Resisting Climate Hysteria

noco · 15 October 2014

Now isn't this such great news.

No need for a DIRECT ACTION PLAN.....no need to plant more trees.....no more need for Bill Shortens Carbon tax again.

Plankton has saved the world from all that nasty CARBON DIOXIDE.

Why didn't someone work this out earlier which could have saved us $billions.

Best breaking news I have heard for a long time.

I wonder if there is an undiscovered plants that could absorb the radical Muslims.?

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...plankton_and_plants_soaking_up_our_emissions/

Tisme · 15 October 2014

Good to see NSW has inherited Queensland's storms and floods since the north pole decided it wanted a Indian summer, although things are tad dry up here.

basilio · 15 October 2014

Australia’s warmest 12-month period on record, again
Australia’s warmest September on record

Australia’s record for warmest 12-month period has been broken for a second consecutive month. This continues a remarkable sequence of warmer-than-average months for Australia since August 2012.

September 2013 was easily Australia’s warmest September on record. The national average temperature for September was +2.75 °C above the long-term (1961–1990) average, which also sets a record for Australia’s largest positive anomaly for any monthly mean temperature. The previous record of +2.66 °C was set in April 2005.

The mean temperature for Australia, averaged over the 12 months from October 2012 to September 2013, was 1.25 °C above the long-term average. This was also 0.17 °C warmer than any 12-month period prior to 2013.

The previous record, set over September 2012 to August 2013, was +1.11 °C above the long-term average, and the record preceding the current warm spell was +1.08 °C, set between February 2005 and January 2006.

Temperatures for the calendar year to date (January to September) have also been the warmest on record, at 1.31 °C above the long-term average, well above the figure set for January to September 2005 (+1.07 °C). 2005 currently holds the record for Australia’s warmest calendar year.

The past 18 months have been characterised by widespread heat across Australia. The mean temperature has been above average over the entire continent.

Just can't understand why Andrew Bolt didn't make a comment on this release from the BOM.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/updates/articles/a005-sep-2013-warmest-on-record.shtml

noco · 15 October 2014

basilio said:
Just can't understand why Andrew Bolt didn't make a comment on this release from the BOM.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/updates/articles/a005-sep-2013-warmest-on-record.shtml

It is snowing down south this morning.....it is still cool in Townsville this morning.

Those temperature readings you talk about are from thermometers placed near air conditioning outlets to give fictitious readings to substantiate the alarmist claims for higher temperatures....it has been a proven fact.

There has been no increase in temperatures for 18 years....the IPCC state they made an incorrect prediction....NASA has backed it up also.

What happened to Tim Flannery's predictions in 2007 ....there will be no rains sufficient to fill the dams in Brisbane Sydney and Melbourne.......sea levels will rise to the height of 8 story buildings.......Islands are disappearing in the Pacific ocean due to sea level rises.

Tisme · 15 October 2014

basilio said:
Just can't understand why Andrew Bolt didn't make a comment on this release from the BOM.

Because Andrew is blessed with Cracker Jack mind like no other. He's like that 6th sense kid who could "see dead people", except Andrew can see everything that ever was, is and will ever be. He's a machine!!

I'm pretty sure Andrew has had a run in with the Oracular Runes, but unlike Odin he managed to keep vision in both eyes, which just indicates his magnificence.

basilio · 15 October 2014

noco said:
Those temperature readings you talk about are from thermometers placed near air conditioning outlets to give fictitious readings to substantiate the alarmist claims for higher temperatures....it has been a proven fact.
.

That statement is totally untrue NOCO. You may as well say the moon is made from blue, green or yellow cheese. The BOM readings that indicated Australia had the warmest September on record come from 112 sites across the country that are carefully monitored to ensure they reflect the local conditions.

NOCO everyone is entitled to their opinions - but not to their own facts.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/#tabs=ACORN‐SAT

orr · 15 October 2014

Tisme said:
Because Andrew is blessed with Cracker Jack mind like no other. He's like that 6th sense kid who could "see dead people", except Andrew can see everything that ever was, is and will ever be.

I'm pretty sure Andrew has had a run in with the Oracular Runes, but unlike Odin he managed to keep vision in both eyes, which just indicates his magnificence.

Or possibly;

First Lieutenant Milo Minerbinder...'had eyes that each looked in slightly different directions, which meant that he could see more than everybody else, but nothing to clearly............'

Or Maybe Appleby? who had flies in his eye's, but couldn't see them because of the flies in his eye's ......

.From Joseph Heller's 'guide to modern living'

noco · 15 October 2014

basilio said:
That statement is totally untrue NOCO. You may as well say the moon is made from blue, green or yellow cheese. The BOM readings that indicated Australia had the warmest September on record come from 112 sites across the country that are carefully monitored to ensure they reflect the local conditions.

NOCO everyone is entitled to their opinions - but not to their own facts.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/#tabs=ACORN‐SAT

I refer you to post #5602 # 5682 and # 5696.

Weatsop · 15 October 2014

noco said:
Now isn't this such great news.

No need for a DIRECT ACTION PLAN.....no need to plant more trees.....no more need for Bill Shortens Carbon tax again.

Plankton has saved the world from all that nasty CARBON DIOXIDE.

Why didn't someone work this out earlier which could have saved us $billions.

Best breaking news I have heard for a long time.

I wonder if there is an undiscovered plants that could absorb the radical Muslims.?

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...plankton_and_plants_soaking_up_our_emissions/

That doesn't say what you seem to think it says.

Without even digging into the actual paper (and it's important to remember that novel findings in science are usually overturned), the link you gave says that plankton might eat up "four years worth of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels" in the next hundred years.

So even if the thing you quoted turns out to be exactly correct, using an obviously biased source and a paper you and I haven't even read, we're talking about a 4% reduction in emissions. Which is great, but it's not going make a huge difference. Hopefully it's right, and if so it'll get rolled into projections.

At the same time, we found that we underestimated how much energy the southern oceans have absorbed. But you didn't quote that one?

noco said:
Those temperature readings you talk about are from thermometers placed near air conditioning outlets to give fictitious readings to substantiate the alarmist claims for higher temperatures....it has been a proven fact.

You know you can actually go and look at the weather stations, right? You can walk up to them and take a photo, if you like.

And regarding Flannery's dam thing: first, one person saying something dopey or poorly phrased in an interview does not mean that the scientists of the world believe that thing - science is not done by media talking points. If Flannery walks out of his house tomorrow and say it's going to rain marshmallows, that doesn't mean a damn thing about the science.

And second, the direct quote (which is easy to get) shows he's talking about the current conditions in *some* parts of Austrlia, and later if these trends continue. It was poorly phrased, but FFS, jumping on one badly worded phrase seems like you're just trying to find a reason to be offended.

We're already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we're getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that's translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that's a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we're going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.

noco · 15 October 2014

Weatsop said:
That doesn't say what you seem to think it says.

Without even digging into the actual paper (and it's important to remember that novel findings in science are usually overturned), the link you gave says that plankton might eat up "four years worth of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels" in the next hundred years.

So even if the thing you quoted turns out to be exactly correct, using an obviously biased source and a paper you and I haven't even read, we're talking about a 4% reduction in emissions. Which is great, but it's not going make a huge difference. Hopefully it's right, and if so it'll get rolled into projections.

At the same time, we found that we underestimated how much energy the southern oceans have absorbed. But you didn't quote that one?

You know you can actually go and look at the weather stations, right? You can walk up to them and take a photo, if you like.

And regarding Flannery's dam thing: first, one person saying something dopey or poorly phrased in an interview does not mean that the scientists of the world believe that thing - science is not done by media talking points. If Flannery walks out of his house tomorrow and say it's going to rain marshmallows, that doesn't mean a damn thing about the science.

And second, the direct quote (which is easy to get) shows he's talking about the current conditions in *some* parts of Austrlia, and later if these trends continue. It was poorly phrased, but FFS, jumping on one badly worded phrase seems like you're just trying to find a reason to be offended.

W]ith some people suggesting the “hiatus” in global warming has now hit 18 years, and with fresh uncertainty about the sensitivity of the climate system to CO2, ... new findings provide further pause for thought. One paper — published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science — says plants will absorb 130 billion tonnes more carbon dioxide this century than current models suggest. This amount is equal to about four years worth of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels…

It states "plants will absorb 130 billion tonnes more", not the plankton.

Weatsop · 15 October 2014

noco said:
W]ith some people suggesting the “hiatus” in global warming has now hit 18 years, and with fresh uncertainty about the sensitivity of the climate system to CO2, ... new findings provide further pause for thought. One paper ”” published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science ”” says plants will absorb 130 billion tonnes more carbon dioxide this century than current models suggest. This amount is equal to about four years worth of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels…

It states "plants will absorb 130 billion tonnes more", not the plankton.

Ah yes, true. So the plankton increase will do what for carbon, exactly?

Again, how does this make any difference? What difference does it make, and why? How does more plankton translate into climate change is over / a lie / not real?

noco · 15 October 2014

Weatsop said:
Ah yes, true. So the plankton increase will do what for carbon, exactly?

Again, how does this make any difference? What difference does it make, and why? How does more plankton translate into climate change is over / a lie / not real?

Perhaps this link might help to give you an understanding how important plankton is in the southern ocean.

Maybe you might be good enough to do your own research in the future...it can be a bit time consuming.

http://www.gdrc.org/oceans/fsheet-02.html

Weatsop · 16 October 2014

noco said:
Perhaps this link might help to give you an understanding how important plankton is in the southern ocean.

Maybe you might be good enough to do your own research in the future...it can be a bit time consuming.

http://www.gdrc.org/oceans/fsheet-02.html

I didn't ask you to do my research. You claimed that plankton would prevent global warming, and linked to an article with absolutely no details about how much CO2 this increase could possibly absorb. SURELY you had more to go on than that? SURELY you didn't just claim that plankton would prevent global warming based off a vague third hand reference without any numbers at all.

From your own link:

Computer models also indicate that an increase in plankton off Antarctica may not actually lower atmospheric carbon dioxide levels significantly over the next 100 years. But the real danger, of course, is that manipulating biological systems that are not thoroughly understood could have negative consequences just as easily as positive ones.

SO we've got an increase in some plankton populations who will absorb an unknown amount of CO2 that might not even kick in for 100 years, among a species notoriously hard to quantify anyway (they may well be decreasing elsewhere), and you post: "Plankton has saved the world from all that nasty CARBON DIOXIDE."

You don't think that maybe you're kidding yourself, just a bit? Almost like you're so invested in believing something that you'll read just about anything as vindication?

Well done. Your wild extrapolation of a third-hand comment about a paper you haven't read means you know more than thousands of qualified scientists who spent decades studying the climate.

Here's your Nobel Prize...

noco · 16 October 2014

Weatsop said:
I didn't ask you to do my research. You claimed that plankton would prevent global warming, and linked to an article with absolutely no details about how much CO2 this increase could possibly absorb. SURELY you had more to go on than that? SURELY you didn't just claim that plankton would prevent global warming based off a vague third hand reference without any numbers at all.

From your own link:

SO we've got an increase in some plankton populations who will absorb an unknown amount of CO2 that might not even kick in for 100 years, among a species notoriously hard to quantify anyway (they may well be decreasing elsewhere), and you post: "Plankton has saved the world from all that nasty CARBON DIOXIDE."

You don't think that maybe you're kidding yourself, just a bit? Almost like you're so invested in believing something that you'll read just about anything as vindication?

Well done. Your wild extrapolation of a third-hand comment about a paper you haven't read means you know more than thousands of qualified scientists who spent decades studying the climate.

Here's your Nobel Prize...

I see you have not taken any notice of Joe......Smart **** remarks are not acceptable on this forum and I suggest you adhere to Joe's request or you may find yourself in the sin bin for a month.

Weatsop · 16 October 2014

noco said:
I see you have not taken any notice of Joe......Smart **** remarks are not acceptable on this forum and I suggest you adhere to Joe's request or you may find yourself in the sin bin for a month.

So:

Maybe you might be good enough to do your own research in the future...it can be a bit time consuming.

...doesn't count as a smartarse comment?

I genuinely think you're kidding yourself. I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm trying to be clear. I even explained why I think that. I'm trying to make the point that for you to think you know more than scientists with decades of training and experience, you really do need more than the hint of a smell of a possibility that one thing might not be as bad as people think. Maybe.

Scientists don't think they know everything about what's happening. That's how they have work! What do you think they're doing all day?

Plenty of findings will improve our view. Some will make predictions worse, some will make predictions better. So far, nothing we've found has challenged the basic premise - human CO2 production is (as it MUST) increasing the total energy in earth's systems, and this is going to have pretty bad effects on a lot of stuff.

Having ignored the points I guess you didn't think you could defend, and having had it explained to you just how meaningless this evidence you presented was, and how unjustified your conclusion, instead of looking at your own conclusion and whether it was justified, you instead choose to address my tone.

Does the possibility of self-delusion not enter your mind? We all do it! But do you actually think at all about the things that don't agree with you? Or do you just skip to the next thing?

SirRumpole · 16 October 2014

I see you have not taken any notice of Joe......Smart **** remarks are not acceptable on this forum and I suggest you adhere to Joe's request or you may find yourself in the sin bin for a month.

If someone points out flaws in your argument, try and counter with some research instead of insults.

If you don't understand things that you link to, at least confess your ignorance beforehand.

You have been called out a number of times for posting links to extreme material which have proven to be hoaxes (the Bill Cosby one comes to mind). People are getting the idea that a lot of what you post is not worth a response. For your own credibility's sake, please take a bit more care.

noco · 16 October 2014

And regarding Flannery's dam thing: first, one person saying something dopey or poorly phrased in an interview does not mean that the scientists of the world believe that thing - science is not done by media talking points. If Flannery walks out of his house tomorrow and say it's going to rain marshmallows, that doesn't mean a damn thing about the science.

Flannery said something dopey alright and the three dopey Labor Party states of Queensland, NSW and Victoria at the time took notice of him and spent $billions of tax payer's money on desalinization plants which are now in moth balls...It is a pity the Green/Labor party had not taken some notice of the real scientists......But of course the majority of us know there are not too many smart ones in the Green/Labor alliance.....that is one thing they do know is how to waste tax payers money.

SirRumpole · 16 October 2014

Flannery said something dopey alright and the three dopey Labor Party states of Queensland, NSW and Victoria at the time took notice of him and spent $billions of tax payer's money on desalinization plants which are now in moth balls...

One of the worst droughts in history could have been another reason. At what point do you decide you have to do something about a current situation ?

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. You would no doubt be complaining whatever happened.

Weatsop · 16 October 2014

noco said:
And regarding Flannery's dam thing: first, one person saying something dopey or poorly phrased in an interview does not mean that the scientists of the world believe that thing - science is not done by media talking points. If Flannery walks out of his house tomorrow and say it's going to rain marshmallows, that doesn't mean a damn thing about the science.

Flannery said something dopey alright and the three dopey Labor Party states of Queensland, NSW and Victoria at the time took notice of him and spent $billions of tax payer's money on desalinization plants which are now in moth balls...It is a pity the Green/Labor party had not taken some notice of the real scientists......But of course the majority of us know there are not too many smart ones in the Green/Labor alliance.....that is one thing they do know is how to waste tax payers money.

Weirdly, as dopey as their positions on a range of issues are, the Greens are actually one of the best for sticking with the science. They strongly opposed the desal plants, for example. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply they supported them...

On the other hand they oppose nuclear power, despite Australia being about the safest place on earth to use the stuff.
/shrug

noco · 16 October 2014

Weatsop said:
Weirdly, as dopey as their positions on a range of issues are, the Greens are actually one of the best for sticking with the science. They strongly opposed the desal plants, for example. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply they supported them...

On the other hand they oppose nuclear power, despite Australia being about the safest place on earth to use the stuff.
/shrug

Actually now I come to think of it, there were no Greens in the State Governments OF QLD, NSW AND VIC at the time....I stand correction if I am wrong.

Resisting Climate Hysteria

noco

Tisme

Apathetic at Best

basilio

noco

Tisme

Apathetic at Best

basilio

orr

noco

Weatsop

noco

Weatsop

noco

Weatsop

noco

Weatsop

SirRumpole

noco

SirRumpole

Weatsop

noco

Similar threads

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Apathetic at Best

Apathetic at Best

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency