Will Abbott's AGW funding be open ended since we are on track for a hotter and more extreme climate due to conservative's inaction …  and if so how will it be paid for. Abbott doesn't want the money raised by the big CO2 polluters driving farmers off the land.


So who will be paying for the luxury of conservative's stupidity?

Tax payers?


Tony Abbott to unveil drought relief package

[url]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tony-abbott-to-unveil-drought-relief-package/story-fn59niix-1226837708814#[/url]

There will be no AGW component to the drought relief.

____ wrote on Feb 26^th, 2014 at 9:59am:

Will Abbott's AGW funding be open ended since we are on track for a hotter and more extreme climate due to conservative's inaction …  and if so how will it be paid for. Abbott doesn't want the money raised by the big CO2 polluters driving farmers off the land. So who will be paying for the luxury of conservative's stupidity? Tax payers? Tony Abbott to unveil drought relief package http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tony-abbott-to-unveil-drought-relief-package/story-fn59niix-1226837708814#

Doesn't need to be open ended, the drought will break as all droughts do, and since the temperatures have flat-lined for the last 17 years, there isn't any real risk of "a hotter and more extreme climate" is there?

This drought is more intense because of the greenhouse effect from gases like CO2. This is AGW Drought assistane.

Meanwhile the conservatives are increasing pollution by attacking carbon pricing and RET.


Seems the conservatives are very confused over AGW and it's causes and effects … and are fighting with themselves because of.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2014 at 10:05am:

____ wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 9:59am: Will Abbott's AGW funding be open ended since we are on track for a hotter and more extreme climate due to conservative's inaction …  and if so how will it be paid for. Abbott doesn't want the money raised by the big CO2 polluters driving farmers off the land. So who will be paying for the luxury of conservative's stupidity? Tax payers? Tony Abbott to unveil drought relief package http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tony-abbott-to-unveil-drought-relief-package/story-fn59niix-1226837708814# Doesn't need to be open ended, the drought will break as all droughts do, and since the temperatures have flat-lined for the last 17 years, there isn't any real risk of "a hotter and more extreme climate" is there?

The temps haven't flatlined. Deep oceans have heated and atmosphere temps are still trending up.

The only thing that has flatlined, is the denialist's position.


AGW is real and AGW effects the quantity and depth of AGW droughts in Australia. With more AGW drought assistance means more money required. Where are the cons going to get it from … hiking the doctor tax?

Is this the first drought in Australian history??...NO
Is this the most extreme drought in Australian history...NO


This is just another natural fluctuation of the climate/weather patterns, as any (honest) farmer will tell you.

____ wrote on Feb 26^th, 2014 at 10:10am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 10:05am: ____ wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 9:59am: Will Abbott's AGW funding be open ended since we are on track for a hotter and more extreme climate due to conservative's inaction …  and if so how will it be paid for. Abbott doesn't want the money raised by the big CO2 polluters driving farmers off the land. So who will be paying for the luxury of conservative's stupidity? Tax payers? Tony Abbott to unveil drought relief package http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tony-abbott-to-unveil-drought-relief-package/story-fn59niix-1226837708814# Doesn't need to be open ended, the drought will break as all droughts do, and since the temperatures have flat-lined for the last 17 years, there isn't any real risk of "a hotter and more extreme climate" is there? The temps haven't flatlined. Deep oceans have heated and atmosphere temps are still trending up. The only thing that has flatlined, is the denialist's position. AGW is real (Nope) and AGW effects the quantity and depth of AGW droughts in Australia(No such thing as 'AGW droughts'). With more AGW drought assistance means more money required. Where are the cons going to get it from … hiking the doctor tax?

Temps flatlining—what crap!

SA’s heatwave broke a 117 year record and was said by the BoM to be caused by AGW.

____ wrote on Feb 26^th, 2014 at 10:10am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 10:05am: ____ wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 9:59am: Will Abbott's AGW funding be open ended since we are on track for a hotter and more extreme climate due to conservative's inaction …  and if so how will it be paid for. Abbott doesn't want the money raised by the big CO2 polluters driving farmers off the land. So who will be paying for the luxury of conservative's stupidity? Tax payers? Tony Abbott to unveil drought relief package http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tony-abbott-to-unveil-drought-relief-package/story-fn59niix-1226837708814# Doesn't need to be open ended, the drought will break as all droughts do, and since the temperatures have flat-lined for the last 17 years, there isn't any real risk of "a hotter and more extreme climate" is there? The temps haven't flatlined. Deep oceans have heated and atmosphere temps are still trending up. The only thing that has flatlined, is the denialist's position. AGW is real and AGW effects the quantity and depth of AGW droughts in Australia. With more AGW drought assistance means more money required. Where are the cons going to get it from … hiking the doctor tax?

;D ;D ;D omg you really are the Lt. Hiroo Onoda of climate bs aren't you Greenfool?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2014 at 10:11am:

Is this the first drought in Australian history??...NO Is this the most extreme drought in Australian history...NO This is just another natural fluctuation of the climate/weather patterns, as any (honest) farmer will tell you.

It is natural as in human influence on climate by cooking the climate with excessive greenhouse gases, as many (honest) scientists will tell you. Geo manipulation by human activity does have it's effects.

Now who are the experts on global climate, indivicual farmers or climate scientists?


AGW is just the debt of environmental bad management. Abbott/conservatives are pro even more environmental debt being dumped on our economy and society so to push us towards environmental bankruptcy.

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 26^th, 2014 at 10:16am:

Temps flatlining—what crap! SA’s heatwave broke a 117 year record and was said by the BoM to be caused by AGW.

....and what caused the previous record temp 117 years ago?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2014 at 10:13am:

____ wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 10:10am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 10:05am: ____ wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 9:59am: Will Abbott's AGW funding be open ended since we are on track for a hotter and more extreme climate due to conservative's inaction …  and if so how will it be paid for. Abbott doesn't want the money raised by the big CO2 polluters driving farmers off the land. So who will be paying for the luxury of conservative's stupidity? Tax payers? Tony Abbott to unveil drought relief package http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tony-abbott-to-unveil-drought-relief-package/story-fn59niix-1226837708814# Doesn't need to be open ended, the drought will break as all droughts do, and since the temperatures have flat-lined for the last 17 years, there isn't any real risk of "a hotter and more extreme climate" is there? The temps haven't flatlined. Deep oceans have heated and atmosphere temps are still trending up. The only thing that has flatlined, is the denialist's position. AGW is real (Nope) and AGW effects the quantity and depth of AGW droughts in Australia(No such thing as 'AGW droughts'). With more AGW drought assistance means more money required. Where are the cons going to get it from … hiking the doctor tax?

The AGW debate is over, and your denialists have lost.

This is a drought in part being caused by AGW conditions.

Abbott is funding Environmental Debt with this package … while adding to the economy's environmental Debt by trying to make the largest greenhouse pollutioner pollute for free.

Abbott is pro environmental debt while having to subsidise this environmental debt with tax payer' funds.

Abbott must start decreasing this environmental debt by lifting the carbon price of the levy.

Who knows—the weather record is extremely noisy.

But high temp records are being broken all the time, low temp records not.

____ wrote on Feb 26^th, 2014 at 10:17am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 10:11am: Is this the first drought in Australian history??...NO Is this the most extreme drought in Australian history...NO This is just another natural fluctuation of the climate/weather patterns, as any (honest) farmer will tell you. It is natural as in human influence on climate by cooking the climate with excessive greenhouse gases, as many (honest) scientists will tell you. Geo manipulation by human activity does have it's effects. Now who are the experts on global climate, indivicual farmers or climate scientists? AGW is just the debt of environmental bad management. Abbott/conservatives are pro even more environmental debt being dumped on our economy and society so to push us towards environmental bankruptcy.

Sadly for you and the other true believers, the situation that you have feared all along as finally arrived. Co2 and temperatures are now so out of step that any hope of clinging to the causality theory (idea) of Co2 = temperature increase has flat lined. Now real scientific methodology has trumped enviro/poltical 'science'.

What a complete and utter tosser this agw loon from the greens is. Keep up the good work, agw needs u to keep putting it in the loony fringe

AGW is supported as a theory by just about all working climate scientists. We know it is here from temperature records, from the Arctic and Antarctic and Greenland continuing to lose ice, from satellites recording more energy entering the atmosphere than escapes it and so on.

The blizzards hitting the UK and NW USA are caused by AGW—the lack of ice and rapid warming in the Arctic causing the jetstream to vary and lobes of frigid Arctic air escaping south.

Saying there is no AGW is just sticking your head in the sand.

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 26^th, 2014 at 10:24am:

Who knows—the weather record is extremely noisy. But high temp records are being broken all the time, low temp records not.

Better ask the Yanks about that one.  They are having a bit of a cool period at the moment.

So 117 years ago it was just GW but these days it's AGW or maybe both events were just another weather phenomenon?

If CO2 concentrations are the smoking gun then why has it taken 117 years to break the temp record..... :-/ :-? :-?

CO2 concentrations have been on the up according to the bofins since the industrial revolution :o.

Record highs should therefore be occurring every summer don't you think, but there have been both prolonged warming and cooling periods since.

That is why there is reasonable doubt about AGW and Comrade GW is spruiking garbage (as usual) ;)

The weather record is noisy. There is the El Nino and the La Nina phenomenon, volcanoes explosively erupting sending sulphides into the upper atmosphere (troposphere) which reflect sunlight and so cause a temporary cooling.

Jan 2014 had neither El Nino or La Nina systems operating, yet still broke a 117 year record.

Yes, AGW has weakened circumArctic winds, the jetstream and so lobes of frigid air can escape south and if blocked by a big stationery high pressure system these lobes cause snowfalls and blizzards.

So the cold UK/NW USA winters actually support the theory of AGW not refute it. Sorry.

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 26^th, 2014 at 11:05am:

AGW is supported as a theory by just about all working climate scientists. We know it is here from temperature records, from the Arctic and Antarctic and Greenland continuing to lose ice, from satellites recording more energy entering the atmosphere than escapes it and so on. The blizzards hitting the UK and NW USA are caused by AGW—the lack of ice and rapid warming in the Arctic causing the jetstream to vary and lobes of frigid Arctic air escaping south. Saying there is no AGW is just sticking your head in the sand.

Sorry George, but 'appeal to authority' is not a valid scientific principle.

Using that method, 'God' must exist, because more people believe in a god than don't.

There are any number of times in history where the most learned people (scientists of their era) believed things that turned out to be completely wrong.

I gave plenty of hard evidence as well, Gizmo.

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 26^th, 2014 at 11:16am:

I gave plenty of hard evidence as well, Gizmo.

No you gave examples of weather. Fail.

Keep that head firmly in the sand. Not the way I like to face problems but it obviously is yours.

Sadly George, what most of the pro-AGW crowd don't realise ( I hope, at least) is that IF you are successful in returning temperatures to pre-1850's levels, you'd also kill off 1/2 or more likely 3/4 of the world's population. Because the whole AGW idea is based on a false premise, that pre-Industrial Revolution temperatures were 'normal', and they were NOT. The temperatures back then (during the Little Ice Age) were massively below average and below optimum for comfortable human existence.

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 26^th, 2014 at 11:14am:

The weather record is noisy. There is the El Nino and the La Nina phenomenon, volcanoes explosively erupting sending sulphides into the upper atmosphere (troposphere) which reflect sunlight and so cause a temporary cooling.

Exactly.  Global cooling & warming are a totally natural phenomena and neither are  turned on or off by the activities of ape decendents.... :-?

Eco-socialists have just hijacked the issue as a convenient political tool to bash corporatism and capitalism.  :(

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2014 at 10:05am:

____ wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 9:59am: Will Abbott's AGW funding be open ended since we are on track for a hotter and more extreme climate due to conservative's inaction …  and if so how will it be paid for. Abbott doesn't want the money raised by the big CO2 polluters driving farmers off the land. So who will be paying for the luxury of conservative's stupidity? Tax payers? Tony Abbott to unveil drought relief package http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tony-abbott-to-unveil-drought-relief-package/story-fn59niix-1226837708814# Doesn't need to be open ended, the drought will break as all droughts do, and since the temperatures have flat-lined for the last 17 years, there isn't any real risk of "a hotter and more extreme climate" is there?

the idiots wont be able to figure that bit out...

they think water grows on trees...and all we have to do is throw money at it for it to work...idiots.

money hasnt as far as I know fixed any bloody thing.. so why on earth it would fix GW I will never know.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2014 at 11:40am:

Sadly George, what most of the pro-AGW crowd don't realise ( I hope, at least) is that IF you are successful in returning temperatures to pre-1850's levels, you'd also kill off 1/2 or more likely 3/4 of the world's population. Because the whole AGW idea is based on a false premise, that pre-Industrial Revolution temperatures were 'normal', and they were NOT. The temperatures back then (during the Little Ice Age) were massively below average and below optimum for comfortable human existence.

oh god now you are bringing in a panic....now it will be G.Cooling and all Abbotts fault.. 

dont tell them that industry is also coming to an end will you???... not in our lifetime maybe but not long after...

its called progress....shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

cods wrote on Feb 26^th, 2014 at 12:28pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 11:40am: Sadly George, what most of the pro-AGW crowd don't realise ( I hope, at least) is that IF you are successful in returning temperatures to pre-1850's levels, you'd also kill off 1/2 or more likely 3/4 of the world's population. Because the whole AGW idea is based on a false premise, that pre-Industrial Revolution temperatures were 'normal', and they were NOT. The temperatures back then (during the Little Ice Age) were massively below average and below optimum for comfortable human existence. oh god now you are bringing in a panic....now it will be G.Cooling and all Abbotts fault..  dont tell them that industry is also coming to an end will you???... not in our lifetime maybe but not long after... its called progress....shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Yeah, I can't wait for THAT one to appear, think of the fun we'll be able to have then....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2014 at 11:40am:

Sadly George, what most of the pro-AGW crowd don't realise ( I hope, at least) is that IF you are successful in returning temperatures to pre-1850's levels

False premise. Where is it stated anywhere that this is the stated aim?


Quote:

you'd also kill off 1/2 or more likely 3/4 of the world's population.

This is an unproven assertion, and can be ignored because it is constructed on a false premise.


Quote:

Because the whole AGW idea is based on a false premise, that pre-Industrial Revolution temperatures were 'normal', and they were NOT.

That in itself is a false premise.

You are asserting that the whole of AGW theory is based on pre-industrial levels of CO₂. It is not.

You are asserting this based on the false assumption that mitigating AGW is not just cutting CO2 emissions, but to return CO2 concentrations to pre-industrial levels. Nowhere have you supported this claim with any evidence because no such evidence exists.

You have implied that the temperatures were caused by CO₂ concentrations. The Maunder sunspot minimum has been hypothesised as another contributor to lowered global temperatures during the Little Ice Age.

Digging up black stuff out of the ground and burning it is not normal either. Where did all that coal and oil go after we burnt it? Much of it is still with us in the atmosphere, adding 100ppm to global CO₂ levels over the pre-industrial levels. That this increase is primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels has been known since the 1960s.


Quote:

The temperatures back then (during the Little Ice Age) were massively below average and below optimum for comfortable human existence.

While an interesting argument, it is constructed on a false premise. However, I do note your implied acceptance that atmospheric CO₂ causes warming.

It is unlikely that CO₂ levels will return to pre-industrial levels any time soon, even with the most aggressive remediation possible, so I doubt this is going to be a problem.

However, we do need to be mindful of the causes of the Little Ice Age as well. Even the science of climate change has as an implied assumption for some models that the output of the sun will not change enough to influence the climate, that there won't be large volcanic eruptions, and there won't be other similar external factors in play. One big volcanic eruption can lower global temperatures by 1°C or more for half a decade. A 0.1% reduction in solar irradiance can also lower global temperatures by a similar amount. It doesn't mean the models that do not include these are wrong, just that they do not take these into account as core assumptions.

Abbott has found 320 million to get a few farmers temporarily out of a mess caused by carbon pollution and yet he couldn't find a cent to secure manufacturing in this country.
Thats ok..he'll pay for it by cutting funds to health and education and screwing over aging Aussies.

Abbott had a plan to rise to power but he obviously didn't have one for when he finally attained his birthright   ;D

Bam wrote on Feb 26^th, 2014 at 2:15pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 11:40am: Sadly George, what most of the pro-AGW crowd don't realise ( I hope, at least) is that IF you are successful in returning temperatures to pre-1850's levels False premise. Where is it stated anywhere that this is the stated aim? Quote: you'd also kill off 1/2 or more likely 3/4 of the world's population. This is an unproven assertion, and can be ignored because it is constructed on a false premise. [quote]Because the whole AGW idea is based on a false premise, that pre-Industrial Revolution temperatures were 'normal', and they were NOT.

That in itself is a false premise.

You are asserting that the whole of AGW theory is based on pre-industrial levels of CO₂. It is not.

You are asserting this based on the false assumption that mitigating AGW is not just cutting CO2 emissions, but to return CO2 concentrations to pre-industrial levels. Nowhere have you supported this claim with any evidence because no such evidence exists.

You have implied that the temperatures were caused by CO₂ concentrations. The Maunder sunspot minimum has been hypothesised as another contributor to lowered global temperatures during the Little Ice Age.

Digging up black stuff out of the ground and burning it is not normal either. Where did all that coal and oil go after we burnt it? Much of it is still with us in the atmosphere, adding 100ppm to global CO₂ levels over the pre-industrial levels. That this increase is primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels has been known since the 1960s.


Quote:

The temperatures back then (during the Little Ice Age) were massively below average and below optimum for comfortable human existence.

While an interesting argument, it is constructed on a false premise. However, I do note your implied acceptance that atmospheric CO₂ causes warming.

It is unlikely that CO₂ levels will return to pre-industrial levels any time soon, even with the most aggressive remediation possible, so I doubt this is going to be a problem.

However, we do need to be mindful of the causes of the Little Ice Age as well. Even the science of climate change has as an implied assumption for some models that the output of the sun will not change enough to influence the climate, that there won't be large volcanic eruptions, and there won't be other similar external factors in play. One big volcanic eruption can lower global temperatures by 1°C or more for half a decade. A 0.1% reduction in solar irradiance can also lower global temperatures by a similar amount. It doesn't mean the models that do not include these are wrong, just that they do not take these into account as core assumptions.
[/quote]


It's stated everywhere Bam. Everything to do with AGW is about a return to pre-Industrial Revolution temperatures.

Swagman wrote on Feb 26^th, 2014 at 10:21am:

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 10:16am: Temps flatlining—what crap! SA’s heatwave broke a 117 year record and was said by the BoM to be caused by AGW. ....and what caused the previous record temp 117 years ago?

Cow poo maybe?????????

Dodgy thermometer???????????

or maybe someone looking to make a quick buck ;) ;) ;) ;)

Any takers???????????????????????

Beware!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Jesus is coming again in 2014, sorry, he couldn't make it last year or the year before that...............climate change you know..........

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2014 at 11:40am:

Sadly George, what most of the pro-AGW crowd don't realise ( I hope, at least) is that IF you are successful in returning temperatures to pre-1850's levels, you'd also kill off 1/2 or more likely 3/4 of the world's population. Because the whole AGW idea is based on a false premise, that pre-Industrial Revolution temperatures were 'normal', and they were NOT. The temperatures back then (during the Little Ice Age) were massively below average and below optimum for comfortable human existence.

Chum, temperatures have been rising since the IR. It is therefor vital to stabilise GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and this has become more difficult since the melting of the tundra around the arctic has seen methane clathrates melt and methane, the most fiendish if short term GHG, enter the atmosphere. A tripping point, and more of those to come.

Since fossil fuels are starting to reach their peak production makes it more and more economical to turn to renewable energy. We need all nations to get started on this and Australia shouldn’t bludge on the rest of the world to do the emissions reduction workload.

De-registered User wrote on Feb 26^th, 2014 at 3:04pm:

Swagman wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 10:21am: St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 10:16am: Temps flatlining—what crap! SA’s heatwave broke a 117 year record and was said by the BoM to be caused by AGW. ....and what caused the previous record temp 117 years ago? Cow poo maybe????????? Dodgy thermometer??????????? or maybe someone looking to make a quick buck ;) ;) ;) ;) Any takers??????????????????????? Beware!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Jesus is coming again in 2014, sorry, he couldn't make it last year or the year before that...............climate change you know..........

have you noticed... when temperatures go down...no one mentions it.. it definitely doesnt have a thing to do with climate change.... ::) ::)..ooops I mean G.W.

maybe industry only affects up temps and not down temps???


if its taken 117 years to break a hot temp?... thats not bad...seeing as Al Gore told us we would be dead and gawn by 2013..... dry as a dessert....a dust bowl. in fact.... all in 5 years...boy was he ever wrong.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/20588157/how-australias-hottest-year-on-record-unfolded/


Quote:

The Bureau of Meteorology has confirmed that 2013 was Australia's hottest year since records began in 1910.

::) ::) ::)

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 26^th, 2014 at 5:35pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 11:40am: Sadly George, what most of the pro-AGW crowd don't realise ( I hope, at least) is that IF you are successful in returning temperatures to pre-1850's levels, you'd also kill off 1/2 or more likely 3/4 of the world's population. Because the whole AGW idea is based on a false premise, that pre-Industrial Revolution temperatures were 'normal', and they were NOT. The temperatures back then (during the Little Ice Age) were massively below average and below optimum for comfortable human existence. Chum, temperatures have been rising since the IR. It is therefor vital to stabilise GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and this has become more difficult since the melting of the tundra around the arctic has seen methane clathrates melt and methane, the most fiendish if short term GHG, enter the atmosphere. A tripping point, and more of those to come. Since fossil fuels are starting to reach their peak production makes it more and more economical to turn to renewable energy. We need all nations to get started on this and Australia shouldn’t bludge on the rest of the world to do the emissions reduction workload.

And since the IR took place during or just before a 'cold period' (as identified by NASA) is there any reason to be surprised that the temperatures would NATURALLY return to what they were during the Medieval Climate Optimum??

Which is better?

Making the world a better place and finding out AGW isn't real.

or

Not changing anything and finding out it is?

What happens if it is real and we haven't done a thing?

Do you even care?

cods wrote on Feb 26^th, 2014 at 5:40pm:

De-registered User wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 3:04pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 10:21am: St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 10:16am: Temps flatlining—what crap! SA’s heatwave broke a 117 year record and was said by the BoM to be caused by AGW. ....and what caused the previous record temp 117 years ago? Cow poo maybe????????? Dodgy thermometer??????????? or maybe someone looking to make a quick buck ;) ;) ;) ;) Any takers??????????????????????? Beware!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Jesus is coming again in 2014, sorry, he couldn't make it last year or the year before that...............climate change you know.......... have you noticed... when temperatures go down...no one mentions it.. it definitely doesnt have a thing to do with climate change.... ::) ::)..ooops I mean G.W. maybe industry only affects up temps and not down temps??? if its taken 117 years to break a hot temp?... thats not bad...seeing as Al Gore told us we would be dead and gawn by 2013..... dry as a dessert....a dust bowl. in fact.... all in 5 years...boy was he ever wrong.

For Your Info, Cods!


perceptions_now wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 1:51pm:

What is the relationship between weather and climate? Weather is what’s happening outside the door right now; today a snowstorm or a thunderstorm is approaching. Climate, on the other hand, is the pattern of weather measured over decades. NASA and NOAA plus research centers around the world track the global average temperature, and all conclude that Earth is warming. In fact, the past decade has been found to be the hottest since scientists started recording reliable data in the 1880s. These rising temperatures are caused primarily by an increase of heat-trapping emissions in the atmosphere created when we burn coal, oil, and gas to generate electricity, drive our cars, and fuel our businesses. Hotter air around the globe causes more moisture to be held in the air than in prior seasons. When storms occur, this added moisture can fuel heavier precipitation in the form of more intense rain or snow. At the same time, because less of a region’s precipitation is falling in light storms and more of it in heavy storms, the risks of drought and wildfire are also greater. Ironically, higher air temperatures tend to produce intense drought periods punctuated by heavy floods, often in the same region. These kinds of disasters may become a normal pattern in our everyday weather as levels of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere continue to rise. Link - http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/cold-snow-climate-change.html ==========================================

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2014 at 7:22pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 5:35pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 11:40am: Sadly George, what most of the pro-AGW crowd don't realise ( I hope, at least) is that IF you are successful in returning temperatures to pre-1850's levels, you'd also kill off 1/2 or more likely 3/4 of the world's population. Because the whole AGW idea is based on a false premise, that pre-Industrial Revolution temperatures were 'normal', and they were NOT. The temperatures back then (during the Little Ice Age) were massively below average and below optimum for comfortable human existence. Chum, temperatures have been rising since the IR. It is therefor vital to stabilise GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and this has become more difficult since the melting of the tundra around the arctic has seen methane clathrates melt and methane, the most fiendish if short term GHG, enter the atmosphere. A tripping point, and more of those to come. Since fossil fuels are starting to reach their peak production makes it more and more economical to turn to renewable energy. We need all nations to get started on this and Australia shouldn’t bludge on the rest of the world to do the emissions reduction workload. And since the IR took place during or just before a 'cold period' (as identified by NASA) is there any reason to be surprised that the temperatures would NATURALLY return to what they were during the Medieval Climate Optimum??

Temps have gone WAY past what they were in the Medieval Warm Period.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2014 at 2:55pm:

It's stated everywhere Bam. Everything to do with AGW is about a return to pre-Industrial Revolution temperatures.

Show us some links to reputable sources.

I thought it was all about keeping CO2 to 400ppm? We are trying to apply the brakes not worry about any optimum.

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 26^th, 2014 at 7:54pm:

I thought it was all about keeping CO2 to 400ppm? We are trying to apply the brakes not worry about any optimum.

Since we evolved in tropical temperatures, and still need them to live comfortable, 2 or 3 degrees C warmer is what we need rather than 'applying the brakes'.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 27^th, 2014 at 12:03pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 7:54pm: I thought it was all about keeping CO2 to 400ppm? We are trying to apply the brakes not worry about any optimum. Since we evolved in tropical temperatures, and still need them to live comfortable, 2 or 3 degrees C warmer is what we need rather than 'applying the brakes'.

I am still waiting for you to substantiate this:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2014 at 2:55pm:

It's stated everywhere Bam. Everything to do with AGW is about a return to pre-Industrial Revolution temperatures.

Show us some links to reputable sources that explicitly state this is the goal of international action to mitigate climate change.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 27^th, 2014 at 12:03pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 7:54pm: I thought it was all about keeping CO2 to 400ppm? We are trying to apply the brakes not worry about any optimum. Since we evolved in tropical temperatures, and still need them to live comfortable, 2 or 3 degrees C warmer is what we need rather than 'applying the brakes'.

You obviously don’t read what others post—with the methane clathrates melting and releasing holding concentrations at about 400ppm is going to take heroic measures.

I don’t want it any hotter, thanks. Days of over 45°C is more than warm enough. Want to live in the tropics move to Qld. Very glib to say need 2°C warmer, reality is that would mean days and days of over 48°C in Adelaide & Melbourne.

Bam wrote on Feb 27^th, 2014 at 4:50pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 27th, 2014 at 12:03pm: St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 7:54pm: I thought it was all about keeping CO2 to 400ppm? We are trying to apply the brakes not worry about any optimum. Since we evolved in tropical temperatures, and still need them to live comfortable, 2 or 3 degrees C warmer is what we need rather than 'applying the brakes'. I am still waiting for you to substantiate this: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 2:55pm: It's stated everywhere Bam. Everything to do with AGW is about a return to pre-Industrial Revolution temperatures. Show us some links to reputable sources that explicitly state this is the goal of international action to mitigate climate change.

Sorry bam, but we both know that any links won't be considered 'reputable' by you if they do show it.
But ask yourself why the IR rates are used as a base line for both Co2 and temperature increases?

But I'll find some later, when I have time.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2014 at 8:13am:

Bam wrote on Feb 27th, 2014 at 4:50pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 27th, 2014 at 12:03pm: St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 7:54pm: I thought it was all about keeping CO2 to 400ppm? We are trying to apply the brakes not worry about any optimum. Since we evolved in tropical temperatures, and still need them to live comfortable, 2 or 3 degrees C warmer is what we need rather than 'applying the brakes'. I am still waiting for you to substantiate this: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 2:55pm: It's stated everywhere Bam. Everything to do with AGW is about a return to pre-Industrial Revolution temperatures. Show us some links to reputable sources that explicitly state this is the goal of international action to mitigate climate change. Sorry bam, but we both know that any links won't be considered 'reputable' by you if they do show it. But ask yourself why the IR rates are used as a base line for both Co2 and temperature increases? But I'll find some later, when I have time.

In other words—you were talking crap and you know it. I have read about AGW for a while and what an optimum temperature is has not been part of the discussion.

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 27^th, 2014 at 5:23pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 27th, 2014 at 12:03pm: St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 7:54pm: I thought it was all about keeping CO2 to 400ppm? We are trying to apply the brakes not worry about any optimum. Since we evolved in tropical temperatures, and still need them to live comfortable, 2 or 3 degrees C warmer is what we need rather than 'applying the brakes'. You obviously don’t read what others post—with the methane clathrates melting and releasing holding concentrations at about 400ppm is going to take heroic measures. I don’t want it any hotter, thanks. Days of over 45°C is more than warm enough. Want to live in the tropics move to Qld. Very glib to say need 2°C warmer, reality is that would mean days and days of over 48°C in Adelaide & Melbourne.

And? The Indigenous Australians have survived temperatures higher than that with no artificial cooling for thousands of years, as have people in areas like the Sahara, Africa and Asia.

The issue is not really the temperature, it's that our life-style, clothing, building designs etc, are based on condition in Europe, not conditions here.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2014 at 8:18am:

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 27th, 2014 at 5:23pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 27th, 2014 at 12:03pm: St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 7:54pm: I thought it was all about keeping CO2 to 400ppm? We are trying to apply the brakes not worry about any optimum. Since we evolved in tropical temperatures, and still need them to live comfortable, 2 or 3 degrees C warmer is what we need rather than 'applying the brakes'. You obviously don’t read what others post—with the methane clathrates melting and releasing holding concentrations at about 400ppm is going to take heroic measures. I don’t want it any hotter, thanks. Days of over 45°C is more than warm enough. Want to live in the tropics move to Qld. Very glib to say need 2°C warmer, reality is that would mean days and days of over 48°C in Adelaide & Melbourne. And? The Indigenous Australians have survived temperatures higher than that with no artificial cooling for thousands of years, as have people in areas like the Sahara, Africa and Asia. The issue is not really the temperature, it's that our life-style, clothing, building designs etc, are based on condition in Europe, not conditions here.

Getting desperate there.

So you want us all to run around in just a loincloth, got it.

Geez, you don’t half post some absolute tosh!

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2014 at 8:13am:

Bam wrote on Feb 27th, 2014 at 4:50pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 27th, 2014 at 12:03pm: St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 7:54pm: I thought it was all about keeping CO2 to 400ppm? We are trying to apply the brakes not worry about any optimum. Since we evolved in tropical temperatures, and still need them to live comfortable, 2 or 3 degrees C warmer is what we need rather than 'applying the brakes'. I am still waiting for you to substantiate this: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 2:55pm: It's stated everywhere Bam. Everything to do with AGW is about a return to pre-Industrial Revolution temperatures. Show us some links to reputable sources that explicitly state this is the goal of international action to mitigate climate change. Sorry bam, but we both know that any links won't be considered 'reputable' by you if they do show it.

No giz, we both know your argument is bullsht. You have constructed a brittle argument around a barefaced lie. Nowhere does any international organisation state explicitly that the stated aim for CO₂ mitigation is to return CO₂ levels to 280 ppm. If you actually had proof to the contrary, you would have already provided it by now.


Quote:

But ask yourself why the IR rates are used as a base line for both Co2 and temperature increases?

To show how much the concentrations have increased over pre-industrial levels. A CO₂ concentration of 280ppm - with relatively small variation - was the concentration for most of the past 10,000 years or more. In the past 160 years, CO₂ concentrations have increased faster than at any time for many millions of years. Only two kinds of event have caused CO₂ to increase faster in the history of the earth - massive volcanic eruptions and the mass release of methane clathrates from the ocean. Neither of these have happened in the past 160 years.


Quote:

But I'll find some later, when I have time.

I doubt that. No transnational organisation has stated this as the explicit goal - not the UN, nor the EU, nor any international agreement. The stated aim with existing agreements is stopping the increase in concentration, not reducing the concentration because reducing the concentration is far more difficult and hence far more expensive. It would require the permanent removal of a mass of carbon from the atmosphere comparable to the total mass of carbon burnt in the consumption of all fossil fuels in the past 160 years.

That is why you are lying.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2014 at 2:55pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 2:15pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 11:40am: Sadly George, what most of the pro-AGW crowd don't realise ( I hope, at least) is that IF you are successful in returning temperatures to pre-1850's levels False premise. Where is it stated anywhere that this is the stated aim? Quote: you'd also kill off 1/2 or more likely 3/4 of the world's population. This is an unproven assertion, and can be ignored because it is constructed on a false premise. [quote]Because the whole AGW idea is based on a false premise, that pre-Industrial Revolution temperatures were 'normal', and they were NOT. That in itself is a false premise. You are asserting that the whole of AGW theory is based on pre-industrial levels of CO2. It is not. You are asserting this based on the false assumption that mitigating AGW is not just cutting CO2 emissions, but to return CO2 concentrations to pre-industrial levels. Nowhere have you supported this claim with any evidence because no such evidence exists. You have implied that the temperatures were caused by CO2 concentrations. The Maunder sunspot minimum has been hypothesised as another contributor to lowered global temperatures during the Little Ice Age. Digging up black stuff out of the ground and burning it is not normal either. Where did all that coal and oil go after we burnt it? Much of it is still with us in the atmosphere, adding 100ppm to global CO2 levels over the pre-industrial levels. That this increase is primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels has been known since the 1960s. [quote]The temperatures back then (during the Little Ice Age) were massively below average and below optimum for comfortable human existence.

While an interesting argument, it is constructed on a false premise. However, I do note your implied acceptance that atmospheric CO₂ causes warming.

It is unlikely that CO₂ levels will return to pre-industrial levels any time soon, even with the most aggressive remediation possible, so I doubt this is going to be a problem.

However, we do need to be mindful of the causes of the Little Ice Age as well. Even the science of climate change has as an implied assumption for some models that the output of the sun will not change enough to influence the climate, that there won't be large volcanic eruptions, and there won't be other similar external factors in play. One big volcanic eruption can lower global temperatures by 1°C or more for half a decade. A 0.1% reduction in solar irradiance can also lower global temperatures by a similar amount. It doesn't mean the models that do not include these are wrong, just that they do not take these into account as core assumptions.
[/quote]


It's stated everywhere Bam. Everything to do with AGW is about a return to pre-Industrial Revolution temperatures.[/quote]

You need to stop relying on BS denialist sites for your info Gizmo.
I have read many views, from many sites, and never seen that contention put, about returning CO2 to pre-industrial levels.
Invariably, every study I have read has talked about attempting to slow down the  rate of growth.

Too much change, too fast, is our major problem.