Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 
Send Topic Print
Warning on climate change (Read 4558 times)
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Warning on climate change
Reply #60 - 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)
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 13th, 2012 at 9:50am by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
progressiveslol
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16362
Re: Warning on climate change
Reply #61 - 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
red baron
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4846
Blue Mountains
Gender: male
Re: Warning on climate change
Reply #62 - 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
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Warning on climate change
Reply #63 - Apr 13th, 2012 at 10:02am
 
progressiveslol wrote on Apr 13th, 2012 at 9:52am:
[quote author=31292F335C0 link=1332141844/60#60 date=1334273897]
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?
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
MOTR
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6391
Re: Warning on climate change
Reply #64 - 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.


Back to top
 

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."
 
IP Logged
 
progressiveslol
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16362
Re: Warning on climate change
Reply #65 - Apr 13th, 2012 at 10:09am
 
muso wrote on Apr 13th, 2012 at 10:02am:
progressiveslol wrote on Apr 13th, 2012 at 9:52am:
[quote author=31292F335C0 link=1332141844/60#60 date=1334273897]
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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 19132
Re: Warning on climate change
Reply #66 - 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.

Back to top
 

No one has the right not to be offended.
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9430
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: Warning on climate change
Reply #67 - 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!




Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Warning on climate change
Reply #68 - 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!
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Warning on climate change
Reply #69 - 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. 

Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma Peel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 5454
E Aus
Gender: female
Re: Warning on climate change
Reply #70 - 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.!!!  Roll Eyes







Back to top
 

Piss Off Please
 
IP Logged
 
The Stunt-free Horse
Gold Member
*****
Online


ART will survive w/out
object,..... (apparently!)

Posts: 17758
Re: Warning on climate change
Reply #71 - 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!!!!!!!!!!
  Cheesy
Back to top
 

...... -----=>>
..NOW, HOW DOES THIS HELP THE WORLD GO SOLAR? 
 
IP Logged
 
The Stunt-free Horse
Gold Member
*****
Online


ART will survive w/out
object,..... (apparently!)

Posts: 17758
Re: Warning on climate change
Reply #72 - Apr 14th, 2012 at 3:20am
 
Emma Peel 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.!!!  Roll Eyes








The greedy hide their greedy attitudes however they can!

Behind bullshit is the most common approach!!!!!!  Wink Wink
Back to top
 

...... -----=>>
..NOW, HOW DOES THIS HELP THE WORLD GO SOLAR? 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma Peel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 5454
E Aus
Gender: female
Re: Warning on climate change
Reply #73 - Apr 14th, 2012 at 3:47am
 
this is so Deathray, Smiley

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.!
Back to top
 

Piss Off Please
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Warning on climate change
Reply #74 - Apr 14th, 2012 at 7:11am
 
Emma Peel 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.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 
Send Topic Print