I see JM now believes a climate modeller is a climate scientist.

Lisa Jones wrote:

Quote:


Well, you've had half a dozen cracks at trying to pin me to some or other ID and you haven't been able to do it. I only use this one ID- LINUS. 

And I'm still waiting to hear your views on climate change. All you have done thus far is carry on like a deranged, paranoid lunatic that's lost touch with reality

Oh, didn't you see that even Freediver keeps a barge poll distance from Lee on climate change. Freediver almost fell over laughing at Lee embracing a "bicycle pump" theory of global warming proposed by some crackpot senator from Queensland.

Sure, you and Lee go discuss climate change in between your doses of Thorazine. 

lee wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:54pm:


1. I was not posting about the GBR being 93% bleached, I was posting articles about how Moore and Linzden misrepresent climate science/scientists or get the science wrong. You seized one aspect of one article in your constant lame attempts to dismiss/discredit AGW.

2. "Womblng"? You cited authors to make a case that the GBR was not in danger from AGW. Contrary to this  lame attempt, the authors did not support your case. They themselves recognise the danger.

3. And you again, produced a climate scientist, Haufather, thinking he supported your denialism and I demonstrated from his own words he does not.

4. Contrary to what you say, the models confirm AGW and have been very useful. And if you stick your head out the window you can see it happening: retreating glaciers, retreating Arctic ice, melting Antarctic ice sheets, increasing temperatures, rising sea levels and acidification thereof, increasing extreme  weather events etc.

5. With respect atmospheric pressure, I told you before in another thread that it plays a minor role in the unfolding AGW. It's not a sole determinant like you and the crackpot senator appear to think.

Luckily, governments around the world are listening to climate scientists and not the idiots you dig up( and choose to follow), who can't see the forest for the trees.

lee wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 2:51pm:



1. Poor try. If you scroll back, anyone can see I was addressing the post about Linzden and Moore. Like your pals, you like to cherry pick and misrepresent. Linzden and Moore were debunked.

2. And you still overlook the fact the authors you chose to debunk danger to the GBR in their own words acknowledged that rapidly rising temperatures threaten the reef. A reference was provided.

3. Models and the reality they reflect debunk the denialists you follow. The models indicate that if we continue increasing CO2 emissions we are heading to a very uncomfortable future.

Here read about why you're full of crap, Lee, in respect of climate models:

https://theconversation.com/three-reasons-why-climate-change-models-are-our-best...

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-fut...

4. We are supposed to be in a cooling period, yet temperatures are rising. And do note everything else I noted about what's going on.

5. No, Hausfather isn't an idiot but he and Shmidt made an idiot out of you. 

""By and large our models have gotten it right, plus or minus a little bit," said Hausfather, a UC Berkeley scientist who is climate and energy director at the Breakthrough Institute. "If they get it wrong, it's slightly on the warm side, but I wouldn't read too much into that.""

Unlike you, Lee, they see the forest from the trees. You don't know what you're talking about Lee, and it seems that in your case it's IIGO- Information In Garbage Out.

6. Atmospheric pressure is a component of modelling amongst a host of factors. That you and the senator you latched onto are fixated on  it as a primary determinant is just plain dumb.

From your think progress site -

"That idea of course meant ignored the myriad observations that climate impacts are occurring faster, not slower, than the models had predicted, and that therefore the multiple strong amplifying feedbacks are overwhelming whatever few week negative feedbacks occur in the climate system — see Study: Water-vapor feedback is “strong and positive,” so we face “warming of several degrees Celsius” (and below)."

There are NO observations of climate impacts occurring faster. Clouds are water-vapour.

Oh I see they "inferred" it.

If you think different, post the proof.

Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 6:29pm:


I quoted from them.

Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 6:29pm:


The models say no such thing. The models can't tell what the temperature was a year ago. Let alone a year one hundred years ago. .

Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 6:29pm:


You mean quite apart from those scientists that are shills for fossil fuel?

Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 6:29pm:


Oh dear an appeal to authority.

Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 6:29pm:


And the greenhouse effect has always been there. The seas have been rising for hundreds of years, And the magical gas CO2 can determine which areas of land get to be drought affected. OK.


Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 6:29pm:


Oh the holy tree rings. They measure precipitation more than warming.

Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 6:29pm:


So we never had a MWP or an LIA?

Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 6:29pm:



OOH unprecedented? 1.5C in 100 years is unprecedented?

Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 6:29pm:


So tell us which peer-reviewed paper says that clouds are net positive?

Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 6:29pm:


So which extreme weather events are happening faster than predicted.

Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 6:29pm:


You didn't read the paper. What a con.

"New data reveals climate change might be more rapid than predicted"

Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 6:29pm:


Oh dear. The iPCC says nothing like that at all. The IPCC don't do science. They review science. So tell us which peer-reviewed paper said that.

This is what the IPCC says, with the appropriate references -

Floods - In summary there is low confidence in the human influence on the changes in high river flows on the global scale. Confidence is in general low in attributing changes in the probability or magnitude of flood events to human influence because of a limited number of studies and differences in the results of these studies, and large modelling uncertainties.

IPCC  AR6 WG1 11.5.4


Droughts - There is medium confidence in the ability of ESMs to simulate trends and anomalies in precipitation deficits and AED, and also medium confidence in the ability of ESMs and hydrological models to simulate trends and anomalies in soil moisture and streamflow deficits, on global and regional scales

IPCC AR6 WG1 11.6.3.6


Cyclones - There is low confidence in most reported long-term (multi-decadal to centennial) trends in TC frequency- or intensity-based metrics due to changes in the technology used to collect the best-track data.

IPCC AR6 WG1 11.7.1.2

Cyclones - The SREX (Chapter 3) concluded that there is low confidence in observed long-term (40 years or more) trends in TC intensity, frequency, and duration

IPCC AR6 WG1 11.7

Now that is what the IPCC said. Anything else is bunkum.

Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 6:29pm:


Oh dear A magazine. Hardly scientific.

Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 6:29pm:


Climate change did it? Not fertiliser use. Goodo.

Lee wrote:

Quote:


And you failed to make any effective counterpoint.

Lee wrote:

Quote:


You'd be delusional. Even Hausfather who you used in a vain attempt to dismiss climate models, refuted you, as did others I quoted. You keep returning to your vomit as if it's new. You've been debunked but lo here we are again. Are you playing a scratched record or is your brain scratched?

Lee wrote:

Quote:


Yes, the overwhelming consensus of climate scientist who refute the fossil fuel shills you have pathetically dragged out to support your case. And let me add, even the pro-climate change scientists you thought supported your points, didn't. 

Lee wrote:

Quote:


Are you deranged? You appealed to them to support your case. I found they didn't. Accept you failed.

Lee wrote:

Quote:


The greenhouse effect has been enhanced by anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Climate scientists studying this  "magical gas" through time and space know enough to assert that if it keeps increasing: droughts, floods and extreme weather events will increase. Their modelling is constantly improving and directed to being able to reach great specificity in prediction.

Pointing out that the modelling does not satisfy your need for specificity does not negate the theory of AGW and what it entails.


Lee wrote:

Quote:


You've misrepresented the quote. Tree ring data were studied in conjunction with ice cores and corals to reach high degree of confidence about the cooling of the Earth. And this expected cooling is consistent with what we know through Milankovich's theory.And you think you can fob off the study and all the science associated with it  with one unsupported sentence. Do better. 


Lee wrote:

Quote:


The researchers are talking about a general cooling trend. This does not mean we didn't have or couldn't have had an MWP or LIA. 

Lee wrote:

Quote:


Sigh. Climate scientists here are talking about limiting the average global temperature rise to no more than 1.5c above the average pre-industrial global temperature.

Lee wrote:

Quote:


I did not say they were net positive. You brought up the question of clouds. As it stands, clouds can have a positive and negative feedback. Low level clouds such as stratocumulus clouds can have a warming effect by trapping heat radiated from the Earth's surface at night.

The only point you had was the parameterisation of clouds. Because of this uncertainty in climate models, you thought that was enough to discount them completely. And you were given references earlier that falsified your assertion.

Lee wrote:

Quote:




Here's a quote from one of them;

" Here we present data from a twelve-year monitoring program, involving 6200 observations of 166 estuaries along >1100 kilometres of the Australian coastline encompassing all estuary morphologies. Estuary temperatures increased by 2.16 °C on average over 12 years, at a rate of 0.2 °C year−1, with waters acidifying at a rate of 0.09 pH units and freshening at 0.086 PSU year−1. The response of estuaries to climate change is dependent on their morphology. Lagoons and rivers are warming and acidifying at the fastest rate because of shallow average depths and limited oceanic exchange. The changes measured are an order of magnitude faster than predicted by global ocean and atmospheric models, indicating that existing global models may not be useful to predict change in estuaries."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15550-z


Lee wrote:

Quote:


You glossed over the above paper from which I quoted from. 

Ok you didn't like:

Quote:



Heavens, how did the prestigious scientific journal Nature allow this in?

Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought


I think the only bunkum has been coming from you- pretty clear now.


Lee wrote:

Quote:


Well, blow me down, we have researchers on one hand who analysed this with the use of 12 years of data and 6200 observations and written a paper, and from you we have  a speculation about fertilizer and a sarcastic "Goodo". Sorry, a sarcastic Goodo, and the speculation you thought you warranted it, doesn't pass muster. Where's your proof that it's fertilizer, do provide me with a peer reviewed paper. Chop chop.