Resisting Climate Hysteria

[basilio]

In your zeal to regurgitate the mantra (again), you have totally missed my point.

Tell ya what, share a cab with Horace when I pull out those hard science *peer reviewed* equine papers.

You can cast an unbiased eye over them and we can all fall about, laughing our a55es off.

I don't expect you will connect the dots, but at least it will be a fun evening.

I can readily see how your "peer reviewed" equine papers could be suspect. No problems at all.

I don't think that CC science is in the ballpark.

I made two basic statements

One. Temperatures are rising at an historically very rapid rate.
Two. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that CO2 and other GG are the main driver of this temperature increase. The reason they think is is because they have analysed the wide range of other climate change drivers and on all the evidence to date GG are the current principal driver.

This doesn't have to complicated. Find evidence to disprove theses statements. (And that doesn't mean saying all the meteorological societies around the world are in a global conspiracy to create a One World Government.

 

[noco]

I can readily see how your "peer reviewed" equine papers could be suspect. No problems at all.

I don't think that CC science is in the ballpark.

I made two basic statements

One. Temperatures are rising at an historically very rapid rate.
Two. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that CO2 and other GG are the main driver of this temperature increase. The reason they think is is because they have analysed the wide range of other climate change drivers and on all the evidence to date GG are the current principal driver.

This doesn't have to complicated. Find evidence to disprove theses statements. (And that doesn't mean saying all the meteorological societies around the world are in a global conspiracy to create a One World Government.

Bas, we have heard it all before....Why do you keep repeating yourself?

But Bas, I keep telling you, it was warmer in Greenland and the Arctic 1000 years ago than it is today

Don't you believe me?

 

[cynic]

I can readily see how your "peer reviewed" equine papers could be suspect. No problems at all.

I don't think that CC science is in the ballpark.

I made two basic statements

One. Temperatures are rising at an historically very rapid rate.
Two. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that CO2 and other GG are the main driver of this temperature increase. The reason they think is is because they have analysed the wide range of other climate change drivers and on all the evidence to date GG are the current principal driver.

This doesn't have to complicated. Find evidence to disprove theses statements. (And that doesn't mean saying all the meteorological societies around the world are in a global conspiracy to create a One World Government.

No it doesn't have to be complicated at all.

There are things that are known to be true.

There are things that are known to be untrue.

There are also things that are unknown and/or uncertain.

There are things that are believed or opined to be either, true, untrue unknown and/or uncertain.

There is a difference between reality and opinion of reality.

To assert that something claimed to be true by a select few, must be considered true unless detractors can prove otherwise, is simply deflecting the burden of proof away from where it truly belongs.

 

[explod]

Bas, we have heard it all before....Why do you keep repeating yourself?

But Bas, I keep telling you, it was warmer in Greenland and the Arctic 1000 years ago than it is today

Don't you believe me?

Who can, your reference would not come up properly and your explanation was cloudy to say the least.

Give some anthropological and physical evidence and we can have a proper look at it.

 

[noco]

Who can, your reference would not come up properly and your explanation was cloudy to say the least.

Give some anthropological and physical evidence and we can have a proper look at it.

I think I have posted the info 3 times already...How many more times do you want it?

 

[explod]

I think I have posted the info 3 times already...How many more times do you want it?

Yes, but not convincing. Sure there were parts then that were green for a few hundred years which allowed settlement.

However it had no effect on the three kilometer thick 400,000 year old ice sheet. It remained intact till recent times. The perma frost under it is breaking up and it is melting.

Noco, some of this icemelt has been intact for 800,000 years. Did not think I would need to bother with stuff that even school children are aware of.

Things are happening this time before our eyes which show, we have a problem

 

[SirRumpole]

In your zeal to regurgitate the mantra (again), you have totally missed my point.

Tell ya what, share a cab with Horace when I pull out those hard science *peer reviewed* equine papers.

You can cast an unbiased eye over them and we can all fall about, laughing our a55es off.

I don't expect you will connect the dots, but at least it will be a fun evening.

The dots have already been joined by the professional bodies wayne, who say that CC is unequivocal. I couldn't be bothered going back to find the statement that I posted by the American Meteorological Society to that effect , but I'm sure you can find it in this thread if you cared to look.

 

[Tisme]

Bas, we have heard it all before....Why do you keep repeating yourself?

But Bas, I keep telling you, it was warmer in Greenland and the Arctic 1000 years ago than it is today

Don't you believe me?

Arctic temps

 

[noco]

Yes, but not convincing. Sure there were parts then that were green for a few hundred years which allowed settlement.

However it had no effect on the three kilometer thick 400,000 year old ice sheet. It remained intact till recent times. The perma frost under it is breaking up and it is melting.

Noco, some of this icemelt has been intact for 800,000 years. Did not think I would need to bother with stuff that even school children are aware of.

Things are happening this time before our eyes which show, we have a problem

I can see you just don't want to accept what I have given you because you have your mind set otherwise....

Go to Google and see for yourself.

I cannot be bothered arguing anymore with somebody who will not accept the reality of history over continued false repetitive information put out on a daily basis.....

If you would only get off your bum and take a cruise to Glacier Bay off the Alaskan Coast you WIIL see with your own eyes...You will note...WOW..they are the same photos the Greens have been using for propaganda on Climate Change.....LOOK.....THE ICE IS MELTING....Of course the ice is falling into the sea as Glaciers are moving all the time.

Have you ever been to Alaska?

 

[noco]

Arctic temps


View attachment 66699

Here we go again....another pretty rainbow chart to catch the eye...very clever

 

[basilio]

No it doesn't have to be complicated at all.

There are things that are known to be true.

There are things that are known to be untrue.

There are also things that are unknown and/or uncertain.

There are things that are believed or opined to be either, true, untrue unknown and/or uncertain.

There is a difference between reality and opinion of reality.

To assert that something claimed to be true by a select few, must be considered true unless detractors can prove otherwise, is simply deflecting the burden of proof away from where it truly belongs.

I only made 2 points Cynic

1) The temperature on earth has gone up very rapidly (by geological standards) in the past 50-80 years
2) The view of the vast majority of CC scientists is that Greenhouse Gases are the current major driver of this temp increase

The first statement is empirical. For evidence we have the temperature records around the world . Of course that doesn't stop a number of people trying to say these records are cooked/ manipulated/part of a conspiracy.

The second statement is clearly not empirical. There are a number of drivers of Climate Change. The last 40 years of climate research has added enormously to our understanding of the earths climate systems.

Clearly we don't know everything. And what we think we know could change. But at the present time and with the present information excessive GG are seen as the driver of the present warming.

We can wait for absolute certainty - or we can act on what we currently understand. In any case moving to a clean, renewable energy based society is a no regrets strategy.

 

[wayneL]

The dots have already been joined by the professional bodies wayne, who say that CC is unequivocal. I couldn't be bothered going back to find the statement that I posted by the American Meteorological Society to that effect , but I'm sure you can find it in this thread if you cared to look.

Okay I'm going to repeat myself for the 484,764,145,036th time.

I agree that climate change is unequivocal. As skeptics keep reiterating, climate changes. I also agree that current changes are showing a warming trend, have done so since the end of the little ice age, also unequivocal IMO.

I also agree there have been anthropogenic factors in said change,

However I don't agree with the Apocalypse fantasists who promote some worst case scenario. I believe that climate science is not conducted honestly or fairly, that scientists MUST have pro CAGW hypotheses to gain funding for research.

I am also deeply suspicious of the retrospective adjustment of temperature records which always miraculously increase the temperature trend.

I also believe there are political and/or mercantile motives in exaggerating the warming trend.

I am more concerned about general pollution and environmental degradation than co2 (which I do not consider a pollutant) emissions. However the two often go hand in hand and therefore support renewable engery technologies, so long as we aren't robbing Peter to pay Paul; IOW supplanting one time of pollution with another such as is the case with Toyota Pious' et al.

Pielke Snr has a great summary here:https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress....tive-on-the-role-of-humans-in-climate-change/

Roger A. Pielke Sr.’s Perspective On The Role Of Humans In Climate Change
There continues to be misunderstandings on my viewpoint on the role of humans within the climate system. This weblog is written to make sure it is clear, and can be used whenever someone asks the question as to where does Pielke Sr. stand on this issue.

As I have written in the Main Conclusions of Climate Science

“Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate.”

and that

“Attempts to significantly influence regional and local-scale climate based on controlling CO2 emissions alone is an inadequate policy for this purpose.”

These conclusions are different from those who claim that the global average radiative effect of carbon dioxide is by far the major human climate forcing, as well as from those who conclude that natural climate variations dominate climate change and that the human climate forcings are inconsequential.

My viewpoint is also well articulated in

National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp

and you are encouraged to read the Executive Summary of that report [a report which whas been ignored by the media despite its broad base of authorship and its extensive review before it was published].

The reason that those who focus on the global average radiative forcing of carbon dioxide are missing the bulk of human climate forcings include the following:

1. Atmosphere and ocean circulations respond to regional forcings not a global average (e.g., see and see)

2. The other human climate forcings include

the diverse influence of human-caused aerosols on regional (and global) radiative heating (e.g., see).
the effect of aerosols on cloud and precipitation processes (e.g., see)
the influence of aerosol deposition on climate (e.g., see and see)
the effect of land cover/land use on climate (e.g., see and see)
the biogeochemical effect of added atmosopheric CO2 has a greater effect on the climate system than the radiative effect of added CO2 (e.g. see).
Natural climate variations and change, have also been underestimated (and are only poorly understood) based on examination of the historical and paleo-climate record (e.g., see and see).

Human climate forcings have a more significant role in altering the weather than does a global average increase in the radiative effect of an increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2. This does not mean that we should not work to limit the increase of this gas in the atmosphere, but it is not the dominant climate forcing that affects society and the environment.

Policies that focus on CO2 by itself are ignoring definitive research results (such as reported in the 2005 National Research Council report) that humans have a much broader influence on the climate system than was communicated in the 2007 IPCC report. To neglect these other climate forcings represents a failure by policymakers (and the media) to utilize this scientifically robust information.

The neglect of including the diversity of human climate forcings indicates that the real objective of those promoting the radiative effect of the addition of atmospheric CO2 as the dominant human climate forcing is to promote energy and lifestyle changes. Their actual goal is not to develop effective climate policies.

As far as the meteorological and other science bodies go, their statements do not reflect the spectrum of views of their membership and are more or less politically imperative in order to gaurantee funding.

 

[Tisme]

NASA article. Not sure if NASA have reason to fake data, but I found this interesting:

Evidence of Arctic Warming

Comiso’s new study presents some striking trends. When compared to longer- term, ground-based surface temperature data, the rate of warming in the Arctic from 1981 to 2001 is eight times larger than the rate of Arctic warming over the last 100 years. There have also been some remarkable seasonal changes. Arctic spring, summer, and autumn have each warmed, lengthening the seasons when sea ice melts by 10 to 17 days per decade. Temperatures increased on average by almost one and a quarter (1.22) degrees Celsius (C) per decade over sea ice in the Arctic summer. Conversely, Arctic winters cooled from the 1980s to the 1990s. The study finds that winters were almost 1 (0.89) degree C cooler per decade.

There's even a colour chart for Noco to admonish and play Perry Mason with

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/arctic_ice3.php

 

[noco]

NASA article. Not sure if NASA have reason to fake data, but I found this interesting:

Evidence of Arctic Warming




There's even a colour chart for Noco to admonish and play Perry Mason with

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/arctic_ice3.php

100years Phsst!!!!!!

Go back 1000 years it was a lot warmer then than it is today.

Yeah...pretty charts can be set up by anyone who is computer savvy...more manipulation of the truth..... .so long as the Greenies catch the eye.....That is main objective and you must admit they look very impressive even though the degrees are graded in minute increases.....It does not even mention who set up that computer chart.

 

[Tisme]

100years Phsst!!!!!!

Go back 1000 years it was a lot warmer then than it is today.

.

I must admit I'm having trouble understanding that statement. It could well qualify why Europeans decided to go crackers with war games, including 1066, but from what I've read we are in new territory since man invented fire.

Karl Kruszelnicki was on ABC radio last week, in his usual timeslot, and far from being alarmist he simply pointed out that as the climate heats up we will migrate to the poles at great cost/profit and adapt, albeit with a crap lifestyle and drastic population reduction. Apparently the equatorial band was uninhabitable millions of years ago, which must have been before the great migrations.

I have tended to limit my source info to scientific organs, although I think Newscorp now has direct influence over National Geographic? so that will probably degenerate into a propaganda pulp to be lapped up by lesser breeds.

 

[noco]

I must admit I'm having trouble understanding that statement. It could well qualify why Europeans decided to go crackers with war games, including 1066, but from what I've read we are in new territory since man invented fire.

Ah yes.....1066 ...William Cromwell.....I remembered that one from British history at school.....Just can't remember his significance.....Guess I will have to google it.

 

[Tisme]

Ah yes.....1066 ...William Cromwell.....I remembered that one from British history at school.....Just can't remember his significance.....Guess I will have to google it.

Orange

 

[noco]

Orange

http://www.hrp.org.uk/discover-the-palaces/monarchs/william-i/

:topic



r 1066-87

Famous for invading England in 1066

‘The Conquerer’ was the Duke of Normandy in Northern France. He defeated and killed King Harold II at the Battle of Hastings. His descendents have ruled England ever since.
William I at the Tower

To conquer England, William and the Normans built castles at strategic sites. One of the most important was the Tower of London. Although not completed until after his death, the credit for the White Tower and the choice of site belong to William the Conqueror.

Known to us now as 'The Conqueror' William was known as ‘William the Bastard’, before he conquered England, as his parents, Duke Robert ‘the Devil’ of Normandy and Herleve, the daughter of a tanner from Falaise, were not married.

The next Monarch to have a significant impact on the Tower was Henry III.

 

[SirRumpole]

As far as the meteorological and other science bodies go, their statements do not reflect the spectrum of views of their membership and are more or less politically imperative in order to gaurantee funding.

Sounds reasonable wayne. As to the representation of the members of professional bodies supporting or opposed to CC, that will always be variable in a system that is not capable of experimental validation.

If professional bodies make official policy statements I think we have to assume that it represents the majority of their members. This may change over time if new evidence is collected, but I think that the current pace of increasing temperatures will convert the sceptics rather than lead to increased scepticism.

If you are implying that professional bodies are altering data in order to get funding, that's a serious charge which requires more evidence than just your opinion.

 

[noco]

If professional bodies make official policy statements I think we have to assume that it represents the majority of their members.

.

ASSUME

It makes an ass out of you and me.