Global Warming

[boxy]

... we also know when to shut up, and when to ignore amateur experts who spruik off...

You're not very good at this...

[IQS.RLOW]

Aussie is taking the Chris Evans line of reasoning...shut up, everyone just shut up. Nothing to see here, move along. There are no problems in the ALP

[Aussie]

... we also know when to shut up, and when to ignore amateur experts who spruik off...

You're not very good at this...

Yeah...but at least it was original, and there is sweet fuck all of that around here these days.

[Rorschach]

Sorry.... I have ceased to create new topics since....
oh except for the one where I was replying to your nonsense, but now I'm more careful.
Why do you comment here when you never discuss the topic?
Stick to stuff you know something about.... ought to be a really short list eh Gunga Din.

BTW Arsie you still owe me an apology.

[Mattus]

18years confirmed with no warming
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Q. B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes

Oh come on. He goes on to clarify.

In science statistical significance requires 95% confidence and his data give him only 93% confidence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Statistical analysis also requires a great number of measures to provide this confidence. Clinical trials of life savings medicines, for example, often require tens of thousands of patients to show a statistically significant benefit over the current standard of care. In this case you have only 1 global mean temperature, with 17 repeated measures between 1995 and now. It would have to be a fairly substantial warming trend to reach statistical significance with that limited data set.

[Mattus]

Most Geoscientists and Engineers are Global Warming skeptics

When researchers Lianne M. Lefsrud and Renate E. Meyer asked geoscientists and engineers their opinion about global warming, they discovered that two thirds of them think that the current warming is mostly due to nature.

I see it a bit differently. When you consider the following the statement tends to support a different headline.

Most geoscientists work for the petroleum energy industry. You would expect this group to outright reject any human influence on global warming. But they do not. In the poll you mention;

• all of them agree that the globe is currently warming.
  All of them admit human activities contribute to this warming to some extent
  A third of them think that human activity is the leading cause of this warming

This, to me, suggests consensus on global warming, and the absence of any true skeptics in the cognoscente. The only point of discussion is to what extent humans have and are contributing to the warming.

[Rorschach]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yet that means (since the same evidence is used to provide the warmists opinions) that they fail to have enough evidence or it is as valid as theirs.

Most geoscientists work for the petroleum energy industry. You would expect this group to outright reject any human influence on global warming. But they do not. In the poll you mention;

all of them agree that the globe is currently warming.
All of them admit human activities contribute to this warming to some extent
A third of them think that human activity is the leading cause of this warming


This, to me, suggests consensus on global warming, and the absence of any true skeptics in the cognoscente. The only point of discussion is to what extent humans have and are contributing to the warming.

I don't think I've suggested "A third of them think that human activity is the leading cause of this warming"... even if such a claim was made 1/3 is not a majority is it.
Also, you fail to understand apparently, that the warming (which has ceased), is not denied... just the cause and effects.

Oh and please don't try the petroleum industry crap. More people earn a living through grants based on climate change these days.

[IQS.RLOW]

Oh come on. He goes on to clarify.

In science statistical significance requires 95% confidence and his data give him only 93% confidence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Arguing the confidence levels does not change the facts. Are you are suggesting that we should change the confidence levels to meet your desired outcome?

[Rorschach]

just got this from Labor/Greg Combet...

Dear xxxxxxxx xxx,

Have you had the chance to catch up on President Obama’s State of the Union Address today? Here’s what he had to say on climate change.

President Obama called on Congress to put in place a market-based mechanism to deal with carbon emissions.

That means President Obama is calling for a price on carbon. Just like we have here in Australia thanks to this Labor Government.

From our experience, we know it won’t be easy and that the President will meet tough opposition.

For years climate sceptics have argued the United States is not acting, so nor should Australia. Can you share this video and show them that’s not true?

The President also pointed out that China is going full steam ahead on moving to renewable energy sources and the United States has to do the same.

These shifts on the international stage make it more important than ever that Australia continues to act on climate change. We must not go backwards.

You can check out some handy facts on China’s action on climate change by clicking here.

Greg

PS. Can you help us defend the carbon price from Tony Abbott by chipping in $10? We can't afford to fall behind the rest of the world on this issue.

Lot's of links to the Prez... after all he'd be a world authority on the subject. Labor..... the party that thinks everyone is as dumb as they are.

[Super Nova]

The more I look the more I find from reasonable authorities that the modelling is clearing not right.


Exstract from link: http://www.climateprediction.eu/cc/Main ... pdate.html
This one-sided drift of the IPCC projection seen in Fig. 2 is not common for long-term prediction models. A similar drift situation is not observed for the time before 2007, for the data the GCMs were developed on. Here, over- and underestimation of observed values is balanced, as expected. In modeling, such a drift is seen as clear evidence of low (or decreasing) descriptive power of the model, the lack of skill to describe the underlying phenomenon sufficiently. This evidence, for the IPCC model, is not surprising since the simplistic linear cause-effect relationship „growing atmospheric CO2 concentration leads to proportionally growing global temperatures“, which the model is based on, does not adequately describe the complex and interdependent nature of the atmosphere-ocean system.

And also....
Additionally, our climate system is essentially influenced by external, cosmic climate drivers such as the Earth Orbit Oscillation in centennial time frames, the multidecadal tri-synodic Jupiter/Saturn cycle, or the well-known orbit eccentricity Milankovitch cycle, which causes glacial and interglacial ages on Earth. These cosmic climate drivers are responsible for most of the variation of solar radiation received on Earth, resulting in medium- to long-term warming and cooling trends, independently from the sun‘s own rather small changing activity and radiation.

The models are not sophisticated enough to include all the variables needed.

When the external event change we will start to see the impact of our effect on the climate drivers.