"THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest assessment reportedly admits its computer drastically overestimated rising temperatures, and over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed in the previous IPCC report in 2007.

More importantly, according to reports in British and US media, the draft report appears to suggest global temperatures were less sensitive to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide than was previously thought.

The 2007 assessment report said the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade, but according to Britain's The Daily Mail the draft update report says the true figure since 1951 has been 0.12C."

It would appear that much of "overwhelming" scientific studies have been over inflated. Now is the time to review Australia's actions in the light of a world that is largely ignoring the problem, remove the world's greatest carbon tax and replace it with something more appropriate to the real issue and the actions of our competitors.

Market gardeners pump CO2 into their green-houses/glass-houses in order to promote growth and a more efficient use of water.

Plant growth is a wonderful thing, it loves CO2.

In the North, it seems that rainfall is increasing. Aboriginal communities in the North need - Warren Mundine and Noel Pearson suggest - economic activity. Trees suck CO2 from the atmosphere.

Win-win-win: Fund Aboriginal unemployed in the North to plant a billion trees across the North over the next fifty years. Bit by bit, over the next twenty years, set up appropriate training programs to build small reservoirs on the flood-plains of the major rivers to trap water, set up nurseries, pumping stations, piping systems, to irrigate, drip-feed, a billion trees.

Easy-peasy. Problem/problem/problem solved. No let's move onto more important issues like gay marriage, or which end of the egg to balance on.

Joe

The body of scientific knowledge at any particular
moment represents nothing more than the most
logical interpretations of the existing data.
It is always possible that new facts will come to light
or that the available data will be re-interpreted
in a new way, shattering the existing assumptions. Science
therefore takes nothing for granted: everything is always
open for further testing, re-interpretation, correction, and
even refutation.

Rigorous debate will now be undertaken and
in this process new ideas will be fasioned,
grow, aspects will be discarded, modified,
and carried into the future. Science is
a tumultuous roller-coaster of ideas,
inventions, successes and failures.

Human beings are gifted with the ability to make the world
a better place, if they so choose. The other animals don't
have that choice, they don't have the tools (language,
writing, and archives from which accumulated knowledge can
be sourced).

If world population continues to grow rapidly, if
industrialism spreads around the world, and if pollution and
resource depletion continues at an increasing rate -
and all these things happen - where is human society headed?
The most optimistic answer would be that one way or another,
sweeping social changes await us.

For mine I thank SM for putting this thread up.
It lets me say what is on my mind.
By mid Abbott,s first term his statement climate change is crap.
And his in truth no effort program will come back to hurt him.
If Turnbull has not replaced him by then.
Honestly held view SM not taunting.

"That is complete fiction," Professor David Karoly, a review editor of the IPCC report at the University of Melbourne, told AAP on Monday.
He said the observed global average warming of surface air temperature over the last 60 years was 0.12 degrees per decade - almost identical to the 0.13 value reported in the IPCC report of 2007.

The INTER governmental PANEL's computer got it wrong?
Oh please. The IPCC collates the work of thousands of computers, owned by as many credible sources as they can find; including Australia's CSIRO.
This is just another beat up by the flat earthers.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/09/16/20/31/scientists-slam-claims-of-cooler-climate

Belly,
I think it more likely that the LNP will do away with the carbon tax and not implement any direct measures to reduce CO2, because of budget restraints.

Secondly the Labor party will have dropped any AGW policy by the next election, because of no warming and current policy is not a vote winner.

People continue to see the AGW advocates as alarmist and their claims not valid.

now Flannery, Gore and co have an excuse for there completely false prophecies. Oh dear what a surprise. Any rain on the east coast lately. What a joke.

Belly,

The actual quote was ""The argument [behind climate change] is absolute crap." Remembering that at the time we were having claims from the green looney fringe such as that sea levels could rise by "up to 50m" by 2100 and other wild exaggerations, and now the IPCC predictions are out by nearly 70%, I would say that his comment was justified. Of course that does not stop people (such as yourself) misquoting him, and out of context.

Dear SM,

If you're going to give quotes, try giving the
full quote and the context in which it was made.
The following may help clarify things:

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2808321.htm

Foxy,

The quote is not contained in your post, only an incorrect reference to it by Kerry O'Brien.

So please feel free to provide the full quote and context.

I feel that climate change is real, but the hysterical chicken little approach about the danger and consequences have been over blown.

Dear Shadow Minister,

No. Kerry O'Brien does give the correct quote
of Abbott's with the addition that, "In other
words..." "We have to have a climate change policy
because the people believe its a danger, but I believe
it's crap." Your inference that Kerry is mis-quoting
is not correct. Kindly re-read the given quotes,
and the context.

Cheers.

Foxy,

I missed the first quote, so yes the quote is correct, but again, what you have is the quote said by Kerry O'Brien out of context with Kerry's spin on it following. TA did not say that climate change is crap as Belly suggested or Kerry suggested.

I read a very good article a few years ago in New Scientist specifically about the science of climate and the huge variety of effects that could accelerate or decelerate global warming, and the difficulty of modelling all these effects into the future.

A good analogy of this would be predicting the weather. Meteorology has improved in leaps and bounds. Accurate forecasts can be made of the weather tomorrow, reasonable predictions can be made of the weather a week from now, but weather a year from now is impossible. That climate change is occurring is not in doubt, but anyone that claims the science is settled is kidding themselves.

The certainty with which greenies dish out predictions as fact was, is and will be crap for some time to come.

It was pointed out to me that about 500m years ago CO2 levels were about 2000ppm (5x that of today) and life flourished and temperatures were not that different from today.

Grim,

So, what you are suggesting is that, given current models, and IF NO GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTS ANY COUNTER-POLICY WHATSOEVER, world temperatures will go up by 1.3 degrees by 2113.

So what do you reckon they might rise by, if in the meantime, many governments DO implement various amelioration policies, find alternatives to fossil fuels, find better ways to USE fossil fuels, find ways to extract CO2 from the atmosphere, carbonise soils, plant billions of trees (furniture-timber, etc., not for burning), improve irrigation so that more land is opened up, say in Africa, to production and thereby suck more CO2 out of the atmosphere. Etc., etc.

Yes, if we all sit on our hands, temperatures might rise by as much as 1.3 degrees in a century. The difference between, let's say, 20 and 21.3 degrees, or 30 and 31.3 degrees, or 40 and 41.3 degrees. I've picked apricots in 46 degrees and no, it's no fun. But 1.3 degrees difference, is hardly going to fry us all.

That's IF we sit on our hands. But who is doing that, even now ? SA gets a huge proportion of its electricity from wind power now, in 2013. China will expand renewable energy sources by 1 % every year, from 20 % in 2020. Tree-plantings might do wonders to our North, not to mention providing work forever for Aboriginal people in their communities (that's if they want it, of course).

Yes, global warming is happening, but is it happening at a manageable, sustainable level, at a level which can be even reversed ?

And in reality, there hasn't been global warming for 16 years. So, what do you go by, theory or practice ? If theory doesn't mesh reality, then question your theory. Isn't that sensible ?

Cheers,

Joe

Banjo some times we agree some times not.
To try to look at climate change only from looking at what our politicians say is folly.
Look at the world view.
Labor lost the election, in 2010, not its policy,s but its actions.
In fact bank on it some do not understand what they voted for.
Indeed IF the greens had not contaminated the word conservation, many more would think as I do,
Close observation, mixed with a little understanding will show those with eyes open, greens by their words and actions *damage * true concern for climate and all it involves.
In time we will see a floating price on carbon as Liberal policy.
I never doubted that Turnbull is far from alone on this matter in the Liberal center.

Yes Shadow Minister climate change is occurring, just as it always has done. But every day new research throws more doubt on CO2 being responsible for more than a few percent of it.

The western world has wasted so much on climate research & fool programs like ethanol, bio diesel & alternate power generation that the damage is already greater than anything any or all trace gasses could ever do.

Fortunately the whole sorry episode has almost finished, just the shouting & scapegoating to go.

Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Now that it seems that AGW is either defunct or of little concern we
will still need to develop alternative energy schemes, just not in a
panic as the greens would have had us do it.

The time that we have is not any longer but we can do it in a more
commercial manner. Nuclear energy should be back on the menu and we
will not have to run around shutting down coal mines.

This whole schnozzle should be a lesson to us all not to get in a
panic over 100 year problems.
It is to be hoped that the greenies don't take up as their cause the
coming energy problems or we will have the same enormous waste of money.

Dear Shadow Minister,

There's a hilarious and
revealing collection of Tony Abbott's quotes called,
"Tony Speaks: The wisdom of the Abbott," and among
many other quotes of his there's the one on climate change:
"absolute crap," is cited. You may want to look into it.

Some people and governments see pollution as a
regrettable but inevitable by-product of desired economic
development - "where there's smoke, there's jobs."

I won't go into the chemistry of atmospheric pollution,
which is extremely complex, except to say that control
of pollution is politically difficult, however, for the
economic interests behind "smokestack" industries are
a powerful political lobby.

Mention does need to be made of the fact that
the most far reaching effect of air-pollution, is a change in the
global climate. The facts are - as a result of the
burning of fuels and wastes and the razing of forests, the
amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is steadily increasing.
This gas creates a "greenhouse effect" on the planet, for it
allows solar rays to reach the earth's surface but prevents heat
from radiating back into space. The consequence will be
global warming, which will eventually cause the melting of the
polar ice caps, a rise in sea levels, and changes in weather patterns.

Global temperatures were expected to rise by 3 to 8 degrees
Fahrenheit by 2030.

This may seem like a small change, but
minor fluctuations in global temperatures can have drastic
consequences. During the last ice-age, when much of North
America was covered with sheets of ice more than a mile thick,
average temperature was only about 5 degrees cooler than today.

Even if - IPCC got their figures wrong -
are we prepared to chance the fact
that most of the climatic, agricultural, and ecological
patterns that we're familiar with today would be completely
disrupted, and there's no knowing what the ultimate
consequences would be for life on the planet and for human
society - are we foolish enough to simply tolerate pollution
rather than bear the costs (probably including slower
economic growth) - of limiting it?

As usual, a pinch of half-truth goes a long way. Tell everybody the whole story rather than just the bit that suits your political allegiance, Shallow Minister:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/09/scientists-take-the-mail-on-sunday-to-task-over-claim-that-warming-is-half-what-ipcc-expected/

"Neither the IPCC in 2007 nor the current crop of climate models ever suggested that the world has been, or should have been, warming at 0.2 degrees per decade since 1951. So the headline should have been "Global warming is just 92 percent of what we said it was", on an apples-for-apples comparison."

"The 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade figure relates to an observed warming over the period 1990-2005 which clearly cannot be compared with the period since 1951".

"So the two figures Rose compares are not measuring the same thing. As the Met Office's Richard Betts tweeted yesterday: "Rose created a headline by misrepresenting [the 2007 IPCC report]."

Err Foxy, if the temperature was only 5 deg cooler over Nth America
than it is today, why didn't the ice all melt ?

Wow, sea level rise lapping at the doorsteps of Pacific islanders - from glacial melts, but if not, then from what?
(Heretofore 'hidden' immense deep-layer aquifers 'bursting' out of their 'confinement'? Perhaps, but if so, from what cause - and where is the evidence?)
(And don't try to tell me it's from an increase in global rainfall - it's a 'closed' system, after all. Or has some massive, super-hyper inverse-electrolysis been happening that no-one's been told about, sucking H2 and O2 out of the atmosphere in huge gulps, and thereby not only producing additional H2O (water), but also artificially 'boosting' relative atmospheric CO2 concentration?)

Increasing ocean acidification - from increased dissolved CO2, but if not, then from what?
(Since we know that the 'partial pressure' principle applies, whereby, as ocean temperature rises, there should be less dissolved CO2 - unless the atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 rises 'inordinately' to relatively 'extreme' levels.)

Some poo-poo the deep ocean as a 'heat sink' - but without any evidence for this 'postulation' - whereas there appears to be factual scientific evidence of such a rise in deep ocean temperatures. And, given the mass/volume of water involved, a small rise in temperature would amount to a 'lot' of heat absorbed.

We are in a closed system. Glacial melt means energy absorbed - per latent heat of freezing/melting, but also some via latent heat of condensation/evaporation, as some 'melt' becomes additional water vapour in the atmosphere.
This energy absorption (within our 'closed system') necessarily means some corresponding atmospheric 'cooling' - perhaps accounting for part of any 'lower than expected' (per IPCC 'modelling') global temperature rise.

However, whereas I see macro-evaluation as 'indicative', it appears that IPCC advocates want to go the way of the 'fu-fu bird', whirling in ever-diminishing 'micro' circles, until they 'disappear'?
What next? Dissection of a quark?

SM: >about 500m years ago CO2 levels were about 2000ppm (5x that of today) and life flourished and temperatures were not that different from today.<
But how much land was above water? How acidic the ocean? Species? (Early Man, 4 million years, tops.)

If nothing else the flat earth anti climate changers are entertaining.
Just reading the views they hold, including it seems the whole idia is a greens Labor plot is amusing.
But frightening too.
So very often personal views usually based on politics over rules action on matters so vital.
Maybe the endless debate is meant to keep us mud wrestling while the issues we should address are ignored.

If you've got a problem with your plumbing, talk to a plumber. A problem with Law? Talk to a lawyer.
A problem with climate change?
Cherry pick amongst the various journo's until you find one who agrees with your own perspective.
When a doctor tells you that you have a problem and you need to make some changes, you might want to get a second opinion. You may even look for a third or fourth opinion.
97 out of 100 climate doctors tell us we've got a problem.
But hey, large numbers of politicians and journalists don't accept that, and we know they wouldn't lie to us, would they?
Yep, if I ever get diagnosed with cancer, I'll definitely be talking to my local MP about it.
Now we have a PM who not only thinks AGW is crap, but also thinks (for the first time in 80 odd years) we don't need a minister for science (but we do need one for sport).
Who needs science when God's on your side, right?
I'm sure Runner agrees.

It would appear that the original article to which I referred in the Sunday Mail was incorrect, and has been withdrawn.

It would appear that the change in warming is now 0.12C per decade not 1.3C per decade. It would now appear that temperatures will rise by about 1.1C by 2100, assuming a linear growth.

If the world moves to non emitting technologies such as nuclear and renewables, then this could be less.

Shallow Minister shouldn't blame the Daily Mail for the misrepresentation of IPCC findings. Clearly, from the quote in his opening post, he took his information from his beloved "Australian".

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/we-got-it-wrong-on-warming-says-ipcc/story-e6frg8y6-1226719672318

This is from where SM quoted: "The 2007 assessment report said the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade, but according to Britain's The Daily Mail the draft update report says the true figure since 1951 has been 0.12C.". Yep, that suppository of half-truth, the Daily Mail is relied upon by The Australian which failed to check the IPCC facts for itself.

Then there's "Last week, the IPCC was forced to deny it was locked in crisis talks as reports intensified that scientists were preparing to revise down the speed at which climate change is happening and its likely impact."

Yeah, that ol' favourite, the IPCC was "forced to deny" a confection of crisis, so it must be true! Crikey, imagine if it had said "no comment"!

From the link given in my last post: "The Telegraph quickly repurposed the Mail on Sunday article under the headline, 'Top climate scientists admit global warming forecasts were wrong'. Meanwhile, The Australian went a step further with a story headlined 'We got it wrong on warming, says IPCC'."

Will the Australian now publish "We Got it Wrong on the IPCC"?

Hi Grim,

True or false ?

Even if no government does anything in the next hundred years to alleviate or ameliorate the climatic situation, temperatures will rise by about 1.2-1.5 degrees.

True or false ?

IF governments do do something about it, even switching to fifth-generation nuclear, etc., then the temperature rise will probably be a lot less.

True or false ?

Sea-levels have risen 2 inches in 120 years, and they will rise by about the same in the next hundred years. Any Pacific island which is only two inches above sea-level is in danger of being flooded.

True or false ?

Problem: average world temperatures have not risen in the last sixteen years.

True or false ?

So probably sea-levels also have not risen (IF there is some correlation between temperature rise and sea-level rise).

Possibly true or possibly false ?

Perhaps we should all be beavering away at trying to solve any problems associated with increased CO2 production, rather than doing nothing but yelling 'the sky is falling !'

Mind you, I enjoy one of MAD magazine's slogans: 'Don't just do something, stand there !'

Jo

Jo, you might like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0jaQCSSCS4

Bazz I'm perfectly happy with you wanting to develop alternative energy schemes, just as long as you don't want to waste my taxes on them. We have wasted quite enough on the scam of global warming to date, without wasting even more.

I hope you come up with a good one, cheaper than oil, & make your fortune doing it.

We obviously have the means to generate all the electricity we want, & once those taken in by the global warming scam realise the planet is actually cooling, they will be clamoring for more coal to be burnt doing so.

Of course this will have stuff all effect in stopping cooling, just as it has had stuff all effect on global warming.

If we are still around when we have burnt all the coal we will have to develop methane clathrate. I'm sure the folk of 1000 years from now will be able to develop a new fuel course, provided they can dig down through the hundreds of meters of ice that will probably be covering it by then.

Dear Bazz,

You need to Google an overview of global glaciation
from 110,000 to 12,500 years ago especially with regard to
North America and Northern Europe.

As I stated earlier even minor fluctuations in global
temperature can have drastic consequences. But I won't
go into all the details here - as by now they should be
known to us all.

Dear Hasbeen,

Yes, coal deposits may well last for a long time and can be
burned to generate energy as other resources fail. But the
use of a resource cannot be considered in isolation from
its potentially complex environmental impacts. The
burning of coal produces sulfur and carbon dioxide and the
more coal we burn, the more we pollute the atmosphere.
The sulfur helps form acid rain, which has a drastic effect
on another resource, forests.

Most of the trees that are to be cut for housing in the year 2030
are already growing and in many cases already dying. We will
have to rely for the foreseeable future on whatever
timberland can survive increasing acid acid rain over the next
few decades, but studies in the affected regions already show
losses of 20 to 30 percent in the growth and biomass of forests.

And the carbon dioxide from increased coal burning would
contribute to the "greenhouse effect." Therefore simple solutions
to society's energy needs turn out not to be so "simple"
after all. And other apparently simple solutions - such as the
use of winds, tides, or sunlight - still appear, after years
of intensive research, to be too inefficient or uneconomic for
large scale use at present. But we do have to keep trying.

Of course control of pollution is politically difficult -
it can be costly, technically complex, and sometimes when the
damage is irreversible - impossible. In general though, most
industrialised nations are now actively trying to limit the
effects of pollution, but the populous less developed societies
are more concerned with economic growth, and tend to see
pollution as part of the price they have to pay for it.

No Hasbeen, I don't see a need for government money, but one way or
another we are up for some big expenditure.

If our road transport is to change to natural gas that will be very
costly but gas should give us a lot of time to get electric cars and
trucks up to the required specs.
However it would mean putting a cap on gas exports.

Nuclear one way or another will have to come on line because world
peak coal is not all that far away. Again we should put a cap on coal
exports as we will need to stretch it out for many years.
The rest of the world will be in a bind with coal but we should look
after ourselves just like the rest of the world won't look after us
when the oil crunch arrives.

One area that might justify government expenditure is hot rocks.
It looks like commercial development is failing but there is an
enormous amount of free energy down there that it seems a pity to not use it,

Lucyface,

It must be so sad to be functionally illiterate:

I said "It would appear that the original article to which I referred" not "the article"

Perhaps you should read from the Wall street journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464.html

"A more immediately relevant measure of likely warming has also come down: "transient climate response" (TCR)—the actual temperature change expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide about 70 years from now, without the delayed effects that come in the next century. The new report will say that this change is "likely" to be 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius and "extremely unlikely" to be greater than 3 degrees. This again is lower than when last estimated in 2007 ("very likely" warming of 1 to 3 degrees Celsius, based on models, or 1 to 3.5 degrees, based on observational studies).

Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) it is likely that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.

Warming of 1.2C by 2083 (0.8 degrees have already occurred), most of which is predicted to happen in cold areas in winter and at night, would extend the range of farming further north, improve crop yields, slightly increase rainfall (especially in arid areas), enhance forest growth and cut winter deaths (which far exceed summer deaths in most places). Increased carbon dioxide levels also have caused and will continue to cause an increase in the growth rates of crops and the greening of the Earth—because plants grow faster and need less water when carbon dioxide concentrations are higher.

Up to two degrees of warming, these benefits will generally outweigh the harmful effects, such as more extreme weather or rising sea levels, which even the IPCC concedes will be only about 1 to 3 feet during this period."

The end result is still that the effects of climate change are not as severe as the Greenies would have us believe.

The first 'post' by Shadow Minister (?) came to my attention a couple of days ago.

At the time I thought it required a response from someone involved not only in the 'science', but also from one involved in the IPCC process.

Hence, I signed up to The Forum.

In the interim I've had a chance to view some of Shadow Minister's history.

It's blatantly obvious 'Shadow Minister' uses this site to spread disinformation and distortion - it seems for a politico-ideological agenda.

Moreover, it is also obvious that 'Shadow Minister' does not understand the 'science' that s/he so readily and metaphorically wants to dismiss.

I won't be back - I doubt very much s/he would be interested in the 'science' or the IPCC process, let alone try to understand.

Besides, it looks like there are other posters on The Forum that can challenge Shadow Minister's distortions of the truth quite well.

ozdoc,

You are impugning that the analysis in the wall street journal is incorrect, if that is so then put up or shut up.

I would guess that you are a fake with no science qualifications whatsoever, and probably another poster that simply created a new name to pop up, throw mud and disappear. Quite sad really.

Foxy, my challenge was because you stated that Nth America was under a
sheet of ice at only 5deg lower than current temperatures.
Now current temperatures there would be I expect a little lower than here but not that much.
You are stating that if the temperature there fell by 5 deg Nth America
would be covered in ice ! Really !

Dear Bazz,

Let me try again...

The most far-reaching effect of air pollution,
is a change in the global climate. As a result of
burning fuels and wastes and the razing of forests, the
amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is steadily
increasing. This gas creates a "greenhouse effect" on
the planet, for it allows solar rays to reach the
earth's surface but prevents heat from radiating back
into space. The consequence of this will be a global
warming, which will eventually cause the melting of the
polar ice caps, a rise in sea levels, and changes in
weather patterns. This warming effect is already under way,
and average global temperature is expected to rise by 3 to
8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2030. This seems like a small change,
but minor fluctuations in global temperature can have
drastic consequences: during the last ice age, when much
of North America was covered with sheets of ice more than
a mile thick, average temperature was only about 5 degress cooler
than today..."

What will the warmer climate expected in the next century mean?
I won't go into that now - however, I trust that you're
beginning to understand what's being said.

Foxy, or is it Lexi ?
You wrote this;

during the last ice age, when much
of North America was covered with sheets of ice more than
a mile thick, average temperature was only about 5 degress cooler
than today..."

Resolve that !

Foxy wrote: During the last ice-age, when much of North America was covered with sheets of ice more than a mile thick, average temperature was only about 5 degrees cooler than today.
Bazz wrote: Err Foxy, if the temperature was only 5 deg cooler over Nth America than it is today, why didn't the ice all melt.

The use of 'average' world temperature causes a lot of misunderstandings.

For example: The 'average' summer temperature for Australia one year might be 25 degrees - I can just see the tourism ad 'Come to Australia for our mild and balmy summers'. The catch of course is that this could 'average' out 45 degrees in Alice Springs and snowing on Mt Wellington in Hobart. I have myself stood in the bracing Antarctic breeze of summer Hobart (12 degrees plus wind-chill factor), then got on a plane home to 45 degrees.

So it is quite possible to have an 'average' drop of world temperature of 5 degree with ice sheets in N America, in fact a change of 'only' 5 degrees either way in average world temperature would mean huge climatic differences, the local impact depending on world location and the effect of changed oceanic and atmospheric patterns.

I have wondered why climate scientists continue to use the figure of 'average' world temperature increase when it contributes to extremism on both sides: ahh, the temperature is going up 1 (or 2, 5) degrees, we'll all be cooked/drowned! bah, only 1 (or 2,5) degrees, that won't make much difference, why there's more difference than that between day and night!

It seems to be an attempt to simplify an exceeding complex subject, probably the most complex scientific challenge there is (personal experience in the public service, when I criticised some misleading statistical shorthand: but we have to make it simple for the Minister.)

If so, it has back-fired. But the alternative is probably too hard - educating the population in maths, stats and science.

All very well Cossomby, but Foxy said Nth America was covered, I think
she said miles thick in ice at 5c below current which has to mean
something like 10 to 15 deg C.
Now Nth America includes Mexico.
She made no statement that her NA meant just northern Canada.

The only explanation can be that ice melted at a different temperature
at that time.

Dear Bazz,

I have resolved it several times.
You simply can't comprehend the point that is being made.
Try reading Cossomby's explanation, perhaps that will
help. As I've stated earlier - even small
fluctuations in temperature can have dire climate consequences
globally. I'm not stating anything else - but you
can make whatever you will out of it. That's your
prerogative.

Thats right Foxy, just brush it off.

like evolutionary lies the warmist pretend the lies in their text book never existed and move on with their next fantasy. Anyone looking at predictions over the warmist/coolest, climate changers could not take them seriously. Still billions more will be wasted mainly of tax payers money.

Bazz's comment is specious nonsense. The Pleistocene glaciations of Nth America (and Europe) are so well researched and the information is so publically available, that it's not necessary to specify, when referring to the Nth American ice-cap, that it didn't cover Mexico! We don't need to specify when talking about the Great Barrier Reef, that it doesn't extend to Lake Eyre!

There comes a point when "smart" postings just reveal, in Stephen Fry's words "General Ignorance."

OK Cossomby, so I am ignorant, then enlighten me as to why the ice
does not melt at temperatures only 5c below current temperatures ?

Dear Bazz,

Do your own research as I suggested earlier,
if you're really interested in the topic.
Otherwise you're simply stirring - and I'm not
going to bite.

Bazz: OK Cossomby, so I am ignorant, then enlighten me as to why the ice does not melt at temperatures only 5c below current temperatures?

OK, Bazz: Because temperature over the higher altitudes of the Northern Hemisphere wasn't 'only 5 degrees below current temperatures'. The 5 degree drop was the average for the world, tropics included, high latitude/altitude places would have experienced steeper drops, and/or seasonal differences eg if the summers were relatively colder then winter snow would not melt and over time would build up into glaciers and ice sheets which because of their thickness would be more resistant to melting even in a warmer summer.

So much water was tied up as ice, there was less to rain in warmer places eg tropical and temperate regions; less cloudy weather meant colder weather in winter even in lower latitudes/altitudes, resulting in a feedback process. The circumpolar current around Antarctica kept the southern hemisphere (away from Antarctica) warmer but it was also much drier (because of less rain) so glaciers were limited to Tassie and the Alps: the lack of rain counterbalanced towards colder conditions inland; desert dunes were active over much of southern Australia and even in the drier east of Tasmania. This resulted in the apparent paradox that at the height of the ice age the inland lakes of Australia were fullest - because although there was less rain, the colder weather meant less evaporation, and there was more run-off from snowmelt at lower altitudes below the permanent glaciers.

That is a very brief summary leaving out a lot of factors: changes in atmospheric circulation and the increase of land area as the sea level rose.

It is very complicated; so difficult to give a simple answer to your question. There are innumerable books and papers available on the subject from the last 150 or so years.

Congratulations Cossomby,

Someone who actually knows what they're talking about.
Makes a very refreshing change. Welcome.

Thanks also to Foxy for the worthwhile explanatory information.

Strange about 'ozdoc' - peeks in, seemingly to offer some 'informed' comment, and immediately racks-off (or is it wrack-off) with barely a 'peep'. A bit unusual, wouldn't you say?

Anyway, keep up the good work.
(PS. I have to wonder if the IPCC, and 'climate science' generally, is/are going about tackling this issue the right way. Somehow I can't see how microscopic examination of current 'minutiae', crunching all possible variables, can provide us with the necessary answers.
I would have greater hope in the detailed study of the historical record - ice cores, paleo-sediments and such - in quest of answers.)

Thanks Cossomby, I can understand the explanation you have given
except it does not fit too well with Foxy's original statement.

I have not seen maps showing the ice age coverage of Nth America but I
have seen maps showing the ice age coverage of Europe right down to the Mediterranean.
If there was similar coverage in NA, then the ice age would have to be
melting if temperatures were only 5 deg lower than current temperatures.
Presumably it would take a long time to melt it all but
I just cannot see that the ice thickness could be maintained.

The only other explanation I can see is that the summer to winter
differential would have to be very much larger than it is now.

Anyway I think we have worn it out.

My thoughts will not find much of a welcome here.
But this mornings news papers are full of Abbott,s actions in this area.
Yes he was elected with a mandate.
In my view he has the right to rule as he wishes.
I am aware we can question what that mandate is.
Even with some truth claim his only real mandate was to replace Rudd.
But would we on my side support such a view if it was us in office.
I read then re read the story of his actions yesterday.
See in truth I am not yet able to watch the bloke talk, I run to the TV and change channel.
Find my self content to hide behind play school, even watch it!
Until he is silent.
Coming back to the channel after he is gone I cringe and force myself to watch him on the news.
So why do I find myself breaking in to a chuckle?
Acts like this, he has every right to do it, are leaving him and my country exposed, just as true action is taking place we are heading back in to the dark ages.
So? go Tony you good thing! best campaigner for my side in years.
There my ALP friends is our joy Tony is reminding voters of what we lost.

A very interesting article by the world renowned scientist David Suzuki in yesterdays SMH warning Abbott that he ditches the carbon tax at our nation's peril.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/tony-abbott-will-doom-future-generations-if-he-ditches-carbon-tax-20130917-2tx0j.html

Abbott and his cronies in politics and business are driven by the short sighted profit motive and show no regard for the future of the planet. They see action on climate change as a cost to be avoided, an impairment to profits. Abbott and his so called fellow skeptics simply deny the reality of climate change at their peril. Unfortunately these skeptics with their money and power may realise the folly of their ways when its too late to save future generations.

Climate change is a very serious problem that needs to be addressed, it is not helped by fools who insist on grabbing at straws. See below for a factual rebuttal of the ridiculous claims coming from the climate skeptics.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/9/17/science-environment/ipcc-got-it-wrong-or-5-stages-denial.

On the related subject of the carbon tax I ask the following questions:-

Who's in favour of having no roads, laws, police, eduction or health care? or to put in it another way not having having taxes?
So does anyone genuinely believe that we should not put a tax on those things that cause harm such as pollution ?

Even if we believe that CO2 is not a pollutant there is no way that we can extract, and burn fossil fuels on a large scale without causing pollution. The amount of nasty chemicals that are dumped in the atmosphere, when we burn coal is mind-boggling. I find it truly amazing, that a tax on pollution should be meet with such antagonism, and believed to be a great evil, by it would seem the majority of the population.

'Abbott and his cronies in politics and business are driven by the short sighted profit motive and show no regard for the future of the planet.'

what a joke after so many in the warmist industry fleecing the ignorant and gullible of hard earned taxes. Many have learned nothing from Europe's foolishness. Get over it guys the carbon tax was a lie and a con. It does not take to much humility to admit you were gullible.

From a link within the link warmair provided:

" Dr. John R. Christy calculates, even if the U.S. achieved a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050, the net impact would be a reduction in global average temperature of a practically undetectable and inconsequential 7 hundredths of 1 degree Celsius."

That's right, even the U.S. should all sit on its hands because one (mighty) nation alone can't make a difference. Now where else have we heard that?

Australia must at least reach its internationally agreed reduction target, but Abbott's lip-service approach to "Direct Action" while repealing carbon pricing won't get us there.

PS "ozdoc", please come back and give it a shot. Don't worry about SM, he's harmless really.

please get educated
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/climategate.php

i keep hearing silly things

<<>.So does anyone genuinely believe
that we should not put a tax..on those things..that cause harm such as pollution ?>>

absolutely..by all means tax pollution*!*
but dont go saying that i agree c02=pollution

polutants is everything harmfull
GET IT..?<<that cause harm>>..

EVERy POISEN..they add
into our soils airs waters AND OUR BODIES

[like mercury in teeth..[and in vaccines]
or fluoride..designed to dumb us down..
or gmo...[attached to live-virus]

radiation.
micro-particulates

go sip..your soy latte'
grown..upon the corpse of the clear felled amazon

stop..the word poison[spin]
you wanna pay tax..
TAX..THYSELF

when will..you see this really is satans realm?
criminals get away..petty crooks sit in jail

hold the liars to account
seize their proceeds OF COLLUDED CRIME
[dont forget to 'tax' their lackeys too

you got conned
by professional liars
guilt implied..someone lied

"I find it truly amazing, that a tax on pollution should be meet with such antagonism, and believed to be a great evil, by it would seem the majority of the population."
Warmair I don't. Those that ultimately profit to the tune of trillions of dollars from pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels, big oil, big coal, big business, will do anything to prevent those profits from being threatened in anyway. As for the majority in our society, the conservatives are masters at the scare campaign, just tell the people they are threatened in some way and many will jump on board. At one time the big bogie was the communists, and now the terrorist, you can add the global warming scientists to that list as well.
Those that profit the greatest from the way society is structured and operates are the ones that fear and resist change the most. Since they are a minority in our "democratic" society, they use a small portion of their wealth to convince others of the rightness of their way through any means at their disposal. Abbott and his government are a political tool, claiming to represent the people, but in reality they represent the vested interests of big business. That's not to say that this government will not appear to be doing some good some of the time for the people, under our political system any government has to be seen that way otherwise they are in danger of not being reelected at a future date. A vote for Labor does not change the status quo it changes the emphasis but not much else.

crosszombie quote..<<..less cloudy weather>>

hear what he..is saying
havnt you..noticed..on nights
where there is NO CLOUD*..the night temp is cooler

[just recall..back..pre thatcher
london/fog..[cloud]..[industrial/polution]..
[clouds of the poison..of industry/smoking chimneys]

ALL*..blanketing in the heat*

but heat..has knock on affects..
ie look to industrial..[in-dust-real
ie dust..[particulate..that forms rain..[ie percipitation]

by cutting the pollution
[causing 'acid rain'..we lost the REGULAR*/cooling..rain

yet the moisture..is still up there
only now not cloud..yet still..*blanketing in the heat

there is so little dust..up there
when..an event..[that produces particulate]..does come..
all the rain..comes all at once
http://intellihub.com/2013/09/18/fema-asks-volunteers-colorado-flood-stop-go-home/

but back to cossszomby..
<<<..less cloudy weather..meant colder weather>>
more cloud means hot?

<<..in winter..even in lower latitudes/altitudes,..resulting in a feedback process.>>

and chuking bull..'dust'..
into..spin..wont ever make it rain

reinstate the dust..
you then got regular rain..instead of invisible cloud

[humidity]..dont ever rate a mention
but humidity increases electrical conduction

so does acidity
not sure what that all means..
but im so over govt taxing me to death

frightrening us with eternal wars..[lies again]
http://www.tomatobubble.com/id334.html

wanting to kill 2/3 rds of the useless eaters
http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/david-attenborough-stop-feeding-third-world-nations-to-reduce-population/70934/

http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/downturn-despair-suicides-spike-in-age-of-austerity/70905/
baling out the socialist/capitalists

"what a joke after so many in the warmist industry fleecing the ignorant and gullible of hard earned taxes." Runner unless you are a Gina Rinehart or Rupert Murdock type they certainly have you converted, singing from the song sheet, what was that about the ignorant and gullible.

Bazz wrote: I have not seen maps showing the ice age coverage of Nth America but I have seen maps showing the ice age coverage of Europe right down to the Mediterranean.

In Europe, except for a small area on the Alps, the ice sheets were above 50 degrees latitude, well north of the Mediterranean. In North America they came down to below 40 degrees latitude. But if you want a puzzle, the northern area of East Asia was pretty bare - without further checking my guess is that underlying topography and rainfall probably account for this - lower, flatter, drier areas were very cold but without ice sheets (eg Australia).

There are lots of maps on google.

Pual1405 while I understand your thoughts in this matter we must confront some truths.
Bloke not having a dig at you.
Not looking for laughs just deadly serious.
Australia and many parts of the developed world, is being driven away from concerns for climate change and the environment.
I blame that big Circus tent holding the Green /left/concerned mums/ and the sometimes out right stupid actions they live by.
Here is a case in point facts tell us we are in part to blame for this time around climate change.
Yet we may as well be voiceless, I share your concern but far too many never will.
This matter is best served if, please make it so, the greens drop the issue.
If your mob informed some of us/me my pants are on fire I would wait until I felt the heat, truly a blackness falls over every issue if greens get involved.
Still this cycle of climate change is real and we need to cut emissions and we will, in time Liberals will bring true fighting climate change policy to us not the shadowy junk they try to sell currently.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/battle-lines-forming-in-climate-wars-20130918-2tzu4.html
Paul take heart in actions like this.
Time and not much of it will see these acts turn voters away from Abbott.
And know the need to dump Labor stopped voters seeing what they had given mandates for, remember and watch.
We travel one way most of the world the other.

I see the Abbott govt has sacked that publically funded propaganda unit aka the Climate Commission--a good first move.

I know most *thinking* posters will join with me in applauding the initiative.

Bravo!

"I see the Abbott govt has sacked that publically funded propaganda unit aka the Climate Commission--a good first move." quote SPQR

I also note that he has not appointed a science Minister so I guess the Abbott government is expecting a bumper crop of mushrooms. (keep them in the dark and feed them BS). This government reminds me of the last Bush Administration where science was simply ignored, or altered in line with the administrations wishes.

Amazing that after all the evidence that has emerged since climategate and all the exaggerated claims and dire and wrong predictions put out by the warmists, there are still quite a few that still believe in that humans have an impact on global climate. They have a very high opinion of the importance of humans in the whole natural scheme of mother nature. It is a religion, they believe no matter what.

One simple fact remains. It has not been proven that humans have any impact on the worlds climate. The increased CO2 thing is still theory and in fact for the last 17 years there has not been any warming despite huge increases in CO2.

So good on the new government to stop the financial waste of the green schemes and carbon tax, we have serious financial matters to address. If and when AGW is proven will be the time for some action.

Banjo. I guess whatever the next IPCC report tells us will be pure myth as far as you and our new gov't are concerned.
http://ideaa.eu/politiche-economia/the-5-stages-of-climate-denial-are-on-display-ahead-of-the-ipcc-report/

Notice how flat earthers always quote no warming for 17 years? Not 20, or 50 or 100, but 17.
No cherry picking there.
No climate scientist has ever, ever claimed global warming means every single year will be hotter than the last. Climate is just a wee bit more random than that; a simple fact that nobody can deny.
The fact that 9 out of the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred this century would strike most objective (“sceptical”) observers as significant.
Again I ask, what is so good about pollution that makes it worth defending?
What is good about the egregious wasting of non renewable resources, when there are viable alternatives?
Oh yes of course.
It would mean admitting we're not perfect. That perhaps we can do better.
Or, we could just follow the example of the 1920's and 30's farmers of midwest USA, and just think about short term profit.
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/crops_09.html
thar jest ain't no way nuthin mere mortals can do ta change t' climut.

Belly old mate, I love it when you make these fearless forecasts. So far mate I can't remember even one that has been correct. I guess after being wrong about Abbotts imminent demise so many times, you are now making it a standard prediction.

Keep it up, & sooner or later you will have to be right, you might just have to wait a decade or so, judging by how he is starting.

That is a long time to live with the same forecast, a bit like the absolute garbage coming out of the IPCC. It really is amazing that the clowns can be proven wrong every time they open their mouths, but keep producing the same discredited garbage. They must have shares in General Electric, they seem to be masking most money out of the scam, even more than the academics.

Abbott has almost caught up with the sensible people. He has got rid of one small blood sucking Labor fiefdom, but that is just a start.

He has to cancel this stupid garbage of wind/solar power generation, & save us billions. If he does this now, he will be proven right, & should hold power for a decade at least.

@Grimm

<<Notice how flat earthers always...>>

The flat-earthers are the lefties (and you'll find they are almost invariably lefties when you check their posting history) who think that they are going use the AGW campaign/platform as a lever to further their socialist world govt ambitions.

some one..earlier said
how come..the4 degrees increase..dont melt..the ice

do the math
http://polardiscovery.whoi.edu/poles/weather.html

<<..The annual mean temperature at the
South Pole in winter is -76F (-60C) and -18F
(-28.2C) in summer.>>./.

plus or minus..four degrees..lol
[just dont use the north pole numbers against me]
[minus 40..is still darn cold]..

[dont..trust any model..
the real thing is more interactive than we could possibly imagin

http://www.swedenborg.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Usefulness.pdf

i would post here
but cant for 2o hours
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15257&page=0

just as well really..i chase people away..
[no ..no..its a proven fact*-oid.

but people come back..to hear the other posters..
thankfully..and i..slip thoughts through..the cracks
http://www.celestinevision.com/celestine/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3746

OUG, you're killing my scrolling finger!

So, Hasbeen and SPQR, it must be fantastic being so certain that a massive consensus of climate scientists on AGW is wrong. My problem is I want my DNA to live on so I live by the balance of probabilities. Climate change mitigation strategies therefore appeal to me.

The stupidest thing I've heard is that a few degrees extra warmth is something we can live with, just by turning up the air-con presumably.

The salient point is that what is an average temperature change is not uniform globally. The 5 degree lower average temperature than today's that existed in the ice-age meant ice a mile thick where advanced civilization now exists. No doubt Australia will be bypassed the worst aspects of the opposite happening as we progress by degrees towards a higher average global temperature.

It must be so good knowing that God, not man, is responsible. It must be true, Rupert told me so.

Hi Luciferase,

<<My problem is I want my DNA to live on>>
Your DNA? what's so good about being 1 1/2 metres tall, and cross-eyed?

<<The stupidest thing I've heard is that a few degrees extra warmth is something we can live with, just by turning up the air-con presumably>.
Well, "we" certainly wouldn't be doing it if you had your way. In a brave new Luciferase world all the coal mines would be closed and all nuclear power stations would be banned-- so "we" would have no power.

And, since, "we" would likely be paying huge climate damage reparations to the rest of the world "we" probably wouldn't even be able to afford an air-conditioning unit in the first place.

<<It must be so good knowing that God, not man, is responsible. It must be true, Rupert told me so>>
Well,at the moment, even the worst of Rupert's tabloids is proving more credible than the IPCC!

sorry about all the scrolling
but i./.need to..scroll TEN-FOLD*..to find the stuff

funny enough..the same tenfold..
..of the difference..between winter/summer=40/degrees

ie 40 degrees..difference..
between..the hottest winter..hottest summer temp

what is 4 degrees
but 10 fold..

and thats how wrong..the prediction was..
as is soon to be proved to be..ie spin

[fear based..blindsight
fight/flight reflex
guilt..then tax

fact=fact
the sin..is the spin

You've got me ROFL about that midget joke.

I'm all for nuclear (thorium).

"....even the worst of Rupert's tabloids is proving more credible than the IPCC!"

Proving more credible? Interesting. Depends on your standard of scientific "proof"?

Ah, to think my DNA is now voted into the hands of people with your understanding of science (and with your desire to understand science)

Australia's chief scientist is on thin ice and might expect a late-night knock on his door if he doesn't sharpen up..

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=chubb+lateline&rls=com.microsoft:en-au:IE-SearchBox&source=univ&tbm=nws&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=Et07Uq7XCKyziQeWq4CoCQ&ved=0CCwQqAI

Ooops
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=newssearch&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QqQIoADAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Flateline%2Fcontent%2F2013%2Fs3850993.htm&ei=UN47UuLmK8W1iQeFrIHgAg&usg=AFQjCNGiV91VloTculY_5z6YtoE7PgkIwQ&bvm=bv.52434380,d.aGc

Hi Grim,

'Nuthin' ' ? I don't think so. Maybe I heard wrong, but I think I recall a recent mention that the CO2 taken out of the atmosphere by the trees that have been planted in the last twenty years have kept the level of CO2 in Australia at a constant. Maybe I heard wrong, or read wrong, or just dreamt it. But I have great hopes for massive tree-planting projects, a billion trees per year on drippers, forever, across northern Australia, under the control - and ultimately for the profit - of fully-employed Aboriginal communities. That's if they want to do anything at all, of course, admittedly a monstrously huge IF.

But there is so much that can be done, instead of running in circles screaming (although that can be fun, too).

As Marx pointed out, capitalism is an amazingly revolutionary force, it can work its way out of any problem and push science and technology forward at an amazing pace. No, maybe that's me. But I'll stick by it. It's all good.

Cheers :)

Joe

more sea ice
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/earth-has-more-sea-ice-than-1990/

World's top climate scientists told to 'cover up'
the fact that the Earth's temperature..hasn't risen for the last 15 years

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html

* CLIMATEGATE

Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed.

A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft.

Published next week, it is expected to address the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it, which scientists have so far struggled to explain.

...

Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for deniers of man-made climate change.
Webmaster's Commentary:

"Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for deniers of man-made climate change."

GEE; YA THINK?!?
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/09/17/324422/ipsos-poll-finds-distrust-of-polls-in-us/

OUG,

The story so far:

* a rise in world temperatures (at least up to 1997), of a bit over a degree 1n 120 years;

* one and a bit inches rise in sea-levels in the last 120 years. Gosh.

* governments around the world have implemented various mechanisms to slow down the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, like wind-farms, solar panel manufacture, tree-planting, carbonising soils, etc. to reduce the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere;

* as a aside, market-gardeners keep pumping CO2 into their green-houses to promote plant growth, which in turn improves plants' ability to utilise water;

If ever civil and democratic forms of government can be implemented across Africa, just for one example, it is possible that the resources of that continent can be harnessed, that irrigation schemes can be extended to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere at the same time as massively increasing production and raising the standard of living in every country.

Not to mention the reduction of the flow of refugees from one country to another.

On the other hand, we can each retreat to our favorite cave and, every three years, vote Green.

It's up to us.

Cheers :)

Joe
www.firstsources.info

oh dear..im going to repeat my self again
the first people globally..have their own..money system

i tried to./.explain it a few times
most recently..to scientists..[to fund research/cover fees insurance etc

but heck..it will pay for repair[all*..co2 damages,,too
and bailout..the bubble*[soon].

..its time to..ask me questions

thank you..god will provide
if its..needed..important..*to the world
god will fund it..[its a long story[..but im offering..to talk about it]

the first people.of the land..[globally]
have their own*..DODE_GIVEN..money system*..i just need explain it
went..to court in canberra..to prove it..but..FIRST*.the first people..need to claim it*

then..we will use it
people support it simply by banking..with..*our [AB_orignal..commonwealth bank..backed by..the invader*

ANYHOW
hi mary..G
re a comment..your guest made..re our own govt

i write you regarding....PAYING FOR IT*

/re..our own money..

[my name.is johan]

in 2002..i got speared.in front..of ol/parle'ment house...
trying to deliver..the people our money*...
spirit..judged it

.[it works..on..the promise* to pay
by our own notes..promise..is made in pounds..or per seed

the promise upon..the notes..is of of a stated weight..[in pounds/weight]..DELIVERABLE..instantly..in real<..tree/of_life*>..seed.]

wikiseed/wikigeld..was what it was called
basically we..[the people..vote who..gets our cash..plus where its spent..]

its that simple..[numbers =credit]

[50%..is issued..for womans business
as determined..At WOMANS_CIRCLES
FOOD HOME HEARTH/mirth

plus..[50%] for mens
SPIRIT LEARNING DREAMING

or as*..the circles decide

we issue it..as/when needed
[globally]

its based..on what invader money..*USED to be
promis-sorry notes..promising an assured value..a sure product..

[for..contracted goods/aid/repair/compensation
..plus a market..of the seeds[30.000..fruits..not 12'

USED*locally..
collected globally..for local development..local empowerment

[gifted..to elders/children
[whoisnot a child of the father?

via elder circles..
who deem it
as THE..*only legal..>>LAWFUL>tender ...where ever WE,the people..saY*

promise to pay.. off \..in pounds*..
just..like invader money..USED..to be*

[one pound sterling..was A PROMISE..
that the common/wealth bank..would give..*DELIVER.. pound..WEIGHT..[of silver/gold]..

ps [i..under-write..the delivery of the seed*.
.[yearly..on invasion day]..at tent embassy

govt*..already knows*
but been waiting..for us to DEMAND it!

how can we let..people KNOW..
we got our own cash*cow..by god*

I await with interest a good reason, why it is wrong to tax pollution, so far no one on this thread has come up with any sensible reasons, just a lot of ranting and raving on about left wing plots and generally silly attacks on climate Science.

Warmair,

Probably because you are confusing pollution with global warming :) Yes, there is some over-lap, and of course burning coal for example both pollutes and contributes towards global warming. I don't think any body would disagree. But don't blur the two issues, it's not clever.

Apart from that, one could easily suggest that current-generation nuclear power both produces energy AND reduces atmospheric pollution and thereby solve both of your problems at once. Is that what you want ?

Joe

Loudmouth is quite right.
Nuclear power will be the best way to reduce global warming.
Remember any such power here would be best practice.
And look no further that the far far less than that Japan used.
In fact no one could do worse than they did.
We must not let the pink left conservationists stop the best clean up the planet tool Nuclear power.

Belly I suggest the first nuclear power station in Australia be built in your bqckyard, I certainly don't want it in mine, or my grandkids yard. After every nuclear disaster the pro bunch always trot out the same old line, "It wont happen again, we have new technology, we have best practice." that line only works until the next unforeseen disaster.
There are plenty of safe renewable energy alternatives to fossil fuels, nuclear is not one of them. We only need the will to apply safe renewable and sustainable alternatives, but unfortunately vested interest in the form of big coal, big oil and big business make such mega profits that they wont countenance alternatives to their cash cows. We have the Abbott government working for these vested interests at this very moment.

To the pro nuclear mob, this could be all yours one day.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/world/asia/errors-cast-doubt-on-japans-cleanup-of-nuclear-accident-site.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I am no scientist, I simply rely on practical experience and the knowledge that there are many things that humans do not have any impact on. Things like tides, wind, volcanos, earthquakes and continental drift. I cannot see that humans can have any impact on the climate of the world. Whether we get warmer or colder, or the magnetic poles are shifting is all natural occurance and we can do nothing about that, except adapt to any change.

Below is a link to a scientist's opinion that seems to me to be credible and practical.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/report-gives-the-truth-about-climate-at-last/story-fni0cwl5-1226720428390

Paul,

My point was that to confuse pollution with global warming opens the debate to consideration of nuclear power and makes it more acceptable, since ostensibly it avoids both.

As I asked Warmair, is that what you want to happen ?

One degree in a century, one inch sea-level rise in a century. Dynamic capitalism ready to seize any new opportunities to make money from new technologies (hence one of the biggest supporters of Green Energy, General Electric). Not really that much to get hysterical about.

But feel free :)

Joe

Banjo, you sure can pick em, nothing like an unbiased opinion;

Bob Carter is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries (Exxon, Scaife Foundations and Koch Family Foundations, etc).

According to the Sydney Morning Herald in 2007, Carter was "on the research committee at the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank that has received funding from oil and tobacco companies, and whose directors sit on the boards of companies in the fossil fuel sector" and believed, SMH said, that "the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed."

Got any other unbiased experts? LOL

who..paul..does not have a bias..he defends?

facts are spin..
[we ignorants..dont get the science..thus=hollow cost deniers]

so tell me..how does a tax..on 1000.
[no 300?..only will pay..now]..lol

how will 300 polluters stop..the masses polluting?
it was a TAX..on..all of us..not JUST*.300..the LIE*

the sin..is the spin
we all going to drown..[picture of polar bear sitting onice flow/hunting a seal..becomes THE ICE IN THE SKY>>IS FALLING
we need to tax polluters

never mind that when thatcher first concieved the tax
it was global COOLING*..that became warming..then climate CHANGE
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-09-18/science/42182028_1_sunspots-maunder-minimum-solar-cycle

the only constant..was..TAX us
recall..if you will..THE ozone hole..panic[warming warning
so we dumped cfcs..and the OZONE HOLE..is stil warming..bui8t we got rid of cfc doing it

but couldnt tax cfc
so hey carbon..its WEIGHTLESS..so lets tax it by the ton

now how are the numbers..going down again?

what you can make a hockey model stick
great go for it..how much free govt cash you lopt..want

the tax on thin air..
will..[pay it all-off]..

and we buy up..the polluting alternative..
to rebuild industrialization..completely..to destroy and impverish govt/people

what was public asset..
now into cooperate capitalist gain

the poor fools feel the ongoing pain
the rich..have banked their gain
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-09-18/science/42182028_1_sunspots-maunder-minimum-solar-cycle

once they ran that down..govt cash..fixes it..
yet again..gain*

again..going to the same*
guilt..then tax

the lies is coming un-done
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36280.htm

those who defend the indefensible..
say we work for..the exploiters..CURRENTLY..ripping..us off
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2013/09/16/corporate-propaganda-fox-news-sells-fracking-as-incredibly-good-for-our-environment/

yet its they defending lies
see the big boys run..the green/industrial..bubbles true cost

that lost..lo going fast

http://investmentwatchblog.com/stock-market-sell-off-186-the-bernanke-rally-is-already-collapsing-big-boys-getting-out/
http://whatreallyhappened.com/Aaron%20Dykes,%20Truthstream%20Media

tax gmo
http://whatreallyhappened.com/Melissa%20Melton,%20Truthstream%20Media

more bail;outs
http://investmentwatchblog.com/hundred-thousand-investors-told-sorry-we-cant-pay-you-just-the-beginning/

http://investmentwatchblog.com/too-big-to-fail-is-now-bigger-than-ever-before/

>>Belly I suggest the first nuclear power station in Australia be built in your bqckyard<<

I'd be more than happy for the Government to rent my backyard off me and build a nuclear power plant except that it's not big enough and I live on the coast. This is not a good place to build nuclear reactors. Neither is Japan because Japan has a lot of coast and it sits on the Pacific Ring of Fire:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Fire

Australia does not. Australia has a lot really good places to build nuclear reactors and to dispose of high-level waste. I'm sure you'll be pleased to know that none of them are likely to be in your backyard.

>>or my grandkids yard<<

Your grandkids won't have a yard. Haven't you seen the figures on housing affordability?

Cheers,

Tony

Paul,
if you think the opinion of the smh is unbiased then try their political stuff for the last 6 years.

By the way you did not comment on the natural occurring events that I mentioned and your reasons why humans have no influence over them. so why should humans have influence over the worlds climate.

Humans are responsible for only 3.5% of the CO2. How do you propose that we control the naturally produced 96.5% CO2 each year.

The significance of humans is not as great as you believe.

Banjo: "Humans are responsible for only 3.5% of the CO2"

In a natural steady state situation, CO2 into the system via emissions from non-anthropogenic sources matches CO2 out (through natural sinks such as oceans and forests, less deforestation). Anthropogenic sourced CO2 accumulate since they are not taken up fully into natural sinks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

Oceans are acidifying due to the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Banjo, why do you hold such faith in Murdoch for information rather than the IPCC? eg http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/report-gives-the-truth-about-climate-at-last/story-fni0cwl5-1226720428390 ? Even a kangaroo court should at least wait until 27 September for the latest IPCC report rather than undermining it with false assertions.

Oh, and Banjo, if the Telegraph wants to directly pass off opinion as "news" (see heading), anti-AGW protagonist Bob Carter is hardly your unbiased roving news reporter.

"I cannot see that humans can have any impact on the climate of the world. Whether we get warmer or colder"
Banjo, the huge volume of scientific evidence says otherwise. It is your choice to believe the spiel from the likes of Carter published in a junk tabloid printer by an organistion which has been shown to be less than honest. It is not beyond reason that some "scientist" when on the payroll of big business will come up with "evidence" that fits the line being peddled by their benefactor. I'm sure if you pay some "scientiswt" enough money they will "prove" for you the Earth is flat.

Somebody mentioned deforestation. Just out of curiosity, if the world rate of deforestation is more or less calculable, is it possible that there is a rough correlation between deforestation, and therefore less CO2 being taken out of the atmosphere, and at least a proportion of the increase in CO2 levels ?

I'm sure many experts have taken this into account, but I'm just wondering if a rough balance between re-planting, re-forestation and re-vegetation and increases in CO2 emissions could be achieved ?

i.e. that not only DE-forestation must be stopped but RE-eforestation must be adopted on a world scale, and on such a scale that CO2 emissions can be at least partly counteracted ? Is that a crazy idea ? Can re-vegetation/re-forestation become such an important factor that CO2 levels in the atmosphere can actually be reduced ?

Just wondering. Alternatively, we can just run around in circles.

Joe

Careful there Jo, you're skirting with an ETS!

Paul and Lucy,
The warmist scientists cannot explain why the temps have not risen even though we are emitting record amounts of CO2.

You will note that the article I linked to was written by Bob Carter himself and not by a staffer. That is far more credible than something written by a smh journo, trying to disparage somebody.

Your man Tim simply cannot get any predictions right.

You still cannot tell me why humans can influence world climate, but have no influence over other natural events, like tides, volcanos and earthquakes. Despite millions spent, we cannot even make it rain when we want.

There is no factual evidence that humans cause global warming or cooling and I will change my mind when that is proven fact. I have faith that Tim or big Al will let us all know if that happens.

"The warmist scientists cannot explain why the temps have not risen even though we are emitting record amounts of CO2." Quote Banjo.

Yes the can and the reasoning is well supported by the facts.

A few simple facts it takes some 350 times more energy to heat water than it does to heat the same quantity of air.

Global surface temperatures are still increasing albeit more slowly over the last decade.

Due to an increases in a range of green house gases the amount of energy coming in is now out of balance with the amount of energy escaping. This energy has to go somewhere and in fact 98% of it is absorbed by the oceans. We can measure global sea surface temperature relatively easily, but ideally we need to measure the average temperatures of all of the sea water. The ocean's temperature profile goes from warm on top to cold at the bottom in some places it goes from nearly 30 degs C at the surface to around 4 degs C at the sea bed. There are various places and situations where the cold water from the depths is pushed to the surface. This in turn leads to differences in surface temperatures. These changes may take decades to produce an average average change in global temperatures, but yet over the last 50 years we have not had a period grater than a 2 or 3 years when surface temperatures have declined. The trend is Unequivocally upwards.

In order to change the tides, we would have to change the orbit of the moon.
To create a volcano, we would have to find a thin spot in the Earth's crust, preferably over a magma bubble, and drop some serious nukes. A tsunami could conceivably be created in much the same way, although you'd probably have to target a fault.
Continental drift would be a challenge.
To change the atmosphere, however, all we'd need to do is convert 9958 million tonnes of non renewable fossil material into atmospheric pollution every year. The evidence that a change can be effected is visual; just look at the dirty purple haze that hangs over virtually every city in the world.
Then consider that most of that purple haze is created by motor vehicles (most coal fired powered power stations are located outside cities).
Now consider that just the 16 largest container ships create more pollution than all the motor vehicles in the world.
Bob Carter (financed by Big Oil, by no strange coincidence) admits to humans putting 7 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, a figure he describes as “trivial”.
Imagine sitting on a see-saw above a shark pool. The see-saw is in balance, 200b. Tonnes of co2 coming in, 200b. Tonnes going out.
Then somebody drops another 7b. Tonnes on your end.
Loudmouth is quite correct in suggesting that planting trees would help. This was first suggested by Freeman Dyson, quite some years ago. You would first have to compensate for or eliminate the current practice of cutting down trees at the rate of 3200 acres every hour, and of course it doesn't in any way address the egregious waste of non renewable resources.
Sadly, recent studies suggest more co2 is removed from the atmosphere by ocean flora than by terrestrial forests; and that flora is being adversely affected by rising acidification -also caused by rising co2 levels in the atmosphere.

try to see..the simple..things
we SIT*..upon..a HOT*iron core..yet dont get burned

how could this be?
hot air rises..[till the deep freeze
of outer space cools it..and it descends/recirculates..back down..to earth

tell..me..which heat..
is keeping us from freezing?
or which cold..cools?

see that effect..or your self
put..your hand in the fridge..[but as iwrite..my guides
remind me[our atmosphere..is as thin..as an apple skin..

[do you see the insanity..of saying..anytime/soon
we are going..to be boiling to death?

get over it mankind
realize how puny..we really are

ahhhh-men

Grim, the see-saw analogy is good. I also like the half-full bathtub which is emptying at the drain at same rate as it is being filled by a tap, maintaining a constant water level. Then along comes a man to add a bucket of water each year until the bath overflows.

The other I like is the reference always to no temperature increase for however many years as it takes to get us back to 1998, a peak year. The share market analogy is good here as everyone knows the market inexorably rises while there are peaks and troughs within around the trendline.

Yet another is the ocean wave analogy where a large wave at low tide can reach as far onto the beach as small one at high tide and neither wave can tell us whether the tide is coming in or going out.

im serious..about how to pay for it
but regardless..of where i post it..the same silence
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15257&page=0
http://www.celestinevision.com/celestine/forum/viewtopic.php?p=15031#15031

anyhow..here is the fruit..
from..all that..nil-insanity

all i need do..is lodge..an appeal..
or some one sue me..for breach of PROMISE*
but why bother..its only going to further expose my insanity

OR

THE PEOPLE..BEGIN USING IT
or govts use it on their behalf
those not needing..it can give it to..whatever

its already been demanded..for you
demand i..explain/or..demand i deliver*it

i get it..but
people dont want it..

i got it.
so sue me
thats all i got

back to pope..catholhlic../
or..c of e..[hrh]*..on..behalf of
*her common..[colonizer..[wealth/..trustee ship]

he/she..should adopt..gods money..
based on..the living *promise..of living seed

OH WELL..lets go read..[the next small scroll
/rock..and roll../duck and cover
love one an other

from..one pope to the other

http://www.americamagazine.org/pope-interview

Interesting article in NewScientist this morning:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24246-green-energy-pays-for-itself-in-lives-saved-from-smog.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news#.Uj-Jtt_yk38

Perhaps to overcome the problems of overpopulation -and an aging population- we should just issue everyone under the age of 50 with gas masks.

Here's an interesting link.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/9/23/science-environment/denial-sphere-rolls-out-trumpets?utm_source=exact&utm_medium=email&utm_content=432140&utm_campaign=cs_daily&modapt=

You've got that back to front there Grim.

Why on earth would you want to wipe out all intelligent life on the planet, & leave only the fools behind?

Rather than add to the speculation as to what might be in the next IPCC report, I suggest waiting for it to be released and then have an informed discussion.

it is a complete fiction regarding the climate and the report for IPCC.LNP will get it away from carbon tax.

If the conservative climate change skeptics on here bothered to get their head out of Murdoch's fish wrapper, The Daily Telegraph, or tuned out of shock jock radio and tuned in to the ABC's Q&A programme last night they could have seen David Suzuki answering questions on climate change. If after listing to Dr Suzuki you are not convinced climate change is real and a danger to life on this planet then all I can suggest is you turn back over to your favorite reality TV show Big Brother on 9, pick up your phone vote to evict what's her name and go back off to La La Land and your denial of what is the true reality.

PS Media Watch also exposed Murdoch's Australian media for its lies on climate change much of which the conservative skeptics have posted links to on here.
Can I ask, for you conservatives is Rupert Murdoch some kind of god. To me he is nothing more than the head of proven criminal organisation, a very rich one that is, but the head of a criminal organisation never the less.

Hi Paul,

So, let's see:

World temperatures have risen by barely one degree in 120 years. Do you deny that ?

Sea-levels have risen by barely an inch in 120 years. Do you deny that ?

World temperatures have been more or less the same for seventeen years. Do you deny that ?

I was appalled at Suzuki last night, I didn't realise he was such a charlatan, I've always had some respect for him. The way he tried to brow-beat that bloke who raised some of the above issues was an abuse of his position writ large. Disgusting.

Joe

I incorrectly posted this on the other climate thread http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/

Looks like Mediawatch has picked up on all the major points, including Bob Carter's own gullibility for believing the lies that emanate from Murdoch. You'd think if he knows anything at all it would be that Murdoch was lying about the IPCC forecasts. How can he possibly be held up as an expert, let alone an unbiased Telegraph "news" reporter.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they attack you, then they admit you are spot-on. I can wait :)

Joe
www.firstsources.info

SM, The Daily Mail in Britain has published a retraction for getting its story on climate change wrong. As you started this thread and it was based on The Daily Mail's inaccurate reporting are you also go to apologise for getting it wrong.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they attack you, then they admit you are spot-on."
Yep, that's what Michael Mann reckons.

Hi Grim,

So you're prepared to agree that temperatures have risen barely an inch in a century, sea-levels by barely an inch in a century, and that average world temperatures have not risen substantially in fifteen years ?

Or are you - horrors ! - a 'denier' ?

Cheers,

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Paul,

As above I have already done so. When it became clear that a particular aspect of the article which I quoted was wrong. However, the jist of the article being primarily that much of the hysterical hyperbole of the greenie groups has been shown to be complete fiction.

As mentioned before, 500m yrs ago CO2 was 2000ppm, and while the temperatures were slightly higher, and the sea levels were higher, life flourished. If we burnt all available fossil fuels we would not reach this level.

Also the elephant in the room is that even if Aus reduces its emissions to zero, without a global agreement, there will be no measurable difference in either CO2, temperatures, or sea levels. Going it alone simply makes more coal / gas available at a cheaper price for those with no carbon tax, such as China, India, most of the USA and Canada, and the entire 3rd world.

So while I clearly understand the link between emissions and climate change, I have heard enough far fetched pseudo science "crap" from environmental groups to firmly place them in the idiot bin. By 2050 with a population of 9bn+ and the growth of India, China etc, the world will be vastly different, and my guess is that climate change will probably not even be the top environmental issue.

"So while I clearly understand the link between emissions and climate change, I have heard enough far fetched pseudo science "crap" from environmental groups to firmly place them in the idiot bin. By 2050 with a population of 9bn+ and the growth of India, China etc, the world will be vastly different, and my guess is that climate change will probably not even be the top environmental issue."

For someone who bangs on at considerable length on these subjects, it turns out you're quite an ignorant little Shadow Minister.

Loudmouth,

"So you're prepared to agree that temperatures have risen barely an inch in a century, sea-levels by barely an inch in a century, and that average world temperatures have not risen substantially in fifteen years ?"

You know next to nothing about this complex subject.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

"The atmosphere stores only about 2% because of its small heat capacity. The surface (including the continental ice masses) can only absorb heat slowly because it is a poor heat conductor. Thus, heat absorbed by the oceans accounts for almost all of the planet’s radiative imbalance."

@Poirot,

Loudmouth: <<<So you're prepared to agree that temperatures have risen barely an inch in a century...>>
Poirot: <<You know next to nothing about this complex subject...>>

Just answer the question, Poirot.
Surely it's either yes of no!

You have been bagging Tony Abbott for ages about his slipperness.
You'd beat any of the pollies by a country mile

YES or NO?

incidently --on a related issue-- having noted that you are such a big fan of full and open discloure (having noted your lampoon of the govts illegal-boaties reporting stance). When are you going o stand-up and DEMAND Tim Flannery tell us all who is funding his new position?

Hi Poirot,

"You know next to nothing about this complex subject."

Yup, you got that right. All I know is:

* that average world temperatures have risen by less than 1.5 degrees in 120 years,

* that sea-levels have risen around the world by less than two inches in the same time (except for Fiji where, according to a delegate at Copenhagen, mountains are being swamped as we speak), and

* that average world temperatures have not risen significantly in sixteen years.

And yes, also, that trees - massive plantations of them - suck CO2 out of the air. Plants love CO2. So of course, deforestation should cease, or be controlled, while massive RE-forestation projects should be implemented Like across north Australia, for example.

A cat can look at a king, they used to say. An idiot can also point out the obvious. You should try it some time :)

Cheers,

Joe

Don't be such a silly ignorant little Parrot,

Uncritically swallowing the pseudo science from the greens (who generally have no science training whatsoever, as I suspect is your situation) is blatant ignorance.

Most of the actual research papers I have read over the last couple of decades give readings, trends, hypothesis, and defined limits of their implications etc, but certainly no wild extrapolated predictions of the type that green activists love to publish without any consideration of the caveats or limitation that the authors papers put on their conclusions.

I have seen articles showing Australia flooded by 200ft sea level increases, and even in this thread a stupid article from the SMH showing desert superimposed on the outskirts of Sydney. Only a moron would swallow that.

SPQR,

"....When are you going o stand-up and DEMAND Tim Flannery tell us all who is funding his new position?"

(Gawd, there's some thickies around here:)

It's "Crowd-funded".

http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/

Raised their first $400,000 in two days from donations.

SM,

If you over-indulge in denier tripe (there's plenty out there) at the expense of expert analysis, you'll confirm your bias.

Parrot,

If you over indulge in alarmist tripe, you will find plenty of unsubstantiated papers.

I don't deny climate change, neither do I feel it necessary to wildly over exaggerate the effects and consequences. I read peer reviewed articles in respected journals, and unsurprisingly their conclusions and certainty differ considerably from the alarmist BS that is often in the public arena.

I have the science background to differentiate between research and propaganda which you obviously lack.

I guess it all depends on how you define "significant", Loudmouth.
Personally, I would suggest that having 9 out of ten hottest years on record occurring this century, DESPITE a significant slowing down (note, slowing down, not stopping) of the warming trend to be “significant”; ten of ten if we use the 17 years so beloved by flat earthers...
It should also be noted as Poirot points out that the temperature record is largely about atmospheric temperatures; no one is quite clever enough to put together a “whole of earth” (crust, deep ocean, atmosphere) temperature record as yet. These are things genuine scientists would I'm sure cheerfully -or at least, willingly- admit, because that's what scientists do; discovering what was previously unknown is what they live for -as compared to people who get all their 'science' from tabloid newsrags, or the back of cornflakes packets.
I agree with Shadow minister that some claims appear to be far fetched, but the point is, we really don't know, do we? As we know, there was a time when the idea that the world was round must have seemed incredibly far-fetched.
There are still people who find the concept of evolution far-fetched, incredibly enough.
Surely the simple fact that these worst case scenarios are scientifically plausible, even if unlikely, should give us pause.
Is the right to pollute our environment and waste non-renewable resources really worth fighting for?

"I have the science background to differentiate between research and propaganda which you obviously lack."

Hee, hee...how familiar, from non-climate specialists.

I'll see your parrot and raise you one denierbird.

Lol!

Correction:

I said earlier that the Climate Council raised $400,000 in two days.

Apparently that amount was raised through donations from the public in only 24 hours.

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/power-to-the-people-reborn-climate-counicl-raises-400k-in-24-hours/

Parrot, your childish response obviously means that you have no scientific background whatsoever,

Parrot or liar-bird?

Hi Grim,

Why does everybody miss the second part of the discussion,

" .... that trees - massive plantations of them - suck CO2 out of the air. Plants love CO2. So of course, deforestation should cease, or be controlled, while massive RE-forestation projects should be implemented, like across north Australia, for example" ?

Why this love of horror stories, 200 ft sea-level rise, etc. ? And disregard of what to do it, about 2 inches in a century ?

I think I read somewhere recently, and maybe I got it wrong, that tree-planting across Australia (maybe combined with wind-farms and solar energy generation) has already reduced CO2 levels to a ready-state level. Is that possible ?

In other words, can human activity counter the increase in human-caused CO2 emissions ?

Just putting it out there.

Cheers,

Joe

'I said earlier that the Climate Council raised $400,000 in two days.

Apparently that amount was raised through donations from the public in only 24 hours. '

wow religion is a big business. Imagine that money was used to clean up the planet instead of pushing the propaganda. Fat chance. A long way short of the millions that the Labour party ripped the taxpayers off to support the charlatans. Tim might be able to but another waterfront property a few more metres back in case the first one gets done in by rising sea levels. what a joke.

Dear runner,

Whether we choose to destroy our civilisation or save it
is a collective decision and one that hopefully will be
made within our life-time. It would be wonderful if we
could divert unprecedented energy and resources to the
real problems that face us, including poverty, disease,
overpopulation, injustice, oppression, and the
devastation of our natural environment. This will only
happen when and if people no longer take their world
for granted, and instead understand the social authorship
of their lives and futures. They can become an irresistible
force in history. We need to enhance the life on the
bright and lovely planet on which billions of us share
our adventure. We need to face the challenges before us and
hold our leaders to account - not close our eyes and
expect others to do it for us.

Oops. I meant to write: " .... to a steady-state level. Is that possible ?"

Runner,

I'm coming to the depressing conclusion that most people crave certainty, and so questioners have to be ostracised, alienated, subtracted and, if possible, purged. As an Old Socialist, I suspect that many of my former colleagues loved the 'up-against-the-wall' a bit too much, and the 'work-for-the-people' a bit too little.

I just came across this gem:

"The seeker after truth, does not place his trust in any consensus, however broad or however venerable: instead, he subjects what he has learned of it to his hard-won scientific knowledge, and he scrutinizes, measures, and verifies ... The road to the truth is long and hard, but that is the road we must follow."

— Abu Ali al-Hassan Ibn al-Hussain
Ibn al-Haytham (ca. 965-1040),

although, as a Popperian, I disagree with the 'verify' part: yes, we run with what seems the most temporarily 'verifiable', but should be ever-ready to question our own conclusions.

And I would respectfully suggest that " .... the road to the truth is long and hard" and never-ending.

Utterly out of place with any religion. Like Flanneryism. Or Suzukiism. Or Pachauriism.

Joe

'We need to face the challenges before us and
hold our leaders to account - not close our eyes and
expect others to do it for us. '

maybe we need to thank the Western leaders for bringing us cars, longer life, heating and the ability to travel. If people are truely concerned about carbon destroying the planet they would be in India or China protesting instead of playing stupid political and religous games here. When the pensioners who freeze in the winter and boil in the summer are cared instead of the gw industry becoming rich on there propganda people will be less agitated by these false prophets.

Excuse me if I ignore your obvious ignorance, runner....your vacuous comments are not worth a second's reflection.

David Suzuki

http://theconversation.com/david-suzuki-australian-scientists-should-be-up-on-the-ramparts-18505?utm

"How can we make truly informed decisions if the scientific community itself is shut down? I say to you, that in your society scientists better be up on the ramparts making sure you don’t fall on the path that Canada is on right now. When politicians are relieved of having to pay attention to real information – to science – they can base their decisions on what: the Koran? the Bible? My big toe has a bunion?"

thankfully the naive children who think like you Poirot have been tossed out of power. get over it.

Oh yes, runner.

It's so grown up, the Prime Minister (That is the "Prime Minister") disappears for days on end upon his party being elected to government.

We all know he's got nothing constructive to offer aside from spruiking slogans and taking orders from his masters.

And you appear to think he's grown up.

Is Julie Bishop grown up too?

So much for her adult diplomacy:

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/jakarta-fires-new-warning-shot-on-coalitions-asylum-seeker-policy/story-fn9hm1gu-1226727761442?utm

What about the science minister?

Oh, sorry, I forgot that there is no science minister - first time since early last century.

Is that grown up?

Even the IPCC is now admitting that the Earth has not warmed for the last 15 years, despite a (slight) increase in CO2.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100238047/global-warming-believers-are-feeling-the-heat/

The "rational"..according to Lord Nicholas Sterling,..believe that the warming is "hiding" in the deep ocean (although this is contrary to the laws of physics which state warm water would rise).

The fact is that none of the forecasts have come to pass. Ten years ago the Guardian predicted snow would be a thing of the past. We have had several record setting winters since then and look to be heading into another, as solar activity (the overwhelming influence on Earth's climate) is at a 100 year low.

Ten years ago the head of Greenpeace predicted that Greenland would lose all of its ice in twenty years. We are half-way through that prediction and Greenland not only still has all of its ice, it actually has a bit more.

NASA has confirmed that CO2 in the atmosphere does not in fact act like a pane of glass in a greenhouse, but actually acts as an atmospheric coolant. There are far more potent greenhouse gases in the atmosphere such as water and methane, but carbon dioxide was chose as the villain by the Carbonazis as it would be blamed on human activity, in order to scam money out of the people through carbon taxes and carbon credits (said scams being one way Lords become rich enough to be Lords).

And the leaked emails and computer code from the Hadley Climate Research Unit and the University of East Anglia confirm that the claims of warming were a scam, complete with outright deception in the presented data.

Having failed to accurately predicted the real world temperature change, the exposure of the "Climategate" emails, and with the actual science more and more undermining the screeches of "Hockey sticks" and demands for carbon taxes,
http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/news/leading-climate-change-scientist-bashes-irrational-skeptics

http://undergrounddocumentaries.com/the-light-bulb-conspiracy-planned-obsolescence-full-version/
http://12160.info/page/rejoice-america-you-are-now-3-trillion-wealthier-due-to-a-definit

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/twitter-followers-obama-fake/2013/09/25/id/527670

Thanks, OUG,

I needed a top-up of bunkum tonight.

You provided it.

(One can always rely on OLO for that)

Issues, Poirot - otherwise just stay in the sand-pit with the other kiddies.

Cheers :)

Joe
www.firstsources.info

anyhow..[that bunn-kum..included this vidio]
http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/news/leading-climate-change-scientist-bashes-irrational-skeptics

anyhow..my..minds/not on..the topic
yet.this applies..

extracted..from
http://www.divinetruth.com/PDF/People/Other/Jane%20Sherwood%20-%20Post%20Mortem%20Journal.pdf

discovery..*I..make an/atmosphere..which drives..everyone..away.

Luckily Mitchell..had/great delicacy..and adopted..such an
objective_attitude..that I could..just..bear his scrutiny with equanimity.

Then..he startled me.

‘I..am worried..about the/*repressions..you..have practised
and I..don’t think..we can get..a proper/balance..until you..have let go..on them,..he said.

‘You mean..?..I asked.
‘You have..lived..a monk-like..existence
and my advice.to you..is to go and..experiment with..all the experiences..you missed..*on earth...

<<..*Go on..a proper spree.

<<..Don’t tell..yourself..that you..are too fastidious
and..don’t/want to...Deep down..you both..want to..*and need to.

Unless..you can release..some of..the forbidden/desires
the amount..of stored and dangerous..emotion..will constantly overset your equilibrium..and keep you..in a state/of turmoil.

Hence..my advice..to you
to open..the safety/valves.

There are..many things..to make
clear..to you..which will/make..such a course..less distasteful.

My/dear fellow,..I am..not counseling..irresponsibility
but.at present..you are such.a dangerous volcano..of eruptive forces that you..will not be able..to make progress here...>>

<<..If I am..to help..get you right..for this/plane
you must be..content to..go lower..for awhile..and compensate..by some..really riotous/living..for all..you have..(*chosen..to miss.’

This diagnosis ..as a shock..and has thrown me
into ..a worse state..of turmoil.than ever.

For awhile..I sat silent..and I
suppose..my agitation..was too strong,
for when..I looked/up again..my friend had gone.

I have to..get used..to these sudden
comings..and goings..but..on this occasion..I was glad.to be alone
.
I.have never been...more at a loss.
Suppose I agree..to do my best..to do.my worst,.as it/were;..how to set.about it?

I have..wandered back..to my own room
to ponder..Mitchell’s advice.

My earthly standards..apparently will/not do here;
all is..topsy-turvy.>>>..

AND BUNKUM*..

<<*Here is a responsible..and serious/doctor..
telling me..quite calmly..to go..to the devil..and I,..a monk-like solitary..am seriously contemplating..taking his advice.>>

<<..I can begin..to understand..too
that the advice is good...>>

<<>.The reserve/of..emotional power..which
has driven me..so hard..in life;..the restless activity,..the impatience,..the craving for speed>>..

<<..this..overload..of power
is now too strong..for its..frailer body...Some..blood-letting is indicated.>>

<<..But again,..how*..to set about it?>>

see..why its better..*out..than in*..?
life/issues..should be explored..while living*

but..for me..the issue=dead
lies/spin/guilt/name-calling..

*we shall..know them..by their fruits.

Loudmouth,

"Issues, Poirot - otherwise just stay in the sand-pit with the other kiddies."

That's a laugh coming from you - on the subject of climate science.

Here are the "issues" from someone actually qualified to write about them.

http://m.livescience.com/39957-climate-change-deniers-must-stop-distorting-the-evidence.html

The Australian, The Daily Telegraph, and others
in the Murdoch fold misrepresented key facts from
leaked copies of the draft IPCC report and left out
many others - and here we have an entire thread
based on that information.

Foxy,

"....here we have an entire thread
based on that information."

Welcome to denierland.....

Climate Council.

Crowd funding $800,000 in three days.

I reckon that would have come from the contractors who made the 8 billion from those unnecessary desalination plants.

If they can keep Flannery in the fraud business, there will be a few more billion of tax payer funds to rip off building all sorts of pie in the sky stupidity.

Windmills anyone?

Poirot,

Oy. NO, I know bugger-all about climate science (my main field was economic geography), but the key outcomes interest me, and what we can do about them. For instance:

* have average world temperatures risen by barely a degree in a century or not? Yes or no ? True or false ?

* have sea-levels risen by barely two inches in 120 years, or not ? Yes or no ? True or false ?

* are these minor problems amenable to human amelioration or not ? Yes or no ? True or false ?

I respectfully suggest you find the courage somewhere to answer these questions, or stay in the sand-pit.

Cheers :)

Joe

Loudmouth,

"I respectfully suggest you find the courage somewhere to answer these questions, or stay in the sand-pit."

You laughably behave as if your two ridiculously simplistic questions are of monumental moment.

Why would I bother with them?

I can't think of any reason.

If you're that interested, do some research - or better still, wait for AR5 and do it then.

Of course, I know you're not really interested. You think your questions are somehow show stoppers.

They aren't.

Lol!

Hi Poirot, sweetie,

Yes/ no ? After all, they do make all the difference between BS and what is doable.

Cheers :)

Joe

"Hi Poirot, sweetie,"

That kind of sums you up, doesn't it Loudmouth.

Simplistic questions.....and a resort to sexist patronising BS.

You must get awfully frustrated when you debate the fellas around here.

Not being able to deploy that one.

Pathetic.

(But amusing)

OK Loudmouth, I'll play your silly game.
But since it is your game, I bags you go first.
It's all about balance, isn't it? CO2 in, CO2 out... yes or no?
Was the ecosystem “in balance” (no “anthropomorphic interference) 10,000 years ago? Yes or No.
Human population 1,000,000.
Today, more than 7,000,000,000.
10,000 BPA forests covered more than 50% of land area.
Today 25%.
10,000 BPA Human carbon pollution; effectively zero.
Today, 7,000,000,000 tonnes.
Still in balance? Yes or no.
9 out of 10 hottest years in recorded history occurred this century; 10 out of 10 in the last 17 years.
Coincidence? Yes or No.
Describing people who get their science news from credible, peer reviewed journals as “running around in circles” and “hysterical” while people who get their science news from tabloid newsrags as “sensible” and “reasoned” shows egregious bias, yes or no?
Every city on the planet has significant, measurable smog levels, yes or no.
Most of that smog comes from transport vehicles, yes or no.
and yet, just the 16 largest container ships create more atmospheric pollution than all the vehicles on the road, yes or no.
Oceans are becoming measurably more acidic, yes or no.
Ocean flora, (eg. algae) sequester more CO2 than all the (diminishing) forests in the world, yes or no.
Ocean flora is being adversely affected by rising acidification, yes or no.
If your doctor suggested your lifestyle was seriously threatening your health, and this bothered you enough to ask for a second opinion, then 98 more opinions, and 97 out of the hundred doctors you consulted agreed with the first one, would you prefer the analysis of the 3 contrarians (who were, incidentally, all in the pay of the very people causing your health problems), yes or no?

Between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels rose 195 mm (7.7 in)
From 1950 to 2009, measurements show an average annual rise in sea level of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year, with satellite data showing a rise of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009, an accelerated rate.
Please show us some evidence that continuing to do “like our Daddy done, and his daddy before him” is a clever strategy.

Thank you, Grim. I'm a bit sceptical about that seven-inch sea-level rise the IPCC talks about - I live half a mile from the beach and I haven't noticed any sea-level rise in fifty years, it looks pretty much the same since I slept on it back in 1963. Yes,

I can understand that the rebound from Ice Age glaciation may explain why there has been no sea-level rise in Sydney Harbor, but Adelaide ?

And you touch on exactly what I have been going on about bla bla bla ad nauseam: re-forestation - and it raises the question in my mind: can re-forestation [and of course, stopping any further de-forestation, that goes without saying] counteract the production of CO2 emissions ?

Yes, nasty humans, capitalist economic activity, have caused something, smog, etc., but has it been catastrophic, and can nothing be done about it ?

I sleep soundly. I wish I could join the herd, it's lonely out here, but there you go, that's life.

Joe

"can re-forestation [and of course, stopping any further de-forestation, that goes without saying] counteract the production of CO2 emissions ? "

http://newint.org/features/2006/07/01/carbon-cycle/

Cap and trade is seen as the better approach, Joe, but it has its own issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading_scheme#cite_note-138

Lucerifade,

Cap and trade, if i knew what it was: I don't trust any of those schemes to do the job, capitalists can work their way around them all.

Stop de-forestation and land clearing, and plant billions of trees across the North, irrigated on drippers and all the work done by people in nearby Aboriginal communities. That would provide work for life for Aboriginal people so keen to do it, perhaps even overtime working in nurseries and pumping stations !

Of course, NEVER burn the wood generated, use it for house-building or furniture or mulching back into the soil. Imagine taking that idea to Africa, irrigating vast areas for local production.

Win-win-win !

Now let's get on to more serious problems. Gay marriage. Blue or pink baby clothes. A tunnel under Melbourne. Moving Garden Island to Brisbane. Come to think of it, moving Melbourne to Hobart, or further south. As far south as possible.

Joe

just had a great laugh watching the abc new pushing the gw religion again. How pathetic.

Try this for answers to specific questions, Joe.
http://www.climaterapidresponse.org/about.php

".....capitalists can work their way around them all." Capos are working their way around the whole need for carbon abatement right now, just look what they've achieved in Australia recently, smashing carbon pricing out of their way. Should we put something in their path or should we just give up and cede the future to them?

"Of course, NEVER burn the wood generated, use it for house-building or furniture or mulching back into the soil."

Mulching returns much of the carbon to the atmosphere as CO2 or CH4. All planting and building structures from wood might do is buy some sequestation time, which we do need, but it's not the answer. Read more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset#Effectiveness_of_tree-planting_offsets

Joe, you're down to three choices. Join the AGW denialists, join the carbon mitigation movement which means aiming for fossil fuels to stay in the ground, or, bury your head in it.

SM,

"It was pointed out to me that about 500m years ago CO2 levels were about 2000ppm (5x that of today) and life flourished and temperatures were not that different from today."

Which extinction event would you like to choose from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian%E2%80%93Ordovician_extinction_event

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordovician%E2%80%93Silurian_extinction_event

"The Ordovician–Silurian extinction event, the Ordovician extinction, was the second-largest of the five major extinction events in Earth's history in terms of percentage of genera that went extinct and second largest overall in the overall loss of life."

Here's some more info on your abundant life around 500 million years ago:

" While diverse life forms prospered in the oceans, the land was comparatively barren – with nothing more complex than a microbial soil crust[9] and a few molluscs that emerged to browse on the microbial biofilm[10] Most of the continents were probably dry and rocky due to a lack of vegetation. Shallow seas flanked the margins of several continents created during the breakup of the supercontinent Pannotia. The seas were relatively warm, and polar ice was absent for much of the period."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian

So it's very easy to take a simplistic glance and dismiss the "science".

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-basic.htm

"In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions."

"When looking at events such as these from the deep geological past, it is vital to keep in mind that there are many uncertainties, and generally speaking, the further back we look, the more there are. As our paleo techniques improve and other discoveries emerge this story will no doubt be refined. Also, although CO2 is a key factor in controlling the climate, it would be a mistake to think it's the only factor; ignore the other elements and you'll most likely get the story wrong."

It does not bring joy that the IPCC found that it's 95 per cent certain that humans are behind the planet's rising temperatures.
The naive climate change skeptics will continue to be lead by the nose by vested interests, big oil, big coal big business who always put profits before people.
The IPCC said to ignore the warnings would have dire consequences for the planet and mankind. Unfortunately here in Australia Abbott and his cronies are about to repeal the carbon tax which shows that the government has caved into vested interests and will do what's required to serve their political masters in big business.
We now require the political will to take action on climate change although such action might be unpalatable at times. This requires voting out the Abbott government, the political puppet of big business, and voting in those, like The Greens, who are committed to action on climate change for the good of the planet and its people.

A comment of Grim's earlier post (to Loudmouth)

Hi Grim,

Your post is very good because it reveals a common misconception. You conflate over population, general pollution and the impact of green-house gases.

The AGW case (as pushed by the IPCC) is all about green-house gases warming the planet.

It has little to say about over population and little to say about poor farming methods or general pollution.

I, and I'm sure a lot of others, would agree that over-population and general pollution has had a detrimental affect on the planet & ecosystems.

But to side with the IPCC mob because you want a cleaner planet is missing the point.

The IPCC/AGW bandwagon is not an umbrella group for everyone who has an environmental concern.The IPCC might even be seen to make things worse by putting the focus on CO2 at the expense of other issues.

Of course global warming is taking place, but can human activity mitigate the effects of increased emissions from increasing use of fossil fuels ?

The problem is that other anti-mitigation activity is happening all the time, mainly de-forestation and land clearing.

In fact, here's an observation of a layman: over the past couple of centuries, vast areas have been cleared, de-forested, across the world and it continues unabated. Southern South Australia was covered in various mallees and other eucalypts only 170 years ago, but now all one sees in mny parts is bare hills, mainly for the mining industry, the paddle-steamers and agriculture.

My naive question:

Since the uptake of CO2 by plants and forests can be measured, is it possible to measure the impact on increasing CO2 levels of that land-clearing over those years, to estimate the amount of emissions of CO2 from this cause ? And can the damage be un-done ?

In other words, is it too rosy an outlook to imagine that RE-planting on a huge scale might have the impact it used to have, of sucking CO2 out of the air ?

And I'm not so sure that mulch emits CO2, as someone suggested. I thought it builds the soil and provides nutrients for organisms and plants. Still, I'm no expert in anything really.

Just putting it out there :)

Joe
www.firstsources.inf

Loudmouth,

Deforestation accounts for approximately 10 -15% of global carbon emissions.

Here's an analysis of Abbott's Direct Action plan - "....up to 85 million tonnes per annum of CO2 abatement through soil carbons...."

http://theconversation.com/will-the-oppositions-direct-action-plan-work-12309

"To achieve the pledged return of an annual 85 million tonnes of CO2, Australian wood production would need to be around four times what it currently is by 2020. The minimum land requirements for this additional wood production would be close to two times the size of Sydney by 2020."

"The ultimate goal will necessarily be to achieve carbon neutrality. In this case, soil sequestration simply could not fulfil such obligations without major shifts away from a carbon driven economy – we will have to reduce emissions if we hope to sequester all we create.

The Direct Action Plan seems unlikely to be a viable counter pathway to the established price on carbon, because a carbon price has intrinsic market-based motivators to decouple carbon emissions from economic growth."

"In other words, is it too rosy an outlook to imagine that RE-planting on a huge scale might have the impact it used to have, of sucking CO2 out of the air?"

Sure why not? Reforestation has to help but getting us back to where we were pre-industrialization is not enough, and overtaking the pre-industrial level of forestation.involving large population displacement, is not going to solve the problem going forward. In any case, look at the immense magnitude of the proposal.

Joe, we're casting around for unworkable alternatives to doing the hard thing here.

Hi Poirot & Luciferade,

My point about de-forestation was not just the act of destroying forests but the long-term impact of LESS forests afterwards available to take up the increasing CO2.

I have great faith in scientists to come up with solutions that we can't even imagine yet. For example, finding ways to make trees edible. Seriously. To convert biomass to food. At least that would put more fibre back in our diet.

Luciferade, there are vast areas of the world, even in Australia, where very few people, if any, would be displaced - if anything, more people would be required in currently-'empty' areas to plant, run nurseries and irrigation systems, transport materials to and fro - and yes, of course, it would have to be on a massive scale.

But it's good to see that you are thinking about such things. One can run around in panic for only so long :)

Joe
www.firstsources.inf

"But it's good to see that you are thinking about such things"
We have to go over all the alternatives Joe in coming to face up to what must be done.

We have cleared the best land for growing new trees for our own other important purposes. Do we now displace those purposes? Moreover, your faith in sequestration by methods yet undiscovered, and the fact that soil sequestration, especially at the magnitude required, is still at pie in the sky level, means we are fiddling while Rome burns.

Planting trees under "Direct Action" will give us all warm fuzzies, adding to the warmth it's supposed to avert. But, of course, we must go down this path, it appears, before finding the bullet is still in our mouth to be bitten.

Sorry about the crappy metaphors, Joe, but you just have to move forward in your thinking about this.

Luciferade,

Don't we all ?

Joe

G'day SPQR,
I agree that the media focus on CO2 is far too narrow, but to suggest that the IPCC (International Panel for Climate Change) is actually the International Panel for Carbon Dioxide is misguided at best.
The Panel has -I believe- only 12 permanent staff. Contributions are voluntarily made from credible, peer reviewed sources in 120 countries. These sources -Universities, Government and private bodies- cover a range of topics, including not just studies of the atmosphere, but geologists, hydrologists, vulcanologists, oceanographers, agriculturalists, botanists, foresters, biologists, statisticians, physicists...
Population densities, transport, energy requirements; it would be impossible to make any even vaguely accurate predictions without considering these factors.
More people means more cars, more energy requirements, more arable land, more transport, even more cows and pigs farting.
All these factors and more come under the “umbrella” of the IPCC -and have been the cause of derision and mockery from the flat earth side.
Perhaps that's why so much emphasis has been placed on the one indisputable fact;
CO2 is a green house gas, and we humans create heaps of it.

Hi Grim,

The question is what do we do about it all ?

I still favour, among other remedies, massive tree-planting. After all, it shouldn't be difficult to calculate how many pig farts can be countered by every tree planted.

As for those of some OLO contributors, perhaps we would need to increase the planting ratio.

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Joe, I now feel I'm an active audience participant in a children's pantomime, trying to help you realize there's a baddie in the closet.

"The question is what do we do about it all ?"

Are you serious?

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

The world chops down more trees than it plants,
and it would have to plant the equivalent of the
Amazon forest every ten years to accomplish anything.

But I guess telling that to some people is about as
effective as a fart in a blizzard. (Talking about farts).

Hi Lexi,

" .... it would have to plant the equivalent of the
Amazon forest every ten years to accomplish anything."

I don't know about 'anything', but yes, around 200,000 square miles a year (whatever that is in Celsius) would be doable, across the world. I'm not sure where you get that figure, but we could run with it. Trees mature in fifty or sixty years or so, before (as our future scientists could bring about) those trees, or at least their leafy bits, get eaten, and re-planting can take their place. Who knows what might be possible in fifty years ?

So yes, maybe ten million square miles of plantings every fifty years - with Siberia, much of China, the Sahel and a lot of Africa, and the Amazon itself and Australia's north - that really might be possible.

Thanks for that positive suggestion :)

Now back to the Game. Go Freo !

Love,

Joe
www.firstsources.info

The Abbott band of skeptics will soon be returning to this thread. Reading the recent (sensible) posts on reafforestation, a critical requirement for the sustainability of the planet, be prepared to be labeled; Commie, pinko, tree hugging Greenies, watermelons, green on the outside red on the inside!
Its such a cop out when the skeptics trot out the line "Australia is a small country anything we do will have little effect on climate." Its true, there isn't a lot Australia can do to fix the worlds climate, but to do nothing is as I said a cop out.

In seeking info about global cooling events I came a across this series of links that were interesting because there is reference to parts of Australia.

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap15/lgm.html
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap15/natl_osc.html

I just want to bring back the point that in the ice ages global average temperature reached only 5 to 6 degrees below today's average, with massive glaciation over now civilized parts of the planet.

This puts a projected 3-4 degree rise in perspective. We (our descendants) won't simply cope with such a high global average temperature increase by turning up the air-con. It's much, much more serious than that.

Interestingly, for those interested in following the last link, there is the conclusion: "The moral is that global warming is unlikely to be uniform. Also, cooling in one area does not disprove global warming generally".

Anyway, I am now 95% confident that there is a big A in front of the GW. Whether or not there is a C before the A is up to us.

Luciferase,

That's the point I was making to SM about his theory that 500 million years agao life flourished.

He's assuming that "life on earth" then was similar to today's.

From wiki on the Cambrian:

" While diverse life forms prospered in the oceans, the land was comparatively barren – with nothing more complex than a microbial soil crust[9] and a few molluscs that emerged to browse on the microbial biofilm[10] Most of the continents were probably dry and rocky due to a lack of vegetation. Shallow seas flanked the margins of several continents created during the breakup of the supercontinent Pannotia. The seas were relatively warm, and polar ice was absent for much of the period."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian

So if you were a mollusc, things were pretty hunkeydorey.

That's what you get when you take a simplistic glance at deep history and presume there were plants and trees and animals - that "life" was what you see when you look out your window, give or take a few thousand years.

Our own epoch and consequent civilisation has been possible only because of a time of relatively stable climate on a planet that provides climate instability in spades.

"So if you were a mollusc, things were pretty hunkeydorey."

A well made point but don't expect any concessions from the usual brigade, who haven't even the backbones of molluscs enough to face up to the facts.

The IPCC AR5 should put them back in their shells but, no, it's a massive communist plot to enslave all us molluscs, you know?

Poirot, Luciferade,

From Wikipedia, our mutual friend:

"In the Ordovician period, around 450 million years ago, the first land plants appeared.[1] These began to diversify in the late Silurian Period, around 420 million years ago, and the results of their diversification are displayed in remarkable detail in an early Devonian fossil assemblage from the Rhynie chert. This chert preserved early plants in cellular detail, petrified in volcanic springs.[2]

"By the middle of the Devonian Period, most of the features recognised in plants today are present, including roots, leaves and secondary wood; and, by late Devonian times, seeds had evolved.[3] Late Devonian plants had thereby reached a degree of sophistication that allowed them to form forests of tall trees."

i.e. plant life had not yet begun by the Cambrian. So your point is ?

Cheers :

Joe

So my point is, when SM casually says:

"It was pointed out to me that about 500m years ago CO2 levels were about 2000ppm (5x that of today) and life flourished and temperatures were not that different from today."

He's representing planetary "life" as something that "flourished", but fails to point out that "life" back then was nothing like we think of it ranged across the planet.

It was a throw-away comparison - a one-liner to set up the erroneous conclusion that "life" back then was somehow comparable with "life" now.

That CO2 levels were elevated and "life flourished" is misleading in the context of us discussing the threat to life and civilisation as we know it in the modern era.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Devonian_extinction

What's interesting during these epochs is marine extinctions...anoxia, etc

Humans have been busy outgassing CO2 for some time now, but it's "sudden" on an historic timeline.

Hi Poirot :)

When SM writes,

"He's representing planetary "life" as something that "flourished", but fails to point out that "life" back then was nothing like we think of it ranged across the planet. .... "

it's a safe bet that he is not assuming, or leading anybody to think, that life then was just like it is now, plus the odd dinosaur. Real life is not like Jurassic Park. Dinosaurs had not been invented back 500m years ago, nor plants or humans, life existed only in the seas - but perhaps he was intimating that life in the seas was teeming ? The late Devonian Extinctions did not occur for at least another 100m years.

As our friendly Wikipedia author writes,

"The extinction seems to have only affected marine life. Hard-hit groups include brachiopods, trilobites, and reef-building organisms; the latter almost completely disappeared, with coral reefs only returning upon the evolution of modern corals during the Mesozoic.

"The causes of these extinctions are unclear. Leading theories include changes in sea level and ocean anoxia, possibly triggered by global cooling or oceanic volcanism. The impact of a comet or another extraterrestrial body has also been suggested. Some statistical analysis suggests that the decrease in diversity was caused more by a decrease in speciation than by an increase in extinctions. This might have been caused by invasions of cosmopolitan species, rather than any single event.

"Surprisingly, jawed vertebrates seem to have been unaffected by the loss of reefs or other aspects of the Kellwasser event, while agnathans were in decline long before the end of the Frasnian."

Yeah, bugger the agnathans, what did they ever do for us ?

Cheers :)

Joe

From your referenced link, Joe,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_plants#Colonization_of_land , it also says:

Land plants evolved from chlorophyte algae, perhaps as early as 510 million years ago;[4] some molecular estimates place their origin even earlier, as much as 630 million years ago....... the land plants evolved from a branched, filamentous alga dwelling in shallow fresh water,[6] perhaps at the edge of seasonally desiccating pools.[4] ..... Co-operative interactions with fungi may have helped early plants adapt to the stresses of the terrestrial realm.[7]
Plants were not the first photosynthesisers on land; weathering rates suggest that organisms were already living on the land 1,200 million years ago,[4] and microbial fossils have been found in freshwater lake deposits from 1,000 million years ago......"

A bit confusing and overlapping, as may well be the data Poirot has drawn from.

Personally, I remain convinced that a 3-4 degree rise would be catastrophic to mankind in the sense that we will not be adapt to it as a whole society, but only in pockets. Rather than hoping my DNA falls into one of those pockets, I'd like to do something more to avert the problem than is planned.

Luciferade,

You suggest:

"Personally, I remain convinced that a 3-4 degree rise would be catastrophic to mankind in the sense that we will not be adapt to it as a whole society, but only in pockets. Rather than hoping my DNA falls into one of those pockets, I'd like to do something more to avert the problem than is planned."

Well, yes, that's what many of us have been saying all along: that instead of sitting, weeping and wailing about doom what can we do about it ?

Of course, if the 'pause' gets much longer, and it becomes clear that there might be other factors in global swarming and cooling besides CO2, and yet CO2 production keeps rising, we may have that much longer to work out what to do, no rush.

Joe

Joe, the jury is in. AGW continues and we must not burn all our fossil fuel reserves.

Growing trees may buy a little time, at best, requiring not only our best land diverted from current purposes, but massively more forestation in new areas than existed before agrarian man, given our population is now ten thousand times more.

We have to cut to the chase and not visit every dead-end, so I'll not comment further on reforestation. Clinging naively to it as our salvation is dumb and does not make one green, only feeling green.

Hi Luciferade,

I'm certainly not relying only on re-forestation, simply that it could play a major role, alongside renewable energy production, perhaps taking our cue on nuclear power from France or Sweden rather than the Ukraine or Japan, using power more efficiently, switching from coal to natural gas (no, not coal-seam gas: Canning Basin gas, for example), etc., etc.

Of course, if geneticists could make trees edible over the next few decades, we could be on a winner. Perhaps they could make it in different flavours. Warmer, and more CO2 would mean much faster growth, and more efficient use of water at the same time. Win-win-win !

Joe

poirot<<..australian wood production would need to be around four times what it currently is by 2020.>>

that seems achievabl;e[oinlight of that failed forrrestry tree planting[that went bust]

they plan to clear fell..all thaT boughtnup farmlandf
via TAX DEDUCYTABLE INVESTMENT..tax deductable tree plantings..now the cost of destroying them

but wait!

FOUR TIMES PRESENT?
these things double..in size every season!
injust four years..they will be spot on?

so simply pass a new law against ripping that stuff out

doone

as for..<<The minimum land requirements for this additional wood production would be close to two times the size of Sydney by 2020.">>

they..all ready done..that
for gods sake dont allow them to clear fell..THAT OUR INVESTED DOLLARS..

all ready..BUILT
and if they clear fell..sue them
for theft of tax deductions..on work..we paid for long ago

anyhow
im..over it
but focus clearly..at the end of the chart
and see its govts ..LOL..govt agencies..talking about more tax deductible/guilt..

payable by us..for their lobbied pals..
to get the next free lunch..from..the public purse..[as usual]

What is it with the childish antics by some around here who haven't got the maturity to address fellow posters by their chosen monikers or even a respectful abbreviation of it?

Joe, why is it so appealing for you to repeated call Luciferase "Luciferade".

Yes, I know it reveals more about your style than it does his...but why such childish behaviour?

Why such disrespect, in lieu of argument - and would you advocate such behaviour to the younger generation?

What exactly does it do for you?

I can understand that it makes a six year-old feel clever and even sophisticated, but I have trouble equating it with mature discussion.

Is it an older man thing?

Second childhood?

This place is beyond me sometimes.

Sorry - fat fingers, Parrot. And failing eyesight.

But if you think that mis-xspelling names iws more improtant than AGW, or what to ddeo about it, then go folr it.

Cheers :)

Joe

Loudmouth,

What a silly little boy you are for an old guy.

Why in the world do you bother posting on adult subjects when you indulge in such puerile antics.

So the upshot is that you get your jollies from irritating people kiddie-stye when debating on a grown-up forum.

My 12 year-old has a far better idea of respect than you do.

Pathetic.

Calm it down, Joe's good, "d" and "s" are adjacent on the keyboard, especially when it's dark. No offense, but Poirot's generalization is true. I am guilty myself in relation to a particular provocateur (who's earned it). Can't promise to stop, but will try.

But if you think that mis-xspelling names iws more improtant than AGW, or what to ddeo about it, then go folr it.

Cheers :)

Joe

Don't be so silly Joe, Poirot has never had a thought about global warming, or anything much else actually.

She simply follows the lefty line/spin of the day, whatever it is, & regurgitates it, with a bit of her own unpleasantness here for us all to admire.

I originally did try to engage her in discussion, but quickly realised there was nothing there to engage.

Probably a language specialist. I wonder if she speaks Mandarin?

Hasbeen, here for a bum fight (whatever one is)?

We're now 95% sure now about AGW. What's your solution? (Just to preempt, don't say wait for 100%, as you have a reputation to protect)

Who is this "we" Luci.

Are you part of this bunch who's models can't actually produce the cooling the planet is going through, but claim 95% surety that people are causing it. It has been cooling for 5 years, but they are sure the warming is worse than they thought. God help us.

Perhaps you are a good swimmer, & have found that heat for them, in the ocean. That should earn you a good payout. They have been paid billions, but can't find it, after years of trying.

Yep, the planet is definitely cooling. The temp at the moment where I am is only 24. Yesterday afternoon it was 32.
2010 is the hottest year on record. 9 out the 10 hottest years on record have occurred this century.
This decade is hotter than last decade, and that was hotter than the decade before.
Anyone less than 36 years old has NEVER experienced a cooler year than the long term average.
Allowing for the well documented cooling affect of La Nina events -and comparing apples with apples-, 2012 was a hotter La Nina year than 2011; 2010 was a hotter El Nino year than 1998.
Sea surface temperature increased over the 20th century and continues to rise. From 1901 through 2012, temperatures rose at an average rate of 0.13°F per decade.

Hasbeen: "God help us."

God helps those who help themselves.

You seem incapable of understanding the science or accepting it if you do. it would be better having you on board to discuss solutions but I can only assume you are the last remaining member of your lineage and don't give a toss about the future of everyone else's descendants.

Perhaps you are a smoker that has escaped its worst consequences and you feel bullet proof in the face of the 95% confidence held in smoking causing cancer, and our confidence in AGW and where it leads.

Nobody wants you to eat crow, Hasbeen, simply come on up as the angels in heaven rejoice at every soul that saves itself. Ask OUG.

Perhaps a help in your conversion, Hasbeen:

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/9/30/science-environment/lomborg-misleads-ipcc?utm_source=exact&utm_medium=email&utm_content=438646&utm_campaign=cs_daily&modapt=

Anti-AGW high-priest Bjorn Lomborg argues against measures to limit warming while quoting IPCC's projections based on those measures being undertaken.

"The lower bound of the temperature rises estimated by the IPCC, which Lomborg happily cites, are based upon scenarios where governments implement policies, which Lomborg argues against, to substantially constrain emissions."

The inconvenient truth is that even if Australia put in place a carbon tax of $1000/t and reduced emissions by 100% by 2020, it would make no measurable difference as most manufacturing emissions will have moved off shore and any remaining savings would be matched by about 3 weeks of growth in India, China and other developing countries.

Without a global consensus and action, unilateral action by Aus is pointless and only feel good, self flagellation by greenie groups.

Yes, this is the age old argument against Democracy.
How can my one vote possibly make a difference?

I do truly get great joy out of threads such as this.
I believe in man made climate change.
And know some change is not man made.
I even believe some of the change is a blessing, some a great threat.
But what I enjoy most of all is the Brazenness of the back yard commentator that so confidently tells us the science is wrong!
You gotta love them.
Human nature will, in time see some tell us they always knew it was man made.
But if I live long enough, with no doubt in my mind, Liberals will switch to Turnbulls take, and method of control.
As the effects get clearer and farmers see the results in real life, they will demand action on climate change.
So time as is always the case, will see this question asked over and again, what benefit comes to believers from saying so.
Mark the difference.
What drives the other side if not self interest of owners of dirty fuels and that alone.

i..must caution against taking
what lucifer says i say..seriouisly

<<..Nobody wants you to eat crow,..Hasbeen,
simply come on up..>>

this links me to an..implied negative
as if hasbeen..was somehow lower..[than what..those who play funnybuggers..with hockey stiche'.or sex upand hide the govt dept data?

then..compounds this negatively asserted joinder
with..<<..as the angels..in heaven rejoice..at every soul that saves itself.>>

no..they rejoice..when we save other..as well...as ourself
not just saving..ourselves..

what credit..is it..to save thyself..alone?
or aid..that goes to those..supporting the scam..[thats more like buy-of/payoff]..nest feathering..[sure the angels rejoice..when we see the true sin..is lies within other]

we can deceive many..into..doing the right thing
but to..cure the wrong fix..to the wrong thing

[like we just ALL..had to BUY*..new tv]
why..so they could auction..off the spectrum
[we shoulda just bought the daMM THING OURSELVES..
it would have been cheaper..than building millions of new tv's

we just near about polluted this world.,..to death
now gotta..rebuild that we near destroyed..this earth..building..in the first place

new industry=new pollution
just the cleaning fluid..[for cleaning solar cells..is 120times WORSE than.c023]..methane from..your home compost pollution=40 times worse than.c02..

when we watch..society fall..because
it was lobbied into giving away free pathetic
,mercury laden..first generation ccccrrap..like free light-bulbs..

[read up..on the lightbulb conspiracy..]
that begun..this greenmail..industrialist/revolting..farce

and we the name called wholly-cost..deniers
are the ones..posting..cause its us..wanting further pollution
to build..the next green industrialist scam/sceme?..

[with free govt cash]
[or the tax..by ton weight..on the weightless gas..]

c02..the basis of all life
tax the living..to..death..to..feed dead corporation corrupt capitalist bail-out gain

its insane

Luciferase,

It's now agreed that there hasn't been significant global warming in 15-16 years. If there is some sort of roughly linear relationship between CO2 emissions and increases in global temperatures, this shouldn't happen. So there are other factors at work, even factors counteracting the effects of CO2 production. Is this so or not ?

Yes, the IPCC didn't predict that this would happen. They got it wrong. Suck it up and move on.

So world temperatures have risen less than one degree Celsius in 130 years. Solely because of CO2 emissions ? It now doesn't seem so.

As for sea-level rises, of 8 inches in a century, this may be so, averaging out all the rises around the world. For example, we may not see any rise on any part of the Australian coastline. But in some countries, the rise has been far greater, it seems.

In Fiji, as that poor woman was crying about at the Copenhagen Conference in 2009, it seems the sea-level has risen hundreds of feet, swamping the mountains of Fiji.

Atolls in the Pacific (which we learnt in school are actually sinking all the time), are being swamped, as people who are drawing out more ground water, and who built on the beach are finding out in every big storm.

The delta of the Nile, now that the Aswan Dam is holding back the silt, is being inundated.

The coastline of Bangla Desh, on a tilting tectonic plate, is more than ever subject to flooding, while the plate rises in the west, in Indian Bengal.

Atlantic city's seaside attractions, built right on the beach, have been wiped out by hurricanes.

Truly tragic situations. We may not notice it here in Australia, or perhaps in Europe or Africa or South America or the coastline of China.

But the IPCC assures us that it IS happening. They are the experts. People should believe experts, they shouldn't rely just on their own observations. Experts know and governments take their cues from experts. And we should believe most of our governments.

Is this your story ?

Joe
www.firstsources.info

See Joe, now you're getting down to it, you know better than the IPCC. It could not possibly have taken on board the things you mentioned in coming to your conclusion because they're only scientists who don't get out enough, right?. Your tree hugging cloaks a basic denialist's stance.

Shadow Minister (there Poirot, I did it!), If I find a wallet I'll hand it in to the police and not care what others might do. Australia should set an example.

The right blend of policies, including carbon pricing (on domestic and imported commodities with exporter compensations until the world falls in behind us)can wean us away from a carbon economy. Of course we would seek greater global abatement measures as we go, which should naturally build as AGW impacts. We will have to adopt a non-carbon based economy in the long run anyway, as fossil fuels deplete.

Australia's natural advantage of coal reserves, particularly, will have to be left in the ground. However if the world fails to fall in behind abatement and we are still left with these reserves further down the track, then we can sell them at an even higher price as we leap globally hand-in-hand into the catastrophe of a 4 degree temperature rise. If we really need the coal dollars, can't it wait until then?

This does not sit well with those mining fossil fuels. Hence the opposition of a denialist industry is supported by them and their allies. Carbon pricing and renewables are threats they will fight all the way to the bank.

Luci do you actually believe that cr4p, or like some of the girls here, are you just repeating the preachings from the high members of your order?

Even the high priests of the order don't actually believe it, when you read the fine print of their latest gospel. You don't have to be too smart to see them laying their escape route. After all they are going to want grant money for some other line of bull, sorry research, once this lot stops kicking, & they know it.

Hasbeen:"Even the high priests of the order don't actually believe it, when you read the fine print of their latest gospel."

OK, where in here does it say they don't believe it? http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.UkkqHtLTzTo

Sorry, Hasbeen, you will have to wait until later today European time for the download from the site I gave above.

Actually, Hasbeen, perhaps you only need this level of detail to support your statement. No fine print tho', other than IPCC contact details. http://ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ar5/ar5_wg1_headlines.pdf

here..is one..we can watch..now

http://www.corbettreport.com/episode-282-the-ipcc-exposed/

the hacked emails..flashback

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac

play..the ball..not the man
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/09/29/the-bad-novel-and-the-new-climate-report/

when reality..dont match..the model[reality.is wrong]
FLASHBACK -
IPCC models getting mushy


Article referred to in the Corbett Report on the IPCC further down, in which the IPCC admits that the real world warming did not match their computer predictions, then go on to reaffirm their high confidence in those models.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/16/ipcc-models-getting-mushy/

the up-date
of climate-gate
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/climategate.php

a practical egsample..of how
for govt mates..its great
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-09-19/how-germany-s-alw-got-busted-for-the-largest-food-fraud-in-u-dot-s-dot-history

40 experts..re 911
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n9JJg4cRxo

the process of creating your adgenda
via fear/hate..[a practical egsample]
http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2013/09/29/the-anatomy-of-islamophobia/

OUG, if you're intending to help Hasbeen find where the IPCC is saying it does not believe its own findings then your links have missed it.

Almost the entire focus of the denialists is on surface air temperature and warming having slowed in this regard, which some models did not predict. Therefore they attack modelling. Their focus regarding observed ocean warming is that the IPCC is vague about its connection to surface air temperature.

I earlier referred to http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html where you will note the imperfect graphical relationship at the detailed level between CO2 and CH4 concentrations and surface air temperature while there is very strong relationship seen at the macro level. It is perfectly reasonable to link the ocean to this fact and assume surface temperatures will ultimately fall into line with the general upward trend in GHG concentrations as, it appears, they always have.

Precisely what mechanism is involved in heat transfer between air and ocean needs further research. The fact it is not clearly resolved is not a weakness of the IPCC report, which is not obliged to prove a mechanism to support its case, but it is applied as a criticism nonetheless.

Meanwhile, we should focus on the fact the oceans are warming (and acidifying) and this is a proxy for an expected surface air temperature rise in the future, and possibly quite quickly.

Hi Luciferase,

So although global temperatures haven't risen in 15-16 years, it's all going into the oceans. So has there been much temperature rise in the oceans ? As you suggest,

"Precisely what mechanism is involved in heat transfer between air and ocean needs further research."

Yes indeed. But wouldn't that mean that ocean temperatures are rising, perhaps at a faster rate than land temperatures ? With oceans covering more than half the Earth's surface, wouldn't this translate to mean much higher rainfall, in toto ? So much for Professor Flannery's declarations of empty dams an lower rainfall across Australia, I suppose.

I'm sort of still on the Left, so of course I hope and wish for some sign that a capitalist-controlled world is going down the drain. And that there's nothing much anybody can do about it: we're doomed, and it's all their fault.

But I'm very disappointed that temperature rises have been so small. And what worries me much more is that capitalism may be able to easily cope with any problems, by switching over to renewables, and massive development of nuclear power, and making big bucks in that process of fundamental technological transformation.

Cheers,

Joe
www.firstsources.inf

"So has there been much temperature rise in the oceans ?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2010_(Fig.A).gif

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

But ocean warming is not uniform: http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/global-warming-hiatus-tied-pacific-ocean-cooldown-20130829

Acidification may have an impact http://phys.org/news/2013-08-science-global-source-sea.html

Joe, I'm all for thorium nuclear for baseload and renewables for top-up, with renewables taking over the bulk domestic load as technology advances.

A long journey begins with a single step. Let's make sure it's in the right direction. "Direct Action" is a step down a dead-end road, including growing trees, paying industry for efficiencies and whatever other action that does not change people's behaviour.

Come off it Luci. The moment someone starts on this ocean acidification, we know they are a con man, or the dupe of a con man.

The ocean is so alkaline that we could not even bring it anywhere neutral with all the CO2 in the solar system.

You are just laying a huge trap for yourself with this bullsh1t. Even not very well educated people, who may be fooled by the greenhouse gas confidence trick, aren't going to fall for this one

Any downward movement on the Ph scale is described as “acidification” (becoming more acidic), regardless of the starting point.
Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14, representing an increase of almost 30% in ion concentration in the world's oceans.
Equally, any upward movement in average atmospheric temperatures is still “warming”, regardless of relative speed of change.
IOW, it is NOT generally agreed that there has been any cooling in the last 17 years. The average rate of atmospheric warming has been slightly lower, while ocean temperatures have continued to rise.
Again, 2010 is the hottest year on record. 9 out the 10 hottest years on record have occurred this century.
This decade is hotter than last decade, and that was hotter than the decade before.
Anyone less than 36 years old has NEVER experienced a cooler year than the long term average.
Allowing for the well documented cooling affect of La Nina events -and comparing apples with apples-, 2012 was a hotter La Nina year than 2011; 2010 was a hotter El Nino year than 1998.
Sea surface temperature increased over the 20th century and continues to rise. From 1901 through 2012, temperatures rose at an average rate of 0.13°F per decade.

Hi Grim,

"Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14, representing an increase of almost 30% in ion concentration in the world's oceans."

30 % ? An decrease in pH from 8.25 to 8.14 is a change by 30 % ? I may be one of OLO's village idiots - just ask Poirot - but I really can't get my head around that.

Now: if all that extra heat is being trapped in the oceans, at a great depth, and that warmer water is held down there by currents or upswell-downswell or fairies, it still should be locatable and its temperature measurable ?

So how much have oceans warmed by, in the past magic fifteen years ? And why, fifteen years ago, did the globe 'decide' not to keep heating up the atmosphere but 'decided' to heat up the oceans instead ?

Or does global warming go through some sort of oscillation: warming, cooling, warming cooling.... Or what ?

A fool can ask questions that an 'expert' can't readily answer, I suppose :)

Joe

Ph is a logarithmic scale. One unit change in scale represents a 10 fold change in hydrogen ion concentration.
This is very basic chemistry. If you 'can't get your head around that', why should anyone be interested in your opinions on something as complex as climate change?
Thanks for a great excuse to discontinue this -obviously useless- discourse.

http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2013/sep/11/pacific-ocean-perilous-turn-overview/

Yes, Loudmouth, you're an amateur who thinks he understands more than he does.

Which is why I usually link to more expert commentary.

It's the only thing to do around here, since most scientists trained in the various disciplines of climate science wouldn't touch this forum with a bargepole.

"Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity."

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F

Village idiots can google these days even if they can't remember their school science.

Grim,

Your response to the futility of a unilateral carbon price was puerile.

The world is not a democracy. The closure of Australia's smelters due to the carbon tax means that the smelting occurs at less efficient factories in other countries. The drop in emissions in Aus is often countered with a greater increase elsewhere as a direct consequence.

This futile gesture makes little to no difference to global emissions, but hurts Australians.

We don't need to worry about the environment.

God had promised Noah everything will be fine.
:-)

"The closure of Australia's smelters due to the carbon tax...."

The high AUD had far more impact on the bottom line, as well as highly subsidized power, than carbon pricing ever had. They're still sitting on carbon credits that are soon to become worthless. All discussed ad nauseum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5207.

To blithely accept that Australia can not unilaterally, successfully, de-carbonize its economy is to completely lack imagination. Should we all just roll into the foetal position and suck our thumbs until the end comes?

You are right to target the fraudulent claim smelters closed as a result of Carbon tax.
What dark conner did that claim come from.
I briefly, looked after the internal reconstruction of one, now closed
And too at another still open.
Power was an issue ten years before thoughts of carbon tax.
If we want to tell the truth the high Australian dollar, as reported by owners of the one closed was the end, not as they said the tax.

never listen..to liars joe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH

In chemistry, pH is a measure..of the acidity or basicity
of an aqueous solution...Solutions with a pH less than 7..are said to be acidic and solutions with a pH greater than 7..are basic or alkaline.

Pure water has a pH very close to 7.

they try to..baffle with spin

<<.."Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14, representing an increase of almost 30% in ion concentration in the world's oceans.">>

but FAR FROM ACID*
its so pathetic..COMPOUNDED..by [plus the 30 percent..bullshhhhhoot]

you were right

<<30 % ? An decrease in pH from 8.25 to 8.14
is a change by 30 % ? I may be one of OLO's village idiots
- just ask Poirot - but I really can't get my head around that.>>

cause it;s THE NEXT LIE
hopefully they wake-up
but dont count on it

you must remember..joe..they not only.. fool others
they got sukked in by professional hookers
fooled their friend's/kids too

thus..cant see the joke..
its a sickness?

its just too sad really..like a drunk
wanting/begging just one more drink
cause he isnt TENFOLD DRUNK ..yet

their next spin
will say..yeah..but
[we were talking about ions[not acidit

<<..30% in ion concentration in the world's oceans>>

but funny thing..is
the water is going down..by their own lie
we are heading not even cl;ose [yet]..to ''pure water..

BEFORE even becoming even the tiniest/..twaddly bit
even just..a tinniest bit..into *acid

long longg way to go

thats gotta be tenfold by tenfold
by tenfold away..by tenfold..ten..folds
hundred folds..of ph lowering..from where..we now are

now stop..ya lies..ya all..
make the spin..go away

you greenie capitalists..lobby..have been conned
big time..but..get even..dont get angry

Good Lord, OUG is right, I calculate only a 28.8% increase! This affects the carbonate concentration which, in turn, affects the skeletal growth of zooplankton, which affects the ocean food chain, which affects humanity.

Sorry, OUG but these are the facts, whether you like them or not, as is that between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14.

Rather than die off on our own waste like organisms in a petri-dish, our superior intelligence should lead us toward avoiding catastrophe, but only man suffers greed that it clouds his intelligence.

Hi Grim,

A shift in pH from 8.25 to 8.14 'since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution' in a base-10 log system still wouldn't be a change of 30 %, would it ? Maybe somewhere between 5 and 11 % ? So a change from zip to zip+ ? From pfetty alkaline to fairly alkaline ?

I'll ask your sidekick Poirot, she would know better than me. [Your cue, Poirot].

Thank you, Lexi/Foxy, but I thought the alarmists and doomists were more likely to put their faith in a god to rescue them from this modern-day Sodom like they think he did with Noah. Not going to happen.

Uncertainty rules, and always will, There are no gods ):

Love,

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Lucyface,

So it was just a huge co incidence that the smelters closed just as the government hugely increased their cost of business? There were many things that made their business difficult. Smelters live or die by the cost of electricity. The huge jump in bulk electricity costs by the carbon tax obliterated any chance of recovery. The same applies to Blue Scope's second blast furnace.

Is there any less aluminium being made in the world? No, the production has just moved to higher emission plants in South Africa or Brazil. The net change in GHG emissions is an increase.

You really are going to remain in character even tho' the 3 year charade is over, aren't you, Shad? Go back to that link and have a read, you were almost believable, at times.

Do let go, it's becoming pathetic.

im noting patterns
http://12160.info/video/the-ipcc-exposed

like tenfold..they love ten fold

lest we forget..themoluscs..that stillhad shells
and reefs that still had stored up c02/chalk..or better known as lime,,[that neutralizes..acidity..living inthat tenfold time loonmg past

or the 95%..of the surveyed scientists
[not ALL scientists..just 95%..who replied the surey
are now 95%..certain..and we wonder why comment isnt allowed..lol
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/why-were-shutting-our-comments
"It is the absolute right of the State
to supervise the formation of public opinion." --
Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945)

yeah..pollution..is poisoning the oceons
http://enenews.com/official-blasts-japan-govt-over-fukushima-such-immoral-people-let-radioactive-substances-freely-flow-and-said-nothing-while-contaminating-ocean-its-just-absurd-now-theyre-trying-to-cov

its expected to reach hawiah..next year
yeah polution..stop the polution..but wait?

how..tax c02..get capitalists industry going in china
those re-capitalized..bailed out brown-nose capitalista..
addicted to nice clean/green..[obscene]..free govt lobbied cash

dont worry we will find..the hollow cause deny-ers
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Scientists_create_DNA_tracking_tags%2C_might_soon_be_used_to_track_protesters_as_well_as_animals/29255/0/38/38/Y/M.html

anyhow choose which ones go silent
http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/websites-will-go-dark-if-the-government-shuts-down-tomorrow?xg_source=activity

Common misconceptions about pH and ocean “acidification”

For Joe and other like minded souls:

Look at figure 2 if you have difficulty with the explanation/maths.

http://pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/A+primer+on+pH

its sad doc..you got a link
keep wavinng it..like a futile talisman..you cant paraphrase its spin

thing is acid is acid
watch mrs clark..watch..the color goes into..chalk
now if you put chalk in acid..it bubbles..co2..and neutralises the acid

get it?

any shells at all
just those white cliffs of dover
just the barrier reef..refute your acid thesis

just like the acid..EATS the chalk..
as it bring's back up..the ph alkalinity

no shell..can survive acid..[not even coke]
many/shells..in the ocean..prove its not acid

*Why We're Shutting Off Our Comments

Starting today, PopularScience.com
will no longer accept comments on new articles. Here's why.

A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise
has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics.

Everything, from evolution
to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again>>

they are bothfrauds
relying on gullibl;e takeninby graphs/drawings

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/why-were-shutting-our-comments

In other words, Popular Science is getting tired of all the comments pointing out where Popular Science is wrong, especially about human-caused global warming.

And Popular Science is not the only corporate media now shutting off comments to save face. And what this will mean is FEWER people will be reading Popular Science, because the public has a taste for being able to contribute to the discussions now,

and will favor the independent media,
where the First third pier..Amendment is..(not to mention the truth)

dont panicthe sheep
put up a glossy talisman..web sight of claptrap
for oz doc's case..is that weak..and his brain strain..flows down the drai

ozdoc, love yer links.

I apologise for feeding the troll, causing anyone following this thread a stressed scrolling forefinger. Won't do it again

Hey Luciferase, no apologies required - we learn something everyday, except maybe "village idiots".

Lucyface,

I am quite familiar with the thread in which you got your Rs kicked.

My point was simply that unilateral action does nothing for the climate. So stop being pathetic and address the real issue. Unilateral action does nothing for climate change.

Lucyface?
Gee you sometimes look child like SM.
A day is coming.
The Liberal coalition will adopt John Howard,s *Climate Change Policy*
Putting a price, free market floating one, on our emissions.
SM then will confront his own words and make every effort to tell us he always believed that is the way to go.

i see that ozdoss glossy link
is much like mrabbits glossy 3 point plan

worse was trying to download the slimy mollusk thing
too many pretty pictures of slime
not enough written fact

every time your told your the ignorant ..one
cause you cant refute a picture..spinning a sin

ozzzzzdooss link..is so wrong..
it would take 3 posts to point it all out..and he would simple post it again and again..never even trying to read its rebuttal

he talks interchangeably about ion as if its acid
tell me spin doc..is the acid within..the mollusk higher or lower than the sea?..

is it consistent throughout its body?
or does it like us use acid..[among other ph/things]..to digest?

see how so much so called comment..is only excuse to insult/enema
or right or wrong..simply to backup a mate..

this extends further than mateship..
[mates dont lie to mates],yet here we all are

not/one really KNOWING*
thus if only by opinion..
lying again..to those..olo peers

more important..to our sanity..than life itself

Interesting, the ozdoc's link is off-air due to the US Gov't shut-down.

Point taken about log scales &c., but what does such a shift in pH mean ? Can organisms cope with such change ?

I'm still sceptical - in denial, if you like - about an eight-inch sea-level rise: where ? On our beaches, such a rise would mean that the tides would be coming in (and going out) up the beach, fifty feet or 20 metres higher than they did a century ago.

Yes, parts of coastlines which have previously been under glaciation are still rising, so they would be countering any sea-level rise somewhat. I don't think South Australia's coastline was under the ice 12-30,00 years ago, so that can't be it.

What has been the experience in temperate and tropical zones, where glaciation didn't occur ? Have their coast-lines retreated ?

Tectonic plates tilt. Atolls sink. Dams hold back silt and cause inundation in river deltas. Apart from all that and (I'm sure) more, where has there been eight-inch sea-level rise ? Anywhere ? [Oh yes, I forgot Fiji, with its mountains now being swamped].

Seriously, I don't pretend to be anything other than a 'village idiot' in these matters, but I do want to know. Thank you.

Joe

"Seriously, I don't pretend to be anything other than a 'village idiot' in these matters...."

We know.

<<"Seriously, I don't pretend to be anything other than a 'village idiot' in these matters...." We know>>

But in a village of Poirot's any sensible person would likely be labeled odd!

Belly,

Luciferase is an enzyme used in bio-luminescence used by "Dorothy" which as a nom du plume appears to pointless. Lucyface, is a shorter form that is not intended to be insulting. So please don't get your knickers twisted over this.

As for my views, I have stated them before:

I understand the effect of CO2 on climate change, but am irritated by the wild exaggerations of green "doomsday" cults.

A price on carbon is the most effective means of reducing carbon emissions PROVIDING that the majority of world wide emissions are covered by an equal carbon price. Without some form of global consensus unilateral action on pricing carbon is largely ineffective, and extremely punitive to the host countries industries.

Until some global consensus is achieved, direct action to reduce emissions by providing alternative power sources such as lower emitting gas to replace coal, renewable power, and nuclear power. A combination of gas, nuclear and renewable power could easily reduce emissions by 80% by 2050.

When most of the world is on board, I will be there cheering for an ETS, until then, not.

From IPCC AR5:

"Global mean sea level rise for 2081&#8722;2100 relative to 1986–2005 will likely be in the ranges of
0.26 to 0.55 m for RCP2.6, 0.32 to 0.63 m for RCP4.5, 0.33 to 0.63 m for RCP6.0, and 0.45 to
0.82 m for RCP8.5 (medium confidence). For RCP8.5, the rise by the year 2100 is 0.52 to 0.98
m, with a rate during 2081–2100 of 8 to16 mm yr–1 (medium confidence).These ranges are
derived from CMIP5 climate projections in combination with process-based models and
literature assessment of glacier and ice sheet contributions."

So, the worst case projection (do nothing) is RPC 8.5 and approx a 1 metre rise, corresponding to the ocean encroaching 100 metres up your local beach. This is an average and takes subsidence and elevation into account.

See http://www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/ and click on "global" altho' these are pre AR5 projections. You'll see elevation and subsidence.

Now, Joe, you can find out all this stuff yourself instead of remaining willfully ignorant so you don't have to stare AGW in the teeth. This is my last attempt at converting you to the path of knowledge and enlightenment. I do hope you are more intelligent than your self-effacement suggests and you will eventually come around, without necessarily stating so on OLO.

Best wishes

Luciferase,

"I do hope you are more intelligent than your self-effacement suggests..."

It's not "self-effacement".

It's Joe's specialty - "faux self-effacement in the service of sarcasm".

Poirot it is quite true, the gent has told us so many times.
But I like the bloke!
Never agree with much he says but see hope in him.
Not on this subject, but know time and truth is on our side.
Know too right wing nuts are behind the anti climate change crew.
No all of them, some stagger about finding other truths to ignore and fight.
But look at America, Tea party air wasters control the Republican movement, for a time, and protect special interests in the Climate Change debate.

what do..ghandi/martin luther king and anne frank..have in con-man?

[no its not a joke
its the latest carbon pollution taxationb solution

or an..ego boost
or a threat..

[it seems greenish capitalists..wanting the new tax
are planning a black flag event..by us hollycause deneyers
to set up..a red flag..so you will feel better..and not wreak vengeance onus village idiots

so remember you greenish capitalist lobby tax mob
be nice..turn the other cheek..cause your the ghandian anne frankcuss..kings..of nice

Non violent, never passive: remembering Gandhi
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15537&page=0

never the less..its a clever ploy..
for more carbon pollution lobby imagery/mythology..

clever marking/product placement
yet its all lies..no matter how 'nice'

im going to have to say...something
like..what jesus would say,,[how come..he wasnt thrown..in the plot..too?

he didnt reply the survey?
missed the cut..wasnt ghandian enough?

didnt fit the imagery?

Thanks Luciferase,

So across most of the world, the predicted sea-level rise is somewhere between 0 and 3 feet, with some subsiding areas like the Gulf Coast of the US experiencing much higher sea-levels rise ? I was surprised that the Nile delta wasn't depicted as experiencing sea-level rise of some sort, thanks to the Aswan Dam.

So, with glaciers melting by - what now ? - 2085 ?, and sea-levels in the Gulf of Thailand and northern Philippines rising by 5-7 feet while our coast-lines experience 0-3 feet, it sure is a lop-sided old world :)

So what do we do about it ? Or is that a foolish question ? Are we actually doomed ?

Cheers,

Joe

We're doomed if the problem is not dealt with globally. We can move unilaterally.

Quickly brainstorming: As quickly as is feasible we go nuclear (thorium and stuff the Greens, they're gone anyway, another senator in WA today) and renewables, weaning away from fossil fuels, leaving them buried. We price carbon. For the exporting industries that are carbon intensive we provide credits, for less carbon intensive industries we subsidize as necessary within parameters (tbd), both while the world catches us and a carbon market mechanism forms. We also (carbon) tax imports competing with domestic suppliers and compensate to keep them competitive while the world catches on.

If the world doesn't catch on (as I believe it must and deniers don't) within say 25 years, we sell up the fossil fuels at premium prices and partay 'til doom. If the world does catch on we sue for it for compensation to leave fuels in the ground.

We don't wait frozen, staring into the headlights of an oncoming future.

Rhank you, Luciferase,

Of course we switch from coal to gas or thorium-based nuclear power, if that is genuinely feasible. I'm sceptical about a carbon tax UNLESS it means that power companies can't jack up their prices, otherwise we pay for emission, you and I, and they don't.

And of course any revenue from a carbon tax should go EXCLUSIVELY into research into renewable energy and subsidies for genuine start-ups, and into massive tree-planting, &c., with nothing going into yet another bureaucracy.

Actually these three options (switch to natural gas, develop thorium-nuclear, tree-planting) are future-neutral in the sense that if there is global warming, no real warming OR actual cooling, they don't aggravate the situation. And of course, they may not be the only options by any means.

Cheers :)

Joe
www.firstsources.info

"And of course any revenue from a carbon tax should go EXCLUSIVELY into research into renewable energy and subsidies for genuine start-ups, and into massive tree-planting,"

Nup, revenue goes to income tax cuts, pensions, export industry compensation. Nationalize the grid (thank you states) and consumers gravitate to cheapest suppliers to it, which will be those blending nuclear (bought wholesale) and renewables most efficiently, while paying for grid service separately.

Planting trees? Haven't we covered that? forgedaboudit. Put the money where it does the most carbon reduction, a domestic emissions scheme seguing into an international one in time.

Now, ill get my people to talk to your people and we'll have it up and humming in 25 years.

Luciferase,

I watched a program on Sunday on this - the London Array offshore wind farm. Massive wind turbines off Kent in Britain...very impressive technology. The program showed a special ship constructing them .

http://www.londonarray.com/

What have we got?

A bunch of deniers with a second-rate plan.

Luciferase,

Your 'solution', what to do with the revenue from a carbon tax, is frankly appalling. Surely, if CO2 is a problem, then whatever revenue earned to mitigate it should go to mitigating it ?

As for Poirot's half-witted praise of wind-farms, sure let's have wind-farms, they're beautiful, but let's not forget that they are incredibly expensive and create a huge amount of CO2 emission in their construction. What, you thought the Good Fairy made wind-towers, Poirot ?

Cheers :)

Joe

Loudmouth,

"As for Poirot's half-witted praise of wind-farms, sure let's have wind-farms, they're beautiful, but let's not forget that they are incredibly expensive and create a huge amount of CO2 emission in their construction. What, you thought the Good Fairy made wind-towers, Poirot ?"

Excuse the heckling from the "Duh, what's that, and where's my peanuts?" seats....as far as Joe's concerned "The "denial" is settled.

Luciferase,

I was mainly impressed because they were out in the sea catching the greatest amount of wind.

Funnily enough, Joe's always going on about how clever we are and how our wonderful intelligence is going to help us have energy by devising amazing technology.

Of course, he's not genuine at all. The moment someone highlights incredible technology, he's the first to shower it with derision.

"The moment someone highlights incredible technology, he's the first to shower it with derision."

Not really, Poirot:

" .... sure let's have wind-farms, they're beautiful, but let's not forget that they are incredibly expensive and create a huge amount of CO2 emission in their construction."

And the ones built out in the sea: do you think they rest on cushions of air ? On more concrete and steel platforms, Poirot. Thousands of tons o it. Concrete and steel are, to your surprise no doubt, made using huge amounts of energy.

Let's have wind-farms and solar arrays too. Thorium reactors too, if that technology is feasible. But let's not pretend that their construction is emission-free.

On the other hand, tree-planting is not only emission-free, more or less, but removes CO2 from the air. I'm puzzled why you and Luciferase are so hostile to it.

Cheers :)

Joe

Joe,

I'm "not" pretending that their construction is emissions free.

Did I state that?

No.

Did I make a big deal about the costs in emissions of transporting people all around the country to plant the trees that won't be able to compensate fast enough for present and future emissions?

No I didn't.

But you seem to think that your fairytale idea of planting trees and keeping emissions at the present rate is somehow excused from those type of calculations...yet you're quite happy to shoot a hole in anything else.

You really do represent a disingenuous tack on this issue.... criticising one off construction emissions, but seemingly non-critical - and doubtful of the effects - of the "continuous" burning of fossil fuels directly for energy.

Not to mention being happy dissemble in an attempt to batter scientific data into submission on global warming denial.

Joe/Luce/Poirot,

Perhaps the major limitation regarding planting masses of trees is the question of where to plant them? (And how to maintain them.)
The logical location of course is on existing cleared land - which has probably been cleared for agriculture - and the maintenance of food production is probably seen to be more critical than forestry sequestration of emissions.
(Though more intensive use could possibly be made of existing aggro-forestry and timber plantations - perhaps with faster growing species.)

However, if solar thermal arrays could be established in otherwise arid regions in reasonable proximity to major centres, and supplied with sea water pumped from the ocean and 'grey' water from sewage treatment facilities (which could then be fairly easily distilled into potable H2O and solid fertilizer) not only could major greenhouse food production be possible on-site (and maybe also algal oil production) (contributing significantly to food supply and emissions capture), as well as contributing to the national electricity grid, but it might ultimately also be possible to 'rehabilitate' marginal land to large scale food and timber production - and for satellite human habitation.
(Though we don't really want ever more people stretching the planet's finite resources, reasonable populations could thereby have added security - and recycling could be moved to a whole new level.)

You never know, it might eventually be possible to add thorium reactors to such facilities to reduce overnight heat-storage requirements for continuous steam-turbine electricity production (and to boost overall base-load provision), and then to start creating 'new' coal and oil for future generations.

That is a good post salty.
We could plant many more trees if we truly wanted to.
But never the amount it would take to make Abbott,s unworkable plan work.
Some areas in this country grow only small stunted scrub, because the soil is very poor.
Some bush councils plant plantations, and use treated sewage to water them.
Great results are seen.
But if this country built three Nuclear plants just to start, we would not just lower our emissions but contribute in a big way to the worlds.
Plus we would, if exporting it, not for weapons, see that cut magnified

recall..that..million dollar..pollution/council

job description..><<providing expert..independent
information..about climate change..to the Australian public>>

here is an
example of where..that million..is going to

to..write stuff..like this link]..
sent to/me by a mate

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/10/03/08/57/september-hottest-on-record

i..will let..their link..speak for me

from/link

<<..If..the first month..of spring..had you sweating
like it was summer,..you probably weren't alone.>>

cause we have..change of weather[summer/winter..autum/spring
because we live in..a climate..where temp..can change.

it..always has..
it..always will..
[we live in..the land..of Drought's..and flooding rains]

further..those..who WERE-N0T sweating..
*clearly..had on..the air conditioner..running for free..on their solar credits

plus..drawing-on*..our gold plated..electrical power system..
[peak demand..we..[not they]..pay for..by ever higher power prices]

<<September..was the hottest/spring opener*..on record,
with the national..average temperature..a sizzling 2.75 C above usual.

NOTE the number

now compare numbers
[remember ol'mate..its a numbers game
[once too many WANTED the feed in*..tariff..it went away]

<<Australia
is experiencing..persistent heat..across the continent,
with temperatures..from October 2012..to September..1.25 degrees above..the long-term average.

<<Since 1910,..average temperatures have risen by 0.9 C,

<<The Climate Council said a 0.9 C temperature rise may not seem like much but even small increases could exacerbate the intensity of extreme weather experienced in Australia.

<<Professor Steffen..said Australia
was no stranger ..to baking days>>

i fully agree

<<..The council already has raised..nearly $1 million
in donations to continue..its work>>

yes near 1 million..to do its job

what is its job?
><<providing expert independent information
about climate change to the Australian public>>

great..yet more guilty articles
more tv adverts...more guest appearances

as if we dont got enough
hot air heads [experts]..telling us what to do..[donate*][give ema new tax..give em a job..someone needs to be boss../and they are it

in-dependent..my buttttt

Hi Poirot,

Oy. I'll repeat it slowly:

"Let's have wind-farms and solar arrays too. Thorium reactors too, if that technology is feasible.

"On the other hand, tree-planting is not only emission-free, more or less, but removes CO2 from the air."

In my admittedly tiny mind, I'm thinking of massive plantings of appropriate trees across the North, not on agricultural land (and, of course, no more de-forestation) wherever there has been a healthy increase in rainfall, for example, in the north of Western Australia.

Among other things like wind-farms, solar arrays and thorium nuclear power station in areas closer to cities.

As for fertilising those trees: if you check out Aboriginal communities on Google Maps, almost invariably they have sewage ponds a kilometre or so from their main villages. Treated, as Belly points out, that material could boost the fertility of the soil.

Lifelong Aboriginal labor + fertiliser + more water + trees = a contribution to reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.

And of course, when those trees mature, they would belong to and be processed by those Aboriginal communities. Say, a thousand square kilometres each. Genuine work and permanent income.

Win-win-win-win !

Of course, as well, a carbon tax could be devoted to "wind-farms, solar arrays and thorium nuclear power stations" in areas closer to cities.

So wind-farms, solar arrays, thorium reactors, oh and thermal energy too, as well as development of our vast, vast natural gas deposits, e.g., in the Canning basin - and tree-planting.

ALL of the above.

Do you have anything to add, Poirot ? Of course, even blow-flies have the right to just buzz around, annoying decent people. So keep buzzing.

Cheers :)

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Loudmouth,

"Do you have anything to add, Poirot ? Of course, even blow-flies have the right to just buzz around, annoying decent people. So keep buzzing."

Wondering why you insist on behaving like a cretin.....during a conversation. Still I haven't got the time to analyse your psychological deficiencies.

I'm not against tree planting per se.

I'm saying that Abbott's plan is a damp squib which on it's own will not address our emission's target and was only cooked up by an AGW denying Opposition Leader (as he then was) because he realised it was politically relevant.

You, on the other hand, comprehensively critcised wind farm technology in an earlier post....finding just about every ridiculous nit-picking fault you could with the idea.

Regarding your posts and me being a blow-fly.

Well, it stands to reason that they're attracted to....

Good one, Poirot !

I support wind-farms, I think they are beautiful, but I don't pretend that they are CO2-neutral. In fact, a friend was just pointing out that Denmark, which has almost the highest level of energy generated by wind-towers in he world, out in the Baltic and North Seas, has experienced an increase in CO2 levels since they were put in. Why ?

Because the energy generated is intermittent - you can't let wind-towers run when the wind is too high (who knew ?), the things blow apart. So coal-powered land-based power stations have to be kept running to make up the shortfalls. Pity about that.

But by all means let's built wind-farms and solar arrays, etc. The companies which make the concrete and steel should pay their share of carbon tax, which then can be devoted in part to tree-planting. In part, Poirot, don't mis-quote me.

But let's face it, wind-farms are one of the answers to clean energy (so of course they should be built) BUT they are not an answer to CO2 reduction. Go for it, but do it with eyes wide open.

Do you have anything positive to contribute ? I look forward to it, if you ever do :)

Cheers :)

Joe

Australia has just had its hottest September on record [read any news paper report for confirmation].
And consider too we have seen those headlines many times in the past ten years.
Not just about us but the world.
Ice melting heat and rain floods and fire as a dried our bush burns.
Seems us believers have links in high places getting all those fraudulent story's printed.
Or? just maybe something is taking place.