Australian Politics Forum - Climate Scientists got it wrong....

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Climate Scientists got it wrong....
Reply #45 - May 17^th, 2012 at 1:42am

Uncle Meat wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 3:13pm:

muso wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 7:56pm:

... a person who denies a hypothesis that is blatently obvious, is no sceptic.

Oh dear.

"a hypothesis that is blatantly obvious" Undecided

Are you suggesting that there are people who deny the existence of the AGW hypothesis? Surely not.

Do you mean like gravity, Muso?

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: Climate Scientists got it wrong.... Reply #46 - May 17^th, 2012 at 11:16pm No more aimless beating about the bush for this little ostrich.
Back to top	IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate Scientists got it wrong....
Reply #47 - May 18^th, 2012 at 8:51am

Soren wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 9:43pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 1:46pm:

Soren wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 1:33pm:

muso wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 7:48am:

We are talking here about very basic atmospheric science.

Actually, we aren't. We are talking about man made global climate change (for the worse, always for the worse).
If it was really all that simple, then there would be a demonstrable correlation between CO2 levels and temperature changes. But there isn't. Because it's not that simple.

i dont know where you get your information from (probably right wing blogs), but there IS A CLEAR correlation between co2 and temperature. And the last decade has proved that.

Your whole premise is based on false data.

I do not think there is evidence of correlation of the scale we are talking about. There is evidence co-occurence. Yes, of course CO is a greenhouse gas. But it is evidently not overriding other climate influences.
The charts of past temperature changes do not indicate correlative CO2 changes. There have been climate changes without correlative CO changes.

The other issue that occurs to me is instrumentation. Past temperature changes are surmised from tree rings and ice and the like. But I think modern thermometers are much more finely graded and sensitive than trees and a a lot more peaks show up in the instrumental measurements than in tree ring data. it is like sun dials versus the atomic clock. You couldn't use a sundial to time an ostrich around a bush, for example. The time it takes an ostrich to aimlessly run around a bush just wouldn't registre on a sun dial. Which of course doesn't mean that the ostrich didn't aimlessly run around it.

Soren, Watch that video that MOTR provided in reply 34 from beginning to end. That very succinctly explains the status of our current knowledge in a non technical way.

The effect of greenhouse gases is not in question. If we had no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it would be about 18 degrees colder on average. It is extremely solid knowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, just as it is with water vapour. It's a hypothesis that has been done to death. It's probably more certain than our understanding of gravity.

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 Scientists got it wrong....
Reply #48 - May 18^th, 2012 at 8:53am

MOTR wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 1:42am:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 3:13pm:

muso wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 7:56pm:

... a person who denies a hypothesis that is blatently obvious, is no sceptic.

Oh dear.

"a hypothesis that is blatantly obvious" Undecided

Are you suggesting that there are people who deny the existence of the AGW hypothesis? Surely not.

Do you mean like gravity, Muso?

Yes, or flat Earthers.

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 Scientists got it wrong....
Reply #49 - May 18^th, 2012 at 8:56am

Soren wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 9:43pm:

The other issue that occurs to me is instrumentation. Past temperature changes are surmised from tree rings and ice and the like. But I think modern thermometers are much more finely graded and sensitive than trees and a a lot more peaks show up in the instrumental measurements than in tree ring data. it is like sun dials versus the atomic clock. You couldn't use a sundial to time an ostrich around a bush, for example. The time it takes an ostrich to aimlessly run around a bush just wouldn't registre on a sun dial. Which of course doesn't mean that the ostrich didn't aimlessly run around it.

You mean you still think that dendro-climatology data is used as a primary proxy? Roll Eyes

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Incomptinence

Full Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 190
Gender: male

Re: Climate Scientists got it wrong....
Reply #50 - May 29^th, 2012 at 9:02am

While the most obvious evidence of gravity, objects observed falling first person has always been available to us until Newton published his theories it was not well understood.

Prior to this there was the Aristolelian theory of "natural place"which is pretty hilariously wrong insisting things like fire naturally goes above air and on exemption of "celestial spheres" from the theory.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Climate Scientists got it wrong....
Reply #51 - May 29^th, 2012 at 12:05pm

muso wrote on May 18^th, 2012 at 8:51am:

Soren, Watch that video that MOTR provided in reply 34 from beginning to end. That very succinctly explains the status of our current knowledge in a non technical way.

The effect of greenhouse gases is not in question. If we had no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it would be about 18 degrees colder on average. It is extremely solid knowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, just as it is with water vapour. It's a hypothesis that has been done to death. It's probably more certain than our understanding of gravity.

If it's all sorted down pat, why aren't the climate doom predictions accurate?

Example: Flannery was doom mongering about running out urban water supplies a few years ago. SInce then the dams are overflowing.

ANd if the doom mongering is not meant for such particulars, why bother making the predictions?

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Climate Scientists got it wrong....
Reply #52 - May 29^th, 2012 at 1:31pm

Soren wrote on May 29^th, 2012 at 12:05pm:

muso wrote on May 18^th, 2012 at 8:51am:

Soren, Watch that video that MOTR provided in reply 34 from beginning to end. That very succinctly explains the status of our current knowledge in a non technical way.

The effect of greenhouse gases is not in question. If we had no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it would be about 18 degrees colder on average. It is extremely solid knowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, just as it is with water vapour. It's a hypothesis that has been done to death. It's probably more certain than our understanding of gravity.

If it's all sorted down pat, why aren't the climate doom predictions accurate?

Example: Flannery was doom mongering about running out urban water supplies a few years ago. SInce then the dams are overflowing.

ANd if the doom mongering is not meant for such particulars, why bother making the predictions?

They cant even get right if water vapour and clouds are a negative or positive feedback. Climate scientists are babies in comparison to the theories that have empirical data coming out the wazoo. Climate science has very little to none.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate Scientists got it wrong....
Reply #53 - May 29^th, 2012 at 2:34pm

Soren wrote on May 29^th, 2012 at 12:05pm:

muso wrote on May 18^th, 2012 at 8:51am:

Soren, Watch that video that MOTR provided in reply 34 from beginning to end. That very succinctly explains the status of our current knowledge in a non technical way.

The effect of greenhouse gases is not in question. If we had no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it would be about 18 degrees colder on average. It is extremely solid knowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, just as it is with water vapour. It's a hypothesis that has been done to death. It's probably more certain than our understanding of gravity.

If it's all sorted down pat, why aren't the climate doom predictions accurate?

Example: Flannery was doom mongering about running out urban water supplies a few years ago. SInce then the dams are overflowing.

ANd if the doom mongering is not meant for such particulars, why bother making the predictions?

Tim Flannery is not a climate scientist. If he said things to the newspapers (I don't know and don't really care if he did) , that's for him to answer.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Climate Scientists got it wrong....
Reply #54 - May 29^th, 2012 at 8:42pm

progressiveslol wrote on May 29^th, 2012 at 1:31pm:

Soren wrote on May 29^th, 2012 at 12:05pm:

muso wrote on May 18^th, 2012 at 8:51am:

Soren, Watch that video that MOTR provided in reply 34 from beginning to end. That very succinctly explains the status of our current knowledge in a non technical way.

The effect of greenhouse gases is not in question. If we had no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it would be about 18 degrees colder on average. It is extremely solid knowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, just as it is with water vapour. It's a hypothesis that has been done to death. It's probably more certain than our understanding of gravity.

If it's all sorted down pat, why aren't the climate doom predictions accurate?

Example: Flannery was doom mongering about running out urban water supplies a few years ago. SInce then the dams are overflowing.

ANd if the doom mongering is not meant for such particulars, why bother making the predictions?

They cant even get right if water vapour and clouds are a negative or positive feedback. Climate scientists are babies in comparison to the theories that have empirical data coming out the wazoo. Climate science has very little to none.

There is enough scientific evidence to make an informed decision. I'll give you twenty to one that the next five years will be hotter than the last. How much money do you want to put on.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Climate Scientists got it wrong....
Reply #55 - May 29^th, 2012 at 8:49pm

MOTR wrote on May 29^th, 2012 at 8:42pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 29^th, 2012 at 1:31pm:

Soren wrote on May 29^th, 2012 at 12:05pm:

muso wrote on May 18^th, 2012 at 8:51am:

Soren, Watch that video that MOTR provided in reply 34 from beginning to end. That very succinctly explains the status of our current knowledge in a non technical way.

The effect of greenhouse gases is not in question. If we had no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it would be about 18 degrees colder on average. It is extremely solid knowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, just as it is with water vapour. It's a hypothesis that has been done to death. It's probably more certain than our understanding of gravity.

If it's all sorted down pat, why aren't the climate doom predictions accurate?

Example: Flannery was doom mongering about running out urban water supplies a few years ago. SInce then the dams are overflowing.

ANd if the doom mongering is not meant for such particulars, why bother making the predictions?

They cant even get right if water vapour and clouds are a negative or positive feedback. Climate scientists are babies in comparison to the theories that have empirical data coming out the wazoo. Climate science has very little to none.

There is enough scientific evidence to make an informed decision. I'll give you twenty to one that the next five years will be hotter than the last. How much money do you want to put on.

lol keep your money, I dont need it, nor do I need the I have bigger balls than you game.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Climate Scientists got it wrong....
Reply #56 - May 29^th, 2012 at 8:57pm

muso wrote on May 29^th, 2012 at 2:34pm:

Tim Flannery is not a climate scientist. If he said things to the newspapers (I don't know and don't really care if he did) , that's for him to answer.

He's the CHIEF Fooking Climate Commissioner of Australia. What does THAT mean if what he says doesn't really matter???

(or, as our Scotch friends would say, who the fook are you to question the Chief Fooking Climate Commissioner of Australia? And if you can question him, why can't everyone question everyone else without being labeled as a proto-fooking-Nazi??)
(I know you are one of our Scotch friends so I hope you know I am swearing near you, not at you. Wink

)

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 29^th, 2012 at 9:04pm by Soren »

IP Logged

Upton Sinclair

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 496

Re: Climate Scientists got it wrong....
Reply #57 - Jul 28^th, 2012 at 3:06pm

Soren wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 8:25pm:

It seems that it is OK to say about a relatively simple organism, such as an ostrich, that we don't quite know what makes it tick (ie it is too complex for our comprehension), yet the entire global climate, far more complex than a silly African bird, is understood, a simple theory encompasses all that we ever need to know about it, namely - we change it. That's it.

What makes you think an ostrich is too complex for science to understand?

And even if we are to accept your premise, you don't need to understand every single mechanical function that makes up an ostrich to understand, let's say, the role that oxygen plays in regulating an ostrich's internal temperature.

Back to top

"I am not asking the Australian people to take me on trust, but on the record of a lifetime,"
--Tony Abbott

IP Logged

Upton Sinclair Senior Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 496	Re: Climate Scientists got it wrong.... Reply #58 - Jul 28^th, 2012 at 3:13pm muso wrote on May 29^th, 2012 at 2:34pm: Tim Flannery is not a climate scientist. If he said things to the newspapers (I don't know and don't really care if he did) , that's for him to answer. Flannery was verballed, quoted out of context by politically motivated deniers like the IPA and Andrew Bolt
Back to top	"I am not asking the Australian people to take me on trust, but on the record of a lifetime," --Tony Abbott IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Climate Scientists got it wrong....
Reply #59 - Jul 28^th, 2012 at 3:26pm

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 3:13pm:

muso wrote on May 29^th, 2012 at 2:34pm:

Tim Flannery is not a climate scientist. If he said things to the newspapers (I don't know and don't really care if he did) , that's for him to answer.

Flannery was verballed, quoted out of context by politically motivated deniers like the IPA and Andrew Bolt

How so. The guy doesnt even know what he said. He even tried to say that a report that came out by his commision didnt actually say they could not identify what was natural and what was CO2, but yet he can go around like a scaremonger and make all sorts of outlandish claims.

Back to top

IP Logged