Fascinating TS. According to the graph you posted there appears to be no temperature increase from 1979 to 2009.
A couple of questions
1) Do you believe this graph accurately represents changes of temperature on the earth since 1979 ?
2) Why do you accept this graph as an appropriate measuring stick ?
Cheers
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-ts-7.html
IPCC can't be wrong now can they ?
Another dirty filthy misrepresentation. I realize that it is most likely impossible due to patholgy of some description, but you should try debating on honest terms sometime.that you will not even acknowledge the possibility you are wrong and consider changes/options that should be undertaken.
You do not seem to understand what determinism means. However, if you do, this is another example of an appalling debating technique, obfuscating the point with purulent and tortuous distortions.Now thats determinism.
Quote Originally Posted by basilio View Post
Another dirty filthy misrepresentation. I realize that it is most likely impossible due to patholgy of some description, but you should try debating on honest terms sometime.that you will not even acknowledge the possibility you are wrong and consider changes/options that should be undertaken.
You do not seem to understand what determinism means. However, if you do, this is another example of an appalling debating technique, obfuscating the point with purulent and tortuous distortions.Now thats determinism.
Tone down the rhetoric/abuse please Wayne.
It's not a good look..
There is nothing rhetorical or abusive in that post, merely empirical observations ???.
Stop lying and I stop picking you up on it
The big problem with any change in climate is that practically all major man-made systems are based on our understanding of what is "normal".
Homes in Darwin are built with cyclones in mind but not snow. Homes in Tasmania are built with cold weather in mind but not cyclones. If it snows in Darwin and a cyclone hits Hobart then we'd likely see many deaths in Darwin due to the cold, and outright devastation in Hobart.
Indeed, although I've often thought that the strongest winds we get (the highest I can remember is about 170 km/h) are getting pretty close to the point where something bad would happen if it was stronger.Here in Hobart we get 140 kmr winds blow through ,with little or no warning and it's just another windy day.:
http://www.theguardian.com/global-d...global-thirst-energy-threatens-water-suppliesGrowing global thirst for energy threatens water supplies
Soaring energy demands will pile pressure on already strained water resources, warns the UN on eve of world water day
\
Claire Provost
theguardian.com, Friday 21 March 2014 23.07 AEST
MDG : A coal power plant in Neurath, Germany
Energy production accounts for almost 15% of global water usage. Photograph: Reuters
Growing demand for energy will put increasing pressure on the world's already strained water resources, particularly in developing and emerging economies, the UN has warned.
"There is an increasing potential for serious conflict between power generation, other water users and environmental considerations," it says in the world water development report, published on the eve of world water day on Saturday.
Energy production accounts for close to 15% of the world's water usage, but that figure could rise. By 2035, water use for energy is projected to jump by 20%, the report says. Water demand, meanwhile, could increase by 55% by 2050.
Much of this is due to growing populations and economies in China, India and the Middle East, says the report, which pulls together data from a range of studies. Some 90% of the global increase in demand for energy in the coming years will come from outside the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), club of rich countries, it notes.
"Demand for fresh water and energy will continue to increase over the coming decades to meet the needs of growing populations and economies, changing lifestyles and evolving consumption patterns, greatly amplifying existing pressures on limited natural resources and on ecosystems," the report says.
About 90% of power generation is water-intensive, says the report, which warns that less conventional oil and gas production, including via tar sands and fracking – along with biofuels – place particularly large demands on water resources.
New IPCC climate report projects significant threats to Australia
Date
March 23, 2014
24 reading now
Fire seasons, particularly in southern Australia, will extend in high-risk areas.
Australia's multibillion-dollar mining, farming and tourism industries face significant threats as worsening global warming causes more dangerous and extreme weather, the world's leading climate science body will warn.
A final draft of a five-year assessment by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - seen by Fairfax Media - details a litany of global impacts from intensifying climate change including the displacement of hundreds of millions of people, reduced crop yields and the loss of trillions of dollars from the global economy.
The report is the second part of the IPCC's fifth major assessment and focuses on climate change's impacts and how the world might adapt. It will be finalised at a meeting in Japan next weekend before its release on March 31.
The final draft Australasia chapter also outlines significant local threats if human-caused climate change gets worse, in particular high confidence that fire seasons, particularly in southern Australia, will extend in high-risk areas.
There is also significant risk of increased damage and death from heatwaves resulting from more frequent extreme high temperatures. Flood risk too would be worse.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/n...o-australia-20140323-35b1r.html#ixzz2wlSloilW
California officials prepare for worst as historic drought deepens wildfire risk
Severe lack of rain and sun-scorched earth means that when it comes to fire risks, California is now in a class of its own
California is facing wildfires "outside of any normal bounds" as a historic drought turns drying brush and trees into a perfect tinderbox, officials have warned. The state recorded 665 wildfires from 1 January, about three times the average of 225 for this time of year, according to figures compiled by Cal Fire, the state's department of forestry and fire protection.
Each day without heavy rain deepened the risks of a catastrophic fire season and made it hard to deal with more wildfires if and when they broke out, officials warned. John Laird, the secretary for natural resources, told the Guardian: "This is going to be a fire season outside any normal bounds. Anything could happen at any time."
Tasmanian Farmer pursues Hydro-Electric dream.
http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91Ian Plimer’s ‘Heaven + Earth’ — Checking the Claims
Ian G. Enting
Version 2.2
ARC Centre of Excellence for
Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems
The University of Melbourne
Overview
Ian Plimer’s book, Heaven + Earth — Global Warming: The Missing Science, claims to demolish the theory of human-induced global warming due to the release of CO2 and other greenhouse
gases. Overall:
• it has numerous internal inconsistencies;
• in spite of the extensive referencing, key data are unattributed and the content of references is often misquoted. Most importantly, Ian Plimer fails to establish his claim that the human influence on climate can be ignored, relative to natural variations.
Ian Plimer’s claim that the human influence on climate can be ignored, relative to natural variations, seems to rest on three main strands of argument:
a: the extent of natural variability is larger than considered in ‘mainstream’ analyses;
b: changes in radiative forcing from greenhouse gases have less effect than determined in
‘mainstream’ analyses;
c: the IPCC uses a range of misrepresentations to conceal points a and b
.
Among the many errors made in attempting to establish these claims, are cases where Plimer:
• misrepresents the content of IPCC reports on at least 15 occasions as well as misrepresenting the operation of the IPCC and the authorship of IPCC reports;
• has at least 28 other instances of misrepresenting the content of cited sources;
• has at least 2 graphs where checks show that the original is a plot of something other than
what Plimer claims and many others where data are misrepresented;
• has at least 10 cases of misrepresenting data records in addition to some instances (included in the total above) of misrepresenting data from cited source
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/23/the-science-is-missing-from-ia/The science is missing from Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth”
Posted by Tim Lambert on April 23, 2009
I agree with Barry Brook that Ian Plimer’s approach to climate science in Heaven Earth is unscientific. He starts with his conclusion that there is no “evidential basis” that humans have caused recent warming and that the theory that humans can create global warming
is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archeology and geology.
He accepts any factoid that supports his conclusion and rejects any evidence that contradicts his conclusion. For example, he blindly accepts EG Beck’s CO2 graph. And remember Khilyuk and Chilingar? The guys who compared human CO2 emissions with natural C02 emissions over the entire history of the planet and concluded that human emissions didn’t matter. As I wrote earlier:
their mistake is so large and so obvious that anyone who cites them either has no clue about climate science or doesn’t care whether what they write is true or not.
Plimer doesn’t cite them once he cites them three times.
The section of the 2007 IPCC report that deals with climate impacts, called Working Group II, included a statement in its chapter on Asia (see p. 493) that Himalayan glaciers are receding faster than any other glaciers on Earth and “the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.” That statement was challenged by an Indian government report released late last year that suggested, qualitatively, that “many” Himalayan glaciers were instead growing in size and that others were stable. (The report’s conclusions were first widely publicized in a November story in Science, and the flimsy basis for the “very high” statement in the 2007 report is detailed here, in a letter to Science by a Canadian expert on glaciers.
Because of the large natural variability of climate, scientists do not expect temperatures to rise consistently year after year. However, they do expect a continuing temperature rise over decades.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?