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

Is it OK to jest about global warming?

Is it OK to jest about global warming?

  • Yes

    Votes: 38 77.6%
  • No

    Votes: 7 14.3%
  • Other (see details)

    Votes: 4 8.2%

  • Total voters
    49
  • Poll closed .
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/03/11/2513003.htm
Sea level rise underestimated: scientists
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 Gelu Sulugiuc
Reuters

and the future is probably worse than the previous post suggested.
,,,
as they say ... the future is history
 
IPCC ... pfffft
just a lot of clowns who fluked a Nobel prize

Finally, you have seen the light.

IPCC, Nobel committee = Politics

That Al Bore, a proven liar/exaggerator, is an NL is comical and epitomises the depths to which the Nobel committee has sold out to money and politics.

A Nobel prize confers no credibility at all.
 
as for the storms and their frequency , the Tuvalu PM on the ABC's "world today" yesterday (I think that's right) - explained that the frequency of storms is much much higher than it used to be. He quoted typical bad years from last century, when they were inundated, and went on to say that "now we have them almost every year" (paraphrased).

Whether he's judging them by their power, or by their effect , I don't know.
But hey - I'm not about to tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I'm not about to point him to some website financed by Mobil Exxon to put his mind at rest etc etc etc ...

PS Tell you what - I'm not about to laugh at his predicament either - nor that of the Vic Bushfire victims.

http://www.moyak.com/papers/tuvalu-climate-change.html
 

Attachments

  • tuvalu flooding.jpg
    66.1 KB · Views: 79
I'm not about to point him to some website financed by Mobil Exxon to put his mind at rest etc etc etc ...

climatesci.org is not financed by Oil money. It is not a site that positions itself at the diametric opposite of those foolish pro IPCC sites.

It deals in real science, in fact it is pro ACC, but rightly debunks the influence ascribed to co2 by the IPCC.

Wayne
I'm interested in why you exclude IPCC from "the [available] evidence"

It has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that they only consider one outcome and model towards that. The fact that, as proven by science I have posted before, there are not enough available fossil fuel reserves to fulfil their modelling assumptions. The fact that they have spectacularly failed to move their hypothesis into a bona-fide theory. The fact that they have an association with the Gore charlatan and fail to correct his exaggerated propaganda and outright lies. The fact that they are happy to allow him to represent his fiction as an "agreed" reality.

I prefer honest brokers like Pielke and Watts.
 
well FWIW, my post #101 also disagrees with the IPCC.
It concludes that they've underestimated the problem.
(sorry sea level ... I should say "one of the miriad of problems")

 
... ahhh found that interview finally
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2009/s2638573.htm
including the increased frequency of cyclones / storms. :2cents - or maybe you'll only accept :1cent for that one wayne.

 
and equally, like I say, just don't jest with the man
unless you're wearing a helmet.

So.... AGW is a reality because someone is a violent man?

We have truly entered the twilight zone.
 
So.... AGW is a reality because someone is a violent man?

We have truly entered the twilight zone.

I really think that at this juncture in the debate it is probably appropriate that we all:



...and sit back and enjoy our bourbon and cokes!
 

Attachments

  • bury20head20in20sand.png
    204.5 KB · Views: 32

20/20 is the sea rising at Tavulu or is the island sinking?
 
Any proper attempt to link sea levels to CO2 would need to take into account water released from aquifers, brown coal etc plus all things dumped into or floated upon the ocean which has directly increased sea levels simply due to the addition of volume. And then it would need to take into account water removed from the oceans and stored in dams. Collectively these are rather huge volumes of water.

I very much doubt those pointing to sea level changes have even thought about the above. If they have, then let's see the numbers...
 
more evidence of that recent trend of 3mm per year again ...
this time the source of info is the CSIRO.
Having known a couple of CSIRO blokes, both of whom wore sandals lol , I'm guessing it's kosher

Looks like 50mm in 16 years to me. (1993 to 2008 incl)
Near enough to 3mm per year.
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

So Smurf, how would a few containers floating around compare with a thermal increase in volume of the oceans?
 

Attachments

  • sea level 3mm per year.jpg
    35.1 KB · Views: 103
This from PNG last December (New Ireland) - again storm surge.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2445383.htm



btw, that CSIRO graph shows 2 inches rise 16 years = 3.2mm per year (compared to average of 1.7 mm/yr last century)

but 3mm per year - I'm guessing that's about the average rate of growth of a person to the age of 50 years.
 

Attachments

  • PNG storm surge.jpg
    13.4 KB · Views: 93
3mm per year - I'm guessing that's about the average rate of growth of a person to the age of 50 years.
oops - out by a factor of 10 there - apologies.
Try "averaged to the age of 500", lol.

Still next time your 15 year old son lies on the beach near the water's edge - ask him to imagine that, by the time he reaches 75 yrs rolleyes = 60 yrs x 3mm = 180mm) , the water will pretty much have covered his body - just using the current rate!

Of course this could take much less than 60 years considering positive feedback loops and other reasons for acceleration and exponential growth in this rate of sea rise.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...