http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-26/scientists-may-have-underestimated-climate-change/3913288


Quote:

A new study suggests climate scientists may have underestimated the effect of greenhouse gases, with global temperatures now predicted to rise by between 1.4 and 3 degrees Celsius by 2050. The study was published in the journal Nature Geoscience by a team of international scientists who ran 10,000 computer simulations of climate models in an attempt to explore the range of global warming predictions made by climate scientists. The researchers found that while their results matched the predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at the lower end, they were higher than earlier predictions at the higher end. One of the certainties about predicting climate change is uncertainty, which is why climate change professor David Frame and 26 of his colleagues from around the world have tried to narrow things down. "We set out to look at how a large range of climate models could try to span a range of uncertainties to try to get a better handle on the sort of range of plausible climates we might see in the next half century and beyond," said Professor Frame, who works at the Victoria University of Wellington. "Generally people build a model and they spend a lot of resources on doing so and they try to make it as good as they can. But when everybody tries for their best-shot model, it doesn't necessarily mean that you systematically explore all the possible uncertainties." When it comes to climate change, there many variables including cloud cover, ocean temperatures and land temperatures. So Professor Frame and his colleagues took one of the world's best-known climate models and tweaked some of the parameters.

They actually UNDERESTIMATED how fast Greenhouse is heating up the planet.

Climate change is a proven and discredited liberal political fraud.  You can argue against the science and the facts all you like but you are only making an idiot of yourself.  Stalin had the same con. ;D ;D ;D ;D

And still we wonder if we have past the point on no return.
... of course we have.


Prepare for the worst, and hope for the best.

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 26^th, 2012 at 9:24pm:

Climate change is a proven and discredited liberal political fraud.

Could you please point us in the direction of this proof you refer to?  A link would be useful.




corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 26^th, 2012 at 9:24pm:

Stalin had the same con.

First time I've heard that.  I'd like to know more about Stalin's connection to climate change please.

Frances wrote on Mar 26^th, 2012 at 9:31pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 26th, 2012 at 9:24pm: Climate change is a proven and discredited liberal political fraud. Could you please point us in the direction of this proof you refer to?  A link would be useful. corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 26th, 2012 at 9:24pm: Stalin had the same con. First time I've heard that.  I'd like to know more about Stalin's connection to climate change please.

The coldest winter in 40 years helped the Soviets turn back the NAZIS from the doorstep of Moscow.....It was a Soviet Commie conspiracy to beat the right!!!

::) ::) ::)

They can put 2 trillion computers together and get a result the same as butting 2 uglies togther.

Garbage in garbage out. Now we have more garbage in and even more garbage out faster.

____ wrote on Mar 26^th, 2012 at 9:28pm:

And still we wonder if we have past the point on no return. ... of course we have. Prepare for the worst, and hope for the best.

We can still moderate the effect by adopting a low carbon footprint as soon as possible. The quickest way to do that is to use gas turbine generation technology with cogeneration, as per the Garnaud report. That can be rapidly deployed, and it is a necessary short-term strategy until a renewable energy infrastructure can be built.

Of course in order to accomplish that, we need CSG. Using CSG has the addition benefit of reducing venting of methane to the atmosphere.  You must realise that methane has a Global Warming Potential 25 times that of CO2 over a 100 year horizon, so even the extraction process has a net environmental benefit.

Of course we need to tread warily in areas of high intensity agriculture. In all other areas, the precautions taken to date are perfectly acceptable.  In some areas the groundwater is naturally toxic to crops, so considerable precautions need to be taken there. 

Those who pretend that there is no problem, or who oppose the inevitable introduction of renewable technology are modern day Luddites. 

This report on BTEX by Griffith University (Department of Environment Website)
puts it in perspective. It has been blown way out of proportion by the media and environmental activists, including the Greens. Their policies are ill-considered because there has already been sufficient scientific research on the matter.

http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/environmental_management/coal-seam-gas/pdf/btex-report.pdf


Quote:

7. Conclusions The primary exposure to BTEX is from breathing air contaminated by motor vehicle emissions, industrial use and cigarette smoke. The levels in drinking water are usually very low and intake from drinking and food sources is usually minor in comparison. However, contamination from fuel spillage and industrial activities can result in localised high concentrations in surface and groundwater. In those instances, activated carbon filtration is an effective treatment option to reduce BTEX concentrations to acceptable levels. Use of BTEX in fraccing fluids is currently out of favour due to the availability of safer alternatives. Nevertheless, if BTEX were used in fraccing fluids, it is unlikely to significantly contribute to contamination of drinking water from groundwater sources. Groundwater in the vicinity of natural oil, gas and coal deposits may however contain elevated levels of naturally‐occurring BTEX compounds. The local geomorphology and possibility of creating hydraulic connections between coal seam and nearby groundwater must be taken into account prior to using hydraulic fracturing.

GoddyofOz wrote on Mar 26^th, 2012 at 9:12pm:

They actually UNDERESTIMATED how fast Greenhouse is heating up the planet.

I've been saying that for years. The trouble is that it hasn't been possible to factor in some of the circumpolar effects until recently. It has been an open secret among climatologists for years that the IPCC reports are considerably  understated.

muso wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 9:30am:

GoddyofOz wrote on Mar 26th, 2012 at 9:12pm: They actually UNDERESTIMATED how fast Greenhouse is heating up the planet. I've been saying that for years. The trouble is that it hasn't been possible to factor in some of the circumpolar effects until recently. It has been an open secret among climatologists for years that the IPCC reports are considerably  understated.

really???? you mean you dont really believe what they tell you after all?..well Im blowed..

knock me down with a feather..

hey our rivers are dying we will never see a dam full ever again...

and now they didnt go far enough... its getting hotter even though we in OZ have had the coolest summer in donkeys years..and the WETTEST,,, dont tell flannery though..


its interesting how you have been pushing GW agenda for years.,. now you are telling us they got it wrong... what a hoot...


how on earth did they manage to get it wrong... for gods sake?? does it mean we are going to die sooner rather than later?

better stop planting trees then not much point it there.

cods wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 9:46am:

muso wrote on Mar 27th, 2012 at 9:30am: GoddyofOz wrote on Mar 26th, 2012 at 9:12pm: They actually UNDERESTIMATED how fast Greenhouse is heating up the planet. I've been saying that for years. The trouble is that it hasn't been possible to factor in some of the circumpolar effects until recently. It has been an open secret among climatologists for years that the IPCC reports are considerably  understated. really???? you mean you dont really believe what they tell you after all?..well Im blowed..

Cods, I am one of the ones highlighted above in your post. I don't need to be told anything in that respect. I am adequately qualified to understand the science myself without being told anything. Now if you're saying that I am part of a world-wide conspiracy, then I'll take it personally.

It must be right because Prime Minister Bob Brown said in an address to fellow Earthians that the peoples on the other livable planets ignored Climate Worming to their peril and now they have all perished and new life forms are slowly evolving on those planets.

What will the new life form be on earth after humans and all life as we know it is obliterated ?

The religiously devout will say this is the armageddon predicted in the holy book and is the wrath of the Lord above.

Whatever you're smoking, I'd quit.

This is the kind of thing that happens when you rely on the blogosphere as your source of knowledge:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/entertainment/weird/get-it/story-e6frep26-1226308813355

muso wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 9:30am:

GoddyofOz wrote on Mar 26th, 2012 at 9:12pm: They actually UNDERESTIMATED how fast Greenhouse is heating up the planet. I've been saying that for years. The trouble is that it hasn't been possible to factor in some of the circumpolar effects until recently. It has been an open secret among climatologists for years that the IPCC reports are considerably  understated.

I'm sure they were saying, yeh who's they I'm not sure, that 3 degrees was locked in by 2070...  :-[ :-[

cods wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 9:46am:

muso wrote on Mar 27th, 2012 at 9:30am: GoddyofOz wrote on Mar 26th, 2012 at 9:12pm: They actually UNDERESTIMATED how fast Greenhouse is heating up the planet. I've been saying that for years. The trouble is that it hasn't been possible to factor in some of the circumpolar effects until recently. It has been an open secret among climatologists for years that the IPCC reports are considerably  understated. really???? you mean you dont really believe what they tell you after all?..well Im blowed.. knock me down with a feather.. hey our rivers are dying we will never see a dam full ever again... and now they didnt go far enough... its getting hotter even though we in OZ have had the coolest summer in donkeys years..and the WETTEST,,, dont tell flannery though.. its interesting how you have been pushing GW agenda for years.,. now you are telling us they got it wrong... what a hoot... how on earth did they manage to get it wrong... for gods sake?? does it mean we are going to die sooner rather than later? better stop planting trees then not much point it there.

Hydrological cycle!!

...while I'm at it: RATES OF CHANGE!!

= DONE!!  :o :o :o

I did some denialist style research into the relevance of the second world war to current climate debate and found some shocking results.

http://i42.tinypic.com/8wml3p.jpg

See global warming makes nazis stronger! We better ignore it or they might win ww2 and change history!

Eh  yeah. Thanks for your contribution, incontinence. 

Incomptinence wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 2:40pm:

I did some denialist style research into the relevance of the second world war to current climate debate and found some shocking results. http://i42.tinypic.com/8wml3p.jpg See global warming makes nazis stronger! We better ignore it or they might win ww2 and change history!

lol

SOB

It's not polite to laugh at the ignorant, SOB.

rates-of-change = DONE!!!

Nothing is too ridiculous for some boffins.

Dinosaur flatulence may have led to global warming
Monday, May 7, 2012 - 11:01 in Paleontology & Archaeology

Dinosaurs may have warmed the prehistoric Earth's climate thanks to enormous amounts of methane-producing flatulence, researchers say.





Just BTW, there is an awful lot of 'may', 'might', 'could' in the whole climate change/global warming speculation. Perhaps climate science  could be renamed climate speculation.

Quote:

Just BTW, there is an awful lot of 'may', 'might', 'could' in the whole climate change/global warming speculation. Perhaps climate science  could be renamed climate speculation.

That's what's called grasping at straws. Ok, so the latest argument goes something like this:

A paper that speculates on dinosaur flatulence is relevant to established atmospheric physics and its application to project changes in global climate.  :-? Hmmmmm

So tell me professor, what temperature rise is projected for Sydney between now and 2150?
- Oh, well it's uncertain
- because we don't know how much fossil fuel will be burned in the next 138 years?

Well actually no. It's because a new study indicates that dinosaurs ate beans.   

Can I laugh now?  ;D

Maybe we could apply that principle to all arguments. Is there a God? - Answer: I don't know, but I think dinosaurs might have farted. 

Do you think abortion is justified? Dunno, but I reckon dinosaurs farted.

When will we run out of oil. Well, based on current projections..... eeew what's that smell? (I think a dinosaur just farted) Well really!!??  There are so many if's and maybe's in your argument. Peak Oil is just a load of ...... dinosaur flatulence.

I think I'll call it "Reductio ad Dinosauri" It goes something like this - Any peripheral study can be taken as central to any given issue. (especially when said with a straight face)

muso wrote on May 13^th, 2012 at 8:49am:

[quote] Can I laugh now?  ;D

Yeah, join in. I've been laughing for a while.

Soren wrote on May 13^th, 2012 at 8:59am:

muso wrote on May 13th, 2012 at 8:49am: [quote] Can I laugh now?  ;D Yeah, join in. I've been laughing for a while.

"Reductio ad dinosauri" must make you eligible for some kind of award.

muso wrote on May 13^th, 2012 at 9:08am:

Soren wrote on May 13th, 2012 at 8:59am: muso wrote on May 13th, 2012 at 8:49am: [quote] Can I laugh now?  ;D Yeah, join in. I've been laughing for a while. "Reductio ad dinosauri" must make you eligible for some kind of award.

What? Are you mocking 'the science'??

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(12)00329-6

Soren wrote on May 13^th, 2012 at 9:39am:

muso wrote on May 13th, 2012 at 9:08am: Soren wrote on May 13th, 2012 at 8:59am: muso wrote on May 13th, 2012 at 8:49am: [quote] Can I laugh now?  ;D Yeah, join in. I've been laughing for a while. "Reductio ad dinosauri" must make you eligible for some kind of award. What? Are you mocking 'the science'?? http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(12)00329-6

No, no.... I'm sure it's a very interesting paper - just not for me.

I'm mocking your capacity to take any peripheral study that is totally unrelated to the core of atmospheric physics, and turn it into a climate denialist blockbuster.

OK to give an analogy from medicine, it's like relating a study of dental hygiene to a study of the epidemiology of tarsal bone fractures in the Australian population.

Well they both relate to human beings and ...people have been known to break their wrists at the dentists.

So we can conclude that dental hygiene is not an exact science because it fails to take into consideration the  study of the incidence of wrist fractures, which has only just come out.  (The Science is not settled! - you hiss)

Reductio ad dinasauri - Any peripheral study can be taken as central to any given issue. (especially when said with a straight face)

muso wrote on May 14^th, 2012 at 10:33am:

OK to give an analogy

;D




Funny guy.

Soren wrote on May 14^th, 2012 at 11:06am:

muso wrote on May 14th, 2012 at 10:33am: OK to give an analogy ;D Funny guy.

Thank you, but I still think you deserve the award for Soren's Law and Reductio Ad Dinosauri. You invented two new logical fallacies. You must be proud.

muso wrote on May 14^th, 2012 at 10:33am:

I'm mocking your capacity to take any peripheral study that is totally unrelated to the core of atmospheric physics, and turn it into a climate denialist blockbuster.

This is a scientific study in a refereed journal on global warming caused by excessive atmospheric greenhouse gases. How is that peripheral to the study of global warming caused by excessive atmospheric greenhouse gases?

If it's not antropogenic it doesn't count?? Or are you dinophobic? They are all dead so they can't sue you for hurting their feelings, is that it??




Climate denialist? Are there people who deny the climate now? 

Soren wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 5:46pm:

Climate denialist? Are there people who deny the climate now?

;D

Soren wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 5:46pm:

How is that peripheral to the study of global warming caused by excessive atmospheric greenhouse gases?

Quote:

They are all dead ....

There. You answered your question without my help.

It might be vaguely relevant to the Mesozoic Era, but not to the present day. The study doesn't add to atmospheric physics - it uses atmospheric physics.

Soren wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 5:46pm:

Climate denialist? Are there people who deny the climate now?

Well they deny reality at least. It's a more appropriate term than sceptic. As another poster pointed out, a person who denies a hypothesis that is blatently obvious, is no sceptic.

But then perhaps you'd prefer the term Climate Ostrich?  The ostrich (Struthio Camelus) is an ungainly African bird whose erratic behaviour, (which includes aimlessly beating around the African bush for no apparent reason,  and occasionally burying its head in the sand) is influenced by the fact that its brain is smaller than its eyeball.

So perhaps Climate Ostrich (or even Climate Galah?) would be a better term than denialist. Please let me know which you prefer.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Afrikanischer_Strauss_Portrait.jpg/220px-Afrikanischer_Strauss_Portrait.jpg

muso wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 7:03pm:

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 5:46pm: How is that peripheral to the study of global warming caused by excessive atmospheric greenhouse gases? Quote: They are all dead .... There. You answered your question without my help. It might be vaguely relevant to the Mesozoic Era, but not to the present day. The study doesn't add to atmospheric physics - it uses atmospheric physics.

No.  It's a silly speculation based on speculation upon speculation.

Ostriches are very much with us, yet when science is stumped, it will say things like 'aimlessly beating about the bush for no apparent reason'. It seems that it is OK to say about a relatively simple organism, such as an ostrich, that we don't quite know what makes it tick (ie it is too complex for our comprehension), yet the entire global climate, far more complex than a silly African bird,  is understood, a simple theory encompasses all that we ever need to know about it, namely - we change it. That's it.

See, kids?? Science is easy if you know how.

i love ostriches

at the wild life park in gunnedah they have a big stupid looking one

i kind of want to go to africa just so i can ride one

Soren wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 8:25pm:

No.  It's a silly speculation based on speculation upon speculation. Ostriches are very much with us, yet when science is stumped, it will say things like 'aimlessly beating about the bush for no apparent reason'. It seems that it is OK to say about a relatively simple organism, such as an ostrich, that we don't quite know what makes it tick (ie it is too complex for our comprehension), yet the entire global climate, far more complex than a silly African bird,  is understood, a simple theory encompasses all that we ever need to know about it, namely - we change it. That's it. See, kids?? Science is easy if you know how.

I'm sorry, but you have demonstrated time and time again that you can't grasp even the most basic aspects of science. For that reason, you are eminently unqualified to comment on it.

We are talking here about very basic atmospheric science. That's all you need to understand the issue. As far as the study that you brought up is concerned, it's totally irrelevant. It might be an attempt to reconstruct some aspects of the Mesozoic period, but that's as far as it goes.

The very fact that you bring this up and say - "See! it's all speculation" shows that you don't appreciate that fact, or more likely that you don't want to appreciate that fact.  I somehow think that you're still stuck in some kind of silly adolescent time warp when it comes to science, and you haven't quite got past the puerile giggling stage when it comes to anything vaguely scientific.  I should imagine that your science teacher was "stumped" trying to teach you anything.

- Yet you have the capacity. You are capable of understanding, but you deny yourself the opportunity of learning.

JC Denton wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 1:29am:

i love ostriches at the wild life park in gunnedah they have a big stupid looking one i kind of want to go to africa just so i can ride one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a69_owv4jEE&sns=em

muso wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 7:48am:

We are talking here about very basic atmospheric science.

Actually, we aren't. We are talking about man made global climate change (for the worse, always for the worse).
If it was really all that simple, then there would be a demonstrable  correlation between CO2 levels and temperature changes. But there isn't. Because it's not that simple.
There are other factors outside our control. We don't quite know how or why they do what they do (a bit like the ostrich and his bush, in this regard).

Was there a little ice age a few hundred years ago, or wasn't there? A warm period before that? is there certainty about the causes of their starts and ends? How do those causes operate now?

Or to put it simply - why doesn't temperature rise in parallel with increased atmospheric CO2? What stops the direct colleration (ie the very basic atmospheric science) to operate?

Soren wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 1:33pm:

muso wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 7:48am: We are talking here about very basic atmospheric science. Actually, we aren't. We are talking about man made global climate change (for the worse, always for the worse). If it was really all that simple, then there would be a demonstrable  correlation between CO2 levels and temperature changes. But there isn't. Because it's not that simple.

i dont know where you get your information from (probably right wing blogs), but there IS A CLEAR correlation between co2 and temperature.  And the last decade has proved that.

Your whole premise is based on false data.

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 1:46pm:

Soren wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 1:33pm: muso wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 7:48am: We are talking here about very basic atmospheric science. Actually, we aren't. We are talking about man made global climate change (for the worse, always for the worse). If it was really all that simple, then there would be a demonstrable  correlation between CO2 levels and temperature changes. But there isn't. Because it's not that simple. i dont know where you get your information from (probably right wing blogs), but there IS A CLEAR correlation between co2 and temperature.  And the last decade has proved that. Your whole premise is based on false data.

They usually try to "microcorrelate", picking and choosing start and end dates to coincide with the ENSO fluctuations.  They don't like it if you smooth over the ENSO fluctuations by taking a running mean of 15 years or more.

Soren wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 1:33pm:

Or to put it simply - why doesn't temperature rise in parallel with increased atmospheric CO2? What stops the direct colleration (ie the very basic atmospheric science) to operate?

The ENSO Cycles? - you know, the ones that everybody in Climate science is aware of, but denialists claim to be mysterious factors? OMG, it's been getting colder these last few weeks. It must be due to a mysterious factor outside our control.  ::) Winter? What's Winter?


How many times have we been down this road?  There are short term natural fluctuations.  The shortest is the diurnal cycle, then the annual seasonal cycle, then the ENSO cycle, and then the Solar Cycle etc. Superimposed on those, there is a systematic rise in Global temperature. 

The Medieval Warm period was a regional phenomenon, as was the Little Ice Age. In earlier posts, I even provided explanations, but do you actually listen ? No?

muso wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 7:56pm:

...  a person who denies a hypothesis that is blatently obvious, is no sceptic.

Oh dear.    ::)

"a hypothesis that is blatantly obvious"    :-/

Are you suggesting that there are people who deny the existence of the AGW hypothesis?  Surely not.

Soren wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 1:33pm:

muso wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 7:48am: We are talking here about very basic atmospheric science. Actually, we aren't. We are talking about man made global climate change (for the worse, always for the worse). If it was really all that simple, then there would be a demonstrable  correlation between CO2 levels and temperature changes. But there isn't. Because it's not that simple. There are other factors outside our control. We don't quite know how or why they do what they do (a bit like the ostrich and his bush, in this regard). Was there a little ice age a few hundred years ago, or wasn't there? A warm period before that? is there certainty about the causes of their starts and ends? How do those causes operate now? Or to put it simply - why doesn't temperature rise in parallel with increased atmospheric CO2? What stops the direct colleration (ie the very basic atmospheric science) to operate?

  :o :o Actually, we are talking about putting our hand down the pants of our collective children!  :o :o

Uncle Meat wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 3:13pm:

muso wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 7:56pm: ...  a person who denies a hypothesis that is blatently obvious, is no sceptic. Oh dear.    ::) "a hypothesis that is blatantly obvious"    :-/ Are you suggesting that there are people who deny the existence of the AGW hypothesis?  Surely not.

Uncle Meat, you don't seem confident enough to define where your skepticism begins and end. There is no real scientific debate about the anthropogenic nature of our rising atmospheric CO2, yet you are skeptical about this basic premise. To deny this is akin to denying plate tectonics or evolution.

We need to move on and you are dragging your feet because you are looking for some sort of absolutism. Compared to you Chamberlain seems infinitely more rational.

Meat is simply hoping someone will allow him to put his hand down their pants one last time!

That's all he wants but after 9-11 he has had a very hard time!!

  :D :D  :-[

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 7:10pm:

Soren wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 1:33pm: muso wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 7:48am: We are talking here about very basic atmospheric science. Actually, we aren't. We are talking about man made global climate change (for the worse, always for the worse). If it was really all that simple, then there would be a demonstrable  correlation between CO2 levels and temperature changes. But there isn't. Because it's not that simple. There are other factors outside our control. We don't quite know how or why they do what they do (a bit like the ostrich and his bush, in this regard). Was there a little ice age a few hundred years ago, or wasn't there? A warm period before that? is there certainty about the causes of their starts and ends? How do those causes operate now? Or to put it simply - why doesn't temperature rise in parallel with increased atmospheric CO2? What stops the direct colleration (ie the very basic atmospheric science) to operate?   :o :o Actually, we are talking about putting our hand down the pants of our collective children!  :o :o

You dirty old duffer.

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 1:46pm:

Soren wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 1:33pm: muso wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 7:48am: We are talking here about very basic atmospheric science. Actually, we aren't. We are talking about man made global climate change (for the worse, always for the worse). If it was really all that simple, then there would be a demonstrable  correlation between CO2 levels and temperature changes. But there isn't. Because it's not that simple. i dont know where you get your information from (probably right wing blogs), but there IS A CLEAR correlation between co2 and temperature.  And the last decade has proved that. Your whole premise is based on false data.

I do not think there is evidence of correlation of the scale we are talking about.  There is evidence co-occurence. Yes, of course CO is a greenhouse gas. But it is evidently not overriding other climate influences.
The charts of past temperature changes do not indicate correlative CO2 changes. There have been climate changes without correlative CO changes.


The other issue that occurs to me is instrumentation. Past temperature changes are surmised from tree rings and ice and the like. But I think modern thermometers are much more finely graded and sensitive than trees and a a lot more peaks show up in the instrumental measurements than in tree ring data.  it is like sun dials versus the atomic clock. You couldn't use a sundial to time an ostrich around a bush, for example. The time it takes an ostrich to aimlessly run around a bush just wouldn't registre on a sun dial. Which of course doesn't mean that the ostrich didn't aimlessly run around it.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 3:13pm:

muso wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 7:56pm: ...  a person who denies a hypothesis that is blatently obvious, is no sceptic. Oh dear.    ::) "a hypothesis that is blatantly obvious"    :-/ Are you suggesting that there are people who deny the existence of the AGW hypothesis?  Surely not.

Do you mean like gravity, Muso?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qPuxhX5lLHQ/T7OJKrslwxI/AAAAAAABnsI/I9ArG9_ZRoo/s1600/PDM%2B16%2B%25281%2529.jpg

No more aimless beating about the bush for this little ostrich.

Soren wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 9:43pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 1:46pm: Soren wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 1:33pm: muso wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 7:48am: We are talking here about very basic atmospheric science. Actually, we aren't. We are talking about man made global climate change (for the worse, always for the worse). If it was really all that simple, then there would be a demonstrable  correlation between CO2 levels and temperature changes. But there isn't. Because it's not that simple. i dont know where you get your information from (probably right wing blogs), but there IS A CLEAR correlation between co2 and temperature.  And the last decade has proved that. Your whole premise is based on false data. I do not think there is evidence of correlation of the scale we are talking about.  There is evidence co-occurence. Yes, of course CO is a greenhouse gas. But it is evidently not overriding other climate influences. The charts of past temperature changes do not indicate correlative CO2 changes. There have been climate changes without correlative CO changes. The other issue that occurs to me is instrumentation. Past temperature changes are surmised from tree rings and ice and the like. But I think modern thermometers are much more finely graded and sensitive than trees and a a lot more peaks show up in the instrumental measurements than in tree ring data.  it is like sun dials versus the atomic clock. You couldn't use a sundial to time an ostrich around a bush, for example. The time it takes an ostrich to aimlessly run around a bush just wouldn't registre on a sun dial. Which of course doesn't mean that the ostrich didn't aimlessly run around it.

Soren, Watch that video that MOTR provided in reply 34 from beginning to end. That very succinctly explains the status of our current knowledge in a non technical way.

The effect of greenhouse gases is not in question. If we had no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it would be about 18 degrees colder on average. It is extremely solid knowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, just as it is with water vapour. It's a hypothesis that has been done to death. It's probably more certain than our understanding of gravity. 

MOTR wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 1:42am:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 3:13pm: muso wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 7:56pm: ...  a person who denies a hypothesis that is blatently obvious, is no sceptic. Oh dear.    ::) "a hypothesis that is blatantly obvious"    :-/ Are you suggesting that there are people who deny the existence of the AGW hypothesis?  Surely not. Do you mean like gravity, Muso?

Yes, or flat Earthers.

Soren wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 9:43pm:

The other issue that occurs to me is instrumentation. Past temperature changes are surmised from tree rings and ice and the like. But I think modern thermometers are much more finely graded and sensitive than trees and a a lot more peaks show up in the instrumental measurements than in tree ring data.  it is like sun dials versus the atomic clock. You couldn't use a sundial to time an ostrich around a bush, for example. The time it takes an ostrich to aimlessly run around a bush just wouldn't registre on a sun dial. Which of course doesn't mean that the ostrich didn't aimlessly run around it.

You mean you still think that dendro-climatology data is used as a primary proxy?  ::)

While the most obvious evidence of gravity, objects observed falling first person has always been available to us until Newton published his theories it was not well understood.

Prior to this there was the Aristolelian theory of "natural place"which is pretty hilariously wrong insisting things like fire naturally goes above air and on exemption of "celestial spheres" from the theory. 

muso wrote on May 18^th, 2012 at 8:51am:

Soren, Watch that video that MOTR provided in reply 34 from beginning to end. That very succinctly explains the status of our current knowledge in a non technical way. The effect of greenhouse gases is not in question. If we had no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it would be about 18 degrees colder on average. It is extremely solid knowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, just as it is with water vapour. It's a hypothesis that has been done to death. It's probably more certain than our understanding of gravity.

If it's all sorted down pat, why aren't the climate doom predictions accurate?

Example: Flannery was doom mongering about running out urban water supplies  a few years ago. SInce then the dams are overflowing.

ANd if the doom mongering is not meant for such particulars, why bother making the predictions?

Soren wrote on May 29^th, 2012 at 12:05pm:

muso wrote on May 18th, 2012 at 8:51am: Soren, Watch that video that MOTR provided in reply 34 from beginning to end. That very succinctly explains the status of our current knowledge in a non technical way. The effect of greenhouse gases is not in question. If we had no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it would be about 18 degrees colder on average. It is extremely solid knowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, just as it is with water vapour. It's a hypothesis that has been done to death. It's probably more certain than our understanding of gravity.  If it's all sorted down pat, why aren't the climate doom predictions accurate? Example: Flannery was doom mongering about running out urban water supplies  a few years ago. SInce then the dams are overflowing. ANd if the doom mongering is not meant for such particulars, why bother making the predictions?

They cant even get right if water vapour and clouds are a negative or positive feedback. Climate scientists are babies in comparison to the theories that have empirical data coming out the wazoo. Climate science has very little to none.

Soren wrote on May 29^th, 2012 at 12:05pm:

muso wrote on May 18th, 2012 at 8:51am: Soren, Watch that video that MOTR provided in reply 34 from beginning to end. That very succinctly explains the status of our current knowledge in a non technical way. The effect of greenhouse gases is not in question. If we had no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it would be about 18 degrees colder on average. It is extremely solid knowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, just as it is with water vapour. It's a hypothesis that has been done to death. It's probably more certain than our understanding of gravity.  If it's all sorted down pat, why aren't the climate doom predictions accurate? Example: Flannery was doom mongering about running out urban water supplies  a few years ago. SInce then the dams are overflowing. ANd if the doom mongering is not meant for such particulars, why bother making the predictions?

Tim Flannery is not a climate scientist. If he said things to the newspapers (I don't know and don't really care if he did) , that's for him to answer.

progressiveslol wrote on May 29^th, 2012 at 1:31pm:

Soren wrote on May 29th, 2012 at 12:05pm: muso wrote on May 18th, 2012 at 8:51am: Soren, Watch that video that MOTR provided in reply 34 from beginning to end. That very succinctly explains the status of our current knowledge in a non technical way. The effect of greenhouse gases is not in question. If we had no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it would be about 18 degrees colder on average. It is extremely solid knowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, just as it is with water vapour. It's a hypothesis that has been done to death. It's probably more certain than our understanding of gravity.  If it's all sorted down pat, why aren't the climate doom predictions accurate? Example: Flannery was doom mongering about running out urban water supplies  a few years ago. SInce then the dams are overflowing. ANd if the doom mongering is not meant for such particulars, why bother making the predictions? They cant even get right if water vapour and clouds are a negative or positive feedback. Climate scientists are babies in comparison to the theories that have empirical data coming out the wazoo. Climate science has very little to none.

There is enough scientific evidence to make an informed decision. I'll give you twenty to one that the next five years will be hotter than the last. How much money do you want to put on.

MOTR wrote on May 29^th, 2012 at 8:42pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 29th, 2012 at 1:31pm: Soren wrote on May 29th, 2012 at 12:05pm: muso wrote on May 18th, 2012 at 8:51am: Soren, Watch that video that MOTR provided in reply 34 from beginning to end. That very succinctly explains the status of our current knowledge in a non technical way. The effect of greenhouse gases is not in question. If we had no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it would be about 18 degrees colder on average. It is extremely solid knowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, just as it is with water vapour. It's a hypothesis that has been done to death. It's probably more certain than our understanding of gravity.  If it's all sorted down pat, why aren't the climate doom predictions accurate? Example: Flannery was doom mongering about running out urban water supplies  a few years ago. SInce then the dams are overflowing. ANd if the doom mongering is not meant for such particulars, why bother making the predictions? They cant even get right if water vapour and clouds are a negative or positive feedback. Climate scientists are babies in comparison to the theories that have empirical data coming out the wazoo. Climate science has very little to none. There is enough scientific evidence to make an informed decision. I'll give you twenty to one that the next five years will be hotter than the last. How much money do you want to put on.

lol keep your money, I dont need it, nor do I need the I have bigger balls than you game.

muso wrote on May 29^th, 2012 at 2:34pm:

Tim Flannery is not a climate scientist. If he said things to the newspapers (I don't know and don't really care if he did) , that's for him to answer.

He's the CHIEF Fooking Climate Commissioner of Australia. What does THAT mean if what he says doesn't really matter???


(or, as our Scotch friends would say, who the fook are you to question the Chief Fooking Climate Commissioner of Australia? And if you can question him, why can't everyone question everyone else without being labeled as a proto-fooking-Nazi??)
(I know you are one of our Scotch friends so I hope you know I am swearing near you, not at you.  ;))

Soren wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 8:25pm:

It seems that it is OK to say about a relatively simple organism, such as an ostrich, that we don't quite know what makes it tick (ie it is too complex for our comprehension), yet the entire global climate, far more complex than a silly African bird,  is understood, a simple theory encompasses all that we ever need to know about it, namely - we change it. That's it.

What makes you think an ostrich is too complex for science to understand?

And even if we are to accept your premise, you don't need to understand every single mechanical function that makes up an ostrich to understand, let's say, the role that oxygen plays in regulating an ostrich's internal temperature.

muso wrote on May 29^th, 2012 at 2:34pm:

Tim Flannery is not a climate scientist. If he said things to the newspapers (I don't know and don't really care if he did) , that's for him to answer.

Flannery was verballed, quoted out of context by politically motivated deniers like the IPA and Andrew Bolt

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 3:13pm:

muso wrote on May 29th, 2012 at 2:34pm: Tim Flannery is not a climate scientist. If he said things to the newspapers (I don't know and don't really care if he did) , that's for him to answer. Flannery was verballed, quoted out of context by politically motivated deniers like the IPA and Andrew Bolt

How so. The guy doesnt even know what he said. He even tried to say that a report that came out by his commision didnt actually say they could not identify what was natural and what was CO2, but yet he can go around like a scaremonger and make all sorts of outlandish claims.

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 3:13pm:

muso wrote on May 29th, 2012 at 2:34pm: Tim Flannery is not a climate scientist. If he said things to the newspapers (I don't know and don't really care if he did) , that's for him to answer. Flannery was verballed, quoted out of context by politically motivated deniers like the IPA and Andrew Bolt

That would explain it. I don't follow the politics. The fact that the CO2 molecule absorbs and reabsorbs Long Wave Infrared radiation remains a fact regardless of politics. There is no such thing as a LIberal CO2 molecule and an ALP CO2 molecule.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 3:26pm:

How so. The guy doesnt even know what he said. He even tried to say that a report that came out by his commision didnt actually say they could not identify what was natural and what was CO2, but yet he can go around like a scaremonger and make all sorts of outlandish claims.

And where did you read that?

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 3:48pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 3:26pm: How so. The guy doesnt even know what he said. He even tried to say that a report that came out by his commision didnt actually say they could not identify what was natural and what was CO2, but yet he can go around like a scaremonger and make all sorts of outlandish claims. And where did you read that?

Heard it from flimflann himself.

muso wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 3:42pm:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 3:13pm: muso wrote on May 29th, 2012 at 2:34pm: Tim Flannery is not a climate scientist. If he said things to the newspapers (I don't know and don't really care if he did) , that's for him to answer. Flannery was verballed, quoted out of context by politically motivated deniers like the IPA and Andrew Bolt That would explain it. I don't follow the politics. The fact that the CO2 molecule absorbs and reabsorbs Long Wave Infrared radiation remains a fact regardless of politics. There is no such thing as a LIberal CO2 molecule and an ALP CO2 molecule.

I don't know what the others are referring to eactly because they haven't supported their allegations with any examples but this is one such in which he was supposed to have said that dams would never fill again, when really he was saying that run-off rates during droughts decrease, meaning you need more rainfall to fill the dams.

Here's Bolt's take on it (can't link, just Google the end of the URL I've posted here)

/flannery_says_it_again_the_dams_wont_fill/

Compare and contrast with the original quote in full, before Bolt cherry-picked a single sentence to make it sound like Flannery was suggesting that it would never rain again:


Quote:

We're already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we're getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that's translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that's a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we're going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.

This isn't saying that the dams will never fill or that they will be dry by now, simply that filling dams requires more rainfall. It's the case of a blatantly obvious point being taken completely out of context to make it look like Flannery is claiming something he simply isn't.

OK, I don't know who exactly is distorting the facts, but I've seen several dishonest claims on here that are similarly superficial. Some of the posters here are quite happy to regurgitate these articles with absolutely no vestiges of embarrassment or apologies, even when they are shown to be wrong time and time again.

It seems to be mainly small business associations who are promulgating this nonsense.  Larger companies are not directly involved, but I have a suspicion that some are still indulging in some more subtle rabble rousing while publically promoting clean energy.

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 3:59pm:

muso wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 3:42pm: Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 3:13pm: muso wrote on May 29th, 2012 at 2:34pm: Tim Flannery is not a climate scientist. If he said things to the newspapers (I don't know and don't really care if he did) , that's for him to answer. Flannery was verballed, quoted out of context by politically motivated deniers like the IPA and Andrew Bolt That would explain it. I don't follow the politics. The fact that the CO2 molecule absorbs and reabsorbs Long Wave Infrared radiation remains a fact regardless of politics. There is no such thing as a LIberal CO2 molecule and an ALP CO2 molecule. I don't know what the others are referring to eactly because they haven't supported their allegations with any examples but this is one such in which he was supposed to have said that dams would never fill again, when really he was saying that run-off rates during droughts decrease, meaning you need more rainfall to fill the dams. Here's Bolt's take on it (can't link, just Google the end of the URL I've posted here) /flannery_says_it_again_the_dams_wont_fill/ Compare and contrast with the original quote in full, before Bolt cherry-picked a single sentence to make it sound like Flannery was suggesting that it would never rain again: Quote: We're already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we're getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that's translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that's a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we're going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation. This isn't saying that the dams will never fill or that they will be dry by now, simply that filling dams requires more rainfall. It's the case of a blatantly obvious point being taken completely out of context to make it look like Flannery is claiming something he simply isn't.

Come on. Australia's climate whatever he is says 'That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture'. My god how dumb a statement is that.

Less runnoff, you try digging down the dirt with a glaring sun in summer on the soil. How far down are you going to get before the soil is cool and this idiot thinks a 0.4 degree warming over a centry is making it warmer in the soil. So a sun with upwards of 40 degrees cannot penetrate the soil very far but 0.4 degrees over a centry can. Just laughable. I point out as well that soil absorbes moister better if it does not have compaction, not because it has been warmed from 0.4degrees extra over a century. We get most of our runnoff from harder rain than the soil can take up due to compaction. We can get it from slow and long running rains, but we dont get those type of rains very often except the north.

What a friggen idiot. Plants in winter would love some extra warmth, so I dont know what his issue is there.

I will try and find what he said to what I was refering, but the material you provided is enough to get rid of the fool.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 5:30pm:

Less runnoff, you try digging down the dirt with a glaring sun in summer on the soil. How far down are you going to get before the soil is cool and this idiot thinks a 0.4 degree warming over a centry is making it warmer in the soil. So a sun with upwards of 40 degrees cannot penetrate the soil very far but 0.4 degrees over a centry can. Just laughable. I point out as well that soil absorbes moister better if it does not have compaction, not because it has been warmed from 0.4degrees extra over a century. We get most of our runnoff from harder rain than the soil can take up due to compaction. We can get it from slow and long running rains, but we dont get those type of rains very often except the north.

Can anybody translate?

muso wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 7:52pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 5:30pm: Less runnoff, you try digging down the dirt with a glaring sun in summer on the soil. How far down are you going to get before the soil is cool and this idiot thinks a 0.4 degree warming over a centry is making it warmer in the soil. So a sun with upwards of 40 degrees cannot penetrate the soil very far but 0.4 degrees over a centry can. Just laughable. I point out as well that soil absorbes moister better if it does not have compaction, not because it has been warmed from 0.4degrees extra over a century. We get most of our runnoff from harder rain than the soil can take up due to compaction. We can get it from slow and long running rains, but we dont get those type of rains very often except the north. Can anybody translate?

yeh I can. take out the less run off. Too busy writing and too busy to worry if you can decipher it.

muso wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 7:52pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 5:30pm: Less runnoff, you try digging down the dirt with a glaring sun in summer on the soil. How far down are you going to get before the soil is cool and this idiot thinks a 0.4 degree warming over a centry is making it warmer in the soil. So a sun with upwards of 40 degrees cannot penetrate the soil very far but 0.4 degrees over a centry can. Just laughable. I point out as well that soil absorbes moister better if it does not have compaction, not because it has been warmed from 0.4degrees extra over a century. We get most of our runnoff from harder rain than the soil can take up due to compaction. We can get it from slow and long running rains, but we dont get those type of rains very often except the north. Can anybody translate?

Progs should talk to a few farmers.

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 10:02pm:

muso wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 7:52pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 5:30pm: Less runnoff, you try digging down the dirt with a glaring sun in summer on the soil. How far down are you going to get before the soil is cool and this idiot thinks a 0.4 degree warming over a centry is making it warmer in the soil. So a sun with upwards of 40 degrees cannot penetrate the soil very far but 0.4 degrees over a centry can. Just laughable. I point out as well that soil absorbes moister better if it does not have compaction, not because it has been warmed from 0.4degrees extra over a century. We get most of our runnoff from harder rain than the soil can take up due to compaction. We can get it from slow and long running rains, but we dont get those type of rains very often except the north. Can anybody translate? Progs should talk to a few farmers.

I have a few dams I monitor on a property. What did you want me to ask myself.

Do your dams fill up faster when the catchment area is saturated.

MOTR wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 4:32pm:

Do your dams fill up faster when the catchment area is saturated and slower when it is parched?

No. The rain is usually fast enough to flow. Sometimes, not very often, there will be rain that is slow enough to be able to be socked up and nothing else. It is rare for that type of rain to produce any runoff.

There is a fine line between a runoff rain, which is more likely, than to a rain that will stay for a week and soak the soil enough to create runoff no matter what.

A farmers soil may be different(compaction wise), but we never ever really on ploughed soil for runoff

So infiltration is independent of soil moisture.