The age of the superstorm
In the field of climate science James Hansen is pre-eminent. After early work in the late sixties and early seventies on the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus he turned his attention to Earth's climate and published the first global temperature analysis in 1981. By 1988 he was reporting to the US Senate that the warming trend his work had measured was almost certainly caused by the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
The failure of governments around the world to heed that warning may well emerge as the greatest tragedy in human history. But it was not oversight or legitimate doubt that caused the failure rather it was through the determined efforts of the fossil fuel industry. By funding any scientist willing to push their agenda, through a variety of phony institutes with credible sounding titles, they created the impression of scientific doubt where there was none.
By selectively funding only those politicians who would oppose any effort to reduce emissions, they maintained the huge subsidies to their industry that limited the competitiveness of alternative energy sources. The process continues even now when the world in which we live is changing at a rate almost beyond our comprehension. We have in effect, allowed the wealthiest people on the planet to radically change its climate so that they could accumulate yet more wealth.
There has been no doubt now for several decades about the big picture, that the atmosphere will warm, climate patterns will change, ice cover will be reduced and sea levels will rise. The details of how those changes will unfold though, remain unclear. We cannot be sure of timescales or of the end results. We cannot at this stage even be sure that emissions will be reduced in the immediate future.
Given these uncertainties the great fear has always been that some unknown process would radically disturb the climate over a short time scale. Hansen's latest paper suggests just such a process and presents strong, though not conclusive, evidence for it. If the lingering doubt concerned an issue with less risk of catastrophic change we could afford to gather further evidence at our leisure. In our present situation it is a red flag. The risks he identifies, added to the risks of which we are already aware, create an irrefutable argument for a serious, concerted effort to reduce emissions now.
His argument is based on the behaviour of freshwater from melting ice which, being less dense, floats above the sea water forming an insulating layer. The sea water then remains warmer than it would otherwise be, while the surface temperature of the freshwater layer is lower than it would otherwise be. In both Greenland and Antarctica the leading edges of the ice shelves extend below sea level into the zone of warmer sea water. This creates a classic positive feedback loop so that the rate of melting increases exponentially.
The most obvious consequence of this would be that sea levels might rise much more rapidly than current IPCC estimates. This is of great concern but so is the second predicted consequence: superstorms. The strength of any storm depends on the temperature difference driving its formation. The greater the temperature difference, the stronger the storm. Cooler Arctic and Antarctic water combined with the warmer tropical water caused by existing climate change potentially create the conditions for storms orders of magnitude stronger than those we currently experience.
A prediction of this kind would be disturbing enough even if it was based only on climate models but when there is also significant geological evidence of such storms occurring during past periods of warming it creates such unprecedented concern about the future that Hansen raises the possibility of all our coastal cities becoming dysfunctional. Cities might, at great cost, build defences against sea level rise, or migrate slowly landward if that rise is slow but nothing can sustain them against the combination of sea level rise and storms capable of driving 40m of run up.
To consider the fate of surfing in such a scenario is an almost obscene waste of effort. You can probably work out the impacts yourself. The original paper is here. //blindboy
Comments
I agree with most of what you are saying however it is not all evil big business who benefit from the current status quo. I drive a car and motorbike and need petrol and the obvious construction of both of these use GG. I need power although perhaps less than northern counterparts as I have no aircon at home or work. I use lots of plastics for all sorts of things, including surfboards. The wholesale change is going to hurt big time. I don't want to freeze in winter and imagining turning off all the air con in OZ. Queensland would go back to the sleepy hollow it was in the 50's. Good luck with that. Feeling conflicted? I am.
Yes we can't blame big business, and the select few getting rich, we are all responsible for our ignorance and lack of action on this issue.
I think the sad thing is, our attention spans, and even our life spans are too short to comprehend such an issue. Since our climate is an incredibly complex thing, it's hard to communicate the issue to the public and to politicians, who (quite reasonably in most cases) care more about healthcare, schools, jobs, economy etc. Seems most people are happy to ignore it now, as in, there's a sense that 'ok it's 2016 now and we're not underwater, obviously climate change was a beat up'.
People don't really understand why they should prioritise and sacrifice their life quality, or that of their childrens life quality, such that their great grandchildren may be protected against climate change affects.
Climate change, reliance on finite resources and growing population - we really are a cancer on this planet. I don't doubt we have the potential to get ourselves out of this, but it will be interesting to see how we do it.
@memlsurf: Don't worry about feeling conflicted. Humanity has collectively decided on business as usual for as long as possible.
Thanks for telling it like it is BB.
If politicians had not allowed themselves to. be corrupted by bribes from the fossil fuel industry the transition to a low carbon economy would pro ably be complete by now. Given the population distribution of Qld if Hansen is right air con will be the least of their worries. Think New Orleans!
To lay blame on the people, the politicians, world bodies or even specific energy industries is nieve, simplistic and fails to address any of the 'possible' impacts of climate change. As Hansen himself has suggested there are alternate sources of energy such as nuclear which we know is viable. France and Sweden have a high usage of nuclear. Certainly we know about the negative impacts but you will find there are few if any that believe that these cannot be overcome, as Hansen has suggested. Superstorms, as such, are not new but the suggestion is that they may become more prevalent has yet to be proven. However, the debate has moved on from the negative tones as given in the above article and moved to solutions. And yes we will surf, somewhere on this planet, following the impacts of a superstorm. Be it in the northern or Southern Hemisphere. And that won't change, gents.
fuck off
Don't ya just hate this reply tab, you can never find what the said:)))))))))))))))))))))))))
True that.
Time, patience and scrolling is the essence.
SN?
Ohh please....... Please....... Make it stop.......
Interesting article.
However, I'm not sure the mechanism described of melted ice remaining separate from the source of ice counts as a positive feedback loop, and so the assertion of exponentiality is questionable. Describing it as a lack of negative feedback would be more accurate.
Positive feedback is the process in which the response increases the stimulus. The stimulus being melting ice, the response being warmer sub surface water.....which increases the rate of the ice melting. So yes it is positive feedback.
what the hell are you talking about tb? we are already moving onto "can be overcome" are we now? or "will surf elsewhere". I shake my head. how about politicians pulling their finger out of their arse and leading the way to minimize the impacts.
Interestingly, as Hansen has stated, there are solutions there today. For some they unpalatable but never the less solutions. Politicians in most democratic societies follow what the people wish - at least most. Eg, Aus has renewable targets. If we look at Paris and Copenhagen prior, there is ample presentations talks, policies, resolutions. With respect to storms, then we surfers will surf them regardless - the article was a bit of doomsday.
fuck up
The age of clickbait headlines, not "superstorms".....
This may come across as a bit conspiracy theorist...And if it does and you immediately get all negative towards it because of that, then you may want to get all introspective and reflect on why you attach that stigma when 'conspiracy' is mentioned...anywho, moving along...
Those of you who are shifting the blame over to yourself have missed some of the subtext of what people like Hansen et al are saying, and that is - you haven't had much of a choice in this. You have been almost completely hoodwinked into thinking that the pursuit of an alternative system was not done so simply because you the consumer CHOSE the unsustainable path. You wanted that dirty petrol guzzling car. You wanted more roads. You wanted the good-for-humanity-coal. You needed a bigger house to fit all those new toys you needed. But in truth, you didn't choose those at all. That decision was made for you. Based purely on improving the bottom line of company balance sheets. And more often than not, that decision was made despite those who made it actually knowing that such a decision was not good for society and the environment at large. But smeh, who cares if it means they beat the other guy and get a bigger ranch closer to Aspen.
you cannot blame the corporations. they are only interested in what they were established to do....make profit. our weak as shit leaders are to blame. so what about funding corrupt scientists? why not instead listen to the FRIGGEN GOVERNMENT FUNDED SCIENTISTS and depts. but instead money gets ripped out and govt dept skills base drops. lobbiests arise to fill the vacuum. turnbull?... better sense than abbott....at least he knows direct action is crap and he will very likely ditch it come review in 2017. but why wait until then? why not take action now? politics politics are to blame. turnbull is just a player, not a leader. without a leader the team cannot succeed.
Well maybe happy but greed can be enlightened. Large corporations in the energy business had every opportunity to move into low carbon energy and set themselves up for long term profitability. Instead they went the path of corruption to maximise their short term profit. The politicians may have more responsibility but distinguishing degrees of guilt, when both have behaved with reckless disregard concerning a matter which has potential catastrophic consequences for generations to come, seems to be a waste of time. If there was any justice they would all be on trial for unparalleled crimes against humanity.
risk....was brought up on Q&A other night....normally hate that show but its not too bad when its not a political war across the table. anyhow,...talked about how "low risk" Australians in general are. corporations, politicians too. having only spent some time in Canada and US I cant comment for the world but it is true that compared with those two nations (particularly the US) Australia is risk adverse. the show was about innovation....and particularly how the government is hopeless at supporting private enterprise. how much of that factors in here with climate change?
Tend to agree with regard to Q&A. It's lost it's balanced discussion theme. It's very predictable.
With respect to solar science and innovation, I can suggest we (AUS) are at the bleeding edge and have been for 40 odd years. But but we may have been slow to bring this to the people. There are fair and good reasons for that, especially in the past. Simply the size of Aus at the time (20 odd million) was not conducive to significant implementations. In The US yes. Yes governments (all flavours) tend to shy away from private business and rather supports more research establishments. Again, that's changing and the banks and venture capitalists are taking on that role. Eg a colleague who made a lot from router technology (sold it to Cisco) now heads up a business venture consortium which specifically supports new innovative companies and upstarts.
fuck sake
The timing of this article wouldn't be due to the latest GFS forecasts ?
No but I assume you are talking about these
http://wxmaps.org/pix/aus.slp.html
Haven't we got 40 something pages of comments in the forums on this............
no bb . Qld . Cat 5
Can't see it southey. Link?
Sensational!
"Collapse" is a great read, written by Jared Diamond, the book looks at case studies in the Pacific (Eg. easter island) and the America's and concludes: societies choose to fail, with 5 contributing factors including climate change.
We choose. If we are going to start point the blame finger, let's start with a mirror.
Further, my local ocean is 2 degrees warmer than when I was a kid, I love it. Looking forward to a warmer future.
Out.
Of course! How foolish of me to think that Antarctica was in the Southern Hemisphere! Mate you should actually read the article before commenting. Even better you might take a glance at one of the longest and most detailed papers on the issue ever published, the link is there.......or you could just go on displaying your wilful ignorance.
It's all the bread heads fault, man.
the answer my friend is blowin' out your bell-end?
BB, given that you have given reference to Hansen, and of course this whole premise is based on his work, is it fair to assume to you also subscribe to his solutions to this issue.
Am surprised SN is regurgitating a previous forum topic. Maybe web site hits are down for the month - too skeptical ?
fuck off (again)
We already get 40m run up from storms.
Priceless! Still haven't bothered to read it. 40m vertical!
I'm with you Silver Surfer.
Cold = Zero fun.
Blind boy again pointing the finger at everyone except himself.
Maybe show some - any - form of repentance and I'll start to grant you an ounce of credibility.
Up till that point it's still just the seeking of fascistic ways to force everyone else to do that which you personally refuse to.
Unless of course you're currently riding a horse around the Northern beaches , whereby I will wholeheartedly apologise.
wow, shoot the messenger eh? ;)
Blowin I don't understand what Blindboy's lack of self-flagellation has to do with either his credibility in being able to share AGW information or the credibility of AGW in general.
i want to know how she dismounts without dropping the board. yeah.....it wasnt my first thought actually. climate change came in a close third.
http://i67.tinypic.com/6tlcp4.jpg
Sorry gents, but would you mind excusing us for a few minutes ?
I'm getting some serious eyes off this chick on the horse.
That bikini is painted on............can it be unpainted please..........
Who says the surfing culture continues to objectify women??
That noise you heard is the door closing behind the last female Swellnet reader as she exits the site.
Great comment AndyM.
I hear ya comrade...one little thing but...when were there any women on these here forums EVER?
Unless...
the pseudonym tomfoolery of late has really taken a 'westerly' turn of (mis) direction??
That's a question I'd be interested to hear the answer to my fine feathered friend. I don't suppose it's possible to know.
This is a great site but if I were an entrepreneurial female I'd have a good think about a more serious female oriented website. The ones I just looked at have no forecasts/reports/cams which says something to me.
Actually that could be interpreted in a number of ways.
I know one thing for a fact, women don't like dealing with blokey buffoonery on land, in the water or on- line.
Dunno about anyone else but I appreciate how a female presence can diffuse an aggro sausage-fest.
Also, if Westerly was on here, that would be a privilege in my books.
Another legend.
"Please do not understand me too quickly"
I, in no way, excuse this "men's shed". Or condone it. Or even enjoy a lot of it. Too narrow. Too myopic. Too a certain kind of "Australian surfing".
It is what it is. A few monkey-wrenches chucked in the wheels of conformity at least gives me some yucks on here. Serious yucks at times, mind.
None of that was aimed at you TT, sorry if it came across that way.
Also, I'm a big fan of the nyucks.
Oi, Turkey, what's wrong with the "men's shed"?
http://www.banjarsurf.com.au/article/view/44
Shats, there's plenty of over the top political correctness but at the same time, when are we going to move beyond things like girls on the stage purely for "eye candy" at surfing and formula one events?
IMO men's sheds as such are great but are a problem if you sit around talking about "sluts and bitches" and use alcohol (and other drugs) as a focal point.
I concur...in the main. However, when push comes to shove, how much "man-talk" is actually centred around women at all even in that type of scenario as above. It may be straying into cliche to suggest so (once the initial superficial stuff and the braggadocio is breached...which is the reason for the whole shared man-space concept anyways)?
I'm of the belief that superficial braggadocio of only one word still sets a tone. And as much as I physically like women I'm uncomfortable with them being portrayed as ornaments who are only there for the gratification of men.
In this "men's shed" that stuff gets called out. As it should be. And does. In the main. BY US! MEN!
Reigning men! Hallejulah!
Now forget about Gary G, I wanna hear from Mary G!
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/sep/25/australia-radio-comedy
Nice one Shats! It's a slow change but it's happening!
Mary G. Now there's a diverse voice all wrapped up in one package!
Are you serious Andy? Are you tying to say that this woman didn't consent to pose for this photo knowing exactly what she was doing? I suppose you think she thought she was doing it where only women would look and it wouldn't be looked at by men. And if a man did see it they wouldn't think she was gorgeous. You are seriously dreaming and must live in a bubble. Are you trying to tell me you have never looked at a women and thought " She is beautiful and I would love to see her naked"?
Different things Fitzy, looking at a woman and finding her attractive is a far cry from putting woman forward to be bimbos who are just there as pretty trinkets.
As I've said before, I think it's pretty crap to have the smiling speechless dolls at sports events (don't talk babe, it's not what the blokes want).
Sure they do it willingly, money talks.
Maybe we live in different worlds, NONE of the women I've ever met like to be treated as if they are just a body with no opinions, no thoughts, no brains and are just there to gratify men.
Chesapeake Hurricane of October, 1749-- produced a huge tidal surge of 15 feet. It was responsible for creating Willoughby Spit, a small area of land near Norfolk that was inside the Chesapeake Bay...
The Great Chesapeake Bay Hurricane of 1769- made landfall near New Bern, North Carolina, and laid that town in ruin as tides rose 12 feet above normal.
Great Hurricane of 1780--believed to have killed approximately 22,000 people. Of that total, between 4,000 and 5,000 people were killed on St. Eustatius. Martinique had an estimated 9,000 people killed including 1,000 in St. Pierre, which had all of its homes destroyed.
Hurricanes of 1795--Two hurricanes assaulted Virginia in August 1795, and destroyed the crops of another hero of the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson. The two storms, which were ten days apart, caused the Appomattox River to crest more than 12 feet above flood stage at the city of Petersburg, which was the highest level reached in 70 years.
Great September Gale of 1815--Was the last hurricane to strike New England before the Long Island Express of 1938. The storm struck on September 23, 1815, and brought an 11 foot storm surge to Providence, which was the highest storm surge in the Rhode Island captial prior to the Great Hurricane of 1938, which had a 17.6 foot storm surge.
Cape May Hurricane of 1821--The last major hurricane to make a direct landfall in the Garden State of New Jersey. This storm, which was a Category Four Hurricane, struck Cape May, New Jersey on September 3, 1821, and had hurricane force winds go as far west as Philadelphia while folks in New Jersey experienced wind gusts of up to 200 mph.
The Great Tempest of 1879--One of the strongest east coast hurricanes of the 19th century, the storm slammed ahsore in Eastern North Carolina on August 18th. It produced wind gusts of 138 miles per hour at Cape Lookout with gusts up to 168 miles per hour. Wind instruments from Cape Lookout to Cape Hatteras to Cape Henry in Virginia are devastated
Galveston Hurricane of 1900--The deadliest natural disaster in United States History
I could now go into the first properly recorded hurricanes/cyclones/typhoons, but it's pointless.....
I believe that is the point of the paper. The storms coming will make these storms look tame by comparison.
The storms coming have been compared to those that occurred during the Eemian period ~130 000 years ago. (CO2 levels then were ~285ppm. We're past 400ppm.) The research compares the size of boulders washed up onto land during storms. During the Eemian storms, boulders 10 times the size of anything now were washed up. See pg20069 for more details.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.pdf
From BB's article; "Hansen's latest paper suggests just such a process and presents strong, though not conclusive, evidence for it.".................
"Not conclusive".....................
But, ray, you write "The storms coming will"................. "The storms coming have been"............... That sounds "conclusive"......
@Sheepdog: I say will because I'm not writing a scientific publication. The level of proof required for something to be considered scientifically conclusive is quite high.
As BB says in the article above, climate change is happening. The science overwhelming supports that assertion. One day the arctic will be ice free in the summer. We just don't know exactly when.
From what I understand, the processes Hansen writes about aren't controversial. There will be areas of cooling around Greenland, the Arctic and Antarctica as these large ice bodies melt. Sea surface temperatures will rise elsewhere due to global warming. The temperature differentials between these hot and cold zones will be higher than the historical norm. Do you disagree with any of those assertions?
> The strength of any storm depends on the temperature difference driving its formation.
Given that the temperature differentials will be higher in the future, is it unrealistic to expect that storms will also be stronger?
At this point it's only natural to wonder how much stronger will these storms get. Hansen presents evidence that storms in a past geological period were up to 10 times stronger than what we have experienced in recent human history. Maybe we'll get lucky and we'll only see storms 5 times as strong as the present day norm. What kind of damage will these 5 times as strong storms do to our infrastructure and communities?
This really gets back to the fundamentals of what climate change is. The level of CO2 has oscillated between extremes for the entire history of the planet. Homo sapians, have only ever known a climate with less than 300ppm CO2. In the last 200 years we've increased CO2 to 400ppm. The last time CO2 was 400ppm was 1 to 25 million years ago. Climate and weather that is normal for 400ppm is nothing like we've experienced in our entire, homo sapian, history.
We're at 400ppm now and things aren't *that* bad. The problem is the changes due reaching 400ppm will take decades or more to play out. There is a lot of inertia in the climate system and human lives are brief.
Lets go surfing. The conditions look good. :)
http://phys.org/news/2012-06-climate-cold-arctic-eemian.html
That's a lazy reply sheepdog.
So, you've made a list of big storms that happened in the past. What's your point?
Lazy? I think the article speaks for itself... it doesn't need a 500 word informercial attached.
I think you know my point, Ray.
No, I don't. What point are you trying to make by posting a list of past storms?
I don't think that anyone would claim the Eemian to exactly model the current climate. The issue then becomes " Are there sufficient points of similarity to make the comparison valid? ". Hansen and his numerous collaborators obviously think so. The fact that others may disagree is explicitly stated in Hansen's paper. No doubt time will tell as climate change progresses and more research is done.
.......well yes, it is. A list of intense storms none of which compare to those predicted. If the intention was to compare storms in recent history to storms in the Eemian, 17ft vs 40m tells the true story.
BB, sounds like you are not pleased with the Paris outcome of climate action. Given that there was some sort of agreement, it would be more relevant to review each of the major responses from the developed and undeveloped countries. Action would have to be better than 'doomsday' chatter.
Oh of course it is my responsibility to do the things YOU think necessary.
As Manuel would say 'kee' ? Your article starts with a reference to Hansen's initial climate reading findings but stops at superstorms, sea level rises and so called 'big business' and political inaction. Would it make sense to say what Hansen then has to say about his suggested solutions ? if you feel responsible then don't use poly materials boards. Maybe do what you think will resolve the issue.
fuck off (yet again)
For those that believe what this article suggests ('the matter is urgent'), then it is encumbent then to follow up on Hansens article re support for nuclear energy.
It is also noted that the article did state that 'improved understanding of the carbon cycle and non CO2 forces is needed'.
I can't see nuclear energy coming to Aus - so batten down the hatches.
There is nothing in the article as far as I can determine that expresses support for nuclear energy. The article is about the problem, not the solution. If you have a recent link in which Hansen proposes nuclear energy as a significant part of the solution I suggest you post a link.
And there in lies the weakness in the article. Sorry, but to espouse and use such an article, it would seem fair to follow up on what the author(s) are suggesting is an 'urgent matter'.
Not that I suggest nuclear is the answer. But to those that feel that the matter is urgent then nuclear would have near the top. It's easy to see what Hansen suggests - many articles but the enclosed is from scientific American - http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-must-make-a-come...
Personally, I am hopeful of nuclear fusion but we have been researching this for over forty years - still not in production.
fuck sake (again)
Hansen/nuclear
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-t...
nuclear is needed. india, china and Africa cannot continue to exist on coal into the future....they are developing countries....like us they will get more developed and so too their energy consumption will increase per capita. except one difference.....their population size is already massive and will only get bigger - especially Africa the least developed.
Hansen's opinions on solutions should be respected but his expertise is climate rather than energy supply. My preference would be to avoid nuclear but at this stage I would rather see a new nuclear plant built than a coal fired one if they were the only options on the table.......and if it was to be built in my local area I would definitely prefer nuclear.
agree with you entirely....but its not Australia im worried about. its where the next 4 billion people will come from. developing nations have a right to enjoy the prosperity that we enjoy and they will exercise that right....where the new power comes from is the problem.
Unbelievable........ "My preference would be to avoid nuclear but at this stage I would rather see a new nuclear plant built than a coal fired one if they were the only options on the table"...................
If they were the only two options, I'd choose coal 100 times over......
Nuclear accidents in the United States have only caused 5 deaths in over 50 years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor_accidents_in_the_United_St...
And before you start citing Chernobyl and Fukushima, I'm just going to leave this Google search result here that shows how many deaths are attributed to coal...there's too many results just to cite one webpage.
https://www.google.com.au/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=dXMEV-jELsbN8gfu14CQBg&gws_rd=ss...
And you'd take coal 100 times over?
if you have the time read this....
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/au/Documents/Economics/de...
talks about the challenges associated with dumping base-load coal/gas in SA in favour of renewables. its not as simple as saying SA generated 100% renewables a few months back its easy. yes it did but it did so connected to the Victorian and its own grid providing base-load . solar/wind is a problem not of capacity but one of a. stability, and b. intermittency. nothing insurmountable but does require substantial planning, redesign, and funds to ensure your refrigerator motor doesn't burn out in a hurry.
I think you are just starting to get to the crux of the problem. That's why SA had a royal commission on nuclear. You can add to this the problem how do you manage the worlds use of coal. Do developed nations (say India) get to use coal more cheaply than say Germany ? Developed vs undeveloped ? This now becomes an economic wealth distribution issue.
Jesus wept, like a dog returning to its vomit (again)
And TB, one for you:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/279160.php
When's Oz get some help? NOW?!
Ummmmm..... How about some input? Some decent logical input?... It aint that hard...
A couple of logical quotes for you (again):
"Never attempt to teach a pig-dog to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig-dog."
"Never wrestle a pig-dog; you both get covered in shit and the pig-dog likes it."
Even though I strongly disagree with BB's pro nuclear over coal, at least he has the balls to admit his pov.... Being a crow eater, where do you stand on nuclear, turkey baster?
Nuclear sucks (my) balls.
Omg! I actually LOL'd!
Totes hilaire!
TT, looks like you have been infected. Can't say there's much hope, though.
fuck off (yet again)
Wow, chicken breath..... You really are fowl..... :p
Beware Tinkles. The real big dog is back in town: Garry G.
Booyakasha!
In "town"? Where is this "town" you speak of? Does it run off renewables? Is it super storm proof? Has this Garry G been wormed? So many questions.... So few answers.....
Swellnut town. It runs on reclaimed sewage and hot air. Shit-storm proofed. Garry G will be doing the worm treatment, Doggo. Ouch!
Don't worry darlin, the boys still luv ya. You may be sad but You make the boys laugh.
BTW, your dinner is in the microwave, honey.
Creepy. Just plain creepy. Shiver.
Good thread BB;)
I feel for you, about all the crap and banter regarding the posts here.
Would love to see some of the people on here, actually writing something similar?
Google post link, Google banter link, Post no evidence link;)
Thanks welly
Get cracking, mon.
I'm with chicken breath on this one.... Get cracking, welly..... Post something..... or grab the tissues..... or the violin...
I placed her picture because she is doing her part for global warming by riding a horse to her local break.
fully concur andy.......disgusting, the lot of ya. go and take a cold shower.
And so says the man calling himself 'happy ass'?!
At least it's the only name he uses.... AND he call spell "amazing" correctly.....
"He call spell"? Huh? Muppet.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/melting-greenland-ice-changing-ocean...
Ok, we all agree the planet and the oceans are hotter than when we were nippers.
OK, most of us agree, warmer planet, ice melts, oceans expand and sea levels rise.
Here is the link to CSIRO's take on it , "80cm maximum sea level rise by 2100". https://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_proj_21st.html
Best they could do was update the tidal gauges to 2010, then satelites to current. The rest is computers, with limited parameters, predicting pessimistic outcomes (public servants facing the axe are like that).
No, I haven't read the Hansen article - because the 40m rise - fails my credibility test.
There's two things I hate in this world;
1) Indo Surf boat tours that chuck all their rubbish overboard (when, please, is this practice gonna be exposed, its rampant and its wicked)
2) Bullshit artists. including Sunday papers, researchers and writers that use sensational headlines to earn a feed. What's wrong with wanting more from your heros and those you hold highly?
PLus
Why can't a warmer future be a good thing? say Tassie and NZ
Why is change always presented as 100% bad?
If you can't be bothered reading the Hansen article you might at least read mine before commenting on it. Your comment about why warming might not be a bad thing represents either profound ignorance or an inability to interpret the well established existing evidence that it is almost certainly a BAD thing, very possibly a VERY BAD thing and quite conceivably a CATASTROPHIC thing, but hey, keep that head stuck in the sand we wouldn't want you to worry.
because you think its got to do with "feeling" 2 degrees warmer in Tassie then you obviously haven't grasped the concept. human beings have flourished partly because of an stable climate over a long period of time. sure, humans will adapt because we have science but the ecosystem wont. natural selection take place over millions of years, not hundreds. it will not keep up with the changes we are forcing up in. nature exists in a fine balance. you ever tried to plant a garden? put the wrong plant in the wrong spot and it doesn't grow. it doesn't matter how much water or fertilizer you give it.
We are all surfers eh?
Aquasol...;-)
What did Kevin07 say, global warming is the greatest threat to mankind.
That's bullshit.
Greater threats to mankind are: global nuclear war, over-population and over-consumption.
Global nuclear war has been avoided for 2 reasons:
a) empowerment of women, chicks hate violence
b) multi-national capitalism, war is in fact bad for business.
Further empowerment of women will see an end to overpopulation. Working, rich chicks, that control their own wallet, don't want 6 kids hanging off their tits.
Hot, hotter, even hotter - I am optimist for the future.
Those inclined to absolve governments of responsibility for climate change might like to try and justify this.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/03/adanis-carmichael-coa...
Just what the world needs now.......a giant new coal mine. This brings the whole country into disrepute.
And the coal mine is for .... India. How does India get its energy - nuclear (maybe), gas, coal. Well, you could say that they could buy elsewhere, say Africa. But you would be ignoring the quality of coal of the Galilea basin. Given the debate around this over the last five to ten years, it is worth noting that all levels and flavours of government support this.
While those inclined to trust oil companies might try this.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/04/21/fury-over-fracking/
Those inclined to absolve themselves of responsibility.....might want to take a few minutes to look around their house and take note of all the products that those big , naughty business men forced them to buy.
And buy.
And buy.
As you like tb but those big naughty businessmen were assisted by a variety of other factors, the use of sophisticated techniques of persuasion by the advertising industry most notably but also by the attitudes you promote. The concept that emissions can be reduced by individuals taking more responsibility has had major polluters laughing all the way to the bank for many decades now. Stay cool man, dig those good vibes and don't forget the organic hemp underwear. It is 2016 not 1976!
Can't see how 'naughty' business men have influenced all levels of government plus the unions. Other factors ? Certainly the pressure for jobs is a big one. It could be argued that India is entitled to low cost energy just as any other developed nation. 'Organic hemp underwear' - what's that ? Slaters new fashion gear ? Might be a bit to pricey for me. Attitude - and that is purely your perception, not necessarily accurate.
Can't see how 'naughty' business men have influenced all levels of government plus the unions. Other factors ?
How touchingly naiive tb! Usually by funding their re-election or threatening to fund their opponent. Well documented process. Tends to be subtle in Australia and blatant in the US. Google "Koch Brothers"
Naive - given the different flavours of government, the unions, the Supreme Court, the federal court, local workers all are 'naive' then me thinks not. Sorry but I doubt this naivety.
Sounds all too much like conspiracy theories which no one seems to know who is in the conspiracy.
Haha who said coal was dead!!
Hi BB,
Is this paper from yourself? The last link !
http://swllnt.com/1MRogL5
I tried to download it! But it keeps going a little weird.
Keen on reading it , altho 52 pages, Wow.!
I'm not going to debate with the best on here, at all.
But IMO people have their heads stuck up their arses, like a big pineapple, to actually not respect what is going on, in this huge climate change error.
It's quite sad to say the least.
That should be it welly. It was the right site but very slow to load on the iPad so I didn't wait.
From direct observations the graphs i have made of swells hitting the points of far west Vicco , show a steady decline in large swell events over the last few decades, while 2015 was a great year for us it was still ten days less than 1997, 98 , period, If anyone claiming that the storms are becoming bigger over this time period my evidence shows that we not seeing this in my stats that reflect swell size or consistency for the southern ocean . The evidence is there already of sea levels rising , i know this because i find aboriginal flints, and land mammal fossil teeth a kilometer out to sea reef on a reef i dive . I dont dispute that climate change isnt happening , or that pumping pollution into the air in any way is good for us but if these super storms exist the southern oceans response has been very quite for a long time now ..
Good call Strawbs.
Maybe from ice melt down in Antarctica?
Not sure if the Southern Ocean has warmed?
Could these two, stop big storms developing, from deep down there!
Southey, any explanation on that front, with the SST's down that ways?
Interesting thesis Strawbs.
Maybe the Super Storms, which this whole thread is about, is more concentrated around the equator?
Not sure I've gathered the full pretense of the Article .
But in relation to what is expected in the Southern Ocean , then Strawbs is on the Money . ( Whether or not this is linked is questionable , but i have similar recollections/ observations . I haven't yearned to get down there as often as 20 years ago )
The expected outcome locally is the frequency of frontal projections have and will decline . Most literature i have read points at the sub tropical and Tropical regions expanding away from the Equator . BUT at the same time the storms at
>40 deg S are not expected to decrease in severity , but the long zonal stretches of Westerlies will most likely be compressed as the differential between the lows and Sub tropical ridge ( highs ) increase over a shorter distance. And perhaps you could say less mixing , but a stratofication ? of sorts .
So your looking at more Westerly aligned fetches , which is better for open coasts . Places relying on South swells will be less frequent and smaller . As often westerly component swells will travel East further South in the Southern Ocean . This will however lead to more obtuse / angular - radiated swell off the side of the fetch into smaller higher period South - SW swells . This due to your Bathymetry at such points will not be good .
On the other hand Weather bombs & cut off lows ( similar to the famous 98' Bass Strait - Sydney Hobart tragedy ) will become more prevalent . However unless they stall in the right spot they could be fleeting for swell production . Upper lows have regularly parked and retrograded ( stall and move west ) over Mt Gambier - Mildura region in the last 5-10 years . Global warming speeding up , might see these systems be prevalent near the KI - NW Tassie area in the future . Which should get you excited , as closer shorter period systems have less issues from Bathymetry friction due to smaller periods . ( <14 secs ) .
Similar systems that delivered a rare day this summer may also be something to look forward too .
Though there's nothing to suggest that this hasn't happened regularly in the past ( pre 1970's ) , as there is long term evidence of such gales wreaking havoc on other protected ports in the region , dating right back to the days of whaling / settlement .
Back in NSW's there is evidence of Cyclones creating biblical floods in the Sydney region during the early settlement years .
As far as i can see Antarctica overall is getting cooler , with the exception of one large region . Of which we can't rule out either AGW or vulcanism .
Cheers Southey, good explanation there;)
Great read Southey .. The weather has always fascinated me , when i was a kid i hassled mum to get me a barometer for my birthday , over the years i marked a point for the upper and lower limits on it with a pen , as the big highs or lows moved in , as the pointer moved past the old mark i rubbed it out and added the newest point . I cant remember the last time i changed the lowest point maybe decades ago , but have adjusted it quite a few times as big high pressure systems moved in over the last few years . To this day i cant go past my barometer or anyone else's with out giving it a tap , the other thing i use them for as a rough guide is the tides, real big highs will give a lower tide than the tide books suggest as will deep lows give a much higher tide than normal, good to know if you live with tide sensitive breaks like i do , anyone with a grommet that is interested in this type of stuff buy them a good barometer one of the few presents that will last them a life time and can be handed on to the next generation ...
I can see how atmosperic tides would effect you guys, more especially closer to Port Mac - Robe stretch as the near shore drop off and more West aligned coast leads to less lunar tide extremes . ie regular cyclic tides having well less than 1M variance on all but the biggest of tides .
I can't remember the exact calcs for pressure hp /bar to sea height variation . But something along the lines 1cm per millibar ( so variance of up to 60cm from a low of 930 -1050 ) . Probably around the 80% of average tide variance throughout the year .
These atmospheric differences are not often seen on the East coast or within Bass strait . As often normal tides are up to 3 times the height differentials , and then you can add Storm surge to places like westernport's already extensive tides .
So that 60 cm can often be lost in what can be up to 0.5-1M of storm surge . When combined with a spring tide can be remarkable .
But yeah back at low tidal regions like here , parts of SA and WA atmospheric pressures are important to surf spots . The best thing I like about barometers is when a trough is hanging around or passing through , you can tell when the wind is going to swing in the opposite direction . Very handy .
Quote Southey"The best thing I like about barometers is when a trough is hanging around or passing through , you can tell when the wind is going to swing in the opposite direction . Very handy" .
What pressure reading, down your way do you note that Southey!
Probably a forbidden secret to let out eh, Fair enough if so;)
It's not pressure specific , it's more to do with the Pressure dropping and the moment it slows and then starts rising its game on . BUT the local knowledge comes in with the alignment of the trough . Ie which way the wind is blowing before and after the pressure bottoming out . Very rare occasions it can be the pressure hitting its maximum and then dropping , but due to the usually larger sizes of ridges ( highs ) compared to ( lows ) then the turn around time can be hours- days as opposed to minutes . So no i won't reveal the locales that this pertains to , but leave it in the area that they are rare spots . ;-)
This has alot more to do with other states than Vic . But retrograding systems encourage strange results , where everything seems to be back to front . !
Good read gents. As said, the barometer tells so much, all with a quick tap. I'm sensing we are getting better data but more questions.
I did wonder myself if the southern ocean had warmed up Wellymon , i can remember bitterly cold water in both summer and winter surfs as a grommie and as a young man , however in the last decade plus i had very few icecream headache sesssions even with our cold upwellings that our west facing bays get , this year was an exception with 4 '3 , hoods and booties for for most of our summer . one thing i noticed that was very weird was a constant fish smell and dirty water from the upwelling this year, we also get a sea sponge that although tiny, can cause the sea to go black when it is concentrated , this was making whole surf zones look like oil spills , paranoia levels were high surfing in this black soup with zero visibility as the whites yearly visit to the local seal colony started , this crud has finally thinned out thank fuck, but i have never seen it so thick or smell so weird ever .
" this year was an exception with 4 '3 , hoods and booties for for most of our summer"
Interesting Strawbs!, I wonder if NZ deep South have had the same effect?
Haha Lucky it wasn't crude oil to say the least.
I know the feeling when you can't really get any perception of water clearance, but hey you just have faith in the mother ocean, hopefully;)
Cheers
Strawbs.
The depth of knowledge from crew such as Southy and Strawbs is always welcome in any conversation.
Always Hope to share a line up with Such commited locals wherever I venture.
But if you're wearing 4/3 's in summer I don't fancy my chances of visiting.
The material you are finding strawbs almost certainly dates back to the last ice age when sea levels were lower so that Tasmania was joined to the mainland. You should notify one of the local universities of your finds as they would almost certainly be interested for a whole range of reasons. Until then you shouldn't move or remove things.
As for the absence of super storms, let's hope it continues!
" Until then you shouldn't move or remove things " !!!!
Haha
World as museum.
Are you drunk BB ?
No mate but if you don't recognise the importance of leaving archeological sites as undisturbed as possible then at best it's ignorance. At worst just vandalism. The exact position of bones and artefacts can provide valuable information.
No BB, I appreciate the importance of leaving things as I find them.
Informing the " Authorities " would be my last move .
And let those fucktards attempt segregate it from the community and destroy it through over regulation ?
No chance .
Or announce its existence so some clown can extradite anything of worth to their pool room to display , without context or considered worth , to their drunk mates ?
Even less likely.
Keep this shit on the down low.
More than a few people think along these lines BB, thank Christ.
The "authorities" in this case presumably being the scientists and conservators who are trained to preserve sites and be sensitive to the concerns of the local community. All sounds wrong to me Blowin'.
in the past i have supplied the Adelaide museum for examination some of my fossil finds Blindboy. One of the pieces i found was the first recorded Diprotidon teeth recorded in this area along with whale and shark teeth from the Holocene period , taking aboriginal relics is taboo for me , not to mention illegal , the reefs i dive on are so dynamic that wave action simply destroys a lot of the fossils ( ie they are not museum quality ), collecting fossils isnt illegal digging them out of the ground and or selling Australian fossils is ...
Fair enough strawbs and great to hear that you got advice. It's not really my field so I could be wrong but I would have thought that offshore sites with evidence of Indigenous activity would be pretty rare.
First time i found a flint i tried to imagine people walking and hunting etc were i was now diving , was a surreal experience looking back up at the surface of the ocean , i havent been back to the museum for a long time, since i saw some of this evidence to even ask them if they have other records of these things around the Australian mainland, and never thought of the importance to even tell them , i suppose most divers would never be looking for these objects , its only because of all the middens we have, i know what they look like , ironically because i cant collect what i have seen these rare examples will be washed away by the swells and strong surges as the southern ocean starts to kick into life ..
I would get in touch and ask if they would like you to collect a specimen or take them out there. It could be an important site.
Quote Strawbs "First time i found a flint i tried to imagine people walking and hunting etc were i was now diving , was a surreal experience looking back up at the surface of the ocean"
Interesting Strawbs, do you think the indigenous folk, were actual spear fisherman back then!
Maybe the transport was with a canoe, whilst spear fishing!
Hence at any time losing the flint???
Just a thought Strawbs;)
All very interesting. I am pretty busy just now but will get back later.
Blindboy and friends.
Hang your head in shame.
Your Mega El Nino has delivered way less than average precipitation in California.
300 climatologist have been sacked for following the the same one line mantra you insist on poisoning minds with.
After the last dust up with the doom and gloom folks here we found plenty of stuff to talk about. All of which was rejected as non-sense or clouded in shite.
As you wished then I am now providing the latest figures from the World Bank. Showing drastic falls in Co2 emissions going back to 2000....yes 2000.
This again probably will not be acceptable to your previously mentioned mantra.
Happy reading BlindBoy and friends.
Good luck in the next trade show or climate conferrence....oh minus the great 300.
There's plenty more to.
C Ya!
http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/promising-signs-that-economie...
steve thanks for the link pointing out that economic growth does not depend on carbon based fuels. It is a point that many of us have been making for a long time. No doubt without the rampant bribery and corruption in industry and government globally, emissions would now be much lower, Before you get too confident though...maybe you should finish reading the piece or at least to reach this
"And decoupling is not enough to save the planet as we know it. Over the 15 years Aden studied the decoupled countries lowered emissions by about 1 billion tons but overall global emissions grew about 10 billion tons."
An interesting read for those who, if given the choice, would prefer nuclear over coal;
http://theantimedia.org/why-nuclear-power-plants-are-weapons-of-mass-des...
Interesting but not really enough to change my mind. I suspect the death and injury toll from a direct attack on a nuclear power plant would be quite small and comparable to other terrorist incidents. Hard to imagine that it would equal the annual deaths caused by coal through mining accidents and respiratory disease. Ever live near a train line carrying coal trains? I have.
"Interesting but not really enough to change my mind. I suspect the death and injury toll from a direct attack on a nuclear power plant would be quite small and comparable to other terrorist incidents"
Noted...... We'll see, not if but when........
And don't mention the permanent damage.... Don't go there , right?
Let's take a worst case scenario in which terrorists blow up a reactor and produce equivalent damage to Chernobyl. Yes that means excluding human activity over a significant area for a very long time. Compare that to the likely on going consequences of climate change over the coming centuries. It's a no contest. Climate change has the potential to create much greater damage. That said, you do remember that I stated my preference for nuclear only as an alternative to coal. Personally I have never advocated nuclear. There are better options.
"Yes that means excluding human activity over a significant area for a very long time."
20 000 years, blind boy..... Ukraine estimate that because of reactor 4, humans will not be able to inhabit for 20 000 years....... Now, old jesus was rocking around the place 2000 years ago...... Well multiply that by 10..... And you call it a "no contest"?
And what of the political ramifications of an attack on a nuclear facility? All fucking hell would break loose.....
Or what of an attack by North Korea on japans nuclear plants? What if the proxy war in the middle east heats up and goes full scale? Russia v Europe? Nuclear plants are prime targets.... A double whammy target - cut off power grid of the enemy and poison the fuck out of them at the same time.....
Then we have dirty bombs....... The list goes on and on.... if war ever does break out in Europe (and lets face it history shows they love a good war every 50 to 100 years), the whole area could turn into a glowing wasteland..... You want refugees? Then by all means choose nuclear over coal..... I'd far rather take my chances in a warmer world with these "super storms".... At least you can still drink the water.....
20 000 years..................
Risk free doesn't exist. We make our choices and take our chances. I remain unpersuaded by your list.
"take your chances".....your thinking about it wrong SD. forget Australia, it isn't about us. rather the following.....extreme drought in developing countries, mass exodus/migration of people, ensuing conflict....and then. global war.
we will laugh about the numbers coming out of Syria. it could be a billion out of a future Africa.
whether its nuclear or coal is too simplistic for me....whatever gets developing countries on the road to less emissions the quicker the better.
.
Parp.
Doggo quote:
An interesting read for those who, if given the choice, would prefer nuclear over coal;
http://theantimedia.org/why-nuclear-power-plants-are-weapons-of-mass-des...
Hmmmm, seems to me that ol' nuclear TB AKA Truffle Butter don't read none, but. Not even a speed-readin' Joe like your good ol' self.
And does even Blindboy really prefer nuclear over coal? Ain't there no other choices Godot, I mean Doggo? Sheeeeeit.
Flip a coin? Really? Bugger.
Yes, upturk, BB really prefers nuclear over coal... I did not coerce him to write this... He himself painted a scenario of only having 2 to choose from;
"my preference would be to avoid nuclear but at this stage I would rather see a new nuclear plant built than a coal fired one if they were the only options on the table.......and if it was to be built in my local area I would definitely prefer nuclear."
So, turklift, BB obviously would rather other forms, but as he stated, he prefers nuclear over coal, AND would rather a nuclear power station than a coal powered station in his local area....
What about you? I'd prefer coal....
"Flip a coin? Really? Bugger."
Morton's fork, Doggo.
Didn't really expect a proper answer... Never do.....
Insert self amusement below VVV
Parp.
To be serious, I did like the sound of Morton's Fork. I'm sure you looked it up, Doggo. "Heads, I win; Tails, you lose."
Have a proper read of this though.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_dilemma
"A false dilemma, sometimes called the "either-or fallacy", is a logical fallacy which involves presenting two opposing views, options or outcomes in such a way that they seem to be the only possibilities: that is, if one is true, the other must be false, or, more typically, if you do not accept one then the other must be accepted. The reality in most cases is that there are many in-between or other alternative options, not just two mutually exclusive ones."
Nuclear...coal...yeah, nah.
I put it to you the majority of us plebs (voters/stakeholders/citizens) seek a proper and wider discussion about a proper and wider choice of energy alternatives not this sort of either/or bollocks.
And we seek it here, there and everywhere. Even on these surfee forums.
yeah that's all fuckn great..... blah blah blah..... I think less movies and thv shows, mate.... Some questions aren't convoluted like a european b grade movie, or heaven forbid a 2nd rate Hollywood shitpile.
Fact is, Blind boy prefers nuclear over coal..... Doesn't matter if solar is his 1st choice, wind second, tidal 3rd, nuclear maybe 9th, and coal 17th...... He prefers one over the other....
Do you prefer nuclear over coal? There are 2 answers politicians and spin doctors hate to use - "yes", and "no".....
Pfffffffffhhhhrrrrrrrrrphhhphhhhht.......
You're really not gettin' any of this, are you Doggo? I mean REALLY NOT GETTIN' IT.
Whooooooooooooooooooooosh.
Another one through to the keeper.
You asked a pretty simple question re' BB... I answered it.... I asked a pretty simple question to you... You didn't.... With your philosophically "deep" incredibly intelligent masterful for all to see toing and froing, I take you your answer as "yes, I rate nuclear ahead of coal"....
more like "queef".
Parp.
BlindBoy.
And your thoughts on the falling of Reciprocal Wavelengths between 800 and 1000cm-1 in the satellite spectrum data of the atmoshere? Arguably indicating global cooling due to the significant falls in CFC and HNO3 catergories not blocking radiation exchange?
Also the other five global warmings in the last 400,000 years measured in the Antarctic?
Seems there is more to this than the Co2, Greenhouse gravy train....don't you think?
If you want to recognise it.....?
No problem steve except you haven't given me enough information to analyse the issues you raise. Probably easiest if you just post a link to the original papers or some authoritative summary. Gravy train? Are you kidding? Do you have any idea of how hard it is to get research funded or how many graduate students are working for less than they could get at McDonalds to actually do this work. Gravy train, no mate it's a friggin' train crash of unprecedented proportions and the sooner people get over being fooled by the cherry picked bullshit and propaganda funded by the fossil fuel industry, the more likely we are to avoid a complete catastrophe, but as you were steve, we wouldn't want you to worry.
OK blindboy.
Your thoughts on the relative position of the Earth to the Sun and it's orientation during all climatic events relative to the activation of the Ozone layer and it's effect on Global winds,ocean currents and temperatures.
Most complete EL Ninos occur during a close pass to the Sun....OK? Between November and February.
That's just 52% of the predicted events....remember?
Given a 1% change in radiation considered significant.
And the lack of radiation analytics in core ice samples and deuterium from Antartica relative to this phenominen across climate events.
Or is this also "No Good"?
It's all out there BlindBoy.
And as I mentioned before....Mega El Nino?...... and below average precipitation in the worlds 8th largest economy.
Mate if it is all friggin' out there show it to me. All you have done so far is list some issues. I am not interested here in opinion, if you are serious show me the data.....and if you think for an instant that, on the basis of a few unsubstantiated, poorly expressed ideas about possible influences on climate change, that I am going to spend my time trying to work out exactly what you're on about.....dream on!
a couple of very competent amateur astronomers I know told me that sunspot activity has been trending lower since the last 60 years. i have no reason to disbelieve them. steve, so why is temperature on earth going up? shouldn't it be the other way around?
Bondisteve you are onto something. Lowest sun cycle since the Maunders approaches. In response to your question, look for oxygen depletion from the atmosphere (and reduction in its size) and relate to see if this occurred before the onset of ice ages in the historical record.
Bonus investigation: strength of earth's magnetic field and any weird recent changes
Strength of sun's magnetic field and any weird recent changes
Location of earth's magnetic poles and any weird recent changes
Average windspeed on the surface of Venus and any recent weird changes
Storm patterns on Jupiter, anything weird compared to historical observation
Storm patterns on Saturn, anything weird compared to historical observation
Correlation between earth facing flares and occurrence of earthquakes, increasing intensity of storm systems, etc
Disclosure: long good wetsuits, snowboards and gear, and greenhouse gardening. This is the age of the superstorm, but not for the reasons you might think and not just in the places you might think. The astrophysics component of it is fascinating.
Sorry but as far as the Maunder Minimum goes you are wrong.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/images/u33/BIESECKER%20SWW%...
Not cycle 24; cycle 26 is the one to watch for.
velocityjohnno and happyasS
I wasn't goin'to get any further involved having waited a year to reveal that the think tank here is wrong for the Mega second time. Three years is a long time.
Current Californian averages for rainfall are at 41.1%. Expected "Mega"rainfall averages are 4 times that. So not wanting to grant the end of June for proof positive of another fail we can today clearly say that is another ENSO fail universally. There is and in the future no doubt that ENSO has become a tool for the Feudal Theocracy for profit. I wish I had the expense account that ENSO has because I also could be everywhere it has.. but I don't want the blame.
Most of the heat phenomenon which is hotly contested for it's accuracy can no longer be attributed to ENSO. ENSO in it's Mega state will guarentee dead Californians will be washed into the Eastern Pacific....no doubt. But to answer both of your questions yes the current situation is Solar related. All of the supposed ENSO related triggers co-incide with MAJOR SOLAR EVENTS. Please practice DendroClimatology for more answers. I have run out of room here. I will stay a while longer now.
You sound like you have been wasting your time on "watts up with that". Amateur guesswork unsubstantiated by any real data probably funded by the Koch brothers through some front or other. Me I'll stick with published papers and leave the conspiracy crap to those with over active imaginations and under utilised research skills. I mean do you really think that repeating a mantra of catch phrases amounts to an argument?
velocityjohnno and happyasS
Here's a starter.
http://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/diminishing-solar-activity-may-bring-...
Spectrum data of the atmosphere are interesting to.
Check the Solar storm activity and The Double Maximum of the Solar Cycle from 2014 on. Quite a number of firsts. All around the first ENSO triggers of 2014. Since 1940 the Sun has been very active historically.
velocityjohnno and happyasS
More people will be as mentioned here soon.
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1...
For the committed
http://australia.breakfree2016.org/?source=avaaz
That's not the way. That's just the vigilante way. You came up with all those scientific articles and discussions and now you suggest this. BB, you lost.
When money and privelege speak as loudly as they do in this country today, it is morally unacceptable to stand by with a disapproving attitude while they continue to do unparalleled harm.
Sounds like taking matters into your own hands. Forget about freedom, democracy, the fact that both our major political parties are in near agreement. Forget about the workers. Forget about the people.
Since when has money or privilege chosen our policies or governments. Influence maybe, but not choose.
If you truly believe there is harm, then propose solutions, not vigilante actions.
The political parties are now further apart than at any time in the last decade, probably two. Labor, whatever their faults, have some semblance of decency, the coalition are parasites, profiteers and ideologically driven idiots. A neat summary of their bastardry.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/13/alarmism-economic-i...
You riding your horse to Newy BB ?
Pushbike
Some good news
http://m.smh.com.au/business/energy/top-coal-miner-peabody-files-for-ban...
Maybe you should direct your protest to China -
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=16271
Anyone that thinks that there is a serious link between Australian politics and religion beyond that expressed through the corruptive influence of Church / Congregational money , power and influence is drunk at the wheel.
If you believe that even Tony " The Mad Monk " Abbott was delivering policies for any reason other than personal and professionally driven ideologies , then you too are drunk at the wheel.
The secularism of Australia is complete.
Unless you include the worship of Mammon as religiosity.
Reality check here
https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2015/08/29/prime-minis...
not quite blowin, but we are getting closer.
atheism is overstated. in Australia most atheists are more so apathetic about the whole discussion than being overly fanatic about their non-belief system. more atheists just don't care to discuss it much because they have more interesting things to fill their voids these days. reflecting upon whether god created the universe is an exercise in philosophy. it serves no future purpose to the common man.
I think you'll find it's more to be seen to be religious to appease their financial backers and are performing all the right moves to ensure continued patronage.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe religion is making a concerted comeback ....what do the stats say about that ?
Religious belief is becoming less and less common. As it does its adherents become more fanatical in their attempts to impose their beliefs on the rest of us apathetic atheists.
Up to date summary of the latest coral bleaching on the GBR
http://www.nature.com/news/coral-crisis-great-barrier-reef-bleaching-is-
.....and a more global petspective here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/world/asia/climate-related-death
Ahhh, BB..... Atheism.... Now there's a non belief belief system worth a thread..... lol
Pollies for sale, or why we don't have a rational climate policy.
https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/opinion/topic/2016/04/16/the-links-b...
George Brandis performs the dead parrot sketch live in Parliament.
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2016/apr/19/australia-beg...
Can this clown be charged with something, say, treason?
Willful ignorance, unfortunately, has never been a barrier to a career in politics. It might even be essential.