Now, where has mhaze gone?
mhaze:
>>Just to reiterate this was my previous post:

"As to AR5, to make things easier for you, just take one of the quotes I gave you earlier :"In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”. The is from AR5_WG1. Were the authors of that report right or wrong? Was the conclusion based on data or fantasy? ....

Note that I'm not saying that that was their only point. Yes they commented on other things. But my original point was about global data and this is what they said about global data. So were they wrong?”<<

The AR5 represents our best understanding of climate impacts so far, so they were RIGHT to point out the pitfalls of a global model. They then went on to demonstrate a much BETTER model, one that FAR MORE ACCURATELY models REGIONAL events. Both statements are true. There is no contradiction.

Compare it to the telescope. Old optical telescopes were pretty good at getting us closer to the planets, but not so good at explaining quasars. A report outlining BOTH the limitations of the optical telescope AND the extra knowledge benefits of the radio telescope is not contradicting itself. It’s just discussing the pro’s and con’s of different methodologies. Right now you’re stomping your little foot insisting that radio telescopes don’t exist, because the report said old optical telescopes couldn’t see much beyond our solar system! Yes, the report said their global methodologies had low confidence. Which is why they shifted to regional models, and why they included THOSE conclusions in the Summary for PolicyMakers. It's not hard. Really.

Philip Machanick:
"Roberts claims that the warming cycle ending the 17th going into the 18th century was faster and bigger than the modern one he picks out.

"The data actually shows [global] cooling over the time period he picked out. But never mind, even if there is a CET period with faster and bigger warming than any today, that’s not warming of the whole planet.

"There are other people out there who make similar points about local warming; even if true, those can only be about local trends that can be influenced by many factors that change the local but not global distribution of energy around the planet."

"Also Cox, points out that it is not just about the trend line and correlation between temperature and CO_2 – but also understanding the physical mechanisms, which we’ve understood since the 19th century."

"...Central England temperature record [by Roberts] does not go back to the mid-1600s in full detail. The daily record goes back to 1772; monthly to 1659. I don’t know who claims the 17th century had the hottest period; WikiPedia has the full range and reports the highest temperature as being in 2014."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/08/australian-silliness-and-july-temperature-records/comment-page-4/#comments
[end quotes]

Roberts is not the only one who can't understand Local Temps/Data vs Global, Marohasy can't either..

The World's Oceans comprises 72% of the planet. Australia comprises land area 5% of the land mass, or only 1.4% of the planet's surface.

BOM only uses 100 sites for it's national mean temp data, but even if they used every single site, and even if the results put Australia's temps at an anomaly 2C below what they show today, it would make ZERO significance to the combined data output by Nasa/Giss and every other provider.

The scientific results would still show global warming being man-made.

Marohasy ignores these facts when making unproven claims about the BOM/GISS data. She does not tell the whole scientific truth. Remove Australia from the planet - same AGW/CC results.

Appears that logic and scientific facts are the last thing on Marohasy's mind when she publishes her articles at the IPA & elsewhere.

Hi mhaze, where did you go?
>>Just to reiterate this was my previous post:

"As to AR5, to make things easier for you, just take one of the quotes I gave you earlier :"In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”. The is from AR5_WG1. Were the authors of that report right or wrong? Was the conclusion based on data or fantasy? ....

Note that I'm not saying that that was their only point. Yes they commented on other things. But my original point was about global data and this is what they said about global data. So were they wrong?”<<

The AR5 represents our best understanding of climate impacts so far, so they were RIGHT to point out the pitfalls of a global model. They then went on to demonstrate a much BETTER model, one that FAR MORE ACCURATELY models REGIONAL events. Both statements are true. There is no contradiction.

Compare it to the telescope. Old optical telescopes were pretty good at getting us closer to the planets, but not so good at explaining quasars. A report outlining BOTH the limitations of the optical telescope AND the extra knowledge benefits of the radio telescope is not contradicting itself. It’s just discussing the pro’s and con’s of different methodologies. Right now you’re stomping your little foot insisting that radio telescopes don’t exist, because the report said old optical telescopes couldn’t see much beyond our solar system! Yes, the report said their global methodologies had low confidence. Which is why they shifted to regional models, and why they included THOSE conclusions in the Summary for PolicyMakers. It's not hard. Really.

@ Thomas O'Reilly, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 7:39:52 AM

Thomas,

You answer yes to that question, so please provide scientific evidence accordingly?

Please provide evidence Stanford Uni did not extract electricity from algae?
Please provide evidence photosynthesis does not cause algae microorganisms to multiply and give off heat in the BIQ building in Germany.

What proof do you have, Thomas, that there are 30,000 working scientists in agreement with AGW and CO2 emissions as you point out?

And why, Thomas, have you said nothing to Max Green about his repeated (scare tactic) claim of 4 Hiroshima bombs per second hitting this planet when in reality there are 1,950 Hiroshima bombs of radiation hitting this planet every second, as Leo Lane pointed out on page 40 of this thread.
What impact do the extra bombs 4 of radiation have?

@ ant, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 7:24:02 AM

ant,

Oceans and seas generally have had more anthropogenic nutrient than ever before, nutrient from over 7.3 billion humans dumped daily plus from their land use.

The Gulf of Mexico has the world biggest dead zone and the Caribbean is greener than historically known previously.

I do not comment on radiative forcing because I focus on following nutrient and algae.

I am not saying radiative infrared forcing has no impact on climate. Show me where I have said that.
I think it would have impact on climate, for example via photosynthesis in algae and subsequent increase mass in algae that influences our planets albedo.

What's more I do not use the word "creating".

It's anthropogenic nutrient that is the problem. Nutrient overload, nutrient pollution causing algae blooms that generate heat that would not be generated if the nutrient was not available.
Look at the BIQ building, algae used there would not exist if nutrient was not pumped into the bio reactors.
If nutrient is not available then algae does not grow prolifically.

I again suggest, look into the links in my post on page 17 of this thread.

What evidence do AGW proponents have to prove CO2 emissions are the only cause of warming?

phew Max, we finally got there. Its only taken two weeks, umpteen posts and two threads for you to finally concede that I was right when I said that AR5_WG1 said there was low confidence that there are any global trends in climate extreme events. You've spent all that time trying to deflect, but we did get there.

Are we gunna go through every time I point out a fact that you'd prefer wasn't so:

* temps in the Holocene higher than present 25% of the time. 'Outrageous' says Max until, kicking and screaming he agrees that that is what the data says.

* natural processes adding land mass to coast areas. That can't be true says Max. Its gotta be caused by man (since everything to an alarmist is caused by man). But now alas he concedes that that is what the data says.

I guess its pretty easy to be certain of your position when you know little of the actual data and reject anything that doesn't suit - or at least reject it until it becomes untenable to continue to do so.

Even after being presented with the data MAx wants to obfuscate and deflect. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it think.