Australian Politics Forum - Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS

John_Taverner

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2217
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #450 - Jun 18^th, 2015 at 3:00pm

lee wrote on Jun 18^th, 2015 at 2:43pm:

And yet global temperatures aren't going up in lockstep.

What about error margins, assumptions used?

Lee, global heat contribution is increasing. The radiative forcing can be measured directly with high precision. You need to define what you mean by Global Temperatures, but there is always natural variation. It's like going uphill on a bumpy road.

If you have an alternative hypothesis then please present it, but I suggest you start with the basics.

The basis of AGW is not on historical data, but on well established first principles. basic physics. The data helps to refine our understanding.

It's fine to be critical and sceptical of data. I have never accepted anything at face value and have always gone back to first principles. It's apparent that you are not as sceptical as I am, because your posts reveal that you haven't gone into the science in any depth.

You need to learn more about the science in order to have a fully functioning bullsh1t meter. Yours is broken.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21376 Gender:	Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Reply #451 - Jun 18^th, 2015 at 3:03pm John_Taverner wrote on Jun 18^th, 2015 at 3:00pm: You need to learn more about the science in order to have a fully functioning bullsh1t meter. Yours is broken. You mean Climate models are true?
Back to top	IP Logged

John_Taverner Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2217 Gender:	Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Reply #452 - Jun 18^th, 2015 at 3:21pm The basics. You don't even need climate models for that.
Back to top	IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21376 Gender:	Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Reply #453 - Jun 18^th, 2015 at 3:30pm Ahh, you mean the null hypothesis? Or perhaps evidence of CO2 causing warming? I'd like to see a link to that.
Back to top	IP Logged

John_Taverner Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2217 Gender:	Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Reply #454 - Jun 18^th, 2015 at 3:34pm lee wrote on Jun 18^th, 2015 at 3:30pm: Ahh, you mean the null hypothesis? Or perhaps evidence of CO2 causing warming? I'd like to see a link to that. Don't post Popplerian bull crud.
Back to top	IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21376 Gender:	Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Reply #455 - Jun 18^th, 2015 at 3:49pm John, I realise absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But to be a theory, rather than conjecture; you need something.
Back to top	IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Reply #456 - Jun 18^th, 2015 at 3:49pm "...All heil Bjorn Lomborg !"
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

rabbitoh08

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #457 - Jun 19^th, 2015 at 1:24pm

lee wrote on Jun 18^th, 2015 at 3:03pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 18^th, 2015 at 3:00pm:

You need to learn more about the science in order to have a fully functioning bullsh1t meter. Yours is broken.

You mean Climate models are true?

Climate models, like all models - are models. Neither 'true' nor 'false'. Some are more accurate than others - depending on the data used and assumptions made.

Climate models have proven to be very accurate in predicting the observed warming:

climate forecasts conducted in the 1990s have been quite accurate in simulating what happened since the year 2000. A study by Myles Allen and colleagues at Oxford University, for example, compared climate forecasts that begin in 1996 with the actual temperatures observed since. They found that the simulations accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade to within a few hundredths of a degree….

...Advances in modelling also have enhanced scientists’ ability to separate natural causes from human activities’ influence on the climate system. Natural changes alone can’t explain the temperature changes that have occurred over the last 150 years. For instance, when climate models include only recorded natural climate drivers, such as the sun’s intensity, they cannot accurately reproduce the observed warming during the latter half of the 20th century. However, when scientists include human-induced climate drivers, such as carbon dioxide emissions, in their simulations, they accurately capture recent temperature increases in both the atmosphere and the oceans.
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html#.VYOKmOs9PKA

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh08

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #458 - Jun 19^th, 2015 at 1:36pm

lee wrote on Jun 18^th, 2015 at 2:43pm:

And yet global temperatures aren't going up in lockstep.

Who ever said that global temperatures will go up "in lockstep". Why did you feel the need to make something like that up?

There are many natural drivers unrelated to AGW that have a greater impact on climate than AGW.

This doesn't mean however that AGW is insignificant.

Back to top

IP Logged

Rider

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2669
OnTheRoad
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #459 - Jun 19^th, 2015 at 2:03pm

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jun 19^th, 2015 at 1:36pm:

lee wrote on Jun 18^th, 2015 at 2:43pm:

And yet global temperatures aren't going up in lockstep.

Who ever said that global temperatures will go up "in lockstep". Why did you feel the need to make something like that up?

There are many natural drivers unrelated to AGW that have a greater impact on climate than AGW.

This doesn't mean however that AGW is insignificant.

It kinda does actually. AGW is statistically irrelevant. The pathetic scaremongering and circular discussions funded by billions of dollars of tax payers money is however significant. If you'll excuse me I need to check the mailbox for the long overdue cheque from Big Oil, seem to have been overlooked again....I'm sure it'll turn up sooner or later.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21376
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #460 - Jun 19^th, 2015 at 3:52pm

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jun 19^th, 2015 at 1:24pm:

They found that the simulations accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade to within a few hundredths of a degree….

'There is medium confidence that the trend difference between models and observations during 1998–2012 is to a substantial degree caused by internal variability, with possible contributions from forcing error and some models overestimating the response to increasing greenhouse-gas forcing.'

'The simulation of clouds in climate models remains challenging. There is very high confidence that uncertainties in cloud processes explain much of the spread in modelled climate sensitivity.'

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Ch...

From the underlying paper.

So with these 'uncertainties', how were the models able to get so close? Must have been the 'forcings'. How does that make the models accurate? Adjust the 'forcings' to get the required outcome?

Ahh, I see it - a re-analysis, using computer models to confirm the model results.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh08

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #461 - Jun 19^th, 2015 at 6:29pm

Rider wrote on Jun 19^th, 2015 at 2:03pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jun 19^th, 2015 at 1:36pm:

lee wrote on Jun 18^th, 2015 at 2:43pm:

And yet global temperatures aren't going up in lockstep.

Who ever said that global temperatures will go up "in lockstep". Why did you feel the need to make something like that up?

There are many natural drivers unrelated to AGW that have a greater impact on climate than AGW.

This doesn't mean however that AGW is insignificant.

It kinda does actually.

No. It doesn't

Rider wrote on Jun 19^th, 2015 at 2:03pm:

AGW is statistically irrelevant.

No. It isn't

There is nothing "statistically irrelevant" about the increase in average global temperature, rise in sea level, ecosystem disruption and decline of the cryosphere that has been observed over recent decades. The observed impacts have been quite significant.

Rider wrote on Jun 19^th, 2015 at 2:03pm:

The pathetic scaremongering and circular discussions funded by billions of dollars of tax payers money is however significant.

You mean like this?:
""Up close, they're (windmills) ugly, they're noisy and they may have all sorts of other impacts," Mr Abbott said…..It's right and proper that we're having an inquiry into the health impacts of these things," he said, referring to a current parliamentary inquiry initiated by crossbench senators.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-12/tony-abbott-launches-another-attack-agains...

Rider wrote on Jun 19^th, 2015 at 2:03pm:

If you'll excuse me I need to check the mailbox for the long overdue cheque from Big Oil, seem to have been overlooked again....I'm sure it'll turn up sooner or later.

I don't think Big Oil will be wasting their money on a dill like you. You fall for their nonsense and regurgitate it for free.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh08

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #462 - Jun 19^th, 2015 at 6:37pm

lee wrote on Jun 19^th, 2015 at 3:52pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jun 19^th, 2015 at 1:24pm:

They found that the simulations accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade to within a few hundredths of a degree….

'There is medium confidence that the trend difference between models and observations during 1998–2012 is to a substantial degree caused by internal variability, with possible contributions from forcing error and some models overestimating the response to increasing greenhouse-gas forcing.'

'The simulation of clouds in climate models remains challenging. There is very high confidence that uncertainties in cloud processes explain much of the spread in modelled climate sensitivity.'

Yes. A model is a model. There is inherent uncertainty. What is your point?

lee wrote on Jun 19^th, 2015 at 3:52pm:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Ch...

From the underlying paper.

So with these 'uncertainties', how were the models able to get so close? Must have been the 'forcings'. How does that make the models accurate? Adjust the 'forcings' to get the required outcome?

Ahh, I see it - a re-analysis, using computer models to confirm the model results.

"Adjust the 'forcings' to get the required outcome?" Yes. that is called hind casting or backtesting. That is how models are developed and improved. Again - what is your point?

You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you.

lee wrote on Jun 19^th, 2015 at 3:52pm:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Ch...

I suggest you actually read that paper - rather than just trying to cherry pick things you 'think' support your ignorance (they don't) I am happy to help you if there are things you don't understand.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21376
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #463 - Jun 19^th, 2015 at 7:50pm

'During the last five years, for example, climate scientists have made dramatic advances (pdf) in their ability to track two key climate indicators—ocean heat content and Arctic sea ice seasonal cycles—and are confident that current models can reproduce surface temperature increases since 1870, including the rapid warming in the second half of the 20th century.'

http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html#.VYPlAJQS06J

Check the 'dramatic advances' link. You admit the uncertainties, but even with (or because) of those uncertainties, they are more sure than ever.

Have the models been hindcast since the adjustments? There is nothing written to say that.

Back to top

IP Logged

Rider

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2669
OnTheRoad
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #464 - Jun 19^th, 2015 at 8:44pm

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jun 19^th, 2015 at 6:29pm:

Rider wrote on Jun 19^th, 2015 at 2:03pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jun 19^th, 2015 at 1:36pm:

lee wrote on Jun 18^th, 2015 at 2:43pm:

And yet global temperatures aren't going up in lockstep.

Who ever said that global temperatures will go up "in lockstep". Why did you feel the need to make something like that up?

There are many natural drivers unrelated to AGW that have a greater impact on climate than AGW.

This doesn't mean however that AGW is insignificant.

It kinda does actually.

No. It doesn't

Rider wrote on Jun 19^th, 2015 at 2:03pm:

AGW is statistically irrelevant.

No. It isn't

There is nothing "statistically irrelevant" about the increase in average global temperature, rise in sea level, ecosystem disruption and decline of the cryosphere that has been observed over recent decades. The observed impacts have been quite significant.

Rider wrote on Jun 19^th, 2015 at 2:03pm:

The pathetic scaremongering and circular discussions funded by billions of dollars of tax payers money is however significant.

You mean like this?:
""Up close, they're (windmills) ugly, they're noisy and they may have all sorts of other impacts," Mr Abbott said…..It's right and proper that we're having an inquiry into the health impacts of these things," he said, referring to a current parliamentary inquiry initiated by crossbench senators.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-12/tony-abbott-launches-another-attack-agains...

Rider wrote on Jun 19^th, 2015 at 2:03pm:

If you'll excuse me I need to check the mailbox for the long overdue cheque from Big Oil, seem to have been overlooked again....I'm sure it'll turn up sooner or later.

I don't think Big Oil will be wasting their money on a dill like you. You fall for their nonsense and regurgitate it for free.

Oh bunny, when you have any evidence that any of the nonsense you spruik has anything to do with the miniscule amount of co2 man puts into the atmosphere I'll give you a carrot.

Until then...go talk to the Pope. He's come on board your 'team' and you dregs are welcome to him, he'll fit in with you lot of closet totalitarians.

Back to top

IP Logged