Australian
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 5455 comments are related to the topic:
THE CLIMATE CHANGE MYTH that Julia wants us all to pay for
THE CLIMATE CHANGE MYTH that Julia wants us all to pay for
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 5,455
|
By:
BIGGESR RORT EVER
 |
|
By:
the money grubbers sure didn't like that one secong ...
it was a classic response by those who care little for the environment ... but pretend to support environmental action [i] from the mountain top algae announces to the world ... "get your credits here ... if we haven't got 'em we'll find 'em"   |
|
By:
... "get your credits here ... if we haven't got 'em we'll find 'em"
lol needs an * next to it and in small print saying - for a small fee you can burn all the coal you like BIGGEST RORT EVER |
|
By:
we are ****g the planet - it's not rocket science
 we had an established price, we had a system set up - now we go back to square one and start again. There are advantages in leading |
|
By:
the planet is NOT fk'd at all ...
the absolute alarmist political propaganda might fk us tho .. with their grubby hands in our sovereign wealth so the honesty of NASA scientists is refreshing ... http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/carve/data-arctic-carbon-models-lack-consensus/#.VCSAsCtdV3p Lead author Josh Fisher of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, analyzed 40 computer models of the amounts and flows of carbon in the Alaskan Arctic and boreal ecosystems. His team found wide disagreement among the models, highlighting the urgent need for more measurements from the region. We all knew there were big uncertainties in our understanding, and we wanted to quantify their extent," said Fisher. That extent proved to be greater than almost anyone expected. "The results were shocking to most people," he said. --- add to this the lack of understanding in the affects of clouds & precipitation in our climate as acknowledged by EVERY leading climate scientist (except the IPCC whose computer models are flawed because they assume one type of feedback only) and on the basis of this lack of scientific understanding ... do they want us to STOP using coal now NO .. they want to trade carbon credits allowing the richest miners to buy offsets from the richest bankers ... and without any hiding ... they call it ... a TRADING ScHEME the ETS .. the BIGGEST RORT EVER to be played out on innocent citizens in the history of the world (50 to 70 years of planned wealth redistribution) |
|
By:
****g not fk'd - we need to change our ways
|
|
By:
even the alarmist IPCC say 2050 - 2100 before their flawed models predict fk'd
but yes ... change is good ... however ETS is not change ... it is encouragement for continuation and possibly expansion  |
|
By:
2050-2100 not far off
have a great day |
|
By:
you too pal
|
|
By:
Yes, but what are their models based on ffs.
|
|
By:
what most of the doomsayers conveniently forget is....its the Sun that drives the climate...NOT AL GORE and the proposed bankers picnic (scam).....
pretty sure any termites wont be paying any money to the bankers despite the fact they emit 10 times more co2 than man BIGGEST RORT EVER |
|
By:
another PERFECT day in Gods' own country ..............all without a bankers benefit going on (ETS)
BIGGEST RORT EVER |
|
By:
17 degrees down here, winter is back
weather isn't climate |
|
By:
well the weather is all we've got mate
cause NO-ONE understands the climate ... intimately & or perfectly they just guess they have computer models that disagree with each other they don't understand how to model clouds and they don't understand how to model precipitation and on the back of all that somewhat "incomplete knowledge" .. they then attempt to predict what might happen ... in 85 years  and then in their loose attempt to predict what they do not fully understand they abandon the planet cause .. they want to tax sovereign wealth ... for that same period (85 years) in the hope of fixing something which they do not fully understand the E fkn' T fkn' S ffs = the BIGGEST RORT EVER |
|
By:
they try and make sense of of it and get some stuff right - surely that's better than throwing their hands in the air and ignoring it
|
|
By:
is it snowing in lithgow or is it a interweb rumour from a pro climate change nuffie
 |
|
By:
sydney copping an absolute arhh umm arhh arhh shirtfront from the weather i hear..bit of precipitation
 |
|
By:
looks serious punters..radar image has moved in an hour..and its all red n yellow..ffs
|
|
By:
that damn co2 ... fancy it picking on poor lithgow and sydney ... better tax it i guess ... that'll help
tho beautiful up here in brissie ... must be co2 free perhaps --- and while the climate scientists admit they can't model clouds and they can't find a co2 hotspot ... no matter how hard they try well nasa have found a ... hotspot ... we've found something at last but its a methane hotspot ffs --- An unexpectedly high amount of the climate-changing gas methane, the main component of natural gas, is escaping from the Four Corners region in the U.S. Southwest, according to a new study by the University of Michigan and NASA. The researchers mapped satellite data to uncover the nation's largest methane signal seen from space. They measured levels of the gas emitted from all sources, and found more than half a teragram per year coming from the area where Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah meet. That's about as much methane as the entire coal, oil, and gas industries of the United Kingdom give off each year. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-10-space-based-methane-largest-southwest.html#jCp --- and there's more data on ozone coming in ... but let's let the methane situation sink in first will they try and stop this methane nah ... i'm tipping algae and his grubby cronies will try and ... TRADE IT that'll help the planet |
|
By:
its Putins fault
 |
|
By:
as they keep on saying - it will lead to more extreme weather events, when is the last time it snowed in Lithgow in October???
|
|
By:
so before it was global warming and 'they' all talk about hot weather records being broken blah blah but ANYTHING goes now, cooler temps, snow, bushfires, cyclones, hurricanes, floods, lets see what else will they attribute co2 to....amazing all this stuff happened BEFORE industrialisation as well OMG, its just we only have records SINCE industrialisation
|
|
By:
bigted
its Putins fault classic mate ... it's incredible isn't it secong .. the degree of [b]alarmism[/i] they allow to scare the children & people of the world (to ultimately control them) if anyone wants to understand why they do so please take an hour or so and watch this video from a canadain lady who tracked the history of 'shock & awe' used to control the masses in her documentary "The Shock Doctrine" which both Phil & I have referred to before http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kWMY6G7qpE . |
|
By:
wild weather has been happening on our planet for eons
since the 'news' services have been reporting them regularly on the back of the fake for the planet Emissions Trading Scheme it must seem to honest citizens that these phenomena are new and only happening because of co2 well the facts don't support this agenda for example http://www.blackheathweather.com/bmsnowhistory1.html Lithgow late august 1883 13th oct 1884 nov 1897 oct 1899 what happened in Lithgow on these dates ... a lollypop if you guessed ... SNOW but the common press don't mention this fact .. just the alarmism of it happening in the co2 world of today |
|
By:
if you also guessed ... snow in lithgow ... in ...
sept 1905 oct 1909 and oct 1925 then you would also be correct i need go no further i think you will agree |
|
By:
sheesh we must have been pumping out untold amounts of co2 back then and REGULARLY too...
fk off with your alarmism womble....you once again been caught out on one hand womble you support the scam which will rob the poor (you honestly don't think business wont pass on costs?) and hand all the money to the bankers...yet whinge when the poor get screwed over...which is it? you an e/w punter or what? |
|
By:
btw WD nice work Thebas
BIGGEST RORT EVER |
|
By:
Planet Oz
Graham Readfearn theguardiandotcom Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record Five new studies examine how greenhouse gas emissions helped Australia break multiple temperature records and increase the risk of extreme heat January 2013 was Australia's hottest month on record, beginning a year that become the country's warmest since records began.Firefighters battle a blaze near a caravan park in Victoria in January 2013. January 2013 was Australia’s hottest month on record, beginning a year that become the country’s warmest since records began. Firefighters battle a blaze near a caravan park in Victoria in January 2013. Photograph: The Age/Fairfax Media via Getty Images Australia had a hot one in 2013 – a real record breaker. We started off with a heat wave that made January 2013 the hottest month on record that was part of the hottest summer on record that then became the hottest year on record. Meteorologists and climatologists looking at records tend to express things by “anomalies” – how far above or below the long-term average is a particular temperature. September 2013 had all the anomalous bells and whistles you could muster, managing to break above the long term average by 2.75C – a departure greater than any other month on record going back to 1910. But how much of the temperature rise from that remarkable year was actually down to the extra CO2 in the atmosphere that’s caused the planet to continue to build up heat? Did we leave our dirty fossil fuel fingerprints anywhere? Here’s one answer (actually there are several, but we’ll start with one). Climate scientists Dr Sophie Lewis, of the Australian National University, and Professor David Karoly, of the University of Melbourne, ran two groups of computer models for a study into Australia’s scorching 2013. In one group, they included the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere being added at the rates they are now. In another group of models, they left out the human contribution. They found that on average, the computer models with current levels of carbon dioxide managed to reproduce the temperatures comparable to that scorching year of 2013 every six years. For the computer models without the added greenhouse gas emissions, they got a year as hot as 2013 only once in more than 12,000 years. So was it global warming what done it? I asked Dr Lewis. Instead of focusing on blame, it is more useful to understand the contributing factors to an event, such as natural variability and greenhouse warming. In the case of Australia’s record hot year, anthropogenic influences were a big contributor, to the point that the temperatures we experienced would have been virtually impossible without greenhouse gases. This doesn’t mean that natural variability isn’t important too. There is one line of thought that all the weather and climate events we have experienced have occurred in a hotter, wetter environment caused by greenhouse gases. Because of this, we play a part in everything. Another is the old stock statement that because many factors interact in complex systems, we can’t separate out human influences from natural climate variability. I don’t think either is particularly useful for helping to understand the extremes we are experiencing. Statements like “no single event can be blamed on global warming” aren’t useful. They prevent us from understanding how climate change is influencing what we experience. Lewis’ study was one of 22 in a special edition of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society that looked at potential human influences on 16 extreme weather events across the globe. Five of the 22 studies looked at Australia’s record heat of 2013. One study, led by scientists at the US Government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, looked at Australia’s record-breaking temperature “anomaly” in 2013 for average temperatures – that’s 1.72C. Then they ran a series of computer models. They then sliced up the 1.72C into chunks and found that just under half of the temperature increase (0.81C) was down to human emissions. Another study led by Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology looked in particular at that hot September where the maximum temperatures were 3.32C above the long-term average (what they were between 1961 and 1990). Human influences played “an important role”, the study said, and up to 15 per cent of the extra heat was down to the warming trend since the early 1980s. Another study found that the risk of Australia experiencing more heat waves had now tripled when compared with an atmosphere without the added greenhouse gases. Finally, the fifth study looked at the relationship between drought and maximum temperatures. Before 2013, the hottest year in terms of the maximum temperatures was 2002. The study found that the risk of Australia getting a year of maximum temperatures hotter than 2002 is 23 times greater than it was in the late 19th century. There was an at least seven-fold increase in the risk of Australia getting a combination of extreme heat and drought occurring at the same time. But hold on there. I’ve just realised that in the course of all this, I have forgotten to add those stock phrases about scientists not being able to separate human influences in the climate from all that natural variability. I also neglected the one about human-caused climate change being something we should worry about in the future. My sincere apologies. |
|
By:
whaddya reckon ... tax it or trade it ?
|
|
By:
2 idiots on a gambling blog purport to know more about Climate Science than the actual people who spend their
lives studying the subject. They then set out to cast doubt, ridicule, belittle the whole Climate Science Community. They also present the CLIMATE SCIENTISTS as incompetent fools who are also corrupt. Quite pathetic really. |
|
By:
1 xxxxx cut & pasting old news ... 5 new studies indeed
and making comments without even reading what you commented on so i would be interested to hear your explanation of this part you posted ... from a scientific viewpoint One study, led by scientists at the US Government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, looked at Australia’s record-breaking temperature “anomaly” in 2013 for average temperatures – that’s 1.72C. Then they ran a series of computer models. They then sliced up the 1.72C into chunks and found that just under half of the temperature increase (0.81C) was down to human emissions. ... what do you reckon the 'other half' was down to ? |
|
By:
xxxx = genius
|
|
By:
Take it up with a Climate Scientist Genius.
|
|
By:
2 idiots on a gambling blog purport to know more about Climate Science than the actual people who spend their
lives studying the subject. Says it all really. |
|
By:
Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – were involved in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate became warmer. When CO2 levels jumped rapidly, the global warming that resulted was highly disruptive and sometimes caused mass extinctions. Humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth's past.
Abrupt vs slow change. Life flourished in the Eocene, the Cretaceous and other times of high CO2 in the atmosphere because the greenhouse gasses were in balance with the carbon in the oceans and the weathering of rocks. Life, ocean chemistry, and atmospheric gasses had millions of years to adjust to those levels. Lush Eocene Arctic 50 million years ago Lush life in the Arctic during the Eocene, 50 million years ago (original art - Stephen C. Quinn, The American Museum of Natural History, N.Y.C) But there have been several times in Earth’s past when Earth's temperature jumped abruptly, in much the same way as they are doing today. Those times were caused by large and rapid greenhouse gas emissions, just like humans are causing today. Those abrupt global warming events were almost always highly destructive for life, causing mass extinctions such as at the end of the Permian, Triassic, or even mid-Cambrian periods. The symptoms from those events (a big, rapid jump in global temperatures, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification) are all happening today with human-caused climate change. So yes, the climate has changed before humans, and in most cases scientists know why. In all cases we see the same association between CO2 levels and global temperatures. And past examples of rapid carbon emissions (just like today) were generally highly destructive to life on Earth. |
|
By:
Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. However global temperatures have been increasing. Since the sun and climate are going in opposite directions scientists conclude the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.
The only way to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures is by cherry picking the data. This is done by showing only past periods when sun and climate move together and ignoring the last few decades when the two are moving in opposite directions. |
|
By:
Climate Myth
It's not bad "Two thousand years of published human histories say that warm periods were good for people. It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease." (Dennis Avery) .................................................................. What the Science says..... Here’s a list of cause and effect relationships, showing that most climate change impacts will confer few or no benefits, but may do great harm at considerable cost. Agriculture While CO2 is essential for plant growth, all agriculture depends also on steady water supplies, and climate change is likely to disrupt those supplies through floods and droughts. It has been suggested that higher latitudes – Siberia, for example – may become productive due to global warming, but the soil in Arctic and bordering territories is very poor, and the amount of sunlight reaching the ground in summer will not change because it is governed by the tilt of the earth. Agriculture can also be disrupted by wildfires and changes in seasonal periodicity, which is already taking place, and changes to grasslands and water supplies could impact grazing and welfare of domestic livestock. Increased warming may also have a greater effect on countries whose climate is already near or at a temperature limit over which yields reduce or crops fail – in the tropics or sub-Sahara, for example. Health Warmer winters would mean fewer deaths, particularly among vulnerable groups like the aged. However, the same groups are also vulnerable to additional heat, and deaths attributable to heatwaves are expected to be approximately five times as great as winter deaths prevented. It is widely believed that warmer climes will encourage migration of disease-bearing insects like mosquitoes and malaria is already appearing in places it hasn’t been seen before. Polar Melting While the opening of a year-round ice free Arctic passage between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans would confer some commercial benefits, these are considerably outweighed by the negatives. Detrimental effects include loss of polar bear habitat and increased mobile ice hazards to shipping. The loss of ice albedo (the reflection of heat), causing the ocean to absorb more heat, is also a positive feedback; the warming waters increase glacier and Greenland ice cap melt, as well as raising the temperature of Arctic tundra, which then releases methane, a very potent greenhouse gas (methane is also released from the sea-bed, where it is trapped in ice-crystals called clathrates). Melting of the Antarctic ice shelves is predicted to add further to sea-level rise with no benefits accruing. Ocean Acidification A cause for considerable concern, there appear to be no benefits to the change in pH of the oceans. This process is caused by additional CO2 being absorbed in the water, and may have severe destabilising effects on the entire oceanic food-chain. Melting Glaciers The effects of glaciers melting are largely detrimental, the principle impact being that many millions of people (one-sixth of the world’s population) depend on fresh water supplied each year by natural spring melt and regrowth cycles and those water supplies – drinking water, agriculture – may fail. Sea Level Rise Many parts of the world are low-lying and will be severely affected by modest sea rises. Rice paddies are being inundated with salt water, which destroys the crops. Seawater is contaminating rivers as it mixes with fresh water further upstream, and aquifers are becoming polluted. Given that the IPCC did not include melt-water from the Greenland and Antarctic ice-caps due to uncertainties at that time, estimates of sea-level rise are feared to considerably underestimate the scale of the problem. There are no proposed benefits to sea-level rise. Environmental Positive effects of climate change may include greener rainforests and enhanced plant growth in the Amazon, increased vegitation in northern latitudes and possible increases in plankton biomass in some parts of the ocean. Negative responses may include further growth of oxygen poor ocean zones, contamination or exhaustion of fresh water, increased incidence of natural fires, extensive vegetation die-off due to droughts, increased risk of coral extinction, decline in global photoplankton, changes in migration patterns of birds and animals, changes in seasonal periodicity, disruption to food chains and species loss. Economic The economic impacts of climate change may be catastrophic, while there have been very few benefits projected at all. The Stern report made clear the overall pattern of economic distress, and while the specific numbers may be contested, the costs of climate change were far in excess of the costs of preventing it. Certain scenarios projected in the IPCC AR4 report would witness massive migration as low-lying countries were flooded. Disruptions to global trade, transport, energy supplies and labour markets, banking and finance, investment and insurance, would all wreak havoc on the stability of both developed and developing nations. Markets would endure increased volatility and institutional investors such as pension funds and insurance companies would experience considerable difficulty. Developing countries, some of which are already embroiled in military conflict, may be drawn into larger and more protracted disputes over water, energy supplies or food, all of which may disrupt economic growth at a time when developing countries are beset by more egregious manifestations of climate change. It is widely accepted that the detrimental effects of climate change will be visited largely on the countries least equipped to adapt, socially or economically. Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne |
|
By:
Climate Myth...
Models are unreliable "[Models] are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behaviour in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere." (Freeman Dyson) ......................................................... What the Science says Climate models are mathematical representations of the interactions between the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, ice – and the sun. This is clearly a very complex task, so models are built to estimate trends rather than events. For example, a climate model can tell you it will be cold in winter, but it can’t tell you what the temperature will be on a specific day – that’s weather forecasting. Climate trends are weather, averaged out over time - usually 30 years. Trends are important because they eliminate - or "smooth out" - single events that may be extreme, but quite rare. Climate models have to be tested to find out if they work. We can’t wait for 30 years to see if a model is any good or not; models are tested against the past, against what we know happened. If a model can correctly predict trends from a starting point somewhere in the past, we could expect it to predict with reasonable certainty what might happen in the future. So all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. All other known forcings are adequate in explaining temperature variations prior to the rise in temperature over the last thirty years, while none of them are capable of explaining the rise in the past thirty years. CO2 does explain that rise, and explains it completely without any need for additional, as yet unknown forcings. Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions. For example, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo allowed modellers to test the accuracy of models by feeding in the data about the eruption. The models successfully predicted the climatic response after the eruption. Models also correctly predicted other effects subsequently confirmed by observation, including greater warming in the Arctic and over land, greater warming at night, and stratospheric cooling. The climate models, far from being melodramatic, may be conservative in the predictions they produce. For example, here’s a graph of sea level rise: Observed sea level rise since 1970 from tide gauge data (red) and satellite measurements (blue) compared to model projections for 1990-2010 from the IPCC Third Assessment Report (grey band). (Source: The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009) Here, the models have understated the problem. In reality, observed sea level is tracking at the upper range of the model projections. There are other examples of models being too conservative, rather than alarmist as some portray them. All models have limits - uncertainties - for they are modelling complex systems. However, all models improve over time, and with increasing sources of real-world information such as satellites, the output of climate models can be constantly refined to increase their power and usefulness. Climate models have already predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence. Climate models form a reliable guide to potential climate change. Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne Last updated on 26 February 2014 by LarryM. View Archives |
|
By:
One study, led by scientists at the US Government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, looked at Australia’s record-breaking temperature “anomaly” in 2013 for average temperatures – that’s 1.72C.
Then they ran a series of computer models. They then sliced up the 1.72C into chunks and found that just under half of the temperature increase (0.81C) was down to human emissions. in your own words whad'ya reckon the other half is down to |
|
By:
cause we're finally getting somewhere i reckon AFL
if just under half according to your own info is due to humans do we then conclude that half of the 0.5c warming since the 1950's is due to human endeavour so less than one quarter of one degree celsius according to your report is due to humans in 65 years whad'ya reckon ... be alarmed .. or more importantly .... tax it or trade it |