Did you check the graph in the link below?.....I posted it yesterday....here it is again.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/andrew-bolt
Come on noco.
Even the biggest skeptic knows that global warming is real, they are just hoping it has slowed down due to natural feedback mechanisms.
From NASA
As of 2014, 2013 tied with 2009 and 2006 for the seventh warmest year since 1880 according to NASA scientists. With the exception of 1998, the 10 warmest years in the 134-year record have all occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the warmest years on record. Earth continues to be hotter than it was several decades ago.
http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/28/
Come on noco.
Even the biggest skeptic knows that global warming is real, they are just hoping it has slowed down due to natural feedback mechanisms.
From NASA
As of 2014, 2013 tied with 2009 and 2006 for the seventh warmest year since 1880 according to NASA scientists. With the exception of 1998, the 10 warmest years in the 134-year record have all occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the warmest years on record. Earth continues to be hotter than it was several decades ago.
http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/28/
I'll just copy one of the Herald Sun readers posts to this article which says it all.
Ian
2 hours ago
The reason many people regard Andrew Bolt's columns with a grain of salt is because often, if you do a little extra research you find out how much cherry-picking he does. Sure enough, if you read the NASA news release from which he quotes, it also says, 'during the same period warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated, an unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up.' Furthermore, it says ' The sea level is rising because of ... the water added by glacier and ice sheet melt.'
I would say you cherry picked that comment because it falls in line with your thinking.
I posted this link before which shows the graph indicates no increase in Global warming...follow the U-Tube.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/andrew-bolt
How is our climate tracking in 2014?
The national mean temperature in September 2014 was more than 1 °C above average, while October saw temperatures of 1.91 °C above average. The year-to-date and the 12-month running mean temperature ending in October 2014 are the 5th- and 6th-highest on record (+0.82 °C and +0.77 °C, respectively).
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/
I know you might find using data not massaged by newscorp a bit daunting, but unless you're proposing the BOM is full of people massaging the measurements from thousands of sites it pretty much shows the clear trend of warming in Australia.
That is the real issue. Pollutants of all types. I'm in my forties and I remember in the 1970's my grandfather laying on a bed with a fan on him and perspiring while he slept. It was that hot. At school we had an evaporative air conditioner I remember filling with water when it was extra hot and we had to use it. No one can tell me that it is any hotter now. I wonder if the warmists in Australia know that Australia is an arid country. Maybe the students of today are told it was never like this before. Fairly easy to scare people that don't know.All this Co2 stuff is simply a distraction to stop people aiming up at the real problem, pollution from factories in the Northern Hemisphere that is clearly visible and just about chewable, it is disgusting.
That is the real issue. Pollutants of all types. I'm in my forties and I remember in the 1970's my grandfather laying on a bed with a fan on him and perspiring while he slept. It was that hot. At school we had an evaporative air conditioner I remember filling with water when it was extra hot and we had to use it. No one can tell me that it is any hotter now. I wonder if the warmists in Australia know that Australia is an arid country. Maybe the students of today are told it was never like this before. Fairly easy to scare people that don't know.
Up is Down: How Stating the False Hides the True
One of the more interesting Republican strategies is saying things whose opposite is true. They say that the Democratic nominee is bought off by special interests, the Democrats are outspending them, the Democrats are playing dirty, the Democrats don’t care about homeland security, the Democrats hate America, all when this is far more true of the Republicans. They say Joseph McCarthy was a noble man, the media has a liberal bias, affirmative action is bad for equality, Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and Ronald Reagan was our greatest President, all when the opposite is far more true.
At first glance this seems bizarre ”” why draw attention to your weaknesses? But it’s actually a very clever use of the media. The media tries hard to be “fair and balanced”, and it generally believes the best way to do this is to present the opinions from both sides and make as few judgement calls as possible (to avoid introducing their own bias). And if there’s a debate on some issue, taking a side is seen as a judgement call.
On an issue for which there’s little or no disagreement (say, the color of the sky) reporters see no problem with treating this as fact. They’ll happily slip it into the relevant articles: “President Bush, standing against a backdrop of the blue-colored sky, announced his new plan for the environment.” But if Republicans begin insisting that the sky is purple, the issue becomes less clear. At first, of course, the idea will seem ludicrous. But the Republicans will find experts to swear up and down that the sky is purple, and funny anecdotes about purple-colored skies, and have the Weekly Standard and Fox News repeatedly note that the sky is purple until it becomes an issue of debate. And soon enough the journalists begin writing “President Bush announced his new plan for the environment. ‘The sky was blue,’ claimed DNC chairman Terry McAulife, but prominent scientists repeatedly insisted that the sky was, in fact, purple.”
Now this seems a bit silly in the case of the color of the sky, but take something like “global warming”. Most journalists don’t know enough to evaluate whether global warming exists or not, and I haven’t spent the time to do so either. But I’ve heard that among the serious scientific community, global warming’s existence is simply a fact. Yet Republicans have spent a lot of money and time bringing this fact into question, so that no reporter can safely state that global warming exists, without covering the other side.
And once the reporters begin showing both sides, the populace begins getting confused too. “Who knows,” they think, “the sky may really be purple.” And so they begin believing the line of their affiliated party. Democrats start insisting that the sky is blue, and Republicans strongly believe that it is purple. And those in the middle just assume that the truth is “somewhere in the middle”, even when it most assuredly is not.
So this is the Republican strategy: to neutralize their weaknesses by making them seem like matters of public debate. You can’t come out and say the Republicans are bought and paid for by the special interests, because the Republicans swear up and down that the Democrats are! Just imagine if Ed Gillespie, the RNC Chairman who’s often saying these absurd things, was around in the days of the Civil War:
Abraham Lincoln wants to throw the American people into slavery. By taking away our hard-earned property, he takes away our basic human rights. Why does Abraham Lincoln hate America? Why does he want to destroy our great nation by taking away our right to own slaves ”” a right enshrined in that most American of documents, the Constitution?
The Constitution says we are all made equal. That we should all be given an equal chance to make the best of our lives. But Abraham Lincoln wants to raise some Americans ”” those stupid, illiterate, negroes ”” above everyone else, by handing out their freedom to them. Since the founding of our country, slaves could buy their freedom, earning it through hard work, but now Lincoln wants to bypass all that and give it to slaves for nothing!
You get the idea. Now few would readily claim that ending slavery took away human rights and equality, but through this bizarro-world reasoning ”” the same reasoning that makes affirmative action bad for equality, and liberals hate America ”” it’s easy to make it seem like these are still issues of debate. And as long as a thinking press believes that fairness means repeating everyones lies equally, this nonsense will continue to be spread.
So here’s my question: how do you stop this stuff?
For the record, there's about to be a proper announcement about a new wind project in Tasmania using Chinese technology later this week.
And aren't they also investing heavily into the dairy industry Smurf?
Tassy could be getting somewhere at last, thanks to the Chinese. (I hope we know what we are doing).
On the climate side, according to an article in the Age today, the Chinese will no longer be requiring additional coal for power generation and in fact will be aiming for a reduction in coal use of 0.7% a year from next year.
Two coal mines have recently closed in Australia planning to reopen in two months once surplus coal stocks are run down. I think that at least one of the mines may need to be shut permanently.
I am now coming to understand the desperation of the coal lobby.
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/ch...-belittle-its-commitment-20141117-11nxlj.html
Two massive expansions costing billions of dollars have been going on over the last few years to export coal. It isn't going to end tomorrow. When Christine Milne designs and produces a low cost, environment neutral and efficient base load power supply system for the world then it will be all over. The bandwagon goes around again.Yet the QLD Govt is doubling down on coal with Adani to open up the Galilee basin at a breakeven cost of $100. Seriously, you can't make this kind of crazy up.
“As I read the agreement it requires the Chinese to do nothing at all for 16 years while these carbon emissions regulations are creating havoc in my state and around the country.” – US Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell, November 12, 2014.
Far from “doing nothing”, China will be building the world’s largest renewable energy system over the next 16 years. This is something that China has already started doing – so the targets agreed upon are feasible, if arduous.
As part of the US-China climate deal announced on Wednesday, China is committing to raise the proportion of renewables in its total energy system to 20%. As renewables and nuclear power currently account for 10% of China’s total energy consumption, this implies a doubling of its renewables commitment. The challenge is illustrated in the graph below.
This is why Chinese president Xi Jinping can commit China to peaking its carbon emissions by 2030. In reality, we and many other observers expect China’s carbon emissions to peak well before that date, so there is room for more dramatic announcements to come from the Chinese side.
In fact, at the recent APEC meeting in Beijing, China’s national Energy Bureau stated that China’s coal consumption would probably peak by 2020, at about 4.2 billion tonnes per year. So carbon emissions could peak just a little after that – and certainly before 2030.
Mitch McConnell and many other commentators have placed all their emphasis on China’s building of a “black” energy system, comprising new coal and other fossil fuel facilities, while ignoring the enormous commitments already made to renewables and a complementary green energy system.
By our reckoning, the leading edge of change in China’s energy system is already more green than black, and the total system is greening at such a rate that the goals just announced as part of the climate deal should certainly be met.
The White House, in its statement announcing the joint deal, said that for China to meet its commitment:
…it will require China to deploy an additional 800-1000 gigawatts of nuclear, wind, solar and other zero-emission generation capacity by 2030 – more than all the coal-fired power plants that exist in China today and close to total current electricity generation capacity in the United States.
These are enormous numbers, but they fit with China’s current capacity and goals. In 2013 China’s generating capacity from all sources reached 1247 gigawatts. Its generating capacity from water, wind and sun (leaving nuclear to one side) has already reached 378 gigawatts, far in front of all other industrial countries (see below and here).
China’s National Development and Reform Commission has already announced plans to raise that total to 550 gigawatts by 2017. This is a commitment to renewables on a colossal scale that dwarfs that of other countries.
This goal would call for an additional 1000 gigawatts of renewable generation capacity to be built over the next 15 years – or 1.33 gigawatts (equivalent to a large nuclear power station) every week.
The difference between the commitments made by China and those by other countries is that China is committing to renewables as part of an industrial strategy to focus its industrial growth around such clean industries and technologies. As part of the 12th Five year Plan, China has singled out seven strategic industries that it sees as being the pillars of its economy – including electric vehicles, renewable energy, and energy efficiency.
There is likely to be even greener tinge to the 13th Five Year Plan, currently under discussion and due to run from 2016 to 2020.
So far from “doing nothing” over the next 16 years, China is transforming its economy and energy system so that water, wind and solar power will be its driving forces. Other countries – not least close US allies such as Australia and Canada – would be wise to pay attention.
Verdict
False. China has an extensive plan to curtail its emissions between now and 2030, including building renewable energy facilities on a far larger scale than any other nation. Honouring its new climate pact with the United States will involve doing a lot more than nothing.
Review (by Frank Jotzo)
The view that China’s announced target is feasible but arduous is correct. It is also true that a peaking of carbon dioxide emissions in China is possible before 2025, given strong Chinese policy efforts and future changes to the rate and nature of China’s economic growth. China has extensive policies in place to constrain the growth in energy use and to shift away from coal, and under this commitment China will intensify those efforts.
It is important to understand that China’s effort is much broader even than the authors of this FactCheck suggest. The text correctly points out the importance of renewable energy expansion, but improvements in energy efficiency and the transformation of China’s economic structure towards high-value manufacturing and services will do more to dampen carbon emissions growth. In my own analysis, my colleagues and I found that a carbon dioxide peak around 2025 would be achieved by maintaining a 4% per year improvement in economy-wide energy productivity, and a 1.0-1.5% annual reduction in the carbon intensity of energy supply. The former comes through better technical efficiency and structural change, the latter through a shift from coal to gas, renewables and nuclear power. – Frank Jotzo
“How could it be getting hotter … if it was really hotter 118 years ago? It’s relatively simple: the early years are simply wiped from the official record.” – Nationals MP George Christensen, House of Representatives, October 29.
Most people are familiar with the white Stevenson Screens you can see at any weather-observing site around the country. But there is a great deal of documentary evidence indicating that, for much of the country, such screens were not widely used in Australia during the 19th century.
So did the different ways of exposing the thermometers seriously bias the 19th-century observations, relative to modern readings? The answer is yes, and we have Charles Todd (of overland telegraph fame) to thank for answering this question.
In 1887, Todd set up what must be one of the longest-running scientific experiments ever, when he installed thermometers in a Stevenson Screen and on a Glaisher Stand at Adelaide Observatory (as seen in the illustration here). Observations were taken in both exposures until 1948.
The results of this 61-year experiment show that summer daytime temperatures measured using the Glaisher Stand are, on average, 1C warmer than in the Stevenson Screen. And this was at a well-maintained station – if a Glaisher Stand is not used properly, direct sunshine can fall on the thermometers, dramatically increasing the warm bias (and this was probably what happened at some stations, given that we know equipment was not always well maintained).
That’s why the Bureau’s official temperature records start in 1910 – before that date we have good grounds for believing that the data are poor and biased (and would be difficult to adjust for the many problems). But earlier data are available on the Bureau’s website. For instance, data for Bourke, NSW, are available all the way back to 1871.
According to Berkeley Earth, the Australian average daily maximum temperature in January 1896 was about 1C hotter than the 1951-80 January average. But January 2013 was a full 1.5C hotter again – really, the late 19th century temperatures don’t come close to modern extremes.
Only by ignoring the many factors that we know affect temperature observations, and the fact that the way temperatures were observed in the 19th century was very different to how we do it nowadays, could one confidently conclude that the late 19th century in Australia was as warm as the past few years.
The temperature isn't any different from at least 40 years ago plus from our personal experience. Do you have any experience in Australia?It's a bit crazy isn't it? Noco and Co insistently blather on that BOM is falsifying temperature data to create a global warming hoax.
Two massive expansions costing billions of dollars have been going on over the last few years to export coal. It isn't going to end tomorrow. When Christine Milne designs and produces a low cost, environment neutral and efficient base load power supply system for the world then it will be all over. The bandwagon goes around again.
The temperature isn't any different from at least 40 years ago plus from our personal experience. Do you have any experience in Australia?
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?