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 > Bad medicine > Comments

Bad medicine : Comments

By Ben Pearson, published 11/1/2013

If Australia is to make a contribution to avoiding dangerous climate change – and more weeks like this one - then the problem of our coal exports must be addressed.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All
Well Ben,

Coal and Iron ore have been important exports for Australia for decades. Over the past 10 years they have increased six-fold from $17.7 billion in 2001 to $110.9 billion in 2011.

Any ideas on how you would replace that $110 billion?
Posted by Cheryl, Friday, 11 January 2013 9:55:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"If Australia is to make a contribution to avoiding dangerous climate change – and more weeks like this one - then the problem of our coal exports must be addressed."
Wow - so all we have to do is stop exporting coal and we wont have any more really hot summers. Amazing!
Posted by Sparkyq, Friday, 11 January 2013 10:09:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cheryl, your comment exposes your city-bred ignorance. You think that everything can be reduced to money terms, balance of trade, etc.

I live in a rural environment and I have spend the last days and weeks sweltering and worrying about when a bushfire will come roaring over the paddocks and burn my heritage-listed home to the ground thus killing a unique piece of Australian history.

Surely the harrowing scenes of bushfire destruction have made some impression on you or do you only care about your coal shares gaining more value?

Why not try putting yourself in other peoples' shoes for once?
Posted by David G, Friday, 11 January 2013 10:12:59 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's absolutely no link between the media's recent obsession with our annual bushfire season and so called "climate change". Nor is there any link between coal production and the bushfires. Bushfires are more affected by amount of leaf litter and human factors rather than minute temperature variations. At least 30-40% of fires were deliberately lit or resulted from human intervention ie not Climate Change.

The monsoon trough is late coming this year and this led to higher temps in central Australia.Sydney,though, has had only ONE day in January over 29 deg so far. 41.3? Big deal we get one or two of these every year.

Last year was a particularly cool winter. Remember??
Posted by Atman, Friday, 11 January 2013 10:22:58 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
Correction: Last year was a particularly cool and wet SUMMER. Remember??
Posted by Atman, Friday, 11 January 2013 10:23:53 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 offer the drug dealers' excuse that if we don't export coal, someone else will. This is similar to using the gun merchants' excuse that coal doesn't raise global temperatures, coal-fired power plants do. We just mine it and sell it. What "they" choose to do with it is not our business.
But in our ever busier and ever more crowded world, it is our business.
Gillard has chosen to back her Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson's while throwing an occasional bone to her Minister for Climate Change, Greg Combet. She is playing us, or attempting to play us, like trout.
And the Coalition would do the same, although they might do without the bone, let alone the trout.
All my life I have had reservations about nuclear power. But with the advances being made in the types of uranium reactors and the advent of thorium reactors, maybe it's time to reconsider.
The world does not want to go without power, and more of it every year, and it will not go without if it can possibly avoid it.
Australia earns good export dollars from coal. Could that earn be replaced by uranium? And then what do we do with all the coal projects already in the pipeline?
I noticed that the hoax recently worked by a Green was on a coal project one of whose directors is a former Federal minister. There are a lot of vested interests out there, and they do fight their corner.
I think we're in for some hot and hotter summers, and we will either adapt, or we won't.
Posted by halduell, Friday, 11 January 2013 10:37:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Late monsoon weather caused it, maybe climate change had something to do with the late monsoon.
Posted by 579, Friday, 11 January 2013 10:56:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The point Cheryl is that we do not need to replace the value of coal exports instantly but over time as coal exports contract in an orderly fashion – as they will. If they do not contract, if countries which burn coal to meet demand for electricity do not adopt clean energy alternatives, then CO2 emissions will rise and so will average global temperature with the result that the incidence of extreme climate events will also rise.

That is well known, though as a good climate change denier, Cheryl and a dwindling number of like-minded people, would doubtless argue that a little bit more CO2 is neither here-nor-there, will not adversely affect climate and that continued economic prosperity is more important. Science tells us that continued burning of fossil fuels will have a warming effect and climate scientists warn that this will not only result in dangerous climate change but ocean acidification, sea level rise and reduced ability of our species to survive.

It is valid to ask: if the coal industry contracts what will happen to those who loose their jobs as a result? The answer of course is that we have a diverse economy and people will seek other forms of employment. Likewise, would be investors in coal will seek to invest in the most profitable alternatives. Governments of course earn a lot of revenue from coal but they too will find ways of replacing tax lost from contraction of the coal industry by taxing something else.

The dichotomy between Australian government policy and practice does need to be addressed and an obvious way of doing so is to persuade nations which import and burn our coal to switch to renewable forms of energy. Moves in that direction have begun and will gather pace because the alternative is carbon pollution which will make much of the world uninhabitable and destroy the very things we strive for.
Posted by Agnostic of Mittagong, Friday, 11 January 2013 10:58:15 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
Coal exports, hmm.
Turn them off, hmm.
Now where is that tap?
I mean, turn them off, it has to be dead simple, or just like turning off a tap?
No?
It's simply not that simple!
Contracts already written, billions already invested.
Humungus taxpayer funds already spent in/on massive port and infrastructure development!
Cashed up lobbyists, with almost endless election funds to dispense?
If we elected a green govt next election, what might change?
A moratorium on new coal development perhaps?
Will that help?
No!
Our Asian customers will simply start buying their coal from places like Mongolia, where the cost of labour. coal and transport are so much cheaper!
As that occurs, our own returns will likely diminish, as will tax receipts!
Including our total coal exports, we still only contribute 4.8% to total global greenhouse emission!
We are not the problem, nor are our exports.
If the biggest global polluters, China, America, and India keep polluting, nothing we do here will help!
If places like Brazil and Indonesia keep on knocking down a football field of rainforest daily, nothing we do will help!
Nor will preaching to the already converted.
And simply destroying our own modest economy, won't help one iota, unless you consider increased break and enter crime, homelessness and legal/illegal tree felling for fuel, some sort of improvement!
There are solutions, but they ain't solar voltaic or wind power!
They are however, ones that will walk out the door, and or, put huge downward pressure on the four trillion a year fossil fuel bottom line!
And nowhere in the world do we see any politicians, with enough testicular fortitude to take on that fight!?
Might as well whistle in the wind!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 11 January 2013 11:22:55 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
Ben seems to have forgotten that the world has moved on from the AGW fraud.

While the IPCC makes a feeble last ditch stand with its allegation that it is “almost certain” that human emissions contribute to climate change, the real world shows otherwise.

There is no scientifically measurable effect of human emissions on climate. As when the Minister for Lies About Sea Levels, Greg Combet urinates in the ocean adjoining his waterfront home, we know he has polluted the ocean, but it is trivial, and not measurable.

The developed countries, including Australia, absorb more CO2 than they emit.

The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is not attributable to human emissions.

Contrary to the predictions of the Fraud Backers, increased CO2 has not resulted in increased warming. There has been no increase in warming of the globe for the past 16 years.

The increased CO2 in the atmosphere has resulted in record crops. Because of the AGW Fraud, governments have subsidised the use of arable land for crops to produce bio-fuel. This has resulted in a world famine, which the UN has called a “crime against humanity”.

Who instigated this crime? The UN, by promoting the AGW Fraud, through its puppet, the IPCC.
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 11 January 2013 11:43:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
God these activists are disgusting cherry pickers, aren't they?

I even notice some of the so called scientists activists are claiming cold is hot. With most of Europe frozen solid, that are claiming that is global warming too.

It is almost fun to watch these fools doing their impersonation of a chook, that just had it's head cut off.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 11 January 2013 12:00:05 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
Surely, the correct address for dealing with the nonexistent problem of coal and its nonexistent contribution to a global warming that hasn't even shown its face for 16 years would have to be "to Santa, C/- The North Pole"

There, Ben, the problem has been addressed. Now get a job.
Posted by Lance Boyle, Friday, 11 January 2013 12:21:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Au contraire, Hasbeen,

If you really want to see posters behaving like chooks with their heads cut off, just trot along to WUWT or Jo Nova et al when they have a "breaking story".

I'm sure you're familiar with the above - most entertaining.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 11 January 2013 12:23:56 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
David G if your heritage listed homestead burns down you really have to look at yourself. Clean up around your yard, ensure there is no fuel and plant shade that will not readily burn. That is your problem not asking for more unemployment for your fellow Australians.
Greenpeace is the real scandal. People are always changing and there are never any spokespersons that can be called to account, why? Who are the directors? Show me the money?
Posted by JBowyer, Friday, 11 January 2013 12:59:39 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
I see the usual AGW denier kooks are here on Online Opinion.

"any attempt to disentangle climate change from what we see in terms of weather doesn't make much sense " - Bureau of Meteorology's manager of climate monitoring and prediction, David Jones.

Burning coal without CCS is ecocide. Exporting coal to destinations without CCS is enabling that ecocide.
Posted by kuke, Friday, 11 January 2013 1:04:45 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
Kuke It's not enough labeling people who you do not agree with. I understood during the week that last year was the wettest year in the UK since records were kept? The kicker was, records only for a couple of hundred years? Not very impressive. There were much warmer periods some hundreds of years ago and a mini ice age in the 1800's. How about the Ice Age? It only finished 15,000 years ago which in earth time is infinitesimal. Sounds like same old same old?
Posted by JBowyer, Friday, 11 January 2013 1:21:51 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
All I was asking was if Ben or anyone else had a sensible idea on how to wind down Australia's coal exports worth $110B while replacing that money with some other form of revenue.

Quite a few of the ideas on OLO are interesting but how to implement them?
Posted by Cheryl, Friday, 11 January 2013 2:52:41 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
Don't coal exporters pay the tax for the omittions that the exports create.
Posted by 579, Friday, 11 January 2013 3:22:33 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 do wish you global warming useful idiots would keep up.

The latest details published by the UK met bureau has not only admitted there has been no warming for 16 years, they are forecasting cooling.

Not only that, rather than extend on last years forecast, they have changed it to pretend they had shown a fall in temperature on it too, rather than the increase they had actually shown.

It is amusing that these people still think they can change not only the planets history, but their own as well. It must be troubling to them to find many others are on to them. They are keeping records of what these people did say. These publicly funded so called experts are stuck with their previous utterances for life. Pity about those CVs when they start looking for new jobs.

They can no longer go back, change a few facts, & pretend they said something else.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 11 January 2013 3:50:44 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
Neither can you, Hasbeen, that is go back and pretend to have said something else.
But unlike you, they sign their work with their real names.
Posted by halduell, Friday, 11 January 2013 4:23:44 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,

Now, now, you naughty boy, let's let the readers read what really happened...tch tch.

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/addressing-the-daily-mail-and-james-delingpoles-crazy-climate-change-obsession-article/

and

http://skepticalscience.com/resolving-met-office-confusion.html
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 11 January 2013 4:35:55 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
"Gillard’s frankness is encouraging."

No, Gillard's ignorance is horrifying, assuming it's real; and if it's not then it's her mendacity that is horrifying. Either way, election day can't come soon enough.
Posted by Jon J, Friday, 11 January 2013 4:57:21 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
Maybe the heat is due to all that asphalt they keep laying in the red centre? But shouldn't Australia be producing as much coal as possible? For all the political guff about what to do, it is clear that the problem requires new technology and not new policies like carbon taxes. With new technology, the value of Australia's coal assets will decline, so the most sensible economic path would be to make as much hay as possible while the sun is shining.
Posted by Fester, Friday, 11 January 2013 5:02:20 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
yes and the alternative to air conditioners for the summer and heating for the winter. The warmist religion sure play on the fears of the ignorant. Keep them away from our children.
Posted by runner, Friday, 11 January 2013 5:14:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem with AGW is that although there is a known mechanism for blocking of outward radiation by CO2 the extent of blocking depends on concentration and path length, neither of which can be specified along the path out from the earth. Blocking may cause 6 degrees warming in a century or it may cause only a fraction of a degree. Other natural forces (e.g. Google “Svensmark”) may also cause these variations, or cooling, as they have already done throughout known time.

A dud philosophy of science, widely adhered to in a basically authoritarian culture and promoted by the AGW industry, is the elitist Wittgensteinian view that propositions claiming to be scientific can be evaluated on a head count, weighted for individual importance, of an appropriate "scientific community". Along with some other sceptics including close scientific colleagues I am repelled by three main interrelated aspects of the application of the elitist philosophy to climatic predictions:

*The AGW campaign tactics having all the hysterical, pejorative characteristics of a quasi-religious "bum's rush"
*The appalling history of the same elitist philosophy foisting eugenics on the unsuspecting world until the Nazis brought it to its logical conclusion. (See Edwin Black's "The War Against the Weak" - an eye-opener)
* Philosophical elitism ("Sir says") having been amply shown again and again to lead humanity up the garden path, often catastrophically.

The precautionary principle mandates measures in proportion not only to the worst-case scenario but also to its probability. Scientists can make measurements, but attribution of causes and consequent predictions become increasingly speculative and assertive with distance from the present moment. There are ample good reasons for curbing carbon combustion without buying the AGW industry’s bum’s rush and throwing history into reverse.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Friday, 11 January 2013 5:17:14 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
What Gillard should have said was, "we do know that over time as a result of the continued absence of actual climate change we are going to see more extreme lying events”.
Posted by Lance Boyle, Friday, 11 January 2013 6:01:06 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
The author is an "energy campaigner" at Greenpeace Australia Pacific.ie a paid pest who is apparently unable to think any of his ideas through to their logical conclusions. The community is now smarter and better informed and Greenpeace are struggling to stay relevant and appear sane.
Posted by Atman, Friday, 11 January 2013 6:02:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atman,

"The community is now smarter and better informed..."

Or you could say that the community has access to more information. It doesn't follow that the information is accurate - as in the case of the plethora of non-climate scientists blogging away to their heart's content on the subject of climate science.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 11 January 2013 6:12:49 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
These warmist idiots make me laugh, but they are persistant. Religion gets people that way. No proof but they still believe, even though their highest bodies were shown to be fiddling the figures, their projections are all wrong and no warming for 16 years dispite record amounts of CO2 being put out.

Now we have a couple of hot days and they are jumping up and down. Forget that hundreds of people in Russia and nothern Europe have died from record cold, and in china too where ships are ice bound from the cold. In the USA snow covers a record of 67% of the country.

Oh well, no matter the religous zealots wont change their minds no matter what. They just ignore what doesn't suit them.

Remember Tim saying seas would rise to cover 8 storey buildings and some scientist in UK saying kids would not know what snow was.
Posted by Banjo, Friday, 11 January 2013 7:23:19 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
Banjo,

Ooops, the climate seems to be acting up...or do ya think the increased frequency of unusual and extreme events should mean it "just" gets hotter everywhere?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_0JZRIHFtk&feature=player_embedded

http://skepticalscience.com/16_more_years_of_global_warming.html
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 11 January 2013 7:51:33 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
FNQ has less & less rain every year since about the early 80's. Heat is not noticeably more.
Generators are running full bore everywhere just to keep up with air conditioners.
Government buildings are miniature temperate climate enclaves in the tropics.
All this is brought on by Government regulation dictated to by Public Service Unions to make life very comfortable for those incompetent southern bureaucrats who don't actually want to be here but hey, the money's good.
Posted by individual, Friday, 11 January 2013 11:55:15 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
Extreme weather events are not going to go away any time soon. Just get more extreme.
Ocean temps; are steadily on the rise.
Co2 in the atmosphere is rising.
A known green house gas for 150 years.
A big scream will be on, Why havn't the govt; done this that and the other, if they knew GW was happening.
Head in sand dwellers, will be to blame.
Posted by 579, Saturday, 12 January 2013 8:03:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JBowyer gave me the benefit of his wide experience with bush-fires. "Just clean up around your yard," he opined showing to the world his infinite city ignorance.

Surprise, surprise, my homestead is surrounded by paddocks that hold feed. What should I do, JB? Mow the paddocks and let the stock starve?

And besides, when a fire really gets going and is driven by strong winds, embers can be thrown well ahead of the fire front (ember attack) and potentially get caught in the smallest of places around a home to ignite.

When humans moved to cities, they obviously lost their commonsense.
Posted by David G, Saturday, 12 January 2013 8:37:19 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,
I also recall Tim saying that it would never rain again enough to fill dams and drought would be permanant fixture. Funny huh!

Anyone that thinks we have an influence over the worlds climate has rocks in their head and place our importance in natures scheme far too highly.

David G,
About time you educated yourself about how to defend your home in case of bushfire. There is much you can do, graze out area close to home to reduce fuel there. One single electric wire will keep a couple of horses enclosed and they will graze it almost bare. What about yard sprinklers to keep lawns green and remove flamable bushes and other material from near the home. Sprinklers also can protect home from embers. Of caurse it takes a little thought and a few bob spent. Plenty of reading material available for those not experienced.

I live rural and have worked too hard to see it all go up in smoke, so I have made my homestead my refuge and will stay and defend it no matter what. 40 year in bushfire brigade taught me valuable lessons.

Make your place safe and stay put and defend, even the purchasse of breathing apparutus has proven worthwhile. The vast majority of homes burnt are unoccupied at the time when one person could have saved the place. Make it safe and do not evacuate!

Of course if you want to live in a tinder box that is a different story.
Posted by Banjo, Saturday, 12 January 2013 9:22:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If David G was even 5% of the way up the learning curve he would realise that he needs to get the electric fence out so he can crash graze a 100m buffer around his homestead. And then he could spend a lazy $100 on overhead sprinklers (bronze, not plastic, which melts) so any fire that does project over the buffer will not get through the mushroom of water from the sprinklers. The Coonan family had this in place when the 2003 ACT fires went right over their house.

And as for Greenpimp, don't any of their people have the ability to write their own stuff? Everything they produce has clearly come off the one corporate song sheet.
Posted by Lance Boyle, Saturday, 12 January 2013 10:50:55 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
David G, if your homestead is that fire prone, it should never have been built in the Oz bush.

Having stood for the many years that make it a heritage listing, I would say this can not be the case. Therefor your problem is with the greenie influence, that has made our bush a more dangerous place.

Recent temperatures are no different to those experienced many times in the past. In that past still in memory, we fought bush fires on foot, or from little farm vehicles. That we need helicopters & fire trucks today, & still can't win, is down to greenie stupidity, & state wide management of fire fighting by bureaucrats.

It sure has nothing to do with coal, unless you have a huge stockpile against your house.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 12 January 2013 11:44:34 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 head of the IPCC Mr. Pashauri is a former railway engineer so this analogy seems appropriate.

The CAGW gravy train, the Kyoto Express, has now been diverted into the Doha siding. Everyone except the current passengers and Ben can see the buffers ahead that tell us this is a dead end and the points have been switched behind the train. It cannot move forward or backward.

The rolling stock is empty, there is no track to complete the journey, the crew has gone, there is no fuel left and no one to drive or maintain the engine.

The new train of hope, enthusiasm, better economic prospect and no 10% tax on the Kyoto Express brings a wry smile to these passengers as it departs. They look back at the passengers on the Kyoto Express chattering excitedly; they can see their jaws flapping but don’t hear anything as the old rattler fades into the distance behind them.

Many of these passengers laugh as they recount the fading vision of Julia Gillard buying even more first class tickets on the old Kyoto express. She is still spending our money grumbles one passenger. No to worry says another; our new driver will nick her purse in November.

Ben, it really is time you dragged yourself screaming and kicking into the third millenium.
Posted by spindoc, Saturday, 12 January 2013 2:09:31 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
David,
For you and any others interested.

I recomend "The Complete Australian Bushfire Book" by Joan Webster. It was written after Ash Wednesday in victoria and is very readable and contains all manner of info. Good libraries will have it or get it for you.

Other than that the fire services in each state put out a wealth of information in various pamphlets and they are free.

If you live rural or outer urban, ask your local brigade what you can do to make the place safe. Do not expect it to still be there after if you evacuate.
Posted by Banjo, Saturday, 12 January 2013 2:30:40 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
The only answer to this hideous blight, the greens not coal, is to make sure any electorate which votes green and ultimately any person, cannot use electricity from fossil power.
Posted by cohenite, Saturday, 12 January 2013 3:07:52 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
579,

Your alarmism may be right however, it is wasted here. I don’t recall a skeptic ever being converted to a believer on any blog. Nor do I know of any believer being converted to a skeptic.

Not only are you fighting the wrong battle you are fighting with the wrong people and the wrong arsenal. If you think you are right, take it up with the IPCC who do not agree with you, nor does the Met Office. Nor do all the nations that have failed to agree to a Kyoto replacement, nor do the CO2 trading markets which have collapsed, nor do the governments that are withdrawing rebates and capital investment for green energy, nor do the renewables manufacturers and associated commercial opportunists who are withdrawing from the market, nor do the many economies that did not get what they were promised from the green economy and are now reverting to fossil fuel energy sources.

RENIXX is the key stock market index for renewables and tracks the worlds top 30 largest renewable energy companies based in the USA, EU and China. This market is down 90 percent since 2007. The wind industry in the USA, the largest in the world, is predicted to lose 70 to 90 percent of its orders. Spain’s solar market dropped 80 percent after subsidies were axed.

The main intergovernmental carbon trading schemes, the EU, UN, Copenhagen and NZ are done, finished, dying on the vine. They are all now trading at between 10 and 15 percent of both their volume and value as at 2007.

If your science is not good enough for those who sold it to you, it is definitely not good enough for us. All that’s left is the squawking commentariat.

Even if you are right there is no infrastructure left to deliver a solution. Now I’m not suggesting that all these global organisations know something you don’t but you do need to take the matter up with them, they might be able to help do something about it, we cannot. Get writing.
Posted by spindoc, Saturday, 12 January 2013 3:32:45 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
The article poses a very serious question, which very few of the comments attempt to address. I would simply point out that relying on the mining industry for most of your income is usually a bad idea as you lurch from from boom to bust. When the mining boom crashes, as it inevitably will, at some point in the future, it will take down the rest of the Australian economy with it. You only have to look at the effect of the high Australian has had on manufacturing, to understand this. The solution would appear to be, to steadily increase export taxes on minerals that lead to high levels of carbon emissions.
_____________________________________________________________________
is to make sure any electorate which votes green and ultimately any person, cannot use electricity from fossil power.
Posted by cohenite
___________________________________________________________________

I am only to happy with that arrangement. I will use hydro, wind and solar, bio-fuel, plus 75% of the power produced by natural gas (methane is 75% hydrogen). You will probably be short of power more frequently than I will. It takes several hours to fire up a coal power station
Posted by warmair, Saturday, 12 January 2013 4:16:43 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
Warmair,

it's refered to in economic circles as the Dutch Disease.
Wayne swan and julia gillard don't seem to have been aware of it, as in so many other areas, they've failled to introduce policy to counter effects or have introduced unfunded grandiose schemes or really stupid ineffective wasteful measures.
Posted by imajulianutter, Saturday, 12 January 2013 8:34:04 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
warmair:

"I am only to happy with that arrangement. I will use hydro, wind and solar, bio-fuel, plus 75% of the power produced by natural gas (methane is 75% hydrogen). You will probably be short of power more frequently than I will. It takes several hours to fire up a coal power station"

Good luck when you go to hospital or rely on the social infrastructure for anything.
Posted by cohenite, Saturday, 12 January 2013 10:34:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scepticism about climate change in Australia may be something else that will melt during the nation's great heatwave.

''There's a powerful climate change signal in extreme weather events in Australia,'' said Joseph Reser, an adjunct professor at Griffith University's school of applied psychology. ''The current heatwave is outside people's experience.''

A study released by the university and co-written by Professor Reser found Australians were more ready to accept climate change was happening - and many believed they were experiencing it.

The peer-reviewed national survey conducted in mid-2011 and published late last year found 39 per cent of respondents viewed climate change as ''the most serious problem facing the world in the future if nothing is done to stop it''.

Two-thirds saw climate change as a serious problem ''right now''.

Conditions across the country in recent days would provide evidence to support this view. A delayed monsoon over northern Australia has left a string of high-pressure systems to dominate weather patterns over the continent for a fortnight. Temperatures have reached 49 degrees in some areas while the country posted a record average temperature of 40.33 degrees last Monday. Seven of the 20 hottest average maximum days have a 2013 time stamp.
Posted by 579, Sunday, 13 January 2013 5:46:36 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
Instead of taking C change as a world event , to find loopholes like HasBeen Just look at what is going on in AU. C change is a weather pattern of extremes, and making it difficult to predict.
Although some here can predict floods, and where they are going to hit.
Heat here and freezing cold there, so there is no global warming, just extreme weather patterns, and will become more volatile.
Ocean temp; rise is a major predicament, in turn driving weather.
Freezing cold is being outweighed by extreme heat.
Greenland is melting at an increasing rate. Enough ice there to raise sea levels by several meters alone.
Straight out denial does nothing for no one. Only increases temperature.
Posted by 579, Sunday, 13 January 2013 6:35:01 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
579; you are a gullible, alarmist fool; you have swallowed the BOM lie about 7th January 2013 having the highest national average maximum temperature of 40.33C hook, line and sinker.

An analysis of the BOM claim is here:

http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/what-record/

First of all there has never been a national average maximum temperature; it is a new term.

Secondly, when you check the BOM's ACORN temperature network, which is the BOM's premier state of the art temperature record and average the maximum temperature at all the ACORN sites on the 7th January 2013 the figure you get is:

35.91C

The BOM has produced a figure of 40.33C which is 4.42C more than their own records show.

What a joke.
Posted by cohenite, Sunday, 13 January 2013 8:41:25 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
cohenite,

"An analysis of the BOM claim is here:"

An analysis?

Here's the about page for kenskingdom"

http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/about/

"I'm a retired school principal with a keen interest in a range of topics, the main one at the moment being Global Warming..."

How's that for climate expertise?

Banjo,

Thought you miht be interested in this on fire vulnerability in Australia.

http://theconversation.edu.au/a-history-of-vulnerability-putting-tasmanias-bushfires-in-perspective-11530
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 13 January 2013 9:03:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David G:
The most important line of defence is the colourbond fence you build around your yard.
Popup sprinklers in the house yard, [bronze,] are a very useful idea, as is a gas powered generator, to provide emergency energy for the pumps, if a power pole is burnt to the ground and the power you were depending on to save yourself suddenly disappears.
LPG doesn't sour like other fuels!
A buried container, makes for a useful shelter, which you can emerge from, almost as soon as any fire passes over you, allowing you to get right onto any spot fires, before they can do any real harm.
You need to keep a reserve water supply, and an inground pool will do double duty, as a place to cool off and reserve fire-fighting supply.
Evacuations ought to be planed and enacted, well ahead of any fire front!
Burning bitumen is not an escape route, neither are dirt tracks, blocked by fallen trees or power poles.
Bronze gauze around the verandahs, will improve the outdoor liveability and keep some of the radiant heat and most of the blown embers from entering the house.
Mow an area around your house. Fed "hungry" animals with the fresh green clippings.
Fill everything that will hold water, if you intend to stay and defend.
Place wet towels under doors and any other obvious gaps.
Roof top sprinklers ought to be mandatory and placed to protect the under eves.
Block the down pipes and fill the gutters, to dowse embers that can start an under roof fire.
Ensure your wiring is safe and or renewed; and that no birds or any other creature is nesting in the attic.
Dry nest material can burst into flame almost as well as an accelerant!
Take the advice of senior professional RFB members like Banjo, who by the way, often put everything on the line, year after year, for people who simply refuse to take good advice, with the usual, it won't/can't happen to me, or the Sergeant Schulz Syndrome?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Sunday, 13 January 2013 10:28:21 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
Poirot; you are pathetic!

Ken is a lovely guy who in his own time and at his own expense analyses the climate data.

What he has done is self-evident; which is to average the maximum temperatures at each of the ACORN sites which, I repeat, BOM regards as the definitive temperature record of Australia.

By doing that Ken has found BOM has exaggerated the national average maximum temperature for the 7th January 2013.

What he has done is easily checked.

You have not checked it but scorned a "retired school principle".

You are a typical alarmist; ideologically driven by your ego and arrogance against those who disagree with you; and wrong.
Posted by cohenite, Sunday, 13 January 2013 10:30:31 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
Posted by cohenite

Good luck when you go to hospital or rely on the social infrastructure for anything.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

I guess you seem to think that the only way the economy will work is by burning carbon based products. I totally disagree but I will leave that for the moment.

Of more interest to me is just how little Australian social infrastructure has benefited from the huge mining boom of the last ten years. To put this into some sort of perspective the profit of mining companies like Rio Tinto have dramatically increased, as has most other mining companies operating in Australia, but this has not translated into improvements in hospitals etc, which have not even been able to keep up with current demand let alone get ahead of the game.
Posted by warmair, Sunday, 13 January 2013 10:43:16 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
I think I’ll call this thread “The last stand at Bad Medicine”.

The warmertariat foot soldiers are bottled up on the battle field, left to fight a battle that no side can win, because it is irrelevant. The warmers’ supporting knights, artillery, logistics and supply lines have already departed the field.

As Tsun Tzu says in The Art of War, win the war not the battles. The same old ammunition, tactics, and troops are so ineffective that even the main players have left them.

The warmer ground troops are too busy chucking their old and ineffective ammunition that they never bothered to ask why the rest of their side did a runner or even know how to convince them to return.

They are left under siege by the skeptics who prod and poke them for entertainment value whilst their support disappears into the distance.

They need reminding that it matters not how much their science and “link battles” are trotted out here, their own side has abandoned them because their science was not good enough even for their own side to win.

Whilst cohenite ties up their troops and exhausts their dwindling resources, they still keep trying to win the battle but the war was fought and lost somewhere else.

Still it gives them something to do whilst they find another cause for “gullible alarmist fools”.

A horse a horse, my kingdom for a horse.
Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 13 January 2013 10:43:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

I'm sure all the "skeptics" you trot out are lovely guys - that's beside the point.

I pointed out that a retired school principal who has a "keen interest in Global Warming..." and "...a deep seated scepticism for anything produced by governments...I am very wary of.....global warming fanatics...." blah, blah.

The very fact that he labels them "global warming fanatics" reveals he's just another "fake skeptic" - ie, a "real denier".

If he'd given a "analysis" on education, I'd consider he had some expertise in this field. As it stands. he's just another in the long list of "skeptics" you trot out whose fundamental premise is to debunk AGW sans the science"

spindoc,

You are most entertaining - especially as you continue to employ the "knights' to the rescue" analogy.

Like these:

"They are left under siege by the skeptics who prod and poke them for entertainment value whilst their support disappears into the distance..."

"Whilst cohenite ties up their troops and exhausts their dwindling resources, they still keep trying to win the battle..."

Yep...nothing's changed...The Black (cohen)Knight is still welded to spot minus his arms and legs, shouting "Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!"
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 13 January 2013 11:10:15 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
Poirot & Co,

I’ve stated my reasons for being here which is primarily for entertainment value as you have rightly deduced. This is reinforced by my comment to Belly on another thread, “I can’t think of a single instance where any warmer has been converted to a skeptic or visa versa”.

So I have a single question for You and Co.

What do you think you can achieve through airing your science on this or any other blog?
Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 13 January 2013 11:38:34 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
co2 ha increased every year since 1950.

Sea level rise. In its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used new satellite data to conclude that shrinkage of ice sheets may contribute more to sea level rise than it had thought as recently as 2001. The panel concluded that it could not "provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise" over the next century due to their lack of knowledge about Earth's ice.2 There are 5-6 meters worth of sea level in the Greenland ice sheet, and 6-7 meters in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, while the much larger East Antarctic Ice Sheet is probably not vulnerable to widespread melting in the next century. Many hundreds of millions of people live within that range of sea level increase, so our inability to predict what sea level rise is likely over the next century has substantial human and economic ramifications.

Contraction of snow cover areas, increased thaw in permafrost regions, decrease in sea ice extent Virtually certain
Increased frequency of hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation Very likely to occur
Increase in tropical cyclone intensity Likely to occur
Precipitation increases in high latitudes Very likely to occur
Precipitation decreases in subtropical land regions Very likely to occur
Posted by 579, Sunday, 13 January 2013 12:00:07 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
Cold days, cold nights and frost less frequent over land areas Very likely
More frequent hot days and nights Very likely
Heat waves more frequent over most land areas Likely
Increased incidence of extreme high sea level * Likely
Global area affected by drought has increased (since 1970s)
Likely in some regions

In its recently released Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.
The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.
They said the rate of increase in global warming due to these gases is very likely to be unprecedented within the past 10,000 years or more
Posted by 579, Sunday, 13 January 2013 12:03:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
spindoc,

I agree that it's entertainment value that draws me here.

You might note that it's the "skeptics" who seem to think the blogosphere is the place to do the science, debunk the science and generally provide a "group-think" setting for their amateur hours.

I'm not attempting to do anything with the science in my spare time intermittently spent on OLO - I'm merely entertaining myself with addressing "skeptic" devices.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 13 January 2013 12:09:00 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
Posted by cohenite
Secondly, when you check the BOM's ACORN temperature network, which is the BOM's premier state of the art temperature record and average the maximum temperature at all the ACORN sites on the 7th January 2013 the figure you get is:

35.91C

The BOM has produced a figure of 40.33C which is 4.42C more than their own records show.
______________________________________________________________________________________

The only problem is that your friend seems to assume that if the temperature is minus 30C at the poles and plus 30C at the equator then the average global temperature must be zero. in other words there is a bit more to than the simply adding up the temperatures at all the weather stations and dividing by the number of stations. You need to consider area as well.

Don't give us this sort rubbish it's embarrassing please try harder.
Posted by warmair, Sunday, 13 January 2013 12:52:25 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
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-13/beijing-pollution-hits-haardous-levels/4462786

A bit of adverse weather preventing the dispersion of pollutants, and the residents of Beijing are reduced to getting about with masks to protect themselves.

"China's air quality is amongst the worst in the world, international organisations say, citing massive coal consumption and car-choked streets..."

Considering China produces nearly all of the West's goods these days, much of it superfluous, this is the West's pollution also.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 13 January 2013 2:59:28 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
Let’s start with warmair; no offence mate but you have lost the plot; what have the poles to do with the BOM’s ACORN network? The ACORN network, short for Australian Climate Observations Reference Network, is meant to be an Australia wide temperature system which reflects the climate of Australia. Are you really saying that extra information is needed when you say “You need to consider area as well.”?

What area!? The area between your ears! ACORN is meant to show the real temperature of ALL of Australia; that is what BOM said it would do.

All Ken did was use ACORN and show BOM couldn’t add up. Did they do that deliberately? Have they discarded ACORN after it was brought in last year because it didn’t give a record? One thing for sure is BOM’s own record doesn’t support its alarmist statements.

Poirot; so no one can now add up or divide or subtract temperature data, which is all Ken did, unless they are an approved, ie believes in the AGW scam, climate scientist? Is that what you’re saying; that intelligent and skilled non-approved people can’t comment on the climate?

Of course that’s what you’re saying. You’ll fit a Burqa real well with your outlook.

To put the lies and hysteria about the latest heatwave into perspective there is this:

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1227923/1939-hunter-heatwave-proved-fatal/?cs=305

‘Climate scientist’; in years to come it’ll be the worst insult you can make.

As for commenting on blogs; this ‘debate’ will be won and lost on blogs and through the media generally; that’s because it’s not about science but the corruption of science and you don’t need a PhD to know that.

So, stay entertained while you can Poirot; this won’t have a happy ending for your heroes.
Posted by cohenite, Sunday, 13 January 2013 3:49:47 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
Poirot your posts are becoming rather radical. More than a few are some what left of Khrushchev.

I'm not quite sure how you can blame the western consumer for the evils of the Chinese manufacturing industry. It is up to them what systems they use to produce the goods they rip us off with.

If anyone you would have to blame Greenpeace & WWF. They are the ones who's lobbying has led to the ridiculous restrictions in western nations, that make it uneconomic to produce our own goods, in our better controlled industry.

Pollution in China is one of the unexpected consequences which regularly flow from idiot green interference in things they don't understand. Like all those chopped & diced birds around those dreadful wind generators.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 13 January 2013 4:59:23 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
Well David G you have been pretty comprehensively assessed by others but just so you know. I live on 2 acres surrounded by larger acreage. I have a dam, an island, a bridge, a water pump and a fire plan.
If it's possible I think you look a little more foolish and certainly a little snob!
Posted by JBowyer, Sunday, 13 January 2013 5:33:04 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
The irony in this debate is in the way narcissistic climate doofie (the plural of doofus) seriously believe they are being clever. The reality is that most readers can see right through their casuist arguments and pathetic undergraduate sneers, to the point where it makes their skin crawl.

The IPCC is now so corrupted by the unelected and totally unaccountable WWF that they are now willing to present their own rhetorical fabrications as if they were primary data inputs. And C$IRO is little better. Telling us all with boorish faux gravitas that, wait for it, we will all see a lot more January weather in years to come, especially between future Decembers and future Februaries.

Good one, climate doofie, did you need a PhD for that or did you just get it signed off by this weeks WWF climate druid?
Posted by Lance Boyle, Sunday, 13 January 2013 5:36:37 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
It's darkly-amusing the way the author focuses on coal. Australia is doing far more damage off-shore and globally with its imports than it's doing with the exportation of coal, or even with its domestic use of it. It's laughable to think Australia would be doing its bit by cutting coal exports while it ramps up the real driver of climate change, consumerism.
Coal is one of the fuels of consumerism, but consumerism is the problem. Cleaned-up, and greater fuel-efficiency, only means a commensurate rise in consumption--not only the conspicuous variety, more suburbs also. Stopping coal exports is sheer idealism.
Best now to just keep going and adapt to the the new, leaner and smaller, world future generations inherit.
Posted by Squeers, Sunday, 13 January 2013 7:11:06 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
Poirot,
Thanks for the link about the distance from the bush and house survival. Interesting.

I wonder how the figures would stack up if the homes were occupied as no mention was made of that. Most homes ignite from wind blown embers, not actual flames or radiant heat, so one person can douse the embers with a watering can.

While I advocate defending the home, one must be realistic and prepare beforhand to increase success rate. Of course people that need looking after, like young kids and the elderly, should evacuate. You only want able bodied persons there.

Even with a well prepared home, expect to be very busy for some considerable time, both beforehand and after the main fire has past. You will be on the move constantly checking, putting out embers and so on. The air is full of embers and they are wind blown. Having saved the home and after the main fire has past stay there and keep checking, power supply will be out and land line phone, so alternatives has to be arranged. Much to do.

Sorry to go off subject but issue is pertinent at this time.
Posted by Banjo, Monday, 14 January 2013 8:14:44 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
Posted by cohenite
What area!? The area between your ears! ACORN is meant to show the real temperature of ALL of Australia; that is what BOM said it would do.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

To find an average temperature for the whole of Australia the area is divided up into a square grid ( 1X1 Deg ?). The temperature of each box is then determined if there is more than one station in the box the value is averaged, if there is no station in the box the temperature is estimated from the neighbouring values. the average of all the boxes is then averaged.

Now the result of the above calculation is quite different to adding up the temperature readings from 108 sites and averaging them. That is misleading because it becomes heavily biased due to a large number of sites being close together as in the big cities.

I would also point out that what matters is the volume of grey matter between ones ears not the area but if you are only relying on the area it may explain some of the problems that you appear to be having understanding climate science.
Posted by warmair, Monday, 14 January 2013 8:45:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
warmair,

I think you just blew it.

You just said that cohenite appears to be having problems understanding climate science!

Ooops!

Would this be the same climate science that the former Kyoto signatories don’t understand? Or would be the same climate science that the global CO2 trading markets don’t understand or the renewable energy industry that likewise does not understand?

How can you legitimately criticize skeptics for not understanding your science when your own side does not believe it?

Perhaps you could point us all to those entities that still agree with you that the CAGW science is good enough and just what they are doing about it?

(see Posted by spindoc, Saturday, 12 January 2013 3:32:45 PM)

Perhaps we can then discuss your own “grey matter”?
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 14 January 2013 10:01:24 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
spindoc,

No, it's the science that "you" and your merry bunch of "skeptics" don't understand - here's another one:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/13/the-australians-war-on-science-81-matt-ridleys-20-year-old-wrong-prediction/
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 14 January 2013 10:17:28 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 seeenk Monsieur Poirot, you mees zee point,

The skeptics have no requirement or desire to restore for you, the infrastructure you have lost. Just so you don’t miss the point again.

The following have collapsed, we don’t want them but if your science can get them back, go for it. Write to them.

“Would this be the same climate science that the former Kyoto signatories don’t understand? Or would be the same climate science that the global CO2 trading markets don’t understand or the renewable energy industry that likewise does not understand?”

Your deliberate failure to address the main issue is not doing your cred any good
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 14 January 2013 11:33:44 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
Here you all go again, worrying about the wrong problem.
A few points;

The temperature predictions are the output of computer models.
Computer models a very difficult to verify, especially when they fail
to predict the past well.
The current IPCC inputs of fossil fuels are incorrect and too high.

World Peak coal is expected around 2025. It will become increasingly more
expensive and of lower quality, hence tonnages will go up for no energy gain.

We need to use the existing fossil fuel sources to manufacture the
alternative energy systems that will replace fossil fuel energy systems.
As the world economy contracts so will the amount of fossil fuels burnt.
Catch22, with alternative energy systems it will become increasingly
more difficult to repair and manufacture alternative energy systems.

This is the way it is and you can see the changes in the last seven years.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 14 January 2013 12:00:05 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
warmair; the BOM has a gridding system, which Chris Gilham and other researchers are looking at, that is area-averaged, whereby the entire Australian continent is divided into grid cells of 0.25 x 0.25 degrees latitude and longitude, at least in the ACORN dataset, to achieve average temperatures based on complicated variants such as land area proportions, meridional convergence and a distance weighted interpolation over multiple cells.

It sounds complicated because it is. The adjustments are needed because most weather stations in the 1800s and early 1900s were established in populated areas but there was a dearth of isolated inland thermometers and temperatures to build a true national average or historic comparison.

So,the BOM is doing 2 things; it is superseding its ACORN network which is based on individual sites to produce a larger grid pattern; why? And by doing so does the averaging bias warmer sites? Are cooler sites excluded?

The 2nd thing BOM is doing is discarding previous records of particular site stemperatures and wider spread heatwaves.

I repeat; a simple averaging of the ACORN sites produces an average continent maximum temperature less than the BOM produced with its gridding system.

It sounds like crap to me but then I'm no expert and you apparently are, so justify it.
Posted by cohenite, Monday, 14 January 2013 1:28:36 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
Perhaps if one were to contact BoM, one could find out the answers to one's questions.

But no, one relies on a 'nice guy' to perpetuate the BoM conspiracy.
Posted by qanda, Monday, 14 January 2013 2:12:59 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
qanda I contacted the BOM in 1989 I wanted average relative humidity and temperatures for SE Melbourne. The man was very helpful and provided all the data in writing. I made some remark and he said despite what people think temperatures have been remarkable stable for the last hundred years.
I am sure this is the last gasp for the fraudsters who are planning to tax or put a charge on the air we breathe. What really gets me is that this, like the millenium bug, will be forgotten as soon as the money flow is stopped. No accounting for Flannery or Karoly in their waterside mansions either.
Posted by JBowyer, Monday, 14 January 2013 3:27:54 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
I'm sure he was very helpful, even in 1989 JBowyer.

Yes, temperatures in South East Melbourne may have been very stable for the 100 years previous.

However, South East Melbourne is but only one tiny blip on the Australian Continent and is hardly representative on a regional scale, let alone on a global scale.

Perhaps you should make a more recent inquiry

http://www.bom.gov.au/other/feedback/

if you really are interested.

You could try some research yourself, it isn't that hard:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/#tabs=0

I'm sure you're a nice bloke too.
Posted by qanda, Monday, 14 January 2013 3:56:55 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
For the nice guys:

http://tinyurl.com/BoM-acorn
Posted by qanda, Monday, 14 January 2013 4:12:39 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
You're such a phony qanda; linking to Trewin's technical manual as though you know what it means; for instance pages 62 and 63 of the technical manual are relevant.

For purposes of true adjustment neutrality the equality between -ve and +ve adjustments over the whole of the particular temperature sites is not important.

The crucial point is whether those adjustments are neutral over the particular sites. Table 6 and Figure 19 do not tell us whether there has been equality of trend produced by the equality between -ve and +ve adjustments. That is because a particular site can be overall -vely adjusted but still have a +ve trend produced by the adjustment and, to a lessor extent because overall the trend has been increased or made +ve by the adjustments, vice-versa.

In otherwords, the adjustments have created a part of the trend. That is wrong; but you won't admit that will you qanda?
Posted by cohenite, Monday, 14 January 2013 5:04:42 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
You believe what you want to believe, Anthony - that's what fake sceptics do.
Posted by qanda, Monday, 14 January 2013 5:12:46 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
"You're such a phony qanda; linking to Trewin's technical manual as if you know what it means......"

Now that is funny! :)

coming from cohenite -

and directed at qanda.

(always entertaining on the climate threads :)
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 14 January 2013 6:38:21 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
cohenite,

Here's a pertinent article - all about "adjustments" and how "contrarians treat "adjustment" as a bad word..." - except in their own research.

http://skepticalscience.com/2012-us-temp-record-fox-denial.html

Your hero, Anthony Watts, the weatherman, gets a special mention, as does Fox News and Spencer.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 15 January 2013 8:02:44 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
Bushfires are not extreme weather events and nor are they caused by hot weather. The link between climate change and bushfires is completely false.
Posted by minotaur, Tuesday, 15 January 2013 8:03:01 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
minotaur,

"We show how the probability of unusually warm seasons is changing, emphasizing summer when changes have large practical effects....huge increase in the area covered by extreme positive temperature anomalies..."

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120803_DicePopSci.pdf
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 15 January 2013 9:09:34 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
Poirot links to Hansen who has written that the Earth will end up like Venus; what a loon; for a real perspective about the current HEATWAVE see history which never lies except when a climate scientist changes it:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/14/global-warming-it-was-warmer-in-sydney-in-1790/

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/01/australia-was-hot-and-is-hot-so-what-this-is-not-an-unusual-heat-wave/
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 15 January 2013 10:56:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All

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