What is the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?

source: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/jan/28/queensland-election-climate-science-denied-and-ignored

Of course first we have to have "developed a science well enough to make predictions".

'Tropical cyclones, coral predation by crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS), and coral bleaching accounted for 48%, 42%, and 10% of the respective estimated losses, amounting to 3.38% y−1 mortality rate. Importantly, the relatively pristine northern region showed no overall decline. '

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/44/17995.full

HMM, no overall decline in the northern region. 10% due to coral bleaching, no increase in tropical cyclones.

lee wrote on Jan 30^th, 2015 at 12:07pm:

Of course first we have to have "developed a science well enough to make predictions". 'Tropical cyclones, coral predation by crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS), and coral bleaching accounted for 48%, 42%, and 10% of the respective estimated losses, amounting to 3.38% y−1 mortality rate. Importantly, the relatively pristine northern region showed no overall decline. ' http://www.pnas.org/content/109/44/17995.full HMM, no overall decline in the northern region. 10% due to coral bleaching, no increase in tropical cyclones.

Cyclone intensities are increasing with warming ocean temperatures, although projected increases are greater for the Northern Hemisphere than for the Southern Hemisphere (6). The recent frequency and intensity of mass coral bleaching are of major concern, and are directly attributable to rising atmospheric greenhouse gases (3). To date, the GBR has lost fewer corals to bleaching and diseases than many other regions in the world (13, 24), but bleaching mortality will almost certainly increase in the GBR, given the upward trend in temperatures (25).

..same reference source  :o

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 29^th, 2015 at 5:55pm:

What is the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true? source: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/jan/28/queensland-election-climate-science-denied-and-ignored

Perhaps if the 'predictions' were accurate, or even based on science, rather than ideology people MIGHT be willing to listen, or use the 'science' in politics.. ;D ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30^th, 2015 at 12:49pm:

are greater for the Northern Hemisphere than for the Southern Hemisphere (

Just as well we live in the Southern Hemisphere then.

http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/images/tc-graph-1969-2012.png

Source BOM

lee wrote on Jan 30^th, 2015 at 1:14pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 12:49pm: are greater for the Northern Hemisphere than for the Southern Hemisphere ( Just as well we live in the Southern Hemisphere then. http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/images/tc-graph-1969-2012.png Source BOM

The axes on your graph aren't very well labelled are they mate  ;) ;)

.. any reason for that??

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30^th, 2015 at 1:25pm:

lee wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 1:14pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 12:49pm: are greater for the Northern Hemisphere than for the Southern Hemisphere ( Just as well we live in the Southern Hemisphere then. http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/images/tc-graph-1969-2012.png Source BOM The axes on your graph aren't very well labelled are they mate  ;) ;) .. any reason for that??

Yes, they ARE 'well labelled'...the reason is that the alarmists don't like reality...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2015 at 2:35pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 1:25pm: lee wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 1:14pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 12:49pm: are greater for the Northern Hemisphere than for the Southern Hemisphere ( Just as well we live in the Southern Hemisphere then. http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/images/tc-graph-1969-2012.png Source BOM The axes on your graph aren't very well labelled are they mate  ;) ;) .. any reason for that?? Yes, they ARE 'well labelled'...the reason is that the alarmists don't like reality...

Don't tell me what's what mate: you're a complete joke if you think that graph explains itself and every single person on this forum would agree... unless they are copper internet fans of course  :-[ :-[ :D

:) :)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30^th, 2015 at 2:38pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 2:35pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 1:25pm: lee wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 1:14pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 12:49pm: are greater for the Northern Hemisphere than for the Southern Hemisphere ( Just as well we live in the Southern Hemisphere then. http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/images/tc-graph-1969-2012.png Source BOM The axes on your graph aren't very well labelled are they mate  ;) ;) .. any reason for that?? Yes, they ARE 'well labelled'...the reason is that the alarmists don't like reality... Don't tell me what's what mate: you're a complete joke if you think that graph explains itself and [highlight]every single person on this forum would agree...[/highlight] unless they are copper internet fans of course  :-[ :-[ :D :) :)

Why not...you really seem to 'need' someone to actually TELL you 'what's what'

And way less than 50% of the people on this forum would 'agree' because most people can actually look and and understand the climate records...which means that do NOT agree with your idea of retard Global Warming...

You would have to blame BOM for that; it's their graph. Or are you saying I should re-interpret for them?
As can be seen it's from here-

http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/images/tc-graph-1969-2012.png

And it shows the number of cyclones per year and their interpretation of severity.

lee wrote on Jan 30^th, 2015 at 2:54pm:

You would have to blame BOM for that; it's their graph. Or are you saying I should re-interpret for them?

You posted it... man up buddy  :D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30^th, 2015 at 2:55pm:

lee wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 2:54pm: You would have to blame BOM for that; it's their graph. Or are you saying I should re-interpret for them? You posted it... man up buddy  :D

So someone who posts a graph you don't like is 'wrong'???

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2015 at 3:00pm:

So someone who posts a graph you don't like is 'wrong'???

When the story differs from reality; go with the story. :) ;)

lee wrote on Jan 30^th, 2015 at 3:08pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 3:00pm: So someone who posts a graph you don't like is 'wrong'??? When the story differs from reality; go with the story. :) ;)

Yep, that DOES seem to be the idea, mostly for those idiots climate change 'believers'

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2015 at 3:00pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 2:55pm: lee wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 2:54pm: You would have to blame BOM for that; it's their graph. Or are you saying I should re-interpret for them? You posted it... man up buddy  :D So someone who posts a graph you don't like is 'wrong'???

Dear Einstein, graphs need to be labelled- end of story! :D :D

lee wrote on Jan 30^th, 2015 at 3:08pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 3:00pm: So someone who posts a graph you don't like is 'wrong'??? When the story differs from reality; go with the story. :) ;)

Lee thinks desertification is funny yet http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/29/shell-urges-shareholders-to-accept-climate-change-resolution#comment-46845156

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30^th, 2015 at 4:11pm:

lee wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 3:08pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 3:00pm: So someone who posts a graph you don't like is 'wrong'??? When the story differs from reality; go with the story. :) ;) Lee thinks desertification is funny yet http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/29/shell-urges-shareholders-to-accept-climate-change-resolution#comment-46845156

NO, Lee might to think that 'desertification' is stupid...which is really what the rest of us humans think...as opposed to idiots like YOU

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2015 at 4:17pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 4:11pm: lee wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 3:08pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 3:00pm: So someone who posts a graph you don't like is 'wrong'??? When the story differs from reality; go with the story. :) ;) Lee thinks desertification is funny yet http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/29/shell-urges-shareholders-to-accept-climate-change-resolution#comment-46845156 NO, Lee might to think that 'desertification' is stupid...which is really what the rest of us humans think...as opposed to idiots like YOU

Desertification is no laughing matter...  :o

Desertification?

'Deserts 'greening' from rising CO2'

http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2.aspx


BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30^th, 2015 at 4:22pm:

Lee thinks desertification is funny yet http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/29/shell-urges-shareholders-to-a...

That story doesn't even mention desert let alone desertification.

lee wrote on Jan 30^th, 2015 at 5:17pm:

Desertification? 'Deserts 'greening' from rising CO2' http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2.aspx BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 4:22pm: Lee thinks desertification is funny yet http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/29/shell-urges-shareholders-to-a... That story doesn't even mention desert let alone desertification.

It doesn't have to as I am implying that desertification is the reason investors are now demanding action on climate change...  :)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 31^st, 2015 at 6:31pm:

lee wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 5:17pm: Desertification? 'Deserts 'greening' from rising CO2' http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2.aspx BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 4:22pm: Lee thinks desertification is funny yet http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/29/shell-urges-shareholders-to-a... That story doesn't even mention desert let alone desertification. It doesn't have to as I am implying that desertification is the reason investors are now demanding action on climate change...  :)

..however there will be secondary effects that are likely to influence water availability, the carbon cycle, fire regimes and biodiversity, for example," Dr Donohue said.
"Ongoing research is required if we are to fully comprehend the potential extent and severity of such secondary effects."

..from lees very own source no less  ::)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30^th, 2015 at 4:10pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 3:00pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 2:55pm: lee wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 2:54pm: You would have to blame BOM for that; it's their graph. Or are you saying I should re-interpret for them? You posted it... man up buddy  :D So someone who posts a graph you don't like is 'wrong'??? Dear Einstein, graphs need to be labelled- end of story! :D :D

It is quite clearly labelled.
yellow is non severe, red is severe.
Years along the bottom, and total number of storms for each year on the side...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 1^st, 2015 at 9:10pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 4:10pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 3:00pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 2:55pm: lee wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 2:54pm: You would have to blame BOM for that; it's their graph. Or are you saying I should re-interpret for them? You posted it... man up buddy  :D So someone who posts a graph you don't like is 'wrong'??? Dear Einstein, graphs need to be labelled- end of story! :D :D It is quite clearly labelled. yellow is non severe, red is severe. Years along the bottom, and total number of storms for each year on the side...

and....  :o :o

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 1^st, 2015 at 10:22pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 1st, 2015 at 9:10pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 4:10pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 3:00pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 2:55pm: lee wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 2:54pm: You would have to blame BOM for that; it's their graph. Or are you saying I should re-interpret for them? You posted it... man up buddy  :D So someone who posts a graph you don't like is 'wrong'??? Dear Einstein, graphs need to be labelled- end of story! :D :D It is quite clearly labelled. yellow is non severe, red is severe. Years along the bottom, and total number of storms for each year on the side... and....  :o :o

And any child who (successfully) passed 3rd class should have no trouble reading and understanding a simple bar graph ;D ;D ;D ;D

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 1:03am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 1st, 2015 at 10:22pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 1st, 2015 at 9:10pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 4:10pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 3:00pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 2:55pm: lee wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 2:54pm: You would have to blame BOM for that; it's their graph. Or are you saying I should re-interpret for them? You posted it... man up buddy  :D So someone who posts a graph you don't like is 'wrong'??? Dear Einstein, graphs need to be labelled- end of story! :D :D It is quite clearly labelled. yellow is non severe, red is severe. Years along the bottom, and total number of storms for each year on the side... and....  :o :o And any child who (successfully) passed 3rd class should have no trouble reading and understanding a simple bar graph ;D ;D ;D ;D

But if it wasn't labelled correctly they would be asking a lot of questions  :D :D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 1:41am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2015 at 1:03am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 1st, 2015 at 10:22pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 1st, 2015 at 9:10pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 4:10pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 3:00pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 2:55pm: lee wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 2:54pm: You would have to blame BOM for that; it's their graph. Or are you saying I should re-interpret for them? You posted it... man up buddy  :D So someone who posts a graph you don't like is 'wrong'??? Dear Einstein, graphs need to be labelled- end of story! :D :D It is quite clearly labelled. yellow is non severe, red is severe. Years along the bottom, and total number of storms for each year on the side... and....  :o :o And any child who (successfully) passed 3rd class should have no trouble reading and understanding a simple bar graph ;D ;D ;D ;D But if it wasn't labelled correctly they would be asking a lot of questions  :D :D

However, since the graph lee posted WAS clearly and correctly labelled, that doesn't apply in this case.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 7:39am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 2nd, 2015 at 1:41am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2015 at 1:03am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 1st, 2015 at 10:22pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 1st, 2015 at 9:10pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 4:10pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 3:00pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 2:55pm: lee wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 2:54pm: You would have to blame BOM for that; it's their graph. Or are you saying I should re-interpret for them? You posted it... man up buddy  :D So someone who posts a graph you don't like is 'wrong'??? Dear Einstein, graphs need to be labelled- end of story! :D :D It is quite clearly labelled. yellow is non severe, red is severe. Years along the bottom, and total number of storms for each year on the side... and....  :o :o And any child who (successfully) passed 3rd class should have no trouble reading and understanding a simple bar graph ;D ;D ;D ;D But if it wasn't labelled correctly they would be asking a lot of questions  :D :D However, since the graph lee posted WAS clearly and correctly labelled, that doesn't apply in this case.

Dr Gizmo is on the case: yes sir, hitler sir!

:D :D :D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 2:23pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2015 at 7:39am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 2nd, 2015 at 1:41am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2015 at 1:03am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 1st, 2015 at 10:22pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 1st, 2015 at 9:10pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 4:10pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 3:00pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 2:55pm: lee wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 2:54pm: You would have to blame BOM for that; it's their graph. Or are you saying I should re-interpret for them? You posted it... man up buddy  :D So someone who posts a graph you don't like is 'wrong'??? Dear Einstein, graphs need to be labelled- end of story! :D :D It is quite clearly labelled. yellow is non severe, red is severe. Years along the bottom, and total number of storms for each year on the side... and....  :o :o And any child who (successfully) passed 3rd class should have no trouble reading and understanding a simple bar graph ;D ;D ;D ;D But if it wasn't labelled correctly they would be asking a lot of questions  :D :D However, since the graph lee posted WAS clearly and correctly labelled, that doesn't apply in this case. Dr Gizmo is on the case: yes sir, hitler sir! :D :D :D

Don't get all upset because you either (a can't understand a simple graph, or (b refuse to accept it (because it totally stuffs up your story about the increase in the number and severity of tropical storms...

Man up, and admit you drank the Gore-Coolaid and got conned.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 2:58pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 2nd, 2015 at 2:23pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2015 at 7:39am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 2nd, 2015 at 1:41am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2015 at 1:03am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 1st, 2015 at 10:22pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 1st, 2015 at 9:10pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 4:10pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 3:00pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 2:55pm: lee wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 2:54pm: You would have to blame BOM for that; it's their graph. Or are you saying I should re-interpret for them? You posted it... man up buddy  :D So someone who posts a graph you don't like is 'wrong'??? Dear Einstein, graphs need to be labelled- end of story! :D :D It is quite clearly labelled. yellow is non severe, red is severe. Years along the bottom, and total number of storms for each year on the side... and....  :o :o And any child who (successfully) passed 3rd class should have no trouble reading and understanding a simple bar graph ;D ;D ;D ;D But if it wasn't labelled correctly they would be asking a lot of questions  :D :D However, since the graph lee posted WAS clearly and correctly labelled, that doesn't apply in this case. Dr Gizmo is on the case: yes sir, hitler sir! :D :D :D Don't get all upset because you either (a can't understand a simple graph, or (b refuse to accept it (because it totally stuffs up your story about the increase in the number and severity of tropical storms... Man up, and admit you drank the Gore-Coolaid and got conned.

i'M NOT A PSEPHOLOGIST

"bYE bYE TONY ABBOTT...!"

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 3:04pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2015 at 2:58pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 2nd, 2015 at 2:23pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2015 at 7:39am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 2nd, 2015 at 1:41am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2015 at 1:03am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 1st, 2015 at 10:22pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 1st, 2015 at 9:10pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 4:10pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 3:00pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 2:55pm: lee wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 2:54pm: You would have to blame BOM for that; it's their graph. Or are you saying I should re-interpret for them? You posted it... man up buddy  :D So someone who posts a graph you don't like is 'wrong'??? Dear Einstein, graphs need to be labelled- end of story! :D :D It is quite clearly labelled. yellow is non severe, red is severe. Years along the bottom, and total number of storms for each year on the side... and....  :o :o And any child who (successfully) passed 3rd class should have no trouble reading and understanding a simple bar graph ;D ;D ;D ;D But if it wasn't labelled correctly they would be asking a lot of questions  :D :D However, since the graph lee posted WAS clearly and correctly labelled, that doesn't apply in this case. Dr Gizmo is on the case: yes sir, hitler sir! :D :D :D Don't get all upset because you either (a can't understand a simple graph, or (b refuse to accept it (because it totally stuffs up your story about the increase in the number and severity of tropical storms... Man up, and admit you drank the Gore-Coolaid and got conned. i'M NOT A PSEPHOLOGIST "bYE bYE TONY ABBOTT...!"

Nobody is "PSEPHOLOGIST", since that is a word you just made up, either out stupidity, or an inability to spell "psychologist"

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 9:18pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 2nd, 2015 at 3:04pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2015 at 2:58pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 2nd, 2015 at 2:23pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2015 at 7:39am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 2nd, 2015 at 1:41am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2015 at 1:03am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 1st, 2015 at 10:22pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 1st, 2015 at 9:10pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 4:10pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 3:00pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 2:55pm: lee wrote on Jan 30th, 2015 at 2:54pm: You would have to blame BOM for that; it's their graph. Or are you saying I should re-interpret for them? You posted it... man up buddy  :D So someone who posts a graph you don't like is 'wrong'??? Dear Einstein, graphs need to be labelled- end of story! :D :D It is quite clearly labelled. yellow is non severe, red is severe. Years along the bottom, and total number of storms for each year on the side... and....  :o :o And any child who (successfully) passed 3rd class should have no trouble reading and understanding a simple bar graph ;D ;D ;D ;D But if it wasn't labelled correctly they would be asking a lot of questions  :D :D However, since the graph lee posted WAS clearly and correctly labelled, that doesn't apply in this case. Dr Gizmo is on the case: yes sir, hitler sir! :D :D :D Don't get all upset because you either (a can't understand a simple graph, or (b refuse to accept it (because it totally stuffs up your story about the increase in the number and severity of tropical storms... Man up, and admit you drank the Gore-Coolaid and got conned. i'M NOT A PSEPHOLOGIST "bYE bYE TONY ABBOTT...!" Nobody is "PSEPHOLOGIST", since that is a word you just made up, either out stupidity, or an inability to spell "psychologist"

You mean tony abbott made it up at the press club ??  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D