Page 26 of 52 < 1 2 ... 24 25 26 27 28 ... 51 52 >
Topic Options
#1196572 - 31/05/2013 13:13 Re: Climate Science [Re: Arnost]
Tom1234 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 08/04/2011
Posts: 1709
Loc: Port Stephens

Top
#1196574 - 31/05/2013 13:25 Re: Climate Science [Re: Seabreeze]
Locke Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/12/2007
Posts: 4548
Loc: Brisbane
Lets face facts.

Of the 0.14C per decade increase in global temps in the satellite era, the majority is attributable to volcanic activity early in the satellite era which fortuitously (or unfortuitously) coincided with the onset of significant el-nino events combined with the beginning of the satellite era happening to coincide with the end of a natural phase of cooling stretching from the 40's to the 70's. (negative PDO and AMO).

Measure the trend from the peak of the warm period in the 1940's and you get a trend of only 0.6C per decade which is very similar to what we have been running since exiting the LIA.

If there is an AGW signal it is so small its soemthing that no one needs to concern themselves with.

How Forster and Rhamstorf managed to find 0.14 of warming during the satellite era that is directly attributable to AGW is beyond me. To do so they would have to conclude that any natural cooling during the satellite era has been significantly greater than anything previously seen before the satellite era.

ROFL Climate science at its crappiest.
_________________________
This post and any other post by Locke is NOT an official forecast & should not be used as such. It's just my opinion & may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. For official information, refer to Australian Bureau of Meteorology products.

Top
#1196575 - 31/05/2013 13:26 Re: Climate Science [Re: Seabreeze]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
Ah yes - A Nobel Physicisist is immediately a pseudo scientist if he questions the global warming dogma. Not even the slightest independence of thinking alowed.

[I know I know - so don't bother saying: that can't be allowed coz definitionlly something new could not yet have been peer reviewed (otherwise it would be old) and we know only peer reviewed dogma is science... ] LOL


Edited by Arnost (31/05/2013 13:27)
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#1196577 - 31/05/2013 13:34 Re: Climate Science [Re: Seabreeze]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
You are a very very long way behind the science RtD when you show Mann's completely discredited hockey stick which even the IPCC didn't have a bar of in their last 2007 AR4.

And that graph of the correlation between increasing CO2 and temperatures stops at about 2010 and temps have stagnated and even fallen since around 2000 and thats what CRU data is saying.

Furthermore correlation [ for a period of just 20 years from 1978 to 1998 and since then a slight fall in temperatures] between the increase in CO2 levels and rising global temperatures doesn't at all imply causation.
And all that sort of negates just about everything else you are proposing.
[ how many more times do we have to go through all of this all over again with every new warmista ]

But the science moves on and the real science will eventually be sorted out from the maybe science so we have one brand new theory on the scene in the last few days and it is reported on WUWT with many reservations but it has just as much science validity as the model based only CO2 hypothesis.

Study says global warming caused by CFCs interacting with cosmic rays, not carbon dioxide

Whether this new theory is right or wrong the science will eventually sort out just like it is doing with CO2, the climate model predicted effects of which have been more than halved over the last couple of months and are still being further reduced as time passes to the point where the ever so confidently predicted cataclysmic climate catastrophe from increasing CO2 has been indefinitely postponed due to unfortunate and unpredicted recent developments. [ /sarc ]

And the abstract to the paper;

COSMIC-RAY-DRIVEN REACTION AND GREENHOUSE EFFECT OF HALOGENATED MOLECULES: CULPRITS FOR ATMOSPHERIC OZONE DEPLETION AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

Department of Physics and Astronomy and Departments of Biology and Chemistry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

Quote:
Abstract ;
This study is focused on the effects of cosmic rays (solar activity) and halogen-containing molecules (mainly chlorofluorocarbons—
CFCs) on atmospheric ozone depletion and global climate change. Brief reviews are first given on the cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced-
reaction (CRE) theory for O3 depletion and the warming theory of halogenated molecules for climate change. Then natural and anthropogenic
contributions to these phenomena are examined in detail and separated well through in-depth statistical analyses of comprehensive measured
datasets of quantities, including cosmic rays (CRs), total solar irradiance, sunspot number, halogenated gases (CFCs, CCl4 and HCFCs), CO2,
total O3, lower stratospheric temperatures and global surface temperatures. For O3 depletion, it is shown that an analytical equation derived
from the CRE theory reproduces well 11-year cyclic variations of polar O3 loss and stratospheric cooling, and new statistical analyses of the
CRE equation with observed data of total O3 and stratospheric temperature give high linear correlation coefficients 0.92. After the removal of
the CR effect, a pronounced recovery by 20~25% of the Antarctic O3 hole is found, while no recovery of O3 loss in mid-latitudes has been
observed. These results show both the correctness and dominance of the CRE mechanism and the success of the Montreal Protocol. For global
climate change, in-depth analyses of the observed data clearly show that the solar effect and human-made halogenated gases played the
dominant role in Earth’s climate change prior to and after 1970, respectively. Remarkably, a statistical analysis gives a nearly zero correlation
coefficient (R=0.05) between corrected global surface temperature data by removing the solar effect and CO2 concentration during 1850-1970.
In striking contrast, a nearly perfect linear correlation with coefficients as high as 0.96-0.97 is found between corrected or uncorrected global
surface temperature and total amount of stratospheric halogenated gases during 1970-2012. Furthermore, a new theoretical calculation on the
greenhouse effect of halogenated gases shows that they (mainly CFCs) could alone result in the global surface temperature rise of ~0.6 C in
1970-2002. These results provide solid evidence that recent global warming was indeed caused by the greenhouse effect of anthropogenic
halogenated gases. Thus, a slow reversal of global temperature to the 1950 value is predicted for coming 5~7 decades. It is also expected that
the global sea level will continue to rise in coming 1~2 decades until the effect of the global temperature recovery dominates over that of the
polar O3 hole recovery; after that, both will drop concurrently. All the observed, analytical and theoretical results presented lead to a convincing
conclusion that both the CRE mechanism and the CFC-warming mechanism not only provide new fundamental understandings of the O3 hole
and global climate change but have superior predictive capabilities, compared with the conventional models.


And a couple of graphs from the paper to amuse people or upset people which ever they choose.
Just remember before making any derogatory comments based solely on your own particular brand of scientifically fading CO2 theology, that this is what science is all about.




Top
#1196584 - 31/05/2013 14:20 Re: Climate Science [Re: Seabreeze]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
Updated CO2 vs temp graphs through to April 2013.







One will note the correlation of CO2 vs temp during the 70's to late '90's-2000. Just so happens to be the same period that the whole AGW theory (and that is all it is) took hold.

_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1196616 - 31/05/2013 16:14 Re: Climate Science [Re: Seabreeze]
Roger The Dodger Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 22/05/2013
Posts: 66
I think it might be worthwhile, to declare a ceasefire in the climate war, and perhaps take some time to bury some long held theories.

For those who are truly interested in climate science, may I present to our learned viewers an extensive review of the current state of climate science.

"Solar Influences on Climate"
http://scostep.apps01.yorku.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Gray_etal_2009RG000282.pdf

After reading it, it is my opinion that one of the reasons why these discussions are so passionate, is that everyone is right. So to take the argument to it's simplest level lets ask a few questions.

Does the sun and cosmic rays have an influence on the climate? Most definitely, even the small variations in the 11 year solar cycle can have a dramatic influence, but neither of these have seen a large upward trend over the past 100 years, and over the past 30 years, most studies have shown that the correlation is lost completely. Many studies have also shown that cosmic rays have very little influence, with most of the evidence showing that it is at most 10% of cloud nucleates.

Does man and the production of greenhouse gases have an influence on the climate? Most definitely, satellite measurements and laboratory studies have shown that at present man made greenhouse gases have a total radiative forcing close to 3 Wm2. This might not sound like much, but it has been calculated that about 8 Wm2 is the difference between the climate we have today, and an ice sheet almost 2 km thick over New York. You might also say that this is only a small fraction compared to the solar energy, but we have already seen that the very small difference of the 11 year solar variation has an influence on the climate, the big difference being is that the solar variation waxes and wanes, while the man made greenhouse radiative forcing is constant.



Has global warming paused over the last 17 years? Sure, global average air temperatures has paused, but as we all know the vast percentage of the man made greenhouse gases radiative forcing has been going into the oceans, which has seen a steady increase, and because air has a low thermal inertia, it can be highly variable, both temporally and spatially. There is also a high level of chaos in how the planet reacts with the extra 3 Wm2. That energy could be used to create heatwaves, but then it could just as well intensify the North Atlantic Oscillation and create snowstorms. To only focus on either the heating or cooling effects is somewhat misguided. A better comparison is to think of the weather on steroids. It's the same weather we used to have, only now it can have the tendency to be more powerful.


Also, the radiative forcing of man made greenhouse gases certainly hasn't paused. If we can all agree that when this radiative forcing has paused, that global warming has also paused, instead of only focussing on the 'climate noise', it will be a step in moving towards an end of the climate war.

Also in conclusion, looking at all the evidence I think it would be safe to say that about 50% of the warming since 1910, especially in the early half of the century can be attributed to natural vaiation in the sun and atmosphere while the other 50%, especially since 1970, can be attributed to human induced external forcings. I also think that until these man made forcings have paused and starting to trend down, only then are we actually going to see a cooling trend.

Also, showing cherry picked climate4you graphs (climte4you is run by a politically motivated AGW denier) do not disprove the link between greenhouse gases and temperatures.

If we have a look at this graph, you can see that there is a strong correlation between CO2 levels and temperature



"You are a very very long way behind the science RtD when you show Mann's completely discredited hockey stick which even the IPCC didn't have a bar of in their last 2007 AR4."

The hockey stick graph is not discredited. Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. Also there now have been a whole 'hockey team' of reconstructions using a various array of different techniques, all of which have vindicated the results. It might also be worthwhile to read the US Congress inquiry here

Also the paper by Qing-Bin Lu, which says that global warming is entirely due to CFC's seems to totally ignore the dominant forcing of CO2 and methane, as shown in the above graph from NOAA.

I also think that derogatory labelling of those who accept the science as warmist or alarmist, or belonging to a religion is disingenuous and inflammatory. It would be nice to see the politicisation of science to fall by the wayside.

Top
#1196631 - 31/05/2013 16:55 Re: Climate Science [Re: Seabreeze]
old_man_fisho Offline
Cloud Gazer

Registered: 04/03/2012
Posts: 36
Originally Posted By: Roger The Dodger
Here is a chart of temperature vs cosmic rays. It's as clear as day that there is no correlation. I'm now on the floor, LMFAO



Drawing such a simple two point comparison on something as complex as earth’s climate system and it’s reaction to GCR’s speaks volumes about the intelligence intent of the person doing so! GCR=Temperature, give me a break! It’s NOT science and therefore your point is still invalid. And I am still laughing at you consequently! smile

Originally Posted By: Roger The Dodger


Also, showing cherry picked climate4you graphs (climte4you is run by a politically motivated AGW denier) do not disprove the link between greenhouse gases and temperatures.


So it was ok for you to do the same thing with me on at least two occasions??? Your graphs do not disprove the link between GCR’s and climate. Invalid point!

Originally Posted By: Roger The Dodger


I also think that derogatory labelling of those who accept the science as warmist or alarmist, or belonging to a religion is disingenuous and inflammatory. It would be nice to see the politicisation of science to fall by the wayside.


WTF?

Originally Posted By: Roger The Dodger

If not perhaps you could show some respect and keep your sniggering to yourself.


Yes because you’re just full of willful good joy to those that don’t follow your beliefs! ROFL LMFAO laugh
_________________________
Maybe gone forever...but not forever gone! wink

Top
#1196645 - 31/05/2013 17:25 Re: Climate Science [Re: Seabreeze]
refstar Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 15/10/2012
Posts: 310
LOL nice response. They may need some burn cream!!

Top
#1196650 - 31/05/2013 17:45 Re: Climate Science [Re: Seabreeze]
Simmosturf Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/03/2008
Posts: 1620
Loc: Wangaratta
Now this is interesting..... Waiting for the replies!!!

Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide, according to new research from the University of Waterloo published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B this week.
CFCs are already known to deplete ozone, but in-depth statistical analysis now shows that CFCs are also the key driver in global climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

"Conventional thinking says that the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming. But we have observed data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that conventional understanding is wrong," said Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry in Waterloo's Faculty of Science. "In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming."
"Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What's striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined – matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere," Professor Lu said. "My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline."

The findings are based on in-depth statistical analyses of observed data from 1850 up to the present time, Professor Lu's cosmic-ray-driven electron-reaction (CRE) theory of ozone depletion and his previous research into Antarctic ozone depletion and global surface temperatures.

"It was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth's ozone layer was depleted by the sun's ultraviolet light-induced destruction of CFCs in the atmosphere," he said. "But in contrast, CRE theory says cosmic rays – energy particles originating in space – play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone."
Lu's theory has been confirmed by ongoing observations of cosmic ray, CFC, ozone and stratospheric temperature data over several 11-year solar cycles. "CRE is the only theory that provides us with an excellent reproduction of 11-year cyclic variations of both polar ozone loss and stratospheric cooling," said Professor Lu. "After removing the natural cosmic-ray effect, my new paper shows a pronounced recovery by ~20% of the Antarctic ozone hole, consistent with the decline of CFCs in the polar stratosphere."

By proving the link between CFCs, ozone depletion and temperature changes in the Antarctic, Professor Lu was able to draw almost perfect correlation between rising global surface temperatures and CFCs in the atmosphere.

"The climate in the Antarctic stratosphere has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact. The change in global surface temperature after the removal of the solar effect has shown zero correlation with CO2 but a nearly perfect linear correlation with CFCs - a correlation coefficient as high as 0.97."

Data recorded from 1850 to 1970, before any significant CFC emissions, show that CO2 levels increased significantly as a result of the Industrial Revolution, but the global temperature, excluding the solar effect, kept nearly constant. The conventional warming model of CO2, suggests the temperatures should have risen by 0.6°C over the same period, similar to the period of 1970-2002.

The analyses indicate the dominance of Lu's CRE theory and the success of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

"We've known for some time that CFCs have a really damaging effect on our atmosphere and we've taken measures to reduce their emissions," Professor Lu said. "We now know that international efforts such as the Montreal Protocol have also had a profound effect on global warming but they must be placed on firmer scientific ground."

"This study underlines the importance of understanding the basic science underlying ozone depletion and global climate change," said Terry McMahon, dean of the faculty of science. "This research is of particular importance not only to the research community, but to policy makers and the public alike as we look to the future of our climate."

Professor Lu's paper, Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change, also predicts that the global sea level will continue to rise for some years as the hole in the ozone recovers increasing ice melting in the polar regions.

"Only when the effect of the global temperature recovery dominates over that of the polar ozone hole recovery, will both temperature and polar ice melting drop concurrently," says Lu.

The peer-reviewed paper published this week not only provides new fundamental understanding of the ozone hole and global climate change but has superior predictive capabilities, compared with the conventional sunlight-driven ozone-depleting and CO2-warming models.

Explore further: Ozone thinning has changed ocean circulation, scientists report

More information: Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change, Qing-Bin Lu, University of Waterloo, Published on May 30 in International Journal of Modern Physics B Vol. 27 (2013) 1350073 (38 pages). The paper is available online at: www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979213500732

http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html


Edited by Simmosturf (31/05/2013 17:46)

Top
#1196682 - 31/05/2013 19:02 Re: Climate Science [Re: refstar]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
Originally Posted By: Roger Doger
I think it might be worthwhile, to declare a ceasefire in the climate war, and perhaps take some time to bury some long held theories.


And you start with this:

Quote:
even the small variations in the 11 year solar cycle can have a dramatic influence, but neither of these have seen a large upward trend over the past 100 years, and over the past 30 years, most studies have shown that the correlation is lost completely


Sorry - that is absoulute crap. The last half of the 20th Century saw the most active sun since a thousand years ago. I am sorry if that does not fit your "studies" but that is fact.




And not acknowledging that leads to crap predictions like this:



From the released AR5 draft and a FAIL even before its officially published. [And a big LOL goes to the fact that the trend is started 0.5C below the calibration point... give me a break!]

And your invocation to cease this bikering... while meritorious:

Quote:
I also think that derogatory labelling of those who accept the science as warmist or alarmist, or belonging to a religion is disingenuous and inflammatory. It would be nice to see the politicisation of science to fall by the wayside


Is doomed to fail - if you look at what I wrote regarding my "beliefs" some 5 years ago

http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/45252/Re_AGW_theory_seems_to_be_fata#Post45252

And accept that I have not changed them the slightest... then please explain why I (and the other posters here who would mostly agree with what i said) are hounded, disrupted and insulted. The sneering, sniggering and the provocations are directed ad hominem. Just take a look at CB's signature line ... its baiting and fishing for a reaction from me - and so like ROM or SBT who fired back, I get banned.

Am I wrong? Do you have an open mind, are happy when your ideas get challenged as that is how you improve them. Or are you just spreading Gore droppings and striving to prevent free exchange of ideas as the dogma has to be followed to the letter - as CB Enrique etc do...


Edited by Seabreeze (02/06/2013 23:25)
Edit Reason: swearing removed
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#1196684 - 31/05/2013 19:14 Re: Climate Science [Re: Seabreeze]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
No proof at all that any heat is going into the oceans as a direct result of any claimed anthropogenic and increasing CO2 or otherwise.
Currently that is just a theory looking for a reason to exist
.
Ocean heat content is suposedly increasing but that claim is all based on some very scattered data in both time and place from a few research cruises that actually tried to derive deep water temperatures from before the Argo era.
The pre ARGO deep water temps are mostly just guess work at best.
Immediately the ARGO floats became operational in 2003 that long supposed increase in Ocean Heat Content suddenly flattened right out.

The entire Ocean heat content claim from increased anthropogenic CO2 purely due to the fact that the climate models have predicted that CO2 is trapping a lot more heat than has actually been observed or can be accounted for.

Of course the wamistas simply won't have a bar of the possibility that a lot of that measured CO2. particularly if the residence times of the CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is finally pinned down by actual research and not some hand waving claims of a hundred years or so, to just 5 to 15 years as has ben postulated by many researchers , then THAT would really create a very serious explanatory problem for the warmers because another source for the increasing CO2 would have to be found to sustain the current rate of atmospheric CO2 increase as the carefully marked [ /sarc ] anthropogenic CO2 along with that "natural" CO2 would just disappear into the sinks around the globe at a rate that would level the rate of increase right out .

After all anthropogenic emissions and all other emissions have never been actually measured nor are most of the CO2 sinks known . They are mostly suspected and the amount of CO2 taken up by the sinks is only guessed at,.
All of the above calculations of emissive sources and CO2 sinks are all just the outputs of some computer calculations related to the amounts of fossil fuels claimed to have been used by various countries. The data is none too good there either from places like India and China and other similar developing countries.

That long suspected source of much of the increased CO2 are the upper level waters of the recently warming oceans. Cold water takes up a lot of CO2 but warm water releases CO2 so the source of much of the increased CO2 might just be the actual oceans, the surfaces of which have been warming due in part to the increased solar activity of the past few decades which is now winding down into what historically during very low activity solar periods are very cold climatic episodes ..
Certainly one of the recent sinks identified for oceanic CO2 was down in the Southern Ocean where a down welling surface water area has been identified.

Increased global cloud cover as derived from satellite observations can explain most of this discrepancy in where the probably non existent heat is supposedly going as low level clouds linked to a very low solar magnetic field strength. Low level clouds in particular simply reflect more heat units back into space plus a run down in the total solar electromagnetic spectrum which includes not only the visual TSI spectrum but a 6% drop off and up to 20% drop off at times in parts of the solar UV spectrum,
Such a fall in certain parts of the solar UV spectrum band were completely unsuspected until satellites picked this up in the last decade .
How that affects the climate is well and truly being researched now

Plus a huge drop in the solar magnetic fields, long known to happen during solar minimums but no mechanism could be uncovered that might explain an influence on the climate. Again another large research project with the Svensmark's theory leading here.

And again the ARGO data has been very closely held and only released to a few insiders so just what the last few years of overall ARGO data is saying is not really known or has been properly analysed by the more skeptical researchers.
Nothing new or the least bit unusual in that either in the corrupted world of global warming science.

The 2000 metre deep ocean heat content is a guess pure and simple as even the ARGO floats have only just been updated with a new series that allows them to dive to the 2000 metres instead of just 700 metres

The ARGO site has some data which shows and tells just how little in the way of sampling of those deep oceans was actually done prior to the ARGO era. Which in turn tells us that nearly all those pre ARGO deep ocean temperatures that are being rolled out as a supposed proof for the unaccounted for heat from global warming dissapearing into the ocean depths without ever being caught doing so or passing through the surface layers into the deeps by any other ocean sensing systems, is pure guess work and nothing more than drawing some impressive looking lines on a graph paper.



This tracking map of where the ocean samples were collected on a very ad hoc basis pre ARGO shows just how little of the global oceans were actually sampled.
Note that all the major sampling traffic was done in the north and central Pacific PDO areas, the equatorial Pacific ENSO regions and the NAO Atlantic regions of the oceans, all highly changeable in water temperature possibly at depth as well. And this is what that entire theory of ocean heat content increasing rapidly due to anthropogenic global warming has it's basis.

Call me skeptical ,very, very skeptical.



Just maybe it is all cosmic rays and clouds and ozone which leaves some very big names in global warming science like Trenberth way out on a limb without credibility if he doesn't soon back off and get with his colleagues who are heading down a lot of other paths after starting to admit that the whole global warming science of the past is about finished and now the new science has to be looked at.


Re Mann's hockey stick. Anybody who floats that up nowadays as any sort of valid global temperature series just gets laughed out of court and loses all credibility. Mann's Hockey stick was big deal in the 2001 IPCC AR3 but by the time the IPCC's AR4 rolled around in 2007 the AR4 carried no mention of it in it's AR4 WG1, the group who are responsible for the actual science in the assessment reports.

Mann is very thoroughly discredited including in a lot of warmist science circles.. And those warmist science circles are starting to shift ground quite quickly now as the pause / stagnation / plateauing of global temperatures now enters it's 15 th or 16th year.

Who ever brain washed you RtD was very successful as he / she seems to have well and truly locked you into even the IPCC 'c pre 2007 AR4 climate beliefs surrounding global climate science

Top
#1196687 - 31/05/2013 19:18 Re: Climate Science [Re: refstar]
Tom1234 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 08/04/2011
Posts: 1709
Loc: Port Stephens
Originally Posted By: refstar
LOL nice response. They may need some burn cream!!




Get me some ointment for that BUUURNNNN ouch


To bad all your ideas are wrong though Arnost lol, eventually you have to admit that you don't know what you're doing and leave it to the pro's
Hows the 10u radiation theory going ? or underwater venting ? or using newspaper clipping to reconstruct the temperature record ROFLMAO
EDIT, i nearly forgot global cooling, that's been resurrected from the 70's
All theories that no one bar the fringe care about and for good reason.


Edited by Enrique (31/05/2013 19:26)

Top
#1196692 - 31/05/2013 19:36 Re: Climate Science [Re: Seabreeze]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
When you grow up one day enrique you might realise that it is not always a good policy to shoot your mouth off all the time about the supposed faults or what you see or claim to be flaws in others.
My life experiences have often shown me and I have seen much more in many, many others over the years just like yourself that such hubris will one day come back to haunt you and usually in ways that you never expected and certainly don't wish to see or experience.

Top
#1196693 - 31/05/2013 19:39 Re: Climate Science [Re: Seabreeze]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
And AR5 projections are wrong before its even published. My turn to ROFLMAO...

And even worse - the response is to adjust data not to revisit the failed theory. Hilarious. And the response is? More ad hominem in 4,3,2,1...
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#1196695 - 31/05/2013 19:49 Re: Climate Science [Re: Seabreeze]
Tom1234 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 08/04/2011
Posts: 1709
Loc: Port Stephens
I'm just browsing the thread from 2008, good for a laugh as the sceptics were calling that AGW theory was dead back then. First page even had a link to WUWT, didn't even know that rubbish was around back then.

Don't you ever wonder why all your conclusions are opposite to those of the mainstream science Arnost ? Are you actually better than those 1000s of publishing scientists ?


Damn those pesky adjustments, it's all a conspiracy i tell ya.

Originally Posted By: ROM
When you grow up one day enrique you might realise that it is not always a good policy to shoot your mouth off all the time about the supposed faults or what you see or claim to be flaws in others.


maybe not always a good policy, but it works most of the time.

It's like this discussion hasn't even moved on from 2008, its crazy how the same arguments are still being repeated. Compared to other forums this one is really crazy and i do mean that, i have posted on a few in my time and nothing comes close.


Edited by Enrique (31/05/2013 19:56)

Top
#1196697 - 31/05/2013 20:06 Re: Climate Science [Re: old_man_fisho]
Orebound Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/12/2009
Posts: 2395
Loc: Port Hedland WA / Darwin NT
Originally Posted By: old_man_fisho
Originally Posted By: Roger The Dodger
Here is a chart of temperature vs cosmic rays. It's as clear as day that there is no correlation. I'm now on the floor, LMFAO



Drawing such a simple two point comparison on something as complex as earth’s climate system and it’s reaction to GCR’s speaks volumes about the intelligence intent of the person doing so! GCR=Temperature, give me a break! It’s NOT science and therefore your point is still invalid. And I am still laughing at you consequently! smile

Originally Posted By: Roger The Dodger


Also, showing cherry picked climate4you graphs (climte4you is run by a politically motivated AGW denier) do not disprove the link between greenhouse gases and temperatures.


So it was ok for you to do the same thing with me on at least two occasions??? Your graphs do not disprove the link between GCR’s and climate. Invalid point!

Originally Posted By: Roger The Dodger


I also think that derogatory labelling of those who accept the science as warmist or alarmist, or belonging to a religion is disingenuous and inflammatory. It would be nice to see the politicisation of science to fall by the wayside.


WTF?

Originally Posted By: Roger The Dodger

If not perhaps you could show some respect and keep your sniggering to yourself.


Yes because you’re just full of willful good joy to those that don’t follow your beliefs! ROFL LMFAO laugh


GOLD!
_________________________
Videos

Photos

Top
#1196699 - 31/05/2013 20:10 Re: Climate Science [Re: Seabreeze]
Roger The Dodger Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 22/05/2013
Posts: 66
From the NOAA

"Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. With now 28 years of reliable satellite observations there is confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of irradiance related to sunspots but no longer term trend in these data."

Do you notice that the temperature rises while the solar trend is static?


Did you read the paper that I linked to.

in it you would have read

"TSI monitors show a clear 11 year solar cycle (SC) variation between sunspot minimum (Smin) and sunspot maximum (Smax) of about 1 W m−2 [Fröhlich, 2006]. Taking ITS = 1366 W m−2 and A = 0.3, the solar power available to the Earth system is (1 – A)ITS/4 = 239 W m−2 with an 11 year SC variation of ∼0.17 W m−2, or ∼0.07%, a very small percentage of the total. Of greater importance to climate change issues are longer‐term drifts in this radiative forcing. Recent estimates suggest a radiative forcing drift over the past 30 years associated with solar irradiance changes of 0.017 W m−2 decade−1 In comparison, the current rate of increase in trace greenhouse gas radiative forcing is about 0.30 W m−2 decade−1"

All the professionals who have actually studied the science for decades all understand that the recent global warming is not the sun. Why do you still continue to deny the plain and simple physics and math?

Top
#1196700 - 31/05/2013 20:12 Re: Climate Science [Re: Seabreeze]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
Yes! The arguments are being repeated ad nauseum, something I also said in my post here earlier today.
And why are they being repeated?

Because I also said earlier today, just how many more times do we have to keep on repeating the same tired old worn out refrain for all those newbie warmistas who keep on coming onto the forum full of warmista zeal and all ready to set those evil "deniers" to rights and bring them to the true faith with those exact same tired old arguments about the likes of a discredited Mann's hockey stick and so many other ancient, worn out, flogged out, broken science arguments along with crooked graphs from known dubious sources and a mankind has sinned against the planet zeal and will be responsible for the end of times as we know it, type argument repeated here ad nauseum.

Top
#1196705 - 31/05/2013 20:19 Re: Climate Science [Re: Seabreeze]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
Quote:
Why do you still continue to deny the plain and simple physics and math?


I laugh at Gore droppings.
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#1196711 - 31/05/2013 20:33 Re: Climate Science [Re: Seabreeze]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
Page 26 of 52 < 1 2 ... 24 25 26 27 28 ... 51 52 >


Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
5 registered (ashestoashes, slipperyfish, hickory, Andrew-A, Kino), 628 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
mattgmc87, mattmelb02
Forum Stats
29946 Members
32 Forums
24165 Topics
1526937 Posts

Max Online: 2985 @ 26/01/2019 12:05
Satellite Image