2015 the hottest year on record

[Gator 16,893]

42 minutes ago, Jara said:

Huh? I already did. I gave you the link just before Christmas. It was from the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It was signed by the leaders of major scientific organisations like the American Chemical Society, the Geological Soc of America. It stated, quite clearly, that they believe that global warming is man-made and dangerous. Go back and read it for yourself. 

 

And by the way, that article I listed earlier on, I got it from a publication of the American Meteorological Society. From my reading of it, it seems to state, quite clearly, that the record global temperatures of 2016 were anthropogenic. Here's the link:

 

www.ametsoc.net/eee/2016/ch3.pdf       (message me back if you can't find it)

 

Here's your mission, Pro, should you choose to accept it: Show me where that Met Soc article got it wrong. Prove to me the record global warming of 2016 was NOT anthropogenic.

 

As I've said, I've got no science qualifications, and can't respond to the hacks you drag out, but you, of course, with your legendary "predilection for climate" and your deep study of the topic, will have no problem (and by the way, please don't just quote another of your IPA stooges like Marohasy - be a clever boy and find the mistake yourself)

 

 

Whether it's NASA's top dogs James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt from realclimate.org, or the  American Meteorological Society, they are highly paid climate alarmists.

"Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, one of the former supervisors of Hansen, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.”

Theon was elected a fellow of the American Meteorological Society, given the NASA Exceptional Performance Award twice, elected an Associate Fellow of the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics, and awarded the AIAA's Losey Medal for contributions to airborne remote sensing.

Dr. William Gray

In a February 7, 2009 essay titled “On The Hijacking of the American Meteorological Society”, Gray wrote:

I am appalled at the selection of James Hansen as this year’s recipient of the AMS’s highest award - the Rossby Research Medal.

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) was founded in 1919 as an organization dedicated to advancing scientific knowledge of weather and climate.  It has been a wonderful beacon for fostering new understanding of how the atmosphere and oceans function.  But this strong positive image is now becoming tarnished as a result of the AMS leadership’s capitulating to the lobby of the climate modelers and to the outside environmental and political pressure groups who wish to use the now AMS position on AGW to help justify the promotion of their own special interests.  The effectiveness of the AMS as an objective scientific organization has been greatly compromised.

Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA’s Apollo 7 also recently chastised Hansen. “Hansen is a political activist who spreads fear even when NASA’s own data contradict him,” Cunningham wrote in an essay in the July/August 2008 issue of Launch Magazine. “NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused, or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Unfortunately, it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science,” Cunningham wrote.

Retired meteorologist Craig James, an AMS member, wrote a scathing commentary about Hansen. "I believe Dr. Hansen's political ideology has taken over his science and renders him no longer qualified to be the keeper of the global temperature data," James wrote on January 15, 2009.

In June of 2008, Dr. Nicholas Drapela of the faculty of Oregon State University Chemistry Department expressed his outrage at Hansen and referred to him as “an apocalyptic prophet.”
“My dear colleague Professor Hansen, I believe, has finally gone off the deep end. When you have dedicated the bulk of your career to a cause, and it turns out the cause has been proven false, most people cannot bring themselves to admit the truth,” Drapela wrote on April 21, 2008. Drapela wrote that Hansen’s recent claims “contain neither reason nor truth when compared to the volumes of daily literature being published in scientific journals today on climate change. It is not difficult to refute the words of Professor Hansen. On the contrary, one feels it is almost unfair.” “The global warming ‘time bomb’, the ‘present, dangerous situation’, ‘the perfect storm’, ‘global cataclysm’, ‘disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity's control.’ These are the words of an apocalyptic prophet, not a rational scientist,” Drapela added.

Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo also launched a sharply worded critique of RealClimate.org in January 2009 titled “Response to Gavin Schmidt – Global Data Base Issues Are Real.”

“To Gavin [Schmidt] and the other alarmists, it appears, a piece that is fair and balanced can make no mention of any other opinion except that carbon dioxide is causing global warming and action is needed now and will deliver gain and no pain, something the one sided media coverage has gotten them used to over the years,” D’Aleo wrote on January 13, 2009. D’Aleo served as the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and served as chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting.

Atmospheric Physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, also critiqued RealClimate.org on June 24, 2008. Peden wrote, “‘Real Climate’ is a staged and contracted production, which wasn't created by ‘scientists,’ it was actually created by Environmental Media Services, a company which specializes in spreading environmental junk science on behalf of numerous clients who stand to financially benefit from scare tactics through environmental fear mongering.” 

Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv has also been critical. “The aim of RealClimate.org is not to engage a sincere scientific debate. Their aim is to post a reply full of a straw man so their supporters can claim that your point ‘has been refuted by real scientists at RealClimate.org,’” Shaviv’s website reported. Shaviv, who calls the website “Wishfulclimate.org,” noted that the “writers (at RealClimaet.org) try again and again to concoct what appears to be deep critiques against skeptic arguments, but end up doing a very shallow job. 

Jara, I could go on and on and on.  And I will.

The organisations you get your climate porn from are paid alarmists who falsify data and are presently relying on flawed weather surface stations where they manipulate data.  They don't much like satellite data that has shown a 19 year "pause" in warming.

But I can't help you, Jara.  You're too far gone.  Sad.

[Jara 1,149]

You can't help me or you can't refute the article? It was a fairly straightforward task I gave you. 

So you're saying that all of these world-leading scientific organisations - the American Chemical Society, the Geological Society, the Met Soc etc - are wrong?

And that little old Pro, the uneducated Melbourne footy fan sitting at his computer and spitting out his venom, is....right? 

I'll say it one more time. Refute the article. Or be honest enough to admit that you are unable to.

[dieter 3,325]

17 minutes ago, Jara said:

And that little old Pro, the uneducated Melbourne footy fan sitting at his computer and spitting out his venom, is....right? 

Well, I've never known him to be wrong about anything in his life. 

[Gator 16,893]

2 hours ago, Jara said:

Huh? I already did. I gave you the link just before Christmas. It was from the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It was signed by the leaders of major scientific organisations like the American Chemical Society, the Geological Soc of America. It stated, quite clearly, that they believe that global warming is man-made and dangerous. Go back and read it for yourself. 

 

And by the way, that article I listed earlier on, I got it from a publication of the American Meteorological Society. From my reading of it, it seems to state, quite clearly, that the record global temperatures of 2016 were anthropogenic. Here's the link:

 

www.ametsoc.net/eee/2016/ch3.pdf       (message me back if you can't find it)

 

Here's your mission, Pro, should you choose to accept it: Show me where that Met Soc article got it wrong. Prove to me the record global warming of 2016 was NOT anthropogenic.

 

As I've said, I've got no science qualifications, and can't respond to the hacks you drag out, but you, of course, with your legendary "predilection for climate" and your deep study of the topic, will have no problem (and by the way, please don't just quote another of your IPA stooges like Marohasy - be a clever boy and find the mistake yourself)

 

 

 

OK.  I will get to it, but it won't be today.

In the meantime this discussion with climate data scientist John Christy is excellent.

 

 

[Jara 1,149]

14 hours ago, ProDee said:

OK.  I will get to it, but it won't be today.

Well, if you can honestly do that (and support your argument with solid references), I will be impressed.

 

I must admit, i just pulled the article off the Met Soc's website after a five-minute search - it was one of quite a few articles by highly qualified scientists suggesting that global warming is anthropogenic. I read it, but couldn't understand much of it, but the opening and closing bits did seem to be suggesting what i said.  

 

I listened to the Christy, and read about him - he's obviously highly qualified, and his comments seem to make sense - I'm not equipped to refute him - all I can say is that his opinions don't seem to be shared by the majority of his colleagues - (I watched to the clip last night - haven't got time to find details right now, but I did notice that his own professional organisation - were they called the Geophysial Society? -  have opined that global warming is man-made)

[daisycutter 28,562]

came across this blog item discussing the 'fallibility' of science and scientific methodology.

no comment from me, just felt it thought provoking. seems a dose of 'healthy' skepticism doesn't always go astray 

Quote

Brian Donovan, Chief Scientist at McVan Aerospace. (2004-present)

<snip>

Scientists are still arguing 100 year old questions in many fields, and that’s the way is with human endeavours The scientific method does not guarantees correct results, but it does make it more likely in the long run. Our scientific, engineering progress shows this to be true.

Most research is false, at least that’s what respected scientists says:

"In 2005, PLoS Medicine published a now-famous paper with the attention-grabbing but exasperating title, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”.1 It was written by John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, an American doctor from Greece, a distinguished author of about 400 peer-reviewed papers, 40books and book chapters or so, and much more. Ioannidis is a giant, and I am really nobody to criticize."

"But oooh I hate the title of that paper!" "This intensely intellectual article — it’s completely, hopelessly nerdy — became one of the most downloaded articles in the history of the Public Library of Science and was described by the Boston Globe as an instant cult classic."

https://www.painscience.com/arti... Comments on the paper, that may give you some context.

I glanced over the statistical formula, I am not a statistician and I couldn't really understand it without have the author explain it to me. Even then. Start with his Corollaries on page 2. All of these rang true to my experience with scientific studies which I have studied and collected most of my life. All of them seem logical enough. Small studies are less reliable. Small effects are often noise: you see this one in a lot of free energy stuff. Large study results (yes or no) on a specific area are more likely to be true. The more flexible and creative the field is, the less likely the results are true. Funding biases results (independent proven in many studies, and about 80% of research is funded by the industry being studied for several large industries), The "hotter" the field, the more untrue hype it will have. Researcher are under presser to conform to accepted theories if they want to get published (papers proving phrenology is nonsense are not likely to get published in Phrenology journals). In a field with many researchers, putting too much faith in one teams is more likely to lead for false results. Statistical thresholds should be replaced with statistical ranges of correctness. 
 John loves science and his paper is meant to improve it.

Here’s some more sites that show errors in lots if not most research:

Here's a pro science site the tracks retraction and fraud in science. http://retractionwatch.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re...

Duplicating other folks research isn't a sexy, so it rarely gets done, nor published.

"A 1998 experiment on peer review with a fictitious manuscript found that peer reviewers failed to detect some manuscript errors and the majority of reviewers may not notice that the conclusions of the paper are unsupported by its results.[101] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review#Failures

Another link to the most research is wrong paper. http://buster.zibmt.uni-ulm.de/d...

 

[Earl Hood 5,789]

 

Holy Shyte!

https://www.theage.com.au/world/north-america/arctic-temperatures-soar-25-degrees-above-normal-in-the-dead-of-winter-20180222-p4z1bh.html

[Earl Hood 5,789]

Holy Shyte 11

ocean acidification caused by human induced C02 emissions and the subsequent absorption by our oceans.  You know the emissions that some believe don’t cause any problems above the surface of the seas, that is all about sunspots apparently. 

Rising acidity means any organism that depends on forming a protective calcium carbonate shell is in trouble and also krill populations when Rising acidity levels affect their embryos detrimentally. And now we can add destabilisation to coral reef structures

https://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/world-s-coral-reefs-face-new-peril-from-beneath-within-decades-20180223-p4z1ev.html

[Earl Hood 5,789]

 

Holly Shyte 111

https://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/really-extreme-global-weather-event-leaves-scientists-aghast-20180226-p4z1q4.html

[dieter 3,325]

42 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

 

Holly Shyte 111

https://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/really-extreme-global-weather-event-leaves-scientists-aghast-20180226-p4z1q4.html

Ah, Earl. we're pounding our heads on brick walls. I note yours is made of porcelain. 

Don't ya know, baby, The Age is a  distributor of  Far left Propaganda.

My advice to ya is switch to the Herald/Sun and the Australian. These journals tell you THE TRUTH. Just ask Andrew Bolt and Miss Credlin and Ms Devlin , they knopw what's best for us and this country. It's all about JOBS, mainly jobs for the boys and their mistresses...

 

[daisycutter 28,562]

what happened to the alarmist horrendous summer we were supposed to have

that's 3 years in a row our experts have got it wrong

but their long term climate models are so good.....right?

[dieter 3,325]

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

what happened to the alarmist horrendous summer we were supposed to have

that's 3 years in a row our experts have got it wrong

but their long term climate models are so good.....right?

Go back over the past three years and just about in month of these  years - according to statistics kept by BOM - the average monthly temperatures have risen. It ain't just summer time, my boy, there are 12 months in the year.

[Ethan Tremblay 28,402]

WA’s coolest summer since 2001 is about to come to an end. Last year also saw the coolest winter in WA in decades and 2016 was the coolest year in over a decade. 

Edited February 28, 2018 by Ethan Tremblay

[Ethan Tremblay 28,402]

Be alert, not alarmed.

Edited February 28, 2018 by Ethan Tremblay

[Earl Hood 5,789]

 

No Ethan be alarmed, 2017 was our third hottest year on record nationally with El Niño in neutral. It may have seemed cool in Perth but it was still just above the long term average! At least according to the BoM’s measured data, no predictive modelling errors involved here.

The old story of the frog in the saucepan of slowly warming water comes to mind. 

http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrSbmKYn5daHO8A3hxAvolQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByb2lvbXVuBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1519915032/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.abc.net.au%2fnews%2f2018-01-10%2fannual-climate-statement-2017-third-hottest-year-on-record%2f9314364/RK=2/RS=DSm2CqDNJ8x81MDrDv9ynSHDcw8-

[Jara 1,149]

Nice try, Earl, but the deniers don't pay much attention to reputable scientific organisations. They get their science from looking out the window and reading Andrew Bolt.

[dieter 3,325]

2 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

 

No Ethan be alarmed, 2017 was our third hottest year on record nationally with El Niño in neutral. It may have seemed cool in Perth but it was still just above the long term average! At least according to the BoM’s measured data, no predictive modelling errors involved here.

The old story of the frog in the saucepan of slowly warming water comes to mind. 

http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrSbmKYn5daHO8A3hxAvolQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByb2lvbXVuBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1519915032/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.abc.net.au%2fnews%2f2018-01-10%2fannual-climate-statement-2017-third-hottest-year-on-record%2f9314364/RK=2/RS=DSm2CqDNJ8x81MDrDv9ynSHDcw8-

Also, not sure that the likes of the Climate Change Deniers are familiar with the frog in the saucepan scenario. Just an intuition, if you get my drift...

[Wrecker45 3,378]

2 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

 

No Ethan be alarmed, 2017 was our third hottest year on record nationally with El Niño in neutral. It may have seemed cool in Perth but it was still just above the long term average! At least according to the BoM’s measured data, no predictive modelling errors involved here.

The old story of the frog in the saucepan of slowly warming water comes to mind. 

http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrSbmKYn5daHO8A3hxAvolQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByb2lvbXVuBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1519915032/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.abc.net.au%2fnews%2f2018-01-10%2fannual-climate-statement-2017-third-hottest-year-on-record%2f9314364/RK=2/RS=DSm2CqDNJ8x81MDrDv9ynSHDcw8-

Is this a light hearted post or are you serious? GLOBAL warming. It may have been cool in Perth but nationally it was blah blah. Implying Perth a state is irrelevant and then moving to a national average as if it is important when it is equally irrelevant is funny.

How is the beats going in the UK? I only bring it up because you think the local weather patterns are significant.

[dieter 3,325]

51 minutes ago, Jara said:

Nice try, Earl, but the deniers don't pay much attention to reputable scientific organisations. They get their science from looking out the window and reading Andrew Bolt.

Tell ya what, Jara, he's a bloody good fighter, that A Bolt. What a man. Gave those rude dudes who tackled him in Carlton a run for their money. That's what we need more of in this great nation of ours, fighters, fisticuffs swingers, all in the name of righteousness. And it's also a great Christian virtue, an eye for an eye, as the good book says...

[Wrecker45 3,378]

54 minutes ago, Jara said:

Nice try, Earl, but the deniers don't pay much attention to reputable scientific organisations. They get their science from looking out the window and reading Andrew Bolt.

The BOM has been widely discredited. Their scientific method at weather stations has been proven corrupt and a year 8 science student could identify that.

We could go over this again with very clear evidence, pictures that verify, refusals from the BOM to comply with basic FOI requests and a raft of other evidence but I assume you prefer to virtue signal and then pretend to yourself that others are denialists.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

6 minutes ago, dieter said:

Tell ya what, Jara, he's a bloody good fighter, that A Bolt. What a man. Gave those rude dudes who tackled him in Carlton a run for their money. That's what we need more of in this great nation of ours, fighters, fisticuffs swingers, all in the name of righteousness. And it's also a great Christian virtue, an eye for an eye, as the good book says...

For once you make some sense Dieter. When somebody is is on the receiving end of an unprovoked violent attack by multiple cowards and they fight them off it is virtuous.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

On 26/02/2018 at 10:19 PM, dieter said:

Ah, Earl. we're pounding our heads on brick walls. I note yours is made of porcelain. 

Don't ya know, baby, The Age is a  distributor of  Far left Propaganda.

My advice to ya is switch to the Herald/Sun and the Australian. These journals tell you THE TRUTH. Just ask Andrew Bolt and Miss Credlin and Ms Devlin , they knopw what's best for us and this country. It's all about JOBS, mainly jobs for the boys and their mistresses...

 

I actually agree with you twice in succession which is unprecedented. The Age is full of fat left propaganda. 

This is where we stop agreeing the Herald Sun is centre right with at least an attempt at balance but is best known for its pictures and sport coverage.

The Australian is by far and away the best masthead for journalistic quality, business, politics and opinion pieces but it sucks at left wing group think, being a picture book and sports outside the boardrooms.

[Ethan Tremblay 28,402]

37 minutes ago, dieter said:

Tell ya what, Jara, he's a bloody good fighter, that A Bolt. What a man. Gave those rude dudes who tackled him in Carlton a run for their money. That's what we need more of in this great nation of ours, fighters, fisticuffs swingers, all in the name of righteousness. And it's also a great Christian virtue, an eye for an eye, as the good book says...

Bolt was just suppose to stand there and cop it was he? You really are  moronic sometimes. No doubt you would have applauded Bolts self-defensive actions if he were an African migrant who was part of the Apex gang. 

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-14/police-release-image-of-man-after-andrew-bolt-attacked/8617846?pfmredir=sm

Edited March 1, 2018 by Ethan Tremblay

[Jara 1,149]

1 hour ago, Wrecker45 said:

The BOM has been widely discredited. Their scientific method at weather stations has been proven corrupt and a year 8 science student could identify that.

We could go over this again with very clear evidence, pictures that verify, refusals from the BOM to comply with basic FOI requests and a raft of other evidence but I assume you prefer to virtue signal and then pretend to yourself that others are denialists.

Yeah, yeah, I know, your IPA entomologist showed that the BOM is corrupt.

 

I interviewed several BOM scientists a few years ago. Those guys spend their lives trying to provide accurate information to the community.

 

What on earth do you think is their motivation for them to fudge the figures? 

 

 

[Jara 1,149]

 

Oh and Wrecker, I'm not the one who is denying the views of reputable scientific organisations such as the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union or the American Geological Society, all of whom unequivocally support the view that global warming is man-made.

You are. Ergo, you are a denialist.