one day progs will learn to understand whats written in front of him

Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now,”




doesn't sound like Abbott and the libs were right to me. Also worst case scenario is just that, worst case.

The IPCC propaganda machine definately ISN'T following a 'middle of the road path'. Then again, you leftist troglodytes love swallowing propaganda just as much as you love swallowing Al Gore's baby batter.

you are an idiot ... worst case scenarios are always that, worst case.

The predictions of worst case scenarios do not rule out other less extreme options. They just point out the worst possible outcome. When you learn what all that means, come back to me.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 26^th, 2015 at 7:47pm:

Abbott is a lawyer - a poor one at that

What does Abbott and his Liberal government think about the results coming out of the the Large Hadron Collider?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 26^th, 2015 at 8:34pm:

Dangerous if you are a lefty. I can live with that.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 26^th, 2015 at 8:46pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 26^th, 2015 at 8:46pm:


Malcolm Fraser was a leftie?

havent you noticed - both major parties are right wing corporate puppet clown organisations -

NEVER vote for the major parties in Australian elections. You are voting for bankers and the corpocracy - pure fascism.

You dont seem to understand a lot about the corpocracy that enslaves you.

Voters who blindly vote Labor or Liberal are moronic dumb buggers in my humble opinion. The only trivial difference between the two is that those that vote Liberal are generally selfish cruel moronic dumb buggers rather than ordinary moronic dumb buggers like most labor voters are.

Its a subtle distinction but worth noting

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=2952

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 26^th, 2015 at 11:15pm:

The lefty who created that image sounds scared. When scared, I suggest not being too obvious and desperate when trying to denigrate your opponent.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 26^th, 2015 at 11:21pm:


whats a Lefty?

There are no left wing politicians in the Australian parliament. All right wing globalist corporatists - anti democratic and puppets

I see that your delusional disorientation has worsened

rabbitoh08 wrote on Apr 26^th, 2015 at 11:26pm:

Well as long as I know that Abbott isn't saying "We have to make the carbon tax over $100 a tonne" or "we need to get a consensus from the people first so therefore we will not have a carbon tax until then" and then introducing one anyway or "I am such a fruit loop, my church is the church of climatology", then I am in a situation where I have to accept that all politicians will tweak their concern to get some of the less religious zealots of AGW to be satisfied that something is being done.

So no, it doesn't make me lose sleep.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 26^th, 2015 at 8:11pm:


15 years is an ?

then in the year 2029 it will become hot?

will there be another 15 year Hot Age after 2029 Sir Booby Trap?

Do you read your own lunacy?


from the warmest decade on record we will plunge into a mini ICE-AGE that will last a staggering 15 years up to the critical year 2029, and then the Earth will deliver a HOT AGE.

Absolute lunatic fringe religious fundamentalist garbage by Jethro. He has no sense of shame and continues his deliverance of spin sermons extracted from the spin web sites - like a parrot freak clown. His mentor? None other than the Great Dr Sircus, acupuncturist and curer of cancer using baking Soda and magnesium.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/index.uk.php

What evidence would be enough for the Chimp?
My thread has a lot more than just one person's opinion - as he would have you believe.

41 pages of: facts, books, videos & links has failed to satisfy him.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1421385253/0#0

I forgot to mention the pictures of ice & snow in Sydney -  in April!

Sydney weather: Hail storms batter Sydney

   April 26, 2015 - 1:07AM

   

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/sydney-weather-hail-storms-batter-sydn...

Snowboarding in Newtown.



Ice floats across the Parramatta River on Saturday evening.



Hail gathers across Newtown.


Just look at that snow & ice in Sydney

Does anyone remember the predictions from the "expert" Tim Flannery? "Dams will not fill", "there will be no rains", etc. And some believed it!!

'Record lows in Arctic sea ice extent are making frequent headlines in recent years. The change in albedo when sea ice is replaced by open water introduces a nonlinearity that has sparked an ongoing debate about the stability of the Arctic sea ice cover and the possibility of Arctic “tipping points”. Previous studies identified instabilities for a shrinking ice cover in two types of idealized climate models: (i) annual-mean latitudinally-varying diffusive energy balance models (EBMs) and (ii) seasonally-varying single-column models (SCMs). The instabilities in these low-order models stand in contrast with results from comprehensive global climate models (GCMs), which typically do not simulate any such instability. To help bridge the gap between low-order models and GCMs, we develop an idealized model that includes both latitudinal and seasonal variations. The model reduces to a standard EBM or SCM as limiting cases in the parameter space, thus reconciling the two previous lines of research. We find that the stability of the ice cover vastly increases with the inclusion of spatial communication via meridional heat transport or a seasonal cycle in solar forcing, being most stable when both are included. If the associated parameters are set to values that correspond to the current climate, the ice retreat is reversible and there is no instability when the climate is warmed. The two parameters have to be reduced by at least a factor of 3 for instability to occur. This implies that the sea ice cover may be substantially more stable than has been suggested in previous idealized modeling studies.'

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00654.1?journalCode=clim

Bobby. wrote on Apr 29^th, 2015 at 7:17am:


What are the scientific principles and evidence that supports your assertion that the Earth has just plunged into an ICE-AGE at the end of 2014 which will last for exactly 15 years? Why will the Earth then propel itself into a HOT-AGE after the year 2029?

Go on Jethro, release some of your baking Soda evidence, DO IT for the children

damien wrote on Apr 29^th, 2015 at 9:14am:

Too funny flimflam flannery. The ground will just soak up any rain because it will be too dry. Kids wont know what snow is.

What a blast. He is a real labor wanna be.

damien wrote on Apr 29^th, 2015 at 9:14am:

No.  i don't recall these predictions that "Dams will not fill" and "there will be no rains", etc.

Perhaps you could reproduce them for us here - in there full context so we can see what Dr Flannery ACTUALLY said.

Could you do that please?

progressiveslol wrote on May 1^st, 2015 at 9:44pm:

Perhaps you could reproduce them for us here - in their full context so we can see what Dr Flannery ACTUALLY said.

Why won't you do that?

Shall I help you?

This is what Prof Flannery said in 2007, during the last major El Nino influenced drought in eastern Australia:
PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: 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.
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm

He didn't say "dams will be empty in 2015" or anything like that - did he.  He didn't say we would never have another La Nina event or anything like that -  did he.

He made the simple, and uncontroversial observation - that winter rainfall is decreasing, and also that warming will reduce runoff.

We are observing that the earth is clearly and unambiguously warming, hence it is obvious that we will see a reduction in runoff.  And he said there has been a decline in winter rainfall in Australia, and this is exactly what is being observed:

Since 1970 there has been a 17 per cent decline in average winter rainfall in the southwest of Australia. The southeast has experienced a 15 per cent decline in late autumn and early winter rainfall since the mid-1990s, with a 25 per cent reduction in average rainfall across April and May. Declining rainfall in the southwest has been statistically significant over the recent period, and has occurred as a series of step changes. The decline in this region has also been characterised by a lack of very wet winters.

http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/

Are you saying that the observation made by Prof Flannery is incorrect?  Why?  Please explain.

progressiveslol wrote on May 1^st, 2015 at 9:44pm:



They just ignore the bits they don't like 

Coldest April evah!

See it on page 7 of the Herald.....bottom of page....about a 3 cm single column.....

Temperature record crashed by 1 degree Celsius. ... not like the 0.02 of a degree increase which would be front page lol any other day of the retarded world of warming fvcktuppery 

innocentbystander. wrote on May 2^nd, 2015 at 9:58am:


So why did you ignore the response by rabbitoh several post earlier?

Oh what's wrong, afraid of being exposed as a fossil fuel spin sucker?

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 1^st, 2015 at 11:38pm:

That's what you get from a hob knob academic, better than though environmental activist. Unqualified and unquantified statements, in context mind you, that makes the speaker of such hog wash sound like an absolute fool. Mind you he has a fervent following 

Thanks for the context rabbit. It helps with the original statements that he was not taken out of context.

progressiveslol wrote on May 2^nd, 2015 at 7:11pm:

progslol has nothing but still insists on hating the kids by chewing up internet address space as that is what planet accountant groupies have been told to do!

It's all real estate... it's the same old greed game 

progressiveslol wrote on May 2^nd, 2015 at 7:19pm:

link, cheers 

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 2^nd, 2015 at 8:12pm:

Cause you asked nicely 
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/slippery-when-wet-tim-flannerys-climat...

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 3^rd, 2015 at 1:20am:

lol now your getting it. Just reverse it and open your eyes.

"It's a land of drought and flooding rains. Just because we've had a few dry years doesn't mean that there is a global warming problem. Especially when you cant quantify it and that you are no climate scientist, but merely an environmental activist.

progressiveslol wrote on May 3^rd, 2015 at 1:37am:

so progs won't link to the original statements   

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 3^rd, 2015 at 9:23am:

so deadhorse is blind

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 2^nd, 2015 at 9:49pm:



You hate them - they must be right.

progressiveslol wrote on May 3^rd, 2015 at 1:37am:


why did you selectively half quote Tim Flannery's comments?

The stench that you emit on this forum is juvenile and wafting through the air like a rotting foul putrid weasel carcass....

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 3^rd, 2015 at 10:59am:

What half. Have you got a full you would like to try and make a point with.

One climate skeptic turns up and the useful idiot left gos into meltdown LOL  , smell the fear as the left scurry like the cockroaches they are, terrified that someone is going to turn on the light and expose them, scurry scurry scurry   

innocentbystander. wrote on May 3^rd, 2015 at 2:30pm:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

progressiveslol wrote on May 3^rd, 2015 at 9:41am:

Does it?

Arctic sea ice extent for March 2015 averaged 14.39 million square kilometers (5.56 million square miles). This is the lowest March ice extent in the satellite record. It is 1.13 million square kilometers (436,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average of 15.52 million square kilometers (6.00 million square miles). It is also 60,000 square kilometers (23,000 square miles) below the previous record low for the month observed in 2006.


http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

lee wrote on May 3^rd, 2015 at 4:38pm:

That graph looks scary. So you telling us the global, ill say that again, the global  sea ice extent is actually growing.

progressiveslol wrote on May 3^rd, 2015 at 4:43pm:

progs has given up on the arctic 

https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x

It's a bit too late to enrol unfortunately.

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 3^rd, 2015 at 8:10pm:

They are very compromised: but that means Australia!

John_Taverner wrote on May 3^rd, 2015 at 7:17pm:



An interesting Graph.

'After taking into account all the above effects, the GRACE scientists find that from 2002 through 2005, the volume of the Antarctic ice sheet decreased substantially, corresponding to .4 mm plus or minus .2 mm of sea-level increase per year. This result was a surprise, both because of the extremely low temperatures in Antarctica, as mentioned above, and because forecasts of global warming had predicted increased snowfall in Antarctica.'

http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/grace.cfm

I can see that ALL that melting ice from the Antarctic is really scary.

innocentbystander. wrote on May 4^th, 2015 at 12:05pm:


It's called you 

lee wrote on May 4^th, 2015 at 11:00am:

Much of the sea level rise due to global warming being observed at the moment is due to thermal expansion rather than ice sheet decrease.

Thermal expansion: When water heats up, it expands. About half of the past century's rise in sea level is attributable to warmer oceans simply occupying more space.
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

But then again - you deny that global warming is occurring, so facts seem to be of little interest to you.

Tap wrote on May 4^th, 2015 at 2:35pm:

lol, another rates-of-change circle jerk yes pleeeeeeeease 

lee wrote on May 4^th, 2015 at 4:14pm:


The point being that Antarctic ice mass has also reduced.

innocentbystander. wrote on May 4^th, 2015 at 12:05pm:


Even Scientology has more credibility than the idiotic climate change denialist cult.

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 4^th, 2015 at 4:41pm:


You don't seem to be winning, Lee. Have a drink. I have a nice  Denialist Cocktail for you:



Wild Cherry picking brandy on Antarctic sea Ice

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 4^th, 2015 at 4:52pm:


Which month of 2014 did his Ice Age start? 

lee wrote on May 4^th, 2015 at 4:14pm:

I have already made my point.

Arctic sea ice is declining because the planet is warming.
And the Antarctic sea ice extent is increasing slightly (that is in area, not the actual quantity of sea ice) - because the warming of the Antarctic continent is causing more glacial calving and a slight decrease in salinity of Antarctic waters.

What is it about this that don't you understand?  I would be happy to explain it for you in further detail.

Are you seriously trying to deny the mountains of empirical evidence which shows that the planet is clearly and unambiguously warming?

Do you seriously believe that virtually every scientist on the planet is involved in some sort of conspiracy theory - and Andrew Bolt is the only person you can really trust?

Seriously?

lee wrote on May 4^th, 2015 at 4:14pm:

It's indicators of a complex system! Heat content of the system is what's important: temperature is just an indicator of that heat content! The beginning of the science was working out that heat content was transported via the thermo-haline process making the northern hemisphere warmer than the southern.

JT your faith in GRACE is noted.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 4^th, 2015 at 6:31pm:


It is a complex system.  Higher global tempertures contribute to higher atmospheric moisture content, which leads to higher precipitation (including snow on the Antarctic plateau).  Then there is the question of changing airflows over the Antarctic shelf. Never the less, the mass of ice is decreasing both in the Arctic and Antarctic.