that shows there is climate change occurring in Australia.

The second map shows the changes in precipitation predicted by NASA's "high resolution model of Australia for the period. It bears no resemblance to the actual data recorded for the period.

Given the lack of correlation between NASA's model simulation of the precipitation changes between 1980-2011 (minus 1911-1970) and the actual data, why would anybody believe the 3rd map predictions for 2012-2060 (minus 1911-1970) are valid.

NASA's fancy new model cannot even predict today's climate accurately.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (13) Jul 14, 2014
Yeah, like NOAA has any credibility as anything save a protected employment sanctuary for warmist activists. :-/
@plaasjaapie
well today is your lucky day!
You think "warmist" are activists... and given your comment you are likely to be a person who believes AGW is not real...
SO PROVE IT
http://dialogueso...nge.html

This link is to a $30,000.00 challenge
YOU PROVE, using the scientific method, that AGW is not real, and you get the money as well as FAME and (likely) travel and scientific recognition (as long as you are 18 or older)

all you gotta do is prove it... it's simple, even a "denier" could do it!
and like anti-g was told- you prove it and we'll toast you for your efforts.
anti-g failed miserably too, so don't feel bad if you can't succeed... it takes brains and a knowledge of science
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 14, 2014
For the moron above.
https://www.youtu...sVMbznBo
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 14, 2014
Green house gas emissions will lead to a world war. Is a world war what your boss seeks? Or is it human extinction?
--grallen
You are probably right, but not for the reason you think.
Forcing nations into economic despair by taxing CO2 is more likely to lead to the conflict you so fear.
You got the web at your fingertips and a brain, so do a bit of research, and you will quickly see the abundance of lies perpetrated by the AGW cult.
Ask yourself, why would they resort to deception, if what they propose is true.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2014
The second map shows the changes in precipitation predicted by NASA's "high resolution model of Australia for the period. It bears no resemblance to the actual data recorded for the period.

You obviously don't understand modelling then!
There is a marked resemblance.
Try not to expect perfect matching - that will never happen. This is just like the ... It's stopped warming..... Tornados down.... Hurricanes down..... Great Lakes water levels up........ AGW is wrong, no scientific, critical thinking even - we are talking trend lines with up/downs. Not an effing straight line. So it is with models. We call it 'dot watching' in the (meteorological) trade. Models a useful and NOT exact.
FFS
HeloMenelo
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2014
So tell me why these deniers always get first "privilege" or "priority" in posting always on the first 3 or 4 posts on a climate change topic. But don't bother to comment on it, I know how and why, just wanted to put it here. ;)

Guys his real name is Plaaspoepel, returning it to him in his mother language ;) believe me that's what you really want to call him, clearly and shamelessly with no regard to saving the planet and all regard to deepen his and his delusional puppets pockets.
Egleton
5 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2014
Let us hope that the model is wrong in a nice way. There is a lot of wheat grown for export in that region.
Feeling Lucky, punk?
bluehigh
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 14, 2014
Short memories my friends, you have short memories.

Recently the Aussie populous got so paranoid during a longer than expected dry period we built a desalination plant at Botany Bay in NSW. It's mothballed now and continues to drain taxpayers pockets to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars on standby. It rained lots.

Dorothea Mackellar, OBE (1885 – 1968) was an Australian poet and fiction writer. Her poem My Country is perhaps the best known Australian poem, especially its second stanza, which begins:

>
I love a sunburnt country
A land of sweeping plains, Of ragged mountain ranges,

*** Of droughts and flooding rains.***
<

Climate change or just climate?

bluehigh
1 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2014
> For the less than superficial ...

"To help address this research gap, researchers at the University of Melbourne are using early Australian instrumental data, colonial documentary records and paleoclimatic records to compile a record of climate conditions since the first European settlement of Australia in 1788.
http://climatehis...leet.pdf

> Weather then. Climate nowadays?
Egleton
5 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2014


>
I love a sunburnt country
A land of sweeping plains, Of ragged mountain ranges,

*** Of droughts and flooding rains.***
<

Climate change or just climate?



Very Patriotic.
Eerm. I will rely on the dear old Bureau of Meteorology for my opinions.
http://www.bom.go...arketing
bluehigh
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 14, 2014
Excellent government propaganda. Sadly not backed up by historical evidence. Go ahead let the government do your thinking for you. Just don't say it's *your* opinion.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (10) Jul 14, 2014
For the moron above.
https://www.youtu...sVMbznBo
@anti-g
just like a TROLL and SPAM-bot!
you CANNOT PROVE your position, so you attack with unsubstantiated claims, useless unfounded video's of irrelevant bull... and more

If you had ANY evidence, you would be proving it and winning $30,000
you are still here spamming/trolling
THAT in itself proves you are incapable of standing against the overwhelming evidence and the science

keep attacking... it only supports my conclusions
antigoracle
1 / 5 (12) Jul 14, 2014
The second map shows the changes in precipitation predicted by NASA's "high resolution model of Australia for the period. It bears no resemblance to the actual data recorded for the period.

You obviously don't understand modelling then!
There is a marked resemblance.
Try not to expect perfect matching - that will never happen. This is just like the ... It's stopped warming..... Tornados down.... Hurricanes down..... Great Lakes water levels up........ .... Models a useful and NOT exact.
FFS

There you go again runrig, singing from the AGW Cult's hymn book. No one but you know the science and the modelling.
I used to think that you were blind to the truth, but now I know you are also blind.
The only resemblance between the observed and modeled, as anyone with sight and a brain could see, is the outline of the land mass.
Keep on singing.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (13) Jul 14, 2014
For the moron above.
https://www.youtu...sVMbznBo
@anti-g
just like a TROLL and SPAM-bot!
you CANNOT PROVE your position, so you attack with unsubstantiated claims, useless unfounded video's of irrelevant bull... and more

If you had ANY evidence, you would be proving it and winning $30,000
you are still here spamming/trolling
THAT in itself proves you are incapable of standing against the overwhelming evidence and the science

keep attacking... it only supports my conclusions

Wow!! You are truly dumb to believe anyone would give away money to prove something that anyone with a brain knows to be true.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2014
Wow!! You are truly dumb to believe anyone would give away money to prove something that anyone with a brain knows to be true
@anti-g
like I said... keep attacking. it only supports my conclusions.

Your only retort is to say that "anyone with a brain knows" AGW is false? really?

well... like I said.... IF it is so easy to prove AGW wrong
and IF "ANYONE with a brain KNOWS it"
then either YOU don't have a brain and are INCAPABLE of proving anything
OR
YOU are LYING

Either way... you only keep making yourself out to be the idiot http://dialogueso...nge.html

by all means, mr brain... go show everyone what you are worth! you don't show anything? means you're worth that much or less!

or is it that you don't know what the scientific method is? maybe this will help: http://www.scienc...hod.html

https://en.wikipe...c_method

antigoracle
1 / 5 (14) Jul 14, 2014
What I'm saying to you captain stunted brain, is that anyone with a brain would know that is a scam.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2014
What I'm saying to you captain stunted brain, is that anyone with a brain would know that is a scam.
@anti-g
and what I am saying to YOU, Mr. Illiterate-can't-comprehend-legitimate-science-so-I-must-attack-it-to-feel-superior-because-I'm-too-stupid-to-try-to-get-an-education

is that it is NOT a scam.
you don't like Gore... GOOD. neither do I. he is an IDIOT.
BUT
the science does NOT lie

and if you think it is such a "scam", then it should be EASY for you to PROVE it.
http://dialogueso...nge.html

there is NO way to carry off a GLOBAL conspiracy for this long with this many different people and cultures

the SCAM is because there is BILLIONS $ poured into the denier camp by big oil etc
http://phys.org/n...ate.html

http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

prove me wrong at the link!
IF YOU ARE ABLE

thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2014
From Seren:
This article perfectly illustrates the problem with using climate models to predict climate change.

The top map show in the article shows the actual changes recorded in Australia for the time period. This is reliable data that shows there is climate change occurring in Australia.

The second map shows the changes in precipitation predicted by NASA's "high resolution model of Australia for the period. It bears no resemblance to the actual data recorded for the period.

Given the lack of correlation between NASA's model simulation of the precipitation changes between 1980-2011 (minus 1911-1970) and the actual data, why would anybody believe the 3rd map predictions for 2012-2060 (minus 1911-1970) are valid.

NASA's fancy new model cannot even predict today's climate accurately.


This is going to take a few posts to answer. Please be patient as I go through this. Seren, you seem to be new to the site, so welcome. Let me try to answer this. Continued
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2014
Seren said:
This article perfectly illustrates the problem with using climate models to predict climate change.


Given the lack of correlation between NASA's model simulation of the precipitation changes between 1980-2011 (minus 1911-1970) and the actual data, why would anybody believe the 3rd map predictions for 2012-2060 (minus 1911-1970) are valid.


It is generally, appropriate to completely understand what figures show before saying that they don't work. For instance, I did not completely understand what the grey hatched area represented in the figures. I thought it represented no change. However, it is not explicitly explained in the legend. So, I did what most don't and asked the contact person at NOAA what it meant. Continued
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2014
NOAA said: "The hatched areas represent regions where the differences were not found to be meaningfully different between the time periods. So, while there are precipitation differences in those regions, the differences were not that large compared to what we estimate as would occur from natural variability. The regions without hatching (ie, where you can see the color shading clearly) are the regions where the precipitation differences are viewed to be highly unusual."

What that means is that there is no statistical significance in the hatched areas and there is in the colored areas. So, knowing that, lets examine the maps. Why the different interpretation between Seren and NOAA?

First, lets look at what the differences seem to be. The very light blue area is about 1mm per month. The darker light blue is about 5mm per month. The dark blue can be much higher.

What that indicates is that the area that is very light blue is relatively large in the second map. Cont

thermodynamics
5 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2014
Continued: That very light blue area corresponds to about 1 mm/mo. Now, someone who does not do complex computer modeling can say: "1 mm/mo difference, they are wrong." (specifically I expect someone like Rygg2 to say this, not understanding models or the reason for models). Someone who works with computer programs as Runrig says:

There is a marked resemblance.
Try not to expect perfect matching - that will never happen.


It is the marked resemblance (that Run pointed out) and trends, that are useful. Again, lets look at map 1 and map 2 with an eye for resemblance. The blue areas in figure 1 are blue in figure 2 and the orange areas in figure 1 are orange in figure 2. The two figures have the same areas going the same direction. Those areas with higher measured precipitation are also show with higher calculated precipitation and those areas with lower measured precip are shown with lower calculated precip. Continued
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2014
Continued: Based on the directions being the same and magnitudes within error bars (error bars they did not show in the figures as well as the explanation of the hash marks not being there) the third map makes sense as a model.

Again, go back to what Run said. You should never expect exact correspondence between any model and reality. Instead, you expect resemblance and similar trends. Capn' Stump, Run, HowHot, Caliban, Magnus, etc... have all explained this multiple times. I will give one more example for those who have not had this explained to them before.

I like car racing. I watch NASCAR, F1, and IndyCars whenever they are on. One of the things that has changed in the past 20 years is that fewer people have career ending injuries or fatal crashes. However, the speed of the crashes is as high, or higher, than it was 20 years ago and the number of crashes has not gone down. Continued
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2014
Continued: Most of the reasons for the reduction in the severity of injuries is the computer design of the safety features built into the cars. The drivers have active restraints and the car bodies are designed with safer zones for the drivers to sit in. The computer programs that are used for those designs are just like all other computer programs. They are not meant to be faithful representations of a car in an accident. You will never see a one-to-one correspondence of dents in the chassis body to the dents of a test car running into a barrier. Instead, you will see similarities between the way the body reacts (and dissipates energy) and the way the computer model reacts. What should be clear is that the models are not reality, but they have saved lives by enabling engineers to see stresses and resultant strains in metal that they could not afford to measure in real-time. Continued
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2014
Continued: In fact, one of the fun things for me is to watch the broadcasts and have the announcers show computer models of the cars and the inner workings to explain a new feature in the cars. Are these exact models? Yes-and-no. They illustrate what the engineer wanted to see without the messiness of trying to understand the crushing of a specific panel. Instead, it gives us the useful information about energy dispersal. If I want to look at a specific panel, I can (and they do to cut weight) but I don't have to.

In like manner, if you expect a climate model to be exactly right and forecast a storm in your home town on Jan 3 of 2028, you have no comprehension of how models work and what their usefulness is.

However, you should expect the models to show regional patterns into the future as in the south east and south west of Australia getting drier 50 years from now. Please let us know if this is not clear to anyone and a number of us can try to explain (again).
antigoracle
1 / 5 (13) Jul 14, 2014
the SCAM is because there is BILLIONS $ poured into the denier camp by big oil etc

Hey stunty I just love it when you open your mouth and confirm what an idiot you are.
If billions are being poured into the denier camp, then only an idiot like you would go after a measly 30 thousand.
Dr_toad
Jul 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (10) Jul 14, 2014
I just love it when you open your mouth and confirm what an idiot you are.
If billions are being poured into the denier camp, then only an idiot like you would go after a measly 30 thousand.
@anti-g
apparently your reading and comprehension skills are matched only by your inability to see...try looking at that again. THAT challenge is to YOU

I would never take the challenge. There is NO NEED. I KNOW AGW is real! SCIENCE PROVES IT.
just like I know ocean warming (much to your chagrin) is real
http://www.epa.go...emp.html
as well as
http://celebratin...ome.html
and also
http://www.climat...-content

so your comments are invalid.
try proving that your conspiracy is true with empirical data like above

thermodynamics
5 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2014
AntiEm said:
the SCAM is because there is BILLIONS $ poured into the denier camp by big oil etc

Hey stunty I just love it when you open your mouth and confirm what an idiot you are.
If billions are being poured into the denier camp, then only an idiot like you would go after a measly 30 thousand.


Let me explain this (Capn will probably chime in too) to you (since you have trouble understanding anything). Lets say that Capn' is right and there are billions going into the denier camp. Then lets say that you are one of them getting part of the billions. You are paid what you are worth to the denier funders like Heartland (probably about $8 per year). Then you go to the web site:

http://dialogueso...nge.html

And you brilliantly win the challenge. How much are you now worth to Heartland? How much will Bitebart pay you for an interview? Don't you see, your share of the pot goes up.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2014
And you brilliantly win the challenge. How much are you now worth to Heartland? How much will Bitebart pay you for an interview? Don't you see, your share of the pot goes up.
@Thermo
can't argue with that logic... I thought that would be transparent, but then I remembered who you were talking to.

you might want to say it again, but use smaller words so he can understand...
apparently he still thinks that I am taking the challenge... or something like that.??WTF??

I think that billions are going into deniers WORLDWIDE, given this evidence: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

it is in the interest of big oil etc to do whatever they can to undermine actual science, so... worldwide, over the past 20 years, there HAVE to have been at least 2bil poured into it... after all, commercials aren't cheap and look at the evidence like anti, scroof, tegiri... IF people still dont understand, it is because of denialist BS
Egleton
4.4 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2014
Excellent government propaganda. Sadly not backed up by historical evidence. Go ahead let the government do your thinking for you. Just don't say it's *your* opinion.

Our Dear Leader, Budgie smugglers, is the one repealing the carbon tax. Is he the same person spreading the government propaganda on the BOM? That is very inconsistent of him don't you think?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2014
Wow!! The AGW Cult of stupid are out in full force today.
Egleton
5 / 5 (7) Jul 15, 2014
Come off it Anti, you are just having fun poking the hornets nest.
I recon that you never got enough caneing when you were a boy.
Dr_toad
Jul 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2014
Let me explain this (Capn will probably chime in too) to you (since you have trouble understanding anything). Lets say that Capn' is right and there are billions going into the denier camp. Then lets say that you are one of them getting part of the billions. You are paid what you are worth to the denier funders like Heartland (probably about $8 per year).
--thermotard
Ummm... let me explain this. Let's say you found yourself a brain and the Cap'n chimed in with his probable brain too, then between the both of you, you still won't be able to develop an intelligent thought.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2014
Ummm... let me explain this.
@anti-g
good luck. so far, you've not shown a capacity for logical thought, therefore anything you come up with that is not derisive in nature is an improvement, though likely will not contain intellectual stimulation for anyone with an education above 4th grade
Let's say you found yourself a brain and the Cap'n chimed in with his probable brain too
Begins with a logical fallacy and complete inability to comprehend how the biological systems in your own body work. There must be a brain in order to functionally utilize the biological organisms called bodies
then between the both of you, you still won't be able to develop an intelligent thought
given the derisive nature of the finish, and the lack of credible scientific debate to date, and given that your most logical conclusion involves invectives, it is likely that your education has not exceeded the American equivalent of the 5th grade.
try here: http://www.gedforfree.com/
antigoracle
1 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2014
There must be a brain in order to functionally utilize the biological organisms called bodies
-- stunttard
Then you are the waste of a brain.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2014
Hey, has anyone noticed if in their locale there has been a major reduction in light pollution? In the North Americas I've seen four major metropolitan areas, and they all seem to glow less on the horizon and in general be generating less light. Of course I can't readily quantate it, but I am just wondering if anyone else can take a look.
Of course less light means less fossil fuels being burned, less heat and water released (and CO2 you die-hards).
North America's also had a cool Spring and Summer.
Thanks in advance.
Dr_toad
Jul 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2014
Alche said:
Of course less light means less fossil fuels being burned, less heat and water released (and CO2 you die-hards).


Have you won that $30K yet for showing those slugs why AGW is wrong?

http://dialogueso...nge.html

Time is passing by and I don't want you to miss the chance. Remember, I get 10% for showing you the opportunity. This should be really easy for you and your model. When you prove them wrong we will all be in Awe.
The Alchemist
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2014
@Toad, don't be a slave to Microsoft's spellchecker. It's a perfectly cromulent word. :D
@antigoracle
Captain Stumpy and thermo, are the same person. I have Captain answering under themo's account here: http://phys.org/n...ans.html on June 11. The back-pedaling after that is notable. Good luck arguing with the "both" of them. Remember, you arguing with an idiot and his reflection. In my mind he's just a slightly sophisticated cyber-bully.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (7) Jul 15, 2014
Hey, has anyone noticed if in their locale there has been a major reduction in light pollution? In the North Americas I've seen four major metropolitan areas, and they all seem to glow less on the horizon and in general be generating less light. Of course I can't readily quantate it, but I am just wondering if anyone else can take a look.
Of course less light means less fossil fuels being burned, less heat and water released (and CO2 you die-hards).
North America's also had a cool Spring and Summer.
Thanks in advance.


Not if you included Western North America.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2014
Alche says:
Captain Stumpy and thermo, are the same person.


I have told you not to insult Stumpy like that. We are not the same person, but that just shows how deluded you really are. It is no wonder you don't get any of the science right.

Have you won the challenge?

http://dialogueso...nge.html

Did you pick up the $30K by showing that AGW is false? I am sure your "model" will be perfect. What a maroon.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2014
Alche said:
As a self-proclaimed PhD, how is it that Thermo's plagiarism of work done more than two years ago does not upset you to the bone. I mean we've all had it happen to us, advertently and inadvertently. Yet instead you criticize me, odd reversal.


in:

http://phys.org/n...ans.html

He then confused me with Stumpy because I answered this.

I assume you can give us a reference to the "plagiarism of work done more than two years ago" that you seem to think is in my posts.

Come on, lets see the references to any of this. They should be available because the thread is still there for all to see.


He never did give me a reference to the "plagiarism" he accused me of. Instead, he went on about my being Capn' Stumpy.

I guess he just couldn't figure out why I would be interested in the link to plagiarism. He never did give me a link or quote. Nothing from him. As always.

Alche, come on, where is the link?

Silence...
bluehigh
1 / 5 (7) Jul 15, 2014
.. is caused by increases in manmade greenhouse gas emissions and ozone depletion ..
- Article

> "The fact that the hole is now appearing to be closing up means that the Montreal Protocol, perhaps one of the most successful treaties ever signed, is actually doing a really good job."
- Melbourne University's climate change fellow, Roger Dargaville, says he expects it will continue to shrink. <

Maybe the ozone hole is in superposition. Both declining and increasing in effect at the same time?
bluehigh
1 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2014
* Emissions in the December quarter 2013 were relatively flat, with trend emissions falling by 0.4% while seasonally adjusted and weather normalised emissions were unchanged. - Department of the Environment, 2014 *

Declining ozone depleting aerosols and the ozone layer recovering. Greenhouse gas emissions flat or declining.

So how to reach the conclusion that ...

.. southwestern Australia's long-term decline in fall and winter rainfall is caused by increases in manmade greenhouse gas emissions and ozone depletion ..


bluehigh
1 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2014
Assume I haven't just stumbled on data that supports confirmation bias and that I didn't use lots of time cherry picking. Then scientifically these data are empirical evidence that this article is mistaken in conclusion.

Then what is it that is causing the long term decline in rainfall? Or is it that there is no long term decline? After all the article is mistaken on other statements. Perhaps they forgot to download an update for the modelling software.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2014
Bluehigh said:

So how to reach the conclusion that ...

.. southwestern Australia's long-term decline in fall and winter rainfall is caused by increases in manmade greenhouse gas emissions and ozone depletion ..




I assume you are just being rhetorical. The next time a similar sentence appears in the article it says:

scientists showed that the decline in rainfall is primarily a response to manmade increases in greenhouse gases as well as a thinning of the ozone caused by manmade aerosol emissions.


If English is not your second language you can see that the two paragraphs are in contrast with respect to the ozone hole. In the second, the ozone layer is in a separate clause from the section on increases in GHGs. This is, clearly, an artifact of the journalist who wrote it and not a reflection of the paper. If you have further questions, contact the person at NOAA who answers questions on the paper. She responds quickly.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2014
Bluehigh said:
Assume I haven't just stumbled on data that supports confirmation bias and that I didn't use lots of time cherry picking. Then scientifically these data are empirical evidence that this article is mistaken in conclusion.

Then what is it that is causing the long term decline in rainfall? Or is it that there is no long term decline? After all the article is mistaken on other statements. Perhaps they forgot to download an update for the modelling software.


More likely, the confirmation bias is yours. As I said, you can contact NOAA for any clarification you need.

If you want to pick on their grammar go ahead. Otherwise, just read the two conflicting sentences and pick your own confirmation bias.

I suggest you go to the paper and not an article on the paper and you need to brush up on English sentence structure.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2014
The ozone layer is not thinning. It's healing. Greenhouse gas emissions in this area are not increasing they are flat or declining. That's simple empirical evidence that this article is fundamentally mistaken. Perhaps reading and comprehension are a problem for you.
bluehigh
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2014
No doubt about the data showing my confirmation bias. I believe the article is biased unscientific nonsense. Just playstation climate modelling with little or no regard to reality.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2014
@thermostumped, I read your post from Stumpy as thermo about a hundred times, you screwed up. Got a little hot, and forgot whose account you were using.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2014
@thermostumped, I read your post from Stumpy as thermo about a hundred times, you screwed up. Got a little hot, and forgot whose account you were using.


Alche: Please post the link to the parts you think I copied from somewhere? Lets see who is screwed up (as if anyone doesn't know).

Lets say you are right about me being Stumpy. Would you be willing to put $10000 on it as another type of contest?

I can put that up in cash to a neutral observer. We would have to negotiate that but I would be willing to even take a chance with the idea of who would be holding the pot. Here is your chance to add $10000 more to the $30000 you can easily get by proving AGW wrong.

So, are you up for the challenge Alche old buddy?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2014
Bluehigh said:
The ozone layer is not thinning. It's healing.


Yes, but not with respect to the beginning of the baseline (which was 1911).

Bluehigh said:
Greenhouse gas emissions in this area are not increasing they are flat or declining.


Go look at the Keeling curve. Do you really think that GHGs are not increasing? Maybe the rate of production in that area is flat, but remember CO2 is a global gas (does not come out of the air).

Again, remember the graphs are starting with a 1911 baseline.

Is the English still difficult for you?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2014
Bluehigh said:
No doubt about the data showing my confirmation bias. I believe the article is biased unscientific nonsense. Just playstation climate modelling with little or no regard to reality.


Really? You have the data that shows this?

You must have something up your sleeve that I am just not aware of. No one with any sense would say something like this if they couldn't prove it...

Or, would they?

Do you have any sense Bluehigh?

Do you have proof of this allegation that the model is "biased" and "unscientific"?

Do you want to help Alche put up his cash for his bet? The two of you have just about the same amount of proof.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2014
@thermostumpified
Sure, $500.00 dollars to some sucker to claim he's you, and the $9500 to you.
You answered in the wrong account, dude, you can't bluster your way out.
Dr_toad
Jul 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2014
@thermostumped, I read your post from Stumpy as thermo about a hundred times, you screwed up. Got a little hot, and forgot whose account you were using.


You need some meds.
Dr_toad
Jul 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2014
@Toadie
I have no idea who you are, how can you have an opinion about me? I haven't seen you post before. As to their styles, they are distinct, deliberately so?
Who is RC?
Nah, I don't share either side's opinion about climate change-so you're mistaken. A simple model I put together years ago has been predicting climate change and what has now become macro-weather since 1986.

It is very simple. The most difficult assumption/approximation is to say temperature is not changing (a first order approximation, to make the actual effects apparent). Then to say that the real climate change is from glacial and polar melting and effects of that on the Earth's Weather Cells, and where wether patterns affect land. Then look at weather patterns. The look at the Earth topography itself.

If you do that you can see what happened where and why, you can predict what will happen as well. It is pretty awesome. If you like, pick an area and we go over what happened and what will happen.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2014
Vietvet talking about meds, toad(-licking) for psychomimetics. That's rich, though completely off color.
I am sensing a bias, pourquoi?
What thermostumped posted is very clearly a gaff, who are you two to defend it?
bluehigh
1 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2014
Really? You have the data that shows this?
Do you have proof of this allegation that the model is "biased" and "unscientific"?


Yes. I included references. You can of course argue with the Australian Government Department of the Environment. Then go argue with Melbourne University's climate change fellow, Roger Dargaville.

In the meanwhile I have said my piece here and am not particularly interested in getting into the gutter with you on this subject. Talk to the hand ...

thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2014
Vietvet talking about meds, toad(-licking) for psychomimetics. That's rich, though completely off color.
I am sensing a bias, pourquoi?
What thermostumped posted is very clearly a gaff, who are you two to defend it?


Alche, you have it. We are all the same person who just keeps posting all the time to these accounts because I just don't have anything to do. I am ready to put up a smaller amount for every name if that is what you would want. Or, the same amount for each name. You got me, please don't take my money. :-)

I am still waiting for you to link to the "plagiarism" that started this conversation. I thought not.

Here it is, plain and simple. I prove to you I am not Captain Stumpy (or anyone else) and you give me money.

You prove to those on the site that I am Captain Stumpy or anyone else on this site (other than Thermodynamics) and I give you money.

Simple

Put up or shut up.

Where is that "plagiarism?"
Dr_toad
Jul 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2014
Really? You have the data that shows this?
Do you have proof of this allegation that the model is "biased" and "unscientific"?


Yes. I included references. You can of course argue with the Australian Government Department of the Environment. Then go argue with Melbourne University's climate change fellow, Roger Dargaville.

In the meanwhile I have said my piece here and am not particularly interested in getting into the gutter with you on this subject. Talk to the hand ...



Hey, hand. How you doin'? Interesting point of view, but you did not even quote Roger Dargaville or the Australian Government of saying the paper was "biased" and "unscientific."

Did I miss that somewhere in your rambling?

Or, is it purely your opinion that the paper is "biased" and "unscientific?"

It appears to me that is strictly your unsupported opinion based on your inability to read English.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2014
Bwaaahaha! Ever see 'Gaslight'? We really are all the same person, sent to torment you!


Damn right we are. I feel like I am in a Monty Python sketch.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2014
Contradiction perhaps ... (From Previous Record)

Host: With me now is Thermodynamics, who for the last few years has been contradicting people. Thermo, why do you contradict people?

Thermo : I don't!
Host: But you... you told me that you did.
Thermo: I most certainly did not!
Host: Oh. I see. I'll start again.
Thermo: No you won't!
Host: Ssh! I understand you don't contradict people.
Thermo: Yes I do!
Host: And when didn't you start contradicting them?

Or perhaps The Argument ...
Man: (Michael Palin) Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.
...
Man: Is this the right room for an argument?
Other Man:(John Cleese) I've told you once.
Man: No you haven't!
Other Man: Yes I have.
M: When?
O: Just now.
M: No you didn't!

Etc

bluehigh
1 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2014
I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
- The Holy Grail
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2014
bluehigh script:
Host: With me now is Thermodynamics, who for the last few years has been contradicting people. Thermo, why do you contradict people?

Thermo : I don't!


But I do!!!

I can't help it when someone is just wrong about science. I just have to do it. I can't control myself when they can't do math. I am just beside myself when they don't understand physics but they think they do. I just have to jump in when they have misread a paper. I need to tell them how to find things on the web and show them how to use Google. I do, I do, I do.

Thermo- gasping for breath. One more sentence out of his mouth as he contradicts the script saying he does not contradict...

I just can't tolerate stupidity and I have to contradict them.

Wiping spittle off his mouth he pushes submit.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2014
I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
- The Holy Grail


Thank you, thank you, thank you. I appreciate the kind words.

May the ground rise up to meet your feet on your journey.
May they pad your cell with feathers of cassowary.
May your meds be effective.
May your rest bring you wisdom.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2014
He never did give me a reference to the "plagiarism" he accused me of. Instead, he went on about my being Capn' Stumpy
@Thermo
nor will you see anything
He assumes that bashing you and calling you a plagiarist to me is legit- it is actually called Libel. When you answered for yourself, it fed his delusion... BUT MOSTLY BECAUSE he was pissed at you for destroying his argument and proving him an idiot IN WRITING!

Thermo loves models and math, I do not
Would you be willing to put $10000 on it as another type of contest?
I am IN!
that means, IF HE WINS, he gets $20,000, but IF HE LOSES, he owes EACH OF US $10,000.
IF he accepts on-line, on a public forum it is as good as a signed contract in court, btw
Sure, $500.00 dollars to some sucker to claim he's you
@alche
nope. a PUBLIC MEET with state/federal ID to a law enforcement person who can verify said credentials. (historical driving record) THAT couldn't be faked
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2014
A simple model I put together years ago has been predicting climate change and what has now become macro-weather since 1986
@Alche
then you are a SHOE IN for that $30,000.oo: better HURRY and prove yourself
You prove to those on the site that I am Captain Stumpy or anyone else on this site (other than Thermodynamics) and I give you money
@Thermo
how can he PROVE it beyond the shadow of a doubt? Unless you have a Facebook account and we compare pictures?
Ever see 'Gaslight'?
Dr. Toad
He is already close to infarction, better go easy! LOL
Contradiction perhaps ... (From Previous Record)
@Bluehigh
I LOVE the Pythons!
actually quite funny

how does it prove Thermo is Me?
others have actually SEEN where Thermo and I post at the same time, and that would be impossible unless I was using two SEPARATE OS/laptops
even I can't type on 2 computers at the same time... and I am quite good on computers
Ask Beni-haha, whom I phish daily and steal his identity regularly HERE at PO
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
@thermostumpified
Sure, $500.00 dollars to some sucker to claim he's you, and the $9500 to you.
You answered in the wrong account, dude, you can't bluster your way out.
@Alche
there ARE sure fire ways to prove that we are separate entities: Public records, Federal records, and e-mail.
SHOULD you want, you could e-mail both Thermo and I, to which we would respond, giving you all the evidence you need right there.
also: should you be willing to accept Thermo's challenge, I would make it cheaper for you. you put up $10,000 to be SHARED by us if you lose, but we EACH will owe you $10,000.oo IF YOU WIN

WILL THERMODYNAMICS agree to this? Please post and let us all know, Thermo.

Then we pick a point like Branson, Missouri to meet... maybe futher west? OK city?

FED or cops to review license and DD214's

WIN WIN for everyone and LEGIT

there is NO WAY to fake it IN PERSON with PUBLIC RECORD and COPS CHECKING (neutral 3rd party from the meet location)
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
TCS said:
WILL THERMODYNAMICS agree to this? Please post and let us all know, Thermo.

Then we pick a point like Branson, Missouri to meet... maybe futher west? OK city?

FED or cops to review license and DD214's


Of course I will respond to me... Oops, I mean you... Oops, I might be in real trouble. Alche do you really want to take advantage of me?? I mean us... I mean... Oops...

Where is that link to the plagiarism?

I am still waiting for that link.

Yes, I agree to splitting $10K between TCS and me or between me and me depending on how the ID goes.

If Alche is right he gets $10K from each of us to $20K.

Alche, what can you lose (other than $10K).
bluehigh
5 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2014
Ok, ok ... Im not involved in the debate as to who is who. Perhaps you defenders of mainstream science can help answer my question in the thread about the super black material, please. It's driving me mad or madder. Where does the energy of the impacting photons go? This should be easy for you two or three!

Or would you rather I recite some Vogon poetry to you?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
Yes, I agree to splitting $10K between TCS and me or between me and me depending on how the ID goes.
If Alche is right he gets $10K from each of us to $20K.
Alche, what can you lose (other than $10K).
@Alche
IF you are so sure of your POV, this is a complete WIN-WIN situation for you. NO WAY TO LOSE...
unless, of course, we really ARE separate entities...
Yes. I included references.
@highblue... or bluehigh
by references, are you specifically referring to this link you left above?
http://climatehis...leet.pdf

is that the reference you are giving supporting your POV?
or is there another?

bluehigh
not rated yet Jul 16, 2014
I used this quote ...

"The fact that the hole is now appearing to be closing up means that the Montreal Protocol, perhaps one of the most successful treaties ever signed, is actually doing a really good job."

From this source ... http://www.abc.ne.../1439626

To show that the ozone hole was healing and thus disprove the conjecture that ozone depletion should be used for forward estimates of climate change effects.
bluehigh
not rated yet Jul 16, 2014
And a quote from this source to highlight that in the area that this article refers to, the greenhouse gas emissions are flat or declining.

http://www.enviro...ber-2013

Therefore I suggested that the modelling was flawed.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2014
I used this quote ...

"The fact that the hole is now appearing to be closing up means that the Montreal Protocol, perhaps one of the most successful treaties ever signed, is actually doing a really good job."

From this source ... http://www.abc.ne.../1439626

To show that the ozone hole was healing and thus disprove the conjecture that ozone depletion should be used for forward estimates of climate change effects.


Bluehigh: From the same article
But Dr Klekociuk says the hole is still very large.

"It's over three times the area of Australia, so this year's ozone hole would rank in the top 10 or so ozone holes that we've seen, but certainly not as large as 2006, which was a record year, or 2000, which was quite similar to that one."


You are right, that the hole is decreasing. However, as you can see, it is still near record high. It is certainly larger than it was in 1911.

What is not clear about that?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2014
And a quote from this source to highlight that in the area that this article refers to, the greenhouse gas emissions are flat or declining.

http://www.enviro...ber-2013

Therefore I suggested that the modelling was flawed.


Did you read the document you cited? It shows the emissions are flat or decreasing but the total CO2 in the environment is continuing up. All it indicates is that industry in Australia has not recovered. It has no bearing on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in Australia. Please let me know what you don't understand here. I am not sure why you are missing this point.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
Bluehigh, here is the CO2 from CSIRO

http://www.csiro....e-gases/

Do you understand why the trajectory of the emissions from Au don't matter.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2014
In regard to the ozone layer. I understand your point that the layer has not recovered to 1911 levels. What I am saying is that because the layer is recovering, then the input to the model should account for a decreasing effect on the climate change. Maybe they did take this into account but its not indicated.

The model projects a continued decline in winter rainfall throughout the rest of the 21st century ... where the model forecasts a 40 percent decline in average rainfall by the late 21st century.


Yet by mid century the ozone depletion will have minimal impact.

So that leaves just Greenhouse gas emissions as the principal driver and the indications regardless of the reasons, is that these too are in decline.

The CO2 input is another question entirely as you would well be aware of the divergent views on the cause and effect of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
Bluehigh said:
The CO2 input is another question entirely as you would well be aware of the divergent views on the cause and effect of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.


No, I am not aware of the "divergent views" on the cause and effect of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. I am not kidding. I really don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

The cause of increasing CO2 is the production of GHGs by humans. How else does anyone think they are increasing?
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
Alkie, I think you're a toned-down clone of RC. At best.

Their styles are completely different. You object because they have the same opinion of you that I do. Poor thing.


Yep, this often comes up on here, when someone get into a spat. The accusation of two accounts being the same person. It always "stumps" me, and certainly does with this one. The writing styles are completely ... and I mean utterly... different.
Do you suppose the "person" has a double personality alchy and really is able to be two different people? And why would anyone bother? ... to make sure they say the same thing from different accounts in a completely different linguistic style?
No, your accusation says more about you my friend than anything else.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
Yet by mid century the ozone depletion will have minimal impact
@bluehigh
not to butt in again, but what is your justification for this statement? as well as this one?
Greenhouse gas emissions as the principal driver and the indications regardless of the reasons, is that these too are in decline
for the support of those conclusions, I would prefer a study that proves it more empirically than a news organization, however I will accept a news org that I can contact and get the justification for THEIR remarks...perhaps there will be a study linked in their publication

I will await those sources
The writing styles are completely ... and I mean utterly... different.
@runrig
i tried to point this out already... he is still making the accusation.

"stumps you"... LMFAO
LOVE IT
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
Alkie, I think you're a toned-down clone of RC. At best.

Their styles are completely different. You object because they have the same opinion of you that I do. Poor thing.


Yep, this often comes up on here, when someone get into a spat. The accusation of two accounts being the same person. It always "stumps" me, and certainly does with this one. The writing styles are completely ... and I mean utterly... different.
Do you suppose the "person" has a double personality alchy and really is able to be two different people? And why would anyone bother? ... to make sure they say the same thing from different accounts in a completely different linguistic style?
No, your accusation says more about you my friend than anything else.


Run: Are you me too?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
Run: Are you me too?
@ThermoRunStumpToad
Maybe we are all three? no wait... FOUR
what is the count again?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
Run: Are you me too?
@ThermoRunStumpToad
Maybe we are all three? no wait... FOUR
what is the count again?


Am I paranoid if I am four people and THEY are out to get me?
bluehigh
5 / 5 (3) Jul 16, 2014
Hi CS how ya doing?

The news organisation was reporting Melbourne University's climate change fellow, Roger Dargaville.

And the level of Greenhouse gas emissions comes from the Aussie governments dept. of environment.

Both these are of course related to the area referred to in the article. What global drivers are factored in, well I to be honest I've lost interest.

Hey, I'm a Monty Python fan too. I quite fancy watching the old dead parrot sketch for a laugh and relax.

Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2014
Hi CS how ya doing?

The news organisation was reporting Melbourne University's climate change fellow, Roger Dargaville.

And the level of Greenhouse gas emissions comes from the Aussie governments dept. of environment.

Both these are of course related to the area referred to in the article. What global drivers are factored in, well I to be honest I've lost interest.

Hey, I'm a Monty Python fan too. I quite fancy watching the old dead parrot sketch for a laugh and relax.

Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.



My favorite sketch is the "bring out your bodies."

Not dead yet.
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
Alkie, I think you're a toned-down clone of RC. At best.

Their styles are completely different. You object because they have the same opinion of you that I do. Poor thing.


Yep, this often comes up on here, when someone get into a spat. The accusation of two accounts being the same person. It always "stumps" me, and certainly does with this one. The writing styles are completely ... and I mean utterly... different.
Do you suppose the "person" has a double personality alchy and really is able to be two different people? And why would anyone bother? ... to make sure they say the same thing from different accounts in a completely different linguistic style?
No, your accusation says more about you my friend than anything else.


Run: Are you me too?

Heck, this is getting weird....
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2014
Alkie, I think you're a toned-down clone of RC. At best.

Their styles are completely different. You object because they have the same opinion of you that I do. Poor thing.


Yep, this often comes up on here, when someone get into a spat. The accusation of two accounts being the same person. It always "stumps" me, and certainly does with this one. The writing styles are completely ... and I mean utterly... different.
Do you suppose the "person" has a double personality alchy and really is able to be two different people? And why would anyone bother? ... to make sure they say the same thing from different accounts in a completely different linguistic style?
No, your accusation says more about you my friend than anything else.


Run: Are you me too?

Heck, this is getting weird....


Does this mean you are me? Or does this mean you are Stumpy?
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
Alkie, I think you're a toned-down clone of RC. At best.

Their styles are completely different. You object because they have the same opinion of you that I do. Poor thing.


Yep, this often comes up on here, when someone get into a spat. The accusation of two accounts being the same person. It always "stumps" me, and certainly does with this one. The writing styles are completely ... and I mean utterly... different.
Do you suppose the "person" has a double personality alchy and really is able to be two different people? And why would anyone bother? ... to make sure they say the same thing from different accounts in a completely different linguistic style?
No, your accusation says more about you my friend than anything else.


Run: Are you me too?

Heck, this is getting weird....


Does this mean you are me? Or does this mean you are Stumpy?


Err, hang on ... I've forgotten who I am!

I'll get back to you when I've figured it.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
Hey, I'm a Monty Python fan too. I quite fancy watching the old dead parrot sketch for a laugh and relax.
Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
My favorite sketch is the "bring out your bodies."
Not dead yet.
always been partial to the Fish SLapping Dance
https://www.youtu...Qp-q1Y1s

very relevant, don't you think?
Err, hang on ... I've forgotten who I am!

I'll get back to you when I've figured it.
RunThermoToadStumpHigh
are you sure you're not someone else entirely?
You could also be me...
no wait, I am Thermo
or am I
I forgot which one i was this month! HELP

WHICH ACTUALLY supports all the above conclusions posted about AUS drying, and the arguments against Alche!
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD is fantastically able to sort through data and collect knowledge to anyone willing to use it!
Dr_toad
Jul 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
Well the clones succeeded in poisoning the discussion.
Which is the goal apparently, whether they are touting their identical opinion, or complaining about being caught in their shallow ruse. Anything it seems to prevent intelligent thought.
Making the world safe for indecision and reactionaries.

You new guys: what is your issue with Stumpy and thermo being the same. Any sane person would take it under advisement.

Don't bother replying, I concede the field to the clones. You can't, after all, fix stupid.
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
Well the clones succeeded in poisoning the discussion.
Which is the goal apparently, whether they are touting their identical opinion, or complaining about being caught in their shallow ruse. Anything it seems to prevent intelligent thought.
Making the world safe for indecision and reactionaries.


It's called taking the piss in the UK Alchy ... and you didn't get the joke?
The Alchemist
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
@runrig,
Nope, buddy, no clue, like 50 pages of piss is OK?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2014
Well the clones succeeded in poisoning the discussion.
Which is the goal apparently, whether they are touting their identical opinion, or complaining about being caught in their shallow ruse. Anything it seems to prevent intelligent thought.
Making the world safe for indecision and reactionaries.


It's called taking the piss in the UK Alchy ... and you didn't get the joke?


Alche has no sense of humor, nor any scientific background. He seems to be locked into his ideas and just can't see what the rest of us can. That is probably the reason he thinks I use multiple accounts and thinks he has "proven" that AGW is a fraud.

Unfortunately, he won't take the plunge to test his theory against the contest that is going on.

He won't bet that I am TC Stumpy.

And he won't produce any evidence of his accusation that I plagiarized something and he won't say what or where.

Add that to his dropping out of the modeling exercise and he doesn't have a very good track record.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2014
Thus speak the plasma engineer who doesn't know what Magnetohydrodynamics is...
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
Alche, you could settle a number of issues if you would just:

1) Enter your theory against in the contest that is going on. You say your theory disproves AGW and all you have to do is show that and win $30K. We know you won't because you don't have the background to understand why your theory fails.

http://dialogueso...nge.html

2) Take the bet that I am TC Stumpy or quit alleging it - or don't complain about my posts that indicate you are really off base.

3) Show evidence that I plagiarized something. You don't seem to understand that is an important issue. I have not, so I don't have to worry about the issue, but you seem certain I have. Please just bring it forward or STFU.

Come on, either put up or shut up.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
Thus speak the plasma engineer who doesn't know what Magnetohydrodynamics is...


Alche you really dumb twit. How do you know what I know and don't know? Where is the evidence that I don't know what MHD is?

At my feet is the book by Rosa. Do you know who he is?

Second edition page 146 figure at the bottom of the page: Scaling laws for a linear generator.

Why would I have the book at my feet if I don't know what MHD is?

Why do I have the 2nd ed here and the 1st ed upstairs?

So, Alche, where is your copy of Rosa 2ed? Check what I just looked up and then give me a page and quote.

Between your quote and mine was 4 minutes. Do you think I had time to go out and get a copy of the book or look up the pages.

Pull your copy out and show us you have either edition.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
Alche, I just figured out why you think I don't know MHD. It is because I don't "understand" what Cantdrive puts out, isn't it? Do you think the EU is causing AGW like Cantdrive does? is that it? I guess you really do have a sense of humor.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
Hey, Alche are you there? Why haven't you answered my questions? Did you have to go out to find a copy of Rosa?

Where are those links to the plagiarism?

Have you submitted your proof of the errors in AGW theory? Have you won the $30K by showing how to falsify AGW?

Are you ready to take the wager on who I am and who Stumpy is?

Are you hiding or have you run away again?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
Thus speak the plasma engineer who doesn't know what Magnetohydrodynamics is...
@alche
Where in the holy python are you getting THIS bit of info about?

Because he doesn't agree with cantdrive? cd is an idiot! even cd doesn't have a clue about MHD... in fact, he doesn't have a clue about PLASMA physics either!
cd is a PARROT

cd cannot even comprehend the basics of physics which would explain to him WHY his eu doesn't work in real life... part of that is brain washing, part is because it is his religion, part is because the eu is a massive CON to make money off of suckers (notice the BELIEVERS are laymen, and it is the physicists making the money off of them, and there are NO PHYSICISTS BELIEVERS on the rolls that don't publish crap for the eu to buy? -BIG FREAKIN RED FLAG THERE)

I gave you the ONE fool proof way to insure that you are NOT being scammed with a meet!
let me know!
TAKE THE CHALLENGE: BOTH OF THEM
win the money!
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
I think that Alche must have Tourette's of the hands. He just blurts these things out and then kind of looks up and whistles then asks what happened??? I'm beginning to feel sorry for him. It is hard to imagine what he will come up with next.

All he has to do is to start answering the questions and someone might actually believe him. Nah...
Dr_toad
Jul 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
No, I know some people with Tourette's. There are different manifestations, but an overarching engagement with one's own stupidity really doesn't fit the diagnosis.


Suggest it's a side effect of exposure to the toxic chemicals he uses in a vain attempt to create gold from lead. Or perhaps he dropped his philosopher's stone on his head? Anything is possible.

"Bring out the holy hand grenade!"
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2014
No, I know some people with Tourette's. There are different manifestations, but an overarching engagement with one's own stupidity really doesn't fit the diagnosis.


Suggest it's a side effect of exposure to the toxic chemicals he uses in a vain attempt to create gold from lead. Or perhaps he dropped his philosopher's stone on his head? Anything is possible.

"Bring out the holy hand grenade!"


@ThermoRunStumpToadRockWolf: You have to be me too. Only I would come up with the "holy hand grenade" so you must be me. Where is Alche to take advantage of this and take that bet...

Oh, and where is he to show us where I plagiarized?

And now he should show where you (because you are me) don't know MHD?

Or any of his non-Tourette's blurts. Where did Alche go with your money?
swordsman
not rated yet Jul 21, 2014
Why don't all of you name-callers simply study the gas spectra and the sun's radiation spectra and make your own conclusions? Warmer days, cooler nights with a net increase in temperature.