Fake News - Global Warming Consensus

[Sdajii]

I would agree totally. I have and others have discussed and when your talking about irrefutable evidence, or chemical reactions, that are denied, disputed and ignored.

Again, this is untrue. If you're not going to even try to discuss the topic, please just stop talking. You keep making claims like this without even relating it to anything specific.

 

[basilio]

Sjajii you show absolutely no xxxxing clue about the consequences of global warming as evidenced by facts on the ground and the research by thousands of scientists around the world.

You seem to be saying that CC is real but in your view a third or fourth order problem after pollution or land use or whatever else you can throw up.

You also are saying you don't accept the work of climate scientists becasue you see them as inherently biased. You suggest that somehow they are just exaggerating the issue to ensure continual grants and justify unnecessary efforts to reduce CO2 emissions.

The reality on the ground destroys these statements. Just picking three issues as examples.

1) The effect of ocean warming on coral reefs around the world is devastating. It will only get much worse
2) The rapidly increasing temperatures in the Arctic and Antarctic regions is accelerating ice melt at an exponential rate. The effects of this melting on our oceans, weather systems and coastlines will be earth changing
3) The change in climate conditions caused by weakening of the jet stream by CC has resulted in extreme weather events around the world.

These are not consequences of a third or fourth order problem.

 

[Sdajii]

Sjajii you show absolutely no xxxxing clue about the consequences of global warming as evidenced by facts on the ground and the research by thousands of scientists around the world.

This is a silly, clearly emotionally-driven statement.

You seem to be saying that CC is real but in your view a third or fourth order problem after pollution or land use or whatever else you can throw up.

Sure, absolutely positively, land use is a far bigger environmental problem than climate change. How many species have gone extinct because of humans? Zillions. How many because of climate change (whatever you want to say the cause is) - bugger all. However you look at it, climate change is not the biggest threat we face. Again, that doesn't mean it isn't a problem. This isn't even one of the main points I've argued though.

You also are saying you don't accept the work of climate scientists becasue you see them as inherently biased. You suggest that somehow they are just exaggerating the issue to ensure continual grants and justify unnecessary efforts to reduce CO2 emissions.

That's just one point I've made, and you're exaggerating it, but yes, they clearly do have that bias. It takes bizarre and extreme mental gymnastics to justify saying that bias does not exist and to ignore the blatant reality. This is not to say there is zero basis to what climate scientists say, and I believe a version of the story far, far closer to what climate scientists actually say than what most people in this thread believe!

The reality on the ground destroys these statements. Just picking three issues as examples.

1) The effect of ocean warming on coral reefs around the world is devastating. It will only get much worse
2) The rapidly increasing temperatures in the Arctic and Antarctic regions is accelerating ice melt at an exponential rate. The effects of this melting on our oceans, weather systems and coastlines will be earth changing
3) The change in climate conditions caused by weakening of the jet stream by CC has resulted in extreme weather events around the world.

1) You haven't even made a case for this being relevant either to climate change (no, I'm not saying climate change is irrelevant, but you haven't demonstrated that it is the sole or even primary cause, and even if it was, it wouldn't go against what I've said and I'm not arguing with you on this point!).

Speculating about the future is just speculation, and again, even if you're right, you're not even contradicting anything I have said!

2) Again, this doesn't contradict anything I've said. I'm not sure the rate is exponential by the way (I'm not denying it, but I'm not sure it's an exponential rate).

3) Again, this does not contradict anything I have said in any way!

These are not consequences of a third or fourth order problem.

Yes, they most certainly are. Are you really that blind to all the other problems?

If you want to measure it in loss of biodiversity, it clearly, utterly obviously is nowhere near the biggest problem.

If you want to measure it in terms of affect on humans, it clearly, utterly, obviously is not the biggest problem we are dealing with.

You can speculate about the future, and I completely and utterly disagree that it will be the biggest problem in the future either. War and resource shortages will be tremendously more of a problem for humans this century than climate change.

 

[kahuna1]

Sdajii said: ↑
The myth is that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change (some climate scientists do make this claim, some don't, I disagree with the ones which do make that claim, and it is very easy to debunk it. I can go through evidence for this if you wish).

YOU said this .... which even a discussion beyond that point would be .... pointless.
TOTALLY pointless.

We did, I did ...

Acidification through the production of carbonic acid as the ocean absorbs atmospheric CO2 can legitimately be called acidification in my opinion, but you can't correctly say it's becoming more acidic until it actually becomes acidic.

Even English and what it means a falling PH seems to upset you.

Whether or not you want to consider humans to be the primary cause of the current change in climate, and whether or not it is portrayed accurately or it is exaggerated, it is human nature (and indeed the nature of all living things)

You have some weird view it is NOT humans that see the CO2 level for a million years 200 to 280 PPM ... now at 410 PPM and rising faster ... we are not the cause.

Well ... I doubt any scientist disputes this, yet you clearly do.

I again scratch my head as to your strange understanding of even basic science.

 

[Sdajii]

Sdajii said: ↑
The myth is that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change (some climate scientists do make this claim, some don't, I disagree with the ones which do make that claim, and it is very easy to debunk it. I can go through evidence for this if you wish).

YOU said this .... which even a discussion beyond that point would be .... pointless.
TOTALLY pointless.

We did, I did ...






Even English and what it means a falling PH seems to upset you.



You have some weird view it is NOT humans that see the CO2 level for a million years 200 to 280 PPM ... now at 410 PPM and rising faster ... we are not the cause.

Well ... I doubt any scientist disputes this, yet you clearly do.

I again scratch my head as to your strange understanding of even basic science.

You are so emotional, perhaps this is why you have such difficulty seeing the posts rationally.

Throughout the planet's history of billions of years the climate has wildly fluctuated, often at greater rates of change than we presently have (climate scientists all agree with this whether or not you are comfortable accepting that) and CO2 has rarely been the cause.

As for the acid, it's just silly to get so emotional and so fixated on semantics. If this is such a big issue to you, go get some fresh air. Obviously I understand the concepts of pH, I studied chemistry at university, I did well, and trivial semantics don't change basic understanding of the principles of chemistry. Stop being so emotional and obsessed with projecting irrelevant details on to separate issues as though they are relevant or important.

And again, yet again, you misrepresent my words. Obviously humans are the overwhelming cause of the current rise of atmospheric CO2.

In almost literally every post you twist my words and imagine, apparently with genuine belief, that I said or meant something completely different.

 

[kahuna1]

Not emotional

Rational. Follow science, not ... theories ...

How I misrepresent your words when I post in full ... is delusional. Sorry but it is.

Twisting direct quotes is not possible.

 

[HelloU]

Science is pretty sure that there is either 8, or 9, or 12 planets in our solar system.

Try to be nice to others that express a view about science.

 

[kahuna1]

In the case of chemical reactions .... endothermic reactions ... there is no difference if you do it 10 times or a million and even a billion times.

Refuting and disputing measurements, reactions and even reactions, is where we parted ways. and I am being nice.

 

[wayneL]

In the case of chemical reactions .... endothermic reactions ... there is no difference if you do it 10 times or a million and even a billion times.

Refuting and disputing measurements, reactions and even reactions, is where we parted ways. and I am being nice.

In a chaotic system, chaos intervenes.

It's why the BOM can completely f*** up the weather forecast.

 

[Ann]

In a chaotic system, chaos intervenes.

It's why the BOM can completely f*** up the weather forecast.

The hottest summer on record except for the ones that we’ve changed

Jennifer Marohasy

10 March 2019

9:00 AM

This last summer has been hot in south-eastern Australia. But was it the hottest ever? Summer 80 years ago was arguably as hot, if not hotter.

Australia’s Environment Minister, Melissa Price, also recently claimed this summer’s bushfires as a consequence of climate change. I grew up with stories from my late father of terrible bushfires – infernos – back in 1939. The Black Friday firestorm of 13 January 1939 destroyed four times the area of farmland and forest as the devastating February 2009 fires – and twenty times as much as burnt this last summer.

But it is actually now near impossible to know which summer was the hottest ever summer – because of the extensive remodelling of our temperature history.

The extensive remodelling is not denied by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Rather it is justified on the basis that temperatures are now measured using a non-standard method (spot readings) from non-standard equipment (custom built probes in automatic weather stations). Apparently, we need to know how hot it was back then, relative to the equipment used now – so temperature are remodelled. To be clear, there are three factors that potentially confound how hot it was back then – or now: the equipment, how it is used, and the remodelling, which is often referred to as homogenisation.

The largest single change in the new ACORN-SAT Version 2 temperature database is a drop of more than 13 degrees Celsius at the town of Wagga on 27 November 1946.

But let’s begin with Rutherglen. The Rutherglen agricultural research station has one of the longest, continuous, temperature records for anywhere in rural Victoria. Minimum and maximum temperatures were first recorded at Rutherglen using standard and calibrated equipment back in November 1912. Considering the first 85 years of summer temperatures – unadjusted/not homogenized – the very hottest summer on record at Rutherglen is the summer of 1938/1939.

While this last summer of 2018/2019 was hotter according to Minister Price, such a claim would not pass scrutiny if assessed for the Guinness Book of records – because of all the changes to the way temperatures are now measured at Rutherglen relative to back in 1938/1939.

At Rutherglen, the first big change happened 29 January 1998. That is when the mercury and alcohol thermometers were replaced with an electronic probe – custom built to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s own standard, with the specifications still yet to be made public.

According to Bureau policy, when such a major equipment change occurs there should be at least three years (preferably five) of overlapping/parallel temperature recordings, except the mercury and alcohol thermometers (used to measure maximum and minimum temperatures, respectively) were removed on exactly the same day the custom-built probe was placed into the Stevenson screen at Rutherglen, in direct contravention of this policy.

In 2011, the Bureau made further changes in that it stopped averaging one-second readings from the probe at Rutherglen over one minute. The maximum temperature as recorded each day at Rutherglen is now the highest one-second spot reading from the custom-built probe. That is correct – spot reading.

So, to reiterate, we now have a non-standard method of measuring (spot readings) from non-standard equipment (custom-built probes) making it impossible to establish the equivalence of recent temperatures from Rutherglen – or any of the Bureau’s other 695 probes in automatic weather stations spread across the landmass of Australia – with historical data.

Then there is the remodelling – with the most recent remodelling creating Version 2 of ACORN-SAT. This has resulted in an overall 23 per cent increase in the rate of warming between Versions 1 and 2 for the 112 weather stations that comprise ACORN-SAT. This is the database used by the Bureau and the CSIRO to monitor climate change across Australia.

At Rutherglen, a modest rate of warming in the raw maximum temperatures of 0.7 degrees Celsius per Century has been changed to 1.3 degrees Celsius in ACORN-SAT Version 2. Changes to the minimum temperature trend are more dramatic: a slight cooling trend of 0.3 degrees Celsius has been changed to warming of 1.9 degrees in ACORN-SAT Version 2 for Rutherglen.

This remodelling – known as homogenisation – involves the detection of discontinuities and then adjustments which generally result in past temperatures being cooled relative to the present. By cooling the past, present temperatures appear hotter. For example, considering maximum temperatures at Rutherglen, the largest single drop-down (adjustment) to daily temperatures occurs from 1 January 1938 back in time. The Bureau classifies the hot summer of 1938/1939 as a ‘discontinuity’ that is ‘statistical’ in ‘cause’ and then cools all the days before 31 December 1938 by 0.6 degrees Celsius back to 1912 – the beginning of the record.

To repeat, the Bureau does not deny making these changes. Rather it claims such changes to Rutherglen’s temperature history are necessary to show what the temperature would be back then, using today’s equipment. But. There was no actual change in the equipment between versions 1 and 2 of ACORN-SAT for Rutherglen. So, this reason could not actually be considered reasonable.

So why did, for example, the Bureau drop the minimum daily temperatures by a further 2.6 degrees Celsius on the day of the Black Friday bushfire? To be clear, the minimum temperature on the day of the Black Friday bushfire at Rutherglen was measured as 28.3 degrees Celsius. This value is changed to 27.8 degrees Celsius in ACORN-SAT Version 1, a reduction of 0.5 degrees Celsius. In Version 2, the temperature is reduced further, now archived as just 25.7 degrees Celsius for 13 January 1939 – a reduction of 2.6 degrees from the original temperature as actually recorded on that day.

There is a real history of rural Victoria: 71 men and women perished in that bushfire back on 13 January 1939. According to my late father, it was extraordinarily hot.

The Bureau has never put a media release out letting the Australian public know that there is a Version 2 of ACORN-SAT, with even cooler historical temperatures for Rutherglen and most of the rest of Australia than in Version 1 that was only published in 2012.

Just a few years ago, the minister then responsible for the Bureau, Greg Hunt, was claiming that ACORN-SAT Version 1 was the world’s best practice and the correct temperature history of Australia.

Just to the north of Rutherglen is Wagga, and the largest single cooling of any temperature in ACORN-SAT Version 2 was made to this temperature record. Specifically, on 27 November 1946, the minimum temperature of 21 degrees Celsius in ACORN-SAT Version 1 is changed to just 7.6 degrees Celsius in Version 2. This is a drop-down (a cooling of the past) of 13.4 degrees Celsius for a single day.

A temperature probe replaced the mercury and alcohol thermometers at Wagga on 1 November 1996. There was another equipment change on 10 January 2001, when the small Stevenson screen was replaced with a larger screen.

There have been no changes to the site or the equipment since then, since 2001. Yet there is a further overall one-degree increase in the rate of warming at Wagga between the Version 1 (published in 2012) and Version 2 of ACORN-SAT.

Not only does the Bureau somewhat arbitrarily appear to increase the rate of warming, but it also makes-up/invents 32 years of temperature recordings for Wagga Wagga airport.

The first temperatures ever recorded at this official ACORN-SAT bureau weather station (number 072150) were in January 1942. Yet the homogenized ACORN-SAT series for Wagga airport begins on 1 January 1910. This is done by joining the Wagga airport with another temperature series (number 072151), and then homogenising with data from other weather stations including numbers 74114, 73038, 73127, 73019, 72023,72000, 73009, 75028, etcetera. The pattern and trend in temperatures in the homogenized temperature series (ACORN-SAT Versions 1 and 2) for Wagga bear no resemblance to the original temperature measurements.

The remodelling by the Bureau is industrial-scale: this is necessary to generate a consistent global warming trend that does not exist in the raw unhomogenized data.

My late father was eight years old and living not far from Rutherglen on 13 January 1939. He remembered the hot wind blowing from the north-west on that day. I grew up with his memories of that time. My father described hot and hungry years – just as John Steinbeck described farm life in the mid-west of the US in the 1930s in his famous ‘Grapes of Wrath’. There was hardship, and there were dust storms in the US and also in south-eastern Australia.

Indeed, in rural Victoria, the summer of 1938-1939 was on average at least two degrees hotter than anything measured with equivalent equipment since.

Yet Minister Price denies this history – my late father’s history.

There are consequences for future generations in this remodelling. It affects how we understand the relationship between climate and bushfires. Also, by continually reducing past temperatures, there is potential for new record hot days, record hot summers and hottest years for even cooler weather. This is nonsense – consistent with how the Bureau now measures, archives and remodels our temperature history.

Jennifer Marohasy is a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs and blogs at jennifermarohasy.com, where this piece also appears.

Illustration: Bureau of Meteorology.
Ref.

 

[Sdajii]

Not emotional

Rational. Follow science, not ... theories ...

How I misrepresent your words when I post in full ... is delusional. Sorry but it is.

Twisting direct quotes is not possible.

Your posts are clearly emotional. The language you use, your reliance on bold, colour, enlarged text etc, it demonstrates it unambiguously.

It is possible to twist quotes, we see examples all around us every day, and you've repeatedly done so. Even *after* the actual meaning is pointed out you continue to insist on attacking the imagined message, undeterred by having been told that message was formed in your own imagination. This is not rational.

 

[kahuna1]

“Peter Ridd raises almost all of his research funds from the profits of consultancy work which is usually associated with monitoring of marine dredging operation,” his profile noted. The Marine Geophysics Laboratory at JCU has been involved in consulting for a range of coal terminal projects in 2012, funds which go to PhD scholarship and the staff of the MGL. [3], [4]

In January 2018, Ridd launched the website ”Great Barrier Reef Science Commentary” where he has covered a legal case between himself and James Cook University. Ridd has claimed the University is trying to silence him through a censure and then a disciplinary allegation of serious misconduct related to disparaging comments about two institutions linked to JCU - the Australian Institute of marine science and the Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies.

Ridd was featured in the IPA publication “Climate Change: The Facts 2017” in which he wrote that coral is the “least endangered of any ecosystem to future climate change.” [7]

Peter Ridd & The Institute of Public Affairs
The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), a group funded by mining magnate Gina Rinehart and known for opposing policy actions on climate change, has supported Peter Ridd by gathering funds to cover legal costs in the case he filed against JCU. [5]

Ridd is director and scientific coordinator at the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF), a group SourceWatch describes as a front group founded by the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA). Jennifer Marohasy, director of the environment unit at IPA, initially served as AEF's chairwoman. [30], [31]

https://www.desmogblog.com/peter-ridd

 

[kahuna1]

The subject of the pair’s wrath is the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) — the Australian government’s weather bureau.

Specifically, it’s the way the bureau collects and records temperatures.

Marohasy works for the Institute of Public Affairs which, if you want to talk about tentacles, is firmly attached to the body of conservative “free market” groups around the world that deny the risks of human-caused climate change.

Last week, I interviewed former BoM director Rob Vertessy, who described the attacks from a “fever swamp” of climate science denial as being baseless, a waste of time, and dangerous, especially when they’re amplified by Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper The Australian.

https://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4367

Wow what a great source ANNE .... so impartial ... working for a climate denial institute

 

[kahuna1]

DEAD on the current survey.

RIB REEF rip ... 43% ave 41% ave 1990',s 37% 2016 cover to zero in 2019
St Crispin as mentioned DEAD in 2019 ZERO COVER ...
Mackay Reef as mentioned 2019 ZERO COVER ...
Hasting Reef RIP .... 2019 ZERO ... 32% in 2016 if that's any relevance as its DEAD in 2019
Opal 2 reef ... RIP .... 22% cover to ZERO ....
Green Island ... RIP ... 0% ...

Ridd was featured in the IPA publication “Climate Change: The Facts 2017” in which he wrote that coral is the “least endangered of any ecosystem to future climate change.” [7]

Peter Ridd & The Institute of Public Affairs
The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), a group funded by mining magnate Gina Rinehart and known for opposing policy actions on climate change, has supported Peter Ridd by gathering funds to cover legal costs in the case he filed against JCU. [5]

This is the BOM source .... story ... why not invent something else ?

So how did the 6 reefs die .... when this imbecile ... called coral is the “least endangered of any ecosystem to future climate change.” in 2017 ....

in 2019 well 6 are dead and 16 others close to it !!

16 in extreme danger and one at 1% one at 2% ... and this is just a survey of 50 or so reefs of the 350 they cover being done in 2019. So ... sadly ... there will be more !!

Amazing someone cut and pasted Gina Reinhardts wishes ... and Rupert Murdochs Fox views.

 

[wayneL]

Sigh, smear and ad hom.

 

[HelloU]

gotta say, when peeps talk of winters being hotter, then some

In the case of chemical reactions .... endothermic reactions ... there is no difference if you do it 10 times or a million and even a billion times.

Refuting and disputing measurements, reactions and even reactions, is where we parted ways. and I am being nice.

i did (do) not know what that endothermic thing is ...... so i got this understanding from a book:

"Endothermic reactions. An endothermic reaction occurs when the energy used to break the bonds in the reactants is greater than the energy given out when bonds are formed in the products. This means that overall the reaction takes in energy, therefore there is a temperature decrease in the surroundings."

now i am really confused as peeps are talking about the temperature going up due to global warming. This endothermic thing is talking about temperature going down. What am i missing?
is my book description wrong?

 

[kahuna1]

Carbon capture ... endothermic .... Carbon burning exothermic reaction.

Burning captured CO2 via say oil deposits, ancient seas of algae, or coal, ancient compressed vegetation .... trees and plants capturing it ... millions of years ago ... CO2 and energy .... release it ... all at once brilliant people .... burn it ... one is a chemical reaction .... releasing CO2 and the other releases heat and energy, the opposite of what the tress did capturing it.

Simple stuff ... rules by laws of science, not opinions .... chemical reactions and so too laws on the input of energy ... and output of energy ... cannot be exceeded either side.

Tree buried for 50 million years, alive and absorbing CO2 and energy to grow .... lets RELEASE it all at once .... both energy and CO2 .... say a tree ... taking say 50 years to grow, absorb .... before its buried ... now a mere 5 tons of coal ... we can release 50 years of energy and 50 years of CO2 absorption in an eye-blink.

Have fun

 

[HelloU]

Carbon capture ... endothermic .... Carbon burning exothermic reaction.

Burning captured CO2 via say oil deposits, ancient seas of algae, or coal, ancient compressed vegetation .... trees and plants capturing it ... millions of years ago ... CO2 and energy .... release it ... all at once brilliant people .... burn it ... one is a chemical reaction .... releasing CO2 and the other releases heat and energy, the opposite of what the tress did capturing it.

Simple stuff ... rules by laws of science, not opinions .... chemical reactions and so too laws on the input of energy ... and output of energy ... cannot be exceeded either side.

Tree buried for 50 million years, alive and absorbing CO2 and energy to grow .... lets RELEASE it all at once .... both energy and CO2 .... say a tree ... taking say 50 years to grow, absorb .... before its buried ... now a mere 5 tons of coal ... we can release 50 years of energy and 50 years of CO2 absorption in an eye-blink.

Have fun

ahh
that makes more contextual sense, thx

 

[Ann]

For want of a better place I will put this article here. In part it may explain the focus on publishing and promoting more extreme left points of view from academia. I could see why there is currently a focus from the left to create a more left leaning group of young people about to enter academia with promotion of the climate change agenda into their belief system. They need to get a certain mind set into the children to have a chance of political influence once they enter universities and then into the spheres of influence.

Just musing now, perhaps there is a desire in academia for subversion and overthrow of the status quo. Revolution and all that. Seeding the future generation with a political left agenda. Climate Change is merely an entree to a bigger political agenda to overthrow democratically elected governments and head to a more dictatorial agenda. Conspiracy theory? Unlikely IMO, probably more a cyclical thing. Back in the 1980s I read a few economic books by Ravi Batra he talked about the law of social cycle.

' According to Batra (1978), the West is currently in the age of acquisitors, also known as Capitalism. This age succeeded the 'age of intellectuals', which gave birth to the Enlightenment and the British parliamentary system. Before that the West went through the 'age of warriors' and the age of discovery. Feudalism, an earlier 'age of acquisitors', reigned before that. It had replaced the 'age of intellectuals', with restrictions on religious thought and also gave birth to the Renaissance period. Before that, Rome ruled the West under the aegis of warriors.' Ref

He was saying there are four groups of people and we cycle through the spheres of their influence. We have traveled through the Warrior stage, The
Intellectual stage. He suggests we are currently traveling through the Acquisitors stage and coming to the end of that. That leaves the last group of people, the Laborers who are about to take control. So does this mean they will do away with wars, higher learning and wealth? But we will have lots of routine work, waiting tables, collecting trash, and other low-tech, low skill jobs for all? Sounds like something Ray Dalio was describing in the Modern Monetary Theory.

The Leftist Tilt on Campus Has Gotten Dramatically Worse

College professors have long positioned themselves to the political left of the American public. The progressive skew in higher education used to be a stable plurality though. Beginning with the earliest survey data in the 1960s, self-identified left-liberals consistently comprised, on average, about 43 percent of all college professors in the United States. Self-described “moderate” and “conservative” faculty members split the remainder for the next three decades.

Then something changed around the year 2001. The percentage of faculty who identify with the political left began to skyrocket. In the course of under 15 years, left-leaning faculty rose to an outright majority of 60 percent of the professoriate. More..

 

[wayneL]

Re endothermic reactions, the nature of the system is important, ie whether closed or open. This should be taken into consideration.