Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
durbster said:
wc98 said:
durbster said:
We do.
The data and temperature support AGW, and the solar scientists I spoke to after you cited their papers to make this claim before also supported AGW. You were misleading the thread, again.
maybe speak to a few more.... he agrees humans are having a small effect on the earths temp but it is nothing to worry about. The data and temperature support AGW, and the solar scientists I spoke to after you cited their papers to make this claim before also supported AGW. You were misleading the thread, again.
wc98 said:
what is your definition of agw vs cagw ?
You'd have to define specifically what you mean by cagw before I can answer that.my definition of cagw would be a temperature rise due to the anthropogenic component of co2 in the earths atmosphere that would lead to currently inhabited parts of the earth becoming uninhabitable(for instance through rapid sea level rise), increased droughts, famine,deaths through the effects of the increase in atmospheric temps. leifs position statement linked just a few comments earlier is worth a read, for the data presentation alone. the oceans2k stuff is interesting as is the cherry blossom stuff from japan.
kerplunk said:
I don't see you mentioning Svalgaard's work much - why is that?
Possibly because it's already been covered in previous loops on solar eruptivity where your memory problems crop up each time. Five years ago it was around solar max rather than solar min.In the 2013 attrition loop involving kerplunk I said:
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
For completeness it should be added that of the various papers related to the recent solar grand maximum, Vonmoos et al (graphic source) differ to a degree from other authors e.g. Usoskin et al 2003 and Solanki et al 2004. The latter papers cite recent solar activity at levels above that seen for 1000 or 8000 years depending on which paper is taken. However there is agreement that "the level of solar activity over the past 50 years is indeed high" and as such, given the key climate consideration in and outside this thread relates either 1) to post-industrialisation or 2) to the last 30 years, depending on how far back true belief is retreating at the time, there is agreement on a very high level of solar activity in recent decades - recent here meaning after the Maunder Minimum and LIA from 1645 to 1715 - culminating in the 1990s.
Well here is where there looks to be an upset apple cart to me. Recent solar activity doesn't look much different to what it was in the 18th century and much of the 19th century ie no long term trend over the last 300yrs (per Svalgaard).The grand solar maximum ending in the 1990s isn't dismissed via sunspot numbers, as there are other aspects to solar activity which I included in recent posts.
Your point rests on Leif's revised sunspot numbers, but the grand solar max doesn't.
The previous peaks in solar activity are not post-industrialisation, there was increased solar activity around the MWP and RWP so it's good to see a true believer pushing for these other periods of enhanced solar activity to be recognised alongside the climate optima of the same vintage. As you will recall members of 'The Team' tried and failed to wipe out the MWP to push 'The Cause'.
There's only the very recent short duration (in relative terms) solar grand maximum at work in 20th century. 14C and 10Be data reflect the recent grand solar maximum and as such it doesn't depend on sunspot numbers or revisions.
Your approach seems to be deliberately blinkered, as though you're trying to make your case fit a preconceived position. In selecting Vonmoos et al for the graphic I gave the worst case (for solar activity-to-climate) as it still makes a very strong case for a very marked rise in solar activity from the end of the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum of the time, up to the 1990s.
Subsequently I gave the other two papers as they are even more supportive of a recent grand solar maximum, unique in over a thousand years or considerably more.
The case that true believers need to make, namely that the recent solar grand maximum didn't actually happen and that solar activity has not been at remarkably high levels in very recent decades, meaning since industrialisation, is shot through by all three papers and is not reliant on sunspot numbers as implied by your earlier post and again by the above post.
It's as though you can't read the numbers and letters in 14C and 10Be.
durbster said:
Nope. For starters, I said all the data supports AGW - in other words: the objective evidence supports AGW.
nope, that is not correct. the interpretations by some scientists of various data sets support the opinions they hold . no one disputes some mild warming in the last 100 years, attribution is the debate.there have been cooling periods in that time frame when co2 was on holiday apparently 
. also a long period of little or no warming depending upon who you listen to, though in terms of global temps to tenths of a degree i don't listen to any of them as i don't believe it is currently possible to measure a global temperature accurately.wc98 said:
LoonyTunes said:
Yeah, must have confused you with one of the other LoonyTunes on here.
is that yeah you got me mixed up with someone else and got your info from a greenpiss leaflet or just the former 
Talking of which - about that listing of Scientific Institutions...
1. The Royal Society
Your turn
wc98 said:
durbster said:
Nope. For starters, I said all the data supports AGW - in other words: the objective evidence supports AGW.
nope, that is not correct. the interpretations by some scientists of various data sets support the opinions they hold .wc98 said:
no one disputes some mild warming in the last 100 years, attribution is the debate.there have been cooling periods in that time frame when co2 was on holiday apparently . also a long period of little or no warming depending upon who you listen to, though in terms of global temps to tenths of a degree i don't listen to any of them as i don't believe it is currently possible to measure a global temperature accurately.
So we know the temperature is going up.. also a long period of little or no warming depending upon who you listen to, though in terms of global temps to tenths of a degree i don't listen to any of them as i don't believe it is currently possible to measure a global temperature accurately.We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
We know we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Those three facts make the situation pretty obvious.
If you have an alternative explanation for the mechanism behind rising temperatures, feel free to share. Note: "it's natural" is not acceptable.
Or alternatively; prove why, when we know the greenhouse effect exists, significantly increasing the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere wouldn't increase temperatures.
Until you have an answer to either of those questions that is anywhere near as comprehensive, well established and accepted as AGW, you have nothing.
LoonyTunes said:
More a "Yeah, I got you mixed up with one of the other fruit loops on here and get my info from reputable sources."
Talking of which - about that listing of Scientific Institutions...
1. The Royal Society
Your turn
are you saying leif svalgaard is not a repuable source ? he is the only scientist to date to make a successful prediction of anything related to climate than has come to pass. accurate enough for nasa to leave a multi million dollar satellite in orbit on his say so.Talking of which - about that listing of Scientific Institutions...
1. The Royal Society
Your turn
how did you have the time to read your reputable sources if you don't have time to read a page of words when i provide a link ? i make sure i read links from others on here when they post them in a reply to me.
as for the royal society their position on cagw was taken by committee. science doesn't work by committee unless you are stating no royal society members are cagw sceptics ? i already stated i don't place much stock in appeals to authority. even if 100% of the worlds scientists believe something, it only takes one person to prove them wrong.if you don't think that is correct, go and ask the royal society what their position was on the cause of stomach ulcers in 1975. unlike climate change the science has moved on since then. climate sensitivity to co2
increase estimates have not changed in a 100 years.
LoonyTunes said:
wc98 said:
LoonyTunes said:
Yeah, must have confused you with one of the other LoonyTunes on here.
is that yeah you got me mixed up with someone else and got your info from a greenpiss leaflet or just the former Talking of which - about that listing of Scientific Institutions...
1. The Royal Society
Your turn
wc98 said:
LoonyTunes said:
More a "Yeah, I got you mixed up with one of the other fruit loops on here and get my info from reputable sources."
Talking of which - about that listing of Scientific Institutions...
1. The Royal Society
Your turn
are you saying leif svalgaard is not a repuable source ? he is the only scientist to date to make a successful prediction of anything related to climate than has come to pass. accurate enough for nasa to leave a multi million dollar satellite in orbit on his say so.Talking of which - about that listing of Scientific Institutions...
1. The Royal Society
Your turn
how did you have the time to read your reputable sources if you don't have time to read a page of words when i provide a link ? i make sure i read links from others on here when they post them in a reply to me.
as for the royal society their position on cagw was taken by committee. science doesn't work by committee unless you are stating no royal society members are cagw sceptics ? i already stated i don't place much stock in appeals to authority. even if 100% of the worlds scientists believe something, it only takes one person to prove them wrong.if you don't think that is correct, go and ask the royal society what their position was on the cause of stomach ulcers in 1975. unlike climate change the science has moved on since then. climate sensitivity to co2
increase estimates have not changed in a 100 years.
durbster said:
So we know the temperature is going up.
We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
We know we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Those three facts make the situation pretty obvious.
If you have an alternative explanation for the mechanism behind rising temperatures, feel free to share. Note: "it's natural" is not acceptable.
Or alternatively; prove why, when we know the greenhouse effect exists, significantly increasing the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere wouldn't increase temperatures.
Until you have an answer to either of those questions that is anywhere near as comprehensive, well established and accepted as AGW, you have nothing.
given the oceans are the largest energy store on earth i would say there is a fair chance the various known cycles and the weather they drive have a large part to play.it's a pity we don't have records of global cloudiness going back a 1000 years to guage how much energy the oceans absorbed. the supply of that energy comes from the sun. i don't think we are anywhere near understanding all the mechanisms driven by solar output here on earth. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
We know we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Those three facts make the situation pretty obvious.
If you have an alternative explanation for the mechanism behind rising temperatures, feel free to share. Note: "it's natural" is not acceptable.
Or alternatively; prove why, when we know the greenhouse effect exists, significantly increasing the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere wouldn't increase temperatures.
Until you have an answer to either of those questions that is anywhere near as comprehensive, well established and accepted as AGW, you have nothing.
the amo is well on its way to the cool phase,there should be a great learning opportunity as a result. particularly around the wax and wane of arctic sea ice. been some interesting current changes recently up there.
well there is paleo data that suggests atmospheric co2 levels have varied independently of temperature in the past. unless anthropogenic co2 has special individual properties (like going on holiday
) i don't think that is much of a problem to explain. why did it cool between the mid forties and the seventies ? be careful if you think aerosols, their reduction could also explain the small subsequent temp increase. given the level of co2 in the atmosphere is near the limit for having any further effect (the portion that does the hard lifting temp wise is already there and has been for some time) we are now relying on the perpetual warming machine of increased water vapour doing its thing. this is the sensitivity issue that is now being scrutinised to a greater degree due to the model output being so wide of the mark. LoonyTunes said:
So that's a "I've got nothing" then. Fair enough.
eh no, plenty there. why should the royal society consensus on agw being a vary bad thing matter when their consensus on previous matters of science was incorrect? it is an opinion they are entitled to hold , nothing more, nothing less. have a read of the link to leif svalgaards position and see what you think,or are you worried your mind will be blown that a real live climate scientist that has done important work for nasa,and been the only climate scientist to make a successful climate prediction doesn't agree with you for someone that is big on appeals to authority i thought that would be right up your street.
Durbster said:-
So we know the temperature is going up.
We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
We know we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
As you seem to like simple facts, please answers this:-
Is a slight rise in the Planets temperature (whatever that is) actually a problem then?
So we know the temperature is going up.
We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
We know we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
As you seem to like simple facts, please answers this:-
Is a slight rise in the Planets temperature (whatever that is) actually a problem then?
durbster said:
wc98 said:
durbster said:
Nope. For starters, I said all the data supports AGW - in other words: the objective evidence supports AGW.
nope, that is not correct. the interpretations by some scientists of various data sets support the opinions they hold .wc98 said:
no one disputes some mild warming in the last 100 years, attribution is the debate.there have been cooling periods in that time frame when co2 was on holiday apparently . also a long period of little or no warming depending upon who you listen to, though in terms of global temps to tenths of a degree i don't listen to any of them as i don't believe it is currently possible to measure a global temperature accurately.
So we know the temperature is going up.. also a long period of little or no warming depending upon who you listen to, though in terms of global temps to tenths of a degree i don't listen to any of them as i don't believe it is currently possible to measure a global temperature accurately.We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
We know we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Those three facts make the situation pretty obvious.
If you have an alternative explanation for the mechanism behind rising temperatures, feel free to share. Note: "it's natural" is not acceptable.
Or alternatively; prove why, when we know the greenhouse effect exists, significantly increasing the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere wouldn't increase temperatures.
Until you have an answer to either of those questions that is anywhere near as comprehensive, well established and accepted as AGW, you have nothing.
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
Is a slight rise in the Planets temperature (whatever that is) actually a problem then?
Yes. You keep asking the same question and people have answered this and explained exactly why to you many, many times. wc98 said:
durbster said:
Nope. For starters, I said all the data supports AGW - in other words: the objective evidence supports AGW.
nope, that is not correct. .AGW failures in words:
- IPCC mean global T predictions wrong
- troposphere T trend wrong
- vertical profile wrong
- feedback wrong
- ENSO wrong
Same model failures in pics
-Note from the colour code key that the grey outer envelope is meaningless, it's used to help readers to mislead themselves that the data (in black with error bars) is still inside the prediction envelope when this is NOT the case.
The alternative 'spider plot' to this trend fail was given earlier in this thread but the fail is the same
For the afficionado, updated RAOBCORE data did little to help this vertical profile fail.
Satellite data top left, climate models elsewhere each with the wrong sign for feedback
ENSO wrong
There's more in previous PH climate threads including the magnitude of stratosphere cooling (wrong) but that's enough for this loop on climate model inadequacies.
wc98 said:
LoonyTunes said:
So that's a "I've got nothing" then. Fair enough.
eh no, plenty there. why should the royal society consensus on agw being a vary bad thing matter when their consensus on previous matters of science was incorrect? it is an opinion they are entitled to hold , nothing more, nothing less. have a read of the link to leif svalgaards position and see what you think,or are you worried your mind will be blown that a real live climate scientist that has done important work for nasa,and been the only climate scientist to make a successful climate prediction doesn't agree with you for someone that is big on appeals to authority i thought that would be right up your street.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
You'll find a statement from a further 18 Scientific bodies on that link too.
Here's just one example:
American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)
So, I'll add NASA as my second Scientific Institution.
1. The Royal Society
2. NASA
Over to you again
wc98 said:
are you saying leif svalgaard is not a repuable source ? he is the only scientist to date to make a successful prediction of anything related to climate than has come to pass. accurate enough for nasa to leave a multi million dollar satellite in orbit on his say so.
...
i already stated i don't place much stock in appeals to authority
Err, apparently you do when it suits....
i already stated i don't place much stock in appeals to authority
wc98 said:
...go and ask the royal society what their position was on the cause of stomach ulcers in 1975
It's such a weirdly specific topic that I can't seem to find what their position was in 1975. What was it?Never mind, you can't compare a niche based on science involving a handful of people, with something on the global scale of AGW.
Or are you implying the views supported by The Royal Society over the decades have generally been found to be wrong?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff