hurry up, trev! we'll all be drowning in melted ice by the time you respond.
You guys realise that any sustainability progress will of course be slowed down by the brick walls of capitalism and the rich. Because any new technology has to be profitable and good for this phony economy. Even if global warming is not as extreme as some believe, it doesn't matter. It's logical to use the best and safest NEW technologies instead of unsafe technologies just because it's profitable.
But we don't live in a world based on logic. It's a world based on business and profits.
This is the entire problem. (And it is a problem). We are an animal species, not robots, we live with other species on this planet).
It's going to be hard for future generations to make money if the water is contaminated or the air is polluted, if the world is warmer, if cities are being affected by extreme weather. If the fish and our animals aren't maintaining the eco systems. Capitalism won't mean a lot then.
Problem is everything is based on short term greed.
Business, profits, and power.
Really the only thing that will change the culture anarchy. Unfortunately you can't have that without it affecting every way of life, so it'll only happen when ■■■■ hits the fan, probably (hopefully) long after most of us are gone.
If 10,000 Aussies died at the hand of a freak weather event I think people would warm to the idea of affirmative action on climate change
Lucky they're so far away, and lucky we don't have any coast on that same ocean. Couldn't happen here!
Lucky they're so far away, and lucky we don't have any coast on that same ocean. Couldn't happen here!
Short memory HAP, forgotten about Tracey already. ■■■■ happens, Always has. Always will.
Lucky they're so far away, and lucky we don't have any coast on that same ocean. Couldn't happen here!
Short memory HAP, forgotten about Tracey already. ■■■■ happens, Always has. Always will.
Your monitor not displaying ?
Lucky they're so far away, and lucky we don't have any coast on that same ocean. Couldn't happen here!
Short memory HAP, forgotten about Tracey already. **** happens, Always has. Always will.
Your monitor not displaying ?
Thanks Boot, but always thought HAP was smart enough to make his own comments.
A customer used a similar sort of analogy to me yesterday.
If there is a crack in the wall, do you go and get it looked at now and maybe add something small to it to stop it from becoming worse, or do you wait until the roof collapses and then try and replace the whole roof and everything inside?
A customer used a similar sort of analogy to me yesterday.
If there is a crack in the wall, do you go and get it looked at now and maybe add something small to it to stop it from becoming worse, or do you wait until the roof collapses and then try and replace the whole roof and everything inside?
You can't prove the crack in the wall is a sign that the roof will collapse, only that it might. It might collapse due to other reasons! Like God's benevolance! And your 'facts' are based on 'informed opinions' from 'professionals' who have obvious reasons to keep themselves employed 'fixing' 'worn' 'walls'. The lovely gentlemen who built this wall for me tells me there's nothing to worry about, afterall. I'm pretty sure he had a 20 year old Master Builder's certificate with him when he gave me his quote. 20 years! He's obviously been in the business a long time.
Lucky they're so far away, and lucky we don't have any coast on that same ocean. Couldn't happen here!
Short memory HAP, forgotten about Tracey already. **** happens, Always has. Always will.
■■■■ may well happen more often in the future.
Lucky they're so far away, and lucky we don't have any coast on that same ocean. Couldn't happen here!
Short memory HAP, forgotten about Tracey already. **** happens, Always has. Always will.
Your monitor not displaying ?
Thanks Boot, but always thought HAP was smart enough to make his own comments.
Hello.
Lucky they're so far away, and lucky we don't have any coast on that same ocean. Couldn't happen here!
Short memory HAP, forgotten about Tracey already. **** happens, Always has. Always will.
Your monitor not displaying ?
Thanks Boot, but always thought HAP was smart enough to make his own comments.
Hello.
Labdien!
yep - http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/series/12838Every species on Earth suffers a population crash at some point. Ours will happen.We should discuss pollution and population control. And why the human population thinks it can live forever. Ultimately, we are part of a massive chemistry reaction and our part will come and go.
Anyone watching Supersized Earth on ABC? Just started last week, I think.
Supersized Earth is awesome but kinda scary
Missed it. Is it on iview?
Tony Abbott to slash ABC funding.
yep - http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/series/12838Every species on Earth suffers a population crash at some point. Ours will happen.We should discuss pollution and population control. And why the human population thinks it can live forever. Ultimately, we are part of a massive chemistry reaction and our part will come and go.
Anyone watching Supersized Earth on ABC? Just started last week, I think.
Supersized Earth is awesome but kinda scary
Missed it. Is it on iview?
Tony Abbott to slash ABC funding.
Woah Buggy
Will The Overselling Of Global Warming Lead To A New Scientific Dark Age?
Will the overselling of climate change lead to a new scientific dark age? That‘s the question being posed in the latest issue of an Australian literary journal,Quadrant, by Garth Paltridge, one of the world‘s most respected atmospheric scientists.
Paltridge was a Chief Research Scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO). The latter is Australia‘s equivalent of the National Science Foundation, our massive Federal Laboratory network, and all the governmental agency science branches rolled into one.
Paltridge lays out the well-known uncertainties in climate forecasting. These include our inability to properly simulate clouds that are anything like what we see in the real world, the embarrassing lack of average surface warming now in its 17th year, and the fumbling (and contradictory) attempts to explain it away.
While the politically correct name for the last 17 years is “the pause,†it‘s much more like the P-wave, which reflects the crustal slippage that occurs before the shaking (and tsunami, if beneath the sea) of a catastrophic earthquake. Humans can‘t feel them, but many animals can, which is why birds alight shortly before all hell breaks loose.
Climate scientists have been profoundly defensive about the known problems. Paltridge elegantly explains that this has to be the case, and describes the likely horrific consequences when the day of reckoning finally arrives.
That day is coming closer, because, as Paltridge notes, people are catching on:
“…the average man in the street, a sensible chap who by now can smell the signs of an oversold environmental campaign from miles away, is beginning to suspect that it is politics rather than science which is driving the issue.â€
The scientific establishment has painted itself into a corner over global warming. Paltridge‘s explanations for this are depressingly familiar to those who read these columns.
Science changed dramatically in the 1970s, when the reward structure in the profession began to revolve around the acquisition of massive amounts of taxpayer funding that was external to the normal budgets of the universities and federal laboratories. In climate science, this meant portraying the issue in dire terms, often in alliance with environmental advocacy organizations. Predictably, scientists (and their institutions) became addicted to the wealth, fame, and travel in the front of the airplane:
“A new and rewarding research lifestyle emerged which involved the giving of advice to all types and levels of government, the broadcasting of unchallengeable opinion to the general public, and easy justification for attendance at international conferences—this last in some luxury by normal scientific experience, and at a frequency previously unheard of.â€
Every incentive reinforced this behavior, as the self-selected community of climate boffins now began to speak for both science and in the service of drastic regulatory policies. In the measured tones of the remarkably lucid and precise writer that he is, Paltridge explains how the corner got painted:
“The trap was fully sprung when many of the world‘s major national academies of science (such as the Royal Society in the UK, the National Academy of Sciences in the USA and the Australian Academy of Science) persuaded themselves to issue reports giving support to the conclusions of the IPCC [the United Nations‘ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]. The reports were touted as national assessments that were supposedly independent of the IPCC and of each other, but of necessity were compiled with the assistance of, and in some cases at the behest of, many of the scientists involved in the IPCC international machinations. In effect, the academies, which are the most prestigious of the institutions of science, formally nailed their colours to the mast of the politically correct.
Since that time three or four years ago, there has been no comfortable way for the scientific community to raise the spectre of serious uncertainty about the forecasts of climatic disaster.â€
Every year that elapses without a significant warming trend more and more erodes the credibility of not just climate science, but science in general:
“In the light of all this, we have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem—or, what is much the same thing, of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem—in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society‘s respect for scientific endeavour.†[emphasis added]
This is the scariest part, and it is apparent that this unravelling has already begun. Serious scholars of science, like University of Montreal‘s Daniele Fanelli, and Stanford‘s John Iaonnadis are publishing quantitative analyses of the proliferation of scientific errors that is malignantly invading the profession because of, in part, the funding and reward model. When this “third rail†is actively being researched by people of such quality, it is apparent that the sickness of climate science is not just confined to climate science.
English: Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which shared the 2007 Nobel Prize together with Al Gore, at a conference in Vienna, 22 June 2009. Photo by Mikhail Evstafiev (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
When the climate science tsunami breaks the shore, the destruction will be massive and universal. It‘s fair to say that scientific seismologists like Garth Paltridge have
already detected the P-wave of the earthquake, in the form of the lack of warming, which is now likely to extend to at least 23 years. The S-wave isn‘t far behind. Scientists, run for cover. Now.
I always thought guys like Tim Flannery were its worst enemy, because his short-term predictions were so dire, and so wrong. And the ones who predicted that low-lying Pacific islands would be knee-deep by Easter (clearly exaggerating here), but very little happened...the man in the street just starts thinking that it's all a competition to see who can predict the most dismal outcome.
I've got no doubt the outcomes are dire, but these guys don't help.
I remember hearing that the warming temperatures had caused the sea-level to rise and that a lot of that water had ended up being dumped over parts of Australia. Counter-intuitive things can happen as a result of things we haven't seen before. Sure, the sea-levels might rise but that might cause other events.
And for anyone who thinks that shooting down one part of my comments discredits everything, go and f*** yourselves. You're the problem too.
Will The Overselling Of Global Warming Lead To A New Scientific Dark Age?
Will the overselling of climate change lead to a new scientific dark age? That‘s the question being posed in the latest issue of an Australian literary journal,Quadrant, by Garth Paltridge, one of the world‘s most respected atmospheric scientists.
Paltridge was a Chief Research Scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO). The latter is Australia‘s equivalent of the National Science Foundation, our massive Federal Laboratory network, and all the governmental agency science branches rolled into one.
Paltridge lays out the well-known uncertainties in climate forecasting. These include our inability to properly simulate clouds that are anything like what we see in the real world, the embarrassing lack of average surface warming now in its 17th year, and the fumbling (and contradictory) attempts to explain it away.
While the politically correct name for the last 17 years is “the pause,†it‘s much more like the P-wave, which reflects the crustal slippage that occurs before the shaking (and tsunami, if beneath the sea) of a catastrophic earthquake. Humans can‘t feel them, but many animals can, which is why birds alight shortly before all hell breaks loose.
Climate scientists have been profoundly defensive about the known problems. Paltridge elegantly explains that this has to be the case, and describes the likely horrific consequences when the day of reckoning finally arrives.
That day is coming closer, because, as Paltridge notes, people are catching on:
“…the average man in the street, a sensible chap who by now can smell the signs of an oversold environmental campaign from miles away, is beginning to suspect that it is politics rather than science which is driving the issue.â€
The scientific establishment has painted itself into a corner over global warming. Paltridge‘s explanations for this are depressingly familiar to those who read these columns.
Science changed dramatically in the 1970s, when the reward structure in the profession began to revolve around the acquisition of massive amounts of taxpayer funding that was external to the normal budgets of the universities and federal laboratories. In climate science, this meant portraying the issue in dire terms, often in alliance with environmental advocacy organizations. Predictably, scientists (and their institutions) became addicted to the wealth, fame, and travel in the front of the airplane:
“A new and rewarding research lifestyle emerged which involved the giving of advice to all types and levels of government, the broadcasting of unchallengeable opinion to the general public, and easy justification for attendance at international conferences—this last in some luxury by normal scientific experience, and at a frequency previously unheard of.â€
Every incentive reinforced this behavior, as the self-selected community of climate boffins now began to speak for both science and in the service of drastic regulatory policies. In the measured tones of the remarkably lucid and precise writer that he is, Paltridge explains how the corner got painted:
“The trap was fully sprung when many of the world‘s major national academies of science (such as the Royal Society in the UK, the National Academy of Sciences in the USA and the Australian Academy of Science) persuaded themselves to issue reports giving support to the conclusions of the IPCC [the United Nations‘ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]. The reports were touted as national assessments that were supposedly independent of the IPCC and of each other, but of necessity were compiled with the assistance of, and in some cases at the behest of, many of the scientists involved in the IPCC international machinations. In effect, the academies, which are the most prestigious of the institutions of science, formally nailed their colours to the mast of the politically correct.
Since that time three or four years ago, there has been no comfortable way for the scientific community to raise the spectre of serious uncertainty about the forecasts of climatic disaster.â€
Every year that elapses without a significant warming trend more and more erodes the credibility of not just climate science, but science in general:
“In the light of all this, we have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem—or, what is much the same thing, of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem—in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society‘s respect for scientific endeavour.†[emphasis added]
This is the scariest part, and it is apparent that this unravelling has already begun. Serious scholars of science, like University of Montreal‘s Daniele Fanelli, and Stanford‘s John Iaonnadis are publishing quantitative analyses of the proliferation of scientific errors that is malignantly invading the profession because of, in part, the funding and reward model. When this “third rail†is actively being researched by people of such quality, it is apparent that the sickness of climate science is not just confined to climate science.
English: Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which shared the 2007 Nobel Prize together with Al Gore, at a conference in Vienna, 22 June 2009. Photo by Mikhail Evstafiev (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
When the climate science tsunami breaks the shore, the destruction will be massive and universal. It‘s fair to say that scientific seismologists like Garth Paltridge have
already detected the P-wave of the earthquake, in the form of the lack of warming, which is now likely to extend to at least 23 years. The S-wave isn‘t far behind. Scientists, run for cover. Now.
Geez, that omits a lot.
On the stuff I've seen, going by some modelling/data the "pause" is going as strong as ever, going by most (that I've seen) it's only a slight drop in the rate of increase - still an increase!. So it depends which one you listen to, and they've all got a lot of assumptions & a few holes, but they agree on that one point - still increasing in temp.
Which is being played out, in real recorded temperatures, in most places.
Which is kind of the problem of scientific coverage; and why people like Tim Flannery exist.
The actual content of any scientific study, tends to get boiled down to one-two paragraphs, if it gets any publicity at all.
So they go the big sell (whether that's "there's a pause!" or "Tuvalu will disappear").
And I seriously hope that people don't really think Flannery's the only one in the debate going a bit OTT.
Actually I think Flannery's just enabled the deniers to deny everything.
I still think the deniers are total arseholes, just that Flannery and the like gave them the opportunity.
Opinion are fun.
Data collected and analysed by the Bureau of Meteorology show that 2013 was Australia's warmest year on record while rainfall was slightly below average nationally.
- Summer 2012–13 was the warmest on record nationally, spring was also the warmest on record and winter the third warmest
- Overall, 2013 was Australia's warmest year on record: annual national mean temperature was +1.20 °C above average
- All States and the Northern Territory ranked in the four warmest years on record
- Nationally-averaged rainfall was slightly below average for the year, with 428 mm (1961–1990 average 465 mm)
- Rainfall was mostly below average for the inland east and centre, and above average for the east coast, northern Tasmania and parts of Western Australia
Overview
2013 was Australia‘s warmest year since records began in 1910. Mean temperatures across Australia have generally been well above average since September 2012. Long periods of warmer-than-average days have been common, with a distinct lack of cold weather. Nights have also been warmer than average, but less so than days.
The Australian area-averaged mean temperature for 2013 was +1.20 °C above the 1961–1990 average. Maximum temperatures were +1.45 °C above average, and minimum temperatures +0.94 °C above average. Temperatures were above average across nearly all of Australia for maximum, mean and minimum temperatures, with large areas of inland and southern Australia experiencing the highest on record for each.
Australia has experienced just one cooler-than-average year (2011) in the last decade. The 10-year mean temperature for 2004–2013 was 0.50 °C above average, the equal-highest on record. Averages for each of the ten-year periods from 1995–2004 to 2004–2013 have been amongst the top ten records.
The Australian mean rainfall total for 2013 was 428 mm (37 mm below the long-term average of 465 mm). In comparison with rainfall in all years since 1900, 2013 sits close to the median or mid-point of historical observations.
Annual rainfall was below average across a large region of the inland east centred on western Queensland and extending into northern South Australia and the Northern Territory. Rainfall was above average over parts of the Pilbara and the south coast of Western Australia, as well as along the east coast and northern Tasmania
Globally, 2013 the sixth warmest year on record
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) produces an estimated global mean temperature by drawing on data from three global climate datasets maintained by the UK Met Office Hadley Centre (HadCRU3v), the US National Climatic Data Centre (blended GHCNv3 and ERSST3b) and the US Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISTEMP). Based on preliminary data (January–November), the estimated global mean temperature for 2013 is 0.49 °C above the long-term (1961–1990) average of 14.0 °C. Using this method, 2013 ranks as the sixth-warmest year since global records commenced in 1880. No year since 1985 has recorded a below-average global mean temperature and nine of the ten warmest years have occurred in the past 12 years (2002–2013).
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/
...but not as fun as facts.
This article is almost the Platonic ideal of the modern piece of denialist literature - it's almost impressive in its purity. I'll try to do a line-by-line takedown later on once I've got the time...
Will The Overselling Of Global Warming Lead To A New Scientific Dark Age?