So do you guys call yourself "Astroturfs"?

muso wrote on Jun 14^th, 2009 at 10:05am:


That doesn't surprise me. It would go on everywhere and the multinationals are the ones who can afford to Astroturf - particularly conglomerates like Exxon.

How many gullible people fall for this stuff? It's hard to tell today what's propaganda and what isn't.  It's a pity most people haven't got the funds or the motivation to uncover these cons.

Oh I hear Al Gore and the "industry" have lots of money.  Also lots of political support.

and since then co2 emissions have continued to go up and the temperatures down

Grendel wrote on Jun 14^th, 2009 at 6:05pm:



Temperatures go down? Well it was cold here last night, but that's irrelevent.

CO2 emissions have gone up  
Temperatures have gone down

Exam score - 50% Sorry - no diploma in Climate Science from University of Alabama-Huntsville for you. You'd better remove your name from the petition, Grendel. (damn!)

While 1998 was an unusually hot year due to El Nino, the long term trend since 1998 is still that of warming.

Didn't you listen when I explained to you how moving averages work? It's a useful way of sorting facts from bs. You don't need to talk about it until the cows come home. There is a perfectly good statistical technique available.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

The easiest way to remove short term variations, revealing any underlying trend, is to plot a moving average. Figure 1 displays the 11 year moving average - an average calculated over the year itself and five years either side. They've used three different data-sets - NCDC, NASA GISS and the British HadCRUT3. In all three data-sets, the moving average shows no sign that the warming trend has reversed.

Look at the graphs folks.  

Oh but wait...  there's more.

Since you like HADCRUT so much  
looks like you are gonna have to delete them off your list of sources eh.

Quote:


Now who here just through anecdotal evidence and quoting all those denialists has been saying that the trend has been downwards for quite a few years now?

Oh yeah...  it was me.

But hey I'm not a climate scientist...  what would I know.

Keep on Astroturfing Muso...  if it makes you happy.

No goober...  I am and always have been talking about 10 years.

Honestly why do I bother.

I'm sorry I didn't think there were time limits on trends...  as I have said b4...  how many years are you going to settle for.  Another 10 andother 20 another 30 another 40...  100 years 1000 years...  how many times will you keep moving the goal posts.

I've been very patient and waited 10 years b4 mentioning there is a trend.  Oh and guess what...  there is.  And in another 10 years and every year in between I'll be pointing it out to you.

Oh and BTW global average temps are recorded on a graph every year not every 10.  

One day you'll learn to read and understand graphs.  I hope  

Oh and here let me quote the article again for you...

Quote:


Afraid you'll have to get with the NEW scientific....  I note the words trend and cooling which I have already highlighted for you.  English cannot be that difficult for you.

NOTE THE USE OF THE DATE 1990S  GET IT YET?  HOW MUCH SIMPLER OR CLEARER CAN WE MAKE IT FOR YOU.

Quote:


HADCRUT...  GET IT?  TRENDING DOWN?  GET IT?  SINCE WHEN?????

nOT LAST MONTH BOYO...

You just cant accept it can you?

oh dear abandoned by HADCRUT....  what shall I do?

hello?  hello? is anybody home?

Get with it Muso...  1+1+1+  etc =10  the trend is DOWNWARDS
I've told you.
Other people I've cited have told you
The data tells you
the graphs show you

Yet still you choose to live in denial... 

The trend IS downwards...  repeat after me...  the trend is downwards.

Sheesh.

Is the Australian Bureau of Meteorology astroturfing too? Format might  be a little strange.  

WAITING FOR GLOBAL COOLING
by
Robert Fawcett and David Jones
National Climate Centre
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Melbourne, Australia
April 2008
Corresponding author:
Dr David Jones
National Climate Centre
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
GPO Box 1289, Melbourne, Vic 3001
Tel: 03 9669 4085
Email: d.jones@bom.gov.au

Summary

There is very little justification for asserting that global warming has gone away over the past ten years, not least because the linear trend in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures (the standard yardstick) over the period 1998-2007 remains upward. While 1998 was the world’s warmest year in the surface-based instrumental record up to that point in time, 2005 was equally warm and in some data sets surpassed 1998. A substantial contribution to the record warmth of 1998 came from the very strong El Niño of 1997/98 and, when the annual data are adjusted for this short-term effect (to take out El Niño’s warming influence), the warming trend is even more obvious.

Because of the year-to-year variations in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures, about ten years are required for an underlying trend to emerge from the “noise” of those year-toyear fluctuations. Hence, the fact that 2006 and 2007 were cooler than 2005, is nowhere near enough data to clearly establish a cooling trend.

Global warming stopped in 1998. Global temperatures have remained static since then, in spite of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Global temperatures have cooled since 1998. Because 2006 and 2007 were cooler than 2005, a global cooling trend has established itself.

All these statements, and variations on them, have been confidently asserted in the international and Australian media in the past year or so, but the data do not support them.
2
Data
We use here three of the most prominent globally-averaged annual mean temperature anomaly1 data sets, one British and two American. Northern and southern hemisphere data sets are also available from these three sources. Australian (national) annual temperature data
have been obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology.............


(from Fawcett,  Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
December 2007) Edit - added full reference.

My cohorts now include the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Do you want me to quote some more authorities? I can if you like. Then it will be Grendel versus the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, the British Met Office, NOAA, NASA, Météo-France, and the World Meteorological Organization.

Ok Don Quijote de la Mancha - We'll put it to a poll - not that polls are proof or anything.

Grendel wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 10:46am:



You've yet to explain what you think I'm denying.   Why don't you just email Dr Jones and tell him he's wrong?

I gave you his email address.

It is pathetic to go back to this garbage, to even try and argue that every year must be hotter than the year before, to accept Global Warming, is just reducing the argument to childish naivity.

The inconsistency of just what the denialists are arguing against becomes befuddling in itself.

1998 hottest year ever? Why? CO2?
No Way Jose, says the denialists, it is?
Solar activity.
Of course the fact that science disagrees with this contention does not deter them from repeating the lie ad infinitum.

Of course the fact that nine or ten of the hottest years ever recorded have been during this "cooling" period since 1998 does not rate a mention by denialists.

The "COOL" year of 2008, tied with 2001 as the eighth hottest year ever recorded.
2005 tied with 1998 as the hottest ever.
The 12 years from 1998 onwards include the ten hottest years ever recorded.
The decade from 1998 to 2007 was the hottest decade ever recorded.

Quite a cooling trend there Grendel.

Oh, you want to forget that stuff, and start again starting, Now, no Now, how about Now?

Push the start and finish points of where you want to measure from, or to, around, and I am sure you can find cooling periods in every set of data ever recorded, but it takes a denialist to then call that "evidence"


So, if you can tear yourself away from the denialist propaganda for a minute, try reading this brief scientific explanation Grendel.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-the-climate-warming-or-cooling.html

If we look at the models, we will probably not see the trend change upwards again until 2010, so then you can start blaming the sun, or something else again, but you just need to hold out until the next period of declining temps, to start rehashing this particular line of BS.

The trouble is that each decline in temperature, will be a "Temporary" decline from a new "RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE", and despite the protestations of the belligerently and wilfully ignorant, Global Warming will continue on, unabated, and unaddressed, if this lunatic fringe of spoilers have their way.

I could ask that if the period from 2010 to 2016 does happen to provide new record high temperatures, would you desist from rehashing this particularly silly line of denialist BS?
I think we both can predict an accurate answer to that one can't we Grendel?

mozzaok wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 11:29am:


Some good points Mozza.

Professor Kurt Lambeck, president of the Australian Academy of Science

Quote:


Even for those of us that have pedestrian - average understanding of the scientific diciplines involved should understand this comment alone as common sense. Much of the other science at a general level is not insurmountable for the layman.

Much of the very detailed and complementary data does require a choice of where you confidence lies. Which does not mean that I expect the pro-warming science or statistics to be 100% accurate or understood. But I expect that with any science that is still learning, that being all of them.

From what I can understand Grendal, the denialist camp is the one you are sitting in.

LOC...

the world is flat Columbus, sail too far and you will fall off the edge.  Scientific Concensus 1492.

I don't think they were trying to "defraud the world's policy-makers" either.  Nor the general population...

But ah...  they were wrong.

I'd be quite happy to cut CO2 levels just on a "pollution" basis.  But don't try to tell me that global warming is driven by man and will be catastrophic and  not have the proof to back it up.

Grendel wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 12:42pm:


Actually no. again. That was more religious edict than scientific consensus. Columbus was inspired by 'scientists' who dared to think otherwise. If you disagreed with the religious position back then it was more a question of whether you valued your theory better than certain bodily extremities.

The Ancient Greeks knew that the Earth was approximately spherical. So did the Arabs who taught Columbus navigation.  

I will be happy if you just stop repeating discredited misinformation as if it is some new revelation.

You still refuse to even look at how it is discredited, so it really is difficult to see how anyone can show you the money, because scientific evidence is not a currency you deal with.

Did u check out the link to skeptic sciences I posted earlier, which deals with what you are putting forward?

Nope?
Thought not.
Nuff said.

If you want to discredit the denialist debunkers, go to 'realclimate' and go through their list of debunked denialist claims.
They have it in both laymen, and scientific terms, and provide links to research papers that support their position.
So see your denialist claims, see them refuted by scientists, then show them where they are wrong, then come back here and tell me about your victory.

It's not going to happen is it?
I half wonder if you really do recognise the amount of BS in the denial case, but because you are so wedded to it, you must try to just ignore that fact.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

These sites are both easy to understand, and will patiently explain it to you, if you really want to learn, and you may be able to convince them of the scientific merit of a denialist argument, good luck.

OK, provide one of your myths that was debunked on real climate, then show me a link to the skeptics proving the debunking invalid.

Even one false debunking will strengthen your case significantly.

Even one example of scientists agreeing with the original denialist claim, rather than the debunking of the claim, will illustrate your point.

I have never seen one, and I too have looked at denialist sites, and real climate scietist sites as well.

I have plenty of bandwidth, and when you post your new(rehashed) claims, I look them up, see what the spruikers say, then see what the scientists say.

So far I have always found the scientists far more convincing, and they even cite real data from peer reviewed science journals, an extraordinary example not followed by denialists.

You do yourself no favours Grendel, when you refuse to look at these sites, they are balanced, and give credit, and a fair hearing to people who have valid points to make, even skeptics, if they deserve credit, receive it.
Of course there will be errors, and no sensible person denies that, it is not the errors that are contentious, it is the deliberate misinformation campaigns that upset people.

You will see many cogent and relevant replies from people who agree with you that aspects of Global Warming are ridiculously over hyped, but it does not lead them to wish to throw the baby out with the bath water, just to help improve everyones knowledge and understanding.
They will say when a graph is poorly plotted, and the people who overhype the Warming side of the argument are roundly condemned if seen to do so, it works both ways.

The one aspect we can totally agree on is that we have much more work to do, to come to a better understanding of all the influences which effect our climate, so keeping denialist rubbish out of the mix is better for everyone, because it just detracts from the credibility of real scientists who do have real issues to raise, that sometimes support current ideas, and sometimes do not.

I am not saying that all climate scientists always get it right, or that some ongoing revision will not be needed, just that it should be contained to a more objective line of enquiry, rather than just having people trying to disprove the whole theory as a fraud, which is just ridiculous.
Flawed, quite possibly, but honestly flawed, and we need the same honesty from skeptics, and that is not what we are seeing.

Grendel wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 10:02pm:



There are some variables that work against us and we rather have to look for additional heat to compensate:

All radioactive material dispersed throughout our planet with passing time gives off less and less heat.

Crust of our planet gets thicker and so called "unlimited geothermal energy" in fact is limited and despite crust being good insulator, that heat permeates toward the surface and radiates to disappear into the abyss.

There are some valid points that actually our planet also shrinks because of cooling core (some of the Earth’s tremors could be attributed to that), and marginally but our planed this way receives just a tinier amount less of Solar radiation due to reduced total surface area.

There is also reflection that depending on colour of our planet can change.

There are also tiny pollution and dust particles that prevent solar radiation reaching surface our planet on top of preventing excess heat leaving us.

Obviously computer models take more factors into account, but I just cannot see the accuracy needed for such a certainty displayed by various models authors.

As for me, I don’t know who is right, and I would just in case reduce impact of human race and concentrate on both phenomena rather than just on global warming alone.

Grendel wrote on Jun 17^th, 2009 at 11:52am:



But do they take into account all the variables of shifting target?