On 27/10/2017 at 03:48, ProDee said:

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...

 

I will contact my brother at some time to get his opinion/knowledge with regards to the Antarctic ice sheets... he was after all, head of the Australian Antarctic operation until about two years ago when he retired. 

  On 27/10/2017 at 03:32, ProDee said:

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 ?

And here's a quote from the article you found so laughable, that references that very report:

"We have provided a preview of what is probably going to be said by the IPCC in the [Sixth Assessment Report]," due for release in 2021, said Alexander Nauels, lead author of the report, and a researcher at Melbourne University's Australian-German Climate & Energy Centre."

You seem to only place any credibility in the arguments that support your view.

  On 27/10/2017 at 04:09, hardtack said:

And here's a quote from the article you found so laughable, that references that very report:

"We have provided a preview of what is probably going to be said by the IPCC in the [Sixth Assessment Report]," due for release in 2021, said Alexander Nauels, lead author of the report, and a researcher at Melbourne University's Australian-German Climate & Energy Centre."

You seem to only place any credibility in the arguments that support your view.

It is laughable.

Just more dud predictions.

Why don't you comment on the NASA report on Antarctic ice sheets ?

Why don't you comment on 20,000 years of sea level rises, but much slower rises since humankind ?

Why don't you comment on the IPCC report that says confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extra-tropical cyclones since 1900 is low ?

Why don't you comment on the fact we're spending billions of dollars on climate schemes when we contribute 0.045% of atmospheric CO2, i.e. we don't heat the planet and nor can we affect the climate by any reductions in emissions ?  97% of CO2 is natural and 3% man made.  Of the man made we contribute 1.5%.

CO2 does not drive temperatures.

You're just another zealot addicted to climate porn.

  On 27/10/2017 at 04:09, hardtack said:

And here's a quote from the article you found so laughable, that references that very report:

"We have provided a preview of what is probably going to be said by the IPCC in the [Sixth Assessment Report]," due for release in 2021, said Alexander Nauels, lead author of the report, and a researcher at Melbourne University's Australian-German Climate & Energy Centre."

You seem to only place any credibility in the arguments that support your view.

HT - Are you really pushing something that will "probably" be said in 2021?

i'll probably like the look of the draftees the dees select in 2021. What will you probably do?

 

  On 27/10/2017 at 04:36, ProDee said:

You're just another zealot addicted to climate porn.

And you're just another denier whose only concern is their hip pocket.

  On 27/10/2017 at 05:34, Wrecker45 said:

HT - Are you really pushing something that will "probably" be said in 2021?

i'll probably like the look of the draftees the dees select in 2021. What will you probably do?

I'm not pushing anything... just offering up information that may or may not be relevant (I just chime in occasionally).  If I were obsessive about this, I would be posting masses and masses of charts and references to spurious research by the truckload... then I suppose I could be considered to be pushing a barrow. 

On the point you raise though, being involved directly in the science, I would say that the above referenced scientists/researchers are probably closer to the coal-front than you or I, so I would have more faith in their view of what might or might not be probable, than I would in yours... just as I have faith in our drafting committee's opinions on what is likely to be probable in 2021 based on the club's projected requirements.

Edited October 27, 20177 yr by hardtack

  On 27/10/2017 at 06:13, hardtack said:

And you're just another denier whose only concern is their hip pocket.

The word "denier" is offensive, as it's intentionally linked to the holocaust.  I'm a skeptic. 

Spending billions on a problem that doesn't exist, and even if it did you can't influence anyway, is about as stupid as mankind has reached. 

Especially when some people can't afford to keep warm or turn the lights on due to the cost of energy through mad green schemes or policies. 

And the best you can do is call someone cheap ?

If the mad Greens or gutless major parties really thought we were damaging the planet they'd go nuclear.

I know you're not a stupid guy, but your brains vacate when you think of "climate change".

  On 27/10/2017 at 06:27, ProDee said:

The word "denier" is offensive, as it's intentionally linked to the holocaust.  I'm a skeptic. 

Spending billions on a problem that doesn't exist, and even if it did you can't influence anyway, is about as stupid as mankind has reached. 

Especially when some people can't afford to keep warm or turn the lights on due to the cost of energy through mad green schemes or policies. 

And the best you can do is call someone cheap ?

If the mad Greens or gutless major parties really thought we were damaging the planet they'd go nuclear.

I know you're not a stupid guy, but your brains vacate when you think of "climate change".

If we are going down the path of what is offensive, I find the use of "zealot" offensive as it is a term borne out of one of my least favourite institutions... religion.  I am most certainly not zealous in my beliefs relating to climate change, but I am NOT going to dismiss it out of hand as my children's and their children's (when they eventually have them) futures are what matter to me.

  On 27/10/2017 at 06:37, hardtack said:

If we are going down the path of what is offensive, I find the use of "zealot" offensive as it is a term borne out of one of my least favourite institutions... religion.  I am most certainly not zealous in my beliefs relating to climate change, but I am NOT going to dismiss it out of hand as my children's and their children's (when they eventually have them) futures are what matter to me.

Yet another ProDee ex cathedra announcement. I'm not sure whether his arrogance hides a deep-seated insecurity. Whatever, I find him the most offensive poster on this site.

  On 27/10/2017 at 06:37, hardtack said:

If we are going down the path of what is offensive, I find the use of "zealot" offensive as it is a term borne out of one of my least favourite institutions... religion.  I am most certainly not zealous in my beliefs relating to climate change, but I am NOT going to dismiss it out of hand as my children's and their children's (when they eventually have them) futures are what matter to me.

Do you think you care more about your children than skeptics ?  Whatever Australia does won't affect the planet in a 1,000 years.  So your moral superiority, or should I say virtue signalling, is greatly misplaced.

If CO2 drives temperatures why was the planet in an ice age when CO2 was 800 percent higher ?

  On 27/10/2017 at 07:06, ProDee said:

Do you think you care more about your children than skeptics ?  Whatever Australia does won't affect the planet in a 1,000 years.  So your moral superiority, or should I say virtue signalling, is greatly misplaced.

If CO2 drives temperatures why was the planet in an ice age when CO2 was 800 percent higher ?

You mean this?

"In Earth’s past, the carbon cycle has changed in response to climate change. Variations in Earth’s orbit alter the amount of energy Earth receives from the Sun and leads to a cycle of ice ages and warm periods like Earth’s current climate. (See Milutin Milankovitch.) Ice ages developed when Northern Hemisphere summers cooled and ice built up on land, which in turn slowed the carbon cycle. Meanwhile, a number of factors including cooler temperatures and increased phytoplankton growth may have increased the amount of carbon the ocean took out of the atmosphere. The drop in atmospheric carbon caused additional cooling. Similarly, at the end of the last Ice Age, 10,000 years ago, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose dramatically as temperatures warmed."

Wrecker seems to like talking up the NASA research, so it's interesting to note that the above is courtesy of NASA...

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page4.php

  On 27/10/2017 at 07:14, hardtack said:

You mean this?

"In Earth’s past, the carbon cycle has changed in response to climate change. Variations in Earth’s orbit alter the amount of energy Earth receives from the Sun and leads to a cycle of ice ages and warm periods like Earth’s current climate. (See Milutin Milankovitch.) Ice ages developed when Northern Hemisphere summers cooled and ice built up on land, which in turn slowed the carbon cycle. Meanwhile, a number of factors including cooler temperatures and increased phytoplankton growth may have increased the amount of carbon the ocean took out of the atmosphere. The drop in atmospheric carbon caused additional cooling. Similarly, at the end of the last Ice Age, 10,000 years ago, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose dramatically as temperatures warmed."

Wrecker seems to like talking up the NASA research, so it's interesting to note that the above is courtesy of NASA...

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page4.php

Yeah, I've read their convenient guesses.  IF CO2 really drove temperatures you wouldn't have 4000 ppmv in an ice age.

I agree though with their reference to the sun.  Solar energy drives temperatures, not CO2. 

See link.

http://journal.crossfit.com/2010/04/glassman-sgw.tpl

Have a read of this.  Some light reading for the weekend.

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

 

Btw, answer my question.

Do you think you care more about your children than skeptics ?

And comment on the following.

Whatever Australia does won't affect the planet in a 1,000 years.

As for NASA ?  They're a waste of space.  They fraudulently manipulate data.  I'm exceptionally happy to admit I only quote them when it suits me.  Reason being ?  Zealots love NASA and the IPCC.

  On 27/10/2017 at 07:14, hardtack said:

You mean this?

"In Earth’s past, the carbon cycle has changed in response to climate change. Variations in Earth’s orbit alter the amount of energy Earth receives from the Sun and leads to a cycle of ice ages and warm periods like Earth’s current climate. (See Milutin Milankovitch.) Ice ages developed when Northern Hemisphere summers cooled and ice built up on land, which in turn slowed the carbon cycle. Meanwhile, a number of factors including cooler temperatures and increased phytoplankton growth may have increased the amount of carbon the ocean took out of the atmosphere. The drop in atmospheric carbon caused additional cooling. Similarly, at the end of the last Ice Age, 10,000 years ago, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose dramatically as temperatures warmed."

Wrecker seems to like talking up the NASA research, so it's interesting to note that the above is courtesy of NASA...

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page4.php

You won't find me talking up NASA. They have completely lost their way.

  On 27/10/2017 at 07:45, Wrecker45 said:

You won't find me talking up NASA. They have completely lost their way.

Ok, my mistake... apologies.

  On 27/10/2017 at 07:35, ProDee said:

Yeah, I've read their convenient guesses.  IF CO2 really drove temperatures you wouldn't have 4000 ppmv in an ice age.

I agree though with their reference to the sun.  Solar energy drives temperatures, not CO2. 

See link.

http://journal.crossfit.com/2010/04/glassman-sgw.tpl

Have a read of this.  Some light reading for the weekend.

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

 

Btw, answer my question.

Do you think you care more about your children than skeptics ?

And comment on the following.

Whatever Australia does won't affect the planet in a 1,000 years.

As for NASA ?  They're a waste of space.  They fraudulently manipulate data.  I'm exceptionally happy to admit I only quote them when it suits me.  Reason being ?  Zealots love NASA and the IPCC.

I will answer that I do care about my children more than I do about the skeptics... as for the rest, I am not invested in/obsessed with this to the degree that you obviously are, so I will not be spending my weekends with your recommended reading lists. 

As for the "whatever Australia does..." line, I obviously don't see it the same way as you do.  Our donations to help the underprivileged in third world countries probably have very little affect in the greater scheme of things, but that does not mean I will stop donating and providing funds to help them... there is only one undeniable truth, and that is that if you do nothing, it is certain that nothing will change.

  On 27/10/2017 at 08:20, hardtack said:

I will answer that I do care about my children more than I do about the skeptics...

As for the "whatever Australia does..." line, I obviously don't see it the same way as you do.  Our donations to help the underprivileged in third world countries probably have very little affect in the greater scheme of things, but that does not mean I will stop donating and providing funds to help them... there is only one undeniable truth, and that is that if you do nothing, it is certain that nothing will change.

Your first answer isn't the question.  But at least you can stop referencing your care to future generations, as it's no different to mine.  There's no moral superiority.

As for Australia and "our donations".  You know, the wasted billions ?

It's taxpayer money.  It's not the government's to waste.  Where do you think this money comes from ?

 

  On 27/10/2017 at 08:37, ProDee said:

Your first answer isn't the question.  But at least you can stop referencing your care to future generations, as it's no different to mine.  There's no moral superiority.

As for Australia and "our donations".  You know, the wasted billions ?

It's taxpayer money.  It's not the government's to waste.  Where do you think this money comes from ?

No different to me than the wasted billions on defence/submarines, border "protection", politicians excessive wages etc etc... all paid for by tax payer dollars.

  On 27/10/2017 at 08:43, hardtack said:

No different to me than the wasted billions on defence/submarines, border "protection", politicians excessive wages etc etc... all paid for by tax payer dollars.

Defence isn't a waste.  Never be vulnerable to those that wish us harm and we have to have the capacity to do our bit when needed.  It's reciprocal.

The submarines are an utter joke.  Turnbull and Pyne are a disgrace.  Talk about wasted billions over SA politics.

Border protection protects your children.  We should know everything about those who want to walk freely amongst us and not lure those wishing a better life to a death at sea.  And nor should we encourage the scourge of people smuggling.

i'd like politicians to be better paid.  To get the best you have to provide an incentive.  Why would those with clever minds want to be on a politicians wage ?

And I don't like career politicians.  Once upon a time professionals thought they could make a difference after they'd succeeded in business, the law, or industry.  They'd make a contribution (or otherwise) and get out.  Now it's a gravy train forever.  Politics shouldn't be a "career".

  On 27/10/2017 at 06:43, dieter said:

Yet another ProDee ex cathedra announcement. I'm not sure whether his arrogance hides a deep-seated insecurity. Whatever, I find him the most offensive poster on this site.

hey didi, i resemble that 

  On 27/10/2017 at 09:09, daisycutter said:

hey didi, i resemble that 

You had it coming: you haven't tried hard enough recently.

You need to rant more, shout bigoted rascist fascist stone age conformist nonsense from the roof tops of Burwood. Plenty of takers there, my man.

  On 26/10/2017 at 05:24, Wrecker45 said:

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

Wrecker - are you being deliberately obtuse? You really think the Black Saturday fires were caused by fallen power lines? 

 

Answer me this. If you were standing by a smoker and he dropped a match, would you rather the two of you were standing in a field of snow or a pool of petrol?

  On 27/10/2017 at 10:48, dieter said:

You had it coming: you haven't tried hard enough recently.

You need to rant more, shout bigoted rascist fascist stone age conformist nonsense from the roof tops of Burwood. Plenty of takers there, my man.

Some pseudo-science a la Malcolm Roberts wouldn't go astray either. Go on, D.C. you can do it as good as ProDee...

  On 28/10/2017 at 00:35, dieter said:

Some pseudo-science a la Malcolm Roberts wouldn't go astray either. Go on, D.C. you can do it as good as ProDee...

nah, i'm happy to leave the ranting, raving and bitterness in your capable hands, didi 

  On 28/10/2017 at 01:57, daisycutter said:

nah, i'm happy to leave the ranting, raving and bitterness in your capable hands, didi 

That's more like it, D.C. I knew you could be nasty and obtuse and defamatory. That's more like it.

  On 28/10/2017 at 07:25, dieter said:

That's more like it, D.C. I knew you could be nasty and obtuse and defamatory. That's more like it.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz