Resisting Climate Hysteria

[basilio]

Or in my case, he appealed to the Moderators to shut me down when I dared to criticise his long-winded preaching.

Actually Calliope it was because you continually make nasty, snide personal comments about all forum members who disagree with you. And I said it makes this an unpleasant place to to be in and poisons the discussion.

And I'm not asking for you to be shut down - simply to be polite or leave

Thanks

 

[trainspotter]

Trainspotter. When anyone actually reads that article they will find out so much more accurately the loss of ice in the Antarctic.

There is no point discussing this topic with you when you reduce the content to one line.

Bye

Oh really?

Antarctic Ice Melt Lowest Ever Measured That's the sensational headline anyway. Is it part of a significant downward trend though? Here's a graph of ice melt anomaly from the paper: An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability

You can use the g3data software to pull data points (that's what I did) if you want to run your own analysis with R. Does a simple statistical analysis support the claim that "there seems to be a downward trend"?

What does that model summary output mean? There really is NOT a significant downward trend of melt anomaly with years (there's no first order trend in fact). It's not measurably different from noise. How does this square with the recent reports of runaway melting though?

Whether the ice is melting to much or too little,

The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.-- DR. DAVID WOJICK, UN IPCC expert reviewer, PhD in Philosophy of Science, co-founded Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University

These recent posts about climate change stuff were inspired by a post I read about climate change skeptics, which I found because of my Google alerts on things related to 'computational fluid dynamics'. In the post she mentions Freeman Dyson, he's a pretty smart guy.

Concerning the climate models, I know enough of the details to be sure that they are unreliable. They are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data.

It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.-- Dr. Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, fellow of the American Physical Society, member of the US National Academy of Sciences, and a fellow of the Royal Society of London

My favourite quote on the whole mess, a level-headed engineer from MIT quoted in a short article:

Mort Webster, assistant professor of engineering systems, warned that public discussion over climate change policies gets framed as a debate between the most extreme views on each side. "The world is ending tomorrow, versus it's all a myth," he said. "Neither of those is scientifically correct or socially useful."

http://www.variousconsequences.com/2009/10/antarctic-ice-melt-lowest-ever-measured.html

That was a measured response. What about this then?

The UN's climate science body has admitted that a claim made in its 2007 report - that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 - was unfounded.

The admission today followed a New Scientist article last week that revealed the source of the claim made in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not peer-reviewed scientific literature – but a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999. Several senior scientists have now said the claim was unrealistic and that the large Himalayan glaciers could not melt in a few decades.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake

Not good enough for you then how about this pineapple?

A tide gauge to measure sea level has been in existence at Tuvalu since 1977, run by the University of Hawaii It showed a negligible increase of only 0.07 mm per year over two decades It fell three millimeters between 1995 and 1999. The complete record can still be seen on John Daly's website: http://www.john-daly.com>www.john-daly.com Obviously this could not be tolerated, so the gauge was closed in 1999 and a new, more modern tide gauge was set up by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology's National Tidal Center by Flinders University at Adelaide. But Tuvalu refuses to submit to political pressure. The sea level has actually fallen since then Tuvalu cannot be allowed to get away with it. So Greenpeace employed Dr John Hunter. a climatologist of the University of Tasmania, who obligingly "adjusted" the Tuvalu readings upwards to comply with changes in ENSO and those found for the island of Hawaii and, miraculously, he found a sea level rise of "around" 1.2 mm a year which, also miraculously, agrees with the IPCC global figure .

http://www.nzclimatescience.net

*WARNING* WARNING* WARNING*

Al Gore defends his extraordinary personal energy usage by telling critics he maintains a "carbon neutral" lifestyle by buying "carbon offsets," but the company that receives his payments turns out to be partly owned and chaired by the former vice president himself.
Gore has built a "green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms,

Read more: Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=40445#ixzz1PIOA3so9

Go ahead Punk .... Make my day.

The reason it snowed more this winter over North America in the Global Warming camp was because of warmer temperatures, yet it contained less water equivalent. That is odd because warmer temperatures hold more water than cold temperatures. Interesting. As we progress into Spring, the warmingistas proclaim all the severe weather and flooding is a direct result of warming the planet. If the Earth is warmer in all facets, then you have LESS baroclinic clashes of air masses and less severe weather threats. The atmosphere just does not work this way. This is like saying that the reason it is colder right now is because it is warmer.

http://www.myweathertech.com/2011/05/15/global-warming-equals-political-real-world-equals-cooling/

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh that's better now.

 

[Calliope]

Actually Calliope it was because you continually make nasty, snide personal comments about all forum members who disagree with you. And I said it makes this an unpleasant place to to be in and poisons the discussion.

And I'm not asking for you to be shut down - simply to be polite or leave

Thanks

In future I will try to be nice to you. You, on the other hand should try not to be so thin skinned. My problem is that I don't suffer fools gladly, especially those who proselytise. However I apologise if I have damaged your ego.

Incidently Ross Garnaut has the same problem with The Australian that you have with me.

"I reflect upon the media treatment especially the News Ltd group of this complex issue of immense importance for long-term Australian prosperity, and I don't think many people would say we have had a media presentation of the issues as thorough, as reliable and informed as we had as a basis for the reform era of Australia," Professor Garnaut said.

His comments followed an appraisal by The Australian's Foreign Editor Greg Sheridan yesterday that Professor Garnaut's last report was "astoundingly poor, relying on various sleights of hand, misrepresentations and propaganda techniques".

Sheridan said Professor Garnaut had "sacrificed his reputation as a serious policy intellectual and will be remembered for having produced a shoddy report in the interests of partisan campaigning".

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...media-as-he-goes/story-fn961iy1-1226085169303

 

[OzWaveGuy]

I see the alarmists focus is off the barrier reef and back onto ice again - yawn. Ice here this morning, but it melted by 9, I'm taxing my neighbours as I'm sure it was their CO2 that did it.

If someone can please help the gullible alarmists with some observed evidence of man's 0.00112% of atmosphere contribution causing massive shifts in ice, a burning planet and 100m, er, no, I think it was 60m, er, maybe no, it was 30m, umm, perhaps it was 20 feet, nope it was 12 feet, er 1m, ah damn I forgot sea level rise....

.....then we would all be grateful. Otherwise Basilio will have to cut down a couple more rain forests when he prints his Climate Alarmist book based on his posts here and be forced to ask Al Gore to fly it around in his personal jet. There goes the earth by another 6 degrees, er, um, no it's actually 4.5, perhaps with the latest data it's 3, huh, oh, it's changed again now 2, er, what? we can't go negative now - what a travesty, let's hide the decline and leave it at 6.

 

[Calliope]

I see the alarmists focus is off the barrier reef and back onto ice again - yawn. Ice here this morning, but it melted by 9, I'm taxing my neighbours as I'm sure it was their CO2 that did it.

If someone can please help the gullible alarmists with some observed evidence of man's 0.00112% of atmosphere contribution causing massive shifts in ice, a burning planet and 100m, er, no, I think it was 60m, er, maybe no, it was 30m, umm, perhaps it was 20 feet, nope it was 12 feet, er 1m, ah damn I forgot sea level rise....

.....then we would all be grateful. Otherwise Basilio will have to cut down a couple more rain forests when he prints his Climate Alarmist book based on his posts here and be forced to ask Al Gore to fly it around in his personal jet. There goes the earth by another 6 degrees, er, um, no it's actually 4.5, perhaps with the latest data it's 3, huh, oh, it's changed again now 2, er, what? we can't go negative now - what a travesty, let's hide the decline and leave it at 6.

Not to mention that the polar bears have to swim further.

 

[Julia]

I will offer a response to your questions Julia.

The risk management argument you raise. Julia IF, for arguments sake, all these scientists are right and the observations of rising temperatures with the threat of much more to come are fulfilled we face an absolute cataclysm. At the very least there will be large increases in sea levels which will destroy most sea side cities In fact there are two separate reports out in the last couple of days which point to rapidly rising melt levels in Greenland and warm water getting under the Antarctic ice fields and threatening to send these into the ocean.

I can't believe you failed to comprehend my question which was to do with the risks to our economy. Rather, you decline to address the question (as you have with my other questions). We can only assume you haven't even bothered to consider the economic repercussions from the proposed tax and simply don't care about this.

It would be more honest of you to simply say "I am not going to answer your questions because I cannot or I just don't know. Moreover, I don't care, " than to once again regurgitate the same old obfuscatory stuff.

 

[ghotib]

Has anyone here read the Garnaut reports or the Stern report, even just an executive summary? They addressed economic aspects, short and long term, of global warming and possible responses to it, including the costs of failing to do anything. I'm not suggesting they are the final word, but it would be nice to read a critique based on what they actually said instead of what someone assumes they didn't think of.

Same goes for climate science of course. So much attempted debunking of claims that were never made. It's all rather sad.

 

[explod]

I can't believe you failed to comprehend my question which was to do with the risks to our economy. Rather, you decline to address the question (as you have with my other questions). We can only assume you haven't even bothered to consider the economic repercussions from the proposed tax and simply don't care about this.

It would be more honest of you to simply say "I am not going to answer your questions because I cannot or I just don't know. Moreover, I don't care, " than to once again regurgitate the same old obfuscatory stuff.

Julia, it is very obvious that the economic risks are more than that, they will be catastrophic. Climate change unfortunately is coming to a place near you.

So we have a problem and trying to stop the problem because of economics is not going to work, we cannot for example give the climate a pay rise or offer a bribe. We are going to have to change drastically the way we live in and occupy our fragile planet.

Not a big Barry Jones fan myself but he does know his science and his article on just this issue in the Age newspaper today is a very good one for objective readers:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...ysteria-fear-and-populism-20110630-1gsuj.html

]

 

[MACCA350]

Climate change unfortunately is coming to a place near you.

Er, it's been here for millions of years already

Cheers

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Er, it's been here for millions of years already

Cheers

Well said

gg

 

[explod]

Er, it's been here for millions of years already

Cheers

Not at the current rate, ever.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Not at the current rate, ever.

Lol - i guess when you have mann's failed hockey stick as wallpaper then the rate is exponential wherever you look.

Rate of warming and cooling has been consistent, however, the alarmists will use their corrupt data to prove otherwise - hockey anyone?

 

[Wysiwyg]

Reality via agreement.

 

[Smurf1976]

Has anyone here read the Garnaut reports or the Stern report, even just an executive summary? They addressed economic aspects, short and long term, of global warming and possible responses to it, including the costs of failing to do anything.

I haven't read every single word but I've had a look some time ago...

In short and from memory, there seemed to be serious flaws in relation to fossil fuel reserves and likely discovery rates to the point that future emissions scenarios are unrealistic. That being so, the rest of the report is necessarily academic in nature since it does not reflect a likely real world scenario.

It's a bit like writing a report about the upcoming world tour of my band. It all sounds plausible until you realise that I have never been part of any musical band, can not play any instruments, and aren't too good at singing either. Once you realise that fatal flaw, you necessarily come to the conclusion that a world tour is unlikely and as such any plans in relation to it are purely academic since there will in practice be no tour.

Given that discovery rates for conventional crude oil are by most credible (non-political) estimates falling well short of consumption, a major shakeup of fossil fuel use is inevitable with or without the CO2 issue. The same applies to coal reserves in China and gas in a number of countries. Any prediction based on "business as usual" growth in consumption is thus meaningless since resource constraints and the consequent economics (ie lower productivity / higher costs) mean that recent past trends are highly unlikely to be sustained.

In short, it's the classic trap of looking at recent past performance and assuming it will continue. It's what happens with every market bubble and yes, I am indeed saying that oil production (and to a lesser extent other fuels) is in a bubble that will not likely continue increasing as it has in recent decades. I'd have thought any credible study into climate change would at least properly acknowledge this situation.

Coal - If China is going to keep relying on it then it is going to be imported coal that they burn. It seems that their investment in coal-fired power and other uses thus far, already requires more coal over the lifetime of those plants than the total known Chinese coal reserves. If China is going to keep relying on coal, then there's an outright boom coming for coal exporters such as Australia. It also suggests future consumption growth probably won't be as high as many are assuming due to the increased costs of extraction and transport. This is a point of major relevance that has been overlooked.

Oil & gas - as easily accessible reserves are used up, extraction and delivery (eg gas as LNG rather than locally via pipeline) costs are rapidly increasing. For oil that is global, for gas that affects some countries only at this stage. The bottome line however is that economics suggests that under this situation, future demand will be lower than would be assumed based on historic consumption trends.

Without using plausible future emissions scenarios and fuel prices, the rest of it becomes rather academic in nature...

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

It's bloody cold tonight in Townsville.

No signs of the Globe warming.

gg

 

[IFocus]

Its is interesting watching the disconnect in generations as the selfish baby boomers fight to defend their wealth at the expense of the younger generations.

The rally's against climate change filled with gray hairs and the rally's for filled with future generations.

This seems to also flow though to a whole range of issues not just CG.

Any thing to do with the future BB's ardently refuse any change that endangers their wealth no matter what the risk is to the future.

They / we seem happy for others to pay for their belligerence.

 

[Wysiwyg]

The same applies to coal reserves in China and gas in a number of countries. Any prediction based on "business as usual" growth in consumption is thus meaningless since resource constraints and the consequent economics (ie lower productivity / higher costs) mean that recent past trends are highly unlikely to be sustained.

Doesn't appear that China or USA are reducing coal fired power stations to supply electricity.

U.S. Coal-Fired Power Plant Summary –Year 2010 1/8/2010 –12/13/2010
• Eleven new coal-plants totaling 6,682 MW were Commissioned in 2010; the most in 25 years

While China just keeps building and burning more. Clean coal their preferred solution. So much for those Green beans with their save the world in ten years plan.

TIANJIN, China ”” China’s frenetic construction of coal-fired power plants has raised worries around the world about the effect on climate change. China now uses more coal than the United States, Europe and Japan combined, making it the world’s largest emitter of gases that are warming the planet.
But largely missing in the hand-wringing is this: China has emerged in the past two years as the world’s leading builder of more efficient, less polluting coal power plants, mastering the technology and driving down the cost.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Its is interesting watching the disconnect in generations as the selfish baby boomers fight to defend their wealth at the expense of the younger generations.

I wonder why they apparently care at all. Nearing or at retirement they won't need employment in industry or industry related jobs.

 

[springhill]

Its is interesting watching the disconnect in generations as the selfish baby boomers fight to defend their wealth at the expense of the younger generations.

The rally's against climate change filled with gray hairs and the rally's for filled with future generations.

This seems to also flow though to a whole range of issues not just CG.

Any thing to do with the future BB's ardently refuse any change that endangers their wealth no matter what the risk is to the future.

They / we seem happy for others to pay for their belligerence.

There is a reason the silverbacks, not the up and coming adolescents control their gorilla family, they are experienced in the ways of life.
Gen Y don't have enough life experience to know the ways of lying-assed politicians and those that will fill the heads of the young and stupid with rose coloured visions of people power conquering those evil corporation types. Give them a catch phrase and a youtube vid with a celebrity pushing some feel-good agenda and they will eat it, hook line and sinker.
That is the modus operandi to suck in the young and dumb, most of these Gen Y's have never read a news paper cover-to-cover, or googled to find the counter balance to the left wing taxing-fixes-everything agenda, they are too busy googling Bieber. For the few Gen Y's out there that have, hopefully there is more than we think, i'm sure aren't just swimming along like schools of herring.

 

[Smurf1976]

Its is interesting watching the disconnect in generations as the selfish baby boomers fight to defend their wealth at the expense of the younger generations.

The rally's against climate change filled with gray hairs and the rally's for filled with future generations.

This seems to also flow though to a whole range of issues not just CG.

Anything Green or otherwise to the Left has always tended to appeal more to the young (most notably uni students) whilst as people age their views tend to drift more to the Right.

I was absolutely a supporter of conservationists (the Greens as such not existing at the time) many years ago. Then I finished school and the first party I ever voted for was Labor. In due course my views drifted further away from the Left, though I still can't vote Liberal whilst they cling on to that religion nonsense.

I remember very well a political debate (with actual candidates attending) when I was in year 11 or 12. Probably 85% supported Bob Brown, and the rest were with Labor. Nobody, and I mean nobody, dared express any support for the Liberals. Pretty obviously, that doesn't reflect the view of the population as a whole, even though it reflected the view of 16 - 18 year olds at the time.

Based on what I've observed over the history of the party's existence, I'd say that the support base of the Greens is largely at either end of the spectrum. Young uni students etc at one end, high income professionals at the other.