Climate change another name for Weather

[rederob]

Like the warmer's reputation is?

C'mon Red, they haven't got anything right with their model and ignore and cherry-pick to an extent that disqualifies it as science altogether, never mind junk science.

The video, scores some major punches in highlighting the true role of IPCC as a political lobby group, the ultimate agenda for which is not fully known, but can only be sinister.

I remain fully satisfied, without a skerick (sic) of doubt, that the IPCC model is utter nonsense and anthropogenic factors in macro climate change completely overblown.

Scientific models are indicative, not perfect replications of past or future events. I haven't yet read anything credible from a skeptic that debunks the science of forcing: They instead obscure the issue, or side-track it with their junk science.
In the cherry picking stakes the skeptics rule supreme. Their masters are as dim witted as Gore in pandering to a general public that can be conned, bamboozled, and inculcated with the novelty of a newfound religious zeal.
In the lobby group stakes I agree that the IPCC has a significant role in representing the majority of world scientists that favour AGM. The skeptics instead hide their true affiliations with major commercial vested interests under various cloaks of supposed credibility; adopting names that suggest the very opposite of what they are.
As I repeat, this same game was played out with CFCs.
And which scientist spearheaded the notion that CFCs were not a problem? Dr. S. Fred Singer, of course, whos de facto home page is the Science and Environmental Policy Project. The same man who apologised for misleading (2005) the likes of David Bellamy into believing that most of the world's glaciers were expanding rathe than contracting. His apology blamed an associate - Candace Crandall - who he seemed to forget was his wife!
Anyone for pillowtalk?

 

[wayneL]

This argument's like a circle;
Sunrise and sundown;
Moon rolls thru the nighttime;
Till the daybreak comes around.

This argument's like a circle;
But I can't tell you why;
Season's spinning round again;
The years keep rollin' by.

It seems like it's all been said before;
I can't remember when;
But I have this funny feeling;
That we'll all be saying it again.
No straight lines make up my life;
And all my roads have bends;
There's no clear-cut beginnings;
And so far no dead-ends.

-with apologies to Harry Chapin

 

[2020hindsight]

... And which scientist spearheaded the notion that CFCs were not a problem? Dr. S. Fred Singer, of course, whos de facto home page is the Science and Environmental Policy Project.

lol
or posting on "capitalism magazine"
and claiming IPCC etc are driven by financial greed

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=212

Global Warming: Fact and Myth
by Fred Singer (December 25, 1998)
... multimillion-dollar propaganda campaigns are underway by environmental activists, generously financed by compliant foundations and by government grants

The man should be on murder charges for preaching that cigarettes did not lead to lung cancer - in the pay of the cig companies (when he and the cig companies had evidence to the contrary).

 

[Smurf1976]

... and if we clean up our act here, we will directly help a stack of other polluting trends man is responsible for. (plus deforestation, removal of habitat etc)

I've followed both sides until now but that one's lost me. How on earth did you come to that conclusion?

By their very nature, non-fossil / nuclear energy sources are less dense and thus involve a far greater volume of physical resources and consequent impact on the environment.

The reason we started using coal and oil in the first place was largely due to the huge impact the non-fossil alternatives were having on the trees, whales and so on.

And even with the CO2 issue, the mainstream environment movement is still largely about opposing anything other than oil and gas. Try and build a gas-fired power station and even the Greens help rush it through with no environmental assessments and so on. Try using any renewable source and there's a lot more opposition.

Personally I would rather some more of the non-CO2 impacts and less fossil fuel use but even I would draw the line well short of damming, wind farming and logging the whole lot. Otherwise we'll end up with no rivers only lakes, no big birds other than in the museum and no native forests just monoculture plantations.

All that would help a lot with the CO2 and it represents exactly what we'll likely try and do (viable renewable energy at this time being mostly wood, hydro and wind) but it's not going to help the planet in any other way.

 

[rederob]

This argument's like a circle;

Yes
You and your ilk can't substantiate a thing.
The theory that you say it often enough so must be true is well rehearsed.
Your put up a video, a report or a link or an article; it's full of holes, but that's ok coz there are plenty more the same, just different.
Garpal seems blind drunk to peripheral populations that are already suffering the small scale impacts of warming due to sea rises (like Bangladesh), or the massive cost the Dutch are facing to preserve their nation.
A few others chip in with irrelevances.
So long as you are comfortable with your beliefs, that seems fine.
And we can't change anything anyway.
So let's do nothing and not worry about anything else, ok?

 

[2020hindsight]

1. I've followed both sides until now but that one's lost me. How on earth did you come to that conclusion?

2. By their very nature, non-fossil / nuclear energy sources are less dense and thus involve a far greater volume of physical resources and consequent impact on the environment.

3. The reason we started using coal and oil in the first place was largely due to the huge impact the non-fossil alternatives were having on the trees, whales and so on.

4. And even with the CO2 issue, the mainstream environment movement is still largely about opposing anything other than oil and gas. Try and build a gas-fired power station and even the Greens help rush it through with no environmental assessments and so on. Try using any renewable source and there's a lot more opposition.

5. Personally I would rather some more of the non-CO2 impacts and less fossil fuel use but even I would draw the line well short of damming, wind farming and logging the whole lot. Otherwise we'll end up with no rivers only lakes, no big birds other than in the museum and no native forests just monoculture plantations.

6. All that would help a lot with the CO2 and it represents exactly what we'll likely try and do (viable renewable energy at this time being mostly wood, hydro and wind) but it's not going to help the planet in any other way.

smurf
you haven't heard of paying third world countries for leaving forest standing etc?
maybe one of the options is your hydro?
as for CO2 emissions per capita, France is one third of ours - for the obvious reason that it's 75% nuclear. (Australia 25.6 T, France 8.8 T of CO2e per capita in 2000)

Quote I heard on ABC a few years back :-
"Compared to the many negative effects of Global Warming, Chernyobel will be like a walk in the park"

And as for the underwater (coral) environment - major damage in store (due temp) -
and how dare we suggest to small Pacific islands (where mildly saline water is a luxury) that we aren't prepared to try.(i.e. to combat rising sea levels)

PS point 5. Obviously no need to go to that degree with damming, wind farms etc.

PS To be honest I even had a bit of a rethink about solar power when NASA's Mars Explorer ran out of power due to wind/dust etc.

Most of those renewable options are toys. If we want current lifestyle and its power requirements, no choice but nuclear in the long term if not in the medium. (imo)

 

[2020hindsight]

PS Of course with more development - and encouragement for inventors rather than forcing them offshore - to California etc, - steering them to be more inventive by the monetary incentives that a carbon penalty would bring - we might make solar / tide / geothermal (etc) much more viable, who nose?

 

[spooly74]

... and not a bloody word on the other real and more imminent environmental problems we face, some of which are mentioned on this thread (bees, north pacific rubbish tip etc).

Yes, we need urgent action, but focused elsewhere, with the ultimate by-product of reduced CO2 emissions.

:topic ?

Came across an excellent talk on the disappearing bees. 16min
Alarming stuff.

Where have the bees gone?
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/dennis_vanengelsdorp_a_plea_for_bees.html

 

[2020hindsight]

spooly
there was a thread on this 18 months ago...
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7238

100million bees disappear from Taiwan - Hawaii going the same way
"When I saw that mite ( on a bee in Hawaii) I knew exactly what it meant, and I fell to my knees and wept"

Vanishing Bees - Voice of America

Bees dying in Germany Now

come of the jargon :-
CCD Colony Collapse Disorder
poor nutrition, drought, pesticide, verona mites
(and from the talk you posted :- ) NDD Nature Deficit Disorder = make meadows not lawn. = throw away the mower

 

[Smurf1976]

PS To be honest I even had a bit of a rethink about solar power when NASA's Mars Explorer ran out of power due to wind/dust etc.

Most of those renewable options are toys. If we want current lifestyle and its power requirements, no choice but nuclear in the long term if not in the medium. (imo)

I think scale is the thing most people really don't get.

I once had a discussion with someone about water that went something like this. Whilst the topic was urban water supply, the point that people just don't comprehend the scale of energy / water industries stands.

Conversation went something like this:

Them: It's disgusting. People watering their lawns have managed to drain the council's tank, which holds 1 million litres, in a matter of days.

Me: Yes, that's a problem. We need to get the pumps working and fill the tank up again as soon as possible.

Them: Are you crazy? We just can't keep wasting water like that. It's going to run out you know if we keep watering lawns.

Me: You do realise that we're just re-using water released by the Hydro and they'll keep releasing it as long as we keep using power?

Them: Yeah maybe. But it's such a waste to be watering the lawn.

Me: Look, it's like this. Sprinkler uses 1000 litres an hour at most. You run it for, what, 2 hours a day for 100 days a year. I think that would be about the limit of what you could reasonably use on a suburban block without flooding the place. Simple math here, that's two hundered thousand litres a year whereas the Hydro's letting out 15 million.

Them: 15 million let out and you're saying use 200,000 in one garden? No wonder things are bad if that's your logic. Do the maths!

Me: No, no, no. You don't understand. That's 15 million litres a year just to run one house, not the whole state. And that's assuming the house has a wood fire for heating.

Them: Stunned silence.

One average house. 15 million litres of water a year. Most people just can't comprehend those sort of numbers. It's even worse when you try and explain that total system throughput is 42 trillion litres with 16 trillion litres actual discharge every year. Most can't even write those numbers down properly let alone come to terms with them.

OK, that example only applies in Tasmania but it's the same with coal. Take someone to the Latrobe Valley (Vic) and they can see some huge holes in the ground. Try and explain that we're burning 165,000 tonnes of the stuff not every year but every day and they struggle to come to terms with that. It's just too big a number for most.

This misunderstanding of scale is what leads people to think that a solar panel here and a miniature wind turbine there are going to fix everything. If only it was that simple.

All I'm really calling for in all my posts here is a sober look at reality. All these PV panels, LED lights and so on are all well and good and are a useful thing in themselves. But they're nowhere near being a silver bullet that fixes the energy problem.

Yes I could power my house with some PV panels. But what about the energy to build houses with in the first place? Or grow my food? Or make the metals that I use? Or run cars and aeroplanes? Or build the roads? Or...

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

The sun came up in the East today.

I saw it but was pretty pist.

It was about 4.54 maybe a bit later.

I slept most of the day.

The sun set

Life is good and it is now raining.

The smells of the garden are wafting in , ginger especially.

Isn't life good.

Happy Christmas to all of the Church of Climatology.

Peace be with your short term graphs.

gg

 

[2020hindsight]

That's 15 million litres a year just to run one house, not the whole state. And that's assuming the house has a wood fire for heating.
...
One average house. 15 million litres of water a year. Most people just can't comprehend those sort of numbers. It's even worse when you try and explain that total system throughput is 42 trillion litres with 16 trillion litres actual discharge every year.

so one Syndey Harbour = 500 GL = 33 houses for 1 year. (call it one street).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Jackson

throughput = 42,000GL ; presumably recycled a couple of times if only 16,000 GL discharge?

say, smurf - in droughts, presumably you discharge less / almost none - even if throughput is constant ?

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

The sun came up in the East today.

I saw it but was pretty pist.

It was about 4.54 maybe a bit later.

I slept most of the day.

The sun set

Life is good and it is now raining.

The smells of the garden are wafting in , ginger especially.

Isn't life good.

Happy Christmas to all of the Church of Climatology.

Peace be with your short term graphs.

gg

Thanks for the weather commentary. Good to see the weather is still normal as has been.

Yes the short term thinking of the big scheme of things. GG it is very cold in Japan at the moment. No warming here at the moment. With a pleasant start to the month it is very cold now.

Where is the direct evidence that warming of the globe is caused by humans?

Coincidental information? Symptoms are not fact for the cause. Perfect and imperfect theories are for numbskulls in a box world.

Everything is fractal in nature and just like the markets so is WEATHER. It is all natural and people do not want to be taxed by communist goverments that got their weird theories when they grew up in the 60's and 70's at university inspired by chaos and left bent ideologies.

What is the church of scientology's stance on the topic? Anyone know?

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

so one Syndey Harbour = 500 GL = 33 houses for 1 year. (call it one street).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Jackson

throughput = 42,000GL ; presumably recycled a couple of times if only 16,000 GL discharge?

say, smurf - in droughts, presumably you discharge less / almost none - even if throughput is constant ?

PS incidentally, we supplied a few nicnacs for Catagunya recently

Once in transit between Australi many years ago and the UK I developed the trots.

Fortunately I was travelling First Class.

As I contemplated my humanty an Indian dunny inspector poked his head around the cubicle and proferred a new roll of toilet paper.

He uttered some words which I have never forgot and which may apply to you 2020

"You are very Anal, Sir"

gg

 

[wayneL]

Yes
You and your ilk can't substantiate a thing.
The theory that you say it often enough so must be true is well rehearsed.
Your put up a video, a report or a link or an article; it's full of holes, but that's ok coz there are plenty more the same, just different.
Garpal seems blind drunk to peripheral populations that are already suffering the small scale impacts of warming due to sea rises (like Bangladesh), or the massive cost the Dutch are facing to preserve their nation.
A few others chip in with irrelevances.
So long as you are comfortable with your beliefs, that seems fine.
And we can't change anything anyway.
So let's do nothing and not worry about anything else, ok?

nonsense nonsense nonsense

:sleeping:

This is getting way past boring and ridiculous. You accuse the optimists of what the pessimists are absolutely guilty of. It's like arguing with a religious nutter... fun for a while, but fruitless.

I think I'll just leave you you your religion.

Cheers

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Thanks for your response.

Wayne stuck up pictures of Arctic sea ice a while ago, showing there was no problem as there was more this year.
2007 was the record low point for Arctic sea ice, and it's getting thinner and not lasting as long as normal.

Do you have a source for your comments on this?

As a barometer of climate, sea ice is not as good an indicator as land ice.
A very simple reason is because we have different trends at each polar region.

What does this really mean? Could you ellaborate please?

Sea ice does not "control" climate. It does have an impact; and that's largely to reflect the sun's rays.

Which helps cool the environment. Perhaps it is a natural defence of warming and it is complicit in helping ice ages.

Arctic sea ice is on a sure course to melt completely during the summer months: And we are talking within the next decade or two.

Any source for this? I am amused at the prediction of this as prediction is rarely correct.

The main point to remember there is no direct link to man made global warming. Just symptoms of what is yet perfectly unable to be explained.

 

[rederob]

The main point to remember there is no direct link to man made global warming. Just symptoms of what is yet perfectly unable to be explained.

Snake
If you did a little bit of reading you would find numerous links to every matter I have described. I believe you know how to "google". Show how wrong I am from your searches and we can debate it.
I note that the skeptics have not at all looked at the chlorofluorocarbon science that led to a hole in the ozone layer.
That unwillingness is symptomatic of the quoted remark above.
Show that the CFC science is/was wrong, that man had no role (it's just "weather), and that CFC manufactures acted responsibly.

 

[rederob]

This is getting way past boring and ridiculous. You accuse the optimists of what the pessimists are absolutely guilty of. It's like arguing with a religious nutter... fun for a while, but fruitless.

I'm interested in you being able to follow through on a line of argument, not on what others are doing.
So far there is no evidence that you understand what you are trotting out.
You certainly are placing a lot of credibility on totally discredited information passing itself off as "science".
Your position on modelling appears to be based statistical on models of probability, where randomness or chaos are the phenomena of concern: Not on the scientific method of model development to prove/disprove eventualities or arrive at principles and laws governing observable events.
And every time it gets too hard you get totally dismissive.

The zealots, like 2020, want to swamp you with so much information it just washes over and washes out.
I'm more interested in knowing why you believe what you do. If you think you are right, you should be able to base that view on much more than a "belief".
Having seen all this before, and seeing the usual suspects again lining up with the same ploys, it gets easy to work out what is really on and why.

Of course you are too smart to get sucked in. But not smart enough to prove you haven't been.

I hope you don't return to this thread and waste more of your valuable time - and ours, with more junk science, irrelevances, and dismissive statements.

 

[wayneL]

I'm interested in you being able to follow through on a line of argument, not on what others are doing.
So far there is no evidence that you understand what you are trotting out.
You certainly are placing a lot of credibility on totally discredited information passing itself off as "science".
Your position on modelling appears to be based statistical on models of probability, where randomness or chaos are the phenomena of concern: Not on the scientific method of model development to prove/disprove eventualities or arrive at principles and laws governing observable events.
And every time it gets too hard you get totally dismissive.

The zealots, like 2020, want to swamp you with so much information it just washes over and washes out.
I'm more interested in knowing why you believe what you do. If you think you are right, you should be able to base that view on much more than a "belief".
Having seen all this before, and seeing the usual suspects again lining up with the same ploys, it gets easy to work out what is really on and why.

Of course you are too smart to get sucked in. But not smart enough to prove you haven't been.

I hope you don't return to this thread and waste more of your valuable time - and ours, with more junk science, irrelevances, and dismissive statements.

Rob,

I can only respond with dismissiveness, because that the above post deserves. Ironically, this is the exact tactic you use whenever I post links to relevant science, so there is no real point in continuing with the discussion.

For science, I defer to the scientists and use my common sense to determine what is political propaganda, lies, cherry picking and what are reasonable hypotheses.

I don't consider, based on reading both side's positions, that the AGW hypothesis is reasonable, because it is so easily refuted, if the protagonists allow it (which is not very bloody often); it's a one sided story.

Add to that the utter and complete failure of the pro-warmer's model to predict climate, and the non-warmers relative success in ascribing non CO2 factors to climate trends, and the optimists win hands down.

Perhaps the greatest factor is my well founded suspicion that the pro-warmers have a sinister political agenda, or at least that politicians are funding and using warming zealots for said agenda. This is partly evidenced by the particular tactic of attacking the credibility of dissenters using political means, rather than scientific means, exactly as you have done in the above , and other posts.

This is a particularly low strategy which I for one will no longer abide. Discussion over for me.

Cheers

 

[rederob]

Science 3 December 1999:
Vol. 286. no. 5446, pp. 1934 - 1937
DOI: 10.1126/science.286.5446.1934

Global Warming and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent
Konstantin Y. Vinnikov, 1* Alan Robock, 2 Ronald J. Stouffer, 3 John E. Walsh, 4 Claire L. Parkinson, 5 Donald J. Cavalieri, 5 John F. B. Mitchell, 6 Donald Garrett, 7 Victor F. Zakharov 8

Surface and satellite-based observations show a decrease in Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent during the past 46 years. A comparison of these trends to control and transient integrations (forced by observed greenhouse gases and tropospheric sulfate aerosols) from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory and Hadley Centre climate models reveals that the observed decrease in Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent agrees with the transient simulations, and both trends are much larger than would be expected from natural climate variations. From long-term control runs of climate models, it was found that the probability of the observed trends resulting from natural climate variability, assuming that the models' natural variability is similar to that found in nature, is less than 2 percent for the 1978-98 sea ice trends and less than 0.1 percent for the 1953-98 sea ice trends. Both models used here project continued decreases in sea ice thickness and extent throughout the next century.

Snake
Note the above is over 9 years old: The trend has accelerated since. Garpal might note that the models indicated a trend, and it has remained as they showed it.
Unlike dyed in the wool skeptics, there are genuine scientists that have moved from their "conservative" positions on AGW to a more open view based on data and observations. You might not have an hour to spare but Mark Serreze gave a detailed presentation a year ago on Arctic sea ice. Click on http://www.agu.org/webcast/fm07/ and scroll to C24A Nye Lecture. This answers most of Snake's questions, and more. To cut the video shorter you can quickly link to the graphic which show that the pace of Arctic warming has outstripped all models.