[quote]Uncertainty in pre-industrial natural aerosol emissions is a major component of the overall uncertainty in the radiative forcing of climate. Improved characterisation of natural emissions and their radiative effects can therefore increase the accuracy of global climate model projections. Here we show that revised assumptions about pre-industrial fire activity result in significantly increased aerosol concentrations in the pre-industrial atmosphere. Revised global model simulations predict a 35% reduction in the calculated global mean cloud albedo forcing over the Industrial Era (1750–2000 CE) compared to estimates using emissions data from the Sixth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. An estimated upper limit to pre-industrial fire emissions results in a much greater (91%) reduction in forcing. When compared to 26 other uncertain parameters or inputs in our model, pre-industrial fire emissions are by far the single largest source of uncertainty in pre-industrial aerosol concentrations, and hence in our understanding of the magnitude of the historical radiative forcing due to anthropogenic aerosol emissions."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05592-9

Damn. the pre-industrial fires artificially cooled the planet? Oh noes.

lee likes computer model simulations when he thinks they confirm his beliefs.

He just doesn't like them when they confirm man-made global warming.

Robot wrote on Dec 14^th, 2018 at 8:34pm:

lee likes computer model simulations when he thinks they confirm his beliefs.

Where did I say I liked it?  Did you notice the question mark?


lee wrote on Dec 13^th, 2018 at 5:12pm:

Damn. the pre-industrial fires artificially cooled the planet?

Your lack of English punctuation skills abounds.

;)

You aren't fooling anyone.

Robot wrote on Dec 14^th, 2018 at 9:30pm:

You aren't fooling anyone.

except you it seems. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Robot wrote on Dec 14^th, 2018 at 8:34pm:

lee likes computer model simulations when he thinks they confirm his beliefs. He just doesn't like them when they confirm man-made global warming.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
lee is infamous for this dishonest form of debating

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 15^th, 2018 at 11:11am:

lee is infamous for this dishonest form of debating

Oh dear. barney trolls by. ;)

lee wrote on Dec 15^th, 2018 at 11:50am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 15th, 2018 at 11:11am: lee is infamous for this dishonest form of debating Oh dear. barney trolls by. ;)

Good on you Lee.

You're keeping the bustards honest.

You're also up to date with most things.

I must admit I have lost some interest in AGW debate mostly because no matter what people like us say it's inevitable because most are sheep and agree with the official story.   

Keep up the good work, although I have stopped investigating I do read most of what you post and learn it of there........................... 8-)

Ajax wrote on Dec 15^th, 2018 at 12:09pm:

I must admit I have lost some interest in AGW debate mostly because no matter what people like us say it's inevitable because most are sheep and agree with the official story.

It's not fair. Why do people believe the experts instead of some scientifically illiterate conspiracy theorists?

Robot wrote on Dec 15^th, 2018 at 7:08pm:

Ajax wrote on Dec 15th, 2018 at 12:09pm: I must admit I have lost some interest in AGW debate mostly because no matter what people like us say it's inevitable because most are sheep and agree with the official story. It's not fair. Why do people believe the experts instead of some scientifically illiterate conspiracy theorists?

Yes, who to believe?
An actual scientist who has studied these matters for a large part of their lives
Or some keyboard warrior blogging political emotive nonsense

That's not an "appeal to authority" fallacy it's an "appeal to expertise"

Robot wrote on Dec 15^th, 2018 at 7:08pm:

Ajax wrote on Dec 15th, 2018 at 12:09pm: I must admit I have lost some interest in AGW debate mostly because no matter what people like us say it's inevitable because most are sheep and agree with the official story. It's not fair. Why do people believe the experts instead of some scientifically illiterate conspiracy theorists?

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 10:31am:

Robot wrote on Dec 15th, 2018 at 7:08pm: Ajax wrote on Dec 15th, 2018 at 12:09pm: I must admit I have lost some interest in AGW debate mostly because no matter what people like us say it's inevitable because most are sheep and agree with the official story. It's not fair. Why do people believe the experts instead of some scientifically illiterate conspiracy theorists? Yes, who to believe? An actual scientist who has studied these matters for a large part of their lives Or some keyboard warrior blogging political emotive nonsense That's not an "appeal to authority" fallacy it's an "appeal to expertise"

When labor gets in and bows the knee to the United Nations (IPCC) they will fleece this country its going to affect all of us including you dummies.

First up will be Australia finances the climate change meetings for the next how many years.

They have already asked for $400 million/year.

Labor will do it.

And then what is next.

The oligarchy will be laughing all the way to the bank and you dimwits will be applauding...LMFAO.

Well not really I guess I'll be crying.

At least your going to suffer too......LOL..... ;D

Since the carbon tax power prices have more than doubled.

When the oligarchy establish their carbon derivatives market don't be surprised if the price of carbon derivatives fluctuates like petrol prices and power prices the same.

Then I'll come back here and remind every day...... :-*

And none of those conspiracy theories have anything to do with the science of human induced climate change

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 11:11am:

And none of those conspiracy theories have anything to do with the science of human induced climate change

And none of those alleged conspiracy theories have anything to do with the theory of human induced climate change.

Fixed it for you.


The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 10:31am:

Yes, who to believe? An actual scientist who has studied these matters for a large part of their lives Or some keyboard warrior blogging political emotive nonsense

You mean like the 90 odd climate scientists who wrote the SR5 report?

"Since 1970 the global average temperature has been rising at a rate of 1.7°C per century, compared to a long-term decline over the past 7,000 years at a baseline rate of 0.01°C per century (NOAA 2016, Marcott et al. 2013)."

http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_chapter1.pdf 

When the Marcott  said this in reply to a query about the last 100 years -

Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. "

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

Not robust, cannot be considered representative, and not the basis for its conclusions?

Drawing an inference specifically denied by Marcott.

This is allegedly from scientists who actually studied the science.

Let's see you turn that into a "conspiracy theory".

Or perhaps misrepresentation is the "new" science.

If mankind had stayed in the hunter-gatherer stage, would Earth's climate be different today? My understanding is that the development of agriculture changed the climate.

AiA wrote on Dec 19^th, 2018 at 5:28am:

If mankind had stayed in the hunter-gatherer stage, would Earth's climate be different today?

In that case we wouldn't have medicines, fantastic surgery procedures, penicillin, overpopulation, decent housing, the dole, pensions etc.

Did you see the recent report that said Neanderthals had lead in their systems?


AiA wrote on Dec 19^th, 2018 at 5:28am:

My understanding is that the development of agriculture changed the climate.

You mean climate never changed before that?

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2018 at 11:30am:

AiA wrote on Dec 19th, 2018 at 5:28am: If mankind had stayed in the hunter-gatherer stage, would Earth's climate be different today? In that case we wouldn't have medicines, fantastic surgery procedures, penicillin, overpopulation, decent housing, the dole, pensions etc. Did you see the recent report that said Neanderthals had lead in their systems? AiA wrote on Dec 19th, 2018 at 5:28am: My understanding is that the development of agriculture changed the climate. You mean climate never changed before that?

You went off on a real tangent with my comments. I wasn't advocating against the benefits of modernity nor was I suggesting that the climate never changed before the advent of agriculture. What is wrong with you?

if u say someone has died from poison... Lee will ask " What u think no one has died before " :D :D :D :P

AiA wrote on Dec 20^th, 2018 at 3:36am:

I wasn't advocating against the benefits of modernity nor was I suggesting that the climate never changed before the advent of agriculture.

Then how can it possibly quantified that man moving to agriculture changed the climate? ::)