Australian Politics Forum - Climate Scientists got it wrong....

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate Scientists got it wrong....
Reply #60 - Jul 28^th, 2012 at 3:42pm

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 3:13pm:

muso wrote on May 29^th, 2012 at 2:34pm:

Tim Flannery is not a climate scientist. If he said things to the newspapers (I don't know and don't really care if he did) , that's for him to answer.

Flannery was verballed, quoted out of context by politically motivated deniers like the IPA and Andrew Bolt

That would explain it. I don't follow the politics. The fact that the CO2 molecule absorbs and reabsorbs Long Wave Infrared radiation remains a fact regardless of politics. There is no such thing as a LIberal CO2 molecule and an ALP CO2 molecule.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Upton Sinclair

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 496

Re: Climate Scientists got it wrong....
Reply #61 - Jul 28^th, 2012 at 3:48pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 3:26pm:

How so. The guy doesnt even know what he said. He even tried to say that a report that came out by his commision didnt actually say they could not identify what was natural and what was CO2, but yet he can go around like a scaremonger and make all sorts of outlandish claims.

And where did you read that?

Back to top

"I am not asking the Australian people to take me on trust, but on the record of a lifetime,"
--Tony Abbott

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Climate Scientists got it wrong....
Reply #62 - Jul 28^th, 2012 at 3:50pm

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 3:48pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 3:26pm:

How so. The guy doesnt even know what he said. He even tried to say that a report that came out by his commision didnt actually say they could not identify what was natural and what was CO2, but yet he can go around like a scaremonger and make all sorts of outlandish claims.

And where did you read that?

Heard it from flimflann himself.

Back to top

IP Logged

Upton Sinclair

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 496

Re: Climate Scientists got it wrong....
Reply #63 - Jul 28^th, 2012 at 3:59pm

muso wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 3:42pm:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 3:13pm:

muso wrote on May 29^th, 2012 at 2:34pm:

Tim Flannery is not a climate scientist. If he said things to the newspapers (I don't know and don't really care if he did) , that's for him to answer.

Flannery was verballed, quoted out of context by politically motivated deniers like the IPA and Andrew Bolt

That would explain it. I don't follow the politics. The fact that the CO2 molecule absorbs and reabsorbs Long Wave Infrared radiation remains a fact regardless of politics. There is no such thing as a LIberal CO2 molecule and an ALP CO2 molecule.

I don't know what the others are referring to eactly because they haven't supported their allegations with any examples but this is one such in which he was supposed to have said that dams would never fill again, when really he was saying that run-off rates during droughts decrease, meaning you need more rainfall to fill the dams.

Here's Bolt's take on it (can't link, just Google the end of the URL I've posted here)

/flannery_says_it_again_the_dams_wont_fill/

Compare and contrast with the original quote in full, before Bolt cherry-picked a single sentence to make it sound like Flannery was suggesting that it would never rain again:

Quote:

We're already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we're getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that's translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that's a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we're going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.

This isn't saying that the dams will never fill or that they will be dry by now, simply that filling dams requires more rainfall. It's the case of a blatantly obvious point being taken completely out of context to make it look like Flannery is claiming something he simply isn't.

Back to top

"I am not asking the Australian people to take me on trust, but on the record of a lifetime,"
--Tony Abbott

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate Scientists got it wrong....
Reply #64 - Jul 28^th, 2012 at 5:09pm

OK, I don't know who exactly is distorting the facts, but I've seen several dishonest claims on here that are similarly superficial. Some of the posters here are quite happy to regurgitate these articles with absolutely no vestiges of embarrassment or apologies, even when they are shown to be wrong time and time again.

It seems to be mainly small business associations who are promulgating this nonsense. Larger companies are not directly involved, but I have a suspicion that some are still indulging in some more subtle rabble rousing while publically promoting clean energy.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 28^th, 2012 at 5:19pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Climate Scientists got it wrong....
Reply #65 - Jul 28^th, 2012 at 5:30pm

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 3:59pm:

muso wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 3:42pm:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 3:13pm:

muso wrote on May 29^th, 2012 at 2:34pm:

Tim Flannery is not a climate scientist. If he said things to the newspapers (I don't know and don't really care if he did) , that's for him to answer.

Flannery was verballed, quoted out of context by politically motivated deniers like the IPA and Andrew Bolt

That would explain it. I don't follow the politics. The fact that the CO2 molecule absorbs and reabsorbs Long Wave Infrared radiation remains a fact regardless of politics. There is no such thing as a LIberal CO2 molecule and an ALP CO2 molecule.

I don't know what the others are referring to eactly because they haven't supported their allegations with any examples but this is one such in which he was supposed to have said that dams would never fill again, when really he was saying that run-off rates during droughts decrease, meaning you need more rainfall to fill the dams.

Here's Bolt's take on it (can't link, just Google the end of the URL I've posted here)

/flannery_says_it_again_the_dams_wont_fill/

Compare and contrast with the original quote in full, before Bolt cherry-picked a single sentence to make it sound like Flannery was suggesting that it would never rain again:

Quote:

We're already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we're getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that's translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that's a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we're going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.

This isn't saying that the dams will never fill or that they will be dry by now, simply that filling dams requires more rainfall. It's the case of a blatantly obvious point being taken completely out of context to make it look like Flannery is claiming something he simply isn't.

Come on. Australia's climate whatever he is says 'That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture'. My god how dumb a statement is that.

Less runnoff, you try digging down the dirt with a glaring sun in summer on the soil. How far down are you going to get before the soil is cool and this idiot thinks a 0.4 degree warming over a centry is making it warmer in the soil. So a sun with upwards of 40 degrees cannot penetrate the soil very far but 0.4 degrees over a centry can. Just laughable. I point out as well that soil absorbes moister better if it does not have compaction, not because it has been warmed from 0.4degrees extra over a century. We get most of our runnoff from harder rain than the soil can take up due to compaction. We can get it from slow and long running rains, but we dont get those type of rains very often except the north.

What a friggen idiot. Plants in winter would love some extra warmth, so I dont know what his issue is there.

I will try and find what he said to what I was refering, but the material you provided is enough to get rid of the fool.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 28^th, 2012 at 5:53pm by progressiveslol »

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate Scientists got it wrong....
Reply #66 - Jul 28^th, 2012 at 7:52pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 5:30pm:

Less runnoff, you try digging down the dirt with a glaring sun in summer on the soil. How far down are you going to get before the soil is cool and this idiot thinks a 0.4 degree warming over a centry is making it warmer in the soil. So a sun with upwards of 40 degrees cannot penetrate the soil very far but 0.4 degrees over a centry can. Just laughable. I point out as well that soil absorbes moister better if it does not have compaction, not because it has been warmed from 0.4degrees extra over a century. We get most of our runnoff from harder rain than the soil can take up due to compaction. We can get it from slow and long running rains, but we dont get those type of rains very often except the north.

Can anybody translate?

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Climate Scientists got it wrong....
Reply #67 - Jul 28^th, 2012 at 9:39pm

muso wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 7:52pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 5:30pm:

Less runnoff, you try digging down the dirt with a glaring sun in summer on the soil. How far down are you going to get before the soil is cool and this idiot thinks a 0.4 degree warming over a centry is making it warmer in the soil. So a sun with upwards of 40 degrees cannot penetrate the soil very far but 0.4 degrees over a centry can. Just laughable. I point out as well that soil absorbes moister better if it does not have compaction, not because it has been warmed from 0.4degrees extra over a century. We get most of our runnoff from harder rain than the soil can take up due to compaction. We can get it from slow and long running rains, but we dont get those type of rains very often except the north.

Can anybody translate?

yeh I can. take out the less run off. Too busy writing and too busy to worry if you can decipher it.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 28^th, 2012 at 9:57pm by progressiveslol »

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Climate Scientists got it wrong....
Reply #68 - Jul 28^th, 2012 at 10:02pm

muso wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 7:52pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 5:30pm:

Less runnoff, you try digging down the dirt with a glaring sun in summer on the soil. How far down are you going to get before the soil is cool and this idiot thinks a 0.4 degree warming over a centry is making it warmer in the soil. So a sun with upwards of 40 degrees cannot penetrate the soil very far but 0.4 degrees over a centry can. Just laughable. I point out as well that soil absorbes moister better if it does not have compaction, not because it has been warmed from 0.4degrees extra over a century. We get most of our runnoff from harder rain than the soil can take up due to compaction. We can get it from slow and long running rains, but we dont get those type of rains very often except the north.

Can anybody translate?

Progs should talk to a few farmers.

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: 17029

Re: Climate Scientists got it wrong....
Reply #69 - Jul 29^th, 2012 at 12:52pm

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 10:02pm:

muso wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 7:52pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 5:30pm:

Less runnoff, you try digging down the dirt with a glaring sun in summer on the soil. How far down are you going to get before the soil is cool and this idiot thinks a 0.4 degree warming over a centry is making it warmer in the soil. So a sun with upwards of 40 degrees cannot penetrate the soil very far but 0.4 degrees over a centry can. Just laughable. I point out as well that soil absorbes moister better if it does not have compaction, not because it has been warmed from 0.4degrees extra over a century. We get most of our runnoff from harder rain than the soil can take up due to compaction. We can get it from slow and long running rains, but we dont get those type of rains very often except the north.

Can anybody translate?

Progs should talk to a few farmers.

I have a few dams I monitor on a property. What did you want me to ask myself.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: Climate Scientists got it wrong.... Reply #70 - Jul 29^th, 2012 at 4:32pm Do your dams fill up faster when the catchment area is saturated.
Back to top	« Last Edit: Jul 29^th, 2012 at 4:42pm by MOTR » 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: 17029

Re: Climate Scientists got it wrong....
Reply #71 - Jul 29^th, 2012 at 4:46pm

MOTR wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 4:32pm:

Do your dams fill up faster when the catchment area is saturated and slower when it is parched?

No. The rain is usually fast enough to flow. Sometimes, not very often, there will be rain that is slow enough to be able to be socked up and nothing else. It is rare for that type of rain to produce any runoff.

There is a fine line between a runoff rain, which is more likely, than to a rain that will stay for a week and soak the soil enough to create runoff no matter what.

A farmers soil may be different(compaction wise), but we never ever really on ploughed soil for runoff

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: Climate Scientists got it wrong.... Reply #72 - Jul 29^th, 2012 at 5:08pm So infiltration is independent of soil moisture.
Back to top	« Last Edit: Jul 29^th, 2012 at 5:25pm by MOTR » 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