Emission Trading and climate change

Page 248 of 377 FirstFirst ... 148 198 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 298 348 ... LastLast
Results 12,351 to 12,400 of 18819
  1. #12351
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Still denying that the climate is a long term system and changes often occur step-wise?

    That's a climate science fact you won't swallow because it conflicts with your ideology.
    I have no ideology! That's the realm of cultists.
    Inter

  2. #12352
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    That's it? That's all you've got? Repeating a nonsense that has already been explained?

    All you are doing is confirming that you are trolling and you have nothing.
    That's right I have nothing, I am asking for something (proof), so that you can provide something to change my viewpoint, as you have nothing other than the limp mantra you leave the door open for further questioning unless you want to do the unthinkable & admit your cult has no logical proven scientific explainable reason! Quite legitimate when one looks at it & hilariously funny when the replies start dribbling on & on
    inter

  3. #12353
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    That's right I have nothing, I am asking for something (proof), so that you can provide something to change my viewpoint, as you have nothing other than the limp mantra you leave the door open for further questioning unless you want to do the unthinkable & admit your cult has no logical proven scientific explainable reason!
    inter
    Inter we will be waiting a long time for the proof. It just isn't there, if it were we would already know about it. If it were we would not be having this debate. If there were proof, there would be no skeptics.

    But it is not just the fact there is no proof that there are an ever increasing amount of skeptics, it is all the failed predictions of calamities. It is the failure of temperatures to increase as the models said it would despite increasing C02. It is the fact that science has been hijacked by pollies............. I could go on.

    The beauty of all this is that there is an increasing awareness in the general public that AGW is a crock. It ranks dead last in a poll of peoples concerns. Surely this is a wake up call for the warmists to provide the proof. It is duly noted that the scale of the scare has been progressively wound back over the past 10 years or so.

    I am so glad I made it so public so early that I was not taken in by this scam.

    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  4. #12354
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    I have no ideology! That's the realm of cultists.
    Does that mean you will stop posting personal attacks and start posting relevant information on climate change?
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  5. #12355
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Inter we will be waiting a long time for the proof. It just isn't there, if it were we would already know about it. If it were we would not be having this debate. If there were proof, there would be no skeptics.
    There is no debate. What a joke - sucked in by the lunatic fringe and proud of it!

    You guys are not skeptics. Skepticism is the practice of questioning whether claims are supported by empirical research and have reproducibility, as part of a methodological norm pursuing "the extension of certified knowledge". You guys are denying knowledge, so stop claiming the high ground!
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  6. #12356
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    I post it only because I like the analogy with the dog. hehe
    You guys are too much. If Catholics had the same faith, the world would be a monoculture by now.
    The cause of climate alarmism has been struck another near-fatal blow by a new study from a NASA research team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.

    Using a combination of satellite observations and direct measurements taken by a network of 3,000 floating Argo temperature probes, the NASA team set out to calculate temperature changes and thermal expansion in the deep ocean (below 1.24 miles).
    What they have found is that the deep ocean has not warmed measurably since at least 2005.
    This unfortunate discovery represents a major problem for the climate alarmists because the "missing heat" supposedly hiding in the deep oceans has long been their favoured explanation as to why there has been no measured "global warming" for the last 18 years.
    Here, for example, is what Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) told National Geographic in February this year:
    "Strong trade winds are bringing cooler water to the surface in the equatorial Pacific and mixing more heat into the deeper ocean."
    This meant, National Geographic helpfully summarised, that "the missing heat from global warming is being stored in a deeper warm pool in the western Pacific."
    And here is NCAR's Kevin Trenberth, Godfather of the "missing heat hiding in deep ocean" theory, speaking in October last year to Bloomberg.
    In fact, there is mounting evidence that deeper regions of the ocean, down to 2000 meters, are absorbing heat faster than ever, Trenberth said in a phone call. His research shows the oceans began taking on significantly more heat at around the same time the surface warming began to slow in 1998. His widely cited work was published just after the cutoff to be included in the IPCC report.
    The irony, says Trenberth, is that when the surface of the planet is unusually sweltering, the Earth actually radiates more heat into the atmosphere, in effect slowing the long-term warming of the planet. And in “hiatus” years, when the surface is cooler, the Earth absorbs more of the sun’s heat deep the oceans, slowly cooking the planet. What you see isn't always what you get.
    What has happened here, in other words, is that for years the warmists have been fobbing off their teachers with the excuse that "the dog ate their homework". But it simply won't wash any more because the teacher has now discovered that they don't actually own a dog.





    by Taboola
    Sponsored Links

    We Recommend [you change hobby, woodwork is a good suggestion, Balsa wood models for example]




    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  7. #12357
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Meanwhile, the great warming pause continues in the atmosphere, too:

    For how much longer can politicians ignore the science?
    UPDATE
    But when did science matter to academia’s public intellectuals, now huddled inside the latest Trojan horse outside the gates of capitalism? Nick Cater:

    IN 1992 Robert Manne edited a book called Shutdown that ... attacked the policies of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, the “radical free-market economics” Manne believed was driving Australia to permanent recession.Manne later admitted that he didn’t know what he was talking about, telling the ABC’s Terry Lane in 2005: “I have never studied economics formally and found pretty quickly when I began to argue about economic rationalism or neoliberalism, I found myself out of my depth."…[in] the latest edition of The Monthly,… Manne takes umbrage at Kelly’s Triumph and Demise…“On dozens of occasions Kelly spices his narrative with irrational pronouncements from the songbook of climate-change denialism. He thinks that the warnings of the scientists are ‘alarmist’; that the problem of climate change is self-evidently not ‘a moral issue’; that climate change has become a Labor ‘faith’; that imagined catastrophes in the future provide ‘a poor basis for policy action now’; that only a political ‘mug’ would call upon people to make a ‘sacrifice’ for future generations; and, flatly, that ‘climate change was the priority for neither Australia nor the world at this point’.”Manne may not know much about economics, but he reckons he knows his climate science.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  8. #12358
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Missing heat not in deep oceans but “found” in missing data in upper ocean instead

    Two papers on ocean heat released together today. The first says the missing heat is not in the deep ocean abyss below 2000m. The second finds the missing heat in missing data in the Southern Hemisphere instead. Toss out one excuse, move to another.
    The first paper by Llovel and Willis et al, looked at the total sea-level rise as measured by adjusted satellites*, then removed the part of that rise due to expanding warming oceans above 2,000 m and the part due to ice melting off glaciers and ice-sheets.** The upshot is that the bottom half of the ocean is apparently not warming — there was nothing much left for the deep oceans to do. This result comes from Argo buoy data which went into full operation in 2005. (Before Argo the uncertainties in ocean temperature measurements massively outweigh the expected temperature changes, so the “data” is pretty useless.)

    The second paper provides the excuse that the missing heat is really in the top 700m of the Southern Hemisphere instead. The title tells us they are adding up what they don’t know: “Quantifying underestimates of long-term upper-ocean warming”. The data they use comes satellites and “simulations” of the Earth’s climate.
    Using satellite altimetry observations and a large suite of climate models, we conclude that observed estimates of 0–700 dbar global ocean warming since 1970 are likely biased low.
    So we all know that this is an excellent estimate of heat accruing on a planet a lot like Earth — except that global warming didn’t pause on that planet, the upper tropospheric humidity is rising instead of falling, the sea-ice is shrinking at the south pole instead of increasing, and so on. Simulated Earth is a different planet. On that planet, the ARGO buoys are “biased low”.
    Yet again, the missing heat is found in missing data:
    This underestimation is attributed to poor sampling of the Southern Hemisphere, and limitations of the analysis methods that conservatively estimate temperature changes in data-sparse regions.
    We only have half-decent data on the ocean starting around 2005. But thousands upon millions of joules are arriving every day, and if some of that energy is being trapped on Earth, it must be somewhere. What incredible bad luck for climate scientists: yet again the observations are biased low, like 28 million weather balloons which underestimate heatand humidity, the 3,000 Argo buoys are underestimating ocean heat too.*** The models could not possibly be wrong …
    Another recent paper by Schulz found that the first air-sea flux mooring in the Southern Ocean was recording a heat loss at a rate of -10Wm-2. That would kind of fit with the record increase in sea ice perhaps?
    This is the part, below, where Durack concludes the models are probably right, and the observations are probably wrong. The black horizontal lines are the model predictions, and the diamonds in color are the observations. (Notice too that the period is 1970 to 2004, ending just as the ocean temperature starts to get measured properly for the first time.)
    In their own words, the observations agree with each other, but not with the models.
    “All but one of the four observational OHC trend estimates in Fig. 3b suggest a much smaller SH contribution, with stabilized ratios at timescales of 15 years and longer, well outside the intermodel standard deviation (0.500.63, MMM 0.56 versus 0.330.49 for observations).”
    Astute reader Robbo says this is his favorite passage from Durack et al:
    “Thus, it seems that our preliminary finding is robust: the SH contribution to the total upper-OHC change found in the five observational data sets is inconsistent with the CMIP model ensembles (Figs 3b and 4). The agreement between the observed and simulated SSH changes, the close correspondence between OHC and SSH (Fig. 2), and the better agreement of observed and simulated OHC for the recent Argo period (with improved SH coverage) suggests systematic model biases are not the dominant factor. We thus conclude, in agreement with previous works, that long-term observational estimates of SH upper-ocean heat content change are biased low.
    If models are correct in their hemispheric partitioning of OHC changes, we can use them to guide observational adjustment over the data-sparse SH.
    Thus, the data is inconsistent with the models, therefore the data is biased, and we can use models to adjust the data.

    Two more Classic Climatology sentences from the Durack paper:
    “we adjust the poorly constrained SH estimates (Methods) so that they yield an inter-hemispheric ratio that is consistent with the MMM [multi-model-mean] (Fig. 4). When this adjustment is applied, the various observational estimates of 35-year global upper-OHC change are substantially increased in all cases.”
    “Adjusting the poorly constrained SH OHC change estimates to yield an improved consistency with models.”
    Who would have thought… after adjusting to the data to fit the models, they get a better agreement with the models.
    I hear the ABC reported it as proof that it’s warming faster than we thought.
    For those who want to gawk at the observations of the Southern Hemisphere heat content versus the models. Here is Fig 3 parts b, c, and d. Note how the observation lines almost all run entirely below the models.
    Figure 3 | Southern Hemisphere fractional contributions to global upper-OHC or global average SSH anomaly for varying trend lengths (1–35 years). a,b, Results over 1–35-years (1970–2004) for SSH (a) and OHC (b). c,d, Results for a shorter 11-year period (1993–2004) for SSH (c) and OHC (d) duringwhich observed SSH data is available. Observed results extend to 2012 if available. Discontinuous black and grey lines extend 2004 CMIP5 values to 2012. The CMIP5MMMand one standard deviation spread are obtained from CMIP5 historical simulations.
    *Satellite altimetry has its own problems. As near as I can tell, these are probably the same satellites that showed virtually no sea-level rise in the 1990s until they were calibrated against one tide gauge in Hong Kong, which is sinking compared to the four gauges around it. Durack says: “From 2005 to 2013, sea level rose at a rate of 2.78 ±0.32mmyr-1.” Nils Axel-Morner and others like Beenstock have shown that hundreds of tide gauges around the world record an average rate of about 1mm a year or so. 182 gauges are showing a rise of about 1.6mm annually. In one location with long records and a lot of data about crustal movements of the land, Axel Morner estimates the rise is 0.8-0.9mm annually. Llovel estimates steric sea level rise at 0.9mm.
    The globally averaged steric sea level between 66° of latitude and above 2,000m depth (red curve in Fig. 1) rose with a linear trend of 0.9 ±0.15mmyr-1 between 2005 and 2013.
    Either way, without adjustments, the sea level rises shown by satellites would find a lot less “heat” content.
    **Melting ice etc was estimated by GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment)
    ***Assuming the ARGO buoys are giving meaningful results, which I’m unconvinced of.
    The papers:

    The deep heat is missing:
    Llovel, W., Willis, J. K. , Landerer,F. W., Fukumori.I.
    Deep-ocean contribution to sea level and energy budget not detectable over the past decade

    [Abstract] As the dominant reservoir of heat uptake in the climate system, the world’s oceans provide a critical measure of global climate change. Here, we infer deep-ocean warming in the context of global sea-level rise and Earth’s energy budget between January 2005 and December 2013. Direct measurements of ocean warming above 2,000 m depth explain about 32% of the observed annual rate of global mean sea-level rise. Over the entire water column, independent estimates of ocean warming yield a contribution of 0.77 ± 0.28 mm yr−1 in sea-level rise and agree with the upper-ocean estimate to within the estimated uncertainties. Accounting for additional possible systematic uncertainties, the deep ocean (below 2,000 m) contributes −0.13 ± 0.72 mm yr−1to global sea-level rise and −0.08 ± 0.43 W m−2 to Earth’s energy balance. The net warming of the ocean implies an energy imbalance for the Earth of 0.64 ± 0.44 W m−2 from 2005 to 2013.
    The models predicted an imbalance of about 0.69W/m2, so Llovel et al would be happy with finding the implications of finding an imbalance of “0.64W/m2.” But this assumes that most of the observed sea level rise (as measured by tide gauges, rather than adjusted satellites) is due to warming oceans, not to melting ice or glaciers. If those satellite altimeters were calibrated against other tide gauges, the heat content could shrink by 50% – 70%. That would fit with the models overestimating warming by a similar degree, as well as fitting with the pause, which fits with the slowdown in sea level rise, but it does not fit with modelers mindsets.
    The missing heat is “found” in missing data:
    Durack, Paul, Gleckler, Peter J. , Landerer, Felix W. , Taylor, Karl E.
    Quantifying underestimates of long-term upper-ocean warming

    [Abstract] The global ocean stores more than 90% of the heat associated with observed greenhouse-gas-attributed global warming1, 2, 3, 4. Using satellite altimetry observations and a large suite of climate models, we conclude that observed estimates of 0–700 dbar global ocean warming since 1970 are likely biased low. This underestimation is attributed to poor sampling of the Southern Hemisphere, and limitations of the analysis methods that conservatively estimate temperature changes in data-sparse regions5, 6, 7. We find that the partitioning of northern and southern hemispheric simulated sea surface height changes are consistent with precise altimeter observations, whereas the hemispheric partitioning of simulated upper-ocean warming is inconsistent with observed in-situ-based ocean heat content estimates. Relying on the close correspondence between hemispheric-scale ocean heat content and steric changes, we adjust the poorly constrained Southern Hemisphere observed warming estimates so that hemispheric ratios are consistent with the broad range of modelled results. These adjustments yield large increases (2.2–7.1 × 1022 J 35 yr−1) to current global upper-ocean heat content change estimates, and have important implications for sea level, the planetary energy budget and climate sensitivity assessments.

    The bottom line: energy can be neither created nor destroyed, so it has be somewhere. If it isn’t in the ocean (where 90% of the energy in the planet’s climate system is) then it’s probably in space.
    REFERENCES

    Llovel, W., Willis,J. K. , Landerer,F. W., Fukumori.I. (2014) Deep-ocean contribution to sea level and energy budget not detectable over the past decade. Nature Climate Change, 2014; DOI: 10.1038/nclimate238
    Durack, Paul, Gleckler, Peter J. , Landerer, Felix W. , Taylor, Karl E. (2014) Quantifying underestimates of long-term upper-ocean warming. Nature Climate Change, 2014; DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2389
    Schulz, E.W., Josey S.A., & Verein, R. (2014) First air-sea flux mooring measurements in the Southern Ocean GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L16606, 8 PP., 2012
    doi:10.1029/2012GL052290








    Rating: 9.3/10 (44 votes cast)


    Missing heat not in deep oceans but "found" in missing data in upper ocean instead, 9.3 out of 10 based on 44 ratings
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  9. #12359
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    For how much longer can politicians ignore the science?
    Come on Marc. How much longer can YOU ignore the science.

    First you post a graph that shows only surface ocean heat pretending it is total ocean heat!

    Then you post a graph showing that global warming has continued after 1998!


    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    that only a political ‘mug’ would call upon people to make a ‘sacrifice’ for future generations
    You mean sacrifices like spending money on polio and small pox vaccinations, common effluent systems, hospitals, schools and roads, WW1 and WW2? Those politicians really screwed everything!
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  10. #12360
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Missing heat not in deep oceans but “found” in missing data in upper ocean instead
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    The cause of climate alarmism has been struck another near-fatal blow by a new study from a NASA research team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.
    Mmmm. Really? Didn't read the papers did you? Neither paper challenges the theory of AGW. Your headlines just show how ridiculously dogmatic the lunatic blogosphere really is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    I would get 2 or 3 bottles of super glue and poor them on the neighbor's car paintwork.
    Nice. With well thought out reasoning like that, you can solve everyone's problems.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  11. #12361
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Ha ha, yes ... it's all too confusing isn't it? ................Most religions are 'kungfusing' ... PS ........You must be really desperate if you troll through my post in other unrelated thread trying to find something to discredit me. What do you think you can achieve? I copy and paste other peoples articles, they are not written by me, they don't carry my signature. If you find I have robbed a bank do you really think it will make your already hopelessly discredited position be seen in a better light? It does not work like that, you have to address the points made by the authors of the articles, by others who have some credibility. I mean ... say Al Gore for example? Mm may be not ... I know ... the ABC, now there is credibility and impartiality galore! Mm may be not ... anyway I leave it to you and the bees.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  12. #12362
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    You must be really desperate if you troll through my post
    Get off your high horse Marc, this isn't the only forum topic I read. I have no interest in what you say about anything other than the topics I am participating in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    trying to find something to discredit me.
    You do a fine job, all by yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    do you really think it will make your already hopelessly discredited position be seen in a better light?
    My position is to support accepted science - the same science that makes everything in the modern technological world work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    It does not work like that, you have to address the points made by the authors of the articles, by others who have some credibility.
    That's a bit rich coming form you. Your beloved posters of drivel in the lunatic fringe blogosphere obviously don't adhere to your rules, which is what I was pointing out. But if you read the original papers you would already have known that.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  13. #12363
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    "There have been several instances in recent months when wind energy has accounted for all, or nearly all, electricity demand in South Australia. Last Tuesday, however, set a new benchmark – the combination of wind energy and rooftop solar provided more than 100 per cent of the state’s electricity needs, for a whole working day between 9.30am and 6pm."


    South Australia hits 100% renewables - for a whole working day : Renew Economy
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  14. #12364
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

  15. #12365
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Still denying no significant global warming since 1998?
    Yes...especially your simplistic interpretation of it

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    That's the ideological reality you can't swallow!
    Do you have any idea what an ideological reality actually is?
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  16. #12366
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Inter we will be waiting a long time for the proof. It just isn't there, if it were we would already know about it. If it were we would not be having this debate. If there were proof, there would be no skeptics.

    But it is not just the fact there is no proof that there are an ever increasing amount of skeptics, it is all the failed predictions of calamities. It is the failure of temperatures to increase as the models said it would despite increasing C02. It is the fact that science has been hijacked by pollies............. I could go on.

    The beauty of all this is that there is an increasing awareness in the general public that AGW is a crock. It ranks dead last in a poll of peoples concerns. Surely this is a wake up call for the warmists to provide the proof. It is duly noted that the scale of the scare has been progressively wound back over the past 10 years or so.

    I am so glad I made it so public so early that I was not taken in by this scam.


    As we've said more than once in the past...there's plenty of proof. It's just there's none that you'll accept.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  17. #12367
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    you have to address the points made by the authors of the articles, by others who have some credibility

    Which points by which authors of which articles?

    If you mean the ham-fisted frippery that you cut and paste then no I don't...that'd be like debating with Inter (amusing but pointless)

    If you mean the original papers that your cut and paste was apparently taking umbrage with...then no I don't....in fact I can't...because I don't have a subscription to Nature Climate Change so I can't read the papers for myself.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  18. #12368
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    We are governed by a bunch of tools.

    The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) briefed the environment minister, Greg Hunt, on the link between climate change and extreme weather shortly before he cited Wikipedia as evidence that Australia had experienced bushfires regardless of global warming.


    Documents released under freedom of information laws show Hunt was told on 3 October 2013 the link between extreme weather and climate trends was “increasingly established” in scientific literature in Europe, Australia and the US.

    Yet he still went on to sprout a lot of crap and attract international mockery as the Minster for Wikipedia of the Australian government.

    Greg Hunt told of climate change link to weather before he quoted Wikipedia | Australia news | theguardian.com

    Now the government is trying to change science by erasing references on the internet.

    A document on the Department of Environment’s website, aimed at informing the public on how climate change is influencing dangerous weather, has removed an explicit reference linking the two. A previous version of the document opened with the statement: “There is a growing and robust body of evidence that climate change will increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.

    Extreme weather official advice rewritten to remove climate change link | Environment | theguardian.com

    This Abbott LNC government has not got the intellectual capacity to organise a game of pass the parcel. Pathetic.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  19. #12369
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    We are governed by a bunch of tools.
    ... Metabo, Makita, Feins, Panasonic ... Labor had Ozito, GMC, and Black and decker he he .............. So besides the typo, the problem seems to be that "CLIMATE CHANGE WILL PRODUCE MORE CLIMATE CHANGE" Whoopydoo !! we must run to the hills! the sea is going to raise 1/1000 of a METER!!!!
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  20. #12370
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    It does not work like that, you have to address the points made by the authors of the articles, by others who have some credibility.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    ... Metabo, Makita, Feins, Panasonic ... Labor had Ozito, GMC, and Black and decker he he .............. So besides the typo, the problem seems to be that "CLIMATE CHANGE WILL PRODUCE MORE CLIMATE CHANGE" Whoopydoo !! we must run to the hills! the sea is going to raise 1/1000 of a METER!!!!
    Setting an example, Marc?
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  21. #12371
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  22. #12372
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Geee, you did not even give me time to edit my own post, what are you doing, do you live here?

    Guys, I must admit you are too much fun. Honestly! stop taking yourself so seriously and have a beer or two. The "world/planet/globe" does not need your help... well I don't want to think of a case where the poor old planet actually needs your help ... uhuu can you imagine? The debates! The talks! The finger pointing! The 100 years war would seem brief in comparison.

    Aren't we lucky we don't actually need to help poor old worn out planet?

    .Ham-fisted? Is that Kosher?
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  23. #12373
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    The beauty of all this is that there is an increasing awareness in the general public that AGW is a crock. It ranks dead last in a poll of peoples concerns. Surely this is a wake up call for the warmists to provide the proof. It is duly noted that the scale of the scare has been progressively wound back over the past 10 years or so.
    Rod, you must be talking about another country or another planet. The proportion of people who do not think climate change is an issue is in decline with only 15% of the population of Australia believing nothing should be done, and 83% of Australians believing the government should be spending money on mitigating climate change.

    Lowy 2014 Interactive Poll
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  24. #12374
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Yes...especially your simplistic interpretation of it

    We don't accept or ever will accept drivel as an answer!

    Do you have any idea what an ideological reality actually is?

    I know what it is, there is no such thing, it doesn't exist & you lot have it in excessive quantities!
    inter

  25. #12375
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Rod, you must be talking about another country or another planet. The proportion of people who do not think climate change is an issue is in decline with only 15% of the population of Australia believing nothing should be done, and 83% of Australians believing the government should be spending money on mitigating climate change.

    Lowy 2014 Interactive Poll
    well the poll that really tells the story of climate change acceptance was the last election, it was voted down by the majority, the losers were pro climate action & tax the living day lights out of us, the winners were......... We all know the rest, you lose!
    inter

  26. #12376
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    We are governed by a bunch of tools.

    The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) briefed the environment minister, Greg Hunt, on the link between climate change and extreme weather shortly before he cited Wikipedia as evidence that Australia had experienced bushfires regardless of global warming.


    Documents released under freedom of information laws show Hunt was told on 3 October 2013 the link between extreme weather and climate trends was “increasingly established” in scientific literature in Europe, Australia and the US.

    Yet he still went on to sprout a lot of crap and attract international mockery as the Minster for Wikipedia of the Australian government.

    Greg Hunt told of climate change link to weather before he quoted Wikipedia | Australia news | theguardian.com

    Now the government is trying to change science by erasing references on the internet.

    A document on the Department of Environment’s website, aimed at informing the public on how climate change is influencing dangerous weather, has removed an explicit reference linking the two. A previous version of the document opened with the statement: “There is a growing and robust body of evidence that climate change will increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.

    Extreme weather official advice rewritten to remove climate change link | Environment | theguardian.com

    This Abbott LNC government has not got the intellectual capacity to organise a game of pass the parcel. Pathetic.
    What really good is everybody is over the exaggerators of all things big & small & for the time being common sense will prevail.
    inter

  27. #12377
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Go on be brave, put the global average numbers up so it can be shot to pieces like last time!
    inter

  28. #12378
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    As we've said more than once in the past...there's plenty of proof. It's just there's none that you'll accept.
    No! without proven repeatable scientific evidence it's just an opinion, an idea, nothing much at all!
    inter

  29. #12379
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Go on be brave, put the global average numbers up so it can be shot to pieces like last time!
    Which bit of the globe isn't in the graphics already present?
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  30. #12380
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    No! without proven repeatable scientific evidence it's just an opinion, an idea, nothing much at all!
    So why do you continue to hide any scientific evidence to support your position? The argument would be over if you showed the "proof" you are forever implying exists.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  31. #12381
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    well the poll that really tells the story of climate change acceptance was the last election, it was voted down by the majority, the losers were pro climate action & tax the living day lights out of us, the winners were......... We all know the rest, you lose!
    We live in the same country. If I lose, you lose.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  32. #12382
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    "There have been several instances in recent months when wind energy has accounted for all, or nearly all, electricity demand in South Australia. Last Tuesday, however, set a new benchmark – the combination of wind energy and rooftop solar provided more than 100 per cent of the state’s electricity needs, for a whole working day between 9.30am and 6pm."


    South Australia hits 100% renewables - for a whole working day : Renew Economy
    wow the welfare state had an instant or more where it was carbon neutral! at a great prolonged subsidised expense to the rest of the nation!
    inter

  33. #12383
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    wow the welfare state had an instant or more where it was carbon neutral! at a great prolonged subsidised expense to the rest of the nation!
    Overlooking for a moment the offensiveness of your innuendoes (those who can do, and those who can't throw insults)...

    So why does your NSW buy SA wind power? Hint: because it is cheaper than brown coal fired Victorian power, even despite the additional transmission distance.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  34. #12384
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Go on be brave, put the global average numbers up so it can be shot to pieces like last time!
    Go ahead and shoot it to pieces - but leave out the insults and innuendoes, just for something different.

    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  35. #12385
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    We live in the same country. If I lose, you lose.
    thats not what the majority says! You need to spend some more wasted time on that clapped out soapbox in the park, don't worry some derro will come along one day & think your ideology is the best thing since chilled metho.
    inter

  36. #12386
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    well the poll that really tells the story of climate change acceptance was the last election, it was voted down by the majority, the losers were pro climate action & tax the living day lights out of us, the winners were......... We all know the rest, you lose!
    inter
    I would like to think that the voting public has enough intelligence not to vote on singe issues, which begs the question do you really think the environment was the key issue or was there perhaps other factors such s financial management.

  37. #12387
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Go ahead and shoot it to pieces - but leave out the insults and innuendoes, just for something different.

    must be believable, in inches & no references.
    inter

  38. #12388
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    I would like to think that the voting public has enough intelligence not to vote on singe issues, which begs the question do you really think the environment was the key issue or was there perhaps other factors such s financial management.
    Or perceptions of party disarray. Every student of politics knows that Abbott's LNC did not "win", they were elected by default. And no, I am not a Labor supporter.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  39. #12389
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    must be believable, in inches & no references.
    inter
    What is your silly little jibe on inches, isn't it possible it is an American reference, for goodness sake slow down the pathetic attacks long enough to show you are capable of basic thought processes.

  40. #12390
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    must be believable, in inches & no references.
    So drop the innuendoes and shoot it down like you said you would. Can't find a source? Here it is: Sea Level | Climate Change | US EPA
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  41. #12391
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Overlooking for a moment the offensiveness of your innuendoes (those who can do, and those who can't throw insults)...

    So why does your NSW buy SA wind power? Hint: because it is cheaper than brown coal fired Victorian power, even despite the additional transmission distance.
    Der! Because NSW hasn't built any new power stations, it has a large manufacturing industry, greater population, demand & there is a shortfall in electricity!
    Inter

  42. #12392
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Der! Because NSW hasn't built any new power stations, it has a large manufacturing industry, greater population, demand & there is a shortfall in electricity!
    I see. So that's why they don't buy more expensive coal fired electricity, even though there is a surplus on your doorstep. You are a genius. Anyone else would have thought it was price...

    So shoot down the sea level data like you said you would...
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  43. #12393
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    So drop the innuendoes and shoot it down like you said you would. Can't find a source? Here it is: Sea Level | Climate Change | US EPA
    thats not what the experts say!
    Are sea-levels rising? Nils-Axel Mörner documents a decided lack of rising seas « JoNova

  44. #12394
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Der! Because NSW ... has a large manufacturing industry...


    "NSW manufacturing value added is the same as Victoria and South Australia combined."

    It's a bit sad really, isn't it Inter, when NSW has to BOAST it is bigger than Victoria and your so-called cot-case SA TOGETHER - LOL.

    Manufacturing - NSW Trade & Investment: Business in NSW
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  45. #12395
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    thats not what the experts say!
    Where are the "experts"? Your link goes to the lunatic fringe of the blogosphere.

    Nils-Axel Mörner is a retired professor from the University of Stockholm where he was the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department from 1991 to 2005.

    At least he is an "expert":

    Mörner claims to be an expert in “dowsing,” the practice of finding water, metals, gemstones etc. through the use of a Y-shaped twig.

    Maybe that 'blow to pieces' sea level changes recorded by satellites?
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  46. #12396
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    I see. So that's why they don't buy more expensive coal fired electricity, even though there is a surplus on your doorstep. You are a genius. Anyone else would have thought it was price...

    So shoot down the sea level data like you said you would...
    HA ha de ha ha! So they only ever buy power from SA renewable energy sources then? They must have an incredibly accurate crystal ball to time the delivery of that impossibility!
    inter

  47. #12397
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Where are the "experts"? Your link goes to the lunatic fringe of the blogosphere.
    Nils-Axel Mörner is a retired professor from the University of Stockholm where he was the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department from 1991 to 2005.

    At least he is an "expert":

    Mörner claims to be an expert in “dowsing,” the practice of finding water, metals, gemstones etc. through the use of a Y-shaped twig.

    Maybe that 'blow to pieces' sea level changes recorded by satellites?
    And could possibly beat you in a game of marbles as well!
    I didn't think it had a chance at passing your armchair peer review
    And he only has 500+ published papers in associated fields of tides, sea levels etc! It's funny that outspoken against the claptrap are usually retired, no job to loose & everything to gain by having a clear conscience.
    But you really must point out specifically where he has obviously gone wrong in you view!
    inter

  48. #12398
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    But you really must point out specifically where he has obviously gone wrong in you view!
    Nope. Just waiting for you to point out where he has gone right. Like you said you would, but haven't. Anyone can make any claim they like - it does not mean it is true.

    So don't hold back anymore, Inter - blow science to pieces like you said you would. The forum is depending on you!

    Just don't expect your buddies at the lunatic fringe of pseudoscience to count for much - they can't even agree with each other FFS.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  49. #12399
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    So why do you continue to hide any scientific evidence to support your position? The argument would be over if you showed the "proof" you are forever implying exists.
    it has been shown over the last couple of pages, it's historical data showing no link between CO2 & temperature changes! We can't help you if don't appear bright enough to work it out for yourself from there!
    Inter

  50. #12400
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Nope. Just waiting for you to point out where he has gone right. Like you said you would, but haven't. Anyone can make any claim they like - it does not mean it is true.

    So don't hold back anymore, Inter - blow science to pieces like you said you would. The forum is depending on you!

    Just don't expect your buddies at the lunatic fringe of pseudoscience to count for much - they can't even agree with each other FFS.
    but the ball is in your court! We all wait for for your learned reply, (not with anticipation I must add) the drivel prediction calculator is already peaking already when you not satisfied with a world leading expert on the subject that shoots down your doctored data.
    inter

Page 248 of 377 FirstFirst ... 148 198 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 298 348 ... 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
  •