Entering the climate change era.

throw in a free beanbag blindboy and I might take up that deal myself.

What I've noticed is that Tim, whether you agree or disagree with him, has not been condescending, rude, inflammatory, etc.... Unlike many... On the "pro climate change side", I take my hat off to batfink and his post yesterday... No playing the man... Just his pov..... Well done batboy...
But fink, i do think our tech abilities are far greater now that 1996/7... Quite unreal that it's 20 years.... It'd be interesting to pull out some old style measuring equipment used in the 1930s/40s/50s, and take measurements today, don't you think? Perhaps someone has done this.... Wouldn't that be a fair scientific comparison?

Sheepdog wrote:

What I've noticed is that Tim, whether you agree or disagree with him, has not been condescending, rude, inflammatory, etc.... Unlike many...

bwahhaaaaaaaa.

happyasS wrote:

Sheepdog wrote:

What I've noticed is that Tim, whether you agree or disagree with him, has not been condescending, rude, inflammatory, etc.... Unlike many...

bwahhaaaaaaaa.

So true.

Sheepdog wrote:

It'd be interesting to pull out some old style measuring equipment used in the 1930s/40s/50s, and take measurements today, don't you think? Perhaps someone has done this.... Wouldn't that be a fair scientific comparison?

you mean a mercury thermometer? the same type used today in meteorology.

happyasS wrote:

Sheepdog wrote:

It'd be interesting to pull out some old style measuring equipment used in the 1930s/40s/50s, and take measurements today, don't you think? Perhaps someone has done this.... Wouldn't that be a fair scientific comparison?

you mean a mercury thermometer? the same type used today in meteorology.

Bahahaha... That's pretty funny... yeah but I mean across the board, and like an old weatherman in 1930, you gotta smoke your tobacco pipe and drink 2 bottles of pilsener before you walk down to take the rain measurement. lol

dunno about the pilsener, wouldn't a beer help keep a steady eye ? ;)

but seriously, yes, there would have been tonnes of slight errors. plus old equipment might have become out of cal and back in 1900 re-cal probably would have been much more difficult and time-consuming than today. how much it impacted results I dunno...the law of averages probably takes into effect somewhere I suspect and all the slight errors even out.

but to batfinks comment, I read somewhere that precision mercury thermometers back even to 1880 and earlier were accurate to 0.1C.....the reason they know that is because the same type of thermometers today are sometimes calibrated using the same means....an ice bath.

in my opinion the bigger uncertainty using measurements back to 1880 is probably whether enough representative global measurements were taken....like in all the areas of the earth that we take measurements today. were as many artic and ocean measurements taken back then as taken today.

I think I found the solution.... Maybe Trump and Putin will fix it "Genghis style".... bahahaha

http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/genghis-khan-environment-26052014/

No that is not true bb...you need to stop spreading your fear and dramatised scenarios...you can not and will not ever predict the future.. it is impossible.
The sooner the climate evangalists decipher this the better.
You and your disciples actually have no factual evidence what will happen in the future..all your quotations are based on hearsay and only hindsight..when will you understand thaf climate change is first and foremost evolution (as a self proclaimed 'scientist' you should know that).
Furthermore you cannot stop the climate from evolving. Even though you claim the 'holier than thou' moral ground..you are infact a contributer to its demise..and yet you are unable to realise that unless humans cease to exist alltogether then we will have an effect and our earth will respond..
In short there is no point hammering us when we are trying to do the right thing.
And urgent loses its velocity the longer is course

Barley - for fear that we might breakdown the big polluting industries and move to non-pollutants and renewables too quickly? In your dogmatic rejection of the science, what are you really supporting?

Refreshing to see Tassie and it's dams copping a drenching this morning on the BOM radars.

I'm reluctant to get back into the CC debate after the last one closed; suffice it to say I've spent the months learning more and BB you need to expand your focus well beyond just this planet. To believe this is happening here in isolation is to completely ignore some absolutely astounding phenomena going on in our immediate solar system, and going on with our very star.

Is our polluting bad? For sure. Is it better to diversify our energy dependence and replace with cleaner alternatives in everything we do? Our children will thank us. Is it smart to discount the largest energy input on our planet by far? Not so much. There's been a deluge of papers on this in the last 2 years as more scientists turn their attention this way.

No wonder the ancients worshipped Sol.

What are you really supporting mk1? Or who? Here in SA we are supposed to be nearly carbon neutral..infact on some days we produce enough renewable energy to power all our state but our power prices are going up...why is that.
For me climate science is the equivalent as religion or fanaticism, radicalism.
People tell us how we should live our lives but do they practice what they preach?

yet still more mind-blowing illogical tripe from the yokel

barley wrote:

No that is not true bb...you need to stop spreading your fear and dramatised scenarios...you can not and will not ever predict the future.. it is impossible.

"cannot predict the future?" hmmm. do you stock up on firewood before winter barley? its autumn now. why bother? you cannot predict that you will need any firewood this winter. its might be unseasonanly warm this year. you stock up because your 95% sure you'll need it. not 100 but 95%.

sounds like your pretty good at prediction yourself. you must be a scientist.

BB, would you be able to predict or model what the average temperature would be in say Brisbane for July, 2016 ? Plus / minus 1.5 degrees. Another interesting one is - will there be any more cyclones in the coral sea before June. That maybe easier given current states of lows in the upper end.

Brisbane June average? 90% chance of being at least 19.0 degrees. 10% chance of being at least 24.6 degrees. straight from bom.

and if it follows a normal distribution then there is a 50% chance it will be at least 21.8 degrees. and whatya know....bom june average says 21.9 degrees.

these things called statistics are frustratingly useful.

ha ha. nah my figures were for June (I misread TB's comment) but July is nearly identical anyhow (0.1C difference). i was really only trying to point out to TB that weather records can be represented as statistical curves from which predictions can be made. having said that I bet that Brisbane this year is going to have a freak July freeze or something and Barley & Co will come back saying 'I told you so'. that's the nature of statistics; you never can be 100% sure.

but even your basic highest/lowest method which took you 2 seconds got you within 0.3 degrees of the BOM official figure which shows that some of this shit ain't rocket science.

Some predictions I am happy to bet on
1. Money loses value
2. People strive for more
3. The environment is on a collision course with batshit fucked.

Barley, you didn't actually answer my question. Plus, when have humans not been fanatical? Might as well wait the sun to freeze before doing something beneficial as wait for an element of fanaticalism to not be present. Arguing against the science on the basis that the fanatics annoy you is a bit dogmatic, and fanatical, don't you think?

I personally try to do my bit as best as I can, and hope to keep progressing and doing more. I might even go out and lobby for the cause like a true believer!

Mk1 i am not supporting anything....i found it funny on abc24 when the lastest tasmanian bushfires were going on that an environmental group blamed climate change for the old world forest bushfires..even though it was started by lightning. ..thats funny..keeping a forest from regenerating burn offs actually contributed to the severity of the fires.
Gotta love science, it can predict...earthquakes, tsunamis, bushfires, rainfall,sea level rise, temp rise..hell they can even get a person safely into space..
Just out of curiosity who is living carbon neutral? Who drives a car, travels, has a poly rainwater tank, lives in a house, eats fast food, drinks beer..hell china are building new fucking islands ffs
Saw a docco on nz glaciers melting..toyrists are dumbfounded..really this shit has been going on for millions of years..

Bb i bet your wrong on sunrise tomorrow..fucken easy..too many variables..when is the sun officially risen? Time differences? Weather conditions..places on earth..sun may not even rise for some..but science woulda told you that?

I now believe (at this point in time) the best thing that someone can do for the environment was said earlier.....don't have kids. and equally, the worst thing you can do for the environment is have kids. its a bit of a harsh reality that most, including myself, have already broken & about to break again. all the cloth diapers, recycling, bicycle riding, and fart inhaling gets blown out to smithereens at the prospect of another human life consuming on this planet for the next 80 odd years. but without young blood our hopes of ever becoming "truly green" in the future are an impossibility. sounds like a biological race towards something that's either going to work out, or not.

I'm still waiting for the 5-15mm of rain i was told i would be recieving yesterday..hmmm

Woah woah hang on a minute, just looked into my telescope and holy heck something is happening to BELLATRIX
the Amazon Star.
Gamma Orionis
HR 1790
HD 35468
Data

RA 05 25 07.9
Dec +06 20 59
V 1.64
B-V -0.22
Spectral Type B2III

BELLATRIX has just moved an 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 inch, so the cosmos is out of line meaning, Sunrise could be at 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000Will000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000COME00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000up00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000WE00000000000000000HOPE00000000000000000000000000000000000000000 secs early?

barley wrote:

I'm still waiting for the 5-15mm of rain i was told i would be recieving yesterday..hmmm

what, didn't santa claus deliver? u been a bad boy barley?

maybe next year you ask santa for a short story explaining the difference between weather and climate.

barley wrote:

Mk1 i am not supporting anything....i found it funny on abc24 when the lastest tasmanian bushfires were going on that an environmental group blamed climate change for the old world forest bushfires..even though it was started by lightning. ..thats funny..keeping a forest from regenerating burn offs actually contributed to the severity of the fires.
Gotta love science, it can predict...earthquakes, tsunamis, bushfires, rainfall,sea level rise, temp rise..hell they can even get a person safely into space..
Just out of curiosity who is living carbon neutral? Who drives a car, travels, has a poly rainwater tank, lives in a house, eats fast food, drinks beer..hell china are building new fucking islands ffs
Saw a docco on nz glaciers melting..toyrists are dumbfounded..really this shit has been going on for millions of years..

Barley, you are clearly supporting the status quo and the frontierist mindset while siding with the existing economic profiteers at the expense of the rest of the earth's citizens. You attack those stupid environmentalists at every point even though for the most part they are logically correct (the environment is clearly suffering). So why? Conservatism? Recalcitrance? Contrarianism and stubbornness? A sense of safety in your viewpoints (again, conservatism)? Profit?

What does your anti-environmentalism actually give back to you?

At a charity dinner recently with an old aussie at the table, said I was working on a few project around renewable energy. The guy sarcastically scoffed, "well we could debate the benefit of renewable energy all day if we wanted!"

I just replied "why would we want to do that?"

happyasS wrote:

I now believe (at this point in time) the best thing that someone can do for the environment was said earlier.....don't have kids. and equally, the worst thing you can do for the environment is have kids. its a bit of a harsh reality that most, including myself, have already broken & about to break again. all the cloth diapers, recycling, bicycle riding, and fart inhaling gets blown out to smithereens at the prospect of another human life consuming on this planet for the next 80 odd years. but without young blood our hopes of ever becoming "truly green" in the future are an impossibility. sounds like a biological race towards something that's either going to work out, or not.

The stand still rate is 2.2 kids per 2 adults from memory. Anyone having less than that is (longterm) assisting the environment. In the developed world the average is below that so generally current day breeders are doing the right thing in the pop'n stakes, but the time horizon is too long and you can't ask one generation to correct all the issues developed throughout history, in contrast to biology. The lower than replacement birth rate is already a lot.

While having even less kids might be the best option, its not the most realistic and there are plenty of alternatives that can provide a substantial net benefit. Simple steps to reduce waste, reduce meat intake and get an effective carbon tax in place would be a huge step in the right direction without getting militant on child birth.

Simple, put a carbon tax on kids, and stop taxing the shit out of childless couples .

One kid per person any more after that, the parent has to pay a carbon tax every year until the kid turns 21 or is paying tax themselves and go past the 1 child limit and lose family benifits. Don't have to be militant just hit in the pocket and it's all about choices.

barley wrote:

I'm still waiting for the 5-15mm of rain i was told i would be recieving yesterday..hmmm

Pa still using the divining rod yokel?

happyasS wrote:

ha ha. nah my figures were for June (I misread TB's comment) but July is nearly identical anyhow (0.1C difference). i was really only trying to point out to TB that weather records can be represented as statistical curves from which predictions can be made. having said that I bet that Brisbane this year is going to have a freak July freeze or something and Barley & Co will come back saying 'I told you so'. that's the nature of statistics; you never can be 100% sure.

Ahh, yes, that's right we can look at past metrics and predict the immediate future with an element of certainty or uncertainty. Now project this a further 50 years, say and then add that there is no uncertainty. That is 100 percent sure.

Agree that the elephant is really population - but that won't be fixed too easily.

yeah but no scientist says that there is no uncertainty. rather than focus purely on surety many (like myself) prefer to think in terms of risk management which has to include the consequence of inaction. a possible outcome that has a serious consequence is normally deemed a high risk.

its a bit like saving money for when your old. your only 80% sure that based on your age, medical history, and family ancestory that you'll make it past 65 or 70. but a smart person will, if they have the capacity, put some money aside from an early age. sometimes even 50 years in advance although that would be the rare case.

population could be better controlled though. india and Africa are going to keep increasing their population for quite some time. most of the worlds increase in population now is likely to come from those two regions. the most known factors is education (lack of) for women and of course poverty. the two are sometimes linked. but while we continue to let despots support continuation of archaic mentalities and then not do anything to help bring those countries into the new century then we have to expect that they will continue to populate in high demand. it would be unfair of us to expect otherwise.

even archaic mentalities exist in western culture, Christianity is one. I will always place a bet that couples with strong Christian faiths will think AGW is all bullshit...ive seen it many times talking to people. and guess what, those are the couples pumping out 3, 4, and sometimes rarely even 5 kids. fortunately that type of religiosity is becoming rarer in Australia these days.

Hako o hakonde ni-biki no inu wrote:

Simple, put a carbon tax on kids, and stop taxing the shit out of childless couples .

One kid per person any more after that, the parent has to pay a carbon tax every year until the kid turns 21 or is paying tax themselves and go past the 1 child limit and lose family benifits. Don't have to be militant just hit in the pocket and it's all about choices.

No need, just have a carbon tax. Those families who consume more pay more.

And those that grow their own, eat local fresh produce don't pay it!

......... from carbon footprint of surfing ............ at sheepsterq's request

hey sheepy, why the cynicism? you so hard these days you can't see the beauty of what that guy does and where he lives?

was thinking about this whole no kids, what am i or you or the guy next door doing to save the planet, carbon footprints blah blah ... ... i've resisted this whole argument but if i were to list all the things i do it would be a very long list but i'm still not happy, still trying to get it simple in every way ......... but is that the point? why compare individual efforts? .... i'd be happy(ier) if we were all just working and thinking in the same direction but most aren't for whatever reason ... making ends meet, the hussle of daily life, ignorance .... whatever ..... they say on the environment most people follow their politics, i know you don't, most do, perhaps we can hope for true political leadership .... one day

floyd wrote:

......... from carbon footprint of surfing ............ at sheepsterq's request

hey sheepy, why the cynicism? you so hard these days you can't see the beauty of what that guy does and where he lives?

was thinking about this whole no kids, what am i or you or the guy next door doing to save the planet, carbon footprints blah blah ... ... i've resisted this whole argument but if i were to list all the things i do it would be a very long list but i'm still not happy, still trying to get it simple in every way ......... but is that the point? why compare individual efforts? .... i'd be happy(ier) if we were all just working and thinking in the same direction but most aren't for whatever reason ... making ends meet, the hussle of daily life, ignorance .... whatever ..... they say on the environment most people follow their politics, i know you don't, most do, perhaps we can hope for true political leadership .... one day

Hmmmmmm...... Everyone has taken their "say not to sarcasm" medication I see....... pmsl..

It was a tongue in cheek dig, mate..... But it served it's purpose and opened up that same can of worms.....I know it would be impossible to live a "carbon free" lifestyle.. After all we are carbon based life.... No carbon, no life.... No co2 no plants, therefore no o2.... But the real die hard, hard core climate change promoters, some of which inhabit the "surfing culture" should take a good long look at their own behaviour... On social level, they want to get rid of coal, stay deathly quiet whenever nuclear is mentioned, but have not done one thing on a personal level re' climate change.. How many out there ride a surfboard made from one of those trees? How many buy a locally made wettie? Do you pay for carbon offset when travelling? Do you travel light?
This crosses over into another chat from a while back, where I brought up how wherever surfing goes, development follows... Surfing is not eco friendly.. It is far from "carbon neutral"... And the facade that it is needs to stop..

Heard on a radio station the other day 95% of people dont pay the carbon offset on air travel..ave cost $7..so $7 extra on a plane ticket..does that really iffset the carbon produced?

"Sea level reached +6–9 m in the Eemian, a time that we have concluded was probably no more than a few tenths of a degree warmer than today"

Wouldn't that make life interesting.

Can't wait to surf down the edge of the old beach road dodging the light poles.

barley wrote:

Heard on a radio station the other day 95% of people dont pay the carbon offset on air travel..ave cost $7..so $7 extra on a plane ticket..does that really iffset the carbon produced?

I pay it when it's offered. Some airlines do, some don't. I haven't reached the point that I go chasing it down to pay voluntarily across the board but I am thinking more and more about it.