Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Foghorn said..

Paradox checkout the Irish Climate Science Forum there's a good PDF on there with plenty of backed up data .And they're not co2 deniers .

Thank you. Excellent report. www.icsf.ie/

No spin no rejection of facts or denial of anything. Pure science and rational interpretation.

I like the comparison of IPCC modelling against actual. It tells the story just by looking at it.

www.cato.org/publications/commentary/are-climate-models-overpredicting-global-warming

So I googled AGAIN!!!!

And it's a another denier group who opening speaker was Richard Lindzen.

FFS!!!!!

then I googled the author of the Cato institute article.....Patrick J Michaels.....Wow what a surprise!!!!!! The Cato Institute is funded by the Koch brothers and Michaels is a 30 year veteran of the denier circuit.

climateinvestigations.org/patrick-michaels-climate-denial/

Are you expecting anyone to take you seriously or do you just do this to make yourself feel better.

The WMO has just released the 2018 readings for the controversial gases. (Can we assume that Co2 and methane just mix uniformly in the atmosphere and are easy to keep track of? Unlike temperature, wind and humidity which are shuffled about by the weather and are more difficult to average).

Despite everything the rate of increase is increasing.

www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-accord-wmo/greenhouse-gases-surge-to-record-in-2018-exceeding-10-year-average-rate-u-n-idUSKBN1XZ115

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..Thank you. Excellent report. www.icsf.ie/
No spin no rejection of facts or denial of anything. Pure science and rational interpretation.
I like the comparison of IPCC modelling against actual. It tells the story just by looking at it.
www.cato.org/publications/commentary/are-climate-models-overpredicting-global-warming

Wow the ICSF, just another pop-up front for the denial of the amount of GHG forcing in climate change.

Denial is so transparent. Wrapping it in pretty websites and semi-legitimate sounding manifestos is just embarrassing.

"No spin no rejection of facts or denial of anything. Pure science and rational interpretation."

Does "no spin" include inviting outspoken deniers to speak or veteran deniers to fund?

Does "pure science and rational interpretation" include outright misinterpretation, falsifications and cherry picking? If so, then Michaels is indeed your pin up boy Paradox

pdfs.semanticscholar.org/715f/ca842ad62e187da72f2c3c9b774a0f0baea4.pdf?_ga=2.63821036.211605744.1538151170-426839699.1538151170

Select to expand quote

log man said..

Kamikuza said..

log man said..
why is it that every time a conservative links to some article or other you have to check the author or the publication before you get started on the actual substance

You're doing it wrong. Check the data, don't play identity politics with the author or the publication.

You know the original rocket scientists were actual Nazis, right? They still got the ****ing science right.

you love them nazis don't you

You love the identity politics don't you?
You must love the Nazis too given how much you rely on the scientific advances they made.
Wait that can't be right - everyone knows if your politics are wrong, everything you do is wrong

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

Paradox said..Thank you. Excellent report. www.icsf.ie/
No spin no rejection of facts or denial of anything. Pure science and rational interpretation.
I like the comparison of IPCC modelling against actual. It tells the story just by looking at it.
www.cato.org/publications/commentary/are-climate-models-overpredicting-global-warming

Wow the ICSF, just another pop-up front for the denial of the amount of GHG forcing in climate change.

Denial is so transparent. Wrapping it in pretty websites and semi-legitimate sounding manifestos is just embarrassing.

"No spin no rejection of facts or denial of anything. Pure science and rational interpretation."

Does "no spin" include inviting outspoken deniers to speak or veteran deniers to fund?

Does "pure science and rational interpretation" include outright misinterpretation, falsifications and cherry picking? If so, then Michaels is indeed your pin up boy Paradox

pdfs.semanticscholar.org/715f/ca842ad62e187da72f2c3c9b774a0f0baea4.pdf?_ga=2.63821036.211605744.1538151170-426839699.1538151170

You're pretty much making his point for him there, regarding the labeling...

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

log man said..

Kamikuza said..

log man said..
why is it that every time a conservative links to some article or other you have to check the author or the publication before you get started on the actual substance

You're doing it wrong. Check the data, don't play identity politics with the author or the publication.

You know the original rocket scientists were actual Nazis, right? They still got the ****ing science right.

you love them nazis don't you

You love the identity politics don't you?
You must love the Nazis too given how much you rely on the scientific advances they made.
Wait that can't be right - everyone knows if your politics are wrong, everything you do is wrong

ok Boomer

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

Wow the ICSF, just another pop-up front for the denial of the amount of GHG forcing in climate change.

Denial is so transparent. Wrapping it in pretty websites and semi-legitimate sounding manifestos is just embarrassing.

"No spin no rejection of facts or denial of anything. Pure science and rational interpretation."

Does "no spin" include inviting outspoken deniers to speak or veteran deniers to fund?

Does "pure science and rational interpretation" include outright misinterpretation, falsifications and cherry picking? If so, then Michaels is indeed your pin up boy Paradox

pdfs.semanticscholar.org/715f/ca842ad62e187da72f2c3c9b774a0f0baea4.pdf?_ga=2.63821036.211605744.1538151170-426839699.1538151170

You know, name calling, labelling and emotional rhetoric is hardly a way of convincing someone your views are valid. It's just background noise with no substance. Try a rational discussion on available facts, without the focus on tearing down individuals and you might find people take you more seriously.

The link you posted is good. I like it. It contains facts and a challenges some of the data and interpretation. It was a reasonably rational response to someone else scientific presentation. There is bias and a bit of defensiveness there, and they were using their own interpretation of data to put forward a slightly different view. But generally it's good science, debate and alternative views are what drives science and truth.

What I can't find is any reference to "outright misinterpretation, falsifications and cherry picking" Is that your own interpretation?? Did you just make that up to make your point seem more valid? He calls him out on the selection of data, but I am pretty sure if someone reviewed his counter data they could find similar biases. That's the process. Falsification is a pretty big call to make though....

Shutting down alternative views and the debate on facts is when science dies and political rhetoric gains ascension.

Thing is, despite your insinuation otherwise, the rebuttal in your link doesn't actually change the key points from the ICSF paper, namely:

1) Evidence that the IPCC Models are "Overheated"
2) Climate Observations do not indicate a Planetary Crisis

If by calling me a "denier" you mean I can not currently see any valid evidence to believe the above is not true, then sure I'll take that. You certainly haven't provided anything to support a contrary view.

I've stated plenty of times that I certainly believe climate change is happening and that I agree reducing burning of fossil fuels is a good thing. It's the extreme view that I can find no rational evidence for.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

holy guacamole said..

Wow the ICSF, just another pop-up front for the denial of the amount of GHG forcing in climate change.

Denial is so transparent. Wrapping it in pretty websites and semi-legitimate sounding manifestos is just embarrassing.

"No spin no rejection of facts or denial of anything. Pure science and rational interpretation."

Does "no spin" include inviting outspoken deniers to speak or veteran deniers to fund?

Does "pure science and rational interpretation" include outright misinterpretation, falsifications and cherry picking? If so, then Michaels is indeed your pin up boy Paradox

pdfs.semanticscholar.org/715f/ca842ad62e187da72f2c3c9b774a0f0baea4.pdf?_ga=2.63821036.211605744.1538151170-426839699.1538151170

You know, name calling, labelling and emotional rhetoric is hardly a way of convincing someone your views are valid. It's just background noise with no substance. Try a rational discussion on available facts, without the focus on tearing down individuals and you might find people take you more seriously.

The link you posted is good. I like it. It contains facts and a challenges some of the data and interpretation. It was a reasonably rational response to someone else scientific presentation. There is bias and a bit of defensiveness there, and they were using their own interpretation of data to put forward a slightly different view. But generally it's good science, debate and alternative views are what drives science and truth.

What I can't find is any reference to "outright misinterpretation, falsifications and cherry picking" Is that your own interpretation?? Did you just make that up to make your point seem more valid? He calls him out on the selection of data, but I am pretty sure if someone reviewed his counter data they could find similar biases. That's the process. Falsification is a pretty big call to make though....

Shutting down alternative views and the debate on facts is when science dies and political rhetoric gains ascension.

Thing is, despite your insinuation otherwise, the rebuttal in your link doesn't actually change the key points from the ICSF paper, namely:

1) Evidence that the IPCC Models are "Overheated"
2) Climate Observations do not indicate a Planetary Crisis

If by calling me a "denier" you mean I can not currently see any valid evidence to believe the above is not true, then sure I'll take that. You certainly haven't provided anything to support a contrary view.

I've stated plenty of times that I certainly believe climate change is happening and that I agree reducing burning of fossil fuels is a good thing. It's the extreme view that I can find no rational evidence for.

This is all a big ego trip for you isn't it.

News flash:
Science doesn't care whether attention seeking deniers are convinced or not.

I as could see Global Warming , Climate Changing Scam .Motive is the same for the last 10,000 years at least. Back then if you want a rain or warmer weather you need to ask you kaplan and obviously pay for the service.If there was drought or flood or something else that those kaplans , governors could claim that you didn't paid enough and that your fault. This days every even on news weather related is blamed on catastrophic climate change.Then it serve well as excuse for doing nothing or not enough.If somebody open gate and flood Brisbane when heavy rain falling - the global warming is at fault- not somebody mistakenly applying wrong model to manage water level at damm.In almost all so called natural disasters we could point to some mistakes in management: wrong size levy or none at all, lack of preparation to fire season etc., but now they got excellent excuse - climate is at fault.

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..
This days every even on news weather related is blamed on catastrophic climate change.Then it serve well as excuse for doing nothing or not enough.If somebody open gate and flood Brisbane when heavy raing falling - the global warming is at fault- not somebody mistakenly applyng wrong model to manage water level at damm.In almost all so called natural distasters we could point to some mistakes in management: wrong size levy or none at all, lack of preparation to fire season etcbut not they got excellent excuse - climate is at fault.

I agree. I think people will blame global warming for lots of things that can be explained by bad preparation or management.

Select to expand quote

log man said..
This is all a big ego trip for you isn't it.

News flash:
Science doesn't care whether attention seeking deniers are convinced or not.

The irony of this statement is so thick I just can't even...

Paradox, you claim not be be in denial about the anthropogenic drivers of climate change. Is this true?

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
Paradox, you claim not be be in denial about the anthropogenic drivers of climate change. Is this true?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that as it is a very loose question. "Denial" keeps getting bandied about like its a disease, but no one ever defines what it is they mean. As far as I can tell it is used as a brand to label someone who doesn't agree 100% with your view and you don't want to consider maybe it's you that's wrong. That wasn't aimed at you, just the "climate denial" brand that is freely stamped on people atm by the happily ignorant or happily blind faithful.

My current view is that I believe we are contributing to global warming in a number of areas. Land use patterns and increase in CO2 mainly.

What the actual level of that contribution is, I don't know and frankly as far as I can tell, neither does anyone else because there is no way to actually measure it. All we have is theory of what might be happening and there are huge variations in those theories, with no way of definitively confirming anything. We have increasing CO2, which we are responsible for, and we have an increasing temperature profile that fits within natural variation. They are the only real facts we have, everything else is guesswork.

From everything I've read and understand, I am leaning to a view that up to maybe half of the recent observed global increase in temperature is anthropological, the rest is normal variation. I will highlight that the arguments that the entire rate of warming we are seeing is natural is not without merit, although I don't currently view that as likely, I definitely think we are contributing.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

holy guacamole said..
Paradox, you claim not be be in denial about the anthropogenic drivers of climate change. Is this true?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that as it is a very loose question. "Denial" keeps getting bandied about like its a disease, but no one ever defines what it is they mean. As far as I can tell it is used as a brand to label someone who doesn't agree 100% with your view and you don't want to consider maybe it's you that's wrong. That wasn't aimed at you, just the "climate denial" brand that is freely stamped on people atm by the happily ignorant or happily blind faithful.

My current view is that I believe we are contributing to global warming in a number of areas. Land use patterns and increase in CO2 mainly.

What the actual level of that contribution is, I don't know and frankly as far as I can tell, neither does anyone else because there is no way to actually measure it. All we have is theory of what might be happening and there are huge variations in those theories, with no way of definitively confirming anything. We have increasing CO2, which we are responsible for, and we have an increasing temperature profile that fits within natural variation. They are the only real facts we have, everything else is guesswork.

From everything I've read and understand, I am leaning to a view that up to maybe half of the recent observed global increase in temperature is anthropological, the rest is normal variation. I will highlight that the arguments that the entire rate of warming we are seeing is natural is not without merit, although I don't currently view that as likely, I definitely think we are contributing.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

holy guacamole said..
Paradox, you claim not be be in denial about the anthropogenic drivers of climate change. Is this true?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that as it is a very loose question. "Denial" keeps getting bandied about like its a disease, but no one ever defines what it is they mean. As far as I can tell it is used as a brand to label someone who doesn't agree 100% with your view and you don't want to consider maybe it's you that's wrong. That wasn't aimed at you, just the "climate denial" brand that is freely stamped on people atm by the happily ignorant or happily blind faithful.

My current view is that I believe we are contributing to global warming in a number of areas. Land use patterns and increase in CO2 mainly.

What the actual level of that contribution is, I don't know and frankly as far as I can tell, neither does anyone else because there is no way to actually measure it. All we have is theory of what might be happening and there are huge variations in those theories, with no way of definitively confirming anything. We have increasing CO2, which we are responsible for, and we have an increasing temperature profile that fits within natural variation. They are the only real facts we have, everything else is guesswork.

From everything I've read and understand, I am leaning to a view that up to maybe half of the recent observed global increase in temperature is anthropological, the rest is normal variation. I will highlight that the arguments that the entire rate of warming we are seeing is natural is not without merit, although I don't currently view that as likely, I definitely think we are contributing.

"My findings","My current view, " My opinion". Your ego is unbelievable..........Mate.....No-one cares what your opinion is. It's not a case of "your view" . You're just a bloke on a forum. The important thing is what people with real intelligence, real qualifications, working in the field of expertise think.

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

Paradox said..

holy guacamole said..
Paradox, you claim not be be in denial about the anthropogenic drivers of climate change. Is this true?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that as it is a very loose question. "Denial" keeps getting bandied about like its a disease, but no one ever defines what it is they mean. As far as I can tell it is used as a brand to label someone who doesn't agree 100% with your view and you don't want to consider maybe it's you that's wrong. That wasn't aimed at you, just the "climate denial" brand that is freely stamped on people atm by the happily ignorant or happily blind faithful.

My current view is that I believe we are contributing to global warming in a number of areas. Land use patterns and increase in CO2 mainly.

What the actual level of that contribution is, I don't know and frankly as far as I can tell, neither does anyone else because there is no way to actually measure it. All we have is theory of what might be happening and there are huge variations in those theories, with no way of definitively confirming anything. We have increasing CO2, which we are responsible for, and we have an increasing temperature profile that fits within natural variation. They are the only real facts we have, everything else is guesswork.

From everything I've read and understand, I am leaning to a view that up to maybe half of the recent observed global increase in temperature is anthropological, the rest is normal variation. I will highlight that the arguments that the entire rate of warming we are seeing is natural is not without merit, although I don't currently view that as likely, I definitely think we are contributing.

yeah!!!!

Select to expand quote

log man said..

"My findings","My current view, " My opinion". Your ego is unbelievable..........Mate.....No-one cares what your opinion is. It's not a case of "your view" . You're just a bloke on a forum. The important thing is what people with real intelligence, real qualifications, working in the field of expertise think.

wtf, you need to calm down.

I was asked a question on my viewpoint/position on the drivers of AGW and answered it as best I could. I also made it very clear it was MY view, not anyone else's.

If you have a problem with this thread or my part of the discussion perhaps you should move on mate. You contribute nothing.

Select to expand quote

log man said..

Paradox said..

holy guacamole said..
Paradox, you claim not be be in denial about the anthropogenic drivers of climate change. Is this true?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that as it is a very loose question. "Denial" keeps getting bandied about like its a disease, but no one ever defines what it is they mean. As far as I can tell it is used as a brand to label someone who doesn't agree 100% with your view and you don't want to consider maybe it's you that's wrong. That wasn't aimed at you, just the "climate denial" brand that is freely stamped on people atm by the happily ignorant or happily blind faithful.

My current view is that I believe we are contributing to global warming in a number of areas. Land use patterns and increase in CO2 mainly.

What the actual level of that contribution is, I don't know and frankly as far as I can tell, neither does anyone else because there is no way to actually measure it. All we have is theory of what might be happening and there are huge variations in those theories, with no way of definitively confirming anything. We have increasing CO2, which we are responsible for, and we have an increasing temperature profile that fits within natural variation. They are the only real facts we have, everything else is guesswork.

From everything I've read and understand, I am leaning to a view that up to maybe half of the recent observed global increase in temperature is anthropological, the rest is normal variation. I will highlight that the arguments that the entire rate of warming we are seeing is natural is not without merit, although I don't currently view that as likely, I definitely think we are contributing.

"My findings","My current view, " My opinion". Your ego is unbelievable..........Mate.....No-one cares what your opinion is. It's not a case of "your view" . You're just a bloke on a forum. The important thing is what people with real intelligence, real qualifications, working in the field of expertise think.

The irony here is so thick I'm surprised this post hasn't collapsed under its own gravitational field.

You want expert opinions? Go have another look - or more likely a first look - at the "settled science" in your beloved "consensus" papers: there is literally a range of expert opinions about the degree of how likely AGW is.

Paradox's opinion is more cautious than many, but not all, experts in the field. There is no single unified opinion.
Do you even look at the sources or just skim Guardian articles and YouTube videos?!

Select to expand quote

Ian K said...

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..We have increasing CO2, which we are responsible for, and we have an increasing temperature profile that fits within natural variation. They are the only real facts we have, everything else is guesswork.

Gee the irony of that statement!

What you are in fact doing is guessing that it's about half natural variation when all the observable phenomena points largely towards the only measure that's changing with any significance - radiative forcing due to GHG's.

Moreover, the increasing temperature profile does not match the known natural variations in such a short timeframe, nor is there any evidentiary observation that can attribute that quantum of forcing to about 50% natural factors.

The only significant measurable difference we can observe, is rising greenhouse gases.

I would hope that you accept the hypothesis that radiative forcing is a primary driver of climate and global mean temperature? Yes?

Or, perhaps you also disagree that radiative forcing is the major factor at play currently and you have some other hypothesis you are willing to back up with verifiable measurable evidence?

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

Paradox said..We have increasing CO2, which we are responsible for, and we have an increasing temperature profile that fits within natural variation. They are the only real facts we have, everything else is guesswork.

Gee the irony of that statement!

What you are in fact doing is guessing that it's about half natural variation when all the observable phenomena points largely towards the only measure that's changing with any significance - radiative forcing due to GHG's.

Moreover, the increasing temperature profile does not match the known natural variations in such a short timeframe, nor is there any evidentiary observation that can attribute that quantum of forcing to about 50% natural factors.

The only significant measurable difference we can observe, is rising greenhouse gases.

I would hope that you accept the hypothesis that radiative forcing is a primary driver of climate and global mean temperature? Yes?

Or, perhaps you also disagree that radiative forcing is the major factor at play currently and you have some other hypothesis you are willing to back up with verifiable measurable evidence?

"Oh no! my view is this and my opinion is that and my findings don't agree with the facts but that's ok because my opinion is ssssoooo important because it's my opinion and my opinion is just as valid as as any climate scientist........because it's my opinion!!!"

Just pre -empting.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

Gee the irony pf that statement.

What you are in fact doing is guessing that it's about half natural variation when all the observable phenomena points largely towards the only measure that's changing - radiative forcing due to GHG's.

Moreover, the increasing temperature profile does not match the known natural variations in such a short timeframe, nor is there any evidentiary observation that can attribute that quantum of forcing to about 50% natural factors.

The only significant measurable difference we can observe, is rising greenhouse gases.

I would hope that you accept the hypothesis that radiative forcing is a primary driver of climate and global mean temperature? Yes?

Or, perhaps you also deny that radiative forcing is the major factor at play currently and you have some other hypothesis you are willing to back up with verifiable measurable evidence?

Good question, thanks for raising it.

Your main point is that radiative forcing via CO2 is the only observable change and therefore has to be the primary driver for increases in Global temperature.

The thing is, there is significant natural variation in the climate, without our meddling. ( this expert explains it well www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/ )

Even if CO2 stayed at base levels the temperature would still be changing. I know you know this and a simple search for historical global temps will show the story. Your first statement suggests that if CO2 stayed at baseline so would the temperature, but that's not true, it is never static. Climate is hugely complex with many things influencing it and all are constantly changing. Global temps started trending upward about 400 years ago after a decline following the medieval global warming spike about 1000 years ago. I think all charts I have seen show this, so based on this I would suggest that some of the upward trend is highly likely natural and has nothing to do with AGW. The question of course, is how much but I don't think anyone can reasonable claim that ALL warming in the last 50 years is AGW.

I don't want to go into a graph or chart war, but lets agree that some charts show the medieval warming as less strong than current trends and some show it is pretty close to what we are seeing now. ( www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf check the charts on page 775). And if you go back even further there are big changes that make whats happening now insignificant. So based on that I will say that your second point that what we are seeing is unprecedented is also unreasonable. There is good evidence to suggest something similar happened 1000 years ago, and definitely has happened before that. That said, i doubt anyone can dispute that recent warming is definitely a strong increase even on the natural scale of things, but I don't think it could be called unprecedented.

I would argue that if one takes the position say that 50% of the current warming trend is AGW driven, then the remainder is natural climate variance. An adjusted chart showing this would not look at all unusual given the warming trend that was already in place.

So, I still maintain my position that even though the current temperature increases are at the higher end of what we might expect naturally, I do not believe that they are outside of what can and has happened naturally in past. That said, I also do not believe much in coincidences hence my view that AGW is likely driving it up as well. But I can see no compelling reason for it to be more than about 50% contribution given the warming that was already in place.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/27/climate-emergency-world-may-have-crossed-tipping-points

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

holy guacamole said..

Gee the irony pf that statement.

What you are in fact doing is guessing that it's about half natural variation when all the observable phenomena points largely towards the only measure that's changing - radiative forcing due to GHG's.

Moreover, the increasing temperature profile does not match the known natural variations in such a short timeframe, nor is there any evidentiary observation that can attribute that quantum of forcing to about 50% natural factors.

The only significant measurable difference we can observe, is rising greenhouse gases.

I would hope that you accept the hypothesis that radiative forcing is a primary driver of climate and global mean temperature? Yes?

Or, perhaps you also deny that radiative forcing is the major factor at play currently and you have some other hypothesis you are willing to back up with verifiable measurable evidence?

Good question, thanks for raising it.

Your main point is that radiative forcing via CO2 is the only observable change and therefore has to be the primary driver for increases in Global temperature.

The thing is, there is significant natural variation in the climate, without our meddling. ( this expert explains it well www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/ )

Even if CO2 stayed at base levels the temperature would still be changing. I know you know this and a simple search for historical global temps will show the story. Your first statement suggests that if CO2 stayed at baseline so would the temperature, but that's not true, it is never static. Climate is hugely complex with many things influencing it and all are constantly changing. Global temps started trending upward about 400 years ago after a decline following the medieval global warming spike about 1000 years ago. I think all charts I have seen show this, so based on this I would suggest that some of the upward trend is highly likely natural and has nothing to do with AGW. The question of course, is how much but I don't think anyone can reasonable claim that ALL warming in the last 50 years is AGW.

I don't want to go into a graph or chart war, but lets agree that some charts show the medieval warming as less strong than current trends and some show it is pretty close to what we are seeing now. ( www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf check the charts on page 775). And if you go back even further there are big changes that make whats happening now insignificant. So based on that I will say that your second point that what we are seeing is unprecedented is also unreasonable. There is good evidence to suggest something similar happened 1000 years ago, and definitely has happened before that. That said, i doubt anyone can dispute that recent warming is definitely a strong increase even on the natural scale of things, but I don't think it could be called unprecedented.

I would argue that if one takes the position say that 50% of the current warming trend is AGW driven, then the remainder is natural climate variance. An adjusted chart showing this would not look at all unusual given the warming trend that was already in place.

So, I still maintain my position that even though the current temperature increases are at the higher end of what we might expect naturally, I do not believe that they are outside of what can and has happened naturally in past. That said, I also do not believe much in coincidences hence my view that AGW is likely driving it up as well. But I can see no compelling reason for it to be more than about 50% contribution given the warming that was already in place.

Thanks for clarifying your beliefs and position based on conjecture.

Got any evidence?

Is solar irradiance or volcanic activity increasing?

Surely you don't believe that in 2019, we lack the ability to measure something that substantiates your beliefs about natural variability?

BTW the 700 year trend pre industrial revolution was cooling, not warming. The pre-"Medieval Warm Period" trend was also cooling. Therefore your last two paragraphs are baseless.

Try reading the graphs you cited and rephrase the paragraphs with the facts factored.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..
holy guacamole said..

Thanks for clarifying your beliefs and position based on conjecture.

Got any evidence?

Is solar irradiance or volcanic activity increasing?

Surely you don't believe that in 2019, we lack the ability to measure something that substantiates your beliefs about natural variability?

BTW the 700 year trend pre industrial revolution was cooling, not warming. The pre-"Medieval Warm Period" trend was also cooling. Therefore your last two paragraphs are baseless.

Try reading the graphs you cited and rephrase the paragraphs with the facts factored.

So just to confirm, your view is that there is no underlying variability in global temperature? You state that natural variability in global temperatures is my belief rather than an accepted scientific fact?

I'm sorry but I don't need to substantiate that beyond the link and the graphs I have already provided. I think that one will fall on you to provide evidence that the climate and especially global average temperature would have been static without AGW forcings.

I'll also post a quote from Roy Spencer, former NASA scientist, you know, the link I gave before....

Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by us adding extra CO2 to the atmosphere is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause about 1 deg C of surface warming. This is NOT a controversial statement.it is well understood by climate scientists. As of early 2019, we were about 50% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

This in itself suggests that recent warming is exceeding what could be achieved by the CO2 alone and supports a contribution of no more than 50% from at least CO2. It's possible other activities are contributing though.

And here is the graph you wanted me to reread on the medieval warming. Might be just me, but i'm getting a strong short term medieval warming. Long term trend was down until 400 years ago though.
%2C374

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

Paradox said..





But I can see no compelling reason for it to be more than about 50% contribution given the warming that was already in place.

Therefore your last two paragraphs are baseless.

0.1 degree per decade between 1900 and 1940 when Co2 levels were relatively low . A flat spot for 40 years and now .15 degrees per decade. Maybe just playing catch up after the flat spot?

Select to expand quote

Paradox said...So just to confirm, your view is that there is no underlying variability in global temperature?

No. Never claimed that.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..You state that natural variability in global temperatures is my belief rather than an accepted scientific fact?

No, I never claimed that.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..I'm sorry but I don't need to substantiate that beyond the link and the graphs I have already provided. I think that one will fall on you to provide evidence that the climate and especially global average temperature would have been static without AGW forcings.

No need because I didn't claim any such thing. You are confusing the lack of scientific evidence for natural forcing in the current climate with "there's no such thing as natural forcing". Again, if you have some evidence, feel free to supply it. Surely someone's tried to measure something that supports your hypothesis. I'm all ears - truly.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..I'll also post a quote from Roy Spencer, former NASA scientist, you know, the link I gave before....

Oh I guess this is your "evidence".

You do realise that Spencer is just one guy who publishes AGW denial material and is an evangelical God botherer? He's a signatory to such bizarre groups: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornwall_Alliance
who have ties to groups such as en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_a_Constructive_Tomorrow
who have ties to: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooler_Heads_Coalition
and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute
and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil

Gee, look how transparent it gets.

Part of the Cornwall Alliance's manifesto:
"We believe Earth and its ecosystems - created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence - are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth's climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry......"

It's very close to stating an unshakable belief in an omnipotent God without supplying any tangible evidence. In this context, anything expressed with reference to a Sky Fairy would be plausible - including denial of human effects on climate.

In summary yes, natural variability is real, yes it would be contributing to current trends somehow, but to claim it is responsible for at least 50% of current variability, without any evidence is highly unscientific. The link you draw with natural variability is simply conjecture Paradox.

Ergo, bring God in with Spencer et al.

Please, tell me you've got more than Spencer and his God.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

holy guacamole said..
Paradox, you claim not be be in denial about the anthropogenic drivers of climate change. Is this true?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that as it is a very loose question. "Denial" keeps getting bandied about like its a disease, but no one ever defines what it is they mean. As far as I can tell it is used as a brand to label someone who doesn't agree 100% with your view and you don't want to consider maybe it's you that's wrong. That wasn't aimed at you, just the "climate denial" brand that is freely stamped on people atm by the happily ignorant or happily blind faithful.

My current view is that I believe we are contributing to global warming in a number of areas. Land use patterns and increase in CO2 mainly.

What the actual level of that contribution is, I don't know and frankly as far as I can tell, neither does anyone else because there is no way to actually measure it. All we have is theory of what might be happening and there are huge variations in those theories, with no way of definitively confirming anything. We have increasing CO2, which we are responsible for, and we have an increasing temperature profile that fits within natural variation. They are the only real facts we have, everything else is guesswork.

From everything I've read and understand, I am leaning to a view that up to maybe half of the recent observed global increase in temperature is anthropological, the rest is normal variation. I will highlight that the arguments that the entire rate of warming we are seeing is natural is not without merit, although I don't currently view that as likely, I definitely think we are contributing.

The word Denial in the context of climate change is referring to a mindset and position that you argue about, to avoid trying to change the way society operates to bring back a balance in the environmental status. A bit like the term OK Boomer, same, its a mindset.

OMFG The Cornwall Alliance
to quote
"The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation is a conservative Christian public policy group that promotes the view that a free-market approach to care for the environment is sufficient, and is critical of much of the current environmental movement. "

Alarm bells ringing

How is that free market approach working for the amazon rainforest?
Or how is the free market working in the Palm Oil industry and deforestation?
Palm Oil is very profitable but not good for forests.

Lets not even get into Creation vs Evolution

hey! but what about his freedom of speech!!!!