2015 the hottest year on record

[puntkick 325]

I've long refused to spend my old aged pension on water rates to water my garden.

I've now realised my garden is dead.

I've long refused to spend my old aged pension on tip fees to get rid of my dead garden waste.

I've long refused to spend my old aged pension on overpriced electricity, is that why my overpriced grog is warm ?

Am I being too precious ?

[Earl Hood 6,063]

On 21 October 2017 at 10:51 PM, puntkick said:

I've long refused to spend my old aged pension on water rates to water my garden.

I've now realised my garden is dead.

I've long refused to spend my old aged pension on tip fees to get rid of my dead garden waste.

I've long refused to spend my old aged pension on overpriced electricity, is that why my overpriced grog is warm ?

Am I being too precious ?

Not sure Punt but tell me what do you spend your pension on? Poker machines? 

[nutbean 8,838]

On 24/09/2017 at 11:16 PM, hardtack said:

EH... that's precisely why I said "assuming that is definitely the case". The article still maintains that climate change is a real thing and is happening, so we should be working towards reducing/eliminating its impact regardless of how much time we do or don't have.

My Dad had cancer and the doctors gave him 1 year to live. They were totally wrong  - he lasted a year and half.

[hardtack 10,424]

9 minutes ago, nutbean said:

My Dad had cancer and the doctors gave him 1 year to live. They were totally wrong  - he lasted a year and half.

Yes, they're constantly getting those projections wrong (pretty much that same with both of my parents).... so what's the point in taking any preventative measures?

[Wrecker45 3,378]

21 hours ago, hardtack said:

Yes, they're constantly getting those projections wrong (pretty much that same with both of my parents).... so what's the point in taking any preventative measures?

I take precaution when crossing the road.

I don't subject myself to chemo in case I have cancer.

There is reasonable cation and there is non-helpful or just plain ridiculous.

[hardtack 10,424]

3 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

I take precaution when crossing the road.

I don't subject myself to chemo in case I have cancer.

There is reasonable cation and there is non-helpful or just plain ridiculous.

 

There are other means of prevention such as quitting smoking, reducing alchohol intake, avoiding/removing asbestos etc etc... scientists will tell you that these are all ways to prevent cancers, yet their projections on life expectancy (or even the actual contracting of cancer) are very often wrong.

In other words, even if the climate change modeling and the resultant projections are wrong, that is not a good reason not to take preventative measures. In both cases, lives are at stake - prevention IS better than cure.

Edited October 25, 2017 by hardtack

[Wrecker45 3,378]

29 minutes ago, hardtack said:

 

There are other means of prevention such as quitting smoking, reducing alchohol intake, avoiding/removing asbestos etc etc... scientists will tell you that these are all ways to prevent cancers, yet their projections on life expectancy (or even the actual contracting of cancer) are very often wrong.

In other words, even if the climate change modeling and the resultant projections are wrong, that is not a good reason not to take preventative measures. In both cases, lives are at stake - prevention IS better than cure.

hardtack - do I have more chance of being hit by a car or dying from climate change?

lets get a starting point and then agree how ridiculous your argument is.

 

 

[hardtack 10,424]

7 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

hardtack - do I have more chance of being hit by a car or dying from climate change?

lets get a starting point and then agree how ridiculous your argument is.

No surprises there; this is exactly what I expected from you Wrecker... you are only concerned with the here and now and have absolutely no interest in what we are leaving for the future generations.  As I have said previously (on a number of occasions), for you it is all about the hip pocket... nothing more, nothing less. 

The only thing that does surprise me where you are concerned, and that is your arrogance... you have shown absolutely nothing to indicate that it is in any way warranted.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

27 minutes ago, hardtack said:

No surprises there; this is exactly what I expected from you Wrecker... you are only concerned with the here and now and have absolutely no interest in what we are leaving for the future generations.  As I have said previously (on a number of occasions), for you it is all about the hip pocket... nothing more, nothing less. 

The only thing that does surprise me where you are concerned, and that is your arrogance... you have shown absolutely nothing to indicate that it is in any way warranted.

Common sense is to be expected from me.

why would we / I take precaution from something that clearly isn't happening as predicted by the the doctor?

Do you take medicine prescribed for symptoms you don't have?

[hardtack 10,424]

1 minute ago, Wrecker45 said:

Common sense is to be expected from me.

why would we / I take precaution from something that clearly isn't happening as predicted by the the doctor?

Do you take medicine prescribed for symptoms you don't have?

You're comparing apples and pears.  Most (apart from you it would seem) agree that climate change IS happening, just not at the predicted rate.  You are right, "common sense is to be expected from you"... unfortunately, to this point in time, you are not living up to expectations.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

6 minutes ago, hardtack said:

You're comparing apples and pears.  Most (apart from you it would seem) agree that climate change IS happening, just not at the predicted rate.  You are right, "common sense is to be expected from you"... unfortunately, to this point in time, you are not living up to expectations.

Please enlighten me.

Show me the IPCC predictions that have eventuated.

If you can't do that ( back up the alleged science with real world examples)

Just humour me with something.

[hardtack 10,424]

4 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

Please enlighten me.

Show me the IPCC predictions that have eventuated.

If you can't do that ( back up the alleged science with real world examples)

Just humour me with something.

Unlike you Wrecker, I do not pretend to be the font of all wisdom with regards to such matters. 

I do however understand that one of the predictions was that there would be more extreme weather conditions, something that I would say is happening in the here and now. 

A stat I noticed recently was that apparently the first 6 months of this year are showing this year is likely to be the second hottest on record behind only last year, and 0.94C above the global average for 1950 to 1980.

Then there is this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-window-is-closing-to-avoid-dangerous-global-warming/

But no doubt you will claim that these scientists have a vested interest in promoting the case for global warming, because they are at odds with your own belief.

Oh, and your arrogance seems to know no bounds... "just humour me..."?

[Wrecker45 3,378]

54 minutes ago, hardtack said:

Unlike you Wrecker, I do not pretend to be the font of all wisdom with regards to such matters. 

I do however understand that one of the predictions was that there would be more extreme weather conditions, something that I would say is happening in the here and now. 

A stat I noticed recently was that apparently the first 6 months of this year are showing this year is likely to be the second hottest on record behind only last year, and 0.94C above the global average for 1950 to 1980.

Then there is this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-window-is-closing-to-avoid-dangerous-global-warming/

But no doubt you will claim that these scientists have a vested interest in promoting the case for global warming, because they are at odds with your own belief.

Oh, and your arrogance seems to know no bounds... "just humour me..."?

Did you just link to an article saying what "could" happen?

That is embarrassing.

[hardtack 10,424]

17 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

Did you just link to an article saying what "could" happen?

That is embarrassing.

Everything is based on "what could happen"... the scientific research describes why it could happen.

If you smoke you are not necessarily going to get cancer... it could happen, based on scientific research.  So, in the interests of self preservation, most will quit smoking because of the causal link between cigarettes and cancer.  Likewise, it makes perfect sense to act on climate change based on scientific research.

I suppose NASA has no credibility either in your world...
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Edited October 25, 2017 by hardtack

[Wrecker45 3,378]

31 minutes ago, hardtack said:

Everything is based on "what could happen"... the scientific research describes why it could happen.

If you smoke you are not necessarily going to get cancer... it could happen, based on scientific research.  So, in the interests of self preservation, most will quit smoking because of the causal link between cigarettes and cancer.  Likewise, it makes perfect sense to act on climate change based on scientific research.

I suppose NASA has no credibility either in your world...
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

We have been hearing what "could" happen since the industrial revolution. We are at a point now where the predictions haven't materialised.

It is no good saying forget every dud prediction we have ever made,now this could happen. The race has been run and the predictions have been found out.

[Jara 1,153]

On 25 October 2017 at 2:35 PM, Wrecker45 said:

hardtack - do I have more chance of being hit by a car or dying from climate change?

lets get a starting point and then agree how ridiculous your argument is.

 

 

Wrecker - I've known quite a few people who died from what may well be climate change.

 

Black Saturday. Worst fire in recorded Australian history, coming at the end of the worst drought in recorded history. Fire broke various records (for example, spotting at a distance of 35 ks - a record, according to the fire scientist Kevin Tolhurst)

 

Difficult to prove, of course - could just be a big coincidence. Been a lot of coincidences lately - lot of bad fires, extreme weather events. Scientists being what they are (i.e. professionals), they always leave open the possibility of being proven wrong - a space into which the dim-witted denialists leap. Anyway, not to worry - you've always got Malcolm Roberts on your side.  

[Wrecker45 3,378]

10 minutes ago, Jara said:

Wrecker - I've known quite a few people who died from what may well be climate change.

 

Black Saturday. Worst fire in recorded Australian history, coming at the end of the worst drought in recorded history. Fire broke various records (for example, spotting at a distance of 35 ks - a record, according to the fire scientist Kevin Tolhurst)

 

Difficult to prove, of course - could just be a big coincidence. Been a lot of coincidences lately - lot of bad fires, extreme weather events. Scientists being what they are (i.e. professionals), they always leave open the possibility of being proven wrong - a space into which the dim-witted denialists leap. Anyway, not to worry - you've always got Malcolm Roberts on your side.  

Jara whilst I wish my condolences to your friends, linking fires caused by fallen power lines, to global warming is a stretch.

[hardtack 10,424]

1 hour ago, Wrecker45 said:

Jara whilst I wish my condolences to your friends, linking fires caused by fallen power lines, to global warming is a stretch.

Of course would have nothing to do with the conditions that made the fires less controllable... it's all down to the power lines.  

[Gator 17,261]

23 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Did you just link to an article saying what "could" happen?

That is embarrassing.

I see you're still fighting the good fight, Wrecker, as futile as it is.

I have no doubt that Leftist climate zealots are immutable in their views and that even if anthropogenic climate change was unequivocally proven to be false they still wouldn't change their minds.  There's no point engaging them.  I post for some of the silent readers, who just may have an open mind.

444 million years ago CO2 was over 4,000 ppmv (compared to today's 403 ppmv Sep. 2017) yet there was glaciation, as opposed to a runaway greenhouse effect.  This is a clear counter to the argument that CO2 is the driving force of climate change.  But still it won't make a difference to those addicted to climate porn.  About 1% of earth's atmosphere is gases, including obviously CO2.  CO2 is about .04% of the earth's atmosphere.

What is continually overlooked is that mankind contributes 3% of atmospheric CO2 compared to the 97% which occurs naturally.  Australia contributes about 1.5% of that 3%, or in other words .045% of atmospheric carbon.  Australia's contribution to atmospheric carbon is negligible, almost nothing.  For this privilege we spend billions of dollars in order to lower the planet's temperatures when we a) have no impact on the planet's temperature and b) can't change it anyway.  Genius.

Future generations will look back at the futility of these wasteful exercises wondering why their forebears were so inept.  They'll write books that will be analysed in classrooms.

In the 1970's climate scientists were worried about global cooling.  Then it was global warming.  But the planet stopped warming, so now it's climate change.  It has always changed and always will change. 

Our crops weren't going to grow, but now we're having record harvests.  The planet has been greening for 30 years.  In fact, there are plenty of arguments to suggest that some warming is beneficial and certainly better than cooling.  There's no evidence to suggest the planet is warming "dangerously".

There are supposed to be more hurricanes.  They're the lowest they've been in a decade and until recently one hadn't landed on the US mainland since 2005.  It was the longest streak since 1851 when they started keeping records of hurricanes in the US.

Climate change is more about globalisation and re-engineering the world's economy than it is about solving any dire threat. 

 

Of course, none of the above will stop the climate zealots.  I know that.  But in time the noise will become less and less.

Btw, Wrecker, I have a few of the dopey zealots here on ignore, so you'll understand why I don't engage.  You know the ones, where up is down and down is up.

 

 

[Gator 17,261]

Btw, what happened to the good doctor ?

Left ?

[hardtack 10,424]

17 hours ago, ProDee said:

I see you're still fighting the good fight, Wrecker, as futile as it is.

I have no doubt that Leftist climate zealots are immutable in their views and that even if anthropogenic climate change was unequivocally proven to be false they still wouldn't change their minds.  There's no point engaging them.  I post for some of the silent readers, who just may have an open mind.

444 million years ago CO2 was over 4,000 ppmv (compared to today's 403 ppmv Sep. 2017) yet there was glaciation, as opposed to a runaway greenhouse effect.  This is a clear counter to the argument that CO2 is the driving force of climate change.  But still it won't make a difference to those addicted to climate porn.  About 1% of earth's atmosphere is gases, including obviously CO2.  CO2 is about .04% of the earth's atmosphere.

What is continually overlooked is that mankind contributes 3% of atmospheric CO2 compared to the 97% which occurs naturally.  Australia contributes about 1.5% of that 3%, or in other words .045% of atmospheric carbon.  Australia's contribution to atmospheric carbon is negligible, almost nothing.  For this privilege we spend billions of dollars in order to lower the planet's temperatures when we a) have no impact on the planet's temperature and b) can't change it anyway.  Genius.

Future generations will look back at the futility of these wasteful exercises wondering why their forebears were so inept.  They'll write books that will be analysed in classrooms.

In the 1970's climate scientists were worried about global cooling.  Then it was global warming.  But the planet stopped warming, so now it's climate change.  It has always changed and always will change. 

Our crops weren't going to grow, but now we're having record harvests.  The planet has been greening for 30 years.  In fact, there are plenty of arguments to suggest that some warming is beneficial and certainly better than cooling.  There's no evidence to suggest the planet is warming "dangerously".

There are supposed to be more hurricanes.  They're the lowest they've been in a decade and until recently one hadn't landed on the US mainland since 2005.  It was the longest streak since 1851 when they started keeping records of hurricanes in the US.

Climate change is more about globalisation and re-engineering the world's economy than it is about solving any dire threat. 

 

Of course, none of the above will stop the climate zealots.  I know that.  But in time the noise will become less and less.

Btw, Wrecker, I have a few of the dopey zealots here on ignore, so you'll understand why I don't engage.  You know the ones, where up is down and down is up.

 

 

That is not what was claimed at all... it was claimed that there may in fact be less hurricanes, typhoons or whatever you want to call them, but that they will be of far greater intensity... and that, the intensity, is something that has been borne out in recent years.

And here is another interesting item in today's press with regards to the problem with coal...
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/coal-use-must-pretty-much-be-gone-by-2050-to-curb-sealevel-rise-researchers-say-20171024-gz7mu1.html

No doubt the right wing denialists will dismiss/decry this as some kind of a conspiracy to bring down the fossil fuel industry (not that I believe the argument can be tied to either side of the political spectrum... just applying to ProDee's broad brush method to show how silly that approach can be).

Edited October 27, 2017 by hardtack

[Gator 17,261]

1 hour ago, hardtack said:

That is not what was claimed at all... it was claimed that there may in fact be less hurricanes, typhoons or whatever you want to call them, but that they will be of far greater intensity... and that, the intensity, is something that has been borne out in recent years.

And here is another interesting item in today's press with regards to the problem with coal...
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/coal-use-must-pretty-much-be-gone-by-2050-to-curb-sealevel-rise-researchers-say-20171024-gz7mu1.html

No doubt the right wing denialists will dismiss/decry this as some kind of a conspiracy to bring down the fossil fuel industry (not that I believe the argument can be tied to either side of the political spectrum... just applying to ProDee's broad brush method to show how silly that approach can be).

Did you read that article with a straight face ?

[Gator 17,261]

2 hours ago, hardtack said:

That is not what was claimed at all... it was claimed that there may in fact be less hurricanes, typhoons or whatever you want to call them, but that they will be of far greater intensity... and that, the intensity, is something that has been borne out in recent years.

Btw...

Here's a link to a PDF policy report from the IPCC in 2013, which includes comments on the intensity of tropical cyclones.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf

In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extra-tropical cyclones since 1900 is low.

Comments ?

[Gator 17,261]

2 hours ago, hardtack said:

And here is another interesting item in today's press with regards to the problem with coal...
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/coal-use-must-pretty-much-be-gone-by-2050-to-curb-sealevel-rise-researchers-say-20171024-gz7mu1.html

No doubt the right wing denialists will dismiss/decry this as some kind of a conspiracy to bring down the fossil fuel industry (not that I believe the argument can be tied to either side of the political spectrum... just applying to ProDee's broad brush method to show how silly that approach can be).

This Australian team seems in conflict with a NASA report from just two years ago regarding Antarctic ice.

Oct. 31, 2015

 

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

[Gator 17,261]

Sea levels have been rising for 20,000 years.

Interestingly, rises have been less in a coal driven world.  I have a graph I'll upload later.

In the meantime...