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

Resisting Climate Hysteria

The lack of rain in Hobart over the past few months is starting to become an issue. It got a bit wet for a while, but it's blue sky and sunshine most days, the bush is bone dry and this is in the middle of Winter! Went for a walk this morning and found that the creek near me is completely dry.

Might have to add major bush fires and half the place being burnt to the ground next Summer to the list of problems if this continues. I hope not, but it's way too dry for this time of year at the moment.

It could be argued that this is a continuation of the drought that began in 1998 and that last Winter's high rainfall was simply an aberration.

Anyway, it's a nice Spring day outside with typical Spring weather. In Winter...
 
Its getting dry here in Townsville, as is usual midwinter.

We had a very good wet season and good follow up early winter showers for most.

Polar bears still not visible from the Texas Holdem tables at Jupiters Casino, so the Copenhagen fiasco must have slowed something down.

Penny Wong never seen in Townsville either for what its worth.

gg
 
"In our study, the biggest aerosol effect on climate came from the effect of aerosol-cloud indirect effect. Over the century, it cooled the surface air temperatures -1 °C, with more cooling in the northern hemisphere than in the south. Snow and ice cover increased 1% globally and 4% in the Arctic. Global cloud cover also increased by 0.5%.

The aerosol direct effect cooled the climate over the century by -0.2 °C, also more in the north than the southern hemisphere. It also caused a small increase in cloud and snow/ice cover."

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/koch_04/

Now I am completely confused? Is NASA backing this thesis? Does not seem right to me? Afterall we have all the data clearly showing it is warming don't we?

June 28, 2010 http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100628/

NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. recently introduced the NASA Center for Climate Simulation (NCCS), an integrated set of supercomputing, visualization, and data interaction technologies that will enhance agency capabilities in weather and climate prediction research.
 

Isn't it just saying that the aerosol effect contributed those changes to the overall climate pattern, eg without the aerosol effect we would be that much warmer than we are? If so, thank goodness for the aerosol effect!
 
Got this in my e-mail.
Please don't shot me, l'm just the messenger.

http://australianconservative.com/2010/08/blacklisted-scientist-challenges-global-warming-orthodoxy/

Here is the text from the link above;



ALSO


 
Don't shoot me; I'm just trying to understand.

Dr Roy Spencer is one of the very few climate scientists who still has doubts that human activities have changed the climate of the planet. His rebuttal of Miskolczi's theory is here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi’s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/. The introduction reads:

What is conservative about messing with the only climate human civilisation has ever known?

Ghoti
 
Bushfires in Russia, this year is shaping up to be one of the hottest ever. and some people are still thinking.

Signs of a tipping point in the debate with climate sceptics Jo Chandler
August 17, 2010


Deniers are swapping sides as the evidence continues to build.

There's a lot of talk about ''tipping points'' in the climate science literature these days. It's an innocuous enough little phrase, implying just a nudge over the edge of something. But in climate terms, that step beyond the ''critical threshold'' is a doozy.

In warming scenarios, a tipping point is a mechanism that sweeps us off the edge of the recognisable planet. These narratives are most usually and soberly described in the pages of scientific journals, yet they read like the plot of a Hollywood thriller - think The Day After Tomorrow - but with warming suddenly supercharged by melting permafrost or by clouds of methane belching from beneath the seas, the seas rising by metres as the great polar ice sheets collapse, the powerhouse of the ocean conveyer system failing, or the waters becoming too acidic to nurture life.

These are real enough threats to warrant the intense scrutiny of many of the sharpest scientific minds of our age. Nonetheless, great uncertainties surround each of these scenarios. What is the evidence, the probability? When and how fast? What capacity might nature have to put itself right? What lever might humanity pull?

Uncertainty and doubt are comforting to people who don't want to face the climate spectre - the get-out clause. And frankly, who can blame them?

Uncertainty and doubt are also the most valued currency available to campaigners involved in the orchestrated effort to debunk the science of warming. As US spinmeister Frank Luntz famously counselled Republicans in a leaked 2003 memo on ''winning'' the global warming debate: ''The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science.

''Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming in the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.''

But has a confluence of extreme weather (fire, floods, heatwaves, mud slides) and dogged science - sober, clear consensus statements such as that released yesterday by the Australian Academy of Science - finally outmanoeuvred the engineers of denial? Are we at a tipping point in terms of public comprehension of the climate crisis? In terms of campaign denialism, is the jig up?

The front page of The New York Times, a publication not known for getting hot under the collar about climate, yesterday featured a photographic display of floods in Pakistan, wildfires in Russia, and wild storms in Chicago with the headline, ''In Weather Chaos, A Case for Global Warming''. Might these far-flung disasters be linked? ''The collective answer of the scientific community can be boiled down to a single word: probably.'' More frequent, more intense weather events and excessive heat were all ''consistent with our understanding of how the climate responds to increasing greenhouse gases'', said Jay Lawrimore of the US National Climatic Data Centre.

''If you ask me as a person, do I think the Russian heat wave has to do with climate change, the answer is yes,'' said NASA's Gavin Schmidt. ''If you ask me as a scientist whether I have proved it, the answer is no - at least, not yet.''

Last week, the science editor of Britain's proudly sceptical Daily Mail filed a long article from the Arctic under the headline, ''The Crack in the Roof of the World: Yes, Global Warming is Real - and Deeply Worrying''.

''I have long been something of a climate-change sceptic,'' wrote Michael Hanlon. (One commentator describes him as Britain's most influential sceptic.) ''But my views in recent years have shifted. For me, the most convincing evidence that something worrying is going on lies right here in the Arctic . . .

''I still believe climate change has probably been exaggerated, but after coming here it is impossible to maintain that nothing is going on.'' It's doubt, but not as we know it.

Climateprogress.org, a blog run by scientist and former Clinton administration official Joe Romm, documents a half dozen recent ''scales-from-their-eyes'' moments in sceptical or previously mute publications, among them a Canadian bastion of the right, the National Post, lambasting global warming deniers as ''a liability to the conservative cause''.

So is this the tipping point in the debate? On this, it pays to be sceptical. Let's remember it was in the super-heated summer of 1988 when NASA's James Hansen went to Washington DC and sounded the alarm. Twenty-two summers later, and here we are.

Australian scientists are to be congratulated for enunciating clearly, at this critical moment, what is not in doubt - that an increase in greenhouse gases as a result of human industry pushes up temperatures, and that these are now at the highest levels seen in 800,000 years.

There is still much to doubt about the consequences. But am I strange? Why do I find so little comfort in uncertainty? As veteran British climate writer Fred Pearce observes, sceptics have a valid point when they say that climate predictions are far less certain than is often claimed. But ''those sceptics are dreadfully wrong to take comfort in this . . . There is chaos out there, and we should be afraid.''

Jo Chandler is an Age senior writer.
 
I've just bough several thousand hectares on Baffin Island for a song.

Plans available now. Reserve your house block before the great NW passage rush.

(Just adding more argumentative fallacies into the rich vein of them in the preceding post. )
 
Here is another good site for monitoring the Arctic sea ice, updated almost daily. From their data the current ice extents are greater than for the same period in 2007 after a cooler July and they seem to think it is unlikely that the 2007 minimum will be breached. Even then it is still on track to be the second lowest ice extent on record.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
 
Meanwhile, Antarctic sea ice seams to be heading for a record high.

There are a number of possibilities for this.
 
This will be interesting:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4026330/Niwa-sued-over-data-accuracy

There was a 1980 "peer reviewed" paper outlining that the NZ weather record is rubbish... and now it's mainstream science?

 
This PR stunt is the same lie from the same people who tried to attack the New Zealand temperature record late last year, as you can see from this very thread, about Post 216 I think. The data and the adjustments have been on the public record for years.

Ghoti.
 
LOL

Anything against your opinion is a lie.

You might want to check the New Zealand Journal of Science, 1980, Vol. 23, 1 – 9 where there is a peer reviewed paper by JWD Hessell (a NZ meteorologist), essentially trashing the NZ temperature because of inappropriate maintenance of sites and completely arbitrary adjustments.

More here http://business.scoop.co.nz/2010/08/16/court-asked-to-invalidate-niwa-temperature-record/


The paper - http://www.investigatemagazine.com/hessell1980.pdf

The Watts study (which warmers like to unjustifiably discount) shows similar factors in the US temp record.
 
Hey wayne have you looked at the data from Oz that I posted a while back? Assuming that our data is OK (straight from BOM website data from each station) it shows a clear warming trend (0.3 degrees) in the average temperatures since 1970. While not much, if it continues we'll be another 0.6 warmer by the end of the century.
 

The BOM data has been compromised due UHI effects, adjustments and manipulation such as lowering older tempratues and increasing new temprature readings to suit the political agenda. Plenty of discussion on blogs and across the net on climategate, glaciergate, pick-a-gate.....

Speaking of fraud, satellitegate - a breaking story last week proves satellite temperature data has also been compromised - Satellite Failure Means Decade of Global Warming Data Doubtful.

Have any of the warmist alarmist on this forum figured out why the US has spent $80B (yes, that's a B) since 1980 to convince you that you need to pay a tax to produce CO2? Ah sorry, forgot religious beliefs can't be changed. Move along, eyes forward, follow the person in front...
 
Climate hysteria is now over. In the Gillard/Abbott forum of undecided voters last night not a single questionn was about climate change or the ETS
 
Climate hysteria is now over. In the Gillard/Abbott forum of undecided voters last night not a single questionn was about climate change or the ETS

Calliope, I believe a vast majority of people are waking up to these "ALARMIST" at long last and are doubting the authenticity of Climate change created by Man's emmissions of CO2 affecting climate change.

Climate change has been happening for thousands of years and will continue to influenced by the Sun and the angle of the Earth's axis to the Sun. This why there has been more disasters in the Northern Hemisphere than their Soutern counterparts. Extreme cold, extreme heat, floods and typhoons.

There is far more CO2 sent into the atmosphere by volcanoes and bush fires than CO2 emmissions created by Man. The ALARMIST never mention this factor in their equations at any time over the past few years.

It's an absolute con particularly by the Greens Socialist Party and Labor to raise revenue resulting in higher cost of living and higher electicity prices.

This is why the Labor Party have resisted debating the subject before the election! Bob Brown stated in the NPC "there will be CPRS in this next term if Labor win the election". This is the deal they have obviously made with Labor to gain their preference vote. Make no mistake the Greens have a twisted agenda.
 
There is far more CO2 sent into the atmosphere by volcanoes and bush fires than CO2 emmissions created by Man. The ALARMIST never mention this factor in their equations at any time over the past few years.
No. You're wrong.

Humans ~= 29 Billion tonnes CO2/year
http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm said:
Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.
http://www.geotimes.org/nov07/article.html?id=WebExtra111207.html said:
Every year, fires burn 3 million to 4 million square kilometers of Earth’s land surface area, and release more than a billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide.

1Pg C = 1 x10^15g or 1x10^9t = 1 billion tonnes
1 tonne C = 3.67 tonnes CO2
Therefore ave of 2.5Pg C/year = 9.18 billion tonnes CO2 = 31% of human emissions
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...