Australian Politics Forum - Tired of stupid AGW denialism?

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21507
Gender: male

Re: Tired of stupid AGW denialism?
Reply #105 - Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 12:38pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2017 at 9:04pm:

Heat that hits a surface loses energy and so increases in wavelength. That is how greenhouses and GHGs work.

You are varying your argument. Now you are talking heat hitting an object.

Now if it is a greenhouse the light will pass through the glass. Depending on the optical characteristics of the glass it will generally be all light, not just IR. Light will of course change wavelength through a prism, but that is one of the optical characteristics.

Now if you can provide a peer reviewed paper or study guide that shows different , please feel free.

You have demonstrated you know nothing of Greenhouses, nothing of physics.

And yet you want to tell people all about the physics of AGW. Cheesy

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21507
Gender: male

Re: Tired of stupid AGW denialism?
Reply #106 - Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 12:47pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 9:33am:

More for Lees to pretend to read and understand:

Oh, 95% confidence limits? What size are the error bars in those estimations?

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 9:33am:

Natural variation adds practically nothing to heating! Ohhhh noes!

Only about half according to your source, based on the models. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21507
Gender: male

Re: Tired of stupid AGW denialism?
Reply #107 - Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 3:31pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 9:33am:

Quote:
It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together … The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period … The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C.

Please provide the papers that have successfully separated natural and unnatural forcings and quantified internal variability.

IPCC AR5 Chapter9 Table 9.5 shows the assumed forcings in the models. They are all over the shop. Some don't even have figures available, just a number buried somewhere in the models as a forcing.

So many assumptions, so little data. Wink

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 51474 Gender:	Re: Tired of stupid AGW denialism? Reply #108 - Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 3:55pm Spectrometry shows that CO2, CH4 and the other GHGs DO absorb IR coming from the surface of the earth. All your desperate babbling does not change that. Nor does it change the fact of sea level rising, glaciers retreating and both poles anf Greenland melting. Looking undignified and childish Lees.
Back to top	OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now! Topics in the right MRB! IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21507
Gender: male

Re: Tired of stupid AGW denialism?
Reply #109 - Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 4:03pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 3:55pm:

Spectrometry shows that CO2, CH4 and the other GHGs DO absorb IR coming from the surface of the earth.

All your desperate babbling does not change that. Nor does it change the fact of sea level rising, glaciers retreating and both poles anf Greenland melting.

Looking undignified and childish Lees.

You still haven't provide the peer review paper that says spectrometry proves AGW.

I'm sorry if you look undignified and childish. But that is in your hands.

How undignified and childish to change your posts as in "AGW is so resilient". And to be so obtuse as to think you wouldn't get caught out? Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 51474 Gender:	Re: Tired of stupid AGW denialism? Reply #110 - Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 4:08pm I posted it earlier! Look ^^^^^! So desperate, looking so childish, oh poor poor Lees.
Back to top	OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now! Topics in the right MRB! IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21507 Gender:	Re: Tired of stupid AGW denialism? Reply #111 - Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 4:56pm Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 4:08pm: I posted it earlier! Look ^^^^^! So desperate, looking so childish, oh poor poor Lees. You posted what earlier? You are getting more and more erratic.
Back to top	IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 51474 Gender:	Re: Tired of stupid AGW denialism? Reply #112 - Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 5:01pm I had already posted a paper covering spectrometry. You know that, you are just flailing wildly to deflect. Natural variation does not explain the warming. So—what is causing the warming Lees?
Back to top	OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now! Topics in the right MRB! IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21507 Gender:	Re: Tired of stupid AGW denialism? Reply #113 - Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 5:08pm Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 5:01pm: I had already posted a paper covering spectrometry. Oh you mean a blog post. hardly peer-reviewed science.
Back to top	IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 51474 Gender:	Re: Tired of stupid AGW denialism? Reply #114 - Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 5:21pm Poor Lees is babbling incoherently. More than a blog post, poor old boy.
Back to top	OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now! Topics in the right MRB! IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21507
Gender: male

Re: Tired of stupid AGW denialism?
Reply #115 - Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 7:40pm

I see you use SKS for CO2 concentrations going back 1,000 years which is essentially flat. That's ok, it uses ice core data. However ice core data has known problems with CO2 in firn and also under pressure ( at the bottom of the ice).

Wagner et all 2004, published in looked at CO2 in plant stomata and found variances of about 30ppm in that time frame. Something that is not evident in the ice cores.

The paper may be found here -

http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Holocene_CO2_stomata_Wagner_etal_20...

Is it conclusive? - No. Does it throw doubt on the ice core data? - indubitably yes.

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 51474 Gender:	Re: Tired of stupid AGW denialism? Reply #116 - Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 7:43pm AGW is real. Many threads of evidence all point to that.
Back to top	OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now! Topics in the right MRB! IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21507 Gender:	Re: Tired of stupid AGW denialism? Reply #117 - Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 9:09pm Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 7:43pm: AGW is real. Many threads of evidence all point to that. Yeah. So where is the paper that says that AGW is now the null hypothesis?
Back to top	IP Logged

Jovial Monk

Gold Member

Offline

Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male

Re: Tired of stupid AGW denialism?
Reply #118 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 5:12am

You really don’t understand this stuff, do you Lees?

If I want to prove AGW statistically I need to formulate the alternative and null hypotheses. As one who knows AGW is happening, like you and me, the alternative hypothesis has to be: temperatures are increasing. That is what we are testing, after all.

The null hypothesis has to be: temperatures are steady.

This is just the logic needed, there is no “official” alternative and null hypotheses.

The null hypotheses can be tested—we do have the weather records going well back.

If you don’t understand this then buy the Stats for Dummies book and have a read.

So we formulate our alternative and null hypotheses. We look at the data and we find, of course that temperatures have not remained constant, they have increased significantly. So we reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis.

We can also look at GHGs in the atmosphere: they are increasing. We know from spectrometry that the GHGs absorb, overall, infrared radiation coming from the surface and again we show that global temperatures are increasing.

Global temperature increase animation:

Makes it pretty clear that global temperatures are increasing and are increasing more and more rapidly.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 24^th, 2017 at 5:26am by Jovial Monk »

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21507
Gender: male

Re: Tired of stupid AGW denialism?
Reply #119 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 12:43pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 5:12am:

The null hypothesis has to be: temperatures are steady.

Nope. it has to be natural variation.
love the graph very funny.

Here is an alternative view -

Reference: Hannhijarvi et al, 2013 from https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/spe-climate-2016.pdf

2000 years versus 166 years,

Back to top

IP Logged