Quote:


tbc

Quote:

Land clearing, in particular tree cutting down causes massive climate change

there are too many people in the world.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 15^th, 2009 at 10:19am:



Yes, about 30% of the total effect.

On the second post, yes a lot can be achieved by changing farming practices, but if we end up in a drought situation, all that good work is lost as the carbon tends to be volatilised from the soil.

However, if we could get all farmers in Australia to adopt that approach, we'd be in a much better situation, not only from the position of offsetting emissions, but also from the position of soil fertility.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 15^th, 2009 at 11:02am:



While I doubt if Mangrove destruction had that particular effect, they are certainly good as a habitat for mudcrabs etc.

They are good at turning salt water to fresh though, and do it much more efficiently than a desalination plant./

What do you expect? He's a politician, not a scientist.

mozzaok wrote on Dec 16^th, 2009 at 7:20pm:



Sorry Mozz but you sound increasingly like a Mohammedan conspiracy nut. AGW IS a Gore-y fantasy.  It takes a politician to talk up a minor greenhouse gas and plant food to apocalyptic levels. The man is a complete mutt. Rudd is a Tin-tin fantasist with a souce bottle up 'im.

Snap out of it, all of you.

aikmann4 wrote on Dec 16^th, 2009 at 8:44pm:


Grab him by the scruff of the neck, give him a shake and see.

Fair dinkum.

Soren wrote on Dec 16^th, 2009 at 8:12pm:


Soren,

I can't believe that you swallow all that crap hook line and sinker.  In fact I could never understand how people will support any line based entirely on party policy.

If you just accept party policy without actually using the grey matter to think each issue through, then you will accept mediocrity every time. Of course rational thought hurts many people who have not exercised their neurons enough in life. The solution is to say "I'm ALP" or "I'm right wing". Either way, it's hiding stupidy in numbers.

I actually hate the idea of political parties and of people being forced to vote against their better judgement like so many sheep being herded into a pen. I prefer to think for myself.

Let's just look at what you're saying here. AGW is a Goreyan fantasy.  That's like saying that a news item is the invention of the newsreader.

Al Gore should be irrelevant other than being a presenter. Every time he opens his mouth without understanding the issue, he risks speaking bullshit.  The people who actually understand the issue are the climate scientists and those who have taken the time to understand the science in depth.

I used to get annoyed with those who said that I have fallen for Al Gore's nonsense. I now understand that it's just part of the script like "Ignorance is Strength" (1984).  I watched part of one of Al Gore's  videos once and I couldn't bear to watch it much because he was grossly oversimplifying the issue. It was teeth grating stuff.

I am a proud centrist. I decide every issue for myself based on my own judgement, hard evidence, scientific principles and data. I accept the conclusions regardless of whether I find them to be grossly antithetic to my current source of income or not.

If you find all that to be hypocritical, then all I can say is find me a person who has no logical conflicts, who has no internal enigmas and I will dispute their humanity.  

The same goes for elections. Politicians pander to the bulk of humanity who are pig-ignorant and proud of it. Instead of showing evidence of logical thought processes, they substitute pusillanimous slogans, such as "AGW is a Goreyan Fantasy" as an example. I really thought I could detect a glimmer of rational thought there, soren, but perhaps I was wrong.  

The sad fact that emerges from Copenhagen is that democracy and consensus among human beings is enormously over-rated, in much the same way as it is over-rated for Lemmings.

Ignorance is Strength, comrade.

muso wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 8:18am:



UND


mozzaok wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 9:39am:


Und zat is vy vi nid strong leadership, a strong Fuhrer. Und a new pipl. Dese pipl don't know vat's gut for zem. Ve should elect a new pipl.  A pipl viz higher conciousness. Like us. More power to us!!

Muso, we have known all along that the whole AGW wheeze was really about deep-seated (and old-fashioned) Marxist tropes.

But look! More news about manipulation. Shurely shome mishtake, what?


Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-ser...

muso wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 11:12am:


Yes, poor me. On the other hand, you must glow with enermous intellectual satisfaction, knowing that you have Chavez and Mugabe on side. If I had three arms, I'd give one for that.

 

Soren wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 2:19pm:


It's not so much peer review bullying. The emails I read were more like "Who the hell allowed this rot to be published?" I can understand that. The likes of Bob Carter et al used running 13 month averages on temperature data, which amounted to using a highpass filter. They deliberately filtered out long-term trend data through the dishonest use of statistics.

The 'hide the decline' part refers to dendrochronology data. There was a divergence between instrument temperatures and those derived from tree-ring data. The erroneous data was from tree-ring research. It has nothing to do with instrumental temperature records.

Even though tree ring data is less accurate, there are plenty of scientists who are happy to defend its use. It's a question of how you interpret it. Temperature is not the only factor that affects tree ring development.

There was a whole series of emails arguing about whether or not to include tree ring data. If the original researcher stated that the data is suspect after say 1961, then I'd tend to go with the original researcher on that.

It was a beat-up designed to cause problems at Copenhagen. That's all.

You keep going on about the hockey stick as if it was significant. You're talking about data that was first presented 10 years ago. Since then there have been many independent studies that have confirmed the validity of the so-called hockey stick, including one by the US National Academy of Sciences in 2006.

The e-mails as far as I know weren't even the most damming thing to come out of "Climategate". HARRY_READ_ME.txt was far worse.

Soren wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 6:01pm:


In terms of how far we have come from there, it's definitely ancient times.

Quote:


What's your problem, didn't you like the findings of the National Research Council when they found that there were statistical shortcomings, but that they were insignificant.

To illustrate exactly how insignificant, here is the original MBH 1998 study plotted with a more recent study by Wahl Amman in 2007.

As you can see, there is not exactly a significant difference. In fact, can you tell me exactly what M&M were on about ?




From:

Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction
of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures:
Examination of criticisms based on the nature and
processing of proxy climate evidence

Eugene R. Wahl · Caspar M. Ammann, Climatic Change (2007) 85:33–69






[/quote]

muso wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 6:51pm:

Am I reading that graph right? The Medieval Cold period was no more than a drop of half a degree?
If so, can that be believed?

muso wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 9:10am:



Mr Musician, you don't even know what you are posting:

"From:

Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction
of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures:
Examination of criticisms based on the nature and
processing of proxy climate evidence"



So the Medieval Cold on the Northern Hemisphere was just 0.5 degree down on 'normal'?
No need to send nore clowns, we have as many as we can handle already; they have cornered the 'climate research on government grant' market and the 'communicating future doom' market, thank you very much.

mozzaok wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 9:32am:



Before you all let the rhetorical horse run away with you once more, let's just see where it all starts.


Is the climate changing? Yes, it's always changing. There is no debate about this. The lazy shorthand of 'climate change' when 'man-made catastrophic climate cooling/warming' is meant is just that, lazy and stupid and/or deceitful.

What is the normal/ideal climate? Dunno.

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes.

Is it a trace gas? Yes.

Is it even the primary greenhouse gas? No.

Is all atmospheric CO2 the man-made? No.

Can we control natural CO2. No

Can we control man-made CO2? Well, to some extent.

Are greenhouse gases the only determiners of climate? No.

How do all the determiners of global (not local) climate interact? Dunno. Too complex to model.

Can we control the other determiners of climate? Well.... no. We don't always know what all of them are. It's not a neat mathematical formula, global climate. It's not even a closed system.

What is the optimum amount of atmospheric CO2? Dunno. Optimum for what?

Was climate change in the past caused by man-made Co2? No.

Natural CO2? Er... no.

What caused past changes in the climate? Dunno but have a few guesses. Not CO2, that we know for sure.


In view of all this - how are we going to control the present climate change? Why, you ignorant denier, by reducing man-made CO2, of course!! That's so obvious, only evil deniers could not see it.

Soren wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 10:47am:


Did 6 million people die during WWII? Yes, people have been dying for years. They have always been dying. Dying is quite natural. It was only a mere 0.25% of the global population. Many more people died in the previous 10 years, so what are you concerned about?

Deceitful is when you claim that the imminent climate change is just part of a natural cycle, even though Blind Freddie can see that it isn't.

Deceit is when you try to say that all we're concerned about is the slight warming in the last 50 years and you try to pass it off as natural because there have been temperature changes of this magnitude in the past. Of course the rate of change was about 10,000 times slower, but you don't need to actually mention that point.

Soren wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 9:50pm:


Incorrect. Some believe that it's happening, but that it's totally beneficial. AGW is good for you - a bit like smoking. Steve Milloy and Bjorn Lomborg are examples.

Then there is the "Greening Earth Society". They loved it, and advocate V8's and live like there's no tomorrow. THey had some big names including such pseudoscientists as:
   
    * Sallie Baliunas
    * Robert C. Balling, Jr.
    * Patrick J. Michaels
    * Willie Soon
    * Sylvan H. Wittwer, and
    * David E. Wojick

If they think it's beneficial, and that they can contribute to it, they obviously must think it's happening, otherwise why bother thinking it's beneficial - eh?

So,  thank you for smoking.

Ignorance is strength, comrade.

Soren wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 9:48am:


I meant to say that it's a study of regional temperatures rather than global . It came out the other way around.

What's your point anyway? You think it should be more? - based on what data?

Soren wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 5:33pm:


The example of WWII was intended to highlight the flawed logic in your statement.  Just because climate has changed in the past does not imply that the recent rise in temperature is also natural.

It's like saying that the casualties of WWII died of a natural death where we know that they did not.

What are you talking about wrt Greenland? Are you trying to say that it was a land of milk and honey at the time of the Vikings and that the Greenland Icecap did not exist? Are you saying that Eric the Red and Leif Erikson swam in the balmy Labrador Sea then sunbaked on the beach ?

At what stage do you think that Greenland 'froze up' and what do you think the magnitude of this freeze might have been?

muso wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 8:08pm:



Well, lemme tell ya, if you went over there now and had naming right, you wouldn't call it Greenland.  New Freezeland, more like it.

Soren wrote on Dec 20^th, 2009 at 4:38pm:


Ok School History 101.  Greenland or Grænlend was so named by Erik the Red to attract new colonists. It's a bit like Paradise, South Australia in that respect. You can read all about it in the Grænlendinga saga. If you like Danish, it's not too far removed from Norse, although Islandic is closer.

You see, Erik the Red was a Viking Real Estate Agent, who also committed the Viking petty crime of mass murder. (It was actually a family tradition. He wasn't all bad) The Vikings, taking a dim view on mass murder, exiled him to the balmy subtropical island of Greenland, where reports have it that he led an idyllic existence, and was often to be seen with knotted handkerchief on his head wandering around the streets of  Brattahlið swigging mead from a flask and singing rugby songs which cannot be reproduced here because of the bad word filter.

Location Location Location!

A sea-change to Greenland!.

This charming  much sought after 3 bedroom home in Godthåb is deceptively spacious, with spectacular views (if you like glaciers) of this new and up and coming neighbourhood (well it will be - trust me).  Great potential! Beach frontage for your long-ship! Free open spaces with plenty of opportunity for the occasional  pillage!


Er, Soren mate- why do you reckon that Greenland Ice Cores go back at least 740,000 years? Wasn't it s'posed to be green at some stage?