We have had done some sabre rattling over the years, but talking to this mob is like trying to reason with "Noddy and Big Ears". They are cynically unconcerned that vital CSIRO cash that should be spent on medical research "is misused on proving the science is is".
No wonder Gillard just stumped up a few more millions for those low paid workers in the "care industry". Add this to the failing dollar tossing "car" industry and there will be nothing left for the future to benefit our kids other than a perceived clean air future.
This mob need two tickets to go to the Zoo. One to get in and one to get out. Actually that covers their political affiliates in government.
but talking to this mob is like trying to reason with "Noddy and Big Ears"
Well we agree on one (and probably only one) thing. Nobody is going to be convinced of the others position no matter what we say. So I think I'll give it a rest. PeterC can of course continue to fight the good fight.
BTW, the millions (it was actually a billion) dollars for the "care industry" might come in handy when you get even older and grumpier, so that the worker in your aged care home takes home more cash than the local kid at McDonalds.
And "Federal shadow treasurer Joe Hockey said the coalition supported the pay increases", as does Barry O'Farrell according to the SMH on the weekend. Don't know abut CanDo, he's too busy burning books.
On the auto industry, the Liberal State Govt kicked in some cash as well, and the federal Libs said they'd review it but "supported continuing and targeted assistance to the industry".
You've really got to stop picking on Labor for things that the Coalition agrees with (like CO2 reduction targets, for example) and have said they'll do as well. Choose something they actually disagree on, like IR.
I didn't use the word nutter nor did I say Burt isn't allowed to speak his mind. So let's not put words in anyone's mouth.
True dat. I lumped you together with Peter -my apologies.
BUT, play the ball, not the man. True science doesn't care where the data comes from. Political science does.
Burt talks about the diminishing increase in greenhouse effect as concentration of CO2 increases (doubling CO2 doesn't double its greenhouse effect). I haven't seen that referenced in any alarmist material. Is burt wrong?
Been a while since I read Burt's stuff but my recollection is that his main point is that the issue is so important that it should undergo a rigorous independent review - after all the governments require a very detailed type certification process for every new civil airliner. This is the engineering approach - test and verification. Not just engineering of course, I understand that the pharmaceutical approval process is similar. Why would we accept anything less rigorous here.
Similarly, I see that the FAA has decided that the certification applied to LSAs doesn't work - somewhat analagous to peer reviews.
Incidentally, I've long thought that Australia would be a safer place if CASA put the bulk of their efforts into surveillance of the public hospital system.
Burt talks about the diminishing increase in greenhouse effect as concentration of CO2 increases...
The generaly accepted theory is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 and ignoringall other feedbacks increases temperature by about 1.1 degrees celsius. i.e. going from 300 parts per million to 600 parts per million will give a temperature increase of 1.1C - going from 600 parts per million to 1200 parts per million will give a temperature increase of about 1.1C.
Last edited by Flying Binghi; 19th Jul 2012 at 01:07.
Reason: late night brain snap - try celsius
There are many, many others, but this is the best...
I was so looking forward to going through that "best" IPCC science document with yer Rusty1970... ....oh, well...
...But you think the whole AGW thing is not true, so nothing I say will convince you I suspect.
Reads like a cop-out to me..
Edit - best finnish this off as it ties into other posts re the NASA/IPCC claims...
via Rusty1970 #453; Sorry. I thought I did. I'll be more clear.
You are taking one bit of evidence (more CO2 is better for plants) and ignoring another (changes in temperature is bad for plants). If climate change is happening and caused by increases in CO2 then you can't have one without the other.
You can add all the fertiliser you like, but if you get more frosts (as the expect will happen in Europe), or temps increase significantly and effect rainfall patterns (less rain in some parts of Australia) then the plants will die, no matter how much they might like the additional CO2.
It might be plant food, but that's not the only thing it will do. And CO2 levels have never in the past 650,000 years, been anything like what they are now. So no, they didn't evolve in a CO2 environment like this one. That is wrong.
Is that clearer?
But you think the whole AGW thing is not true, so nothing I say will convince you I suspect.
Oh, we is just gettin the basics done there Rusty1970
Lets see, we established that the world has come out of a mini ice and were showing a warming trend BEFORE CO2 were a consideration. The medieval warm period were warmer then today. UHI of up to 6 degrees C is a given. And we now have it accepted by Rusty1970 that atmospheric CO2 levels have been far, far higher in the past and we is still here. (the claimed CO2 effect on climate comes later)
Last edited by Flying Binghi; 18th Jul 2012 at 15:08.
GASP!... this dumb old hill farmer me has literacy...
"...It’s easy to get the idea that global warming skeptics aren’t familiar with the science, that if they were more educated they would accept the idea catastrophe is right around the corner. A new study dispels this myth, in fact demonstrating the opposite—an increase in scientific literacy actually leads people to challenge the prevailing scientific wisdom concerning climate change..."
New end of the world book treats climate change just like many other end of times worries that have not come to pass.
These doomsday scenarios have actually bankrupted people and destroyed their lives. A few people have gotten rich at the expense of the more gullible.”
..and De_flieger, dont yer want to have a closer look-see at the NASA links yer referenced..
"...the NASA proof fer AGW..."
De_flieger, just to speed things up fer this dumb old hill farmer could you post some quotes from the "relevant papers" seems ah caint find them...
Ok. I had hoped you'd look at the link I posted, where there are a number of pages which cite findings and where to find the relevant papers if they arent directly linked - often you will be taken to the authors or institutions publication listing from which the papers are available - but anyway...
Here is the abstract of the paper "Global Temperature Change", authored by Hansen, Sato et. al. Published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Vol 103, pages 14288-14293 and available to download here: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/...sen_etal_1.pdf
Global surface temperature has increased ≈0.2°C per decade in the past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse gas changes. Warming is larger in the Western Equatorial Pacific than in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over the past century, and we suggest that the increased West-East temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Niños, such as those of 1983 and 1998. Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within ≈1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years. We conclude that global warming of more than ≈1°C, relative to 2000, will constitute "dangerous" climate change as judged from likely effects on sea level and extermination of species.
As for warming ocean temperatures, one of the articles cited was "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems", by Levitus et. al., published in Geophysics Research Letters, Vol 36, April 2009. Available to download by googling the title, it is the first result that is returned. The paper opens with:
We provide estimates of the warming of the world ocean for 1955 – 2008 based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, correcting for instrumental biases of bathythermograph data, and correcting or excluding some Argo float data. The strong interdecadal variability of global ocean heat content reported previously by us is reduced in magnitude but the linear trend in ocean heat content remain similar to our earlier estimate.
Over the past 100 years, the global average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6°C and is projected to continue to rise at a rapid rate. Although species have responded to climatic changes throughout their evolutionary history, a primary concern for wild species and their ecosystems is this rapid rate of change. We gathered information on species and global warming from 143 studies for our meta-analyses. These analyses reveal a consistent temperature-related shift, or 'fingerprint', in species ranging from molluscs to mammals and from grasses to trees. Indeed, more than 80% of the species that show changes are shifting in the direction expected on the basis of known physiological constraints of species. Consequently, the balance of evidence from these studies strongly suggests that a significant impact of global warming is already discernible in animal and plant populations.
All these are good, solid peer reviewed science - there are plenty more papers available by looking through the "citations" section at the bottom of the NASA link and its subsidiary pages that I gave you earlier.
Im really not sure why you keep coming back to the urban heat island effect though. It is a red herring in the context of this discussion. I'll summarise here:
Is there an urban heat island effect? Yes.
Is it affecting global temperature measurements and giving them the impression of climate change where otherwise one isnt present? No.
How do we know? Research by the Berkely Earth Surface Temperature group, among others, has shown this definitively. Here is the abstract of the paper "Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average Using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications", available to download from here: http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-uhi.pdf
The effect of urban heating on estimates of global average land surface temperature is studied by applying an urban-rural classification based on MODIS satellite data to the Berkeley Earth temperature dataset compilation of 39,028 sites from 10 different publicly available sources. We compare the distribution of linear temperature trends for these sites to the distribution for a rural subset of 16,132 sites chosen to be distant from all MODIS- identified urban areas. While the trend distributions are broad, with one-third of the stations in the US and worldwide having a negative trend, both distributions show significant warming. Time series of the Earth’s average land temperature are estimated using the Berkeley Earth methodology applied to the full dataset and the rural subset; the difference of these shows a slight negative slope over the period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.19°C ± 0.19 / 100yr (95% confidence), opposite in sign to that expected if the urban heat island effect was adding anomalous warming to the record. The small size, and its negative sign, supports the key conclusion of prior groups that urban warming does not unduly bias estimates of recent global temperature change.
That combined with the undisputed fact that temperature variation precedes CO2 variation by 800 odd years (anyone who believes Schmidt's assertion that this was only true BEFORE 1800 and not since is a fool) proves that we have nothing to fear from a little warming and a little more CO2 - quite the opposite.
As for Rutan's video - how about you alarmists prove the DATA he presented is flawed rather than attack the individual presenting it. The data he presented is well accepted and anyone with a brain can understand/present graphs of data without needing a PHD in 'climate science'.
I challenge the alarmists here to watch all 4 parts of this video presentation by Bob Carter (a REAL climate scientist) and then come back and tell us we have a real problem that requires urgent action as opposed to a non problem that western pollies/'environmental' groups have grabbed hold of as a way of furthering socialist wealth redistribution.
Then watch this video presentation and ask yourself "If I was going to bet my house would I bet against AGW/CO2 or natural variation"
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 19th Jul 2012 at 05:35.
This thread is about the Carbon Tax and it's affect on aviation.
Unfortunately this thread has been hijacked by conspiracy theory nutters who think global warming is some socialist plot. Personally, I prefer "UFO spotters" to the "climate change sceptics" as they are more interesting and credible.
This thread could be summarised as "The Carbon Tax has had a negligible effect on Australian aviation".
The decision by the GM Foundation to halt its support for Heartland after 20 years underlines the new image the carmaker is seeking to project as part of its social responsibility programme. In the past GM has itself been associated with efforts to discredit climate change science, but in recent years it has been investing heavily in green technologies and cars including the electric/petrol hybrid, the Chevy Volt.