Vote: for reinstating Climate Change back Onto the G-20 agenda !!!

[Wrecker45 3,378]

Interesting, because according to the general summary of the IPCC's 5th Assessment Report which was released last year:

General

• Warming of the atmosphere and ocean system is unequivocal. Many of the associated impacts such as sea level change (among other metrics) have occurred since 1950 at rates unprecedented in the historical record.
• There is a clear human influence on the climate
• It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the 4th report
• IPCC pointed out that the longer we wait to reduce our emissions, the more expensive it will become

I notice you didn't address the key point that there is a hiatus, now acknowledged by the IPCC, that was not predicted by the IPCC, that makes a mockery of all their rapid warming predictions. When your predictions don't materialise it is a fair indication your theory is sick.

I am happy, however, to address your points. First of all none of them are catastrophe scenarios which is the point I was making about the IPCC's latest stance.

• I’m guessing and correct me if I am wrong that the report is referring to unequivocal warming of the atmosphere and ocean system from the beginning of the Instrumental Records period? If so this is the period since we came out of the Little Ice Age. Should we be alarmed?
• Absolutely humans have an impact on the climate it is just that the CO2 we emit is not the driver that the alarmists believe it is.
• What science or statistics is the confidence level increase based on?
• Are the IPCC a scientific organisation or economists? (Or just plain political)

[daisycutter 29,600]

And the only thing that the scientific community has in common is their view on man's contribution to the real problem of climate change.

What has widely varying views is the effect that actions put in place by Governments to combat this problem will have. I have little faith that plans put into place by many Governments ( especially our Government) will have any impact what so ever.

lets be brutally honest nut and not kid ourselves. whatever an australian government did would have little real impact

that's not an argument to do nothing but it is a reality

[hardtack 10,514]

I notice you didn't address the key point that there is a hiatus, now acknowledged by the IPCC, that was not predicted by the IPCC, that makes a mockery of all their rapid warming predictions. When your predictions don't materialise it is a fair indication your theory is sick.

(can you cite the IPCC statements to that effect please?)

I am happy, however, to address your points. First of all none of them are catastrophe scenarios which is the point I was making about the IPCC's latest stance.

• I’m guessing and correct me if I am wrong that the report is referring to unequivocal warming of the atmosphere and ocean system from the beginning of the Instrumental Records period? If so this is the period since we came out of the Little Ice Age. Should we be alarmed?

  (the "little ice age" as you call it, according to you ended in 1850, 100 years prior to 1950 after which the IPPC is saying the associated impacts are occurring an unprecedented rate)

• Absolutely humans have an impact on the climate it is just that the CO2 we emit is not the driver that the alarmists believe it is.

  (yes, and passive smoking is harmless)

• What science or statistics is the confidence level increase based on?
• Are the IPCC a scientific organisation or economists? (Or just plain political)

  (as opposed to your shock jocks and politicians? I thought you were the expert on the IPCC having made such unequivocal statements, so you tell me, what is the composition of the IPCC?)

I hadn't realised that Ben was a Whelan fan.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

And the only thing that the scientific community has in common is their view on man's contribution to the real problem of climate change.

Really? You will have to explain that to me. Is that the IPCC, the scientists you prefer to read or some other group you are referring to?

[Wrecker45 3,378]

can you cite the IPCC statements to that effect please?)

In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence). The forcing trend reduction is primarily due to a negative forcing trend from both volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the hiatus, because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trend and low confidence in the aerosol forcing trend.

(the "little ice age" as you call it, according to you ended in 1850, 100 years prior to 1950 after which the IPPC is saying the associated impacts are occurring an unprecedented rate)

Again is this unprecedented since 1850 where we have since come out of The Little Ice Age? In other words unprecedented in 164 years when earth has been around for hundreds of millions? You do realise that is not a very good sample size.

On top of that the HadCRUT4 dataset indicates that:

• Global temperatures declined -0.1°C from 1950 to 1977
• Global temperatures rose +0.5°C from 1977 to 1998
• Global temperatures have dipped ever slightly since 1998 (not statistically significant)
  

I’ll give you a free kick and let you start from 1977 and stop at 1998 where there was actually rapid warming in line with alarmist predictions. Why though did it stop despite more CO2 in the atmosphere and against all IPCC predictions?

(yes, and passive smoking is harmless)

Passive smoking is extremely harmful and I actually think it is 10% worse if the smoke comes from a Collingwood supporter. Not sure what this has to do with anything though.

(as opposed to your shock jocks and politicians? I thought you were the expert on the IPCC having made such unequivocal statements, so you tell me, what is the composition of the IPCC?)

Largely scientific until they policy makers section where the science goes out the window and the politics takes over.

I hadn't realised that Ben was a Whelan fan.

[Earl Hood 6,082]

I notice you didn't address the key point that there is a hiatus, now acknowledged by the IPCC, that was not predicted by the IPCC, that makes a mockery of all their rapid warming predictions. When your predictions don't materialise it is a fair indication your theory is sick.

I am happy, however, to address your points. First of all none of them are catastrophe scenarios which is the point I was making about the IPCC's latest stance.

• I’m guessing and correct me if I am wrong that the report is referring to unequivocal warming of the atmosphere and ocean system from the beginning of the Instrumental Records period? If so this is the period since we came out of the Little Ice Age. Should we be alarmed?
• Absolutely humans have an impact on the climate it is just that the CO2 we emit is not the driver that the alarmists believe it is.
• What science or statistics is the confidence level increase based on?
• Are the IPCC a scientific organisation or economists? (Or just plain political)

Hiatus? Nine of the ten hottest years have occurred this century! Some interruption in the warming trend I don't think! Yes it is rising more slowly but it is still getting hotter. Anyway Wrecker I hope you and the likes of Bolt are right but I doubt it. I will put my faith with the IPCC rather than media commentators like Bolt who are paid to promote doubt in the science by the likes of Rupert Murdoch.

[hardtack 10,514]

Hiatus? Nine of the ten hottest years have occurred this century! Some interruption in the warming trend I don't think! Yes it is rising more slowly but it is still getting hotter. Anyway Wrecker I hope you and the likes of Bolt are right but I doubt it. I will put my faith with the IPCC rather than media commentators like Bolt who are paid to promote doubt in the science by the likes of Rupert Murdoch.

Seems Roos isn't the only one with a cherry picker... many of the skeptics use one to get at the pieces of info that suit. Anyway, if I'm not mistaken, Ben is back as the wrecker.

[dee-luded 2,959]

No it is not. Feel free to point out the fault in my argument rather than draw ridiculous analogies. I'll give you a helping hand but Tony Abbott or but Andrew Bolt aren't arguments either.

I have been to seminars from scientists over the years showing the test data from ice core samples from Antarctica, & the graphs from measured times & the ice samples of gases from way before our time.

the carbon threat to global warming & this climate change is real wrecker, & I can tell you that we are well up on the carbon graphs, & once it reaches its zenith, which takes some time, until it really spikes vertically in short space of time, peaking, then absolutely collapsing back down into an ice age in very short time, compared to the years it takes to climb the graph.

you can keep your science denounce-rs for yourself I'm afraid wrecker, Lord Monckton awaits you. I feel he has heard of my support against carbon pollution. >

Edited January 29, 2015 by dee-luded

[dee-luded 2,959]

Juxtaposed. I think you'll find most of the broadcasters you define as shock jocks have varying opinions on man's influence on climate. The only think they have in common is that the alarmist view is completely overstated. This is also now the scientific opinion of the IPCC.

mans causation or not is irrelevant w45.... if the climate is warming & we know it is as we have personally experienced it on our skins over the last few decades getting more & more burnt, & the weather patterns changing.

the point is that if the warming on average terms causes our weather to keep on becoming more intense, then it will harm our abilities to feed ourselves & to stay safe as we have over the past 100 years at least.

if carbon dioxide wreaks havoc in terms of storms, & in warming oceans & acidifying oceans, & species drop reproducing in big numbers; then mans cause or not, we will all have to join forces to reverse the pollution damage... the longer we leave it, the longer it will take to slow & reverse the warming momentum. & the damage thats happening even as we sleep.

[dee-luded 2,959]

lets be brutally honest nut and not kid ourselves. whatever an australian government did would have little real impact

that's not an argument to do nothing but it is a reality

the sooner more governments start acting the quicker all nations will fall into line, the argument that noone wants to jump out of the aircraft first doesn't wash. someone has to & its got to be the leaders again.

someone has to step up, Not step down like rabbott.

[nutbean 8,838]

lets be brutally honest nut and not kid ourselves. whatever an australian government did would have little real impact

that's not an argument to do nothing but it is a reality

Unfortunately correct - I think you once mentioned that you see the only solution to this problem is a "scientific breakthrough" ( I may be misquoting but I hope you understand what I mean). I tend to agree with you because Governments worldwide will not aggressively tackle the issue.

I would like to see Australia's contribution as a global approach to the problem with the understanding that all countries participate equally and obviously some countries contribution will have a significant impact whereas others contribution will have little to no impact but the country will be participating equally with others.

I would like to see a global approach to the problem where all Governments take a very aggressive approach to significantly lower carbon emissions but as stated previously, I am completely delusional .

Edited January 29, 2015 by nutbean

[Wrecker45 3,378]

Hiatus? Nine of the ten hottest years have occurred this century! Some interruption in the warming trend I don't think! Yes it is rising more slowly but it is still getting hotter. Anyway Wrecker I hope you and the likes of Bolt are right but I doubt it. I will put my faith with the IPCC rather than media commentators like Bolt who are paid to promote doubt in the science by the likes of Rupert Murdoch.

I just went to my cousins 30t birthday. 10 of the last 10 years have been his tallest but I can assure you he has stopped growing. Same thing applies I have been very clear that the world has warmed since the Little Ice Age but there has been a hiatus since 1998.

You say you put your faith in the IPCC I just demonstrated above where the IPCC acknowledge the hiatus. I'd love it if you could point to me where they predicted any hiatus? If they didn't before it happened why would you believe there current predictions?

[Wrecker45 3,378]

Seems Roos isn't the only one with a cherry picker... many of the skeptics use one to get at the pieces of info that suit. Anyway, if I'm not mistaken, Ben is back as the wrecker.

Cherry picker? I put it to you that choosing any data form the Instrumental Temperature Records (from 1850) is cherry picking. It is so minute on the earths time scale it is laughable. Any hottest year on record is a farce over the period.

I have also pointed out that the rapid warming that was inline with the alarmists predictions was from 1977 to 1998. That is the only period of unprecedented warming (over a minute time scale). Claiming unprecedented warming is clearly cherry picking.

Given my profile indicates I have been posting since 2005 it is hardly logical to say that Ben is back under this profile. I was actually posting here before 2005 as well but I'm sure someone will confirm there was some problem over around that time and posts were lost.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

I have been to seminars from scientists over the years showing the test data from ice core samples from Antarctica, & the graphs from measured times & the ice samples of gases from way before our time.

the carbon threat to global warming & this climate change is real wrecker, & I can tell you that we are well up on the carbon graphs, & once it reaches its zenith, which takes some time, until it really spikes vertically in short space of time, peaking, then absolutely collapsing back down into an ice age in very short time, compared to the years it takes to climb the graph.

you can keep your science denounce-rs for yourself I'm afraid wrecker, Lord Monckton awaits you. I feel he has heard of my support against carbon pollution. >

Thanks dee-luded.

I encourage everyone to go to as many seminars as they can if they have an interest in climate change. I certainly do. I guess the only difference is I listen to the "deniers" as well as the "alarmists". It's not the labels that interest me but the evidence they present.

You can assure me the threat is real all you like but you have not explained to me why the hiatus, now acknowledged by the IPCC, completely contrary to the predictions of the IPCC, is not a serious concern to the credibility of the organisation and the science. Why is everybody dodging this questions?

Lord Mockton awaits me? Did you post a picture of him to try and discredit "deniers" based on the fact he has Graves disease which causes his eyes to bulge? If so that says a lot more about your argument than mine.

[hardtack 10,514]

Cherry picker? I put it to you that choosing any data form the Instrumental Temperature Records (from 1850) is cherry picking. It is so minute on the earths time scale it is laughable. Any hottest year on record is a farce over the period.

I have also pointed out that the rapid warming that was inline with the alarmists predictions was from 1977 to 1998. That is the only period of unprecedented warming (over a minute time scale). Claiming unprecedented warming is clearly cherry picking.

Given my profile indicates I have been posting since 2005 it is hardly logical to say that Ben is back under this profile. I was actually posting here before 2005 as well but I'm sure someone will confirm there was some problem over around that time and posts were lost.

Yet isn't it you who is placing so much importance on the 12 year (or however long it is) hiatus?

[Wrecker45 3,378]

Yet isn't it you who is placing so much importance on the 12 year (or however long it is) hiatus?

Absolutely, except I'm not sure where the 12 years comes from, and I am pointing out the ridiculousness of it. Thanks for highlighting that. The time frame of rapid (unprecedented) warming and the hiatus are both similar in length. You can't say we had unprecedented warming without saying it has stopped (hiatus). The unfortunate thing is that the IPCC and its warming models predicted rapid warming, without the hiatus, over that period of time.

Again I ask if you, or anyone else, can give point me to any scientist or scientific body that predicted the hiatus? If all the science was predicting rapid warming over that period and the warming didn't eventuate, what does that say about the science?

[Earl Hood 6,082]

I just went to my cousins 30t birthday. 10 of the last 10 years have been his tallest but I can assure you he has stopped growing. Same thing applies I have been very clear that the world has warmed since the Little Ice Age but there has been a hiatus since 1998.

You say you put your faith in the IPCC I just demonstrated above where the IPCC acknowledge the hiatus. I'd love it if you could point to me where they predicted any hiatus? If they didn't before it happened why would you believe there current predictions?

Sorry Wrecker we are working on different wavelengths. So how tall is your cousin now if he has been growing for the last 10 years between the ages of 20 and 30 years, albeit more slowly than in his teen years! Pushing seven foot is he? 1998 was a hot year, in an El Niño year but from then the world has continued to get hotter but at a slower rate recently. 9 of the 10 hottest years have occurred this century, it is getting hotter over time but not always in a simple linear progression that the likes of Andrew Bolt expects. But maybe that is all the complexity he can comprehend? Oh if it is getting hotter, it must get drier everywhere, if it rains somewhere the modellers are wrong. I better ring Rupert for further instructions. Edited January 31, 2015 by Earl Hood

[daisycutter 29,600]

I would like to see a global approach to the problem where all Governments take a very aggressive approach to significantly lower carbon emissions but as stated previously, I am completely delusional .

if you believe in that nut then you have learnt nothing from history or the inherent nature of mankind

in fact if things do get worse on the climate side i'd expect the opposite to be true

the solution (if one) lies elsewhere and is not necessarily pleasant (but may be)

pleasant dreams

[dee-luded 2,959]

Unfortunately correct - I think you once mentioned that you see the only solution to this problem is a "scientific breakthrough" ( I may be misquoting but I hope you understand what I mean). I tend to agree with you because Governments worldwide will not aggressively tackle the issue.

I would like to see Australia's contribution as a global approach to the problem with the understanding that all countries participate equally and obviously some countries contribution will have a significant impact whereas others contribution will have little to no impact but the country will be participating equally with others.

I would like to see a global approach to the problem where all Governments take a very aggressive approach to significantly lower carbon emissions but as stated previously, I am completely delusional .

they will, when its become obvious its Biting them behind, then they'll act... after the horse has bolted, but they will act. it may have already bolt ed

Thanks dee-luded.

I encourage everyone to go to as many seminars as they can if they have an interest in climate change. I certainly do. I guess the only difference is I listen to the "deniers" as well as the "alarmists". It's not the labels that interest me but the evidence they present.

You can assure me the threat is real all you like but you have not explained to me why the hiatus, now acknowledged by the IPCC, completely contrary to the predictions of the IPCC, is not a serious concern to the credibility of the organisation and the science. Why is everybody dodging this questions?

Lord Mockton awaits me? Did you post a picture of him to try and discredit "deniers" based on the fact he has Graves disease which causes his eyes to bulge? If so that says a lot more about your argument than mine.

I know nothing about the ipcc, as I don't read full time on this issue. I have been convinced for decades as I have been watching the weather & the news weather every day studying it with my own eyes. literally.

I could see the weather maps changing before the climate scientists where being heard. but I didn't realise at the time of the significance of the threat.

I could see it changing & see the changes on the weather maps over the last 30 years. the highs have been moving further south year by year. its changed a little over the last couple, a bit changeable recently.

edit: sorry I didn't read down to the last para.. Graves disease I always thought he looked,, ODD,,, a bit marty feldman, but really it was moreso how he sounds to me when making his concepts.

I find the deniers a bit like the tobacco industry, that smokes don't cause cancer..... no I will always take the scientists who are concerned for the welfare of our Earth more serious, than those who come out attacking the scientists with the financial sector defence .

...... by the way I usually don't pick on people with some sort of disability because I grew up walking around with my mum who could barely walk because of Polio, with kids & people staring & pointing.

Edited January 30, 2015 by dee-luded

[dee-luded 2,959]

I just went to my cousins 30t birthday. 10 of the last 10 years have been his tallest but I can assure you he has stopped growing. Same thing applies I have been very clear that the world has warmed since the Little Ice Age but there has been a hiatus since 1998.

You say you put your faith in the IPCC I just demonstrated above where the IPCC acknowledge the hiatus. I'd love it if you could point to me where they predicted any hiatus? If they didn't before it happened why would you believe there current predictions?

& when he's 60+, he may start getting shorter. So this is your science wrecker 45.. very good, whats your cousins name, we should ask him whats coming.

I think you have it wrong, do you honestly expect the world will warm to the temperature of the sun??? it doesn't work that way. the climate will become more changeable & less predictable with storms getting bigger & more damaging. as we've started to see the past few years up north, & thru Sydney.

some places will become drier & colder with cold like in the US atmo, others will go into droughts & become more arid. storms will become progressively more severe in the tropics & semi tropics.

generally more intense.

We will most likely get stronger winds from all directions, hot, & cold winds.

Edited January 30, 2015 by dee-luded

[nutbean 8,838]

if you believe in that nut then you have learnt nothing from history or the inherent nature of mankind

in fact if things do get worse on the climate side i'd expect the opposite to be true

the solution (if one) lies elsewhere and is not necessarily pleasant (but may be)

pleasant dreams

As I said - I am delusional. ( actually ...I'm not...it was a fluffy response to something that I know too well will never happen)

[daisycutter 29,600]

As I said - I am delusional. ( actually ...I'm not...it was a fluffy response to something that I know too well will never happen)

you are forgiven my son

in future beware and resist flights into delusional thinking. they are the work of the devil

[hardtack 10,514]

you are forgiven my son

in future beware and resist flights into delusional thinking. they are the work of the devil

Geeez, poor old Saty can't take a trick!!

[Wrecker45 3,378]

Sorry Wrecker we are working on different wavelengths. So how tall is your cousin now if he has been growing for the last 10 years between the ages of 20 and 30 years, albeit more slowly than in his teen years! Pushing seven foot is he? 1998 was a hot year, in an El Niño year but from then the world has continued to get hotter but at a slower rate recently. 9 of the 10 hottest years have occurred this century, it is getting hotter over time but not always in a simple linear progression that the likes of Andrew Bolt expects. But maybe that is all the complexity he can comprehend? Oh if it is getting hotter, it must get drier everywhere, if it rains somewhere the modellers are wrong. I better ring Rupert for further instructions.

Clearly we are on different wavelengths. My cousin has been the same height for the last 10 years and they have all been his tallest, he just stopped growing. It shouldn't be that difficult to understand, but it is exactly the same as the warming, only difference is it could warm again and my cousin wont grow.

If it rains somewhere the modellers are wrong? No the people who said it wouldn't rain again and predicted permanent drought are wrong. As far as I know it was only Tim Flannery making those type of predictions and not the IPCC.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Wrecker45

[Wrecker45 3,378]

they will, when its become obvious its Biting them behind, then they'll act... after the horse has bolted, but they will act. it may have already bolt ed

I know nothing about the ipcc, as I don't read full time on this issue. I have been convinced for decades as I have been watching the weather & the news weather every day studying it with my own eyes. literally.

I could see the weather maps changing before the climate scientists where being heard. but I didn't realise at the time of the significance of the threat.

Hahaha. Been a really cold summer locally we must be in for global cooling.