Global Warming

[Rorschach]

Nature reported the consensus of the 1979 World Climate Conference: “that the world had entered a 10,000 year cooling, that the warming theory was complex and questionable and that the loss of life and economic substance to the climate would increase.”

[Super Nova]

Nature reported the consensus of the 1979 World Climate Conference: “that the world had entered a 10,000 year cooling, that the warming theory was complex and questionable and that the loss of life and economic substance to the climate would increase.”

so what. 14 years later with more data and more advance modelling they think differentl.

Your continued reference to selective statements means little in your argument.

Science is about the continue challenge of current theories and models.

At best we may have been in a cooling cycle but if you look at the graphs on the site I posted you will see graphs that explain the influences on warming and cooling. Clearl those that contribute to warming are growing faster than what would naturally occur due to man.

[Rorschach]

Clearly SN you need to read what everyone has been saying to keep up with the conversation.

I merely repeated what IQS had quoted.
I repeated it because it is related to the strawmen that AiA has been creating in regards to what I have stated.

Do you think that man has introduced into the system Carbon that wasn't there in the first place?
Do you believe everything stated in the movie "The Inconvenient Truth"?
Do you have an open mind on the subject or are you just an alarmist?
Are you aware the model keep changing and that as yet they have proven to be wrong?
GIGO?
The list goes on and on SN...

[IQS.RLOW]

This is the problem with AGW from both sides. It's highly politicized with claims and counterclaims of myth, reconstructed temps, Al Gore propaganda, convenient and inconvenient truths yet there is not a single instance where there is conclusive proof that any warming is solely due man, how much is mans component vs how much is natural variability.

In such cases I say deal with it with adaptation if it exists and stay the fuck away from my wallet.

Ive always wondered how much extra CO2 has been put into the atmosphere based solely on the activities of the AGW agenda? All those plane flights, photocopiers, papers, extra public servants, hotel stays etc etc etc...

[Super Nova]

Clearly SN you need to read what everyone has been saying to keep up with the conversation.

I merely repeated what IQS had quoted.
I repeated it because it is related to the strawmen that AiA has been creating in regards to what I have stated.

Do you think that man has introduced into the system Carbon that wasn't there in the first place?

There is no extra Carbon being introduced to the Earth. It is an element of a fixed amount (leaving aside the odd meteor). I do believe that carbon in the form of CO2 and other similar gases are being released into the Earth atmosphere. The energy stored in molecules that include carbon have been taken out of the attmosphere over millions of years and continually by plants ..etc. The release of carbon i nthe form of molecules that have a warming effect on the planet is occuring faster than the Earth and lifecycle can renmove it. Therefore there is a net increase and that net increase is due to man emissions and kill of plants that remove it.

Carbon has been there in the first place. It is just moving into different places in the cycle in different chemical forms.

Do you believe everything stated in the movie "The Inconvenient Truth"?

No.

Do you have an open mind on the subject or are you just an alarmist?

I am opened minded always. I read the current opinions in science and see the evidence presented.

Do you deny that man is releasing greenhouses gases and removing the plants that remove them?

Are you aware the model keep changing and that as yet they have proven to be wrong?

We canot even predict the weather accurately. The models are getting better and we have more data to support them.

GIGO?/quote]
That why we improve the data quality as input the models so there is less garbage going in.

The list goes on and on SN...

So does mine.

[Rorschach]

Clearly SN you need to read what everyone has been saying to keep up with the conversation.

I merely repeated what IQS had quoted.
I repeated it because it is related to the strawmen that AiA has been creating in regards to what I have stated.

Do you think that man has introduced into the system Carbon that wasn't there in the first place?

There is no extra Carbon being introduced to the Earth. It is an element of a fixed amount (leaving aside the odd meteor). I do believe that carbon in the form of CO2 and other similar gases are being released into the Earth atmosphere. The energy stored in molecules that include carbon have been taken out of the attmosphere over millions of years and continually by plants ..etc. The release of carbon i nthe form of molecules that have a warming effect on the planet is occuring faster than the Earth and lifecycle can renmove it. Therefore there is a net increase and that net increase is due to man emissions and kill of plants that remove it.

Carbon has been there in the first place. It is just moving into different places in the cycle in different chemical forms.

Good to see you know all that too. But I also know that at times in the past there have been higher amounts of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere and that man was not responsible for that. You may also know it but didn't mention it. You want to remove it faster... grow more plants. BTW the molecules do not warm the planet I'm sure you know that, just poorly worded perhaps. Also you never mentioned that those horrid deniers and skeptics and those of a truly open mind do not deny there has been warming. Unlike you, many question the effects of man's contribution however.

Do you believe everything stated in the movie "The Inconvenient Truth"?

No.

Well that's good because it was mainly a propaganda film. Unfortunately it had world wide release before anyone could question its validity and hence the damage was done.

Do you have an open mind on the subject or are you just an alarmist?

I am opened minded always. I read the current opinions in science and see the evidence presented.

Really? It would be hard to tell from your continued attack on anyone (mostly me) presenting a differing opinion.

Do you deny that man is releasing greenhouses gases and removing the plants that remove them?

Yep no denying it. I gather you mean CO2 and perhaps convert would be a better phrase.

Are you aware the model keep changing and that as yet they have proven to be wrong?

We canot even predict the weather accurately. The models are getting better and we have more data to support them.

I didn't hear you agree with the statement. If we cannot predict weather we cannot predict climate.

GIGO?/quote]
That why we improve the data quality as input the models so there is less garbage going in.

Yet you failed to acknowledge we have garbage going in and coming out. As long as the parameters used are skewed to present a warming outcome. As long as one recording station is in the middle of an asphalt jungle or next to an air conditioner, we will always have garbage.

The list goes on and on SN...

So does mine.

So you see not the agreements and just choose to be adversarial because.... right is on the alarmists side? How Inquisitional of you.

[Outlaw Yogi]

No I was a kid... but yes it was hot.

Considering we've had no warming to speak of over more than a decade now what does that say about your graph... perhaps a change in scale might stop you being so alarmed.

10 years hey?
Current Global Warming denial diatribe says 16 years.
Only problem with those versions of events is that almost all the high temperature records have been set within the last 10 years.

For the denialists to be correct, all the instrumental records going back centuries and decades of satelite data would have to be wrong or falsified, and they'd have to get everyone on the planet keeping records involved in the grand scam.

Years ago the GW denialists claimed the ocean is not rising. So rather than assume one group or so called expert was right or wrong, I watched for myself.
I was living in Bundaberg so chose two markers of my own. One is a storm water drain which flows into a tidal creek (under Targo St), and the other a cement pilon holding the first steel staunchen of the Talon Bridge.
The drain/creek I checked (visually without markers or recordings) pretty regularly and the bridge pilon occasionally. The stormwater drain has such a shallow gradient that tides from the creek travel quite a distance horizontally, making it very easy to see a difference.
Over a roughly seven year period I noticed the tides gradually getting higher each year and due to the shallow gradient noticed the water protrudes about 50 metres further into the drain than it used to. The normal high tide mark now is about where the king tide mark was seven years prior.
The bridge pilon is often used by recreational fishermen to get a better cast out into deeper parts of the river. At low tide the rocks between it and the shoreline used to be exposed, and is how fishermen climb across and up onto the pilon. During king tides the pilon was covered by about an inch of water. Now at low tide the aforementioned rocks always have water over them and the pilon is only just submerged. During king tides the top of the pilon is completely submerged by a foot or more of water.

So when someone tries telling me the temperatures are not increasing and the ocean levels are not rising, I tell them they must be talking about another planet or are just a gullible fool.

[Rorschach]

To be a denialist you'd have to be in denial, yet most people called denialists, like myself (thanks yogi) have never denied that there has been warming.

I'm sorry Yogi but your drain creek method to determine global ocean rises just won't cut it. There's a guy in Pittwater that been keeping tabs (via a similar method) since the original warming scare and he reckons that there has been no rise. I did post a link to an expert opinion of it. Maybe you should have a read.

You don't have to believe gullible fools yogi...

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

* The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
* This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ve-it.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... again.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Rorschach]

For those with an open mind...

THERE are four official global temperature data sets and there has been much debate and discussion as to which best represents change in global temperature.

Tom Quirk has analysed variations within and between these data sets and concludes there is 1. Substantial general agreement between the data sets, 2. Substantial short-term variation in global temperature in all data sets and 3. No data set shows a significant measurable rise in global temperature over the twelve year period since 1997.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/05/glo ... revisited/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Rorschach]

Oh Yogi... almost forgot buddy... 'more than a decade" does not equal 10 years.... but it would include 16.