Page 1 of 115 1 2 3 ... 114 115 >
Topic Options
#796135 - 16/11/2009 00:22 The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - Archive
marakai Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/01/2006
Posts: 1746
Loc: Maryfarms NQ
Greenland is melting, The Arctic icecap is melting, Sea levels are rising.
But hang on The vikings grew Wheat and Barley in Greenland over a thousand yr's ago, Roald Amundsen Sailed up the North West passage a hundred yr's ago, Sea levels were higher a thousand yr's ago during the medieval warm period than they are now.

So what's going on with the Climate? if Anthropogenic Carbon production is heating the planet now and over the last Century why has the Northwest passage been frozen over for most of it, why cant they grow wheat in Greenland now, why are sea level's lower today than they were 1000 yr's ago?

A recent IPCC report states that Warming of the climate is “unequivocal” But I read that there are many Scientist's who do not agree with the IPCC, The Denialist's , those who think that the IPCC is based more on policy than Science, some of these people even have peer reviewed papers they say that the IPCC has Misrepresented when writing their report's or only used data that supports the IPCC agenda.

So where IS the Science in the IPCC that is unequivocal? Where is the Science that can be duplicated rather than Computer models that do not even take into account Cloudcover.
Why does the IPCC use government appointed people to produce their Summary for Policy Makers rather than independent scientist's with no reliance on the panel or politics.

Why does the IPCC have no balanced view? IE it is all doom and gloom, (you dont hear them saying)Temperatures will rise by 6deg.C but Europe and North America will not be enveloped by a 2km thick icesheet in the next century (as it was 10.000yr's ago).

If it wasn't for the largest Tax of all time on the way it would be laughable, but there is and it isn't funny at all.
I for one would like to know where the consensus is, you hear it everyday in the news but from my reading there isn't one at all.

What do you think Science or Policy?



Edited by Seabreeze (23/10/2012 20:27)

Top
#796248 - 16/11/2009 14:25 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: marakai]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 14156
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics
They can't say anything because they know it is piffle sorry I mean policy.


Not only is it an open cheque book for governments to increase taxes and for the carpet baggers to step in and sell 'carbon credits' it is scaring people into making them believe that the process is one that we created. The whole concept is based on very poor research, dodgy data, even dodgier data collection methods and in my opinion, nothing but a smoke screen to take the focus away from the more important issues in the world today, namely the global financial crisis.

This is the worlds greatest hoax since the Y2K bug.
Give a failed politician an ability to put pictures on a screen with a more than liberal dose of waffle and you end up with "The sky is falling" mentality amongst some of the worlds leaders.

I for one don't believe the hype, the scare tactics or the quasi-scientific drivel being espoused by so called experts nor do I appreciate being called a denialist just because I don't wish to follow the herd in blaming mankind for being responsible for what is a natural occurance.

Is it any wonder that an organisation cannot get their facts squared away when most of the data being supplied is incorrect, taken out of context, is biased or a downright lie.

IF I am wrong I will admit it but think about this for a second, if the powers that be where really concerned about carbon being released into the atmosphere then why do we still have:
Carbonated drinks?
Cremations?
Bushfires release how much carbon? So why isn't the entire nation issued with knapsack sprayers and mobilised to put them out?
Crops after harvest put how much carbon back into the ground as they rot so why aren't farmers all millionaires?
Are we not a carbon based life form that when we die and are buried do we not also accumulate a 'carbon credit'?
Where do I bury the carbon produced from a badly cooked snag? Who do I send the bill to?
Who is going to collect all the horded sheets of carbon paper stashed all over the world and where are they going to bury it?

I am attempting to book a water ski holiday for the Artic in 2013 but nobody seems to know if there will be any ice or not. grin


Edited by Sir BoabTree (16/11/2009 14:27)
_________________________
202mm April 2017
Best 156mm 19/5/17
Oct 143mm
2017 Total 836mm
2016 Total 649mm
2015 Total 375mm
2014 Total 1032mm
2013 Total 715mm







Top
#796263 - 16/11/2009 15:19 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: SBT]
ColdFront Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/06/2008
Posts: 17918
Loc: Wide Bay..Near the beach
I don't know Marakai so I can't weigh in. There are numerous people in this forum already that are making all sorts of comments without any scientific background.

Time will tell I guess. I recall when I was very young a program on tv ridiculing a scientist that said if we don't reverse our ways we would lose huge numbers of animals and plants.

Some 30 years on 1/3 of our animals ,birds and plants are threatened with extinction. Of course the flow on from this is that we may be also.

I have no reason to support or dismiss GW other than what science is telling us.
_________________________
"Don't steal. The government hates competition."

Top
#796272 - 16/11/2009 16:03 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ColdFront]
Simmosturf Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/03/2008
Posts: 1620
Loc: Wangaratta
And what is that and where is that science coldy?? This is the whole problem with this debate is the evidence for AGW is based on computor models and the evidence against is based on historical evidence and observation. Go outside and have a look around, see any evidence of the planet going A over T, sure some animals are threatened but there are discoveries everyday of new species, its called evolution and proves that the planet is very capable of looking after itself....

Top
#796276 - 16/11/2009 16:14 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ColdFront]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 2757
Loc: Buderim
With some of the arguments that are repeated ad naseum by deniers no matter how many times the truth is explained it is obvious that climate denialism is a massive hoax motivated by political and commercial interests.

Two arguments in particular that I refer to are 'cooling trend for 8 years', when predictions from 1983 specifically state that natural variation can neutralise Co2 warming for periods of up to 20 years, and 'surface record is contaminated by UHI', even when the satellite records show almost the same rate of warming.

edit: and add simo's post above...

There is more evidence that politics has interfered with the IPCC process to downplay the risk of AGW, then there is evidence that politics has interfered with the IPCC process to exagerate the risks.

For instance consider the case of the IPCC burning embers diagram. Link. Authors of the IPCC report have specifically complained that government officials had put pressure on them to leave out a diagram that officials considered too alarming.

In contrast accusations of government interference towards alarmism rely on accusations from minority climate scientists that their views are not being considered fairly, and so a bias is assumed to exist on the basis that the majority view is wrong. The possibility that the minority view is ignored because it is blatantly wrong and not because of government interference is of course ignored.


Edited by Mike Hauber (16/11/2009 16:14)

Top
#796281 - 16/11/2009 16:27 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Simmosturf]
Severely Tall Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 16/11/2006
Posts: 751
Loc: Melbourne, Victoria
Those in favour of AGW have provided pages and pages of evidence, and yet again we see claims of their being no observational evidence. News Flash: look at the 5 warmest years on record and tell me how certain people can claim a cooling trend without a statistical coverup and use of poor science.

What is this data from the MWP based on? Proxies. Pure and simple....not actual values but values that we have estimated based on current climate, all subject to error and no worse than Climate Models? Why is it that Climate models can simulate the past 30 years very accurately but this doesnt constitute them being a useful tool? Maybe its a fear of technology and evidence that is not liked. Of course Global Climate models happen to take into account a huge amount of observational and historical data in order to simulate the atmosphere...so naturally they can not in any way be based on observational and historical data...cough. They dont use cruddy proxy data as not only is it non continuous, but it also isn't reliable.

I personally am a little concerned with the rainfall this year, and over the past 4...in the entire instrumental record Melbourne had never recorded a year below 450mm until 2006, now we are on track to have our 4th in succession...with only one month above average and similar is true for most of the state (although thankfully for many farmers this rainfall was nicely timed for some cropping). If that isnt an example of a worrying trend...where there appears to be a complete seasonal shift in the past 10 years then what is?

What I see here is denials first based on...oh a model predicted it so it cant be true, followed by, oh even if it is warming its all natural so it doesnt really matter.

As stated in the other thread I do not support the ETS and Carbon Taxes as I believe them to be a moneymaking exercise rather than effective, but enough of spouting rhetoric and anti-technoligical sentiment in order to question the basis of climate science. If those who do not agree with AGW truly had a case to show us otherwise then maybe we would be able to debate the issue of science, but until factual and scientific (not proxy) information is provided then it becomes a slandering match.
_________________________
Photography: www.emanatephotography.com
Follow our chasing on: www.huntersofthunder.com or follow us on facebook: www.facebook.com/huntersofthunder
2011/2012 Australian Season DVD 'Another Level'available now www.emanatephotography.com/hunters.html

Top
#796314 - 16/11/2009 17:35 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: SBT]
Anemoi Offline
Cloud Gazer

Registered: 09/08/2009
Posts: 45
Loc: sub-tropics
Originally Posted By: Sir BoabTree
They can't say anything because they know it is piffle sorry I mean policy.

...

IF I am wrong I will admit it but think about this for a second, if the powers that be where really concerned about carbon being released into the atmosphere then why do we still have:
Carbonated drinks?
Cremations?
Bushfires release how much carbon? So why isn't the entire nation issued with knapsack sprayers and mobilised to put them out?
Crops after harvest put how much carbon back into the ground as they rot so why aren't farmers all millionaires?
Are we not a carbon based life form that when we die and are buried do we not also accumulate a 'carbon credit'?
Where do I bury the carbon produced from a badly cooked snag? Who do I send the bill to?
Who is going to collect all the horded sheets of carbon paper stashed all over the world and where are they going to bury it?


So I await your admition Sir Boab

The lack of the most basic understanding of the carbon cycle, as reflected in most of your questions, seems an appropriate pointer to the lack of science.
All living things on the surface of the earth are part of the global carbon cycle, through plants, animals, soil and air a roughly balanced amount of carbon passes around and around. That has developed to a current point of relative equilibrium over milions of years.
The billions of tons of carbon released rapidly by fossil fuel burning, buried carbon collected over millions of years, during industrial times is obviously extraneous to this previously balanced level and alters the whole physico-chemical baseline, and thereby alters a whole range of interdependent biological systems.
Really, the level of most arguments against significant human effects on the climate are puerile and too often repeated.
Depending upon how you actually do it, farming and agriculture can add soil carbon and nutrition. Or it can degrade it and release significant amounts of carbon that would otherwise be sequestered by biological systems we have cleared away, ie forest, vegetation.


Edited by Anemoi (16/11/2009 17:38)

Top
#796358 - 16/11/2009 18:41 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Anemoi]
windyrob Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 02/12/2007
Posts: 484
Loc: edithvale
The AGW crowd claimed a scientific consensus, despite the fact that a consensus is unscientific. Shame the scientist never got a vote.
The AGW crowd claimed there was not a medieval warm period, based on non temperature proxies. Discounting hundreds of scientist work. They then refused to use updated proxies that refuted their claims.
The AGW models claimed warming would occur and we got cooling. Your only as good as your last prediction!
The AGW models claimed the antarctic would warm, 30years of cooling.
The AGW models claimed an upper troposphere hotspot that doesn't exist.
The AGW crowd violated their own charter and the peer review process by failing to produce methods and data. It turned out they had something to hide.
The AGW crowd claimed positive feedback, yet cant find it anywhere despite spending 60billion. The observations show negative feedback in agreement with free energy principles that enhanced AGW violates. Water vapor decreased as temp increased. case closed!

AGW is not science, as science embraces scepticism to further understanding, rather than using Ad Hom attacks to intimidate opponents. It demands that the thesis and antithesis be given equal consideration, rather than the three monkey routine that alarmist use to select cherries. Meanwhile the ignore the massive forcing cause by a 4% decrease in low clouds that corresponds to the changes in climate, unlike CO2 that lags temp by 800 years.

As a trained scientist I am appalled that this has been allowed to be popularised.
Dozens of IPCC scientist agree with me and have quit in protest, how many whistle blowers do you need?
There is 700 hundred international scientist who have signed their up to Senator Inhofe's list, thats more than a handful (ie 5) of sceptics.

Strangely its not a hard decision for me to pick a side!

Top
#796384 - 16/11/2009 19:38 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: windyrob]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3908
ST / Mike,

I support windyrob’s post above. The bottom line is that (given the observational evidence over that the world IS warming), it is nevertheless a logical non-sequiteur to immediately use that as PROOF that it is man-made.

There are (by the same token) pages and pages of evidence that the world was as warm (if nit warmer) in the Medieval, the Roman, the Minoan Warm periods. These have been established by “proxy records” admittedly, but not just from a chronology of a few pines or larches. These come from anecdotal evidence, tree line extents, biological indicators and fossil records. Not to mention most ice-cores.



If there were warmer periods in the past caused by some non-anthropogenic forcing – we NEED to rule out that they are not a factor today. And even if we do so, we need to show that a warming will have that disastrous effect so beloved by the warming community.

I suggested earlier that we look into the historical record and baseline the temps – look and Heinrich & DO events. Agree to the magnitude of the previous warming. Without that, given the frankly poor science associated with the proxy reconstructions as relied on by the IPCC, we can never get anywhere…
_________________________
“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
#796386 - 16/11/2009 19:50 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: windyrob]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 14156
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics
The observations are questions I was asked by Girl Guides at a recent presentation I delivered on Cyclone Preparations in the tropics last week. OK so they where from 10 to 14 year olds but I repeated them in my post, admittedly in a light hearted manner, because they where asked of me in a serious manner and I couldn't give them a serious answer.

I am not a scientist, far from it but I have been shuffling around this planet for 53 years and can tell when I am being fed bull shot on a grand scale and I feel I have been handed a bib and I am just waiting for the giant novelty spoon to turn up in the post.

We will just have to agree to disagree then.
_________________________
202mm April 2017
Best 156mm 19/5/17
Oct 143mm
2017 Total 836mm
2016 Total 649mm
2015 Total 375mm
2014 Total 1032mm
2013 Total 715mm







Top
#796413 - 16/11/2009 20:40 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: SBT]
Severely Tall Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 16/11/2006
Posts: 751
Loc: Melbourne, Victoria
The AGW crowd claimed a scientific consensus, despite the fact that a consensus is unscientific. Shame the scientist never got a vote.
They never claimed a scientific consensus, they claimed a consensus amongst the peer reviewed literature which was valid, and an IPCC model consensus. A consensus dictates that the majority of evidence suggests a warming. So I guess you missed the whole concept of evidence.

The AGW crowd claimed there was not a medieval warm period, based on non temperature proxies. Discounting hundreds of scientist work. They then refused to use updated proxies that refuted their claims.
Where? When and by who? I dont see any evidence of this in anything ive read so Id really be interested to hear more about this rather outlandish claim.

The AGW models claimed warming would occur and we got cooling. Your only as good as your last prediction!
Windyrob. How many times do I have to repeat myself to you. The recent cooling "trend" is not a trend at all. It is not statistically significant to any degree, and in fact is a shocking statistical lie based on 1998 being an exceptional El Nino. Need I remind the readers here that 2006,2007,2008 all are rated among the hottest 5 years in recorded history? Does this suggest a cooling trend? No. Look at the 20 year, and indeed the 30 year trend...both are positive. Global Warming postulates a warming trend into the future and that this indicates a certain change by a certain period rather than predicting an interannual variability. Why: because the simulations in a climate model cannot be correlated on an individual year to year basis. Also these claims arent based on just one model...dozens of independant and different simulations: guess what: they all point to the same thing.

The AGW models claimed the antarctic would warm, 30years of cooling. At what level, where, be more specific than claiming outlandish things, for instance what happened on the Ice Shelf?
The AGW models claimed an upper troposphere hotspot that doesn't exist.
A minor value that is inconsequential, it may have to do with the coupling of the chemistry component which is currently under work and will be part of various models for AR5.

The AGW crowd violated their own charter and the peer review process by failing to produce methods and data. It turned out they had something to hide. Wheres your evidence? Why does one bad scientist curse us all? You guys have Plimer...need I say more? This is again a generalistation as I described in the other thread.Suprisingly enough a massive peer review process was undertaken of dozens of articles on the subject prior to what you claim to be the 'AGW crowd'.


The AGW crowd claimed positive feedback, yet cant find it anywhere despite spending 60billion. The observations show negative feedback in agreement with free energy principles that enhanced AGW violates. Water vapor decreased as temp increased. This of course violates your own principles, you claim that water vapour decreases yet the TWPICE research indicates and increase of Cirriform tropical cloud...what you mean to say (using your facts) is that theres appears to be a decrease in lower level atmospheric water vapour producing clouds in some locations. This of course is offset in others...and has already been examined. Sorry...the only case that is closed here is that there is bad science on both sides.

I should also note that there is no consensus between those of the other side...some claim it isnt warming at all, others cooling? and yet there is a claim that there isnt warming and its a well established fact?

I agree Arnost that we do need to look further back into the past...its just a bit tricky given we have to trust uncorrelated proxies the further back we go (for instance the melted ice cap on Kilamenjaro was a previously used source, but its fast disapearing). I acknowledge there are good proxies, but they are mostly ice cores as tree ring data is often unreliable and non continuous at 150 years or more before present. This would help in indicating the significance of the current warming. Another important point here is it is warming, at a relatively rapid rate...and this might cause problems...we need to look further at how we predict what will happen into the future...this is what AR5 is for.

Its not like the "AGW crowd" instantly came up with a consensus....check the Assessment reports, the data has come together after years of research and 3 previous reports based on dozens of model runs.


Edited by Severely Tall (16/11/2009 20:53)
_________________________
Photography: www.emanatephotography.com
Follow our chasing on: www.huntersofthunder.com or follow us on facebook: www.facebook.com/huntersofthunder
2011/2012 Australian Season DVD 'Another Level'available now www.emanatephotography.com/hunters.html

Top
#796460 - 16/11/2009 23:23 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Severely Tall]
marakai Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/01/2006
Posts: 1746
Loc: Maryfarms NQ
Quote:
They never claimed a scientific consensus, they claimed a consensus amongst the peer reviewed literature which was valid, and an IPCC model consensus. A consensus dictates that the majority of evidence suggests a warming. So I guess you missed the whole concept of evidence.


Severely Tall , I also do not believe there is a consensus, even in the IPCC peer reviewed papers and Data,

Quote:
Dr. Atte Korhola, professor of environmental change at the University of Helsinki, is an expert in lake sediment studies.

Atte Korhola: “Some curves and data have been used upside down, and this is not a compliment to climate science. And in this context it is relevant to note that the same people who are behind this are running what may be the world’s most influential climate website, RealClimate. With this they are contributing to the credibility of science – or reducing it. And in my opinion this is alarming because it bears on the credibility of the field, and if these kinds of things emerge often – that data have been used insufficiently or even falsely, or if data series have been truncated or they have not been appropriately published (for replication), it obviously erodes the credibility, and this is a serious problem.”

VO: The author of the September study, Darrell Kaufman, admitted his mistake two weeks ago and sent a correction to the journal Science. But the main author of a previous study, Michael Mann, the father of the original hockey stick, still sticks to the claim that a hockey stick was found at the bottom of lake Korttajärvi.

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/michael-mann-having-an-impact/

Quote:

Conclusion

The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false. Therefore IPCC projections should not be used for national and global economic planning. The climatically inefficient and economically disastrous Kyoto Protocol, based on IPCC projections, was correctly defined by President George W. Bush as “fatally flawed”. This criticism was recently followed by the President of Russia Vladimir V. Putin. I hope that their rational views might save the world from enormous damage that could be induced by implementing recommendations based on distorted science.


Statement of Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski
Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection
Warsaw, Poland



Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus
Richard S. Lindzen


Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Quote:

The present hysteria formally began in the summer of 1988, although preparations had been put in place at least three years earlier. That was an especially warm summer in some regions, particularly in the United States. The abrupt increase in temperature in the late 1970s was too abrupt to be associated with the smooth increase in carbon dioxide. Nevertheless, James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in testimony before Sen. Al Gore's Committee on Science, Technology and Space, said, in effect, that he was 99 percent certain that temperature had increased and that there was some greenhouse warming. He made no statement concerning the relation between the two.
(SNIP)
A parochial issue is the danger to the science of climatology. As far as I can tell, there has actually been reduced funding for existing climate research. That may seem paradoxical, but, at least in the United States, the vastly increased number of scientists and others involving themselves in climate as well as the gigantic programs attaching themselves to climate have substantially outstripped the increases in funding. Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the "right'' results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of "global warming'' in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). Finally, given the momentum that has been building up among so many interest groups to fight "global warming,'' it becomes downright embarrassing to support basic climate research. After all, one would hate to admit that one had mobilized so many resources without the basic science's being in place. Nevertheless, given the large increase in the number of people associating themselves with climatology and the dependence of much of that community on the perceived threat of warming, it seems unlikely that the scientific community will offer much resistance. I should add that as ever greater numbers of individuals attach themselves to the warming problem, the pressures against solving the problem grow proportionally; an inordinate number of individuals and groups depend on the problem's remaining.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html


This is just a few examples of the IPCC's own people raising problems, so even amongst it's own members there is apparently no consensus.


Quote:
The AGW crowd claimed there was not a medieval warm period, based on non temperature proxies. Discounting hundreds of scientist work. They then refused to use updated proxies that refuted their claims.
Where? When and by who? I dont see any evidence of this in anything ive read so Id really be interested to hear more about this rather outlandish claim.



Manns infamous hockey stick?

Quote:

I agree Arnost that we do need to look further back into the past...its just a bit tricky given we have to trust uncorrelated proxies the further back we go (for instance the melted ice cap on Kilamenjaro was a previously used source, but its fast disapearing). I acknowledge there are good proxies, but they are mostly ice cores as tree ring data is often unreliable and non continuous at 150 years or more before present. This would help in indicating the significance of the current warming. Another important point here is it is warming, at a relatively rapid rate...and this might cause problems...we need to look further at how we predict what will happen into the future...this is what AR5 is for.



The current warming is not out of the ordinary at all considering that the historical temperature records that the IPCC rely on carry a margin of error of 0.7 deg C.



Edited by marakai (16/11/2009 23:45)
Edit Reason: broken link

Top
#796461 - 16/11/2009 23:34 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: SBT]
Vlasta Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 24/01/2008
Posts: 972
Loc: Melbourne Seaford


I am attempting to book a water ski holiday for the Artic in 2013 but nobody seems to know if there will be any ice or not. grin
[/quote]

Surely the Russians can accommodate you , but at a cost for an icebreaker . Another reason why Arctic ice is down . 10 fold increase of "traffic" during summer

Top
#796464 - 17/11/2009 00:08 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Simmosturf]
Vlasta Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 24/01/2008
Posts: 972
Loc: Melbourne Seaford
Originally Posted By: Simmosturf
And what is that and where is that science coldy?? This is the whole problem with this debate is the evidence for AGW is based on computor models and the evidence against is based on historical evidence and observation. Go outside and have a look around, see any evidence of the planet going A over T, sure some animals are threatened but there are discoveries everyday of new species, its called evolution and proves that the planet is very capable of looking after itself....


Mike
What is wrong with this post ?
Nothing at all . Iam only surprised we dont see much about from biologists who specializing in evolution . Its only logic that if we get 50 years of increasing CO2 , plants will react somehow. Slowly proccesing more and more of that ' polutant"

A herd of elephants took only 20 years to work out why they are being killed for . They sttoped growing ivory! smile Good on them . Elephants do know what death means

Top
#796488 - 17/11/2009 08:14 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: windyrob]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 2757
Loc: Buderim
[
Originally Posted By: windyrob
The AGW crowd claimed a scientific consensus, despite the fact that a consensus is unscientific. Shame the scientist never got a vote.


They have voted and 98% agree.

Originally Posted By: windyrob

The AGW crowd claimed there was not a medieval warm period, based on non temperature proxies. Discounting hundreds of scientist work. They then refused to use updated proxies that refuted their claims.

The AGW crowd's version of the medieval warming period is only a couple tenths of a degree cooler than the Loehle version. Don't the deniers have anything more significant to criticise??

Originally Posted By: windyrob

The AGW models claimed warming would occur and we got cooling. Your only as good as your last prediction!

As I said three posts ago the models predicted that we could have cooling for up to 20 years. We have had cooling for 8 years. The overall warming since the 80s when the models started their prediction.

Originally Posted By: windyrob

The AGW models claimed the antarctic would warm, 30years of cooling.

Older models got it wrong for a small part of the earth. Modern models get it right.

Originally Posted By: windyrob
The AGW models claimed an upper troposphere hotspot that doesn't exist.


Perhaps. Or perhaps the observations are wrong. If the deniers would show more honesty and/or competence on issues such as the recent cooling trend, and the claim that the hotspot is a signature of AGW and not just one aspect out of many in the models, then maybe I'd take this issue a little more seriouisly.

Originally Posted By: windyrob

The AGW crowd violated their own charter and the peer review process by failing to produce methods and data. It turned out they had something to hide..

The peer review process does not require more data and methods than publihed in the papers. If you really were a trained scientist as you claim you should understand this. The argument that the peer review process should require more data and methods than currently provided is a different argument and one I would generally support.

And if you want to find someone who has something to hide, look no further than Mr Watts who has collected all the station data he said would prove that GISS was flawed, yet has never released the results of this analysis.

Originally Posted By: windyrob

The AGW crowd claimed positive feedback, yet cant find it anywhere despite spending 60billion. The observations show negative feedback in agreement with free energy principles that enhanced AGW violates. Water vapor decreased as temp increased. case closed!


Water vapor is not the only postive feedback. Have you noticed a little thing called the melting of the Arctic. Case closed for AGW that at least one positive feedback certainly exists.

And on water vapor, measurements over long periods of time based on poor coverage in the upper atmosphere, and based on instruments that have changed show a reduction in water vapor. Measurements at the surface, and over recent periods of time through the upper atmosphere with satellite instruments that have not changed show an increase as predicted by the models.

Originally Posted By: windyrob

AGW is not science, as science embraces scepticism to further understanding, rather than using Ad Hom attacks to intimidate opponents. It demands that the thesis and antithesis be given equal consideration, rather than the three monkey routine that alarmist use to select cherries. Meanwhile the ignore the massive forcing cause by a 4% decrease in low clouds that corresponds to the changes in climate, unlike CO2 that lags temp by 800 years.

As a trained scientist I am appalled that this has been allowed to be popularised.

Denialism is not science. Science does not continually repeat the claim that 8 years of cooling disproves the models when the models predict we could get up to 20. How can you be a trained scientist and support such a claim?

Originally Posted By: windyrob

Dozens of IPCC scientist agree with me and have quit in protest, how many whistle blowers do you need?


Can you name two dozen IPCC scientists who have quit in protest. Or is this another lie?

Originally Posted By: windyrob

There is 700 hundred international scientist who have signed their up to Senator Inhofe's list, thats more than a handful (ie 5) of sceptics.

Strangely its not a hard decision for me to pick a side!


To be an international scientist on these lists, all you have to have is a degree in any scientific field that may have nothing to do with climate. Like myself. I'm an international scientist, hip hip hooray. There are millions of us on this planet, and it is a good reflection on our training that such a tiny minority of us have signed this petition.

edit note: submit button accidently hit while writing this post.


Edited by Mike Hauber (17/11/2009 08:21)

Top
#796503 - 17/11/2009 10:10 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Mike Hauber]
Severely Tall Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 16/11/2006
Posts: 751
Loc: Melbourne, Victoria
To further what Mike has said here....since when does everyone agree with anything? Nothing i said about the concept of a consensus suggests that everyone has to agree...only a majority. Funny thing is that for the "AGW crowd" this majority is a very large one. Amusingly enough democratic process still makes sense and constitutes a consensus....it is the consensus of the American Meteorology Society...which alone numbers over 14000 (and is just a small segement of the community)...which far outweighs just 700 scientists from various fields. Truth is that if you actually showed the results (without the various spins and media influences) the evidence is straightforward and logical deduction would in most cases lead to the same consensus view.


Edited by Severely Tall (17/11/2009 10:19)
_________________________
Photography: www.emanatephotography.com
Follow our chasing on: www.huntersofthunder.com or follow us on facebook: www.facebook.com/huntersofthunder
2011/2012 Australian Season DVD 'Another Level'available now www.emanatephotography.com/hunters.html

Top
#796507 - 17/11/2009 10:42 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Severely Tall]
Locke Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/12/2007
Posts: 4361
Loc: Brisbane
Why was the potential 20 years of cooling not spoken about when the "hockey stick" was first rolled out?

Why has the possiblity of 20 years of cooling only been raised in recent times. I had long been a firm believer in AGW but I can't recall ever being told well we might have a couple of decades of cooler temps several years ago when I first started looking into this.

Can someone please point me to any AGW material over 2 years old which suggests that natural causes might override AGW for a decade or 2 because I don't think I ever saw it.
_________________________
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
#796919 - 18/11/2009 01:11 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Locke]
marakai Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/01/2006
Posts: 1746
Loc: Maryfarms NQ
Quote:
Denialism is not science. Science does not continually repeat the claim that 8 years of cooling disproves the models when the models predict we could get up to 20. How can you be a trained scientist and support such a claim?


Denialism is not science, nor is the IPCC science, The whole AGW scenario stem's from the IPCC, an organisation setup to "investigate" the concerns about global warming. THE SCIENCE is relied upon by the IPCC to back up their claim that the cause of global warming is anthropogenic.

SCIENCE being what it is , is never really settled nor is it satisfied. Just a couple of hundred years ago the Majority view was that the earth was flat and was the centre of the universe, would you consider that a consensus view? The people that questioned that view were ostracised and sometimes murdered. Sure science has come a long way since then but the underlying values are still there (or were till recently).
There are some serious questions that are being asked about the validity of the Science that the IPCC is using to promote it's agenda and they are being asked by a number of people, some that include a few of the very scientists that the IPCC is basing it's evidence upon.
As I've already said the IPCC is not Science, it is basically the U.N, an organisation that has a great track record around the world Rwanda, Bosnia, Africa, sure it has some great Scientists on the books but it is a purely political organisation, The IPCC final draft for policy makers is made up by a panel of international government appointed people that cant even agree on the wording of the document without taking a vote. just a small example

Quote:
"Participants discussed whether it would be clearer to state that warming of the climate system is “unequivocal” or “evident.” Participants agreed to state that warming is “unequivocal.” Canada, with Germany and Switzerland, suggested adding a reference to the accelerating trend of warming. China, New Zealand, and South Africa, supported by the Coordinating Lead Authors, opposed this, given the possibility of decadal variability, and the reference was not included in this section.

On text noting high decadal variability in Arctic temperatures, Canada, supported by Norway, suggested removing a specific reference to a warm period observed from 1925 to 1945. The Coordinating Lead Authors explained that “climate skeptics” often point to this warm spell to question the IPCC for not acknowledging such warm spells. Participants agreed to keep the reference."

http://www.climatechangefacts.info

Science or Policy?

Quote:
Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science


Do models fit this description when they are endlessly tweaked to fit the observed data? Are the models Science or research?
The models form the basis for a lot of the IPCC's data but if they do not agree with observed data they get changed time and again until they fit, they are still trying to fit cloud cover into the models (good luck). The models are consistently trying to catch up with the observed data and then when they do something else pops up and they need to be changed again and again and again.
The other problem with models is that they only spit out what is put in, IE if you are looking for somthing you can find it much like a political survey, (depends on who is running the survey,) ask the right questions to get the right answers).

The consensus as we know it at the moment is not one of scientists it is that of the IPCC and nothing else, who else is out there pushing this besides the greens and those with a vested interest in Carbon Credits?(Gore the first Carbon Billionare in the World)

I'm not even a scientists toenail, I spend my days digging holes, sweating and getting covered in dirt and grime doing civil works, one of my passions tho is Palaeontology, I have a history of Eco tourism (ten yrs) and a bit of natural resource managment amongst other things associated with that as well, one being a stint as a volunteer at a museum excavating and restoring Fossils from Australia's not so distant past.Some from Alcoota an area that used to contain a large number of Freshwater lakes, all the Animals in that area died from Climate change a long time before Carbon was even a word.

I'd like to ask the people that have responded on this thread that say they are scientists the question, have you really asked yourselves the big questions involved in this debate based on science based grounds? Do you personally think that you have taken into account all the views expressed
when forming your opinions and do you think that there is the possibility that you may be wrong even in the face of the Consensus?

Top
#796930 - 18/11/2009 07:41 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: marakai]
windyrob Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 02/12/2007
Posts: 484
Loc: edithvale
Here is all the evidence needed to disprove water vapor positive feedback.
The satellite measurements of upper troposphere water vapor are shown by the red line. They are decreasing! The Enhanced AGW theory requires them to be increasing. The evidence speaks for itself! (from climate4you.)
Please post a graph of claimed increased water vapor if you have one, or concede! smile


Top
#797002 - 18/11/2009 12:45 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: windyrob]
Vlasta Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 24/01/2008
Posts: 972
Loc: Melbourne Seaford
That raises question
What is the difference between CO2 , CH4 and water vapor as a greenhouse gas ?
Theory of CO2 and CH4 is that they bounce back to earth ORL .
Even satelite data supports it,as anomoly shows warmer at the surface and cooler lower stratosphere against satelite mean of 1980-2000.

So let it bounce back and forth 10 times and the ORL eventualy find its way to space anyway , as the molecules are so far apart .
What water molecules are doing in this case ?
IMO CO2's 380 ppm or 450 makes no difference.

Top
Page 1 of 115 1 2 3 ... 114 115 >


Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
0 registered (), 306 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
avalon, philiphart, Ravenous2411, Sasho
Forum Stats
29421 Members
32 Forums
23733 Topics
1469420 Posts

Max Online: 2925 @ 02/02/2011 22:23
Satellite Image