Australian Politics Forum - Evidence for global warming.

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 16438 Gender:	Re: Evidence for global warming. Reply #225 - Jun 14^th, 2019 at 6:27pm Robot wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 6:23pm: You seem to think it is related to regression to the mean. Which is more than you do.
Back to top	IP Logged

Johnnie

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 12485
Gender: male

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #226 - Jun 14^th, 2019 at 6:40pm

lee wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 6:26pm:

Johnnie wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 6:17pm:

Firstly we are in 2019 not 2011 so there is over 8 years of data missing.

And that has not been addressed by anyone. Care to do it?

Johnnie wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 6:17pm:

Secondly bodies such as the UN, NASA, Bureau of Meteorology amongst many other established bodies have confirmed and stipulate climate change is real and have linked human causation.

That's quite correct. Now the challenge is to find what percentage. Wink

Johnnie wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 6:17pm:

Thirdly abstracts don't necessarily express the final position.

Actually they are supposed to. The Abstract should give arguments for, perhaps arguments against, and a simplified conclusion.

"Informative abstracts
The majority of abstracts are informative. While they still do not critique or evaluate a work, they do more than describe it. A good informative abstract acts as a surrogate for the work itself. That is, the writer presents and explains all the main arguments and the important results and evidence in the complete article/paper/book. An informative abstract includes the information that can be found in a descriptive abstract (purpose, methods, scope) but also includes the results and conclusions of the research and the recommendations of the author. The length varies according to discipline, but an informative abstract is rarely more than 10% of the length of the entire work. In the case of a longer work, it may be much less."

https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/abstracts/

If the abstract doesn't present the final position, do you mean it uses a draft position?

Johnnie wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 6:17pm:

Sort of puts your argument into another dimension blossom.

If you had comprehended it, you would have seen the shortcomings of it. Wink

You are still coming from the same dimension, Goldcam covered it nicely.

Back to top

IP Logged

The_Barnacle

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6205
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #227 - Jun 15^th, 2019 at 11:22am

lee wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 5:19pm:

Johnnie wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 5:04pm:

If the other scientists (the 3%) want to publish something contradictory then there is nothing stopping them, except ridicule, honey bunch.

But Cook et al 2013 didn't get 97%.

"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'. "

So all these were publishing scientists, hence the abstracts.

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW,"

That leaves 33.6%.

"32.6% endorsed AGW,"

Quotes from - https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

So what you mean is 32.6% of publishing climate scientists, according to Cook et al endorsed AGW.

That is a L-o-o-ng way from 97%. Wink

Wow lee
This post is pretty stupid even for you
Your interpretation is that if a paper expresses no position on AGW (for what ever reason)then by default you classify it as opposing AGW (because it dosn't actively support it).
You really do use convoluted logic to try and discredit.

Using that logic in 2016 only 17 million people voted for Brexit out of 46 million registered voters (thats 37%)
I seem to have missed your posts arguing that the people didn't want Brexit Grin

Back to top

The Right Wing only believe in free speech when they agree with what is being said.

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16438
Gender: male

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #228 - Jun 15^th, 2019 at 12:38pm

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 15^th, 2019 at 11:22am:

Your interpretation is that if a paper expresses no position on AGW (for what ever reason)then by default you classify it as opposing AGW (because it dosn't actively support it).

No petal. The paper makes the claim for those papers that endorse AGW. They set up the parameters for their paper. If you don't agree with their workings take it up with them.

And don't forget ABSTRACTS are NOT Climate Scientists. Which is the claim bandied about. I have used their own statistics.

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 15^th, 2019 at 11:22am:

Using that logic in 2016 only 17 million people voted for Brexit out of 46 million registered voters (thats 37%)
I seem to have missed your posts arguing that the people didn't want Brexit

No petal. Taking your figures at face value, that is what they say. And those that didn't vote and then screamed the loudest were the millenials, because they didn't get what they wanted, they want a new vote.

In any vote or count you can only go with the figures presented. You can't say "but that's not right because people were excluded or weren't in the count".

Back to top

IP Logged

The_Barnacle

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6205
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #229 - Jun 15^th, 2019 at 12:55pm

lee wrote on Jun 15^th, 2019 at 12:38pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 15^th, 2019 at 11:22am:

Your interpretation is that if a paper expresses no position on AGW (for what ever reason)then by default you classify it as opposing AGW (because it dosn't actively support it).

The paper makes the claim for those papers that endorse AGW. They set up the parameters for their paper. If you don't agree with their workings take it up with them.

Nice back pedal

I guess thats as close as I'm going to get to you admitting you are posting garbage Grin

I'll also be reminding you of this post every time you try and discredit Bureau of Meteorology data

Back to top

The Right Wing only believe in free speech when they agree with what is being said.

IP Logged

DonDeeHippy

Gold Member

Offline

Cool Stuff

Posts: 2782
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #230 - Jun 15^th, 2019 at 1:10pm

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 15^th, 2019 at 12:55pm:

lee wrote on Jun 15^th, 2019 at 12:38pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 15^th, 2019 at 11:22am:

Your interpretation is that if a paper expresses no position on AGW (for what ever reason)then by default you classify it as opposing AGW (because it dosn't actively support it).

The paper makes the claim for those papers that endorse AGW. They set up the parameters for their paper. If you don't agree with their workings take it up with them.

Nice back pedal

I guess thats as close as I'm going to get to you admitting you are posting garbage Grin

I'll also be reminding you of this post every time you try and discredit Bureau of Meteorology data

just remember a acorn doesn't fall far from a Raw tree... Wink

Back to top

I am me

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10958
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #231 - Jun 15^th, 2019 at 1:12pm

First let me say that I believe in climate change and that the Earth has warmed up since the little ice age.

Now Ladies and Gentlemen I have evidence of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

It was first hypothesised in 1990 by the IPCC and associates in their computer model simulations.

They claimed that mans emissions of CO2 by burning fossil fuels would heat the Earth up by 2.78°C by the end of this century.

They also claimed that this was the over riding factor for the warming, that is mans emissions of CO2 due to fossil fuel consumption for energy.

Well the last 28 years of empirical data (observations) suggest a warming of 1°C by the end of this century.

Therefore the computer models got it all wrong.

And we all know by now that if your theory doesn't match your observations in nature, then your theory is WRONG.

Therefore there is no evidence to suggest that Anthropogenic Global Warming is the sole cause of this current warming.

As the great professor Richard Feynman tells us below.

How those computer models got it oh so wrong.

Warm and cool cycles of the Earth.

and the correlation of CO2 and temperature

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 15^th, 2019 at 1:18pm 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: 16438
Gender: male

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #232 - Jun 15^th, 2019 at 2:25pm

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 15^th, 2019 at 12:55pm:

Nice back pedal

Where have I walked back from what the paper says. Wink

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 15^th, 2019 at 12:55pm:

I'll also be reminding you of this post every time you try and discredit Bureau of Meteorology data

Do you think adjusted data is data? Grin

Once you adjust the data it is a bunch of numbers. Nothing more. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

Robot

Senior Member

Offline

Conspirator

Posts: 441
Engadine Maccas

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #233 - Jun 15^th, 2019 at 8:18pm

Ajax wrote on Jun 15^th, 2019 at 1:12pm:

First let me say that I believe in climate change and that the Earth has warmed up since the little ice age.

Now Ladies and Gentlemen I have evidence of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

It was first hypothesised in 1990 by the IPCC and associates in their computer model simulations.

"They used computers!" (Collective gasp from the audience.)

Grin

Ajax wrote on Jun 15^th, 2019 at 1:12pm:

They claimed that mans emissions of CO2 by burning fossil fuels would heat the Earth up by 2.78°C by the end of this century.

The only source I could find for a figure of 2.78°C is Hansen et al, 1981.

Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957

Hansen et al makes multiple predictions based on fossil fuel usage:

Ajax wrote on Jun 15^th, 2019 at 1:12pm:

Well the last 28 years of empirical data (observations) suggest a warming of 1°C by the end of this century.

[citation needed]

Ajax wrote on Jun 15^th, 2019 at 1:12pm:

How those computer models got it oh so wrong.

https://i.ibb.co/5kCc7Fq/ipcctempco2.jpg

Google image search suggests this graph originated with this self-published PDF:
The Skeptic’s Case: Who Are You Going To Believe—The Government Climate Scientists or The Data? by David M.W. Evans
jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/evans-david/skeptics-case.pdf

Evans' source for the IPCC predictions? The policymakers' summary of the IPCC First Assessment Report. Evans' footnote:

Quote:

IPCC First Assessment Report, 1990, page xxii (www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf) in the Policymakers Summary, Figure 8 and surrounding text, for the business-as-usual scenario (which is what in fact occurred, there being no significant controls or decrease in the rate of increase of emissions to date). “Under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C to 0.5°C).

I've highlighted Evans' claim that the Business as Usual scenario has occurred. In order for Evans to arrive at this conclusion, he has to ignore the abatement achieved as the result of the Kyoto Protocol, which is not factored into the Business as Usual scenario in the 1990 report:

Quote:

In the Business-as-Usual scenario (Scenario A) the energv supply is coal intensive and on the demand side only modest efficiency increases are achieved Carbon monoxide controls are modest, deforestation continues until the tropical forests are depleted and agricultural emissions of methane and nitrous oxide are uncontrolled For CFCs the Montreal Protocol is implemented albeit with only partial participation Note that the aggregation of national projections by IPCC Working Group III gives higher emissions (10 20%) of carbon dioxide and methane by 2025.

AR1: Scientific Assessment of Climate Change
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

Ajax wrote on Jun 15^th, 2019 at 1:12pm:

Warm and cool cycles of the Earth.

and the correlation of CO2 and temperature

https://i.ibb.co/mc5qJqb/AGW.jpg

Potato-quality Gish Gallop.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 15^th, 2019 at 8:38pm by Robot »

IP Logged

Robot

Senior Member

Offline

Conspirator

Posts: 441
Engadine Maccas

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #234 - Jun 15^th, 2019 at 10:35pm

Ajax wrote on Jun 15^th, 2019 at 1:12pm:

https://i.ibb.co/mc5qJqb/AGW.jpg

The first one:

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

Quote:

By Climatologist Cliff Harris and Meteorologist Randy Mann

Quote:

Global temperature chart was complied by Climatologist Cliff Harris that combined the following resources:
"Climate and the Affairs of Men" by Dr. Iben Browing.
"Climate...The Key to Understanding Business Cycles...The Raymond H. Wheeler Papers. By Michael Zahorchak
Weather Science Foundation Papers in Crystal Lake, Illinois.

Back to top

IP Logged

Robot

Senior Member

Offline

Conspirator

Posts: 441
Engadine Maccas

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #235 - Jun 15^th, 2019 at 11:45pm

Ajax wrote on Jun 15^th, 2019 at 1:12pm:

https://i.ibb.co/mc5qJqb/AGW.jpg

The second one:

The original can be found here:
Climate and the Carboniferous Period by Monte Hieb
https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Looking at this graph, you'd think that there isn't any correlation between CO₂ and temperature. But for some reason, the source for the CO₂ figures, Berner & Kothavala, states that temperature is dependent on CO₂.

Quote:

Revision of the GEOCARB model (Berner, 1991, 1994) for paleolevels of atmospheric CO2, has been made with emphasis on factors affecting CO2 uptake by continental weathering. This includes: (1) new GCM (general circulation model) results for the dependence of global mean surface temperature and runoff on CO2,for both glaciated and non-glaciated periods, coupled with new results for the temperature response to changes in solar radiation;

https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf

Berner & Kothavala also mentions another factor driving global temperatures: solar forcing. I have no idea why Monte Hieb left it out of his graph, but it's ironic since climate "skeptics" often insist that climate change is mostly driven by the sun.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/293C0314...

Scotese has updated his temperature sketch since Hieb last updated his graph:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309324713_A_NEW_GLOBAL_TEMPERATURE_CURV...

Scotese has removed the sudden jumps between "ice house" and "hot house".

Like Berner & Kothavala, Scotese also mentions that greenhouse gases are a factor in global temperature:

Quote:

Most of the time, the global temperature gently rises and falls in response to gradual changes in orbital and solar parameters, ocean currents, sea level, atmospheric chemistry (greenhouse gases), and other factors. These changes occur over millions of years.

If you were to impose solar irradiance on Monte Hieb's graph, it would also appear to imply that there is no correlation between solar irradiance and global temperature. So if you're dense enough to think this graph refutes the theory that CO₂ causes changes in climate, then you could at least be consistently thick and conclude that it also refutes the theory that solar irradiance causes changes in climate.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 16^th, 2019 at 2:50am by Robot »

IP Logged

Robot

Senior Member

Offline

Conspirator

Posts: 441
Engadine Maccas

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #236 - Jun 16^th, 2019 at 12:11am

Ajax wrote on Jun 15^th, 2019 at 1:12pm:

https://i.ibb.co/mc5qJqb/AGW.jpg

Graph number three:

According to this site, the graph was drawn by "analytical chemist Hans Schreuder", although the original is no longer available.
https://www.iceagenow.com/The_IPCC_is_lying.htm

Here's the original from the IPCC's First Assessment Report.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

Looks like Hans Schreuder misrepresented the IPCC, by increasing the scale of the vertical axis by almost 4 times.

(Nice of him to provide some Vikings context, though.)

Still, the IPCC figure is a bit...low quality. The caption says:

Quote:

Figure 7.1: Schematic diagrams of global temperature variations since...the last thousand years The dotted line nominally represents conditions near the beginning of the twentieth century

What the hell is a "schematic diagram" and why is it even in there? There's a story about it in the Appendix of this paper by Jones et al, if you care to read it, but the bottom line is this

Quote:

the curve used by IPCC (1990) was locally representative (nominally of Central England) and not global, and was referred to at the time with the word ‘schematic’.

http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/%7Ekcobb/jones09.pdf

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 16^th, 2019 at 12:44am by Robot »

IP Logged

Robot Senior Member Offline Conspirator Posts: 441 Engadine Maccas	Re: Evidence for global warming. Reply #237 - Jun 16^th, 2019 at 1:05am Ajax wrote on Jun 15^th, 2019 at 1:12pm: https://i.ibb.co/mc5qJqb/AGW.jpg The fourth graph: Here's a higher res version. Reverse image search doesn't reveal the article it originally belonged to, although it's evident from the visual style that it belongs to Christopher Monckton, which is an automatic LOL.
Back to top	IP Logged

Bobby.

Moderator

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 95507
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #238 - Jun 16^th, 2019 at 6:20am

An excellent graph and article that everyone should read carefully:
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

Dr. Wheeler also discovered that approximately every 102 years, a much warmer and drier climatic cycle affects our planet.
The last such "warm and dry" peak occurred in 1936, at the end of the infamous "Dust Bowl" period. During that time, extreme heat and dryness, combined with a multitude of problems during the "Great Depression," made living conditions practically intolerable.

Assuming we get a new and very strong cooler La Nina sea-surface temperature pattern along with extremely low solar activity, we may see a brief cool down of the Earth's temperature around the early 2020s. The next “warm and dry” climatic phase is scheduled to arrive in the early 2030s, probably peaking around 2038. It's quite possible we could see an average global temperature near 60 degrees, assuming there isn't a major volcanic eruption to disrupt this cycle.

Based on current data, this new warmer cycle could produce even hotter and drier weather patterns than we saw during the late 1990s and early 2000s. We also believe that our prolonged cycle of wide weather “extremes,” the worst in at least 1,000 years, will continue and perhaps become more severe in the years to come.

We should remember, that the Earth's coldest periods have usually followed excessive warmth. Such was the case when our planet moved from the Medieval Warm Period between 900 and 1300 A.D. to the sudden “Little Ice Age,” which peaked in the 17th Century. Since 2,500 B.C., there have been at least 78 major climate changes worldwide, including two major changes in just the past 40 years. In terms of upcoming cooling and warming periods, only time will tell.

Back to top

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10958
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #239 - Jun 16^th, 2019 at 10:09am

Robot wrote on Jun 15^th, 2019 at 8:18pm:

Ajax wrote on Jun 15^th, 2019 at 1:12pm:

First let me say that I believe in climate change and that the Earth has warmed up since the little ice age.

Now Ladies and Gentlemen I have evidence of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

It was first hypothesised in 1990 by the IPCC and associates in their computer model simulations.

"They used computers!" (Collective gasp from the audience.)

Grin

Ajax wrote on Jun 15^th, 2019 at 1:12pm:

They claimed that mans emissions of CO2 by burning fossil fuels would heat the Earth up by 2.78°C by the end of this century.

The only source I could find for a figure of 2.78°C is Hansen et al, 1981.

Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957

Hansen et al makes multiple predictions based on fossil fuel usage:

https://i.postimg.cc/9F79szzy/Hansen1981-Fig6.jpg

Ajax wrote on Jun 15^th, 2019 at 1:12pm:

Well the last 28 years of empirical data (observations) suggest a warming of 1°C by the end of this century.

[citation needed]

Ajax wrote on Jun 15^th, 2019 at 1:12pm:

How those computer models got it oh so wrong.

https://i.ibb.co/5kCc7Fq/ipcctempco2.jpg

Google image search suggests this graph originated with this self-published PDF:
The Skeptic’s Case: Who Are You Going To Believe—The Government Climate Scientists or The Data? by David M.W. Evans
jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/evans-david/skeptics-case.pdf

Evans' source for the IPCC predictions? The policymakers' summary of the IPCC First Assessment Report. Evans' footnote:

Quote:

IPCC First Assessment Report, 1990, page xxii (www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf) in the Policymakers Summary, Figure 8 and surrounding text, for the business-as-usual scenario (which is what in fact occurred, there being no significant controls or decrease in the rate of increase of emissions to date). “Under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C to 0.5°C).

I've highlighted Evans' claim that the Business as Usual scenario has occurred. In order for Evans to arrive at this conclusion, he has to ignore the abatement achieved as the result of the Kyoto Protocol, which is not factored into the Business as Usual scenario in the 1990 report:

Quote:

In the Business-as-Usual scenario (Scenario A) the energv supply is coal intensive and on the demand side only modest efficiency increases are achieved Carbon monoxide controls are modest, deforestation continues until the tropical forests are depleted and agricultural emissions of methane and nitrous oxide are uncontrolled For CFCs the Montreal Protocol is implemented albeit with only partial participation Note that the aggregation of national projections by IPCC Working Group III gives higher emissions (10 20%) of carbon dioxide and methane by 2025.

AR1: Scientific Assessment of Climate Change
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

Ajax wrote on Jun 15^th, 2019 at 1:12pm:

Warm and cool cycles of the Earth.

and the correlation of CO2 and temperature

https://i.ibb.co/mc5qJqb/AGW.jpg

Potato-quality Gish Gallop.

Hahaha.....!

Yep those same computer models that showed we had a hot spot in the tropopause around the equator.

The hot spot that weather balloons and satellites failed to find LMFAO.

I gave you the source IPCC FAR 1990 which is still valid today.

I mean don't they talk about keeping the temperature to BELOW 2°C by spending billions of tax payer monies on wall street buying up the free air space above your country and still sending up as much CO2 as you can afford.

As long as you pay there is no danger.......!

If you don't pay we're all doomed my friend doomed I tellsya........... Cheesy

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

Back to top

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