Carbon tax scrapped

[wulfgar]

Originally Posted by doppler

Maybe the "global warming" is a good thing. If the sun is going through a cool phase?

Do you mean GW or AGW?

[doppler (Rick)]

Originally Posted by wulfgar

Do you mean GW or AGW?

I meant that the sun plays a bigger role in keeping the planet warm than man ever will be able to change.

[casstony]

The Earth is very small Rick, it's diameter is only about three times Australia's width and it's atmosphere is very thin - climb a tall mountain and you'll have difficulty breathing. Is it that hard to believe billions of Industrial Age humans can have an influence on the climate?

[doppler (Rick)]

So has anyone worked out the perfect temp that the earth should be at, so all countries are happy with their climate and environment?

[Astro_Bot]

<Facepalm>

[wulfgar]

Originally Posted by doppler

I meant that the sun plays a bigger role in keeping the planet warm than man ever will be able to change.

If you mean variability in the Sun's output then the answer is no.

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by andyc

The so-called 'pause' is nothing more than ENSO 'noise'. It's a result that confirms the work of Kosaka and Xie (2013) and Foster and Rahmstorf (2011). Climate models don't try and predict ENSO - the sloshing of Pacific water and strengthening/weakening of trade winds is an emergent property of the dynamics of the ocean/atmosphere and the effects average out to zero on timescales greater than about 20 years. This is why climate is defined as being measured over 30 years.

Hi Andy,
Well, if climate is measured over 30 years - earth cooled till around 1975, then started heating up.

So, some 14 years later, Margaret Thatcher jumped on the Global Warming bandwagon and the ball really starts rolling - "climate" had been determined on just over 10 years.

Warming continued till 1998 - all those IPCC Assessment Reports, where "climate" related to 23 years or less of warming.

Now, we're at nearly 18 years of no warming by some datasets, and "climate" mysteriously can only be measured over 30 years!

Shame no one applied that 30 year criterion from 1975, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Regardless, the super computer models are supposed to predict. All of them can be tweaked to give an excellent reproduction of the past. But as I stated, 95% have fallen apart predicting the future. It is all very nice to predict after the event that "ENSO "Noise"" is the cause of the pause that nobody predicted before it happened. Was there any mention in AR1 through to AR4 that this was likely?

And was there any mention in AR1 through to AR4 that all the model's predictions - on which the whole planet's economy was recommended to to be turned on its head at huge cost - could be inaccurate because of Pacific Oscillation?

Perversly, poor old sceptic Dr. Roy Spencer his been hitting his head against the wall for the last 30 years saying the Pacific Oscillation was the main cause of the warming, and was studiously ignored by Warmists, but out of the blue and after the event, the Oscillation now becomes a big factor after all.

Perhaps you can enlighten me on one thing. The bits I read in AR5 from 2013 didn't offer the 2011 and 2013 papers you cite as definitive proof to explain the Hiatus, in the manner that you have. Did I miss something or are you disagreeing with the uncertainty regarding the cause of the Hiatus expressed by the IPCC in AR5? or is it the case that they don't want to be pinned down and shown to be wrong in four or five years?

And when you refer to the 'so-called "pause"', are you in disagreement with the IPCC's acknowledged "Hiatus"?
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by el_draco

Take Jacqui Lambie for example. Really!!!, did someone actually vote for her??? I owe no allegiances to any of them and if I bothered wasting my time voting, I'd only vote for someone prepared to minimise damage to the environment.

She is a bit crass (or maybe a lot) - but she now has a track record.

She has voted rationally on one decision (The Carbon Tax), and I'm having a hard time thinking of anything significant and rational that Milne and Hanson-Young have voted on.

So, I'd rate Lambi as one of Tasmania's better choices for the Senate.
Cheers,
Renato

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by wulfgar

If you mean variability in the Sun's output then the answer is no.

Lately I've been seeing references to variable output from the sun associated with lack of sunspots, often referred too as cooling. My understanding was that any change in heat output from the sun was quite minuscule at best.

The Scandinavian theory about the sun's variable solar wind affecting cosmic rays hitting the earth, and hence affecting cloud formation on earth is another matter - but I've heard zilch about that lately.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by el_draco

Personally, I'd prefer a robust and occasionally heated debate to any other option, provided what is said in the thread stays in the thread. I have found that, contrary to damaging the reputation of IIS, I have been challenged and enlightened, at times educated, at times vindicated and at all times intellectually stimulated. Gotta be good.

... and Renato is SO MUCH FUN !

Compared to other sites, in general we seem to be very respectful and polite to each other, regardless of "heat".

Cheers,
Renato

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by Retrograde

Hilarious - you completely disregard a peer-reviewed paper published in one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals despite admitting you haven't even read it!
On the other hand in the last GW thread you referenced an unscientific op-ed from the Heartland Institute (a right-wing think-tank funded by fossil-fuel interests) as if it represented real science.

I don't recollect citing anything from the Heartland Institute, but am happy to be corrected.

What I did cite was a paper from the Global Policy Warming Foundation "A Sensitive Matter" N.Lewis & M, Crok 2014 which gave an explanation as to why the IPCC's 5th Assessment Report changed the range of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) range from the 4th Assessment Report's 2C-4.5C to 1.5C- 4.5C, and why it chose for the first time not to give a best estimate of ECS, which in the previous four reports had been 3C (that is, if atmospheric CO2 doubled, the best estimate was that temperature would increase by 3C).

That paper wasn't evidence of anything - as the evidence was in the 5th Assessment Report itself, where they expanded the Range of ECS and for the first time chose not to give a best estimate of ECS, citing only that there exists a greater range of ECS results from more recent research papers.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the content of the Lewis and Crok paper is largely irrelevant. The IPCC states in 5th Assessment report that recent studies give lower figures for ECS, and they accordingly increase their range for ECS to incorporate the lower 1.5C figure, and for the first time decline to give the best estimate ECS, where the 3C figure had been a mainstay of the previous reports. The likelihood must have increased that things aren't as bad as stated in prior reports, regardless of what they then wrote in their Executive Summary.

As for my completely disregarding a peer-reviewed paper published in one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals which effectively says that the models are excellent at reproducing past and current events, except that 95% give the wrong predictions because they don't take account of a major factor, the Pacific Oscillation which they can't predict, - well - yes, I'll happily disregard it.

Pacific Oscillation is a known event. When one programs a simulation, one gets a random number generator, to throw the event and its effects in at random at the expected frequency. How can one knowingly leave such a significant factor out?

What has me far more interested, rather than why all the dud models are supposedly really fine, are the two models that are still on track - which haven't been shown to be incorrect, because they didn't predict the high warming that the other ones did. They do predict that warming will take off in another four or five years. Unfortunately, it'll be another 10 years before I'll either be having another chuckle or eating my words.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by Astro_Bot

Andy, you are far more patient than I, and I appreciate your very informative posts even if the deniers don't.



He doesn't misunderstand. He is deliberately mis-quoting and distorting in order to further the anti-climate science agenda. You will never persuade him because he does not want to debate or learn, only to try and create as much doubt and confusion as he possibly can.

The doubt and confusion arises from other things like the Arctic ice still being there, when Al Gore said it would all be gone by last year. Or reports a decade ago saying the skiing industry in Australia was doomed, while we get the best snow falls in 25 years. Or statements that the last drought may well be a permanent event, only to be followed by the rains and floods we were never meant to get again, and which were never going to fill our dams again (there's $9 billion worth of mothballed desalination plants backing that claim).

You are most welcome to be very pro-climate science and unconfuse me and to allay my doubts about the latter examples.

I would also be delighted if you could provide one single example where I have "misquoted" a single thing. Should be a very simple task for you to do, as you infer I do it all the time.

I'll be very interested to see what you come up with, including what I have supposedly been "distorting", since when I quote, I copy and paste, and give references so that you can go to the original source and make sure I've highlighted and copied correctly.

Regards,
Renato

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by casstony

The Earth is very small Rick, it's diameter is only about three times Australia's width and it's atmosphere is very thin - climb a tall mountain and you'll have difficulty breathing. Is it that hard to believe billions of Industrial Age humans can have an influence on the climate?

Apparently so, and Renato STILL HAS NOT ANSWERED THE QUESTION! !

[Retrograde (Pete)]

Originally Posted by Renato1

It is all very nice to predict after the event that "ENSO "Noise"" is the cause of the pause that nobody predicted before it happened.

This is just a misrepresentation of global climate models. No one has been able to successfully predict ENSO phases well in advance and that is not what GCMs are designed to do.
ENSO is a response to a range of factors and not a forcing on the climate itself - it would be the same as writing off climate models for not predicting the cooling effect of a large volcanic eruption even though GCMs are not designed to predict volcanic eruptions.

Originally Posted by Renato1

Perversly, poor old sceptic Dr. Roy Spencer his been hitting his head against the wall for the last 30 years saying the Pacific Oscillation was the main cause of the warming, and was studiously ignored by Warmists, but out of the blue and after the event, the Oscillation now becomes a big factor after all.

Dr Spencer is also a creationist. Do you not accept evolution as well on his say so?
If you correct for ENSO then you still see strong warming trend. Spencer is completely wrong on that as shown here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ends-and-enso/

Of course Roy Spencer tried to produce his own climate model. When hindcast 1000 years (a basic check) it was out by 6 TRILLION degrees

Originally Posted by Renato1

I don't recollect citing anything from the Heartland Institute, but am happy to be corrected.

What I did cite was a paper from the Global Policy Warming Foundation

So you did. One denialist 'think-tank' that refuses to disclose its funding sources and lists the usual suspects amongst its list of 'academic advisers' (Plimer, Carter, Lindzen etc) is quite hard to distinguish from another.

What they all have in common is that they don't do real scientific research or produce peer-reviewed, scientific papers. They instead spread misinformation for their undisclosed financial backers and (in the case of the GWPF & our own IPA) even leech off the taxpayer by declaring "charitable status".

[casstony]

Originally Posted by doppler

So has anyone worked out the perfect temp that the earth should be at, so all countries are happy with their climate and environment?

It's a matter of not disrupting the status quo; the Earth seems to have figured out a pleasant climate for us and it's in our interest not to interfere.

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by Renato1

The doubt and confusion arises from other things like the Arctic ice still being there, when Al Gore said it would all be gone by last year.
Renato

Ah yep, and how thick is it compared to 20 years ago, and how extensive is it compared to 20 years ago. Hmmm

[wulfgar]

Originally Posted by Renato1

Hi Andy,
Well, if climate is measured over 30 years - earth cooled till around 1975, then started heating up.

So, some 14 years later, Margaret Thatcher jumped on the Global Warming bandwagon and the ball really starts rolling - "climate" had been determined on just over 10 years.

Warming continued till 1998 - all those IPCC Assessment Reports, where "climate" related to 23 years or less of warming.

Now, we're at nearly 18 years of no warming by some datasets, and "climate" mysteriously can only be measured over 30 years!

Shame no one applied that 30 year criterion from 1975, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So Renato, since you are so terribly fond of the second hiatus, what do you have to say about the first one?

This isn't the first hiatus!

Arrhenius proposed his theory around 1900 as he claimed increasing industrialization with attendant release of the carbonsink would cause a general temperature rise. It did indeed rise from the time of Arrhenius until 1940. Then there was hiatus until the late 1970's. The pre 1940 general temperature rise was nothing out of the ordinary in the CET record. However the post 1970's rise in temperature was without parallel in the CET record dating back to the mid 17th century.

Hansen claims the hiatus is the result of particulate matter from a sudden rush to polluting industry during WW2 and post war, a then again with the rapid Chinese industrialization from the 90's onwards. However particulate levels in the atmosphere would require worldwide constant daily measurement at varying attitudes, an expensive procedure.

And then again it could be anything else as well. The CET record reveals general rises and falls that can last a generation. However since 1900 we've no periods of fall, but merely leveling out.

When we no longer see generational falls in temperature, then we know the Earth is heating up.

But as I said to you few years ago, it wouldn't make any difference to me if the hiatus went for 30 years. Basic GW theory is sound, and eventually Anthropomorphic Global Warming will over ride anything else. AGW is in the young adults book on Earth Science I was reading in the 1960's. I was reading German speculations (trans into English) that were from 1920's in my late teens.

The world spends huge sums on consumer junk, science research gets a pittance, as satirized by the Micheal and Webb look.

That Mitchell and Webb Look - Garnier Laboritoire

[Octane (Humayun)]

I love David Mitchell and Robert Webb. That is all.

H

[graham.hobart (Graham stevens)]

You should watch Mitchell and Webb do "Homeopathic A&E" - that's a cracker !
Or is the mention of homeopathy asking for trouble? !!

Graz

[xelasnave]

I do find the use of the expression...climate change denier..extremely offensive
Denier should be exclusive to the reference to those disgusting people who argue that the holocost never happened
Shame upon whoever introduced the word denier to demonise their opponent.t in the climate change debate.
You could call your opponent a drunken wife beating dog kicking mongrel but denier is much worse
This word should be reserved exclusively for those who contemptuously reject such a horrific persecution and mass extinction
To use the term climate change denier however makes one lower than I can and lessens it to a common word which can be uses to demonise an opponentpOlo