Resisting Climate Hysteria

[spooly74]

Gary Ablett snr and Jnr are hack footballers. Pele was hugely overrated. WW2 was really just a hiccup in history.

More humour.
This, in addition to post #3311 & #3313, which of course you knew was an April fools' joke by Real Climate.
F

You want proof of something? It proves that you are incapable of considering all data presented to you. You look at my specific position on co2 and conclude I am a denier. It shows that you have confirmation bias and cherry pick stuff you want to hear. It proves that you are unqualified to examine data of any kind and come up with a balanced conclusion.

+1

 

[wayneL]

Now This Is Interesting: A Climate Prediction From 1981
By James Fallows

Apr 10 2012, 7:33 AM ET

It is very much worth checking out an item on Real Climate, from two Dutch scientists. They have found a paper by James Hansen and others from 1981, before climate change was even an occasion for political disagreement.

Hansen is now famous in the world of climate studies, and infamous to the world of the right wing, but back then he was a 40-year-old researcher who came up with a projection of how rising CO2 levels might affect global temperatures. Science lives for the "falsifiable hypothesis" -- a claim that can be tested against the evidence -- and that is what the paper by Hansen and his colleagues offered up. Three decades later, his worst-case projections were matched against what has happened since then. You should read their full findings, but this gives you the idea:

HansenProjection.jpg

As the Dutch scientists say at the end of their Real Climate post:

To conclude, a projection from 1981 for rising temperatures in a major science journal, at a time that the temperature rise was not yet obvious in the observations, has been found to agree well with the observations since then, underestimating the observed trend by about 30%... It is also a nice example of a statement based on theory that could be falsified and up to now has withstood the test. The "global warming hypothesis" has been developed according to the principles of sound science.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...esting-a-climate-prediction-from-1981/255658/
________________________________________________________
Obviously this is a quote from another source. Worth the check to see why Dr Hansen is respected as a leader in climate science research

Thank you for the wonderful corroboration of my point.

 

[Ruby]

All that work is done by thousands of scientists in many fields. They have built a body of observation supported by clear evidence that
1) The world is warming at a rate unprecedented in geological history

This is arrant nonsense. There is no such observation or 'clear evidence' - it is all modelling. There is however, clear evidence that the world has been through previous periods of much greater warming.

2) The cause of this this warming , in this particular circumstance, is the rapid increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last century. This increase is almost entirely human produced.

Also blatantly untrue. It has not been proven that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming. There is some evidence that the warming may cause the increase in CO2, not the other way round - the feedback mechanisms are not fully understood.

Your argument folks is not with me - it's with the scientists that have done all the spade work, with the physical reality of how greenhouse gases trap heat and with the observed effects of this fact.

Once again - not observed facts.

The body of evidence supporting points 1 and 2 is now completely overwhelming.

No it is not.

I often use the skeptical science website as a reference point because it is extremely effective at pulling together the thousands of papers and identifying how each one adds to the body of knowledge we have.

Basilio, it is a shame you don't look at some other websites and broaden your knowledge on the subject. You quote that website constantly. You refuse to read anything presenting the other viewpoint. You refuse to acknowledge the thousands of reputable scientists who do NOT agree that the earth is warming at an alarming rate, and it is caused by the extra CO2 put into the atmosphere by humans. I once posted a link that listed the names of about 1,000 of them.

There are plenty of fraudulent scientists on your side of the argument, who muddy the water for financial or political gain, so you should be careful about whom you accuse and of what.

You keep saying the same old things. You never take up the challenge and answer any questions put to you. It makes me laugh when I read you accusing those who don't agree with you of "putting their hands over their ears" because that is exactly what you have done since the beginning of this thread. You don't even get your facts right, and you just keep shooting yourself in the foot. You don't even present a cogent argument.

 

[explod]

You keep saying the same old things. You never take up the challenge and answer any questions put to you. It makes me laugh when I read you accusing those who don't agree with you of "putting their hands over their ears" because that is exactly what you have done since the beginning of this thread. You don't even get your facts right, and you just keep shooting yourself in the foot. You don't even present a cogent argument.

All of what you have stated is as well supposition. You do not really know but like most, punt with the popular choice as the change that may be required would not fit well.

Yes it has happened before but very differently. Get the "Sixth Extinction" from the library and read the facts, it is by Roger Lewin (Doubleday, 1995)

And I would be pleased to check out your 1000 scientists if you would kindly post up a link.

 

[sails]

Great post, Ruby...

Sadly, Basilio probably won't read it because his head is too far stuck in the sand and fingers in his ears. Whether it is for financial gain or some other reason, he religiously holds to his beliefs. And he is entitled to do so and we are also entitled to make up our own minds.

All his rantings only make me shake my head in disbelief and push me further to the opinion that the science is not settled. And so are many Aussie voters who seem to be coming to the same conclusion as myself.

 

[Calliope]

Ruby, you have defrocked Mother Basilio with finesse. However criticism to him/her is water off a duck's back. I have no doubt that basilio and knobby are sincere in their beliefs, however no amount of rational argument will stop them from spreading their mischief. It converts nobody. It only gives encouragement to an unscrupulous government to raise taxes on the pretext of preventing global warming.

 

[derty]

This is arrant nonsense. There is no such observation or 'clear evidence' - it is all modelling. There is however, clear evidence that the world has been through previous periods of much greater warming.

Yes there is evidence of previous episodes of climate change (warming and cooling) that appear to be of the same magnitude or greater than that which we currenty see. Conveniently there are several contained within the ice record. Most have been attributed to rapid changes in the thermohaline systems which are known to produce huge regional climate variations in the northern hemisphere and less variation in the southern hemisphere due to the ratio of ocean to continental area. The variations taht we see today cannot be explained by thermohaline, orbital or solar causes.

Also blatantly untrue. It has not been proven that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming. There is some evidence that the warming may cause the increase in CO2, not the other way round - the feedback mechanisms are not fully understood.

hehe, if someone can prove that it doesn't cause warming they will have themselves a Nobel Physics prize, they will have also rewritten and proven incorrect large parts of existing thermodynamics and quantum physics. Ruby if you are basing your stance on this you may want to do a little more self-education so you are at least coming at this from a position of some understanding.

To repeat ad nauseum, I'm actually a 'lukewarmer'. I think we are having an effect. But I think co2 the least of our worries in this regard. I've said this a hundred times in this thread, but you continue with your idiotic 'you're a denier'.

You want proof of something? It proves that you are incapable of considering all data presented to you. You look at my specific position on co2 and conclude I am a denier. It shows that you have confirmation bias and cherry pick stuff you want to hear. It proves that you are unqualified to examine data of any kind and come up with a balanced conclusion.

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and walks like a duck.... Your confirmation bias shows through as strong as basilo's. By your own definition you are equally unqualified.

You are obviously a very intelligent man wayne, though your advocacy of Monckton is an enigma to me. That you support him when it has been clearly and unequivocally demonstrated that the man consistently misrepresents and fabricates data and conclusions on numerous occasions. And continues to do so even when his conclusions are contradicted by the very sources that he qoutes. I can only conclude that it is due to an ideological or confirmation bias.

Though I suspect you are more a fan of his orative, argumentative and diversionary skills than his ability to interpret scientific data.

Solar Activity/Ozone the major driver of climate change?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...64682612000867

So you are happy present that a gas with an atmospheric concentration of 0.00006% may be the major driver of climate change but consider that a gas with an atmospheric concentration of 0.04% cannot possibly be main current driver? OWG you should be all over this!



Anyway that is it for me in ASF's own little special olympics. I think CO2 is the current main driver in long term climate change. People seem to expect that because houses aren't currently being innundated and the heavens are not aflame then it is obviously a load of bunkum. Likewise people are attributing every significant weather event to climate change. I think we are starting to see some evidence of the warming of the atmosphere above the noise that is short term climate and weather variability. It probably won't be unequivocal for decades yet. As the science improves and the observations continue I think it will become undeliable. Those that do deny/are sceptical will continue to be driven back to smaller and smaller gaps in the science from where they can take a stand, and history will stick them on the shelf with the creationists and flat Earthers.

Catch you in 2027 for another look .

OWG keep up the good work mate. You are a mountaineer here without peer.

Oh and btw people, you can think that the carbon tax is a bad idea and still support CAGW. They are not mutually exclusive

 

[wayneL]

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and walks like a duck.... Your confirmation bias shows through as strong as basilo's. By your own definition you are equally unqualified.

All humans suffer from CB. Me, you, right up to probably God Himself</hyperbole>.

There are degrees of such however, But I take pride in keeping it at a low level. A raging CB is another thing altogether.

You are obviously a very intelligent man wayne, though your advocacy of Monckton is an enigma to me. That you support him when it has been clearly and unequivocally demonstrated that the man consistently misrepresents and fabricates data and conclusions on numerous occasions. And continues to do so even when his conclusions are contradicted by the very sources that he qoutes. I can only conclude that it is due to an ideological or confirmation bias. Though I suspect you are more a fan of his orative, argumentative and diversionary skills than his ability to interpret scientific data.

Do I advocate Monckton?? Monckton and those like him (Rick Morano for eg) are just the flip side of the coin of Monbiot et al; they are necessary as a counterpoint to the alarmist's tune and misrepresent the facts to no more of a degree than the likes of Monbiot, Al Gore and the like.... in fact probably less so.

Why won't anyone debate him?

You could be right on an ideological bias however. Climate change has become much more than an argument about science, it is being used as a tool to further the great ideological goals of groups such as The Fabians.

I will always resist these politics.

So you are happy present that a gas with an atmospheric concentration of 0.00006% may be the major driver of climate change but consider that a gas with an atmospheric concentration of 0.04% cannot possibly be main current driver? OWG you should be all over this!

Derty both you and I know this is a misrepresentation, or at best disingenuous.

 

[Smurf1976]

Oh and btw people, you can think that the carbon tax is a bad idea and still support CAGW. They are not mutually exclusive

I would argue that it doesn't work in reverse.

Anyone who supports a massive expenditure of limited resources for essentially no benefit would seem to be not overly concerned about the problem in the first place.

That's basically the situation with the carbon tax. Using all the ammunition without delivering even one blow to the enemy. For anyone to support such a move suggests them to be not overly concerned with the enemy, and to be more concerned with getting rid of the ammunition for the sake of it.

A massive cost, unlikely to ever be repeated, for virtually no reduction in CO2 emissions. There was one likely chance to spend seriously on fixing the problem, and we've chosen to do something which doesn't actually fix it.

That alone is the single greatest reason I doubt the science of climate change - those who proclaim there to be a serious problem have chosen to divert resources and attention away from any real action to address it, using their time and resources to address other issues instead. Actions speak louder than words, and actions suggest that there isn't really much concern about this.

 

[Calliope]

Thanks Smurf for an excellent post. One of Bob Brown's legacies is that he was a party to this massive fraud - the carbon tax.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Mostly Cloudy
Wind: S at 24 km/h
Humidity: 65%

24degC

Much as I would expect at this time of year.

gg

 

[macca]

That alone is the single greatest reason I doubt the science of climate change - those who proclaim there to be a serious problem have chosen to divert resources and attention away from any real action to address it, using their time and resources to address other issues instead. Actions speak louder than words, and actions suggest that there isn't really much concern about this.

Which is why Bob Brown and Flannery are quite happy to live in waterfront properties

 

[Ruby]

hehe, if someone can prove that it doesn't cause warming they will have themselves a Nobel Physics prize, they will have also rewritten and proven incorrect large parts of existing thermodynamics and quantum physics. Ruby if you are basing your stance on this you may want to do a little more self-education so you are at least coming at this from a position of some understanding.

Derty...... no, I am not a scientist, and I assume from reading your posts that you are, but I am not ignorant of the laws of thermodynamics, so there is no need to patronise me.

I base what I say on the extensive reading I have done. I know that increased CO2 causes a rise in termperature, and climate scientists looking for that correlation have been surprised to find it doesn't quite work that way. What works in the laboratory doesn't always work in the atmosphere apparently. They don't fully understand the feedback mechanisms. Some emminent climate scientists think there is evidence that rising temperatures are the cause of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere - not the other way round.

This is not my opinion or my "stance" but the opinion of many respected climate scientists. They are saying that the matter is not just a simple one of "increased CO2 in the atmosphere, caused by human activity, therefore correspondingly increased global temperatures". I am not going to post links because I have posted them all before.

I used to be in the AGW camp, and it was only after a lot of reading and investigation that I changed my view, so you can see I have approached the issue with an open mind.

As a scientist you would have to agree that the onus of proof is on he who makes the claim. The absurd claims made by some members of this forum, such as "global temperatures are going to increase so rapidly and by so much that we will 'cook' within about 20 years (or was it by 2020? Can't remember.)" are simply not backed up by empirical evidence. Some scientist who expound this theory have been exposed as frauds.

I don't think anyone on this forum would deny that the climate is changing. What we (or at least, I) don't support is the extreme alarmist view and all the nonsene that goes with it - because the evidence to support it is not there.

 

[Ruby]

And I would be pleased to check out your 1000 scientists if you would kindly post up a link.

I was slightly wrong Explod - it's been a while since I posted it! It's not a list of names, it's a list of 900 peer reviewed papers supporting arguments AGAINST AGW alarm. Link below.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

 

[OzWaveGuy]

It's interesting that the AGW alarmists so frequently avoid the "CO2 Hot Spot" topic - at all costs. The "fingerprint" of Human CO2 emissions (according to AGW alarmists and the IPCC) would appear 10km above the surface as a hot spot....Joanne Nova has covered this topic in several posts and has continued to provide evidence from actual measurements v's models - an update to the missing CO2 "fingerprint" discussion has been posted.

Hopefully Basilio or Knobby can provide some honest insight v's propaganda with links to real studies with observed evidence that may show otherwise - corrupt AGW/IPCC models not accepted.

 

[ghotib]

I was slightly wrong Explod - it's been a while since I posted it! It's not a list of names, it's a list of 900 peer reviewed papers supporting arguments AGAINST AGW alarm. Link below.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

1. Which is less than 1% of the total number of peer-reviewed papers published in the fields that make up climate science (http://www.skepticalscience.com/meet-the-denominator.html 2nd half of the article)

and

2. Which includes papers whose authors have explicitly stated, more than once, that their work does not support arguments against anthropogenic global warming (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-part-two-using-our-paper-is-misleading

 

[ghotib]

It's interesting that the AGW alarmists so frequently avoid the "CO2 Hot Spot" topic - at all costs. The "fingerprint" of Human CO2 emissions (according to AGW alarmists and the IPCC) would appear 10km above the surface as a hot spot....Joanne Nova has covered this topic in several posts and has continued to provide evidence from actual measurements v's models - an update to the missing CO2 "fingerprint" discussion has been posted.

Hopefully Basilio or Knobby can provide some honest insight v's propaganda with links to real studies with observed evidence that may show otherwise - corrupt AGW/IPCC models not accepted.

Hopefully you're misquoting Jo Nova, because she knows better than this. It's not a CO2 hot spot and it's not a CO2 fingerprint. This article describes what it is and gives an overview of the scientific literature on satellite measurement and uncertainties in atmospheric temperatures. I don't find it easy reading, but then I don't have a background of 20 years or more in these things. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Primer-Tropospheric-temperature-measurement-Satellite.html

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Weather for Townsville QLD
23 °C | °F Tue Wed Thu Fri

Clear
Wind: N at 0 km/h
Humidity: 88% 30 ° 21 ° 30 ° 21 ° 30 ° 22 ° 30 ° 22 °
Detailed forecast: The Weather Channel - Weather Underground - AccuWeather

Much as we have had since settlement. And probably before settlement according to my indigenous mates.

gg

 

[wayneL]

1. Which is less than 1% of the total number of peer-reviewed papers published in the fields that make up climate science (http://www.skepticalscience.com/meet-the-denominator.html 2nd half of the article)

and

2. Which includes papers whose authors have explicitly stated, more than once, that their work does not support arguments against anthropogenic global warming (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-part-two-using-our-paper-is-misleading

There is no money in non-alarmism. That alarmist papers outnumber non-alarmist papers is hardly surprising, given the prerequisites for government funding.

 

[qldfrog]

There is no money in non-alarmism. That alarmist papers outnumber non-alarmist papers is hardly surprising, given the prerequisites for government funding.

Wayne, please...
I work for a mining company who would be please to "help" any denial researcher with valid proof.So do energy producers and oil lobbies who do fund denial focused institutes.

You have a point in the alarmist bit but keep level headed: this is working both way.
Every one is entitled to draw his own conclusions but I sometimes wonder where your "energy" comes from?
Anyway, real work waiting..