Resisting Climate Hysteria

[wayneL]

Bas

Im all for renewable energy.

 

[sptrawler]

Bas

Im all for renewable energy.

I certainly hope renewable energy, is viable, before the gas runs out.

 

[wayneL]

Wayne, I thought the issue of whether some islands might accumulate land mass while others lose it was separate to the issue of overall sea level rises ?
____________________________________________________________________________________-

The sea level has been rising ever since the end of the little Ice Age. As such the attributable factors become a little bit hazy.

However there are figures quoted in this thread at 10 millimetres per year. You and I both know that that is bogus and if such rises were measured relative to a said land mass, then there are obviously other factors involved.

 

[sptrawler]

The sea level has been rising ever since the end of the little Ice Age. As such the attributable factors become a little bit hazy.

However there are figures quoted in this thread at 10 millimetres per year. You and I both know that that is bogus and if such rises were measured relative to a said land mass, then there are obviously other factors involved.

The other week, there was a report that vegetation is increasing, due to the increase in CO2.

I think planet Earth will be fine, long after we have gone.
We might not be able to survive, but the planet will be o.k, is that a problem?

If it wasn't global warming that will kill us off, it will be overpopulation, or it will be a global war, we will ensure our own demise.

Everyone says Earth can support about 4 billion people, we have seven going on eight and we worry like $hit about people dying. What a hoot.

We don't want genetically modified food, but normal crops don't provide enough yield.

We really are just putting our fingers in the dyke, there is too many of us, wanting too much.lol

 

[luutzu]

The other week, there was a report that vegetation is increasing, due to the increase in CO2.

I think planet Earth will be fine, long after we have gone.
We might not be able to survive, but the planet will be o.k, is that a problem?

If it wasn't global warming that will kill us off, it will be overpopulation, or it will be a global war, we will ensure our own demise.

Everyone says Earth can support about 4 billion people, we have seven going on eight and we worry like $hit about people dying. What a hoot.

We don't want genetically modified food, but normal crops don't provide enough yield.

We really are just putting our fingers in the dyke, there is too many of us, wanting too much.lol

The world actually produce more food than all its 7 billion people need. Just most of that 7 billion can't afford to pay for it so some geniuses thought it'd be cool to turn a lot of them into bio-Fuel

Then the other grains that's slightly expensive? It's sold for grain feed for livestocks to feed fat azz Westerners (myself included, of course).

So it's not a resource problem, it's a distribution problem.

But we solve that by spending more on guns and weapons to keep the barbarians at bay... problem solved

So yes, we really are dump monkies putting fingers in the dyke.

 

[SirRumpole]

The world actually produce more food than all its 7 billion people need.

Maybe for some types of food, but world fish stocks are seriously threatened.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120920-are-we-running-out-of-fish

 

[sptrawler]

The world actually produce more food than all its 7 billion people need. Just most of that 7 billion can't afford to pay for it so some geniuses thought it'd be cool to turn a lot of them into bio-Fuel

Or maybe the price we pay for it, wouldn't cover the cost of transporting the excess, to where it is needed.

Then the other grains that's slightly expensive? It's sold for grain feed for livestocks to feed fat azz Westerners (myself included, of course).

Again as before because, if we added the cost of transport, someones got to pay for it, that doesn't sit well with the down, down price mentality

So it's not a resource problem, it's a distribution problem.

But we solve that by spending more on guns and weapons to keep the barbarians at bay... problem solved

So yes, we really are dump monkies putting fingers in the dyke.

However if we sent all our excess production and waste to areas that need it, would it encourage a population boom?

Well that copy and paste went ape.lol

 

[basilio]

Rising sea levels.

This isn't as cut and dried an issue as one might imagine. On a simple basis there is no doubt from almost all the scientific research that sea levels are rising as a consequence of

1) Thermal expansion from global warming
2) Large scale melting of glaciers and land based ice. Greenland, Antarctica ect.

All of the sources I cited in an earlier post just go through the same explanation.

The stuff that scares the xhit out of glaciologists is the rapidly accelerating rate of melt in Greenland and Antarctica caused by the relatively high temperatures as global warming has taken hold. We talk about 1C degree of warming around the world but in Arctic and Antarctic average temperatures are now 2-4C higher. Ice is melting earlier, quicker and longer.

The oceans are warmer to the point that glaciers are being undercut. This has been well documented and I have posted many references to the science. (Very little comment as far as I can remember)

There are other issues that affect the sea levels relative to nearby landmasses. For example different land areas are rising or falling as a consequence of other forces. This can muddy the waters in some places but in no way diminishes the overall accelerating increase of sea levels.

The flooding of the Solomon Islands group may have other contributing factors. But like Alaska, Louisiana, Florida and in fact all coastal regions rising sea levels will create huge problems and it now seems sooner rather than later.

Attempting to obfuscate this reality is ... what ?

https://theconversation.com/what-does-the-science-really-say-about-sea-level-rise-56807
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/the-siege-of-miami

This is really worth reading to appreciate how Miami is being undercut by rising sea levels. It's a reality that is impossible to ignore

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/modeling-sea-level-rise-25857988

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/climate_change.html
Excellent analysis of the rapidly changing climate at the poles and the impact that is having on climate around the world

 

[basilio]

Bas

Im all for renewable energy.

I do remember that comment from you previously and great.
Perhaps it is a basis on which people might agree on a new direction.

 

[sptrawler]

Rising sea levels.

This isn't as cut and dried an issue as one might imagine. On a simple basis there is no doubt from almost all the scientific research that sea levels are rising as a consequence of

1) Thermal expansion from global warming
2) Large scale melting of glaciers and land based ice. Greenland, Antarctica ect.

All of the sources I cited in an earlier post just go through the same explanation.

The stuff that scares the xhit out of glaciologists is the rapidly accelerating rate of melt in Greenland and Antarctica caused by the relatively high temperatures as global warming has taken hold. We talk about 1C degree of warming around the world but in Arctic and Antarctic average temperatures are now 2-4C higher. Ice is melting earlier, quicker and longer.

The oceans are warmer to the point that glaciers are being undercut. This has been well documented and I have posted many references to the science. (Very little comment as far as I can remember)

There are other issues that affect the sea levels relative to nearby landmasses. For example different land areas are rising or falling as a consequence of other forces. This can muddy the waters in some places but in no way diminishes the overall accelerating increase of sea levels.

The flooding of the Solomon Islands group may have other contributing factors. But like Alaska, Louisiana, Florida and in fact all coastal regions rising sea levels will create huge problems and it now seems sooner rather than later.

Attempting to obfuscate this reality is ... what ?

https://theconversation.com/what-does-the-science-really-say-about-sea-level-rise-56807
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/the-siege-of-miami

This is really worth reading to appreciate how Miami is being undercut by rising sea levels. It's a reality that is impossible to ignore

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/modeling-sea-level-rise-25857988

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/climate_change.html
Excellent analysis of the rapidly changing climate at the poles and the impact that is having on climate around the world

O.K we are all doomed, as has been the case with most species.

We expend and populate to the point of non sustainability, then we perish, what's new.

 

[cynic]

I do remember that comment from you previously and great.
Perhaps it is a basis on which people might agree on a new direction.

I too am in favour of genuinely renewable energy, but am averse to having the renewable choices limited by the unreasonable demonisation of CO2.

 

[noco]

Rising sea levels.

This isn't as cut and dried an issue as one might imagine. On a simple basis there is no doubt from almost all the scientific research that sea levels are rising as a consequence of

1) Thermal expansion from global warming
2) Large scale melting of glaciers and land based ice. Greenland, Antarctica ect.

All of the sources I cited in an earlier post just go through the same explanation.

The stuff that scares the xhit out of glaciologists is the rapidly accelerating rate of melt in Greenland and Antarctica caused by the relatively high temperatures as global warming has taken hold. We talk about 1C degree of warming around the world but in Arctic and Antarctic average temperatures are now 2-4C higher. Ice is melting earlier, quicker and longer.

The oceans are warmer to the point that glaciers are being undercut. This has been well documented and I have posted many references to the science. (Very little comment as far as I can remember)

There are other issues that affect the sea levels relative to nearby landmasses. For example different land areas are rising or falling as a consequence of other forces. This can muddy the waters in some places but in no way diminishes the overall accelerating increase of sea levels.

The flooding of the Solomon Islands group may have other contributing factors. But like Alaska, Louisiana, Florida and in fact all coastal regions rising sea levels will create huge problems and it now seems sooner rather than later.

Attempting to obfuscate this reality is ... what ?

https://theconversation.com/what-does-the-science-really-say-about-sea-level-rise-56807
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/the-siege-of-miami

This is really worth reading to appreciate how Miami is being undercut by rising sea levels. It's a reality that is impossible to ignore

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/modeling-sea-level-rise-25857988

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/climate_change.html
Excellent analysis of the rapidly changing climate at the poles and the impact that is having on climate around the world

What is new Bas?....we keep telling you it all happened 1000 years ago......Don't you dig it FFS.

And yet you keep harping on about modelling.....It is a manipulation of the truth...I sailed into Glacier Bay on the way up to Alaska 4 years ago......I saw chunks of ice as large as a bus falling into the sea from 5 Glaciers and this is where the Greenies take there fake photos to make it look good.......GLOBAL WARMING they say is causing the ice to melt....Those glaciers are moving all the time....The cruise ship the ROTTERDAM makes a special trip into Glacier Bay just so one can see these big chunks of ice falling into the sea...I have lots of photos.

If you don't believe me, take the cruise and you will see it for yourself...That is why it is called Glacier Bay.

I know it will not make any difference to you because you have your mind set with these extravagant figures of 2 to 4 c in crease in temperature and fictitious rise in sea levels with some islands being swamped while others are building bigger.....I explained to you about some islands sinking and not sea risings....why are some being swamped by the sea and others are not affected.....You are being manipulated into believing it all.

I also traveled many time on business over 18 years into PNG, the Solomon Island , Vanuatu and Fiji...

I don't know how much traveling you have done but if you haven't you should do it some time...It is a hell of an education.

I don't mean to be sarcastic with you but it is a fact ......traveling is a great experience and you can see a lot of these things first hand for yourself.

 

[Logique]

My bolds. Funny how neither the ALP nor Coalition wants climate change to be an election issue!

The Green Left will have to find another issue to piggy-back on their way to world domination. This one is a swiss cheese that isn't going anywhere.

If it will help Basilio and co-travellers, the oceans are full of plastics in various forms, this could be your next "great moral challenge".

“climate science” which so far hasn’t produced a moon shot, built any planes, or eradicated small pox

Link below. Nor will it ever do so. It was only ever a travelling medicine show.

http://joannenova.com.au/

John Cook starts with a myth that isn’t a myth, and which isn’t science either:

MYTH BUSTED: There’s no scientific consensus on climate change

Despite getting a full time salary at UQ, Cook-the-consensus expert hasn’t done his reading and doesn’t know that almost half of meteorologists are skeptics, two-thirds of geoscientists and engineers are skeptics, and most readers of skeptical blogs (see the comments) have hard science degrees.

The number of hard science degrees in the world would outnumber the number of “climate scientists” 100 to 1, or maybe a thousand to one.

Ergo, the scientific world at large is skeptical of the small group in the new immature, unproven branchlet called “climate science” which so far hasn’t produced a moon shot, built any planes, or eradicated small pox.

Climate science collectively fails to predict droughts, El Ninos, and barbeque summers, and fails to do it all over the world.

 

[explod]

My bolds. Funny how neither the ALP or Coalition wants climate change to be an election issue!

Certainly food for thought Logique.

 

[SirRumpole]

My bolds. Funny how neither the ALP nor Coalition wants climate change to be an election issue!

The Green Left will have to find another issue to piggy-back on their way to world domination. This one is a swiss cheese that isn't going anywhere.

If it will help Basilio and co-travellers, the oceans are full of plastics in various forms, this could be your next "great moral challenge".

Link below. Nor will it ever do so. It was only ever a travelling medicine show.

Oh dear, it's a pity some more research was not done.

Policy statement of the American Meteorological Society

Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence. Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level. Surface temperature data for Earth as a whole, including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) over the period 1901?2010 and about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available). Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally. Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land. In the U.S., most of the observed warming has occurred in the West and in Alaska; for the nation as a whole, there have been twice as many record daily high temperatures as record daily low temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century.

Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation. While large amounts of CO2 enter and leave the atmosphere through natural processes, these human activities are increasing the total amount in the air and the oceans. Approximately half of the CO2 put into the atmosphere through human activity in the past 250 years has been taken up by the ocean and terrestrial biosphere, with the other half remaining in the atmosphere. Since long-term measurements began in the 1950s, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Having been introduced into the atmosphere it will take a thousand years for the majority of the added atmospheric CO2 to be removed by natural processes, and some will remain for thousands of subsequent years.

https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.c...tatements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-change/

In addition, the AMS has over 13,000 members, which means a bare 10% returned the survey, and if half were dissenters that means only 5% of the AMS members did not agree that climate change exists, a far cry from the 50% claim of the quoted website of whoever that person is.

Is it any wonder that CC sceptics are giving themselves a bad name when they make outrageous claims that can be refuted with 5 minutes of research by someone like me with no qualifications in the area but who is prepared to dig into some facts and not accept things on face value.

Apparently this is the basis of the claim that "50% of Meteorologists" did not agree with human induced CC.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper...eorologists-destroys-climate-consensus-claims

 

[cynic]

Oh dear, it's a pity some more research was not done.

Policy statement of the American Meteorological Society






https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.c...tatements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-change/

In addition, the AMS has over 13,000 members, which means a bare 10% returned the survey, and if half were dissenters that means only 5% of the AMS members did not agree that climate change exists, a far cry from the 50% claim of the quoted website of whoever that person is.

Is it any wonder that CC sceptics are giving themselves a bad name when they make outrageous claims that can be refuted with 5 minutes of research by someone like me with no qualifications in the area but who is prepared to dig into some facts and not accept things on face value.

You might want to reexamine the mathematics behind your calculation of 5% dissent. Is it any wonder that CC alarmists are giving themselves a bad name when they attempt to use statistical sleight of hand in such a blatantly obvious distortion of facts.

 

[SirRumpole]

You might want to reexamine the mathematics behind your calculation of 5% dissent. Is it any wonder that CC alarmists are giving themselves a bad name when they attempt to use statistical sleight of hand in such a blatantly obvious distortion of facts.

What do you think of the mathematics of the claim that 50% of climate scientists dissent when only 1800 of the 13,000 members bothered to reply to the survey ?

It seems obvious that the majority support the statement in the AMS's website, otherwise that statement would not be there.

 

[cynic]

What do you think of the mathematics of the claim that 50% of climate scientists dissent when only 1800 of the 13,000 members bothered to reply to the survey ?

It seems obvious that the majority support the statement in the AMS's website, otherwise that statement would not be there.

I would certainly prefer to see a larger crosssection accompanied by an independent assessment of the way in which the survey was presented before accepting the 50% conclusion, however, to suggest, as you have done, that the only dissenters were amongst those responding, is a blatantly obvious distortion of the findings. In isolation to the aforementioned concerns, the suggestion that a roughly 14% cross section is indicative of the whole, needn't necessarily be seen as entirely unreasonable.

 

[SirRumpole]

I would certainly prefer to see a larger crosssection accompanied by an independent assessment of the way in which the survey was presented before accepting the 50% conclusion, however, to suggest, as you have done, that the only dissenters were amongst those responding, is a blatantly obvious distortion of the findings. In isolation to the aforementioned concerns, the suggestion that a roughly 14% cross section is indicative of the whole, needn't necessarily be seen as entirely unreasonable.

Whatever, we can argue stats all you want, the AMS's official position is that CC is unequivocal and if a majority or even a large minority of it's own members disagreed with that they wouldn't rely on a survey to state their opinions, they would be doing it very publicly.

 

[cynic]

Whatever, we can argue stats all you want, the AMS's official position is that CC is unequivocal and if a majority or even a large minority of it's own members disagreed with that they wouldn't rely on a survey to state their opinions, they would be doing it very publicly.

So it's now quite okay for the climate brigade to argue that the stats from opinion polls somehow prove their "science" but no one is allowed to counter argue with opinion polls of their own!

So what exactly has been proven?(Blatant hypocrisy would seem a reasonable summation at this juncture.)