What Carbon

[drron]

The IPCC reports start with scientific sub committees which assess the science and come up with a consensus.
Those reports are then discussed with UN and various government representatives who have to approve the final report.
Later the politicians will release their summary.
This is openly discussed by websites that firmly believe in man made AGW-

The second part of the new IPCC Report has been approved – as usual after lengthy debates – by government delegations in Yokohama (Japan) and is now public - See more at: RealClimate: Impacts of Climate Change

As I have linked to in the past there are scientists who are concerned at how the reports change as this process proceeds.So now the draft reports from the scientists are usually leaked and can be found on the web.With AR5 the predicted rise in temperature is lowest in the scientific draft,gets higher in the full report and even higher in the politicians summary just released.

So my point is how can this all be called proven science?
If you read my link to the questions being asked by the APS you will see that scientists with much more status than ever I could have including Nobel Laureates have come to this same conclusion.So being called a liar who tries to belittle and divert from any truthful debate as has happened in this thread is just plain wrong as well as insulting.The author of those words is now regarded by me with contempt,something I rarely say.

 

[Moody]

... So my point is how can this all be called proven science?

It is not proven science, and I would like you to quote where I have said it is.

...If you read my link to the questions being asked by the APS you will see that scientists with much more status than ever I could have including Nobel Laureates have come to this same conclusion.So being called a liar who tries to belittle and divert from any truthful debate as has happened in this thread is just plain wrong as well as insulting.The author of those words is now regarded by me with contempt,something I rarely say.

I would argue that to deliberately misrepresent someone's answers (on more than one occasion) is tantamount to lying. Or do you disagree? If so I can quote the whole sorry exchange over the past few days in one long continuous post, but I fear it will serve no purpose as you are set in your ways.

Actually I should give you one last chance - let's see if you can respond to what I have said instead of what you want me to say. Go on - you can do it!

 

[drron]

It is not proven science, and I would like you to quote where I have said it is.



I would argue that to deliberately misrepresent someone's answers (on more than one occasion) is tantamount to lying. Or do you disagree? If so I can quote the whole sorry exchange over the past few days in one long continuous post, but I fear it will serve no purpose as you are set in your ways.

Actually I should give you one last chance - let's see if you can respond to what I have said instead of what you want me to say. Go on - you can do it!

Pot,kettle,black.
Unfortunately anything I say to you is automatically wrong to you.Your mind is the one that is closed.
If I ask you a question you answer one you would like to have been asked but quite often with another question.
I have provided numerous examples that question the accepted consensus which you then dismiss as lies.not good enough.
Here is one last example for you-
World will warm faster than predicted in next five years, study warns | Environment | The Guardian

So here we have a study published in a peer reviewed journal from a respected institute with a long history of supporting the notion that the major influence on AGW is man made co2 release.The predictions were way out.Dont you think that this should lead to a questioning of the model?
It is the questioning that I keep banging on about.And that is not me being a criminal liar(thanks Medhead I think I got it right this time).

 

[Moody]

Pot,kettle,black.

Strike 1 [Irrelevant rubbish that should be redacted by the thought police according to their rules]

Unfortunately anything I say to you is automatically wrong to you.Your mind is the one that is closed.

Strike 2 [I have agreed with you on this thread - on this very page (in my browser) - so you are libelling/lying yet again]

If I ask you a question you answer one you would like to have been asked but quite often with another question.

Strike 3 [I invariably quote the original statement/question in my reply - please give examples where I have done otherwise]

I have provided numerous examples that question the accepted consensus which you then dismiss as lies.not good enough.

Strike 4 [If you hadn't caught on I am claiming that YOU (and other deniallists) are the liars. Having a dissenting opinion does not make you a liar, and of course there will be models that lie on either end of the bell-curve. Where have I said otherwise?

Here is one last example for you-
World will warm faster than predicted in next five years, study warns | Environment | The Guardian

So here we have a study published in a peer reviewed journal from a respected institute with a long history of supporting the notion that the major influence on AGW is man made co2 release.The predictions were way out.Dont you think that this should lead to a questioning of the model?
It is the questioning that I keep banging on about.And that is not me being a criminal liar(thanks Medhead I think I got it right this time).

Yep - this is the perfect example of one scientist whose opinion lay outside the bell-curve. The Australian publishes numerous articles (often with less scientific credence) that always seem to be at the other end of the spectrum.

So what is your point - that not every climate model proposed turns out to be accurate? No merde Morlock. What part of the terms "prediction" and "consensus" do you not understand?

 

[Pushka]

I'm still waiting for a comment on why the climate change gurus don't walk the talk.

And if the science isn't proven then it is no more than a religion. But the experts are stating "facts" that the temperature in various places is going to rise by 2 degrees within some time period if we don't reduce carbon emission. Now you are saying that if this isn't proven to be true then it's no big deal. But this whole carbon issue is being based on such predictions. Do you not see the complete mockery in that?

There is no consensus. There was one group who were labelled as flapping fools because they dared to speak out against the predictions of Flannery and the likes. Thankfully at least those latter people can have air although clearly there remains some who dispute that others have entitlement to a different position. Just as we have seen on this thread as an example.

The first group of "experts" state that predictions are true or facts, and which then fall far short of accuracy when the time rolls on then their followers say that this doesn't matter after all. Really?

 

[medhead]

I'm still waiting for a comment on why the climate change gurus don't walk the talk.

And if the science isn't proven then it is no more than a religion. But the experts are stating "facts" that the temperature in various places is going to rise by 2 degrees within some time period if we don't reduce carbon emission. Now you are saying that if this isn't proven to be true then it's no big deal. But this whole carbon issue is being based on such predictions. Do you not see the complete mockery in that?

There is no consensus. There was one group who were labelled as flapping fools because they dared to speak out against the predictions of Flannery and the likes. Thankfully at least those latter people can have air although clearly there remains some who dispute that others have entitlement to a different position. Just as we have seen on this thread as an example.

The first group of "experts" state that predictions are true or facts, and which then fall far short of accuracy when the time rolls on then their followers say that this doesn't matter after all. Really?

So you also believe gravity is a religion? As alluded to earlier it does not explain everything we observe. Classic Newtonian mechanics? It can't explain quantum level mechanics. And vice versa. I could go on about well developed science that is used everyday but can't be described as proven.

 

[drron]

Moody for one last time-I am a sceptic not a denialist.I have stated my position many times.Yes AGW is happening.
Yes CO2 warms the atmosphere.
How much warming is due to man's CO2 emissions.I and others have no idea.
The point I was making with the last link was that the NASA modelling is one of the major ones accepted by the IPCC.If predictions made by that modelling are totally wrong should not the model be questioned?
The predictions made by the IPCC models back in 1998 have only a 3% chance of being right with the current warming pause.What is it about Bell curves?
And my APS link-at least 2 Nobel Laureates in Physics quit the APS when they made the statement that the evidence for man made warming was proven.Are they then denialists and liars.

Besides Moody it is not all about you.This thread was meant for discussion.There are others who may think about the points I have raised.No one though will ever change your mind.

 

[RAM]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is .... well .... a consensus between governments on the research and measurements and models from various sources. It would surprise me if the vast majority of those sources were not qualified researchers or scientists. Do you have any hard figures for this claim?

To respond in the way you have said you require (and can understand):

Be very surprised, &
YES.

Look in the FULL report not the summary (which is what most appear to have glanced through) and it lists them as contributors.

When I first heard about the 'supposed' make-up I looked into it to find out the facts so I could make a balanced assessment.

The IPCC report number 4 is particularly noteworthy for the make-up of contributors - more bureaucrats and non-qualified NGO staff than people with a science degree of any sort let alone working scientists in related fields. There are a very large number of lawyers in the NGO ranks though.

The claims made and subsequently repudiated (including by the IPCC) were truly memorable. Such as the claim of no more glaciers - turned out to be a made up claim in a student's paper. No peer review (and believed to have received a 'fail' grade on the paper).

Or you can track down the video I have referred to yesterday which has one of the 'lead authors' of the report describing how the snouts-in-trough brigade without ANY SCIENTIFIC QUALIFICATIONS had his work altered from the final draft presented for printing. He demanded his name be removed from the report and the IPCC governance board refused saying he had contributed, agreed his contribution had been altered so it did not reflect what he had contributed but that as he had contributed, and held such high standing in the world scientific community - his name would not be taken out. He subsequently launched legal action and it has been deleted from the current version available online.

 

[RAM]

Sorry to use you as the scapegoat, Pushka, but this is just the sort of lazy/dishonest rhetoric that really annoys me.

So the fact that the conference participants flew from around the world to be there and didn't turn off the air-conditioning means that global warming is a conspiracy? [Particularly priceless seeing as we are on AFF]

By that logic if they had all walked there and suffered with the a/c turned off then global warming must be true?

Is this really what you think or are you covering for your lack of a coherent argument by misdirection?

[Though to your credit you tend to keep it short, whereas drron and RAM try the shotgun approach in the hope that their more ludicrous claims slip through]

Continuing to play the person not the issue.

There are some well-meaning people who do their bit to reduce carbon dioxide emissions trusting in what they are told.

There are many who have turned this into a very lucrative income stream for themselves - in a true demonstration of Orwellian insight.

Then there are those who deny that there was genocide in Turkey in the early 20th century, genocide under Hitler etc and claim any evidence to the contrary is false.

Hypocrites - do as I say not as I do (eg: Al Gore) who demand developing countries do not install coal-fired power stations (Al Gore et al) but instead solar panels (wind not viable) and at the same time do nothing to reduce their own position - are the problem.

I do not deny countries the right to increase electricity demand etc.

I merely point out that driving business out of Australia due to costs not faced by their competitors in other countries, such as China, at the same time as those countries are negating the Australian efforts 100x over - is worthy of King Canute.

On another of your frequent denigrations - it appears you have no post-graduate mathematical or high level mathematics background.

If you did then you would understand how 'models' are created. Sometimes referred to along with the term 'fishing expedition'. They work at a point in time because they have been 'forced' to - that is how a model is created. Back-testing outside the sample data range used to create the model should be used to validate it - most of the ones discussed have used 'all available data' to create them and have no ability to be validated.

So it is no surprise that within a few years they are shown to be wrong. It is how they are designed and perhaps reflect what they were designed for - to obtain continued funding for their proponents.

 

[RAM]

Sorry that my post (almost a carbon-copy of drron's) went over your head. It will help me immensely in future if you could let me know your rough IQ so that I don't embarrass you again.

Apparently in the top 10 ever recorded in Australia.

 

[medhead]

Moody for one last time-I am a sceptic not a denialist.I have stated my position many times.Yes AGW is happening.
Yes CO2 warms the atmosphere.
How much warming is due to man's CO2 emissions.I and others have no idea.
The point I was making with the last link was that the NASA modelling is one of the major ones accepted by the IPCC.If predictions made by that modelling are totally wrong should not the model be questioned?
The predictions made by the IPCC models back in 1998 have only a 3% chance of being right with the current warming pause.What is it about Bell curves?
And my APS link-at least 2 Nobel Laureates in Physics quit the APS when they made the statement that the evidence for man made warming was proven.Are they then denialists and liars.

Besides Moody it is not all about you.This thread was meant for discussion.There are others who may think about the points I have raised.No one though will ever change your mind.

Yet you still have not commented on the link I posted about how we are now observing that temperature is swamping (for want of a better word) natural variations due to things like El Niño. Instead you just bang on about the so called fraud, while things are happening in the short term that don't seem to match natural cycles.

 

[amaroo]

Apparently in the top 10 ever recorded in Australia.

LOL ... that eliminates you as the politician in disguise. The focus can be narrowed down to a [-]few[/-] likely suspect....

 

[SeatBackForward]

Emissions from energy generation jump most in eight years after carbon price axed
Carbon emissions from the country's main electricity grid have risen since the end of the carbon tax by the largest amount in nearly eight years.

Data from the National Electricity Market, which covers about 80 per cent of Australia's population, shows that emissions from the sector rose by about 1 million tonnes, or 0.8 per cent, at an annualised rate last month compared with June.

That is the biggest two-month increase since the end of 2006, and came as a result of an increase in overall demand and a rise in the share of coal-fired power in the market, according to Pitt & Sherry's monthly Cedex emissions index.

"It is highly likely that the trend directions of electricity demand, generation and emissions seen in the last two months will become set in place," the consultancy said, adding that the emissions intensity of the power industry was rising after six years of falls.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt did not comment on the rise in emissions when contacted on Wednesday.

Emissions from energy generation jump most in eight years after carbon price axed

Increased consumption and production from coal.

 

[medhead]

Apparently in the top 10 ever recorded in Australia.

Yeah ok then. Shame your posts haven't supported this claim. My favourite is your apparent view that we should just keep polluting because someone else is polluting. I have no idea of my IQ, but even I can see the advantages of leading rather than following. You might be happy to have a mediocre Australia that is third choir member in the back row on the left. I'm not because that is a betrayal of this country's history.

 

[SeatBackForward]

I merely point out that driving business out of Australia due to costs not faced by their competitors in other countries, such as China, at the same time as those countries are negating the Australian efforts 100x over - is worthy of King Canute.

Has there been any actual evidence about this?

And if so, where is the corresponding rush of industries back into Australia on the back of Carbon Tax abolition.

 

[amaroo]

Increased consumption and production from coal.

Isn't it wonderful that pensioners can now afford to turn their heaters back on!

 

[drron]

Yet you still have not commented on the link I posted about how we are now observing that temperature is swamping (for want of a better word) natural variations due to things like El Niño. Instead you just bang on about the so called fraud, while things are happening in the short term that don't seem to match natural cycles.

The pause in rising over the last 15 years is now accepted even by the IPCC.
You have posted links where groups explain how this is consistent with their modelling but only when another factor is introduced-ie natural factors have swamped AGW not the other way around.
Read the link to the article in the Guardian.NASA scientists predicted that increased solar activity and the El Nino pattern would augment AGW.They didn't.Why?

My comments re fraud are reserved for the likes of Al Gore,Christine Milne etc.

 

[medhead]

Oh the carbon tax forced business out of Australia. What like the mining tax forced miners out of Australia? It doesn't take a high iq to realise that miners must mine where the ore body is located. No matter how hard they wish they simply can't move the Pilbara to Africa.

Isn't it wonderful that pensioners can now afford to turn their heaters back on!

I don't think Abbott's scare campaign that falsely claimed pensioners couldn't afford to turn on heaters is wonderful.

 

[medhead]

The pause in rising over the last 15 years is now accepted even by the IPCC.
You have posted links where groups explain how this is consistent with their modelling but only when another factor is introduced-ie natural factors have swamped AGW not the other way around.
Read the link to the article in the Guardian.NASA scientists predicted that increased solar activity and the El Nino pattern would augment AGW.They didn't.Why?

My comments re fraud are reserved for the likes of Al Gore,Christine Milne etc.

I've posted a link to an article that said the pause was explained by the natural pacific cooling cycle. But also noted that the increase has paused but not decreased, as expected by a cooling cycle. Their conclusion was that man-made sources had prevented the natural cooling from occurring. ie AGW swamping natural process. Natural cooling should reduce temperature not just pause it.

 

[RAM]

Yet you still have not commented on the link I posted about how we are now observing that temperature is swamping (for want of a better word) natural variations due to things like El Niño. Instead you just bang on about the so called fraud, while things are happening in the short term that don't seem to match natural cycles.

Medhead can you please restate what you're after.

El Nino is a natural variation.
Solar or sun spot activity is also a natural variation.

The article linked to by DrRon, from The Guardian, Tuesday 28 July 2009 00.39
[h=1]World will warm faster than predicted in next five years, study warns[/h] "New estimate based on the forthcoming upturn in solar activity and El Niño southern oscillation cycles is expected to silence global warming sceptics"



"The research, to be published in Geophysical Research Letters, was carried out by Judith Lean, of the US Naval Research Laboratory, and David Rind, of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The work is the first to assess the combined impact on global temperature of four factors: human influences such as CO[SUB]2[/SUB] and aerosol emissions; heating from the sun; volcanic activity and the El Niño southern oscillation, the phenomenon by which the Pacific Ocean flips between warmer and cooler states every few years."

And the result - it did not. In fact the last 5 years (the five years referred to in the study) did not meet even one of the outcomes claimed in the paper Not just the ones mentioned in the Guardian, such as the temperatures rising at 150% of the rate mentioned in the 2007 IPCC report for example. BTW - it didn't. The paper also states that from 2014-2019 the temperature will be in another hiatus period (non-warming period in contradiction to the IPCC model).

You can find the full study here:

[h=1]How will Earth's surface temperature change in future decades?[/h] View Full Article (HTML) Enhanced Article (HTML) Get PDF (744K)

[1] Reliable forecasts of climate change in the immediate future are difficult, especially on regional scales, where natural climate variations may amplify or mitigate anthropogenic warming in ways that numerical models capture poorly. By decomposing recent observed surface temperatures into components associated with ENSO, volcanic and solar activity, and anthropogenic influences, we anticipate global and regional changes in the next two decades. From 2009 to 2014, projected rises in anthropogenic influences and solar irradiance will increase global surface temperature 0.15 ± 0.03°C, at a rate 50% greater than predicted by IPCC. But as a result of declining solar activity in the subsequent five years, average temperature in 2019 is only 0.03 ± 0.01°C warmer than in 2014. This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming. We further illustrate how a major volcanic eruption and a super ENSO would modify our global and regional temperature projections.

AGU content now more freely available
American Geophysical Union - AGU galvanizes a community of Earth and space scientists that collaboratively advances and communicates science and its power to ensure a sustainable future.[h=6]The Policy[/h] The value and benefits of research are dependent on the integrity of the research and researcher. Members will place quality and objectivity of scientific and scholarly activities and reporting results ahead of personal gain or allegiance to individuals or organizations.