Gator

New Paper: From 1992-2014, There Was A Pause In CO2’s Influence On Temperature “Monthly variations of the areal averaged atmospheric and surface greenhouse effect parameter anomalies (Gaa and Gsa) from 1979 to 2014 for the (a) globe” Between the years 1992 and 2014, anthropogenic CO2 emissions rates grew by 65%, or from a yearly average of 6.1 gigatons of carbon (GtC) in 1992 to a rate of 10.1 GtC by 2014 (Global Carbon Budget, 2014). However, according to a new Nature paper entitled “A Hiatus of the Greenhouse Effect” by Song, Wang, & Tang (2016), there has been an overall hiatus to slight decline in the influence of the greenhouse warming effect on temperature beginning in 1992, which has coincided with the well-established pause in global warming since the early 2000s. Explanation: Cloud Variations, Water Vapor Dominate Greenhouse Effect, With Insignificant CO2 Influence As scientists Song, Tang, & Wang (2016) point out, during the 2003 to 2014 period, global temperatures “stop rising”. In fact, temperatures declined slightly during this period according to HadCRUT and RSS. You can read more here https://www.nature.com/articles/srep33315

A bit of outside pace would be great, but Viney, Oliver, Petracca have above average speed. Tyson is slow. Jones OK. Lewis won't spend as much time in the middle. Brayshaw will be a big bodied mid and his pace is fine. I agree that we need speed, but I don't see a plethora of slow big bodied mids.

1. I'd far rather another runner than a another tall. You're aware Richmond used Grigg as a second ruck in 2017 ? Pedersen won't be played in addition to the incumbent talls. Pedersen was reserves bound all year until Gawn and then Spencer went down. He did a great job, but he won't be part of the 22 with a fit Gawn, Hogan and McDonald in the forward-line. 2. Tyson and vandenBerg are not competing for a position. vandenBerg is competing with Harmes, Hannan and possibly Balic.. 3. Harmes v Neal-Bullen is more like for like, but Neal-Bullen's pressure ensured 11th position in the B&F compared to Harmes 17. I have both in my team, but certainly Neal-Bullen deserves to be picked first. I wasn't a fan of his this time last year, but he walked the walk.

Anyone ever posted close to the time you have someone on ignore ? For some reason you see their post, which has happened here. So, I'll answer your question. I don't edit or hide information. If a paper says human activity has some effect on the climate I'll happily include it. The paper you're referring to intimates the human contribution is modest. But you need to read more of the paper to establish that. I also need to point out that hundreds of scientists who don't believe man is warming the planet dangerously, or that global warming is an issue of concern, still acknowledge that man contributes some warming and is responsible for increased CO2 in the atmosphere. I'm in the camp that doesn't believe CO2 is warming the planet and that solar activity (sunspots), ocean cycles, and cloud forcing drives temperatures. There's increasing evidence this is the case. We'll look back at how CO2 was blamed in embarrassment. 4 million poor people die around the world because of their cooking habits (soot particles) yet we spend billions on a non existent problem. I'd much rather help drag these countries into the 21st century than waste the money we're wasting. I trust we won't post at the same time again anytime soon, so this unfortunate meeting is indeed an aberration.

Scientists: It’s The Sun “The emerging causal effects from SS [solar activity] to GT [global temperatures], especially for recent decades, are overwhelmingly proved” – Huang et al., 2017 “Climate … follows SA [solar activity] fluctuations on multidecadal to centennial time scales” – Moreno et al., 2017 “The solar ‘activity’ increase is the chief driver of the global temperature increase since the LIA [Little Ice Age]” – Page, 2017 “A large proportion of climate variations can be explained by the mechanism of action of TSI [total solar irradiance] and cosmic rays (CRs) on the state of the lower atmosphere and other meteorological parameters” – Biktash, 2017 “The activity level of the Modern Maximum (1940–2000) is a relatively rare event, with the previous similarly high levels of solar activity observed 4 and 8 millennia ago” – Yndestad and Solheim, 2017 “The main driver of the large-scale character of the warm and cold episodes may be changes in the solar activity. Four warm periods – 1626–1637, 1800–1809, 1845– 1859, and 1986–2012 – have been identified to correspond to increased solar activity” – Tejedor et al., 2017

Long-term global temperature variations under total solar irradiance, cosmic rays, and volcanic activity Conclusions The results presented above permit the following conclusions: a large proportion of climate variations can be explained by the action of TSI and CR action on the state of the lower atmosphere and meteorological parameters. The trends of SSN, CRs, and IMF B for 20–23 solar cycles do not show a significant effect, whilst the GSAT trend is very large, and significant. This is a forcible argument to attribute GSAT trend to human activity. The role of volcanic signals in the 11-year variations of the Earth's climate can expressed as several years of global temperature drop. This suggests that there are combined effects of solar, cosmic rays, geophysical and human activity on climate change patterns. It should be noted that more detailed investigations of such complex interactions are necessary. You can read more here http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090123217300334

No Tyson, no Neal-Bullen, who was top 5 for forward-line pressure in the AFL in 2017, plus you've included Pedersen instead of another runner when McDonald can pinch hit in the second ruck role. Fair to say I don't like the team.

Stozhkov et al., 2017 Cosmic Rays, Solar Activity, and Changes in the Earth’s Climate A new scientific paper authored by seven scientists affiliated with the Russian Academy of Sciences was just published in the scientific journal Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics. The scientists dismiss both “greenhouse gases” and variations in the Sun’s irradiance as significant climate drivers, and instead embrace cloud cover variations — modulated by cosmic ray flux — as a dominant contributor to climate change. A concise summary: As cosmic ray flux increases, more clouds are formed on a global scale. More global-scale cloud cover means more solar radiation is correspondingly blocked from reaching the Earth’s surface (oceans). With an increase in global cloud cover projected for the coming decades (using trend analysis), a global cooling is predicted. You can view here https://link.springer.com/article/10.3103/S1062873817020411

Northcote has now fallen to the Greens. Victoria continues its stranglehold as the most red state in the nation. Should please many who post here.

How anyone can be apathetic about what jumper and colours your team wears is beyond me. Players come and go, but the glue that knits generations of fans together is the jumper and colours. One can try and place themselves above such menial matters in an attempt to seem more enlightened, but you've just taken a position that is at odds with footy, reason, and passion. Naturally, fans put up with it, as there's little choice, but how anyone couldn't care or could even embrace a clash jumper beggars belief. I assume such supporters wouldn't give a yelp if the club decided to push for a permanent change to green and aqua. I find the position disingenuous.

NASA's own datasets. Wonder why the 2016 version is different ?

More bad news for the alarmists. Back radiation versus CO2 as the cause of climate change H Douglas Lightfoot, Orval A Mamer First Published July 28, 2017 Abstract Robust scientific evidence shows the sun angle controls water vapour content of the atmosphere, the main component of back radiation, as it cycles annually. Water vapour content measured as the ratio of the number of water molecules to CO2 molecules varies from 1:1 near the Poles to 97:1 in the Tropics. The effect of back radiation on Earth’s atmosphere is up to 200 times larger than that of CO2 and works in the opposite direction. Thus, if CO2 has any effect on atmospheric temperature and climate change we show it is negligible. Consequently, current government policies to control atmospheric temperature by limiting consumption of fossil fuels will have negligible effect. Measured data reported in IPCC report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (AR5) indicate increased water vapour content of the atmosphere is the cause of the 0.5℃ temperature increase from the mid-1970s to 2011. You can read it here http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0958305X17722790 References 1. Lightfoot HD. A strategy for adequate future energy supply and carbon emission control. In: Climate change technology conference: engineering challenges and solutions in the 21st century, Engineering Institute of Canada, Ottawa, Canada, p.3, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/guesthome.jsp (9–12 May 2006, accessed 20 July 2017). Google Scholar 2. Iodice P, Senatore A. Atmospheric pollution from point and diffuse sources in a National Interest Priority Site located in Italy. Energy Environ 2016, pp. 27: 586–596. Google Scholar 3. Iodice P, Senatore A. Industrial and urban sources in Campania, Italy: the air pollution emission inventory. Energy Environ 2015, pp. 26: 1305–1317. Google Scholar 4. Iodice P and Senatore A. Influence of ethanol-gasoline blended fuels on cold start emissions of a four-stroke motorcycle. Methodology and results. SAE technical papers 6. Paper no. 2013-24-0117, 2013. Google Scholar 5. IPCC. Chapter 6 radiative forcing of climate change. In: Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, et al. (eds) Climate Change 2001: The scientific basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001, 881pp. Google Scholar 6. IPCC. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, et al. (eds) Climate Change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press 2007, Summary for Policy Makers, SPM.2, p.4. Google Scholar 7. IPCC. Summary for policymakers. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, et al. (eds) Climate Change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, Figure 2.11, 2013, p.181. Google Scholar 8. Wild M, et al. Evaluation of downward longwave radiation in general circulation models. J Climate Am Meteorol Soc 2001; 14: 3227–3239 (Table 4, p.3233). Google Scholar 9. Spencer RW. Climate confusion, encounter books. 1st ed. Chapter 3. New York, USA: Encounter Books, 2008. Google Scholar 10. Rosenberg M. Temperate, torrid and frigid zones, about education, http://geography.about.com/od/physicalgeography/a/torridfrigid.htm (accessed 18 July 2017). Google Scholar 11. MegaWatSoft Psychrometric Calculator, HumidAir Excel Add-In v3.1. This program is available for purchase or rental, www.megawatsoft.com (accessed 18 July 2017). Google Scholar 12. United Nations Statistics Division, Earth Policy Institute, Eco-Economy Indicators, Global Temperatures, http://www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C51 (accessed 18 July 2017). Google Scholar 13. Willett KM, Williams CNJr., Dunn RJH, et al. HadISDH: an updateable land surface specific humidity product for climate monitoring. Climate Past 2013; 9: 657–677. Google Scholar Crossref 14. Willett KM, Jones PD, Gillett NP, et al. Recent changes in surface humidity: development of the HADCRUT dataset. J Climate 2008; 21: 5364–5383. Google Scholar Crossref 15. Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature//(accessed 19 July 2017). Google Scholar

Oh please Saty Saty Saty. Please feed me. Don't listen to them.

You won't believe it, but I've got more news on corals. There's much science doesn't know about corals, but viral infection is suggested as a trigger of coral–Symbiodinium dissociation. It may not be we nasty humans or "climate change" doing the damage. "Remember ‘Global Warming is killing the frogs?’ – turned out to be fungus spread by biologists.‘Global Warming is killing the bees!’ – parasites‘Global Warming is killing the bats!’ – fungusNow, ‘Global Warming is killing the coral!’ – virus ?" Unique nucleocytoplasmic dsDNA and +ssRNA viruses are associated with the dinoflagellate endosymbionts of corals Adrienne M S Correa , Rory M Welsh & Rebecca L Vega Thurber Abstract The residence of dinoflagellate algae (genus: Symbiodinium) within scleractinian corals is critical to the construction and persistence of tropical reefs. In recent decades, however, acute and chronic environmental stressors have frequently destabilized this symbiosis, ultimately leading to coral mortality and reef decline. Viral infection has been suggested as a trigger of coral–Symbiodinium dissociation; knowledge of the diversity and hosts of coral-associated viruses is critical to evaluating this hypothesis. Here, we present the first genomic evidence of viruses associated with Symbiodinium, based on the presence of transcribed +ss (single-stranded) RNA and ds (double-stranded) DNA virus-like genes in complementary DNA viromes of the coral Montastraea cavernosa and expressed sequence tag (EST) libraries generated from Symbiodinium cultures. The M. cavernosa viromes contained divergent viral sequences similar to the major capsid protein of the dinoflagellate-infecting +ssRNA Heterocapsa circularisquama virus, suggesting a highly novel dinornavirus could infect Symbiodinium. Further, similarities to dsDNA viruses dominated (∼69%) eukaryotic viral similarities in the M. cavernosa viromes. Transcripts highly similar to eukaryotic algae-infecting phycodnaviruses were identified in the viromes, and homologs to these sequences were found in two independently generated Symbiodinium EST libraries. Phylogenetic reconstructions substantiate that these transcripts are undescribed and distinct members of the nucleocytoplasmic large DNA virus (NCLDVs) group. Based on a preponderance of evidence, we infer that the novel NCLDVs and RNA virus described here are associated with the algal endosymbionts of corals. If such viruses disrupt Symbiodinium, they are likely to impact the flexibility and/or stability of coral–algal symbioses, and thus long-term reef health and resilience. You can read more here https://www.nature.com/articles/ismej201275

While we're feeling great about outcomes on the GBR: Remote coral reefs can be tougher than they look: Western Australia’s Scott Reef has recovered from mass bleaching Date: April 5, 2013 Source: ARC Centre of Excellence in Coral Reef Studies Summary: Isolated coral reefs can recover from catastrophic damage as effectively as those with nearby undisturbed neighbors, a long-term study by marine biologists has shown. Scott Reef, a remote coral system in the Indian Ocean, has largely recovered from a catastrophic mass bleaching event in 1998, according to the study. Scott Reef, a remote coral system in the Indian Ocean, has largely recovered from a catastrophic mass bleaching event in 1998, according to the study published in Science today. The study challenges conventional wisdom that suggested isolated reefs were more vulnerable to disturbance, because they were thought to depend on recolonisation from other reefs. Instead, the scientists found that the isolation of reefs allowed surviving corals to rapidly grow and propagate in the absence of human interference. You can read more here https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130405094523.htm

Predicting doom for the Great Barrier Reef has almost become a sport for radical alarmists and their lemmings, but this comprehensive study from 1995-2009 shows some very good news. Somehow i think good news for the reef is bad news for those who predict its demise. It's almost though they want it to suffer. But never fear, the alarmists overstate everything and the GBR will be fine. Disturbance and the Dynamics of Coral Cover on the Great Barrier Reef (1995–2009) Disturbance and the Dynamics of Coral Cover on the Great Barrier Reef (1995–2009) Kate Osborne,* Andrew M. Dolman,¤a Scott C. Burgess,¤b and Kerryn A. Johns Abstract Coral reef ecosystems worldwide are under pressure from chronic and acute stressors that threaten their continued existence. Most obvious among changes to reefs is loss of hard coral cover, but a precise multi-scale estimate of coral cover dynamics for the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is currently lacking. Monitoring data collected annually from fixed sites at 47 reefs across 1300 km of the GBR indicate that overall regional coral cover was stable (averaging 29% and ranging from 23% to 33% cover across years) with no net decline between 1995 and 2009. Subregional trends (10–100 km) in hard coral were diverse with some being very dynamic and others changing little. Coral cover increased in six subregions and decreased in seven subregions. Persistent decline of corals occurred in one subregion for hard coral and Acroporidae and in four subregions in non-Acroporidae families. Change in Acroporidae accounted for 68% of change in hard coral. Crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci) outbreaks and storm damage were responsible for more coral loss during this period than either bleaching or disease despite two mass bleaching events and an increase in the incidence of coral disease. While the limited data for the GBR prior to the 1980’s suggests that coral cover was higher than in our survey, we found no evidence of consistent, system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995. Instead, fluctuations in coral cover at subregional scales (10–100 km), driven mostly by changes in fast-growing Acroporidae, occurred as a result of localized disturbance events and subsequent recovery. You can read more here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3053361/

I think he'll most likely be a fringe player, but I could be wrong. I like his strengths, but he lacks a bit of polish. He'll play games, but I see him in the 23-30 bracket. Tyson is ahead of him and I can't really see how you play both.

I no longer see Jara's posts, but good to know it's alive and well.

Two things: 1. I've never heard him complain about wasted money before and there have been numerous opportunities. But it's possible I've missed it. 2. I've met him in person and he identified as being Left. So that was probably the give away.

Billions are wasted on climate change and mad green schemes. Billions are wasted on the NBN. 100s of millions wasted on school halls, pink batts and cash for clunkers. Yet you're worried about 122 million that gave the people a vote to determine an outcome that fundamentally changes the fabric of society as we've known it ? A vote that could have dire consequences to free speech ? The Left rarely worry about money. It's very funny and disingenuous when they choose to.

I was away for months and congratulated wrecker for "fighting the good fight". Serious questions though... Do you think humans 3% contribution to 0.04% of atmospheric CO2 is more likely to drive the planet's temperatures than Solar activity, ocean circulations, and cloud forcing ? Or the 100 other things that contribute ? Especially when we know 4 things... 1. CO2 was 10 times greater in the past with cooler temperatures. 2. It's been proven that CO2 lagged temperature from ice cores (even alarmists don't deny this). 3. NASA manipulates data, because they know CO2 didn't drive temperature during the cooling period of 1940 - 1978. 4. Datasets show a correlation between temperature and solar activity. Do you want me to post the graphs again ? Even better, ask your brother and get back to me.

I felt cold watching this ! And it's just reporting FACTS about dud predictions by climate science "experts"..

That's simply not true. There's no consensus in science. I doubt there are 1000s of scientists who believe man is warming the planet "dangerously". There are 1000s of scientists who believe that man is contributing to warming the planet, because our 3% contribution to atmospheric CO2 tips the "natural balance" of emission and absorption. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which traps some heat, which isn't in dispute. But if you didn't blindly follow NASA you'd realise there's enough evidence to say hang on, somethings not right here. I accept that's not going to happen at your age.

Climate models v actual observed data.

I have tremendous respect for Israel as the only civilised culture and democracy in the middle east. Marxism is going through a renaissance with young Leftists, who decry capitalism and aren't tainted by Stalinist gulags. What young Lefty doesn't like a revolution ? Causes evolve and gender fluidity is very much at the core of Leftists who embrace Marxism. It's just another wedge to influence society and their perceived equality. It's class politics, which would resonate with Marx, albeit in an entirely different sphere.