Alarmists - take you best shot

No i believe all the scientists who are members of the following organisations

http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

 

But you don't seem to be able to read correctly.

You seem to want to ignore the description of a GCM I posted for you

http://www.politicalforum.com/1061097195-post69.html

Could you tell us what energy source was being input if it wasn't the sun?

They have "taken the sun into consideration".

AGCMs consist of a dynamical core which integrates the equations of fluid motion, typically for:
-surface pressure
-horizontal components of velocity in layers
-temperature and water vapor in layers
-There is generally a radiation code, split into solar/short wave and terrestrial/infra-red/long wave

Parametrizations are used to include the effects of various processes. All modern AGCMs include parameterizations for:
-convection
-land surface processes, albedo and hydrology
-cloud cover

It is a bit hard to factor in the above parameters without taking the sun into consideration isn't it?


Why do you repeat this nonsense

 

You will find a lot of it in the references section of this:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html

No - 5% of them were climate scientists

The study of climate change is broader than simply climatology.

With survey participants
asked to select a single category, the most
common areas of expertise reported were
geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%),
and oceanography (10.5%). General geol-
ogy, hydrology/hydrogeology, and pale-
ontology each accounted for 5–7% of the
total respondents. Approximately 5% of
the respondents were climate scientists,
and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that
more than 50% of their peer- reviewed publi-
cations in the past 5 years have been on the
subject of climate change.

Hence - 8.5% with more than 50% of their peer- reviewed publications in the past 5 years having been on the subject of climate change - at least this many could be described as "climate change experts". It can be assumed that the bulk of the remainder at least were active in publishing in their respective fields, based on the organisations they came from.

It is unlikey that any "signatory" of the OISM petition would have published any research on the subject. I am pretty sure Ginger Spice hasn't.

It is different because the survey involved ACTUAL scientists working in academic and research institutions - not people with just basic bachelor degrees in science related areas - ie. school teachers, and civil engineers and computer programmers etc as was done in the OISM. It was also not done on-line like OISM allowing any idiot to log on and invent qualifications

An invitation to participate in the sur-
vey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists.
The database was built from Keane and
Martinez [2007], which lists all geosci-
ences faculty at reporting academic insti-
tutions, along with researchers at state
geologic surveys associated with local
universities, and researchers at U.S. fed-
eral research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geo-
logical Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration) facilities; U.S. Depart-
ment of Energy national laboratories; and
so forth)


And of the people hat responded:

More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees.

Can you seriously not tell the difference?

 

Sorry my dear

BUT if there was no truth in the subject matter dont you think they would be suing these guys?

Escpecially coming from the Americans, dude they sue if you look at them the wrong way.

Besides he's pretty thorough in what he examines and discusses.

 

Once again bowergirl all roads lead to rome.

In this case the IPCC, all those organisations have either provided or been provided by the IPCC.

And we all know that the IPCC data cannot be accurate when they donot take the sun into consideration.

 

You are absolutely right.

A GCM could not possibly be accurate if it doesn't take the sun into consideration.

That is why they all do.

 

Bugs its right beneath your nose in the previous post. They dont mention the affects of the sun.

Why hasn't anyone from the IPCC come out to say that they have indeed taken the effects of the sun into consideration in their computer modelling.

 

Why would they come out to state the bleeding obvious?

How can I put this a simply as possible?

ALL GCMs take the effects of the sun into consideration.
It is the sun that adds the energy to the system
There is NO MODEL unless the sun is taken into consideration


THere are even numerous GCMs which model solar variability. eg:
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf
THey are also referred to by the IPCC



THis thing you have in your head about the sun is pure nonsense.

Seriously.

 

Yes seriously bugs

Thanks for verifying my arguement that the IPCC doesn't take the effects of the sun into consideration to 95% certainty.

Read before you post.

So then how can the IPCC GCM be trusted.

 

So bugs

I have read that paper acouple of times and even though i confess to not understanding it 100%.

In a nutshell these scientists are basically disagreeing with the IPCC Global Computer Model (GCM) which treats the Earth's atmosphere as noise vibration that is stimulated by anthropogenic green house gas emmissions.

Where as they are saying that the mean average temperature of the Earth is stimulated and fluctuates because of the activities of our sun.

Now the IPCC have referenced their work but have not taken it into consideration.

Again proving that the IPCC GCM is WRONG.

 

In a nutshell - what that shows is that your statement "The IPCC models base all the heating on the concentration of CO2 and have not taken the SUN into consideration." is wrong.

Not only is the suns energy input one of the major parameters of a GCM - solar variability has been modelled and shown to be negligible
to a certainty of 95%.

That paper disagrees with the modelling. The paper was not referenced by the IPCC - that was my mistake, my apologies.

But they can hardly be arguing against how solar variance modelling was reported by the IPCC - if, as you keep claiming - solar variance wasn't modelled (actually - you didn't mention solar variance at all - you kept blithering on about "the sun")

The effects of the sun are contained in ALL GCMs. The energy of the sun is the fundamental energy source driving our climate.
Solar variance has also been modelled and this modelling has been reported by the IPCC - but it was found to be negligible to a certainty of 95%.

Scarfetta is entitled to his opinion and has published it in a reputable journal where it may be discussed by other researchers. It appears however that his theories are not generally supported:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-variability-statistics-vs-physics-2nd-round/


The reason why solar variance is a negligible variable is pretty easy to see:


Also by the comparison of temperatures in teh upper and lower atmosphere:

 

a) it is difficult to sue these people because as soon as you do they would start screaming "persecution" and thereby actually gain validation in the eyes of the gullible

Having said that there are some being sued, setting the bar for truth at last on the internet

At the moment though it is not worth the money or the hassle

As for being thorough - please do not make us laugh just sit down and actually try to follow some of his claptrap

And please, you have to ask yourself - if this is so true and revolutionary then why is it not published in a paper? Instead it is so "valid" they had to get Christopher Monckton to "spread the word" http://deepclimate.org/2009/09/22/friends-of-science-behind-moncktons-magical-mystery-tour/

 

Bugs the IPCC neglect the effects of the sun because they claim its constant and therefore has no effect, but lets have a look at the first part of that paper to make clear what were talking about here.

1. Since 1900 increase in the average global temperature near Earths surface increased approximately 0.8 celcius.

2. Changes in Earth's average surface temperature are directly linked to two distinct different aspects of the suns dynamics,

a. The short term statistical fluctuations in the suns irradiance.
b. The longer term solar cycles

3. The IPCC report concludes that the contribution of solar variability to global warming is negligible to a certainty of 95%.

4. The IPCC reports that the majority beieves the average warming observed since the begining of the industrial era is due to the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentration in our atmosphere.

So bugs this paper is proving that even if the sun remains constant which by the way it doesn't, it would still have an effect on the temperature of Earth right it only makes sense dont have to be a rocket scienstist.

Where as the IPCC are saying becuase its constant they are sure up to 95% that it doesn't contribute to global warming.

Now are they tossers or are they not?

 

............................

 

Look - if you are going to reply to quotes please learn to do so properly. One of the easiest ways is simply to use the quote button in the little icons at the top of your reply box - you hit that insert [QUOTE) (/QUOTE] and delete the first quote leaving the /quote behind or simply type square bracket /quote square bracket

And why are you referencing Seppo politicians? What have they got to do with us?

Surely though replacing those ageing out of date coal fired power stations is a GOOD thing?

 

Thanks for the quote instructions.

Well isn't Al gore your hero with his noble prize and all about saving the world from AGW?

Definetly i would be in favour of getting rid of the old coal fired power stations or to make them as clean as possible.

But you know what we dont need a carbon tax/ETS that will send out billions of tax payer dollars to forign corporations to do that.

 

The sun's energy is included in all GCMs, and GCMs have also been used to model the impact of solar variance.

Your statement:
"The IPCC models base all the heating on the concentration of CO2 and have not taken the SUN into consideration." is 100% wrong.

 

No. No one denies the sun's output is variable, but models have show to 95% confidence that this variability is not responsible for the observed temperature anomalies

Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes. Or more correctly - The IPCC reports that most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.

No. That paper is one person's opinion (not the bit about the "sun remaining constant" however - that seems to be something you made up) that the effect of the sun's variance is more significant that that shown by other models. This is an opinion which seems to have received little support in the scientific literature.

Of course the sum has an impact on the earth's temperature - it is the MAJOR impact in the earth's temperature by far. And of course variance in its output significantly influences the earth's temperature. However - it is also clearhat this variance is not responsible for the observed temperature anomalies.

No - the IPCC are not saying it is constant. The IPCC are they are sure up to 95% that the variance in TSI it doesn't contribute to observed warming anomalies.

A "tosser" would be someone who says:
"The IPCC models base all the heating on the concentration of CO2 and have not taken the SUN into consideration."

 

Well bugs i think we are going to have to agree to disagree and let every reader make up their own mind after looking at our quotes.

The quote below clearly says that the IPCC report concludes that the contribution of solar variability to global warming is negligible to a certainty of 95%.

Now i dont know how you understand that statement but to me it clearly shows they haven't taken the effects of the sun into consideration because they are 95% sure it plays no role in the heating of the Earth's atmosphere.

They also claim that the "majority" believes the average warming observed since the begining of the industrial era is due to the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentration in our atmosphere.

Now we have water vapour and clouds that are the two most prominent green house gases, meaning they are responsible for MOST of the greenhouse gas effect on Earth.

We also have a trace gas CO2 which is 0.039% of the Earths atmosphere, 97% of this trace gas is natural meaning the Earth produces it, and 3% is manmade meaning we produce.

Now remember the human skin bugs, lets see it was an area of 2 metres square and the total CO2 produced was an area 6 millimetres by 6 millimetres in other words a spec a dot.

This is what they are saying produced an increase in Earth's average mean temperature of 0.8 degrees celcius.

This little spec on the skin, when we have a big yellow ball that burns at what is ir 6000 degrees celcius above our heads.

Nuff said.

 

Heh! Right. I'm pretty comfortable with that.

 

You mean the IPCC GCM.

Not everyones.

Yes and this paper proves them wrong that is the crux of my arguement, but since you have so graciously provided me with a scientific paper that says so there.

Sorry you presented this paper on a pedestal when you thought it was in your favour.
No for soem reason its no good.

By the sounds of it their work is sound and they have proven their biggest critic wrong.

Thats not what the paper is saying it also refernces other scientific papers which agree with their findings so are the others wrong too.

Dont think so bugs.

Agree to disagree on that one let the readers decide for themselves.

 

No. Al is not my hero however I do believe he has tried to do some good by sinking his own money into carbon capture and smarter energy networks. There has been much made about him making money off of this even though, at it's best it is chicken feed compared to say, EXXON, but little is said about the fact that a lot of investment Gore does is very speculative in companies that would otherwise fail

In other words he is putting his money where his mouth is and although I doubt he is losing he certainly has a long long long way to go before he starts to compete with the Exxons and Shells and other big players in the fossil fuel industry

 

The IPCC does not have a GCM

The IPCC does no research.

That paper is one opinion that doesn't prove anyone wrong.

The paper demonstrated to you that your statement:
"The IPCC models base all the heating on the concentration of CO2 and have not taken the SUN into consideration." is 100% wrong

Perhaps you could demonstrate that by showing us another paper supporting that opinion.
Good luck.

Scafetta claims "At least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970 appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system. A climatic stabilization or cooling until 2030-2040 is forecast by the phenomenological model." Using the theory, Scafetta has predicted global temperature changes up to the year 2100. This theory is disputed. These claims are not accepted in the scientific mainstream
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Scafetta#cite_note-8


BTW: Do you understand yet that your statement:
"The IPCC models base all the heating on the concentration of CO2 and have not taken the SUN into consideration." is 100% wrong?

 

Go here bugs and have a good read
http://www.politicalforum.com/austr...ts-sun-into-consideration.html#post1061103620

 

And the winner is the video,

since not even one person has had anything to say about its contents.

Therefore they must be true as i thought.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBx_WaIE6o4"]Every Australian Should Watch This - YouTube[/ame]