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

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Jump to new
sydboy007 said:
Whether these changes in land use and animal husbandry would have been enough to impact the climate, I don't claim to know, but to blatantly ignore them is a pretty poor effort.
Click to expand...

It would come down to scale. Eg man has been doing agriculture, cutting wood and even burning a little bit of coal found near the surface for a very long time. But prior to the industrial revolution all of this, including agriculture, was on a scale that is small compared to today. Hence it could be argued that whilst we had agriculture a very long time ago, it wasn't on a big enough scale to really matter.

The whole debate is essentially about scale as are pretty much all environmental issues. Burning coal, logging forests, damming rivers or whatever - not even the Greens argue that we can't burn any coal, that we should not cut any trees or have any dams. It's the sheer scale of it all that becomes a problem - it's one thing to cut 6,000 tonnes of wood to make furniture, an entirely different problem when you cut 6 million tonnes and export it all as woodchips.
 
Gotta love these alarmists and the climate change enthusiasts eh?

April rainfall for Kalbarri WA
Wettest this month 51.8mm 27th April
Total this month 61.2mm 4 day(s)
Long-term average 18.4mm 3.7 day(s)
Wettest on record 98.2mm 1979
Driest on record 0.0mm 1982

But but but what about this?


Not anymore it aint !!! 52 mm in one day down the gorge is a freaking FLOOD !! So what happened in 1982? 0.0mm for the whole month of April !! Hmmmmmm reminds me of a Dorothea Mackellar poem,

I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.
I love her far horizons,
I love her jewel-sea,
Her beauty and her terror -
The wide brown land for me!

Written in 1908 no doubt (I have only reproduced the second stanza for brevity and levity)

Let the feasting begin !
 
trainspotter said:
Gotta love these alarmists and the climate change enthusiasts eh?
Click to expand...

* One months stats are irrelevant in the overall scheme of things. Bit like the fly saying nothing changes over it's life span.

* Climate change is just as much about the increasing level of extreme events as anything else. Certainly the last few years in Australia seems to have had plenty of extremes. More than usual, can't be assed to do the research.
 
sydboy007 said:
More than usual, can't be assed to do the research.
Click to expand...

I haven't come across this word before. In what context were you using it?


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=assed
 

ABSOLUTE RUBBISH....nothing has changed in the last 80 years.
 
sydboy007 said:
* One months stats are irrelevant in the overall scheme of things.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

As an example, there's an established trend of declining inflows since 1976 in the Mersey-Forth catchment (Tas). But that doesn't preclude very high inflows occurring from time to time and between August and late October 2013 numerous spills occurred (including several weeks of constant spill beginning in August) during a sustained period of at times very high rainfall. And needless to say, this spill was despite constant 24/7 full load operation of the associated power stations once the storage had reached a reasonable level.

Just because you have a flood one day, or even for a couple of months, doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't an underlying drying trend happening.

Mersey-Forth scheme storage. 1 July 2013 (lowest for 2013) = 12.6% and on 19 Aug 2013 = 100% (all dams spilling).

The long term trend in inflows remains downward however. A couple of very wet months doesn't change this when you're looking at statistics over the long term.
 

Just as one month means nothing, one region also means nothing. One must look globally at extreme events.
 
wayneL said:
Just as one month means nothing, one region also means nothing. One must look globally at extreme events.
Click to expand...

If there's a measurable chance in Perth, Hobart, London, Los Angeles, Beijing or wherever then it is (1) obviously significant in terms of any local impacts and (2) is a data point so far as the overall climate is concerned.

It may well have absolutely nothing to do with CO2 (or perhaps it does), but the drying of South-West WA and much of Tas since the 1970's is an observed change in climate certainly. And the scale of the change, especially in WA, does bring practical consequences locally. Whether or not it is due to CO2 is uncertain, but something must have happened to cause this change be it man-made or natural. The situation now, is certainly very different to that which existed for the previous half century.
 
banco said:
.....and here comes noco the climate scientist.
Click to expand...

I don't have to be Climate Scientist to remember the extremes you refer to.......I give you my assurance I have lived through climate change conditions equal to or more severe what we have experienced in the last 20 or 30 years and more than likely before you were even born.

No increase in global temperatures for the past 17 years and the alarmist don't like it when you ram it down their throats

My mother often reminded me of the severe cyclone conditions in Port Douglas where she was born....the worst being in 1911...their house was reduced into matchwood.

I lived in Brisbane and experienced horrific hail storms in the 30's and 40's...Hail stones as big as cricket balls....roofs opened like a gigantic can opener....corrugated iron flying everywhere.

I have lived in Townsville for the past 43 years and experienced the frightening experience of Cyclone Althea.

I worked in the south west Queensland in the early 50's and experienced extreme floods, fires and drought.

So you don't have to be factious with your unnecessary slur on me being a climate change scientist ....common sense is all that is required, something most alarmist like yourself don't have.
 
noco said:
So you don't have to be factious with your unnecessary slur on me being a climate change scientist ....common sense is all that is required, something most alarmist like yourself don't have.
Click to expand...

Yes noco, common sense is sadly lacking in climate change hysteria. I suppose the alarmists work on the Joseph Goebbels "Big Lie" theory;

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
Click to expand...
 

Smurf there have always been regional climate shifts. A classical case in point being the decline of the Mayans ~1000 years ago http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/applied_s...he-decline-of-mayan-civilization#.U166JlWSwuc

I would also be the first to point out that regional climate shifts can be anthropogenic in nature, due to land use changes and other impacts. It is currently scientifically impossible however, to assign any co2 forcing to any regional climate change event.


Therefore if trying to find the fingerprints of co2 involvement, worldwide data should be used. Our landscape is shaped by extreme events... floodplains for example. It is totally unscientific and cognitively biased to assume a global affect because of a personal experience of one's own region. Also, other athropogenic factors must be considered, land use, general pollution etc.

The truth is that globally, extreme weather events are currently in decline eg http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/global-tropical-cyclone-landfalls-2012.html What has increased is the perception that extreme weather events have increased, due to how and why these are reported.
 
Ermmmmmmm everyone seems to be missing what I was driving at in my post.

KATE EMERY - The West Australian - April 28th, 2014, 6:08 am wrote this article prattling on about "alleged" climate change and quoted Mr Jacob saying "It's quite stark," he said. "It's very dry." -

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/23020471/drought-takes-toll-at-kalbarri/

But it RAINED on the 27th April, 2014- 51.8mm to be precise !!

WELL .. this particular national park is DRY and HARSH after a summer EVERY F@CKEN YEAR !!!!!!!

So 2 things here dear ASFers ...

1) Reporting on "alleged" climate change "could" be the reason that I am skeptical about climate alarmists or the media scaremongering the proletariat into believing this drivel written by an uneducated / ill informed hack. It's dry on the 28th April (as reported) ... no wait ... it rained 52mm on the 27th April. Using words / sentences like it is too early to say and uncertainty about the impact of climate change does not give me any hope for the future if the alarmists/climate changers/scientists are allowing this kind of nonsense to be reported as fact when really it is only an opinion of an Environment Minister telling the reporter "It's very dry"

2) WA Environment Minister Albert Jacob is stating the bleeding obvious - "It's very dry" he said
This would be the first time he has left his safe Liberal seat of Ocean Reef and looked at this particular National Park right at the end of summer just before the rains come and that is all he has to say? What's next ? The ocean "Is very wet"

Now whilst some of you have jumped on the "monthly" statistics and referenced them as irrelevant in the time line of "global warming" please note I also referenced this fact - Driest on record 0.0mm 1982 Surely this would have sent the alarm bells ringing?

No wait ... there is actual evidence that this is a cyclic thing and has been going on for centuries

Since 1860, when adequate meteorological recording commenced, the most severe droughts have occurred commonly at intervals of 11 to 14 years. Major droughts that were recorded later in the 19th century include:

1829 Major drought in Western Australia with very little water available.[5]
1835 and 1838 Sydney and NSW receive 25% less rain than usual. Severe drought in Northam and York areas of Western Australia.
1838−39 Droughts in South Australia and Western Australia
1839 Severe drought in the west and north of Spencer Gulf, South Australia.
1846 Severe drought converted the interior and far north of South Australia into an arid desert.
1849 Sydney received about 27 inches less rain than normal.
1850 Severe drought, with big losses of livestock across inland New South Wales (NSW) and around the western rivers region.
1864−66 (and 1868). The little data available indicates that this drought period was rather severe in Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia.
1877 All States affected by severe drought, with disastrous losses in Queensland. In Western Australia many native trees died, swamps dried up and crops failed.
1880 to 1886 Drought in Victoria (northern areas and Gippsland); New South Wales (mainly northern wheat belt, Northern Tablelands and south coast); Queensland (1881–86, in south-east with breaks - otherwise mainly in coastal areas, the central highlands and central interior in 1883–86); and South Australia (1884–86, mainly in agricultural areas).
1888 Extremely dry in Victoria (northern areas and Gippsland); Tasmania (1887–89 in the south); New South Wales had the driest year since records began; Queensland (1888–89) had a very severe drought, with much native scrub dying and native animals perishing; South Australia had one of its most severe droughts; and Western Australia (central agricultural areas) lost many sheep.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_Australia

Hmmmmmm ... carry on everyone ... as you were.
 
The Alarmist stated back in 2005, the Arctic ice would melt and kill off the polar bears but now the problem is the ice is so thick (16'), the polar bears may starve owing to the fact they cannot break through the thick ice.

GLOBAL WARMING???????WHAT GLOBAL WARMING?


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...-blogs:mini-blogs|1|heading|homepage|homepage

And add this one also relating contrary predictions of rises in sea levels.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...for_robyn_williams_100_metres_of_rising_seas/
 
Yep I missed it but very much get your point now.

Unfortunately, this is the modus operandi of the political green movement... often conscious and intentional, but also as often, cognitively biased due to propaganda.

Rarely are such statements bases on empiricism.
 
wayneL said:
Therefore if trying to find the fingerprints of co2 involvement, worldwide data should be used.
Click to expand...

Logically and according to most theories on the subject, any observed change would not be evenly distributed globally thus making the use of smaller regions worthwhile in the context of data collection and research.

If for example climate change turns the US into a dust bowl whilst Canada gets more rain and snow then at the global level there may well be no overall change. But from the perspective of either country it would be a very significant change indeed.

If both South-West WA and much of Tasmania are experiencing the same trend, which started at the same time and which has had two abrupt "step changes" in both locations, then pretty clearly something has caused that be it man-made or natural.

If it were a slow, gradual change then it would be easier to understand but that hasn't been the case. Rather, it's two definite "steps" and in the case of Tas at least is very unevenly distributed seasonally - it's actually got a bit wetter in later winter and early spring, with the entire reduction overall due to a sharp decline over the first part of the year.

So something has changed there, the only questions are what and why? It might have absolutely nothing to do with CO2, although the first step down just happens to coincide with a resumption of warming in the mid-70's and the second step down coincides with an ending of warming in the late 1990's. That may be just coincidence, but I think that a reasonable person would at least consider that such timing is interesting to say the least and that it warrants proper research. A significant observed change locally, that coincides with a turning point globally - it's not proof by any means but it does suggest that something's going on that we don't really understand.

That warrants proper scientific examination in my view so as to gain a better understanding of whatever is going on since we clearly don't understand it at present. And needless to say, such research needs to be done in an unbiased manner by properly qualified people. Unbiased being a key word here - something's going on, the aim should be to understand the what and why of it.

The truth is that globally, extreme weather events are currently in decline
Click to expand...

That may not be a bad thing, but it is a change nonetheless.
 
One of the things that baffles me is the lack of discussion among these so called Global Warming scientists, who consistently blame it on man made pollution, is the relationship of the Sun and the Earth

I would like to observe a discussion between these scientists on the trajectory of the Earth in relation to the Sun, which as we all know, travels in an elliptical circuit.....At certain periods in time, the Earth is further from the Sun than at other times......As most of us also know, the Earth's axis can also vary by as much as 45 degrees.

The influence of the Sun on Earth is another subject I never hear these scientist talk about where they come up with these so called pier reviewed papers.......you never hear them talk about the Sun spots which are caused by massive explosion to the tune of 1 million Hiroshima atom bombs.....the radiation from the explosions must surely have an effect on our climate.

So instead of blaming man pollution on Global Warming or as they now call it Climate Change, why not have such a discussion on the Sun and the Earth?
 
If you want to see what happens when climate changes just take a drive up to Wilpena Pound in SA.
After you leave Hawker you will see a number of stone chimneys still standing in the paddocks showing where houses used to be.

This area was subdivided up into one square mile lots and sold off in the 1860/1870 era as prime farming land, times were good until the 1890 drought decade arrived and virtually all abandoned their land and left penniless. The better farmers and the better land holders were able to accumulate these deserted farms and create successful larger farms.

The interesting point is that this land was getting enough rain to farm for about 30 years, then the weather cycle reverted to normal and drought returned. They were warned by Goyder what would happen but they sold them anyway

A link to a more detailed story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goyder's_Line
 
noco said:
... these so called pier reviewed papers.......
Click to expand...

pier
a. A platform extending from a shore over water and supported by piles or pillars, used to secure, protect, and provide access to ships or boats.

:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

August 2024 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
19K
ducati916
February 2025
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
ducati916
ZYAU - S&P/ASX 300 High Yield Plus ETF
Replies
0
Views
1K
divs4ever
How do we deal with bushfires in a warming climate?
8 9 10
Replies
199
Views
11K
basilio
All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
11K
divs4ever
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...