Now to all you fruit loops. This is the end to the biggest load bullshit of all time. The government know's it (but still won't say it ), the smart people like me know it. When will you clowns please apologise to me for your un-educated attacks.
To all the man made global warmest alarmist's suck shit losers.
Now go and do something worthwhile fuckwits.
nick! The point, there it is, over there! Whoops missed it again! I am seriously worried about that parrot though. Could be an issue for the RSPCA, emotionally abusing an innocent bird like that.
there is no arguing with stupid/nicko
Squawk, squawk! How could you say that floyd when the parrot wins every time!
Here ya go, Blowin....... MASSIVE erosion within sight of Lizard Island..... How? One of the biggest silica mines in the world...... Cape York is far away from prying eyes... It's the wild west...... So the reef was already compromised when the warmer El Nino waters enveloped the reef.... No such problems off Cairns, Innisfail, Townsville, all the way to Agnes..... But here aren't any "out of sight out of mind" mines right on the coast further south.....
Much better.....nice theory.
Got any more info ?
To be honest, im feeling rooted and need spoon feeding if you've got more to back it up.
I don't know the area either. Is that the only area that's fucked ?
the area severely bleached extends about 350 km. not just limited to lizard island. the area around lizard island may well be worse though. is more info available?
remove the  around the 7 for a working link. why is this happening?
OK I will have mercy. If you are serious nick this is a good entry level explanation of how it is done.
BB, its not going to matter. the problem is that skeptics exist because human induced CC has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. everything before 1950 are scientific estimates. its all about risk and likelyhood. yet those same skeptics will avoid unnecessary risks in other walks of life when it suits them. scientists talk about confidence levels in a moderate and sensible fashion, skeptics say it all bullshit/100% wrong with such strong confidence it really makes you wonder the motives.
Denial so they don't have to accept responsibility. How much polluting will have to happen before they can no longer deny their part. Lock them up in a smoke filled room with water filtered thru their garbage bin and see how they would be.
Yes, in the larger scheme of things is does not matter, since the debate should really be how to produce our future energy sources - hydro, wind, solar, coal, nuclear etc. already we have seen the problems in SA?
But to get a fair understanding of how temperature is measured is important as it is a key element in understanding any climat changes.
Of great concern to scientists is the lack of consistency in how readings are taken and in the thermometer surroundings. Since most thermometers for which long term records exist in towns and cities, the effect of population growth, urbanisation may effect the temperature rise rather than climate change - 'the asphalt effect'. Also, thousands of these thermometers used to collect this are not scientifically calibrated nor is there a method of varying their accuracy. You asked, some time back, about temperatures quoted to the third decimal point. This of course, implies a gauge accurate to the fourth decimal point. Arguably questionable. Ahhh, but it is not the actual temperatures used in the graphs but rather the maths to indicate the estimate of accuracy. Really, it is only in the last Few decades that we are getting accuracy between weather balloons and satellite devices.
Again, it is about 'likely' ness and when we see 66-100% range as being 'likely' then it's fair to question.
As the article from the Washington post indicated, there will be a few 'surprises' as we learn more about this planet.
People involved in change management say 30% of all people simply refuse to accept the need for change no matter how much information is given to them outlining the need for it. Herein lies the futility in engaging people like nick3 in any form of meaning discussion on CC and hence my puerile attempts at humour in this forum topic. Nick3 is welcome to his views, they aren't for changing so why bother.
TB, you mention "the problems in SA". As it turns out I have a very good understanding of the sequence of events that caused the outage and I can reliably say what actually happened and what was reported in the press and pushed by politicians with an status quo agenda (Josh Frydenberg in particular) were two different thing.
The same source of my information pointedly says what happened in SA could have been reliably predicted and planned for up to a decade ago (as with the closure of Hazelwood) had we had a bipartisan approach in Australia to CC and renewable energy. This person is also saying the industry is pulling its hair out because politicians are more interested in fighting with each other than coming together to agree on a policy for the future. He added with Hazelwood closing there will be outages in Vicco next summer when he expects Frydenberg to blame the Victorian Government for a federal government policy failure!
Blindboy I have read all this stuff more times than a like to admit.
You guys just don't get it. It's like dating dinosaur bones. There is a room for error from anywhere between 100,000 years to 2 million years plus.
Now you can believe without question that the Earths was a certain temperature say 10,000 years ago but I don't except that.
What facts do you believe in nick3?
Floyd when have I every said anything about not about changing . I have said a carbon tax is not going to fix anything and secondly I have always said if you are fairdinkum embrace nuclear as your base load power.
So once again you show that you are trying to discredit me with lies.
Funny how Tonybarber outlines the same points I have made but greet him with a pleasant response.
I will agree with you Floyd on one thing and that is they were very puerile attempts at humour. It shows a lot about you as a person.
"Since most thermometers for which long term records exist in towns and cities, the effect of population growth, urbanisation may effect the temperature rise rather than climate change - 'the asphalt effect'. Also, thousands of these thermometers used to collect this are not scientifically calibrated nor is there a method of varying their accuracy. "
References for these assertions please tb. The heat island effect is well understood and included in calculations.
BB, Im sure you are aware of the temp gathering process and it is a challenge, an important at that. The comment I stated was from NCAR (US Centre for Atmospheric Research ). The process of estimating temps around the globe is not easy hence it is really a matter of stats to best estimate the values.
My point is - do we really have the science and technology to estimate to the third decimal point a temp range in 50 years in the future. As the Washington Post article stated, we are getting 'surprises' and even today ice articles tend to ignore the Antarctic figures. There are hypotheses to explain but really it is all very new. The key issue is really the future on how we are planning to get our energy. Again people dismiss SA but think about it for a moment. As Nick3 has stated and even you suggest, nuclear needs to be on the agenda. So of course does our national scientist, Finkel and the illustrious Dr Hansen.
Give credit to the SA government to have a nuclear royal commission, to ease in the debate of nuclear.
"There is a room for error from anywhere between 100,000 years to 2 million years plus."
Well the dinosaurs became extinct 65mya. Assuming for simplicity that the bone was 100million years old then a 2 million year error is 2%. No big deal.
nicko, odd last statements but its informative you are pro nuclear just like Tonybarber, the guy who regularly backs you up here. Have long suspected you are one and the same person. Please rest assured nicko I have equal distain for both of you.
so today's nick picking topic is the accuracy of thermometers so its nicko-picking to the left and barbs to the (ultra) right ...... don't think anyone here is going to be intellectually challenged then.
hey barbs, don't think i didn't notice your reference to the royal commission, care to answer my questions from a few days back or wouldn't the answers suit your narrative?
Gawd, what a frustrating debate, if I can glorify it with that term.
Nick3, I'll just take you up on one point, that the carbon tax is not going to fix anything. It's pretty rudimentary economics that if you provide an incentive that is based on money, then behaviours follow. It's been proven throughout human history. That ain't climate, or rocket, science. The carbon tax was introduced, it was providing an incentive for reducing carbon output, and it was the simplest way to do it. That's not really debatable.
But all up, what's there to debate about climate science? The scientist say one thing about what is happening. They do a lot of work on it, and no doubt some of them have much more faith in there work then is warranted.
But it is likely that they are right, the carbon dioxide effect in an enclosed space is demonstrable science fact. That it will have a greenhouse effect on a planetary scale is a reasonable hypothesis based on a known scientific phenomena.
What will the effects be? Lord knows, all of that is conjecture, and a lot of the science is a very blended application of limited data-sets and high-end statistical extrapolation.
Their models are good science, and not worth a damn. I repeat, not worth a damn, except for scientific debate. We aren't scientists, and their models create a lot of heat and no light. Blindboy, I'd recommend laying off the modelling and projections as a source of any useful addition to the debate. One or more may turn out correct, well one of them has to, there is a model covering every possible scenario.
Debating the science is a problematic game though. It goes nowhere, see the previous 26 pages here.
I believe the only thing worth debating is why do those who don't believe in global warming have such a problem with going down the path of renewable energy sources?
Why is that such an issue? We, the human population, are going to have to do it sooner or later, there may well be an existential threat ahead of us which provides an incentive to go down that path now. Why such animosity for a proposal that will see energy become more widely generated and distributed, have little to no effect on our environment, and have a boot full of other good outcomes, none more so than breaking up the oligopoly powers of the electricity generation and distribution behemoths that are bleeding us all dry, and providing real new age high tech jobs that our kids might very well want to do.
So is the climate science debate worth having at all?
Get on board renewable energy for the sake of good sense, whether you believe in climate science or not. There are huge benefits to humanity on economic, social and political grounds, even if you don't believe in any benefit on environmental terms.
Please note, for those who haven't made the connection, nuclear is not a renewable energy source, among its many problems. By the way, the carbon emissions from the concrete in nuclear facilities means they will be unlikely to ever offset the carbon, but don't let that stop you.
And for those who think we should not go down the path of renewables, lay bare your concerns. Tell us why. Cost? Sure, let's debate that (you'll lose that one!). You love huge corporations that can charge us whatever they like and hold us to ransom? OK, good point, let's debate the goods and the bads of huge corporations bending us over for their eternal profitability. You hate greenies? Is that it? Why? (Sure, Lee Rhiannon and Sarah Hanson Young among others certainly define the smug-sure better-than-everyone persona, but is that all)
You deep down just love coal, and corporations leaving gaping great holes of toxic sludge to be cleaned up by public monies? OK, tell us about your love of coal and toxic sludge and air pollution and tax payers baling out huge corporations.
Yeah, I recognise the futility of what I'm asking. I mean, this is a climate change wankers forum.
Check mate batfink. Gday Floyd. Have a good one.
Batfink - '...why do those who don't believe in global warming have such a problem with going down the path of renewable energy sources?'
There is no town / city with a population greater than 200,000 where the energy source is all renewables on a continual basis. Truly, not even the Greens believe we can get to 100% renewables.
Ask yourself - Should a country with a 'third world' economy but with an abundance of coal or nuclear material be forced to use a resource it has little of or no renewable resource for its development and every day living as you experience yourself on a daily basis.
Assume Australia is not that country of course. But importantly cost is highly relevant.
It would be worthwhile to get a good understanding of the Paris accord.
@batfink, nothing like commonsense to cut through the dross, good one.
@tonybarber, re: your last comment to batfink about renewables: that industry insider (as in existing power not renewable industry insider) I was referring to earlier says that battery technology is rapidly advancing and will in the foreseeable future totally collapse the need for existing infrastructure (as in poles, cable, power stations, distribution companies) when linked to solar and wind generating platforms ........ so Tony, to reword your question to batfink: why would a "third world" economy want to waste billions of dollars on old world power infrastructure when they can cheaply install solar or wind power platforms linked to battery storage where it is needed?
The future is now and it is renewable linked to battery storage, coming to a house, factory, school, community near you. Battery storage of power from renewable sources will be the disruption industry of our lifetime!
@Dave, yeah having a good day watching some dolphins in the shallows while walking my dog down the beach. Some birds nesting in my garage are getting itchy to take their first flight too ....
"batfink says" Please note, for those who haven't made the connection, nuclear is not a renewable energy source, among its many problems. By the way, the carbon emissions from the concrete in nuclear facilities means they will be unlikely to ever offset the carbon, but don't let that stop you.
batfink, you got a source for that? the concrete/carbon emission claim i mean
batfink, given the proven accuracy of models in hindcasting climates you might like to provide some evidence for your assertion that they are not worth a damn......or do the reasonable thing and withdraw, stating that it was merely your ill informed opinion. I mean given the mass of easily available information there is no excuse for making such a blatantly inaccurate statement. Have you heard of Google? Wikipedia?
Another beauty of renewables is that it will give the world a ( slim ) chance of releasing ourselves from the clutches off the omnipotent and not even remotely benign , giant energy corporations.
true blowin. thats evident in SA's windfarms with what seems to be a diversity of owners.
In reply to Blindboy and Batfink:
Models are worth at least 1 damn, but how much more is open to debate and depends what you want to use them for. Models are reasonable at hindcasting temperature at a relatively small spatial scale (hundreds of kilometers) - although did miss the pause up to 2012 - 2013, but current temps seem to be aligning better with models. Much less accurate with rainfall, where models severely overestimate in areas, particularly tropics - difficult to model something that is complex and highly variable in space and time. This is well documented in AR5.
Temperature predictions are probably roughly right, rainfall predictions, not so much.
But what would the coal lobbiests do if we werent subsidising their shit? Buy regular champagne like the rest of us?
These guys need dumb cunts to keep energy policy fractured and the $ rolling in. So stay strong fellas, youre fighting the good fight.
Thanks mcbain, I hadn't looked at the rainfall data. I assume that is what is shown in the second graphic.
@blowin, @happy, @ mk1 ...... this is the precise issue that power companies are very worried about. If enough people go off grid all control is lost. It will be chaos really because who pays for the upkeep of all that expensive infrastructure when people on mass desert it? the remaining customers? not likely. There will be a tipping point and after that all hell will break loose .... and this is why our government should be planning for it now and not denying the science and its consequences.
Evolution will always grow towards efficiency. Electricity production that generates no waste or is a fully complete cycle in its generation is the natural order. Nature is efficient because nothing is wasted. Natural doesn't pollute itself to grow and live. We have to follow its example. Even volcanic eruptions serve a purpose.
BB, mcbain - the second picture is not clear but it's imperative to have accuracy in the modelling. These are used in fact for the future predictions. Mk1, regarding subsidies. Many industries get subsidies for various reasons. The subsidies received by the gas / coal industries is mainly for exploration. Whilst the renewables get more for infrastructure setup. Renewables get a larger slice, a significantly larger slice. Should the subsidies be the same ?
The subsidies for negative externalities is more what I was referring to. Actual incentives from gov is clear and quantifiable, but that's just a fraction of what wider society, and the planet must pay
batfink, despite your claims that nuclear carbon footprint is something to be concerned about, you might consider the following whereby the IPCC finds that nuclear has comparable lifecycle greenhouse footprint to PV, if not marginally less.
developing countries are being pushed into nuclear because emission targets leave them no other choice. in china; wind, hydro, and PV are not in enough abundance to replace their coal.
I chopped the caption off that figure. It shows the average error of all models when compared to actual recorded rainfall (Hindcasting).
For the rainfall figure check out chapter 9 of AR5, Evaluation of Climate Models. A real page turner...
The models struggle with accurately modelling cloud formation )occurs of scales on 100s of meters to kms and short timeframes), whilst models generally have larger scales (although can be nested) , hence issues with rainfall, and also radiation reaching earths surface.
This is not to say that the models are not worth using. They are quite good with temperature, and OK with general rainfall predictions outside of tropics. No doubt the world is warming and we need to adapt - these models are tools we can use.
Here is some relevant text from the report:
In summary, despite modest improvements there remain significant
errors in the model simulation of clouds. There is very high confidence
that these errors contribute significantly to the uncertainties in estimates
of cloud feedbacks (see Section 188.8.131.52; Section 7.2.5, Figure
7.10) and hence the spread in climate change projections reported in
snow on Mauna Kea, Hawaii, beautiful
That system heading over continental US now, will cold records be broken?
"I think (and the jury is still out on this) that Katharine has given up on the "real Malcolm". She has been tenacious in holding to her belief but maybe there are signs reality has dumped on the dream too often."
"Usually I would praise an article like this, finally shedding light on the failure of this government to set and prosecute an agenda. But the fact the writing has been on the wall since the GST/no GST and superannuation "debates" and it has only taken just now for some journos to cast a critical eye leaves me more disappointed than anything.
Slow round of applause everyone."
Big fan of Katharine .... mind like a steel trap
And as rusted-on to Malcolm Turdstill, and rusty as her hair colour. She's maybe starting to WD-40 her Fanta-pants ass.
You will not believe this article Malcom wrote 7 years to the day..
What a joke of a man..
"First, lets get this straight. You cannot cut emissions without a cost. To replace dirty coal fired power stations with cleaner gas fired ones, or renewables like wind let alone nuclear power or even coal fired power with carbon capture and storage is all going to cost money"
"To get farmers to change the way they manage their land, or plant trees and vegetation all costs money."
"The whole argument for an emissions trading scheme as opposed to cutting emissions via a carbon tax or simply by regulation is that it is cheaper - in other words electricity prices will rise by less to achieve the same level of emission reductions."
malcom. classic case of paralysed by fear. fear of how much it will initially cost the economy. then followed by fear of being ousted.
I think you've got that arse-end round, Happy Arse. In fact, Turdstill just has the fear of being shit-canned. And a real narcissist's fear of being made a fool and shit fucking up his resume/legacy/polished surface. It's where he's most vulnerable.
I really think people are beginning to write him off en-masse as a joke. Like Pyne, he's even beginning to take the piss out of himself. An unedifying spectacle indeed.
Has anyone heard of prof judith curry?
Has anyone heard of Alan Finkel? I thought he was a mate of Malcolms?!
Let's take Prof Finkel's thoughts and start getting nuclear on the agenda.
SA have, so why not the rest of Aus ?