Australian Politics Forum - The Myth of the 97% consensus claim

rabbitoh08

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #105 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 12:50pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 9:27am:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 12:52am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 8:09pm:

For a while we were subjected to the screams that 97% of Climate Scientists agree with Catastrophic Climate Change only to find out later that it wasn’t even remotely true and that now, a detailed and substantial survey concludes that the majority have no such opinion at all. Instead, most claim they have no idea of how much humans are involved in warming or how much more warming there will be – if indeed any. And that is before we even ask the question as to why consensus even has a place in scientific endeavour. The majority of significant scientific advances are actually achieved while debunking the current consensus opinion.

But all jokes aside, it has now started to get serious. Sea level increases have been predicted to be anything from 6 metres to 100 metres by 2020 while the actual rise is mere centimetres. NOAA has decided to ‘rework’ the sea level data and surprise, surprise, when they had done so, the results 100% mirrored IPCC predictions. Yes, 100%. Not just close but perfect. This is a very serious development. Historical revisionism like this is the stuff of totalitarian governments, not scientific bodies. If a scientist is afraid of making mistakes or being wrong then he is definitely in the wrong game. And now, NASA and NOAA reworking together to rework the temperature data and early reports indicate that they have managed to eliminate the near 18 year long pause in temperature change.

The indisputable 18 year pause in warming has been a major thorn in the side of the pro-climate change activists. It is a major deviation from predictions. It took years to even get major bodies to admit the truth of this, even after ClimateGate where this fact (no warming) was what they were trying to hide. And watch them eat their own!

University of WA was planning to bring in an overseas academic with impeccable credentials to manage a Climate Centre, but the academic and activist pushback was so severe they pulled out of it. The furore was so intense that you would think they were inviting Lord Monkton to run the place. Instead, it was an academic who thoroughly subscribes to the Catastrophic Climate Change theory. So why the angst? This poor man had differing views on how to deal with it. Yep, that is all. Apparently, doctrinal differences don’t just split churches.

So in the end, which is true? Catastrophe or just more of the same?

The fact is the science isn’t in. It certainly isn’t settled. In the meantime, climate continues to do what it has always done for millennia – oscillate around a mean and defy all efforts to predict or control.

In around twenty or thirty years, there will be no Climate Catastrophe proponents left – other than in IPCC funded bunkers. Even hysterical overreaction has a tipping point. And that particular tipping point is imminent.

Reprinted with permission

How about you stop regurgitating poo from denialist blogs and explain to us why you told us that NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming".

You are a liar.

Why do you keep running away?

It is a simple question - you made a statement - please show some evidence for it.

Until you do that - please stop posting more crap.

Please explain the lies you have already told.

Why do you keep running away from the question?

(we both know the answer - don't we)

MET UK has articles on their own website called 'explaining the pause'. the IPCC has a lot of info explaining the 'hiatus in warming',while NOAA's current project is in reworking temperature data and have announced that the new results 'eliminate the pause'.

they all talk about it, fake hydrologist.

Show us these links liar.

Why can't you do that?

Too embarrassed to show us that you do not understand the difference between global warming and surface temperature?

Come on liar - you told us NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming".

Let's see it liar.

I have already shown you, NASA says:
Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.

Warming oceans
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.8

Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

Declining Arctic sea ice
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.

They do not seem to 'agree' that there has been a "pause in global warming".
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Why did you tell that lie?

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 45675 Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #106 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 12:54pm Then go and show us a graph of surface temperatures for the past 20 years, fake hydrologist. Source it from NASA, MET or anywhere else reliable. go ahead. see for yourself, fake hydrologist.
Back to top	AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..." IP Logged

rabbitoh08

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #107 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 12:56pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 9:25am:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 12:58am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 1:59pm:

my company TEACHES on the hydrological cycle, twit. 0.6 degrees has changed NOTHING in that cycle nor would ten degrees, certainly not a dramatic change. I suspect you dont really know what the cycle is.

Oh - and just BTW, I have a Masters degree majoring in hydrology.

You are silly twat that tells lies on the internet,

Seriously - who do you think you are fooling?

so you would be well versed in 1D, 2D and 3D modelling, turbulence calculations and GW/SW interaction? assuming you even know what any of those mean without googling them. So mr expert, tell me what modelling calculation kernel you use in your hydrological flow modelling.

Mr Expert - please explain to us how increasing the heat in the hydrological cycle will not affect it?

What causes evaporation Mr Expert?
What cause ocean currents Mr Expert?
What causes wind Mr Expert?
What causes ice to melt Mr Expert?

I think you may find that the amount of heat in the system may have a little to do with it.

And the heat energy in the system is increasing.
Because the planet is warming.

And you think this can have no impact on hydrological cycles!!!

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh08

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #108 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 1:00pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 12:54pm:

Then go and show us a graph of surface temperatures for the past 20 years, fake hydrologist. Source it from NASA, MET or anywhere else reliable.

go ahead. see for yourself, fake hydrologist.

Why do you want to limit it to just surface temperatures liar?

Why are you ignoring the majority of the planet's heat content?

You told us NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming". Why can't you just show us where they said this?

I just showed you that NASA says nothing of the sort on their website.

They say:
Ice is melting
Oceans are warming
Temperatures are rising.
Sea levels are rising.

All because the planet is warming.
No mention of a "pause in global warming".
Nothing of the sort.

You appear to have been caught telling a big fat lie

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 45675 Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #109 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 1:04pm on the subject of lies... your claim to be a hydrologist unravelled fast didnt it. You didnt even try and explain what 1D 2D 3D modelling is or what is the dominant calculation engine in hydrologic models. 0.6 degrees in warming changes NOTHING.
Back to top	AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..." IP Logged

rabbitoh08

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #110 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 1:11pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 1:04pm:

on the subject of lies... your claim to be a hydrologist unravelled fast didnt it. You didnt even try and explain what 1D 2D 3D modelling is or what is the dominant calculation engine in hydrologic models.

0.6 degrees in warming changes NOTHING.

Stop running away liar.

You told us NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming". Why can't you just show us where they said this?

Why are you only interested in surface temperature?

Does Mr Expert not understand the role heat plays in the hydrological cycle?

0.6 deg can change water from a solid to a liquid. I would have thought that may have quite a significant impact on its behaviour. Wouldn't you?

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #111 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 1:14pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 1:59pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 12:38pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 5:31pm:

the water cycle is going to change? how? The hydrological cycle is basic and is virtually impossible to change.

Wow!!!

Not just a liar - but also profoundly stupid!!!

What a combination!

The hydrological cycle is driven by heat. Change the amount of heat in the system - the system changes.

The planet is warming. THis is beyond doubt (yes - I know you told us that NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming" - but this is clearly a lie. You seem incapable of showing us evidence to support this bizarre claim).

A warming planet means more heat driving the hydrological cycle. This means (briefly):
- more evaporation
- increased precipitation in some areas
- decreased précipitation and drought in some areas
- more precipitation falling as rain rather than snow
increased glacial melt
- significant impact on existing aquifers

You can read more here:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/water-and-clima...
and here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/regional/index.php?idp=72
and here:
http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~jasone/publications/evans&schreider2002.pdf
and here:
http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/4/129/2013/esd-4-129-2013.html

THere are mountains of evidence. I would be happy to supply you with more - as soon as you apologise for telling lies to the Forum.

NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM DO NOT all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming", do they. That was just a lie that you told, wasn't it.

my company TEACHES on the hydrological cycle, twit. 0.6 degrees has changed NOTHING in that cycle nor would ten degrees, certainly not a dramatic change. I suspect you dont really know what the cycle is

.

--> level 8s would laugh at you: the rainfall patterns for the south of Western Australia have witnessed 30 year trends. The explanation is that the anti-cyclones off of Antarctica are no longer reaching in to the continent like they used to.

Wind patterns are changing.

Wind is driven by heat and heat content is held by the atmosphere. The amount of water vapour in the air is directly related to the amount of CO2 in the air as this is driven in and out of solution by heat itself.

It's called a complex system... complex systems are sensitive to intial conditions and the sun does control it all in the end but orbital factors control that and so what dominates over what at any particular point in time becomes a complicated story.

But to say 0.6 degrees of temperature increase means nothing is like looking at interest rates and pretneding you know everything about the economy: they are all indicators of a complex system and thus need corroboration from each other to actually mean anything.

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17316 Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #112 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 1:34pm So a complex system can't explain why rainfall patterns change?
Back to top	IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #113 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 3:48pm

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 1:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 1:04pm:

on the subject of lies... your claim to be a hydrologist unravelled fast didnt it. You didnt even try and explain what 1D 2D 3D modelling is or what is the dominant calculation engine in hydrologic models.

0.6 degrees in warming changes NOTHING.

Stop running away liar.

You told us NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming". Why can't you just show us where they said this?

Why are you only interested in surface temperature?

Does Mr Expert not understand the role heat plays in the hydrological cycle?

0.6 deg can change water from a solid to a liquid. I would have thought that may have quite a significant impact on its behaviour. Wouldn't you?

barely true and mostly not. when the antarctic ice warms from -74C to -73.4C, how much water is formed? NONE

fake hydrologist.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

scope

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1294
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #114 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 5:02pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 12:28pm:

scope wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 11:34am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 9:46am:

from our materials...

So you plagiarize material for your company, even going to the extent of removing the source from the lower right . So sad longweekend.

that diagram is public domain and been around for decades. nice of you to completely miss the point.

Public domain yes, with the source intact, I found this 1800 times on the net in each case the source was still in place, why did you remove the source , so the people you lecture would think it is your diagram ?
Pathetic!

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh08

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #115 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 5:15pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 3:48pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 1:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 1:04pm:

on the subject of lies... your claim to be a hydrologist unravelled fast didnt it. You didnt even try and explain what 1D 2D 3D modelling is or what is the dominant calculation engine in hydrologic models.

0.6 degrees in warming changes NOTHING.

Stop running away liar.

You told us NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming". Why can't you just show us where they said this?

Why are you only interested in surface temperature?

Does Mr Expert not understand the role heat plays in the hydrological cycle?

0.6 deg can change water from a solid to a liquid. I would have thought that may have quite a significant impact on its behaviour. Wouldn't you?

barely true and mostly not. when the antarctic ice warms from -74C to -73.4C, how much water is formed? NONE

fake hydrologist.

Still waiting for that answer.

You told us NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming". Why can't you just show us where they said this?

I think you have entertained us enough with your gross ignorance of heat exchange in the water cycle - how about you actually get back to explaining why you told a big fat lie?

Does an "expert" like you really need somebody to explain to you the difference between surface temperature and total heat content?

Figure 5.4. Energy content changes in different components of the Earth system for two periods (1961–2003 and 1993–2003). Blue bars are for 1961 to 2003, burgundy bars for 1993 to 2003. The ocean heat content change is from this section and Levitus et al. (2005c); glaciers, ice caps and Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets from Chapter 4; continental heat content from Beltrami et al. (2002); atmospheric energy content based on Trenberth et al. (2001); and arctic sea ice release from Hilmer and Lemke (2000). Positive energy content change means an increase in stored energy (i.e., heat content in oceans, latent heat from reduced ice or sea ice volumes, heat content in the continents excluding latent heat from permafrost changes, and latent and sensible heat and potential and kinetic energy in the atmosphere). All error estimates are 90% confidence intervals. No estimate of confidence is available for the continental heat gain. Some of the results have been scaled from published results for the two respective periods. Ocean heat content change for the period 1961 to 2003 is for the 0 to 3,000 m layer. The period 1993 to 2003 is for the 0 to 700 m (or 750 m) layer and is computed as an average of the trends from Ishii et al. (2006), Levitus et al. (2005a) and Willis et al. (2004).
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-2-2-3.html

None of those numbers are negative are they. All positive.
That means the planet is warming, doesn't it

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #116 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 5:39pm

scope wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 5:02pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 12:28pm:

scope wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 11:34am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 9:46am:

from our materials...

So you plagiarize material for your company, even going to the extent of removing the source from the lower right . So sad longweekend.

that diagram is public domain and been around for decades. nice of you to completely miss the point.

Public domain yes, with the source intact, I found this 1800 times on the net in each case the source was still in place, why did you remove the source , so the people you lecture would think it is your diagram ?
Pathetic!

my lecturer provided it. Given his age and experience he may have actually done it himself! He has already authored THE text on groundwater hydraulics so perhaps yes.

Not exactly an on-topic comment tho, is it?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #117 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 5:41pm

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 5:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 3:48pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 1:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 1:04pm:

on the subject of lies... your claim to be a hydrologist unravelled fast didnt it. You didnt even try and explain what 1D 2D 3D modelling is or what is the dominant calculation engine in hydrologic models.

0.6 degrees in warming changes NOTHING.

Stop running away liar.

You told us NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming". Why can't you just show us where they said this?

Why are you only interested in surface temperature?

Does Mr Expert not understand the role heat plays in the hydrological cycle?

0.6 deg can change water from a solid to a liquid. I would have thought that may have quite a significant impact on its behaviour. Wouldn't you?

barely true and mostly not. when the antarctic ice warms from -74C to -73.4C, how much water is formed? NONE

fake hydrologist.

Still waiting for that answer.

You told us NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming". Why can't you just show us where they said this?

I think you have entertained us enough with your gross ignorance of heat exchange in the water cycle - how about you actually get back to explaining why you told a big fat lie?

Does an "expert" like you really need somebody to explain to you the difference between surface temperature and total heat content?

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-5-4.jpeg
Figure 5.4. Energy content changes in different components of the Earth system for two periods (1961–2003 and 1993–2003). Blue bars are for 1961 to 2003, burgundy bars for 1993 to 2003. The ocean heat content change is from this section and Levitus et al. (2005c); glaciers, ice caps and Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets from Chapter 4; continental heat content from Beltrami et al. (2002); atmospheric energy content based on Trenberth et al. (2001); and arctic sea ice release from Hilmer and Lemke (2000). Positive energy content change means an increase in stored energy (i.e., heat content in oceans, latent heat from reduced ice or sea ice volumes, heat content in the continents excluding latent heat from permafrost changes, and latent and sensible heat and potential and kinetic energy in the atmosphere). All error estimates are 90% confidence intervals. No estimate of confidence is available for the continental heat gain. Some of the results have been scaled from published results for the two respective periods. Ocean heat content change for the period 1961 to 2003 is for the 0 to 3,000 m layer. The period 1993 to 2003 is for the 0 to 700 m (or 750 m) layer and is computed as an average of the trends from Ishii et al. (2006), Levitus et al. (2005a) and Willis et al. (2004).
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-2-2-3.html

None of those numbers are negative are they. All positive.
That means the planet is warming, doesn't it

so... fake hydrologist. It appears you are unwilling to produce a TEMPERATURE GRAPH and we all know why - because it shows that pause you are intent on denying.

and why arent you at least TRYING to answer that hydrologists question? I framed it specificially so that google would not help muc. You'd actually have to know about hydrology.

fake

liar

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

innocentbystander. Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4723 Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #118 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 8:09pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 9:23am: an increas of 0.6 degrees which is all thathas been observed And half of that is due to urban heat sink
Back to top	IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #119 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 8:31pm

and in yet another MET scandal, last week the MET declared a record 36.2 degree day in England before discovering that the temperature sensor was in the blast zone of no less than a Boeing Passenger Jet at an airport!

confirmation bias. all a climate hysteric needs to scream like Chicken Little.

what the hell is a temperature sensor doing anywhere near aircraft?????

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged