Global Warming

[KnightersRevenge]

Yeah, thanks Knighter. This is the thing, I used to think that either Bolt doesn't get science, or he pretends not to get science in order to promote his views. But looking at your post, particularly those trend lines, I think he just doesn't get science.

I know, and I just wish people who don't get science would stick to arguing policy.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Yeah, thanks Knighter. This is the thing, I used to think that either Bolt doesn't get science, or he pretends not to get science in order to promote his views. But looking at your post, particularly those trend lines, I think he just doesn't get science.

The world could be ending tomorrow due to GW and Bolt would still be pushing his line that everything was fine with the environment.

 

[mld]

The world could be ending tomorrow due to GW and Bolt would still be pushing his line that everything was fine with the environment.

The end of the world is weather, not climate.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Temperature Increases in Early 1990s Led to Inaccurate Models, Researchers Say, as Temps Have Been Basically Flat Since

Just as President Obama used his inauguration speech to make strong statements about the need to address climate change, a new UN report in progress says that projections about the pace of global warming may need to be ratcheted down.
...
"The Earth's mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity to greenhouse gas emissions, meaning the models developed in the 1990s overstate the actual impact."

Man's level of influence is still far from a settled question IMO.

 

[Merveille]

A very, very interesting group of emails here between Governement funded alarmist and spruiker Karoly, and 2 scientists who have changed their position on AGW. No statistically significant warming for nearly 17 years as Co2 rises.. The whole show is crumbling.

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=918&Itemid=1

 

[Merveille]

Here is a rebuttal to the latest lies and nonsense from The Bolt including some that explains the garbage posted on this thread last year using data from UK's HADCRUT (The Met Office).


Grog's Gamut Schools the Bolt in Graph Creation

For those that can't bothered reading the whole thing here is a taster: It is basically about Bolt mouthing off on his blog about how Craig Emerson and Dr Karl got it wrong in a twitter conversation recently in relation to warming trends and he was going to set them right with his graphs. The blogger "Grogs Gamut" decided to check and found Bolt had made some very basic and errors in his graphs and thus drawn completely the wrong conclusion from the data. He also suggested that Dr Karl and Emerson ought to apologise to him...oh dear. To be clear these are just the exact same data sets used by Bolt but constructed correctly it is not a "different interpretation" of the data. Bolt was using the wrong data to create a trend line through the graph.




I will simply extract the graphs (they are in .png format so some browsers probably won't display them, sorry) and make a few comments, if you want the whole thing, click the link above to "Grog Gamut's blog"

Here is the first doozey, note the graph's title: "The UAH (University of Alabama, Huntsville) satellite data confirms(the Bolts emphasis not mine) a pause in warming"



Does it really? Something fishy here, even an untrained eye, I think, would wonder about that green trend line. Here is the graph properly constituted:



NEXT!

This one is just silly, different data set but same trend line. Does anyone else think The Bolt might have been on The Sauce?




And the real data:



Now for the controversial one that set tongues wagging last year. This is the data that lead to the graph at the top of the post:





Here (above) Bolt is still using the same trend line on the wrong data, but the difference is negligible. A small downward trend does become a small upward trend with the proper data set. And finally (below) the latest data from the same source:



I hope this is last we hear from the Bolt and his supporters on this issue, the rest of the world moved on long ago and so did most governments.

You have to go wider than just the blogs you agree with..

Dr Karl is continually stating, and is not retracting, that there has been warming of 0.3 degrees celsius in past 16 years. This over-states the truth by a multiple of 6 times.

Go here to the Met Office website -

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

see reply question 1. Dr Karl is wrong, and refuses to retract.

Also go here, if you have the courage. Check the links and the twitter statements.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/an_apology_not_silence_would_suit_warmist_dr_karl_better/

It is now acknowledged by those that are not in denial, that there has been no statistical significant warming for 16 years. - including by DR Pachauri and the IPCC.

Emerson refuses to acknowledge this, and basically called Bolt a liar because he stated it. Emerson should apologise, as should you, because you look silly too..

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Antarctic ice on the increase since 1985. The mechanics are incredibly complex and I'm not sure any of the experts has as clear an understanding as they claim.

 

[bullus_hit]

Antarctic ice on the increase since 1985. The mechanics are incredibly complex and I'm not sure any of the experts has as clear an understanding as they claim.

So let's keep burning fossil fuels for the next 200 years and see what happens eh?

And as far as Antartica is concerned, there may well have been some ice increase, but on the other side of the ledger, Greenland and the Arctic have been melting at an alarming rate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19244895

So in the traditions of News Ltd and other denialist organisations, do we simply stick our head in the sand and pretend nothing's happening simply because one subsection of the environment is behaving in a way which challenges conventional theory? Or do we attempt to find plausible reasons why one pole may react differently to another?

It's a bit like saying that an unusual coldsnap in Europe is emphatic proof that global warming is bogus therefore we should bin the whole theory. Yes, the climate is complex. Yes, we may never truly understand exactly how weather systems interact. Yes, there will be always be strange anomalies occuring throughout the world. But that doesn't mean that pumping unprecedented levels of CO2 into the atmosphere won't have any detrimental effect on the world's ecology.

Denialists often trot out the 'oh, but the world's a complex place' line, yet are more than happy to offer themselves up as guinea pigs on a grand scale. They seem comfortable in the knowledge that the fossil fuel fuel industry are acting for the common good, and they are comfortable with the notion that their children and grandchildren will be the ones to deal with the mess if the Gina Rineharts of this world happen to be operating under a different modus operandi.

Call me a cynic, call me crazy, call me a latte sipping, Al Gore loving, tree hugging communist, but history tells me that the fossil fuel industry has scant regard for the environment and couldn't care less about what may play out by the end of the century and beyond. They have even less interest in researching possible outcomes which may expose their soot ridden dirty laundry.

So in the mean time, let's just keep pretending that coal is cool and that the emporer penguins are fully clothed and ready for the next Forbes funded cocktail party. But whatever you do, don't mention the polar bears, if you get my drift.

 

[AngryAnt]

Actually the Antarctic ice "increase" is an increase in surface level sea ice only, which melts in summer. The total mass of Antarctic ice is still decreasing, and the increased temporary surface ice is thought to be a manifestation of this. L2R2R is correct to say the mechanics are complex, but unfortunately for the deniers it's not evidence of a reversal of global warming, and is still compelling evidence of climate change.

Here's some recent articles on this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2302401/Global-warming-INCREASED-ice-Antarctica.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21991487

In other words - "nice try, morons".

 

[Giardiasis]

It's a bit like saying that an unusual coldsnap in Europe is emphatic proof that global warming is bogus therefore we should bin the whole theory. Yes, the climate is complex. Yes, we may never truly understand exactly how weather systems interact. Yes, there will be always be strange anomalies occuring throughout the world. But that doesn't mean that pumping unprecedented levels of CO2 into the atmosphere won't have any detrimental effect on the world's ecology.

Actually all it takes is one observation to the contrary to disprove a hypothesis.

Denialists often trot out the 'oh, but the world's a complex place' line, yet are more than happy to offer themselves up as guinea pigs on a grand scale. They seem comfortable in the knowledge that the fossil fuel fuel industry are acting for the common good, and they are comfortable with the notion that their children and grandchildren will be the ones to deal with the mess if the Gina Rineharts of this world happen to be operating under a different modus operandi.

What ever makes you feel better :

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

So let's keep burning fossil fuels for the next 200 years and see what happens eh?
...

Or we could wait for observations to actually support the shaky models which have been advanced by the global warming industry before hitting the panic button and imposing futile taxes which will not have any discernible effect whatever.

 

[bullus_hit]

Or we could wait for observations to actually support the shaky models which have been advanced by the global warming industry before hitting the panic button and imposing futile taxes which will not have any discernible effect whatever.

Shaky models? Which of these over the past 40 years concern you most? Or to put it more bluntly, which scientific organisations do you have a beef with? You talk about the global warming industry like it's some sort of lobby group yet conveniently ignore the camapaign of disinformation peddled by the fossil fuel industry. You don't seriously think that 40 years of research has simply been one great big conspiracy do you?

As for the carbon tax, it may not be perfect and it sure as hell aint a silver bullet, but I don't have any problem with companies paying for their own pollution. And far from going it alone, most of Europe has jumped on board, with America already making moves and China also learning some savage lessons from burning too much coal.

At what price clean air? And wouldn't it be better to encourage investment in renewables given that it presents itself as a potential economic goldmine?

And if you want to talk about futile government policy, then how about the ridiculous subsidies given to many of the old coal fired power stations?

Actually all it takes is one observation to the contrary to disprove a hypothesis.

So what aspect of the greenhouse theory are you disproving? And try and keep it scientific if that's remotely possible.

 

[Giardiasis]

So what aspect of the greenhouse theory are you disproving? And try and keep it scientific if that's remotely possible.

You seem to know all about the theory. Put it forward so I can answer your question.

 

[AngryAnt]

I love it how you denialists just ignore science's explanation for the "increasing" Antarctic ice. I guess it doesn't fit your world view or your argument so let's just ignore it shall we... empiricism is too much work after all.

 

[bullus_hit]

You seem to know all about the theory. Put it forward so I can answer your question.

Put bluntly, do atmospheric greenhouse gases such as CO2 trap heat or not?

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

I love it how you denialists just ignore science's explanation for the "increasing" Antarctic ice. I guess it doesn't fit your world view or your argument so let's just ignore it shall we... empiricism is too much work after all.

So what do you make of the Southern Ocean itself cooling, despite absorbing half of all human CO2 emissions?

I don't put too much store in theories until objective observation propels them to widespread scientific acceptance. It'll be a while before there's a consensus on man's effect on global climate; the issue's just too political and complex.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Shaky models? Which of these over the past 40 years concern you most? Or to put it more bluntly, which scientific organisations do you have a beef with? You talk about the global warming industry like it's some sort of lobby group yet conveniently ignore the camapaign of disinformation peddled by the fossil fuel industry. You don't seriously think that 40 years of research has simply been one great big conspiracy do you?

Both sides are guilty of spreading disinformation/propaganda.

 

[AngryAnt]

So what do you make of the Southern Ocean itself cooling, despite absorbing half of all human CO2 emissions?

What makes you think that when an ocean absorbs CO2 it will warm? CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs infrared radiation reflected from the Earth's surface (from sunlight). CO2 once it enters the ocean does not play this role - it does have other effects though like lowing the ocean's PH (making it more acidic).

Science, b!tches. Get into it.

 

[bullus_hit]

Both sides are guilty of spreading disinformation/propaganda.

Granted there's been disinformation on both sides, but how does that suddenly translate into a do nothing approach? By default, doesn't that automatically mean the fossil fuel industry has won the day?

With all the mountains of peer review studies conducted over the past 40 years, there's truckloads of data to indicate that there's a very high probability that the climatologists enmasse have got it right, and the renegade geologists from the fossil fuel industry have got it wrong.

And if we're talking the political divide, there's nothing really which seperates conservatives such as David Cameron with left wingers such as Julia Gillard. Which begs the question, who is actually behind this grand climate change conspiracy? I'm yet to see these corrupt climate scientists flashing their cash around and buying up mansions and luxury yachts. It would seem to me that it's those on the other side of the ledger who are joining the ranks of the uber rich.

There will always be doubt as to the 'exact' effects of a changing climate, but I would have thought it would be prudent on so many levels to make the switch to renewables.

 

[Giardiasis]

Put bluntly, do atmospheric greenhouse gases such as CO2 trap heat or not?

Really? That's what you think AGM theory is?