The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Science, politics and climate change > Comments

Science, politics and climate change : Comments

By Michael Rowan, published 30/12/2010

When it comes to climate conservative politicians have declared war on science.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. Page 16
  10. 17
  11. All
Hi Joe, sorry for not getting back promptly, been busy as it were.

Yes, I do enjoy and have a passion for my work – I assume you do as well. Ok, you checked out BOM, the site is a tad more complex than before (more data and tools) and is supposed to be easily navigated, as were the tools, by scientists and non-scientists alike – perhaps they should revisit if people are not sure what to look for.

Mount Crawford Forests is obviously not ‘South Australia’, so the data from this single weather station cannot be used to verify Michael’s claim. It’s a common misconception; some people think global warming is not happening because in their neck of the woods, it appears to them as anything but GW. Besides, you may not have noticed, highest temperatures were collected only up until 1995 – well over a decade ago.

To verify Michael’s claims properly you would have to do the re-analyses yourself. Why not look at the following first, then have a good tour of the site.

http://tinyurl.com/SAtrendmap

http://tinyurl.com/SAlineartrend

http://tinyurl.com/veryhotdays

This is a joint statement put out by CSIRO/BOM in March 2010

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/20100315a.pdf

You may find this interesting also (read the fine print too)

http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/satemp6.php
Posted by bonmot, Wednesday, 12 January 2011 6:14:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul

1. While I did not refer to the Antarctic interior, I’m sure even engineers (civil, mechanical, traffic, etc) understand some basic Laws of Physics, as you say – so, where do you think the snow is coming from, why? At least your think-tank acknowledges that Antarctica’s peninsular is warming, without the UHIE, why not you? Ah, never mind.

2. So, your think-tank uses the same satellite data – that’s novel – and comes up with the same conclusion? Spiffin!

3. Umm, Paul – I was talking of the “Earth's radiative energy balance”, NOT “model-derived temperature sensitivity” – you clearly don’t know the difference. Hint for engineers: one is measured in W/m^2. It’s amusing the musings of your think-tank though.

4. Your understanding of the physics is the point, Paul. You assert stuff you don’t understand, change goal posts when you clearly don't understand the science, and then change the playing field altogether by trotting out your right-wing think-tank’s response to something not even close to the topic ... then you go and top it off by wanting me to respond to their arguments! I don't think so.

5. “On what basis do you claim expert status?” Umm, hate to tell you Paul ... you guys aren’t supposed to be into ‘appeals to authority’, so they keep saying.

6. Now, one unanswered question (I think):

“Just because you don't understand the physics does not make the physics wrong. To be sure, scientists at the coal-face have not explained the science very well (imo) - at least to the general public. This has to change - can you suggest how it might be done?”

And please, don’t answer with your think-tank.
Posted by bonmot, Wednesday, 12 January 2011 6:34:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, Bonmot, Mt Crawford Forests was the first monitoring site which I picked which was outside the Adelaide heat-island area. No, I didn't know about the 1995 cut-off date, nor is any build-up in monthly maximum temperatures towards the 1995 cut-off date all that obvious in this case. The 1980s looked pretty warm, on these data. But I guess you're the expert :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 12 January 2011 8:11:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bonmot,

Just checking those URLs you kindly provided: http://tinyurl.com/SAtrendmap, for example, shows a possible six-degree temperature rise over the next century, east of Port Augusta. I suppose this is due to the massive industrial pollution in the region ? Probably that guy in Yunta, with his pesky air-conditioner.
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 12 January 2011 8:18:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi again Bonmot,

Just checking your http://tinyurl.com/SAlineartrend

- I can see where Michael got his assertion about the last seventeen years or whatever. Pity about the last year.

As the graph notes, it shows a linear trend of 0.1 degree per decade, one degree in a century. And presumably growing exponentially, so perhaps many degrees per century, provided no government has the gumption/wits to do anything about anything. Is that actually likely to happen ?

Isn't it amazing that, according to this graph, all that pollution of the rampant industrial activity from the 1940s to the 1970s seemed to be so often accompanied by negative temperature anomalies ?

But I'm no scientist, that's just the observation of an idiot.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 12 January 2011 8:29:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bonmot,

1. You just finished saying to loudmouth the localised warming or cooling is irrelevant. Now you want to claim that localised warming in Antarctic peninsular proves AGW. Sorry. Won’t wash.

2. I wasn’t aware that the IPCC also agreed that the warming had significantly slowed this decade. What is their explanation for this?

3. You are going backwards, using the temperature changes you believe you see, to infer a change in the earth radiative energy balance. Radiative forcing is also measured in W/m2. Sensitivity in K/W/m2. To say that the contribution by CO2 to warming is well understood, is simply not correct. At least according to the NIPCC. To pretend that radiative energy balance and the radiative forcing and sensitivity of CO2 are not the issue is ridiculous.

4. No its not. You have not once, NOT ONCE, brought the physics into this. There are no equations on this page, whatsoever. So where is the physics? Your point is ABSURD. To claim that i’m changing the goalpost is pure snivelling. I responded to your “arguments” (and i use that term loosely) using the NIPCC claims. It’s clear you have simply avoided responding to legitimate argument. Very scientific of you.

5. You haven’t been able to make your case on the facts, instead attacking the NIPCC. And by claiming the full understanding of the physics (yes the physics you haven’t presented) i figured you were claiming expert status.

6. Again, you haven’t argued the physics. I haven’t ever claimed that the physics you haven’t argued, wasn’t true. A TOTAL red herring. It’s the variables in the physics that are at mostly at issue. Not the physics itself, as you well know. I personally would like to see a response from the IPCC to the NIPCC’s report. They seem to have most of the sceptics points covered. That’s what I would like. A discourse.

By continually attacking the motivation of those who question the science, you are effectively saying you aren't comfortable arguing the science. Until you can break that pattern, you won't convince anyone.
Posted by PaulL, Wednesday, 12 January 2011 8:58:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. Page 16
  10. 17
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy