Australian Politics Forum - Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #120 - Jan 1^st, 2013 at 11:40am

your argument however is still little more than taking out the negative events and pretending that temperature is rising. I know it all looks nice and pretty and I am sure you are convinced but if Global warming is to be genuine then it must be ACTUAL warming, not statistically created warming. and remember that the comments from CRU is that there has been no STATISTICALLY significant warming for 16 year and now... 17 years.

This argument can still be simplistically called 'global warming once we remove all the cooling'. When CRU and other climate hysterics admit that warming has paused then any of these silly arguments are rather embarrassing.

Argue the PAUSE - as they do - but dont pretend it hasnt happened.

and i have to repeat yet again that waht you are doing is NOT critical reasoning but rather cheer leading. Critical reasoning would acknowelge the fact and then seek an actual reasoned response. You just say that it is warming regardless of the fact that it isnt.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 1^st, 2013 at 11:46am by gold_medal »

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #121 - Jan 1^st, 2013 at 12:30pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:37pm:

Interesting to note:

(1) If the ice and the water it floats in are of different composition then the water is displaced ie freshwater ice in salt water. The pictures we've been seeing is from Antarctica and Greenland (freshwater ice)

(2) Does anyone know what the IPCC say about recent rises in sea-level and how much it contributes to Antarctica and Greenland?

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

Antarctic and Greenland ice sheet mass contributed to sea level rise between 1993 and 2003

Antarctica ==>> 0.21 ± 0.35 mm/year
Greenland ==>> 0.21 ± 0.07 mm/year

things to note:
(a) This is an estimate
(b) The rise is in millimetres
(c) The Antarctic margin of error wipes out the Antarctic contribution as well as offsets the Greenland contribution

not one leftie commented on this IPCC finding?

you don't know what 0.21mm looks like? - look in your pants and multiply that by 1,000

talking about multiplying by 1,000

if we multiply 0.21mm by 1,000 years = 210mm = 21cm in 1,000 years???

What you are ignoring is the total observed increase in sea levels. Currently most of this comes from thermal expansion and the melting of ice caps and glaciers.

The observed total rate so sea level rise was reported by the IPCC in 2007 to be 3.1 ± 0.7mm per year. This can be found in the same table from which Maqqa got his information. It is significantly higher than the 1.8 ± 0.5mm rate of change observed from 1963 through to 2003. More recent data shows it has increased again to 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009. (Nicholls et al. 2010)

This is what it looks like over the course of the 20th Century.

In the same report, the IPCC predicted during the 21st century, sea level will rise another 18 to 59 cm (or 7.1 to 23 inches), but these numbers do not include "uncertainties in climate-carbon cycle feedbacks nor do they include the full effects of changes in ice sheet flow".

The changes to ice sheet flows are the ones we were discussing earlier in this thread. They weren't included in the estimate because not enough was known about the the physical process. The IPCC findings are really quite conservative.

Thanks, Maqqa, for yet another example of how deniers are misrepresenting IPCC findings.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 1^st, 2013 at 12:49pm by MOTR »

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

skippy. Gold Member Offline Posts: 20882 Gender:	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #122 - Jan 1^st, 2013 at 12:48pm The conga line of morons that want our children dead are too stupid to take the increase in sea levels into account.
Back to top	freedivers other forum- POLITICAL ANIMAL Click onWWW below IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #123 - Jan 1^st, 2013 at 12:57pm Keen observers will note that sea levels have continued to rise despite the alleged 16 year pause in global warming.
Back to top	« Last Edit: Jan 1^st, 2013 at 1:03pm by MOTR » Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings "What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions." IP Logged

gold_medal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 3897 Gender:	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #124 - Jan 1^st, 2013 at 1:47pm MOTR wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 12:57pm: Keen observers will note that sea levels have continued to rise despite the alleged 16 year pause in global warming. an unproved correlation however. but a decent deflection from the topic of the REAL pause in temperatures.
Back to top	IP Logged

progressiveslol Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17029	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #125 - Jan 1^st, 2013 at 1:55pm MOTR wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 12:57pm: Keen observers will note that sea levels have continued to rise despite the alleged 16 year pause in global warming. Keen observers will note the fact of a 16 year pause in global warming, despite CO2 levels having continued to rise.
Back to top	IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #126 - Jan 1^st, 2013 at 2:26pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 1:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 12:57pm:

Keen observers will note that sea levels have continued to rise despite the alleged 16 year pause in global warming.

an unproved correlation however. but a decent deflection from the topic of the REAL pause in temperatures.

A one off spike is not a pause, unless of course you want to play semantics and define it this way. I think you'll find I've made two substantial responses to this topic on the previous page. I'd be interested to know how you explain rising sea levels and shrinking ice masses in a climate system that is not warming.

We have observational evidence from our satellites that tell us methane and CO2 are trapping more energy, so physics tells us the heat must be building up somewhere, and we can see that in our atmosphere, with each subsequent decade being hotter than the next.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 1^st, 2013 at 2:35pm by MOTR »

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #127 - Jan 1^st, 2013 at 2:44pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 2:26pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 1:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 12:57pm:

Keen observers will note that sea levels have continued to rise despite the alleged 16 year pause in global warming.

an unproved correlation however. but a decent deflection from the topic of the REAL pause in temperatures.

A one off spike is not a pause, unless of course you want to play semantics and define it this way. I think you'll find I've made two substantial responses to this topic on the previous page. I'd be interested to know how you explain rising sea levels and shrinking ice masses in a climate system that is not warming.

We have observational evidence from our satellites that tell us methane and CO2 are trapping more energy, so physics tells us the heat must be building up somewhere, and we can see that in our atmosphere, with each subsequent decade being hotter than the next.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/harries_radiation.gif

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/warmestdecade.jpg

that is an invalid assumption. recorded temperatures have FLAT-LINED. that is indisuptable - except that you just charge forward and say 'it isnt' and bluster on etc. Why cant you just accept that temperatures have flat-lined and then build that into your GW model rather than simply deny the fact. the former would give us a debating stance while the latter just makes you look stupid.

it is hardly critical reasoning to simply deny the facts and continue to build your edifice on shifting sands.

dont you get just a little suspcious about the 'warmest year' or 'warmest decade' prounouncements and then CRU - an alarmaist group - show that temperatures have in fact flat-lined?

My reson for pushing this is to prove a point about ACC hysterics in that they dont support science but rather ideology. A scientist says that temperature has flat-lined. an alarmist says it is continuine to rise because [instert bluster and sideways evidence and the odd tree-ring].

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #128 - Jan 1^st, 2013 at 2:59pm

You can only say it is flat lining if you very selectively pick the starting point of 97/98. That is not an honest way to debate the existence or non existence of a trend, goldie. It's a meaningless point, goldie, because 97/98 was a massive El Niño year and we have just come off the back of two consecutive La Niña events. Pick any of the immediate years around 97/98 and you can't manufacture a cooling trend.

It's an out and out case of deceit.

Now, goldie, if you read my posts carefully you'll see they are quite cogently argued. I've made my point as clearly as I can. If you look at the historical record over the last 40 years where there is clearly a statistical warming trend, you can see there have been plenty of intermediate points where you could have made the same argument as the one you are making today. Those who made the argument back then are just as wrong as you are today.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 2:44pm:

dont you get just a little suspcious about the 'warmest year' or 'warmest decade' prounouncements and then CRU - an alarmaist group - show that temperatures have in fact flat-lined?

And this is where you don't quite get the statistics, 98 is not the warmest year on record. According to the Met Office, both 2005 and 2010 were hotter.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 1^st, 2013 at 3:26pm by MOTR »

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #129 - Jan 1^st, 2013 at 4:13pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 2:59pm:

You can only say it is flat lining if you very selectively pick the starting point of 97/98. That is not an honest way to debate the existence or non existence of a trend, goldie. It's a meaningless point, goldie, because 97/98 was a massive El Niño year and we have just come off the back of two consecutive La Niña events. Pick any of the immediate years around 97/98 and you can't manufacture a cooling trend.

It's an out and out case of deceit.

Now, goldie, if you read my posts carefully you'll see they are quite cogently argued. I've made my point as clearly as I can. If you look at the historical record over the last 40 years where there is clearly a statistical warming trend, you can see there have been plenty of intermediate points where you could have made the same argument as the one you are making today. Those who made the argument back then are just as wrong as you are today.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif

gold_medal wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 2:44pm:

dont you get just a little suspcious about the 'warmest year' or 'warmest decade' prounouncements and then CRU - an alarmaist group - show that temperatures have in fact flat-lined?

And this is where you don't quite get the statistics, 98 is not the warmest year on record. According to the Met Office, both 2005 and 2010 were hotter.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/MetOffice.gif

i cant reconcile your inventive description of the temperture with thos of your fellow travellers who themsleves CONCEDE the pause in warming. so why are you right and Phil Jones wrong? Why is an alarmist professor of climate science wrong but you are right?

This is the central point of my case: that no matter what happens it is always warming. ice floes in sydney harbour? hottest year ever. reords show even temperature? nope. they show warming once you take into account this, that and the other thing and anything else we can use to ignore the actual facts.

Did you know the Hoceky STick graph in 98 actually gives credence to the idiotic notion of trees 'telecommunicating' over 400kms+? This is how some trees apparently sense temperasture and pass that information on to other trees.

Seriously, the mere mention of that should have had Mann sacked. INstead, he is lauded as an expert and NO ONE commented or crticised it at the time.

I trust physicists. I trust biologists and chemists. I may not swallow everything that say without some thought, but climate science is so poor and so ideologically driven that simply rejecting its tenets is the best thing anyone can do. Credible, they are not. Ethical they are not and certianly they are not good scientists.

this temperature garbage is just the latests in a long line of 'we are right despite all the evidence' from the alarmists.

Back to top

IP Logged

gold_medal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 3897 Gender:	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #130 - Jan 1^st, 2013 at 4:34pm did you know that one of the temperature reconstructions by Mann used thermometer readings from the UK. The problem is that instead of averageing the YEARS temperatures he averaged the SUMMER temperatures instead. and guess what happened... Hockey Stick graph!!! and your lot said 'no problem'.
Back to top	IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #131 - Jan 1^st, 2013 at 5:29pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 4:13pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 2:59pm:

You can only say it is flat lining if you very selectively pick the starting point of 97/98. That is not an honest way to debate the existence or non existence of a trend, goldie. It's a meaningless point, goldie, because 97/98 was a massive El Niño year and we have just come off the back of two consecutive La Niña events. Pick any of the immediate years around 97/98 and you can't manufacture a cooling trend.

It's an out and out case of deceit.

Now, goldie, if you read my posts carefully you'll see they are quite cogently argued. I've made my point as clearly as I can. If you look at the historical record over the last 40 years where there is clearly a statistical warming trend, you can see there have been plenty of intermediate points where you could have made the same argument as the one you are making today. Those who made the argument back then are just as wrong as you are today.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif

gold_medal wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 2:44pm:

dont you get just a little suspcious about the 'warmest year' or 'warmest decade' prounouncements and then CRU - an alarmaist group - show that temperatures have in fact flat-lined?

And this is where you don't quite get the statistics, 98 is not the warmest year on record. According to the Met Office, both 2005 and 2010 were hotter.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/MetOffice.gif

i cant reconcile your inventive description of the temperture with thos of your fellow travellers who themsleves CONCEDE the pause in warming. so why are you right and Phil Jones wrong? Why is an alarmist professor of climate science wrong but you are right?

This is the central point of my case: that no matter what happens it is always warming. ice floes in sydney harbour? hottest year ever. reords show even temperature? nope. they show warming once you take into account this, that and the other thing and anything else we can use to ignore the actual facts.

Did you know the Hoceky STick graph in 98 actually gives credence to the idiotic notion of trees 'telecommunicating' over 400kms+? This is how some trees apparently sense temperasture and pass that information on to other trees.

Seriously, the mere mention of that should have had Mann sacked. INstead, he is lauded as an expert and NO ONE commented or crticised it at the time.

I trust physicists. I trust biologists and chemists. I may not swallow everything that say without some thought, but climate science is so poor and so ideologically driven that simply rejecting its tenets is the best thing anyone can do. Credible, they are not. Ethical they are not and certianly they are not good scientists.

this temperature garbage is just the latests in a long line of 'we are right despite all the evidence' from the alarmists.

Now you seem to be ranting against the same data you want to use to claim there has been a pause in global warming. Though I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make.

How about you provide me with a quote from Phil Jones, in context of course. I'm sure you'll find he is probably saying the same thing as me.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #132 - Jan 1^st, 2013 at 5:36pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 4:34pm:

did you know that one of the temperature reconstructions by Mann used thermometer readings from the UK. The problem is that instead of averageing the YEARS temperatures he averaged the SUMMER temperatures instead. and guess what happened...

Hockey Stick graph!!!

and your lot said 'no problem'.

I'm sure I'll read all about it when I download the book. Although thermometer readings seem like a pretty good way to construct a record of temperatures. Pity they didn't exist in the Middle Ages. It would save quite a lot of bandwidth on the Internet.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #133 - Jan 1^st, 2013 at 6:08pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 5:29pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 4:13pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 2:59pm:

You can only say it is flat lining if you very selectively pick the starting point of 97/98. That is not an honest way to debate the existence or non existence of a trend, goldie. It's a meaningless point, goldie, because 97/98 was a massive El Niño year and we have just come off the back of two consecutive La Niña events. Pick any of the immediate years around 97/98 and you can't manufacture a cooling trend.

It's an out and out case of deceit.

Now, goldie, if you read my posts carefully you'll see they are quite cogently argued. I've made my point as clearly as I can. If you look at the historical record over the last 40 years where there is clearly a statistical warming trend, you can see there have been plenty of intermediate points where you could have made the same argument as the one you are making today. Those who made the argument back then are just as wrong as you are today.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif

gold_medal wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 2:44pm:

dont you get just a little suspcious about the 'warmest year' or 'warmest decade' prounouncements and then CRU - an alarmaist group - show that temperatures have in fact flat-lined?

And this is where you don't quite get the statistics, 98 is not the warmest year on record. According to the Met Office, both 2005 and 2010 were hotter.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/MetOffice.gif

i cant reconcile your inventive description of the temperture with thos of your fellow travellers who themsleves CONCEDE the pause in warming. so why are you right and Phil Jones wrong? Why is an alarmist professor of climate science wrong but you are right?

This is the central point of my case: that no matter what happens it is always warming. ice floes in sydney harbour? hottest year ever. reords show even temperature? nope. they show warming once you take into account this, that and the other thing and anything else we can use to ignore the actual facts.

Did you know the Hoceky STick graph in 98 actually gives credence to the idiotic notion of trees 'telecommunicating' over 400kms+? This is how some trees apparently sense temperasture and pass that information on to other trees.

Seriously, the mere mention of that should have had Mann sacked. INstead, he is lauded as an expert and NO ONE commented or crticised it at the time.

I trust physicists. I trust biologists and chemists. I may not swallow everything that say without some thought, but climate science is so poor and so ideologically driven that simply rejecting its tenets is the best thing anyone can do. Credible, they are not. Ethical they are not and certianly they are not good scientists.

this temperature garbage is just the latests in a long line of 'we are right despite all the evidence' from the alarmists.

Now you seem to be ranting against the same data you want to use

to claim there has been a pause in global warming.

Though I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make.

How about you provide me with a quote from Phil Jones, in context of course. I'm sure you'll find he is probably saying the same thing as me.

Longy does a bit of that!

Longy also, does a bit of that!

Sorry, Longy usually flunks out on that one.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #134 - Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 7:32am

How can you report that the IPCC has identified a game changer when the overall report concludes that they are virtually certain humans are the cause of global warming. That's right they are 99% certain.

Cherry picking data and quotes to manufacture a sense of doubt and delay action. The benefits of delay will accrue to a few while the massive costs will be borne by us all. Even those who benefit in the short run will lose in the end. Perhaps they dont think they'll live long enough to suffer the consequences.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged