Climate Change

[Esel]

I'll go through it again. I thought it would be pretty simple?

This site shows the towns used to show the global warming that is occurring in Australia.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=site-networks

Click on any of those red dots. Nearly all of them will show the place is heating up.


Yet there are 100's more data sets. Look at this page, also on BOM

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/index.shtml

Most are no good as there is missing info everywhere. Probably 90% are no good. But there are still hundreds that are fine. I'd think on average a third show no change in temp, a third show warming, and a third show cooling. I was scratching my head trying to work out why the official info shows so much warming. The towns data sets have been cherry picked.


See ya's.

I'd still love to know why you think the scientists are trying to mislead you.

I've read a lot on the BOM website. The data shows a clear warming trend in Australia since about the 50s. This makes sense because the causes of CC, the greenhouse gases also took off from about the 50s.

Warming or cooling in the past have been caused by factors outside of human control and there are lots of factors that can cause shifts in climate. More than 97% of scientists agree that global warming since the early 1900s has been caused by human activity. This we can control. If the positive affects out weighed the negative it wouldn't be as much of an issue (there will be positive effects for some people and places) and probably no action would be taken. But We have 7 billion people now and advanced economies so we can't just move everyone out of harms way.


BOM did not invent the concept of CC. They make up only a tiny fraction of the worlds scientists and data.

 

[Hoffy]

And we all know how the farmers will scream if there is any move to remove the "Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme".

As they should. Can you explain why the excise should apply to farmers?

 

[Esel]

So what caused that stuff last time?

Lots of different things, earthquakes, sun spots, El Ni?o, positive feedback loops etc.... The point is that the current change in climate is man made and going to be very expensive and disruptive to deal with, so we should try and prevent it rather than trying to cure it once it happens.

 

[Hoffy]

Another big problem would be if land based ice melts because it will disrupt people's water supply (no snow melt = no rivers) and because if the land based ice in the arctic melts it will raise sea levels, flooding millions in coastal settlements.

These are lots of other examples out there but I think these two are particularly relevant for Australians.

How many Australian rivers are sourced by snow melt?

 

[Hoffy]

More than 97% of scientists agree that global warming since the early 1900s has been caused by human activity.

Can you qualify this statement?

 

[Esel]

Research and polls aren't reflecting what you see at all.

The political debate hasn't moved on, let alone business leaders.

http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/...elieve-humans-are-to-blame-for-global-warming

http://www.gallup.com/poll/161645/americans-concerns-global-warming-rise.aspx

http://www.angusreidglobal.com/issue/global-warming/

Perhaps Gran is on the ball and questioning why warming has paused for the last 17 years while emissions have continued to rise.

It's a fair thing to do don't you think when even the scientists who believe GW is man made have admitted they can't explain it OR predict how long it could last (but can predict future warming ).

Warming hasn't paused for 17 years. Scientists look at land, atmosphere and ocean temperatures. 2012, 2006 and then 1998 were the hottest years in that order. Scientists can explain it. They have.

 

[LibGS]

As they should. Can you explain why the excise should apply to farmers?

Where did I say that? How about correcting your post or better still deleting it.

 

[Esel]

Can you qualify this statement?

This is from NASA because I was trying to find the most impartial source;

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

This is is for skeptical science:

Several studies have confirmed that ?...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes?. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 97% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

 

[Ausprop]

As they should. Can you explain why the excise should apply to farmers?

LOL - why should anyone have to pay tax? perhaps farmers need to go the way of holden?

 

[Esel]

How many Australian rivers are sourced by snow melt?

In one sentence I mentioned water supplies and rising sea levels. Rising sea will affect Australians who live in coastal settlements. Most Australians live in cities and towns along the coast. Most Australians will be affected by rising sea levels.

Ta daaaaa! and good night

 

[Ausprop]

Most Australians will be affected by rising sea levels.

sydney harbour is a back filled river ravine caused by rising sea levels. change is inevitable, whether you care about the cause and rate of change is the next matter, to which I would ask why does it matter?

 

[Hoffy]

Are my sentences too long or do I need to join up the dots?

In one sentence I mentioned water supplies and rising sea levels. Rising sea will affect Australians who live in coastal settlements. Most Australians live in cities and towns along the coast. Most Australians will be affected by rising sea levels.

Ta daaaaa! and good night

Seems you can't even read your own sentences lol. You gave 2 examples that were particularly pertinent to Australia in your view. I asked you about one of them, that is "no snow melt = no rivers". Do I have to join the dots. It's just that your alarmism alarmed me and I was hoping you could allay my concerns.

All that university education and all.... would have thought you could comprehend a simple question.

 

[Hoffy]

LOL - why should anyone have to pay tax? perhaps farmers need to go the way of holden?

There were very specific reasons they were exempted and these reasons haven't changed.

 

[Hoffy]

This is from NASA because I was trying to find the most impartial source;



This is is for skeptical science:

Skeptical Science, they're the mob behind the "Consensus Project" aren't they? Seems that the most recent discussion of Consensus from Nasa also references this project, an update since the 2010 reference source in the above quote.

Do you think the Consensus Project is a good source?

 

[Hoffy]

Where did I say that? How about correcting your post or better still deleting it.

So you support the exemption?

 

[LibGS]

So you support the exemption?

Irrelevant. I was commenting on something else.

 

[Hoffy]

Irrelevant. I was commenting on something else.

So you don't support it? I read very well, and I read between the lines even better.

 

[LibGS]

So you don't support it? I read very well, and I read between the lines even better.

I don't support govt subsidies for any industry. Again, this is totally irrelevant to my response to Bayview. Nice attempt at your strawman though. Try a primary school kid, they'll fall for it.

 

[weg]

Warming hasn't paused for 17 years. Scientists look at land, atmosphere and ocean temperatures. 2012, 2006 and then 1998 were the hottest years in that order. Scientists can explain it. They have.

Graham Lloyd |
The Australian|
February 22, 201312:00AM

Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said in Melbourne yesterday everyone has the right to question science.

THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend.

Dr Pachauri, the chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that open discussion about controversial science and politically incorrect views was an essential part of tackling climate change.

...

 

[willair]

Over 11000 posts and even on both sides of the fence no one will win on this..myself I still think its just another way to tax the public,,
,