How does looking out the window help?
Even the last IPCC report confirms no increase in extreme weather events.
South pacific sea levels data summary report
- Thread starter devank
- Start date
How does looking out the window help?
Even the last IPCC report confirms no increase in extreme weather events.
We have done. Those models fit the historical data. Please show where the error is. Essentially you've got nothing have you?
So CO2 doesn't cause any atmospheric warming?
Well it might do in sufficient quantity. But the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about .039% of which only 3% is man made. In other words only 0.0012% is due to man. A gnats pee in the Pacific Ocean. The CO2 in the atmosphere of Mars is 96% but I don't see a lot of warming there.
No you haven't (whoever "We" is). All you have done is regurgitated and recycled a lot of taxpayer funded research that is intended to show that the warming is man made. When you can explain the cooling periods of the last century without starting from the basis that global warming is an accepted fact then I will listen.
Last edited:
So almost none of the "recent" rise (<3%) in CO2 concentrations is due to anthropogenic sources?
When it becomes glaringly obvious to the majority that things aren't adding up, an agenda is being pushed (through use of exaggerated alarmist predictions, changing science to suit, justifying failed predictions, etc.), and scientists everywhere, many who have nothing to gain, so no bias, are finding that much of the GW research is looking increasingly dubious, people will question things.
We are constantly being assaulted by alarmist clowns like Gore, Flannery, Suzuki and the Greens pushing science they have no real idea about and 'the world is about to end' sales pitches, that has everyone except the Greens and some of the lefties rolling their eyes - what a load of BS they're presently sprouting about extreme local weather.
Where governments and the UN want to take all this 'not settled' science, and the methods they're employing, is probably the biggest concern, and the reason why placing these scientist and governments under scrutiny is completely justified.
I am not talking about a small group of deniests here but a large group who are looking at and/or are doing the research themselves. Most people might be blinded by ignorance and normally accept most of what they're told, but it appears not so much this time. Why?
Bigblu can I ask why you're dismissing ALL evidence that doesn't fit with the IPCC science, when there is an overwhelming amount of it shows GW science to have gaping holes?
And you've mocked some very valid points that have been made here.
As a person from a scientific background, as you state you are from, I would have expected you to be capable of more open and clear discussion (with reasons 'why') and to have a less blinkered view - like that of a typical Green/lefty or biased person.
We are constantly being assaulted by alarmist clowns like Gore, Flannery, Suzuki and the Greens pushing science they have no real idea about and 'the world is about to end' sales pitches, that has everyone except the Greens and some of the lefties rolling their eyes - what a load of BS they're presently sprouting about extreme local weather.
Where governments and the UN want to take all this 'not settled' science, and the methods they're employing, is probably the biggest concern, and the reason why placing these scientist and governments under scrutiny is completely justified.
I am not talking about a small group of deniests here but a large group who are looking at and/or are doing the research themselves. Most people might be blinded by ignorance and normally accept most of what they're told, but it appears not so much this time. Why?
Bigblu can I ask why you're dismissing ALL evidence that doesn't fit with the IPCC science, when there is an overwhelming amount of it shows GW science to have gaping holes?
And you've mocked some very valid points that have been made here.
As a person from a scientific background, as you state you are from, I would have expected you to be capable of more open and clear discussion (with reasons 'why') and to have a less blinkered view - like that of a typical Green/lefty or biased person.
Jo Nova has searched for the answers to the questions many of us have been asking.
This video is worth watching.
https://hotcopper.com.au/post_single.asp?fid=262&tid=2166675&msgid=12769353#.Us1SZ_utCRM
Click on 'i agree' to view.
This video is worth watching.
https://hotcopper.com.au/post_single.asp?fid=262&tid=2166675&msgid=12769353#.Us1SZ_utCRM
Click on 'i agree' to view.
Last edited:
This guy is another scientist who dislikes the hysteria and I know I find the hysteria the most obnoxious part, I hate the fact that my grandkids are being brainwashed at school.
It was written by a scientific luminary, Pierre Darriulat. For nearly 50 years, his professional life has been devoted to particle physics, nuclear physics, condensed matter physics, and astrophysics. For seven years, he was Director of Research at CERN ? one of the world?s largest, most famous, and respected laboratories.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013...icist-calls-ipcc-summary-deeply-unscientific/
It was written by a scientific luminary, Pierre Darriulat. For nearly 50 years, his professional life has been devoted to particle physics, nuclear physics, condensed matter physics, and astrophysics. For seven years, he was Director of Research at CERN ? one of the world?s largest, most famous, and respected laboratories.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013...icist-calls-ipcc-summary-deeply-unscientific/
Weg, I don't believe I have seen anything that overturns the main stream science on the issue. I've seen blantant propaganda in a lot of cases similar to what I see on other "causes" such as immunisation etc. Provide the studies, show me your hard evidence for your hypotheses (not some obviously biased and dodgy website). It isn't a valid argument to say that Al Gore lied to you so climate change isn't happening. I'm not interested in the fairies down in the bottom of the garden conspiracy stuff or pseudoscience.
Were you not mocking the science suggesting earlier that scientists couldn't read a thermometer and compare the data to satellite measurements? If you say something like that I'm going to call BS on it sometimes (as I'm and you are entitled to do). I read a fair few other posts mocking people from your side of this debate. In any case, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.
I don't tend to listen too closely to the main stream media on the issue. I could point to the stupid things that Alan Jones, Maurice Newman, Andrew Bolt et al have said on the subject but that is not really my concern. I guess that is a difference between us. I suspect that some of the stuff those people you identfied said may have not considered "the pause". I'm glad those predictions turned out to be false.
Yes I have a scientific background that means I'm going to critically assess what I'm being told. I find it a bit ironic that you would claim that I have a closed mind. People in glass houses and all that. Ned even said he wouldn't read anything that he didn't already agree with! I reckon I'm probably the most open minded person posting here (probably not saying much). If you are flexible in your views then robust argument is intellectually healthy in that you develop your views further. I've read a few of papers about climate change and had a bit of a think about the science more so than I otherwise would have. I've altered my thinking on a few topics:
- Rainfall in SE Australia. There's a big fat question mark in my mind about this. The IPCC (I think) are saying a small increase in rainfall globally with patterns altering. I'm not so sure about the trend that has been published for SE Australia. I need to investigate further. I would say regional rainfall trends are not necessarily related to climate change. Downscaling those global models to regional areas is tricky for various reasons.
- Effects of CO2 on plant growth. Some studies are reporting up to 20% increases in growth rates at 700ppm with increased drought tolerance to boot. That surprised me. I'm not sure that it will be long lasting (the jury is still out on that). But it is something to be optimistic about in the worse case scenarios.
So thanks for that. We in science tend to have a few arguments. As I said, it develops your ideas. If you are planning to publish a manuscript and you hand it to someone for a review, then if it comes back covered in red ink that's generally viewed as a good thing. You thank them for spending the time on it.
Just because someone has a different view to you doesn't mean they are automatically biased. I think it is of concern that you view the main stream science on this issue as a green/lefty cause. That puts "the right" on this issue down the bottom of the garden with the fairies. I do think the right has taken it's bat and ball on this issue and gone home. I suspect that they should accept the main stream science and take part in the debate about what to do (or not do) about it. Isn't the right friendly to nuclear power, geo-engineering, economics etc. In handing the left ownership of this issue, the right has given them the ability to hit you over the head with it for what could be the next 80+ years. Everytime there's a drought, some fires, a record hot year they are going to rip into the swinging voters on this. Eventually, the pause will end.
In general, I've tried to provide the forum with unbiased main stream science articles on the topics raised by scientists that work in that particular field (not website links to the opinions of lone physicists). Each of them generally points out the weakness in their studies (there's always something) and avoids the use of biased inflammatory language (cf websites you guys normally provide that "look" like something a bunch of creationists would link to).
I don't think I posted anything on hysteria. That tends to come with the impacts side. The science on the impacts is much more speculative I think. I think this debate has been about whether the planet is getting warmer and it's cause not what's likely to happen. Life will go on.
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044018/pdf/1748-9326_7_4_044018.pdf
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/new-paper-finds-climate-models-cannot.html
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/blog_watch/sea_level_is_not_rising.html
Just some.
Last edited:
That one sentence shows your complete bias which is typical of warmists. It also shows that rather than have an intellectual discussion you would prefer to try and discredit the other side.
I did not say I wouldn't read anything I didn't already agree with. If you read what I actually said it was that all the papers you have posted links to assume that anthropogenic climate change is a fact and then build on that fact to further the cause.
To recap, one of the studies you linked to, which I read, started with the words "Human-influenced climate change is an observed phenomenon affecting physical and biological systems across the globe."
Studies like that are already biased to start off with and not worth reading.
Next time you want to quote me get your facts straight first.
We are going around in circles here. I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself on this, it is not up to weg, me or any other scientist to provide evidence to refute anthropogenic global warming, it is up to the anthropogenic climate scientists to provide evidence that it exists. There is no point saying you have done so when all you do is post a link to a study that starts with the words, "Human-influenced climate change is an observed phenomenon affecting physical and biological systems across the globe." and then lists 50 other studies all referencing each other.
Thanks for the papers. I've glanced at the first one. My understanding of what they are saying is that it took a considerable amount of time (800 years +) for CO2 locked in the melting Antarctic ice (during termination III) to be released first to the ocean and then off to the atmosphere. That's good news for avoiding a run away climate change but I'm not sure how it supports your argument. Did you think that it somehow disproved a link between CO2 and warming? It's interesting because it seems to suggest the opposite. I was thinking that the main evidence we had for the link for CO2 and warming was the models which I was yabbering on about but it looks like to me (from the paper you've provided) that ice cores also provide strong evidence for a link (thanks). Attached is a couple of review articles that cite your paper. One is by a co-author of your paper. I haven't read them yet, I'm just providing them for interest. Your paper also cites Kump 2002 in the last paragraph so I've thrown that in. It seems to be relevant (but again I haven't read it yet).
As soon as you make an assertion then you should provide evidence. Are you saying you haven't made any assertions about the influence of CO2 on the atmosphere or the content of the atmosphere? Also, I've provided you with relevant studies but you have failed to find any articulate way to refute them. Unless you come up with something other than a fairy down the bottom of the garden conspiracy theory based on paper titles then I'm going to ignore you. Also, check your maths.
What it shows is carbon lagging behind temperature for 800 years!
We know there's a link but a link is not proof of anything. There is no actual proof carbon drives temperature - what AGWist keep insisting is happening.
So what about the other discrepancies??
Why has warming stopped for the last 17 years?
How about sea levels?
As a scientist why are you so quick to dismiss science that appears to be in conflict with your argument??
As a non-scientist why are you so quick to make up your mind? You're absolutely convinced aren't you? To be honest I haven't really made up my mind about ice cores. I've been reading about them for 5 minutes. Here's another paper I'm reading. It's a line of enquiry. The authors don't seem to be backing up your interpretation of their results however.
Re the other questions, I posted a couple of articles a while back that provide some evidence that the pause is related to SST in the equatorial pacific (as well as an otherview of some other competing explanations). CO2 isn't the only influence on the global climate system (obviously). I wouldn't say that warming has stopped. It has slowed considerably. Pauses have happened before, the link is still statistically significant. Research is ongoing.
