- Joined
- 14 March 2006
- Posts
- 3,630
- Reactions
- 5
Everyone in this thread needs to pay more tax or you are all off to the loony bin like Galileo!
Everyone in this thread needs to pay more tax or you are all off to the loony bin like Galileo!
I will not pay a carbolic tax.
No way
gg
CONCLUSIONS
Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S.
tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each
time period we consider, the records show small decelerations
that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of
worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain
are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less
than the +0.07 to +0.28 mm/y
2
accelerations that are required to
reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf
(2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted,
Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010). Bindoff et al. (2007) note an
increase in worldwide temperature from 1906 to 2005 of 0.74uC.
It is essential that investigations continue to address why this
worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration
of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why
global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last
80 years.
A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view.
The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated.
But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."
The hearing was called by GOP leaders of the House Science & Technology committee, who have expressed doubts about the integrity of climate science. It was one of several inquiries in recent weeks as the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to curb planet-heating emissions from industrial plants and motor vehicles have come under strenuous attack in Congress.
Muller said his group was surprised by its findings, but he cautioned that the initial assessment is based on only 2% of the 1.6 billion measurements that will eventually be examined.
The Berkeley project's biggest private backer, at $150,000, is the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Oil billionaires Charles and David Koch are the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on the burning of fossil fuels, the largest contributor to planet-warming greenhouse gases.
Other scientists noted that temperature is only one factor in climate change. "Even if the thermometer had never been invented, the evidence is there from deep ocean changes, from receding glaciers, from rising sea levels and receding sea ice and spring snow cover," Thorne said.
"All the physical indicators are consistent with a warming world. There is no doubt the trend of temperature is upwards since the early 20th century. And that trend is accelerating."
Associate Professor Stuart Franks ... a Hydro Climatologist wrote a peer reviewed paper in 2006 that warned about higher rainfall currently being experienced by Queensland.
... I'm sure the usual gang will offer their insights into seriously misguided review...
Your right Sails there are 2 separate discussions. This thread was started to debase the conversation about Global Warming. By continually deriding the evidence, attacking the scientific community which is extensively researching the issue and then minimising any possible effects deniers are then able to attack any possible solutions on economic grounds.
It's probably more appropriate to take the Carbon Tax question to that particular forum. But the question of just what humanity is doing to the climate and the effect this will have on our future deserves respect rather than ridicule. In that sense the study undertaken by Richard Muller (who is a genuine scientific skeptic as distinct from a pure BS denier) is worth following.
Cynicism happens as a result of bitter experience and is usually soundly based.don't you just love it getting older and more cynical.
Basilio, I had an open mind initially. Didn't know much about it and the theory seemed plausable without delving into it too much.
The series of events that changed my mind were:
1. The hypocrisy of the likes of Al Gore and then Gillard who seem to take no thought of their own carbon footprint.
2. Then it became clear it was all about the money and imposing a tax with the most likely outcome being wealth redistribution possibly with an intent to try and sway votes at the next election. Whenever large sums of money can be extracted from an unsuspecting public, it raises immediate questions, IMO.
3. Then I started to hear from other scientists, highly qualified such as John Christy, who explain that a carbon tax will do as much good as spitting in the ocean.
4. Climate has been changing all on it's own. Severe weather has shown it's hand long before climate change could be blamed.
So, I might be called a denier, but there is little left to convince me that there is anything more in this than an excuse to impose an unpopular tax making it all about the money. And, unless the "deniers" keep standing up against this, we may well be sucked into one of the biggest money scams we have ever seen.
Interesting interview with
http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/...april.html?site=brisbane&program=612_evenings
Given the well-known relationship between the SOI and heavy rains in eastern Australia (eg., McBride and Nicholls, 1983) we can conclude that the fundamental cause of the heavy rains this past six months was indeed this record La Ni̱a event. Other heavy rain years (1917/18, 1950/51, 1973/74, 1975/76) were also the result of strong La Ni̱a events. The relationship between rainfall and the SOI is very strong, with a correlation coefficient of 0.66. So, the heavy rains were not caused by global warming, but by a record la Ni̱a event Рa natural fluctuation of the climate system.
There has not been any trend in the SOI over the past 111 years, despite the warming of global mean temperature of about 0.75 °C over that period. Nor do climate models consistently predict increased strength of La Niña events from enhanced atmospheric content of greenhouse gases (eg., Vecchi and Wittenberg, 2010). So there is no reason, at this moment, for us to suspect that global warming is increasing the frequency or intensity of La Niña events.
So in 2011 the evidence is well and truly in. The planet is warming at a rapid rate (again geologically speaking) and the inevitable consequences of continued warming will be absolutely catastrophic for our civilisations and most of the current lifeforms. And unfortunately we look like seeing some of these effects well within the next 20 years.
id be interested in seeing such evidence... what % of co2 is in the atmosphere? and what % of that co2 is man made?
brb getting my tin hat
and better grab a drink too - it will be a looooong read...
And I hope he addresses the 1.28% that Australia contributes to world carbon emissions.
If Australia can reduce emissions by 5%, that will reduce emissions worldwide by 0.00064.
And for that miniscule amount, they want to rob over $800 per working person per annum. They have to be joking - this is totally absurd.
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?