What Carbon

[juddles]

Don't know if anybody added this link.



99.999% certainty humans are driving global warming: new study

What a load of drivel.

 

[Moody]

When warming is actually - cooling... Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Bureau of Meteorology ‘adding mistakes’ with data modelling

SOME of Australia’s long-term temperature records may contain faults introduced by the Bureau of Meteorology’s computer modelling, according to a widely published expert.

David Stockwell said a full audit of the BoM national data set was needed after the bureau confirmed that statistical tests, rather than direct evidence, were the “primary” justification for making changes.

Dr Stockwell has a PhD in ecosystems dynamics from ANU and has been recognised by the US government as “outstanding” in his academic field.

His published works include a peer-reviewed paper analysing faults in the bureau’s earlier High Quality Data temperature records that were subsequently replaced by the current ACORN-SAT.

Dr Stockwell has called for a full audit of ACORN-SAT homogenisation after analysing records from Deniliquin in the Riverina region of NSW where homogenisation of raw data for minimum temperatures had turned a 0.7C cooling trend into a warming trend of 1C over a *century.

The bureau said it did not want to discuss the Deniliquin findings because it had not produced the graphics, but it did not dispute the findings or that all of the information used had come from the BoM database.

Faced with a string of examples of where the temperature trend had been changed after computer analysis, the bureau has defended its homogenisation process.

So the raw data at Deniliquin was adjusted because .... "The bureau has said adjustments were made to records after comparison with other sites and to take into account changes in *location or instrument."

Once more for the pet shop boys - adjusting inconsistent data based around known phenomena is actually science at work ... as long as you can justify the methodology. Can the Australian justify that ANY article that criticises the science of global warming will be published, whereas ANY article that confirms AGW will not. Sorry - that is an exaggeration. Let's just say that 97% of Murdoch's political broadsheet environment publishings are denialistic, possibly in an attempt to "balance" the commentary. Either that or it is just to keep its readers armed with dross to justify their amoral stance.

 

[Moody]

What a load of drivel.

Why is it a load of drivel - because you didn't read it in The Australian?

 

[Moody]

Our taxes paid for this clown:

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Then you will be happy that Clive Palmer and The Adults are now running the show and Australia has its head back in the sand. One predicted consequence of AGW is that the drought/flood cycles in Australia will be shorter and more severe. Capital city water supply is important, but not as critical as agricultural.

[BTW - the fact that this piece was in the opinion pages of the Australian actually tells you all you need to know]

 

[whatmeworry]

What a load of drivel.

So your saying the CSIRO are just a load of cough?

 

[drron]

So your saying the CSIRO are just a load of cough?

possibly because juddles is 99.99% sure he has seen it before-

.

.

And he checks the latest graphs of temperature anomalies-

.

.

.

.

.

 

[amaroo]

So the raw data at Deniliquin was adjusted because .... "The bureau has said adjustments were made to records after comparison with other sites and to take into account changes in *location or instrument."

Once more for the pet shop boys - adjusting inconsistent data based around known phenomena is actually science at work ... as long as you can justify the methodology. Can the Australian justify that ANY article that criticises the science of global warming will be published, whereas ANY article that confirms AGW will not. Sorry - that is an exaggeration. Let's just say that 97% of Murdoch's political broadsheet environment publishings are denialistic, possibly in an attempt to "balance" the commentary. Either that or it is just to keep its readers armed with dross to justify their amoral stance.

Banging on again about News Corp. Have you run out of diversionary tactics or is News Corp bashing the only lippy you like putting on :?:

 

[Pushka]

Still waiting.

 

[Moody]

Banging on again about News Corp. Have you run out of diversionary tactics or is News Corp bashing the only lippy you like putting on :?:

Q1 - Do YOU believe that The Australian (and News Corp in general) provide balanced coverage of environmental and climate science?

Q2 - Do you have proof that the adjustment to the raw data from Deniliquin was done in an unscientific and biassed manner?

I don't put lipstick on a pig's portal - I leave that to others.

 

[Moody]

Still waiting.

For what? Godot?

 

[JohnK]

What a load of drivel.

I read the first couple of paragraphs and gave up.

 

[Pushka]

For what? Godot?

You asked me a question days ago and I answered it. Clearly not to your liking. And you really need to think about the way you respond to people.

 

[whatmeworry]

I guess one in a hundred thousand is not good enough for some people, or should I say it is good enough for them.

 

[straitman]

A reminder for a few people in this discussion to stick to the topic and stop the name calling.

Is it really that hard people?

 

[amaroo]

Q1 - Do YOU believe that The Australian (and News Corp in general) provide balanced coverage of environmental and climate science?

Q2 - Do you have proof that the adjustment to the raw data from Deniliquin was done in an unscientific and biassed manner?

I don't put lipstick on a pig's portal - I leave that to others.

LOL another inept attempt to distract.

 

[JohnK]

Still waiting.

LOL.

You're waiting for someone who's only argument is "We have all the facts. We must act now."

Yep. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Moody]

I read the first couple of paragraphs and gave up.

So many do - though in this case there may be some justification.

I admit to not reading past the point where I realised they were applying a pure statistical method to climate change. Whilst you can say the odds of a coin-toss coming up heads 10 times in a row is about 1000/1 (i.e. 99.9% improbable), the climate is a tad more complex. So though we can prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and can prove that human activity is generating CO2, and prove that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing rapidly, and prove that since the industrial revolution the average global temparature has been rising ...... you can't absolutely prove that this means AGW must be true. That is why the IPCC says that the probability lies between 95-100%. I think that is in "beyond reasonable doubt" territory, yet some on this forum insist the polluters are "not guilty". I don't understand that.

 

[Moody]

You asked me a question days ago and I answered it. Clearly not to your liking. And you really need to think about the way you respond to people.

"Not to your liking" is one way of putting it, but if you insist ..... I think this was the first one :-

No, I dont believe it is a conspiracy. I believe that participants genuinely believe that climate change is pretty much all man's fault (or that kind of thinking). But, if the participants were truly focussed on solving the issue of carbon emissions, then such trips would be recognised as being part of the problem. Until the participants showed behaviours that are true to their vision, then I hold them in very poor regard. There are alternatives to such trips, but they are choosing not to use them. Which makes me think that they are no more focussed on this issue than those who are critical of their position. Match the behaviors to the views and we might have a starting point for discussion. Or maybe they are only prepared to look for solutions that have no impact on them.

So until they all give away everything they own and go and live in caves wearing only a loincloth and having no carbon footprint ..... you won't believe anything they have to say about climate change? Is that it? I think I answererd that question before but feel free to ask it again (and again).

And they are hardly holding these conferences weekly and never using electroninc means to communicate at other times. Now if you said they were doing this for STATUS RUNS then I agree - they would be hypocritical scum.

And then there was this one (broken into bite-sized chunks :-

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

And I'm still waiting for you to rebut my answer or move on.

And if the science isn't proven then it is no more than a religion.

This is possibly the most ludicrous statement on this thread, but if you believe science is a cult and planes stay in the air because of faith ... then please keep praying!

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?

It is not a "fact" it is a prediction - is that really so hard to understand? Do you not see how that makes a complete mockery of your argument. I didn't think so ...

There is no consensus.

You need to look up and understand the word "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?

Having a different perspective because you have a reasoned counter-argument or different modelling is fine, and there are scientists who do and contribute to the overall information and debate. And then there are the zealots who make dishonest or irrational claims (mostly due to political bias, would you believe) who need to be heard ('coz its a free country) and ridiculed ('coz deniallism without reason is moronic).

 

[juddles]

So your saying the CSIRO are just a load of cough?

Please don´t involve me in the putting-words-in-mouth game. The CSIRO does some excellent work.

The reporting on this tudy is, IMHO, a ¨load of cough¨ as you put it. This is a typical slow twist of an outcome into a statement that is not suported by the study. Let me explain:

The exercise these gentlemen indulged in was a quite talented attempt to statisically tie human activity to global warming. Their methodologies are complex and innovative and I dare say, never to be repeated. What I mean here is that the combination of statistical, mathematical, and input selection techniques they used would be very unlike to be dreamt up by other researchers. This does not mean it is invalid! Just that it is a numbers exercise rather than research.


So anyway, without looking into the validity of their calculations, the cause for me dislike of the article (not the exercise - the ARTICLE) is that it twists the outcome.

The exercise was designed to provide a statistical probability that the observed number of monthly temperatures exceeding a century average would occur, either without the inclusión of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), or with it. Their exercise gave them a statistical figure of a 1 in a 100,000 chance of the observed months occurring without an input from GHGs. This just says that the month sequence observed has that probability - it does not in anyway quantify how much those GHG´s affected temperatures, it only supports that some effect is caused.

But in the course of reporting, the final statement is of a ¨probability exceeding 99.999% that the warming we are seeing is human-induced¨.

¨THE warming¨ ¨is human-induced¨!!!

This statement is not supported by their findings. Full stop.

 

[Moody]

LOL another inept attempt to distract.

If simple questions distract or confuse you then don't be ashamed to ask for help. The drron is in (I believe).