# Fake News - Global Warming Consensus



## Ann (23 November 2018)

There is some really dodgy stuff and 'creative accounting' going on with this Global Warming mob. I will go into more detail further down the track.

In the meantime, if it isn't poor little CO2 causing all this commotion about climate change what could it be? Sometimes we find the simplest answer is more often than not, the right one. Remember the old adage, keep it simple, stupid!

It could be as simple as planetary orbits causing climate change long term, just as the earth's tilt causes winter and summer and as the rotation of the earth causes day and night. It seems the most likely and logical explanation. 

I have put in a planetary orbits graph to show the oscillations between ice ages and warm periods. Looking at the graph you can see we are likely to be getting colder in the not too distant future. It puts a whole new slant on history, seeing this graph and knowing what sort of temperatures were going on at any given time.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 November 2018)

Ann said:


> There is some really dodgy stuff and 'creative accounting' going on with this Global Warming mob. I will go into more detail further down the track.
> 
> In the meantime, if it isn't poor little CO2 causing all this commotion about climate change what could it be? Sometimes we find the simplest answer is more often than not, the right one. Remember the old adage, keep it simple, stupid!
> 
> ...






> _If you were wondering, the Earth is currently in the nearly circular part of the 405,000-year period. What does that mean for us? _*"Probably not anything very perceptible," *says Kent. "It's pretty far down on the list of so many other things that can affect climate on times scales that matter to us." Kent points out that according to the Milankovitch theory, we should be at the peak of a 20,000-some year warming trend that ended the last glacial period; the Earth may eventually start cooling again over thousands of years, and possibly head for another glaciation. "Could happen. Guess we could wait around and see," said Kent. *"On the other hand, all the CO2 we're pouring into the air right now is the obvious big enchilada. That's having an effect we can measure right now. The planetary cycle is a little more subtle." *




Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-ancient-scientists-climate-deep.html#jCp


----------



## ghotib (23 November 2018)

Ann said:


> There is some really dodgy stuff and 'creative accounting' going on with this Global Warming mob. I will go into more detail further down the track.
> ...
> I have put in a planetary orbits graph to show the oscillations between ice ages and warm periods. Looking at the graph you can see we are likely to be getting colder in the not too distant future. It puts a whole new slant on history, seeing this graph and knowing what sort of temperatures were going on at any given time.
> 
> View attachment 90451



You might want to try another graph Ann. This one:

(a) Doesn't label the vertical axes. Are these temperature anomalies? Absolute temperatures? Global temperatures? Northern hemisphere temperatures? Do they include polar regions? Are they temperatures, or something else entirely?

(b) Continues to about 2200. Nothing wrong with showing projections, but it's possibly misleading not to indicate that they are projections rather than data.

If you intend to discuss the current trends in global temperature I expect you'll find information that goes much further back than 450CE and is much clearer about the underlying data.

I read your post to another thread where you said you'd investigated the global warming "debate" some years ago and come to conclusions that satisfied you. I did the same thing, starting on this forum when Wayne posted a link to the Global Warming Swindle movie and continuing for several years, often in response to Wayne's further posts. Eventually I came to the position that the climate science consensus (and IMO it really is greater than 95%) makes sense and that much of the material that claims to refute it was ill-informed at best and often intended to mislead or confuse. I continue to follow climate science as best I can because I find it fascinating and often beautiful, but I see no value any more in arguing about it. In the slow motion emergency we now face, what we do counts for infinitely more than why we do it.

Cheers


----------



## So_Cynical (24 November 2018)

Ann said:


> It seems the most likely and logical explanation.



Simpler and more logical than 10 million+ years of carbon being cycled into long term storage, oil, gas, shale.


----------



## Logique (24 November 2018)

Ann said:


> There is some really dodgy stuff and 'creative accounting' going on with this Global Warming mob. I will go into more detail further down the track.
> 
> In the meantime, if it isn't poor little CO2 causing all this commotion about climate change what could it be? Sometimes we find the simplest answer is more often than not, the right one. Remember the old adage, keep it simple, stupid!
> 
> ...



Ann, expect to be attacked for any deviation from the doctrinaire narrative of human induced 'climate change'. And besides, the alarmist/globalist crowd long ago jumped ship from 'global warming'. Therefore hot or cold, their theories can't be disproved.

Only by making electricity expensive, and re-distributing western wealth to the Third World can 'climate change' be fixed


----------



## Ann (24 November 2018)

ghotib said:


> You might want to try another graph Ann. This one:
> 
> (a) Doesn't label the vertical axes. Are these temperature anomalies? Absolute temperatures? Global temperatures? Northern hemisphere temperatures? Do they include polar regions? Are they temperatures, or something else entirely?
> 
> ...




G'day ghotib, as I said in my post, this was a graph of *planetary orbits* not temperature. It also says on the graph (with a typo) it was a graph of planetary orbits. It was demonstrating how the rising and falling of temperature could well be entirely related to orbiting planets causing oscillations in temperature. The graph could go back and forward in time for as long as you like, the shape of orbitting planets won't change much in the short term few millennia. I hope that has made it clearer for you.  

There is no high figure consensus. That was a deceptive, cherry picked number 'The Big Lie'. Their whole argument is based on a lie of misleading statistics. It was then marketed by a major New York advertising agency. You have been conned by a little Aussie cognitive psychologist aka a spin doctor. 



Logique said:


> Ann, expect to be attacked for any deviation from the doctrinaire narrative of human induced 'climate change'. And besides, the alarmist/globalist crowd long ago jumped ship from 'global warming'. Therefore hot or cold, their theories can't be disproved.
> 
> Only by making electricity expensive, and re-distributing western wealth to the Third World can 'climate change' be fixed



You are so right Logique, the subject of GW is excruiciatingly boring, there is so much fatigue on this subject, which is probably their aim. Most people don't care or believe it anymore but they are focusing on the young, gullible and marginalized. At a quick glance it looks like their targeted demographic is lesbians, feminists, vegetarians and the groups with a green hue. In their digest of spin, it is suggested that you ignore the unconvertible to work on those who may be more susceptical. These small groups can be a very powerful lobby group who can still frighten politicians into the myth of global warming and a carbon tax. No the wealth won't be re-distributed into the third world any more than it is now. 

How clever to work out how to tax fresh air, still they have the best spin doctors and advertising agency in the world all coordinated by that enormous political behemoth the UN under an innocent sounding group called the IPCC who are there to massage and alter climate change research papers behind closed doors.


----------



## Ann (24 November 2018)

This whole global warming myth is based on dodgy mis-information which I will fully explain shortly as in "Lies, damn lies and statistics". In the meantime a little bit of comic strip fun.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 November 2018)

Logique said:


> Only by making electricity expensive, and re-distributing western wealth to the Third World can 'climate change' be fixed



Except in Australia we’ve managed to do both of those whilst increasing emissions at the same time.

Quite bizarre really. One could be excused for thinking our “leaders” weren’t actually working for the good of the country and its people.


----------



## Ann (24 November 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> Except in Australia we’ve managed to do both of those whilst increasing emissions at the same time.
> 
> Quite bizarre really. One could be excused for thinking our “leaders” weren’t actually working for the good of the country and its people.




Which is remarkable since the higher power prices have all but killed industry in Australia, not too many emissions coming from this neck of the woods. OK everyone, stop breathing, you are letting out too much CO2!


----------



## Ann (24 November 2018)

Logique said:


> Ann, expect to be attacked for any deviation from the doctrinaire narrative of human induced 'climate change'.



You can bet on that! The GW mob even have phone apps you can download which will give you an instant scripted response to any negative GW argument raised. The spin doctors are on the job 24/7.


----------



## Ann (24 November 2018)

basilio said:


> The analysis of the "The Great Global warming Swindle" ........
> *
> Why would one ever accept anything else proposed in such a program when you can see such overt deceptions ?* They have trashed their credibility.  It just doesn't make sense.




That is so true for the "Great Global Warming Myth". It doesn't make sense to build a whole story on cherry picked, deceptive manipulated statistics. They most certainly have *trashed their credibility. *
They are running scared now, they have mounted a huge legal defence fund as no doubt the litigations will be coming in thick and fast.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 November 2018)

Ann said:


> Which is remarkable since the higher power prices have all but killed industry in Australia



No argument there although I’ll note that the increased prices don’t have much to do with CO2. It’s not a zero factor but it’s a long way down the list of reasons why electricity has become expensive in Australia.


----------



## Ann (24 November 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> No argument there although I’ll note that the increased prices don’t have much to do with CO2. It’s not a zero factor but it’s a long way down the list of reasons why electricity has become expensive in Australia.



It used to be individual states had their own electricity generation and they used to vie with each other for manufacturing in their own states. The government in their wisdom decided to monopolize electricity into a national grid and then privatize it. The competition was gone, so was cheap power and then manufacturing. Now, not only is there no competition or cheap power but we are being forced to subsidize inefficient and expensive 'alternate' energy sources which are not and probably never will be a viable alternative to cheap efficient coal and gas, other than in the minds of the utopians.


----------



## cynic (24 November 2018)

Ann said:


> That is so true for the "Great Global Warming Myth". It doesn't make sense to build a whole story on deceptive manipulated statistics. They most certainly have *trashed their credibility. *
> They are running scared now, they have mounted a huge legal defence fund as no doubt the litigations will be coming in thick and fast.
> 
> View attachment 90464



If one were to liken that article to toilet paper, another could reasonably argue that such an act is tantamount to the perpetration of a terrible injustice. Toilet paper has always had far greater reliability, integrity and utility. As such, it has proven itself to be a worthy servant of mankind whenever nether regions required wiping.
Cook et al. 's "paper", on the other hand, is so blatantly dishonest, it doesn't really merit discussion. I seriously doubt anyone with a modicum of impartiality, or reasoning capacity would dare defend it, let alone wipe one's @#%& with it!!

Having said that, please be aware that the image in your post might be subject to a couple of potentially valid criticisms. My recollection of the 66ish% "no position" was that it included abstracts where no statement of a position could be explicitly or implicitly identified in the abstract. Some (although not terribly many) authors responding to the invited self assessment indicating a position. Please also note that there exist important distinctions between phrases such as "Took no position" and "no stated position" and "no position stated".

Another criticism is that the bar graph simply shows "66.4% NO", immediately followed by "32.6% YES" etc. A casual observer, neglecting to read the fine print, would very likely misunderstand this to mean that 66.4% stated a negative position on AGW.

From my earlier comments, I trust that you can see that I do share your contempt for the deceitfulness and/or inanity of Cook's conduct, as evidenced by the contents of that "paper", and that my contempt also extends to the deceitfulness and/or inanity of those standing by him. My main concern here, is that any expression of valid criticisms of that "paper", is held to a high standard, free from careless misrepresentations, distortions, or outright deceptions. Anything less, and the credibility of an otherwise well justified challenge could be seriously undermined by an attentive critic, thereby easing the casual dismissal of an otherwise worthy challenge.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 November 2018)

Ann said:


> but we are being forced to subsidize inefficient and expensive 'alternate' energy sources which are not and probably never will be a viable alternative to cheap efficient coal and gas, other than in the minds of the utopians.




So explain why the government or some of them at least are talking about taxpayer funding of new coal power stations when no one in private enterprise will have a bar of them ?


----------



## Ann (24 November 2018)

cynic said:


> If one were to liken that article to toilet paper, another could reasonably argue that such an act is tantamount to the perpetration of a terrible injustice. Toilet paper has always had far greater reliability, integrity and utility. As such, it has proven itself to be a worthy servant of mankind whenever nether regions required wiping.
> Cook et al. 's "paper", on the other hand, is so blatantly dishonest, it doesn't really merit discussion. I seriously doubt anyone with a modicum of impartiality, or reasoning capacity would dare defend it, let alone wipe one's @#%& with it!!
> 
> Having said that, please be aware that the image in your post might be subject to a couple of potentially valid criticisms. My recollection of the 66ish% "no position" was that it included abstracts where no statement of a position could be explicitly or implicitly identified in the abstract. Some (although not terribly many) authors responding to the invited self assessment indicating a position. Please also note that there exist important distinctions between phrases such as "Took no position" and "no stated position" and "no position stated".
> ...




Thank you very much cynic. How do you think it should be set up to make it clear there was no consensus. I was trying to demonstrate the heading of no concensus between the papers. What would be your suggestion? I have no desire to be deceptive but I also don't wish to make the bars too complicated. I was trying for the KISS principle but also making it clear and not deceptive. If the bars are too complicated it will look like I am trying to wriggle in the truth.


----------



## Ann (24 November 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> So explain why the government or some of them at least are talking about taxpayer funding of new coal power stations when no one in private enterprise will have a bar of them ?



At a guess Sir Rumpy, it may well be the government want to take back control of our power stations and make it hard for private enterprise to to hold us to ransom as they are doing so currently. Dunno, what do you reckon?


----------



## Ann (24 November 2018)

cynic said:


> Having said that, please be aware that the image in your post might be subject to a couple of potentially valid criticisms. My recollection of the 66ish% "no position" was that it included abstracts where no statement of a position could be explicitly or implicitly identified in the abstract. Some (although not terribly many) authors responding to the invited self assessment indicating a position. Please also note that there exist important distinctions between phrases such as "Took no position" and "no stated position" and "no position stated".




The problem I have cynic is knowing that it was *abstracts* that were being reviewed, not the papers written by the scientists.
_
An *abstract* is a brief summary of a research article, thesis, review, conference proceeding, or any in-depth analysis of a particular subject and is often used to help the reader quickly ascertain the paper's purpose._
This was a common complaint amongst the scientists that their papers were misquoted, edited or otherwise interfered with to massage an outcome.
So I am aware the 'no position' stance may have also been manipulated to achieve the outcome in the summary (abstract) as demanded by the powers that be. It appears the authors of the abstracts not the papers are the ones being counted in these percentage groups. There is a group of one hundred people who wrote the abstracts for the YES group as well as I can ascertain but it is made very hard to understand. I understand these summaries/abstracts are written behind closed doors at the IPCC.
It is a really slimy bit of shifty, fudging, statistical house of cards they have built. If this was a company and a really good auditor went in, I reckon the CFO would face a prison sentence for illegal representation.

So to actually fully and truthfully represent this on a simple graph would be nigh on impossible.


----------



## cynic (24 November 2018)

Ann said:


> Thank you very much cynic. How do you think it should be set up to make it clear there was no consensus. I was trying to demonstrate the heading of no concensus between the papers. What would be your suggestion? I have no desire to be deceptive but I also don't wish to make the bars too complicated. I was trying for the KISS principle but also making it clear and not deceptive. If the bars are too complicated it will look like I am trying to wriggle in the truth.



My understanding is that the 66.4% was largely attributable to those abstracts where a position did not appear to have been explicitly or implicitly stated.
The important thing to me is that the "66.4% No" is put in a way that reflects this. The best suggestion I can think of is, perhaps to use a short phrase akin to "No position stated" in the green bar (possibly including an "*" alerting the reader to be on the lookout  for some clarifying commentary under the chart.)


----------



## Ann (24 November 2018)

cynic said:


> My understanding is that the 66.4% was largely attributable to those abstracts where a position did not appear to have been explicitly or implicitly stated.
> The important thing to me is that the "66.4% No" is put in a way that reflects this. The best suggestion I can think of is, perhaps to use a short phrase akin to "No position stated" in the green bar (possibly including an "*" alerting the reader to be on the lookout  for some clarifying commentary under the chart.)




Easy peasy cynic! Did you read my previous post?


----------



## basilio (24 November 2018)

cynic said:


> Having said that, please be aware that the image in your post might be subject to a couple of potentially valid criticisms. My recollection of the 66ish% "no position" was that it included abstracts where no statement of a position could be explicitly or implicitly identified in the abstract. Some (although not terribly many) authors responding to the invited self assessment indicating a position. Please also note that there exist important distinctions between phrases such as "Took no position" and "no stated position" and "no position stated".
> 
> Another criticism is that the bar graph simply shows "66.4% NO", immediately followed by "32.6% YES" etc. A casual observer, neglecting to read the fine print, would very likely misunderstand this to mean that 66.4% stated a negative position on AGW.




 Very nice work Cynic.  Just picked the big lie in that poster.

Many, MOST abstracts of a  scientific paper do not *explictly *state a positon on AGW .  Abstracts are short and attempt to give an overview of the main points of research.  In many/most cases, particularly in the last 10 years the writers  would have accepted that AGW was real because in the broader scientific world that is the belief.

This issue would be particularly significant if the paper was not related direct to climate science but on the effects of changing climate in local ecology, glaciology, patterns of land use and so on.

Long story short - As Cynic points out the "No Stated Position" in the Abstract is not a No to AGW.
This question of course was further explored by the consensus researchers.

The researchers asked the authors of  papers that  did not have an explicit support of AGW in the Abstract to self rate their view of CC as expressed in their paper. This was overwhelmingly positive. The details can be seen in the original paper. Graphicly it was represented as follows .


*Table 5.*  Comparison of our abstract rating to self-rating for papers that received self-ratings.


Position Abstract rating Self-rating
Endorse AGW 791 (36.9%) 1342 (62.7%)
No AGW position or undecided 1339 (62.5%) 761 (35.5%)
Reject AGW 12 (0.6%) 39 (1.8%)
Figure 3 compares the percentage of papers endorsing the scientific consensus among all papers that express a position endorsing or rejecting the consensus. The year-to-year variability is larger in the self-ratings than in the abstract ratings due to the smaller sample sizes in the early 1990s. The percentage of AGW endorsements for both self-rating and abstract-rated papers increase marginally over time (simple linear regression trends 0.10 ± 0.09% yr−1, 95% CI, _R_2 = 0.20,_p_ = 0.04 for abstracts, 0.35 ± 0.26% yr−1, 95% CI, _R_2 = 0.26,_p_ = 0.02 for self-ratings), with both series approaching approximately 98% endorsements in 2011.







http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta

But in the end the heart of the issue is
1)  Is the world becoming much hotter than it has for tens of thousands of years ?
2) What  is the understanding of science as to the reasons for this situation ?
3) Do we have any capacity to change the course of the current increase in global temperatures ?
4) What consequences can be forseen as a result  of this temperature increase and what do we need to do to address these problems?


----------



## cynic (24 November 2018)

Ann said:


> The problem I have cynic is knowing that it was *abstracts* that were being reviewed, not the papers written by the scientists.
> _
> An *abstract* is a brief summary of a research article, thesis, review, conference proceeding, or any in-depth analysis of a particular subject and is often used to help the reader quickly ascertain the paper's purpose._
> This was a common complaint amongst the scientists that their papers were misquoted, edited or otherwise interfered with to massage an outcome.
> ...



I largely agree and do sympathise with what you are trying to achieve.

I do like what you have done, because it does highlight, in a very simple format, that less than 1 in 3, of the abstracts, could be identified as endorsing (whether implicitly or explicitly) AGW.

As you have mentioned, there are numerous other criticisms that could reasonably be levelled, but to capture them all would require a much larger body of charts and commentary.

I read the entire paper myself, some time ago, and still struggle to understand how Cook Et al. didn't get laughed out of academia!


----------



## Ann (24 November 2018)

OK cynic, how is this? It gave me a chance to fix the file so it is no longer fuzzy....darn jpg.


----------



## Ann (24 November 2018)

cynic said:


> I read the entire paper myself, some time ago, and still struggle to understand how Cook Et al. didn't get laughed out of academia!




He is currently calling for biased volunteers to do another count. He may try to massage new figures to cover his rear end. There are massive litigations planned, I believe, so they may be letting him dig his own grave.  He is most definitely their weakest link. Once he is put under an audit, no doubt he is a gonner. In fact once the whole GW mob is put under an audit it is going to be spectacular! No doubt it will go down in history as the world's biggest con! All the scientists and researchers who have had their papers altered will be pointing the auditors in all the right places.


----------



## Ann (24 November 2018)

basilio said:


> Very nice work Cynic.  Just picked the big lie in that poster.




Grasping at straws basilio, there is only one 'Big Lie' here and that is the Global Warming Myth.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 November 2018)

Ann said:


> It used to be individual states had their own electricity generation and they used to vie with each other for manufacturing in their own states. The government in their wisdom decided to monopolize electricity into a national grid and then privatize it. The competition was gone, so was cheap power and then manufacturing. Now, not only is there no competition or cheap power



You win the award for being one of the very few who grasps the real nature of how we ended up in this mess. 

Vic, Tas, NSW and Qld were fiercely competitive on price. The others had disadvantages of natural resources but they still gave it a red hot go and minimised the gap.

These days with the "competitive market" there's essentially no pressure to reduce costs, the focus having instead shifted to profit through revenue maximisation whereas in the past the focus was on minimising the price.

My view on the role of the CO2 issue is that there's no real point worrying about it so long as the other, larger, problems aren't resolved. I suspect the real reason so much fuss is made about it politically in Australia is that it conveniently distracts attention from the real truth which neither side wants to admit. They made the mess. That so few people understand it all makes that deception rather easy to continue.


----------



## cynic (24 November 2018)

basilio said:


> Very nice work Cynic.  Just picked the big lie in that poster.



Thanks for the compliment, (why am I now beginning to regret not having used the private message facility when communicating with Ann?).


> Many, MOST abstracts of a  scientific paper do not *explictly *state a positon on AGW .  Abstracts are short and attempt to give an overview of the main points of research.  In many/most cases, particularly in the last 10 years the writers  would have accepted that AGW was real because in the broader scientific world that is the belief.



 basilio, if not explicitly stated, how could you possibly know what the broader scientific world truly believes?


> This issue would be particularly significant if the paper was not related direct to climate science but on the effects of changing climate in local ecology, glaciology, patterns of land use and so on.
> 
> Long story short - As Cynic points out the "No Stated Position" in the Abstract is not a No to AGW.



Yikes!! basilio agrees with me on something climate change related!!(damn it! I must have made a mistake somewhere!!)







> This question of course was further explored by the consensus researchers.
> 
> The researchers asked the authors of  papers that  did not have an explicit support of AGW in the Abstract to self rate their view of CC as expressed in their paper. This was overwhelmingly positive. The details can be seen in the original paper. Graphicly it was represented as follows .



 basilio, you seem to have rather conveniently overlooked the fact that, of the 8547 authors emailed, only 1200 (approx. 14%) responded. 11 of those responses were excluded from further consideration, resulting in only 2142 papers, being considered ,as having received self ratings, from 1189 authors.
In effect this meant that self ratings, by 1189 (out of the original 29083) authors was considered for 2142 (out of the original 11,944) papers!!!
So less than 5% of authors, and less than 19% of papers, received self ratings!!!







> *Table 5.*  Comparison of our abstract rating to self-rating for papers that received self-ratings.
> 
> 
> Position Abstract rating Self-rating
> ...



[/QUOTE]


----------



## SirRumpole (24 November 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> These days with the "competitive market" there's essentially no pressure to reduce costs, the focus having instead shifted to profit through revenue maximisation whereas in the past the focus was on minimising the price.




Anything we can do about it now ?


----------



## explod (24 November 2018)

Ann said:


> Grasping at straws basilio, there is only one 'Big Lie' here and that is the Global Warming Myth.



With zero degrees in the arctic in their last winter when the normal temperature is supposed to be 40 to 60c below I can assure you that global warming is no myth. 

Cause can be argued but not the sudden warming.


----------



## Ann (24 November 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Anything we can do about it now ?



Heck yes Rumpy, support coal fired power stations.


----------



## cynic (24 November 2018)

explod said:


> With zero degrees in the arctic in their last winter when the normal temperature is supposed to be 40 to 60c below I can assure you that global warming is no myth.
> 
> Cause can be argued but not the sudden warming.



The last time I checked, the globe consisted of a lot more than just the arctic.


----------



## Ann (24 November 2018)

explod said:


> With zero degrees in the arctic in their last winter when the normal temperature is supposed to be 40 to 60c below I can assure you that global warming is no myth.
> 
> Cause can be argued but not the sudden warming.




It is not sudden explod, the temp last year was a double top from 2019. We all know what happens after a double top if you happen to be a chartist. Down baby down.




cynic said:


> Thanks for the compliment, (why am I now beginning to regret not having used the private message facility when communicating with Ann?).




I am really pleased you didn't cynic, basilio fed me an awesome line which just begs to be a poster. Coming soon.....


----------



## luutzu (24 November 2018)

Ann said:


> It is not sudden explod, the temp last year was a double top from 2019. We all know what happens after a double top if you happen to be a chartist. Down baby down.
> 
> I am really pleased you didn't cynic, basilio fed me an awesome line which just begs to be a poster. Coming soon.....




Did you just use technical analysis to predict the weather? 

I've heard of people using the weather, or the stars and the moon, to predict financial asset prices... I guess you could argue that the weather will affect certain stock prices, like ice cream or ag.

But to take charting pattern recognition, apply it to weather event. That's a first.


----------



## luutzu (24 November 2018)

Ann said:


> OK cynic, how is this? It gave me a chance to fix the file so it is no longer fuzzy....darn jpg.
> 
> View attachment 90468




Maybe the aim of those 66.4% that took no position on climate change weren't aiming to prove or disprove the causes of climate change. Scientific studies do have an aim to all the maths and statistics and stuff you know.

for example, The aim of this study was to measure the frequencies of bush fires in winter over the past two decades. We found that there's an ever increasing frequency of bush fires in winter, more so than the previous two decades.


----------



## Ann (24 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> Did you just use technical analysis to predict the weather?
> 
> I've heard of people using the weather, or the stars and the moon, to predict financial asset prices... I guess you could argue that the weather will affect certain stock prices, like ice cream or ag.
> 
> But to take charting pattern recognition, apply it to weather event. That's a first.




No I don't think it is a first luu, I think a few astrophysicists have done it for quite a while. I guess there are or were a few Gann exponents who predicted events. I remember the late chartist who posted here Trader Paul predicted the rise of Oil, long before it ever happened. He was maligned and harrassed but he was a very polite lovely man who knew he was right so no matter how much he was attacked, he knew he was right. I don't think he really cared about the dills who accosted him.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 November 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Anything we can do about it now ?



It's too late now in my view unless someone's willing to do something radical.

Radical as in a forced corporate reorganisation of several entities, some of which are listed companies and some of which are owned by foreign governments, and with compulsory acquisition and sale of assets as part of that.

Don't be too surprised if something like that actually happens. I'm very sure I'm not the only one thinking that way but it would probably need a major "trigger" event of some sort be it technical or economic. 

The method of generation is very much a secondary thing. There's no point in government building a coal-fired plant when the cost of its output will be quadrupled by the time it reaches consumers anyway and another company will simply close an existing plant in response to the government's new one.

Building lots of wind and solar similarly doesn't fix the price problem although it would likely bring forward a crisis, by bringing about an earlier shutdown of an existing coal-fired plant, which acts as the trigger to resolve the entire issue.

An issue in all that is there is now a requirement to give three years' notice of closing a generating facility. Add in the drama with AGL's announced closure of Liddell and don't be at all surprised when the next such closure involves no prior announcement but rather, the sudden "failure" of existing plant which a few weeks later is announced as uneconomic to repair.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> But to take charting pattern recognition, apply it to weather event. That's a first.



I've certainly spotted various T/A patterns in a chart of water storage levels in the past. 

It happens yes.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 November 2018)

Right now in SA Pelican Point power station has half the plant online and running at ~70% of capacity. Meanwhile just across the water, they're literally just a few km apart, good ole Torrens Island A station also has a machine online running at ~60% of capacity and 3 of the B station units each running at ~50% of capacity.

An immediate cut to both CO2 emissions and operating costs could be achieved simply by transferring some load from Torrens Island to fully load the more efficient Pelican Point plant which is more efficient as such but also suffers a greater efficiency loss at partial load than Torrens Island does. In layman's terms - if you're going to run something at partial load then Torrens Island is a far better place to do it than Pelican Point.

An engineer would never have thought to do otherwise, it's just commonsense. Market doesn't do that however.

There's the problem and my point is about the workings of the market not anything that someone is doing wrong. There is just no point worrying about the merits of coal versus solar so long as we have a market which produces silly outcomes.


----------



## Ann (25 November 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> There is just no point worrying about the merits of coal versus solar so long as we have a market which produces silly outcomes.



Solar doesn't nor will it have the kind of grunt of coal. You want industry you need coal.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 November 2018)

Ann said:


> Solar doesn't nor will it have the kind of grunt of coal. You want industry you need coal.



No matter what the technology it still needs an efficient system of management, organisation, transmission, distribution, retail etc if it is to deliver economical power to consumers.

There's no point building a new coal plant just so we can back off its output during the peaks so as to force open cycle gas turbines on and spike the price.


----------



## Knobby22 (25 November 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> No matter what the technology it still needs an efficient system of management, organisation, transmission, distribution, retail etc if it is to deliver economical power to consumers.
> 
> There's no point building a new coal plant just so we can back off its output during the peaks so as to force open cycle gas turbines on and spike the price.



The Liberal response is to pass laws that can fix prices, force owners to sell generating plant and try to have someone build new generation for baseload by someone who is not one of the present cartel with the use of grants and special encouragement in the form of guaranteed load.

All quite interventionist and socialist and against the standard free market response but as you eloquently point out Smurf, the free market is broken. The Chinese owners have bought a gold mine.


----------



## Ann (25 November 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> There's no point building a new coal plant just so we can back off its output during the peaks so as to force open cycle gas turbines on and spike the price.




Sorry Smurf, I have no idea what you are saying here, care to translate for us? Keep it short, I am dyslexic.


----------



## explod (25 November 2018)

Ann said:


> It is not sudden explod, the temp last year was a double top from 2019. We all know what happens after a double top if you happen to be a chartist. Down baby down....




Climate changes of the current magnitude ( in just over 100 years) has taken many thousands of years in past times.

I have quoted "The Sixth Extinction", a very well researched academic text here on ASF for a number of years now.


----------



## Ann (25 November 2018)

explod said:


> Climate changes of the current magnitude ( in just over 100 years) has taken many thousands of years in past times.




Correct explod, but I was talking about fluctuating temperatures not fluctuating climate change.  
Sort of like a long range weather forcast, not a long range climate forcast. Hard to grasp I know folks, but one is the micro and one is the macro view. I was talking about the micro view. (Clear as mud? I hope not).


----------



## Ann (25 November 2018)

basilio said:


> .........Just picked the big lie........




Thanks basilio, your words inspired another Poster.


----------



## explod (25 November 2018)

Temperature change is the cause of climate change.

When the meteor hit, the sun was blocked out the temperature dropped, the climate changed and 95% of life disappeared.  The same when the massive volcanoes erupted.


----------



## basilio (25 November 2018)

Well congratulations Ann!  That has to be one of the most inspired posters since the 
2 + 2 = 5  poster  used by Stalin in 1931 to celebrate the success of his 5 year industrialization plan.

It would be fascinating to be a fly on the wall at your Christmas dinner when you regale you familiy and son on how effectively you have managed to put right all the lies of Climate Change and consensus on global warming.

But meanwhile. Back to reality...

*Major government climate change report contradicts Trump and warns of devastating economic and health impact*

Report is dismissed by the White House, with it running counter to Donald Trump's frequent climate change criticisms



Chris Riotta New York @chrisriotta
1 day ago
41 comments

Click to follow
The Independent
The US will face devastating economic and health impacts from climate change by the end of the century, a new federal report has warned.

National Climate Assessment outlines the projected impact of global warming in every corner of US society, in a dire warning that is at odds with Donald Trump and his administration’s pro-fossil-fuels agenda.

“With continued growth in emissions at historic rates, annual losses in some economic sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century – more than the current gross domestic product (GDP) of many US states,” the report said.

The report, released nearly a month early by a team of 13 federal agencies, called the US Global Change Research Programme, said there is “no convincing alternative explanation” for climate change besides “human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases”.
https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...mpact-government-report-warning-a8649371.html


----------



## Ann (25 November 2018)

explod said:


> Temperature change is the cause of climate change.
> 
> When the meteor hit, the sun was blocked out the temperature dropped, the climate changed and 95% of life disappeared.  The same when the massive volcanoes erupted.




Other way around explod, climate change is the cause of temperature change. Climate change appears to be related to the planets doing their orbiting thing. Astrophysicists have known about it for years. 
I will upload the graph of Orbiting Planets again, *may I stress, this is not a temperature graph* *but a graph of planetary orbits. *They are trying to demonstrate the correlation of planetary orbital rotations with ice ages and warm periods.


----------



## Ann (25 November 2018)

basilio said:


> It would be fascinating to be a fly on the wall at your Christmas dinner when you regale you familiy and son on how effectively you have managed to put right all the lies of Climate Change and consensus on global warming.




The subject is boring, no-one wants to talk about it. Global warming fatigue has set in. But thank you for confirming my work is effectively managing to put right all the lies of CC and consensus on GW, that is very heartening, thank you basilio!


----------



## explod (25 November 2018)

Ann said:


> Other way around explod, climate change is the cause of temperature change. Climate change appears to be related to the planets doing their orbiting thing. Astrophysicists have known about it for years.
> I will upload the graph of Orbiting Planets again, *may I stress, this is not a temperature graph* *but a graph of planetary orbits. *They are trying to demonstrate the correlation of planetary orbital rotations with ice ages and warm periods.
> View attachment 90499



Absolute unsubstantiated rubbish.

and ..."change APPEARS to be related"... ,  you are in Fairy Land.


----------



## Ann (25 November 2018)

explod said:


> Absolute unsubstantiated rubbish.
> 
> and ..."change APPEARS to be related"... ,  you are in Fairy Land.







explod said:


> you are in Fairy Land.




More like Alice in Wonderland explod!
_
"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe *impossible things*." "I daresay you haven't had *much* practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. *Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast*."_


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 November 2018)

Ann said:


> Sorry Smurf, I have no idea what you are saying here, care to translate for us? Keep it short, I am dyslexic.



In simple terms as a few dot points:

*Power generation includes a range of plant types with vastly differing technical efficiency and economics. The most efficient plant operating in the National Electricity Market uses less than half as much fuel per unit of output as the least efficient.

*Broadly speaking, higher cost to build = lower cost to operate and vice versa.

*Since demand is highly variable, a least cost approach requires a mix of plant types. High build cost / low operating cost for routine use but cheap to build / expensive to operate still makes sense as backup or to meet short duration and infrequent peaks in demand.

*For technical reasons some plant suffers a major loss of efficiency if operated at low output whereas others suffer only minimal loss. Also some plant types are much easier to stop completely and later restart than others.

Now the problem we have is the owners of low operating cost plant intentionally backing off production, or taking units offline altogether, in order to force the less efficient and higher cost plants to run. That then pushes up the spot price with the end result that all generators, including those who cut production, increase profit.

Hedging contracts may nullify that in the short term but in the long term such contracts will reflect spot prices so they still win eventually.

This situation arises _because_ of competition not in spite of it. A single owner, regardless of whether it's private, a listed company or government, would never contemplate deliberately increasing production costs as that's just silly. It is the outcome of a competitive market however when company A really isn't supposed to be colluding so as to optimise company B's plant operations.

It would thus be easily possible to cut both costs and emissions simply by least cost operation of the existing generation fleet. Nothing new built, nobody put out of a job, just change what's running and when. At most some minor complexity with changing the gas flow in pipelines and making sure the right amount of coal turns up at the right place but nothing's going to be blown up and nobody from some union is going to be bashing on the door worried about job cuts.

My view is that we need an ownership and market structure designed to suit the engineering realities of operating the system. Instead, what we have at the moment is the engineering being twisted to fit within an ownership and market structure which precludes optimal efficiency.

Note that my point is not in any way about government ownership versus private. There's some very capable operators, and some not so capable, in the private sector but I don't have an ideological view there. I do know however that artificial "fake" competition is killing efficiency.

Competition is fake?

Well it is when you realise that huge scale is needed in order to achieve efficiency and in that context AGL, Origin or Energy Australia are by no means "too large" indeed if anything they're a bit too small. So there's a conflict between the economic desire for competition versus the loss of technical and economic efficiency through doing so. Hence competition isn't leading to lower prices, a point that comes as no surprise to those viewing it all from an engineering perspective.

Then there's the reality that, for example, Alinta buys coal with which to generate electricity. Lots of coal, millions of tonnes of the stuff every year in fact. Now who mines and sells them every piece of that coal? Well that would be AGL.

AGL burns lots of gas at Torrens Island whilst nearby Engie burns plenty at Pelican Point too. Follow that pipe to the other end and you won't find AGL or Engie producing gas but you will find Origin.

No secret that there's a lot of financial arrangements between Snowy and rivals.

And so on.

The whole thing just doesn't fit into the mould into which economists and governments keep trying to squash it at huge expense. That's all about industry structure not coal versus solar.

Only after all that is fixed would there be any real point in a taxpayer subsidised power station of any technology be it coal, nuclear, wind, hydro or burnt leaves.


----------



## basilio (25 November 2018)

Just providing an opportunity to recognise
1) What are the natural and human caused impacts on climate
2) How these interact to create the current temperatures around the world
3) What is the current trajectory of global temperatures .

Coming from the US Global Change Research Program, a team of 13 federal agencies, the Fourth National Climate Assessment was put together with the help of 1,000 people, including 300 leading scientists, roughly half from outside the government.

It's the second of two volumes. The first, released in November 2017, concluded that there is "no convincing alternative explanation" for the changing climate other than "human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases."

.


----------



## Ann (25 November 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> In simple terms as a few dot points:
> 
> *Power generation includes a range of plant types with vastly differing technical efficiency and economics. The most efficient plant operating in the National Electricity Market uses less than half as much fuel per unit of output as the least efficient.
> 
> ...




Thanks Smurf, that clears it all up for me! 
The take-away message for me is it is all too hard and no doubt the politicians think so as well. AGL mining coal? Do they mine under another name?


----------



## Darc Knight (25 November 2018)

@Ann I respect your intelligence and your contributions in the Stock threads and I like you as a person, but I saw enough holes made in your argument in the other GW thread to make me err on the side of global warming being real.
When we have Governments the World over straining budgets to lessen the future problem it also confirms to me that smarter people than us believe in global warming.
If global warming is a hoax, all we lose is this generation having things a bit tougher. If global warming is real and we don't act, human extinction is the probability. Where there's this much doubt we should err on the side of caution and act now, the consequences are so serious.
I like and respect you Ann, but kudos to @basilio and @explod for "fighting the good fight" in the face of some strong attacks. Cheers.


----------



## Ann (25 November 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> it also confirms to me that smarter people than us believe in global warming.




As you say DK it is a belief system, much like any other belief system.

_*"Systems*. A *belief system* is a set of mutually supportive *beliefs*. The *beliefs* of any such *system* can be classified as religious, philosophical, political, ideological, or a combination of these."_

Note this list does not include scientific.


----------



## basilio (25 November 2018)

Ann, from a scientific point of view *the evidence* behind believing humans are causing global warming is overwhelming. To date I am not even sure whether you accept the physical evidence ( temperature measurements, changes in ecosystems, increases in ocean temperatures)  that the world is warming exceptionally quickly (regardless of the cause .)

I concur with Darc Knights sentiments.


----------



## Ann (25 November 2018)

basilio said:


> .....I concur with Darc Knights sentiments.



I find that to be expected basilio!


----------



## cynic (25 November 2018)

> Where there's this much doubt we should err on the side of caution and act now, the consequences are so serious.



I trust that all those in agreement with the sentiment expressed in the above excerpt, are now paying regular visits to the confessional.

After all, what consequence could be more serious than the eternal damnation of one's immortal soul?!!


----------



## Ann (25 November 2018)

basilio said:


> So. What does 2 + 2 equal ?






cynic said:


> Well that depends who you ask!
> (i) The mathematician will typically answer "4"
> (ii) the accountant will typically ask: "What would you like it to equal?"
> (iii)the climate "scientist" will answer "Everyone (except deniers) knows that the answer is whichever number attests to the reality of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change."




Too good not to keep and I think the answer is 100 minus 3!


----------



## luutzu (25 November 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> I've certainly spotted various T/A patterns in a chart of water storage levels in the past.
> 
> It happens yes.




That doesn't make it the cause though. 

I mean, sure, technically speaking, if you chart a certain variable where if it does this and that pattern, the causal result on this and that other thing will or will not happen. So technically, chart-wise, certain pattern will result in certain thing being true - without fail.

For example, if rainfall is rising off the chart, if snowfall is high... water level in the dams will rise and be filled. So there's a causal relation there.

But I think it's illogical to infer from certain variable causing certain event to mean that if, say average world temperature, rises and does a "double top", it will mean the next x year will see temperature dropping down... why? because the chart pattern in stocks have always shown it will (with stock prices).


----------



## Ann (25 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> But I think it's illogical to infer from certain variable causing certain event to mean that if, say average world temperature, rises and does a "double top", it will mean the next x year will see temperature dropping down... why? because the chart pattern in stocks have always shown it will (with stock prices).




Sadly there is no guaranteed outcome for a pattern in a chart where there can be manipulation Luu. However in nature there seems to be a rhythmic repeated regular cycle once you know what the pattern is. Look back long enough and you will see a pattern emerging. I do it with stocks by looking back as far as I can on the chart. It tells me which stocks are being manipulated pump and dumps. They generally have a very rapid run up chart pattern, this always alerts me there is manipulation.


----------



## Ann (25 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> Putting false claims in big writings on posters doesn't make it true.



No it doesn't Luu, that is why I put a source reference to substantiate anything I say on my posters.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> That doesn't make it the cause though



Agreed and I'm not suggesting it does make it a cause.

Likewise I don't see any evidence that a double top on a stock chart _causes_ the price to then fall. The chart might tell you with reasonable accuracy what will happen but it's not the actual cause.


----------



## luutzu (25 November 2018)

Ann said:


> No it doesn't Luu, that is why I put a source reference to substantiate anything I say on my posters.




But that's why it's false 'cause Cook et. al. didn't conclude what your poster said, or implied, they did.

Nice graphics though. What software do you use? CorelDraw?


----------



## cynic (25 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> But that's why it's false 'cause Cook et. al. didn't conclude what your poster said, or implied, they did.
> 
> ...



Did you fail to notice the contents of table 3, in section 3, of Cook et al.' s paper?


----------



## luutzu (25 November 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> Agreed and I'm not suggesting it does make it a cause.
> 
> Likewise I don't see any evidence that a double top on a stock chart _causes_ the price to then fall. The chart might tell you with reasonable accuracy what will happen but it's not the actual cause.




I think Ann did. That since the temperature has had a "double top"... I'm assuming that mean it's been rising and rising... that it will soon enough drop. 

Just saw another episode of an interview with Daniel Ellsberg... ermm... with Obama, now Trump, ramping up fun-size, battlefield nukes, the world will more likely to go nuclear before CC get to us.

Nuclear war strategists, apparently, have long ago discuss nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Some like their nukes big, some like their nukes small enough so they can be use more frequently. Technology, and probably common sense, says that if you make 'em small, you're more likely to use them. And in using them, you could set off the other guy's alarm of a nuclear strike... from which they'll send their big nukes back at you... then we all get to say goodbye.

The current thinking doesn't seem to take that into account.


----------



## luutzu (25 November 2018)

cynic said:


> Did you fail to notice the contents of table 3, in section 3, of Cook et al.' s paper?




It's been a while Cynic, I don't remember.

But quoting that 66% of the research with "climate change" in the abstract holding no position on the causes of CC as a consensus on "human activities does not cause CC". That's wrong. 

Not all research into climate change seek to attribute the causes of it. Some can just look at the impact of rising sea level, or stronger more frequent hurricane etc. 

Reuters' reporting some US-mandated research into the impact of CC... "if" CC is real, a heck of a lot of people are going to die, most of them are poor. For the US economy as a whole, they'll lose some hundreds of billions in GDP by 2050 [?] from failing infrastructure, illnesses, natural disasters.


----------



## luutzu (25 November 2018)

Ann said:


> Sadly there is no guaranteed outcome for a pattern in a chart where there can be manipulation Luu. However in nature there seems to be a rhythmic repeated regular cycle once you know what the pattern is. Look back long enough and you will see a pattern emerging. I do it with stocks by looking back as far as I can on the chart. It tells me which stocks are being manipulated pump and dumps. They generally have a very rapid run up chart pattern, this always alerts me there is manipulation.




So who or what is manipulating the crazy weather pattern?


----------



## cynic (25 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> It's been a while Cynic, I don't remember.
> 
> But quoting that 66% of the research with "climate change" in the abstract holding no position on the causes of CC as a consensus on "human activities does not cause CC". That's wrong.
> ...



How is it wrong ?
Luutzu, if a person were to make a statement, or utter a phrase ,akin to the following:
"66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW"

Would you say that they are wrong for doing so?


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 November 2018)

Ann said:


> AGL mining coal? Do they mine under another name?



Nothing's hidden. AGL operates the Loy Yang mine which is just outside Traralgon (Vic). Production is about 80,000 tonnes per day with a third of that sold to Alinta and the remainder used by AGL itself.

Energy Australia also mines coal not far away at Yallourn, production being about half that of AGL's, but also has the Pine Dale mine in NSW.

Now before anyone gets all excited with this and decides to switch their electricity account away from AGL or EA in protest, let me tell you now that would be completely the wrong approach.

If you were to go to AGL's coal mine then issues of CO2 aside, it's undeniably a rather massive and impressive operation. There's a public viewing area that anyone can access which overlooks it all.

Now if you follow the big conveyor belts you'll come to Loy Yang power stations. Note that's plural since there's two, conveniently named "A" and "B". AGL owns the "A" station and Alinta owns the half size "B" station next door. It would have been the same size but only half was ever built.

Now at this site you'll notice that the nice flat bit of land where the second half of Loy Yang B station was going to go has some gas turbines out the front. Indeed it does and they belong to Snowy Hydro.

If you follow the transmission lines from these gas turbines you'll find it goes to Alinta's Loy Yang B station and then goes around the back of AGL's Loy Yang A station where there's a great big switch yard. You'll find some other transmission lines there too, those being the ones owned by yet another entity but under contract to Hydro Tasmania (aka Momentum Energy). Via a DC coverter station and undersea cable it ends up at George Town (Tas).

Competition? Oh yes, that's right. Competition. Tell the public there's competition. Or something. Yep, gotta remember the competition bit. Not that I'm not suggesting any wrongdoing or illegal collusion here. I'm just pointing out that engineering reality is a world away from the ideas of economists, politicians and the ACCC. Round pegs, square hole - there's the problem.

Now if you're in Melbourne and looking in the right place you might have spotted that Newport power station, which spends a lot of time doing not much, has sprung to life over the weekend. Indeed it has, AGL have had 2 x 560 MW units out of operation at Loy Yang and Energy Australia has a 510 MW machine sitting idle at Newport. So fire it up then.

Coal? Oh yeah, the coal. Truth is no matter who you buy your electricity from it's going to make precisely zero difference to how much coal AGL or EA are digging up and it's not going to stop the train loads of the stuff being bought by Origin either. If someone's got a wind farm or solar then it's being fully used, some if its production being used by consumers billed through AGL or Alinta etc, and switching your retail account to that "green" company won't make it produce any more. And suffice to say that your nice green non-coal burning supplier will be outright ****ing themselves and having a crisis meeting if AGL's mine floods or catches fire indeed they'll far more likely end up broke because of it than AGL will (seriously).

Now this Smurf prefers to call things as they a really are. There's one grid and one set of generating facilities. Shuffling the names around and who owns which bit creates a nice illusion that it's like buying apples in a competitive market but that's a very long way from reality. It's competition yes, but competition of the "everyone wins a prize anyway" variety so far as generation is concerned since that's the inevitable outcome in a system where you actually do need all the bits comprising it.

If the aim is to resolve all this then it really comes down to needing the administration to suit the engineering and not the reverse. I don't care who owns it but do away with the nonsense which says the owners of part A really mustn't co-operate with the owners of parts B, C or D who also mustn't co-operate with each other. That's just economic ideology out of control and it's making this whole thing far more difficult than it really needs to be. It might be tolerable if it had at least cut prices but in truth they're up sharply so there's no benefit there either.

Left to their own devices I'm very sure that the electricity industry could be rid of coal completely within 30 years and would have most of the job done within 20. With sensible planning and co-operation it's not at all hard to achieve that and I'm very sure that the private and government owned generators alike are up to the task from a technical perspective. They each have a role to play, and they've got a pretty good idea already what that is and where their company's strengths and weaknesses lie, so it just needs government to get out of the way.

Now that timeframe might not excite those on the "green" side too much, they'll want it done sooner, but let's face reality. There's no coherent policy or leadership from government and indeed there's outright obstruction. Despite that, assorted electricity generation businesses have between them worked out what and how to do it. Can't talk to each other about it of course but with a bit of trial and error and putting things in the media it has sort of been figured out that the mostly within 20 years / all within 30 years bit is achievable.

Now just imagine what could be done if government was actually on side and provided leadership? Or if the various generation owners were able to have open and frank discussions and come up with a joint plan without someone going to jail for doing so? That's where you start getting shorter timeframes and driving down costs as well.


----------



## Ann (26 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> But that's why it's false 'cause Cook et. al. didn't conclude what your poster said, or implied, they did.
> 
> Nice graphics though. What software do you use? CorelDraw?




The reference to Cook et al was simply to substantiate what I was saying Luu. If you read their paper, you will see the lie.  It comes down to, lies, damn lies and statistics. 
I am using Photoshop CS3. 



luutzu said:


> But quoting that 66% of the research with "climate change" in the abstract holding no position on the causes of CC as a consensus on "human activities does not cause CC". That's wrong.



No it's not Luu. _"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW" _Direct quote from the paper. I am very, very careful with what I say. I check my facts over and over before I speak.



luutzu said:


> So who or what is manipulating the crazy weather pattern?




What crazy weather pattern Luu?  Frankly a temperature rise in the last 100 years of 0.74c is hardly what I would call 'crazy' unless you can identify a rise of temperature during the day of 0.74 of a degree yourself.  I can only pick a rise in temperature of about 5 degrees during the day.


----------



## Ann (26 November 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> Nothing's hidden. AGL operates the Loy Yang mine which is just outside Traralgon (Vic). Production is about 80,000 tonnes per day with a third of that sold to Alinta and the remainder used by AGL itself.



Thanks Smurf, I wasn't implying it was hidden, I just had no idea AGL was a coal miner and was simply exposing my ignorance!  Geez you know your stuff!


----------



## ghotib (26 November 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> ...Now this Smurf prefers to call things as they a really are. There's one grid and one set of generating facilities. Shuffling the names around and who owns which bit creates a nice illusion that it's like buying apples in a competitive market but that's a very long way from reality. It's competition yes, but competition of the "everyone wins a prize anyway" variety so far as generation is concerned since that's the inevitable outcome in a system where you actually do need all the bits comprising it.
> 
> If the aim is to resolve all this then it really comes down to needing the administration to suit the engineering and not the reverse. ...
> 
> ...



Oh wow Smurf.  

That would be one of the clearest and most depressing statements of the electricity mess I've ever seen. 

About ten years ago, a little before solar panels became a practical proposition for ordinary people,  I went to a clean energy workshop where one of the sessions was about the current - errrr... present - electricity system. I've forgotten most of it, but I do remember sticking my hand up and asking if it really made any sense. Answer:  No. And the presenter wasn't even an engineer.

<sigh>


----------



## luutzu (26 November 2018)

Ann said:


> The reference to Cook et al was simply to substantiate what I was saying Luu. If you read their paper, you will see the lie.  It comes down to, lies, damn lies and statistics.
> I am using Photoshop CS3.
> 
> No it's not Luu. _"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW" _Direct quote from the paper. I am very, very careful with what I say. I check my facts over and over before I speak.
> ...




I read Cook's et. at.'s studies before. They didn't say what your poster said they say.

Expressing no position cannot be taken as taking a position. Definitely not a "no impact" position. That'd be like an accused person wanting to remain silent and only speak to their lawyer as being guilty. 

With research aim being almost always aimed at some narrow thesis, a paper that express no position as to the causes of CC could very well mean that that wasn't the purpose of the paper, the aim was to examine something else... e.g. study the size and depth of the polar ice cap over the past millennia...holy cow, it's thinning, getting smaller... and could possibly be due to CC.

See how having such keywords in the abstract metion CC but does not express an opinion or conclusion as to what causes CC? 

----

I think the average rise in temperature measure the average of the highs ad the lows over the years. Not the high and low over a 24 hour period.

Studies have shown something like the 15 the hottest years ever recorded happened in the last 17 years. some of California's worst drought and worst bushfires also occurred this century. By reports from their first responders, the fires are getting worst, stronger, more intensed.


----------



## cynic (26 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> I read Cook's et. at.'s studies before. They didn't say what your poster said they say.
> ...



For someone claiming to have read the paper, you seem to be surprisingly oblivious to its actual content.

The phrase:
"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed  no position on AGW"

Appears within the first two sentences of the abstract at the head of the "paper".

That 66.4% figure also appears beside a "No AGW position" label in table 3, within the body of the "paper".

Unlike yourself Luutzu, I have actually taken the time to study the contents of that "paper" before accusing another of having misrepresented it!


----------



## luutzu (26 November 2018)

cynic said:


> For someone claiming to have read the paper, you seem to be surprisingly oblivious to its actual content.
> 
> The phrase:
> "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed  no position on AGW"
> ...




So "take no position" mean "taking a No position"? 

How does that work?

Man, just because a paper has "Climate Change" in its abstract does not mean the paper's aim was to see if human activities causes Climate Change. That's pretty straight forward right?

Did you know that a few weeks before the Beijing Olympic Games the comrades ordered practically all cars off the roads, factories in Beijing to shut their coal-fired power plants. 

Guess what happened? The smokes around the city cleared. People get to see blue skies again. 

When Nixon set up the EPA and they stopped factories from pumping its waste into rivers... the water doesn't go red and fishes stopped going belly up. 

But sure... human activities have no impact on the environment whatsoever. You dumped plastics into the ocean and it just disappear, being recycled by mother nature. It would never come floating back in the fisheries and such.


----------



## Ann (26 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> Studies have shown something like the 15 the hottest years ever recorded happened in the last 17 years. some of California's worst drought and worst bushfires also occurred this century. By reports from their first responders, the fires are getting worst, stronger, more intensed.



Which studies and from what University luu?
OK luu, I think you have inspired me to create a new piece of work. I can see how people can be confused about "statistics".


----------



## luutzu (26 November 2018)

Ann said:


> Which studies and from what University luu?
> OK luu, I think you have inspired me to create a new piece of work. I can see how people can be confused about "statistics".




Dr Google. OR maybe NASA and such.

Even the idiots in Washington believe CC is real. That's why they actually passed a law requiring a report on the impact of CC to US national security and economic development.

The recent report ain't good. It's going to cost them crapload of money. All of them, both poor and rich.

So you know it's going to get acted on soon enough. 

https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-global-temperatures-2017-20180118-story.html


----------



## cynic (26 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> So "take no position" mean "taking a No position"?
> 
> How does that work?
> ...



I didn't write that "paper" - Cook et al. did!

So why are you trying to hold myself and Ann accountable for Cook et al.'s logically bereft mistakes?


----------



## luutzu (26 November 2018)

cynic said:


> I didn't write that "paper" - Cook et al. did!
> 
> So why are you trying to hold myself and Ann accountable for Cook et al.'s logically bereft mistakes?




You interpret their finding to show that those whose papers hold no position as holding a no position. That's misleading.

I mean, they exclude papers whose aim was not about the causes of climate change. They only include papers specifically aimed at attributing causes... count and do a percentage. 

Yet somehow the papers that were excluded as being irrelevant now get counted as holding a No Position.

That's like... I don' t know... asking a group of strangers what their opinions are of Cynic or Ann. They all said, don't know them so no opinion. So... you hate Cynic and Ann? 


And no, I have read the paper before. We've discussed it to death cynic.


----------



## cynic (26 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> You interpret their finding to show that those whose papers hold no position as holding a no position. ...



I haven't misled anyone!

I have merely quoted a few key items of content, found within Cook's "paper".

Have you noticed that you are now in effect decrying the content of that "paper" and therefore, the authors (Cook et al.)?

In effect you have now accused Cook himself of being misleading!
Was that your intent? Or did you do so unwittingly?


----------



## luutzu (26 November 2018)

cynic said:


> I haven't misled anyone!
> 
> I have merely quoted a few key items of content, found within Cook's "paper".
> 
> ...




So me find Cook's paper's to be valid is now me saying it's misleading? 

You're familiar with the structure and methods of scientific research papers right?

There's the aim, methods, results and Conclusion. Then you write the Abstract. 

Just because the Abstract mention "climate change" does not then follow that the aim of the paper was to find what factors contributes to or causes climate change. They could very well mention CC as a btw, an implication... or because the fake news, all commercial for-profit corporations hates business and established monopolies so paid the scientists to take no side on CC. 

The last few times Big Business got together mislead the public (and gov't?), smoking was cool and have no ill health side effects; driving without seat belts was safe; lead-infused paint or gasoline was not a biggie; asbestos was also not an issue to your health...

I guess profit-seeking monopolies have learnt that the public doesn't like that so they're now going out of their ways to pay these climate alarmists to fake and fudge scientific studies so that we could all not choke to death; watch our houses, roads and bridges get washed or burnt away. 

And they say Capitalism doesn't have a heart.


----------



## cynic (26 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> So me find Cook's paper's to be valid is now me saying it's misleading?
> ....



Metaphorically speaking, our last few posts have been akin to one person blaming the other, for the stench from Cook's flatulence, whilst simultaneously insisting that Cook's farts never stink!!


----------



## luutzu (26 November 2018)

cynic said:


> Metaphorically speaking, our last few posts have been akin to one person blaming the other, for the stench from Cook's flatulence, whilst simultaneously insisting that Cook's farts never stink!!




Well, you've used less syllables so I can understand you a bit better. Though that's not saying much.


----------



## basilio (26 November 2018)

cynic said:


> Having said that, please be aware that the image in your post might be subject to a couple of potentially valid criticisms. My recollection of the 66ish% "no position" was that it included abstracts where no statement of a position could be explicitly or implicitly identified in the abstract. Some (although not terribly many) authors responding to the invited self assessment indicating a position. Please also note that there exist important distinctions between phrases such as "Took no position" and "no stated position" and "no position stated".
> 
> Another criticism is that the bar graph simply shows "66.4% NO", immediately followed by "32.6% YES" etc. A casual observer, neglecting to read the fine print, would very likely misunderstand this to mean that 66.4% stated a negative position on AGW.




I believe Cynic summarised the situation  re the Consensus report quite well when he pointed out one couldn't dump all the "No stated position" abstracts into a NO column.


----------



## luutzu (26 November 2018)

basilio said:


> I believe Cynic summarised the situation  re the Consensus report quite well when he pointed out one couldn't dump all the "No stated position" abstracts into a NO column.




Sorry Cynic, didn't read that post of yours.


----------



## Struzball (26 November 2018)

Whether or not there is a consensus really has no bearing on the climate.
All there needs to be is a scientific paper with some sort of scientific support of the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, backed up by data.

At the moment it is nothing more than a hypothesis..
"If carbon dioxide is the key driver of global temperatures, then an anthropogenic increase in carbon dioxide will result in higher global temperatures than there would be without anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions"

The issue comes when trying to test this hypotheis (a hypothesis must be testable).
How would be the best way to go about this?  Have another planet earth one with humans and one without?

Or perhaps look at the rate of warming before and after humans started to emit carbon dioxide.

If the rate is constant (it is constant), then humans have minimal effect.

Whether or not 60% or 30% or 99.999% agree is completely irrelevant.


----------



## Ann (26 November 2018)

Struzball said:


> If the rate is constant (it is constant), then humans have minimal effect.
> 
> Whether or not 60% or 30% or 99.999% agree is completely irrelevant.




It is very relevant Struzball, if the political body running this said to the governments worldwide there was a *32.6% consensus *the rising temperature (0.74 degrees C over 100 years) could be caused by humans. I think most governments in their right mind would suggest better to wait and see. However if the big political body screams there is nearly 100% consensus, my god lets scramble and put a massive Air Tax onto the general public. They even tricked poor Obama into calling out how *all* the scientists agreed. Sorry, BS!


----------



## Struzball (26 November 2018)

Ann said:


> However if the big political body screams there is nearly 100% consensus, my god lets scramble and put a massive Air Tax onto the general public.




Like I said, it's irrelevant... even if 100% agree.
Facts are all that matter, and governments should only be making decisions on facts.
At the moment there are no facts to support taxing air.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 November 2018)

Struzball said:


> Or perhaps look at the rate of warming before and after humans started to emit carbon dioxide.
> 
> If the rate is constant (it is constant), then humans have minimal effect.



As a theory sure, it seems very reasonable.

But what if the rate is not constant?

It’s not constant in reality so that’s the factual scenario to look at.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 November 2018)

Struzball said:


> How would be the best way to go about this? Have another planet earth one with humans and one without?




Venus perhaps ?


----------



## basilio (26 November 2018)

Struzball said:


> Or perhaps look at the rate of warming before and after humans started to emit carbon dioxide.




Quite right Struzball. In fact that is pretty well what climate scientsist have been doing for the past 40 years.

There are many factors that impact on the earths climate. Long term changes in planetary orbits, intense volcanic activity, variations in sun intensity are some of the natural factors.

However since the Industrial Revolution and particularly the last 50 years the exponitial increase in human produced greenhouse gases has overtaken all these factors in impacting on our climate. Hence current and continuing global warming.
Check out the following website for the explanation.


*Climate change: How do we know? *

_The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.


 Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal. 
_
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
_ 
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1


Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.


The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.


Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming_

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


----------



## Ann (26 November 2018)

....and now for a little light relief. Lots of bad language warning.


----------



## Ann (26 November 2018)

Nothing like a nice remote place such as Hawaii to spend your time inside an active volcano measuring worldwide CO2 levels. Keeling used to measure his levels in two places in the world, the South Pole and Hawaii. Funding cuts in the mid 1960s stopped measurements in the South Pole. Not surprising, I would rather go to Hawaii than the South Pole. I bet there wasn't a lot of CO2 around the glaciers to measure anyway they would be holding on to CO2 for dear life!  I have been to this volcano, it is like a gigantic saucer of not much of anything. Maybe more like a soup bowl. Pretty darn boring I have to say. Mind you that was before it effused...that's the word..effused magma for a couple of months in 1984, I was there in 1980. Anyway a little pic to try and explain this problem we are having with CO2.





	

		
			
		

		
	
 ,


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 November 2018)

Ann said:


> Nothing like a nice remote place such as Hawaii to spend your time inside an active volcano measuring worldwide CO2 levels.



Thankfully it's also measured at Cape Grim (Tasmania) which is considerably more convenient from an Australian perspective and somewhat cooler than a volcano too.


----------



## sptrawler (27 November 2018)

I guess whether global warming is happening, and if is caused by humans, is probably irrelevant.

We are on a planet with limited everything, and we are overpopulating it, at an ever increasing rate, so we are definitely going to run out of something.

Who knows if rising sea levels, or inability to feed everyone will be the problem, at the moment technology can start to combat emissions.

So the biggest problem is getting everyone on board, which seems to have happened quite successfully, then if the electricity system goes pear shaped the public has taken ownership of the problem anyway.

They will just have to pay for sorting it, after all they wanted it, actually isn't a bad way of addressing the issue.


----------



## Pixelperfect (27 November 2018)

sptrawler said:


> I guess whether global warming is happening, and if is caused by humans, is probably irrelevant.
> 
> We are on a planet with limited everything, and we are overpopulating it, at an ever increasing rate, so we are definitely going to run out of something.
> 
> ...



Why not make it free, and see how many get on board, but no one would do that anymore. Somehow the environmentalist, want to put a price on carbon so they can profit from it, and the oil rich bums don't want to let go of their prehistoric stuff. The way things are going, it's not going to fix any problem. We are all screwed because you have both left and right fighting for something that should be free, but everyone wants to put a price on everything so both left and right are fighting for their spot. Interesting species the human race. Can't seem to let go of that greed.


----------



## Junior (27 November 2018)

sptrawler said:


> I guess whether global warming is happening, and if is caused by humans, is probably irrelevant.
> 
> We are on a planet with limited everything, and we are overpopulating it, at an ever increasing rate, so we are definitely going to run out of something.
> 
> ...




This.

If the cause were re-branded to a Fight Against Pollution rather than Global Warming, perhaps we would see more action and co-operation.

If we drastically reduce emissions globally.  Move, over time, to 100% Renewable energy sources, and completely phase out internal combustion engines and move to EVs......what are the risks in doing so?  Cost?  Well renewables already stack up favourably against fossil fuel electricity generation in terms of cost, as do EVs vs. petrol driven vehicles.  All that needs to happen now is further acceleration of the move, and for Governments to get out of the way.

The benefits are massive, and the risks are limited, in my view.


----------



## sptrawler (27 November 2018)

Junior said:


> This.
> 
> If the cause were re-branded to a Fight Against Pollution rather than Global Warming, perhaps we would see more action and co-operation.
> 
> ...




I said a year or two ago, if we are going to go renewables, we need to go all in.
Even then it will take 30-50 years IMO, so the agenda needs to change from it can be done overnight, to what is the most logical way to transition in an orderly manner.
At the moment, it is all posturing, emotional ranting and political point scoring. It is about time everyone took a step back and let a group of technical experts, work out the options available.
It is a huge undertaking and it won't be helped by political interference and vote catching.
If it isn't done in a technically sound manner, a point will be reached where the system could collapse, if that happens it will cost a lot more than money.


----------



## basilio (27 November 2018)

Creative idea Junior.  "Just don't mention the war ".

Trouble is who would believe you were "Just fighting pollution?"  All the smarties from Donald Trump down would just say " Aw rubbish. We know you. This is all about global warming and we know that is crock of shite.  So stuff your program to go to renewables, reduce emissions ectera, ectera. "

Crazy ?  Nothing would be too crazy in 2018.


----------



## sptrawler (27 November 2018)

Junior said:


> This.
> Cost?  Well renewables already stack up favourably against fossil fuel electricity generation in terms of cost,




Not having a go at you Junior, but that statement, from what I have read is just repeating the misinformation that the left wing throw around.

From my understanding, 1,000MW of renewables(solar and wind) will cost the same to install as a 1,000MW coal station.
However because renewables are intermittent, you have to install twice as much, so that is 2,000MW, also you have to install three times that in storage capacity so that is 3,000MW of storage.
This is so that you can supply the load while they are producing, plus make extra to put in storage for when the sun goes down or wind drops.
That came from an Alan Finkel report.
So it isn't just replacing like for like, it is going to take years to get the required amount of renewables in, if ever.


----------



## basilio (27 November 2018)

SP I think you are a long way off the mark with your  estimations of the costs of new coal power plants vs alternatives.  (And this doesn't factor in the pollution and  additional running costs)

All the information at the moment is showing that wind/solar are much cheaper than coal just to build. Storage and intermitancy is another issue but is now recognised with the push for local hydro plants to store power as well as larger battery banks to both store and equalise the system.

I'm sure Smurf can provide more details but there are more than a few reports worth examining.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/domini...ost-effective-fossil-fuels-2020/#1b5e41b24ff2
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/solar-power-cost-decrease-2018-5?r=US&IR=T
https://www.networkworld.com/article/3271101/green-it/solar-power-costs-half-what-coal-costs.html


----------



## Pixelperfect (27 November 2018)

Junior said:


> This.
> 
> If the cause were re-branded to a Fight Against Pollution rather than Global Warming, perhaps we would see more action and co-operation.
> 
> ...



 Our approach to addressing climate change is completely wrong. Reducing emission from cars only accounts for 20-30%.  Putting everyone on electrical won't solve the problem other than line the pockets of investors.


----------



## sptrawler (27 November 2018)

basilio said:


> SP I think you are a long way off the mark with your  estimations of the costs of new coal power plants vs alternatives.  (And this doesn't factor in the pollution and  additional running costs)
> 
> All the information at the moment is showing that wind/solar are much cheaper than coal just to build. Storage and intermitancy is another issue but is now recognised with the push for local hydro plants to store power as well as larger battery banks to both store and equalise the system.
> 
> ...




Bas, there you go, you say I'm a long way off the mark, but you don't include the cost of intermitancy or storage. 
Which would treble the price of the required renewable installation.

Like I said there is too much misinformation, emotion and politics in the debate.


----------



## basilio (27 November 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Bas, there you go, you say I'm a long way off the mark, but you don't include the cost of intermitancy or storage.
> Which would treble the price of the required renewable installation.
> 
> Like I said there is too much misinformation, emotion and politics in the debate.




I'm not going to die in a ditch about this SP but I suspect your belief that dealing with intermitancy and storage will treble the price of renewable is  many bridges too far.

But in any  case the question of levilised cost of electricty production is probably what you are concerened about.
*
Electricity generation technology cost projections  2017-2050 *
CSIRO did a very good analysis of this issue for all energy sources last year.
https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP178771&dsid=DS2


----------



## Junior (27 November 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Not having a go at you Junior, but that statement, from what I have read is just repeating the misinformation that the left wing throw around.
> 
> From my understanding, 1,000MW of renewables(solar and wind) will cost the same to install as a 1,000MW coal station.
> However because renewables are intermittent, you have to install twice as much, so that is 2,000MW, also you have to install three times that in storage capacity so that is 3,000MW of storage.
> ...




Why would you only look at the initial cost or installation cost??  That's a key benefit of renewables, very, very low ongoing costs and an infinite fuel source.  Initial and ongoing need to be taken into account.


----------



## sptrawler (27 November 2018)

Junior said:


> Why would you only look at the initial cost or installation cost??  That's a key benefit of renewables, very, very low ongoing costs and an infinite fuel source.  Initial and ongoing need to be taken into account.




I totally agree, my point is, people discuss it as though it is only a matter of will and money,
Whereas the complexity of the problem, especially the closing of dispatchable generation, is fobbed over.
I'm sure everyone wants clean energy, it would be complete madness to not want it.
The problem is the debate is based on the premise, we can just have it now and if you don't agree you are a climate denier, which is complete nonsense.
The reality is, the coal fired stations are going to close, before there is adequate alternatives in place.
That IMO will be unacceptable, therefore the debate should be about realistic alternatives, as we transition to renewables.
Coal, gas and nuclear all need to considered, along with accelerating the installation of renewable technology, but the CC advocates won't accept that.
They just want to argue the emotion, not the technical limitations.
It will be interesting, that is for sure.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...rs-says-alan-finkel-look-at-emission-outcomes

From the article:
_Finkel said for Australia that did not mean debating pro- and anti-coal stances but using all available technologies to create the best outcome
It was the recommendation that coal-fired power needed to be largely phased out by 2050, to slow global warming to a rate which could save the Great Barrier Reef from complete decline.

Finkel told Sky the report also said “that we need to look at things like coal-fired power with carbon capture and storage associated with it” and the issue was not as black and white as was being presented.
_


----------



## Value Collector (27 November 2018)

Ann said:


> There is some really dodgy stuff and 'creative accounting' going on with this Global Warming mob. I will go into more detail further down the track.
> 
> In the meantime, if it isn't poor little CO2 causing all this commotion about climate change what could it be? Sometimes we find the simplest answer is more often than not, the right one. Remember the old adage, keep it simple, stupid!
> 
> ...




I think you would get value out of what this guy has to say, he is an astronomer and knows a lot about planetary movements.


----------



## Ann (27 November 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> Thankfully it's also measured at Cape Grim (Tasmania) which is considerably more convenient from an Australian perspective and somewhat cooler than a volcano too.



Thanks Smurf, you made me look harder, I will do better in future! Smurf is responding to a photo pic I did suggesting measuring C02 inside a CO2 effusing volcano was ridiculous. It did make me look a bit harder and found there was a *monitoring* station at Cape Grim which measured samples of ice at Law Dome from the Antarctic. _"Since industrialisation (typically measured from the mid-18th century), carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by about 40 per cent, based on measurements from Cape Grim _and (? it is a monitoring station, not a measuring station)_ *on air samples collected from Antarctic ice at Law Dome." **_

More dodgy figures, one from ice samples in the Antarctic and the other from air samples at an active volcano! Not exactly comparing like with like. Maybe it is, both will have higher concentrations of CO2 than a single measuring station in the Alice.
My next response was going to be, get out of the bloody CO2 bowl and go to the Alice. However as it turns out, anywhere on the planet the CO2 will be pretty much the same. They just continue to take samples from the volcano for consistancy sake (fair enough or is it?). They say, who are they?

*https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Assessing-our-climate/Greenhouse-gas-data

Pick this to pieces guys, I am only partially with it, I tripped on a shoelace going up a staircase at a meeting today and smashed into a wall on my nose, teeth, hand, and knee! Blood everywhere!   ....and feeling like crap.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 November 2018)

The Cape Grim facility monitors the air directly and they record data for all sorts of things not just CO2.

Location was chosen since with typical wind conditions there will be zero local air pollution added so it’s measuring the global background level. Plus the location has the advantages over other possible places of being within reasonable distance of a town, power is available, etc.


----------



## Ann (27 November 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> The Cape Grim facility monitors the air directly and they record data for all sorts of things not just CO2.
> 
> Location was chosen since with typical wind conditions there will be zero local air pollution added so it’s measuring the global background level. Plus the location has the advantages over other possible places of being within reasonable distance of a town, power is available, etc.



Thanks Smurf. I am not sure what I said about this, but I am happy to accept that CO2 around the globe is pretty much the same wherever you are. As in once it is in the atmosphere is it pretty much a global layer. (Sorry I am sinking fast with the smash in the face.)


----------



## luutzu (27 November 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Not having a go at you Junior, but that statement, from what I have read is just repeating the misinformation that the left wing throw around.
> 
> From my understanding, 1,000MW of renewables(solar and wind) will cost the same to install as a 1,000MW coal station.
> However because renewables are intermittent, you have to install twice as much, so that is 2,000MW, also you have to install three times that in storage capacity so that is 3,000MW of storage.
> ...




The costs there might not include the price (mainly poor) people pay for fossil fuel and its impact on their breathing, housing, health, water etc.


----------



## Value Collector (27 November 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Not having a go at you Junior, but that statement, from what I have read is just repeating the misinformation that the left wing throw around.
> 
> From my understanding, 1,000MW of renewables(solar and wind) will cost the same to install as a 1,000MW coal station.
> However because renewables are intermittent, you have to install twice as much, so that is 2,000MW, also you have to install three times that in storage capacity so that is 3,000MW of storage.
> ...




Do you factor In the cost of establishing and running a coal mine to feed the coal power station? Because that is an additional cost that can not be avoided, where as the renewables don't require fuel.

It would be dishonest to not factor in the cost of the infrastructure that you need to digging up the never ending fuel supply needed.


----------



## sptrawler (27 November 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Do you factor In the cost of establishing and running a coal mine to feed the coal power station? Because that is an additional cost that can not be avoided, where as the renewables don't require fuel.
> 
> It would be dishonest to not factor in the cost of the infrastructure that you need to digging up the never ending fuel supply needed.



As I've said, I'm not concerned about cost, money is only figures on a spread sheet the GFC proved that.
I'm concerned about the technical side of the equation.
With regard the post you have highlighted, I was just commenting that there is a propensity, to state the cost of installing renewables.
Just read back through the posts, otherwise I will just be regurgitating what has been said. #100 and #108


----------



## sptrawler (27 November 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Do you factor In the cost of establishing and running a coal mine to feed the coal power station? Because that is an additional cost that can not be avoided, where as the renewables don't require fuel.
> 
> It would be dishonest to not factor in the cost of the infrastructure that you need to digging up the never ending fuel supply needed.




Not wanting to be pedantic, but at this point in time renewables do require fuel.
To use your second paragraph as an example.

_It would be dishonest to not factor in the cost of the infrastructure that you need to digging up the never ending fuel supply needed.

*To make batteries?*_


----------



## Pixelperfect (2 December 2018)

I think the end is here anyway. Anyone noticing the weather has been playing up lately? Oddly enough the weather seems to reflect the global financial markets. It's 3:30am here and it's so HOT! The weather says it's 18C but it feels like it's 30 and so humid.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 December 2018)

sptrawler said:


> money is only figures on a spread sheet the GFC proved that.



Of broader economic relevance is the concept of "capital".

If I ask someone to show me some oil, copper, coal or sand then all they need to do is get some and show it to me. Getting hold of lumps of pure copper in the suburbs might be difficult but a trip to Bunnings and they'll come back with a length of copper pipe no worries.

If I ask someone to show me sound or light then whilst they can't "show" me sound, they most certainly can demonstrate it to be real simply by speaking.

Likewise the wind proves the existence of air and that it can be smelled and set on fire proves that natural gas exists. 

Now can anyone show me some capital? I don't mean some record entry somewhere showing how much someone has, I mean actual capital? Show me some capital. Put it on the table, or in a bucket, or in a gas cylinder or piled up in a field or wherever but show it to me. I want to see some capital.

Now explain to me how whatever you have shown me is in some way limited and valuable in the same way that oil, copper, coal or sand require effort to obtain and are ultimately limited in quantity. 

Thinking about that in depth will shed some light on may economic concepts.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 December 2018)

Pixelperfect said:


> I think the end is here anyway. Anyone noticing the weather has been playing up lately?



I've noticed that warm days with a maximum temperature of 30 or above were far more common this Spring than they were in Spring 2017.

That I have moved from Tasmania to SA during this time may explain it however.


----------



## explod (2 December 2018)

The scientific advances on alternative power production are proceeding so fast and becoming way ahead of the old ways.  My Son-in-law developed courses at Monash, Clayton for engineers setting up solar panels and is therefore well informed among his peers.  The ScoMo's are lost in the wilderness of the donations from the big dudes.

And in my view I feel it's too late now anyway as the increasing weather problems will see us stuffed in a few short years.

Anyway, you know my motto...


----------



## wayneL (3 December 2018)

Don't know the source,  but this is on the money

*****

To all the school kids going on "strike" for Climate Change.

You are the first generation who have required air-conditioning in every classroom.

You want TV in every room and your classes are all computerised.

You spend all day and night on electronic devices.

More than ever, you don't walk or ride bikes to school but arrive in caravans of private cars that choke suburban roads and worsen rush hour traffic.

You are the biggest consumers of manufactured goods ever and update perfectly good expensive luxury items to stay trendy.

Your entertainment comes from electric devices.

Furthermore, the people driving your protests are the same people who insist on artificially inflating the population growth through immigration, which increases the need for energy, manufacturing and transport.

The more people we have, the more forest and bushland we clear and more of the environment is destroyed.

How about this...

Tell your teachers to switch off the air-con.
Walk or ride to school. 

Switch off your devices and read a book.

Make a sandwich instead of buying manufactured fast food.

No, none of this will happen because you are selfish, badly educated, virtue signalling little turds, inspired by the adults around you who crave a feeling of having a "noble cause" while they indulge themselves in Western luxury and unprecedented quality of life.”

Wake up, grow up and shut up until you are sure of the facts before protesting.


----------



## Darc Knight (3 December 2018)

wayneL said:


> Don't know the source,  but this is on the money
> 
> *****
> 
> ...




The most compelling evidence global warning is a hoax I've seen. Peer reviewed Wayne?


----------



## Ann (3 December 2018)

wayneL said:


> inspired by the adults around you who crave a feeling of having a "noble cause" while they indulge themselves in Western luxury and unprecedented quality of life.”
> 
> Wake up, grow up and shut up until you are sure of the facts before protesting.




But WayneL, they *are* sure of the facts, their teacher told them so! Why even the very little boy was finally able to get the word 'toxic' out after a bit of effort!  Such a hard word for a little boy, bet he had never heard that from his mumndad.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 December 2018)

I did return a few years ago to visit the primary school I attended, reason being the opening of the time capsule which was buried when I was there.

Outside looked much the same but as for the insides, just wow....

So far as energy consuming devices are concerned, back when I was a kid there was lighting and heating in every classroom plus there was a film projector occasionally set up in an open area. That was it.

Modern schools have electricity and electronics everywhere in comparison.

Transport back then was catch the bus or walk. Bus cost 20c by the way.

These days kids being driven to school is common and walking is rare indeed.


----------



## wayneL (3 December 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> The most compelling evidence global warning is a hoax I've seen. Peer reviewed Wayne?



Whoosh

Way to miss the point bro


----------



## basilio (3 December 2018)

Ah Wayne... Back to your old faithful attack lines on CC.

You cannot/will not/dare not dispute the reality of what is happening to the climate around the world.  The relentless advance of temperatures, the consequent bushfires, the weather extremes, the coral bleaching, the fast melting ice packs, the flooding islands and cities.

You can't find any suggestion of a reasonable excuse for these relentless temperature increases that could  offer a way down again in the near future - and isn't to do with the effects of Greenhouse Gas emissions  which are now being super charged by us.

And so...  The attack has to be on the people protesting because they are not living in caves* THEY* are responsible for all this global warming. *They *have to STFU until they are living in proper little caves and then of course they are just crazies aren't they ?

I agree that a full on approach to tackling CC would involve  a widespread reduction in energy use, being more efficient and living simpler lives amongst a hundred other changes.

But first Wayne we have to recognise the reality of the problem, call the situation for what it is - a climate emergency - and have a whole of society approach.

This would be a far more constructive approach.


----------



## wayneL (3 December 2018)

Oh mate, that is just illogical, what an own goal from your side of pompous virtue signallers 

 I can't argue with such gross stupidity .


----------



## Darc Knight (3 December 2018)

You're good Wayne, you're good! Your post doesn't make sense but it made me laugh.


----------



## wayneL (3 December 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> You're good Wayne, you're good! Your post doesn't make sense but it made me laugh.



I always aim to please mate 

Here's the thing,  if we are going to adhere to the precautionary principle,  then each individual should reduce their emmisions

I can tell you that for at least 20 years, mrs and I have done so,  apart from burning sh1tloads of coke and lpg in my business,  our domestic footprint,  both in terms of co2 and general waste and pollution is way smaller than average. 

Despite basilios propensity to disparage all who differ from his specific (political)  podition I guarantee we would leaner on the environment  than her and 99% of alarmists. 

In fact,  our own Mr Plod (despite some ludicrous views) is the only greenie I know who lives what he preaches. 

Hope that clarifies


----------



## luutzu (3 December 2018)

wayneL said:


> Don't know the source,  but this is on the money
> 
> *****
> 
> ...




I always knew it's those little bastards fault. 

Pretending to be small, can't vote, can't sign contracts or have money. Always out "learning", in air-conditioned classroom! Reading on them fancy tablets, playing games and reaching around the world!


----------



## Junior (4 December 2018)

wayneL said:


> Don't know the source,  but this is on the money
> 
> *****
> 
> ...


----------



## wayneL (4 December 2018)

It's okay Junior,  I know you guys can't intellectually justify the hypocrisy


----------



## luutzu (4 December 2018)

wayneL said:


> It's okay Junior,  I know you guys can't intellectually justify the hypocrisy




Aren't your anger at today's spoilt kids based on the assumption that all electricity usage must come from dirty fossil? 

Beside private jets, it's possible for electricity to be generated from cleaner, renewal sources right? Isn't that what those kids are demanding? Being able to use the gadgets and modern living standard while breathing clean air at the same time?


----------



## basilio (4 December 2018)

luutzu said:


> Beside private jets, it's possible for electricity to be generated from cleaner, renewal sources right? Isn't that what those kids are demanding? Being able to use the gadgets and modern living standard while breathing clean air at the same time?




Far, *FAR* too realistic for this thread Luutzu.  Please remember this thread  is about vehemantly denying that there is any climate change problem to be concerned about and that the millions of people who do care are either hypocrites, stooges or just trying to keep their snouts in the gravy trough.


----------



## Skate (4 December 2018)

wayneL said:


> I always aim to please mate
> 
> Here's the thing,  if we are going to adhere to the precautionary principle,  then each individual should reduce their emmisions
> 
> ...




@wayneL nailed it..
*"each individual should reduce their emissions"

Decision Making*
For most of our lives, many of us spend our time listening to someone else feed us information and when it comes time to take responsibility for our decision making, we are constantly waiting for someone else to tell us what to do or checking to see what others are doing.
*
Personal Responsibility*
There are so many that refuse to take responsibility when things go wrong, the problem is always caused by someone or something else.

Skate.


----------



## Logique (4 December 2018)

Schedule the school demonstrations on a Saturday morning, and see how many turn up.

They didn't look like the science geeks to me. But clearly well rehearsed, with pat responses to every question


----------



## Darc Knight (4 December 2018)

I'm just here for the comedy


----------



## basilio (4 December 2018)

Lets be clear Skate.  Addressing CC is a huge problem which will require concerted action across the whole world.  So while personal actions are important the big decisions about government policies,  policies  to change energy sources, decisions to address the causes and effects of CC have to be made at government and industry levels. Personal actions won't cut it.

As far as decision making. Most of us have to rely on people we trust who are experts in a field to advise us on the most likely causes and outcomes of what we intend to do. For example we have  engineers who design and build dams, bridges and planes and we trust them to make sure they hold water and fly properly.

Similarly we have  thousands of climate scientists, biologists, glaciologists  and so on who have the best knowledge of what is happening to our climate  and the dangers we are creating.
Against this body of knowledge  we have a groups of shills and their blind supporters who have been in the pay  of the fossil fuel industry to muddy the waters on CC. Take your pick of who to believe.


----------



## Sdajii (4 December 2018)

When experts have reason to be biased, we should be sceptical of their claims.

Climate scientists have a bias to make their predictions and claims as extreme and disastrous as possible.

This really should be obvious.

To date, virtually every prediction climate scientists have made which has had time to play out as turned out to be far more extreme than the reality. This is an extremely consistent, reliable pattern. Despite this, the scientifically illiterate masses blindly believe the claims and predictions, until they turn out to be wrong, get swept under the rug and forgotten, and replaced by new ones which are then believed.

It's a fascinating world.

Although I have studied climate, I am not primarily a climate scientist, but I am a scientist (a biologist). My work has revolved around modelling potential species distributions depending on environmental conditions, primarily climate. This means I have worked along with climate scientists (my work directly relates to theirs, but I don't do that side of it myself). I have seen how incredibly blatant the whole farce is, working directly with climate scientists. I eventually threw my science career in, because I saw that to get anywhere in science you needed to make up extreme claims to justify your position. If I said everything was fine, don't worry, there's nothing much interesting going on, I'd get nowhere. If I make up some extreme version of the story, people would pay attention, I'd get funding, and so on. I was not interested in playing that game, I saw the direction science as a whole was taking (away from science and towards politics/money) and wanted no part in it. I understand the way the whole thing works.

If you believe the politics, er, 'science', you're being mislead.

Before anyone calls me a 'climate denier' (sic), I fully acknowledge that we are interacting with the climate. This is obvious. But our impact is massively overstated (if you actually want to take the time to study climate science to any extent rather than just blindly believing propaganda, this is completely obvious). The climate is still within normal, natural limits, the rate of change is not unusual (even climate scientists unanimously agree on this! They only say otherwise out of context!). If humans had never done anything, climate change would still happen, it always happens, far greater extremes and rates of change than we've seen in modern human history are common place in natural climate change. To give a tangible example, natural climate change just in the last 100,000 years (ignoring the period where humans had any relevance to anything because we were little more than a few monkeys hitting each other with sticks), climate change was extreme enough to cause sea levels to rise and fall so much that you could walk from Australia to PNG, and then the area flooded again, then dried out again, back and forth many times. The same thing happened with the UK and mainland Europe, etc etc around the world.

If anything like that happened now it would be considered utterly extreme, catastrophic climate change. This is just business as usual for the climate, as it always has been. It will happen with or without us. And yes, it will be catastrophic because we build our cities around coasts, set up our cities and agricultural infrastructure according to the assumption the climate will be static. But while we may make it zig rather than zag, the climate will change. If nothing we had ever done actually influenced the climate, these things would still happen, and would still be catastrophic. If we stopped all impact on the climate yesterday, it would still happen.

Literally none of the above is in any way factually ambiguous. It is all solid fact, tangibly, obviously so.


----------



## Knobby22 (4 December 2018)

Actually climate scientists IPCC were found to be under not over in their predictions.

It's happening a bit faster than they thought, especially the north pole melt.
Few records broken in Queensland recently. 

Did you read the graphs Smurf posted?
Refer is climate change becoming unstoppable thread. I am not sure how you can blame the change on natural causes especially since the Sun is dimming at present, we should be entering an ice age.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 December 2018)

luutzu said:


> Aren't your anger at today's spoilt kids based on the assumption that all electricity usage must come from dirty fossil?



The current level of consumption in general is unsustainable no matter how it’s powered.

Buying a new phone every two years (for example) isn’t sustainable no matter how you generate the power to charge it.

Energy is one of the problems but it’s only one of them. Fixing that doesn’t remove the need to scale back consumption of pretty much everything.

Roughly 7.7 billion people on earth today versus 5.1 billion in 1988 when the climate issue first came to mainstream attention. Meanwhile consumption per capita is also rising.

We’re simply using too much of just about everything.


----------



## explod (4 December 2018)

The predictions have been metered down for years now by business controlled governments.

All too obvious.  On overpopulation, how are you going to stop the urge for children.  For the established coal miner he wants to keep making his money and the workers their jobs.  Poland a current example in the news now on coal.

Just have a good time while you can and try not to think of your Grandchildren


----------



## wayneL (4 December 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> The current level of consumption in general is unsustainable no matter how it’s powered.
> 
> Buying a new phone every two years (for example) isn’t sustainable no matter how you generate the power to charge it.
> 
> ...



100% on board with this view,  as I have consistently stated in one way or another for several years now.

I think we can be sustainable,  but not at current levels of consumption, this is why the school  strike hypocrisy piqued into posting about it.

Live more frugally or STFU, be part if the solution not the problem


----------



## Ann (4 December 2018)

basilio said:


> the flooding islands and cities.



Ooooh which ones basilio?


----------



## Ann (4 December 2018)

explod said:


> All too obvious. On overpopulation, how are you going to stop the urge for children.



Simple explod, surely you have noticed the massive increase in both male and female homosexuals. Bonk as hard as you may with the same gender and nothing will pop out!  (disclaimer, two red wines and concussion!)


----------



## Skate (4 December 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> The current level of consumption in general is unsustainable no matter how it’s powered.
> 
> Buying a new phone every two years (for example) isn’t sustainable no matter how you generate the power to charge it.
> 
> ...




@Smurf1976 is right on the money IMHO.

David Attenborough yesterday (3rd December 2018) at the People's Seat Address at 24th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (COP24) confirmed the views espoused by Smurf1976..

 "We have all been living beyond our means. It's a perfectly simple thing. We knew not what we did,"

Skate.


----------



## explod (4 December 2018)

Well said Ann.  Could you help me out in the field to do that.  Problem though, I'd probably be distracted by your lovely tail.

Just party along all.


----------



## Darc Knight (4 December 2018)

Did I just see Wayne admit Global Warming IS real?

You're nevt @Ann


----------



## Sdajii (4 December 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> Actually climate scientists IPCC were found to be under not over in their predictions.
> 
> It's happening a bit faster than they thought, especially the north pole melt.
> Few records broken in Queensland recently.
> ...




Wow.

They continually say "Our new model shows that the predictions (which have not yet come to term) were less extreme than the reality, which we are sure our new model predicts!" - this is not the same as the actual data. Cherry picking on piece of ice which broke off is as ridiculous as the people saying "Oh wow, ice shelf x is expanding, global warming is debunked" or "Hey, record cold day at place x, global warming is debunked".

And yes, absolutely, it is possible (though extraordinarily difficult to be at all sure of) that we have averted an ice age. If that is true, we have literally saved the lives of billions of people by interacting with the climate and making it better. Go us.

But you are showing, as is typical of alarmists, that you are simply following political narratives, not critical analysis or rational thought. I pointed out we are interacting with the climate, you refuted my imagined denial of it happening. You freely acknowledge that natural climate change can easily be extreme enough to throw us into an ice age (I agree! This is a common occurrence! Long term climatic heat waves are also common in nature). This demonstrates the relative insignificance of human influence. The climate we have now is far closer to 'nice' and closer to pre industrial state than is an ice age, which by your own claims would show that humans are actually having a stabilising effect on the climate and keeping it more constant than it naturally would be at this point! This is by no means a claim I am making or one I consider to be true (it may be, but it's virtually impossible to assess, and I'd guess it not to be the case). Clearly, people are not being calm and rational about this topic. Your own claims are internally conflicting and nonsensical.


----------



## Ann (4 December 2018)

explod said:


> Well said Ann.  Could you help me out in the field to do that.  Problem though, I'd probably be distracted by your lovely tail.
> 
> Just party along all.



Be careful explod, there is a sting in it!


----------



## luutzu (4 December 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> The current level of consumption in general is unsustainable no matter how it’s powered.
> 
> Buying a new phone every two years (for example) isn’t sustainable no matter how you generate the power to charge it.
> 
> ...




Yes, true. But that still doesn't make it better or normal to not give a damn. Or pretend that a lump of coal is harmless and won't bite.

I mean, if higher population and greater per capita consumption cannot be sustained, it's not going to be more sustainable if the kids just stay at school and cut back on technological advances or standard of living. 

If there's a budget, the current generation can either cut back on it or transitioned into an alternative source so later generation can have some room to breathe. 

We can't tell them... sorry kids, we've spent it, now stop breeding and those techie stuff.


----------



## explod (4 December 2018)

Ann said:


> Be careful explod, there is a sting in it!



Ok, good interpretation in fact, not sure of my spelling but sTing, sing, perhaps you meant song.  My foot hovers on the accelerator.

Now what were we talking about,  ahh Yes the weather, very miserable here at Warrnambool atm.


----------



## Ann (4 December 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> Did I just see Wayne admit Global Warming IS real?
> 
> You're nevt @Ann




I am thinking you meant next, I shall read it as such. Right, yes guess what DK, there is global warming and it has been happening since around 1700 we have been coming out of the last ice age from around 1650 we are right at a very top spike of global warming at the moment, soon to be traveling down, the next equal spike up will be around 2059, then we will be heading back down into another ice-age. Enjoy the weather, it is the best time for our whole planet at the moment. Beach weather for all. I lived through the cold in the 50s and 60s. Every winter I had constant chillblains that would often bleed. No-one has chillblains these days. In fact I bet a lot of you will not even know what they are. My mother used to sit at the piano as a young girl in the 1917-20s, a much colder time than in my youth and her piano teacher used to hit her fingers with a ruler if she made a mistake. She told me her hands were always covered in chillblains and it would make them bleed.
Yes we are in a warmer period in the cycle, lucky, lucky us. What I take issue is that the weather we are experiencing is natural not caused by man. However I may agree that the higher levels of CO2 if that is indeed a fact, (I am yet to be convinced by people standing in an effusing volcano taking measurements of CO2, which is what volcanos pump out at a great rate) is actually a true measurement may be caused by man, but not from coal or oil. Another time for the explanation. Now I realize it is impossible to argue with a cult belief system so there is no point me continuing, as I am taking up the little energy I have at the moment arguing with the indoctrinated which shows me to be a fool. The only reason I am speaking is in the slim chance there may be someone of reason reading this.


----------



## explod (4 December 2018)

Rubbish Ann, polar regions suddenly measuring 40c hotter in their winters.

Yes we have had it in  the past but if you have studied the records it has happened gradually except for the Volcanic one and the meteorite hit one.


----------



## Darc Knight (4 December 2018)

One devotee at a time Ann. One devotee at a time!


----------



## sptrawler (4 December 2018)

The Government should take the lead in this debate, and demand all coal fired generation is closed for one day of the week.
At least then we get clean air, for a 24 hour period.


----------



## wayneL (4 December 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> Did I just see Wayne admit Global Warming IS real?
> 
> You're nevt @Ann



Ahhh darcy, you dee you really should avoid the toxic narrative of the likes of @basilio 

For the millionth time,  I have never denied global warming or climate change,  or even anthropogenic factors... *especially on a regional level. That has been my consistent position for many years now.

However I am not on board with the most extreme alarmism or doomsday scenarios.  Call me a moderate if you like. 

I am deeply concerned about overall general pollution and habitat destruction,  always have been,  which I think has been overshadowed by the silly CC political extremism.

Its why we live a frugal lifestyle in terms of resource use. You see I am a greenie really,  just not a green.


----------



## Darc Knight (4 December 2018)

You're one of us now Wayne. 

Welcome to the fold Brother. I love you


----------



## Ann (4 December 2018)

explod said:


> Rubbish Ann, polar regions suddenly measuring 40c hotter in their winters.
> 
> Yes we have had it in  the past but if you have studied the records it has happened gradually except for the Volcanic one and the meteorite hit one.



What are you talking about? What 40C hotter, where did I say that?


----------



## luutzu (4 December 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> You're one of us now Wayne.
> 
> Welcome to the fold Brother. I love you




Sifu... full of surprises.


----------



## luutzu (4 December 2018)

wayneL said:


> Ahhh darcy, you dee you really should avoid the toxic narrative of the likes of @basilio
> 
> For the millionth time,  I have never denied global warming or climate change,  or even anthropogenic factors... *especially on a regional level. That has been my consistent position for many years now.
> 
> ...




Admit it Sifu, Bas and Explod finally worn you out.


----------



## explod (4 December 2018)

Ann said:


> What are you talking about? What 40C hotter, where did I say that?



You didn't and did not think I implied that, but it was in the last northern winter, a fact


----------



## Ann (4 December 2018)

wayneL said:


> Ahhh darcy, you dee you really should avoid the toxic narrative of the likes of @basilio
> 
> I am deeply concerned about overall general pollution and habitat destruction,  always have been,  which I think has been overshadowed by the silly CC political extremism.
> 
> Its why we live a frugal lifestyle in terms of resource use. You see I am a greenie really,  just not a green.




I second that WayneL. I have lived very frugaly, grow my own vegetables, lights off when leaving a room, heat room only when occupied, compost all that is compostable. Buy food as we need it, buy recycled clothes, recycled books, buy economical cars, no big SUVs. Buy virtually no prepared food. Cook from scratch. The most recent furniture I bought was about 25 years ago. My art is done on a computer, so no wasteful artist supplies. Computer stuff is the only exception. 

CC isn't a political extremism, it is a cult pure and simple. All this is coming when I am stronger.


----------



## Ann (4 December 2018)

explod said:


> You didn't and did not think I implied that, but it was in the last northern winter, a fact



What a crazy out of context thing to say!


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 December 2018)

luutzu said:


> Yes, true. But that still doesn't make it better or normal to not give a damn. Or pretend that a lump of coal is harmless and won't bite.



Agreed there. Renewable energy beats coal most certainly.

I have always been a "put your money where your mouth is" person however. I'm not advocating that anyone lives in a cave or goes without modern technology but we desperately need to move away from this idea of replacing perfectly good electronics, clothes and even houses just because someone decided that a different colour or removing a button was the latest fashion.

That's crazy in the extreme and this idea that TV's last one or two years and houses are knocked down after 40 or 50 years just isn't in any way sustainable. 

Go anywhere in Europe and you'll find plenty of buildings which are many hundreds of years old and they're still in full time use today. When they say it was built in the year 450 that's not an error. Heck even in Australia we've got stuff dating back to the time of European settlement of that town or city so it can be done yes.


----------



## explod (4 December 2018)

Ann said:


> What are you talking about? What 40C hotter, where did I say that?



I did Ann, and it was in the arctic last winter.  I follow all climate news constantly.  Fake is for those who choose blind self comfort over reality


----------



## basilio (4 December 2018)

Isn't it amazing how many CC deniers  on ASF are actually frugal, conservationists who are  living carefully,  recycling their water and growing their own food !  All power to you folks.

It  reminds me of George Monbiot.  Wayne will immediately remember him from our CC discussions 8-10 years ago. Interestingly enough George was absolutely on heat with CC and in fact wrote a book on it. Also wrote many detailed , well researched articles in The Guardian outlining the disaster of CC.

And then he switched tack. He decided (it seems) that there are only so many ways you can explain  CC to people who keep their fingers in the ears and "La. La la".  He recognised (and knew)  that in fact there are many issues that are destroying the world as we know it.  Over consumption and  destruction of nature are high on the list. He decided that what the world needed was "re-wilding".  Effectively restoring previous environments that had been lost as a result of what we call progress.  He also believs this activity offers a very positive vibe for people. His website offers a range of stories on his work in that arena.

https://www.monbiot.com/
https://orionmagazine.org/article/the-great-rewilding/
http://www.danielvitalis.com/rewild...lding-land-people-wildlife-george-monbiot-171


----------



## Knobby22 (4 December 2018)

Their estimates were low Sdajji.

You claim to be a scientist yet you arent following the data. Its all opinion!
No evidence. No consistency.
Natural climate of course is relevant but there are no acting factors towards warming at present yet there are clear factors as per the graph that clearly indicate correlation.
You are the clasdic denialist, full of insults and lacking scientific 
understanding.
If you have any...any..even a small amount of evidence that the amazing global warming of the last 40 years  is being caused by natural climate factors then produce it.
And cut repeating the paid for propaganda like a parrot. It makes you sound gullible.


----------



## wayneL (4 December 2018)

basilio said:


> Isn't it amazing how many CC deniers  on ASF are actually frugal, conservationists who are  living carefully,  recycling their water and growing their own food !  All power to you folks.
> 1



And yet you persist with the purulent logical  fallacy of "denial". 

The data shows the irony,  sceptics and moderates do more for the planet than alarmists. Earth is far better off with "deniers" than virtue signalling alarmists. 

The paradox....


----------



## Ann (4 December 2018)

explod said:


> Rubbish Ann, polar regions suddenly measuring 40c hotter in their winters.
> 
> Yes we have had it in the past but if you have studied the records it has happened gradually except for the Volcanic one and the meteorite hit one.






Ann said:


> What are you talking about? What 40C hotter, where did I say that?






explod said:


> I did Ann, and it was in the arctic last winter.  I follow all climate news constantly.  Fake is for those who choose blind self comfort over reality




I think you mean -40 degrees C !   Stop following the climate news and try to keep up with it! Poles apart as they say explod


----------



## Sdajii (5 December 2018)

explod said:


> Rubbish Ann, polar regions suddenly measuring 40c hotter in their winters.
> 
> Yes we have had it in  the past but if you have studied the records it has happened gradually except for the Volcanic one and the meteorite hit one.




This is a common misconception. The climate scientists don't say this. Various forms of media exaggerate or blatantly misrepresent what climate scientists say, and then others parrot it.

Actual climate scientists debate whether the current rate of change is the greatest in the last few hundred years or the last few thousand years. Virtually none think it was more than about 5,000 years ago that the climate changed more rapidly than now.

Again, to give some perspective, land bridges have come and gone between Australia and PNG, UK and mainland Europe, etc etc, many times over the last few tens of thousands of years. This isn't just one long process which took a few thousand years and happened once, it has happened many times over just tens of thousands of years, and often when it happens, it happens quite quickly. Stop and actually think about how dramatic the climate change is for that to happen, and consider that when it happens, it happens quite quickly as opposed to long gradual changes (google yourself up a climate chart of the last few 10s of thousands of years - the data is freely available and comes from climate scientist consensus).


----------



## Sdajii (5 December 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> Their estimates were low Sdajji.
> 
> You claim to be a scientist yet you arent following the data. Its all opinion!
> No evidence. No consistency.
> ...




I am literally a scientist, as in, I have qualifications and work history as a scientist. This isn't just an arbitrary claim.

It is all supported by evidence or is self evident eg there is a clear, obvious bias climate scientists have, which anyone with an IQ in the double digits should be capable of recognising. This is not vague opinion, it is clear as the midday sun on a clear summer day.

Correlation does not necessarily mean causation.

It is remarkable that you use many insults, yet hypocritically accuse me of using insults.

Your last line is incredibly ironic. What I talk about literally comes directly from my experience discussing climate data with climate scientists while working as a scientists on projects directly relating to climate science. Someone is indeed repeating propaganda like a parrot, but it isn't me. I am not a denier, I fully acknowledge that people are having an impact on the climate. The deniers don't say this. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone with any notable platform saying what I am saying, because it doesn't fit with either side's agenda. Not surprisingly, that means people on both sides accuse me of believing the lies of the other. Both sides are indeed disingenuous. You are indeed correct that most of what we hear is propaganda with political bias, and this is true of most of what we hear in the media other than what is there to distract us (celebrity gossip, etc). That being the case it should be obvious that we should be sceptical of the loudest propaganda, which is exactly what you are blindly believing.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 December 2018)

I'll avoid any personal conflicts and just say that with most things the truth is somewhere in the middle.

My avatar is the control panel at an old but fully functional and in current use hydro power station.

I also have some lumps of coal, black as well as brown, should anyone need them. I've got some oil shale too just in case.

That would sum up my view really. Altering the earth's atmosphere is going to have consequences of some sort almost certainly, that's just commonsense, but it is also very likely that some individuals or organisations will make alarmist claims in pursuit of whatever agenda.

That said, I will not dispute that the planet does appear to be warming.


----------



## explod (5 December 2018)

Ann said:


> I think you mean -40 degrees C !   Stop following the climate news and try to keep up with it! Poles apart as they say explod



In the arctic winters it is normally 40 to 60 below.  In the last winter it was at zero at times and this particularly alarmed the monitoring scientists.  My posts said 40 above the normal when in fact I could have emphasized it at the actual 40 to 60 above normal.

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2018/03/09/482836.htm

Note that the article says some 60 hours was around or above the freezing point.  I had put other articles up some 6 months back on the climate thread but of course most steer away from what they do not want to know or accept.  Truth hurts but not doing something about it if we can is going to be frightfully worse and soon.


----------



## Sdajii (5 December 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'll avoid any personal conflicts and just say that with most things the truth is somewhere in the middle.




This much is true, and it makes intuitive sense. Wherever the story of reality sits, it can be skewed in either direction. This is the case with most issues.

Everyone with any significant platform on the issue of climate change has inherent bias. Virtually all scientists, some governments (mostly wealthier and more powerful ones) and some businesses and virtually all mainstream media are biased towards alarmism. The reasons for this are obvious. Some individual politicians in wealthy governments, some governments as a whole and some businesses are biased towards denial. Not surprisingly, we end up with these two opposing views, both of which are both wrong and disingenuous. Anyone speaking without bias and based on evidence is attacked by both sides. Most regular people have no way of understanding any of this and just get brainwashed by one side or the other, and attack anyone being rational, believing they are on the opposite side, which they consider to be wrong.

In most respects the alarmists are more wrong than the denialists, although it is fundamentally more stupid to deny that humans are having zero impact (then again, relatively few of them actually literally make that claim, despite frequently being accused of it).

Our impact is far smaller than the political/media narrative makes out (this is inherently obvious, given the inherent bias towards exaggeration, which should be overwhelmingly clear to anyone who isn't lobotomised). The impact from climate change will be far less than the alarmists say, this is equally obvious for similar reasons; obviously we get the most extreme version they can justify or get away with putting out, so first principles tells us this. Whether man made or natural, climate change will still cause problems, and this too is an issue. Given that even 100% natural climate change would be destructive, which would occur even if we were literally never doing anything to influence the climate, and we aren't even capable of stopping climate change, and climate change wouldn't stop even if we all ceased to exist, we clearly have the wrong focus.

The political/economic motives for the lie that climate change is all about carbon emissions are so obvious it is ridiculous, but the mainstream media is controlled by the folks controlling the narrative, and the scientifically ignorant masses will simply blindly follow what they are told.

One of the big ones is that if we say carbon is the devil and we charge big taxes on carbon emissions, we can stifle competition from being established; the big get bigger and small never get to exist in the first place, which is what the big ones want, both in terms of companies and countries - this is an effective strategy to prevent third world/poorer countries from establishing industries based on cheap, carbon-emitting practises other nations used to get themselves established. It doesn't mean carbon emissions go down of course, no no, China is still expanding its usage of coal despite an out of context propaganda campaign to try to make people think otherwise (the raw figures are freely available if you actually want to look them up), etc etc, but they can afford it.

The majority of people though, will simply believe what they are told, which is the most extreme version of alarmism they can possibly manage to put out without being too blatant to make it obvious to too many people.


----------



## Knobby22 (5 December 2018)

Sdajii said:


> The political/economic motives for the lie that climate change is all about carbon emissions are so obvious it is ridiculous




Ok, fair enough,  you can provide no evidence, just opinion, so let's take it on "faith*" that you are correct and scientists, the media are all biased and people are sheep, most with IQs below two digits.
It's usual however for a scientist to have a counter theory when the facts do not align with the data.

def*: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.


----------



## Skate (5 December 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> Ok, fair enough,  you can provide no evidence, just opinion, so let's take it on "faith*" that you are correct and scientists, the media are all biased and people are sheep, most with IQs below two digits.
> It's usual however for a scientist to have a counter theory when the facts do not align with the data.
> 
> def*: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.




@Knobby22 & @Sdajii

This is why we are traders, our convictions & our core belief differ...

*Conviction*

A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.

*Our core belief system*

Our core Belief System refers to the idea that our thoughts, feelings and actions are programmed and set in stone.

When we change our belief system by discarding old beliefs, just as when we change or upgrade software, we immediately get positive changes in our performance. We get immediate improvements in how we think, feel, act and live.

*Deeply ingrained*

Our belief system is so deeply ingrained in us, but if people are open to the idea of altering their belief system there would be change for the better in them by moving out negative mental beliefs and replacing them with positive ones.

*The main issue*

People believe what it pleases them to believe.

Humans reject information right in front of their eyes because it is contrary to what they want to believe.

Skate.


----------



## Sdajii (5 December 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> Ok, fair enough,  you can provide no evidence, just opinion, so let's take it on "faith*" that you are correct and scientists, the media are all biased and people are sheep, most with IQs below two digits.
> It's usual however for a scientist to have a counter theory when the facts do not align with the data.
> 
> def*: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.




No faith required. It's surprising you fail to see the blatantly obvious.

The primary, or at least most obvious bias climate scientists have is keeping their jobs. If climate scientists say "No worries, mate, we don't really need to fuss about this climate stuff, I'll just sit here and gather relatively innocuous data, there's not much we can do to influence climate and we really don't have much ability to predict anything", do you really need more than a double digit IQ to see how much funding they're likely to get, compared to if they say "Oh my god!!! The sky is falling and we're in dire trouble! Please give me more funding so I can work out what we need to do and give you more information about what is going to happen!!! This is utterly urgent, and probably the most critical issue facing the world today!!!"

This is not faith, this is just the obvious real world situation anyone with any sense can easily see. It doesn't take a genius to see this concept.

And good grief, do you honestly need me to explain the bias in the media? *sigh* if so...

TV news channel 1 says there was a 15 foot tsunami with little chance of human casualties. Channel 2 saying eyewitness reports estimate the tsunami was 25 foot high, casualties unknown. Channel 3 says completely disingenuously "Estimates show the tsunami was 30 foot high and may have high human casualties!" Can you guess which news station or newspaper will get the highest ratings? Hint: the reality of the tsunami is irrelevant.

Okay, so that's just the ratings aspect, the raw concept which has been biasing news services since forever ago. Now, consider that maybe, just maybe, and I know this is a radical idea, but maybe, mainstream media companies have ties to powerful people and conglomerates with political agendas. I know this is a radical notion, but hey, just consider that possibility if you are brave enough.

But hey, say I am just imagining these things, they are not true because I lack evidence, and am just working on faith.

You know who is working on faith? People who just believe the mainstream media narratives *because they have faith in them* despite the blatantly obvious biases clearly inherent in the system.


----------



## Junior (5 December 2018)

Sdajii said:


> The primary, or at least most obvious bias climate scientists have is keeping their jobs. If climate scientists say "No worries, mate, we don't really need to fuss about this climate stuff, I'll just sit here and gather relatively innocuous data, there's not much we can do to influence climate and we really don't have much ability to predict anything", do you really need more than a double digit IQ to see how much funding they're likely to get, compared to if they say "Oh my god!!! The sky is falling and we're in dire trouble! Please give me more funding so I can work out what we need to do and give you more information about what is going to happen!!! This is utterly urgent, and probably the most critical issue facing the world today!!!"




This is a very cynical view.  Do you apply this to all scientists?  They all operate with bias and self interest at heart?  They are not professional, or do not take pride in the quality & accuracy of their research and findings?


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 December 2018)

The big thing people fail to understand about the media is what they are in fact doing.

If I hold a press conference tomorrow morning, or simply put out a media release, then the media will report what I said and will probably do so with reasonable accuracy.

What the media will not do is verify that what I said is true.

So if some economics guru says the ASX 200 is about to go up 10% over the next month then the media reports that as the economics guru said that the ASX 200 is about to go up 10%. That doesn't in any way mean the newspaper is telling you they think the market is going up or that there is any evidence to suggest this will occur. All it means is they are reporting that the economics guru said it is going up. Very different.

Just my observation as someone who's not in the media but who has seen how it works through previous employment in an industry that has plenty to say. The media reports what was said at the press conference or is written in the media release, they don't seek to confirm whether or not that is really true.

Anything which is the actual opinion of or has been verified by the media organisation will be editorial material and carry the name of whoever wrote it. TV and radio news doesn't generally do this and with newspapers it's only a small portion of what's printed on any given day. The rest is just reporting what someone else said or wrote.

I'd take a guess that the majority of the population fails to recognise the distinction there


----------



## Sdajii (5 December 2018)

Junior said:


> This is a very cynical view.  Do you apply this to all scientists?  They all operate with bias and self interest at heart?  They are not professional, or do not take pride in the quality & accuracy of their research and findings?




I don't really think it's cynical, just realistic. No, of course it doesn't apply to every single individual scientist. It didn't apply to me, but then again, that's why I threw my science career in and went on to other ventures. I saw that I could not survive as a scientist who just practised good science, I would need my life to revolve around money and politics. This didn't sit well with me, I am not interested in politics and mixing science with lies held no appeal. A few manage to hold their positions while being genuinely good scientists, but in a politically-charged field like climate science it is virtually impossible. Some of them just make careers out of being politicians and con men, others genuinely love science and put as much of that in as they can while doing what they need to survive as a scientist, and in some fields it's possible to just be a really good scientist if you come up with some genuine new findings. Climate science is one of, perhaps the most extreme field effectively enforcing bias. Biology is actually pretty close. Things like medicine are mixed (you can come up with really useful stuff, and generally new drugs and medical techniques are relatively accurately described, but there is still a bias towards treatments rather than cures because of the economics - keeping people sick and ongoingly treating them is more lucrative of curing them and destroying your market, and exaggerating the efficacy of your goodies obviously has its incentives). 

I think most people who get into science start out with an interest in or love of science, but the system is such that the disingenuous will easily outcompete the genuine folks, so to ongoingly survive you need to play the game, which requires you to lie. The people who have been brainwashed and believe the narratives enthusiastically go hard trying to prove their work, which makes them freely, happily misrepresent things. Others just do it because they want to get their work published and get their next grant and they know it's the only way. Political correctness is also an issue - there are plenty of basic facts well known to geneticists which would literally get people imprisoned if they tried to publish them. This suppression of basic facts is another thing I didn't like, which made me walk away. I have seen many people walk away for similar reasons, and again, this helps to establish the world of science being what it is. I love fundamental science, but I do not like what science (the industry) has become.


----------



## Junior (5 December 2018)

Sdajii said:


> I don't really think it's cynical, just realistic. No, of course it doesn't apply to every single individual scientist. It didn't apply to me, but then again, that's why I threw my science career in and went on to other ventures. I saw that I could not survive as a scientist who just practised good science, I would need my life to revolve around money and politics. This didn't sit well with me, I am not interested in politics and mixing science with lies held no appeal. A few manage to hold their positions while being genuinely good scientists, but in a politically-charged field like climate science it is virtually impossible. Some of them just make careers out of being politicians and con men, others genuinely love science and put as much of that in as they can while doing what they need to survive as a scientist, and in some fields it's possible to just be a really good scientist if you come up with some genuine new findings. Climate science is one of, perhaps the most extreme field effectively enforcing bias. Biology is actually pretty close. Things like medicine are mixed (you can come up with really useful stuff, and generally new drugs and medical techniques are relatively accurately described, but there is still a bias towards treatments rather than cures because of the economics - keeping people sick and ongoingly treating them is more lucrative of curing them and destroying your market, and exaggerating the efficacy of your goodies obviously has its incentives).
> 
> I think most people who get into science start out with an interest in or love of science, but the system is such that the disingenuous will easily outcompete the genuine folks, so to ongoingly survive you need to play the game, which requires you to lie. The people who have been brainwashed and believe the narratives enthusiastically go hard trying to prove their work, which makes them freely, happily misrepresent things. Others just do it because they want to get their work published and get their next grant and they know it's the only way. Political correctness is also an issue - there are plenty of basic facts well known to geneticists which would literally get people imprisoned if they tried to publish them. This suppression of basic facts is another thing I didn't like, which made me walk away. I have seen many people walk away for similar reasons, and again, this helps to establish the world of science being what it is. I love fundamental science, but I do not like what science (the industry) has become.




Interesting.  I'd love to hear a candid view from an ex-climate scientist.


----------



## satanoperca (5 December 2018)

Just some thoughts :
Has the climate been changing over the last 10,000 years? YES
Is climate change real? Based on above answer YES
Are humans responsible for the change in the environment? The question being debated here
Are us humans dependent on the environment? YES
Are humans become parasitic on the earth, over population? YES
Are humans polluting the planet, the rivers, oceans, fields, atmosphere? YES
Do we need to change our behaviors? YES which leads to the next question
Will we change our behaviors before it is to late?  NO

Based on the above and regardless of what people/scientists think, we need to stop consuming and cannibalizing the earths natural resources.

Who will win the argument or more importantly what will become of the planet and its occupants? Over the next 1000 years, it is clear to me, there will be only one winner, mother nature, which he/she will adapt and survive, the question is will us mortal humans still be part of planet earth.

Unfortunately I fear not, humans have one fatal floor in their makeup, greed.


----------



## satanoperca (5 December 2018)

Would like to add:
The earth is no different to the aquariums I have maintained for 20 years
Both are a closed eco system - but there are differences, bare with me.

What is a closed eco system, one where the inhabitants cannot remove themselves from.
To date, humans only have one aquarium, planet earth

*Aquarium :*
To maintain a successful aquarium over any period of time there is one objective : to keep the inhabitants alive - fish and plants in this case, and further more the bacteria in the filters that help keep all the elements in equilibrium. This is no easy process and requires an understanding of the complex systems your are trying to maintain and thrive.
What are you dealing with, fish sh..it, just like use humans, they consume, that waste needs to be dealt with. Well you can not deal with it, ie CC and over time everything dies, or you can deal with it, by implementing systems/filters that grow bacteria that break down the waste, and use some of the waste to grow plants, than in turn oxygenate the water. (same as our forests)
But not all waste and chemicals can be removed within the system

Bare with me on the last statement.

*Planet Earth : One Big Aquarium for Humans *
So just like my fish tanks, the earth is no different, is a closed eco system, if not kept in balance, it will go rotten and the inhabitants will die.

*BUT? There is a difference*
In my fish tank, I can remove pollutants that build up over time by replacing the water/atmosphere with clean water (for us humans - air). Keeping the system going forever, well sort of, a bit more stuff needs to be maintained.

_What is planet earth/aquarium meant to do when the pollutants become to high, that they start effecting the lives of the inhabitants (humans) and we can no longer survive/live.
We cannot change the water, we have no other source of fresh water/air or place where we can take the toxic air/atmosphere and dump it somewhere and replace it with fresh air and water.
_
_*So what is the real question to be debated and it is not CC?*
Are we fu..king the planet so future generations will not be able to survive and live their lives?

We live in a closed eco system that is without borders, if all on this planet do not start working together to maintain our closed eco system we and our children and their children are f---kd_
_
_


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 December 2018)

Humans likely won’t act until forced. Human behaviour tends to follow that pattern.

In the Australian context it’ll take something like a real cyclone actually hitting Sydney and causing damage to the point that multiple major buildings in the CBD end up being demolished to force change.

Probably the least bad thing which could occur in that sense would be a major heatwave in Melbourne. By “major” I mean 50 degrees and government steps in with whatever laws that basically shut down all normal activity unless it’s truly essential. 

That’s probably the least bad thing that would be sufficient. Any other event causes more lasting damage. Anywhere smaller won’t gain sufficient attention.

In the absence of something drastic like that it’ll be business as usual apart from a bit of tinkering around the edges.


----------



## satanoperca (5 December 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> Humans likely won’t act until forced. Human behaviour tends to follow that pattern.
> 
> In the Australian context it’ll take something like a real cyclone actually hitting Sydney and causing damage to the point that multiple major buildings in the CBD end up being demolished to force change.
> 
> ...




So regardless of what is discussed here, we are f---kd.

Time for me to enrage my 13 year old to take action, as it seems adults are no longer capable of doing so.


----------



## Sdajii (5 December 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> Humans likely won’t act until forced. Human behaviour tends to follow that pattern.
> 
> In the Australian context it’ll take something like a real cyclone actually hitting Sydney and causing damage to the point that multiple major buildings in the CBD end up being demolished to force change.
> 
> ...




You're right, people don't act until forced. This isn't just human nature, this is the nature of living things.

Even if a cyclone flattened Sydney, Australians wouldn't change, and if they did change, the climate wouldn't change (as in, it would continue to change, the change wouldn't stop).

A major cyclone hitting Sydney is not likely in any scenario. Neither is a 50 degree heatwave in Melbourne.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 December 2018)

satanoperca said:


> So regardless of what is discussed here, we are f---kd.
> 
> Time for me to enrage my 13 year old to take action, as it seems adults are no longer capable of doing so.



Please note I’m observing what I think probably will actually happen and that’s not my view of what should be done.

Same concept as saying shares in xyz are going down. It’s an attempt to predict the future not saying I actually want it to happen.

My observation is just based on what I see happening thus far. There are some individuals, businesses and governments taking action yes but thus far emissions of CO2 are still going up not down.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 December 2018)

Sdajii said:


> A major cyclone hitting Sydney is not likely in any scenario. Neither is a 50 degree heatwave in Melbourne.



Agreed but I’ve deliberately picked extreme scenarios to make the point that it will take something drastic to shake the masses and governments into action.

50 degrees in Adelaide seems more plausible, it’s only 3 degrees or so above the present record, but SA isn’t a major national decision making centre so it wouldn’t have so much impact.


----------



## Knobby22 (5 December 2018)

Yea, the complete melt of the north pole ice cap wouldn't be enough. Maybe New York being hit by hurricanes 3 years in a row might.


----------



## Sdajii (5 December 2018)

55 degrees or a super cyclone or whatever wouldn't change people's actions, and if it did change their actions, that wouldn't change the climate appreciably, and if it did change the climate appreciably, in that humans stopped having any impact on the climate, whatever our impact has or hasn't been over the last 2-300 years, extreme weather events would still occur, the climate would still change, because that's what it naturally does.

All these people saying 'Oh, why don't people listen and take action!?' - take a look in the mirror for the first available example of someone who isn't doing something. Next attempt to change that person, see that it's impossible for you to even change that person, and consider the odds of the world as a whole changing.


----------



## satanoperca (5 December 2018)

Sdajii said:


> Next attempt to change that person, see that it's impossible for you to even change that person, and consider the odds of the world as a whole changing.




So after 10 pages of discussion, my opinion hasn't changed, we are f--kd.

After 2 hours of yoga to calm my hostile brain, I am still angry that we have no leaders to take action.

I will wake in the morning, look at my child and say in my mind, mate schooling and everything I have tried to teach you doesn't matter, because ultimately, we humans are determine to screw ourselves.

But then again, I will more than likely, talk to him about speaking out and demanding action, having a voice, being heard and demanding change.
Fight for change, demand it.


----------



## satanoperca (5 December 2018)

wayneL said:


> I am deeply concerned about overall general pollution and habitat destruction,  always have been,  which I think has been overshadowed by the silly CC political extremism.



Found this quote, this is what we should be discussing and how to change it.


----------



## explod (5 December 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> Agreed but I’ve deliberately picked extreme scenarios to make the point that it will take something drastic to shake the masses and governments into action.
> 
> 50 degrees in Adelaide seems more plausible, it’s only 3 degrees or so above the present record, but SA isn’t a major national decision making centre so it wouldn’t have so much impact.



How about transferring the divergence from last winter in the arctic to a 70 to 90 deg c day in Adelaide.  Taking out the total population would do it but by then far too late.  Such a divergence could occur now in my view.


----------



## Sdajii (5 December 2018)

satanoperca said:


> So after 10 pages of discussion, my opinion hasn't changed, we are f--kd.
> 
> After 2 hours of yoga to calm my hostile brain, I am still angry that we have no leaders to take action.
> 
> ...




You are trapped in a state of conflicted reasoning. On one hand you understand the nature of the world and the people who live in it. You accept the inevitable. This is good.

However, you also refuse to accept it on another level, and remain determined to behave in a frustrating and futile way, as though the inevitable you have already acknowledged is inevitable is not inevitable. This will only cause you pain, disappointment and sadness.

You say you will teach your son to demand others to take the action you and your son will not take. This is the common pattern. I do not have a solution for the big picture, I do not believe one exists, but for the individual such as yourself, a mindset based in reality will make you feel better and save you frustrating, futile effort, and understanding the situation and being at peace with it may make you feel better.

You say fight for change and demand it, yet you refuse to change even yourself. We all do, me too, but I do not fool myself. I know I am as much the problem as you, and that people like you and me are the problem. I know I can not change others, I know that I am powerless to change the big picture. You are too.

Along with being greedy and not sacrificing our own situation for the greater good, even in situations which will result in the death of most or all of the population of your own species (not just a human trait, but a trait of all living things), humans have an inability to see situations as hopeless. There is no evolutionary benefit in giving up. In situations which are genuinely hopeless, humans (and other animals) will generally maintain optimism until the end. In almost all natural situations this is either a benefit (giving up virtually never helps - either there is a chance and you make it, or fighting a futile fight doesn't cause any extra harm), but in a big picture like this, it can cause prolonged frustration and anguish. My hope is that humans survive the upcoming disasters (which I don't think will be at all related to climate change), but I can't change the outcome, so I'm enjoying life (doing a fantastic job of it these days!) and will hope my children are among the survivors. I won't teach them to live in frustrating futile battles, I will teach them to see the inevitable, accept it, be at peace with it, and do whatever will serve them best.


----------



## Darc Knight (5 December 2018)

Looks like a few "deniers" are crossing over. Welcome ;p



explod said:


> How about transferring the divergence from last winter in the arctic to a 70 to 90 deg c day in Adelaide.  Taking out the total population would do it but by then far too late.  Such a divergence could occur now in my view.




You saying 70-90 degree temperatures are possible now?


----------



## satanoperca (5 December 2018)

Sdajii said:


> You are trapped in a state of conflicted reasoning. On one hand you understand the nature of the world and the people who live in it. You accept the inevitable. This is good.
> 
> However, you also refuse to accept it on another level, and remain determined to behave in a frustrating and futile way, as though the inevitable you have already acknowledged is inevitable is not inevitable. This will only cause you pain, disappointment and sadness.
> 
> ...




Thanks Sdajii, but your comments point to one thing, it is people like you who make assumptions about others that is the problem.

I could pull apart your comments, but have better things to do.

Survival is about fighting, how it has been and will always be. 

"I know that I am powerless to change the big picture." This is weak, we all have the power to make change, grow some balls, stand up for what you believe is right.


----------



## Sdajii (5 December 2018)

satanoperca said:


> Thanks Sdajii, but your comments point to one thing, it is people like you who make assumptions about others that is the problem.
> 
> I could pull apart your comments, but have better things to do.
> 
> ...




Weak is cowardly avoiding the discussion, not so much with me, but not having the courage to see what is happening within yourself.

It's not weak to realistically acknowledge your own abilities. I simply do not have the ability to change the world. I was young and ideal once, and if everyone was the same, sure, we could make a difference, but you can not fight the basic laws of biology on a large scale, and attempting to do so is foolish, and taking on a fight you can not win wastes your efforts which can otherwise be directed to somewhere more important.

If you think you can change basic human biology (which is the basically biology of all living things) on a global scale, hey, knock yourself out trying  If you want to call me weak for understanding that this task is literally impossible, then I will consider you to be wrong, perhaps even delusional. I could even say you are weak, in that you lack the courage to face the reality you wish was not there.


----------



## TheBigKangaroo (5 December 2018)

Logique said:


> Ann, expect to be attacked for any deviation from the doctrinaire narrative of human induced 'climate change'. And besides, the alarmist/globalist crowd long ago jumped ship from 'global warming'. Therefore hot or cold, their theories can't be disproved.
> 
> Only by making electricity expensive, and re-distributing western wealth to the Third World can 'climate change' be fixed



Ha ha Logique.  You cynical person!!!  But I agree and love you thinking.  cheers


----------



## basilio (5 December 2018)

What can one person do ? Tens of thousands of students around the world have spoken up about the effects CC will have on the world we are leaving them. But why did these students decide to take action.

They were inspired by another young student from Sweden. Leadership.
* 'Our leaders are like children,' school strike founder tells climate summit *
Greta Thunberg, 15, told UN summit that students are acting in absence of global leadership

Damian Carrington in Katowice

 @dpcarrington 
Tue 4 Dec 2018 22.10 AEDT   Last modified on Tue 4 Dec 2018 22.38 AEDT

Shares
2,843




Thunberg during her Friday climate change protest. Photograph: Hanna Franzen/EPA
Action to fight global warming is coming whether world leaders like it or not, school student Greta Thunberg has told the UN climate change summit, accusing them of behaving like irresponsible children.

Thunberg began a solo climate protest by striking from school in Sweden in August. But more than 20,000 students around the world have now joined her. The school strikes have spread to at least 270 towns and cities in countries across the world, including Australia, the United Kingdom, Belgium, the US and Japan.

“For 25 years countless people have come to the UN climate conferences begging our world leaders to stop emissions and clearly that has not worked as emissions are continuing to rise. So I will not beg the world leaders to care for our future,” she said. “I will instead let them know change is coming whether they like it or not.”

“Since our leaders are behaving like children, we will have to take the responsibility they should have taken long ago,” she said. “We have to understand what the older generation has dealt to us, what mess they have created that we have to clean up and live with. We have to make our voices heard.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ounder-greta-thunberg-tells-un-climate-summit


----------



## Sdajii (5 December 2018)

basilio said:


> What can one person do ? Tens of thousands of students around the world have spoken up about the effects CC will have on the world we are leaving them. But why did these students decide to take action.
> 
> They were inspired by another young student from Sweden. Leadership.
> * 'Our leaders are like children,' school strike founder tells climate summit *
> ...




These idiots are hilarious! They are the problem. They say they want 'someone else' to fix the problem, when they are the problem. Basic human nature is to consume resources and do it as cheaply and efficiently as possible for the individual. These people 'demanding action' are still consuming processed foods sourced from all corners of the globe, consuming oil and electricity, etc etc. They, like the majority of the people whining about 'someone needing to do something' simply do it because they are lied to about the causes and don't understand that they are the problem. What do they want to politicians to do? Tell people to stop consuming resources? Actually enforce people to stop using resources (these people would be the first to complain about that). Resources are available because people want them, and people consume them. If coal was banned, people would starve/freeze. If oil was banned, people would starve. If it was heavily restricted or taxed, things would get too expensive and people would riot and demand the system be relaxed. Yet when they get what they want, they demand that someone else is the problem and the problem needs to be fixed in some nebulous way.


----------



## satanoperca (6 December 2018)

Sdajii said:


> If you think you can change basic human biology (which is the basically biology of all living things) on a global scale, hey, knock yourself out trying  If you want to call me weak for understanding that this task is literally impossible, then I will consider you to be wrong, perhaps even delusional. I could even say you are weak, in that you lack the courage to face the reality you wish was not there.




Wow, so many statement to try and understand. So lets start linearly;
1. I don't think I can change human biology and are not trying to on a global scale, all it takes is a seed, one person to try and make change, this has happened in history, time and time again.
2. Literally impossible doesn't mean impossible, there is always a chance and in this case chance/hope is all we have.
3. Wrong or delusional, not the first time I have been wrong and I am delusional, so nothing new here.
4. To say I am weak, is what it is, maybe I am, maybe I am not, I have faced reality, death more than once, so you make your own mind up.
In conclusion, if it is delusion or weak to believe in hope and you are what the masses believe this planet is f---kd.

I hope you rethink your position, gain hope and conviction to fight what you think is right, we need more leaders and people with PASSION.


----------



## wayneL (6 December 2018)

Sdajii said:


> These idiots are hilarious! They are the problem. They say they want 'someone else' to fix the problem, when they are the problem. Basic human nature is to consume resources and do it as cheaply and efficiently as possible for the individual. These people 'demanding action' are still consuming processed foods sourced from all corners of the globe, consuming oil and electricity, etc etc. They, like the majority of the people whining about 'someone needing to do something' simply do it because they are lied to about the causes and don't understand that they are the problem. What do they want to politicians to do? Tell people to stop consuming resources? Actually enforce people to stop using resources (these people would be the first to complain about that). Resources are available because people want them, and people consume them. If coal was banned, people would starve/freeze. If oil was banned, people would starve. If it was heavily restricted or taxed, things would get too expensive and people would riot and demand the system be relaxed. Yet when they get what they want, they demand that someone else is the problem and the problem needs to be fixed in some nebulous way.



Ding ding ding

This is just sooooo spot on. 

Ferchrissake those kids just need a smack in the head on so many levels...

...actually,  it is the activist teachers who deserve  a nulla nulla to the temple. The kids are pawns.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 December 2018)

explod said:


> On overpopulation, how are you going to stop the urge for children.




So why are we paying people to have kids ?

Baby bonuses and Family Tax Bbenefits to encourage the production of more consumers and more forests being cut down to feed, house and clothe them ?

Really, any "true" Green (Scotsman or not), would be all out for reducing population growth and achieving population numbers consistent with sustainable use of resources.


----------



## basilio (6 December 2018)

wayneL said:


> Ding ding ding
> 
> This is just sooooo spot on.
> 
> ...




Ah Wayne.. You never disappoint do you. *Completely ignore  *the fact that these student strikes were in fact inspired by a student in Sweden.  She has decided that if the politicians and so called leaders can't recognise what is happening with CC then someone else has to. And that spark is traveling around the world. 

Much like the little boy in The Emperors New Clothes


----------



## wayneL (6 December 2018)

basilio said:


> Ah Wayne.. You never disappoint do you. *Completely ignore  *the fact that these student strikes were in fact inspired by a student in Sweden.  She has decided that if the politicians and so called leaders can't recognise what is happening with CC then someone else has to. And that spark is traveling around the world.
> 
> Much like the little boy in The Emperors New Clothes



Yep,  Im consistently on the side of logic bas. 

As if 15year olds have any feckin idea mate.


----------



## explod (6 December 2018)

wayneL said:


> Yep,  Im consistently on the side of logic bas.
> 
> As if 15year olds have any feckin idea mate.



Makes little difference to some.  Grew up on a farm, monitored the weather all my life, only 73 now and many say I do not know and wrong.

Many swear by kids belief in a God but not climate change.

Won't bother going back but someone said earlier today on this thread that it's terrible that we have lost 20% of our forests.  What a joke, there is little more than 10% left.


----------



## basilio (6 December 2018)

wayneL said:


> Yep,  Im consistently on the side of logic bas.
> 
> As if 15year olds have any feckin idea mate.




Well it looks  like they understand basic science and the consequences of creating uncontrolled amounts  of Greenhouse gases on our climate.

Quite unlike people who parade their wilful ignorance on such matters as a matter of pride.


----------



## Darc Knight (7 December 2018)

basilio said:


> Ah Wayne.. You never disappoint do you.




Yeah he's good, stand up comedy good. I like the one where he said he's always on the side of logic


----------



## wayneL (7 December 2018)

basilio said:


> Well it looks  like they understand basic science and the consequences of creating uncontrolled amounts  of Greenhouse gases on our climate.
> 
> Quite unlike people who parade their wilful ignorance on such matters as a matter of pride.



Climate is not basic science,  it is extremely complicated and chaotic. Additionally,  at 15 they will not understand the politicization of the science,  nor true scientific debate.

If they did understand science,  they would modify their lifestyle rather than being gross unsustainable consumers. They would join people like me and reduce their consumption.

In fact, all this is parading your own cognitive biases bas,  and that your position is political,  not scientific.


----------



## basilio (7 December 2018)

Wayne the total picture of climate science has many elements and is certainly complex. You can discuss changes in planetary orbits, weathering of rocks, the role of vulcanism and the effects of CO2 on trapping heat.

*But the simplest most obvious facts in 2018  that dominate what is happening to our climate  right now are :
1) Earth is heating up at an a totally unparalleled rate
2) This has been caused by the steep increase in GG gases over the past 200 years but in particular the last 50.
3) These GG gases are human in origin
4) If we continue on this path almost all current ecosystems will die.*


----------



## wayneL (7 December 2018)

Good,  no more leftists to annoy everyone.


----------



## basilio (7 December 2018)

*Climate change denial is delusion, and the biggest threat to human survival*
By David Shearman

It would be fascinating to eavesdrop on discussions between members of the Flat Earth Society sailing the open sea, and debating why the horizon is curved. They would provide a good laugh.

They are deluded, but most committed flat earth believers appear normal in the rest of their lives and their delusion is not generally harmful to others.

A _delusion _is a belief that is clearly false, a denial of facts. It indicates an abnormality in the affected person's content of thought.

The false belief is not accounted for by the person's cultural or religious background or their level of intelligence.

The belief of climate change deniers is usually unshakable, like that of the flat-earth believers or Holocaust deniers. Many delude themselves that there is a conspiracy.

US President Donald Trump uses the words "hoax" and "Chinese hoax". Often their fervour leads to influential positions, for example in environment and energy policy as in the Coalition.

*Dr David Shearman is the Honorary Advisor to Doctors for the Environment Australia and Emeritus Professor of Medicine at Adelaide University.
*
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12...sm-holocaust-david-attenborough-coal/10585744


----------



## Pixelperfect (7 December 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> I've noticed that warm days with a maximum temperature of 30 or above were far more common this Spring than they were in Spring 2017.
> 
> That I have moved from Tasmania to SA during this time may explain it however.



The trouble is that temperature is not the same as the actual temperature. They go oh it's only 1.5C rise but fail to understand that temperature is not the same as feels like. Meaning taking into account, the heat radiating from the ground, the sun and the ambient temperature. This is why you have idiots who don't understand that just because it's a small percentage rise doesn't mean that it's going to feel the same temperature. 

http://media.bom.gov.au/social/blog/379/when-the-temperature-isnt-the-actual-temperature/

https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/antarctica/south-pole
Look at the temperature deviation for Antarctica. We are so screwed. This is a start of a chain reaction and a snow ball effect.


----------



## Sdajii (7 December 2018)

satanoperca said:


> Wow, so many statement to try and understand. So lets start linearly;
> 1. I don't think I can change human biology and are not trying to on a global scale, all it takes is a seed, one person to try and make change, this has happened in history, time and time again.
> 2. Literally impossible doesn't mean impossible, there is always a chance and in this case chance/hope is all we have.
> 3. Wrong or delusional, not the first time I have been wrong and I am delusional, so nothing new here.
> ...




1) You make no sense. You say you don't think you can do something then say you think you can.
2) Yes, that literally is what literally means. Consult a dictionary.
3) No argument from me there!
4) Already did, it's pointless to request me to do it again, especially when you have demonstrated it again to remove any lingering doubt in case any had been there.

Have a good day, feel free not to talk to me again


----------



## SirRumpole (7 December 2018)

> Have a good day, feel free not to talk to me again




PM coming.


----------



## Darc Knight (8 December 2018)

Pixelperfect said:


> The trouble is that temperature is not the same as the actual temperature. They go oh it's only 1.5C rise but fail to understand that temperature is not the same as feels like. Meaning taking into account, the heat radiating from the ground, the sun and the ambient temperature. This is why you have idiots who don't understand that just because it's a small percentage rise doesn't mean that it's going to feel the same temperature.
> 
> http://media.bom.gov.au/social/blog/379/when-the-temperature-isnt-the-actual-temperature/
> 
> ...




Can you link us to more information on this Antarctic warming and the snowball effect pls.


----------



## qldfrog (9 December 2018)

Back in oz ofter spending most of the year in china, on this subjet i believe in global warming , i believe we are screwing the planet, i do not believe this is due to co2 or ch4 release but strongly believe it is due to human activities...i posted my theory a few years ago..
But i think after living in china and travelling the world we are kidding ourself and are very arrogant in the west in believing we can even change that disaster coming
Unless manking reduces number, we are screwed so invest your effort and money into mitigating the effects, adapt your own position/lifestyle if you want to have a clear conscience of having done what you can personally,and not being a contributor but do not destroy your country economy for no purpose 
Europe attitude is a good model of perfect stupidity:co2 down wealth as well..and transfered to China
 while taking population overflow from breeding grounds...seriously
You will need your wealth to survive more than ever


----------



## Knobby22 (9 December 2018)

Fascinating QLDfrog. 
There has been a seismic shift in the global warming debate within the doubters.  There now seems to be a large number of people that have realised that global warming is real who previously said it was scientists fudging figures.

Listened to Andrew Bolt Thursday night and he has completely shifted his view and like you also says we can do nothing about it. He was saying the main cause was volcanoes by the way.

You can understand that an 18 year old may not accept that we should do nothing for fear of hurting some rich people's wealth or economic damage. 

The young are acting in their interest hence protests on the weekend. Not everyone can rely on being very wealthy to counter what is coming.


----------



## Skate (9 December 2018)

qldfrog said:


> adapt your own position/lifestyle if you want to have a clear conscience of having done what you can personally




Yep, wise words...

Skate.


----------



## Darc Knight (10 December 2018)

So Andrew Bolt, Wayne and Sdajii are now believers in human induced G.W.
Does that leave only Ann, BigKangaroo and Logique in the deniers camp?

As serious as this is, its also interesting psychology.


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 December 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> There has been a seismic shift in the global warming debate within the doubters. There now seems to be a large number of people that have realised that global warming is real



The quality of data is dubious but there’s simply too much of it to ignore.

Or to be more precise, one freak weather event or new temperature record can be ignored as natual variation but we’re now seeing new records set on a routine basis. Meanwhile the concept of towns being wiped off the map by fires has gone from unheard of to somewhat common in less than a decade.

Individually that could dismissed and the data considered of fairly low quality in terms of “proving” climate change. But there’s just too much of it for any objective analysis to not conclude that something is going on with only the details being uncertain.


----------



## Sdajii (10 December 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> So Andrew Bolt, Wayne and Sdajii are now believers in human induced G.W.
> Does that leave only Ann, BigKangaroo and Logique in the deniers camp?
> 
> As serious as this is, its also interesting psychology.




Interesting psychology as in people like you can't grasp the concept that virtually everyone including everyone in this thread understands that humans are having some impact on the climate, but that doesn't mean they all believe in global warming (some do, some don't) and the question is not whether or not the climate changes or whether or not humans are causing it to change, and anyone who thinks those are relevant questions has absolutely no grasp of the basics of what's going on, yet that is a common thing among people including those with passionate opinions and desires to speak loudly about it?


----------



## wayneL (10 December 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> So Andrew Bolt, Wayne and Sdajii are now believers in human induced G.W.
> Does that leave only Ann, BigKangaroo and Logique in the deniers camp?
> 
> As serious as this is, its also interesting psychology.



No no no

*have always been moderates*

Different narrative bro


----------



## SirRumpole (10 December 2018)

Sdajii said:


> and the question is not whether or not the climate changes or whether or not humans are causing it to change, and anyone who thinks those are relevant questions has absolutely no grasp of the basics of what's going on,




I really don't see that there are any other relevant questions other than whether the climate is changing and what is causing that change.

If you can think of other relevant questions please let us know.


----------



## Sdajii (10 December 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I really don't see that there are any other relevant questions other than whether the climate is changing and what is causing that change.
> 
> If you can think of other relevant questions please let us know.




There is no debate among anyone who has even the slightest grasp of even the tiniest bit of substance on the issue - the climate is changing. It has never, ever been static. The planet is billions of years old and the climate has never, ever been static.

"Is the climate changing?" is not a question anyone worth listening to or worthy of speaking is asking - though yes, there are plenty of people stupid enough to ask it. I don't know if anyone in this thread is that stupid and I suspect not, but if there are, they are few.

Humans weren't causing the climate to change thousands of years ago, or millions of years ago, or billions of years ago. Many things have been influencing the climate and causing it to change over that incredibly long period of time, and they all still exist. Humans recently came into existence. Humans are carrying out various activities on the planet, and anyone who is not a complete and utter imbecile should understand that any activity on the planet influences the climate. Some things influence the climate to a small extent, some large.

"Are humans influencing the climate?" Is not a question anyone worth listening to or worthy of speaking is asking - though yes, there are plenty of people stupid enough to ask it. I don't know if anyone in this thread is that stupid and I suspect not, but if there are, they are few.

Do you honestly think these are the questions being debated? If so, you have not only failed to grasp the basics of the topic, but the basics of the primary viewpoints of the people in the debate, or what the debate is.


----------



## wayneL (10 December 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I really don't see that there are any other relevant questions other than whether the climate is changing and what is causing that change.
> 
> If you can think of other relevant questions please let us know.



You are equating chaos with binary.

Not happening, it's  not scientific.


----------



## explod (10 December 2018)

Sdajii said:


> There is no debate among anyone who has even the slightest grasp of even the tiniest bit of substance on the issue - the climate is changing. It has never, ever been static. The planet is billions of years old and the climate has never, ever been static.
> .




In the longer term yes, but in the huge change we have had over the last 100 years no.  We could not have formed nor survived without long term periods of climate stability.

I have recently moved back to where I grew up at Hawkesdale in Victoria's South Western District.  As a kid the mud on our farm was up to our knees from the Warrnambool May Races till the end of November; every year till around 1966 when the first dry came in line not far behind massive land clearing.  Gumboots are no longer needed and dams have turned into salty clay pans. This of course is not Co2 but mostly the earth losing its ability through the loss of trees to absorb the Co2.  Of corse most of the rain comes from the trees taking in the  moisture from the ground and exhaling it through the leaves.  Trees are the real lungs of our earth.

Those trying to assert that these variations on this scale are normal are wrong.  Have you read "The 6th Extinction" 1996 by Richard Leakey.  Very well and scientifically notated puts it all into proper perspective.  The same title of this text by Elizabeth Kolbert 2014 now virtually blocks out Leakey"s book on the Google search, and looking it over tells me the anti climate lobby would be behind that.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 December 2018)

Sdajii said:


> "Are humans influencing the climate?" Is not a question anyone worth listening to or worthy of speaking is asking - though yes, there are plenty of people stupid enough to ask it. I don't know if anyone in this thread is that stupid and I suspect not, but if there are, they are few.




I must be missing something because I thought you may have been fairly intelligent.

Are humans influencing the climate and to what degree is a perfectly rational question to ask, I don't see why any intelligent enquiring person would not ask it, why do you think it's a stupid question ?.

As for other factors, well there were a lot of active volcanoes millions of years ago spewing out greenhouse gases and only a few now. Not relevant according to you ?


----------



## Sdajii (10 December 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I must be missing something because I thought you may have been fairly intelligent.
> 
> Are humans influencing the climate and to what degree is a perfectly rational question to ask, I don't see why any intelligent enquiring person would not ask it, why do you think it's a stupid question ?.




These are two questions, not one. The first is the stupid, the second is reasonable.



> As for other factors, well there were a lot of active volcanoes millions of years ago spewing out greenhouse gases and only a few now. Not relevant according to you ?




Seriously, you're looking at volcanoes in this context? The climate has been doing its thing for *billions* of years. Not sure why you're talking about volcanoes or *millions* of years in this context (well, I am: ignorance), but you clearly need to go back and educate yourself on the basics. Have a look at a climate chart of the last billion years or so. You'll see the fluctuations are dramatic and don't have much to do with variations in volcanic activity. You may also like to look at the last few million years, the last million, and the last 100,000 years. Looking at a finer scale over smaller amounts of time (say, a random 100,000 years from a few hundred million years ago) would also be extremely interesting and useful, but unfortunately such data is not available and probably never will be. In looking at all of this, you may be surprised that climate change of the cataclysmic nature everyone is terrified of is just a regular day at the office in normal, natural climate change, it's just that for the first time in modern history (not even the first time in human history - we were nearly wiped out once before, and that was before we were doing anything relevant to the climate) we are observing it, and possibly making it zig rather than zag.


----------



## basilio (10 December 2018)

Watch the elbows  Sdajii.  Seriously it is often better to say little and have people wonder if your a fool rather than spill your guts and prove it beyond doubt.



Sdajii said:


> In looking at all of this, you may be surprised that climate change of the cataclysmic nature everyone is terrified of is just a regular day at the office in normal, natural climate change, it's just that for the first time in modern history (not even the first time in human history - we were nearly wiped out once before, and that was before we were doing anything relevant to the climate) we are observing it, and possibly making it zig rather than zag.




Sure there have been many climate changes over billions of years. And in 2018 we do have a far better grasp of the various factors that have changed the earths climate and the consequences of these events.

*But in 2018 we are watching the earth heating up at a rate unparalleled in history*. In geological terms 50-100 years is a blink of an eye. But in this period of  time we are observing changes to temperatures on land and sea, accelerating melting of ice caps, changes in weather patterns and extremes of weather events that  are not part of our recent experience.

Why is this happening ?   Regardless of your ramblings this current climate change is absolutely  no  xxxxxxxx mystery  at all Sadajii.

Scientists are certain that increasing Greenhouse gases will trap more heat and , all else being equal, warm the earth. Humans have poured billions of  extra tons of GG into the atmosphere in the last  50-100 years and as a direct consequence
1) CO2 levels are now at their highest  level for  800,000 years
2) We are cooking


----------



## wayneL (10 December 2018)

basilio said:


> 1) CO2 levels are now at their highest  level for  800,000 years
> 2) We are cooking



If so,  nothing us Ozzies can do to change that,  ergo:

3) Eat,  drink and be merry,  for tomorrow we die.


----------



## Sdajii (11 December 2018)

basilio said:


> Watch the elbows  Sdajii.  Seriously it is often better to say little and have people wonder if your a fool rather than spill your guts and prove it beyond doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Are you lying or just mislead? Perhaps you should take your own advice.

The current rate of change is not unprecedented. Not by a long shot. It's not even that unusual.

This isn't me making things up. If you can't be bothered looking anything up, just consider some hard, raw, undisputed facts. Consider the amount of change required to freeze things to the point the sea levels dropped so that PNG and Australia were one single land mass, and the UK with mainland Europe (and countless other examples all around the world). Massive, right? Now consider that *many times* over just the last few *tens of thousands of years* this has occurred, and then reversed, and then back again, and so on. This rate of change is not constant or on a nice stable sine wave, it is chaotic, and when it moves, at times, it really moves.

It is a myth that the current rate of change is unprecedented. Climate scientists themselves do not make this claim and they know it is not true. Media exaggeration, social media gossip, etc, formed this myth.

CO2 levels are at their highest level for 800,000 years, but interestingly, the temperature is not. CO2 is not the biggest factor in the climate situation, not by a very long shot. Water vapour is far, far more important. CO2 is mostly a distraction, so that people don't look at the more important environmental issues such as land clearing and toxic pollution.

Again, I am not saying the climate doesn't change (amazingly, I am often accused of this immediately after describing how massively it routinely does!), and I am not saying humans are having no effect (again, I am often accused of making this claim immediately after saying humans obviously are - clearly, the climate alarmists don't know how to think, they just know how to regurgitate familiar catch phrases like 'climate denier' and the familiar accusations, despite them making no sense in reference to me, which really shows where their heads are at).

Your claims are false, your information is incorrect.


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 December 2018)

Sdajii said:


> CO2 levels are at their highest level for 800,000 years, but interestingly, the temperature is not.



Commonsense says it will take quite some time for the temperature to stabilise following any change in those things which influence it.

How long I won't claim to know but I'd expect the answer would be measured in decades given the mass involved (rough estimate, someone has likely worked it out properly).

As for silly questions, I'll simply note that the standard of discussion and debate on ASF is an order of magnitude higher than that which takes place in parliament and via the mainstream media these days. ASF would be a very long way down the list of places to find people raising silly questions.


----------



## Sdajii (11 December 2018)

Sure, there's likely to be a lag in the effect. The effect is likely to be negligible if we look at actual data rather than political narratives and biased reports. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, pretty much negligible compared to others, especially water.

But it's funny you ignore all the blatantly obvious stuff which shoots your narrative down and focus only on an unknown.

The climate has warmed by around 75% of 1 degree Celcius in the last 100 years. If you know anything at all about climate science, it is absolutely off the chart ludicrous to say that has never happened before humans started playing around, and no climate scientist makes that claim. Even with their bias, they can't say something that utterly absurd. The scientifically illiterate media, however, can, and their scientifically illiterate viewers blindly believe like the sheep they are. Never mind the virtually perfect record of climate scientists to get their predictions wrong in the direction of prediction things far more extreme than what eventuates; everyone just ignores that and continues believing that the new predictions must be accurate! It is literal insanity for anyone informed, ignorance and gullibility for most of the others, or in some cases, literal insanity, to believe the mainstream version of the story as delivered to the public.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 December 2018)

Sdajii said:


> so that people don't look at the more important environmental issues such as land clearing and toxic pollution.




Good point, but they are still a result of human actions, and their relative importance compared to co2 is debatable.



			
				Sdajii said:
			
		

> If you know anything at all about climate science, it is absolutely off the chart ludicrous to say that has never happened before humans started playing around, and no climate scientist makes that claim.




Maybe if humans were around at those times they would have been wiped out. If we want that to happen now, then we should just sit back and do nothing.


----------



## Darc Knight (11 December 2018)

And herein lies the problem; the deniers, whatever their motives (financial or otherwise) are preventing change, change which is needed to protect the planet and ourselves.


----------



## cynic (11 December 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> And herein lies the problem; the deniers, whatever their motives (financial or otherwise) are preventing change, change which is needed to protect the planet and ourselves.



Herein lies the problem; the zealots expect the heretics to support their apocalyptic religion.


----------



## Darc Knight (11 December 2018)

cynic said:


> Herein lies the problem; the zealots expect the heretics to support their apocalyptic religion.




Better to err on the side of caution and take a bit pain than to risk the possible consequences of doing nothing.


----------



## cynic (11 December 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> Better to err on the side of caution and take a bit pain than to risk the possible consequences of doing nothing.



When was the last time you attended a confessional?


----------



## Darc Knight (11 December 2018)

cynic said:


> When was the last time you attended a confessional?




Why aren't you prepared to spend a bit more just incase human induced global warming is real?


----------



## PZ99 (11 December 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> Why aren't you prepared to spend a bit more just incase human induced global warming is real?



My air conditioner is making sure I'm doing just that... spending more


----------



## cynic (11 December 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> Why aren't you prepared to spend a bit more just incase human induced global warming is real?



Why aren’t you prepared to confess and receive absolution for all your sins, just in case Lucifer is real?


----------



## Darc Knight (11 December 2018)

cynic said:


> Why aren’t you prepared to confess and receive absolution for all your sins, just in case Lucifer is real?




Always an interesting sign when a person spends so long thinking up a reply and the only one they can give is an antagonistic one.


----------



## PZ99 (11 December 2018)

cynic said:


> Why aren’t you prepared to confess and receive absolution for all your sins, just in case Lucifer is real?



You ask someone with a post count of 666 to repent? LOL


----------



## luutzu (11 December 2018)

cynic said:


> Why aren’t you prepared to confess and receive absolution for all your sins, just in case Lucifer is real?




Difference is that Lucifer would only be after the individual. Mother Nature, on the other hand, would literally wipe out towns and cities, cause famine, war, death, revolution...

Or has those human calamities always been around so stuff it, nothing we can do?


----------



## cynic (11 December 2018)

luutzu said:


> Difference is that Lucifer would only be after the individual. Mother Nature, on the other hand, would literally wipe out towns and cities, cause famine, war, death, revolution...
> 
> Or has those human calamities always been around so stuff it, nothing we can do?




Difference!!! What difference?!!
The events described in your post have an uncanny resemblance to the  following:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+6&version=NIV


----------



## wayneL (11 December 2018)

Laughable that the alarmists think a tax in Australia will make any difference,  all the while refusing to take any personal responsibility for their own footprint (except for Plod,  as much as I think he's  on the wrong track,  at least  he practices what he preaches)


----------



## luutzu (11 December 2018)

cynic said:


> Difference!!! What difference?!!
> The events described in your post have an uncanny resemblance to the  following:
> https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+6&version=NIV




They don't have TV, news and weather where you live?

Those are current event, not (fake scientific) Biblical revelations you know.


----------



## Darc Knight (11 December 2018)

cynic said:


> Difference!!! What difference?!!
> The events described in your post have an uncanny resemblance to the  following:
> https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+6&version=NIV




Enjoying yourself trolling? You deny G.W. by drawing a comparison to the Book of Revelations. Very scientific on your part


----------



## cynic (11 December 2018)

luutzu said:


> They don't have TV, news and weather where you live?
> 
> Those are current event, not (fake scientific) Biblical revelations you know.



Sure do. I watched a blind guy practicing law and moonlighting as a street vigilante last night. Daredevil must be real, because I saw him on television!!


----------



## Sdajii (11 December 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Good point, but they are still a result of human actions, and their relative importance compared to co2 is debatable.




The fact that is even a debate shows how little people understand the situation and how much of a con the CO2 narrative is.



> Maybe if humans were around at those times they would have been wiped out. If we want that to happen now, then we should just sit back and do nothing.




Well bloody duh they would have been wiped out many times! Even in early human history it very nearly happened, and that was just recently. Just have a go at using your brain objectively for a moment. Consider that you have actually acknowledged that without any human influence at all, the climate routinely goes through massive changes. This means that even if humans reduced their impact to zero, which is completely impossible, the climate would still have wild fluctuations. This means that the whole concept of 'reduce CO2 to try to keep the climate close to pre industrial levels' makes absolutely positively zero sense. The whole narrative is a blatant lie. The notion that 'pre industrial levels' were stable or perfect or something is a nonsensical claim which literally no climate scientist makes.


----------



## Sdajii (11 December 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> And herein lies the problem; the deniers, whatever their motives (financial or otherwise) are preventing change, change which is needed to protect the planet and ourselves.




What do you call a 'denier'? I see no one claiming the climate is static. I don't consider myself a 'denier' at all, though I am usually called one by the alarmists. I understand the climate has always changed dramatically and humans are having an influence on the climate now. You can't clear huge amounts of land and encase the planet in concrete and turn forests into desert etc. without having an impact. The alarmist narrative though contains many blatant lies. The story is in some cases exaggerated and in some cases completely fabricated. After working as a scientist and working directly with climate scientists, with my own work directly related to climate, I can see the narrative is a lie. I like science, I like investigation for the purpose of identifying facts, it's one of my passions. That's my simple motive. Most people can't grasp that, they need a motive of doing something, and can't understand a simple motive of fact identification without a bias or purpose. Even in the science industry (maybe it's 'wrong' to call it an industry, but it really is one), they all follow underlying motivations which gives them bias, which is why I left.

The alarmists follow the mainstream narrative, which is a lie, and in doing so, in following a lie, they prevent the facts from being revealed. The politicians just want to make money, or if their hearts are in the right place (which is rare), they get sucked into the false narrative and CO2 myth. The scientists just want to make money and look after their job, and most of the time, if they speak against the CO2 myth they need to start a new career path. The scientifically illiterate masses just follow whatever story fits their own system of thinking, either the alarmist myth or the irrational denial narrative. Anyone looking objectively at the situation is hated by both sides, because both are a long way from the facts, which are in the middle, though the alarmists are further from the facts, greater in number and more vocal, so anyone rational and objective gets more hatred from them and seen more like a denier.


----------



## satanoperca (11 December 2018)

Sdajii said:


> The fact that is even a debate shows how little people understand the situation and how much of a con the CO2 narrative is.
> 
> Well bloody duh they would have been wiped out many times! Even in early human history it very nearly happened, and that was just recently. Just have a go at using your brain objectively for a moment. Consider that you have actually acknowledged that without any human influence at all, the climate routinely goes through massive changes. This means that even if humans reduced their impact to zero, which is completely impossible, the climate would still have wild fluctuations. This means that the whole concept of 'reduce CO2 to try to keep the climate close to pre industrial levels' makes absolutely positively zero sense. The whole narrative is a blatant lie. The notion that 'pre industrial levels' were stable or perfect or something is a nonsensical claim which literally no climate scientist makes.




We have been around and around on this subject, I agree with your narrow focus on looking at one element CO2, but I ask you this :

Are humans polluting the planet? 

If Yes, should we be trying to make changes, to stop polluting the planet?


----------



## Sdajii (11 December 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> Better to err on the side of caution and take a bit pain than to risk the possible consequences of doing nothing.




By 'caution' you mean ignoring the actual problems, following the CO2 myth narrative, and putting a whole lot of fuss around an irrelevant distraction into a pursuit which will achieve nothing? Ignoring the fact that climate change is a natural process and if it simply does what it always has done with zero human influence, it's going to change dramatically as it always does?

Doing nothing would literally be better than that. Objectively looking at the situation and taking a logical, fact-based approach would be better, but virtually no one seems interested in that. Not the deniers, not the alarmists, not the climate scientists, not the media...

For me it's just an interesting situation to observe. I see an understand the insanity, understand my inability to change anything, but along the way, talking about it objectively, I occasionally meet a person who uses their brain for something other than thoughtless following.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 December 2018)

Sdajii said:


> This means that even if humans reduced their impact to zero, which is completely impossible, the climate would still have wild fluctuations.





What do you consider the main driving force of climate change ?


----------



## Sdajii (11 December 2018)

satanoperca said:


> We have been around and around on this subject, I agree with your narrow focus on looking at one element CO2, but I ask you this :
> 
> Are humans polluting the planet?
> 
> If Yes, should we be trying to make changes, to stop polluting the planet?




Yes, absolutely. Yes, absolutely. No, CO2 isn't the 'pollutant' we should be worried about, and pollution isn't even the biggest problem. CO2 is a naturally occurring part of the atmosphere, its role in the natural greenhouse phenomenon is minor, it is nowhere near toxic levels and there is no risk of that. Other pollutants actually are causing problems.


----------



## Sdajii (11 December 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> What do you consider the main driving force of climate change ?




This is a highly complex and controversial topic, but it sure as heck is not CO2. If you look at CO2 and temperature, there is a correlation, but temperature leads CO2, not the other way around (don't believe me, just google some graphs of CO2 and climate throughout prehistory and you'll see the pattern). CO2 has a negligible impact on the greenhouse phenomenon.

Many dramatic events which occur rarely (extreme solar flares, celestial impacts, etc) can temporarily be the primary driving impact on climate and cause mass extinction events, but looking back at all the dramatic thrashing of climate over the last billion or two years, it's really very difficult to say what the primary causes are, no one knows, and even if someone did, it would be extremely difficult to describe such a complex, dynamic situation. One thing we can be certain of is that unless it is simply the fluctuations of solar radiation, there is no one simple thing causing the majority of it, and it is the result of many things interaction with each other in a chaotic way.


----------



## explod (11 December 2018)

So Sdaji, the effect of trees is ignored.  

Over the last 100 years here in Western Victoria the increasing dryer periods correlate with the thinning out of trees.  I've put up on ASF many times the anger of my Father at Premier Henry Bolte allowing the ball and chains to clear the Heytesbury area.  The farmers way back knew and in fact 10 years later we had our first drought there (1966/7).   My Grandfather on a farm at Diggera West, north west of Bendigo was likewise political on this subject.  You can have your scientists no worries but the people on the land (on the ground if you like) see, feel and are directly affected by it, they know.

Many of our showers in Melbourne emanate from the forests of the Otway ranges.  To the eye of those who know their country it is clear.  From 30 kms back from my work period at Camperdown I could see the moisture rising off the Otways.  My interest, I grew up with it.

These issues are not as you infer all natural, most is man made and the rain problem of course is just one.


----------



## qldfrog (11 December 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> What do you consider the main driving force of climate change ?



Explod saiD:
Humans have poured billions of extra tons of GG into the atmosphere in the last 50-100 years and as a direct consequence
1) CO2 levels are now at their highest level for 800,000 years
2) We are cooking
fine point but I truely believe the cooking is caused directly by the heat released in the first place, not the glasshouse effect of the CO2 still minimal vs cloud cover and reflection effect on the snow.
You can match the increased warming to the basic model of an isolated system if you add the mankind extra heat generated... But not a PC or popular view at all.

Why this is important it that except solar and wind, it does not matter if you burn coal or use nuclear, you increase the temperature of the overall system, it also means I can still eat meat and effort should be more on efficiency and reduce use..and basically reducing population..
Not that I like coal for the other side effects..but that is a different story


----------



## qldfrog (11 December 2018)

A simple point: why on earth are we not mandating white or reflective roofcover in australia instead of trying some pointless PR scheme; when you consider the amount of solar energy per sqrmeter we receive, that simple no cost idiotic answer would have a decent impact..but is it too cheap???


----------



## qldfrog (11 December 2018)

about trees, you are right explod, especially in Australia, but in Europe and northern America, tree cover is increasing dramatically and has been in the last 50y


----------



## explod (11 December 2018)

qldfrog said:


> Explod saiD:
> Humans have poured billions of extra tons of GG into the atmosphere in the last 50-100 years and as a direct consequence
> 1) CO2 levels are now at their highest level for 800,000 years
> 2) We are cooking
> fine point ......




I did not say any of what you put up at all qldfrog.  It's pretty evident that the miss quotes are posted in order to nullify the real positions put forward.


----------



## explod (11 December 2018)

qldfrog said:


> A simple point: why on earth are we not mandating white or reflective roofcover in australia instead of trying some pointless PR scheme; when you consider the amount of solar energy per sqrmeter we receive, that simple no cost idiotic answer would have a decent impact..but is it too cheap???



Yes have noted dark tiled roov's for years, they absorb heat and cold, bt good for the power providers.  Antarctica explorers found they had to wear white to reflect cold.  And white also reflects the heat, more than 10c difference in most situations.  On my leaving the police Force I argued with them on going to darker cars and black uniforms.  Unfortunately it's style and looks over practicalities.


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 December 2018)

Sdajii said:


> If you look at CO2 and temperature, there is a correlation, but temperature leads CO2, not the other way around



That may well be true but I very much doubt that past increases in temperature caused something (humans or other) to then mine and burn lots of coal, oil and/or natural gas.

What we're doing there clearly isn't something that was part of any past natural cycle and this time around we do indeed have a situation where CO2 is being pushed up before temperature, not the reverse, because humans are directly taking lots of carbon from the ground, combining it with oxygen from the air and releasing it as CO2.

There's likely going to be some sort of consequence from doing that.

In any event, even if CO2 makes absolutely zero difference to heat retention, there's still rather a lot of other good reasons to move away from fossil fuels. CO2 is far from being the only problem there and for that matter temperature isn't the only problem with CO2.


----------



## bellenuit (11 December 2018)

explod said:


> Yes have noted dark tiled roov's for years, they absorb heat and cold, bt good for the power providers.  Antarctica explorers found they had to wear white to reflect cold.




I'm not arguing, but how do you reflect cold? Cold is not a thing, but the absence of heat.


----------



## Sdajii (11 December 2018)

explod said:


> So Sdaji, the effect of trees is ignored.
> 
> Over the last 100 years here in Western Victoria the increasing dryer periods correlate with the thinning out of trees.  I've put up on ASF many times the anger of my Father at Premier Henry Bolte allowing the ball and chains to clear the Heytesbury area.  The farmers way back knew and in fact 10 years later we had our first drought there (1966/7).   My Grandfather on a farm at Diggera West, north west of Bendigo was likewise political on this subject.  You can have your scientists no worries but the people on the land (on the ground if you like) see, feel and are directly affected by it, they know.
> 
> ...




These posts are beyond bizarre.

You try to convince me of things I've already myself pointed out in just my previous few posts in this very thread.

Well done, I agree. Congratulations, you joined me and said stuff I agree with, although acting as though I don't agree was a peculiar twist I don't see the point of.

The last point though, I don't agree with. I don't necessarily disagree with it either, but in reality we don't have enough evidence to say whether the majority of the current movements are natural or manmade. We do know that huge climate shifts occur naturally. We can not be sure what would currently be happening without human influence, but we can be sure that what is currently happening would not be unusual without human influence. We don't have a control planet for comparison.

I do agree that we are rapidly causing huge destruction of the planet and we should stop. I have no doubt that we will not stop. I don't for a minute think that CO2 is a relevant concern in the current situation. I totally agree that land clearing is a massive issue, arguably the biggest and certainly in the top few.


----------



## Sdajii (11 December 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> That may well be true but I very much doubt that past increases in temperature caused something (humans or other) to then mine and burn lots of coal, oil and/or natural gas.
> 
> What we're doing there clearly isn't something that was part of any past natural cycle and this time around we do indeed have a situation where CO2 is being pushed up before temperature, not the reverse, because humans are directly taking lots of carbon from the ground, combining it with oxygen from the air and releasing it as CO2.
> 
> There's likely going to be some sort of consequence from doing that.




As a scientist, I see no evidence for that, and some nobody like you isn't going to change my mind. In terms of greenhouse gases it is irrelevant. It will help plants grow faster which will probably be its main effect.

Absolutely, what humans are doing is in many ways unprecedented, and there are some big concerns. CO2 doesn't rank highly.



> In any event, even if CO2 makes absolutely zero difference to heat retention, there's still rather a lot of other good reasons to move away from fossil fuels. CO2 is far from being the only problem there and for that matter temperature isn't the only problem with CO2.




Yes and no, but importantly: The argument is moot because right or wrong, it won't change the fact that people will just go with what's cheapest, and perhaps slap a tax on it along the way while using it anyway, and attitudes like yours still allow CO2 to be the distraction away from the actually important issues which you fail to make your focus. But that sort of comes back to the previous point which is that it wouldn't change anything anyway, it would just mean that rather than focussing on the distraction and whinging about it, we'd be focussing on the actual problem which our whinges did nothing. The main difference to me would be that I'd feel a bit more content watching the majority of people talking about the issue being correct while the world goes to Hell.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 December 2018)

Sdajii said:


> As a scientist, I see no evidence for that




One approach is to seek evidence that something did not occur. This seems to be the approach you are referring to with your comment that you have seen no evidence.

An alternative approach is to seek evidence that something did occur. Suffice to say I have seen no evidence, and am not aware of any credible claim from anyone else to the effect, that past warming of the earth was followed by large scale combustion of fossil fuels.

If we can find ruins of ancient civilisations, dinosaur bones and so on then it seems somewhat remarkable that we have failed to find any trace whatsoever of multiple previous efforts at large scale fossil fuel extraction and use. At least some evidence of it having existed would have survived surely be that in the form of equipment or simply the site of coal mines etc. Thus far the best we've come up with is very limited use in China 3000 years ago which is nowhere even remotely close to the scale that would be required.

I note in that context that achieving the large scale extraction and use of fossil fuels also requires that materials capable of withstanding high temperatures and pressures exist as well as some actual purpose which warranted this large scale activity.

I see no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that such a thing ever took place beyond perhaps a trivial scale collecting coal and oil naturally found on or very close to the surface.

There is of course an alternative explanation for rising CO2 levels after warming which does not involve fossil fuels at all. 



> some nobody like you isn't going to change my mind.




That statement may however clarify a number of points in the minds of others.



> Yes and no




Yes to what and no to what?



> attitudes like yours still allow CO2 to be the distraction away from the actually important issues which you fail to make your focus.




An interesting observation given that I have previously commented on this forum that CO2 is just one of the many problems we have environmentally, the big one being that humans are using too much of just about everything as the inevitable consequence of too many people each carrying out too much activity. That's unsustainable no matter how it's powered.

Even with CO2, temperature change isn't the only problem with it. That it's somewhat acidic is a problem in itself if the concentration is increased sufficiently.

Fossil fuels were, of course, a problem long before mainstream concern about CO2. Whilst nuclear fission turned out to be largely a dud alternative, it's simply too expensive, that's not a reason to not seek other alternatives.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 December 2018)

bellenuit said:


> I'm not arguing, but how do you reflect cold? Cold is not a thing, but the absence of heat.



It's not about reflecting cold but about not dissipating heat as effectively.


----------



## Sdajii (12 December 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> One approach is to seek evidence that something did not occur. This seems to be the approach you are referring to with your comment that you have seen no evidence.
> 
> An alternative approach is to seek evidence that something did occur. Suffice to say I have seen no evidence, and am not aware of any credible claim from anyone else to the effect, that past warming of the earth was followed by large scale combustion of fossil fuels.
> 
> If we can find ruins of ancient civilisations, dinosaur bones and so on then it seems somewhat remarkable that we have failed to find any trace whatsoever of multiple previous efforts at large scale fossil fuel extraction and use. At least some evidence of it having existed would have survived surely be that in the form of equipment or simply the site of coal mines etc. Thus far the best we've come up with is very limited use in China 3000 years ago which is nowhere even remotely close to the scale that would be required.




Seriously, WTF? Whatever you're smoking, stop.



> I note in that context that achieving the large scale extraction and use of fossil fuels also requires that materials capable of withstanding high temperatures and pressures exist as well as some actual purpose which warranted this large scale activity.
> 
> I see no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that such a thing ever took place beyond perhaps a trivial scale collecting coal and oil naturally found on or very close to the surface.




Are your ramblings due to a bizarre belief that prehistoric fluctuations in CO2 levels actually had anything to do with fossil fuel burning???



> There is of course an alternative explanation for rising CO2 levels after warming which does not involve fossil fuels at all.




In other news, water is wet. Perhaps you can teach us maths too and reveal the mystery of 1 + 1



> An interesting observation given that I have previously commented on this forum that CO2 is just one of the many problems we have environmentally, the big one being that humans are using too much of just about everything as the inevitable consequence of too many people each carrying out too much activity. That's unsustainable no matter how it's powered.




Wow, and I thought 'water is wet' was an example of an obvious statement, but there you go, you've outdone me, though since you weren't saying it in an ironic context it's a bit of a worry. 



> Fossil fuels were, of course, a problem long before mainstream concern about CO2. Whilst nuclear fission turned out to be largely a dud alternative, it's simply too expensive, that's not a reason to not seek other alternatives.




Where did I say we shouldn't seek alternatives?


----------



## explod (12 December 2018)

Sdajii said:


> These posts are beyond bizarre.
> 
> You try to convince me of things I've already myself pointed out in just my previous few posts in this very thread.
> 
> .




I apologize for this.  Totally missed one of your posts just prior which caused a bad misread of another on my part.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 December 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> That may well be true but I very much doubt that past increases in temperature caused something (humans or other) to then mine and burn lots of coal, oil and/or natural gas.
> 
> What we're doing there clearly isn't something that was part of any past natural cycle and this time around we do indeed have a situation where CO2 is being pushed up before temperature, not the reverse, because humans are directly taking lots of carbon from the ground, combining it with oxygen from the air and releasing it as CO2.
> 
> ...




https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/11362


----------



## Darc Knight (12 December 2018)

Sdajii said:


> Seriously, WTF? Whatever you're smoking, stop.
> 
> Are your ramblings due to a bizarre belief that prehistoric fluctuations in CO2 levels actually had anything to do with fossil fuel burning???
> 
> ...




I'm giving you a few likes, not because I agree with you but as recognition of your contribution.
Your smooth talking as per above does make me laugh.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 December 2018)

Sdajii said:


> Are your ramblings due to a bizarre belief that prehistoric fluctuations in CO2 levels actually had anything to do with fossil fuel burning???



It’s your argument not mine that increases in temperature cause CO2 to go up.

My argument is that the present practice of extracting large amounts of carbon and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere is in no way comparable to any known and understood past occurrence and is justified cause for at least some level of concern.

Your point about temperature leading CO2 is thus a strawman so far as the question of fossil fuel extraction and use is concerned unless you can demonstrate that such activity played a role in the past cycles you reference. My contention is that there is no evidence that large scale fossil fuel use was a part of any previous cycle.

Your claims of certainty as to the future on matters as diverse as the atmosphere and commodity markets are quite bizarre really. Hopefully they are an act and intended to entertain in which case yes, you’re fairly good at playing the character.

If it’s not an act then life will deliver some rude shocks at some point that’s for sure. Arrogance precedes a downfall. That’s an observation of life not a personal threat.


----------



## Knobby22 (12 December 2018)

The only other person I have heard expound the theory in Australia that global warming causes a rise in carbon dioxide rather than the other way around is ex Senator Malcolm Roberts, ex coal miner and founder of the Galileo society.
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/who_we_are.php

The theory was developed by Roy Spencer.https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer. He is also involved with the creationists and regularly makes the rounds at the Heartlands institute denialist conferences. the Heartland Institute was of course sponsored by Exxon and Philip Morris. As we know the same people who were paid to deny smoking caused cancer became the main speakers for climate change denial. As always, follow the money.


----------



## Sdajii (12 December 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> It’s your argument not mine that increases in temperature cause CO2 to go up.




It's not 'my argument' - just go grab a chart of temperature and CO2 levels from google right now and use your eyeballs to confirm that temperature leads CO2, not the other way around. You can play around with explanations of that phenomenon if you like.



> My argument is that the present practice of extracting large amounts of carbon and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere is in no way comparable to any known and understood past occurrence and is justified cause for at least some level of concern.




I do not disagree with this, but all reasonable assessments find no reason to be alarmed and absolutely none in the context of what people are jumping up and down about. The main issue with the increased levels of CO2 is how it may affect plant growth. Probably not a giant concern and possibly even a good thing.



> Your point about temperature leading CO2 is thus a strawman so far as the question of fossil fuel extraction and use is concerned unless you can demonstrate that such activity played a role in the past cycles you reference. My contention is that there is no evidence that large scale fossil fuel use was a part of any previous cycle.




Do you even know what a strawman argument is? This paragraph is too bizarre and nonsensical to respond to. 



> Your claims of certainty as to the future on matters as diverse as the atmosphere and commodity markets are quite bizarre really. Hopefully they are an act and intended to entertain in which case yes, you’re fairly good at playing the character.




Bizarre is that in your imagination, despite in the real world I have pointed out that climate is a wildly complex and unpredictable thing, your reality has me predicting the future climate with certainty. Could you tell me what my predictions were in your fantasy reality? Sort of curious to know what my character is like. As for my oil price predictions, don't call me crazy before I turn out to be correct.



> If it’s not an act then life will deliver some rude shocks at some point that’s for sure. Arrogance precedes a downfall. That’s an observation of life not a personal threat.




Take a look in the mirror


----------



## Skate (12 December 2018)

Sdajii said:


> Seriously, WTF? Whatever you're smoking, stop.




@Sdajii - Seriously, WTF?

To keep this thread civil I'll assume WTF is an acronym for "*W*ay *T*o *F*unny"

*On a sad note*
A friend sent me a text the other day informing me that his wife passed away.
To show I cared I sent a return text..  *LOL*
How was I to know it didn't stand for *L*ots *O*f *L*ove

Needless to say - I'm no longer on his Christmas Card List.

*I do Know this*
WTF comes directly after Monday, Tuesday...

Skate.


----------



## PZ99 (12 December 2018)

I once asked a friend if I could see her next Tuesday - she said "no you can't"


----------



## bellenuit (12 December 2018)

A rise in CO2 being led by an increase in temperature does not preclude an increase in CO2 causing temperatures to rise. That’s just an example of positive feedback.


----------



## satanoperca (12 December 2018)

Maybe there is a simple answer, trying to digest all that is in this thread. CO2, Fossil fuels etc.

How about we just plant a shi----------------------------t load more trees, they use the CO2, convert it into a usable material and clean the air.

Could it be that simple?

Is that the earth is warming, or that we burn a lot of fossil fuels not be the real issue, we have deforested the earth, the natural mechanism for keeping things in balance.

Could a govnut propose not a tax, but impose for X amount of fossile fuels we burn we have to plant X amount of trees.

Crap, I am just simple of mind, it cannot be a solution.

Carry on with you thoughts


----------



## PZ99 (12 December 2018)

satanoperca said:


> Maybe there is a simple answer, trying to digest all that is in this thread. CO2, Fossil fuels etc.
> 
> How about we just plant a shi----------------------------t load more trees, they use the CO2, convert it into a usable material and clean the air.
> 
> ...



Something like this ?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/02/tony-abbott-green-army-recruiting-drive


----------



## satanoperca (12 December 2018)

F---k me, Abbot of all people, however, YES, great initiative. Simple, productive and engaging.

So if Abbot is wrong and planting trees doesn't help, who cares, we have more nature and trees, that is a good thing.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 December 2018)

satanoperca said:


> How about we just plant a shi----------------------------t load more trees, they use the CO2, convert it into a usable material and clean the air.




Yes, and stop mass felling of the forests that we already have.


----------



## Macquack (12 December 2018)

Sdajii said:


> As a scientist, I see no evidence for that, and some *nobody* like you isn't going to change my mind.



Smurf is not a "nobody". In fact, he is the number 1 technical "go to man" on ASF. He is modest to boot and you should take a leaf out of his book instead of mouthing off with rubbish like this:-


> Seriously, WTF? Whatever you're smoking, stop.


----------



## Sdajii (12 December 2018)

bellenuit said:


> A rise in CO2 being led by an increase in temperature does not preclude an increase in CO2 causing temperatures to rise. That’s just an example of positive feedback.




It also doesn't preclude it causing global cooling. It doesn't say anything. Your statement is pointless.


----------



## Sdajii (12 December 2018)

Macquack said:


> Smurf is not a "nobody". In fact, he is the number 1 technical "go to man" on ASF. He is modest to boot and you should take a leaf out of his book instead of mouthing off with rubbish like this:-




If he's the go to man for stock technicals then by all means go to him for that. I am a really good geneticist, but that doesn't make me anything more than a nobody when it comes to car mechanics. He clearly has no grasp on climate science, regardless of how modest you imagine he is.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 December 2018)

Sdajii said:


> I am a really good geneticist, but that doesn't make me anything more than a nobody when it comes to car mechanics.




But you are a self appointed expert on climate science ? Or do you think climate change is a genetic phenomena ?


----------



## Sdajii (12 December 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> But you are a self appointed expert on climate science ? Or do you think climate change is a genetic phenomena ?




A great deal seems to go over your head, unless you make many attempts at trolling.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 December 2018)

Sdajii said:


> A great deal seems to go over your head, unless you make many attempts at trolling.




In case you didn't read the NASA report on temperature/co2 lead/lag, here it is again.

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/11362

It indicates that there are two separate processes whereby temperature can either lead or lag CO2.

Do you acknowledge that this is correct or not ?


----------



## qldfrog (12 December 2018)

explod said:


> I did not say any of what you put up at all qldfrog.  It's pretty evident that the miss quotes are posted in order to nullify the real positions put forward.



My sincere apology, it was Basilio in post 231, does not change the overall point and no it was notr fake news, just an honest mistake


----------



## qldfrog (12 December 2018)

and before getting shot in flame, if anyone care reading my point about CO2 being a consequence not a cause, it still means we need to stop burning fossil fuels..AND NUCLEAR
but can leave the cows farting as much as they like..
a subtle difference but who wants subtle when there are so many agendas behind these positions.
Basically Mankind needs to stop releasing stored energy but it has nothing to do with the resulting CO2.I am just mad at people being taken for a ride for ideology purpose, be it in science or in daily news


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 December 2018)

bellenuit said:


> A rise in CO2 being led by an increase in temperature does not preclude an increase in CO2 causing temperatures to rise. That’s just an example of positive feedback.



Indeed.

There are natural cycles, nobody would sensibly dispute that, but the points of concern are:

1. Humans don't fully understand all natural processes indeed there are almost certainly things going on we don't even know exist.

As an example even something as seemingly simple as the explanation for why droughts occur in south-eastern Australia has been significantly altered in recent years due to improved knowledge. That's just one example of how we didn't fully understand it in the past even when we thought we knew. Likewise at some future time we'll probably realise there were things we didn't understand in 2018.

2. Among many other changes to the natural environment we are increasing the concentration of CO2, CH4 (methane), NOx (various oxides of nitrogen) and an assortment of synthetic gases and many other things in the atmosphere.

Concern about potential consequences of this change is not unreasonable given that it is for practical purposes irreversible and so far as is known has no historical precedent. That does not justify unwarranted alarmism but equally it does not justify dismissing the issue.

With regard to the "other" matters which have come up, I will politely note that this is a discussion forum not a lecture and it is perfectly reasonable and to be expected that what I or anyone else posts will be queried by those who either don't understand what is being said or who hold an opposing view.

Opposing views are of course to be expected and are perfectly reasonable since whether the subject is the financial markets or something else, the vast majority of threads on ASF deal with the future not the past and as such are dealing with subjects where the ultimate outcome is not known with certainty. We can be factual about yesterday's weather or what the price of copper was last week but we can't be certain what will happen at any future time. That opposing views will exist is thus inevitable and that's by no means a bad thing.

As such explaining the data and thought process being applied is often of far more value than the actual conclusion.


----------



## Sdajii (12 December 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> In case you didn't read the NASA report on temperature/co2 lead/lag, here it is again.
> 
> https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/11362
> 
> ...




It's an interesting article. Just read the first paragraph (by all means read the whole thing, but for now, just look at the first paragraph). It says that before the last 200 years or so (the industrial age), the temperature lead CO2, not the other way around. That's billions of years. That shows us what's going on. It shows that temperature is the cause, CO2 is not the cause. That's exactly what it says. This is an important point. Read it from me in this post or my previous posts or the NASA article or other sources. Take as much time as it takes to understand this important point.

Okay, once you understand that, now consider that CO2, which has not actually legitimately been shown to have a significant affect on temperature (it's the other way around, according to both me and your own source) has been introduced by an auxiliary source, which makes it a red herring in the whole picture. It is not going to cause anything to happen, and it is not indicative of the climate either. It is from the burning of fossil fuels. It is the first time ever in the history of the planet that it has happened, and nothing about that particular part of the picture indicates that anything in particular will come of it, indeed, NASA's own data extremely strongly demonstrates the opposite.

Assuming you did actually grasp the concept given in your own article, which backs up what I have been saying, that CO2 naturally lags rather than leads, we have overwhelming evidence that CO2 does not cause a runaway greenhouse effect. This is a very simple concept, and an important one worth understanding, so take the time to do it.

Okay, so we all agree that CO2 lags temperature, right? So, *after* the temperature goes up, CO2 goes up. Not before, after. Now, if the narrative of CO2 *causing* increased temperatures was true, this would indeed cause a runaway greenhouse effect, which is what the mainstream narrative says. However, we have literally a billion years of data showing this has never, ever happened, despite many many many cycles of the temperature going up, CO2 going up, and then the temperature going down. This blatantly, clearly screamingly obviously shows that CO2 does not cause a runaway effect. We have a huge number of real world demonstrations of this fact in the history of this very planet. Not mathematical models with financial and political bias, but real empirical data.

I'm glad you found an article from a source you trust which demonstrates this (albeit unwittingly), because it beautifully backs up what I'm saying.

If you still don't understand this, please feel free to ask about these two important points again, because they are quite important, fundamental, disprove the narrative and are very tangible. You don't need to believe me on anything, your own data and even the smallest most basic amount of self reasoning clearly show it.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 December 2018)

Sdajii said:


> If you still don't understand this, please feel free to ask about these two important points again, because they are quite important, fundamental, disprove the narrative and are very tangible. You don't need to believe me on anything, your own data and even the smallest most basic amount of self reasoning clearly show it.




I don't know, one of us must not be getting the point that pre the industrial age humanity did not have the means to release large amounts of co2 into the atmosphere. 

Agree or not ?


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 December 2018)

qldfrog said:


> Basically Mankind needs to stop releasing stored energy but it has nothing to do with the resulting CO2.I am just mad at people being taken for a ride for ideology purpose, be it in science or in daily news



It certainly passes the "commonsense test" as a concept that releasing steadily increasing amounts of heat and an observed warming of the earth are quite likely connected.

If you add up all the sources then it's a massive amount of heat we're adding directly to the air plus also to the sea and as evaporated water. It's going to have an effect on something almost certainly.


----------



## Sdajii (12 December 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't know, one of us must not be getting the point that pre the industrial age humanity did not have the means to release large amounts of co2 into the atmosphere.
> 
> Agree or not ?




No, I don't agree with your statement that one of us fails to realise preindustrial age humans did not release large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Please, please, stop banging on about this completely and utterly irrelevant piece of trivia as though it was somehow relevant to anything at all, or as though I was disagreeing, or anyone at all was disagreeing.


----------



## IFocus (12 December 2018)

Sdajii next lines from report

"
*In the post-industrial age, the opposite is true. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is leading to increased temperature.* So two different things happened, one pre-industrial, where temperature was driving the CO2, and post-industrial, where CO2 was driving temperature. Which means a completely different physical-biological process is going on. And we don't understand what the consequence of that change is.

It is a fundamental change to how the earth works and the earth's radiation balance works. And so, we're very concerned because we don't see any restraining force on continued increase in temperature due to continued increase in CO2. And that's a problem."


----------



## bellenuit (12 December 2018)

Sdajii said:


> It also doesn't preclude it causing global cooling. It doesn't say anything. Your statement is pointless.




Hardly. You were suggesting that if temperatures rises preceded CO2 rises, then CO2 rises could not be the cause of increased temperatures. I just pointed out that was a non-sequitur. If CO2 rises caused global cooling, then you would have negative feedback, which clearly is not the case. Increased temperatures ==> increased in CO2 ==> reduction in temperatures. We know from the science that increased CO2 leads to increased temperatures.

Perhaps if you were not so ignorantly bombastic in your opinions you might actually learn something.


----------



## Darc Knight (12 December 2018)

I'm beginning to like Sdajii, he reminds me of @Tisme


----------



## satanoperca (12 December 2018)

Oh please he is nothing like Tisme, he can at least construct a discussion that the majority can follow, whether we agree or not.


----------



## Sdajii (12 December 2018)

I choose not to argue with a galah.



bellenuit said:


> Hardly. You were suggesting that if temperatures rises preceded CO2 rises, then CO2 rises could not be the cause of increased temperatures. I just pointed out that was a non-sequitur. If CO2 rises caused global cooling, then you would have negative feedback, which clearly is not the case. Increased temperatures ==> increased in CO2 ==> reduction in temperatures. We know from the science that increased CO2 leads to increased temperatures.






The reason CO2 rises can't be the cause of temperature rises is because if that was so, every time temperatures have risen over the last billion years, and CO2 levels inevitably rise, it would have cause a runaway, permanent effect. We can observe that this has never happened. We can observe that every time the temperature goes up and the CO2 levels rise in a lagging pattern, the temperature always comes back down. This shows that either high levels of CO2 cause global cooling (extremely unlikely) or CO2 levels are irrevelant or at least of very little impact (very obviously the case).

What "we know from science" about increased CO2 causing increased temperatures has been disproven by empirical evidence many many times. True 'science' doesn't say this, just biased narratives. I've worked with climate scientists, I've seen this nonsense, but you don't need to believe me, just look at the actual clear empirical data.



> Perhaps if you were not so ignorantly bombastic in your opinions you might actually learn something.




Take a look in the mirror. Also, using 'big words' like bombastic isn't really that impressive, it's not working on me, sorry.


----------



## Sdajii (12 December 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> I'm beginning to like Sdajii, he reminds me of @Tisme




I consider that a compliment. To Tisme.


----------



## luutzu (12 December 2018)

qldfrog said:


> about trees, you are right explod, especially in Australia, but in Europe and northern America, tree cover is increasing dramatically and has been in the last 50y




Is that before or after the recent bushfires they had?


----------



## bellenuit (12 December 2018)

Sdajii said:


> The reason CO2 rises can't be the cause of temperature rises is because if that was so, every time temperatures have risen over the last billion years, and CO2 levels inevitably rise, it would have cause a runaway, permanent effect.




Again a non-sequitur. It would only cause a runaway effect if in a closed environment with no other contributing factors. But that is clearly not the case with Earth. Increases in CO2, while directly increasing temperature, will cause other factors to come into play, such as increased plant growth which  extracts heat from the surroundings. Increased CO2 will effect other greenhouse gases either directly or through the temperature increase it causes and they in turn will effect positively or negatively non-gaseous related factors such as heat radiation from the Earth back into space 

A simple Google search will tell you why CO2 traps heat. That is proven science. But there are hundreds of factors that cause temperatures to vary and both the increased temperature itself and increased CO2 can bring into play some of those factors that create a negative feedback to the temperature.

Clearly over the last 200,000 years, these feedback mechanisms have kept the temperature within a range that allows life to thrive, but that does not mean that an imbalance could not cause the temperature to drift out of a life sustaining range.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 December 2018)

Sdajii said:


> What "we know from science" about increased CO2 causing increased temperatures has been disproven by empirical evidence many many times.



What about CH4 (methane)?

What about N2O (nitrous oxide)?

What about water vapour?

Fossil fuels are the largest source of methane emissions and second largest source of nitrous oxide emssions (US figures since I don't have a global one) so to partial extent are wrapped up in the CO2 issue due to a common source. Fossil fuel use is also a source of water vapour emissions.


----------



## Sdajii (12 December 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Again a non-sequitur. It would only cause a runaway effect if in a closed environment with no other contributing factors. But that is clearly not the case with Earth. Increases in CO2, while directly increasing temperature, will cause other factors to come into play, such as increased plant growth which  extracts heat from the surroundings. Increased CO2 will effect other greenhouse gases either directly or through the temperature increase it causes and they in turn will effect positively or negatively non-gaseous related factors such as heat radiation from the Earth back into space




Largely agreed. At least we agree that CO2 doesn't cause a runaway greenhouse effect. This is a common myth.



> A simple Google search will tell you why CO2 traps heat. That is proven science. But there are hundreds of factors that cause temperatures to vary and both the increased temperature itself and increased CO2 can bring into play some of those factors that create a negative feedback to the temperature.




Yes, a simple google search will reveal that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This fact is shouted from the rooftops and overblown ad. nauseam. Other greenhouse gases are far more important. Water is a far, far more significant greenhouse gas. CO2 is basically irrelevant as a greenhouse gas. If it wasn't, we'd all be dead long ago. Yes, CO2 is a chemically active gas which does some things such as promoting plant growth which reduces temperature.



> Clearly over the last 200,000 years, these feedback mechanisms have kept the temperature within a range that allows life to thrive, but that does not mean that an imbalance could not cause the temperature to drift out of a life sustaining range.




Not merely 200,000 years. Billions of years. In the rare case where the balance does get thrown incredibly out of whack by a stupendous event such as a celestial impact, the system brings itself back to that nice range, which totally kills the 'OMG, it's becoming unstoppable!' myth. Especially in the context of CO2.


----------



## Sdajii (12 December 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> What about CH4 (methane)?
> 
> What about N2O (nitrous oxide)?
> 
> ...




What about them?

Water is by far the most important one here, and obviously (I think it's obvious to anyone who has tried to look into it?) water is a gas which very quickly sorts itself out in the hydrosphere, and is obviously an extremely important gas in the regulation and stability of the climate.


----------



## IFocus (14 December 2018)

Increasing CO2  equals ocean acidification  equals end of human kind.....but the earth will go on happily with out us....the end


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 December 2018)

IFocus said:


> Increasing CO2  equals ocean acidification



Yep there's plenty of problems with fossil fuels even if CO2-induced warming turns out to not be one of them.


----------



## qldfrog (18 December 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> If you add up all the sources then it's a massive amount of heat we're adding directly to the air plus also to the sea and as evaporated water. It's going to have an effect on something almost certainly.



yes basically the released heat by burning oil, gas, wood and nuclear in the volume of air of the atmosphere is consistent within my computation with the actual global warming observed.I did the computation 3 y ago so can not be sure if it still applies, but as it is an extra input, it makes perfect sense for it to have a definite effect, the only way it may not happen is if all this extra heat get dispersed 100% in space, but THAT makes no scientific sense so my conclusion of CO2 being an effect not a cause, and glasshouse effect not being  the key point(it probably has a small effect but as opposed to steam in the atmosphere and cloud cover, I bet probably not that much
This is heresy in the current polarised world to say that, and who seems to care with truth when ideology dominate...we still need to stop burning fossil fuels anyway...And stop uranium too
sorry for the delay, just back


----------



## basilio (19 December 2018)

qldfrog said:


> yes basically the released heat by burning oil, gas, wood and nuclear in the volume of air of the atmosphere is consistent within my computation with the actual global warming observed.I did the computation 3 y ago




Well Qfrog if you can demonstrate the that all of the current extra heat has been caused by just the burning  of fossil fuels you have a Nobel prize in your hands.
From everything I understand it just isn't the case. I did see a paper which investigated the direct effect of the heat released by combustion. It appeared to be around 1% of the extra warming that we are experiencing.

Check out this analysis. Also worth reading the comments.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Waste-heat-vs-greenhouse-warming.html


----------



## qldfrog (20 December 2018)

basilio said:


> Well Qfrog if you can demonstrate the that all of the current extra heat has been caused by just the burning  of fossil fuels you have a Nobel prize in your hands.
> From everything I understand it just isn't the case. I did see a paper which investigated the direct effect of the heat released by combustion. It appeared to be around 1% of the extra warming that we are experiencing.
> 
> Check out this analysis. Also worth reading the comments.
> ...



will do when I have the time, I posted my computation on this site a few years ago; very simple: every bit of energy or nearly consumed in the world end up in heat..well we have pushed some rocks up hills, transformed some ore into metals etc so a little bit of the energy we use is stored in chemical, or potential energy, we send light/radiation  in space but overall all of it ends up in heat within the atmosphere;
your car from engine to frictions, any heater obviously or 
compute the volume of atmosphere, heat it with the energy released by human energy consumption, assume that the previous system (before human) was in equilibrium (solar/core energy released vs space radiation losses) and your added energy matched the observed temperature increase
Thanks for the link


----------



## Ann (22 December 2018)

Sorry Bas, I am still not feeling too good with the concussion. This is all very serious stuff not to be taken lightly. Until I feel up to a real and energetic response with you I am going to rest. I need to regain my strength and then...back with you. In the meantime, look after yourself and yours over the next number of days and hopefully some time in the new year we will get back to the joust. Bless.


----------



## basilio (23 December 2018)

Ann said:


> Sorry Bas, I am still not feeling too good with the concussion. This is all very serious stuff not to be taken lightly. Until I feel up to a real and energetic response with you I am going to rest. I need to regain my strength and then...back with you. In the meantime, look after yourself and yours over the next number of days and hopefully some time in the new year we will get back to the joust. Bless.




Well that is no fun .. Certainly sounds like a significant concussion.
Hope your Christmas is good and that your kids and hubby are rallying around to take the load... seriously..


----------



## Darc Knight (23 December 2018)

I know old Footballers suffer from head knocks (memory loss etc) as they age, but I've been knocked out or chooked out over a dozen times but never was I told I couldn't post on an internet forum. Just jump back up, run back into the defensive line or keep on swinging 

This new generation, too much cotton wool 

i better go check how WSI is doing


----------



## Ann (23 December 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> I know old Footballers suffer from head knocks (memory loss etc) as they age, but I've been knocked out or chooked out over a dozen times but never was I told I couldn't post on an internet forum. Just jump back up, run back into the defensive line or keep on swinging
> 
> This new generation, too much cotton wool
> 
> i better go check how WSI is doing




You are a cheeky little bugger DK! Still now you tell me about all your head knocks, it explains a lot! 
I find if I do any amount of 'critical' thinking, as in trying to learn something or read something critically I get profound headaches and just have to lie down and do nothing. It was suggested not to read, watch TV, use computers or otherwise stimulate my brain. I could think as in a type of day dream state but not a deep thinking state. This was all instructions from my doctor as it appears doing the preceeding can actually cause lasting brain damage. Plus I am reasonably old so the body and brain takes time to recover.


----------



## Darc Knight (23 December 2018)

Ann said:


> You are a cheeky little bugger DK! Still now you tell me about all your head knocks, it explains a lot!
> I find if I do any amount of 'critical' thinking, as in trying to learn something or read something critically I get profound headaches and just have to lie down and do nothing. It was suggested not to read, watch TV, use computers or otherwise stimulate my brain. I could think as in a type of day dream state but not a deep thinking state. This was all instructions from my doctor as it appears doing the preceeding can actually cause lasting brain damage. Plus I am reasonably old so the body and brain takes time to recover.




Yeah sorry Ann, we do love you and I'm being a bit of a bugger perhaps. Just blame it on my head knocks and various other calamities I've suffered. 
Take care @Ann - seriously


----------



## rederob (13 January 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Yes, a simple google search will reveal that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This fact is shouted from the rooftops and overblown ad. nauseam. Other greenhouse gases are far more important. Water is a far, far more significant greenhouse gas. CO2 is basically irrelevant as a greenhouse gas. If it wasn't, we'd all be dead long ago. Yes, CO2 is a chemically active gas which does some things such as promoting plant growth which reduces temperature.



CO2 is by far the most *serious *GHG because it's the one which makes the greatest contribution to *warming*.  (Methane is more powerful but shortlived, and also breaks down to CO2 and water.)
While water vapour is the largest contributor to a warming effect, it is a *feedback *and therefore cannot of itself do other than vary as temperature varies.
I have no idea what this - about CO2 - means:"*If it wasn't, we'd all be dead long ago.*"
I took some time to read through much of this thread and it seems that those who deny climate science use information from sites which simply refuse to use peer reviewed material.


----------



## cynic (13 January 2019)

rederob said:


> ...
> I took some time to read through much of this thread and it seems that those who deny climate science use information from sites which simply refuse to use peer reviewed material.



Would you care to point out a few of the offending posts, so that the merits of the information presented, and/or sources thereof, may be discussed?


----------



## rederob (14 January 2019)

cynic said:


> Would you care to point out a few of the offending posts, so that the merits of the information presented, and/or sources thereof, may be discussed?



Yes, here's a classic which thinks a simple google search proves his point - and it's from a person who says he was a scientist and worked with climate scientists:


Sdajii said:


> This is a highly complex and controversial topic, but it sure as heck is not CO2. If you look at CO2 and temperature, there is a correlation, but temperature leads CO2, not the other way around (don't believe me, just google some graphs of CO2 and climate throughout prehistory and you'll see the pattern). CO2 has a negligible impact on the greenhouse phenomenon.



First, this topic is *not *controversial in climate science, only in the blogosphere or wherever science deniers congregate.  Glaciation and deglaciation occur at different rates and there are dozens of science papers explaining these natural processes.  Determining the lags is the tricky part as there are so many factors in play.
Second, if there was logic to the claim, then what is now evident would be impossible.
Finally, there is zero science to the claim that "*CO2 has a negligible impact on the greenhouse phenomenon*".  You either deny completely there is a greenhouse effect, or you accept that the yardstick for measuring a greenhouse effect is the CO2 molecule.

<edited to add "the" to a sentence for clarity>


----------



## Darc Knight (14 January 2019)

Careful @rederob , debating Cynic in this thread is more akin to debating a Scientologist.


----------



## rederob (14 January 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Careful @rederob , debating Cynic in this thread is more akin to debating a Scientologist.



I shall stick to the science, so will be intrigued to see what comes back.


----------



## Ann (14 January 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Careful @rederob , debating Cynic in this thread is more akin to debating a Scientologist.



 Funny you say that DK, it always feels like the 'TrooBleevrs' sound and behave like a cult to me.


----------



## Darc Knight (14 January 2019)

Ann said:


> Funny you say that DK, it always feels like the 'TrooBleevrs' sound and behave like a cult to me.




Well Scientists backed by countless peer reviewed scientific research does tend to make a good case.


----------



## Ann (14 January 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Well Scientists backed by countless peer reviewed scientific research does tend to make a good case.



I will get back to that comment a bit later on.....keep the number of 97 people firmly in your mind!


----------



## Darc Knight (14 January 2019)

Ann said:


> I will get back to that comment a bit later on.....keep the number of 97 people firmly in your mind!




Hope it's better than your previous arguments. I am always prepared to listen to reasonable arguments. Problem is "the deniers" don't seem to be able to mount a reasonable one - probably why countless Governments are onboard as believers too.


----------



## Ann (14 January 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Hope it's better than your previous arguments. I am always prepared to listen to reasonable arguments. Problem is "the deniers" don't seem to be able to mount a reasonable one - probably why countless Governments are onboard as believers too.



It is the tax revenue Governments are on board with DK.


----------



## sptrawler (14 January 2019)

Well as some have said in the past, including myself, some of this climate change may be due the Earth moving on its axis. To have it move from the coast of Canada to the middle of the Arctic ocean, heading towards Russia, is a fair bit of a shift. IMO 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01...hift-forces-arctic-navigation-update/10712742

From the article:
Compass needles point towards the north magnetic pole, a point which has crept unpredictably from the coast of northern Canada a century ago to the middle of the Arctic Ocean, moving towards Russia.

"It's moving at about 50km a year. It didn't move much between 1900 and 1980 but it's really accelerated in the past 40 years," Ciaran Beggan, of the British Geological Survey (BGS) in Edinburgh, said.


----------



## rederob (14 January 2019)

cynic said:


> Would you care to point out a few of the offending posts, so that the merits of the information presented, and/or sources thereof, may be discussed?



I went back to see what your contributions were.
I could not see you link to a scientific contribution, but you made some personal claims about Cook's consensus paper at the outset.
However, the issue of consensus is *not *science.
What would be relevant in the context of the thread would be to show that *science got it wrong*. 
Can you oblige?


----------



## SirRumpole (14 January 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Well as some have said in the past, including myself, some of this climate change may be due the Earth moving on its axis. To have it move from the coast of Canada to the middle of the Arctic ocean, heading towards Russia, is a fair bit of a shift. IMO
> 
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01...hift-forces-arctic-navigation-update/10712742
> 
> ...




But the magnetic pole can move independently of the geographic pole can't it ?

The geographic pole is the axis of rotation, whereas the magnetic pole depends on the concentration of magnetic materials in the earth's center.


----------



## Ann (14 January 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Well as some have said in the past, including myself, some of this climate change may be due the Earth moving on its axis. To have it move from the coast of Canada to the middle of the Arctic ocean, heading towards Russia, is a fair bit of a shift. IMO
> 
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01...hift-forces-arctic-navigation-update/10712742
> 
> ...



Interesting sptrawler. I was looking at Google earth recently from as far away as I could get. I had a look at the North Pole and was amazed at the lack of ice and then looking at the South Pole it was enormous and almost creeping up to the bottom of South America. Possibly the build up of ice at the South Pole may be causing the shift, ice is a great sink, might be building up magnetic metals? Dunno, just musing.


----------



## sptrawler (14 January 2019)

Ann said:


> Interesting sptrawler. I was looking at Google earth recently from as far away as I could get. I had a look at the North Pole and was amazed at the lack of ice and then looking at the South Pole it was enormous and almost creeping up to the bottom of South America. Possibly the build up of ice at the South Pole may be causing the shift, ice is a great sink, might be building up magnetic metals? Dunno, just musing.



The say it is caused by a shift of liquid iron in the earths core, which in turn moves the earths centre of gravity, thereby causing a shift of the rotational axis.


----------



## rederob (14 January 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> But the magnetic pole can move independently of the geographic pole can't it ?
> 
> The geographic pole is the axis of rotation, whereas the magnetic pole depends on the concentration of magnetic materials in the earth's center.



Yes, it moves a fair bit each year and has nothing to do with climate change.


----------



## sptrawler (14 January 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> But the magnetic pole can move independently of the geographic pole can't it ?
> 
> The geographic pole is the axis of rotation, whereas the magnetic pole depends on the concentration of magnetic materials in the earth's center.




I would have thought one is a function of the other, if it is caused by a shift of a rotating mass.
If the centre of gravity changes, I would expect the axis of rotation to  move with it. But I haven't studied it at all, just going off applied mechanics.
One thing I do know, IMO we are having a terrific summer in Perth, very mild.


----------



## Logique (14 January 2019)

Damn you global warming! 







> BBC weather: *Extreme Arctic snow sparks panic in Europe* after '-33C temperature plunge'
> Europe is suffering a blitz of snow chaos - with several countries declaring a state of emergency after blizzards and avalanches claimed dozens of lives.
> By: Oli Smith, Sat, *Jan 12*, *2019*: https://www.express.co.uk/news/weat...reme-snow-Europe-forecast-temperature-subzero
> Snow chaos wreaking havoc throughout Europe is set to get worse this weekend amid panic across the continent. The devastating snowfall has caused a transport crisis, stranded entire towns and left at least 21 people dead. This comes as forecasters predict that the *record-setting subzero Arctic blast will continue to get worse*...


----------



## Ann (14 January 2019)

Logique said:


> Damn you global warming!
> View attachment 91328



Hence the reason they are re-branding it as 'Climate Change' Logique. 

_It's just a jump to the left
And then a step to the right
With your hands on your hips
You bring your knees in tight
But it's the pelvic thrust
That really drives you insane
Let's do the time-warp again
Let's do the time-warp again_


----------



## rederob (14 January 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I would have thought one is a function of the other, if it is caused by a shift of a rotating mass.
> If the centre of gravity changes, I would expect the axis of rotation to  move with it. But I haven't studied it at all, just going off applied mechanics.
> One thing I do know, IMO we are having a terrific summer in Perth, very mild.



There is no change to the mass of the liquid core, so *gravity is not affected*.


----------



## rederob (14 January 2019)

Ann said:


> Hence the reason they are re-branding it as 'Climate Change' Logique.



Climate change will be increasingly more responsible for severe weather events.  That means more all time record cold events, as well as hottest events.
Unfortunately those denying climate science were using use any and all "*cold*" records and events to show that warming was not geographically consistent across the globe.


----------



## cynic (14 January 2019)

rederob said:


> I went back to see what your contributions were.
> I could not see you link to a scientific contribution, but you made some personal claims about Cook's consensus paper at the outset.





> However, the issue of consensus is *not *science.



I quite agree, consensus is most definitely not science. 
Regretfully, many climate choristers are seemingly oblivious to the importance of such distinctions!


> What would be relevant in the context of the thread would be to show that *science got it wrong*.
> Can you oblige?



So it's now, somehow, up to me, to disprove the existence of your chosen climate demon/s?!!

Tell you what! If you can disprove the existence of the fallen angel Lucifer, I will happily accept your challenge.

Care to oblige?


rederob said:


> I shall stick to the science, so will be intrigued to see what comes back.




http://science.sciencemag.org/content/299/5613/1728


----------



## Logique (14 January 2019)

rederob said:


> .._Climate change will be increasingly more responsible for severe weather events _...



And there we have it. In the mind of the alarmist, whether hot or cold, there's no way to disprove their doctrine of 'climate change'.
Take that 'deniers' (which is not a Holocaust allusion at all)


----------



## Knobby22 (14 January 2019)

Logique said:


> And there we have it. In the mind of the alarmist, whether hot or cold, there's no way to disprove their doctrine of 'climate change'.
> Take that 'deniers' (which is not a Holocaust allusion at all)



Yes, there is only measurements which shows warming and sea levels rising.

Seen  Antarctica at the present moment? Massive ice melt, and scientists are surprised. Not meant to be happening this quickly.


----------



## Ann (14 January 2019)

rederob said:


> Climate change will be increasingly more responsible for severe weather events.  That means more all time record cold events, as well as hottest events.
> Unfortunately those denying climate science were using use any and all "*cold*" records and events to show that warming was not geographically consistent across the globe.




The atmosphere and climate of earth is always changing, rotating from ice ages to warmer periods over the last four and a half billion years. Severe climate change, weather events, tectonic shifts and volcanic eruptions are continually forming and reforming the earth. The power of earth, the planets and the solar system combined, create a massive force of nature. The thought of any efforts by a puny little micro-organism such as humans being able to have any effect on this immense force of nature is simply laughable.  It is a bedtime story for the kiddies and a revenue raiser for governments.


----------



## Knobby22 (14 January 2019)

Ann said:


> The atmosphere and climate of earth is always changing, rotating from ice ages to warmer periods over the last four and a half billion years. Severe climate change, weather events, tectonic shifts and volcanic eruptions are continually forming and reforming the earth. The power of earth, the planets and the solar system combined, create a massive force of nature. The thought of any efforts by a puny little micro-organism such as humans being able to have any effect on this immense force of nature is simply laughable.  It is a bedtime story for the kiddies and a revenue raiser for governments.



If only we knew the cause of the last 30 years very fast warming[emoji6].


----------



## rederob (14 January 2019)

Logique said:


> And there we have it. In the mind of the alarmist, whether hot or cold, there's no way to disprove their doctrine of 'climate change'.
> Take that 'deniers' (which is not a Holocaust allusion at all)



Science has it that adding more energy to something will affect an outcome.  The planet has measurably warmed and many long-term weather patterns are now different.  Changes to the regular pattern of the Arctic Jet Stream, for example, create the phenomena of "bomb-cyclones".
So in fact, more extreme weather events are wholly consistent with climate science.


----------



## Junior (14 January 2019)

Ann said:


> The atmosphere and climate of earth is always changing, rotating from ice ages to warmer periods over the last four and a half billion years. Severe climate change, weather events, tectonic shifts and volcanic eruptions are continually forming and reforming the earth. The power of earth, the planets and the solar system combined, create a massive force of nature. The thought of any efforts by a puny little micro-organism such as humans being able to have any effect on this immense force of nature is simply laughable.  It is a bedtime story for the kiddies and a revenue raiser for governments.




Yet, these puny little micro-organisms have managed to clear MORE THAN HALF of Earth's forested areas.

You can barely tell that we're here.


----------



## Ann (14 January 2019)

Junior said:


> Yet, these puny little micro-organisms have managed to clear MORE THAN HALF of Earth's forested areas.
> 
> You can barely tell that we're here.




Probably one of the issues for the increase in CO2, not enough grasslands or forests to sequester the CO2. Not to worry, the next major iceage will probably see most of the human race out with disease, famine, wars and other assorted little events the earth uses to cull unwanted viruses which have grown too big for their boots.


----------



## Ann (14 January 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> If only we knew the cause of the last 30 years very fast warming[emoji6].



It will be a natural phenomenon, one which has been repeated over and over for the last 4.5 billion years of earth's existence and certainly over the last 200,000 years of the virus we know as humans having been here.


----------



## rederob (14 January 2019)

Ann said:


> It will be a natural phenomenon, one which has been repeated over and over for the last 4.5 billion years of existance and certainly over the last 200,000 years of the virus we know as humans having been here.



Yes, *natural *beings caused an industrial revolution to ensure the cycle of consumption sustained increases to the global CO2 footprint by digging out coal and burning it, and by drilling oil from beneath the ground and consuming it.
Not sure where these naughty folk were 4.5 billion years ago or, for that matter, that there was ever a cycle spawned by self-combustible coal and oil previous to humans getting in on the act.
Are you creating a fake news cycle Ann?


----------



## aussymatt (14 January 2019)

I'm not one to believe in this global warming but I must say it's pretty F#$King hot at the moment in NE Victoria!


----------



## Ann (14 January 2019)

rederob said:


> Yes, *natural *beings caused an industrial revolution to ensure the cycle of consumption sustained increases to the global CO2 footprint by digging out coal and burning it, and by drilling oil from beneath the ground and consuming it.
> Not sure where these naughty folk were 4.5 billion years ago or, for that matter, that there was ever a cycle spawned by self-combustible coal and oil previous to humans getting in on the act.
> Are you creating a fake news cycle Ann?




I may well be Rob, caution is recommended!  
Mind you the increase in CO2 levels may have been caused by those naughty folk back during the industrial revolution who invented the tractor and harvestor who were able to clear fell thousands and thousand of acres in no time of CO2 sequstering grass lands and forests using a few litres of oil in their tractors and harvestors, then bringing home the crops, popping them in the cooking pot over some hot coals in the fireplace.


----------



## rederob (14 January 2019)

Ann said:


> I may well be Rob, caution is recommended!
> Mind you the increase in CO2 levels may have been caused by those naughty folk back during the industrial revolution who invented the tractor and harvestor who were able to clear fell thousands and thousand of acres in no time of CO2 sequstering grass lands and forests using a few litres of oil in their tractors and harvestors, then bringing home the crops, popping them in the cooking pot over some hot coals in the fireplace.



Well, that actually got underway proper in the 20th century as until then an exceptionally small fraction of total coal/oil available was consumed.  Indeed average coal/oil consumption in the 20th century pales in comparison with the 21st century.




In any case we can isotopically separate the CO2 emanating from "natural" sources compared with human use of fossil fuels, so we are pretty sure it remains an anthropic contribution causing the CO2 accumulation.


----------



## Ann (14 January 2019)

rederob said:


> Well, that actually got underway proper in the 20th century as until then an exceptionally small fraction of total coal/oil available was consumed.  Indeed average coal/oil consumption in the 20th century pales in comparison with the 21st century.
> 
> In any case we can isotopically separate the CO2 emanating from "natural" sources compared with human use of fossil fuels, so we are pretty sure it remains an anthropic contribution causing the CO2 accumulation.



Then we are pretty much on the same page Rob but you come from an emanating contribution of CO2 and I come from a sequestering point of view. Having said that, scientists nowhere can conclusively prove CO2 is responsible for any natural climatic event. 

What is happening and has been happening for over two decades is a massive investment into universities and the study of Global Warming/Climate Change.

Post grad students can apply for study grants for whatever subject appeals to them to continue their studies for higher qualifications. If someone is interested in the study of Puffins and their natural breeding habits, one of the best ways to secure a grant is to apply for the grant saying they wish to study Puffins and their breeding habits related to Global Warming. There is a fairly high chance they will get that grant to study the Puffins. Therefore yet another study has been made of Global Warming and its effects (or not). If not, the results will not be reported other than to say there was a study of Puffins breeding cycle related to Global Warming has been presented. By implication suggesting Puffins may be at risk caused by Global Warming or nowadays, the updated name for GW, Climate Change.


----------



## Macquack (14 January 2019)

Ann said:


> It will be a natural phenomenon, one which has been repeated over and over for the last 4.5 billion years of earth's existence and certainly over the last 200,000 years of the virus we know as humans having been here.



Ann, are you a Christian?


----------



## Ann (14 January 2019)

Macquack said:


> Ann, are you a Christian?



I have studied ethics with a very intelligent Rabbi for many years. His belief is that creation happened around 5,760 years ago. That would then suggest Jesus who was also Jewish must have believed creation started around 3720 years prior to his birth. It is suggested we became an agrarian society about 8,000 to 10,000 years ago in Egypt. Belief systems and facts may not always be synonymous with each other. Religion and facts need always to be a mute argument in order to support a belief system.


----------



## Joules MM1 (14 January 2019)

funny thread


----------



## Joules MM1 (14 January 2019)

silly me, this is the correct video ...the one above this is completely wrong


----------



## rederob (14 January 2019)

Ann said:


> ... Having said that, scientists nowhere can conclusively prove CO2 is responsible for any natural climatic event.



  Sorry Ann, that is not a logical sense, so I cannot respond.


Ann said:


> What is happening and has been happening for over two decades is a massive investment into universities and the study of Global Warming/Climate Change.



There is zero evidence for this claim.  I have seen it raised time and again and it is total nonsense.  Both the USA and Australia have been cutting research funding as well as mainstream jobs related to climate.  Furthermore, climate has always been a very narrow field of study with very few openings to full time work.  Smart people can earn significantly more elsewhere than is possible in the field of climate.


Ann said:


> If someone is interested in the study of Puffins and their natural breeding habits, one of the best ways to secure a grant is to apply for the grant saying they wish to study Puffins and their breeding habits related to Global Warming.



This is another nonsense claim.  I suggest you talk to a few Vice Chancellors as they will sort you out quick smart.  Grants are incredibly competitive in academia and research proposals are rigorously scrutinised.
I am surprised that people still trot out these rubbish ideas.


----------



## rederob (15 January 2019)

cynic said:


> I quite agree, consensus is most definitely not science.
> Regretfully, many climate choristers are seemingly oblivious to the importance of such distinctions!
> 
> So it's now, somehow, up to me, to disprove the existence of your chosen climate demon/s?!!
> ...



I deal with science.
You offer none.
I do not waste my time with pretenders.


----------



## cynic (15 January 2019)

rederob said:


> I deal with science...



That's great to hear! 
Can I expect to see some science from you anytime soon?


----------



## Darc Knight (15 January 2019)

cynic said:


> That's great to hear!
> Can I expect to see some science from you anytime soon?




I was privately warned you like to troll. You don't disappoint


----------



## SirRumpole (15 January 2019)

cynic said:


> That's great to hear!
> Can I expect to see some science from you anytime soon?





Why should anyone bother, you would just say the science is biased.


----------



## rederob (15 January 2019)

cynic said:


> That's great to hear!
> Can I expect to see some science from you anytime soon?



My most recent link was at post #345.
However, you seem oblivious to science so it's no mystery that you missed it. 
Is there a point where you will make a relevant comment?
Evidence in this thread suggests you are incapable.
Your ineptitude showed through after you linked to an article (without comment) from 2003, which was already covered in an article I had earlier linked to about the same type of issue, but mine was from 2013.
So far you are on a hiding to nothing from what I and others visiting here can see.


----------



## sptrawler (15 January 2019)

The one interesting fact, is how emotional people get, about something obviously no one is an expert on.


----------



## rederob (15 January 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Why should anyone bother, you would just say the science is biased.



Let's see what cynic can do.
Most trolls prove themselves to be totally inept, and evidence thus far for cynic appears to be compelling.
I carry no truck with word salad, poor logic, obfuscation  or misdirection.  So far cynic has a perfect score.


----------



## rederob (15 January 2019)

sptrawler said:


> The one interesting fact, is how emotional people get, about something obviously no one is an expert on.



Please call me out if I appear emotional.
The one interesting fact nowadays is that most of us here know how to research using the internet.  So become an *expert *at that to introduce the science which is readily available and which you rely on when making a claim on a particular matter.


----------



## sptrawler (15 January 2019)

rederob said:


> Please call me out if I appear emotional.
> .




Please don't take it personally, it was a general observation.


----------



## cynic (15 January 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Why should anyone bother, you would just say the science is biased.



You do me an injustice, Sir. 

I would never accuse science of being biased. It would be nonsensical to do so.

Bias (a.k.a. prejudice within this particular context) is to my understanding the sole province of sentient beings.



rederob said:


> My most recent link was at post #345.
> However, you seem oblivious to science so it's no mystery that you missed it.
> Is there a point where you will make a relevant comment?
> Evidence in this thread suggests you are incapable.
> ...



It seems that we may be on different pages of different hymn books in this discussion. 
Perhaps we have a different understanding of the definition of commonly used words. 
Would you care to aid the progression of this discussion by disclosing your understanding of the meaning of the word science?!


----------



## Darc Knight (15 January 2019)

sptrawler said:


> The one interesting fact, is how emotional people get, about something obviously no one is an expert on.




Cynic's trolling is generally viewed as an annoyance. A coward getting his jollies from behind a keyboard. The emotion this time around is amusement.


----------



## rederob (15 January 2019)

cynic said:


> It seems that we may be on different pages of different hymn books in this discussion.
> Perhaps we have a different understanding of the definition of commonly used words.
> Would you care to aid the progression of this discussion by disclosing your understanding of the meaning of the word science?!



Please read #365.
You retain your perfect score.


----------



## sptrawler (15 January 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> The emotion this time around is amusement.



Yes, what I was getting at, is a lot of threads drift into emotionally driven debate, rather than outcome driven.
Somewhat like the Trump threads, they are basically just rant threads IMO, I think those threads that are all of a general nature about the same subject, should be rolled into one.
Otherwise finding information becomes awkward.
Just my opinion.
Just looking through page 1 on the General Thread, there are 3 threads saying the same thing about global warming and three threads on Donald Trump saying the same thing.
Why not have a Global Warming thread and a Donald Trump thread, it would make it a lot easier, unless people just like repeating themselves.


----------



## cynic (15 January 2019)

rederob said:


> Please read #365.
> You retain your perfect score.



I have read it, and am greatly concerned when purported "scientists" choose, in lieu of solid rebuttals to the longer standing research, to publish their personal inferences.

I eagerly await your definition of science!

Or perhaps you believe yourself to be providing this demonstratively throughout your postings?!

If so, there exists a word far better suited to that which you are practicing!


----------



## rederob (15 January 2019)

cynic said:


> I have read it, and am greatly concerned when purported "scientists" choose, in lieu of solid rebuttals to the longer standing research, to publish their personal inferences.
> 
> I eagerly await your definition of science!
> 
> ...



You again offer nothing - retaining your perfect score.
Others seem amused.


----------



## cynic (15 January 2019)

rederob said:


> You again offer nothing - retaining your perfect score.
> Others seem amused.



That certainly seems a very apt description of someone.

Perhaps that same someone has gotten me confused with one of these:
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Oval-Wal...rors-Wall-Decor-Art-For-Living-Room/374721382

Edit: corrected insert


----------



## rederob (15 January 2019)

cynic said:


> That certainly seems a very apt description of someone.
> 
> Perhaps that same someone has gotten me confused with one of these:
> https://www.walmart.com/ip/Oval-Wall-Mirror-Framed-Decorative-Mirrors-Wall-Decor-Art-For-Living-Room/37472138 https://www.walmart.com/ip/Oval-Wal...rors-Wall-Decor-Art-For-Living-Room/374721382



https://www.walmart.com/ip/Oval-Wal...rors-Wall-Decor-Art-For-Living-Room/374721382



rederob said:


> Please read #365.



QED


----------



## Joules MM1 (15 January 2019)

#science #actualscience #actualtestablescience

https://eos.org/articles/how-arctic-cyclones-change-the-sea-ice


----------



## cynic (15 January 2019)

More controversy brewing over that inconvenient hiatus:

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...nt-give-gop-internal-docs-on-climate-research


Joules, earlier this week, you posted an interesting video which indicated, amongst several things, that some research had been done whereby solar emissions and CO2 concentrations, had somehow been aligned, to demonstrate a correlation with global temperature variations.

I would be most interested to know more about the mechanism via which two quantities (solar radiance, CO2 gas), with distinctly different Units of Measure, were combined and reconciled into a single unit of measure.


----------



## explod (15 January 2019)

Joules MM1 said:


> #science #actualscience #actualtestablescience
> 
> https://eos.org/articles/how-arctic-cyclones-change-the-sea-ice



Of course, the increased temperatures are creating what I've described for a few years now, "the Displacement effect"  It's why a friend of mine, a scientist, told me two years ago that we would be all washed away in about five years.  Was a bit sceptical myself for awhile but I now know it's time to party.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 January 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I think those threads that are all of a general nature about the same subject, should be rolled into one.



Seems like a reasonable concept to me and helps avoids the issue discussed last year with General Chat taking over the forum whilst retaining the discussion as such.



> Why not have a Global Warming thread and a Donald Trump thread




Well depending on your perspective that's two threads discussing a lot of hot air..... 

One thing's for sure though, here's a real environmental problem that can be easily resolved by appropriate action from the company concerned and if needed a consumer boycott to assist in improving their attitude. Oh how ironic it all is - a "tech" company stuck in the 1960's with their business practices:

http://www.thebull.com.au/articles/a/79539-amazon-france-under-fire-for-destroying-unsold-goods.html


----------



## Joules MM1 (15 January 2019)

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...0711&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

"Antarctica contains enough ice to raise global sea levels by 57 meters if it ever all melted, a process that would require far higher temperatures than now and thousands of years."


----------



## Darc Knight (15 January 2019)

Some sobering research from NASA:

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 January 2019)

One thing I've noticed, which those with more knowledge could perhaps explain, is that we seem to be getting quite a few periods of sustained high temperatures covering pretty much the entire continent but failing to reach the capital cities on the coast.

Now I get it about cities being on the coast and the cooling effect of the oceans but nobody could say this summer has been extreme thus far in the cities, none have come close to breaking records for high temperatures meanwhile it's 49 degrees at Port Augusta today and similarly hot across a vast area inland.

It seems that we're setting new all time highs anywhere inland but not even getting close to past highs on the coast. We're in the midst of a major heatwave at the national level but right now, at 5pm AEST, Adelaide and Canberra are the only two capitals over 30 degrees.

As someone who's well aware of the effect on energy supply and consumption, overall it could be said that we're not seeing extreme heat where most people actually live. Thus far this season hasn't come anywhere near previous records, it's a long way short. Meanwhile it's seriously hot inland.


----------



## sptrawler (15 January 2019)

Joules MM1 said:


> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...0711&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter
> 
> "Antarctica contains enough ice to raise global sea levels by 57 meters if it ever all melted, a process that would require far higher temperatures than now and thousands of years."



Also the Earhts core is 6,000deg C, I hope that stays where it is.


----------



## rederob (15 January 2019)

cynic said:


> More controversy brewing over that inconvenient hiatus:



Your linked article was nearly 4 years old, not scientific, and the issue has been well and truly put to bed since.


----------



## explod (15 January 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> One thing I've noticed, which those with more knowledge could perhaps explain, is that we seem to be getting quite a few periods of sustained high temperatures covering pretty much the entire continent but failing to reach the capital cities on the coast.
> 
> Now I get it about cities being on the coast and the cooling effect of the oceans but nobody could say this summer has been extreme thus far in the cities, none have come close to breaking records for high temperatures meanwhile it's 49 degrees at Port Augusta today and similarly hot across a vast area inland.
> 
> ...



The average rise in overall temperature is stated at about 1.5 degrees.  The ocean expanse is so great that it holds things near to average.  I live at Warrnambool on the southern coast, my Sister lives at Bendigo and the last month has been about 10 deg above me here.  Having lived near the southern coast most of my later life I note my tomatoes live through winter.  At Bendigo they froze up.  So in my view there will not be a lot of noticeable variations as most of the populations live near coastal areas and so till things deteriorate a lot further.  At the poles in the past the ice sheets hundreds of feet thick were frozen solid and at the bottoms down to 60 celsius below.  This is what has changed dramatically and now causing the unsettled swirling effects.  Last year at this time, mid winter there were measurements of zero, (up 40 to 60 celsius above average).  Frightening in my view.

The other is cloud, much of which in nature comes from the trees.  So clear the trees and less rain of course but also less average cloud cover to reduce sun penetration.  Of course there are so many variables that all sides of the debate can find many pathways to suit their own desires and have learned that arguing is unproductive.

And on thread titles to round up the loose stock, I very much agree that there should only be one thread on "Climate Change" and called just that and perhaps to fully satisfy all another called "Global Warming".


----------



## rederob (15 January 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> One thing I've noticed, which those with more knowledge could perhaps explain, is that we seem to be getting quite a few periods of sustained high temperatures covering pretty much the entire continent but failing to reach the capital cities on the coast.



Smurf, I have not payed attention to the synoptic charts but the main culprit could be prevailing winds, *or* lack of them.  
It may be that capital cities are just a bit lucky at the moment, catching winds off the ocean in the middle of the day, rather than vice versa.
We in Brisbane have been happy with our lot, suffering only in the low 30s, albeit with pretty high humidity.


----------



## cynic (15 January 2019)

rederob said:


> Your linked article was nearly 4 years old, not scientific, and the issue has been well and truly put to bed since.




My understanding is that the reported findings from an investigation into the matter, although dated July 2018, were only very recently released.

Given that there were a number of significant findings, some of which reflected poorly on the integrity of NOAA's operational policies and/or adherence to same, I would surmise that it may be just a wee bit early to be trotting out the bedtime stories!

Since, you clearly consider yourself informed, would you care to share your opinion upon the appropriateness (or lack thereof) of employment of 90% confidence intervals in the analysis/evaluation of climate data!!!


----------



## Darc Knight (15 January 2019)

From NASA:

*How climate is changing*
Global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment. Glaciers have shrunk, ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier, plant and animal ranges have shifted and trees are flowering sooner.

Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occurring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves.
Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come, largely due to greenhouse gases produced by human activities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which includes more than 1,300 scientists from the United States and other countries, forecasts a temperature rise of 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.

According to the IPCC, the extent of climate change effects on individual regions will vary over time and with the ability of different societal and environmental systems to mitigate or adapt to change.

The IPCC predicts that increases in global mean temperature of less than 1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1 to 3 degrees Celsius) above 1990 levels will produce beneficial impacts in some regions and harmful ones in others. Net annual costs will increase over time as global temperatures increase.

"Taken as a whole," the IPCC states, "the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time." 
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/


----------



## explod (15 January 2019)

Joules MM1 said:


> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...0711&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter
> 
> "Antarctica contains enough ice to raise global sea levels by 57 meters if it ever all melted, a process that would require far higher temperatures than now and thousands of years."



Not too sure about that Joles"

"
"Antarctica is melting away," Rignot told CNN, "not just in a couple of places."
The research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that the rate of that ice loss has not been consistent, with ice disappearing faster in each successive decade. Ice loss in Antarctica has increased from 40 gigatons (a gigaton is one billion tons) per year from 1979-90 all the way up to 252 gigatons per year from 2009-17, a 6-fold increase.
And that melt-rate has been accelerating in the most recent decades, up 280% in the second half of the nearly 40 years compared to the first half, Rignot and his colleagues calculated."

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/14/world/climate-change-antarctica-ice-melt-twin-studies/index.html

And of late blocks the size of Tasmania have begun to break away.


----------



## sptrawler (15 January 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> From NASA:




At last, something from America, you don't bag.


----------



## Darc Knight (15 January 2019)

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change


----------



## Darc Knight (16 January 2019)

sptrawler said:


> At last, something from America, you don't bag.




On the contrary, don't think I''ve ever "bagged" any U.S. person on here except for Trump. The other day I was highlighting their new stealth sub, quoting Vince Lombardi etc.
But then again your tendency to twist facts and figures was pointed out in the property thread by a few people recently.


----------



## rederob (16 January 2019)

cynic said:


> My understanding is that the reported findings from an investigation into the matter, although dated July 2018, were only very recently released.



*Nothing *in your contribution was science.
Do you actually know what science is?


----------



## rederob (16 January 2019)

cynic said:


> Joules, earlier this week, you posted an interesting video which indicated, amongst several things, that some research had been done whereby solar emissions and CO2 concentrations, had somehow been aligned, to demonstrate a correlation with global temperature variations.
> 
> I would be most interested to know more about the mechanism via which two quantities (solar radiance, CO2 gas), with distinctly different Units of Measure, were combined and reconciled into a single unit of measure.



Go back to the video - around 12.45 in - and pause it to see the science papers which are referenced.  One of those is "*Geocarb III: A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time*", R. Berner and Z. Kothavala, American Journal of Science, Feb 2001.
Your idea about how "distinctly different Units of Measure, were combined and reconciled into a single unit of measure" is astonishing.  Do you have even a basic understanding of climate science, as you record to date is of gross ignorance.


----------



## cynic (16 January 2019)

rederob said:


> *Nothing *in your contribution was science.
> Do you actually know what science is?



Why do you ask? 

Seriously, would me knowing what science is, make so much as a single iota of difference to you?
If so, how so?

Anyhow, now might be an opportune moment, for you to consider acceding to my earlier invitation! Namely, to furnish your definition of science!

P.S. Throughout this recent dialogue, it seems that someone may have neglected to give due consideration to the title of this thread when formulating responses.


----------



## Darc Knight (16 January 2019)

cynic said:


> Why do you ask?
> 
> Seriously, would me knowing what science is, make so much as a single iota of difference to you?
> If so, how so?
> ...




Wow. You ask him for his definition of Science, then criticize him for asking you for yours.
You love this keyboard warrior stuff don't you!


----------



## cynic (16 January 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Wow. You ask him for his definition of Science, then criticize him for asking you for yours.
> You love this keyboard warrior stuff don't you!



Where did you get the impression that I had been asked to provide my definition of science? Can you point out any posts to this thread where such has occurred?


----------



## Darc Knight (16 January 2019)

cynic said:


> Where did you get the impression that I had been asked to provide my definition of science? Can you point out any posts to this thread where such has occurred?




Splitting hairs now are we. To quote your post: "would me knowing what science is, make so much as a single iota of difference to you?", in response to his post 393.

You love asking questions (trolling) but providing no substance.

It's a poor excuse for a Human who takes pleasure in taunting others. It's a poor excuse for a Man who does it from behind a keyboard. But that's you!


----------



## rederob (16 January 2019)

cynic said:


> Where did you get the impression that I had been asked to provide my definition of science? Can you point out any posts to this thread where such has occurred?



Your posts in this thread show a gross ignorance of science.
Irrespective of the thread title, nothing prevents anyone from presenting a position which is actually based on science.  However, that concept eludes you.
However, while consensus is not science per se, to propose the consensus is fictitious ("fake") would require evidence showing that the *scientific *claims made by the multitude of climate scientists who publish on climate matters, are deficient.  Exactly where is that evidence?
I realise some here suggest just one thread for "*climate change*".  But the specific focus of this one requires that those who support the title can show that the scientists have simply gotten it wrong.  So here we are at page 20 and there is nothing of merit from the deniers of climate science.


----------



## cynic (16 January 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Splitting hairs now are we. To quote your post: "would me knowing what science is, make so much as a single iota of difference to you?", in response to his post 393.
> 
> You love asking questions (trolling) but providing no substance.
> 
> It's a poor excuse for a Human who takes pleasure in taunting others. It's a poor excuse for a Man who does it from behind a keyboard. But that's you!



To quote post 393,"Do you actually know what science is?"

That was clearly a question to which either a yes, or a no, response could amply suffice, and as such did not appear to be seeking my definition of the word science.

In pointing this out, I wish to emphasize that I am not seeking to insult you, and I respectfully ask that you accord me the same courtesy.


----------



## Darc Knight (16 January 2019)

cynic said:


> To quote post 393,"Do you actually know what science is?"
> 
> That was clearly a question to which either a yes, or a no, response could amply suffice, and as such did not appear to be seeking my definition of the word science.
> 
> In pointing this out, I wish to emphasize that I am not seeking to insult you, and I respectfully ask that you accord me the same courtesy.




Perhaps provide some substance.
You do not show others courtesy by your continued trolling. You will be shown the same respect you afford others.


----------



## cynic (16 January 2019)

rederob said:


> Your posts in this thread show a gross ignorance of science.



Rather than continuing with the gratuitous insults, wouldn't it be preferable that you take the time to explain what you actually mean when you use the word "science"?



> Irrespective of the thread title, nothing prevents anyone from presenting a position which is actually based on science.



I believe we are in agreement on this.


> However, that concept eludes you.



Excuse me? What exactly are you saying here? To which concept do you refer and what is your basis for holding such an opinion?


> However, while consensus is not science per se, to propose the consensus is fictitious ("fake") would require evidence showing that the *scientific *claims made by the multitude of climate scientists who publish on climate matters, are deficient.  Exactly where is that evidence?



Please correct me if I have misunderstood you here, but,in an earlier post, did you not claim to have read this thread in its entirety (or words to that effect)?


> I realise some here suggest just one thread for "*climate change*".  But the specific focus of this one requires that those who support the title can show that the scientists have simply gotten it wrong.



 It just so happens that there are already several climate threads. Experience has shown that issues pertaining to one can often have relevance to many (sometimes all) others, precipitating the repetition of content across multiple threads.







> So here we are at page 20 and there is nothing of merit from the deniers of climate science.



Aha!

Spoken like a true "climate scientist".

That's the great thing about religion! One doesn't need to heed one's critics! All one needs do, is promptly dismiss them via accusations of heresy, and thereafter pay such heretics no mind!


----------



## Darc Knight (16 January 2019)

Cynic logic: "don't insult me but I'm allowed to insult you", "I can ask you a question but you aren't allowed to ask me a similar one".


----------



## cynic (16 January 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> ...
> You will be shown the same respect you afford others.



So from your stated sentiments, I presume, you will have no cause for complaint when someone responds to yourself  with a level of comtempt commensurate with that which you have so amply demonstrated.

Since you hold such a low opinion of myself, my demeanour, and my contributions, I strongly recommend that you avail yourself of this forum's "ignore" facility.


----------



## Darc Knight (16 January 2019)

cynic said:


> So from your stated sentiments, I presume, you will have no cause for complaint when someone responds to yourself  with a level of comtempt commensurate with that which you have so amply demonstrated.
> 
> Since you hold such a low opinion of myself, my demeanour, and my contributions, I strongly recommend that you avail yourself of this forum's "ignore" facility.




You started trolling me way back when you started the continued "Lucifer" and "repent" comments. Geez, I've provided more Science than you, the self appointed expert, trolling others.


----------



## rederob (16 January 2019)

cynic said:


> <your comments are below, with my responses in red>



Rather than continuing with the gratuitous insults,*  I think you are conflating how I have explained that you present nothing of merit here and appear to be scientifically inept. *wouldn't it be preferable that you take the time to explain what you actually mean when you use the word "science"?
*I said from the outset that I will respond to science.  Get a dictionary and look it up if you are having problems with the meaning of science.*

I believe we are in agreement on this. *We may be, but you offer nothing.*

Excuse me? What exactly are you saying here? To which concept do you refer *The concept mentioned immediately before the sentence, "presenting a position which is actually based on science." *and what is your basis for holding such an opinion?  *The continuous inability on your part to do as I stated.*

Please correct me if I have misunderstood you here, but,in an earlier post, did you not claim to have read this thread in its entirety (or words to that effect)?  *True, I skipped bits that seemed trivial or irrelevant.*
 It just so happens that there are already several climate threads.*  So what?* Experience has shown that issues pertaining to one can often have relevance to many (sometimes all) others, precipating the repetition of content across multiple threads.  *I will respond to any science you offer in a post where you make a claim pertinent to that science.  Just as I did at post #394 where you presented an astonishingly unscientific idea.*
Aha!

Spoken like a true "climate scientist".  *Actually, any competent person reading the thread would discover your many posts are mostly devoid of climate science., except to the extent that you are confused by it.*

That's the great thing about religion! One doesn't need to heed one's critics! All one needs do, is promptly dismiss them via accusations of heresy, and thereafter pay such heretics no mind!  *Yet you are so blind to your ignorance that you are unaware you have offered nothing relevant to climate science which may be dismissed.*


----------



## cynic (16 January 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> You started trolling me way back when you started the continued "Lucifer" and "repent" comments. Geez, I've provided more Science than you, the self appointed expert, trolling others.



I presume you are referring to the following (and/or other posts of that ilk):


Darc Knight said:


> Why aren't you prepared to spend a bit more just incase human induced global warming is real?






cynic said:


> Why aren’t you prepared to confess and receive absolution for all your sins, just in case Lucifer is real?




If that's how you define trolling, then I no longer consider your accusations offensive,  but I would like to reiterate my previous suggestion, namely that you avail yourself of this forum's ignore feature.


----------



## rederob (16 January 2019)

Somehow my computer posted a draft after the original, and I only write directly into a thread, so I have deleted this post.


----------



## Darc Knight (16 January 2019)

cynic said:


> I presume you are referring to the following (and/or other posts of that ilk):
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Your trolling of this thread, of both myself and others has been continuous - far greater than you deceitfully try to claim now. You are unfortunately a person who appears to enjoy taunting others, from behind a keyboard.


----------



## Ann (16 January 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Careful @rederob , debating Cynic in this thread is more akin to debating a Scientologist.






Darc Knight said:


> Hope it's better than your previous arguments. I am always prepared to listen to reasonable arguments. Problem is "the deniers" don't seem to be able to mount a reasonable one - probably why countless Governments are onboard as believers too.






Darc Knight said:


> I was privately warned you like to troll. You don't disappoint






Darc Knight said:


> Cynic's trolling is generally viewed as an annoyance. A coward getting his jollies from behind a keyboard. The emotion this time around is amusement.






Darc Knight said:


> On the contrary, don't think I''ve ever "bagged" any U.S. person on here except for Trump. The other day I was highlighting their new stealth sub, quoting Vince Lombardi etc.
> But then again your tendency to twist facts and figures was pointed out in the property thread by a few people recently.






Darc Knight said:


> Wow. You ask him for his definition of Science, then criticize him for asking you for yours.
> You love this keyboard warrior stuff don't you!






Darc Knight said:


> Splitting hairs now are we. To quote your post: "would me knowing what science is, make so much as a single iota of difference to you?", in response to his post 393.
> 
> You love asking questions (trolling) but providing no substance.
> 
> It's a poor excuse for a Human who takes pleasure in taunting others. It's a poor excuse for a Man who does it from behind a keyboard. But that's you!






Darc Knight said:


> Perhaps provide some substance.
> You do not show others courtesy by your continued trolling. You will be shown the same respect you afford others.






Darc Knight said:


> Cynic logic: "don't insult me but I'm allowed to insult you", "I can ask you a question but you aren't allowed to ask me a similar one".






Darc Knight said:


> You started trolling me way back when you started the continued "Lucifer" and "repent" comments. Geez, I've provided more Science than you, the self appointed expert, trolling others.






Darc Knight said:


> Your trolling of this thread, of both myself and others has been continuous - far greater than you deceitfully try to claim now. You are unfortunately a person who appears to enjoy taunting others, from behind a keyboard.




Ladies and gentlemen, may I illustrate the behaviour of a genuine Troll.
He inflames, irritates and adds virtually no value to any thread with this sort of behaviour.
This is is the sort of behaviour that can derail a thread and drive it into flaming arguments and name calling which so distress Joe and the other intelligent people here. If you have no respect for others DK, at least have some respect for Joe.

We have some highly intelligent people here with a good balance of opposing views. It makes for an interesting debate for the readers.

DK, unless you can 'value add' to a thread, please stay off it, Trolls are not welcome here on ASF.


----------



## Darc Knight (16 January 2019)

Ah Ann, everytime I or anyone else would try to post, your friend Cynic would troll with references to "Lucifer", "repenting" or generally try to continually find any nonsensical and non existent hole in anyone's argument without contributing anything of substance.


----------



## Knobby22 (16 January 2019)

cynic said:


> Spoken like a true "climate scientist".
> 
> That's the great thing about religion! One doesn't need to heed one's critics! All one needs do, is promptly dismiss them via accusations of heresy, and thereafter pay such heretics no mind!




There you go again, invoke religion when you are the one with "faith" and no science.  I know I am just feeding the troll.


----------



## sptrawler (16 January 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> But then again your tendency to twist facts and figures was pointed out in the property thread by a few people recently.




That's a bit hurtful, lol, no one on ASF would do that, we are all paragons of virtue.


----------



## Junior (16 January 2019)

Should this thread be closed, or perhaps the last couple of pages deleted?  There is nothing of substance being posted here any more.


----------



## rederob (16 January 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> There you go again, invoke religion when you are the one with "faith" and no science.  I know I am just feeding the troll.



Doubt it Knobby: there was no word salad to regurgitate.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 January 2019)

Ann said:


> Ladies and gentlemen, may I illustrate the behaviour of a genuine Troll.
> He inflames, irritates and adds virtually no value to any thread with this sort of behaviour.
> This is is the sort of behaviour that can derail a thread and drive it into flaming arguments and name calling which so distress Joe and the other intelligent people here. If you have no respect for others DK, at least have some respect for Joe.




I'll keep out of the "personal" discussion as I generally do but I'll say that in my opinion the great value and point of difference with ASF is that it has a history of civilized and polite discussion despite at times strongly opposing viewpoints.


----------



## rederob (16 January 2019)

Junior said:


> Should this thread be closed, or perhaps the last couple of pages deleted?  There is nothing of substance being posted here any more.



Specific links to climate science articles or directly about climate science since page 19 inclusive are found at the following posts"
363
376
381
384 
388
399 
391
A number of replies referenced these, and there was also a question on weather from Smurf.
cynic's contribution on science per se appears to be nil.
Given science is being linked in the last few pages, closing the thread seems premature.
Peripheral posts are largely about certain posters seemingly able to add little, or visibly adding nothing of merit.  This latter category will only diminish in reputation unless they want to be other than irrelevant.


----------



## Ann (16 January 2019)

Junior said:


> Should this thread be closed, or perhaps the last couple of pages deleted?  There is nothing of substance being posted here any more.



I would hope not Junior. I think it is important to see Trolls in action and how they can cause problems and encourage poor quality posts from people who follow the Troll.

I am hoping to get back here shortly and looking forward to some valuable discourse. I have learned so much about a subject which was barely a blip on my radar a short time ago. Now we have Rederob back and in so many ways he adds value to a thread and a forum. I also have enormous respect for Cynic, not forgetting basilio and WayneL and so many more good  and valuable posters. 

Off topic to Cynic, an anagram of Lucifer is Flueric

_*Flueric partial pressure sensors *

 
*Abstract*

A *flueric* partial pressure sensor includes a *flueric* bridge having two bridge legs adapted for sensing a reference-gas and sample-gas mixture. A linear resistor and an orifice resistor are incorporated in each of the bridge legs which are conjoined to discharge from a single outlet. The resistors are arranged to provide an asymmetric balance of the flow rates through the bridge legs. The asymmetric balance is selected so that in operation a constant pressure output signal is generated for a chosen partial pressure of a constituent gas of the sample-gas mixture in varying absolute pressure conditions such as changes in altitude. Respective pressure signal outlets connected one with each bridge leg at a position between the linear resistor and the orifice resistor are used to effect control of a *flueric* laminar flow proportional amplifier. 
_
Lucifer/flueric just sounds like a boring old fart to my dyslexic mind.


----------



## Darc Knight (16 January 2019)

Sorry guys. Cynic's taunting and nonsensical attacks on other people's posts was akin to bullying. It had gotten to the stage @rederob had stopped replying to him - which I guess was a part of Cynics tactic.
Wherever I see bullying, online or IRL I'll call it out, as should others.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 January 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Wherever I see bullying, online or IRL I'll call it out, as should others.



I haven't read all the comments but agreed in principle that yes anyone should call out bullying and that should be done no matter who the bully is.


----------



## Darc Knight (16 January 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> I haven't read all the comments but agreed in principle that yes anyone should call out bullying and that should be done no matter who the bully is.




Correct, and a few weeks ago I was a target of his nonsensical attcks.


----------



## wayneL (16 January 2019)

From one I consider an honest broker, on extreme weather events


----------



## rederob (16 January 2019)

wayneL said:


> From one I consider an honest broker, on extreme weather events[/MEDIA]



He is well credentialled to recognise weather events - no dispute.
However there is no science to suggest that the *number *of the type of weather events Pielke Jr talks about will increase, as it consistent with what we know.
Instead,  from the outset Pielke Jr notes increased numbers of *heatwaves*, and *extreme precipitation* events.  However he hides *extreme *events like heatwaves, by lumping them under droughts, while extreme precipitation is hidden by suggesting there are no more floods than usual.
It is a fact of physics that additional energy will alter the intensity of an event, and there is no way that can be got around.
I won't add too much more beyond the common knowledge in climate science that Pielke Jr is infamous for obfuscation and cherrypicking.  His misuse of data on insurance costs, especially relating to Munich Re, is legendary in the climate science community.


----------



## ghotib (17 January 2019)

rederob said:


> I won't add too much more beyond the common knowledge in climate science that Pielke Jr is infamous for obfuscation and cherrypicking.  His misuse of data on insurance costs, especially relating to Munich Re, is legendary in the climate science community.



It took a bit of digging to find that this video was published in 2013. That's not long ago in terms of weather or climate, but it is a long time in the story of an active area of scientific work such as attribution studies. Not saying that older studies are necessarily wrong or deliberately misleading, but they do need to be checked against more recent work., which is hard to do if you don't have dates to compare.


----------



## wayneL (17 January 2019)

ghotib said:


> It took a bit of digging to find that this video was published in 2013. That's not long ago in terms of weather or climate, but it is a long time in the story of an active area of scientific work such as attribution studies. Not saying that older studies are necessarily wrong or deliberately misleading, but they do need to be checked against more recent work., which is hard to do if you don't have dates to compare.



I know of more recent references, but will have to spend some time to dig them out.

Meanwhile, the climate "community" should be treat with the suspicion of any group with a political agenda.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 January 2019)

wayneL said:


> Meanwhile, the climate "community" should be treat with the suspicion of any group with a political agenda.




Of course, the "fossil fuel" community has no agenda ?


----------



## qldfrog (17 January 2019)

Tr


SirRumpole said:


> Of course, the "fossil fuel" community has no agenda ?



Treat both with suspicion.
They both have agendas and money involved.there is no robbin hood in life


----------



## qldfrog (17 January 2019)

Obviously, it is easier to see a save the planet sign as being honest
Like the current ads on tv for Sodastream...
learn to be able to have an INFORMED opinion
Make your mind, fear propaganda..the fake/true news


----------



## rederob (17 January 2019)

ghotib said:


> It took a bit of digging to find that this video was published in 2013. That's not long ago in terms of weather or climate, but it is a long time in the story of an active area of scientific work such as attribution studies. Not saying that older studies are necessarily wrong or deliberately misleading, but they do need to be checked against more recent work., which is hard to do if you don't have dates to compare.



The best place to start for a quick overview of attribution is *here*.  There are links to the 138 papers examined, but I never found WayneL's "*honest broker*" in the picture?


----------



## rederob (17 January 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Obviously, it is easier to see a save the planet sign as being honest
> Like the current ads on tv for Sodastream...
> learn to be able to have an INFORMED opinion
> Make your mind, fear propaganda..the fake/true news



Are you "*cynic*" reincarnate?  
Are you just offering opinions, or are you going to present some science to support how people can be better informed?


----------



## rederob (17 January 2019)

wayneL said:


> Meanwhile, the climate "community" should be treat with the suspicion of any group with a political agenda.



One of the many ploys of those who cannot mount an argument based on climate science.


----------



## wayneL (17 January 2019)

rederob said:


> One of the many ploys of those who cannot mount an argument based on climate science.



Not at all my unhappy friend.

I am 100% agreement with @qldfrog, all those with an agenda should be regarded with suspicion. Including CC gravy train riders, oil lobby, wind, solar, etc etc etc.


----------



## rederob (17 January 2019)

wayneL said:


> Not at all my unhappy friend.
> 
> I am 100% agreement with @qldfrog, all those with an agenda should be regarded with suspicion. Including CC gravy train riders, oil lobby, wind, solar, etc etc etc.



I have no care for baseless opinions which are equally devoid of logic.
Stump with some useful science instead of trotting out a has-been with nothing if recent merit in the area you cast him in.


----------



## wayneL (17 January 2019)

I dont walk to the beat of your drum who can never be convinced of anything outside if a specific narrative, rederob. There is enough discourse, sans your typical ad hominem elsewhere.

You have proven yourself unwilling for respectful and reasonable debate.


----------



## rederob (17 January 2019)

wayneL said:


> I dont walk to the beat of your drum who can never be convinced of anything outside if a specific narrative, rederob. There is enough discourse, sans your typical ad hominem elsewhere.
> 
> You have proven yourself unwilling for respectful and reasonable debate.



On the contrary.
I deal with reason.
You presented a link to a scientist well known for misuse of data, aside from the fact that what he presented was of little value given that so much more is available on the specific topic.
Get over yourself and present something relevant.


----------



## wayneL (17 January 2019)

rederob said:


> On the contrary.
> I deal with reason.
> You presented a link to a scientist well known for misuse of data, aside from the fact that what he presented was of little value given that so much more is available on the specific topic.
> Get over yourself and present something relevant.



 "deal with reason"


----------



## Ann (17 January 2019)

rederob said:


> Somehow my computer posted a draft after the original, and I only write directly into a thread, so I have deleted this post.



This can be a bit of a trap Rob, it is a feature of the forum which has mixed blessings. I have come to love it. If I have to leave a post half way and do something, I don't lose the post draft, even if I turn my computer off. The flip side is sometimes extra stuff is there and unseen, that can be a bit of a whoops sometimes.  

I haven't abandoned you or the thread, I am focusing on one of our earlier discussions and it is taking a lot of time-consuming research.  Have you read Ian Plimer's book Heaven+Earth?


----------



## rederob (17 January 2019)

Ann said:


> Have you read Ian Plimer's book Heaven+Earth?



No, I only read actual climate science literature.


----------



## basilio (17 January 2019)

Joules MM1 said:


> funny thread





As usual a great detailed point by point rebuttal. And of course so was the next video you cited.

The facts. The evidence. The science.
The Real science done by real scientists rather than the range of easily disproven assertions trying to create a new reality.


----------



## Joules MM1 (17 January 2019)

basilio said:


> As usual a great detailed point by point rebuttal. And of course so was the next video you cited.
> 
> The facts. The evidence. The science.
> The Real science done by real scientists rather than the range of easily disproven assertions trying to create a new reality.




yes, maybe, more than that.....it's always that one step....the step is the "balance" of knowledge he points out, not in a 'ha-ha-gottya' kinda way, just, what does the science say, how can we verify the science and what is there new (if anything should alter the pre-existing acceptance of the science) that might give us a different perspective


----------



## Ann (18 January 2019)

rederob said:


> No, I only read actual climate science literature.



Heaven + Earth certainly falls within that category Rob. It is most certainly all about climate science, it is written by Ian Plimer who is an Australian geologist, Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne, previously a professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide. He was Professor and Head of the Melbourne University, Professor and Head at the University of Newcastle. He has published more than 120 scientific papers and has been awarded the Eureka Prize (1995, 2002), the Centenary Medal (2003),the Clarke Medal (2004). He is very well qualified to write on this subject with authority.

Of course this book doesn't agree with your position on Climate Change, however I feel all intelligent debate can only take place when all parties have studied and are familiar with both sides of an argument. To only investigate opinions which are agreeable to one's own point of view is stultifying to intelligent argument. I am sure you would agree with that?


----------



## explod (18 January 2019)

Worth checking the following.  You are amid the Dud's Ann.  There is fact and there is fiction and they cannot be mixed.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/misinformers.php


----------



## rederob (18 January 2019)

Ann said:


> Of course this book doesn't agree with your position on Climate Change, however I feel all intelligent debate can only take place when all parties have studied and are familiar with both sides of an argument. To only investigate opinions which are agreeable to one's own point of view is stultifying to intelligent argument. I am sure you would agree with that?



I know Plimer.  
He has made no meaningful contribution to climate science that I am aware.  His geology credentials are excellent.
I am familiar with climate science and if there is a credible "argument" from the so called "other side", please offer it.


----------



## basilio (18 January 2019)

Ann said:


> Heaven + Earth certainly falls within that category Rob. It is most certainly all about climate science, it is written by Ian Plimer who is an Australian geologist, Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne, previously a professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide. He was Professor and Head of the Melbourne University, Professor and Head at the University of Newcastle. He has published more than 120 scientific papers and has been awarded the Eureka Prize (1995, 2002), the Centenary Medal (2003),the Clarke Medal (2004). He is very well qualified to write on this subject with authority.
> 
> Of course this book doesn't agree with your position on Climate Change, however I feel all intelligent debate can only take place when all parties have studied and are familiar with both sides of an argument. To only investigate opinions which are agreeable to one's own point of view is stultifying to intelligent argument. I am sure you would agree with that?




Ann Ian Plimer has no credibility with regard to discussing climate science and that book was a load of  bollocks. If you would like a more detailed analysis consider this review. But if you still want to consider this as "serious science" I'll totally understand.

_*No science in Plimer's primer*_

_By *Michael Ashley*_
_TheAustralian_
_1:00AM May 9, 2009_
_Heaven and Earth By Ian Plimer Connor Court, 503pp, $39.95 
ONE of the peculiar things about being an astronomer is that you receive, from time to time, monographs on topics such as "a new theory of the electric universe", or "Einstein was wrong", or "the moon landings were a hoax".
The writings are always earnest, often involve conspiracy theories and are scientifically worthless.

One such document that arrived last week was Ian Plimer's Heaven and Earth. What makes this case unusual is that Plimer is a professor -- of mining geology -- at the University of Adelaide. If the subject were anything less serious than the future habitability of the planet Earth, I wouldn't go to the trouble of writing this review.

Plimer sets out to refute the scientific consensus that human emissions of CO2 have changed the climate. He states in his acknowledgments that the book evolved from a dinner in London with three young lawyers who believed the consensus. As Plimer writes: "Although these three had more than adequate intellectual material to destroy the popular paradigm, they had neither the scientific knowledge nor the scientific training to pull it apart stitch by stitch. This was done at dinner."

This is a remarkable claim. If Plimer is right and he is able to show that the work of literally thousands of oceanographers, solar physicists, biologists, atmospheric scientists, geologists, and snow and ice researchers during the past 100 years is fundamentally flawed, then it would rank as one of the greatest discoveries of the century and would almost certainly earn him a Nobel prize. This is the scale of Plimer's claim.

Before reading any further, I examined Plimer's publication list on the University of Adelaide website to see what he has published in refereed journals. There are a scant 17 such papers since 1994, two as first author with the titles "Manganoan garnet rocks associated with the Broken Hill Pb-Zn-Ag orebody" and "Kasolite from the British Empire Mine". Absolutely nothing on climate science.

Now, before I am accused of attacking the man and not the argument, let me point out that scientists regard peer-reviewed journal publications as fundamental for advancing science. They allow ideas to be exchanged, tested, improved on and, quite frequently, discarded. If Plimer can do what he claims, and can prove that human emissions of CO2 have no effect on the climate, then he owes it to the scientific community and, in fact, humanity, to publish his arguments in a refereed journal.

Perhaps we will find a stitch-by-stitch demolition of climate science in his book, as promised? No such luck. The arguments that Plimer advances in the 503 pages and 2311 footnotes in Heaven and Earth are nonsense. The book is largely a collection of contrarian ideas and conspiracy theories that are rife in the blogosphere. The writing is rambling and repetitive; the arguments flawed and illogical.

He recycles a graph, without attribution, from Martin Durkin's Great Global Warming Swindle documentary, neglecting even to make the changes that Durkin made following an outcry over the fact that the past two decades of temperature measurements had been mysteriously deleted.

Plimer claims that scientists such as himself, who do not agree with the consensus, are labelled deniers, "yet their scientific doubts are not addressed". Nothing could be further from the truth. All of Plimer's arguments have been addressed ad nauseam by patient climate scientists on websites or in the literature.

To appreciate the errors in Plimer's book you don't have to be a climate scientist. For example, take the measurement of the global average CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This is obviously important, so scientists measure it with great care at many locations across the world.

Precision measurements have been made daily since 1958 at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, a mountain-top site with a clear airflow unaffected by local pollution. The data is in excellent agreement with ice cores from several sites in Antarctica and Greenland. Thousands of scientific papers have been written on the topic, hundreds of scientists are involved from many independent research groups.

Plimer, however, writes that a simple home experiment indoors can show that in a week, CO2 can vary by 75 parts per million by volume, equal to about 40 years' worth of change at the present rate. He thinks this "rings alarm bells" on the veracity of the Mauna Loa data, which shows a smoothly rising concentration.

While it is undoubtedly true that if you measure CO2 in your home it could vary by large amounts from day to day -- depending, for example, on whether you have the windows open or closed, or how many people are in the house at the time -- this is not the right way to measure a global average. That's why scientists go to mountain-tops or Antarctica or to the isolated Cape Grimm on the Tasmanian coast rather than measuring CO2 in their living rooms.

Incredible as it may seem, this quality of argument is typical of the book. While the text is annotated profusely with footnotes and refers to papers in the top journals, thus giving it the veneer of scholarship, it is often the case that the cited articles do not support the text. Plimer repeatedly veers off to the climate sceptic's journal of choice, the bottom-tier Energy and Environment, to advance all manner of absurd theories: for example, that CO2 concentrations actually have fallen since 1942.

Plimer believes "global warming" occurring on Mars, Triton, Jupiter and Pluto proves human emissions of CO2 don't affect Earth's climate. He believes that once CO2 levels reached 200ppmv (about half of today's value) the CO2 had absorbed almost all the infrared energy it could, and further increases will not have much effect. He believes global warming does not lead to biological stress. He believes volcanoes emit significant quantities of chlorofluorocarbons. He believes the sun formed on the collapsed core of a supernova. All these ideas are so wrong as to be laughable: they do not offer an "alternative scientific perspective".

Plimer probably didn't expect an astronomer to review his book. I couldn't help noticing on page120 an almost word-for-word reproduction of the abstract from a well-known loony paper entitled "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass". This paper argues that the sun isn't composed of 98 per cent hydrogen and helium, as astronomers have confirmed through a century of observation and theory, but is instead similar in composition to a meteorite.

It is hard to understate the depth of scientific ignorance that the inclusion of this information demonstrates. It is comparable to a biologist claiming that plants obtain energy from magnetism rather than photosynthesis.

Plimer has done an enormous disservice to science, and the dedicated scientists who are trying to understand climate and the influence of humans, by publishing this book. It is not "merely" atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for Plimer to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics. Plimer's book deserves to languish on the shelves along with similar pseudo-science such as the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken._

_Michael Ashley is professor of astrophysics at the University of NSW._


----------



## Ann (18 January 2019)

rederob said:


> I know Plimer.
> He has made no meaningful contribution to climate science that I am aware.  His geology credentials are excellent.
> I am familiar with climate science and if there is a credible "argument" from the so called "other side", please offer it.




It is a 493 page book heavily referenced on each page. Unless you have read the book Rob it would be impossible to hold a discussion about it.....and I don't see it as the 'other side', I see it as an alternate view. Debate, discussion, peer review, challenging results and projections done by those with different outcomes are a demonstration of a healthy scientific community. Closed minds and closed arguments can never be legitimate science. They can only ever be seen as substantiating a particular narrow focus of outcome.


----------



## basilio (18 January 2019)

Ann said:


> It is a 493 page book heavily referenced on each page. Unless you have read the book Rob it would be impossible to hold a discussion about it.....and I don't see it as the 'other side', I see it as an alternate view. Debate, discussion, peer review, challenging results and projections done by those with different outcomes are a demonstration of a healthy scientific community. Closed minds and closed arguments can never be legitimate science. They can only ever be seen as substantiating a particular narrow focus of outcome.




*Ann READ THE XXXXING REVIEW I POSTED !*

Yes I am shouting - and swearing. Plimers book  has so many totally demonstrable fallacies it cannot stand as a representation of anything except lies and deception. It has no credibility. Offering it as an alternative point of view just damages your credibility.


----------



## rederob (18 January 2019)

Ann said:


> It is a 493 page book heavily referenced on each page. Unless you have read the book Rob it would be impossible to hold a discussion about it.....and I don't see it as the 'other side', I see it as an alternate view. Debate, discussion, peer review, challenging results and projections done by those with different outcomes are a demonstration of a healthy scientific community. Closed minds and closed arguments can never be legitimate science. They can only ever be seen as substantiating a particular narrow focus of outcome.



Ann, exactly what is it that you propose be discussed?
I am not aware that Plimer is well versed in climate, but if there is anything you have found which would overturn Micheal Ashley's earlier review, then please offer it.
There are tens of thousands of papers on climate.  If you think there are problems with what they present, where do these problems lie?


----------



## Ann (18 January 2019)

basilio said:


> Ann Ian Plimer has no credibility with regard to discussing climate science and that book was a load of  bollocks. If you would like a more detailed analysis consider this review. But if you still want to consider this as "serious science" I'll totally understand.
> 
> _*No science in Plimer's primer*_
> 
> ...




Have you actually read the book Bas? 

This is a review done by Michael Ashley. Note the dismissive style and manner he reviews a piece of scientific literature. It is not done in a manner one would expect for a peer revue but from one who is attempting to denegrade a long and really interesting piece of scientific literature written by one of Australias' most respected, highly qualified and recognized scientists. 
In all fairness and balance, let's look at Michael Ashley's qualifications.

_His role is Chair, School of Physics Staff Committee at the University of NSW, his qualifications _
_M.Sc. Cal. Tech.  and B.Sc., Ph.D. ANU. _
_His research group at the UNSW is Astronomy in Antarctica._

_Michael teaches all years from 1st to Honours, and PhD. He currently teaches first year physics, computational and experimental physics, energy and environmental physics, stellar structure and the interstellar medium, and a mechanical engineering class on wind turbine design. He has previously taught classical mechanics, electronics, programming in C and Python, and a general studies class on artificial intelligence. He has supervised over 45 Physics Honours and 4th year engineering projects._

_Research Interests:_

_Antarctic astronomy: this is the last great frontier for ground-based astronomy. Our group at UNSW is leading the Australian push to establish a large optical/infrared telescope on the antarctic plateau. Twelve of our graduate students have been to Antarctica, several have wintered over._
_Terahertz astronomy from Antarctica: I am collaborating with Craig Kulesa at the University of Arizona on a 0.6m THz telescope at Ridge A in Antarctica._
_Instrumentation & computing: my long term interest has been in electronics and computing (both hardware and software) with the goal of building new and interesting astronomical instruments._


Let's look at his Memberships:


_Matchmaker for the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, connecting journalists and government officials with climate scientists around the world._

_Member, National Committee for Antarctic Research_

_Member, Optical Telescope Advisory Committee to Astronomy Australia Limited_

_Member, Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research Astronomy and Astrophysics from Antarctica Special Research Program_

_Member of the board of ACAMAR, the Australian-Chinese Consortium for Astrophysical Research_

_Member, International Astronomical Union_

_Member, Astronomical Society of Australia_
_https://www.physics.unsw.edu.au/staff/michael-ashley_


----------



## Struzball (18 January 2019)

explod said:


> Worth checking the following.  You are amid the Dud's Ann.  There is fact and there is fiction and they cannot be mixed.
> 
> https://www.skepticalscience.com/misinformers.php




What a coincidence that skepticalscience.com would label every notable climate scientist who happen to not agree with catastrophic anthropogenic global warming as "misinformers".

As the believers like to say, when the subject is about climate science, we should listen to the climate scientists.  
We should not be blindly following a so-called consensus.
And it's not helpful to label climate scientists who actually know what they're talking about as misinformers.


----------



## rederob (18 January 2019)

Ann said:


> Have you actually read the book Bas?
> 
> This is a review done by Michael Ashley. Note the dismissive style and manner he reviews a piece of scientific literature. It is not done in a manner one would expect for a peer revue but from one who is attempting to denegrade a long and really interesting piece of scientific literature written by one of Australias' most respected, highly qualified and recognized scientists.
> In all fairness and balance, let's look at Michael Ashley's qualifications.
> ...



You presented no science Ann.
What is the point of your post?


----------



## Ann (18 January 2019)

basilio said:


> *Ann READ THE XXXXING REVIEW I POSTED !*
> 
> Yes I am shouting - and swearing. Plimers book  has so many totally demonstrable fallacies it cannot stand as a representation of anything except lies and deception. It has no credibility. Offering it as an alternative point of view just damages your credibility.





rederob said:


> You presented no science Ann.
> What is the point of your post?




I wasn't offering up any science Rob. I was asking if you and Bas had read a really interesting book with all sorts of fascinating things not all related to climate change but a lot of interesting geological information of which Plimer is regarded as a major expert in his field. My response to Bas was to ascertain if he had actually read the book. The rest of the post was simply to add a balance of the review scientists qualifications, interests, work and affiliations. I leave it up to the reading public to decide themselves if he was sufficiently qualified to review the book. I made no  comments or points about his fitness or not. I gave a link to show I had not omitted or distorted any of the facts about him.


----------



## rederob (18 January 2019)

Ann said:


> I wasn't offering up any science Rob. I was asking if you and Bas had read a really interesting book with all sorts of fascinating things not all related to climate change but a lot of interesting geological information of which Plimer is regarded as a major expert in his field. My response to Bas was to ascertain if he had actually read the book. The rest of the post was simply to add a balance of the review scientists qualifications, interests, work and affiliations. I leave it up to the reading public to decide themselves if he was sufficiently qualified to review the book. I made no  comments or points about his fitness or not. I gave a link to show I had not omitted or distorted any of the facts about him.



True. But Plimer's book was clearly more interesting to you than me and perhaps a few other readers here.
Although you say:


Ann said:


> ...I feel all intelligent debate can only take place when all parties have studied and are familiar with both sides of an argument.



My point was the book had nothing to offer.
And many posts later it still appears to have nothing to offer.  So again, what are you proposing for discussion *relevant to climate science*?


----------



## basilio (18 January 2019)

I did read the book Ann. It was badly written and offered explanations of geological activities that were just  probably wrong. In my mind he destroyed his credibility in this field

I offered the review by Professor Michael Ashley because it incorporated a number of the most egregious  examples of Ian Plimers scholarship. If you are interested in more critical analysis of the book check out the ref.  But to make the point about the inappropriate way Ian Plimers uses the voluminous references consider this.

T_o give his arguments a semblance of respectability the book is replete with references. But the choice is very selective. Plimer will quote, for example, a paper that appears to support his argument, but then he does not mention that the conclusions therein have been completely refuted in subsequent papers. Elsewhere, he refers to a specific question raised in published work but does not mention that this issue has subsequently been resolved, has been incorporated in subsequent analyses, and is no longer relevant. Or he simply misquotes the work or takes it out of context. An example of this is a reference to my own in the Mediterranean where he gives quite a misleading twist to what we actually concluded.

Other examples can be identified in this section, and throughout the book. Together they point to either carelessness, to a lack of understanding of the underlying science, or to an attempt to see the world through tinted spectacles.
_
In terms of appreciating how misleading Plimer can be consider this

_There is geological evidence that suggests that the Earth has gone through extreme glacial episodes in the distant past. Plimer states that change from extreme glacial to extreme warm conditions occurred within a few centuries. Whether this is correct or not is a legitimate point of debate. But further on, he states that to raise sea level by 4 to 6 metres from the melting of West Antarctica, in the near future, is Hollywood fantasy. That may well be true. But there is no consistency in his argument. If at one time the planet can exit from near-global glaciation conditions in a few hundred years, then why can a comparatively minor adjustment of the West Antarctica ice sheet not occur on the same time scale? Is it a case of seeing only what you want to see?

Plimer uses the example of ocean floor doming and sea floor volcanism to illustrate geological processes that have modified sea level. He states that during such events monstrous amounts of heat are released into the oceans and that huge volumes of water are displaced, causing sea level to rise. If I use his example of a 1000km x 1000km plateau raised by 1 kilometre, the volume of displaced water is about one million cubic kilometres, which when distributed over the oceans brings sea level up by about 3 metres. But the formation of these plateaux occur on a time scale of a million years and longer, and the associated rate of change is only of the order say, .03 millimetres per year, and this is about 100 times less than the rates observed today. Likewise, Plimer's monstrous amounts of heat released into the oceans do not produce a measurable global signal on the human time scale._


https://www.abc.net.au/radionationa...d-earth-global-warming-the/3147158#transcript


----------



## Ann (18 January 2019)

rederob said:


> True. But Plimer's book was clearly more interesting to you than me and perhaps a few other readers here.
> Although you say:
> 
> My point was the book had nothing to offer.
> And many posts later it still appears to have nothing to offer.  So again, what are you proposing for discussion *relevant to climate science*?



So you _have_ read the book Rob. Let's discuss by page quotes the areas you disagree with in his contributions to the climate debate. I have my book beside me. That will bring the science into this thread.


----------



## rederob (18 January 2019)

Ann said:


> So you _have_ read the book Rob. Let's discuss by page quotes the areas you disagree with in his contributions to the climate debate. I have my book beside me. That will bring the science into this thread.



You have had ample opportunity to use any science in this thread - if you choose Plimer it will be interesting.
Given I have no idea where Plimer has made a meaningful contribution to climate science, how about you stump up with his brilliance.


----------



## Ann (18 January 2019)

basilio said:


> I did read the book Ann. It was badly written and offered explanations of geological activities that were just  probably wrong. In my mind he destroyed his credibility in this field




The fact that he offers a differing view to your belief, will automatically give him no credibility in your eyes. So I guess he will just have to learn to live with it Bas! 

I disagree it was badly written, I am Dyslexic and really struggle to read. I need to re-read things many times over. The fact I was able to cope with reading his reasonably technical and long work is testament to his writing abilities. I often have to leave books if their writing is not clear and informative. For you to say " ...offered explanations of geological activities that were _just  probably wrong_". This comment sounds a touch strange, in other words you could say ...but may _possibly be right!_




basilio said:


> I offered the review by Professor Michael Ashley because it incorporated a number of the most egregious  examples of Ian Plimers scholarship. If you are interested in more critical analysis of the book check out the ref.  But to make the point about the inappropriate way Ian Plimers uses the voluminous references consider this.




I simply heard a lot of denigrating rhetoric with very little substance.



basilio said:


> T_o give his arguments a semblance of respectability the book is replete with references. But the choice is very selective. Plimer will quote, for example, a paper that appears to support his argument, but then he does not mention that the conclusions therein have been completely refuted in subsequent papers. Elsewhere, he refers to a specific question raised in published work but does not mention that this issue has subsequently been resolved, has been incorporated in subsequent analyses, and is no longer relevant. Or he simply misquotes the work or takes it out of context. An example of this is a reference to my own in the Mediterranean where he gives quite a misleading twist to what we actually concluded.
> 
> Other examples can be identified in this section, and throughout the book. Together they point to either carelessness, to a lack of understanding of the underlying science, or to an attempt to see the world through tinted spectacles.
> _
> ...




This is a better example of a peer review, still sounding of an opinion bias but slightly more professional. This is more along the lines of how a real scientist would have behaved, less attack, more critique, although Plimer would probably have noted a couple of things from Ashley as well.
The reason scientists want peer review is to see where they may have made an error or misjudgment. It is a step by step basis. Scientists release papers/books and then there is the peer revue and the adjustment and then further work on the study. These and other critiques of his work would have helped him refine the work to the point where all the areas of contention would have been cleaned out. Once there were no more issues to be identified it would have been at that point where he would have felt comfortable giving the textbook to the legal teams as a basis for their litigation of scientists and groups who are offering up misleading or incorrect information in their climate studies. This was the reason he originally wrote the book.
Mine is a secondhand copy from 2009, if he has publshed more editions there is a high liklihood it will differ slightly from mine.


----------



## Ann (18 January 2019)

rederob said:


> You have had ample opportunity to use any science in this thread - if you choose Plimer it will be interesting.
> Given I have no idea where Plimer has made a meaningful contribution to climate science, how about you stump up with his brilliance.



He is is taking on a massive political forum and questioning their pseudo-science with his years of scientific expertise. He is exposing himself to ridicule, denegration, attack, criticism, insults, and a host of other experiences from which a lesser man would re-coil. A brave man in a world held to ransom.


----------



## rederob (18 January 2019)

Ann said:


> He is is taking on a massive political forum and questioning their pseudo-science with his years of scientific expertise. He is exposing himself to ridicule, denegration, attack, criticism, insults, and a host of other experiences from which a lesser man would re-coil. A brave man in a world held to ransom.



Ann, this is a very simple matter of climate science, and bringing in politics is a sideshow.
If Plimer has climate credentials to back his claims then what is the issue?
Are you actually going to present some science, or are you just going to make excuses?


----------



## rederob (18 January 2019)

Ann said:


> The reason scientists want peer review is to see where they may have made an error or misjudgment. It is a step by step basis. Scientists release papers/books and then there is the peer revue and the adjustment and then further work on the study. These and other critiques of his work would have helped him refine the work to the point where all the areas of contention would have been cleaned out. Once there were no more issues to be identified it would have been at that point where he would have felt comfortable giving the textbook to the legal teams as a basis for their litigation of scientists and groups who are offering up misleading or incorrect information in their climate studies. This was the reason he originally wrote the book.



Ann, peer review is the gold standard for advancing scientific knowledge. 
If Plimer ever had anything meaningful to contribute in the field of climate science, then surely he would have submitted it before adding anything to his book.  He has no climate science papers available in the public or scientific domains that I am aware (and I have looked carefully). 
Given Plimer's academic status in geology there is no way he would *not *have known that his book was was other than a concatenation of private thoughts and footnotes. 
Your excuses on his behalf are not compelling.


----------



## rederob (18 January 2019)

Struzball said:


> What a coincidence that skepticalscience.com would label every notable climate scientist who happen to not agree with catastrophic anthropogenic global warming as "misinformers".



Did you not notice that skepticalscience.com provides *evidence *to back their claims?
Or is it that where you read the concept of evidence is novel?


----------



## basilio (18 January 2019)

Ann said:


> I disagree it was badly written, I am Dyslexic and really struggle to read. I need to re-read things many times over. The fact I was able to cope with reading his reasonably technical and long work is testament to his writing abilities. I often have to leave books if their writing is not clear and informative. For you to say " ...offered explanations of geological activities that *were just probably wrong"*. This comment sounds a touch strange, in other words you could say ...but may _possibly be right!_




That was a clumsy statement of mine. I should have said he made some very significant, completely provable erroneous statements. The most important one was stating that volcanoes produce as much CO2 as humans.  Therefore he was trying to suggest natural production of CO2 was  as responsible for any CC (which he in any case denied using falsified graphs  Ann!)

The reality ?
_*Volcanoes and CO2*
Plimer has said that volcanic eruptions release more carbon dioxide (CO2) than human activity; in particular that submarine volcanoes emit large amounts of CO2 and that the influence of the gases from these volcanoes on the Earth's climate is under-represented in climate models.[33][34][35] The United States Geological Survey has calculated that human emissions of CO2 are about 130 times larger than volcanic emissions, including submarine emissions.[36][37][38] The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that Plimer's claim "has no factual basis."[39] This was confirmed in a 2011 survey published in the Eos journal of the American Geophysical Union, which found that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are 135 times larger than those from all volcanoes on Earth.[40] A 2015 study from The Earth Institute at Columbia University published in Geophysical Research Letters says activity from undersea volcanoes varies with tide, with greater activity at neap tide, and with more activity in ice ages with their lower sea levels. Dr. Maya Tolstoy, who conducted the study, says this might explain abrupt ends to ice ages.[41]_
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer


----------



## basilio (18 January 2019)

George Monbiot  summed up the most important deceptions/errors/ whatever in Ian Plimers book in 2009. He offered to debate Ian Plimer as long as Ian provided written answers to a series of questions that the book raised. He did this to ensure that these questions were:

1) Recognised as representing Ian's argument but being without substance
2) Realising that in a debate it was highly unlikely that the queries would be actually answered.

Perhaps these might be the ones Ann and Redrob chose to review ?

* Let battle commence! Climate change denialist ready for the fight *
Ian Plimer has agreed to answer written questions to defend his viewpoint that humans aren't warming up the world 
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/aug/05/climate-change-scepticism


----------



## Darc Knight (18 January 2019)

OK, couldn't hold my tongue anymore. Ian Pilmer is a Geologist right. He's trying to tell Astromers they are wrong about the Sun's orbit and influence on warmth. He's tried to tell Oceanographers they are wrong about Sea levels. He's tried to be an expert in others fields he's not qualified and drawn (relatively) uneducated assumptions on.

Sorta like the Roof Tiler trying to tell the Electricians, the Plumbers, the Carpenters, the etc etc thier jobs?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_and_Earth_(book)

Plus he is Director etc of a few Mining Companies


----------



## basilio (18 January 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> OK, couldn't hold my tongue anymore. Ian Pilmer is a Geologist right. He's trying to tell Astromers they are wrong about the Sun's orbit and influence on warmth. He's tried to tell Oceanographers they are wrong about Sea levels. He's tried to be an expert in others fields he's not qualified and drawn (relatively) uneducated assumptions on.
> 
> Sorta like the Roof Tiler trying to tell the Electricians, the Plumbers, the Carpenters, the etc etc thier jobs?
> 
> ...




Plus 1.  By the way the wikipedia analysis is excellent. 
On the other hand I can totally understand why Ann has loved the book.  It received rave reviews from the best CC deniers in the world. It was a real Trump moment in the CC debate. Someone comes out with  total confidence and a complete pack of lies and misrepresentations and overruns the scientific work of the  world climate research community.


----------



## Struzball (18 January 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> OK, couldn't hold my tongue anymore. Ian Pilmer is a Geologist right. He's trying to tell Astromers they are wrong about the Sun's orbit and influence on warmth. He's tried to tell Oceanographers they are wrong about Sea levels. He's tried to be an expert in others fields he's not qualified and drawn (relatively) uneducated assumptions on.




Geology is about more than just looking at rocks.
An astronomer can make a hypothesis that current warming is unprecedented and caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.
A geologist is more than qualified to say, actually no it's happened before, this is not unprecedented and here are some more significant drivers of climate than carbon dioxide.


----------



## rederob (18 January 2019)

Struzball said:


> Geology is about more than just looking at rocks.
> An astronomer can make a hypothesis that current warming is unprecedented and caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.
> A geologist is more than qualified to say, actually no it's happened before, this is not unprecedented and here are some more significant drivers of climate than carbon dioxide.



Really?
So a geologist can tell that in the distant past there was in industrial revolution which led to fossil fuels accumulating in the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate?
As for your claim about "*more significant drivers of climate than carbon dioxide*", would you care to elaborate.


----------



## Struzball (18 January 2019)

rederob said:


> Really?
> So a geologist can tell that in the distant past there was in industrial revolution which led to fossil fuels accumulating in the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate?
> As for your claim about "*more significant drivers of climate than carbon dioxide*", would you care to elaborate.




Rederob, are you suggesting climate has never changed before.  And that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are the only possible driver of climate?

But since you asked..
More significant drivers of climate include, but are not limited to:
Milankovic cycles, the tilt and wobble of the earth, eccetricity of earths orbit - global temperatures vary depending how the Earth faces the sun and how close it is.
Continental drift - for example large areas of land situated at the poles are associated with ice ages, such as our current ice age. 
Ocean currents - such as changes to the thermohaline ciculation caused by salinity changes from ice melt.
Variations in the sun intensity.

As for what's causing the modern warming.  Well I'd assume that would be the opposite of whatever caused the cooling in the 1600's ("little ice age")..  since it's been warming steadily since then.
The question is, since we are currently in an ice age, when will the current interglacial that we as a species have prospered in, end?

I'm not a Geologist, so I don't really know much about these things.
But I wouldn't dismiss a geologist as knowing nothing about climate.


----------



## Darc Knight (18 January 2019)

Struzball said:


> Geology is about more than just looking at rocks.
> An astronomer can make a hypothesis that current warming is unprecedented and caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.
> A geologist is more than qualified to say, actually no it's happened before, this is not unprecedented and here are some more significant drivers of climate than carbon dioxide.




I understand that a Geologist would have an understanding of these other fields but he's not a Specialist in them is he?
For this to all be a hoax almost everyone with any Earth Sciences degree would have to be hush you'd think.
The fact this Ian Plimer is the Director of a few mining companies geez! Imagine him and his mates worried about fossil fuel getting a bad reputation. Seems such a strong motive to build a deniers case.


----------



## Struzball (18 January 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> For this to all be a hoax almost everyone with any Earth Sciences degree would have to be hush you'd think.




I don't think it's a hoax, I think it's entirely political.  Scientists can't do science without money.
Somebody has to be willing to pay them for some reason.
Climate change is the "in" thing these days, so there's alot of incentive to study it (research grants $).
Any sensible scientist would get in on it.  They might even find out something useful.  Who wouldn't want to know more about our climate?
Just so happens that geologists can make a good living doing their science to help mining companies make lots of money.  So they usually don't get too caught up in the whole climate change thing.  Until climate change research/politics interferes with their ability to make money.  i.e. mining is evil.
Then they may be motivated to write books etc to say this climate change thing is a bit blown out of proportion.


----------



## Darc Knight (18 January 2019)

Struzball said:


> I don't think it's a hoax, I think it's entirely political.  Scientists can't do science without money.
> Somebody has to be willing to pay them for some reason.
> Climate change is the "in" thing these days, so there's alot of incentive to study it (research grants $).
> Any sensible scientist would get in on it.  They might even find out something useful.  Who wouldn't want to know more about our climate?
> ...




Thanks. I'm assuming you are trained in one of these areas. So you believe in human induced climate change, just maybe not as extreme as some?


----------



## explod (18 January 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Thanks. I'm assuming you are trained in one of these areas. So you believe in human induced climate change, just maybe not as extreme as some?



Climate change induced by our industrial influence is not a belief it's a fact.


----------



## rederob (18 January 2019)

Struzball said:


> Rederob, are you suggesting climate has never changed before.  And that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are the only possible driver of climate?
> 
> But since you asked..
> More significant drivers of climate include, but are not limited to:
> ...



First, in climate science there is a specific sense to "climate change".  That is, it relates to a change in the statistical properties of the climate system that persists for several decades or longer which differentiate it from a previously long term pattern (typically of at least 30 years).
The fact that climate *does *change is considered trivial.
With respect to "*more significant drivers of climate than carbon dioxide" *we include only those factors which affect the planet's energy budget.  These are principally the sun, greenhouse gases and aerosols.
Milankovitch cycles occur over periods of tens of thousands of years, so they are insignificant in human time scales.  Your other points were not drivers of *global *climate change.
Your idea about why it is warming has no basis in science.
With regard to your question about our interglacial, I am not aware that an end date has been forecast. However, if you think that our planet is cooling now because we are in an "ice age" where is that evidence?


----------



## Struzball (18 January 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Thanks. I'm assuming you are trained in one of these areas. So you believe in human induced climate change, just maybe not as extreme as some?




Not really trained in anything, do have a Bachelor of Science (Ecology) for what it's worth.
Yeah, sure humans can influence the climate.
I just don't think the co2 contributes very much.


----------



## Struzball (18 January 2019)

rederob said:


> However, if you think that our planet is cooling now because we are in an "ice age" where is that evidence?




The fact that we are in an interglacial (warm) period within an ice age is evidence the Earth is warming, if anything.
I never said the earth is cooling.  But it depends on time scale. If you look back 10-50 million years, then yeah, the Earth's temperature is generally in a steady decline.
If you look back 100 years, the earth is warming.


----------



## explod (18 January 2019)

4.60 billion years ago the earth was a fireball, it's supposed to be continuing to cool.


----------



## rederob (18 January 2019)

Struzball said:


> The fact that we are in an interglacial (warm) period within an ice age is evidence the Earth is warming, if anything.



No, we have had significantly colder periods during the interglacial.
You say that you "*just don't think the co2 contributes very much*' but you are just guessing as you seem not to understand what actually drives climate.
I am not suggesting you don't know much about climate, but I am suggesting you do not know enough.
In a fashion climate is very easy because there are so few drivers of the system. However the dynamics of climate are exceptionally complex.  The good news is that these dynamics are subservient to the rules of physics.


----------



## Struzball (18 January 2019)

rederob said:


> No, we have had significantly colder periods during the interglacial.



Yes, if it was colder before, then it is warming.  Not sure how we are not understanding each other here.  The earth is warming.  There is no question about it.



rederob said:


> but you are just guessing as you seem not to understand what actually drives climate.



I'm basing my "guess" on observations.
Which is the increase in co2, and the increase in temperature.
And I conclude the effect of co2 on temperature is, not much.


----------



## wayneL (18 January 2019)

rederob said:


> Ann, peer review is the gold standard for advancing scientific knowledge.
> .



No it isnt rederob
Repetition and falsification is.


----------



## rederob (18 January 2019)

wayneL said:


> No it isnt rederob
> Repetition and falsification is.



They are the processes which lead to the research being presented for peer review.  You have confused the practice of science with the attainment of knowledge.


----------



## rederob (18 January 2019)

Struzball said:


> I'm basing my "guess" on observations.
> Which is the increase in co2, and the increase in temperature.
> And I conclude the effect of co2 on temperature is, not much.



As I said, you do not know enough about climate science, so go ahead and keep guessing if that's what makes you happy.


----------



## Joules MM1 (18 January 2019)

Joules MM1 said:


> silly me, this is the correct video ...the one above this is completely wrong





*New ERA5 dataset provides weather and climate details back to 1979*
17 January 2019
https://www.ecmwf.int/en/about/medi...rovides-weather-and-climate-details-back-1979


----------



## Joules MM1 (18 January 2019)

and

Jodi Peterson NEWSJan. 11, 2019From the print edition 
*Data confirms climate model predictions of less snow that melts earlier in the season.*
*https://www.hcn.org/issues/51.1/lat...pack-is-real?utm_source=wcn1&utm_medium=email*


----------



## Joules MM1 (18 January 2019)

no problems here huh !!

*Larry Hamilton*‏ @ichiloe Jan 8
Replying to @el_nino_waves @UCSUSA
I find this graph striking. It was not what we expected.


----------



## Joules MM1 (18 January 2019)

the above was an American survey

and


*IGS 2019 Wpg*‏ @IgsWpg Jan 8
The International Glaciological Society (IGS) will hold the next International Symposium on Sea Ice in Winnipeg, MB, Canada August 19-23, 2019. Please pencil the dates in your calendar, and encourage your colleagues/students to do the same. Registration will begin April 2019

----------------------------------------------

*National Snow and Ice Data Center*‏ @NSIDC Jan 8
Antarctic sea ice is in record-low territory for this time of year, but the cause isn't crystal clear.
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2019/01/...ord-low-territory-again-and-nobody-knows-why/
Maddie Stone
Jan 5, 2019, 7:00pm
⋅


----------



## Joules MM1 (18 January 2019)

*The Ice Age*‏ @Jamie_Woodward_ Jan 6
Thawing Arctic permafrost could damage infrastructure for 3.6 million people https://e360.yale.edu/digest/melting-permafrost-could-damage-infrastructure-for-3-6-million-people … Photo: A house north of Fairbanks, Alaska unevenly sinking into thawing permafrost by Vladimir Romanovsky


----------



## Joules MM1 (18 January 2019)

and

*EGU*‏Verified account @EuroGeosciences Jan 4
"The annual ice-free season has begun at the Ross Ice Shelf — a month ahead of schedule." via @grist

By Eric Holthaus on Jan 3, 2019
https://grist.org/article/antarctic-sea-ice-is-astonishingly-low-this-melt-season/


----------



## wayneL (19 January 2019)

rederob said:


> They are the processes which lead to the research being presented for peer review.  You have confused the practice of science with the attainment of knowledge.



I have piles of "peer reviewed" studies in different fields, namely, Equine distal biomechanics, hoof capsule morphology and physiology, equine exercise physiology, and related fields.

Most of them aren't worth a pinch of goat shxt precisely because of a lack of these two crucial steps... absolute junk.

Peer review may examine the integrity of the study (sometimes), but it does not examine the veracity of its conclusion. 

Thisis precisely the mistake so many in my field make, thinking peer review makes a study somehow gospel. It does nothing of the sort.


----------



## rederob (19 January 2019)

wayneL said:


> Peer review may examine the integrity of the study (sometimes), but it does not examine the veracity of its conclusion.



These are logically linked.
If you are engaged in a field where you think you can offer better evidence to justify a different conclusion why are you sitting back?


----------



## wayneL (19 January 2019)

rederob said:


> These are logically linked.
> If you are engaged in a field where you think you can offer better evidence to justify a different conclusion why are you sitting back?



Conducting science is an involved, time cinsumung and expensive process, with little opportunity to monetise the result of my particular interest.

Consequently it is the purview of British Fellowship applicants, research veterinarians or mercantile interests.

An acqaintance of mine has been researching the problem of equine laminitis his whole career without ever unlocking the secret to preventing it (while still providing *much very valuable research <one of the few who do it properly>). If he was not in the employ of UQ, there is no way he could have done it.

And this is the problem where I see parallels with climate science. So much research is conducted with a mercantile or philosophical agenda that all research is to be regarded with suspicion.

I'm not saying *all resaerch is tainted, in case someone goes all Cathy Newman in me, but much of it is demonstrably subjective in its conclusion.


----------



## rederob (19 January 2019)

wayneL said:


> And this is the problem where I see parallels with climate science. So much research is conducted with a mercantile or philosophical agenda that all research is to be regarded with suspicion.



Skepticism is the bedrock of science, so when properly carried out the best we can know based on evidence is from science.
Those who continue to deny science do what you are doing.


----------



## rederob (19 January 2019)

wayneL said:


> An acqaintance of mine has been researching the problem of equine laminitis his whole career without ever unlocking the secret to preventing it (while still providing *much very valuable research <one of the few who do it properly>). If he was not in the employ of UQ, there is no way he could have done it.
> And this is the problem where I see parallels with climate science. So much research is conducted with a mercantile or philosophical agenda that all research is to be regarded with suspicion.



In climate science there are very few mercantile opportunities, whereas in fields related to medicinal practices a breakthrough can be literally worth a fortune.
Gore and Plimer on the other hand, with no climate science credentials, show how preaching to the gullible can be financially rewarding. 
However, whenever either of these two make claims which cannot be substantiated, they are drawn over the coals - and rightly so.
The beauty of today's world is that most of us can, if we are interested enough, go to source documents and see how what people claim to be the case stacks up against the evidence.
Thereafter, as an earlier post showed, ideological grounds rather than reason can play a significant role in convincing them about what they believe to be true.
These forums, despite (I am presuming) few if any being professionally engaged in climate science, allow posters to test their knowledge rather than their faith.


----------



## cynic (19 January 2019)

For the benefit of those lacking awareness of the meaning of the word "science". It is derived from the latin word "scienta" which means "knowledge".
It just so happens that dictionaries of the English language offer the same, or similar, definition, alongside alternative usages compatible with the "knowledge" theme.

Hence my reason for gravitating to the perception that some posters to this thread were, almost certainly, operating according to another definition, (whether their chosen definiton/s is/are specialised, elitist, personalised, exotic, jaundiced, jargonised or perhaps alien to the English language, is a matter upon which I am still unclear).

I trust this makes my reason for seeking clarification from those repeatedly including the word within their postings.


----------



## sptrawler (19 January 2019)

Struzball said:


> I don't think it's a hoax, I think it's entirely political.  Scientists can't do science without money.
> Somebody has to be willing to pay them for some reason.
> Climate change is the "in" thing these days, so there's alot of incentive to study it (research grants $).
> Any sensible scientist would get in on it.  They might even find out something useful.  Who wouldn't want to know more about our climate?
> ...



As with most things, sell the story and let the rest happen.
The one good thing to come out of this whole debate IMO is, the change to renewables will happen a lot faster, than if it was left to happen by market forces.
Human induced climate change may be right, it may be wrong, but it is bringing about a lot of technological change and advancement.
The only down side IMO, is if the emotional agenda overtakes the technical reality.


----------



## rederob (19 January 2019)

cynic said:


> For the benefit of those lacking awareness of the meaning of the word "science". It is derived from the latin word "scienta" which means "knowledge".
> It just so happens that dictionaries of the English language offer the same, or similar, definition, alongside alternative usages compatible with the "knowledge" theme.



It's more likely that you are the only one reading here who is confused.
I have yet to see you present anything here of scientific merit where you also give your views, and there are literally tens of thousands of published works relating to climate that you could choose from.


----------



## cynic (19 January 2019)

rederob said:


> It's more likely that you are the only one reading here who is confused.
> I have yet to see you present anything here of scientific merit where you also give your views, and there are literally tens of thousands of published works relating to climate that you could choose from.



That may well be true according to your chosen definition of the word "scientific".


rederob said:


> They are the processes which lead to the research being presented for peer review.  You have confused the practice of science with the attainment of knowledge.



If the practice of science isn't performed for the purposes of knowledge acquisition, then I must again ask that you provide your chosen definition of the word science, because your postings have made it evident that your personal definition does not seem to comply or conform with common English usage, (as is evidenced via reference to dictionaries of the English language.)


----------



## rederob (19 January 2019)

cynic said:


> That may well be true according to your chosen definition of the word "scientific".
> 
> If the practice of science isn't performed for the purposes of knowledge acquisition, then I must again ask that you provide your chosen definition of the word science, because your postings have made it evident that your personal definition does not seem to comply or conform with common English usage, (as is evidenced via reference to dictionaries of the English language.)



Do you enjoy watching yourself repeat ad nauseum on a matter that is well and truly resolved in the science community?
When science is linked to by posters, it has been carried out by people who use the scientific method.  This fact seems to escape you.  You do not appear to be particularly competent.


----------



## cynic (19 January 2019)

rederob said:


> Do you enjoy watching yourself repeat ad nauseum on a matter that is well and truly resolved in the science community?



In order to answer that question I would first need to understand what is actually being asked.
Without knowing your chosen definition of the word "science", I cannot be expected to know the community to which you refer.


> When science is linked to by posters, it has been carried out by people who use the scientific method.  This fact seems to escape you.  You do not appear to be particularly competent.



That helps narrow it down just a little, however, still a couple of things remain unclear.

When you say "carried out", are you intending that as a colloquialism for the word "performed", or was it intended to mean the literal "extraction" of something from within somewhere?

There's a reason further clarification is required here. The colloquialism interpretation would imply that "science" has been defined as a verb of sorts (i.e. a doing word, e.g. "consume","consider" ), whereas the latter, literal interpretation, treats it as a noun (i.e. a naming word, e.g. "food","idea"). So a person might consume(verb) some food(noun). Or that person might consider(verb) an idea(noun).

A chef might have "carried out"(performed) the cooking of some food, subsequent to that food having been "carried out"(extracted) from the refrigerator.(Note that in this example the context resolves the ambiguity of the phrase "carried out" demonstrating two distinct meanings, one literal, and the other colloquial. Unfortunately, contextual resolution of this ambiguity doesn't seem to feature in your usage.)
Alternatively, this may be a simple misunderstanding, where your "carried out" reference was simply intended to mean "performed scientific research". If so, please confirm.

I am presuming that linkage by posters isn't intended for inclusion in your science definitional criteria.
If I am mistaken in aforesaid presumption, please let me know, because at this point, I feel I must say, I have well and truly exceeded my annual quota of astonishment from others, so may as well allow a few extra onto the pile, (and to think-we're barely half way through January!)

I also note that the "science" definition you offer happens to be contingent upon people operating in accordance with the "scientific method". Like the word "science", I suspect that my understanding of the "scientific method" might also differ from yours.

Is the following video's depiction of the scientific method, compatible with your understanding of the concept?:


If not, then I will regretfully also need to ask for your definiton of "scientific method" in order to understand the meaning of your posts to this thread.


----------



## Ann (19 January 2019)

Joules MM1 said:


> no problems here huh !!
> 
> *Larry Hamilton*‏ @ichiloe Jan 8
> Replying to @el_nino_waves @UCSUSA
> I find this graph striking. It was not what we expected.





I have read through all the posts since yesterday, this one from Joules I really like (I will get to some of Bas' links when I have time, sorry Bas don't yell at me if I am a bit slow in response, I try my best).

I actually didn't know the difference in the two extremes of the US definition of Liberal and Conservative, now I am so much the wiser. (I love learning stuff!)

So as I see it, the Conservatives in the US are the Prepper types who "ain't gonna trust no-one no how and I am going in my off-road-all-terrain to my hidden cabin with all my buried gold and firearms and freeze dried food and cans and solar panels and wait for armi...geddin.

The Liberals are sort of the Polar opposites who think govmint will solve all their problems and trust whatever govmint says and we cayn't have too much govmint cos we love our country and trust our govmint and whatevr they say is trooo. Gdsavemerca.

Two extremes of the same thing, dumbfcuks!

It was very interesting to see where the Moderates stood on the various issues.


----------



## rederob (19 January 2019)

cynic said:


> copied below with my comments in *red *



In order to answer that question I would first need to understand what is actually being asked.  *This is clearly very challenging for you, so I will assist. *
Without knowing your chosen definition of the word "science", I cannot be expected to know the community to which you refer. *The practice of science defines what science is and it's also a profession understood by all competent people to include **scientists**.  Again, competent people would know that scientists can be aggregated with their peers into a science community.  These are easy concepts to grasp for most people.*

When you say "carried out", are you intending that as a colloquialism for the word "performed", *Would it help if "did" was used?  I suspect not. * or was it intended to mean the literal "extraction" of something from within somewhere? *It seems you have real difficulty with very simple words.  "Extraction" is a process which can be done, carried out, or performed.  I realise you are confused, but try to keep meanings simple and in context.  So I shall repeat, the practice of science defines what science is.  Scientists carry out scientific work which is something which should not need explaining.  *

There's a reason further clarification is required here. The colloquialism interpretation *is a straw man argument you want to introduce and is wholly irrelevant *would imply that "science" has been defined as a verb of sorts *I agree that a person who, like you, appears to be incompetent, might draw that conclusion.  "Science" is a thing, which makes it a noun.  *(i.e. a doing word, e.g. "consume","consider" ), whereas the latter, literal interpretation, *We do not interpret where a matter is clear. *treats it as a noun (i.e. a naming word, e.g. "food","idea"). So a person might consume(verb) some food(noun). Or that person might consider(verb) an idea(noun). * You are totally deficient here and need to educate yourself to get up to scratch.*

A chef might have "carried out"(performed)  try *"done"* the cooking of some food, subsequent to that food having been "carried out"(extracted) try *"taken"* from the refrigerator.(Note that in this example the context resolves the ambiguity *no, your examples are an abuse of the meaning of words *of the phrase "carried out" demonstrating two distinct meanings, one literal, and the other colloquial *These distictions are unique to you. Competent people use language which clearly explains what occurred. * Unfortunately, contextual resolution of this ambiguity doesn't seem to feature in your usage.) *I cannot write as poorly as you so you wasted a paragraph.*
Alternatively, this may be a simple misunderstanding, *if there is a misunderstanding then it lies with your inability to grasp basic concepts and use language in an intelligible manner. *where your "carried out" reference was simply intended to mean "performed scientific research". If so, please confirm.  *I confirm that I have take some time to show that you are not competent to present anything meaningful.*

I am presuming *There is no need to "presume" *that linkage by posters isn't intended for inclusion in your science definitional criteria. *You must be the only person here who cannot work out that a link to scientific undertakings from scientists is science.*
If I am mistaken *if you create straw men, I will keep burning them* in aforesaid presumption, please let me know, *My suspicion is that you will gloss over my every word and carry on with your nonsense *because at this point, I feel *feelings are not relevant *I must say, I have well and truly exceeded my annual quota of astonishment *these are issues of interest to you, but are of no relevance to science. *from others, so may as well allow a few extra onto the pile, (and to think-we're barely half way through January!)  *I will see if I need to be bothered replying to your future nonsense, as despite me asking for contributions of ANY scientific nature, I suspsect you will continue to be oblivious.*

I also note that the "science" definition you offer *I have never offered one *happens to be contingent upon people operating in accordance with the "scientific method" *given that one who does not use the scientific method in their work would not be doing science it is likely that a competent person would understand that adopting the scientific method would lead to a scientific outcome.*. Like the word "science", I suspect that my understanding of the "scientific method" might also differ from yours.  *It is wholly irrelevant what you personally understand or more probably do not understand, as it has no impact on what happens.  * *The scientific method is well understood by those who practice science, and the work that emanates is "scientific" in nature.  *
Is the following video's depiction of the scientific method, compatible with your understanding of the concept?:


If not, then I will regretfully also need to ask for your definiton of "scientific method" in order to understand the meaning of your posts to this thread.  *You should see someone capable of educating you to a level where you can be meaningful. *
*Your contributions here appear farcical.*


----------



## Ann (19 January 2019)

*Edison Looks to Shift the Blame for California Mudslides*
By
Edvard Pettersson
January 19, 2019, 10:47 AM GMT+11

Utility alleges city, county inadequately maintained basins
Edison says local government should share in any liability
_Edison International said much of the damage from the mudslides that swept through the coastal town of Montecito last year was the result of poorly designed and maintained debris basins for which local governments are responsible.

The parent company and its Southern California Edison Co. utility filed a cross-complaint Friday against the City and the County of Santa Barbara, among other public entities, saying that a substantial part of liability for the damages should be shifted to government entities responsible for the inadequate infrastructure.


Edison is blamed for the mudslides because the company’s equipment may have ignited the wildfires that led to them.


“With this cross-complaint we seek to ensure that there is a comprehensive review of the role many parties may have played in the large and tragic losses suffered by the community during the Montecito mudslides,” Edison said in a statement.

“It is well known that the Montecito area has always been at high risk for mudslides and debris flows,” the company said. “We believe that city, county and state governments, including flood control, water and transportation agencies, failed to ensure that Montecito’s infrastructure was adequate to reduce the impact of such natural disasters.”




Lawyers representing the public entities in the lawsuit didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on Edison’s cross-complaint.

Mud Ravages Seaside Haven for Berkshire’s Munger, Oprah Winfrey

Edison is facing more than 75 lawsuits, claiming that the utility is liable for the Montecito mudslides on Jan. 9, 2018. On that day, the first rainstorm of the year hit the fire-scorched mountains above the town and mud and boulders came crashing down, overwhelming creek beds and debris basins. More than 20 people reportedly died in the disaster and a preliminary report estimated the property damage at $177 million to $204 million.


Montecito homeowners blame Edison for the disaster because they believe the Thomas fire that raged in the mountains the previous month, which destroyed much of the vegetation that would have held the soil together during the winter storm, was caused by the utility’s power lines.
https://www.bloomberg.com//news/art...lame-for-california-mudslides?srnd=markets-vp_


*....and then we have the opportunistic propaganda from the Liberal GroupThink.*

_*See Everything Bad About Climate Change in a Single California Town*
Montecito is coming back to life this morning. The 9,000 person town to the east of Santa Barbara has been empty since Tuesday, when mandatory evacuations forced residents out of their homes for the fifth time in four months.

This week it was a channel of tropical moisture called the Pineapple Express, dumping bands of intense rain and triggering flash floods throughout Southern California. In January it was a once-in-a-200-year storm that dropped half an inch of water in five minutes, unleashing massive mudslides that ripped houses from their foundations and killed 27. In December it was the deadly Thomas Fire that incinerated 280,000 acres—the largest wildfire in California history.

To some, Montecito might just seem like a town hit by a string of superlatively bad luck. But to people crunching the numbers it looks less like an outlier and more like an inevitability of climate change. If you want to see what California looks like in the future, you don’t need a crystal ball. You just need to hop on the 101 and drive until you hit Montecito.

Of course, you’ll have to wait until the weather clears up. For the last few days, a plume of tropical moisture carrying as much water as the Mississippi River has been wringing out between four and nine inches of water along the coast and in the foothills. According to Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at the University of California Los Angeles, that’s nothing unusual. In fact, it’s what he would call a “textbook “atmospheric river. So why all the fuss? “It’s not the strongest atmospheric river we seen in a long time,” says Swain. “But it’s aimed directly at these burn scar regions which are incredibly vulnerable to flooding and debris flows.”_
*https://www.wired.com/story/monteci...t-climate-change-in-a-single-california-town/*


----------



## basilio (19 January 2019)

Ann that "opportunistic propaganda" you talk about is just an accurate reflection of the extreme weather conditions which are a recognized outcome of global heating.  

The super hot fires caused by extreme heat conditions. The extreme storms caused by extra moisture carried in a warmer atmosphere. The aerial rivers of moisture are normal. What is different is the substantially extra volume. 

In that context you can also add the increased incidence of cloud burst events which* really* cause some damage.
https://www.reference.com/science/causes-cloudbursts-54781f4980076b0b


----------



## cynic (19 January 2019)

At this juncture, I consider important to express my dismay and disappointment that so many have neglected to contribute any qwarx to this discussion.

Whilst I do readily acknowledge that the thread topic doesn't explicitly require inclusion of any qwarx, I am finding it extremely difficult to contain my contempt for those oblivious to the usefulness and profundity of qwarx.


----------



## rederob (19 January 2019)

cynic said:


> At this juncture, I consider important to express my dismay and disappointment that so many have neglected to contribute any qwarx to this discussion.
> 
> Whilst I do readily acknowledge that the thread topic doesn't explicitly require inclusion of any qwarx, I am finding it extremely difficult to contain my contempt for those oblivious to the usefulness and profundity of qwarx.



Competent people indulge in forums to make meaningful contributions.
So I will add meaning to my reply.
First, we are late into this thread and you have expressed nothing of merit.
Second, what you "*consider important*" is of no relevance to the thread.
Third, your "*dismay and disappointment*" is of no relevance to the thread.
Fourth, wanting to add a new topic of no relevance to climate is merely another of your attempts to distract readers from your demonstrable incompetence.
Fifth, what you "*readily acknowledge*" is of no relevance to the thread.
Sixth, your "*contempt*" is of no relevance to the thread.
*In conclusion, your contributions are of no relevance.*


----------



## basilio (19 January 2019)

cynic said:


> qwarx
> 
> Whilst I do readily acknowledge that the thread topic doesn't explicitly require inclusion of any qwarx, I am finding it extremely difficult to contain my contempt for those oblivious to the usefulness and profundity of qwarx.




*Qwarx ?  *

Yep I found it.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoV50qzWIWoL5a5R4sMgOCg


_Description 
Hi. I am a person on the internet who plays dumb games. _


----------



## cynic (19 January 2019)

rederob said:


> Competent people indulge in forums to make meaningful contributions.
> So I will add meaning to my reply.
> First, we are late into this thread and you have expressed nothing of merit.
> Second, what you "*consider important*" is of no relevance to the thread.
> ...



*Nothing *in your contribution was qwarx.
Do you actually know what qwarx is?


----------



## cynic (19 January 2019)

basilio said:


> *Qwarx ?  *
> 
> Yep I found it.
> 
> ...



Surely you jest!
You must assuredly know that there is no merit worthy qwarx to be found anywhere in your post.


----------



## Sdajii (19 January 2019)

rederob said:


> Yes, here's a classic which thinks a simple google search proves his point - and it's from a person who says he was a scientist and worked with climate scientists:
> 
> First, this topic is *not *controversial in climate science, only in the blogosphere or wherever science deniers congregate.  Glaciation and deglaciation occur at different rates and there are dozens of science papers explaining these natural processes.  Determining the lags is the tricky part as there are so many factors in play.
> Second, if there was logic to the claim, then what is now evident would be impossible.
> ...




Your scientific illiteracy is showing, in neon lights.

It's remarkable that someone jumping up and down so passionately about this issue is so uninformed, but hey, it's 2019, you don't need an education, you don't need to be informed, to have an opinion and consider it valid.

CO2 is not the main greenhouse gas. It's comical that you think it's universally known among scientists that CO2 is the single greenhouse gas when it's not even the main one.

It's difficult to put into words how incredibly wrong you are, and not a single climate scientist in the world would agree with you, but hey, angrily berate me all the same. As I said, this is 2019, you don't need to know anything to feel entitled to an opinion.


----------



## rederob (19 January 2019)

Sdajii said:


> It's difficult to put into words how incredibly wrong you are, and not a single climate scientist in the world would agree with you, but hey, angrily berate me all the same. As I said, this is 2019, you don't need to know anything to feel entitled to an opinion.



Your problem is not understanding that a GHG which is a feedback mechanism cannot drive temperature.
Whatever you think you know is definitely wrong wrt to climate change.
And I know that there is no credible climate scientist that would think as you.


----------



## cynic (20 January 2019)

Sometimes when receiving an intentional insult, it pays to interpret the insult within the context of the issuer's personal convictions.

In recent times, I have noticed that, doing so, often reveals intended insults to actually be unintended compliments! (Thankfully the issuer concerned hasn't intentionally praised me, as the contextual implications would then be true cause for concern).

I am truly overjoyed at the enormity of the volume of unintentional praise I have received consequent to my participation in this thread!

However, I would still like to see a lot more qwarx included in the discussion!!


----------



## Sdajii (20 January 2019)

rederob said:


> Your problem is not understanding that a GHG which is a feedback mechanism cannot drive temperature.
> Whatever you think you know is definitely wrong wrt to climate change.
> And I know that there is no credible climate scientist that would think as you.




After displaying your complete misinderstanding of the entire system, it's comical that you'd act like you have any idea. I'm literally a scientist, I've studied climate. I know what the actual climate scientists say, and I'd gladly put my knowledge against yours. You seem to be stuck simply on the media narrative, which is even worse than the climate scientist narrative, which is itself inherently and obviously biased, but even that doesn't say what you do.

I don't know why you tell me I don't understand something I do understand. Well, I suppose I do; it's because you are so fixed in your belief that CO2 is a feedback mechanism (the fact that complex life exists on this planet and it didn't become a furnace billions of years ago proves it's not as you say it is!) and you can't even consider that someone else may see that it works differently, even when they bluntly say so.

You've said CO2 is the only greenhouse gas, or perhaps you just meant the only one of significance. Go look up what the biggest one actually is. I'll give you a hint - it's really, really common on this planet, and it's not CO2.


----------



## rederob (20 January 2019)

Sdajii said:


> You've said CO2 is the only greenhouse gas, or perhaps you just meant the only one of significance. Go look up what the biggest one actually is. I'll give you a hint - it's really, really common on this planet, and it's not CO2.



What I know is how GHG's affect radiative forcing.  You are claiming to be a scientist, have studied climate, know what other other scientists say, *but never once *mentioned *radiative forcing*.  In simple terms it means you ignorant wrt to climate.  I generally don't like using Wiki, but here it provides the easiest way to see that the global warming potential of water vapour is  inconsequential in climate science.
If that was not enough then maybe this link puts to bed your ideas.
You, like those others in denial of climate science, seem unable to understand that an abundent GHG like water vapour reacts to changes in temperature.  Whereas GHGs which are accumulating due to human influence drive the temperature that leads to more water vapour in the atmosphere.

This statement from you also proves that you are somewhat clueless here:


Sdajii said:


> Well, I suppose I do; it's because you are so fixed in your belief that CO2 is a feedback mechanism (the fact that complex life exists on this planet and it didn't become a furnace billions of years ago proves it's not as you say it is!) and you can't even consider that someone else may see that it works differently, even when they bluntly say so.



I *never *said that and *never *would say that.  Instead I have explained that the gas you obliquely referenced as the *main greenhouse gas *and the *biggest - water vapour - *is in fact inconsequential in terms of climate change. 
So please do put your knowledge against mine as I am not sure you know much in this field.


----------



## cynic (20 January 2019)

I cannot understand how anyone can justify the drawing of firm and/or concrete conclusions before giving due consideration to the relevant qwarx.

I trust that it is only a matter of time before the intelligent participants to this thread start doing exactly that, because, I know that only the inept amongst us, would dare to continuously overlook the relevance and import of qwarx to the matters being discussed.


----------



## Joules MM1 (20 January 2019)

*https://youtu.be/FBF6F4Bi6Sg*
---------------------
*National Geographic*‏Verified account @*NatGeo* 6h6 hours ago
The average annual temperature in the high-elevation park increased 3.4˚F in the 20th century, worsening a range of troubles

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...0119env-climatechangepark::rid=&sf206264073=1


----------



## basilio (20 January 2019)

Joules MM1 said:


> *https://youtu.be/FBF6F4Bi6Sg*
> ---------------------
> *National Geographic*‏Verified account @*NatGeo* 6h6 hours ago
> The average annual temperature in the high-elevation park increased 3.4˚F in the 20th century, worsening a range of troubles
> ...




Fascinating.  Actually many of the other articles were equally interesting.  Good find !


----------



## IFocus (20 January 2019)

cynic said:


> Do you actually know what qwarx is?




Nope but would like to know.


----------



## Ann (20 January 2019)

Joules MM1 said:


> *https://youtu.be/FBF6F4Bi6Sg*
> ---------------------
> *National Geographic*‏Verified account @*NatGeo* 6h6 hours ago
> The average annual temperature in the high-elevation park increased 3.4˚F in the 20th century, worsening a range of troubles
> ...




Well there you go Joules, just as Tim Flannery keeps quoting in his book, "The Weather Makers" Gaia and her balance at work.

 From your link... _"That has worsened a trifecta of troubles—bark beetles, wildfires, and invasive plants such as cheatgrass" 
_
A wildfire will get rid of bark beetles and invasive plants.


----------



## Ann (20 January 2019)

basilio said:


> Ann that "opportunistic propaganda" you talk about is just an accurate reflection of the extreme weather conditions which are a recognized outcome of global heating.
> 
> The super hot fires caused by extreme heat conditions. The extreme storms caused by extra moisture carried in a warmer atmosphere. The aerial rivers of moisture are normal. What is different is the substantially extra volume.
> 
> ...




That little pic in the article is sun reflecting through clouds and I believe it is actually Photoshoped using a feature called 'lens flare', more faked stuff. 

Cloud bursts are just rain fall and can cause flooding, big deal, more scare tactics using mundane events.
The scary rain events are called rain bomb, here is an awesome video I found a while back, these are the things that can cause damage as the water smashes down causing flash flooding and property damage without warning. I don't think this is a faked video because there is no link to climate change.


----------



## basilio (20 January 2019)

Come off it Ann. You can't "fake" the biggest and most intense bushfire ever experienced in Califonia.
Equally you can't "fake" a storm that produces enough rain to create mudslides that trash communities. 

The story was looking at how the realities of extreme weather which are the product of global warming are already impacting on California.


----------



## qldfrog (20 January 2019)

basilio said:


> Come off it Ann. You can't "fake" the biggest and most intense bushfire ever experienced in Califonia.
> Equally you can't "fake" a storm that produces enough rain to create mudslides that trash communities.
> 
> The story was looking at how the realities of extreme weather which are the product of global warming are already impacting on California.



Basilio,
While i agree on the global warming caused by humans, i would bet you a lot of activities can also explain some of these intensive fires.
Here in Australia, vegetation management, tree clearing laws and development in outer  suburban areas are leading us to disasters.i do not doubt California had similar issues


----------



## Ann (20 January 2019)

basilio said:


> Come off it Ann. You can't "fake" the biggest and most intense bushfire ever experienced in California.
> Equally you can't "fake" a storm that produces enough rain to create mudslides that trash communities.
> 
> The story was looking at how the realities of extreme weather which are the product of global warming are already impacting on California.




This is the way the you fellas are doing enormous damage to your cause when you link one unrelated thing ie faked photos and cloud bursts to a previous unrelated post of California fires and mudslides and wrap them together and then misquote people by implication. It is something we notice.

This linking to unrelated things appears to be quite a feature in general of the majority of things I see on the internet regarding GW and it is one of the major things that makes me go....hmmm?

Nowhere did I suggest the California fires or mudslides were faked, I said you fellas were being opportunistic and using it as propaganda for your cause.

Accidents and natural disasters can not all be linked to Climate Change and if the CC folk persist in doing this it will become abundantly clear to us ordinary folk it is simply a political self-interest group calling wolf, over and over. Eventually we will all just ignore you.

As an example, the Federal Government just before an election appears to have enough confidence they may not receive too much of a backlash by getting two new coal-fired powerstations built, one in Victoria and one in NSW for around $6Billion.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...n-a-6-billion-coal-plants-proposal-australian


----------



## rederob (20 January 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Here in Australia, vegetation management, tree clearing laws and development in outer  suburban areas are leading us to disasters.i do not doubt California had similar issues



I have never heard that was true, but I have heard the claims before.  Maybe you are referring to small scale bushfires?  Is there data/research available?
The best paper I have read on the topic (and I certainly have not read deeply) tackles the issue based on extreme bushfire events.  
Anecdotally I know that the trend is for the bushfire season to commence earlier in the year than previously.
Back to my linked paper - climate change probably will increase extreme bushfire events, but too little data is available to suggest it's more than a likelihood.  Maybe there is something better from overseas?


----------



## Ann (20 January 2019)

...and now a little touch of climate science as previously requested.


Environmental Research Letters
*Emergence timescales for detection of anthropogenic climate change in US tropical cyclone loss data*
*
Ryan P Crompton1, Roger A Pielke Jr2 and K John McAneney1
 Environmental Research Letters, Volume 6,  Number 1
Published 11 January 2011 • IOP Publishing Ltd*

_*Abstract*

Recent reviews have concluded that efforts to date have yet to detect or attribute an anthropogenic climate change influence on Atlantic tropical cyclone (of at least tropical storm strength) behaviour and concomitant damage. However, the possibility of identifying such influence in the future cannot be ruled out. Using projections of future tropical cyclone activity from a recent prominent study we estimate the time that it would take for anthropogenic signals to emerge in a time series of normalized US tropical cyclone losses. Depending on the global climate model(s) underpinning the projection, emergence timescales range between 120 and 550 years, reflecting a large uncertainty. It takes 260 years for an 18-model ensemble-based signal to emerge. Consequently, under the projections examined here, the detection or attribution of an anthropogenic signal in tropical cyclone loss data is extremely unlikely to occur over periods of several decades (and even longer). This caution extends more generally to global weather-related natural disaster losses._

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/1/014003


----------



## rederob (20 January 2019)

Ann said:


> *Emergence timescales for detection of anthropogenic climate change in US tropical cyclone loss data
> Ryan P Crompton1, Roger A Pielke Jr2 and K John McAneney1*
> *Published 11 January **2011*



Seriously Ann, that paper is so old and the data available back then was poor.
I previously linked to a site with almost 140 science papers covering extreme weather events, and most of these supersede your link.


----------



## Ann (20 January 2019)

rederob said:


> Seriously Ann, that paper is so old and the data available back then was poor.
> I previously linked to a site with almost 140 science papers covering extreme weather events, and most of these supersede your link.



Climate Science is still working off the original 'hockey stick' Climate Projection and that was done back in 1998 and reassessed in 2007. Are you saying "the data available back then was poor."? The whole basis for the IPCC  existence and continuation was justified by the results of those very old projections. By your definition poor data.

This paper was.......
_This result was derived from an ensemble mean of 18 global climate change projections—the 18 models were from the World Climate Research Programme coupled model intercomparison project 3 (CMIP3) and used the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) A1B emissions scenario_


----------



## Ann (20 January 2019)

This is an interesting video telling how the IPCC using money and political clout determine the organization's objectives and conclusions.

The person speaking is Dr Brian Valentine he is a general engineer in the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. He serves as the department’s liaison to the U.S.


----------



## rederob (20 January 2019)

Ann said:


> pasted below with comments in *red*



Climate Science is still working off the original 'hockey stick' Climate Projection *This was a mostly a reconstruction and not a projection.   *and that was done back in 1998 and reassessed in 2007. Are you saying "the data available back then was poor."?  *Paleoclimate records are open to significant interpretation, so **Mann's  data can never be regarded as definitive.  *
*This chart shows that "uncertainty" was significant when the data went further back in time, and includes reconstructions from many others for comparative purposes:*
*




*

 The whole basis for the IPCC  existence and continuation was justified by the results of those very old projections. *That's absolute nonsense Ann.  The IPCC addressed the concerns of climate sceptics (see pages 466-467) and the "hockey stick" is only an issue in climate science denial circles. *By your definition poor data.   *No, just your poor understanding.*

This paper was.......
_This result was derived from an ensemble mean of 18 global climate change projections—the 18 models were from the World Climate Research Programme coupled model intercomparison project 3 (CMIP3) and used the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) A1B emissions scenario  *Yes, it was probably as good as the models and analysis of the day from those who did the paper.  But it simply does not pass muster nowadays.*_


----------



## rederob (20 January 2019)

Ann said:


> This is an interesting video telling how the IPCC using money and political clout determine the organization's objectives and conclusions.
> 
> The person speaking is Dr Brian Valentine he is a general engineer in the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. He serves as the department’s liaison to the U.S.




Where do you dig up your crap Ann?
Here's how credible your speaker is:
"Brian G Valentine • 8 years ago
I'm a thorough carbon dioxide climate change denialist and I wouldn't believe in carbon dioxide induced climate change at gunpoint - because it is physically impossible.
Intuitively, most people know that AGW is dog crap science. No matter how much you rant and rave people are going to trust their common sense and conclude that is is fraud cooked up for socialist control by a few people powerless to control their own destinies so they turn to a psychopathic need to control other lives.
Too bad you can't have a few Gulags to send the die hards, huh?"​Valentine is typical of those who are not smart enough to understand basic physics.


----------



## cynic (20 January 2019)

IFocus said:


> Nope but would like to know.



It is so refreshing, to discover that someone has actually shown such wisdom, via humble confession to, a lack of awareness of something so inordinately useful and important as qwarx.

Allow me to assist you in the elevation of your qwarxic understanding via the proffering of a simple definition - one that has been deemed comprehensible to most people (notable exceptions being those clearly lacking in competence and/or a sufficient level of education).

Qwarx may be accurately defined as that which is typically produced by the qwarxist(a.k.a. qwarxer) pursuant to engagement in the practice of qwarxing (a.k.a. qwarxism). Please note, that unless the qwarxist operates in strict accordance with, and/or, adherence to, qwarxic protocols, the quality and integrity of the qwarx produced, is considered doubtful and consequently deemed unfit for purpose.

Now that you have been duly informed, I trust that being someone of such high intelligence, you will agree when I state that this discussion is in dire need of far more qwarx than has been incorporated to date, and that those neglecting to include any meritorious qwarx in their contributions, are offering nothing of relevance, and, are therefore, irrelevant.


----------



## Ann (20 January 2019)

Before anyone complains, yes I know this is very old news from 2010, it is still important and relevant for today.
There is a Climate Change bias from scientists because of the political clout, bullying and intimidation used by Michael Mann (hockey stick creator) and others toward scientific journals back in 2003 which probably persists to the present day. The lack of integrity is quite disgusting and it continues on today with all the intimidation and bullying shown to anyone who dares display an alternate opinion. 
_
..... Mr. Jones wrote Mr. Mann on March 11, 2003, that "I'll be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland. Mr. Mann responded to Mr. Jones on the same day: "I think we should stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues . . . to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."

Mr. Mann ultimately wrote to Mr. Jones on July 11, 2003, that "I think the community should . . . terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels . . . and leave it to wither away into oblivion and disrepute."


Climate Research and several other journals have stopped accepting anything that substantially challenges the received wisdom on global warming perpetuated by the CRU...

_
This is a small hand picked sample of the article I found most disturbing for its bullying and intimidation. The article in its entirety may be read here....
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140


----------



## Ann (20 January 2019)

rederob said:


> This paper was.......
> _This result was derived from an ensemble mean of 18 global climate change projections—the 18 models were from the World Climate Research Programme coupled model intercomparison project 3 (CMIP3) and used the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) A1B emissions scenario *Yes, it was probably as good as the models and analysis of the day from those who did the paper. But it simply does not pass muster nowadays.*_




Well you saying that would therefore mean all other research work done prior to and at this date by any researcher related to Climate Change science must now be regarded as unsafe.


----------



## explod (20 January 2019)

cynic, 50 odd years ago when seeking to be a Priest I was handed a book on general metaphysics by Noonan 1956.  Still have it.  An opening chapter discusses the potential of a rock and as I have gone back a number of times questioning the absurdities in the past, your post reminded me of its content.  It took some years but I did eventually learn the path of reality as distinct from that of indoctrinated belief.

You are wobbling along talking absolute rubbish in order to try and confuse those who are here earnestly trying to understand and come to grips with global warming.

The efforts of those trying to discredit the science seems to bear no end or effort.  A book I often quote on climate here at ASF "The Sixth Extinction" by Leakey 1996 puts together the facts revealed by the science of the past five events and the current one looming.  All matters are properly annotated in accordance with academic standards.  It is a book that all who really want to know should read. 

HOWEVER the other side so to speak have since had books written by using the same title by different authors, these books are misleading but are what will be found first when searching for Leakey's text.  In fact now on Google it is now hard to find his book.

I usually don't respond to the rubbish of deniers that much anymore, its more productive to continue posting up reality events as they occur.


----------



## Ann (20 January 2019)

rederob said:


> Where do you dig up your crap Ann?
> Here's how credible your speaker is:
> "Brian G Valentine • 8 years ago
> I'm a thorough carbon dioxide climate change denialist and I wouldn't believe in carbon dioxide induced climate change at gunpoint - because it is physically impossible.
> ...




Rob, this man is a mature engineer in a highly responsible job who chooses his words slowly and carefully as you can see from the video. Do you really believe he would be sitting on some naff second rate website reading about the psychology of sitting people in a warm room to make them more susceptible to believing climate change and then under his own name including his middle initial making inane comments unrelated to the content of the article such as the one you quoted and then among others the one below?

There is not a doubt in my mind, his video was causing them so much trouble they had to try to discredit him. I would suggest he is as clean as a whistle so they verballed him. This very strident and popular propaganda site, Desmog for the CC folk makes sure you will see his credentials and his "key quotes" with links of course. I am seeing so much shocking stuff being done by CC propagandists and spin doctors, nothing no matter how underhanded, unethical or duplicitous seems beyond them.
https://www.desmogblog.com/brian-g-valentine#s2

"Brian G Valentine  SkyHunter • 8 years ago
*and someone without a good f thermodynamics might believe them*

ha ha ha ha ha OK I'll quit my job just for you.

CO2 must be stratified in the atmosphere because of the higher molecular weight. The stratosphere cools resulting from back radiation from Earth, and if it becomes cooler, it did so because the troposphere cools, or else it didn't warm as a result of diminished ozone production, which is what warms it against the adiabatic lapse with altitude.

The atmosphere certainly conducts heat, and minus convection, that is about all that will happen. If you think this explanation of yours is viable, go build a machine to replicate the effect."

https://grist.org/article/2011-01-28-is-it-hot-in-here-or-is-the-climate-changing/#comment-295660447


----------



## rederob (21 January 2019)

Ann said:


> Rob, this man is a mature engineer in a highly responsible job who chooses his words slowly and carefully as you can see from the video. Do you really believe he would be sitting on some naff second rate website reading about the psychology of sitting people in a warm room to make them more susceptible to believing climate change and then under his own name including his middle initial making inane comments unrelated to the content of the article such as the one you quoted and then among others the one below?
> 
> There is not a doubt in my mind, his video was causing them so much trouble they had to try to discredit him. I would suggest he is as clean as a whistle so they verballed him. This very strident and popular propaganda site, Desmog for the CC folk makes sure you will see his credentials and his "key quotes" with links of course. I am seeing so much shocking stuff being done by CC propagandists and spin doctors, nothing no matter how underhanded, unethical or duplicitous seems beyond them.
> https://www.desmogblog.com/brian-g-valentine#s2
> ...



Ann, please present actual climate science.  
Valentine has *zero *credibility in climate science.  The video link gets no attention from anyone with a brain. His idea that CO2 must be stratified in the atmosphere breaks every rule of physics.  If you don't agree, then wherever you presently are you would be dead because you would only be breathing CO2.
WRT your earlier linked paper, we have moved up from GSMs to ESMs. More importantly, the technology to get and interpret the data on real world events to determine a human footprint is available, as I showed in my earlier link in extreme weather events.
Back to your paper, Crompton _et al _clearly noted "... *the possibility of identifying such influence in the future cannot be ruled out*_."  _And it now has been _o_n the basis of climate models alone, as evidenced here and here.


----------



## Joules MM1 (21 January 2019)

Forecasters have compared conditions to the nation's worst heatwave in 2013, 
where the mercury soared to 39C for seven consecutive days.

The hottest day on record for Australia is 7 January 2013, when the national 
average maximum temperature was 40.3C.

Melbourne Beach
"The current heatwave ranks alongside that of January 2013 as the most extensive 
and prolonged heatwave on record over Australia," BOM senior meteorologist Blair 
Trewin told the BBC earlier this week.

"There have been other notable heatwaves but none affecting such a large area of the country."

Meteorologists say that the heatwave has broken heat records at more than 10 places 
around Australia, largely central inland locations.

The record-setters included the outback town of Tarcoola in South Australia which 
soared to 49C on Tuesday, and Port Augusta in South Australia which reached 48.9C.

18 January 2019
*Australia swelters through record-breaking heatwave*
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-46886798




https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46925699


----------



## cynic (21 January 2019)

explod said:


> cynic, 50 odd years ago when seeking to be a Priest I was handed a book on general metaphysics by Noonan 1956.  Still have it.  An opening chapter discusses the potential of a rock and as I have gone back a number of times questioning the absurdities in the past, your post reminded me of its content.  It took some years but I did eventually learn the path of reality as distinct from that of indoctrinated belief.



How did you determine which version of reality was the truer (i.e. more correct)? How did you determine that you haven't merely substituted one indoctrination with another?


> You are wobbling along talking absolute rubbish in order to try and confuse those who are here earnestly trying to understand and come to grips with global warming.



You do me an injustice sir!
I endeavour to post only the highest quality rubbish at my disposal.
Before posting any rubbish, I apply numerous checks and measures ensuring that all rubbish is of the highest standard and calibre.

Have you experienced it to be otherwise? If so, how is my standard of rubbish inferior to that submitted by other contributors to this thread?


> The efforts of those trying to discredit the science seems to bear no end or effort.  A book I often quote on climate here at ASF "The Sixth Extinction" by Leakey 1996 puts together the facts revealed by the science of the past five events and the current one looming.  All matters are properly annotated in accordance with academic standards.  It is a book that all who really want to know should read.



You have made reference to that book often. It seems to have become your sacred scripture. Your apparent sanctification and reverence for this text, seems to have led you to the belief that your understanding of reality, is somehow truer than the understanding of those subscribing to alternative dogmas.
This might explain your belief that your "knowing of reality" is somehow superior to that of others, and that this "knowing" somehow entitles you to dismiss all other "knowings" as false, via accusations of heresy akin to the following:


> I usually don't respond to the rubbish of deniers that much anymore, its more productive to continue posting up reality events as they occur.




Edit: I again express my dismay at having noticed the absence of any meritorious qwarx in your post!


----------



## Ann (21 January 2019)

rederob said:


> Ann, please present actual climate science.




Righto, coming right up but it is not going to be all that appealing to the reading public. But for you, I shall give you some interesting new science with totally up to date research seeing you have established all ageing Climate Science is unsafe. 



rederob said:


> Valentine has *zero *credibility in climate science. The video link gets no attention from anyone with a brain. His idea that CO2 must be stratified in the atmosphere breaks every rule of physics. If you don't agree, then wherever you presently are you would be dead because you would only be breathing CO2.




The video link has no doubt created enornous interest the way he has explained how IPCC has acted corruptly. I am sure his outspoken ways would have caused enormous angst amongst the powers that be. 
(Just an aside note to the readers....note how Rederob has repeated and linked a verballed comment not from Valentine about CO2 to his video where he is exposing IPCC, interesting. There appears to be a common thread running through the supporters of this Political Agenda of linking unrelated things, Bas did it yesterday).

....and the science.


----------



## rederob (21 January 2019)

Ann said:


> pasted below, comments in *red*



Righto, coming right up but it is not going to be all that appealing to the reading public. But for you, I shall give you some interesting new science with totally up to date research seeing you have established all ageing Climate Science is unsafe.  *Not my claim.  If ESM ensembles can run better projections today with finer spatial resolution than GSMs were capable of in the past, then it's a matter of common sense.*

The video link has no doubt created enornous interest the way he has explained how IPCC has acted corruptly. *No - this is untrue - unless you deny climate science you would never be bothered to give it air*  I am sure his outspoken ways would have caused enormous angst amongst the powers that be. *What don't you understand, Ann?  Valentine is to climate science as Trump is to truth.*
(Just an aside note to the readers....note how Rederob has repeated and linked a verballed comment not from Valentine *I linked to his direct comments in a blog* about CO2 to his video where he is exposing IPCC, interesting. There appears to be a common thread running through the supporters of this Political Agenda *You mean the agenda where climate scientists use science and others pretend there is a "political agenda" *of linking unrelated things *It cannot be unrelated that Valentine does not give AGW a second thought when climate science shows it is the problem *, Bas did it yesterday* Bas noted that the linked events were affected by climate change - you seem unable to appreciate the nature if the linkage.*).


----------



## kahuna1 (21 January 2019)

Oh golly ....
Gee and ... disturbing some stuff on here.

For education .... a very good, all be it a FEW ... ERRORS still in this guys video. CDebunks some of the myths ... and deniers crap 




Greenhouse exists.
Threat exists.

Deniers, public ones, three main ones, two funded by oligarchs, one a Nobel prize winner, but since I have quite often provided peer review on Winners scientific papers and at times, not kind. The Prize winner ... in physics who is a denier .... IS AN IDIOT. Paid for mind you. His knowledge is narrow AND whilst it sounds convincing, there are in fact around 10 things that change CO2 and its absorption. SOME happen like clockwork ... others ... not as such. But again easily verified via fossil records. 

More modern denier is paid for via Koch Brothers, Oligarchy leaders and massive polluters ...  and again, he sounds convincing ... but ignores ... totally so many things.

like trying to predict ... or prove something, there is as these de-bunkers TRY .... easy ways to shred something if YOU ... either don't include it .... or ignore it.

NOT EVERYTHING .... can possibly be verified via old records. WHY say an ice age occurred during a 2000 PPM CO2 level period 200 million years ago   IF ... IF ... you ignore and both the main deniers ignore and DONT KNOW via sheer ignorance the SUN is 4% warmer NOW v then .... all be it the last 30 years ... its activity is LOWER than any time ... the SUN itself has bloody cycles. 

The fact that the earth in its orbit around the sun ... wobbles .... and does so at measured periods ... in the last 1 million years via ice cores we see ... every 100k or so years .... an ice age as the Wobble in the orbit as expected reduces out  put ...

Oh and 260 million years ago ... something formed ... as continents crashed into each other ... erosion itself is a powerful CO2 cleansing agent, but ... something formed ... capturing vast amounts of CO2 ending these spikes  in temperature. Unlikely ever to occur again anyhow. I speak of course about COAL AND OIL AND GAS deposits .... as continents crashed into each other, often vast regions of vegetation, co2 holding pens ... were buried and turned over time into coal and oil deposit, AGAIN ... easily verified via fossils and examination of them.

Bother the seemingly credible deniers paid for by the far right .... seem to know little ... then there is some Lord who ... well owned a short shop and is a stupid idiot ... and then lastly ... the weather guy ... polished he is as a presenter ... he however left the weather channel well over 30 years ago ... his 
 background ... not that it matters ... is  BA in journalism ... which in today's world gets one the UN ambassadors job at the UN .... but is NOT anything I would listen to.

His view that recent warming did not and has not occurred, is, well, thinking local weather is climate and with 20 people measuring temperature change in a serious way and since 1979 .... via satellite, the FACT is ... we are warming.

It is the RATE ... that concerns me. The population growth concerns me. 

I have concluded, the ocean is DEAD and unless action well beyond proposed slowing of CO2 ... is not done, virtually all life in the ocean will cease by say 2200. Prior to that, well, a lot of things will occur.

I will not be around for them, but would prefer humanity to last beyond say 2300, but this seems unlikely. 

Such is life and the needs of the few. 
We can however change, but with the political side such as it is, oligarchy running USA and via default western society and we are leaderless .... change and massive change needed by 2040.

Not interested ... is the view of most. Indifference, until, well its too late. I mean not to scare anyone and some pretty absurd predictions have been made on this topic over the years. I merely join 50,000 scientists, and as one of the better builders of AI and projection models for the future, and the model I have post 2050, is alarming and by then, the possibility of stopping it after another 30 years at 35 million tons in excess ... of CO2, the planet cant deal with, well ... it is what it is ...

Take care 

Mark k


----------



## basilio (21 January 2019)

Good one Kahuna.
That video and the many others produced by this science writer offer the clearest descriptions of the misrepresentations of climate change deniers. They also do an excellent job of examining the various elements causing climate change.

Have you viewed these Ann ? Have they caused you to reconsider your POV?


----------



## kahuna1 (21 January 2019)

PS ....
Unless we go to actually near zero human CO2 by 2050, things are virtually impossible to alter in the future.

Stephen, who had a disease that afflicted someone I admired and loved and she was the bravest person I know, battling for 11 years to watch her son grow up as she battled ALS, Motor Neuron and Lou Gerhigs s Stephen had, I would prefer her son to live in a world without what is an avoidable end date.

Stephen, one of the most brilliant minds of our generation left us in 2018, he however had a view on this topic and whilst I DID NOT and DO NOT agree with his conclusions in total, his view was that in 400 years the planet would be an acid sea and 250 degrees C. Stephen is of course, Stephen Hawkin.

At the bottom of all this are mere chemical reactions, LAWS .... Scientific ones about energy in and out, or HOW certain compounds react, and then are broken down. If you don't like science, then Stop reading .

As to some of the more idiotic predictions of the past, and even now, sea rise and some from the 1970;s were, well ... stupid and the only way the sea will rise a lot is if the BIGGEST chunk of ice melts and that's Antarctica. Unlikely, I suspect in the next 100 years, the stuff on the actual land, but the fringes, yep .... sure ... but they are 15% of the total. Land actually rises or falls, so a rise in water v impact, without taking into account if the land itself is rising or falling makes even this seemingly simple thing extremely complex. Heating of water and its expansion verses, more evaporated due to higher temps, v A vortex effect as the earth spins, FEW take this into account with more water in the initial stages.

On and on and on these things go. But, in the end CO2 burnt for fuel, eventually breaks down. Since most don't know where the hell most oxygen comes from, or most heat ends up .... ITS THE BLOODY OCEAN ... I will be watching with interest a few things as time goes on. One is I suspect, impossible to avoid and will release 50 odd years of greenhouse gasses and I hope to hell its NOT quickly.

Others, seem to think planting a tree is the answer, or using brute force to capture CO2 ... which is in fact idiotic due to LAWS of science and the energy required is about the same ... if NOT equal to that expended in the first place, to turn it back into captured CO2.

As to tree.s and indifference and well .... lack of bothering ... until its too late ... is the end I suspect either way of humanity. A tree .... or a hectare at best absorbs 4 tons of Co2 per year ... one sq km or 100 hectares is .... 400 tons and at 33 BILLION HUMAN tons of CO2 .... ignoring the natural 23 BILLION tons the earth CAN handle and did so for millions of years .... absorb ... 23 itself ... its the 33 we NOW emit that is the issue.

With 50 million sq km of land used to feed us, even if we say planted 5 million of deserts in Australia out of the 7 million total .... needing to absorb say 33 billion tons .... its impossible EVEN to see 5 million sq km planted ... at 400 tons per sq km .... it would absorb ... gee ... all 5 million .... oh 2 billion pout of 33 billion JUST FOR ONE YEAR .... next year another 33 billion .... and so on ... and when the trees die ... the cycle STOPS .... or if they are burnt down .... its not captured other than short term..

There is of course a few solutions .... Green energy is actually LOWER COST than fossil fuels. LOWER >... NOT MORE ... some issues of course are the non sunlight or wind times .... but able I suspect to be overcome. Then again, the OLIGARCHY and their ownership of fossil stuff. prevails ... the need to immediately STOP this excess or reduce oit to 10% of what it is ... is of course possible without too much disruuption economically ... I even have a bloody solution. One the world is ready for ... but not the 1% or 0.1% ....

As to changes, they are set in stone ... some of them ... we cant go back ... its already out there. The solution is likely a few things and NOT what some of the PR Oligarchy types are pushing or pretending.

In the meantime, the Ocean is dead ... DEAD ... not much we can do about that. So too, whilst we hit 10 billion population, the likely-hood of a mass extinction event and starving of not million but billions post 2050 is well, over 50% even now, for me, its over 80% likely a crop fail on a massive scale hitting Africa and lower per capita GDP nations and their inability to pay MORE for food, will be an issue.

Oh bliss ... it is ... as to CO2 capture and NOT hitting 1.5 degree's by 2100, at this point in time I think its MORE not 2 degrees but 3 if not 4. Some serious things missing from the latest predictions out of 50,000 scientists and as a demographer and realist, two things hold the 2 -4 degree by 2100 difference and at 2 degrees ... by the way ... they all agree 80% likely mass crop fail .... the two more degrees have to do with what the bloody sun is going to do and I dont KNOW ... the last 30 years, despite warming 4% in 300 million years, the last 30 years have been a pause in its activity .... so does this change ? I d0ont know ....

A box of crackers for the other thing .... if you can name it ... and WHY its going to be a time bomb .... if it occurs.

As to reversing and trying to minimize some of the impacts .... tree;s whilst good, not the answer ... nor brute force massive energy requiring to remove and sequester CO2 ...

All however is an aside. ... seriously. One cannot compete with a billion dollar funded right wing think tank ... let alone 20 of them. All tax deductible .... best practice science is ... irrelevant. I own a coal mine or oil field ... Trumps ... hahah ... trumps all other issues. Economically things are a total joke and the COST of fixing this, is one that is ONE WHICH WILL NOT BE FELT .... well not by most. But for that to occur, a lot of things need to change and time is NOT something the world has.

enough .... I need to shoot my BB gun at the economic and global side .... in hopes it will change this topic.

Cheers


----------



## qldfrog (21 January 2019)

To all,
I believe the real issue is the selective facts being pushed by CC and in fact GW advocates.
As i say i believe human are warming up the planet, i am not convinced that CO2 is the cause, more the consequence.i am not convinced at all by the one research
Quoted and supposed to disproved my own theory of released heat by human activity, as this single effect matches the temperature elevation observed. so if co2 was involved that much also, we would be boiling already.
But this is used to tell us to stop heating meat, stop eating bio food, basically any agenda is jumping on the bandwagon.
In the meantime, in mexico ,pipeline are switched of and replaced by trucks fleet, alberta is still producing from oil sands.
Greenpeace wants to shut qld ccoal when 2/3 of it is metallurgical coal, used in steel making where there is no replacement.
As a scientist and engineer, i am appaled at the level of brainwashing happening and the propaganda released to help self serving interests.
 Europe is now waging a war on diesel..via taxes..the most efficient engine type we have, with the engine themselves having twice the longevity of petrol one...think about the energy spent to build a brand new vehicle.
At home war on plastic..no more free bags at wollies 17millions $ a year extra at least in  the supermarket pockets and overall consumption of plastic increased as was well known by all studies done before the change demonstrated
Fed up with propaganda, take into account all effects before acting, show all sides
When this will be done and truth are told, people might find trust in the media, maybe even government but only then 
if fake news are ok because it is for the good cause, expect backlash

My apologies for many typos and autoreplaced errors as typing with my phone is an horror


----------



## kahuna1 (21 January 2019)

Hi,

last post this thread for a while .... 
The convincing argument of the main denier ... is a really good one ... he however is funded by the Koch Brothers and their Cato institute is so far of right its ... insulting.

His argument and it seems logical, seems convincing as do his qualifications, which. well my 2 pages of mish mash ...are irrelevant. Listen ... and make your own mind up ... OPEN YOUR MIND and dismiss clinically and impartially the  crap or obvious.

His main argument is that, pre 1950, there was NOT enough greenhouse CO2 to cause the change. I agree.* I totally agree*. There are 10 or so ... well known reasons why ... we warm. Sun is number one ... number 2 is CO2 .... three is particles in the air .... four is OTHER greenhouse gases  ... on and on it goes.

Something happened in say 1800 and we started burning fossil fuels ... but what this person deliberately misses is the PRISTINE nature of the atmosphere. For a million years, the earth cleaned itself  .... not much volcanic activity ... every 100,000 years an ice age as the orbit of the earth around the sun HAD ITS WOBBLE ... a thing he ignores, either out of lack of knowledge or likely his employer.

This aside, in 1800 ... good Ozone ..., NO smog ... 240-260 million PPM CO2 ... same for other greenhouse gasses and the accuracy of the measurements via ICE core bubbles is beyond gold standard back to say 900,000 years ago !!

CO2 impacts at a level of 1 ....
Methane ... 26 times that with a thermal bomb ... until it breaks down into CO2 and H2O ... so what happens when you DIG UP COAL ? What is Coal seam gas made of  ? Methane ... 

https://www.methanelevels.org/


Methane went NUTs ... 727 ppb in 1800 to 1116 ppb in 1950 or 389ppb at 26 times the impact of CO2 ... so ... well ... it must be added to the totals and its THERMAL boom ... is well known. All into a pristine atmosphere ... this added with the even deadlier Nitrous oxide via an impact 5 times even MORE than Methane and 125 or so times CO2 ... whilst in .... PPB v PPM or 1,000 to one ... well as agriculture advanced and well ... fertilizer occurred even by 1950 this had risen 10% or 25 PPB taking and stripping the ozone layer ....
https://www.n2olevels.org/

then what happened ?  OH CFC impact at well 23,000 times CO2 ,,,, even by 1950 .... **** the ozone layer one hand protecting us ... being stripped away .... 

Of course it had an impact ... 

Countervailing this ... NUMBER TWO impact on the global warming side is ... CRAP IN AIR ... particulates and by reflecting and blocking the sun ... by 1900 ... NOT much ... by 1950 ... A LOT ... and more so today ... thankfully shielding us. Yep smog is good ... not really but ... some solutions for the future will NEED to address this and more clouds and water vapor slowing a heating effect IS something deniers ignore.

Dig up coal .... METHANE explodes into the air as its released ... DERR ... or I would say that to the main denier who whilst sounds intelligent .. his denial, of what is pristine clinical data is an oversight. Lots of systems as you can see interacting .... smog and sun going a bit slower post 1970 .... limiting rise ... for now.

Enough. believe what you will.
Kiss your kids as their life, post 2050 will not resemble ours. Post 2100, well, with 50% plus of oxygen coming from the ocean and funny thing is ... It  hates acid .... 20% of Protein and that's for 7 billion not 10 billion .... its going to be interesting as time goes on.

I can only, with regret, announce *Humanity is technically extinct at this point*. We however have a very narrow window, less than 20 years, even if one of my worst case things happens sooner rather than latter, its going to occur either way. And that I might add is without any other massive bad event we have seen in the past that alters CO2 quickly. Say super volcanoes and so on. We have enough to worry about even now.

Happy to join Stephen in this one along with 50,000 other scientists ... me I am just the guy they get to build AI and prediction models ... or more often NOT ... I build them anyhow and correct theirs or crap they put into them.

What is of NOTE is the TIPPING point .... where we can do something .... and likely ... Cannot. Or the pain of doing something exceeds capacity to do it. NOW ... if I had my way, painless economically and we the 95% or 99% would not notice it as our governments struggled and did the right thing for everyone. As we go forward and post 20 years ... no change ... the painless ... even possible ... passes. 

Cheers Mark M


----------



## Joules MM1 (21 January 2019)

mate, is this true ?
choice bro, not choice bro! 

https://twitter.com/i/moments/1087126358927372289


----------



## rederob (21 January 2019)

qldfrog said:


> To all, see my comments in *blue*



I believe *you mean, you have no evidence *the real issue is the selective facts being pushed by CC and in fact GW advocates *you mean the tens of thousands of peer reviewed science papers which account for what we know about AGW*
As i say i believe human are warming up the planet, i am not convinced that CO2 is the cause, *you mean, you have no evidence for your belief * more the consequence *despite there being no science to this idea*. i am not convinced at all by the one research Quoted and supposed to disproved my own theory *you mean you have an idea with no factual basis * of released heat by human activity, as this single effect matches the temperature elevation observed. so if co2 was involved that much also, we would be boiling already. *You know you can actually research your idea and will find there is no credibility to it.*
But this is used to tell us to stop heating meat, stop eating bio food, basically any agenda is jumping on the bandwagon. *There is no science to support those ideas - renewable energy for example allows heating without the typical fossil fuel CO2 footprint.*
In the meantime, in mexico ,pipeline are switched of and replaced by trucks fleet, alberta is still producing from oil sands. *So what? *
Greenpeace wants to shut qld ccoal when 2/3 of it is metallurgical coal, used in steel making where there is no replacement.  *Is that a scientific argument?  Does Greenpeace have anyone in parliament?*
As a scientist and engineer, i am appaled at the level of brainwashing happening and the propaganda released to help self serving interests.  *Whatever that means????*
 Europe is now waging a war on diesel..via taxes..the most efficient engine type we have, with the engine themselves having twice the longevity of petrol one...think about the energy spent to build a brand new vehicle. * Every major vehicle producer is swinging their resources into EVs.*
At home war on plastic..no more free bags at wollies 17millions $ a year extra at least in  the supermarket pockets and overall consumption of plastic increased as was well known by all studies done before the change demonstrated  *Do you mean that studies done before plastic bags were banned conclusively prove more are now being used? *
Fed up with propaganda, take into account all effects before acting, show all sides  *Please tell us the other side to using science.*
When this will be done and truth are told, people might find trust in the media, maybe even government but only then  *Not following your logic - the science is available, has been available for a long time and gets reported.  How will your ideas change that? *
if fake news are ok because it is for the good cause, expect backlash  *??? - Do you mean the news which reports - based on best available science - that there is a need to reduce GHGs is "fake"?*

My apologies for many typos and autoreplaced errors as typing with my phone is an horror


----------



## Darc Knight (21 January 2019)

So if massive change doesn't occur in the next decade or so, kiss your kids goodbye?
So 2050 is basically about the time major impacts like crop failures and extinction of fish is projected to start?


----------



## Sdajii (21 January 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> So if massive change doesn't occur in the next decade or so, kiss your kids goodbye?
> So 2050 is basically about the time major impacts like crop failures and extinction of fish is projected to start?




If WWIII wasn't going to get in the way first, in 2050 they'd be saying it was going to be 2070 or 2080, just like previously we were being told that it was going to be by 2000, 2010, 2015, etc. We won't get to 2050 without a massive calamity (mostly likely a massive war, unless we get a freak viral outbreak or celestial impact or something) which will take the focus off climate.

Before anyone jumps on me, yes, the climate is changing (it always has changed), no, it's not currently warmer than ever, no it's not changing at the fastest rate ever, no, CO2 levels are not at the highest levels ever, no climate scientist disagrees with anything in this paragraph.


----------



## kahuna1 (21 January 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> So if massive change doesn't occur in the next decade or so, kiss your kids goodbye?
> So 2050 is basically about the time major impacts like crop failures and extinction of fish is projected to start?



NO ....

not that quick .... the actual impacts ... it takes time ... watch the PH level of the sea ...
watch both CO2 and Methane and Nitrous levels .... 

All the rest is a chemical reaction.
One leads to another .... to another thing ... arctic ice if removed .... speeds up warming .... and whats up there ? I asked for my box of crackers !! But rather than wait, in the Permafrost, which will eventually thaw, and HOW quickly is the issue, is about 40 years at full tilt of old plant and animal matter. Again, exponentially adding to CO2 and Methane.

The sea, and its PH level, even by 2100 will not be too toxic, but irreversible its march to a much lower level. Last time, and it was NOT massive CO2 levels that did it ... about 95% of all life in the sea stopped and temp at the equator was 36 degree's so that by around 2200. 

For us, our lifetime or say 2050, not too much, just coral reefs all going. Life cycles of some things in the sea broken beyond repair. Not much sea rise or temp ... 2100 another matter and from there, well it gets exponentially worse.

What these deniers, seem to forget, the 260 million year ago 2000 PPM CO2 and 95% of all life, WAS GONE ... not just the dead, on land as well. Last one, yes forests flourished at the poles ... life was abundant, NON HUMAN I MIGHT ADD. So needing 50 million sq km to feed 7 billion and hopefully via better production, not much more .... but as things get worse, higher solar radiation ... LOWER YIELDS lower contents of proteins and so on ... 

it takes TIME to stop pollution, it takes TIME for the crap to come back down and dissolve carbonates and make things more acidic in the ocean. By the time, say we hit 4 degree;s .... and I sadly suspect its 2100 .... or 2125 ... with cause I might add, its a slope that maybe if we devoted 40% of GDP to we may delay it, not stop it. But by then, well, over 10 billion minus a few massive famines ... so 8 billion ... and meanwhile, debate and bull-dust about what is causing it.

It is, on the main, simple chemical reactions or release of energy reactions .... what makes it difficult is the unknown, beyond human stupidity .... unknown what the sun will do ... its been quite .... volcanoes same thing .... all an aside really when ice disappears fro m Arctic, NORTH ... the release of the frozen matter and its either released slower ... say over 200 plus years, or, quicker and that is not a thing we want.

For now, nope no real impact for me, or these cretins ... deniers and oligarchy. Even to 2050 a mass fail in crops, say 5 years of droughts ... about 40% ..... but its assured post 2100 ... so too the CO2 and it eventually being broken down in the ocean. Funny thing the oxygen producing things there hate acidity ... but I am sure some others ... will thrive, BUT for a source of protein ? Lots of ifs whats and buts even for me and some, very unpleasant when factored in. Either way, releasing so much energy via burning them, the oceean, vast as it is ... is sucking it up as quick as it can at the rate of  Horisma every 2 seconds, eventually however, it hits a point and one easily seen unable to efficiently cope, and hey presto ... almost overnight in a geologic sense massive rises.

CO2 the last event, 65 million years ago, caused by Volcanoes and then suspected massive wildfires, actually took a very long time to build up CO2 levels, 2 events about 2,00 years long over  200,000 year total time. Well we are doing the same and have exceeded it ... post 1800 to NOW .... we have NOT as yet seen the temp rises, but as we know and fully well know back then they followed about 800 years after .... BUT THAT ... I might add was with two events .... spanning 10 times ... what we have DONE and we have done MORE THAN the two together ... CO2 wise in 200 years NOT 4,000 years.

What the two main deniers, the Nobel prize winning one and the other fool paid for via Kochs ignore is TIME as well. Not only all things that change the scenario ... but TIME itself ... and in both cases the lack of any or much life in the oceans. So, me going, I am NOT going to factor in this, which I don't, and same for the climate scientists NOW, because ... I just don't know ... there is NO precedent for some idiot doing this !! What I do know, its already BAD .... even without going, well ... the total rise of 8-10 degrees c .... not 1.5 they dream of keeping it too ... a political crap thing, even 2, the real scenario is if we see instead of o er say 2,000 years  thermal bloom of 8 degrees, one much shorter, again its beyond the 2,100 year mark any of this.

Warning sign, Watch that CO2 and more so CH4 Methane and stop using nitrate fertilizer because the ozone layer is being removed AGAIN .... 

Impacts post 2050, with 10 billion souls ... and say 500 PPM and CH4 at 25% more than today are, well it tips the models on their head. As it should. Chemical reactions, pure and simple. What is needed, is to stop this **** NOW ... 

Enough. It is free or very low impact economically now, low overall, pity about oil field owners and say Russia and Saudi Arabia and coal mines and so on ... but conversely green energy employs more people and COSTS LESS .... COST LESS PER KWH of power ... something which eventually economics will dictate we use, but for now subsidies out of USA all go or 80% go to dirty crap power. 

It is NOT something I can change, what will be ... will be ... reducing the rate at which we increase BEYOND 33 billion tons of CO2 is NOT fixing it, its merely reducing ... the rate of increase and with say 50 years of full tilt emissions....  impacts as it slowly comes back to earth, more and more hits the ocean and more and more it does a simple chemical reaction, whilst the PH of the ocean is good, its moved 25% and again no real massive impact till post 2100 unless my own arctic permafrost and release of the organic methane and CO2 is wrong and we see, a sudden massive in 20 year rise of say 10 degrees in ocean arctic temperatures, then ... wind the clock forward ... but, well prior to this ... well well prior to this, the game is up.

I suspect, due to the convoluted fractured and indifferent nature of the world and its economies, the need of the planet, to have everyone on the same page is NOT possible. Not till, its far too late. The pan as such, NOW ... toi reduce the amount of stuff thats assured to kill the species ... is absurd in itself.

Fossils and various other records tell us what happened last time. It was not good.

Enuf, don't worry, we are safe .... your kids are safe ... its all a hoax and I am kidding. Then again, doing something, anything, which will alter your interests as a coal moine owner, or oil tycoon or as a chemical producer and polluter on a grand scale, I vote we ... step it up.

BURN MORE ... it does not matter. It has no effect. Neither does when your in the bath if you pee in it, or do a dump. Same thing, a problem if you have to drink the water to survive at some stage if you have dont that.

Have fun
Mark M


----------



## kahuna1 (21 January 2019)

Agreed ..

2000 PPM CO2 or a bit higher ... NO LIFE ... or very little ... existed on the planet ... that was the 260 million year ago events ... 65 million or so ... well ocean lost 95% of species ... yep warmer ... but as I said, rises FOLLOWED CO2 rise but CO2 .... WAS LOWER >>>>> less than 380 ppm during that time I believe. 

The first event, dawn of time and planet with massive eruptions and tectonic shifts and plates crashing into each other ... primordi0am massive o0ceans of green algae suddenly covered via continental plates as they banged together .... oh the good old days. The sky, By the way ... if you know what nuclear winter is, there is a massive band of ash, via super volcanoes that coincides with an ice age when 2000 PPM CO2 was there .... but if you ignore all the **** in the air ... and it blocking the sun ... causing an ice age and oh the sun being 4% less back then ... NO ... as the Nobel prize winner seemed not to speak to anyone else in his denial, his expertise was particle physics and he was senile when he denied the climate side ... 

What 2000 PPM has to do with 400 or 410 is not really an issue. One was caused by volcanoes, the next one volcanoes and fires, but the second one only got to 380 PPM ... and since its spread over 200,000 years WE ARE quicker as I suspect we will be when we hit 1,000 PPM early 2100 ... not quite the 2,000 or plus level, but we are NOT expecting a super volcano to help us.

back to sleep for me ... this topic stretches even my math ... and with so many ifs, whats and maybes; and being hard nosed, only accepting sure things is enough to depress me without opening up what is likely.

Take care
Mark


----------



## qldfrog (21 January 2019)

So what do you. Meaning we.. do about it keep putting any scary BS out and tell you need to ride your bike stop eating meat and stop cooling yourself while the population is still expanding at a mad speed, china building every where with concrete and steel ghost cities right and left, indonesia and africa clear forests..and i am supposed to feel bad and be taxed right and left yet pretend to compete with the 3rd world economically?


----------



## rederob (21 January 2019)

qldfrog said:


> So what do you. Meaning we.. do about it keep putting any scary BS out and tell you need to ride your bike stop eating meat and stop cooling yourself while the population is still expanding at a mad speed, china building every where with concrete and steel ghost cities right and left, indonesia and africa clear forests..and i am supposed to feel bad and be taxed right and left yet pretend to compete with the 3rd world economically?



Why not pretend you are ignorant?
That way you don't have to worry about saying stupid things.
And when the next generation asks you how things got to be so bad you can add them to your long list of *blame.*


----------



## kahuna1 (21 January 2019)

Well, 

for me, I live out the next 30 or so years,

Since I care about the next and possibly next .... I have one vote, I use that, I have a voice, I use that. Either humanity and by that ... even 75% of us do the right thing, or we don't, the math and science are very clear.

For now, the global fiscal side needs change, the word truth has become a dirty word. If I burnt myself as a child I learnt quickly not to do it again.

*The past, history of the past, is a crystal ball to the future.* Having tried to stop many many fiscal and financial train wrecks, only for them to occur, and it be coined a Black swan event, or something new, or out of the blue .... this time, its actually irrelevant.

I need no validation, or accolades or anything. I just don't care at this point. The same for most of the 50,000 scientists behind the recent consensus. In them 50 plus Nobel prize winners, and 40,000 PHD's ... our journey is to find a solution and keep trying to present it. There ARE SOLUTIONS ...  as I said, almost painless to 99% of the world. Sadly painful to 1% .... but tough luck.

For me, my journey is to make the 1% feel some pain and change the way not how the climate works or operates, for that to happen, leadership must change as well as the total hijacking of fact from fiction from ... science. It is NOT about inflicting pain and again, I have no grudge, its the abuse of power and wealth and control that has even a simple easy sum like 2 plus 2 and the answer being debated and turned to crap.

WORLDS BEST PRACTICE .... SOURCE DATA ..., impartial clinical view and action. Impossible to see when a dummy is debating a wall ... for 5 billion having added 2 trillion to the debt of USA post 2016 and people trying to enter the USA via the border in 2000 were 600,000 and 52,000 in 2018.

Thats just a tip of the iceberg about WHAT needs to change. Our own PM, OH I have not read the climate report, the day it came out, but will not be changing anything. OKEY DOKEY .... Howard of late sprouting same old senile stuff about the cost ... of going green ... ITS CHEAPER PER KW HR you fool. Whyalla the steel plant there NOW going 100% green. 

Not solar PV but wind and Thermal Solar KW hr below carbon forms of power generation. Some 10 other forms very close. But as I said ... NOT enough.

Not even close. A mi of blocking the sun to slow warming, some form of CO2 sequestration and NOT via brute energy force .... and basically going to 25% of current emissions by 2050. So unlikely, its insane. I cannot see anyone giving up their cheap oil ...

I sadly await, something that is coming, soon. I hope not within my lifetime.

Peaceful protest and your VOTE and SAYING NO ... doings something .. is the only option for now.
Monitor it yourself and see, learn over time ... and even then ... 25% believe NASA never went to the moon so the hope for humanity, longer term, is slim.

take care
Mark M


----------



## basilio (21 January 2019)

What do we do about CC ?  How do we prevent personal burnout and feelings of hopelessness? Check this out.

*Save our minds by saving the world*
Caitlin Fitzsimmons20 January 2019 — 12:00am

Send via Email
_For some time I’ve had a policy not to debate the existence of human-induced climate change, especially not with strangers on the internet.

In my experience the only people still in doubt are not the type to be persuaded by facts. If you present evidence, they’ll simply attack the credibility of the source and insult you for believing it.

My position as a journalist is simple. When the scientific community has genuine debate, I’ll report the evidence and counter-evidence and various viewpoints. When there is near consensus, I’ll regard the science as settled until such time as that changes.
The ocean around Tasmania used to be renowned for forests of giant kelp, with strands measuring 12 metres, but most of it has died off as the waters have warmed.Credit:Craig Sanderson

Climate change falls into the latter category, so the fertile ground for a journalist is to examine how it plays out in specific ecosystems, and how humans respond to it both through public policy and as individuals.

This doesn’t stop people from believing I owe them a debate - I was recently labelled an “absolute innocent dupe” by one delightful chap who had messaged me asking for a “chat” - on Christmas Eve, no less.

Meanwhile, out in the real world, people are in no doubt about the existence of climate change because they are living through it.

I have just returned from a two-week holiday in Tasmania with my family. One of the national park rangers on the Tasman Peninsula told us how 15 years ago he was a fisherman operating out of Fortescue Bay catching a variety of fish including barracuda.

In the past 12 years most of the fish have disappeared because of habitat destruction - a 2 Celsius rise in the average seawater temperature has killed most of the giant kelp forest, which had provided the breeding grounds for many of the fish species.

Sea urchins washed down from NSW were eating the remaining species of kelp and the sea temperature was now warm enough for them to breed in Tasmanian waters.

The East Australian Current - made famous by the Pixar movie Finding Nemo - used to stop near Eden on the NSW south coast but now went past Tasman Island. This brought down the tropical fish from the Great Barrier Reef but as soon as the currents shifted and cold water came up from Antarctica, the fish died. This year was particularly bad but our ranger said he’d been seeing dead tropical fish wash up on beaches for the past four or five years.

The ranger also talked about the impact on the community. Many young locals had grown up expecting to join the family fishing business, but that future had been ripped away from them. The lucky few had found work taking tourists out to see the sea cliffs and wild seals.

There are far fewer fishing boats in Fortescue Bay these days and those that remain are often targeting species like kingfish that were never previously found in Tasmania.

This isn’t a case of a guide telling tall stories to entertain the punters - research from the University of Tasmania verifies his account. Adding the shift in the East Australian Current to the backdrop of global ocean warming means Tasmanian waters are warming four times faster than the rest of the world.

The giant kelp forest is 95 per cent gone due to warming waters and researchers are studying remnant giant kelp to see if it can be rehabilitated.

As well as the migration of long-spined sea urchins from more northerly states, the warmer waters have also brought diseases that threaten the Tasmanian oyster industry. And a citizen science project called Red Map documenting the spread of species due to climate change is full of sightings of exotic fish in Tasmania.

There are stories like this from all over the world - the specifics change, but the broad themes are constant. Discussions about climate change can be abstract at the planetary level, but locally it all gets real.

It’s a natural human reaction to shy away from the grim reality of what’s happening and what’s in store. It protects us from falling into that most destructive of states: despair.

Perhaps that explains climate change denialism to some extent - though I also blame deliberate misinformation from vested interests and attention seekers who've turned the issue into another front of the culture wars.

But denial is not a mainstream view. The 2018 Lowy Institute Poll found 59 per cent of Australians regard climate change as a “serious and pressing problem”, while 84 per cent say the government should focus on renewables even if it requires spending. Climate change was rated a "critical threat" to the nation, with only terrorism and North Korea’s nuclear program ranked higher in the nation’s list of worries.
_
*Yet even those of us who accept the science on climate change tend to compartmentalise our fears for the future in order to function day to day.

It means we’re living with cognitive dissonance - the mental discomfort or psychological stress that comes from believing two or more contradictory ideas at the same time. This takes a toll on our mental health and leaves us less able to cope with life’s challenges, at the very time we need to be facing up to our problems.

The antidote is action.

A number of studies over many years suggest activism and volunteering is one of the best things we can do for our mental health. Happily, it’s also one of the best things we can do for the planet.

While most scientists say it’s too late to completely prevent or reverse climate change, they also say we can mitigate the damage and avoid the worst of it.

I also advocate getting out and enjoying the beauty of our natural world so that we’re acting from a place of love not fear. This is especially important for parents - let's teach our children to fall in love with the world before we depress them about how broken it is.*
_
Let's quit branding people as hypocrites if they call for action on climate change but continue to eat meat or fly on aeroplanes or own a mobile phone. It can be more comfortable to undermine the messenger rather than hear the message, but expecting humans to be perfect is doomed to failure. Acting on climate change is not all or nothing - there’s a vast difference between 1.5C or 4C warming and we need to collectively shift the dial.
_
*Arguing with people about whether climate change is real is a dangerous distraction. We just need to get on with doing something about it.*
_
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/...inds-by-saving-the-world-20190117-p50rye.html_


----------



## qldfrog (21 January 2019)

So i as i said earlier be also realistic, we can do only so much, what is the point of a carbon tax if it is not also applied on imported good and the matching transportation..
But if Trump say that.it is fake news..
Horror
the west  will not save the world by committing suicide, as hard it can be for the globalist left, action needs to be taken by all humans not a few single countries selected based on segregation ideology and past guilt of the loony activists.
I am proud of my ancestors even if they were white
Without them, we would not have solar panels or wind power now.
On the other end, they can be blamed for having grown population with horrible things like green revolution , food help and immunisation boosting the population of the third world


----------



## kahuna1 (21 January 2019)

So so true.

Sadly I operate in a world where few do. I accept the debating is a waste of time, present a case, logical, clinical and scientific and something that's happened 1,000 times and even 1 million times and still, still, we will have people more willing to believe a myth.

Its human nature, then we have the mix of humanity, from those who care, to those, who have a disease like NPD or Sociopaths. At each end of the two are 10% .... so added to that paid for PR types, people with self interest, people with massive resources and ability to smudge and fudge things.

Without this, madness, the one that is a noise in the media right now, louder than at any time in my lifetime about irrelevant issues, whilst ... other bigger things, NOT climate change but more immediate issues on the fiscal side are going on, to achieve change for me, I will try and stop or alter the balance or imbalance and pure BS being pushed for self interest, and then maybe then, some debate, research and clear direction can be found on this topic.

Yes some massive progress has been made with many EU nations adding 30% green power to their mix, but in the greater scheme of things, its a BB gun against an Elephant. Sad, but true. As humans, stupidity and greed and at times cruelty have no bounds. I suspect, without help it will take say a crop fail in some poorer states over 5-10 years, and mass starvation to make people blink. Likely post 2050. People, sadly do not care, or are swayed by the very convincing arguments of the debunkers.

As an exercise, i approached with an open mind, listened to it all, read hundreds of papers, already had 30 plus years of associated background and NO AGENDA and it took me, well 5 minutes and without help to call a Nobel prize winner, the early de-bunker an idiot. It took me a few searches as to who or whom he worked for, and who funded that, same for the next one ... 

Not many have the time, inclination or, really care. Lots of scary stuff out there and I don't wish to add to it, other than to say I have a solution .... PRIOR to saying, the ocean is likely dead as we know it and Humanity is technically extinct at this point in time. Or there IS a solution ... not I have some magic solution .... its likely 3,4,5 different things ... beyond reducing emissions to well 25% of current levels.

Technology and brilliance may present others, but trees are nice but not the solution .... putting something in the air to stop the sun is one ... a few others and we are on the way.

Going to SOURCE data, CO2 levels and so on .... ocean temps and what happened last time ... whilst being told by some scientist or textbook this is what occurred ... verifying it down to the DAILY levels and verses very accurate ones ... in the past ... is where i had to go after listening to someone who has 3 PDs and claims its all a myth .... or some prize. i do not lightly call someone a paid for idiot who holds a Nobel prize, well ... not usually, but I checked and checked again and again, went to Oxford and Cambridge and three other leaders in the field and went ... yep... the guy is a frigging idiot.

But for many, in fact most, that title is enough. I have a few myself, and one that well, a good friend calculated it was impossible to do ... and when it was done ... he calculated the odds of predicting one thing or a series of things, that were predicted at 7 trillion to one.

For now, the future is NOT cast in stone. Sadly, even being optimistic it will be set in stone soon. There is a finite ability to fix things verses possible cures and their optimum capacity. A capacity I might add that's 20 times current levels and we still, for NOW retain the ability to stave off 2-4 degrees ... even allowing for permafrost melt, all be it slowly ... and methane release.

Oh well, bigger battles and whilst irrelevant, right now, some things need to change and leadership globally must be found. Right or wrong ... and it involves a change in management for the betterment of us all and our potential future. Not the hopes and desires and greed and indifference of a few, as I sadly again listen to the Davros stuff and the Oligarchy meeting that proceeded it, I even made Gates who appears to be a good guy actually stutter and ... he doesn't like me anymore. 

Such is life. He was giving himself a pat on the back about his work and I asked how he felt about the USA cutting Foreign aid by 25 billion, about 20 times what even he and Buffet spend overseas, why he felt his actions in enabling this cut, and how taking 25 billion away was a positive thing overall ? Sorry Bill ... you really are a wanker. 

Its a mad mad world out there. Most governments, MOST, have good intentions and that for their people.

I cant imagine not paying taxes at even the rate of my secretary, and paying 12% as he does or 15% for Buffett but both only declare about 10% of their wealth in income anyhow .... is going to do for the welfare of the rest of the 99.99% pf people in the nation I live in. Thankfully not the USA, but for now it leads the world. 

Enuf ... thanks for the time and thoughts,

take care
Mark M


----------



## rederob (21 January 2019)

qldfrog said:


> pasted below with comments in *blue*



So i as i said earlier be also realistic, we can do only so much, what is the point of a carbon tax if it is not also applied on imported good and the matching transportation.*  Using that logic, nobody needs to do anything*.
But if Trump say that.it is fake news..  *So what?*
Horror
the west  will not save the world by committing suicide, *the countries doing well are investing heavily in renewables *as hard it can be for the globalist left, *ideologies do not take action, nations do *action needs to be taken by all humans *and who makes everyone do what needs to be done? *not a few single countries selected based on segregation ideology *what on earth does that mean? *and past guilt of the loony activists.* You mean the ones who have pushed hardest for the solar and wind power you (as you say below) are now proud of?*
I am proud of my ancestors even if they were white  *How is that relevant?*
Without them, we would not have solar panels or wind power now.
On the other end, they can be blamed for having grown population with horrible things like green revolution, food help and immunisation boosting the population of the third world  *Yes, that third world which continues to live in poverty, has poor access to drinking water and food, can't connect to electricity, and has the highest mortality rates are apparently otherwise doing exceptionally well - how observant you are.*


----------



## Ann (21 January 2019)

I have started reading Tim Flannery's book The Weather Makers, got it from the opshop for $1.50 which I thought was fair value for the book, it appears to be unread. I struggle with his frequent mentions of Gaia .......named for a Greek goddess and is regarded as the primal Mother Earth goddess.
_.......the *Gaia theory* or the *Gaia principle*, proposes that living organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a synergistic and self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for life on the planet.......
_
I find it a bit yippy hippy for my tastes, I was there in that early Gaia era....pachouli oil, caftans, pot, yoga, and lounging around on poofs in dark coffee lounges listening to B. Dylan/Dylan T. and the Cat. Having deep and meaninful conversations about existentialism, communism, nuclear power, student activism, several other isms of which my memory fails to recall now. It was all fun at the time. Bit passe now for grumpy old people like me! However I do agree with the concept of Gaia, (it is giving earth a name which is unsettling) so I am not arguing with him over this point.

What I really liked was in his introduction on Page 6 he said...._"The best evidence indicates that we need to reduce our CO2 emmissions by 70 percent by 2050. If you own a four-wheel-drive and replace it with a hybrid fuel car, you can achieve a cut of that magnitude in a day rather than half a century."
_
There you go! Problem solved! All those four-wheel-drives are the cause. I knew I hated those wasteful, unnecessary, fuel guzzling oversized vehicles for a reason. 

There is other stuff in the book I found incredibly interesting but I will save that for another post.


----------



## basilio (22 January 2019)

I'm glad you are reading The Weather Makers Ann.  It certainly pulled together much of the science and many the possible solutions regarding CC and was quite accessible to the general public

It made a (justified) big impression in 2006.

_*The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change*_ is a 2005 book by Tim Flannery.

The book received critical acclaim. It won the major prize at the 2006 New South Wales Premier's Literary Awards,[1] and was short-listed for the 2010 Jan Michalski Prize for Literature.[2][3]

*Contents*

1 Description
2 Impact
3 See also
4 References
5 External links
*Description*
The book includes 36 short essays predicting the consequences of global warming and has been translated into over twenty languages[4]. The book reviews evidence of historical climate change and attempts to compare this with the current era. The book argues that if atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to increase at current rates, the resulting climate change will cause mass species extinctions. The book also asserts that global temperatures have already risen enough to cause the annual monsoon rains in the Sahel region of Africa to diminish, causing droughts and desertification. This in turn, according to Flannery, has contributed to the conflict in the Darfur region through competition for disappearing resources. Further consequences, argued in the book, include increasing hurricane intensity, and decline in the health of coral reefs.

The final third of the book discusses proposed solutions. Flannery advocates individual action as well as international and governmental actions. He argues that a few industries such as the coal industry, currently responsible for 40% of the energy consumed in the U.S., remain opponents of needed action. The book retraces the evidence that the American administration[_citation needed_], motivated by coal-industry donations to the Republican party, undermines political action by omitting mention of climate change from government documents. The book cites evidence against the argument that conservation is bad for economies.[5]

*Impact*
In the introduction of _Atmosphere of Hope. Solutions to the Climate Crisis_ (2015), Tim Flannery mention some people who were influenced by reading _The Weather Makers_ (2005)[6] He wrote that the book 'alerted' Richard Branson, who recommended it to Arnold Schwarzenegger (Governor of California, who signed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) and established the Virgin Earth Challenge as well as the Carbon War Room.[6] Gordon Campbell, Premier of British Columbia, said that he introduced a carbon tax in British Columbia after reading _The Weather Makers_.[6] The book also alerted Zhou Ji, president of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, 'to the extent of the climate problem'.[6]

The book was cited as contributing to Flannery being named Australian of the Year in 2007 for his clear and accessible communication of climate change science and its likely consequences for a fragile planet [4]. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weather_Makers


----------



## kahuna1 (22 January 2019)

Tee Hee,
Just found another Nobel prize winner who says climate change and so in is absurd. His prize, in bio chemistry also with this denial, he said he was convinced HIV and AIDS were not linked.

Oh boy ... since they now have managed to stave off AIDS from HIV and keep it suspended and at bay virtually forever, I am wondering if I should listen to him ?

As usual, I struggle on some days, today being Martin Luther King Day and wonder is I had a dream is replaced by a Nightmare. Strange that whilst segregation is now illegal, and many other things, in the USA with massive amounts of African Americans in jail, I was amazed that 14% of them cannot vote due to having been in jail at some stage, MALES that is.

Climate stuff, I listened to *Sir David Attenborough* and his speech, at Davos and found myhself alone in the Oligarchy section, seems none of them could make it. Whilst I agree with his views, and the sceince is what it is, knowing the last thing on the movers and shakers mind is change is alarming. Trump to celebrate and it being cold in the USA with some extreme snow storms as the gulf stream MOVES and yep a climate change thing, Trump mocked as he does. and asked for some of those ,,, it seems to have been removed ...
*'Wouldn't be bad to have a little of that good old fashioned Global Warming right now!' Trump uses winter storm to mock climate change on Twitter and warns people to stay inside*

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...inside-winter-storm-mocks-global-warming.html

Golly reading his twitter is a great laxative ... very bad for global warming sadly .... he tweeted a billion zillion times in 24 hours. All of it DRIVEL and amazingly so.

Maybe someone has told him, how stupid his tweet was, about WHY abnormally cold and abnormally hot things are all PART of climate change and since NASA is off line ... the gulf stream was moving as it does to cause these things prior to the money running out.

Such is life. How someone who paid no taxes can honor Martin Luther King and the plight of the 2019 African Americans is, well, beyond me. Then again I have a conscience, and empathy for their plight.

Cheers


----------



## Ann (22 January 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Just found another Nobel prize winner who says climate change and so in is absurd. His prize, in bio chemistry also with this denial, he said he was convinced HIV and AIDS were not linked.
> 
> Oh boy ... since they now have managed to stave off AIDS from HIV and keep it suspended and at bay virtually forever, I am wondering if I should listen to him ?




It is a legitimate thing to investigate kahuna, a number of people who presented with HIV back when it all started never went into full blown AIDS and are still alive today. Although one needs to ask what would be achieved if he managed to isolate the one from the other. Better treatments perhaps? 
1984 was a horrible year, most of my friends were gay males and within a very short time over a couple of years I lost the majority of my friendship base.


----------



## kahuna1 (22 January 2019)

Whilst I offer my condolences, the point, was .... his expertise had not a thing to do with HIV nor climate change. He has never researched in either area, held any qualifications or written a single paper on any topic close to either one.

He was of course, WRONG and totally wrong on both counts, we now know this all be it 30 years latter. Like some winners of the prize, others in positions they never should be in, they have half baked theories and well ... best example is being made head of the USA federal reserve with an idiotic theory about flat earth economics.

cheers


----------



## Ann (22 January 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> He was of course, WRONG and totally wrong on both counts, we now know this all be it 30 years latter. Like some winners of the prize, others in positions they never should be in, they have half baked theories and well ... best example is being made head of the USA federal reserve with an idiotic theory about flat earth economics.




I googled USA federal reserve and flat earth economics and went to a Russian site. I listened to the video, hopefully I don't have a Russian bug in my computer now! He was talking about the economy being flat and working with economics to address that situation.  I am not going to link it here as it may not be a safe site to view. But he _was not _talking about flat earth economics.


----------



## Ann (22 January 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> As usual, I struggle on some days, today being Martin Luther King Day and wonder is I had a dream is replaced by a Nightmare. Strange that whilst segregation is now illegal, and many other things, in the USA with massive amounts of African Americans in jail, I was amazed that 14% of them cannot vote due to having been in jail at some stage, MALES that is.




It is called Felony Disenfranchisement and is not focused on any one demographic.

As of 2008 over 5.3 million people in the United States were denied the right to vote due to felony disenfranchisement.[10] In the national elections in 2012, the various state felony disenfranchisement laws together blocked an estimated 5.85 million felons from voting, up from 1.2 million in 1976. This comprised 2.5% of the potential voters in general. The state with the highest number of disenfranchised voters was Florida, with 1.5 million disenfranchised.[6]


----------



## kahuna1 (22 January 2019)

Sorry,

for another thread, but the USA fed was taken over by, what I refer to as flat earth scientists. So too a number of senior central bankers. Ben Bernake was at best, a mid range economics professor with some very seriously stupid economic theories which had never worked. Same form Yellen and so too the whole Chicago economic theory group.

Drip down or trickle down economics has never worked. That being a regressive tax system where say my Gates pays 12% tax and his secretary pays 35%. Very simply put, Mr Gates spends under 10% of his income and lower wage earners 100% or close to it. Taking money from someone who spends it, is absurd. Doing it of course has seen the wealth in the USA flow from the middle class which had 25% of the wealth in 1980 .... a mid range number for the 60% in that section to a mere 11% officially.

Beyond supporting this, Fed members hand picked by the banks who own the USA fed, each from 1983 or so onward believed in NO or low intervention and rules, LOW LOW LOW interest rates and all believed bubbles in assets were impossible to see and stop.

Amazing but true ...

Worse, well, Bernanke and Yellen and the head of Goldman Sachs went to Harvard together ... well Yellen was not a student but a PA .... deputy Fisher ... was Yellens uni professor and so on and so forth. Yellens husband worked at a Goldman Sachs funded school at some Uni and when they all left ... off on speaking tour ... to investment banks at 150-200k a pop and as the door hit their behind ... they went to the favorite think tank for Goldman Sachs that produces some really nasty papers ... the Brookings Institute ... Both now reside there.

I call them flat earth .... Noam Chomsky ex MIT and now Northern, a legend ... called them a cult ... whoops so did I. We had a board for 10 years, all same economic theory, all with links to big brother, all same religion ... not that that's the issue ... but more importantly who believed in reducing laws and supervision of markets, did not believe in bubbles and fervently believed one could not stop a bubble even if one could see it.

basically if it were like the new EPA guy Trump has, a lobbyist for fossil fuels ... he is dismantling every rule and regulation and so too is Trump ... because he has a hunch, which is sadly relevant to the question of WHEN if ever any action will occur out of the USA.

In 2005 ... or so ... I wrote a paper that was not one that amused BUSH junior, the worst president to that date, ever ... about the worlds largest oil find of 180 billion or so barrels of oil ... the TAR SANDS of Canada. One can of course make petrol out of coal if one wants to, it will take about 40% of the energy contained ... tar sands ... are the second worst at 35% of the oil or energy recovered is spent. First they have to heat the tar to 80 degrees C then it becomes a sludge full of heavy metals and difficult to refine. Anyhow, I said then Kyoto was dead at that point.

Most amusing, 60 minutes did a piece on the Tar sands, NOT A WORD about the energy cost, or the gunk it produced .... the toxic crap.

Such is life.

Oh back to Yellen and Bernanke and Greenspan, every other central bank, or decent one KNOWS how to see a bubble .... stopping it they have a massive arsenal of tools on the fiscal side. We just used some of them here in Australia to slow things down in Sydney. Bluntest tool and biggest is interest rates, If any central bank raised rate by 5% I believe housing activity would cease !! Less blunt it lower rises and even if that's NOT possible a central bank SHOULD use say its requirements for reserves from banks to influence loans and raising the reserves required by 10% on any investment or NO DEPOSIT loan will stop any speculation pretty much dead without hurting other sectors.

USA fed, did not even see .... the GFC and price rises of 10-15% in 20 cities .... so when I call them flat earth or incompetent, that's being nice. Bernanke and some of his quotes are sad, Greenspan as he left ... went I don't understand how the GFC happened, Yellen, well she was too arrogant to admit anything, she had been pushing her rubbish for over 20 years.  Sadly anything is for sale in the USA and in the case of climate change, well, major political donors well represented by Oil and Gas and Coal.

Not a theory, a sad reality of 2019.

have fun


----------



## Joules MM1 (23 January 2019)

"The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, used data from Nasa’s gravity recovery and climate experiment (known as Grace) and GPS stations scattered across Greenland to analyze changes in ice mass.

This showed that Greenland lost about 280bn tons of ice per year between 2002 and 2016, enough to raise the worldwide sea level by 0.03 inches annually."
Greenland's ice melting faster than scientists previously thought – study

The pace of ice loss has increased four-fold since 2003 as enormous glaciers are depositing ever larger chunks of ice into the Atlantic ocean, where it melts, causing sea levels to rise

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...sts-previously-thought-study?CMP=share_btn_tw


----------



## rederob (23 January 2019)

Joules MM1 said:


> ... Greenland lost about 280bn tons of ice per year between 2002 and 2016....
> The pace of ice loss has increased four-fold since 2003 as enormous glaciers are depositing ever larger chunks of ice into the Atlantic ocean, where it melts, causing sea levels to rise.



Meanwhile the rate of change for Antarctica is five-fold over a similar period, with actual annual losses now slightly below Greenland's but set to surpass it in the next decade.


----------



## basilio (23 January 2019)

Any mathematician here care to project the* accelerating rate* of ice melt in the Arctic and Antarctic over the next 30 years and see where that takes us ? 

Or perhaps it has been done already.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/antarctica-ice-melt-glaciers-ice-shelf-collapse-2018-6


----------



## kahuna1 (23 January 2019)

Hi,

whilst an issue ... not far. Arctic ice I suspect is gone, its the ice down South, the stuff on the mainland that is the issue and if it all melted it would raise sea levels about 70 meters. This however is unlikely pre 2100 in any massive way. Next 30 years, I suspect Artic goes ice free during summer and possibly even winter about 2075.

Have fun
Cheers


----------



## satanoperca (23 January 2019)

Sorry missed your last post Kahuna1, busy buying a boat to live on


----------



## rederob (23 January 2019)

basilio said:


> Any mathematician here care to project the* accelerating rate* of ice melt in the Arctic and Antarctic over the next 30 years and see where that takes us ?
> 
> Or perhaps it has been done already.
> https://www.businessinsider.com.au/antarctica-ice-melt-glaciers-ice-shelf-collapse-2018-6



Bas
Hard to see an Arctic completely ice free in summer within 30 years, but I doubt there will be much there to worry shipping.   Here's a good article on the prediction of when.  Arctic winters are unlikely to be ice free in the foreseeable future as ocean heat uptake is slow - a lot will depend on how the global warming rates change over the next hundred years.
The Antarctic has many thousands of years of ice mass even on a worst case scenario.  Hard to chew through 3000 metres in a hurry.


----------



## explod (23 January 2019)

rederob said:


> Bas
> Hard to see an Arctic completely ice free in summer within 30 years, but I doubt there will be much there to worry shipping.   Here's a good article on the prediction of when.  Arctic winters are unlikely to be ice free in the foreseeable future as ocean heat uptake is slow - a lot will depend on how the global warming rates change over the next hundred years.
> The Antarctic has many thousands of years of ice mass even on a worst case scenario.  Hard to chew through 3000 metres in a hurry.



The problem in Antarctica now is that the ice is now melting under the ice shelf and that the 3000 metre blocks are starting to move and will just slide off as happened in Greenland.


----------



## basilio (23 January 2019)

rederob said:


> The Antarctic has many thousands of years of ice mass even on a worst case scenario. Hard to chew through 3000 metres in a hurry.




*It won't be the last 2950 metres of  Antarctic ice melting that stuffs us.*

I opened the question about what the next 30 years could  hold if the ice melt around the world continued to accelerate because, IMV, the most serious damage to our world will occur with only a couple of metres of sea level rise. And if we don't  take urgent steps to  reduce GG emissions and whatever is necessary to control global warming we could be facing quite catastrophic economic consequences of sea level rise in the near future.

Consider. Every coastal city is vulnerable to rising sea levels. Some of course are in more immediate danger than others. Miami in Florida is probably a particularly good example of a city that is already awash.

*At what stage will banks and insurance companies start drawing red lines around areas they will no longer insure or give mortgages? *What will be the consequence  for these areas as well as banks and owners who hold loans/equity in these properties?

*If the pace of sea level rise starts to quicken how quickly will banks start to look at their property portfolios?* How widespread will this be given that there are scores of vulnerable cities ? What will be the effect on coastal cities as significant areas and infrastructure become redlined ? What will happen as people realise this will not stop and that in 10-20-30 years the  adjoining suburbs will be redlined ?


----------



## basilio (23 January 2019)

satanoperca said:


> Sorry missed your last post Kahuna1, busy buying a boat to live on




I hope it comes with some decent firepower and plenty of ammo..!


----------



## kahuna1 (23 January 2019)

Howdy,
well its my understanding that *unless the Antarctic melts* we will be maybe 50cm rise by 2100. They say 30 cm ... I say 50 ... but even then, land is NOT a constant thing, it is rising or falling most of the time. So where will be hit is difficult to predict unless one knows if the land itself is rising or falling. 

Either way, post 2050. For me, well, its not an issue in my lifetime.

Cheers


----------



## qldfrog (23 January 2019)

A lot of the USA coast beach houses can not be insured against hurricane anymore, nothing new for them.
In Australia my bet is it will take the form of a mandatory insurance available to everyone paid by a tax or fee on every insurance etc a medicare for house insurance. normal consequence of a system where we blame ugly capitalism and remove individual responsability.wait and see


----------



## rederob (23 January 2019)

qldfrog said:


> A lot of the USA coast beach houses can not be insured against hurricane anymore, nothing new for them.
> In Australia my bet is it will take the form of a mandatory insurance available to everyone paid by a tax or fee on every insurance etc a medicare for house insurance. normal consequence of a system where we blame ugly capitalism and remove individual responsability.wait and see



I doubt it.
Councils have responsibility for these property matters and they will take the same actions as they do wrt to buildings/property in flood prone areas.


----------



## Darc Knight (24 January 2019)

Follow the money. Nobody's friend Ian Plimer:

*Gina Rinehart appoints Prof Ian Plimer to two boards*
*https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa...oards-ng-12773327b79ec995836d992c442cd726.amp*

*Gina Rinehart company revealed as $4.5m donor to climate sceptic thinktank*

https://amp.theguardian.com/busines...led-as-45m-donor-to-climate-sceptic-thinktank


----------



## Knobby22 (24 January 2019)

Definitely pays to be a denier.


----------



## macca (24 January 2019)

It pays a lot more if you are a believer !

This got a mention because it was the other way, imagine if they tried to list all the money flowing to the pro lobby, the names would come in faster than they could list them all


----------



## Ann (24 January 2019)

macca said:


> It pays a lot more if you are a believer !
> 
> This got a mention because it was the other way, imagine if they tried to list all the money flowing to the pro lobby, the names would come in faster than they could list them all



I am working on this now. It is wrapped up in a  large number of  'green' tax free charities, I would suggest trillions of dollars available funding would just be just the tip of the iceberg.

Talking about icebergs.....
*Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Maximum Extent*

Two weeks after a new record was set in the Arctic Ocean for the least amount of sea ice coverage in the satellite record, the ice surrounding Antarctica reached its annual winter maximum—and set a record for a new high. Sea ice extended over 19.44 million square kilometers (7.51 million square miles) in 2012, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). The previous record of 19.39 million kilometers (7.49 million square miles) was set in 2006.


----------



## Knobby22 (24 January 2019)

macca said:


> It pays a lot more if you are a believer !
> 
> This got a mention because it was the other way, imagine if they tried to list all the money flowing to the pro lobby, the names would come in faster than they could list them all



Any evidence?


----------



## rederob (24 January 2019)

macca said:


> It pays a lot more if you are a believer !
> 
> This got a mention because it was the other way, imagine if they tried to list all the money flowing to the pro lobby, the names would come in faster than they could list them all



Science does not pay well given the level of study.
Science is not a *lobby*.
You are very confused.


----------



## rederob (24 January 2019)

Ann said:


> Two weeks after a new record was set in the Arctic Ocean for the least amount of sea ice coverage in the satellite record, the ice surrounding Antarctica reached its annual winter maximum—and set a record for a new high. Sea ice extended over 19.44 million square kilometers (7.51 million square miles) in *2012*, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). The previous record of 19.39 million kilometers (7.49 million square miles) was set in 2006.



Ann, why do you keep digging up irrelevances from the past?


----------



## Ann (24 January 2019)

rederob said:


> Ann, why do you keep digging up irrelevances from the past?



Because it is interesting, relevant and beautiful. I would love to see it up until 2018, but for whatever reason NASA haven't updated yet.

Edit: The fact that 2012 saw both the Arctic at it's minimum and the Antarctic at its maximum is really interesting.


----------



## Darc Knight (24 January 2019)

*NASA Scientist Warned Deniers Would Distort His Antarctic Ice Study -- That's Exactly What They Did

A new NASA study found that there has been a net increase in land ice in Antarctica in recent years, despite a decline in some parts of the continent. The study's lead author astutely predicted that climate science deniers would distort the study, even though it does nothing to contradict the scientific consensus on climate change or the fact that sea levels will continue to rise.

NASA Study Finds Antarctica Has Experienced Net Ice Gains* *In Recent YearsDue To 10,000 Year Trend Of Increased Snowfall. *A new study by NASA published on October 30 in the _Journal of Glaciology_ found that the Antarctic ice sheet has been increasing in recent years due to a 10,000 year trend of increased snow accumulation in East Antarctica. The study stated that ice losses in West Antarctica have been outweighed by East Antarctica's ice increases, but that this trend may reverse itself in only a few decades. From the study's press release:

https://www.mediamatters.org/resear...ntist-warned-deniers-would-distort-his/206612


----------



## rederob (24 January 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> *NASA Scientist Warned Deniers Would Distort His Antarctic Ice Study -- That's Exactly What They Did
> 
> A new NASA study found that there has been a net increase in land ice in Antarctica in recent years, despite a decline in some parts of the continent. The study's lead author astutely predicted that climate science deniers would distort the study, even though it does nothing to contradict the scientific consensus on climate change or the fact that sea levels will continue to rise.
> 
> ...



*Hint for Ann:*
*This year is* *2019
*


----------



## rederob (24 January 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> *NASA Study Finds Antarctica Has Experienced Net Ice Gains* *In Recent YearsDue To 10,000 Year Trend Of Increased Snowfall. *



And here is what the science says.
And as Maxwell Smart says, "missed by that much," Ann .


----------



## Ann (24 January 2019)

rederob said:


> And here is what the science says.
> And as Maxwell Smart says, "missed by that much," Ann .



Gaaah! what is going wrong...again your links are not working for me Rob, sorry.


----------



## Darc Knight (24 January 2019)

Ann said:


> Gaaah! what is going wrong...again your links are not working for me Rob, sorry.




Worked for me.

Cliffs: you're wrong.


----------



## rederob (24 January 2019)

Ann said:


> Gaaah! what is going wrong...again your links are not working for me Rob, sorry.



Here's the summary, Ann:
We compare the results with a surface mass balance model to deduce the ice sheet mass balance. *The total mass loss increased* from 40 ± 9 Gt/y in 1979–1990 to 50 ± 14 Gt/y in 1989–2000, 166 ± 18 Gt/y in 1999–2009, and 252 ± 26 Gt/y in 2009–2017. In 2009–2017, the mass loss was dominated by the Amundsen/Bellingshausen Sea sectors, in West Antarctica (159 ± 8 Gt/y), Wilkes Land, in East Antarctica (51 ± 13 Gt/y), and West and Northeast Peninsula (42 ± 5 Gt/y). The contribution to sea-level rise from Antarctica averaged 3.6 ± 0.5 mm per decade with a cumulative 14.0 ± 2.0 mm since 1979, including 6.9 ± 0.6 mm from West Antarctica, 4.4 ± 0.9 mm from East Antarctica, and 2.5 ± 0.4 mm from the Peninsula (i.e., East Antarctica is a major participant in the mass loss). *During the entire period, the mass loss concentrated in areas closest to warm, salty, subsurface, circumpolar deep water* (CDW), that is, consistent with enhanced polar westerlies pushing CDW toward Antarctica to melt its floating ice shelves, destabilize the glaciers, and raise sea level.​


----------



## Ann (24 January 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Worked for me.




goodonya dk, it would have been nice if you could have put in the link.


----------



## Ann (24 January 2019)

rederob said:


> Here's the summary, Ann:
> We compare the results with a surface mass balance model to deduce the ice sheet mass balance. *The total mass loss increased* from 40 ± 9 Gt/y in 1979–1990 to 50 ± 14 Gt/y in 1989–2000, 166 ± 18 Gt/y in 1999–2009, and 252 ± 26 Gt/y in 2009–2017. In 2009–2017, the mass loss was dominated by the Amundsen/Bellingshausen Sea sectors, in West Antarctica (159 ± 8 Gt/y), Wilkes Land, in East Antarctica (51 ± 13 Gt/y), and West and Northeast Peninsula (42 ± 5 Gt/y). The contribution to sea-level rise from Antarctica averaged 3.6 ± 0.5 mm per decade with a cumulative 14.0 ± 2.0 mm since 1979, including 6.9 ± 0.6 mm from West Antarctica, 4.4 ± 0.9 mm from East Antarctica, and 2.5 ± 0.4 mm from the Peninsula (i.e., East Antarctica is a major participant in the mass loss). *During the entire period, the mass loss concentrated in areas closest to warm, salty, subsurface, circumpolar deep water* (CDW), that is, consistent with enhanced polar westerlies pushing CDW toward Antarctica to melt its floating ice shelves, destabilize the glaciers, and raise sea level.​




You give me data from 1979 and accuse me of old science!  This is old news but research takes time I understand this, then it needs to be peer reviewed and then it needs to be published and then it needs to be distributed then it needs to be built into models as this one....


----------



## Ann (24 January 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> *NASA Scientist Warned Deniers Would Distort His Antarctic Ice Study -- That's Exactly What They Did
> 
> A new NASA study found that there has been a net increase in land ice in Antarctica in recent years, despite a decline in some parts of the continent. The study's lead author astutely predicted that climate science deniers would distort the study, even though it does nothing to contradict the scientific consensus on climate change or the fact that sea levels will continue to rise.
> 
> ...




Seriously dk! 10,000 years ago and Rob is quibling over a 2012 video from NASA which I didn't distort, comment on or otherwise misrepresent. I put up the exact video presented by NASA plus another link to NASA talking about the 2012 anomoly.  If there was fault with this video or site, no doubt NASA would have removed it. The fact it is still there is testament it is still relevant and acceptable to scientific study. 

10,000 years ago! Which ice-age was that? The 1600 AD saw the 'little ice age', 700 AD saw the dark ages cooling. 
10,000 is a bloody long time ago, no chance of margin of error of course! (sarcasm)

_ The Earth has been ice-free (even at the poles) for most of its history.  However, these iceless periods have been interrupted by several major glaciations (called Glacial Epochs) and we are in one now in the 21st Century.   Each glacial epoch consists of many advances and retreats of ice fields.  These ice fields tend to wax and wane in about 100,000, 41,000 and 21,000 year cycles.  Each advance of ice has been referred to as an "Ice Age" but it is important to realize that these multiple events are just variations of the same glacial epoch.  The retreat of ice during a glacial epoch is called an Inter-Glacial Period and this is our present climate system.  

 The existing Plio-Pleistocene Glacial Epoch began about 3.2 million years ago and is probably linked to the tectonic construction of the Isthmus of Panama which prevented the circulation of Atlantic and Pacific waters and eventually triggered a slow sequence of events that finally led to cooling of the atmosphere and the formation of new ice fields by about 2.5 million years ago. 


 Thus far, the Earth has had around 15 to 20 individual major advances and subsequent retreats of the ice field in our current Glacial Epoch.  The last major advance of glacial ice peaked about 18,000 years ago and since that time the ice has generally been retreating although with some short-term interruptions (See Graph above)._


----------



## kahuna1 (24 January 2019)

Yes 

I did like that video .... depressing and well since the whole region is permafrost methane, I find it depressing to even think about it. Sadly, its a question of how fast it thaws, the permafrost. NOT if, but when. If it as I suspect takes less than 15 years to be ice free, that in itself, ICE is white, the sea is NOT the whole process according to the ice god from Cambridge, its going to warm the ocean up there by a massive amount.

But nope, *Gina's pet paid idiot*, and the guy is an idiot in scientific terms, argues that there is MORE ARCTIC ice not less.

This guy makes even the dumbest of them, deniers, look smart. 

Whilst one heatwave does not make global warming, its irrelevant, this month is a doosey here in Oz with ave max up 7=8 degrees this month and min up 5 .... and records, well broken 3 days post 1970 very accurate ones all in the sapce of a week and maybe again tomorrow.

Stay cool

Mark K


----------



## rederob (24 January 2019)

Ann said:


> Seriously dk! 10,000 years ago and Rob is quibling over a 2012 video from NASA which I didn't distort, comment on or otherwise misrepresent. I put up the exact video presented by NASA plus another link to NASA talking about the 2012 anomoly.  If there was fault with this video or site, no doubt NASA would have removed it. The fact it is still there is testament it is still relevant and acceptable to scientific study.
> 
> 10,000 years ago! Which ice-age was that? The 1600 AD saw the 'little ice age', 700 AD saw the dark ages cooling.
> 10,000 is a bloody long time ago, no chance of margin of error of course! (sarcasm)
> ...



Ann, you posted an article which was 6 years old, and was plain and simple *wrong*.
I linked to the same issue which was only published this week, and was based on data for the *40 years to 2017*.
I did not quibble about the video, although again it only went to *2012*, and only showed ice cover and *not ice mass *- they are very different things.
You linked to a very poor chart of the holocene temperature record, so here's a much better one showing various reconstructions, to give you an idea about the variability of the record depending on which study you choose.  Moreover, while your linked study said "_The Earth has been ice-free (even at the poles) for most of its history," _the reality is that for the entirety of your linked chart the *opposite *was true.


----------



## Ann (25 January 2019)

rederob said:


> data for the *40 years to 2017*.




You bitch about my data being old and yours just keeps getting older and older by thousands of years!



rederob said:


> You linked to a very poor chart of the holocene temperature record, so here's a much better one showing various reconstructions, to give you an idea about the variability of the record depending on which study you choose.



Now you are giving me charts showing_ thousands_ of years in the past, geezwept! (Never accuse me of anything I put up as being old science, ever ever, ever again Rob, I will link back and slaughter you).
The old chart shows recorded actualities as recorded in ice and tree rings, rocks, soil layers whatever, geological Ian Plimer type stuff. The inset shows computer modeled maybe-might-happen-charts-as-long-as-no-one-checks-my-computer-modeled-parameters (proxies). As a chartist who has looked at charts for everything under the sun, including sun(spots) for over twenty years, no way is that proxy insert a chart pattern of any truth.
The bullsh!t computer modeled charts are another way I know the CCers are fakers clutching at straws. (As a very, very experienced chartist, I know it is all bullsh!t folks).


----------



## rederob (25 January 2019)

Ann said:


> You bitch about my data being old and yours just keeps getting older and older by thousands of years!



I showed *your claims were false* by using information that was peer reviewed mid 2018 and published earlier this week.  There is nothing more recent.


Ann said:


> As a chartist who has looked at charts for everything under the sun, including sun(spots) for over twenty years, no way is that proxy insert a chart pattern of any truth.
> The bullsh!t computer modeled charts are another way I know the CCers are fakers clutching at straws. (As a very, very experienced chartist, I know it is all bullsh!t folks).



Sadly you do not understand climate science, and your posts keep showing it.
The chart you inserted uses "*proxy*" data derived by the scientific method because nobody was around in the earlier holcene with thermometers.  Different teams of scientists got slightly different results depending on their methodology. Your claims were fanciful and completely wrong.
But the real point I made was that your quote about ice free poles has no relevance to present climate in that humans have never experienced that phenomenon.


----------



## basilio (25 January 2019)

Well that is all a bit sad Ann..  I thought that you were actually examining a broader range of scientific information around CC and  being  appropriately critical of the information.

But then..

1) You start quoting  older material from denier websites which selectively quote Antarctic research and then distort the main messages from the research.  Rederob points that out to no avail.

2) You fail to recognise that in terms of understanding what is currently happening in the Antarctic the latest research is most definitely the most important.  That is because in the space of less than a decade the rate of ice melt in the Antarctic has risen steeply. On top of that the research itself brought new tools to bear which provided far more detailed analysis than was previously possible.

3) Finally you fail to recognize the value of using information from the past (old data) to realise we have a very serious problem in the present. The graph of  temperatures over the past 12,000 years is significant because it highlights just how  dangerous the current temperature anomaly is. It is way over anything that has been happening for 12,000 years.  And by the way the spike at the end represents the data from the last 100 years where we have the most accurate information.  We are cooking Ann. And as a consequence warmer water is undermining the ice shelves in the North and South Pole at an unprecedented rate.

If you want to see further analysis of CC check out this website.
http://ossfoundation.us/


----------



## Darc Knight (25 January 2019)

Can someone pls post a reputable link to a good analysis of all the facts concerning CO2. Kahuna1's video did it well, but its a 20 minute vid, text is more likely to be read.

A lot of these "deniers" listen to "cash for comment Alan Jones and co" who preach that CO2 is not a problem and CC is a hoax.


----------



## Darc Knight (25 January 2019)

Ok, piece by piece I guess:

*"CO2 is Not a Pollutant*
_That depends on whether it is generated from the natural system or from industrial waste. The dictionary is a good source for understanding words... Let's take a look at what Webster has to say._
_



_
_Industrial CO2 is a pollutant.

This is one of the most easily misunderstood concepts regarding CO2. Mainly because it is somewhat counter-intuitive if one does not understand the science behind the statement.

Once one understands the context, the relevance appears and it is actually quite simple. First one needs to understand the actual definition of the word pollutant. Second, one needs to know the difference between naturally respirated CO2 in the seasonal carbon cycle and how to identify CO2 from human, or industrial sources.

The simple answer is that any carbon dioxide that has been breathing in and out of the natural carbon cycle is exposed to Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR's) that cause a change in the isotopic signature of the CO2molecule. The key isotope is C-14.

Carbon dioxide that has the C-14 signature has been exposed to GCR's. If the C-14 signature is missing, the that CO2 has not been exposed to GCR's and therefore originated from an area protected from solar rays (underground). The amount of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the amount of CO2 expected from burning the amount of fossil fuel we have burned are approximately the same (check this link for more detail).

The conclusion is that the quantitative analysis and the C-14 signature provides solid evidence for the human fingerprint on the increase atmospheric carbon dioxide, therefore:"_

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/co2-is-not-a-pollutant


----------



## Darc Knight (25 January 2019)

*Stratosphere Cooling, Troposphere Warming*
_Suke Manabe and other scientists, when modeling the climate in the 1960's at the Princeton Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, showed that increased CO2 would cause the lower atmosphere to warm and the upper atmosphere to cool (or warm less). This hypothesis has been observed in the data, which further supports the general accuracy of the models. Virtually all climate models show that this is what should happen, and the observed data shows that this is occuring.
_
*Isoptope Evidence*
_When protons from GCRs (Galactic Cosmic Rays) collide with the nitrogen-14 (seven protons plus seven neutrons in the nucleus) in the air, carbon-14 is created (in addition to other isotopes such as beryllium-10) through a nuclear reaction:

14N + p → 14C + n

This means that carbon with a low isotope carbon-14 ratio must come from deep in the ground, out of reach of cosmic rays.

Furthermore, the ratio of O2 to N2 has diminished. This is expected from the increased combustion of fossil fuels, in which O2 combines with C to form CO2. The oceans have also become more acidic, leading to an increase in CO2 levels in both the atmosphere and the oceans."

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/human-caused
_


----------



## rederob (25 January 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Can someone pls post a reputable link to a good analysis of all the facts concerning CO2. Kahuna1's video did it well, but its a 20 minute vid, text is more likely to be read.
> 
> A lot of these "deniers" listen to "cash for comment Alan Jones and co" who preach that CO2 is not a problem and CC is a hoax.



There might be one simple site - I don't know.
As climate covers so many fields of science you need to look at specific sources/sites to find the latest state of play.
Dr Google seems to work ok for that.


----------



## Darc Knight (25 January 2019)

*"The greenhouse effect: natural and enhanced*
_The ‘natural’ greenhouse effect makes life as we know it possible on Earth. Without this effect, the average temperature would be about – 18°C (well below the freezing point of water), rather than its current 14°C.

Earth’s surface temperature is determined by the radiative balance, the net difference between the energy gained from incoming sunlight and the amount lost into space as infrared radiation. The Earth’s atmosphere acts like a transparent blanket, letting in light but trapping some of the heat it generates. Without an atmosphere, all of this energy would be lost to space.

This natural effect relies on ‘greenhouse’ gases in our atmosphere allowing sunlight to pass through, and trapping some of the resulting heat energy that radiates back up from the Earth’s surface.






The greenhouse effect describes how certain gases in our atmosphere increase the temperature on Earth’s surface by preventing some of the energy radiating from the planet’s surface from being lost into space (UNEP/GRID-Arendal). 
The human-induced build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is known as the 'enhanced' greenhouse effect or 'anthropogenic climate change'.

Since the start of the Industrial Revolution in about 1750, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels, including coal and oil, have dramatically increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. As a result, the rate of heat-loss from the Earth has slowed, creating a warming effect. More than 85 per cent of the additional heat in our atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans.

The enhanced greenhouse effect is expected to change many of the basic weather patterns that make up our climate, including wind and rainfall patterns and the incidence and intensity of storms.

Every aspect of our lives is in some way influenced by the climate. For example, we depend on water supplies that exist only under certain climatic conditions, and our agriculture requires particular ranges of temperature and rainfall.
_
*Greenhouse gases*
_The most important greenhouse gases are water vapour and carbon dioxide (CO2). Both are present at very small concentrations in the atmosphere. Water vapour varies considerably in space and time because it has a short ‘lifetime’ in the atmosphere. Because of this variation, it is difficult to measure globally averaged water vapour concentration. Carbon dioxide has a much longer lifetime and is well mixed throughout the atmosphere. The current concentration is about 0.04 per cent. Other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere include methane, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbons.

Water vapour accounts for about half the present-day greenhouse effect, but its concentration in the atmosphere is not influenced directly by human activities. The amount of water in the atmosphere is related mainly to changes in the Earth’s temperature. For example, as the atmosphere warms it is able to hold more water. Although water vapour absorbs heat, it does not accumulate in the atmosphere in the same way as other greenhouse gases; it tends to act as part of a feedback loop rather than being a direct cause of climate change. (Read more about feedback in Climate systems).

Carbon dioxide is the largest single contributor to human-induced climate change. NASA describes it as 'the principal control knob that governs the temperature of Earth'. Although other factors (such as other long-lived greenhouse gases, water vapour and clouds) contribute to Earth's greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide is the dominant greenhouse gas that humans can control in the atmosphere.

The two most abundant gases in the atmosphere are nitrogen (comprising 78 per cent of the dry atmosphere) and oxygen (21 per cent), but they have almost no greenhouse effects.
_
*Carbon dioxide and the carbon cycle*
_All living organisms contain carbon, as do gases (such as carbon dioxide) and minerals (such as diamond, peat and coal). The movement of carbon between large natural reservoirs in rocks, the ocean, the atmosphere, plants, soil and fossil fuels is known as the carbon cycle.

The carbon cycle includes the movement of carbon dioxide:
_

_into and out of our atmosphere_
_between the atmosphere, plants and other living organisms through photosynthesis, respiration and decay_
_between the atmosphere and the top of the oceans._
_




The carbon cycle, showing the movement of carbon between land, the atmosphere and the oceans. Yellow numbers are natural fluxes and red numbers are human contributions in gigatonnes of carbon per year. White numbers indicate stored carbon (The Carbon Cycle , NASA). 

On longer time scales, chemical weathering and limestone and fossil fuel formation decrease atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, whereas volcanoes return carbon to the atmosphere. This is the dominant mechanism of control of carbon dioxide on timescales of millions of years.

Because the carbon cycle is essentially a closed system, any decrease in one reservoir of carbon leads to an increase in others. For at least the last several hundred thousand years, up until the Industrial Revolution, natural sources of carbon dioxide were in approximate balance with natural ‘sinks’, producing relatively stable levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. ‘Sinks’ are oceans, plants and soils, which absorb more carbon dioxide than they emit (in contrast, carbon sources emit more than they absorb).
_
*Increases in greenhouse gases due to human activities*
_Carbon dioxide is being added to the atmosphere faster than it can be removed by other parts of the carbon cycle.

Since the Industrial Revolution there has been a large increase in human activities such as fossil fuel burning, land clearing and agriculture, which affect the release and uptake of carbon dioxide.

According to the most recent Emissions Overview, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are produced in NSW by the following activities or sources:
_

_stationary energy sources, such as coal-fired power stations (47 per cent)_
_transport (18 per cent)_
_coal mines (12 per cent)_
_agriculture (11 per cent)_
_land use (7 per cent)_
_land change (3 per cent)_
_waste (2 per cent)._
_Carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels carries a different chemical fingerprint from that released by natural sources such as respiration and volcanoes. This makes it possible to identify the contribution of human activity to greenhouse gas production.

Data collected by CSIROshow that the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere in 2018 was approximately 404 parts per million. The level of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere is now higher than at any time over the past 800,000—and possibly 20 million—years.

Global atmospheric concentrations of the other greenhouse gases (methane and nitrous oxide) also now exceed pre-industrial values. For the latest measurements, visit CSIRO’s Cape Grim Greenhouse Gas Data.

https://climatechange.environment.nsw.gov.au/About-climate-change-in-NSW/Causes-of-climate-change_


----------



## basilio (25 January 2019)

NASA's website seems good to use as an explainer for CC and the role of greenhouse gases.
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

In fact the whole website has managed to turn the issues around CC into accessible bite sized chunks. Excellent value.


----------



## Darc Knight (25 January 2019)

Another thing 2GB likes to promote is "global cooling". They have had Ian Plimer on there, I just checked he claims cooling not warming has occurred, so to NASA's site we go:

*"Global temperature rise*

_




The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.4 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months. "_
_https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures. Seventeen of the 18 warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2001, with the exception of 1998. The year 2016 ranks as the warmest on record. (Source: NASA/GISS). This research is broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.


https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
_


----------



## Darc Knight (25 January 2019)

*December 13, 2018*
*Antarctica's contribution to sea level rise was mitigated by snowfall*

_A new NASA-led study has determined that an increase in snowfall accumulation over Antarctica during the 20th century mitigated sea level rise by 0.4 inches. However, Antarctica’s additional ice mass gained from snowfall makes up for just about a third of its current ice loss._

_“Our findings don’t mean that Antarctica is growing; it’s still losing mass, even with the extra snowfall,” said Brooke Medley, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published in Nature Climate Change on Dec. 10. “What it means, however, is that without these gains, we would have experienced even more sea level rise in the 20th century.”_

_The polar ice sheets grow via snow accumulation and shrink through melting and the production of icebergs. Presently, both ice sheets are imbalanced –losing more ice annually than they are gaining– and their ice loss is estimated to be currently causing about a half of the observed sea level rise. Sea level adjusts to changes in snowfall, which modulates how much water is locked into the ice sheets._

_https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2836/...-to-sea-level-rise-was-mitigated-by-snowfall/_


----------



## qldfrog (26 January 2019)

Unpleasant truth
Until you reduce population, we are doomed..and probably already are as population is already too high and still increasing
https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/indias-2018-thermal-coal-imports-173632125.html
Btw Basilio, interesting science around the gravitational effect of the iceberg mass


----------



## basilio (26 January 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Unpleasant truth
> Until you reduce population, we are doomed..and probably already are as population is already too high and still increasing
> https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/indias-2018-thermal-coal-imports-173632125.html
> *Btw Basilio, interesting science around the gravitational effect of the iceberg mass*




It was wasn't it ! Actually of course the gravitational pull is coming from the entire 3000 metres of ice on the Antarctic continent. Lot of mass there...


----------



## Darc Knight (29 January 2019)

Just to keep a track of this: I had Alan Joans on this morning. I heard him claiming the concenus on CC was BS. He also made a remark about Chicago freezing atm as being some proof CC is a hoax.

I think it's a good idea to keep a list of these people and their claims.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 January 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Just to keep a track of this: I had Alan Joans on this morning. I heard him claiming the concenus on CC was BS. He also made a remark about Chicago freezing atm as being some proof CC is a hoax.
> 
> I think it's a good idea to keep a list of these people and their claims.




Most people with intelligence realise Groans is a fool and a fraud. He got the Qld floods as wrong as he could get and had to pay for it.

Credibility zero.


----------



## Darc Knight (29 January 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Most people with intelligence realise Groans is a fool and a fraud. He got the Qld floods as wrong as he could get and had to pay for it.
> 
> Credibility zero.




I don't believe it's a lack of intelligence making him say these things.


----------



## basilio (29 January 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Most people with intelligence realise Groans is a fool and a fraud. He got the Qld floods as wrong as he could get and had to pay for it.
> 
> Credibility zero.




Sure. But the fact is  many millions of people believe what he and Andrew Bolt and others say.  These include a core of politicians who have resisted all efforts to take action on GW because they say it is a hoax. 
And of course there are still plenty of posters on ASF who echo these beliefs and repeat because Alan or Andrew say something it has to right..


----------



## Joules MM1 (29 January 2019)

*The Ice Age*‏ @Jamie_Woodward_ 16h16 hours ago
Retreating ice exposes Arctic landscape unseen for 120,000 years

https://www.livescience.com/64605-arctic-glaciers-melt-hidden-landscape.html


----------



## qldfrog (30 January 2019)

Would be an amazing fossicking ground


----------



## Ann (30 January 2019)

*Amidst Global Warming Hysteria, NASA Expects Global Cooling*

_
Those promoting CO2 as the reason for global warming are hucksters and those taken in by hucksters.


Please consider NASA Sees Climate Cooling Trend Thanks to Low Sun Activity.


“We see a cooling trend,” said Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”    MORE>>>>_


----------



## Darc Knight (30 January 2019)

Geez, even I know it's the mid atmosphere that heats (creating CC) and the outer atmosphere that cools due to CO2. But I'll let one of the more learned posters explain it.


Wait, does that make me a Hucksteree?


----------



## rederob (30 January 2019)

Ann said:


> *Amidst Global Warming Hysteria, NASA Expects Global Cooling*
> _Those promoting CO2 as the reason for global warming are hucksters and those taken in by hucksters.
> Please consider NASA Sees Climate Cooling Trend Thanks to Low Sun Activity.
> “We see a cooling trend,” said Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”    MORE>>>>_



Ann, that's gross ignorance of climate science at it's very best.
Nobody lives at the top of the planet's atmosphere - we live at the surface.
*The top of the atmosphere must cool because more heat is being trapped below it.*
That's what science forecasts under AGW theory.


----------



## Ann (24 February 2019)

...and a little light relief from Dilbert's creator.....






He is talking about Michael Mann, the hockey stick man!


----------



## rederob (24 February 2019)

Ann said:


> He is talking about Michael Mann, the hockey stick man!



It was a clever cartoon, but is now so overdone and soooooo dated.
The thing is, Mann's original data remains largely unchanged, with that of many others who have presented similar reconstructions..  
Paleoclimate widens probabilities as we delve further into the past, and that information is provided with "best fit".
As is always the case with those trying to debunk climate change, they are best at their work when digging into the past, and seem clueless about what the future portends.


----------



## Ann (24 February 2019)

*What the 17th century’s “Little Ice Age” teaches us about climate change*

_Once upon a time in Europe, the winters got very very cold and the summers got unbearably hot. “The spring of this year was like winter, cold and wet, the wine blossom terrible, and the harvest bad,” wrote the Swiss theologian Heinrich Bullinger in 1570.

Initially, this seemed like a temporary problem, just one bad year. So across the continent, cultivators shrugged off their poor harvests, and vintners sold wine made of sour grapes which consumers drank angrily as they contemplated rising grain pric
But the extreme weather continued, season after season after season, until abnormal became the new normal. As William Shakespeare put it in the 1593 play Richard III, “Now is the winter of our discontent.”

In his book Nature’s Mutiny, to be published in March by WW Norton & Company, German journalist Philipp Blom posits that Shakespeare wrote those words as a literal description of the string of difficult winters he’d just endured. This period of extreme weather, which would continue for more than 100 years, is now known as the “Little Ice Age,” and Blom argues that if we look back at its effects in Europe—where they were best documented—we’ll better understand how we got to where we are today and anticipate what’s ahead as climate change increasingly affects our lives.
.....more_


----------



## Ann (24 February 2019)

Perhaps the Global Warmer promoters need a little soft drink to offer to the Children as they are organized to march....





*Climate strike: thousands of students take to UK streets in call to stop ...*
The Guardian-15 Feb 2019
The _climate change_ strikers have found an unusual source of support: ... _School_ _students_ who spoke to the New Scientist during the protests in ...
Thousands of UK _students_ skip _school_ for _climate change_
Aljazeera.com-15 Feb 2019
_Climate_ strike: _Schoolchildren_ protest over _climate change_
BBC News-15 Feb 2019
'_Climate Change_ Is Forever.' Thousands of British _Schoolchildren_ Walk ...
TIME-15 Feb 2019
_Climate_ strike: Thousands of UK _schoolchildren_ walk out of classes to ...
International-The Independent-15 Feb 2019
How a 7th-grader's strike against _climate change_ exploded into a ...
In-Depth-Washington Post-16 Feb 2019


----------



## Joules MM1 (24 February 2019)

@PeterBrannen1 said:
			
		

> *Peter Brannen*‏Verified account @PeterBrannen1 Feb 21
> Peter Brannen Retweeted Am Geophysical Union
> 
> Fun facts about 56 million years ago: 1) No ice on Antarctica. 2) Sand tiger sharks, palm trees and crocodiles in the arctic. 3) 104°F seawater in tropics. 4) Lethally hot on many places on land. 4) Global reef collapse. 5) Geological evidence for megastorms and floods.






			
				@theAGU said:
			
		

> Earth may be 140 years away from reaching carbon levels not seen in 56 million years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




https://news.agu.org/press-release/...g-carbon-levels-not-seen-in-56-million-years/


----------



## Joules MM1 (24 February 2019)

> Calving is a normal part of the life cycle of ice shelves, but the recent changes are unfamiliar in this area. The edge of the Brunt Ice Shelf has evolved slowly since Ernest Shackleton surveyed the coast in 1915, but it has been speeding up in the past several years.






			
				NASAearth said:
			
		

> Cracks growing across Brunt Ice Shelf are poised to release an iceberg about twice the size of New York City. https://go.nasa.gov/2Sbh0m5  #Antarctica #ice #Landsat



https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/144563/countdown-to-calving-at-brunt-ice-shelf


----------



## Joules MM1 (24 February 2019)

3 of 3 for today



			
				Zlabe said:
			
		

> Anomalously low sea ice conditions continue around Alaska in the Bering Sea region. Well above average temperatures and relentless storms (wind & waves) have significantly affected the southern extent of the ice again this winter. More info: https://earther.gizmodo.com/why-americas-northernmost-city-is-having-a-weird-hot-w-1832619602 …




https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2019/02/why-americas-northernmost-city-is-having-a-weird-hot-winter/





> Something strange is happening to the northernmost city in the United States. It’s the dead of winter, and temperatures in Utqiaġvik (formerly Barrow) should be well below zero. Late last week, they soared into the 20s and 30s—practically beach weather for Arctic Alaska.
> 
> On February 7, temperatures in Utqiaġvik flirted with the freezing mark, possibly setting a new daily high record as the normally-solid wintertime sea ice offshore gave way to open water.
> 
> ...






			
				@ajatnuvuk said:
			
		

> It’s February, the coldest month of the year.  We have open water in front of Utqiagvik.  It is 30 F out at 11:20 at night.  Strange days indeed.


----------



## sptrawler (24 February 2019)

I was just reading on the SMH, that solar panels have in large, been installed by those in the lower to middle socio economic groups.
 I would post the article but I'm on a steam operated android device.
But it does go to show all the crap about only the wealthy would be able to afford to install solar, was garbage, as usual.
Once the facts come in, the wealthy are the least likely to install solar, but the loony left got a lot of mileage out of the miss information as usual. Lol


----------



## Darc Knight (24 February 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I was just reading on the SMH,l




Not again!  Jesus Homer, you're in Sydney, put down the SMH and go and enjoy The Cross or something


----------



## sptrawler (24 February 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Not again!  Jesus Homer, you're in Sydney, put down the SMH and go and enjoy The Cross or something



Too old for that $hit, I would get bashed, I upset everyone.lol
Can't help myself, growing up in mining towns, you always take the pizz some don't take it well.
There are a lot of godfather looking blokes here, I'm keeping schtum. Lol
The oldest son arrives tonight, with the grandkids, I might go out with him he's 6'3" and fights light heavyweight.lol


----------



## basilio (24 February 2019)

Ann said:


> Perhaps the Global Warmer promoters need a little soft drink to offer to the Children as they are organized to march....
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Perhaps we could hear  what they have to say about a world that is becoming rapidly warmer.
How to cut to the heart of the CC crisis in 2 minutes.


But if you want to hear the full  version check this out.  Certainly  cuts through the baloney of CC denial


----------



## basilio (24 February 2019)

Maybe worth learning more about Greta Thunberg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Thunberg


----------



## qldfrog (24 February 2019)

In nazi germany, little Gretchen were parading as well to praise the national socialism.Propaganda was born
I find it shameful to influence and brainwash kids that age.As a teacher Basilio, you know that more than anyone else.
"the ends justify the means" is usually used by dictator and autocrats, not people i can respect but in the media washdown and social media sea of garbage, why stop there..ethics what ethics


----------



## rederob (24 February 2019)

qldfrog said:


> In nazi germany, little Gretchen were parading as well to praise the national socialism.Propaganda was born
> I find it shameful to influence and brainwash kids that age.As a teacher Basilio, you know that more than anyone else.
> "the ends justify the means" is usually used by dictator and autocrats, not people i can respect but in the media washdown and social media sea of garbage, why stop there..ethics what ethics



It's folly to suggest a well educated student who understands climate better than the average person is doing other than state the problem, and demand that those with the power to do something begin to act responsibly.
I think you need to revisit the garbage you posted.


----------



## basilio (25 February 2019)

qldfrog said:


> In nazi germany, little Gretchen were parading as well to praise the national socialism.Propaganda was born
> I find it shameful to influence and brainwash kids that age.As a teacher Basilio, you know that more than anyone else.
> "the ends justify the means" is usually used by dictator and autocrats, not people i can respect but in the media washdown and social media sea of garbage, why stop there..ethics what ethics




Your way out of line here QldFrog.  Your comparing a  single young swedish girl articulating the concern of almost all climate scientists about an issue which threatens the whole world with a NAZI germany movement attempting to justify it's internal political agenda?

Madness mate. Please think again.


----------



## qldfrog (25 February 2019)

basilio said:


> Your way out of line here QldFrog.  Your comparing a  single young swedish girl articulating the concern of almost all climate scientists about an issue which threatens the whole world with a NAZI germany movement attempting to justify it's internal political agenda?
> 
> Madness mate. Please think again.



Not really sorry Basilio but using teens for propaganda is sick and a sign of utter madness and fanatism.
Sorry but if a teacher does not realise it, i know where the problem is.
If the nazi example who created that trend and the first footages recordedrof this method shocks you, feel free to replace by north korea, chinese CCP or Ussr models.
same same
Carefully chosen young girl, a masterpiece of manipulation.
I pity her


----------



## qldfrog (25 February 2019)

But we will be saved by eating less meat
https://www.afr.com/news/world/the-...mpany-profits-than-the-planet-20190225-h1bof5


----------



## basilio (25 February 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Not really sorry Basilio but using teens for propaganda is sick and a sign of utter madness and fanatism.
> Sorry but if a teacher does not realise it, i know where the problem is.
> If the nazi example who created that trend and the first footages recordedrof this method shocks you, feel free to replace by north korea, chinese CCP or Ussr models.
> same same
> ...




You have absolutely no idea Qldfrog.
Or you are being quite mischievous.
Greta Thunberg  is totally self directed. If you read anything about her, see her Ted Talk, see her interviews you would recognise there is no external manipulation.
If anything she overtly rejects the school and social systems that say she should "get an education" "learn stuff" . In fact she has been very quick to kick away organisations that have attempted to latch onto you passion for their own reasons.

Her passion about the effects of CC and the effect this will have on her future and everyone's future comes from an exceptionally clear eyed reading of the science. If you read a bit about her you would know she has Asbergers syndrome.  She sees things very clearly.

It seems clear you have no time for the science and reality behind CC.


----------



## explod (25 February 2019)

The teenagers are driving themselves because they know the situation for them is dia.

Anyway, back to partying, it's a waste of time trying to get through the emptiness.


----------



## basilio (25 February 2019)

But on a less confrontaational note, what evidence you have Qfrog for saying Greta Thunberg has been manipulated ?


----------



## Darc Knight (25 February 2019)

explod said:


> Anyway, back to partying, it's a waste of time trying to get through the emptiness.




Can you stop advocating partying and drinking please Plod. It's only Monday


----------



## Ann (25 February 2019)

basilio said:


> But on a less confrontaational note, what evidence you have Qfrog for saying Greta Thunberg has been manipulated ?




This poor mentally fragile Thunberg child who has_ In December 2018, Thunberg described herself as having been "diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, OCD, and selective mutism" _has been used dreadfully and it wouldn't surprise me if her parents are thrilled with her rising profile as mum is an opera singer and dad is an actor. This will do no harm to their careers. No doubt the GW lobby will continue to use her until she has run her course and is no longer an appealing child, they will find a replacement child star to champion their cause when she is past her use-by-date. 
Now to how she has been manipulated and used by the unscrupulous....

_*Start-up used teen climate activist to raise millions: Swedish paper*_
_
A Swedish entrepreneur who claims to have been “the first to pay attention to” Swedish child climate activist Greta Thunberg, used her name to bring in almost SEK 10m for a new share issue, according to an investigation by the Svenska Dagbladet newspaper. 

 Ingmar Rentzhog, founder of We Don’t Have Time, asked Thunberg in October if she wanted to sit a Youth Advisory Board for his social media start-up We Don’t Have Time, which she accepted. 



 He then used her more than eleven times in the promotional material for a share issue announced  on November 27.  



 The prospectus promised investors that the venture, which channels just 10 percent of its profits to a charitable fund, has potential to be "extremely profitable” by creating viral environmental content to pull in money via digital adverts. 



 Thunberg’s father Svante Thunberg told the newspaper that Rentzhog, who has a background in financial PR, had never informed the family that her name would be used. 



 “No, we haven't received any information about that. Neither has Greta,” he told the newspaper. “It is unfortunate if she was used commercially. But she hasn't known anything about this. None of us have known this.”



 Rentzhog founded the company in 2017, aiming to create “the world´s largest social network for climate action".



 On the same day that Thunberg started her school strike last August, he came with a freelance photographer, posting her photo on his Facebook page and Instagram account, and making a video in English that he posted on the company’s YouTube channel. 



 The film has been watched almost 88 000 times.



 In the 120-page prospectus, the company makes a claim to have discovered Thunberg. 



 "Leading representatives from We Don’t Have Time were the first to pay attention to Greta Thunberg's protest through Facebook and Twitter posts as well as Youtube films that received viral spread,” it reads. 



 “The company thus played a central role in giving Greta Thunberg's protest great national and international attention.” 



 Rentzhog defended his decision to make We Don’t Have Time a for-profit company. 



 “Look, this is the situation: I am an entrepreneur and have become aware of the climate crisis,” he said. 



 “We want to build a platform with modern technology. This is not free, a lot of money is needed. We have so far received just over SEK 20 million from 500 investors through two new issues, of which 10 million was from the last one in December."



 "The importance for us is that we can solve the climate crisis. In order for it to succeed, we must have financial resources. Then we cannot just depend on donations. I see nothing wrong with this."_


----------



## basilio (25 February 2019)

Try again Ann. Great and her family disowned "We don't have time".  This company had no impact on the fact that millions of people have recognised the power of her message. They were trying to jump on her back but certainly wern't manipulating her.

Gretas Asperger ?  Quite real and in fact a key part of seeing the issue as clearly as she does. As she points out given the seriousness of CC one would think it would be an absolute priority. But no.  Just a lot of feet shuffling and pious talk.

And of course the deniers.


----------



## cynic (25 February 2019)

basilio said:


> Try again Ann. Great and her family disowned "We don't have time".  This company had no impact on the fact that millions of people have recognised the power of her message. They were trying to jump on her back but certainly wern't manipulating her.
> 
> Gretas Asperger ?  Quite real and in fact a key part of seeing the issue as clearly as she does. As she points out given the seriousness of CC one would think it would be an absolute priority. But no.  Just a lot of feet shuffling and pious talk.
> 
> And of course the deniers.



If other Asperger sufferers are found to be pushing a more skeptical message, will you be as cognisant of their mental acuity?


----------



## Ann (25 February 2019)

Her mother* Malena Ernman *is a political activist*. *As the Jesuits say....give me a child until he/she is seven and we will have them for life" 

Ernman has had Thunberg for sixteen years and trained her well. Every child craves attention so any child who says what a parent wants them to say will gain approval. A useful tool in mum's crusade.

_"Ernman has been politically active supporting the Paris Agreement against climate change, including writing a debate piece[16] in Dagens Nyheter with seven other researchers and artists, at the same time announcing she will personally stop using air travel for climate reasons. Her daughter Greta Thunberg also is a climate activist. Ernman has also been politically active supporting immigration and the right of asylum."_

Here is a photo of mum and daughter, look at the child's eyes, they look vacant, look at mum's eyes they look like they could smash granite. Never make mum angry.


----------



## rederob (25 February 2019)

Ann said:


> Here is a photo of mum and daughter, look at the child's eyes, they look vacant, look at mum's eyes they look like they could smash granite. Never make mum angry.



Your knowledge of climate is *vacant*. 
Really scraping the bottom of the barrel with that load of irrelevances.


----------



## qldfrog (25 February 2019)

That is what is so sick with your position, I told you already and many time that I believe in Human Caused Global Warming, but above anything I hate fanatics and brainwashing, the race to the lower denominator
->should they blow themselves in the name of Allah , burn butcher shops in the name of global warning/veganism or annihilate jews, blacks or christians, or anyone thinking differently.
If you start using the grand master scheme of propaganda for a cause, like brainwashing children as per that case,  you are a radical and believe that if the cause is great , there is no limit 
so what's next Basilio:
if I were you, I would really ask myself the question: 
where would you stop, would you kill, how many, after all you could save the earth, your children mankind agains the evil diesel burners, meat eaters, western civilisation that brought us the steam engine
Bring a bit of critical spirit, and common sense, realise that whatever you or Emman, or even the whole West can say or do, half the planet at least does not give a **** about GW, could not care less and only dream about eating more pork or beef and drive a bigger car have a bigger house.
so we'd better be prepared or hope that Gaya will sort this on her own.


----------



## rederob (25 February 2019)

qldfrog said:


> ... but above anything I hate fanatics and brainwashing, the race to the lower denominator



Yet you link your idea to a student who actually knows what she is talking about.


qldfrog said:


> ->should they blow themselves in the name of Allah, burn butcher shops in the name of global warning/veganism or annihilate jews, blacks or christians, or anyone thinking differently.



 How exactly is that relevant?


qldfrog said:


> If you start using the grand master scheme of propaganda for a cause, like brainwashing children as per that case, you are a radical and believe that if the cause is great , there is no limit



Again, you seem very confused about what constitutes a good education.


qldfrog said:


> where would you stop, would you kill, how many, after all you could save the earth, your children mankind agains the evil diesel burners, meat eaters, western civilisation that brought us the steam engine



 You really need to tone it down - necessary action to mitigate climate change is political and economic. 


qldfrog said:


> Bring a bit of critical spirit, and common sense, realise that whatever you or Emman, or even the whole West can say or do, half the planet at least does not give a **** about GW, could not care less and only dream about eating more pork or beef and drive a bigger car have a bigger house.



 Not really relevant what people believe about AGW; only concerted action will have an impact and attitudes like yours are symbolic of the problem faced.


----------



## basilio (25 February 2019)

cynic said:


> If other Asperger sufferers are found to be pushing a more skeptical message, will you be as cognisant of their mental acuity?




Frankly Cynic people with Aspergers are  almost always exceptionally accurate with their understanding of reality. The challenges they face are trying to work out why most of the population plays all sorts of social games to avoid facing reality. I am sometimes uncomfortable with them because their directness and accuracy is challenging. *In my experience there is almost no way they would  be skeptical of CC.*

Greta recognises what scientists and the evidence of the changing climate is telling us. She just happens to be exceptionally committed to doing something about it and this sincerity is a powerful force.

Over a long teaching career I have come across a few young people who show quite remarkable insights into the world around them.  They have inspired fellow students and the community to take a stand on these issues.

As an adult we tend to get tired and cynical. But I can say from experience the determination of some young people to tackle problems others have studiously ignored or just paid lip service to or just lied about can be very effective.


----------



## qldfrog (25 February 2019)

Was thinking
Apologies Basilio, you are probably a good person and believe you are doing the right thing.a few brainwash teens will not change much
i will leave that thread to you.sadly i believe you are both dangerous to the cause you defend and most of all, to the people you condemn to poverty and failure while not doing the remediation we need nor tackling the causes issues.
Get out of Guardian induced media frenzy,  you, your familly and friend will appreciate and the world might not be better for it, but definitively not worse
I am out of that thread.you win
 the Cause is victorious, and when gw will ravage australia you will remember how these deniers prevented you from saving the world


----------



## cynic (26 February 2019)

basilio said:


> Frankly Cynic people with Aspergers are  almost always exceptionally accurate with their understanding of reality. The challenges they face are trying to work out why most of the population plays all sorts of social games to avoid facing reality. I am sometimes uncomfortable with them because their directness and accuracy is challenging. *In my experience there is almost no way they would  be skeptical of CC.*
> ...



I have been closely acquainted to at least three people with Aspergers. All three display the classic markers. Only one is pro AGW, the other two are extremely sceptical and believe that those pro AGW have bought into a grand scale fallacy (or perhaps even a deliberate hoax).


----------



## rederob (26 February 2019)

cynic said:


> I have been closely acquainted to at least three people with Aspergers. All three display the classic markers. Only one is pro AGW, the other two are extremely sceptical and believe that those pro AGW have bought into a grand scale fallacy (or perhaps even a deliberate hoax).



Well, there is no accounting for ignorance.


----------



## Darc Knight (26 February 2019)

I was one of those who was blase about GW. Listening to right wing media like Macquarie had me unsure. 
Their arguments, as has happened here, centred around CO2 not being a problem. That has been well and truly debunked here. Then there's the theory we are actually cooling, that too is easily debunked.

I see the angles of the deniers, the Capitalism before Conservation, the greed from investment in Fossil Fuels.

Time to get behind the good guys and try to make a difference, a difference for the collective good not pure greed and self interest.


----------



## basilio (26 February 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Was thinking
> Apologies Basilio, you are probably a good person and believe you are doing the right thing.a few brainwash teens will not change much
> i will leave that thread to you.sadly i believe you are both dangerous to the cause you defend and most of all, to the people you condemn to poverty and failure while not doing the remediation we need nor tackling the causes issues.
> Get out of Guardian induced media frenzy,  you, your familly and friend will appreciate and the world might not be better for it, but definitively not worse
> ...




Apology accepted.
I still find your observations confusing. The remediation required to address CC *must also enable everyone to live a reasonable life.* The proposals around that make it clear.
From your own personal point of view I suggest you need to see some effective action on GW.  If nothing is done to change our  current direction no one will be spared. The most well off may survive longer to watch what happens as the world heats up. Not sure if that is something to look forward to.
_________________________

I can appreciate that your history colours your view of the world. (Like all of us of course) You seem to have had to win by tooth and claw from a very difficult background. I can see how that would make one a strong individualist with little confidence in the efforts of communities to achieve common goals. 

But big problems require big solutions with contributions from all. Very much like total mobilisation during a war.


----------



## basilio (26 February 2019)

cynic said:


> I have been closely acquainted to at least three people with Aspergers. All three display the classic markers. Only one is pro AGW, the other two are extremely sceptical and believe that those pro AGW have bought into a grand scale fallacy (or perhaps even a deliberate hoax).




I was probably overstating my case. Yes my experience has been different from yours. But on reflection  Asbergers is only one element in a persons make up. Upbringing, environment other personality traits will also affect how people develop a world view. 

I remember reading a story of how children brought up by strong Church going, utter racists in the US grew up  believing blacks  were dirty, lazy, ignorant, sly  SOBs. That was what their Ma and Pa said . That was how they behaved.  But they were still  God Fearing Christians..


----------



## Joules MM1 (27 February 2019)

@[B said:
			
		

> ElizabethaRush[/B]]
> *Elizabeth Rush*16 hours ago
> Thwaites' calving edge: sailing through what was solid ice sheet just a few years ago.... @*glacierthwaites *



https://twitter.com/GlacierThwaites


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 February 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> I was one of those who was blase about GW. Listening to right wing media like Macquarie had me unsure.



It would suit me very nicely if it wasn't true but I see too much evidence around me which says it probably is real.

There's not much in common between Tasmania, south-east Queensland and the city of Adelaide but they've all set new weather records for hot and/or dry conditions in the past few weeks.

For anyone still doubting I've got a question:

Mention Scotland and what comes to mind?

Whatever you're thinking of I'll take a damn good guess that it doesn't involve the place catching fire in Winter. That's about the last thing anyone would expect. Fires, in winter, in Scotland. A ridiculous sounding concept that has actually happened in a place where being snowed in would be a more expected problem.

The blaze is nothing by Australian standards but it's a problem locals would never have thought they'd be needing to deal with and it's a sign that yes things are changing.


----------



## Ann (2 March 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> It would suit me very nicely if it wasn't true but I see too much evidence around me which says it probably is real.
> 
> There's not much in common between Tasmania, south-east Queensland and the city of Adelaide but they've all set new weather records for hot and/or dry conditions in the past few weeks.
> 
> ...




Smurf, I don't think there is any doubt we are in the top end or nearing the top end of a oscillating cycle of high temperatures. What concerns me is when the oscillations begin to fall back to the cooler temperatures, we will not be prepared. If there is a lot of snow and ice cover then solar will be useless, wind-power will freeze up and potentially break if too much ice load is put onto the blades. Nuclear power needs fresh flowing water to keep the reactors cool. If rivers freeze up in the dead of winter reactors will need to be shut down, when there is the most need for power I can see an enormous death toll of people.  If we move away from traditional power generation we will have nothing to provide electricity when it is most needed.

I have been a champion of the green/eco cause from the first moment I heard Suzuki back in the 1960s. He didn't fear monger, he gave out practical advice as to how to have a low footprint. I have lived my whole life with low consumption and recycling. My father manufactured DC motors and spent a lot of time working to design wind generators.  I have been, in the past very excited by electric cars. (Thirty years ago my father was working with someone from S.A. to develop lithium batteries for electric cars). I have been envisioning in my mind, clean renewable energy for decades. My concern now is with the current massive size of the solar panels we are creating a monster of an environmental hazard. In an ideal world I believe solar panels can last for around 25 years (?). The problem is it is not an ideal world and if we begin to get colder winters the chance of major solar panel smashing hail storms is highly likely. It happened in NSW recently.

We should always prepare for the worst that there is going to be a down turn in temperatures. We should never rely on a one sided scenario about anything, ever. 

We should be working hard to clean up emissions from coal and make it more efficient. Let's put a few bob into that as well as renewables. We should be looking at creating unbreakable solar panels, there is so much we should be doing to create better power generation.

If in the event we get hotter, more people will start installing ACs. (I have resisted the urge so far) so there will be more demand for power.  

There is very little common sense with the GW alarmists, they haven't set appropriate priorities.

First priority, how clean can we make the emissions from coal fired power plants clean? They use platinum to clean emissions from cars I believe, would that help?

Speaking as a long term environmentalist I am concerned that all the histrionics, rudeness and name-calling this GW political group-think go on with, might push the whole environmental agenda into reverse and create a backlash. That would be such a pity. 

It might easily lose its entire support base with as simple a thing as a political test case. If the CC political group don't win then there would be a good argument to be made that the national does not support the notion of CC science. This may well be on its way.... 

*Climate change IS the economy, Inslee pushes in announcing 2020 presidential run *

_Credit Jay Inslee for the targeted message everyone expected.


The Washington governor and now 2020 presidential contender tweeted his intentions to push climate, not as a fringe topic, but as his centerpiece issue.


His congressional record already paved the way for such a campaign kickoff and he’s been vocally opposed to President Donald Trump’s environmental-regulation rollbacks. 


Inslee, who at an event earlier Friday made his suspected run official, doesn’t yet detail the economic downside — and upside — that climate change poses for the U.S. and how he’d fix it. But he claims that the adoption 100% clean energy will bring “good paying jobs to every community across America.” More..._


----------



## rederob (2 March 2019)

Ann said:


> Smurf, I don't think there is any doubt we are in the top end or nearing the top end of a oscillating cycle of high temperatures.



You have no evidence for that claim to be true.
Most of the hottest years ever recorded have occurred this century and this has been the case during periods of decreasing irradiance.


Ann said:


> If there is a lot of snow and ice cover then solar will be useless, wind-power will freeze up and potentially break if too much ice load is put onto the blades.



Where is this the case *now* in Australia, or likely to be so during the next century?


Ann said:


> We should be looking at creating unbreakable solar panels, there is so much we should be doing to create better power generation.



The panels are rated to withstand severe weather conditions, but hail stones which break through tiled rooves and smash car windscreens are in a league of their own.


Ann said:


> If in the event we get hotter, more people will start installing ACs. (I have resisted the urge so far) so there will be more demand for power.



Australia just had its all time hottest summer - do you really think we are waiting for it to get hotter still .


Ann said:


> There is very little common sense with the GW alarmists, they haven't set appropriate priorities.



You might be right - whoever these people are.  However the IPCC has clearly mapped what the future holds under different settings, so its not hard to see what should be done.


Ann said:


> It might easily lose its entire support base with as simple a thing as a political test case. If the CC political group don't win then there would be a good argument to be made that the national does not support the notion of CC science.



Climate science is *not *politics.  Politicians don't change the data.


----------



## explod (2 March 2019)

Priorities is right, geeezzz:-


----------



## Joules MM1 (2 March 2019)

explod said:


> Priorities is right, geeezzz:-




in toto, scientists lack the ontological skill-set to convey beyond the normal presentations to impel change thru people who wield the power to make that change

and they should in practice not need those skills, it is not the skills of science that are lacking, it is the skills conveyed in schools, nor is it the skills of tutors to convey the study required pre-science
the level of ontological discourse required to make substantive difference is sub-par to what can be done

that's the challenge he speaks of - if you cannot drive a parked bus you cannot expect a diligent and concise message to impede into ambiguous and indifferent ears

that's what he means


----------



## Ann (2 March 2019)

rederob said:


> You have no evidence for that claim to be true.
> Most of the hottest years ever recorded have occurred this century and this has been the case during periods of decreasing irradiance.



Offering proof about something occurring in the future is impossible, it can be modeled which is only as good as the information put in to create the model, much can happen between model and outcome. However there appears to be a physics map of long term oscillations of planets associated with heating and cooling periods. This seems more reliable than human modeled adjusted projections.










rederob said:


> Where is this the case *now* in Australia, or likely to be so during the next century?




This is a worldwide issue, not simply Australia. We may find Solar panels and Wind turbines fine here but unlikely in the northern hemisphere. However all that could change in certain areas more southern in Australia. 



rederob said:


> The panels are rated to withstand severe weather conditions, but hail stones which break through tiled rooves and smash car windscreens are in a league of their own.




Correct and that is why we need to find something that can withstand those serious hailstorms if solar panels are going to be feasible under severe weather conditions as they are right in the open subjected to all sorts of assault.



rederob said:


> Australia just had its all time hottest summer - do you really think we are waiting for it to get hotter still .



We may have the coldest winter on record this coming winter in Australia let's see. As they average it out we will not know if 2019 is going to be anything special. As I keep saying on my charts, time will tell.
In other words I prefer not to panic myself with thoughts of impending doom. However I have purchased some warm woolen underwear from Katmandu when it was on special, just in case! 



rederob said:


> You might be right - whoever these people are. However the IPCC has clearly mapped what the future holds under different settings, so its not hard to see what should be done.



We should be looking at all possible outcomes of future weather scenarios not just one agenda put forward by a political group-think of people. It is the InterGovernmental Panel for Climate Change. The people who represent each country are political appointees. The whole thing is a huge political agenda. The bottom line is to create a worldwide taxation which they are attempting to force on to nations worldwide to accommodate a green agenda.



rederob said:


> Climate science is *not *politics. Politicians don't change the data.




See above...

No politicians don't change the data spin doctors distort it in order to control the politicians.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 March 2019)

I'm no climate scientist so I simply base my thoughts on what I'm observing.

Fires in Scotland in Winter - that's not normal by any stretch of the imagination. It's about the last place you'd expect that to happen. I can sort of relate to that one more than most such events since I've previously walked to the top of the same hill that was ablaze so know exactly where it is etc (it's a natural lookout point hence there's a constant stream of people walking up).

Numerous weather records have been broken across Australia this Summer and that's becoming a trend. Lots of places hundreds or thousands of km apart and with nothing in common apart from having just set new records for hot and/or dry conditions.

Tasmania's turn today, as of right now it's 38.0 degrees in Hobart (BOM official data) which is a new record for March, exceeding the previous record of 37.3 and the day's not over yet.

Longer term, there is a dramatic drying trend in south-west WA that commenced in the mid-1970's.

And so on. There are simply too many "incidents" happening to sensibly say there isn't a change taking place and that it seems to be gathering pace.

The causes I'm no expert on. I can only assume those who have been saying since the 1890's (that's the first reference to it I'm aware of, there may well be earlier ones) that increasing concentrations of certain gases in the atmosphere would cause warming know what they're on about. Concentrations of those gases have indeed increased and there is warming so presumably they're connected.

What I do see as a huge problem though is society's apparent expectation that solutions will be easy with no sacrifice involved. Only this week the Age newspaper's website had at the same time a story about Australia's top CO2 emitters (in practice basically a list of electricity companies and a couple of others) and another story lamenting the lack of air-conditioning in some Victorian schools. Sadly they probably don't see the problem with that.

We're going to have to change a lot of things to deal with this one and the real elephant in the room that pretty much nobody wants to face is population. There are simply too many people each using too much of everything.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 March 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Tasmania's turn today, as of right now it's 38.0 degrees in Hobart (BOM official data) which is a new record for March, exceeding the previous record of 37.3 and the day's not over yet.



39.1 thus far - by the standards of what’s normal in Tasmania that is truly extreme heat.

1.8 above the previous March record.


----------



## Ann (2 March 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Fires in Scotland in Winter - that's not normal by any stretch of the imagination. It's about the last place you'd expect that to happen. I can sort of relate to that one more than most such events since I've previously walked to the top of the same hill that was ablaze so know exactly where it is etc (it's a natural lookout point hence there's a constant stream of people walking up).




I am not finding anything about wildfires in Scotland in winter Smurf, all I can find is a report about their summer fires. Can you give me a link please? I have had a good google with no success.


----------



## rederob (2 March 2019)

Ann said:


> Offering proof about something occurring in the future is impossible....



Evidence of what is probable has nothing to do with "*proof*".
Next, your graphic of the last 1500 year's temperature bears no resemblance to paleoclimate reconstructions.


Ann said:


> We may have the coldest winter on record this coming winter in Australia let's see. As they average it out we will not know if 2019 is going to be anything special. As I keep saying on my charts, time will tell.
> In other words I prefer not to panic myself with thoughts of impending doom.



Winters will be cold, but that is not the issue.  What we are aware of is that extreme weather events are more probable in future - that cuts both ways.  In terms of 2019, the first 2 months are already warmer on average than any in 2018.  
	

		
			
		

		
	









Ann said:


> We should be looking at all possible outcomes of future weather scenarios not just one agenda put forward by a political group-think of people.



We should be looking at the best available science, and that is exactly what the IPCC puts together.  You again fail to understand how IPCC Reports come together and perpetuate a myth that there is a political agenda.  Why not prove it rather than make your nonsense claims ad nauseum.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 March 2019)

Ann said:


> Can you give me a link please? I have had a good google with no success.



Fire was at Arthur's Seat, a decent sized hill just outside Edinburgh which is an undeveloped but commonly accessed (by walking up, that's the only way) natural lookout point over the city and surrounds. Was on the BBC news website a few days ago.

Fire is truly tiny by Australian standards, it's just a fire on a hill, but the idea that _anything_ outside catches fire in a place like that during Winter is the real point. Normal weather, statistically, for Edinburgh in February is a daily minimum just below zero, a maximum of 6.1 degrees and a modest amount of rain (or snow) with the preceding Winter months being somewhat wetter. 

It should be pretty hard to have living vegetation on fire in that situation - everything _should_ be well and truly damp and rather hard to burn even if you really wanted to.

It's much like the rainforest areas in Tasmania that have recently burnt. Regardless of weather on the day and that the fires were started by lightning, they should simply be too wet to burn anyway. That it was even possible for those areas to burn says a lot in itself.

I'm no alarmist but in all this I see lots of things which could individually be dismissed as freak events, natural variation and so on but the sheer volume of them tells me something's up.


----------



## Joules MM1 (2 March 2019)

Ann said:


> Can you give me a link please?



https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-47379622


----------



## Joules MM1 (2 March 2019)

[URL='https://twitter.com/peter_neff' said:
			
		

> @peter_neff[/URL]] Feb 28
> Want the big-picture view of why @pritheworld @RollingStone & others are talking about #ThwaitesGlacier, Antarctica? Look where mass-loss is centered.








> GRACE Antarctic Ice Mass Change | NASA Visualization
> Modified from: https://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/31/antarctic-ice-loss-2002-2016/


----------



## Joules MM1 (3 March 2019)

#PDSTM #insiders #carbon #gas #emissions

give them your own context


> *Australia Institute*‏ @*TheAusInstitute* 3h3 hours ago
> 
> Barrie says the government's emissions figures say they're going up. Angus Taylor insists they're going down. These are the figures. What do you think?







> *Craig Emerson*‏ @*DrCraigEmerson* 3h3 hours ago
> 
> The Morrison Government claims it has reduced emissions


----------



## Joules MM1 (12 April 2019)

Joules MM1 said:


> silly me, this is the correct video ...the one above this is completely wrong





diiing ! "......the answer is go with the science!"


----------



## qldfrog (13 April 2019)

Just a note on fire in winter, i lived in the north east of france and when fires were used to clean roadsides and burn weeds :, from memory 40y or so ago, it was done in winter crisp sunny freezy icing conditions
Grass is dead in winter and air humidity is the driest due to below freezing so burnt out where used then
I know it can seem surprising in australia, but not so sure it is actually abnormal
Snow in winter is not a picture perfect event in europe as we kids were always waiting for it..and often disappointed..


----------



## Sdajii (13 April 2019)

Joules MM1 said:


> diiing ! "......the answer is go with the science!"





This is a good video if you are smart enough to interpret it properly (and if you ignore the inherent bias in climate science).

Climate science is inherently biased, but even so, it does tend to get it closer to reality than either the climate change deniers or the climate alarmists. The climate change deniers get strength and validity from the fact that the media, both mainstream and social, is the main narrative shoved in everyone's face, and is completely wrong (this video acknowledges this). This means that most of the information people are exposed to is a massive exaggeration of real climate science. People tend to either blindly believe it like the mindless sheep they are, or realise that it's false and reject it (understandable), but go too far and assume the entire narrative is false rather than based on some fact, and dismiss the entire thing (which is wrong but understandable). The situation is extreme enough that anyone being rational is considered an evil member of the opposite side, and since most people are mindless sheep who blindly follow the media, most people consider anyone rational to be a 'climate denier' (sic).

This video itself is as guilty as those it claims are guilty. It also cherry picks and airbrushes. It also fails to acknowledge the inherent bias of climate science. It implies that only the deniers are ignoring the science, and most people who watch it would come away feeling like the mainstream narrative is giving them a reasonable message and that their alarmist beliefs are justified.

The reality is, very, very few people are going to bother looking at the actual scientific data, and if they did they would be incapable of interpreting it, so they will continue looking at the mainstream narrative.

We can't blame people for not looking at the science, because they don't have the ability to understand it, and let's face it, even if they did, they'd be too lazy to bother.

What really should be done is to make the science accessible to laymen. Climate science should publish a consensus view, including clear, tangible predictions and timeframes, clear data, clear responses to frequently asked questions such as "When was the last time the climate was changing at this rate?" "How long ago was atmospheric CO2 this concentrated, why did it occur and what was the result?" etc etc. Timeframes for average temperature rise (or fall) predictions (eg 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 years) could be provided yearly, as an average estimate of all the world's climate scientists.

As it is, anyone can cherry pick studies or claims and make a video to prove whatever they like, this is what is done by almost all of them, and so almost all the information in the grey media is worthless at best and dangerous at worst.


----------



## basilio (13 April 2019)

Sdajii you use so many words to basically sprout BS. Almost everything you say is a distortion, a misrepresentation or a lie.
Better people than I have attempted to  dissect your comments. I'll make mine short

The video you said was false/biased whatever simply went through a range of assertions made by CC deniers and demonstrated  where they were distorted or lies by going back to the peer reviewed science on the particular topic.  And when it was doing this it demonstrated that these players repeatedly air brushed out data, made up graphs, made up statements and so on create doubt about reality of human created global warming.

There is an exccellent Date Line program for anyone interested in seeing how a climate scientist can dissect what is happening in the science around CC.


----------



## Sdajii (13 April 2019)

basilio said:


> Sdajii you use so many words to basically sprout BS. Almost everything you say is a distortion, a misrepresentation or a lie.
> Better people than I have attempted to  dissect your comments. I'll make mine short
> 
> The video you said was false/biased whatever simply went through a range of assertions made by CC deniers and demonstrated  where they were distorted or lies by going back to the peer reviewed science on the particular topic.  And when it was doing this it demonstrated that these players repeatedly air brushed out data, made up graphs, made up statements and so on create doubt about reality of human created global warming.




The video cherry picked some errors some sceptics has said (you can't legitimately call them deniers because they acknowledge climate change is real and humans are influencing it. In doing so, you are being disingenuous). The makers of the video basically used the technique of cherry picking the whole way through, and they hypocritically used 'airbrushing' techniques.

Both sides are guilty of misrepresenting and doctoring data. The alarmists are the worst offenders. You display a typical attitude of dogmatically believing the hugely exaggerated mainstream climate narrative (which is a huge exaggeration of the actual science, even biased as it is), and accusing anyone who doesn't blindly believe the exaggerated version of distorting/lying/etc.


----------



## fiftyeight (13 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> It also fails to acknowledge the inherent bias of climate science




What? 

Bad science will have bias, good science will have no (or as close to as possible) bias. Good climate science will have no bias. To say all climate science is inherently bias, reveals more about your bias than anything else.


----------



## basilio (13 April 2019)

And so you keep saying ad nauseum Sjajii - regardless of the facts. 
No point wasting any more time with you.

Bye


----------



## Joules MM1 (13 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> ....anyone can cherry pick studies or claims and make a video to prove whatever they like, this is what is done by almost all of them, and so almost all the information in the grey media is worthless at best and dangerous at worst.




the inherent challenge with posting the "informed perspective" by taking a middle ground, to be aloof and speak from the outside looking in, is that, you cannot stand on the outside and look in, you cannot be aloof and speak with authority simply because you have never demonstrated you HAVE any authority or any specific or special insight into the subject matter, you have never demonstrated you are specialised in a specific field of climate science, you have never presented you have a Phd or masters, trained or been an understudy in the geology, or physics,  of any of the sciences that pertain to this conversation

you are being disingenuous at best and vacuous at worse, when we know you have the wherewithal to post a more thought-ladened and data-driven expose of your own propositions, we know because you can string a series of cognitive prose sentences

this is exactly what potholer54 is speaking to - this dismembering of science by mythical wordy-ness without presenting a viable alternative that contains points that can be contested

the problem that i see with what you have posted here is that there is no alternation in your unverifiable disposition, we cannot tell what you support or what you think is testable, what you think as useable, what you think is valid data.....just verbose non-sense

your ramblings do not add to the debate

let's go back to the words "anybody can cherry pick" well that's what youre doing, youre cherry picking fresh air and debating fresh air, getting off on the angst of your fresh air, because youre filled with the fear of not knowing and pretending to know what you have demonstrate TO know - we all know this diluted hide n seek game of "i know better than scientists" non-sense

add to the debate - bring something for us to look at

look, this is probably the only personal post i am going to make here because your conduct calls it and you can tell i am not a climatologist so i post a lot of pieces and spend a lot of time rereading the pieces before i post them to find whether they meet the basics of educated logic and they are not steeped in emotive logic

i get that your reply is not aimed at me, i get that your reply is more about you than scientists, it is obvious that this is true because you are not a scientist and you are not contesting specific data points or ideas that stand upto a basic test of veracity, that is, are comments designed to wring out evidence that you think is being held back from you or us and that you have the generalised disposition to bring attention to yourself that is of no gain to us ......or you

if you think you have something to offer, offer it ! point to the peer-reviewed data and peer-reviewed conclusions and assessments of that data - at the most basic you could contest meta-data studies rather than a regurgitated meta-ramble

there's now a truck-load of science in this thread for you to pull apart, that's hard work, sure, however the effort is self-informative

one thing as an aside: this distrust of all scientists because a few psuedo and idotic science observers comment with an authoritative tone does not lessen the value of the work produced by earnest scientists that have valid research and the same fear that drives the flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers and anti-moon-landers is the same 'yell from the rooftops' fear we see in all wordy anti-hero commentary

Australia is working its way out of a bear market which began in 2007, been a long time.....
the way to contribute to a bull and gain from this new bull phase is to inject incisive and actionable evidence and when that evidence does not stand up to scrutiny we'll test something else, regardless of  fears brought about with distracting emotive logic, the testable failed data points are important to have, we move ahead because of them....


----------



## Sdajii (14 April 2019)

fiftyeight said:


> What?
> 
> Bad science will have bias, good science will have no (or as close to as possible) bias. Good climate science will have no bias. To say all climate science is inherently bias, reveals more about your bias than anything else.




Well, bad science doesn't necessarily have bias, but biased science is bad science, I agree. Good science has no bias, I agree. Unfortunately, most science is biased. It is a sad fact, and is the main reason I left my own science career; unfortunately it is difficult to get far without catering to the bias.

In the case of climate science, if you write papers which contradict the popular narrative, it's difficult to get published (this is true in most other branches of science too). If you want to make a name for yourself, you need to publish the most extreme version of the story possible (again, this is true is in many areas of science). If you publish something which says 'climate change isn't really as bad as most of them say' you can pretty much kiss your funding and career goodbye. This causes an inherent and quite obvious form of bias, wouldn't you say?

In the field of genetics (closer to my area) you can't publish many facts, even with clear evidence. Some of them are so obvious that any half decent geneticist sees them because they're obvious, but they're simply not allowed to be published (and in that case I can actually see the reasons for it). A lot of what is said about human genetics is completely untrue. I understand why, and while I grudgingly admit it's probably too destructive to publish, I don't like the deliberately misleading information put out there.

My sister threw her PhD in when it became clear that the peer review process was biased. The reasons are different from climate change (politics and money) or genetics (literal global security), it was just internal politics, but in the field of theoretical particle physics (totally outside my field) there are prevailing ideas, the people running the peer reviews are all on board with them, anyone who doesn't agree doesn't get let in, and anyone who challenges with a new idea gets denied publication even if it has as much validity or more than the popular theories. This is not the way science should work, but it is the way science does work.

I left science because while I love true science, science is more politics and money than science.

Unfortunately, climate science will remain unaccountable because there is no clear, tangible consensus view available, so the cherry picking game can continue (on both sides). The money is what will drive the results, and carbon taxes bring in money while stifling targetted economies is both lucrative and strategic.

It doesn't take a genius to see that many politicians who don't care about the environment are totally on board with the carbon narrative, which shows it financially suits them (if the whole concept of a tax and the ability to control what other nations do with their industries wasn't already a sufficiently obvious motive). If you don't think an inherent bias is going to alter the findings, goodness, why are we even bothering to have a conversation?


----------



## qldfrog (14 April 2019)

Many people have an image of the scientist as a research guy in a lab
Sadly, in Australia at least where i have worked with scientists, due to the extremely low level of private r and d, scientists spend most of their time on computers writing paper to gain publication credits and filling paperwork to get grants and extend their tenure.i can not blame them this is the way it works
Real science is done by some phd students following the leads and guidance of the professors with as you can imagine an inherent bias and absence of objectivity
Worked for 5y or so with top science org in Australia
Trend following but who can blame them, if keen and scientific minded, just stick to applied sciences would be my recommendation


----------



## wayneL (14 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Well, bad science doesn't necessarily have bias, but biased science is bad science, I agree. Good science has no bias, I agree. Unfortunately, most science is biased. It is a sad fact, and is the main reason I left my own science career; unfortunately it is difficult to get far without catering to the bias.
> 
> In the case of climate science, if you write papers which contradict the popular narrative, it's difficult to get published (this is true in most other branches of science too). If you want to make a name for yourself, you need to publish the most extreme version of the story possible (again, this is true is in many areas of science). If you publish something which says 'climate change isn't really as bad as most of them say' you can pretty much kiss your funding and career goodbye. This causes an inherent and quite obvious form of bias, wouldn't you say?
> 
> ...



I'm not a scientist, but I have been around science and scientists in relation to my particular field for quite some time, a keen consumer of said science let's say. I am also in the Genesis of performing a study in my field (with other professionals, just need a kindly veterinarian with a digital xray machine and we are iff ti the races) 

From that perspective I agree entirely with the above. 

Of all the papers I've read and there are dozens and dozens and dozens of them , perhaps only one out of ten have any sort of fallot application in the real world.

The great majority of them are either ridiculously biased, have a defined commercial objective, or suffer from one or more fatal flaws in experiment design.

A couple of examples

1 / testing the physiological effects of a particular feed supplement for racehorses (which travel somewhere in the region of 1000 m per minute or more) I'm at high speed treadmill travelling no faster than 800 metres per minute. The physiological and metabolic ramifications a completely different at those two speeds rendering the conclusions completely invalid.

2/ Testing the physiological and biomechanical efficacy of a particular huth appliance on high speed treadmills and drawing definitive conclusions from that; horses are not exercised on moving rubber mats or anything remotely similar to that surface. Additionally the appliance concerned was only tested against a single competing appliance most likely to yield negative results in comparison, ignoring a host of other solutions regularly employed.

The first study didn't really have a commercial objective and was just I dumb study incorrectly designed. The 2nd was being paid for by a company with a product to market, with the obvious bias there.

One of our closest friends was a big knob in the field of gene technology, and regularly regailed of the follies of some of the studies performed and their inherent biases. Also have several clients who are phds in their respective fields and also confirm this point, a topic of many of our discussions.


----------



## Joules MM1 (14 April 2019)

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

set your comparative years and watch it unfold

suggest place in faves and revisit end of this year





			
				SciSchreibs said:
			
		

> yesterday #Arctic #seaice extent was over 300,000 square kilometers lower than its ever been on that day. if you want to take a look for yourself at what each year has looked like, check out @NSIDC's interactive graph of daily extent here: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ …


----------



## Joules MM1 (14 April 2019)

> Regular visits by icebreakers from China, Russia and Sweden will keep the Polarstern supplied and recrewed so that by late 2020, when the project ends, more than 300 researchers from at least 17 nations will have taken turns to work there.






> Consider the issue of sea-ice thickness in the Arctic. For more than 40 years satellites have swept over the north pole and charted dramatic declines in sea-ice cover as global warming has inexorably strengthened its grip on Earth.





> According to Nasa, the area covered by Arctic sea ice in summer has shrunk by about 40% since the 1980s. That represents the loss of several million square kilometres of sea ice – and as it disappears, more solar radiation will reach the dark, heat-absorbing waters of Arctic Ocean that once lurked underneath.






> The European Space Agency’s probe CryoSat-2 and the French-Indian satellite AltiKa are examples of space missions designed to measure Arctic sea-ice thickness using radar. However, scientists have found these devices do not always pinpoint the surface of the sea ice properly.





> They still get confused by light snow lying on top of ice. “And that means we are getting errors in our measurements of ice thickness,” adds Wilkinson.




*How anchoring a ship to an ice floe will help fight climate change*
Robin McKie

Sun 14 Apr 2019 01.00 AEST Sun 14 Apr 2019 13.24 AEST
a lot to get thru

https://www.theguardian.com/science...h-ship-arctic-ocean-ice-floe?CMP=share_btn_tw


----------



## Joules MM1 (14 April 2019)

ZLabe said:
			
		

> Anomalous sea ice conditions continue in the #Arctic Sea ice extent is currently ~220,000 km² below the previous record low



about ZLabe: PhD Candidate - @uciess | @Cornell Univ - Atmospheric Sci BSc | Climate Scientist | Brazen weather freak | Roadside oddity navigator | Likely outside in a storm
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4CzzwMUcAAP9-M.jpg:large


----------



## wayneL (17 April 2019)

Peter Ridd wins his case against James Cook University

https://jennifermarohasy.com/2019/04/peter-ridd-has-won-because-of-you/

Irrespective of one's view on this, this is a win for scientific integrity and intellectual freedom.


----------



## dutchie (17 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> Peter Ridd wins his case against James Cook University
> 
> https://jennifermarohasy.com/2019/04/peter-ridd-has-won-because-of-you/
> 
> Irrespective of one's view on this, this is a win for scientific integrity and intellectual freedom.




Finally some common sense will be applied to a university. Hope the penalties are severe.


----------



## Joules MM1 (18 April 2019)

IARC_Alaska said:
			
		

> The Tanana River at Nenana, Alaska, broke up this morning (Apr 14) at 12:21 a.m. Alaska Standard Time. This is 6 days earlier than the prior record for earliest breakup. Average breakup date has trended earlier by about 5 days in recent decades.












			
				ecopolitidae said:
			
		

> As if things weren’t bad enough, this new study finds powerful ozone killing nitrous oxide GhG emissions from permafrost thaw in Alaska 12X higher than previously thought.



#*Alaska* https://yubanet.com/scitech/nitrous-oxide-emissions-from-thawing-alaskan-permafrost-are-12-times-higher-than-previously-assumed/ …


----------



## basilio (19 April 2019)

#*Alaska* https://yubanet.com/scitech/nitrous-oxide-emissions-from-thawing-alaskan-permafrost-are-12-times-higher-than-previously-assumed/ …[/QUOTE]

Yeah that is another demoralizing piece of information.


----------



## Knobby22 (19 April 2019)

basilio said:


> #*Alaska* https://yubanet.com/scitech/nitrous-oxide-emissions-from-thawing-alaskan-permafrost-are-12-times-higher-than-previously-assumed/ …




Yeah that is another demoralizing piece of information.[/QUOTE]That actually scares me more than global warming. Suprised nitrous oxide would effect the ozone layer much as I thought cars produced it.


----------



## Joules MM1 (20 April 2019)

https://e360.yale.edu/features/as_a...ears_global_climate_impacts_intensify_wadhams


http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/518359/



> The Global Impacts of Rapidly Disappearing Arctic Sea Ice
> 
> By Peter Wadhams • September 26, 2016




excerpts:





part excerpt:
"As ocean and air temperatures in the Arctic rise, this adds more water vapor to the atmosphere, since warmer air holds more moisture. Water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, trapping outgoing long-wave radiation and holding heat closer to the surface of the earth. With air temperatures rising in many parts of the Arctic by several degrees F in recent decades, water vapor concentration has gone up by more than 20 percent, adding to Arctic warming."


----------



## wayneL (20 April 2019)

From the "weather, not climate" file, it snowed in WA.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/...s/news-story/0132ee1386ba1cf6aa2bafd418f505a0

Coincidently, a horse called Polar Vortex, just won at Oakbank as I was typing this... Spooky lol.


----------



## cynic (20 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> From the "weather, not climate" file, it snowed in WA.
> 
> https://www.news.com.au/technology/...s/news-story/0132ee1386ba1cf6aa2bafd418f505a0
> 
> Coincidently, a horse called Polar Vortex, just won at Oakbank as I was typing this... Spooky lol.



Was the jockey caucasian? If so could it perchance have been one of the horsemen of the apocalypse (i.e. pale rider)?


----------



## wayneL (20 April 2019)

cynic said:


> Was the jockey caucasian? If so could it perchance have been one of the horsemen of the apocalypse (i.e. pale rider)?



Well, I don't want to assume the jockey's race or gender, you know, in case I'm not credible.


----------



## noirua (20 April 2019)

Good news or bad news. Sometimes the news is exaggerated or the reverse, had ice cold water poured on it or just fake. Far too often it is the person who is flaky or fake. Far too many arguing or discussing their point of view and wanting to be shown as the winner. Try sometimes to be self critical and as much as it grates, put the other sides view as well: Even it supports what they say.


----------



## Logique (21 April 2019)

Quietly buried by the Fairfax/Nine press. You could add Galileo to that pantheon. Don't imagine there isn't a phalanx of silently suffering fellow travellers in the scientific community, kept in line by the admin commissars.
On the subject of being self critical, you'll wait a long time for the high priests of the global warming faith to be self critical. Has Tim Flannery ever apologized for his laughable and costly alarmist predictions?







> *Darwin, Einstein and Ridd*
> 18th April 2019: https://quadrant.org.au/darwin-einstein-and-ridd/
> ...During the last 160 years, arguably the two most prominent scientists/academics to challenge the status quo have been Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein.
> The ideas brought forth by both of these men were extremely controversial and offended several of their academic peers as well as many others in the greater society. That is how it should be and without intellectual freedom...


----------



## Logique (21 April 2019)

> *New Drought Report: Consistently Dishonest, Consistently Misleading - *Jennifer Marohasy - April 16, 2019: https://jennifermarohasy.com/2019/04/new-drought-report-consistently/


----------



## IFocus (21 April 2019)

Yeah no climate change in WA







https://www.watercorporation.com.au/water-supply/rainfall-and-dams/streamflow/streamflowhistorical


----------



## Sdajii (21 April 2019)

IFocus said:


> Yeah no climate change in WA
> 
> 
> View attachment 93974
> ...




Is it fun to shoot down a claim no one made? Did you try to miss the point for some reason or are you just incapable of grasping basic concepts? Which person here claimed the climate in WA is static?


----------



## IFocus (21 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Is it fun to shoot down a claim no one made? Did you try to miss the point for some reason or are you just incapable of grasping basic concepts? Which person here claimed the climate in WA is static?




Are you incapable of offering a comment with out making negative insinuations or denigrating another member of this forum?


----------



## wayneL (21 April 2019)

IFocus said:


> Yeah no climate change in WA
> 
> 
> View attachment 93974
> ...



Sigh... Notwithstanding any observed change, streamflow degradation is more the culprit here.


----------



## Sdajii (21 April 2019)

IFocus said:


> Are you incapable of offering a comment with out making negative insinuations or denigrating another member of this forum?




Oh, the irony.


----------



## IFocus (21 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> Sigh... Notwithstanding any observed change, streamflow degradation is more the culprit here.




No doubt you will post the evidence to back that claim.


----------



## IFocus (21 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Oh, the irony.





X 2.........


----------



## Logique (22 April 2019)

Damn you global warming! Now the Greenhouse Effect is boiling WA!







> *Snow falls in WA in April for first time in 49 years* as Good Friday cold blast turns Bluff Knoll white By Herlyn Kaur - 20 April 2019: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-20/snow-in-albany-western-australia-record/11032616?pfmredir=sm
> ...It is the *earliest recorded snow event in a calendar year in the state's history*...
> ...Key points:
> - The Easter snow is an extremely rare April occurrence, the BOM says
> ...


----------



## Ann (25 April 2019)

*Whose science are we talking about?*

_For thirty or so years, from 1980 to 2010, a good deal of my professional life was taken up with assessing applications for money to allow individuals and groups to carry out the research they wanted to do. That led me into the arcane world of peer review and careful assessment. I learned a lot — about intellectual mafias, about arrogance, about the search for knowledge, truth and beauty. I have written about some of it, in part in essays here (search for ‘peer review’ for example.


More recently I have come across a new aspect of peer review, essentially its shift into the world of politics, where a policy proposal is advocated on the ground that ‘the science’ or ‘research’ or the work of ‘scientists’ must make the implementation of the policy proposal imperative, as well as immediate. There was some of that thirty years ago, mostly in the world of social science: education, criminology, indigenous affairs, and the like. Here the world of peer review would produce quite contrasting assessments of the proposal, from total support to outright condemnation. Today the area where it is most obvious is ‘climate change’, and once again we find advocates calling on ‘science’ to support or defend policy proposals. But what ‘science’ are they calling on? More, very interesting comment...._


----------



## wayneL (25 April 2019)

Ann said:


> *Whose science are we talking about?*
> 
> _For thirty or so years, from 1980 to 2010, a good deal of my professional life was taken up with assessing applications for money to allow individuals and groups to carry out the research they wanted to do. That led me into the arcane world of peer review and careful assessment. I learned a lot — about intellectual mafias, about arrogance, about the search for knowledge, truth and beauty. I have written about some of it, in part in essays here (search for ‘peer review’ for example.
> 
> ...



This echos what my scientist friends and clients say, exactly.


----------



## kahuna1 (25 April 2019)

A person with a political science degree is ... as relevant as an Astrology degree.

One can buy a doctorate in astrology for $39- on Ebay.

_Aitkin wants us to believe that he is a disinterested observer whose views are based strictly on the evidence, yet his assessment leads him to reject all of the major claims about global warming. He claims to be "agnostic", willing to change his mind should the evidence become sufficient. This was the same claim made by former Prime Minister John Howard, who said he wanted to see the evidence for global warming before taking any action. In truth, the evidence had been piling up on his desk for years, yet he refused to look at it.
_
https://newmatilda.com/2008/05/19/death-rattles-climate-change-sceptics/

_When challenged, these amateurs are wont to claim that they "have done a lot of reading". According to Professor Aitkin, a historian and political scientist, he has read a lot, an achievement that — along with the fact that his two brothers are a mathematical statistician and a neurophysiologist and he himself had considered becoming a geologist — qualifies him to challenge the foundations of climate science.
_
Uh huh ... great source !!


even better ...

_SHANE Mortimer was wearing a possum-skin coat when he conducted a welcome-to-country ceremony at Parliament House in late August. But in the eyes of former National Capital Authority chairman Don Aitkin, he looked "about as Aboriginal as I do". Professor Aitkin, who is also a former vice-chancellor of the University of Canberra, wrote as much on his blog the next day.  
_
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/...k/news-story/baec355b4cdd60197d259be2dd98d4ff


----------



## Ann (25 April 2019)

More very interesting essays from Don Aitkin...

My Perspective on 'Climate Change' and Global Warming. 1:History

My Perspective on 'Climate Change' and Global Warming. 2: A Chronology of the Scare

My Perspective on 'Climate Change' and Global Warming. 3 The Core Argument Behind the AGW Scare

Is the Planet Warming? #4

Are Human Beings Causing the Warming? My Perspective on 'Climate Change' #5

Are the seas rising? My perspective on 'climate change' #6

How useful are climate models? My perspective on 'climate change' #7

Why do so many people believe in all this? My perspective on 'climate change' #8

But wouldn't it be useful to move to alternative energy anyway? #9 My perspective on 'climate change'
http://donaitkin.com/but-arent-97-p...-warming-10-my-perspective-on-climate-change/

*‘But aren’t 97 per cent of climate scientists sure that humans are causing global warming?’ #10 My perspective on Climate Change*
http://donaitkin.com/well-why-do-al...eal-with-11-my-perspective-on-climate-change/

*‘Well, why do all the scientific academies support the AGW issue as something that governments and the world must deal with?’ #11 My perspective on ‘climate change’*


*‘When is it ‘weather’ and when is it ‘climate’?’ #12 My perspective on climate change*

*How not to argue #13 My perspective on climate change**

*This one is worth reproducing in full, I am sure Mr Aitkin won't mind.

_There is a continuing debate about global warming and about climate change, despite the cries that ‘the science is settled’. It is, in my view, a most sloppy debate, mostly because of the argumentative style of many of those who involve themselves in it. My own rule is to look at the arguments and see if they are backed up by good evidence. I was taught so as an undergraduate, and it has been the basis of my scholarly work. But there are other styles, most of them fallacious in whole or in part. Indeed, there are scores of them (you can see a long list here). My advice is to recognise them, and never consciously to use them, in discussions about global warming or indeed about anything else. Here are a few. They’re easy to recognise.


*Attacking the person and not the argument* (ad hominem)


There’s been a lot of that on this website. Why would anyone go to WUWT, or read anything by Jo Nova? To which the counter is Why would anyone go to SkepticalScience? I’ve said myself that I regard SkepticalScience as mostly worthless and hypocritical, and I’ve explained why. But I have certainly gone there to read their arguments. In fact, if you are going to take part in a debate you have to know what the other side thinks, and why it thinks the way it does. Not to go there, and not to read their stuff, is intellectually empty.


*Moving the goalposts*


There’s been a good deal of this one, too. If you successfully address some point, you are told you  must also address some further point. This can go on for some time. It is an argument by distraction. I think the underlying trouble with so many of these false argumentative forms is that the user is trying to win. It is better to take part in order to discover what you yourself think, and why you think that way. You will not convince most people, anyway, whatever you say, but you will be a lot more confident about your own position.


Incidentally, you can sometimes see the goalposts lowered rather than shifted. I take Vitamin C, have done for years and years, and rarely have colds. But if were to catch a cold I might be tempted to say (I hope I wouldn’t do this!) that my cold would have been a lot worse had I not taken Vitamin C. You can see variants of this one frequently.


*Changing the subject*


Another familiar ploy in the Comments section could also be called the arrival of a red herring, or just misdirection. You say something substantial, and your opponent picks you up on a spelling issue, and by the time you have dealt with that the issue has gone. You use a particular verb, and your opponent asks you to define the meaning of that verb, or asks whether or not you are aware that Marx/Hitler/Mao also used the verb in that way. Avoid those people!


*Using numbers without context*


You will come across people telling you that five trillion tons of ice have melted, or that 70 per cent of the Great Barrier reef is dead, or the we’ve passed 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide — as though these numbers have significance in themselves. They don’t, of course. What is the context? How much ice is there, anyway? How well have we sampled the Reef? In what sense is coral dead?And so on. The context usually puts the large number in proper perspective.


*The Fallacy Of The Crucial Experiment*


This one is widespread. You will say something, and your opponent says, ‘Oh, Bloggs debunked that ages ago!’ It is sometimes called ‘the smoking gun’ or ‘the canary in the coal mine’. The media frequently report scientific papers in this fashion, if only because to do so makes a better story. I remember being told by an elder and better, when I was enthusing to everyone about my first paper published in a leading journal, that the test would be if anyone remembered it ten years later. In fact, only one of about a hundred papers I have written was ever given much recognition later on, but at least that one had lots, and was reprinted in two different collections.


*Argument From Authority*


I’ve dealt with that one in two essays in this set. The supposed fact that 97 per cent of climate scientists think whatever they think, or that leading academies support them, means nothing. Science is not based on authority, but on questioning and testing theories with experiments or observations. A variant is for your opponent to point to your apparent lack of authority — ‘What would you know about it?’


*Argument By Repetition (Argument Ad Nauseam)*


If people say something often enough, other people will begin to believe it. ‘The science is settled’ is just such a slogan. It isn’t true, and doesn’t stand up to more than a few seconds’ scrutiny, but it has been widely accepted, nonetheless.


*Statement Of Conversion*:


The speaker tells you that he used to believe in AGW, but he doesn’t now or, conversely, that he used to discount AGW, but not any longer, not since — and then you are likely to get one or other of the bad arguments listed here. The only good basis for such a statement is a straightforward and fact-filled account of the basis of one’s current view with no appeals to authority. Familiar versions of this one are ‘I used to think that too, when I was your age…” People of my generation need to resist that one!


*Burden Of Proof*


A familiar version of this one is the claim that whatever has not yet been proved false must be true (or vice versa). Essentially the arguer claims that he should win by default if his opponent can’t make a strong enough case. I call this one the Steven Mosher ploy, because Steven says (correctly) that until sceptics come up with rival theory to explain global warming the orthodoxy will continue to win. That doesn’t mean that the orthodoxy is right, for it is easy to point out all sorts of problems with the AGW scare. But in this case the burden of proof is reversed, and placed on the sceptics. It oughtn’t to be there, because the one with the theory is the one who needs to show that it must be right. Maybe some day sceptics will have a rival theory. I wouldn’t hold my breath.


An underlying problem here is the supposed need to know. Some things are not known properly, and in my view AGW is one of them. CO2 is cited as a necessary cause of warming, because the models can only reproduce warming if CO2 increases are factored in. But that implies that we know everything there is to know, which is plainly not the case.


There seem to be an insistent need, also, to be sure, to be confident, so that governments can make the right decisions. In my view the right decision is to do nothing, and deal with other more important problems. We will know more in due course. But I am not part of the orthodoxy.


*The Slide*


Here an apparently sensible proposition slides into something much more objectionable, and the best example I know is the so-called precautionary principle. The Wikipedia summarises it like this:  if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public, or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus (that the action or policy is not harmful), the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action that may or may not be a risk. Sounds reasonable? The problem is that the same caveat ought to be applied to the absence of action, or the proposed cure. Shouldn’t we look hard at the consequences of a carbon tax, which on the face of it will make no difference of any discernible kind to temperature, but will cost everybody more?


There are many more poor argumentative styles, but these I think are the important ones. I hope setting them out like this helps, and that readers recognise when they are about to employ one — and resist!

_
*The battlelines #14 My perspective on Climate Change*

*My perspective on Climate change #15 ‘But what about the precautionary principle?’*

*#16 A Summary*


----------



## kahuna1 (29 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> *Congratulations Humanity
> The Great Barrier Reef has lost 75% of what it was in 1985.
> Chances of 10% being left in 2050 are less than 1%.
> The First Canary in the Coal Mine is DEAD ....*







kahuna1 said:


> how many are DEAD on the current survey.
> 
> RIB REEF rip ... 43% ave 41% ave 1990',s 37% 2016 cover to zero in 2019
> St Crispin as mentioned DEAD in 2019 ZERO COVER ...
> ...




*DEAD on the current survey.

RIB REEF rip ... 43% ave 41% ave 1990',s 37% 2016 cover to zero in 2019
St Crispin as mentioned DEAD in 2019 ZERO COVER ...
Mackay Reef as mentioned 2019 ZERO COVER ...
Hasting Reef RIP .... 2019 ZERO ... 32% in 2016 if that's any relevance as its DEAD in 2019
Opal 2 reef ... RIP .... 22% cover to ZERO ....
Green Island ... RIP ... 0% ...*



kahuna1 said:


> *Congratulations Mr Trump, Climate deniers, idiots and non scientific people !!
> 
> This first Canary is dead, likely massive impact on Marine species diversity i the region. One that took hundreds of millions of year to evolve .... Well done silly HUMANS !*




SAD BUT very very correct

I am sure the Turtles which use Green Island as their main hatching ground will LOVE no Coral

Even the dumbest of the dumb can work out some things.

Its wonderful .... Resident Dump ... whoops President Trump. Dumb Donald is 0% still alive ? You had a hunch !! World leader ... what an idiot along with Pauline and the *Liberal party policies*.


----------



## kahuna1 (29 April 2019)

Sorry but the above ... denial of any issue climate change via LNP ... given Green Island NOW in 2019 ... just surveyed *HAD NO HARD CORALS LEFT *.... I am not sure WHAT will wake these climate idiots UP. Green Island has been under survey because its one of the ONLY turtle Hatcheries for Leatherback Turtles ...

It’s easy to see why Green Island Cairns has been on the tourist map for over 100 years – first as a basic lodge (grass huts) for passing fishermen and then as an opportunity for day-trippers to experience the reef first-hand.

In fact Green Island has a long list of firsts:


1st tourist destination on the Great Barrier Reef – 1880s
1st protected coral cay – 1937
1st glass bottom boat experience – 1948
1st underwater observatory – 1954
1st island movie theatre (featuring underwater footage) – 1961
1st crocodile exhibit on a sand cay – 1964

http://www.adventuremumma.com/green-island-cairns-turtle-heaven/
*NEW FIRST ... NO CORAL* ... welcome to climate change ... I note now in the link ... turtle heaven ... is that WITH or WITHOUT Coral ? ... is it heaven or is it hell in 2019 ?


----------



## Sdajii (29 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Sorry but the above ... denial of any issue climate change via LNP ... given Green Island NOW in 2019 ... just surveyed *HAD NO HARD CORALS LEFT *.... I am not sure WHAT will wake these climate idiots UP. Green Island has been under survey because its one of the ONLY turtle Hatcheries for Leatherback Turtles ...
> 
> It’s easy to see why Green Island Cairns has been on the tourist map for over 100 years – first as a basic lodge (grass huts) for passing fishermen and then as an opportunity for day-trippers to experience the reef first-hand.
> 
> ...




Take a deep breath. Very few people doubt that climate change exists. The questions are how much humans are contributing and much CO2 is contributing.

None of your post relates to this at all.

Additionally, multiple things are destroying coral. Pollution, salinity changes, dredging, and the are no doubt natural fluctuations in coral regardless of these things.

Simply saying "Look, there's a problem! How can anyone doubt that it is caused by x and x is caused by y?" is completely unscientific and holds no water, even if it is caused by x and x is caused by y. You have given no reason to make anyone think it is. Zero evidence, just an hypothesis.


----------



## kahuna1 (29 April 2019)

Oooh conspiracy theory number 34 ?

Bleaching caused by heat is not an issue !!

Must run, still have the cat in the Microwave on high.


----------



## Sdajii (29 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Oooh conspiracy theory number 34 ?
> 
> Bleaching caused by heat is not an issue !!
> 
> Must run, still have the cat in the Microwave on high.




No one said that. Again, you are resorting to strawman tactics when shown up for using a false argument or being wrong.


----------



## kahuna1 (29 April 2019)

Aliens did it ?

Pauline Hanson whilst snorkeling for a day and declaring like you there is no climate change ... did a pee in the water ,,, and killed 6 different reefs ?

I like your theories. See I am getting the swing of it. Debating what scientists have already well established and your denying any climate issues ... all climate issues ... or is it Pauline peeing ? Its your alternative universe ...

coral is dead... it got bleached via temperature ... what caused water temperature to rise ? Climate change ... or was it bachelor in Paradise ?  hmmm awaiting Tuesday nights episode shot in Fiji ... some steamy scene there heated water here ?

Since the people who examine the reefs have observed 3 causes over 40 years, and one reef did not suffer from the tow other ones, .... starfish ,,, or runoff ... 4 did not get runoff and starfish had not been observed in 15 years .... it leaves not many options left ... cooking in hot soup ... till the thing dies turns white and ... well those damm aliens and their ray guns !! Cooked the water ? Not climate related at all !!


----------



## wayneL (29 April 2019)

For those so interested:

Ridd-P-Chapter-1-from-Climate-Change-The-Facts-2017-IPA.pdf


----------



## Sdajii (29 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Aliens did it ?
> 
> Pauline Hanson whilst snorkeling for a day and declaring like you there is no climate change ... did a pee in the water ,,, and killed 6 different reefs ?
> 
> ...




Again, you twist my words into something I have never said.

Pauline Hanson is a nit wit I have never endorsed.

I have never said there is no climate change or climate issue.

You repeatedly lie.


----------



## kahuna1 (29 April 2019)

I am not twisting your words.
Nor trying to annoy you.
Nor trying to misrepresent you.
I went through every theory you have postulated a few pages ago and addressed them all.

I found them to be the opposite of scientific evidence I and 50,000 scientists find irrevocable.
Unquestionable. Impossible to question in fact.

I did examine your theories, against at times  chemical and simple exothermic reactions and found their conclusions lacking, bizarre and against the laws of basic science. I confirmed my limited understanding with the IPCC and the peer reviewed by 24,000 scientists paper and 200 Nobel prize winners from late 2017 and, well, I could not and do not accept your theories. Cause and effect were ignored in favor at times of quite impossible ideas and baseless understanding of events.

In the meantime, all sources, even ones that have less than 1 in a million of being even slightly incorrect are assumed to be incorrect, for that potential error and all findings and data dismissed.


Let alone where your theories led you.
I say this with respect, no anger or taunting.

We agree to totally disagree on science and you with  50,000 scientists from the IPCC most of whom signed off on the 2017 peer review paper on the topic.

I find you position on virtually every issue the IPCC raises to be different and as such, amazing would be a polite way to say that.


----------



## Sdajii (29 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> I am not twisting your words.
> Nor trying to annoy you.
> Nor trying to misrepresent you.
> I went through every theory you have postulated a few pages ago and addressed them all.
> ...




It must be easy to put my words into whatever category you like when rather than looking at my words as they are you imagine they are something else.


----------



## Ann (1 May 2019)

People seriously think this tax is going to make a difference to what the climate is doing?! What a crock of.... 

*British Steel gets £100m government loan to pay carbon bill*
_
British Steel has secured a £100m loan from the government to pay its EU carbon bill, a source close to the company has said.

The money means the private equity-owned firm will avoid a steep EU fine.

The firm said earlier this month it needed the funds to settle its 2018 pollution bill due at the end of April.

Sky News said the government money was used to pay for the company's carbon credits - and that British Steel would repay the money on commercial terms. 

The firm has been hit by a European Union decision to suspend UK firms' access to free carbon permits until a Brexit withdrawal deal is ratified.

The EU's emissions trading system's rules allow industrial polluters to use carbon credits to pay for the previous year's emissions, or trade them to raise money. 

Each free permit gives a firm the right to emit a tonne (1,000kg) of carbon dioxide (CO2). More.._


----------



## kahuna1 (1 May 2019)

Sdajii said:


> It must be easy to put my words into whatever category you like when rather than looking at my words as they are you imagine they are something else.




It is not hard with your theories abut hard data. CO2 not being the issue.

Nor was a rock hitting the planet 65 million years ago ...

since you admit NOT to reading anything anyone, any science source, not matter how many science and data sources presented said about your theories, because they rubbished them ....  telling me I am twisting your words ..  its what is called a projections, since you ... seem to be keen to use shrink terms. Your projecting your own actions and blami0ng someone else. Sorry, take ownership of it and your baggage and 34 conspiracy theories that support your understanding or lack of it on climate change. 

Here is a 3 minute Utube for you ... come visit on the ice with Jane


No words ... just pictures and noise


----------



## Sdajii (1 May 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> It is not hard with your theories abut hard data. CO2 not being the issue.
> 
> Nor was a rock hitting the planet 65 million years ago ...
> 
> ...





Notice how you most oftendon't even try to discuss the topic, you merely use ad hominem attacks and lie about what I have said and believe then deny having done it then do it again in the same posts?


----------



## basilio (1 May 2019)

The problem is Sdajii is that you have raved on and on and on and on and on about global warming and the essence of your posts have been to undercut/deny/ dismiss concerns about the reality and causes of this issue.


----------



## kahuna1 (1 May 2019)

basilio said:


> The problem is Sdajii is that you have raved on and on and on and on and on about global warming and the essence of your posts have been to undercut/deny/ dismiss concerns about the reality and causes of this issue.




I would agree totally. I have and others have discussed and when your talking about irrefutable evidence, or chemical reactions, that are denied, disputed and ignored.

There is little to be gained with such discussion and views. If a chemical reaction is beyond question and its the basis for someones theory, that it doesn't occur or its effects are minimal, well, its time not to continue any rational discussion.


----------



## Sdajii (1 May 2019)

basilio said:


> The problem is Sdajii is that you have raved on and on and on and on and on about global warming and the essence of your posts have been to undercut/deny/ dismiss concerns about the reality and causes of this issue.




The problem is that with people being so polarised between irrational alarmists who unconditionally believe the extreme exaggerations and the deniers who sometimes go so far as saying that humans aren't having any impact, someone who stands anywhere in the middle is seen as being on the opposite side from almost every observer.

I have never said humans are not contributing to climate change, I have never said climate change is not an issue. People seem incapable of understanding the difference between "This claim has no evidence" and "This claim is false", or between "This statement is exaggerated" and "This statement is the opposite of reality" or between "The system contains and inherent bias" and "The system is putting out a narrative with zero genuine basis".

People are so incapable of making distinctions such as these that they actually believe people making statements similar to the first of the above pairs are making statements similar to the second in the above pairs.

As an example, when I say that climate change is not the biggest problem the world currently faces, or that CO2 is not the biggest problem in terms of environmental damage humans are causing, it is not to say these are not issues at all, just that they are not the biggest ones. CO2 in particular is being used as a financial and political tool for retarding industry and economies in some countries, revenue raising without environmental benefit in many cases, and a distraction technique to avoid people rallying for action against other forms of pollution, land clearing, etc. This does not mean CO2 is of zero consequence. When I say climate science is inherently biased and the predictions are exaggerated, it is not to say that the reality is that there will be no climate change or problems, it is that the situation is being exaggerated. Looking at the situation rationally and objectively, this is very clearly so, but the mainstream narrative cleverly and blatantly dishonestly cooks and misrepresents the figures to make it look like previous predictions were conservative when in reality they were hugely exaggerated. Most people don't bother to look deeply into it, and they just believe what the mainstream media pushes, because anything else is too confusing.


This is a similar problem people are having with politics and many social issues these days.


----------



## Sdajii (1 May 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> I would agree totally. I have and others have discussed and when your talking about irrefutable evidence, or chemical reactions, that are denied, disputed and ignored.




Again, this is untrue. If you're not going to even try to discuss the topic, please just stop talking. You keep making claims like this without even relating it to anything specific.


----------



## basilio (1 May 2019)

Sjajii you show absolutely no xxxxing clue about the consequences of  global warming as evidenced by facts on the ground and the research by thousands of scientists around the world.

You seem to be saying that CC is real but in your view a third or fourth order problem after pollution or land use or whatever else you can throw up.

You also are saying you don't  accept the work of climate scientists becasue you see them as inherently biased.  You suggest that somehow they are just exaggerating the issue to ensure continual grants and justify unnecessary efforts to reduce CO2 emissions.

The reality on the ground destroys these statements. Just picking three issues as examples.

1) The effect of ocean warming on coral reefs around the world is devastating. It will only get much worse 
2) The rapidly increasing temperatures in the Arctic and Antarctic regions is accelerating ice melt at an exponential rate.  The effects of this melting on our oceans, weather systems and coastlines will be earth changing
3) The change in climate conditions caused by  weakening of the jet stream by CC  has resulted in extreme weather events around the world.

These are not consequences of a third or fourth order problem.


----------



## Sdajii (1 May 2019)

basilio said:


> Sjajii you show absolutely no xxxxing clue about the consequences of  global warming as evidenced by facts on the ground and the research by thousands of scientists around the world.




This is a silly, clearly emotionally-driven statement.



> You seem to be saying that CC is real but in your view a third or fourth order problem after pollution or land use or whatever else you can throw up.




Sure, absolutely positively, land use is a far bigger environmental problem than climate change. How many species have gone extinct because of humans? Zillions. How many because of climate change (whatever you want to say the cause is) - bugger all. However you look at it, climate change is not the biggest threat we face. Again, that doesn't mean it isn't a problem. This isn't even one of the main points I've argued though.



> You also are saying you don't  accept the work of climate scientists becasue you see them as inherently biased.  You suggest that somehow they are just exaggerating the issue to ensure continual grants and justify unnecessary efforts to reduce CO2 emissions.




That's just one point I've made, and you're exaggerating it, but yes, they clearly do have that bias. It takes bizarre and extreme mental gymnastics to justify saying that bias does not exist and to ignore the blatant reality. This is not to say there is zero basis to what climate scientists say, and I believe a version of the story far, far closer to what climate scientists actually say than what most people in this thread believe!



> The reality on the ground destroys these statements. Just picking three issues as examples.
> 
> 1) The effect of ocean warming on coral reefs around the world is devastating. It will only get much worse
> 2) The rapidly increasing temperatures in the Arctic and Antarctic regions is accelerating ice melt at an exponential rate.  The effects of this melting on our oceans, weather systems and coastlines will be earth changing
> 3) The change in climate conditions caused by  weakening of the jet stream by CC  has resulted in extreme weather events around the world.




1) You haven't even made a case for this being relevant either to climate change (no, I'm not saying climate change is irrelevant, but you haven't demonstrated that it is the sole or even primary cause, and even if it was, it wouldn't go against what I've said and I'm not arguing with you on this point!).

Speculating about the future is just speculation, and again, even if you're right, you're not even contradicting anything I have said!

2) Again, this doesn't contradict anything I've said. I'm not sure the rate is exponential by the way (I'm not denying it, but I'm not sure it's an exponential rate).

3) Again, this does not contradict anything I have said in any way!




> These are not consequences of a third or fourth order problem.




Yes, they most certainly are. Are you really that blind to all the other problems?

If you want to measure it in loss of biodiversity, it clearly, utterly obviously is nowhere near the biggest problem.

If you want to measure it in terms of affect on humans, it clearly, utterly, obviously is not the biggest problem we are dealing with.

You can speculate about the future, and I completely and utterly disagree that it will be the biggest problem in the future either. War and resource shortages will be tremendously more of a problem for humans this century than climate change.


----------



## kahuna1 (1 May 2019)

Sdajii said: ↑
The myth is that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change (some climate scientists do make this claim, some don't, I disagree with the ones which do make that claim, and it is very easy to debunk it. I can go through evidence for this if you wish).

YOU said this .... which even a discussion beyond that point would be .... pointless. 
TOTALLY pointless.

We did, I did ... 






Sdajii said:


> Acidification through the production of carbonic acid as the ocean absorbs atmospheric CO2 can legitimately be called acidification in my opinion, but you can't correctly say it's becoming more acidic until it actually becomes acidic.




Even English and what it means a falling PH seems to upset you.



Sdajii said:


> Whether or not you want to consider humans to be the primary cause of the current change in climate, and whether or not it is portrayed accurately or it is exaggerated, it is human nature (and indeed the nature of all living things)




You have some weird view it is NOT humans that see the CO2 level for a million years 200 to 280 PPM ... now at 410 PPM and rising faster ... we are not the cause.

Well ... I doubt any scientist disputes this, yet you clearly do.

I again scratch my head as to your strange understanding of even basic science.


----------



## Sdajii (1 May 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Sdajii said: ↑
> The myth is that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change (some climate scientists do make this claim, some don't, I disagree with the ones which do make that claim, and it is very easy to debunk it. I can go through evidence for this if you wish).
> 
> YOU said this .... which even a discussion beyond that point would be .... pointless.
> ...




You are so emotional, perhaps this is why you have such difficulty seeing the posts rationally.

Throughout the planet's history of billions of years the climate has wildly fluctuated, often at greater rates of change than we presently have (climate scientists all agree with this whether or not you are comfortable accepting that) and CO2 has rarely been the cause.

As for the acid, it's just silly to get so emotional and so fixated on semantics. If this is such a big issue to you, go get some fresh air. Obviously I understand the concepts of pH, I studied chemistry at university, I did well, and trivial semantics don't change basic understanding of the principles of chemistry. Stop being so emotional and obsessed with projecting irrelevant details on to separate issues as though they are relevant or important.

And again, yet again, you misrepresent my words. Obviously humans are the overwhelming cause of the current rise of atmospheric CO2.

In almost literally every post you twist my words and imagine, apparently with genuine belief, that I said or meant something completely different.


----------



## kahuna1 (1 May 2019)

Not emotional

Rational. Follow science, not ... theories ... 

How I misrepresent your words when I post in full ... is delusional. Sorry but it is. 

Twisting direct quotes is not possible.


----------



## HelloU (1 May 2019)

Science is pretty sure that there is either 8, or 9, or 12 planets in our solar system. 

Try to be nice to others that express a view about science.


----------



## kahuna1 (1 May 2019)

In the case of chemical reactions .... endothermic reactions ... there is no difference if you do it 10 times or a million and even a billion times.

Refuting and disputing measurements, reactions and even reactions, is where we parted ways. and I am being nice.


----------



## wayneL (1 May 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> In the case of chemical reactions .... endothermic reactions ... there is no difference if you do it 10 times or a million and even a billion times.
> 
> Refuting and disputing measurements, reactions and even reactions, is where we parted ways. and I am being nice.




In a chaotic system,  chaos intervenes.

It's why the BOM can completely f*** up the weather forecast.


----------



## Ann (1 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> In a chaotic system,  chaos intervenes.
> 
> It's why the BOM can completely f*** up the weather forecast.




*The hottest summer on record except for the ones that we’ve changed*






Jennifer Marohasy

_10 March 2019

9:00 AM

This last summer has been hot in south-eastern Australia. But was it the hottest ever? Summer 80 years ago was arguably as hot, if not hotter.

Australia’s Environment Minister, Melissa Price, also recently claimed this summer’s bushfires as a consequence of climate change. I grew up with stories from my late father of terrible bushfires – infernos – back in 1939. The Black Friday firestorm of 13 January 1939 destroyed four times the area of farmland and forest as the devastating February 2009 fires – and twenty times as much as burnt this last summer.

But it is actually now near impossible to know which summer was the hottest ever summer – because of the extensive remodelling of our temperature history.

The extensive remodelling is not denied by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Rather it is justified on the basis that temperatures are now measured using a non-standard method (spot readings) from non-standard equipment (custom built probes in automatic weather stations). Apparently, we need to know how hot it was back then, relative to the equipment used now – so temperature are remodelled. To be clear, there are three factors that potentially confound how hot it was back then – or now: the equipment, how it is used, and the remodelling, which is often referred to as homogenisation.

The largest single change in the new ACORN-SAT Version 2 temperature database is a drop of more than 13 degrees Celsius at the town of Wagga on 27 November 1946.





	

		
			
		

		
	
But let’s begin with Rutherglen. The Rutherglen agricultural research station has one of the longest, continuous, temperature records for anywhere in rural Victoria. Minimum and maximum temperatures were first recorded at Rutherglen using standard and calibrated equipment back in November 1912. Considering the first 85 years of summer temperatures – unadjusted/not homogenized – the very hottest summer on record at Rutherglen is the summer of 1938/1939.

While this last summer of 2018/2019 was hotter according to Minister Price, such a claim would not pass scrutiny if assessed for the Guinness Book of records – because of all the changes to the way temperatures are now measured at Rutherglen relative to back in 1938/1939.

At Rutherglen, the first big change happened 29 January 1998. That is when the mercury and alcohol thermometers were replaced with an electronic probe – custom built to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s own standard, with the specifications still yet to be made public.

According to Bureau policy, when such a major equipment change occurs there should be at least three years (preferably five) of overlapping/parallel temperature recordings, except the mercury and alcohol thermometers (used to measure maximum and minimum temperatures, respectively) were removed on exactly the same day the custom-built probe was placed into the Stevenson screen at Rutherglen, in direct contravention of this policy.

In 2011, the Bureau made further changes in that it stopped averaging one-second readings from the probe at Rutherglen over one minute. The maximum temperature as recorded each day at Rutherglen is now the highest one-second spot reading from the custom-built probe. That is correct – spot reading.

So, to reiterate, we now have a non-standard method of measuring (spot readings) from non-standard equipment (custom-built probes) making it impossible to establish the equivalence of recent temperatures from Rutherglen – or any of the Bureau’s other 695 probes in automatic weather stations spread across the landmass of Australia – with historical data.

Then there is the remodelling – with the most recent remodelling creating Version 2 of ACORN-SAT. This has resulted in an overall 23 per cent increase in the rate of warming between Versions 1 and 2 for the 112 weather stations that comprise ACORN-SAT. This is the database used by the Bureau and the CSIRO to monitor climate change across Australia.

At Rutherglen, a modest rate of warming in the raw maximum temperatures of 0.7 degrees Celsius per Century has been changed to 1.3 degrees Celsius in ACORN-SAT Version 2. Changes to the minimum temperature trend are more dramatic: a slight cooling trend of 0.3 degrees Celsius has been changed to warming of 1.9 degrees in ACORN-SAT Version 2 for Rutherglen.

This remodelling – known as homogenisation – involves the detection of discontinuities and then adjustments which generally result in past temperatures being cooled relative to the present. By cooling the past, present temperatures appear hotter. For example, considering maximum temperatures at Rutherglen, the largest single drop-down (adjustment) to daily temperatures occurs from 1 January 1938 back in time. The Bureau classifies the hot summer of 1938/1939 as a ‘discontinuity’ that is ‘statistical’ in ‘cause’ and then cools all the days before 31 December 1938 by 0.6 degrees Celsius back to 1912 – the beginning of the record.

To repeat, the Bureau does not deny making these changes. Rather it claims such changes to Rutherglen’s temperature history are necessary to show what the temperature would be back then, using today’s equipment. But. There was no actual change in the equipment between versions 1 and 2 of ACORN-SAT for Rutherglen. So, this reason could not actually be considered reasonable.

So why did, for example, the Bureau drop the minimum daily temperatures by a further 2.6 degrees Celsius on the day of the Black Friday bushfire? To be clear, the minimum temperature on the day of the Black Friday bushfire at Rutherglen was measured as 28.3 degrees Celsius. This value is changed to 27.8 degrees Celsius in ACORN-SAT Version 1, a reduction of 0.5 degrees Celsius. In Version 2, the temperature is reduced further, now archived as just 25.7 degrees Celsius for 13 January 1939 – a reduction of 2.6 degrees from the original temperature as actually recorded on that day.

There is a real history of rural Victoria: 71 men and women perished in that bushfire back on 13 January 1939. According to my late father, it was extraordinarily hot.

The Bureau has never put a media release out letting the Australian public know that there is a Version 2 of ACORN-SAT, with even cooler historical temperatures for Rutherglen and most of the rest of Australia than in Version 1 that was only published in 2012.

Just a few years ago, the minister then responsible for the Bureau, Greg Hunt, was claiming that ACORN-SAT Version 1 was the world’s best practice and the correct temperature history of Australia.

Just to the north of Rutherglen is Wagga, and the largest single cooling of any temperature in ACORN-SAT Version 2 was made to this temperature record. Specifically, on 27 November 1946, the minimum temperature of 21 degrees Celsius in ACORN-SAT Version 1 is changed to just 7.6 degrees Celsius in Version 2. This is a drop-down (a cooling of the past) of 13.4 degrees Celsius for a single day.

A temperature probe replaced the mercury and alcohol thermometers at Wagga on 1 November 1996. There was another equipment change on 10 January 2001, when the small Stevenson screen was replaced with a larger screen.

There have been no changes to the site or the equipment since then, since 2001. Yet there is a further overall one-degree increase in the rate of warming at Wagga between the Version 1 (published in 2012) and Version 2 of ACORN-SAT.

Not only does the Bureau somewhat arbitrarily appear to increase the rate of warming, but it also makes-up/invents 32 years of temperature recordings for Wagga Wagga airport.

The first temperatures ever recorded at this official ACORN-SAT bureau weather station (number 072150) were in January 1942. Yet the homogenized ACORN-SAT series for Wagga airport begins on 1 January 1910. This is done by joining the Wagga airport with another temperature series (number 072151), and then homogenising with data from other weather stations including numbers 74114, 73038, 73127, 73019, 72023,72000, 73009, 75028, etcetera. The pattern and trend in temperatures in the homogenized temperature series (ACORN-SAT Versions 1 and 2) for Wagga bear no resemblance to the original temperature measurements.





	

		
			
		

		
	
The remodelling by the Bureau is industrial-scale: this is necessary to generate a consistent global warming trend that does not exist in the raw unhomogenized data.

My late father was eight years old and living not far from Rutherglen on 13 January 1939. He remembered the hot wind blowing from the north-west on that day. I grew up with his memories of that time. My father described hot and hungry years – just as John Steinbeck described farm life in the mid-west of the US in the 1930s in his famous ‘Grapes of Wrath’. There was hardship, and there were dust storms in the US and also in south-eastern Australia.

Indeed, in rural Victoria, the summer of 1938-1939 was on average at least two degrees hotter than anything measured with equivalent equipment since.

Yet Minister Price denies this history – my late father’s history.

There are consequences for future generations in this remodelling. It affects how we understand the relationship between climate and bushfires. Also, by continually reducing past temperatures, there is potential for new record hot days, record hot summers and hottest years for even cooler weather. This is nonsense – consistent with how the Bureau now measures, archives and remodels our temperature history.

Jennifer Marohasy is a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs and blogs at jennifermarohasy.com, where this piece also appears.

Illustration: Bureau of Meteorology.
Ref._


----------



## Sdajii (1 May 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Not emotional
> 
> Rational. Follow science, not ... theories ...
> 
> ...




Your posts are clearly emotional. The language you use, your reliance on bold, colour, enlarged text etc, it demonstrates it unambiguously.

It is possible to twist quotes, we see examples all around us every day, and you've repeatedly done so. Even *after* the actual meaning is pointed out you continue to insist on attacking the imagined message, undeterred by having been told that message was formed in your own imagination. This is not rational.


----------



## kahuna1 (1 May 2019)

“Peter Ridd raises almost all of his research funds from the profits of consultancy work which is usually associated with monitoring of marine dredging operation,” his profile noted. The Marine Geophysics Laboratory at JCU has been involved in consulting for a range of coal terminal projects in 2012, funds which go to PhD scholarship and the staff of the MGL. [3], [4]

In January 2018, Ridd launched the website ”Great Barrier Reef Science Commentary” where he has covered a legal case between himself and James Cook University. Ridd has claimed the University is trying to silence him through a censure and then a disciplinary allegation of serious misconduct related to disparaging comments about two institutions linked to JCU - the Australian Institute of marine science and the Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies.

Ridd was featured in the IPA publication “Climate Change: The Facts 2017” in which he wrote that coral is the “least endangered of any ecosystem to future climate change.” [7]

*Peter Ridd & The Institute of Public Affairs*
The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), a group funded by mining magnate Gina Rinehart and known for opposing policy actions on climate change, has supported Peter Ridd by gathering funds to cover legal costs in the case he filed against JCU. [5]

Ridd is director and scientific coordinator at the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF), a group SourceWatch describes as a front group founded by the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA). Jennifer Marohasy, director of the environment unit at IPA, initially served as AEF's chairwoman. [30], [31]

https://www.desmogblog.com/peter-ridd


----------



## kahuna1 (1 May 2019)

The subject of the pair’s wrath is the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) — the Australian government’s weather bureau.

Specifically, it’s the way the bureau collects and records temperatures.

*Marohasy* works for the Institute of Public Affairs which, if you want to talk about tentacles, is firmly attached to the body of conservative “free market” groups around the world that deny the risks of human-caused climate change.

Last week, I interviewed former BoM director Rob Vertessy, who described the attacks from a “fever swamp” of climate science denial as being baseless, a waste of time, and dangerous, especially when they’re amplified by Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper The Australian.

https://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4367

Wow what a great source ANNE .... *so impartial ... working for a climate denial institute

*


----------



## kahuna1 (1 May 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> DEAD on the current survey.
> 
> RIB REEF rip ... 43% ave 41% ave 1990',s 37% 2016 cover to zero in 2019
> St Crispin as mentioned DEAD in 2019 ZERO COVER ...
> ...






kahuna1 said:


> Ridd was featured in the IPA publication “Climate Change: The Facts 2017” in which he wrote that coral is the “least endangered of any ecosystem to future climate change.” [7]
> 
> *Peter Ridd & The Institute of Public Affairs*
> The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), a group funded by mining magnate Gina Rinehart and known for opposing policy actions on climate change, has supported Peter Ridd by gathering funds to cover legal costs in the case he filed against JCU. [5]




This is the BOM source .... story ... why not invent something else ?

So how did the 6 reefs die .... when this imbecile ... called *coral is the “least endangered of any ecosystem to future climate change.” in 2017 ....

*in 2019 well 6 are dead and 16 others close to it !!*
*
16 in extreme danger and one at 1% one at 2% ... and this is just a survey of 50 or so reefs of the 350 they cover being done in 2019. So ... sadly ... there will be more !!

Amazing someone cut and pasted Gina Reinhardts wishes ... and Rupert Murdochs Fox views.


----------



## wayneL (1 May 2019)

Sigh, smear and ad hom.


----------



## HelloU (2 May 2019)

gotta say, when peeps talk of winters being hotter, then some


kahuna1 said:


> In the case of chemical reactions .... endothermic reactions ... there is no difference if you do it 10 times or a million and even a billion times.
> 
> Refuting and disputing measurements, reactions and even reactions, is where we parted ways. and I am being nice.



i did (do) not know what that endothermic thing is ...... so i got this understanding from a book:

*"Endothermic reactions*. An *endothermic reaction* occurs when the energy used to break the bonds in the reactants is greater than the energy given out when bonds are formed in the products. This means that overall the *reaction* takes in energy, therefore there is a temperature decrease in the surroundings."

now i am really confused as peeps are talking about the temperature going up due to global warming. This endothermic thing is talking about temperature going down. What am i missing?
is my book description wrong?


----------



## kahuna1 (2 May 2019)

Carbon capture ... endothermic .... Carbon burning exothermic reaction.

Burning captured  CO2 via say oil deposits, ancient seas of algae, or coal, ancient compressed vegetation ....   trees and plants capturing it ... millions of years ago ... CO2 and energy .... release it ... all at once brilliant people ....  burn it ... one is a chemical reaction .... releasing CO2 and the other releases heat and energy, the opposite of what the tress did capturing it.

Simple stuff ... rules by laws of science, not opinions .... chemical reactions and so too laws on the input of energy ... and output of energy ... cannot be exceeded either side. 

Tree buried for 50 million years, alive and absorbing CO2 and energy to grow .... lets RELEASE it all at once .... both energy and CO2 .... say a tree ... taking say 50 years to grow, absorb .... before its buried ... now a mere 5 tons of coal ... we can release 50 years of energy and 50 years of CO2 absorption in an eye-blink.

Have fun


----------



## HelloU (2 May 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Carbon capture ... endothermic .... Carbon burning exothermic reaction.
> 
> Burning captured  CO2 via say oil deposits, ancient seas of algae, or coal, ancient compressed vegetation ....   trees and plants capturing it ... millions of years ago ... CO2 and energy .... release it ... all at once brilliant people ....  burn it ... one is a chemical reaction .... releasing CO2 and the other releases heat and energy, the opposite of what the tress did capturing it.
> 
> ...



ahh
that makes more contextual sense, thx


----------



## Ann (2 May 2019)

For want of a better place I will put this article here. In part it may explain the focus on publishing and promoting more extreme left points of view from academia. I could see why there is currently a focus from the left to create a more left leaning group of young people about to enter academia with promotion of the climate change agenda into their belief system. They need to get a certain mind set into the children to have a chance of political influence once they enter universities and then into the spheres of influence.

Just musing now, perhaps there is a desire in academia for subversion and overthrow of the status quo. Revolution and all that. Seeding the future generation with a political left agenda. Climate Change is merely an entree to a bigger political agenda to overthrow democratically elected governments and head to a more dictatorial agenda.  Conspiracy theory? Unlikely IMO, probably more a cyclical thing. Back in the 1980s I read a few economic books by Ravi Batra he talked about the *law of social cycle.*
_
' According to Batra (1978), the West is currently in the age of acquisitors, also known as Capitalism. This age succeeded the 'age of intellectuals', which gave birth to the Enlightenment and the British parliamentary system. Before that the West went through the 'age of warriors' and the age of discovery. Feudalism, an earlier 'age of acquisitors', reigned before that. It had replaced the 'age of intellectuals', with restrictions on religious thought and also gave birth to the Renaissance period. Before that, Rome ruled the West under the aegis of warriors.' Ref_

He was saying there are four groups of people and we cycle through the spheres of their influence. We have traveled through the Warrior stage, The
Intellectual stage. He suggests we are currently traveling through the Acquisitors stage and coming to the end of that. That leaves the last group of people, the Laborers who are about to take control. So does this mean they will do away with wars, higher learning and wealth? But we will have lots of routine work, waiting tables, collecting trash, and other low-tech, low skill jobs for all? Sounds like something Ray Dalio was describing in the Modern Monetary Theory. 

*The Leftist Tilt on Campus Has Gotten Dramatically Worse*

_College professors have long positioned themselves to the political left of the American public. The progressive skew in higher education used to be a stable plurality though. Beginning with the earliest survey data in the 1960s, self-identified left-liberals consistently comprised, on average, about 43 percent of all college professors in the United States. Self-described “moderate” and “conservative” faculty members split the remainder for the next three decades.

Then something changed around the year 2001. The percentage of faculty who identify with the political left began to skyrocket. In the course of under 15 years, left-leaning faculty rose to an outright majority of 60 percent of the professoriate. More.._


----------



## wayneL (2 May 2019)

Re endothermic reactions, the nature of the system is important, ie whether closed or open. This should be taken into consideration.


----------



## Joules MM1 (4 May 2019)

Alfred-Wegener-Institut, Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar- und Meeresforschung
Published on Jun 27, 2018


 *Lars Kaleschke*‏ @*seaice_de*

ESA's Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS) missions objective was not to measure the sea ice thickness but it worked out very well. Now data collected over 9 years clearly shows a trend in Arctic sea ice extent while the area covered with ice >1m has no significant trend.


----------



## kahuna1 (4 May 2019)

*April reached a new record Arctic low sea ice extent*

2019
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

*2018 Arctic summertime sea ice minimum extent tied for sixth lowest on record *
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2811/...nimum-extent-tied-for-sixth-lowest-on-record/

NSIDC and NASA showed that, at 1.77 million square miles (4.59 million square kilometers), 2018 effectively tied with 2008 and 2010 for the sixth lowest summertime minimum extent in the satellite record.

One of the most unusual features of this year’s melt season has been the reopening of a polynya-like hole in the icepack north of Greenland, where the oldest and thickest sea ice of the Arctic typically resides.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
at 1.8 million sq miles verses the 1980-2018 ave of 2.4 million sq miles and all measured via satellite ... ALL OF IT .... 

1.8 is 75% of 2.4 ... 

in other words 25% IS GONE .... v  the ave 

Alarming ? Well its only been stable for around 800,000 years and the permafrost and frozen plant and matter below it ...

25% Gone, the thing keeping it frozen in 30 years .... hmmm 

ONAY


----------



## kahuna1 (4 May 2019)

DERRR >>>>>>> 
The past four years (2015-18) have the four lowest maximums in the satellite record.


https://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2018/ArtMID/7878/ArticleID/780/SeanbspIce


----------



## Ann (19 May 2019)

*Do We Really Have a Decade Left to Solve Climate Change?*
_
Wise alecks on social media noted with amusement how Beto O’Rourke recently claimed humans had only ten years to act on climate change, thus one-upping Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who had previously gone out on a limb by putting the deadline at twelve years. Snark aside, it’s important to point out that the “consensus science” as codified, for example, in the periodic reports from the United Nations do not support such a cliff-hanger mentality at all.


*Our Political Figures Ignore the IPCC  More...*_


----------



## rederob (19 May 2019)

Ann said:


> *Do We Really Have a Decade Left to Solve Climate Change?*
> _
> Wise alecks on social media noted with amusement how Beto O’Rourke recently claimed humans had only ten years to act on climate change, thus one-upping Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who had previously gone out on a limb by putting the deadline at twelve years. Snark aside, it’s important to point out that the “consensus science” as codified, for example, in the periodic reports from the United Nations do not support such a cliff-hanger mentality at all.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately your quoted author got his facts wrong. He says "The beige cells in the adapted table above show the percentage increases in the total (undiscounted) mitigation costs necessary to achieve the far-left (white cells) atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases ...."
In fact the table is about putting a single price on carbon which produces a CO2 level in the years specified, and then looking at how that affects global economies.
The people presently quoting 2030 do so because it is regarded as a "tipping point."
In other words, if things are now well in place to mitigate GHG emissions by then, subsequent actions would need to be extreme to prevent the more dire scenarios of the IPCC playing out.
Some scientists reckon we already passed the tipping point.
No matter, we got Scomo at the helm again and he's going to "have a go."  
Promise .


----------



## kahuna1 (19 May 2019)

What a load ...

No one could be that stupid ... yet here we have it again !!

quoting the article by  Robert P. Murphy, an economist with the Institute for Energy Research

*Institute for Energy Research (IER)*

IER's founder and CEO is Robert L. Bradley Jr., former Director of Policy Analysis at Enron. Bradley worked for over 16 years at Enron,

Charles Koch was directly involved with the IER at its formation

Call me fussy, but only a complete idiot or dotard would quote something from this source as any relevance to climate science !!

*Congratulations.*


----------



## Sir Burr (19 May 2019)

Have a chuckle every time I see this thread on the front page.

Reminds me of George "the planet is fine, the people are...."


----------



## kahuna1 (19 May 2019)

I suppose ...

I don't worry .... but this is ridiculous !!

*It Was A Record 84 Degrees Near The Arctic Ocean*


Unseen for 3 million years !!

Whilst not worried about my next 40-60 years, well ... below the Artic lies 1.8 trillion tons of CO2 frozen and about 10 billion tons of frozen methane ... which is 85 times worse than CO2.

basically 1.8 trillion tons of CO2 permafrost  when it melts, not if ... WHEN .. is everything we have emitted post 1850. As for say 10 billion tons of methane ... at 85 times the impact ... well that's ... 4 times that.

4 TIMES ... the impact .... added to the 1.8 trillion, well its like a train  that's fallen off the rails on a bridge and stopping it is just sadly not possible.


I cant change the destructive human nature and the likely end of most of this species. Such is life. I will join them and embrace the time left. 

So worrying ? No ..
Caring about my next generation ? Yep ... and the one following it into the post 2100 period it will be somewhat interesting if not devastating.

Take care


----------



## Ann (19 May 2019)

rederob said:


> The people presently quoting 2030 do so because it is regarded as a "tipping point."
> In other words, if things are now well in place to mitigate GHG emissions by then, subsequent actions would need to be extreme to prevent the more dire scenarios of the IPCC playing out.
> Some scientists reckon we already passed the tipping point.




Folks, don't be too concerned by the term 'tipping point', it is merely a journalistic metaphor, not a scientific fact.
_In 2000, Malcolm Gladwell published his first book, “The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference,” which examines the moment when an idea, product or behavior reaches the point where it tips, or spreads and gains critical mass. “The Tipping Point” used experts and academic studies to explain everything from the comeback of Hush Puppies shoes to the drop in crime in New York City in the early 1990s._ Ref. He is a journalist using the term as a metaphor. 

To put it simply it is a bit of descriptive journalese in an effort to create a 'tipping point' in the public belief of there actually being a threat using a computer generated projected 'dire' meteorological outcome in a hundred years or so. 

I just wish they could get their weather projections right for the next few months, that would be great! 

Anyhow, now that Australia has voted on the Climate Change issue and given it the bird, we can file it under cow dung which is where it deserves to be. Clearly at ASF we will likely still have the few die-hard Climate Hysterics, banging on until the next election, who are programmed into their belief system but I tend to think of ASF as being a delicious fruit cake, gotta have a few nuts in there for novelty! 

*Tipping Points and Climate Change: Metaphor Between Science and the Media*


----------



## rederob (19 May 2019)

Ann said:


> To put it simply it is a bit of descriptive journalese in an effort to create a 'tipping point' in the public belief of there actually being a threat using a computer generated projected 'dire' meteorological outcome in a hundred years or so.



Because you don't know science you also don't know that there is a *threshold *temperature above which natural feedback systems that currently keep the Earth cool will unravel.  We only know when that is *after the* *event *because we will see a cascade of climate events which thrust the planet into what is termed a "hothouse" state. 
Your ideas are the usual rubbish we have come to expect on this thread, but it was a great cartoon.


----------



## kahuna1 (19 May 2019)

only a complete idiot or dotard would quote something from this source as any relevance to climate science !!

*Congratulations.*

Again Ann wins ... must be one of those bad days ....



Ann said:


> Clearly at ASF we will likely still have the few die-hard Climate Hysterics, banging on until the next election, who are programmed into their belief system but I tend to think of ASF as being a delicious fruit cake, gotta have a few nuts in there for novelty!




Have you taken your pills today ?

Surely Arctic at 84 degrees v normal of 40 this time of year is alarming ?

Not for you ..... either in  denial, delusional or just plain stupid ?

The sad thing is, you are that delusional that you believe it all ... earth ifs flat ... there is no issue ... not even when its 44 degrees F higher than normal ? Or are you still drilling ice cores at Cape Grim in Tasmania ?


----------



## Wyatt (19 May 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> I suppose ...
> 
> I don't worry .... but this is ridiculous !!
> 
> ...





Fear and greed. Every investor's nemesis, but this behavior is next level and opportunistic. 

Imagine that squealing like a pig about what may happen in in your wildest dreams and get paid beyond your wildest dreams for it. Sounds compelling, doesn't it. 
That's the problem, what is real and what is BS, is not that easy to decipher for the average punter, just cause someone says so, it is not a given. No matter what ideology they prescribe to.
Sure the world is in a warming phase due to number of factors. That is a given and by the sound of many, we're rooted anyway, no matter what we do. The cockroaches will reign supreme, apparently.
I personally think high % renewable energy capture and storage is inevitable, but we don't need be the dumb country to pay too much to get what we need. The electorate has spoken.
Informed people will have read about Gottliebsen's article about Germany and high electricity prices due to early wind energy uptake. The bloke across the road has a 1.0Kw solar system that was government sponsored to the tune of $10K 12 years or so ago, these days crap like that is unheard of and now would cost less than 10% of that price if installed now, not to mention the inefficiencies accepted at that time. Pathetic really. A friend recently installed 6.6KW of panels and inverter for less than $5K, that will produce on average 26KW/day for a long time. About 40% of the price the I paid nearly 7 years ago for something similar when the labour party were handing out big feed in tariffs, fortunately it pays for itself every 3.3 years. If you had the opportuntity, particularly in QLD and missed it, it due to procrastination, maybe you should give up DIY investing and hand it over to someone else who knows what their doing. Blind Freddy was onto that one.
I guess QLDers couldn't trust Bill to get it right and and not just figuratively.

Same bull**** different steerer


----------



## rederob (20 May 2019)

Wyatt said:


> I personally think high % renewable energy capture and storage is inevitable, but we don't need be the dumb country to pay too much to get what we need. The electorate has spoken.



The reason we now have cheap solar panels is because governments around the world incentivised early uptake, and manufacturers we able to achieve economies of scale in production. 
That's also happened in the wind market but, oddly enough, has not fed into the battery storage market.
The Labor policy for 1000000 home battery system rebates by 2025 would likely have mitigated the summer load shedding in Victoria that will again occur in 2020 and beyond due to failed government policies.


Wyatt said:


> Informed people will have read about Gottliebsen's article about Germany and high electricity prices due to early wind energy uptake.



I was not amongst them. 
However, I see these claims about Germany on a regular basis, and they are mostly poorly founded and promoted by those who are losing business to renewables.
Compare the price increases in Germany from the chart below with the increase in prices you have copped over the past 5 years.  The clear winner is Germany because it moved early into renewables and now reaps the benefits.


----------



## Struzball (21 May 2019)

Wyatt said:


> About 40% of the price the I paid nearly 7 years ago for something similar when the labour party were handing out big feed in tariffs, fortunately it pays for itself every 3.3 years. If you had the opportuntity, particularly in QLD and missed it, it due to procrastination, maybe you should give up DIY investing and hand it over to someone else who knows what their doing. Blind Freddy was onto that one.




I was opposed to the high feed in tarrifs.
It encouraged the smart people to sell high priced power during they day, and then use their appliances at night, using cheaper coal power.  Thereby doing absolutely nothing to reduce peak demand and emissions - which should be the primary consideration of any renewable energy investments by government.

I felt that the increased demand from people chasing the high FiT would inflate solar panels, mainly collected by greedy installers.  As you say Wyatt, panels today are 40% of the price today than 7 years ago.  That's a $7500 saving in only 7 years, and todays investment isn't propped up by unsustainable government policies which do nothing but increase the cost of electricity.

You could have invested that $7500 saving in the stock market in 2012 and gained a 50%+ return.  Not including dividends.  Your $7500 could be worth $15000 if you reinvested your dividends.
So opportunity cost, You'd be paying $5000(todays value)+$15000(missed gains) = $20,000.

My power bill is about $1800 per year, so at that rate it would take 10 years to pay back, however still missing out on future opportunity cost, so potentially never recouping your investment.

That being said, solar panels are becoming cheap enough these days to use them smartly, by timing appliances to be used during the day etc, reducing emissions and peak demand, and ideally gaining some significant savings on your power bill for a relatively small investment.

I'm no accountant, please correct me if I'm wrong.  Just sharing my opinion.


----------



## Wyatt (21 May 2019)

Hi Struzball,
The high feed in tariffs, while arguably not thought out that well by the pollies, did create a massive wave of solar uptake, which gathers speed today, despite the rapidly changing landscape. It also gave recipients of subsidies the incentive to become as efficient as possible. 

A 6.6KW system will generate around 25Kwh/day, if you used 5Kwh/day of that generation @.30 and exported the rest 20 @0.10Kwh is say $3.50/day = around $1250/yr This means a 4 year payback or less depending on initial cost. Not overly exciting, but a good return on a small outlay. These are Qld calculations, could be better or worse elsewhere.

Once batteries go through a similar growth phase where usage goes exponentially higher and prices do the exact opposite, the math gets a whole lot better and systems will get a lot bigger to make sure that peak demand on any given household will be covered by those batteries. Time of use tariffs (reflecting cost of supply) even high feed in rates from private/ commercial batteries could also help curb demand or get peeps to replace those old electricity guzzling box a/c for something far more efficient and maybe install fans. Fans can do a lot to help you keep your cool (we're not talking the half busted pedestal in the cupboard) and they are cheap to run. Lets go with free ceiling fans for you southerners. 

As far as being a better investment by putting cash in stock market rather than solar?
Solar is highly predictable over the medium term, the other is not. The ultimate goal in this arena would be to have individuals spend their own money, which generates decent returns and in the process reducing peak demand, hopefully stabilizing the grid and as a by product reducing carbon emissions.


----------



## Struzball (21 May 2019)

Can't disagree with you on any of your points.

Was just pointing out that roof top solar wasn't necessarily the only or best investment choice for your hard earned dollars that you could have made in 2012.

I agree a recent solar panel purchases would be a good investment (4 year payback).
Unlike 2012 when prices were still falling rapidly, it is hard to imagine delaying the purchase of solar panels a further 7 years would be a wise choice.
At best they would probably halve in cost by 2026.  The potential gain from investing the difference of $2500 today isn't as significant when compared to the gains of not having to pay a power bill.


----------



## rederob (21 May 2019)

Struzball said:


> Was just pointing out that roof top solar wasn't necessarily the only or best investment choice for your hard earned dollars that you could have made in 2012.



We installed in May 2012.
All up it cost about $12k.
We have never had to pay a cent in power since then.
We average an annual payment back from AGL at around $1000 - last quarter it was about $390.
Our pool gobbles most electricity.
Payback was under 4 years.
That $12k investment now guarantees us a minimum return of $3000 per annum up to 2028.
I would think long and hard about your maths.

Our friends get a FIT of 8cents/Kw on their 3.5Kw system installed under 5 years ago.  They run as many appliances as possible during sunshine hours.  They pay less than $200/quarter (small pool pump helps).  They reckon they are in the "free" zone now, despite such a small FIT, because installed system prices had dropped a lot after the 44cent FIT disappeared.  They estimate on average that their system saves them somewhere between $1500 and $2000 each year and they are pretty happy about that.

When I see 6.6Kw systems advertised at $3999 I go oh F#@h, wondering why I didn't wait a while longer.  And then I realise that is only $1000 more than we save each year, and smile .


----------



## Struzball (21 May 2019)

I tried to do the maths properly just now, but it's hard to come up with a meaningful answer because it assumes power prices will stay constant.. which is unlikely, IMO.

In 2028 you're guaranteed a certain FiT, but there's no guarantee that power prices won't be more than that by then, which would erode your "guaranteed" $3000 per year return.

I still think buying a system today and using the energy conservatively such as your friends with the 8c/Kw do is the better deal in the long run.  Particularly because it's resistant to future electricity price rises.


----------



## rederob (21 May 2019)

Struzball said:


> In 2028 you're guaranteed a certain FiT, but there's no guarantee that power prices won't be more than that by then, which would erode your "guaranteed" $3000 per year return.



Our FIT is presently around 52cents/Kw from AGL and we are guaranteed at least 44cents until 2028.
We could optimise our FIT by doing some things when the sun is not shining, but we prefer to be lazier at night.
If power prices went up, then our theoretical savings actually increase.
Our FIT should decline because panels lose about 1% efficiency each year.
We should have added a few more panels anyways, because we seldom crank out the 5Kw/h which our inverter can manage.


----------



## qldfrog (22 May 2019)

And because it is not subject to a market crash, even better in an economic collapse, you can keep your light on after loosing your job
Your call


----------



## orr (23 May 2019)

Projecting forward the financial math on household roof top solar enters another realm when you factor in the possibility of replacing petrolium with electricity...
3 days of good production from a 6.6k/w will charge a 100kw/h battery. That'll move todays (early technology) EV 2+ tonne sedan over 400km... What's that costing you currently in your 7Series BM's.
Let alone the National security (How many days oil supply are store in tanks ? you really shoud know).The aspect of lowering the reliance on imported fuel and and the balance of payments implications of keeping more and more money in the country for other purposes than blowing it out an exhaust pipe.

Oh but of course they will ruin the Oi Oi Oi weekend.


----------



## moXJO (23 May 2019)

orr said:


> Projecting forward the financial math on household roof top solar enters another realm when you factor in the possibility of replacing petrolium with electricity...
> 3 days of good production from a 6.6k/w will charge a 100kw/h battery. That'll move todays (early technology) EV 2+ tonne sedan over 400km... What's that costing you currently in your 7Series BM's.
> Let alone the National security (How many days oil supply are store in tanks ? you really shoud know).The aspect of lowering the reliance on imported fuel and and the balance of payments implications of keeping more and more money in the country for other purposes than blowing it out an exhaust pipe.
> 
> Oh but of course they will ruin the Oi Oi Oi weekend.



Do you currently own an ev?


----------



## HelloU (23 May 2019)

i do not have a 7 series ......
but i do have a 5 series ......





4ookm is about $50 (note that some of that is govt tax that will need to be clawed back in the electric world)

for comparison purposes, i also have a 355 ute. 400km is about $110 (again, tax involved)




the standing joke is: how quick can u get to the next petrol station. F*ckn quickly is the answer.

Now, do we need milk?


----------



## moXJO (23 May 2019)

HelloU said:


> i do not have a 7 series ......
> but i do have a 5 series ......
> View attachment 94878
> 
> ...



Nice 
Would you consider upgrading to ev?

Someone on the forum must have one?
Be interesting to read their experience.


----------



## HelloU (23 May 2019)

moXJO said:


> Nice
> Would you consider upgrading to ev?
> 
> Someone on the forum must have one?
> Be interesting to read their experience.



absolutely yes - suits the way our household uses our "main" run-around car (yes, we are those peeps with 10 cars each)
too expensive now for the hassles involved but in time, no worries. the toyotas are metal hydrides and i am happy to wait a bit longer for next gen tech.

anyway, electric motors produce max torque at 0rpm. i am looking forwards to doing the biggest burn-outs in my electric car (on a private enclosed course blah blah)

ps: LS boys, JZ heads or turbo ford peeps ....just let me have my moment without spoiling it


----------



## PZ99 (23 May 2019)

The 355 looks like a VS ?


----------



## HelloU (23 May 2019)

back one more - R, but yeah good pick.
all bark, no bite but still way more impressive than a 304 (308) but that is not saying much. Not a patch on a LS (or even close to a LS with a $500 tune). Like all these things life moves on .... but not all of us move with it.

(was gunna say that is why i do not use that internet thing - but i will not)
cheers


----------



## orr (31 May 2019)

moXJO said:


> Do you currently own an ev?




An Oset20.
I live rural. 
A lite truck with 300km to 500km range is what the market is wanting. Are you listening Sajeev???

It was a $500million grant that kicked off Musk's Tesla expansion... Are listening whom ever Schmo's installed as Industry Minister??
Don't tell me let me guess....


----------



## qldfrog (3 August 2019)

If i could cry on the subject of GW brain washing, i would.
Over that stage, let the suckers destroy their economy and wealth, darwinism....
After all,the left is still celebrating and pushing for open borders for example
During that time, China is laughing, and google and peers cashing in
https://www.news.com.au/technology/...e/news-story/e1762dfc4a6a11009c09a21a9fa81a0a


----------



## rederob (3 August 2019)

qldfrog said:


> If i could cry on the subject of GW brain washing, i would.
> Over that stage, let the suckers destroy their economy and wealth, darwinism....
> After all,the left is still celebrating and pushing for open borders for example



You seem to be one of the many "brain washed" who has yet to show you have any idea about climate science.
Those economies embracing climate reforms are actually prospering with new industries being developed, job creation, and cleaner air. 
Sadly Australia is a long way behind in the race.


----------



## Knobby22 (3 August 2019)

Your comments don't seem to relate to the article.

China has embraced climate change, not being subject to the propaganda, and is therefore  creating wealth from global warming.  

For instance the building of the new fleet of cargo ships designed to transverse the north pole for shipping routes as the seaways continue to open up.

By the way looks like a record melt for Greenland, raising world sea levels by 1mm, maybe more, we shall see.







qldfrog said:


> If i could cry on the subject of GW brain washing, i would.
> Over that stage, let the suckers destroy their economy and wealth, darwinism....
> After all,the left is still celebrating and pushing for open borders for example
> During that time, China is laughing, and google and peers cashing in
> https://www.news.com.au/technology/...e/news-story/e1762dfc4a6a11009c09a21a9fa81a0a


----------



## basilio (3 August 2019)

It will be interesting to see what comes out of the the Google camp. Who knows ?

But no surprise that the the real issue of Global heating is ignored to take pot shots at private yachts of the rich.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 August 2019)

rederob said:


> Those economies embracing climate reforms are actually prospering with new industries being developed, job creation, and cleaner air. Sadly Australia is a long way behind in the race.



The problem in Australia is we're always looking for a quick buck with a "dig it up and sell it" mentality rather than doing clever things of whatever sort.

We're good at making others successful basically.


----------



## qldfrog (3 August 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> Your comments don't seem to relate to the article.
> 
> China has embraced climate change, not being subject to the propaganda, and is therefore  creating wealth from global warming.
> 
> ...



the google meeting is as far as I have read a global Illuminati gathering  focused on GW....so the presence in that thread.How the cabal is formed and maintained.


Smurf1976 said:


> The problem in Australia is we're always looking for a quick buck with a "dig it up and sell it" mentality rather than doing clever things of whatever sort.
> 
> We're good at making others successful basically.



And we are doing the same with global warming, ensuring we can not be competitive and even making coal mines move O/S..not that coal mines as they are now here bring much wealth to the people...
but they pay bribes to the governments so that more NDIS and welfare can be offered


----------



## rederob (4 August 2019)

qldfrog said:


> the google meeting is as far as I have read a global Illuminati gathering  focused on GW....so the presence in that thread.How the cabal is formed and maintained.
> And we are doing the same with global warming, ensuring we can not be competitive and even making coal mines move O/S..not that coal mines as they are now here bring much wealth to the people...
> but they pay bribes to the governments so that more NDIS and welfare can be offered



You are the epitome of conspiracy theory genesis.


----------



## basilio (4 August 2019)

Scientific American  has a  more sobering reality check on where global heating is taking us. Start thinking about getting out of coastal cities  a lot quicker than previously..

*Alarming Sonar Results Show Glaciers May Be Melting Faster Than We Expected*
Direct measurements reveal a glacier is melting 10 to 100 times quicker than previously thought, with implications for sea-level rise

From Alaska to Antarctica, thousands of glaciers flow over the land and out to the ocean. These tidewater glaciers are rapidly retreating and melting, like much of Earth’s ice, continually adding to rising sea levels. But to date, scientists have struggled to pinpoint where on the face of a glacier’s terminus the most intense melting occurs—and exactly how fast it is happening—because of the difficulty and danger involved in getting close enough to these frozen behemoths.

Now, however, a team of researchers has figured out how to directly probe these melt processes and has tested the method out on one glacier in Alaska. What it found, published this week in _Science__,_ is worrying: the glacier is melting far faster than current theories had suggested “The melt rates that we measured were about 10 to 100 times larger than what theory predicted,” says lead study author David A. Sutherland, an oceanographer at the University of Oregon.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ciers-may-be-melting-faster-than-we-expected/


----------



## moXJO (4 August 2019)

Water security,  power,  and food security. Up the building codes for more extreme weather. We are well past the point to stop change in my opinion. Australia is wasting time putting carbon reduction first.


----------



## rederob (4 August 2019)

moXJO said:


> Water security,  power,  and food security. Up the building codes for more extreme weather. We are well past the point to stop change in my opinion. Australia is wasting time putting carbon reduction first.



That's like saying we should put more money into hospitals instead of preventing causative factors - it's a very poor argument!


----------



## wayneL (4 August 2019)

The cognitive dissonance of the alarmist left is... alarming. Wow!


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 August 2019)

rederob said:


> That's like saying we should put more money into hospitals instead of preventing causative factors



We should do both.

We should aim to stop arsonists setting things on fire certainly but we should also have competent and adequately resourced fire brigades to deal with fires when they do occur given that we can't reduce them to zero.


----------



## rederob (5 August 2019)

wayneL said:


> The cognitive dissonance of the alarmist left is... alarming. Wow!



Since when have you been part of the "left"?


----------



## rederob (5 August 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> We should do both.
> We should aim to stop arsonists setting things on fire certainly but we should also have competent and adequately resourced fire brigades to deal with fires when they do occur given that we can't reduce them to zero.



Not sound logic Smurf, as reducing *demand* for services should go hand in glove with reduced funding.  That's also different from the services not being adequately funded to begin.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 August 2019)

rederob said:


> Not sound logic Smurf, as reducing *demand* for services should go hand in glove with reduced funding.  That's also different from the services not being adequately funded to begin.




Things like a sugar tax, salt tax fat tax alcohol taxes can reduce demand for health services at the same time as increasing revenue. Certainly as demand for salty sugary or fatty foods reduces (if it does) then revenue will reduce, that's the idea.

If the taxes have no effect on the demand for health services then at least you still have the revenue to deal with the problem.


----------



## rederob (5 August 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Things like a sugar tax, salt tax fat tax alcohol taxes can reduce demand for health services at the same time as increasing revenue. Certainly as demand for salty sugary or fatty foods reduces (if it does) then revenue will reduce, that's the idea.
> 
> If the taxes have no effect on the demand for health services then at least you still have the revenue to deal with the problem.



?
The role of tax as an ingredient in the pudding has been eaten already as it *has* reduced demand.  But tax is just one of many ingredients for a good pudding.
You idea is flawed as the logic leaves you with extra ingredients instead of good puddings.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 August 2019)

rederob said:


> ?
> The role of tax as an ingredient in the pudding has been eaten already as it *has* reduced demand.  But tax is just one of many ingredients for a good pudding.
> You idea is flawed as the logic leaves you with extra ingredients instead of good puddings.




I wish you would write in specifics rather than idioms.


----------



## wayneL (5 August 2019)

rederob said:


> Since when have you been part of the "left"?



When you can actually explain how I am cognitively dissonent in on this issue Robbie, oh actually go ahead and join the Labor Party. I have been utterly consistent on this issue.

However your tacit agreement with me is noted.


----------



## rederob (5 August 2019)

wayneL said:


> When you can actually explain how I am cognitively dissonent in on this issue Robbie, oh actually go ahead and join the Labor Party. I have been utterly consistent on this issue.
> However your tacit agreement with me is noted.



You are wholly consistent with being clueless on climate matters since first you ever posted to ASF, and are equally consistent with your "labelling" which is irrelevant to the topic at hand, except in your mind.
Try dealing with facts for a change.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 August 2019)

rederob said:


> Not sound logic Smurf, as reducing *demand* for services should go hand in glove with reduced funding.  That's also different from the services not being adequately funded to begin.



That is true but demand for anything which must be delivered instantaneously is peak not average, a point many in political circles fail to grasp.

If the number of fires drops by 50% then that doesn't necessarily mean peak demand has reduced at all, indeed it could even have gone up, since it's the maximum fire fighting effort required at any one time which will determine the scale of resources required to be available. Just because you've got less fires doesn't necessarily mean you can make do with fewer resources to fight them with if the peak occurrence of fire hasn't reduced.

Same applies to anything where the production aspect has to match consumption in real time.

In the context of climate change, the argument that we don't need to put resources into adaptation may well be true but relies upon the notion that changes experienced thus far, and those which are in practice locked in, are either inconsequential or beneficial. That is, that we have thus far experienced zero negative impacts from climate change and that none are expected in the medium term.

If we have experienced negative impacts or are expecting them in the medium term, well then the need to deal with those consequences is very real.


----------



## wayneL (5 August 2019)

rederob said:


> You are wholly consistent with being clueless on climate matters since first you ever posted to ASF, and are equally consistent with your "labelling" which is irrelevant to the topic at hand, except in your mind.
> Try dealing with facts for a change.



Ad hom doesn't count Robbie.

The Labor Party is safe from me unless you come up with evidence of CD. 

Please look up this condition so you at least know what the fxck you are accusing me of.


----------



## basilio (5 August 2019)

The issue with this thread is it's based on a lie. Global Heating is real and the people who measure it are in full agreement.

* Congratulations, You Just Survived The 5 Hottest Years on Record *

JASON SAMENOW, THE WASHINGTON POST
7 FEB 2019
Five different organizations that track temperatures have all come to this conclusion: 2018 ranked among the five warmest years on record, landing in fourth place.

All of them - NOAA, NASA, Berkeley Earth, the United Kingdom's Hadley Centre and the Japan Meteorological Agency - crunched the numbers using different methods, but they each arrived at the same answer.

Confidence in this ranking is, thus, very high.

The past five years have each now ranked among the five warmest on record. According to NASA, 18 of the 19 warmest years have occurred since 2000.

The warming of the planet is unambiguous and irrefutable.

https://www.sciencealert.com/the-planet-s-hottest-five-years-on-record-are-the-last-five-years


----------



## rederob (5 August 2019)

wayneL said:


> Ad hom doesn't count Robbie.
> The Labor Party is safe from me unless you come up with evidence of CD.
> Please look up this condition so you at least know what the fxck you are accusing me of.



I comment on your posts which typically say very little or are otherwise meaningless.
You keep using inappropriate words, and seem to think "labels" have something to do with climate science facts.
Added to that, you seldom ever present an argument.
On those points you are consistent.


----------



## GlennC (5 August 2019)

ok, I havent read all these posts.  Meanwhile, Rio Tinto and BHP to name but a few major companies have accepted the science of Climate Change/ Global warming and are putting in strategies to adapt.  As a disclaimer, i  retired from Rio Tinto lat year, and they have a very informative 62 page document available on their web site explaining their policy and approach.  

In my view the 'free market'  is already pretty much accepting the science as well, and looking to what we need to do to adapt to the possible scenarios over the next few decades .  There are many  opportunities for Australia in emerging renewables technologies , such as hydrogen economy, grid battery technology, fast charging etc.  Many of our universities are partnering with local and overseas companies in developing the technology.  If  we get this right Australia can become a major energy player, with a lot of investment opportunities.


----------



## basilio (5 August 2019)

GlennC said:


> ok, I havent read all these posts.  Meanwhile, Rio Tinto and BHP to name but a few major companies have accepted the science of Climate Change/ Global warming and are putting in strategies to adapt.  As a disclaimer, i  retired from Rio Tinto lat year, and they have a very informative 62 page document available on their web site explaining their policy and approach.
> 
> In my view the 'free market'  is already pretty much accepting the science as well, and looking to what we need to do to adapt to the possible scenarios over the next few decades .  There are many  opportunities for Australia in emerging renewables technologies , such as hydrogen economy, grid battery technology, fast charging etc.  Many of our universities are partnering with local and overseas companies in developing the technology.  If  we get this right Australia can become a major energy player, with a lot of investment opportunities.




Welcome to  ASF Glenn.  First  post and all !
It's fair to say that the CEO of BHP has accepted that Global Warming is very real. In fact this understanding and acceptance of a need to change how we produce energy and to drastically reduce greenhouse gases is welcome.
*
Unfortunately it is about 30 years too late for a measured approach to dealing with the problem. *And also of course there are still plenty of fossil fuel companies who do not  (want to) realise that  we are now at a totally critical point in terms of rising temperatures and limitations on our carbon budget. Put simply we have to drastically reduce our GG emissions if we are to have any chance of surviving as a civilization.


----------



## wayneL (5 August 2019)

rederob said:


> I comment on your posts which typically say very little or are otherwise meaningless.
> You keep using inappropriate words, and seem to think "labels" have something to do with climate science facts.
> Added to that, you seldom ever present an argument.
> On those points you are consistent.



Robbie,  what you have presented hete is nothing more than opinion and an unwillingness to accept any argument outside the narrow confines of your bubble. Hence any meaningful debate with you is futile. 

...and you still haven't demonstrated any cognitive dissonance on my part. Look it up smarty.


----------



## rederob (5 August 2019)

wayneL said:


> Robbie,  what you have presented hete is nothing more than opinion and an unwillingness to accept any argument outside the narrow confines of your bubble. Hence any meaningful debate with you is futile.
> ...and you still haven't demonstrated any cognitive dissonance on my part. Look it up smarty.



You really need to look at the difference between the information I post, with regular links to back up commentary, and the rubbish you post.
You continue to have great difficulty understanding what words mean, because you are not using them properly.
Again, put up something factual for a change so that readers have something which is relevant to this thread.


----------



## moXJO (5 August 2019)

rederob said:


> That's like saying we should put more money into hospitals instead of preventing causative factors - it's a very poor argument!



Not from Australias point of view. Stopping carbon is like pi$sing into the wind. Our contribution to carbon reduction is a joke. 
We already have towns at near zero water. Food security is very dodgy. Power.... whats the plan ??

Preventive measures are making sure we are prepared.


----------



## rederob (5 August 2019)

moXJO said:


> Not from Australias point of view. Stopping carbon is like pi$sing into the wind. Our contribution to carbon reduction is a joke.



Some decades ago our contributions were 40 times that of a person from India, and 20 times that of a person from China.  We remain, today, amongst the worst emitters on a per capita basis.
But you argument is fundamentally flawed.  If everyone adopts the position that they cannot influence change, then nothing will change.
Luckily for us all, Europe, and the UK in particular, have been leading the way.  Their reforms have generated innovation in renewables along with massive job creation in an otherwise relatively static employment sector.
It's a real shame that Australia is on the back foot because we used to have a proud heritage via the CSIRO, but decided that science isn't deserving of funding in the manner it once was.
We also have not incentivised the energy sector to invest in renewables, and nor have we developed simple policies that reduce energy use in residential and industrial situations.
There is a lot we could do, but it's a lot easier to deny responsibility and sit on our hands instead.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 August 2019)

rederob said:


> Some decades ago our contributions were 40 times that of a person from India, and 20 times that of a person from China.  We remain, today, amongst the worst emitters on a per capita basis.



We have however done an order of magnitude better job at keeping population under control than China has.

Not perfect, at 25 million it's arguably at the upper end of what's sustainable environmentally, but that's far better than 1400 million. Much the same could be said for any other large population country - China's just the most extreme example. 

7.7 billion people, each consuming more and more year after year, is going to lead to no planet in due course. A sad but blindingly obvious problem to anyone who understands the maths involved with constant compounding growth.

Even in Australia emissions per capita have gone down but total emissions have gone up. Population is the problem there.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 August 2019)

rederob said:


> It's a real shame that Australia is on the back foot because we used to have a proud heritage via the CSIRO, but decided that science isn't deserving of funding in the manner it once was. We also have not incentivised the energy sector to invest in renewables, and nor have we developed simple policies that reduce energy use in residential and industrial situations. There is a lot we could do, but it's a lot easier to deny responsibility and sit on our hands instead.



No argument there indeed quite a few policies have the effect of frustrating any move to renewables rather than aiding it.


----------



## moXJO (6 August 2019)

rederob said:


> Some decades ago our contributions were 40 times that of a person from India, and 20 times that of a person from China.  We remain, today, amongst the worst emitters on a per capita basis.
> But you argument is fundamentally flawed.  If everyone adopts the position that they cannot influence change, then nothing will change.
> Luckily for us all, Europe, and the UK in particular, have been leading the way.  Their reforms have generated innovation in renewables along with massive job creation in an otherwise relatively static employment sector.
> It's a real shame that Australia is on the back foot because we used to have a proud heritage via the CSIRO, but decided that science isn't deserving of funding in the manner it once was.
> ...



No,  we cannot influence meaningful change unless we stop coal exports. And that day is coming.

In the meantime... Prepare.
Using per capita is simply fudging figures. China and India pollute more then we ever could. Go to Jakarta and see the difference in air quality. 

Renewables made electricity dearer through Europe I thought: https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=i&...aw1NXwD9pB6zBCc26tGOVS8E&ust=1565090547913948


----------



## rederob (6 August 2019)

moXJO said:


> No,  we cannot influence meaningful change unless we stop coal exports. And that day is coming.
> In the meantime... Prepare.
> Using per capita is simply fudging figures. China and India pollute more then we ever could. Go to Jakarta and see the difference in air quality.



Emissions is a cumulative process, so every step to mitigate is meaningful.
You are completely wrong about China and India.  Their respective contributions to global CO2 levels pale into insignificance compared with the industrial world since the 1800s. This blame game on nations with greater populations is disgusting in my view, as it just says we don't want them to have the standard of living we have: it's a paradigm mired in cultural elitism. 
I agree that coal continues to be a major contributor to increased CO2 levels, but we in Australia - via a recent election - have declared that it is not our problem because jobs come first.  It is symptomatic of why we as a world are where we are.  Let's instead blame the countries who aspire to live as we do.


----------



## wayneL (6 August 2019)

rederob said:


> You really need to look at the difference between the information I post, with regular links to back up commentary, and the rubbish you post.
> You continue to have great difficulty understanding what words mean, because you are not using them properly.
> Again, put up something factuainvestedl for a change so that readers have something which is relevant to this thread.



It would only result in the smearing of the researchers and a range of specious argument. My time is more valuable than to waste that way.


----------



## rederob (6 August 2019)

wayneL said:


> It would only result in the smearing of the researchers and a range of specious argument. My time is more valuable than to waste that way.



Actually, it would show you had no idea, as you have proven since the inception of the many threads in ASF forums.
And that is precisely why what you continue to post is mostly rubbish here.


----------



## wayneL (6 August 2019)

rederob said:


> Actually, it would show you had no idea, as you have proven since the inception of the many threads in ASF forums.
> And that is precisely why what you continue to post is mostly rubbish here.



That's just ad hom. And you still haven't demonstrated any cognitive dissonance on my part. 

...and I'll bet you don't even know what my position on climate actually is.


----------



## rederob (6 August 2019)

wayneL said:


> That's just ad hom. And you still haven't demonstrated any cognitive dissonance on my part.
> ...and I'll bet you don't even know what my position on climate actually is.



Your contributions are oftentimes an irrelevance in these forums as you do not know anything meaningful about climate science, use words inappropriately, and cannot present an argument.
At what point will you get a decent dictionary, get on track, and get over yourself?


----------



## moXJO (6 August 2019)

rederob said:


> Emissions is a cumulative process, so every step to mitigate is meaningful.
> You are completely wrong about China and India.  Their respective contributions to global CO2 levels pale into insignificance compared with the industrial world since the 1800s. This blame game on nations with greater populations is disgusting in my view, as it just says we don't want them to have the standard of living we have: it's a paradigm mired in cultural elitism.
> I agree that coal continues to be a major contributor to increased CO2 levels, but we in Australia - via a recent election - have declared that it is not our problem because jobs come first.  It is symptomatic of why we as a world are where we are.  Let's instead blame the countries who aspire to live as we do.



Looking at the past is useless. Unless you are looking for a reason to excuse huge levels of pollution. You still can't breath in many of China's cities.
I understand the argument that we got to industrialise,  so emerging nations should be allowed to as well. But tech has advanced and the places that matter don't give a crap. 

The clock is ticking and imo its already too late. I'm not saying we shouldn't reduce pollution. But giving that we are seeing the effects of droughts and heat already. I'd be sandbagging defense first then waste it on an ideological wank.


----------



## rederob (6 August 2019)

moXJO said:


> Looking at the past is useless. Unless you are looking for a reason to excuse huge levels of pollution. You still can't breath in many of China's cities.
> I understand the argument that we got to industrialise,  so emerging nations should be allowed to as well. But tech has advanced and the places that matter don't give a crap.



Given the past got us here, the lessons are that we know what the solutions entail. But we, ie the industrialised world, is not keen to implement solutions that they consider cost jobs and reduce competitiveness.
Worse, we have outsourced the dirtiest and most labour intensive production to developing nations, and now cry about their CO2 emissions.  But we are very happy indeed to buy from them because we are now much better off through having to pay a fraction of the cost had we instead produced those same items at home. 
The duplicity of our stance is palpable.


----------



## moXJO (6 August 2019)

rederob said:


> Given the past got us here, the lessons are that we know what the solutions entail. But we, ie the industrialised world, is not keen to implement solutions that they consider cost jobs and reduce competitiveness.
> Worse, we have outsourced the dirtiest and most labour intensive production to developing nations, and now cry about their CO2 emissions.  But we are very happy indeed to buy from them because we are now much better off through having to pay a fraction of the cost had we instead produced those same items at home.
> The duplicity of our stance is palpable.



I do agree with a lot of the above. But we outsourced all our manufacturing due to a cheaper product with lax pollution laws. Its a sham to make our own emissions look better. 

The tech feels like its lagging behind as well. I'm starting to think that nuclear will be a cheaper end user price for electricity.


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 August 2019)

rederob said:


> Worse, we have outsourced the dirtiest and most labour intensive production to developing nations, and now cry about their CO2 emissions.



There are many like me who would argue that relocating industry to Third World nations such that we can import the production was a foolish move in every possible way.

First because we lose our independence. Whatever they say, we can't afford to disagree with too strongly when we're relying on them for things we actually need. So whilst we might disagree with what some other country does, our hands are tied when it comes to exerting any real pressure.

Second because we lose work and career opportunities in our own country. There's no point telling people to "have a go" when their entire industry no longer exists and has been replaced by low end service sector stuff paying a relative pittance or which simply doesn't offer work that interests the individual. That's causing a huge divide in our society due to the economic ramifications of having a system which requires a large portion to be engaged in low value activities.

Third because we've lost control over the environmental, safety, human rights etc aspects of production and along with everyone else are engaged in a race to the bottom on those fronts. If it wasn't for this aspect then slashing emissions in Australia would be a cinch - just do it and if our goods cost more then not a big problem if we're not competing against anyone who hasn't done the same thing too.

I've nothing against the idea of development in poorer countries, that's entirely reasonable, but the competitive globalised model isn't a great way of going about it. It's akin to chucking a bucket of boiling water into a bath full of cold water - the end result is we all end up slightly better than what used to be the bottom but nowhere close to what was previously the best.

..................

On the question of renewables and electricity costs, there's a difference there with association versus causation.

If we look at Australia as an example well yes Adelaide has the highest retail electricity prices of the significant cities and yes it also has the highest use of non-hydro renewables.

That's not the full story however since SA also has the lowest load factor of any state, that is the lowest average load as a % of peak load, and also has highly fragmented ownership meaning that the scale of individual operators is small.

Both of those points are critical to the high costs in SA. Comparing with Tasmania as otherwise the most comparable state in terms of population etc it's rather revealing:

*Adelaide's population is over 6 times that of Hobart's

*SA's population is about 3.4 times that of Tasmania's

*SA is a physically much larger area although partly offsetting that most of it doesn't have mains electricity available versus the virtually inescapable presence of the grid in Tasmania.

*Almost total lack of hydro generation in SA and a high reliance on expensive fuels (gas and to a much lesser extent liquids) versus high reliance upon hydro generation in Tasmania with very limited use of expensive fuels.

*Weather itself imposes costs since high temperatures are unfavourable to all aspects of the supply chain and that's a far bigger issue in SA than in Tas.

*AGL and Origin are both large organisations as such but looking at their SA operations, they're substantially smaller than Hydro Tasmania's operations in the island state whilst the various other players in SA are comparatively tiny. The lack of scale in SA leads to loss of efficiency technically and in terms of staffing, overheads and so on.

*Multiple competing owners also leads to operating efficiency losses. It's not unusual that lower cost plant sits idle whilst higher cost plant runs - that's the inevitable outcome of having them compete for business.

*Load factor in Tasmania about 71% versus about 41% in SA. This is directly related to the lack of heavy industry in SA with household use of gas and the climate adding to it.

*The ownership structure in Tasmania facilitates the adoption of technical approaches which would be administratively prohibitive elsewhere, requiring more costly alternative approaches. In simple terms Tas can and does push the system along a lot harder due to this "tighter" approach to it all.

Renewables haven't had no impact in SA, it would be untrue to claim that, but they're by no means the whole story or even most of it.


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 August 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> We have however done an order of magnitude better job at keeping population under control than China has.




I wish to clarify that the only reason I've mentioned China is because it has the biggest population of any country and also by far the highest coal consumption.

My point isn't about China per se, that's just the obvious example, but that the two are linked.

Have lots of people and have them each using a lot of resources and you end up with very high total consumption.

Eg in Australia we've done pretty well at reducing emissions on a per capita basis. Trouble is, the population has gone up, completely wiping out that reduction per capita, and what matters so far as the planet is concerned is the total actual emissions not how much that happens to be per capita.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 August 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> First because we lose our independence. Whatever they say, we can't afford to disagree with too strongly when we're relying on them for things we actually need. So whilst we might disagree with what some other country does, our hands are tied when it comes to exerting any real pressure.




The recycling scenario with China is a good example of that.

Shovel our rubbish off to China to process and when they don't take it any more we are basically stuffed for a long time.


----------



## moXJO (6 August 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> The recycling scenario with China is a good example of that.
> 
> Shovel our rubbish off to China to process and when they don't take it any more we are basically stuffed for a long time.



We actually shoveled a sht full into Indonesia and they sent it back. It was full of rubbish and not recycling.


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 August 2019)

moXJO said:


> We actually shoveled a sht full into Indonesia and they sent it back. It was full of rubbish and not recycling.



We did a terrible job of sorting things that is true but it is still the case that the collapse of the offshoring arrangement is an example of what can go wrong. We're at the mercy of someone else changing their mind about things and doing so reasonably quickly.

There's countless examples of how someone overseas could decide they disagree with what we're doing so they just change some technical standard as a backdoor means of ceasing to supply whatever when the real reason is a political disagreement. The whole situation compromises our sovereignty really.

As for the recycling sorting, that's a classic failure of our governments for failing to firstly agree among themselves as to what's recyclable and what's not and to then communicate that in a consistent manner to the masses. Depending on who you listen to:

*All plastics with a number on them are recyclable. Or maybe only some and that doesn't include some with one of the numbers that's on the sticker on the bin saying they're OK. Lids are recyclable or they're not, depends which council you ask. Bottles should be flattened or they must never be flattened, again depends who you ask. 

*Steel cans are all recyclable. Or those which have had paint in them might not be even if they're perfectly clean, or they might, depends where you are.

*Paper is recyclable and there's no need to remove minor contamination eg plastic envelope windows etc. Or you must remove all plastics etc.

*Batteries are recyclable. Or no they're not. 

*Some councils intentionally supply a woefully small general rubbish bin and then act really surprised when residents bend the rules and put what they know full well to be rubbish in the recycling bin because it doesn't fit in the tiny rubbish bin. Well duh...... 

Given the subject isn't one that interests most beyond the minimum, it's not hard to see why it's failing. It ought to be straightforward and simple - same rules from Broome to Huonville and no silly little bins encouraging wrongdoing.


----------



## wayneL (8 August 2019)




----------



## basilio (8 August 2019)

"Human caused climate change is real & aggressive mitigation and adaptation actions make good sense"
Roger Pielke Jr
OK  I'll agree with that.

Somehow, however that doesn't gell with the " softly, softly, It's not a real problem" approaches I have heard attributed by Wayne to Roger Pielke Jnr in his previous posts.

And attacking the current science on how dangerously quickly CC is  now  happening seems to completely undercut Rogers protestations of not being a CC denier   (Lets just say luke warmist.. shall we ?)


----------



## wayneL (8 August 2019)

basilio said:


> "
> 
> Somehow, however that doesn't gell with the " softly, softly, It's not a real problem" approaches I have heard attributed by Wayne to Roger Pielke Jnr in his previous posts.



I have never made that representation bas. Always pointed out his view of mitigation


----------



## wayneL (23 August 2019)

A positive for proper debate


----------



## wayneL (23 August 2019)




----------



## IFocus (24 August 2019)

Note northwest housing insurance has risen because of higher intensity cyclones, also note none are being under cut in premiums by major players.


----------



## bi-polar (2 October 2019)

Ann said:


>



It seems Ann has left the building. I would have liked to ask "what planets , is it just Earth and what does the graph specifically mean?". If she says it's Earth getting nearer the Sun then what do 50 year variations indicate? The 1880-1930 bit is hotter than 1930-1980.  Today we're in a sharp drop in "planet orbit".

  "The long-term temperature records indicate that temperatures in the New England North West region (Aust.) have been increasing since the 1960s. The longest period of continued temperature increase has occurred in the most recent decades.  Based on long-term (1910–2011) observations, temperatures have been noted to have been increasing since about 1970,
*New England North West Climate change ... - Adapt NSW*

https://climatechange.environment.nsw.gov.au › media
The 11 year solar radiation cycle, as well as small increase in TSI total solar irradiance since 1750, appear in some studies to be correlated with variations in cloud patterns. But, these changes in solar energy absorbed by the Earth appear to be far too small to explain the major changes in our climate. 

But it's a lovely graph with cute squiggles in year 450.


----------



## sptrawler (2 October 2019)

wayneL said:


> I have never made that representation bas. Always pointed out his view of mitigation



Another person in the cross hairs of the virtue signalers, oh how righteous to be a left wing and be able to bully anyone who disagrees with you. 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10...ed-greta-thunberg-shared-other-views/11566330

The 11th commandment "Thou shalt not speak against the beliefs of the virtue signalers, for fear of going to hell".


----------



## qldfrog (11 October 2019)

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/critical-thinking-jolanta-a-kruszelnicka
This is so true and when seeing the anti Trump and CO2 global warming believers crusade.
Hope it can be accessed by non linkedin members
I see this trend as a result of absence of real education, self importance and me me society than anything else
We are back to the middle age


----------



## bi-polar (11 October 2019)

Middle aged men were alchemists who made gold and CO2 from rat droppings. Well, it has to come from somewhere and matter can't be created said middle aged Lavoisier and his son Einstein.


----------



## wayneL (11 October 2019)

bi-polar said:


> Middle aged men were alchemists who made gold and CO2 from rat droppings. Well, it has to come from somewhere and matter can't be created said middle aged Lavoisier and his son Einstein.



Hmmm from the greatest alchemist on these pages, able to turn serious attempts at discussion into incomprehensible drivel


----------



## bi-polar (11 October 2019)

qldfrog said "The good point for those still believing the co2 is the cause of it all is:
as global warming intensifies and in itself increases co2 level, they will be able to say, i told you so".

Heat creates CO2. Do you comprehend that, wayneL?


----------



## qldfrog (23 October 2019)

bi-polar said:


> qldfrog said "The good point for those still believing the co2 is the cause of it all is:
> as global warming intensifies and in itself increases co2 level, they will be able to say, i told you so".
> 
> Heat creates CO2. Do you comprehend that, wayneL?



Heat will melt the permafrost and accelerate decomposition so releasing co2..composting
Damned real science...
Oh some more real science
https://interestingengineering.com/...ce-shelves-might-be-overestimated-study-finds


----------



## rederob (23 October 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Heat will melt the permafrost and accelerate decomposition so releasing co2..composting
> Damned real science...
> Oh some more real science
> https://interestingengineering.com/...ce-shelves-might-be-overestimated-study-finds



Heat is a comparative term.
For thousands of years "heat" did nothing to the permafrost.
Retained energy is causing warming of the planet.


----------



## basilio (23 October 2019)

Anyone interested in making it rain ?
Ending the drought ?
Shifting the direction of cylcones?
Stopping bushfires through timely rain ?
Saving humanity ?

http://milesresearch.co/page/page/


----------



## wayneL (23 October 2019)

basilio said:


> Anyone interested in making it rain ?
> Ending the drought ?
> Shifting the direction of cylcones?
> Stopping bushfires through timely rain ?
> ...



Nah, Trudeau getting re-elected has convinced me we should go exrinct.


----------



## sptrawler (15 December 2020)

Oh dear, when virtue signalers fall out, with each other.  









						'Nothing unique': Jacinda Ardern responds to Greta Thunberg swipe
					

Greta Thunberg took to Twitter to call out New Zealand's 'so-called climate emergency declaration'.




					au.news.yahoo.com


----------



## basilio (15 October 2021)

Check out Sammy J's  take  on the Murdoch Press turning Green and Gold in support of Zero emissions.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 August 2022)

Some fake news spread by the fossil fuel industry.









						We fact checked an energy news site's claim that Scotland axed 14 million trees to put up wind farms. Here's what we found
					

The country's efforts to tackle climate change have been caught up in a fresh wave of misinformation about renewable energy, thanks to a news website with ties to the oil and gas industry.




					www.abc.net.au


----------

