Thread: State of the Climate 2012

For those who may have missed it

http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate...mate-2012.aspx

Summary points

Quote:

Climate change is continuing Warming has been measured around Australia and globally during recent decades 2010 Global temperatures were the warmest on record (slightly higher than 2005 and 199 Australia experienced record rainfalls and the coolest temperatures since 2001 due to a very strong La Niña event in 2010 and 2011 Concentrations of long-lived greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reached a new high in 2011 Australian temperatures are projected to increase in coming decades Rising CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels has affected global temperature much more than natural climate variability during the past century.

Thread started at Forum 4 Politics on 04-07-2012 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by dumbanddumber

What is it in the paper that disagrees with my statement?

Yeah, you still don't get it. It's not that it disagrees, it's just that it doesn't say anything about global mean temp not being related to co2. It only talks about solar activity and even goes so far as to say the recent warming episode must have come from another source which if anything gives credence to AGW. You really shot yourself in the foot here

Originally Posted by The Lepper

Yeah, you still don't get it. It's not that it disagrees, it's just that it doesn't say anything about global mean temp not being related to co2.

Exactly right Lep

You know why because the sun drives how much CO2 is in our atmosphere and global warming not the other way around like the IPCC would have us belive.

According to the IPCC CO2 drives global warming, this is what happens in their computer models because they ampify the effects of CO2 by 40 times in comparison to the effects of the sun, how about that hey and people like bugs and ziggy who are both educated dont question it at all, drives me crazy.

Originally Posted by The Lepper

It only talks about solar activity and even goes so far as to say the recent warming episode must have come from another source which if anything gives credence to AGW. You really shot yourself in the foot here

Yes in the last paragraph they have all gone from scientists to punters WHY?

At the end of the ABSTARCT - the last two sentences read,

The last 30 years are not considered, however in this time the climate and solar data diverge strongly from each other.

And at in the last paragraph of the conclusion they write,

Note that the most recent warming since 1975, has not been considered in the above correlations. During these last thirty years the solar irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.

Now you have to ask yourself why make a statement about a period you didn't investigate, have they seen data to confirm this statement. Lets give them the beneift of the doubt and lets say they have seen data to make such a statement even though they dont state,

ACCORDING TO THIS DATA SOURCE........................ .............................. ...........

Now here are a group of scientists who have spent many hardworking hours deciphering all these statistics from isotopes and sunspot proxies and then performing some extra ordinary calculations to prove to us all in this paper that for the last 1150 years their findings are that the average mean surface temperature of the Earth is directly related to our suns activities.

Only to turn around in the end and make such a statement as in the red above without even telling us that they have viewed data for the last 30 years that has lead them to this conclusion, i find that one strange but they are egg heads after all maybe they always do things like that.

Also they dont say that its CO2 causing the warming.

Now if you look at some of the other papers that have examined the last 10 or 20 years you will find your answer there and its not what the IPCC is telling us.

Ok so for the last 1150 years the sun has directly affected the Earth's average mean temperature BUT there were a few short periods (PARAGRAPHS JUST ABOVE 3. Correlation Analysis) from 1480-1510 & 1530 - 1580) where the isotope 10Be data doesn't correlate to the sun spot activities.

So its not unatural to havesome periods where the suns activities and the average mean temperature of the Earth dont correlate.

What they have proven is the in the long term Earth's average mean temperature is directly related to the sun and not to CO2 emmissions.

CO2 emmissions are also directly related to the sun, the warmer it gets the more CO2 the oceans release into the atmosphere.

And my last point is that these guys criticise computer modelling because of the degrees of freedom when you are inputing data into the front end of the calculation and can not adjust as required.

My understanding of this paper is that the suns activities are the driving factor of Earth's mean average temperature and global warming not CO2 emmisions.

The other thing to ask all alarmists is,

Which CO2 emmisions cause the greater part of global warming?

1. Is it the 97% CO2 emmitted from the ecosystems?

OR

2. Is it 3% manmade CO2 emmissions?

Anthropogenic Global Warming is the biggest SCAM the peoples of the Earth have been fed, its going to be the first world tax for the new world order and is designed to fleece nations and their tax payers of their wealth.



.

I'm going to cut through your spin and ranting and get straight to the point.

Originally Posted by dumbanddumber

Exactly right Lep

You know why because the sun drives how much CO2 is in our atmosphere and global warming not the other way around like the IPCC would have us belive.

Did the scientists tell you specifically that is why? If so, please provide proof. If you can't then we know you are being dishonest to try and maintain your argument.

It is clearly a study that deals only with solar activity (as it fails to mention CO2 even once) and so cannot be used in any argument regarding CO2. All it does is confirm that the sun has been the main driver of temperature for the last 1150 years. Who didn't know that?

Yes in the last paragraph they have all gone from scientists to punters WHY?

At the end of the ABSTARCT - the last two sentences read,



And at in the last paragraph of the conclusion they write,



Now you have to ask yourself why make a statement about a period you didn't investigate, have they seen data to confirm this statement. Lets give them the beneift of the doubt and lets say they have seen data to make such a statement even though they dont state,

Yes, of course. They would be relying on data from other studies here.

Now, I'm going to stop you here. We are discussing whether that study can be used in your argument. Whether or not you want to believe the last paragraph is completely irrelevant and so is the rest of your post. I admire your conviction to your spin and deflection tactics but they aren't going to work here. I'm not that stupid.

Originally Posted by The Lepper

I'm going to cut through your spin and ranting and get straight to the point.

Did the scientists tell you specifically that is why? If so, please provide proof. If you can't then we know you are being dishonest to try and maintain your argument.

Its obvious you wouldn't know if your arthur or mathur, what would happen if we just switched of the sun?
What the hell is that paper about.

It is clearly a study that deals only with solar activity (as it fails to mention CO2 even once) and so cannot be used in any argument regarding CO2. All it does is confirm that the sun has been the main driver of temperature for the last 1150 years. Who didn't know that?

No its a study to find out about global warming and the bottom line is its the sun that causes it not CO2 emmissions especially the 3% manmade, now do you understand.

Yes, of course. They would be relying on data from other studies here.

They dont say so, all scientific papers quote the reference, are we suppose to guess it, or is this your understanding that ofcourse they are realying on other sources who told you that one?

Now, I'm going to stop you here. We are discussing whether that study can be used in your argument. Whether or not you want to believe the last paragraph is completely irrelevant and so is the rest of your post. I admire your conviction to your spin and deflection tactics but they aren't going to work here. I'm not that stupid.

Well like i said they just got through proving that global warming for the last 1150 years is due to the sun yet they make a remark without backing it up.

You could have fooled me.

Hey Lep this might help you to understand why the carbon tax is a SCAM.


Known Data

From thermodynamics (ideal gas)

One mol at one atmosphere (101.3 Kpa)

@25° C = 24.465L/mol
@0° C = 22.414L/mol

From the periodic table (Molar mass number)

Carbon (C) = 12.011g mol-1
Oxygen (O) = 15.999g mol-1 use 16g mol-1

Therefore the molar mass of CO2 is
CO2 = 12.011 + (2x16) = 42.011g mol-1

From Wikipedia

Current concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are at 0.039%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Calculations to find the total volume of CO2 in one cubic metre of air

Now one cubic metre of air is equal to one thousand litres (1000L).

Where L = Litres

Therefore the total volume in Litres (L) of CO2 in one cubic metre (1000L) of air is

1000 x 0.00039 = 0.39 L (Total volume of CO2 in one cubic metre of air)

97% CO2 comes from the ecosystems = 97% of 0.39 = 0.3783 L _ (378.3 milliliters natural CO2)

3% CO2 comes from man = 3% of 0.39 = 0.0117 L _ (11.7 millilitres manmade CO2)

Australia’s emissions are (1.5% of all manmade CO2) within that one cubic metre (1000L) of air our contribution of CO2 volume is

1.5% x 11.7 = 0.1755 millilitres that’s not even one millilitre


2. Calculations to find the total mass of CO2 in one cubic metre of air

The formula to find the mass of CO2 in one cubic metre (1000L) of air is,

m = n x M

Where m = mass in grams
n = moles
M = molar mass

Therefore one mole of CO2 = 0.39/24.465 = 0.01594

And the total mass of CO2 contained in one cubic metre (1000L) of air is

m = n x m
m = 0.01594 x 42
m = 0.6695 grams that's not even one gram

97% CO2 comes from the ecosystems = 97% of 0.6695 = 0.649415 grams (natural)

3% CO2 comes from man = 3% of 0.6695 = 0.020085 grams (manmade)

Australia’s emissions are (1.5% of all manmade CO2) within that one cubic metre (1000L) of air our contribution of CO2 mass is

1.5% x 0.020085 = 0.000301275 grams that’s way below one gram.

Originally Posted by dumbanddumber

Its obvious you wouldn't know if your arthur or mathur, what would happen if we just switched of the sun?
What the hell is that paper about.

So now we have established that isn't the reason why and you are making things up. Think logically for a second. The simple answer is they don't mention CO2 because that is not what they were studying. Really, how hard is this concept to grasp?

No its a study to find out about global warming and the bottom line is its the sun that causes it not CO2 emmissions especially the 3% manmade, now do you understand.

You are extrapolating the results. The study doesn't say anything about CO2. To insist it says CO2 cannot cause warming is a truly bizarre feat of mental trickery. Check your biases mate. This is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by The Lepper

So now we have established that isn't the reason why and you are making things up. Think logically for a second. The simple answer is they don't mention CO2 because that is not what they were studying. Really, how hard is this concept to grasp?

You are extrapolating the results. The study doesn't say anything about CO2. To insist it says CO2 cannot cause warming is a truly bizarre feat of mental trickery. Check your biases mate. This is ridiculous.

Ok lets take a step back for a minute to see the overall picture.

The paper in question,
http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publ...lanki/c153.pdf

dumb wrote:
Sceintific papers

that claim the global mean average temperature is directly related to the effects of the sun and not the effects of CO2.

You first got involved in this thread with your comments below.

LOL. I just opened one at random and it says the exact opposite of what dumb thinks it does. Wtf is this guy thinking? Purposefully lying or just stupid?

Oh, wait, I get it now. You are only saying that "the global mean average temperature is directly related to the effects of the sun and not the effects of CO2". The second part about CO2 is NOT supported by that paper. So ironically it is you who didn't comprehend or read the study.

So which is it, dumb? Are you purposefully lying or just plain stupid?

From the old forum
http://www.forum4politics.com/austra...-2012-a-3.html

The title of the paper

SOLAR ACTIVITY OVER THE LAST 1150 YEARS, DOES IT CORRELATE WITH CLIMATE?

Do we agree that this paper discusses the efects of the sun on Earths global mean average temperature over the last 1150 years?

Do we agree that if the suns activities weren't responsible for variations to the Earth's global mean temperature over the last 1150 years they would have identified what was or at least point out that the sun isn't responsible for Earths global mean average temperature?



.

Originally Posted by dumbanddumber

They dont say so, all scientific papers quote the reference, are we suppose to guess it, or is this your understanding that ofcourse they are realying on other sources who told you that one?



Well like i said they just got through proving that global warming for the last 1150 years is due to the sun yet they make a remark without backing it up.

You could have fooled me.

Stop pretending like you read the study or understood a word it says. We now have unequivocal proof you didn't even read the first page. LOL!

Originally Posted by dumbanddumber

Ok lets take a step back for a minute to see the overall picture.

The paper in question,
http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publ...lanki/c153.pdf



You first got involved in this thread with your comments below.



The title of the paper


Do we agree that this paper discusses the efects of the sun on Earths global mean average temperature over the last 1150 years?

Do we agree that if the suns activities weren't responsible for variations to the Earth's global mean temperature over the last 1150 years they would have identified what was or at least point out that the sun isn't responsible for Earths global mean average temperature?



.

Why don't you actually read your link:

Note that the most recent warming, since around 1975, has not been considered in the above correlations. During these last 30 years the total solar irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most warming episode must have another source


Of course the suns activities are responsible for the majority of variations to the Earth's global mean temperature over most of the last 1150 years. In recent decade however - as your link confirms - "climate and solar data diverge strongly from each other"