Science/Environment The Carbon Debate, pt III

[Upton Sinclair]

This interview touches on the peak, well worth a look. But I'm posting the following excerpt for bomberfan11's benefit, I trust it will clear up some of his misapprehensions about southern sea ice.

http://www.rtcc.org/nature/how-the-southern-ocean-helps-us-plan-for-climate-change/

RTCC: And what impact are warming oceans and a warming atmosphere having in the Southern Ocean?

NB: The oceans are certainly getting warmer. The areas that are warming up the fastest in long terms trends are the Northern Atlantic and the Southern Ocean.

And the way the Southern Ocean is warming up is that the surface isn’t warming up as fast as the rest of the ocean and terrestrial surfaces but it is actually warming up in the ocean interior quite fast.

A consequence of that is actually the ocean surface is tending to rise a little bit faster in the southern ocean than elsewhere.

In terms of sea ice the Arctic – the northern hemisphere’s counter part of the southern ocean –has seen a very dramatic decline in the amount and areas of sea ice coverage in the Arctic.

But the story for the southern ocean is actually a little bit different, what’s happened there is a very weak tendency for the amount of sea ice to actually increase around Antarctica, so this is a sort of paradoxical response.

The expected response from increasing greenhouse gases over a long timescale is for the Antarctic sea ice to actually decrease in extent. And what we have seen is a slight increase in extent.

In the scientific literature there is quite a lot of discussion as to why the Antarctic sea ice is increasing in extent whereas the arctic has declined incredibly rapidly. And there is no agreements in the scientific community except to say the increase in the Antarctic sea ice extent is actually very weak and is within our understanding of the natural variations that occur anyway.

The conclusion is that this increase could well just be the natural internal variability within the climate system.

What it means though is that in terms of deciding whether there is an impact on warming of the atmosphere in the Antarctic sea ice extent is something that we will have to wait and see what the answer is.

I expect that it will actually start to decline in the future but it is not immediately present now.

The sea ice is floating and in Antarctica it is formed each winter and melts each summer and the extent of the sea ice varies enormously from month to month and winter to summer. But because it is the freezing of the surface of the ocean, its melt in summer and it’s freezing in winter doesn’t actually change sea levels.

But the important role that sea ice plays is that it changes the colour of the oceans so where they rapidly decline in the Arctic for instance, the darker ocean has been revealed beneath and that means that the ocean can absorb more heat from the direct sunlight. So the presence or absence of sea ice is very important to how you accelerate the rate of warming in the oceans.

In the projections of the future climate the southern ocean would warm at an even faster rate with the expected decline of the Antarctic sea ice distribution.

 

[fishardansin]

Without reading your article what you said about it is what I remember. That a certain percentage was being taken up and they were concerned that it wouldn't always do it.

I'd also like to point out that even if the ocean does continue to absorb that has terrible consequences for life that is sensitive to the ocean's ph level as we're seeing a decline in that. Further to that the oceans will never take up 100% so the green house effect will continue to grow.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Without reading your article what you said about it is what I remember. That a certain percentage was being taken up and they were concerned that it wouldn't always do it.

I'd also like to point out that even if the ocean does continue to absorb that has terrible consequences for life that is sensitive to the ocean's ph level as we're seeing a decline in that. Further to that the oceans will never take up 100% so the green house effect will continue to grow.

Here's AGW Observer's index of papers relating to the ocean CO2 sink effect

http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/papers-on-the-ocean-carbon-sink/

 

[cancat]

[quote="Upton Sinclair, post: 26350014, member: 123291But then again, cancat posted something a month or two back suggesting that the biosphere overall is absorbing as much a share as it was decades ago (or something to that effect, maybe he could post it again for the purpose of the current discussion? ) so I would imagine its still somewhat of an incomplete picture.[/quote]

Feel free Upton. I trust you to represent my views correctly

 

[Upton Sinclair]

[quote="Upton Sinclair, post: 26350014, member: 123291But then again, cancat posted something a month or two back suggesting that the biosphere overall is absorbing as much a share as it was decades ago (or something to that effect, maybe he could post it again for the purpose of the current discussion? ) so I would imagine its still somewhat of an incomplete picture.

Feel free Upton. I trust you to represent my views correctly [/quote]

The search function on Tapatalk ain't that flash, could you quote the post again? I'd be interested in seeing what it says

 

[Upton Sinclair]

So much for climate science "alarmism"

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378012001215

Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama?

Geosciences and Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, United States
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.008, How to Cite or Link Using DOI

Abstract
Over the past two decades, skeptics of the reality and significance of anthropogenic climate change have frequently accused climate scientists of “alarmism”: of over-interpreting or overreacting to evidence of human impacts on the climate system. However, the available evidence suggests that scientists have in fact been conservative in their projections of the impacts of climate change. In particular, we discuss recent studies showing that at least some of the key attributes of global warming from increased atmospheric greenhouse gases have been under-predicted, particularly in IPCC assessments of the physical science, by Working Group I. We also note the less frequent manifestation of over-prediction of key characteristics of climate in such assessments. We suggest, therefore, that scientists are biased not toward alarmism but rather the reverse: toward cautious estimates, where we define caution as erring on the side of less rather than more alarming predictions. We call this tendency “erring on the side of least drama (ESLD).” We explore some cases of ESLD at work, including predictions of Arctic ozone depletion and the possible disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet, and suggest some possible causes of this directional bias, including adherence to the scientific norms of restraint, objectivity, skepticism, rationality, dispassion, and moderation. We conclude with suggestions for further work to identify and explore ESLD.

Highlights
► Climate scientists are not alarmists but have underestimated recent climate changes. ► We identify a directional bias toward erring on the side of least drama (ESLD). ► ESLD is an internal pressure arising from norms of objectivity, restraint, etc. ► ESLD may cause scientists to underpredict or downplay future climate changes.

 

[fishardansin]

Well the denialists were right about one thing when it came to the IPCC report on climate change. It was a political document. However, they were wrong to suggest that it was proof that "alarmism" was sweeping the world. When the report was submitted by the scientists to the representatives on the governments involved they did alter wordings and omitted some things. Not to over state the issue, on the contrary, it was to understate the levels of certainty and what projected impacts would be.

I'm worried that this outlook will continue until we see continual, but slight to our understanding to think in a timespan beyond decades and the even worse fact that adversarial advocacy democracy wont look beyond the next election, increase in the world's mean temperature until we have another year like 98 where el nino and solar maximums align. Then the real long term impact will be seen and the combination of it possibly being too late to act and world wide panic about this will see instantly disastrous decisions as well as the long term implications for my descendents.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Well the denialists were right about one thing when it came to the IPCC report on climate change. It was a political document. However, they were wrong to suggest that it was proof that "alarmism" was sweeping the world. When the report was submitted by the scientists to the representatives on the governments involved they did alter wordings and omitted some things. Not to over state the issue, on the contrary, it was to understate the levels of certainty and what projected impacts would be.

I'm worried that this outlook will continue until we see continual, but slight to our understanding to think in a timespan beyond decades and the even worse fact that adversarial advocacy democracy wont look beyond the next election, increase in the world's mean temperature until we have another year like 98 where el nino and solar maximums align. Then the real long term impact will be seen and the combination of it possibly being too late to act and world wide panic about this will see instantly disastrous decisions as well as the long term implications for my descendents.

Depressingly true

 

[fishardansin]

It is sad that scientists have to write an article like this due to mistruths influencing public response to scientific findings.

Neil Degrasse Tyson describe the problems well:

 

[Windhover]

It is sad that scientists have to write an article like this due to mistruths influencing public response to scientific findings.

Neil Degrasse Tyson describe the problems well:

Maybe my bias is showing but I do not agree that Tyson's argument is well-founded. No doubt it is true that part of a lawyer's role is to persuade but a very large part of a lawyer's role is to gather "evidence" that will actually support the case being argued. A lawyer who does not understand the importance of evidence gathering and tries to win cases by bs is going to be an easy beat.

 

[OldBlueFan]

Maybe my bias is showing but I do not agree that Tyson's argument is well-founded. No doubt it is true that part of a lawyer's role is to persuade but a very large part of a lawyer's role is to gather "evidence" that will actually support the case being argued. A lawyer who does not understand the importance of evidence gathering and tries to win cases by bs is going to be an easy beat.

You make a valid point, but a trial lawyer in front of a jury has a focus of convincing an group of non-specialists about matters in which they have no expertise. I guess his argument would be stronger if he could show a significant percentage of trial litigators.

Having said that though, his broader point seems to be the distinct lack of a cross-section of experience. This is undoubtedly true, and would need to be addressed if democracy is ever to show the promise of its conceptual founding.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Denialism really seems to be waning, the glory days are definitely behind them, people just don't seem to be listening to their histrionics anymore. Especially on America, someone on another forum I frequent pointed out that Sandy might have been the moment denialism died, the debate is no longer about tomorrow's climate but rather today's weather. Its becoming more apparent that we are living through climate change.

All it will take is the next prolonged El Nino and the last denier canard, it hasn't warmed since x date, will die and the whole corrupt edifice of the denial machine will come crashing down.

 

[fishardansin]

Maybe my bias is showing but I do not agree that Tyson's argument is well-founded. No doubt it is true that part of a lawyer's role is to persuade but a very large part of a lawyer's role is to gather "evidence" that will actually support the case being argued. A lawyer who does not understand the importance of evidence gathering and tries to win cases by bs is going to be an easy beat.

There is a very big difference between gathering evidence to back your claim and genuinely gathering evidence to see what is truly happening. If given a certain brief, a lawyer is trained to push that line of argument until the enth degree. These are very different ways of thinking and with all this denialism regards climate change as well as denailism of the health issues caused by smoking in the past we can see how legal argument can win over the public and the poltical sphere or at the very least slow down any action that allows certain companies to continue to extract profits for a time.

A lawyer's role is also primarily adversarial and we see in politics the arguments get well off the track in an attempt to discredit the opponent without having to address their points. It upsets me no end that we don't see our parliament spend a good portion of each day speaking about what they do agree on. It also upsets me to see people forced to vote against their own beliefs to tow the party line.

 

[Windhover]

There is a very big difference between gathering evidence to back your claim and genuinely gathering evidence to see what is truly happening. If given a certain brief, a lawyer is trained to push that line of argument until the enth degree. These are very different ways of thinking . . .

I agree that they are different ways of thinking. I doubt that they are significantly different ways of thinking. Lawyers are not just trained to put arguments. They are also trained to defeat opposing arguments. It is certainly true that, to a certain extent, cheap theatrical tricks can have a persuasive effect. But the need to think critically and analyse in a logical way what "the evidence" really means will trump the cheap cover-up trick 9 times out of 10.

. . . and with all this denialism regards climate change as well as denailism of the health issues caused by smoking in the past we can see how legal argument can win over the public and the poltical sphere or at the very least slow down any action that allows certain companies to continue to extract profits for a time.

I do not agree in either case "legal argument" was used to mislead. First of all both denialism regarding climate change and the link between smoking and cancer were/are based on science in the sense that "scientists" were called upon to state their skepticism regarding orthodox scientific learning. To the extent the "scientists" honestly believed their twaddle they were acting in the best scientific tradition. After all proving a particular approach to a scientific issue is so highly improbable as to be rejected (i.e. the supposed lack of a causal link between smoking and cancer) actually adds to scientific knowledge.

Those "scientists" who did not honestly believe their twaddle (i.e. they were paid mouthpieces) will be used as pseudo science engaging traditional adversarial methods of persuasion. But it remains dishonest whether it is in a legal setting or a science setting. But just because it is "adversarial" activity does not make it reflective of proper legal practice.

A lawyer's role is also primarily adversarial and we see in politics the arguments get well off the track in an attempt to discredit the opponent without having to address their points. It upsets me no end that we don't see our parliament spend a good portion of each day speaking about what they do agree on. It also upsets me to see people forced to vote against their own beliefs to tow the party line.

Politics is more art than science. Much as I would wish that policy decisions (like legalising drugs) were evidence based, the fact remains personal opinion inevitably enters into one's decisions. Since personal opinion is important, the politician who holds a personal opinion is a legitimate target for those who hold a differing personal opinion.

As for parliament spending time speaking about what they agree on, this is just silly. Scientists shouldn't spend valuable research dollars re-doing experiments that prove that v=dt when there is simply no disputable issue. Nor should parliament. It is the contested issues that need the political time.

Finally, as for people being "forced" to vote against their own beliefs to tow the party line, you are being naive. "People" join a political party because they believe that party will, on balance, give voice to their own personal opinions (whether evidence-based or not). They believe that by joining the party their own voice will carry further. When such people get voted into parliament it is on the assumption that such a person will support the party line on any given issue. Otherwise a party could not go to an election with any policy at all. And, ultimately, there are a few pollies who have found their own view is more important than the party line and voted against the party, as they are always entitled to do.

 

[fishardansin]

Ok you make a good point that some scientists can be bought off, just like ALL lawyers are, and push one side of an arguement. Of course this runs counter to the accepted methods of science.

 

[Windhover]

Ok you make a good point that some scientists can be bought off, just like ALL lawyers are, and push one side of an arguement. Of course this runs counter to the accepted methods of science.

Pretending I have made a point you are making and then describing it as "good" is just the sort of dishonest adversarial tactic you seem to decry. Is it a case of "If you can't beat them, join them"? If so that is a shame.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Guys, guys! Take it easy, see what happens without a common enemy to rally around? Dan26 Ripper, please, come back, youre killing us over here!

 

[Windhover]

Guys, guys! Take it easy, see what happens without a common enemy to rally around? Dan26 Ripper, please, come back, youre killing us over here!

I know, don't you love the irony.

 

[Ripper]

Guys, guys! Take it easy, see what happens without a common enemy to rally around? Dan26 Ripper, please, come back, youre killing us over here!

Sorry have had work to do.

List of New York Hurricanes

No one has convinced me why more CO2 is bad.

The worlds biosphere is blooming especially in the arid areas

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/...g-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/

Ripper says:
March 24, 2011 at 2:33 am
When I see these studies I try and relate the results back to where I know what has happened.
I live in the red bit in Western Australia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meekatharra,_Western_Australia
Coincidentally one of my mates obtained a heap of photo’s circa 1965-1970 only a couple of weeks ago and after going through them ,the thing that stood out was how much less vegetation was here back then compared to now.

Another mate owns a pastoral station and put in 16 control areas back in the 1970's and photographed them every 5 years. Mostly they back up the study, but there are a couple that have gone the other way.

The reason for this is that plants ingest CO2 though tiny hole in their leave called "stomata".
As CO2 level rise the stomata get smaller , there for the plant transpires less.
The net result is more plants can survive in arid areas on the same amount of (extremely limited) water.

While we are talking about stomata they can be used to measure past CO2 levels.

Recent stomata studies show that CO2 was more variable and the average CO2 concentrations have been significantly higher during our Holocene interglacial period (last 11,000 years) than are indicated by the ice core record.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

A real Gish Gallop of nonsense there, Ripper. Posting links back to denier interpretations of real research with no attempt from yourself to provide your own critical analysis is hardly what I'd call a debate. I'll play along, because I'm at home today with not a lot else to do, but I will note my distaste for your debating strategy, especially considering that you don't really address a point when it gets debunked, you just skip off to the next talking-point in your Gish Gallop.

Although, I must say, it's a lot more interesting fact checking your eclectic mix or arguments, rather than simply going over the same half a dozen points with @Da26 over and over and over again. Refreshing even

Sorry have had work to do.

List of New York Hurricanes

Not sure what you think the significance of this is. Care to explain?

No one has convinced me why more CO2 is bad.

CO2 isn't "bad". It simply traps outgoing IR energy and enhances the greenhouse effect. What's bad (for humans, at least) is this enhanced greenhouse effect that disrupts the climate in ways not conducive to the civilisation we've evolved for ourselves throughout the last 12,000 years of climatic stability.

The worlds biosphere is blooming especially in the arid areas

OK, so let's put the Watt-**** interpretation aside for just a moment. Can you please explain how that paper (original here) in anyway contradicts the existing body of evidence of plant growth in enhanced atmospheric CO2 conditions?

The paper uses a different means of measuring vegetation - that's it. The authors suggest that it should be better method but doesn't try to resolve that question, nor does it postulate that the results of the Leaf Area Index they measured in any way conflict with with the existing Normalized Difference Vegetation Index that has been previously used. In fact, a cursory view of NASA's take on vegetation, the results don't seem to conflict at all - go to about the two minute mark if you don't want to watch the whole thing (although i recommend you do, you desperately need to start sourcing information from reliable sources, not blogs, think tanks, and mates taking photos of their paddocks) and tell me how the following:

Global Warming reduces plant productivity. As Carbon Dioxide increases, vegetation in Northern Latitudes also increases. However, this does not compensate for decreases of vegetation in Southern Latitudes. The overall amount of vegetation worldwide declines​

In any way conflicts with:

LAI has prominently increased in Europe, Siberia, Indian Peninsula, America and south Canada, South region of Sahara, southwest corner of Australia and Kgalagadi Basin; while noticeably decreased in Southeast Asia, southeastern China, central Africa, central and southern South America and arctic areas in North America.​

Another mate owns a pastoral station and put in 16 control areas back in the 1970's and photographed them every 5 years. Mostly they back up the study, but there are a couple that have gone the other way.

How scientific of him

Meanwhile, CSIRO takes a somewhat more, shall we say, nuanced approach to the issue.

http://www.ecosmagazine.com/view/journals/ECOS_Print_Fulltext.cfm?f=EC10105

The reason for this is that plants ingest CO2 though tiny hole in their leave called "stomata".
As CO2 level rise the stomata get smaller , there for the plant transpires less.
The net result is more plants can survive in arid areas on the same amount of (extremely limited) water.

See CSIRO link above.

While we are talking about stomata they can be used to measure past CO2 levels.

Recent stomata studies show that CO2 wasmore variable and the average CO2 concentrations have been significantly higher during our Holocene interglacial period (last 11,000 years) than are indicated by the ice core record.

No. Discredited science is discredited, hence why you have to source it from a Geocraft (LOL!) site and not from anything approaching a reputable source. Why is it that you consider yourself a sceptic but will uncritically accept anything that you read on a blog IF it happens to confirm your pre-existing political biases? How about applying a little scepticism to your OWN sources for once in awhile?

This record clearly shows that an atmospheric CO2 concentration from 260 to 280 ppmv was the rule during the preindustrial Holocene, including the early Holocene. We do not want to question the SI method, but we notice that there is a fundamental discrepancy between the record of Wagner et al. and the stomata density–based CO2 record of Beerlinget al. (6), who report largely scattering proxy CO2values from 225 to 310 ppmv between 9940 and 960014C-yr.​

​

Wagner et al. claim that the concept of relatively stable Holocene CO2 concentrations of 270 to 280 ppmv until the Industrial Revolution is falsified by their results. We believe that this conclusion is not justified.​

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/286/5446/1815.full

 

[Ripper]

CO2 isn't "bad". It simply traps outgoing IR energy and enhances the greenhouse effect. What's bad (for humans, at least) is this enhanced greenhouse effect that disrupts the climate in ways not conducive to the civilisation we've evolved for ourselves throughout the last 12,000 years of climatic stability.

But the empirical (not modeled) evidence is that it is ~ 1 degree per doubling which is certainly not catastrophic.

OK, so let's put the Watt-**** interpretation aside for just a moment. Can you please explain how that paper (original here) in anyway contradicts the existing body of evidence of plant growth in enhanced atmospheric CO2 conditions?

No need for insults

The paper uses a different means of measuring vegetation - that's it. The authors suggest that it should be better method but doesn't try to resolve that question, nor does it postulate that the results of the Leaf Area Index they measured in any way conflict with with the existing Normalized Difference Vegetation Index that has been previously used. In fact, a cursory view of NASA's take on vegetation, the results don't seem to conflict at all - go to about the two minute mark if you don't want to watch the whole thing (although i recommend you do, you desperately need to start sourcing information from reliable sources, not blogs, think tanks, and mates taking photos of their paddocks) and tell me how the following:

Global Warming reduces plant productivity. As Carbon Dioxide increases, vegetation in Northern Latitudes also increases. However, this does not compensate for decreases of vegetation in Southern Latitudes. The overall amount of vegetation worldwide declines​

In any way conflicts with:

LAI has prominently increased in Europe, Siberia, Indian Peninsula, America and south Canada, South region of Sahara, southwest corner of Australia and Kgalagadi Basin; while noticeably decreased in Southeast Asia, southeastern China, central Africa, central and southern South America and arctic areas in North America.​

The paper came to the same conclusions using a different methodology to this one from Nasa

Our results indicate that global changes in climate have eased several critical climatic constraints to plant growth, such that net primary production increased 6% (3.4 petagrams of carbon over 18 years) globally. The largest increase was in tropical ecosystems. Amazon rain forests accounted for 42% of the global increase in net primary production, owing mainly to decreased cloud cover and the resulting increase in solar radiation.

How scientific of him

Meanwhile, CSIRO takes a somewhat more, shall we say, nuanced approach to the issue.

http://www.ecosmagazine.com/view/journals/ECOS_Print_Fulltext.cfm?f=EC10105

Unnecessary response there, My mate is very progressive being one the first to have solar power and video camera on watering points to increase efficiency.

He probably forgotten more about this country and its management than CSIRO know.

I have requested and received permission to post some before & after photos when they are emailed from the AG dept.

Meanwhile we will just ignore our lying eyes about what has happened in town.

Use windows picture viewer to open the *.tif's

Ripper says:
March 24, 2011 at 4:37 am
Before http://members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/14_2.tif
Now
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=e...4&panoid=U-FTsB2EMvqUGnsuBZTdYw&cbp=13,193.01,,1,0.45
Don’t take a lot of notice of the grounds as that is watered, check out the country either side and beyond.
Before
http://members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/10_2.tif
Now
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=e...5&panoid=eRjBRd9umMEQtb7jCoeyLw&cbp=13,285.31,,1,6.9&ll=-26.590238,118.496745&spn=0.001067,0.001687&z=19

 

[Upton Sinclair]

But the empirical (not modeled) evidence is that it is ~ 1 degree per doubling which is certainly not catastrophic.

Wrong:

Climate sensitivity from empirical observations​

There have been a number of studies that calculate climate sensitivity directly from empirical observations, independent of models.​

• Lorius 1990 examined Vostok ice core data and calculates a range of 3 to 4°C.
• Hoffert 1992 reconstructs two paleoclimate records (one colder, one warmer) to yield a range 1.4 to 3.2°C.
• Hansen 1993 looks at the last 20,000 years when the last ice age ended and empirically calculates a climate sensitivity of 3 ± 1°C.
• Gregory 2002 used observations of ocean heat uptake to calculate a minimum climate sensitivity of 1.5.
• Chylek 2007 examines the period from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition. They calculate a climate sensitivy range of 1.3°C and 2.3°C.
• Tung 2007 performs statistical analysis on 20th century temperature response to the solar cycle to calculate a range 2.3 to 4.1°C.
• Bender 2010 looks at the climate response to the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption to constrain climate sensitivity to 1.7 to 4.1°C

No need for insults

I have every need to insult that fat, swollen toad of a man.

The paper came to the same conclusions using a different methodology to this one from Nasa

Right, so you're conceding that there IS no conflict between Liu et. al. cited originally and other findings about the relationship between vegetation and AGW - so how do the results of Liu et. al. in any way instruct your conclusion that CO2 isn't "bad"?

Unnecessary response there, My mate is very progressive being one the first to have solar power and video camera on watering points to increase efficiency.

He probably forgotten more about this country and its management than CSIRO know.

I have requested and received permission to post some before & after photos when they are emailed from the AG dept.

Meanwhile we will just ignore our lying eyes about what has happened in town.

Use windows picture viewer to open the *.tif's

No, it IS a necessary response and it was in no means meant to put down your mate but rather point out that having 5 years of photos from one paddock, on one property, in one specific patch of WA says absolutely nothing about the effect of global CO2 levels on global vegetation growth..

For instance, did your friend also track CO2 levels in the area across the same period that correlates with changes in vegetation on his property. Did he compare it with rainfall records etc? Was there a control study done/ Etc etc etc. A few photos doth not a complete picture make.

I asked you this earlier and I would be very much interested to hear your answer:

Why is it that you consider yourself a sceptic but will uncritically accept anything that you read on a blog IF it happens to confirm your pre-existing political biases? How about applying a little scepticism to your OWN sources for once in awhile?​

 

[Ripper]

You should be watching Dr David Evans on WUWT-TV. Brilliant presentation.

My mates rainfall records are listed at the BOM.

P.S. The station is 110km across, but the results are typical at least 500km from here.

All the AGW here has bee adjusted in.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

You should be watching Dr David Evans on WUWT-TV. Brilliant presentation.

Again, I ask you: "Why is it that you consider yourself a sceptic but will uncritically accept anything that you read on a blog IF it happens to confirm your pre-existing political biases? How about applying a little scepticism to your OWN sources for once in awhile?"

David Evans does not publish research, why do you value his opinion higher than the people who DO publish research? Why do you value the opinion of an electrical engineer (that where the Dr. honorific comes from, he has no formal qualifications in geophysical sciences whatsoever) over the opinions of oceanographers, geophysicists, paleontologists, atmospheric scientists etc etc etc who DO hold relevant formal qualifications, who DO publish research that instructs their opinions and whose opinions do conflict absolutely with the narrative peddled by people like evans? Why do you choose to listen to an professional gold-trader cum amateur blogger who has never published anything even vaguely related to the field?

My mates rainfall records are listed at the BOM.

Yeah, you're really missing the point. What statistical methodology did he apply to determine that CO2 was behind the observed changes and not any other variable? Don't worry, its a rhetorical question, a device to demonstrate a point - you're mate doesn't HAVE any statistical methodology, he has a few photos.

P.S. The station is 110km across, but the results are typical at least 500km from here.

All the AGW here has bee adjusted in.

So? What evidence do you have that the statistical methodology used to splice the two data sets is incorrect?

 

[Ripper]

Had a look at the photos yet? Impressive vegetation increase Hey.