Climate change is anthropogenic. 97% of published scientific papers support this position. The 3% of papers dissagreeing are funded by parties with vested interests in maintaining a status quo.
Im sick of people here pretending to be scientists and critising the methods that researchers utilize without having any personel qualifications or experience other than a preexisting opinion and ability to access google.

Vent over.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 14^th, 2016 at 2:49pm:


Seriously...you drag out the old 97% garbage??

However, as your concern for the earth is paramount, it is clearly encumbent on you to lead by example and immediately cease expelling this heinous natural trace gas. You know it makes sense.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 14^th, 2016 at 2:49pm:



There is already a long thread for this - 66 pages:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464603948/975#975

lee wrote on Dec 14^th, 2016 at 5:21pm:


evapotranspiration effects of plants account for 16% of warming of the land surface,

You mean the bit that has been part of the natural system balance for centuries ?

Which climate change are they all fussing about?

Change from what it was 100 years ago?
1000 years ago?
10000 years ago?
50000 years ago?

Quote:


Maurice saviour of the world




If you ever run into this can't, can you please ask him how he has curbed his use of fossil fuels...................

Emma wrote on Dec 18^th, 2016 at 3:10am:



Quote #1: pretty much stating what we all know anyway. The planet can not sustain 7 billion people living an affluent middle class life style.

Quote #3: pretty much the same as quote #1

Quote #2: a fabricated myth from the climate denier website "info wars"

http://eh2r.blogspot.com.au/2016/12/polar-vortex-spin-off-vortices-cold.html

lee wrote on Dec 18^th, 2016 at 6:35pm:

Oh noes, lee gets bored 

lee wrote on Dec 14^th, 2016 at 5:21pm:


Good to see you focus on the 16% that supports your existent opinion while discounting the 84% that doesn't. Very objective.

If your running out of papers that agree with you to quote, its probably because there just arn't very many.............

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 6:11pm:


Oh, that's what you though you were doing.

What you were actually doing was dissembling badly while referring to credible scientific paper which opposed your opinion. 

No charge for the correction.

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 8:22pm:


I feel that would be helping you move the topic away from the large amount of science supporting my opinion and the lack of science supporting your opinion.

And that's really my point. Your trying to make this sound like there are multiple reasonable interpretations of climatic behavior, while people like me point out there was a scientific consensus on this issue decades ago. Again, its obfuscation and its what's you do.


   

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4549

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 10:26pm:


Yes they say water vapour and CO2. Both are increasing. And water vapour has a bigger effect.

But once they mention water vapour they don't discuss it increasing. Funny that.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 11:02pm:



How can it be solid rebuttal, where they only discuss the increase in CO2? Besides, you have heard correlation is not causation haven't you?

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 11:18pm:


So they can't think of a reason, but it can't be natural variation.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 11:18pm:



Logical fallacy.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 11:18pm:



pure supposition. Oh, very good.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 11:18pm:



Nope.The climate has always changed.

CO2 may be responsible for a small portion./ CO2 increase is partially anthropogenic. Have you heard of the greening of the planet? Natural CO2 increase.

The proof of AGW theory lies with the proponents, and you haven't provoded proof, merely conjecture upon conjecture.

Just in case some actual hard evidence could shake your faith, this is the paper on isotope concentrations referred to previously.

You know "evidence"

That thing you don't have.


http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/modern_isotopes.html

Yes indeed.

Sadly Lee isn't about reasonable debate.

I suppose it may be fun to engage him.. Phuc Nos's why .. but you'll find the same as do we all... Lee is NOT about reason. One suspects he is an agent provocateur. There are a fair few here on OzPol. 

cheers to you too

I agree with the reasons you engage... it is an opportunity to express your views.

That is why I participate in the OzPol forum. If your posts draw responses that is always a good thing. 

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 20^th, 2016 at 12:24am:



But they can't think of any other reason, so by their estimation CO2 MUST be the culprit.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 20^th, 2016 at 12:24am:


I haven't argued otherwise.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 20^th, 2016 at 12:24am:


That is a leap of faith, not evidence.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 20^th, 2016 at 12:29am:



Yep. We got that. You are repeating yourself.

Now link it to AGW, or CAGW if you really think it a problem.

lee wrote on Dec 20^th, 2016 at 10:46am:



No. I have explained it, provided empirical proof and scientific papers supporting my position.

You are unable to admit that you have nothing to stand on, so your trying to make this about my evidence.

If you don't have anything to support your position go and do some research and build up a credible position.

You could always just shut and stop embarrassing yourself, but i'm happy to stay here and keep pointing out your ignorance and stupidity.

lee wrote on Dec 20^th, 2016 at 3:13pm:


If you were half as good as logic as you are at obfuscation you would have cracked dark matter by now.

You have no evidence to support your position that climate change is caused by anything other than mans CO2 emissions.

Again, if you have ANY credible research supporting your opinion please post it.

Or shut up.

lee wrote on Dec 20^th, 2016 at 7:33pm:


OK.

So after 60 years of research by thousands of independent scientists the only plausible cause for the increasing temperatures is CO2 released by man.

Developed countries sacrifice billions of dollars in cheap energy to reduce their carbon output.
 
And you sit there and tell me that I have to provide evidence.

Its all your capable of.
Because you have nothing to support you.

Hell, now your back to "Natural Variation" i.e god wiggling his fingers!

None of my points were proof.
They were an appeal to reasonableness, an attempt to explain to you why I felt the honus of proof was on you, given that you have the divergent opinion from the establishment.

You state that all prevailing scientific opinions are wrong.
When I ask you to prove it you have nothing.
At least they offer me evidence.

How could any reasonable person agree with someone who can provide nothing other than criticism of people who are doing real research?

I think you got mixed up Lee. That posts in the wrong thread.......

Take as long as you need 

Thats a different kind of mixed up.
I mean your literally mixed up-you posted the same response to two different threads.
I know your a bit short of information that supports your opinions but surely you don't have to be that parsimonious!

None of my points were proof.
They were an appeal to reasonableness, an attempt to explain to you why I felt the honus of proof was on you, given that you have the divergent opinion from the establishment.

You state that all prevailing scientific opinions are wrong.
When I ask you to prove it you have nothing.
At least they offer me evidence.

How could any reasonable person agree with someone who can provide nothing other than criticism of people who are doing real research?

OUT OF CONTEXT aka false argumentum [next!!  ]

If the plankton die we die, we are one finely balanced ecosystem and nobody knows the impact of an emerging human population ripping this place apart, we may be the only living thing in the universe, we have a duty of care to be more responsible and ensure life continues. But why the long face.

lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 1:43pm:



Please note that initially Lee linked to the credible IPCC report.

This makes it look likes he knows his stuff

Notice that he has not linked to a credible document that supports his statement.

This is because he does not know his stuff.

But he rrreeeaaalllllllyyy doesn't want you to know that.



Please Lee, provide one piece of credible research that supports anything other than CO2 as the primary drivers of climate change or remain silent.

Im not asking you for anything that any rational person wouldn't have.

Since it appears that your deriving you information on this subject why don't we actually include the whole section that your referencing-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf
pg 894

Extract of the leading and preceding paragraph's of the quoted text.

The fingerprint of human-caused greenhouse gas increases is clearly apparent in the pattern of observed 20th century
climate change. The observed change cannot be otherwise explained by the fingerprints of natural forcings
or natural variability simulated by climate models. Attribution studies therefore support the conclusion that ‘it is
extremely likely that human activities have caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface
temperatures from 1951 to 2010.’
The Earth’s climate is always changing, and that can occur for many reasons. To determine the principal causes of
observed changes, we must first ascertain whether an observed change in climate is different from other fluctuations
that occur without any forcing at all. Climate variability without forcing—called internal variability—is the
consequence of processes within the climate system. Large-scale oceanic variability, such as El Niño-Southern Oscillation
(ENSO) fluctuations in the Pacific Ocean, is the dominant source of internal climate variability on decadal to
centennial time scales.
Climate change can also result from natural forcings external to the climate system, such as volcanic eruptions, or
changes in the brightness of the sun. Forcings such as these are responsible for the huge changes in climate that are
clearly documented in the geological record. Human-caused forcings include greenhouse gas emissions or atmospheric
particulate pollution. Any of these forcings, natural or human caused, could affect internal variability as well
as causing a change in average climate. Attribution studies attempt to determine the causes of a detected change in
observed climate. Over the past century we know that global average temperature has increased, so if the observed
change is forced then the principal forcing must be one that causes warming, not cooling.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------


Do you understand that you cant pull one sentence out of a report like this an claim it is legitimate research that supports your opinion, while simultaneously declaring your opposition to points it make much more clearly and forcefully. 

I don't have the information needed to disagree with any of the points that this report makes. That's fine with me, it accords with approximately what i think is going on with climate change.

Your the one saying climate change is not anthropogenic while cherry picking the research that disagrees with you.

Go find some really interesting nutty stuff for us to argue over, This constant referral to sources that torch you worse that I ever could is getting repetitive.

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 10:35am:


I have no idea.

Why are you unable to read the first paragraph?

"The fingerprint of human-caused greenhouse gas increases is clearly apparent in the pattern of observed 20th century
climate change. The observed change cannot be otherwise explained by the fingerprints of natural forcings
or natural variability simulated by climate models. Attribution studies therefore support the conclusion that ‘it is
extremely likely that human activities have caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface
temperatures from 1951 to 2010.’"


If you agree with this fair enough, and while i've had a lot of trouble pinning you opinion down, im pretty sure you have stated multiple times that global warming is not anthropogenic.

Since all the credible evidence you post is 95% opposed to everything you say,
why do you only listen to the 5%?

I don't have a problem with you discounting the IPCC report, if you have an alternative credible source.

The thing is, you raise it up on your left hand a proclaim that the IPCC demonstrates the strength of your argument,
While also raising it in your right hand and claiming that it is nothing but distortions.

Either pick one, Or get some evidence that doesn't crap all over your assertions.

Ok, since you state the IPCC is NOT credible, why do you cite it as evidence for so many of your assertions?

I havnt referenced it once. Its always you that tries to use it as evidence.
and then states its unreliable.

If you want comprehension maybe try being coherent?
Your trying to use a document to invalidate itself, without providing any external source of data.

So long as your only reference the IPCC report, you are bound by the findings of that report.

Because you have not provided any other credible data which supports your numerous assertions, I am unable to give them any credibility.

The IPCC report is ONE of the many official documents which correlate with each other and can find no reason for climate change other than GHG's.

You have NOTHING that supports your position.

Please, get some evidence or shut up.

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 5:32pm:


Go nuts on questioning the report. Its a unwieldy politco-scientific document.

I'm not basing my opinions on the report. I'm basing my opinions on the numerous more focused papers. (which i am happy to provide)

The global climate is currently heating at a rate greater than any recorded history. The only plausible driver for a temperature increase at this rate is GHG's.

If you want any part of that statement supported by credible scientific research, please highlight it and I will provide it.

This is the third time I have made this offer.

Its not so much the temperature levels which justify my opinions, rather its the rate the temperature is increasing.

During historical warming periods the temperature increased at a rate of .8-1.4 ddC per thousand years.

In the last 100 years the RECORDED average temperature has increased .7 dgC

This is 5-10 times faster than has been recorded at ANY time in the past.

Given that instead of a since the system is heating up at a speed an order of magnitude greater than any in all of history, maybe something slightly different is happening.


Derived from.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html






The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm




There you go.

Three totally separate peer reviewed articles, supporting two clear concise statements.

Please note, all these papers are based on empirical data.

I'm sure you are going to say that there were flaws in the papers I have quoted,

And i'm equally sure that your not going to provide ANYTHNG credible that supports any viewpoint counter my stated opinion.

Prove me wrong(not that proving is your strong suite!)

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 8:59pm:



1. It is a Letter to Nature. Not a peer reviewed paper.

2. It provides "experimental evidence". Have they finished the paper and provided more definite evidence.

3. A search for the DOI returns "DOI Not Found 10.1038/3506655"

Has it been retracted?

Why are the increase in greenhouse forcing only inferred?

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 8:59pm:


From the abstract -

"The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons."

Have they continued for a decade or so?

From the extended abstract-

"but they also provide a means of validating the predictions that are made by global warming models (Ellingson et al., 1991)."



So how is that going?

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 8:59pm:


Well done you got something right.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 8:59pm:


That's because you haven't proved anything.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 11:53pm:



How long is this history of global warming? You never seem to answer. 150 years, 200 years?

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 9:28pm:



So only 120 years. Not a very long history.

BTW - Arrhenius amended his warming theory in 1906. Reducing the change in temperature.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 9:28pm:


Yep Interesting.



Based on MODTRAN

Most of the warming is in the first 300ppm

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 11:10pm:



You're the one referenced paleo "data".

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 11:22pm:


yep. And the error bars, don't forget the error bars on current reconstructions of paleo "data". it is not only amplitude but timing.

Emma wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 4:12am:

Lees has asked a couple of times “above or below freezing” which is totally irrelevant, of course, what is relevant is the record high temp. Lees is all about obfuscation, partly through concentrating on minor points.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 14^th, 2016 at 2:49pm:


The anthropogenic 'Global Warming' hoax lost any credibility it might have had when the instigators to this fraud switched to relabelling it as 'Climate Change' to hedge their bets when North America suffered its coldest winter in more than a hundred years.

And then these Social-Marxist hoaxters blatantly revealed their political hand when they kept whisper-quiet upon learning that both India and China were fully intending to carry on burning fossil fuels.

It soon became clear that the hoax was all about a sneaky plan designed to transfer gazillions of dollars from the wealthy Western nations to the Third World for ostensibly the purpose of helping them to finance the construction of Green energy resources.

It's all very passé now, and even our socialist media has become very tired and bored with it.

Global warming is good - it's the Global cooling that would be a worry.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 7:05pm:



Do some research. John Holdren Obama's science czar is one 1971. for starters

Lord Herbert wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 7:43pm:



Can you link me the high quality, well researched impartial video that your basing this on.


Literally PMSL!

Rider wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 12:39pm:


Oh? When was that exactly.?  Please tell us.

Emma wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 11:01pm:


IPCC.....Intergovernmental Panel.....ooops looks like you've had a fall at the very first hurdle. Shame you're not a horse.

Emma wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 10:53pm:



You really do have to have some perspective. How long the records are. Area. population.

"Due to the lack of major population centres in the Arctic, weather and climate observations from the region tend to be widely spaced and of short duration compared to the midlatitudes and tropics. Though the Vikings explored parts of the Arctic over a millennium ago, and small numbers of people have been living along the Arctic coast for much longer, scientific knowledge about the region was slow to develop; the large islands of Severnaya Zemlya, just north of the Taymyr Peninsula on the Russian mainland, were not discovered until 1913, and not mapped until the early 1930s (Serreze and Barry, 2005)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_the_Arctic

Did the Vikings use sleighs reindeer? Ships? Vikings seem to have relied on ships.

Ships require open water.

Siberia also had record high temperatures last NH summer.

Rider wrote on Dec 26^th, 2016 at 3:26pm:



UMmmmm .... 

The reason for that is the very fact that the Polar Vortex is losing cohesion.

What this means is that large masses of hot air are pushing up into the arctic from the two major land masses connected to the arctic, rather like amorphous horns,  which push and displace the cold arctic air to the SOUTH,  into  those same aforementioned landmasses. The Arctic cold is being displaced , resulting in warmer temperatures in the far north and colder temperatures in places just like Siberia, and Northern Europe, as well as continental North America.

Therefore we have large ice melts in the Arctic and snow in the Saharan desert, and Northern California.

Do you understand it now.?

lee wrote on Dec 26^th, 2016 at 10:13pm:


Indeed, snow last fell on the Sahara about 40 years ago.
It is the scale and severity of the meteorology that is the concern. We don't have any back-up scenarios available to us,  and the population that will be affected is exponentionally greater than at any time in the past. UNDENIABLE.

Can you find any earlier references?? because humans have been recording meteorological information  for a lot longer than that.
Personally, I think the only records which are relevant are those pertaining to the years since, say 1920.
There is no harm in looking at earlier records for comparisons sake, where available though.
It just behooves the injunction to realise that older data is largely irrelevant to where we are today.