Vote: for reinstating Climate Change back Onto the G-20 agenda !!!

[Gator 17,477]

The Acquittal shows that carbon dioxide did not accumulate in the atmosphere during the paleo era of the Vostok ice cores. If it had, the fit of the complement of the solubility curve might have been improved by the addition of a constant. It was not. And because the CO2 presumably still follows the complement of the solubility curve, it should be increasing during the modern era of global warming in recovery from Earth's various ice epochs. These conclusions find support in a number of points in the IPCC reports.

So the answer to the post begins with supporting background on why CO2 is known not to accumulate in the atmosphere, and then goes on to other aspects of the model that global warming causes increases in CO2, which accounts for the last 100 years or so.

Rocket Scientist’s Journal

… UNDER CONSTRUCTION …

1. Estimates vary, but climatologists in the Consensus say that the atmosphere contains 730 Gtons (PgC) of carbon and the uptake to the oceans alone is at least 90 Gtons/year. It's a ninth grade algebra problem to calculate how long it takes to empty a bucket with 730 units at the rate of 90 units per year. If you throw in uptake by photosynthesis at 120 Gtons/year and perhaps leaf water at the IPCC figure of 270 Gtons/year, thus including everything in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report, 480 Gtons a year is pouring out of the bucket.

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html#more

[Gator 17,477]

4 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Nice article from that left-wing rag, Scientific American. Worth looking at if only for the cartoon.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-climate-skeptics-are-wrong/

It's a rubbish article referencing Cook's "97%".

Article from The Australian:

"Richard Tol, a former leader author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says the famous paper claiming that 97 per cent of scientists back global warming tells us only that the climate community is red hot:" 

Now almost two years old, John Cook’s 97 per cent consensus paper on anthropogenic global warming has been a runaway success. Downloaded more than 300,000 times, voted the best 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters, frequently cited by peers and politicians from around the world, the paper seems to be the definitive proof that the science of climate change is settled. It isn’t… 

Cook and colleagues argue 97 per cent of the relevant academic literature endorses that humans have contributed to observed climate change. This is unremarkable.... In popular discourse, however, Cook’s finding is often misrepresented. The 97 per cent refers to the number of papers, rather than the number of scientists. The alleged consensus is about any human role in climate change, rather than a dominant role, and it is about ­climate change rather than the dangers it might pose. 

Although there are large areas of substantive agreement, climate science is far from settled. Witness the dozens of alternative explanations of the 18-year pause in warming of the surface atmosphere. The debate on the seriousness of climate change or what to do about it ranges even more widely. 

The Cook paper is remarkable for its quality, though. Cook and colleagues studied 12,000 papers, but did not check whether their sample is representative for the scientific literature. It isn’t. Their conclusions are about the papers they happened to look at, rather than about the literature. Attempts to replicate their sample failed: a number of papers that should have been analysed were not, for no apparent reason. 

The sample was padded with irrelevant papers. An article about TV coverage on global warming was taken as evidence for global warming. In fact, about three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say about the subject matter… 

Cook’s hand-picked raters disagreed on what a paper was about 33 per cent of the time. In 63 per cent of cases, they disagreed about the message of a paper with the authors of that paper… Cook’s employer argued that releasing rater identities would violate a confidentiality agreement. That agreement does not exist… Time stamps reveal that ... one of Cook’s raters inspected 675 abstracts within 72 hours, a superhuman ­effort… 

Cook’s team may, perhaps unwittingly, have worked towards a given conclusion… The entire study should therefore be dismissed. 

This would have been an amusing how-not-to tale for our students. But Cook’s is one of the most influential papers of recent years. The paper was vigorously defended by the University of Queensland (Cook’s employer) and the editors of Environmental Research Letters, with the Institute of Physics (the publisher) looking on in silence. Incompetence was compounded by cover-up and complacency… 

If you want to believe climate researchers are incompetent, biased and secretive, Cook’s paper is an excellent case in point.

You need to do much better, Bing.

[bing181 9,328]

2 hours ago, ProDee said:

You need to do much better, Bing.

Nah.

Tol's speculative piece has been roundly discredited, and as usual, shown to be shot through with flaws, assumptions and failures in methodology.

This all just becomes a dick-measuring contest. The trouble is that the scientific consensus on climate change has a much bigger dick.

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

7 hours ago, ProDee said:

It's a rubbish article referencing Cook's "97%".

Article from The Australian:

"Richard Tol, a former leader author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says the famous paper claiming that 97 per cent of scientists back global warming tells us only that the climate community is red hot:" ...

 

Hey Ben

We need to hire a cherry-picker to get at several of the limbs and branches broken from about a dozen trees during last Thursday afternoon's storm here (unprecedented in its destructiveness in our valley, a harbinger perhaps of some change in the climate).

I'm wondering whether you might be available.

[Gator 17,477]

6 hours ago, bing181 said:

Nah.

Tol's speculative piece has been roundly discredited, and as usual, shown to be shot through with flaws, assumptions and failures in methodology.

This all just becomes a dick-measuring contest. The trouble is that the scientific consensus on climate change has a much bigger dick.

Fair enough, I accept your statement.

Please link the proof.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

15 hours ago, hardtack said:

Well, it seems the science IS settled according to those who matter... I suppose that for you, the science would only be settled if the whole climate meeting in Paris had been abandoned.  But of course, you obviously are far more educated and better read in matters of climate change than those who advise world leaders.

Hardtack - Tell me what year the science was settled and I will give you a list of dud predictions since. Science is settled hahaha...

[hardtack 10,627]

3 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Hardtack - Tell me what year the science was settled and I will give you a list of dud predictions since. Science is settled hahaha...

I didn't say "the science is settled"... I said that "the science IS settled according to those who matter" (ie, the attendees at the Paris meeting) - a completely different thing.

[bing181 9,328]

13 hours ago, ProDee said:

Fair enough, I accept your statement.

Please link the proof.

You're setting me up here ProDee ...

I don't know that any of us visit this section of the board for anything much more than curiosity or, as you put it, to get a rise. i.e. it's not really the place for any kind of debate, nor are any of us here likely to change our views because of it. Suffice to say that there's lots of info out there on all these subjects, and you don't need me to help find it.

I really appreciate the contributions to Demonland from students of the game such as your good self, so I'm happy to agree to disagree on a non-footy matter. Life is short.

[Gator 17,477]

41 minutes ago, bing181 said:

You're setting me up here ProDee ...

I don't know that any of us visit this section of the board for anything much more than curiosity or, as you put it, to get a rise. i.e. it's not really the place for any kind of debate, nor are any of us here likely to change our views because of it. Suffice to say that there's lots of info out there on all these subjects, and you don't need me to help find it.

I really appreciate the contributions to Demonland from students of the game such as your good self, so I'm happy to agree to disagree on a non-footy matter. Life is short.

I'm happy to leave it alone.

[Gator 17,477]

Journalists celebrating the deal at cop21.  

Look at the excitement in these eco drones.  Don't ever expect balance when it comes to GW or most left-wing agendas.

 

[hardtack 10,627]

58 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Journalists celebrating the deal at cop21.  

Look at the excitement in these eco drones.  Don't ever expect balance when it comes to GW or most left-wing agendas.

 

And his apparent disappointment and his "language" are no less hidden and certainly anything but balanced... pot, kettle, black.

Edited December 18, 2015 by hardtack

[Gator 17,477]

5 minutes ago, hardtack said:

And his apparent disappointment and his "language" are no less hidden and certainly anything but balanced... pot, kettle, black.

Forget about the messenger and concentrate on the message.

[hardtack 10,627]

25 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Forget about the messenger and concentrate on the message.

And the message is that climate change is of enough concern globally that all countries have signed off on measures to combat it - I believed dispassionate journalists also cheered when man landed on the moon... how dare they become emotionally invested in such affairs. 

Edited December 18, 2015 by hardtack

[Gator 17,477]

14 hours ago, hardtack said:

And the message is that climate change is of enough concern globally that all countries have signed off on measures to combat it - I believed dispassionate journalists also cheered when man landed on the moon... how dare they become emotionally invested in such affairs. 

There's no hope for you.  You can't see that journalists en masse contribute to the alarmism that you swallow hook, line and sinker.

Even a weather drone like yourself should want the news reported in a fair and balanced way without seeing a crowd of journos acting like they're at a Hillsong performance.  But that's the point isn't it.  It's a new religion to many.

[daisycutter 29,743]

history buffs might find this article amusing. i'm sure prodee will - lol

http://notrickszone.com/2012/04/10/news-magazine-focus-writes-on-the-german-green-movements-very-brown-roots/#sthash.XYJrGdso.dpbs

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

20 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

history buffs might find this article amusing. i'm sure prodee will - lol

http://notrickszone.com/2012/04/10/news-magazine-focus-writes-on-the-german-green-movements-very-brown-roots/#sthash.XYJrGdso.dpbs

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

[daisycutter 29,743]

30 minutes ago, Dr John Dee said:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

wot? lost your sense of humour. doc?

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

wot? lost your sense of humour. doc?

Not me, Daisy. But there are those who'll actually believe that stuff and the conclusion it wants to point to (as you probably know) so just call it a sense of moderatorial responsibility ... not that they'll bother with any link with the word rational in it anyway I suppose.

Expecting anything like reason or logic from them is the most immediate source of humour on this thread.

[Earl Hood 6,101]

4 hours ago, ProDee said:

There's no hope for you.  You can't see that journalists en masse contribute to the alarmism that you swallow hook, line and sinker.

Even a weather drone like yourself should want the news reported in a fair and balanced way without seeing a crowd of journos acting like they're at a Hillsong performance.  But that's the point isn't it.  It's a new religion to many.

Hottest autumn on record in the southern 48 states in the USA I note today. Just for inclusion in the debate. Carry on with your defence. 

Edited December 19, 2015 by Earl Hood

[bing181 9,328]

Lots of records falling here in Europe as well. In France, December temp is running 2.8 degrees above the long-term average, and we're getting days where it's 5-10 degrees above average. This, following on from similar temps in November, have us heading for the hottest year on record (or close to).

School holidays start this weekend, where people traditionally head for the slopes. But the situation on all but the higher runs is pretty grim, especially for the smaller stations.

FYI.

[daisycutter 29,743]

7 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Lots of records falling here in Europe as well. In France, December temp is running 2.8 degrees above the long-term average, and we're getting days where it's 5-10 degrees above average. This, following on from similar temps in November, have us heading for the hottest year on record (or close to).

School holidays start this weekend, where people traditionally head for the slopes. But the situation on all but the higher runs is pretty grim, especially for the smaller stations.

FYI.

maybe it is a portent for the arrival of a new messiah?

god must be pretty annoyed with the pharisees of jerusalem, the cardinals of rome and the mullahs of mecca

[bing181 9,328]

12 hours ago, ProDee said:

Even a weather drone like yourself should want the news reported in a fair and balanced way ...

If only:

"A number of studies have shown that particularly in the United States and in the UK tabloid press, the media significantly understated the strength of scientific consensus on climate change ..."

It's precisely BECAUSE we don't have fair and balanced reporting on AGW, especially in countries like Australia, that views like yours have any traction at all.

[hardtack 10,627]

13 hours ago, ProDee said:

There's no hope for you.  You can't see that journalists en masse contribute to the alarmism that you swallow hook, line and sinker.

Even a weather drone like yourself should want the news reported in a fair and balanced way without seeing a crowd of journos acting like they're at a Hillsong performance.  But that's the point isn't it.  It's a new religion to many.

None so blind eh?  But of course all of those world leaders and their advisors were obviously sucked in by those same journos, while you haven't swallowed the line of the other side (Bolt) at all.  If only they had listened to you, what could have been...

Anyway, coming from you, I will carry the "no hope" line as a badge of honour. Merci beaucoup!

[dee-luded 2,959]

15 hours ago, daisycutter said:

history buffs might find this article amusing. i'm sure prodee will - lol

http://notrickszone.com/2012/04/10/news-magazine-focus-writes-on-the-german-green-movements-very-brown-roots/#sthash.XYJrGdso.dpbs

greens - browns....   blues & reds under dee beds.

is it any wonder our club has struggled for 5 decades... there is too much blue about, & no where near enough reds to balance it out.  the club has grown outa-kilter.

 

[Gator 17,477]

18 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

Hottest autumn on record in the southern 48 states in the USA I note today. Just for inclusion in the debate. Carry on with your defence. 

You and the other weather drones need to understand the debate, Hood.  It's not whether we're experiencing GW, it's whether we're experiencing AGW.

The planet is at historically cool(ish) levels having just emerged from the Little Ice Age.  And as I've pointed out with numerous articles sourced by Goddard, there have been extreme weather patterns, such as ice melts, hurricanes, Pacific Island sea level threats, heatwaves, etc. prior to the industrial revolution (1950).  The planet has warmed by .8 degrees since 1880, so there is warming, although obviously not to "dangerous" levels and it hasn't warmed to any significant degree in the past 19 years.

There a couple of key points to consider: a) how accurate are climate models ?  b) does CO2 accumulate in the atmosphere ?  The IPCC will contend their models are accurate, but there's significant proof, as shared on this thread, that they're not.  And Dr Glassman's article The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide posits that CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere and indeed lags temperature.  Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is an effect of rising temperature not a cause of rising temperature.

Edited December 19, 2015 by ProDee
tautology (pre-industrial changed to industrial)