do the greens need a lesson in economics? news.com.au article

[Shadow]

You keep posting it as a belittling 0.04% concentration, as though something in a concentration like that couldn't possibly have a strong negative effect.

Would you care for 0.04% of cyanide in your food? Come on, it's only 400ppm and the meal itself is only 1% of your body weight, so it can't possibly have an impact!

0.04% cyanide in the body would probably be fatal.

0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere isn't harmful at all. In fact it's probably beneficial since increased CO2 is better for plant life and increases crop yields.

 

[BayView]

So; a total variation from lowest to highest change from -0.1 to 0.5 (0.6 degree) over 44 years.

Does this then mean that the projection would be for a 1.2 degree rise over 88 years, and so on?

What were the figures in the preceding 44 years?

Or 100 years?

 

[spludgey]

Shadow and Bayview, maybe you should put some money on it!

 

[spludgey]

No response? Come one, I'm 100% serious, I sign a statutory declaration that I will pay you $250,000 if climate change isn't real, you sign one saying that you'll pay me $250,000 if climate change is real and we'll reconvene in ten years' time.

 

[BayView]

No response? Come one, I'm 100% serious, I sign a statutory declaration that I will pay you $250,000 if climate change isn't real, you sign one saying that you'll pay me $250,000 if climate change is real and we'll reconvene in ten years' time.

Are you talking about Global Warming, or Climate Change?

How can you prove that Climate Change is real?

Hasn't it already been said here by others that CC - things such as increased/decreased Tornedo, Wind, Rain, Clouds, Tidal Waves, Earthquakes, Thunderstorms etc - no apparent evidence to support changes?

I know from my experience there hasn't been any change in the weather really since I can remember.

Went to Ireland in August, 2000 for 4 weeks - a bit of heat, a lot of cold and wind and rain - normal summer.

3 years in USA from 05-08 nothing happening there by all accounts. L.A was it's usual 300 days of blue sky.

They did have a poor year for snow up at Lake Tahoe though when we went there for a ski (still 2 metres though! ) - GW?

I can say though that this summer in Melb was a dud...no days over 40, had a bit of rain....so what?

Correspondingly; very cold winter in the USA and other parts...so what?

I wouldn't call any of those examples CC - just yer normal weather fluctuations.

I have a vivid memory of driving down to Frankston beach from the city after picking up my girlfriend from work on Feb 14th (my birthday) one summer. I was 19 - so; 35 years ago.

We were going down there for a Valentine's Day date/birthday celebration.

We were stuck in peak hour traffic on Nepean Highway, it was 5.30pm and stinking hot. The news came on the radio and the weather guy said it was 42 degrees....we stayed there until midnight, and the next day I heard on the news that many folks slept out on the beaches that night, because the tempo didn't drop below 30 degrees.

Would you call that - then this pathetic summer - CC?

1994 - March 26 - my Wedding Day - 35 degrees and a glorious Autumn Day. Too hot in the bag of fruit actually.

During the week preceding this day, almost the entire week was cold and raining non-stop...like frickin winter.

The good wife and I were getting very nervous - the wedding was an outdoor garden ceremony and reception.

Give us yer explanations on those examples. CC?

You blokes are gunna chime in now with; "Yeah; but that's only anecdotal..it's not science".

It may be anecdotal, but it doesn't make it any less real.

March is travelling below average, apparently....early winter? Hope not; the winters down here are too bloody long as it is.

 

[topcropper]

No response? Come one, I'm 100% serious, I sign a statutory declaration that I will pay you $250,000 if climate change isn't real, you sign one saying that you'll pay me $250,000 if climate change is real and we'll reconvene in ten years' time.

But how could you lose? If it's hotter, colder, stormier, dryer, wetter, you believers will blame human carbon emissions anyway. Remember,, that's why climate scientists changed the words from global warming to climate change in the first place. It wasn't heating up as much as expected. Remember?


See ya's.

 

[BayView]

Remember,, that's why climate scientists changed the words from global warming to climate change in the first place. It wasn't heating up as much as expected. Remember?


See ya's.

Yeah; and the rain started falling after we were gunna run out water, and.....

 

[wategos]

Remember,, that's why climate scientists changed the words from global warming to climate change in the first place. It wasn't heating up as much as expected.

No one "changed the words", they are different things. Do you guys not understand that or are you just baiting? Either way its impossible to argue with you. Your minds are made up, you don't want to know.

Meanwhile in the real world the Pacific ocean has two of the most powerful storms ever recorded in the Pacific in the last 4 months and extreme weather event records are being broken around the world on a regular basis.

 

[spludgey]

But how could you lose? If it's hotter, colder, stormier, dryer, wetter, you believers will blame human carbon emissions anyway.

Fine, I'll change it to "global warming caused by human emissions". That should be specific enough.

While I suspect that there won't be a 'debate' in ten years time, if there is, this matter could then be resolved in court, just like the measles one was that I linked above.

 

[LibGS]

Fine, I'll change it to "global warming caused by human emissions". That should be specific enough.

While I suspect that there won't be a 'debate' in ten years time, if there is, this matter could then be resolved in court, just like the measles one was that I linked above.

Actually it is climate change. Changes will make it colder in places. Mischievous deniers, these dangerous people will make up any crap they like, they will twist words, they will selectively use evidence. They will never though, never ever actually commit to what they are saying.

Put it in writing, submit to scientific journals. You would make lots of money. What sort of mentality ignores all that cash? Maybe is better to crawl on all fours for copper coins. But it is hard to ignore these people. I think of them the same way BV thinks of dole budgers. I hate and despise them.

 

[spludgey]

Actually it is climate change. Changes will make it colder in places.

It's both. I think global warming is still relevant, as the average global temperature is rising. Of course this doesn't mean that temperatures are rising everywhere.

 

[Hoffy]

Meanwhile in the real world the Pacific ocean has two of the most powerful storms ever recorded in the Pacific in the last 4 months and extreme weather event records are being broken around the world on a regular basis.

hang on, the IPCC said there is no increase over the last 100 years on frequency or intensity of cyclones in the South Pacific. The BOM categorically States the same for cyclones making landfall in Australia.

What is your motivation in linking these recent normal events to AGW.

 

[LibGS]

hang on, the IPCC said there is no increase over the last 100 years on frequency or intensity of cyclones in the South Pacific. The BOM categorically States the same for cyclones making landfall in Australia.

What is your motivation in linking these recent normal events to AGW.

Here is what the IPCC actually said in the 2014 report,

There is low confidence that long - term changes in tropical cyclone activity are robust and there is low confidence in the attribution of global changes to any particular cause. However, it is virtually certain that intense tropical cyclone activity has increased in the North Atlantic since 1970.

Jonathan Nott, a professor at James Cook University and expert on cyclone history said this:

However, there is evidence that climate change will increase the maximum potential intensity of cyclonic events by increasing the warmth available to be tapped from the oceans. "That will be one factor that will allow cyclones to become more intense in the future," Professor Nott said.

Another issue is that the tropical region where cyclones can form is expanding north and south of the equator. "We've got evidence already that this is happening," he said.

A decade ago, US scientists began discussing whether the Atlantic hurricane gauge needed to be extended beyond its top category, also a five, after a season of particularly strong events.

"Maybe with the increasing frequency of these extreme events, there will be a more lively discussion of whether we should have a cat-6 or not," Professor Nott said.

What the BOM has actually said is this:

Trends in tropical cyclone activity in the Australian region (south of the equator; 90?160?E) show that the total number of cyclones appears to have decreased to the mid 1980s, and remained nearly stable since. The number of severe tropical cyclones (minimum central pressure less than 970 hPa) shows no clear trend over the past 40 years.

Wind speed is only one aspect of tropical cyclones and their impacts. The amount of heavy precipitation from all weather systems, including tropical cyclones, is likely to increase. Increased rainfall intensity from tropical cyclones is pertinent to Australia, since these storms have historically been associated with major flooding.

Additionally, increases in storm surges and extreme sea-levels are very likely to occur in association with tropical cyclones under future climate change. This change is independent of changes in tropical cyclone intensity and is directly related to increases in global mean sea-level due to global warming.

 

[Hoffy]

Here is what the IPCC actually said in the 2014 report,



Jonathan Nott, a professor at James Cook University and expert on cyclone history said this:



What the BOM has actually said is this:

The BOM charts are there for anyone to see. No increase in frequency despite big increases to greenhouse gases. In fact clear downward trend in frequency, and slight downward trend in severity.

With regard to the IPCC, they say "Over periods of a century or more, evidence suggests slight decreases in the frequency of tropical cyclones making landfall in the North Atlantic and the South Pacific, once uncertainties in observing methods have been considered. Little evidence exists of any longer-term trend in other ocean basins"

My question to wategos stands, but I'm sure he appreciates your "effort".

 

[Shadow]

No response? Come one, I'm 100% serious, I sign a statutory declaration that I will pay you $250,000 if climate change isn't real, you sign one saying that you'll pay me $250,000 if climate change is real and we'll reconvene in ten years' time.

Strange bet. Climate change is real. The climate has been changing for billions of years, and will continue to change for billions more years.

 

[Shadow]

Fine, I'll change it to "global warming caused by human emissions". That should be specific enough.

What proportion caused by human emissions?

Human emissions are one of the many things that contribute to climate change, but their impact is very small, probably negligible, compared to the natural forces that have been driving climate change for billions of years (mostly the sun and our distance/angle from it).

Let's put it this way. If the strength of the sun was increased by 30% over 100 years, would that have a greater or lesser impact on the global climate than the 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 100 years?

Let's see... the 30% increase in CO2 over the past 100 years has had zero impact on the climate. No increase in storms. No islands flooded. Nothing. Nothing bad has happened. The human race has thrived. We're producing more food than ever. Our population has boomed. We have spread out to inhabit most of the planet.

If the strength of the sun had increased by 30% over those 100 years then the human race would be extinct. Most life on earth as we know it would have ended.

So what is the biggest driver of Earth's climate? The sun, or a trace gas that makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere?

 

[topcropper]

Yeah; and the rain started falling after we were gunna run out water, and.....

desalination plants were built all over the joint costing billions of dollars that have never been used, and.......


See ya's.

 

[LibGS]

My question to wategos stands, but I'm sure he appreciates your "effort".

No effort at all. The Internet is wonderful, it allows you to get actual quotes from real scientists, real scientific data, and real scientific results. You don't even have to make up stuff, you should try it sometime.

 

[topcropper]

The BOM charts are there for anyone to see. No increase in frequency despite big increases to greenhouse gases. In fact clear downward trend in frequency, and slight downward trend in severity.

With regard to the IPCC, they say "Over periods of a century or more, evidence suggests slight decreases in the frequency of tropical cyclones making landfall in the North Atlantic and the South Pacific, once uncertainties in observing methods have been considered. Little evidence exists of any longer-term trend in other ocean basins"

My question to wategos stands, but I'm sure he appreciates your "effort".

All the info is on BOM regarding rainfall figures too. Yet somehow they determined that it is getting dryer. Rainfall figures can't be fudged unlike temps, as they are compiled by thousands of people like myself.

See ya's.

 

[LibGS]

All the info is on BOM regarding rainfall figures too. Yet somehow they determined that it is getting dryer. Rainfall figures can't be fudged unlike temps, as they are compiled by thousands of people like myself.

See ya's.

http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/about/

Rainfall has increased in northern Australia since the 1970s and decreased in south-east and south-west Australia.

I call BS on you Topper. Show us all your datasets, from all these thousands of people. I'd love to perform my own analysis.

You should also ring up these dairy farmers and assure them that it is all in their heads.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/s...-adapt-to-climate-change-20150314-1440iu.html