Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 9:04am:

How many people will listen to Attenborough; climate change comes very slowly and people want only quick results; sad as it may be, Trump will prevail.

I would rather believe Sir David Attenborough, 97% of climate scientists and my own eyeballs rather than any politician or any of the many academics on this forum.

Johnnie wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 4:37pm:



Which 97% of climate scientists would that be?

Cook et al's?

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

So 97.1% of 33.3% (32.6% + 0.7%) of abstracts expressed a position on AGW. So that would make it 32.3% of abstracts. And that is not even close to 97% of climate scientists.

Now about your eyeballs - you might want to get them checked.

lee wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 4:51pm:

The 97% that agree are the ones that agree. Along with Dave.
Can you put that info in a bar graph chart form, it would be a little easier to decipher.
I have 20/20 vision when I am wearing my bifocals.

lee wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 5:10pm:

Do you have eyes or are they painted on.
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change – with a focus on human-caused or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) – have been undertaken since the 1990s.[1] A 2016 paper (which was co-authored by Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton and John Cook, and which was based on a half a dozen independent studies by the authors) concluded that “the finding of 97% consensus [that humans are causing recent global warming] in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.”[2]

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 9:04am:


Neither. Isn't there a Climatologist out there competent enough to do that? It just seems condescending when you're relying on celebrities to explain why the current direction of the climate is an issue.

Johnnie wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 6:13pm:



And you believed Wiki? The wiki that used to be able to be changed to your views rather than others? Still bad, just not as bad.

Johnnie wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 6:22pm:


Perhaps you can give us the science by which you "know".

Oh good. Perhaps you will like the new climate scare story -

"“We know global warming is causing the winter snowpack to develop later and melt earlier,” said the paper’s first author Andrew Reinmann, an assistant professor and researcher with the Environmental Science Initiative at the Advanced Science Research Center (ASRC) at The Graduate Center, CUNY, and with Hunter College’s Department of Geography. “Our study advances our understanding of the long-term effects of this trend on northern hardwood forests–which are critical to North America’s environmental health and several industries. The experiments we conducted suggest snowpack declines result in more severe soil freezing that damages and kills tree roots, increases losses of nutrients from the forest and significantly reduces growth of the iconic sugar maple trees.”

The researchers’ 5-year-long experiment consisted of removing snowpack from designated plots during the first 4-6 weeks of winter each year between 2008 and 2012, and then comparing the resulting condition of the soil and trees (all sugar maples) in those plots to the soil and trees in adjacent plots with natural snowpack. Their analysis found that soil frost depth reached over 30 centimeters in areas where snow cover had been removed compared to roughly 5 centimeters at control plots. The severe frost caused damage to tree roots that triggered a cascade of responses, including reduced nutrient uptake by trees, shorter branch growth, loss of nitrogen from soils into nearby waterways, and decreases in soil insect diversity and abundance. Scientists collected sample cores from sugar maple trees on their research plots and measured the width of the cores’ rings to reconstruct growth rates. They found that growth declined by more than 40 percent in response to snow removal and increased soil freezing. The trees also were unable to rebound even after snowpack removal cease"

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-12/asrc-sdm112918.php

So what they did for the experiment was remove the snowcover that existed (snow is an insulator) from groups of trees.

Then those that were bare of snow suffered frost damage. And this was supposed to show the effect of AGW. If it were AGW there wouldn't be frost, there wouldn't be snow.

Johnnie wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 4:37pm:


You may have your eyeballs glued open but you're as blind as a bat.

A pack runner that listens to that bloke on a pedestal, doesn't even know why he's protesting.

WTF up.................

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 10:57am:


David Attenborough as much as I love his docos knows nothing about climate science and is like David Suzuki (Q&A) they have fallen for the 97% consensus and the experts said so.

Sheep nothing but sheep.

Just proves that an education doesn't necessary make you smart, like a monkey it teaches you a certain set of skills.

Johnnie wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 6:58pm:


FFS mate have you read anything Lee has written.

John Cook's (sceptical science) 97% was found to be fraudulent, he was laughed out of the scientific community.

And that survey conducted through the emails asking three simple questions....?

Can you really get a consensus from that...............!!!!

Jeez,,,,smell the snake oil dude.

Johnnie wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 6:43pm:


Temperatures may have warmed over the last 50 years, but the data is too spotty. They infill data where they have none. And yet they claim an accuracy to their estimates down to one 1/100ºC. Gavin Schmidt Director of NASA/GISS says it is about 0.5ºC.

So what have exactly you "seen" in the last 50 years that has not happened before?

Ah Sir Dave? Climate scientist? Nah.

you just don't want to believe anything against the so called 97%.

A true believer. Bye

The expert f.ckwitts on 3AW are criticizing Attenborough LOL

matty wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 7:03pm:


As opposed to numskull Abort and Alan Jones LOL

Just remember how Abort had no science minister in his cabinet lineup and you want to believe these pricks when it comes to science matters. Next thing you'll be talking their advice on topics such as quantum physics and astro physics  LOL

lee wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 7:30pm:


but I have never said that so what is your point ?

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 7:26pm:


Baa, baa, baa....................

Johnnie wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 7:39pm:



To which part of the supposed 97% do you want to defer?
The Group that says it is mostly benign?
The group that says it is catastrophic?

Remember Cook only got 64 papers ( about 0.5%) that said that it was more than 50% human caused. 64 papers out of 11,944? Damn it is almost enough to make me a true believer.

BTW xeej climate change has been with us since day dot.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is what you support.

And that is nothing but a hoax orchestrated by the oligarchy to once again fill their pockets.

Money out of nothing.....

Johnnie wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 7:47pm:


You young ones are going to be stomped on by the oligarchy, how long will it take you to realize I wonder...?!?!

Baa, baa, baa....................

Ajax wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 7:51pm:


Is that the same oligarchy that wants to sell me an electric car that I can charge up at home from my roof top solar PV  so I don't have to take it up the arse at the fossil fool bowser ? LOL

BTW - Those temperatures back 50 years? That was in the middle of the Global Cooling Scare - Brought to you by CO2.

Funny that. The magical gas that can do anything. Even now -

"The occurrence of emission maxima at TOA in the absorption bands of GHGs means, that, from a top of atmosphere perspective, the presence of GHGs causes a surplus of energy loss into space. Taking the difference between surface and TOA emission as greenhouse effect, this yields a negative GHE being observed over Antarctica. Furthermore, when considering increasing concentrations of GHGs, particularly CO2, this phenomenon should yield an increase in thermal emission. This is opposite to what is generally known to result from increasing concentrations of GHGs."

http://epic.awi.de/38614/1/BzPM_0692_2015.pdf

Cooling and warming.

Ajax wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 7:56pm:

Does that graph take into account all the hot air coming out of you! you can fob off 97% of the scientists, Wiki and fate, but beware, you are playing with mankind, stark!

The time when the Earth gets to 'cool' down...


Ever see that Attenborough Doco on how the Planet regulates its Temperature (especially via the deep water currents from Antarctica)?

Well, we may have not have tilted the World's AXIS,
but we sure have upset the applecart and now we can't seem to figure out how to

The best way to understand global warming is to listen to those who study the science and publish their findings!!!



Quote:


https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 8:59pm:


No one is denying that the Earth has warmed, it has been warming since the little ice age.

Some of the biggest alarmists walking the planet have come out of those organisations.

Organisations that receive money, lots of money to research Anthropogenic Global Warming and keep it in the head lines.

If you want to see if CO2 and temperature correlate have a look in our history, the answer is there, not what these money hungry scientists are telling us.

lee wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 9:12pm:


Spoken like a true liberal.  The climate is always changing LOL

Ajax wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 9:09pm:


Quote:




https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/sep/15/the-idea-that-clim...

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 9:22pm:


These things have always happened, they are nothing new.

Where is the evidence that its AGW.....??

Show me and I will believe.

September 1957 - arctic decreases by 40%

May 1947 - arctic melting

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/22429983?searchTerm=climate%20change&sea...

November 1922 - arctic melting

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

Quote:


The worlds retreating glaciers is irrefutable evidence that the earth is warming
CO₂ is a known greenhouse gas
The science is pretty simple really

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 9:35pm:


All these organisations have is a crystal ball (computer models) which so far have failed them dreadfully.

That's why when it started to go south with their predictions they came with more snake oil than a traveling salesman.

You have seen that video Prof. Richard Feynman describing the essence of science in 60 seconds.

If it disagrees with observations ITS WRONG.......!!!

AGW theory is wrong......!!!

Wow past my bedtime.

For you Phil

The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds (Richard Feynman)

The following are scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action:
Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society 
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences 
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina 
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences 
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research 
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

lee wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 9:45pm:


Yes....If you read what NASA was saying instead of cherry picking and obsessing over Cook you might have some idea....What does NASA say about Global Warming....You keep avoiding that point???



Quote:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 10:02pm:


yes. NASA says John Cook's data is good.

lee wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 10:52pm:


Yes but they also support the science of AGW as do many other reputable organisations!!!

You would do better to support your pathetic cherry picking argument with some pear reviewed science from a reputable source that disproves AGW....Off you go, I look forward to reading your contribution!!!

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 11:16pm:



They support a bogus paper. how does that add credibility. And all those institutions? Not one has said Cook is bogus. Where does that leave their credibilty.

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 11:16pm:




How so funny. You do understand that would be trying to  prove a negative.

That's why the burden of proof is on AGW. Something it has failed to do. Climate models are not proof of anything.

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 11:20pm:



Remember those questions I asked before?

How many of those illustrious organisations gave their members a vote? How many made unilateral decisions?

They were not idle questions.

Jasin wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 11:31pm:

Watch out for freak tornadoes, that windowpane may take your head clean off.

Lee has a conclusive graph somewhere.

Johnnie wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 11:47pm:


Nothing judgemental in offering a view in a hilarious roundabout way....

When the Infidel scientists of climate change get the same hearing, I might be prepared to listen.... to both sides fairly....

Interesting that when it came to the hole in the Ozone layer and the subsequent world-wide move on the recommendation of scientists that Chlorofluorocarbons be removed from use across the whole world ... that it was done and worked ... without all this stupid denial from a small set of crazy people flogging denial snake-oil.

Those were the days. 

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 11:57pm:


Hmm - history has a way of changing.... NASA photographs at the time (and we all can only rely on what we are handed down as 'proof'), showed that (gasps) the alleged 'Ozone Hole' over Antarctica expanded in Winter and shrank in Summer - and that the pictures were actually cloud layer and sunlight and the size of the black spot depends on the season ......

Try this:-

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


... ask yourself why it could be different in Spring..... seems to me to be a flaw in thinking there... and probably some vested interest at work...

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 5^th, 2018 at 9:54am:


And Margaret Thatcher a fully qualified chemical engineer led the way and convinced Reagan to follow. Now we have f.ckwitts like Trump and Abort telling scientists how to think

Johnnie wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 11:53pm:


When did they graph your idiocy?

lee wrote on Dec 5^th, 2018 at 12:49pm:

The hole is what it is referred to and the banning of CFCs fixed it so I don't know what you are on about.




From Wiki.

Ozone depletion describes two related events observed since the late 1970s: a steady lowering of about four percent in the total amount of ozone in Earth's atmosphere (the ozone layer), and a much larger springtime decrease in stratospheric ozone around Earth's polar regions.[1] The latter phenomenon is referred to as the ozone hole. There are also springtime polar tropospheric ozone depletion events in addition to these stratospheric events.

The main cause of ozone depletion and the ozone hole is manufactured chemicals, especially manufactured halocarbon refrigerants, solvents, propellants and foam-blowing agents (chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), HCFCs, halons), referred to as ozone-depleting substances (ODS). These compounds are transported into the stratosphere by the winds after being emitted from the surface.[2] Once in the stratosphere, they release halogen atoms through photodissociation, which catalyze the breakdown of ozone (O3) into oxygen (O2).[3] Both types of ozone depletion were observed to increase as emissions of halocarbons increased.

Ozone depletion and the ozone hole have generated worldwide concern over increased cancer risks and other negative effects. The ozone layer prevents most harmful UVB wavelengths of ultraviolet light (UV light) from passing through the Earth's atmosphere. These wavelengths cause skin cancer, sunburn and cataracts, which were projected to increase dramatically as a result of thinning ozone, as well as harming plants and animals. These concerns led to the adoption of the Montreal Protocol in 1987, which bans the production of CFCs, halons and other ozone-depleting chemicals.

The ban came into effect in 1989. Ozone levels stabilized by the mid-1990s and began to recover in the 2000s. Recovery is projected to continue over the next century, and the ozone hole is expected to reach pre-1980 levels by around 2075.[4] The Montreal Protocol is considered the most successful international environmental agreement to date.

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 5^th, 2018 at 1:52pm:

Good pick up Greg, it was meant to say scientists of which many included climate scientists, what would your highly respected opinion be?

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 5^th, 2018 at 2:00pm:

Look back at a previous post of mine with Wiki being my reference.
I don't like merry go rounds they make me feel giddy.
Your opinion on man made climate change?

Johnnie wrote on Dec 5^th, 2018 at 1:32pm:



If the "hole" has been "fixed" why is it " currently still above average size for the decade at 9 million square kilometres, and is much larger than in 2017 or 2016"?

You do know the meaning of "decade".

Johnnie wrote on Dec 5^th, 2018 at 1:32pm:



The main cause of ozone depletion and the ozone hole is thought to be manufactured chemical. 

There fixed it for you. How do the CFC's get into the Antarctic Polar Vortex?