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 > General Discussion > It aint gunna rain no more, no more,

It aint gunna rain no more, no more,

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. Page 14
  10. 15
  11. All
spindoc,

"Then we have "The statistical significance of warming from 1994-2009 was 95%"?

(Which is why Phil Jones was asked the loaded question pertaining to 1995-2009 as it registered 93%)

How can we have 95% certainty for a period mostly covered by the hiatus (no statistically significant warming) that the IPCC acknowledges?"

That question goes some way to explaining why Phil Jones is a climate scientist - and spindoc is not.

spindoc can't even get the jargon right...

"....in the AR5 WG1 science report, that there has been a 15 year ‘hiatus’ in global warming..."

The hiatus is in "surface air temperature". You won't find the term "no global warming" in the AR5.

"IPCC also confirm that this 15 year ‘hiatus’ has been caused predominantly by natural climate variability."

So?

Your point is...?

".... Why try to bully us with your bull dust?"

By "bully", you mean stand up and argue against your misrepresentation?

Well yes! How are I poke holes in your fictions - you have every right to be outraged!
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 10 May 2015 6:52:44 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
"IPCC also confirm that this 15 year ‘hiatus’ has been caused predominantly by natural climate variability."

So?

So Poirot, everything before this non warming that isn't happening was due to MMGW that likewise is not happening, because natural variability counters the MMGW when it isn't happening ?

And you think the rest of us are nuts?

Have you thought of getting a spot on Australia's got Talent?
Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 10 May 2015 7:11:43 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
spindoc,

Considering you swagger around here as if you actually possess some nous, it's somewhat startling to find that as far as the actual science goes, you appear a tad light weight.

Now you appear to believe that natural climate variability can't possibly affect long-term trends of a warming planet.

Your parting taunts are light weight too - bit of wit please.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 10 May 2015 7:34:31 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
Follow on from some of the previous comments about Government subsidies to green solutions. I don't like them either. A write up in Forbes on Tesla and the benefits it receives from green credits http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2015/02/16/tesla-should-turn-off-subsidies-wall-street-journal-europe-says/

I'm very sceptical of the political games that have been played with the Climate Change debate including the claims that prompted this thread and the apparent use of AGW/ACC as an excuse to pursue other objectives.

I do think there are some good reasons to work at cutting down our reliance on fossil fuels (starting with how much of the oil comes from the middle east and north Africa http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2003/03/okog.htm).

I also think that we are in a window at the moment where we have the resources required to develop far more sustainable solutions than have been available to get us to this point. That window may not always be available ACC or not.

The most likely solutions to the overpopulation issues other than catastrophe are in lifting the those parts of the world with very high reproduction rates out of poverty and low education. Preferably by not dragging the rest of us down. Technologies that make that easier to achieve are in my view exciting to see emerging.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 10 May 2015 9:05:13 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
‘morning Poirot,

You shouldn’t be startled to “find that as far as the actual science goes, you (I) appear a tad light weight”.

Light weight, that’s a compliment. I have absolutely no skills, qualifications or knowledge of atmospheric, climate or earth sciences, nil, zilch, zero. But on the other hand I have never stated I had.

Interesting therefore, that a complete idiot like me has had you and your friends running ragged in a frenzy all week trying to explain your, and the IPCC’s contradictions and back flips?

The release this month of the satellite data for the “lower global atmosphere” (which I think you refer to as "surface air temperature"), has been produced by RSS and UAH. These two methods have often produced differing results however, there would now appear to be “consensus” between the two?

“Since December 1996 there has been no global warming at all. This month’s RSS temperature – still unaffected by the most persistent el Nińo conditions of the current weak cycle – shows a new record length for the Pause: 18 years 5 months”.

“The new UAH version 6.0 beta and the RSS lower troposphere temperature anomaly data goes as far back in time as they could go while showing no warming based on their linear trends. The new UAH data show no warming for 219 months, and for the RSS data, it’s 220 months”.

The AR5 WG1 science report, that there has been “a 15 year ‘hiatus’ in global warming”, is belated acknowledgement of this by the IPCC.

In the end it doesn’t matter if this is a hiatus, a pause, no warming, an anomaly or is “easily explained” by statistical mumbo jumbo. That is because even the IPCC now admits that it does not have the ability to factor it into its models

In their own words, the IPCC concludes in the AR5 WG1 scientific report, “that the inability to predict this natural variability and the resulting ‘hiatus’ is due to the failure or unreliability of climate models”.

Again, “due to the failure or unreliability of the IPCC’s climate models”!

Cont’d.
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 11 May 2015 12:53:34 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
Cont’d

Poirot, I particularly enjoyed your dissertation on “statistical significance” and the link to the Professor Phil Jones interview.

“The statistical significance of warming from 1994-2009 was 95%"?

There are two key words here, the first is the word “was” and the second is “95%” This is because since the IPCC/Phil Jones made this statement in 2010, they have now acknowledged the “hiatus or pause” back to a period that pre-dates their 95% certainty by ten years!

So presumably the p-value for this was 5% which means that the warming 1994-2009 carried a 95% certainty that this was “caused” and not random factors, yes?

So in 2010 there was a 95% certainty, statistically proven?

Yet by the time the AR5 report was later published with the statement that there has been “a 15 year ‘hiatus’ in global warming”, that 95% certainty suddenly went poof?

The 95% certainty for that period is wiped out by a 15 year hiatus covering that same period for which there was previously a 95% certainty? Well that didn’t last very long did it?

Poirot says That I “appear to believe that natural climate variability can't possibly affect long-term trends of a warming planet”.

Since I don’t have a clue what “climate variability” actually is, I cannot and do not have any “belief “ about it.

What I do know is that even if Poirot does know and understand, the IPCC cannot and does not have the ability to “predict” any influence.

Poirot, you asked for a bit of humor. I am truly sorry but I no longer find anything funny in dealing with alarmists. You listen to nothing challenging, you borrow only opinion from those who feed your alarmism and you reject anything that remotely conflicts with your adopted ideology. That’s not funny, but is it truly alarming.

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance”.
George Bernard Shaw

Ya’all have a great day now.
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 11 May 2015 12:54:43 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. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. Page 14
  10. 15
  11. All

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