Resisting Climate Hysteria

[derty]

The article was posted toungue in cheek, obviously it's long term trends that matter, but it's still fun to take the p!ss out of global warmists with the odd short term event, just as they propose short term trends as the definitive evidence of climate change.

How long term is long term anyway, even 10,000 years is a pimple on a dog's butt in terms of planet age. Our scientific records date a couple of hundred.

So you are in the first camp then. Better be seen to be stirring rather than clueless

The accurate instrumental records are quite short, though give us reasonable coverage for the industrialised period. We have several proxies that supply high temporal resolution data going back several thousands of years. Ice cores afford relatively good temporal resolution reaching back almost 1 million years. There are lower resolution proxies that allow us to measure climatic and atmospheric conditions back many 100's of millions of years.

10,000 years is an insignificant time period when looking at the Earth in geological time. Though 10,000 years covers pretty much the entire period of human civilisation and 10,000 years is a long time when you consider a human lifespan. Rapid changes have been occurring in recent human history that can be attributed to human actions. The consequences of which are highly likely to have profound implications for human society in the next few generations.

Maybe so, Derty. However the majority of Australians are not scientists and yet we have to give a verdict at election time. Most people can see through lies, and I think the level of deception at play with AGW being used as an excuse for a new tax is something people can see through.

It seems that Gillard is using many partial truths in a desperate attempt to get voters on side, however, the more porkies and truth stretches she uses, eventually the public will find out and she will be further despised together with her policy.

Yes, the argument for the general public is in the political sphere, and based on a lack of scientific knowledge the choice of the general public is made on political grounds.

Those of us without scientific qualifications have to rely on common sense in weighing up evidence from all sides of the debate. At this stage for me, the warming side is coming up severely wanting and made worse by the partial truths being sprouted.

Yet you ignore the multitude of arguments that have been discredited as misunderstandings, misrepresentations or outright lies that have been presented by the anti-AGW camp? A lot of which are still being presented as truth.

If you weigh up the arguments and evidence put forward by both sides over time and see which of the evidence and arguments remain in good standing it is quite apparent who is clutching at straws.

 

[springhill]

So you are in the first camp then. Better be seen to be stirring rather than clueless

Let me go get my knee pads before i bow to your superior intellect. Oh to have the wisdom of your fine self.
I have my beliefs on the matter, whether you think i am clueless or not is of little consequence.

Rapid changes have been occurring in recent human history that can be attributed to human actions. The consequences of which are highly likely to have profound implications for human society in the next few generations.

Tripe. Could it be possible that these 'rapid changes' just happen to be occurring during human presence, and yet those with ulterior motives seek to use these for economic/social/political change?

Can you tell me, with absolute certainty, that rapid climate movements have not happened in the non-presence of humans on this planet?

Yes, the argument for the general public is in the political sphere, and based on a lack of scientific knowledge the choice of the general public is made on political grounds.

In that case the polls would show a mirror image of political party support, which they are not. Labor and Green voters for, Lib and Nat party supporters against.
It is the climate change element that is the leading indicator for party support, not party support leading climate change beliefs.
Why have so many abandoned Labor?

Yet you ignore the multitude of arguments that have been discredited as misunderstandings, misrepresentations or outright lies that have been presented by the anti-AGW camp? A lot of which are still being presented as truth.

If you weigh up the arguments and evidence put forward by both sides over time and see which of the evidence and arguments remain in good standing it is quite apparent who is clutching at straws.

Don't act like pro-AGW supporters aren't doing the same. Each as bad as the other.

You can fool all the people some of the time, but not some people all the time.

Good luck with your beliefs, derty.

 

[sails]

Here is some interesting information from NASA's satellite data (bolds are mine):

"NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing.

The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed."
​

More at Yahoo - Forbes and written by James Taylor:

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism


And here is the research paper: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

 

[trainspotter]

FFS !!!!!!!!!!!!! They cannot get next weeks weather right let alone what is gonna happen in 100years !!!!



NOT EVEN FREAKING CLOSE !!!!!!!!!

 

[Knobby22]

Here is some interesting information from NASA's satellite data (bolds are mine):

"NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing.

The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed."
​

More at Yahoo - Forbes and written by James Taylor:

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism


And here is the research paper: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

Thanks sails. Good find.

The newspaper article is extremely emotive and unbalanced (unprofessional) however the research paper is fascinating and very good news for hoping the negative feedbacks are stronger as seems to be evidenced lately. The paper doesn't seem to provide a theory as to why it occurs but it does appeat to occur. Hopefully there will be a follow up paper.

Quoting:

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.

“At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said.

This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.

Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.

Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Just google Polar Bear Fraud.

It says it all.

Dodgy data, dodgy science.

gg

 

[IFocus]

FFS !!!!!!!!!!!!! They cannot get next weeks weather right let alone what is gonna happen in 100years !!!!

View attachment 43775

NOT EVEN FREAKING CLOSE !!!!!!!!!

So chance of a good surf Wednesday then.............

 

[sails]

Just google Polar Bear Fraud.

It says it all.

Dodgy data, dodgy science.

gg

Fresh off the press - thankfully our media can still report information like this...

Full article from SMH: Scientist who raised alarm over polar bears suspended

A move against a US federal biologist comes amid a push for Arctic oil, writes Suzanne Goldenberg....

...But now the government scientist who first warned of the threat to polar bears in a warming Arctic has been suspended and his work put under official investigation for possible scientific misconduct.

 

[sails]

Below is a Roy Morgan poll on the Monckton and Denniss National Press Club debate:

Despite negative publicity surrounding Lord Monckton’s visit to Australia, the results of a special Roy Morgan Reactor test over the last 24 hours show Lord Monckton won the debate and persuaded a substantial 9% of Australians to his view that ‘Concerns about Global Warming are exaggerated.'

Full poll results here: http://www.roymorgan.com/news/press-releases/2011/1393/

 

[Knobby22]

City's hot August night breaks all records Megan Levy
August 4, 2011 - 8:25AM

Melbourne's summery spell continued to break records overnight as the city experienced its hottest-ever August night since records began more than 150 years ago.

Winter doonas were kicked off as the mercury dipped to a low of 17.3 degrees at 5.32am today, a remarkable 11 degrees warmer than the average August minimum temperature in Melbourne.

In fact, last night's balmy conditions were three degrees warmer than the average overnight temperature in the city at the height of summer. January's average overnight temperature in Melbourne is 14.3 degrees.

Bureau of Meteorology senior forecaster Scott Williams said the previous hottest August night was recorded on August 20 in 1885, when Melbourne dropped to a low of 16.2 degrees.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...all-records-20110804-1ican.html#ixzz1U0fji66E

 

[springhill]

City's hot August night breaks all records Megan Levy
August 4, 2011 - 8:25AM

Melbourne's summery spell continued to break records overnight as the city experienced its hottest-ever August night since records began more than 150 years ago.

Winter doonas were kicked off as the mercury dipped to a low of 17.3 degrees at 5.32am today, a remarkable 11 degrees warmer than the average August minimum temperature in Melbourne.

In fact, last night's balmy conditions were three degrees warmer than the average overnight temperature in the city at the height of summer. January's average overnight temperature in Melbourne is 14.3 degrees.

Bureau of Meteorology senior forecaster Scott Williams said the previous hottest August night was recorded on August 20 in 1885, when Melbourne dropped to a low of 16.2 degrees.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...all-records-20110804-1ican.html#ixzz1U0fji66E

And yet it has rained nearly everyday in Perth, remember the desert city, for the last 2 weeks, including one downpour that nearly flooded my house. I can't remember when there has been consistent rain like this over a longer period, certainly not since early last decade and i work outdoors so i'd know.

Does anyone really give a **** what happens in Melbourne anyway? Can't you sissies handle a widdle bit of warm weather? Might do you pasty b@st@rds some good to get some vitamin D in you.

 

[Knobby22]

And yet it has rained nearly everyday in Perth, remember the desert city, for the last 2 weeks, including one downpour that nearly flooded my house. I can't remember when there has been consistent rain like this over a longer period, certainly not since early last decade and i work outdoors so i'd know.

Does anyone really give a **** what happens in Melbourne anyway? Can't you sissies handle a widdle bit of warm weather? Might do you pasty b@st@rds some good to get some vitamin D in you.

You are a stirrer, barracking for the Crows in Perth??

It use to rain there a lot more in Perth, that's why the deslaination plant had to be built.
Back to the future?

 

[OzWaveGuy]

I thought this thread was dead.

But it looks like the last of the alarmists are still trying to tell us that climate changes - yes i think we all agree Knobby.

Now if you can provide the observed evidence this is because of CO2 and nothing else, and lowering CO2 will bring down the earths temperature - then we'll be all set.

 

[springhill]

You are a stirrer, barracking for the Crows in Perth??

It use to rain there a lot more in Perth, that's why the deslaination plant had to be built.
Back to the future?

Barracking for the Crows is not alot of fun these days, i admit, but through thick and thin they will always be my team. Glad we offloaded that cripple Davis, just quietly.

True that it used to rain alpt more, but the west has been in the grip of an extremely strong El Niño, which is coming towards the end of it's cycle and is transitioning towards La Nina. I think the west can expect better rain falls over the coming years.

Barnett's water canal (should have been a pipeline) was the solution to Perth's water security, not a desal plant, but hey that's Labor Govt's for you!

 

[Knobby22]

Our shining unfinished Desal plant in Victoria is a shrine to Labor's ineptness.

And all I am saying to you Ozwaveguy is prove to me ithat CO2 is not responsible by providing some data that the Sun is warming or sometink.

 

[sails]

I thought this thread was dead....

We've had the coldest winter in a long time and now warm day and the AGW enthusiasts are now claiming the globe is warming....

Surely there are far more practical pollution and future power issues to be considered than simply killing our current reliable power for a pipe dream of windmills and solar. And it is nothing short of irresponsible to start shutting down our main source of power and making it so expensive that we can't afford it when there are no feasible alternatives. But then these sort of stuff-ups seem to be the way this lot govern.

I think the Star something poster who openly admitted that Aussie voters are stupid says it all. This government and AGW supporters are taking us as fools.

They will be surprised at what good memories voters have when the next election eventually rolls around....

 

[wayneL]

And all I am saying to you Ozwaveguy is prove to me ithat CO2 is not responsible by providing some data that the Sun is warming or sometink.

:sleeping:

We've been through this already 874,987,9876,642,094,252,857,474,126,85u times already.

Lord Monckton is in NZ at the moment and spent 2 hours on Newtalk ZB putting forth the sceptics case and interestingly, a history of AGW alarmism and retroactive editing of the 'science'; freely answering questions from callers, many of whom parroted the alarmist's line.

He made mincemeat of them.

His points:

There is no question that extra co2 = warming, sans other vectors. The question(s) are:

How much warming does it cause?

How much warming since the little ice age has it caused? Has it increased the already naturally warming trend?

What are the extraneous feedbacks... are they positive or negative in toto?

It additional co2 a negative for the planet, or a positive?

Should we try to negate any such effects, if any (whatever they happen to be, at this point indeterminate), or should we mitigate?

Are there other agendas being served by AGW alarmism?

++++++++

Warmists like to attack Monckton with ad hominem slur, but as he challenged today on the radio, please point out where he is wrong and allow right of reply.

 

[sails]

And something I cannot get an answer to - and that is how much has pricing carbon actually reduced co2 adjusted for economic factors in other countries who have already been pricing carbon?

Or does pricing carbon cause such a negative to the economy that people use less simply because they can no longer afford it?

The solution seems to be so very unscientific.

 

[Knobby22]

The solution seems to be so very unscientific.

It is unscientific, it is written by economists.
I don't agree with the big stick approach.

And breaking a record by 1.1 degrees is newsworthy.

 

[wayneL]

...it is written by economists.

Oh ****! We are in trouble then.