Resisting Climate Hysteria

[explod]

Perhaps you should show a little more respect to folks who have shown you a bit of sympathy recently.

Duplicitous.

So I have to toe your line. And very dissappointed in your comment as I had been very pleased to detect a human side.

I do not purport to ram facts down anyone's throat but I do have strong opinions based on my own life's observations. My Great Grandfarther in 1860's used to drive a cattle drawn train from Nattieyallock (north west Vic) to Melbourne in sludge and mud from May till November. There has not been a year since the late 1960's when you would not have raised dust on that trip most of the time. And I have stated many other rough observations as I am a person who has lived close to the land .

I think global warming is caused by man made smoke, oil and coal burning.

I think we have passed the tipping point by recent reports of ice depletion and weather changes.

Note, I think and felt confident that I was allowed to state it, or is this perhaps not allowed on ASF, are we concerned for advertisers perhaps. If you want me to go away then just say so and I will.

 

[IFocus]

I have pretty much the same as everyone, but am aware of them and try to account for them.

How about you?

Extraordinary claim not reflected in any way by your posts which are usually abusive and derogatory of other posters.

 

[wayneL]

Extraordinary claim not reflected in any way by your posts which are usually abusive and derogatory of other posters.

Abusive?

Derogatory?

Specks and logs in eyes come to mind.

 

[drsmith]

As a matter of basic principal, it stands to reason that significant changes to the composition of the atmosphere can have unintended and perhaps undesirable consequences.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, so if it's proportion increases relative to the other less-greenhouse atmospheric gases, more heat will be retained in the atmosphere. Beyond that it obviously becomes complex with feedback mechanisms, solar cycles and other factors, but that does not change the basic principal.

The question lies in the response both in a global context and as a nation in an economically competitive world. What we don't want to do is jump too far ahead and respond economically out of proportion to the rest of the global economy as a whole. Doing that, we simply compromise ourselves for little net global gain.

 

[explod]

Specks and logs in eyes come to mind.

Why do answers come back in hard to decipher riddles. The subject, which your approach takes us from, is a serious one for many of us.

drsmith just put up a solid and constructive post, why can we not take this type of path.

And in everyday language is best for everyone.

 

[Smurf1976]

I would love to see a Southern Hemisphere analysis. Why is Victoria getting amazingly hot weather while Queensland is getting increasing wet weather? I know the off the cuff theories but a proper scientific theory like the Professor produced above would be very useful.

I remember quite well it being the thing to do in the 1980's and 90's to aspire to retiring in Queensland. Work hard wherever, save the $ them move to Queensland and the weather was the single biggest supposed attraction.

Realistically, I'd be surprised if too many retirees these days are keen on the idea of moving somewhere that's subject to the sort of weather Queensland seems to be getting every year these days. Somewhere further down the coast in NSW would surely be a much more attractive option in terms of the weather.

So far as emissions etc are concerned, I'd still like to know what impact direct heat and water vapour emissions are having on the climate? We're burning through 6 billion tonnes of coal, 33 billion barrels of oil and heaps of natural gas each year which does add rather a lot of heat directly to the atmosphere. Add in nuclear energy, which whilst a relatively minor energy source does have a massive heat by-product and then add in hydro, wind etc too (which mostly ends up as heat eventually) and a bit of accelerated heat extraction from the earth via geothermal. All up, it's an awful lot of heat and I'd expect it to have at least some sort of effect.

As for water vapour, well there's thousands of cooling towers around the world with huge clouds of it coming out 24/7. Then add water evaporation increases due to construction or reservoirs, agriculture, irrigated gardens etc. Then add the direct chemical reaction of burning a hydrogen containing fuel (gas, oil and to a lesser extent coal) - there's massive amounts of water entering the atmosphere via all of this. Sure, it will come back down as rain I understand that, but not without some impact on the Earth's climate I'd expect.

 

[wayneL]

Why do answers come back in hard to decipher riddles. The subject, which your approach takes us from, is a serious one for many of us.

drsmith just put up a solid and constructive post, why can we not take this type of path.

And in everyday language is best for everyone.

Constructive is met with destructive,
When beauty is abstracted
Then ugliness has been implied;
When good is abstracted
Then evil has been implied.

So alive and dead are abstracted from nature,
Difficult and easy abstracted from progress,
Long and short abstracted from contrast,
High and low abstracted from depth,
Song and speech abstracted from melody,
After and before abstracted from sequence.

The sage experiences without abstraction,
And accomplishes without action;
He accepts the ebb and flow of things,
Nurtures them, but does not own them,
And lives, but does not dwell.

.....buuut consider from whence this latest interchange originated Plod.

 

[Knobby22]

As for water vapour, well there's thousands of cooling towers around the world with huge clouds of it coming out 24/7. Then add water evaporation increases due to construction or reservoirs, agriculture, irrigated gardens etc. Then add the direct chemical reaction of burning a hydrogen containing fuel (gas, oil and to a lesser extent coal) - there's massive amounts of water entering the atmosphere via all of this. Sure, it will come back down as rain I understand that, but not without some impact on the Earth's climate I'd expect.

I agree, Queensland is looking less attractive all the time as a place to live.

Yes, and with regard to the water vapour that's an interesting conundrum in itself. Of course we know that a warmer atmosphere can contain more water vapour but there is also the cloud effect that reflects heat which helps during daytime hours but acts as a blanket at night. Increasing cloud will surely slow the temperature increase but conversely increase precipitation. I think that's where Queensland's problem is.

Also we are used to fronts going west to east in the Southern states but in Queensland the weather works off a completely different principle where the rain comes off the east coast. It's like there is an anticlockwise cyclone effect that collects water on the way. I don't really have an understanding of it.

 

[Whiskers]

Climate change hysteria revolved around the declining Arctic ice cap... BUT where did it all go? ... rising sea levels?

It went to Antarctica!

Antarctica sea ice expanding, study finds

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/env...ice-expanding-study-finds-20130401-2h344.html

 

[explod]

Published online in Nature Geoscience, the article suggests cool freshwater from melt beneath the Antarctic ice shelves has insulated offshore sea ice from the warming ocean beneath

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/env...study-finds-20130401-2h344.html#ixzz2PIQswmkj

Note: "...from melt beneath ice shelves...", why is this happening when below used to be solid permafrost?

Also note the broken ice blocks, these are breakaways from the prime ice sheet and as they increase they are going to spread outwards. The extra cloud from warming of course creates more moisture in the air and more snow so the cycle just increases.

Another article carefully worded to make the sheeple continue to think that everything is okay, in my view.

 

[wayneL]

https://www.facebook.com/bjornlomborg/posts/552303471456645

3 weeks ago, a paper in Science showed the last 11,000 years of temperature. The claim, that went around the world was one of "an abrupt warming in the last 100 years", as the New York Times put it.

Today, the researchers admit this claim was wrong. The last hundred years is not only below the resolution of the reconstruction, but also not representative:

"the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

It is worrying that they only tell us this *now*, after the story has been broadcast around the world.

And it is troublesome that they still haven't answered any of the many questions from Steve McIntyre, who has documented a large number of questionable issues with the paper (http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/31/the-marcott-filibuster/)

New York Times now wonders "how the authors square the caveats they express here with some of the more definitive statements they made about their findings in news accounts." http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2...on-11300-years-of-global-temperature-changes/

Roger Pielke points out that this whole affair comes close to scientific misconduct, and it is important that both Science issue a correction and the media update their stories with corrections.

 

[Knobby22]

If the magazine Science does issue a retraction I will sit up and listen as they are respectable ...though they are not "Nature".
Criticism of one paper, however justified, does not mean that all scientific papers are compromised.

 

[wayneL]

It is part of a theme however... if one is listening.

 

[spooly74]

It is part of a theme however... if one is listening.

I heard it went something like this

 

[Logique]

I heard it went something like this
View attachment 51568

Brilliant. That is how it's done folks. Get the research grant application ready.

 

[Ijustnewit]

I don't deny it's been a bloody terrible summer in Australia , but when the scientist come up with a graphic like this it looks like the whole of Australia is under water or burning up and ready to explode. It looks like something from a Hollywood movie, designed to frighten the begeevers out of old lady's and children.

 

[basilio]

Wayne, that was very deceptive piece of writing you quoted with regard to the paper which explored global temperature changes over the past 11,300 years.

Lets go back to the point of the research. The scientists were trying to show through various proxy measurements how temperatures on Earth had changed over the past 11,000 plus years. This would add to our understanding of how climate changes over time.

The information they found was represented with the following graph.


The work done by the scientists is represented by the blue line. In effect it is the many temperature proxies they used to establish our climate over 11,300 years. ( The Green line is other research which looked at temperatures in the last ice age.)

The small red line at the end are the temperature records kept in the last 150 years. Clearly they are the most accurate. The extended orange line is the projected increases in temperature to 2100. Its on the conservative side of current climate predictions running at around another 2.2 C.

But lets stick to the information directly gleaned by the current paper.


So what does this show ?

The last deglaciation ended about 10,000 years ago. There followed a period of nearly 5,000 years when global temperature was surprisingly stable. In the 5,000 years following that, up to about 1800, global temperature declined a total of nearly 0.7 deg.C, culminating in the depth of the “little ice age.” From then until 2000, it rose by about 0.8 deg.C, and now exceeds temperature during any prior period of the holocene.

The dangerous part is that it has happened so fast. In the span of a century or two, man-made changes to the atmosphere wiped out 5,000 years of natural climate change.

The argument about the use of proxies in the past 200 years is a smokescreen to divert attention from the rapid increase in global temperature in the last century at a rate we havn't seen for 11,000 plus years.

That is the sort of change that causes rapid species extinctions. It is the rate of change that melt glaciers and polar icecaps. That causes whole ecologies to change as climate patterns change within a couple of generations.

And if climate scientists are right on the ongoing effects of further increases in CO2 levels we will see much larger increases in temperature than the .8C currently.

Cheers

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/global-temperature-change-the-big-picture/

 

[basilio]

View attachment 51580

I don't deny it's been a bloody terrible summer in Australia , but when the scientist come up with a graphic like this it looks like the whole of Australia is under water or burning up and ready to explode. It looks like something from a Hollywood movie, designed to frighten the begeevers out of old lady's and children.

It was a summer of extremes wasn't it ? In fact if you check out the report you'll see that the climate extremes of last summer were not expected until 2030. It basically says that climate change is not something that might/will happen sometime in the future (where its thankfully out of our immediate concern) but is already making its presence felt.

The other point of course is that the website has been designed to make the issues CLEAR. That means good graphics, strong simple clear language and easily understandable sections.

It is not written like a scientific paper with its complexities and subtleties which go over almost everyones head or are misrepresented as per the Marcott paper

Which makes it all the more critical to try and somehow reduce future effects and deal with what is already going to happen.

Alternatively we can sack all the climate scientists and insist there is no problem and this is all normal...

You can see this in the sort of analysis that greeted The Angry Summer report and tried to say that insurance losses were not that bad..

http://climatecommission.gov.au/media-releases/correction-misrepresentation-the-angry-summer/

 

[Julia]

Tim Flannery on Radio National's "Life Matters" this morning talking about the 'extraordinary number of severe events'.
After all his stuffing up (the dams will never fill again, etc) he can he still be paid to go on sprouting his dire predictions?

I've only lived in Queensland for 20 years but can never in this time remember such a cool, wet summer. Hardly breaking any heat records here!

 

[basilio]

With regard to the Climate Commission website .

I made the observation in my previous post that the main messages were written clearly to get the major points across.

But don't be mistaken about the strength of its scientific background. When you drill deeper you can find all the papers you need to explain and justify what they are saying.

If you want to learn more about the recent reports and argue the toss with the commissioners check out the following event.

THE CLIMATE COMMISSION'S REPORT BRIEFING - 10th APRIL

Climate Action Network Australia & Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute will introduce Climate Commissioners Professors Tim Flannery and Will Steffen who will present the extreme weather report, followed by a forty five minute Q&A and discussion about the report. It's free but you must register for this event at: http://www.trybooking.com/46591

Wednesday 10th April, 6.00 pm
University of Melbourne
Theatre G73, 200 Berkley St, Carlton, 3056