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

Resisting Climate Hysteria


Try not to bolt things down. I understand this part of ASF is intended to be for discussion. I also understand that to mean the free expression of our own views and ideas without the tie of references etc. A chat between us so to speak.

I am cognisant of your overall concerns of the full human footprint. And with you on that, particularly population growth.

However my FEELING is that the effects of coal and oil use is the bigger issue and that view should not be regarded as hysterical in the current climate.
 

Banana is radioactive? dam.

Did you also learn Newton's Laws too? For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction; an object is stationary until a force acts on it... things like that?

So all the automobiles, fossil fuel powered machinery, the coal powered stations... all the modern stuff that weren't around until just last century, producing CO2 by the millions of tonnes... they have no effect on the environment, no effect on the air and atmosphere?
 
IPCC has been know to extend their predictions based on their modelling. The graph I supplied EVIDENCED what they predicted and what ACTUALLY occurred in real time. Meh ... another fraudulent claim I suspect.


I don't know which IPCC model is being quoted, it keeps being improved however the model is obviously wrong because el nino has such an influence on its result which means that one measure of global warming -probably ocean temperatures, is not accurate or not weighted correctly.

Now we have an El Nino I expect the next few years will show a large jump in global temperatures which will be above the IPCC model.

We are talking short term (weather) as against long term (climate).

BTW, plenty of money for scientists who will argue against global warming. Let's face it, that's where all the money is going, including to news outlets and expensive think tanks.
 
PUBLISHED IN SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN


A Drexel University study finds that a large slice of donations to organizations that deny global warming are funneled through third-party pass-through organizations that conceal the original funder
By Douglas Fischer and The Daily Climate | December 23, 2013

A shift to untraceable donations by organizations denying climate change undermines democracy, according to the author of a new study tracking contributions to such groups.

The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations, according to an analysis released Friday afternoon.

The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement.

It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.

In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.

Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
 

Merely micro climates on an international scale luutzu.

I see the Gold Coast is marketing to the Chinese tourists to take a break to a clean air environment, away from the smog, acid rain, etc.
 
How to bodgy up data to create false impressions

A few posts ago TS offered a simple graph purporting to show how out of line the IPPC predictions of global warming were. It looked like this



So what wrong with it and how was it crafted to deliberately mislead people?

The problem with the picture is that they have used a baseline of 1990 (which happened to be a peak in the observations), rather than the proper procedure of a 30 year baseline. The trick is if you pick a particular single year baseline you can make it give any result you want, you can make it look like the models over-predict temperatures by baselining to a warm year, or you can make them look as if they are running cooler by baselining to a cold year.

Of course the other trick was to leave out the last 2-3 years climate figures which tell another story.

So how can this sleight-of-hand be seen across the full data set ?

This is another graph with the HADCRUT4 Date base figures


The graph shows two lines representing completely accurate representations of the rate of warming, but starting from different points in the vertical axis depending on your choice of baselines.

So the top green line represents a "skeptics" presentation, where the observations and projection were baselined to the peak in the observations so that the observations are then generally below the projection. This is how you can create the headlines "IPCC models over predict warming" .

The blue line at the bottom is an "alarmist" presentation, where the observations and projections were baselined to a trough in the observations, so that the observations are generally higher than the projection. That way you get headlines of "IPCC models underpredict warming"

The magenta line in the middle however represents the scientific presentation (in this case it is just the OLS trend line), where the offset hasn't been cherry picked to support the desired argument.

Cheers
 
You know what is really interesting with regard to the effects of CO2 on Climate Change ?

Fifty years ago ( in 1965..) President Johnson science advisory committee sent him a report which noted the problems with increases in CO2 and lead concentrations in the environment.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/scientists-warned-president-global-warming-50-years-ago-today.html
 


I remember seeing a graph somewhere that shows the CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide gases steady state from AD1000 then the industrial revolution 1850's mark a kick up in and then an increased rate in the 1950's. I'm not sure if it was Charles Keeling's work that it is based on?

The CO2 levels since the late 1950's are something like 315PPM and now it's 375PPM and the point of no return is apparently 450PPM.

There's a worry the thermohaline circulation of the Atlantic and other oceans will cease and that can't be good.
 
Do you remember the story I ran a few weeks ago which highlighted the scope of knowledge that Exxon scientists had regarding Global Warming ? The short story is that in the late 70's/early 80's scientists employed by Exxon were amongst the leaders in climate science research and made explicitly clear to the Board the consequences of continued CO2 production through burning fossil fuels.

Basically we were going to cook the planet.

Faced with these reports Exxon did what one would expect of them. They closed down the research, buried and ignored the reports and then started and funded a systematic program of misinformation around climate change and its cause.

Anyway the chickens might be coming home to roost.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/is-big-oil-about-to-have-its-big-tobacco-moment/
 
How curious basilio.

Exxon funded research which agrees with your Apocalypse fantasy is taken as gospel.

Yet (purportedly) Exxon funded research which probably reflects a more realistic scenario, must be tainted.

How predictable.
 
How curious basilio.

Exxon funded research which agrees with your Apocalypse fantasy is taken as gospel.

Yet (purportedly) Exxon funded research which probably reflects a more realistic scenario, must be tainted.

How predictable.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

Waiting for the Mount Pinatubo jibe to sink in before responding in kind.

Ohhh F@CK it .. if he can use the Guardian so can I ....


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake
 
Congratulations TS !!! You have won First, Second AND Third Prize !!!

In fact you swept the pool mate. Can't believe how you managed to find that absolutely critical piece of IPCC flim flam that totally discredited the entire body of work around climate change.

Just xxxxxxxxx unbelievable mate. Take a bow.

You can now officially join Wayne and Noco as equal supreme masters of the universe and in particular the dismantlement of Climate Change research.

Cheers.

__________________________________________________

By the Wayne I'm not sure if Exxon did fund other research to "prove" that global warming/climate change was all it was cracked up to be.

They just channelled all their money through the tried and tested tobacco lobby players who had 50 years of success in denying the effects of smoking on health.

You can't beat results like that can you ? Certainly wouldn't to waste it on research anyway.. (unless you make absolutely sure the results fall your way..)

_____________________________________

pps. do you have even the teesiest, weeniset comment to make on the credibility of theat bodgy graph you threw up ? probably not ....
 

Yeah you need to eat 3,500 per annum of them to get a buzz or about 10 a day to be 3% chance of getting a cancerous causing cell ... whatever.

E=Mc2 is part of societal law ERGO Newton's Law (Theorised in 1905) . This also is up for debate ...


http://www.circlon.com/living-universe/025-how-einstein-was-wrong-about-E=MC2.html

Nope .. not what I have said ANYWHERE ... Man is polluting this planet and it needs to change dramatically in the way we see how we fit in with the environment. Plastic dumped on the land ends in the ocean for instance ...


http://www.greenpeace.org/internati...ns/fit-for-the-future/pollution/trash-vortex/



Let's fix this and then talk seriously about pumping Co2 into the atmosphere

Oh wait I forgot about this little pet hate of mine in Indonesia ...


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-24/indonesian-haze-reaches-the-philippines/6881564

And you want to whinge about cars and factories in first world countries ??? Bring it on !!!!!!!!!! :shoot::shoot:

You want cause and effect on the atmosphere?? Try India for example ...

http://aqicn.org/map/india/#@g/24.0238/78.7424/4z


http://www.hindustantimes.com/india...ee-in-china/story-myTrPZM8DHmQOhxB9cc5hI.html

So before you write me off as a Lord Monckton ass kisser and Denier you might want to look at what is going on globally that is affecting the world before claiming rubbish (pun intended) facts.
 

DERP !! I actually wrote this but you ignored it ...

IPCC has been know to extend their predictions based on their modelling. The graph I supplied EVIDENCED what they predicted and what ACTUALLY occurred in real time. Meh ... another fraudulent claim I suspect.

Crack on then basilio ... it appears you have something to prove old chum?
 

Yes for sure K22 the science is improving and slowly we are understanding as to what is happening to Earth. We spin on this blue planet at the equator at 1675 km/h in a solar system the size of less than a grain of rice from what we know in the universe thus far. Getting deep huh?

The topic of this thread is to avoid HYSTERIA ... glaciers will melt by 2035 (IPCC predictions) Global Warming will raise sea levels by 8 to 25 metres cause it happened over 2 and a half million years ago cause the temperature was 2 degrees hotter then ... REALLY ??? Crops will fail and typhoons, floods, disasters, cyclones will become stronger and more prevalent and salmon will die has been thrown up on these boards so far. What a lot of HYSTERIA.

Yep ... the world is getting hotter. My hair is getting greyer and I am getting wiser and the more I see of it the more it remains, samma samma dong ! (translation .... still the same mate!)
 
The topic of this thread is to avoid HYSTERIA ...

If anyone wants Hysteria then fear not, Def Leppard are touring in Australia next week. Pretty sure they'll be playing a few songs from that album and probably the title track itself.

Back on topic, 2 months without any significant rain in Tas and already the media is starting to fill with people saying that we'll die of thirst, burn to the ground or at least be left in the dark.

Whilst the weather has certainly been incredibly dry, there's no doubt about that, we're a very long way from a crisis at this point. Impacts on farmers yes and bushfires possibly, but the rest is just unnecessary alarmist nonsense really and there's no need to be stocking up on bottled water and candles anytime soon.

Unfortunately this is what happens once the public notices that the weather's a bit unusual. Queue the "will never rain again" sort of predictions...
 
The ABC and it's climate hysteria and scaremongering at it finest. What a load of codswollop this article is.
Nothing but crap , I love how they have photo shopped the picture of the Sydney Opera House Forecourt. Clearly if the water/tide was up that high against that break wall any passing ferry would have caused enough wash to send water flowing over the top into those eateries. So the ABC have clearly photo shopped the water level !
And the article itself is just rubbish , showing before and after photos of major cities around the world under water because of a 2 degree temperature change. Anyone out there noticed any change out there in their sea side city ?
Hobart water and tide levels certainly the same as they have always been here , no new tide marks ect showing rising levels . The climate change brigade has really started to ramp up the we all going to drown argument of late . Why ? because fear is money .


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-...ct-megacities-with-surging-sea-levels/6924328
 
What a lot of HYSTERIA.

Yep ... the world is getting hotter. My hair is getting greyer and I am getting wiser and the more I see of it the more it remains, samma samma dong ! (translation .... still the same mate!)

Yeh, the earth was a gas fired ball of fire 5 billion years back.

It should be getting cooler, BUT IT IS NOT.
 
Also to add to the above research ( google ) shows that the East Coast Of Tasmania is a sea temperature hotspot.
This article states " that since the 1960's that Tasmania's East Coast sea temperature has risen 0.8 c" .
Certainly there is plenty of evidence to support this like fish from warmer climes moving in and some native species in the area unable to cope.
But the article puts into focus the bogus claims about sea levels rising , if a 2c rise causes 8 to 25 meters in sea levels a 0.8 c rise would surely show some rise in relative meters wouldn't it ? So why isn't that Hobart and the East Coast towns in Tasmania are not being washed away ? Food for thought

http://www.redmap.org.au/article/sea-temperatures-and-climate-change-in-tasmania/
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...