On 30/01/2015 at 14:34, dee-luded said:



& 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.

Yeah I think the world is going to warm to the temperature of the sun???? WTF??? I am not going to respond to any more of your posts on this matter, unless they make a little bit of sense or you answer the question I have asked time and time again.

Point me in the direction of any scientific body that predicted the hiatus instead of rapid warming. Otherwise, explain to me why we are still believing the predictions of the same people that have got it so wrong?

  On 02/02/2015 at 02:44, Wrecker45 said:

Yeah I think the world is going to warm to the temperature of the sun???? WTF??? I am not going to respond to any more of your posts on this matter, unless they make a little bit of sense or you answer the question I have asked time and time again.

Point me in the direction of any scientific body that predicted the hiatus instead of rapid warming. Otherwise, explain to me why we are still believing the predictions of the same people that have got it so wrong?

You keep asking that, but can you in turn explain why globally, the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1998, which I believe puts them right in the midst of your hiatus.

  On 02/02/2015 at 08:04, hardtack said:

You keep asking that, but can you in turn explain why globally, the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1998, which I believe puts them right in the midst of your hiatus.

I keep explaining that as well. We have warmed since the little ice age. Warming peaked at 1998, the plateau since is called I hiatus. The IPCC acknowledges the hiatus do you?

  On 02/02/2015 at 08:43, Wrecker45 said:

I keep explaining that as well. We have warmed since the little ice age. Warming peaked at 1998, the plateau since is called I hiatus. The IPCC acknowledges the hiatus do you?

I think That your plateau has an upward tilt on it. Wrecker. Make sure you put the handbrake on, or you might roll off your own hiatus. Seriously you are asking us to take a huge risk that your mini ice age theory explains all and that we are heading for Maurice Newman's Global Cooling dilemma where we may need to burn massive amounts of coal just to survive. If you are wrong we are stuffed. If we heed the IPCC and 97% of scientific opinion and evidence and do something, the only losers will be fossil fuel investors. Why take the chance?

  On 02/02/2015 at 08:43, Wrecker45 said:

I keep explaining that as well. We have warmed since the little ice age. Warming peaked at 1998, the plateau since is called I hiatus. The IPCC acknowledges the hiatus do you?

hang on, 10 of the warmest years on record since 1998... how is that not an indication that the planet is still warming? It seems you like to take an each way bet... the IPCC are worth nothing when predicting warming, yet all of a sudden they are experts when they agree there is an hiatus?

  On 02/02/2015 at 10:13, hardtack said:

hang on, 10 of the warmest years on record since 1998... how is that not an indication that the planet is still warming? It seems you like to take an each way bet... the IPCC are worth nothing when predicting warming, yet all of a sudden they are experts when they agree there is an hiatus?

I am not sure how many times I can explain that we have not warmed (statistically speaking) since 1998. But those years between 1998 and now are still our warmest. Read the example on my cousins height. It shouldn't be a difficult concept.

I'll give you another example. Shares in BHP have been going up since 1850. At 1998 they hit a record price. The Share price hasn't risen since, Iits been in hiatus, but the CEO wants a bonus based on the share price being higher than it ever has been for 9 of the last 10 years. Mind you the analysts had been predicting greater than inflation growth over that period.

The reason I keep referencing the IPCC, the self appointed peak body in climate change, is to point out the ridiculousness.

Are you going to answer my question?

  On 02/02/2015 at 11:26, Wrecker45 said:

Are you going to answer my question?

No

  On 02/02/2015 at 09:57, Earl Hood said:

I think That your plateau has an upward tilt on it. Wrecker. Make sure you put the handbrake on, or you might roll off your own hiatus. Seriously you are asking us to take a huge risk that your mini ice age theory explains all and that we are heading for Maurice Newman's Global Cooling dilemma where we may need to burn massive amounts of coal just to survive. If you are wrong we are stuffed. If we heed the IPCC and 97% of scientific opinion and evidence and do something, the only losers will be fossil fuel investors. Why take the chance?

I have been on record as saying that I accept the overwhelming amount of scientific opinion on the problem of climate change.

I have less faith that globally Governments are doing enough to tackle the problem ( greenwashing).

Earl - you have nailed my personal philosophy on this problem - even if you are not certain of the science, if you are not sure of the outcome - do you want chance the worst case scenario's eventuating.

I weigh up the question - what is worse - globally, doing absolutely nothing ( or paying lip service) and the worst case scenario eventuating as opposed to Governments taking serious action against a problem that the worst case predictions may not eventuate ?

(I know DC - the biggest problem is that enough Governments aren't and won't take serious action)

  On 02/02/2015 at 22:42, nutbean said:

I have been on record as saying that I accept the overwhelming amount of scientific opinion on the problem of climate change.

I have less faith that globally Governments are doing enough to tackle the problem ( greenwashing).

Earl - you have nailed my personal philosophy on this problem - even if you are not certain of the science, if you are not sure of the outcome - do you want chance the worst case scenario's eventuating.

I weigh up the question - what is worse - globally, doing absolutely nothing ( or paying lip service) and the worst case scenario eventuating as opposed to Governments taking serious action against a problem that the worst case predictions may not eventuate ?

(I know DC - the biggest problem is that enough Governments aren't and won't take serious action)

There have been two reports today... one that 2014 was a new high for average global temperature and that it is now 14 of the 15 years in the 21st century have been the warmest since records have been kept. The other report related to the melting glaciers and the impact on Iceland and volcanic activity which in 2010 cost the global economy $5 billion. Is it really worth the risk to sit back and do nothing all for the sake of a few dollars out of the hip pocket?

  On 02/02/2015 at 22:42, nutbean said:

I have been on record as saying that I accept the overwhelming amount of scientific opinion on the problem of climate change.

I have less faith that globally Governments are doing enough to tackle the problem ( greenwashing).

Earl - you have nailed my personal philosophy on this problem - even if you are not certain of the science, if you are not sure of the outcome - do you want chance the worst case scenario's eventuating.

I weigh up the question - what is worse - globally, doing absolutely nothing ( or paying lip service) and the worst case scenario eventuating as opposed to Governments taking serious action against a problem that the worst case predictions may not eventuate ?

(I know DC - the biggest problem is that enough Governments aren't and won't take serious action)

of course governments should do what they can do within obvious limits to clean up their act

whether you believe in anthropomorphic global warning or not (or are fence sitting) there is still a need to minimise pollution, destruction of the environment, depletion of finite resources and better sustainability.

i still shake my head why unprecedented global population growth is not near the top of the agenda. too many taboos maybe.

governments globally co-operating for the common good? good luck with that one

  On 02/02/2015 at 23:24, hardtack said:

There have been two reports today... one that 2014 was a new high for average global temperature and that it is now 14 of the 15 years in the 21st century have been the warmest since records have been kept. The other report related to the melting glaciers and the impact on Iceland and volcanic activity which in 2010 cost the global economy $5 billion. Is it really worth the risk to sit back and do nothing all for the sake of a few dollars out of the hip pocket?

if only it was "just a few dollars out of the hip pocket"

  On 02/02/2015 at 23:33, daisycutter said:

governments globally co-operating for the common good? good luck with that one

Therein lies the biggest problem.

Trying to get concensus within a single country let alone globally...hmmmmmm

  On 02/02/2015 at 23:33, daisycutter said:

of course governments should do what they can do within obvious limits to clean up their act

whether you believe in anthropomorphic global warning or not (or are fence sitting) there is still a need to minimise pollution, destruction of the environment, depletion of finite resources and better sustainability.

i still shake my head why unprecedented global population growth is not near the top of the agenda. too many taboos maybe.

governments globally co-operating for the common good? good luck with that one

Agreed, DC. People like to use Chinese emission levels as an excuse for doing nothing, but at least the Chinese put the brakes on population growth with the one child policy. Gawd knows what their CO2 levels would be like now without that.

  On 02/02/2015 at 23:36, daisycutter said:

if only it was "just a few dollars out of the hip pocket"

Well, individually I think it is... if I buy a cup of coffee and a newspaper each working day at $5.50 a pop, that's $27.50 per week or over a $1,000 per year.

So, I'm happy to forgo a coffee every second day, read the news online, have a couple less beers every week. Give up smoking (if you are a smoker) and that saving goes up massively with the added benefit that your health improves and the cost to the public health system is greatly reduced.

I doubt very much that carbon taxes and their impact on other goods and services came to that much at an individual level (well, certainly not that I noticed in my budgeting).

  On 03/02/2015 at 01:02, hardtack said:

Well, individually I think it is... if I buy a cup of coffee and a newspaper each working day at $5.50 a pop, that's $27.50 per week or over a $1,000 per year.

So, I'm happy to forgo a coffee every second day, read the news online, have a couple less beers every week. Give up smoking (if you are a smoker) and that saving goes up massively with the added benefit that your health improves and the cost to the public health system is greatly reduced.

I doubt very much that carbon taxes and their impact on other goods and services came to that much at an individual level (well, certainly not that I noticed in my budgeting).

and how much will that amount of money reduce the 2000 CO2 levels?

face it hardtack, you are just guessing. your "few dollars" comment was ill-conceived at best

  On 03/02/2015 at 01:42, daisycutter said:

and how much will that amount of money reduce the 2000 CO2 levels?

face it hardtack, you are just guessing. your "few dollars" comment was ill-conceived at best

Of course I'm guessing DC (we are all guessing)... my guess is based on my personal budgeting over the past few years (as I clearly stated in my comment).

I give $50 a month for a kid in Mongolia via World Vision... now I know that that $50 will not keep that child and her community going, but collectively all of the contributions from all over the planet quite possibly will.

My view on these kinds of things is that if you do nothing, you can be sure that nothing will happen and nothing will change. However, if you do something, then there is a chance (even if it is slight) that something will happen and things will change. I know which I would rather be doing.

  On 02/02/2015 at 23:24, hardtack said:

There have been two reports today... one that 2014 was a new high for average global temperature and that it is now 14 of the 15 years in the 21st century have been the warmest since records have been kept. The other report related to the melting glaciers and the impact on Iceland and volcanic activity which in 2010 cost the global economy $5 billion. Is it really worth the risk to sit back and do nothing all for the sake of a few dollars out of the hip pocket?

The average global temperature is supposed to be two hundreths of a degree warmer in 2014 than 2010. The margin of error is supposed to be .1c.

This is not statistically significant and in no way disproves the hiatus.

  On 03/02/2015 at 02:44, hardtack said:

Of course I'm guessing DC (we are all guessing)... my guess is based on my personal budgeting over the past few years (as I clearly stated in my comment).

I give $50 a month for a kid in Mongolia via World Vision... now I know that that $50 will not keep that child and her community going, but collectively all of the contributions from all over the planet quite possibly will.

My view on these kinds of things is that if you do nothing, you can be sure that nothing will happen and nothing will change. However, if you do something, then there is a chance (even if it is slight) that something will happen and things will change. I know which I would rather be doing.

all very nice sentiments hardtack and i don't disagree with the sentiment

what i object to is any suggestion that effective carbon reduction would not be hugely expensive

a "few dollars" of course may be a start but is not in any way a representation of the cost

(yes, i know the argument of doing nothing could be more expensive in the long term)

  On 02/02/2015 at 02:36, Wrecker45 said:

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

'global' is right the rest is in your head wrecker

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/feb/02/blizzard-alert-how-do-us-cities-compare-in-dealing-with-major-snowstorms

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/02/winter-storm-chicago-new-england-boston

http://www.wired.com/2015/01/expensive-winter-storms-us-history/

The world is rapidly moving towards carbon pricing. China is establishing a national market for carbon permit trading in 2016 and has already launched seven regional pilot markets. The US is moving in the same direction. Much of Europe already has. We were well established for their introduction. Now we must start over because one idealistic plonk placed greater emphasis on his leadership ambitions than what was right for the environment and the country.

The argument that we should do nothing because the big polluters are doing nothing has been made redundant. Further, the argument that we should do nothing because of our contribution to global emissions pays no attention to it being a global effort required to address a global issue, where the laggards will be rightly treated with distrust. As the largest emitter per capita in the world, we can't sit on the sidelines and expect no ramifications.

Anyone who still clings to theories of plateaus and hiatuses in all their unscientific wisdom is welcome to sit alongside the likes of Andrew Bolt. I think most sane minded people will see 97% agreement as enough of a majority opinion to warrant action.

  On 03/02/2015 at 02:56, Wrecker45 said:

The average global temperature is supposed to be two hundreths of a degree warmer in 2014 than 2010. The margin of error is supposed to be .1c.

This is not statistically significant and in no way disproves the hiatus.

As some 90% of the global heat rise is trapped in the oceans , the ocean heat level reflects global warming more accurately than land and atmosphere warming. the ocean has absorbed —about 20 times as much heat as the atmosphere over the past half-century. Lets no teven talk about acidification.

Pretty normal stuff

  On 03/02/2015 at 03:16, P-man said:

Anyone who still clings to theories of plateaus and hiatuses in all their unscientific wisdom is welcome to sit alongside the likes of Andrew Bolt. I think most sane minded people will see 97% agreement as enough of a majority opinion to warrant action.

P-man do you deny the hiatus? Do you argue there is statistically significant warming since 1998?

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/geoengineering-definition-of-terms/

what are they doing up there????

  On 03/02/2015 at 03:23, nutbean said:

As some 90% of the global heat rise is trapped in the oceans , the ocean heat level reflects global warming more accurately than land and atmosphere warming. the ocean has absorbed —about 20 times as much heat as the atmosphere over the past half-century. Lets no teven talk about acidification.

Pretty normal stuff

Nutbean can you point me to the science that said the ocean heat level reflects global warming more accurately than the land and atmosphere from before the land and atmosphere went into hiatus ie. before 1998

Or is it, as I suspect, another after the fact convenience?

  On 02/02/2015 at 11:26, Wrecker45 said:

I am not sure how many times I can explain that we have not warmed (statistically speaking) since 1998. But those years between 1998 and now are still our warmest. Read the example on my cousins height. It shouldn't be a difficult concept.

I'll give you another example. Shares in BHP have been going up since 1850. At 1998 they hit a record price. The Share price hasn't risen since, Iits been in hiatus, but the CEO wants a bonus based on the share price being higher than it ever has been for 9 of the last 10 years. Mind you the analysts had been predicting greater than inflation growth over that period.

The reason I keep referencing the IPCC, the self appointed peak body in climate change, is to point out the ridiculousness.

Are you going to answer my question?

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/another-day-in-perth-another-spectacular-thunderstorm/story-fnhocxo3-1227206016118