Australian Politics Forum - Rethinking Observed Warming

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 53257 At my desk.	Re: Rethinking Observed Warming Reply #15 - Dec 12^th, 2008 at 11:56am Sorry, I didn't realise 'toodles' was a flame.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Grendel Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 28080 Gender:	Re: Rethinking Observed Warming Reply #16 - Dec 12^th, 2008 at 10:31pm You're still a (mod: deleted. Personal attacks and gratuitous profanities will not be tolerated) ....
Back to top	« Last Edit: Dec 13^th, 2008 at 6:27am by muso » IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 53257 At my desk.	Re: Rethinking Observed Warming Reply #17 - Dec 12^th, 2008 at 10:33pm So this is what your argument boils down to eh?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Grendel Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 28080 Gender:	Re: Rethinking Observed Warming Reply #18 - Dec 12^th, 2008 at 10:41pm No... unfortunately its what YOU boil down to.
Back to top	IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Rethinking Observed Warming
Reply #19 - Dec 12^th, 2008 at 11:02pm

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/22/roy-spencers-testimony-before-congress-backs-up-moncktons-assertions-on-climate-sensitivity/

Quote:

Regarding the currently popular theory that mankind is responsible for global warming, I am very pleased to deliver good news from the front lines of climate change research. Our latest research results, which I am about to describe, could have an enormous impact on policy decisions regarding greenhouse gas emissions.
Despite decades of persistent uncertainty over how sensitive the climate system is to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, we now have new satellite evidence which strongly suggests that the climate system is much less sensitive than is claimed by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Another way of saying this is that the real climate system appears to be dominated by “negative feedbacks” — instead of the “positive feedbacks” which are displayed by all twenty computerized climate models utilized by the IPCC. (Feedback parameters larger than 3.3 Watts per square meter per degree Kelvin (Wm-2K-1) indicate negative feedback, while feedback parameters smaller than 3.3 indicate positive feedback.)

Etc, etc, etc....

Back to top

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Rethinking Observed Warming
Reply #20 - Dec 12^th, 2008 at 11:06pm

Quote:

2.1 Theoretical evidence that climate sensitivity has been overestimated

The support for my claim of low climate sensitivity (net negative feedback) for our climate system is two-fold. First, we have a new research article1 in-press in the Journal of Climate which uses a simple climate model to show that previous estimates of the sensitivity of the climate system from satellite data were biased toward the high side by the neglect of natural cloud variability. It turns out that the failure to account for natural, chaotic cloud variability generated internal to the climate system will always lead to the illusion of a climate system which appears more sensitive than it really is.

Significantly, prior to its acceptance for publication, this paper was reviewed by two leading IPCC climate model experts - Piers Forster and Isaac Held– both of whom agreed that we have raised a legitimate issue.

Piers Forster, an IPCC report lead author and a leading expert on the estimation of climate sensitivity, even admitted in his review of our paper that other climate modelers need to be made aware of this important issue.

To be fair, in a follow-up communication Piers Forster stated to me his belief that the net effect of the new understanding on climate sensitivity estimates would likely be small. But as we shall see, the latest evidence now suggests otherwise.

Back to top

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Rethinking Observed Warming
Reply #21 - Dec 13^th, 2008 at 2:44am

http://newsbusters.org/node/13731

Quote:

Despite the seemingly ad nauseum claims by alarmists in the media of a consensus amongst scientists that man is responsible for global warming, it now seems that virtually every week, another highly-credentialed individual comes forward to profess a skeptical view.

With that in mind, a significant paper concerning the relationship between sunspot activity and rainfall was published this month in the Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering refuting a number of positions held by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Though highly technical, the work of these five scientists acts to further discredit alarmists’ assertions that the anthropogenic global warming debate is over (emphasis added throughout):

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Rethinking Observed Warming
Reply #22 - Dec 13^th, 2008 at 6:40am

Well, well - That's an improvement. We've graduated from personal insults. At least now you are talking (well cutting and pasting) about climate sensitivities, which is getting into the area of greatest uncertainty.

Have you searched for the balanced responses to these points yet? If you are really taking an open minded approach, that's the least I'd expect you to do.

Have you looked into the actual people making the assertions? Are they even qualified to comment. Again if you really want to be open minded, you need to check if politicians are involved. If it's mainly politicians that are making all the noise, then that should ring alarm bells straight away.

Politicians are eminently capable of making noise. It's what they are good at.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Grendel Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 28080 Gender:	Re: Rethinking Observed Warming Reply #23 - Dec 13^th, 2008 at 1:48pm hypocrite all you do is ad hom and ridicule... it's what you people do. dwmt.
Back to top	IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Rethinking Observed Warming Reply #24 - Dec 13^th, 2008 at 4:00pm Grendel wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 1:48pm: hypocrite all you do is ad hom and ridicule... it's what you people do. dwmt. Is that your standard response now? I guess it beats thinking through a logical response. Grendel - DMML, NPATW, AWBYE and most importantly AWTSF. I was actually complimenting you before.
Back to top	« Last Edit: Dec 13^th, 2008 at 4:15pm by muso » 1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Rethinking Observed Warming
Reply #25 - Dec 13^th, 2008 at 4:31pm

Ad Hom?

Sometimes it is justified.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/22/should-you-believe-anything-john-christy-o...

Well this scientist does not have much good to say about your new denialist messiah.

Just keep posting your latest and greatest denialist propaganda.

Don't even bother noticing the mutually exclusive nature of the positions you champion in your vigour to decry and deny, after all, reliability and credibility are obviously not criteria that concern you.

Back to top

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Rethinking Observed Warming
Reply #26 - Dec 13^th, 2008 at 4:38pm

Almost forgot, while I am at it, I should add that Roy Spencer's credibility as a serious scientist was not anything that I am qualified to comment on, but the fact that he is a publicly avowed "Creationist", does not inspire confidence.

I guess if you think we are all "rib people", and the earth has been around for about six thousand years, it is your right, as it is mine to think you must be freakin' mental.

Back to top

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Rethinking Observed Warming
Reply #27 - Dec 13^th, 2008 at 5:17pm

Christy and Spencer are also responsible for the misreporting of satellite data. For a long time there was a discrepancy between land based stations and the satellite record. Subsequent work by others cleared up that discrepancy. (edit: Sorry - that's what your linked article said - I should have read it first LOL)

Creationist, Suth'n..... They wouldn't happen to be dog darned Republicans too by any chance?

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Grendel Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 28080 Gender:	Re: Rethinking Observed Warming Reply #28 - Dec 13^th, 2008 at 9:27pm Shooting messengers again guys... typical... need I mention Hansen and Gore both financial beneficiaries of the scare campaign, have been proven wrong countless times and they have been the main drivers of your belief in an unproven theory.
Back to top	IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Rethinking Observed Warming
Reply #29 - Dec 14^th, 2008 at 5:39am

Shooting messengers? These guys deliberately misreported their data to be on the high side. The error was pointed out by other workers, and all this deliberate misreporting was to please Senator Inhofe, who had nothing but praise for his good ol' boys.

They are sad examples of humanity. They are not messengers. They are liars and 'prostitutes'. Let's not mince words here. They deserve to be 'shot' down in flames and exposed for what they are.

Then we get this pathetic argument that the entire IPCC, a body comprising 2000+ scientists in countries as diverse as Iran, France, Russia and Australia have all conspired to manufacture a report (actually many thousands of individual papers) simply for the purpose of making Al Gore rich?

Give us a break. Grin

So those poor old Oil Corporations and Coal companies who feel threatened that if the public gets behind this, they might actually lose money - of course they wouldn't dare get behind any disinformation campaigns, now would they?

In terms of financial influence, we're comparing an elephant to a gerbil. It's no contest. Grendel - just who are you trying to kid? Yourself? You've gone way past that stage of self deception.

Ladies and gentlemen - Roll up Roll up. In the

Blue

corner we have Al Gore - alias the Gutsy Gerbil, weighing in at 23.6 grams. In the

Red

corner we have the behemoth Exxon Amoco aka "The Stomper" weighing in at 7.1 Gigatonnes.

AWBYE

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 14^th, 2008 at 6:12am by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged