An excellent guide for the layman on antropogenic global warming.

Catastrophe denied
http://youtu.be/4SxtXhcxVkk

Is it my imagination, or is the second "PDO warm" warmer that the first?

I've seen a better guide, but at least it seems to demonstrate a warming trend.

Why do you always quote the Hadcrut 3 dataset? Is it because it's least representative of the polar regions where a great deal of warming has occurred.

muso wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 2:27pm:

Is it my imagination, or is the second "PDO warm" warmer that the first? I've seen a better guide, but at least it seems to demonstrate a warming trend. Why do you always quote the Hadcrut 3 dataset? Is it because it's least representative of the polar regions where a great deal of warming has occurred.

Is that all your worried about that it shows a warming trend.

As long as its shows a warming trend your not too fussed..??

Why does it bother you that I show the hadcrut 3, ok i'll attempt to get others.

Do you think it will kill my argument..??????

What argument?

For those genuinely trying to understand the issues, this might help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg

There's a lot more at: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL92EE5DBE2987982F.

Ajax: pay particular attention to what he says about confirmation bias.

# wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 8:29am:

For those genuinely trying to understand the issues, this might help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg There's a lot more at: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL92EE5DBE2987982F. Ajax: pay particular attention to what he says about confirmation bias.

AGW is a scam based on the a lie.

It started of as global cooling then it changed to global warming, then it changed to climate change then it changed to green energy, what will it morph into next...???

In a nut shell,


Quote:

IPCC & Computer Circulation models tell us, 1. The hot spot in the tropopause will create a runaway greenhouse effect. 2. Sea levels are rising uncontrollably 3. Glaciers & the Nth Pole are melting. 4. All manner of catastrophes will come from the Earth heating up a little, including more powerful cyclones, tornadoes, more mosquitos to spread disease, shell fish are doomed, all species are doomed etc etc. 5. CO2 is the sole reason why we have had warming in the last 100 years, mainly because of mans CO2 emssions. It creates a hotspot in the tropopause which attracts more water & then more CO2 & then more water vapour etc etc  until it uncontrollably creates a runaway greenhouse effect and destroys us all. 6.  The science is settled.

Quote:

Real world observations tell us 1. This hot spot cannot be detected in the tropopause thousands of weather balloons and satellite data confirm this. 2. Sea levels are rising but at a rate of about 2mm/year, which is nothing to be alarmed about, since we are coming out of a mini ice age its only natural that the Earth would heat up. 3. Glaciers & the arctic have been melting for the last 260 years that didn't just start melting from 1950 when mans CO2 emissions started to increase. 4. All part of the Earth's natural weather cycle, climate change is real its been happening since the Earth formed into a molten lava or rock and climate change will continue to the earth is no more. Today at the present time we have some of the coolest temperatures the Earth has ever had and we have some of the lowest amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere, only one other time has CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere been so low. 5. CO2 concentrations follows temperature by a lag of about 800 years, temperature doesn't follow CO2 concentrations. There is absolutely no correlation between CO2 and temperature, just look at the values from our history. CO2 cannot cause a runaway greenhouse effect, otherwise it would have already done so when there was 20 times more CO2 in our atmosphere. 6.  We have scientists who get payed to find global warming and we have scientists who just study global warming without any remuneration. There are just as many prominent scientists opposing AGW as there are preaching it, of course  the AGW religion will not acknowledge them or even debate them.

They prefer character assassination and calling for these independent scientists to be considered terrorist.

Seriously when you think about climate gate, the IPCC which is a political body with junk science most of it being based on computer circulation models instead of real world observations.

If indeed it was such a real threat then why place the fate of all humanity into the hands of wall street and the stock exchange.

Bankers are writing the laws of how carbon credits will be traded and this market is up and running its expected to be a $2 trillion dollar per annum market.

The United nations and the IPCC stand to make a lot of money from the various carbon taxes and ETS schemes around the world because of their junk science and policies.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that Anthropogenic Global Warming is the biggest scam ever presented to humanity.

Ajax wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 9:12am:

... AGW is a scam based on the a lie. ... [followed by a bunch of unsubstantiated quotes]

And your (substantiated) qualifications for that assertion are??

# wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 9:17am:

Ajax wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 9:12am: ... AGW is a scam based on the a lie. ... [followed by a bunch of unsubstantiated quotes] And your (substantiated) qualifications for that assertion are??

Like i keep telling you...!!!

You don't have to be rocket scientist to understand AGW.

More people should research both sides of the argument.

I'm all for it.

Ajax wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 9:20am:

# wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 9:17am: Ajax wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 9:12am: ... AGW is a scam based on the a lie. ... [followed by a bunch of unsubstantiated quotes] And your (substantiated) qualifications for that assertion are?? ... You don't have to be rocket scientist to understand AGW. ...

No qualifications then.

My first recollection of the global warming debate is from the 1950s - a black and white TV show. I became really interested in the 1970s.

A Confucian aphorism translates roughly:
The more a wise man learns;
The more he comes to appreciate;
How much he does not know.
That presupposes two things; learning and wisdom.

I've learned enough to realise that I don't know enough. Any reasonably adept mind will recognise the complexity of climate science. Any reasonably healthy ego will accept that understanding such complexity takes more ability than most of us have and more time & effort than most of us have to spare.

Accepting that I can't credibly judge the science, I came to judging the scientists. By all credible reports, there's substantial agreement among the best qualified scientists. I don't pretend to know better.

# wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 9:33am:

... My first recollection of the global warming debate is from the 1950s - a black and white TV show. ...

This is in colour, but it's something like what I remember seeing in the '50s. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvc5N7XCPPs Note the date.

Al Gore didn't invent the inconvenient truth.

# wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 9:33am:

No qualifications then. My first recollection of the global warming debate is from the 1950s - a black and white TV show. I became really interested in the 1970s. A Confucian aphorism translates roughly: The more a wise man learns; The more he comes to appreciate; How much he does not know. That presupposes two things; learning and wisdom. I've learned enough to realise that I don't know enough. Any reasonably adept mind will recognise the complexity of climate science. Any reasonably healthy ego will accept that understanding such complexity takes more ability than most of us have and more time & effort than most of us have to spare. Accepting that I can't credibly judge the science, I came to judging the scientists. By all credible reports, there's substantial agreement among the best qualified scientists. I don't pretend to know better.

Did i ever say that i was some kind of expert on AGW..??

I'm just a layman trying to make sense of it all.....!

There is one thing i do know though and that is...

All scientific hypothesis are there to be torn down if its possible.

Now that's what science is all about.

There you go boys here's my hypothesis, hung out line dogs balls, dissect it take it apart find what you can about it.

That's science...today we still have people trying to prove Newton and Einstein wrong...the science is there to be taken apart.

The AGW religion are so possessive of their science changing it or updating it every five years or so.

How can the science be settled if it gets revised every five years, this means its a work in progress there is nothing settled about it.

And yet we are being taxed on the air we breath because of science that is still incomplete.

The other thing is why do the alarmists arc up and act as though the deniers are terrorists or madman looking after their own interests.

If their science is sound all they have to do is give to the rest of the scientific community like feeding the chickens in a hen house.

The science itself will shut the doubters up once and for all.

Science is there for everyone to share and hopefully make this world a better place.

Ajax wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 10:15am:

# wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 9:33am: No qualifications then. My first recollection of the global warming debate is from the 1950s - a black and white TV show. I became really interested in the 1970s. A Confucian aphorism translates roughly: The more a wise man learns; The more he comes to appreciate; How much he does not know. That presupposes two things; learning and wisdom. I've learned enough to realise that I don't know enough. Any reasonably adept mind will recognise the complexity of climate science. Any reasonably healthy ego will accept that understanding such complexity takes more ability than most of us have and more time & effort than most of us have to spare. Accepting that I can't credibly judge the science, I came to judging the scientists. By all credible reports, there's substantial agreement among the best qualified scientists. I don't pretend to know better. Did i ever say that i was some kind of expert on AGW..?? I'm just a layman trying to make sense of it all.....!

With science of such complexity, is "a layman trying to make sense of it all" sensible? Over the past four decades, I've come to the conclusion that it's futile.

Ajax wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 10:15am:

There is one thing i do know though and that is... All scientific hypothesis are there to be torn down if its possible. ...

Can those who attempt to do so in ignorance, do so without making fools of themselves?

# wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 10:25am:

With science of such complexity, is "a layman trying to make sense of it all" sensible? Over the past four decades, I've come to the conclusion that it's futile.

We can all try to understand it to the best of our abilities.

That way we can differentiate the wheat from the chaff.


Quote:

Can those who attempt to do so in ignorance, do so without making fools of themselves?

I don't think the many prominent scientist trying to do so, are doing it in ignorance...??

Ajax wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 9:20am:

Like i keep telling you...!!! You don't have to be rocket scientist to understand AGW. More people should research both sides of the argument. I'm all for it.

Why don't you then?

Why do you keep repeating these lies about IPCC claims when they have repeated shown to be strawmen?


Quote:

IPCC & Computer Circulation models tell us, 1. The hot spot in the tropopause will create a runaway greenhouse effect.  Nonsense 2. Sea levels are rising uncontrollably uncontrollably? 3. Glaciers & the Nth Pole are melting. 4. All manner of catastrophes will come from the Earth heating up a little, including more powerful cyclones, tornadoes, more mosquitos to spread disease, shell fish are doomed, all species are doomed etc etc. Nonsense. Is it the IPCC or the General Circulation model that says "All species are doomed?"  ;D 5. CO2 is the sole reason why we have had warming in the last 100 years, mainly because of mans CO2 emssions. That statement is incorrect and the assertion is incorrect. It creates a hotspot in the tropopause which attracts more water & then more CO2 & then more water vapour etc etc  until it uncontrollably creates a runaway greenhouse effect and destroys us all. Utter nonsense.  ;D 6.  The science is settled. IPCC & Circulation models say that? Nonsense.

You see you don't even know what you're arguing against, because you get your information from Anthony Watts and Joanne Nova.

Ajax wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 10:55am:

# wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 10:25am: With science of such complexity, is "a layman trying to make sense of it all" sensible? Over the past four decades, I've come to the conclusion that it's futile. We can all try to understand it to the best of our abilities. That way we can differentiate the wheat from the chaff. Quote: Can those who attempt to do so in ignorance, do so without making fools of themselves? I don't think the many prominent scientist trying to do so, are doing it in ignorance...??

Clearly, we define "many" differently. With equal clarity, you're no less ignorant than I.

Whether you're making a fool of yourself - if not worse - you'll need to judge for yourself. I don't doubt that the readers have already judged.

# wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 11:09am:

Ajax wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 10:55am: # wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 10:25am: With science of such complexity, is "a layman trying to make sense of it all" sensible? Over the past four decades, I've come to the conclusion that it's futile. We can all try to understand it to the best of our abilities. That way we can differentiate the wheat from the chaff. Quote: Can those who attempt to do so in ignorance, do so without making fools of themselves? I don't think the many prominent scientist trying to do so, are doing it in ignorance...?? Clearly, we define "many" differently. With equal clarity, you're no less ignorant than I. Whether you're making a fool of yourself - if not worse - you'll need to judge for yourself. I don't doubt that the readers have already judged.

I would say that there are just as many scientists who oppose AGW with those that try to confirm it.

Ajax wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 11:24am:

... I would say that there are just as many scientists who oppose AGW with those that try to confirm it.

Of course you would. Science, however says otherwise.

Scepticism is fundamental to science. Every scientist working in the field is on the lookout for faults in the argument. So far, it seems, they're mainly finding confirmations.

# wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 2:00pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 11:24am: ... I would say that there are just as many scientists who oppose AGW with those that try to confirm it. Of course you would. Science, however says otherwise. Scepticism is fundamental to science. Every scientist working in the field is on the lookout for faults in the argument. So far, it seems, they're mainly finding confirmations.

# wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 2:15pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 6:16pm: ... I say that today, We have some of the coolest temperatures EVER and We also have some of the lowest amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere......!!!!!!!!! The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise, or so it seems.

# wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 2:21pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 6:12pm: muso wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 2:22pm: I recognise the names. They all work for the Heartland institute (or most of them do). So what are you insinuating that these scientists are spouting nonsense because you disagree with their views....????? Don't their affiliations call their credibility into question? If their opinions are so significant, why are they such a tiny minority? Ajax wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 6:12pm: Can you prove them wrong.....?????? Is that a reasonable demand to make? Can you "prove" them right?

look here
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1377835124

Ajax wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 2:35pm:

# wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 2:00pm: [quote author=Ajax link=1377741960/15#15 date=1377825861]... I would say that there are just as many scientists who oppose AGW with those that try to confirm it. Of course you would. Science, however says otherwise. ... look here http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1377835124

I'll take that as acknowledgement of defeat.

# wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 2:45pm:

I'll take that as acknowledgement of defeat.

Sometimes I wonder who the deniers really are.....???

What would you do if the AGW religion fell apart....??

You don't have to answer that.  :D

Ajax wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 2:47pm:

# wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 2:45pm: I'll take that as acknowledgement of defeat. Sometimes I wonder who the deniers really are.....??? ...

When it's convincingly established that the majority of the best qualified say there's no risk, I'll stop worrying.

AJax, posting the same thing on multiple threads is spamming. I have deleted your spam posts, and left the first post you made.

muso wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 3:33pm:

AJax, posting the same thing on multiple threads is spamming. I have deleted your spam posts, and left the first post you made.

then you should also delete # repeated posts..?????

Ajax wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 7:34pm:

muso wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 3:33pm: AJax, posting the same thing on multiple threads is spamming. I have deleted your spam posts, and left the first post you made. then you should also delete # repeated posts..?????

Ajax, you're starting to whine.

Ajax wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 11:24am:

I would say that there are just as many scientists who oppose AGW with those that try to confirm it.

Yes.  You say a lot of stupid things, don't you.

Funny that none of these "scientists who oppose AGW" never actually publish any research in scientific journals to support their opinions, isn't it.

I suppose this is all part of a conspiracy theory, huh.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 10:04pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 11:24am: I would say that there are just as many scientists who oppose AGW with those that try to confirm it. Yes.  You say a lot of stupid things, don't you. Funny that none of these "scientists who oppose AGW" never actually publish any research in scientific journals to support their opinions, isn't it. I suppose this is all part of a conspiracy theory, huh.

When are you going to take your head out of the hole and look around.

The AGW has really dug their claws into you haven't they, you might need surgery to remove them..... :P :D ;D ;)

(Baliunas & Jastrow 1990)
(Foukal & Lean 1990)
(Friis-Christensen & Lassen 1991)
(Lockwood et al 1992)
(Scuderi 1993)
(Charvatova & Strestik 1995)
(Balinius & Soon 1996-1998)
(Soon et al 1996)
(Hoyt & Schatten 1997)
(Nicola Scaffeta & Bruce J West 2008)

Ajax wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 9:26am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 10:04pm: Ajax wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 11:24am: I would say that there are just as many scientists who oppose AGW with those that try to confirm it. Yes.  You say a lot of stupid things, don't you. Funny that none of these "scientists who oppose AGW" never actually publish any research in scientific journals to support their opinions, isn't it. I suppose this is all part of a conspiracy theory, huh. When are you going to take your head out of the hole and look around. The AGW has really dug their claws into you haven't they, you might need surgery to remove them..... :P :D ;D ;) Ajax wrote on Aug 31st, 2013 at 9:26am: (Baliunas & Jastrow 1990) Evidence for long-term brightness changes of solar-type stars This paper does not in any way argue against the fact that AGW is occurring Ajax wrote on Aug 31st, 2013 at 9:26am: (Foukal & Lean 1990) An Empirical Model of Total Solar Irradiance Variation Between 1874 and 1988 The model provides a remarkably good representation of the irradiance variations observed by satellite-borne radiometers between 1980 and 1988. It suggests that the mean total irradiance has been rising steadily since about 1945, with the largest peak so far at about 1980 and another large peak expected during the current solar cycle 22. But it is doubtful whether even this rise can contribute significantly to global warming, unless the temperature increase of about 0.02°C that it produces in current energy balance models seriously underestimates the sensitivity of climate to solar irradiance changes. This paper does not in any way argue against the fact that AGW is occurring.  In fact - it indirectly supports it by suggesting that solar variability in not contributing significantly to global warming. Ajax wrote on Aug 31st, 2013 at 9:26am: (Friis-Christensen & Lassen 1991) Yes. This paper identified a correlation between solar activity and temperature up to 1991. But as one of the author's says: Friis-Christensen agreed that any correlation between sunspots and global warming that he may have identified in the 1991 study has since broken down. There is, he said, a clear "divergence" between the sunspots and global temperatures after 1986, which shows that the present warming period cannot be explained by solar activity alone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigil_Friis-Christensen It is very dishonest of you to try to represent this scientist as an AGW denier. Ajax wrote on Aug 31st, 2013 at 9:26am: (Lockwood et al 1992) Can't even find this one.  Why don't you provide a link for us and show us what the paper really says [quote author=Ajax link=1377741960/25#25 date=1377905203](Scuderi 1993)

A 2000-Year Tree Ring Record of Annual Temperatures in the Sierra Nevada Mountains
Tree ring data have been used to reconstruct the mean late-season (June through January) temperature at a timberline site in the Sierra Nevada, California, for each of the past 2000 years. Long-term trends in the temperature reconstruction are indicative of a 125-year periodicity that may be linked to solar activity as reflected in radiocarbon and auroral records. The results indicate that both the warm intervals during the Medieval Warm Epoch (∼A.D. 800 to 1200) and the cold intervals during the Little Ice Age (∼A.D. 1200 to 1900) are closely associated with the 125-year period. Significant changes in the phase of the 125-year temperature variation occur at the onset and termination of the most recent radiocarbon triplet and may indicate chaotic solar behavior

How on earth you you think that this paper in any way disputes the face that AGW is occurring?

Ajax wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 9:26am:

(Charvatova & Strestik 1995)

Long-term changes of the surface air temperature in relation to solar inertial motion
The inertial motion of the Sun around the barycentre, or centre of mass, of the Solar System has been employed as the base in searching for possible influence of the Solar System as a whole on climatic processes, especially on the changes in surface air temperature. A basic cycle of about 180–200 years and its higher harmonics up to 30 years have been found in surface air temperature of central Europe since 1753, established from 13 continuous instrumental time series. These periods correspond to the periods of solar inertial motion. In the first half of the 19th century, when the solar motion was chaotic, this temperature was about 0.75°C lower than that in the 20th (1940–50) and the 18th (1760–70) centuries. The mentioned decades of long-term temperature maxima coincide with the central decades of the ordered (trefoil) motion of the Sun. The temperatures in coastal Europe have been found to have slightly different properties, especially on a long-time scale. The periods of 35–45 years are significantly pronounced in the coastal Europe temperature spectrum. The chaotic motion of the Sun in the next decades could decrease both the solar forcing and global surface air temperature.


Another paper looking at the relationship between solar activity and temperature
Another paper that does not in any way argue against the fact that AGW is occurring
Another lie from you



Ajax wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 9:26am:

(Balinius & Soon 1996-1998)

Any particular paper you are referring to here?  Why don't you provide us a link


Ajax wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 9:26am:

(Soon et al 1996)

Again - no idea what paper you are referring to?  Why don't you provide us a link.


You seem to be relying very heavily on this Soon and Balinaus, aren't you.  Why is that?

Surely, if as you say "there are just as many scientists who oppose AGW with those that try to confirm it." - you should be able to find thousands of papers from scientific journals with evidence to support that arguement.

You have shown us none so far.
Zero.
Zip.
Nada.

You are a liar - and you are not very good at it.

Hhhhhmmmmmm........................

I think its your lot that are deniers....!!!!!!!!

Ajax wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 5:37pm:

Hhhhhmmmmmm........................ I think its your lot that are deniers....!!!!!!!!

The sad thing is that you don't know the basic facts that you dispute. You've demonstrated that in almost every post.  You post things like saying that emissions of CO2 do not initiate the end of glaciations as if it's some kind of world shattering revelation.  It isn't. It's just common sense. CO2 is not the initial driver of temperature.

Ajax, these are things that a high school student studying science would know.