The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > If 2015 is the hottest year since whenever, what will that mean? > Comments

If 2015 is the hottest year since whenever, what will that mean? : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 30/9/2015

There are two stories floating around about the state of the earth’s atmosphere. Both are believed true by government-funded scientists and the environmentally minded. The situation is curious because the stories don’t mesh.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. All
All I know about climate change is that we will be harangued about it more than ever by Turnbull, Julie Bishop-Rudd and Greg Hunt. We will be signed up to ridiculous agreements in Paris, and our cost of living will soar as our money is siphoned off to the Third World for wacky ideas and schemes that will never eventuate; and the climate will continue to do what it will, no matter what.
Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 30 September 2015 10:09:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hottest year on record! How else do you keep the funding going. And the Greens want all tax breaks for religion axed whiloe pushing this fairytale. Certainly rationality has dimished as secular dogmas take hold. Thank God Tony was able to educate Turnbull on the stupidity of sucking up to the UN.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 30 September 2015 10:13:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course the climate debate is political! And it's precisely because the protagonists have divided along political lines that we need to be careful. In political debates we exaggerate, to make a point, to win support, to vent our fervour. Exaggeration is certainly a feature of public discussion of climate. Environmentalists, to use a shorthand term, exaggerate the impact of climate change and they exaggerate how readily fossil fuels can be replaced by renewable energy. They lose credibility as a result of their exaggerations. So why do we need to be careful? Because the physics of the atmosphere tells us that all that extra carbon dioxide we are generating is very likely to affect our climate. It's pretty old science and it remains respectable. Just because it has probably been exaggerated ought not lead us to discard it completely. I am genuinely concerned that exaggeration and alarmism have actually created a risk of long term apathy regarding climate change. I don't wish to exaggerate that risk or the effect it might have but one day it may need to be dealt with.
Posted by Tombee, Wednesday, 30 September 2015 11:30:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yet another article about climate change from someone who doesn't understand it!

When people say they want to stop climate change, it doesn't mean they want to stop the climate from changing; it means they want to stop global warming. But the fossil fuel industry successfully campaigned to get everyone to refer to global warming as "climate change" because it sounded less alarming. Part of the reason they succeeded is that global warming is expected to (by altering ocean currents) cause cooling in some areas, so in many cases "climate change" is the more accurate term. But not in this case.

Computer modelling shows that global warming will cause an increase in the frequency and severity of El Niño events.

And yes, way back in geological time our planet has been hotter. And that is thought to have been the cause of mass extinction events. We want to avoid causing another one.
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 30 September 2015 12:11:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ice melt is accelerating and ocean temperature continue to rise and all the time there is a side that dismiss any of it as not happening. Another lot say man is not responsible for global change. At least they recognize change, just not caused by man.

All it is doing is delaying any useful attempts at changing our ways, and acting against scientific proof of to much Co2 in the atmosphere.

The longer it is delayed the more permafrost is thawing and adding to the amount of Co2 escaping to the atmosphere.

Personally I think the world had been compromised with the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere 20 years ago. I doubt if it can ever be subdued enough to cause a normalization of weather, before the world has been disrupted enough to cause un-repairable damage on millions of fronts at the same time. I don’t believe it will take hundreds of years to come about either. Another 30-40 years will see big big changes happening.

Ice melt in Greenland is enough to raise sea level’s by 6 meters. The melt is bigger every year.
Posted by doog, Wednesday, 30 September 2015 12:58:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you, Don for another most informative article.
Aidan’s boorish comment that the article is from someone who does not understand climate change is rich, coming from someone who has demonstrated their ignorance by expressing a belief in “acidification of oceans”. Remember, Aiden, when I picked you up on that, you tried to defend it. As a proven dunce, you now cast aspersions on the ability of someone who has, time and again, demonstrated his understanding of the murky depths of climate fraud.
doog seems to be unaware that there is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, making his post unsupported nonsense.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 30 September 2015 1:28:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan,

Are you sure about who changed it from global warming to climate change. It is my understanding that the IPCC and its disciples made the change after they found out that there had been no warming for 15 years.
Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 30 September 2015 2:01:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo The measurable effect on climate is the Co2 level, and that is caused by human beings. Yes you have a category in my climate change deniers. You have to come up with more than “not man made” So what is causing climate change in your mind. Is it written in a book some where.

It looks like we are set for a string of more compassionate govt; on climate change for many years to come. Now that the goon has gone.

Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. An estimated 30–40% of the carbon dioxide released by humans into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes.

I don’t know what your problem is with climate change. I do have some ideas though.
Posted by doog, Wednesday, 30 September 2015 2:03:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tombee

My views on this are very similar to yours, I think. There is real evidence that human activity is causing climate change, and a strong basis in risk management to take measures to prevent it even if this is not 100% certain. But the exaggerations, misrepresentations and bullying attempts to silence dissent by some AGW proponents have seriously backfired and undermined the credibility of their cause.
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 30 September 2015 2:34:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ttbn, the change in the use the word 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' is well documented and was proposed by US Republican advisor Frank Luntz in the early 2000s. George Bush thereafter used the phrase and it has been used quite successfully ever since.

It has been wildly succesful of course, because now those ignorant of the history of the usage say 'of course the climate changes, it always has!' as if that's some kind of putdown to the proponents of what used to be called 'global warming'.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 30 September 2015 2:34:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Computer models attempting to apply the laboratory science of the effect of co2 on climate have failed, doog. You have no science to support your belief in the climate fraud asserting that human emissions of CO2 cause global warming. Scientists have had to back off: “They recognise the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.”

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html#ixzz3nCC1dbKi
There is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, doog. You do not have it, and the IPCC does not have it. The human effect is trivial, and not measurable, so the assertion of the IPCC is fraudulent.
The oceans are not acidic. Where their ph level is lowered , they are less alkaline, but they are not acidic.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 30 September 2015 3:40:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//The oceans are not acidic. Where their ph level is lowered , they are less alkaline, but they are not acidic.//

Now you're just splitting hairs. It doesn't matter whether you call it 'acidification' or 'decreasing alkalinity', the effect is still the same: the hydronium ion concentration of the oceans is increasing, which has the potential to play havoc with marine ecosystems. Surely that is of more importance than semantics?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 30 September 2015 4:58:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course it will be the hottest year on record, no matter how cold it is. Well it will if we continue to let the government funded
.global warming "scientists" the weather bureau, & the CSIRO continue to get away with their constant "corrections" of the records.

Obviously only the totally disinterested, the very dumb, or those with an agenda, can possibly still believe this garbage, with the amount of real science disproving the whole concoction.

In a few more years, just watch them switch back to the approaching new ice age, is caused by CO2, just like the 70s.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 30 September 2015 5:28:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Where is Tim and Al these days. Enjoying the fruits of the money they have made out of fraudulent prophecies?
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 30 September 2015 5:41:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy,

Thanks for that. The fiendish fossil fuel industry of Aidan's post doesn't figure.

Whether the article in 'The Guardian' means the information is "well documented" is moot, though.

What is the circulation of 'The Guardian', particularly in Australia? How reliable is 'The Guardian'? How reliable is any printed media for that matter?

The article is more than 12 years old. Am I mistaken in believing that the Australian discussion contained the change GW to CC only very recently. Am I also mistaken in the belief that the first people to change the descripton in Australia, when adressing the puboic, were tye same true belivers in global warming - they didn't use climate chang before the evidential drop in global warming was revealed?
Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 30 September 2015 7:08:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In for a penny in for a pound, eh ttbn?

Well, since you insist on someone else doing your research for you, here's a link to a scan of the original document:
http://www.motherjones.com/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf

Just for an exercise, lets see how many talking points and strategies in that memo are still in use today eh?

Now I've given you enough, you can go and do some reading yourself.

I think you will be very interested in that linked document, make sure you have at least a quick look at it.
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 30 September 2015 9:13:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In 16th-century England, people lost their heads for not being up-to-date with the King's current religion, so better agree with CC and/or GW, whatever they stand for and whichever is currently fashionable, than have your throat slit. Better still, play dumb or drunken to save your dear life.

If you are unlucky enough to be caught denying, better admit your mistake to obtain a quick and merciful beheading instead of a painful burning at the stake.

The year 2015 will no doubt be the hottest ever as the weatherman is remunerated for their piety exponentially per the average temperature they report.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 30 September 2015 10:45:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Since when did the IPP knuckleheads and all their acolytes take notice of the Fossil Fuel Industry? The term Climate Change came in because of it not getting warmer and the knuckleheads changed it!
Same story for George Bush's man you do not really expect that to be swallowed?
Of course Flannery changed his forecasts from the future to the past and anything deleterious was proclaimed as "Climate Change". Flannery and Gore are still making a nice little quid out of scamming of course but quietly now and just preaching to the converted.
Posted by JBowyer, Wednesday, 30 September 2015 11:05:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eyes wide shut eh JBowyer.

LALALALALALALA I won't believe anything you say, LALALALALALA!

And you guys talk about 'climate change' being a religion?

wow

This thread really shows how willfully you will ignore information if it doesn't fit your narrative.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 1 October 2015 12:29:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article is a sad collection of tired old anti-science memes and half truths. It jumps from statements about the last 10 years to hundreds of millions of years and "It's been hotter before, so everything must be natural" kind of schtick.

It's time to grow up.

This is known physics that was discovered nearly 2 centuries years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect

Watch the candle demonstrate the heat diverting properties of CO2. Starts 90 seconds in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw

Mathematics around more CO2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

Global Warming = ocean warming
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2201/

Glaciers retreating:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/glacier-retreat

Sea levels have risen 6cm or an inch since 1998...
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

...and is probably going to hit one metre in 100 years
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2329/

More severe cyclones
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/RisingCost/rising_cost5.php

It will make a wetter atmosphere, which makes storms worse and the mother-of-all feedback loops
http://earthsky.org/earth/frank-wentz-will-global-warming-bring-more-rainfall

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/14/1321481/-Global-Warming-is-increasing-moisture-in-Earth-s-atmosphere-driving-Mother-of-all-Feedback-Loops

Rising oceans could see 100 million people on the move
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 1 October 2015 10:23:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy,

Your sarcasm shows that you hate to be questioned. This is typical of the Left. You also infere that I am too lazy to do my own research - I'm lazy, you are on the ball. Again, typical of the Left. The fact is, you were the one doing the preaching; it is your job to prove your assertions, not mine. You also infere that I did not, or would not, give your 'proof' more than a quick scan. Again, typical. Find fault in your opponent; make him feel inadequate, and he will go away. Your sort will never understand that your sayso is not automatically accepted just because you are sure that you are right, and anyone who doesn't agree with you is some sort of ignoramus or bad person. As it is, your new 'proof' is more from the same suspect. You, not I, are the one who needs to to broaden your horizons, and stop looking for only propaganda that suits your own limited ideas. In this case, you allowed your how-dare-you-question-me attitude to prevent your answering a couple of polite questions.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 1 October 2015 10:23:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The real question needing an answer from the alarmists, is not whether or not there is global warming, climate change or whatever, nor if it is man made. The real question is: where is the evidence that the billions spent so far on research, subsidies paid to rent-seekers, increasingly expensive electricity from inefficient windmills and solar, will have any effect on climate.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 1 October 2015 10:33:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I didn't infer that you were lazy ttbn, I am out and out asserting it.

This was evidenced by asking questions about the validity of the information I provided that you could have answered yourself by spending a couple of minutes on google.

Even your last question was a paraphrase of the strategies outlined in the document that I linked to. Nothing has changed in 13 years has it? All the old arguments are still there, still being trotted out by the conspiracy theorists.

And please spare me the old trope 'typical of the left'. This has come to signify that you are divided along party/political lines and believe that everyone else is too. Lazy thinking again.

It may come as some surprise to a lot of the old coots here, but I was once a paid up member of the Liberal Party.

Shock horror.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 1 October 2015 10:47:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>People who put forward this view use the absence of predicted increases as proof the increases were really there, but in masked or modified form! To them, the repeated, consistent and egregiously mistaken predictions made by climate models are true no matter what because [anthropogenic] global warming is true no matter what. <<

Does the author even understand that most of the 4 Hiroshima bombs per second that AGW retains actually ends up in the oceans, and that this is most apparent when the oceans release this extra energy?

(Slaps hand to forehead).
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 1 October 2015 11:16:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The ones that are against GW for whatever reason are not about to offer any sort of middle ground because they believe it does not exist.

So whatever is happening to our climate isn,t really happening, it is normal. So unless our leaders take up the challenge to combat why it is not happening, Co2 will continue to rise and cause our world to be normal.

Glacial ice melt is not happening it is normal to the point of disappearing. So all these normal things going on , it makes you wonder what is happening. One of us is wrong, and by the time there is consensus the world will be stuffed or the world will be normal
Posted by doog, Thursday, 1 October 2015 12:44:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Doog the real point is that the IPP knuckleheads are making an absolute fortune from this nonsense, that is the point. You cannot trust people who are making money from anything to do anything but support every bit of it.
I suggest you also read Eisenhower's famous 1960's speech about the Military/Industrial complex. The very next paragraph was to offer the same warning about "Researchers".
Here they are telling us we have a problem and they will fix it but we will pay. Under the auspices of the UN? Do me a favour and get your hand out of my pocket.
Whatever happened to the clear and present danger on CFCs'? They are still being made in Russia and india.
Posted by JBowyer, Thursday, 1 October 2015 2:57:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What happened was the Montreal Protocol, JBowyer, a comprehensive international treaty which has been ratified by 197 countries across the globe. All countries are now working to meet the protocol requirements with phase-outs of chemical use etc.

Look it up.

Another lazy one.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 1 October 2015 3:53:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> IPP knuckleheads are making an absolute fortune from this nonsense, that is the point.<<
Yeah, it's all a conspiracy of the all-powerful guv-ern-ment. Any independent lab could disprove global warming by demonstrating the heat *leaking* properties of CO2. Multiple government agencies have been co-opted by an all powerful cabal, including HAARP weather changing apps to remove glaciers, change seasons, and "mimic" this global warming phenomenon everyone's faking, including the infamous 'sea-rising' app. It's an amazing conspiracy, but of course as we all know TOTALLY TRUE! For totes!

Also, I have these tinfoil hats for sale, in case you don't want your mind altered by the NASA temperature satellites...
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 1 October 2015 4:13:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy,

You have proved my comments to be right by saying: "I didn't infer that you were lazy, ttbn. I AM OUT AND OUT ASSERTING IT". You follow the pattern perfectly: character assassination of your opponents rather then evidenced argument and discussion.

Next, you bring my character and integrity into question by stating that I am politically motivated, and that I believe that "everyone else is lazy". Rather an odd statement when you accuse ME of "lazy thinking again" just after that.

I gave you the opportunity to prove me wrong (twice, actually), but you couldn't do it. You restorted to the same old response from the Left - name calling.

As for being politically, unlike you, I have never belonged to ANY political party, and I am not a particular friend of the Coalition. I have never had a need for mob support or forming thought in a bubble, and I refuse to support self-serving, career politicians, and paying a membership fee to do it.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 1 October 2015 8:31:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ironically, I seem to be the only one providing any sort of evidence in this 'discussion' ttbn.

I am not saying you are politically motivated, just that you think in terms of left/right and ascribe particular traits to that false dichotomy. Hence the 'typical left' trope. But I'm not from the 'left'.

You are just lazy, lazy in your research, lazy in your thinking. You just make assertions or some sort of rumor you heard or read somwhere and say 'prove me wrong'. Well, I did and provided evidence to back up my alternative narrative for you to just dismiss.

Lazy lazy lazy.

I don't care about your political affiliations or lack of them.

And I'm done with you, 'cause after a while it just feels like I'm yelling at a child. Not a good look.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 1 October 2015 10:47:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy,

Thank heavens you are "done with" with me, you tiresome bully. It will be a relief not to be involved in your self-delusion, ignorant arrogance and total disconnection with other people and with reality.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 2 October 2015 10:12:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now who's the name-caller? Are you from the "typical left'?

So much for 'evidence-based discussion'.
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 2 October 2015 10:18:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"In the 21st century there has not been a six-month period without a major crisis that simultaneously affected several countries or industry sectors. We are seeing more and bigger catastrophes created by increasing urbanisation, climate change and globalisation. The world has become an interdependent village."
http://tinyurl.com/48mtslo
Posted by Max Green, Friday, 2 October 2015 10:51:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy please look at http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/beck/230899.htm
I do also remember an Australian scientist saying it was all about the sun anyway. That was because the sun was stronger in summer but weaker in winter on the South Pole. Therefor the south pole had a bigger hole over it in spring. Simple science but any chance to steal our money by greeny idiots.
I stand by my comments.
Posted by JBowyer, Friday, 2 October 2015 10:54:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Indeed, Urbanisation, Mickey Mouse and globalisation are leading to more and bigger catastrophes.

Naughty you, Mickey!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 2 October 2015 11:04:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good lord JBowyer, a post from apolitical analyst from 1999? How authoritative! You really blew me away with that one!

Really though, all you have to do is look up a science-based website like: http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/ozone_hole.php

Which will explain all you need to know about what's causing the thinning in the ozone layer above Antarctica. Yes, it even explains the seasonality of the ozone thickness.

If you think that you can some real scientific publications, GoogleScholar is your friend.

That there is no political campaign to inform or change people minds about the ozone layer is because the politics is settled on this. There's no need to muster support, because it is not controversial, it's universally agreed upon with an international treaty and everything, except by perhaps some fringe dwellers who didn't get the memo. That doesn't mean the ozone hole has gone away though.
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 2 October 2015 11:15:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy but the ozone scam has been exploited and has now gone away! That is the point.
Do not worry as soon as they have milked you and the other idiots all the science will be settled and promptly forgotten.
You Mug. I would not mind if there was a special "Greeny" tax for you numpties.
Bugsy stop taking my money for your silly irrational fears, OK?
Posted by JBowyer, Friday, 2 October 2015 11:30:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JBowyer, the SEASONAL variability of ozone levels is indeed due to sunlight. For nearly half the year the sun doesn't shine at all at the south pole, and so the UV-C needed to produce the ozone doesn't come. However, nor does the UV-B which the ozone absorbs (and which destroys it) so it's insufficient to explain the hole. Nor is the nitrogen oxide (which slowly reacts with ozone) enough to cause the hole; we know it was the chlorine monoxide.

The link you provided has several flaws. One I found particularly amusing was "Even high school science students would be aware that seawater salt is comprised of sodium chloride. Once the sodium chloride reaches high altitudes, it can ionise, freeing the chlorine atom from the sodium". But most high school science students would be aware that sodium chloride is already ionised! And most would know that it attracts water, so would be very unlikely to reach the upper atmosphere.

The emissions from Mount Erebus (in the form of hydrogen chloride IIRC) are acknowledged as a contributor to the ozone hole.

It would be incredibly difficult, and quite pointless, to set up an experiment to observe ultraviolet radiation splitting CFCs in the stratosphere. We know that the CFCs do reach the stratosphere, and we know what the conditions in the stratosphere are. So it's much easier to recreate those conditions in the lab. And when that was done, it was found that the claim "the intensity of ultraviolet light in the lower stratosphere is not sufficient to break up CFCs" is totally untrue.

The claims about the effects of the Montreal protocol are extremely disingenuous, falsely implying that it required an immediate worldwide ban on using CFCs as refrigerants. In reality this was not the case at all - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol#Chlorofluorocarbons_.28CFCs.29_Phase-out_Management_Plan

Refrigerant 134a (which is just one of the many substitutes for CFCs) is neither toxic nor "extremely corrosive". But like the CFCs it replaced, it does have a very high global warming potential, so its use has now started to be restricted.
Posted by Aidan, Friday, 2 October 2015 12:24:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hang on, now I’m confused here JBowyer, your post is amess of mumbled febrile conspiracy ravings.

Let’s break this down:
The ozone ‘scam’: in what way was the concern over the ozone layer a ‘scam’? Who benefited? How did the scam work? How was it exploited exactly? How has it ‘gone away’? The Montreal Protocol is very much still in effect.
..as soon as ‘they’ have milked me? Who is ‘they’ in this sentence? What are ‘they’ ‘milking’ out of me?

How does this equate to the international treaty on the ozone layer?

Now in one sentence you say ‘they’ are ‘milking’ me, and in your final sentence, you say that I am taking your money? How am I doing that? And if I were, doesn’t that make you the mug?

The only silly irrational fears I see around here are the conspiratorial ones about how 'they' are somehow taking everyone’s money and giving it to who-knows-what. The ever present ‘they’.

THEY changed the terms from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’…
THEY used the ‘ozone scam’ to do something (not quite sure what yet)…
THEY are milking everyone of [presumably] their hard earned cash…
THEY are frauds and fraud backers…
THEY are all-powerful con-artists that are using environmental causes to suit their own agenda…
THEY have an agenda that doesn’t include the welfare of common, hard-working, ignorant people…
But you are onto THEM aren’t you?

Just lay it out clearly eh? Drag those fever dreams out into the open so they can be critically examined. Alternatively, just mumble something about 'scam' or 'fraud' and shuffle off to the next thread.
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 2 October 2015 4:03:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK bugs you know how clever you are. The IPC whatever has taken BILLIONS of all our dollars, fact.
Insult me all you like but a person like you can never be taken seriously. Oh yes and you will be the first to complain when insults are directed at you as all you left wing self abusers do.
Stay in toytown Bugsy as despite your tough name you know the real world is far too rough for the likes of you lol.
Posted by JBowyer, Friday, 2 October 2015 11:04:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok, please back up your FACTS then, JBowyer.

How much did the IPCC (I am assuming this is what you meant) spend of our money? Which countries did they get it from ?('all' in this case I assuming all countries?)

How much did they get from 'us'? (I am assuming that you mean Australians here, since you seem to be complaining so much about your money being scammed from you).

Please provide some evidence and links to sites that provide real numbers if possible.

And also please don't project your fantasies on my being a lefty pussy, it's kind of icky.
Posted by Bugsy, Saturday, 3 October 2015 12:23:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I just LOVE the accusation that climate scientists are in it for the money. It's so silly it's cute, like a little boy pouncing around in a Superman costume.

What do climatologists earn in a year? They're lucky to get over $100k.

Oil and Coal CEO's earn that in a day!

Who's the one with the *real* motivation to lie, or sponsor anti-science movements in grassroots movements amongst the politically naive and paranoid for maximum effect?

This video documents how the Koch brothers (coal barons) get maximum anti-science bang for their buck.

It sounds like some here have been taken for the ride, and even drunk the anti-science cool-aid, all in the aid of making a few rich fat white men even richer and fatter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaKm89eVhoE
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 3 October 2015 2:01:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The term “Climate change" is used by the promoters of the scientifically bereft assertion of human caused global warming where they want to rely on the weasel worded definition of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC which is:” a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods’.
Their method is to assume the meaning of climate change to be as defined in this dishonest, baseless definition, so that anyone believing in climate change is taken to believe that it is human caused, while the opinion-giver thinks that they are subscribing to a belief in climate change as defined by an English dictionary, and not by a fraudulent puppet entity of the United Nations.
So fraud supporters use the term “climate change”.
NASA for example says:” we've chosen to emphasize global climate change on this website, and not global warming” http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

The term “global warming” was promoted by Hansen, Gore, and other climate liars to frighten the population, and gain support for misapplication of public money to enriching promoters of climate fraud, like the United Nations, and fraud supporting scientists.
Luntz scored an own if,as Bugsy asserts, he recommended the term “climate change.

Bugsy’s “well documented” source was an article, where their source was stated to be:

“A Republican source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said party strategists agreed with Mr Luntz's conclusion”

Bugsy questions the waste of billions on the climate fraud:

“Green Climate fund and with Australia's contribution have reached a significant total in excess of $10 billion to date.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-10/bishop-200-million-to-green-climate-fund-at-un-climate-summit/5956676

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/04/billions-of-dollars-sneaks-out-the-door-through-un-committees/
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 3 October 2015 2:14:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This ‘name change’ conspiracy theory is so funny. Let’s get a few facts established with a few extensive quotes.

The CBD documentary "The Denial Machine" shows Luntz discussing why the Bush regime changed the language from the scary “Global Warming” to the more ambiguous “Climate Change”. (5 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WiTVL9iT1w

It was always called Climate Science but in the last 40 years mankind’s influence has more specifically been referred to as Global Warming. The terms are nearly interchangeable, but if there is a difference it is that the scientific papers use Climate Change and layman’s articles and reporting use Global Warming.

As the Skeptical Science summary says:
“In fact, according to Google Books, the usage of both terms in books published in the United States has increased at similar rates over the past 40 years….
…Perhaps the only individual to advocate the change was Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term 'climate change' is less frightening to the general public than 'global warming'. There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth "they changed the name from global warming to climate change".
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

Climate science is old. Fourier discovered greenhouse gases nearly 200 years ago.

“By the late 1930’s it was common knowledge that the world had been warming up. Grandfathers were saying that the younger generation had it easy: none of those early frosts and daunting blizzards of bygone times. And in fact, as one magazine put it in 1951, “The old-timers are right-winters arent’ what they were.” The evidence was largely anecdotal. Rivers failed to freeze over as formerly, glaciers retreated, and fish were found north of their former haunts. But detailed analysis of temperature statistics also seemed undeniably to show a rise…
Nobody was worried…
…By the early 1960’s much had changed.
Spencer Weart
Physics Today 1997
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/seagrant/ClimateChangeWhiteboard/Resources/Uncertainty/climatech/weart97PR.pdf

Climate change was becoming mainstream science by 1958 as the Bell Telephone company Science Hour demonstrates. 1958, enjoy the retro animation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-AXBbuDxRY
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 3 October 2015 2:57:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max Green, the last time you demonstrated what a fraud-supporting dunce you are, you promised not to come back.
But here you are, the proven fool, still with no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, and with global warming, despite the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere, halted completely almost 19 years ago, proving that the science applied by the IPCC in their climate models only works in the laboratory, and not in real life. Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, which by itself, does not govern temperature, except in the flawed representations of the fraud-promoting IPCC.
You use the deceptively named fraud-backers, Skeptical Science as your reference. One of their recent efforts was the false assertion that 97%of climate scientists support the view that the world is warming and human emissions are the main cause.No one takes anything that they say seriously.
Your concocted saga about climate change is nonsense.
The beauty of it is, that the climate fraud promoters are losing:
“25 years of intense political and cultural pressure hasn’t won over the public. But they haven’t stopped trying. With the huge investment of time and money, the fear-mongers keep trying—believing, somehow, they’ll get different results.”
http://www.westernjournalism.com/climate-campaign-hasnt-worked-but-the-fearmongers-keep-trying/
Come up with some science to support your assertions, Max, or keep your promise to stay away, and stop your trolling.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 3 October 2015 11:04:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sticks and Stones, Leo, Sticks and Stones.
Grow up. If you want to compare science, look at my links then look at yours.
Irony much?
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 4 October 2015 12:17:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max, your links disclose no science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate, yet you continue supporting the IPCC climate fraud.
There has been no global warming since 1997 other than created by the manipulation of the temperature record. The 1930s were the hottest years, but now 1998 is the hottest year on record, because the temperature record has been manipulated to make those hottest years cooler. Dishonest people like you support this behaviour of the fraud promoters.
“Feds caught altering past temperature data: NOAA claims 1998 was previous ‘hottest on record’ on record — But in 1999, the same year was only the 5th warmest before ‘adjustments’ - 'In an article which NASA published in 1999, Hansen showed that 1998 was only the fifth warmest year, after 1934, 1921, 1931 and 1953. In fact, 1998 was 0.6C cooler than 1934' -- 'Over the past decade, NASA and NOAA have continuously altered the temperature record to cool the past and warm the present. Their claims are straight out Orwell's 1984, and have nothing to do with science'

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/02/14/watch-now-climate-depots-morano-on-nasa-altering-historical-temperature-numbers/#ixzz3nVJk0lIh
If you have any scientific or rational basis for support of the IPCC climate fraud, please disclose it. Otherwise the basis is obviously your dishonesty.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 4 October 2015 1:41:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is known physics that was discovered nearly 2 centuries years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect

Watch the candle demonstrate the heat diverting properties of CO2. Starts 90 seconds in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw

Mathematics around more CO2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

Global Warming = ocean warming
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2201/

Glaciers retreating:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/glacier-retreat

Sea levels have risen 6cm or an inch since 1998...
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

...and is probably going to hit one metre in 100 years
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2329/

Watchable video on National Security implications:
General Gordon Sullivan, Former Chief of Staff US Army
Rear Admiral David Titley
Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn
James Woolsey, Former Director CIA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqBURjOdOG8&playnext_from=TL&videos=Om3b1AocsiA&feature=sub

More severe cyclones
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/RisingCost/rising_cost5.php

It will make a wetter atmosphere, which makes storms worse and the mother-of-all feedback loops
http://earthsky.org/earth/frank-wentz-will-global-warming-bring-more-rainfall

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/14/1321481/-Global-Warming-is-increasing-moisture-in-Earth-s-atmosphere-driving-Mother-of-all-Feedback-Loops

Rising oceans could see 100 million people on the move
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 4 October 2015 2:40:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max – A valiant effort on your part but totally wasted on those who are irrevocably committed to denial of global warming or its product climate change and, to be charitable, have little knowledge of climate science or its inference.

The article presents a ludicrous analogy between the present and the past several hundred million years or so. This has nothing to do with the plight facing humans to-day and the comparison is spurious, as the author knows full well.

Homo sapiens as a species was certainly not about – or threatened by climate change as long as 100,000 years ago. It is now, increasingly so – dangerously so. What Dr Aitkin does know is a lot about Political Science – but physics, global warming or its causes and effects, sadly no.
Posted by Agnostic of Mittagong, Sunday, 4 October 2015 3:23:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For god sake Agnostic, & the rest of you fools, go read JoNova's blog for just 5 minutes, & try to understand which way is up.

To you gravy train riders, watch out, the planet has you in it's sights. The whole scam is about to die at it's hands.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 4 October 2015 4:15:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Surrounded by you Genii (Is that the plural of genius?) can any of you explain the Ice Age?
See I have heard it was everywhere but logically it must have only happened at the Northern hemisphere.
Now that finished 15,000 years ago and is the basis for the great flood of so many religions as when the ice melted over 50 years the seas rose up by many many metres.
Lets here it from you.
Posted by JBowyer, Sunday, 4 October 2015 5:16:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No it can't be explained. The ice in the north made the south lighter and the planet tipped over with the frozen seas unable to expand and pushed Antarctic glaciers uphill.
Posted by nicknamenick, Sunday, 4 October 2015 5:47:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JBoyer, you're understanding of anthropology and the origins of flood myths is as misguided as your denial of climate science. Most early cities developed near the food sources: rivers. These rivers flooded. Regularly. So the Enuma Elis, Epic of Gilgamesh, Genesis and even Egyptian myths all have water and floods of some sort.

But that's irrelevant to this discussion.

The earth's earlier *natural* volcanic high CO2 events were catastrophic. But back then, the sun was 2 to 3% cooler. Now? High CO2 events could be absolutely devastating given the sun is hotter! Did the author of this article bother to spell that out? No. That's Pathetic. Embarrassing. Incriminating.
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 4 October 2015 5:49:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max Green you never read what I wrote or at least did not understand it and the answer given by nickname did not make any sense.
Explain the Ice ages as there were many and I might think you know something.
Blow hard buddy blow hard!
Posted by JBowyer, Sunday, 4 October 2015 7:55:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dude,
'explain ice ages'?
2 words.

Milankovitch Cycles.

Next?
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 4 October 2015 8:52:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
".. logically it must have only happened at the Northern hemisphere."
waddya mean, not sense. It precisely correlated with the geohydrogenic clarity of textual chronologies of eschatology and cryostatics.
Posted by nicknamenick, Sunday, 4 October 2015 8:53:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max and Nick just as I thought neither of you have a clue
Posted by JBowyer, Sunday, 4 October 2015 10:03:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Milankovitch cycles are a set of cyclic variations in characteristics of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Each cycle has a different length, so at some times their effects reinforce each other and at other times they (partially) cancel each other. The combined effects of the changing distance to the Sun, the precession of the Earth's axis, and the changing tilt of the Earth's axis redistribute the sunlight received by the Earth. Of particular importance are changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis, which affect the intensity of seasons. For example, the amount of solar influx in July at 65 degrees north latitude varies by as much as 22% (from 450 W/m² to 550 W/m²). It is widely believed that ice sheets advance when summers become too cool to melt all of the accumulated snowfall from the previous winter.

Either that or white walkers.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Sunday, 4 October 2015 11:22:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JB..
.."logically it must have only happened at the Northern hemisphere."
Just 1 clue about that, a hint maybe ?
please.
Posted by nicknamenick, Monday, 5 October 2015 8:24:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nick just have a cuppa tea and a lie down and I will inform you. I say it must have only been the Northern Hemisphere as the ice built up for thousands of years.
I do understand you dicks are just baiting me when I bait you for being know-alls.
Anyway a "Scientist" has now cast doubt on all the "Evidence" on the computer models. This should fire us all up for the coming years lol!
Posted by JBowyer, Monday, 5 October 2015 8:52:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JB
I just spat out all my tea and completely lost it.
Thousands of years of ice in the north ? Aboriginal fires caused AGW and sunburn in Tasmania?
Posted by nicknamenick, Monday, 5 October 2015 9:07:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Senator Whitehouse (US) has been suggesting that ExxonMobil should be prosecuted on the basis that scientists they employed in the 1970s were clearly telling management that man created climate change was real.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

Quote from reference:
"A year later, Black, a top technical expert in Exxon's Research & Engineering division, took an updated version of his presentation to a broader audience. He warned Exxon scientists and managers that independent researchers estimated a doubling of the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit), and as much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) at the poles. Rainfall might get heavier in some regions, and other places might turn to desert."

ExxonMobil management took the view that they wouldn't take the advice of their professional staff and instead set out to white ant the science.

Scientists say that with an increase in atmospheric warmth that more water vapour is created; Cannes has just been inundated as have the Carolinas. Not long ago Estonia was as well;it is only over the last decade or so that tv news has brought pictures of houses and cars bobbing away in floods, it has become a reasonably common occurrence. The question is how much influence has climate change had in relation to these very recent events.

We all know that climate has changed in the past; what is different now is that fossil fuels which have been created over millions of years are being burnt in a few moments in geological terms.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/flash-flooding-deadly-french-riviera/

http://mashable.com/2015/10/02/thousand-year-rains-carolinas-flood/#_fBPF996KSqT

Something else of interest is that surf was up at Barrow Alaska weeks ago with 11-13 foot waves. Normally Barrow is protected by sea ice from wave action.

The 11 year ARM study taking in thousands of bits of data showed a direct relationship between CO2 and infrared light.
It has only been through satellite technology that scientists have become aware of the rapid regression of the Austfonna ice cap and Totem glacier.

Moody's opinion makes interesting reading in relation to coal:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-01/half-of-the-world-s-coal-output-is-uneconomical-moody-s-says

Continued
Posted by ant, Monday, 5 October 2015 12:19:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continued:

The science of climate change goes back decades prior to the 1970s, in the 1970s non government scientists were telling their management about man created climate change.
In the 1970s there was little knowledge of permafrost thawing (hardly dealt with by the IPCC), there was no knowledge of Greenland's surface ice melting; nor were any methane blow holes discovered; it is only fairly recently that scientists have picked up on the Pine Island and Totem glaciers regressing quite quickly. Before coming up with sea ice extending in Antarctica, learn about thermoclines.
Posted by ant, Monday, 5 October 2015 12:21:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Don,
Glad to see you arise from a rabbit hole, in which you have been looking for some lost marbles.

That our planet is warming is indicated by the slowly increasing average global sea level temperature.

Strange as it may seem, Don, an average means some regions will have lower averages, and others higher averages. Doesn’t your fine statistician understand averages?

Yes, normal natural variation has meant some parts of Australia have had a cooler winter, while others worldly regions have suffered abnormally bad heat waves. I think you are attacking the huge and verified evidence of AGW with a feather.

Yes, additional warming because of additional CO2 in the atmosphere means more solar energy into the ocean, which means more evaporation, which means more atmospheric condensation, which releases much energy, energising atmospheric motions, enhancing strength of extreme event, such as El Nino.

Apologies for the stringing together of so many clauses. Averages and clauses are enough to damage a person’s relationship with …. (Don, you can insert something here).

Oh, it is so funny – do you expect anyone who visits this site to see any value in trotting out much used charts of proxy temperatures from hundreds of millions of years ago? Now, going back 800,000 years ago is great because we can measure CO2 concentration from air trapped in an ice core, and we can get proxy temperatures, and see the relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature.

Very illuminating.

Yes, CO2 concentration remained below 290 ppm for all of those years, oscillating between about 100ppm and 290ppm as ice ages came and went. And we are now at 400ppm. And you want to talk about stuff that happened millennia ago?

While, Don, you have certainly lost marbles, IPCC charts do contain error bars, reliability and probability assessments. I guess they are not replicated in the popular press because of lack of marbles in their readership.

And, there was no pause. Just more heat into the oceans and not as much into the air.

Stand-up comedy for you!
Posted by Tony153, Monday, 5 October 2015 9:19:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tony 153 very impressive! Come in with all the arrogance only you knuckle heads can muster. Blah blah blah.
So why all the fraud, all the extra people being paid and all the swagger? Believe me people are not impressed and we are awake to your nonsense.
Posted by JBowyer, Monday, 5 October 2015 9:31:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Northern ice JB?
Posted by nicknamenick, Monday, 5 October 2015 10:02:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JBowyer, South of Greenland there is a body of extra cold water. Some questions are how did it get there, what impact is it having, is the AMOC slowing down?

Elsewhere, in lower latitudes to the cold area, the North Atlantic Ocean is quite warm, as is the Pacific. In relation to the PDO the question is whether the temperature of the Ocean is higher than previous PDO events. For the last few years waters from California to Alaska have been termed "the blob" through showing anomalous warmth. Many marine creatures died as a result; a huge algal bloom has been a feature.

As discussed above, increased temperature is a feature of the climate as indicated above, it had been acknowledged by ExxonMobil scientists in the 1970s. Permafrost does not thaw unless there is a constant higher than normal temperature, the top surface of ice sheets do not melt without a higher than normal temperature. More moisture carried in the atmosphere allows for larger deluges than previously experienced; for example, Mount Pleasant in South Carolina received 26.88 inches of rain between the 1-4 October. Further inland, Greer received 6.33 inches of rain in the same period.

Quote, from source provided above:

"EXTREMELY HIGH MOISTURE WILL BE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SYSTEM PARTLY BECAUSE OF MOISTURE FROM THE TROPICAL PACIFIC AND HURRICANE JOAQUIN OFF THE SOUTHEAST COAST. FORECAST MODELS HAVE BEEN CONSISTENT DISPLAYING AN EASTERLY 50-KNOT LOW-LEVEL JET ABOUT 5000 FEET ABOVE THE SURFACE FEEDING TROPICAL MOISTURE INTO OUR AREA. THE PATTERN SUPPORTS HEAVY RAIN WHICH MAY BECOME EXTREME WITH PARTICULARLY DANGEROUS FLASH FLOODING RESULTING."

From: http://mashable.com/2015/10/02/thousand-year-rains-carolinas-flood/#_fBPF996KSqT

Sadly, the models used by Meteorologists have been far too accurate.
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 7:12:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ant I have been fishing for over fifty years and in fact have a little dam in my back garden so I observe water all the time. It is never still. It is always moving. Moving means temperatures will change. In fact as water warms and cools it moves up and down, simple physics.
A blob of water?
When anyone but you nutjobs talk about an "event" (heavy rain) we are accused of confusing climate with weather. So my confused friend have another cuppa and the increased ice in the Ice Age, from what I have read, was confined to the Northern Hemisphere.
Posted by JBowyer, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 3:03:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JBoy
thanks for the tea. Tasmania, Oz Alps , Argentina and cruise ships in Antarctica had an Ice Age. Your dam had frost on it and the Roaring Forties were nippy.
Posted by nicknamenick, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 5:55:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh Nurse! Nick has got out of bed again.
Back to beddie Byes Nick and leave thinking to the grown ups.
Posted by JBowyer, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 7:10:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"increased ice in the Ice Age, from what I have read, was confined to the Northern Hemisphere."
Just 1 nice grown up site or reference, oh abusive one.
Posted by nicknamenick, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 9:15:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JBowyer, pull your head in you silly twat. People are laughing at you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patagonian_Ice_Sheet
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 9:42:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JB, funny how you did not comment on the ExxonMobil scientists who in the 1970s were supporting the view of anthropogenic climate change.

This is another funny part, to quote you:"A blob of water?"
It just shows that you have not been keeping up with the news. "The blob", is the name that it has been given on the basis of being so different to other parts of the Pacific Ocean off the West Coast of the US.
A quote in relation to "the blob":
"Though it’s not the sci-fi movie Blob, this particular climate change monstrosity could well be described as stranger than fiction. It’s an ocean feature of the Ridiculously Resilient Ridge which has warded storms off the North American West Coast over the past couple of years."
"Ridiculously Resilient Ridge" is another often used term about weather patterns off the West Coast of the US. You might like to google algal bloom off the West Coast of the US. Here is a start:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-toxic-algae-blooms-may-prove-a-sign-of-climate-change-to-come/

Comparing the stratification (is there any?) in a dam with that of an Ocean is also somewhat amusing. What is the salt content of your dam,JB? Is the density of water in your dam variable?

As you are setting yourself up as an expert JB, can you answer this question, is the AMOC slowing down? Me, I just try and understand what the scientists are saying.

There is debate about whether individual weather events can be claimed as part of climate change; but, when there are several flooding events happening around the globe where cars and houses are bobbing about in floods the aggregate become hard to argue against.
A warmer atmosphere carries more water vapour.
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 7 October 2015 6:39:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ant the water in my dam certainly does have a variable density but you know that. Originally I asked about the Ice Age and you blokes subject me to abuse. Of course namby pambys like you squeal when given some back, lol.
I do think that whatever your latest fad name for our atmosphere is being called changes my view. You are not as smart as you think you are and anything with UN in front of it is a scam. There you go, abuse away and thank goodness we have you lemmings paying HECS debt now lol.
Posted by JBowyer, Wednesday, 7 October 2015 7:28:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In answer to the opening piece, it will mean more bushfires. As we have already seen this week, the earliest start to fire season. California's fire season is stretching out to almost all year long. We're going the same way.

"According to the BNHCRC, the above normal forecast is mostly due to a strengthening El Nino over the Pacific Ocean, but is made more complex by the influence of warmer sea temperatures in the Indian Ocean. Significantly below average rainfalls over the last decade across almost all of eastern Australia, the west coast and Tasmania aren’t helping either.

The BNHCRC warned that such conditions will challenge the limited resources of the fire and land management agencies, and have created the situation where each fire season is likely to be more demanding than the last, both in economic and human costs.

Much of Australia’s firefighting equipment is leased from firefighting agencies in the northern hemisphere. With climate change driving longer bushfire seasons, and fire weather extending into October and March in Australia, the reliance on equipment from the northern hemisphere could increasingly leave Australia unprepared."

https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/longer-bushfire-seasons-leave-australia-exposed
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 7 October 2015 7:49:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trying to duck the questions; and then being abusive, JB.
Comparing a farm dam with the Atlantic Ocean; JB, is a bit beyond the pale. Oceans have temperature and salinity gradients; also, does your dam have any influence on weather?

"The blob" caused the death of a significant number of sea creatures, there were lots of stories about seals and birds needing to be rescued . Conventional media was reporting it; available to anybody whether you live in Australia or Timbuktu.

A story that came my way earlier today is about Newtok, an Inuit village that has to move due to permafrost thawing. There are a number of other villages in Alaska where the whole community needs to be moved due to a changing climate.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/06/3709050/alaska-climate-threatened-community-relocating/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=cptop3

Quote from source:

"Though Newtok is the furthest along in the relocation process compared to other communities planning to follow their steps, it is still might not be far enough. Even the highest point in the village — a school that sits perched atop 20-foot pilings — could be underwater by 2017. It has been estimated that homes may not be able to move to the new location until 2018 or possibly later given the number of bureaucratic and economic setbacks."

The costs of moving whole communities is prohibitive.
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 7 October 2015 8:38:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ant "a school that sits perched atop 20-foot pilings — could be underwater by 2017."
Well that settles it we really are in trouble, time to get serious boys!
Hold on, over twenty feet rise in water level in two years?
When I read the story of the school being under water in the next few years I will be really in trouble. All the people in Bayside Melbourne will move out with to me in the hills.
Do not bother with all the rubbish about sea level rises, it has hardly risen in the last 100 years, before your very eyes folks!
Boys re-arrange these words into a well known phrase or saying "Dead, horse, flogging you are, a".
Posted by JBowyer, Wednesday, 7 October 2015 9:13:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JB
stop chucking tea on me, willya.
Other buildings surrounding the square include the golden spire-topped Admiralty, built by Adrian Zakharov between 1806 and 1823, in a style that has become known as Russian Empire and the neo-classical St Isaac's Cathedral, once the largest Russian Orthodox Church in the world with a capacity of 14,000. This was constructed by the French architect Auguste Montferrand between 1818 and 1858 with the first task requiring the pile-driving of 25,000 tree trunks into the marshy ground to provide the foundations.
Posted by nicknamenick, Wednesday, 7 October 2015 9:55:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JB, you commented on "...a school that sits perched atop 20-foot pilings"

You don't seem to realize that in permafrost areas that buildings are built on pilings which are pushed into the ground for foundations, a bit silly to have a school perched 20 feet above the ground I would have thought. It is normal practice to use pilings for buildings in Alaska in permafrost areas.

You might find this article interesting also;JB, about the floods in South and North Carolina written by a Meteorologist.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/05/south_carolina_floods_hit_charleston_and_columbia_hard.html

A quote:

"Sadly, this is exactly the type of event we can expect to see more of as the planet warms. One of the most straightforward responses to climate change is a quickening of the hydrologic cycle: Warmer air speeds evaporation and can cause rain to fall with greater intensity. This supercharges the atmosphere, and boosts the likelihood of devastating floods."
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 7 October 2015 10:18:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ant did not see anything from your meteorologist about rain washing CO2 out of the atmosphere though? Still that is your forte! Cherry pick, showoff and make an ass of yourself.
Posted by JBowyer, Wednesday, 7 October 2015 5:50:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JB
You abuse people, they try to explain things and you abuse them.
go away
Posted by nicknamenick, Wednesday, 7 October 2015 6:22:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>>JB
You abuse people, they try to explain things and you abuse them.
go away<<<
Nick, what do you expect? He's a climate denier troll.
Don't feed the troll.
Ignore them.
They hate that.
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 7 October 2015 7:21:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JB, rain doesn't wash CO2 out of the atmosphere, it sends down cats and dogs. It's something Meteorologists hide from us.

I happen to obtain lots of references about cc in my email and Facebook page on a daily basis,JB. Powell says that between 2013 and 2014 there were 24,000 peer reviewed papers about climate change published, there is any amount of material.

Something that is quite a worry is the methane explosions in Siberia of pingos; another aspect of permafrost thawing. Permafrost thawing was hardly dealt with by the IPCC.

Whether you make ad hominem attacks JB; it makes no difference to what is happening with man's addition to natural climatic changes.
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 7 October 2015 7:29:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would not worry about JB comments. It is probable that he is unable to comprehend what we are done to our home. Refusing to follow discussions, unwillingness to enter into logical debates are, to me, defensive traits.

I tend to feel pity for JB.

But, there are sufficient who do understand, sufficient to get the world heading in the correct direction.

But, again, there is huge risk that not enough will be done, early enough.

I am frightened by that thought.
Posted by Tony153, Wednesday, 7 October 2015 9:03:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//I tend to feel pity for JB.//

I don't. He cracks me up. No glaciation in the southern hemisphere during the last Ice Age.... I nearly choked laughing.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 7 October 2015 9:49:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry girls I remember a Ronnie Corbett joke that they were so soft you could have a reign of terror with a balloon on a stick. I think that sums you up.
Anyway keep up the tablets for all that anxiety, read what Eisenhower said about researchers and a big clap for all the money given to the UN from all those HEC's debts.
Posted by JBowyer, Wednesday, 7 October 2015 10:29:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“What’s less clear is how many of these events it will take—major floods also hit China, France, and Guatemala over the last week, with more than 100 dead—before we start bending the global emissions curve away from a worst-case climate scenario.”

From:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/05/south_carolina_floods_hit_charleston_and_columbia_hard.html

Earlier in the year:

The Atacama Desert in Chile was flooded and a mining area was hit hard with loss of life and infrastructure damage.
Oklahoma and Texas were hit hard by floods after having previously been in drought.
Turkey had major flooding.
The Olympic National Park in the State of Washington was ravaged by fire earlier in the year. The Park normally has lush rainforest vegetation as the rainfall is normally around 150 inches annually.
In a wildfire in Alaska 500,000 acres were burnt in a 24 hour period.
While the East Coast of the US had huge snowfalls, ski slopes in Western areas struggled through lack of snow.
The start line for the Iditarod sled dog race in Alaska had to be moved North through lack of snow and ice earlier in 2015.
A number of near wet bulb conditions occurred earlier in the year causing death to thousands of people and hospitals were overrun by patients; the countries impacted were India, Pakistan, Middle Eastern countries, Japan and Cyprus. Wet bulb conditions happen when there is extreme humidity and temperature which stops people from being able to perspire. Full blown hot bulb conditions are deadly for healthy adults.
Drought has impacted on California, Central American countries, Brazil, the Caribbean, Australia and Europe. In California they have used so much artesian water that in some areas the ground has slumped.
A huge algal bloom off the West Coast of the US caused the shell fish industry to be closed.

Still no comments about ExxonMobil scientists in the 1970s ( somewhat embarrassing), indicating that anthropogenic climate change is real, JB. Insults do not in any way change that fact; the Union of Concerned Scientists has also investigated correspondence of ExxonMobil and come up with the same conclusion
Posted by ant, Thursday, 8 October 2015 7:01:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy