"The media 'doesn't believe in facts', but the internet will come to the planet's rescue" according to 2013 Google chairman Eric Schmidt.

So I was surprised to read a story on a 2015 report re climate change put out by the CSIRO and Australian Bureau of Meteorology at:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/south-australia-to-get-much-hotter-drier-new-climate-change-report-reveals/story-fni6uo1m-1227198291102

Considering the Federal Government has said it will "rely" on information from the Bureau of Meteorology re climate change - we must act now.

Also to those who think that toxically polluting the planet is O.K - they can also pay for the damage - financially.

Australia is on course to experience some of the world's most extreme temperature increases as well as more torrential rain and increased flooding, a new report shows.
In a climate report claiming to be the nation's most comprehensive ever produced, the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology on Tuesday released data showing Australia could be on track for an average temperature increase of up to five degrees Celsius by the end of the century
Repealing the carbon price
Winding back, freezing or abolishing the renewable energy target
Abolishing the Climate Commission
Attempting to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Renewable Energy Agency
Keeping fossil fuel subsidies
Wrecking the Great Barrier Reef
Tearing up the Tasmanian forest deal and attempting to de-list the Tasmanian World Heritage forests
Reviewing the marine national reserves
Attempting to handover environmental powers to the states
Defunding the environmental defenders office
Creating an unsafe and underpaid "green army"
We have gone back in time on the back of the Abbott and Credlin partenership.

Hi NathanJ,

I’m so impressed with your article that I’ve discussed it with a few of my friends who are “skeptical” of CAGW. The points you make are so important to the well being of our grandchildren that your voice must be heard by a wider audience.

I have to admit that some of your points have met with some degree of skepticism and I was wondering if you could help out on a couple of matters?

Firstly, you quote that "The media doesn't believe in facts”. Given that most of our media is fully supportive of CAGW, I’ve had real difficulty convincing my friends otherwise. They say who in the media is not convinced of CAGW?

Then we have the “facts” from the CSIRO and BoM. My difficulty is that this report clearly states that these are not facts, they are more “climate change projections for Australia”, I was wondering if you can point to something that is not a “projection”? The issue seems to be that projections from the IPCC and every other CAGW “report” are based on “projections” that have never eventuated, can you help with something based on Empirical Evidence?

You say that the current government has stated that it will “rely” on “information from the Bureau of Meteorology re climate change”. Can you please provide links to such comments as I can’t actually find such quotes to counter my skeptical friends.

I know that this might be difficult however, you say that for skeptics “toxically polluting the planet is O.K”. You are so right however, can you point to a link, research or opinion that says CO2 is anything other than an inert, colorless gas that provides food for almost every living organism on the planet? I know Nathan, this is a difficult one but my friends do have a point that I must answer.

Cont’d

Cont’d

My last point is quite difficult. You hit the nail on the head when you speak of Skeptics “paying for the damage”. Couldn’t agree more, and someone must pay for the damage to society. I was just wondering how we might counter the argument that the EU alone has sucked over $1.0 Trillion out of taxpayers on Green initiatives since 2008? Should we get the CAGW alarmists to pay their debt to society before we even consider costing the damage caused by skeptics who have not yet actually cost society anything?

You are truly a star advocate of all things CAGW, your incisive analysis, research and factual evidence is a model for those who avoid facts, you bring it right into the faces of skeptics and challenge them with a compelling case for pure, unadulterated alarmism.

We need more like you because without you, the case for CAGW might convince skeptics to top themselves.

Keep up the good work and please don’t delay in getting back to me with the answers to my questions.

Looking at numerous other scares by the warmist industry that have proven to be laugable obviously does not count as science. The daily healines of heat in the summer and cold in the winter continues to feed the gullible. Has the oil run out yet folks? Oh that's right that was suppose to happen 15 years ago. Don't forget the warming is now hiding in the ocean. What a joke.

I thought you might be interested in my experience with weather bureau forecasting.

It was 1985 or 6, & I was running the marine division for South Mole Island in the Whitsundays. It was stores day, when our 90Ft barge loaded fuel, our freezer truck & our major order of stores for the week.

We had been watching a cyclone out in the Coral Sea for a few days, but at 5.00 AM the forecast was it would not affect us in the next 48 hours. The island powerhouse was getting low on diesel so at 6.00 AM I confirmed with the MacKay fuel supplier to send 15,000 gallons of diesel, 5,000 of petrol, & 1,000 of two stroke mix up on the tanker.

I sent the two large boats 29 & 24 metre International catamarans, off to our cyclone bolt hole on the mainland, & arranged for their families to go to a large high safe home that night. I kept the 60Ft island ferry out, as the resort requested 3 departures at 8.00 AM, midday & 4.00 PM for any guests who wanted off the island. It would take its chances at Shute harbour, as would the barge, after getting the supplies to the island.

9 AM the ferry is back, & the barge is at the jetty, pumping diesel ashore, & unloading stores. The wind is up, & it’s getting a bit rough at the jetty. The bureau correct their forecast, we have only 24 hours before the cyclone reaches us.
Continued

10 AM it is getting quite rough at the jetty, I tell the island the last ferry will leave at 11.00AM, confirm the power house has enough fuel, & send the barge off for Shute harbour. It’s square bow is not good for pushing into the growing seas.

11.00 AM I get on the ferry, with the departing island guests, & head for Shute harbor. The weather bureau corrects its forecast, the cyclone will be over us at 7.00 PM. I arrange our courtesy bus to pick up the big boats crews families & get them to the safe house, before meeting the ferry at Shute.

We hear a call from Whitsunday Rent a Yacht. 2 of their 35 footers are to the west of North Molle Island & in trouble. They cannot make headway in the rising seas. Can anyone help?

I don’t like this. Amateur sailors, with ropes, near propellers in rough conditions is asking for disaster, but what can you do. We are the only boat near, & just a couple of miles away. The 2 amateur skippers are very competent luckily, & we have them both in tow in just 45 minutes.
That’s when we get a call from the barge, it is losing power on the starboard engine, & can’t make headway towards Shute in the now moderate seaway. I can’t help him with these yachts out back, so tell the skipper to head to Airlie Beach, it’s mostly down wind, & out of the rough stuff. He is to shove the thing up into the mangroves, drop all the anchor gear, & get home. His family were not taken to the safe house, as he should have been home.

1.00 PM we finally get into Shute Harbour after a fair battle with increasing seas. As we do, the whole bay starts smoking. Spray is rising up from the water, first at the far end of the harbour, coming to meet us as we get near the jetty. This indicates about 70 knots of wind usually, but it only lasts for a couple of minutes

Continued.

We get the yachts as close to their facility as possible, & get them to drop their tow. The company has their staff there to help now.

We get our thing tied up about 2.30 PM, & head for Airlie Beach, to look after our own families. Strangely it is not that bad at Airlie. In fact by 4.00 PM it is a quite nice afternoon. That smoking water was the switch to north west wind as the eye passed not too far south of us.

It is fortunate the folk of the weather bureau were many miles away from the Whitsundays. If I could have got to them just then, I might have done something very nasty to them, with the sharp end of a pineapple.

How they expect to be takes seriously with their predictions I really don’t know. Talking about 100 years, when they can’t even get a few hours right is really too much.

Hasbeen, do you know the difference between weather and climate?

If you can't predict the weather a few hours out, even with satellites, you should go back to school for a few decades before you claim to have any idea of future climate.

Some of you people will believe anything, provided it is from a fellow traveller.

Was 2014 the hottest year on record? Most likely not, even NASA isn't sure although NASA recently made the claim.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/01/20/nasa-were-about-38-percent-sure-that-2014-was-the-warmest-year-on-record-n1945399?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm&newsletterad=thpm1

"The Nasa press release failed to mention that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of
just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.
As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa
thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent."

Who are the alarmists blaming for the hottest year 1880 and how could have that possibly happened? Is it remotely possible Mother Earth was just having one of those years?

Climate change pales in comparison to population growth and Muslim expansionism in regards to what is the most serious problem our grandchildren face. Regrettably, the Nathan J's don't regard the latter as a potential problems.

From the Australian newspaper 2013:

"Mr Hunt has said the government would rely on the bureau, the CSIRO and his department for advice and to provide public information on climate change."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/bureau-to-step-into-climate-gap/story-e6frg6xf-1226726496560

Also I advocated against my local council introducing a rubbish collection service in rural areas, when being considered seeing it as unfair as it targeted people who threw out little or no rubbish.

2006/07 data show Australians created around 44 million tonnes of solid waste, or 2,080 kilograms of waste per person (ABS statistics).

I don't throw out a lot of waste myself and argued the Federal Government should introduce a "rubbish tax" to directly target people who are causing this problem, which will only get worse. So why did we get rid of the carbon tax?

Hasbeen, that's like saying "if you can't do integral calculus you should go back to school before you claim to have any idea of linear equations!"

The BOM are actually pretty good at predicting weather, but no weather forecasters get everything right. It requires a huge amount of data, and there are always things we don't know. That's far less important for climate because they average out.

ConservativeHippie, measurements show last year was the hottest in record, though not by much.NASA concluded that 2014 was more likelier than any other year to be the hottest on record. See http://mashable.com/2015/01/20/climate-skeptics-warmest-year/

"The BOM are actually pretty good at predicting weather, but no weather forecasters get everything right. It requires a huge amount of data, and there are always things we don't know. That's far less important for climate because they average out."

Well the average climate patterns over the past few million years show that Ice ages are a much bigger threat to humanity than the relatively brief warm periods in-between. Another ice age will come, and that there is no manmade way of stopping. Climate is cyclical and that is exactly why us 'deniers' aren't buying into the whole man-made-global warming hysteria. The warm periods are the only time mankind thrives and the current IPCC projected temperature increase is actually not life threatening, despite the associated warmist fear mongering.

Personally I don't think BoM is any better at predicting the weather than the old Farmer's Almanac used to be. Certainly the weather predictions we receive on the nightly news which come from BoM are only about 70% correct at best.

Would you believe the UK bureau has even come out & declared 2014 was not the hottest year on record. These people can't even get together on their lies.

Of course I guess it depends on which record you're using. They have been revising the historical record down on a regular basis now, for 20 years.

Only those who have kept the old records have any idea what is going on, but enough have to know the truth.

Yep ConservativeHippie, we've had a bit of rain up here this month, 6 inches, after a fair drought. It's been hot too.

Where the stock were walking in dust, & having a problem finding a pick of grass, it is now up tickling their bellies every where, & over their heads on the river flats.

It has been hot too, a bit above average thank god. If we had the same rain in June or July, in the cold, it wouldn't be grass tickling their bellies, it would be mud. Not much grows when it's cold.

Do you think that might be the greenies plan? Try to keep it too cold for anything to grow, so we'll all starve to death

Dear Nathan,

Thank you for raising this discussion.

The following link may be of interest to you:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html

Prof. Tor Hundloe in his book, "From Buddha to Bono:
Seeking Sustainability," tells us that:

"In Australia in 2006, leading climatologists with the
country's pre-eminent public research organisation, CSIRO,
were forbidden by the organisation's management from
publicly discussing the implications of climate change.
Management was acting on behalf of the government. And
Australia is one of the standout countries in terms of
human development status. It is not corrupt. Its science
is world class. None of this matters. In 2006, the
Australian Government's position was to cast doubt on
global warming ..."

"With the release of the Stern Report on climate change,
the Australian Government's position changed - yet the then PM
remained half-hearted about a commitment to counter global
warming. New ideas, instead of being welcome for the
opportunities they opened up for the improvement of the
human lot were seen as threats to those who had become comfortable
in their ideologies..."

"The Bureau of Meterology has been observing and reporting
on weather in Australia for over 100 years and CSIRO has been
conducting atmospheric and marine research for over 60
years. Both have produced peer reviewed data on temperature,
rainfall, sea-levels, ocean acid, and carbon dioxide and
methane levels in the atmosphere."

http://www.carbonneutral.com.au/climate-change/impacts-on-australia.html

Yes hasbeen, I know it well as I was on South Molle 85 to 87 myself and we found two methods of predicting the weather that worked equally well, the first was what is now BOM, the second, stick your head out the window. In fact the second option was usually the most reliable. I remember going to the reef one day on the Capricorn in what must have been 5 m seas. In fact I was in with the skier that day and he and I were the only two not sick. Funny thing is, the trip back a few hours latter it was a mill pond.

I have so many fond memories of SM, from carrying big Arty home from the staff bar in the front end loader, or seeing old Dawn crack a whammy cause someone changed the menu board, hitting golf balls on to Daydream of the frot deck of the Islander, or taking the Caricorn to Bowen play cricket with Sauly and crew.

From memory you guys used to take the Capricorn and the Reef into Long Island Sound during cyclones.
It was a great life and what they got away with with the stores would see them in jail today.

But, because the BOM are so unreliable it's hard to take anything they say for granted, especially when so much is as stake, both environementally and financially. Get it wrong and we could well waste so much money that we could not recover. There are simply too many clonficting opinions from experts.

Would love to catch up one day to talk about the old days on South Molle. I live in the Redcliffe area.

Dear Hasbeen,

That was certainly a long winded way to make your point but story telling like that is an Australian art form so it is hard to begrudge it.

I will try and keep my tale a little more succinct.

I lived in Darwin for nearly 3 years before Tracy. Each wet we would always get one or two cyclone warnings. My father, who worked on the rigs and knew a bit about weather especially manning craft that could not run or shelter from its worst, would always take precautions in line with the warnings. Many of our neighbours would laugh it off. I clearly remember disparaging remarks about the Weather Bureau's record and the utter disregard for alerts. Two of them lost their lives on Christmas night 1974 and one woman was severely psychologically scarred from spending that night alone in her toilet. We met her in New Zealand many years later and she was still having horrific panic attacks at Christmas.

Weather is unpredictable and the Bureau is on a hiding to nothing from grumpy cusses like you when it issues its warnings. Whinge away when it doesn't happen but scream to high heaven if an event is worse than predicted or a warning not given.

These are hard working people who care about doing a profession job knowing lives may well depend on their forecasts. They deserve our gratitude not the derision sad sacks like you want to sling their way.

ConservativeHippie,

You refer to how climate change pales in comparison to population growth and with problems our grandchildren face. Regrettably you seem to think I don't regard the environment that humans live in as an issue.

In fact if people view the youtube on the link you put in - including a National Press Club presentation by Clive Palmer (2014) re the repeal of the carbon tax, he says: "We want to claim a better future for our children." In what way Mr Palmer - so they can vote for your party at the next election? Too many people today are not concerned about the impacts of climate change - and the damage humans are causing to the environment in general.

The report, I referred to is a joint report by the BOM and the CSIRO - so there is a higher level of credibility as a result and is very detailed. I've downloaded and started to read the document. Climate change has occurred on earth due to natural causes, however, on the basis of considerable evidence and strong evidence in the area of climate science research, changes observed over the past few decades show impacts are mainly caused by human activity.

Climate change has arisen from combustion of fossil fuels (known as hydrocarbon fuels) and land change use. These alter the Radiative Balance of the earth, by changing atmospheric compositions, enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, or by changing the reflectivity of the earth's surface or atmosphere.

Activities that contribute to an enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect are:

Combustion of fossil fuels, which releases greenhouse gases, clearing of forests, which releases carbon dioxide through increased biomass decay, deforestation, soil tillage and land degradation, which releases carbon from the land system and reduces its capacity to absorb and store carbon.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Browse_by_Topic/ClimateChange/whyClimate/human

As I put it when we have so many "free" experts in science, why bother to employ scientists at all? The government can't keep denying science forever - they are running out of fresh air.

Steele my problem was because I listened to the BOM, not disregarded it.

If they can get a 48 hour warning wrong by 38 hours, it is fair to say they are about as useful as tits on a bull. They definitely should err to the side of caution, not advise no problem & be wrong

I agree many people are "bloody idiots" when it comes to cyclones. I used to get annoyed at people who wanted to experience one. Yes most are not really dangerous, but about 20% are going to kill someone.

With the satellite images they had in the 80s it is actually unforgivable to get it so wrong. Fortunately we can now pull them up ourselves, & do our own tracking.

Incidentally that little story was done for another site that asked for it.

Rehctub I would love to get together. I emailed Graham a couple of years back asking him to give you my email address, but nothing happened. You try, perhaps you will have more success.

I'm down Beaudesert way. I don't get "UP NORTH" too often, but I could make an exception.

No worries hasbeen, I will email Graham.

The island is closed now,Only open to groups, so too is Linderman, although it's about to be leveled and rebuilt by the Chinese. My two years on the island hold some of my fondest memories, from big Arty wobbling down the staff area with the dirts on when someone stuffed up, to Terry the engineer going off when the generator was playing up, and who will ever forget the yachties with their tenders hanging in the breeze off the jetty when the tide went out. So much to talk about, we have to catch up.

So Nathan, from your post history I'm assuming you're quite young.

As kid growing up in the 60's - 70's, we thought nothing of burning off, or chopping down trees, or even killing birds, fish and the likes of Sting Rays just fir something to do. In fact I don't even think the word environment was mentioned throughout my entire schooling life, although I was no scholar either.

Factories would pump their raw liquid waste into rivers and streams, and a chemical spill was seen as waste, not an environmental problem. My generation changed that.

Nowadays we think before we chop down a tree, or kill anything just for something to do. We have also learned to recycle our rubbish with some degree of success and implemented laws that make it unlawful to dump commercial and toxic waste willy nilly, a practice that was common in the 70's and 80's.

The point is that people from my generation have been environmentally conscious fior many years now so perhaps rather than preach to the converted, young ones should pick up the can and run with it, take it to the next level to some degree, but to keep suggesting people of my generation don't care is just not correct.

We've done our bit, which has seen younger ones inherit a much healthier environment than we as kids did, so I'm more than happy to hand over the baton when ever you're ready.

So good luck with it!

Tropical cyclones have historically had a reputation for being unpredictable. Much effort has been dedicated to improving the forecasting skill in both location and intensity. The Bureau of Meteorology routinely issues forecasts of cyclone location and intensity at 12, 24 and 48 hour time-steps. All official forecasts are verified by comparison with the best track, the official estimate of the location and intensity of a tropical cyclone. A best track is prepared for every tropical cyclone, after the fact, using all available data.

Cyclones vary considerably in their predictability. Some exhibit rapid changes in intensity or change course, speed up or slow down, primarily in response to changes in the surrounding environment. Cyclone Lena (1993), for example, was moving to the west but made a U-turn and returned close to its original path. The 24-hour forecast error for Lena was 258 km, more than double the 1999/2000 - 2003/04 average. Cyclone Gwenda (1999) intensified from a category 2 to category 5 cyclone in 24 hours but subsequently weakened from category 5 to category 2 in less than 24 hours before crossing the coast a few hours later. Others follow a steadier course and more even development cycle such as Vance (1999) making forecasts considerably easier. Also cyclones at the category 1 stage are typically difficult to locate as the centre may not be apparent from satellite imagery, compared to stronger systems that have a well-defined eye. Those systems that markedly change their course or intensity close to the coast present the greatest challenge to forecasters and decision-makers in the community. Community awareness is much higher when a cyclone develops well offshore prior to crossing compared to one that rapidly develops near the coast.

From the BOM itself.

I am for clean energy and technology. I believe as Rachel Carson did, that corporations should pay for the clean up of the environment and not the consumer who purchased the products.We pay a Carbon Tax and the polluters keep polluting....makes no sense.

Every couple of years over the past decade we are shown images of receding permanent ice caps, both north and south.Melting glaciers and snowless mountain peaks. But the tidal records for Fort Dennison in Sydney from 2000 to 2010 show a lower than average high tide point than the previous 100 years...where did the water go?

Nathan, rehctub here again, just a correction, when I said inherit a Mach better environment than we did, what I should have said is, if we hadn't acted as we did in the 70's and 80's.

You do need to check who is showing you those images sonofgloin. It is definitely best if you only trust the satellite ones, including temperature. The others get "corrected" every few months.

Just the other day we had some "scientists" probably as part of a grant application, screaming the Antarctic sea ice is melting.

This is interesting when the satellite story is we have had an increase of almost a million square kilometres more sea form there in the last few years.

The bleating was that a warmer ocean would melt it from underneath, & raise the sea level some tens of meters.

They really must be talking only to people who believe Labor party economics. Anyone else understands that frozen or melted, floating sea ice doesn't effect sea level.

It really is important these days that when some academic is talking, you only listen with a pinch of salt, & another tinny in hand, otherwise you may take them seriously.

Hasbeen I think you misunderstood what they were saying. The problem isn't the sea ice, but rather the land ice. Ice melting on land raises the sea level. It also reduces the local salinity of the sea slightly, particularly near the surface (as fresh water is less dense than salt water). This makes it easier to form sea ice in the winter.

No Aidan, it is they who must miss understand.

Yes I know they said land ice, but they also said it was the warm ocean under it, that they claimed was melting it. I do understand they are academics & concepts that only sea ice has ocean water under it may be a bit advanced for them, but we do try not to laugh in their faces.

I think they may be as confused as the ship of fools, who were trapped in the ice they told us had gone.

With all the bulldust in the media there must be a new funding round, & a big fly in fly out conference, with a cast of millions, just around the corner.

I'm getting worried. A few more years of pause, & a few more frigid winters up north, & the best joke in decades will be finished. Who/what will we have to laugh at then?

No, Hasbeen, the misunderstanding is on your part. There is some water under the ice on the land, though we don't yet know how much. If there's a lot of it then global warming's more of a problem because it reduces friction between the ice and the rocks so the ice will reach the sea more quickly.

Rising sea levels (from thermal expansion as well as from melting ice) will mean more seawater will get under ice that's currently on land, which could be an even bigger problem because of its salinity and temperature, meaning it will melt the ice more quickly.

And the recent melting of the ice shelves (where the sea ice remained all year round) has also resulted in faster movement of ice from the land to the sea.

What would it take to convince you that what you've regarded as a joke is a very serious problem? Or are you so arrogant that you think you're always right regardless of the evidence?

I can't follow Aiden's comment at all. The land ice would be glacial and possibly 100's of meters deep. The land ice is on land otherwise it is floating in the sea. If the glacier is on land we can presume much of it must also be above sea level as generally the term land means the areas not in the sea.

How could water from the sea possibly travel uphill under the full length of the glacier and then start melting the glacier from below? What is stopping this mystery/magical water from freezing when it makes contact with the glacier?

Aiden's description of the science causing the 'melting of the Artic' or Antarctic is a perfect example of Warmist logic. They quote "facts" with total disregard to common sense. When we have an extra hot summer it's the proof of global warming but the opposite doesn't apply if we have an extra cold winter. Sun spots, the effects of La Nina and El Nino's or volcanic eruptions never mentioned as possible contributing factors effecting a change in climate.

Even the IPCC's figures show the sea level increase over the past 200 years (since the so called mini-ice age in the mid-1700's) has only been increasing at a consistent rate of 0.02 centimetres per decade (1.7 - 2.0mm per year). At this rate the sea level will rise by about one inch over the next hundred years. (e.g. 10 x 10 decades being 10 X 2mm = 2 centimetres; slightly less than an inch).

The Warmists use such statistics (the sea level is rising) as proof we face coastal flooding in the near future. Yet the empirical evidence and the math clearly show there is no threat. One inch is no where near the 3 - 6 meter increase in sea level they say is coming in the not too distant future.

The ice surrounding the Antarctic is grounded in a number of places, that is to say the ice is actually sitting on the sea bed, if you have any problem with that idea consider what happens when you place a block of ice a meter high in a container with water to a depth of 1 cm. the ice will obviously not float because its water line would be around 90cm.

The problem that arises is where the ice shelf meets the warm ocean water, it undermines the grounded ice melting it from below and allowing warm water to penetrate further and further under the ice.

The increase in sea ice (floating) surrounding the Antarctic is seasonal; the extent of winter ice has increased slightly but not that of summer ice. The most likely explanation is a reduction in saltiness of surface layers of the ocean around Antarctic due to increased due to an influx of fresh water from melting ice.

Re sea level the current rate of sea level rise is estimated at 3.3mm per year and is expected to increase, at the current rate that works out 330 mm or over 1 foot in the next 100 years

The original report I referred to highlighted how climate change will also impact on bushfires in South Australia, particularly southern areas, very much directly related to a drying climate.

A lightning-sparked bushfire in the town of Waroona south of Perth has been declared an emergency. The fire has escaped containment lines, threatening homes in Nanga Brook Scarp Road, Woodley Heights, Forrington Heights and Invarell Road.The blaze is moving fast in a westerly direction and is out of control and unpredictable, the Western Australia emergency services department warns - Friday January 30 2015.

http://media.telstra.com.au/home.html

The recent bushfires (in South Australia) saw around 30 homes lost and people will try to get their lives back in order. The insurance costs across the board will be large - and the costs to the taxpayer (through centrelink payments) are to be in the millions of dollars.

I will say it again; You are worrying about the wrong problem.
Tight oil production is winding down and even if the price does not
remain low, it is believed the capital will not be available to restart drilling.
Crude oil is declining at around 4% a year, that is greater than any
CO2 reduction scheme.

Have a look at these figures;

Energy Return on Energy Invested for oil & coal.

YEAR OIL COAL
1930 100 80
1970 30 30
2005 10 to 18 coal nbr not available

The software of this site makes tables difficult.
Once any energy source gets below about 7 the curve net energy really
rolls over and the source becomes useless. Wind and solar are around 5 to 7.

What those figures show is that the cost of extracting oil & coal is
rising steeply and will continue until finally they will only be
extracted on a minor scale for medical plastics and the like.

So what you should be worrying about is how to get an efficient new
energy regime going. It is now known that wind and solar cannot do
it on its own and that some other backup system other than gas & coal is needed.
Also demand for energy must reduce by similar scales as to that
achieved with led lighting.

You and the pollies have been warned about this for years but you
poo pooed it and now we do not have the time or probably the money to fix it.

I forgot;
About a week or so after that announcement that last year was the
hottest on an all time record, another announcement was made that it
was in fact the third warmest year on record.

Hmmm
Doesn't matter anyway.

Bazz, it was measured as THE WORLD'S warmest year on record, though not by much.
It was also measured as AUSTRALIA'S third warmest year on record.

And you're assigning too much significance to EROEI. What counts for corporations is financial return, not energy return.

Six months of 2014 (May, June, August, September, October, and December) were record warm, while April was second warmest, January, March, and July were fourth warmest for their respective months, and November was seventh warmest.
Overall, the global annual temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.06°C (0.11°F) per decade since 1880 and at an average rate of 0.16°C (0.28°F) per decade since 1970.
Top 10 Warmest Years (1880–2014)
The following table lists the global combined land and ocean annually-averaged temperature rank and anomaly for each of the 10 warmest years on record.
Rank
1 = Warmest
Period of Record: 1880–2014 Year Anomaly °C Anomaly °F
1 2014 0.69 1.24
2 (tie) 2010 0.65 1.17
2 (tie) 2005 0.65 1.17
4 1998 0.63 1.13
5 (tie) 2013 0.62 1.12
5 (tie) 2003 0.62 1.12
7 2002 0.61 1.10
8 2006 0.60 1.08
9 (tie) 2009 0.59 1.06
9 (tie) 2007 0.59 1.06

To conservative hippy. In a non warming world, you would expect roughly the same number of cool records to be set as there would be warm records, when averaged over an appropriate timescale. Here in Aus, and many if not most places around the world, the number of warm weather records per year greatly out numbers the cold temp records. Much of the warming in Aus is seen in increasing minimum nightly temperatures. Absolutely yes, we are warming our one and only world.

ConservativeHippie,

<<How could water from the sea possibly travel uphill under the full length of the glacier and then start melting the glacier from below?>>
It can't. The trouble is it wouldn't need to. Merely reaching the edge of the glacier would erode it more quickly. The higher the sea gets the worse the problem would be, particularly if there's fresh water below the glacier (as would happen if melting occurs on the top and water falls through the cracks) as then the sea at the edge of the glacier would slow the flow of that water, meaning there's more water under the glacier which would reduce the friction and so speed up the glacier's flow.

<<What is stopping this mystery/magical water from freezing when it makes contact with the glacier? >>
The glacier not being cold enough. I hope that clears up the mystery.

<<Aiden's description of the science causing the 'melting of the Artic' or Antarctic is a perfect example of Warmist logic. They quote "facts" with total disregard to common sense.>>
On the contrary, I'm showing far more common sense than you are. Your problem is you wrongly take "common sense" to mean "expectations", and you disregard facts that contradict it.

<<When we have an extra hot summer it's the proof of global warming but the opposite doesn't apply if we have an extra cold winter. Sun spots, the effects of La Nina and El Nino's or volcanic eruptions never mentioned as possible contributing factors effecting a change in climate.>>
Volcanic eruptions have a cooling effect. Sunspots have a small effect that seems to be diminishing. And El Niño and La Nina are the effects not the cause; global warming is expected to lead to more El Niño events.

Our hot summers are seemingly without precedent. When was the last time we could say the same about extra cold winters?

To runner, just find the statistics of hot weather caused deaths. Additional warming not a laughing matter. Also review the number of farmers in Bendigo, Shepparton district who have bulldozed fruit orchards because of fruit loss thru heatwaves.

To Spindoc,
Do you know why the sky is blue? It is the colourless oxygen and nitrogen gases in our atmosphere that temporarily grab blue light energy from the Suns light, then tosses it in all directions. Carbon dioxide does exactly the same thing with invisible IR heat energy heading out to space. Scattered in all directions, a proportion is sent back to earth, causing less heat loss at night, and consequent planetary warming. By the way, this science known by late 1890s - a long time ago. Some people take a long time to learn, or deliberately turn a blind eye.

Aiden, if the energy return is sufficient the amount of energy that
has to be input to the system is enormous with low eroei,
and it then becomes financially unviable.
Even if the input energy is free, you must take into account the
embedded energy and that is why solar and wind fail.
It cannot be escaped.

Bazz,
<<if the energy return is sufficient the amount of energy that
has to be input to the system is enormous with low eroei,
and it then becomes financially unviable.>>
Absolutely. But it's just one of the factors that determines what's financially viable. Other factors could make something financially unviable with an EROEI of over a hundred, or viable with an EROEI of just two!

<<Even if the input energy is free, you must take into account the
embedded energy and that is why solar and wind fail.>>
No it isn't. Apart from a few sites with technical problems, where solar and wind fail it is because the cost of finance is too high, not because the EROEI is too low.

To conservative hippy
The main point to note is that our planet earth is not cooling. Doesn't really matter if 2014 is warmest, or is just a little bit below being warmest. The earth is not cooling, which might have been expected if there were no AGW.

Can Aiden and/or Tony153 please explain to me why the perceived change in our climate cannot possibly be a natural phenomenon. I accept there have been climate changes but I cannot accept its all man-made.

There seems to be evidence the climate was warmer during the Roman era going by where they were able to grow grapes in Northern England and parts of Europe. There is also eye witness accounts from the 1800's by explorers in Greenland expressing the glaciers had melted away and will never return, but obviously they did return and relatively fast.

Given the debate over the scientific evidence and the emergence of a climate religion and the manipulation by some of the leading scientists to hide inconvenient 'anomalies' I'm simply not convinced our current situation isn't within the natural parameters of cyclic climate changes. It feels to me there is another agenda at play and most people are unknowingly buying into it.

Each of us has to make our own mind up. I don't see how the dubious actions such as buying carbon credits, an ETS or carbon tax will eliminate the problem if it is man-made; to me these are just wealth redistribution and get rich quick schemes for the lucky few at the top.

Australia produces 2% of the man-made carbon going into the atmosphere. All of the man-made carbon in the atmosphere amounts to approximately 5% of the total. Why isn't the 95% naturally occurring carbon (some of it being from volcanos) in the atmosphere the problem, if carbon is a problem? Australia hasn't caused the problem and Australians cannot reverse the climatic trends.

If the sea level increases a foot, or 30 centimetres over the next 100 years, I don't feel its time to panic. 100 years from now the population will have increased so much the survivors will have bigger issues to concern themselves about.

To Conservative Hippy. Since 1870, sea level rise already 20cm, so 30cm fairly soon. Although your prose is OK, your para

"Given the debate over the scientific evidence and the emergence of a climate religion and the manipulation by some of the leading scientists to hide inconvenient 'anomalies' I'm simply not convinced our current situation isn't within the natural parameters of cyclic climate changes. It feels to me there is another agenda at play and most people are unknowingly buying into it."

is full of vitriol. Unless you can verify any of that statement, I detect a closed mind. One unable to be changed. But, just a small insight into climate variations. Ice ages are generally tied to the Milancovich cycles, orbital variations. According the current state of those cycles, the earth should be cooling. Some deniers promulgate the myth that we are cooling. However, AGW is over riding that cooling. Our planet is warming. What is your explanation? But, no science please, as you appear to distrust science.

Conservative hippie,
Just in case you might be capable of absorbing a little science. Antarctic ice cores capture fluctuations in atmospheric CO2, proxy temperatures and more. A 3 km Antarctic core shows 800,000 years of climate history. Over a number of iceages, CO2 in the atmosphere never exceeded 285 ppm over that period. Since the start of industrialisation, we have now reached 400 ppm. If we have not caused that rise, what is your solution. And, by the way, those dreaded scientists can differentiate bewteen long lived atmospheric carbon, and carbon from fossil fuels. All to do with galactic cosmic rays directed at the earth from The Enterprise.

ConservativeHippie,

Growth in the Australian economy has led to increases in energy use, previously the mining sector but now others - due to viability factors.

However, all factors need to be considered. An expanding population is having an impact, along with rubbish disposal, expanding levels of car use, long periods of a "drying climate" we had, which saw all Australian capital cities placed under water restrictions, and expensive water recycling programs that will be needed in the future, simply to cater for population numbers which are expected to increase by the middle of the century, in Australia by natural population growth.

Salt interception schemes, along the Murray Darling Basin have been installed due to poor upstream irrigation schemes, and these are costing taxpayers around $25 million dollars each at present.

The subsequent increase in the number of households requiring power and heating, have also contributed to impacts on the environment, accounting for more than three quarters (77%) of Australia’s total greenhouse emissions in 2009.

In 2009-10 Australia’s net energy consumption, increased with solar energy accounting for less than 1% of Australia’s net energy consumption. The majority of Australian citizens can't afford solar electricity - its too expensive. 74% of energy consumption in 2009/10 has came from industry, and 26% came from households. The main fuels consumed in Australia were natural gas (24%), electricity (22%), diesel (18%) and petrol (16%).

Methane, at least 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide, which significantly adds to the greenhouse effect causing climate change accounted for 86.5 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions from the waste sector in 2005-07 - of which the majority of this waste comes from households and accounted for 3 percent of Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions in 2005.

If humans continue to add to problems on the planet - all will pay for it. By the way - your tax bills will be going up.

ConservativeHippie,

<<Can Aiden and/or Tony153 please explain to me why the perceived change in our climate cannot possibly be a natural phenomenon. I accept there have been climate changes but I cannot accept its all man-made. >>
We know CO2 has a warming effect (because it absorbs and reradiates infrared).
We also know the planet is warming (because it's been measured).
Those two facts alone would make it very unlikely to be a coincidence, but alternative explanations are always investigated as scientists work to improve their understanding of the atmosphere. And all the evidence so far suggests that CO2 concentration is what's driving the change.

<<There seems to be evidence the climate was warmer during the Roman era going by where they were able to grow grapes in Northern England and parts of Europe.>>
As they are able to do now. That suggests England was relatively warm at that time. But competition (from France and from beer) is likely to have been a bigger limiting factor for the English wine industry than climate.

<<Given the debate over the scientific evidence and the emergence of a climate religion>>
The neocons' "climate religion" accusation is the most outstanding example of spin mastery I've ever encountered, as it makes it sound evil to Christians and unscientific to atheists. In reality climate change denialism is far more like a religion.

<<and the manipulation by some of the leading scientists to hide inconvenient 'anomalies' >>
That was a great setback, though AIUI the intention was not to deceive but to prevent hostile media from misinterpreting the results (as the media unfortunately has a track record of doing).

<<I'm simply not convinced our current situation isn't within the natural parameters of cyclic climate changes.>>
What would it take to convince you?
Do you understand Bayesian probability?

<<t feels to me there is another agenda at play and most people are unknowingly buying into it.>>
There is another agenda at play: the coal industry agenda. Tony Abbott's bought into it, and you too, it seems.

...

...
<<Each of us has to make our own mind up. I don't see how the dubious actions such as buying carbon credits, an ETS or carbon tax will eliminate the problem if it is man-made; to me these are just wealth redistribution and get rich quick schemes for the lucky few at the top. >>
The problem is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. By putting a price on emissions, these schemes encourage greater efficiency and favour those processes that produce less CO2 (or none) over those that produce more.

<<Australia produces 2% of the man-made carbon going into the atmosphere. All of the man-made carbon in the atmosphere amounts to approximately 5% of the total. Why isn't the 95% naturally occurring carbon (some of it being from volcanos) in the atmosphere the problem, if carbon is a problem? Australia hasn't caused the problem and Australians cannot reverse the climatic trends.>>
The greenhouse effect is something we rely on to keep us warm, and the naturally occurring CO2 isn't increasing so isn't a problem. BTW the planet's volcanoes are thought to have a net reducing effect, as some of them result in carbonates being precipitated out of seawater.

Australia alone can not solve the problem, but that was never the intention. Australia's lack of action is preventing international cooperation in reducing CO2 emissions. So far we've been punching well below our weight, which is quite frustrating as we have the potential to be a world leader.

<<If the sea level increases a foot, or 30 centimetres over the next 100 years, I don't feel its time to panic. 100 years from now the population will have increased so much the survivors will have bigger issues to concern themselves about.>>
Panic is never the objective, but unless we address the problem quickly, we'd be very lucky if the sea level rise is that small.

Aiden says "Unless you can verify any of that statement, I detect a closed mind. One unable to be changed."

Well for the record from the late 1980's up until 2005 I did believe in global warming. Most of my life I've distrusted the multinational corporations as much as any greenie, believed organic vegies are better for your health, and essentially go along with the idea the whole world economy is manipulated by a handful of rich families and secret societies.

My thinking changed about global warming when I discovered the alternative scientific evidence was being suppressed. The more I read the alternative theories the more they made sense to me. It appears to me we've reached a point where AGW is the politically correct view and 'deniers' or sceptics are an expendable annoyance. That creates a suspicion in my mind another agenda is behind the hysteria.

It's probably annoying to the AGW scientists that all of the planets are warming. But hey, that's got nothing to do with our situation so we'll just keep that out of the MSM.

I'm still not a fan of the multinationals, I still eat organic food and realise much of the fate of the world is manipulated by the rich. I accept the climate has changed during my 66 revolutions around the sun. I distrust big government and feel the 'democracy' we live with is mostly lip service. I've also come to the conclusion left wing politics has created a politically correct way of controlling the masses that is every bit as detrimental to the future generations. The dumbing down of Western society via political correctness is creating generations of people who never question anything or use their brains to analyse the situation before them.

As I previously said, we each have to make up our own minds. I don't have a closed mind to climate change but I am sceptical, very sceptical. Even if it turns out I'm wrong, I would rather keep my current opinion than be a mindless believer going along with the 'correct view' when it doesn't feel right.

It's going to take a change of govt; to face climate change. When you have a leader that says it's crap; the door is shut.
As for backing out policy that aids the reduction of co2 is out of step with the rest of the world.
We have a leader that broke every policy promise he made, to chase his own agenda, and apparently there is no one that has the nous to take over the top job.

Nathan, I am not sure the Internet alone will stop global warming, but better use of computers and telecommunication can reduce greenhouse gas production. My next course on "ICT Sustainability" srtarts 16 February at the Australian National University. I have talked about the course at Google Sydney HQ. You can read the course notes at: http://www.tomw.net.au/ict_sustainability/introduction.shtml

Still worrying about the wrong problem !

All Australian's are suffering every day from climate change - and an excellent report titled "A climate of suffering" can be found at:

http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/TCI_AClimateofSuffering_August2011.pdf which highlights the many issues people face now due to the serious impacts of climate change. The report says: "The damage caused by a changing climate is not just physical. Recent experience shows extreme weather events also pose a serious risk to public health, including mental health and community wellbeing, with serious flow-on consequences for the economy and wider society."

"The emotional and psychological toll of disasters can linger for months, even years, affecting whole families, the capacity for people to work and the wellbeing of the community. Higher rates of drug and alcohol misuse, violence, family dissolution, and suicide are more likely to follow more extreme weather events. Evidence is beginning to emerge that drought and heat waves lead to higher rates of self-harm and suicide, as much as 8 per cent higher."

Climate change, can change the climate of a household or an individuals life. Government's, household's and the wider community can't keep denying the issue. All elements of our planet will be impacted upon if we don't act now - but how many are going to take action?