Global Warming

[AngryAnt]

Absolute *smile*, it was warmer in the Medieval Warm Period before it was erased by the cultists.

IPCC 1990

That graph only goes up to about 1910 :hihi

IPCC 2001

Not only the MWP, but the Little Ice Age has vanished under the auspices of the IPCC, allowing them to claim "warmest since....".

Funny how the CO2 level increases uniformly while temperature fluctuates all over the shop. Almost suggests it's more complex than pointing the finger at CO2...

You think climate is a simple system where there should be strict linear relationship with a single changing parameter? Duh

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

That graph only goes up to about 1910 :hihi

The increments are 100 years. It obviously can't show data to 2000 in the year 1990.

You think climate is a simple system where there should be strict linear relationship with a single changing parameter? Duh

That's precisely what the climate change movement operates on - comparatively simple models which exclude poorly understood phenomena (e.g. cloud formation) in addition to the many unknowns.

 

[AngryAnt]

The increments are 100 years. It obviously can't show data to 2000 in the year 1990.

That's precisely what the climate change movement operates on - comparatively simple models which exclude poorly understood phenomena (e.g. cloud formation) in addition to the many unknowns.

The whole MWP and the LIA are, like many things in science, contested and updated based on new data and evidence. This is how science works. If you wear tin foil hats, you say "oh it's a conspiracy to erase data to suit the global warming cabal". If you are an expert, you can read the scientific papers and evidence and make up your mind. If you are non-experts, like us, you can read the findings at a high level and then choose to accept the science or to stick to conspiracy theories and pretend that change and negative consequences of CC are not happening.

It's interesting though that you want to cherry pick the out-of-date science as gospel while at the same time you cast doubt on the methods of temperature collection and interpretation now. So science is good if out of date because you like the conclusion, but more contemporary science is faulty and bad because you don't like the conclusions.


That's the bottom line really.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

The whole MWP and the LIA are, like many things in science, contested and updated based on new data and evidence. This is how science works. If you wear tin foil hats, you say "oh it's a conspiracy to erase data to suit the global warming cabal". If you are an expert, you can read the scientific papers and evidence and make up your mind. If you are non-experts, like us, you can read the findings at a high level and then choose to accept the science or to stick to conspiracy theories and pretend that change and negative consequences of CC are not happening.

It's interesting though that you want to cherry pick the out-of-date science as gospel while at the same time you cast doubt on the methods of temperature collection and interpretation now. So science is good if out of date because you like the conclusion, but more contemporary science is faulty and bad because you don't like the conclusions.


That's the bottom line really.

The erasure of the MWP and LIA was the result of work by Michael Mann, a controversial figure who has been the subject of several investigations into scientific fraud.

This work is highly controversial and that is the bottom line.

 

[bullus_hit]

The erasure of the MWP and LIA was the result of work by Michael Mann, a controversial figure who has been the subject of several investigations into scientific fraud.

This work is highly controversial and that is the bottom line.

Still waiting for your alternative theory as to why it's heating up, the conspiracy theories won't wash at this stage in the game.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Still waiting for your alternative theory as to why it's heating up, the conspiracy theories won't wash at this stage in the game.

How the hell would I know? Even the rate of increase is wholly up for debate. All I'm sure of is that it's not as simple as 'cut CO2 or die' or 'earth good, man bad'.

It's fact that Mann has clung to his data and methods for years, to the point of defying court orders requiring disclosure. That is not a conspiracy theory.

 

[bullus_hit]

How the hell would I know? Even the rate of increase is wholly up for debate. All I'm sure of is that it's not as simple as 'cut CO2 or die' or 'earth good, man bad'.

But the scientists are supposedly corrupt? That's been your theme for 10 years.

As for the factors, greenhouse gases in general are to blame & there's deforestation to consider. We need to become more sustainable & that entails weening society off fossil fuels.

 

[bullus_hit]

It's fact that Mann has clung to his data and methods for years, to the point of defying court orders requiring disclosure. That is not a conspiracy theory.

Ah yes, Flannery & Mann, the two guys who have been on Murdoch's hit list for years. You bringing this up points to the fact you are a Newscorp junkie, you really need to broaden your horizons a bit.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

But the scientists are supposedly corrupt? That's been your theme for 10 years.

I only joined this topic about five years ago. But what's a difference of 100% between climate activists?

Did I say "corrupt"? If so I'd like to change it to "blinkered". They're as one-eyed as any footy fan.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Ah yes, Flannery & Mann, the two guys who have been on Murdoch's hit list for years. You bringing this up points to the fact you are a Newscorp junkie, you really need to broaden your horizons a bit.

I brought up Mann in response to the quote "Planet is the warmest it's been for 115,000 years". It's hardly possible to avoid him.

"Mann belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State."

- Tim Ball (the subject of one of Mann's failed legal assaults)

Google "Michael Mann fraudulent" and plenty of topics pop up, none of them Newscorp.

One of the infamous Climategate emails from Mann's colleague referred to his MWP method: "I’ve just completed Mike’s nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." Google "Mike's nature trick" for further details.

Not sure I've mentioned Flim Flammery.

 

[AngryAnt]

The erasure of the MWP and LIA was the result of work by Michael Mann, a controversial figure who has been the subject of several investigations into scientific fraud.

This work is highly controversial and that is the bottom line.

Nope, there's a whole body of work by different scientists using multiple methods and measurements taken from all around the globe dude. Stop just reading your denialist blog sites, they are not accurate.

 

[AngryAnt]

I brought up Mann in response to the quote "Planet is the warmest it's been for 115,000 years". It's hardly possible to avoid him.

"Mann belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State."

- Tim Ball (the subject of one of Mann's failed legal assaults)

Google "Michael Mann fraudulent" and plenty of topics pop up, none of them Newscorp.

One of the infamous Climategate emails from Mann's colleague referred to his MWP method: "I’ve just completed Mike’s nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." Google "Mike's nature trick" for further details.

Not sure I've mentioned Flim Flammery.

Michael Mann could be the biggest fraud in the universe, but science doesn't work like that. Other scientists, other evidence, other methods, other data.

This is a strawman argument. Find one scientist who was wrong/fraudulent/misleading or whatever, then claim that the whole body of science is therefore invalid.

Except of course for the science that you agree with.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Nope, there's a whole body of work by different scientists using multiple methods and measurements taken from all around the globe dude. Stop just reading your denialist blog sites, they are not accurate.

I will simply refer you once again to the two graphics in the post above, before Mann and after Mann. Mann's work had a profound impact on the IPCC's direction which is more politics than science.

Only future data can change my mind. And I'm watching as it rolls in.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Michael Mann could be the biggest fraud in the universe, but science doesn't work like that. Other scientists, other evidence, other methods, other data.

This is a strawman argument. Find one scientist who was wrong/fraudulent/misleading or whatever, then claim that the whole body of science is therefore invalid.

Except of course for the science that you agree with.

The IPCC is the big player attempting to spook governments into radical change.

History is full of discarded scientific theories that once met with wide acceptance. One way or another, the truth will out.

 

[K3]

I will simply refer you once again to the two graphics in the post above, before Mann and after Mann. Mann's work had a profound impact on the IPCC's direction which is more politics than science.

Only future data can change my mind. And I'm watching as it rolls in.

L2R2R if you wait for the next decades worth of info, things will have moved to a point that we don't want.

Even as a sceptic, can you appreciate that regardless of the science truths/ untruths (depding upon what you want to believe) there are intrinsic benefits in the human race moving towards a more sustainable/ in tune with nature existence?

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

L2R2R if you wait for the next decades worth of info, things will have moved to a point that we don't want.

That's what the IPCC in their near-activist role keep saying in their report every six years. The rate of change is very slow, e.g. the system of Argo Floats which is the principal source of data on the oceans reported that the increase in sea temperature 2002-17 was 0.04 degrees. This is consistent with the satellite data for atmospheric temps prepared by Spencer. We are not in imminent danger.

Agree with your last statement. Contrary to what has been asserted on these pages, I couldn't give a rat's whether my electricity comes from fossil fuels or renewables as long as there's a seamless transition.

"Sustainable" is a good word. Should be used in place of "renewable".

 

[bullus_hit]

I brought up Mann in response to the quote "Planet is the warmest it's been for 115,000 years". It's hardly possible to avoid him.

"Mann belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State."

- Tim Ball (the subject of one of Mann's failed legal assaults)

Google "Michael Mann fraudulent" and plenty of topics pop up, none of them Newscorp.

One of the infamous Climategate emails from Mann's colleague referred to his MWP method: "I’ve just completed Mike’s nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." Google "Mike's nature trick" for further details.

Not sure I've mentioned Flim Flammery.

Search & you will find, that's the one truism with everything you stand for in this debate. Your conservative tribalism has roped you into a world where scientists are the bad guys & organisations like Heartland are the conveyers of truth, and contrary to your rantings (you sound a lot like Trump at one of his dubious rallies), the scientific community generally act in the best interests of society at large. Oil companies on the other hand are primarily motivated by self interest, that should be obvious but again you fail to see the link between politics & lobbyists.

That's what the IPCC in their near-activist role keep saying in their report every six years. The rate of change is very slow, e.g. the system of Argo Floats which is the principal source of data on the oceans reported that the increase in sea temperature 2002-17 was 0.04 degrees. This is consistent with the satellite data for atmospheric temps prepared by Spencer. We are not in imminent danger.

Agree with your last statement. Contrary to what has been asserted on these pages, I couldn't give a rat's whether my electricity comes from fossil fuels or renewables as long as there's a seamless transition.

"Sustainable" is a good word. Should be used in place of "renewable".

There's a point whereby methane trapped in the ice cores will start a runaway train effect, that is the point of no return. Significant changes can occur abruptly, within a couple of the years. That was the whole point with the hockey stick graph in which the denialists went troppo over. Of course if & when it does happen it will be too late. But instead of being a fundamentalist, try & take a balanced view for once, you seem to enjoy attacking the scientific community but routinely ignore the ethical bastardry of many fossil fuel companies.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Search & you will find, that's the one truism with everything you stand for in this debate. Your conservative tribalism has roped you into a world where scientists are the bad guys & organisations like Heartland are the conveyers of truth, and contrary to your rantings (you sound a lot like Trump at one of his dubious rallies), the scientific community generally act in the best interests of society at large. Oil companies on the other hand are primarily motivated by self interest, that should be obvious but again you fail to see the link between politics & lobbyists.

No, scientists are just part of the movement. Scientists are human just like the rest of us, they have the same motivations and foibles. Refer to the last post on the WA shark thread for an example.

Of course oil companies are looking after their own interests, that's business. And yes, the entire debate has become hopelessly political, with truth the casualty.

There's a point whereby methane trapped in the ice cores will start a runaway train effect, that is the point of no return. Significant changes can occur abruptly, within a couple of the years. That was the whole point with the hockey stick graph in which the denialists went troppo over. Of course if & when it does happen it will be too late. But instead of being a fundamentalist, try & take a balanced view for once, you seem to enjoy attacking the scientific community but routinely ignore the ethical bastardry of many fossil fuel companies.

I thought it was methane trapped in permafrost? A theory only, nobody really knows. That's the line extremists like McPherson are running. Don't get me wrong, he's a very intelligent man. But somebody has to be wrong in this debate, and frequently it's the movement spearheaded by the IPCC and its offshoots. Sure, they're the ones putting their necks on the line by making long range predictions, but they're frequently being lopped off. Predicting the future is fraught.

No, the whole point of the hockey stick controversy was that Mann's view of MWP & LIA was based on a single study of tree rings, and the science was convoluted to fit the theory.

Actually I don't listen to the oil companies at all. Did you know that Petrobras and Texaco have poured enormous money into pro-shark publicity in Brazil after 16 people were eaten at one beach town (Recife)? It's very transparently about image and that has been an unfortunate hallmark of Western civilization since the end of WW2 - style over substance.

So that is what I've attempted to do, look beyond the hype at the facts, and I've concluded that global warming/climate change has been greatly exaggerated. (Not in general by the scientists themselves. But, suddenly important, they are now slaves to the narrative.) I'm absolutely convinced we'd be none the wiser if nobody had ever mentioned it. They are deliberately bringing about a kind of mass "nature psychosis".

 

[bullus_hit]

You really need to speak to some farmers, that might temper your politically charged views. Despite being in the news since Margaret Thatcher made it public policy, climate change hasn't gone away. Why? Because the temperature is still going up. You swore black & blue that it would go down or stabilse but it hasn't and records are routinely broken. Just because you aren't being aversely affected (yet) doesn't mean you should stick your head in the sand. Your sources are generally dubious as well, it's either consipracy websites, Heartland styled propaganda or the Murdoch press. In any case, you will never change your mind, that is clear enough.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

You really need to speak to some farmers, that might temper your politically charged views. Despite being in the news since Margaret Thatcher made it public policy, climate change hasn't gone away. Why? Because the temperature is still going up. You swore black & blue that it would go down or stabilse but it hasn't and records are routinely broken. Just because you aren't being aversely affected (yet) doesn't mean you should stick your head in the sand. Your sources are generally dubious as well, it's either consipracy websites, Heartland styled propaganda or the Murdoch press. In any case, you will never change your mind, that is clear enough.

About drought? It's not new, the IPCC didn't invent it. AFAIK I'm paying a 10 cent levy per bottle of milk to help them out.

I've already published the trend chart compiled by Spencer from global satellite coverage that shows, 2016 blip aside, global temperature has not risen since 2002.

I reserve the right to change my mind as the facts dictate.