Select to expand quote

To say otherwise is a lie.

The real acceleration is expected in the near future, as the positive feedback loops kick in, ie melting ice reduces heat reflection and increase heat absorption by the oceans. Melting permafrost reduces green house gases, so the hotter it gets the hotter it gets.
Yes there are negative feedback loops that try to keep the temperature stable, but it looks like a loosing battle for them.

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..

To say otherwise is a lie.

The real acceleration is expected in the near future, as the positive feedback loops kick in, ie melting ice reduces heat reflection and increase heat absorption by the oceans. Melting permafrost reduces green house gases, so the hotter it gets the hotter it gets.
Yes there are negative feedback loops that try to keep the temperature stable, but it looks like a loosing battle for them.

Positive feedback is VERY rare in nature. Alarmists claim that although they accept that CO2 GW is LOGARITHMIC, the warming water will produce positive feedback and so a crisis. This is totally ABSURD! If it was true, there would be no oceans already! Ha, ha!
Listen, in the tropics, water vapour is 47 times the amount of CO2. At the Poles about even 1:1. But H2O is twice as good a greenhouse gas as CO2, so water vapour about 200 times MORE important than CO2 in the tropics. AND a little thing called The Latent Heat of Vaporisation (450 cals/gm) stops things getting out of hand, PLUS the water vapour turns to CLOUD, so cooling down the World. This type of phenom is called LeChatelier's principle........."When a system at equilibrium is disturbed from that state, it will tend to RESTORE an equilibrium."
Virtually everything governed by negative feedback. Try Googling "Positive feedback"..........the ONE case they can come up with is administering pitocin to women in labour.
The decrease in cloud cover (6.8% in 23 years from 1986. ) accounts for far more warming than CO2. Due to our cleaning the air of aerosols - see YouTube "No particles no fog." Aerosols needed for cloud nucleation.
I urge you to read John D. Maclean's PhD (James Cook University) "An audit of HADCRUT4 and a study of decrease in cloud cover from satellite observation." It is brilliant - he even tested the sampling of sea water using different buckets, leather, wood, metal, plastic. Stirred and not stirred. ALL DIFFERENT!....... British warships in the 19th century, just a few miles apart recording temps 3C different!!!! GIGO.
AND temp stations now painted with modern paint cf 1800s when WHITEWASH used - this ALONE makes for a 0.7F change.
Alarmists are illogical; bullying; poorly educated; low intelligence. (I am a BSc; speak 5 languages; given Permanent Commission; built aerobatic biplane; met 3 diff groups of terrorists, on one occasion from behind my 9mm! Spent time in N.Ireland meeting the Provos, PIRA to buy hashish.)
Alarmist AVOID John D. Maclean's work, as it devastates their mediocre little theory. CAVU skies to all aviators!

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..

To say otherwise is a lie.

The real acceleration is expected in the near future, as the positive feedback loops kick in, ie melting ice reduces heat reflection and increase heat absorption by the oceans. Melting permafrost reduces green house gases, so the hotter it gets the hotter it gets.
Yes there are negative feedback loops that try to keep the temperature stable, but it looks like a loosing battle for them.

The near future never seems to come. I first read about these positive feedback loops in the 90s. According to the author by around five years ago the atmosphere would have turned green due to all of the methane released into it. Alarm of climate change goes back at least 130 years or more.

We are having a debate and there is a hysteria based on climate models, not what is actually happening. I listened to a climate modeller who advised we can place great faith in the models as they are based on excellent data. He said the strength of these models is evidenced by the accuracy of weather forecasts. Most people here know forecasts beyond maybe three days are basically worthless. He was also asked about those who questioned the modelling, especially of the effects of Co2. He said the evidence was around us and gave the example of the pollution problems in China, specifically around Beijing. The good people of Beijing are not suffering from excess Co2 in the air, they suffer from particulate pollution. These are two completely different substances.

Meanwhile we get all the alarmists, carpet baggers, opportunists and liars out there. For example the constant bleating from politicians demanding money to save them from rising sea levels despite the fact there is absolutely no evidence showing the rate of sea level rises are increasing. If you can't deal with the ocean going up a few centimetres in 100 years you have bigger issues to deal with than climate change. No one, beside a few unfortunate people suffocating from Co2 emitted from the earth, have suffered due to Co2 in the atmosphere. To say or indicate otherwise is a lie.

Well, it seems that the scientists are finally calling out the hype and making it clear there is no climate emergency.
clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ecd-letter-to-un.pdf
clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ecd-press-briefing.pdf

See summary
www.theepochtimes.com/there-is-no-climate-emergency-scientists-call-for-reasoned-debate-2_3100870.html

www.sealevels.org

Any thoughts about this group of sites?

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..It's a plot of changed radiative forcings wrt preindustrial counterparts. Water vapour is not considered a "forcing" because its concentration responds rapidly to temperature. Its net action is in a strong negative feedback loop. It moderates the effect of the forcers but apparently doesn't cancel them out completely,.

TonyAbbott said..

groucho said..

seabreezer said..Think us 'catastrophe sceptics ' are actually occupying the middle ground in this debate , we accept there's a gradual warming occurring NATURALLY , with a small % maybe AGW

Nup. That statement appears to be contrary to the reality and without any evidence. Maybe read the BOM report?!

Most radiative forcing appears to be due to greenhouse gases and for that we're responsible.

Then agin, the NATURALISTS may have an unscientific view like it's all due to Trump's continual farting. I can't wait to see the evidence supplied.

No water vapor on that graph
Wonder why they would leave the largest and most important greenhouse gas off their graph

Nah Ian stop being so scientific - it's a socialist conspiracy!

Select to expand quote

bjw said..
www.sealevels.org

Any thoughts about this group of sites?

Based on science rather than hysterical denialism so gets the tick.

Select to expand quote

groucho said..

bjw said..
www.sealevels.org

Any thoughts about this group of sites?

Based on science rather than hysterical denialism so gets the tick.

Well actually, I didn't see any real evidence of science; just a graph.

Here's some real science. http://geoinfo.amu.edu.pl/qg/current/quageo-2019-0007.pdf

Which basically says in the Pacific there's no noticeable rise and no submergence of atolls.

The sun is shrinking..
this changes everything

Select to expand quote

groucho said..

bjw said..
www.sealevels.org

Any thoughts about this group of sites?

Based on science rather than hysterical denialism so gets the tick.

Hysterical denialism?
Mate, if one were to weigh up the emotion on either side of the debate you'd have the weigh bridge operators working 25 hours a day when tallying up for the climate change zealots.

Answer me this, why is it that it is so easy to find examples of cherry picked data which on closer examination exposes what can only be described as sophistry.

Actually don't bother. I know the answer which is that in this day and age dollars but the results you want to see.

Select to expand quote

Tamble said..Well actually, I didn't see any real evidence of science; just a graph.

groucho said..

bjw said..
www.sealevels.org

Any thoughts about this group of sites?

Based on science rather than hysterical denialism so gets the tick.

Oh sure those satellites and measurement devices are set up by the socialist lizard people to lie..... Shhh, don't let the cat out of the bag...

The lizard people practically live on top of Mauna Loa now.

Select to expand quote

groucho said..

Tamble said..Well actually, I didn't see any real evidence of science; just a graph.

groucho said..

bjw said..
www.sealevels.org

Any thoughts about this group of sites?

Based on science rather than hysterical denialism so gets the tick.

Oh sure those satellites and measurement devices are set up by the socialist lizard people to lie..... Shhh, don't let the cat out of the bag...

The lizard people practically live on top of Mauna Loa now.

Well actually, the sea rise is more accurately measured by tidal gauges in geographically stable areas. And that's what the conclusions are based on. The Japanese equivalent of BOM have admitted there is no evidence of sea rise in the Pacific Basin; even some small fall. And no acceleration either.

Mind you, satellites are useful. That's how we know atoll land masses are increasing.

That's why I said "measurement devices" as well so keep up the good work eh.

You can't argue with the CO2 record since 1958 nor can you provide any reason for the record other than human produced CO2 which is probably why you're focussing on sea levels.

Select to expand quote

groucho said..
That's why I said "measurement devices" as well so keep up the good work eh.

You can't argue with the CO2 record since 1958 nor can you provide any reason for the record other than human produced CO2 which is probably why you're focussing on sea levels.

You're missing the point somewhat (actually altogether).
The real question is what is the actual effect of CO2; is it big or is it small.

The alarmists want to tell us it's big. The science is starting to show its small

^^ Oh sure. Now it's about alarmism versus reality and what false assumptions you've made about that.

I thought the point was that we can't keep doing what we're doing for ever - with ever increasing emissions and degradation of the environment. Why is that alarming to you? Seems pretty logical as a concept on a finite planet.

But you seem to think it's about alarmism now and the effect it has on our children and grandchildren's lives matters nought.

Say for instance it's 2100 and we follow business as usual. Do you really think the planet's NOT going to be farked?

Select to expand quote

Tamble said..

groucho said..
That's why I said "measurement devices" as well so keep up the good work eh.

You can't argue with the CO2 record since 1958 nor can you provide any reason for the record other than human produced CO2 which is probably why you're focussing on sea levels.

You're missing the point somewhat (actually altogether).
The real question is what is the actual effect of CO2; is it big or is it small.

The alarmists want to tell us it's big. The science is starting to show its much less than the alarmists would want you to believe.

My Grandma died of CO2 poisoning. Killed a litter of cats and the budgie.

Miss the budgie. Used to have quite a vocabulary.

Select to expand quote

japie said..
My Grandma died of CO2 poisoning. Killed a litter of cats and the budgie.

Miss the budgie. Used to have quite a vocabulary.

Are you sure you're not mixing C02 with CO?
CO is poisonous CO2 isn't. you can breath as much CO2 as you like, as long as there's enough oxygen in it.

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..

japie said..
My Grandma died of CO2 poisoning. Killed a litter of cats and the budgie.

Miss the budgie. Used to have quite a vocabulary.

Are you sure you're not mixing C02 with CO?
CO is poisonous CO2 isn't. you can breath as much CO2 as you like, as long as there's enough oxygen in it.

No definitely CO2. She was an addict.

Select to expand quote

Tamble said..

groucho said..

bjw said..
www.sealevels.org

Any thoughts about this group of sites?

Based on science rather than hysterical denialism so gets the tick.

Well actually, I didn't see any real evidence of science; just a graph.

Here's some real science. http://geoinfo.amu.edu.pl/qg/current/quageo-2019-0007.pdf

Which basically says in the Pacific there's no noticeable rise and no submergence of atolls.

When ever you see a vertical line on any graph in relation to climate science, you know the producers of that graph are eco religious zealots

The physical length of the line on my ipad screen is longer than the sea level has actually risen in two lifetimes.

Why be so deceptive? One could just as east change the x y axis to show a horizontal line.

Here is a different graph



You are hyperventilating 20,000 years too late

Lefties are all the same

Would it not be great if all those who are really concerned how the climate change really affects people to go out and do something about it? Right now, though it's not due to climate change but due to drought and people lighting fires, many people are suffering from bushfires in northern NSW.

So instead of gluing yourself to a road or blocking a tram line, why not go out there and help put out a bush fire? Actually do something to help others plus help the environment too. Nah it's easier and more fun to run around like a fool preaching 'the end is nigh' plus all your friends recognise your virtue.

What is not really talked about is how bush fires are incredibly pollutive. A big bushfire will put out a lot more pollution than the average coal fired power station.

Select to expand quote

Mobydisc said..
Would it not be great if all those who are really concerned how the climate change really affects people to go out and do something about it? Right now, though it's not due to climate change but due to drought and people lighting fires, many people are suffering from bushfires in northern NSW.

So instead of gluing yourself to a road or blocking a tram line, why not go out there and help put out a bush fire? Actually do something to help others plus help the environment too. Nah it's easier and more fun to run around like a fool preaching 'the end is nigh' plus all your friends recognise your virtue.

What is not really talked about is how bush fires are incredibly pollutive. A big bushfire will put out a lot more pollution than the average coal fired power station.

Yes, people should look at the simple things in front of their faces and completely ignore any problems, even if they can see them happening down the road. That's the way!

Great summary of three common forms of climate change denial.

www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-10/three-types-of-climate-change-denier-most-of-us-at-least-one/11587924

Select to expand quote

groucho said..
Great summary of three common forms of climate change denial.

www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-10/three-types-of-climate-change-denier-most-of-us-at-least-one/11587924

No room for labels on this little black duck. Covered with heretic labels already.

Select to expand quote

groucho said..
Great summary of three common forms of climate change denial.

www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-10/three-types-of-climate-change-denier-most-of-us-at-least-one/11587924

"The group, supported by 75 Australian business and industry figures, along with others around the world, obviously rejects the scientific consensus on climate change"

I got to this and stopped reading..... there is no scientific consensus on climate change or AGW. That is the fundamental issue. Anyone who believes that is basing any argument or belief on an untruth.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..
"The group, supported by 75 Australian business and industry figures, along with others around the world, obviously rejects the scientific consensus on climate change"
I got to this and stopped reading..... there is no scientific consensus on climate change or AGW. That is the fundamental issue. Anyone who believes that is basing any argument or belief on an untruth.

Just wrong - there's not only consensus - there's consensus on consensus



The link below to the full 2016 Research Letter - happy reading.

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming

iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/pdf


I've copied part of the Conclusions below for those who won't bother to read it (but no doubt will still hold on to their opinions).



Conclusion
We have shown that the scientific consensus on AGW is robust, with a range of 90%-100% depending on the exact question, timing and sampling methodology. This is supported by multiple independent studies despite variations in the study timing, definition of consensus, or differences in methodology including surveys of scientists, analyses of literature or of citation networks.

Select to expand quote

groucho said..
Great summary of three common forms of climate change denial.

www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-10/three-types-of-climate-change-denier-most-of-us-at-least-one/11587924

Not three forms of climate denial, rather its three forms of denial from previously published unrelated research that has been applied to the climate debate. Its really nothing more than name calling. The piece was written by journalist's from "the conversation" to discredit a group of scientist's who wrote a recent letter to the UN stating there is no climate emergency.

Rather than address the letter sent to the UN by refuting the evidence cited in the letter they preferred to dress up name calling with an opinion piece that has no real substance. Quite surprised because I though "the conversation" was committed to a rigourous scientific principles and against just publishing unsupported opinions, and to be sure "three forms of climate change denial" is nothing more than that.

.

Select to expand quote

azymuth said..

Just wrong - there's not only consensus - there's consensus on consensus

Conclusion
We have shown that the scientific consensus on AGW is robust

Nope, not wrong at all. You and many others are being misled on this consensus crap. Although it depends on what you are saying there is consensus on and how much your views have been twisted beyond what the truth is.

Cooks methods were so far from scientifically unbiased its not funny. He doctored and changed his paper to suit a position and analysis of his data shows he made deliberate misleading statements. I can provide an analysis on that if you want but it's not overly relevant.

Irrespective of that. I would 100% agree that there is related scientific consensus and your paper does confirm that. However what is it your paper is actually saying?

Specifically the consensus that your paper is confirming is:
1) that there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and that increase is Anthropological.
2) that there is a current trend of increasing temperature in the last 100 years (although it has levelled off in the last decade)
3) that the increase in CO2 has contributed to the temperature increase.

What there is absolutely no consensus on is:

1) that the increased CO2 is the PRIMARY cause of the recent global warming.
2) that global warming is causing any significant amount of climate change
3) that any climate change that may be happening is overly concerning in a larger context
4) that there is a climate emergency

Taking the paper you linked as a fantastic example of misleading hype. It's opening statement is:

"Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans are causing recent global warming"

Most people will read that as humans are the PRIMARY cause. It is misleading as it is not what the data they present says. What it actually says is that scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans have CONTRIBUTED to recent global warming. ie 1% or more.

That is a very different consensus to what most people read that statement to be and frankly any paper who deliberately uses such a misleading statement has to questioned as to it's impartiality.

People are being manipulated and these sort of papers are helping in that manipulation. There is no scientific consensus on climate change or that CO2 emissions are the primary cause. There is definitely no consensus that we have some sort of climate emergency.

The science is definitely NOT in, despite what you are being led to believe.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

azymuth said..

Just wrong - there's not only consensus - there's consensus on consensus

Conclusion
We have shown that the scientific consensus on AGW is robust

Nope, not wrong at all. You and many others are being misled on this consensus crap. Although it depends on what you are saying there is consensus on and how much your views have been twisted beyond what the truth is.

Cooks methods were so far from scientifically unbiased its not funny. He doctored and changed his paper to suit a position and analysis of his data shows he made deliberate misleading statements. I can provide an analysis on that if you want but it's not overly relevant.

Irrespective of that. I would 100% agree that there is related scientific consensus and your paper does confirm that. However what is it your paper is actually saying?

Specifically the consensus that your paper is confirming is:
1) that there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and that increase is Anthropological.
2) that there is a current trend of increasing temperature in the last 100 years (although it has levelled off in the last decade)
3) that the increase in CO2 has contributed to the temperature increase.

What there is absolutely no consensus on is:

1) that the increased CO2 is the PRIMARY cause of the recent global warming.
2) that global warming is causing any significant amount of climate change
3) that any climate change that may be happening is overly concerning in a larger context
4) that there is a climate emergency

Taking the paper you linked as a fantastic example of misleading hype. It's opening statement is:

"Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans are causing recent global warming"

Most people will read that as humans are the PRIMARY cause. It is misleading as it is not what the data they present says. What it actually says is that scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans have CONTRIBUTED to recent global warming. ie 1% or more.

That is a very different consensus to what most people read that statement to be and frankly any paper who deliberately uses such a misleading statement has to questioned as to it's impartiality.

People are being manipulated and these sort of papers are helping in that manipulation. There is no scientific consensus on climate change or that CO2 emissions are the primary cause. There is definitely no consensus that we have some sort of climate emergency.

The science is definitely NOT in, despite what you are being led to believe.

Thanks, glad I'm not the only one pointing that out.