The climate change debate continues.

[octave]

Lots of bald statements are made but every time I follow them up then the statistics dont support them. As a test I chose Facthunter's statement about Perth rainfall. Here is the data.

Warwick Hughes says this data demonstrates clearly that there has been no decline in rainfall. 2001 was only the 15th dryest year since records began in 1876. What has happened to cause our water shortage is that consumption is ever rising, catchments are being steadily degraded by scrub regrowth impairing runoff and we have been less than prudent over a decade or more in putting off projects that could have brought on new supplies from dams.

 

Any other statement about wildfires, tornadoes, dust storms and so on can be checked and the answer is that we are in situation

Just out of interes who is Warwick Hughs and what method did he use to compile that graph.

 

I should add to the above that Morner, like all climate skeptics, has had his reputation attacked by the alarmists. Geologists are also known as Earth scientists or geoscientists, and it is their profession that has unravelled the history of the earth and its past climate. Ian Plimer, who was the senior lecturer when I studied geology nearly 50 years ago, is the leading skeptic in Australia and he has been attacked repeatedly for drawing attention to facts that don’t fit alarmist prognostications. I just hope we can shake some sense into the global community before they drink the Kool-Aid.

Why are climate contrarians just about always individuals? And nearly always not climate scientists? I have been to a lecture by Plimer. What do geological organisations say on the subject?

 

I have posed many questions which you have not addressed.

 

You seem to indicate that you believe NASA are part of an international conspiracy along with JAXA and ESA is that correct? What is the motivation?

 

I will bet you did not read the report compiled by Shell in 1986 in which there own experts discuss the problem.to what end?

 

Do you believe there is such a phenomena as greenhouse effect. At what point do you believe the theory breaks down?

 

Is there a a PPM ar which you believe there would be a problem?

 

What is the first mention of anthropomorphic climate change and when?

 

 

[gareth lacey]

So you don't mind paying a failed pollitician obscene amounts of money to relay a message to the masses do you think he isnt a big polluter ,private jets ,huge house with a big carbon footprint big gas guzzling cars he has played everyone for fools to make himself richer, and no i am not a climate denier just read more than than doomsday report's

 

 

[octave]

So you don't mind paying a failed pollitician obscene amounts of money to relay a message to the masses do you think he isnt a big polluter ,private jets ,huge house with a big carbon footprint big gas guzzling cars he has played everyone for fools to make himself richer, and no i am not a climate denier just read more than than doomsday report's

Gore is irrelivent, I am certainly not a fan but that has nothing to do with the data? It is NASA and .most if the world's scientists that you are upset with. These are the people you childishly call libtards rather arguing with data.

 

 

[Marty_d]

What about all the failed politicians who go straight from parliament to obscene salaries with oil and coal companies? Their skillset is what... oh, yeah, they can arrange access to the current politicians for the big polluters, who will push them to delay action in combating climate change.

 

Compare that with an honest politician - Bob Brown. Not only did he donate $100k of his own money to pay the ransom of a journalist kidnapped in Somalia, since leaving politics he's given property and much of his parliamentary pension to environmental causes.

 

Al Gore is a twit, but at least his heart is in the right place. If you think he's a bad example of an overpaid ex-politician, I can give you dozens of worse ones - most from the conservative side of politics.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Real science is done by people and not by political organisations. From Professor Wyss Yim DSc PhD DIC FGS:

 

The natural release of geothermal heat into the northern hemisphere portions of the Atlantic Ocean and Pacific Ocean was responsible for the two episodes of major Arctic sea ice retreat during the last decade. An improvement in the future monitoring of submarine volcanic activity is needed to provide a better understanding of polar sea ice variability.

 

[ATTACH]50058._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[Marty_d]

Oh dear, even when the Libs jump on the climate change bandwagon to try to convince people they're doing something, they f*ck it up.

 

Their latest brain fart is to commission a study into a solar / hydrogen storage minigrid in the Daintrees. In other words solar power to separate hydrogen out of water and store it to run baseload.

 

Trouble is there's a grand total of 318 properties including 42 businesses which would hook into this. Estimated cost for the project is 50 - 100 MILLION. So that's $157,000 to $315,000 per property.

 

They'd be better off giving every household $30,000 to get more solar than they'd use and a couple of big batteries for storage.

 

So with this sort of financial expertise - not to mention hundreds of thousands if not millions per refugee to keep people out of Australia - how the hell do people still think the LNP are better at the economy?

 

 

[gareth lacey]

His heart in the right place, he fleeced millions off ordinary wage earners who seem to think his message was the only oneirs almost like a religion to some. Ocrave wgere did i deny NASA on its findings i read as much of climate deniers as well as the"facts" yes there has been to much pollution since the start of the industrial revolution but please do not skip over the main problem To Many people in this world and australia cannot afford to have many more

 

 

[octave]

His heart in the right place, he fleeced millions off ordinary wage earners who seem to think his message was the only oneirs almost like a religion to some. Ocrave wgere did i deny NASA on its findings i read as much of climate deniers as well as the"facts" yes there has been to much pollution since the start of the industrial revolution but please do not skip over the main problem To Many people in this world and australia cannot afford to have many more

My assumption from what you posted was that you do not agree with NASA on climate change. Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

... the main problem To Many people in this world and australia cannot afford to have many more

Something we can agree on, Gareth. We humans have pushed too many other species to extinction and it's getting worse, fast.

 

The best way to avoid colossal increases in Australia's population? Work to reverse global warming.

 

If Australia is not seen to be doing our bit, the world will force us to take millions of people displaced by the effects of climate change.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I will try to answer the questions from Octave.

 

Just out of interest who is Warwick Hughes and what method did he use to compile that graph.?

 

Warwick Hughes

 

Refereed Published Papers:

 

1992 Robert C. Balling, Jr., Sherwood B. Idso, and Warwick S. Hughes. “Long-Term and Recent Anomalous Temperature Changes in Australia.” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 19, No. 23, pp. 2317-2320.

1995 Robert C. Balling, Jr. and Warwick S. Hughes. “Comments on “Detecting Climate Change Concurrent with Deforestation in the Amazon Basin: Which Way Has It Gone ?” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 76, No. 4, 9. 559.

1995 Warwick S. Hughes. Comment on D.E. Parker, “Effects of Changing Exposure of Thermometers at Land Stations.” International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 15, pp. 231-234.

1996 Warwick S. Hughes and Robert C. Balling, Jr. “Urban Influences on South African Temperature Trends.” International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 16, No. 8, pp. 935-940. Online at

[/url]www.john-daly.com/s-africa.htm

 

1997 Warwick S. Hughes. Comment on, “Historical Thermometer Exposures in Australia.” by N. Nichols et al. International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 17, pp. 197-199.

Why are climate contrarians just about always individuals? And nearly always not climate scientists?

 

The term climate scientist emerged recently when massive funds became available for climate science. Before that, past climates were studied and modelled by geologists and meteorologists.

 

I have been to a lecture by Plimer. What do geological organisations say on the subject?

 

The organisations globally have been muzzled by politics. There are "secret societies" of geologists communicating by email and trying to get the truth out in public statements, also lobbying to get the societies to do the same. The reason the societies cannot speak is that they would lose members and public credibility in the present environment. Also there are lots of geologists who believe the alarmists so politics plays a role internally. Another problem is that any attempt to organise scientific discussion rapidly attracts ratbags from the fringe that destroy the credibility of genuinely skeptical scientists.

 

You seem to indicate that you believe NASA are part of an international conspiracy along with JAXA and ESA is that correct? What is the motivation?

 

NASA is a victim of the funding trap and the need to maintain public support. There are plenty of credible studies that refute NASA interpretations of the data, but they are almost impossible to get published or peer reviewed. Also reputable popular science journals like New Scientist, for example, refuse to publish material that goes against the alarmist doctrine. Make no mistake, this is public hysteria on the scale of the Salem witch hunts. It isn't evil, just misguided.

 

I will bet you did not read the report compiled by Shell in 1986 in which there own experts discuss the problem.to what end?

 

If you are talking about the film "climate of concern"produced by Shell then it was an excellent example of hysterical alarmism that was not founded on fact or science. I havent seen a report.

 

Do you believe there is such a phenomena as greenhouse effect. At what point do you believe the theory breaks down?

 

Yes I believe that a greenhouse effect exists. Some warming will be due to it. Mostly it is caused by water vapour in the atmosphere. CO2 plays a negligible role. Any contribution from CO2 has already occurred.

 

Is there a a PPM at which you believe there would be a problem?

 

CO2 is plant food. Modern plants cannot live with CO2 below about 200 ppm. For most of the earth's history in the era when plants and animals existed, CO2 was higher than today. So no, I am not alarmed by CO2 at the trace levels forecast by alarmists.

 

What is the first mention of anthropomorphic climate change and when?

 

From the IPCC: The ability to generate an artificial warming of the Earth’s surface was demonstrated in simple greenhouse experiments such as Horace Benedict de Saussure’s experiments in the 1760s using a ‘heliothermometer’ (panes of glass covering a thermometer in a darkened box) to provide an early analogy to the greenhouse effect. It was a conceptual leap to recognise that the air itself could also trap thermal radiation. In 1824, Joseph Fourier, citing Saussure, argued ‘the temperature [of the Earth] can be augmented by the interposition of the atmosphere, because heat in the state of light finds less resistance in penetrating the air, than in repassing into the air when converted into non-luminous heat’.

 

But this is the well-established greenhouse effect, not anthropomorphic climate change. I dont know when that was first proposed, perhaps in the 1950s?

 

 

[pmccarthy]

On sea level rise:

 

[ATTACH]50059._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[pmccarthy]

I commend this article from Quadrant:

 

Climate’s Uncertainty Principle – Quadrant Online

 

 

[Marty_d]

Like I said... check the motivations of these publications. Quadrant is a blatantly far-right rag. The article's author, Garth Paltridge, has worked for both the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology and the Institute of Petroleum.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument.

 

 

[Marty_d]

The motive of the writer is central to their intent, their choice of which data to present and WILL influence the conclusions they draw. How can you ignore this?

 

 

[octave]

I will try to answer the questions from Octave.

Just out of interest who is Warwick Hughes and what method did he use to compile that graph.?

 

Warwick Hughes

 

Refereed Published Papers:

 

1992 Robert C. Balling, Jr., Sherwood B. Idso, and Warwick S. Hughes. “Long-Term and Recent Anomalous Temperature Changes in Australia.” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 19, No. 23, pp. 2317-2320.

1995 Robert C. Balling, Jr. and Warwick S. Hughes. “Comments on “Detecting Climate Change Concurrent with Deforestation in the Amazon Basin: Which Way Has It Gone ?” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 76, No. 4, 9. 559.

1995 Warwick S. Hughes. Comment on D.E. Parker, “Effects of Changing Exposure of Thermometers at Land Stations.” International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 15, pp. 231-234.

1996 Warwick S. Hughes and Robert C. Balling, Jr. “Urban Influences on South African Temperature Trends.” International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 16, No. 8, pp. 935-940. Online at

[/url]www.john-daly.com/s-africa.htm

 

 

 

1997 Warwick S. Hughes. Comment on, “Historical Thermometer Exposures in Australia.” by N. Nichols et al. International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 17, pp. 197-199.

Why are climate contrarians just about always individuals? And nearly always not climate scientists?

 

The term climate scientist emerged recently when massive funds became available for climate science. Before that, past climates were studied and modelled by geologists and meteorologists.

 

I have been to a lecture by Plimer. What do geological organisations say on the subject?

 

The organisations globally have been muzzled by politics. There are "secret societies" of geologists communicating by email and trying to get the truth out in public statements, also lobbying to get the societies to do the same. The reason the societies cannot speak is that they would lose members and public credibility in the present environment. Also there are lots of geologists who believe the alarmists so politics plays a role internally. Another problem is that any attempt to organise scientific discussion rapidly attracts ratbags from the fringe that destroy the credibility of genuinely skeptical scientists.

 

You seem to indicate that you believe NASA are part of an international conspiracy along with JAXA and ESA is that correct? What is the motivation?

 

NASA is a victim of the funding trap and the need to maintain public support. There are plenty of credible studies that refute NASA interpretations of the data, but they are almost impossible to get published or peer reviewed. Also reputable popular science journals like New Scientist, for example, refuse to publish material that goes against the alarmist doctrine. Make no mistake, this is public hysteria on the scale of the Salem witch hunts. It isn't evil, just misguided.

 

I will bet you did not read the report compiled by Shell in 1986 in which there own experts discuss the problem.to what end?

 

If you are talking about the film "climate of concern"produced by Shell then it was an excellent example of hysterical alarmism that was not founded on fact or science. I havent seen a report.

 

Do you believe there is such a phenomena as greenhouse effect. At what point do you believe the theory breaks down?

 

Yes I believe that a greenhouse effect exists. Some warming will be due to it. Mostly it is caused by water vapour in the atmosphere. CO2 plays a negligible role. Any contribution from CO2 has already occurred.

 

Is there a a PPM at which you believe there would be a problem?

 

CO2 is plant food. Modern plants cannot live with CO2 below about 200 ppm. For most of the earth's history in the era when plants and animals existed, CO2 was higher than today. So no, I am not alarmed by CO2 at the trace levels forecast by alarmists.

 

What is the first mention of anthropomorphic climate change and when?

 

From the IPCC: The ability to generate an artificial warming of the Earth’s surface was demonstrated in simple greenhouse experiments such as Horace Benedict de Saussure’s experiments in the 1760s using a ‘heliothermometer’ (panes of glass covering a thermometer in a darkened box) to provide an early analogy to the greenhouse effect. It was a conceptual leap to recognise that the air itself could also trap thermal radiation. In 1824, Joseph Fourier, citing Saussure, argued ‘the temperature [of the Earth] can be augmented by the interposition of the atmosphere, because heat in the state of light finds less resistance in penetrating the air, than in repassing into the air when converted into non-luminous heat’.

 

But this is the well-established greenhouse effect, not anthropomorphic climate change. I dont know when that was first proposed, perhaps in the 1950s?

 

I am in NZ at ths moment so a lytle hard to do the usual quote and reply.

 

How does NASA making up false data to support climate change help their funding under a Trump presedency?

 

I posted a link l twice which was a document produced by Shell in 1986 where they discuss the problem of climate change.

 

PM I read every li k that others post and when a graph is presented I go to the source although sometimes this leads to a dead end.

 

The first calculations of co2 emmisions and tje effect on climate were done in the 1890s. This does not stop people from asserting that it is somethinhg made up recently.

 

What are Warwick Hughs' qualifications other than publishing.

 

The amount of greenhouse heating calculations are quite interesting, as in the video I posted, did you nit accept the calcs or the underlying physics?

 

So just to be clear you believe there is a conspiracy between NASA JAXA and ESA?

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Enjoy New Zealand! I just got back from three weeks holiday including the Easter air show at Omaka.

 

 

[octave]

Enjoy New Zealand! I just got back from three weeks holiday including the Easter air show at Omaka.

Out on Welly harbour on my son s yacht, tough life

 

 

[facthunter]

It's OK to be far right but if you are even a bit left you are totally wrong in all things. IPA and Quadrant have gone to the same mantra... Not just my perception either.. Heartland the same in the USA. Backed by BIG money and vested interests happy to get rid of the EPA and go for broke on resource extraction unlimited. regardless of the consequences.. Nev

 

 

[kgwilson]

I see today that the UK has for the first time since 1882 gone a whole week without burning any coal to generate electricity. The country has already gone for more than 1,000 hours in total without needing coal in 2019 - and this year is likely to beat all previous records. They have the largest offshore wind farms in the world and actually export some of that generation. Nuclear and gas generation make up most of the balance. They are serious about climate change and actually have bi-partisan support for emissions reduction even though they can't resolve Brexit.

 

Here we have the LNP wanting to build more coal fired power stations, the PUP saying they are going to & there is no climate change policy at all. Yet climate change is listed as more important to most voters than the economy. With a bit of luck those Dinosaurs will be by-passed in a couple of weeks.

 

If the sea level isn't rising how come Kiribati is going under & numerous other pacific Islands are being regularly flooded. I'll bet some expert will come up with a documented story showing that he islands are sinking.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Sea level is rising, it has been ever since the end of the last ice age. First Australians walked to Tasmania.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Sea level is rising, it has been ever since the end of the last ice age. First Australians walked to Tasmania.

I agree, PM, that there has been a general rise over the millenia; that’s one reason that thirty-odd years ago I built my house 385m amsl.

 

It’s recent changes that are concerning. Signs of massive methane escape in the arctic are scary.

 

 

[spacesailor]

"So just to be clear you believe there is a conspiracy between NASA JAXA and ESA? "

 

Defiantly !.

 

IF the worlds bank' were to lose all their depositor's, every time a "

 

" happens, I for one would not like to think, I've spent my last week in pain, at home,

 

When I could have taken out a mortgage, & spent that last few hours living it up on an ocean cruise liner.

 

WHY then tell us After the close encounter has passed, that we nearly died of Fright.

 

Nasa seems to tell us to late to do a runner with the big banks money. LoL ( or to have that big bright new flying machine, you have previously only dreamed of, )

 

" NEO Earth Close Approaches "

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Marty_d]

I see today that the UK has for the first time since 1882 gone a whole week without burning any coal to generate electricity. The country has already gone for more than 1,000 hours in total without needing coal in 2019 - and this year is likely to beat all previous records. They have the largest offshore wind farms in the world and actually export some of that generation. Nuclear and gas generation make up most of the balance. They are serious about climate change and actually have bi-partisan support for emissions reduction even though they can't resolve Brexit.

Here we have the LNP wanting to build more coal fired power stations, the PUP saying they are going to & there is no climate change policy at all. Yet climate change is listed as more important to most voters than the economy. With a bit of luck those Dinosaurs will be by-passed in a couple of weeks.

 

If the sea level isn't rising how come Kiribati is going under & numerous other pacific Islands are being regularly flooded. I'll bet some expert will come up with a documented story showing that he islands are sinking.

Yeah fantastic effort by the UK. They may be hopeless when it comes to Brexit but having bipartisanship on climate change is far more important.

 

NZ are doing brilliantly too, they've got bipartisan agreement to get to zero net emissions by 2030. (Mind you they've got a good head start, they're already 82% renewable power generation).

 

Clive is a twat, hopefully his coal plant plans go the way of all his other grandiose plans - nowhere.

 

 

[kgwilson]

Sea level is rising, it has been ever since the end of the last ice age. First Australians walked to Tasmania.

Yep it has taken 20,000 years to get to the level it was 10 years ago. It is not the fact that it is rising, it has been all that time, it is the accelerated rate of rise in just a few years that is cause for concern.