Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Julia]

agreed!!.... the world is rapidly warming? hmmm didnt talking-head AGW zealot tim flannerry just come out and say something along the lines that the warming wont be felt for another thousand years and then only 0.07%? (i cant remember if that was the exact comment as i only saw a snippet of the interview on tv a few nights ago so please feel free to correct me if im wrong)

the posturing of mr flannery is one of the reasons i am an AGW skeptic, one minute hes saying AGW is causing drought & the murray basin wont have rainfall because of CC, then when the drought breaks, NSW & QLD have widespread rains thus flooding so he's saying its AGW/CC is causing these floods...totally negating his previous "murray dustbowl" statement... now because the data shows no significant warming for the decade his position changes again to 'wont affect anyone for another 1000yrs' its this duplicity & manipulation of facts from idiots like gore, flannery, garnaut etc that re-inforce the fact AGW/CC advocates cant be trusted!

Zackly. Tim Flannery is a top example of the, um, 'flexibility' of views demonstrated by many so called experts.
I quite like Mr Flannery. He has a sort of vague innocence. I don't think he even realised how he was aiding the case of the sceptics when he pronounced any carbon tax in Australia, even if it were accompanied by similar action by the rest of the world, would be essentially meaningless for 1000 years, as described above.

Good that he was apparently honest enough to offer a candid assessment rather than continue to push the AGW barrow if he genuinely felt it inappropriate in this context.

Hey Calliope, I thought everyone agreed the world is warming - we were disagreeing with the causes and extent.

Not happening?

Hell no, Knobby. It's not yet even the middle of May - still autumn - and we are experiencing record low temperatures.
Of course you and others will dismiss such interim anomalies as unworthy of consideration, and no indication of lack of global warming, but just you try and sell that to the masses to whom the whole climate change thing is yet another mighty tax grab, especially in the face of massively increasing cost of living, and way more importantly, the stupidity of imposing an economically punitive tax on Australia which will make no difference to the climate.
(acknowledge your earlier statement that you don't believe a carbon tax in Australia is appropriate.

Btw good to see some relatively good natured exchanges in this thread instead of multiple personal insults.

 

[Smurf1976]

Remember the drought that was "proof" of global warming? Or that just about every hot day is used to make the same argument?

If it's hot then it must be due to CO2. If it's cold then that's just natural weather variation. Spot the bias - it's on just about every major media outlet whenever there is a significant weather event be it hot, cold, wet, dry or whatever.

 

[Knobby22]

alarmists believe "big oil" is de-railing the AGW climate train. Perhaps all of those here that aren't swayed by AGW propaganda are in fact on the take by "big oil". Where's my cheque?

Hey, your not in the loop????

Didn't you know Basilio, Ifocus, derty, Wayne, Calliope, Julia and myself are all getting paid and doing quite well out of it. Where were you when the money was being handed out? You contributed quite well, I would get onto it if I was you. Good entertainment for the masses.. If we do well we might get a paid offer to appear on Bolts new show. I'm expecting to be the guy to be shot down in flames...hey its money.

By the way, Garpel Gumnut, I believe someone shouted you in a pub recently for no good reason?? That was your payment (better get an agent).

 

[Knobby22]

Zackly. Tim Flannery is a top example of the, um, 'flexibility' of views demonstrated by many so called experts.
I quite like Mr Flannery. He has a sort of vague innocence. I don't think he even realised how he was aiding the case of the sceptics when he pronounced any carbon tax in Australia, even if it were accompanied by similar action by the rest of the world, would be essentially meaningless for 1000 years, as described above.

.

He didn't quite say that. But that was the best result - what about the worst result?

Hell no, Knobby. It's not yet even the middle of May - still autumn - and we are experiencing record low temperatures.
Of course you and others will dismiss such interim anomalies as unworthy of consideration, and no indication of lack of global warming,
.

Ah, its the weather not climate argument - hard to argue against. The record Mississipi floods aren't global warming influenced either. I'm prepared to wait a few more years and see what happens. Man is an adaptive species, we will cope in any case. plenty of zoos to hold the creatures that don't adapt and climate is just one of their problems in any case.

I think there is a case to say that climate warming is flattening out a bit and has become more a linear effect than the expotential effect than that was thought would happen, so we have more time than we first thought. But, hey scientists are allowed to be a bit wrong - There not Gods walking the earth (like Rupert).

 

[IFocus]

Hey, your not in the loop????

Didn't you know Basilio, Ifocus, derty, Wayne, Calliope, Julia and myself are all getting paid and doing quite well out of it.

Speak for yourself I am having a hell of a time trying to survive on the $150K they keep giving me..........

 

[OzWaveGuy]

More cold weather and snow - It looks like the AGW alarmists were in fact right. Carbon Dioxide pollution is causing "extreme weather" events (again).

Can someone tell me what the models predict next? This is frightening.

 

[basilio]

Perhaps there are other places to look for evidence of climate change than one day in Sydney ?

Effects of climate change in the Arctic more extensive than expected

– May 9, 2011

The effects of climate change in the Arctic are already here. A much reduced covering of snow, shorter winter season and thawing tundra. And the changes are taking place significantly faster than previously thought. This is what emerges from a new research report on the Arctic, presented in Copenhagen. Margareta Johansson, from Lund University, is one of the researchers behind the report. The Arctic is one of the parts of the globe that is warming...

Margareta Johansson, from Lund University, is one of the researchers behind the report.

The Arctic is one of the parts of the globe that is warming up fastest today. Measurements of air temperature show that the most recent five-year period has been the warmest since 1880, when monitoring began. Other data, from tree rings among other things, show that the summer temperatures over the last decades have been the highest in 2000 years.

As a consequence, the snow cover in May and June has decreased by close to 20 per cent. The winter season has also become almost two weeks shorter – in just a few decades. In addition, the temperature in the permafrost has increased by between half a degree and two degrees. There is no indication that the permafrost will not continue to thaw. Large quantities of carbon are stored in the permafrost. The carbon comes from organic material which was “deep frozen” in the ground during the last ice age. As long as the ground is frozen, the carbon remains stable. But as the permafrost thaws there is a risk that carbon dioxide and methane, a greenhouse gas more than 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, will be released, which could increase global warming.

Effects of this type, so-called feedback effects, are of major significance for how extensive global warming will be in the future. Margareta Johansson and her colleagues present nine different feedback effects in their report. One of the most important right now is the reduction of the Arctic’s albedo. The decrease in the snow- and ice-covered surfaces means that less solar radiation is reflected back out into the atmosphere. It is absorbed instead, with temperatures rising as a result. Thus the Arctic has entered a stage where it is itself reinforcing climate change.

The future does not look brighter. Climate models show that temperatures will rise by a further 3 to 7 degrees. In Canada, the uppermost metres of permafrost will thaw on approximately one fifth of the surface currently covered by permafrost. The equivalent figure for Alaska is 57 per cent. The length of the winter season and the snow coverage in the Arctic will continue to decrease and the glaciers in the area will probably lose between 10 and 30 per cent of their total mass. All this within this century and with grave consequences for the ecosystems, existing infrastructure and human living conditions.

http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/20...e-in-the-arctic-more-extensive-than-expected/

Also a recent video from Nobel winning climate scientist Terry Callaghan covering this extensive research program.

http://media.theage.com.au/news/environment-news/climate-seeing-dramatic-change-2362785.html

 

[derty]

And the cause of the medieval warming period? Ah, that's right it was replaced by the Hockey Stick.....

Yes, it's so credible that it's splashed up everywhere I look. Oh, except for the department of climate change that took it down off their website when the hockey stick was discredited. Yup, plenty of weight behind it.

You keep trotting out this 'the IPCC killed the MWP' and hockey stick has been discredited meme.

1. The graph displayed in the 1st IPCC report was a hand drawn schematic. The y-axis on the graph is dimensionless.
2. The data that the schematic was based on was collected in 1965, taken from a single site in Central England as 50 year averages.
3. When newer and more widespread data became available new graphs were created. This data did not remove the MWP, it just reduced its magnitude and placed the peak of it around the 1950 levels.
4. Of the various attacks on the 'hockey stick' they have either been dismissed out of hand or the errors that have been found have not effected the main conclusions.
5. As stated before, post the Mann, Bradley and Hughes 'hockey stick', a swag of additional studies have been done using various different proxies and all, while confirming the presence of the MWP, do not have it exceeding the current temperature.



I did some cruising of WUWT and J.Nova sites and the two studies they have been showing as evidence of the MWP exceeding the current warm period, Loehle (2007) and Huang and Pollack (1997). The Loehle paper contains several temporally coarse datasets, datapoints that cannot be accurately dated and only 5 of the 18 datasets are thought to be valid to compare medieval and current temperatures. Loehle issued a correction in the Energy and Environment Trade Journal but did not address some of the main concerns raised about his paper. The Huang data was later corrected by Huang himself in 2008 due to problems he found with the more recent of his data. However, the original data is still being used as evidence that MWP > CWP.

I did find a list that Jo Nova put up of a swag of articles presented on CO2 Science that state the MWP > CWP (current warm period). It all looks quite impressive on first view. Though after a bit of digging it was interesting to see some of the tactics used. The MWP was any high point in the data series that occurred between about 500AD and 1500AD, regardless of its duration, with the MWP's being separated by many 100's of years in some cases. The MWP was commonly within noise levels of the study and the data series commonly ended before the current day though are presented as evidence for the MWP exceeding the CWP. Graphs are presented where the author of the paper explicitly states that these data should not be used as a temperature proxy. One data series that displays the MWP approx equal to the CWP is picked out while the other 11 data series in the same paper that show the MWP < CWP are disregarded. Old papers are presented that have been superseded by more recent research from the same area.

Why, if it is so clear cut, are all these tactics required?

Here is a graph as presented by the CO2 Science site.


And here is the graph as it appeared in the original paper. Note the removal of the 1997-2007 mean temp line as it appears in graph b. Why do they need to do this if it is so clear cut??

 

[derty]

It's not yet even the middle of May - still autumn - and we are experiencing record low temperatures.
Of course you and others will dismiss such interim anomalies as unworthy of consideration, and no indication of lack of global warming,

More cold weather and snow - It looks like the AGW alarmists were in fact right. Carbon Dioxide pollution is causing "extreme weather" events (again).

After political persuasion, the current weather is the most influential factor driving someone's current position on global warming.. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110406161039.htm

...surveyed about 1,200 people in the United States and Australia, and found that those who thought the current day was warmer than usual were more likely to believe in and feel concern about global warming than those who thought the day was unusually cold....

...after controlling for the other factors, the researchers found that perceived temperatures still had nearly two-thirds the power as political belief, and six times the power as gender, to push someone one way or the other a notch along the scale....

Can someone tell me what the models predict next? This is frightening.View attachment 42898

You would be wanting to speak to a meteorologist, they are the ones that predict the weather.

 

[medicowallet]

You would be wanting to speak to a meteorologist, they are the ones that predict the weather.

Yes and the government think we should look to the IPCC, who have tried with multiple computer generated models to "predict" climate change and have failed miserably.

 

[basilio]

Yes and the government think we should look to the IPCC, who have tried with multiple computer generated models to "predict" climate change and have failed miserably.

Or you could look at the work of climate scientists who have been monitoring the rapid rate of climate change in the Arctic as per the earlier post.

 

[macca]

Yes and the government think we should look to the IPCC, who have tried with multiple computer generated models to "predict" climate change and have failed miserably.

The IPCC reports were based on data supplied by East Anglia Uni, the same guy who fessed up in court that he had been altering the data.

He is now suspended from Uni while they work out what to do about it.

The UN sacked their auditor when he refused to pass the IPCC report so no wonder the report is wrong.

Imagine the hand wringing and uproar if a skeptic was found out altering the figures.

Not much noise about this or the fact that NZ BOM admitted in court they were altering the figures upwards as well.

AGW is a conspiracy to frighten the public into paying more taxes , simple !!

 

[medicowallet]

AGW is a conspiracy to frighten the public into paying more taxes , simple !!

Or is it a conspiracy to misdirect before peak oil occurs?

Who knows.

All I know is that the science is questionable.

 

[trainspotter]

Not just NZ either.

A team of skeptical scientists, citizens, and an Australian Senator have lodged a formal request with the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) to have the BOM and CSIRO audited.

The BOM claim their adjustments are “neutral” yet Ken Stewart showed that the trend in the raw figures for our whole continent has been adjusted up by 40%. The stakes are high. Australians could have to pay something in the order of $870 million dollars thanks to the Kyoto protocol, and the first four years of the Emissions Trading Scheme was expected to cost Australian industry (and hence Australian shareholders and consumers) nearly $50 billion dollars.

Given the stakes, the Australian people deserve to know they are getting transparent, high quality data from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM). The small cost of the audit is nothing in comparison with the money at stake for all Australians. We need the full explanations of why individual stations have been adjusted repeatedly and non-randomly, and why adjustments were made decades after the measurements were taken. We need an audit of surface stations. (Are Australian stations as badly manipulated and poorly sited as the US stations? Who knows?)

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/02/an...-auditor-general-to-audit-the-australian-bom/

 

[OzWaveGuy]

It's spreading....extreme weather events continue to gather momentum due to increasing carbon dioxide pollution...That IPCC job should look good soon...

 

[medicowallet]

It's spreading....extreme weather events continue to gather momentum due to increasing carbon dioxide pollution...That IPCC job should look good soon...

View attachment 42919

phew

Lucky they changed it from global warming to climate change, otherwise the population might think that it is all a crock.

 

[sails]

From the HeraldSun: If it’s cold, it’s just weather

If it had been the hottest instead, they’d have called it global warming

 

[drsmith]

Not just NZ either.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/02/an...-auditor-general-to-audit-the-australian-bom/

Interesting. Very interesring infact, but the unedited trend is still up, though not as much.

With regard to early winter cold spells (or individual heatwaves for that matter), they are not an accurate measure of climate variation (natural or otherwise). I would imagine that somewhere in the pages of this thread, this has been covered before.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Interesting. Very interesring infact, but the unedited trend is still up, though not as much.

With regard to early winter cold spells (or individual heatwaves for that matter), they are not an accurate measure of climate variation (natural or otherwise). I would imagine that somewhere in the pages of this thread, this has been covered before.

Yes, the NIWA in New Zealand were caught red-handed tampering the temperature records....

The National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) claims New Zealand has been warming at 0.92 °C per 100 years. But when some independent minded chaps in New Zealand graphed the raw NZ data, they found that the thermometers show NZ has only warmed by a statistically non-significant 0.06 °C. They asked for answers and got nowhere, until they managed to get the light of legal pressure onto NIWA to force it to reply honestly. Reading between the lines, it’s obvious NIWA can’t explain or defend the adjustments.​

But as the AGW alarmists (who aren't changing their lifestyle in line with IPCC ideology) keep pointing out - there's simply no corruption in the AGW "science". They are in fact correct as one must open their eyes first to acknowledge it.

 

[drsmith]

But as the AGW alarmists (who aren't changing their lifestyle in line with IPCC ideology) keep pointing out - there's simply no corruption in the AGW "science". They are in fact correct as one must open their eyes first to acknowledge it.

Once science become politicised, or worse, religion as this has, there is always going to be corruption.