Looks like these pseudo climate scientists are falling apart as they get exposed for the bullying, hiding real science.

http://notrickszone.com/2014/05/16/leaked-memo-on-climatology-exposes-growing-wo...

From the referees report detailing part of the reason-

' the Otto et al forcing is deliberately "adjusted" to represent more closely recent observations, whereas AR5 has not put so much weight on these satellite observations, due to still persisting potential problems with this new technology'

http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-t...

So it's not the models that are wrong but the satellite data.

But apparently they are only potential problems, so we must assume they have no proof of such.

And that of course is a contradiction of IPCC 2013 - where they used an "expert panel" for projections because the models were running too hot.

oh,of course they're going to get false readings if they take them in a kitchen. duh

jEVONS pARADOX GIVES DIMINISHING PRODUCTIVITY JUST ADD FOSSIL FOOLS 

http://i.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/5/23/1400844133799/94d22e69-787e-4f04-9ee2-baf9c4212f35-1020x612.jpegwidth=620&height=-&quality=95

Kytro wrote on May 25^th, 2014 at 12:03pm:



You did read it - right?

' i.e. the Otto et al forcing is deliberately "adjusted" to represent more closely recent observations, whereas AR5 has not put so much weight on these satellite observations, due to still persisting potential problems with this new technology'

So the satellites are wrong and the models are right? If the data is different to the supposition the data is wrong- adjust as necessary.

So why did the IPCC need an 'expert panel' as opposed the the models?

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 26^th, 2014 at 11:55am:

But MAY isn't over! 

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 26^th, 2014 at 11:55am:

hasn't been particularly hot for Perth i don't think..

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 26^th, 2014 at 12:09pm:


So far in May, Perth has had 16 days above historical average, and 6 days below historical average.

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 26^th, 2014 at 11:55am:



a) when did the "record" start?

b) how old is the Earth?

c) ???

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 26^th, 2014 at 12:51pm:



White flag accepted.

Your "record" is as insignificant as one grain of sand on a beach.

"on record"   

greggerypeccary wrote on May 26^th, 2014 at 12:55pm:

yes and no, like indicators of a complex system you require more than one but that is not to say each one is irrelevant... 

greggerypeccary wrote on May 26^th, 2014 at 12:55pm:


Over the past 5,000 years the Earth underwent an overall cooling of around 0.5C
In just the last 100 years - since the start of the industrial age - it has warmed by the same amount.

Kytro wrote on May 26^th, 2014 at 1:05pm:


Yep, exactly the point. 100 years is a millisecond in terms of the Earth's age

greggerypeccary wrote on May 26^th, 2014 at 1:39pm:


The fact that humans changed the climate of the planet in just 100 years is in fact the point. Yes it's a drop in the ocean in terms of existence of the planet, but then so is all of human existence.

The earth may have seem some pretty warm times in the past, but we have not. The conditions that existed in the past were also due to different conditions in the past.

Current warming is recent and linked to human activity. i'm not really sure what you are trying to get at by saying 100 years isn't much time.

Kytro wrote on May 26^th, 2014 at 2:10pm:



I can't make it any clearer.

It's relatively insignificant.

One cannot come to an accurate conclusion about the Earth's climate based on only one or two hundred years of official records.

To suggest otherwise is just naive foolishness.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 26^th, 2014 at 12:55pm:


Not at all. Our agricultural base, and our infrastructure are all based around the "record".

You cant underestimate the significant cost and upheaval of any movement away from the record.

Farmers who turn on a tap do not really care what the world was like 10,000 years ago. They plan, and want the world to be like it was 10, 20, 50 years ago.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 26^th, 2014 at 2:26pm:


That's not what is happening at all. Recent temperature records are only a part of the evidence. There are also a number of other methods used to get get direct measurements of conditions going back, much much further.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 26^th, 2014 at 4:14pm:



I addressed this further up, but yes it's not a fact, it's a theory supported by facts.

Like anything is science it's unproven, but it's more than mere supposition. It's strongly supported by the evidence we have to date.

Things that are facts are things like the amount OF C02 released, the temperature recorded at different times, the reduction of energy at C02 absorption wavelengths. These things are facts that support the scientific theory that the C02 humans have released is affecting the global climate.

Kytro wrote on May 26^th, 2014 at 5:04pm:

This has all been explained to Greggery a hundred times before.  He is a bit clueless unfortunately.

Kytro wrote on May 26^th, 2014 at 5:04pm:


Well if the first point is NOT a 'a fact', how can you say that this :

Things that are facts are things like the amount OF C02 released, the temperature recorded at different times, the reduction of energy at C02 absorption wavelengths.

Is a fact??? Either the THEORY of AGW is a 'theory' or it's NOT a 'theory'....pick ONE!!

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 26^th, 2014 at 5:13pm:



One can not accurately conclude that it is unusual, or even significant.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 26^th, 2014 at 5:18pm:


A theory, in scientific terms is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

So basically AGW is a theory, based on factual observations, such C02 release, temperature records etc...

The facts are the basis for the theory, but like all scientific theories it isn't a fact itself.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 26^th, 2014 at 6:32pm:



Punishable by death of a thousand insults on internet forums.

You don't mess with religion   

Kytro wrote on May 26^th, 2014 at 6:56pm:


That Co2 is the driver behind Anthropogenic Climate Change. Most the papers that make this claim aren't published..because they disagree with the 'correct' theory.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 26^th, 2014 at 5:43pm:

its like saying god is fact

progressiveslol wrote on May 26^th, 2014 at 7:17pm:


You say without any providing anything other than a statement. Compelling stuff.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 26^th, 2014 at 6:32pm:

Who is not permitted to challenge the idea of AWG?!?!

Your tin-foil hat is showing

greggerypeccary wrote on May 26^th, 2014 at 5:43pm:

Come on Greggery - you are the last person to be accusing anyone of an "unusually high level of ignorance"!!

The planet is warming Greggery.
The evidence is beyond doubt.

The arctic is shrinking Greggery.  This is a fact
The oceans are warming Greggery.  This is a fact
Global glacial mass balance is decreasing Greggery.  This is a fact.
The oceans are warming Greggery.  The oceans are warming Greggery.  This is a fact
Downward radiation of thermal energy is increasing Greggery. The oceans are warming Greggery.  This is a fact.
Outgoing thermal energy is decreasing in the same spectra absorbed by CO2 Greggery.  This is a fact.
Atmospheric CO2 is in creasing Greggery.  This is a fact.

AGW is a fact Greggery.

To deny this is just silly.

progressiveslol wrote on May 26^th, 2014 at 7:17pm:

Yes.  AGW is a theory.

Just as gravitation is.

Do you know what the word "theory" means?  I don't think you do.

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:42am:



And there we have it: the gravity "argument".

Didn't take too long.

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:32am:



Your "observed data" is relatively insignificant.

That's one of the major problems with your theory.

The temperature at my place right now is about 6 degrees warmer than it was when I woke up this morning.  Oh dear! The planet is warming!

See how ridiculous your data is?   

Two hours, two months, two hundred years: all ridiculously insignificant periods of time when discussing this subject.

lee wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 11:11am:


If it had been falsified, then it would mean the theory was incorrect.

The Co2 question has been tested, and is backed evidence (direct measurements). The models offer a range of predictions, and so far observations have large fall within that range. Models are of course subject to fine tuning as more power / knowledge becomes available.

In terms of data, climate change studies are no different to any other scientific study in the way data are handled.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 11:11am:

And you still don't understand it, do you Greggery.

Are you going to tell us that we really don't know if physical bodies attract each other, because  gravitation is "just a theory"?

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 11:49am:



No.

Are you?

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 11:34am:

No Greggery.  Over a century of climate data is very significant in the context of man's built environment.  This is how we have towns and cities built where they are and how they are.  And this is why agriculture and other industries have developed the way they have.  All based on the relatively stable climactic conditions observed during the period of their development.  These climactic conditions are now changing significantly.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 11:34am:

Not my theory Greggery.  A theory developed over decades by those that study these matters.  If the 'theory' had 'major problems' - it wouldn't be a valid theory.  But it doesn't.  So it is.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 11:34am:
Yes Greggery.  Most parts of the planet generally warm and cool on a daily basis because of the rotation of the earth.  This is why an hourly time frame is not appropriate when discussing long term climate.

And there are other drivers such as ENSO or solar irradiance which affect climate over yearly or decadal time spans - this is why a yearly time frame is not appropriate when discussing long term climate.

And there are other non-cyclical drivers such as volcanic activity which may affect climate for a short amount of time on an irregular basis.

But when measured over many decades - these irregularities tend to even out - and we can observe a relatively stable climate.  This relatively stable climate is now being observed to be changing to a degree that is beyond the normally expected anomalies.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 11:34am:
I certainly see something ridiculous

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 11:34am:

Two hours, two months, are both ridiculously insignificant periods of time when discussing this subject.

Two hundred years isn't.

If a 50yo man who had had a relatively constant weight of 80kg for a decade weighed himself every morning and noticed a 10% weight increase every week - would you argue that it is impossible to know if he is in fact gaining weight - because from his point of conception 50 years ago he gained weight at a much quicker rate?  Or would you perhaps disregard his embryonic and adolescent periods of weight gain as being not relevant to the issue of his current adult health?

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:21pm:



Yes, it is.  It's just as ridiculous as two days or two weeks.

Hopefully you'll realise this one day.

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:32pm:



4.5 billion divided by 200 =

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:11pm:


Really, because most of your posts seem to suggest you think AGW is some sort of religious cult.

...
which is about a first for a scientific theory. Usually its the religious side who like things the same as they've always been (ie flat earth)

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 1:46pm:



Yes, really.  Check back through this thread, and many others, if you don't believe me.

The people who believe that AGW is a "fact", are most certainly reminiscent of cult members.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 1:49pm:


That is wrong. Scientists gather all data that is available, and use that data to match to theoretical models.   If a model cherry picks data it is quickly exposed through peer review.

You seem to have a problem with the data not being linear in granularity. You seem to be alone there.

Deniers have had a long history of cherry picking data within the scientific data to push agenda's. muso posts a nice graph every now and then.


So dont go around painting scientists with this cherry picking nonsense.

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 3:03pm:



Well spotted.  You're starting to learn (albeit, very slowly).

And how much data do we have, exactly?  Hmmm?  How many years do records go back?

Think very carefully before you answer.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 3:08pm:


Enough data to support their predictions.

Scientists arent predicting the world will become a molten volcano infested rock as it was 100 million years ago. They arent prediciting it will become a snowball as it was some x millions of years ago.

They are saying a shift of a few degrees will impact our ability to feed 6 billion people, and a few degrees will raise sea levels to impact coastal infrastructure.

These are things that will severly impact us humans. The rest of the planet may not notice so much.

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 3:38pm:



According to reality, the models are just that: models.


'Reality' - 'Models'

           

'Chalk' - 'Cheese'

Kytro wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 3:50pm:



Ah, 'consensus'.

We've already had 'gravity', so I suppose it was only a matter of time before 'consensus' made an appearance.

200 year = usleless because the agw cult cant explain the pause. The models and their predictions are up the shitter

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 4:04pm:


As opposed to the argument these guys are right because I like what they say? Back it with credible science, instead of tired rhetoric that the truth is oppressed.

The reason there is appears to be a consensus is because of the vast amount of compelling evidence. The only controversy is political, not scientific, the dissent in climate change scientifically is no different from any other field in science. It's a part of normal practice. In most cases there is little public discourse on it, but since a bunch of short-sighted business people are worried about having less immediate profit they have created this nonsense controversy. This is no different to fake controversy over evolution.

Yes, like all science it is always possible there is an alternative explanation but ignoring overwhelming evidence and cherry picking the dissent isn't how science works. It's tin-foil hat conspiracy nonsense.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 5:49pm:

Do you call people who accept the scientific evidence supporting gravitational theory "cult members" Greggery?

If not.  Why not?

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:03pm:

Yes - it was badly worded.  Now - can you answer the question?

Do you call people who accept the scientific evidence supporting gravitational theory (or the theory of gravity, if you prefer) "cult members" Greggery?

If not.  Why not?