Climate change another name for Weather

Aussiejeff · 21 March 2009

Smurf1976 said:
Now, to Aussiejeff who mentioned water. Yep, that's what happens when you try and run any catchment or integrated (hydraulically or electrically) group of catchments at greater than 100% of firm supply capability.

Someday you wake up and the dams are empty, an outcome that was 99.99% certain with or without climate change and could be demonstrated years in advance by established modelling techniques (which, by the way, are very similar to how a trading system is back tested).

Solution? There are only two. Either drop consumption to not more than firm supply capability or increase firm supply capability (additional diversions or in some situations storage). They are the only two options that can work, the reasons being physical not political or financial.

Hi Smurf.

Unfortunately, the Authorities have promised irrigators "high security" water through sale of permits. The money appears more important than the water supply?

See page 5 graphs here, which show a pretty scary recent trend in MDB inflows. http://riverinfo.mdba.gov.au/weekly-report/current_wr.pdf

What do you predict will be the outcome if the same trend continues again over the approaching months - ie another dry winter? Will the MDB be screwed?

aj

basilio · 21 March 2009

Hi Smurf.

Unfortunately, the Authorities have promised irrigators "high security" water through sale of permits. The money appears more important than the water supply?

See page 5 graphs here, which show a pretty scary recent trend in MDB inflows. http://riverinfo.mdba.gov.au/weekly-...current_wr.pdf

What do you predict will be the outcome if the same trend continues again over the approaching months - ie another dry winter? Will the MDB be screwed?

Insufficient water, no MDB, = no viable towns in the region + large fall in amount of food production in Australia ie we (city people) start wondering how we are going to put food on the table.

What a shame we couldn't forsee this possibility over the last 5-10 years.....
______________________________________________

When the last river runs dry..........

(You all know the rest of the story)

Aussiejeff · 23 March 2009

Aussiejeff said:
That's right, folks. Only 6.4% left as of today!

Ummm.... make that 5.5% today

Only a paltry 169,688 ML left. At current average downdraw of approx. 8,300 ML/day, that leaves around 20 days to hit 0%, if no massive rain comes. The authorities have not started letting out Dartmouth reserve - yet.

TWENTY DAYS!!!

... and counting ...

It's Snake Pliskin · 23 March 2009

Smurf1976 said:
A few observations...
Gas and oil aren't here for the long term, the debate is about whether peak production is now or in a few years - nobody with any credibility expects that we'll have anything other than falling use of those resources in 2050. That the Garnaut report and most other modelling fails to take this rather critical point into account is a very serious flaw in their assumptions, to the point of making their entire CO2 emissions forecasts essentially useless in the real world.

Yes, and the fearmongerers spout off like teapots without a lid.

Good posts as always Smurf.

rederob · 23 March 2009

It's Snake Pliskin said:
Yes, and the fearmongerers spout off like teapots without a lid.

Good posts as always Smurf.

Actually it was a rather poor effort from Smurf. The contribution of coal to CO2 emissions far outstrips the decline from oil and gas over the next 50 years.
Not that unthinking skeptics would know to look at the facts.

ColB · 23 March 2009

Originally posted by Rederob

"Actually it was a rather poor effort from Smurf. The contribution of coal to CO2 emissions far outstrips the decline from oil and gas over the next 50 years.

Not that unthinking skeptics would know to look at the facts."

And whose facts would those be Red?

The ones from scientists that you want to believe in or the ones that Smurf believes in.

The Al Gores who make their living by spreading your climate change propaganda or the Coal Industry sponsored scientist.

Or the countless climate modelling studies that all generally contradict each other in some shape or form.

One thing is for sure though, climate is changing, has changed, and will always change just as it has done so over the past trillion years.

Is it because of us? We contribute to an extent. To what extent, who really knows.

All I know is, that Government propaganda on the one hand encourages us to cut our energy usage depicting black balloons emanating from all our appliances but sticking their other hand out to grab all the royalties and taxes that the coal and oil industry provides them so that they have enough money to ensure their superannuation portfolios aren't affected in these times.

Let's ban cows, they contribute a third of Australia's GHG emmissions with politicians probably running a close fourth

rederob · 23 March 2009

ColB said:
And whose facts would those be Red?

The ones from scientists that you want to believe in or the ones that Smurf believes in.

The Al Gores who make their living by spreading your climate change propaganda or the Coal Industry sponsored scientist.

Or the countless climate modelling studies that all generally contradict each other in some shape or form.

One thing is for sure though, climate is changing, has changed, and will always change just as it has done so over the past trillion years.

Is it because of us? We contribute to an extent. To what extent, who really knows.

All I know is, that Government propaganda on the one hand encourages us to cut our energy usage depicting black balloons emanating from all our appliances but sticking their other hand out to grab all the royalties and taxes that the coal and oil industry provides them so that they have enough money to ensure their superannuation portfolios aren't affected in these times.

Let's ban cows, they contribute a third of Australia's GHG emmissions with politicians probably running a close fourth

Many facts continue to be posted here.
The deniers ignore them constantly.
Just as your post adds nothing to the debate by way of supplementary information: Simply more of the tactics of denial.
What else can you put up that supports a contrary case?

ColB · 23 March 2009

Originally posted by Rederob

"Many facts continue to be posted here."

The following are all factual

Fact One: "The ones from scientists that you want to believe in or the ones that Smurf believes in."

Fact Two: The Al Gores who make their living by spreading your climate change propaganda or the Coal Industry sponsored scientist.

Fact Three: Or the countless climate modelling studies that all generally contradict each other in some shape or form.

Fact Four: One thing is for sure though, climate is changing, has changed, and will always change just as it has done so over the past trillion years.

Fact Five: Is it because of us? We contribute to an extent. To what extent, who really knows.

Fact Six: All I know is, that Government propaganda on the one hand encourages us to cut our energy usage depicting black balloons emanating from all our appliances but sticking their other hand out to grab all the royalties and taxes that the coal and oil industry provides them so that they have enough money to ensure their superannuation portfolios aren't affected in these times.

Fact Seven: Let's ban cows, they contribute a third of Australia's GHG emmissions

Originally posted by Rederob

"The deniers ignore them constantly."

Can't see anything in my post that would indicate I am a Climate Change denialist. In fact to the contrary if you read carefully. Think you have a problem with interpetation.

Originally posted by Rederob

"Just as your post adds nothing to the debate by way of supplementary information: Simply more of the tactics of denial."

Unless you happen to be some leading climate scientist I would suggest you, as are most of us, not qualified to interpret the data that any of these climate change scientists put out.

Originally posted by Rederob

What else can you put up that supports a contrary case?

A contrary Case! Whose case? Yours? Whose scientific case would you like me to post? One that you agree with because its suits your agenda or one that you disagree with yet you don't have the qualifications to dispute its findings anyway.

rederob · 23 March 2009

ColB said:
A contrary Case! Whose case? Yours? Whose scientific case would you like me to post? One that you agree with because its suits your agenda or one that you disagree with yet you don't have the qualifications to dispute its findings anyway.

If you don't know what my qualifications are you would be well placed to comment on what you do know.
Apart from that, is there anything new you want to contribute?
Your "facts" have already been done to death here.

It's Snake Pliskin · 24 March 2009

rederob said:
...is there anything new you want to contribute?

What do you see as the biggest cause of fictional GW? Is it gas, oil, coal etc..?

spooly74 · 24 March 2009

rederob said:
Increased CO2 emissions are key to climate predictions, but many other aspects/influences impact modeled outcomes.
The fact that the earth is hotter now than previously validates the long term trend that is shown in the many climate models.

The trend could simply be realised from coming out of the last little ice age. It in no way validates models future predictive powers. Like I said, getting the trend right while getting the temperature so wrong requires an explanation. Yet to see one.

While we might expect a warming in the next 5-8 years, some scientists speculate that we are entering a "Maunder Minimum" situation, a period of reduced irradiance that could last for decades. If this were to occur we would need at least another 7 years of CO2 increases to offset the decreased irradiance. More simply put, temperatures may not rise for another 10 years, and the IPCC conclusion are no less valid.

What scientists speculate that we're entering a Maunder Minimum, and have they put out a press release with climate warnings? The previous Maunder Minimum was bitterly cold leading to deaths, disease and famine.
And these freezing conditions will not invalidate the IPCC's projections?

You can't have it both ways.

Finally, our differences here began in relation to the Copenhagen Congress outcomes. Many of these were founded on the latest real world observations. These observations suggested the IPCC Climate models were underestimating the pace of climate change. Your posts only reinforce my points.

They most certainly do not.
Now, who's being mischievous?

The statement from that university get-together was 100% political.

rederob · 24 March 2009

spooly74 said:
They most certainly do not.

Yes they do!
You just can't see it.

cerberus · 24 March 2009

rederob said:
Yes they do!
You just can't see it.

ooh they can see it.but it could affect their short term bottom line and they can't have that.

spooly74 · 24 March 2009

rederob said:
Yes they do!
You just can't see it.

Again, based upon your premise "IPCC Climate models were underestimating the pace of climate change" and taking recent observations this Century.

Is a linear trend of 2C/century treated as a point estimate consistent with either Hadley or GISS during this period? No and no. If we interpret the IPCC statement of “about 2C/century” for the first two or three decades as being 2C/century and applying from 2001-2008, this lies outside the 95% confidence intervals of trends consistent with observations.

How many model means are rejected as inconsistent with the Hadley trend at a significance level of 5%? 8 That is to say 73% of these model means are inconsistent with the Hadley trend. All are inconsistent on the high side.

How many model means are rejected as inconsistent with the GISTemp trend at a significance level of 5%? 4. That’s 36% of model means. All are inconsistent on the high side.

Is the multi-model trend inconsistent with the either Hadley or GISS observations at a significance level of 5%? The model mean trend is inconsistent with observations. The multi-model mean trend is different from the observed trend, and the difference is consistent to the 95% confidence level. This diagnosis applies for both HadCrut and GISSTemp.

rederob · 24 March 2009

spooly74 said:
Again, based upon you're premise "IPCC Climate models were underestimating the pace of climate change" and taking recent observations this Century.

Which of your posts shows the earth in a long term cooling phase?
Which of your posts shows a decrease in sea levels?
Which model contradicted the scientific principle of radiative forcings?
What!
None.
How can that be?

spooly74 · 24 March 2009

What a ridiculous straw man.

Which of your posts shows the earth in a long term cooling phase?When did I attempt to show that the earth is in a long term coolin trend?

Which of your posts shows a decrease in sea levels?Where did I mention sea levels, which btw have been steadily risisng at ~ 3mm per year -There's been no acceleration in recent observations in sea level, again, refer to your premise.

Which model contradicted the scientific principle of radiative forcings?Does such a model even exist?

It's Snake Pliskin · 24 March 2009

The trend could simply be realised from coming out of the last little ice age. It in no way validates models future predictive powers. Like I said, getting the trend right while getting the temperature so wrong requires an explanation. Yet to see one.

Yes, interesting Spooly.

Little ice ages, warm periods etc. The Earth lives aided by the Sun.

ColB · 24 March 2009

Originally Posted by Rederob

"If you don't know what my qualifications are you would be well placed to comment on what you do know."

You seem to be the one putting yourself up as an authority on climate change science. It should be you who states your qualifications in order to add some shred of credibility to your arguments. If not, how about posting your source reference when you spread your gospel so then we'll know if your information actually comes from a source or is just hot air.

I'm a qualified horticulturalist and I don't know a great deal about the science of climate change and I don't PRETEND to.

Originally posted by Spooly

What a ridiculous straw man.

Which of your posts shows the earth in a long term cooling phase? When did I attempt to show that the earth is in a long term coolin trend?

Which of your posts shows a decrease in sea levels? Where did I mention sea levels, which btw have been steadily risisng at ~ 3mm per year -There's been no acceleration in recent observations in sea level, again, refer to your premise.

Which model contradicted the scientific principle of radiative forcings? Does such a model even exist?

I think I mentioned something along the lines of your difficulty in interpreting peoples posts. You seem to reinforce this belief in your response to Spooly with statements that never related to his original post. Read peoples articles first before your respond and maybe you won't be called a Straw Man.

rederob · 24 March 2009

spooly74 said:
What a ridiculous straw man......
Which of your posts shows a decrease in sea levels?Where did I mention sea levels, which btw have been steadily risisng at ~ 3mm per year -There's been no acceleration in recent observations in sea level, again, refer to your premise.

When you asked about the findings from the Copenhagen congress I posted how on the pace of sea level rises was greater than the IPCC had modelled. This should have formed the foundation of your responses.
And now you say, "Where did I mention sea levels".
Little wonder it's hard to get a decent debate underway here.

spooly74 · 24 March 2009

rederob said:
When you asked about the findings from the Copenhagen congress I posted how on the pace of sea level rises was greater than the IPCC had modelled. This should have formed the foundation of your responses.
And now you say, "Where did I mention sea levels".

pfft!

Sea level rise determines temperature, does it?

The first IPCC model totally exaggerated current observed sea levels. Fact.

The last report has deferred from making short term predictions on sea level rise due to overwhelming uncertainty. But, the models are currently below current observed levels. This is not recent observations, as you're (or congress, lol) suggesting.

On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L01602, doi:10.1029/2006GL028492, 2007

S. J. Holgate Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Liverpool, UK

Abstract
Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003.

These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously.

Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual.

The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003).

The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.

Little wonder it's hard to get a decent debate underway here.

What's the rush :

Climate change another name for Weather

punter

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency