Dams and river systems.

Tell that to the people of Rochampton! Good one, Matty!
  [smiley=tekst-toppie.gif]

Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 9:06pm:

Tell that to the people of Rochampton! Good one, Matty!   [smiley=tekst-toppie.gif]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wM_C_-2MGWU

Jesus H. CHRIST !

Not THIS old FURPHY, again ?

Where's Mr Flannery these days ? Hiding under a gooseberry bush somewhere ?

What about the rain that doesn't fall ?
actually it is the water that fills the dams.

Warragamba is nearly so full that it might flood West Sydney. Whatever happened to Mr Flannery's wonky "predictions" ?

Should really be recorded as one of the biggest lies in the last century.

Rates with things like:
"Peace in our time"
" By ? No child will live in poverty"
and some others . . .

"I never had sex with that woman'

Tim Flannery Did Not Say Australia’s Dams Would Never Fill Again

Denialists like Bolt claim that Flannery meant by this that our dams would never fill again at any time for any reason from the date Flannery was speaking. However, what Flannery was actually saying that climate trends at the time indicated a long-term outcome of normalized water shortage consistent with IPCC projections

Flannery’s comments were to the effect that Australia was at the time currently experiencing a 60% fall in run-off going into dams due to hotter soils and greater rainfall take-up by drought-stressed vegetation and that this would be indicative of what we could eventually expect as a consistent and normal outcome in the future.

He did not say that the dams would never fill again at any time from the date he was speaking, which is the thick-as-a-brick intentionally distorted view presented by Bolt and fellow travellers. Flannery was pointing to a long-term outcome of normalized water shortage based on current data and climate trends.

Flannery’s quote in context is:

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

Bolt knows, but pretends not to know, that Flannery was applying IPCC modelling and projections to (then) present circumstances in relation to reduced rainfall and that Flannery’s statement are in accordance with those. Bolt also knows that IPCC projections include intensified (i.e. more severe) but rarer flooding events, which of course would fill the dams.

https://indifferencegivesyouafright.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/tim-flannery-did-not-say-australias-dams-would-never-fill-again/


so who's 'thick as a brick'? :D :D

They keep posting the same old furphies time after time, don’t they? Booby is not the only deluded lunatic on this forum!

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 8:33am:

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,

Assumption


John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 8:33am:

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

He said that. So the dams filled despite global warming drying out the soil and preventing run-off.

Actually the plants use less water because of increased CO2.  That should translate to less stress.

But don't worry it is from an IPCC model, so it must be true.

You got a link, Lees, that more CO2 means stressed plants use less water?

And the BuMet has measured the drying of the southern half of this continent.

Lees, link. . .?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 11:03am:

You got a link, Lees, that more CO2 means stressed plants use less water?

"Rising CO2 Boosts Plant Water Use Efficiency


More CO2 Means Less Water Stress for Plants
Another major benefit of atmospheric CO2 enrichment is that plants exposed to elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 generally do not open their leaf stomatal pores - through which they take in carbon dioxide and give off water vapor - as wide as they do at lower CO2 concentrations.  In addition, they tend to produce less of these pores per unit area of leaf surface at higher levels of atmospheric CO2.  Both of these changes tend to reduce most plants' rates of water loss by transpiration; and the amount of carbon they gain per unit of water lost - or water-use efficiency - therefore typically rises, greatly increasing their ability to withstand drought.  "

http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=329


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 11:03am:

And the BuMet has measured the drying of the southern half of this continent.

Now link it to AGW.

Not peer reviewed unfortunately

Or perhaps this -

" Plant growth can be stimulated by elevation of CO2; photosynthesis increases and economic yield is often  enhanced. The application of more CO2 can increase  plant water use efficiency and result in less water use."

https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/60100500/csr/ResearchPubs/prior/prior_11a.pdf

lee wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 10:58am:

Assumption

based on the evidence at hand at the time he made the comments.

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 1:40pm:

lee wrote on Apr 4th, 2017 at 10:58am: Assumption based on the evidence at hand at the time he made the comments.

What evidence?

lee wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 12:39pm:

Or perhaps this - " Plant growth can be stimulated by elevation of CO2; photosynthesis increases and economic yield is often  enhanced. The application of more CO2 can increase  plant water use efficiency and result in less water use." https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/60100500/csr/ResearchPubs/prior/prior_11a.pdf

Thought you wouldnt like this article from the first line in the abstract

Empirical records provide incontestable evidence for the global rise in carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the
earth’s atmosphere


And even they said, you still need to screen varities for drougt resistance, and this effect has only been seen in horticultural plants, not crops or forests.

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 8:33am:

Bolt knows, but pretends not to know, that Flannery was applying IPCC modelling and projections to (then) present circumstances in relation to reduced rainfall and that Flannery’s statement are in accordance with those. Bolt also knows that IPCC projections include intensified (i.e. more severe) but rarer flooding events, which of course would fill the dams.

BTW- There is no indication, throughout the course of the interview, that he was talking about IPCC predictions. So I guess the commentator made that up.

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm

lee wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 1:54pm:

What evidence?

from the article I put up


Flannery was applying IPCC modelling and projections to (then) present circumstances in relation to reduced rainfall and that Flannery’s statement are in accordance with those.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 3:17pm:

Thought you wouldnt like this article from the first line in the abstract Empirical records provide incontestable evidence for the global rise in carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the earth’s atmosphere And even they said, you still need to screen varities for drougt resistance, and this effect has only been seen in horticultural plants, not crops or forests.

And why wouldn't I like it. Of course you have to test an hypothesis. Have they come out and said they were wrong?

Where have I said CO2 has not risen? There is no evidence that CO2 was static at any time in our history.

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 3:19pm:

lee wrote on Apr 4th, 2017 at 1:54pm: What evidence? from the article I put up Flannery was applying IPCC modelling and projections to (then) present circumstances in relation to reduced rainfall and that Flannery’s statement are in accordance with those.

So they re-analysed his interview, using words he didn't use, to come to a conclusion? :D :D :D :D :D

lee wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 3:26pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2017 at 3:19pm: lee wrote on Apr 4th, 2017 at 1:54pm: What evidence? from the article I put up Flannery was applying IPCC modelling and projections to (then) present circumstances in relation to reduced rainfall and that Flannery’s statement are in accordance with those. So they re-analysed his interview, using words he didn't use, to come to a conclusion? :D :D :D :D :D

ask them

lee wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 3:25pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 4th, 2017 at 3:17pm: Thought you wouldnt like this article from the first line in the abstract Empirical records provide incontestable evidence for the global rise in carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the earth’s atmosphere And even they said, you still need to screen varities for drougt resistance, and this effect has only been seen in horticultural plants, not crops or forests. And why wouldn't I like it. Of course you have to test an hypothesis. Have they come out and said they were wrong? Where have I said CO2 has not risen? There is no evidence that CO2 was static at any time in our history.

Sorry skipped the part wehre they said it was cuase by humans.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 3:28pm:

Sorry skipped the part wehre they said it was cuase by humans.

How much of it? About 96% is natural.

So no link that stressed plants need less water.

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 3:27pm:

ask them

Sorry not interested in asking people about re-interpreted remarks.

lee wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 3:38pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 4th, 2017 at 3:28pm: Sorry skipped the part wehre they said it was cuase by humans. How much of it? About 96% is natural.

A jump from 180ppm to 405ppm from anthropogenic sources means 96% is natural???

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 3:38pm:

So no link that stressed plants need less water.

I didn't say stressed plants need less water. I said they would be less stressed. ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 3:40pm:

lee wrote on Apr 4th, 2017 at 3:38pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 4th, 2017 at 3:28pm: Sorry skipped the part wehre they said it was cuase by humans. How much of it? About 96% is natural. A jump from 180ppm to 405ppm from anthropogenic sources means 96% is natural???

That's what the science says. Disprove it denier. ;)

What do you mean "jump". 150years.

Where do you get 180ppm from. The earliest we have is 278ppm according to AGW theory.

Plants start to die about 180ppm.

lee wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 3:41pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 4th, 2017 at 3:38pm: So no link that stressed plants need less water. I didn't say stressed plants need less water. I said they would be less stressed. ;)

No, you said stressed plants would need less water.

So you were wrong. Noted.

must have meant 280ppm then.

Still means 96% natural is wrong.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 3:52pm:

must have meant 280ppm then. Still means 96% natural is wrong.

The man who believes in the science,  doesn't. ;D ;D ;D

" It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon “sinks”. "

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/

And then - "natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions"

So that would mean, if you believe in the "balance", that there was a natural balance when there was 2200ppm in the past, and the earth has lost its balancing capacity over a piffling 125ppm.

https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/stephens2.gif
But according to Stephens et al 2012 the imbalance is 0.6w/m² +/-17w/m²

Down in the noise.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 3:50pm:

lee wrote on Apr 4th, 2017 at 3:41pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 4th, 2017 at 3:38pm: So no link that stressed plants need less water. I didn't say stressed plants need less water. I said they would be less stressed. ;) No, you said stressed plants would need less water. So you were wrong. Noted.

lee wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 10:58am:

Actually the plants use less water because of increased CO2.  That should translate to less stress.

Note - I didn't say the tress trees were stressed in the fist first place, merely less stressed.

I am not sure if you are lying again because it comes naturally to you or you simply can't read.

lee wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 4:30pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 4th, 2017 at 3:50pm: lee wrote on Apr 4th, 2017 at 3:41pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 4th, 2017 at 3:38pm: So no link that stressed plants need less water. I didn't say stressed plants need less water. I said they would be less stressed. ;) No, you said stressed plants would need less water. So you were wrong. Noted. lee wrote on Apr 4th, 2017 at 10:58am: Actually the plants use less water because of increased CO2.  That should translate to less stress. Note - I didn't say the tress trees were stressed in the fist first place, merely less stressed.

OK. I just could not be bothered to go back a page to read your crap. I wonder how all that will translate to the real world.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 4:36pm:

OK. I just could not be bothered to go back a page to read your crap. I wonder how all that will translate to the real world.

AKA - Making Schitt up again.

lee wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 3:39pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2017 at 3:27pm: ask them Sorry not interested in asking people about re-interpreted remarks.

you're only interested in pretending they made it up.  :D :D

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 6:03pm:

you're only interested in pretending they made it up.

You mean they intuited what he meant, where the data came from, so it was accurate? ;)

lee wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 6:51pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2017 at 6:03pm: you're only interested in pretending they made it up. You mean they intuited what he meant, where the data came from, so it was accurate? ;)

no, I mean I don't know where they got there information from and until I see otherwise I take it at face value.

Nice to know you believe climate blogs. ;)

lee wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 7:46pm:

Nice to know you believe climate blogs. ;)

you think I should read blogs on collectables for my climate change information?

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 8:20pm:

lee wrote on Apr 4th, 2017 at 7:46pm: Nice to know you believe climate blogs. ;) you think I should read blogs on collectables for my climate change information?

It depends on whether the blog backs up assertions with data. ;)

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 8:33am:

Tim Flannery Did Not Say Australia’s Dams Would Never Fill Again Denialists like Bolt claim that Flannery meant by this that our dams would never fill again at any time for any reason from the date Flannery was speaking. However, what Flannery was actually saying that climate trends at the time indicated a long-term outcome of normalized water shortage consistent with IPCC projections Flannery’s comments were to the effect that Australia was at the time currently experiencing a 60% fall in run-off going into dams due to hotter soils and greater rainfall take-up by drought-stressed vegetation and that this would be indicative of what we could eventually expect as a consistent and normal outcome in the future. He did not say that the dams would never fill again at any time from the date he was speaking, which is the thick-as-a-brick intentionally distorted view presented by Bolt and fellow travellers. Flannery was pointing to a long-term outcome of normalized water shortage based on current data and climate trends. Flannery’s quote in context is: 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 Bolt knows, but pretends not to know, that Flannery was applying IPCC modelling and projections to (then) present circumstances in relation to reduced rainfall and that Flannery’s statement are in accordance with those. Bolt also knows that IPCC projections include intensified (i.e. more severe) but rarer flooding events, which of course would fill the dams. https://indifferencegivesyouafright.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/tim-flannery-did-not-say-australias-dams-would-never-fill-again/ so who's 'thick as a brick'? :D :D

You. Still you.



Flummery back in 2007:
Tim Flannery...declared rather bizarrely in 2007 that hotter soils meant that “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”.

story/acddb57296ca2feb45b7387729dea420]Sydney’s Warragamba Dam has begun to spill after reaching full capacity following days of rain, as severe weather warnings continue across parts of NSW.[/url]

Frank wrote on May 12^th, 2024 at 2:43pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2017 at 8:33am: Tim Flannery Did Not Say Australia’s Dams Would Never Fill Again Denialists like Bolt claim that Flannery meant by this that our dams would never fill again at any time for any reason from the date Flannery was speaking. However, what Flannery was actually saying that climate trends at the time indicated a long-term outcome of normalized water shortage consistent with IPCC projections Flannery’s comments were to the effect that Australia was at the time currently experiencing a 60% fall in run-off going into dams due to hotter soils and greater rainfall take-up by drought-stressed vegetation and that this would be indicative of what we could eventually expect as a consistent and normal outcome in the future. He did not say that the dams would never fill again at any time from the date he was speaking, which is the thick-as-a-brick intentionally distorted view presented by Bolt and fellow travellers. Flannery was pointing to a long-term outcome of normalized water shortage based on current data and climate trends. Flannery’s quote in context is: 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 Bolt knows, but pretends not to know, that Flannery was applying IPCC modelling and projections to (then) present circumstances in relation to reduced rainfall and that Flannery’s statement are in accordance with those. Bolt also knows that IPCC projections include intensified (i.e. more severe) but rarer flooding events, which of course would fill the dams. https://indifferencegivesyouafright.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/tim-flannery-did-not-say-australias-dams-would-never-fill-again/ so who's 'thick as a brick'? :D :D You. Still you. 12/05/2024 Sydney’s Warragamba Dam has begun to spill after reaching full capacity following days of rain, as severe weather warnings continue across parts of NSW.

Still struggling I see.  :D

John Smith wrote on May 12^th, 2024 at 2:46pm:

Frank wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 2:43pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2017 at 8:33am: Tim Flannery Did Not Say Australia’s Dams Would Never Fill Again Denialists like Bolt claim that Flannery meant by this that our dams would never fill again at any time for any reason from the date Flannery was speaking. However, what Flannery was actually saying that climate trends at the time indicated a long-term outcome of normalized water shortage consistent with IPCC projections Flannery’s comments were to the effect that Australia was at the time currently experiencing a 60% fall in run-off going into dams due to hotter soils and greater rainfall take-up by drought-stressed vegetation and that this would be indicative of what we could eventually expect as a consistent and normal outcome in the future. He did not say that the dams would never fill again at any time from the date he was speaking, which is the thick-as-a-brick intentionally distorted view presented by Bolt and fellow travellers. Flannery was pointing to a long-term outcome of normalized water shortage based on current data and climate trends. Flannery’s quote in context is: 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 Bolt knows, but pretends not to know, that Flannery was applying IPCC modelling and projections to (then) present circumstances in relation to reduced rainfall and that Flannery’s statement are in accordance with those. Bolt also knows that IPCC projections include intensified (i.e. more severe) but rarer flooding events, which of course would fill the dams. https://indifferencegivesyouafright.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/tim-flannery-did-not-say-australias-dams-would-never-fill-again/ so who's 'thick as a brick'? :D :D You. Still you. 12/05/2024 Sydney’s Warragamba Dam has begun to spill after reaching full capacity following days of rain, as severe weather warnings continue across parts of NSW. Still struggling I see.  :D

What did he say, thicko?


So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems.


And they made him Chief Climate Commissioner!  :D

John Smith wrote on May 12^th, 2024 at 2:46pm:

However, what Flannery was actually saying that climate trends at the time indicated a long-term outcome of normalized water shortage consistent with IPCC projections

So a scientist who can't actually posit a scientific post. He has to get others to paraphrase for him. How unusual. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on May 12^th, 2024 at 3:40pm:

John Smith wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 2:46pm: However, what Flannery was actually saying that climate trends at the time indicated a long-term outcome of normalized water shortage consistent with IPCC projections So a scientist who can't actually posit a scientific post. He has to get others to paraphrase for him. How unusual. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Not only but also:

In 2011, Flummery was appointed the Chief Commissioner of the Climate Commission, a federal government body providing information on climate change to the Australian public, until its abolition by the Abbott government in 2013. Flannery and other sacked commissioners later formed the independent Climate Council, which continues to communicate independent climate science to the Australian public.

Quote:

What did he say, thicko

I've already posted his comment in full. Perhaps you should get an adult to read it for you.

lee wrote on May 12^th, 2024 at 3:40pm:

John Smith wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 2:46pm: However, what Flannery was actually saying that climate trends at the time indicated a long-term outcome of normalized water shortage consistent with IPCC projections How unusual. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Are you now crying because he didn't say what you've spent years pretending he said? :D

John Smith wrote on May 12^th, 2024 at 6:51pm:

Are you now crying because he didn't say what you've spent years pretending he said?

So you have proof? Show it. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on May 12^th, 2024 at 7:00pm:

John Smith wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 6:51pm: Are you now crying because he didn't say what you've spent years pretending he said? So you have proof? Show it. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

What are you blabbering about you fool?

Poor John. Makes claims and can't back them up. Such a dildo. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on May 12^th, 2024 at 7:45pm:

Poor John. Makes claims and can't back them up. Such a dildo. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

He's a Wad Swallower too.
He even has Italian meatballs in his cheeks to prove it.

lee wrote on May 12^th, 2024 at 7:45pm:

Poor John. Makes claims and can't back them up. Such a dildo. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I've already backed up my claim that he never said that 'the dams will never fill up again'.  Once Frank finds an adult to explain it to him, perhaps you can get them to explain it to you as well. ::) 

Quote:

Tim Flannery, now Australia’s Chief Climate Commissioner, declared rather bizarrely in 2007 that hotter soils meant that “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”. Fast forward to 2012 and we see widespread drenching rains, flooded towns and cities, and dams full to the brim and overtopping. How is it that Tim Flannery could have got it so spectacularly wrong? The most obvious factor could well be Flannery’s lack of background in a climate science. He is an academic, however his background is mammalogy – he studied the evolution of mammals. However, it turns out that it is not just Flannery that has been making incorrect statements – many supposed experts including prominent commentators from the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO have been making equally incorrect statements. In principle, these people should really know better. Tim at least has an excuse for being wrong. The mistake that Tim Flannery, as well as the numerous expert commentators made, was that they confused climate variability for climate change. The future impact of climate change is very uncertain, but when one “wants to believe”, then it is all too easy to get sucked in and to get it spectacularly wrong. https://theconversation.com/climate-and-floods-flannery-is-no-expert-but-neither-are-the-experts-5709

Labor government appointed Flannery an activist a bullshitter who wasn't qualified for the job.

We built a desalination plant in Sydney that cost $1.8 billion that has never been used thanks to this clown.

John Smith wrote on May 12^th, 2024 at 7:51pm:

I've already backed up my claim that he never said that 'the dams will never fill up again'.

Except you didn't. You relied on someone else paraphrasing him. ;D ;D ;D ;D

But this was the bit you didn't and couldn't back up.


John Smith wrote on May 12^th, 2024 at 6:51pm:

Are you now crying because he didn't say what you've spent years pretending he said?

Poor John, Lost in his own rabbit hole. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on May 12^th, 2024 at 7:51pm:

lee wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 7:45pm: Poor John. Makes claims and can't back them up. Such a dildo. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I've already backed up my claim that he never said that 'the dams will never fill up again'.  Once Frank finds an adult to explain it to him, perhaps you can get them to explain it to you as well. ::)

Tim Flannery ... declared rather bizarrely in 2007 that hotter soils meant that “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”.
https://theconversation.com/climate-and-floods-flannery-is-no-expert-but-neither-are-the-experts-5709


Hear him say it:
https://www.facebook.com/advanceaust/videos/trust-the-experts-ft-tim-flannery-2007/880000066280992/

Frank wrote on May 13^th, 2024 at 1:40pm:

John Smith wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 7:51pm: lee wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 7:45pm: Poor John. Makes claims and can't back them up. Such a dildo. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I've already backed up my claim that he never said that 'the dams will never fill up again'.  Once Frank finds an adult to explain it to him, perhaps you can get them to explain it to you as well. ::)  Tim Flannery ... declared rather bizarrely in 2007 that hotter soils meant that “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”. https://theconversation.com/climate-and-floods-flannery-is-no-expert-but-neither-are-the-experts-5709 Hear him say it: https://www.facebook.com/advanceaust/videos/trust-the-experts-ft-tim-flannery-2007/880000066280992/

He was talking about a specific scenario you dumb cnut.

lee wrote on May 13^th, 2024 at 12:53pm:

Except you didn't

Sure I did. You on the other hand are relying on your tears to get you through

John Smith wrote on May 13^th, 2024 at 2:39pm:

Frank wrote on May 13th, 2024 at 1:40pm: John Smith wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 7:51pm: lee wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 7:45pm: Poor John. Makes claims and can't back them up. Such a dildo. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I've already backed up my claim that he never said that 'the dams will never fill up again'.  Once Frank finds an adult to explain it to him, perhaps you can get them to explain it to you as well. ::)  Tim Flannery ... declared rather bizarrely in 2007 that hotter soils meant that “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”. https://theconversation.com/climate-and-floods-flannery-is-no-expert-but-neither-are-the-experts-5709 Hear him say it: https://www.facebook.com/advanceaust/videos/trust-the-experts-ft-tim-flannery-2007/880000066280992/ He was talking about a specific scenario you dumb cnut.

Even all the excuses made by the Flannery apologists  will not excuse him from this stupid statement. ;D

John Smith wrote on May 13^th, 2024 at 2:39pm:

Frank wrote on May 13th, 2024 at 1:40pm: John Smith wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 7:51pm: lee wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 7:45pm: Poor John. Makes claims and can't back them up. Such a dildo. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I've already backed up my claim that he never said that 'the dams will never fill up again'.  Once Frank finds an adult to explain it to him, perhaps you can get them to explain it to you as well. ::)  Tim Flannery ... declared rather bizarrely in 2007 that hotter soils meant that “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”. https://theconversation.com/climate-and-floods-flannery-is-no-expert-but-neither-are-the-experts-5709 Hear him say it: https://www.facebook.com/advanceaust/videos/trust-the-experts-ft-tim-flannery-2007/880000066280992/ He was talking about a specific scenario you dumb cnut.

Yeah, specifically about Australia and the long term consequences of th e IPCC modelling.

SALLY SARA: What will it mean for Australian farmers if the predictions of climate change are correct and little is done to stop it? What will that mean for a farmer?

PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: 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.

That's what he said. So they made him Chief Climate Commissioner.



https://knightcartoons.com.au/cdn/shop/products/MK-rain-prediction_540x.jpg

Frank wrote on May 13^th, 2024 at 4:32pm:

John Smith wrote on May 13th, 2024 at 2:39pm: Frank wrote on May 13th, 2024 at 1:40pm: John Smith wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 7:51pm: lee wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 7:45pm: Poor John. Makes claims and can't back them up. Such a dildo. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I've already backed up my claim that he never said that 'the dams will never fill up again'.  Once Frank finds an adult to explain it to him, perhaps you can get them to explain it to you as well. ::)  Tim Flannery ... declared rather bizarrely in 2007 that hotter soils meant that “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”. https://theconversation.com/climate-and-floods-flannery-is-no-expert-but-neither-are-the-experts-5709 Hear him say it: https://www.facebook.com/advanceaust/videos/trust-the-experts-ft-tim-flannery-2007/880000066280992/ He was talking about a specific scenario you dumb cnut. Yeah, specifically about Australia and the long term consequences of th e IPCC modelling. SALLY SARA: What will it mean for Australian farmers if the predictions of climate change are correct and little is done to stop it? What will that mean for a farmer? PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: 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. That's what he said. So they made him Chief Climate Commissioner. https://knightcartoons.com.au/cdn/shop/products/MK-rain-prediction_540x.jpg

He was speaking about specific modelling you dumbarse

John Smith wrote on May 13^th, 2024 at 8:02pm:

Frank wrote on May 13th, 2024 at 4:32pm: John Smith wrote on May 13th, 2024 at 2:39pm: Frank wrote on May 13th, 2024 at 1:40pm: John Smith wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 7:51pm: lee wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 7:45pm: Poor John. Makes claims and can't back them up. Such a dildo. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I've already backed up my claim that he never said that 'the dams will never fill up again'.  Once Frank finds an adult to explain it to him, perhaps you can get them to explain it to you as well. ::)  Tim Flannery ... declared rather bizarrely in 2007 that hotter soils meant that “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”. https://theconversation.com/climate-and-floods-flannery-is-no-expert-but-neither-are-the-experts-5709 Hear him say it: https://www.facebook.com/advanceaust/videos/trust-the-experts-ft-tim-flannery-2007/880000066280992/ He was talking about a specific scenario you dumb cnut. Yeah, specifically about Australia and the long term consequences of th e IPCC modelling. SALLY SARA: What will it mean for Australian farmers if the predictions of climate change are correct and little is done to stop it? What will that mean for a farmer? PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: 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. That's what he said. So they made him Chief Climate Commissioner. https://knightcartoons.com.au/cdn/shop/products/MK-rain-prediction_540x.jpg He was speaking about specific modelling you dumbarse

Shuuure....

:D :D


Blame da modelling, thick ****.

Frank wrote on May 13^th, 2024 at 8:30pm:

John Smith wrote on May 13th, 2024 at 8:02pm: Frank wrote on May 13th, 2024 at 4:32pm: John Smith wrote on May 13th, 2024 at 2:39pm: Frank wrote on May 13th, 2024 at 1:40pm: John Smith wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 7:51pm: lee wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 7:45pm: Poor John. Makes claims and can't back them up. Such a dildo. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I've already backed up my claim that he never said that 'the dams will never fill up again'.  Once Frank finds an adult to explain it to him, perhaps you can get them to explain it to you as well. ::)  Tim Flannery ... declared rather bizarrely in 2007 that hotter soils meant that “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”. https://theconversation.com/climate-and-floods-flannery-is-no-expert-but-neither-are-the-experts-5709 Hear him say it: https://www.facebook.com/advanceaust/videos/trust-the-experts-ft-tim-flannery-2007/880000066280992/ He was talking about a specific scenario you dumb cnut. Yeah, specifically about Australia and the long term consequences of th e IPCC modelling. SALLY SARA: What will it mean for Australian farmers if the predictions of climate change are correct and little is done to stop it? What will that mean for a farmer? PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: 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. That's what he said. So they made him Chief Climate Commissioner. https://knightcartoons.com.au/cdn/shop/products/MK-rain-prediction_540x.jpg He was speaking about specific modelling you dumbarse Shuuure.... :D :D Blame da modelling, thick ****.

So you're arguing he wasn't talking about the modelling?  :D

Fmd you're a moron.  Do you have to have supervision when you use the mop?

It's da modelling, innit.




"Game over. We are dealing with a fraud".  Geologist, Prof. Ian Plimer, thoroughly dispels the "man-made global warming" fairy tale, in just two minutes.

"No one has ever shown that human emissions of CO2 drive global warming… And if it could be shown, then you would have to show that the 97% of emissions which are natural, do not drive global warming."

https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1789970930506097119

John Smith wrote on May 13^th, 2024 at 10:37pm:

So you're arguing he wasn't talking about the modelling?

And you believe the modelling? The modelling that hasn't been verified, has no start point, has multiple parameters because they can't actually replicate the science, and can't do clouds at all, etc? If they can't do clouds how could they ever do rainfall? ::)

oh dear.

lee wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 1:06pm:

And you believe the modelling?

Irrelevant what I believe, You all lied when you pretended he said the dams would never fill

John Smith wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 1:39pm:

You all lied when you pretended he said the dams would never fill

But he did say it petal. You even agreed he said it. He is supposed to be a scientist, isn't he? But I guess he is not a "climate scientist", so doesn't know what he is talking about. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 2:04pm:

John Smith wrote on May 14th, 2024 at 1:39pm: You all lied when you pretended he said the dams would never fill But he did say it petal. You even agreed he said it. He is supposed to be a scientist, isn't he? But I guess he is not a "climate scientist", so doesn't know what he is talking about. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

He didn't say it in the context you morons are claiming. He was talking about a specific scenario. But you're all far to stupid to realise that

John Smith wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 2:14pm:

He didn't say it in the context you morons are claiming.

You were the one saying he didn't say it. Now you say it was taken out of context. So you are merely a liar. ::)

And he has said it twice 2005 and 2007.

So what was the "specific" scenario? I can't find a mention of that. ;)

"continued Global Warming" is not specific. RCP8.5 is and has been cited as most unlikely, even by the IPCC. ::)

lee wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 3:16pm:

You were the one saying he didn't say it

In the context of this thread you dumbarse

John Smith wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 5:06pm:

lee wrote on May 14th, 2024 at 3:16pm: You were the one saying he didn't say it In the context of this thread you dumbarse

:D ;D   Context is too big a word for a thicko like you.


He said in 2007 in the context of an ABC Landline program, anticipating the context of this thread in 2024.  Context, context everywhere.

PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: 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.


Sound it out, thicko: "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."

But the rain that fall HAS filled our dams since. Repeatedly. Contextually-like.

John Smith wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 5:06pm:

In the context of this thread you dumbarse

lee wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 3:16pm:

So what was the "specific" scenario? I can't find a mention of that

Or is that more bullschist from you?
::)

Frank wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 5:18pm:

That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture.

He didn't even get that part right. Increasing CO2 means that the plant stomata shrinks, it loses LESS moisture. ::)

lee wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 5:31pm:

Or is that more bullschist from you? Roll Eyes

Reply 7 you dumbarse

John Smith wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 5:39pm:

lee wrote on May 14th, 2024 at 5:31pm: Or is that more bullschist from you? Roll Eyes Reply 7 you dumbarse

Let's see reply 7:


John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 8:33am:

Tim Flannery Did Not Say Australia’s Dams Would Never Fill Again Denialists like Bolt claim that Flannery meant by this that our dams would never fill again at any time for any reason from the date Flannery was speaking. However, what Flannery was actually saying that climate trends at the time indicated a long-term outcome of normalized water shortage consistent with IPCC projections Flannery’s comments were to the effect that Australia was at the time currently experiencing a 60% fall in run-off going into dams due to hotter soils and greater rainfall take-up by drought-stressed vegetation and that this would be indicative of what we could eventually expect as a consistent and normal outcome in the future. He did not say that the dams would never fill again at any time from the date he was speaking, which is the thick-as-a-brick intentionally distorted view presented by Bolt and fellow travellers. Flannery was pointing to a long-term outcome of normalized water shortage based on current data and climate trends. Flannery’s quote in context is: 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 Bolt knows, but pretends not to know, that Flannery was applying IPCC modelling and projections to (then) present circumstances in relation to reduced rainfall and that Flannery’s statement are in accordance with those. Bolt also knows that IPCC projections include intensified (i.e. more severe) but rarer flooding events, which of course would fill the dams. https://indifferencegivesyouafright.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/tim-flannery-did-not-say-australias-dams-would-never-fill-again/ so who's 'thick as a brick'? :D :D

You, of course:


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



But the rain that falls has filled the dams. Repeatedly. Contextualise that, thicko.





And who is your source for reply 7?

https://indifferencegivesyouafright.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/politicalcompass.jpg
This puts me to the left of the Australian Greens and about as Libertarian as them. Or viewed another way, as left as Robert Mugabe but far less authoritarian. I’m also slightly more left than the Dalai Lama (but not as left as Nelson Mandela) but more authoritarian than him.

I’m also slightly more left than Sinn Fein and roughly as Libertarian as they are Authoritarian. Or, if you like roughly as left as the UK Greens but far less Libertarian which is about as left as the German CDU is to the right but only about as half as Libertarian as they are Authoritarian.

So I hope that clears things up.

NB: I would like to thank Julia Gillard’s speechwriters for their valuable assistance in phrasing this post.

https://indifferencegivesyouafright.wordpress.com/about/

Frank wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 5:47pm:

Repeatedly. Contextualise that,

THE context is that HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE SCENARIO IN THE IPCC MODELLING, you dumbarse . It's only about the hundreth time you've been told that and still it doesn't sink into that fcuken stupid excuse for a brain you have

John Smith wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 5:50pm:

Frank wrote on May 14th, 2024 at 5:47pm: Repeatedly. Contextualise that, THE context is that HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE SCENARIO IN THE IPCC MODELLING, you dumbarse . It's only about the hundreth time you've been told that and still it doesn't sink into that fcuken stupid excuse for a brain you have

Bollocks. He mentioned no IPCC anywhere that you quoted.
That's just an idiotic arse-covering add-on twist from your under the milky way anonymous blog, you thick, confused concreter.

John Smith wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 5:50pm:

THE context is that HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE SCENARIO IN THE IPCC MODELLING, you dumbarse

Which modelling, there are a number of them there. That you can't cite even one shows you for the liar you are.

But perhaps he was talking about one of the other alarmists on his "Climate Council", and not the IPCC. ::)

lee wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 6:06pm:

Which modelling,

The same modelling you referred to here,


lee wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 1:06pm:

And you believe the modelling? The modelling that hasn't been verified, has no start point, has multiple parameters because they can't actually replicate the science, and can't do clouds at all, etc? If they can't do clouds how could they ever do rainfall? ::)

and frank refers to here


Frank wrote on May 13^th, 2024 at 4:32pm:

Yeah, specifically about Australia and the long term consequences of th e IPCC modelling.

::)

John Smith wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 6:42pm:

lee wrote on May 14th, 2024 at 6:06pm: Which modelling, The same modelling you referred to here, lee wrote on May 14th, 2024 at 1:06pm: And you believe the modelling? The modelling that hasn't been verified, has no start point, has multiple parameters because they can't actually replicate the science, and can't do clouds at all, etc? If they can't do clouds how could they ever do rainfall? ::) and frank refers to here Frank wrote on May 13th, 2024 at 4:32pm: Yeah, specifically about Australia and the long term consequences of th e IPCC modelling. ::)

Bollocks. He mentioned no IPCC anywhere that you quoted. You misquoted me, thick liar.

Your IPCC bollocks is just an idiotic arse-covering add-on twist from your under the milky way anonymous blog, you thick, confused concreter.

Frank wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 6:54pm:

Bollocks.

yes, you are.


Frank wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 6:54pm:

He mentioned no IPCC anywhere that you quoted.

he didn't need to. The whole discussion n that interview was about the trends at the time and the potential if some of the modelling was acurate. He also mentioned later on that other modelling showed flooding, which shows how dumb you are to keep crying that he said the dams would never fill


Frank wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 6:54pm:

You misquoted me, thick liar.

no, you misquoted Flannery

John Smith wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 6:42pm:

The same modelling you referred to here, lee wrote Today at 11:06am: And you believe the modelling? The modelling that hasn't been verified, has no start point, has multiple parameters because they can't actually replicate the science, and can't do clouds at all, etc? If they can't do clouds how could they ever do rainfall? Roll Eyes

Not all models are IPCC dummy.

And the fact they can't do that is supposed to show Flannery was correct? Not one model but many show him WRONG. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

BTW- I did find this -

https://www.climatecollege.unimelb.edu.au/future-impacts-climate-change-streamflows

Cited by Tim Flannery.

https://www.climatecollege.unimelb.edu.au/publications

Neither Sonya Friddes nor Bertrand Timbal are an IPCC author. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 7:06pm:

Not all models are IPCC dummy.

No one said they were dummy. :D

John Smith wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 7:08pm:

No one said they were dummy.

Which IPCC model did he use?  ::)

Your claim. Prove it.

John Smith wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 7:08pm:

lee wrote on May 14th, 2024 at 7:06pm: Not all models are IPCC dummy. No one said they were dummy. :D

But we ALL say you are an illiterate thick idiot who PRIDES himself as a preening mong among cretins who you imagine to be looking up to you.  That is your habitat, that is your proud station in life - a mong among others you call cretins. You are a mong prince.

You are a stupid, bewildered old concreter.  Go sweep.

Frank wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 8:29pm:

John Smith wrote on May 14th, 2024 at 7:08pm: lee wrote on May 14th, 2024 at 7:06pm: Not all models are IPCC dummy. No one said they were dummy. :D But we ALL say you are an illiterate thick idiot who PRIDES himself as a preening mong among cretins who you imagine to be looking up to you.  That is your habitat, that is your proud station in life - a mong among others you call cretins. You are a mong prince. You are a stupid, bewildered old concreter.  Go sweep.

By 'we', you mean the multiple voiced in your head,  right dogshit?

lee wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 7:10pm:

John Smith wrote on May 14th, 2024 at 7:08pm: No one said they were dummy. Which IPCC model did he use?  ::) Your claim. Prove it.

Smith can't claim anything. He's never proven anything to anyone. He just goes around trolling by calling others morons because he's not as smart. He's a houso with tall-poppy syndrome.  ;D