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

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #465 - Jun 19^th, 2015 at 8:49pm

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.

So, what actually IS the major driver of climate change if it's NOT, as you stated, humans??...could it be (gasp) natural????

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Rider

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2669
OnTheRoad
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #466 - Jun 19^th, 2015 at 8:55pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 19^th, 2015 at 8:49pm:

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.

So, what actually IS the major driver of climate change if it's NOT, as you stated, humans??...could it be (gasp) natural????

Double..gasp...could it all be fiction created by Al Gore & Maurice Strong??

Back to top

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 11070
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #467 - Jun 20^th, 2015 at 10:28am

John_Taverner wrote on 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.

The Earth always heats up and cools down.

You are acting as though this is a first that the Earth heating up has never happened before.

Get a grip ForFS.

Climate change has been with us since day dot and will be with us until the Earth is no more.

As for anthropogenic global warming it is insignificant.

CO2 has never controlled temperature here on Earth and it never will.

All the trace gases put together including CO2 only account for 1% of the greenhouse effect.

95% of the greenhouse effect here on Earth is caused by water vapour and clouds.

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21376
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #468 - Jun 20^th, 2015 at 12:49pm

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

but on well established first principles. basic physics.

What physics is used to determine climate sensitivity?

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

I have never accepted anything at face value and have always gone back to first principles.

Excluding the Karl et al paper.

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 #469 - Jun 20^th, 2015 at 12:53pm

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

Climate models, like all models - are models. Neither 'true' nor 'false'.

You mean engineering models if not 'true', are regurgitated and used again?
A model that doesn't model reality is not false? Unbelievable.

So that is why they use an unfalsifiable definition.

The climate models are so good, they used an expert panel to determine the near future in AR5, they couldn't get the models to co-operate.

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 #470 - Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 11:57am

Rider wrote on Jun 19^th, 2015 at 8:44pm:

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.

Well - here are 2 pieces of evidence - relating to the observed changes in downward and outgoing long wave radiation caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration that have been measured:

Our findings demonstrate that the clear-sky OLR over tropical oceans was slightly
decreasing over the last two decades (-0.09 ± 0.12 W m−2 decade-1) while the climate
warmed. The decrease in the clear-sky OLR is not significant as it is within than the
estimated stability of HIRS OLR. Conversely, the difference between the surface and
TOA emission of longwave radiation, i.e., the greenhouse effect, increased significantly
at the rate of +0.80 ± 0.13 W m−2 decade−1 over the satellite observation period (1982-
2004). We showed that the GHE increase is inconsistent with natural variability and only
reproduced if simulations include anthropogenic forcing.
https://skyros.locean-ipsl.upmc.fr/~ggalod/papers/GSDO2013_R2_v6.pdf
Gastineau et al 2013

The decadal variations in global Ld under both clear and cloudy conditions at about 3200 stations from 1973 to 2008 are presented. We found that daily Ld increased at an average rate of 2.2 W m−2 per decade from 1973 to 2008.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD011800/abstract
Wang 2009

- there are mountains more evidence - but I doubt that a denier like you would ever bother to read them. You are happy to believe whatever Bolty tells you.

Can i have my carrot now?

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 #471 - Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 12:12pm

From the skyros paper-

'This problem has been partly addressed with radiative transfer calculations using reanalysis water vapor and temperature profiles (Slingo et al., 1998). However, such estimates rely heavily on reanalysis models and are not purely independent of the climate models used for climate projections.'

So another re-analysis, models analysing models, but they do admit some shortcomings.

Back to top

IP Logged

Ajax Gold Member Offline CO2 has never controlled temperature on Earth Posts: 11070 Australia Gender:	Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Reply #472 - Jun 27^th, 2015 at 12:29pm All the alarmists have is models which it appears are no better than crystal balls.
Back to top	1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax 2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos IP Logged

Dnarever Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 62090 Here Gender:	Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Reply #473 - Jun 27^th, 2015 at 12:47pm Quote: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS The conservatives are desperate to find something that Abbott and the Liberals have got right but this is barking up the wrong tree.
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 #474 - Jun 29^th, 2015 at 12:36pm

lee wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 12:12pm:

From the skyros paper-

'This problem has been partly addressed with radiative transfer calculations using reanalysis water vapor and temperature profiles (Slingo et al., 1998). However, such estimates rely heavily on reanalysis models and are not purely independent of the climate models used for climate projections.'

So another re-analysis, models analysing models, but they do admit some shortcomings.

Yes - the relatively short time period of TOA radiation data meant that there is a reasonable amount of uncertainty with the assessment of long term changes in TOA radiation. This is explained in the paper and the methodology used to address this shortcoming is explained.

Are you going to pretend that this somehow renders all the rest of the findings of the paper irrelevant? Particularly the overall conslucion that:
GHE increase is inconsistent with natural variability and only reproduced if simulations include anthropogenic forcing.

Do you pick cherries for a living?

Back to top

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21376 Gender:	Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Reply #475 - Jun 29^th, 2015 at 2:52pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Jun 29^th, 2015 at 12:36pm: Yes - the relatively short time period of TOA radiation data meant that there is a reasonable amount of uncertainty with the assessment of long term changes in TOA radiation. What is the level of uncertainty? 20%, 50%,more?
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 #476 - Jun 29^th, 2015 at 10:04pm

lee wrote on Jun 29^th, 2015 at 2:52pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jun 29^th, 2015 at 12:36pm:

Yes - the relatively short time period of TOA radiation data meant that there is a reasonable amount of uncertainty with the assessment of long term changes in TOA radiation.

What is the level of uncertainty? 20%, 50%,more?

The level of uncertainty of what?

Would you like to be more specific. I am not going to waste my time on some monkey trying to pretend he understands what he is talking about.

(BTW - yes - I know as well as you do that you are simply a monkey that has no idea what he is talking about)

But hey - why don't you give it a shot anyway. Try to ask an intelligent question.

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 #477 - Jun 30^th, 2015 at 11:18am

Your the one who says "that there is a reasonable amount of uncertainty with the assessment of long term changes in TOA radiation."

A straightforward question; what is this reasonable amount of uncertainty? As you don't seem to know the answer; it may be unanswerable. An unknown. But that would make the paper claptrap.

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 #478 - Jul 1^st, 2015 at 4:08pm

Ajax wrote on Jun 27^th, 2015 at 12:29pm:

All the alarmists have is models which it appears are no better than crystal balls.

Therefore we should all believe, like Lomborg, that fossil fuels should be allowed to warm our kids earth by 3 degrees instead of 2.

Great use of circular logic there crack-man!

Is that why the kids don't come and see you anymore??

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

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #479 - Jul 1^st, 2015 at 4:11pm

Ajax wrote on Jun 20^th, 2015 at 10:28am:

John_Taverner wrote on 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.

The Earth always heats up and cools down.

You are acting as though this is a first that the Earth heating up has never happened before.

Get a grip ForFS.

Climate change has been with us since day dot and will be with us until the Earth is no more.

As for anthropogenic global warming it is insignificant.

CO2 has never controlled temperature here on Earth and it never will.

All the trace gases put together including CO2 only account for 1% of the greenhouse effect.

95% of the greenhouse effect here on Earth is caused by water vapour and clouds.

It's about rates of change!!

CO2 does control temperature on earth: how hot would it be if the earth had no CO2?

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