Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
Member Run Boards >> Environment >> Warning on climate change
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1332141844

Message started by perceptions_now on Mar 19th, 2012 at 5:24pm

Title: Warning on climate change
Post by perceptions_now on Mar 19th, 2012 at 5:24pm
Warning on climate change

CLIMATE change is not for the faint hearted - heaven forbid I'm branded a warmist, writes Lainie Anderson.
--------------------------------------------------

But this week, the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology released their latest 10-year assessment of Australia's climate, and issued some pretty sombre warnings that we'd best not ignore in the driest state on the driest continent.

Here's what State of the Climate 2012 revealed:

AUSTRALIA'S annual average daily maximum temperatures have increased by 0.75C since 1910, with record high temperatures now occurring with greater frequency across the nation.

EACH decade has been warmer than the previous decade since the 1950s.

TEMPERATURES are predicted to rise between 1C and 5C by 2070, causing more droughts and extreme rainfall events.

GLOBAL sea levels are 210mm higher than they were in 1880, with waters around northern Australia rising at up to three times higher than the global average.

THE concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere in 2011 was 390 parts per million, higher than at any time for the past 800,000 years.


So here we are, armed with evidence from the nation's peak scientific and weather organisations that by 2070 (when my sons are 67) Australia could be enduring temperatures 5C higher than today.

Yet before the ink was dry on the report, one of Australia's most popular commentators, Andrew Bolt, was claiming that "our top climate authorities have proved once again how they've turned themselves into propagandists for the warmist faith".

I tell you, it's little wonder that psychologists across Australia are increasingly treating clients for climate-change issues. (No really - there's a section on how to deal with climate-change anxieties on the Australian Psychological Society's website).

Please don't think I'm blaming Mr Bolt for a national anxiety attack.

It's just that the whole issue of climate change feels so hopeless, not least because constructive dialogue seems to have been sacrificed in favour of political point-scoring and personal insults.

Take the scorn heaped by some on Climate Commissioner Professor Tim Flannery. It's simply infantile.

In 2007, he had the nerve to predict rainfall would become scarce in the future - now you can almost hear the sceptics snigger every time it rains.

On one hand, we've got around 97 per cent of the world's climate scientists telling us that human behaviour is warming the planet.

To do nothing is to condemn our children to higher temperatures, droughts, floods and other extreme weather events.


On the other, we're being told (by academics, politicians and commentators) that it's a left-wing conspiracy fuelled by self-interested schemers in white coats.

And if all that doesn't do your head in, we've got a carbon tax that no one wants, introduced by a Prime Minister who promised we wouldn't get one. (And yes, $23/tonne certainly seems a worry for hip pockets and Australian jobs, but that's the price you pay when the major parties can't reach consensus and minorities hold the cards.)

In the meantime, it's increasingly difficult for the rest of us to tune out the white noise and think rationally about the situation.

This much I know: Adelaide's stretch of 40C-plus days back in 2009, peaking at nearly 46C, was miserable. But they'd be a walk in the park compared with 50C.

We also know the world is digging up and burning more fossil fuels than ever. 

Mining has been Australia's saviour in tough economic times, but I'm inclined to agree with the scientists who say there is a cost to the planet in terms of unprecedented levels of atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution.

Surely the chance of climate change affecting Australia by 2070 is greater than needing to defend ourselves in a war - yet we don't baulk at spending around $24 billion annually on the national defence budget.

And climate science aside, there will surely come a time when Australia runs out of natural resources.

So doesn't it make economic sense to invest now in renewable technology and have something else to offer the world when the coal runs out?


Link -
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/anderson-warning-on-climate-change/story-fn6bqphm-1226302631177
=================================
Any sizeable business, with any sort of a reasonable business plan, would include this sort of risk, as a very large & likely risk and they would include mitigation measures to ward off the worst effects, where possible!

Unfortunately, there are many powerful, vested interests, who are pushing for this and other risks not be be recognised, nor mitigation undertaken, as it would affect the short term interests of those vested interests!
 

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by perceptions_now on Mar 19th, 2012 at 5:31pm
Climate catastrophe on our door step

The latest State of the Climate report by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO was launched at a weather monitoring station on remote Cape Grim in Tasmania. The location was an apt choice for a report that has very bad news about Australia's continuing failure to respond adequately to the climate change crisis.

The report says each decade since the 1950s has been warmer. Annual-average daily mean temperatures have increased 0.9% since 1910 and annual-average overnight minimum temperatures have warmed by more than 1.1% since 1910. 

The recent two years of wetter weather, due to the La Nina effect, do not mean this long-term warming trend has ended. The report said last year “was the world’s 11th warmest year and the warmest year on record during a La Nina event”.

The world’s 13 warmest years on record have all been in the past 15 years.

La Nina is related to warmer-than-average ocean temperatures around Australia and sea-surface temperatures around Australia have risen faster than the global average, the report said.

The report projected an average temperature rise in Australia of 1-5ーC by 2070, long-term drying over southern and eastern Australia and more extreme weather such as floods, droughts and cyclones.

CSIRO research says an average temperature rise of just 1-2ーC would bleach 58-81% of the Great Barrier Reef each year. Core habitat for vertebrates in the northern tropics would drop 90%.

Three to four degrees would kill 95% of Great Barrier Reef species, shrink 20-85% of total snow-covered area in the Australian Alps and ruin 30–70% of core habitat for Victoria and highland tropical vertebrate species.




If average temperatures rise above 5°C, Australia will lose 90–100% of core habitat for most vertebrates.

The State of the Climate report said the global average sea level last year was 210mm above 1880 levels and rose faster between 1993 and 2011 than during the entire 20th century.

The report said greenhouse gases continue to rise exponentially. Carbon dioxide has reached 390 parts per million in the atmosphere.

Link -
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/50388
==================================

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by perceptions_now on Mar 19th, 2012 at 5:41pm
State of the Climate - 2012 (CSIRO)

Future Australian temperature, rainfall and extreme weather events

Australian average temperatures are projected to rise by 0.6 to 1.5 °C by 2030 when compared with the climate of 1980 to 1999.  The warming is projected to be in the range of 1.0 to 5.0 °C by 2070 if global greenhouse gas emissions are within the range of projected future emission scenarios considered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. These changes will be felt through an increase in the number of hot days and warm nights, and a decline in cool days and cold nights.

Climate models suggest long-term drying over southern areas during winter and over southern and eastern areas during spring. This will be superimposed on large natural variability, so wet years are likely to become less frequent and dry years more frequent. Droughts are expected to become more frequent in southern Australia; however, periods of heavy rainfall are still likely to occur.

Models generally indicate an increase in rainfall near the equator globally, but the direction of projected changes to average rainfall over northern Australia is unclear as there is a lack of consensus among the models.

For Australia as a whole, an increase in the number of dry days is expected, but it is also likely that rainfall will be heavier during wet periods.

It is likely (with more than 66 per cent probability) that there will be fewer tropical cyclones in the Australian region, on average, but the proportion of intense cyclones is expected to increase. 

Climate change is continuing
Multiple lines of evidence show that global warming continues and that human activities are mainly responsible.

The fundamental physical and chemical processes leading to climate change are well understood. CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology observations provide further evidence that climate change is real.

Link-
http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding/State-of-the-Climate-2012.aspx

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by Deathridesahorse on Mar 19th, 2012 at 6:42pm
How much subsidised solar thermal could you build and then throw to the market with half that 24 billion dollars!??!

Wait, why would you have to even throw it to the market?

....hmmn, we could compare and contrast to the NBN as it is all infrastructure built with the proceeds of the mining boom isn't it?

What do the children get from this alleged once in a century boom first witnessed by the Howard era?

How much did the Howard era spend on advertising again?

HOW MUCH HAVE THE MINERS SPENT ON PROPGANDA AGAIN??

All very very interesting [ ...and pertinent  :D ] questions that no silver spooner dares go near no matter how much crack they've smoked!


:-[ :-[

-->> WE ARE THE CLEVER COUNTRY BUT...  ::) :'( :'(

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by juliar on Mar 20th, 2012 at 1:31pm
Is this PM Bob Brown of the Communist Greens waking up from his bad dreem ?

Broken down and rusting, is this the future of Britain's 'wind rush'?

By Tom Leonard  PUBLISHED: 01:00 GMT, 19 March 2012  | UPDATED: 07:54 GMT, 19 March 2012

Broken promises: The rusting wind turbines of Hawaii. A breathtaking sight awaits those who travel to the southernmost tip of Hawaii’s stunningly beautiful Big Island, though it’s not in any guidebook. On a 100-acre site, where cattle wander past broken ‘Keep Out’ signs, stand the rusting skeletons of scores of wind turbines.

Just a short walk from where endangered monk seals and Hawksbill turtles can be found on an unspoilt sandy beach, a technology that is supposed to be about saving the environment is instead ruining it. In other parts of the U.S., working wind turbines are killing hundreds of thousands of birds and bats each year, but here the wildlife can perch on the motionless steel blades. If any spot was tailor-made for a wind farm it would surely be here. The gales are so strong and relentless on the tip of South Point that trees grow almost horizontally. Yet the 27-year-old Kamaoa Wind Farm remains a relic of the boom and inglorious bust of America’s so-called ‘wind rush’, the world’s first major experiment in wind energy.

At a time when the EU and the British Government are fully paid-up evangelists for wind power, the lesson from America — and the ghostly hulks on this far-flung coast — should be a warning of their folly. Few people were talking about saving the planet back in the early Eighties. The wind rush was a free-for-all in which get-rich-quick companies exploited ridiculously generous tax breaks to pepper  the States with thousands of  wind turbines.

For anyone who has questioned Downing Street’s controversial pledge — spurred on by EU green targets — to give £400 million-a-year subsidies to wind farms as well as hefty bribes to landowners in order to spur the building of an additional 4,500 turbines, the wind rush may sound eerily familiar.

Indeed, America’s growing band of wind sceptics insist that what happened three decades ago in the U.S. could easily recur over the next few years in the UK if the wheels come off the wind energy gravy train once again. So what went wrong? It started with the late Seventies oil crisis that convinced America it had to look around for other sources of power. For a time, wind power was considered to be a serious alternative to fossil fuels.

Turbines were built across several states, though there was a preponderance in California, where nearly 17,000 sprouted up from the  dusty earth. Nearly all of these were concentrated in three giant wind farms: Altamont, east of San Francisco; Tehachapi, on the edge of the Mojave desert; and San Gorgonio near  Palm Springs. In theory, conditions couldn’t have been better. Each of these are passes that benefit from just the right sort of wind that turbines need — strong and almost continual.

Better still, they were crossed by under-used high voltage lines to take away the power. But most importantly for the scrum of investors who were thrusting their snouts into the trough, there was the extraordinary generosity of the government. Between 1981 and 1985, federal and state subsidies in California were so favourable that investors could recover 50 per cent of the cost of a wind turbine. Even better, the amount they were paid for their electricity was tied to the price of oil, which had shot through the roof.

Turbines on the island of Hawaii which is soon to benefit from new subsides for larger wind farms Paul GIPE, a former California wind company executive, calls what happened next a ‘tax credit frenzy’. ‘The lure of quick riches resulted in shoddy products that littered California with poorly operating — sometimes non-operating — turbines.’  They were expensive and badly designed. Some were far too small to make a difference, others were just clunky machines designed by the aero industry with blades the length of a rugby pitch.

But thanks to the subsidies, it hardly mattered that some of the untested turbines were so sub-standard they barely even worked.

Not to put too fine a point on it, for some wind energy investors it was simply a tax scam. But as tends to happen with a business that is driven by financial incentives, it lasted only as long as the subsidies. In 1986, the price of oil tumbled and the subsidies started to die out. Suddenly, the wind energy sums didn’t add up any more.

And just like the gold rush miners who had rushed to the same Californian passes a century earlier, the wind prospectors departed in such a hurry that they didn’t even bother to take down the turbines they had littered across the state. With so many moving parts to worry about, maintaining turbines is expensive — too expensive when the electricity they could produce was suddenly worth so little.  ‘So when something broke, you simply didn’t send a repairman because it just didn’t make financial sense,’ Hawaii wind sceptic Andrew Walden told me. With some turbine makers going out of business, there were no spare parts either.

According to the California Energy Commission, the collapse in subsidies stalled the state’s huge wind energy industry for nearly two decades. No one who has driven past one of America’s mega wind farms today can fail to be struck by how few have blades that are turning, even in strong winds. The truth is that even fewer may be producing electricity than it appears. Many are switched to a mode in which the blades continue to turn just to keep oil moving around the mechanism, but no electricity is produced.

Unfortunately, the frenzy of windmill building during the wind rush didn’t just ruin the view, but also devastated the wildlife.

No one noticed until far too late that the 5,000-turbine wind farm at Altamont Pass is on a major migratory path for birds. The National Audubon Society, America’s RSPB, has called it ‘probably the worst  site ever chosen for a wind  energy project’.

Hawaiian Island of Maui, utilizes an array of 1.5 megawatt wind turbines to produce electricity

An estimated 10,000 birds including up to 80 protected golden eagles, 380 burrowing owls, 300 red-tailed hawks and 330 falcons were being shredded each year in Altamont’s massed banks of turbine blades — to say nothing of thousands of bats — until outraged conservationists sued America’s ‘deadliest’ wind farm four years ago. As a result, it has agreed to grind to a halt for four months every year to avoid causing more carnage during the migration season. Go further south to the Tehachapi pass on the edge of the Mojave desert and you’ll find golden eagle carcasses under the wind turbines, too. Tragically, the size of these majestic creatures makes it difficult for them to manoeuvre through forests of wind turbine blades spinning at speeds of up to 200mph, especially when they are concentrating on looking for prey. The problem is so serious that in Minnesota and Oregon, wind farms have drawn national condemnation by applying for an eagle hunting licence. In the U.S., one of the great ironies about wind energy is that the people you might expect to cheer for it most — wildlife conservationists who care about the planet — are its most vociferous critics. It’s not hard to see why when you glance at the statistics. The American Bird Conservancy estimates wind turbines kill between 75,000 and 275,000 birds each year.

The conservation cause is not the only issue. There are horror stories about turbines falling over, catching fire after being struck by lightning, lethal shards of ice being hurled from the blades, the nerve-racking low frequency noise (like a pulsing disco) and the disorientating strobe effect in sunlight. While Hawaii has six abandoned wind farms, most of California’s derelict turbines are only now being removed — decades late — after disgusted local authorities threatened to sue.
In Palm Springs, those who campaigned against the turbines included the late singer Sonny Bono, former husband of Cher.

But if a turbine’s owner had walked away from his investment or gone bankrupt, it was sometimes the hapless farmer or rancher who owned the land who had to foot the $1,000-a-tower clean-up bill.
So how many windmills have been abandoned across the U.S.? It is  an intensely sensitive subject for wind enthusiasts, who will quibble that it depends on how you define ‘abandoned’. They wouldn’t, for instance, count ones that are working again today, even if they were switched off for years. They also argue that many of those that were left to rust were technologically outdated and set for the scrapheap anyway.

Wind power sceptics estimate 14,000 turbines across the U.S. have become derelict since the Eighties, while there are around 38,000 in operation across the country. Paul Gipe claims the number abandoned in his state of California is around 4,500, of which 500 are still standing.

In Hawaii, which is soon to get a new subsidised wind farm, Andrew Walden argues that whatever turbine makers boast about their machines’ impressive kilowatt per hour output, there remains an intractable problem with any industry that can survive only with government help.‘The key lesson from history is that when the subsidies go, the wind farms go,’ he told me. ‘It costs too much to maintain them and they just get abandoned.’ How ironic that the British government is pushing through permissions for thousands of new turbines just as the Americans are going cool on the idea.

More dismal stories of Bob Brown failures in ref:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2116877/Is-future-Britains-wind-rush.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by Doctor Jolly on Mar 20th, 2012 at 1:47pm
Abandoned wind farms is a political problem created by politicians looking at short term only fixes.

To quote:

From 1981 through 1985 federal and state tax subsidies in California were so great that wealthy investors could recover up to 50 percent of a wind turbine's cost. The lure of quick riches resulted in a flood of development using new and mostly untested wind turbines. By the end of 1986, when projects already underway in 1985 were completed, developers had installed nearly 15,000 wind turbines. These machines represented 1,200 MW of capacity worth US$2.4 billion in 1986 dollars.

It took nearly a decade from the time the first flimsy wind turbines were installed before the performance of California wind projects could dispel the widespread belief among the public and investors that wind energy was just a tax scam.

Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst focusing on energy and environmental issues for the Heritage Foundation, is not surprised.  He asks:

"If wind power made sense, why would it need a government subsidy in the first place?  It's a bubble which bursts as soon as the government subsidies end."


Firstly, no renewable can compete with cheap coal, so if you want renewables, you need to do two things:
1) Provide ongoing subsidies
2) Price coal generation up to a similar level to renewables.

Obviously, option (1) is going to be at the whim of the current government, and any sort of belt tightening is going to hit it hard.  (2) is the long term solution.

That is why we need a price on co2.

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by Doctor Jolly on Mar 20th, 2012 at 1:49pm
But the good thing about an abandoned wind farm is that the land is in as good a condition as it was (once you pull down the towers).

Compare that to an abandoned nuclear or coal generator where the land is left poisoned and unusable.

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by gizmo_2655 on Mar 21st, 2012 at 4:00am

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 20th, 2012 at 1:49pm:
But the good thing about an abandoned wind farm is that the land is in as good a condition as it was (once you pull down the towers).

Compare that to an abandoned nuclear or coal generator where the land is left poisoned and unusable.


The problem is the cost of pulling down the towers though...(and a wind farm covers a much greater area than nuclear or coal power plants..)

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Mar 21st, 2012 at 2:06pm

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 19th, 2012 at 5:31pm:
Climate catastrophe on our door step

The latest State of the Climate report by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO was launched at a weather monitoring station on remote Cape Grim in Tasmania. The location was an apt choice for a report that has very bad news about Australia's continuing failure to respond adequately to the climate change crisis.

The report says each decade since the 1950s has been warmer. Annual-average daily mean temperatures have increased 0.9% since 1910 and annual-average overnight minimum temperatures have warmed by more than 1.1% since 1910. 

The recent two years of wetter weather, due to the La Nina effect, do not mean this long-term warming trend has ended. The report said last year “was the world’s 11th warmest year and the warmest year on record during a La Nina event”.

The world’s 13 warmest years on record have all been in the past 15 years.

La Nina is related to warmer-than-average ocean temperatures around Australia and sea-surface temperatures around Australia have risen faster than the global average, the report said.

The report projected an average temperature rise in Australia of 1-5ーC by 2070, long-term drying over southern and eastern Australia and more extreme weather such as floods, droughts and cyclones.

CSIRO research says an average temperature rise of just 1-2ーC would bleach 58-81% of the Great Barrier Reef each year. Core habitat for vertebrates in the northern tropics would drop 90%.

Three to four degrees would kill 95% of Great Barrier Reef species, shrink 20-85% of total snow-covered area in the Australian Alps and ruin 30–70% of core habitat for Victoria and highland tropical vertebrate species.




If average temperatures rise above 5°C, Australia will lose 90–100% of core habitat for most vertebrates.

The State of the Climate report said the global average sea level last year was 210mm above 1880 levels and rose faster between 1993 and 2011 than during the entire 20th century.

The report said greenhouse gases continue to rise exponentially. Carbon dioxide has reached 390 parts per million in the atmosphere.

Link -
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/50388
==================================


That's impressive those planetary CO2 stats from 1000AD to 1850AD.
Very detailed.
Just too bad their guesstimated.

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by Doctor Jolly on Mar 21st, 2012 at 2:18pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 21st, 2012 at 4:00am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 20th, 2012 at 1:49pm:
But the good thing about an abandoned wind farm is that the land is in as good a condition as it was (once you pull down the towers).

Compare that to an abandoned nuclear or coal generator where the land is left poisoned and unusable.


The problem is the cost of pulling down the towers though...(and a wind farm covers a much greater area than nuclear or coal power plants..)


Well you dont have to pull them down at all for the land to return to farming. Its purely as aesthetic thing.


The cost of pulling them down is 10000x times less than decomissioning a coal or nuclear plant.

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by Uncle Meat on Mar 21st, 2012 at 2:28pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 21st, 2012 at 2:06pm:
That's impressive those planetary CO2 stats from 1000AD to 1850AD.
Very detailed.
Just too bad their guesstimated.



That's a bit unfair.

Without guesstimates, the AGW disciples don't have a theory.     ;)

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by Doctor Jolly on Mar 21st, 2012 at 2:32pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 21st, 2012 at 2:06pm:
That's impressive those planetary CO2 stats from 1000AD to 1850AD.
Very detailed.
Just too bad their guesstimated.


Deliciously ironic, since the general denier view was that data prior to 1850AD "proved" the case that the climate change is natural.

Although in fairness, they seem to have dropped that line nowdays.

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by gizmo_2655 on Mar 22nd, 2012 at 12:47am

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 21st, 2012 at 2:18pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 21st, 2012 at 4:00am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 20th, 2012 at 1:49pm:
But the good thing about an abandoned wind farm is that the land is in as good a condition as it was (once you pull down the towers).

Compare that to an abandoned nuclear or coal generator where the land is left poisoned and unusable.


The problem is the cost of pulling down the towers though...(and a wind farm covers a much greater area than nuclear or coal power plants..)


Well you dont have to pull them down at all for the land to return to farming. Its purely as aesthetic thing.


The cost of pulling them down is 10000x times less than decomissioning a coal or nuclear plant.


Not even close Doc....It costs over $5000 per turbine/tower to remove them, and, (in Australia for example) there are between 20 and 80 turbines in each farm....

A nuclear power plant has a much longer life span than wind farms currently do, and therefore a longer process to remove, but still doesn't cost much more than 100X what windfarms cost....

For coal I'll agree with you about the environmental residue, but a correctly built, run and decommissioned nuclear plant leaves no residue behind...

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by jalane on Mar 22nd, 2012 at 2:21am
What? :o :o
For coal I'll agree with you about the environmental residue, but a correctly built, run and decommissioned nuclear plant leaves no residue behind...

How can you possibly say that.?  What happens to the spent uranium.???
Sent into space perhaps? ::)


Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by Greens_Win on Mar 22nd, 2012 at 3:51am
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/human-cost-of-inaction-incalculable-20120320-1vhrv.html

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by gizmo_2655 on Mar 22nd, 2012 at 8:43am

Emma wrote on Mar 22nd, 2012 at 2:21am:
What? :o :o
For coal I'll agree with you about the environmental residue, but a correctly built, run and decommissioned nuclear plant leaves no residue behind...

How can you possibly say that.?  What happens to the spent uranium.???
Sent into space perhaps? ::)


Well it's certainly not buried at the site, or left lying around now is it??

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by Doctor Jolly on Mar 22nd, 2012 at 8:50am

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 22nd, 2012 at 12:47am:
For coal I'll agree with you about the environmental residue, but a correctly built, run and decommissioned nuclear plant leaves no residue behind...


Can you site an example of a decomissioned nuclear plant that was returned as residential or productive farm land ?

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by perceptions_now on Mar 22nd, 2012 at 8:53am

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 21st, 2012 at 4:00am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 20th, 2012 at 1:49pm:
But the good thing about an abandoned wind farm is that the land is in as good a condition as it was (once you pull down the towers).

Compare that to an abandoned nuclear or coal generator where the land is left poisoned and unusable.


The problem is the cost of pulling down the towers though...(and a wind farm covers a much greater area than nuclear or coal power plants..)


Try telling that to the Japanese!

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by perceptions_now on Mar 22nd, 2012 at 8:56am

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 21st, 2012 at 2:06pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 19th, 2012 at 5:31pm:
Climate catastrophe on our door step

The latest State of the Climate report by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO was launched at a weather monitoring station on remote Cape Grim in Tasmania. The location was an apt choice for a report that has very bad news about Australia's continuing failure to respond adequately to the climate change crisis.

The report says each decade since the 1950s has been warmer. Annual-average daily mean temperatures have increased 0.9% since 1910 and annual-average overnight minimum temperatures have warmed by more than 1.1% since 1910. 

The recent two years of wetter weather, due to the La Nina effect, do not mean this long-term warming trend has ended. The report said last year “was the world’s 11th warmest year and the warmest year on record during a La Nina event”.

The world’s 13 warmest years on record have all been in the past 15 years.

La Nina is related to warmer-than-average ocean temperatures around Australia and sea-surface temperatures around Australia have risen faster than the global average, the report said.

The report projected an average temperature rise in Australia of 1-5ーC by 2070, long-term drying over southern and eastern Australia and more extreme weather such as floods, droughts and cyclones.

CSIRO research says an average temperature rise of just 1-2ーC would bleach 58-81% of the Great Barrier Reef each year. Core habitat for vertebrates in the northern tropics would drop 90%.

Three to four degrees would kill 95% of Great Barrier Reef species, shrink 20-85% of total snow-covered area in the Australian Alps and ruin 30–70% of core habitat for Victoria and highland tropical vertebrate species.




If average temperatures rise above 5°C, Australia will lose 90–100% of core habitat for most vertebrates.

The State of the Climate report said the global average sea level last year was 210mm above 1880 levels and rose faster between 1993 and 2011 than during the entire 20th century.

The report said greenhouse gases continue to rise exponentially. Carbon dioxide has reached 390 parts per million in the atmosphere.

Link -
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/50388
==================================


That's impressive those planetary CO2 stats from 1000AD to 1850AD.
Very detailed.
Just too bad their guesstimated.


What do you think Business & Government is based on?

The best Guestimate!


Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by gizmo_2655 on Mar 22nd, 2012 at 9:15am

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 22nd, 2012 at 8:50am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 22nd, 2012 at 12:47am:
For coal I'll agree with you about the environmental residue, but a correctly built, run and decommissioned nuclear plant leaves no residue behind...


Can you site an example of a decomissioned nuclear plant that was returned as residential or productive farm land ?


No, not yet. Although there are three in the US that have been classified as 'greenfields' (ready to be used for housing/farming), pending removal of the last expended rods to storage facility....

Most of the reactors in the world are still in use, or in the early stages of the decommisioning process..

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by perceptions_now on Mar 24th, 2012 at 12:54pm
Coping With Climate Change: 2 Texas Towns Struggle for Water

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFraI20yauQ&feature=player_embedded#!
==================================
The severity of change, will mean greater droughts in some areas, more severe rain events in others and an alternation between the two in some areas.

Whichever way it comes, it will have significant impacts on the Economy, both at local & Global levels!

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by perceptions_now on Mar 24th, 2012 at 10:20pm
Warming world defies La Nina

CLIMATE change is accelerating, with least year the 11th-warmest year since records began in 1850, despite the cooling influence of La Nina, according to the World Meteorological Organisation.

Global average precipitation last year was the second-highest since 1901, with significant flooding on all continents, although parts of east Africa and North America experienced drought.

Arctic sea ice fell to near record-low levels and, while there was some respite from tropical cyclones, the US had one of its most destructive tornado seasons ever recorded.

Forty-eight of 102 countries reported new record maximum temperatures in the decade 2001-2010, compared to 20 per cent for the preceding decade and about 10 per cent for earlier decades.


The rate of global temperature increase for the four decades from 1971 to 2010 was at roughly double that for the 13 decades 1881 to 2010, a change the WMO described as "remarkable".

In an annual climate statement, released last night, the WMO said globally averaged temperatures last year were 0.4 degrees above the 1961-90 average of 14 degrees, despite one of the strongest La Nina events of the past 60 years. The Pacific coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon is typically associated with cooling.

"This 2011 annual assessment confirms the findings of the previous WMO annual statements that climate change is happening now and is not some distant future threat," said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud.

Meanwhile, in its preliminary decadal climate statement, also released yesterday, the WMO said 2001-10 was the warmest decade since records began. The warmest year was 2010, closely followed by 2005.

Northern Australia and large parts of the northern hemisphere were wetter than average in the past decade, while southeastern Australia, the western US and some other areas were drier.

Virtually all parts of the world were affected by extreme weather events, although the WMO did not link these to climate change. Flooding was the most widespread, with historical, widespread and prolonged events affecting eastern Europe in 2001 and 2005, Africa in 2008, Asia -- in particular, Pakistan -- in 2010, India in 2005 and Australia in 2010.

Australia also reported extreme drought conditions, as did a number of other countries, including eastern Africa, the Amazonia region and the western US.

The North Atlantic basin saw its highest level on record of cyclone activity in the past decade, with hurricane Katrina its most severeevent. Cyclone Nargis was the deadliest, killing more than 70,000 people in Burma

Link -
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/warming-world-defies-la-nina/story-e6frg6so-1226308739100
=================================
Jekyll and Hyde have nothing on the split personalities involved in Climate Change!

Parts of the OZ East coast have been deluged, whilst the South West corner of OZ is heating & drying out quickly!

But, such is the nature of the beast!

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by perceptions_now on Mar 24th, 2012 at 10:43pm
U.S. heat 'unprecedented,' 7,000 records set or tied

(Reuters) - An "unprecedented" March heat wave in much of the continental United States has set or tied more than 7,000 high temperature records, and signals a warming climate, health and weather experts said on Friday.

While natural climate variability plays a major role, it is the addition of human-spurred climate change that makes this particular hot spell extraordinary, the scientists said in a telephone and web briefing.

"This heat wave is essentially unprecedented,"
said Heidi Cullen of the nonprofit science and communication organization Climate Central. "It's hard to grasp how massive and significant this is."

Since March 12, more than 7,000 high temperature records have been equaled or exceeded, Cullen said, citing figures from the U.S. National Climatic Data Center (here).

These records include daytime high temperatures and record-high low temperatures overnight, which in some cases are higher than previous record highs for the day, Cullen said.

"When low temperatures are breaking previous record highs, that's when you see this is incredibly special," she said.

"Most likely the weird weather arises from natural variation on top of a warming climate," said Michael Oppenheimer, a geoscientist at Princeton and a veteran participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "What we're seeing now is not surprising in the greenhouse world ... It's just the beginning of our experience with the new atmosphere."

Oppenheimer was a lead author of the panel's path-breaking 2007 report that analyzed research by hundreds of scientists and found there was a 90 percent probability that climate change is occurring and human activities contribute to it.

That report projected an increase in heat waves, droughts, floods, severe storms and extreme temperatures as a result of human-spurred global warming, caused in part by rising emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide emitted by fossil fuel burning.

Link -
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/03/23/climate-heat-usa-idINDEE82M0NW20120323
=================================
There's the good news AND there's the bad news.

The Good news is, Peak Fossil Energy will reduce GHG's over the next 20-30 years and that MAY mitigate the worst of the effects of Climate Change on the Global Environment?

The Bad news is, Peak Fossil Energy will ensure the Global Economy takes a massive hit over the next 20-30 years, as the COST OF ENERGY takes an increasing ratio of Global GDP, which will exacerbate a REDUCTION in DEMAND for GOODS & SERVICES, which are already set to head lower due to DEMOGRAPHIC ISSUES involving the Baby Boomer generation, who will first retire then leave us forever, in ever increasing numbers, also over the next 20-30 years!



Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by Incomptinence on Mar 25th, 2012 at 3:16am
I agree that climate change is a problem and we should do something about it. I can no longer read these reports though, because nothing will be done. Moment a good idea leads to someone losing a single dollar anything will be thrown up as an excuse to kill it. Doesn't matter what the excuse is, anything will do for a scrooge faking denial.      

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by muso on Mar 25th, 2012 at 7:10am

Incomptinence wrote on Mar 25th, 2012 at 3:16am:
I agree that climate change is a problem and we should do something about it. I can no longer read these reports though, because nothing will be done. Moment a good idea leads to someone losing a single dollar anything will be thrown up as an excuse to kill it. Doesn't matter what the excuse is, anything will do for a scrooge faking denial.      


That's a very fair comment. The problem is that what you describe is a very short sighted attitude, because in the long run it's going to cost a mint.

It's like a car owner saying that he'll save money by not servicing his car - ever.

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by muso on Mar 25th, 2012 at 7:14am

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 22nd, 2012 at 9:15am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 22nd, 2012 at 8:50am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 22nd, 2012 at 12:47am:
For coal I'll agree with you about the environmental residue, but a correctly built, run and decommissioned nuclear plant leaves no residue behind...


Can you site an example of a decomissioned nuclear plant that was returned as residential or productive farm land ?


No, not yet. Although there are three in the US that have been classified as 'greenfields' (ready to be used for housing/farming), pending removal of the last expended rods to storage facility....

Most of the reactors in the world are still in use, or in the early stages of the decommisioning process..


Apart from that, they don't take up a lot of land in relative terms.  The same argument could be made with regards to coal fired power stations. In fact the huge quantities of fly ash does a lot more damage.

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by perceptions_now on Mar 25th, 2012 at 8:33am

Incomptinence wrote on Mar 25th, 2012 at 3:16am:
I agree that climate change is a problem and we should do something about it. I can no longer read these reports though, because nothing will be done. Moment a good idea leads to someone losing a single dollar anything will be thrown up as an excuse to kill it. Doesn't matter what the excuse is, anything will do for a scrooge faking denial.      


I understand where that statement comes from and there is a segment of the Public, plus Politicians & vested interests who push that perspective, in an attempt to maintain the status quo.

Unfortunately, over time, maintaining the status quo is simply not possible!

In any event, there are costs & benefits involved, no matter what actions OR lack thereof are taken and over time the Economic losses involved of taking action to mitigate the worst effects of Climate Change, will be far less than the Economic losses involved by not taking mitigating actions!


Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by Incomptinence on Mar 25th, 2012 at 5:41pm

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 25th, 2012 at 8:33am:
I understand where that statement comes from and there is a segment of the Public, plus Politicians & vested interests who push that perspective, in an attempt to maintain the status quo.

Unfortunately, over time, maintaining the status quo is simply not possible!

In any event, there are costs & benefits involved, no matter what actions OR lack thereof are taken and over time the Economic losses involved of taking action to mitigate the worst effects of Climate Change, will be far less than the Economic losses involved by not taking mitigating actions!

When the worst effects hit people they will just use the actual hardship as an excuse to clam up and do nothing. Just like they use the imagined hardship (real in some cases though) of bothering to do anything about the environment right now.

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by perceptions_now on Mar 26th, 2012 at 5:14pm
Study: Global temperatures could rise 5 degrees by 2050

As the USA simmers through its hottest March on record — with more than 6,000 record high temperatures already set this month — a new study released Sunday shows that average global temperatures could climb 2.5 to 5.4 degrees by 2050 if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated.

The study findings are based on the results of 10,000 computer model simulations of future weather overseen by researchers at Oxford University in the United Kingdom.

"These are the first results to suggest that the higher warming scenario could be plausible," says study lead author Dan Rowlands of Oxford.

It is a faster rate of warming than most other models predict.

Most scientists say that increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal are causing the planet to warm to levels that cannot be explained by natural variability.

The study was published online Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience and backs up similar predictions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007.

According to Rowlands, the climate model was the most complex used to date, and addresses some of the uncertainties that previous forecasts, using simpler models, may have overlooked.

"It's only by running such a large number of simulations — with model versions deliberately chosen to display a range of behavior — that you can get a handle on the uncertainty present in a complex system such as our climate," says Rowlands.

The climate models used in the study accurately reproduced actual, observed temperature changes over the last 50 years: Assuming that models that simulate past warming realistically are the best candidates for future warming predictions, the authors conclude in the study that a warming of from 2.5 to 5.4 degrees by 2050, compared with the 1960-90 average, is in the "likely range" of climate warming.

The earth's average temperature during the decade of 2000-2010 was almost a full degree higher than the average from 1960-90, Rowlands says.

The project ran almost 10,000 climate simulations on volunteers' home computers, which was made possible because volunteers donated time to run the simulations on their home computers through climateprediction.net, as part of the BBC Climate Change Experiment.

"Perhaps the most ambitious effort to date, this work illustrates how the citizen science movement is making an important contribution to this field," says paper co-author Ben Booth, a senior climate scientist with the U.K. Met Office's Hadley Centre.

Link -
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2012/03/climate-change-global-warming-temperature-rise-model-predict/1#.T3ARqtnYExQ
===================================
The following chart gives some indications of the likely Risks & Impacts involved, as temperatures increase and what this study suggests is that the time lag for the nastier outcomes, may be around 2050 rather than 2075-2100?


Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by Deathridesahorse on Mar 26th, 2012 at 5:32pm

muso wrote on Mar 25th, 2012 at 7:10am:

Incomptinence wrote on Mar 25th, 2012 at 3:16am:
I agree that climate change is a problem and we should do something about it. I can no longer read these reports though, because nothing will be done. Moment a good idea leads to someone losing a single dollar anything will be thrown up as an excuse to kill it. Doesn't matter what the excuse is, anything will do for a scrooge faking denial.      


That's a very fair comment. The problem is that what you describe is a very short sighted attitude, because in the long run it's going to cost a mint.

It's like a car owner saying that he'll save money by not servicing his car - ever.

IN THE END THE INSURANCE COMPANIES WILL BE HAVING A SAY!

ALSO GOVERNMENTS DECIDING WHAT LAND IS USABLE OR NOT AND SO SUBSIDIES/PROTECTIONIST POLICY WILL TELL A STORY ASWELL!


Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by Deathridesahorse on Mar 26th, 2012 at 5:36pm

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 26th, 2012 at 5:14pm:
Study: Global temperatures could rise 5 degrees by 2050

....

Um, I was thinking other reports have stated 3 degrees minimum has been locked in so to speak by the year 2070.

This is going off memory, but I thought there was a scary number basically locked in already!  :-/ :-/ :-/ :'(

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by jalane on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:30pm
ona slightly different tack, was watching ABC1 QLD to night - very interesting program on the effects of human habitation on our current climate predicament.

Basically, ..if old weather models were in play,  an ice age would have commenced around about 7000 yrs ago, but,,it didn't.!!

What did, was human occupation, and farming. V int prog.

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by gizmo_2655 on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 12:22am

Emma wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:30pm:
ona slightly different tack, was watching ABC1 QLD to night - very interesting program on the effects of human habitation on our current climate predicament.

Basically, ..if old weather models were in play,  an ice age would have commenced around about 7000 yrs ago, but,,it didn't.!!

What did, was human occupation, and farming. V int prog.


Well that's a complete load of rubbish.....
The 'average' interval for an interglaciation (which we are currently in) is 10,000 to 15,000 years, and this interglacial period only started about 11,000 years ago...

Which means under the ABC panic reasoning, this warm period (interglacial) would have only lasted half or one third as long as evey other one.....

In reality, the next glacial event is due either soon (< 1000 years) or in the next 5,000 to 15,000 years.... (Depending on which theory you like...)

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by jalane on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 1:03am
whatever.....

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by Doctor Jolly on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 9:25am
Stating the bleeding obvious, but....

Denialism just foolishness.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/04/global-warming-denialism-just-foolishness-scientist-peter-raven-says/

An extensive “disinformation campaign” in the United States about the scientific solidity and gravity of manmade global warming has been described in detail by a number of academic analyses and extensive professional journalistic enquiry.
For example, “Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues From Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming,” by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, details how ideological, political and fossil fuel industry interests have been able to confuse and intimidate many leaders in legislature and media.
Author and journalist Ross Gelbspan, who directed a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigation at the Boston Globe, was one of the first professional journalists to describe fossil fuel industry efforts to delay government regulation on greenhouse gas emissions as long as possible.
“They don’t expect or need to win any debate,” he says, “they just want to keep the appearance of a debate going.”

...

Intimidation of media leaders, notably those professing to provide professional journalism, is described by Gelbspan and other analysts as proceeding from a “false politicization” of the issue — notably in the adoption by one of America’s two major political parties, the Republicans — of an anti-climate science agenda.
This, they suggest, may have meant that some editors and news executives feared that if they covered manmade global warming with the scale and focus the science would seem to require, that it would, at least to some American audiences and readers, have appeared necessarily partisan.



Same thing has happened here, where the liberals have been hijacked by vested interests, to perform acts against the public interest.

Clive palmer says jump. Campbell Newman and Tony Abbott say "how high?".

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by muso on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 9:57pm
The Coalition, like the ALP, pays lip service to cutting carbon emissions and matches the ALP efforts on renewable energy.


Quote:
....the creation of a $2.55 billion (over the first four years) Emissions Reduction Fund, additional funding for one million solar homes by 2020, clean energy hubs, solar towns and solar schools, geothermal projects, studies into algal synthesis and the planting of 20 million trees.


Tony Abbott is a populist and an opportunist, but the Coalition Climate Change policy is there for everybody to see. For those who think otherwise - It doesn't say that AGW is a scam either.

It will be interesting to see if Tony Abbott can survive, given that at current trends, his percentage approval rating will be something like minus 25% by the next election.  ;D

The planting of 20 million trees is a red herring. Unless we can achieve realistic renewable energy targets worldwide, then those trees will become net emitters of carbon in the future.

Like everything else, the place to start with building our renewable energy infrastructure  is at home.

It will be interesting to see if the LIbs demolish the Clean energy legislation in its entirety. It would cost them too much to do that.  The problem is that many industries will be reaping the benefits by next year. The easiest thing that they could do would be to price carbon at $5 per tonne. 

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by perceptions_now on Apr 9th, 2012 at 8:15pm
Start of 2012, March shatter US heat records

WASHINGTON - (AP) -- It's been so warm in the United States this year, especially in March, that national records weren't just broken, they were deep-fried.

Temperatures in the lower 48 states were 8.6 degrees above normal for March and 6 degrees higher than average for the first three months of the year, according to calculations by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That far exceeds the old records.

The magnitude of how unusual the year has been in the U.S. has alarmed some meteorologists who have warned about global warming. One climate scientist said it's the weather equivalent of a baseball player on steroids, with old records obliterated.

The first quarter of 2012 broke the January-March record by 1.4 degrees. Usually records are broken by just one- or two-tenths of a degree. U.S. temperature records date to 1895.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/start-of-2012-march-shatter-us-heat-records-1.3649800

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by progressiveslol on Apr 9th, 2012 at 11:18pm

perceptions_now wrote on Apr 9th, 2012 at 8:15pm:
Start of 2012, March shatter US heat records

WASHINGTON - (AP) -- It's been so warm in the United States this year, especially in March, that national records weren't just broken, they were deep-fried.

Temperatures in the lower 48 states were 8.6 degrees above normal for March and 6 degrees higher than average for the first three months of the year, according to calculations by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That far exceeds the old records.

The magnitude of how unusual the year has been in the U.S. has alarmed some meteorologists who have warned about global warming. One climate scientist said it's the weather equivalent of a baseball player on steroids, with old records obliterated.

The first quarter of 2012 broke the January-March record by 1.4 degrees. Usually records are broken by just one- or two-tenths of a degree. U.S. temperature records date to 1895.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/start-of-2012-march-shatter-us-heat-records-1.3649800

I dont see how a localised anomoly is something to fear. It happens around the globe all the time. Cooling or warming.

Below will put your mind at ease that most of the globe is at a steady temp

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by muso on Apr 10th, 2012 at 10:50am

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 9th, 2012 at 11:18pm:
I dont see how a localised anomoly is something to fear. It happens around the globe all the time. Cooling or warming.

Below will put your mind at ease that most of the globe is at a steady temp


It's not about anomalies.  Anomalies happen all the time. Records do not. 

The key word here is "record". We're seeing progressively more hottest temperature records being broken and progressively fewer coldest temperature records.

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by progressiveslol on Apr 10th, 2012 at 11:56am

muso wrote on Apr 10th, 2012 at 10:50am:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 9th, 2012 at 11:18pm:
I dont see how a localised anomoly is something to fear. It happens around the globe all the time. Cooling or warming.

Below will put your mind at ease that most of the globe is at a steady temp


It's not about anomalies.  Anomalies happen all the time. Records do not. 

The key word here is "record". We're seeing progressively more hottest temperature records being broken and progressively fewer coldest temperature records.

I take it you dont see the intense localisation of that heat wave amongst all the normal average non-scary temperature anomolies.

Are you all predicting a jump in global temperature for 2012 or will it be the same as 2011. Non-scary bugger all temp rise for the year, globally.

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by muso on Apr 10th, 2012 at 1:59pm
It's difficult to predict temperature temperature rise for a single year. It's easier if you take the running 15 year mean global temperatures and look at trends in that, because that usually cancels out short term natural variation. It's the overall trend that counts. 

If many more high temperature records are broken compared with low temperature records from year to year, it's a good indication that things are getting warmer. If there is warming in the lower troposphere accompanied by a cooling in the Stratosphere, that's a good indication that it couldn't be due to an increase in solar output. 

I'm not sure that I follow your argument.  Are you arguing that heat waves are normal or not normal?


Above - Graph showing a general cooling trend in the Lower Stratosphere.

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by Deathridesahorse on Apr 10th, 2012 at 5:34pm

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 10th, 2012 at 11:56am:

muso wrote on Apr 10th, 2012 at 10:50am:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 9th, 2012 at 11:18pm:
I dont see how a localised anomoly is something to fear. It happens around the globe all the time. Cooling or warming.

Below will put your mind at ease that most of the globe is at a steady temp


It's not about anomalies.  Anomalies happen all the time. Records do not. 

The key word here is "record". We're seeing progressively more hottest temperature records being broken and progressively fewer coldest temperature records.

I take it you dont see the intense localisation of that heat wave amongst all the normal average non-scary temperature anomolies.

Are you all predicting a jump in global temperature for 2012 or will it be the same as 2011. Non-scary bugger all temp rise for the year, globally.

You have a point: an anomly is an anomoly and they can only be ruled out by way of long term moving averages! i.e. statistical analysis takes real time!!

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by Deathridesahorse on Apr 10th, 2012 at 5:35pm
<<--...this, essentially, is what the scientific principle of uncertainty all about!!

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by progressiveslol on Apr 11th, 2012 at 10:44am
A new paper on climate extemes going all the way back to whenever. Nothing different from today.

Combined dendro-documentary evidence of Central European hydroclimatic
springtime extremes over the last millennium

http://www.wsl.ch/fe/landschaftsdynamik/dendroclimatology/Publikationen/Buentgen_2011_QSR.pdf

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by muso on Apr 11th, 2012 at 3:19pm

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 11th, 2012 at 10:44am:
A new paper on climate extemes going all the way back to whenever. Nothing different from today.

Combined dendro-documentary evidence of Central European hydroclimatic
springtime extremes over the last millennium

http://www.wsl.ch/fe/landschaftsdynamik/dendroclimatology/Publikationen/Buentgen_2011_QSR.pdf


So to summarise,  you're saying that based on this paper (abstract below) that anthropogenic climate change  is just part of a natural pattern? 

Maybe you tried to interpret the German version, because the English version says no such thing. What the paper is saying is that we can learn from the past what the likely consequences of the predicted rise in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions will be. The authors of that report would be pretty non-plussed by your interpretation.

Radiative forcing due to orbital effects has the same net effect as radiative forcing due to increased greenhouse gas concentration (forgetting about a few unwanted extras such as falling ocean pH and calcification rates). We can learn from past episodes, but that's not the same as saying that past episodes had common causes.   


Quote:
A predicted rise in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and associated effects on the Earth’s climate system likely imply more frequent and severe weather extremes with alternations in hydroclimatic parameters expected to be most critical for ecosystem functioning, agricultural yield, and human health.
Evaluating the return period and amplitude of modern climatic extremes in light of pre-industrial natural changes is, however, limited by generally too short instrumental meteorological observations. Here we introduce and analyze 11,873 annually resolved and absolutely dated ring width measurement series from living and historical fir (Abies alba Mill.) trees sampled across France, Switzerland, Germany, and the Czech Republic, which continuously span the AD 962e2007 period. Even though a dominant climatic driver of European fir growth was not found, ring width extremes were evidently triggered by anomalous variations in Central European AprileJune precipitation. Wet conditions were associated with dynamic low-pressure cells, whereas continental-scale droughts coincided with persistent high-pressure between 35 and 55 N. Documentary evidence independently confirms many of the dendro signals over the past millennium, and further provides insight on causes and consequences of ambient weather conditions related to the reconstructed extremes. A fairly uniform distribution of hydroclimatic extremes throughout the Medieval Climate Anomaly, Little Ice Age and Recent Global Warming may question the common believe that frequency and severity of such events closely relates to climate mean stages. This joint dendro-documentary approach not only allows extreme climate conditions of the industrial era to be placed against the backdrop of natural variations, but also probably helps to constrain climate model simulations over exceptional long timescales.

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by Doctor Jolly on Apr 11th, 2012 at 3:48pm
Im glad you saw that too muso.  I started reading the article, and couldnt match it with progressives stance in any way shape or form.

Perhaps he hoped no one would bother reading it.
;D

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by progressiveslol on Apr 11th, 2012 at 4:36pm
The paper has shown extreme climate events all through history (within their timeframe analysed) regardless of man and they manage to use the tree ring data right up to 2007 unlike mann who had to chop his BS data off at 1960 in order to make it fit his agenda.

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by Doctor Jolly on Apr 11th, 2012 at 4:45pm
Progs.  Every non-denier knows the earth has had climate change before.  We have heard of ice-ages and raised sea levels.   We all know they were caused by dramatic events or extremely slow evolution.  The dramatic ones nearly wiped out all life.   We are having one now. We are the cause. We can stop it.

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by muso on Apr 12th, 2012 at 9:32am

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 11th, 2012 at 4:36pm:
The paper has shown extreme climate events all through history (within their timeframe analysed) regardless of man and they manage to use the tree ring data right up to 2007 unlike mann who had to chop his BS data off at 1960 in order to make it fit his agenda.


In a word, "jaded" beyond belief. It's the old Holocaust denial argument reframed for climate change. If you want to play anything down, just use the Holocaust denial argument /deconstruction.

"Six million jews died? People have been dying throughout history. It's no different"

X- event happened/ is happening? That's nothing unusual. X-events have happened throughout history.   

It's a logical fallacy that takes the position that if two similar events occurred, they must be due to the same cause, even if there is strong evidence to the contrary. It's also a very lazy form of argument that requires no actual thought.

Where's that yawn smiley when you need one?

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by Deathridesahorse on Apr 12th, 2012 at 2:50pm
ICEBERG APPROACHING ICEBERG APPROACHING!!!

...WAIT, MAKE THAT APPROACHING ICEBERG APPROACHING ICEBERG!!
  ::)

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by Deathridesahorse on Apr 12th, 2012 at 2:52pm

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 11th, 2012 at 4:36pm:
The paper has shown extreme climate events all through history (within their timeframe analysed) regardless of man and they manage to use the tree ring data right up to 2007 unlike mann who had to chop his BS data off at 1960 in order to make it fit his agenda.

rates-of-change!!

Lol, that nazi-tryhard fella doesn't even bother trying to deny it anymore!!!

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by Deathridesahorse on Apr 12th, 2012 at 2:55pm

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 11th, 2012 at 10:44am:
A new paper on climate extemes going all the way back to whenever. Nothing different from today.

Combined dendro-documentary evidence of Central European hydroclimatic
springtime extremes over the last millennium

http://www.wsl.ch/fe/landschaftsdynamik/dendroclimatology/Publikationen/Buentgen_2011_QSR.pdf

rates of change !!!

sorry  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

rates of change !!!

sorry  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

rates of change !!!

sorry  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by Spot of Borg on Apr 12th, 2012 at 3:09pm
Everyone seems to think "who caused it" matters. Who cares? We still have to try to do something about it. I dont see what good a carbon tax is though if they cut the funding to clean energy projects @ the same time.

SOB

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by Deathridesahorse on Apr 12th, 2012 at 3:42pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 12th, 2012 at 3:09pm:
Everyone seems to think "who caused it" matters. Who cares? We still have to try to do something about it. I dont see what good a carbon tax is though if they cut the funding to clean energy projects @ the same time.

SOB

Economies are complex systems!

There is no free-market as they are, by definition of being legal, regulated.

The regulations of what is allowed in the market place have to be changed and this is what the carbon price is doing.

The more intervention you have in the market place the harder it is to change things: exactly the reason it has proved so hard to get rid of carbon emitting industry.

Tricky business!! LIKE PLAYING JENGA!!!!


Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by Doctor Jolly on Apr 12th, 2012 at 3:52pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 12th, 2012 at 3:09pm:
Everyone seems to think "who caused it" matters. Who cares? We still have to try to do something about it. I dont see what good a carbon tax is though if they cut the funding to clean energy projects @ the same time.

SOB


Thats the whole point of a carbon tax / price.  It makes clean energy project viable in the private sector, taking them out of the hands of corrupt politicians.

Government can still provide seed funding though, and will with the revenue from the carbon tax.


Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by Soren on Apr 12th, 2012 at 6:30pm
Considering that there has always been climate change - can someone tell me what current climate change trends are NOT due to human activity? And I mean long-term trends (for a century or two) that we can measure, identify, predict, not just guess at.


Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by muso on Apr 12th, 2012 at 9:15pm

Soren wrote on Apr 12th, 2012 at 6:30pm:
Considering that there has always been climate change - can someone tell me what current climate change trends are NOT due to human activity? And I mean long-term trends (for a century or two) that we can measure, identify, predict, not just guess at.


How many times have you asked that question?

Anyway - here you go- enjoy:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

If there is anything you don't follow, just ask.  In a nutshell, the natural trends are still there. They have just been swamped by anthropogenic trends recently.

There is no guessing involved. All parameters can either be directly measured for the space age at least, and before that, they could be measured using proxies - less precision perhaps but still measured.

Look at it like VHS movies and today's HD movies. The ones of today are more precise. The VHS ones are less precise.  It doesn't mean that you can't get useful information out of them though.

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by Soren on Apr 12th, 2012 at 9:40pm
Anything by anyone who is not a government or intergovernmental agency? Have you got anything not IPCC?

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by muso on Apr 13th, 2012 at 7:55am

Soren wrote on Apr 12th, 2012 at 9:40pm:
Anything by anyone who is not a government or intergovernmental agency? Have you got anything not IPCC?


Well, you'd have to ask the question as to who would fund research in climatology. A great deal of  research of this nature is funded by governments because it's of national and international significance.   Maybe I'm reading this wrongly, but are you implying that anything that is government funded is somehow untrustworthy? (and I presume that you'd include the Icelandic government or the Danish government). The question arises - if you studied philosophy at a public university (hypothetically speaking), how could you believe anything they told you?  Is there one version of information that's "world government" sponsored and an entirely separate body of privately sponsored academia that is diametrically opposed to this?

Large Insurance companies have a considerable interest in long term climate trends.  I understand that a lot of the studies relating to the frequency of catastrophic events come from insurance companies as opposed to government agencies.

The chart below was provided by CGU Insurance Ltd, a division of Insurance Australia Group, as part of its submission to a federal parliamentary committee investigating skyrocketing residential strata title insurance in northern Australia.

By the way, many of the researchers who contribute to the IPCC reports don't actually work for  governments or government organisations.  Although public universities tend to dominate because of their numbers, many private universities, such as Bond University in Australia are also involved in climate research.
2012_01_04_munich_re_natural-catastrophes-2011-overview_en4.png (144 KB | 24 )

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by progressiveslol on Apr 13th, 2012 at 8:20am
USA must be on a different planet as this study suggest no catastrophic climate change impact on weather events thus far. It even suggests This study's analysis of floods in this particular area, as well as other analyses related to mean runoff conditions in the same area, are very much at odds with the climate change impact assessment reported by the IPCC.


http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02626667.2011.621895

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by muso on Apr 13th, 2012 at 9:38am

Quote:
The results of this study do not mean that no strong relationship between flooding and GMCO2 will emerge in other areas in the future. It may be that the greenhouse forcing is not yet sufficiently large to produce changes in flood behaviour that rise above the “noise” in the flood-producing processes.


I guess if you look at one variable: "flood magnitudes" using stream height as an indication (ignoring flood frequency and duration) and restrict the study to one region, then at this early stage,  you will certainly find examples that contradict the overall rising trend in extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, cyclones, tornadoes etc . 

The graph in my post looked at number of events rather than the severity of the events, so your comments about the US being on a different planet are irrelevant, given that this study was restricted to a study of one variable - flood magnitude.

(It's called comparing apples and pears)

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by progressiveslol on Apr 13th, 2012 at 9:52am

muso wrote on Apr 13th, 2012 at 9:38am:

Quote:
The results of this study do not mean that no strong relationship between flooding and GMCO2 will emerge in other areas in the future. It may be that the greenhouse forcing is not yet sufficiently large to produce changes in flood behaviour that rise above the “noise” in the flood-producing processes.


I guess if you look at one variable: "flood magnitudes" (ignoring flood frequency) and restrict the study to one region, then at this early stage,  you will find examples that contradict the overall rising trend in extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, cyclones, tornadoes etc .  The graph in my post looked at number of events rather than severity of the events, so your comments about the US being on a different planet are incorrect, given that this study was restricted to a study of flood magnitude. (It's called comparing apples and pears)

I am not totally up with the information available that suggests the 'events' may be called in a more pedantic way than it used to be. At this point I will hold my thinking on this until I research it further, but if true, then the graph you show could merely show events being called events, today, when they would not have been from yesteryear.

This is not to state the graph is wrong, it is just to state that it may need a closer look.

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by red baron on Apr 13th, 2012 at 9:54am
All these so called experts with their charts and theirs computer models; they know one thing EXACTLY NOTHING!

If you had been watching the ABC series you have noted that Australia once ha a great inland sea. We also had mountains higher than Everest. Things change, its called climate change and it has been happening ever since the world began, get over it it is a naturally occurring sequence of events.

i AM FED UP TO THE GILLS WITH ALL THE BULLDUST FLYING AROUND FROM SO CALLED EXPERTS

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by muso on Apr 13th, 2012 at 10:02am

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 13th, 2012 at 9:52am:

muso wrote on Apr 13th, 2012 at 9:38am:
I am not totally up with the information available that suggests the 'events' may be called in a more pedantic way than it used to be. At this point I will hold my thinking on this until I research it further, but if true, then the graph you show could merely show events being called events, today, when they would not have been from yesteryear.

This is not to state the graph is wrong, it is just to state that it may need a closer look.


A closer look at the paper you cited would be a very good idea, because you misrepresented the attribution of the key point in your last post, making it look as if it applied to the US as a whole. If you read the entire paragraph, it's actually stating which areas are consistent with the IPCC predictions (which apply to a 100 year timeline that hasn't eventuated yet), and which are not.

Quote:
There are some notable similarities and notable differences between the spatial pattern of change shown in Fig. 1, and the pattern of projected change in annual runoff from 1980–1999 to 2090–2099, as illustrated in maps published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), such as Figure 3.4 of Bates et al. (2008), recognizing that the former is
focused on flood magnitude while the latter is on overall water availability. The similarity is strong in terms of the trend towards drying conditions in the Rocky Mountains and arid southwest. In addition, the relatively neutral results in the Southeast and Northwest
quadrants of the USA also show a general agreement between this study and the IPCC projections.

However, the highly focused area of very high β 1 values near and to the south of the Red River of the North shows up as an area of virtually no change in the runoff projection map. This study’s analysis of floods in this particular area, as well as other analyses related to mean runoff conditions in the same area, are very much at odds with the climate change impact assessment reported by the IPCC.

 
The crux of your argument:
The stream gauge figures to the South of the Red River of the North shows virtually no change (ignoring the fact that two other areas show a change consistent with IPCC predictions)

Therefore :

[quote]USA must be on a different planet as this study suggest no catastrophic climate change impact on weather events thus far.


Embarrassed yet?

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by MOTR on Apr 13th, 2012 at 10:08am

red baron wrote on Apr 13th, 2012 at 9:54am:
All these so called experts with their charts and theirs computer models; they know one thing EXACTLY NOTHING!

If you had been watching the ABC series you have noted that Australia once ha a great inland sea. We also had mountains higher than Everest. Things change, its called climate change and it has been happening ever since the world began, get over it it is a naturally occurring sequence of events.

i AM FED UP TO THE GILLS WITH ALL THE BULLDUST FLYING AROUND FROM SO CALLED EXPERTS


I think this earlier comment from Muso also applies here.


Quote:
It's the old Holocaust denial argument reframed for climate change. If you want to play anything down, just use the Holocaust denial argument /deconstruction.

"Six million jews died? People have been dying throughout history. It's no different"

X- event happened/ is happening? That's nothing unusual. X-events have happened throughout history.   

It's a logical fallacy that takes the position that if two similar events occurred, they must be due to the same cause, even if there is strong evidence to the contrary. It's also a very lazy form of argument that requires no actual thought.



Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by progressiveslol on Apr 13th, 2012 at 10:09am

muso wrote on Apr 13th, 2012 at 10:02am:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 13th, 2012 at 9:52am:

muso wrote on Apr 13th, 2012 at 9:38am:
I am not totally up with the information available that suggests the 'events' may be called in a more pedantic way than it used to be. At this point I will hold my thinking on this until I research it further, but if true, then the graph you show could merely show events being called events, today, when they would not have been from yesteryear.

This is not to state the graph is wrong, it is just to state that it may need a closer look.


A closer look at the paper you cited would be a very good idea, because you misrepresented the attribution of the key point in your last post, making it look as if it applied to the US as a whole. If you read the entire paragraph, it's actually stating which areas are consistent with the IPCC predictions (which apply to a 100 year timeline that hasn't eventuated yet), and which are not.

Quote:
There are some notable similarities and notable differences between the spatial pattern of change shown in Fig. 1, and the pattern of projected change in annual runoff from 1980–1999 to 2090–2099, as illustrated in maps published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), such as Figure 3.4 of Bates et al. (2008), recognizing that the former is
focused on flood magnitude while the latter is on overall water availability. The similarity is strong in terms of the trend towards drying conditions in the Rocky Mountains and arid southwest. In addition, the relatively neutral results in the Southeast and Northwest
quadrants of the USA also show a general agreement between this study and the IPCC projections.

However, the highly focused area of very high β 1 values near and to the south of the Red River of the North shows up as an area of virtually no change in the runoff projection map. This study’s analysis of floods in this particular area, as well as other analyses related to mean runoff conditions in the same area, are very much at odds with the climate change impact assessment reported by the IPCC.

 
The crux of your argument:
The stream gauge figures to the South of the Red River of the North shows virtually no change (ignoring the fact that two other areas show a change consistent with IPCC predictions)

Therefore :

[quote]USA must be on a different planet as this study suggest no catastrophic climate change impact on weather events thus far.


Embarrassed yet?

Not at all. The words "general agreement" means yes and no, maybe, ok slightly.

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by Soren on Apr 13th, 2012 at 11:51am

MOTR wrote on Apr 13th, 2012 at 10:08am:
I think this earlier comment from Muso also applies here.


Quote:
It's the old Holocaust denial argument reframed for climate change. If you want to play anything down, just use the Holocaust denial argument /deconstruction.

"Six million jews died? People have been dying throughout history. It's no different"

X- event happened/ is happening? That's nothing unusual. X-events have happened throughout history.   

It's a logical fallacy that takes the position that if two similar events occurred, they must be due to the same cause, even if there is strong evidence to the contrary. It's also a very lazy form of argument that requires no actual thought.



Muso is notoriously inept with analogies.
This one would work only if there have been random deaths of 6 million people throughout history. But there have been no such things. So the analogy is crap.


Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by perceptions_now on Apr 13th, 2012 at 12:29pm

Soren wrote on Apr 13th, 2012 at 11:51am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 13th, 2012 at 10:08am:
I think this earlier comment from Muso also applies here.


Quote:
It's the old Holocaust denial argument reframed for climate change. If you want to play anything down, just use the Holocaust denial argument /deconstruction.

"Six million jews died? People have been dying throughout history. It's no different"

X- event happened/ is happening? That's nothing unusual. X-events have happened throughout history.   

It's a logical fallacy that takes the position that if two similar events occurred, they must be due to the same cause, even if there is strong evidence to the contrary. It's also a very lazy form of argument that requires no actual thought.



Muso is notoriously inept with analogies.
This one would work only if there have been random deaths of 6 million people throughout history.
But there have been no such things. So the analogy is crap.


On the contrary, I find that Muso's analogies are usually pretty good!





Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by muso on Apr 13th, 2012 at 1:23pm

Soren wrote on Apr 13th, 2012 at 11:51am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 13th, 2012 at 10:08am:
I think this earlier comment from Muso also applies here.


Quote:
It's the old Holocaust denial argument reframed for climate change. If you want to play anything down, just use the Holocaust denial argument /deconstruction.

"Six million jews died? People have been dying throughout history. It's no different"

X- event happened/ is happening? That's nothing unusual. X-events have happened throughout history.   

It's a logical fallacy that takes the position that if two similar events occurred, they must be due to the same cause, even if there is strong evidence to the contrary. It's also a very lazy form of argument that requires no actual thought.



Muso is notoriously inept with analogies.
This one would work only if there have been random deaths of 6 million people throughout history. But there have been no such things. So the analogy is crap.


There have been! Why in the last 3 years, there have been over 6 million random deaths in the USA!

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by muso on Apr 13th, 2012 at 1:33pm

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 13th, 2012 at 10:09am:
Not at all. The words "general agreement" means yes and no, maybe, ok slightly.


Well you ought to be. General agreement means general agreement.  Read it again:


Quote:
There are some notable similarities and notable differences between the spatial pattern of change shown in Fig. 1, and the pattern of projected change in annual runoff from 1980–1999 to 2090–2099, as illustrated in maps published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), such as Figure 3.4 of Bates et al. (2008), recognizing that the former is
focused on flood magnitude while the latter is on overall water availability. 1. The similarity is strong in terms of the trend towards drying conditions in the Rocky Mountains and arid southwest.

2. In addition, the relatively neutral results in the Southeast and Northwest
quadrants of the USA also show a general agreement between this study and the IPCC projections.


3. ]However, the highly focused area of very high β 1 values near and to the south of the Red River of the North shows up as an area of virtually no change in the runoff projection map. 


It was clear that the final statement related only to this highly focussed area. That's saying that in two out of three locations, there was agreement with IPCC predictions. Of course, the IPCC predictions were over a 100 year timeline, and we've only had 10-20 years so far. 


Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by jalane on Apr 13th, 2012 at 11:27pm
".....It's a logical fallacy that takes the position that if two similar events occurred, they must be due to the same cause, even if there is strong evidence to the contrary. It's also a very lazy form of argument that requires no actual thought. " -  MUSO

Quite so Muso..... 

And you have not been lazy at all.  I find your contributions informative: this is a fascinating discussion..IMO.

Because??  I can't quite believe there are still people who claim 'we' aren't 'to blame' ..so  we need DO NOTHING.!!??
I'm loathe to say it, but some people will only believe it when THEIR home is at risk, or even trashed.!! Like the victims of too many! recent (natural) disasters.

Seems these folk only learn when their noses are rubbed in it.!!!  ::)








Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by Deathridesahorse on Apr 14th, 2012 at 3:18am

Soren wrote on Apr 12th, 2012 at 6:30pm:
Considering that there has always been climate change - can someone tell me what current climate change trends are NOT due to human activity? And I mean long-term trends (for a century or two) that we can measure, identify, predict, not just guess at.


rates-of-change : thanx for playing junior!!!!!!!!!!  :D

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by Deathridesahorse on Apr 14th, 2012 at 3:20am

Emma wrote on Apr 13th, 2012 at 11:27pm:
".....It's a logical fallacy that takes the position that if two similar events occurred, they must be due to the same cause, even if there is strong evidence to the contrary. It's also a very lazy form of argument that requires no actual thought. " -  MUSO

Quite so Muso..... 

And you have not been lazy at all.  I find your contributions informative: this is a fascinating discussion..IMO.

Because??  I can't quite believe there are still people who claim 'we' aren't 'to blame' ..so  we need DO NOTHING.!!??
I'm loathe to say it, but some people will only believe it when THEIR home is at risk, or even trashed.!! Like the victims of too many! recent (natural) disasters.

Seems these folk only learn when their noses are rubbed in it.!!!  ::)

The greedy hide their greedy attitudes however they can!

Behind bullshit is the most common approach!!!!!!  ;) ;)

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by jalane on Apr 14th, 2012 at 3:47am
this is so Deathray, :)

makes one wonder just how smart humans really are, ...considering the amount of bullshit (wow did that one get thru the censor) SWALLOWED EVERY DAY.!

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by muso on Apr 14th, 2012 at 7:11am

Emma wrote on Apr 13th, 2012 at 11:27pm:
Because??  I can't quite believe there are still people who claim 'we' aren't 'to blame' ..so  we need DO NOTHING.!!??
I'm loathe to say it, but some people will only believe it when THEIR home is at risk, or even trashed.!! Like the victims of too many! recent (natural) disasters.


I had a dog once that would bring home nice smelly offerings that it had unearthed somewhere  and leave them by the door, wagging its tail proudly. However being an intelligent dog, It leaned fairly quickly that it was unacceptable to bring home garbage.

You would think that people who forage around in the virtual garbage pits of the blogosphere would eventually learn from their mistakes, especially  when it has been demonstrated time and time again that these are deliberate lies.  OK, these tasty morsels  might smell good, and they might like to roll in them, but  at their core is rotten disease-spreading decay - an affront to the sanctity of knowledge.

Generally speaking, those people who pride themselves on independent thought  tend to react with distaste when they find that they have been conned. It's very telling if they don't react like that and it says a lot about their personal character and integrity when they return again and again to the same garbage pit, only to emerge triumphantly with yet another smelly offering. 

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by perceptions_now on Apr 14th, 2012 at 8:17am

muso wrote on Apr 14th, 2012 at 7:11am:

Emma wrote on Apr 13th, 2012 at 11:27pm:
Because??  I can't quite believe there are still people who claim 'we' aren't 'to blame' ..so  we need DO NOTHING.!!??
I'm loathe to say it, but some people will only believe it when THEIR home is at risk, or even trashed.!! Like the victims of too many! recent (natural) disasters.


I had a dog once that would bring home nice smelly offerings that it had unearthed somewhere  and leave them by the door, wagging its tail proudly. However being an intelligent dog, It leaned fairly quickly that it was unacceptable to bring home garbage.

You would think that people who forage around in the virtual garbage pits of the blogosphere would eventually learn from their mistakes, especially  when it has been demonstrated time and time again that these are deliberate lies.  OK, these tasty morsels  might smell good, and they might like to roll in them, but  at their core is rotten disease-spreading decay - an affront to the sanctity of knowledge.

Generally speaking, those people who pride themselves on independent thought  tend to react with distaste when they find that they have been conned. It's very telling if they don't react like that and it says a lot about their personal character and integrity when they return again and again to the same garbage pit, only to emerge triumphantly with yet another smelly offering. 


My dog doesn't bother bringing it's tasty morsels home, it simply swallows them whole, on the spot, when we are out for a walk, before I have a chance to say NO.

Which in fact, is little like some people, who swallow a certain line, because it fits what they want to believe, they swallow the line whole & no amount of logic will convince them to change what they think!


Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by MOTR on Apr 14th, 2012 at 8:38am

muso wrote on Apr 13th, 2012 at 1:33pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 13th, 2012 at 10:09am:
Not at all. The words "general agreement" means yes and no, maybe, ok slightly.


Well you ought to be. General agreement means general agreement.  Read it again:


Quote:
There are some notable similarities and notable differences between the spatial pattern of change shown in Fig. 1, and the pattern of projected change in annual runoff from 1980–1999 to 2090–2099, as illustrated in maps published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), such as Figure 3.4 of Bates et al. (2008), recognizing that the former is
focused on flood magnitude while the latter is on overall water availability. 1. The similarity is strong in terms of the trend towards drying conditions in the Rocky Mountains and arid southwest.

2. In addition, the relatively neutral results in the Southeast and Northwest
quadrants of the USA also show a general agreement between this study and the IPCC projections.


3. ]However, the highly focused area of very high β 1 values near and to the south of the Red River of the North shows up as an area of virtually no change in the runoff projection map. 


It was clear that the final statement related only to this highly focussed area. That's saying that in two out of three locations, there was agreement with IPCC predictions. Of course, the IPCC predictions were over a 100 year timeline, and we've only had 10-20 years so far. 



Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by progressiveslol on Apr 14th, 2012 at 8:59am
M Mann had a dog once too and it ate all his homework and all he had left was a hockey stick to show for it but no way to explain it.

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by MOTR on Apr 14th, 2012 at 9:44am
Just trying to get my head around these results. The null hypothesis was that flood magnitudes are independent of the rising global mean carbon dioxide concentration. For this to hold beta1 for each site (represented by the triangles on the map) needs to be close to zero. 

Using a 95% confidence interval the null hypothesis can be rejected at 48 of the 200 stream sites. That is at 75% of these sites there was no statistically significant evidence that flood magnitudes were affected in any way by CO2 concentrations. What is interesting is that while 30 of the sites have a positive beta1 coefficient (a statistically significant positive correlation between flood magnitudes and CO2 concentrations) 18 had a statistically significant negative correlation.


Quote:
Under the null hypothesis the expected numbers would be five positive and five negative. The fact that the actual numbers are so much larger than the expected numbers could be a consequence of spatial and temporal correlations in the data and/or the presence of regionally specific causal relationships to GMCO2.


This seems to suggest that in the US there is some evidence that the rising global carbon dioxide concentration is having a hydrological impact. Causing an increase in flood magnitudes in some areas and a decrease in others.

As Muso pointed out from the start, this study tells us nothing about an increase in flooding per se in that it only measures annual stream peaks not frequency.


Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by muso on Apr 14th, 2012 at 11:36am

MOTR wrote on Apr 14th, 2012 at 9:44am:
Just trying to get my head around these results. The null hypothesis was that flood magnitudes are independent of the rising global mean carbon dioxide concentration. For this to hold beta1 for each site (represented by the triangles on the map) needs to be close to zero. 

Using a 95% confidence interval the null hypothesis can be rejected at 48 of the 200 stream sites. That is at 75% of these sites there was no statistically significant evidence that flood magnitudes were affected in any way by CO2 concentrations. What is interesting is that while 30 of the sites have a positive beta1 coefficient (a statistically significant positive correlation between flood magnitudes and CO2 concentrations) 18 had a statistically significant negative correlation.



Don't forget that the IPCC report actually forecasts a lower flood magnitude for certain regions. They produced a map, and we need to averlay that map.

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by perceptions_now on Apr 14th, 2012 at 12:21pm

muso wrote on Apr 14th, 2012 at 11:36am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 14th, 2012 at 9:44am:
Just trying to get my head around these results. The null hypothesis was that flood magnitudes are independent of the rising global mean carbon dioxide concentration. For this to hold beta1 for each site (represented by the triangles on the map) needs to be close to zero. 

Using a 95% confidence interval the null hypothesis can be rejected at 48 of the 200 stream sites. That is at 75% of these sites there was no statistically significant evidence that flood magnitudes were affected in any way by CO2 concentrations. What is interesting is that while 30 of the sites have a positive beta1 coefficient (a statistically significant positive correlation between flood magnitudes and CO2 concentrations) 18 had a statistically significant negative correlation.



Don't forget that the IPCC report actually forecasts a lower flood magnitude for certain regions. They produced a map, and we need to averlay that map.


It's pretty safe that the South West of Australia & the USA in particular, will figure in lower Flood levels, as both have been on a drying out bender, for decades, but the Southern areas of both Australia & the USA in general, will also be under stress over time!

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by MOTR on Apr 14th, 2012 at 12:34pm
It seems that the hydrological impact of global warming is incredibly difficult to predict. Tragically, many Australians are now comfortable denying global warming because certain hydrological predictions have yet to manifest themselves.

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by muso on Apr 14th, 2012 at 1:01pm


Yes, and unfortunately, many are ignorant what they are arguing against.

(for "averlay" read overlay in my last post)

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by Deathridesahorse on Apr 18th, 2012 at 4:39pm

MOTR wrote on Apr 14th, 2012 at 12:34pm:
It seems that the hydrological impact of global warming is incredibly difficult to predict. Tragically, many Australians are now comfortable denying global warming because certain hydrological predictions have yet to manifest themselves.

Tragedy, oh the greek tragedy of it all!  8-) 8-)

This state of confusion is normal, remember that.

Sure, the media confounds the problem but if you look at ELISABETH-KUBLER ROSS'S 5 stages of dying you will see there is a long process to acceptance of truth.

Markets rely on good regulation. Otherwise they are chaotic and inefficient as can be seen with all contraband!!

A carbon price changes the very definition of human progress!!!

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by muso on Apr 19th, 2012 at 9:21am

MOTR wrote on Apr 14th, 2012 at 12:34pm:
It seems that the hydrological impact of global warming is incredibly difficult to predict. Tragically, many Australians are now comfortable denying global warming because certain hydrological predictions have yet to manifest themselves.


Let's say that you live in Brisbane. What the IPCC prediction for Brisbane is saying (refer maps) is 0-5% lower precipitation by 2099. We're at 2012 now, so the prediction is for (5 times 12 divided by 100) or 12 percent of FA (and that's assuming a linear response).  Referring to the map again, the summer precipitation for Brisbane is predicted to be 0-5% higher. Even allowing for the fact that these figures are conservative, can you see that we shouldn't expect to see any evidence of changes in precipitation yet, and any such changes are swamped by natural variation anyway.

If you're looking for early evidence of precipitation change in Australia, I'd look at Perth. The prediction there is more extreme. The prognosis for that city's water resources is not good.

(FA = Fundamental Analysis of course)   ;)

Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by MOTR on Apr 19th, 2012 at 9:53am

muso wrote on Apr 19th, 2012 at 9:21am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 14th, 2012 at 12:34pm:
It seems that the hydrological impact of global warming is incredibly difficult to predict. Tragically, many Australians are now comfortable denying global warming because certain hydrological predictions have yet to manifest themselves.


Let's say that you live in Brisbane. What the IPCC prediction for Brisbane is saying (refer maps) is 0-5% lower precipitation by 2099. We're at 2012 now, so the prediction is for (5 times 12 divided by 100) or 12 percent of FA.  Referring to the map again, the summer precipitation for Brisbane is predicted to be 0-5% higher. Even allowing for the fact that these figures are conservative, can you see that we shouldn't expect to see any evidence of changes in precipitation yet, and any such changes are swamped by natural variation anyway.

If you're looking for early evidence of precipitation change in Australia, I'd look at Perth. The prediction there is more extreme. The prognosis for that city's water resources is not good.

(FA = Fundamental Analysis of course)   ;)


If we relate this back to dam levels and flooding, shouldn't we be looking at more than just precipitation. Aren't we expecting warmer  temperatures to dry out the soil and reduce run off. Nature has just proven these effects are insignificant relative to a massive La Nina effect, but they are still there and will no doubt impact on Brisbane's water supply issues over the next 90 years.

Unfortunately, despite his obvious caveats, Flannery, seems to have overstated these other effects relative to natural variation. His prognosis is probably right, but he has tarnished his credibility by not clearly articulating the caveats.


Title: Re: Warning on climate change
Post by Deathridesahorse on Apr 19th, 2012 at 3:27pm
Yes, he has damaged his credibility but I don't think he is concerned by that!

Einstein admitted to errata later in life, but the thrust of his arguments still changed the world before they were found to be in need of correction!!!

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.