I am afraid, dear skellett, that details and facts does not come into the equation for such people. They are way beyond the reach of pedagogic and scholarly measures. They are engaged in producing political spins. Facts of science carry no weight in their world. Part of the strategy is to never admit when you have been defeated by facts, but to carry on with ever new misrepresentations as if nothing happened. Indeed, if the spin-makers are allowed to take over the world it will spell death to any science.

NSW coastline wastewater pollution, as indicated by extreme SHA levels, has lessened considerabley today 21-10-06.

>Today's SHA (sea height anomaly) map showing major reduction in wastewaters from Sydney, Wollongong, Bega, Newcastle, Lakes Entrance(Vic) and Wilson's Promontory:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161420238.gif

The Macleay River by contrast is still polluting.

>Yesterday's map, showing far greater plumes from all the above ports:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161323700.gif

>Compare with S. Africa where notable wastewater plumes are evident from Alexander Bay, Capetown, East London, Richards Bay and Maputo:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161422188.gif

These plumes are consistent over time and only ever present at the major ports mentioned, strengthening the argument that extreme coastal SHGA values are in fact associated with wastewater plumes.
Also Note the movement of the sea surface harmonics (SHA zonal flux)to the east and onto Sthn Australian waters with the prevailing roaring forties current.

CONCLUSION: Given the current overcast conditions for Sydney and NSW coastal areas plus the cleaner coastal waters, thermodynamic conditions are favourable for rains to now fall in inland NSW and Victoria. These could well be drought breaking conditions if wastewaters can be held back long enough for at least a week of rainfall.

Well done whoever is creating these coastal wastewater reductions and lower entropy conditioning of the NSW coastline.

PLEASE keep it going for at least a week ... we'll be WATCHING YOU.

RIDER: The cleaner coastal waters (less extreme coastal SHA's) may have been caused by yesterday's heavy coastline rains. We will know from tomorrow's SHA map. I sincerely hope NSW and Vic are holding back their wastes however.

LET'S PUT an END to this BLOODY DROUGHT .... NOW!

This time sequence of Sea height anomaly structures off NSW and Sth Africa from 20 Oct to 22 Oct 2006 is showing:

1>Sth Africa's consistent pollution, consistent evolution of SHAs to the east along the roaring forties and 100% correlation of coastal SHA plumes with Sth Africa's major polluting ports is a control subject for Australia's wastewater emissionn profile along coastal NSW..

20 Oct
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161490090.gif
21Oct
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161491418.gif
22 Oct
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161490032.gif

2>By contrast, NSW shows an abrupt cessation of large coastal SHA plumes from Sydney, Newcastle, Wollongong, Bega, Victoria and even Hobart (Tasmania). The only offenders left are the Macleay river in Nthn NSW and Brisbane (Qld).

20 Oct
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161491121.gif
21Oct
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161489193.gif
22 Oct
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161489874.gif

>I will continue to follow this development so long as improvements in the NSW coastal SHA structure continue. Hopefully we will see a break in drought conditions in NSW and Victoria within a week if improvements persist.

NB>For further evidence of consistent correlation between coastal SHA plumes and ports that are emitting significant wastewater volumes, I have done a time series analysis of SHA profiles for Sth African and Australia going back to 1993.

A summary including the years 1993, 1997, 2000 and 2003 at Oct 21 for both countries follows:

Sth Africa:

93
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161491502.gif
97
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161491588.gif
00
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161491545.gif
03
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161491628.gif
06
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161491418.gif

NSW:

93
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161491687.gif
97
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161491753.gif
00
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161491809.gif
03
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161491856.gif
06
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161489193.gif

Ah, Skellett, I can't resist. Are you seriously suggesting that anyone who quotes from any article is guilty of two deceits by not including all that came before and all after? You accuse me of not defending my choice - which I did - whilst you have not answered my question about why you cut your quote where you did. This is characteristic of your tendency to project onto others your own weaknesses. You substitute bullying and intimidation for reasoned debate. You might like to fantasise about kicking me when I'm down or having me breaking out in a cold sweat, but I can assure you the only thing I'm breaking out in is laughter. I concede defeat: reason can't beat such determined unreason. It's like sword-fighting with a ghost.

There are two separate issues here:

(1) Has the case for global warming due to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases been proven beyond all reasonable doubt?

(2) Is the case for global warming sufficiently strong that prudence dictates we ought to limit greenhouse gas emissions?

The answer to the first question is "no." The topic is difficult. Huge uncertainties surround the data. In many cases data is sparse or unavailable. There is room for doubt.

The answer to the second question depends on your attitude towards risk. The PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE points in the direction of global warming.

Our understanding of the physics of greenhouse gases leads us to predict that, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, as the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases increases so surface temperatures should rise.

We find that indeed surface temperatures are rising.

So far as we can tell surface temperatures are rising more rapidly than at any time in the recent past.

There is the POSSIBILITY that rising surface temperatures will cause other changes that reinforce the warming effect with, PERHAPS, catastrophic consequences.

None of this proves that anthropgenic greenhouse gases are the culprit and that we heading for disaster. The observed global warming could be due to greenhouse gas emissions, variations in the strength of solar flux, subtle changes in the Earth's orbit, other unknown factors or, most likely, a COMBINATION of factors. But we can say that observation is broadly consistent with a theory of global warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.

So what should we do?

That leads to another question.

How much of an INSURANCE PREMIUM are you prepared to pay to mitigate a POSSIBLE catastrophe?

If you are rational you cannot avoid this question by pretending there is zero risk. Evidence and theory, however imperfectly, indicate the existence of a RISK of catastrophe due to greenhouse gas emissions.

The evidence says the odds of catastrophe are substantially above zero.

So how much are you all prepared to pay to mitigate this risk?

0.1% of your income?

1%?

5%

How much?

So how much are you all prepared to pay Stephany to mitigate this glabial warming risk?

0.1% of your income?

No way. Send 20% of your income to Stephany Hathaway c/o Warren Buffet, New York, New York. Otherwise he'll come get ya or find some other way to scam you.

Global Warming .. Safe as global Coorporate houses!
Would you like fries with that threat? I mean order.

Come on Stephany who you kidding?

The Atlantic reversed to 50% less heat (SST) levels from May 11 to July 31 this year and before May the heat in the Atlantic was far greater than the disasterous 2005 season.
May 11:
05:http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2005131atsst.png
06:http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2006131atsst.png

July 31:
05:http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2005212atsst.png
06:http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2006212atsst.png

Global warming?
Go Figure!

ITM, NSW has resumed gross wastewater emissions: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161577062.gif
despite yesterday's cleaner coastline:
22-Oct: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161489874.gif

That means that extra high entropy in NSW ocean surfaces and its corresponding microclimate-atmospheric-conditions will attract undue heat and moisture (low entropy) from the NSW heartland worsening the existing drought. This is not global anything. It is just simply an enactment of one of the simplest laws of PHYSICS, the Second Law Of Thermodynamics (2LT).

Meanwhile global warming idiots fiddle with us all while NSW burns.