Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
Ali G said:
Fair enough, but leave the guessing to hypotheses yet to be supported by evidence would be my advice.
There are already far to many eager to believe (for whatever perverse reason) as opposed to those waiting to be convinced by evidence - including a valid GHG mechanism which is not in conflict with other scientific laws.
I look forward to learning and understanding more, prior to accepting, carte blanche, CAGW.
Drop her an email and see if she'll teach you then!There are already far to many eager to believe (for whatever perverse reason) as opposed to those waiting to be convinced by evidence - including a valid GHG mechanism which is not in conflict with other scientific laws.
I look forward to learning and understanding more, prior to accepting, carte blanche, CAGW.
durbster said:
robinessex said:
Lotus 50 said:
Drop her an email and see if she'll teach you then!
Preach is more likely, but as I'm not a believer, she'd be wasting hers and my time. 
ks so called CC science and loads of dodgy data, plus a good helping of commonsense and logic. Any idea if the planet warms a bit if that's a problem yet Durbs ?PS. Can you post the definitive truth data please. We're all waiting for it here.
Lotus 50 said:
Ali G said:
It would certainly be interesting to hear her explanation of why 25 times more H2O than CO2, operating in the same manner, is deemed less 'dangerous' than the anthroprogenically generated proportion of CO2.
Well, you could ask her - (her email is given on the Grantham institute link I gave earlier). At a guess I'd suggest its something to do with the rate of change in levels of atmospheric H2O vs the change in CO2 and/or the differences in the way they retain heat. I had a quick scan through her fuller ref list (theres a link to it at the bottom of the Grantham page) and spotted this which may help:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.207...
Lotus 50 said:
dickymint said:
Do you think that Her opening statement ...... "Carbon dioxide is is the primary driver of global warming" is anywhere near the truth?
Over the last couple of centuries, yes. At other times in the planet's history other factors will have played a bigger part.durbster said:
robinessex said:
Lotus 50 said:
Drop her an email and see if she'll teach you then!
Preach is more likely, but as I'm not a believer, she'd be wasting hers and my time. wc98 said:
durbster said:
robinessex said:
Lotus 50 said:
Drop her an email and see if she'll teach you then!
Preach is more likely, but as I'm not a believer, she'd be wasting hers and my time. I'm more than happy to engage scientists about this topic. The only reason you would be uncomfortable doing that is if you were afraid of discovering you were wrong.
wc98 said:
as impressive as her cv is, she can make all the claims she likes, physical evidence will decide if they are correct or not. up until now the claims of the consensus climate science community do not stand up to scrutiny.
True. And all the physical evidence supports AGW.dickymint said:
Lotus 50 said:
Apparently not (to AliG). But I'd still suspect she's better qualified than you or Robinessex to make statements about what causes climate change.Edited by Lotus 50 on Thursday 19th October 15:42
"The overall increase in global temperature of about 1C over the past 150 years is almost entirely due to the human activities that have increasing amounts of atmospheric GHGs."
(I think there's a 'been' missing there)
I think you can reasonably justify that from the Hadcrut surface temps data just about. Most (~ 0.7) of the ~1C warming since 1850 has occured in the last 5 decades (after emissions really got a move on in the post-war years). Does 70% = 'almost 'entirely'? Possibly not - but you could get closer to it by adding another (waves hand in the air) tenth of a degree for the early 20thC warming and make a reasonable argument that GHG forcing contributed there too (alongside other likely factors like solar).
kerplunk said:
dickymint said:
Lotus 50 said:
Apparently not (to AliG). But I'd still suspect she's better qualified than you or Robinessex to make statements about what causes climate change.Edited by Lotus 50 on Thursday 19th October 15:42
"The overall increase in global temperature of about 1C over the past 150 years is almost entirely due to the human activities that have increasing amounts of atmospheric GHGs."
(I think there's a 'been' missing there)
I think you can reasonably justify that from the Hadcrut surface temps data just about. Most (~ 0.7) of the ~1C warming since 1850 has occured in the last 5 decades (after emissions really got a move on in the post-war years). Does 70% = 'almost 'entirely'? Possibly not - but you could get closer to it by adding another (waves hand in the air) tenth of a degree for the early 20thC warming and make a reasonable argument that GHG forcing contributed there too (alongside other likely factors like solar).
I don't recall that as a time of human development contraction.
What, in your opinion and on a political basis, might be the reason for that trend?
durbster said:
True. And all the physical evidence supports AGW.
no, it really does not .reanalysis data and models support the position, not real world measurements.take the hadcrut 4 chart above from kerplunk for instance, it is largely made up nonsense. look at a global map of where temp readings are actually taken on some sort of consistent basis vs areas where extrapolation,sometimes from over 1000 km is used and you will understand that.the latest revelations from australia actually make a nonsense of the physical temp readings being taken today due to the equipment used .added to those known in germany (0.93c difference from old equipment to new measured over 8.5 years, makes a mockery of the 1c claims by appeal to authority scientist currently being discussed) i am fairly sure widespread changes to measuring equipment may well be responsible for the majority of the "global" warming as these higher readings are being extrapolated all over the place.
we are now coming to the time where the effect of the amo will be seen in the northern hemisphere . overlaying the amo on a general warming trend since the little ice age would suggest to me that the low point of this amo cycle might not see temps as low as the 70's or arctic sea ice extent back to the peak of 79. what i am certain of is temps will drop over the next twenty years and arctic sea ice extent will increase . ask around and see if you can find one single climate scientist that will predict arctic summer sea ice extent being greater than it was at this summer low point,that in itself was the peak of a 5 year increasing trend . i will be surprised if you find one. i think it will be higher and that 10 year increasing trend will be the end of the arctic death spiral canary in the coal mine nonsense and should cause a rethink among the climate science community.
wc98 said:
no, it really does not .reanalysis data and models support the position, not real world measurements.take the hadcrut 4 chart above from kerplunk for instance, it is largely made up nonsense. ...
So you're rejecting physical evidence on the basis that... you think it's a conspiracy... and somehow concluding the planet is not actually warming. OK, let's go with it, but I have some questions.
Why do satellite and geothermal measurements support the made up HADCRUT4 data?
Why do all surface temperature records concur if they're all making it up?
And since we're supposed to be talking about physical evidence, why is the permafrost thawing and glaciers retreating at the rates expected from the surface temperature record?
If you are right and thousands of scientists from multiple organisations across the world have somehow managed to pull off a fraud on a scale unprecedented in human history, that means there's no reliable temperature data at all. And therefore you have zero physical evidence to support a position one way or another.
wc98 said:
we are now coming to the time where the effect of the amo will be seen in the northern hemisphere . overlaying the amo on a general warming trend since the little ice age would suggest to me that the low point of this amo cycle might not see temps as low as the 70's or arctic sea ice extent back to the peak of 79. what i am certain of is temps will drop over the next twenty years and arctic sea ice extent will increase . ask around and see if you can find one single climate scientist that will predict arctic summer sea ice extent being greater than it was at this summer low point,that in itself was the peak of a 5 year increasing trend . i will be surprised if you find one. i think it will be higher and that 10 year increasing trend will be the end of the arctic death spiral canary in the coal mine nonsense and should cause a rethink among the climate science community.
This seems like a stretch credit is due for actually proposing something rather than just bhing about other people's projections like most, even though you have given yourself a 20 year safety net 
Anyway, I've looked up how the AMO fits into all this and the top results read like turbobloke's bookmarks - including of course, those proven bulls
tters: No Tricks Zone. That's not a promising start.But there's a bigger problem with your theory.
You're basing your argument on the AMO. The AMO HadISST record is from the Met Office. The Met Office are the same people that give us the HadCRUT data that you described as "largely made up nonsense".
How can you ask us to trust a different dataset from the exact same people that you've accused of falsifying data? In the same post!
Ah, I forgot another couple of issues with your AMO record.
First, some issues were identified and acknowledged by the Met Office:
http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/handle/195...
First, some issues were identified and acknowledged by the Met Office:
http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/handle/195...
Paper said:
A detailed analysis of the Version 1.1 Hadley Centre Sea Ice and Sea Surface Temperature (HadISST1.1) dataset has identified numerous problems, some of which limit the utility of the dataset for certain scientific applications.
And also, for what it's worth, this record you're asking us to accept, also shows the warming you claim isn't happening:Empirical evidence with Geomagnetic activity and hurricanes.
https://youtu.be/Fm6Y5mETVk4
and not a single carbon to be seen.
https://youtu.be/Fm6Y5mETVk4
and not a single carbon to be seen.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff