Hi Noel,

It may have escaped your attention but the CAGW scare is imploding. This is mostly because of the alarmism and cheating associated with every single claim. That’s why the “scientist” who did the Polar Bear trash has been fired. That’s why the entire global infrastructure built to meet these alarmist claims has collapsed.

Your rear guard action is futile. Of course Australians should be aware of the risk of excess sun exposure, this is not a global warming attribute, just an Australian one.

You have clearly vested much energy in the promotion of CAGW scares, but sooner rather than later you are going to have to decide something. You have to chose between dropping it now, formulating an exit plan, having a “bob each way” or sticking with “please God let me be right”.

You choice of course however, the only things standing between you and career ending embarrassment are the ABC and Fairfax. Trust who you like.

Thank you, Noel, for a timely and informative article. I agree with you that we could be taking action to reduce skin cancer risk by working to reduce global warming, but action is long term and, unfortunately, susceptible to politics and disinformation. In the shorter term, again I agree that we should be more sun safe: "slip-slop-slap: big hats, avoiding the sun at the most dangerous times of the day, and wearing high SPF clothing. These should slow down the rate at which children and adolescents develop skin cancers.
For those of us, like me, in our sixties who frolicked freely in the sun in our youth the damage is mostly already done and we must regularly spend time checking our bodies for signs of cancers. Some can be frozen off and some can be cut out once they have developed to a recognisable size. It would seem more efficient to use Efudix [fluorouracil] cream to remove keratoses before they develop into something worse. With a maximum permitted coverage of 2% of the body and a cost of $53 a tube for that area Efudix can be very expensive in the long run: why is it not covered by the PBS?

Perhaps the question should be asked as to whether the now prevalent use of various creams etc to prevent sunburn has increased the incidence of both skin and other cancers. After all the ingredients of most/all of them are highly toxic and get absorbed directly into the body via the skin.

Most climate change is natural, not man made. Natural climate changes happen suddenly and rapidly.

How significant is man's contribution to climate change? Is our contribution good or bad? Will it increase or decrease the probability of, and time to, a sudden climate change? Will our contributions increase or decrease the negative consequences of a sudden climate change?

Why should we believe the planet is at the optimum temperature for life just when we happen to be alive?

What is the persuasive evidence that warmer would be net bad for flora and fauna?

Warming has been greatly beneficial since the ice age and since the Little Ice Age, and for the past half century. So, why do we believe it won’t continue to be beneficial. Where is the strongly persuasive evidence that warming will not continue to be beneficial?

Could it be that we naturally fear the unknown and that is biasing the scientists research? Could it be that, just as it seems climate sensitivity has been overstated for the past 30 years or so, the damage function has also been overstated – the negative consequences have been overestimated and the benefits under researched and under estimated?

We know life struggles in the ice ages. The are of deserts expanded. high winds blew the topsoil away and caused wide spread sand dunes and loess deposits. The Antarctic ice cores have high concentrations of dust during cold period and low during warm periods. And the coral reefs almost died out.

Conversely, when the planet has been in much warmer times than now, life thrived. The area of deserts shrunk. Coral reefs expanded and thrived. Oil was deposited from thriving life in calm warm sees.

cont...

“In a new study, 'The Positive Externalities of Carbon Dioxide', Idso estimates that rising CO2 concentrations boosted global crop production by $3.2 trillion during 1961-2011, and will increase output by another $9.8 trillion between now and 2050.” http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/10/22/social-cost-of-carbon-do-the-monetary-benefits-of-co2-emissions-outweigh-the-costs/

My interpretation of Richard Tol’s Figure 3 here: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf is that, excluding energy costs, warming would be net beneficial to above 4 C from now. I believe low cost energy is plausable. If Richard Tol’s Figure 3 is roughly correct, if we cut the cost of energy, then GW may be net beneficial to beyond 4 C warming from now.
Look at Figures 15.21 and 15.22, pp392-392 here and read the associated text: http://eprints.nuim.ie/1983/1/McCarron.pdf . It seems to me the flora and fauna thrived during the warming periods and struggled and died out during the cooling periods. Life loves warming.

To repeat my initial question: why do we believe Earth happens to be at the optimum temperature just when we happen to be here?

Noel, your concern about skin cancer is reasonable, but your baseless connection of it to climate change is not.

You show yourself to be just one more supporter of the AGW fraud. There are already too many of these, despite the fact that there is no science to support the assertion that human activity has any effect on climate which is not trivial and insignificant

"Australia has just had its hottest year on record". Yes Noel, 'on record'. That does not include the Roman and medieval warming periods. As a scientist, wouldn't it be a little more professional and, dare I say it, honest, to make this obvious observation? Perhaps to state that the most recent geological time is the warmest in the current interglacial period as the planet continues its recovery from the little ice age?

"However, the "ozone hole" has not decreased much at all, despite the stopping of CFC emissions. Now scientists are finding that meteorological factors play a role. The expected recovery of the ozone layer is not yet happening". Noel, could this suggest that the ozone hole depletion science, a consensus at the time no less, is still just a little 'rubbery'?

"Greenhouse gas emissions bring about a sort of heat trapping"blanket" in the atmosphere, as these emissions increase, more heat is trapped." Yes, that is fine for climate science 101, most 'lay' people accept that 'hypothesis' at this point in time. The attribution of humans to this function is even more 'rubbery' at this time than the ozone hole attribution theory. Climate science 101 also suggests CO2 could play some role in this. How much of a role, in terms of feed backs, is still way off in the realms of computer generated guesswork at this stage, sort of the 'pacman' level of computer sophistication.

Please take the time to read the links provided by Peter Lang above. Your knowledge of skin cancers appears to be of a very high order, commensurate with your experience and qualifications. However, I feel that you are going 'a bridge too far' when drawing your parallels and or connections. Don't want you to make the mistakes of the railway engineer who thought he was a climate scientist, could be a touch embarrassing.

Cont..

"In a slower sort of frolic, Australia under the Abbott government no longer seems to know or care". Noel, just a tip here, this addition is a completely unnecessary and gratuitous insert into your essay, where I presume you are attempting to garner support for your argument. You successfully put 'off side' the majority of your intended audience, as demonstrated in the last election.

I would have thought that someone of your obvious learning would desire the 'de-politicization of the science you are involved in. Instead, you 'blew it' in the third paragraph. Stick to the formal papers in your field of expertise.

Of course nothing happens to me, lets get in the sun, take no notice of safeguards, I will live forever, it happens to every one else, but not me, like Brian of Buderin it is so true what he states, we stripped down, went nude, all for that bronze he man look, everything got burnt in the process, but that glorious tan, lets get it, we won't get skin cancer, how wrong was the thinking of us ego sun freaks, we have had all types of skin cancers removed and bare the scars later in our lives, whether it be climate change or anything else, the writer is trying to put sense into the risks of the exposure to the sun's rays, so all I can say is go for it, get that all over tan, nothing happens to me attitude, but you will be surprised later in life when cuts to your skin are the order of the day, to all those deniers of climate change get out there and enjoy your burning skin, the more exposed the better, nothing will happen to me, I am here for ever.

Noel Wauchope observes that there has been an increase in skin cancers in Australians and attributes this to various aspects of climate change, including enhanced damage from ionising radiation resulting from damage to the ozone layer. Noel may be right, but any proof is conspicuous by its absence. There are many other factors that could explain such an increase. These include, but are not limited to, increased time of exposure to sun by a population with more leisure time and a society that condones significant approximations to nudity; more effective means of diagnosis, particularly early diagnosis, changes in skin due to diet and possibly obesity, as well as an ethnically more variable population relative to that of even one generation ago. Causality is notoriously difficult to identify with certainty.

Add into the mix Nuclear bomb tests, Chernobyl,Fukushima and the fact that all nuke power stations leak.

This is not a scientific or logical article.

Noel. See, ("to all those deniers of climate change get out there and enjoy your burning skin" [Ojnab above]) your perfectly reasonable discussion on the dangers of skin cancer has been immediately conflated into name calling and ranting from the AGW religious nuts. Such a pitty.

An Australian Scientist explained the hole in the Ozone Layer over 20 years ago. It is caused by no SUN in winter over the Antarctic and he said the CFC claim was rubbish? So now there is still the hole even though CFC's have been abolished. Sounds like the Aussie was right all along.So Noel another scare comes to a profitable end for slick Scientists. As you consider yourself a scientist you are probably applauding this theft of our taxes but you people are an absolute dishonest disgrace.
I am surprised you didn't put the Y2k bug in your article as well?
Stick to changing bed pans in your public hospital Noel and keep your sticky fingers out of my pockets, thanks!

Well the whole AGW business is now up for grabs.
The US's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency has at least one,
maybe more, satellites in orbit measuring the heat radiated by the earth.
One scientist has pointed out that either the temperature measured by
the satellites is wrong or global warming is not occurring.
He says one or the other is true, no third option is possible.
He stated he does not know which, but it will have to be resolved.
It is a matter of thermodynamics.

I just cannot remember the reference, I will keep trying and post it
here when I find it again.

BTW, the last sunspot maximum was a weaky and the current sunspot peak
is even worse.
I wonder if that has anything to do with the pause ?

Climate change you say Noel.
I'm perplexed. Can you explain to me how an ice breaker has got stuck in an expanding ice flow in the Antartic in the middle of summer. I thought you blokes claim the ice is melting on the polar caps.
Also confirm that the current stats re Artic ice ice are wrong. It's reported the current ice in the Artic this year is 50% greater than the ice in the Artic last year.

If these two things are occurringand given the contraction of the polar icecaps have been hailled as the greatest indication of global warming, wouldn 't these occurances now indicate global cooling?

Please explain.

The World is wasting $1 billion a day ($359 billion last year) trying to control the climate.
http://www.euractiv.com/development-policy/global-climate-investment-flatli-news-531212

We seem to be having the debate on climate change, for goodness sake the two words "skin cancer" was in the heading as well, all you people so concerned with climate change, how about getting out in the sun and frying yourself to a frizzle, whether it is climate change or the same weather that I knew sixty years ago imakes no difference to how the skin reacts to exposure to the sun, get burnt you worriers of climate change and find out the hard way. Yes! It was hot back then but we did not have to put up with humidity days, like we now do in Adelaide.

Me worry ?
No, global warming is of no concern whether true or false.
However being fair skinned and almost ginger and with freckles when a
boy my mother always warned me to cover up when in the sun.

Seems like mothers know it all, some sort of sixth sense.

Ojnab

Why did Noel raise the issue in the way he did?
He spoke of climate change and particularly warmimg as though they was undisputable facts.

He need not have taken that stance. He could have quite easily have been less definate and thereby much less controversial in covering the topic of Aust Skin Cancer... an area which he showed obvious mastery.

I am wondering whether there is any thing that climate change is not responsible for?

A Song of Attribution.
To the tune of They Call The Wind Maria by Lerner and Loewe.

Away out here
They have a name
For anything that’s strange
Or weird, or odd,
Or Acts of God,
And they call it climate change.
Destructive!
Disruptive!
And they call it climate change!

If it snowed today,
The hens won’t lay,
The cattle are deranged,
You’re getting stout,
Your back went out,
Put it down to climate change!
Neurosis!
Psychosis!
Put it down to climate change!

When I was young
We used to blame
Bad things on different causes,
But now we know
It’s climate change
Even when the damn thing pauses!
If it’s awful,
Or unlawful,
Then it must be climate change!

So don’t despair
If you can’t bear
The burdens that life brings you.
Jut put it down
To climate change
Any time the media rings you!
The solution
Is attribution!
Put it down to climate change!

The crowing of the rooster causes the sun to rise.

It is all of those free range 'organic' chooks that are the problem. If they were in sheds instead and let out just one hour later a day, sun cancer could be reduced by 8.4%.

State regulation of chooks' waking hours delivers State control of the sun. Tres 'Progressive'. Bingo!

If one child's life is saved it is all worth it.

Noel

Here are a couple of more questions I have.

Why has Australia experienced it's coolest start to summer ever this year?

Did you know Australia's cotton and rice farmers are upset that their crops failed to germinate this year because of the cold?

I have a theory.

The ocean currents have changed dramatically. The currents flowing from the warmer regions are slower and smaller than they used to be. The currents flowing from the cooler regions are faster and larger than they used to be.

This would create severe weather events, cause cooling or at least stable surface temperatures and at the same time increase the ice in the polar ice caps.

Current events support my claims.

Now you prove me wrong.

I'm the first of the current cooling alarmists. We need to increase our emissions of co2. Burn more coal, build and drive more energy inefficient cars, ban nuclear power, fly more jets, ban renewable energy and scrap solar and wind generators and encourage everyone to buy a cow.

oh and Tim Flannery's NSW seaside home will be further from the shore and will need huge insulation and double glazing to retain warmth or he could migrate north. He'll also need either a new career or time in jail.

And Noel rates of skin cancer will probably fall.

does climate change cause baldness? There seems to be a lot more skinheads these days.

AGW causes everything:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Perhaps the author is on the Akademik Shokalskiy expedition with the other alarmists and loons travelling to Antarctic to check out the loss of ice and currently trapped in that non-existent ice:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/29/saving-the-antarctic-scientists-er-media-er-activists-er-tourists-trapped-by-sea-ice/#more-100034

AGW is the delusion du jour.

no mention from fairfax that the jokers trapped by snow down south were on junkets trying to verify their gw doctrines. Quite hilarous and sad of the dishonesty of the ABC and usual culprits.

And it appears it has finally silenced and caused the disappearance of climate warming alarmists defending their religion.

thank Ch...t

It may have escaped everyones attention that cancer rates for ALL types of cancer has exploded.
In 1900 it was about one in every hundred. Now it is one in two.
Our way of life is the cause.
It would seem that this article has brought out the pack of denialists baying their plaintive cry that it is all a conspiracy and of course they are right.
The conspiracy is bought and paid for by the vested interests of BIG business who are not going to see their cash cows attacked for any reason.
The following link might give you a clue as to what is going on.
Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort
http://drexel.edu/now/news-media/releases/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/
And a happy new year to all even the denialists who do not have too much time left.

Interesting Robert, there is certainly a lot of people donating a lot
of money, so it is surprising that even here we do not hear as much
against global warming as we hear for AGW.

Still when you have AGW being promoted by government organisations like
the ABC there is no need for a pro AGW funding.

Now, while I am skeptical, I do not deny the possibility of AGW, it is
just that it does not matter whether it is real or not.
AS there is not enough economically and geologically available fossil
fuels to be burnt to satisfy the computer models then why the hell are
we in such a flap about it all ?

It would pay the author to check out his "facts" first.

Merkel Cell carcinoma is very rare and is CAUSED BY A VIRUS not Global Warming.

Secondly, incidence rates have gone up because our ability to detect cancer has improved.

As shown by the post from Robert LePage, the Left have a unique paranoid delusion that two brothers in America are funding the entire opposition to Global Warming. At the same time they accuse others of being conspiracy theorists! Its becoming quite sad, yet oddly hilarious at the same time.

Today 1 Jan 2014 Adelaide is having a very humid day, which is not what we should be having, so all you deniers of climate change I would like an answe from you why this is happening, it should be direct sun heat, not like we are living in Singapore.

Ojnab
Quite simple really.
Humidity is caused by moisture in the air.
The sun heats the earth, the air moving over the earth warms, convection occuts, it rises and lifts moisture, dust and salt with it.

Recently it rained in SA.

This is quite a typical effect when cooler air of the oceans encounters warmer land. I bet there is a southerly bearing of SA wind today.
Get used to it and generally a much colder climate.

The conditions you are experiencing are unusual but entirely consistsnt with Global Cooling. ie cooler than normal air coming from the cooler than normal southern ocean.

Ojnab I became aware of the cooling trend when that iceburg appeared off Dunedin a couple of years ago. You see iceburgs mostly melt from underneath, when they float into warmer water. Next time you have a drink add a piece of ice and see how it melts and cools the liquid. That iceburg had melted before it reached Christchurch. It had then encountered warmer waters.

There have been a couple reported since but not widely as it tended to refute the warmist case.

Recently in Brisbane we had a storm with virtually no rain. It so had yellow lightening. Not the usual exclusively blue or white.
That was unusual too. There was little moisture in the air to give the lightening it's blue colour. There were bush fires about also unusal in Qld durinv the 'wet' time of them year. A northwester had been blowing, not the usual prevailling cool moist southeaster. It was dry off the dry inland. There was no significant moonsoon trough this year whi h usually cools the inland. Hence tbe dry storm.
You work out shy tbe lightening was yellow. All consistant with cooling.
.
To the fool who still thinks anti warmers and coolers should just sit quietly while warm alarmists, like the author Noel, spread their misinformed propaganda: get st ...ed.

One aspect of the AGW fraud that has been overlooked is as an example of Jung’s theory of synchronicity, or meaningful coincidence.

Any gathering to tell lies in support of the AGW fraud has resulted in the manifestation of cold weather.

The Copenhagen lie fest ended in a dash for the airport to obtain a flight before freezing conditions affected air services.

The rat cunning in selection of a seaside resort for the next gathering of liars at Cancun did not avert the freezing out of the function.

The University of NSW fraud supporters, on the ship retracing Mawson’s voyage are frozen in by the ice which they said had been dissipated by AGW.

I might mention again that the mentality of the fraud backers is evidenced by their reference to realists and truth supporters as “deniers”. The AGW lies are, in effect, denied, but only by assertion of the truth, which is that there is no scientific evidence of human activity having any effect on climate which is other than trivial and insignificant.

Adelaide's problem is the huge success of their con job on the Murray Darling water flow.

They have got so much or Queensland's NSW's & Victoria's water down there now, those desert winds are boiling it, & steaming them. No less than they deserve of course. Lets face it, Adelaide is no place for humans to live.

So there you are. A hypothesis no less factual than the global warming hypothesis, & much more fun.

I cannot believe the level both of ignorance about published facts and the willingness of climate change rejecters to abuse those who accept the reality of climate change. Peer-reviewed findings are called a global conspiracy while no credible and scientifically acceptable evidence is produced to back up any of the rejecters’ claims.
Alan Jones, Viscount Monkton and Andrew Bolt are not credible sources in this regard.
It is right and proper to be sceptical about new claims but when there is consensus among meteorologists with 97% leaning one way and 3% leaning the other way, surely it is time for those with no background in meteorology/ climate study, indeed those with no background in science, to accept that human-induced climate change is a reality.
I don’t believe in climate change: I accept the facts that are put in front of me.
It is time for rejecters to fold their tents and steal away.

This is an article about three things: climate change, the hole in the ozone layer and skin cancers.
Can we, please, start talking about skin cancers in the context of the hole in the ozone layer and climate change in an adult and civilised manner?

Oh dear, we have the 97% 'consensus' meme again. It was just a matter of time before that one came up again, sigh... Dealing with these deniers is so disheartening.

Hasbeen, being an Adelaide resident I am concerned that your hypothesis may have some merit. How about you just send us heeps more of your irrigation water and we will hold onto a bit for a while whilst we enjoy a little boating on the previously non existent lakes Albert and Alexandrina, then flush it out to sea quicker than you can say 'where did all that ice come from??

Brian of Buderim, you are correct, as mentioned in a previous post Adelaide has had a very hot steamy day today, this is unusual, it is not the first, we now seem to have these days quite frequently.
I can go back sixty years and this then was not the order of the day, one person did inform me as to why this was happening now and I respect their answer, but this was NOT HAPPENING in Adelaide sixty years ago, it was hot but no humidity, if the answer given by the OLO person then this also should have been happening sixty, fifty, forty. thirty, twenty, ten years ago, that is very hot and humid, but this has not been the case.
I do agree there are three items in the heading of the writer but unfortunately two seem to have got missed by the deniers of climate change, hole in the Ozone layer and Skin cancer, perhaps they are being fooled by Tony Abbott.
Not only is climate change of concern but when one sees the amount of rubbish that people produce daily, there will be at some given point in the future no more land fill to accommodate it, my street alone worries me, let alone the rest of the world, but then the deniers will probaly say there is plenty of land fill. no worries mate

What worries me is that in this day, with so much evidence to prove the warmers are shonks, there are still people dumb enough to believe the crap.

Of course there is no way to know that those professing belief in the scam are not gravy train passengers, scared stiff that the game is up, & fighting a rearguard action, rather than coming clean, & admitting to fraud.

In reply to "atman" (I Jan 1) - it might pay atman to read my article properly. As to the cause of Merkel cell cancer - the article states " a rare cancer,and is known to be caused by a virus. However recent research is showing that UV radiation is also part of the cause."

Atman states that the rise in Merkel cell cancer is simply due to better diagnosis. That is not the conclusion of health authorities in Queensland and Western Australia. The real conclusion is simply that more research must be done.

However, there is no doubt that this cancer is more prevalent in areas of great sunshine, and that it affects fair-skinned people.

Common sense alone would indicate that sunshine has something to do with it. It is possible that the causative virus flourishes most in sunny areas. Cancer is a group of many diseases, and of complex causes. We need to take seriously all the contributing factors. With Merkels - surely the tasks are to do more research, and to protect ourselves from excess sunshine.

Yes! Hasbeen, it is just like the bible, crap, but then they still believe it

To all those who decry the idea of global warming, please produce some peer-reviewed scientific evidence (so we know that it is not just a thought-bubble) without repeating already discredited non-scientific ideas.

In the meantime, let us go back to the theme of the article, which I take to be concern about more cases of skin cancer being diagnosed with the possibility that either the ozone hole or global warming, or both, are somehow implicated.

The article is really about skin cancers and the ozone hole and global warming are side issues which may have some relevance to the increasing number of skin cancers.

Onjab
60 years ago the climate wasn't cooling. It is now. That is why your weather is different now.

Brian
All your warming scientists agree the two most signifi ant factors indicative of warmi g are rising surface temps and reducing polar caps.

No one denies those two factors indicate climate change.

Artic ice has expanded by 50% this winter.
Antartic ice is expanding this summer.
The moonsoon trough has failled this summer because the tropical ocean, The Coral Sea and the Timor Sea have not reached the 26.5degrees necessary to support it. You will see very few cyclones form off east Australia this year.
Facts such as these are self evident and don't require peer review and are evidence of cooling not warming.

That should cheer you. Cooling will be much more devestating than warming.

imajulianutter

Peer-reviewed and not already discredited? Who are the authors and what academic journal are you referring to?

Brian
There is no peer reviewed literature. The facts speak for themselves.

If you want to dispute the facts then do so. Do not make your self look silly by dening facts. Or attempt some sort of negation by refering to peer reviewed OPINIONS. That is obsfacation.

Show me the peer reviewed literature linking human activity to climate change.
There is none.

Refute my facts and the implication the oceans are cooling. I've presented you the evidence that they are.

I am not one of the blind believers. I know what my eyes are showing me.ie increasing artic and antartic ice and that the momsoon has not come to Australia this year.

Give me a reason why these things have occurred in a time of supposed warming.

No peer review of that exists. I will accept a logical explanarion.

Go on give me something for me to consider.

nutter
My apologies for not getting back to you: I had reached my limit for the day

1. Go to a just closed blog called "Larvatus Prodeo" and look in the archive at the series called "Climate Clipping" - there are 91 of them and this will give you the information you asked me to provide.

2. I heard on ABC Radio this morning an interview with a David Jones from the Bureau of Meteorology during which he stated that 2013 was the hottest year Australia had experienced "by a fair margin". 10 of Australia’s hottest years have occurred since 1998. Does make me wonder about your cooling idea!

3. I am concerned that you are talking about peer reviewing without seeming to know much about it.
'Peer-review' is a process for ensuring accuracy and quality in scientific journals. Once an article is submitted, the editor sends a copy of it (minus author identification) to a number of eminent scientists knowledgeable in that field who review it. These referees check the article for a number of things: repeated tests producing the same result with a different experimenter; accuracy of all measurements; completeness of all data; accurate tables and graphs, and conclusions and statements which can be supported by the evidence in the article and in other articles cited. Referees report in three ways: accept, accept with further work in particular areas, or reject. Authors never know who the referees are and the referees don’t know who wrote the article. This is done for a number of reasons: to avoid any possibility of a conspiracy, to focus on the article and not on the author or authors, and because in a tight academic community many scientists know each other.
Many, if not most, articles are rejected: many of those deemed fit for publication are never published for lack of space in a journal.
This is a slow process of sifting out the best and is quite different from a shock-jock’s or editor’s thought bubble.

To Brian of Buderim
First, thanks for your positive response to my article.

I was quite stunned to see the comments developing into an attack on the science of climate change. (I have lost two friends recently to "ordinary" skin cancer. I had thought that the skin cancer problem was the real message of my article)

Second, I have to commend you on your patient explaining of the "slow process of peer review".
I am heartened that you take the trouble to provide serious answers,in the light of the clearly uninformed nature of these climate denialist comments.

Brian

here are three issues you do not need peer reviewed.

1 Nasa photos of the artic in Dec 1912 and nasa photos of the artic in Dec 1913
2. Nasa photos of the Antarctic in Dec 1912 and Nasa photos of the Antarctic in Dec 1913.
3. BOM photos of the truncated 1913/14 Moonsoon.

My theory as to the cause of these extremely unusual events is that the oceans are cooling.

Now you tell me your theory as to why these three extreme events are occurring.

All three events are proved by nasa photographs.

Now Noel all I am asking is for you to explain explain how warming has caused them.

Let me tell you also that personal experience, from actually sailing in them, is that the Great Australian East Coast Current is running at about 5knots. Other sailors tell me that is their experience also. Normally it runs between 2 and 4 knots.

That current starts in the Coral Sea. Sooooo one can assume two things.
1. the warmer waters of the Coral Sea are empting faster than normal and
2. they are being replaced faster than normal by cooler waters from the southern oceans.

thereby reducing the temp in both the Coral Sea and the GAECC which in turn means cooler than normal water filling the Antarctic oceans meaning greater than normal ice floes and pack ice.

Yes I know it could be a case of the chicken or the egg. To make that decision we would need peer reviewed data. But we do not need peer reviewed data to prove the results. The photographic extremes show us that.

Brian,
nothing in that link you supplied peer reviews any article that links warming with human activity. That has never been done ... anywhere. It is the central flaw of AGW.

Noel that you simply claimed that climate change is warming is stupid.

You haven't evaluated all the evidence and that you simply without consideration label my very serious arguments and photographic evidence of global cooling Denialism is the height of hypocrisy.

Do you deny the photographic facts of expanding ice caps and truncated moonson activity?
If not can you explain how they are caused by global warming?

Your so superior attitude about cancer is disgraceful.

I had cancer, was supposed to die from it, survived and was always p.ssed off with halfwits who thought my cancer and the attendant horrors I faced, was about them. Which is exactly what your
narcistic attitude displays.

Shame on you.

Brian did you know that extremes of climate are likely to precede warming?

Brian did you know that extremes of climate are likely to precede cooling?

Yes Australia has had warmer temps in places. Please explain why many parts of Australia have had the coolest start to summer ever?

Australia is a unique climatic region. It has tremendous variation across a vast Island continent. To average out the great variations of regional temps is simplistic. That someone from the BOM is prepared to do that is quite frankly astonishing.
It is like saying because the centre is reaching record temps Australia is hot, while Hobart is in it's usual mid summer cool period. And Brisbane has seen cooler than usual average temps this summer.

Is it true that the earth has been warming for the last 300 years ?

Anyway it doesn't matter whether agw is true or not !

Sorry nutter. but the east coast current has often averaged 5 knots, & above.

In January 1969 I sailed from Port Stephens to Broken Bay Sydney. I did not see the top side of 4 knots on the speedo the whole way, but averaged 9 knots for the trip. My log recorded just under 44% of the distance covered.

Apart from that, I agree with your argument.

That is interesting hasbeen. I have not nor hsve any of the experienced navigators I chat with have experienve 5 knots until recently. Maybe we are all too young:-

To be fair Nutter, I probably only recall the figures on that sail, because I was really surprised at how much current assistance I had. It was not normally anything like that, more like 3 Knots.

A week or so earlier I had taken all day to cover the 30 odd nautical miles from Newcastle to Port Stephens, but had not streamed the log, so did not know.

The slow trip meant I arrived after dark, & with only a general chart, & never having been in there, I was not game to try entering. I spent the night sailing north about 2/3 miles off the entrance. With just the main up, & over sheeted, I had the boat going nowhere over the ground, but sailing at 3.5 Knots through the water of that current.

nutter
You have successfully confused day to day weather with decade to decade, or century to century, climate change.
Given that the events you refer to are close to a century old, when we did not have anywhere near the information gathering sources we have now, I doubt whether any explanation at all is possible.

All of this is on a blog lamenting a rise in skin cancers!
Is it possible we might return to that theme?

imajulianutter tells me that I am stupid to say that (anthropogenic) climate change is happening.
Yet in another post he or she asks me to explain the complexities of arctic ice in relation to global warming.
Presumably that was a rhetorical question, seeing that I am stupid, and thus unable to answer.
Here are juat a few of the (English language)scientific organisations that explain anthropogenic climate change, in its various aspects:

Australian Academy of Science
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Climate Council
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
Bureau of Meteorology
CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research
Office of the Chief Scientist (Australia)
The Climate Institute
National Academy of Sciences (USA)
British Science Association
British Association for the Advancement of Science
Department of Energy & Climate Change - GOV.UK
Directorate-General for Climate Action (European Commission)
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

There are many others, and also in many other languages, from other nations.
My question to imajulianutter, and to those other "climate sceptic" commentators is this:
Do you think that all those thousands of scientists are part of a gigantic conspiracy, or are they all just stupid?

In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, Sun Protection Factor sun screens were unknown. I used to spend as much time as I could outside wearing shorts or Speedos. I regularly got sunburnt. I am now starting to pay the price for this.
I’ve had three cancers cut out, one on my left forearm and two in the left ear. I’ve had 8 – 10 frozen off with liquid nitrogen and I use Efudix cream regularly in late autumn, winter and early spring. Efudix [fluorouracil] is cyto-toxic: this means it kills cells specifically those which are dividing fastest i.e. cancer cells.
Edudix has a number of drawbacks: no more than 2% of the skin can be covered at any time e.g. the back of one hand and that forearm, it takes 3-4 weeks for a complete treatment, the treated parts turn a blotchy bright red and it is not on the PBS - $53 for a tube good for treatment of one area or 2% of the surface. The bright red bits are the keratoses and early cancers being killed. When I use Efudix on my face, I find that I am constantly explaining why I look such a sight, which doesn't stop me using it.
I have a full skin check by a competent specialist dermatologist each year. Up til now, I have not had a melanoma diagnosed.

I had hoped that this blog would focus on skin cancers, their treatments, how to avoid them and what might possibly be the risk factors leading to an increased rate of cancers and an increased rate of the real nasty melanoma.

If it’s OK by everyone who reads this blog, I would prefer to avoid discussion of global warming, for which there are other blogs where it is the centre point of discussion, and concentrate on skin cancers. Global warming is a side issue: the main issue is skin cancer, avoiding it, recognising it, treating it and surviving it.

To Brian of Buderim,and anyone else who's interested in skin cancer. Good idea to focus on this problem, which is immediate for Australians,but also a burning issue for today's children and their future. (but is this online journal a magnet for climate sceptics?)

Anyway - here is another idea on skin cancer:
Tea tree oil may be used in future as a fast, cheap, safe and effective treatment for non-melanoma skin cancers and precancerous lesions, according to researchers at The University of Western Australia.

A three-year study by UWA's Tea Tree Oil Research Group has found solid tumours grown under the skin in mice and treated with a tea tree oil formulation causes inhibition of tumour growth and tumour regression within a day of treatment.

Within three days, the tumours cannot be detected.

The study by research associates Dr Sara Greay and Dr Demelza Ireland of UWA's School of Biomedical, Biomolecular and Chemical Sciences and colleagues was published online in the journal Cancer Chemotherapy Pharmacology.

http://www.news.uwa.edu.au/201006292609/events/tea-tree-oil-offers-hope-skin-cancer-patients

and another one - skin cancer research
Dr Cornelia Bertram, from the UWA School of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, will receive $24,000 towards her research into improved tea tree oil based formulations that can eradicate cancer cells and be used to treat superficial and deep skin cancers more efficiently.

"My research will also cover how this treatment works by examining what happens at the genetic level of cancer cells after they are treated with tea tree oil," Dr Bertram said.

http://www.news.uwa.edu.au/201203284481/awards-and-prizes/tea-tree-oil-and-prostate-research-tops-cancer-council-list

<<My question to imajulianutter, and to those other "climate sceptic" commentators is this:Do you think that all those thousands of scientists are part of a gigantic conspiracy, or are they all just stupid?>>

"ROCKS DON'T FALL FROM THE SKY!" [The 19th century French Academy of Sciences]

So was The French Academy of Sciences part of a gigantic conspiracy, or was its members --the crème de la crème of their time-- all just plain stupid...or, milksops?

Noel there is no peer reviewed literature anywhere that links human activity as causing warming. It is stupid to say you believe in AGW by relying on something that doesn’t exist.

Show me the specific peer reviewed literature that proves the AGW links.

Show me how Artic and Antarctic ice expansion, as evidenced by the NASA photo, has occurred because of global warming.

With all the peer reviewed articles supporting AGW one of your 97% of scientists anticipated the ice expansion and has a peer reviewed explanation for it.

None of those organisations you list have any explanation why the ice caps are expanding during AGW.

All do agree the ice caps are critical evidence of changes in global temps. All peer reviewed articles on the subject assume receding ice is critical in climate change. NASA photos prove expanding ice.
Doh. You really are digging yourself a bigger hole, in the newly formed ice, with your insistence for peer reviewed literature to explain the ice expansion.
It is occurring because the oceans are cooler. Simple ice won’t form in warm water. It melts it. Why are the oceans cooling? I don’t know but all I did was propose a theory.
All you’ve done is recite all the old crap which doesn’t explain the ice expansion.

If all those other scientists take your attitude and refuse to accept the evidence of expanding ice caps and cannot explain how AGW is causing them then yes they are just as stupid as you.

Brian

According to your logic receding ice caps arecalso day to day weather and not indicative of climate change?

Say that to your AGW scientist mates.

After you introduced global warming into a discussion why are you now so desperate to return to the other issues about skin cancer?

So ok.

Do you agree if when I say we are probably entering a period of global cooling that the prevalence of skin cancers will reduce?

Lol cheers, you clowns really are fun.

‘the Abbott government no longer seems to know or care, about climate change.’
What’s that got to do with skin cancers?

‘Science is finding new connections between global warming and the ozone hole, and skin cancer, especially in Australia.’
You made these assertions and did not back them up with any peer reviewed references.

‘Global warming is happening’
Really? I think global cooling is happening.

‘This article is not attempting to say that by addressing climate change, we are going to prevent skin cancer, although it is pretty clear that the faster Australia heats up, the greater will be the incidence of skin cancer. (So, on that basis alone, it would be a good idea to get on to a global drive to fight climate change.)’
No of course addressing climate change (inference warming) won’t prevent skin cancers but you did say that warming is influential in the increasing incidence of skin cancer in Australia.

‘But these rather frightening connections between skin cancer, ozone depletion and climate change are surely more reasons for Australia to take a leading role in action to slow the rate of climate change.’
That was your conclusion. And nowhere in your article did you supply any evidence or peer reviewed literature to support it.

And now you don’t want to talk about climate change.
Noel you really are being very silly.

News from a couple of days ago;

The sun has flipped over, the poles have reversed.
DEEP SPACE - SUN UP

The sun's magnetic field has undergone a total reversal of its polarity, which
marks Solar Cycle 24's midpoint, which is going to be completed in 11 years
time, NASA has revealed.

According to NASA, the sun has "flipped upside down", with its north and south
poles reversed to reach the Solar Cycle 24's midpoint.

Now, the magnetic fields have again started moving in opposite directions to
finish the 22 year long process that will end in the poles switching their
places once again.

NASA's Dr Tony Phillips said that a reversal of the sun's magnetic field is,
literally, a big event.

He said that the domain of the sun's magnetic influence extends billions of
kilometres beyond Pluto.
_-_-_
An interesting thought, as the current pause in temperature is around
20 years, I wonder if that bears any relation to the 22 year solar
polarity cycle.
Has it ever been studied ?

Just perhaps, if the people of the earth, mostly the west of course, were not wasting a billion dollars a day on global warming pretend research, there might be a bit more money to spend on medical research, & other more useful areas.

If you don't want people discussing global warming, don't bring the subject up. Make global warming part of a presentation, & those who know it is garbage will tell you so.

Just like the Fraud of the ozone hole being man made, [a trial run of the global warming fraud perhaps], now disproved, Global Warming will be disproved totally soon, as it is almost now.

<<Just like the Fraud of the ozone hole being man...>>

Yes indeed, Hasbeen, I would like to hear more about that --it deserves a full and thorough espose.

The hole in the ozone was huge news a decade of so ago --life threatening --and in need of urgent global action, but now we never hear of it--AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S BECAUSE IT DISAPPEARED OR DIMINISHED.

I know this is out of context and nothing to do with thr article but I do wish the experts would denounce the fraud behind God and Fairies, in my eyes it is as big a fraud as your climate change, I prefer to believe in climate change over the other crap which so many believe in all over the world.

That is an interesting way of deciding what to believe Ojnab, to prefer to believe something.

Personally I believe what is proven to my satisfaction, & nothing else.

Preferring to believe something sounds like an academic activity. You can get the money, & ease your conscience at the same time. A really great system

rest assured Ojanb I rejected the man made religious crap along with the man made climate change crap long ago.

you can do both you know.

SPQR, regarding the ozone layer, you probably never hear of the ozone layer these days because global action was actually taken. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (shortened to the Montreal Protocol) was universally ratified by all nations more than four years ago.
http://ozone.unep.org/new_site/en/montreal_protocol.php

Therefore the fact that the ozone layer still exists isn't exactly major news, or cause for major political agitation. The political action needed has already been taken. Now it's a matter of wait and see if the action taken has had much effect. This page may go some way to answer that question:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2002/qandas16.pdf

The Montreal Protocol was a very good example of how a policy can be universally accepted and acted upon for something that affects the world globally. In that way it may be considered a precursor to the Kyoto protocol (which is still in existence, whatever spindoc says: http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php
and nations are ratifiying the Doha Amendment http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/doha_amendment/items/7362.php).

However, ozone depletion as a 'fraud' and a 'trial run' of global warming 'scares', is a very poor choice of comparison for climate change 'skeptics'.

Come on Bugsy, we all know it had no effect on the ozone hole.

We also know it had a very great effect on Dow's profitability. Their patent on their refrigerant gas was expiring, opening them to competition.

The ban allowed them to use their new patent on their new refrigerant gas, continuing their profitability.

Obviously other allies, with other motives, were required to get the bull dust up, & they were the fool academics.