Climate change another name for Weather

2020hindsight · 29 December 2008

Incidentally, here's IPCC's website of FAQ's :-
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faqIndex.html

example :-
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-6.1.html
Frequently Asked Question 6.1
What Caused the Ice Ages and Other Important Climate
Changes Before the Industrial Era?

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-8.1.html
Frequently Asked Question 8.1
How Reliable Are the Models Used to Make Projections
of Future Climate Change?

There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation).

Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.

... Models are routinely and extensively assessed by comparing their simulations with observations of the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and land surface. Unprecedented levels of evaluation have taken place over the last decade in the form of organised multi-model ‘intercomparisons’. Models show significant and increasing skill in representing many important mean climate features, such as the large-scale distributions of atmospheric temperature, precipitation, radiation and wind, and of oceanic temperatures, currents and sea ice cover. etc

2020hindsight · 29 December 2008

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-5.1.html

Frequently Asked Question 5.1
Is Sea Level Rising?

Yes, there is strong evidence that global sea level gradually rose in the 20th century and is currently rising at an increased rate, after a period of little change between AD 0 and AD 1900. Sea level is projected to rise at an even greater rate in this century. The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion of the oceans (water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice due to increased melting.

Global sea level rose by about 120 m during the several millennia that followed the end of the last ice age (approximately 21,000 years ago), and stabilised between 3,000 and 2,000 years ago. Sea level indicators suggest that global sea level did not change significantly from then until the late 19th century. The instrumental record of modern sea level change shows evidence for onset of sea level rise during the 19th century. Estimates for the 20th century show that global average sea level rose at a rate of about 1.7 mm /yr.

Satellite observations available since the early 1990s provide more accurate sea level data with nearly global coverage. This decade-long satellite altimetry data set shows that since 1993, sea level has been rising at a rate of around 3 mm yr−1, significantly higher than the average during the previous half century. Coastal tide gauge measurements confirm this observation, and indicate that similar rates have occurred in some earlier decades.

Garpal Gumnut · 29 December 2008

Garpal Gumnut said:
There is so much publication bias out there that I wouldn't have the time to sift through it all.

Reason is the first filter I use.

I then discount all normal curves and graphs. They are crap, not enough info.

Mandelbrot and Taleb I listen to.

This guy in the UK Daily Telegraph is as believable as anything else I've seen.

My lighting up a Cohiba in my Monaro is less danger to the earth than these jokers with their particle colliders in Switzerland.

gg

2020hindsight said:
Incidentally, here's IPCC's website of FAQ's :-
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faqIndex.html

example :-
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-6.1.html
Frequently Asked Question 6.1
What Caused the Ice Ages and Other Important Climate
Changes Before the Industrial Era?

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-8.1.html
Frequently Asked Question 8.1
How Reliable Are the Models Used to Make Projections
of Future Climate Change?

2020hindsight said:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-5.1.html

Because you are part of my NY resolutions I'll go through these.

Graphs !!

gg

roland · 29 December 2008

I reckon some of the ocean rise is due to all the additional inbound cosmic debris, cosmic dust, meteor showers etc - if this all gets washed into the sea it's going to cause it to rise.

Also the additional Sun Spot activity that's been going on is like we've been placed in the path of a microwave oven with the door open. All that sub atomic radiation and photons pouring in are going to heat up our oceans like a tin of soup.

Garpal Gumnut · 29 December 2008

roland said:
I reckon some of the ocean rise is due to all the additional inbound cosmic debris, cosmic dust, meteor showers etc - if this all gets washed into the sea it's going to cause it to rise.

Also the additional Sun Spot activity that's been going on is like we've been placed in the path of a microwave oven with the door open. All that sub atomic radiation and photons pouring in are going to heat up our oceans like a tin of soup.

agree mate.

gg

Knobby22 · 30 December 2008

roland said:
I reckon some of the ocean rise is due to all the additional inbound cosmic debris, cosmic dust, meteor showers etc - if this all gets washed into the sea it's going to cause it to rise.

Also the additional Sun Spot activity that's been going on is like we've been placed in the path of a microwave oven with the door open. All that sub atomic radiation and photons pouring in are going to heat up our oceans like a tin of soup.

Except the amount of cosmic dust etc. is miniscule and we are in a phase at present where the sunspot activity is very low meaning the earth should be cooling.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7824

wayneL · 30 December 2008

rederob said:
And that's after again debunking the nonsense that comes from Monckton.

You what? LOL

If Monckton is debunked, and I accept there may be some small parts of his case which may need work, then the IPCC case is rendered as fairytale... religion, as the entire thing is pure fantasy with some few part truths thrown in to confuse the plebs and politicians.

Ah'm oot.

wayneL · 30 December 2008

explod said:
Anything out of the UN is suspect for a start,

Explod,

You just trashed your own argument. The IPCC is part of the UN.

Are you now going to be cognitively biased and believe one part of the UN is suspect, while the other isn't?

Hmmmmmmmm

LOL

wayneL · 30 December 2008

Please read this article http://newsbusters.org/node/13698

2020hindsight · 30 December 2008

I'll finish reading this first if you don't mind.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/

ok - your post is relevant - I'll check it out as well.

1.1 mm per year? That means that if this were to continue for 1000 years, sea levels would be 1.1 meters higher. Doesn’t sound very catastrophic, does it?

ok - let's look at 1m rise :-
To say that 1m is not catastrophic is a nonsense.
(EVEN IF it's not accelerating , possibly 3mm per year at the moment)

I dare someone to say that to people who are barely getting enough fresh water now on some small Pacific Island. - throw in a storm surge every now and then because the water temp is increasing - sheesh

Calliope · 30 December 2008

wayneL said:
Please read this article http://newsbusters.org/node/13698

The IPCC "science" is under attack from many quarters for their use of suspect modelling and ignoring observation. However attacks on the validity of their findings are largely unreported in the media.

The alarmists feel they are ahead while they have the hearts and minds of liberal politicians and the mainly liberal media, especially in America.

Likewise the alarmists on this thread are trying to convert nonbelievers by a combination of sheer volume and browbeating.

They have done this for 45 pages. Have they made any conversions? What is their political agenda?

wayneL · 30 December 2008

2020

Firstly, I can say with certainty that you cannot take a 200 year trend and extrapolate it out for the next 1000. AGW or not, natural CC factors will change this trend. Seal levels may accelerate due to natural factors, or they may indeed even fall.

We don't know.

There is some evidence that the sea level was higher than now, during the medieval warm period.

Furthermore, there are tectonic plate movements to consider. eg Great Britain is tipping. Southern England is sinking giving the impression of rising sea levels whilst Northern Scotland is rising, giving the impression of falling sea levels.

This is indeed the type of factor responsible for the low island inundation that alarmist try to foist on a trusting an naive public as anthropogenic sea level rises. (dishonest bastards!)

In 1000 years a whole bunch of things cold change.

The whole thing with sea level changes as indicated is that it is manageable because of the long time frames, as opposed to the ludicrous and fictitious prognostications of unmanageable sea level changes in decades of the climate alarmists.

Hence, your alarm over an extrapolated 1 meter rise over a millennium is kind of amusing.

2020hindsight · 30 December 2008

ok wayne
the arctic ice isn't melting (as you've posted many times)
the polar bears aren't in distress ( ditto)
the seas aren't rising to any significant degree (ditto)
nor are they warming ( ditto)

the IPCC are a mob of lying bastards,

and the representatives of Exxon etc who proclaim "all's well folks" - "don't bother to invent new technologies - you're happy with petrol guzzlers right ?" - are all honourable men ..

and btw, David Suzuki is obviously an idiot , because he wants politicians who ignore global warming to be held legally responsible. - and btw also - he's a bit closer to the polar bears than you are.

wayneL · 30 December 2008

2020hindsight said:
ok wayne
the arctic ice isn't melting (as you've posted many times)

I've never said that. I've said that it probably is not anthropogenic. But the warming trend may be reversing.

the polar bears aren't in distress ( ditto)

Correct

the seas aren't rising to any significant degree (ditto)

They have been rising since the little ice age but show no acceleration due to A. factors

nor are they warming ( ditto)

el nino/el nina

the IPCC are a mob of lying bastards,

Absolutely

and the representatives of Exxon etc who proclaim "all's well folks" - "don't bother to invent new technologies - you're happy with petrol guzzlers right ?" - are all honourable men ..

Back to your disgusting misrepresentation of my views again. You are a lying **** over this. Time to stop that and grow up.

and btw, David Suzuki is obviously an idiot , because he wants politicians who ignore global warming to be held legally responsible.

Yes

2020hindsight · 30 December 2008

well the good news wayne is that what I believe doesn't matter
and the way things are trending
what you believe matters even less.

wayneL · 30 December 2008

2020hindsight said:
well the good news wayne is that what I believe doesn't matter
and the way things are trending
what you believe matters even less.

Another trivial and puerile statement. Honestly, I can have a more mature conversation with my 13 year old nephew.

Unbelievable!

The real good news is that there are folks interested in sustainability who have the intelligence to look past the false AGW political ruse and focus on current, real and measurable issues.

The bad news is that there are not enough of us at this point, folks having been distracted by the UN IPCC brownshirts.

rederob · 30 December 2008

wayneL said:
Please read this article http://newsbusters.org/node/13698

And your point is?

By the way, Morner appears to have only ever presented his Maldives findings at a 2003 INQUA Conference, where many hundreds of scholarly papers were presented. Several papers covering sea levels in much broader detail arrived at conclusions indicating sea levels were increasing both in quantum and rate in the 20th century. It's difficult to find any recent peer reviewed papers from Morner on sea levels.
Although there is debate on the levels and rates of sea levels changes in the scientific community, the consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of rises carrying through for decades to come.

Oh, I forgot to add, satellites that ultimately confirmed the hole in the ozone layer had "missed" the data for about 10 years - because the software appears to have overriden the information as anomalous. The data was always there: Just nobody expected it to be accurate.

ColB · 30 December 2008

Originally posted by Calliope:

"The IPCC "science" is under attack from many quarters for their use of suspect modelling and ignoring observation. However attacks on the validity of their findings are largely unreported in the media.

The alarmists feel they are ahead while they have the hearts and minds of liberal politicians and the mainly liberal media, especially in America.

Likewise the alarmists on this thread are trying to convert nonbelievers by a combination of sheer volume and browbeating.

They have done this for 45 pages. Have they made any conversions? What is their political agenda?"

45 pages of dialogue – WayneL Vs 2020 Hindsight & Rederob and where are we at?

I believe that whilst mankind may obviously contribute to climate change, global warming or whatever title you want to give it, it would be interesting to know how much in terms of percentage we are actually responsible for and how much is simply the phenomenon of changing weather patterns.

Given the extremes of climate change over thousands of years, I’d think whatever is coming our way in the next thousand years will be rather difficult to have much influence over.

It is obvious that there is so much contradiction in scientific studies/reports as to what if any climate changes are taking place as a result of direct human cause. And as has been said before on this thread, depending on the bonafides of who conducts the study, who reports the study, what is left out of the study, most of us would not know what is possibly factually correct anyway.

My view could be considered rather simplistic but at the same time I would be very interested to hear what the likes of 2020 & Rederob believe can be done to avert this alleged looming problem without impacting to any great extent on the global economy.

Maybe those suggestions should be the topic of another thread but this thread appears to be a in a bit of a stalemate.

Garpal Gumnut · 30 December 2008

It has been a very humid day in Townsville, its been bucketing down rain for the past few hours and getting humid again now its stopped.

I can hear thunder in the distance.

I've never seen so many geckos in my life.

They like this weather!!

gg

wayneL · 30 December 2008

ColB said:
Maybe those suggestions should be the topic of another thread but this thread appears to be a in a bit of a stalemate.

We just like a blue. :

ColB said:
I would be very interested to hear what the likes of 2020 & Rederob believe can be done to avert this alleged looming problem without impacting to any great extent on the global economy.

I await will baited breath for the answer to this one.

Climate change another name for Weather

2020hindsight

2020hindsight

Attachments

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

roland

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

Knobby22

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

2020hindsight

Attachments

Calliope

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

2020hindsight

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

2020hindsight

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

rederob

ColB

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Climate change another name for Weather

Attachments

Ross Island Hotel

Ross Island Hotel

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Attachments

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Ross Island Hotel

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency