The Climate Change Thread
- Thread starter Scotty
- Start date
- Status
sarcophilus
Charlie Fox (21)
Is he professor Morano or Dr Morano, with Oceanography study experience or climatology or even a weather man for CNNNN
Is he an economist
Is he an economist
formerflanker
Ken Catchpole (46)
Is that the same Media Matters which has been variously described as "a left-wing political operation created to censor conservative media through blacklisting and intimidation of advertisers.": helped into creation by George Soros: funded by big Democrat donors: and whose founder David Brock's behaviour is outlined by some as bizarre and paranoid?
Rather than score points against the messengers, why not look at the graphs they provide and argue the validity of them?
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06...face-temperature-record-over-nearly-a-decade/
But if that messenger is known to flat out make stuff up and is mostly funded by at least one oil tycoon how am I supposed to trust what ever that guy publishes on his known anti climate science website?
The messenger's credentials is incredibly important to the message itself. For example if Meryl Dorey posted something about how vaccinations are bad for us on the Australian Vaccination Network's website I'm not going to trust it at all because I know Meryl has no medical training aside from her years of searching the internet. I also know that the AVN only purpose is to publish misinformation about vaccination efficacy.
The messenger's credentials is incredibly important to the message itself. For example if Meryl Dorey posted something about how vaccinations are bad for us on the Australian Vaccination Network's website I'm not going to trust it at all because I know Meryl has no medical training aside from her years of searching the internet. I also know that the AVN only purpose is to publish misinformation about vaccination efficacy.
I think Dr Karl is reading this thread.
His latest post on ABC Science is on the recent pause that keeps getting mentioned.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/artic...arl&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
His latest post on ABC Science is on the recent pause that keeps getting mentioned.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/artic...arl&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
sarcophilus
Charlie Fox (21)
Rather than score points against the messengers, why not look at the graphs they provide and argue the validity of them
the ball then
the graph provided does show cooling and a graph of the last 120 years will show other cooling periods from 1900 for a decade and 1930 for a decade, in the graph those periods have been significantly swamped by subsequent increases
another similarly informed essayist (I think Paul Vautin in a moment of insightfulness once told him "Shut up you shi" over a totally unrelated issue) seams to think every time it rains in his backyard proves global warming is a left wing plot to destroy the capitalist world and the science has no foundation in fact.
you also talk about el nino as occurring during the cooling. El nino is a localised event cantered in the Pacific. and indicated by the Southern Oscillation Index. Other Ocean Based climate drivers are The Indian Ocean Dipole and Southern annular Mode around the Antarctic. These influence Westralia and the southern states respectively.
Isolating these is as informing as checking out whether it has rained in Pierce Akerman's back yard in the last six months to decide if the whole climate world is changing
Hey its a collision sport you need to belt the man every now and then
the ball then
the graph provided does show cooling and a graph of the last 120 years will show other cooling periods from 1900 for a decade and 1930 for a decade, in the graph those periods have been significantly swamped by subsequent increases
another similarly informed essayist (I think Paul Vautin in a moment of insightfulness once told him "Shut up you shi" over a totally unrelated issue) seams to think every time it rains in his backyard proves global warming is a left wing plot to destroy the capitalist world and the science has no foundation in fact.
you also talk about el nino as occurring during the cooling. El nino is a localised event cantered in the Pacific. and indicated by the Southern Oscillation Index. Other Ocean Based climate drivers are The Indian Ocean Dipole and Southern annular Mode around the Antarctic. These influence Westralia and the southern states respectively.
Isolating these is as informing as checking out whether it has rained in Pierce Akerman's back yard in the last six months to decide if the whole climate world is changing
Hey its a collision sport you need to belt the man every now and then
sarcophilus
Charlie Fox (21)
balance things with other isolated examples
tell us what has happened to European seas and oceans over the past 16 years
tell us what has happened to European seas and oceans over the past 16 years
Runner
Nev Cottrell (35)
'People seem to think rising sea levels are a new thing - but it’s a cycle of Earht history that has happened many many times.'
Organised by Dr Richard Bates of the Department of Earth Sciences at St Andrews, the Drowned Landscapes exhibit reveals the human story behind Doggerland, a now submerged area of the North Sea that was once larger than many modern European countries
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2167731/Britains-Atlantis-North-sea--huge-undersea-kingdom-swamped-tsunami-5-500-years-ago.html#ixzz3Enqfy3Vz
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Organised by Dr Richard Bates of the Department of Earth Sciences at St Andrews, the Drowned Landscapes exhibit reveals the human story behind Doggerland, a now submerged area of the North Sea that was once larger than many modern European countries
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2167731/Britains-Atlantis-North-sea--huge-undersea-kingdom-swamped-tsunami-5-500-years-ago.html#ixzz3Enqfy3Vz
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
sarcophilus
Charlie Fox (21)
this is a fascinating piece of European pre-history, it must have been a shit of a day when that Tsunami swept through.
I think the Sydney coastline was around 20k to the east of its current location at that time as well.
there are other geological examples around Sydney that indicate the sea levels have been several meters higher in relatively recent times
Its a very dynamic world we live in
I think the Sydney coastline was around 20k to the east of its current location at that time as well.
there are other geological examples around Sydney that indicate the sea levels have been several meters higher in relatively recent times
Its a very dynamic world we live in
sarcophilus
Charlie Fox (21)
My previous question was pointing to reports that European seas have been warming faster than the world average over the past 20 years. Trying to demonstrate a point by isolating information can be deceptive.
sarcophilus
Charlie Fox (21)
Doggerland was washed over when a bit of Norway fell into the sea but that is only part of the story
formerflanker
Ken Catchpole (46)
Nice essay by Dr Karl - but why didn't his theory apply back in the day when all the climate models said CO2 emissions would keep warming the world?
The vast amounts of CO2 should have caused significant warming - but there is an unpredicted pause which must tell you the models were wrong and the science is not settled.
Climate has changed and will always change. Human influences are minimal and science is yet to determine the extent.
The slowing of the increase in surface temperatures has been found to have been caused by the oceans capturing most of the temperature increases.
This wasn't previously understood because the necessary volume of measuring devices didn't exist.
Increased study and measurement of these things has led to an improved understanding of what is happening. That is essentially what scientific research is all about. Trying to better understand and explain what is happening through observation.
On the other hand, the denialists will pick one isolated piece of data (such that the US hasn't been warming) and then use that as evidence that climate change is not being caused by humans. There is no scientific method here. It is purely trying to pick one piece of data and use that as evidence to refute scientific research relating to the entire climate system. That is why every single denialist argument is easily refuted by the rest of the scientific community.
This wasn't previously understood because the necessary volume of measuring devices didn't exist.
Increased study and measurement of these things has led to an improved understanding of what is happening. That is essentially what scientific research is all about. Trying to better understand and explain what is happening through observation.
On the other hand, the denialists will pick one isolated piece of data (such that the US hasn't been warming) and then use that as evidence that climate change is not being caused by humans. There is no scientific method here. It is purely trying to pick one piece of data and use that as evidence to refute scientific research relating to the entire climate system. That is why every single denialist argument is easily refuted by the rest of the scientific community.
formerflanker
Ken Catchpole (46)
Pollution, yes: plastic in the oceans, rubbish in drains and on beaches, exhaust fumes from vehicles, industrial waste, and more. All these will have a negative impact on our surroundings.
But heat produced by people? No. Stephen E Cooning says "Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere’s natural greenhouse effect by only 1 per cent to 2 per cent. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences."
Do you remember CFCs and the effect they had which was able to be reversed once we reduced how much we used?
To say humans are too insignificant to impact the climate system is head in the sand stuff.
But now to tie it to CO2 after remaining stable for 650000 years or so levels of CO2 in our atmosphere shot up 30% in the space of 200 years. Do you really think that isn't having an effect?
To say humans are too insignificant to impact the climate system is head in the sand stuff.
But now to tie it to CO2 after remaining stable for 650000 years or so levels of CO2 in our atmosphere shot up 30% in the space of 200 years. Do you really think that isn't having an effect?
formerflanker
Ken Catchpole (46)
I don't think the effect is as bad as we have constant ly been told. A recent peer-reviewed paper (including the commentary "state of the art; sophisticated methodology") shows that the UN over-estimated the climate's sensitivity to CO2. Balloon data sets and satellite data sets (i.e. observations) are running lower than the average of 102 models.
http://www.cfact.org/2014/09/25/new...mate-sensitivity-to-co2/#sthash.rfcQMb7J.dpuf
sarcophilus
Charlie Fox (21)
That's Good news
I had a look at Judith Curry's intro and the work written for the lay reader from what I see it buys us time and does not say go for your life and to quote that intellectual giant Sarah Palin 'Dig baby Dig'
It was interesting to see who could and could not do the peer reviews in what circumstances
I look forward to the models being repeated and expanded on
at the moment I am inclined to back the rubber tree until a few more ants turn up
I had a look at Judith Curry's intro and the work written for the lay reader from what I see it buys us time and does not say go for your life and to quote that intellectual giant Sarah Palin 'Dig baby Dig'
It was interesting to see who could and could not do the peer reviews in what circumstances
I look forward to the models being repeated and expanded on
at the moment I am inclined to back the rubber tree until a few more ants turn up
- Status