---

---

---

---

--

---

--

---

those who put their heads in the sand and ignore are  dangerous to all of us

---

-

---

--

---

--

---

-- its real

---

This Topic was moved here from Relationships by Setanta.

Agnes wrote on Mar 7^th, 2018 at 12:10pm:

-- its real

Thanks Agnes for your posts.
You have shown the other side of the debate.
There are still 313 pages of videos and evidence to the contrary here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464603949/4680#4692

So yes there is strong evidence for both sides of the debate.
The jury is still out on this.

Notice.

The environment forum is for serious and friendly debate not
for personal attacks - and harassment -
that's because I want it to be different to many of the other
forums on Ozpolitic - and especially the relationship forum.

cheers
Bobby

Sounds to me like Aggie is a true believer...

But you really do need to check the facts not just regurgitate some sites claims.
Here are excerpts of another opinion.

Chilling fact is most climate change theories are wrong
Maurice Newman
The Australian
12:00AM March 8, 2018

You have to hand it to Peter Hannam, The Sydney Morning Herald’s climate change alarmist-in-chief, for his report last month - “ ‘Really ­extreme’ global weather event leaves scientists aghast”.

Hannam is often the ­canary in the coalmine (er, wind farm) when there is a sense that public belief in man-made global warming is flagging. With Europe in the grip of a much colder winter than predicted and with the ­abnormal chill spreading even to Africa, he did his best to hold the line.

Earlier this year, Climate Council councillor Will Steffen also climbed on board — for The Sydney Morning Herald of course. Extreme cold in Britain, Switzerland and Japan, a record-breaking cold snap in Canada and the US and an expansion of the East Antarctic ice sheet coincided with a ­Bureau of Meteorology tweet (later retracted) that January 7 had set a heat record for the ­Sydney Basin. Steffen told us these seemingly unrelated events were in fact linked. “Climate ­disruption” explained both. Whether fire or ice, we’re to blame. No ifs, no buts.

Now a warming Arctic provides the perfect opportunity for Hannam to divert attention from the latest deep freeze. He ominously warns: “Climate scientists are used to seeing the range of weather extremes stretched by global warming, but few episodes appear as remarkable as this week’s unusual heat over the Arctic.”

It’s true, warm air has made its way up to the high Arctic, driving temperatures up to 20C above ­average. But Anthony Watts, who runs a climate change website, puts things into perspective. He observes: “Warm moist air from the Pacific and Atlantic oceans has warmed the Arctic above the 80th parallel. It should be noted, however, that the Arctic Circle actually starts at 66 degrees north, meaning the record heat is over a much narrower area.”

Cato Institute atmospheric scientist Ryan Maue reviewed high Arctic temperature data going back to 1958 and says: “Data before the satellite era … has some problems, so it’s hard to say the current spike is for sure a record.” He says that if the baseline is 1973, when the polar-­orbiting satellites began recording the data, there is not much difference between today’s ice extent and then.

Indeed, we now have satellite confirmation that global air temperatures are back to the same level they were before the 2014-16 super El Nino event and, this January and February, the decline accelerated. Since 2015 satellites also have detected a fall in sea surface temperatures.

Solar expert Piers Corbyn, of British forecasting group Wea­therAction and famous for his successful wagers against the British Met Office forecasts, predicts Earth faces another mini ice age with potentially devastating consequences. He notes: “The frequency of sunspots is expected to rapidly decline … reaching a minimum between the years 2019 and 2020.” Indeed, the present decline in solar activity is faster than at any time in the past 9300 years, suggesting an end to the grand solar maximum.

Rapidly rising Sea levels?

Sea level has been postulated to be rising since the LIA.

The problem is the earth's surface is not static. There is subsidence, which causes some tide gauge data, attached to the ground, to possibly show lea level rise. There is also isostatic rebound which can make some tide gauge data appear to show lower sea levels.

There is the satellite era data which has its own problems.
Topex had an accuracy of 42mm. Jason1,2,3 had an accuracy of about 34mm. Good luck finding a 3mm rise in that.

Quote:

Guess who has made ‘Eleven Major Climate Change Predictions’ that have Come True?       The predictions 1 through 7 below were made primarily in Mr. Casey’s original press release on April 30, 2007 and by his web-site-posted peer reviewed ‘RC Theory’ research paper, January 22, 2008. These predictions were in some part also covered and in his climate books, “Cold Sun” (June 2011) and “Dark Winter” (August 2014). The April 2007 press release is on page 70 of “Dark Winter.” The RC Theory paper is available at the RC Theory page at the Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC). Numerous other press releases and communications to U.S. government officials and the media since 2007 reiterated these original predictions from 2007 and 2008. These predictions have been confirmed through multiple U.S. and international science data bases and organizations that track solar activity and global temperatures. Further, the Global Climate Status Report, (GCSR) produced by the SSRC displays global temperature data in chart form that validates global temperature predictions made in 2007, 2008, as well as the start of the solar hibernation, using NASA, NOAA, and other international climate data. Prediction 1. That global warming (caused by the Sun) would end within three to fourteen years of 2007. This has since been validated by the SSRC and numerous others. Even the UK Met Office last year acknowledged that 17 years had gone by without global warming. September marks year 18. There is no longer any global warming. Mr. Casey’s calculations showed the average temperature curve associated with the 206 year solar cycle determined that 2007 or between 3 and 14 years (RC Theory paper) of that date would be the peak of the modern warm period. In a July 1, 2008 TV news conference held by Mr. Casey, he announced that there was sufficient data to declare that global warming had in fact already ended. Prediction 2. That the Sun would begin to enter a state of “solar hibernation” beginning in solar cycle 24 and would be marked by a dramatic reduction in the Suns’ energy output. This historic, reduction of solar activity during solar cycle 24 as measured by sunspots, magnetic field strength, solar wind velocity etc. and has since been verified by NASA, the SSRC, and many others. Prediction 3. That the Earth’s oceans would begin to cool soon after 2007. Though it was undetectable at the time, the actual start of ocean temperature decline apparently began in 2003. See the actual chart of ocean temps that verifies the predicted decline as Figure 3 on page 40 of the GCSR. Prediction 4. That the Earth’s atmospheres would begin to cool soon after 2007. This has also been validated by the SSRC, and all major global temperature measurement data sets. See Figure 1 and Figure 2 on page 38 and page 39 of the GCSR. Prediction 5. That a new cold climate would envelope the Earth and during solar cycles 25 and 26, (the 2020’s thru the 2040’s). Sunspot counts for cycles 25 and 26 would approach 50. That this cold climate would bring record cold to the planet causing substantial crop damage – expected to lead to “world wide, agricultural, social, and economic disruption.” (RC Theory paper). Use of the phrase “significant loss of life” was added to the list of ill-effects of the new cold climate by Mr. Casey in other press releases and public statements and books. This is the most important prediction made by John Casey and can only be verified as the new cold climate period deepens. Given the accuracy of his other predictions this also appears likely as the global temperatures continue their predicted decline and solar activity enters a new low level after passing the peak of activity for solar cycle 24. Prediction 6. That the solar cycle #24 would have around 74 sunspots at peak (about half the official NASA prediction of 145 sunspots). This important prediction for the Sun’s behavior during solar cycle 24 was well documented in the RC Theory research paper posted January 2008 and discussed between Mr. Casey and NASA (phone and emails) during May-June 2007. The specific 74 sunspot prediction was passed via phone to NASA’s solar physics group leader in May-June 2007 and via other publications. Mr. Casey’s prediction and the large error in NASA’s prediction are also evident by comparing NASA’s solar activity forecast for solar cycle 24 between their web posting of 2006 and 2013. This latter 2013 NASA forecast showing solar cycle 24 performance validates Mr. Casey’s “spot-on” prediction for solar cycle 24, where NASA was off by almost 100%. Prediction 7. That 2012 would be colder than 2008 in terms of global atmospheric temperatures. This prediction was made via SSRC Press Release 2-2010 on May 10, 2010. It was validated after a review of global temperature data sets in early 2014 and documented on page 100 of “Dark Winter.” Though many were told by NASA and NOAA that 2012 was the warmest year ever, a more thorough examination of the data shows the average temperature for most major global temperature data sets showed that only the first eight months were warmer and that the year overall, was as cold or colder than 2008 as Mr. Casey predicted.

Quote:

Prediction 8. That the new cold era would coincide with record earthquake and volcanic activity. This prediction was made both in Mr. Casey’s research paper on the subject and a press release at the same time. The SSRC Research Report 1-2010 (Preliminary) from March 1, 2010 titled “Correlation of Solar Activity Minimums and Large Magnitude Geophysical Events,” is at the RC Theory page of the SSRC web site. The associated press release SSRC 1-2010 titled “Sun’s Activity Linked to Largest Earthquakes and Volcanoes,” is at the ‘Press Release Archives’ page of the SSRC web site. This prediction for increased earthquake and volcanic activity has been verified by other researchers, including in a recent paper by Choi, Casey, Maslov and Tsunoda (see at page 7 of the June 2014 edition of the GCSR). This joint paper is titled “Global increase in seismic and magmatic activities since 1990 and their relation to solar cycles.” Ongoing verification of the increased geophysical activity predicted in 2010 by Casey is exemplified by the record M9.0 earthquake one year later on March 11, 2011 with the Japanese Tohoku Earthquake that destroyed the Fukushima nuclear power plant and killed over 13,000 people. This prediction is further validated by the M7.8 and M8.0 earthquakes of northern Chile in 2014. It should also be noted that the great Indonesian M9.1+ earthquake and tsunami of December 26, 2004 that killed over 230,000 occurred after global oceans began to cool after 2003. Recent increased volcanic activity has been demonstrated by the Mt. Sangeang Api volcano, Indonesia, the Puyehue volcano , Chile, the Eyjafjallajokull volcano, Iceland, et.al.. As of August 22, 2014 volcano Bardargunga in Iceland is threatening to erupt. The first three volcanic eruptions shut down air traffic for large areas of the globe in each case. Combined, these geophysical events demonstrate the existence of an increased level of major earthquake and volcanic activity as predicted by Mr. Casey. Prediction 9. That the decline in Arctic sea ice had ended and was now a new long term growth trend. This prediction was made June 10, 2013, paradoxically, the year after NOAA announced that Arctic Sea ice had reached its lowest extent ever recorded and restated its forecast for continued declines. The prediction by Mr. Casey was widely distributed via SSRC Press Release 4-2013 and was titled,” Arctic Sea Ice to Grow as Global Cooling Era Takes Hold.” This prediction has since been validated by NOAA data that shows Arctic sea ice declines have stopped their historic decline and now show a dramatic reversal that actually began after 2007 and has been repeated during 2014. See chart of NOAA data for Arctic sea ice extent on page 44 of the June 10, 2014 edition of the GCSR. Note: Al Gore, NOAA and UK climate officials have over the years made predictions that the entire Arctic sea ice would be gone by 2008 or other past years. They have since adjusted their predictions out to safer dates like 2030 or 2050. Prediction 10. That the North Atlantic Ocean temperatures had reached a peak or maximum warming, and these waters would soon begin a long term temperature decline lasting decades. This prediction was made via SSRC Press Release 1-2013, on February 4, 2013 titled, “Climate Change to Next Cold Era Accelerates with Colder North Atlantic. The time frame for evaluation of this relatively recent prediction is still open. However, the largest ocean heat content decline ever recorded for the North Atlantic has been recorded and reinforces that this prediction will also transpire as described. Prediction 11. That the world’s sea levels would soon begin to decline (between 2014 and 2020) and reach the level they were in the early 1800’s predicted by the late 2020’s and 2030’s. This recent August 21, 2013 prediction will be evaluated when the time frame indicated has been entered for a few years. The prediction was documented at a news conference held near Miami Florida and was recorded in the SSRC Press Release 7-2013 (August 21, 2014) which is posted at the SSRC web site. Validation of this prediction, though in abeyance, is receiving support from the fact that sea levels on the US west coast have already begun to drop as a consequence of the Pacific Ocean cooling The Atlantic Ocean starts its predicted drop in sea levels soon. Added validation comes from the setting of all time records for the combined amount of sea ice for the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Most importantly, the ongoing decline in global ocean temperatures since 2003 underscores this prediction by Mr. Casey that a long term global ocean cooling is to be followed by historic drops in sea levels. The colder oceans will of course result in lower sea levels just as past ocean warming contributed to rising sea levels.

sorry to blow you out of the water aggy..

---

Great posts Mechanic - keep up the good work.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 6:04pm:

Quote: Prediction 8. That the new cold era would coincide with record earthquake and volcanic activity. This prediction was made both in Mr. Casey’s research paper on the subject and a press release at the same time. The SSRC Research Report 1-2010 (Preliminary) from March 1, 2010 titled “Correlation of Solar Activity Minimums and Large Magnitude Geophysical Events,” is at the RC Theory page of the SSRC web site. The associated press release SSRC 1-2010 titled “Sun’s Activity Linked to Largest Earthquakes and Volcanoes,” is at the ‘Press Release Archives’ page of the SSRC web site. This prediction for increased earthquake and volcanic activity has been verified by other researchers, including in a recent paper by Choi, Casey, Maslov and Tsunoda (see at page 7 of the June 2014 edition of the GCSR). This joint paper is titled “Global increase in seismic and magmatic activities since 1990 and their relation to solar cycles.” Ongoing verification of the increased geophysical activity predicted in 2010 by Casey is exemplified by the record M9.0 earthquake one year later on March 11, 2011 with the Japanese Tohoku Earthquake that destroyed the Fukushima nuclear power plant and killed over 13,000 people. This prediction is further validated by the M7.8 and M8.0 earthquakes of northern Chile in 2014. It should also be noted that the great Indonesian M9.1+ earthquake and tsunami of December 26, 2004 that killed over 230,000 occurred after global oceans began to cool after 2003. Recent increased volcanic activity has been demonstrated by the Mt. Sangeang Api volcano, Indonesia, the Puyehue volcano , Chile, the Eyjafjallajokull volcano, Iceland, et.al.. As of August 22, 2014 volcano Bardargunga in Iceland is threatening to erupt. The first three volcanic eruptions shut down air traffic for large areas of the globe in each case. Combined, these geophysical events demonstrate the existence of an increased level of major earthquake and volcanic activity as predicted by Mr. Casey. Prediction 9. That the decline in Arctic sea ice had ended and was now a new long term growth trend. This prediction was made June 10, 2013, paradoxically, the year after NOAA announced that Arctic Sea ice had reached its lowest extent ever recorded and restated its forecast for continued declines. The prediction by Mr. Casey was widely distributed via SSRC Press Release 4-2013 and was titled,” Arctic Sea Ice to Grow as Global Cooling Era Takes Hold.” This prediction has since been validated by NOAA data that shows Arctic sea ice declines have stopped their historic decline and now show a dramatic reversal that actually began after 2007 and has been repeated during 2014. See chart of NOAA data for Arctic sea ice extent on page 44 of the June 10, 2014 edition of the GCSR. Note: Al Gore, NOAA and UK climate officials have over the years made predictions that the entire Arctic sea ice would be gone by 2008 or other past years. They have since adjusted their predictions out to safer dates like 2030 or 2050. Prediction 10. That the North Atlantic Ocean temperatures had reached a peak or maximum warming, and these waters would soon begin a long term temperature decline lasting decades. This prediction was made via SSRC Press Release 1-2013, on February 4, 2013 titled, “Climate Change to Next Cold Era Accelerates with Colder North Atlantic. The time frame for evaluation of this relatively recent prediction is still open. However, the largest ocean heat content decline ever recorded for the North Atlantic has been recorded and reinforces that this prediction will also transpire as described. Prediction 11. That the world’s sea levels would soon begin to decline (between 2014 and 2020) and reach the level they were in the early 1800’s predicted by the late 2020’s and 2030’s. This recent August 21, 2013 prediction will be evaluated when the time frame indicated has been entered for a few years. The prediction was documented at a news conference held near Miami Florida and was recorded in the SSRC Press Release 7-2013 (August 21, 2014) which is posted at the SSRC web site. Validation of this prediction, though in abeyance, is receiving support from the fact that sea levels on the US west coast have already begun to drop as a consequence of the Pacific Ocean cooling The Atlantic Ocean starts its predicted drop in sea levels soon. Added validation comes from the setting of all time records for the combined amount of sea ice for the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Most importantly, the ongoing decline in global ocean temperatures since 2003 underscores this prediction by Mr. Casey that a long term global ocean cooling is to be followed by historic drops in sea levels. The colder oceans will of course result in lower sea levels just as past ocean warming contributed to rising sea levels. [quote]sorry to blow you out of the water aggy..

I stand by my assertions- and as Bobby said the jury is still out but will it ever be in- by the time it is-  it will be too late- I would rather  be advocating for a Global Cooling because well what better than this horrible heat- but if it is heating we have to be ready to tackle it- there is no other planet there is only this one- and I happen to love it- nothing wrong with being prepared

So, whenever it rains, that is an irrefutable piece of evidence that global warming is real? Which means that it never rained when mankind were all hunter gatherers?

A simulation was conducted where 100 nuclear missiles were detonated undersea in the Indian Ocean. The water boiled. The water evaporated. The country of Australia was inundated with heavy rainfall for weeks. The Northern Hemisphere, however, received record cold, as the environmental equilibrium kicked in to keep the average temperature stable.

During an Australian heatwave, there is a cold snap somewhere in the northern hemisphere. And vice versa. Showing photos of people getting rained on is no indication that the average Earth temperature is going up.

2017 was the second warmest year behind 2016?

Let's look at NOAA's record.

1997

Quote:

The global average temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997 was the warmest year on record

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713

2016

Quote:

The average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2016 was 0.94°C (1.69°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F)

[url]https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201613
2016[/url]

1.69°F + 57.0°F = 58.69°F

2017

Quote:

The 2017 average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas was 0.84°C (1.51°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F)

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201713

1.51°F+57.0°F= 58.51°F

Both temperatures, 2016,2017, are below NOAA's own records for 1997.

Thanks Lee,
and the David DuByne videos have often shown that in past history
global warming preceded high CO2 levels -
not the other way around as Al Gore made out.

People like Monk and Barnacle follow Al Gore
as some kind of climate God
when he's actually totally discredited with all his predictions.
So much for Nobel Prizes.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 8:40pm:

Thanks Lee, and the David DuByne videos have often shown that in past history global warming preceded high CO2 levels - not the other way around as Al Gore made out. People like Monk and Barnacle follow Al Gore as some kind of climate God when he's actually totally discredited with all his predictions. So much for Nobel Prizes.

I see.  You reckon some snake oil salesman dick head who posts YouTube videos to scrape a living and has zero scientific qualifications is more credible than Nobel Prize winners.

Yay!  Says it all, Bobby.  You know better than those who decide one of the most prestigious and well known International Awards.

Are you getting some sort of backhander from de Buyne for promoting his crap here?

Aussie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 9:30pm:

You reckon some snake oil salesman dick head who posts YouTube videos to scrape a living and has zero scientific qualifications is more credible than Nobel Prize winners.

You mean Al Gore who got a Nobel PEACE prize? For basically his "film" "An Inconvenient Truth"?
"Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, was yesterday criticised by a high court judge who highlighted what he said were "nine scientific errors" in the film."

The same Al Gore that Skeptical Science says is a politician NOT a climate scientist?

That Al Gore?

So why should we give him ANY credence? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Al Gore/Nobel Judges -v- a You Tube video snake oil salesman with zero scientific qualifications.  Gawd, even his videos are anecdotal trash.

Such a tough choice to make.

Aussie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 10:16pm:

Al Gore/Nobel Judges

You do realise the Nobel Peace Prize is given by Norway?
The Nobel Science prizes by Sweden?

Two completely different sets of judges?

Sorry, was there a point about which "snake oils salesman" you believe? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Starting from a very low base in that case.

Even the IPCC doesn't have a Science Prize. Although that's reasonable; they don't do science. ;)

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 8:30pm:

So, whenever it rains, that is an irrefutable piece of evidence that global warming is real? Which means that it never rained when mankind were all hunter gatherers? A simulation was conducted where 100 nuclear missiles were detonated undersea in the Indian Ocean. The water boiled. The water evaporated. The country of Australia was inundated with heavy rainfall for weeks. The Northern Hemisphere, however, received record cold, as the environmental equilibrium kicked in to keep the average temperature stable. During an Australian heatwave, there is a cold snap somewhere in the northern hemisphere. And vice versa. Showing photos of people getting rained on is no indication that the average Earth temperature is going up.

The correlation between rainfall and global warming is quite low. Rather look towards Antarctica and the rising seas levels, melting icecaps and the abnormal weather patterns world wide. Unfortunately global warming is now based on empirical and factual data and refutability is something quite difficult.

lee wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 10:31pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 10:16pm: Al Gore/Nobel Judges You do realise the Nobel Peace Prize is given by Norway? The Nobel Science prizes by Sweden? Two completely different sets of judges? Sorry, was there a point about which "snake oils salesman" you believe? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Starting from a very low base in that case. Even the IPCC doesn't have a Science Prize. Although that's reasonable; they don't do science. ;)

And Aussie & his mate Monk are supporting a discredited
politician who tried to make out that he was a climate scientist.
Al Gore is a fraud - a snake oil salesman.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 4:51am:

lee wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 10:31pm: Aussie wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 10:16pm: Al Gore/Nobel Judges You do realise the Nobel Peace Prize is given by Norway? The Nobel Science prizes by Sweden? Two completely different sets of judges? Sorry, was there a point about which "snake oils salesman" you believe? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Starting from a very low base in that case. Even the IPCC doesn't have a Science Prize. Although that's reasonable; they don't do science. ;) And Aussie & his mate Monk are supporting a discredited politician who tried to make out that he was a climate scientist. Al Gore is a fraud - a snake oil salesman.

Nailed It...

They also gave Obama a Nobel Peace prize as soon as he was made President? why?

because of the colour of his skin...

he's gone on to be the biggest warmongering President in the history of the US... at War for every single day of his Presidency and also arming and paying Terrorists...

Nobel... what a joke..  ::)

---

Quote:

Tim Flannery is the guru who gets it wrong February 26, 2014 8:00pm PROVING Tim Flannery wrong on global warming is too easy. Explaining why he’s still a guru is the hard one. This week the University of Canberra honoured our former Chief Climate Change Commissioner by letting him give its annual Krebs Lecture.  ::) Strange. Shouldn’t warmists distance themselves from a man whose astonishing record of dud predictions has so hurt their cause? After all, Flannery once claimed the Arctic ice could melt completely away by, er, last year. He claimed Sydney, Adelaide and Brisbane could be all out of water by, oops, a couple of years ago now. Yet no matter how many dud predictions Flannery makes, almost no scientist ever corrects him.  :-/ It’s as if they don’t care how wrong he is in the warming cause. Same story with Flannery’s lecture on Monday. Again, not one academic called out “rubbish!”. See, Flannery’s most infamous prediction was made in 2007, when warmists were exploiting our long drought. Flannery claimed the rainfall decline was “clearly an impact of climate change” and because “the soil is warmer” there was an even bigger decline in run-off. “So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems.” In fact, the floods did return and the dams of Sydney and Brisbane filled to overflowing.  ;D So what does Flannery do? Well, on Monday he claimed global warming was giving us more of the floods that he once said global warming wouldn’t. (oh dear god! who believes this moron?  :D ) “We have seen a real change in Australia, along with heatwaves, in terms of rainfall and flooding,” he said. “We’re going into that area now of record-breaking events.” Showing a picture of the 2010 Brisbane flood, he added: “I still remember paying my flood levy. It should be known as the first climate change tax that we paid in this country.” Flannery’s claim that the flood levy was “the first climate change tax” clearly suggests the 2010 flood was caused by man-made warming. Yet the Climate Commission Flannery once headed has already admitted such a claim is false. As its The Critical Decade report said: “The floods across eastern Australia in 2010 and early 2011 were the consequence of a very strong La Nina event and not the result of climate change.” So why is Flannery suggesting the opposite of what his own Climate Commission found? And why on earth do our academics believe him?

why would anyone believe this snake oil salesman??

why are our scientists too scared to call him out for being 100% wrong and a liar to fill his pockets with cash?

not one prediction right and still the grovellers of the Climate Church kiss the ground he has walked on..

how insane is that?  :D :D :D

meanwhile... in 2017 Flannery is still a DUD snake oil salesman..


Quote:

TIM FLANNERY'S LATEST PREDICTION BLOWN AWAY September 18, 2017 7:19am Professional climate alarmist Tim Flannery  first became famous for his dud predictions after predicting cities such as Brisbane and Sydney were likely to run out of water very quickly because of man-made global warming. For instance, in 2007 he predicted: So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems... YOUTUBE But it was another dud Flannery prediction. Back came the flooding rains, filling dams - some to overflowing. Now a new dud Flannery prediction has emerged. Two years ago Flannery could not resist trying to exploit another weather event to preach his warmist faith -and once again did it on the ABC, no doubt knowing it would not question him on his dodgy record: Vanuatu has a long road of recovery ahead after the category-five [Cyclone Pan] struck the country on Friday night, killing 11 people and displacing thousands... Chief Councillor Professor Tim Flannery tells ABC NewsRadio's Laura Tchilinguirian that the number of severe cyclones is predicted to increase as the warming affects the ocean surface. "Elements of the damage wreaked by that cyclone [in Vanuatu] are being influenced quite strongly by climate change," he says. "Sadly we're more likely to see them more frequently in the future." This was already a ludicrous claim, given the fall in number of cyclones here and overseas over the past few decades. But over the very next year something astonishing happened. We actually got not one strong cyclone in Australia for first time in many decades:  ;D Another Flannery With thanks to Liberal MP Craig Kelly, who notes: The BOM report, that for first time since regular satellite images became available, that the 2015/16 cyclone season (the first cyclone season after Tim Flannery predicted the number of severe cyclones would increase) was only season not to record even a single severe tropical cyclone (minimum central pressure less than 970 hPa) in the Australian region.  ;D This compares to 31 years ago, when 11 severe tropical cyclones were recorded in just one season. Yes, he's done it again !  ;D UPDATE Chris Mitchell: This paper’s environment editor, Graham Lloyd,... pointed out [this month's Hurricane] Irma had formed in a part of the Atlantic with unusually cool ocean surface temperature averaging 26.5C, about two degrees less than usual for such an intense storm. He also skewered the latest bulletin from the Climate Council, led by palaeontologist climate ­activist Tim Flannery, titled: “Fingerprints of climate change all over Tropical Storm Harvey”. Climate Council chief executive Amanda McKenzie had claimed “climate change is now supercharging extreme weather events”. Lloyd cited the latest scientific paper from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that concluded it was premature to suggest human activities had ­already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. Accept the science is the cry from green extremists, but they don’t really.

Fair Dinkum... who believes these liars...  ::)

goldkam wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 12:06am:

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 8:30pm: So, whenever it rains, that is an irrefutable piece of evidence that global warming is real? Which means that it never rained when mankind were all hunter gatherers? A simulation was conducted where 100 nuclear missiles were detonated undersea in the Indian Ocean. The water boiled. The water evaporated. The country of Australia was inundated with heavy rainfall for weeks. The Northern Hemisphere, however, received record cold, as the environmental equilibrium kicked in to keep the average temperature stable. During an Australian heatwave, there is a cold snap somewhere in the northern hemisphere. And vice versa. Showing photos of people getting rained on is no indication that the average Earth temperature is going up. The correlation between rainfall and global warming is quite low. Rather look towards Antarctica and the rising seas levels, melting icecaps and the abnormal weather patterns world wide. Unfortunately global warming is now based on empirical and factual data and refutability is something quite difficult.

Could you please provide this empirical and factual data? Note: not climate models. Not Global temperatures as the records don't go back that far. There is no possible way that with the error bars on earlier data they can reconstruct temperatures backwards to 1880 to within 2 decimal places.

lee wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 12:47pm:

goldkam wrote on Mar 9th, 2018 at 12:06am: UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 8:30pm: So, whenever it rains, that is an irrefutable piece of evidence that global warming is real? Which means that it never rained when mankind were all hunter gatherers? A simulation was conducted where 100 nuclear missiles were detonated undersea in the Indian Ocean. The water boiled. The water evaporated. The country of Australia was inundated with heavy rainfall for weeks. The Northern Hemisphere, however, received record cold, as the environmental equilibrium kicked in to keep the average temperature stable. During an Australian heatwave, there is a cold snap somewhere in the northern hemisphere. And vice versa. Showing photos of people getting rained on is no indication that the average Earth temperature is going up. The correlation between rainfall and global warming is quite low. Rather look towards Antarctica and the rising seas levels, melting icecaps and the abnormal weather patterns world wide. Unfortunately global warming is now based on empirical and factual data and refutability is something quite difficult. Could you please provide this empirical and factual data? Note: not climate models. Not Global temperatures as the records don't go back that far. There is no possible way that with the error bars on earlier data they can reconstruct temperatures backwards to 1880 to within 2 decimal places.

1. 2010 Anderegg study found that 97-98% of climate researchers publishing most actively in their field agree that human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change and global warming

2. Since 1751 about 337 billion metric tons of CO2 have been released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels and cement production, increasing atmospheric CO2 from the pre-industrial level of about 280 ppm (parts per million), to a high of 400 ppm in 2013. Methane, which is increasing in the atmosphere due to agriculture and fossil fuel production, traps 84 times as much heat as CO2 for the first 20 years it is in the atmosphere, and is responsible for about one-fifth of global warming since 1750. Nitrous oxide, primarily released through agricultural practices, traps 300 times as much heat as CO2.

Each of these statistics is provided by Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, "Global Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions," cdiac.ornl.gov, NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, "Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," ersl.noaa.gov and Bobby Magill, "Arctic Methane Emissions 'Certain to Trigger Warming,'" climatecentral.org, May 1, 2014

3. Research by NASA has found over the past 650,000 years, atmospheric CO2 levels did not rise above 300 ppm until the mid-20th century. Atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen from about 317 ppm in 1958 to 400 ppm in 2013. According to Rob Monroe, "What Does This Number Mean?," scripps.ucsd.edu, by 2040 these rates will be at 450ppm. According to the Scripps Institution of Oceanology, the "extreme speed at which carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing is unprecedented. An increase of 10 parts per million might have needed 1,000 years or more to come to pass during ancient climate change events."

4. CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels such as oil and coal can be differentiated in the atmosphere from natural CO2 due to its specific isotopic ratio. [101] According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 20th century measurements of CO2 isotope ratios in the atmosphere confirm that rising CO2 levels are the result of human activity, not natural processes such as ocean outgassing, volcanic activity, or release from other "carbon sinks."

5. From 1953–2006, Arctic sea ice declined 7.8% per decade. Between 1979 and 2006, the decline was 9.1% each decade.  As of 2014, Arctic sea ice was being lost at a rate of 13.3% per decade. No other conclusions can be drawn other than global warming

6.  A 2006 study found that "significant acceleration" of sea-level rise occurred from 1870 to 2004. Between 1961 and 2003 global sea levels rose 8 inches

Moved: 'Global warming is real'
This Topic has been moved to Relationships by Bobby

What a joke this forum is  ;D ;D ;D ;D

goldkam wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 5:49pm:

1. 2010 Anderegg study found that 97-98% of climate researchers publishing most actively in their field agree that human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change and global warming

So what did they say was the causal mechanism?


goldkam wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 5:49pm:

2. Since 1751 about 337 billion metric tons of CO2 have been released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels and cement production, increasing atmospheric CO2 from the pre-industrial level of about 280 ppm (parts per million), to a high of 400 ppm in 2013. Methane, which is increasing in the atmosphere due to agriculture and fossil fuel production, traps 84 times as much heat as CO2 for the first 20 years it is in the atmosphere, and is responsible for about one-fifth of global warming since 1750. Nitrous oxide, primarily released through agricultural practices, traps 300 times as much heat as CO2.

So what was the historic level of CO2 during the Holocene Optimum, which was arguably warmer than today? How did they determine that? With the scales used it just wouldn't be there, except if it lasted more than 50,000 years.

methane - never affected life in the Holocene maximum. Why should it be scary this time? I have heard it's 20 times worse.

Nitrous Oxide - 325ppb? That is not scary. 3/5 of 5/8 of FA.


goldkam wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 5:49pm:

3. Research by NASA has found over the past 650,000 years, atmospheric CO2 levels did not rise above 300 ppm until the mid-20th century.

Now that would be citing ice cores which have data problems. Although spotty, plant stomata suggest that is incorrect.


goldkam wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 5:49pm:

4. CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels such as oil and coal can be differentiated in the atmosphere from natural CO2 due to its specific isotopic ratio. [101] According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 20th century measurements of CO2 isotope ratios in the atmosphere confirm that rising CO2 levels are the result of human activity, not natural processes such as ocean outgassing, volcanic activity, or release from other "carbon sinks."

Once this anthropogenic CO2 is absorbed by the carbon sinks and then re-emitted can they differentiate between the carbon sinks CO2 and anthro CO2?


goldkam wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 5:49pm:

5. From 1953–2006, Arctic sea ice declined 7.8% per decade. Between 1979 and 2006, the decline was 9.1% each decade.  As of 2014, Arctic sea ice was being lost at a rate of 13.3% per decade. No other conclusions can be drawn other than global warming

" The first confirmed complete passage, from west to east, was made by the Finnish-Swedish explorer Adolf Erik Nordenskiöld, in 1878."

WIki or you can search Encyclopedia Britannica.

So it seems we have had global warming in the past.

1979 was a high for Arctic ice.


goldkam wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 5:49pm:

6.  A 2006 study found that "significant acceleration" of sea-level rise occurred from 1870 to 2004. Between 1961 and 2003 global sea levels rose 8 inches

Don't you think coming out of the LIA sea levels should NOT have increased?

"Seas around the world have risen an average of nearly 3 inches since 1992, with some locations rising more than 9 inches due to natural variation, according to the latest satellite measurements from NASA and its partners."

https://www.nasa.gov/goddard/risingseas

So how much is natural variation and how much AGW?
With satellite altimeter accuracy between  34mm and  42mm. how do they get that?

How long have they had GPS on tide gauges to see which tide gauges are subject to subsidence?

TheFunPolice wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 6:10pm:

Moved: 'Global warming is real' This Topic has been moved to Relationships by Bobby What a joke this forum is  ;D ;D ;D ;D

stay off the crack mate...

you seem disorientated...  ::)

TheFunPolice wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 6:10pm:

Moved: 'Global warming is real' This Topic has been moved to Relationships by Bobby What a joke this forum is  ;D ;D ;D ;D

DRAH,
Aussie agreed to take this thread to relationships because it
had turned into page after page of personal attacks.

It was later split & the part before the personal attacks started
was put back here by Setanta.

You can see the entire original thread here:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1520387777/30

Agnes wrote on Mar 7^th, 2018 at 11:58am:

---

Seriously Agnes......???....how could you fall for the oligarchies tricks.....???

It's snake oil i'tellsya

Lets look at history,

First lets get one thing straight, the Earth has been warming since the little ice age lets not make any mistakes about that, even the IPCC agreed on this once upon a time until they replaced it with the infamous hockey stick.

The warming is NOT because of mans emissions of CO2 this is the crux of the argument.

In other words don't piss down my back and tell me its raining.

https://image.ibb.co/kwWg8S/medieveal.jpg

Second the only unequivocal evidence given to us that the Earth is warming due to the correlation between CO2 and temperature is in the computer models of the IPCC and associates.

When they first made this prediction about CO2/TEMP (computer models 1990) they said that in the tropopause (about 12 klms straight up) around the equator there was a hot spot.

So some scientists turned to weather balloons and satellite data, they found no hot spot.

So the alarmists started to say that this missing heat has gone into the oceans.

Since 2002 we have had the ARGO[1] a system of buoys that take data including temperature about the oceans all around the world they can dive down to 2000 metres.

The Argo system failed to detect any out of the ordinary heating in the oceans, so the alarmists started saying "Oh but its gone down into the deep part of the ocean, still the ARGO system would have detected this yes , no...???... I think so.   


Quote:

[1]Argo is a global array of 3,800 free-drifting profiling floats that measures the temperature and salinity of the upper 2000 m of the ocean. http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/

Now do you honestly think if we were in danger of extinction because of AGW the best and most effective way that we could save ourselves is to set up and ETS on wall street or a carbon tax so you and I pay the oligarchy for the air we breathe for ever.

In 1990 the computer models ran too hot they projected a warming of

1990 IPCC computer model = 2.78°C warming by the end of this century

Empirical data the last 27 years = 1.01°C warming by the end of this century.

But you never hear about this on the news do you...???
All they tell you we have to spend billions on an ETS on wall street to TRY and keep the temperature down to UNDER 2°C warming by end of this century, well this is going to happen all by itself, no need for you and I to spend money on it.

https://preview.ibb.co/keJNF7/m14.pnghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v8habYTfHU

About never having a higher amount of CO2 in our atmosphere, well that is just plain lying, today we have just over 400ppm (parts per million) in our atmosphere BUT we have had up to 7000ppm in our atmosphere and life thrived with the greening of the Earth.

Now look at what temperature is doing compared to the CO2 levels.

https://image.ibb.co/mXk8oS/millionsyears.jpg

About the sea rises, yes they have been rising since the Little Ice Age (LIA) its only natural.

But here is a man who has studied the oceans all his life see what he says,

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

Maybe when the Earth warms we do get volatile weather which we are finding out about right now, but the Earth has warmed and cooled many times nothing new in this as I'm sure you already know.

https://preview.ibb.co/bwONYS/temp62.jpg

You should check out the climate gate emails that is warmist scientists emailing each other on how to get the plebs in on the action,

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf

Is there any correlation between CO2 and temperature?

(1).....On a small time scale (NO), (11,000 years)

Showing from 200 to 11000 years ago, the subsequent graph is based on ice core data, readily visible in files hosted on the servers of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):GISP 2 and EPICA Dome C

Graph-1
http://i45.tinypic.com/snic0j.gif

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

(2).....On a medium time scale YES???, (450,000 years)

(NO) , It appears so because of the scale we are zoomed out at.

WARNING ! This is the scale that most global warming sites use to scare the unsuspecting.

Over the past few hundred thousand years of ice core data, a “medium” time scale in this sense, CO2 superficially appears to change in step with temperature if a graph is so zoomed out as to not show sub-millennial time
scales well

Graph-2
http://i49.tinypic.com/s5k0nn.gif

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

A record of temperature and atmospheric CO2 over the past 400,000 years is preserved in the Vostok Ice Core and is shown in the figure on the right.

It can be seen that there have been a series of large fluctuations in temperature (the Ice Ages), accompanied by large changes in atmospheric CO2.

It is thought that these large temperature fluctuations are triggered by Milankovitch cycles - variations in the earth's orbit that change the amount of energy from the sun that reaches us.

However, on their own, these cycles are not enough to explain the changes in temperature.

The full explanation seems to be that the small change in temperature caused by the changing orbit are amplified by natural processes on earth. These cause CO2 to be released from the oceans and the biosphere, causing an increased greenhouse effect.

This is described more fully in this article from the New Scientist (see also Shackleton 2000). For more details on the timing of changes in CO2 and temperature, click on the figure.

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm#100,000years

(3).....On a long time scale (NO) , (millions of years)

Graph-3
http://i45.tinypic.com/vf8b5l.jpg

[url]http://s155.n46.n171.n68.static.myhostcenter.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf[/urll]

(4).....Lately
http://i42.tinypic.com/10wnz8z.jpg https://preview.ibb.co/e5TLnn/sat01.jpg

September 1957 - arctic decreases by 40%
http://i41.tinypic.com/2w6yrlg.jpg

May 1947 - arctic melting
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/22429983?searchTerm=climate%20change&searchLimits=

November 1922 - arctic melting
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

well that was a very reassuring read Ajax- and it would seem on the face of what you have posted here  a naturally re- occurring cycle in earths weather patterns-  I will examine your links more fully- thank you Ajax-

Agnes wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 12:46pm:

well that was a very reassuring read Ajax- and it would seem on the face of what you have posted here  a naturally re- occurring cycle in earths weather patterns-  I will examine your links more fully- thank you Ajax-

Agnes climate change has been with us since day dot and will be with us until the Earth is no more.

AGW on the other hand is a Rothschild's fairy tale...... :D

I agree that humans are responsible for global climate change. But the only real change is occurring in and around the towns and cities. Most of the globe is untouched by climate change. But there is barely anything signifying a global increase in temperature.

goldkam wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 5:49pm:

lee wrote on Mar 9th, 2018 at 12:47pm: goldkam wrote on Mar 9th, 2018 at 12:06am: UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 8:30pm: So, whenever it rains, that is an irrefutable piece of evidence that global warming is real? Which means that it never rained when mankind were all hunter gatherers? A simulation was conducted where 100 nuclear missiles were detonated undersea in the Indian Ocean. The water boiled. The water evaporated. The country of Australia was inundated with heavy rainfall for weeks. The Northern Hemisphere, however, received record cold, as the environmental equilibrium kicked in to keep the average temperature stable. During an Australian heatwave, there is a cold snap somewhere in the northern hemisphere. And vice versa. Showing photos of people getting rained on is no indication that the average Earth temperature is going up. The correlation between rainfall and global warming is quite low. Rather look towards Antarctica and the rising seas levels, melting icecaps and the abnormal weather patterns world wide. Unfortunately global warming is now based on empirical and factual data and refutability is something quite difficult. Could you please provide this empirical and factual data? Note: not climate models. Not Global temperatures as the records don't go back that far. There is no possible way that with the error bars on earlier data they can reconstruct temperatures backwards to 1880 to within 2 decimal places. 1. 2010 Anderegg study found that 97-98% of climate researchers publishing most actively in their field agree that human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change and global warming 2. Since 1751 about 337 billion metric tons of CO2 have been released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels and cement production, increasing atmospheric CO2 from the pre-industrial level of about 280 ppm (parts per million), to a high of 400 ppm in 2013. Methane, which is increasing in the atmosphere due to agriculture and fossil fuel production, traps 84 times as much heat as CO2 for the first 20 years it is in the atmosphere, and is responsible for about one-fifth of global warming since 1750. Nitrous oxide, primarily released through agricultural practices, traps 300 times as much heat as CO2. Each of these statistics is provided by Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, "Global Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions," cdiac.ornl.gov, NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, "Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," ersl.noaa.gov and Bobby Magill, "Arctic Methane Emissions 'Certain to Trigger Warming,'" climatecentral.org, May 1, 2014 3. Research by NASA has found over the past 650,000 years, atmospheric CO2 levels did not rise above 300 ppm until the mid-20th century. Atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen from about 317 ppm in 1958 to 400 ppm in 2013. According to Rob Monroe, "What Does This Number Mean?," scripps.ucsd.edu, by 2040 these rates will be at 450ppm. According to the Scripps Institution of Oceanology, the "extreme speed at which carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing is unprecedented. An increase of 10 parts per million might have needed 1,000 years or more to come to pass during ancient climate change events." 4. CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels such as oil and coal can be differentiated in the atmosphere from natural CO2 due to its specific isotopic ratio. [101] According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 20th century measurements of CO2 isotope ratios in the atmosphere confirm that rising CO2 levels are the result of human activity, not natural processes such as ocean outgassing, volcanic activity, or release from other "carbon sinks." 5. From 1953–2006, Arctic sea ice declined 7.8% per decade. Between 1979 and 2006, the decline was 9.1% each decade.  As of 2014, Arctic sea ice was being lost at a rate of 13.3% per decade. No other conclusions can be drawn other than global warming 6.  A 2006 study found that "significant acceleration" of sea-level rise occurred from 1870 to 2004. Between 1961 and 2003 global sea levels rose 8 inches

If an 8 inch rise in sea levels in such a short period of time is not a wake up call then nothing is, did Noah leave any specifications on Ark construction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS5CW8Jwlg0


Superfreeze Sea Life Mass Die Off, Buried Sheep Rescue Underway & Crop Losses Spread (548)


After the European Superfreeze which the media termed The Beast from the East to avoid talking about Arctic temperatures in March in Southern Europe, the animal die offs are staggering along with the crops. Hundreds of thousands of starfish wash up with countless other types of sea life, sheep buried in snow drifts are being rescued by the tens of thousands as thousands already froze. Vegetable production from Spain to New Zealand being lost due to freak strong weather events sweeping the globe.

goldkam wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 5:49pm:

. Between 1961 and 2003 global sea levels rose 8 inches

According to NOAA the global sea level height in 1961 was -60.25mm. In 2003 it was +15.72mm. (Using a zero point of 2001-2). That gives a SLR of 75.97mm. Which is about 3 inches

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level

you can check the interactive graph for the data.

lee wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 7:50pm:

goldkam wrote on Mar 9th, 2018 at 5:49pm: . Between 1961 and 2003 global sea levels rose 8 inches According to NOAA the global sea level height in 1961 was -60.25mm. In 2003 it was +15.72mm. (Using a zero point of 2001-2). That gives a SLR of 75.97mm. Which is about 3 inches https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level you can check the interactive graph for the data.

Why do you think that is, expansion of the oceans or the melting of ice, either way that is an incredible amount of sea level rise in 50yrs, what sort of volume increase of the oceans result in a 3 inch rise, and what flow on effects could result, its not good to change the planet quickly, everything needs time to adapt, 50yrs ffs.

Johnnie wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 8:19pm:

Why do you think that is, expansion of the oceans or the melting of ice, either way that is an incredible amount of sea level rise in 50yrs, what sort of volume increase of the oceans result in a 3 inch rise, and what flow on effects could result, its not good to change the planet quickly, everything needs time to adapt, 50yrs ffs.

It is of course an estimate. There are no measurements. You could always try to be better than King Knut. He knew he didn't control the tides.

So we have land subsidence which will affect tide gauge data, as well as isostatic rebound.

Then of course in the real world we have storms, waves, swells, as well as tides and atmospheric pressure differences.

I don't live at the beach, but those living within 5 feet of the storm surge line generally can afford to move. ;)

An interesting read about the Isle of The Dead and its Mean Sea Level data.

https://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/

*

lee wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 9:05pm:

Johnnie wrote on Mar 10th, 2018 at 8:19pm: Why do you think that is, expansion of the oceans or the melting of ice, either way that is an incredible amount of sea level rise in 50yrs, what sort of volume increase of the oceans result in a 3 inch rise, and what flow on effects could result, its not good to change the planet quickly, everything needs time to adapt, 50yrs ffs. It is of course an estimate. There are no measurements. You could always try to be better than King Knut. He knew he didn't control the tides. So we have land subsidence which will affect tide gauge data, as well as isostatic rebound. Then of course in the real world we have storms, waves, swells, as well as tides and atmospheric pressure differences. I don't live at the beach, but those living within 5 feet of the storm surge line generally can afford to move. ;) An interesting read about the Isle of The Dead and its Mean Sea Level data. https://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/

You present figures and then dispute them. Ask those on low lying islands why the ocean is encroaching on them.

Quote:

108 degrees today? If not, small Montana city sets coldest February record Unless a dramatic heat wave strikes Wednesday, a Montana city about 300 miles east of the state capital will end the month with record-setting cold. Feb. 28 would have to be 108 degrees to ward off the record for coldest February in Miles City, Mont., since records have been kept. The National Weather Service office in Montana's largest city, Billings, called it: "Not going to happen." A 108-degree day in February would shatter records of its own, of course. The warmest ever recorded in Miles City on a Feb. 28 was 69 degrees in 1992. The Miles City forecast was for high of 30 degrees. The normal is 40 degrees. This February, the city has averaged 5.3 degrees until the penultimate day of the month. The previous coldest February was 7.1 degrees in 1949, and a normal February, while not balmy, is 24.4 degrees.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/02/28/coldest-february-miles-city-montana/382698002/

meanwhile..on the other side of the planet..


Quote:

Towns record coldest February day By Gail Burke Updated 3 Feb 2018, 12:04pm After weeks of hot weather, many towns in south-east Queensland have experienced their coldest February day on record with temperatures resembling winter maximums. On Friday, Applethorpe, near the New South Wales border, reached a maximum of 15 degrees Celsius while Toowoomba climbed to just 15.4C, Warwick 16.9C, and Kingaroy 17.7C. Bureau of Meteorology Forecaster Michael Paech said Archerfield, west of Brisbane, managed only 21C and Coolangatta on the Gold Coast 21.6C. "These are the coldest February days that we've ever experienced in those places and some of those records date back quite some time," he said. "The Stanthorpe record dates back to 1938 when we started taking records there and Toowoomba, that record goes back to 1931."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-03/queensland-weather-towns-record-coldest-february-day/9393092

Dutch News...


Quote:

Wednesday is the coldest day of winter and coldest Feb 28 on record Society February 28, 2018    Snow covers the beach on Schiermonnikoog. Photo: Manon Bruininga / Hollandse Hoogte With the temperature set to remain below zero all day, and to hit -2 degrees at the Bilt weather station near Hilversum, today is the coldest of the winter, weather bureaus said on Wednesday. The temperature is expected to remain around -4 degrees in the north east and -1 degree in the south, and will be the coldest February 28 on record. The KNMI weather bureau issued a code yellow weather warning for the entire country apart from the far south after light overnight snow. That snow has caused difficult conditions on some roads, the ANWB motoring organisation said. In particular, traffic was difficult on the Amsterdam ring road, despite the half term holidays. There will be an other heavy frost on Wednesday night, when it will be as low as -8 degrees in central parts and -11 degrees on the German border.

Read more at DutchNews.nl: Wednesday is the coldest day of winter and coldest Feb 28 on record http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2018/02/wednesday-is-the-coldest-day-of-winter-and-coldest-feb-28-on-record/

Digging out your animals from the snow... your livelihood... YOUR LIFE

Farmers lose their stock then have to pay to get rid of them...

water Temperatures drop so much hundreds of thousands of starfish dead..

Flash Floodings....

Food Prices increasing...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS5CW8Jwlg0&feature=em-uploademail

Millions of people lose power all over the world due to record low temperatures..

Dead Manatees from cold stress??  :-/

Volcanoes Erupting..

California Passes New Law Banning Cow Farts...
wait what?   :o

and you think the people from the Global Warming Church aren't crazy??  :D :D :D


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUHAs1Fs7Vs

Johnnie wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 10:29pm:

You present figures and then dispute them. Ask those on low lying islands why the ocean is encroaching on them.

I am giving you what passes for the facts in this debate.

One claim was for an 8 inch rise in 42 years. I showed by reference to NOAA, that that was wrong, it was 3 inches  according to them. That doesn't make their claim right or wrong.

I pointed you to John Daly's piece which " suggests a sea level rise since 1888 of only 2½cm". That is one inch up to the same 2003.

So an estimated SLR of 3 inches or one of  1 inch. Remember what I said about difficulties with measuring SLR. Isle of the Dead is one reading, it is not global; would it be different elsewhere?

So which low lying islands are drowning?  Tide gauge data suggests they are not.

The Maldives - Built an international airport. Now they are expanding on that? Who spends money like that on a drowning island?


They may subject to storm surge, erosion, many things.

"Using remotely sensed data, change is analysed over the past four decades, a period when local sea level has risen at twice the global average (~3.90 ± 0.4 mm.yr−1). Results highlight a net increase in land area in Tuvalu of 73.5 ha (2.9%), despite sea-level rise, and land area increase in eight of nine atolls. Island change has lacked uniformity with 74% increasing and 27% decreasing in size. Results challenge perceptions of island loss, showing islands are dynamic features that will persist as sites for habitation over the next century, presenting alternate opportunities for adaptation that embrace the heterogeneity of island types and their dynamics."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1

Now remember "remotely sensed data" is satellite.
The latest altimeters have an accuracy of 34mm, 10 times the rise suggested by NOAA. Then they have to account for wave, swell, and storm surge height.

I will leave you to sort that mess out.

lee wrote on Mar 11^th, 2018 at 11:59am:

Johnnie wrote on Mar 10th, 2018 at 10:29pm: You present figures and then dispute them. Ask those on low lying islands why the ocean is encroaching on them. I am giving you what passes for the facts in this debate. One claim was for an 8 inch rise in 42 years. I showed by reference to NOAA, that that was wrong, it was 3 inches  according to them. That doesn't make their claim right or wrong. I pointed you to John Daly's piece which " suggests a sea level rise since 1888 of only 2½cm". That is one inch up to the same 2003. So an estimated SLR of 3 inches or one of  1 inch. Remember what I said about difficulties with measuring SLR. Isle of the Dead is one reading, it is not global; would it be different elsewhere? So which low lying islands are drowning?  Tide gauge data suggests they are not. The Maldives - Built an international airport. Now they are expanding on that? Who spends money like that on a drowning island? They may subject to storm surge, erosion, many things. "Using remotely sensed data, change is analysed over the past four decades, a period when local sea level has risen at twice the global average (~3.90 ± 0.4 mm.yr−1). Results highlight a net increase in land area in Tuvalu of 73.5 ha (2.9%), despite sea-level rise, and land area increase in eight of nine atolls. Island change has lacked uniformity with 74% increasing and 27% decreasing in size. Results challenge perceptions of island loss, showing islands are dynamic features that will persist as sites for habitation over the next century, presenting alternate opportunities for adaptation that embrace the heterogeneity of island types and their dynamics." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1 Now remember "remotely sensed data" is satellite. The latest altimeters have an accuracy of 34mm, 10 times the rise suggested by NOAA. Then they have to account for wave, swell, and storm surge height. I will leave you to sort that mess out.

NASA calculates that the average sea level rise is 3.41mm per year! incredible,, due to ocean expansion as it warms, and the melting of the polar ice caps. NOAA, your reference also claims sea levels are rising.
The Marshall Islanders are already in trouble, they will be needing snorkels before long.

Johnnie wrote on Mar 11^th, 2018 at 12:59pm:

NASA calculates that the average sea level rise is 3.41mm per year! incredible,, due to ocean expansion as it warms, and the melting of the polar ice caps. NOAA, your reference also claims sea levels are rising.

Yes. Now how do they "calculate" sea level rise?


Johnnie wrote on Mar 11^th, 2018 at 12:59pm:

The Marshall Islanders are already in trouble, they will be needing snorkels before long.

Perhaps you have a peer-reviewed paper to link?

"Destruction of Coral Reefs. A major concern for both Government and the general public is mining on the reef and lagoon shorelines, contributing to rapid erosion, especially in various parts of Majuro and Ebeye. Moreover, the sand and gravel aggregates in these areas are non-renewable and there is increasing awareness that the mining of these resources is at present unsustainable."

http://www.sprep.org/Marshall-Islands/marshall-islands-pein

Mining? That can't help. The coral would provide some protection to erosion.

Here is some evidence that global warming is real:
( Don't ever let Monk tell you that I'm biased)

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/fire-risks-as-victorians-warned-of-severe-weather-conditions/527657



Fire risks as Victorians warned of severe weather conditions

Saturday March 17, 2018 - 15:47 EDT



The Seaview fire at McDonald's track is currently about 254 hectares in size. - ABC licensed

It's hot and windy across Victoria and if a fire starts up, it will be very hard to stop, warns Victoria's Emergency Management Commissioner.

It's been 44 days since there has been any significant rain across the state and temperatures are forecast to be
10 degrees Celsius above normal for this time of year.

Temperatures are tipped to be in the mid-30s in the south and in the high 30s along the Murray River in the north.



However the main reason for concern is the winds, with the gusting 60-70 kilometres per hour, with peak gusts of 90 to 100 kilometres per hour.

"If a fire was to start and we weren't able to get it in that initial attack, it will run and it will get away from the fire suppression efforts fairly easily," Emergency Management Commissioner Craig Lapsley told 774 ABC Melbourne.

"It's dry, it's hot, it's windy. The winds will remain strong into the night and overnight and [on] Sunday morning we'll wake up with temperatures of 28C in the morning.

"That's a concern if we've got fires running and hot conditions overnight and the wind remains."

There have already been 31 minor fires across the state which were quickly brought under control.

The key areas of concern are from Mildura to Warrnambool and Melbourne to Echuca.

Then on Sunday morning a strong change will move through.

"That'll bring strong westerly wind gusts throughout the day, particularly for southern and coastal areas where we'll see wind gusts up around 90-100kph and probably reaching up to 110kph about the coast," said Rod Dickson, a senior forecaster at the Bureau of Meteorology.

in eastern Victoria all week, and Mr Lapsley said he was confident they will be able to hold the fire.

The fire is currently about 254 hectares in size and is burning close to the communities of Allambee, Cloverlea, Yarragon South and Ellinbank.

"That was a fire we found extremely difficult to control because it was so dry and it was spotting through the forest areas," Mr Lapsley said.

"I'm very confident we'll hold it."

Extra firefighting staff are on standby and total fire bans are in place for all regions except the Gippsland and north-east fire districts.


- ABC

© ABC 2018

lee wrote on Mar 11^th, 2018 at 4:43pm:

Johnnie wrote on Mar 11th, 2018 at 12:59pm: NASA calculates that the average sea level rise is 3.41mm per year! incredible,, due to ocean expansion as it warms, and the melting of the polar ice caps. NOAA, your reference also claims sea levels are rising. Yes. Now how do they "calculate" sea level rise? Johnnie wrote on Mar 11th, 2018 at 12:59pm: The Marshall Islanders are already in trouble, they will be needing snorkels before long. Perhaps you have a peer-reviewed paper to link? "Destruction of Coral Reefs. A major concern for both Government and the general public is mining on the reef and lagoon shorelines, contributing to rapid erosion, especially in various parts of Majuro and Ebeye. Moreover, the sand and gravel aggregates in these areas are non-renewable and there is increasing awareness that the mining of these resources is at present unsustainable." http://www.sprep.org/Marshall-Islands/marshall-islands-pein Mining? That can't help. The coral would provide some protection to erosion.

Is there any "peer-reviewed paper" to show NASA is wrong, you are once again are contradicting yourself by claiming a sea level rise and providing statistics to support that but only seem to contest the rate.
Sure all those points you bring up regarding the Marshall Islands would have an effect on any coastal area, but if you agree on any ocean level rise then low lying islands will be the first to go under.
The thermal mass of the ocean will increase relative to global warming at an exponential rate until it boils, its not like it cools back down again at night.

Johnnie wrote on Mar 17^th, 2018 at 8:31pm:

Is there any "peer-reviewed paper" to show NASA is wrong, you are once again are contradicting yourself by claiming a sea level rise and providing statistics to support that but only seem to contest the rate.

It is generally considered that the Sea Level has been rising since the end of the LIA.

Obviously you either don't read well or don't comprehend.

lee wrote on Mar 11^th, 2018 at 11:59am:

One claim was for an 8 inch rise in 42 years. I showed by reference to NOAA, that that was wrong, it was 3 inches  according to them. That doesn't make their claim right or wrong.

It applies to NASA as well.

I am merely showing the state of claimed sea level rise from 2.5cm (1inch) to a claimed 8 inches. They can't all be right. I will let you choose what you want to believe.


Johnnie wrote on Mar 17^th, 2018 at 8:31pm:

Sure all those points you bring up regarding the Marshall Islands would have an effect on any coastal area, but if you agree on any ocean level rise then low lying islands will be the first to go under.

Nope. That would be true only if there was sea level rise and islands weren't growing. Of course mining your own islands is detrimental, but you can't lay the blame for that on sea level rise.

You still haven't got back to me on how NASA ESTIMATES sea level rise.

Please feel free to enlighten me.

Johnnie wrote on Mar 17^th, 2018 at 8:31pm:

The thermal mass of the ocean will increase relative to global warming at an exponential rate until it boils, its not like it cools back down again at night.

What complete and utter garbage. Until the oceans boil?  At what temperature is that?

And yeah the oceans cool at night. Didn't you know that? So what heats the ocean? CO2? Sunlight?

Below is a graph from Colorado University, very similar to NOAA and NASA. The question is - with ever increasing CO2 and the last few year "the hottest evah"; why is the sea level rise tracking sideways?

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2018_rel1/sl_ns_global.png

for the Marshall Islands

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/1820000_meantrend.png
It has the following text below - "The relative sea level trend is 2.2 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.82 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1946 to 2015 which is equivalent to a change of 0.72 feet in 100 years. "

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=1820000

That hardly seems like accelerating sea level rise to me.

Please try science instead of emotive claptrap.

lee wrote on Mar 17^th, 2018 at 9:31pm:

Johnnie wrote on Mar 17th, 2018 at 8:31pm: Is there any "peer-reviewed paper" to show NASA is wrong, you are once again are contradicting yourself by claiming a sea level rise and providing statistics to support that but only seem to contest the rate. It is generally considered that the Sea Level has been rising since the end of the LIA. Obviously you either don't read well or don't comprehend. lee wrote on Mar 11th, 2018 at 11:59am: One claim was for an 8 inch rise in 42 years. I showed by reference to NOAA, that that was wrong, it was 3 inches  according to them. That doesn't make their claim right or wrong. It applies to NASA as well. I am merely showing the state of claimed sea level rise from 2.5cm (1inch) to a claimed 8 inches. They can't all be right. I will let you choose what you want to believe. Johnnie wrote on Mar 17th, 2018 at 8:31pm: Sure all those points you bring up regarding the Marshall Islands would have an effect on any coastal area, but if you agree on any ocean level rise then low lying islands will be the first to go under. Nope. That would be true only if there was sea level rise and islands weren't growing. Of course mining your own islands is detrimental, but you can't lay the blame for that on sea level rise. You still haven't got back to me on how NASA ESTIMATES sea level rise. Please feel free to enlighten me. Johnnie wrote on Mar 17th, 2018 at 8:31pm: The thermal mass of the ocean will increase relative to global warming at an exponential rate until it boils, its not like it cools back down again at night. What complete and utter garbage. Until the oceans boil?  At what temperature is that? And yeah the oceans cool at night. Didn't you know that? So what heats the ocean? CO2? Sunlight? Below is a graph from Colorado University, very similar to NOAA and NASA. The question is - with ever increasing CO2 and the last few year "the hottest evah"; why is the sea level rise tracking sideways? http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2018_rel1/sl_ns_global.png for the Marshall Islands https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/1820000_meantrend.png It has the following text below - "The relative sea level trend is 2.2 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.82 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1946 to 2015 which is equivalent to a change of 0.72 feet in 100 years. " https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=1820000 That hardly seems like accelerating sea level rise to me. Please try science instead of emotive claptrap.

As the thermal mass increases so does the time to dissipate it, night and day remains constant.
We agree ocean levels are rising? I would say exponentially, but that is hardly going to show on graphs or pi charts in the short term, and of course the oceans would boil dry given that, eventually.

The oceans will only boil as the sun becomes hotter with age &
starts to turn into a red giant.
Don't worry - that's billions of years away yet.

As long as Hansen or any of his climate activist cronies are in charge of or have anything to do with NASA data and reports etc you can not ever credit it as credible or unbiased.

Johnnie wrote on Mar 17^th, 2018 at 9:45pm:

As the thermal mass increases so does the time to dissipate it, night and day remains constant.

The sun only heats the top few centimetres of ocean. It gives off the heat overnight.

Do you know the boiling point of fresh water? Salt water is higher depending on salt density.

Grendel wrote on Mar 18^th, 2018 at 8:56am:

As long as Hansen or any of his climate activist cronies are in charge of or have anything to do with NASA data and reports etc you can not ever credit it as credible or unbiased.

Well Hansen in an interview said that the  West Side Highway (which runs along the Hudson River) would be under water by 2028 if CO2 doubled from the 280ppm mark.

Only 10 years to go and well short of the mark.

lee wrote on Mar 18^th, 2018 at 1:06pm:

Johnnie wrote on Mar 17th, 2018 at 9:45pm: As the thermal mass increases so does the time to dissipate it, night and day remains constant. The sun only heats the top few centimetres of ocean. It gives off the heat overnight. Do you know the boiling point of fresh water? Salt water is higher depending on salt density.

Take for example a thimble of water and a swimming pool of water, salt water or fresh water, the thermal mass of the swimming pool will hold its heat. 75% of the earths surface is water and don't forget the depth to calculate volume, the oceans are absorbing heat from global warming.
Did we agree that ocean levels are rising?

Johnnie wrote on Mar 18^th, 2018 at 2:44pm:

Did we agree that ocean levels are rising?

According to science yes. The question is how much?
So looking at the graphs provided do you see the acclaimed acceleration of Sea Level?

Did you notice Kwajalein 22mm rise per 100 years +/- 8.2mm?


Johnnie wrote on Mar 18^th, 2018 at 2:44pm:

75% of the earths surface is water and don't forget the depth to calculate volume, the oceans are absorbing heat from global warming.

Argo buoys-

"That February evening, Willis says, he was updating maps and graphs with the data that had become available since the 2006 ocean cooling paper was published. He was preparing for a talk he had been invited to give at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. The topic was “Ocean cooling and its implications for understanding recent sea level trends.”

He was looking at a map of global ocean temperatures measured by a flotilla of autonomous, underwater robots that patrol the world’s oceans. The devices—Argo floats—sink to depths of up to 2,000 meters, drift with the currents, and then bob up to the surface, taking the temperature of the water as they ascend. When they reach the surface, they transmit observations to a satellite. According to the float data on his computer screen, almost the entire Atlantic Ocean had gone cold. Unless you believe The Day After Tomorrow, Willis jokes, impossibly cold.

“Oh, no,” he remembers saying.

“What’s wrong?” his wife asked.

“I think ocean cooling isn’t real.”"

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php

And so they adjusted Argo data without pulling them from the water.

Wouldn't they have been calibrated before dropping them in the water?

As you can see the above link is from NASA.

So the truth is  - We don't know.

BTW - you didn't answer the question about the oceans boiling. Remember global air temp is supposed to be about 62.45ºF, according to NOAA 1997.

lee wrote on Mar 18^th, 2018 at 4:58pm:

Johnnie wrote on Mar 18th, 2018 at 2:44pm: Did we agree that ocean levels are rising? According to science yes. The question is how much? So looking at the graphs provided do you see the acclaimed acceleration of Sea Level? Did you notice Kwajalein 22mm rise per 100 years +/- 8.2mm? Johnnie wrote on Mar 18th, 2018 at 2:44pm: 75% of the earths surface is water and don't forget the depth to calculate volume, the oceans are absorbing heat from global warming. Argo buoys- "That February evening, Willis says, he was updating maps and graphs with the data that had become available since the 2006 ocean cooling paper was published. He was preparing for a talk he had been invited to give at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. The topic was “Ocean cooling and its implications for understanding recent sea level trends.” He was looking at a map of global ocean temperatures measured by a flotilla of autonomous, underwater robots that patrol the world’s oceans. The devices—Argo floats—sink to depths of up to 2,000 meters, drift with the currents, and then bob up to the surface, taking the temperature of the water as they ascend. When they reach the surface, they transmit observations to a satellite. According to the float data on his computer screen, almost the entire Atlantic Ocean had gone cold. Unless you believe The Day After Tomorrow, Willis jokes, impossibly cold. “Oh, no,” he remembers saying. “What’s wrong?” his wife asked. “I think ocean cooling isn’t real.”" https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php And so they adjusted Argo data without pulling them from the water. Wouldn't they have been calibrated before dropping them in the water? As you can see the above link is from NASA. So the truth is  - We don't know. BTW - you didn't answer the question about the oceans boiling. Remember global air temp is supposed to be about 62.45ºF, according to NOAA 1997.

So are you saying Willis took the calculations and not NASA.
What increase in ocean levels would settle upon as being reasonable, more interestingly how many billions of gallons would it take to account for that increase, is it more the melting of the ice caps or the expansion of the ocean due to global warming, any compounding effect..

Johnnie wrote on Mar 18^th, 2018 at 5:16pm:

So are you saying Willis took the calculations and not NASA.

Willis works for NASA. I ha't science.ve no knowledge of the internal operations of NASA. But if you adjust data for nothing but a "gut feeling" that isn't science.


Johnnie wrote on Mar 18^th, 2018 at 5:16pm:

What increase in ocean levels would settle upon as being reasonable, more interestingly how many billions of gallons would it take to account for that increase, is it more the melting of the ice caps or the expansion of the ocean due to global warming, any compounding effect..

Sorry, I don't do guesstimates.

You still haven't told me how the oceans would "boil".

lee wrote on Mar 18^th, 2018 at 5:22pm:

Johnnie wrote on Mar 18th, 2018 at 5:16pm: So are you saying Willis took the calculations and not NASA. Willis works for NASA. I ha't science.ve no knowledge of the internal operations of NASA. But if you adjust data for nothing but a "gut feeling" that isn't science. Johnnie wrote on Mar 18th, 2018 at 5:16pm: What increase in ocean levels would settle upon as being reasonable, more interestingly how many billions of gallons would it take to account for that increase, is it more the melting of the ice caps or the expansion of the ocean due to global warming, any compounding effect.. Sorry, I don't do guesstimates. You still haven't told me how the oceans would "boil".

Just give me a minimum guesstimate,, so we can punch some figures.
The higher the salt content the denser water becomes and so the thermal mass increases, as the thermal mass increases and global warming increases we will surely have a runaway effect, hence boiling water.

Johnnie wrote on Mar 18^th, 2018 at 6:28pm:

Just give me a minimum guesstimate,, so we can punch some figures.

No


Johnnie wrote on Mar 18^th, 2018 at 6:28pm:

The higher the salt content the denser water becomes and so the thermal mass increases, as the thermal mass increases and global warming increases we will surely have a runaway effect, hence boiling water.

Oh, The Stephen Hawking theory on Climate Change? ;)

From mashable a usually alarmist rag -

"Stephen Hawking is wrong about runaway greenhouse on Earth and here's why"

"Stephen Hawking is a world-renowned theoretical physicist whose landmark contributions to cosmology, general relativity and quantum gravity changed the way we see the universe.

However, when it comes to climate change, the brilliant physicist is veering on the edge of total inaccuracy. "

"Among them, Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and energy systems analyst at Berkeley Earth and Gareth Jones, climate scientist at the Met Office:

The problem with Hawking's answer is that there's no possibility of Venus' runaway greenhouse conditions occurring on Earth as of now (the situation will be different in a billion years with sun becoming 10% brighter). "

Hausfather's quote -
"
Zeke Hausfather
‏ @hausfath

Zeke Hausfather Retweeted Gareth S Jones

A good example that even brilliant scientists sometimes say silly things when it's outside their field of expertise (see Nobel disease)"

https://mashable.com/2017/07/03/stephen-hawking-runaway-greenhouse-venus/#TpvPg30AmZqB

Hausfather is something of an alarmist himself.

lee wrote on Mar 18^th, 2018 at 7:14pm:

Johnnie wrote on Mar 18th, 2018 at 6:28pm: Just give me a minimum guesstimate,, so we can punch some figures. No Johnnie wrote on Mar 18th, 2018 at 6:28pm: The higher the salt content the denser water becomes and so the thermal mass increases, as the thermal mass increases and global warming increases we will surely have a runaway effect, hence boiling water. Oh, The Stephen Hawking theory on Climate Change? ;) From mashable a usually alarmist rag - "Stephen Hawking is wrong about runaway greenhouse on Earth and here's why" "Stephen Hawking is a world-renowned theoretical physicist whose landmark contributions to cosmology, general relativity and quantum gravity changed the way we see the universe. However, when it comes to climate change, the brilliant physicist is veering on the edge of total inaccuracy. " "Among them, Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and energy systems analyst at Berkeley Earth and Gareth Jones, climate scientist at the Met Office: The problem with Hawking's answer is that there's no possibility of Venus' runaway greenhouse conditions occurring on Earth as of now (the situation will be different in a billion years with sun becoming 10% brighter). " Hausfather's quote - " Zeke Hausfather ‏ @hausfath Zeke Hausfather Retweeted Gareth S Jones A good example that even brilliant scientists sometimes say silly things when it's outside their field of expertise (see Nobel disease)" https://mashable.com/2017/07/03/stephen-hawking-runaway-greenhouse-venus/#TpvPg30AmZqB Hausfather is something of an alarmist himself.

Its just logic, Hawking had to spell it out for some, if you had a beacon of water with a bunsen burner below it keeping it at a constant temperature then all will all will remain constant, if an ever increasing atmosphere of CO2 was created around that beacon it is only reasonable to expect that beacon to boil dry and the lab to catch on fire, its not even E=MCsquared.

Johnnie wrote on Mar 18^th, 2018 at 9:11pm:

if you had a beacon of water with a bunsen burner below it keeping it at a constant temperature then all will all will remain constant, if an ever increasing atmosphere of CO2 was created around that beacon it is only reasonable to expect that beacon to boil dry and the lab to catch on fire,

You do realise the earth is never getting to a temperature of a bunsen burner? Remember Global tamp 62.45F, fresh water boils 212F.

I've finished with you. You make less sense every time you post.

lee wrote on Mar 18^th, 2018 at 10:07pm:

Johnnie wrote on Mar 18th, 2018 at 9:11pm: if you had a beacon of water with a bunsen burner below it keeping it at a constant temperature then all will all will remain constant, if an ever increasing atmosphere of CO2 was created around that beacon it is only reasonable to expect that beacon to boil dry and the lab to catch on fire, You do realise the earth is never getting to a temperature of a bunsen burner? Remember Global tamp 62.45F, fresh water boils 212F. I've finished with you. You make less sense every time you post.

Ditto, you got nothing.

Johnnie wrote on Mar 18^th, 2018 at 10:14pm:

lee wrote on Mar 18th, 2018 at 10:07pm: Johnnie wrote on Mar 18th, 2018 at 9:11pm: if you had a beacon of water with a bunsen burner below it keeping it at a constant temperature then all will all will remain constant, if an ever increasing atmosphere of CO2 was created around that beacon it is only reasonable to expect that beacon to boil dry and the lab to catch on fire, You do realise the earth is never getting to a temperature of a bunsen burner? Remember Global tamp 62.45F, fresh water boils 212F. I've finished with you. You make less sense every time you post. Ditto, you got nothing.

lol you got him jeez  ;)

pretty disgusting of that twerp..Di Natale  to use the fires and the cyclone up north to get brownie points...

that man has no conscience what so ever.....

they should have booed him..

Not all metaphors bear close examination  ::)

Either DRAH is off his meds or self-medicating AGAIN.

As I said to a global warming believer yesterday:


How does the Roman Warm Period or the Medieval Warming Period
fit into your ideas when there was no increase of CO2
before it happened?

How does it account for the little ice ages we've had? -

the Maunder Minimum & the Dalton Minimum?

More CO2 will increase the temperature but evidence
shown in this thread points to CO2 increasing following warm periods -
not the other way around.

There are known feedback systems like the Gulf stream
and cloud cover and many more
that are unknown.

The truth is that you're following the discredited ideas of Al Gore
and you're not alone -
there has been 20 years of propaganda that sheeple
have lapped up & swallowed from TV & newspapers.

This will choke us to death before we cook.

---

I am totally against stinking coal fired power stations.

See my thread on Thorium power!

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519823686/0#0

Bobby. wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2018 at 6:29pm:

I am totally against stinking coal fired power stations. See my thread on Thorium power! http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519823686/0#0

The merchants wheel is strong with this one!!