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 > General Discussion > Man made or not it is changing

Man made or not it is changing

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 21
  7. 22
  8. 23
  9. All
http://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-stunning-chart-revealing-australia-s-record-breaking-run-of-rising-temperatures-20190110-p50qk1.html
Lets not beat about the bush
It is hot, 34 degrees in my lunge room, for the fourth straight day
40 klm from the coast it is roasting
So what is the story, winters are colder killing trees that got to be 18 years old without loss
Can we, even if we claim it is not man made claim nothing is taking place
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 10 January 2019 11:35:14 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
Do you actually remember what it was like last year? The year before? Any year since you were born?

It's Summer. An Australian Summer. Here in Adelaide we have already had 41 plus temperatures. Today it's going to be 39 - allowing me to be sure of getting my Winter dressing gown dry, on the line, naturally. Perfectly normal for this country.

There might well be changes in climate at the moment - after all, climate change has been occurring for thousands of years; the forecast is for a cold change next.

The fact is, even the smartest of people forget what previous weather patterns occurred, particularly when they are sweltering at the present time. The constant BS in the media, and TV images of harmless steam from factory chimneys being falsely promoted as 'pollution' makes people 'imagine' that they are feeling hotter than ever. Psychological warfare by the hysterics.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 11 January 2019 10:11:46 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
Hi Belly,

Thanks for raising this issue.

We had a 46 degree heatwave here in Melbourne recently.
Our car broke down in the middle of a busy turning
lane. The front-door-bell of our house stopped working.
Then Sydney touched 47.3 during a week-end heatwave.
And we're told by experts that this is a taste of things
to come. Our nights have become warmer. We're told that
water sources in the SE areas of the country have
depleted due to increasing population in urban areas
(rising demand) coupled with factors such as persistent
prolonged drought.

Here are a few links that warn us about the future:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-19/nights-getting-hotter-climate-change-has-deadly-consequences/9985340

And -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming_on_Australia
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 11 January 2019 10:34:42 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
Foxy,

How about the chooks? Off laying, are they. Your car breakdown is more likely to be lack of maintenance than hot weather. Still got the old Statesman? The door bell - now that's a mystery.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 11 January 2019 10:38:01 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
I have posted a report from our weather people
Not my memory's
Stunning that a poster who claims better understanding than us all, did not see that
Too that as the heat and cold, both part of projected climate change, is as recorded higher than the past?
Tell me, or try to, it is not man made.
I will listen
But try telling me it is not taking place, for what ever reason, and I will ignore you
THIS I KNOW, biases, blind unfounded claims to know more than others, any others
Signals a mind not worth exploring
Posted by Belly, Friday, 11 January 2019 10:38:10 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
Foxy in life I am stoic handle most things with ease
This week has been hell
Not sure I will be around all that long
No air con, not enough money, but fans on full blast
Sleep about four hours, temp often low 30,s in house at ten or eleven pm
Battling to get out just to water garden
And they say we are not seeing change
Cooler today, 32 degrees now 11.42, in house even with fans on four of them
Posted by Belly, Friday, 11 January 2019 10:43:45 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
ttbn,

The chooks are fine as far as I can tell
from the amount of eggs available in our delis
and supermarkets. Our curtains haven't faded either.
So there you go. But I am sweating up a storm at
night and I'm relatively slender - but I suppose
I should turn on the air-con, except that I try to
save where I can and prefer to use the air-con during
the day. As for the "old" Statesman? Beautiful car - very
well maintained - and working fine. We also have a classic
Ford Fairmont-XE - which hubby loves. We're rather old fashioned
when things get really bad - we take an occasional lick on the
icy-pole we've got stashed in the freezer from the 1970s. There
is no climate change as you say - afterall the icy-pole has
lasted all this time.(smile)
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 11 January 2019 10:55:56 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
Dear Belly,

It's also going to be hot in Melbourne today.
And am also taking precautions.
I've changed the water for the birds.
And Thank Goodness that I've done my walk
early this morning. I've sewn several
Kaftans out of some lovely materials as Christmas
presents for relatives - and made a couple for
myself. Great look - and oh so comfortable in this
hot weather. Also salads for dinner tonight.
I'll be thinking of you. Fans are a great idea.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 11 January 2019 11:04:03 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
Foxy,

Don't skimp on the A/C. Get a ceiling fan for sleeping. I wouldn't be without one. My blood is thinning, and I don't feel the heat as much as I used to. I haven't been able to cool my temper over the years, though. That's the only man-made warming condition I will accede to.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 11 January 2019 11:40:45 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
ttbn,

Thanks for the advice. But I've got a husband
who's a bit of a tight-ass.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 11 January 2019 12:09:14 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
"But I've got a husband
who's a bit of a tight-ass".

Am here's me thinking that you would be the boss! Suggest that he gets rid of one of the cars.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 11 January 2019 12:14:04 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
Yes there have been some hot days here too. It is usual when the weather pattern moves to winds bringing inland heat to the coasts.

This of course is only an Oz local event.

NASA recently released world temperature data showing that the planet as a whole cooled 0.5C over the last 2 years. I'm surprised that you Foxy have not found that in your research. Of course with the media being jammed in LEFT gear, they have studiously avoided publishing that.

My place is suffering from being dry. This is not general in South East Qld., just that the thunderstorms have missed us. Just 20 kilometres in any direction, everything is lovely & green, & the river has plenty of water, not like the 90s, when it dried completely for weeks to months many years.

So yes mate, it is hot, but nothing we haven't had before.

I'm sorry that naughty CO2 made your car breakdown Foxy. It really is a bad gas, isn't it. Just kidding, but I couldn't resist.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 11 January 2019 12:53:20 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
ttbn,

Me the boss? Coming from a European background -
hardly likely. Traditional values and all that.
As for suggesting hubbie get rid of the car he
loves? Not going to happen.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 11 January 2019 12:57:34 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
IF I dare
What if the deep state, UN Socialists trying to take over the world by stealth do not exist
What if man made climate change is real
And what if the owners of fossil fuels and much more likely to be sent broke by real action are real
And funding/inventing the it is a scam/conspiracy side
Not likely
Well at least as likely as half the world being conned by science
Foxy tight arse but in the end you have it right, leave his car alone.
Posted by Belly, Friday, 11 January 2019 3:46:47 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
face it Belly as you get older you have less tolerance to heat and cold. Obviously thats why it is so crimminal that Governments have forced up electricity prices in the name of 'climate change'. You and every other Australian have been conned. The only winners are the gw fraudsters and the UN.
Posted by runner, Friday, 11 January 2019 3:47:41 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
http://www.news.com.au/world/breaking-news/oceans-warming-faster-than-expected/news-story/876741fa5b1a2c9895cced3354f6454a
Unfortunately we all know it is a deep state lefty anti Trump conspiracy
Or do we?
Posted by Belly, Friday, 11 January 2019 4:11:31 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
news.com as your source Belly. Says it all.
Posted by runner, Friday, 11 January 2019 5:06:12 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
Heard yesterday on some News that 2018 was the third (3rd) hottest year on record.
Europe is having the kind of snowfall I can remember. But heat is a totally different show in Australia, it dries out the brains of those who spent too long in institutions..
Posted by individual, Friday, 11 January 2019 5:38:57 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 above should actually read too long in airconditioned institutions.
Posted by individual, Friday, 11 January 2019 5:40:40 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
Dear Belly,

I did a bit of searching on the web.

The following link gives a rather good summary
for those who are still sceptical about climate change:

The Bureau of Meteorology warned in the climate report
published in late 2016 that the "duration, frequency
and intensity of extreme heat events have increased
across large parts of Australia." And that "Australian
temperatures are projected to continue increasing."

They confirmed that "There's a clear trend where those
extreme hot days across the continent are increasing, and
quite dramatically over the past 20 years." Regarding
fire weather - which includes things like wind speed,
humidity, and drought factor - we've seen a shift in
most of Australia's fire-prone regions towards
a longer fire season and an increase in the frequency and
extremity of fire events, as well as fire danger days."

We're told that our country's current administration is
deeply hostile to any substantive action on climate
change, and the recent heat has seemingly done little
to change their minds.

The suggestion is that if Australia's summers grow even
hotter in the years ahead, the public's patience for
inaction regarding climate change is likely to wear thin.
Perhaps moving Parliament to the Sydney suburb (Sydney's
hottest suburb) of Penrith - or somewhere equally hot and
without air-conditioning might help Australia's politicians
to move things along.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/19/australia-new-normal-47c-climate-change
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 11 January 2019 7:11:32 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
Dear Hasbeen,

You wrote;

"So yes mate, it is hot, but nothing we haven't had before."

True. To quote statistics from one of the BOM sites near you which I had highlighted in another thread;

This year's highest November temperature in your neck of the woods this year was only 7th highest since the station's records starting from the mid 50s.

It was in 2016 that all November records for 60 years were smashed with a 38.6 degree day.

That wasn't all. In the same year the both June and July took out the highest records for each particular month as well.

And then last year January, March and September also blew away previous records from the last 6 decades.

So the previous two years saw six of the highest temperatures recorded in a particular month since records began at the weather station.

Apparently nothing to worry about really.

Gotta say I love you mate. You really do cheer up a bloke's day.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Friday, 11 January 2019 7:37:11 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
relax Steelie. Getting hot under the collar on the basis of propaganda is a waste of time.
Posted by runner, Friday, 11 January 2019 7:41:12 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 runner,

Well matey if we compare the propaganda exposed in a 1900 year old book to hard temperature data from a reputable government agency I know which one most people would put their houses on.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Friday, 11 January 2019 7:52:18 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
Runner your depth of understanding has to be questioned
Surely you do not think formal reports by the very folk who are tasked with that job are propaganda
Is your world so bleak
Too shallow charges that impress very very few you spend much time understanding the subject
I found some good in it, it reminds me those making the claim it is fraud are ,at best, not well informed
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 12 January 2019 4:15:32 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
Come on steely, you don't really believe that garbage do you. With the number of "CORRECTIONS" the BOM have made to the old temperature record, the reports in papers of the time, & the now BOM record have no similarity in the temperature recorded.

It is no figment of someone's imagine, like BOM statements, that they had to run trains to evacuate Broken Hill in 1896 due to the temperatures not experienced since. Of course the BOM have wiped that from their reporting, just so simple idiots can believe the crap you appear to believe.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 12 January 2019 11:16:39 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
Runner,

"Propaganda" is the word: spread by the the Left and main stream media to produce mass hysteria. The earth used to be flat; some people were witches who had to be burnt; gods were made of stone etc. etc. It is working now has well as it did centuries ago. Now there the average IQ is also dropping, so it can only get worse. I don't know if I will live long enough to see what happens when all the money that the lunatics have ripped of us, all the lies that they have told, finally prove to be bullshite. Perhaps people will return to burning the fraudsters at the stake. I would love to see that.
Posted by ttbn, Saturday, 12 January 2019 11:51:48 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
"Man made or not it is changing"

Which is amazing because the climate never changed before!! /sarc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames_frost_fairs

The current temperatures aren't really exceptional and are to some extent man-made in that they reflect the way the temperature record has been manipulated to make the past records colder. Add that to the changed methods of recording maximums and there's little doubt that our current record highs aren't anything of the sort.

We know that temperatures over the past 12000 years have often been higher, and sometimes significantly higher, than at present. Somehow species and humans survived those times. (yes even without A/C!!). Indeed civilisation usually thrived in those times.

Even more strangely, they didn't fret about the higher temperatures - perhaps they enjoyed the better growing conditions or perhaps they had other more important things to worry about. Its only first world catastrophists who seem to be concerned.
Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 12 January 2019 12:11:43 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
Even the IPCC & other warmists do admit that CO2 can't cause any runaway warming. They have to use some invented feedback mechanism to be able to claim any problem exists.

Isn't it strange that a degree or so of current warming is going to stimulate these imagined feedback mechanisms, when many degrees higher temperatures did not do it in the past. In fact higher temperatures have usually ended with either a full or little ice age.

Don't throw out your long underwear just yet folks, you are going to need it if those pesky sun spots don't come back with a big bang.

These clowns having to keep laying layers of bulldust on their original garbage to try to sustain their scam. See in my new post, even China is waking up, & ignoring the scammers.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 12 January 2019 12:54:07 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 indy, mate! you mention the very fact this thread opened with read the link, if it still works
We have posted thousands of posts, in dozens of threads about this subject
We touched on it, or this drought, in thread after thread about pumping water inland
How great it would be, if we could act, say right now, no matter the cost, pump water to cubby station
Let the Murray live, who knows if enough fish exist to ever restock it
RUDDY LEFT, DEEP State
Next thing they will expect us to think!, HOW DARE THEY
Thinking can be dangerous it may lead to truth
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 12 January 2019 2:11:50 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
Just a thought HASBEEN are you prepared to understand your post looks like a self description?
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 12 January 2019 2:14:57 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
'Well matey if we compare the propaganda exposed in a 1900 year old book to hard temperature data from a reputable government agency I know which one most people would put their houses on.'

Oh dear Steelie you Marxist types have always hated truth. No wonder the lack of morality produces such a ridiculous religion such as gw.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 12 January 2019 5:54:29 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
Belly my post is straight simple facts.

If you can't see that it is little wonder you can't see when you are being ripped off & used by your party, & the scammers.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 12 January 2019 10:32:11 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
If the weather people (BOM) are so good at predicting what will happen in a few years why are they not able to predict the weather with 100% accuracy in day in advance?
Posted by Philip S, Sunday, 13 January 2019 2:35:59 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
Hasbeen let us talk, in my first post I asked/said climate change man made or not is taking place
As usual, many said it is not
In post after post even said the whole thing is a hoax
Even a conspiracy
Just think, a conspiracy! forget the science, ignore that part of the world committed to taking action
They we are told are victims of a conspiracy
Every word should warn us all
If we truly think, on both sides, the other side has falen victim to a con
How can we ever be sure of anything
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 13 January 2019 5:09:16 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 post after post even said the whole thing is a hoax
Even a conspiracy"

Well Belly, in this thread you're the only one who has used the words 'hoax' and 'conspiracy'.

We see this with many of those who have just bought the scare without themselves having looked into or understood it to any real extent. Such people can't real discuss the minutia of the issues so rely on building straw-men to participate. Cry 'hoax', 'conspiracy', 'denier'...anything to avoid having to discuss ECS, Milanovitch cycles, sun spots or any of the other important issues in the climate debate.
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 13 January 2019 9:35:56 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
Regards mhaze, yet again you use posts that tell me you do not have the ability, any ability, to think or talk clearly
Like a bitter old man on his veranda you can, at best, look only for reason to complain
No insulting as it seems YOU not Me set that profile
YOU have asked the dumbest questions over and over again of me
YOU found some thing that did not exist here,
Read, it helps, get involved in reading,
I recommend reading others posts without your nasty old mans glasses on
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 13 January 2019 11:12:58 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 will repeat what I have said a few times previously.
There is not enough economically available fossil fuels to cause the
warming that the models predict.

Regarding oil. Crude oil production peaked in 2005.
Since then the old technique of fracking has been improved and the
(mainly) US has filled the gap. However that is now starting to look
dodgy as the companies involved are facing minute profits making the
financiers on Wall Street uneasy.
Profits are indeed rare. "Sweet spots" are not repeated in adjacent areas.
Areas outside the US have not attracted much interest.
The Coober Peady project did not go ahead.

Coal, except Australia, is facing declining reserves and increasing costs.
Australia has exchanged the sheep's back for coal mining.

It is going to take a genius to negotiate the future.
The problem is not global warming but energy.
Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 13 January 2019 2:31:13 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
Bazz I know you are brighter than that
In one post you take on the science community
And a great deal of the world
Based on what research, evidence?
As we age we can, if our eyes are open, and our mind, see much damage done in just our lifetime
Just maybe finding some thing we have not had a negative impact on is the hard task
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 13 January 2019 2:52:16 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
Hello Belly,
I read the science of global warming, that which I understand anyway.
However it is not really the point. The AGW priests are right when
they say coal is finished, but they say it for the wrong reasons.

I get a near daily Oil Price Bulletin in which several recent articles
have talked about the predicament of tight oil companies.
They have never had good profits and they have been described as a Ponzi scheme.
A good well lasts three years at a few hundred barrels, maybe a
thousand barrels a day.
You may have noticed that BHP among others have got out of that business.
Many countries that have been mining coal on large scales, such as
China and US have been closing mines as the return on their production
has fallen. Coal has just become uncompetitive in their markets.
Japan of course is finished with coal. That is why we sell coal to
China, India and Japan.

The world energy system is different to the Global Warming system
and operates in disregard to AGW.
Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 13 January 2019 3:22:50 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 put the following on the COP24 thread. No replies yet.
I thought the somewhat different people here may be able to enlighten me.

Craig Kelly MHR said on TV that the government 26% or the Labour's 45%
reductions on CO2 has to apply to agriculture and transport as well.
That so far it has only been considered with electricity generation.
Does it really mean that cattle herds have to be reduced by 45% and
sheep herds by 45% also ?
If so we could eat our way through those numbers.
The farmers will have to cut their diesel machine use by 45% also.
However that still leaves people. Do we have to cull the people stocks
by 45% or 26% if Labour loses the election ?
A thought, the animal rights people will claim it is discrimination
if we do not apply it to the human herd as well !

These reductions apply to railways, interstate trucks, local delivery
trucks and your and my cars. Our electricity also ?
I have heard Craig Kelly say the above several times and no one has
denied it. I think, but not sure, that he said it in parliament also.
Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 13 January 2019 3:34:05 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
When I pointed out to Belly that, while he was decrying the claims of hoax and conspiracy vis a vis AGW, he was the only one using those terms, he responded with...well I'm not sure what.But it had nothing to do with my observation.

On the other hand, I'm beginning to wonder if Belly is a parody account. He wrote "you do not have the ability, any ability, to think or talk clearly". Surely that has to be irony. No one can be that extrospective.
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 13 January 2019 3:54:09 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
Oh, good to see there are some Peak Crude Oilers about. Although in the past they were Peak Oilers, up until they got smacked around the head by reality.

The trouble with all these predictions is that they fail to take account of advancements. They always assume that nothing will change and that, therefore, we'll run out of this or that. But we never, ever do.

We've been told we'd run out of coal since the 1880s. Back in 1930 we were told we'd run out of oil in 10 years. Carter said we'd run out by 2000 and Fraser imposed taxes to try to prolong our supplies.

But all those predictions were wrong. And they're still wrong. Because we keep finding more oil and coal and we keep finding new ways to get at it.

BP recently calculated that, given known reserves and current usage, we've got enough coal for another 184 yrs.

Back in 1980 based on usage at that time and recoverable reserves at that time, we had about 80 years of reserves. Since then, usage has increased by 61% but known recoverable reserves have increase much faster and we now have 120 yrs of supplies.

Its hard to believe people still fall for this.

"There is not enough economically available fossil fuels to cause the warming that the models predict."

Well I'd like to see the calculations on that. CO2 levels are currently around 410ppm up from 280ppm in 1850. The IPCC's RCP4.5 model predicts a CO2 level of around 560ppm by 2100AD.
Can you show me how much fossil fuel needs to be burned to get there (560ppm) and why we don't have that much said fuel?
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 13 January 2019 4:16:39 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
So I presume Ismise you have not heard of Energy Return on Energy Invested.
Oil in 1900 = 100 in 2016 approx 10
Coal in 1900 = 80 in 2016 approx 8 to 10
Says it all
That is why there has been a drought of investment in oil search & development.
Tight oil gave us 10 year grace but that is ending.

It really is as simple as that.
Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 13 January 2019 9:22:46 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
Bazz it will only take a bit of a ruckus in the South China sea, even with no shooting for us to be out of liquid fuels. No tanker shipping will be interested in sailing from Singapore to Oz.

At the same time, we would have lots of gas from the northwest shelf, again no gas ships will be interested in their current destinations either.

I don't know how quickly we could convert to gas, but much too long for the millions who depend on trucks delivering their food to supermarkets. I'm not sure the country would survive if oil stopped coming.

We do have huge reserves of shale oil in places like Rundle, & much larger in the middle of the country. Again I'm not sure we would have the ability to harvest or refine it in a serious oil shortage.

My information is we have a couple of hundred years of coal at least. My son assures me we have the ability & capacity to build suitable steam locomotives that could be coal or oil fired, but even with a full rail transport system, our cities are uninhabitable without road transport & lots of it to supply food.

Anyone who thinks we could reduce road transport by even 30% & feed our city folk have simply no idea of how our food distribution works. Anything like Global Warming is likely to be the least of our worries.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 14 January 2019 1:41:51 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
mhaze you need not bother time and again proving my every claim about you is true
Understand it is your default position to ramble on, probably laugh at your own jokes/posts
I do too, for different reasons
Bazz, will look for you at Wyong, still call it Gosford
But understand the difference GW and fossil fuels, just do not agree
Posted by Belly, Monday, 14 January 2019 4:30:58 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
Only too true Hasbeen, and to make it worse there is a ministerial
directive that local Emergency Management Committees are not to
prepare Displans for just the disasters you describe.
The reason, it is a matter to be handled Federally.
I did raise the matter but was "told" !
I had suggested that the police should seize a couple of service
stations for emergency services in each district and that electric
passenger trains, seats removed, be used to meet the few steam locos
we have at the ends of the electric system to move food into the city
while ever the coal still gets to the power stations.

You would be surprised at just who thinks it won't be a problem.
As I said, forget Canberra, they will all be out in their backyards
digging a vegetable patch. Likewise the state governments.
The only real authority will be local government so there should be a plan.

Way back when there used to be electric parcel vans that ran around
Sydney delivering parcels to the parcel offices at each station.
That could be reinstated to distribute food.
If the electricity supply disappeared, then goodbye.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 14 January 2019 8:20:41 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
EXPLAIN it to me
How did so many like me who believe the science get it so wrong
Maybe the earth is flat
The moon made out of cheese
And the owners of fossil fuels wonderful people with only the planets interests at heart
Posted by Belly, Monday, 14 January 2019 10:42:11 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
Belly you told me of my post regarding academic & IPCC use of "tipping points" to get CO2 to produce enough heat to matter "Just a thought HASBEEN are you prepared to understand your post looks like a self description?".

With that post you proved that you don't know anything al all about the Global warming scam, & are just parroting the garbage from academia & the left.

In fact you make a fool of yourself every time you post on the subject.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 14 January 2019 11:07:31 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
Belly, the science is correct, it is just that the effect is so much
smaller than many expected. The co2 does work like a blanket but
a rather thin blanket.
So many prominent people went way out on a limb that they cannot climb
back without losing face.
The ones I speak to will not even discuss why the models show so much
higher temperatures than are actually occurring.
Mind you we are only talking about a degree C or so difference.
I really do not worry about it except to rattle my daughter in law's chain.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 14 January 2019 1:09:32 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
Dear Hasbeen,

It seems your mate Bazz believes in the science of global warming just not its projected extent.

Is he too participating in a scam?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 14 January 2019 1:36:23 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
Steele, scam, now what are you saying ?
A very odd thing to say.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 14 January 2019 1:41:23 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
http://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/saudi-arabia-has-more-oil-than-we-may-ever-need-20190114-p50r60.html
Bazz the link is for you, it is in response to your mention here and in another thread about volumes of oil left
We will not agree on this subject
That should not surprise us
You put a case in your second from last post, that if you are wrong, can be aimed at you
This world is not the hope driven one ww2 veterans thought it would be, not close
Each year that passes finds more separation, more uncertainty about our leaders
ten and six are humming along and hope you are getting some of it
Just maybe mate that has been the intention
Posted by Belly, Monday, 14 January 2019 2:06:59 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
OK Belly, read the link.
Well no surprise there. At current world consumption rates of 100 Mbd
that will last
Wait for it:
7.3 Years
of course everyone does not all use Saudi crude only.
I was surprised myself when I read the link.
Saudi produces around 10,000,000 a day.
That means the Saudi barrel will be empty in 73 years
at the current rate.
The rate declines and may take 200 years at 1 or 2 barrels a day.
It all depends on what other oil fields can produce.
A further problem is how much water comes up with it.
Some of their well are about 50% water. They add sea water into
other wells to increase the pressure.
Any way very interesting.
I will get you paged at Wyong and meet in the upstairs lounge.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 14 January 2019 3:40:36 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
Bazz fact is they could supply us all, for a few years maybe 20
As said if they try to keep price up, they may well be caught out with unsalable oil in the ground
We, in our lifetimes have seen massive changes
No reason exists to think that will not continue
Posted by Belly, Monday, 14 January 2019 3:49:11 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
Aaaarrrrgggghhhh
Got the decimal place wrong, it is 73 years.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 14 January 2019 4:02:03 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
Aaaarrgghhh again, I must be getting tired or something.

he rate declines and may take 200 years at 1 or 2 barrels a day.
should be
he rate declines and may take 200 years at 1000 or 2000 barrels a day.

Zero on 6 & 10 here today. Lousy sky stick.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 14 January 2019 4:07:49 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
"Oil in 1900 = 100 in 2016 approx 10
Coal in 1900 = 80 in 2016 approx 8 to 10"

Utter rubbish. Current EROI for coal is somewhere around 40, up from 30 in the early 1950s.

Current EROI for oil approx 20. Somewhat lower for shale oil.

But what any of that's got to do with your original assertion that "There is not enough economically available fossil fuels to cause the warming that the models predict" is is unclear to me and, I suspect, unclear to you.

If we start to run out of these resources their price will go up which will both increase the EROI and increase supply. Economics 101. Peak oilers always ignore economics 101.

In the meantime...

http://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/08/bp-just-discovered-a-billion-barrels-of-oil-in-gulf-of-mexico.html

Oh and Bazz, that you didn't even attempt to address the issue as to how much fossil fuel we need to burn to get to the levels predicted by the models tells me that you haven't got the faintest idea.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 14 January 2019 4:57:26 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
Belly continues to assert that he follows the science:

"How did so many like me who believe the science get it so wrong"

Here's a point I made a while back pointing out that there is all sorts of "the science" and that others who disagree with him also follow "the science".

When I made this point last time, Belly suddenly disappeared from the thread. I wonder what he'll do this time?

"Foxy, Belly, SR and others all claim to be following the science. Here's just one of hundreds of papers I could mention which dispute the consensus ....

Smirnov, 2018 : "The contribution to the global temperature change due to anthropogenic injection of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, i.e. resulted from combustion of fossil fuels, is approximately 0.02 K now." http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6463/aabac6/meta

(FYG .02K is approx 0.02 celsius)

This and many other papers are saying there is barely any discernible affect on temperatures from CO2.

Do you accept the science? If not why not? And on what basis do you describe people who do accept this science as 'deniers'?"
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 14 January 2019 5:24:06 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
mhaze given you understand my contempt for any thing you say
Based only on content and nick picking
Have you considered dropping it?
Posted by Belly, Monday, 14 January 2019 5:49:32 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
No belly, I'll continue to point out your cant and utter inability to engage in any scrutiny of your views, such as they are.

Follow the science? - you can't follow something you utterly misunderstand.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 14 January 2019 5:59:25 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
Mhaze, I never mention EROI !
Yes we can stand here with scientists drawn at 10 paces but what
would that gain us.
I am well aware that all the figures we quote are very variable and
that something you say today will be history tomorrow.
Do you have a good source of oil statistics ? Mine are getting old.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 14 January 2019 10:16:58 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
Belly Quote "We, in our lifetimes have seen massive changes"

At least say what these massive changes are.
Posted by Philip S, Monday, 14 January 2019 11:49:00 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
Philip S have have lost the ability to know that
At my fathers birth those brothers flew the first airplane
At mine kerosene was still, the fuel for most tractors
We did not have computers or TV our phones more often than not had [outside the citys] an operator to connect us
The Sydney to Newcastle road was dirt and rough, 6 hour trip to travel 300 klm
Railways ran on steam loco and freight intercity was done with ex ww2 trucks at first, 2 days Sydney to Melbourne camp on roadside over night
True mass migration started post ww2 with refugees
Must I continue
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 15 January 2019 4:36:59 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
No answer PS?
Why ask? come on now it is there in front of you your question must look silly, even to you
Mid 40,s for most of the country for the next week
Damn fraudsters have found a way to make this weather seem to prove the point
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 15 January 2019 9:55:55 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
Belly Your ignorance defies logic.

Quote "No answer PS?
Why ask? come on now it is there in front of you your question must look silly, even to you"

** I post a question to you Monday, 14 January 2019 11:49:00 PM **

You reply at Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 15 January 2019 4:36:59 AM

** Then you have the temerity to expect a quick response. **

If you had an ounce of intelligence you would have known I was not in the same time zone as you and I can assure you of one thing I do not sit at my computer in anticipation of receiving a reply from you.

Your ignorance is also demonstrated here on this thread YOU started giving it the title of "Man made or not it is changing"
YOU state "We, in our lifetimes have seen massive changes"

One would expect you to keep to subject and these massive changes would be something to do with climate change, not the rubbish changes you came back with as examples, try sticking to the subject.
_____________________________________________________
Quote "Mid 40,s for most of the country for the next week
Damn fraudsters have found a way to make this weather seem to prove the point"

** I raise your BS with 2 counter offers **
1) UK snow SHOCK: NO ONE will escape the COLD - wall of snow to COVER Britain for a month
THE UK will be hit by a wall of snow as temperatures plunge on Wednesday, leaving no part of Britain out of the freezing weather.

Temperatures will fall more than 10C as winds bring the wintry weather to the British Isles.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/1072261/uk-snow-forecast-cold-weather-uk-met-office-long-range-forecast

2) Tanks roll in to frozen hell: Germany and Austria call state of emergency as troops save residents from NECK-DEEP snow after 21 deaths in worst winter for more than 30 years
Tanks and troops were drafted in to rescue homeowners from neck-deep snow in Germany and Austria as the whiteout looked to continue past the weekend.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6584305/Europe-blanketed-snow-following-deaths-21-people-winter-whiteout.html
Posted by Philip S, Tuesday, 15 January 2019 11:44:23 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
Yes Philip S the cold sweeping Europe & much of the US is even more extreme than the hot we are experiences. However I am sure you will agree that this in both areas is weather, not climate. If it continues for a few more years of course it will become climate.

NASA had released their temperature figures showing the planet has cooled 0.5C over the last 2 years. Again this is weather, & to be expected following a couple of El Nino years.

Pity we can't get a rational response from the warmists, who will rant on about the temperature in their kitchen over a few days, rather than the planet over years.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 15 January 2019 3:53:28 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
Hasbeen Quote "I am sure you will agree that this in both areas is weather, not climate."
Correct.

But to the GW scammers.

If it is too hot that is because of climate change, but they also say if it is too cold that is climate change.

If it is too wet that is because of climate change, but they also say if it is too dry that is climate change.

Everything is caused by climate change that is why they changed it from global warming, it was too limited in its scope.

Belly Quote "No answer PS? Why ask?"

.... .-, .... .-
Posted by Philip S, Tuesday, 15 January 2019 10:06:42 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
I have a challenge, it will take guts
Sit down just for ten minutes and ask your self why so many thing man made climate change is true
If you are very brave and very wrong, you will fall back on the idea they are all stupid
And only those who agree with you are right
Play with this divisive ball of string, but never forget divided we fall united we do indeed make progress
Some thing must happen in this area and the up coming election will see Australian Farmers vote against past history as they in big numbers want action
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 16 January 2019 5:07:40 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 can see where you are coming from Belly.
Consider this;
1. The basic principle is that more co2 in the atmosphere means that
the atmosphere holds more heat. No argument there.
2. One side insists that there is NO scientific proof that it will
cause a significant rise in world temperatures.
3. The argument resolves into an argument about how sensitive the
atmosphere is to increased co2.
4. Does the increased co2 mean increased plant growth, as noted from
satellite, rather than greater temperature rise.
5. Is the increased man made co2 in the atmosphere all that
significant and what is the ratio of natural increase and man generated co2.

As the models show a larger increase that actual measurement it seems
that the models sensitivity parameter is set to a too high a level.
That in a nutshell is how I see the argument.
We are just spectators in this game and we hope the pollies do not over react.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 16 January 2019 9:46:50 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
Dear Bazz,

Reasonably put so let's see if I can respond in kind.

You asked;

“1. The basic principle is that more co2 in the atmosphere means that 
the atmosphere holds more heat. No argument there.”
Good.

2. One side insists that there is NO scientific proof that it will 
cause a significant rise in world temperatures.
Well the basic principle you have already spoken of says it will have a significant impact in and of itself however there are arguments as to why this might be mitigated by other factors. None of course have been substantially proven.

3. The argument resolves into an argument about how sensitive the
atmosphere is to increased co2.
Indeed and only fully resolved by what ends up happening on the ground. As it stands the predictions, particularly from advanced modelling have been pretty spot on giving greater confidence in mapping future scenarios. The question becomes do we have a duty of care to future generations to act now or ask them to live with our mess.

4. Does the increased co2 mean increased plant growth, as noted from
satellite, rather than greater temperature rise.
Well no since the oceans are also taking up CO2 but in the end it is the atmospheric CO2 which is the issue and it is increasing rapidly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

5. Is the increased man made co2 in the atmosphere all that 
significant and what is the ratio of natural increase and man generated co2.
Well yes it is and in the face of a stunning lack of evidence for another significant source, plus the fact that calculations on fossil fuel consumption along with its related CO2 output closely concur with the measurements we are getting, then the conclusion that the vast bulk of the increase is 'man generated' is legitimate.

My fear is not that politicians will over react but rather they will as usual under-perform.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Wednesday, 16 January 2019 10:14:51 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
Bazz SR I tender this mornings Sydney Morning Herald
Its advice yesterday the hottest 15 places on earth all took place in Australia
OK we have a drought, it is summer
Same story today will be worse
Not going out side until after 6, 5 pm eastern standard time
Much work to do but 38 on my veranda
30 inside
My new Budgie Avery and raised garden bed, will get done
No science needed here just walk out the door
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 16 January 2019 11:38:02 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
Belly Quote "No science needed here just walk out the door"

** Absolutely stupid analyses or should I say lack of it.

If the fact today is very hot outside proves climate change is real how do you explain a few days ago when it was cooler and also in a few days when it gets cooler, the weather cycles.

Here is your argument for winter I predict you will say.

Today is very cold outside it proves climate change is real, no science needed. **

---- .- ---- .-
__________________________________________
** I raise your BS science with 2 counter offers **
1) UK snow SHOCK: NO ONE will escape the COLD - wall of snow to COVER Britain for a month
THE UK will be hit by a wall of snow as temperatures plunge on Wednesday, leaving no part of Britain out of the freezing weather.

Temperatures will fall more than 10C as winds bring the wintry weather to the British Isles.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/1072261/uk-snow-forecast-cold-weather-uk-met-office-long-range-forecast

2) Tanks roll in to frozen hell: Germany and Austria call state of emergency as troops save residents from NECK-DEEP snow after 21 deaths in worst winter for more than 30 years
Tanks and troops were drafted in to rescue homeowners from neck-deep snow in Germany and Austria as the whiteout looked to continue past the weekend.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6584305/Europe-blanketed-snow-following-deaths-21-people-winter-whiteout.html
Posted by Philip S, Wednesday, 16 January 2019 1:03:54 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
There are a few problems with the idea that more CO2 in the air will increase the amount of long wave radiation absorbed.

1/- CO2 can only absorb a very narrow band of radiation, & the current level of CO2 is absorbing 97% of what is being radiated from earth.

2/- CO2 displaces water vapour from the atmosphere. As water vapour is a much more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2 it actually reduces green house effect.

3/- The effect of CO2 is logarithmic, thus any increase in CO2 has a very rapidly decreasing effect, proved by the lack of heating despite rapidly increasing CO2 levels.

4/- CO2 increases the effective convection rate in the atmosphere, thus increasing the cooling. The math on this one was too heavy for me, so I have no personal opinion on it.

5/- There is enough long wave radiation coming in from the sun to fill many times over, the absorption capacity of all the CO2 in the atmosphere. Higher interception of this radiation expels it from our atmosphere more quickly than surface absorption, so cooling the planet.

6/- Ice core examination show that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was 4 times the current level during some periods of the ice ages.

We are already way past any heating effect of CO2, & no matter how much we burn carbon, it will not stop the coming cold from a cooling sun, as indicated by the lack of sun spots.

"With a little bit of luck, just a little bit of luck" there will be snowballs at Christmas 2025 in Melbourne to throw at Steely & his mates.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 16 January 2019 1:05:11 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
"As the models show a larger increase that actual measurement it seems
that the models sensitivity parameter is set to a too high a level."

Very very true.

" it (CO2)will have a significant impact in and of itself"

Define significant. someone might think that 3c is significant but we'll only get 1c. Someone else might think 1c is significant but we'll get 3c. 'Significant' is one of those weaselly words used as a substitute for "I've got no idea".

"advanced modelling have been pretty spot "

That is blatant rubbish.

" CO2 which is the issue and it is increasing rapidly."

Or not...http://papundits.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/historical-co2-levels.jpg

"there will be snowballs at Christmas 2025 in Melbourne"

No that can't be right. Don''t you know that "THE SCIENCE" decided that snow was a thing of the past...( http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/04/top-5-failed-snow-free-and-ice-free-predictions/) and as we all know, the science is settled. QED.
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 16 January 2019 2:21:42 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
Ahhh yes Hasbeen, thanks I had forgotten that
3/- The effect of CO2 is logarithmic,

Of course that changes everything, indeed it explains why the models
difference to reality and some clever chap should be able to calculate
exactly where we are on the saturation curve.
As the earlier parts of the curve will be almost linear it should be
possible to match the real curve against the theoretical curve and
work out whether there is more to come or it is all over red rover !
Trouble is there has been so much fiddling with temperature readings
it might be hard to decide where we are.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 16 January 2019 2:23:06 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
Truly doubt fiddling with the temp figures is a real event
Like the fact science is being used, maybe abused?
To prove the science is wrong
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 16 January 2019 3:50:13 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
The strongest evidence for global warming is the rising sea level. What I have trouble comprehending is how anyone can think they can model the earth and accurately predict how things will be in fifty years time. That is totally crazy. Even crazier is thinking that the solution to a crazy prediction is to destroy the economy presently. Looking at the world it is apparent to me that bad governments are far more devastating, the consequences evident without need for swallowing a fifty year forecast.

The longer this debate goes on, the more I see sense in commentators like Bjorn Lomborg. There are many real problems that need solving. Prosperous countries will be more likely to find solutions to these problems. The thought of destroying our prosperity to solve an imaginary problem does my head in.
Posted by Fester, Wednesday, 16 January 2019 8:54:30 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
Fester, sea level change is contrary to global warming theory.
Some 70% of Pacific Islands are larger and about 5 or 10%, I forget
exactly, are smaller and the rest are unchanged.
The sea level change is about 1mm a year.
Some tidal marks show falling but some think that is because the
continent is sinking or rising in places. All in all not much use.
See Aukland Uni Coastal Institute
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 16 January 2019 9:09:02 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
Fester Go and find photos of Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour from 1885 & 1930 & 2016 in 131 years the sea level has only risen 6.5cm.

Bazz The sea rise at Fort Denison is just over 0.50mm per year since 1885.
Posted by Philip S, Wednesday, 16 January 2019 10:47:49 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
Impressed still by the details those who do not believe the science put out here
Too by the, to me at least, thought the science is part of a world wide fraud against fossil fuels
Luddites comes to mind
Man has had a negative effect on just about every thing
Look at the plastic rubbish in our oceans
The future is not going to be in fossil fuels, defending them by insulting the science to me at least seems strange
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 17 January 2019 4:25:36 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
Phil,

Measuring sea level on a global scale is complicated. Were continents fixed in place an unchanging measurement would be more meaningful, but they are moving. The satellite measurements have shown a rising trend since the early 1990s, but there is no indication that the rate is accelerating.

Belly,

I have no problem with the science, it is just that I think the long term extrapolations are so so far beyond its capabilities as to be meaningless. Far better to put resources toward solving the problems that exist.
Posted by Fester, Thursday, 17 January 2019 6:52:48 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
"Measuring sea level on a global scale is complicated."

Not just complicated. Effectively impossible. Tides and winds affect sea levels. Great movements of currents over centuries affect it also. Since none of these are well understood, determining their effect on measured sea levels is impossible.

Recently a great body of very cold water has been found at the bottom of the Pacific. It's postulated that it was cooled during the Little Ice age and remains to this day. Its effects on Pacific currents and sea levels is entirely unknown and will be studied for years, if not decades.

Add to that issues like Continental Tilt and the problem becomes enormous. For example it is reasonably certain that Australia is tilting north-south ie the north is slowly sinking as we travel north which means that the south is slowly rising. How much, how consistent and for how long, no one knows. But that it effects tidal-gauge readings is certain.

In Europe there are issues about Continental Rebound where land masses rise following the retreat of the ice sheets at during the Holocene.

In Hobart there's a gauge that shows sea levels falling dramatically over the past 170 yrs. One explanation is that the southern part of the continent is rising much quicker than currently thought. Another is that wind patterns have changed over the century.

Additional problems resolve around changing gravitational pulls and a myriad other issues.

All of which leads to the conclusion that claiming to be able to measure to with a millimetre or two is somewhat heroic.

Finally, even if it is proven without doubt that sea levels are rising at an accelerated rate, that doesn't say anything about man's influence. Sea levels have been rising since the start of the Holocene - there's many a Roman ruin under 2 metres of water
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 17 January 2019 11:41:30 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
No Belly, we are exposing the fraud that is global warming, using science.

For god sake do a little research other than in lefty propaganda rags & get some knowledge on the science.

Look at the utter garbage that academia is continually handing out to try to support the scam that is paying their wages.

Do you really think so much bulldust would be published if they had any actual evidence to support their case.

Grow up mate.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 17 January 2019 12:01:02 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
Hasbeen like you I have the right to my opinion
Like you I think I am far closer to being right than my opponent
Here we differ, my research is real
Not from Marval Comic books but reading true science true researched facts
Can you not see, if you are right then half the world is wrong
That even the young national/farmers groups are calling for action on climate change
Too that a part of the huge election loss confronting the LNP, much of its internal war/leadership troubles
Come because not every one in that group shares your view
Old age should not take away our dignity, unfocused anger at others opinions will do that
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 17 January 2019 12:13:36 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
Don't forget all the giant waves that the altimeter is surveying. That is why measurement over short periods is inaccurate. Over longer time frames and with data from many sources the error decreases.

What concerns me is the idea that we should be solving a problem predicted from a scientifically invalid extrapolation. Further, the means of solving the imaginary problem involves destroying our economy and handing over vast sums of money to badly run countries (Trump has a good epithet for them).

Attacking scientists is shooting the messenger. The issue of climate change has been hijacked by the left as a means of vilifying capitalism. I cannot see an outcome that would end better than any other socialist experiment.
Posted by Fester, Thursday, 17 January 2019 12:16:36 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
Belly,

I share your concern for plastic waste, but go back fifty years and where were all the predictions of the problem we have today? The introduction of plastic was seen as a great innovation that would save the forests among other benefits. Life would be much easier with a crystal ball. I think it would be better to use scientific endeavour to solve such problems instead of destroying the present to prevent an imagined future catastrophe.
Posted by Fester, Thursday, 17 January 2019 12:44:35 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
Gee Belly this absolutely demolishes your statement about the temperatures "No science needed here just walk out the door"

Despite a 68 - year gap in data from 1791 to 1859, we conclude that there has been NO significant change in Max and Min temperature trends at the Sydney Observatory station for at least a period of 226 years, from 1788 to 2018.

http://saltbushclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/comparison-of-first-fleet-and-modern-temperatures.pdf

References and Citations
Gergis, J., Karoly, D.J., & Allan, R.J., 2009: A climate reconstruction of Sydney Cove, New South
Wales, using weather journal and documentary data, 1788

1791. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Journal 58, pp. 83-98
McAfee, R.J., 1981 Dawes’s Meteorological Journal: Historical Note, Australian Bureau of Meteorology No. 2. Canberra, Aust. Government Publishing Service
McAfee, R.J., 2010 Discovering Australia’s first weather record : S.E.A.R.C.H, 4 March 2010

Compiled by Dr Geoff Derrick
G M Derrick Geology
Brisbane, Australia
7 .1.2019

** Don't know about you but I would rather trust this than Belly walking out the door. Doctor Belly Phd (deosn't sound right) **
Posted by Philip S, Thursday, 17 January 2019 1:16:18 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 Philip S,

Since you are cutting and pasting to various threads allow me.

Firstly Belly was not looking to counter 'these records'. You only just posted them.

To the quote you have grandly supplied;

“Despite a 68 - year gap in data from 1791 to 1859, we conclude that there has been NO significant change in Max and Min temperature trends at the Sydney Observatory station for at least a period of 226 years, from 1788 to 2018.”

Why did you reference Gergis, Karoly, & Allan when the quote was from Geoff Derrick who put together a clearly amateurish document (it couldn't be called a paper by any stretch of the imagination)? A poor propaganda piece by a retired geologist, (a profession made up of more than its fair share of climate skeptics) as the sole author, yet he interestingly refers to himself as 'we'.

So what do Gergis, Karoly, & Allan really say about comparing the two sets of data?

“The ranges of daily extremes in temperature and MSLP from the Dawes data compare well with those from the modern observations for all seasons, except for Tmax in summer, when Dawes’s data are likely to slightly overestimate the highest maximum temperatures due to inadequate thermometer exposure. These results suggest that the record is useful for examining relative (rather than absolute) climate variations experienced during the first years of European settlement in Australia.”
http://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/32770/289363_A%20climate%20reconstruction_Aust%20Met%20and%20Ocean%20Jour.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

'Bugger that' thought your geologist, 'I'm going to quote from other sections of their work but leave that out completely. Instead I will boldly make the claim that “we conclude that there has been NO significant change in Max and Min temperature trends at the Sydney Observatory station for at least a period of 226 years” even though it can't be sustained'

'And blokes like Philip S will faithfully regurgitate my anti GW rantings as fact because that is what useful 'idiots' are for.'

Come on young fella its happened again hasn't it. Caught once again with your pants down. Time to step and attempt to do this stuff properly.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 17 January 2019 2:51:19 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 Hasbeen,

Sorry mate only just saw your reply.

Naturally what you put is demostrably false and more than happy to go through them if you wanted to in more detail. Just pick one and we will start there.

But one assertion you made I hadn't heard before.

“CO2 displaces water vapour from the atmosphere. As water vapour is a much more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2 it actually reduces green house effect.”

This was a doozy so I had a quick look and the first thing that popped up was this graph;

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/BAMS_climate_assess_boulder_water_vapor_2002_-_2.png

And NASA holds a different view too it seems.
“This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity,” Dessler said. “Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide."
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

Rather than waste anymore time on something you may have got wrong I'm wondering where you might have got your information from as it seems contrary to the science.

Thanks.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 17 January 2019 3:21:12 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
PS I need desperately, to be honest
I GOT YOU WRONG
See I on first finding your though you to be bright
SORRY
Please understand no offense meant just truth
You are on my * of no real substance list*
Your words your posts nothing else, put you there
Now YES break my try to be nice rule, and it lessens me
But do you think I should not, as you do, take verbal combat back to its original staring point?
TRUTH is the most important measure not insults
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 17 January 2019 3:48:21 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
anyone counted up all the deaths in Europe lately as a result of the extreme cold that the warmist said 10 years ago was not going to happen. The egg on face must stink by now.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 17 January 2019 4:46:04 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
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1219.abstract

"Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000."

Some have suggested this might be one reason for the hiatus in temperatures that occurred in two decades up to 2013.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 17 January 2019 5:06:00 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
Dear mhaze,

We both know the term hiatus was a misnomer and only had any sort of currency if 1998 wasn't taken as the outlier it really was.

Perfectly illustrated here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#/media/File:Temperaturanstieg-vergleich-zwischen-ausschnitt-und-gesamtverlauf.gif

But you are correct there was a drop in stratospheric water vapour concentrations through a part of the 2000s. There was another before then around 1996 and one after around 2004. These thing appear over the years as waves but as you can see from the Boulder, Colorado data each subsequent peak is higher than the previous and I have little doubt the current rise we are experiencing will peak higher than any before.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ozwv/wvap/

I know there is a real temptation to highlight these things when they occur but you do end up with egg on your faces when the smoothed trends keep right on heading the way they were expected to given the science.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 17 January 2019 6:34:13 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
SteeleRedux Quote "Firstly Belly was not looking to counter 'these records'. You only just posted them."

You are right, Belly was not looking to counter them, he is more than likely not even aware of them BUT he made an absolutely stupid statement Quote "No science needed here just walk out the door" the statement about the temperature trends did not back up his stupid statement.

So you would prefer to take this statement "No science needed here just walk out the door" as proof of GW rather than figures that tend to show the temperature can fluctuate up and down.

The current higher than usual temperature do not categorically prove GW as Belly implies.
He could not even come back and answer one very simple question I asked
**If the fact today is very hot outside proves climate change is real how do you explain a few days ago when it was cooler and also in a few days when it gets cooler, the weather cycles.**
Belly won't answer it so you answer it using his stupid statement as a basis for your reply.

Quote "Since you are cutting and pasting to various threads allow me."

Wrong again I put it on the other thread first then it was appropriate here as well in retort to Belly's rubbish statement.
The one he can't even defend he need you to do that.

Belly Quote
"PS I need desperately, to be honest
I GOT YOU WRONG
See I on first finding your though you to be bright
SORRY
Please understand no offense meant just truth
You are on my * of no real substance list*
Your words your posts nothing else, put you there
Now YES break my try to be nice rule, and it lessens me
But do you think I should not, as you do, take verbal combat back to its original staring point?
TRUTH is the most important measure not insults"

** I need you to translate that gobbledygook into English. **
Posted by Philip S, Thursday, 17 January 2019 7:30:46 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
Note going to ignore provocation
Yes it is my view you only need walkout side, right now if you wish, to see some thing has changed
Stoic type not prone to giving up my night,like the past 6, has been hell
24 DEGREES NOW, JUST AFTER 5 AM
got to 39, only 40 ks away at coast it was 32 inland? 47.5!
day after day we hear of records broken
All time records this week
Dogma will change nothing
Man made or not it is changing
Posted by Belly, Friday, 18 January 2019 4:17:38 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
"We both know the term hiatus was a misnomer and only had any sort of currency if 1998 wasn't taken as the outlier it really was."

Well that's disappointing. A while back I set out to educate you about the pause and I'd thought that you finally got it although you did go away in a huff.

But now you've reverted. I'll leave you to go back and re-read that thread as a refresher coarse.

But just for clarification the pause(hiatus) was real, world-wide, shown in all the temperature data sets, acknowledged by most climate scientists, and had nowt to do with 1998.

The whole 1998 meme was just something dreamt up to try to hide an unwanted phenomena and fool the statistically illiterate. Seems it's still working

"but as you can see from the Boulder,"

1. Boulder isn't the world.
2. These same people gather data from other sites but only plot one. Ask yourself why. Check the unplotted data they show on their page for, say, NZ to find the answer.
3. The changes are minute and only look big to the uninitiated because of the carefully chosen 'y'-axis points.

Irrespective, the fact is that water vapour levels fell at the same time as temperature levels plateaued. Things changed before and after that. Things always change although that concept seems to rather difficult for some to gather.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 18 January 2019 6:50:31 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
Dear Philip S,

You wrote;

** I need you to translate that gobbledygook into English. **

He doesn't like you all that much.

Dear mhaze,

Mate that balloon got popped years ago and you are still hanging on to it like grim death. Please show me a single reputable climate scientist who believes there was a “hiatus in temperatures that occurred in two decades up to 2013”.

I'm not sure what you see in the NZ data but are you really saying it supports Hasbeen's contention, one that you tried to defend, that “CO2 displaces water vapour from the atmosphere. As water vapour is a much more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2 it actually reduces green house effect.”?

I think not.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Friday, 18 January 2019 10:04:48 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
Belly,
There is an air con unit (window type) that is surplus to my needs now I bought a new unit (quiet) that you can have free if you want. It works well and I replaced it because the fan is a bit noisy. Was intending to put it out on gutter with sign saying 'free' but if you want it I will keep for you. I don't like to toss stuff if someone can make use of it.

I'm about 3 hrs North of Brisbane.
Posted by HenryL, Friday, 18 January 2019 10:59:02 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
HENRY YOU BLOKE ARE A CHAMPION
Thanks but far too far away,7 hours to border and I am a lead foot.
As another side step from thread, it is even hotter here today
Got an hour in before 5am, in garden but then put every fan on sat in middle and still too hot
Us oldys, some will know, have our nanny naps with our eyes wide open
Put breaky on, in deep fryer
Forgot! drove for half an hour to get more timber for garden bed
Then remembered
Roasted the deep fryer
Just glad all else is ok
Winter, will get just what you offered, by then the piggy bank will pay for it
bloke you are a gem give it to some one closer
noise? sounds like a helicopter here now 35 in house 41 out side 12.06 pm
Posted by Belly, Friday, 18 January 2019 11:09:48 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
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/australian-temperature-record-broken-twice-in-one-night-20190118-p50s69.html
More progressive lefty fraud? read it at least
Posted by Belly, Friday, 18 January 2019 1:42:03 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
SteeleRedux Quote "He doesn't like you all that much."

** I never would have guessed. **

I am not the only one who often does not understand him.
Posted by Philip S, Friday, 18 January 2019 10:28:19 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
Just to add a bit of confusion.

Why Antarctica’s sea ice cover is so low (and no, it’s not just about climate change)

Sea ice cover in Antarctica shrank rapidly to a record low in late 2016 and has remained well below average. But what’s behind this dramatic melting and low ice cover since?

Our two articles published earlier this month suggest that a combination of natural variability in the atmosphere and ocean were to blame, though human-induced climate change may also play a role.

What happened to Antarctic sea ice in 2016?

Antarctic sea ice is frozen seawater, usually less than a few metres thick. It differs from ice shelves, which are formed by glaciers, float in the sea, and are up to a kilometre thick.

Sea ice cover in Antarctica is crucial to the global climate and marine ecosystems and satellites have been monitoring it since the late 1970s. In contrast to the Arctic, sea ice around Antarctica had been slowly expanding

However, in late 2016 Antarctic sea ice dramatically and rapidly melted reaching a record low. This piqued the interest of climate scientists because such large, unexpected and rapid changes are rare. Sea ice coverage is still well below average now.

We wanted to know what caused this unprecedented decline of Antarctic sea ice and what changes in the system have sustained those declines. We also wanted to know if this was a temporary shift or the beginning of a longer-term decline, as predicted by climate models. Finally, we wanted to know whether human-induced climate change contributed to these record lows.

REST of article.

http://theconversation.com/why-antarcticas-sea-ice-cover-is-so-low-and-no-its-not-just-about-climate-change-109572
Posted by Philip S, Friday, 18 January 2019 11:12:52 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
Belly I accept your hot link and call you with one for being too cold.

HERE WE SNOW AGAIN UK weather forecast: New Met Office SEVERE SNOW warning and plunging temperatures today as Britain braces for the worst cold spell of the year

Forecasters extended a yellow warning for snow and said there could be injuries from slips and falls on icy surfaces due to the deep Arctic freeze sweeping the country

It comes after a breathtaking -11C deep freeze on Thursday night.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8225402/uk-weather-forecast-met-office-warning-today-snow-worst-cold-2019/
Posted by Philip S, Saturday, 19 January 2019 12:12:19 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
Y'all get that when it's our summer it's winter up north, right?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Saturday, 19 January 2019 5:06:19 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
not going to talk all that much with you PS
But yes cold, extreme cold is part of GW
Now think with me on this, if you continue to provide us with the evidence you know sweet bugger all about most things
Surely you can see no reply is needed
Yes this mornings SMH has a story/theory that Antarctic ice melt may not be man made climate change
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 19 January 2019 5:48:32 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
Dear Philip S,

Admittedly individual daily temperatures fall more into the weather category rather than the climate one but how on earth do you think a vigorous cold spell in England compares to the all time Australian minimum record reported in Belly's link?

It doesn't and it is churlish of you to attempt any comparison.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Saturday, 19 January 2019 10:22:06 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
SR,

"Mate that balloon got popped years ago and you are still hanging on to it like grim death."

I see you're as up-to-date on this as with most other things. Just because you don't see it in whatever media you choose to believe doesn't mean its gone away.

Just one example from the myriad available...

Hedemann et 2017...http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3274 (paywalled but the abstract gives a flavour).

Also this... http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414

Plenty of other examples if you care to look.

"Please show me a single reputable climate scientist"

Again, any number of examples but this is my favourite because von Storch while being in the consensus seems to be a highly honourable man...

"On 20 June 2013 Storch stated "So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year."

BTW Storch is also a defender of Donald Duck against accusations of indecency .

" one that you tried to defend, that “CO2 displaces water vapour from the atmosphere"

I wasn't trying to defend that claim but to show that your claim (via quote) that "as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity", doesn't always hold true.
Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 19 January 2019 10:52:07 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
"Y'all get that when it's our summer it's winter up north, right?"

Denier.

Show me one reputable scientist who would support such a notion.

FYG I travelled from Sydney NORTH to Newcastle t'other day. They were both 'enjoying' summer.
Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 19 January 2019 10:57:53 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
We had a cool change
Now only 30 inside hot wind out side scud clouds maybe it will cool soon
And maybe the extreme cold winters of late will be that little bit colder
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 19 January 2019 4:12:31 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
Lets wrap it up, we will talk about it often and fully think I know future governments of all sides will act on climate change
Just firmly hold the view future historians will one day look back and ask how did we let it being a left v right thing
Not a protect the planet one
My mind sees a day some researcher may have fun, reading our words and posts still filed away
And that future day if not next week, will show clearly one side has used comic book like logic to defend the indefensible
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 20 January 2019 4:22:19 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
Dear mhaze,

I challenged you to “please show me a single reputable climate scientist who believes there was a “hiatus in temperatures that occurred in two decades up to 2013”.

You first like spoke of 10 year 'hiatus'. You second speaks of a 14 year 'slow down' in the rate of increase and your third which you pasted speaks of 15 years and doesn't use the word hiatus at all.

None speak of 20 years or 2 decades as you claimed.

Have you got anything which will substantiate your claim or was it yet again a bit of exaggerated nonsense?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Sunday, 20 January 2019 10:03:49 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
SR,

Well we've gone from "that balloon got popped" (ie no hiatus) to some sort of grudging acceptance that a pause of indeterminate years occurred. Some progress at least.

But now you want to try to redirect to some issue over exactitude so as to not look completely wrong.

When I said 'two decades' I was being deliberately vague. If I meant 20 years, I'd have said 20 years.

Its not possible to be exact on this issue. Last time we talked about this you ridiculed the idea that there could be multiple starts and ends for the pause. I thought I'd educated you on that point.... but clearly not.

There are literally 10s of 1000s of potential pause start and end dates. Just taking 1995 for example, there are over 12000 potential trend lines that could be drawn from 2005 through to 2018 just using the 6 most accepted climate records.

Similarly for 1996 etc.

Each scientist will prefer to use their own favoured record set and determine their own start end dates. But most now accept that a pause of some period happened which started at some time in the 90s and ended at some time in the years around 2013.
Sure there are some who continue to dispute it (the whole so-called Pausebuster data set was developed to give them some cover).

You do this every time that you realise you're headed down the garden path - try to redirect to specifics to hide the fact that you got the general issue all wrong.

I'm not playing.

But if I were ( grin!) I'd suggest you look at the period Sept 1994 to Sept 2017 using UAHv6.0 as a primer.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 21 January 2019 12:29:35 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 mhaze,

You write;

“Well we've gone from "that balloon got popped" (ie no hiatus) to some sort of grudging acceptance that a pause of indeterminate years occurred. Some progress at least.”

Nope. Where have you dragged that idea from?

Next you say;

“When I said 'two decades' I was being deliberately vague. If I meant 20 years, I'd have said 20 years.”

Yet in our earlier exchanges which you keep referring to you said this.

“The climate models don't predict a pause. A mere 2% of climate simulations predict a 15yr pause at any time. None predict a 20yr pause.”

I think you very much said and meant 2 decades as in 20 years.

As for the trend line over the dates you mentioned here it is.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:Sept%201994/to:Sept%202017/trend

Hardly flatlining is it.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 21 January 2019 1:45:25 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
SR,

"Nope. Where have you dragged that idea from?"

From your posts.

"I think you very much said and meant 2 decades as in 20 years."

So let me get this straight. A couple of years ago I said that their hadn't been a 20 year hiatus. And from that you deduce that I'm now saying there has been a 20 year hiatus even though I didn't mention 20 years??
I'm constantly fascinated with your willingness to beclown yourself rather than just accept you got it wrong.

As to the graph you link, might I point out that it graphs all the way back to 1975.

I think this is what you tried to show...

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1994.75/to:2017.75/trend

If you look at the data behind the trend line it shows the trend to be 0.0940739 per decade. If you do the confidence intervals for that (no that's way to complicated for this class!!) you'll see that its ±0.133 °C/decade (2 sigma) (Editor won't reproduce the sigma symbol). As I explained way back, and above, that means there's no statistically significant trend and therefore a pause.

BTW 0.0940739 per decade means less than 1c warming per century. Hardly reason to go into chicken little mode.

In case you misunderstand, I'm not saying that proves a pause. Its just one data point in many thousands. But when you have many thousands of such data points, you get evidence that most of the climate community accepts.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 21 January 2019 2:59:08 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
Dear mhaze,

Hiatus means pause or a break, it doesn't mean still increasing but at less of a rate. You show me a positive trend line but put to me it isn't sufficient to say it was statistically significant. From that you claim it can't be absolutely concluded global warming did occur because the margin of error is too large.

This CSIRO study came out about a month ago.

“This work reviews the literature on an alleged global warming 'pause' in global mean surface temperature (GMST) to determine how it has been defined, what time intervals are used to characterise it, what data are used to measure it, and what methods used to assess it. We test for 'pauses', both in the normally understood meaning of the term to mean no warming trend, as well as for a 'pause' defined as a substantially slower trend in GMST. The tests are carried out with the historical versions of GMST that existed for each pause-interval tested, and with current versions of each of the GMST datasets. The tests are conducted following the common (but questionable) practice of breaking the linear fit at the start of the trend interval ('broken' trends), and also with trends that are continuous with the data bordering the trend interval. We also compare results when appropriate allowance is made for the selection bias problem. The results show that there is little or no statistical evidence for a lack of trend or slower trend in GMST using either the historical data or the current data. The perception that there was a 'pause' in GMST was bolstered by earlier biases in the data in combination with incomplete statistical testing.”

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf342/meta

As a layman I can either take your version of the veracity of a pause or these guys. Why should I take yours?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 21 January 2019 5:54:16 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
SR,

Dear oh dear...this just gets more embarrassing.

Trend lines and temperature data are all about statistics. There are margins of error caused by a myriad of things including the imprecision of measurement. The list is way to great to discuss here. I did see a good summary a while back....I'll try to find it.

The upshot is that there is an inbuilt uncertainty in the data. This was beautifully exemplified back in 2015 when NASA reluctantly confirmed that, even though they'd declared 2014 to be the hottest year ever, they were only 38% sure of that due to inherent inaccuracy in the data.

The same occurs with these trend lines. If the trend line is +1 but the uncertainty is ±1.2 then all that can be said with any certainty is that the trend is between -0.2 and +2.2 and both of those are equally likely. Thus a pause. There's no real doubt here. Most of the climate community accepts it and 1000s of scientists are working on studying it, its cause and the ramifications of the pause on models.

Because it the models that are the issue here. Nowhere have I said that the pause disproves AGW. NOWHERE. But since none of the models predicted a pause of this duration, it means that they are shown to be faulty. That was the purpose of the Storch quote above. So researchers need to work out why the models missed this possibility and how to remedy them. That will almost certainly mean that the new, fixed, models will come out and show a lower predicted increase. Every time the models are 'fixed' the purported temperatures decrease. That's the importance of the pause.

I can't explain this any better than I did back in 2015 when I told you....

"the two thousand or so scientists who worked on the IPCC's AR5 thought there was pause and they wrote extensively about it..

The myriad climate modellers who are trying to work out why their models showed significant warming since 2000 when no such warming is in the record, are clearly dills.."
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 22 January 2019 11:36:46 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
SR,

"This CSIRO study came out about a month ago."

This is not NOT NOT a CSIRO study. I don't know how you screwed that up but ...wow.

This is a paper written by a group of well know statistic manipulators who are trying to give some degree of cover to people such as yourself who are clueless in regards to statistical method but SO very much want the pause to disappear. Now I haven't analysed the whole paper but I couldn't find the money shot where they prove the statistics are wrong. They just use their normal tricks to try to give a veneer of scholarship to utter rubbish.

Oh, and did I mention its not a CSIRO study?

The give away is that the authors include Lewandowsky and Oreskes.

Oh, and did I mention its not a CSIRO study?

Lewandowsky is an Australian psychologist who converted a so-so career in psychology into stardom in climate by making up stories the alarmists wanted to hear. The best and most laughable was his shonky survey of 1100 or so people concerning their beliefs in AGW and the moon landing. of the 1100 people 10 doubted the moon landing of which 3 also doubted AGW. From this he declared it proven that disbelief in the moon landing was linked to disbleief in AGW and that skeptics of one are also skeptics of the other. The statistical methods were laughable but also scary since so many turned a blind-eye to it and just accepted the results as published.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/11/stephan-lewandowskys-moon-landing-paper-scathingly-criticized-by-team-of-psychologists-in-a-new-book/

I'll leave you to research Oreskes who is, if anything, even less reputable.

That you'd rely on such a study is rather revealing.

Oh, and did I mention its not a CSIRO study?
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 22 January 2019 11:50:37 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
Dear mhaze,

Yup, stuffed that one up. I had three studies I was looking at, one of them a CSIRO paper and I sloppily wrongly attributed the providence of the one I posted.

My bad. My apologies to you and anyone left still reading the thread.

I do find the changes in language informative though. Hiatus, pause and slowdown all have different connotations. You seem to have shifted from hiatus to the more circumspect pause.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 22 January 2019 12:34:38 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
SR,

"Yup, stuffed that one up."

This post should have a blue-check next to it. Its rare on these papers to see someone admit to an error. Normally they just disappear for a week or two.

Kudos.

" Hiatus, pause and slowdown all have different connotations."

I use hiatus and pause interchangeably since that's what the climate community seems to do. Originally I used 'plateau' since pause/hiatus imply a stalling in the inevitably inexorable rise in temperatures which I didn't accept as necessarily true. Plateau offered the notion that the next move could be up or down.

But pause/hiatus become the norm and using plateau meant having to explain my thinking each time. So I went with the flow.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 22 January 2019 2:52:28 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
Ultra Conservative exist here in bigger numbers than the real world
Consider a truth, every poll worth looking at, in the last five years, shows more want action on climate change than not
Current drought, heat records, all time ones being broken
Vote will be lost, even dead set Liberals and Nationals,will vote against their party
Vote will be lost, because this government serves other than its citizens
Tell me that is not true
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 22 January 2019 5:30:37 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
SteeleRedux While you are admitting your mistakes still one to be addressed

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8614&page=0#274647
Posted by Philip S, Tuesday, 22 January 2019 11:01:36 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
Philip S.

Please don't pile on here. Its rare that people in OLO admit error and it needs to be encouraged and lauded. Piling on is the opposite of that.

Belly,

"Consider a truth, every poll worth looking at, in the last five years, shows more want action on climate change than not"

Perhaps. But this is an issue of fact not popularity. I get that you are desperate to check the polls because you'd hate to find out that you're in the minority. A fate worse than death for our Belly.

The problem is that when polled, people usually go with the feel-good response. But paying for it? That's another issue. Its OK if someone else pays for it or someone else suffers job losses. But when it affects them, then sudden their desire for " action on climate change " evaporates.

France is being torn apart because the government decided to make people pay for their climate fantasies.

Gillard/Brown believed the polls that people wanted " action on climate change". But when people realised that had to pay for their beloved " action on climate change" they suddenly decided it wasn't all that urgent after all.

Belly, believe the polls because that's all you've got. But they are leading you down, what is for you, a well-worn garden path.

"Vote will be lost, even dead set Liberals and Nationals,will vote against their party
Vote will be lost, because this government serves other than its citizens
Tell me that is not true"

I would tell you its not true...if I had the faintest idea what you were talking about.
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 23 January 2019 10:42:32 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
mhaze F again
only in your lonely mind can poll after poll not be true
look, just thinking, rather than put your inability to think on display time and again try cut and past
Say FOX news?
they have opinions nearly as weird as yours
What do you gain out of your childlike charges
man made or not it is changing
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 23 January 2019 11:27:12 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
mhaze Respectfully I will not take your suggestion, people need to be held to account for what they say in regards to facts especially if it is wrong.

If not called out how long would it be before a lot more people were doing it.

If he has no regard for his credibility, by not answering that's his problem.

He was called out not for an opinion but for trying to introduce false facts into a discussion.
Posted by Philip S, Wednesday, 23 January 2019 1:10:28 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
Philip S,

I don't mind you continuing your discussion and disagreement. To tell the truth, I haven't really followed it so can't judge error or not.

But I'd prefer that you not piggy-back on another issue. That one is over and SR acted honourably. I think it should be left at that.

Belly,

I give up on you. You can't follow a logical argument. I agree that the polls probably rightfully show people's opinions in a narrow sense and you then assert that I think the polls are wrong.

In regards to you I'm going to take Mark Twain's advice...

“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 23 January 2019 1:33:17 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
mhaze Quote "But I'd prefer that you not piggy-back on another issue. That one is over and SR acted honourably. I think it should be left at that."

** Rubbish **
Posted by SteeleRedux, Sunday, 20 January 2019 7:50:57 PM
"Mate, those who make up the largest proportion of the gang issue in Melbourne are South Sudanese and are Christian for goodness sake."

** He made one comment on the thread which part of is above, so how on earth do you rationalize that he acted honorably. **

The statement is false in at least 3 ways.
1st The police do not ask what religion the person is when booking them, so where do you get your information?
2nd Your statement just defies reality, it would be like saying that all Italians are Catholic, ludicrous.
3rd Even if some of the parents are it does not automatically make the children the same.

mhaze You also state "To tell the truth, I haven't really followed it so can't judge error or not."

** Just how can you make the statement "SR acted honourably." taking into account your above statement? **
Posted by Philip S, Wednesday, 23 January 2019 8:29:24 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
mhaze Quote "I'd prefer that you not piggy-back on another issue."

This is an issue that should be of concern to all who post on here or read the comments here, INTEGRITY, can you believe what a person says.

After the blatant lie he told with absolutely no evidence to back it up, you tell me what that says about him?

To top it off he can't even defend his statement, just slithers away to hide on other threads.
Posted by Philip S, Wednesday, 23 January 2019 10:42:36 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
Philip s may I
Sir you may not be the best measure of integrity truth or understanding to put before OLO posters
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 24 January 2019 5:12:18 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
"Just how can you make the statement "SR acted honourably"

He acted honourably in regards to the specific issue he and I were discussing.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 24 January 2019 7:25:07 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
mhaze What you made is a ambiguously worded comment, it implies he acted honorably in my issue with him.

"But I'd prefer that you not piggy-back on another issue. That one is over and SR acted honourably. I think it should be left at that."

In your case and here he may have acted honourably In your opinion, but not in my issue on both threads here he made a blatant lie by claiming
"And blokes like Philip S will faithfully regurgitate my anti GW rantings as fact because that is what useful 'idiots' are for."

** In plain English he states I regurgitate his anti GW rantings as fact - When challenged to show an example of where I did this he could not, all he could do was try to worm his way out

Then we also have the this blatant lie.
SteeleRedux Quote "Mate, those who make up the largest proportion of the gang issue in Melbourne are South Sudanese and are Christian for goodness sake."

mhaze Quote "He acted honourably in regards to the specific issue he and I were discussing." That should have been used 1st.

Good luck with and your new besty.

Belly Quote "Philip s may I
Sir you may not be the best measure of integrity truth or understanding to put before OLO posters"

Time for you to put up or shut up, in 2,494 posts of mine show me two lies I have told.
Posted by Philip S, Thursday, 24 January 2019 9:13:52 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
Philip it is not lies, never was, it is content, heaps of content
Self assured content, a willingness to insult ANY ONE who will not agree with you
Surely at some level you know others have every right to an opinion?
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 24 January 2019 11:27:23 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
Belly Congratulations, I can on this occasion understand your comment.

Quote "Philip it is not lies, never was"

** In that case why did you say this "Sir you may not be the best measure of integrity truth" ** You contradict yourself.

Quote "it is content, heaps of content" Please show me in the rules where a person is not allowed to do that, bearing in mind before you put your foot in your mouth EVERY thread I have started has been approved by a moderator.

I do not insult people who disagree with me.
But I will insult people who insult me or attack me, something you do as well, so it is okay for you but not others.
Posted by Philip S, Thursday, 24 January 2019 12:22:45 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
noted ignored
All time heat records broken again this week/month/day in NSW SA NT QLD
Man made or not it is changing
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 24 January 2019 3:28:42 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
Belly You commented so you did not ignore it, your lack of ( fill in appropriate word ) defies logic.
Posted by Philip S, Thursday, 24 January 2019 6:03:51 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 21
  7. 22
  8. 23
  9. All

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