Climate change another name for Weather

[prawn_86]

Obviously Adel gets a alot of its weather coming through from Perth so its been unseasonally cold here also.

At the moment its about 16 degrees and drizzle, in summer! And as Chops mentioned, the winds here are also different. Normally we get northerlies off the desert this time of year, but we have only had about 2 days of that so far....

strange times. No wonder all the propaganda has been changed to 'climate change' instead of GW, now they can say "see the climate is changing!" when really its always been changing

 

[2020hindsight]

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/reference.shtml
"Climate" Stations in Aus :-
BOM = bureau opf meteorology = yet another pack of losers

The Australian Reference Climate Station (RCS) network has been established for high quality, long-term climate monitoring, particularly with regard to climate change analysis. The establishment of the network followed a request by the World Meteorological Organization to all of its member nations in 1990

 

[2020hindsight]

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/g_trendmaps.cgi

now they can say "see the climate is changing!" when really its always been changing

yep, lol - the rate of increase per decade keeps changing

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/...riable=dtr&region=aus&season=0112&period=1950

 

[basilio]

The big news on the web is the "650 dissident scientists" who are skeptical about global warming. And I agree that if there were 650 such qualified people who had serious reservations perhaps there is something to talk about.

But this just part of the fear, uncertainty ,doubt picture which is coming from a core of ruthlessly self interested industries who stand to lose much money and influence when we have to address climate change properly.

In my looking around I came across a very detailed post by another blogger when opened up the duplicity and stupidity of this so called army of dissenters. I checked out the references and am happy to support the argument.

And by the way did people notice that meteorologists did state that this year was a La Nina year which meant we were going to have unusually colder and wetter conditions ? Not necessarily next year or the year after. Just this year.
_____________________________________________________________

First of all, I'm sure all you GW 'skeptics' know that a list of names is nothing but an argument from authority. At first glance, this sounds impressive. Over six hundred names of scientists who reject GW. But let's put that in perspective. The American Geophysical Union has close to 50,000 scientists. How many are on the list? Zero. So who are the scientists on Inhofe's list? Most are not even scientists. Look at the names. There are many economists, computer scientists, engineers, and so forth. Many of those who do have a PhD don't even have one in the field of climate science. For example, one name on the list is James A. Peden. Is he an internationally renowned climate scientist, bravely going against the alleged consensus and the evil schemes of Al Gore? No, he is a web designer. Others are similar in nature, such as local TV weatherman Steve Baskerville. The bar for scientists must be set pretty low to have these guys on the list.

http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/2...7-andy-revkin/

But wait, surely there are people on the list who have a degree that is at least somewhat relevant to the issue? How about meteorologist George Waldenberger? Oh, but wait, his name was added without his consent.

Quote:
Take me off your list of 400 (Prominent) Scientists that dispute Man-Made Global warming claims. I've never made any claims that debunk the 'Consensus'

You quoted a newspaper article that?s main focus was scoring the accuracy of local weathermen. Hardly Scientific ? yet I'm guessing some of your other sources pale in comparison in terms of credibility.

You also didn't ask for my permission to use these statements. That's not a very respectable way of doing 'research'.
http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/1...ed-inhofe-400/
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/14/231236/019

His name is still on the list.

Let's look at the author of this article about 650 scientists who reject GW shall we? His name is Marc Morano and according to a few moments of research:

Quote:
Morano is a former journalist with Cybercast News Service (owned by the conservative Media Research Center). CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election [1] and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha.

Morano was "previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as a former correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano

I'm sure Rush Limbaugh's right hand man is a trustworthy source, right?

So what about James Inhofe, who runs this blog? Inhofe was a Bush political appointee with ties to the oil lobbyists.

Quote:
On April 28, 2004, Inhofe was honored for his "work in promoting science-based public policy" [4] by the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy, a think tank that disputes the scientific consensus on the causes and magnitude of global warming. (The think tank has received $658,575 from ExxonMobil since 1998).
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_Inhofe

Inhofe also thinks the earth is 6000 years old and that tobacco is harmless.

This blog article lists a bunch of quotes. I could not verify if these quotes were true or not. I suspect they are not, I have my suspicions they are quote mines. For instance, Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a physical chemist, is quoted saying he disagrees with the IPCC report. If he does, then why did he sign it? And besides, he wasn't even an author for the report, he just did some review work. He has never published any research on GW. To call him an IPCC scientist is stretching things a bit.

So this list is like the lists of creationists. Creationists like to brag about how they have hundreds of scientists who reject evolution, but when these lists are investigated they turn out to not be scientists at all; work in a field not related to the earth and life scientists; or to be added without their consent.

If the GW 'skeptics' are impressed by the Inhofe 650, then they should find these really impressive.

OMG! 700 scientists reject evolution, it must be false!
http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/archive...oubt-evolution

OMG! Scientists reject plate tectonics!
http://www.icr.org/article/78/

OMG! Scientists reject the big bang!
http://www.icr.org/article/7/

OMG! Hundreds of scientists reject HIV/AIDS!
http://www.rethinkingaids.com/Portal...ackissues.html

OMG! Doctors reject germ theory, it must be false!
http://poisonevercure.150m.com/antibody_theory.htm

OMG! Scientists reject heliocentrism, the sun must orbit the earth!
http://www.catholicintl.com/

The point is, you can find people with advanced degrees who reject anything and everything.

__________________

 

[prawn_86]

yep, lol - the rate of increase per decade keeps changing

Thats a flawed argument, the rate of increases and dereases of anything generally changes. How do you know the rate of increasing wasnt slowing 10000 years ago?

Its like when accelerating or slowing in a car, you migh gently slow down at first, then put more pressure on and slow at an increasing rate, then relax the pressure and slow more slowly.

Wow, thats confusing. Point is, rate of change is not relevant, as it too changes all the time

 

[2020hindsight]

So what about James Inhofe, who runs this blog? Inhofe was a Bush political appointee with ties to the oil lobbyists.

On April 28, 2004, Inhofe was honored for his "work in promoting science-based public policy" [4] by the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy, a think tank that disputes the scientific consensus on the causes and magnitude of global warming. (The think tank has received $658,575 from ExxonMobil since 1998).

Inhofe also thinks the earth is 6000 years old and that tobacco is harmless.
....

So this list is like the lists of creationists. Creationists like to brag about how they have hundreds of scientists who reject evolution, but when these lists are investigated they turn out to not be scientists at all; work in a field not related to the earth and life scientists; or to be added without their consent.

Top post bas lol,
or as Wayne would say

LOLLLOOLLLLLLOOOLLOOLLL argh LOLLLOLLL

 

[2020hindsight]

Thats a flawed argument, the rate of increases and dereases of anything generally changes. How do you know the rate of increasing wasnt slowing 10000 years ago?

Its like when accelerating or slowing in a car, you migh gently slow down at first, then put more pressure on and slow at an increasing rate, then relax the pressure and slow more slowly.

Wow, thats confusing. Point is, rate of change is not relevant, as it too changes all the time

not sure what your point is prawn, but this is what's happened over the last 1000 and 2000 years, and this is what will happen if it gets 2 degC hotter. (one of the most optimistic of the IPCC scenarios)

 

[Calliope]

But this just part of the fear, uncertainty ,doubt picture which is coming from a core of ruthlessly self interested industries who stand to lose much money and influence when we have to address climate change properly

Back to reality:

Pat Howes, AWU National Secretary.

My members and their wives, husbands and children are getting pretty tired of being told their jobs are dirty and polluting, particularly by bankers relentlessly pocketing their money and frittering away superannuation.

News item on Mr Rudd's railway's infrastructure boost.

All regions will benefit but $580 million will be spent on rail projects in the Hunter Valley in NSW aimed at doubling the coal-handling capacity of the Newcastle port.

The Weekend Australian editorial,

Mr Rudd is acutely aware of the mood in the suburbs, where voters would take a dim view of any government that pushed deep-green policies at the expense of jobs or prosperity. We confidently predict therefore that the emissions target the government will announce on Monday will not be deep enough to mollify the tree-hugging Left.

 

[Smurf1976]

And by the way did people notice that meteorologists did state that this year was a La Nina year which meant we were going to have unusually colder and wetter conditions ? Not necessarily next year or the year after. Just this year.

Indeed. But why do proponents of climate change not point out that we've had a few El Niño's in recent years which would be expected to give us hotter and drier weather? They were outright wrong to link the drought to CO2 when we already have another reasonably well understood explanation for it that has nothing to do with CO2.

It's like saying a road is unsafe because there have been 5 fatal crashes there in the past 10 years. But then you find out that every single one of those crashes involved a driver at least 3 times over the legal alcohol limit and driving atleast double the legal speed limit. It would be playing games to blame the design of the road for the accidents, call in a consultant to examine it and so on when there's a rather obvious explanation for the crashes which can't be blamed on the road. Same situation with many of the things attributed to climate change.

 

[chops_a_must]

Notice the areas that have become hotter, have mainly experienced much development in this time period... especially the Ord:

 

[basilio]

Indeed. But why do proponents of climate change not point out that we've had a few El Niño's in recent years which would be expected to give us hotter and drier weather? They were outright wrong to link the drought to CO2 when we already have another reasonably well understood explanation for it that has nothing to do with CO2.

Good point to bring up Smurf. El Niño has been recognised as part of ongoing climate anomalies. Climate scientists however are analyzing how the impact of CO2 warming is amplifying El Niño effects and perhaps increasing the number of El Niño events overall. There is a connection.


El Niño, Global Warming, and Anomalous U.S. Winter Warmth

Jan 2007
If a particular seasonal anomaly appears to be related to El Niño, can we conclude that climate change played no role at all? Obviously not. It is possible, in fact probable, that climate change is actually influencing El Niño (e.g. favoring more frequent and larger El Niño events), although just how much is still very much an issue of active scientific debate. One of the key remaining puzzles in the science of climate change therefore involves figuring out just how El Niño itself might change in the future, a topic we're certain to discuss here again in the future.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...o-global-warming-and-anomalous-winter-warmth/

 

[wayneL]

The big news on the web is the "650 dissident scientists" who are skeptical about global warming. And I agree that if there were 650 such qualified people who had serious reservations perhaps there is something to talk about.

But this just part of the fear, uncertainty ,doubt picture which is coming from a core of ruthlessly self interested industries who stand to lose much money and influence when we have to address climate change properly.

In my looking around I came across a very detailed post by another blogger when opened up the duplicity and stupidity of this so called army of dissenters. I checked out the references and am happy to support the argument.

You'll have to add more detail to carry any weight bas. Just saying you support the argument, says nothing. Some of the dissenters, I agree, have dubious climate qualifications, but many are imminently qualified and credible.

But the whole premise of that bloggers post, and your point, actually sticks on both sides of the argument. Many climate pessimists aren't climate scientists either, or aren't scientists at all.

e.g. David Suzuki is a zoologist, not a climate scientist. Al Bore is a politician and lobbyist and proven exaggerater in the US High Court, not a scientist.

Therefore, it is still "case open"; the science is nowhere near settled as is represented by the pro warmers.

The science continues to pour in and be pored over... and is still way inconclusive. Sorry about that.

 

[explod]

You'll have to add more detail to carry any weight bas. Just saying you support the argument, says nothing. Some of the dissenters, I agree, have dubious climate qualifications, but many are imminently qualified and credible.

But the whole premise of that bloggers post, and your point, actually sticks on both sides of the argument. Many climate pessimists aren't climate scientists either, or aren't scientists at all.

e.g. David Suzuki is a zoologist, not a climate scientist. Al Bore is a politician and lobbyist and proven exaggerater in the US High Court, not a scientist.

Therefore, it is still "case open"; the science is nowhere near settled as is represented by the pro warmers.

The science continues to pour in and be pored over... and is still way inconclusive. Sorry about that.

I know a bloke that at 30years was just a plumber. He then went to school and ended up with a PHd. major sociology, if you did not like what he said I suppose you would go back and call him a plumber. We can all learn new things and understand facts.

Many of the scientist calling the worst scenarios 10 years ago now look to be conservative. What has happened seems to be worse in my view than anyone predicted. I may be wrong, but maybe right so owe it to my granchildren to err on the side of seeeing if I can be part of a change that may help.

 

[Sean K]

Seems to be a significant shift occurring in the argument to me.


Initially, it was scientists stating claim of global warming through carbon emissions.

Then, a rock star thought it was a way to be a good person, and maybe sell more records, because the computer had decimated sales.

And his fans followed, who may be voters.

Oooo, what a way to catch votes, thought a politician.

Then, politicians jumped on, and more voters followed.

Then, the weight of numbers of lay people meant that other politicians had to jump on.

And, politicians needed the lay people's opinion to suit their political agenda.

The politicians fed the GW fire with money, and television, and movies.

Then, there were studies done by more scientists.

And then there were chinks.

And the numbers didn't add up.

Then, the number of scientists studying GW expanded exponentially.

Then, the results started to flow, and GW was not all it seemed.

TBC

 

[chops_a_must]

"Hello hello, yeah yeah yeah Bono" would most likely turn people off supporting GW measures as he is such a turd.

 

[wayneL]

Many of the scientist calling the worst scenarios 10 years ago now look to be conservative.What has happened seems to be worse in my view than anyone predicted.

Eh?

Where are all these worse happenings. Look! The warmers assign anything on the edges of the distribution curve as being cause by co2. But the reality is that there has always been weather events on the edges of the curve. Weather distributions are leptokurtic and always have been.

I may be wrong, but maybe right so owe it to my granchildren to err on the side of seeeing if I can be part of a change that may help.

You are missing my point. Kyoto, or any incarnation of it henceforth will do absolutely nothing about co2 levels. To think that a political organisation like the IPCC or any government can make a difference is laughable. As Smurf has pointed out, using low energy lightbulbs and driving a stupid Prius is like pissing into the ocean. IT WON'T DO ANYTHING.

The biggest loudmouths about AGW are doing even less, epitomized by the Gore charlatan. It is a cash cow and a notoriety vehicle from them and nothing more; we see that from their actions.

Even worse, to repeat myself ad nauseum, focus exclusively on co2 diverts attention from real issues.

I guarantee you that folks who focus on general pollution without focusing on co2, are doing more than you, basililio, or 20bloody20 will ever do, with the side effect that their co2 emissions are lower. There are just so many people out there, like 2020 and Al Bore, who crap on about co2 and carry on with there own large carbon footprint lives as per normal. How many tonnes of carbon were released by 10,000 delegates to fly to Poland to release yet more hot air?

These are the villains you should be addressing and kicking in the @rse; those who think they know, yet do nothing. They are like clergy who preach the ten commandments by day and go out raping and pillaging by night.

I repeat, if you love your grandchildren, forget about co2, worry about resource consumption and overall pollution.

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

 

[explod]

Eh?

Where are all these worse happenings. Look! The warmers assign anything on the edges of the distribution curve as being cause by co2. But the reality is that there has always been weather events on the edges of the curve. Weather distributions are leptokurtic and always have been.


I repeat, if you love your grandchildren, forget about co2, worry about resource consumption and overall pollution.

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

Of course, what are we arguing about, said similar in a post a few days ago. And add overpopulation. Dont' even understand chemistry or co2

And when everyone is broke/or money is worthless in a year or two it will be easy. We will all try to get back to our Great Great Grandfathers farm. Oops its an air strip.

 

[2020hindsight]

Thats a flawed argument, the rate of increases and dereases of anything generally changes
....
Point is, rate of change is not relevant, as it too changes all the time

PS Prawn,

My point was that lately it's always an increase - and if the only thing left to contest is the rate of increase, then we're losing the battle yes?

Here's the graph (from NASA) with temps at 10 yearly intervals. The blue lines represent a decrease over the previous decade; the red ones an increase. Here's why there are a couple of blues around 1940-60's (i.e when they started to clean up sulphate pollution) :-

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-real-global-warming-swindle-440116.html
The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming - a point that the film failed to mention

And btw, rate of increase is extremely relevant, surely. That's why it's urgent XXX superurgent we start to turn this Titanic around before we hit the flaming iceberg.

 

[2020hindsight]

And the spike 1998 was a bad El Niño year.
You cannot argue - as Andrew Bolt and co try to do - that it's been cooling since 1998.
Wait till the next El Niño.

 

[rederob]

Wow, thats confusing. Point is, rate of change is not relevant, as it too changes all the time

The rate of change is most relevant.
Climate change is inevitable, and moves from ice ages to warmer cycles and back again are likely without human interference.
Climate scientists can argue the toss about if it was warmer or colder 10 years or 20 years ago, but they can't dispute the quantum and rate of emission of greenhouse gases at present.
Disbelievers will need to show that greenhouse gases will, in the foreseeable future, cool our climate.
There is no science that supports this.