What Carbon

[Moody]

Moods: if you measure something for years and years and years and it's only 4 inches long - no amount of hard manipulation or homogenisation will ever make it 8 inches long

Another comic genius .....

But let me educate you for a second (for all the good that will do). Supposing it is about a century ago and whilst I'm sure it is done with all good intentions, someone accidentally exposes the thermometer to the sun before they take the reading and they record a figure of 51.7C. Fast forward 100 years and a scientist is trying to map trends in Australian temperatures. The first thing you have to do is closely examine the outliers for accuracy, and a figure of 51.7 stands out like bullock's breasts. If the readings in adjoining meters are consistent with it then it can stand, if every other measurement is 5 degrees lower then it can be safely binned.

And even if we accept the temperature in Bourke in 1909 really was 51.7C ...... so what!?!

It is one day in one town in one country. What exactly is confusing you about the term "global warming"?

 

[james4321]

And no I don't believe in your theory of everyone evolving from the pond of scum.

Where did I say anything like that? Or is that your own insecurity showing?

 

[drron]

It's the first paragraph Moody-

This is a personal account
linking efforts to suppress scientific
publication about climate science and policy by then-Senator
(later vice president) Al Gore and his staff.
1 In those efforts, an
individual working closely with Senator Gore and his staff made
false and damaging statements about my behavior as a scientist.
I filed a libel suit against the individual. The suit was settled when
he issued a retraction and apology tomethat included a statement
that members of Senator Gore’s staff had made “similar statements
and insinuations” to those that he retracted.

Now if you believe that several members of Al Gore's staff set out to destroy other scientist's reputations without Al gore's knowledge then you know little about politicians.

I do agree with you that you need to follow the money.but how about Al Gore's money.left office in 2002 worth $2 million and now estimated to be worth $100 million even though he has since 2002 separated from his wife of 40 years and she keeps their multi million dollar mansion in santa Barbara.
Al Gore has thrived as green-tech investor - The Washington Post

And just why did Al Gore stand beside Clive Palmer when he announced he would vote against the carbon tax.Gore is known to have significant investments in Australia's RE sector through his firm GIM and IPCC of which GIM is a partner.

GIM is a member of the $1 trillion Investor Group on Climate Change, as are many Australian superannuation funds. (See full list of members here.) In an IGCC media release on 27 June – “Palmer right on climate change, but an ETS is needed now” – it stated that “emissions trading is an appropriate policy for Australia. All efforts must be made to ensure that Australia’s underlying carbon pricing framework is maintained.”
Renewable energy investors — such as IGCC and GIM — want to retain the current RET scheme, despite it forcing electricity suppliers to use more expensive wind and solar power. For its removal would devalue dramatically their existing investments in the sector.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/07/al-clives-alvation/

Then of course the big oil companies actually fund AGW supporters more than sceptical groups.BP,Shell and Chesapeake energy are major players.
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/08/big-green-hypocrites/

So definitely follow the money moody-it aint all going where you presume.

Now you have not answered my simple question as to whether you think Al Gore is right saying hurricanes have become more intense due to AGW.But your answers always deferring to the Gore position makes me assume you do.A pity then that the evidence doesn't agree-

The U.S. has been extraordinarily fortunate lately: we have not been witness to the fury of a major hurricane (category 3 or higher) landfall since October 2005 when Wilma hit southwest Florida as a Category 3 storm. (Other countries have not had such good fortune these past few years. )

Such a streak, or “drought”, is unprecendented going back to 1900. As of the start of this hurricane season, the span will be 3,142 days since the last U.S. major hurricane landfall. The previous longest span is about 2½ years shorter! While this is a relief for coastal residents and businesses, it inevitably increases complacency. The longer you go between events, the less likely you are to fully respect the next one and heed warnings.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ll-record-streak-without-major-hurricane-end/

 

[amaroo]

Another comic genius .....

But let me educate you for a second (for all the good that will do). Supposing it is about a century ago and whilst I'm sure it is done with all good intentions, someone accidentally exposes the thermometer to the sun before they take the reading and they record a figure of 51.7C. Fast forward 100 years and a scientist is trying to map trends in Australian temperatures. The first thing you have to do is closely examine the outliers for accuracy, and a figure of 51.7 stands out like bullock's breasts. If the readings in adjoining meters are consistent with it then it can stand, if every other measurement is 5 degrees lower then it can be safely binned.

And even if we accept the temperature in Bourke in 1909 really was 51.7C ...... so what!?!

It is one day in one town in one country. What exactly is confusing you about the term "global warming"?

I see your angle. Records; that's so last century! Who needs those .... better to just create our own set of numbers.

Having the media run BS stories about the hottest day/month/year is all very dramatic and sells the message to the "fringe set" with an insatiable appetite for more BS and manufactured data.

 

[JohnK]

Where did I say anything like that? Or is that your own insecurity showing?

LOL. I am quite sure.

Just like I am sure there is a perfectly valid reason for all the weather events and it doesn't have anything to do with carbon emissions.

 

[Moody]

Guess you were right drron.

What!?! Where!!??!!

How did I miss that auspicious event????

 

[drron]

Meteorites and Volcanoes produce a more localised phenomena both physically and in time. Over the (tens and hundreds of) thousands of years that natural global warring and cooling cycles occur, they have only relatively minor and short term impacts.

Not necessarily-
The volcano that changed the world : Nature News

 

[Moody]

It's the first paragraph Moody-

No it isn't. Al Gore was not named in the action or cited as the source of the libellous statements. You are verballing him shamelessly (or do you know nothing about the law)

Now you have not answered my simple question as to whether you think Al Gore is right saying hurricanes have become more intense due to AGW.But your answers always deferring to the Gore position makes me assume you do.A pity then that the evidence doesn't agree

I did answer your simple question - but obviously not to your liking so I will try again. The IPCC has this (in part) to say about some weather extremes :-

"There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e.,intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. It is likely that there has been a poleward shift in the main Northern and Southern Hemisphere extratropical storm tracks. There is low confidence in observed trends in small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems."

They are more confident that human activity is influencing other extreme weather events, but conclude with :-

"Attribution of single extreme events to anthropogenic climate change is challenging"

So whilst models may predict there will be certain extreme weather events, the observations necessary to confirm the models will take time. Al Gore has backed his chosen model, just as Tony (Climate change is cough) Abbott has backed his. We will know the winner in the medium to long term.

 

[Moody]

<redacted>

Off Topic

 

[Pushka]

I'm curious to know why you feel the need to insult those who have a different perspective. It isn't a great way to convince others your position is valid.

 

[james4321]

I'm curious to know why you feel the need to insult those who have a different perspective. It isn't a great way to convince others your position is valid.

Looking forward to your answer drron

 

[JohnK]

I'm curious to know why you feel the need to insult those who have a different perspective. It isn't a great way to convince others your position is valid.

Because they are desperate to get their point across and belittling those that have a different point of view makes them feel better?

 

[drron]

See you have avoided the question again.I asked you if you believe what Al gore said not what the IPCC said.Of course then you are being tricky quoting IPCC 4 not the latest report.so lets just get to IPCC 5 which I quoted earlier.Here's what it says about temperatures-

Much interest has focussed on the period since 1998 and an apparent flattening (‘hiatus’) in trends, most
marked in NH winter (Cohen et al., 2012). Various investigators have pointed out the limitations of such
short-term trend analysis in the presence of auto-correlated series variability and that several other similar
length phases of no warming exist in all the observational records and in climate model simulations
(Easterling and Wehner, 2009; Peterson et al., 2009; Liebmann et al., 2010; Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011;
Santer et al., 2011). This issue is discussed in the context of model behaviour, forcings and natural variability
in Box 9.2 and Section 10.3.1. Regardless, all global combined land and sea surface temperature datasets
exhibit a statistically nonsignificant warming trend over 1998–2012 (0.042°C ± 0.093°C per decade
(HadCRUT4); 0.037°C ± 0.085°C per decade (NCDC MLOST); 0.069°C ± 0.082°C per decade (GISS)). An
average of the trends from these three data sets yields an estimated change for the 1998–2012 period of
0.05°C [–0.05 to +0.15] per decade.

You see it says non significant warming which is science speak for you cant definitely say it is warming.The confidence intervals cross zero.So scientifically it is just as correct to say the earth may have cooled by 0.05C in the last decade as to say the earth may have warmed by 0.15C in the last decade.Yet a scientist saying the former you call a criminal and the one saying the latter you lay prostrate at their feet exclaiming how brilliant they are.

Then we have the Tim Flannery's of the world overhyping drought and getting us to waste money on desalination plants.See the change in outlook in AR5 compared to AR4-

low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle
of the 20th century, due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and
dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding
global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is
likely that the
frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in
central North America and north-west Australia since 1950.

Now to cyclones-

Measures of land-falling tropical cyclone frequency (Figure 2.34) are generally considered to
be more reliable than counts of all storms which tend to be strongly influenced by those that are weak and/or
short-lived. Callaghan and Power (2011) find a statistically significant decrease in Eastern Australia landfalling
tropical cyclones since the late 19th century although including 2010/2011 season data this trend
becomes non-significant (i.e., a trend of zero lies just inside the 90% confidence interval). Significant trends
are not found in other oceans on shorter timescales (Chan and Xu, 2009; Kubota and Chan, 2009; Mohapatra
et al., 2011; Weinkle et al., 2012), although Grinsted et al. (2012) find a significant positive trend in eastern
USA using tide-guage data from 1923–2008 as a proxy for storm surges associated with land-falling
hurricanes. Differences between tropical cyclone studies highlight the challenges that still lie ahead in
assessing long-term trends.

So can you see what they have done here.Cherry picking extrordinaire.See my previous links.Since 2008 no intense hurricane has made landfall in the USA.So nice one using 2008 as the cut off.
Similiarly for Australia.A significant decrease in cyclones which becomes just insignificant if you include 2010/11.of course they had the 2011/12 and 2012/13 figures which once again make the decrease statistically significant.meaning that Christine Milne when blaming Australian cyclones on AGW is deliberating avoiding the proven science.

 

[james4321]

<redacted>

Off Topic

 

[Moody]

I'm curious to know why you feel the need to insult those who have a different perspective. It isn't a great way to convince others your position is valid.

I respond to a banal statement with a well-reasoned explanation as to why century-old measurements are not-necessarily accepted as bible, and what do I get in return - more stupid hyperbole. I treat such rubbish with the contempt it deserves, but you have to be quick before the thought police find it.

I'm curious to know why you feel the need to defend those that have a dishonest perspective. It isn't a great way to convince others that your position is balanced.

 

[Moody]

Because they are desperate to get their point across and belittling those that have a different point of view makes them feel better?

It makes me sad, JohnK, that otherwise intelligent people think that the ridiculous claims they make about climate science conspiracies are somehow a debate of ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Moody]

See you have avoided the question again.

No I haven't - but this is your typical <redacted> technique when dealing with someone who bothers to reply to your misrepresentations

I asked you if you believe what Al gore said not what the IPCC said.

Al Gore is not the messiah - there is no need to believe everything he predicts as if it is gospel. That sort of blindness in ideals is for the morons on the other side. As I said - Al Gore believes that extreme weather events are more likely due to global warming. It is a predicition, not a fact, and I don't have a crystal ball on me. The IPCC "jury" is out on the topic of cyclones and hurricanes because there is no firm trend as yet.

Of course then you are being tricky quoting IPCC 4 not the latest report......

<redacted> I googled the topic in question and found an IPCC discussion paper that I thought gave a fair and balanced opinion on extreme weather events, but to you it is just another opportunity to <redacted> divert from any truthful debate. <redacted>

 

[drron]

Boy Moody you sure have proved my point.
Warmists denigrate and are very good at it.Lack a bit in commonsense though.

 

[amaroo]

<redacted> I googled the topic in question and found an IPCC discussion paper that I thought gave a fair and balanced opinion on extreme weather events, but to you it is just another opportunity to <redacted> divert from any truthful debate. <redacted>

<redacted> ... Desperate post!

 

[cove]

We have managed to get our Adelaide office and warehouse over the line for solar by using an energy auditor to get our usage under the threshold to qualify for the full saving.
In Queensland the solar installation is done but they want a month to inspect it which is amazing.