Forum

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

Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print
Warmest May ever recorded. (Read 2742 times)
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 131551
Gender: male
Re: Warmest May ever recorded.
Reply #30 - Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:05am
 
Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 9:22am:
greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:40am:
MOTR wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:38am:
greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:22am:
MOTR wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:20am:
There is no scientific evidence of a similarly rapid or large natural climate change over the last 11,000 years.




That's because we don't have enough official, accurate records.

You've admitted that yourself.

When asked how long we've had records, you said: "Since 1880. Before that you are looking at very sparse local records or paleoclimatology."

You're relying on one method of measuring the temperature since 1880, and a different method for everything before that date (approximately 4.5 billion years).

From two completely different methods of measuring temperature, and a comparison  between 134 years and 4.5 billion years, you've determined that it's not possible that "the warming that we are currently experiencing is a natural variation".

You're kidding, right?

And if you're not kidding, how do you honestly expect to be taken seriously?

Seriously?



But I didn't say that, greggery. I didn't even go close to saying that. That's you setting up a strawman. Now do you want to debate this honestly, or do you just want to put on a show.




Is it possible that "the warming that we are currently experiencing is a natural variation"?




What is natural variation?  Is that something god does ?

Any variation has a cause, a reason why it is different from previous recordings.  Anyone claiming a variation needs to come up with a reason why it is varying. If not co2 levels, then what ?


"Natural variation" is a lazy excuse, because it implies the person doesnt need to justify it.




MOTR's term, not mine: ask him what he means by "natural variation".

Good luck getting a straight answer though.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 131551
Gender: male
Re: Warmest May ever recorded.
Reply #31 - Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:18am
 
MOTR wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:51am:
greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:40am:
MOTR wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:38am:
greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:22am:
MOTR wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:20am:
There is no scientific evidence of a similarly rapid or large natural climate change over the last 11,000 years.




That's because we don't have enough official, accurate records.

You've admitted that yourself.

When asked how long we've had records, you said: "Since 1880. Before that you are looking at very sparse local records or paleoclimatology."

You're relying on one method of measuring the temperature since 1880, and a different method for everything before that date (approximately 4.5 billion years).

From two completely different methods of measuring temperature, and a comparison  between 134 years and 4.5 billion years, you've determined that it's not possible that "the warming that we are currently experiencing is a natural variation".

You're kidding, right?

And if you're not kidding, how do you honestly expect to be taken seriously?

Seriously?



But I didn't say that, greggery. I didn't even go close to saying that. That's you setting up a strawman. Now do you want to debate this honestly, or do you just want to put on a show.




Is it possible that "the warming that we are currently experiencing is a natural variation"?




Personally, I'd place the chance of the current warming being a natural variation somewhere in the vicinity of less than 1%.

So therefore my answer to your question is yes, but I'm virtually certain it isn't.



For over 4.5 billion years there are no records, yet you've come up with a figure.

How, exactly?


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MOTR
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6646
Re: Warmest May ever recorded.
Reply #32 - Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:21am
 
I think you'll find, greggery, I've answered your unambiguous questions in a very straight forward manner.

In the context of this debate "natural variability" relates to temperature changes caused by non-anthropogenic factors.

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
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 131551
Gender: male
Re: Warmest May ever recorded.
Reply #33 - Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:00am
 
MOTR wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:21am:
I think you'll find, greggery, I've answered your unambiguous questions in a very straight forward manner.

In the context of this debate "natural variability" relates to temperature changes caused by non-anthropogenic factors.




How did you come up with "less than 1%"?

Is it a guess?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MOTR
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6646
Re: Warmest May ever recorded.
Reply #34 - Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:20am
 
greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:00am:
MOTR wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:21am:
I think you'll find, greggery, I've answered your unambiguous questions in a very straight forward manner.

In the context of this debate "natural variability" relates to temperature changes caused by non-anthropogenic factors.




How did you come up with "less than 1%"?

Is it a guess?


My starting point is the latest report from the IPCC.

Quote:
“there is consistent evidence from observations of a net energy uptake of the earth system due to an imbalance in the energy budget.”

“It is virtually certain that this is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations. There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance.”
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
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 131551
Gender: male
Re: Warmest May ever recorded.
Reply #35 - Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:31am
 
MOTR wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:20am:
greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:00am:
MOTR wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:21am:
I think you'll find, greggery, I've answered your unambiguous questions in a very straight forward manner.

In the context of this debate "natural variability" relates to temperature changes caused by non-anthropogenic factors.




How did you come up with "less than 1%"?

Is it a guess?


My starting point is the latest report from the IPCC.

Quote:
“there is consistent evidence from observations of a net energy uptake of the earth system due to an imbalance in the energy budget.”

“It is virtually certain that this is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations. There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance.”




The same report that admits there is strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing?

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16428
Gender: male
Re: Warmest May ever recorded.
Reply #36 - Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:51am
 
MOTR wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:20am:
There is no scientific evidence of a similarly rapid or large natural climate change over the last 11,000 years.



The graph here shows a similar slope 1910 1940, to that current. Slope is rate of change right?

...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MOTR
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6646
Re: Warmest May ever recorded.
Reply #37 - Jul 4th, 2014 at 12:02pm
 
greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:31am:
MOTR wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:20am:
greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:00am:
MOTR wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:21am:
I think you'll find, greggery, I've answered your unambiguous questions in a very straight forward manner.

In the context of this debate "natural variability" relates to temperature changes caused by non-anthropogenic factors.




How did you come up with "less than 1%"?

Is it a guess?


My starting point is the latest report from the IPCC.

Quote:
“there is consistent evidence from observations of a net energy uptake of the earth system due to an imbalance in the energy budget.”

“It is virtually certain that this is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations. There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance.”




The same report that admits there is strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing?




...

Quote:
Changes in solar radiation, known as solar forcing, have had only a very small effect on climate change, a member of the UN’s top panel of climate scientists said today.

The comment, made by a member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), followed the leak of a draft IPCC report late last year, which included comments on the effect of solar forcing on climate change.

At the time of the leak, the climate change skeptics blog, Watts Up With That drew attention to what it described as a “game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing” but co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group 1, Professor Thomas Stocker said that solar forcing actually did not play a major role.

“As the scientific publications indicate, the assessment is not yet completed. We are looking at an extremely small effect here, that’s what one can say from the publications but I should stress the experts are still performing their assessment,” he said a press conference in Hobart today.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 4th, 2014 at 12:09pm by MOTR »  

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
 
BatteriesNotIncluded
Gold Member
*****
Offline


MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966
Re: Warmest May ever recorded.
Reply #38 - Jul 19th, 2014 at 10:43am
 
lee wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:51am:
MOTR wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:20am:
There is no scientific evidence of a similarly rapid or large natural climate change over the last 11,000 years.



The graph here shows a similar slope 1910 1940, to that current. Slope is rate of change right?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher/geography/images/02globalmean_warming.gif

** Statistics were invented because graphology is misinterpreted!


Back to top
 

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is.  It wouldn't be there without the tax payer.  Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know....  (swaggy) *
 
IP Logged
 
progressiveslol
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17029
Re: Warmest May ever recorded.
Reply #39 - Jul 21st, 2014 at 7:22pm
 
Well I said it will be looked at. This is just the beginning now that people know what to look for. Thank Steve Goddard

Wow, look at those BOM adjustments – trends up by two degrees C!


The mystery of Australian temperature adjustments


Ken Stewart has been checking the Australian BOM official ACORN minima data against the raw data. This week he highlights the six very strange cases of Brisbane Airport, Amberley RAAF, Dubbo, Rutherglen, Rabbit Flat, and Carnarvon. In all these places the adjustments change the trend by more than 2 whole degrees C. It’s a kind of hyper-homogenization.


Thermometers are supposed to be accurate to a tenth of a degree. Australian average trends are sometimes calculated to one hundredth of a degree. What then do we make of adjustments that change the trends by a whopping 2 degrees, and decades after the data came in? The only thing we know for sure about Australian temperatures is that we need an independent audit. Why is it left to volunteers to check? Surely the Greens want good data too?

Some of these stations are isolated outposts, so theoretically they are the heavyweights on Australian area-weighted averages. The map scales can be a bit deceptive. In outback Australia the nearest neighbours can all be 500 km away (300 miles). Some dots on the map are not so much a town as a motel and a gas station. Sometimes one lonely thermometer gets the job of estimating temperatures across thousands of square kilometers. This applies to Rabbit Flat, and we’ll discuss that in a different post.

We’ve talked about the extraordinary case of Rutherglen before, where a cooling trend across a whole region becomes a homogenized warming one. And both I and Jennifer Marohasy have discussed the extreme oddness of Amberley.

But Carnarvon provides new material for playing Guess-why-this-got-homogenized? In the case of Carnarvon (see below) the raw trend shows an ever so slight warming over the last century, something like 0.2C, but the all-new adjusted “high-quality” ACORN trend is rising instead at around 2.2C per century.You might think Carnarvon was the aberrant outlier — a station that was different to the rest of the region so it’s been adjusted to fit. Except the original raw Carnarvon trend was virtually the same as the raw average of all its nearest neighbours (bar one). So all those must be flawed too? Well,  the BOM didn’t think so, because the adjusted trends of neighbouring towns are only warming at a modest half a degree a century, while Carnarvon is ripping along at more than 2 degrees.

I’ve spoken to Ken Stewart, and he’s just baffled about all six stations. Perhaps there is a reason for these drastic adjustments. But without detailed and credible answers, how does a rational person have confidence in the current almighty ACORN set?  There are too many mysteries (like, say, the hottest-ever day being in Albany, an obvious error that still hasn’t been detected by their “expert” peer review).

Quote:
Ken Stewart’s conclusion: -

The Acorn adjustment algorithm creates homogenised data by comparing with up to 10 neighbouring sites.  I have shown that the adjustments have made the Acorn trends greater than, not only the raw data trends for each site, not only the raw data trends of the closest neighbours in the Acorn dataset, but in every case but one, greater even than the trends of Acorn homogenised data from the same neighbouring locations.   The adjustments created thus appear to be spurious and the algorithm faulty.


more
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/wow-look-at-those-bom-adjustments-trends-up-by-...

The warming trend is all bogas people. A fraud on humanity
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16428
Gender: male
Re: Warmest May ever recorded.
Reply #40 - Jul 22nd, 2014 at 11:47am
 
Why are airports with their big UHI effects apart of the climate network anyway? They are only good for flight information.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 34441
Gender: male
Re: Warmest May ever recorded.
Reply #41 - Jul 22nd, 2014 at 12:18pm
 
greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:40am:
Is it possible that "the warming that we are currently experiencing is a natural variation"?


Don't be a spoil-sport, Greg.

You know damn well the International Socialists are hoping to use the trumped-up nonsense about man-made Global Warming as a means of putting the brakes on Western Capitalist industry and wealth-creation in order to help the Third World catch up with us.



Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
BatteriesNotIncluded
Gold Member
*****
Offline


MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966
Re: Warmest May ever recorded.
Reply #42 - Jul 22nd, 2014 at 12:50pm
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 22nd, 2014 at 12:18pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:40am:
Is it possible that "the warming that we are currently experiencing is a natural variation"?


Don't be a spoil-sport, Greg.

You know damn well the International Socialists are hoping to use the trumped-up nonsense about man-made Global Warming as a means of putting the brakes on Western Capitalist industry and wealth-creation in order to help the Third World catch up with us.




oooooooooooooh, paranoia is catching up with the globalist foreign investor who rides the crested wave of preferential free trade   Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin

War is conducted in the economic sphere: lookout, oh keep your head down  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

  Cheesy Cheesy
Back to top
 

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is.  It wouldn't be there without the tax payer.  Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know....  (swaggy) *
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print