Climate Change | Global Warming | BS or not?

derwoodii · 22nd July 2011, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bill24

Quoted coal used was per plant per day........seems like a lot of coal !

"This week I visited & toured with my kids our states power works. In a valley on a large brown coal seam that feeds & supports 5 or more 350/500/1000/2000+ mega watt steam turbines plants to make 90% of the states power needs.
Welcome | Power Works
Amazing massive plants each burns up to 65,000 tons of brown coal a day.

Twas hard to believe but that what the guide told us 65.000 tonnes per day was what Loy yang A plant burnt. The coal bunker itself holds 70.000 so needs to be filled daily on one web site its says this last only 18 hours.

Heres what the owner says
Loy Yang Power Web Site - www.loyyangpower.com.au
Electricity generation at Loy Yang Power requires over 60,000 tonnes of brown coal a day, supplied exclusively by Loy Yang mine

The Hazelwood says 55.000 per day. The smaller plants no doubt use less but there are more than 5 of these in the valley. Interesting all the power owner web sites were a tad shy on telling how much coal is burnt but quick to say how many trees are planted etc etc..

Today visited a Steel Roll mill Bluescope amazing power use here $3.5 million P/a of gas and $3.5 million of power P/a is the bill and that sold cheap by the state.
Its a giant pizza oven that heats 20 tonnes of steel slab to red hot that then rolls it flat down to 1.6mm thick 10+ tonne 1400m long rolls, amazing power to just watch

Eric Frei · 4th August 2011, 08:58 AM

Imagine Julia running Trade Tools Direct?

Also the president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, delivers his address titled 'The mass delusion of climate change' at the National Press Club in Canberra on July 26, 2011. Mr Klaus says the idea of climate change is fundamentally flawed and a control mechanism.

What's in jeopardy, the climate or our freedom? – Opinion – ABC Religion & Ethics (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Quote:

I am often labelled a Europessimist or a Eurosceptic, but I don't accept the terms pessimism, optimism or scepticism when it comes to the Eurozone. I think it is better to talk about "Euro-realists" and "Euro-naivists" - and I am definitely not a Euro-naivist.

Such a distinction is also helpful when talking about the environment and global warming.

When I was in Australia twenty years ago, we were still living under the threat of communism. That threat is long gone. Now I feel threatened not by global warming - I don't see any - but by the global warming doctrine which I consider a dangerous attempt to control our lives in the name of controlling the climate.

I am in complete agreement with the respected Australian geologist Bob Carter, who insists that there is no climate emergency. I think it's absolutely true.

This elementary statement is, however, in sharp contrast with the global warming doctrine and the rhetoric of so many allegedly responsible, caring and far-sighted politicians, and with their fellow travellers in the media and academia, and with those ambitious international bureaucrats who try to justify the existence of their organisations by claiming to fight climate change, and with those grants-maximising climatologists who try to attract worldwide attention, and with those lobbyists from those businesses of all kinds who are seeking to get into highly-subsidised anti-global warming projects.

For many years now, I have been trying to argue that this global warming doctrine is fundamentally wrong. I have presented my views in perhaps hundreds of speeches, articles and interviews, and now most recently in my book Blue Planet in Green Shackles.

This book is not a study in climatology. I don't want to compete with scientists in this field. It could be better described as an essay in political philosophy and the economics of global warming. The subtitle of the book - which asks "What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?" - probably suggests the thrust of my argument.

As an economist I think in terms of trade-offs - not one-sided, single-eyed considerations only. Regardless of whether we are dealing with actual or only fictional global warming, we should bear in mind that even if something is detrimental and gives rise to some costs and losses, it is not rational to reduce it to zero.

Economists often provoke people by talking about the optimal level of pollution, but it is our task to do so. The science of economics tells us that there is a trade-off between the eventual damage that results from global warming and the costs of fighting it.

That is why economists most often suggest adaptation rather than mitigation.

The global warming alarmists are not interested in our adaptation because they do not want us voluntarily to adapt. They want to change us, our behaviour, our way of life, our values and our preferences. They want to restrict our freedom because they themselves believe they know what is good for us.

I would argue that these alarmists are not interested in the climate. The climate is merely expedient in their ambition to restrict our freedom - and our freedom is what is really endangered here. The climate is just fine.

So let me present a number of arguments against this global warming doctrine, from the perspective of an economist from a former communist country turned politician who, on the basis of his experience and belief in the teachings of economics, has very strong views about free markets versus government control, and who already began to criticise the environmentalist doctrine back in the 1970s, at the inception of the irresponsible fantasies of the Club of Rome.

I mention the Club of Rome in this context quite deliberately. These environmentalists had been arguing for decades that we should reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, but for another reason.

They naively warned against the exhaustion of natural resources - if you look at the publications of the Club of Rome, from the 1970s, they make ridiculous, fantastic reading.

Then they warned about the population bomb, about mass poverty and the inevitability of billions of starving people. The same people now talk about the threat of global warming.

This proves that they don't care about the resources. They don't care about poverty. They don't care about pollution. They despise humans. They consider us selfish and sinful creatures who must be controlled - by them.

And I must mention that, having lived under the conditions of communism, I know that communism led to the worst environmental damage the world has ever experienced.

So the global warming doctrine is an ideology which lives more or less independently of the science of climatology. Climate and temperature are used, or misused, in the service of an ideological conflict about human society. It is little more than an instrument.

This doctrine, this new incarnation of environmentalism is not a monolithic concept that could be easily structured and summarised. It's a flexible, rather inconsistent, loosely connected cascade of arguments, which is why it has been so successfully escaping the scrutiny of science.

Let me lay out what I take to be the six structuring components of this doctrine.

First, the doctrine begins with the claim that there is an undisputed and undisputable, empirically confirmed, statistically significant global, not regional or local, warming. That's the start of the cascade.

Second, it continues with the argument that a time series of global temperature exhibits a growing non-linear, perhaps exponential trend, which dominates over its cyclical and random components.

Third, this development is considered dangerous for the people in the estimation of soft environmentalists, or dangerous for the planet, among deep environmentalists.

Fourth, the temperature growth is interpreted as a man-made phenomenon which is caused by the increase in CO2 emissions. These are considered the consequence of industrial activity and of the use of fossil fuels.

Fifth, the exponents of the global warming doctrine promise us, however, that there is a hope - the ongoing temperature increase can be reversed by the reduction of CO2 emissions.

Sixth, and finally, they also know how to do it - they want to organise the CO2 emissions reduction by means of directives or commands issued by the institutions of global governance.

They forget to tell us that this is not possible without undermining democracy, independence of individual countries, human freedom, economic prosperity and the chance to eliminate poverty in the world. They pretend that the CO2 emissions reduction will bring benefits which will exceed its costs.

This is my attempt to summarise the loosely defined global warming doctrine. Having followed carefully the global warming debate, I am not convinced about any one of these statements. Not one.

The scientific counter-arguments are very strong, and are available to anyone who cares to read them (since I'm in Australia, suffice it to mention the books written Ian Plimer and Bob Carter). I will not repeat these arguments.

What I would like to address instead is what the field of economics says to the global warming doctrine. I'll restrict myself to three points.

First, the economists do not believe in the precautionary principle and do not see the outcome of the cost-benefit comparisons of CO2 emission reductions as favourably as the adherents of the global warming doctrine.

The economists know that emerging demand and supply patterns change only gradually. They have evidence of the high degree of stability in the relationships between man-made carbon dioxide emissions, economic activity and the emissions intensity.

And they do not expect a radical shift in this relationship, because the emissions intensity as a macro-phenomenon moves very slowly and doesn't work wonders.

The economists are therefore convinced that the robust relationship between CO2 emissions and the rate of economic growth is here, and is here to stay in any imaginable future.

If someone wants to reduce CO2 emissions, he must either expect a revolution in economic efficiency - a revolution, that is to say, in emissions intensity - or must start organising a worldwide economic decline. Nothing else is possible.

Second, the relationships studied in the natural sciences are simple in this respect: they are not influenced by any rational or irrational behaviour by subjective variations of the variables in question, or by the fact that people make choices.

By contrast, in social or behavioural sciences making a rational choice means paying attention to inter-temporal relationships and looking at the opportunity costs.

It is evident that by assuming a very low, close to zero discount rate, the proponents of the global warming doctrine neglect the issue of time or of alternative opportunities. This is, for an economist, something totally unacceptable. Using a low discount rate in global warming models means harming the current generations vis a vis the future generations, and the undermining of current economic development means harming the future generations as well.

Economists representing very different schools of thought tell us convincingly that the discount rate, indispensible for any inter-temporal calculations should be around the market rate - around four, five per cent - and it should be close to the real rate of return on capital because only such a rate is the opportunity cost of climate mitigation.

We should never accept claims that by using a low discount rate, as is frequently argued, we protect the interests of future generations. And that the opportunity costs are irrelevant, because in the case of global warming, the problem of choice does not exist.

This uneconomic - or better, anti-economic - way of thinking must not be accepted.

Third, having spent forty years of my life in the political, social and economic regime of European communism, I feel obliged to warn against the arguments and ambitions which similarly attempt to organise the society from the top down.

I am astonished by the arrogance of the global warming doctrine alarmists and their fellow travellers in politics and media who want to suppress the market, control the society, dictate prices directly, or indirectly by means of all kinds of interventions, including taxes.

This arrogance is something I know well from the past. And I'm absolutely convinced that all the old, forgotten, or almost forgotten, arguments against communism should be repeated now.

Fourth, and finally, the fight against the climate has no meaning because it can't be won. Fighting - or rather "controlling" - the climate is simply a mistaken ambition.

Vaclav Klaus is the President of the Czech Republic. He is the author of more than twenty books, including Blue Planet in Green Shackles (2007). This is an edited version of the address he delivered at the National Press Club, Canberra, on 26 July 2011. His visit to Australia was sponsored by the Institute of Public Affairs.

derwoodii · 4th August 2011, 09:38 PM

Sadly the records just keep falling and not just by day but night as well.

Interesting all the denier radio jocks like Nut Bolt have gone very quite last few days. Even the Murdoch press gang seems to be lost trying to find a twist to say, its alright 23c for 3 days in winter nay to worry bout that or that its warmer at night than the day average should be. Today kids were swimming at the beach, dinks winter sun burn. So that red rangas a barren SOB. So why does she gives a rats ass about my billy lids future when could just take that Pollie super and run, perhaps she be wiser than most of us fools at hells gates.

Melbourne's hot August night breaks all records

Melbourne's summery spell continued to break records overnight as the city experienced its hottest-ever August night since records began more than 150 years ago.

Winter doonas were kicked off as the mercury dipped to a low of 17.3 degrees at 5.32am today, a remarkable 11 degrees warmer than the average August minimum temperature in Melbourne.

In fact, last night's balmy conditions were three degrees warmer than the average overnight temperature in the city at the height of summer. January's average overnight temperature in Melbourne is 14.3 degrees

‪Crunch Granola Suite hot august night live - Neil Diamond [Tolia's version]‬&rlm; - YouTube

Eric Frei · 4th August 2011, 10:01 PM

And that is all our fault? Or just the way things go?

And a tax will fix it.

The Gen-Y Q&A | Q&A | ABC TV

Quote:

JAMES PATERSON: Just to respond to that, the Productivity Commission released a report last week and the key sentence in that report for anybody who cared to read it was nowhere in the world is there an economy-wide carbon tax or ETS - nowhere in the world. Every existing scheme and there are only very few existing schemes that are running now, have massive exemptions. They have exemptions for agriculture. They have huge subsidies. There is no comprehensive economy-wide scheme. The scheme that is most commonly cited that Australia should follow the lead of is the European Union Scheme but in its first six years of operation the ETU scheme raised two and a half billion dollars of revenue and that's for 500 million people. In the first year of operation of the carbon tax in Australia it proposes to raise 11 and a half billion dollars so it will raise five times more revenue in one year than in an ETS did over six years so that gives you a pretty good idea about how inactive the world is on this issue.

Just another nail in our economic coffin. Seems to me everything that Ginja Ninja puts her finger on turns to shit. Need to chuck her out before we mortgage our grand childrens incomes.

derwoodii · 4th August 2011, 11:13 PM

Nay you worry avoiding tax is an Aussie hobby and this carbon tax got so many holes in it by years end it will be swiss cheese to most larger company's. While many smarty pants will profit from its trade offsets and avoidance schemes the only saps who'll pay tis poor bottom end working man and for nuthin, as I say wont work can't work its more doomed than the glaciers of the world.

Them commercial fridge doors still be missing. Fix that we may fix much more as its how easy, even encouraged we are too waste energy yet just deduct it from gross earnings that our tax system fails to address.

Hey kids got to chew up some miles in dads company car to avoid the FBT lets go for a 1000k burn. Oh goodie daddy can we leave the house lights pool pump and AC on, Sure thing, its all in the company name.

Huh I'm soundin like a commie so stuff that roll on summer see if we can get a 47C 3 day record.

kyRee Elain · 15th August 2011, 05:41 PM

lol derwoodii ...and here I am apologising for having 7 degrees overnight here in Perth!!

Nah..

this "Carbon Tax" is just a great big scam and as has been pointed out an effort to close down our industries and control the public. I used to care about 'environmental issues' but am ashamed to even mention the 'E' word as it has been shanghaied and used as the new religion for the guilible.

There just may be a few assasinations in Oz if ths fed govt doesn't start listening to the people.

Eric Frei · 15th August 2011, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyRee Elain

I used to care about 'environmental issues' but am ashamed to even mention the 'E' word as it has been shanghaied and used as the new religion for the guilible.

Well said.

I saw these $5 crap Chinese solar lights for the garden, eco friendly. Eco friendly my ass, more resources poured into the production vs the piss weak benefit, many putting the crap things in their gardens as a fad and novelty. Producing products for the sake of profit.

What many forget is the CO2 cost of production of solar panels.

Source:

Quote:

For rooftop and ground-base installations, the eco-friendliness can be good or doubtful, depending on the solar insolation and the life expectancy. But if we consider solar panels mounted on gadgets like laptops or mobile phones, solar energy becomes a plainly bad idea.

If we take a life expectancy of 3 years (already quite optimistic for most gadgets) and a solar insolation of 900 kWh/m² (quite optimistic too, since these things are not lying on a roof), the result is 1,038 gram CO2 per kWh in the worst case scenario (high-efficient mono-crystalline cells produced in the US). That means that it is better for the environment to power a gadget with electricity generated by coal, rather than by a solar panel.

kyRee Elain · 15th August 2011, 06:30 PM

Agreed Eric. Don't these people (consumers) even pretend to think??

We have just finished construction of a new dwelling and the "Environmental" regulations imposed on construction is pricing homes out of the reach of anyone not making a $105 000pa profit on top of living costs. And to be TOLD what we can and can't plant in our garden is getting a bit rich

I'm all for Australian Natives but in an urban environment such as my tiny little 'Cottage block' they are hopeless!

Yes we have installed Solar Hot Water and PV cells in the hope that we MAY

be able to garner some rebate from the state govt here to offset the rising electricity costs. Doubtful but will see in a year or two how the figures add up.

Am getting to the point that I wish I had a

so I can get off this crazy rock.

derwoodii · 21st August 2011, 02:16 PM

So just how many turned up was it nearly 2000 or over 6000. Seems the 25000 predicted was a tad short and still they cook the books cherry pick the data ignore the facts and put to peril my billy lids future.

Canberra No Carbon Tax Rally – 16th August 2011 « No Carbon Tax Website
over 6000 protesters gathered on the lawns of Parliament House

Coalition addresses Canberra carbon tax rally
has told the crowd of about 2,000 protestors

Eric Frei · 21st August 2011, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by derwoodii

they cook the books cherry pick the data ignore the facts and put to peril my billy lids future.

And who are they that you refer to?

Who is putting your kids future to peril?

derwoodii · 21st August 2011, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Frei

And who are they that you refer to?

Who is putting your kids future to peril?

Top of my list of lier's.

Global warming skeptic: Tony Abbott

Global warming skeptic: John Christy

Global warming skeptic: Bob Carter

Many thanks to Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined efforts in keeping facts above fiction.

derwoodii · 23rd August 2011, 08:44 PM

A new member for the deniers lier's list

Convoy of no confidence runs short on revs

Alan Jones, in his role as master of ceremonies, attacked the media for not telling ''the truth of the story'' on these issues. He claimed thousands more protesters were stranded away from the Parliament's lawns because police had stopped them at the ACT border.

''Someone has instructed the federal police from stopping them going where they want to go,'' he said. ''This is shameful. Here are the people in their trucks, this is the most disgraceful thing that has ever been done to democracy.''

ACT police and organiser Mick Pattel said no trucks had been stopped at the border and that vehicles were not allowed to use Parliament's access roads as arranged last week.

Eric Frei · 23rd August 2011, 09:57 PM

I vote no to carbon tax, period.

I do not deny that that the planet is getting warmer, or cooler for that matter. Frankly temperature going up or down doesn't bother me a bit. The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are low, just the hype is high.

Cerbon tax:- If you think it's going to make an iota of difference to the effect on global CO2 from this piss pot nation then you're an extremist. You are prepared to jeopardise our economy and infantile national development for an ideal that is inconsequential to the problem.

Lets look at CO2 PPM in the atmosphere, there's plenty of widgets and online sources that update daily.

Here's one.

CO2 Now | CO2 Home

Notice the graph scale, you can make graphs do that, make them rise steep or barely flutter all depends on the scale. Now if you look in 1958 it was about 315ppm and now 53 years later it's 392ppm .... WOW, we're all gonna die!

Err, what was global population in 1958? Hmm, 2.945billion

And now it is around 7 billion.

And how much has 3rd world nations and Asia industrialised since 1958? I do not know the exact answer but I guess it would be a lot.

So in this last 53 years of boom CO2 went up less than 80ppm or percentile scale less than 25% .... see.

Who's cooking what books?

It's about being balanced and logical, extremists have difficulty with that and always think the end of the world as we know it is just around the corner. As you can see the truth is far from that.

Same crap is going on for population growth, farms and feeding people etc etc etc, alarmist extremists everywhere, dang stuffed if you let them run a country or Arborist Association for that matter.

Grab a beer, kick back and see things for what they truly are.

derwoodii · 24th August 2011, 07:39 AM

To balance the books heres one big lier

Julia Gillard no carbon tax promise - YouTube

This 5 seconds killed off any chance of a reasonable debate or intelligent bipartisan approach to solving our future energy needs in OZ and perhaps help GW.

Agree that ETS or CT will not work political levers seldom do. Grab a beer n watch, but shut that fridge door will ya.

Eric Frei · 24th August 2011, 08:55 AM

Theirs lies everywhere in politics.

I think most people agree the planet is warming so really it's not worth getting into that debate with anyone.

I think most people know that CO2 levels are rising but why and the consequences are highly speculative and assumptive, lots of debate there.

You can clearly see now that man's population explosion, industrialisation and deforestation has had bugger all affect on CO2 in perspective. Now with knowing what is happening there is ample time to change our ways just like when refrigerants and leaded fuel were changed. The output emissions of high class coal fired plants are way better than old, slowly through engineering innovation and technology problems get solved by motivation and legislation, not tax.

Nuclear has it's own issues, and waste that is deadly for what, 50,000 years.

Eric Frei · 9th October 2011, 11:04 AM

Watch this video, see any flaws in carbon trading and forests etc?

Carbon markets look to the Amazon for offsets - YouTube

Jeff Darby · 9th October 2011, 01:32 PM

I was working near Kirrabilli House on Friday, the Prime Ministers Sydney residence and I could hear protesters yelling out "No Carbon Tax" so I walked up and had a look. There was probably around a hundred protesters outside trying to put their message across to the Prime Minister...unfortunately for them they were yelling at a empty house, oh well better luck next time...made us laugh.

Eric Frei · 9th October 2011, 03:18 PM

I thought CO2 was the problem, not C, so why put a tax on C?

If indeed trees convert CO2 into C and O2 then why are we only taxing the C and not the O2 also? Same logic applied, just illustrating the stupidity of it all.

C is a good thing, high C content in soil is great, microbes etc love it. People pay for C to be applied to soils, stable C like Biochar. It is not something that should be taxed.

To expand even further using this video as reference.

29,000KG of atmospheric CO2 is converted into 8,000kg of C in trees.

So I assume the remaining 21,000kg is returned to the atmosphere as O2, unless of course the tree is using some of the O2 also. I cannot find solid reference as to what exactly a tree does with say 1kg of CO2. But clearly, using the data in that video it is fair to say that for every kg of C stored in a tree there was 3.6X the amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide absorbed by trees, stored indefinitely in wood products - YouTube

derwoodii · 9th October 2011, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Darby

I was working near Kirrabilli House on Friday, the Prime Ministers Sydney residence and I could hear protesters yelling out "No Carbon Tax" so I walked up and had a look. There was probably around a hundred protesters outside trying to put their message across to the Prime Minister...unfortunately for them they were yelling at a empty house, oh well better luck next time...made us laugh.

Idealistic people pursuing that which they think is right tis nice. While I'd love to see the world become a cleaner and greener place, here's what I think is the nub of the matter.
All economic growth is associated with making and so the rising levels of green-house gas emissions. Green-house gas emissions will continue to rise until either economic collapse or resource depletion intervenes. As there is no practical or reachable within 30 years alternatives for the burning of fossil fuels (coal oil) to keep our rising quality of life and precious GDP. Ipso facto any ETS Co2 Tax or even the growing trees introduced by any gumnut here or internationally to lessen green-house gas emissions, (if this works at all). May have the reverse effect of increasing Co2 output by the increasing of world economic growth & burning what we have less of.

derwoodii · 10th November 2011, 07:53 PM

Look who's been bank rollin the deniers .

THE BEAST FILE: GINA RINEHART | Hungry Beast

Interestingly the radio station MTR & subset Tv shows Bolt that gave almost 100% support to any denier agenda have begun to financially fold today, only days after the Gumnut has passed the carbon trading scheme. Even with all that money and well crafted lies it failed to convince Australians that GW was any threat.

Sadly her and other GW deniers efforts did ensure that the Gumnut scheme is so vexed and convoluted in trade offs to keep waning public support its more likely to fail and it destroyed any hope of ALP re election. Perhaps this is the sacrifice that had to be made to begin the movement that may, a very small chance only may save the planet from ourselves.

Eric Frei · 11th November 2011, 06:01 AM

1 power station in northern Queensland, just 1, will have to pay an annual $450million dollar tax now. Of course all they do now is put the price of electricity up .... plus some.

Paul Toivonen · 13th November 2011, 05:08 AM

I cant believe the "Greenies" actually think this tax will put the coal/power companies out of business or force them to adopt alternate forms of energy.
We will see, when the tax comes in how much less coal gets dug out of the ground.
With all that extra tax money, I hope it gets put back into subsidies for solar etc.(Am I dreaming?) I doubt the consumer will ever see a cent from it.
The current system is a bit of a joke.

colinjely · 18th December 2011, 08:41 AM

A few years ago I had the pleasure of attending a dinner with Professor Garth Paltridge and the MC was Alan Moran of the Institute of Public Affairs.

It was just before Copenhagen and they were asked what they thought the outcome would be? They said that there would be much drinking of expensive French Chapagne, much eating of expensive caviar, lots of talking and nothing would come out of it except for a pledge to meet again the same time next year. This would go on for a number of years, till even the dumbest of us realised that nothing was happening, the world wasn't frying, we weren't being flooded and humanity was bumbling along as usual. Then you would get someone like Tim Flannery, Al Gore et al getting up and saying, 'well we always knew there were a lot of questions about it but they wouldn't listen to us!'

derwoodii · 26th December 2011, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colinjely

A few years ago I had the pleasure of attending a dinner with Professor Garth Paltridge and the MC was Alan Moran of the Institute of Public Affairs.

It was just before Copenhagen and they were asked what they thought the outcome would be? They said that there would be much drinking of expensive French Chapagne, much eating of expensive caviar, lots of talking and nothing would come out of it except for a pledge to meet again the same time next year. This would go on for a number of years, till even the dumbest of us realised that nothing was happening, the world wasn't frying, we weren't being flooded and humanity was bumbling along as usual. Then you would get someone like Tim Flannery, Al Gore et al getting up and saying, 'well we always knew there were a lot of questions about it but they wouldn't listen to us!'

Sorry a wee bit of a ad hominem argument you have here, try reading up a bit get on back eh.

Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1

colinjely · 26th December 2011, 05:19 PM

Derwoodii
Please enlighten me where I have commited the sin of ad hominem? Did you come to Lord Moncktons latest lecture? If coal fired power stations and co2 are evil, are you in favour of nuclear power? Can you please poimt out to me the global warming we had in Melbourne yesterday? Apart from a lot of empty promises, what has been the outcome of the last COP meetings , apart from the fact that thanks to Kevin Rudd, we now know that the Chinese fornicate with rats?

derwoodii · 27th December 2011, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colinjely

Derwoodii
Please enlighten me where I have commited the sin of ad hominem? Did you come to Lord Moncktons latest lecture? If coal fired power stations and co2 are evil, are you in favour of nuclear power? Can you please poimt out to me the global warming we had in Melbourne yesterday? Apart from a lot of empty promises, what has been the outcome of the last COP meetings , apart from the fact that thanks to Kevin Rudd, we now know that the Chinese fornicate with rats?

Nay no sin committed just predictable response to the overwhelming weight of evidence information data tested reviewed repeated to play the man not the ball.
Here look I do some myself for you. Lord Monckton, that goggle eyed twit nuthin but a freak show he's so one eyed he should barrack for collingwood.

Heres some help with that you can listen or read Abraham presentation

Can't help ya with xmas day storm being a GW concept but oddly while I'm a green tree hugger supporter of alternative energy. I don't oppose using modern Nuke plants to fill the need for base load power. They can and should put one on French Island. Ideally make it hybrid energy say 10 % wind 10% tide and 10% sun Geo thermal etc etc but the base load can be new tech nuke. Yes its not ideal, it never will be 100% as the disposal of the waste has infinite concerns but the alternative is to continue and burn coal is far worse, if you read up coal is far dirty and perhaps even more radioactive.
Ya gotta understand where I'm coming from, while I do believe that GW is real I don't think we can or have the will stop it politically scientifically economically or socially so fundamentally its gonna get hotter.

derwoodii · 30th January 2012, 09:59 PM

Ian Plimer a one man contradiction. gets on the back foot try's a few swings but looses.
A Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide does not know that Asbestos is a carcinogen..

PM - Plimer launches kids' climate sceptic book 13/12/2011

You can listen to the whole interview its the smaller player down the page

IAN PLIMER: Well I'm sure that has a huge amount to do with climate change.

MATT PEACOCK: But Professor it goes to your credibility does it not?

IAN PLIMER: It certainly goes to your credibility when you are trying to…

MATT PEACOCK: How could a geologist such as yourself say that chrysotile is not a carcinogen?

IAN PLIMER: ...you are trying to claim that mineral chrysotile is an asbestos mineral when you know full well that it isn't. And it is no wonder that people have lost faith in the ABC because you know very well…

MATT PEACOCK: And the entire industry in Canada, the town of Asbestos that mines chrysotile, they've all got it wrong?

Victor Lindsay · 31st January 2012, 08:58 PM

Sounds like the directions from a Dion song. And yet, the alarmists still cling to their last forlorn hope that their computer models (based on tricked up data) will prove out. Myehh!

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

By David Rose

Last updated at 5:38 AM on 29th January 2012

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

A painting, dated 1684, by Abraham Hondius depicts one of many frost fairs on the River Thames during the mini ice age

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.

We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

More...

Hotter summers 'may kill 5,900 every year', warns first national risk assessment of climate change

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.
The world average temperature from 1997 to 2012

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’

These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.

‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’

He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.

CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.
World solar activity cycles from 1749 to 2040

So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.

‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said.

Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.

‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.

He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.

‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.
Four hundred years of sunspot observations

She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .

Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.

The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.

‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’

Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.

‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’

derwoodii · 1st February 2012, 08:46 PM

Sorry to say but its the daily mails David Rose up to his usual tricks of cherry picking falsifying or just making it up. Heres the Met offices rebuttle.

Met Office in the Media: 29 January 2012 « Met Office News Blog

Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.

This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.

Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics...Realistsv3.gif

Victor Lindsay · 14th February 2012, 02:26 AM

Cold comfort as Himalayan ice caps defy melt fears.

Cold comfort as Himalayan ice caps defy melt fears

4th August 2011, 11:13 PM	#155
derwoodii Mature tree Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Melbourne Posts: 406	Re: Climate Change \| Global Warming \| BS or not? Nay you worry avoiding tax is an Aussie hobby and this carbon tax got so many holes in it by years end it will be swiss cheese to most larger company's. While many smarty pants will profit from its trade offsets and avoidance schemes the only saps who'll pay tis poor bottom end working man and for nuthin, as I say wont work can't work its more doomed than the glaciers of the world. Them commercial fridge doors still be missing. Fix that we may fix much more as its how easy, even encouraged we are too waste energy yet just deduct it from gross earnings that our tax system fails to address. Hey kids got to chew up some miles in dads company car to avoid the FBT lets go for a 1000k burn. Oh goodie daddy can we leave the house lights pool pump and AC on, Sure thing, its all in the company name. Huh I'm soundin like a commie so stuff that roll on summer see if we can get a 47C 3 day record.

15th August 2011, 05:41 PM	#156
kyRee Elain Sappling Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 9	Re: Climate Change \| Global Warming \| BS or not? lol derwoodii ...and here I am apologising for having 7 degrees overnight here in Perth!! Nah..this "Carbon Tax" is just a great big scam and as has been pointed out an effort to close down our industries and control the public. I used to care about 'environmental issues' but am ashamed to even mention the 'E' word as it has been shanghaied and used as the new religion for the guilible. There just may be a few assasinations in Oz if ths fed govt doesn't start listening to the people.

15th August 2011, 06:30 PM	#158
kyRee Elain Sappling Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 9	Re: Climate Change \| Global Warming \| BS or not? Agreed Eric. Don't these people (consumers) even pretend to think?? We have just finished construction of a new dwelling and the "Environmental" regulations imposed on construction is pricing homes out of the reach of anyone not making a $105 000pa profit on top of living costs. And to be TOLD what we can and can't plant in our garden is getting a bit rich I'm all for Australian Natives but in an urban environment such as my tiny little 'Cottage block' they are hopeless! Yes we have installed Solar Hot Water and PV cells in the hope that we MAY be able to garner some rebate from the state govt here to offset the rising electricity costs. Doubtful but will see in a year or two how the figures add up. Am getting to the point that I wish I had a so I can get off this crazy rock.

21st August 2011, 02:16 PM	#159
derwoodii Mature tree Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Melbourne Posts: 406	Re: Climate Change \| Global Warming \| BS or not? So just how many turned up was it nearly 2000 or over 6000. Seems the 25000 predicted was a tad short and still they cook the books cherry pick the data ignore the facts and put to peril my billy lids future. Canberra No Carbon Tax Rally – 16th August 2011 « No Carbon Tax Website over 6000 protesters gathered on the lawns of Parliament House Coalition addresses Canberra carbon tax rally has told the crowd of about 2,000 protestors Attached Thumbnails Last edited by derwoodii; 21st August 2011 at 02:51 PM.

23rd August 2011, 08:44 PM	#162
derwoodii Mature tree Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Melbourne Posts: 406	Re: Climate Change \| Global Warming \| BS or not? A new member for the deniers lier's list Convoy of no confidence runs short on revs Alan Jones, in his role as master of ceremonies, attacked the media for not telling ''the truth of the story'' on these issues. He claimed thousands more protesters were stranded away from the Parliament's lawns because police had stopped them at the ACT border. ''Someone has instructed the federal police from stopping them going where they want to go,'' he said. ''This is shameful. Here are the people in their trucks, this is the most disgraceful thing that has ever been done to democracy.'' ACT police and organiser Mick Pattel said no trucks had been stopped at the border and that vehicles were not allowed to use Parliament's access roads as arranged last week.

23rd August 2011, 09:57 PM	#163
Eric Frei Admin - Owner Palm & Tree Services in Brisbane Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,993	Re: Climate Change \| Global Warming \| BS or not? I vote no to carbon tax, period. I do not deny that that the planet is getting warmer, or cooler for that matter. Frankly temperature going up or down doesn't bother me a bit. The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are low, just the hype is high. Cerbon tax:- If you think it's going to make an iota of difference to the effect on global CO2 from this piss pot nation then you're an extremist. You are prepared to jeopardise our economy and infantile national development for an ideal that is inconsequential to the problem. Lets look at CO2 PPM in the atmosphere, there's plenty of widgets and online sources that update daily. Here's one. CO2 Now \| CO2 Home Notice the graph scale, you can make graphs do that, make them rise steep or barely flutter all depends on the scale. Now if you look in 1958 it was about 315ppm and now 53 years later it's 392ppm .... WOW, we're all gonna die! Err, what was global population in 1958? Hmm, 2.945billion And now it is around 7 billion. And how much has 3rd world nations and Asia industrialised since 1958? I do not know the exact answer but I guess it would be a lot. So in this last 53 years of boom CO2 went up less than 80ppm or percentile scale less than 25% .... see. Who's cooking what books? It's about being balanced and logical, extremists have difficulty with that and always think the end of the world as we know it is just around the corner. As you can see the truth is far from that. Same crap is going on for population growth, farms and feeding people etc etc etc, alarmist extremists everywhere, dang stuffed if you let them run a country or Arborist Association for that matter. Grab a beer, kick back and see things for what they truly are. __________________ Protect your rights to work - Join Australian Tree Association My businesses:- Qualified Brisbane Palm and Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane \| Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist

24th August 2011, 08:55 AM	#165
Eric Frei Admin - Owner Palm & Tree Services in Brisbane Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,993	Re: Climate Change \| Global Warming \| BS or not? Theirs lies everywhere in politics. I think most people agree the planet is warming so really it's not worth getting into that debate with anyone. I think most people know that CO2 levels are rising but why and the consequences are highly speculative and assumptive, lots of debate there. You can clearly see now that man's population explosion, industrialisation and deforestation has had bugger all affect on CO2 in perspective. Now with knowing what is happening there is ample time to change our ways just like when refrigerants and leaded fuel were changed. The output emissions of high class coal fired plants are way better than old, slowly through engineering innovation and technology problems get solved by motivation and legislation, not tax. Nuclear has it's own issues, and waste that is deadly for what, 50,000 years. __________________ Protect your rights to work - Join Australian Tree Association My businesses:- Qualified Brisbane Palm and Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane \| Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist

9th October 2011, 01:32 PM	#167
Jeff Darby Moderator - Previously known as JayD Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: TreeWorld, Sydney Australia Posts: 2,059	Re: Climate Change \| Global Warming \| BS or not? I was working near Kirrabilli House on Friday, the Prime Ministers Sydney residence and I could hear protesters yelling out "No Carbon Tax" so I walked up and had a look. There was probably around a hundred protesters outside trying to put their message across to the Prime Minister...unfortunately for them they were yelling at a empty house, oh well better luck next time...made us laugh. __________________ Member: Australian Tree Association Join the Australian Tree Association...Have your voice heard ! Arboriculture, A life long study for some, a passing phase for others © Jeffrey J Darby 2011

10th November 2011, 07:53 PM	#170
derwoodii Mature tree Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Melbourne Posts: 406	Re: Climate Change \| Global Warming \| BS or not? Look who's been bank rollin the deniers . THE BEAST FILE: GINA RINEHART \| Hungry Beast Interestingly the radio station MTR & subset Tv shows Bolt that gave almost 100% support to any denier agenda have begun to financially fold today, only days after the Gumnut has passed the carbon trading scheme. Even with all that money and well crafted lies it failed to convince Australians that GW was any threat. Sadly her and other GW deniers efforts did ensure that the Gumnut scheme is so vexed and convoluted in trade offs to keep waning public support its more likely to fail and it destroyed any hope of ALP re election. Perhaps this is the sacrifice that had to be made to begin the movement that may, a very small chance only may save the planet from ourselves.

11th November 2011, 06:01 AM	#171
Eric Frei Admin - Owner Palm & Tree Services in Brisbane Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,993	Re: Climate Change \| Global Warming \| BS or not? 1 power station in northern Queensland, just 1, will have to pay an annual $450million dollar tax now. Of course all they do now is put the price of electricity up .... plus some. __________________ Protect your rights to work - Join Australian Tree Association My businesses:- Qualified Brisbane Palm and Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane \| Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist

13th November 2011, 05:08 AM	#172
Paul Toivonen Semi-mature vigorous tree Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: AUS Posts: 134	Re: Climate Change \| Global Warming \| BS or not? I cant believe the "Greenies" actually think this tax will put the coal/power companies out of business or force them to adopt alternate forms of energy. We will see, when the tax comes in how much less coal gets dug out of the ground. With all that extra tax money, I hope it gets put back into subsidies for solar etc.(Am I dreaming?) I doubt the consumer will ever see a cent from it. The current system is a bit of a joke.

18th December 2011, 08:41 AM	#173
colinjely Sappling Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Blackburn Posts: 11	Re: Climate Change \| Global Warming \| BS or not? A few years ago I had the pleasure of attending a dinner with Professor Garth Paltridge and the MC was Alan Moran of the Institute of Public Affairs. It was just before Copenhagen and they were asked what they thought the outcome would be? They said that there would be much drinking of expensive French Chapagne, much eating of expensive caviar, lots of talking and nothing would come out of it except for a pledge to meet again the same time next year. This would go on for a number of years, till even the dumbest of us realised that nothing was happening, the world wasn't frying, we weren't being flooded and humanity was bumbling along as usual. Then you would get someone like Tim Flannery, Al Gore et al getting up and saying, 'well we always knew there were a lot of questions about it but they wouldn't listen to us!'

26th December 2011, 05:19 PM	#175
colinjely Sappling Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Blackburn Posts: 11	Re: Climate Change \| Global Warming \| BS or not? Derwoodii Please enlighten me where I have commited the sin of ad hominem? Did you come to Lord Moncktons latest lecture? If coal fired power stations and co2 are evil, are you in favour of nuclear power? Can you please poimt out to me the global warming we had in Melbourne yesterday? Apart from a lot of empty promises, what has been the outcome of the last COP meetings , apart from the fact that thanks to Kevin Rudd, we now know that the Chinese fornicate with rats?

30th January 2012, 09:59 PM	#177
derwoodii Mature tree Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Melbourne Posts: 406	Re: Climate Change \| Global Warming \| BS or not? Ian Plimer a one man contradiction. gets on the back foot try's a few swings but looses. A Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide does not know that Asbestos is a carcinogen.. PM - Plimer launches kids' climate sceptic book 13/12/2011 You can listen to the whole interview its the smaller player down the page IAN PLIMER: Well I'm sure that has a huge amount to do with climate change. MATT PEACOCK: But Professor it goes to your credibility does it not? IAN PLIMER: It certainly goes to your credibility when you are trying to… MATT PEACOCK: How could a geologist such as yourself say that chrysotile is not a carcinogen? IAN PLIMER: ...you are trying to claim that mineral chrysotile is an asbestos mineral when you know full well that it isn't. And it is no wonder that people have lost faith in the ABC because you know very well… MATT PEACOCK: And the entire industry in Canada, the town of Asbestos that mines chrysotile, they've all got it wrong?

31st January 2012, 08:58 PM	#178
Victor Lindsay Mature tree Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: ? Posts: 441	Re: Climate Change \| Global Warming \| BS or not? Sounds like the directions from a Dion song. And yet, the alarmists still cling to their last forlorn hope that their computer models (based on tricked up data) will prove out. Myehh! Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years By David Rose Last updated at 5:38 AM on 29th January 2012 The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years. The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century. Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. A painting, dated 1684, by Abraham Hondius depicts one of many frost fairs on the River Thames during the mini ice age Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food. Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak. We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century. Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still. More... Hotter summers 'may kill 5,900 every year', warns first national risk assessment of climate change According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C. However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid. The world average temperature from 1997 to 2012 Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’ These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts. ‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’ He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming. CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998. World solar activity cycles from 1749 to 2040 So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid. ‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said. Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’. ‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said. He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand. ‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’. Four hundred years of sunspot observations She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. ‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years . Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997. The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century. ‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’ Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific. ‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’

1st February 2012, 08:46 PM	#179
derwoodii Mature tree Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Melbourne Posts: 406	Re: Climate Change \| Global Warming \| BS or not? Sorry to say but its the daily mails David Rose up to his usual tricks of cherry picking falsifying or just making it up. Heres the Met offices rebuttle. Met Office in the Media: 29 January 2012 « Met Office News Blog Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”. This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading. Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics...Realistsv3.gif

14th February 2012, 02:26 AM	#180
Victor Lindsay Mature tree Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: ? Posts: 441	Re: Climate Change \| Global Warming \| BS or not? Cold comfort as Himalayan ice caps defy melt fears. Cold comfort as Himalayan ice caps defy melt fears

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Colder climate diesel tree variant	Grits	Ask an Arborist here	7	26th March 2011 07:22 AM
Timing belt change	clementine	Non Tree Related chat	20	12th January 2009 11:41 AM
Altering climate affecting your pruning?	blair duncanson	General Tree Chat	22	18th April 2008 04:08 AM
Global Warming	OsAGe85	Non Tree Related chat	11	12th August 2007 11:44 AM