Climate change wankers

that's hilarious barley, not knowing what ya are and all.

I know what i am and if thats the best you've got..well..thats a bit sad..as long as calling me names makes ya happy thats cool..i like making people feel happy!

Nick3/Tones, saw your speech in London went down a treat, mate. Nice little earn, hey? Yeew

Nick3.. Give the skunk a rest, man.... If you are still gonna smoke that stuff, stick to the old outdoor..

Early in October, Victoria had some bushfires, thanks to some stupid mistakes with burnoffs.... Mount Macedon region... During that time, Victorian Commissioner came out on national TV, with his crystal ball, backed with BOM predictions..... "No meaningful rain in the medium term for the south east" was the call..... Apart from steering folk away from the almost criminal behaviour by the government paid back burners, the crystal ball message was intended to raise anxiety, and further legitimize "climate change", or "global warming", or whatever the latest name is.... (I mean an atom is an atom - you only need one scientific term - Photosynthesis is photosynthesis... Perhaps just call it climate change, or global warming, no need for a default name)..... Anyway, that's another story...

So..... It's now late october..... Has there been NO meaningful rain in the S.E?, Victoria in particular? The latest BOM observations say there has been.....
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&...

You see, people and organizations make these outrageous crystal ball predictions without fear, and even in the short to medium term, they cant get it right..... Thank fuck they aren't Financial planners......
Here was the outlook for October;
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/outlooks/#/rainfall/total/75/monthly/0

Here's what has actually happened, and October isn't even over yet, with more rains on the way for 30th onwards....
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&...

Here's my prediction..... It's Fucking Spring!!!! lol

sheepy, melbourne has just had a very very dry october, a month when it traditionally rained alot. don't know the stats perhaps you have the time to look at them to disprove my comment. have just driven out of vicco into the riverina and there are pockets of green along the way and lots of brown land and dust and we are just coming out of winter, lots of dry creek beds and low dam levels too .... just saying.

burnoffs ..... everyone has an opinion. my cfa mates reckon there should be more but done by local councils like it used to be or one bloke reckons get the feral goats to work. there is no doubt the land has changed massively since the blackfellas managed it along with all those roos, too much understory but no easy answer (gee I'm sounding like TB). the govt had 2 gos at burning the prom down over the last 10 years!!!

SD, south-east refers in my knowedge to the greater south-east of the country, ie eastern South Australia, Victoria and southern NSW.

Anomalies show forecasts were correct besides your higher than normal rain totals in eastern Victoria.

oh sweet jesus, make the thread stop

Like a tunnel that you follow to a tunnel of its own,
Down a hollow to a cavern where the sun has never shone,
Like a door that keeps revolving in a half-forgotten dream,
Or the ripples from a pebble someone tosses in a stream,
Like a clock whose hands are sweeping past the minutes of its face,
And the world is like an apple whirling silently in space
Like the circles that you find in the windmills of your mind

No one jumping up and down about indonesia's palm oil fires? Not as important as smashing rinehart,forrest and cronies..

barley wrote:

No one jumping up and down about indonesia's palm oil fires? Not as important as smashing rinehart,forrest and cronies..

palm oil plantations in the tropics is a massive problem barley for all sorts of environmental reasons just like the wholesale clearing of australian forests for agriculture was/is. not sure why you would say no one is jumping up and down about it, i guess you are just rattling the chain to see who barks.

Havent heard any greenies talking about it or boutique greenies such as blindboy, craig..even mainsteam media..sarah hanson young..nothing..why? Not as easy political point scoring...
These fires are out of control, have made over 500 000 people sick not to mention all types of fumes polluting the air not one mention on abc why?
Why make australians conform to a carbon trading scheme when our northern neighbours do this?
Why does Indonesia permit these fires?money
Aah but its not as bad as coal

'Daily emissions from these fires have surpassed daily emissions from the entire U.S economy'.the guardian

Shats writes "oh sweet jesus, make the thread stop"..... Just keep scrolling past, bro... Problem solved..

Craig... I was talking about what was predicted, not only by BOM, but echoed by the Victorian state GOV.. Predictions, not anomalies.. Below is in regards to VICTORIA only;

MEDIA INTERVIEW; with Premier Andrews AND Emergency Management Commissioner Craig Lapsley ;
"The bureau's very clear in its forecast that October will remain dry. There is no rain today, tomorrow or over the NEXT FEW WEEKS OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE"......
Firstly, BOM does not "significance" as a specific term for rainfall;
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/cdo/about/definitionsrain.shtml

Secondly, IMO, Victoria has had "significant rain", with an area the not far off the size of Tasmania receiving bloody good rain 40 to 90mm.... Small areas even bursting through 100mm... Then there's a bigger region that has gotten on average 17.5mm over 4 weeks, which is well over 4mm per week...

And of course, October isn't over yet.... Forecast for saturday morning;

BTW, here was BOMs outlook for Vic..... Note eastern half;

Roger that eastern half outlook chart, that's a huge miss.

First bit of rain up these ways yesterday and this morning, which was much needed:)
It's been real dry.
El-Nino here up SE QLD dry, IMO which produces Paralysis ticks, nasty fuckas.
Nearly lost me Jack Russell the other day, emergency vet bill $1400 ouch.

Sheepy, so considering this thread is about climate change, I take it that because there are inaccuracies in predicting local weather you think it's fair to write of the science for climate change/global warming?

I went into anaphylaxis shock when a I had a paralysis tick on my ball bag.

AndyM do you think that the science of predicting climate change is any less complex or fallible than the science of predicting local short term weather patterns?

Freeride, don't they just love it around your scrote?! Bastards...

Tim, I would imagine that it would be more accurate to take long-term data and find trends, rather than to make short-term predictions from variables which change more constantly, but that's just my assumption.

What I do want to know is, what do the anti-AGW camp know that the world's top scientific and research organisations don't?

34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences all agree about global warming and the human component of it. This is from Wikipedia.

CSIRO are going for a 99.999% certainty that humans are driving global warming.

Skeptical Science says "A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).
Also, in a survey of 3146 earth scientists who were asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change said yes.

I could go on and on.

Tim, the evidence is overwhelming - is it really one huge conspiracy?

Christ, you just have to look at the rate at which glaciers are receding to get an inkling.
And what about ice core samples? Basic stuff.

Mate I'm not here to argue for the hell of it, I just don't see how people can flat out deny it.
Political allegiances?
Sheer bloody-mindedness because they just refuse to listen to anything "those bloody poofter latte-sipper academics and greenies" have to say?

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/october-to-be-the-hottest-on-record--and-global-warming-is-likely-to-blame-20151029-gklklt.html

Gday andym, just posing the question mate, not suggesting any conspiracy...yet :)

I'm not sure about your assumption, making predictions of highly variable, highly complex systems (in the case of climate not fully understood) is obviously a difficult undertaking. While the timescale may be different it's not to say that it is any easier to make accurate predictions, certainly there have been predictions from the agw camp that have been way off in the same sense that we see with weather predictions.

Having said that, making claims about human impacts on global warming based on real data IS much easier than making predictions about the future and I agree with you that the evidence seems overwhelming.

"What do the anti agw camp know that the worlds top scientific and research organisations don't?" You could pose this question to someone with a little more credibility than me. Why not put it to or read something written by scientists who challenge the theory rather than the average punter who refuse to accept it through "sheer bloody mindedness"

gee hayseed, Greenpeace & ABC News must be following you coz both featured stories on the Indo fires today.

floyd wrote:

gee hayseed, Greenpeace & ABC News must be following you coz both featured stories on the Indo fires today.

Doh!! news travels slow in some parts

tim foilat wrote:

Gday andym, just posing the question mate, not suggesting any conspiracy...yet :)

I'm not sure about your assumption, making predictions of highly variable, highly complex systems (in the case of climate not fully understood) is obviously a difficult undertaking. While the timescale may be different it's not to say that it is any easier to make accurate predictions, certainly there have been predictions from the agw camp that have been way off in the same sense that we see with weather predictions.

Having said that, making claims about human impacts on global warming based on real data IS much easier than making predictions about the future and I agree with you that the evidence seems overwhelming.

"What do the anti agw camp know that the worlds top scientific and research organisations don't?" You could pose this question to someone with a little more credibility than me. Why not put it to or read something written by scientists who challenge the theory rather than the average punter who refuse to accept it through "sheer bloody mindedness"

Hi Tim, wasn't necessarily accusing you of bloody mindedness , just posing the question!
Sure I'd get a better answer from a different source but to all the average crew who are (sometimes aggressively) anti AGW, I just wanted to put it out there (again).
The burden of proof is very much on the anti's now.
Cheers.

This one's for you Benski (sniff)... We lost a lotta good men out there...

Latest prediction re sea level..........5m locked in. Time scale variable depending on how quickly West Antarctica melts as the evidence shows it will.

Hey floyd yeah i saw that today..
lock that in blinboy? Notice you gave no time frame?care to elaberate

AndyM it's a good question, frequently used in this context. I think it's better directed at one of the many scientists who disagree with the theory otherwise you'll be faced with, generally, some dribble that yo won't take seriously anyway.

I should get on with the conspiracies now, this a beauty and I'd be interested in hearing people's opinions. You'll love it barley the legume farmers even get a mention.

https://m.

Love to see that..carn you explain please?

"Please explain"?

For those that truly believe in AGW , I trust you fully support our new chief scientists position on nuclear.

tonybarber wrote:

For those that truly believe in AGW , I trust you fully support our new chief scientists position on nuclear.

This?

Dr Finkel said Australia should be considering the role nuclear energy could play in lowering Australia's emissions.

"It's something that absolutely should be considered for a low emissions or a zero emissions future, but it's not the only way forward," Dr Finkel said.

"With enough storage we could do it in this country with solar and wind."

Yeah, I agree.

Stu...umm....that was awesome, tb being the staunch liberal you are I trust you fully support the statement stu has provided you with.

Barley it's a video which discusses why there is little or no room in the climate change narrative to broach the subject of animal farming and its contribution to greenhouse gasses. By far the biggest contributor of greenhouse gasses.

The argument is that by changing or diet we can have much more significant impact on preserving our environment than taking shorter showers or riding a bike to work or any number of nominal practices people undertake to make them feel like environmentalists.

The video exposes environmental groups like Greenpeace, Oceania etc for there total lack of acknowledgement of this issue while it is the biggest issue in terms of destroying the environment. How we eat is destroying the oceans and destroying rainforests to a greater degree than any other human practices. Mining, palm oil, fossil fuel transport sector....nothing comes close to the destruction caused by the way we choose to eat.

Spoiler alert, it's driven by veganism which I think is a mistake and the narrator is a bit naff, I think that there are other solutions not as extreme as veganism but it's a compelling argument none the less.

tonybarber wrote:

For those that truly believe in AGW , I trust you fully support our new chief scientists position on nuclear.

Classic example of a false dichotomy.

Thanks tim foilat ..to me it just confirms how much the climate change/global warming debate is even more about populus politics. As if any gov. Gunna take on that issue...they'd be out of a job and none of them would like that! Alot more votes in bashing coal miners..
@Floyd..excellent work using native american derogative to describe or label people..you must put in alot of effort to acquire these things as darth vader would say 'impressive, most impressive'

Gotta agree with you there barley.

Hey Blindboy, an article in the Canberra Times yesterday you should check out on the pack ice melt in Greenland.

Hey Hayseed, what do you reckon about the driest continent on Earth exporting / producing beef when it takes 15,500 litres of water to produce each 1kg of the stuff? Now that's something your National Party stooges can look into along with all the shady back room deals they are going on CSG.

Good work Tones, some-one has to sing its praises may as well be you.

@stunet (and Andy)…suggest you listen to Dr Finkel directly as opposed to chinese whispers.
https://radio.abc.net.au/programitem/pgdqGlKKN7?play=true
Have the temerity to put nuclear on the agenda. Sure we all, we all, want a pure clean world but heh, when ? and then how ?

Tb people like you want a clean world where you can keep consuming the ridiculous amounts of energy and resources that you currently do, its not gonna happen nuclear or otherwise, because it's not simply a matter of finding an alternative energy source. You advocate for the single most dangerous energy source available yet your unwilling to look at your own lifestyle.

Hi floggy..i love beef, so all good to me! Now cotton and rice thats a different story

I will post a bit more on sea level rise and related issues over the next couple of days. This will be derived from a New Scientist publication rather than from the original sources.

The 5m locked in sea level rise is estimated to take place over between 200 and 2000 years depending on our future emissions. Assuming we limit temperature rise to 2 degrees that will cause a 0.8m rise. The West Antarctic ice sheet will contribute 3.3m. Melting mountain glaciers 0.4. This adds up to 4.5m which can be rounded up to 5. This is a very conservative number as it does not consider in flows from Greenland or East Antarctica.

This is amazing BB and others interested.. Greenland Is Melting Away

@timFoliat…not sure how you know how much energy I consume - bit spooky heh. Maybe you know the next Lotto numbers. Ok, next time you wax your little stick(s) think what materials were used to make it.

Hehe but you know that I 'wax sticks' with a particular material, hillarious. You see I know very well that you consume gluttonous amounts of energy and resources as do I and 99.9% of people that live in developed countries. We support industrial farming practices that are destroying the environment, we've developed a society that is dependent on it. So why keep pushing this nuclear agenda when the solution with a far bigger impact is for you/we/us to moderate particularly our eating/consumption habits?

Far enough, you may not like nuclear but does not matter, Dr Finkel is asking Aussies to at least think about it. That is, if you truly want an Co2 emissions free world in the future. Sorry but its time to take the stick out for a quick one.

freeride76 wrote:

I went into anaphylaxis shock when a I had a paralysis tick on my ball bag.

An a Phallic shock for sure FR.
I feel for ya, Nasty stuff.

While it's good to know what the biggest polluters are, that doesn't mean they are also the easiest to reduce. Its the cumulative total of atmospheric carbon that matters and units produced by one method in one location are largely interchangeable with any others. Its the same logical error of stating that australia is small so it doesn't matter, when in fact one unit of carbon reduction in Australia is as good as anyone elses' (blinded by ratios and percentages).

Having said that, I have been moving to a lower meat diet for a while. I swapped to kangaroo for red meat some time ago and then tried to limit the shitty processed meat intakes when eating out (cheap pies, etc) and focus on enjoying good quality meat a little less often. Now in asia, its easy to be on a low meat diet. To be fair a lot of that motivation came from health considerations as much as environmental.

Perhaps nuclear should be on the table. Technology has improved immensely over the last couple of decades. Terrapower is one company that have been developing reactor processes that utilise spent nuclear waste from existing sites.

Yeh that is really scary stuff Craig I think the science is lagging behind the reality, the economy is lagging behind the science, governments are lagging behind the economy and the average consumer is in almost complete ignorance. We will go down in history, to quote HST, as the generation of swine.