Australian Politics Forum - Yanks start to catch on, will Abbott?

Dsmithy70

Gold Member

Offline

ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male

Re: Yanks start to catch on, will Abbott?
Reply #15 - Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 10:22am

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 10:13am:

Ask Abbott why. I am happy to be planting more trees and being that bit cleaner.

Read my lips 'no extra tax to be paid as it will come from the current tax take'

So if no new monies coming in to fund this aspiration what is going to be cut?

And if something already funded is cut & those cuts cause the price to increase due to the governments contribution being decreased or withdrawn wouldn't that equal a TAX using Abbott's very own definition of Gillard's supposed tax?

Back to top

REBELLION is not what most people think it is.
REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself.
Gavin Nascimento

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Yanks start to catch on, will Abbott?
Reply #16 - Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 10:23am

Dsmithy70 wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 10:22am:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 10:13am:

Ask Abbott why. I am happy to be planting more trees and being that bit cleaner.

Read my lips 'no extra tax to be paid as it will come from the current tax take'

So if no new monies coming in to fund this aspiration what is going to be cut?

And if something already funded is cut & those cuts cause the price to increase due to the governments contribution being decreased or withdrawn wouldn't that equal a TAX using Abbott's very own definition of Gillard's supposed tax?

Well we would have to see the details at the next election

Back to top

IP Logged

Dsmithy70

Gold Member

Offline

ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male

Re: Yanks start to catch on, will Abbott?
Reply #17 - Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 10:32am

hadrian_now wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:41am:

As I understand it smithy - and you'll correct mewith a reference if I'm wrong - the past 16 years have been a cooling period not warming.
How can they say then that this storm is due to global warming?
I also understand that the east coast of the US has suffered more severe storms as long ago as the 1930s.

Can you link something up I've not heard this.

As for the storms, I'm sure they have, but have they experienced as many in such a short space of time?

The last decade
Katrina
Isaac
Sandy

I'm sure they get hurricanes every year as we get cyclones every year, however the size seems to be increasing as well as frequency of the category 4 to 5 types.

Back to top

REBELLION is not what most people think it is.
REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself.
Gavin Nascimento

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Yanks start to catch on, will Abbott?
Reply #18 - Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 10:34am

Dsmithy70 wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 10:32am:

hadrian_now wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:41am:

As I understand it smithy - and you'll correct mewith a reference if I'm wrong - the past 16 years have been a cooling period not warming.
How can they say then that this storm is due to global warming?
I also understand that the east coast of the US has suffered more severe storms as long ago as the 1930s.

Can you link something up I've not heard this.

As for the storms, I'm sure they have, but have they experienced as many in such a short space of time?

The last decade
Katrina
Isaac
Sandy

I'm sure they get hurricanes every year as we get cyclones every year, however the size seems to be increasing as well as frequency of the category 4 to 5 types.

Sandy was only cat 1, downgraded to tropical storm. The only problem with it is that there was another storm front with cool air to suck off and moon sea rise on hit.

Back to top

IP Logged

hadrian_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1041
Gender: male

Re: Yanks start to catch on, will Abbott?
Reply #19 - Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 11:02am

Met Office Quietly Releases Missing Data

Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago
- Guest Column--Dr. Benny Peiser (Bio and Archives) Monday, October 15, 2012

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week. The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported. This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.—David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 14 October 2012

Global warming stopped 15 years ago and the average temperature has not risen at all since 1997, the Met Office said last night. But critics said the Met Office had released the figures onto the internet without publicity – in contrast to the attention it gave to those released six months ago that reinforced the case for global warming. Those figures went up to 2010 – the hottest year on record – and showed a continuing warming trend. Dr Benny Peiser of Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation said: “It is quite scandalous that the Met Office is misleading the public. The latest data proves beyond any doubt that there has been no warming [trend] over the past 16 years.”—John Ingham, Daily Express, 15 October 2012

The data confirms the existence of a ‘pause’ in the warming. The impact of this pause within the climate dynamic community has been to focus increased attention on the impact of natural variability, particularly the impact of internal multi-decadal oscillations in the ocean. The new climate model calculations for the AR5 have focused on trying to assess what it would take to accurately simulate these multi-decadal ocean oscillations and how predictable they might be. These new observations and climate modeling results will hopefully impact the the IPCC AR5 deliberations so that we do not see the same overly confident consensus statements that we saw in the AR4. —Judith Curry, Georgia Tech University, 14 October 2012

The Met Office says that the world has warmed by 0.03 deg C per decade since 1997 based on their calculation of the gradient in the Hadcrut4 dataset. But what the Met Office doesn’t say is that this is statistically insignificant. There is no case to be made for a statistically significant increase in global temperatures as given in the Hadcrut4 dataset between 1997 and August 2012. The Met Office says the 15-year standstill is not unusual. This is true but again the Met Office is being economical with the truth.—David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 15 October 2012

Does it matter that campaigners and the media are actively peddling disinformation? For the most part, probably not, as the public is by now used to such nonsense on just about every subject from unemployment figures to Barack Obama’s birth certificate. But there is one group that should be very concerned about the spreading of rampant misinformation: the scientific community. It is, of course, thrilling to appear in the media and get caught up in highly politicized debates. But leading scientists and scientific organizations that contribute to a campaign of misinformation — even in pursuit of a worthy goal like responding effectively to climate change — may find that the credibility of science itself is put at risk by supporting scientifically unsupportable claims in pursuit of a political agenda.—Roger Pielke Jr, Denver Post, 12 October 2012

Back to top

Disclosure: anything I write may be deemed to be extremist, particularly if it is critical of the ALP or Greens. Look away now if squeamish.
Life may be too short, so have a laugh & enjoy.

IP Logged

Dsmithy70

Gold Member

Offline

ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male

Re: Yanks start to catch on, will Abbott?
Reply #20 - Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 11:13am

hadrian_now wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 11:02am:

Met Office Quietly Releases Missing Data

Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago
- Guest Column--Dr. Benny Peiser (Bio and Archives) Monday, October 15, 2012

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week. The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported. This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.—David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 14 October 2012

Global warming stopped 15 years ago and the average temperature has not risen at all since 1997, the Met Office said last night. But critics said the Met Office had released the figures onto the internet without publicity – in contrast to the attention it gave to those released six months ago that reinforced the case for global warming. Those figures went up to 2010 – the hottest year on record – and showed a continuing warming trend. Dr Benny Peiser of Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation said: “It is quite scandalous that the Met Office is misleading the public. The latest data proves beyond any doubt that there has been no warming [trend] over the past 16 years.”—John Ingham, Daily Express, 15 October 2012

The data confirms the existence of a ‘pause’ in the warming. The impact of this pause within the climate dynamic community has been to focus increased attention on the impact of natural variability, particularly the impact of internal multi-decadal oscillations in the ocean. The new climate model calculations for the AR5 have focused on trying to assess what it would take to accurately simulate these multi-decadal ocean oscillations and how predictable they might be. These new observations and climate modeling results will hopefully impact the the IPCC AR5 deliberations so that we do not see the same overly confident consensus statements that we saw in the AR4. —Judith Curry, Georgia Tech University, 14 October 2012

The Met Office says that the world has warmed by 0.03 deg C per decade since 1997 based on their calculation of the gradient in the Hadcrut4 dataset. But what the Met Office doesn’t say is that this is statistically insignificant. There is no case to be made for a statistically significant increase in global temperatures as given in the Hadcrut4 dataset between 1997 and August 2012. The Met Office says the 15-year standstill is not unusual. This is true but again the Met Office is being economical with the truth.—David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 15 October 2012

Does it matter that campaigners and the media are actively peddling disinformation? For the most part, probably not, as the public is by now used to such nonsense on just about every subject from unemployment figures to Barack Obama’s birth certificate. But there is one group that should be very concerned about the spreading of rampant misinformation: the scientific community. It is, of course, thrilling to appear in the media and get caught up in highly politicized debates. But leading scientists and scientific organizations that contribute to a campaign of misinformation — even in pursuit of a worthy goal like responding effectively to climate change — may find that the credibility of science itself is put at risk by supporting scientifically unsupportable claims in pursuit of a political agenda.—Roger Pielke Jr, Denver Post, 12 October 2012

Thanks, interesting and actually up to date.

Back to top

REBELLION is not what most people think it is.
REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself.
Gavin Nascimento

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Yanks start to catch on, will Abbott?
Reply #21 - Nov 4^th, 2012 at 9:15am

NOAA Confirms Hurricane Sandy Was Not A Result Of Ocean Global Warming

CO2 levels for 15-year period ending Sept 2012: Increased by 30 ppm

Ocean linear temperature trend equates to: +0.007 degree increase by year 2100

Polynomial trend and 3-year average indicate a cooling is in process

CO2 levels for the 15-year period ending Sept 1997: Increased by 22 ppm

Ocean linear temperature trend equates to: +1.10 degree increase by year 2100

Polynomial trend and 3-year average confirmed a warming trend during this previous 15-year period

Conclusions: The growing increases of atmospheric CO2 levels have not caused a global warming of the oceans over the last 15 years. Global warming was not the cause of Hurricane Sandy, which was essentially a typical weather hurricane that naturally occurs.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/11/noaa-confirms-hurricane-sandy-was-not-a-resul...

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 4^th, 2012 at 9:25am by progressiveslol »

IP Logged

skippy.

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 20882
Gender: male

Re: Yanks start to catch on, will Abbott?
Reply #22 - Nov 4^th, 2012 at 9:36am

hadrian_now wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:41am:

As I understand it smithy - and you'll correct mewith a reference if I'm wrong - the past 16 years have been a cooling period not warming.
How can they say then that this storm is due to global warming?
I also understand that the east coast of the US has suffered more severe storms as long ago as the 1930s.

Wrong and wrong, so you ever get anything right?

Back to top

freedivers other forum- POLITICAL ANIMAL
Click onWWW below

IP Logged

skippy.

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 20882
Gender: male

Re: Yanks start to catch on, will Abbott?
Reply #23 - Nov 4^th, 2012 at 9:40am

Dsmithy70 wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 11:13am:

hadrian_now wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 11:02am:

Met Office Quietly Releases Missing Data

Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago
- Guest Column--Dr. Benny Peiser (Bio and Archives) Monday, October 15, 2012

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week. The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported. This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.—David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 14 October 2012

Global warming stopped 15 years ago and the average temperature has not risen at all since 1997, the Met Office said last night. But critics said the Met Office had released the figures onto the internet without publicity – in contrast to the attention it gave to those released six months ago that reinforced the case for global warming. Those figures went up to 2010 – the hottest year on record – and showed a continuing warming trend. Dr Benny Peiser of Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation said: “It is quite scandalous that the Met Office is misleading the public. The latest data proves beyond any doubt that there has been no warming [trend] over the past 16 years.”—John Ingham, Daily Express, 15 October 2012

The data confirms the existence of a ‘pause’ in the warming. The impact of this pause within the climate dynamic community has been to focus increased attention on the impact of natural variability, particularly the impact of internal multi-decadal oscillations in the ocean. The new climate model calculations for the AR5 have focused on trying to assess what it would take to accurately simulate these multi-decadal ocean oscillations and how predictable they might be. These new observations and climate modeling results will hopefully impact the the IPCC AR5 deliberations so that we do not see the same overly confident consensus statements that we saw in the AR4. —Judith Curry, Georgia Tech University, 14 October 2012

The Met Office says that the world has warmed by 0.03 deg C per decade since 1997 based on their calculation of the gradient in the Hadcrut4 dataset. But what the Met Office doesn’t say is that this is statistically insignificant. There is no case to be made for a statistically significant increase in global temperatures as given in the Hadcrut4 dataset between 1997 and August 2012. The Met Office says the 15-year standstill is not unusual. This is true but again the Met Office is being economical with the truth.—David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 15 October 2012

Does it matter that campaigners and the media are actively peddling disinformation? For the most part, probably not, as the public is by now used to such nonsense on just about every subject from unemployment figures to Barack Obama’s birth certificate. But there is one group that should be very concerned about the spreading of rampant misinformation: the scientific community. It is, of course, thrilling to appear in the media and get caught up in highly politicized debates. But leading scientists and scientific organizations that contribute to a campaign of misinformation — even in pursuit of a worthy goal like responding effectively to climate change — may find that the credibility of science itself is put at risk by supporting scientifically unsupportable claims in pursuit of a political agenda.—Roger Pielke Jr, Denver Post, 12 October 2012

Thanks, interesting and actually up to date.

Don't get sucked in by lies and manipulation,smithy, the tards make sh it up to back up their stupidity, this is the sort of shi t Piers Ackerman runs.its just to appeal to the stupid, and as you can see he's done a good job.

Back to top

freedivers other forum- POLITICAL ANIMAL
Click onWWW below

IP Logged

mozzaok Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 6741 Melbourne Gender:	Re: Yanks start to catch on, will Abbott? Reply #24 - Nov 4^th, 2012 at 10:47am The failure to address Global Warming is the shame of a generation. For 25 years we have known we needed to reduce carbon emissions, and so far done little, shamefully little.
Back to top	OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma! IP Logged

Prevailing

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7169
Stop Men

Re: Yanks start to catch on, will Abbott?
Reply #25 - Nov 4^th, 2012 at 12:29pm

Every time we have weather and I mean every time and that is every day, the same d1ckhead repeats the same crap...its global warming...

therefore, I have the right to tax you, exclude you, blame you for changing the weather...what a moron...

Embrace that which unites in world peace, harmony and justice...reject that which divides marginalizes and excludes as false prophecy and testimony...
Angry

Back to top

I condemn Male Violence Against Women
The Government Supports Gynocide
There Is Something Dreadfully Wrong With Men

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Yanks start to catch on, will Abbott?
Reply #26 - Nov 4^th, 2012 at 12:45pm

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:44am:

hadrian_now wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:41am:

As I understand it smithy - and you'll correct mewith a reference if I'm wrong - the past 16 years have been a cooling period not warming.
How can they say then that this storm is due to global warming?
I also understand that the east coast of the US has suffered more severe storms as long ago as the 1930s.

Large storms have become less frequent than in the past. The only difference is the population has grown, so there is more possibility for loss of life and of damages cost.

That's not how they measure it, progs.

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

Sir Spot of Borg Gold Member Offline WE ARE BORG Posts: 26588 Australia	Re: Yanks start to catch on, will Abbott? Reply #27 - Nov 4^th, 2012 at 12:48pm Remember how nobody wanted to stop using aerosols either. In fact they still arent banned! SOB
Back to top	Whaaaaaah! I'm a Moron! - edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Yanks start to catch on, will Abbott?
Reply #28 - Nov 4^th, 2012 at 12:56pm

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 9:15am:

NOAA Confirms Hurricane Sandy Was Not A Result Of Ocean Global Warming

CO2 levels for 15-year period ending Sept 2012: Increased by 30 ppm

Ocean linear temperature trend equates to: +0.007 degree increase by year 2100

Polynomial trend and 3-year average indicate a cooling is in process

CO2 levels for the 15-year period ending Sept 1997: Increased by 22 ppm

Ocean linear temperature trend equates to: +1.10 degree increase by year 2100

Polynomial trend and 3-year average confirmed a warming trend during this previous 15-year period

Conclusions: The growing increases of atmospheric CO2 levels have not caused a global warming of the oceans over the last 15 years. Global warming was not the cause of Hurricane Sandy, which was essentially a typical weather hurricane that naturally occurs.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/11/noaa-confirms-hurricane-sandy-was-not-a-resul...

And for something different, direct quotes from a climate scientist that works for NOAA.

Quote:

We’ll be interviewing various experts about the impact of Hurricane Sandy and what lies ahead. For the big picture about hurricanes, we spoke to Jim Kossin, atmospheric research scientist in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center.

Could Hurricane Sandy be the result of climate change?

It’s not fair to say it’s associated with climate change. It’s very difficult to attribute an event like Hurricane Sandy to a change in climate because it’s challenging to connect the immediateness of a single event to the time scales that we talk about for climate change. But conveying this to the public is really hard.

Are more hurricanes likely?

The number of very strong land-falling hurricanes has decreased over the last number of years in places like Australia. But they have become more common in the Atlantic—there is no question about it.

Why is the Atlantic region seeing a rise in hurricanes?

One thing we know is that the climate of the Atlantic has changed since the mid-1980s, becoming warmer and more conducive to hurricanes. Where disagreement lies is what causes it. Some think it has nothing to do with climate change, and a growing body of evidence suggests that it has to do with aerosol pollution—basically small particles of a sulfate, a salt of sulfuric acid. There is this idea that after the Clean Air Act of 1970, pollution decreased and then the sun hit and warmed the water. If that were the case, by decreasing pollution, we would have increased hurricane activity—but that’s a tricky thing to say publicly.

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

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Yanks start to catch on, will Abbott?
Reply #29 - Nov 4^th, 2012 at 1:07pm

And here's a couple from climate scientists that work on the other side of the Atlantic.

Quote:

The agency also warns that science right now cannot tease out how much of the change should be attributed to natural climate variability, and how much to man-made warming.

As for the future, experts give conflicting or sketchy predictions of what could happen this century, when surface temperatures are predicted to warm 2 to 3°C.

"There is some evidence to suggest that with climate change we might see stronger wind speeds but that the overall number of tropical cyclones (will show) no change or maybe even go down a little bit," says Tom Mitchell, head of climate change at Britain's Overseas Development Institute.

Serge Planton, head of climate research at French weather forecasting service Meteo France, explains why the picture is so fuzzy.

"It's a very complex phenomenon," he says.

"A cyclone depends not only on the sea surface temperature, but also on the structure of the winds at every layer of the atmosphere. This means it does not respond in a simple, linear fashion to climate change."

Surges more certain
When it comes to storm surge, there seems to be more scientific consensus that climate change's impact is clear.

Sandy's swells were entirely consistent with scenarios sketched by the UN's Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in a report on extreme weather events, published in March, contends Mitchell.

"What the IPCC said there is with sea level rising a little bit already and with the potential for stronger storms, we are likelier to see surges increasing."

Mitchell was a coordinating lead author in the report.

"At some level, we can point to the climate change signal in that," he says.

"The examples that we are seeing in New York today of very considerable storm surges are directly in line with the predictions of the IPCC."

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 4^th, 2012 at 1:12pm 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