Australia suffers most extreme warming

Yeah...we get a lot of those in California.

AboveAlpha

 

But they are not caused by climate change!!

And in truth we cannot prove that any individual bushfire has been caused by climate change - what we can prove is that the number of bush fires and the severity have increased

But if we cannot get Tonee - our current PM to believe there is a link - how can we get the average Bogun to believe?

http://indymedia.org.au/2013/10/23/tony-abbott-in-denial-on-bushfire-climate-change-link

PS a Bogun is like a redneck only with an Aussie accent, less sophistication and more beer.

 

much more beer, and not to forget his Commodore.
I liked your description of Toneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

 

There is a huge difference between actual data and posting pretty pictures (which is all these graphs are) in case you did not know. I also notice that nobody has look at the data from one of the religious sites of NOAA. Is that because a distinct lack of understanding of how to plot that data and what it represents??

If they had a discovery of the pretty pictures posted on this thread is false and has data filtered OUT. Showing that the poster who posted the graphs as a most unreliable source by their own standards…

 

More to the point, is it any less reliable than the IPCC??? So far NO predictions have been correct.

 

Show us where those graphs are in error

 

Actually a bloody sight more unreliable that even the outermost areas of confidence intervals given by the iPCC



See the lines MATCH

Easterbrook is nowhere near the money on this one

 

Again this is also not actually true. We cannot prove severity and numbers of fires are increased due to climate change because due to changes in land management more FUEL loads are left on the ground that would have previously be removed and other initiatives are more detrimental such as changes in fuel quality of motor vehicles.


How many fires have been started by motor vehicles moving through high grass??? DUE to the removal of lead from fuel a catalytic converter is installed in motor vehicles which increase the temperature to far higher degrees than previously experienced. How many fires are started by fire bugs??? Simply pretending that fires are greater or more devastating than previous ignores many NEW social conventions introduced in the supposed attempt to reduce climate change and the previous periods of bush fires not reported as often as they are NOW, due to the ability of the internet…

 

There is a thread in the environmental section of this forum which covers this very subject. I noted then that people of such HIGH regard for the religion of AGW could not refute the fact that the IPCC had to change its 95% certainty predictions because they were wrong... I would go and find it but, as it is a waste of time to go through this over and over, I suggest you go look. BUT you will find in the OP that the IPCC admits this failure.

As to the problem of the graphs. I have posted a link to the data and simple perusal will show the information omitted from the pretty pictures. Not my problem to prove somebody else’s pretty pictures wrong. IT is the posters problem to prove them correct, as the data is different from the picture, I suspect they cannot. As this is a standard procured BY the poster, I would have to assume they are trying the old smoke and mirrors in pretence of knowledge.

Also LOOK closely at the last pretty picture posted, There is a problem with this one as well (has a lot to do with what is actually being measured). Again this pretty picture does not show what you think it does…

 

Any day now you might just consider posting something that actually backs your allegations and opinions. If you had READ what I wrote you would have noted what I ACTUALLY SAID

 

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/d18o20y.txt
find out for yourself, your the one who wants to pretend they are great reliable sources of data.

 

Wow! Now you want ME to do your homework for you - sorry YOU are the one contending they are in error and unless YOU can prove it I count it as a fail

 

Big fail

No, I want the people who post to do their OWN homework. I pointed out where the supposed data come from to make these pretty pictures and the posters who post them want to ignore the data as opposed to the pretty picture... Some might find it a fail to NOT spell everything out for the easy understanding of the gullible. I find it a failure that people do not even CHECK their own pretty pictures against the data used to create them to insure integrity that some want to create as a standard for everybody else bar themselves...

It is the claim of one that the pretty pictures are accurate in comparisons to others which are suspected as being adulterated (without evidence I might add). It is the claim of one that they support their faith without actually checking to find out if they are true indications of the actual data. So it is that posters job to insure they are correct. Now this link contains the very data that was used to create those pictures, NOT my problem if one is too scared to actually check their data and don’t want to look at the actual data. It is not my problem as state previously that there is conflict between the pretty pictures one poster post and the REAL data that is supposedly USED to make them pretty pictures.
So far the actual data supposedly used to create the pretty pictures has been doctored (or adulterated as the poster wants to claim). By the posters OWN standards, this makes them incredulous as a source which is the real failure.

 

Sun Unleashes 1st Major Solar Flare of 2014

 

This does not diminish global warming - in fact it will probably increase the temps again. We have had some quiet solar years and the temperature of the planet has had a small hiatus

 

Leading by example would be a favourite.

And I am perfectly content that the GRAPHS reflect the data that they were developed from - so where did you say there was an error again? (Especially since the graphs do not correlate with the data source - apples and oranges)

You DO realise do you not that my graphs were for TEMPERATURE whereas your link was to GISP2 Bidecadal Oxygen Isotope Data

It

Well, if the person reading the graph cannot tell the difference between surface temperature measurement globally and Oxygen isotope data from Greenland, then I think that might be the root problem right there

I did - I have been arguing climate change science for over 15 years - that data is correct

You are the one stating that there are errors - up to you to find them not me

 

oh I know, Its not about bs global warming.

Australia is in mid summer right now, the southern hemisphere is closest to the sun, and we just had the largest solar flare in 10 years.

Thats why it got hot for a week.

 

REALLY??? Didn't check the OP date did you?

And why is it that it is irrelevant that we just went through the lowest solar activity cycle in a couple of centuries - but the average global temperature still rose NOT relevant??

 

You're wrong bower, and giving incorrect information based on corrupt OP data about the sun and its effect on the planets global warming. Please read the entire link for the correct information, and stop running around like chicken little.

The suns will go into a quite period in 2014, and expected to stay quite for the next 30 - 50 years. Are you now willing to even dispute NASA scientists?

http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2012/08/rise-of-the-killer-superstorms-2455988.html

 

You missed the point, BB's bloggers are no more creditable than my blogger.

 

A blog by someone called Gareth who is disputing a graph put up by Easterbrook? Fail

And then an unreferenced, misleading graph from an extremist web site. Here we have a perfect example of the sort of cherry picked, unscientific and deliberately misleading crap that the scepticalscience site is full of and yet you continue to reference them! Now you apply the sort of exacting scrutiny of that graph that you apply to any graphs on warming sceptic sites.

 

Which apparently fails here...

So apparently the source does not correlate with graphs, so the issue of "adulterating the data” is not an issue because the person posting them decided it was not. BUT when they see a graph that opposes their religion it is a problem... Yes apples and oranges...

Again read the graph again, it is not what is professed to be...
The data from NOAA is the core (supposedly from the graph posted if the GISP2) posted in

PLEASE NOTE. The data which has actually referenced IS GISP2, WHICH is derived from the data of NOAA, those oxygen isotope data...

So that is a major cherry picking failure on its OWN.

Yes and the person who cannot derive the science USED to create the graphs has a greater problem as they are assuming the data is something other than what it really is...

Maybe it is maybe it isn't. Experience obviously accounts for nothing in this case, as the pretty pictures derived from the data is obviously 'adulterated' and after 15 years one still claims them to be great sources. As to the last set of pretty pictures posted claiming temperature when in fact they do not.

I have found them, I have posted site that contains the data which is used to create those pretty pictures which OBVIOUSLY (after perusal) doctors the data. If you believe these pretty pictures are perfect representations, it is up to you to prove them and I have provided the source of the data used to create them for YOUR benefit.

BIG fail, YOUR claim, they are correct yet you cannot even corroborate the claim with the very data used to supposedly create the pretty pictures and want everybody else to do the work of the claimant... It was your claim that the graphs have been “adulterated” posted by others (without evidence, I may add) yet YOU want everybody else to provide validation while trying to pretend oneself is above reproach…

Hypocrisy, one should stand to their own convictions they place on others.

 

OP = Original Post which was over a week ago - Now you are trying to tell me the sun is about to go quiet and BVWC has been telling me that the SINGLE solar flare seen a couple of days ago was what caused the increase in Temps seen here this summer

Sooooo - who is correct?

Oh! and I checked your link - thanks for the laugh!

You know my favourite saying - don't confuse bad journalism with good science? Yep this is DEFINETELY bad journalism

a) Article mentions NASA only in passing and misrepresents what NASA does say quoting a "recent study" Without References when we have known for YEARS that solar cycles affect the planet - in fact we have just come through one of the lowest activity cycles seen for hundreds of years and the average global temp STILL went UP
b) They use misdirection by association. This bit is quite clever so watch the slight of hand. First the Para mentions global cooling then mentions that NASA has linked solar activity to the climate without actually saying NASA is saying we will have global cooling. They then go on to talk about "John L Casey from the Science and Space Research Centre" again giving the impression that this is NASA talking. Casey and SSRC have NOTHING to do with NASA

So, when you do find a statement from NASA itself (not someone pretending to be NASA - let me know

 

Ha Ha! Gotcha! That is correct they are of equal value UNLESS the facts on the site can be proven to be true

 

I am happy to use academic sources IF and only IF you do but the bottom line is he is not credible - even his own website lists his main publications on climate science in a self published book he has one paper in "Energy and Environment" which is slut of a journal taking money and offers from anyone. The rest are abstracts from conference papers

But here is some of the academic response

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.or...-think-tanks-and-climate-change-denial-books/

Easterbrook is a joke his "science" is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) but if you want to continue with this I will - no problems because THIS is one of the idiots who is trying to claim that CO2 levels are not affecting global temperature but the bottom line is that it does not really matter who has shown Easterbrook to be an idiot because he has contracted himself with the It cooling/no it is warming but only slightly/oh noes now it is cooling again stance