Yeah, groupies, they put out easily because the world is ending and they all live in coastal areas.
He is right in that there is no cooling in the last 10 years or so. If you start with the EL Niño year you might get there.
Why? Data.
Who will I quote for completely-out-my-ass figures? My ass?
None.
None.
NO, I don’t.
No, I don’t pretend that. I never even remotely said such a thing.
I never said they did it for shit and giggles, I said the opposite.
Poor you.
I they did, which I’m alsmost sure I didn’t, it was my mistake.
You can have an extra cookie tonight.
When did I mention the Medioeval warm period? SOlar activity? Sunspots?
Where did I deny that CO2 is causing warming and that human activity produces CO2 and therefore it causes warming?
The cause of the temperature rise in the last 40 years is definitely and completely related to human activity. (How much? I don’t know.)
The cause of a very similar temperature rise in the 30s was caused mostly by natural forces. Therefore, we cannot underestimate the force of nature alone.
Hmmm. I see that you know how to link.
You can call what you like. It is not I who starts all the time “it’s a well-known denier site” like it helps with the answer.
There, there, you can watch half-an-hour of TV.
He said that you will even discredit real skeptics by using that argument, so don’t weasel out of the question, was he right?
Well, more acknowledgments of ineptitude from your part I see.
It is clear your little poultry brain is not well developed, I never said you mentioned that, the point was to explain why nature was mostly driving the increase in heat then.
And it wasn’t. you are still painfully ignoring that natural forcings are just being **added **to the man made CO2 warming that took place in the late 20th century and now.
It actually helps when the climate deniers are reaching for the tactics of creationists, in the end, the reality is that deniers have catastrophically lost in the science journals, academics, and science media, the only outlet left is the popular press and the denier sites.
Until recently, even science reporters were offering a kind of fairness, for example, the science reporter that is making most of the youtube videos I linked, was criticizing both deniers and popularisers of science like Al Gore, unfortunately deniers burned or showed so much misleading reporting on the “climategate” and the IPCC “scandals” that science reporters that before had some respect for people that called themselves “skeptics” like George Monbiot in England and elsewhere were burned badly, so even in the popular press, deniers are losing support and it is because even the mainstream media can not be mislead forever…
Except FOX.
Read my previous answer.
In case that’s difficult I’ll say it again: He’s right.
You’re so cute…in a sad way.
Thanks for accepting that you’re were simply linking away.
Apparently nature has taken a break.
It may be painful to you, and if it is, you’re taking this waaaaaay to seriously.
You know (or should) that I know that because I’ve said it.
You’re the brave man, fighting for science among the brain-impaired. Gigantic web-cojones, dude. You keep mentioning stuff that I haven’t to make me look bad by extension, while throwing ad hominems like you got paid for it and thoroughly avoiding debate.
Well done, honey, well done. You can get your “IPCC teh r0x0r” badge now.
One more thing. Don’t get angry; it’s bad enough that you’re wrong.
And here again you are wrong, who said I was angry? I’m still analyzing what kind of denier you are. Since you accept what Pat Michaels says, it is clear now that you are just an “asking questions” guy that does not want to learn much. 
What I still know is that you and your side have less and less support, whatever you have imagined* that the scientists do with the data, it is getting harder to find good experts that support even your sorry questioning so far.
*And you still have not even demonstrated how specifically the data was wrong.
And I’m supposed the be the one that is angry? 
Nah, it does not take much effort, nor bravery, nor it is hard to deal with self declared impaired fowl men. There are plenty of sites with information to counteract virtually all that you imagine the scientists are doing wrong.
There would certainly be data from what rainfall stations there are and I suspect (and hope) that in the next few months there will be a paper by someone who has done the comparison.
I don’t see how that implication arises. However, given that Queensland has just had its wettest year, Spring, September and December on record, the overall message is “it has been unusually wet here”. Whether the specific rains of two weeks ago that caused the flood are a new record is perhaps a little less signficant in terms of this debate (even assuming either factoid is relevant at all).
All I could find was this, which only goes up to 2007 and sadly doesn’t go back before 1900: http://lwa.gov.au/files/products/managing-climate-variability/pn22179/pn22179.pdf
No real trend in total annual rainfall from 1900-2007, and what looks like a slight downward trend in Autumn rainfall from 1900-2007, with exceptionally dry Autumns from 1997-2007. This year is a pretty big divergence from that trend!
Having belated noted your location, how has the flooding affected you? Hope you’re okay.
There may well be much older paper records. If you look at http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/ and check some of the weather stations they go back prior to 1900, it just depends on the station. At least on line there isn’t much before 1900 in SE Qld
I live on a hill. We lost power for a few days, and had downtime at work because our CBD building was inaccessible but no problem really.
Glad to hear it!
You know, there are other, diplomatic ways to phrase things that might be more persuasive. “That turns out not to the case” is a useful little phrase, for example.
The distinction between empirically-derived sensitivity values and model-derived values isn’t as clear-cut as you might believe, because the models have a lot of parameters that have to be tuned to the the empirical record. An analogy:
Suppose you have a nice, easily modelled physical system: a pendulum consisting of a smooth spherical lead bob on a monofilament line. You want to determine the period and decay properties of the pendulum.
The system can be modelled purely using the physics - constant force mg in a downward direction and aerodynamic drag given by the sphere’s drag coefficient and instantaneous velocity. The model kicks out a period and decay constant that you can have confidence in. Or you can do it empirically and actually measure the period and decay constant. Two seperate routes to the same answer, and you can expect good agreement.
Suppose however that you have a less predictable pendulum: a large irregular styrofoam bob that spins and flexes. Modelling the drag is now hopeless, and you’re not even sure where the centre of mass of the bob is at any one time. So now you have to put some empirical data into the model - parameters that give “working values” for the drag coefficient and centre of gravity, determined by averaging a lot of empirical data. Getting the period and decay constant for this pendulum by “modelling” is not independent of the data - not really a seperate route from the empirical method.
To determine climate sensitivity directly from the data, you need to take the temperature record over a known period (say 2nd half of 20th Century) and the forcings over the same period and then calculate it. This is the same data that is used to tune the models. And as highlighted in the report I cited earlier (http://downloads.climatescience.gov/...report-all.pdf) the problem with that is that the sulphate aerosol forcing history is very uncertain. Whether you’re modelling or calculating, you have to ASSUME a sulphate forcing history, and if you assume a big sulphate effect you get a high CO2 sensitivity, small and you get a low one. It’s no wonder then that the empirical methods show a similar spread in values to the models, see: How sensitive is our climate?
The empircal methods if anything give slightly lower upper-range values that the models. This is probably because the empirical methods neglect slow, long-term positive feedbacks whose effects aren’t being seen yet in the data, whereas the models can include them.
IPPC 5 is due out 2013-2014. Hopefully GLORY will fly in February and give good aerosol data, and the models will be modified using GLORY and ARGO data to give a far more narrow range for climate sensitivity. I will go on record, here and now, that I expect the average sensitivity estimate to fall to below 2 deg C per doubling, but I wouldn’t bet a large sum on it. In the meantime, alarmists and downplayers can argue for any value in the IPPC range and not be demonstrably right or wrong.
You did not see the video huh?
The point was that models were not the only way scientists arrived to the estimation of the expected warming.
Also , I do not want to leave the issue of the water vapor with no comment, just by investigating a little one can see that your say so of “And the previous several years of drought could have been a bumper growth season fed by moderate rains before AGW… or not” was actually a silly jab.
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/global-environmental-issues-1006
I’ve seen it before, a while back. Did you even read my post? I didn’t disagree that models were not the only way. The whole post was about empirical methods vs. parametised models. I even linked to a skeptical science page talking about the different methods!
My point was that both models and non-model methods have to incorporate a highly uncertain forcing contribution that strongly affects the results, which is why they give such a wide range. There is no way around that.
You took that literally? It was a demonstration of how meaningless the word “could” was in your comment “What this tells me is that what we see in Australia could had been just a hard torrential month before AGW, instead of the disaster that turned up”. Sure, you could be right. You could be wrong. The previous drought could have been contributed to by AGW. Or maybe it wasn’t. We DON’T KNOW.
There’s no overall trend in the average rainfall in Victoria over the past 107 years, but there is a lot of variation. There IS a trend of reducing Autumn rainfall over the late 20th Century with a severe recent drought, that has been attributed to AGW. How that translates into flooding is a matter for a case-specific analysis.
And I also did not disagree much with your point, only that it is not a show stopper, so I’m only saying…
What I do know is that the already detected increase in water vapor and energy is bound go somewhere.
And it is not just me who said that the intensity and frequency of incidents like this one was not predictable.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_can_get_fooled_aga.php
Well the Deltoid blog post seems more interested in debunking “Andrew Bolt” than anything else, but its click-through link from The Age is rather good. Hotter, colder, wetter: it's a new world of extremes
**"So one side of the continent is inundated by the worst floods in memory, while its south-west corner is hit by bushfires. Is this the future? Are these a sign of things to come with climate change?
The short answer, from a range of experts consulted by The Sunday Age, is yes and no."**
The anaysis is well worth a read, but a fairly accurate summary is “it looks suspicious, but we don’t know yet.”
Of course, but I can say that the “No” part is referring to the effect of La nina, and the “Yes” part to global warming.
Well I don’t read it as quite so clear-cut as that, but I prefer my summary to their “short answer”.
Again, just saying, the summary was leaving some context out.