Tony Thomas reports grief among climate scientists.

Climate scientists inclined towards catastrophe theory are suffering "environmental melancholia" because they cannot understand why the Australian electorate laughs at computer-generated predictions of the end of the world.

One such, Joelle Gergis, switches between sobbing as she travels on jets, to "volcanically explosive rage" at the plebs' refusal to take her seriously.

For Katharine Wilkinson our scepticism causes rage, deep grief. Kath is happy that she has no children, and she thanks God that her dog "will be dead in 10 years".

At the Bali UN climate summit, Yvode Boer, IPCC functionary, had to be led, crying, from the podium because he lost a procedural motion that he had "worked around the clock for " to "protect the Earth from warming".

A meteorologist turned journalist bleated, "It's only getting worse. I confess: I need help".

There is "daily grief"; "profound grief" caused by "the constant background of doom and gloom and 'gloom science'. When Sarah, a gloomy one, asked a 'senior climate scientist' how he communicates with "ordinary folk", he replied, "I don't talk to those people anymore. F… those people". Sarah went to her room and had a good cry.

Climate scientists live a "surreal existence" according to 'New York' magazine. Psychologists move among them, handing out advice, describing 'pre-traumatic stress'; 'anger'; 'panic'; and 'obsessive-intrusive thoughts'.

Melbourne and Wollongong universities have revealed all this 'suffering'.

A paper entitled "Keeping the heart a long way from the brain: the emotional labour of climate scientists" discusses "climate-panic people's emotional labour from feminist perspectives, in which the scientists COMBAT "a strong climate denial influence".

There does not seem to be much 'combatting' going on, given all the sobbing and swearing.

The survey found that climate scientists use "emotional denial to to suppress the consequences of climate change"; they are then "guilt free" when they use "long distance airplane trips throughout a scientific career".

This BS alone cost $2,467,256 over three years 2014-2017. Just to tell us that climateers don't take criticism or rebuttal very well.

There's a very good chance that many of the climate scientists work very long hours and believe in what they say or what they are part of. I guess I'd look at it kind of like a bad relationship a person is in but doesn't recognize it for what it is. Climate scientists probably really do believe in what they are teaching because it is also what they are taught and are teaching themselves.

Is any of it true? Doubtful. Very doubtful because we've heard the same stories of drastic horrible futures in the next 5-10 years. Been hearing this for 30+ years now. What is true is that pollution is real, and we are taking crap care of the world around us. That's true regardless of climate change, and the world is likely not going to end yet because of the tragic beliefs of climate sciences.

Our health on the other hand due to smog or polluted water though; yeah let's focus half our energy focused on global warming to reducing smog and supply clean water. There will be a lot more benefit from that then any of the global warming doom and gloom predictions.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Mate, the science is pretty clear on the basics of climate change. To even suggest it isn't substantive and based on high level research and data sets is idiotic.

Don't be an idiot.

Steele Redux,
So, why isn't science doing anything to curb it all ?
I have yet to see scientists refrain from unnecessary travel, using petroleum-based commodities etc.
Let's see who the real idiots are, shall we ?

Has everyone seen the article Bazz told me about:

Cook, J., et al. 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature', Environmental Research Letters 8 (2), 2013.

Bazz reckons it's the bee's knees.

To SteeleRedux.

When the data doesn't match reality, then one of 2 things can be said. 1) the data was wrong or the conclusions were in error, (a misunderstanding on the scientists part). Or 2) the data was based on lies. I honestly think it's a combination of the two regarding global warming and the doom and gloom narrative.

On that note it doesn't take a scientist or a data point reasurchers to understand what's been told to us the, dumb masses, about climate change and mass extension within 10 years or so. Been hearing it for longer then 10 years, I'll tell you that much. Which means the data is in error, the conclusions are in error, or everything's a scam to get more grant money.

It would do a lot better to spend the same resources that are used for global warming, towards reducing smog in cities and in manufacturing industries (for the sake and health of the people), or towards developing clean water for growing populations, and for areas that don't have access to reliable clean water. Do these two things and there will be much more benifit to the world then all the climate sciences combined.

Perhaps these poor souls would be uplifted if they took a break from their incestuous fear-mongering isolation from reality and noted that nothing that they have been threatening us with has actually happened.

Indeed, in the last 25 years more than a billion people have escaped poverty. Since the 1960s, life expectancy has increased by 6%. Grain production is at record levels. CO2 emissions are responsible for that, as they are responsible for the greening of the globe. Extreme weather has not increased - even the IPCC attests to this.

A 2019 study shows that sea level rises have not increased significantly in 120 years (notrickszone.com).

Every time the 10-12 year 'before it's too late' period ends, another 10-12 year period begins. They are really treating people with contempt, thinking that they can get away with nonsense like that.

To add insult to injury, one of these "weepniks" in America has the gall to complain that there are not enough jobs (for climate bandits) and not enough grants. Ye Gods! Up to 2014 the U.S had shelled out $US166 Billion on climate change. The IPCC is gagging for another US$2.4 Trillion of other people's money before 2035.

Perhaps the fast-coming economic downturn could be a blessing in disguise - casting these parasites off the teat.

I guess if I had spent a decade or two trying to use the scam of global warming to promote the disgusting UN to one world socialist government, & I saw more & more evidence proofing it to be a scam, I'd be crying too.

If we go much further with unreliable power generation the blackouts will start, & that will quickly end the scammers pitch. They know it, hence their frenzy to try to get control before their sh1t hits the fan, & it's all over.

The real joke will be the solar cooling coming to make a mockery of the garbage SR calls science.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

You write;

“When the data doesn't match reality, then one of 2 things can be said. 1) the data was wrong or the conclusions were in error, (a misunderstanding on the scientists part). Or 2) the data was based on lies. I honestly think it's a combination of the two regarding global warming and the doom and gloom narrative.”

Have you been living under a rock? Both the father of global warming Hansen and the IPCC reports have been consistently on the money about the temperature increases.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

Perhaps I have misunderstood you but on the face of it you are being idiotic again.

Dear SteeleRedux,

May I suggest you refer him to the article below cited by Bazz.

Cook, J., et al. 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature', Environmental Research Letters 8 (2), 2013.

If you can't trust Bazz then in God's name who can you trust?

To SteeleRedux.

Past predictions have not occured though. Costal cities have not been swallowed up by the ocean yet. Oceanic life has not lost so much life and diversity due to rising tempatures. (Over fishing, hunting, and trash on the other had have a much greater effect in marine wildlife then a rise in tempatures shows to have). Heavy I think I've been told the fate of the Great Barrier Reef sometime ago and no signs of that actually occurring.

The current data of slight tempatures increases as far as I can tell could just be a phase, and the earth will cool later. Either way though the doom and gloom pridictions have not occurred.

No one even needs to look at current forecasts of tempatures changes and where they actually measured up to see that the conclusions of those predictions have been in error for years. The article you posted downplays it. Saying that some pridictions were higher or lower then the actual tempatures increase but still patting themselves on the back that the tempatures are rising. Ignoring the fierce fear based warnings we've been getting (for decades) from climate scientist's conclusions. All of those have been wrong.

I hope that clears up any confusion on what I'm saying.

Wait no. There's one more point. Whether climate scientists are misinformed or actively lying. I said I think it's a combination of the two. Younger college students go into climate change studies with the drive to make a difference. Hear the warnings from their peers and see some data convince them that those warnings are truthful, but are still to young to realize that these warnings have been past their expiration date several times already. So at least in the beginning of a climate scientist's career they are proplem honest in their figures and data. As years go by and the predictions fail to measure up, I think it is likely that many climate scientists will at that point lie on future data they produce, for no other reason to uphold their life's work and to not make it seem like a waste of time, money or grants.

Every day, in every country, the evidence the climate is changing is over whelming
As we enter yet another record breaking heat wave summer, as the northern part of out world has already had, some will say it is untrue
Some are completely unaware just like the tobacco lobby did, anti climate change is funded by fossil fuel owners

Hi Belly,

When three of the Forum Stoogers, no not Moe, Larry and Curly, rather Hassy, Indy and ttbn line up and prattle on about anything in unison, in this case denying climate change is real, one has to be extremely concerned. This dynamic trio are past masters at forum slapstick, where they get absolutely every issue wrong!

We have all the dooms Day Media predicting the end of civilization as Greenland melts into the sea, and it will rise by a millimetre. Totally unnoticeable to the human eye. Greenland was once a green tundra with forests. http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/6653/20140418/icy-greenland-was-once-pretty-green-study-finds.htm
This is merely a cycle of nature, Ice was not always there, and it had nothing to do with human activity. The Earth is a changing climate environment, and we must adapt to those changes. The Earth poles change and earth plates move, it is not caused by humans. What is caused by humans is local pollution that needs to be addressed.

Dear Josephus,

I don't think you are in a position to argue against anthropogenic global warming and its consequential climate change.

I'd also say Mr Opinionated, neither are you as you! Nor have not read the article posted. You are merely stating your opinion, we will see what the outcome is in 2030, the end of civilization as predicted.

Dear Josephus,

You're wrong. Being an environmental sociologist puts me in position where I can argue for anthropogenic global warming and its consequential climate change. And I can tell you that you and your denialist friends have got it all wrong.

Why don't you and your know-all-know-nothing wannabe mates go and get trained up in science and then come back and talk to us? It's ignorant people like you who are destroying the world just because you are jealous of scientists who really know what is happening.

Mr Opinionated, Brain washed by University lectures makes you educated in their opinion. Get out on the ground and do a balanced research.
There are many scientists that do not hold your LEARNED opinion.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/02/05/earths-magnetic-north-pole-has-officially-moved/?fbclid=IwAR3N2FCBcEkRVJdMuMX6pYg9clSi370fhANn3RB3m327D7d5LySsjjVGexM#37b14f9e6

Dear Josephus,

Obviously you haven't read the article recommended by Bazz:

Cook, J., et al. 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature', Environmental Research Letters 8 (2), 2013.

Bazz reckons it's the bee's knees.

Is that your platform: to get people out of universities? I suppose you want to shut down all of the universities as well so that everybody can enjoy being as ignorant as you and your denialist mates.

"Has everyone seen the article Bazz told me about"

Yep, read it 5 or 6 years ago. It was rubbish then and its rubbish now.

"Both the father of global warming Hansen and the IPCC reports have been consistently on the money about the temperature increases."

Here's how it works. They make a series of calculations with predictions for high, low and moderate temperature increases. They then promote the high scenario as though its the most likely outcome. Then a decade or so later when its clear that the low scenario was closest to the truth they start asserting how accurate they were and pretending that they never believed or promoted the high scenario.
By way of balance....http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/

In another really interesting development, new research calls into question the whole temperature data record. There have always been some concerns about the quality of the data and the fact that most of the reported temperature rise is the result of adjustments rather than measurements. NOAA tried to resolve this in the USA by creating their Climate Reference Network (USCRN). After 14 years of operation this shows no warming, indeed a slight cooling, in continental USA. Wouldn't it be hilarious if this whole colossal scare was based on false data. Full story here: http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/08/23/climate_alarmists_foiled_no_us_warming_since_2005.html

Dear mhaze,

I don't think you are in a position to argue against anthropogenic global warming and its consequential climate change.

Mr O wrote: "I don't think..."

For once I agree with him.

Josephus, Mr O just makes up these 'credentials' he claims. He is unable to actually argue the point so tries to rely on claimed superior understanding to avoid having to argue the point. Its all very sad.

tbbn,

Re:Joelle Gergis.

She's a lightweight. Back in 2012 she issued a paper called Gergis et al 2012. It claimed to show that Australia was the warmest it had been for 1000 years. It claimed to prove that the net highest temperatures were in the 13th century when it was 0.09c cooler than now!!. They actually believe this rubbish.

Anyway, the boys at Climate Audit looked at the paper and within a day or so showed that the data, mathematics and methodology were all wrong. Eventually, some of her embarrassed co-authors forced Gergis to withdraw the paper. The whole project had been funded by the Australian taxpayer and cost over $300,000. If she's crying it should be from embarrassment and shame at wasting that money.

But she's still fated as having a clue. That's how climate 'science' works these days.

Ice cores from the Antarctic show that the most dramatic rates of warming per decade in the last 308 years were not in recent decades, but in the decades between 1740 1789 and 1839 1888.

Who is Mr Opinionated trying to convince with no real evidence, just sniping? No physical changes here and I live by the sea. This year has been the coldest in the eight years I have lived here. The tidal heights have not changed in the last 80 years according to the local retired fishermen. Hotter days were experienced in the early 1830-40 in Victoria than have been recorded in the last 100 years. C02 has risen in the atmosphere over the past 300 years but this should cause a greening effect on the planet.

Dear NNS,

You expressly said “the data doesn't match reality”.

I have shown you how the data does clearly show the reality moreover it shows how predictions made in the past about the temperature arc have been spot on. If you want to reject empirical data then go ahead but that makes any further comment from you idiotic.

If what instead you were referring to is the predicted consequences of this temperature arc then you shouldn't be using the terms data and reality but rather modelling. Data can validate and support models. Data tells us about the here and now while models talk about the future.

As the link I provided shows the models of climate scientists are being validated and refined by the data. Our confidence levels in the models those models is therefore enhanced. The consequences of continuing CO2 pollution leading to a warming planet should be of particular concern to all thinking people.

Why is this so hard for you?

Take NASA’s breathless media release that 2014 was the warmest year on record. After challenge, the agency gave it only a 38 per cent probability. Or, NOAA’s key publication in the lead-up to the Paris climate conference which whistleblowers revealed was released before critical data issues were resolved.

It’s not unusual for ‘official adjusted’ weather records to err on the warmer side. For example, an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report claimed that last July was the hottest month ever. Satellites say it was probably the fourth- warmest of the last 41 years. Australia’s weather bureau demonstrates similar bias.

For the best part of five decades, the world has been fed dud prediction after dud prediction. Over that time the scientific and meteorological community has gone from near unanimity on global cooling, to the same level of confidence on global warming. At last, the public is beginning to see through the hysteria and not least, the tradition of widely promoted false dawns. As British scientist Philip Stott says, ‘In essence, the Earth has been given a 10-year survival warning regularly for the last fifty or so years’.

mostly morally bankrupt people pushing this gw religion. Their moral posturing is sickening.

We were told in the opening post to this discussion
that -

"Tony Thomas reports grief among climate scientists..."

And then we got more details.

Keith Windschuttle, Editor-in-Chief of Quadrant, tells us
that:

"Tony Thomas is an investigative journalist of rare
abilities. When he latches onto a story his research
is exhaustive ... His prose is always punchy and, even
rarer, often very funny. I have read his articles on the
Cold War and Australian Aborigines with enormous respect
for his deep appreciation and respect for the truth.
He is one of the finest journalists this country has ever
produced."

Few of us would dare to argue with that. (smile).

Dear runner,

Not caring about the future of the planet and what we are leaving for future generations because we don't want to inconvenience ourselves is the very definition of moral bankruptcy.

You exhibit this in spades.

The prime figurehead of the Christian faith wrote a deep and moving argument for action on Climate Change;

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

“It is my hope that this Encyclical Letter, which is now added to the body of the Church’s social teaching, can help us to acknowledge the appeal, immensity and urgency of the challenge we face. I will begin by briefly reviewing several aspects of the present ecological crisis, with the aim of drawing on the results of the best scientific research available today, letting them touch us deeply and provide a concrete foundation for the ethical and spiritual itinerary that follows. I will then consider some principles drawn from the Judaeo-Christian tradition which can render our commitment to the environment more coherent. I will then attempt to get to the roots of the present situation, so as to consider not only its symptoms but also its deepest causes. This will help to provide an approach to ecology which respects our unique place as human beings in this world and our relationship to our surroundings. In light of this reflection, I will advance some broader proposals for dialogue and action which would involve each of us as individuals, and also affect international policy. Finally, convinced as I am that change is impossible without motivation and a process of education, I will offer some inspired guidelines for human development to be found in the treasure of Christian spiritual experience.”

Perhaps you might take the time to read it and understand what true morality is.

SR wrote:"I have shown you how the data does clearly show the reality moreover it shows how predictions made in the past about the temperature arc have been spot on."

Well what you showed was a carefully selected set of predictions that somewhat matched reality. But a few selected out of 100s means little.

I showed you a different version of the same issue which showed that fewer than 5% of model runs are within cooee of the truth. You, of course, ignored it.

A little more to ponder, or in your case, ignore.

"NASA is reporting that the sun is entering one of the deepest Solar Minima of the Space Age; and Earth’s atmosphere is responding in kind...."
We see a cooling trend,” said Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold."

"The new NASA findings are in line with studies released by UC-San Diego and Northumbria University in Great Britain last year, both of which predict a Grand Solar Minimum in coming decades due to low sunspot activity. Both studies predicted sun activity similar to the Maunder Minimum of the mid-17th to early 18th centuries, which coincided to a time known as the Little Ice Age, during which temperatures were much lower than those of today."

Now Foxy t'other day was breathlessly telling us that NASA was predicting continued warming. And now we find that another part of NASA is saying the opposite. All any of this “proves” is that we have, at best, a cursory understanding of Earth’s incredibly complex climate system. So when mainstream media et al breathlessly warn you that we must do something about climate change, it’s makes great sense to take a step back and recognise that we have neither the knowledge or skill to understand what's really going on and to, therefore wait until we do know what's going on before ripping the economy apart.

http://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/09/27/the-chill-of-solar-minimum/

mhaze,

You need to read several articles
from NASA to get the bigger picture.

Here's another link that may help:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/DecadalTemp

Dear mhaze,

IPCC modelling and that from the 'father of global warming' James Hansen are now 'carefully selected'?

Give me a break. I couldn't have gotten more pointy end if I tried.

I wonder how the climate hysterics feel about being in the same camp as a 16-year old girl with Asperger's syndrome, obsessive–compulsive disorder and selective mutism.

Asperger's Syndrome, with its " all- absorbing interest in specific topics" (in this case, an obsession with climate change) is common enough in our imperfect, failing society. Selective Mutism is a childhood anxiety disorder characterized by a child's inability to speak and communicate effectively in select social settings, such as school. Perhaps it's not just children who suffer from it, and these unhappy climateers should be tested for the disease and Aspergers before great wads of public money are handed out to them.

ttbn,

Absolutely brilliant suggestion.

When's your doctor's appointment?

'The prime figurehead of the Christian faith wrote a deep and moving argument for action on Climate Change;'

come on Steelie even you know that the pope is the prime figurehead of the Catholic church (certainly not bible believing Christians).

As I said 'mostly morally bankrupt people pushing this gw religion. Their moral posturing is sickening.'

maybe all the scandal in the Catholic church has caused the pope to do exactly what I mentioned.

must be so hard for the gw alarmist to face the fact that since we have had reliable electricity that our life expectancy has dramatically increased as well as the quality of life. Go to any socialist country and you find intermittent electricity, dirty environment and lower standards of living and yet this it what these anti coal, anti science gw doomsayers want. Their high priests however live like the queen of England in their mansions. Sickening hypocrites.

Dear mhaze, ttbn, and runner,

I don't think any of you are in a position to argue against anthropogenic global warming and its consequential climate change.

'Dear mhaze, ttbn, and runner,

I don't think any of you are in a position to argue against anthropogenic global warming and its consequential climate change.

I know Mr Opinion, when we have heard this c ap for over 50 years and almiost every prediction miserably failed the deplorables should shut up while the elite detroy our childrens future, live as total hypocrites and virtue signal with their faith based pseudo science. You are on the wrong side of science and history.

Dear runner,

You're wrong. Being an environmental sociologist puts me in a position where I can argue for anthropogenic global warming and its consequential climate change. And I can tell you that you and your denialist friends have got it all wrong.

Why don't you and your know-all-know-nothing wannabe mates go and get trained up in science and then come back and talk to us? It's ignorant people like you who are destroying the world just because you are jealous of scientists who really know what is happening.

Master Opinion,

Apart from the fact that nobody gives a stuff what you think about anything at all, you are not capable of judging what other people are 'in a position' to comment on. You come across as a silly little boy trying to teach his grandmother how to suck eggs. Grow up. Perhaps go back to school and learn something useful.

"Being an environmental sociologist" puts you off with the other fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Cooling of the planet in the advent of another mini ice age would be much more of a concern for the humans on the planet because huge areas of land would freeze over and become uninhabitable, plus there would be much less areas to grow food.

Physicists have records of the fairly frequent mini cooling and warming periods in history. And they have the dates and years when they occurred, due to carbon dating and geological studies.

A mini Warming period should result in more greening of the planet and the ability to grow more food. The oceans are always eroding the land and beaches, that’s nothing new,
Humans have simply moved back to accomodate this as time goes by.

Carbon dated, fossilised tree trunks have been found under one of the worlds biggest glaciers. Indicating that the land under the ice was once warm enough to grow forest trees.

Mini warming and cooling ages have been occurring frequently throughout history according to a Nobel winning physicist I watched talk on the internet.with all the necessary graphs showing the times and dates of these cycles.

He came out of retirement to dispute the science of the climate change hysteria because he said he was shocked by the claims they were making.

Hasbeen,

Good one!

Cherful,

Yes. There are too many people who think that life began with their births. They are ignorant of the past, and have no intention of learning about it.

Socialist who continue to lie and profit from the gw faith are far more dangerous to our future then their erroneous non scientific faith. They dumb down students, trash science and throw tantrums when they don't get their way. They are enemies of rational thinking and always revert to abuse when their blind faith is exposed. Unfortunately they are aided by failed narratives pushed by national broadcasters who are incapable of purging themselves of socialist as they enjoy very high salaries, leave giant carbon footprints then virtue signal to the average worker. Thankfully the quite Australians are waking up to these traitors. We need men like Trump to call out these lying traitors.

runner,

And some of them think that they have the power to change our opinions if they keep gobbing off at us. All they need do is put their opinions to show their disagreement, but a few of them are just nasty, sneering pigs who are too ill-bred to know when to stop.

To SteeleRedux and Mr. Opinion.

You two can believe whatever you want, after all your opinion on anything is your own. But the models for global warming have a terrible tracker record, and thus are not reliable sciences. It is fear laced enviornmentalism saying the end is near so much it can be assoicated with the boy who cried wolf, and ignored for the same reason that the boy crying wolf was eventually ignored. Reliability counts. Lose that and there's no reason to believe the scientist who continue in an unreliable field.

At this point though, neither of you are really making a case for climite scientists. The point of their unreliability is still just as valid and just as ignored by you two as it was when this topic opened up.

Either way, believe what you want. I'll stick by what's been already said. We should focus on reducing pollution for the purpose of reducing smog in the air and having better health in large cities. We should reduce pollution in water for the benifit of having reliable clean water. Both for ourselves and for the wildlife around us. These two things are real enviornmental issues, climite science's global warming is a fear laced scam. If you want to believe in it, that's on you. Don't try to drag the rest of us down based on your opinions.

NNS,

Well said.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Have you seen the article Bazz told me about:

Cook, J., et al. 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature', Environmental Research Letters 8 (2), 2013.

Bazz reckons it's the bee's knees.

Dear NNS,

You write;

“You two can believe whatever you want, after all your opinion on anything is your own. But the models for global warming have a terrible tracker record, and thus are not reliable sciences”

Firstly you are the one offering an unsubstantiated opinion not I. What I did was to link to a reputable site which shows how the various predictions by the IPCC and Hansen have fared, and it shows just how bloody good they have been and continue to be.

You have somehow managed to I assume digest this information and still prattle on about models having “a terrible tracker(sic) record”. They demonstrably do not.

You did not offer anything that would refute the data presented just 'your opinion'.

The only real opinion I offered was attempting to judge the degree of idiocy it would take for someone to adopt a position like yours.

I don't think much of the global warming narrative.
To me the beach is still where it always was...

- And humans will always have to master their environment -
You live in a house to protect yourself from predators, and to reduce the impact of changes in the weather right?

- For morons who don't get it, that's how one 'masters ones own environment'

But there was one thing I heard a few months back which made me wonder if there isn't maybe something more to this story.

I heard that dark skinned peoples in certain places (like Fiji or closer to India iI recall correctly - sorry I'm vague) had reported unusual extreme sunburns.

- Don't know the truth of it, or what it all means -

SR,

Writing to NNS..."[you] prattle on about models having “a terrible tracker(sic) record”. They demonstrably do not."

Well maybe he took note of the link I had earlier (which you assiduously avoided) which showed that most models over estimated the predicted warming.

Or perhaps he saw that even the IPCC had observed that " 111 out of 114 realisations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble" (Translated from bureaucratese it means most models showed higher warming than the actual data from HadCRUT4) and HadCRUT4 shows higher warming than most data sets.

Or he might point to the IPCC again: "The discrepancy between simulated and observed GMST trends during 1998–2012 could be explained in part by a tendency for some [some? 111 out of 114] CMIP5 models to simulate stronger warming in response to increases in greenhouse-gas concentration than is consistent with observations"

Maybe one might decide that, if even the IPCC shows the models as exaggerating the warming, that might outweigh the cherry-picking of one article.

Just a thought.

SR writes to me:"IPCC modelling and that from the 'father of global warming' James Hansen are now 'carefully selected'?"

No. Let me restate in ways you might understand. The article "carefully selected" data from the IPCC and Hansen. Hansen has made several prediction. The article takes one of those and tries to pretend that that was his sole prediction. Ditto for the IPCC which has made literally hundreds of predictions (they call them 'scenarios'). Pick a few that match reality and pretend this proves something. Or at least hope that it fools those who so deeply want to be fooled. In your case they succeeded

Foxy wrote:"You need to read several articles
from NASA to get the bigger picture. "

Let's stipulate that you can find many articles from the same division of NASA (ie GISS) which advance the we're-all-gunna-die story.

But this isn't a competition to tally up all the articles and decide a winner. NASA is a large organisation with many different divisions and many different views.

GISS supports and has pushed the AGW theory for decades. But other parts of NASA have differing views and differing opinions about the cause of the warming and where we're headed.

So saying that NASA thinks this or that is just false. Some parts of NASA think this and other parts think that.

My point was that, given the massive difference of opinion within NASA as to the science, its simply wrong to say the science is settled and that we have to get on with cutting emissions.

The science is far from settled and we shouldn't be ripping western society apart based on unproven theories.

PS: did you notice that the graph in your linked article showed 4 different data sets. They are all ground based data sets. None of the satellite temperature data sets are mentioned. Its a constantly amusing to me how NASA/GISS (the 'S' stands for space) can talk climate and ignore the data from space. I know why they do it - the space data doesn't suit the story. But its still amusing and indicative of how climate science distorts real science.

mhaze,

The whole point is to read extensively on the scientific
evidence being presented - with all the views expressed
unanimously by so many.

Although as always the task of watering the arid desert
between your ears is a challenging one.

ttbn
As usual you are the voice of common sense and reasoned thinking.

I am constantly amazed by the way people focus in on their short lifespans,
as though they can change everything that has gone before or will happen in future.

The reaction to major weather events I also find puzzling, We’ve been seeing just as many major weather events,
droughts and floods, heat and cold for the whole of my considerable years on the planet. They really do react like frigtened over-cocooned
“Snowflakes” to these events, especially when it suits their political and monetary agenda to do so.

CHERFUL,

Someone once said that: "The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false.”

American economist Thomas Sowell wrote, “One of the most important reasons for studying history is that virtually every stupid idea that is in vogue today has been tried before and proved disastrous before, time and again.”

The West is collapsing rapidly. If we want to stop the decline, we need to relearn the lessons of history, and discover what made us great in the first place.

Foxy,

Now let me get your thinking straight. We have an organisation where different people say diametrically different things and you think they speak "unanimously". Wow..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

" the arid desert between your ears ".

When you haven't got the wherewithal to take part in the discussion, go with the invective.

The natural cycle that CHEREFUL described has been known for a
long time. The earths temperature has been rising since the late 18th
century. The work by the Turku and Kobi Unis has proposed a hypothesis
that that is the cause of this cycle.
It suggests that the peak of themperature was around 1990.
The cycle is about 500 to 600 years long and may vary because it is
composed of two cycles, the sun irradiation cycle and the 11 year sun
spot cycle. It is also dependant on cosmic ray intensity.

Henrik Svensmark’s 1997 discovery that the effect of cosmic rays on
clouds amplifies the influence of the Sun on the Earth’s climate.
This where it seems to have started.

If this process is confirmed it will mean the end of the AGW debate.
The earth is now entering a cooling period which will last about
300 years before it starts warming again.

The opening comments about emotional reactions to global warming will
be many times more intense and very widespread if AGW is replaced.
It will probably be a medical emergency.

Even some on here may have to take a Bex and have a nice lydown.

OPINs, not sure what you are hickuping about.
The article points out that 99% of true believers is an exaggeration.

Any way it is all irrelevant until the Turku/Kobie work is verified or not.

Dear Bazz,

You just said about the Cook article: 'The article points out that 99% of true believers is an exaggeration.'

Are you crazy! It doesn't say that at all. It says the scientific community is virtually unanimous about the fact that global warming in our time is the consequence of human activity. Is English your native tongue? Are you illiterate and have problems with comprehension? Talk about getting it wrong. You recommended the article and now you're telling us it says something it doesn't. Put a Dunce hat on and go and stand in the corner with Hasbeen, mhaze, Loudmouth and individual.

Thank you, Misopinionated, I feel I'm in good company, with the grown-ups :)

Dear Loudmouth,

I'm glad you're the one saying that and not me.

I used to think that salesmen, economists & lawyers were the easiest people to catch with a con job, but I was wrong.

I can now see it is sociologists, & their traveling.

Dear Hasbeen,

I'm curious to hear the reasons you think that so please elaborate. You have my fullest attention.

Dear mhaze,

You write;

"No. Let me restate in ways you might understand. The article "carefully selected" data from the IPCC and Hansen. Hansen has made several prediction. The article takes one of those and tries to pretend that that was his sole prediction."

No it doesn't. Can't you count? The article includes Hansen et al 1981 and then Hansen et al 1988.

It also expressly states "The overall rate of warming between 1970 and 2016 projected by Hansen et al in 1981 in the fast-growth scenario has been about 20% lower than observations."

You really aren't very good at this are you. Care to try again.

When it comes to a discussion on anthropogenic global warming, why is it that Hasbeen, Josephus, ttbn, Loudmouth, individual, runner and mhaze refuse to accept what the scientific community is saying? Why do they keep throwing up red herrings and irrational pseudo-scientific statements structured to dissuade people from accepting the conclusions of the scientific community? Are they themselves scientists? No! Do they have evidence that would change the conclusions drawn by the scientific community? No!

The answer is really quite simple: they all share something in common, being that they are all dyed-in-the-wool LNP adherents. They are just following the dictates of the political parties they support. That's why we get bombarded by stupid pseudo-scientific arguments buttressed by expressions of anger against anyone they think has a socialist bent. Their real interest is in protecting bourgeois interests - not protecting the planet; they are motivated by self-interest - not what is best for humankind. They are really interested in keeping the LNP in power - not in creating a better world.

To Mr. Opinionated.

You've asked why so many people in this discussion don't agree with what the scientific community agrees with on global warming, and why they seek other answers. Perhaps I can enlighten you about at least one set of reasons, because even if my name wasn't in that list of people that disagree with the conclusions, I am definitely one of the people who do disagree. It's not because of support for a political party, or out of greed either. Listen and listen well.

The first and biggest reason for disagreement with those conclusions is because of having a working memory that remembers the threatening predictions of global warming decades ago. How those predictions were wrong about the severity of the issue then and how instead of changing their tune, they just repeat their same predictions that the end is near. Another 10 years or so is all we've got before massive negative changes kick in such as costal cities being under water. (There are many other negative predictions said to occur within 10 years, that haven't happened in more then thirty). The first and biggest reason to disagree is because many people have a working memory. The older the person the longer they have to go on to see the unreliability of the global warming sciences.

Second and third reasons aren't in any order of importance but they are on par with each other's validity. Over the years there have been other explanations come to light besides the unreliable predictions of global warming. Sunspots and solar activity affecting the climate, as well as the theory of a warming phase and a cooling phase. Don't be surprised when one conclusion is found to be unreliable then people will latch onto and seek a different one.

(Continued)

(Continued)

The other reason is the fact that the scientific community isn't as unified in Global warming conclusions as they are believed. In fact there are even stories that stick out that suggest scientists don't all agree on this matter but toe the line in support to avoid losing their jobs at a university. Some have even changed their stance right after they retire. This shows a corruptive nature in the climate scientist's community. And again because people have a memory, over the years hearing these stories ensures more disbelief in the on-goingly unreliable conclusions of climate scientists. Adding more to this, are reports of global tempatures being wrong, either not lining up with the predictions, or have someone else point out that the data itself is inaccurate and this really isn't the hottest year globally as is reported.

A forth reason requires a bit more research into the matter. However looking at the article SteeleRedux pointed to has a wonky observation. Even in the article there are multiple predictive models for global warming changes. One low, one medium, one high. This is there on both years a predictive model is reported in the article. This multiple predictive models in the same model really dismiss the idea that any of them are accurate when global tempatures over the years get close to one of the models one year and close to another one a different year. Conmen play this kind of shell game, scientists should not.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

I don't think you are in a position to argue against anthropogenic global warming and its consequential climate change.

What exactly does a Climateer actually do apart from causing disruptions, & make full use of Petroleum products & associated commodities ?
The parroting of vindictive rhetoric somehow does not appear to prevent GW although it appears to get some gits through Uni.

What actual observable experience of total global warming has Mr Opinionated actually observed. Nothing except what books and reports he has read for the Climate change gurus. Can he tell us how his local environment has changed, or does he sit in his airconditioned room and use up fossil fuel? Has he travelled this planet experienced its extreme temperatures?

Dear individual,

I think you have finally lost your marbles. You have fallen into the habit of talking total gibberish. You and your know-all-know-nothing wannabe mates will say anything no matter how irrational or ridiculous it is in order to shore up support for your conservative right-wing view of the world. There's really not much difference between you GW denialists of today and the Catholic Church during the scientific revolution.

Who led the scientific revolution, America and England at that time Christian nations?

Misopinionated,

Do you have anything to contribute except empty insults ? As a troll, you need to lift your game.

So provide some evidence: how much have world temperatures and sea-level risen in fifty or a hundred years ?

Joe

Forget it lads, Mr Opinion can't explain anything except openly display his uselessness !

Dear Loudmouth,

Someone has to point out exactly what a bunch of know-all-know-nothing wannabes you GW denialists are. And as an environmental sociologist I am ideally placed for that task.

Joe,

You are just teasing a callow youth. You know there is no evidence; there is, in fact, evidence to the contrary.

The little lad is a totalitarian in the making. He diagnosed me as being 'disturbed', now he accuses individual of 'losing his marbles'.

He is too ignorant of course to know about the many people the Communists locked up in insane asylums when they they questioned the dictators, but he has an instinct for it.

There is not much we can do about the kiddies of today. They have to learn the hard way. Many of them fizzle out. Many of them hit the grog a other drugs, and some will end up in the institutions they think we should be in because they can't deal with the real world.

Dear ttbn,

Spoken like a true LNP diehard. Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce would be proud of you.

'Spoken like a true LNP diehard. Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce would be proud of you.'

certainly better than having Jeremy Corbyn or Justin Trudeau proud of you.

Yes, runner; an certainly better than being on the same side as Sonny Jim.

SR,

Nowhere did I say the article only mention one prediction.

But it analysed just one prediction from Hanson to try to show how good it was compared to models. It didn't analyse any of the other prediction. As I said, a policy designed to fool those who want to be fooled.

I notice that you've now retreated from the silly claim that the "predictions made in the past about the temperature arc have been spot on" following my providing but a few of the many available examples of the exact opposite.

Perhaps an apology to NNS might be in order.

Oh wait, I forgot who I was talking too....never mind.

MR O in his normal moronic fashion asks " why is it that Hasbeen, Josephus, ttbn, Loudmouth, individual, runner and mhaze refuse to accept what the scientific community is saying?"

The fact is Mr O doesn't know and doesn't want to know what this fictitious "scientific community" is saying. He's just bought the meme of settled science without any thought and wonders why others don't follow his moronosity.

In a previous thread I showed him some members of the so-called "scientific community" who didn't accept the AGW theory. His response was to simply ignore it. Not try to debunk it or rebut it mind you. Just pretend it wasn't there even after showing it to him several times.

So its not a question of those mentioned not accepting "what the scientific community is saying?". Its a question of those people knowing and understanding all the nuances of what the scientists are saying, including all those scientists who don't accept the CO2/AGW hypothesis.

I've used a few big words there so I've probably lost Mr O. But the rest will understand.

Misopinionated,

No, I'm not a denier, I'm, if anything, a sceptic, a questioner: so I'm asking you, the font of all wisdom with your new associate diploma,

* . how much has average world temperature risen in the last, say, fifty or a hundred years ?

* . how much has actual sea-level risen in, say, the last fifty or a hundred years ?

i.e. evidence. Provide it and, if it's alarming enough, I'll be suitably alarmed.

After all, without evidence, you're no better than a heretic-burning Catholic from 500 years ago, aren't you ?

Or maybe it's just easier to 'rebut' and ignore the above requests with some pissy insults. We're big boys on OLO, insults don't mean much, most of us have seen and felt far worse, and got over it. But when you play with adults, Misopinionated, you need to provide more back-up than the silly insults that might frighten your adolescent mates.

Joe

mhaze,

There’s lots that young Master O doesn’t understand about everything. He clearly doesn’t know that the “scientific community” has in it a lot of scientists whose own studies have shown AGW to be tosh.

Joe,

Leave the ‘c’ our of sceptic and you have a good description of what the boys is. Agree with you about the insults. Most of us have been around too long to be fazed by school yard attempts at insults.

Opins said;
And as an environmental sociologist I am ideally placed for that task.

Hmm, well that explains everything. I suppose that is one of those
photocopier degrees !

We can’t even get the boy wonder to explain just what ‘environmental sociology’ is. There are vague murmurings about society’s interaction with the environment. Mutterings about Charles Darwin. Nothing about hard science. It looks like one of those bitzer degrees, invented to continue filling the universities bottomless money boxes because there’s a shortage of Chinese.

When he says, “I am qualified to comment on the hard science of climate, because I am an environmental sociologist, and as an environmental sociologists, I know this, that and the other’, people might take notice. But he won’t do that, so nobody takes any notice of him.

The discipline of sociology pertains to the study of the development, organisation, functioning and classification of human society. It’s not a science. It has nothing to do with climate change, meteorology or anything remotely to do with with climate change.

When people hear of a ‘sociologist’ of any kind, they usually think ‘left-wing twit’. Now, while sociologists might know something about the human condition, they are no more qualified to pontificate on climate change that a fish monger is. They are certainly not qualified to bad mouth any poster here. We don’t even know if this bloke even has a job. Probably not, given the time he has to spend bashing our ears.

My nephew is an environmental engineer - and I know
how hard he worked to get his degree. He's been
employed ever since he graduated. Currently he's
in New Zealand working on a massive project there.

I wasn't quite sure what an environmental sociologist
did though so I looked it up:

http://environmentalscience.org/career/environmental-sociologist

Fascinating stuff - and by no means light-weight.

I wouldn't go around bagging any form of study though
because I know from experience that studying and achieving
and finishing in any qualification is not an easy thing
to do. Even more so - while working full-time and raising a
family. So kudos to those who do undertake studies in any
shape or form. It changes your life and your outlook.

If Mr Opinion's mentality is anything to go by I'd say it's high time Social Studies are relegated to the trash bin !

Dear individual,

Stop being a naughty boy and put your dunce hat back on and go stand in the corner with your LNP-based politically motivated mates Hasbeen, mhaze, Bazz, Loudmouth and runner.

Dear individual,

You write;

“Forget it lads, Mr Opinion can't explain anything except openly display his uselessness !”

My god mate, you flounce on in here and drop your little one liners without saying anything of substance on the topic whatsoever and you are calling someone else 'useless'?

Give me a break. At least mhaze has a crack. Why don't you try to emulate him rather has runner?

Dear mhaze,

You say; “Nowhere did I say the article only mention one prediction.”

Yet there were your words;

“But it analysed just one prediction from Hanson to try to show how good it was compared to models. It didn't analyse any of the other prediction.”

If you really had meant just one analysis then even then you were spetacularly incorrect. It look at 5 different from 2 different papers.

Care to try again.

Next you claimed;

“I notice that you've now retreated from the silly claim that the "predictions made in the past about the temperature arc have been spot on" following my providing but a few of the many available examples of the exact opposite.”

Haven't retreated from a single jot of it. Your links showed nothing of any veracity of what you are claiming of them.

Dear individual and other denialists,

Unfortunately I cannot engage with you in a detailed debate on the science of global warming and climate change for two reasons: (1) I am not a scientist, and (2) none of you are scientists.

Misiopinioniated,

Then your logical course is to piss off and leave the discussion to grown-ups.

Still, if you want to engage sensibly, perhaps first you can set down how much sea-levels and annual world temperatures have risen in the last,say, fifty or one hundred years ? i.e. evidence for your position. That would be a start.

But if you don't want to engage, except to slag, expect back whatever you attempt to give out. Fair enough ?

Joe

"Haven't retreated from a single jot of it. "

No you never retreat. You just drop issues once you realise you'v been in error.

" Your links showed nothing of any veracity of what you are claiming of them."

Which you utterly failed to even try to demonstrate.

Dear Loudmouth,

You asked;

“So provide some evidence: how much have world temperatures and sea-level risen in fifty or a hundred years ?”

Yet on a previous occasion you said;

“Out of all that, how much does CO2 contribute to the half-degree warming over the past eighty years, and the inch-rise in sea-level over about the same period ?”

So if you know the figures why are you asking?

You also wrote to Mr Opinionated;

“Then your logical course is to piss off and leave the discussion to grown-ups.”

That did get a laugh. Grownups?

But leaving that aside Mr Opinionated has finally realised that this is not a scientific discussion but rather a political one and to me he is acting accordingly. It appears it is getting up your noses a little which I think is fine. More strength to his arm.

Dear mhaze,

I so rarely have anything to retreat from so yes.

Which link are you going to flag as your best and I will undertake to delve into it further than a cursory reading.

HOLD ON A SEC...

Mr. Opinionated, after repeatedly saying your job profession are you now saying that you have nothing to contribute to the topic, because you are not a scientist? Then the point of your comments here is to what? ... Silence others from actually talking about it too? Comparing notes? Discuss if there is any real merit of the field of global warming?

I'll say it first. When talking about any field, people do not need to be an expert in that field to understand it and weigh it's merit. Don't believe me? Can you be healthy without a doctor? Can you understand issues around your own health when talking to a doctor? The answer is of course you can. The same answer applies regardless if the subject matter. Go to a car mechanic and find out how to take care of your car, then after that (if the mechanic was any good) you'll be in a better position for your car. If the mechanic was no good, you have to weigh his merit and consider finding a better one.

That is exactly what is being discussed here. The merit of climate scientist who say the end is near, and have been saying so for decades with no sign of their fears being justified. If you are not qualified to stay in such a topic you can go. The rest of us can continue on without your attempts to silence the topic or insult the people.

Go on, it's ok to leave. You've already said your opinion on this topic doesn't matter.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

I research what scholars and sciences are saying about the environment. I am particularly interested in the interdisciplinary study of Water, which is a very important issue for Australia at the moment given the situation with the Murray-Darling Basin, droughts, and dwindling freshwater supplies to Sydney.

You global warming denialists are doing just as much damage to the environment as global warming itself because you are distracting peoples' attention away from the problems with your false assumptions and arguments. And all because you want to support the LNP. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that you and the rest of your know-all-know-nothing wannabe denialist mates have got shares in coal mining companies. Like I said, it's not about science but about politics and greed. Your pseudo-science is just a subterfuge for a right-wing conservative political agenda.

Dear NNS,

You say;

“The merit of climate scientist who say the end is near, and have been saying so for decades with no sign of their fears being justified.”

My god why are you so determined to be so bloody pig ignorant? Despite all the information on global warming that is out there from reputable sources and all the discussions we have had on this forum you are going to hold on to your political belief that there is absolutely nothing to worry about. That is the very definition if idiocy.

All the major scientific bodies studying climate change have shown how the modelling is being constantly verified and improved and that the trajectory for the warming of the planet is on track to deliver serious environmental consequences within our lifetimes.

Locally we have 'unprecedented' fires burning across southern Queensland so early in the season;

“The manager of the QFES predictive services unit, Andrew Sturgess, said the fire conditions were unprecedented in Queensland. "It is an historic event. [We've] never seen this before in recorded history — fire weather has never been as severe, this early in Spring," Inspector Sturgess said.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-08/queensland-bushfires-continue-stanthorpe-applethorpe-binna-burra/11489304

The approach you seem to be taking is that of someone being warned that modelling is showing that a meteor is going to strike the earth in a year's time but refusing to have anything done about it until you can see it with your naked eye. That is utterly childish.

Dear SteeleRedux,

For the GW denialists it is all about one thing: keeping the LNP in government. They want crackpots like Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce running the country. Their pseudo-science is concocted to garner support for their right-wing conservative agenda. The good side is that as the effects of global warming become more severe the denialists will fade into the background and eventually disappear. But only after leaving the planet in a state of environmental destruction which they helped bring about.

Catallaxy Files this morning: no warming since 1876? and a pointer to a book 'Don't Sell Your Coat: Surprising Truths About Climate Change'.

Dear ttbn,

I assume we can pick this up at the LNP bookshop. Do I get a discount if I tell them Barnaby sent me?

Hey Mr Opinion,
"But only after leaving the planet in a state of environmental destruction which they helped bring about."

If not and the beach still stays where its always been; you'll have brought about enough combined economic destruction that generations of our kids will be enslaved by debt forever, well have to go back to the stone age and communism and then everyone will get marched out to the bush and shot.

I suppose you greenies will get the population reduction you're after and won't need to have panic attacks anymore so it'll be a win win right?

And you never know, with so much less carbon from all the people gone maybe all the plants will die too, great thinking mate.

Dear Armchair Critic,

So what are you trying to tell us? That you are just another right-wing conservative LNP adherent with shares in the coal industry? No need for it, we had already figured that out.

'So what are you trying to tell us? That you are just another right-wing conservative LNP adherent with shares in the coal industry'

I suspect like you Mr Opinion, Armachair is enjoying a longer life exepectancy, able to have heating in winter and cooling in summer and enjoying massive benefits that once cheap reliable energy has brought to the world. Like you to he has access to a computer thanks to mining and able to drive a car. I suspect you are one of the many hypocrites enjoying modern life while denying the obvious facts of how it has come about.

I note Mr Opinionated is the one that introduced politics into this discussion, and he believes because we hold a different opinion therefore must be LNP supporters.

Please note human caused climate destruction is a doctrine of the extreme left to introduce control of people, their thought, income and property.

It is a religion as passionate as the extremism of ISIS Islam and veganism, who will interfere is society to damage the economy and create changes to the freedoms of Western society.

Dear Josephus,

You write; "Please note human caused climate destruction is a doctrine of the extreme left to introduce control of people, their thought, income and property."

No it isn't and you are being daft just saying it.

It is science, and you are rejecting it because of your political bent.

It is also a form of projection from yourself as your description is far more apt when discussing the kind of 'faith' you have espoused here.

Misopinionated,

You've tumbled ! Yes, all of us Hard Right-wingers have made secret pacts with the devil (blast ! now not so secret), have millions of dollars in coal-company shares, and are plotting to sabotage every wind-tower and solar panel in Australia. Of course we all vote LNP, even One Nation when we can.

Or not.

On the other hand, some of us, maybe all of us, are sceptics, who simply ask for evidence for your infantile rants about the greenhouse effect (oops, sorry, global warming; oops, sorry, climate change).

So how much has sea-level risen in the past, say, fifty or one hundred years ?

How much have average annual world temperatures risen in the past, say, fifty or a hundred years ?

How much earlier each year do fruit trees bud ? How much longer is the vegetable growing season ? That sort of information would be invaluable for your case, if you could find it.

So far, it seems that you are unable or unwilling to answer those basic questions. No rush, they'll still be there when you ignore them the next time. And the next time. Whenever you get any courage, you might think about answering them.

Nah.

Joe

Loudmouth,
Up here in the Far North of Qld many people talk about the seasons gradually getting back to what we think of normal as they were some 40 years ago.
Haven't heard any whispers on that from the Professionals as yet !

Dear Loudmouth,

I say again you have already answered your own question;

Remember? It was "half-degree warming over the past eighty years, and the inch-rise in sea-level over about the same period".

So why are you asking it again?

"Which link are you going to flag as your best and I will undertake to delve into it further than a cursory reading."

So when you asserted in your normal pompous fashion that "[y]our links showed nothing of any veracity" you hadn't even looked into them. Just pretending that the facts are the way you hope them to be to suit your prejudices isn't really all that smart.

Do try to keep up SR.

There is so much peer reviewed, published science that totally knocks CO2 out of any warming picture, the whole theory is on it's last legs.

This is why the sudden rush of desperate warmest, with totally ratbag claims, & frightening words, trying to hold off the total initiation of their little scam. So many terrified they might have to find a real job, as the rivers of gold dry up.

Are you getting worried too, it sounds like it.

Dear Hasbeen,

You write; "There is so much peer reviewed, published science that totally knocks CO2 out of any warming picture, the whole theory is on it's last legs."

Name one.

Dear mhaze,

There was not a single peer reviewed paper among them and one was from Roy Spencer and the other was from a fellow at the Heartland Institute. Neither was likely to be worth more of my attention than I gave them. However as I said if there is one you would like to hang your hat on I will commit to delving deeper.

Thus far you have dodged the question, understandably so because in my opinion you have offered up nothing of substance.

Hi SR,

Is that it ? " ..... "half-degree warming over the past eighty years, and the inch-rise in sea-level over about the same period." ?

Surely increases have been higher ? Surely we're not supposed to be wetting ourselves over such bugger-all increases ? All those kids weeping in terror at the cataclysm about to overcome the plant ?

FFS. Tell me it isn't so, SR.

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

I don't know the current amounts because you seemed so sure of your own figures I felt I didn't need to look. Are you saying they were not correct? That you gave us erroneous numbers? How dare you.

Anyway the “bugger all increases” as you disparagingly call them are in lock step with climate models showing trajectories which are very concerning.

Are you another one of those who wouldn't believe a large meteor was going to hit the earth unless you could see it with your own eyes?

The further away it is the less involved in making it miss but the deniers would have us wait until they can look up and see the thing with a naked eye. You appear to have just that mindset. How intelligent is such a outlook?

yep thanks to coal and mining Steelie lives a much more privileged life with a longer expectancy and much comfort. Sounds like those selfish brat kids who despise their parents after having a golden spoon in their mouth. Will be the first to throw tantrum when he can't have reliable power and the fruit of mining. Go figure.

It was "half-degree warming over the past eighty years, and the inch-rise in sea-level over about the same period".
SteeleRedux,
Have these claims actually been verified as to their accuracy ? Just because some "scientists" say so doesn't necessarily make it so. We must not forget that this is mere guessing. What is the benchmark for these "measurements" ?
I have said before that the total shipping, land reclaiming & sediment displacement surely adds to some rise in sea level IF Sea level can indeed be measured so accurately !
As you can see it's actually rather easy being a Climateer when there's nothing stable to compare it with to prove/disprove !

Dear individual,

You asked "Have these claims actually been verified as to their accuracy ?"

You will have to ask Loudmouth about the figures, he was the one who spouted them.

For those who are climate change campaigners here is a link for a pro/con debate on climate change science.

http://climatechange.procon.org/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIpKza45vD5AIViMDACh36NQoCEAMYASAAEgIyF_D_BwE#arguments

It's not about politics. It's about if any of the climate science stuff has any reliability. That goes into the science of it all, as well as the observations of their predictions to see if they're reliable or BS. As of now, all of climate science as a field of study seems more like a cushy industry and corrupt academics combined. There are ways to be an enviomentalist and working to reducing pollution, without lying about the fate of the world with all of the global warming doom and gloom crap.

Look it up. There is more there then you guys are recognizing, and likely your blinding yourselves from even looking at the issue because you've made it into a political issue instead of a science issue to be validated and measured.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

You are so ignorant it is unbelievable. Not only have you shown yourself to be a pseudo-scientist but now you are acting in your capacity as a pseudo-philosopher. If there was a land of Know-all-know-nothing Wannabe you would be the King of Know-all-know-nothing Wannabe.

To Mr. Opinion

As an environmental socialist, are you good at answering questions, finding and researching answers for questions among the public, or even public relations as a whole?

The answers to issues and criticisms of climate change would be what I'd expect from a profession that has "environmental" in it's title. Someone who is able to talk to others without needing to insult or deflect criticisms and issues would be a skill I'd expect with "socialist" in the title.

If you insist on staying in this conversation, why not make yourself useful. Show that title isn't as worthless as you've shown your comments to be so far. Start by looking at the link I provided. If there is no merit to the "con" arguments in the link for climate change, then you should be able to provide some feedback outside of political accusations, insults, and deflections.

Has anyone read the discussion piece in Forum posting 9/9/19 from http://catallaxyfiles.com/2019/09/08/no-warming-in-australia-since-1876/

From a former Global Warming activist who did the research.

No warming in Australia since 1876? And Tony Thomas exposes the love romantic relationship of the ABC and Al Gore
Posted on 8:56 am, September 8, 2019 by Rafe Champion
A heads up from Jo Nova to check out a study of the Australian records. There are 25 locations in Australia with daily temperature data going back before 1890. A visual display shows all 1,389,419 daily maximum temperature readings at those locations since 1876.

We can probably say the Global warming campaigners on this site are devout listeners to the ABC.

The current records of heating are recorded in populated areas where extra heat is generated.

I just heard a rumor that Pauline Hansen and ScuMo are working on a plan to build lots of dams to be used for putting out fires caused by global warming and its consequential climate changes. And they are going to send the bill to the global warming activists because they reckon that those who are most worried about global warming should be the ones who pay the most. We have some really incredibly smart people in our parliaments.

Dear NNS,

Sigh.

Critical thinking was not part of your upbringing it seems.

This is from the same site; http://vaccines.procon.org/

There are going to be pros and cons for virtually any topic. 99% of people believe vaccines are beneficial to individual and community health and well being. This doesn't mean the respective arguments have any equivalence. They don't in the case of vaccines and they don't in the case of global warming.

But tell you what, if there was one of the arguments on the 'con' side that you deem to be top of your list I will undertake to step through it with you.

But please stop running the line that this is not a political discussion because that is just rubbish. Of course it is and it should be noted that many fundamentalist Christians of which you appear to be a member are cranky because they find themselves on the losing side of the greatest moral question of our age.

Hi SR,

Sorry, my questions were not meant to be definitive statements, but only questions: are those reports of temperature and sea-level rises accurate ? If you're up with it all, perhaps you can clear up my doubts ? Or not ?

If they are completely out of whack, and temperatures have risen, say, five degrees, and sea-levels by half a metre, that sort of rise, and taking obvious causes such as the urban heat-island effect, and distorted readings of formerly rural and remote measuring stations now surrounded by urban development and asphalt into account, then I'd be happy to run with the greenhouse-effect hypothesis, and start panicking.

Over to you :)

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

So the figures you have been touting were made up by you and you hadn't gone and done any research yourself?

Well I suppose that is an admission of sorts.

You put that you need to see “temperatures have risen, say, five degrees, and sea-levels by half a metre” before you start to panic.

His puts you firmly in the camp of those needing to see the incoming civilisation destroying meteor with your naked eyes before agreeing to any measures to divert it.

Of course there has to be a part of you which says this is complete idiocy, that waiting until it is too late is the providence of fools, but still you hold on to it. Why?

To SteeleRedux.

The pro/con site shows the arguments and counter arguments. The validity of those augments might be worth seeking out regardless of the topics they cover, otherwise it's just addressing the different points, not the merit of those points. However with regards to global warming, what can be said? I use to think global warming might be a threat. Never to the degree they've popularized and feared, but enough to consider action needs to be done.

After a while though of seeing no real international action being done to reduce global warming, and also seeing no direct consequences like famine, rising sea levels, or other global warming disasters. Then one starts to ask. Is any of it real or is it all crap. With that in mind you look at the Skeptic's arguments a little more openly, and see if there is any merit to the global warming side.

Nonetheless, you've offered to look at any of the arguments in the pro/con site, so I'll take you up on that. Take on arguments 7, 8, or 10 of the con side of those arguments. Answers to any one of those arguments or why those arguments don't matter (careful that also could mean the pro's side of counter arguments on the same points also don't matter).

Misopinionated,

But not so many in our VET/TAFE colleges, it seems.

Joe

Dear Josephus,

With heavy heart but steely resolve I clicked your latest 'smoking gun' link.

Which prompted me to click another link if I wanted to look at the 'data'.

Which led me to http://realclimatescience.com/2019/09/australia-shows-no-warming-since-1876/ (which you could have linked to in the first place old chap) which also didn't have the raw data nor even a link to such. Instead it had two graphs. One, done by the proponent was of average temperatures since the 1870s. It was compared to the BOM graph and the declaration was made that “The real graph looks nothing like the fake graph generated by BOM”.

The BOM graph however was not of average temperatures but rather Annual Temperature Mean Anomalies and the date series started in 1910.

So I ask you why shouldn't I view this as just another piece of tortured denialist rubbish which couldn't even be bothered comparing like for like?

I am imploring you to put a little more effort in your links in future because my motivation to wade through dross is quickly being depleted.

Dear NNS,

I asked for you to pick one and you delivered three. I'm going to request you pick the one you feel is the most prominent of them and we will discuss it and see if it is worth tackling the others. I was just going to select one myself but I didn't want to be accused of cherry picking.

SR,

"There was not a single peer reviewed paper"

I had quotes from the IPCC, quintessential peer-review.

Still trying to muddy the water rather than just admit error.

BTW, since you're suddenly righteously only accepting peer reviewed data, might I point out that article you linked to that started this sub-thread wasn't peer reviewed either. But that's different, isn't it SR?

Josephus,

Yep the work done on those 25 long-term stations is more than a little interesting. Most of these long term stations are ones that aren't affected by the Urban Heat-island Effect (UHIE)and therefore give a much better reading on actual changes in temperature over time.

Along the same lines is the data I showed earlier from the USA where a series of special sites have been established to avoid any UHIE. This was started in 2005 and analysis now shows no warming and a non-significant cooling over continental USA between 2005 and now.

http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/08/23/climate_alarmists_foiled_no_us_warming_since_2005.html

The interesting thing to remember is that almost all the warming we see in the statistics is not from the raw data but from the data after it has been 'homogenised' by the alarmists.

Never mind SR. He struggles with type of thing. Now he's making a dill of himself by suggesting that average temperatures and Annual Temperature Mean Anomalies are somehow not two different ways of showing the same data.

Dear mhaze,

You write;

“Now he's making a dill of himself by suggesting that average temperatures and Annual Temperature Mean Anomalies are somehow not two different ways of showing the same data.”

Oh you really are thick sometimes, especially when you are so focused on shooting yourself in the foot yet again.

I will type slowly for you so you can keep up. Look it isn't entirely your fault. You are linking to denialist sites which do this kind of stuff all the time.

In this case the dodgy characters at realclimatescience.com decided that instead of doing like for like and linking to the BOM's Annual Max Temp Anomaly graph they would link it to the Annual Mean Temperature Anomaly. Why? Because the Annual Mean is more pronounced than the Annual Average graph which suited their purposes.

Look at the difference between the two.

Annual Mean Temperature Anomaly
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ=graph%3Dtmax%26area%3Daus%26season%3D0112%26ave_yr%3D0

Average Max Temp Anomaly
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ=graph%3Dtmax%26area%3Daus%26season%3D0112%26ave_yr%3D0

Actually from what you have written I get the sneaking suspicion you thought the mean and average graphs would be the same.

You really are a dill aren't you.

Hell. A bit of a stuff up on the link. Here is the Annual Mean Anomaly.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ=graph%3Dtmean%26area%3Daus%26season%3D0112%26ave_yr%3D0

To Steele Redux.

Sorry for the dely in response. Go with con argument #10.

Just to clarify. I don't deny mankind's effect on the enviornment, but due to a lacking of changes that are constantly predicted by global warming, I also don't believe the global warming fears as much either. Rising tempatures in cities dues to more asphalt and less greenery to soak up the sun's heat makes it warmer, and more smog in cities due to localized areas are what we should be concerned about. Pollution reduction in localized areas for the sake of that localized area is worth doing. Global warming doesn't have to do anything with it, doesn't have to have faulty predictions, and exaggerated models. Just the honest approach of wanting to take care of the world around us should be enough. Using faulty fear tactics will most likely make people lose intreast in caring for the enviornment because the environmentalists themselves show themselves as unreliable.

Not_Now.Soon,
Human activities are having a negative impact because humans unlike animals, are so stupid that they don't stop their practises despite things going wobbly right in front of their eyes.
We have to ability to actually enhance/compliment Nature but greed always throws that spanner into the works !
So, meanwhile we give the alarmists more reasons to argue & exploit & hijack reason for, yes you guessed right, money !

SR,

Here was your assertion..."The BOM graph however was not of average temperatures but rather Annual Temperature Mean Anomalies and the date series started in 1910."

The only difference between average temperatures and mean anomalies is that, with anomalies, the average for some arbitrary period is deducted. eg say the average for year X is 16c, but the average for some previous 30 year period was 14c, then the anomaly is 2c.

The alarmists use anomalies because it makes the changes appear to be more pronounced.

Dear mhaze,

You write;

“The only difference between average temperatures and mean anomalies is that, with anomalies, the average for some arbitrary period is deducted. eg say the average for year X is 16c, but the average for some previous 30 year period was 14c, then the anomaly is 2c.”

Nope, you still don't get it do you. You obviously don't understand the difference between Annual Mean Temperature and the Annual Max Temperature. Go research it and get back to me.

Well I do know the difference between them but that wasn't what you were talking about.

Let me repeat what you wrote "The BOM graph however was not of average temperatures but rather Annual Temperature Mean Anomalies"

ie average temperatures v. mean temperatures anomalies.

Ok, I see now. We are in one of SR muddy the water exercises which always occur when he realises he's screwed up.

Dear NNS,

Con 10 says “Predictions of accelerating human-caused climate change are based upon computerized climate models that are inadequate and incorrect. “

Well no they are not as detailed in my link to you but let's put tha aside for one moment.

The prime supporting statement for the above contention is;

“Climate models have been unable to simulate major known features of past climate such as the ice ages or the very warm climates of the Miocene, Eocene, and Cretaceous periods. If models cannot replicate past climate changes they should not be trusted to predict future climate changes.”  [58]

Well all good thus far because they have provided a reference number for the statement which you can see is number 58.

When I click the link I get the following reference;

Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer, “The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%,’” wsj.com, May 26, 2014

Fine. I google the reference and find it is a Wall Street Journal article which can be found here;

http://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph-bast-and-roy-spencer-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-1401145980

The trouble is when you read it it actually says absolutely nothing about a failure of climate models to “simulate major known features of past climate such as the ice ages or the very warm climates of the Miocene, Eocene, and Cretaceous periods” at all.

So I am in your hands. I don't feel that the case has been substantiated to any degree whatsoever by the material provided. Do you?

Dear mhaze,

Lol.

So you read the first bit but managed to completely ignore where I expanded the point?

Sure.

“In this case the dodgy characters at realclimatescience.com decided that instead of doing like for like and linking to the BOM's Annual Max Temp Anomaly graph they would link it to the Annual Mean Temperature Anomaly. Why? Because the Annual Mean is more pronounced than the Annual Average graph which suited their purposes.”

Then you deflect from answering by shooting off another serve. Therefore I will ask you directly, why do you think the characters at realclimatescience.com decided not to show like for like graphs?

To SteeleRedux.

Thankyou for providing the info on the first reference. I was unable to access it due to not having a Wall Street journal subscription. However the rest of the points in con argument 10 has article references that all agree to the computer models being wrong and over exaggerated. Here is the rest of the argument for con point 10 in the pro/con article. I've used brackets { } to given a brief detail over each reference mentioned and to point out where those references point to. Here is the reminder of the argument that global warming models are basically useless.
__________________________________________

A 2011 Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science study using observational data rather than computer climate models concluded that "the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity" and overestimate how fast the earth will warm as CO2 levels increase. [75]

{comment found in abstract, introduction and conclusion of the paper. PDF of paper can be found at
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf }

Two other studies using observational data found that IPCC projections of future global warming are too high. [76]

{seems to use observational data already recorded over 2 periods of times instead of projected models as the means of the paper. Unfortunately I don't understand the data and language enough to understand if it differs from a compute projected model, or if they just aren't using models so that their data wouldn't be compromised. The PDFs of the paper can be found at http://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/lewiscurry_ar5-energy-budget-climate-sensitivity_clim-dyn2014_accepted-reformatted-edited.pdf }

[97]

{paper identifies a difference between the 2 projected models by IPPC that are greatly exaggerated on the temperature and aren't confirmed by observations. The paper tries to present a simplified model that would project temperature risings more accurately, which do suggest a much cooler temperature estimate in future years then the exaggerated. Paper can be found at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11434-014-0699-2 }

(Continued)

(Continued from before to SteeleRedux. Article and references on argument # 10 in Pro/con arguments over global warming)

In a 2014 article, climatologist and former NASA scientist Roy Spencer, PhD, concluded that 95% of climate models have "over-forecast the warming trend since 1979." [77]

{shorter article with a graph as the single point of reference for data points out how wrong the climate models are compared to observations. The observations lead the article to conclude that the data does not support policies to freeze global growth (especially for poorer countries) based on global warming. Article can be found here http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/ }

According to Emeritus Professor of Geography at the University of Winnipeg, Tim Ball, PhD, "IPCC computer climate models are the vehicles of deception… [T]hey create the results they are designed to produce." [78]

{the article questions both the models and the accuracy of data those models are based on. Basically that the models are in wrong going so far as attributing them to "Garbage in, garbage out" (GIGO), and questioning whether the data for the last 100 years from weather stations can accurately measure global tempatures, as there aren't enough stations in enough locations to give that kind of global data. The article can be found here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/16/a-simple-truth-computer-climate-models-cannot-work/

It's funny but not surprising that Mr. Opinion left the building after being confronted to make use of his degree and profession. Or to be useful at all in this conversation. Though I disagree with Steele Redux on his stance on global warming and his trust in the IPPC models, at least he's stuck around to confront the data and critisms head on. That's something worth noting and applauding. Regardless if I disagree with him,

Struth Sr, you really are the sly one, n'est pas?

You make an assertion that is patently wrong. (that average temperatures were somehow different to Annual Temperature Mean Anomalies)

I point out, in passing, that its patently wrong.

You then seek to correct your patently wrong error by diverting into another realm and demand to know why I won't follow you down that rabbit hole.

I wasn't commenting on the original article from Josephus and its validity one way or t'other. For the record, I'd withhold a decision on it until I see or analyse the raw data. But your criticism of it was in turn invalid in that you didn't understand that graphing anomalies isn't really different to graphing the original data.

But I accept that you'll continue to muddy the water so as to convince someone (mainly yourself) that you weren't in error...again.

Related: previously you were gung-ho for peer-reviewed evidence that the models have failed, at least until I provided peer-reviewed evidence and pointed out, rather inconveniently, that your own evidence wasn't peer reviewed. So here is yet another peer reviewed paper that takes the models apart....http://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full

I look forward to seeing which device you use to ignore this evidence.

Dear NNS,

Well it would take more time than I have to go through each and every reference you have provided so here is the deal, I will deal with the first one and then will ask you to pick another which you hold in the highest regard and we can assess it next.

To the first paper;

“A 2011 Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science study using observational data rather than computer climate models concluded that "the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity" and overestimate how fast the earth will warm as CO2 levels increase.”

{comment found in abstract, introduction and conclusion of the paper. PDF of paper can be found at
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf }

This was the second crack at this by Lindzen and Choi. The first in 2009 was widely derided because it was so sloppy and even “Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained “some stupid mistakes” in his handling of the satellite data. “It was just embarrassing,” he said in an interview.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/earth/clouds-effect-on-climate-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html

This paper was first submitted to the relatively prestigious group Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It was assessed by four reviewers two of whom were selected by Lindzen himself.

Here are the conclusions of the reviewers;

http://www.masterresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Attach3.pdf

You will see not a single one of them felt the paper was of “suitable quality” or that its “conclusions were justified”.

Lindzen then withdrew the paper and ultimately had in published in the relatively obscure Korean journal you listed above.

I am going to take the assessment of the reviewers as fair and therefore decline to place any weight in the arguments it presents. Unless of course you can give me a good reason to change my mind.

In my experience this is pretty usual fare from the denier's camp and I'm not inclined to keep doing this for every reference so chose your best and I will have a look.

To SteeleRedux.

Do whatever you want man. If this is a waste of time for you, then you can leave as well. All I did is point out that your rebutted for argument #10 was lacking quite a bit. It was your offer to look at any one of the con arguments for the pro/con article. I gave you three to choose from to choose which one you wanted to look at. You refused to choose and told me I was not doing as you asked. So I chose for you. From that section of points, I choose argument #10. That the global warming models are crap. Instead of looking at the full argument you stop short on the first reference and call it good. Then ask if there's any more that I can offer. So I fill in the rest of argument #10, because there was more there to offer. The references with an online source to look up, and and brief summation of the references that are given. As well as the argument itself for the context of the references.

I've done all the work for you, and still it's too much trouble for you. From here on out it's up to you what you want to do. No new deal, no revised responsibilities for me to fill. I've done my due diligence. If you don't want to do any more into this point of the discussion. That's your call. If you want to do more on one point or another, fine that's your call as well. Choose whatever you will do. Whatever it will be it sounds like it is lacking the effort I've already put in, and thus lacking any reason for me to honor a reply back.

Dear NNS,

Well mate let's break down your little tanty shall we.

Firstly I didn't 'refuse' anything.

Me: “if there was ONE of the arguments on the 'con' side that you deem to be top of your list I will undertake to step through it with you.”

You: “Take on arguments 7, 8, or 10 of the con side of those arguments. Answers to any one of those arguments or why those arguments don't matter (careful that also could mean the pro's side of counter arguments on the same points also don't matter).”

Note: Answers in the plural intimated you wanted answers to them all. Perhaps this was not your intention but that is certainly how it seemed to me.

Me: “I'm going to request you pick the ONE you feel is the most prominent of them and we will discuss it and see if it is worth tackling the others. I was just going to select one myself but I didn't want to be accused of cherry picking.”

You: “Go with con argument #10.”

Well I looked at the primary supporting statement's reference and found it didn't exist.

You: “... the rest of the points in con argument 10 has article references that all agree to the computer models being wrong and over exaggerated.”

You then went and gave a precis for the points, it should be noted without me asking for such.

Having dispensed pretty thoroughly with the next on the list I asked for your pick of the rest which I thought was perfectly reasonable.

You then cracked the sads.

Why am I being portrayed by you as unreasonable?

You also claimed; “I've done all the work for you...”

No you haven't. Neat little summaries don't contribute much at all. The work is in properly investigating the provenance and veracity of papers which I have done.

It's Not Easy Being A Climateer
I really don't care much how difficult they make it for themselves ! Besides, do we need them ?
The big companies will not curb the pollution they cause anyway because the Climateers want all the commodities & comfort of modern living standards. And, so the industrialists will continue to oblige !

Being a complete dumb-arse on this topic, I would love someone to correct me if my figures are wrong:

* that average annual world temperatures have risen by about half a degree in the last eighty years, some of which is due to increases in CO2 emissions, not just the urban heat-island effect or sun-spots or orbital oscillations;

* That sea-levels have risen by an inch (2.5 cm) in the last century, taking into account continental uplift, tilting of tectonic plates, post-Ice-Age re-bound, etc.

Should I get hysterically active about the greenhouse effect, or just giggle derisively ?

Or maybe nobody knows ?

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

Yup your figures are wrong.

Here is the Berkeley Earth summary for 2018.
http://berkeleyearth.org/2018-temperatures/

Who is Berkeley Earth?

“Berkeley Earth was conceived by Richard and Elizabeth Muller in early 2010 when they found merit in some of the concerns of skeptics. They organized a group of scientists to reanalyze the Earth’s surface temperature record, and published their initial findings in 2012. Berkeley Earth became an independent non-profit 501(c)(3) in February 2013.”

I find them pretty even handed.

You will see that there is a graph showing the land and ocean temperatures separately revealing that land based temperature increases sit at around 2C.

As for the sea level you are incorrect agin.

“Thus, these results indicate about 11–14 cm (4–5 inches) of GMSL rise from 1901 to 1990. Tide gauge analyses indicate that GMSL rose at a considerably faster rate of about 3 mm/year ... since 1993, a result supported by satellite data indicating a trend of 3.4 ± 0.4 mm/year ... over 1993–2015 … . These results indicate an additional GMSL rise of about 7 cm ... since 1990 ... and about 16–21 cm ... since 1900.

http://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/12/

Let me know if you need any clarification on these figures.

Thanks SR,

So a rise of two degrees Celsius in the last century ? And six to eight inches of sea-level rise since 1900 ?

Right, now we have something to go on.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

As you can see the increases are accelerating. For instance from 1901 to 1990 sea level rise was about half and inch per decade but it now sits at around 1 1/3 inches per decade.

No No No Loudmouth,

Don't be misled by SR's inability to follow the data.

"So a rise of two degrees Celsius in the last century"

That's not true, and its not even what Berkeley said. (I'd also point out that Berkeley isn't really considered to be one of the top databases on this issue...but let's go with it for the moment).

Here's what Berkeley said..."In our estimation, temperatures in 2018 were around 1.16 °C (2.09 °F) above the average temperature of the late 19th century, from 1850-1900". So 1.16c above the average for 1850-1900. Therefore 1.16c rise in around 150yrs or around 0.77c per century. In fact the trend line for Berkeley from 1850 to 2018 is 0.64 ±0.06 °C/century.

"So a rise of two degrees Celsius in the last century" is actually about 0.7c per century using 1850 as the start date.

To be fair SR's 2c number wasn't global but just for land temperatures. But it was for 170yrs not a century. And it is exaggerated compared to other more reliable databases. eg GHCN shows a land rises of around 0.9c per century.

But why use land only temperatures anyway? To exaggerate the rise? It should be noted that the raw land temperatures are changed a lot more than the raw ocean temperatures but that the reliability of the ocean temperatures before 1950 or so is highly contested.

So if you want a number for the global temperature rises per century use 0.7c/per century which is around the average of all the terrestrial databases.

To SteeleRedux.

Like I said earlier, it's your choice what you do or don't do. I'm not going to play the game you said this, but you meant that. In the end it doesn't matter if you said you'd look over one argument and have since changed your mind because it's too much time. Or if you meant that you'd look at one reference and there was a miscommunication. Either way, what you do is your choice.

Instead, I'll just say what I've said before. The narrative in the global warming issues has always been we have a limited amount of time, and an exaggeratedly negitive fate of the world. The time lines for these predictions are continually wrong based on what we can see in the world around us, and/or the consquences that are predicted are just wrong. It is wrong either because the science doesn't yet understand the scope of the factors in the world that haven't lived up to the predictions, or because the people pushing this narrative are pushing lies.

Thankfully at least some scientist in the field of climiteologists admit that there is an error in the models and have tried to come up with better ones, or just admit that there is an error in the models and understand that politics involving international growth as well as domestic growth should not be based on flatly climate models. That is what I've gleaned from the references in argument #10. It's a refreshing breath of fresh air.

Hi Mhaze,

So the land temperature rise has been around 0.7 degrees Celsius a century for the past 150 years. Could the urban heat-island effect have something to do with that ? Not much of that out over the oceans, so has the average land-and-sea temperature combined rise been somewhat lower than 0.7 degrees ? Say, 0.5 degree ? One degree Fahrenheit ?

And sea-level has risen by six inches, 15 cm, over that same time ? Gosh.

Cheers,

Joe

LM,

No the global temperature increase has been about 0.7c / century while the overall land increase has been about 0.9c/century.

Those who 'homogenise' the data claim that their changes take the urban heat-island effect into account but there is massive argument about that and it remains unclear if their changes are correct.

So globally the temperature rise has been around 0.7c/century or around 1.2c since around 1850. Assuming the rise continues like that that means a further rise through to year 2100 of about 0.5c which would give an overall increase from 1850-2100 of less than 2c.

Do you remember a decade or so ago the claim was that we needed to keep temperatures below a 2c increase? That changed around 2010 to saying we needed to keep it below 1.5c. Why the change? Because it was suddenly realised we may never get to a 2c increase.

So will the rise continue as in the past? Will it accelerate? will it decelerate?

It might accelerate if developing nations dramatically increase emissions.

OTOH we know that the ability of CO2 to absorb heat decreases as more is added to the atmosphere. So the rate of temperature rise might decelerate.

No one knows. And that's why we need to hold off massive societal changes until we do know. No matter what, the rises are slow and we have plenty of time to adapt if the more pessimistic forecasts turn out to be valid.

Dear NNS,

You write;

“In the end it doesn't matter if you said you'd look over one argument and have since changed your mind because it's too much time.”

Don't be so childish. I certainly haven't said I wouldn't look at an argument. All I requested was for you to identify which reference you felt to be the strongest having effectively dispatched the first.

If this ended up taking some time to step through them all I would have been fine doing so, but I wasn't prepared break each and every one of them apart in one hit. Especially since after doing the work on Lindzen paper you gave absolutely zero response to what I had raised.

What I think is happening is that you see yourself on a potential hiding to nothing by continuing and have picked up your bat and ball. Of course that is your prerogative but don't go blaming me for it.

Anyway for the record I thought I would have a look at the Lewis-Curry paper of 2014 which was the next reference. In 2013 the IPCC put the Transient Climate Response (TCR) at between 1.0 and 2.5 degrees while this paper put it at 1.05 to 1.8 degrees Celsius. Not a dramatic difference.

If you wanted to read more about climate sensitivity you can do so here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivit

Dear mhaze,

You write;

“So globally the temperature rise has been around 0.7c/century or around 1.2c since around 1850. Assuming the rise continues like that that means a further rise through to year 2100 of about 0.5c which would give an overall increase from 1850-2100 of less than 2c.”

This is exactly why people like yourself are shown to either not have a clue about this issue or are politically inspired to fudge the figures.

The vast bulk of the rise in CO2 has been in the last 50 to 60 years and the vast bulk of the temperature rise has been in the same period as one would expect.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

Yet you are attempting to make an argument that the temperature rise should be calculated since 1850 which of course dramatically hides the accelerating nature of the global temperature rise.

It is one of the more crude attempted deceptions you have attempted to propagate on this forum.

Lift your game old son because you run the risk of any position you put will be regarded by default as utterly suspect and not worthy of any due consideration.

SR.

You surely are joking. Even you can't be this dim-witted.

You tried to trick Loudmouth into thinking that "temperature increases sit at around 2C."

I was merely trying to show him that that number was utterly bogus.

And why did I use 1850 as my starting point?

Because YOU used 1850 as YOUR starting point for the 2c figure (check the graph you got that number from again). What a dill!!

I was comparing like with like. I don't agree with using 1850 but since you'd done so, to refute your fake number, I also did so.

"Yet you are attempting to make an argument that the temperature rise should be calculated since 1850...

It is one of the more crude attempted deceptions you have attempted to propagate on this forum.

Lift your game old son because you run the risk of any position you put will be regarded by default as utterly suspect and not worthy of any due consideration."

Actually no, you SR don't run that risk. I already know that any time you start using numbers and graphs, you are utterly out of your depth.

Dear mhaze,

Lol.

Slither, slither.

No mate, you first introduced the date. i clearly said over the last century not since 1850.

But hey, let's play it your way.

Here is the Berkeley raw land data.

"Estimated Global Land-Surface TAVG based on the Complete Berkeley Dataset"

1850 anomaly is -0.952

2018 anomaly is 1.115

More than 2 degrees it would seem. How is your math?

http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Complete_TAVG_summary.txt

Dill indeed.

SR,

A lot has happened to influence the climate over the past seventy years. Manufacturing has massively increased, increasing the world's standard of living generally by some orders of magnitude. So of course, the emission of CO2, as a by-product of the energy sources used, oil, gas and coal, has increased, although I would assume that manufacturing technologies are cleaner now than seventy years ago, including those used in the manufacture of solar panels and wind-towers.

As well, the increase in the reliance on air-conditioning has been massive. Industrial activity and air-conditioning have at least one thing in common - they generate heat, especially in urban areas. The extra heat generated may have also increased the world temperature significantly.

So is it possible to differentiate some of the man-made causes of temperature rise: CO2 and heat amongst them, to identify how much temperature increase each factor has contributed ? Certainly, there need to be urgent measures to reduce the emissions of CO2 and other gases and particulates as well, but would it also be possible to reduce the production of heat from such economic and social activity ?

Or is this a silly question ?

Cheers,

Joe

OH good, we are now in the phase where SR starts to try (usually rather ineptly) to muddy the water having realised he utterly screwed up.

eg..

He writes.."No mate, you first introduced the date. i clearly said over the last century not since 1850."

Well SR, in your post of 13 September 2019 1:17:49 PM, you wrote of a 2c temperature rise based on a graph from a site you introduced. That 2c rise and the graph it came from was for the period 1850- present. I responded to that claim.

Now, if you can find a post from me in this thread before that date/time, that mentioned or relied on anything to do with 1850, then I'll withdraw. Knowing that you can't, I'll accept your apology.

"But hey, let's play it your way.

Here is the Berkeley raw land data."

Its not my way, its your claim. I was refuting it. I did such a good job that you're now mocking your previous views.

I really wish I could work out if he's an utter clown or is just happy to beclown himself rather than admit an error.

Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons, is it possible to allocate responsibility for world temperature rise of two degrees over the past 170 years, very roughly, as follows:

* . one half of a degree rise contributed by the production of heat in manufacturing;

* . one half of a degree to the origination and expanded use of air-conditioning;

* . one half of a degree to emissions of CO, water vapor and other gases;

* . one half of a degree due to natural and all other causes.

Plus a tiny amount due to inaccuracies in measuring, etc.

Presumably there has been a great deal of research carried out to isolate the contributions of each factor (and those of many more factors). Obviously too, these different causal allocations surely must vary from the above ?

Or are these just more silly questions ?

Joe

" is it possible to allocate responsibility for world temperature rise of two degrees over the past 170 years"

Well, with the caveat that SR's 2c figure was not really correct, no, its not possible. If it were then the science would indeed be settled.

In some ways its fair to say that the entire issue is an argument over exactly how to allocate responsibility for the temperature rise.

But think about this...very nearly half of that 2c rise occurred before 1940. But up to 1940, man's emissions (manufacturing, AC etc) as measured by atmospheric CO2 levels were insufficient to be used as a reason for that rise.

Therefore, using these criteria, almost half (and probably a lot more) of the rise since 1850 must have been due to natural causes.

Dear mhaze,

You obfuscate with;

“Well SR, in your post of 13 September 2019 1:17:49 PM, you wrote of a 2c temperature rise based on a graph from a site you introduced. That 2c rise and the graph it came from was for the period 1850- present. I responded to that claim.”

Wow! That was pretty tortuous.

Lol.

This is what you had said "So a rise of two degrees Celsius in the last century" is actually about 0.7c per century using 1850 as the start date.”

Which then got further twisted into; “Because YOU used 1850 as YOUR starting point for the 2c figure.”

I have shown that not to be true, and that using Berkeley's raw data which informed the graph there was indeed a demonstrable 2C rise in the last century.

Once again old boy you are left standing with proverbial egg on your face. Time to give it away.

Hi SR,

So is it possible to differentiate the multiple causes of temperature rise since, say, the Second World War - CO2 etc. emissions, heat from increased manufacturing (it's got to go somewhere, so why not the atmosphere ?), transport, air-conditioning, volcanic eruptions, etc. ?

And of course, to take into account any natural factors which actually reduce temperature ?

Another dopey question: how much CO2 etc. emissions can be handled by the atmosphere and the environment 'naturally' ? i.e. how much above and beyond that has to be dealt with by changes in technology, renewables, etc. ? Say, by massive reforestation projects ?

A fool can ask questions that may take a genius to answer :)

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

I highly suspect you are doing your normal passive/aggressive non-genuine posturing again which has become quite tedious but I'm a sucker so here goes.

You asked;

“So is it possible to differentiate the multiple causes of temperature rise since, say, the Second World War - CO2 etc. emissions, heat from increased manufacturing (it's got to go somewhere, so why not the atmosphere ?), transport, air-conditioning, volcanic eruptions, etc. ?”

Heat dissipates from the atmosphere pretty quickly. If the sun were to stop shining tomorrow the earth would be at 0C within a week, about 40 below within a year and then march relatively quickly down to normal space temperature.

So heat generated by human sources is only a very small fraction compared to that produced by sunlight hitting the earth's surface. The principal cause of the greenhouse effect is the trapping of infrared radiation produced by that sunlight. The reason for the increasing global temperature is the molecules which make up our greenhouse gases are increasing in proportion to other gases in our atmosphere.

The earth achieved a certain relative temperature balance at a certain concentration of these gases. By artificially tipping more gases like CO2 into the atmosphere we are altering that balance. My understanding is about 57% of the extra CO2 that enters the atmosphere each year is retained after that year. The balance is churned through the natural system'. So the system has not been keeping up. This is what is needed to be dealt with.

Reforestation of course helps as can be seen by the fluctuating CO2 levels resulting from seasonal growth mainly driven be the northern hemisphere. Just how much is the question. The growth in renewable is far from keeping up with the rise in GH gases in the atmosphere. They are at the moment just postponing the inevitable.

Thanks SR,

I suppose we can't do much about the infrared radiation or natural events like volcanic eruptions and sea-bed emissions of gases. I'm a bit sceptical that heat produced by human activity is so conveniently dissipated before it can be measured by urban-based monitoring stations.

Has anybody done any research into how much reforestation and revegetation would be required, say annually, to bring down the 57 % of CO2 NOT taken up naturally ? Of course, there would be many other part-remedies for avoiding the emissions of CO2 in the first place, including renewables, nuclear energy and sequestration of carbon, etc.

But my idiot questions still haven't been answered - how much of the rise in world temperatures, out of a myriad of factors, is due to that 57 % of CO2 emissions which can't currently be absorbed, and how much is caused by other factors ?

Just roughly. Ball-park.

Joe

SR,

"Wow! That was pretty tortuous."

Yes I can well understand that its sheer torture for you to try to follow the logic of a discussions given your clear limitations in that regard.

I'll try to make it easy for you.

1. You found some data showing a rise in temperatures from 1850 to now which you hoped (thought would be an inappropriate word here) ...hoped would advance your claims.

2 I then showed that far from advancing your claims the data you used was detrimental to your claims.

3. You then decided to not only stop using the 1850, not only deny ever using the 1850, but to assert that I was the one who started using that data.

4. Having been shown the date/time when you in fact had first used that data and invited to show where, as you claimed, I had used it prior to that date/time, you squibbed it. Not that that is so unusual since you do it more often than not once you finally realise you screwed it up...again.

Grow a pair and start owning your errors.

Dear Loudmouth,

You write;

“I'm a bit sceptical that heat produced by human activity is so conveniently dissipated before it can be measured by urban-based monitoring stations.”

I don't understand why you would even write that. Urban heat island effect raises the temperature of an area higher than it would otherwise be so it will cool to a higher temperature than the surrounds at night for instance without any change in the dissipation rates.

Anyway you ask again “how much of the rise in world temperatures, out of a myriad of factors, is due to that 57 % of CO2 emissions which can't currently be absorbed” which I think has been answered numerous times but I will have another go.

Pretty well all of it either directly or because it has driven feedbacks. By directly I mean accounting for the physical properties of the CO2 molecule.

Here is a little video which should assist.

http://youtu.be/we8VXwa83F

Dear mhaze,

You are quite amusing sometimes. Here you are flailing your virtual arms around at rates that would generate a country in order that we don't notice your pants around your ankles.

According to you because I took figures for the last century from the graph I was instead making a claim about the whole graph? Yeah right.

Actually let's again examine the data set from the graph and look at the latest year that has a full set of figures, 2016. The anomaly was 1.387. If we go back a hundred years to 1917 the figure is -0.664. Giving an overall temperature rise of over 2 C.

Why are you fighting the data so hard?