Australian Politics Forum - Debunking the Climate Colossus

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17330 Gender:	Re: Debunking the Climate Colossus Reply #15 - Mar 9^th, 2023 at 5:13pm Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 9^th, 2023 at 5:02pm: But it is changing ever more rapidly and that scares you. Link? Don't forget increasing CO2 causes a logarithmic decreasing effect on temperature.
Back to top	IP Logged

Bobby.

Moderator

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 103162
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Debunking the Climate Colossus
Reply #16 - Mar 9^th, 2023 at 5:24pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 9^th, 2023 at 3:55pm:

Re merging the two boards—I see Bobby is totally lost. Dubyne is proven wrong—no GSM now. Not that a mini ice age would inevitably follow a GSM.

The only posts Bobby makes—off topic crap that belongs either in my MRB or the Finance and Economics MRB. Like I said—he is lost.

Put Bobby in Fringe (and bring along all his ice age/warming/cooling crap) and he can post about any old rubbish he thinks of! He would be happier—his hero Blight might even return!!!

There is nobody else left here with any idea of the environment or ecology. Hence i suggest merging the Environment (minus ice age nonsense) and Critters and Gardens with me as Mod. You get tedious because of your desperate need to pretend change is not happening you might cop a ban from the merged board.

Monk,
shut up or you'll be banned.

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 45888 Gender:	Re: Debunking the Climate Colossus Reply #17 - Mar 9^th, 2023 at 5:24pm Why bother with a link, lee? You still won’t accept the result. RSS shows that temperatures are increasing at the rate of 0.213°C per decade. Used to be 0.2°C per decade for RSS, bit less for the terrestrial series.
Back to top	Get the vaxx! 💉💉 If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings. IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17330
Gender: male

Re: Debunking the Climate Colossus
Reply #18 - Mar 9^th, 2023 at 5:43pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 9^th, 2023 at 5:24pm:

Why bother with a link, lee? You still won’t accept the result.

So you can't provide one thanks. Roll Eyes

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 9^th, 2023 at 5:24pm:

RSS shows that temperatures are increasing at the rate of 0.213°C per decade. Used to be 0.2°C per decade for RSS, bit less for the terrestrial series.

Yes. But out doesn't mean it will be that way forever. Remember the effects diminish as CO2 increases. So it must be something else. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17330 Gender:	Re: Debunking the Climate Colossus Reply #19 - Mar 9^th, 2023 at 6:07pm Did you see REMSS has the Southern Hemisphere warming at .161/decade. Isn't it amazing how a well mixed gas can have a temperature differential like that? Edit: and the Southern Polar region by a whopping 0.056C/decade. https://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
Back to top	« Last Edit: Mar 9^th, 2023 at 7:09pm by lee » IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 45888 Gender:	Re: Debunking the Climate Colossus Reply #20 - Mar 9^th, 2023 at 9:41pm Which hemisphere has the most land, which the most ocean, idiot? So Antarctica IS warming? Nice of you to notice!
Back to top	Get the vaxx! 💉💉 If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings. IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17330
Gender: male

Re: Debunking the Climate Colossus
Reply #21 - Mar 9^th, 2023 at 10:34pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 9^th, 2023 at 9:41pm:

Which hemisphere has the most land, which the most ocean, idiot?

So the warming is a NH problem and the SH just warms a little by circulation. Nice of you to notice.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 9^th, 2023 at 9:41pm:

So Antarctica IS warming? Nice of you to notice!

If you have a look it is 60S to 70S. and 0.056/decade in that area. So which part of Antarctica is warming? Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 45888 Gender:	Re: Debunking the Climate Colossus Reply #22 - Mar 10^th, 2023 at 8:57am The warming is a global problem.
Back to top	Get the vaxx! 💉💉 If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings. IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17330 Gender:	Re: Debunking the Climate Colossus Reply #23 - Mar 10^th, 2023 at 11:36am Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 10^th, 2023 at 8:57am: The warming is a global problem. What exactly is the problem? Floods - not according to the IPCC Droughts - not according to the IPCC Bushfires - not according to NASA
Back to top	IP Logged

Jovial Monk

Gold Member

Offline

Dogs not cats!

Posts: 45888
Gender: male

Re: Debunking the Climate Colossus
Reply #24 - Mar 10^th, 2023 at 3:34pm

BoM/CSIRO—bushfire season extended by AGW

Extreme heat events more common

Agriculture stressed

Damage to the environment as pests/weeds can spread out of the ranges they were previously confined to.

Sea level rise starting to accelerate

Warm bodies/blobs of water killing some fish stocks

We been through this at least twice before. Enough.

Back to top

Get the vaxx! 💉💉

If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings.

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17330
Gender: male

Re: Debunking the Climate Colossus
Reply #25 - Mar 10^th, 2023 at 6:14pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 10^th, 2023 at 3:34pm:

BoM/CSIRO—bushfire season extended by AGW

That study was the one where they only looked at, I think, from 1970's We have a good history of bushfires going back over 150 years. Or perhaps you can link the study if you think it different?

And of course a season doesn't define the area burned.

"NASA: Area burned by global wildfires dropped by 25% since 2003 "

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/29/nasa-area-burned-by-global-wild...

It is supposed to Global isn't it? Roll Eyes

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 10^th, 2023 at 3:34pm:

Extreme heat events more common

Which extreme heat events. Be specific. What is the benchmark for extreme heat?
.
Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 10^th, 2023 at 3:34pm:

Agriculture stressed

Really. Grains or livestock? The WHO shows increasing crops. Or perhaps you can link that study.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 10^th, 2023 at 3:34pm:

Damage to the environment as pests/weeds can spread out of the ranges they were previously confined to.

Damage due to fire, damage due to cultivation, damage due to insecticides or pesticides. Again be specific and show the link.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 10^th, 2023 at 3:34pm:

Sea level rise starting to accelerate

No it is not. The satellite altimeters have an accuracy of 33mm. Good luck trying to find the signal that is an order of magnitude smaller. Or again show your link. Interestingly Fort Denison shows subsidence of over 1.47mm per year. Subsidence is not an increase in SLR. Or again show the study.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 10^th, 2023 at 3:34pm:

Warm bodies/blobs of water killing some fish stocks

And it has always been thus. Roll Eyes

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 10^th, 2023 at 3:34pm:

We been through this at least twice before.

And yet you never cite these studies. Why is that? Roll Eyes

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 10^th, 2023 at 3:34pm:

Enough.

AS I said you don't like being questioned. Roll Eyes

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 10^th, 2023 at 6:22pm by lee »

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17330
Gender: male

Re: Debunking the Climate Colossus
Reply #26 - Mar 10^th, 2023 at 9:39pm

As I suspected that is indeed the study mentioned. 1990-2020.

However according to wiki the worst fire was in 1974-75. A colossal 117 million Ha. 2019-2020 was a mere 18.6 million Ha, behind 2002 fire of 38 million Ha.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_bushfires_in_Australia

It helps if you don't factor in historical burns apparently.

Strangely those fires are not significant according to the study.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27225-4

Note: the NT is excluded from the fire data.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 10^th, 2023 at 9:48pm by lee »

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17330 Gender:	Re: Debunking the Climate Colossus Reply #27 - Mar 12^th, 2023 at 11:28am It appears JM has got humpy or can't find his data. Edit: "The frequency and intensity of hot extremes (including heatwaves) have increased, and those of cold extremes have decreased on the global scale since 1950 (virtually certain). " 1950? That was when it was cooling.
Back to top	« Last Edit: Mar 12^th, 2023 at 11:41am by lee » IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 44744
Gender: male

Re: Debunking the Climate Colossus
Reply #28 - Apr 5^th, 2023 at 11:08am

I’m not making this up, but Leslie Hughes, star scientist at Tim Flannery’s Climate Council, has been running catastropharian climate courses for hairdressers, whom she coaches to harangue clients about those awful coal, oil and gas emissions. Although her basic expertise is in stick insects and ant-tended butterfly ejaculations, Macquarie University’s Distinguished Professor also wants to tune the global climate for a better Year 2100, which is where the 400 ladies-who-lather come in. While snipping and combing and colouring, they are to convince customers that the Council’s goal of net-zero by 2035 is definitely not at all insane. Clients might even emerge with a teal tint to their shag cuts.
...
The Council’s 2022 annual report boasts of its “drumbeat” of climate calamity, citing the planting of more than 22,000 stories in the media last year intended to influence “millions” of Australians. That’s 800 items a week obligingly regurgitated by stenographers identifying as journalists, plus a further 20,000 media items “supported” via third-party climate enthusiasts.[3] The Council not only spoon-feeds alarmism to reporters, it actually trains them with union help to propagate the narrative: in 2022, it

teamed up with the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, to provide expert advice to journalists nationwide on accurately and responsibly reporting on the climate [supposed] crisis.

The engine room of the Council is its Climate Media Centre. It likes to keep its dark arts there under wraps: You won’t see the Climate Media Centre mentioned in the media, but you will have heard the voices of the dozens of everyday Australians we support” and “You won’t read about the Climate Media Centre in the news.” (Annual Report 20-21 p30),

These days the Council’ has 50 staff – including close to 20 media spinners[4] . The Council succeeds not just with regular media (including sports pages) but offshoots like Marie Claire, Women’s Weekly, and TV’s The Project and Sunrise.

The often-sceptical Murdoch stable swallows the Council’s guff too. One Council report got 500 recycles, not just in the ABC (of course) but in 37 News Corp publications including The Daily Telegraph and WIN News. (AR 21, p25). In 2021, some 23 Council proxies “featured across national News Corp titles as part of their Mission Zero initiative to ‘put Australia on a path to net zero’.”

At the Council’s 2013 inception, Flannery pledged it would not go in for politics: “We won’t be running any political campaigns, we won’t be running any agendas.” Really? More than a year before the 2022 poll, the Council’s strategists mobilised their 500,000-plus grassroots supporters and began detailed work “to shift the dial ahead of the election” (AR 22 p8) and unseat Morrison’s “denialists”:

We set ourselves up to drive change in this moment by bringing together special internal teams focused on political engagement, supporter activation, public engagement in key electorates, and shaping the national story through media action.
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2023/04/on-climate-the-media-is-th...

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17330
Gender: male

Re: Debunking the Climate Colossus
Reply #29 - Apr 10^th, 2023 at 1:29pm

For those who are convinced Arrhenius was right, but prefer his 1896 study, here are excerpts from his 1906 study -

"I calculate that a reduction in the amount of CO2 by half, or a gain to twice the amount, would cause a temperature change of – 1.5 degrees C, or + 1.6 degrees C, respectively.
In these calculations, I completely neglected the presence of water vapour emitted into the atmosphere.
…
Because of the high concentration of water vapour in the lower air layers, the radiation is not reduced by the action of the water vapour in the same proportion as it is by the action of CO2. The calculation shows that under the conditions of the quantity of water vapour in our atmosphere, almost exactly 1/3 of the radiation absorbed by the atmospheric water vapour is retained. The average water vapour content of the whole atmosphere corresponds to approximately an absorbent layer 4 cm in length. Thus the water vapour would reduce the Earth’s radiation by 1/3 x 61.6 = 20.5%.

If one uses this correction, one finds that with a change in the quantity of CO2 in the ratio of 1:2, the temperature of the Earth’s surface would be altered by 2.1 degrees. It is assumed that the radiation that is absorbed by the water vapour is not influenced by the CO2.

Added to this is still the increased heat protection through the uptake of water vapour. The water vapour in the atmosphere does not only keep back the Earth’s radiation, but also absorbs a large part of the solar radiation. This last circumstance works in opposite directions, but not nearly as vigorously as the former. For this related correction, I have used the data of Ångström and Schukewitsch. The calculations show that a doubling of the quantity of water vapour in the atmosphere would correspond to raising the temperature by an average of 4.2 degrees C.

For this disclosure, one could calculate that the corresponding secondary temperature change, on a 50% fluctuation of CO2 in the air, is approximately 1.8 degrees C, such that the total temperature change induced by a decrease in CO2 in the air by 50% is 3.9 degrees (rounded to 4 degrees C)."

https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Arrhenius%201906,%20final.pdf

And we have had neither a doubling of CO2 nor a doubling of water vapour.

Back to top

IP Logged