On 21/07/2017 at 8:30 PM, daisycutter said:

 . now i'm not saying it's relevant, wrecker, but there is such a thing as thermal layers in the ocean. didn't you watch red october? and i'm pretty sure thermal layers wouldn't be found in a dinky bathtub

of course the mere existence of oceanic thermal layers doesn't give any proof to "missing heat" playing hide-and-seek in the ocean.

I haven't watched it so don't know if you are taking the [censored] or agreeing with me.

I've got a wife and a young pre-schooled old girl. 4 is her favourite number because of Jack Watts. No way I could tell her we are watching red October on our shared tv. footy is easy I just say Collingwood will cry if the demons win and she sits on my knee waiting to sing the Melbourne song and watch Collingwood cry.

We talk about culture at the footy club . It it runs deeper than that. It is organsisational culture, that us members, are an important part of, that need to collabirately rise as one.

the reason I laugh at people who try and claim the missing heat is hiding in the deap ocean is because it is the only place on the planet where heat can't be measured and therefore it can't be proven wrong.

It's like me saying we have discovered mermaids in the deap ocean, there are heaps of imaginary hypothesis on mermaids but not one has been spotted. Must be hiding in the deap ocean where we can't sea (intentional) them.

it used to be the upper troposphere where the heat was "hiding" but technology has improved since those dud predictions and we can accurately measure the heat there now. Amazingly to some, who had staked their career and credibility on it there was  no "hot spot"

On 3 August 2017 at 9:08 PM, daisycutter said:

well we got dog whistled the last two summers so i expect the same this year

I don't know what you mean - dog whistled?

prior to  the last 2 summers we were warned by the 'experts'   to prepare ourselves for a torrid hot summer and record breaking bushfires

didn't happen.   expect we will get the same scare tactics this year

16 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

I haven't watched it so don't know if you are taking the [censored] or agreeing with me.

 

1. the bathtub analogy was dumb

2.there are thermal layers (in places) below cold layers in the ocean. measured fact.

3. i agreed there is no evidence of heat hiding in the ocean

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

prior to  the last 2 summers we were warned by the 'experts'   to prepare ourselves for a torrid hot summer and record breaking bushfires

didn't happen.   expect we will get the same scare tactics this year

Two points. One, that's not dog-whistling.

 

And two, I don't know where you live, but for your sake I hope it's nowhere near the bush. How dare you put quotation marks around the word 'experts'? I know some of those guys - they have an incredibly difficult job which they do using the best available scientific knowledge. They have a huge burden - some of the ones I know lost friends and colleagues on Black Saturday and are acutely aware of the importance of their advice. One fact which adds to their burden is the incredible ignorance of the general public (which you exemplify) - I've seen this so often (e.g. a couple of years ago we were racing to get to the fires at Epping and literally couldn't get there because of all the morons blocking up the roads)

And you are whistling through your sphincter when you say they have predicted "record-breaking bush fires". As far as I'm aware, they haven't done this since Black Saturday, and they were right then (in fact we have had at least one record-breaking fire since then - the Lancefield fire, which broke records for being so early in the season- it was at the beginning of October, if I remember correctly)

 

They're not using "scare tactics" - they're trying to save lives. When we get 40 degree hot windy day, fires can break out anywhere in the bush - it's only the vigilance of the CFA which suppresses most of them before they get away and stops them from killing people.

2 hours ago, Jara said:

Two points. One, that's not dog-whistling.

 

And two, I don't know where you live, but for your sake I hope it's nowhere near the bush. How dare you put quotation marks around the word 'experts'? I know some of those guys - they have an incredibly difficult job which they do using the best available scientific knowledge. They have a huge burden - some of the ones I know lost friends and colleagues on Black Saturday and are acutely aware of the importance of their advice. One fact which adds to their burden is the incredible ignorance of the general public (which you exemplify) - I've seen this so often (e.g. a couple of years ago we were racing to get to the fires at Epping and literally couldn't get there because of all the morons blocking up the roads)

And you are whistling through your sphincter when you say they have predicted "record-breaking bush fires". As far as I'm aware, they haven't done this since Black Saturday, and they were right then (in fact we have had at least one record-breaking fire since then - the Lancefield fire, which broke records for being so early in the season- it was at the beginning of October, if I remember correctly)

 

They're not using "scare tactics" - they're trying to save lives. When we get 40 degree hot windy day, fires can break out anywhere in the bush - it's only the vigilance of the CFA which suppresses most of them before they get away and stops them from killing people.

the last 2 years they predicted (before summer) temperatures and fire risks way in excess of what actually happened. they also attributed it to climate change. it was classic scare tactics and demonstrated their inability to accurately forecast

everyone knows that every victorian summer has potential for sudden bush fires and requires vigilance and swift action. that's just common sense, but the last 2 years they got carried away with dire predictions

and no need for the ad hominems or i'll just ignore you in future

On 3 August 2017 at 5:33 PM, Wrecker45 said:

How many factual articles do we need to post about the data being fiddled to come up with these records? I haven't had to poor cold buckets on my car to melt the ice off the windscreen for decaseds and I've been doing it all July. Must just be the area I'm in that is colder than average.

As for the rain. I thought excessive rain was a sign of global warming? You can't have it both ways. What pattern of rain fall would make you see the that climate change is a hoax? Heavy rain, drought, normal (you would have have to define the decade because it changes every decade).

And thanks for posting a nice fluff piece from The Age who wont disclose their interest in Earth Hour and have an agenda on the topic.

 

Wrecker are you for real? You spend your time questioning climate change predictions as rubbish but when I post an article citing observed data that has been recorded and experienced and is citing warmer and dryer outcomes, you accuse the BoM of fiddling data and cite you experiences of iced windscreens, for heaven's sake! Climate change studies going back to the late 1990's for Victoria by the CSIRO have only ever predicted warmer temperatures, and less rainfall, not more! So what the hell are you talking about? 

Have you produced an academic paper on your icy windscreens theory for scientific peer review? If you haven't I suggest you go back to the Institute of Public  affairs and ask for further advice. 

57 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

the last 2 years they predicted (before summer) temperatures and fire risks way in excess of what actually happened. they also attributed it to climate change. it was classic scare tactics and demonstrated their inability to accurately forecast

everyone knows that every victorian summer has potential for sudden bush fires and requires vigilance and swift action. that's just common sense, but the last 2 years they got carried away with dire predictions

and no need for the ad hominems or i'll just ignore you in future

DC the last 2 summers we have been saved by unusual summer humidity drifting south from the tropics as Sydney experiences but we usually don't. I work with people who manage our water supply catchments and I can assure you they were concerned in the past 2 seasons when we had not received our Spring rains to wet the catchments and were expecting the worst in January or February. 

9 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

DC the last 2 summers we have been saved by unusual summer humidity drifting south from the tropics as Sydney experiences but we usually don't. I work with people who manage our water supply catchments and I can assure you they were concerned in the past 2 seasons when we had not received our Spring rains to wet the catchments and were expecting the worst in January or February. 

so what earl? they still got it wrong, and their first option was to take the pessimist approach as it fit their agenda

12 hours ago, daisycutter said:

the last 2 years they predicted (before summer) temperatures and fire risks way in excess of what actually happened. they also attributed it to climate change. it was classic scare tactics and demonstrated their inability to accurately forecast

everyone knows that every victorian summer has potential for sudden bush fires and requires vigilance and swift action. that's just common sense, but the last 2 years they got carried away with dire predictions

and no need for the ad hominems or i'll just ignore you in future

you're ignoring me, so i suppose you'll never get to read this, but what do you think? they put out warnings for fun? - they know that lives are depending upon their predictions - they follow strict procedures worked out by the best fire scientists in the world - (not hyperbole - in Victoria, we really are world leaders)

 

 I've observed, for the past few years, that the warnings they put out are mainly concerned about grass fires - it takes years of drought to build up to catastrophic conditions such as those we experienced leading up to Black Saturday - but the risk is still there - remember the Lara fires? From memory, eleven people killed by grass fires - and by ignorance - just because you don't get a catastrophe doesn't mean you weren't at risk of one, or that your local fireys didn't save you or your loved ones from becoming victims - (although on closer reading i see you live in Burwood, so maybe it's of little concern to you)

 

I notice in your reply to Earl you called the fire authorities and scientists pessimists. Jeez...  words just about fail me.   In fact - they do - I gotta get back into the big red truck.  

5 hours ago, Jara said:

you're ignoring me, so i suppose you'll never get to read this, but what do you think? they put out warnings for fun? - they know that lives are depending upon their predictions - they follow strict procedures worked out by the best fire scientists in the world - (not hyperbole - in Victoria, we really are world leaders)

 

 I've observed, for the past few years, that the warnings they put out are mainly concerned about grass fires - it takes years of drought to build up to catastrophic conditions such as those we experienced leading up to Black Saturday - but the risk is still there - remember the Lara fires? From memory, eleven people killed by grass fires - and by ignorance - just because you don't get a catastrophe doesn't mean you weren't at risk of one, or that your local fireys didn't save you or your loved ones from becoming victims - (although on closer reading i see you live in Burwood, so maybe it's of little concern to you)

 

I notice in your reply to Earl you called the fire authorities and scientists pessimists. Jeez...  words just about fail me.   In fact - they do - I gotta get back into the big red truck.  

you're obviously talking about something different than what i was

i didn't ask for a lecture on the dangers of bushfires, i thought that rather obvious

23 hours ago, daisycutter said:

the last 2 years they predicted (before summer) temperatures and fire risks way in excess of what actually happened. they also attributed it to climate change. it was classic scare tactics and demonstrated their inability to accurately forecast

everyone knows that every victorian summer has potential for sudden bush fires and requires vigilance and swift action. that's just common sense, but the last 2 years they got carried away with dire predictions

and no need for the ad hominems or i'll just ignore you in future

One thing I don't understand about your post. Your opening remarks in which you say they predicted temperatures higher than  what we got. Is that true? I don't recall it.  Can you show me where they said it? I know we've had relatively mild summers for the past couple of years

.

Also your comment about risks in excess of what actually happened sounds skewiff to me. A risk is a risk. They work them out according to strict scientific formulae. Just because there wasn't a disastrous fire doesn't mean they were wrong. That could be because of luck, or swift action by the CFA in suppressing them before they get away. I've seen instances of both in the past couple of years. 

On 05/08/2017 at 11:08 PM, Earl Hood said:

Wrecker are you for real? You spend your time questioning climate change predictions as rubbish but when I post an article citing observed data that has been recorded and experienced and is citing warmer and dryer outcomes, you accuse the BoM of fiddling data and cite you experiences of iced windscreens, for heaven's sake! Climate change studies going back to the late 1990's for Victoria by the CSIRO have only ever predicted warmer temperatures, and less rainfall, not more! So what the hell are you talking about? 

Have you produced an academic paper on your icy windscreens theory for scientific peer review? If you haven't I suggest you go back to the Institute of Public  affairs and ask for further advice. 

It's pretty simple if you are going to cut and paste from the spencer street socialist, at the very least choose an article that is half realistic, 

so given you are claiming that the science consensus has always preficttef for less rain I will count on you to laugh at everyone who calls the next heavy rain climate change.

As for the CSRIO in the 90's they they predicted we would have bbo snow by 2020

 

Apparently July was 2.63' 

8 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

It's pretty simple if you are going to cut and paste from the spencer street socialist, at the very least choose an article that is half realistic, 

so given you are claiming that the science consensus has always preficttef for less rain I will count on you to laugh at everyone who calls the next heavy rain climate change.

As for the CSRIO in the 90's they they predicted we would have bbo snow by 2020

 

Apparently July was 2.63' 

Wasn't there a Railway Station in Spencer Street once?

By the way, if they weigh a whale at a Whaleweigh Staion, where do they weigh a Pie?

On 8/7/2017 at 10:46 AM, dieter said:

Wasn't there a Railway Station in Spencer Street once?

By the way, if they weigh a whale at a Whaleweigh Staion, where do they weigh a Pie?

I'm taking that as some kind of riddle we are getting Lever.

58 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

I'm taking that as some kind of riddle we are getting Lever.

What... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

makes interesting reading

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html

 

 

3 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

I'm taking that as some kind of riddle we are getting Lever.

No, Climate Change denier, silly sausage: the answer is:

'Somewhere over the rainbow, weigh a Pie.'

Shirley Temple...

2 hours ago, nutbean said:

makes interesting reading

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html

 

 

Doubtless fake news.

6 hours ago, nutbean said:

makes interesting reading

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html

 

 

Thanks Nut was about to post the same article. Just more climate conclusions from the observed data from 13 different US agencies, no less. But of course they are all part of the conspiracy. Why they would be doing that is a mystery of course to all except the C deniers who can't see why corporations with multi billion dollar vested interests in fossil fuels might be causing confusion and doubt via any number of so called and falsely labelled "Think Tanks". Such as the Heartland Institute funded by the Koch Brothers who shall we say are a menace to modern civilisation, along with Rupert Murdoch. In a rational world they would be dealt with forthwith. If not violently, perhaps we could send Rupert off to Manus Island and the Koch boys to Guantanimo Bay. The world would be a better place for this I assure you. 

19 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

Thanks Nut was about to post the same article. Just more climate conclusions from the observed data from 13 different US agencies, no less. But of course they are all part of the conspiracy. Why they would be doing that is a mystery of course to all except the C deniers who can't see why corporations with multi billion dollar vested interests in fossil fuels might be causing confusion and doubt via any number of so called and falsely labelled "Think Tanks". Such as the Heartland Institute funded by the Koch Brothers who shall we say are a menace to modern civilisation, along with Rupert Murdoch. In a rational world they would be dealt with forthwith. If not violently, perhaps we could send Rupert off to Manus Island and the Koch boys to Guantanimo Bay. The world would be a better place for this I assure you. 

EH the piece is too small for me to read. Perhaps because I am not a subscriber. Are any of the 13 different agencies using the un-adjusted satalite data?

 

6 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

EH the piece is too small for me to read. Perhaps because I am not a subscriber. Are any of the 13 different agencies using the un-adjusted satalite data?

 

Here's the direct link to the .PDF https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3920195/Final-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.pdf

12 minutes ago, Rafiki said:

Here's the direct link to the .PDF https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3920195/Final-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.pdf

Thanks mate I could read that one. It's 673 pages long and I don't have the time or energy to disect the lot. Which chapter do you think is the strongest argument for man made climate change? I'll happily and easily tell you why it is misleading.

Edited August 9, 20177 yr by Wrecker45
Spelling

On 08/08/2017 at 2:34 PM, nutbean said:

makes interesting reading

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html

 

 

673 pages. Do you agree with it all like a sheep? 

Surely you have the smarts to be objective about some?

which chapter do you agree with most strongly and why?

On 08/08/2017 at 4:12 PM, dieter said:

No, Climate Change denier, silly sausage: the answer is:

'Somewhere over the rainbow, weigh a Pie.'

Shirley Temple...

"If I only had a brain" 

scare crow, Wizard of Oz.