Oh dear Renato, you're still going on about things upon which your knowledge is sadly lacking. I don't think you understand replication or any other topic you are pronouncing so confidently about. I confess, I got it wrong, there are much more than a dozen replications these days, 28 subsequent papers support the basic hockey stick shape (gradual/small change over past 1000years, rapid recent warming), 14 are post-AR4. But do please keep citing Von Storch as if he disputes the basic hockey stick shape, it really is rather entertaining! And have you read Marcott et al 2013. By "read", I don't mean a blog post about it?
But while you're there, please enlighten me. We understand the magnitude of forcings over the past thousand years or so, with small changes in solar and volcanic forcing dwarfed by the modern enhanced GHG forcing, which the world is now responding to (including Antarctica). Your bonus question for ten points is this:
Lets imagine that you are right, and 29+ research papers on late Holocene climate are wrong... (I know, it's a stretch!)... and that Medieval climate was much warmer than the early 21st Century. The forcings, to which global climate responds, were small at the time (while they are large now). Would a strong MWP mean climate sensitivity to forcing is low, or high? Bonus question: would a large MWP give us any comfort at all given the scale of modern climate forcing?
Seriously mate, I really don't think you understand the topic anywhere near as much as you think you do.
Little value in discussing increasing extreme weather with you, because if you don't comprehend signal and noise in a temperature record, you'll really be stuffed when it comes to a dataset with small numbers of extreme values! You'll probably try and quote me some of Roger Pielke's porkies and half truths (he drowns signals in noise then claims no signal). And you'll be hopelessly lost with the concept that a warmer world means both more droughts and floods (enhanced hydrological cycle, more evaporation, more precipitation). But do go and buy a house that is next to a large river and surrounded by bushland if you think I'm wrong.
Hi Andy,
Good attempt at dodging the issues, and diverting from what I wrote, and trying to get me to talk about something else. But it doesn't work.
I look at that graph from 5th Assessment report, which you cited, and it contains many reconstructions which don't support Mann's work - as they plainly have something called the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in them - which is notoriously absent from his work. I point this out to you, and you don't address it.
As for extreme weather, another attempt at a snow job from you. The understanding of signal and noise and data sets is completely irrelevant to understanding the statements I took from 5th Assessment report, namely.
"5th Assessment Report comes out, and in it it states there is limited evidence of changes in extremes during the 20th century, no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century, lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale, low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms, not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness.(So much for all the green alarmism that accompanies every bushfire, flood or cyclone reported on the evning news)."
Presumably you are of the opinion that the writers of 5th Assessment report were completely stuffed in their understanding of signal and noise and data sets when they wrote the stuff I cut and pasted.
If I were to go buy a house next to a large river, would you recommend I get one next door to Tim Flannery's place?
Regards,
Renato
Sad really the money we taxpayers must have wasted in subsidising Andy's education, when anyone who can surf the net can blow it all away with the wave of a hand.
Little wonder it is so hard to get action on climate change when even on a nominally science-based forum like IIS there are people who can't tell the difference between misinformation/pseudoscience and real science, or who have such a poor opinion of science that they are prepared to attack it from an uninformed stance.
More power to you Andy, maybe time for a lock-up of the rubbish on this thread mods!
As for extreme weather, another attempt at a snow job from you. ..........
"[I]5th Assessment Report comes out, and in it it states there is limited evidence of changes in extremes during the 20th century, no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century............"
Renato
Renato,
While there is no significant trend in the number of cyclones, you've conveniently failed to quote from the same report:
"Arguably, storm frequency is of limited usefulness if not considered
in tandem with intensity and duration measures. Intensity measures
in historical records are especially sensitive to changing technology
and improving methodology"
" .... the frequency of very intense tropical cyclones have been identified in the North Atlantic and these appear robust since the 1970s (Kossin et al.
2007) (very high confidence)"
So the reality appears to be (regional) cyclones apart from being more intense, are drifting to higher latitudes.
Renato, so I'm "Dodging the issues"?! You are absolutely having a laugh, right?
It really is a waste of time trying to argue with someone who refuses to engage with empirical evidence, and who degenerates to insults and yet more Gish Gallops as a way of avoiding the substantive issues. You moved the conversation from the Sun (post #16), to temperature timeseries (post #23), to palaeoclimate (post #62) and after losing all those arguments, now to extreme weather (also #62 and again in #79 when I didn't bite first time), finally to Tim Flannery (post #81), all with an almost breathtaking lack of comprehension. And you accuse me of moving goalposts???? I had hoped you might be amenable to reading some science, but apparently not. You also seem to think that your eyeball is a better judge than the entire palaeoclimate community , and that your interpretation (more likely that of the denierblogs) beats the whole science community. Essentialy you must think there's a huge conspiracy. Do you ever consider that you might be wrong on so many things? I seriously doubt you've actually read AR5 or any of the climate literature, let alone the more challenging world of extreme event literature. As you're unwilling to engage with substance or stick to a topic, I'm done here.
Good luck with your worldview!
Mods, this really ought to be closed. The topic of Renato vs science has probably reached the end of it's useful life.
Sad really the money we taxpayers must have wasted in subsidising Andy's education, when anyone who can surf the net can blow it all away with the wave of a hand.
Little wonder it is so hard to get action on climate change when even on a nominally science-based forum like IIS there are people who can't tell the difference between misinformation/pseudoscience and real science, or who have such a poor opinion of science that they are prepared to attack it from an uninformed stance.
More power to you Andy, maybe time for a lock-up of the rubbish on this thread mods!
Cheers -
Well, I had the benefit of a totally tax payer provided education at University, where I was taught all the latest Environmental science as it stood then in 1977.
I was taught all about the imminent disaster of Global Cooling. And the text book for the course was Human Ecology by Paul Erhlich. You can still find copies of it around.
Anyhow, the text book I was required to use for my free tax payer funded education from the science faculty, forecast and in detail addressed the coming disasters of war, famine and destruction of the environment that would arise as a result of overpopulation, running out of natural resources and degradation of the planet.
And that would be just about it for planet earth, unless action was taken as of right now, since the countdown to disaster was on. And the disaster was forecast for around the year 2000.
If one doesn't become more skeptical as time goes by, after a course like that, one does not observe and one does not think.
Regards,
Renato
Renato, so I'm "Dodging the issues"?! You are absolutely having a laugh, right?
It really is a waste of time trying to argue with someone who refuses to engage with empirical evidence, and who degenerates to insults and yet more Gish Gallops as a way of avoiding the substantive issues. You moved the conversation from the Sun (post #16), to temperature timeseries (post #23), to palaeoclimate (post #62) and after losing all those arguments, now to extreme weather (also #62 and again in #79 when I didn't bite first time), finally to Tim Flannery (post #81), all with an almost breathtaking lack of comprehension. And you accuse me of moving goalposts???? I had hoped you might be amenable to reading some science, but apparently not. You also seem to think that your eyeball is a better judge than the entire palaeoclimate community , and that your interpretation (more likely that of the denierblogs) beats the whole science community. Essentialy you must think there's a huge conspiracy. Do you ever consider that you might be wrong on so many things? I seriously doubt you've actually read AR5 or any of the climate literature, let alone the more challenging world of extreme event literature. As you're unwilling to engage with substance or stick to a topic, I'm done here.
Good luck with your worldview!
Mods, this really ought to be closed. The topic of Renato vs science has probably reached the end of it's useful life.
Hi Andy,
Wow - calling for discussion to be closed because you don't like it.
And when all I have been doing is citing from the IPCC Assessment reports - which I had thought are hardly radical documents. I haven't cited anything from the "denier" blogs, as you call them and are pretending that I have done. Perhaps you don't like the Report's content much, because you sure aren't addressing them.
You say, "But do go and buy a house that is next to a large river and surrounded by bushland if you think I'm wrong." And after I respond about Tim Flannery, you seem to see breathtaking lack of comprehension in my response, relating to moving next door to Tim.
I'll leave it to you to Google "Tim Flannery House" where you can see that several years ago, Tim bought a house on an island in the middle of the Hawkesbury River. He doesn't seem to be heeding your dire warning to me.
I think that at the end of the day, we have a remarkably different world view, best illustrated by the Hockey Stick Graph from the 3rd Assessment report and the subsequent graph from the 5th Assessment report, both of which I have attached.
You look at Mann's Hockey stick graph, and see a marvel of science which has eradicated the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. I look at it and think "Isn't it amazing, there was no Mediaval Warm Period, but somehow there was a hotspot in Europe that the historical and archeological records show allowed Vikings to settle and farm Greenland for 200 years before the subsequent return of the cold and ensuing malnutrition did them in. And somehow, there was also a cold spot in Europe which ultimately led to the French Revolution and Napolean marching all over Europe. And at the same time Northern America was having big problems because of the cold. But apparently these were all local phenomena."
And then comes the graph from the 5th Assessment report. You see it as wonderful confirmation of Mann's Hockey stick. I look at it and instead see that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age appear to have made a come back in some of the reconstructions, and that no one seems mildly disturbed with the fact that they unambiguously conflict with the first graph.
If one doesn't become more skeptical as time goes by, after a course like that, one does not observe and one does not think.
Regards,
Renato
...and if one sticks ones head far enough into the sand, (or else where), you can't see a thing.... and there is none so blind as he who refuses to see.....
Suggest you explore the concept of exponential growth as applied to population, then take a look at the consequences of feedback. Still not convinced? Go look up the term "drunken forest" and calculate the consequences of the release of all that Methane... apart from the stink.
I agree Andy, Renato verses the rest of Science is a waste of time. Please, oh Please mods., close the thread.
...and if one sticks ones head far enough into the sand, (or else where), you can't see a thing.... and there is none so blind as he who refuses to see.....
Suggest you explore the concept of exponential growth as applied to population, then take a look at the consequences of feedback. Still not convinced? Go look up the term "drunken forest" and calculate the consequences of the release of all that Methane... apart from the stink.
I agree Andy, Renato verses the rest of Science is a waste of time. Please, oh Please mods., close the thread.
I am unsure what precisely it is that you are complaining about. Plainly you haven't read my posts - I am citing from what appears to be your Bible, the IPCC 5th Assessment Report.
If you have issues with the parts I have cited from it, well, the appropriate body to refer them to is the IPCC, not to me.
Regards,
Renato
While there is no significant trend in the number of cyclones, you've conveniently failed to quote from the same report:
"Arguably, storm frequency is of limited usefulness if not considered
in tandem with intensity and duration measures. Intensity measures
in historical records are especially sensitive to changing technology
and improving methodology"
" .... the frequency of very intense tropical cyclones have been identified in the North Atlantic and these appear robust since the 1970s (Kossin et al.
2007) (very high confidence)"
So the reality appears to be (regional) cyclones apart from being more intense, are drifting to higher latitudes.
Doh!
Hi Peter,
Thanks for citing what presumably is the limited evidence from the pieces I was citing. One paper from 2007 seems pretty limited, as I know that more have been published since, but that's outside the bounds I've limited myself to here.
Regards,
Renato
I would hate for there to be global warming if I had to rely on some of you blokes to to something about it!
How about you stop contributing to the so called warming with all your hot air?
Cheers
Jo
The debate over Global Warming is a dead topic. Those who continue to live in denial need to show me the dark matter equivalent of 97% of Scientists who reject Global Warming.
If you can't do that then please go join the Flat Earth Society or affiliated organisations, like the Liberal Party. I, being one of many, many millions, prefer the conservative view and I'm not prepared to take the risk on Global Warming until dissenters can provide me with another earth like planet to live on, and the means to get there....
Here's the conclusion from just one paper, (Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature), for you to consider.
Conclusion:
" The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).
Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010). The situation is exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue, where the normative practice of providing opposing sides with equal attention has allowed a vocal minority to have their views amplified (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004). While there are indications that the situation has improved in the UK and USA prestige press (Boykoff 2007), the UK tabloid press showed no indication of improvement from 2000 to 2006 (Boykoff and Mansfield 2008).
The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse' (Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year' (Allègre et al2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW."
Hi Rom,
Unfortunately, when I hit Reply with Quote, it's not working on your post.
You may want to Google responses to Cook's 97% Consensus paper on the internet, where it has been criticised for various reasons, like,
a. that the so called skeptical scientists are all actually in agreement that CO2 will increase earth's temperature, so that their papers have wound up being included as part of the "Consensus", and
b. issues have been raised with the methodology, and
c. that the results are not reproducible by anybody, since Cook refuses to release half the data citing confidentiality - despite the persons asking to see the data saying that they are willing to sign confidentiality agreements.
But things took a strange turn. As reported in The Australian 17 March 2013, University of Queensland is threatening to sue one person, Brandon Schollenberger who wanted to investigate Cook's methodology and data, and who actually found the supposedly confidential data on the internet - available to anyone, as it wasn't password protected.
As far as I know, science is meant to be something where you put everything in your findings out for everyone to peruse and dissect. Not something that you start threatening to sue over, when one attempts to do just that.
As for Climate Change being a dead issue, the trade union/Association of which I am a member was the then Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia, now Professionals Australia. Most of it's members are scientists and engineers. Some five years or so ago, the Association surveyed its members on the issue of Anthropological Global Warming, and found them evenly split at exactly 50% believing it and 50% being skeptical.
This result was way out of whack with similar surveys of the general public, who at that time had a far greater number of believers. And that was before Climategate 1 and 2 happened. Quite frankly, if at the height of Global Warming hype and before Climategate, a majority of scientists and engineers - who are trade union members - couldn't be convinced, I don't think it's going to happen any time soon, especially given the Hiatus.
Some five years or so ago, the Association surveyed its members on the issue of Anthropological Global Warming, and found them evenly split at exactly 50% believing it and 50% being skeptical.
Regards,
Renato
Like I said, there ain't none so blind as those who refuse to see... Considering we only have access to ONE livable planet, I should think that if just 5% of credible scientists said we were in trouble that should be ample grounds for a global wave of pants crapping.... but bloody minded self interest rules and we'll all pay for it BIG TIME, undoubtedly in our life time.
Above, you claim a 50:50 split of your association. For gawd sake man. THINK !! This should be a classic, "Ah, Der...", moment for you.
I know a family that includes a "super engineer" who went from being one of the most rational environmentally aware people I know to a climate change skeptic all because he couldn't build the bloody dam he designed. He argues rampantly with his son, who is a climatologist, and is quite happy to say black is white to "prove" his point... Vested interest wins every time.
Despite all the protestations you may come up with, I am dead sure you are pisssed off because you don't like the idea of not getting what you want. There's no point in discussing this topic with you, your mind is closed to anything that does not fit your world view. My world view includes the following image which, frankly, scares the crap out of me... "Drunken Forests" Go look it up!
I just realised how many four letter words I know that are completely unpublishable
Like I said, there ain't none so blind as those who refuse to see... Considering we only have access to ONE livable planet, I should think that if just 5% of credible scientists said we were in trouble that should be ample grounds for a global wave of pants crapping.... but bloody minded self interest rules and we'll all pay for it BIG TIME, undoubtedly in our life time.
Above, you claim a 50:50 split of your association. For gawd sake man. THINK !! This should be a classic, "Ah, Der...", moment for you.
I know a family that includes a "super engineer" who went from being one of the most rational environmentally aware people I know to a climate change skeptic all because he couldn't build the bloody dam he designed. He argues rampantly with his son, who is a climatologist, and is quite happy to say black is white to "prove" his point... Vested interest wins every time.
Despite all the protestations you may come up with, I am dead sure you are pisssed off because you don't like the idea of not getting what you want. There's no point in discussing this topic with you, your mind is closed to anything that does not fit your world view. My world view includes the following image which, frankly, scares the crap out of me... "Drunken Forests"
I just realised how many four letter words I know that are completely unpublishable
Hi Rom,
Look, I just can't take this planet saving alarmism and its proponents seriously.
If one really, really thought that the earth was in danger, and that global warming was effectively hitting the place with 4 Hiroshima bombs a second, and that this was so dangerous that the entire world should emulate Tasmania into oblivion, well the solution is simple.
Just emulate France instead. There are millions of years of energy to be had for the whole of the earth by just going nuclear, and as much energy as anybody wants, and the whole global warming issue is fixed.
Fast breeder reactors all over the place. The occasional real Hiroshima sized bomb may well go off here or there from pesky terrorists or some rogue government - but that's a tiny price to pay for stopping the 4 Hiroshima bombs a second, right?
This appears to happen whenever the text contains characters outside the printable ASCII character set (hex values 0x20-0x7e).
Thanks very much for that information.
It's had me puzzled and has happened a few times during this thread, and I've had to go to previous posts, hit Reply with Quote, copy what came up, close it, go to the thread I wanted to reply with quote, open it, paste what I'd copied into it, delete its content, and copy the real quote into it - and then it worked.
Ah... engineer...., nuclear reactors.. The vested interest angle.
Surprise, surprise. Here is another one, I agree with you. Traditional fast breeders are a liability, give me something better and you have an argument worth listening to. Try key words like "Thorium" and "Fusion" which, by the way, I know are not the same.... However, base load can be derived from renewables as well.... now that's an engineering solution worth pursuing....
Stop crapping on about global warming being a fiction, its FACT and use your engineering skills to come up with a solution that does not include 3 mile island like scenarios. The technology could work, why don't you spend your time promoting the non-melt down versions instead of wasting time
... and by the way, Tasmania is about as far from "oblivion" as you can get. Last time I saw the mainland I couldn't stand the stink..., (No offense to the rest of you....), crowds, pollution, noise, agro, stress etc. couldn't wait to get back to "The real world". If you check out the reality of the situation, the more you build up the rest of the world, the harder it gets to maintain.... classic deck of cards. I'd love it if the rest of the world could catch up to Tassie. I can go to places of ABSOLUTE silence, that are clean. Mind you, our current F*witt premier wants us to emulate whats already proven to be a failure. He's next on the hit list and wont last his term.
There's no point in discussing this topic with you, your mind is closed to anything that does not fit your world view.
I was going to say the exactly the same thing about you!
How ridiculous to winge about someone not being prepared to change to your views when you have absolutely NO intention of considering anything other than what you have already decided is the truth???
You can spurt your 'facts', deny anything that calls your 'truth' into question, throw tantrums etc, at the end of the day you have achieved nothing other than upsetting yourself and looking ridiculous!
I'm sorry for you mate, maybe you should buy a houseboat?
, and that your interpretation (more likely that of the denierblogs) beats the whole science community. Essentialy you must think there's a huge conspiracy. Do you ever consider that you might be wrong on so many things? I seriously doubt you've actually read AR5 or any of the climate literature, let alone the more challenging world of extreme event literature. As you're unwilling to engage with substance or stick to a topic, I'm done here.
