Australia suffers most extreme warming

Says the person that relies on pro warmist sites like skepticalscience.....LOL good one.

 

Yes that is correct, but should that occur then dramatic cooling will occur, As suggested that cooling will be down to pre-industrial periods, BB should be able to provide you with the detail on those temperatures. Then you make up your mind if that agrees with the AGW theory as it stands at present.

BUT again, as actual observations have not matched any hypothesis that has been produced by any climate change “so called” experts, the use of them to demonstrate either side of the debate are simply irrational. The currents will not shift they slow or accelerate NOBODY has suggested or even hinted that they will move. DUE entirely to the fact that according to studies through warming and cooling they remain the same with very little variance to act on the affect these currents have to warming or cooling EVEN in the 450,000 scenario the AGW want to hang it’s hat on.

 

Proof?

Do you have proof of ANY of the above allegations?

 

No Wiz, Viner got it wrong, pure and simple.

 

Proof BB? you haven't provided proof of anything yourself, just authorless quotes from from an extreme alarmist site.

 

You are using this line a little too much to hide behind your staunch political alignment. Stating the obvious about someone's argument is part and parcel of debating. Stop wasting people's time with opposition for the sake of it!

 

Sorry but they are authored and referenced - which is more than I can say for the majority of links that have been presented on the opposing side

But again - if you have a particular point about the field of climate science you wish to debate then please post it.

Maybe if I give an analogy you might understand

What if I said "medicine is untrustworthy" and posted a link like this http://www.naturaltherapypages.com.au

Post not the poster please,,,flounder,,mod edit

 

Apparently the article provided was not sufficient enough to demonstrate that the use of THCs to support either side of the debate is ridiculous when even the scientist cannot agree on exactly the truth of what is happening. If people had actually read the article, which appears to be heavily biased toward the AGW theory, they would see that the common hypothesis for the THCs is for cooling, NOT Warming.

I guess that no matter what people are provided with, they still need people to tell them what it means.

Could somebody clarify what exactly is expected to be proven??? Is it the point that the science is far from decided on the effects of THCs??? Is it the fact science is still unable to decide what the current observations actually mean??? Or would it be the science that is continuing to determine the previous actions of the THCs have had great affect in cooling and has not appeared to change???

 

So did Einstein, he called it the greatest mistake of his professional career

 

Hooray! So now you finaly admit one of your high priests of AGW made a prediction, no, more than a prediction it was put across as a statement of fact, that was completely wrong. But worse, you proved yourself that he should have known better, the science to disprove his stupid prediction has been around for over 100 years!!! And now you lamely try to excuse him by saying Einstien made a mistake! har har har!!

 

OK BB, the recent slight warming (can't say present warming can I because the warming stopped 16 years ago) of the surface of the earth has mainly been caused by natural (as opposed to man made) forces.

 

NOW we are getting somewhere!!

So, which "natural forces"?

Solar

Volcanic

Deep Ocean upwelling

now remember that if you choose one or all of the above you also have to discount the human fingerprints of warming

 

A nice little illustration from your favorite alarmist web site BB, authorless again. Who said those are a fingerprint of climate change? My statement was "recent slight warming of the surface of the earth" didn't mention 'climate change'. But perhaps that would be a better question, firstly we would have to answer the question what evidence is there that the earths climate is changing? then if that answer is affirmative we can ask is man having a hand in that change and if so by how much?

 

Shifted goal posts but that is OK. And sorry but until you demonstrate that Sceptical science is inaccurate in their information then I will continue to
use them. But in answer to your first question

What evidence is there of climate change? Well, the IR signal for a start. And then there is this

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ep/17/global-warming-fingerprints-santer-2013

Now I have to go for a while so will give the rest when I get back

 

Edit/Unnecessary comment/innuendo. Focus on the topic.


You are talking about human scientist who have not even scratched the fundamental surface of what really causes global warming and climate change, but are advocating to the world, they know everything about it.

These scientists are advocating they know absolutely about the Earth’s geology and geography, and the influence every astral body in our solar system and Galaxy has on our planets natural environment, which explained and examined in logic, is a complete nonsense.

These scientists telling me they know what’s causing global warming and climate change, is a complete lie, because I know humanity doesn’t have the technology/instruments, nor the intellectual capabilities at this point in time to know and understand everything as complex and sophisticated as the planets environmental weather patterns. Its all a scientific guess. Just like all the guesses regarding the esistence of the Earths moon.

Four or five seriously flawed scientific theories regarding the moons existence, makes me understand that human scientists can manipulated any data and information to create a workable scientific model that supports their current theory.

 

Scepticalscience is an extreme pro alarmist site that is extremely biased. If you want to use them for reference then you will have to put an authors name to the quote otherwise it will be meaningless like your last little diagram.
When you get back I hope you can do better than an article from a very left leaning pro alarmist paper. The article you have quoted is not proof or even evidence of anything, it just talks about scientists playing with their 'models'. Santer used to be at the university of East Anglia with Viner who got his predictions so badly wrong, he is one of the high priests of the alarmist cult.

 

Proof? It is easy to dismiss something with no validation for the dismissal other than you do not agree with them. Sceptical Science is backed by the Queensland University - hardly an institution that would support a non-scientific endeavour

Again IS THERE ANY SCIENTIFIC REASON FOR DISMISSING THE INFORMATION

 

Really? How do you know? What aspects of climate science have been left not researched? Please tell us your hypothesis for observed phenomena

 

Yes, there hasen't been any warming for over 16 years. They are not talking about direct observation but speculation based on their models. The observed phenomena does not match the predictions eg, no warming, arctic sea ice has not disppeared it is increasing and it has all but disppeared two three times in the last 100 years so nothing unusual, antarctic ice is increasing, there is no sea level rise and one of the foremost researchers at the IPCC resigned saying he could no longer participate in their fraud. Professor Plimer disgrees and so does Dr Judith Curry both eminent and respected scientists holding senior positions in three different university.

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/ar...rner-documents-a-decided-lack-of-rising-seas/

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/Today-Antarctic-Ice-Area-and-Trends.html

 

Oh a slight improvement - this time we actually have a link to a specific part of the website instead of just linking to the entire thing and expecting the other person to do ALL the work

However I have to point out that your first link does not support your argument at all. It is actually a link to someone who is having an academic tiff (common) and has used that as an excuse to "high dudgeon" the IPCC fourth assessment - Since we have just seen the publication of the FIfth assessment - that makes this a little dated don't you think?

You second link to Joannova at least supports PART of your contention. Pity though she links to Nils-axel Morner because if memory serves I have reviewed him before and he claims that sea levels are not rising based on the observation of one tree in one country http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/dr-nils-axel-morners-maldives-tree.html
But even the beginning of that paper is a cherry pick and a straw man

Let us examine it

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/ar...rner-documents-a-decided-lack-of-rising-seas/

And just in case you missed them I green lighted the "weasel words" - those words that are unsupported by fact and give wriggle room in case someone calls them on the lack of validation - i.e. "possibly"

Why do I consider this a cherry pick and a straw man? Because of what is NOT said. That paper that purportedly supports the 1 meter sea level rise - it talks about that happening over about 100 years - funny how the way it has been written you do NOT get that impression, I love too how they have played the "shell game" with the second report linked in that paragraph above - this one http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/28/sea-level-rise-2012-rising_n_2204402.html

I want you to do an intellectual exercise - I want you to READ the papers Joannova links to in that paragraph and then read the paragraph itself - if you are honest with yourself you will see the lies for what they are

 

But that's what you always do with your alarmist scepticscience site.

Doesn't change the fact of serious allegations from a senior staff member of fraudulent behavior by the IPCC

Do me a favour BB and READ Morners interview and READ Plimers statements. Did you actually read Landsea's resignation letter? You might find it is the alarmists that do the cherry picking and fail to bring to light important facts because those facts will damage their religion.

You have not addressed anything that I said, once again just started shooting the messangers. Are you denying the warming ceased 16 years ago? Are you denying the artic ice has all but melted then reformed several times already in the last 100 years? that the artic is expanding now contrary to the alarmist predictions? Are you denying the Antarctic ice is expanding? Are you saying Morner is wrong? (you had better come with something bloody good to refute someone of his standing!)

 

Addit

I just accidentally flipped back to that joannova page
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/ar...rner-documents-a-decided-lack-of-rising-seas/

Did you realise that the person they have supporting Morner is "Lord" Monckton? THE most discredited climate denialist on this planet!

 

But that's what you do all the time with your favorite alarmist site.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post because you did not refute anything I said, just started shooting the messengers again. I bet you didn't read Morner, or Landsea's resignation letter and I bet you have never read Ian Plimer either.

 

Err - no, I beg to differ because what I try to do is lift the section most relevant to the point I want to make and quote that on the board. I, unfortunately, learnt the hard way that if I simply linked to a site like you have done here the opposition would NOT read it

Glad you used the word "allegation" - get back to me when there is also substance to the claim AND validity because from what I read there was an awful lot of sour grapes and precious little else

Oh! Was THAT the bit you wanted me to read! Well next time I will know - that is if you BACK YOUR STATEMENTS CORRECTLY!

Whoa! I addressed the science (well pseudo science) that you posted as validation - that is the way the game is supposed to be played - as for the arctic ice - do us a favour and research this for yourself, keeping in mind there is a big difference between sea ice and pack ice

 

More messanger shooting BB? So what? How does that change Morners research and findings? If we can get Monckton to say Santer is a great bloke we can immediately disregard everything Santer has ever said or done? Jeezzz, grow up.