Indeed ^
In reality, the IPCC underestimates and is conservative, in contrast to cherry picking God bothering retired "scientists" on the fringe trying to sell books and talks.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..Paradox said...So just to confirm, your view is that there is no underlying variability in global temperature?
No. Never claimed that.Paradox said..You state that natural variability in global temperatures is my belief rather than an accepted scientific fact?
No, I never claimed that.Paradox said..I'm sorry but I don't need to substantiate that beyond the link and the graphs I have already provided. I think that one will fall on you to provide evidence that the climate and especially global average temperature would have been static without AGW forcings.
No need because I didn't claim any such thing. You are confusing the lack of scientific evidence for natural forcing in the current climate with "there's no such thing as natural forcing". Again, if you have some evidence, feel free to supply it. Surely someone's tried to measure something that supports your hypothesis. I'm all ears - truly. Paradox said..I'll also post a quote from Roy Spencer, former NASA scientist, you know, the link I gave before....
Oh I guess this is your "evidence".
You do realise that Spencer is just one guy who publishes AGW denial material and is an evangelical God botherer? He's a signatory to such bizarre groups: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornwall_Alliance
who have ties to groups such as en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_a_Constructive_Tomorrow
who have ties to: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooler_Heads_Coalition
and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute
and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil
Gee, look how transparent it gets.
Part of the Cornwall Alliance's manifesto:
"We believe Earth and its ecosystems - created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence - are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth's climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry......"
It's very close to stating an unshakable belief in an omnipotent God without supplying any tangible evidence. In this context, anything expressed with reference to a Sky Fairy would be plausible - including denial of human effects on climate.
In summary yes, natural variability is real, yes it would be contributing to current trends somehow, but to claim it is responsible for at least 50% of current variability, without any evidence is highly unscientific. The link you draw with natural variability is simply conjecture Paradox.
Ergo, bring God in with Spencer et al.
Please, tell me you've got more than Spencer and his God.
Ba ha ha, I'm not checking peoples personal beliefs, just the science. While your digging does indicate some interesting personal views, I am not interested in validating them or not. His qualifications and science statement on variability of climate seem to be sound and that's all I was referencing.
Feel free to counter his commentary on climate complexity if you think it is in error, otherwise I will assume you agree it is acceptable.
I find it amazing you spend so much time on personal attacks rather than challenging the science. His faith is irrelevant, critique the science.
So, after that long and largely irrelevant post on someones personal beliefs, all I can get from it is that you haven't meant to say there is no natural variability in global temperature. Can you be more specific?
I will reiterate my view that you are challenging: As far as I can ascertain there is reasonable scientific support for AGW to account for up to 50% of the recent observed warming. There is no compelling evidence to indicate it is more than this.
As a hint: to prove this view incorrect you need to show compelling evidence that AGW has contributed more than 50%.
To be frank I would actually really like to see that evidence it as I cannot find any source to back it up. All we have are theory's and climate modelling, which frankly is pretty woeful in accuracy on the whole.
I think the personal views and affiliations people hold have a huge effect on one's work and ethics.
For instance, who would trust the work of a strident biblical creationist studying the evolution of a species by natural selection? Only another God bothering creationist of course!
Who would trust Exxon Mobil to investigate their own oil spills?
It's not a personal attack if the manifesto and affiliations are of legitimate concern. You really need to chill out on the personal front. Take the criticism and respond.
Spencer's affiliations are not purely evangelical either. Believing that free markets can effect sensible environmental policy is simply laughable based on the history of environmental degradation. Wrapping that in religious gobbledegook shows it to be more transparent code for "go ahead and continue raping the planet at will."
Ba ha ha, Paradox, you are making the claim that anthropogenic effects are no more than 50% of climate change. I'm not making the unfounded claims here...
You need to provide the evidence, not me. I'd say the reason you can't find the evidence to support your loose hypothesis is that it doesn't exist.
I stand by the IPCC's findings. Any further evidence required, refer the latest reports.
Select to expand quotelog man said..DarrylG said..
yeah, what would he know
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
What would he know?
Well, unless they have gone over all the lines of all the computer codes, examined how all the inputs provided by the rest of the climate change population are handled, have done the sensitivity analysis on all these variables, have checked that all the stabilising fudge factors in these things are reasonable. Not much more than you or I.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
What would he know?
dickhead can't ever speak properly
Select to expand quoteIan K said..log man said..DarrylG said..
yeah, what would he knowholy guacamole said..
What would he know?
Well, unless they have gone over all the lines of all the computer codes, examined how all the inputs provided by the rest of the climate change population are handled, have done the sensitivity analysis on all these variables, have checked that all the stabilising fudge factors in these things are reasonable. Not much more than you or I.
That's why we have the IPCC instead of Paradox. 
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
I think the personal views and affiliations people hold have a huge effect on one's work and ethics.
For instance, who would trust the work of a strident biblical creationist studying the evolution of a species by natural selection? Only another God bothering creationist of course!
Who would trust Exxon Mobil to investigate their own oil spills?
It's not a personal attack if the manifesto and affiliations are of legitimate concern. You really need to chill out on the personal front. Take the criticism and respond.
Spencer's affiliations are not purely evangelical either. Believing that free markets can effect sensible environmental policy is simply laughable based on the history of environmental degradation. Wrapping that in religious gobbledegook shows it to be more transparent code for "go ahead and continue raping the planet at will."
Ba ha ha, Paradox, you are making the claim that anthropogenic effects are no more than 50% of climate change. I'm not making the unfounded claims here...
You need to provide the evidence, not me. I'd say the reason you can't find the evidence to support your loose hypothesis is that it doesn't exist.
I stand by the IPCC's findings. Any further evidence required, refer the latest reports.
Aha, well that does explain a lot. Thank you for finally stating your opinion.
The IPCC maintain 100% AGW contribution to recent warming, although they have no proof either, it is just a political position and the accuracy of the models that use that level of CO2 forcing tell the story. IPCC forecasts are not exactly covered in success, at all, even a little bit. But they don't seem to care about that, they are content to promote worst case scenarios as that what they are there for.
Even most government agencies that are pretty much bound to follow the IPCC official advice use wording like, "likely more than 50%" rather than anything definitive more than that, let alone 100%.
My claim is that there is no compelling evidence for more than 50% contribution. All I need to back that up is an absence of compelling evidence. The claim of 100% is the one that does not have reasonable evidence and is therefore subject to being an unfounded claim.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..holy guacamole said..
I think the personal views and affiliations people hold have a huge effect on one's work and ethics.
For instance, who would trust the work of a strident biblical creationist studying the evolution of a species by natural selection? Only another God bothering creationist of course!
Who would trust Exxon Mobil to investigate their own oil spills?
It's not a personal attack if the manifesto and affiliations are of legitimate concern. You really need to chill out on the personal front. Take the criticism and respond.
Spencer's affiliations are not purely evangelical either. Believing that free markets can effect sensible environmental policy is simply laughable based on the history of environmental degradation. Wrapping that in religious gobbledegook shows it to be more transparent code for "go ahead and continue raping the planet at will."
Ba ha ha, Paradox, you are making the claim that anthropogenic effects are no more than 50% of climate change. I'm not making the unfounded claims here...
You need to provide the evidence, not me. I'd say the reason you can't find the evidence to support your loose hypothesis is that it doesn't exist.
I stand by the IPCC's findings. Any further evidence required, refer the latest reports.
My claim is that there is no compelling evidence for more than 50% contribution. All I need to back that up is an absence of compelling evidence. The claim of 100% is the one that does not have reasonable evidence and is therefore subject to being an unfounded claim.
denier talking points.
first there was "no warming".......Then warming stopped in 1989 ..........then there was warming but who knows why........then there was how much is human induced.........then there's "but we can't do anything about it"........then there's .......
Select to expand quoteParadox said..holy guacamole said..
I think the personal views and affiliations people hold have a huge effect on one's work and ethics.
For instance, who would trust the work of a strident biblical creationist studying the evolution of a species by natural selection? Only another God bothering creationist of course!
Who would trust Exxon Mobil to investigate their own oil spills?
It's not a personal attack if the manifesto and affiliations are of legitimate concern. You really need to chill out on the personal front. Take the criticism and respond.
Spencer's affiliations are not purely evangelical either. Believing that free markets can effect sensible environmental policy is simply laughable based on the history of environmental degradation. Wrapping that in religious gobbledegook shows it to be more transparent code for "go ahead and continue raping the planet at will."
Ba ha ha, Paradox, you are making the claim that anthropogenic effects are no more than 50% of climate change. I'm not making the unfounded claims here...
You need to provide the evidence, not me. I'd say the reason you can't find the evidence to support your loose hypothesis is that it doesn't exist.
I stand by the IPCC's findings. Any further evidence required, refer the latest reports.
Aha, well that does explain a lot. Thank you for finally stating your opinion.
The IPCC maintain 100% AGW contribution to recent warming, although they have no proof either, it is just a political position and the accuracy of the models that use that level of CO2 forcing tell the story. IPCC forecasts are not exactly covered in success, at all, even a little bit. But they don't seem to care about that, they are content to promote worst case scenarios as that what they are there for.
Even most government agencies that are pretty much bound to follow the IPCC official advice use wording like, "likely more than 50%" rather than anything definitive more than that, let alone 100%.
My claim is that there is no compelling evidence for more than 50% contribution. All I need to back that up is an absence of compelling evidence. The claim of 100% is the one that does not have reasonable evidence and is therefore subject to being an unfounded claim.
Arguing about % of anthropogenic influence Seems to be nit picking.
If you agree global warming is a problem then the issue becomes what to do about it. One of those things is to minimise fossil fuel burning. The purpose of the denial industry, Heartland Institute et al, is to muddy the waters so the fossil fuel industry can keep raking in the lucre while the atmosphere goes to ****.
Quibbling about % of anthropogenic CO2 just assists those vandals.
I note that recent reports put the level of greenhouse gasses as the highest they have been for about three million years and the sea level at the time was 10 to 20 m higher than today. It looks like that much sea level rise may be locked in because the stuff that's up there is not going away for a couple of hundred years without a huge effort at active sequestration. But what are we doing? We keep pouring out CO2 like it doesn't matter.
I'd say Paradox is doing a sterling job with the muddy water.
He's Got a lot of mud to mingle.
Notwal I don't really take Paradox seriously. It's just interesting to see how transparent and desperate the deniers* are getting that they now have to resort to debating percentages.
* A tendency to do whatever it takes to muddy the waters with the objective to reduce our quantum actions.
In contrast to Paradox's creationist evangelist free marketeering "former NASA scientist" Roy Spencer, here's what the people at NASA actually think:
www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans
And
www.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-interview-dr-gavin-schmidt
And
www.ted.com/talks/gavin_schmidt_the_emergent_patterns_of_climate_change?utm_campaign=tedspread&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
In contrast to Paradox's creationist evangelist free marketeering "former NASA scientist" Roy Spencer, here's what the people at NASA actually think:
www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans
And
www.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-interview-dr-gavin-schmidt
And
www.ted.com/talks/gavin_schmidt_the_emergent_patterns_of_climate_change?utm_campaign=tedspread&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare
Don't use science, they won't believe it, because it was cool when they went out last night. And their mate agreed it is definitely cooler this year Oh and they saw a YouTube video......
Select to expand quotelog man said......denier talking points.
first there was "no warming".......Then warming stopped in 1989 ..........then there was warming but who knows why........then there was how much is human induced.........then there's "but we can't do anything about it"........then there's .......
To be accurate, you forgot about the alleged cooling period talking point.....the deniers seem to have dropped that one for the time being.
Although, it was hot propaganda in the Heartland Institute in 2013....www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/#6384d24a4dcf
It seems the measured climate record since has shut them up for now. Now all they've got is arguing about forcing percentages and mirages like non-existent increasing solar activity and the even more nebulous "natural variability", AKA Act of God. Riveting.
Deniers = tobacco industry in the 60s.
Deniers = James Hardy (asbestos) in the 60s.
The evidence is there. The consensus among scientists who matter (not a virologist with an opinion for example) is not debatable.
Australian culture has a long history of obstinate ignorance unfortunately. It's either that or vested interests.
No half intelligent person can seriously deny climate change is real.
Even Morrison has been slapped around his ears and has changed his polemic. He needs more slapping on a whole range of issues though.
Come now dude, I reckon intelligence is "at least 50% natural variability" and the rest is just really bad human induced upbringing.
The only evidence I need to back that statement up is my opinion and a press release from the Heartland Institute.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
In contrast to Paradox's creationist evangelist free marketeering "former NASA scientist" Roy Spencer, here's what the people at NASA
NASA........what would they know!!!!
Half intelligent people denying, the other half preaching climate crap, , both are half right.
Why do people bother arguing , when ACTUALLY only opinions divide both camps.
Models do not cut it, things are not measurably different.
1950 world population around 2 billion, 2019 around 8 billion, wonder what the real issue is ?
Select to expand quotethedrip said..
The evidence is there. The consensus among scientists who matter (not a virologist with an opinion for example) is not debatable.
Oh... oh yes it is
What's the definition of "very likely" in this context? Because there is an actual definition and it's not 100%...
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..the drip said..
The evidence is there. The consensus among scientists who matter (not a virologist with an opinion for example) is not debatable.
Oh... oh yes it is
What's the definition of "very likely" in this context? Because there is an actual definition and it's not 100%...
Welcome to science. Nothin is 100% certain. Even the IPCC, with it's massive amount of intellectual capital, evidentiary methodology and super computing power still only says they are 90% certain that just about all the warming of the past 60 years is caused by human activity.
For example, Einstein predicted that when you travel large distances or very fast, that it was very likely that time slows down, It took almost a century to prove him right using caesium clocks. Science is never settled, but it does increase our certainty from "very likely" to almost certain.
There's almost ZERO certainty that the current warming we see is due to natural variability in any significance, largely because there's almost ZERO evidence for that hypothesis.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..Kamikuza said..the drip said..
The evidence is there. The consensus among scientists who matter (not a virologist with an opinion for example) is not debatable.
Oh... oh yes it is
What's the definition of "very likely" in this context? Because there is an actual definition and it's not 100%...
Welcome to science. Nothin is 100% certain. Even the IPCC, with it's massive amount of intellectual capital, evidentiary methodology and super computing power still only says they are 90% certain that just about all the warming of the past 60 years is caused by human activity.
For example, Einstein predicted that when you travel large distances or very fast, that it was very likely that time slows down, It took almost a century to prove him right using caesium clocks. Science is never settled, but it does increase our certainty from "very likely" to almost certain.
There's almost ZERO certainty that the current warming we see is due to natural variability in any significance, largely because there's almost ZERO evidence for that hypothesis.
It is unlikely that the current warming we see is due to natural variability.
Also
You are either part of the solution or part of the problem.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..thedrip said..
The evidence is there. The consensus among scientists who matter (not a virologist with an opinion for example) is not debatable.
Oh... oh yes it is
What's the definition of "very likely" in this context? Because there is an actual definition and it's not 100%...
I'll go take up my pack a day habit and build my asbestos house.
See my previous post.
Enough said.
Select to expand quotethedrip said..
I'll go take up my pack a day habit and build my asbestos house.
Gonna die of something, may as well enjoy it.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Welcome to science. Nothin is 100% certain. Even the IPCC, with it's massive amount of intellectual capital, evidentiary methodology and super computing power still only says they are 90% certain that just about all the warming of the past 60 years is caused by human activity.
For example, Einstein predicted that when you travel large distances or very fast, that it was very likely that time slows down, It took almost a century to prove him right using caesium clocks. Science is never settled, but it does increase our certainty from "very likely" to almost certain.
There's almost ZERO certainty that the current warming we see is due to natural variability in any significance, largely because there's almost ZERO evidence for that hypothesis.
Right. But even within the climate science community, agreement is not consistent to the same level of certainty. In other words, "people" are taking an extremist position presenting the results ... and it's inaccurate at best, and sets off the weirdos at worst. Lets not over-state things.
Special relativity states there is no fixed frame of reference in the universe and the speed of light is fixed for all observers regardless of motion. Time dilation is a consequence and was either a thing, as described by the equations, or it wasn't and Einstein was wrong. Not "very likely" -- either right or wrong. (Incidentally, it didn't take a century to thoroughly validate Relativity -- less than a decade. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment)
Climate science isn't as black and white as that. Accuracy is important. As always.
1. I didn't say it took almost a century to prove the STR. It took almost 65 years to prove experimentally that Einstein's theory that high speed travel slows down time for the traveller.
2. Agreement about the certainty of what\s causing climate change in the scientific community is almost unanimous. It's only the fringe who still disagree.
3. Climate science is actually quite developed, the models are very skilful, very accurate and definitely underestimating climate change rather than over estimating, based on the real data. Side by side comparison of the modelling of real measurements against the predictive models shows a high degree of correlation. This demonstrates a high level of skill in the algorithms of the predictive modelling. Very high and getting better.
4. There are only two kinds of extremists in this area - the AGW deniers and the far left loonies, neither of which have any credibility.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
1. I didn't say it took almost a century to prove the STR. It took almost 65 years to prove experimentally that Einstein's theory that high speed travel slows down time for the traveller.
2. Agreement about the certainty of what\s causing climate change in the scientific community is almost unanimous. It's only the fringe who still disagree.
3. Climate science is actually quite developed, the models are very skilful, very accurate and definitely underestimating climate change rather than over estimating, based on the real data. Side by side comparison of the modelling of real measurements against the predictive models shows a high degree of correlation. This demonstrates a high level of skill in the algorithms of the predictive modelling. Very high and getting better.
4. There are only two kinds of extremists in this area - the AGW deniers and the far left loonies, neither of which have any credibility.
Breath...
Let it go...you don't need this stress of engaging (see my first post).
Or maybe the self flagellation of banging your head against the fortified stockade of ignorance is your thing? In which case, continue...
You are far more patient than me.
"Fortified stockade of ignorance"........has a ring to it.
BTW sounds like this is stressing you out! Cheers, HG
