Resisting Climate Hysteria

[explod]

This is the same problem with the whole climate science arena.

Agree, what we can see going on is clear enough.

Fifty year events only weeks and sometimes days apart.

 

[luutzu]

Agree, what we can see going on is clear enough.

Fifty year events only weeks and sometimes days apart.

IF they managed to keep the denial for another decade, these currently decade-event could be a annual thing and so, statistically, it doesn't sound that bad.

 

[Knobby22]

Some good news.
The artic ice chart, refer attached, shows that we didn't break the record set in 2012. July and September looked to have been colder than that year resulting in the early breakaway going back to below that previous highest level. Happy days.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

 

[wayneL]

Agree, what we can see going on is clear enough.

Fifty year events only weeks and sometimes days apart.

IF they managed to keep the denial for another decade, these currently decade-event could be a annual thing and so, statistically, it doesn't sound that bad.

I rest my case

 

[explod]

From noco on ABC thread to align topic.

There has been no increase in Global warming in the past 10 years.


http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/blog/14420


Climate scientists know the energy is going somewhere other than the atmosphere because the imbalance continues and temperatures have not warmed in the last 10 years. The energy could be warming the land and/or melting ice or snow, but these sinks traditionally have played minor roles in the flow of energy. The best candidate is the ocean, which can suck up a lot of energy in the form of heat. The deep ocean in particular is a good sink and it can accumulate heat in numerous ways, including deceased sinking of Arctic surface waters during the winter and increased mixing of tropical water that allows warm surface water to sink.

This article is precisely the point. The ocean in particular has been able to absorb the increased pollution/heat from co2 till now. However the tipping point has been reached and now we have heat displacement occurring from the poles which is causing a rising of moisture (like the kitchen kettle) which in turn is creating the increased volatility in our weather. So now 50 year events happening all over the place every week or two.

 

[noco]

From noco on ABC thread to align topic.



This article is precisely the point. The ocean in particular has been able to absorb the increased pollution/heat from co2 till now. However the tipping point has been reached and now we have heat displacement occurring from the poles which is causing a rising of moisture (like the kitchen kettle) which in turn is creating the increased volatility in our weather. So now 50 year events happening all over the place every week or two.

Is that your thought bubble or do you have a link?

If Global warming has stabilized over the past 10 years then we may start to see a reverse trend down....MHO.

 

[Tisme]

http://www.theecologist.org/News/ne...mo_the_worlds_new_400ppm_climate_reality.html

WMO: the world's new 400ppm climate reality
Alex Kirby

25th October 2016



Global CO2 concentrations have reached a historic new base of 400 parts per million, writes Alex Kirby, and are unlikely to fall below that level - 40% higher than the pre-industrial era - for many centuries to come. The WMO released the news just as the UK commits to a new London runway.

 

[noco]

How did the CSIRO and BOM get our climate, drought and rainfall so wrong?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...e/news-story/a686f3a55cca9373b3c686ef0195c414

 

[explod]

This is the real truth:

BUT SCIENTISTS DON’T AGREE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS CAUSED BY US, RIGHT?
Wrong. According to a little organization called NASA, 97 percent of climate scientists agree that global warming over the past century is “extremely likely due to human activities.”
Among climate change deniers’ favorite arguments is that there is not “scientific consensus” that it is man-made. You’ll hear that phrase often, usually alongside talk that the current proven warming trend is part of a natural cycle.
While the Earth has indeed experienced cycles of warming and cooling, scientists estimate that in the past it has typically taken around 5,000 years for the planet to recover – by warming between 4-7 degrees Celsius – after an ice age has ended. This makes the global average surface temperature increase of 1.1””1.6 degrees Fahrenheit (0.6””0.9 degrees Celsius) across just the twentieth century alone roughly eight times faster than the usual post-ice-age-recovery warming rate.
And it’s a cycle that is only accelerating. Fifteen of the 16 hottest years on record globally have occurred this century.
The phrase “scientific consensus” itself refers to the collective judgement of a scientific community, and while it implies agreement, it does not require unanimity. Ninety-seven percent of the climate science community agrees that climate change is real and that it is being caused by human activities such as our use of fossil fuels. Indeed, some scientists have asserted that the evidence linking human activities to climate change is as conclusive as the link between smoking and lung cancer.
REMIND ME HOW CARBON POLLUTION CAUSES CLIMATE CHANGE.
When carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted into our atmosphere, it can hang around for a very long time. The more carbon pollution in the air, the more the sun’s energy gets trapped in our atmosphere as heat. Think about it like this: a build-up of carbon in the atmosphere is acting like a blanket around the Earth. As more heat gets in and less is able to escape, things keep getting hotter and the result impacts every element of our climate system.

From The Climate Reality Project overnight

 

[noco]

This is the real truth:



From The Climate Reality Project overnight

Explod, here we go again on this 97% of scientists.....You are staring to go over the same ground which has been debunked.

Go back and read posts :-
8447
8457
8463
8467
8477
8480

It was 97% 0f 77 scientists paid for by the UN Climate Change Committee........there are some 35,500 who say they are wrong.

So please get off the Merry-go-round.

 

[explod]

Explod, here we go again on this 97% of scientists.....You are staring to go over the same ground which has been debunked.

Go back and read posts :-
8447
8457
8463
8467
8477
8480

It was 97% 0f 77 scientists paid for by the UN Climate Change Committee........there are some 35,500 who say they are wrong.

So please get off the Merry-go-round.

8447 Evans is not a scientific climatologist,

8457 the wild flood waters are rising to the doors,

8463 it is 97% of all scientific studies, as apposed to scientists,

8467 and we have had the water bombs alluded to of late,

8477 you have said Noco, that 77 scientists are paid by the UN. What has this got to do with the 97% of
scientific studies,


8480 you stated that I was getting carried away about cities getting washed away. In the news of late
they are getting washed away almost weekly.

Overall no proof as you claim at all. Just the normal collection scraps and bits to maintain confusion among the general populace on behalf of the oil coal lobbies. And the UN has been known for years to have been corrupted in the same way.

 

[noco]

8447 Evans is not a scientific climatologist,

8457 the wild flood waters are rising to the doors,

8463 it is 97% of all scientific studies, as apposed to scientists,

8467 and we have had the water bombs alluded to of late,

8477 you have said Noco, that 77 scientists are paid by the UN. What has this got to do with the 97% of
scientific studies,


8480 you stated that I was getting carried away about cities getting washed away. In the news of late
they are getting washed away almost weekly.

Overall no proof as you claim at all. Just the normal collection scraps and bits to maintain confusion among the general populace on behalf of the oil coal lobbies. And the UN has been known for years to have been corrupted in the same way.

What ever you reckon.

It is all old hat as far as I concerned.....

You Greenies just keep harping on and on about the same old brain washed theories...It is so monotonous really.
Sooner or later you will face the reality of this scam.

 

[luutzu]

What ever you reckon.

It is all old hat as far as I concerned.....

You Greenies just keep harping on and on about the same old brain washed theories...It is so monotonous really.
Sooner or later you will face the reality of this scam.

A theory is a theory because it can be challenged

What's the worst that can happen from this "scam" about Climate Change?

That we quickly and seriously transitioned towards cleaner, renewable, sources of energy so that when the oil and fossil fuel runs out in about 100 years, most of the world won't go dark and cold and dead?

If the climate "alarmist" are wrong, the worst thing that could happen is that maybe the sea won't rise so high it displaces hundreds of millions of people; the extreme weather won't form that perfect storm wiping out towns and cities... and cleaner air to breathe... and energy security because you can't stop the wind and you can't block out the Sun, say.

If the "deniers" are wrong, we're all stuffed.

Best to go where we won't be stuffed I'd say. That and a whole bunch of Climate scientists and 97% of their research agrees that human contributes to global warming and we better cut that crap out before we're all stuffed.

We only have one planet; it's the only one that can provide life as far as our technology can see - and we can see into distant galaxies. So it's quite rare and valuable. Something we shouldn't just shrugged off when experts are saying it could go the heck and end life as we know it.

Should be alarmed and alert.

 

[noco]

A theory is a theory because it can be challenged

What's the worst that can happen from this "scam" about Climate Change?

That we quickly and seriously transitioned towards cleaner, renewable, sources of energy so that when the oil and fossil fuel runs out in about 100 years, most of the world won't go dark and cold and dead?

If the climate "alarmist" are wrong, the worst thing that could happen is that maybe the sea won't rise so high it displaces hundreds of millions of people; the extreme weather won't form that perfect storm wiping out towns and cities... and cleaner air to breathe... and energy security because you can't stop the wind and you can't block out the Sun, say.

If the "deniers" are wrong, we're all stuffed.

Best to go where we won't be stuffed I'd say. That and a whole bunch of Climate scientists and 97% of their research agrees that human contributes to global warming and we better cut that crap out before we're all stuffed.

We only have one planet; it's the only one that can provide life as far as our technology can see - and we can see into distant galaxies. So it's quite rare and valuable. Something we shouldn't just shrugged off when experts are saying it could go the heck and end life as we know it.

Should be alarmed and alert.

There is enough coal in Queensland to last 1000 years and we will be depending on for many years to come.....This renewable energy is over done, over priced and not always unreliable as proved in South Australia.

When there is not enough wind the system fails.....When there is too much wind the system is shut down.

Some times the Sun shines and some times it doesn't and believe me there has not been too much Sun in the Southern Part of Australia over the past few months with all the cloud and wet weather.

You have to have reliable base load power generated from coal, gas or nuclear......S A have made one very bad decision to blow up there coal fired power station.

We have already reduced our emissions by some 20% and what has it done for Global Warming ....I mean climate change?
How many degrees have we reduced the Earth's temperature?
There is never any talk about the gas emissions from the dozens of active volcanoes.

How do you over come the emissions from the ever increasing number of air craft flying around the world ?

There is a lot not being taken into consideration......The Greenies keep harping on about coal.

 

[Tisme]

I wonder if we will ever return to reasonable prces for meat now the perpetual drought that has beseiged the SW Qld has wiped out the financial ability for farmers to restock?

 

[noco]

Wow....the sceptics now out number the alarmist......It had to happen as more and more people are starting to wake up to this dreadful scam.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...s/news-story/b7c29d05d862924d04a860b3d7d2f691

Check the dirty trick the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology tried last week. Can anyone now trust these global warming alarmists?

The two government-funded bodies should apologise for the State of the Climate report they issued last week to scare us into believing.

“Observations and climate modelling paint a consistent picture of ongoing, long-term climate change interacting with underlying natural variability,” it warned.

Read more plus the comments from viewers.

 

[explod]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-30/why-most-analysts-gold-silver-price-forecasts-are-wrong

In your last post noco you have selected a piece to suit you argument but the reference can only be accessed if you subscibe to the Courier Mail.

Typical

 

[noco]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-30/why-most-analysts-gold-silver-price-forecasts-are-wrong

In your last post noco you have selected a piece to suit you argument but the reference can only be accessed if you subscibe to the Courier Mail.

Typical

Here is the rest of it for your benefit.

We’d be flooded by rising seas and torched by more days of terrible fire danger.

Key parts of the country were running short of rain, State of the Climate then claimed, presenting statistics so dodgy that I had to laugh.

The good news is that, outside the ABC, State of the Climate didn’t get the big media run you’d have expected only a few years ago.

Maybe that’s because it’s hard to worry about man-made global warming when Victoria has just suffered an unusually cold October. Or when the world just harvested its biggest grain crop on record.

But maybe it’s also because Australians have wised up. Last month, even a Climate Institute survey admitted only 30 per cent now believed the world was warming and humans were mostly to blame.

Many Australians may feel the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology should be ashamed to put out another report spruiking global warming without once saying sorry for their dud predictions of the past.

In 2008, for instance, when southeastern Australia was in drought, the bureau’s then head of climate analysis, David Jones, warned that “perhaps we should call it our new climate”.

“There is a debate in the climate community, after … close to 12 years of drought, whether this is something permanent.” The year before, he wrote to the University of East Anglia: “Climate change here is now running so rampant that we don’t need meteorological data to see it.
Almost every one of our cities is on the verge of running out of water and our largest irrigation system (the Murray Darling Basin) is on the verge of collapse.”

The CSIRO in 2009 also pushed this “permanent drought” scare.
Victoria’s desalination plant remains in mothballs, a monument to our stupidity. Picture: Jake Nowakowski

As the gullible Age newspaper reported: “A three-year collaboration between the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO has confirmed what many scientists long suspected: that the 13-year drought is not just a natural dry stretch but a shift related to climate change.”

The bureau’s Bertrand Timbal was quoted: “It’s reasonable to say that a lot of the current drought of the last 12 to 13 years is due to ongoing global warming. In the minds of a lot of people, the rainfall we had in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was a benchmark … But we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up.’’

This “permanent drought” was the consensus of scientists and activists.

Most famously, Tim Flannery, now head of the Climate Council, warned in 2007: “Even the rain that falls will not fill our dams and our river systems.”

Melbourne Water, in charge of the city’s supplies, agreed, and ruled out building another cheap dam because “unfortunately, we cannot rely on this kind of rainfall like we used to”.

And this “permanent drought” scare cost us billions.

Labor state governments across the country built not dams but hugely expensive desalination plants to prepare for a future without rain.
A permanent drought scare has cost us billions. Picture: Simon Cross

But the rains did return. The dams did fill: today, Sydney, Adelaide and Canberra’s are nearly full, and Melbourne and Brisbane’s are three-quarters full.

Result: the desalination plants of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane remain in mothballs, monuments to our stupidity.

Yet the CSIRO and the bureau ”” which helped to spread this costly panic ”” don’t say sorry in this report.

True, they do at least expose another dud warming scare ”” the claim pushed by Al Gore that hurricanes and cyclones would get bigger and come more often.

Remember how the Greens shamelessly called Cyclone Yasi in 2011 a “tragedy of climate change”?

Completely false. State of the Climate admits there’s actually been “a statistically significant downward trend in the number of tropical cyclones in the Australian region”.

Nor is there convincing evidence that cyclones have got stronger: “The statistical significance of any observed trend in tropical cyclone intensity is overshadowed by large uncertainties due to the short satellite record and high variability.”

But then the bureau and the CSIRO in State of the Climate go back to torturing statistics to keep
us scared that global warming will end the rain.

Spot the obvious trick in this key passage: “In particular, May-July rainfall has reduced by around 19 per cent since 1970 in the southwest of Australia.

“There has been a decline of around 11 per cent since the mid-1990s in April-October rainfall in the continental southeast.

“Southeast Australia has had below-average rainfall in 16 of the April-October periods since 1997.”

See the con?

See how the report picks random and inconsistent dates ”” 1970 and 1997 and “mid 1990s” ”” as a starting point to track declines in rainfall caused by human emissions?

See how this decline is curiously seen only in patches of the country, and then only in inconsistent periods ”” “May-July” and “April-October”?
Despite the Bureau of Meteorology’s claim that the Murray-Darling basin was being threatened by drought, the area has recently been experiencing very heavy rains. Picture: The Australian

These are classic signs of cherry picking: deliberately looking for some place and period among all the conflicting data to produce the “evidence” you want.

That con is easily exposed.

Just go to the bureau’s website and click on “Climate change and variability” at the bottom of the homepage. You’ll see the bureau actually has rainfall totals for each state and region that go back not just to 1970 or 1997 or the “mid 1990s” but 1900.

Now compare what the State of the Climate report claims with what that complete data shows.

For instance, State of the Climate claims there’s been an “average reduction in rainfall across parts of southern Australia”.

In fact, the complete data shows that rainfall in recent years is around average, and probably higher than it was over the first 45 years of last century, before we got nearly three decades of famously great rains.

Do the same check for southeast Australia.

State of the Climate claims it’s “had below-average rainfall in 16 of the April-October periods since 1997”.

But the bureau’s complete data shows rainfall over the past 10 years seems little lower than it was over the first 45 years of last century.

True, there has been less rain in Australia’s southwest, but across Australia our total rainfall over the past century has gone up.

Swings and roundabouts ”” and no “permanent drought”.

Oh, and check out the Murray-Darling Basin.

In 2007, the bureau claimed this criticalagricultural area was “on the verge of collapse” because of a permanent drought.

Yet rainfall since then has been, if anything, higher on average than for the first 45 years of last century.

So shouldn’t the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO just say sorry?

 

[basilio]

Reads like typical Andrew Bolt misinformation Noco. Arch cherry picker. Pure dribble.

I notice for example no mention is made of any temperature changes in the last 30 years. That would be a bit arkward.... And you wouldn't want to look at particular rainfall changes in different regions.

But don't worry Noco. You'll swallow anything Andrew Bolt throws out on CC.

 

[noco]

Reads like typical Andrew Bolt misinformation Noco. Arch cherry picker. Pure dribble.

I notice for example no mention is made of any temperature changes in the last 30 years. That would be a bit arkward.... And you wouldn't want to look at particular rainfall changes in different regions.

But don't worry Noco. You'll swallow anything Andrew Bolt throws out on CC.

Oh dear bas, I know the truth often hurts......The facts are there that you cannot deny.

Where is your friend Tim Flannery these days huh?..Timmy said the seas would rise to the height of an 8 story building and then he buys a block of land on the Hawksberry River just 2 meters above high water mark.

I believe if you care to go back, you will see where Global temperatures have been adequately covered...Something like .5 of one degree increase since 1900.

I would certainly believe Andrew Bolt before the propaganda presented by the ABC, Four Corners, Insiders, GET UP and the Communist paper, the Guardian.......Al have confessed to publishing wrong information.

So I hereby give you the opportunity to prove what Bolt has stated as you say is misinformation......Extended drought.....no rains.....more cyclones as stated by the CSIRO and BOM?...All to be proven wrong.