Resisting Climate Hysteria

[explod]

Hysteria you call it. The rubbish is from your side of the argument. The broard generalisations and weak anecdotal without support other than what you selectively take from the past is clear enough. Your concern at changes that are being made to the detriment from your point to the real estate industry, coal et.al. exposes the bias.

Global warming and outright deterioration of the planet is clearly self evident without the need of science, (though an objective look at the science is compelling)we can see and feel it with our own senses.

Al Gore is not a scientist he merely puts forth his view as a concerned citizen.

Yes the planet, has been here before in different ways. (the Book "The Sixth Extinction" paints it clearly) but in those periods, the species have been decimated to the tune of 90% You want us to go down that path.

And I will not go down the path of reminding of the huge number of clear and observable changes, but will say, that if even 10% of what appears to be happening, happens, then all efforts need to be put in place to safeguard our planet and species from any where near the projected outcomes.

And I believe this thread ought be linked into the thread headed "Climate Change...".

As true today as when posted in 2009.

And wayneL on your last post digging into the private habits of other posters is a further attempt to discredit without fact.

Your credibility continues to slide.

 

[white_goodman]

Basilio is merely pointing out the facts as have been determined at this stage by science.

Not the science funded by the petro dollars as leaked out by Jeremy Leggett

wayneL you merely sit back in your chair and regurgitate ........t

And methane comes from a cow.

on that compare the studies done by type petro crowd and those done by the church of climate... the difference is staggering, almost 5000 times the difference... when 99% of the funds are going into one side is it a wonder why the debate isnt over, yet its not

 

[basilio]

Whats the problem with addressing evidence Wayne ?

Why do you continue to attack me personally and refuse to discuss the material you present and the errors that are continually exposed with your sources ?

Will anyone else who quotes this materiall be smeared as well. Clearly almost every other forum member who doesn't agree with you has left the building because its not a great feeling to be put down relentlessly.

There was another comment from the PBS interview which highlighted how hopelessly contradicted Anthony Watts is in his attack on the accuracy of temperature records.

Peer-Review Irony

When asked about the research of Muller and the BEST team, which has also confirmed the accuracy of the surface temperature record, Watts provided a very ironic response.

"Unfortunately he has not succeeded in terms of how science views, you know, a successful inquiry. His papers have not passed peer review."

Anthony Watts himself has co-authored two peer-reviewed scientific papers, one of which was the aforementioned Fall et al., which confirmed the accuracy of the surface temperature record with respect to the average global surface warming.

On his blog, Watts has attempted to defend his claims on PBS news hour by referencing a preliminary, unsubmitted, unpublished paper he has drafted which purports to identify problems in the temperature record. However, that preliminary paper contains numerous fundamental flaws which entirely negate its conclusions, and since it has not passed peer-review, according to Watts' own comments it is not "a successful inquiry."

So we have Watts dismissing Muller's comments because his research has not passed peer-review, and yet Watts' own comments contradict the results of his own peer-reviewed paper.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/watts-pbs-newshour.html

And what do I do ? The best I can. Clearly it will never be enough. And clearly whatever I do will never be enough for you. And since whatever I say about my personal life isn't provable why believe it ? How about sticking to more verifiable information instead of personal attacks.

 

[Knobby22]

Oh Dear Lord Plod. ROTFLMAO

For instance, while on the face of it the arctic may be distressingly low on sea ice at the moment, warmists ignore the record highs being set at the other end of the earth and fail to consider a possible reverse correlation between southern and northern sea ice volumes. There's a study waiting in the wings right there.

Its true, the sea ice has increased, but the land ice has reduced! Why was that not mentioned by the skeptics in their articles?
Many would argue the land ice is more important as this increases sea levels. The observation period is pretty short however.
I find the graph a bit scary, hope it slows down.



Estimates of Total Antarctic Land Ice Changes and approximate sea level contributions using many different measurement techniques. Adapted from The Copenhagen Diagnosis. (CH= Chen et al. 2006, WH= Wingham et al. 2006, R= Rignot et al. 2008b, CZ= Cazenave et al. 2009 and V=Velicogna 2009)

 

[Knobby22]

on that compare the studies done by type petro crowd and those done by the church of climate... the difference is staggering, almost 5000 times the difference... when 99% of the funds are going into one side is it a wonder why the debate isnt over, yet its not

It is over!
With regard to the petrochemical lobby:
""The punters know that the horse named Morality rarely gets past the post, whereas the nag named Self-interest always runs a good race." Whitlam, Gough

 

[Happy]

After reading material on what happens with the Sun I understand that Global Warming is real, not sure how big/small part human’s contribution is.

Even yesterday on “Quantum” explanation was on how energy is created, that is emitted from the Sun.

Figure mentioned was something like:
4 TRILLION Kilograms of Sun’s mass is converted to energy EVERY SECOND.

What wasn’t said that this minutely reduced Sun’s total mass, reduces Sun’s gravity and gradually causes Sun to become larger.

(But don’t worry it can be read in Australian “New Scientist” mag, don’t remember the number, but it is there and most probably it is not only source for this information)

 

[wayneL]

Whats the problem with addressing evidence Wayne ?

Why do you continue to attack me personally and refuse to discuss the material you present and the errors that are continually exposed with your sources ?

Will anyone else who quotes this materiall be smeared as well. Clearly almost every other forum member who doesn't agree with you has left the building because its not a great feeling to be put down relentlessly.

There was another comment from the PBS interview which highlighted how hopelessly contradicted Anthony Watts is in his attack on the accuracy of temperature records.

I have addressed evidence on numerous occasions, only to have advocacy presented as a counter, rather than proper science.

The evidence is vast and well beyond the scope of ASF, with multifaceted vested interests, biases, red herrings, junk science and BS. Decent science is actually quite thin.

Thinner still is causation and likely effect.

I merely point out your biases and you think that personal attack. No, it is just logic.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/watts-pbs-newshour.html

Advocacy. Clever, and obviously an intelligent debater, but still more advocacy, smoke and mirrors, than science.

And what do I do ? The best I can. Clearly it will never be enough. And clearly whatever I do will never be enough for you. And since whatever I say about my personal life isn't provable why believe it ? How about sticking to more verifiable information instead of personal attacks.

You think asking about your personal response to the purported threat is a personal attack?

I just want to know whether you are as hypocritical as the other warmists, because at heart I am a greenie, I do consider my impact and I am thinking of the possible irony of our personal actions.

For instance, my profession requires a source of heat, up to 2,000 degrees. Instead of using fossil fuels, I have a hot air capture system in place, collecting and storing the hot air from warmists and releasing it in a controlled way as needed. That is why I continue in this seemingly futile debate.

I do have to be careful and regulate emissions as it can sublimate high carbon tool steel lickety split. :

 

[basilio]

For those who care to see what has been happening to the ice cover in the Arctic since 1979 check out the following video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZYaubXBfVqo#!


And if you prefer an alternative view check out this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARJK0MWAITM&feature=related

 

[Knobby22]

Rio shift on climate change. Despite their coal interests, Rio Tinto recognise the facts are too strong. Looks like the money for the obscuration movement is going to continue to dry up in the face of reality.


RIO Tinto's language on climate change has shifted, with the company now recognising that global warming is ''largely caused by human activities''.

Previously, Rio had accepted that human activities were making ''a contribution'' to climate change.

In a speech yesterday, Rio's head of coal in Australia, Bill Champion, said the company recognised the value of action on climate change.

''The scale of the necessary emissions reductions and the need for adaptation, coupled with the world's increasing requirements for secure, affordable energy, create large challenges,'' he said.

''We support a co-ordinated global approach to reduce emissions. Until that is in place, as well as after, we recognise that it will be necessary for individual jurisdictions to take actions.''

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/business/rio-shift-on-climate-change-20120928-26qxl.html#ixzz27zzP7CIq

 

[JTLP]

Rio shift on climate change. Despite their coal interests, Rio Tinto recognise the facts are too strong. Looks like the money for the obscuration movement is going to continue to dry up in the face of reality.


RIO Tinto's language on climate change has shifted, with the company now recognising that global warming is ''largely caused by human activities''.

Previously, Rio had accepted that human activities were making ''a contribution'' to climate change.

In a speech yesterday, Rio's head of coal in Australia, Bill Champion, said the company recognised the value of action on climate change.

''The scale of the necessary emissions reductions and the need for adaptation, coupled with the world's increasing requirements for secure, affordable energy, create large challenges,'' he said.

''We support a co-ordinated global approach to reduce emissions. Until that is in place, as well as after, we recognise that it will be necessary for individual jurisdictions to take actions.''

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/business/rio-shift-on-climate-change-20120928-26qxl.html#ixzz27zzP7CIq

I read this as "Coal boom is being hit from all angles so we need another money making process in place..."

 

[Knobby22]

I read this as "Coal boom is being hit from all angles so we need another money making process in place..."

I read it as when the sh.. hits the fan as our scientists advice shows it will, we don't want to be in the position of being sued for trying to block climate change action and so need to appear to be on the front foot supporting action.

 

[Calliope]

An ice-free Arctic is not all bad.

Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen became the first to traverse the Northwest Passage 106 years ago.

The route is now seasonally ice-free as global warming linked to greenhouse gas emissions melts the polar ice cap, with access leading to a rush of prospecting, oil and gas exploration and new tourism.

According to the US Geological Survey, the region contains one fifth of the world's undiscovered oil reserves.

Internet giant Google also started mapping the Canadian Arctic Archipelago in August for its online map service.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ic-party-central/story-e6frg6so-1226487028442

 

[basilio]

An ice-free Arctic is not all bad.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ic-party-central/story-e6frg6so-1226487028442

Absolutely Calliope. There is always a silver lining to every cloud.

As the Arctic becomes ice free as a result of global warming caused by greenhouse emissions there will certainly be a number of silver linings

1) The extra oil and gas reservesthat will become available can help speed up global warming to enable even more tourism.

2) Huge areas of Siberia and Northern Canada and Northern Europe will become much warmer and open the way for frontier land developments

3) Decaying seaside developments will be washed away and the creation of new shorelines will allow new building opportunities on the newly created seashore

4) Engineering companies will become far more profitable as some seaside locations decide to keep their current development in place and build bigger and bigger levies instead. This will be an ongoing project as, of course , we can't be certain just how how much sea levels will rise...

5) Melbourne will cease having its dreary, damp winters and enjoy a climate much like Mildura. Lots and lots of sunshine and much less rain.

And I'm sure there will be many additional opportunities accruing from global warming.

Bring it on and lets bask in the warmth that only a complete change in world wide climate patterns can offer.

 

[Knobby22]

Yes, not all negatives as basilio said.

There will be massive savings in ship transport due to the shorter route for many countries for Russia etc. linking to the USA especially between Eastern Europe and the USA helping to increase trade as the sea ice is removed over the summer months.

There will also be huge increases in fish populations in the polar cap region. This is already occurring, I read about it recently.

There are negatives. Top Gear will have to choose somewhere else to do a special. I think there may be a few other problems a little more serious.

 

[Knobby22]

I read this in New Scientist, it was part of an article by Stefan Rahmstorf head heads the systems analysis department for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

For the past 30 years, global temperature has shown a linear warming trend of 0.16 degrees C per decade.
When looking for the cause of this a physicist will look for a heat source. One possibility is that the oceans are releasing heat. But measurements show the opposite: the oceans are soaking up heat at present. The other possibility is that that the heat is coming from above, and indeed it is: more radiation is entering the top of the atmosphere than leaving it.

Superimposed on this global warming is short term variability. Some notably 2005 and 2010 stick above the trend line while 2008 and 2011 were below it. But overall temperatures are creeping upwards within a corridor of +/- 0,2 degress around the trend line.

The three known factors explaining the short term variability is:
volcanic eruptions - The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Phillipines was followed by three cold years.
Te Suns' variability, mostly in the form of the 11 year sunspot cycle.
Finally there is the irregular oscillation between warm El Niño and cold La Nina conditions in the Pacific.

We have independant measurements describing all three that can easily correlate to global temperature changes. For example the figgerence netween the solar maximum and minimum is about 0.1 C
The maximum temperature effect from El Nini occurs about four months after the El Niño peaks..

I'm not going to type the whole thing but -

Solar activity is on the way back up.
El Niño is expected to only be a matter of time before it occurs possibly next year.
So he is predicting a big jump in temperatures unless a volcano occurs.
The reason is that the ocean releases heat during an El Niño (and recharges its heat store during a La Nina).

 

[Julia]

In today's "Weekend Australlian": Antarctic Ice Increases.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...nds-against-odds/story-e6frg8y6-1226489479585

 

[Knobby22]

In today's "Weekend Australlian": Antarctic Ice Increases.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...nds-against-odds/story-e6frg8y6-1226489479585

Note they use the words "sea ice". They are weasel words.
They ignore the big drop in ice on the continent of Antartica (refer graph I published up on this page post 3764)
This is where most of the ice is and its loss directly adds to rising sea levels.
The longer they can fool the public, the longer they can slow world wide action.


Let's see what happens next year when El Niño returns.

 

[macca]

Definitely getting warmer or is it just the weather doing it's thing ?

<<Once-in-century October snow across SA
Thursday October 11, 2012 - 15:11 EDT
ABC image
Residents of Hallett woke to a layer of white - ABC

Rare at any time, there has been October snow across some southern areas of South Australia.

The weather bureau in Adelaide said the last reports of snowfall in the Adelaide and neighbouring Mount Lofty Ranges region in October were a century ago.>>

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/once-in-century-october-snow-across-sa/22638

 

[Logique]

Dear Government,
please ease back on the carbon tax, it's working too well. Or at least give us time to knit more jumpers. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/rain-clearing-after-lunchtime-downpour-20121012-27hld.html Pic by SMH on 12 Oct 2012.

 

[Julia]

+1. We have had a heater on this evening. In Queensland. In October.