Climate change another name for Weather

[spooly74]

Gee Spooly, what do you want them to do ? m8,
When they say "let's act" it's laughable
When they say "let's accept some limitations on how much we can achieve" it's even funnier.

Nooo! When they say the science is clear .... it's laughable.
When they say that no new data will change their view .... it's criminal. They are admitting that their FLAWED current models are not only good enough, but perfect.
Don't you see that??


Defying Predictions, Sea Level Rise Begins to Slow
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13679&red=y#379264

Earth has warmed 0.4 C in 30 years
http://www.physorg.com/news148239677.html

Emerging Arctic Amplification
http://climatesci.org/2008/12/15/em...ation-by-mark-c-serreze-and-andrew-p-barrett/

 

[wayneL]

so you've managed to stop laughing at the science yet wayne?

My view has not changed a jot, but I just don't care anymore, nobody else does.

If Al Bore can have a limo, I'm having one too.

 

[2020hindsight]

... When they say that no new data will change their view .... it's criminal. They are admitting that their FLAWED current models are not only good enough, but perfect.
Don't you see that??

cmon
they didn't say that - sheesh
talk about misquoting and/or quoting out of context.

 

[spooly74]

Really?
Weather and climate are not matters of faith. They are matters of science. when the skeptics can model present trends to prove an alternative view, I will sit up and take notice.

And what may I ask are the IPCC proving atm?

 

[Sean K]

And what may I ask are the IPCC proving atm?

Back to 95 by the look.

And a H&S pattern occuring with the shoulders at -.1 ish, for quite a significant potential fall towards -.4 ish. Maybe a nice little ice age on the way.

 

[lcl999]

Gentlefolk, especially PeterAD and Basilio, please take care when referring to Lester Brown. To quote a highly respected environmental scientist “To any modern professional it is no news at all that Paul Ehrlich and Lester Brown have perennially exaggerated the problems” [Michael Grubb, Review: Relying on Manna from Heaven?, Science, New Series, Vol. 294, No. 5545 (Nov. 9, 2001), pp. 1285-1287]

 

[wayneL]

cmon
they didn't say that - sheesh
talk about misquoting and/or quoting out of context.

You would be about the last person with any right to whinge about misquoting.

 

[lcl999]

Gentlefolk, have a close look at the graph posted by 2020Hindsight titled "Global Annual Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly"

Note that in the period 1910 to 1940 the temperature rose by half a degree, the same as in the period 1970 to 2000. But from 1910 to 1940 greenhouse gas emissions by humans was a small fraction of that in the second period. A reasonable interpretation of the graph is that up to 1970 all variations were "natural", ie due to changes in sunlight or other non-human causes. After 1970, humans probably caused some of the increase.

Over past millenia, and even over periods as short as a few hundred years, the world temperature has varied substantially. It will continue to do so in the future whether we cut CO2 emissions or not. It is a cheaper option to learn to live with the changes and spend the money we save on curing diseases, war, ignorance etc.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Gentlefolk, have a close look at the graph posted by 2020Hindsight titled "Global Annual Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly"

Note that in the period 1910 to 1940 the temperature rose by half a degree, the same as in the period 1970 to 2000. But from 1910 to 1940 greenhouse gas emissions by humans was a small fraction of that in the second period. A reasonable interpretation of the graph is that up to 1970 all variations were "natural", ie due to changes in sunlight or other non-human causes. After 1970, humans probably caused some of the increase.

Over past millenia, and even over periods as short as a few hundred years, the world temperature has varied substantially. It will continue to do so in the future whether we cut CO2 emissions or not. It is a cheaper option to learn to live with the changes and spend the money we save on curing diseases, war, ignorance etc.

Just like the innability to look at celestial causes and the earth's rotation around the sun. Considering the sun does not cook the Earth from where we are now is a blessing. But at times the Earth will be slightly closer to the sun than at other times. Ice ages and hotter temperatures will result from this.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

If the so called high polluters, e.g. aluminium industry, wish to continue without change, as I understand it they can do this, simply buying carbon credits. Then if this renders their business non-viable in Australia, they say they will just move offshore where no such scheme is in place.
If this is correct, then I am mystified as to how any benefit will accrue to any global emissions situation.
If it's wrong, then I'd appreciate a detailed explanation from someone who knows how it all works (seems very few people can claim this at this stage) explaining how the proposed system is going to bring about whatever benefits are sought.

Keating's Banana Republic remark will be prophetic Julia. That's all that will come of this.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Nooo! When they say the science is clear .... it's laughable.
When they say that no new data will change their view .... it's criminal. They are admitting that their FLAWED current models are not only good enough, but perfect.
Don't you see that??


Defying Predictions, Sea Level Rise Begins to Slow
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13679&red=y#379264

Earth has warmed 0.4 C in 30 years
http://www.physorg.com/news148239677.html

Emerging Arctic Amplification
http://climatesci.org/2008/12/15/em...ation-by-mark-c-serreze-and-andrew-p-barrett/

Ands then there are these instances happening:

http://newsbusters.org/node/20680?q...e-used-fictional-film-clip-inconvenient-truth

I haven't seen the movie and I will not watch it either.

 

[Calliope]

Julia,

Mr Rudd is even more cunning than Mr Howard was. Not only has he given the flick to the "extreme enviromentalists" (his words, not mine), but he has managed to save face after reneging on his extravagant promises pre-election to make drastic cuts to emissions.

He gets away with another symbolic gesture (0.5% cut) with a promise to overcompensate the non-taxpayers for their inconvenience and again at the expense of the taxpayers.

At the same he is careful to not damage too much, those industries without which we would be a basket case. He will just squeeze enough out of them to make the non-taxpayers happy, and keep his popularity rating up.

 

[Calliope]

Yeah - I misspoke - The symbolic gesture was a 5% cut target.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Considering the sun does not cook the Earth from where we are now is a blessing.

I can think of a million sarcastic comments but I won`t.

 

[spooly74]

Blessed change in the climate

While most of the media has failed to take Rudd to task, the truth is that if the Rudd Government genuinely believed climate change to be the greatest moral threat facing humanity, and if it fully accepted the findings of the UN panel that laid down a minimum target cut of 25 per cent to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 to prevent catastrophic climate change, then we now would have bigger cuts. A true believer in those claims could do no less.

To a true believer, policy responses to a temporary global financial crisis could not compete with the sort of policies required to stem permanent, irrevocable damage caused by climate change.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24811095-7583,00.html

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

My view has not changed a jot, but I just don't care anymore, nobody else does.

If Al Bore can have a limo, I'm having one too.

This is the beginning and it should be the end of the argument.

Rich blokes like Bore have managed to keep the family wealth intact since the Pilgrim fathers on the back of dupes and hardworking folk, through agrarianism and industrialisation.

Now he is getting the basket weavers to knit his family's next fortune on unproven science.

Wake up.

Get a limo or a life.

gg

 

[rederob]

This is the beginning and it should be the end of the argument.

Rich blokes like Bore have managed to keep the family wealth intact since the Pilgrim fathers on the back of dupes and hardworking folk, through agrarianism and industrialisation.

Now he is getting the basket weavers to knit his family's next fortune on unproven science.

Wake up.

Get a limo or a life.

gg

You stand in a long line of fools that adopt a point of view based on a notion that has no substance, and then propagate it ad infinitum.
The science is proven, and continues to be backed by more and more observations that paint a bleak future on the climate front.
Pathetic journalists like Bolt will have us all believe that Australia is not getting any warmer because it recently got cooler - as it did this year. But with inherent neglect he will fail to mention that this is the 15 hottest year since records were kept.
Elsewhere, the WMO will be releasing detailed information on land ice melts that confirms the "amplication effect" is in full force. This effect occurs when the surface area of ice recedes and allows oceans to absorb solar radiation rather than reflect it. In essence it means that higher latitudes will experience warming more rapidly than lower latitudes.

I no longer wonder about the "evidence" that will be required to prove once and for all that the greenhouse model got it right. By then I expect it will be so late that only catastrophic changes to our liifestyles will make any difference at all, and then too slowly for us to enjoy our efforts.

 

[Julia]

Julia,

Mr Rudd is even more cunning than Mr Howard was. Not only has he given the flick to the "extreme enviromentalists" (his words, not mine), but he has managed to save face after reneging on his extravagant promises pre-election to make drastic cuts to emissions.

He gets away with another symbolic gesture (0.5% cut) with a promise to overcompensate the non-taxpayers for their inconvenience and again at the expense of the taxpayers.

At the same he is careful to not damage too much, those industries without which we would be a basket case. He will just squeeze enough out of them to make the non-taxpayers happy, and keep his popularity rating up.

Keating's Banana Republic remark will be prophetic Julia. That's all that will come of this.

So I'm not alone in wondering if I've missed something. What a huge farce.
I've been trying hard to be fair to Rudd & Co, swallowing as much as possible of my dislike and distrust, but this has to really take the cake in terms of being a non-policy designed to achieve nothing. I can't believe he will earn anything but scorn.

If he'd been transparent and said "well, folks, given the economic situation we just can't afford to undertake an emissions policy which will really make any difference. We need to look after business first because they are worth far more to us politically than those pesky greenies...." etc then at least we could have given him some brownie points for honesty.

 

[wayneL]

You stand in a long line of fools that adopt a point of view based on a notion that has no substance, and then propagate it ad infinitum.
The science is proven, and continues to be backed by more and more observations that paint a bleak future on the climate front.
Pathetic journalists like Bolt will have us all believe that Australia is not getting any warmer because it recently got cooler - as it did this year. But with inherent neglect he will fail to mention that this is the 15 hottest year since records were kept.
Elsewhere, the WMO will be releasing detailed information on land ice melts that confirms the "amplication effect" is in full force. This effect occurs when the surface area of ice recedes and allows oceans to absorb solar radiation rather than reflect it. In essence it means that higher latitudes will experience warming more rapidly than lower latitudes.

I no longer wonder about the "evidence" that will be required to prove once and for all that the greenhouse model got it right. By then I expect it will be so late that only catastrophic changes to our liifestyles will make any difference at all, and then too slowly for us to enjoy our efforts.

What a funny world we live in. You can believe in AGW and drive around in limos and live in big houses, maybe own a couple of Prius' for show, and that's kosher.

But say you have doubts and live the same way and you're a fool or Satan.

Rob, it is the believers that should be judged more harshly, but like any religion, only "others" are damned. The church members can steal and fornicate all they want (and burn fossil fuels), just so long as they say their Hail Marys (oe Hail Al.... or is it Heil Al).

How many tonnes of co2 are being expelled to expound BS in Poland?

When I see that fat bastard on a pushbike and living in a teepee, I might be convinced that these people are fair dinkum. They aren't.

I'd like to know what the big mouthed alarmists in this thread are doing to save the world.

As for me, I'm going to buy a limo huge enough to write "STOP GLOBAL WARMING" on the side in big letters. That way I won't be tut tutted at from the hypocrites in their X5s and Range Rovers.

BTW, I'm a member of the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust; we save furry and feathery critters, acquire land for them etc. Even they see through the BS. They are real scientists see.

 

[Smurf1976]

Smurf rightly raises the factor of "over-population". To which many might *cringe* and put their fingers in their ears. Well, China's current birth rate is between 1-2 per woman and the situation we find ourselves in is bad enough. Well, where do we think the planet would be right now if China had maintained it's 1969 birth rate level of 6 children per woman??!!

I'm being totally serious when I say that Australia's 21 million people is too many. NSW, Vic, SA and WA are pretty clearly struggling to sustain present populations as it is with only Qld, Tas and possibly NT being logical places for population growth. But even in those 3 states, the realistic potential for growth is likely to be less than the needed population reduction in the other states - Australia is over populated.

I'm looking solely at environmental and resource issues here and ignoring economic arguments about the benefits of population growth.

As for the "greed" argument, totally agreed there. We're not going to stop wrecking the environment unless and until we embrace a target for sustained negative GDP growth. That's the bottom line - if we fix CO2 then it will either be directly at the expense of something else or will simply enable us to carry on until some other limit is hit.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Examine the outcome of four decades of conservation versus development debates in Tasmania and you'll find quite simply that the outcome has always been a tradeoff. All that's really happened is a few less dams were built and a lot of woodchips produced as the economic alternative. A mill was stopped and oil-fuelled tourism (and thus CO2) ramped up as the alternative. Forests locked up so we had another go at hydro-industrialisation, albeit fuelled mostly by coal and gas this time around.

All we've done is change the location and nature of the impact - we're still harming the environment. If the conservation groups had never existed then in Tas we'd have quite a few more dams, about the same number of trees but in different places, more water pollution but less air pollution, and we'd be burning less coal, oil and gas. That's the net effect - impacts changed but not avoided.

That's a point well understood by conservationists themselves. It's a fact that they were the first ones to propose ramping up logging as a serious alternative back in the dams debate era. As they put it at the time, they saw it as better to keep half the rivers and half the trees than to end up with no rivers but still have nearly all the trees. That's roughly the outcome we ended up with so they pretty much got their way.

Same with most things environmental. There are environmental downsides to CFL's (energy saving lamps) just as there are benefits. There are downsides to catalytic converters on cars, mass tourism, wind power, solar, recycling and everything else "green". Just as there are benefits. To a large extent, we're just changing the nature of the impact rather than actually reducing it, the inevitable consequence of continuing to pursue constant growth on a finite planet.