This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Climate change another name for Weather

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to new
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
 
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/reference.shtml
"Climate" Stations in Aus :-
BOM = bureau opf meteorology = yet another pack of losers

 

Attachments

  • climate stations.jpg
    21.9 KB · Views: 94
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.
_____________________________________________________________

__________________
 
2020hindsight said:
yep, lol - the rate of increase per decade keeps changing
Click to expand...

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
 
Top post bas lol,
or as Wayne would say

LOLLLOOLLLLLLOOOLLOOLLL argh LOLLLOLLL
 
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)
 

Attachments

  • temp since JC.jpg
    28.6 KB · Views: 83
  • temp3.JPG
    37.9 KB · Views: 83
basilio said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

The Weekend Australian editorial,

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

 

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

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...o-global-warming-and-anomalous-winter-warmth/
 
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.
 
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
 
"Hello hello, yeah yeah yeah Bono" would most likely turn people off supporting GW measures as he is such a turd.
 
explod said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 
prawn] now they can say "see the climate is changing!" when really its always been changing [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=2020hindsight]yep said:
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
Click to expand...

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) :-


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.
 

Attachments

  • TEMP TO 2007b.JPG
    35.3 KB · Views: 73
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.
 

Attachments

  • GW graph 1998.jpg
    16.6 KB · Views: 66
prawn_86 said:
Wow, thats confusing. Point is, rate of change is not relevant, as it too changes all the time
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...