Australian Politics Forum - IPCC 95% sure about AGW

greggerypeccary Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 137955 Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #165 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 12:59pm # wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 12:46pm: So you're saying the the scientists reached their consensus on a basis other than science? http://www.englishforeveryone.org/Topics/Reading-Comprehension.htm
Back to top	IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #166 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:24pm

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 11:31am:

Yeah sure, thats why satellites are showing a planet wide greening as plant life soaks up the extra co2, certain conditions my arse. Grin

That is predicted, even up to a concentration of 550 ppm, but not for all regions. The worst losses are above 2 degrees of warming.

It might be an idea if you gained some knowledge of what you're arguing against instead of relying on blogs.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 137955
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #167 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:25pm

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 10:37am:

That actually confirms the "gobbledegook which you didn't bother to read. There is a short term improvement under some conditions (well watered, not too hot)

Define "short term".

While you're at it, define "long term".

And, most importantly, do your definitions of these terms ever change?

Back to top

IP Logged

Innocent bystander

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4220
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #168 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:27pm

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:24pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 11:31am:

Yeah sure, thats why satellites are showing a planet wide greening as plant life soaks up the extra co2, certain conditions my arse. Grin

That is predicted, even up to a concentration of 550 ppm, but not for all regions. The worst losses are above 2 degrees of warming.

It might be an idea if you gained some knowledge of what you're arguing against instead of relying on blogs.

I rely on peer reviewed science, if thats not good enough for you I don't know what is Cheesy

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #169 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:31pm

THe IPCC has a number of scenarios. I think I explained that it relates to a warming of about 2 degrees against the average temperature of the decade up to 1990.

In this context, I mean that short term is up to that level of warming. Once you go significantly above that level, some more serious effects start to kick in.

That's the level that was selected for minimum risk. You're best to refer to the IPCC Report for more, but I can explain in greater depth if you want.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Innocent bystander

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4220
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #170 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:33pm

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:31pm:

THe IPCC has a number of scenarios. I think I explained that it relates to a warming of about 2 degrees against the average temperature of the decade up to 1990.

In this context, I mean that short term is up to that level of warming. Once you go significantly above that level, some more serious effects start to kick in.

That's the level that was selected for minimum risk. You're best to refer to the IPCC Report for more, but I can explain in greater depth if you want.

Is this another one of the famous IPCC models

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #171 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:36pm

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:27pm:

I rely on peer reviewed science, if thats not good enough for you I don't know what is Cheesy

Well the Patrick Moore was straight from a blog. It wasn't peer reviewed science. I haven't seen anything from you in that category yet.

Of course there are a couple of publications out there that don't have much of a Peer Review Process. Environment and Energy accepts all kind of oddball papers, including one that claimed that the sun was made of iron. They went through the peer review process, and it failed all reviews. They published it anyway. There is another. I can't remember its name offhand.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #172 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:38pm

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:33pm:

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:31pm:

THe IPCC has a number of scenarios. I think I explained that it relates to a warming of about 2 degrees against the average temperature of the decade up to 1990.

In this context, I mean that short term is up to that level of warming. Once you go significantly above that level, some more serious effects start to kick in.

That's the level that was selected for minimum risk. You're best to refer to the IPCC Report for more, but I can explain in greater depth if you want.

Is this another one of the famous IPCC models http://d26ya5yqg8yyvs.cloudfront.net/ImaPoser.gif

The IPCC doesn't have any models. The IPCC reports draw on virtually all climate research.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 137955 Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #173 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:41pm muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:31pm: but I can explain in greater depth if you want. Very unlikely, considering you can't define a simple term.
Back to top	IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #174 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:43pm You're trolling. I explained what I meant. "Short term" is not a scientific term. I was just trying to explain it to you in those terms.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 137955
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #175 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:45pm

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:43pm:

You're trolling. I explained what I meant. "Short term" is not a scientific term. I was just trying to explain it to you in those terms.

I'm not trolling at all.

I'm asking a perfectly legitimate question in response to your post.

In the context of your statement, what do you consider the be "short term"?

You know exactly where I'm heading with my question, and you know it will expose a huge flaw in your "argument".

Just another example of why the AGW alarmists simply cannot be taken seriously. Once they know things aren't going their way, they avoid all debate.

White flag accepted.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:51pm by greggerypeccary »

IP Logged

Innocent bystander

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4220
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #176 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:51pm

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:36pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:27pm:

I rely on peer reviewed science, if thats not good enough for you I don't know what is Cheesy

Well the Patrick Moore was straight from a blog. It wasn't peer reviewed science. I haven't seen anything from you in that category yet.

I told you to have a look at this http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php its got lots of peer reviewed experiments of many plant types and the positive effects of more co2.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #177 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 2:25pm It's not a representative cross section of papers. The agenda is pretty obvious when you see which "scientists" are involved.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #178 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 2:27pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:45pm:

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:43pm:

You're trolling. I explained what I meant. "Short term" is not a scientific term. I was just trying to explain it to you in those terms.

I'm not trolling at all.

I'm asking a perfectly legitimate question in response to your post.

In the context of your statement, what do you consider the be "short term"?

You know exactly where I'm heading with my question, and you know it will expose a huge flaw in your "argument".

Just another example of why the AGW alarmists simply cannot be taken seriously. Once they know things aren't going their way, they avoid all debate.

White flag accepted.

Didn't I answer your question previously in terms of 2 degrees of warming? Wrong answer?

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Innocent bystander

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4220
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #179 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 2:37pm

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 2:25pm:

It's not a representative cross section of papers. The agenda is pretty obvious when you see which "scientists" are involved.

OMG you've got to be kidding me, you global warming hysterics are a riot, you just don't want to know do you, go and sacrifice a virgin, you'll feel a lot better Grin

Back to top

IP Logged