NOTICE!

The Weatherzone forum has now closed and is in read-only mode until the 1st of November when it will close permanently. We would like to thank everyone who has contributed over the past 18 years.

If you would like to continue the discussion you can follow us on Facebook and Twitter or participate in discussions at AusWeather or Ski.com.au forums.

Page 3 of 115 < 1 2 3 4 5 ... 114 115 >
Topic Options
#797729 - 20/11/2009 06:55 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Vlasta]
Keith Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 16/12/2001
Posts: 6453
Loc: Kings Langley, NSW
Had the current heatwave started in December, nobody would have blinked an eyelid about it. So what if it's breaking November records? Records are always being broken. And just for the record, I recorded a maximum temperature of a little over 40° in October 1995. There's nothing new about this at all.

If the GW science was subjected to the same rigor as legal processes the AGW case would fall to pieces (it has anyway, in my view). Instead, we have monstrous edifices of so-called 'facts' built on the foundations of purely circumstantial evidence, fortified by abstract philosphical concepts. That is what science has become. The 'aim, apparatus, method, conclusion' approach that I once learned has been thrown away, especially in the 'consensus' faculty.

Top
#797736 - 20/11/2009 07:31 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Vlasta]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3817
Loc: Buderim
Why is the fact that Co2 is 0.38% of the atmosphere being brought up in a thead titled 'Science in AGW Climate Change'? Is this what you consider to be good solid scientific evidence??

Saying Co2 cannot have an effect because it is 0.38% of atmosphere is as wrong as saying that the sun cannot have any effect on climate because The sun is something like 0.008% of the sky.

The biggest tool in the climate change denial toolkit is not scientific accuracy but the sheer number of incorrect arguments, and the attempt to create confusion.

Top
#797737 - 20/11/2009 07:34 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Keith]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3817
Loc: Buderim
Originally Posted By: Keith
Had the current heatwave started in December, nobody would have blinked an eyelid about it. So what if it's breaking November records? Records are always being broken. And just for the record, I recorded a maximum temperature of a little over 40° in October 1995. There's nothing new about this at all.

If the GW science was subjected to the same rigor as legal processes the AGW case would fall to pieces (it has anyway, in my view). Instead, we have monstrous edifices of so-called 'facts' built on the foundations of purely circumstantial evidence, fortified by abstract philosphical concepts. That is what science has become. The 'aim, apparatus, method, conclusion' approach that I once learned has been thrown away, especially in the 'consensus' faculty.


Scientists did not build AGW on a heatwave in November. You have provided zero evidence against AGW, but instead yet more propoganda in a thread that judging by the title is supposed to have something to do with science.

Top
#797748 - 20/11/2009 07:55 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Vlasta]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3817
Loc: Buderim
Originally Posted By: Vlasta
Mike

Most of data's and graphs on climate4you are from Hadcru. Now I uderstand a bit more to questions I asked 2 pages back .
But I dont understand why water vapor would have so dramatic effect on temperatures . On the same page as were water vapor graphs also are clouds cover changes . And we all understand albedo. Had water vapor had so big effect we would have boiled all water when Vikings were farming Greenland.


I don't see why. The water vapour effect is strong enough to be the dominant cause of raising earth's temperature by about 30 degrees.

Originally Posted By: Vlasta

And to GISS adjustments comment you are right . I just wonder the formula for those adjustments. Melbourne ap is classified as populated area . We know that day time temperature is say same as Melbourne. So it qualifies for 2C UHI. Minima are much lower at Melbourne ap.and it falls into category 'rural'.
How do you make adjusments to only one station from XXX remaining on GISS'data sets one by one ?
Here is the GISS's page , where anybody can check any Hansens' station and data

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/



I haven't looked into much detail on the individual adjustments made by GISS. One thing I do know is that the adjustments are made by an automated process. If such a process is as complicated as I get the impression GISS is, then it is quite likely that the adjustments will not make sense for some individual stations. If such a process is well designed the cases that do not make sense will be few, and will not affect the result strongly. At this stage I am willing to take GISS on trust that their adjustments generally (but no necessarily always) make good sense, particularly as the trend is quite close to that measured by the satellites. When discussing climate change I am happy to use Uah so as to simply avoid the question of whether GISS is good or not.

I would change my mind on GISS if someone:
a) pointed to a specific flaw in the process,
b) gave some examples of how this flaw impacted on individual stations,
c) calculated how much of an effect this flaw has on the global average.

I am not aware of any of the criticsms of GISS having attempted step c).

Top
#797749 - 20/11/2009 07:57 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Mike Hauber]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
Check out the latest post at Lucia's Blackboard... LOL
_________________________
“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
#797758 - 20/11/2009 08:23 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Arnost]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3817
Loc: Buderim
To points a)-c) I'd also add I'd have more serious concerns about GISS if accusations of data hiding as serious as the ones against CRU were raised. The CRU issues may be a storm in a tea cup, but for the time being I'm happy to agree to never use CRU again...

Top
#797793 - 20/11/2009 10:05 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Mike Hauber]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
Thanks for the heads up, Arnost.
My brief reading of Lucia's blog sure shows that things are not very pretty at all in the main centre of the AGW camp and in fact look downright nasty and corrupt in a lot of aspects.
If a journalist now has this info which from a comment, seems to be the case, there just could be a very large upheaval indeed if the politicals are shown that they have been hoodwinked for all this time by a very small coterie of AGW ideologists ably assisted by a whole gross of "environmental" [ ? ] outfits more interested in their enlarging their own power base than in truth and honesty to the public.
Now watch for the spin, spin, spin and more spin, generally known to the ordinary person as lying!

Rudd blames the heat wave here in Australia on Global Warming.
Meanwhile a massive new cold spell and snow storms are rolling into North America and apparently are about to do the same in Europe around the end of November, just in time for Copenhagen.
Truth and honesty seems to be something that Rudd does not seem to be particularly familiar with.

Top
#797814 - 20/11/2009 10:43 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Mike Hauber]
Keith Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 16/12/2001
Posts: 6453
Loc: Kings Langley, NSW
Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
Originally Posted By: Keith
Had the current heatwave started in December, nobody would have blinked an eyelid about it. So what if it's breaking November records? Records are always being broken. And just for the record, I recorded a maximum temperature of a little over 40° in October 1995. There's nothing new about this at all.

If the GW science was subjected to the same rigor as legal processes the AGW case would fall to pieces (it has anyway, in my view). Instead, we have monstrous edifices of so-called 'facts' built on the foundations of purely circumstantial evidence, fortified by abstract philosphical concepts. That is what science has become. The 'aim, apparatus, method, conclusion' approach that I once learned has been thrown away, especially in the 'consensus' faculty.


Scientists did not build AGW on a heatwave in November. You have provided zero evidence against AGW, but instead yet more propoganda in a thread that judging by the title is supposed to have something to do with science.


I didn't say scientists did, Mike. You always come out with combative responses about providing evidence, and 'propaganda', before bothering to count to ten and read and understand or ask further questions of others who don't agree with you. Sorry but I don't think that's a scientific response. And I don't think the GW people have exactly come up with anything more to support their position than the circumstantial evidence I referred to. If it can't hypothetically stand up in court, the onus of proof remains with the GW side ie not that there is/isn't warming (there is, but with some reservation on my part), but that 'anthropos' is guilty. I don't understand why that view is unreasonable.

One of the reasons I'm reluctant to say anything here is because of the defensiveness people adopt when the science is challenged.

Top
#797844 - 20/11/2009 11:31 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Keith]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6050
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
Professional weather forecasters are yet to be convinced by a long shot!
They are the people on the ground looking at the weather daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, decadely, and longer all the time
and should be fairly well in touch with what is going on! Very interestinmg results. (Of course in everyday practice they likely have to toe the AGW line to keep their jobs though)
"Published in the October 2009 issue of “Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society” (BAMS), a new survey indicates that a significant number of professional meteorologists doubt that manmade sources of greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming. The survey was vetted by an advi­sory board of climate experts, including representatives from NOAA, the NWS, UCAR, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Pew Center for Global Climate Change, and many members of the AMS.

Meteorologists’ climate change survey results:
· When asked about the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) statement that “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced,” a full 50% either disagreed or strongly disagreed. 25% were neutral and only 24% said they agreed or strongly agreed;
· 52% of the meteorologists disagreed with the statement that “Global climate models are reliable in their projections for a warming of the planet.” Only 19% agreed with the statement;
· Almost a third of respondents agreed (19%) or strongly agreed (10%) that “global warm­ing is a scam”;
· When the meteorologists were asked to identify the “greatest obstacle to reporting on climate change,” their top answer (41%) was “too much scientific uncertainty.”"
http://www.examiner.com/x-3089-LA-Ecopolitics-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Meteorologists-Climate-Change-Survey
(I know that I posted this on the another AGW thread, but seems to be in this ones topic also.)

Top
#797850 - 20/11/2009 11:54 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Mike Hauber]
Vlasta Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 24/01/2008
Posts: 972
Loc: Melbourne Seaford
Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
Originally Posted By: windyrob
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



I've had a look at both the cliamte4you page, and the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project sites and cannot find anything on water vapor. It could be somewhere there I didn't find of course.

Here is a link to a peer reviewed analysis on water vapor content which confirms an increasing atmospheric water vapor content as predicted by climate models. This paper is referenced in the IPCC fourth assessment report.

The chart looks very suspicious in the severity of the change in water vapor in the upper atmosphere. Water vapour dominates greenhouse warming, and the upper atmosphere dominates the water vapor effect. From memory, without looking up values, the greenhouse effect is around 30 degrees, water vapour at least 50%, and the upper atmosphere at least 50% of that, so more than 7 degrees due to upper atmospheric water vapour. Your chart shows a reduction in upper atmospheric water vapour of around 25%, which should have caused a cooling of close to 2 degrees.

This amount of reduction in water vapour just does not make sense.


What I meant by statement that water vapour cant have such a big effect I reffered to your comment
The reduction in upper atmospheric water vapour of around 25% which should have caused a cooling of close to 2 degrees.
Maybe its 1C or 0.5 who knows. As I pointed out before, satelite readings at same altitude show cooling as well
You could have unintentionally cracked the puzzle as I dont deny CO2 has warming effect . So mother nature created a valve to deal with it

Top
#797851 - 20/11/2009 11:55 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
Locke Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/12/2007
Posts: 4553
Loc: Brisbane
Originally Posted By: ROM


Rudd blames the heat wave here in Australia on Global Warming.
Meanwhile a massive new cold spell and snow storms are rolling into North America and apparently are about to do the same in Europe around the end of November, just in time for Copenhagen.
Truth and honesty seems to be something that Rudd does not seem to be particularly familiar with.


Rudd is a hypocrite.

You could argue that any global attempt to reduce carbon emissions could not be done without involving China and any serious reduction in Chinese economic output would have devastating consequences for the Australian economy.

Calling for action on climate change here and then embracing the economic benefits obtained from the massive amounts of carbon emissions that China produces from the use of our primary resources is complete hypocrisy in my mind.
_________________________
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
#797854 - 20/11/2009 12:03 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Keith]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3817
Loc: Buderim
Originally Posted By: Keith

I didn't say scientists did, Mike. ...

One of the reasons I'm reluctant to say anything here is because of the defensiveness people adopt when the science is challenged.


So did you challenge the science or didn't you?

If you did challenge the science of AGW, what exactly was the challenge?

If you didn't challenge the science of AGW, why are you posting in a thread called 'The Science in AGW Climate Change'?


Edited by Mike Hauber (20/11/2009 12:03)

Top
#797855 - 20/11/2009 12:06 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: bd bucketingdown]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3817
Loc: Buderim
Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
Professional weather forecasters are yet to be convinced by a long shot!


If you follow the link to the actual survey report, it is a survey of Television Weather Presenters.

Should the opinions of TV forecasts be considered as scientific evidence for or against a theory?

Top
#797992 - 20/11/2009 14:41 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Mike Hauber]
Seina Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7770
Loc: Adelaide Hills
Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
Why is the fact that Co2 is 0.38% of the atmosphere being brought up in a thead titled 'Science in AGW Climate Change'? Is this what you consider to be good solid scientific evidence??

Saying Co2 cannot have an effect because it is 0.38% of atmosphere is as wrong as saying that the sun cannot have any effect on climate because The sun is something like 0.008% of the sky.


I agree with Mike on this: the argument that a gas which constitutes less than 1% of the atmosphere by volume does not have a significant affect on the climate assumes a proportional response, i.e. the impact on climate is proportional to the quantity of gas.

=> CO2 is released into the air by burning fossil fuels.
=> The air temperature increases due to radiant heat energy originating from at the surface being absorbed at lower and lower levels in the atmosphere [known as opacity].
=> Increasing the air temperature increases the rate of evaporation and transpiration.
=> More water vapour is released into the lower atmosphere.
=> Increased quantities of water vapour in the lower atmosphere increase radiant heat energy absorbed by the lower atmosphere from the surface (in the absence of clouds – clouds cover roughly 60% of the globe at any one time).
=> The air temperature rises.
=> Higher clouds result in more heating, lower clouds, more cooling (application of Ideal Gas Law and Opacity Principle).
=> This is a positive feedback for water vapour resulting from increasing CO2 concentrations.
=> Water vapour is not uniformly distributed in lower atmosphere, either vertically or horizontally.
=> CO2 is uniformly distributed in lower atmosphere, and decreases uniformly with altitude.
=> In the absence of clouds the warming effects due to CO2 can potentially be pronounced.
=> In the absence of water vapour the warming effects due to CO2 can potentially be pronounced.
=> As water covers roughly 70% of the globe, there is the potential for increased heating resulting from a positive water vapour feedback, resulting from increasing CO2 concentrations.

Top
#798015 - 20/11/2009 14:59 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Seina]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6050
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
"The survey was distributed by e-mail to broadcast meteorologists on the AMS listserve (numbering approximately 800) the week of 8 May 2008. There were 121 responses by 7 June, which was more than the expected goal of 100. Direct comparisons between this highly selective sample of AMS members and the larger random mail sample of all TV weathercasters published in 2002 are difficult. Different questions and methodologies were used. General patterns will be noted, but since this sample is selected from only AMS meteorologists, we can’t know from these data whether all TV weathercasters share their perspectives or not" Quote from the link Mike...sounds like Meteorologists survey to me!

Top
#798033 - 20/11/2009 15:28 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: bd bucketingdown]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6050
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
A lot of ifs and buts in that list Naz, and lack of mention of what solar and ocean and albedo & otherv atmospheric-ocean interchanges,etc are doing.
It is not as simple as just listing all those if's and buts. The complecity is just not understood well enough in reality. Our feeble brains cannot cope with it all, neither can our feeble computers either. God sits in His heavens and laughs at our feeble efforts I would reckon on this extremely complex issue.

Top
#798057 - 20/11/2009 16:05 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Mike Hauber]
Keith Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 16/12/2001
Posts: 6453
Loc: Kings Langley, NSW
Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
Originally Posted By: Keith

I didn't say scientists did, Mike. ...

One of the reasons I'm reluctant to say anything here is because of the defensiveness people adopt when the science is challenged.


So did you challenge the science or didn't you?

If you did challenge the science of AGW, what exactly was the challenge?

If you didn't challenge the science of AGW, why are you posting in a thread called 'The Science in AGW Climate Change'?


Mike, I'm not even going to answer that. My original post clearly explains my position. I know you don't agree, but that's OK. Let's leave it that.

Top
#798058 - 20/11/2009 16:06 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: bd bucketingdown]
Seina Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7770
Loc: Adelaide Hills
Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
A lot of ifs and buts in that list Naz, and lack of mention of what solar and ocean and albedo & otherv atmospheric-ocean interchanges,etc are doing.

Yes, it is but one mechanism. One explanation among many…no more speculative than many others and therefore no more robust either…which is why I place a strong emphasis on understanding AGW Science rather than ifs or buts. If there are other reasonable possibilities to investigate, then let us examine them smile.

Top
#798103 - 20/11/2009 17:07 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Seina]
Severely Tall Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 16/11/2006
Posts: 751
Loc: Melbourne, Victoria
121 Weather Presenters (which in the US means they must have undergraduate meteorology degrees at a minimum) is not really a very good survey of opinion......121/800 is poor to say the least, Can we really say this is reflective of the something near 2000 independant weather presenters in the US? Or of a large proportion of the meteorology professionals....Nope....Its like many polls completely irrelevant due to biases in the population of replies.
_________________________
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
#798214 - 20/11/2009 20:19 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Severely Tall]
Anemoi Offline
Cloud Gazer

Registered: 09/08/2009
Posts: 45
Loc: sub-tropics
None of us are supposed to be behind the wheel of a car on the road if we have more than just 0.05-0.08% ethanol in our blood, it's a crime as they say... and an even smaller percentage in terms of our whole body weight (<0.001% or so)

So explain how come such a vanishingly small amount of anything has the dramatic effects on our biological system?

Biological systems are entirely dependent upon a range of physico-chemical reactions that are equisitely senstive to, and often highly tuned to, environmental circumstances.
Quantity and effects have no direct correlation in many cases...
That's why 30mg of cyanide (0.00004% of a 75kg human) can kill you through stopping cellular respiration in your whole body.
Though 40-50gm of ethanol (~1 litre of beer) might just make you happy, then hungover.

The lack of basic understanding of earth and biological processes by many so-called skeptics here, and their apparent unwillingness to acknowledge their ignorance, is as I've said before kind of remarkable. Frankly it would be entirely laughable, if it didn't seem to hinder people getting on with actually progressing our understanding of climate more.


Edited by Anemoi (20/11/2009 20:20)

Top
Page 3 of 115 < 1 2 3 4 5 ... 114 115 >


Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
0 registered (), 46 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
Ansgar Berling, Instability, Krightlane, lynkim1
Forum Stats
29947 Members
32 Forums
24194 Topics
1529243 Posts

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