Reply With QuoteBlackDuck (20-06-09)
Every one of the scientists (what is a scientist? I dont remember that being a trade when I went to school) that beleives in man made global warming makes a living from it... You have trouble getting a grant unless it has something to do with global warming or climate change.. If, over night, proof came out that global warming was a big wank.. they would all be out of jobs... I have been hearing for years all the doom and gloom warnings.. Ozone layer, reef dissapearing.. seas rising... no snow in the mountains..
My mate has a unit in Noosa and its right on the water.. Do you really believe that in about 20 years its going to be meters under water..
Have a look at these predictions... from the Sun news paper column.
GLOBAL warming preachers have had a shocking 2008. So many of their predictions this year went splat.
Here’s their problem: they’ve been scaring us for so long that it’s now possible to check if things are turning out as hot as they warned.
And good news! I bring you Christmas cheer - the top 10 warming predictions to hit the wall this year.
Read, so you can end 2008 with optimism, knowing this Christmas won’t be the last for you, the planet or even the polar bears.
1. OUR CITIES WILL DIE OF THIRST
TIM Flannery, an expert in bones, has made a fortune from books and lectures warning that we face global warming doom. He scared us so well that we last year made him Australian of the Year.
In March, Flannery said: “The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009.”
In fact, Adelaide’s reservoirs are now 75 per cent full, just weeks from 2009.
In June last year, Flannery warned Brisbane’s “water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months”.
In fact, 18 months later, its dams are 46 per cent full after Brisbane’s wettest spring in 27 years.
In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney’s dams could be dry in just two years.
In fact, three years later its dams are 63 per cent full, not least because June last year was its wettest since 1951.
In 2004, Flannery said global warming would cause such droughts that “there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis”.
In fact, Perth now has the lowest water restrictions of any state capital, thanks to its desalination plant and dams that are 40 per cent full after the city’s wettest November in 17 years.
Lesson: This truly is a land “of drought and flooding rains”. Distrust a professional panic merchant who predicts the first but ignores the second.
2. OUR REEF WILL DIE
PROFESSOR Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, of Queensland University, is Australia’s most quoted reef expert.
He’s advised business, green and government groups, and won our rich Eureka Prize for scares about the Great Barrier Reef. He’s chaired a $20 million global warming study of the World Bank.
In 1999, Hoegh-Guldberg warned that the Great Barrier Reef was under pressure from global warming, and much of it had turned white.
In fact, he later admitted the reef had made a “surprising” recovery.
In 2006, he warned high temperatures meant “between 30 and 40 per cent of coral on Queensland’s great Barrier Reef could die within a month”.
In fact, he later admitted this bleaching had “a minimal impact”.
In 2007, he warned that temperature changes of the kind caused by global warming were again bleaching the reef.
In fact, the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network last week said there had been no big damage to the reef caused by climate change in the four years since its last report, and veteran diver Ben Cropp said this week that in 50 years he’d seen none at all.
Lesson: Reefs adapt, like so much of nature. Learn again that scares make big headlines and bigger careers.
3. GOODBYE, NORTH POLE
IN April this year, the papers were full of warnings the Arctic ice could all melt.
“We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time,” claimed Dr David Barber, of Manitoba University, ignoring the many earlier times the Pole has been ice free.
“It’s hard to see how the system may bounce back (this year),” fretted Dr Ignatius Rigor, of Washington University’s polar science centre.
Tim Flannery also warned “this may be the Arctic’s first ice-free year”, and the ABC and Age got reporter Marian Wilkinson to go stare at the ice and wail: “Here you can see climate change happening before your eyes.”
In fact, the Arctic’s ice cover this year was almost 10 per cent above last year’s great low, and has refrozen rapidly since. Meanwhile, sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere has been increasing. Been told either cool fact?
Yet Barber is again in the news this month, predicting an ice-free Arctic now in six years. Did anyone ask him how he got his last prediction wrong?
Lesson: The media prefers hot scares to cool truths. And it rarely holds its pet scaremongers to account.
4. BEWARE HUGE WINDS
AL Gore sold his scary global warming film, An Inconvenient Truth, shown in almost every school in the country, with a poster of a terrible hurricane.
Former US president Bill Clinton later gloated: “It is now generally recognised that while Al Gore and I were ridiculed, we were right about global warming. . . It’s going to lead to more hurricanes.”
In fact, there is still no proof of a link between any warming and hurricanes.
Australia is actually getting fewer cyclones, and last month researchers at Florida State University concluded that the 2007 and 2008 hurricane seasons had the least tropical activity in the Northern Hemisphere in 30 years.
Lesson: Beware of politicians riding the warming bandwagon.
5. GIANT HAILSTONES WILL SMASH THROUGH YOUR ROOF
ROSS Garnaut, a professor of economics, is the guru behind the Rudd Government’s global warming policies.
He this year defended the ugly curved steel roof he’d planned at the rear of his city property, telling angry locals he was protecting himself from climate change: “Severe and more frequent hailstones will be a feature of this change,” he said.
In fact, even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admits “decreases in hail frequency are simulated for Melbourne. . .”
Lesson: Beware also of government advisers on that warming wagon.
6. NO MORE SKIING
A BAD ski season three years ago - right after a great one - had The Age and other alarmists blaming global warming. The CSIRO, once our top science body, fanned the fear by claiming resorts such as Mt Hotham and Mt Buller could lose a quarter of their snow by 2020.
In fact, this year was another boom one for skiing, with Mt Hotham and Mt Buller covered in snow five weeks before the season started.
What’s more, a study this year in the Hydrological Sciences Journal checked six climate models, including one used by the CSIRO.
It found they couldn’t even predict the regional climate we’d had already: “Local model projections cannot be credible . . .”
It also confirmed the finding of a study last year in the International Journal of Climatology that the 22 most cited global warming models could not “accurately explain the (global) climate from the recent past”.
As for predicting the future. . .
Lesson: The CSIRO’s scary predictions are near worthless.
7. PERTH WILL BAKE DRY
THE CSIRO last year claimed Perth was “particularly vulnerable” and had a 90 per cent chance of getting less rain and higher temperatures.
“There are not many other parts of the world where the IPCC has made a prediction that a drop in rainfall is highly likely,” it said.
In fact, Perth has just had its coldest and wettest November since 1991.
Lesson: As I said, don’t trust the CSIRO’s model or its warnings.
8. ISLANDS WILL DROWN
THE seas will rise up to 100m by 2100, claims ABC Science Show host Robyn Williams. Six metres, suggests Al Gore. So let’s take in “climate refugees” from low-lying Tuvalu, says federal Labor. And ban coastal development, says the Brumby Government.
In fact, while the seas have slowly risen since the last ice age, before man got gassy, they’ve stopped rising for the last two, according to data from the Jason-1 satellite.
“There is no evidence for accelerated sea-level rises,” the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute declared last month.
Lesson: Trust the data, not the politicians.
9. BRITAIN WILL SWELTER
The British Met Office is home to the Hadley Centre, one of the top centres of the man-made global warming faith.
In April it predicted: “The coming summer is expected to be a ‘typical British summer’. . .”
In fact, in August it admitted: “(This) summer . . . has been one of the wettest on record across the UK.”
In September it predicted: “The coming winter (is) likely to be milder than average.”
In fact, winter has been so cold that London had its first October snow in 74 years—and on the very day Parliament voted to fight “global warming”.
Lesson: If the Met can’t predict the weather three months out, what can it know of the climate 100 years hence?
10. WE’LL BE HOTTER
SPEAKING of the Met, it has so far predicted 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2007 would be the world’s hottest or second-hottest year on record, but nine of the past 10 years it predicted temperatures too high.
In fact, the Met this month conceded 2008 would be the coldest year this century.
That makes 1998 still the hottest year on record since the Medieval Warm Period some 1000 years ago. Indeed, temperatures have slowly fallen since around 2002.
As Roger Pielke Sr, Professor Emeritus of Colorado State University’s Department of Atmospheric Science, declared this month: “Global warming has stopped for the last few years.”
Lesson: Something is wrong with warming models that predict warming in a cooling world, especially when we’re each year pumping out even more greenhouse gases. Be sceptical.
Those, then, are the top 10 dud predictions of that hooting, screaming and screeching tribe of warming alarmists. Look and laugh.
And dare to believe the world is bright and reason may yet triumph.
BlackDuck (20-06-09)
I see no source...
If you want to be taken seriously then please quote your source
Originally Posted by remote
Reality is an invention of my imagination.
ಠ_ಠ
That unique combination of totally bullshit facts and smug self righteousness smells like Andrew Bolt to me.
p.
Perhaps time to hear some words from the worldwide leader of the climate change religion.
Still waiting for that CO2 info to prove its the cause too.
remote (20-06-09)
I've asked several times WHAT DO YOU NEED AS EVIDENCE?
You tell me what evidence you think is reasonable. You haven't actually refuted anything i've said, you've just said it's not enough. What is enough?
I'll present whatever you need to know but i need to figure out what kind of proof you need because you don't seem to comprehend very well. You aren't reading anything that is posted. You don't even read the stuff that YOU POST.
YOU demolished Fielding's argument when you admited that the world ISN'T cooling. That's the whole basis of his question. Not sure what else is left to say there. If you don't think the world is cooling why are you praising Fielding?
Frankly, you don't seem to be thinking about this stuff at all. You post stuff and you haven't read it. You ask for evidence but you don't look at it. I post stuff and you ignore it. What's the point? Why are you bothering?
p.
Having read the posts in this thread, and contributed a little myself.
I would ask if it's possible to have another button installed in the lower right of the page, perhaps to the left of the "Thanks" button...
Something along the lines of a raised middle finger and the word.. Pfffft!
Just a thought.
So have you put forward any case for global warming being caused by anything other than natural phenomena, like the sun emiting more solar radiation?
Do you think that on the offchance that some of the climatologists for once in the history of their none too accurate predictions have at least on this one, finally got it right. and that we should toss billions of dollars into the dubious pot of CO2 reduction, or that joke carbon sequestration?.
I can't speak for anyone else but when I come home of a night I like to be able to have light at the flick of a switch, I want to be able to listen to the radio or watch TV.
This is considered a normal lifestyle in the society I live in and I plan to do all I can to keep it that way.
The carbon that is released from burning fossil fuels is not manufactured by the burning, it always existed and was captured by the trees that formed the coal and is released back into the atmosphere from whence it originaly came by the burning process.
So by logical extension if we burned all the coal, all the oil and all the trees on earth the atmosphere would have no more CO2 than was there in primordial times, and yet the lifeforms animal and vegetable evolved in spite of it.
If you don't want to release CO2 then clean power on demand is atomic reactors or back to the cave.
remote (20-06-09)
here we go.. The usual insults and abuse.
The question..
Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5percent since 1998 while global temperature cooled during the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase, and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?
If penny and her experts could not give an answer, how is it that a few on here can.. Do you know something that they dont.
What he said.
Plus the answer for penny too please.
poiuytrewq, you seem so concerned about global warming I suggest you turn off your energy using green house gas producing computor
here is dr evans take on his meeting-
i knew they would make an issue of the oceans because there has been cooling in the air. i remember reading a piece on when evans refers to about the argo floats being adjusted here-
its much the same as giss records. start at a predetermined conclusion and make the data fit. if you look at how giss has diverged from satellite data it is clear to see the issues at hand.
with the argo data it seems to me that the 'adjustment' made will eventually even itself out given enough time, which it seems to have already with the negative trend back in place. if they adjust the way giss does which is to adjust earlier data to be more cool, you see constant trend rises.
You've asked a specific question and i'll answer it. I have actually read pretty much all the arguments proposed by the skeptics and i'm open to comparing them to the evidence. The problem with this one is that there are two strong pieces of evidence that count against it.
1. The correlation between increased solar activity and incresed temperature on earth broke in the 1970s. The sun activity stopped increasing but temperature rises kept increasing.
As shown in this graph:
The source of that graph is here: . Again if you read the comments there is some good debate from skeptics and proponents there which are worth a read if you are trying to weigh up the arguments.
2. Not all the atmosphere is warming. Parts of the the upper atmosphere are actually cooling. This is shown in the link that systemrat posted earlier. this is consistent with aditional heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere by gasses and not with additional heat coming in from outside. Read the link that systemrat posted on his "oceans are cooling argument" it has some data about that.
If you're serious have a look at that info.
No one except the most extreme hippies are arguing that you shouldnt be able to do that. The argument is simply that we need to transition over the next few decades to new sources of energy and more energy efficient appliances. It's not a great struggle if we decide to get serious about it.I can't speak for anyone else but when I come home of a night I like to be able to have light at the flick of a switch, I want to be able to listen to the radio or watch TV.This is considered a normal lifestyle in the society I live in and I plan to do all I can to keep it that way.
So, if i get a 3 tonnes of dirt and put it on your lounge room floor you woudl regard that as it only being moved around? the problem is that over millions of years the equivalent of several times the CO2 levels that are now in the atmosphere have been stored in the earth by natural processes (living things dying and get buried). If we put them all back in the atmosphere over a very short period time (decades or hundreds of years) there is no doubt that we will change the climate VERY SUDDENLY. We can't change the compostion of the atmosphere without doing that and we don't know what the consequences of that will be.The carbon that is released from burning fossil fuels is not manufactured by the burning, it always existed and was captured by the trees that formed the coal and is released back into the atmosphere from whence it originaly came by the burning process.
That might be ok but there is a very good chance that it might not. How much risk are you willing to take with the lives and livelihoods of your kids and grandkids that it will be ok?
Yes. We would have a similar atmospheric composition in which slugs and molluscs evolved. But millions of years later the planet is full of things that aren't adapted to that climate. We'd also have higher sea levels, fiercer storms, and very different climate patterns. We'd have parts of the world that are now furtile turn dry and parts that are now dry turn wet. If you think that's acceptable then fine...So by logical extension if we burned all the coal, all the oil and all the trees on earth the atmosphere would have no more CO2 than was there in primordial times, and yet the lifeforms animal and vegetable evolved in spite of it.
It might be part of the solution.If you don't want to release CO2 then clean power on demand is atomic reactors or back to the cave.
p.
I've answered this one ten times already. Systemrat answered in the VERY first post:
Look at that graph. It shows clearly that the world has NOT been getting cooler over the last decade. It shows that 1998 was the hottest year ever (for well documented reasons) which is why people use it all the time as the benchmark. It also clearly shows that several of the next hottest years ever were between 1998 and now.
It shows that the temperture can go up and down in different years but it also shows a clear trend that the world has been warming. There are cycles of warmer and colder years but they seem to be clearly trending up.
That's not my graph. That's systemrat's graph. If you want to tell me it shows the world is cooling i'd be happy to argue the point. If it DOESN'T show the world is cooling then find something that does and then we can discuss "why did the temperature not increase"...
p.
How could you believe Al Gore, he is a failed politician ffs.
Some people need to get their finger out of their arse so that the brain can get some oxygen"
who mentioned Al Gore?
three times in this thred someone has posted links to republican party web sites (senate minority report) and politicians (newt gingrich) as arguments AGAINST global warming. Doesn't that seem a little dodgy?
On the other hand no one has even tried to use Al Gore as evidence.
and a hypocrite. Just look at the house he lives in. It consumes more energy in a week than the average person would use in 12 months.
I thought the exact same thing. If you made a trend line it would have an upward curve!
Apart from all the crap thay is being spun around, is it a big deal if we, as a human race, started to respect our home planet and at least made an attempt to reduce the pollution that we make?
side note, Carbon trading has nothing to do wil pollution reduction, it moves the problem to the left for a while, while some make a shit load of money without actually reducing the carbon output at all.
It would be better is some govenment with balls simple said to companies like coal fired power stations, You lot have 10 years to STOP producing pollution or face fines that CAN NOT be passed onto your customers! Solutions are available right now, wind, wave, geothermal, solar, all with an initial cost but after that, essentially free bar maintenance. but hey, I can dream
BlackDuck (24-06-09)
1 tsi by itself rather useless to compare when the suggestions are the solar activity such as the flares and solar wind increase due to the reduce magnetic field. or maybe even the physical size of the sun.You've asked a specific question and i'll answer it. I have actually read pretty much all the arguments proposed by the skeptics and i'm open to comparing them to the evidence. The problem with this one is that there are two strong pieces of evidence that count against it.
1. The correlation between increased solar activity and incresed temperature on earth broke in the 1970s. The sun activity stopped increasing but temperature rises kept increasing.
As shown in this graph:
The source of that graph is here: . Again if you read the comments there is some good debate from skeptics and proponents there which are worth a read if you are trying to weigh up the arguments.
2. Not all the atmosphere is warming. Parts of the the upper atmosphere are actually cooling. This is shown in the link that systemrat posted earlier. this is consistent with aditional heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere by gasses and not with additional heat coming in from outside. Read the link that systemrat posted on his "oceans are cooling argument" it has some data about that.
If you're serious have a look at that info.
No one except the most extreme hippies are arguing that you shouldnt be able to do that. The argument is simply that we need to transition over the next few decades to new sources of energy and more energy efficient appliances. It's not a great struggle if we decide to get serious about it.
So, if i get a 3 tonnes of dirt and put it on your lounge room floor you woudl regard that as it only being moved around? the problem is that over millions of years the equivalent of several times the CO2 levels that are now in the atmosphere have been stored in the earth by natural processes (living things dying and get buried). If we put them all back in the atmosphere over a very short period time (decades or hundreds of years) there is no doubt that we will change the climate VERY SUDDENLY. We can't change the compostion of the atmosphere without doing that and we don't know what the consequences of that will be.
That might be ok but there is a very good chance that it might not. How much risk are you willing to take with the lives and livelihoods of your kids and grandkids that it will be ok?
Yes. We would have a similar atmospheric composition in which slugs and molluscs evolved. But millions of years later the planet is full of things that aren't adapted to that climate. We'd also have higher sea levels, fiercer storms, and very different climate patterns. We'd have parts of the world that are now furtile turn dry and parts that are now dry turn wet. If you think that's acceptable then fine...
It might be part of the solution.
p.
this is well worth the read on that-
solar variance is just one of the possibilites, but because of its historical value in recording previous temperatures it is good for a starting point to work out just how the system works.
the next step of the experiment is due to start soon at cern
2 none of the atmosphere is warming for the last 8 or so years, so where is the heat being trapped? the oceans? well no because they are cooling too. so where is the supposed trapped heat?
3 co2 is 0.03% of the atmosphere. water vapour up to 4%. the claim has never been that co2 itself can do much heating at all. in fact it is only about 1 deg and can never affect temps itself much more than that no matter how high the concentration is. submarine air scrubbers go to 5000ppm as acceptable, so i suggest that is a figure we should watch out for. what the basis is for the claimed 3-6 deg temp rise claimed possible is positive feedback through water vapour. this does not exist. the shoulders of the bandwidth that water vapour does not cover should point to a heating in one point of the atmosphere, this does not exist. the theory has been falsified in just about every way.
Firstly, thanks for the serious answer. I appreciate it.
Ok, i think this line of aargument is worthy of ongoing research. But it is a very complicated argument that requires you to ignore the more obvious potential cause of the earth's warming (greenhouse gasses) and it also require stringing together of a very long chain of events for which there is very little evidence. There might be more as more research is done but there is no smoking gun here.
Is it possible that a combiation of increased solar activity, flares and wind are a factor in the changing climate? Yes. It might even be possible they are significant factor that might explain why the earth gets warmer or hotter in any given year.
BUT that doesn't make any kind of argument that CO2 is NOT a factor. Real world measurements are getting results that closely match what we would expect to see if higher CO2 levels were warming the planet. That doesn't change by pointing out that there might be other factors at work as well.
Everyone has posted this supposed "fact" several times in this thread but no one has posted any evidence for it. The graph that systemrat used to back this up was this one:2 none of the atmosphere is warming for the last 8 or so years, so where is the heat being trapped? the oceans? well no because they are cooling too. so where is the supposed trapped heat?
That graph does not show that the world is cooling.
It shows that it was hotter in 1998 than in any year since so if you want to use that simplistic argument you can make a false claim. From the same graph you could equally look at it and say that EVERY year has been hotter since 1997 but that would be a false argument too.
The main thing it shows is a clear long term trend. It certainly doesn't show that this decade has been cooler than the 90s or the 80s.
You strike me as a more inquisitive guy than systemrat. So and go and do what no one else has yet done and get the research (not someone's opinion column or a claim by a politician) that acutally shows the world is cooling this decade and post it here. I still have no idea where this argument comes from.
I'm not trying to be difficult but i'm not entirely clear what the point is here. You might need to clarify it again.3 co2 is 0.03% of the atmosphere. water vapour up to 4%. the claim has never been that co2 itself can do much heating at all. in fact it is only about 1 deg and can never affect temps itself much more than that no matter how high the concentration is. submarine air scrubbers go to 5000ppm as acceptable, so i suggest that is a figure we should watch out for. what the basis is for the claimed 3-6 deg temp rise claimed possible is positive feedback through water vapour. this does not exist. the shoulders of the bandwidth that water vapour does not cover should point to a heating in one point of the atmosphere, this does not exist. the theory has been falsified in just about every way.
No one is arguing that the percentage of C02 is dangerious to breathe (as with a submarine). There are also a lot of extremists on both endes of the debate that probably shouldn't be taken seriously.
The argument is that increasing the level of C02 (and other gasses that reatain and reflect heat back to the surface) in the atmosphere will cause it to retain more heat. Over time even just retaining a relatively small amount of aditional heat will cause the planet to warm. The ability of C02 to retain heat is well established and can be easily measured. The fact that the planet appears to be warming seems to be supported by a lot of evidence (it's the same evidence used by people who claim the sun is the cause).
What we don't know because we've never done it is what the consequences will be. Some say they will be mild. Some argue they will be severe. And a lot of people (including me) hope that they will be mild but think it would be crazy to rely on that when it is possible to not have to take that risk.
p.
first i am not trying to claim that co2 is not a factor, just thats its a small one. in fact it is next to nothing. real world results do not match what we would expect from co2 warming.
second the world has cooled over the past 8 years (ignoring 98), positive anomalies are from a period outside their bounds so no matter which way you look at it, the atmosphere has cooled. oceans have cooled. i posted the graph to prove this earlier. if you want an ocean one, go to the argo site.
co2 is a greenhouse gas, water vapour is a greenhouse gas with almost the same absorption bands as co2. co2 is 0.03% of the atmosphere and that it not just the human based quatiity, that is far less. water vapour can be up to 4%. this is a good doc on this-
the reference i was making to co2 itself not greenhouse gases. co2 with the doubling log relationship means adding more does less, 5000ppm will only mean something to us in fact it would need to be 10000ppm to trouble us, but not our climate. the quantity of co2 will never reach the influence of water vapour in fact you could expect that at only 0.09% or so co2 has done the most it possibly can to influence temperatures. whereas water vapour can be 35000ppm with the band around the same area. you see the problem?
greenhouse gas
water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
methane, which contributes 4–9%
ozone, which contributes 3–7%
from the wiki.
though i dont know where they get those figures from, its a good enough guide for it.
not only is co2 a minor component of greenhouse effect, its bands overlap with water vapour, so its total effect is somewhere in the order of 8% influence on the greenhouse effect. so we are looking at 8% of say 12% and then to claim that clouds mean little!
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks