Forum

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

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 14
Send Topic Print
Earth's climate sensitivity to CO2 underestimated (Read 10443 times)
random
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2637
Gender: male
Re: Earth's climate sensitivity to CO2 underestimated
Reply #120 - Jan 10th, 2016 at 4:03pm
 
I worked in IT.  The norm was for those needing code developed got specialists to do it.   Medicos, climatologists etc apply for funds to start projects to deliver software to the specs they require.  Seriously you guys have . no .smacking . idea.

Did they do a survey on how many professional code developers can do climate science?

Back to top
 

So many farkwits, so little time.
 
IP Logged
 
Sun Tzu
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1148
Gender: male
Re: Earth's climate sensitivity to CO2 underestimated
Reply #121 - Jan 10th, 2016 at 4:30pm
 
I observe that denialists have developed a higher level of sensitivity to CO2 than the CO2 sensitivity of climate.
Back to top
 

Make my day
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 19952
Gender: male
Re: Earth's climate sensitivity to CO2 underestimated
Reply #122 - Jan 10th, 2016 at 4:43pm
 
random wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 4:03pm:
I worked in IT.  The norm was for those needing code developed got specialists to do it.   Medicos, climatologists etc apply for funds to start projects to deliver software to the specs they require.  Seriously you guys have . no .smacking . idea.

Did they do a survey on how many professional code developers can do climate science?




You disagree with Nature magazine. The pro-warming magazine? Take it up with them.

Don't shoot the messenger.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mariacostel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: Earth's climate sensitivity to CO2 underestimated
Reply #123 - Jan 10th, 2016 at 5:02pm
 
random wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:43pm:
mariacostel wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:33pm:
random wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:19pm:
A Model cannot have a skill.  It has capabilities and functions.  It either performs as designed or it does not.  Skills exists at different levels of the same function.  e.g. skill at filleting a fish.

I do not place much stock in any of the models. 

Climate models are under continuous development and are often used by climate change deniers to denigrate the technicians and scientists who develop them.   I look at the output of them, then look at the recorded climate change to date and form my own conclusions.  I have concluded that the models are understating nearly all climate change.  This is itself something understandable because we model based on the combination of past performance and the laws of thermodynamics.  Past performance is not a great indicator of the future.

We all do not have to be great scientists to look at the increasing slope on a line of CO2 recordings, look at the bugger all being done to reduce it, and conclude that it will continue to increase.  That combined with the laws of physics provides all I need to form a personal opinion.

But I do not publish them anywhere or here because my personal ramblings are of no consequence to science, they are just opinions no mater how well considered. 

The published papers, the IPCC stuff and the Gbs of other credible information is close enough for me.  Closer than that produced by shill institutes.



The highlighted portion is as good a repudiation of your intelligence as anything you could otherwise say. The climate models have predicted many things and gotten every single one wrong by stellar margins. They predicted continuous temperature rises and instead we have had near plateaued temperatures for near 20 years. They predicted massive melting of the poles and instead, they are now growing again. They predicted 6M rises in  sea level by 2020. So far it is be 0.1M.

They are not only dead wrong but have OVERSTATED climate change by truly massive proportions.  Your argument to the contrary is ridiculous and exposes you as an ideologue rather than a think of any kind.


The climate models have been more accurate than your statements.  Please send links supporting your claims of 0.1m sea level rise and plateauing temperatures as they are contrary to the records I have seen from BoM, NASA and NOAA.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdo...

I chose to rely on them, than you, some anonymous poster on the interweb.




By pretending that temperatures are continuing to rise as per the models and not plateaued according to the ACTUAL measurements, you reveal yourself to be a dolt who is incapable of independent thought. You do realise that the NOAA reinterpretation of data has been strongly criticised by warmists and non-warmists alike? BoM for example has refused to tell anyone how they came across their 'homogenised data' which in spectular form took two temperature recordings 500kms apart and 'homogenised' them.  In less technical terms it is called 'fraudulent science'.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
random
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2637
Gender: male
Re: Earth's climate sensitivity to CO2 underestimated
Reply #124 - Jan 10th, 2016 at 5:29pm
 
What actual measurements?  Australia is getting hotter.

...

...
Back to top
 

So many farkwits, so little time.
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 19952
Gender: male
Re: Earth's climate sensitivity to CO2 underestimated
Reply #125 - Jan 10th, 2016 at 6:41pm
 
random wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 5:29pm:
What actual measurements?  Australia is getting hotter.



You don't know about BoM's homogenisation of data?

Her's what the report into BoM;s adjustments said.

'The Forum noted that the extent to which the development of the ACORN-SAT dataset from the raw data could be automated was likely to be limited, and that the process might better be described as a supervised process in which the roles of metadata and other information required some level of expertise and operator intervention. The Forum investigated the nature of the operator intervention required and the bases on which such decisions are made and concluded that very detailed instructions from the Bureau are likely to be necessary for an end-user who wishes to reproduce the ACORN-SAT findings. Some such details are provided in Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research (CAWCR) technical reports (e.g. use of 40 best-correlated sites for adjustments, thresholds for adjustment, and so on); however, the Forum concluded that it is likely to remain the case that several choices within the adjustment process remain a matter of expert judgment and appropriate disciplinary knowledge. '

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/2015_TAF_report.pdf

So the process is not automated and cannot be automated. It requires "expert judgment" to adjust the temperatures. That means there can be no quality control because there is no written methodology on how results were achieved.

And you put faith in Australia's temperatures? Is that because they're scientists? That is an appeal to authority.

And back to the zettajoules again?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
random
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2637
Gender: male
Re: Earth's climate sensitivity to CO2 underestimated
Reply #126 - Jan 10th, 2016 at 7:52pm
 
Lying pricks those scientists.  It's a wonder we have the internet at all.

I'm gunna start believing anonymous posters on the interweb.
Back to top
 

So many farkwits, so little time.
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 19952
Gender: male
Re: Earth's climate sensitivity to CO2 underestimated
Reply #127 - Jan 10th, 2016 at 8:16pm
 
random wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 7:52pm:
Lying pricks those scientists.  It's a wonder we have the internet at all.

I'm gunna start believing anonymous posters on the interweb.



You don't believe the report, colour me surprised. Even though the scientists explained their method to the enquiry.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
random
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2637
Gender: male
Re: Earth's climate sensitivity to CO2 underestimated
Reply #128 - Jan 10th, 2016 at 8:27pm
 
lee wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 8:16pm:
random wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 7:52pm:
Lying pricks those scientists.  It's a wonder we have the internet at all.

I'm gunna start believing anonymous posters on the interweb.


.
You don't believe the report, colour me surprised. Even though the scientists explained their method to the enquiry.


You missed the point.  If you start trashing the most credible source of information, you then have to consider where you go to for your source of truth.

All sources of information are imperfect, choose your degree of imperfection.  I'll go with BoM, NOAA and NASA thanks
Back to top
 

So many farkwits, so little time.
 
IP Logged
 
Ajax
Gold Member
*****
Offline


CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 11064
Australia
Gender: male
Re: Earth's climate sensitivity to CO2 underestimated
Reply #129 - Jan 10th, 2016 at 9:43pm
 
random wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 5:29pm:


No one is denying that the whole world is getting warmer, what we're denying is that its all due to man's emissions of CO2.

...

http://www.waclimate.net/year-book-csir.html


Quote:
Historic documents show 30-40%* of Australia’s warming trend is due to “adjustments”

There was a time back in 1933 when the CSIRO was called CSIR and meteorologists figured that with 74 years of weather data on Australia, they really ought to publish a serious document collating all the monthly averages at hundreds of weather stations around Australia. Little did they know that years later, despite their best efforts, much of the same data would be forgotten and unused or would be adjusted, decades after the fact, and sometimes by as much as one or two degrees. Twenty years later The Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics would publish an Official Year Book of Australia which included the mean temperature readings from 1911 to 1940 at 44 locations.

Chris Gillham has spent months poring over both these historic datasets, as well as the BoM’s Climate Data Online (CDO) which has the recent temperatures at these old stations. He also compares these old records to the new versions in the BOM’s all new, all marvelous, best quality ACORN dataset. He has published all the results and tables comparing CDO, CSIR and Year Book versions.

He analyzes them in many ways – sometimes by looking at small subsets or large groups of the 226 CSIR stations. But it doesn’t much matter which way the data is grouped, the results always show that the historic records had warmer average temperatures before they were adjusted and put into the modern ACORN dataset. The adjustments cool historic averages by around 0.4 degrees, which sounds small, but the entire extent of a century of warming is only 0.9 degrees C. So the adjustments themselves are the source of almost half of the warming trend.

The big question then is whether the adjustments are necessary. If the old measurements were accurate as is, Australia has only warmed by half a degree. In the 44 stations listed in the Year Book from 1911-1940, the maxima at the same sites is now about half a degree warmer in the new millenia. The minima are about the same.

Remember that these sites from 1911-1940 were all recorded with modern Stevenson Screen equipment.  Furthermore, since that era the biggest change in those sites has been from the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect as the towns and cities grew up around the sites. In some places this effect may already have been warming those thermometers in the first half of the last century, but in others UHI can make 5 to 7 degrees difference.

If Australian thermometers are recording half a degree higher than they were 70 – 100 years ago, we have to ask how much of that warming is the UHI effect? Common sense would suggest that if these older stations need any correction, it should be upward rather than downward to compensate for the modern increase in concrete, buildings and roads. Alternatively, to compare old readings in unpopulated areas with modern ones, we would think the modern temperatures should be adjusted down, rather than the older ones.

Read the rest here

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/03/historic-documents-show-half-of-australias-warm...


Back to top
« Last Edit: Jan 10th, 2016 at 9:56pm by Ajax »  

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: 19952
Gender: male
Re: Earth's climate sensitivity to CO2 underestimated
Reply #130 - Jan 10th, 2016 at 9:51pm
 
random wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 8:27pm:
You missed the point.  If you start trashing the most credible source of information, you then have to consider where you go to for your source of truth.



When you can't verify the work of BoM, it is not credible.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
random
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2637
Gender: male
Re: Earth's climate sensitivity to CO2 underestimated
Reply #131 - Jan 11th, 2016 at 6:31am
 
Ajax wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 9:43pm:
random wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 5:29pm:


No one is denying that the whole world is getting warmer, what we're denying is that its all due to man's emissions of CO2.

Read the rest here

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/03/historic-documents-show-half-of-australias-warm...[/size]


[/quote]

YHTBFK.  jnova has to be the most obviously bias Big Energy funded site on the planet.  I refuse to click on it anymore.  I don't know how the funders continue supporting something so blatant.

Got anything credible?
Back to top
 

So many farkwits, so little time.
 
IP Logged
 
random
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2637
Gender: male
Re: Earth's climate sensitivity to CO2 underestimated
Reply #132 - Jan 11th, 2016 at 6:33am
 
lee wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 9:51pm:
random wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 8:27pm:
You missed the point.  If you start trashing the most credible source of information, you then have to consider where you go to for your source of truth.



When you can't verify the work of BoM, it is not credible.

Oh really.  So you should be able to point us at something that is credible and we can verify. 

Waiting ....
Back to top
 

So many farkwits, so little time.
 
IP Logged
 
mitasol
Full Member
***
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 173
Townsville
Gender: male
Re: Earth's climate sensitivity to CO2 underestimated
Reply #133 - Jan 11th, 2016 at 6:56am
 
random wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 6:31am:
Ajax wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 9:43pm:
random wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 5:29pm:


No one is denying that the whole world is getting warmer, what we're denying is that its all due to man's emissions of CO2.

Read the rest here

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/03/historic-documents-show-half-of-australias-warm...[/size]




Quote:
YHTBFK.  jnova has to be the most obviously bias Big Energy funded site on the planet.  I refuse to click on it anymore.  I don't know how the funders continue supporting something so blatant.

Got anything credible?


Got any evidence of who has funded the site, or is this just another climate alarmist attack on anyone who dares to question their mantra?


Seems that people who live in glass houses.....https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/08/big-green-hypocrites/

Back to top
« Last Edit: Jan 11th, 2016 at 8:21am by mitasol »  
 
IP Logged
 
random
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2637
Gender: male
Re: Earth's climate sensitivity to CO2 underestimated
Reply #134 - Jan 11th, 2016 at 7:56am
 
Joanne Nova is a self-proclaimed climate change skeptic who declares that science has disproved the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Nova's most notable work in the area of climate change is the controversial document, “The Skeptic's Handbook.”

Although Joanne Nova has not published any research in peer-reviewed journals, she is often presented as an expert in the area of climate science.  For example, Fred Singer's Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) describes Joanne Nova as holding a PhD in meteorology.

After graduation, Nova joined the Shell Questacon Science Circus, a Shell-sponsored program that employs university students to travel around Australia teaching interactive science programs to children.

December, 2014

Joanne Nova is a contributor to the book Climate Change: The Facts published by the Institute of Public Affairs and featuring “22 essays on the science, politics and economics of the climate change debate.” The Institute of Public Affairs, while not revealing most of its funders, is known to have received funding from mining magnate Gina Rinehart and at least one major tobacco company.  [9]

Nova was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's 2009 International Conference on Climate Change where she is listed as one of several specialists on the issue of global warming. [5]

Heartland is an Exxon funded organisation.  Nova is a Big Energy shill for hire.  An Oil and Coal climate change denial prostitute.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jan 11th, 2016 at 8:01am by random »  

So many farkwits, so little time.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 14
Send Topic Print