This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Climate change another name for Weather

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to new
We're all experts Basilio
 
wayneL said:
There is one thing missing from your hypothesis... THE SCIENCE.

Where's the science linking recent cold weather with melting ice and not solar activity and/or La Niña.

Let's get real eh?
Click to expand...

The science is in the actual examination of core samples of Antartic ice which show that the ice level has melted to areas that have been covered for many millions of years. Actual scientifically examined and handled from location to laboritory. And did you read the authentic notes to it in the book quoted. Unfortunately my own copy has been lent on and not returned. Library should have it. Or s/h on google.

The science to recent activitiy is not yet available as you would well know. And La nina is a right wing description of global warming efffects, created to confuse the sheeple, and it does.

Used to be right into this stuff years ago, too busy now stirring up sketptics to reality.
 
In other words - pure speculation based on.... nothing.

...and la nina is a right wing invention? WAHAHAHAHAHAHA Google it.
 

Yes, and that standard is requiring evidence that hasn't been "modeled" to obtain a specific result. But I note that you can not dis his analysis.

There are teams of scientists trying to prove young earth creation too. They release research "proving" it all the time. That doesn't mean some intelligent person can't come along and rightfully punch holes through the faulted logic and fraudulent science.

My standards are apparently... in fact are, higher than your standards, on a number of levels.
 
OK I thought Roger Pielke (an honest broker and real scientist) would comment on this matter sooner or later.

Pielke is in the pro AGW camp, but but does not abide by the junk science spewed forth by muppets on the funding gravy train. He has my full respect.

http://climatesci.org/2009/01/21/fo...dy-antarctica-joins-rest-of-globe-in-warming/

 
There is more discussion on the the Nature report on the warming of Antarctica.

A couple of the co-authors have addressed some of the interpretations that have been made by Roger and others.

Main points are quoted below. The remainder of the discussion is at Real climate.


http://www.realclimate.org/
 
wayneL said:
In other words - pure speculation based on
Click to expand...

Cunningly you continue to ignore the solid facts and attack the asides. The results of the core sample testing were concluded (and documented) back in the mid 1990s. They prove that the effect/impact of co2 on the icepacks has been unprecedented in millions of years. And I have quoted the source and anyone earnestly interested would check it out.

I get the feeling that you are not. But unless you do, you cannot rubbish the research in this instance.
 

The warmeners in ABC Radio have now gone so far as to censor any expert who dares to question the GW "science".

Bill Kinnimoth from the CSIRO had parts of the transcript and a podcast censored by the ABC following an interview on ABC Radio.

He disagreed with the godbothering like orthodoxy as delivered via scientists and aunty, so they censor him.

What a great democracy we live in.

http://www.blogotariat.com/item/mod...ng-and-editor-removes-comment-climate-sceptic


gg
 
Except that the audio of the interview with Kininmonth is now available on the ABC AM website http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2471659.htm, and Kininmonth says that he hasn't read the Nature paper in detail. The AM piece is about the paper and it's entirely appropriate to exclude comments from someone, even an expert, who hasn't read it. I should think Kininmonth himself would have preferred to wait till he'd done a detailed analysis.

Ghoti
 

Its heartening to know that the ABC monitor ASF and respond quickly when they are caught out.

A good outcome.

gg
 
From the US Senate committee on Environment and Public works:

Scientists, Data Challenge New Antarctic ‘Warming’ Study

‘It is hard to make data where none exist’

Comprehensive Data Round Up Debunks New Antarctic ‘Estimate of Temperature Trends’

MR EXPLOD,


All I want is some science, where is this source you speak of?... provide a flipping link that supports your hypothesis and how it relates to recent cold weather.Then you can stop the revolting attempted character assassination.

It seems you warmers can't debate anything without playing the man. It's vile. (actually it usually means the hypothesis is collapsing, which in this case, it most certainly is)
 
Wow! You guys really don't believe in global warming! This is amazing!

Aussie Stocks Forums - meet - Fox News! Hannity wins! OMG it's worse than I thought.

Are you all seriously contending that the major world countries are deluding themselves, wasting billions of dollars no-one has any more, to right a crisis that doesn't exist?
 

And exactly what is wrong with choosing to believe exactly what you want to believe Lucas ??? Lots of Very Important People, businessmen ( funnily enough many in coal and oil) , many politicians, Fox reporters, just believe - with every dollar in their pocket- that we can grow our way out of everything. They believe that Global warming is a self serving myth of thousands of scientists with their snouts in the public trough. That the ice is not melting (that much ) and anyway whatever is happening we are not responsible .

This was particularly well summed up by a senior Bush advisor who noted that a particular writer belonged to the "reality-based community" which the advisor said "believed that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality ".

But that was no longer true because "we're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality"

This is the real, delusional world Lucas. And yes Aussie Stock Forum proudly has its own intellectual giants who will insist to the last post on the centerpiece of creating a more comfortable reality - global warming denial.

By the way did you see the story from Jonathan Schell on Barack Obama in The Age ? I pinched the above excerpt re the Bush advisor from the article. The rest is just the ravings of a madman who wants Barack to tackle real problems with real solutions.....

http://www.theage.com.au/world/cometh-the-man-of-hope-20090123-7ood.html?page=-1
 
Basilio,

Actually, the group deepest into denial, are the global warming alarmists.

What have the AGWers got? A computer model that doesn't work. That's it. It's OK to have a model and to hypothesize over scenarios, but where they fall down is that they preach it as fact.

Sorry mate, real world observation, AKA "fact", trumps a computer model every time. The observable facts are that the IPCC model is not working, it has failed, miserably and utterly to be predictive of anything it is attempting to model; from air temperatures at various atmospheric levels, ice levels at the poles, ocean temps... everything.

AGWers have even taken to destruction of their own model via fiascos such as the current Antarctic temperature farce. It's laughable.

Take for instance the denial of the warmers that solar activity has nothing to do with warming/colling trends, but when activity decreases.... SHAZAM! The world goes into a cool phase just like now. They then try to say that melting ice caps are causing the cooling, 'cept the arctic ice cap is having an uptick at the moment, ice is increasing since 2007. Antarctic ice has always been increasing since satellite records have been taken. Haha, scratch that theory.

The problem with the warmers is that they don't like reading ALL the science. I will readily accept that non-warmers do the same, but there are a few who do, such as Roger Pielke(a pro warmer) - and they have serious challenges with how junk science is being used by Al bore and the IPCC.

In other words in the real world, anthropogenic CO2 increasesmay have some affect on climate, but if it does, it is minor and other natural forcings are more influential.

As it stands AGW is not a proven fact.

It is not even a theory.

It is a hypothesis only.

The world is right to study it and should reduce fossil fuel use anyway for other reasons such as hydrocarbon and soot pollution etc and energy security.

But to convert it to a neat little political tool of fear and control is quite another matter. This will in the long term will be counterproductive for the environment. Folks are waking up to the fraud/ruse and are rejecting all environmental arguments as a consequence (as I predicted).

Lucas,

That is the truth of the matter and if you take notice the warmers, because of a dearth of credible scientific argument, must resort to ad hominem insults, straw man arguments, appeal to authority and other glaring logical fallacies that in the cold light of day, just don't stand up scientifically.

There are straight out "deniers" but these are no worse than the farcical Al Bore movie that is about as scientifically accurate as Bruce Willis' "Armageddon". Both movies are great entertainment, but nothing more.
 
I originally entered this debate with a constructive approach to the discussion. I took a lot of care to research and explain how CO2 warms the atmosphere and that increasing the amount of CO2 will hold more and more heat.

Moving on we now have 40 years of clear evidence that the earth is warming. This is the proof of the theory. This evidence has been sufficient to convince the vast majority of scientists working in the field that we face a situation that requires immediate, huge reductions in CO2 emissions if we are to have any chance of of avoiding changes to our climate that would destroy the habits of millions of species - and obviously us as well.

One of the other critical conversations was examining the background of the people who posed the most critical responses to the work of scientists. I showed that a substantial part of this criticism was simply created by advertising agencies on behalf of firstly tobacco and then fossil fuel companies. So why would you give such sources any credence?

The response has been short and swift. All these scientists are on a GW gravy train. The world is not warming, the ice is not melting, and if there is any climate change it certainly isn't caused by human produced CO2.

And anything that is written on the topic by The Guardian, New Scientist, or god forbid George Monbiot, is rubbish. (Somehow the fact that all the information on the source of GW criticism came from the perpetrators was overlooked..)

And for God's sake stop taking up so much space....

I don't think it's possible to rationally discuss this topic with that range of responses.

There is no suggestion that the whole story of GW is simple. There are many factors. But what is certain is that one factor, the extra CO2 emission which we are largely responsible for, is currently destroying the habitability of our earth. Ignoring it or denying it or rubbishing the messengers won't change the reality. That's why I brought up Jonathan Schells extremely powerful argument on the delusions our current political system accepts particularly during the recent 8 years of Bush presidency.

The science on GW is nuanced. If anyone takes the trouble to go to RealClimate.org the can judge for themselves the toing and froing that takes place on each piece of research. I've posted a simple example in relation to the discussion of the paper which examined warming in the Antarctic.

 
I've challenged Wayne numerous times to support some of the links he posts, to no avail.
Roger Pielke who is a good scientist, is also a not picker - which has merit in some instances. However, he's not enamored by CO2 forcing arguments and puts more faith in sea temperature and other anthropogenic factors. Pielke also argues strongly in favour of more localised forecasting needs, and more localised climate change responses.
Pielke's approach has some interesting pitfalls. First, he knows that IPCC models are not predictive of local climate, but he has no solution: Knowing full well that only meteorological models have a predictive capacity for the very near term. In other words, the probability of a weather prediction being significantly different than forecast a week in advance, is high.
While ocean temperatures clearly have an important role to play in weather, and in climate for several years ahead, radiative forcings from greenhouse gases have a long term "magnifying" effect. That is, irrespective of any other influences, if the proportion of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere continues to increase, the troposphere will, on average, continue to get hotter.
Climate change deniers who hark on about the shortcomings of IPCC models, or modelling per se, are simply clutching at straws on the "forcings" front.
And Wayne, who places great faith on the area of sea ice at the poles, continues to overlook the importance of ice volumes.
I won't get into the Antarctic debate. I understand how the scientists proxied data to arrive at their conclusions. The fact is that without actual temperature records (which some would want to challenge anyway) at the locations they proxied, we will never know if they were right or wrong.
 
Rederob,

Why should I support the links I post. You don't, and nor should you. Science should support itself and be able to counter objections on its own merit.

The problem is that warmers don't appreciate valid objections nor countering science (appreciating that some objection is rubbish). Instead warmers as a group resort to tearing down personal credibility of dissenters via the tactics in my post immediately prior to this one.

E.g. Basilio, while taking on a thin veneer of reasonableness, subtly continues with this same logically fallacious agenda of dodging the big science picture and focuses on character assassination. Meanwhile, the vested interests of his own lobby is glossed over and ignored. If you look closely, he even contradicts his own logic

In the end, what's real is real. The reality is not conforming to the model, therefore the model should be discarded. It's rubbish.
 
wayneL said:
In the end, what's real is real. The reality is not conforming to the model, therefore the model should be discarded. It's rubbish.
Click to expand...
In the end, what is real is a warming earth.
To which climate change deniers find more and more creative ways of obfuscating.
In the end, I support the links I post.
Your denial of that is unsurprising given the lack of credibility of much you post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...