Australian Politics Forum - Why is climate science so resilient?

LawfoolNeutral

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23
Gender: male

Re: Why is climate science so resilient?
Reply #60 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 3:52pm

lee wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 3:28pm:

LawfoolNeutral wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 3:02pm:

Overall, the trend globally is warmer, but this position also explains the crazy blizzards and cold snaps in various parts of the world.

And of course disregards other periods of crazy weather before AGW. Or don't you think "crazy weather" existed?

Apologies for my cavalier use of "crazy weather", I'll use weather extremes from now on instead.

Of course there have always been extreme weather, the point is that the additional energy in the atmosphere has increased the extremes even further.

Back to top

IP Logged

LawfoolNeutral New Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 23 Gender:	Re: Why is climate science so resilient? Reply #61 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 3:55pm double post
Back to top	IP Logged

Jovial Monk

Gold Member

Offline

Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male

Re: Why is climate science so resilient?
Reply #62 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 3:57pm

Global warming is. . .global.

Working through weather systems it causes various reactions. In Australia that means the southern half of the continent is warming and drying.

It is caused by GHGs in the atmosphere.

Other forcings, the sun? That has been quiet since the mid 1980s yet AGW continues on.

Any other source of natural forcing? None have been advanced.

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

LawfoolNeutral

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23
Gender: male

Re: Why is climate science so resilient?
Reply #63 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 4:03pm

lee wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 3:08pm:

"Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. '"

link removed by me

"However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic."

link removed by me

"As can be seen on the above example for Endorsement Level 1, only 65 papers are identified as “quantifying AGW as 50%+”. Excluding the “No Positions”, there are 4011 papers classified in total, so we find that the number of papers agreeing that “humans are the primary cause of recent global warming” is only a tiny 1.6%, far from the 97% claimed."

link removed by me

Included in the last is the methodology used. I have no idea if SKS still allows access to the study or if it has materially changed.

Will take me a while to absorb this, your argument hangs on the position expressed in the Spinger published paper, and I'm not sure I am equipped to critique the author (David Legates).

I will say that what I have read of him so far (he appears to be a creationist, and a Scott Pruitt supporter) are ringing alarm bells for me.

I can't post links yet (or I would) to the sources.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21546
Gender: male

Re: Why is climate science so resilient?
Reply #64 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 4:08pm

LawfoolNeutral wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 3:49pm:

rom the first link;
"Please note: the estimate for the baseline global temperature used in this study differed, and was warmer than, the baseline estimate (Jones et al., 1999) used currently. This report has been superseded by subsequent analyses. However, as with all climate monitoring reports, it is left online as it was written at the time."

Did you miss that?

Nope. The estimate of the baseline differs. That will only affect the anomalies. If the baseline was eg 15.9ºC and was changed to 16.1ºC, the anomaly would go down 0.2ºC. The absolute temperature would however remain the same.

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 51474 Gender:	Re: Why is climate science so resilient? Reply #65 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 4:13pm You will find Lees is full of irrelevant crap like that. Just ignore it.
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

greggerypeccary Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 155788 Gender:	Re: Why is climate science so resilient? Reply #66 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 4:18pm Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 3:57pm: Global warming is. . .global. True. There's no proof that it's anthropogenic, though.
Back to top	GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles IP Logged

LawfoolNeutral

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23
Gender: male

Re: Why is climate science so resilient?
Reply #67 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 4:26pm

lee wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 4:08pm:

LawfoolNeutral wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 3:49pm:

rom the first link;
"Please note: the estimate for the baseline global temperature used in this study differed, and was warmer than, the baseline estimate (Jones et al., 1999) used currently. This report has been superseded by subsequent analyses. However, as with all climate monitoring reports, it is left online as it was written at the time."

Did you miss that?

Nope. The estimate of the baseline differs. That will only affect the anomalies. If the baseline was eg 15.9ºC and was changed to 16.1ºC, the anomaly would go down 0.2ºC. The absolute temperature would however remain the same.

The difference in the available data at those 2 links is extreme. I think you are drawing a long bow to arrive at that conclusion if that is the only data you are using, and the conclusion you have reached is misguided.

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk

Gold Member

Offline

Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male

Re: Why is climate science so resilient?
Reply #68 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 4:28pm

While city people may be able to pretend to themselves that AGW is not happening the man on the land does not have that luxury.

Wineries in hot areas—Barossa Valley and Southern Vales etc—are ripping up grape vines and replacing them with more heat tolerant varieties, mostly Italian. Fiano is one but there are more new varieties around.

Brown Bros, on the Murray near Glen Rowan has planted vineyards and built wineries in Tasmania. In Europe French vignerons are planting vineyards in Britain. Even in Sweden vineyards are being built!

As the south dries out wheat production will be hit. Already farmers have had to change to different varieties. One farmer, on LandLine, said that in 20 years it may no longer be possible to grow wheat in his district.

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: 21546 Gender:	Re: Why is climate science so resilient? Reply #69 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 4:29pm LawfoolNeutral wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 3:52pm: Of course there have always been extreme weather, the point is that the additional energy in the atmosphere has increased the extremes even further. Proof?
Back to top	IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 51474 Gender:	Re: Why is climate science so resilient? Reply #70 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 4:29pm Just look at the weather report.
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

LawfoolNeutral

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23
Gender: male

Re: Why is climate science so resilient?
Reply #71 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 4:30pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 4:18pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 3:57pm:

Global warming is. . .global.

True.

There's no proof that it's anthropogenic, though.

How so, given the data on this threads from credible institutions like NASA and NOAA?
(I don't consider David R. Legates as credible at this point)

Are you saying that NASA and the NOAA are not credible (for example)?

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21546
Gender: male

Re: Why is climate science so resilient?
Reply #72 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 4:32pm

LawfoolNeutral wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 4:03pm:

Will take me a while to absorb this, your argument hangs on the position expressed in the Spinger published paper, and I'm not sure I am equipped to critique the author (David Legates).

I will say that what I have read of him so far (he appears to be a creationist, and a Scott Pruitt supporter) are ringing alarm bells for me.

I can't post links yet (or I would) to the sources.

Well - if the third link to the SKS website still works you can do it in one foul swoop. It won't matter whether it's 65 of 40,000 or 65 of 11,000 it is still a long way short of 97%.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21546
Gender: male

Re: Why is climate science so resilient?
Reply #73 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 4:35pm

LawfoolNeutral wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 4:30pm:

Are you saying that NASA and the NOAA are not credible (for example)?

OK NOAA 1997 - 62.45ºF. Now see if you can find what the adjusted temperature is for 1997 in their table data rankings. Tell me if it has changed. Rather hard to be warmest at 62.45ºF and way down the list on the ranking data.

Back to top

IP Logged

LawfoolNeutral

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23
Gender: male

Re: Why is climate science so resilient?
Reply #74 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 4:38pm

lee wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 4:29pm:

LawfoolNeutral wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 3:52pm:

Of course there have always been extreme weather, the point is that the additional energy in the atmosphere has increased the extremes even further.

Proof?

I can only assume that you have not looked for reputable studies on weather extremes yourself.

As I cant post links, I cant do that job for you.

Here is a couple quotes, search for these and there are links to studies in Nature, and other reputable sources.

"Lead researcher Dr Wenju Cai from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia, said this would mean an increase in the occurrence of "devastating weather events with profound socio-economic consequences"."

“People can argue that we had these kinds of extremes well before human influence on the climate — we had them centuries ago,” said Erich M. Fischer, lead author of a study published Monday by the journal Nature Climate Change. “And that’s correct. But the odds have changed, and we get more of them.”

Back to top

IP Logged