Emission Trading and climate change

Page 154 of 377 FirstFirst ... 54 104 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 204 254 ... LastLast
Results 7,651 to 7,700 of 18819
  1. #7651
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Not a very strong grip.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post

    I say it will be ice free sometime in the future based on: reality - the acceleration of ice loss due to global warming.

    woodbe.
    So, you look at some observed data, then you make an assumption that everything that has been happening in the past will continue to happen in the future, and then you also assume that nothing new will happen in the future to alter the outcomes that have occurred in the past. Then you wrap all of these assumptions up into a future prediction. Then you ignore all the failed predictions that have used this exact flawed methodology the achieve abject failure. Then, you call this future "vision" of yours reality?

    I seriously think you need to read up a bit more on time travel. I have my on views on the determinist/multiverse/infinity paradigms, but my friend, I never delude myself into convincing other people these are reality.

    re·al·i·ty/rēˈalətē/

    Noun:
    1. The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them: "he refuses to face reality".
    By definition, future predictions cannot actually exist in reality.

    But let's play along with this delusion for a while and assume this trend does continue ad infinitum.

    de·lu·sion/diˈlo͞oZHən/

    Noun:
    1. An idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality,...
    Assuming the melting continues, why did the President of the Royal Society think this is a good thing?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post

    "It will without doubt have come to your Lordship's knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.

    (This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations."

    President of the Royal Society, London






    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post

    Face it, you don't want to admit that the Arctic will be ice free, so you change the subject.

    woodbe.

    It certainly has been in the past, and it will likely also be in the future. The climate changes, get used to it or change planets.

    But here's the question related to the AGW farce:

    Are human CO2 emissions causing the Planet Earth to heat catastrophically in accordance with all the assumptions in the AGW Hypothesis, and if so, should the Arctic become ice free, is this solely attributable to this confirmed anthropogenic effect?

    Here's the current short answer:

    No!


    Simple, huh?

    You can learn more about the scientific principle of cause and effect from my earlier posts, or Google it for deeper explanations.

  2. #7652
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default More climate clowns.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post

    I thought about the death spiral description, and I think it's more of a death dive. Whatcha reckon?



    woodbe.
    I reckon you should read more CLIMATEGATE emails and understand the statistical flaws in Mike's Nature Trick, then you would realise the inanity of this graph.

    Mike’s Nature trick « Climate Audit


    What moronic journal would publish the same spurious "trick" after the previous ridicule? Oh yeh, this is also published in nature.

    But in Kinnard's defence, he has at least provided many caveats to use caution when reading his ridiculous data presentations:

    although extensive uncertainties remain, especially before the sixteenth century—both the duration and magnitude of the current decline in sea ice seem to be unprecedented for the past 1,450 years. Enhanced advection of warm Atlantic water to the Arctic6 seems to be the main factor driving the decline of sea ice extent on multidecadal timescales, and may result from nonlinear feedbacks between sea ice and the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. These results reinforce the assertion that sea ice is an active component of Arctic climate variability and that the recent decrease in summer Arctic sea ice is consistent with anthropogenically forced warming.
    But maybe, just maybe, he suspected the true "believers" in the cause would throw in some scaremongering then post his spuriously adjusted data as facts, when they clearly are not.

    Welcome to the newest Hockey Stick farce.

  3. #7653
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Are you people seriously buying this?

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    On current trends summer artic sea ice will eventually dissappear, not hard to accept, the cause is warming from somewhere so if it is not global warming what is it?
    So first, you believe that if a line on a graph heads in a certain direction, it will always do this?

    Second, because some authority figure makes up an unproven story as to why, you believe it, because you can't think of any other cause?

    I think the increased natural warmth is leading to humans wearing less clothes, leading to increased sexual attraction and then sex, leasing to more kids and more people. As the world gets warmer, the population will keep growing faster, forever.



    Here's the future Planet Earth by your logic:



  4. #7654
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Tick Tock, nearly all the ice needs to melt soon!

    It's gonna be tough for nearly all that Arctic ice to melt in the next few months:

    European cold snap death toll leaps to 175

    Officials set up 3,000 heating and food shelters in Ukraine
    They're certainly making sure they burn more Carbon based fuels to stop from freezing to death:






    I might email this guy and tell him that us Aussies will soon be paying heaps more TAX to make the Planet Earth colder.

    It might start the next "Cold War"?

  5. #7655
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Ice sheets and sea-level rise :: Australian Antarctic Division most of the graphs & information you have posted appears to be misleading in the favour of your cult, how can you be taken seriously? regards inter
    You mean this one:

    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Australian Antarctic Division
    Much of this part of Antarctica is nearly in balance, although gains in the Lambert Glacier Basin (LGB, top) and Wilkes Land (bottom) lead to an overall gain for this part of the ice sheet that is equivalent to a drop in sea level of 0.1 mm per year. Different balance conditions in other parts of Antarctica, and between the 2000 m elevation contour and the coastline, also impact sea level, and overall Antarctica is contributing to a net sea level rise. From the report: Australia’s contribution to Antarctic Climate Science (2008).
    I think if you re-read the Antartica section, you will find mention of East Antartica. Nothing here that refutes what I have posted, published science or gathered data on ice-loss, despite your opinion. Lets stick to the science shall we?

    woodbe.

  6. #7656
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default Please Explain

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post

    Here's the Global (lack of Warming) bit (remember, these are called "effects").



    As for the alleged Anthropogenic causes, most realise now that the fact is there is zero scientific evidence proving this.

    And what would it have proved anyway, that the temperature has not changed trends for nearly two decades, and we humans caused this?
    I'm surprised interd6 does not pick you up on supplying misleading information in the favor of your cult. You know enough about science to know why that graphic is rubbish. 14 years? Give us a break!

    If however you are convinced the planet is cooling, perhaps you'd like to explain why the ice is disappearing at an accelerating rate planet wide?






    woodbe.

  7. #7657
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    I reckon you should read more CLIMATEGATE emails and understand the statistical flaws in Mike's Nature Trick, then you would realise the inanity of this graph.
    So you dispute that the blue line represents modern Arctic Sea Ice Observations? That was the reason I posted it. It shows an Arctic Sea Ice Extent fall from ~10 Million Square Kilometers to something less than 8 Million Square Kilometers in the last 100 years.

    Here's the Extent data from September 2011:



    Is ~4.5 less than 8? Seems to be in agreement with the current low point on the Kinnard graphic?

    If you look at this graph, it shows a fall in Sea Ice Area from ~5 Million Square Kilometers to 2.9 Million Square Kilometers in the last 30 years. This also appears to show similar rates of loss on the overlapping time period:



    I am noting how the fake sceptics attack the information about the changes measured in the world about them. If you have dispute about the data, please show sources as interd6 has done.

    woodbe.

  8. #7658
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    You mean this one:

    .
    I think if you re-read the Antartica section, you will find mention of East Antartica. Nothing here that refutes what I have posted, published science or gathered data on ice-loss, despite your opinion. Lets stick to the science shall we?

    woodbe.
    So your saying that mysteriously the remaining antarctic plateau not shown on the above map differs from this finding, it doesnt. The way report reads doesn't reflect what is shown on the above data, which shows that there must be some political influence in the written summary.

    regards inter

  9. #7659
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Wtf?

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    The loss of the Arctic Ice is unusual
    woodbe.
    Seriously champ, get a grip. You're actually starting to scare me now.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    and it is cause for concern regardless of your flippancy.
    woodbe.
    The President of the Royal Society actually thought Arctic Ice melt was a good thing in the quote I posted. Was he also being flippant?

    We realists don't even go this far, we just say that it is business as usual for our little blue ball flying around the Sun.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Talking about the Antarctic while you continue to deny the reality of the Arctic is just changing the Subject, as I see our good Dr Freud is attempting once again.

    woodbe.
    The Arctic is real, I have never denied this.

    But back to this post:

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    More later, but a parting thought.

    Why is Woodbe still constantly banging on about Arctic Sea Ice when many months ago we thoroughly flayed this farcical semantic distraction?

    The answer is that this semantic distraction stops people looking at the truth such as that posted by Dr David Evans, and this factual data below:





    Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online



    This is why GLOBAL WARMING got changed to CLIMATE CHANGE.

    Because the Planet Earth refused to warm in accordance with the psychic computer models.

    Even though NASA and the Climate Clowns readily admit this (now visible thanks to CLIMATEGATE), many faith based adherents refuse to accept this real world data.

    This is how CLIMATE CHANGE is now transforming into ARCTIC ICE MELT HYPOTHESIS.

    This cult is well and truly busted.
    Have you actually given up on trying to defend the AGW hypothesis, so have now switched to clinging to the Arctic Ice Melt hypothesis?

    It would be handy to know, just so I don't waste time rebutting a new hypothesis of your own making that is not yet "peer reviewed".

    I guess as the old one fell apart, you have to search for a new "cause" to believe in, huh?

  10. #7660
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Please explain?

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post

    For instance, Doc now brings in a known serial misinformer and quotes a 1997-2012 graphic as evidence. I mean, seriously, what a load of bunk.

    woodbe.
    What or who is a "known serial misinformer"?

    So you think the data in this "1997-2012 graphic as evidence" is not evidence?

    Please explain why this factual data highlighting the ridiculous scaremongering from the psychic computer models is "a load of bunk"?

  11. #7661
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Still don't understand cause and effect, huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    I'm surprised interd6 does not pick you up on supplying misleading information in the favor of your cult.
    woodbe.
    Please quote any misleading information I have supplied?

    Please also describe my "cult"? I have explained in detail the attributes of the AGW hypothesis cult, if you think there is a cult out there that is "mine", I'd be very interested in learning about it?

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    You know enough about science to know why that graphic is rubbish.
    woodbe.
    All evidence is to the contrary. Perhaps you could provide us with your learned opinion as to why you think so? More failed assumptions again no doubt?

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    14 years?
    woodbe.
    The dates were printed on the graph. Did you also not comprehend these?

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Give us a break!
    woodbe.
    The global warming (notice no "anthropogenic") has taken one, you should also feel free.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    If however you are convinced the planet is cooling
    woodbe.
    You and your "belief" based analysis and false assumptions in action again. I don't need to be convinced of anything. I just read the data. Maybe you should too. It was printed on the graph. Everyone reading the post can see the numbers. I follow the data, not the cults belief systems. Does it look like it is cooling, warming, or staying about the same? Why don't you "convince" yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    perhaps you'd like to explain why the ice is disappearing at an accelerating rate planet wide?

    woodbe.
    You seriously don't get this stuff do you? After banging on about peer-review blah blah, and how only the experts know what's happening, you then ask for my explanation about a single effect in a massively complex climate system that science currently has ZERO proof as to causality? You're supposed to be one of the most informed and learned supporters of this failed and flawed AGW hypothesis and it's cultish beliefs.

    When you figure out how science works, you'll learn that this farcical hypothesis has failed through lack of evidence. You can't provide any. You just keep posting pretty pictures of effects and then falsely assume the causes are aligned to your belief system. This is not science. It's been years now that this thread has been running and you, or other ideologues, have supplied ZERO evidence proving this farce. In fact, all evidence is now refuting scare after scare. I'll post heaps more evidence refuting the many scares coming from this cult soon.

  12. #7662
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Meanwhile back in reality.

    I wonder if they're cutting down on burning fossil fuels for heating in the northern hemisphere right now?





    Death toll from Europe cold snap nears 300

    The Arctic cold snap that has hit Europe for over a week had claimed nearly 300 lives by Sunday, brought air travel chaos to London and dumped snow as far south as Rome and even North Africa.

    The grim winter toll rose in Ukraine, Poland, Italy and France, where two homeless people found frozen to death were the latest victims, with authorities across the continent reporting at least 297 fatalities.

    London's Heathrow Airport, the world's busiest air hub by passenger traffic, cancelled a third of the day's flights, while much of Britain was blanketed in snow, leaving drivers stranded on roads overnight.

    In Italy, which reported a seventh victim, snow-covered Rome was virtually paralyzed, thousands of people were trapped on trains, and the weather emergency sparked runs on supermarkets.

    Death toll from Europe cold snap nears 300 | GMA News Online | The Go-To Site for Filipinos Everywhere

    Maybe it's just the European Carbon Dioxide derivatives trading market actually having it's desired effect?

  13. #7663
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Tick Tock, Bolta's also watching the clock.

    As usual, whatever the effect, the cult confidently "believes" that the cause was their belief system:



    2006:
    The heat wave sweeping Europe is a direct consequence of the warming of the earth’s atmosphere, experts say.
    “We are observing and suffering the first effects of global warming,” Hervé Le Treut, meteorologist at the French Centre for Scientific Research told IPS.
    2012:
    The bitterly cold weather sweeping Britain and the rest of Europe has been linked by scientists with the ice-free seas of the Arctic, where global warming is exerting its greatest influence.
    A dramatic loss of sea ice covering the Barents and Kara Seas above northern Russia could explain why a chill Arctic wind has engulfed much of Europe and killed 221 people over the past week.
    Reality check:


    Hotter, colder - it’s always global warming | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog


    Not much time left for nearly all the purple to disappear, is there?

    So much scaremongering to ridicule before this doomsday prophecy also fails.

  14. #7664
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Comprehension problems again?

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    So you dispute that the blue line represents modern Arctic Sea Ice Observations?

    woodbe.
    Where did you read that?

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post

    I am noting how the fake sceptics attack the information about the changes measured in the world about them.

    woodbe.
    Who are these "fake" sceptics? If they are "fake", does this mean they actually "believe" that the AGW hypothesis is true?

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    If you have dispute about the data, please show sources as interd6 has done.

    woodbe.
    I never dispute factual data, they are facts.

    As for manipulated and adjusted data, these are not facts, these are artifactual representations of the creators design. If you read the link I posted (or any of the CLIMATEGATE info), you would have learned this long ago.

  15. #7665
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    So your saying that mysteriously the remaining antarctic plateau not shown on the above map differs from this finding, it doesnt. The way report reads doesn't reflect what is shown on the above data, which shows that there must be some political influence in the written summary.

    regards inter
    Thanks for the reply Interd6.

    I'd rather pin my expectations of Antarctic Land Ice mass loss or gain on scientific study than on an undated graphic and a belief of political interference.

    Here is the abstract from Velicogna 2007

    Using measurements of time-variable gravity from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment satellites, we determined mass variations of the Antarctic ice sheet during 2002–2005. We found that the mass of the ice sheet decreased significantly, at a rate of 152 ± 80 cubic kilometers of ice per year, which is equivalent to 0.4 ± 0.2 millimeters of global sea-level rise per year. Most of this mass loss came from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
    Followed by the abstract from Velicogna 2009

    We use monthly measurements of time-variable gravity from the GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite gravity mission to determine the ice mass-loss for the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets during the period between April 2002 and February 2009. We find that during this time period the mass loss of the ice sheets is not a constant, but accelerating with time, i.e., that the GRACE observations are better represented by a quadratic trend than by a linear one, implying that the ice sheets contribution to sea level becomes larger with time. In Greenland, the mass loss increased from 137 Gt/yr in 2002–2003 to 286 Gt/yr in 2007–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −30 ± 11 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009. In Antarctica the mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009. The observed acceleration in ice sheet mass loss helps reconcile GRACE ice mass estimates obtained for different time periods.
    None of this research goes against the possibility that East Antarctica is experiencing more snow than West Antarctica.

    Again, if you have verifiable data showing otherwise, please post it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud
    I never dispute factual data, they are facts.
    Bear with me Doc. Are you disputing or not disputing my summary of worldwide ice loss as posted?

    Rod, can we have some input from you too please. Is this Ice Loss happening or not. Never mind about the ice age you think is coming in 30 years.

    woodbe.

  16. #7666
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    As usual, whatever the effect, the cult confidently "believes" that the cause was their belief system:

    Not much time left for nearly all the purple to disappear, is there?

    So much scaremongering to ridicule before this doomsday prophecy also fails.
    Actually, there's some evidence that global warming and the current extreme hot/cold cycles that have been experienced in the Northern Hemisphere in the last few years are indeed linked. Something about the northern jet stream and blocking events. There was a summary article in New Scientist back in December that provided some useful links...

    Recent warm and cold daily winter temperature extremes in the Northern Hemisphere
    Large-scale atmospheric circulation changes are associated with the recent loss of Arctic sea ice | Overland | Tellus A
    Atmospheric Blocking and Atlantic Multidecadal Ocean Variability



    There's no question that there is likely other contributing factors behind these events but there's enough information available to suggest that warming of the Arctic doesn't help.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  17. #7667
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Woddbe there has been without doubt a reduction in the ice cover over a period of time, I have never disputed this.

    You think you are onto a huge gotcha on this ice issue. Sorry to dissapoint. What I don't agreee with is that this trend is a constant that will result in NO ICE. I think you are in fairy land to think this. there is no evidence to expect this to be the out come. It is purely guess work and hype to scare people into believing AGW.

    S & D I cant see where there is a link to AGW in respect the changes to the Jet Stream. You quite rightly post that there a likely to be other contributing factors. In other words nobody really knows, it is so easy to say it is "A"GW that is the cause but without any specific evidence to bak it up. And yes we all agree that the globe has warmed it is the "A"part of GW that we don't agree on.

    Sheez we have been over this ground so many times before. Show us the evidence that it is CO2 that is the primary driver of global warming. No use just using the argument that, it has warmed, Co2 has increased, Co2 is a greenhouse gas, so it must be Co2 that caused the warming. Evidence of late disputes this, evidence from the past disputes this. The warmist/greenies/lefties/pollies all want to pidgeon hole Co2 as the cause because it suits other motives.

    Well let me tell you this, the public are wise to this now and you will need to come up with something much better to support your argument. You can point to declining ice until the cows come home it does not support the "A" in the "GW".

    So come seriously give it a better shot. You aint got a gottcha woodbe! What you have is Ziltch.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  18. #7668
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Woddbe there has been without doubt a reduction in the ice cover over a period of time, I have never disputed this.
    It's woodbe, Rod.

    Thanks for that. Leaving AGW aside for the moment, and looking over my summary, and ignoring that I think the trends will continue (and you think they will stop or reverse), do you think that the data and studies shown or referenced are a fair representation of the state of the planetary ice change to this moment (or whatever the latest moment of the summary is)?

    Could I have represented any area of the summary better?

    woodbe.

  19. #7669
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    It's woodbe, Rod.

    Thanks for that. Leaving AGW aside for the moment, and looking over my summary, and ignoring that I think the trends will continue (and you think they will stop or reverse), do you think that the data and studies shown or referenced are a fair representation of the state of the planetary ice change to this moment (or whatever the latest moment of the summary is)?

    Could I have represented any area of the summary better?

    woodbe.
    Mate I would not have a clue if it is correct or not. I think your reverse hockey stick graph might not stand up to scrutiny though, it looks way too fabricated for my liking. Bit like the Mann hockey stick, now you have got to admit that is a load of garbage! I usually follow the ice coverage as reported by this page Sea Ice Reference Page | Watts Up With That? regardless what you think of WUWT it is a very compehensive record of the ice coverage much of what is here is also what you are refering to.

    I am sorry but is is beyond my comprehension to consider that something that has waxed and waned for umpteen thousand years will suddenly fail to "wax" again and keep dropping until there is no longer any ice in the Artic. It is beyond me to consider the same of temperatures, the models have shown a steady increase yet this has not happened even though Co2 has kept rising.

    It is beyond me to accept that Co2 emissions can be reduced on a world wide scale when population is growing and while under developing countries are striving to develope.

    It is beyond me to consider that Co2, while it is a greenhouse gas is powerful enough in its minute distribution, to alter our climate significantly, particularly when water vapour is known to be the main contributer to the GHE and represents the major part of the total GHG. And this is before we even consider the impact of the most significant factor controlling our climate, the SUN.

    Mate you are asking too many ducks to line up for this to be believed.

    Then add in all the ALARMIST predictions that have either already failed or been contidicted by science. This is not even to mention the benefits to the ALARMIST to keep this scare going, like political motivation (control), money, via grants, and the environmental movements rose coloured view of the world.

    Way too many things against you, seriously unless you fall into one of the catagories mentioned as beneficiaries of this scare, it is hard to believe anyone could support AGW theory, particulaly anyone that has kept up with the debate.

    I presume you would identify with, and fit one of these catagories even though you may not think so? Don't get me wrong here I am not having a go at you. We need all types to have a balanced world you know. The problem is when we have too many of one or another.

    Crikey where would I get my entertainment if there were no WARMISTS?
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  20. #7670
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    It is beyond me to consider that Co2, while it is a greenhouse gas is powerful enough in its minute distribution, to alter our climate significantly, particularly when water vapour is known to be the main contributer to the GHE and represents the major part of the total GHG. And this is before we even consider the impact of the most significant factor controlling our climate, the SUN.
    It may well be beyond you to consider CO2 to be powerful enough to alter the climate, but it is not beyond every scientific body of national or international standing in the world.

    There isn't a single reputable scientific organisation or reputable research body anywhere in the world that disputes that man made CO2 is the causing global warming.

    The existence and acceptance of AGW is a non-issue scientifically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Mate you are asking too many ducks to line up for this to be believed.
    Gee mate, you are really drawing a long bow using that argument. All you have to do is 'line up' every reputable scientific organisation in the world - all of them - and show how they all have got it wrong.

    Can you name one scientific organisation of national or international standing that claims AGW is non-existent?

    P.S. WUWT, Christopher Monckton, Joe Bastardi and Andrew Bolt ("a journalist with a conviction") are not reputable scientific organisations.
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  21. #7671
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    It may well be beyond you to consider CO2 to be powerful enough to alter the climate, but it is not beyond every scientific body of national or international standing in the world.

    There isn't a single reputable scientific organisation or reputable research body anywhere in the world that disputes that man made CO2 is the causing global warming.

    The existence and acceptance of AGW is a non-issue scientifically.



    Funny that see the rest of my post for your answer.

    Don't worry they will change their tune when it suits them.

    There are plenty of members of Scientific organizations that don't agree with their stated positions of AGW. Some in fact are under intense pressure to modify their official statements. You do realize that their are peer reviewed papers disputing AGW and that it is NOT A CONSENSUS as these people would have you believe. You can chose to follow like a lemming if you want but I will chose to think logically, and consider everything on the table before reaching my own conclusion. Don't worry if they, (or you), can't come up with facts that prove the theory and they stand up to scrutiny I will change my mind and become a believer as well. Until then I will be very skeptical about the claims. Maybe even if one of their predictions came off I would think twice. But first they have to stop the wild ass scaremongering because all this does is sets ones bullchit meter off. I can't think of one prediction that has come off. Look at Flannery and the "no more rains" prediction what a fool he has made of himself. Are we to believe any other prediction he makes? This is hurting "your cause" more than anything. Well except for the lack of warming while Co2 continues to soar.

    Now which catagory of "believer with a cause" do you put yourself in, that you can't take off the rose coloured glases? Remember this is not a bad thing as I have said, we need all catagories to make the world balanced. What is important though is that you recognise that their are catagories in the first place.

    Cheers Rod
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  22. #7672
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Mate I would not have a clue if it is correct or not. I think your reverse hockey stick graph might not stand up to scrutiny though, it looks way too fabricated for my liking.
    Ok, you would not have a clue but you don't like the 'look' of the reverse hockey stick. I'll see if I can find something less 'alarming'

    Anything else?

    woodbe.

  23. #7673
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Ok, you would not have a clue but you don't like the 'look' of the reverse hockey stick. I'll see if I can find something less 'alarming'

    Anything else?

    woodbe.
    Yeah, how about some real evidence AGW is real?

    Where did I say I did not like the "look"?

    Oh and did you think about which camp you were in?
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  24. #7674
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Yeah, how about some real evidence AGW is real?

    Where did I say I did not like the "look"?
    How about here:

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson
    Mate I would not have a clue if it is correct or not. I think your reverse hockey stick graph might not stand up to scrutiny though, it looks way too fabricated for my liking.
    Seeing that graph comes from a published scientific paper, I'll be happy to read about a scientific critisism you quote, but in the meantime I'll accept your dislike of it's 'looks' and see if I can find something that 'looks' more acceptable for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Oh and did you think about which camp you were in?
    Where did you ask about camps I've been in lots of camps though. The last camp I was in. let me think. Yea, it was on a hilltop in the middle of a massive Tasmanian Rainforest. Magnificent.

    woodbe.

  25. #7675
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Yeah, how about some real evidence AGW is real?

    Where did I say I did not like the "look"?

    Oh and did you think about which camp you were in?

    Firstly it is a shame we have to be in any "camp" in fact those that frequently claim the opposite side are perhaps a cult, deluded dishonest etc are usually the ones least capable of challenging their own views with new information as it becomes available and retreat to whatever default position they have had all along. Also in the type of argument that has been running on this forum you have something that was identified in a 1999 paper by Dunning Kruger in people unskilled and largely unaware in a subject have difficulty in recognising their own incompetence that then lead them to inflated self assessments of their own knowledge.

    Frequently identified by using arguments taken that may appear to support their world view but without the extended knowledge that actually allows those facts to be presented in context and with acknowledgement of inherent weaknesses, margin for error or wider application or ability to be influenced by other forces.

    The problem is most noise is coming from commentators like Monckton or Bolt for example who do not even appear to care for the truth but focus solely on rebutal rather than furthering understanding and providing credible commentary.

    What about evidence that AGW is real? well for some individuals no matter how much the balance of probabilities stack up they will as a result of the Dunning Kruger effect remain unable to see it. This is aimed at the general commentary not at any individual but probably applies to the majority of posters.

  26. #7676
    Small Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Over the rainbow
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    It may well be beyond you to consider CO2 to be powerful enough to alter the climate, but it is not beyond every scientific body of national or international standing in the world.

    There isn't a single reputable scientific organisation or reputable research body anywhere in the world that disputes that man made CO2 is the causing global warming.

    The existence and acceptance of AGW is a non-issue scientifically.



    Gee mate, you are really drawing a long bow using that argument. All you have to do is 'line up' every reputable scientific organisation in the world - all of them - and show how they all have got it wrong.

    Can you name one scientific organisation of national or international standing that claims AGW is non-existent?

    P.S. WUWT, Christopher Monckton, Joe Bastardi and Andrew Bolt ("an opinionist with a conviction") are not reputable scientific organisations.
    Fixed

  27. #7677
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post

    It is beyond me to consider that Co2, while it is a greenhouse gas is powerful enough in its minute distribution, to alter our climate significantly, particularly when water vapour is known to be the main contributer to the GHE and represents the major part of the total GHG. And this is before we even consider the impact of the most significant factor controlling our climate, the SUN.
    This is one of my son's favorite books at the moment



    ...you could use it as an analogy to this little debate.

    The story involves a cow, a horse, a pig, a sheep and a mouse who all decide to go for a row together in a little boat on the bay. In the end, all the big animals get into the boat nearly tiping it each time and gettting it closer and closer to the water line...but in the end, the mouse sank the boat when he got in after everyone else. Just that little bit more was enough to tip them all out...

    CO2 and the other GHGs that humans insert into the atmosphere are relatively minor players in the atmosphere by volume.....just like the mouse. But in a finely balanced system like our atmosphere even that tiny volume can have relatively profound consequences.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    I am sorry but is is beyond my comprehension to consider that something that has waxed and waned for umpteen thousand years will suddenly fail to "wax" again and keep dropping until there is no longer any ice in the Artic. It is beyond me to consider the same of temperatures, the models have shown a steady increase yet this has not happened even though Co2 has kept rising.
    There will always be seasonal ice in the Artic....certainly on the land within the Arctic Circle. But given the current rate of decline in sea ice density during the Arctic summer (that's density...not necessarily area) there will be little or no permanent sea ice in the Artic Circle within a few decades. That will have a profound effect on oceanic currents, thermoclines, haloclines and therefore weather patterns in both hemispheres.

    The concerning part is that (just like other aspects of climate change) we don't really know the implications of those effects on human civilisation. They might be good, they might be bad - we've no idea. We are going blindly into the future in blissful ignorance...surely a little risk assessment is worth some consideration?


    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    It is beyond me to accept that Co2 emissions can be reduced on a world wide scale when population is growing and while under developing countries are striving to develope.
    I agree with this one....we've learnt nothing from our past.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  28. #7678
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    And you want us to TRUST climate science. HA HA.

    Today, not one, but two of Germany’s most widely read news media published comprehensive skeptical climate science articles in their print and online editions, coinciding with the release of a major climate skeptical book, Die kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun).
    Germany has now plunged into raucous discord on the heated topic of climate change
    What has set it all off? One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholt’s skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”
    Vahrenholt decided to do some digging. His colleague Dr. Lüning also gave him a copy of Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. He was horrified by the sloppiness and deception he found. Well-connected to Hoffmann & Campe, he and Lüning decided to write the book. Die kalte Sonne cites 800 sources and has over 80 charts and figures. It examines and summarizes the latest science.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  29. #7679
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    And you want us to TRUST climate science. HA HA.
    That's a straightforward question, deserves an answer.

    Let me see. On one hand we have a book written by a bloke (Bloke1) (with close links to a book publisher), who doesn't accept some facet of renewable energy and who subsequently read a book by someone else (Bloke2) who didn't accept climate science. Bloke1 decided to believe the book about climate science, so he teams up with a non-climate scientist (geologist, who guessed that?) to write a book denying climate science.

    Makes Andrew Bolt look like an Alarmist, doesn't it? You couldn't make this stuff up, where's you get it. WUWT? HAHAHA

    Good stuff Rod, got any more

    woodbe.

  30. #7680
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    This is one of my son's favorite books at the moment



    ...you could use it as an analogy to this little debate.
    .
    you could if we were all simpleton cult members.
    regards inter

  31. #7681
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    You really want us to believe these expert predictions HA HA

    IT’S official - Australia has had its wettest two-year period on record.It will come as no surprise to most that the seemingly endless rain from spring 2010 to autumn 2011, and again in late 2011, resulted in record falls, the Bureau of Meteorology said.
    But hang on. “No surprise to most”? They are kidding, right?:

    Greens leader Bob Brown in 2006:

    From melting polar ice to the spectre of permanent drought in previously productive farmlands, the (World Meteorological Bureau’s) report makes clear that climate change is not just a future threat, it is damaging Australia now.
    Brown in 2008:
    Already, (Rudd government adviser Ross Garnaut’s) daunting data of a 10 per cent chance of no flow at all in the Murray-Darling river system in future years is being overtaken by data indicating that drought is the new norm across Australia’s greatest food bowl.
    The Sydney Morning Herald in 2008:
    This drought may never break
    IT MAY be time to stop describing south-eastern Australia as gripped by drought and instead accept the extreme dry as permanent, one of the nation’s most senior weather experts warned yesterday.
    “Perhaps we should call it our new climate,” said the Bureau of Meteorology’s head of climate analysis, David Jones....
    “There is a debate in the climate community, after … close to 12 years of drought, whether this is something permanent. Certainly, in terms of temperature, that seems to be our reality, and that there is no turning back....”
    Jones to the University of East Anglia in 2007:

    Truth be know, climate change here is now running so rampant that we don’t need meteorological data to see it. Almost everyone of our cities is on the verge of running out of water and our largest irrigation system (the Murray Darling Basin is on the verge of collapse...
    The Age in 2009:
    A three-year collaboration between the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO has confirmed what many scientists long suspected: that the 13-year drought is not just a natural dry stretch but a shift related to climate change…
    ‘’It’s reasonable to say that a lot of the current drought of the last 12 to 13 years is due to ongoing global warming,’’ said the bureau’s Bertrand Timbal.

    ‘’In the minds of a lot of people, the rainfall we had in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was a benchmark. A lot of our [water and agriculture] planning was done during that time. But we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up.’’...
    Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery in 2007:
    Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused “a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas” and made the soil too hot, “so even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems … “.
    More dud predictions:


    Warmist scientist David Karoly, 2003:

    The Murray-Darling Basin… covers towns north to Toowoomba, west to Broken Hill and south to Victoria and South Australia… Drought severity in the Murray Darling is increasing with global warming… This is the first drought in Australia where the impact of human-induced global warming can be clearly observed.

    Queensland Conservation Council:

    Reduced rainfall due to Global warming will lead to decreased overall water availability… In part, the SEQ water crisis has been caused by climate change
    Politicians bought the scare and wasted billions on desalination plants, water buy-backs and more:


    Queensland Premier Peter Beattie, 2007:


    Given the current uncertainty about the likely impact of climate change on rainfall patterns in (South Eastern Queensland) over coming years, it is only prudent to assume at this stage that lower than usual rainfalls could eventuate.


    Flannery again:

    Over the past 50 years southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming....Desalination plants can provide insurance against drought. In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months.

    Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, 2008:


    We know the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said by 2050 that Australia should expect around about a 25 per cent reduction in rainfall in the southern part of the Australia… So there is a very, very sound body of evidence that indicates that climate change is and will have an impact on rainfall in the Murray-Darling Basin and in southern Australia.
    This is not just about failing to own up to some inconsequential mistake. It is about the Bureau refusing to tell us of a major flaw in its calculations of rainfall in an allegedly warming world, with huge consequences for public spending. What are the implications of this mistake? Are its models wrong?
    Looking back at the overall trend of more rainfall, it seems incredible that so many experts should have been so convinced we were running out of rain - and that so few in the media ever questioned the alarmism:

    Even the graphic for the Murray Darling Basin suggests a severe over-reaction.
    Question is, are there enough scientists with clean consciences left to publicly expose the errors?
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  32. #7682
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    So what is your point? after thirteen dry years do two wet years mean they dry ones didn't exist. Are wet years linked to a La Nina event and warmer than average ocean temperatures off Queensland unrelated to climate change. Are 13 year droughts normal, I mean really clutching at a few carefully selected quotes and linking it to two isolated events goes totally against the defence that the present is only a representation of a very very long past going back thousands of years which seems to be the back stop of the denier brigade. You really must stop jumping onto every little thing you can and develop some consistency and logic here.

  33. #7683
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    You really want us to believe these expert predictions HA HA




    Just sayin'

    woodbe.

  34. #7684
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default


    You know that anyone with even a barest amount of intellegence can see that rainfall is increasing in the above graph, where does that leave you guys?
    regards inter

  35. #7685
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post

    You know that anyone with even a barest amount of intellegence can see that rainfall is increasing in the above graph, where does that leave you guys?
    regards inter
    You won't get any comment on the failed predictions! They just want to bury their heads and pretend they never happened cause it is too embarrassing to their cause. It will continue to be totally ignored!!

    Somehow it will get turned around into what they think is a gotcha, artic ice LOL. We may have to wait a year or 2 to see this one get ignored as well.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  36. #7686
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Somehow it will get turned around into what they think is a gotcha, artic ice LOL. We may have to wait a year or 2 to see this one get ignored as well.
    Arctic Ice loss (and Global ice loss) is not a 'gotcha', it's a fact. Every significant ice store on the planet is in decline. Even you 'sceptics' don't deny it. (for once)

    And wishing a system in accelerating decline to suddenly turn around is like expecting a brick you dropped to jump back into your hand. Hey, it could happen, just be careful of your feet, ok?

    woodbe.

  37. #7687
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    you could if we were all simpleton cult members.
    regards inter
    As opposed to an ordinary average everyday simpleton instead?
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  38. #7688
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post

    You know that anyone with even a barest amount of intellegence can see that rainfall is increasing in the above graph, where does that leave you guys?
    regards inter
    ...in the same slightly wetter place as you.

    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  39. #7689
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    And you want us to TRUST climate science. HA HA.
    No. But I'd like to see the same lack of trust in those how don't trust climate science...just for the sake of balance.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  40. #7690
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    No. But I'd like to see the same lack of trust in those how don't trust climate science...just for the sake of balance.
    Haha!

    I've thought about this, and I've come to the realisation that there has been no increase in rainfall since 2000.

    Initially, this didn't seem to be the case, just eyeballing the graph, so I thought my warmist bias must be distorting my vision. I corrected for this by visiting several sceptic sites and read up on data analysis that presents temperature data since 2000 in a more newspaper headline friendly manner, and applied my new knowledge to the rainfall graphic:



    woodbe.
    Last edited by woodbe; 10th Feb 2012 at 09:35 AM. Reason: typo

  41. #7691
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    I guess if you are applying the new ice age methodology using a methologist (as in methylated spirit) filter and correcting any undesirable inconvenient spikes then the assumption in the red line is perfectly reasonable.

  42. #7692
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    I guess if you are applying the new ice age methodology using a methologist (as in methylated spirit) filter and correcting any undesirable inconvenient spikes then the assumption in the red line is perfectly reasonable.
    And lets not forget, this is a very optimistic view of the situation. I haven't even corrected the data for UWI (Urban Water Island) effect yet.

    woodbe.

  43. #7693
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default


    Funny how my how myself as a fairly average simple person of barely average intelligence can see the 75mm approx' or more inrease in rainfall over the 110 years in the above graph, Cant really see why anyone would post it claiming to backup their case for rainfall diminishing, maybe I'm not on the right drugs to see it clearly, but then again they say " reality is just an illusion caused by the lack of drugs ", or most of us are not high on your religion.
    regards inter

  44. #7694
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    It is worth bearing in mind if you actually want to take this seriously that rainfall variation across the continent is not evenly distributed and we have just had over a decade of drought that has seriously impacted a lot of people. Also massive dumpings of rain over short periods may elevate year on year totals but do a lot of damage to both infrastructure and agricultural production. Just looking at rainfall across the country is a starting point but it actually only tells a small part of the story, you also need to look at month on month totals, single events and general distribution. When it comes to the effect on rivers you have to add in the effect of water taken from the system and even that then has to consider the water lost in distribution before what is left gets to the intended destination. When we start to consider our need for healthy river systems, strong agricultural sector and land health then a single graph while interesting doesn't really tell us that much.

  45. #7695
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post

    Funny how my how myself as a fairly average simple person of barely average intelligence can see the 75mm approx' or more inrease in rainfall over the 110 years in the above graph, Cant really see why anyone would post it claiming to backup their case for rainfall diminishing, maybe I'm not on the right drugs to see it clearly, but then again they say " reality is just an illusion caused by the lack of drugs ", or most of us are not high on your religion.
    regards inter
    Oh come on inter, surely you can see that there has been no increase since the 1970's?

    Isn't it amazing how difficult it is for sceptics to recognise their own tricks in the mirror?

    woodbe.

  46. #7696
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Oh come on inter, surely you can see that there has been no increase since the 1970's?

    Isn't it amazing how difficult it is for sceptics to recognise their own tricks in the mirror?

    woodbe.
    I dont think we are claiming that the trend of rainfall is up up up we are say the graph reveals that the failed alarmist predictions are demonstrated by the graph. Who cares that it is not more than the 70's No tricks here.

    All the predictions by alamist have been abject failures. The rainfail is normal the droughts were nothing new and nor are the floods. The same will be found with temperatures and the same with the ice. It is a absolute joke how the warmist think that a trend will continue where it has never done so in the past, be it rain, ice, temps, snow etc. Reality bites.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  47. #7697
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    All the predictions by alamist have been abject failures. The rainfail is normal the droughts were nothing new and nor are the floods. The same will be found with temperatures and the same with the ice. It is a absolute joke how the warmist think that a trend will continue where it has never done so in the past, be it rain, ice, temps, snow etc. Reality bites.
    Worth Framing, that one.

    woodbe.

  48. #7698
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Worth Framing, that one.

    woodbe.
    Why dont you try to explain why these pathetic predictions failed so badly in stead of trying to be so pious.

    Why should we believe any others where the models failed so badly.

    It really defies any reality to consider that you think this is alright, to be so far out of wack costing us billions on a desal plant that will be out of date before its required. And yet you will have us believe that its ok to think the rest of the models are ok to form the basis to have a carbon tax that will fail anyway.

    You know as well as I that in 2020 we will be emitting more Co2 than we are today, irrespective of what measures you take to try and stop them.

    You have nothing to appear smug about.


    Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery in 2005:

    But since 1998 particularly, we’ve seen just drought, drought, drought, and particularly regions like Sydney and the Warragamba catchment - if you look at the Warragamba catchment figures, since ‘98, the water has been in virtual freefall, and they’ve got about two years of supply left, but something will need to change in order to see the catchment start accumulating water again.... So when the models start confirming what you’re observing on the ground, then there’s some fairly strong basis for believing that we’re understanding what’s causing these weather shifts and these rainfall declines, and they do seem to be of a permanent nature

    Well, the worst-case scenario for Sydney is that the climate that’s existed for the last seven years continues for another two years. In that case, Sydney will be facing extreme difficulties with water.
    The Sydney Morning Herald in 2008:
    This drought may never break
    IT MAY be time to stop describing south-eastern Australia as gripped by drought and instead accept the extreme dry as permanent, one of the nation’s most senior weather experts warned yesterday.
    “Perhaps we should call it our new climate,” said the Bureau of Meteorology’s head of climate analysis, David Jones....
    “There is a debate in the climate community, after … close to 12 years of drought, whether this is something permanent. Certainly, in terms of temperature, that seems to be our reality, and that there is no turning back....”
    Jones to the University of East Anglia in 2007:

    Truth be know, climate change here is now running so rampant that we don’t need meteorological data to see it. Almost everyone of our cities is on the verge of running out of water and our largest irrigation system (the Murray Darling Basin is on the verge of collapse...
    The Age in 2009:
    A three-year collaboration between the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO has confirmed what many scientists long suspected: that the 13-year drought is not just a natural dry stretch but a shift related to climate change…
    ‘’It’s reasonable to say that a lot of the current drought of the last 12 to 13 years is due to ongoing global warming,’’ said the bureau’s Bertrand Timbal.

    ‘’In the minds of a lot of people, the rainfall we had in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was a benchmark. A lot of our [water and agriculture] planning was done during that time. But we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up.’’...
    Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery in 2007:
    Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused “a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas” and made the soil too hot, “so even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems … “.
    Last night:
    THE NSW State Emergency Service (SES) has had a busy night after huge rainfalls had parts of western Sydney and the Illawarra flooding. SES spokesman Dave Owens said the suburb of Londonderry, near Penrith, received about 104mm of rain in a short few hours overnight.
    Sydney dam storages this week:
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  49. #7699
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Why dont you try to explain why these pathetic predictions failed so badly in stead of trying to be so pious.
    Let me see now. I'll just look up these predictions in the peer reviewed journals they were published in...

    Nope, can't find any of those predictions in any journals. That's a mystery. Got any links?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson
    Why should we believe any others where the models failed so badly.

    It really defies any reality to consider that you think this is alright, to be so far out of wack costing us billions on a desal plant that will be out of date before its required. And yet you will have us believe that its ok to think the rest of the models are ok to form the basis to have a carbon tax that will fail anyway.

    You know as well as I that in 2020 we will be emitting more Co2 than we are today, irrespective of what measures you take to try and stop them.

    You have nothing to appear smug about.
    Oh, I get it now. You're outing the whole of climate science on the basis of a bunch of news media quotes mined by Andrew Bolt.

    Give me my click back.

    woodbe

  50. #7700
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    You may well call it a pathetic collection of predictions yet there is no acknowledge that this is anything but a rather ragged collection of comments, it is not a conclusion at the end of any report they are public statements nothing more. What those collection of comments are is a pathetic attempt to make some defining statement out of nothing, quite frankly it deserves contempt when it is put forward as having substance which it doesn't.

    Do not make the mistake of thinking that one errant conclusion cruels the entire notion of climate change. In fact you don't have to look far to find that while it may well mean drier areas it can also mean wetter in others. The current view is that we will experience more intense events and a shift it weather pattens. While ice may well be melting in some areas it may not be in others. Also who can say we are not entering a period of longer and more profound droughts punctuated by heavy periods of rain, in other words more extreme events.

    It is the expection that proves the rule, there is no point sticking your head in the sand by taking comfort in one comment that may be proved otherwise. All the exceptions should be doing is giving a reason to further understand and refine models. Who knows perhaps in the end counter balancing effects may mitigate impact. We should be making every effort to understand what is happening and taking steps to build economies that do not waste finite resources. It takes a mindset that gives a stuff about our children and future generations. Those that only care about their own little world and comforts will continue to find solace in the worlds of unqualified skeptics such as Bolt et al.

    What is the worst that can happen, other than a greater understanding of weather, surely that has a great economic benefit if we can begin to predict rain and dry events into the coming year.

Page 154 of 377 FirstFirst ... 54 104 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 204 254 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •