Go to Villagebet.com.au for free horse racing tips - Click here now
Forum Home Forum Home > All Sports - Public Forums > Joffs All Sports Bar
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Climate Change - Global Warming..
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Thoroughbred Village Home Page. For village news, follow @TBVillage on Twitter. For horseracing tips, follow @Villagebet on Twitter. To contact the Mayor by email: Click Here.


Climate Change - Global Warming..

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 538>
Author
Message
JudgeHolden View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 16 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 11716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JudgeHolden Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Sep 2013 at 9:47pm
Originally posted by djebel djebel wrote:

The Coalition is now in charge. Why is this still being discussed ?


They're "committed" to the same carbon reduction targets as Labor, Djebel. Just in a different way. Apparently.
Back to Top
Gay3 View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group


Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Location: Miners Rest
Status: Offline
Points: 51818
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gay3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Sep 2013 at 9:58pm
One massive waste of $$ on one hand & a huge revenue raiser for others. Seems to be the way of the world Disapprove. I'm with you hatch, fwiw Wink
Wisdom has been chasing me but I've always outrun it!
Back to Top
JudgeHolden View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 16 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 11716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JudgeHolden Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Sep 2013 at 10:11pm
So Gay3, can I ask for a rationale behind your thinking. Is it from weighing up the available evidence, or is it because, like a few others on here, you just "know" better?
Back to Top
maccamax View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 41473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote maccamax Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Sep 2013 at 10:18pm
Originally posted by JudgeHolden JudgeHolden wrote:

So Gay3, can I ask for a rationale behind your thinking. Is it from weighing up the available evidence, or is it because, like a few others on here, you just "know" better?


I asked you for your evidence.???      How are you disadvantaged ?.
What are your fears,    especially when we have to go back 114 years to find the biggest weather related disaster In Australia.
   Hasn't been any changes in my lifetime . Still bluddy hot in Qld and Chit it gets cold in Thredbo.
Back to Top
Browndog View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2009
Location: Brunswick Hds N
Status: Offline
Points: 35559
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Browndog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Sep 2013 at 10:22pm
maxie, you better get on the blower and tell General Abbott to cancel Operation Direct Action. 

Nothing going on hereWink
Back to Top
JudgeHolden View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 16 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 11716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JudgeHolden Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Sep 2013 at 10:25pm
I posted links to the evidence on page one of this thread. It's actually quite comprehensive. And if the scientific consensus changes I'll happily change my mind.

But you, hatch and Gay3 can walk outside, lick your fingers and hold them in the air for the next decade or so and convince yourself all is AOK. Excuse me if I don't buy it.
Back to Top
Gay3 View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group


Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Location: Miners Rest
Status: Offline
Points: 51818
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gay3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Sep 2013 at 10:26pm
I think climate change is & has always been, ever evolving, with human beings flattering themselves in believing the biproducts of our existence has had any effect (environment yes, climate no).
Money should be spent on ways to cope with the extremes of weather the world is experiencing, rather than than playing these carbon games which seem to me to just shuffle money around rather than improving farming techniques, water holding, drainage, the list's endless.................Smile
Wisdom has been chasing me but I've always outrun it!
Back to Top
JudgeHolden View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 16 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 11716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JudgeHolden Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Sep 2013 at 10:46pm
Originally posted by Gay3 Gay3 wrote:

I think climate change is & has always been, ever evolving, with human beings flattering themselves in believing the biproducts of our existence has had any effect (environment yes, climate no).
Money should be spent on ways to cope with the extremes of weather the world is experiencing, rather than than playing these carbon games which seem to me to just shuffle money around rather than improving farming techniques, water holding, drainage, the list's endless.................Smile




And I ask again- is this from an assessment of the science or is this your own home-spun wisdom?
Back to Top
Buckpasser View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1604
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckpasser Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Sep 2013 at 11:29pm
Climate change is indisputable. It has occurred from when the only thing alive on the planet were single cell organisms floating in water. That is not the point though, the point is how much of it is man made. Scientists and universities cannot always be trusted to offer independent advice that is free from personal taint. They require grants to survive, they need to show further research is required to maintain funding, they need high profile courses to attract students etc. To simple accept something because a scientist said so is naive. Equally computer modelling is flawed as it only extrapolates using the information fed in and uses the parameters the researcher dictates.

It is also human nature to look at things the way an individual wants. If you believe in mans affect on weather you will find a scientist who states what you think. If you hold the opposite view an expert will agree with your point of view. People will point to flooding and say climate change, others will say its been happening since Noah was a boy. Some will point to bush fires in September, others will say arsonists and poor urban planning should not be misconstrued as climate change.

Equally people love to quote sources without actually checking the facts. Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT will tell you that JudgeHoldens facts about endless consecutive months of warming are false, that there has be no warming in the 21st century. So who do we believe, JudgeHolden or Richard Lindzen? Maybe both as JudgeHolden may be quoting figures specific to a region, Lindzen to the earth in general. Of course Vikings grew grapes in Greenland for several centuries while Europe went through a cooling period pre industrial revolution.
Back to Top
JudgeHolden View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 16 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 11716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JudgeHolden Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Sep 2013 at 11:45pm
Firstly, you might want to attribute quotes to people that belong to certain people. I never said anything about consecutive months of anything.

The first two sentences of your second paragraph is probably the most sense you've made here. But not in the way you think. You're cherry-picking the opinion of him why? The fact is, for every 3 Lindzens, there are 97 climate scientists who disagree with him.

And even Lindzen accepts the basic facts that CO2 causes warming and that temperatures rises as a result. Which puts him a fair way away from some of the flat-earthers in here.
Back to Top
maccamax View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 41473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote maccamax Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 1:01am
Ask a Religious Maniac about God and in millions of years the argument will be on going.
Climate change is a belief, not a fact.     The participants are divided.      When they solve the God bit , I'm ready to listen to the other crazies.
Back to Top
Buckpasser View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1604
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckpasser Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 10:28am
If I incorrectly attributed a quote JudgeHolden I apologise. Equally, I would suggest that you calm down a little JudgeHolden and retread my post. I didn't make a single comment about what my opinion is on climate change, or which argument is correct. I stated undisputed facts, made a personal observation on human nature then used an example of a scientist with facts that dispute what had previously been stated here as a fact without substantiation. You are the one who is so sure of your opinion that you are deriding others without actually quoting science or scientists.
Back to Top
oneonesit View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 06 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 36892
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oneonesit Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 10:59am

Funny how the mood can change so quickly on big ticket areas like this...I mean we are only talking the future of our world....left up to The Judge & Subby to defend all the cobblers....back in the old "Inconvenient Truth (whatever)" days the board would have lit up ! Just takes a bit longer to "sink in" with some with I suppose !
Refer ALP Election Promises
Back to Top
JudgeHolden View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 16 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 11716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JudgeHolden Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 11:30am
Originally posted by Buckpasser Buckpasser wrote:

If I incorrectly attributed a quote JudgeHolden I apologise. Equally, I would suggest that you calm down a little JudgeHolden and retread my post. I didn't make a single comment about what my opinion is on climate change, or which argument is correct. I stated undisputed facts, made a personal observation on human nature then used an example of a scientist with facts that dispute what had previously been stated here as a fact without substantiation. You are the one who is so sure of your opinion that you are deriding others without actually quoting science or scientists.
 
Perfectly calm thanks. And if you re-read the thread here (and on other threads) I have referenced the science but no-one seems particular interested. They think they can figure it all out themselves. Or blithely dismiss current scientific enquiry as corrupt. Unless there is a dissenting opinion, of course, then they're all over it.
 
So if you wish to discuss the actual science, then I'm all ears.
Back to Top
Buckpasser View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1604
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckpasser Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 12:14pm
I was discussing the science JudgeHolden. Without imparting my personal interpretation. Is making up your figures of 97-3% scientific examination or calm analysis?

iPCC have now admitted their modelling was wrong and the changes, while there, are exaggerated. Indeed if you look at Lindzens position and that of IPCC in 2007 we can actually see that the almost perfectedly, the middle ground is is the present reality. Who could have predicted that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of two fanatical views?! 2084 is the year when the negatives of man made climate change will eventually kick in, ie they are presently all of a positive economic nature. This will of course change again.
Back to Top
JudgeHolden View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 16 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 11716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JudgeHolden Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 12:25pm
Originally posted by Buckpasser Buckpasser wrote:

I was discussing the science JudgeHolden. Without imparting my personal interpretation. Is making up your figures of 97-3% scientific examination or calm analysis?

iPCC have now admitted their modelling was wrong and the changes, while there, are exaggerated. Indeed if you look at Lindzens position and that of IPCC in 2007 we can actually see that the almost perfectedly, the middle ground is is the present reality. Who could have predicted that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of two fanatical views?! 2084 is the year when the negatives of man made climate change will eventually kick in, ie they are presently all of a positive economic nature. This will of course change again.
 
Well, we'll have to disagree about the modelling:
 
 
And your assertion for 2084, can I ask where that comes from?
 
Back to Top
JudgeHolden View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 16 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 11716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JudgeHolden Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 12:39pm
And by the way, my 97-3 figures are hardly made up:
 
Back to Top
Buckpasser View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1604
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckpasser Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 12:48pm
I2084 comes from the IPCCs own report, leaked prior to publishin but due for release shortlyg. The almost half figure (they modelled .2 degree change but revised own to .12 in actuality) also comes direct from IPCC. As you can see, I'm dealing with science and still haven't put forward a personal opinion on actual change.
Back to Top
JudgeHolden View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 16 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 11716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JudgeHolden Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 12:51pm
Originally posted by Buckpasser Buckpasser wrote:

I2084 comes from the IPCCs own report, leaked prior to publishin but due for release shortlyg. The almost half figure (they modelled .2 degree change but revised own to .12 in actuality) also comes direct from IPCC. As you can see, I'm dealing with science and still haven't put forward a personal opinion on actual change.
 
That comes from the IPCC. Are you sure about that? Could you provide a link?
Back to Top
Buckpasser View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1604
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckpasser Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 12:52pm
Btw, and just to be clear, the modelling you disagree with is from IPCC. Do you disagree because it doesn't suit your argument?
Back to Top
Buckpasser View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1604
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckpasser Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 12:54pm
Interesting it has just reached mainstream media. Have a look at today's wall street journal for example.
Back to Top
Shammy Davis View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 8568
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Shammy Davis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 12:56pm
Originally posted by JudgeHolden JudgeHolden wrote:

I posted links to the evidence on page one of this thread. It's actually quite comprehensive. And if the scientific consensus changes I'll happily change my mind.

But you, hatch and Gay3 can walk outside, lick your fingers and hold them in the air for the next decade or so and convince yourself all is AOK. Excuse me if I don't buy it.
 
Pass the sixteen ounce sodas and popcorn.LOL
Back to Top
Buckpasser View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1604
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckpasser Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 12:57pm
That report is out 27th Sept
Back to Top
Gay3 View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group


Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Location: Miners Rest
Status: Offline
Points: 51818
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gay3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 1:00pm
Originally posted by JudgeHolden JudgeHolden wrote:

Originally posted by Buckpasser Buckpasser wrote:

I2084 comes from the IPCCs own report, leaked prior to publishin but due for release shortlyg. The almost half figure (they modelled .2 degree change but revised own to .12 in actuality) also comes direct from IPCC. As you can see, I'm dealing with science and still haven't put forward a personal opinion on actual change.
 
That comes from the IPCC. Are you sure about that? Could you provide a link?


It might possibly be this one, pinched off C/horse & posted today:

Default Wow, a rethink in climate change n/h? not sure, effects them too doesn't it

THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest assessment reportedly admits its computer drastically overestimated rising temperatures, and over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed in the previous IPCC report in 2007.

More importantly, according to reports in British and US media, the draft report appears to suggest global temperatures were less sensitive to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide than was previously thought.
The 2007 assessment report said the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade, but according to Britain's The Daily Mail the draft update report says the true figure since 1951 has been 0.12C.
Last week, the IPCC was forced to deny it was locked in crisis talks as reports intensified that scientists were preparing to revise down the speed at which climate change is happening and its likely impact.
It is believed the IPCC draft report will still conclude there is now greater confidence that climate change is real, humans are having a major impact and that the world will continue to warm catastrophically unless drastic action is taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
The impacts would include big rises in the sea level, floods, droughts and the disappearance of the Arctic icecap.
But claimed contradictions in the report have led to calls for the IPCC report process to be scrapped.
Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, told The Daily Mail the leaked summary showed "the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux".
The Wall Street Journal said the updated report, due out on September 27, would show "the temperature rise we can expect as a result of manmade emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPCC thought in 2007".
The WSJ report said the change was small but "it is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet".
After several leaks and reports on how climate scientists would deal with a slowdown in the rate of average global surface temperatures over the past decade, the IPCC was last week forced to deny it had called for crisis talks.
"Contrary to the articles the IPCC is not holding any crisis meeting," it said in a statement.
The IPCC said more than 1800 comments had been received on the final draft of the "summary for policymakers" to be considered at a meeting in Stockholm before the release of the final report. It did not comment on the latest report, which said scientists accepted their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures and not taken enough notice of natural variability.
According to The Daily Mail, the draft report recognised the global warming "pause", with average temperatures not showing any statistically significant increase since 1997.
Scientists admitted large parts of the world had been as warm as they were now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250, centuries before the Industrial Revolution.
And, The Daily Mail said, a forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense had been dropped.
Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Matt Ridley said the draft report had revised downwards the "equilibrium climate sensitivity", a measure of eventual warming induced by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It had also revised down the Transient Climate Response, the actual climate change expected from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide about 70 years from now.
Ridley said most experts believed that warming of less than 2C from pre-industrial levels would result in no net economic and ecological damage. "Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083 the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm," he said.


- See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news....X9FBNsjj.dpuf

Wisdom has been chasing me but I've always outrun it!
Back to Top
Buckpasser View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1604
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckpasser Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 1:03pm
Thanks Gay, that would be very similar. I was privy to the report analysis but as of yet hadn't read any articles. Info is basically the same though
Back to Top
Browndog View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2009
Location: Brunswick Hds N
Status: Offline
Points: 35559
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Browndog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 1:04pm
The Wall Street Journal said the updated report, due out on September 27, would show "the temperature rise we can expect as a result of manmade emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPCC thought in 2007".

Not, doesn't exist, but lower than predicted
Back to Top
Buckpasser View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1604
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckpasser Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 1:10pm
Fairly sure I said that when, after naming the two extremes of opinion by an individual and organisation, I suggested the truth was somewhere in the middle. Would have thought we could take as read brown dog that therefore the report was saying there is still man made climate change.
Back to Top
JudgeHolden View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 16 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 11716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JudgeHolden Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 1:14pm
Thats an article from a (conservative) journalist (citing other conservative news media outfits), speculating about an as yet unreleased report. So where does this 2084 assertion fit in?
Back to Top
Buckpasser View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1604
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckpasser Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 1:31pm
So anything that does not sit with your preconceived beliefs is instantly dismissed as poor reporting by conservative journalists? Doesn't sound like a balanced scientific approach does it? This is the IPCC report, the peak body of the 97% you earlier quoted, admitting that their modelling, while correct in basis, was overly geared to increases that have not, in reality, eventuated. I said 2084 however reading the article Gay put up its 2083, I was out by a year. Mute point, I have seen extracts from the report. It is all very fair and reasonable. It's balanced and analytical and I'm sure that in hindsight will shown to have other areas that are flawed. It is, apart from the undistutable facts like gravity, the nature of science......hypothesis is reached on available data using individuals perceptions. It is difficult to be completely accurate. This is why fanatics at either end of the argument will always be wrong as they leave no wiggle room for error.
Back to Top
Whale View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2009
Location: St Kilda Beach
Status: Offline
Points: 38719
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Whale Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 1:39pm
Originally posted by Buckpasser Buckpasser wrote:

This is why fanatics at either end of the argument will always be wrong as they leave no wiggle room for error.



Tim Flannery   Alan Jones
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 538>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.05
Copyright ©2001-2022 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.328 seconds.