Resisting Climate Hysteria

[OzWaveGuy]

Now ill quote the home page of the INQUA web site and link.



http://www.inqua.org/

So INQUA think that the climate is warming...mmm.

Yes SC, the climate is changing as it always has and we are all in agreement with this as a fact, apparently even INQUA. Now if you could point out their evidence that proves man's 3% contribution of CO2 is driving the hysterical global warming as asserted by the diminishing alarmists in this forum then we can look at this information and make up our own minds.

 

[basilio]

With regard to the Nils -Akel Morner story in The Spectator.

Just a creative piece of fiction to keep GW deniers happy. All the credibility of a Daily Mail story.
George Monbiot went through it his normal style and detailed piece by piece the lies, distortions and misrepresentations in the paper. Apparently this was totally beyond the editor of the Spectator

The Spectator runs false sea-level claims on its cover

Fraser Nelson makes the biggest blunder of his career by putting Nils-Axel Mörner's, a serial promoter of nonsense, in his magazine


..Mörner turns up on the front cover of the Spectator, under the headline "The Sea Level Scam: the rise and rise of a global scare story". His wild assertions are published in the magazine without qualification or challenge. Far from it: they are proclaimed in the headline as "The truth about sea levels". Yet they are as far from the truth as his claims about dowsing and archaeology.

Mörner maintains that places such as the Maldives, Bangladesh and Tuvalu "need not fear rising sea levels." There is, he says, "no ongoing sea-level rise" and no link between sea levels and climate change. He makes the false claim that the rate of sea-level rise accepted by most climate scientists "has been based on just one tide gauge in Hong Kong" (does he have a thing about Hong Kong?).

These claims have already been comprehensively debunked. To sustain them, Mörner relies on misinterpretations of scientific data so grave that even an arts graduate such as Fraser Nelson should have been able to spot them.

( George goes through each piece of "evidence" Morner uses and points out the papers that expose the lies or misrepresenations that are made.)

M̦rner also claims in the Spectator article to speak on behalf of the INQUA (the International Union for Quaternary Research) commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, whose members he says are "the world's true experts on sea level" Рas opposed to the IPCC, which he asserts has "hijacked and distorted" the data. M̦rner was indeed president of this commission until 2003. However, as documented by the Carbon Brief, INQUA now clearly dissociates itself from M̦rner's views. Current president of the INQUA commission on Coastal and Marine Processes, Professor Roland Gehrels of the University of Plymouth, says his view do not represent 99% of its members, and the organisation has previously stated that it is "distressed" that M̦rner continues to falsely "represent himself in his former capacity."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme.../dec/02/spectator-sea-level-claims?intcmp=122

 

[Knobby22]

Quoting from the report:

CO2 increased from 280ppm to 380ppm as stated in that report as also has Nitrous Oxide and trophoseric ozone. These are greenhouse gases.

Now Ozwaveguy, if you don't think the warming is caused by these greenhouse gases then please offer an alternate theory.

I'm all ears.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

It has been raining continuously in Townsville, for the last twelve hours.

The wet season has begun, as it has for millennia in this part of the world.

It is a gentle rain, the first since Cyclone Yasi of any moment or measure.

The trees, plants, birds and other animals have responded, as they do to changes in weather. It is a beautiful morning here. I have just seen a 12 foot Carpet slide past my window.

I see no evidence as we head in to the fourth day of summer AD 2011, of any Global Warming.

gg

 

[basilio]

It has been raining continuously in Townsville, for the last twelve hours.

The wet season has begun, as it has for millennia in this part of the world.

It is a gentle rain, the first since Cyclone Yasi of any moment or measure.

The trees, plants, birds and other animals have responded, as they do to changes in weather. It is a beautiful morning here. I have just seen a 12 foot Carpet slide past my window.

I see no evidence as we head in to the fourth day of summer AD 2011, of any Global Warming.

gg

Really glad that your having a fine day GG.

(Just not quite sure - as usual - what relevance it has to any bigger pictures..)

 

[Ruby]

Quoting from the report:

CO2 increased from 280ppm to 380ppm as stated in that report as also has Nitrous Oxide and trophoseric ozone. These are greenhouse gases.

Now Ozwaveguy, if you don't think the warming is caused by these greenhouse gases then please offer an alternate theory.

I'm all ears.

Knobby, you are not all ears. In fact you have persistently refused to listen. The links which answer your question have been posted many times, months ago, in this thread, by me and others. I am not going to post them again - if you are really interested, find them and read them. Go back six months or more to the time when this thread was particularly active. It's all there.

Empirical observation (as opposed to modelling) has shown that while global temperature initially rises in proportion to the increased CO2 in the atmosphere, it does not continue to do so beyond a certain limit, and that limit has been reached. The line has now flattened out. While atmosperic CO2 continues to increase, the global temperature is not increasing. This is observed fact, and it contradicts the models. The feedback mechanisms at work here are not fully understood, but it does not alter the facts.

If empirical observation indicates one thing, and computer generated models indicate another, which is correct?????

 

[Knobby22]

Knobby, you are not all ears. In fact you have persistently refused to listen. The links which answer your question have been posted many times, months ago, in this thread, by me and others. I am not going to post them again - if you are really interested, find them and read them. Go back six months or more to the time when this thread was particularly active. It's all there.

Empirical observation (as opposed to modelling) has shown that while global temperature initially rises in proportion to the increased CO2 in the atmosphere, it does not continue to do so beyond a certain limit, and that limit has been reached. The line has now flattened out. While atmosperic CO2 continues to increase, the global temperature is not increasing. This is observed fact, and it contradicts the models. The feedback mechanisms at work here are not fully understood, but it does not alter the facts.

If empirical observation indicates one thing, and computer generated models indicate another, which is correct?????

It may be flattening out, I hope so. Scientists are finding some negative feedbacks thatr are couteracting the global warming.
But you are saying that is has been caused by greenhouse gases.
That is not what Medicowallet and some others say. They say it is a ruse by scientists acting together to fool everyone.

 

[Smurf1976]

What matters is what is actually likely to happen in the future.

If we continue to increase CO2 then is that likely to lead to ongoing warming or not? The "why" part is far less important in the broader debate than the "if" part of the question.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Quoting from the report:

CO2 increased from 280ppm to 380ppm as stated in that report as also has Nitrous Oxide and trophoseric ozone. These are greenhouse gases.

Now Ozwaveguy, if you don't think the warming is caused by these greenhouse gases then please offer an alternate theory.

I'm all ears.

Uh-oh, Just so I get this straight (let me try my hand at a "book" post since the AGW comedy is now quite substantial and supported by the alarmists here without question)....

• The Hysterical alarmists here with a "theory" are claiming 5 deg of warming due to CO2 from man 3% contribution to total CO2 (to the end of the century - from memory) because a trace gas has increased.
• They cannot prove it thru demonstrated scientific observations, but instead claim models prove it as fact.
• Many have asked for the observed evidence but it apparently lies in hundreds or thousands of papers and it's not easy to derive the observed facts
• The earth warms and cools, there are storms, droughts, floods and fires - and CO2 is blamed for these events that are now not considered normal - but extreme (although alarmists claim CO2 is the reason, but in fact the numbers of extreme events such as hurricanes are decreasing and recent floods are no more extreme than previously encountered)
• It is claimed by some extremists if you can see the ocean from your window, your house will most likely underwater in a few decades.
• The extremists claim the oceans will rise by 100m, 75m, 20m, 10m, 6m, 3m, 2m, 1m, well maybe really only 10cm over 100 yrs
• The scientist involved in the scares are caught tampering with the data in climate gate I and II in order to support their defective models
• The earth has been on a cooling trend for the last decade, although AGW extremists claimed back in 2000 our children would never see snow again.
• Dissenting voices are fired from their positions
• Governments and state governments are caught hiding facts that don't agree with the extremist position on AGW.
• The inspiration to the AGW "cause" - The Mann Hockey stick that proved without doubt that AGW is real - was thoroughly debunked and is no longer used by AGW extremists, hence the use of "extreme weather" and "sea level rises" to re-establish the scare.
• Carbon is advertised as pollution and is dirty. Although plants need CO2 to survive, CO2 is colourless and is not a pollutant
• It is claimed that we need to save the earth from Global Warming, or Climate Change, or Climate Disruption, or Carbon Pollution, or something that makes us afraid...
• A carbon dioxide tax is proposed to save the world - yet the government admit it actually won't do anything to lower temperature (that's remotely measurable)
• Many of the same people involved in the AGW scare were pushing "the new ice age" in the 70's

Now you assert that anyone who questions this comedy should seriously provide you with an alternative "theory", otherwise the CO2 hypothesis must stand?

I've just one for you and basilio, quit lapping up the propaganda. You've both degenerated into spewing rubbish in this and other threads, is it because you have an agenda here or paid to do so?

The AGW "industry" is on a downward trend - the scares aren't scary enough anymore, the corruption too obvious, an ineffectual CO2 tax is seen simply as a obvious wealth transfer strategy - yes Knobby, I think there will be a change soon.

 

[So_Cynical]

Yes SC, the climate is changing as it always has and we are all in agreement with this as a fact.

No we are not all in agreement....many posters in this and other ASF climate threads dont think the climate is changing. see below.

I see no evidence as we head in to the fourth day of summer AD 2011, of any Global Warming.

gg

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

No we are not all in agreement....many posters in this and other ASF climate threads dont think the climate is changing. see below.

Dear oh dear S_C,

I agree with seasonal warming and cooling, but not in Global Warming.

gg

 

[OzWaveGuy]

No we are not all in agreement....many posters in this and other ASF climate threads dont think the climate is changing. see below.

So typical So_cynical - out of all the points you chose to address, you picked an opinion from another poster.

The climate comedy act continues with the extreme faithful unquestioning of the core issues. The show must go on....

 

[sails]

No we are not all in agreement....many posters in this and other ASF climate threads dont think the climate is changing. see below.

Where has anyone disputed that the climate changes ???

And I understand there has been no warming in the last decade.

 

[Ruby]

.................But you are saying that is has been caused by greenhouse gases. ..................

that is not what I said at all.

 

[Smurf1976]

No we are not all in agreement....many posters in this and other ASF climate threads dont think the climate is changing. see below.

The climate is changing that I would agree with although I don't know whether it's natural or man-made.

One thing does have me puzzled though, and that is the link between rainfall here in Tassie and the national / international economy. Time and time again, we get to a point of severe drought with the dams nearly empty and then the economy falls in a hole. Thne we get the wet years and economic doldrums at the same time.

Now, I can't imagine that what happens down here is influencing anything other than local affairs so my assumption is that there's a link between global weather patterns and the state of the economy.

Water storage bottomed at 17% in 2008 just before the GFC amidst a degree of panic and has since increased to 58.2%. Other historical bottoms were in 1991 at 22% ("the recession we had to have"), 1983 (30% and a recession) and 1967 (14.2% which is the all-time low and which came just after the start of a prolonged bear market internationally).

Coincidence? Perhaps, but it does seem to have happened a few times now and I'm guessing that there's a link between global weather patterns and the economy. Climate change is thus an economic issue as well as an environmental one.

PS Before anyone points out (quite validly) that you can't really extrapolate global climate from dam levels in Tasmania, I'll simply point out that my "science" is at least based on actual measurements. And I do note that the linkage seems to be international, so presumably when it doesn't rain here there are certain weather patterns in effect elsewhere too which is the point I'm making.

 

[sails]

... I'll simply point out that my "science" is at least based on actual measurements. ...

Excellent point, Smurf...

It seems that so many of AGW predictions are based on computer modelling and not always on actual measurements. See article below and Doug Lord is not a sceptic but seems he lost his job because he was trying to publish real data.

From an article by Miranda Devine
The Sunday Telegraph
December 04, 2011 12:00AM

But Lord's data showed they had exaggerated the rise by 1000 per cent. His measurement of 1mm a year gives you a sea level rise of no more than 90mm, (0.09m) by 2100.

and (bold is mine)

Amid exaggerated predictions that sea levels would rise by 75m, Lord made the career-ending mistake of actually measuring the sea level and trying to publish the results.

This caused him to be "let go" from his government job and have peer-reviewed scientific papers pulled at the last minute from a conference in Shanghai last year, from a conference in Perth in September and from a journal where they were to be published this year.

and

"I'm not a climate change sceptic. I believe in the climate change science but I see the need for the real data to be out there," he said

Read full article: Other nations, including big greenhouse gas emitters, have no intention of following our kamikaze carbon tax lead

 

[Knobby22]

Ozwaveguy

Lets just leave it at that. So you accuse me of being paid to do this, and you call me names and yet I am the one with the hysteria.
You spout trash from News Limited and similar and you know they have an agenda.
You quote extremists and say that is how all scientists are.

I suggest you keep posting in this thread and I will talk the science in the other one.

Last comment, NASAs latest figures, made obviously in your universe by a cabal of scientists twisting and distorting readings even though they will be struck off if found out and can be easily checked by other scientists. These amazing risks to their good names and career are taken so they can go to conferances and start a world government.

Look at them if you can. I know you can't.

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

 

[Whiskers]

One thing does have me puzzled though, and that is the link between rainfall here in Tassie and the national / international economy.

It's all to do with the those famous Tassie truffles. When the world can't get enough, they get depressed!

 

[basilio]

Last comment, NASAs latest figures, made obviously in your universe by a cabal of scientists twisting and distorting readings even though they will be struck off if found out and can be easily checked by other scientists. These amazing risks to their good names and career are taken so they can go to conferances and start a world government.

Look at them if you can. I know you can't. Knobby

.
That is a very compelling set of graphs and explanations.

It is sobering but what also concerns me is how many, many people won't actually view the figures or if they do, find a way to deny the implications or even the possibility we are facing a serious problem. I was really taken by how temperatures have increased over the last 120 years

The rest of the website is equally informative. Have to say I can't recall having seen it before.

Anyone else had a look and do you have any comments ?

 

[Julia]

You spout trash from News Limited and similar and you know they have an agenda.

What exactly is News Ltd's agenda?