Resisting Climate Hysteria

[trainspotter]

Fascinating TS. According to the graph you posted there appears to be no temperature increase from 1979 to 2009.

A couple of questions

1) Do you believe this graph accurately represents changes of temperature on the earth since 1979 ?

2) Why do you accept this graph as an appropriate measuring stick ?

Cheers

There is a "slight" temperature increase basilio of 0.04%

A couple of answers

1) Yes because it correlates with NASA graphs which evidence since 1880 the temperature has risen 0.51% since 1880. http://climate.nasa.gov/news/668

2) See answer above.



Yes I am aware one graph is the lower troposphere and the other is land based.

 

[trainspotter]

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-ts-7.html

IPCC can't be wrong now can they ?

 

[explod]

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-ts-7.html

IPCC can't be wrong now can they ?

IPCC reports are adapted/massaged to fit with what is acceptable politically (the guvmints) before public release.

Source "climate wars"

 

[basilio]

TS I'm confused

I'm trying to see how the graph you provided correlates with the NASA graph. For a start it only goes back to 1979 so clearly there is only a very short period to compare.

Comments ?

_________________________________________________________
Also I would have thought the NASA graph was indicating that Global warming was very real and clearly demonstrated. Is that what you are trying to say ?

 

[basilio]

TS while your looking at pretty pictures from the troposphere check out the following graphs in the URL.

They show increase of between. .47 and .52 C for the same period. They use Spencers and Christys information.

http://climatecrocks.com/2011/02/02/graph-of-the-day-satellite-temperature-records/

 

[Smurf1976]

The big problem with any change in climate is that practically all major man-made systems are based on our understanding of what is "normal".

Homes in Darwin are built with cyclones in mind but not snow. Homes in Tasmania are built with cold weather in mind but not cyclones. If it snows in Darwin and a cyclone hits Hobart then we'd likely see many deaths in Darwin due to the cold, and outright devastation in Hobart.

At a less extreme level the same applies. What is the temperature limit for the safe operation of the rail transport systems in Sydney or Melbourne? I don't know the answer, but there would certainly be a design limit. If we start exceeding that on a regular basis then it's not going be cheap to essentially rebuild the entire rail network, and to do so quickly.

Water supply, hydro power, irrigation and agriculture in general were all developed with respect to "normal" weather conditions at the time. Even a small change in rainfall and temperature wreaks havoc with all of these and we're talking about things which actually matter here - food, water, power so all pretty basic things to have available.

I'm not arguing for or against anything in particular with regard to CO2. But if the climate is changing, for whatever reason, then we'd better be prepared to deal with the consequences. This may require the relatively rapid investment of huge sums of money and physical resources. I wouldn't like to speculate on the actual costs, but we'd likely be rounding it to the nearest $10 billion I'd expect and needing to do it fairly quickly.

The 1976 and 1997 climate "events" are a case in point. Both were a sudden, seemingly permanent (or at least long enough to be considered effectively permanent) change in weather. In the Australian context they primarily have affected south-west WA and Tasmania. Costs have been fairly significant thus far. Somewhere around $1.7 billion for urban water supply in WA. Hydro Tas is spending $400 million on capital works and in 2014 $ has incurred a $1.5 billion combination of higher operating costs / lower revenue in the meantime. Then there's the fortune being spent on irrigation in a place (Tas) that didn't really need it in the past. $220 million of government funds, plus an unknown but large amount of private money. Then there's the operating costs on top of all that.

So we get a relatively minor change that affects two parts of the country only, and it costs us $ billions to address only some of the impacts. We'd be wise to set aside a lot more than that in order to deal with any relatively sudden changes which affect somewhere more heavily populated.

 

[wayneL]

that you will not even acknowledge the possibility you are wrong and consider changes/options that should be undertaken.

Another dirty filthy misrepresentation. I realize that it is most likely impossible due to patholgy of some description, but you should try debating on honest terms sometime.

Now thats determinism.

You do not seem to understand what determinism means. However, if you do, this is another example of an appalling debating technique, obfuscating the point with purulent and tortuous distortions.

 

[basilio]

Quote Originally Posted by basilio View Post

that you will not even acknowledge the possibility you are wrong and consider changes/options that should be undertaken.

Another dirty filthy misrepresentation. I realize that it is most likely impossible due to patholgy of some description, but you should try debating on honest terms sometime.

Now thats determinism.

You do not seem to understand what determinism means. However, if you do, this is another example of an appalling debating technique, obfuscating the point with purulent and tortuous distortions.

Tone down the rhetoric/abuse please Wayne.

It's not a good look..

 

[wayneL]

Tone down the rhetoric/abuse please Wayne.

It's not a good look..

There is nothing rhetorical or abusive in that post, merely empirical observations.

Stop lying and I stop picking you up on it

 

[basilio]

There is nothing rhetorical or abusive in that post, merely empirical observations ???.

Stop lying and I stop picking you up on it

Really ???

So sad..

 

[Ijustnewit]

The big problem with any change in climate is that practically all major man-made systems are based on our understanding of what is "normal".

Homes in Darwin are built with cyclones in mind but not snow. Homes in Tasmania are built with cold weather in mind but not cyclones. If it snows in Darwin and a cyclone hits Hobart then we'd likely see many deaths in Darwin due to the cold, and outright devastation in Hobart.

I do have to laugh though being an ex North Queenslander , that when we used to have a category 1 cyclone ( 90 kmr winds) 500 km for Cairns in the Coral Sea. The whole city would shut down and people would be taping their windows and stocking up on supplies like it was going to be world war III. And then nothing happens.
Here in Hobart we get 140 kmr winds blow through ,with little or no warning and it's just another windy day.:

 

[Smurf1976]

Here in Hobart we get 140 kmr winds blow through ,with little or no warning and it's just another windy day.:

Indeed, although I've often thought that the strongest winds we get (the highest I can remember is about 170 km/h) are getting pretty close to the point where something bad would happen if it was stronger.

I remember the big blow about 5 - 6 years ago. It was strongest on the Eastern Shore (170 km/h was the max recorded) and I woke up with a very loud noise that sounded like a saw cutting through wood (turned out to be roofing iron vibrating in the wind) and you could feel the house moving a bit. Give it another 30 or so km/h and I think there would have been a lot more destruction than just a few trees and power lines down etc.

It's like that feeling you get driving a car quickly around a bend or on a track etc. You just know that it's on the edge of losing control, any faster and you'll be in trouble. I think the same way about strong winds. Houses start to move, you can just feel it, trees come down, power lines come down, fences are blown over etc. I don't think it would need to be too much stronger in order to cause fairly serious damage.

PS - Just an addition to my previous post in that I do realise that Darwin has previously seen major devastation due to a cyclone. But to my understanding when they rebuilt, they built everything to withstand such events in case it happens again. That's my understanding at least, no doubt those who live there will be more familiar with it than I am.

 

[basilio]

The issue of pressure on water supplies as a result of increased energy demand is becoming clearer. This is particularly the case with coal fired power stations (or solar thermal) . Clearlty far less of an issue with Solar PV or wind power.

Just another reason to reconsider the use of fossil fuels for supplyimg baseload power.

Growing global thirst for energy threatens water supplies
Soaring energy demands will pile pressure on already strained water resources, warns the UN on eve of world water day

\
Claire Provost
theguardian.com, Friday 21 March 2014 23.07 AEST

MDG : A coal power plant in Neurath, Germany
Energy production accounts for almost 15% of global water usage. Photograph: Reuters

Growing demand for energy will put increasing pressure on the world's already strained water resources, particularly in developing and emerging economies, the UN has warned.

"There is an increasing potential for serious conflict between power generation, other water users and environmental considerations," it says in the world water development report, published on the eve of world water day on Saturday.

Energy production accounts for close to 15% of the world's water usage, but that figure could rise. By 2035, water use for energy is projected to jump by 20%, the report says. Water demand, meanwhile, could increase by 55% by 2050.

Much of this is due to growing populations and economies in China, India and the Middle East, says the report, which pulls together data from a range of studies. Some 90% of the global increase in demand for energy in the coming years will come from outside the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), club of rich countries, it notes.

"Demand for fresh water and energy will continue to increase over the coming decades to meet the needs of growing populations and economies, changing lifestyles and evolving consumption patterns, greatly amplifying existing pressures on limited natural resources and on ecosystems," the report says.

About 90% of power generation is water-intensive, says the report, which warns that less conventional oil and gas production, including via tar sands and fracking – along with biofuels – place particularly large demands on water resources.

http://www.theguardian.com/global-d...global-thirst-energy-threatens-water-supplies

 

[basilio]

The new IPCC Climate Change report is about to be released. The Age has highlighted the Draft report.
The graphs indicating the extent of extreme weather conditions is confronting.

New IPCC climate report projects significant threats to Australia

Date
March 23, 2014

24 reading now

Fire seasons, particularly in southern Australia, will extend in high-risk areas.

Australia's multibillion-dollar mining, farming and tourism industries face significant threats as worsening global warming causes more dangerous and extreme weather, the world's leading climate science body will warn.

A final draft of a five-year assessment by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - seen by Fairfax Media - details a litany of global impacts from intensifying climate change including the displacement of hundreds of millions of people, reduced crop yields and the loss of trillions of dollars from the global economy.

The report is the second part of the IPCC's fifth major assessment and focuses on climate change's impacts and how the world might adapt. It will be finalised at a meeting in Japan next weekend before its release on March 31.

The final draft Australasia chapter also outlines significant local threats if human-caused climate change gets worse, in particular high confidence that fire seasons, particularly in southern Australia, will extend in high-risk areas.

There is also significant risk of increased damage and death from heatwaves resulting from more frequent extreme high temperatures. Flood risk too would be worse.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/n...o-australia-20140323-35b1r.html#ixzz2wlSloilW

 

[basilio]

Obviously a hotter Australia with many more days of 40plus temperatures means bush fire danger will be extreme. California is facing that scenario this year.

California officials prepare for worst as historic drought deepens wildfire risk
Severe lack of rain and sun-scorched earth means that when it comes to fire risks, California is now in a class of its own

California is facing wildfires "outside of any normal bounds" as a historic drought turns drying brush and trees into a perfect tinderbox, officials have warned. The state recorded 665 wildfires from 1 January, about three times the average of 225 for this time of year, according to figures compiled by Cal Fire, the state's department of forestry and fire protection.

Each day without heavy rain deepened the risks of a catastrophic fire season and made it hard to deal with more wildfires if and when they broke out, officials warned. John Laird, the secretary for natural resources, told the Guardian: "This is going to be a fire season outside any normal bounds. Anything could happen at any time."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/19/california-drought-wildfires-danger

 

[Ijustnewit]

Tasmanian Farmer pursues Hydro-Electric dream. Story from ABC & Landline .



www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-23/tasmanian-familys-hydro-electric-dream/5339476?section=tas

 

[Smurf1976]

Tasmanian Farmer pursues Hydro-Electric dream.

Have a farm with a river running through it, get yourself a job working with big hydro schemes, then build your own small one. Can't fault that strategy really.

Hydro-electricity is a bit like a lot of things. You either "get it" or you don't, and if you "get it" then all of a sudden you start to see water in a very different way.

As for the political side of it, the constant changing of the rules is a massive problem for both large and small operators and makes it difficult for anyone to invest in power production be it hydro, wind, solar, gas, coal or whatever. It's all difficult when you have government constantly changing the rules.

 

[basilio]

I was just having a look at another thread on the carbon Tax and Noco was again strident in the view that volcanoes put out far more CO2 than human activity. His source was Ian Plimers book "Heaven and Earth"

Ian Plimers assertion is simply wrong. It has been disproved and discredited for years. But that hasn't changed the views of many people who hang on to what are just outright deceptions.

The reaction to Ian Plimers book has been interesting. On the one hand climate change deniers have embraced it. Starting with Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt, The Australian and finishing with Tony Abbott, Plimer received rave reviews and respect. If you check out the document you can find all the supporters and their comments noted at the end.

But on the other hand the scientific community in total has completely dissed it

I suppose the argument from a skeptic point of view is that "the scientists are just defending their dark, dirty secrets " or "they would say that wouldn't they ?"

So to respond to claims of self interest it's essential to know exactly what scientists found so completely illogical, dishonest and unscientific about Ian Plimers book.

Check out the following paper for that analysis. I have copied the introduction.

Ian Plimer’s ‘Heaven + Earth’ — Checking the Claims
Ian G. Enting
Version 2.2
ARC Centre of Excellence for
Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems
The University of Melbourne

Overview
Ian Plimer’s book, Heaven + Earth — Global Warming: The Missing Science, claims to demolish the theory of human-induced global warming due to the release of CO2 and other greenhouse
gases. Overall:

• it has numerous internal inconsistencies;

• in spite of the extensive referencing, key data are unattributed and the content of references is often misquoted. Most importantly, Ian Plimer fails to establish his claim that the human influence on climate can be ignored, relative to natural variations.

Ian Plimer’s claim that the human influence on climate can be ignored, relative to natural variations, seems to rest on three main strands of argument:

a: the extent of natural variability is larger than considered in ‘mainstream’ analyses;

b: changes in radiative forcing from greenhouse gases have less effect than determined in
‘mainstream’ analyses;

c: the IPCC uses a range of misrepresentations to conceal points a and b
.
Among the many errors made in attempting to establish these claims, are cases where Plimer:

• misrepresents the content of IPCC reports on at least 15 occasions as well as misrepresenting the operation of the IPCC and the authorship of IPCC reports;

• has at least 28 other instances of misrepresenting the content of cited sources;

• has at least 2 graphs where checks show that the original is a plot of something other than
what Plimer claims and many others where data are misrepresented;

• has at least 10 cases of misrepresenting data records in addition to some instances (included in the total above) of misrepresenting data from cited source

http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91

 

[basilio]

The following reference is for those who might like a more direct version of just how dishonest Ian Plimer was in his book.

The science is missing from Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth”
Posted by Tim Lambert on April 23, 2009


I agree with Barry Brook that Ian Plimer’s approach to climate science in Heaven Earth is unscientific. He starts with his conclusion that there is no “evidential basis” that humans have caused recent warming and that the theory that humans can create global warming

is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archeology and geology.

He accepts any factoid that supports his conclusion and rejects any evidence that contradicts his conclusion. For example, he blindly accepts EG Beck’s CO2 graph. And remember Khilyuk and Chilingar? The guys who compared human CO2 emissions with natural C02 emissions over the entire history of the planet and concluded that human emissions didn’t matter. As I wrote earlier:

their mistake is so large and so obvious that anyone who cites them either has no clue about climate science or doesn’t care whether what they write is true or not.

Plimer doesn’t cite them once he cites them three times.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/23/the-science-is-missing-from-ia/

 

[trainspotter]

Oh yes and the IPCC is NEVER wrong nor dishonest now are they?

http://news.sciencemag.org/2010/02/ipccclimategate-criticism-roundup

The section of the 2007 IPCC report that deals with climate impacts, called Working Group II, included a statement in its chapter on Asia (see p. 493) that Himalayan glaciers are receding faster than any other glaciers on Earth and “the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.” That statement was challenged by an Indian government report released late last year that suggested, qualitatively, that “many” Himalayan glaciers were instead growing in size and that others were stable. (The report’s conclusions were first widely publicized in a November story in Science, and the flimsy basis for the “very high” statement in the 2007 report is detailed here, in a letter to Science by a Canadian expert on glaciers.

Now back to the NASA Graph thingy .... (love the way they cover their @rse by making general statements)

Because of the large natural variability of climate, scientists do not expect temperatures to rise consistently year after year. However, they do expect a continuing temperature rise over decades.

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/668

The graph from NASA was land based temperatures and comparing it to the other graph from http://algorelied.com/?p=1332 was lower troposphere evidenced that it depends on whose "science" you want to believe and who / how they created the "graph" and what "modelling" they used.

Is the globe getting hotter? It would seem that if you look closely at this graph below it clearly shows with empirical evidence that it does not matter who you believe but more along the lines of until China and the USA start controlling the pollution (read Co2) then what we do here in Australia means jack **** !!