Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 21
Send Topic Print
Climate Change Discussion and Questions (Read 35805 times)
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #15 - Oct 18th, 2009 at 3:10pm
 
Why have major Earth processes been omitted from models?

Which Earth processes are we talking about here? A common misconception is that climate models fail to account for natural climate variability. Most modern Climate models already account for ENSO and Solar cycle variations to some extent.

Most modern climate modelling systems account for a great deal more than the models of 10 years ago. To address this question requires more detail of specifically which major Earth processes have allegedly been omitted.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #16 - Oct 18th, 2009 at 6:35pm
 
During the current interglacial, sea level has risen 130 metres in 14,000 years, a rate far higher than the most exaggerated model for human-induced global warming.

During the last interglacial, there were a number of exceptionally cold snaps and temperature rose by as much as 20-degrees Celsius in 15 years after one of these periods. There were also alternating cool, windy, dry times and warm, wet times.

Some 6,000 years ago sea level was 2 metres higher than at present and it was at least 3-degrees warmer than now.

Cool times led to desertification and the collapse of great civilisations and warm times led to a thriving of humans.

The temperature and rate of temperature change in the Minoan, Roman and Mediaeval Warmings were far greater than today.

In the Roman Warming, grapes and citrus were grown as far north as Hadrian's Wall.

The Roman Warming came to a sudden end in the middle of the 6th century AD, due to a coincidence of solar, extraterrestrial and volcanic activities.

The Mediaeval Warming commenced with a very active sun.

Between 900 and 1300 AD, it was warmer, times were prosperous and generational wealth was used to build the great cathedrals, monasteries and universities of Europe.

The Vikings colonised Newfoundland and called in Vinland. No grapes could survive the cool climate of Newfoundland today.

In the Mediaeval Warming, wheat, barley, sheep and cattle were grown in Greenland in places now covered by ice.

Atmospheric temperature was at least 5-degrees warmer than at present.

A solar change in 1280 AD led to the Little Ice Age.

It took 23 years to change from the Mediaeval Warming to the Little Ice Age.

There was crop failure, starvation and murderous climate refugees roamed Europe.

The stressed population succumbed to the plague and there was massive depopulation.

During times of decreased sunspot activity, it was far colder, there was civil unrest, starvation, ice-fairs on rivers and increased cloudiness.

The Little Ice Age ended about 1850. Since then, the Earth has warmed at the same rate from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998.

Atmospheric temperature has been decreasing in the 21st century, despite an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The climate models show that temperature should have been increasing in the 21st century.

This disconnect again shows that carbon dioxide does not drive temperature and that models of very complex chaotic natural systems should be viewed with great caution.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #17 - Oct 19th, 2009 at 7:28am
 
You are reciting some of these items parrot-fashion from Plimer (I say items, and not facts)  just as he recited them parrot fashion from denialist sites. Some of the things listed are factual, but irrelevant.

Regional warming episodes are irrelevant in the scheme of things. The medieval warming is just an example of such an episode.  I already talked about regional warming in the last few posts. You need to pay attention.

Watch this video all the way through until complete, and take two aspirins. The aspirins will help that hangover that Helian insists you have.  Tongue  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU

OK, now the maths. 6 metres in 100 years is 0.06metres per year.

130 metres per 14,000 years is 0.009metres per year. My 0.06 beats your 0.009 metres by a factor of seven or so


Do you just cut and paste these things without checking the data? I hereby demolish your mouldy old opening remark. Now please bury it back where you found it, and don't bring it back again.  Roll Eyes

Can I say it now? Aw just this once.

Liar Liar , pants on fire!
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 19th, 2009 at 8:38am by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #18 - Oct 19th, 2009 at 8:49am
 
Yes, I just copied it without comment from your ABC... Smiley


Shurely shome mishtake.


Re maths - you assume a steady, even rate of change - again. The modeller's curse. Nothing has aver changed steadily, at a even rate over 1. 10, 100 years, let alone 14,000.

Sorry, pants remain well pressed, dry and cool.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #19 - Oct 19th, 2009 at 8:57am
 
In other words - you don't know what the rate of change was. In that case, I'll do some research for you.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #20 - Oct 19th, 2009 at 11:21am
 
muso wrote on Oct 19th, 2009 at 8:57am:
I'll do some research for you.

Don't do it for me, do it for your country.  Smiley
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #21 - Oct 19th, 2009 at 1:53pm
 
Well I did my research - and guess what?  Plimer is a liar, and you are a liar by association by assuming what he said was correct. Not only did he tell a major furfie in terms of the rate of change of Sea level, but (
wait there's more
) he overestimated the actual change in sea level (130 metres over 14,000 years) It's more like 120 metres over 20,000 years, which is something you can see from the attached graph. Now why am I not surprised?

Now in case you're wondering about the source - it's from the blog of that Princess of Denialism Jenny Marohasy.  Grin (but I checked the data - it's right)

The MWP points are brief period of seawater rise due to rapid meltwater releases following the last glacial period. The current sea level rise is mostly due to increasing ocean temperature.

Now they can't both be right. In this case, Jenny actually got it right whilst Plimer got it wrong.

Maybe it's time to get out that fire extinguisher again.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 19th, 2009 at 3:17pm by muso »  


...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #22 - Oct 19th, 2009 at 1:59pm
 
The maximum slope of that graph equates to 0.008 metres per annum.

The current trend is about 0.06 metres per annum, as shown in the graph below from the Copenhagen Sythesis Report.

You may also note that the current rate of sea level change fits in with the more extreme predictions of IPCC 4AR (6 metres by 2100). It follows very closely with the "Holy Sh1t!" scenario.

Quote:
Figure 1
Change in sea level from 1970 to 2008, relative to the sea level at 1990. The solid lines are based on observations smoothed to remove the effects of interannual variability (light lines connect data points). Data in most recent years are obtained via satellite based sensors. The envelope of IPCC projections is shown for comparison; this includes the broken lines as individual projections and the shading as the uncertainty around the projections.
Back to top
 

sealevel.jpg (15 KB | 47 )
sealevel.jpg

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #23 - Oct 19th, 2009 at 3:06pm
 
muso wrote on Oct 19th, 2009 at 1:53pm:
he overestimated the actual change in sea level (130 metres over 14,000 years) It's more like 120 metres over 25,000 years.


Time to get out that fire extinguisher again.



Wow, 10 metres, less than 10% difference,  between the estimates for difference over 14-25 millenia!! Head for the hills!!


I agree, it is a major issue whether you are 120 or 130 metres under water.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
skippy
Ex Member


Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #24 - Oct 19th, 2009 at 3:08pm
 
I thankyou for explaining all of this Muso, it can get confusing with the denialist camp doing their best to undermine the scientific facts with lies.
People like Plimer and those that believe his lies care more about their hip pocket than they do about our earths future.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #25 - Oct 19th, 2009 at 3:11pm
 
muso wrote on Oct 19th, 2009 at 1:59pm:
 


The current trend is about 0.06 metres per annum, as shown in the graph below from the Copenhagen Sythesis Report.




It is racist to imply that the graph says anything of the sort. What it does shows is 0.04 and 0.06 metres over a 20 year period (1970-90 and 1990- 2008 approx, respectively).
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
NorthOfNorth
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #26 - Oct 19th, 2009 at 3:15pm
 
Soren wrote on Oct 19th, 2009 at 3:06pm:
muso wrote on Oct 19th, 2009 at 1:53pm:
he overestimated the actual change in sea level (130 metres over 14,000 years) It's more like 120 metres over 25,000 years.


Time to get out that fire extinguisher again.



Wow, 10 metres, less than 10% difference,  between the estimates for difference over 14-25 millenia!! Head for the hills!!


I agree, it is a major issue whether you are 120 or 130 metres under water.


Who are you? And what have you done with Grendel? Grin
Back to top
 

Conviction is the art of being certain
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #27 - Oct 19th, 2009 at 3:18pm
 
Soren wrote on Oct 19th, 2009 at 3:06pm:
muso wrote on Oct 19th, 2009 at 1:53pm:
he overestimated the actual change in sea level (130 metres over 14,000 years) It's more like 120 metres over 25,000 years.


Time to get out that fire extinguisher again.



Wow, 10 metres, less than 10% difference,  between the estimates for difference over 14-25 millenia!! Head for the hills!!


I agree, it is a major issue whether you are 120 or 130 metres under water.




Gloss-over alert!   No - not 10%. Notice that the number of years is  different. It's actually more like 80 metres over the 14,000 year span.

I make that a 75% error, not a 10% error.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #28 - Oct 19th, 2009 at 3:23pm
 
Soren wrote on Oct 19th, 2009 at 3:11pm:
It is racist to imply that the graph says anything of the sort. What it does shows is 0.04 and 0.06 metres over a 20 year period (1970-90 and 1990- 2008 approx, respectively).


Don't be silly now. Grin
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #29 - Oct 19th, 2009 at 3:24pm
 
Quote:
I thankyou for explaining all of this Muso, it can get confusing with the denialist camp doing their best to undermine the scientific facts with lies.
People like Plimer and those that believe his lies care more about their hip pocket than they do about our earths future.



I really don't know what motivates Plimer. It can't be money. The best I can judge is that he's just senile.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 21
Send Topic Print