5 hours ago, Jara said:

Earl - one thing in your reply I take issue with - you say climate change is a natural phenomenon - yes, it is, of course: in the last 80,000 years Australia's climate has got hotter and drier as it drifted towards the equator (and as Aboriginal people introduced a regime of burning which favoured pyrophiliac plants, which reinforced the process) - but it doesn't change at the speed it has since industrialisation - the last warming took 80,000 years - the current one has taken a hundred - that's why most of the scientists I met believed it was man-made.

You are right Jara, my slip up mid rant, I didn't need to add any descriptors and a wrong one at that, for climate change, my point was that it is happening now irrespective of what predictions people have made in the past or worries about world wide scientific conspiracies

6 hours ago, daisycutter said:

well, i'm no saying they are exactly the same as now but the roman warming period and the medieval warming period certainly didn't take 80,000 years to develop. it's a bit misleading of you to just throw a figure like that around........just saying

Yep,no worries, sorry - this isn't exactly an academic setting, so I didn't put in references, but I got the figure from a writer called Stephen Pyne - the book was called "Burning Bush" - a fire history of Australia - if such things interest you, you should read it - it's an extraordinary work (he's written a series of books on the role of fire in forming the environments of every continent - to my eye, he's one of the most important scientists/writers alive)

 

I haven't read the book for a few years, but, from memory, he was talking about the general warming of the Australian continent, from its rainforest days to the rise and domination of the eucalypts - process took about 80,000 years.

 

Yes, of course, there have been all sorts of natural fluctuations in climate - ice ages, mini-ice ages etc -  one book I read pointed out that we have had a period of 15,000 years of relative warmth - which, of course, fostered the growth of that little thing - civilisation. Who knows? - maybe there's about to be a planetary wobble and we're heading for another ice age.

 

But that's a bit of a different thing from the current concerns about Global Warming - the worry there is the speed with which it's occurring, and the danger that the rapid warming will cause terrible problems for our environment   - affect agriculture, Great Barrier Reef, coastal communities, etc...   

 

I pray that the scientists are wrong - but I don't like to gamble with my kids' future - like I said back there, I met a few of those scientists for a book I was working on  - they certainly didn't strike me as people who'd lie to save their careers - on the contrary, they were kind of nerdy types who were fanatical about making sure that their figures were accurate -  

 

I take the standard environmentalist argument: if I'm wrong, the worst that can happen is that we reduce pollution. If the deniers are wrong, the worst that can happen is that our environment becomes uninhabitable.  

1 hour ago, Jara said:

Yep,no worries, sorry - this isn't exactly an academic setting, so I didn't put in references, but I got the figure from a writer called Stephen Pyne - the book was called "Burning Bush" - a fire history of Australia - if such things interest you, you should read it - it's an extraordinary work (he's written a series of books on the role of fire in forming the environments of every continent - to my eye, he's one of the most important scientists/writers alive)

 

I haven't read the book for a few years, but, from memory, he was talking about the general warming of the Australian continent, from its rainforest days to the rise and domination of the eucalypts - process took about 80,000 years.

 

Yes, of course, there have been all sorts of natural fluctuations in climate - ice ages, mini-ice ages etc -  one book I read pointed out that we have had a period of 15,000 years of relative warmth - which, of course, fostered the growth of that little thing - civilisation. Who knows? - maybe there's about to be a planetary wobble and we're heading for another ice age.

 

But that's a bit of a different thing from the current concerns about Global Warming - the worry there is the speed with which it's occurring, and the danger that the rapid warming will cause terrible problems for our environment   - affect agriculture, Great Barrier Reef, coastal communities, etc...   

 

I pray that the scientists are wrong - but I don't like to gamble with my kids' future - like I said back there, I met a few of those scientists for a book I was working on  - they certainly didn't strike me as people who'd lie to save their careers - on the contrary, they were kind of nerdy types who were fanatical about making sure that their figures were accurate -  

 

I take the standard environmentalist argument: if I'm wrong, the worst that can happen is that we reduce pollution. If the deniers are wrong, the worst that can happen is that our environment becomes uninhabitable.  

when i was much younger, jara (in the 60s and 70s) the scientists were warning us that we were heading towards a mini ice age. the arguments then seemed quite compelling........just saying

i like to keep my powder dry. i'm neither pro nor anti, just quite agnostic

2 hours ago, Jara said:

I take the standard environmentalist argument: if I'm wrong, the worst that can happen is that we reduce pollution. If the deniers are wrong, the worst that can happen is that our environment becomes uninhabitable.  

In my humble opinion that is a flawed argument on a number of levels. 

Firstly it is a form of Precautionary Principal which is flawed because it can be used to justify anything and therefore justifies nothing.

Secondly you can't be wrong. I've asked you a number of times how global warming theory can be falsified and you have yet to come back with an answer. That says to me it is more clairvoyant prediction than scientific theory.

39 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

when i was much younger, jara (in the 60s and 70s) the scientists were warning us that we were heading towards a mini ice age. the arguments then seemed quite compelling........just saying

i like to keep my powder dry. i'm neither pro nor anti, just quite agnostic

Yes, I know - in the eighties, they were warning us about a nuclear winter. Still a possibility, of course. 

7 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

In my humble opinion that is a flawed argument on a number of levels. 

Firstly it is a form of Precautionary Principal which is flawed because it can be used to justify anything and therefore justifies nothing.

Secondly you can't be wrong. I've asked you a number of times how global warming theory can be falsified and you have yet to come back with an answer. That says to me it is more clairvoyant prediction than scientific theory.

Re your first point: say what?

 

Re your second point - You have? I don't think you stated it that clearly. I must have misunderstood. You're asking me how global warming theory could be falsified? 

Lots of ways, I imagine. Thousands of socialist scientists fudging the figures to .... further their careers, or whatever rubbish somebody else said back there. A Chinese conspiracy, like Trump says.  All of their computers or calculations could be skewif. Lots of ways. Anything can be falsified, of course. Maybe we didn't land on the moon, maybe the Albanians shot Kennedy, maybe God planted the fossils to fool Darwin, maybe I'm a butterfly dreaming I'm a Demons supporter.  

 

Don't quite get why you're asking.

 

   

On 06/06/2017 at 8:05 PM, Jara said:

Re your first point: say what?

 

Re your second point - You have? I don't think you stated it that clearly. I must have misunderstood. You're asking me how global warming theory could be falsified? 

Lots of ways, I imagine. Thousands of socialist scientists fudging the figures to .... further their careers, or whatever rubbish somebody else said back there. A Chinese conspiracy, like Trump says.  All of their computers or calculations could be skewif. Lots of ways. Anything can be falsified, of course. Maybe we didn't land on the moon, maybe the Albanians shot Kennedy, maybe God planted the fossils to fool Darwin, maybe I'm a butterfly dreaming I'm a Demons supporter.  

 

Don't quite get why you're asking.

 

   

Re the first point you are saying you want to stay on the side of caution which a text book example of precautionary principle and it is a flawed principle.

on the second point it is pretty clear the figures are being fudged and have been fudged. If that falsifies climate change consider it falsified. 

What I was saying is I don't think climate change can be falsified. There is ample evidence of scientists colluding and fudging figures yet that doesn't sway opinion of believers. Certainly the climate failing to do as predicted by the models hasn't falsified it. No matter what happens people go on believing.

Nothing new, of course.  This hoax is costing our country billions   For nothing.  Except ridiculous power costs that make poor people cold and businesses either leave or go broke.

 

Even leading alarmist Ben Santer, lead author of a paper in Nature Geoscience, now admits the world isn't warming as predicted by global warming models. Even Michael Mann, who produced the infamous hockey stick, has put his name to this paper.

From the abstract:

In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble.

The problem is the models on which the global warming scare is based were simply wrong:

We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.

James Delingpole describes Santer's colorful history in the climate wars since he was outed in the Climategate scandal.

Sceptical scientists identified this problem years ago:

John Christy, who collects satellite temperature data out of the University of Alabama-Huntsville, has testified before Congress on the failure of models to predict recent global warming.

Christy’s research has shown climate models show 2.5 times more warming in the bulk atmosphere than satellites and weather balloons have observed.

Wow! More indisputable scientific evidence from Professor Pro and that venerable, world-leading, peer-reviewed scientific journal...Breitbart! Yay!

Stop worrying, folks - the crisis is over. The Prof knows more than all of those ignorant world leaders and their sneaky scientific advisors who signed the Paris Accord put together.

And the fact that Arizona is suffering the worst ever recorded heat wave, beating the one it had er.. last year...? Coincidence! Pure coincidence. .

 

 

 

Edited June 21, 20178 yr by Jara

2 hours ago, Jara said:

Wow! More indisputable scientific evidence from Professor Pro and that venerable, world-leading, peer-reviewed scientific journal...Breitbart! Yay!

Stop worrying, folks - the crisis is over. The Prof knows more than all of those ignorant world leaders and their sneaky scientific advisors who signed the Paris Accord put together.

And the fact that Arizona is suffering the worst ever recorded heat wave, beating the one it had er.. last year...? Coincidence! Pure coincidence. .

 

You really are thick.

Breitbart are reporting the latest views of this well-known climate alarmist, they're not the source.

I don't know how you manage to breathe and type at the same time.

Thick as a brick. 

3 hours ago, ProDee said:

You really are thick.

Breitbart are reporting the latest views of this well-known climate alarmist, they're not the source.

I don't know how you manage to breathe and type at the same time.

Thick as a brick. 

But...but Prof - you seem unhappy - there must be a misunderstanding. I'm supporting you.  You've convinced me - climate change is a hoax. Arizona is fake news. I'm with you all the way. 

Edited June 21, 20178 yr by Jara

Just now, Jara said:

But...but Prof - you seem unhappy - there must be a misunderstanding. I'm supporting you. I'm with you all the way. You've convinced me - climate change is a hoax. Arizona is fake news. I'm with you all the way. 

You liked the post over an hour ago and have taken this long to come up with a lame response.

I'm interested in debating people who are well read on AGW not just ill-informed leftist loonies supporting their side, i.e. not you.

Welcome to ignore.  I should have done it a while back, as your offerings are some of the most low brow I've seen, even for poorly bred hicks.  

Btw, I'm sure you're well-meaning, I just don't have time for idiots.

Sorry I was slow in responding, Prof - I was coming home from work - and eating dinner.

 

You're right, as always. You're certainly interested in debating - What a debater - 3652 posts! A mass debater! No wonder you don't have time for us mere mortals.   

 

 

9 hours ago, ProDee said:

 

 

The sad thing is all the lefties will refuse to watch it because it goes against their confirmation bias.

 

Hey Wrecker - 

I'll have a look at it, but I get put off by the headline. "Global warming is a religion"? Hard to argue against the logic of that - there isn't any.

There's lots of reputable info on-line about Climategate - this one looks interesting.

 

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#.WU8p-xTeqFI

 

The sad thing is all the climate-deniers will refuse to read it because it goes against their confirmation bias.

Edited June 25, 20178 yr by Jara

On 6/25/2017 at 1:16 PM, Jara said:

Hey Wrecker - 

I'll have a look at it, but I get put off by the headline. "Global warming is a religion"? Hard to argue against the logic of that - there isn't any.

There's lots of reputable info on-line about Climategate - this one looks interesting.

 

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#.WU8p-xTeqFI

 

The sad thing is all the climate-deniers will refuse to read it because it goes against their confirmation bias.

I've had a read of the link and tried to take it on board. I agree with a key argument that the Climategate emails don't prove or disprove climate change one bit. If Carbon Dioxide is driving the climate, regardless what those chain of emails say, it will continue to do so regardless.

I don't have time to check the terms of reference of each of the six official investigations quoted in the article but I do know what I read in the Climategate emails. Even if I give the benefit of the doubt on the use of the word "trick" and the "hide the decline". Which investigations and those close to the Universitited involved seem to argue vehemently that they were just common terms and there was no malice there. There are still email after emil showing the Universities were colluding and they were preventing any alternative view from their own been publishes in "peer reviewed" journals. This was damning at the time because the argument back then was that climate sceptisim was just witch science because it couldn't be peer reviewed. We know from reading Climategate that no matter how scientifically perfect a sceptic piece on climate change was it had no chance of being peer reviewed at that time. The argument has moved on since then but clearly demonstrates how the science was being stymied at the time.

 

 

 

 

OMG - the Chinese are in on the conspiracy!

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/rate-of-global-sea-level-rise-jumps-50-per-cent-in-two-decades-20170626-gwyu52.html

 

11 hours ago, Jara said:

 

OMG - the Chinese are in on the conspiracy!

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/rate-of-global-sea-level-rise-jumps-50-per-cent-in-two-decades-20170626-gwyu52.html

 

Jara - Honestly this is exactly why there are so many sceptics. Look at the 2nd paragraph. The study used "Refined sattelite estimates". Tell me why you think they need to use refined sattelite figures? As I understand the sattelite measurements are as as accurate as they can get without refinement.

Edited June 29, 20178 yr by Wrecker45

Not quite sure if you're joking.

Anyway, in case you're not, I think satellite imagery is improving all the time - i.e. achieving higher resolution. That's "refined". 

 

The more accurate, the better, surely? (unless you're poor old Prodee - he'd be up there with his Box Brownie trying to show that it's all a hoax) 

15 hours ago, Jara said:

Not quite sure if you're joking.

Anyway, in case you're not, I think satellite imagery is improving all the time - i.e. achieving higher resolution. That's "refined". 

 

The more accurate, the better, surely? (unless you're poor old Prodee - he'd be up there with his Box Brownie trying to show that it's all a hoax) 

No "refined" means they got the (accurate) satellite imagery and adjusted it.

just read paragraph 3. The sattelite instruments used to measure height or altitude picked up no such rise.

This is a text book example of why people are so sceptical. Why are the sattelite measurements adjusted? 

Now I'm confused, but I think this is the nub of the article, which is describing accelerated rises in global sea levels:

 

"It's definitely faster than historical periods. In 1900 we were talking about 1.6 to 1.7 millimetres per year. Now we have roughly 3 millimetres per year. By the end of this century, we're talking about maybe 5 to 8 millimetres per year."

He added that over 25 years, the largest contribution, of around 1 millimetre per year, "is not from land ice ... in fact it's from the thermal expansion [when the ocean expands due to ocean warming]."

Overall, the study found that "while the rate of ocean thermal expansion has remained steady since 1993, contributions from ice sheets and glaciers have increased from about half of the total rise in 1993 to around 70 per cent in 2014."

Dr Zhang said the research highlights the importance of mitigating climate change and committing to coastal adaption plans to reduce the impact of ongoing sea level rise."

 

On the other hand, the fact that the guy's Chinese probably confirms Prodee's suspicions that it's a Commie plot. 

10 hours ago, Jara said:

Now I'm confused, but I think this is the nub of the article, which is describing accelerated rises in global sea levels:

 

"It's definitely faster than historical periods. In 1900 we were talking about 1.6 to 1.7 millimetres per year. Now we have roughly 3 millimetres per year. By the end of this century, we're talking about maybe 5 to 8 millimetres per year."

He added that over 25 years, the largest contribution, of around 1 millimetre per year, "is not from land ice ... in fact it's from the thermal expansion [when the ocean expands due to ocean warming]."

Overall, the study found that "while the rate of ocean thermal expansion has remained steady since 1993, contributions from ice sheets and glaciers have increased from about half of the total rise in 1993 to around 70 per cent in 2014."

Dr Zhang said the research highlights the importance of mitigating climate change and committing to coastal adaption plans to reduce the impact of ongoing sea level rise."

 

On the other hand, the fact that the guy's Chinese probably confirms Prodee's suspicions that it's a Commie plot. 

Jara - You don't seem to get it, the article says the actual figures don't predict those sea level rises. They have "refined" them to get the unprecedented rises.

PM me your email address and I will write to the journal, cc you and ask for the raw figures compared to the "refined" ones. I'll also request the workings with an explanation.

2 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Jara - You don't seem to get it, the article says the actual figures don't predict those sea level rises. They have "refined" them to get the unprecedented rises.

PM me your email address and I will write to the journal, cc you and ask for the raw figures compared to the "refined" ones. I'll also request the workings with an explanation.

Sure, Wrecker - that would be fascinating. How does one "PM"? (Or does one want to?! Once you know who I am you may come round and wreck me!)

On 02/07/2017 at 10:21 PM, Jara said:

Sure, Wrecker - that would be fascinating. How does one "PM"? (Or does one want to?! Once you know who I am you may come round and wreck me!)

Was just trying to be friendly Jara. The link you posted was clearly flawed and I would have cc'd you in my response to the journal.

Please  don't pretend you are too scared to PM me your email address for your own personal safety when you have advertised the name of your published book on this site.