Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Climate change another name for Weather

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to new
can anyone direct me to a long range weather forecaster...apparently on current affairs last night...predicting good rains for australia in Sep and then again at xmas...think he was a kiwi....waster an hour or so looking for something about him
 
Could this be the chap on TV? Long-range forecasts. From NZ. You wont believe how he does it. Good luck.

Predict Weather
 

Attachments

  • Temp.JPG
    Temp.JPG
    47.9 KB · Views: 133
Buckeroo said:
Ditto

When I hear him speak, have to admit, I do get the urge to go out & melt some ice just to smite him!!

Cheers
Click to expand...

Yes Al Gore appears a much diminished figure, refusing to argue the point with his detractors.

He is a victim of his patrician upbringing, unconvincing, realising that his arguments are unconvincing yet unable to leave the stage.

He didn't appear to be very happy to be in Australia. Perhaps too many Weatherers for his liking.

He wouldn't even give Sen.Steve Fielding the time of day. How insulting for a visitor to ignore a Senator of the Australian parliament.

gg
 
rederob said:
I am careful in what I say.
A 30 year trend of increasing (albeit not statistically significant) sea ice extent remains in place, and is corroborated by the below table:
Click to expand...

Rob - would have replied earlier , but seem to have fallen asleep there.

These aussie-funded scientists conclude that the antarctic ice has retreated about 170km since the mid 1900's. - the graph is a series of scallops.

(I believe I made reference to the same result in a post in late Dec, early Jan - not important.

For the graph you'll have to look at the pdf.

PS I note you agree that that graph of yours ( about 11 Jan from memory) was "not statistically significant"
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=384651&highlight=significant#post384651

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=1950+antarctic+curran&meta=
 

Attachments

  • antarctica map.jpg
    antarctica map.jpg
    52.1 KB · Views: 110
  • AntarcticSeaIceDecline.pdf
    177.2 KB · Views: 122
2020hindsight said:
Rob - would have replied earlier , but seem to have fallen asleep there.

These aussie-funded scientists conclude that the antarctic ice has retreated about 170km since the mid 1900's. - the graph is a series of scallops.

(I believe I made reference to the same result in a post in late Dec, early Jan - not important.

For the graph you'll have to look at the pdf.

PS I note you agree that that graph of yours ( about 11 Jan from memory) was "not statistically significant"
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=384651&highlight=significant#post384651

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=1950+antarctic+curran&meta=
Click to expand...

2020 I'm going to be pleasant to you seeing as you're back and you make good points.

Most of us weatherers are as much in to having as little pollution as possible, clean food, a good life, clean beer, shopping trolleys that have wheels that work, etc. as you Warmeners.

The difference is that we are not catastrophists.

We believe your science to be a religion and not open to argument.

Now thats the end of nice.

gg
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
Most of us weatherers are as much in to having as little pollution as possible, clean food, a good life, clean beer, shopping trolleys that have wheels that work, etc. as you Warmeners.

The difference is that we are not catastrophists.

We believe your science to be a religion and not open to argument.
Click to expand...

Exactly!
 
thanks for the links re weather forecasters.....been to both before my request...and could not find any free stuff....or really any useful information..unless I was prepared to pay a fee...

every day, newspapers show the rainfall for every suburb in australia...for that day...
yet that information is not kept or available free on the net....
spent an hour or more of wasted time.....came up with average rain for the area...up to 1999...10 years ago...
then today the ABS site has charts of rainfall in the past...but it is very broad...for eg it covers the whole state of NSW....when in fact the central district has experienced severe drought for the past 15 or more years....but the coast has had near average rainfalls....
huge difference between the coast and the inland areas....
and the data is old...back to 04 etc....
I think I did post here not so long ago...the rainfall had increased past 3 months to above average records.....(average going back some 10 years)
and there has been constant rain for the past 2 weeks...maybe only 3-4 mils a day....
how on earth am I to estimate the size of the water tank required...when something as simple as the recent rainfall (past 3 years say) for that area is not readily available....
one needs an accredited person to view your home...if you want to access the green loan.....I wonder if those people will have accurate rainfall charts for the area....to help decide the size of the water tank required....

on another note.....Al Gore is being paid for his appearances to sell the climate change con job.....amost all involved stand to gain significant wealth if they can get the con job passed....hence steers clear of any questions
 
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25783305-7583,00.html

The Nobel laureate in economics Paul Krugman goes further. After the narrow passage of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill in the US House of Representatives, Krugman said that there was no justification for a vote against it. He called virtually all of the members who voted against it "climate deniers" who were committing "treason against the planet".

Krugman said that the "irresponsibility and immorality" of the representatives' democratic viewpoints were "unforgivable" and a "betrayal". He thus accused almost half of the democratically elected members of the house, from both parties, of treason for holding the views that they do, thereby essentially negating democracy.
Click to expand...
Even if every Kyoto-obligated country passed its own, duplicate Waxman-Markey bills -- which is implausible and would incur significantly higher costs -- the global reduction would amount to just 0.22C by the end of this century. The reduction in global temperature would not be measurable in 100 years, yet the cost would be significant and payable now.

Is it really treason against the planet to express some scepticism about whether this is the right way forward? Is it treason to question throwing huge sums of money at a policy that will do virtually no good in 100 years? Is it unreasonable to point out that the inevitable creation of trade barriers that will ensue from Waxman-Markey could eventually cost the world 10 times more than the damage climate change could ever have wrought?
Click to expand...
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
Yes Al Gore appears a much diminished figure, refusing to argue the point with his detractors.

He is a victim of his patrician upbringing, unconvincing, realising that his arguments are unconvincing yet unable to leave the stage.

He didn't appear to be very happy to be in Australia. Perhaps too many Weatherers for his liking.

He wouldn't even give Sen.Steve Fielding the time of day. How insulting for a visitor to ignore a Senator of the Australian parliament.

gg
Click to expand...


i agree

one moment with fielding and answering the one question on how the carbon dioxide is increasing, yet the temperature is not, remains unanswered

not that al gore knows the answer, he only follows the same well rehearsed script.

i love the term "inconvenient truth".. its one thing these fantasist environmentalists speak. the truth is inconvenient so its left out..

the truth is the earth has always been in a global warming phase..

the mini ice age we are just leaving is one that was always going to happen.
 
Agentm said:
i agree

one moment with fielding and answering the one question on how the carbon dioxide is increasing, yet the temperature is not, remains unanswered

not that al gore knows the answer, he only follows the same well rehearsed script.

i love the term "inconvenient truth".. its one thing these fantasist environmentalists speak. the truth is inconvenient so its left out..

the truth is the earth has always been in a global warming phase..

the mini ice age we are just leaving is one that was always going to happen.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Up until now I havn't really contributed to this thread but I am now prompted to by that pompous twitish bore, er, gore, to say something. So here goes........

Paleochannels!
Gore blimey mate, havn't you ever heard of paleochannels. Ignorant gore, er, bore.

I remember going to a lecture on paleochannels a number of years ago. In fact, here is a paper on it if any of you are interested in getting gored, er, bored.

http://www.newcastle.edu.au/service/archives/coalriver/pdf/3282_001.pdf

The jist of it is that study of paleochannels leads to a determination of previous sea water levels. We are currently nearing a long term cyclical high in ocean levels. The next long term trend will be a lowering of sea levels. Notwithstanding cataclysmic techtonic plate movement which could cause thing to go up, down, sideways,etc...... you know....events of biblical proportions. Which by the way, will eventually happen as the continent Pangea is reformed. Another (say) 10m increase in sea level would be nothing out of the ordinary from a long term trend perspective.

So, what goes up comes down, and vice versa. Sea level WILL rise further, and nothing Ms Wong says or does will make a scrap of difference. So, that's probably not so good for the real estate industry. But, on the other hand, sea levels will then fall and think of what that means to the real estate industry.... all that new land to flog. And, you will be able to drive from Melbourne to Hobart (one really wants to do that?), or Dover to Calais instead of catching the ferry.

You just need to wait for anything between 10,00 - 100,000 years. Give or take a bit. And dont forget to take your winter woolies because it's gonna get a bit chilly. :)
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
The difference is that we are not catastrophists.

We believe your science to be a religion and not open to argument.
Click to expand...
Now that's hit the nail on the head. It's become a religion that's for sure.

But not to worry, only this afternoon I heard some 20-something man proclaiming that "nuclear is not the answer". But not to worry he assured me, we're alright here in Tassie because hydro is a clean energy source.

Now whilst I agree that 0.02kg of CO2 per kWh is about the cleanest you'll get anywhere as far as power generation is concerned, if only he knew history! If he was 25 years older then he'd probably have spent some time in inflatable yellow boats and/or tied to the few bulldozers that managed to escape the late night addition of valve grinding paste to their engine oil down in the south-west of Tas back in the early 80's.

These people just seem to adopt whatever is the current cause and put their efforts into championing it. Science, logic and rational thought always has been avoided in the environmental debate. :2twocents

Edit: Seems I'm doing my bit though as I'm suddenly sitting in the dark. Better go and investigate...
 
Smurf1976 said:
Edit: Seems I'm doing my bit though as I'm suddenly sitting in the dark. Better go and investigate...
Click to expand...
Seems that the 160W MV lamp has decided it's had enough. Not to worry though, I'll bring the home office into the 21st Century with one of those fancy 48W compact fluro's and save a bit of CO2 in the process. :)
 
Smurf1976 said:
But not to worry, only this afternoon I heard some 20-something man proclaiming that "nuclear is not the answer". But not to worry he assured me, we're alright here in Tassie because hydro is a clean energy source.
Click to expand...

A lot of otherwise rational people are saying that nuclear is the answer. The answer to what? They are assuming we have a problem. But if we do, what is causing the problem? They are playing into the hands of the catastrophists who say high CO2 emissions are dooming the planet. A highly improbable theory.

The ones who stand to gain are the latter day Marxists, (the Gores, the Rudds and the Obamas) who have latched on GW as a rationale for turning the worlds economy on it's head.

To succeed they first have to scare te beejesus out of us. And as they are not getting any hard questioning from the media they are succeeding.
 
Calliope said:
The ones who stand to gain are the latter day Marxists, (the Gores, the Rudds and the Obamas) who have latched on GW as a rationale for turning the worlds economy on it's head.
Click to expand...

I thought the capitalists just did that already? :D
 
Calliope said:
A lot of otherwise rational people are saying that nuclear is the answer. The answer to what? They are assuming we have a problem. But if we do, what is causing the problem? They are playing into the hands of the catastrophists who say high CO2 emissions are dooming the planet. A highly improbable theory.

The ones who stand to gain are the latter day Marxists, (the Gores, the Rudds and the Obamas) ... etc
Click to expand...

lol
It was the only thing that tempted me to vote for Johnny Howard last time - that he was in favour of nuclear.


some confused theories being aired around here :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top