Global warming

[mhaze]

Australia is about the size of continental USA. Rainfall patterns are changing, due to global warming, as predicted.

No they are not. I've just proved it with the data from your own BOM.

This study

How Much More Rain Will Global Warming Bring?

Shows GW would increase rain by a factor of 3x over the predictions of the IPCC models. Got that? GW increases rain, not decreases rain.

Want more? A paper by Gemma Narisma et al. that counted severe drought episodes:

• 1900-1919: 7
• 1920-1939: 7
• 1940-1959: 8
• 1960-1979: 5
• 1980-1999: 3

As you can see, severe drought is getting less frequent rather than more frequent.



You are falling for your government's propaganda machine that wants to hoist ten billion dollar projects on it's public using fear mongering.



By the way, you never answered my question.



What is the name of the foreign contractor, the company, which is behind the 10-20 Billion dollar "desalization plant" deals with your major cities and provinces?



And you assert that AGW caused an Australian tomatoes shortage.

 

[David Rodale]

Australia is about the size of continental USA. Rainfall patterns are changing, due to global warming, as predicted.

Meanwhile, Anthony Watts was predicting the wheels are about to fall off the AGW wagon.

http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/search/label/Anthony Watts

Not quite.

Australia is about the size of continental USA. Rainfall patterns are changing, due to global warming, as predicted.

Meanwhile, Anthony Watts was predicting the wheels are about to fall off the AGW wagon.

http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/search/label/Anthony Watts

Not quite.

Nearly all your posts are anecdotal and emotive consisting of scripted responses, news headlines, blogs, opinions, unsubstantiated claims, generalized statements, appeal to Authority etc.

Now you are quoting bigcitylib? Keep in mind he and others like him are the same ones who said Steve McIntyre was wasting his time with NASA last month before Hansen was forced to correct errors in their temperature reports.

Why not actually read CA to get the facts instead of relying on those whose only goal is to obfuscate and muddy the waters. BCL, Steve Bloom, Eli Rabbet and others posted at Dr. Roger Pielke’s blog constantly with the same tripe, for which Dr. Pielke politely responded with facts and data.

The truth is there are significant issues within the surface station network whether those aforementioned insignificant nabobs admit it or not. Also, if you were paying attention, NOAA did not correct the U.S. temperature record and their data is in huge disagreement with NASA, but you won’t see that mentioned by BCL. So, which one is correct?

Seeing how AGwarmers constantly harp about “regional is not global”, and U.S. temperatures “don’t matter”, logic would dictate Australia is regional as well and “doesn’t matter” wouldn’t you agree?

Now, produce a 100-150 year rainfall history for Australia to show a 1000 year “unprecedented” drought; that would give some credence to your unsubstantiated claims. Put up or shut up. Something other than climate models would be helpful, such as this which is an actual study:

Linkages between solar activity,climate predictability and water resource development
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Alexander-etal-2007.pdf

 

[mhaze]

[SIZE=-1]Also, here is a rather amazing piece of work.

It isn't about AGW GW at all. Alexander 2007 - trying to figure out how to predict rainfall. He relates solar activity to river flow, finds some correlations, raises some unanswered questions.

Alexander has a very clear explanation of the sun's wobble and movements and how they affect the earth.

nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/alexander2707.pdf

Some people actually do useful work and try to figure out what is happening on the planet instead of just blaming it on CO2 emissions.
[/SIZE]

 

[mhaze]

Nearly all your posts are anecdotal and emotive consisting of scripted responses, news headlines, blogs, opinions, unsubstantiated claims, generalized statements, appeal to Authority etc.

Linkages between solar activity,climate predictability and water resource development
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Alexander-etal-2007.pdf

Hmm....your link is the same as mine. That proves consensus.



Popular news stories??? Here's one, AUP. The High Priest, Hansen, leading the prayer vigil in Greenland. To use your own words, AUP: "He's a nutter".


http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/GlobalWarming/story?id=3572327



My challenge.

Who can find the most outright lies and exaggerations in the story?

​

 

[a_unique_person]

Nonsense. I suppose your concept of C02 control is going to make rain fall just where you want it to?

Repeating...

Is Australia getting less rainfall? No, the graph above shows this. Its just been unfortunate that the rainfall of late has fallen on the places that don't use the land for agriculture.

Maybe Co2 causes the rain to only fall where we don't need it. Nasty thing Co2
​

No, we have had established rainfall patterns, that's where the farms are. Now the rainfall patterns are changing, as predicted. There is rain falling where farms aren't. That's not because CO2 is nasty, that's just a result of the laws of physics.

I have already said, the rainfall is not less, for the whole continent, but it's less where it needs to be. This year, when La Nina was predicted to give Australia's farming areas a good soaking, there has been some flash flooding, some average and below average rainfall, but not what farmers rely on, steady, soaking rain.

The result is not anecdotal, it's another fall in farm output, as reported. Due to prolonged drought, the moisture content has fallen, meaning average rainfall is not enought to produce a full crop, and irrigation will not be available for those who rely on that, also as reported.

 

[a_unique_person]

[SIZE=-1]Also, here is a rather amazing piece of work.

It isn't about AGW GW at all. Alexander 2007 - trying to figure out how to predict rainfall. He relates solar activity to river flow, finds some correlations, raises some unanswered questions.

Alexander has a very clear explanation of the sun's wobble and movements and how they affect the earth.

nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/alexander2707.pdf

Some people actually do useful work and try to figure out what is happening on the planet instead of just blaming it on CO2 emissions.
[/SIZE]

nzclimatescience? "commonsense about climate change" give me a break. Science is not about common sense. If it was, no one would have thought of quantum mechanics. It is more and more about understanding highly complex systems. A bunch of earnest nutters and contrarians, with little actual expertise in what is actually being researched, doing just what the deniers all want, finding any answer but CO2, which is the point. It's the sun, no it's a natural cycle, no it's not actually changing, measurements are wrong, it's anything but CO2. Vincent Gray is past it, he has no idea what current research is nor how to understand it, Bellamy is a botanist, Carter is a simple contrarian in the mold of Lindzen, who is outside his field of competence.

They publish yet another paper by people with no actual expertise in their field they are investigating.

Compare their statistic for measuring rainfall, with the annual Australian rainfall, for example.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=rain&region=aus&season=0112

Correlation non existant. They have gone off on a data mining exercise, and managed to pick a period of time and water statistic that suits their pre conceived ideas. You will note it stops in 1995. That's over ten years ago.

 

[a_unique_person]

Nearly all your posts are anecdotal and emotive consisting of scripted responses, news headlines, blogs, opinions, unsubstantiated claims, generalized statements, appeal to Authority etc.

Now you are quoting bigcitylib? Keep in mind he and others like him are the same ones who said Steve McIntyre was wasting his time with NASA last month before Hansen was forced to correct errors in their temperature reports.

He was right, the error McIntyre found was inconsequential. You ignored the link to McIntyre's own site, where the 'wheels about to fall off' stayed firmly on. McIntyre and friends, for all that effort, merely managed to validate the temperature record. Nice of them to do so, but a waste of time.

References to scientific research are not appeals to authority. I am quite happy to admit I am not a climate scientist, that I have to rely on them to tell me what the scientific method has discovered. When you read McIntyres site, the image that pops into my mind is a bunch of ten year old boys forming a secret club and building a cubby house. It's a lot of fun, but not actual science.

Why not actually read CA to get the facts instead of relying on those whose only goal is to obfuscate and muddy the waters. BCL, Steve Bloom, Eli Rabbet and others posted at Dr. Roger Pielke’s blog constantly with the same tripe, for which Dr. Pielke politely responded with facts and data.

The fact is, the work they have put into invalidating the temperature record has only validated it.

The truth is there are significant issues within the surface station network whether those aforementioned insignificant nabobs admit it or not. Also, if you were paying attention, NOAA did not correct the U.S. temperature record and their data is in huge disagreement with NASA, but you won’t see that mentioned by BCL. So, which one is correct?

It's not a huge disagreement. It's a huge disagreement if you feel you want it to be.

Seeing how AGwarmers constantly harp about “regional is not global”, and U.S. temperatures “don’t matter”, logic would dictate Australia is regional as well and “doesn’t matter” wouldn’t you agree?

Now, produce a 100-150 year rainfall history for Australia to show a 1000 year “unprecedented” drought; that would give some credence to your unsubstantiated claims. Put up or shut up. Something other than climate models would be helpful, such as this which is an actual study:

Models are the basis of the majority of science these days. Purely empirical science is a thing of the past, it explains nothing.

Linkages between solar activity,climate predictability and water resource development
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Alexander-etal-2007.pdf

It's a load of tripe. I already found a rainfall record that doesn't match their solar cycles, and it took me five minutes.

 

[mhaze]

nzclimatescience? "commonsense about climate change" give me a break. Science is not about common sense. If it was, no one would have thought of quantum mechanics. It is more and more about understanding highly complex systems. A bunch of earnest nutters and contrarians, with little actual expertise in what is actually being researched, doing just what the deniers all want, finding any answer but CO2, which is the point. It's the sun, no it's a natural cycle, no it's not actually changing, measurements are wrong, it's anything but CO2. Vincent Gray is past it, he has no idea what current research is nor how to understand it, Bellamy is a botanist, Carter is a simple contrarian in the mold of Lindzen, who is outside his field of competence.

You are off on another nutter rampage. That nutter rampage has nothing to do about the subject (again). The subject is Alexander 2007, published in a South African journal of civil engineering. That is a pdf file. It happened to be on a web page you don't like. Get over it.

And by the way, my gracious offer to not quote 3 sources of your pick (whom you find annoying and who set you off on nutter rampages) in exchange for you not doing the same (those being scientists you like who, if they were engaged in business promotion would be behind bars) is now withdrawn.

And this statement by you -

No, we have had established rainfall patterns, that's where the farms are. Now the rainfall patterns are changing, as predicted. There is rain falling where farms aren't. That's not because CO2 is nasty, that's just a result of the laws of physics.
​

Is quite fascinating. AGW is happening and is proven because rain is falling where the farms are not.

OOOOOOOOOOKay..............

 

[a_unique_person]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/climate-insensitivity/#more-471

Schwartz comes up with a low value for climate sensitivity. Hooray goes the blogosphere, the IPCC is wrong, he is right.

How did he come up with the low value for climate sensitivity? He used a simple mathematical model of course. But I thought models were out? We can't use models, they can't tell us anything about climate. Why the cheers, why no attacks on Schwartz for being a climate sceptic who uses models?

 

[a_unique_person]

You are off on another nutter rampage. That nutter rampage has nothing to do about the subject (again). The subject is Alexander 2007, published in a South African journal of civil engineering. That is a pdf file. It happened to be on a web page you don't like. Get over it.

I called the nutters, and I gave my reasons, which you have ignored.

And by the way, my gracious offer to not quote 3 sources of your pick (whom you find annoying and who set you off on nutter rampages) in exchange for you not doing the same (those being scientists you like who, if they were engaged in business promotion would be behind bars) is now withdrawn.

And this statement by you -

No, we have had established rainfall patterns, that's where the farms are. Now the rainfall patterns are changing, as predicted. There is rain falling where farms aren't. That's not because CO2 is nasty, that's just a result of the laws of physics.
​

Is quite fascinating. AGW is happening and is proven because rain is falling where the farms are not.

OOOOOOOOOOKay..............

I didn't say AGW is proven because of changing rainfall patterns, I said it was predicted and is happening. It's happening because the cold fronts that pass across the south of Australia have been shifted further south by global warming. They are dropping more of their rain on the ocean now, instead of land.

 

[Tex Luthor]

Water vapor

Sorry, I was out during the post on water vapor, but I thought it was interesting. I really liked the comment "increased water vapor is caused by warming, it is not the cause of it". The same goes for CO2. If we look at CO2 solubility in the oceans we find that it decreases with increasing temperature. Therefore, as the temperature increases the oceans ability to hold CO2 decreases. Hence increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[David Rodale]

He was right, the error McIntyre found was inconsequential. You ignored the link to McIntyre's own site, where the 'wheels about to fall off' stayed firmly on. McIntyre and friends, for all that effort, merely managed to validate the temperature record. Nice of them to do so, but a waste of time.

References to scientific research are not appeals to authority. I am quite happy to admit I am not a climate scientist, that I have to rely on them to tell me what the scientific method has discovered. When you read McIntyres site, the image that pops into my mind is a bunch of ten year old boys forming a secret club and building a cubby house. It's a lot of fun, but not actual science.

The fact is, the work they have put into invalidating the temperature record has only validated it.

It's not a huge disagreement. It's a huge disagreement if you feel you want it to be.


Models are the basis of the majority of science these days. Purely empirical science is a thing of the past, it explains nothing.



It's a load of tripe. I already found a rainfall record that doesn't match their solar cycles, and it took me five minutes.

I must apologize for missing the link to the rainfall record that doesn't match Alexander's solar cycles. Would you please point it out? Did you read his article?

Would you still like to take me up on that friendly wager about McIntyre and the temperature record/surface station issue?

Models are the basis of the majority of science these days. Purely empirical science is a thing of the past, it explains nothing.

I've been contributing to and following events at Climate Audit since Spring 2006, so I think you may be a bit wet behind the ears. You're getting information 2nd hand. Perhaps it may be efficacious to get direct from the source? Below is the latest concerning Hansen's shell game, an email sent to Dr. Hansen from Steve M, and no doubt bigcitylib addressed it on his blog

To NASA:

Dear Sirs, I notice that you’ve changed the historical data for some US stations since Sep 7, 2007. In particular, I noticed that temperatures for Detroit Lakes MN in the early part of the century were reduced by nearly 0.5 deg C. These changes are subsequent to your changes in August 2007 for the changing versions. To my knowledge, there is no explanation for this most recent change and I was wondering what the reason is.

Essentially what is happening here is Hansen gets whatever results he wants by hook or crook. Do you challenge this assertion?

Are you saying quality control is not important in science? Please do a search for Benford's Law.

Are we on for the bet?

 

[CapelDodger]

The desert appears to be jumping the Mediteranean to Spain.

And in the southern hemisphere, the rain-band is leaving Australia and falling on fish that really don't need it.

It's time for you guys to emigrate to the Southern Sahara, while the land's cheap and unoccupied. It remains arid, but Australia has a wealth of expertise in farming an arid country.

You might have to fight the Spanish for it, but how hard is that likely to be? You'll have the Welsh on your side if you call your colony New New South Wales.

It's all rather silly, isn't it?

 

[a_unique_person]

Sorry, I was out during the post on water vapor, but I thought it was interesting. I really liked the comment "increased water vapor is caused by warming, it is not the cause of it". The same goes for CO2. If we look at CO2 solubility in the oceans we find that it decreases with increasing temperature. Therefore, as the temperature increases the oceans ability to hold CO2 decreases. Hence increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

It's amazing how quickly 'papers' get around the blogosphere.

The paper is rubbish, it all shows is a correlation between CO2 and temperature. Research has already been done to see if the extra CO2 is from the ocean or is from fossil fuels. The answer is fossil fuels. This can be determined using the same methods used for carbon dating.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

This research was done years ago. I don't know why yet another earnest amateur bothered to waste his time.

 

[a_unique_person]

I must apologize for missing the link to the rainfall record that doesn't match Alexander's solar cycles. Would you please point it out? Did you read his article?

Yes, and his source for validation, one record of inflow to one water storage, is a joke.

Would you still like to take me up on that friendly wager about McIntyre and the temperature record/surface station issue?



I've been contributing to and following events at Climate Audit since Spring 2006, so I think you may be a bit wet behind the ears. You're getting information 2nd hand. Perhaps it may be efficacious to get direct from the source? Below is the latest concerning Hansen's shell game, an email sent to Dr. Hansen from Steve M, and no doubt bigcitylib addressed it on his blog

To NASA:


Essentially what is happening here is Hansen gets whatever results he wants by hook or crook. Do you challenge this assertion?

Considering McIntyre's own website has come up with the same answer, does that make him a co-conspiritor?

Are you saying quality control is not important in science? Please do a search for Benford's Law.

And when did you start beating your wife.

Are we on for the bet?

What for? McIntyre has already got the graph on his web site that shows clearly, the US temperature record has been validated by him. Not that he appears to be aware of that fact.

 

[CapelDodger]

Sorry, I was out during the post on water vapor, but I thought it was interesting. I really liked the comment "increased water vapor is caused by warming, it is not the cause of it". The same goes for CO2. If we look at CO2 solubility in the oceans we find that it decreases with increasing temperature. Therefore, as the temperature increases the oceans ability to hold CO2 decreases. Hence increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

Big problem with that : dissolved oceanic CO2 is increasing, not decreasing. The oceans are absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere, not vice versa, despite the warming. (In fact, acidification of the oceans may turn out to be a more immediate problem than climate change.)

Warming isn't increasing CO2, increasing CO2 is causing warming. There are no other credible candidates, and no good reason to seek them.

 

[CapelDodger]

It's amazing how quickly 'papers' get around the blogosphere.

It shows how small that world is.

 

[Tex Luthor]

As a chemical engineer with advanced degrees and 6 patents on CO2 behavior I simply cannot compete with you guys. I was trying to agree that human activity is probably not the source or the warming, but I just don't know, and neither does anyone else.

I promise to stay out of your universe.

 

[a_unique_person]

As a chemical engineer with advanced degrees and 6 patents on CO2 behavior I simply cannot compete with you guys. I was trying to agree that human activity is probably not the source or the warming, but I just don't know, and neither does anyone else.

I promise to stay out of your universe.

Did you read the link to Realclimate? People do research these things, they have already sought to confirm the source of the CO2. It was done years ago. People do know, and they know because they use science to investigate these things.

If you are a chemical engineer, then you would understand the use of carbon dating to find out just where the extra CO2 came from.

*To the extent that science can prove things.

 

[CapelDodger]

I've been contributing to and following events at Climate Audit since Spring 2006, so I think you may be a bit wet behind the ears. You're getting information 2nd hand.

That's truly special.

First ClimateAudit and then the reference to second-hand information. It's beyond self-parody.

Perhaps it may be efficacious to get direct from the source? Below is the latest concerning Hansen's shell game, an email sent to Dr. Hansen from Steve M, and no doubt bigcitylib addressed it on his blog

To NASA:


Essentially what is happening here is Hansen gets whatever results he wants by hook or crook. Do you challenge this assertion?

Essentially what is happening there is MciIntyre sending an email and the going "Look at my email! What about that, eh?".

Are you saying quality control is not important in science?

Nobody's saying that. Some people, such as yourself, would rather take refuge in detail of no real significance than face the real world. The one that is so obviously getting warmer, and has been for a while now.

Are we on for the bet?

I bet you a thousand euros the world will be warmer in 2012 than it is now.

What's your bet?