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 > Extreme weather in Australia > Comments

Extreme weather in Australia : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 19/10/2012

Extreme weather hasn't increased in Australia, and we have got better at dealing with it.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
If you analyse the list of 31,487 so called scientists, you find that the large majority of them are not scientists in the climate field or even a close specialty.
Some of them are not scientists in the definition of the word and have never had a peer reviewed paper published.
Some of them do not exist or are not available on any data base.
Anyone could make up a list of as many scientists who are sure that there is AGW and it would be just as meaningless.
Posted by Robert LePage, Sunday, 21 October 2012 10:50:10 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
Cyclone activity in Australia declined by both parameters, number and intensity, from 1970-2005, the peak period for AGW; that's according to the BOM:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml

And this article based on Dr Nott's research on historical super-cyclones in Australia puts cyclone Yasi in perspective:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/queenslands-cycles-of-havoc/story-e6frg6z6-1225998344719

There is NO AGW indication in the extreme weather events in Australia.

Robert, alarmist that he is, should do some research; AGW has been disproved:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14179

Let Robert critique those papers, each of which disproves AGW, and stop talking garbage.
Posted by cohenite, Sunday, 21 October 2012 11:14:46 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
"Robert, alarmist that he is, should do some research; AGW has been disproved:"

..............

cohenite, denialist that he is, should read some "real" research. AGW has not been disproved.

So there.......
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 21 October 2012 11:24:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy -- LOL, this site specialises in unqualified climate change "sceptics".

Robert Le Page,

Agree in regard to the list.

Jon J ,

That link really supports my argument ,QED

I'm going to write a paper refuting quantum physics, my formal education is in business, economics and economic history,so naturally I'm well qualified.
Posted by mac, Sunday, 21 October 2012 11:50:07 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
Robert Le Page

congratulations. I have committed the sin that global warmers often do of trusting the source.. but you realise that a closer look at the reference shows what I was only dimly aware of in passing, and amounts to the same thing.

For the story should really have read that the Met Office admits to statistically insignificant warming in the past 16 years.

An excerpt from the Met Offic statement you linked to (or linked from the link):

"The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming. As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading."

Now note how small the warming is. Of course they are correct to point out that they could have chosen a different start year, but the point about 1997 is that although a very hot year it was, in effect, the end of notably global warming trend that occured between the mid-70s and the turn of the century (about). This is the huge problem that global warming theory faces. It keeps on forecasting big increases in temperatures and the last 16 years or so hasn't delivered. The fact that its a small period in climate reckoning doesn't get them out - they were forecasting big changes in small time periods, so they can't later claim well not enough time has elapsed.

Anyway, its rare for me to admit that a global warming would have one over on me but you did so.. Congratulations.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Sunday, 21 October 2012 4:57:14 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
Curmudgeon, Your apology is accepted.

All that remains is to convince cohenite and various others of the same ilk that write here from time to time.
Posted by Robert LePage, Monday, 22 October 2012 8:58:12 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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