Carlton Supporters Club

The first most reliable bullcrap detector you can have is when you hear or read someone claim rising temperatures will lead to widespread global drought, try and sell that drought claim to the people in Bangladesh or Jakarata, or the Pacific Island nations! (For example parts of tropical Thailand are in an extreme drought, while further down the peninsula parts of Malaysia and Indonesia are flooded. Regions most would generalize as having similar climates all year round!)

What the data tells scientists is that the two primary effects will be rising average sea levels and weather regions shifting, some areas becoming dryer while other areas will become wetter. This is coupled to more extreme weather events, driven by larger differentials between high and low pressure regions. From what I've read this is likely being driven by a shift in the latitude of the circumpolar flows.

Of course these are all theories but the early signs are the scientists have got it right, as North America sees blizzard and tornado events in locations they are not previously recorded, and we may even find increasing frequency of tornado type events in parts of SE Australia. Other natural changes need to be considered, for example Victoria is currently inundated with Portuguese Man-O-War, and local fishermen are catching species that to quote them "We don't have down South!", as sure of a sign as you will find that there is a shift in ocean temps and currents.

Is it permanent or just temporary? Who knows because it takes more than a human lifetime to determine that! A reality right wing nutters like Andrew Bolt and Craig Kelly cling to as they make global assertions from cherry-picked data, they sit waiting for small localised contradictions to appear in the exposed data so they can crow about it, a tactic they learned from Christopher Mockton and the Tobacco industry designed to cast doubt on the science and data.

LP, I gather you're some sort of scientist. You should be more sceptical.

Most climate scientists (who rule the roost) are climate modellers eg Schmidt at GISS, Mikey Mann etc.

Sea level rise - the rate of rise has not increased one iota (and the satellite data is crap on SLR - the error far exceeds any change measured).

ps the Pacific Island spin - what qa crock. We have very reliable data (and a recent study said many of t he islands are in fact getting bigger) - http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/spslcmp/data/monthly.shtml

After all, we're in an interglacial, temps should be rising as should sea level.

Noting we emerged from the Little Ice Age in the late 1800s - of course we should warm after that...and thank f... too.

Is this warming unprecedented? No. The Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period (once called Optimums for a reason) were all significantly warmer, nor is the rate of warming unprecedented.

This is irrefutable.

The 1910- 40s warmed just as fast. With no rise in CO2. Then when CO2 was really cranking up, the planet cooled from the mid 40s to the late 70s. The world was crapting itself about another ice age right through the 70s. Fact.

if anything the high resolution ice core data suggests CO2 lags temperature (800yr+ lag) which is a far more scientifically sound proposition.

The AGW theory is a poor theory, has not been empirically proven - EVER - and the observed data (remember the scientific method?) simply debunks the theory. QED as they say.

The models are crap - the climate sensitivity attributed  is simply way overstated.

It's all about politics, money and control of the populace.

F..., we can't predict weather a few weeks out, how can we believe anything the muppets say about 2100?

Nor does data suggest storms or other natural disasters are more prevalent. Quite the reverse in fact.

Most climate scientists (who rule the roost) are climate modellers eg Schmidt at GISS, Mikey Mann etc.
All scientists are modellers, that is how science works, you try to find a way to model a process(with algorithms or math) and see if your hypothesis(model) fits reality before deciding if your model is any good and worth persisting with, which means trying to defending and destroying your own work.

Skeptics use the term "modeler" to try and cast a derogatory perception of scientists like the scientists are some nerd sitting in a basement making a model out of icy-pole sticks or airfix kits, when you hear or read that modeler argument you know the person making that claim is the ignorant one!

Sea level rise - the rate of rise has not increased one iota (and the satellite data is crap on SLR - the error far exceeds any change measured).
Firstly, the median is a statistical analysis, the error bars are an indication of the confidence in data and a trend can still be clearly exposed. If the rate of rise was continuous or had remained the same for hundreds of years most of the land we are located on would not exist, the sea level rise figures quoted are averages across the globe and like the wind speed in a weather report the peaks and troughs will be much higher than the average, and it's the peaks and troughs that do damage to the way we live!

No scientist claims that nothing changes, the claim nothing changes is the realm of uninformed skeptics.

ps the Pacific Island spin - what qa crock. We have very reliable data (and a recent study said many of t he islands are in fact getting bigger) - http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/spslcmp/data/monthly.shtml
There is no scientist generally claiming islands are shrinking or getting bigger.

Sea level rise and total land area are not necessarily connected, primarily because historically changes in land from tectonic or erosion processes happens faster than historical changes in sea level, and when ice melts the underlying land might rise increasing the total area.(See your next point!)

After all, we're in an interglacial, temps should be rising as should sea level.
Isolation(cherry-picking) of facts doesn't make a point valid, scientists look at the big picture which includes sea level, CO2 levels, methane levels, atmospheric temperatures, wind speed(at sea level and high in the atmosphere), ocean flows, ocean temps, ocean acidity, creature behavior/migration, vegetation changes, etc., etc..

Noting we emerged from the Little Ice Age in the late 1800s - of course we should warm after that...and thank f... too.
There are any other number of effects such as CO2 levels or ocean acidity levels that are now changing that didn't change in previous ice-ages, the scientists who are not climate scientists (geologists, archaeologists and paleontologists can confirm this by study dozens of such historical events including the most recent ice age as well as any of the others which happen on 100000 year cycles on average). btw., Recently Ice Age is the normal state of the planet, the Interglacial Periods are just a few percent of history over the last few million years!

Is this warming unprecedented? No. The Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period (once called Optimums for a reason) were all significantly warmer, nor is the rate of warming unprecedented.
Again, warming and cooling are cyclic, in isolation they mean nothing but that doesn't mean now is the same as before. Skeptics can cherry-pick thousands of such events and listing them by the hundreds or thousands just makes hundreds or thousands of the same wrong point.

This is irrefutable.
But you see it's not, and the skeptic offers it in isolation and then claims now is the same and before when it clearly isn't.

The 1910- 40s warmed just as fast. With no rise in CO2. Then when CO2 was really cranking up, the planet cooled from the mid 40s to the late 70s. The world was crapting itself about another ice age right through the 70s. Fact.
As mentioned Ice Age is normal in the most recent history, a history that long surpasses human history and won't end when humanity disappears. Change is normal, no scientist is claiming that things don't change, what scientists are generally claiming is that we should not do things that contribute to the problem and that we should do things to minimize potential harm and not just ignore consequence for short term benefits.

if anything the high resolution ice core data suggests CO2 lags temperature (800yr+ lag) which is a far more scientifically sound proposition.
Ice forms out of phase with changes in CO2, warming and cooling events, it's a lack of understanding about the measurement tolerances and resolution(time frame +/-) that skeptics use to twist that data.

The AGW theory is a poor theory, has not been empirically proven - EVER - and the observed data (remember the scientific method?) simply debunks the theory. QED as they say.
There is nothing in the data that debunks any hypothesis of global warming or cooling, the concept of "absolute proof" is a term used by skeptics, scientists only talk in probabilities. Maybe the ozone hole never happened like the moon landing!

The models are crap - the climate sensitivity attributed  is simply way overstated.
You claimed above the climate scientists are only "modelers", now you feel you have to disparage the models like they are an important antidote to the skeptical argument!

---

It's all about politics, money and control of the populace.

F..., we can't predict weather a few weeks out, how can we believe anything the muppets say about 2100?

Nor does data suggest storms or other natural disasters are more prevalent. Quite the reverse in fact.
All of this last bit exposes more about yourself and your personal view of the world than anything about climate science. You confuse short term accuracy and variation with long term trends, and in this skeptical debate is hidden the ideology effectively take up the mantle that we need not act because we'll be long dead! It's a piece of crap argument that effectively puts the burden on ancestors so we now can just keep crapping wherever we like!

---

Jack,

They haven't done enough in the past decade!!

If it's about resources, give them the resources.

20 men can do in 1 day, what 1 man can do in 20?

You should listen to Freeman Dyson, one of the great thinkers of the modern era.

Ocean acidification (not acidity) - the ocean is basic (alkaline) - always has been and will always be alkaline (even under the impossible RCP 8.5). Acidification is a fear mongering term - a misnomer. They've measured a drop of 0.1 to date (how they measure that on a global scale is moot given day to day and episodal movements in any one location can dwarf that drop).

UAH's most recent satellite data? 0.55C rise in temperature in 41 years. And even NASA admits we're on the cusp of a big GSM.

Ocean acidification (not acidity)
.
.
.
Clearly your back ground includes little or no knowledge of the geologic timescale - I suggest you brush up on that 

UAH's most recent satellite data? 0.55C rise in temperature in 41 years. And even NASA admits we're on the cusp of a big GSM.

Quote from: LP – on January 17, 2020, 03:08:09 pm

Do you know what a GSM is, the time span it occurs over, and it's global effects?

Sorry Chalky but you’re way off the mark there. We’ve never experienced anything like the intensity, extent and duration of the current bushfires ... and we’re still not in the peak bushfire season.