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



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The fallacy of 'Retreat' for Coastal Zone Management > Comments

The fallacy of 'Retreat' for Coastal Zone Management : Comments

By Roger Welch, published 29/6/2011

The climate change ideologues have with a ‘science’ best understood by them, seized an agenda, and forced through legislation, which now threatens the homes and lifestyles of many Australians.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
In dealing with the current crop of so-called environmentalists, one has to bear in mind that they have an extremely short attention span. To keep them happy it is only necessary to announce a 'victory' for them now and then; having done this one can usually then go on with one's normal rational activities for a while without fear of interruption. This article illustrates the folly of actually taking them seriously and trying to put their absurd 'solutions' into practice. As in dealing with small children, it is far better to nod, smile and agree in public than run the risk of a tantrum over an issue that will be forgotten in fifteen minutes.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 8:36:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roger Welch has pointed to another area where the current obsession with global warming, and its dodgy long-term forecasts, detracts from good policy formation concerning the environment.

While the NSW mandarins swallow the most extraordinary nonsense about sea level rises, they are neglecting their job of protectin gthe foreshore.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 11:15:40 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 find myself conflicted on this issue. On the one hand, I think it is appalling that the deliberate mis-information program of the CAGW advocates is having such massive impacts on our economy and our lifestules. It is even more appalling that our elected representatives (and journalists) seem so captive to those views with few of them demanding the answers to the obvious and simple questions. What happened to critical thinking in this country?

On the other hand, I'm not sure how sympathetic I am towards those members of the population who knowingly take risks with where they choose to live (on flood plains, coastal zones subject to storm surges and erosion etc) in order to reap the massive benefits of living in beautiful settings that most of the time are benign. I think that if I were the responsible council, I would prepare risk maps of zones prone to flooding, storm surges, erosion etc and require people living in those zones to acknowlege that they are knowingly taking those risks, and that they should seek insurance to cover their own specific exposures, and also the risks to council infrastructure required to service their needs. In essence, the users should pay for services that they need over and above those delivered to other ratepayers. They get the benefits of living in such beautiful settings. Why should the rest of us have to bail them out when things go wrong?

My third issue is that over the years there have been many unwise developments of pristine coastal areas along the NSW coast that should never have been developed, but preserved as national park for the benefit/use of all Australians. We need some planning changes to preserve what is left.
Posted by Herbert Stencil, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 12:34:12 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
Readers may have heard of the adage “time and tide wait for no man” and that is the problem facing the owners of property located along much of our coastline. In two words the problem is this: global warming. Whether one likes it or not, global warming is occurring and is increasing. Two of its effects are that it results in (i) melting of polar and other land based ice and (ii) increasingly severe climate events.

Melting of ice is occurring now and the rate of melt is increasing each year, particularly at the Poles where massive ice sheets cover Greenland and West Antarctica. As the ice melts, water flows into the oceans causing sea level to slowly rise. Climate scientists advise that average global sea level will rise by a minimum of at least 1 meter(m) by 2100. Others warn that sea level rise over the next 90 years will be very much higher, not 1 meter but as much as a truly disastrous and frightening 5m.

At present we experience occasional severe climate events such as the thirty year drought affecting the SW of Australia, the massive floods which struck Queensland and Victoria in 2010-11, or Cyclone Yasi which devastated north Queensland in 2011. Climate scientists warn that such events, particularly wind events, will get stronger and more frequent as global warming increases.

Combined, high wind events and rising sea level - even if only 0.5m by 2050 – will cause coastal erosion and, on average, such erosion will extend inland by 100m for every 1m of sea level rise. In other words, any property located within 100m of the present high water mark risks destruction and property located within 200m could risk damage during a storm surge.
Posted by Agnostic of Mittagong, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 1:49:07 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
Don’t blame the messenger for this bad news – blame global warming and its effects on sea level and severe climate. As sure as eggs is eggs, global warming is occurring, will continue to rise and will have the effects described above. How should local government respond to this? It can say … “I don’t believe it”, do nothing and wait and see, it can also take steps to protect affected residents from the effects of global warming or it can warn residents in the danger zone and plan for what in time will occur.

Ignoring the problem is hardly fair to those who are likely to be at risk. Warning them is the very least that a Council can do. Taking steps to protect against coastal erosion is at best delaying the inevitable. It would cost a fortune and in the long run would prove quite ineffective. No matter how much is spent, you can not prevent seal level rising or storm winds blowing. Warning affected property owners and planning ahead is the only sensible alternative.

The latter approach raises the question of who is going to pay for the cost of removing property exposed to danger or pay compensation for property which is lost due to coastal erosion? Is it the responsibility of the owner of property which is located too close to the high water mark or is it the responsibility of everyone in the Council area? Charging all rate-payers is the same as asking them to pay for the effects of global warming, something most of them would feel is unfair and would balk at doing.

What about State or Federal governments? Should they be asked to cover the cost of coastal erosion, even if the total cost will, over the next 50 years, amount to billions, possibly trillions of dollars, even if it means spending less on public health and education needs? Neither is likely to respond because both are going to be faced with much higher costs – the cost of repairing or re-locating major infrastructure located in coastal areas.
Posted by Agnostic of Mittagong, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 1:50:08 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
It is not just homes located too close to the beach which are at risk of rising sea level and storm damage. A 1m. sea level rise would destroy sections of coastal roads, railways, airports at places such as Cairns, Sydney and Brisbane, and whole suburbs located on low land to say nothing of beach-front high rise buildings. An even higher sea level rise would cause even greater damage, so great that recovery could take years.

Of course, if climate scientists are as wrong as many assert, there is no danger from rising sea level, no risk to coastal property and we can all rest easy. But can we? To rest easy, we must refuse to believe our thermometers, wind gauges and sea level measurements and deny what we can physically see and what satellites confirm is happening to the polar ice sheets.
Posted by Agnostic of Mittagong, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 1:51:08 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
Oh no really is that what your saying we didn't win WW2 just to let our beach houses fall into the sea. That would have to be one of the funniest things I've ever heard.

Grown up you sound like a child, even if you ingnore GW the beach moves all the time, the reef use to be solid land for god's sake. Get over yourself councils and governments are only responding to nature. Why should we spend millions on keep your beach house safe.
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 2:12:50 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
In most coastal areas there is little community of interest between those who inhabit the water front, & those who live a few streets, or kilometers back.

The old Gold Coast council, that extended just a couple of streets back was a good, & fair system. However the mansion owners, & the tourist industries wanted to spread their cost of land protection, & tourist promotion, so the first amalgamation occurred. Then we had Beattie's most illegitimate further amalgamation.

Now we have people, living in the hinterland, actually relating more to Brisbane, having to fund tourism expenses. I think it a much better idea that Roger & his wealthy mates defend their investment with their own money, not that of the little people.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 2:45:51 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
If sea water rises, as is expected, what makes anyone think the water level will be just this side of the beach front dwellers. It depends on the lay of the land. Some places may go kilometers inland with just one meter rise. If it rises 5 meters dwellers on the coast side of the divide will be under water.
So it is not stupid to think about how beach shoring could be done.
Remember Lake Ayre and the sea were connected once.
Let sea water run rampent and every AU capital will be lost, except Canberra.
Posted by a597, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 3:52:25 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
Agnostic of Mittagong

why must we be subjected to rehashes of IPCC scare stories, particularly as in this case they are aren't really scare stories? The official IPCC forecast is something like 0.4 metres by 2040 and 0.8 or so by the end of the centry, or of that order.

The actual, measured sea level rise using satellites you can see for yourself on this link http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ is 3.1 millimetres a year and this has not changed in nearly two decades..
Assuming that continues for a century, the total increase will be 0.31 metres, or about a foot on the old scale.

Yes, we should start concerning outselves with coastal erosion..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 4:59:56 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'm with Herbert Stencil on this.

>>In essence, the users should pay for services that they need over and above those delivered to other ratepayers.<<

I am absolutely against government interference, whether at Federal, State or Local Council level, in the choices that are made by individuals. If you choose to live in an area that will be affected by natural occurrences such as rain, wind and tide, then you should factor the expense of keeping it intact into your annual budget, not mine.

I do have sympathy with those who live in areas "reclaimed" by unscrupulous developers, who have been duped into buying worthless land in areas likely to be under threat every time the wind blows.

But that's just a matter of caveat emptor - and the old adage, if it's too good to be true, then it probably isn't.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 5:07:11 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
<Retreat is not part of the Australian ethos. We changed the course of the war in the Pacific when our soldiers did not retreat from our defensive lines at Milne Bay.>

Mate, that is patriotic blasphemy, and downright wrong to boot. The Australian troops defeated the Imperial Japanese army in New Guinea because the front line commanders had the good sense to ignore the "Stand to the last man" orders of their superiors and make a tactical retreat. Stretched supply lines over a formidable geography tipped the balance in Australia's favour.

If I could give another analogy, your actions would not be like the heroism of Australian troops in New Guinea. Instead, your actions would be akin to building a beach front property in Darwin, fully prepared to bask in the tropical ambiance and enjoy the capital gains. Then the Jap planes come along and bomb the crap out of you. So then you go cap in hand to the government, saying "Compensation! Compensation!".

Like Aussie Troops? More like Al Grasby wailing and sobbing down the phone in Beirut. "Get me out of here. You've got to help me."
Posted by Fester, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 5:44:40 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
Agnostic of Mittagong,

Can you please explain to me how global waring has this year caused the coldest northertn hemisphere winter in 100 years?
Can you please explain to me why we in Australia are experiencing our coldest start to winter and our earliest snows since the 1980's?

Do you realise that these cold temperatures will lower the average world temperatures this year and for a few years to come.

Rising average temperatures have been the cornerstone of your scientists arguments for warming.

Do you realise that if the lower temperatures continue for a year or two global warming according to your and your scientists logic will be replaced by global cooling?

Oh and please don't insult my intelligence by saying the current cold spells are an extreme weather event, that emissions are warming the oceans which in turn are melting the ice caps and are in turn causing the gulf stream and other currents to re-locate and that that is causing the cold weather.

That has happened for thousands of years. It's a natural occurance and nobody has quite worked out why. But one thing is certain though. It has occured ... often... mant times before the recent increase in CO2 emissions.

Once people realise the gigantic con you and your ilk have been sucked into and are continuing to try to foist onto the rest of us there will be a backlash.

It's something many warming alarmists are starting to fear. Just take a look at how few of them now contribute their views.

You are putting yourself out on a limb, mate.
Posted by imajulianutter, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 7:27:54 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
Oh and please tell me one, any one will do, of the thousands of low-lying islands across the globe that has sunk under rising sea levels?
Posted by imajulianutter, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 7:29:53 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
imajulianutter, unfortunately there DOES appear to have been some Islands that have sunk. See the following links.

http://climaction.blogspot.com/2006/12/global-warming-claims-first-inhabited.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/25/world/la-fg-disappearing-island25-2010mar25

http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2011/05/16/two-small-islands-have-sunk-into-the-sea-between-india-and-sri-lanka/
Posted by suzeonline, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 10:41:07 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
1. Suzie a quick google on line shows a number of possible reasons for the sinking of Ghoramara Islands. The warmist alarmist report you cited is also from 2006 and very little has been reported since.

And oh really! The same report claims,

'As the seas continue to swell, they will swallow whole island nations, from the Maldives to the Marshall Islands, inundate vast areas of countries from Bangladesh to Egypt, and submerge parts of scores of coastal cities.'

and as that was 6 years ago and the doom hasn't arrived don't you think any claims they make might just be a tad sus?

2 Suzie the second article you reference opens with the following

'India and Bangladesh have been trying to snatch from each other a tiny landmass that first surfaced in the 1970s in the Bay of Bengal. It has resubmerged, an apparent casualty of climate change.'

Seriously please tell me that climate change, in particular global cooling, caused that island to surface in the '70's in the first place!

hahahah

3 Suzie I must quote two parts of your third reference.

'Fishermen had indiscriminately and illegally mined invaluable coral reefs around the islets of Poomarichan and Villanguchalli for many decades. Rising sea level as a result of global warming was also a factor behind the islands’ submergence.'

and

'...these islets were only 3-5m (10-15 ft) above sea level,...'

Please tell me why the rest of the earths land mass under 15ft above sea level hasn't submerged. Or is global warming only causing the sea to rise in the Bay of Bengal excluding of course most of Bangladesh of which 80% is below 15 feet above sea level?

Sheeesh when will you and people like you realise that you cannot con people who actually think about what they read.

But thanks for the amusement. I like a good chuckle.

Can you explain why this winter is so cold?
Posted by imajulianutter, Thursday, 30 June 2011 3:26:45 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
It is not necessary to believe that AGW is happening in order to be prudent and conservative about coastal management. My personal belief is that no waterfront land should be held privately, for reasons of equity of access, environmental, recreational and aesthetic considerations.

However, since that's not the case and is never likely to be, I think that Pericles' approach is eminently sensible. If people insist on building and otherwise developing in areas that are flood-prone or too close to the tidal zone, then they should carry the entirety if the cost and risk. We have to wear the cost of public infrastructure, but that's fair because everybody benefits from it.

@ imajulianutter: you may well think about what you read, but there's little evidence of much reading at all in what you've posted here. If you still don't know the difference between weather and climate, nor that the extreme weather events (in both directions) the planet's been experiencing are consistent with AGW models, then you either haven't read very much, or what you've been reading is rubbish. My advice to you is to read more and comment less, until you have some idea of what you're talking about.
Posted by morganzola, Thursday, 30 June 2011 8:43:32 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
Morganzola it's nice to be able to agree with you about something.

My property is river front. It's a pain, & expensive, when a flood takes my back fence, again, but I can see no reason why anyone else should have to contribute to replacing that fence, it is mine after all.

That is however, provided someone in some high rise somewhere does not expect to restrict my access to the water in my river, so it is available to be pumped to the high rise for them to use. I wouldn't mind sharing a bit, but it appears the city wants it all.

However old mate, you then go off the rails with your reference to the AGW literature. From your post I must assume you believe all the twaddle from the IPCC.

This is a pity, as even those that wrote the rubbish have so little faith in it that they have run for help. They know what they have written won't hold water, or they would not drag so many red herrings across the trail.

They would not have needed all the academics from the fairy floss disciplines, waffling on to get their message across, & they would not have to refuse to release their working details, it would all be self explanatory.

So sorry mate, that's one area where imajulianutta has more credibility than you.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 30 June 2011 10:15:38 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
It doesn't matter how cold your winter is it will not cool down sea temperatures. Record cold winters and record hot summers. With weather never seen before, u can not say nothing is happening.
Posted by a597, Thursday, 30 June 2011 2:12:09 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
Morgonzola,

it appears the problem of comprehension and shallowness lies entirely with you.

I haven't claimed to have read anything in depth. What I claim to have read was the outright contradictions in suzieonlines references to support claims islands are being submerged because of global warming.

Once again the 'warmist rump' on the losing side of the debate sink to a level of personal abuse rather than identify and discusd the issues.

Now come on Morgonzola, (Oops just about a misspelling) would you like to explain why it's been so cold this year? No one else from your 'warmist rump' appears to want to do so.
Posted by imajulianutter, Thursday, 30 June 2011 2:16:19 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
Imajulianutter tag says more about motives than anything.

We’re in a cold spell because La Niña (one of the strongest on record) has weakened. Do some basic high-school homework (rather than assert some stupid bold, brash and banal statement) - start with ENSO and its influence on the world’s weather patterns.

La Niña weakened this year and there was nothing much (certainly no El Niño) left to limit or constrain the ‘jet stream’. This allowed cool dry air from the polar regions to converge with warm moist air from the tropics and culminated in blizzards, snow and rain across much of the Northern Hemisphere. This is weather, nutter – not climate.

What you continually fail to understand, nutter – is that because it’s cold in one neck of the woods, doesn’t mean it’s cold in another. Who can forget Canada trucking in snow for their Winter Olympics?

Can we blame global warming for the recent cold spell? We just don’t know, yet. One thing is certain though, as you put more energy into a system, it heats up. The more it heats up, the more water vapour. The more water vapour, the more rain and snow – just ask the insurance companies.

As to your sea level ‘crap’. Accurate satellite measurements confirm sea levels are rising. They can only rise due to warming oceans and/or melting land-based ice sheets. They are rising faster than what was projected 5 years ago – 80 cm by 2100. This might not seem a lot, but tell that to 50 million people that would be affected.

You still don’t have a clue about ‘noise’ and ‘signal’ (natural variability and human induced forcing). Following your simple logic, global warming means warmer temperatures everywhere, every year.

We are emitting billions of tonnes of a heat trapping gas into the Earth’s atmosphere – far more and at a far greater rate than the oceans and terrestrial biosphere can absorb. An increasing world’s population with increasing dependence on fossil fuels will exacerbate atmospheric concentrations of this long-lived greenhouse gas, particularly under policies of ‘business as usual’.
Posted by bonmot, Thursday, 30 June 2011 2:22:32 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
I don't see why anybody should pay for control of erosion on private properties other than the owner. Live on the sea or by a river and there may well be erosion - deal with it. It's not rocket science to look at the coast or bank when you buy, look at some historic photos, and then make a judgement.
Posted by Phil Matimein, Thursday, 30 June 2011 3:35:04 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
Royal Navy definition of Climate.

'Meteorology is the science of the atmosphere. Weather are the events in the atmosphere. Climate is the average of those weather events over a 30 year period.'

You claim the warming climate is causing extreme weather events.

According to the RN definition that's, as Diogenes would say, 'ars-about'.

You also claim the alternating La Niña and El Niño effects caused the latest cold in Australia. I suppose it follows you'd claim similar effecs caused the coldest winter and heaviest snow in 100 years recently in northern hemisphere?
I agree.
But I understand how currents move and the effects large bodies of water have on the masses of air moving over them. I also know ocean currents have been moving about in cyclic fashion for hundreds of years and their courses are not influenced by carbon dioxide. That is unlike you who, again to quote Diogenes, has it ars-about.

'The more it heats up, the more water vapour. The more water vapour, the more rain and snow ...'
That's true and simple logic.

In our recent summer we had, along with most of the southern hemisphere, drenching and flooding rains from a massive monsoonal trough, cyclones and east coast lows.(Btw all normal weather events) Remember the scene played out in the media and how the 'warmist rump' claimed the extreme weather was to become the norm under global warming.

Remember the massive snowfalls in the northern hemisphere winter, and how that played out in the media ad nausum and now we have you suggesting they too were caused by global warming.

The planet has seen in the recent season a huge dumping of moisture from the atmosphere.
Now consider that moisture in the atmosphere is the single biggest contributor to the glasshouse effect that results in global warming and that concentration has now been hugely depleted by the recent snow and rain.

What would follow from a huge depletion of those elements that caiuse global warming?

That's right cooling.

It's cyclical.
Posted by imajulianutter, Friday, 1 July 2011 7:08:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The heat content of the oceans is over a thousand times that of the atmosphere.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2701430/posts

So if sea levels are rising, it is a fair bet that the world is warming. 2010 was tied with 2005 as the warmest year since 1880.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html

And the above average temperatures continue.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
Posted by Fester, Friday, 1 July 2011 7:47:56 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
Imajulianutter, you are still confused about weather and climate.

Time series statistical analysis on at least 30 years of data shows unequivocally that the planet is indeed getting warmer. The trend line is UP, despite the fact there are bumps and troughs along the way.

You are only confusing yourself if you want to focus on cold weather last year or this winter (in Australia or anywhere else) and say the climate is cooling.

Moreover, anybody who tries to say the world has been cooling since 1998 (as they do) is either ignorant of statistical analysis or is deliberately distorting and misrepresenting the truth.

We know it’s getting warmer because we can measure very well the energy coming in, going out, and what humanity adds – from all known sources.

We have multitudes of experts in a range of disciplines that study the climate in extraordinary detail. You obviously haven’t.

If we take green-house gases out of the scenario, natural variability alone cannot explain the warming the planet is undergoing – this is well understood in the scientific community, imajulianutter.

In trying to maintain equilibrium (look up thermodynamics, conservation of energy, etc. in any school physics text) the atmosphere, oceans, biosphere and cryosphere ‘react’ – resulting in the changed weather patterns we are now seeing e.g. more dries/wets, winds/storms, etc.

Over the long term, these changed weather patterns define the changing (or not) climate.

I am happy you think you “understand how currents move and the effects large bodies of water have on the masses of air moving over them” yada yada.

However, you also now confuse CO2 in the oceans, with heat content of the oceans – in part resulting from the enhanced green-house effect.

Certainly, increased CO2 in the oceans leads to lower pH levels that in turn impacts the ‘food chain’ – in itself serious enough. However, increased atmospheric CO2 also means more heat is reflected back into the oceans and ice sheets where it is absorbed.

cont'd
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 1 July 2011 3:05:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont’d

As for “it’s cyclical”: Yes, some things are, some things are not.

May I suggest you look up “periodicity” with respect to climate and try to apply it to; ENSO, PDO, NAO, etc. Then, see if you get any correlation with global, hemi-spherical or regional mean temperatures.

For 20,000 years the CO2 concentration has been stable at 280 ppm. In just 200 years humanity has increased that to nearly 400 ppm. The planet is getting warmer.

May I also suggest (if you really want to understand, comment constructively, or contribute with any kind of credibility) you read Principles of Planetary Climate, Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 1 July 2011 3:11:00 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
<We know it’s getting warmer because we can measure very well the energy coming in, going out, and what humanity adds – from all known sources.>

Well, we dont know that because there is no system to measure it accurately. Even the climate models only assume an ocean depth of 3.5 metres, even though sunlight can penetrate several hundred metres of ocean. So there is a substantial amount that must be guessed at. But a rising sea level is a good proxy vote for a warming Earth. A few years ago the skeptics were insisting that sea levels were leveling off. Not so, unfortunately.

If you acknowledge that sea level is rising, it is very hard to then deny that the Earth is getting warmer.
Posted by Fester, Friday, 1 July 2011 3:52:39 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
Bonmot

You are making this easier all the time.

I don't really care about what the consensuel scientists claim is the science of climate change. There arguments have little relevance since this years record low temperatures, massive snows and floods.

It's the simple denialism of this that you exhibit that accentuates the points I make.

Nowhere in your latest post do you confront the issue of the largest deposits of snows and massive record flooding rains and their effects on the atmosphere, weather and climate. Are you pretending they are of no consequence?

You cannot even acknowledge the effect a fall in the amount of water (H2O) has on reflecting heat within the system back into the system.
You and your consensual scientists simply ignore the point and hark back to your 'science' that confirms your 'warmist rump's' position. (Well not so much your consensuel scientists anymore 'cos they've become largely invisible since the snows and rains)

Why?

Simply because when you factor in a substantial fall in the one element, ie H2O, that reflects most of the heat in the system back into the system ... well you know the science from this point onwards.
Posted by imajulianutter, Friday, 1 July 2011 7:26:23 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
<Nowhere in your latest post do you confront the issue of the largest deposits of snows and massive record flooding rains and their effects on the atmosphere, weather and climate. Are you pretending they are of no consequence?>

Are you claiming that there is less water in the atmosphere? No doubt it would be a useful measure, but how do you measure it? And how do you know there has been more rain and snow in the world of late? Given that water spends about nine days in the atmosphere, it is hardly surprising that it always rains and snows. You need evidence to support your claim, and that evidence is hard to come by.

At least with sea level you have a quantity which can be measured fairly accurately. So if you are correct and the Earth is cooling, you should see sea level start to fall. But as 2011 is still the 12th hottest since 1880, that might still be a while.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
Posted by Fester, Friday, 1 July 2011 8:18:02 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
Imajulianutter,
Liked your slouches with Squeers, your one two combination that promptly sat him on the canvas.And your early rounds with the IPCC flyweight champion, Bonmot --great stuff !

But just a whisper in your ear about the upcoming rounds.

The warmists have their own rule book – it’s not easy to score a points win, let alone a knockout.

Let me explain: If we have a chain of unusually hot days, the media will be full of Interviews featuring AGW promoters telling us how it is irrefutable evidence that the world is warming.
Like wise, if there is a harsh bushfire —. irrefutable evidence!
A major flood -- irrefutable evidence!
A major drought -- irrefutable evidence!
And, earthquakes –well, they’re working on that angle too, but it’s not finalised yet.

Now, a reasonable person might think that if a chain of hot days was evidence of global warming, a series of unusually cold days should be evidence to the contrary ---ahhahaha !
According to AGW lore it is STILL evidence of global warming.

How so? You might ask.
Well, in their models the pre-global warming world was a goldilocksesque place.
Never too hot and never too cold –always, just right
Until the evil industrial revolution pumped CO2 into the garden and caused disequilibrium.—hence the extremes.

The warmists are big on models. They have models that predict everything(often inaccurately mind you!).
And The IPCC chair (equivalent to the warmist pope) is writing what some describe as a erotic novel, which may also include models.
http://tinyurl.com/y9j8lf8

And, recently they’ve introduced a new tactic claiming their contenders have been gotten at .
It started out small with them painting the scientists behind the dicey emails as victims of harassment & misunderstanding.
But now its gained momentum with some of their champions claiming to have received death threats and seeking police protect –makes good headlines, and garners lot of sympathy.

Anyway, give it your best

Cheers!
Posted by SPQR, Saturday, 2 July 2011 7:56:42 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
Squeers

I'm going to have great fun at Christmas when I use my heater to cool things down and larconically claim to an astonished family and friends

'The science is settled. Warming causes cooling.'

They should try it.
Posted by imajulianutter, Saturday, 2 July 2011 9:35:55 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
Has anyone noticed that after years of deployment, we heard nothing of the finding of the Argo buoys.

These are the 3000 buoys, deployed at great expense to automatically "take the oceans temperature" to considerable depth.

The first temperatures were much lower than expected by the AGW mob.

It really is telling to find the next news, some years later is about the "CORRECTION" the AGW mob are going to apply to the temperatures reported, as they says the oceans are cooling. Not the result our illustrious scientists want at all.

In fact, with out "corrections" there is sweet #### all increase in temperature.

Do you really think the raw temperature data were lost by accident & it is an accident that only the "corrected" cheat sheet remains? If so you must be just a little dim.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 2 July 2011 10:37:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bonmot writes (various posts) -
1. "Can we blame global warming for the recent cold spell? We just don’t know, yet".

Well said bonmot.

2. "One thing is certain though, as you put more energy into a system, it heats up. The more it heats up, the more water vapour".

Yes true, but not quite well said. It is better said, potentially more water vapour. And a further thing to mention is that, increase temperature, increase pressure - in a closed system. But the atmosphere is not a closed system. It is free to expand and so - increase energy, increase temperature, increase volume (through expansion), which decreases temperature. This is a zero sum argument. Why is this overlooked?

3. "The more water vapour, the more rain and snow - just ask the insurance companies".

Definitely true. So why do AGW proponents prophesies eternal drought and scorched Earth?

4. "We are emitting billions of tonnes of a heat trapping gas into the Earth’s atmosphere..."

Yes true, but put into perspective it's very little, being only (pessimistic) 0.025% of 0.4% of the entire atmosphere per annum. It pales into insignificance.

5. "We know it’s getting warmer because we can measure very well the energy coming in, going out, and what humanity adds - from all known sources".

Eloquently replied to by Fester, who wrote - "Well, we dont know that because there is no system to measure it accurately", and continues with, "So there is a substantial amount that must be guessed at".

Correct! Fester explains it well. There is much involved that is guess work. Which points out that there are so many variables in this matter, only a fool would suggest that this "science is settled".

The simple equation given by bonmot, (energy in) - (energy out) = AGW, is very unsatisfactory. There are just simply far too many other factors at work, such as variations of geothermal emissions, something very much not understood, which no one ever seems to consider.
Posted by voxUnius, Saturday, 2 July 2011 11:03:55 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
voxUnius

I know little about geothermal emmissions but what I do know is that they are likely to increase rainfall.

For rain to fall the water vapour in the air must condensate onto something. Usually it is dust or salt particles. Volcanic ash would add to the amount of particles in the air enabling condensation and rain to fall.
Posted by imajulianutter, Saturday, 2 July 2011 5:26:39 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
Sea level is measured, not modeled, and is rising at a rate 20 times greater than the average for the two millennia prior to the industrial revolution. If you dont dispute that sea level is rising, how else can the rise be explained other than a result of warming? The Argo project was suggesting a cooling trend, which was in conflict with rising sea level. This resulted in the discovery of a measurement error that was corrected.

http://floats.pmel.noaa.gov/dmqc/sensor_response_ex.html

All the more reason to regard sea level as the most reliable indicator of climate change.
Posted by Fester, Sunday, 3 July 2011 7:21:31 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
Fester
When I said “We know it’s getting warmer because we can measure very well the energy coming in, going out, and what humanity adds – from all known sources.” - You responded with:

>> Well, we don’t know that because there is no system to measure it accurately ... But a rising sea level is a good proxy vote for a warming Earth. <<

I understand why you want to focus on oceans (more on that below) but I was referring to short wave energy coming into the Earth System through the TOA (top of atmosphere) and long wave energy going out.

Yes, we can measure that very well. There is a multitude of ways this is being done, not least the array of satellites orbiting the Earth in every which way. A collaborative effort by numerous countries and scientific organisations around the globe has resulted in very accurate results: There is an energy imbalance.

An energy imbalance leads to a change in temperature – obeying the first law of thermodynamics.

Oceans are a sub-set of the Earth System. You say “a rising sea level is a good proxy vote for a warming Earth.”

Yes, this is true. However, you have to understand that rising sea levels due to global warming (which you correctly identify) is delayed because of slow (albeit undeniable) thermal inertia.

In other words, there is a lag – a long mixing time for heat in the deep ocean can lead to centuries of sea level rise because of thermal expansion.
Corollary: If the Earth is cooling (it isn’t) you would not observe sea level fall for a very long time, either.

We haven’t got time to wait around and fiddle with our thumbs. It’s inane debating or delaying the timetable for action - the globe is "squealing". Besides, adaptation and mitigation will take decades to implement.
Posted by bonmot, Sunday, 3 July 2011 9:49:42 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
Hasbeen, re: Argo

I will give you the benefit of my doubt – you are ignorant of the facts, rather than deliberately distorting the truth.

For the benefit of others, information about Argo can be found here:

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/

About 10% of the original floats had faulty pressure sensors, “resulting in a significant cold bias for these instruments”. Researchers who used the data were advised to exclude them or correct their results (and their research findings) based on them.

Unfortunately, one renowned sceptic, Roy Spencer, did not.

Indeed, he ‘published’ a paper after Argo’s notification without making the relevant corrections. He trumpeted the oceans were not warming at all.

Moreover, a ‘sceptic’ web-site (WUWT) also chimed in on Spencer's and another research paper – this time by Josh Willis, who also said the oceans didn’t show significant warming.

However (like all good scientists do following the scientific method and peer review), Josh Willis realised the mistake and subsequently wrote a retraction, overturning his initial findings.

WUWT and its pseudo-science followers were livid in apoplexy.

Roy Spencer has still not retracted his false claims, nor has Anthony Watts and Co.

It seems, Hasbeen, you would be willing to fly on a plane with a faulty altimeter.

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html#temp

.

Again, Fester
Sea level rise/fall is a good proxy - but it's slow. The rate of rise is getting greater though.
And the world doesn't end in 2100.
Posted by bonmot, Sunday, 3 July 2011 10:00:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vox

I am going out now - will respond to your post later.
Posted by bonmot, Sunday, 3 July 2011 10:02:19 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
Bonmot

<If the Earth is cooling (it isn’t) you would not observe sea level fall for a very long time, either.>

Incorrect. If something heats or cools, the thermal expansion or contraction is pretty much instantaneous. It is the kinetic energy of the particles that determines how far apart they are. Remove some of they energy and they can be closer together. I guess what you are referring to is the fact that because the atmosphere holds less that 1000th the energy of the oceans, any change in atmospheric temperature will take a very long time to reach an equilibrium with sea temperature.

<There is an energy imbalance.>

Yes, there is an imbalance, but it isn't all one way. If you look at a sea level plot you will see that while the trend is up, the movement is up and down. If the world started cooling, it would probably take only a few years to observe a falling trend in sea level, but there are other factors. One is the change in Antarctic ocean currents, possibly as a result of cfcs. One ice shelf affected is the Pine Island Glacier, and its collapse would add over 20 cm to sea level.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43566975/ns/technology_and_science-science/
Posted by Fester, Sunday, 3 July 2011 1:40:47 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
Roger Welch in opening, said:
<< The climate change ideologues have with a ‘science’ best understood by them, seized an agenda, and forced through legislation, which now threatens the homes and lifestyles of many Australians.>>

Ha! – That’s only the beginning, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Here’s our chief AGW advocate –talking about his core ambitions-- only this week :

“Bob Brown… wants Australia to join an international push for a global parliament.This ''people's assembly'' would be based on one person, one vote, one value and was being vigorously promoted in Europe and the United Nations, he said yesterday.”

http://www.theage.com.au/national/brown-advocates-for-one-world-parliament-20110629-1gqz1.html

“one person, one vote, one value”?
Ten child a family Yemen would be happy!

"The climate change ideologues ...[threaten] the homes and lifestyles of many Australians.>>

You can say that again
Posted by SPQR, Sunday, 3 July 2011 4:16:50 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
Vox, following in point form;

1. Thanks, a pity that Julia’s nutter can’t comprehend or make the distinction between weather and climate, natural variability and AGW.

2. a) No Vox, it is NOT “potentially more water vapour”. It IS more water vapour. In fact, the atmosphere's water vapor content has increased by about 0.4 kilograms per cubic meter per decade since 1988, and natural variability alone just can't explain this moisture change.

More water-vapour (itself a GHG) amplifies the warming effect of increased atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide – a "positive feedback."

Using measurements and observations from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager, atmospheric scientists from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the US and eight other international research centres have shown that the increase in atmospheric moisture content is not due to natural variability (solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo – a geothermal emission).

What they have discovered is that the primary driver of this 'atmospheric moistening' is the increase in carbon dioxide caused by the burning of fossil fuels. This is a human ‘fingerprint’ on the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere.

2. b) Not overlooked Vox. But, have you ever tried to explain complex numbers, or the derivation of E = mc^2, to primary schoolers?

Similarly, it is difficult on OLO to explain the Clausius–Clapeyron relation, or Kirchhoff’s Law, or whatever … to those that just don’t understand rudimentary physics or chemistry – as many posters here exhibit. Imho, it is the height of stupidity for some ‘nutters’ to tell experts (in whatever their specialised field) that they don’t understand what they are talking about, or they have got it all wrong.

Vox, many so called climate “sceptics” wouldn’t have a clue about the Boltzmann constant or Planck’s Law – each and of themselves underpinning much of the basic tenets of ‘climate science’ developed over the last century, and found in high school text-books the world over. Yet, we have ‘pseudo-sceptics’ wanting to overturn it all – simply mind-boggling.

Cont’d
Posted by bonmot, Sunday, 3 July 2011 5:15:47 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
Bonmot, you, & all your AGW mob sound far too much like the boy who cried, for any thinking person to take any more excuses seriously.

It is too late now. Even if a little of the thing is true, you've lost the chance to make any difference.

I spent enough time getting my math back up to speed, & studding the whole fiasco a couple of years ago. I saw how little you had to hang your hat on, & then got annoyed when your lot kept trying to make a mountain out of an ant hill.

If you wanted to be believed, you [as a group] should not have tried so many porkies when you had the floor.

Your desperate rearguard effort is just that, the last rearguard of a failed con. Get off it, before it destroys you.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 3 July 2011 5:18:31 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
bonmott,

there's that abuse again!

Look at it this way. I haven't crushed your argument, The weather has.

It isn't doing as you predicted.

It rained torrents where you predicted ongoing droughts. Then it snowed heavily where you didn't predict. That caused your precious average surfaces temperatures to plummet.

All you do in the face of freezing wearher is to keep harking back to your original science and all it's flaw's. Science btw, I'll repeat, that initially failed to predict the flooding rains and the massive snows.

All you can do is now introduce a new idea that global warming has caused what is an already naturally occuring event that traditionally has caused a cooling effect.

You latest idea/excuse is absolutely not supported with any peer reviewed article or writing published anywhere.

You used to be so big on peer review, what's happened?

Now do you really think any scientist, including even your consensual ones, with any sort of cred left, is going to write a paper supporting your latest assertion?

Damn right they won't! They all know they'd be laughed right out of their profession.

I see one of your 'warmist rump' mates quoted NOOA statistics at me. Even he couldn't see that the stats he was quoting could be used to support a cooling trend.
The figures showed we have gone from having the warmist 12 month period on record in December to having the 12th warmist 12 month period in May. From 1'st to 12th in 3 months!

Once Junes factored in, given that the Northern Hemisphere summer hasn't been excessively warm and the southern hemisphere winter has been among the coldest on record ... well you do the arithematic.

Add those records have only been kept accurately for 45 years or so. It looks even sillier.

You clever blokes who assess things without simple logic, and in fact denigrate such, are being bested not by simple logic but by the weather which simply isn't doing as your consensuel scientists, with all their complex theories and logic, predicted.

Laughing stock! Did I hear someone say aughing stock?
Posted by imajulianutter, Sunday, 3 July 2011 10:17:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<Once Junes factored in, given that the Northern Hemisphere summer hasn't been excessively warm and the southern hemisphere winter has been among the coldest on record ... well you do the arithematic.>

That claim is false, as this bar graph shows:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/lo-hem/201101-201105.gif

The big question for me is "What do you do?". Clearly, a technical solution is needed, not a political one. Until the pollies realize this, they will continue to look a bunch of idiots.

Technically, what is needed are Gen IV reactors, economic renewable power, and energy dense, cheap, and long lasting storage batteries.

It would be a start to agree to mine and export more uranium. India is developing a thorium reactor, yet by some obscure reasoning the Government thinks it okay to send yellowcake to China and Russia, but too risky to sell it to India.

Solar panels look like becoming economic this decade, but without decent storage, they aren't the answer. And given that the average Pom would need a battery the size of his unused soap collection to get him through winter, the likelihood of solar usage far from the equator is about the same as the stinker having a consensual encounter with water.

Lots of interesting r&d happening though, which makes me optimistic for solutions being found in time.

http://www.polyzion.eu/

http://www.dailytech.com/New+Disc+Gas+Engine+Looks+to+Challenge+Traditional+Diesel+Gas+ICEs/article21323.htm
Posted by Fester, Sunday, 3 July 2011 11:42:38 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
Hi Fester,

The Southern Hemisphere average surface temperatures for March–May 2011 ... ranked as the 13th warmest on record.

The Northern Hemisphere average surface temperatures for March–May 2011 ... ranked as the 8th warmest on record.

There are some very handy tables under the Title:

Temperature Rankings and Graphics
Current Month | Seasonal | Year-to-date

A perusal you might mean you re-assess you claim.

(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/5)

Since 2010 is the warmist year on record and with an assessment of the differences between rankings and temp variations of the hemispheres I think my statement stands.

What to do? Burn as much fossil fuel as possible!

But seriously Fester I have two 125amp house batteries. I find even with hot water, which I can always run through a heat exchange off my motor, I rarely use much more than 80amps per day. I cook with gas.

The batteries are usually recharged before they halve their capacity, (Approx three days) with a single solar panel and wind turbine. But like you I'm looking forward to improvements. It's not really an issue of storage capacity. It's more an issue of recharge. I have three back ups. A 20hp diesel motor, a small petrol gen set and I can always plug into a shore supply.

Yes weather plays a huge part in my lifestyle. I have taken more than a passing interest in meteorology.

Cheers, it's nice to chat with you.
Posted by imajulianutter, Monday, 4 July 2011 8:22:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vox, pardon for getting caught out by post limits.

2. b) Cont’d

Yes, the Tropopause can expand and contract as it were the Earth’s lungs, and you’re right – the Earth System is not truly a “closed system”, but the analogy is perfectly ok for OLO ‘primary schoolers’.

Put simply: the Troposphere is not saturated and the concentrations of CO2 is going up.

3. No Vox, AGW “alarmists” (not proponents) prophesise eternal drought and scorched Earth. Like I said, the planet is “squealing”, hopefully we don’t reach the tipping points they’re fearful of.

There are alarmists on both sides – those that think it’s all a big hoax or con are termed “deniers”.

4. Nice ‘play’ with numbers, Vox. However, that miniscule and “insignificant” concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is stopping the world from becoming a snowball.

We have increased it by 30% in a mere 200 years. The planet is warming as a result.

5. a) Eloquent maybe, but Fester confused my energy flux at TOA with ocean/atmosphere (or what now appears to be ice/ocean energy flux). See my response to Fester because you got it wrong too.

5. b) Science is never settled Vox, a common misunderstanding and often taken out of context. Some things in science are very certain, some things less so – nothing is absolutely certain. Nevertheless, the ‘weight of evidence’ is skewed very much in favour of humanity’s increasing influence on the climate.

5. c) Vox, please don’t engage in distortion – I did not say (energy in) - (energy out) = AGW. Read my posts again.

Yes, there are many factors to consider, and they are – including geothermal emissions. Fortunately, there are many people who study and research these factors. Also, fortunately, we have access to technology and computing power that makes some sense to it all.

Unfortunately, neo-conservatives the world over are trying to withdraw funding from programmes that will more definitely confirm (or repudiate) the influence of human activity on the planet’s climate system. That is silly.
Posted by bonmot, Monday, 4 July 2011 7:32:53 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

Are you now talking about energy flux between ice and water?

Perhaps this link will explain what I am trying to explain. It is not constrained by 350 words:

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~schewe/publications/schewe_levermann10b.pdf

It is technical, but very good. See the embedded fig 9 b.

Globally averaged heat flux from atmosphere to ocean. Increasing GHG concentration results in enhanced oceanic heat uptake which declines after the peak in atmospheric warming and vanishes around the year 2300 after which the ocean becomes a source for atmospheric warming.

Agree with everything in your last post, except for one thing. I am not confident that society can do what is needed. All politicians just play the game and people make up their minds on simple ideological grounds - I am particularly pessimistic about that.
Posted by bonmot, Monday, 4 July 2011 7:47:18 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
Hasbeen,
I would not like to think it’s too late – but you may be right. I don’t think our society can do what is required, we are too selfish.

You say to me, “get off it”.So you would really prefer scientists don’t try and get their message across, no matter how dire the message is. It may not amount to censorship, but it smacks of head-in-the-sand stuff.

It seems julia’s nutter is also a yachtie. Perhaps you two should hook up, you have a lot in common.

.

Fester
You agree with the navy about averaging weather over time-spans of 30 years or so to define climate. Yet you persist in saying weather in one cold year means it is then cooling. The long term average is up - not down? Bye
Posted by bonmot, Monday, 4 July 2011 8:05:26 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
Sorry Fester, that should have been julianutter - obviously.

Now I have done my post limit, again, I think I will leave it at that.
Posted by bonmot, Monday, 4 July 2011 8:08:55 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
You may be right about nutter & I joining up bonmot, at least we would both have our bullsh1t detectors switched on & working. One of the first things that happens crossing oceans in a small yacht is that the bull all washes overboard in the first gale. No room for things that don’t work.

It would do most global warmers a great deal of good to go to sea, single handed, in yacht. There is no place for unproven theories. If something doesn’t work it just may kill you, so you get a bit ruthless with any sort of rubbish, & the detection senses become highly tuned to waffle.

It becomes like a sixth sense. You can see that which may be a nice idea, but just won’t stand up when the chips are down. You should try it.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 5 July 2011 12:21:41 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
Bonmot

There you go again. Distortion.

The issue isn't climate changing. The Royal Navy definition implies climate is always changing. With that I agree ... it will always be either warming or cooling.

And of course with averages over 30 years in a cumulative analysis if you have a cool year following 30 warm years of course the average will show cooling. There's that simple logic again. But you have a problem with that though don't you?

You 'warmist rump' and your consensual scientists did get your message across loudly and clearly. It's just that you 'warmist rump' are now backsliding and asserting the unpredicted freezing weather and flooding rains are the result of global warming. Sadly for you none of your consensual scientists has ever published, or is likely to publish, any peer reviewed material supporting your assertion.

What I disagree with is where you 'warmist rump' and your consensual scientists only ever predicted warming, (Until of course the weather didn't oblige) and that we would suffer eternal drought and probably we'd eventually starve and/or fry.
Posted by imajulianutter, Tuesday, 5 July 2011 12:48:47 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
Hasbeen,

Yes after my first ocean solo, I came back a changed man. There really is something about challenging yourself in an unforgiving enviroment.

I've found a simple recognition and an unspoken respect among solo sailors.

It's the warmist ascossiation I've ever experienced.

Which reminds me, Bonmot I'd dare you to compare our enviromental footprints. You as a land ensconsed ecomaniac and me as a live aboard cruising yachtsman. You'd look a hell'va lot less than committed.
Posted by imajulianutter, Tuesday, 5 July 2011 1:01:38 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

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