State of the Climate Australia

Here's me thinking it were a request, not a question....anyway, i'll put it slightly differently;

In the last couple of years i have seen much evidence presented as 'proof' of AGW. From what i've seen, none of this so-called proof has stood up to close scrutiny. Therefore, i have no evidence/proof to convince me of AGW. So, my request is that i be shown some proof of AGW... that is the "evidence" i will need to be convinced of AGW.....

... is that better Kardella ? ...




.

 

Dear Kardella

Beautiful area where you are situated.

Looking forward to getting back there some time for a visit.

Keep up the great work, Marko.

 

Unfortunately not Flying Binghy. Your 'request' is really another question . I'll put it another way .....From the vast quantity of empirical research undertaken and data collected across a diverse range of disciplines, what additional information do you need to convince you of human induced global warming? If I was to ask you for ONE thing that would satisfy you that humans were responsible for global warming, what would that be?

I live in hope.

Regards,

Kardella

 

Hi Marko,

Yes, it's lovely country and we're looking forward to immersing ourselves in the local community.

Thanks for your comments - I always enjoy reading your posts.

Regards,

Kardella

 

In the last couple of years i have seen much evidence presented as 'proof' of AGW. From what i've seen, none of this so-called proof has stood up to close scrutiny. Therefore, i have no evidence/proof to convince me of AGW. So, my request is that i be shown some proof of AGW... that is the "evidence" i will need to be convinced of AGW.....

Kardella, my request is a request for some proof/evidence. If you think you've got some, please do show us. If i see some genuine proof then i will change my mind. I'm yet to see any....





.

 

Want to find out your towns UHI effect - https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04...to-use-temperature-datalogger-kit/#more-18158




.

 

G'day Bill

Thanks for the link. At the risk of starting a 'ping-pong' match, I offer you the following as a response:

Monday, 22 February, 2010

Have American Thinker disproven global warming?

American Thinker have published an article The AGW Smoking Gun by Gary Thompson who claims to disprove a key component of anthropogenic global warming. The article begins by stating "...it seems that the only way to disprove the AGW hypothesis is to address problems with the science". This is a fair statement and a return to an emphasis on science in the climate debate is most welcome. So have American Thinker discovered a flaw in climate science that has escaped the attention of the world's climate scientists? Let's examine Thompson's article to find out...

...So what do we learn from the American Thinker article. Thompson cites peer-reviewed papers but his analysis consists of eyeballing graphs while spurning the peer-reviewed data analysis. This approach leads to the opposite conclusion of the papers' authors. I first encountered Harries 2001 when documenting the empirical evidence for an enhanced greenhouse effect. After reading the paper, I had many questions. Rather than let the gaps in my understanding lead me to think I knew more than the authors, I emailed my questions to the lead author John Harries, an approachable scientist who was forthcoming with prompt and detailed replies. The American Thinker article does not disprove the enhanced greenhouse effect. It does however provide further evidence for the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Posted by John Cook at 17:28 PM

Source: Cook, J. (2010) Have American Thinker disproven global warming? Skeptical Science

The Harries (2001) article actually found evidence to the contrary of the American Thinker piece by Thompson, and this clearly shows us that we should always be very careful about checking original sources prior to drawing conclusions from reading non peer-reviewed literature:

The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

Source: Harries et al (2001) Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997. Nature 410, 355-35 (my emphasis in bold)

Cheerio, Marko.

 

Many thanks for your response Flying Binghi, although I fear we are no further down the track. Accordingly, I think I will end my posts on this matter at this point and focus on other parts of the Forum.

As a closing comment, I would strongly recommend that you go back to source documents rather than the websites that you regularly reference. You will find that there is a small number of journal articles that question AGW although the vast majority are pointing to the burning of fossil fuels as the likely cause of global warming and the just as insidious acidification of the seas. The dialogue (and disagreement) that you find at this level is very healthy and entirely consistent with the scientific method and good debate. Don't be lured by the porn sites relating to this critical issue.

All the best,

Kardella

 

Nice abusive post Kardella. Wheres this proof of the acidic ocean eh...

So, no evidence eh Kardella....

Hmmm, as usual the silly question followed by no evidence followed by the parting abusive post routine... the usual stuff i have got over the years.

Perhaps Kardella should have first done a google of "Flying Binghi", "Flying Binghy" and "Flying Binghi(2) before starting. Then Kardella would have known that ah have been debating the so-called science of AGW for a while now...





.

 

Dear Flying Binghy,

My apologies if you regard the post as abusive. It was not intended to be so, certainly not to you. I guess I am showing my frustration with the procrastination on this matter - and I accept that you don't share my view on this. We'll have to agree to disagree.

My apologies once again.

Kind regards,

Kardella

 

No problemo Kardella...





.

 

Climate Commission - 2013 Update

ABC News (2013) Climate Commission report says 80 per cent of fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground

or else...

...1 in 2 chance that by 2100 there will be no human beings left on the planet (Barrie, 1:19)

 

The chance of 80% of fossil fuels being left in the ground is about zero I reckon.

 

Makes you want to shake a politician VERY hard and say - ARE YOU AWAKE!!!!???

 

Yes it does Eco.
I'm actually fearing Abbot may get in as lies plus money win in the short term.

 

Abbot getting in is a foregone conclusion! There is no question about it - Abbot is the next PM - maybe we could secede (sp?) from Australia here at our place

 

I'm not believing it till I see it

 

Is the following a taste of things to come under an Abbot-led government?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06...ory-bernardi-disendorsed-over-bestial/4763712

This individual is still listed as part of 'Team Abbot' on the following official party website:

https://liberal.org.au/abbott-team/people/cory-bernardi

Be afraid people, be very afraid...