errr Global Warming?

Australian Federal, State and Local Politics
Forum rules
Don't poop in these threads. This isn't Europe, okay? There are rules here!
Post Reply
User avatar
Rorschach
Posts: 14801
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:25 pm

Re: errr Global Warming?

Post by Rorschach » Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:15 pm

Alarmists and ABC at it again...

Fires recently in South West WA have caused two deaths, burned 72,000 hectares and destroyed 143 homes, wiping out 80% Yarloop. But it’s all happened before, and the fires were bigger, worse, and burned a larger area. The ABC have described the infamous fires of 1961 before, but there doesn’t seem to be any mention of the history of these historic fires in their current news. Surely it’s relevant? No one at the $1 billion dollar agency did the internet search that an unfunded blogger did.


Last night they were on about fires, floods and droughts... like they were new things or the worst they have ever been... NOPE!!!

it's all happened before and bigger and better.
In January 1961 the remnants of cyclones meant dry thunderstorms lit fires in the hot dry South West of Western Australia. Ten separate fires began in the same area near Dwellingup. They wiped 60 year old small timber towns off the map, and razed 123 houses. Over the next 41 days, fires continued to burn, destroying 160 buildings and burning through hundreds of thousands of hectares of land (134,000 hectares in the Dwellingup Fire, but 1.5 million hectares burned in SW WA that summer -PDF ). The damage bill would come to $35 million. Somehow, incredibly, no lives were lost.

The fires of 1961 in South West Western Australia:

“Temperatures soared to 41C and winds of 60km/hr whipped” the South West.

“Dwellingup sustained considerable damage and had to be virtually rebuilt.

Not so lucky were the small mill communities of Holyoake, Nanga Brook, Marrinup and Banksiadale which were literally wiped off the map. In fact, following the fires, a decision was made not to rebuild these towns.”

South West WA is one of the most fire prone regions of the world, says Bushfire CRC:

South-west Western Australia is one of the most fire-prone regions in the world due to the combination of a Mediterranean-type climate with hot dry summers and the presence of large areas of flammable native vegetation. It is also a biodiversity hotspot where the role of fire is key. Prescribed fire has been used extensively in forest landscapes since the 1960s to mitigate the impacts of bushfires on the community and on environmental values including biodiversity. The ecological implications of prescribed burning, however, remain contentious.

The response to the 1961 devastation was to have a Royal Commission, get radio equipment, and do better prescribed burning.
It seems we forget pretty quickly and get slack when proper precautions need to be adhered to in out country... of drought and flooding rains....
not to mention bushfires eh :du
DOLT - A person who is stupid and entirely tedious at the same time, like bwian. Oblivious to their own mental incapacity. On IGNORE - Warrior, mellie, Nom De Plume, FLEKTARD

User avatar
Rorschach
Posts: 14801
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:25 pm

Re: errr Global Warming?

Post by Rorschach » Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:31 pm

What the alarmists and ABC don't want you to know...

http://joannenova.com.au/2016/01/yarloo ... h-west-wa/
DOLT - A person who is stupid and entirely tedious at the same time, like bwian. Oblivious to their own mental incapacity. On IGNORE - Warrior, mellie, Nom De Plume, FLEKTARD

User avatar
IQS.RLOW
Posts: 19345
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:15 pm
Location: Quote Aussie: nigger

Re: errr Global Warming?

Post by IQS.RLOW » Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:16 pm

Looks like they have been cooking the books again...


According to NOAA, the global average temperature for the 20th century was 57 degrees Fahrenheit.
And the 2015 average was 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit above that average.
In other words, according to this recent NOAA report, 2015 was the hottest year ever at 58.62 degrees Fahrenheit (57+1.62).
And, that 1997 NOAA report states 1997 had an average global temperature of 62.45 degrees.

1997's 62.45 degrees is 3.83 degrees Fahrenheit higher than 2015's 58.62 degrees Fahrenheit, meaning that - using NOAA's own numbers - 2015 cannot be the hottest year on record.

http://www.mrctv.org/sites/default/file ... 1%20PM.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Quote by Aussie: I was a long term dead beat, wife abusing, drunk, black Muslim, on the dole for decades prison escapee having been convicted of paedophilia

User avatar
Neferti
Posts: 18113
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: errr Global Warming?

Post by Neferti » Mon Jan 25, 2016 5:53 pm

Al.jpg

User avatar
Super Nova
Posts: 11788
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:49 am
Location: Overseas

Re: errr Global Warming?

Post by Super Nova » Wed Jan 27, 2016 7:19 pm

Read this and weep. Please don't dismiss the science.

Dr Grimes says that a plot to fake the moon landings would have been revealed in three years, eight months and a climate change conspiracy would have leaked in three years, nine months.

Faked Moon landing would have been exposed within four years, scientist concludes
A scientist has used mathematics to disprove popular conspiracy theories.

Image

Dr David Grimes, of the University of Oxford, developed a formula which showed that the numbers of people involved in sophisticated conspiracies, such as fake moon landings, would have led to them being exposed.

He worked out that for something to stay a secret for over one hundred years could have involved a maximum of 125 people. However, a plot involving more than 2,521 people could stay covert no longer than five years.

Therefore, the moon landings, which took place in 1969 and involved at least 411,000 NASA employees, could not have been faked and kept secret until now, according to the formula.

Dr Grimes said: "It is common to dismiss conspiracy theories and their proponents out of hand but I wanted to take the opposite approach, to see how these conspiracies might be possible. To do that, I looked at the vital requirement for a viable conspiracy-secrecy."

His theory is based on the notion that a certain number of people can keep a secret only for a limited amount of time. The more people involved, the less time it remains a secret.

His equation takes into account the probability of a conspiracy being accidentally revealed or deliberately leaked by a whistle-blower. It was informed by evidence from real conspiracies, including Edward Snowden’s exposure of the NSA Prism project.

Dr Grimes says that a plot to fake the moon landings would have been revealed in three years, eight months and a climate change conspiracy would have leaked in three years, nine months.

The research also scrutinised medical conspiracies. A vaccination conspiracy would have emerged in three years and two months, Dr Grimes claims, and a suppressed cancer cure would be exposed in three years and three months.

For conspiracies that do not require active maintenance, there are various factors involved in the calculation: the number of plotters, the length of time, and the effects of conspirators dying.

Dr Grimes added: "A number of conspiracy theories revolve around science. While believing the moon landings were faked may not be harmful, believing misinformation about vaccines can be fatal. However, not every belief in a conspiracy is necessarily wrong - for example, the Snowden revelations confirmed some theories about the activities of the US National Security Agency.

The research was inspired by messages Dr Grimes receives from people who believe in science related cover ups.
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/fak ... spartandhp
Always remember what you post, send or do on the internet is not private and you are responsible.

User avatar
IQS.RLOW
Posts: 19345
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:15 pm
Location: Quote Aussie: nigger

Re: errr Global Warming?

Post by IQS.RLOW » Fri Jan 29, 2016 10:38 pm

How SN was sucked in....

http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-an ... ckey-stick" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Quote by Aussie: I was a long term dead beat, wife abusing, drunk, black Muslim, on the dole for decades prison escapee having been convicted of paedophilia

User avatar
Super Nova
Posts: 11788
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:49 am
Location: Overseas

Re: errr Global Warming?

Post by Super Nova » Wed Feb 24, 2016 5:54 pm

Here is one for Roach and IQ.

Please note is a paid for political paper.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation is a think tank founded by Lord Lawson of Blaby, a former chancellor, to challenge mainstream climate change theory. The foundation paid Professor Mills £3,000 to write the report, which it said was its standard fee.

Planet is not overheating, says professor
Published at 12:01AM, February 23 2016

The global average temperature is likely to remain unchanged by the end of the century, contrary to predictions by climate scientists that it could rise by more than 4C, according to a leading statistician.

British winters will be slightly warmer but there will be no change in summer, Terence Mills, Professor of Applied Statistics at Loughborough University, said in a paper published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

He found that the average temperature had fluctuated over the past 160 years, with long periods of cooling after decades of warming.

Dr Mills said scientists who argued that global warming was an acute risk to the planet tended to focus on the period from 1975-98, when the temperature rose by about 0.5C.

He used simple statistical methods, normally used to predict economic trends, to forecast future temperatures. He took into account all the fluctuations in the temperature since 1850 and found no evidence to support the increase predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a UN scientific body.

He found the average winter temperature in central England, which has the world’s longest temperature records going back to 1659, had increased by about 1C over 350 years. Based on that change, he forecast an additional increase of about 0.25C by 2100. He said the average temperature would continue to be “buffeted about by big shocks” caused by natural events, such as the El Niño weather phenomenon.

He said that his analysis, unlike computer models used by the IPCC to forecast climate change, did not include assumptions about the rate of warming caused by rising emissions.

“It’s extremely difficult to isolate a relationship between temperatures and carbon dioxide emissions,” he said.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation is a think tank founded by Lord Lawson of Blaby, a former chancellor, to challenge mainstream climate change theory. The foundation paid Professor Mills £3,000 to write the report, which it said was its standard fee.

Bob Ward, of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics, said it was “an interesting academic contribution” from Professor Mills but added: “It would be very foolish for any policymakers to base decisions on this sort of analysis alone while ignoring the climate models that incorporate the physics of the atmosphere and that show increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the future will lead to higher global temperatures.”

Last year was the warmest since global records began in 1850, beating the previous record set in 2014.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environme ... 696832.ece
Always remember what you post, send or do on the internet is not private and you are responsible.

User avatar
Rorschach
Posts: 14801
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:25 pm

Re: errr Global Warming?

Post by Rorschach » Sun Mar 20, 2016 9:49 am

So what's your point I've been waiting for YOU to actually make one. :du
DOLT - A person who is stupid and entirely tedious at the same time, like bwian. Oblivious to their own mental incapacity. On IGNORE - Warrior, mellie, Nom De Plume, FLEKTARD

User avatar
Super Nova
Posts: 11788
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:49 am
Location: Overseas

Re: errr Global Warming?

Post by Super Nova » Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:26 pm

So deniers, when we wait out the El Niño effect what will you say then as the energy of the earth keeps going up.

And as I have argued, the so called pause, "This is a catch-up of a recent hiatus " and I don't see predictions from your side. All I see is BS.

When we post here in 2 years I look forward to your humble admission you got it wrong.

February was the warmest month in recorded history, climate experts say

From Alaska to Australia, an unprecedented heating of planet Earth is underway with rising temperatures across huge swaths of land mass and oceans© AAP Image/David Crosling From Alaska to Australia, an unprecedented heating of planet Earth is underway with rising temperatures across huge swaths of land mass and oceans Our planet went through a dramatic change last month. Climate experts revealed that February was the warmest month in recorded history, surpassing the previous global monthly record – set in December. An unprecedented heating of our world is now under way.
With the current El Niño weather event only now beginning to tail off, meteorologists believe that this year is destined to be the hottest on record, warmer even than 2015.

Nor is this jump in global temperature a freak triggered by an unusually severe El Niño, say researchers. “It is the opposite,” said Professor David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey. “This is a catch-up of a recent hiatus that has occurred in rising global temperatures. We are returning to normality: rising temperatures. This is an absolute warning of the dangers that lie ahead.”

Those dangers are now being dramatically demonstrated around the globe: drought in the Marshall Islands in the Pacific, which has forced the government there to issue a state of emergency warning; France observed its warmest winter since records began; while the sea ice that has formed in the Arctic this winter is about a million square kilometres less than its average for this time of year.

A farmer shows his failed crops on his parched farm in Megenta area of Afar, Ethiopia.© AP A farmer shows his failed crops on his parched farm in Megenta area of Afar, Ethiopia. This latter feature is likely to have particularly profound consequences. “A low sea-ice level in winter will definitely promote a low level of sea ice next summer,” said Vaughan. “Arctic summer ice – which is dwindling dramatically – is changing the region.”

In particular, disappearing sea ice allows more and more ships to get to once unreachable regions in high latitudes. As a result, plans to drill for oil and gas in the Arctic – a prospect that horrifies many scientists and environmental groups – are being prepared by most major oil companies.

Last month’s jump in global temperatures represents an increase of 1.35C above pre-industrial levels and takes the world close to the 1.5C rise that last year’s Paris climate deal was supposed to prevent. “Last month’s figure is a one-off and it remains to be seen if temperatures are going to continue to rise this steeply,” said Professor Richard Betts, head of climate impact research at Exeter University. “We are still not at an established 1.5C rise, but there is no doubt this is a worrying sign.”

Scientists and politicians are keen to hold global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels because they fear that a world that warms to such a level will experience severe loss of ice, particularly from Greenland’s massive shield of glaciers, and that the melting will in turn trigger considerable rises in sea levels.

Scientists warn there are many island states in the Pacific that will simply disappear if the planet undergoes that sort of warming. In addition, if the temperature increases to 1.5C, it will combine with ocean acidification driven by rising carbon dioxide emissions to dissolve the world’s already threatened coral reefs. “That is why last month’s temperature level was so significant – and worrying,” added Betts.

INDONESIA

The Indonesian government announced last week it was taking emergency action to deal with an alarming rise in the number of fire-risk danger spots across the country. Last October forest fires blanketed Indonesia and neighbouring Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines in smoke and haze. Dozens died from burns or toxic fumes. The fires were initially triggered by farmers clearing land but spread uncontrollably because vegetation had dried with the advent of El Niño last October. This, in turn, occurred against a background of global warming linked to rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. The result was a conflagration that cost Indonesia billions of dollars. Now some of the worst affected regions, East Kalimantan and Riau, have reported a worrying return in numbers of fires and hotspots. As a result, the government has announced that it is gearing up to deal with outbreaks of fire.

“With rising global temperatures caused by carbon emissions, El Niño helped to turn Indonesia into a tinder box,” said Professor Richard Betts, head of climate impact research at Exeter University. “That threat could soon return.”

ETHIOPIA

Gillian Mellsop, Unicef representative to Ethiopia, is under no illusions about what is happening to the country: it is experiencing one of the worst droughts in its history. More than 10 million people need emergency food assistance, she told the Observer. In particular, an estimated 435,000 children under five will need treatment for severe acute malnutrition. Nor is Mellsop in any doubt about the reason for this crisis. “Ethiopia has been hit by a double blow, both from a change to the rainy seasons that have been linked to long-term climate change and now from El Niño, which has potentially led the country to one of the worst droughts in decades,” she said.

“As carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere, background temperatures rise. Each new El Niño then superimposes itself at a hotter level and so triggers more and more damage.”

Last year, with the rise of El Niño, Ethiopia’s rains failed. Crops withered and cattle died. One estimate suggests that 5.8 million people now need help with water and sanitation provision, and 3.9 million children and adolescents cannot get access to education because of the drought.

ALASKA

No region on the planet has warmed as much as the Arctic. In some areas temperatures almost 7C above average have been recorded. Sea ice cover in the Arctic – which should be reaching its maximum in a couple of weeks – last month stood at a record low for the second consecutive month. Similarly in summer, sea ice cover has dwindled. Overall, the Arctic’s sea ice cap has shrunk by nearly a third since 1979, according to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre. And that is a real problem. Ice is the life support platform on which Inuit and local wildlife depend.

Sea ice allows indigenous people to travel on snowmobiles to visit relatives in winter. Last week the Guardian reported on one couple in Alaska who narrowly escaped when their snowmobile plunged into soft ice that would normally have been frozen hard. Similarly, permafrost is melting and buildings are collapsing while wildlife species– including polar bears – are suffering from the disappearance of the ice platforms on which they once relied for hunting or protection.
Map
SNAPSHOT OF A WARMING WORLD

Across the planet, nations have experienced a wide variety of impacts as the world has gone through unprecedented heating. According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, most of Earth’s land surfaces were warmer than average, with record warmth notable across various areas of South America, much of southern Africa, southern and eastern Europe, around the Urals of Russia, and most of south-east Asia, down to northern Australia.

A vast region stretching from central Russia into eastern Europe, along with most of Alaska, experienced February temperatures more than 5C above the average for 1981 to 2010.

New Zealand (1) observed its second warmest month since national records began while in Toronto, Canada, (2)temperatures reached 16C, the highest temperature ever for February. Similarly, the average February temperature in Venezuela and northern Colombia (3) was about 3C higher than the 1981-2010 average. Not every nation enjoyed the heat, however. Temperatures were below average in southern Argentina (4), for example. Similarly, all official reporting stations in Iceland recorded below average temperatures for the month. The average sea surface temperature for December to February was 0.84C above the 20th century average of 15.8C, with record highs for large swaths of the tropical Pacific Ocean (5), various regions of the North and South Atlantic, much of the Indian Ocean, and the Barents Sea in the Arctic (6).

Meteorologists noted strong El Niño conditions across equatorial Pacific in February although temperatures began to drop from the highs of 2015 suggesting it was coming to an end.

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/feb ... spartandhp
Always remember what you post, send or do on the internet is not private and you are responsible.

User avatar
Super Nova
Posts: 11788
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:49 am
Location: Overseas

Re: errr Global Warming?

Post by Super Nova » Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:34 pm

Enjoy the article title then read on.

How climate change deniers got it right — but very wrong
06/16/15 08:30 PM By Tony Dokoupil

It turns out the climate change deniers were right: There isn’t 97% agreement among climate scientists. The real figure? It’s not lower, but actually higher.

The scientific “consensus” on climate change has gotten stronger, surging past the famous — and controversial — figure of 97% to more than 99.9%, according to a new study reviewed by msnbc.

James L. Powell, director of the National Physical Sciences Consortium, reviewed more than 24,000 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published in 2013 and 2014. Only five reject the reality of rising temperatures or the fact that human emissions are the cause, he found.

“It’s now a ruling paradigm, as much an accepted fact in climate science as plate tectonics is in geology and evolution is in biology,” he told msnbc. “It’s 99.9% plus.”

Powell, a member of the National Science Board under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, decided to share an exclusive draft of his research on Tuesday — just days before Pope Francis is set to deliver a major address on climate change — because he doesn’t want his holiness to reference outdated numbers.

“I don’t want the Pope to say 97%,” Powell said by phone, arguing that accuracy now is more important than ever. “It’s wrong, and it’s not trivial.”

Pope Francis is preparing to charge into the political debate over climate change, citing “a very consistent scientific consensus” and the risk of “unprecedented destruction,” according to a leaked draft of Thursday’s papal encyclical.

The notion of 97% agreement among climate scientists started with studies in 2009 and 2010. It wasn’t until a 2013 study, however, that the figure went viral. President Barack Obama tweeted it. The comedian John Oliver set up a slapstick debate between a climate change denier and 97 of his peers.

But Powell argues that acceptance of man-made global warming has grown. The author of a new Columbia University Press book on scientific revolutions used an online database to compile a mountain of global warming papers published in the last two years.

He also tried a different approach than the earlier studies. Rather than search for explicit acceptance of anthropomorphic global warming, Powell searched for explicit rejection. All the papers in the middle, he figured, weren’t neutral on the subject — they were settled on it.

The results include work from nearly the entire population of working climate scientists — close to 70,000 scientists, often sharing their byline with three or four other authors. They also include a dwindling opposition: Powell could find only four solitary authors who challenged the evidence for human-caused global warming.

That’s a rate of one dissenting voice for every 17,000 agreeing scientists, and it’s not a strong voice. Powell called the four dissents “known deniers and crackpots,” and noted that their work had been cited only once by the wider academic community.

“I don’t want the Pope to say 97%. It’s wrong, and it’s not trivial.”

James L. Powell, director of the National Physical Sciences Consortium
Naomi Oreskes, a professor of the history of science at Harvard, hasn’t read the Powell paper but she doesn’t doubt the general direction of the findings.

Back in 2004, she became the first researcher to claim a “consensus” on climate change, finding a roughly 75% agreement within the literature.

“Scientists have done so much more work since then,” she said. For me, as a historian of science, it really feels like overkill. One starts to think, how many more times do we need to say this before we really get it and start to act on it?”

One reason for inaction of course is politics. Many of the world’s leaders still doubt the science of climate change, assuming incorrectly that it’s unsettled or exploratory. The view is especially prevalent among the current crop of Republican presidential candidates.

Earlier this month, for example, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum told Fox News that the pope would be “better off leaving science to the scientists.” Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, meanwhile, claim that the science remains vague or is made up entirely.

That raises a second reason for inaction, according to Oreskes: intentional deception. Oreskes is the co-author of the “Merchants of Doubt,” a book that demonstrated how interest groups had undermined the science on tobacco, ozone depletion, acid rain and now climate change.

Many self-proclaimed “climate skeptics” no longer deny that the globe is warming, and some even acknowledge a human role in the new heat wave. Instead, they now say, warming is real — it just isn’t dangerous. They also attack the idea of a consensus, whatever the percentage.

“Nothing has really changed there,” said Oreskes. “The details shift but the overall picture remains the same. It’s a bit like Monet’s water lilies; it can look different at different at different times of day but it’s the same picture.”

Powell, however, hopes his work can finally close the debate, end the notion of doubt, move the frame ahead.

“There isn’t any evidence against global warming and there isn’t any alternative theory,” he said. “We’ve been looking for negative feedbacks and we’ve never found one that amounts to anything. It’s not impossible that we will, but I wouldn’t bet my grandchildren’s future on it.”

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-climate- ... very-wrong

Image
Always remember what you post, send or do on the internet is not private and you are responsible.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests